Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

Lets face it, in a fair world, the Patriots lose 9/10 times yesterday. By all accounts, the Patriots were outplayed yesterday. But the world isn't fair. A bunch of supposedly random events came together yesterday to bail Brady's ass out of 3 interceptions. When it came down to the wire, the Patriot defense stiffened, and the Charger defense had some gaping holes to throw into. Brady just did what he's paid to do on that drive.

I said yesterday that the game chooses it's champion. Obviously thats not decided yet (I hope), but the game "decided" that despite the talent discrepancy yesterday, the Chargers were going one and done. The Chargers were the[I] best team in the league[/I], but they, like every other team in history, [U]needed some good fortune to win in the playoffs[/U]. They didn't get any. Of the 5 fumbles that were put on the ground by both teams, all 5 were recovered by the Patriots.

Therefore, rings is not a reasonable arguement of QB play, it simply doesn't tell you anything. It's the ultimate goal, it isnt how you get there.

The following guys have rings in the last 10 years:
Brad Johnson
Trent Dilfer
Kurt Warner

When do these guys get their HOF tickets?

In Brady's six years as a starter, he has yet to outperform Manning in ANY season. The question of who is better is downright ridiculous.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

So to keep with the theme of Tom "Icyguy" Brady, let me hijack the thread with this question.

Without using the terms "rings" or "championships", you are the coach of a team playing for the division crown in Week 17. One game, who do you want behind center: Brady or Carson Palmer?

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=GTripp0012;270077]The following guys have rings in the last 10 years:
Brad Johnson
Trent Dilfer
Kurt Warner

When do these guys get their HOF tickets?

In Brady's six years as a starter, he has yet to outperform Manning in ANY season. The question of who is better is downright ridiculous.[/quote]


true, they each have A ring.
brady has THREE rings and TWO superbowl mvps in SIX years.

how many does peyton have again, i seem to forget ?

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=GTripp0012;270078]So to keep with the theme of Tom "Icyguy" Brady, let me hijack the thread with this question.

Without using the terms "rings" or "championships", you are the coach of a team playing for the division crown in Week 17. One game, who do you want behind center: Brady or Carson Palmer?[/quote]


brady.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

Tom Brady is good, but let's be real.....THE PATRIOTS SHOULD NOT HAVE WON THAT GAME!!!!!! I don't understand why Brady is getting all of this praise, he threw 3 interceptions, 3 INTERCEPTIONS!!!!!!!! He had a 57.6 QB rating, please explain to me why everyone is on his nuts as normal. The Chargers should have won that game, they had several key, stupid plays that cost them from winning. Brady threw 3 intereptions, he was soooooo lucky he got that one back in the fourth quarter, unbelievable. Brady is the only QB in the league who can throw 3 interceptions in a playoff game and then be praised, he got lucky, and I really hope Peyton beats him.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

i would bet that peyton manning would give up all his stats to have a superbowl ring.
do you think tom brady would give up his rings to have better stats ?

