National Football League

NFL Truths: Don't believe Brady-Manning hype

Published Nov. 13, 2009 1:30 a.m. ET

Jason Whitlock

Dear Readers of The Truth:

Your boy is a little off his square. Oh, I've written a fantastic column, better than anything you'll get anywhere else on the Net or in print. But I think PG is plotting to destroy me! It's what I get for talking smack on Rick Pitino and Steve Phillips. Sorry for sharing. I had to get that off my chest.

Sincerely,

Jason

10. Television's corrosive influence on the sports world can be seen in the destructive Tom Brady vs. Peyton Manning rivalry.

Brady vs. Manning is inorganic, a ratings-producing TV creation. It's not Bird vs. Magic or Chamberlain vs. Russell. Football, with all its variables — three platoons, offense, defense and special teams — does not lend itself to individual rivalries, particularly of men who never take the field at the same time.

Television wants you to believe Sunday night's Patriots-Colts clash is Frazier-Ali, a Thrilla in all Vanilla. The truth is, the Brady-Manning framing is just a convenient excuse for Mike Lupica and Mitch Albom to stare into camera one on the set of "The Sports Reporters" and pretend they watched more than the highlights.

Brady vs. Manning is a TV prop.

I say that because we made it through the 1990s without pitting John Elway, Dan Marino, Steve Young, Jim Kelly, Troy Aikman and Warren Moon in steel-cage death matches. Six quarterbacks shared the same era and built Hall of Fame resumes without having their careers defined, diminished or debated based on the success of their QB peers.

I don't mind choosing sides. I chose Magic over Bird. I wanted Hagler to whip Leonard. And, yes, I'll admit it, I rooted for Stringer to take out Avon.

I just hate this Brady-Manning discussion. I feel like I'm being forced to take a side in an inappropriate debate. For me, it's the equivalent of Suzy Kolber vs. Erin Andrews. It would be an honor and a privilege for either to work my sideline. That's why I'm so reluctant to reveal my preference. Is it worth offending one, when there's the possibility of being assigned two sideline reporters?

No.

In explaining why Brady (Kolber) is far superior to Manning (Andrews) — something I've done previously — I risk creating the impression I have little respect for Manning, which isn't true. I like Manning and appreciate the way he prepares to play the game. I don't enjoy tearing him down to prove my point about Brady.

Plus, I bore of the statistical debate between Brady and Manning. Brady has more rings. Manning has bigger numbers. Brady's Patriots are 7-3 against Manning's Colts.

Football isn't a game of numbers. It's not baseball. Football is a game evaluated with your eyes, a game in which intangibles such as toughness matter more than 40 speed. Before his knee injury, Brady was tougher in the pocket than Manning. Brady's courage in the pocket permeated the entire Patriots football team, and that gave New England an advantage in the critical moments of tight playoff games.

This season I've seen Manning fall to the ground at the hint of pass-rush pressure. He's Indy's most valuable commodity, and he's probably coached to avoid contact. This year we've seen Brady beg the refs for roughing-the-passer calls and look a lot less comfortable with defenders at his feet.

Brady and Manning have a lot more in common this season than previous years.

I'm going to watch Sunday's game focused not on how Brady and Manning compare to each other but how they stack up against Brees and Favre. The NFC QBs look like the Super Bowl threats to me.

9. Many people missed the point of my Brett Favre-Ted Thompson column last week.