Stats don't mean shite in the NFL compared to Baseball. OK. Brady HAS drove teams down the field to WIN a SB. Peyton ??? Not so much.
1) If you want to argue that most traditional stats don't matter because of the team nature of football, then I would almost agree with you. HOWEVER,
2) If Vinatieri misses those field goals, is Brady any better or worse? Remember, Jim Kelly drove his team down the field against the Giants, only his kicker missed. If Norwood makes that field goal, is Kelly magically a better QB?
3) Peyton didn't have to drive his team down field on a game winning drive in his first SB appearance, and he lost to a better team in his second.
4) And that goes back to the original point here. You start off by saying that individual stats don't matter in judging a QB in the playoffs (presumably because it's a team sport), then how do you separate a QB's contribution for his TEAM'S accomplishment (which is what a SB win is). More importantly, in Brady's case his success is HIGHLY DEPENDENT on his kicker's ability to hit a field goal. He had to "drive" about 20 yards against the Rams to get them in position to win. Against the Panthers, he needed Kasay to kick off out of bounds, which set him up for a less than 30 yard drive to get in FG position to win the game. So are you telling me that Brady just willed those things to happen and that's why he's a better post season QB than Manning? Or is it because he had a better coach and a better team? Or is it because he had better matchups in the big games?
I contend that looking at a QB's stats in the post season are a better measure of how good of a post season QB that he is than merely looking at wins and losses, which are MUCH more reliant on other players, including two entire units of the team that the QB does not participate in. But that's just me.