re: ...why...

quote:

---

because his last name is Manning.

Brees was easily more worthy.

---

This. I wouldn't say EASILY more worthy, but they were as damn equal as any two candidates could ever be. I was extremely disappointed when Manning got it, but his team had the better record, only lost when they rested their players, and Manning already had a ring under his belt. Brees had the stats, but didn't have anyone slobbering on his dick like the national media did to Peyton. I also suspect that people looked at Manning's supporting cast of WR's and RB's and thought they were a less quality group as compared to the Saints, so Peyton had to do more with "less talent".

As for that last point, where would our WR corps as a whole rank if we didn't have Brees at QB? Without Brees putting the ball in the perfect spots for the for a few years, who is to say our offensive skill position groups would have the same "prestige" as they do? Would Colston, Meachem, Devery, Moore, Bush, Shockey, or David Thomas have anywhere near the stats they do without Brees getting them the ball? Brees is the single piece that makes our offense the best in the league. Yet, to be fair, Manning is the general in command of Indy, and without him they wouldn't be anywhere near where they are as well.

However, I'll give Manning the regular season ANY frickin day if Brees can get the SUPERBOWL MVP BABY!!!! SBMVP > RSMVP