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=Hail2theskins;269960]When Tom brady does any of this... all of dan marino's records, ill say he is better, until then, not a damn chance.
[LIST][*]Most Attempts, Career: [B]8,358[/B][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Marino#_note-ATTleader"][8][/URL][*]Most Completions, Career: [B]4,967[/B][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Marino#_note-COMPleader"][9][/URL] (broken by [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Favre"]Brett Favre[/URL] in 2006)[*]Most Yards Passing, Career: [B]61,361[/B][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Marino#_note-YDSleader"][10][/URL][*]Most Touchdown Passes, Career: [B]420[/B][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Marino#_note-TDleader"][11][/URL][*]Most Passing Yards, Season: [B]5,084[/B] in 1984[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Marino#_note-YDSleader"][10][/URL][*]Most Touchdown Passes, Season: [B]48[/B][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Marino#_note-TDleader"][11][/URL] (since broken by [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peyton_Manning"]Peyton Manning[/URL] 49)[*]Most Games, 400 or more Yards Passing, Season: [B]4[/B] in 1984[*]Most Games, 300 or more Yards Passing, Career: [B]60[/B][*]Most Seasons, 3,000 or more Yards Passing: [B]13[/B] (1984-92, 1994-95, 1997-98) (since broken by [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Favre"]Brett Favre[/URL] 15)[*]Most Consecutive Seasons, 3,000 or more Yards Passing: [B]9[/B] (1984-92) (since broken by [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Favre"]Brett Favre[/URL] 15)[*]Most Games, Four or more Touchdown Passes, Career: [B]21[/B][*]Most Games, Four or more Touchdown Passes, Season: [B]6[/B] in 1984[*]Lowest Percentage, Passes Intercepted, Rookie Season: [B]2.03[/B] in 1983 (296-6)[*]Most Seasons Leading League, Attempts: [B]5[/B] (1984, 1986, 1988, 1992, 1997)[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Marino#_note-ATTleader"][8][/URL][*]Most Seasons Leading League, Completions: [B]6[/B] (1984-86, 1988, 1992, 1997)[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Marino#_note-COMPleader"][9][/URL][*]Most Seasons, 40 or more Touchdown Passes: [B]2[/B] (1984, 1986)[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Marino#_note-TDleader"][11][/URL][*]100 TD Passes in Fewest Amount of Games to Start Career: [B]44[/B] (9/7/86 at San Diego)[*]200 TD passes in Fewest Amount of Games to Start Career: [B]89[/B] (9/17/89 at New England)[*]300 TD passes in Fewest Amount of Games to Start Career: [B]157[/B] (9/4/94 vs. New England)[*]Most Points scored, QB: [B]2574[/B][*]Highest TD-INT differential: [B]+168[/B][/LIST][/quote]Ask a Dolphins fan if they would want Marino's state or Brady's SB wins. I bet about 99% pick the SB wins.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=gabe1984;270083]Tom Brady is good, but let's be real.....THE PATRIOTS SHOULD NOT HAVE WON THAT GAME!!!!!! I don't understand why Brady is getting all of this praise, he threw 3 interceptions, 3 INTERCEPTIONS!!!!!!!! He had a 57.6 QB rating, please explain to me why everyone is on his nuts as normal. The Chargers should have won that game, they had several key, stupid plays that cost them from winning. Brady threw 3 intereptions, he was soooooo lucky he got that one back in the fourth quarter, unbelievable. Brady is the only QB in the league who can throw 3 interceptions in a playoff game and then be praised, he got lucky, and I really hope Peyton beats him.[/quote]
Its becaus that when it came down to the win in the 4th he did what was needed to win the game. Yes the Chargers made mistakes but they had a chance at the end to win the game but failed.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

The Patriots really amaze me, they just find ways to win while Marty and co. seem to find ways to lose.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=wolfeskins;270084]i would bet that peyton manning would give up all his stats to have a superbowl ring.
do you think tom brady would give up his rings to have better stats ?[/quote]Of course you'd rather have the ring, but that doesn't make him better.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=GTripp0012;270077]Lets face it, in a fair world, the Patriots lose 9/10 times yesterday. By all accounts, the Patriots were outplayed yesterday. But the world isn't fair. A bunch of supposedly random events came together yesterday to bail Brady's ass out of 3 interceptions. When it came down to the wire, the Patriot defense stiffened, and the Charger defense had some gaping holes to throw into. Brady just did what he's paid to do on that drive.

I said yesterday that the game chooses it's champion. Obviously thats not decided yet (I hope), but the game "decided" that despite the talent discrepancy yesterday, the Chargers were going one and done. The Chargers were the[I] best team in the league[/I], but they, like every other team in history, [U]needed some good fortune to win in the playoffs[/U]. They didn't get any. Of the 5 fumbles that were put on the ground by both teams, all 5 were recovered by the Patriots.

Therefore, rings is not a reasonable arguement of QB play, it simply doesn't tell you anything. It's the ultimate goal, it isnt how you get there.

The following guys have rings in the last 10 years:
Brad Johnson
Trent Dilfer
Kurt Warner

When do these guys get their HOF tickets?

In Brady's six years as a starter, he has yet to outperform Manning in ANY season. The question of who is better is downright ridiculous.[/quote]With that said Brady also threw 3 ints which the Chargers did not take advantage of unlike the Pats. If the Chargers won all the bad plays from them would be forgotten and only those three int's is what we would be talking about. Its just the bad plays for the loosing team always looks worse than the winners.Those QB's you named have one SB ring Brady has 3 which is what sets him apart. I guess you can pick a stat guy I'll go with the winner. I also noticed that you left Farve off your list.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=skinsguy;270067]I believe Tom Brady is a product of BB and his coaching staff. I believe they developed Brady into what he is today. The Patriots' success has to be credited to, by large, to Bill Belichick. Certainly Brady should be in the hall of fame in the future, but I will say this..like Montana, you take Brady out of New England or away from Belichick, and I doubt he'd be as successful anywhere else. That's just me.

