Tom "Iceman" Brady

At 12-1 is there a QB with a better post season record?

"The game chooses it's champion?" What the hell does that mean? Is "the Game" some dark spirit in a cloak that waves a magic wand? A little pixie that appears out of thin air and zaps one team with magic? Why are we even watching the damn game then?

The world isn't fair? Recovering fumbles is luck? Overcoming three interceptions is luck?

BS. Yes, the Pats got some breaks yesterday but if San Diego had been good enough to stop Brady when it mattered then it becomes a moot point.

Winning in the playoffs requires luck, but in the same breath we're supposed to accept the the fact that the Chargers are "the best team in the league" because winning in the regualr season doesn't require luck?

San Diego didn't get it done when it mattered, Brady and the Pats did. That's the end of the story and the way it will be written.

Brady is the best money-time QB in the game and his 12-1 postseason record says it all; it's silly to argue with this.The nature of game itself has more to do with the outcome of the game than any one man. Agree?

You make a lot of good points. Yes, the Chargers needed luck to get to 14-2. A lot of it. But they were a better team than the Pats in my opinion and that of many others.

We watch the damn game because it intrigues us. You never know for certain who is going to win because wacky things happen virtually every game. Thats great TV.

Overcoming three INTs isn't luck, but its a bunch of people picking up their QB. Something that Manning has never gotten prior to this season.

Recovering fumbles is luck. No player can control the bounce of the football. If it bounces your way, then you have the first shot to recover it. The Pats got 5 out of 5 fumbles. To understand how big this was, consider if the Chargers had gotten merely one of those fumbles. 4 to 1 is still a very lucky day for the Pats, but considering the final score, its very likely that the Chargers would have won if they had recovered just one fumble.

You can take the "money guy" Brady to win in crunch time, but if the Pats had Manning, they'd blow everyone out of the water. Crunch-time be damned.

Of course you'd rather have the ring, but that doesn't make him better.

i'm saying brady is better than manning because even though manning has better stats brady has the rings. manning has yet to prove he can handle the pressure of big time games (playoffs) while brady preforms at a very high level in the biggest games (superbowls). brady not only lead his team to victory 3 times in superbowl games but he was the games MVP twice.

You can take the "money guy" Brady to win in crunch time, but if the Pats had Manning, they'd blow everyone out of the water. Crunch-time be damned.



thats kinda silly to say considering manning plays for a better "team". the colts have much more talent offensively than the pats and as of the past two games the colts defense has played just as good as the pats defense has. manning is a better "pure passer" than brady but brady is a better overall qb.

The nature of game itself has more to do with the outcome of the game than any one man. Agree?

You make a lot of good points. Yes, the Chargers needed luck to get to 14-2. A lot of it. But they were a better team than the Pats in my opinion and that of many others.

We watch the damn game because it intrigues us. You never know for certain who is going to win because wacky things happen virtually every game. Thats great TV.

Overcoming three INTs isn't luck, but its a bunch of people picking up their QB. Something that Manning has never gotten prior to this season.

Recovering fumbles is luck. No player can control the bounce of the football. If it bounces your way, then you have the first shot to recover it. The Pats got 5 out of 5 fumbles. To understand how big this was, consider if the Chargers had gotten merely one of those fumbles. 4 to 1 is still a very lucky day for the Pats, but considering the final score, its very likely that the Chargers would have won if they had recovered just one fumble.

You can take the "money guy" Brady to win in crunch time, but if the Pats had Manning, they'd blow everyone out of the water. Crunch-time be damned.

Recovering fumbles has as much to do with quickness and being alert as luck. I agree with you that ball takes funny bounes sometimes and seems to go right to players. However, I also know that sometimes the ball is simply rolling free and part of playing football is beating the other guy to the ball and/or taking it away from him underneath the pile if necessary.

I do agree with you that the game is bigger than any one man. I do not agree that "the game chooses its champion." The reason I don't agree with this is that it makes it sound as though it's all up to the Football Gods. Good fortune does indeed play a role, as you correctly note, but hard work, preparation, and poise under pressure are even bigger factors.

It's fine to argue the Chargers were a better team, and I would agree with you that they were more impressive during the regular season. However, football isn't like baseball or basketball with its playoff series. Yesterday was San Diego's one opportunity to prove they were better than the Patriots, and they were unable to do so. Again, when the money's on the table, Bardy and the Pats are the ones who walk the walk.

Peyton Manning is a fine quarterback and I admire his skills a great deal. I am not going to try and justify my preference by trying to lessen what he's accomplished. I'm simply saying that I prefer Brady because unlike Manning I have seen hard evidence- in other words, proof - that Brady can produce victories in the clutch, in the playoffs, when the chips are down and the pressure is at its greatest. In contrast, on the other side all I have are people telling me how many titles Manning would have IF he had a better team around him or IF he played for someone else. So to me it's just a matter of dealing with what is fact instead of what someone claims but can't prove (i.e., "If the Pats had Manning they'd blow everyone out of the water").

Huh? The main job of a quarterback is to pass. If he doesn't pass, he runs. Surely the reason Brady is better than Marino in your opinion isn't because he's a deadly runner. So if Marino is the better passer, why on earth would Brady be the better QB?

I don't know what kind of team you are coaching? The job of the quarterback is to lead. To lead his team to victory. Marino was of course a better passer, but no way was he a better leader. In fact he wasn't even close to Brady.

Brady is overrated.

Not one part of me thinks that they won that game simply because of Brady. He is good for sure but he isn't 'make a bad team good' good. He is a great leader and a good skill QB nut not the sickest qb ever.

Brady is overrated.

Not one part of me thinks that they won that game simply because of Brady. He is good for sure but he isn't 'make a bad team good' good. He is a great leader and a good skill QB nut not the sickest qb ever.

Wow, that's pretty strong. You think Brady is overated, huh?

I'm not a big Brady fan myself, but I would have to think all those wins count for something.

I cant stand any brady supporter arguments because you only have one... look at the rings man look at the rings... who gives a flying f*ck. that doesnt mean anything, the pats are good because of coaching not because tom brady is some miracle QB. being a quarterback is about leadership, but its also about playing your goddamn posistion which he is NOT THE GREATEST AT, good yes, but no way in hell the greatest. Look at the skins for chrissakes, 3 different qbs with superbowl wins in 10 years. I gurantee you the pats could win with a different QB, then everyone might think a little differently about brady, get off his damn nuts. The pats have a GOOD TEAM with a GOOD QUARTERBACK and EXCELLENT COACHING, not the greatest QB in the nfl, the pats win with a strong team effort and a good coach. you cant just deny statistics on the field and then arbitraly throw in, look at how many rings hes got hes obviously the greatest. WHO CARES how many damn rings hes got, if hes not producing the numbers hes not the best qb in the nfl.

WHO CARES how many damn rings hes got, if hes not producing the numbers hes not the best qb in the nfl.

There is one number he has produced that is the only one that matters. 12-1 playoff record. If you think being the best is all about numbers maybe Dan Snyder has a job for you. Being the best is about winning period and if you try and argue that you are some kind of fan of stats numbers or math or something. Maybe it's not the Pats coaching afterall as much as it is Tom Brady is the man. Ask any HOF coach how they won all those big games and I promise you to a man they will say it was because of the players.