A 17th Century British Writer Weighs In on the Brady-Manning Conversation

“But he is always great when some great occasion is presented to him; no man can say he ever had a fit subject for his wit and did not then raise himself as high above the rest.” –John Dryden on Shakespeare

“I think him the most learned and judicious […] He managed his strength to more advantage than any who preceded him […] He was deeply conversant in the ancients.” –John Dryden on Ben Jonson

In 1998, Charles Woodson beat out Peyton Manning for the Heisman trophy, perhaps the most memorable trophy in American sports. Whether he should’ve won is always a fun sports argument. But he did win. That much is indisputable. After the Super Bowl, Woodson’s Michigan teammate beat out Peyton for another title, one much more ethereal and much, much less prestigious: the Best Quarterback of the 21st Century According to Nick Bush. For some reason, no one cares about that title, not even Nick Bush’s own family and friends.

As a lifelong Vol fan, I always made the argument that Manning was and is the greatest because he does more than any quarterback has ever done. When people say a player is a coach on the field, it’s a metaphor. What we mean when someone says that the player possesses enough knowledge and leadership that his teammates must listen when he tells them something during a game. But it’s still a metaphor–even when it comes to Brady. Make no mistake: Brady has freedom to change plays, but he’s not Belichick–he’s an extension of Belichick.

My argument for Manning has always been that when it comes to him, Coach on the Field is literal, not figurative. He runs the practices. Runs the practices. He’s had four head coaches and with the last three, he’s been in charge of the offensive practices! Think about that. He doesn’t call all his own plays, so he’s not a coordinator per se, but he is the only quarterback in the modern era where a team could go into a season without an offensive coordinator, and it wouldn’t be a practical problem (a philosophical one yes because you have to prepare for injuries and things of that nature). And is there any doubt that he’s the best receivers coach in the game? If Manning retired today and said he wanted to coach receivers, there’s not a head coach who wouldn’t accept that. Some wouldn’t make the switch because of loyalty but not because they think their guy would be better than Manning.

Yet with all that, Manning is not Brady. When you say Brady is better than Manning you’re saying that Brady is better at the game of football than Manning, which is true. If we’re talking about playing, yes. In “An Essay of Dramatic Posey,” John Dryden says Shakespeare’s better because he’s “the greater wit,” (wit meaning genius, not wit meaning witty) that we “admire” Jonson but “love Shakespeare.” And that’s the difference. I admire how Manning misses the season and you have to fire everybody, including the scouts because you realize that Manning was propping up your whole organization with his brilliance. That’s admirable. But Brady racing down the field after a great play to violently head butt his receivers like a Himalayan mountain goat fighting over territory–that’s loveable.

And yes, I love Manning the football player, too. And I think he may be more witty, more soulful, more engaging than we give him credit for, but those qualities don’t show up on the field like they do for Brady. And, as quarterbacks, that’s how they must be judged if we’re discussing them as football players. Similarly, Jonson may have been funnier, more witty, more passionate than Shakespeare in a private setting. But it doesn’t quite come across that way in his plays. And if we must  discuss them as  artists, we must first judge them by their art.

And I’m fine with that. Because to say one artist is more accomplished than the other, diminishes neither man. And for me to say that Brady has bested Manning in no way alters the fact that, I can look at my diploma, read that “University of Tennessee” lettering, and know that I appreciate Manning more.