On a side note of the hall of fame debate, let's be assured that Tom Brady is a shoe in for the hof, and he rightly should be. People get too caught up in stats and numbers, but when you are leading your team to the Super Bowl almost every single freakin' year, you don't have to have the best stats in the NFL to be considered a future Hall of Famer. With that said, I still hate the New England Patriots and I dislike Brady, the player.[/quote]
Brady and Belichik are products of one another - a perfect marriage of clutch QB and great X's and O's coach. Belichik was widely regarded as a D-coordinator in over his head before Brady fell into his lap (thanks no less to a Bledsoe injury). I doubt Belichik wins any of his Super Bowls without Brady since they were all decided by 3 points or less. On another note, both are very fortunate to have had Adam Vinatieri as their kicker. It would be very ironic if the AFC Championship came down to a Vinatieri FG at the gun.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=firstdown;270085]Ask a Dolphins fan if they would want Marino's state or Brady's SB wins. I bet about 99% pick the SB wins.[/quote]

No joke. I'll never knock Marino; he's a legend for a reason. However if I have to pick between the two to win a single playoff or championship game, it's Brady every time. 12-1 lifetime in the postseason says it all.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=The Huddle;270091]No joke. I'll never knock Marino; he's a legend for a reason. However if I have to pick between the two to win a single playoff or championship game, it's Brady every time. 12-1 lifetime in the postseason says it all.[/quote]Out of that 12-1 record, how many of those games were games that the Patriots wouldn't have won with some average QB? Maybe 3-4 tops. The Pats are a good team and Brady is a great QB, but if your sample size is 13 games, you don't prove very much.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=firstdown;270086]Its becaus that when it came down to the win in the 4th he did what was needed to win the game. Yes the Chargers made mistakes but they had a chance at the end to win the game but failed.[/quote]
What do you mean, he did what was needed? He threw an interception, and then he got lucky and the Pats got the fumble. My point is he threw and interception at a key moment, Troy Brown did what was needed for them to win the game, by stripping the ball, Brady got his team into a mess by throwing 3 interceptions and one crucial inteception in the fourth quarter.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=GTripp0012;270093]Out of that 12-1 record, how many of those games were games that the Patriots wouldn't have won with some average QB? Maybe 3-4 tops. The Pats are a good team and Brady is a great QB, but if your sample size is 13 games, you don't prove very much.[/quote]

If we're talking regular season I'd agree 13 games is a small sample. But when that sample of 13 games is from the post season only, it definitely means something. Any way you slice it, a 12-1 post season record is very impressive.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=GTripp0012;270077]Lets face it, in a fair world, the Patriots lose 9/10 times yesterday. By all accounts, the Patriots were outplayed yesterday. But the world isn't fair. A bunch of supposedly random events came together yesterday to bail Brady's ass out of 3 interceptions. When it came down to the wire, the Patriot defense stiffened, and the Charger defense had some gaping holes to throw into. Brady just did what he's paid to do on that drive.

I said yesterday that the game chooses it's champion. Obviously thats not decided yet (I hope), but the game "decided" that despite the talent discrepancy yesterday, the Chargers were going one and done. The Chargers were the[I] best team in the league[/I], but they, like every other team in history, [U]needed some good fortune to win in the playoffs[/U]. They didn't get any. Of the 5 fumbles that were put on the ground by both teams, all 5 were recovered by the Patriots.

Therefore, rings is not a reasonable arguement of QB play, it simply doesn't tell you anything. It's the ultimate goal, it isnt how you get there.

The following guys have rings in the last 10 years:
Brad Johnson
Trent Dilfer
Kurt Warner

When do these guys get their HOF tickets?

