The sports websites and airwaves are constantly full of the Brady v. Manning question. Anytime a sportswriter pens a story about Manning, the Bradyphiles go bezerk and in typical New England-I-think-I'm-Better-than-you fashion regale us with how Brady is superior to Manning. A person can never discuss Peyton Manning at all with one of these guys around, because it always has to be Brady or else. Now those of us with common sense will acknowledge we are in the era of great quarterbacks. We will rightly point out that the Patriot championships were due to a strong defense, something Manning never had in Indianapolis. Why does one have to be better? They are unique in their own way.
Bradyphiles always point to Championships as the end-all-be-all argument for the "greatest quarterback ever" somehow ignoring the greatness of Dan Marino (zero, zip, nadda Superbowl wins). Of course they also ignore the idea that if the number of rings is the only measure, than they must bow down before the greatness that is Terry Bradshaw (4).
Now those idiots who claim Peyton Manning needs to win another championship to cement his legacy have no clue. Manning is now and will be one of the greatest quarterbacks in any era. There is no disputing this fact, whether he wins Sunday or not. If all we counted for greatness was the number of Big Games a quarterback won, we would argue Eli is better than Peyton, and Ben Roethlisberger is superior to Marino or Brett Favre. Or even more ridiculous, that Jeff Hostetler, Mark Rypien, Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer were better than Hall of Famer Jim Kelly.