Originally Posted by jacobo
No, Big Ben is better than Manning (just about as good as Brady, can't really differentiate at that point) because he's had way less talent and way more success. Pretty easy to see. Peyton's a choker who puts up pretty numbers through and through.
Oh, and I answered the second part in that post as well. His receivers aren't talented. They don't work to get open. His line is shit. Add that all together and you get him holding onto the ball. How much more anemic would our offense be if he didnt? We wouldn't score any point without him extending plays.
Mediocre work ethic? Maybe. Who knows what it would be like if he had a coach like Belichek or Dungy. But his talent is evident.
His line is shit so he holds the ball? Doesn't make sense.
I can't carry on this convo any more because you show your homerism saying he is better than Manning. Honestly, Pittsburgh has enough talent to win a SB despite a bad performance from Ben, but Indianapolis COLLAPSED after Manning left.
2009: 14-2 with Manning, went to the superbowl.
2010: 10-6, went to the playoffs.
2011: 2-14 OHMYGODWHATHAPPENED. Oh yea, no Manning. He was the team, he did NOT have more talent than Ben, who has enjoyed a good receiving core, stable HC, and oh yea let's see one of the best defenses in the league for most of his career.