|
|
GTripp0012 01-15-2007, 04:19 PM Actually it sounds like you're saying that if the Colts win, the case for Brady is weakened and/or destroyed...but if the Pats win, the case for Manning is as strong as ever. I can't see how that makes any sense.
Look, Manning has a good team around him and an excellent coach. I have been impressed with their defensive effort the last couple of weeks, especially consdiering Manning has been somewhat off. We should resume this argument after he wins a championship.Manning may never win a championship, but if there is really something special to Brady, he can win 3 more easy, right?
The pro Brady arguement is based on two things
1) Tossing out any and all of Manning regular season accomplishments-basically assuming either regular season equality, or insignificance.
2) Proof that Manning's cognitive clarity is affected by playoff style pressure.
It's difficult, for any QB, to win on the road in inclimate weather in the playoffs, against the leagues best D's. Manning has yet to be successful (in 3 tries since 2002), Brady failed in Denver anyway. I'm not sure I'd attribute this phenomenon to playoff pressure as much as it just seems like a situation that the QB is going to struggle in. Manning has, Brady has.
dmek25 01-15-2007, 04:26 PM I'm going to admit up front that I wasn't much of an NFL afficinado in 1996. I was 8. The only game I remember is the Superbowl.
I'm guessing that since we are taking about a time before the college QB revolution that began with Plummer in 97 and Manning/Leaf in 98. Bledsoe was a QB who went first overall, a rarity for the age, was probably an above average QB for the day. I mean you had guys like Neil O'Donnell leading his team to the superbowl, so how hard could it have been. You had Favre, Marino, Elway, Aikman....and like Jeff Hostetler or something as the leagues top QBs.
ah, to be young again. what about the likes of montana, kelly , and even steve young? it wasnt the talent level, it was what was ask of the qback, and how he fit into a system. now the coaches build the system to fit the player. it wasnt always like that
Defensewins 01-15-2007, 04:33 PM I'm going to admit up front that I wasn't much of an NFL afficinado in 1996. I was 8. The only game I remember is the Superbowl.
I'm guessing that since we are taking about a time before the college QB revolution that began with Plummer in 97 and Manning/Leaf in 98. Bledsoe was a QB who went first overall, a rarity for the age, was probably an above average QB for the day. I mean you had guys like Neil O'Donnell leading his team to the superbowl, so how hard could it have been. You had Favre, Marino, Elway, Aikman....and like Jeff Hostetler or something as the leagues top QBs.
Also the probowl is a poor way to evaluate talent, IMO.
I'm sorry, i did not know you were 8 in 96.
Back in the olden days (before 1997 or so LOL) the players and coaches voted the players into the probowl. This was a big deal to the players because you were elected by your peers. The guys you played against every week gave you the honor. Now the fans are involved and have ruined the process and reward. A fan does not know what OG or DT the opposing players least want to play against.
Fans only know one thing, glory stats: TD's, rushing yards, Rec yds, int. and sacks. That has dummied the game.
GhettoDogAllStars 01-15-2007, 04:34 PM Manning may never win a championship, but if there is really something special to Brady, he can win 3 more easy, right?
The pro Brady arguement is based on two things
1) Tossing out any and all of Manning regular season accomplishments-basically assuming either regular season equality, or insignificance.
2) Proof that Manning's cognitive clarity is affected by playoff style pressure.
It's difficult, for any QB, to win on the road in inclimate weather in the playoffs, against the leagues best D's. Manning has yet to be successful (in 3 tries since 2002), Brady failed in Denver anyway. I'm not sure I'd attribute this phenomenon to playoff pressure as much as it just seems like a situation that the QB is going to struggle in. Manning has, Brady has.
If Manning had performed better in the regular season he wouldn't have had to win on the road in the playoffs. So the argument about his regular season performance doesn't really matter, because it hasn't helped him out at all yet.
wolfeskins 01-15-2007, 04:42 PM Manning may never win a championship, but if there is really something special to Brady, he can win 3 more easy, right?
The pro Brady arguement is based on two things
1) Tossing out any and all of Manning regular season accomplishments-basically assuming either regular season equality, or insignificance.
2) Proof that Manning's cognitive clarity is affected by playoff style pressure.
