The Manning versus Brady Debate

This question continues to cause controvery and I am here to present the facts of this ordeal. 

The arguments for Brady are summed up as this: 

1) NFL experts rank him higher in their all-decade charts than Manning (by a thin margin)
2) He has won more rings.
3) He "does more with less"
My rebuttals: 

1) Any list brought forth by anyone is subjective in nature. It is opinionated. In 1937, Hitler was stated to be the greatest leader that Germany had seen by a newspaper. A bookie in Las vegas argues and bets on a team due to his own personal bias. I can find a blog online that states Manning is the best quarterback of all time, it doesn't make a difference. We have too look at objective facts.


2) If anything, this season shows that Manning was/is the MVP of the league. The Colts crumbled without him; a playoff team - with mostly returning pieces - crumbled without their seasoned play caller, assistant coach, etc. 


3) The Superbowl arguement is fallacious. It constitutes that the quarterback is always the reason for a team to win a Superbowl. Let us not forget that defensive powerhouses that go by the name of the 85' Bears, along with the Giants and Ravens of recent years. It is ridiculous to believe that an NFL team, which employs 52 players and all staffs must always bow to the greatness of their quarterback. The Patriots team itself is the best example of this. The first Superbowl the Patriots one, let's not forget that Brady was injured the second half against the Raiders and Drew Bledsoe led the game winning drive. Let's not forget the defense that set up Brady's chance of a game winning drive in the Superbowl. And last time I checked it was Vinateri's leg that won it, not Brady's arm. Thus, Manning cannot be said to be the lesser quarterback because he has fewer rings. If you buy into this logic, Reggie Miller should not be seen as one of the all-time NBA greats.



4) Manning calls the supermajority of the Colts' offensive plays. In any offensive scheme, it should be noted that the offensive coordinator and other players deserve as much or even more credit than the actions of the quarterback. After every drive, the coordinator improves his play calling; if the offense scores on a future drive, improved play calling has a lot to do with it. So, if Brady scores 5 TDs in a game, how much credit does he deserve? Let's say he gets 50% of the credit. On the other hand, Manning calls most of his plays and audibles frequently at the line of scrimmage. When Tom Moore was offensive coordinator, he gave Manning play choices (usually 3 to 5) and Manning would make the ultimate call. Therefore, Manning deserves more credit per successful play.


I'm tired of hearing mundane sports arguments about leadership, pocket presence, etc. I just wanted to throw some fresh ideas into this decade-long debate.