It's difficult, for any QB, to win on the road in inclimate weather in the playoffs, against the leagues best D's. Manning has yet to be successful (in 3 tries since 2002), Brady failed in Denver anyway. I'm not sure I'd attribute this phenomenon to playoff pressure as much as it just seems like a situation that the QB is going to struggle in. Manning has, Brady has.
just because a person is pro-brady does not mean that they are anti-manning. i'm a huge fan of both of them but when push comes to shove i'd take brady over manning in the big game.
Defensewins 01-15-2007, 04:44 PM Look people Im not arguing against brady, ive never said he wasnt good, but IMO hes not at the same level as the greats yet, i think its a little premature to be putting him up with all time greats because he has simply not had the longevity of them. I said earlier when he comes out and does it for his whole career then yes he will be up there with the greats, but until then im not going to put him on the same level as marino and montana. And defensewins, id think with a name like that youd understand the concept of a team winning, not just one man, yes hes a great leader and shows good poise, but strictly when it comes to playing your posistion im not ready to throw him up there with the ranks of the NFL all time elite. People constantly say that steve young was one of the best leaders in the NFL of all time, Ill put Brady's leadership abilities up there with youngs but strictly as a player Im not sitting him up there with the big dogs yet.
I picked the name defensewins BECAUSE of today's media and fans that only care about offense, scoring and stats. The ones that say a game is ugly if it a low scoring game.
I was floored by Dan Marino's post game comment after the Pats win when he said ' that was an ugly game by both teams". NO Dan, it was agreat game by two great defenses. Great defenses make offenses look bad on occasion. Dan wouldn;t know that because he never played on a team with a good defense. Those were the two best defenses facing each other yet in these playoffs. It was awesome game, not ugly. Dan Marino is a moron.
Today's media and fans have lost the art of a fine defense. It bothers me when the NFL changes rules to give advantages to offenses because it will improve ratings to the Attenition defeciet Disoder fans of today that know very little about football. You know the ones that only cheer when there is a TD because they do not understand the rest of the game.
Which brings me to a very important fact for you big stats guys. Manning is setting all of these records with rules limiting the defenses play like the five yards no constact rule and the lame roughing the passer rule. As little as 15 years ago defenses held up receivers and Qb's got pounded. Montana and Marino played in a much tougher NFL. Todays offensive records need to have a big * next to them.
12thMan 01-15-2007, 04:53 PM that wasnt directed towards you 12thman, i was late to put my quote in.
sorry..
TheMalcolmConnection 01-15-2007, 04:56 PM Which brings me to a very important fact for you big stats guys. Manning is setting all of these records with rules limiting the defenses play like the five yards no constact rule and the lame roughing the passer rule. As little as 15 years ago defenses held up receivers and Qb's got pounded. Montana and Marino played in a much tougher NFL. Todays offensive records need to have a big * next to them.
Not that I disagree with you, but the game has changed as years have gone by anyway. That would kind of discredit people like Monk from getting in the Hall of Fame.
The Huddle 01-15-2007, 04:59 PM Manning may never win a championship, but if there is really something special to Brady, he can win 3 more easy, right?
The pro Brady arguement is based on two things
1) Tossing out any and all of Manning regular season accomplishments-basically assuming either regular season equality, or insignificance.
2) Proof that Manning's cognitive clarity is affected by playoff style pressure.
It's difficult, for any QB, to win on the road in inclimate weather in the playoffs, against the leagues best D's. Manning has yet to be successful (in 3 tries since 2002), Brady failed in Denver anyway. I'm not sure I'd attribute this phenomenon to playoff pressure as much as it just seems like a situation that the QB is going to struggle in. Manning has, Brady has.
He may have a fourth here in a few weeks.
Defensewins 01-15-2007, 05:01 PM Not that I disagree with you, but the game has changed as years have gone by anyway. That would kind of discredit people like Monk from getting in the Hall of Fame.
No I think it would help Monk. It was much tougher to be a WR in the NFL in the 80's and early 90's than it is today. in the mid to late 90's the NFL changed the rules to help offense pass the ball more, so now the league has turned into amore of a passing league.
Now with these lame roughing the passer rules it really is giving them an advantage.
|