In Brady's six years as a starter, he has yet to outperform Manning in ANY season. The question of who is better is downright ridiculous.[/quote]

"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.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=Mattyk72;270095]If we're talking regular season I'd agree 13 games is a small sample. But when that sample of 13 games is from the post season only, it definitely means something. Any way you slice it, a 12-1 post season record is very impressive.[/quote]No doubt it's impressive, its any coaches dream to have that much success. Obviously the Pats have done a great job just putting themselves in the playoffs all these years. But why have they avoided failure in the playoffs while the rest of the teams eventually meet their end? Not because Brady or Belichick are that much better than anyone else. Recovering 5 out of 5 possible fumbles helps. Sometimes the ball just bounces your way.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

Of course luck plays a part sometimes, but when you have a 12-1 post season record and 3 trophies, you ARE that much better than everyone else.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=Mattyk72;270095]If we're talking regular season I'd agree 13 games is a small sample. But when that sample of 13 games is from the post season only, it definitely means something. Any way you slice it, a 12-1 post season record is very impressive.[/quote]

Exactly my point. 12-1 is astonishing.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

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

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=The Huddle;270097]"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.[/quote]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.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=GTripp0012;270088]Of course you'd rather have the ring, but that doesn't make him better.[/quote]

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.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=GTripp0012;270103]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.[/quote]



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.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=GTripp0012;270103]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.[/quote]

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 [U]not[/U] 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 [U]prove[/U] 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, [I]proof [/I]- 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 [I]would[/I] 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").

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=GTripp0012;270068]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?[/quote]

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.

Re: Tom "Iceman" 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.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=FRPLG;270117]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.[/quote]

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.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

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.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=Hail2theskins;270132]WHO CARES how many damn rings hes got, if hes not producing the numbers hes not the best qb in the nfl.[/quote]

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.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=Hail2theskins;270132]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.[/quote]


I totally respect your position. But to minimize three Super Bowl rings makes about as much sense as the Gibbs apologists try to do when pointing to his three Super Bowls to validate his greatness. You can't validate one and dismiss the other. They go hand in hand. Yes, coaching is critical to success, but the game is played between the lines.

If three rings are good enough to call a head coach great, then they're damn sure good enough to categorize a quarterback great who headed three teams to three Super Bowl wins. Would the Pats be as good without Brady, ummm...that's debatable actually.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=wilsowilso;270136]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.[/quote]


right, cuz most good coaches are modest, and that quote you took out was completley out of context, im not saying hes the worst qb in the history of the nfl, but i give more credit to his team and coaching in general then i give tom brady the person, hes a good qb and all which was what i said, but you cant give the pats success strictly to tom brady, you have to give it equally throughout that team, as belichick says himself every game is a team effort noone on the field is more important than the other, if you want to go by what coaches say.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=Hail2theskins;270138]right, cuz most good coaches are modest, and by the way, dont take my posts out of context again, im not saying hes the worst qb in the history of the nfl, but i give more credit to his team and coaching in general then i give tom brady the person, hes a good qb and all which was what i said, but you cant give the pats success strictly to tom brady, you have to give it equally throughout that team, as belichick says himself every game is a team effort noone on the field is more important than the other, if you want to go by what coaches say.[/quote]

No, I understood your post. Of course Brady has a good team around him and a good coach. Good quarterbacking alone doesn't get you anywhere.

But there is something about Brady that gets into his opponents head and his team's head as well. They believe when this guy is under center anything can happen. Not many, if any, quarterbacks have that intangible working for them right now.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

that wasnt directed towards you 12thman, i was late to put my quote in.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=Hail2theskins;270138]right, cuz most good coaches are modest, and that quote you took out was completley out of context, im not saying hes the worst qb in the history of the nfl, but i give more credit to his team and coaching in general then i give tom brady the person, hes a good qb and all which was what i said, but you cant give the pats success strictly to tom brady, you have to give it equally throughout that team, as belichick says himself every game is a team effort noone on the field is more important than the other, if you want to go by what coaches say.[/quote]

I'm not sure if anyone who says Tom Brady is a "good" QB has any idea what he actually does on the field. There isn't anyone in the NFL that has his football awareness and poise and most importantly the ability to make the correct read with his accurate delivery. I will say you are right that Brady doesn't deserve all the credit, but he is the smartest player on the field whenever he plays and that's including next week. One thing is for certain. If NE goes to INDY and wins next week anyone who still says Manning is better than Brady is a fool. Quite honestly I hope the Colts win because I am sick of Belichik and the Patriots in general, but I know better. The Iceman Cometh!

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;270068]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?[/QUOTE]

Because his main job is to throw the football yes, but he also has to lead his team. Brady is a great leader and, in turn, is a great winner. I'd rather go into a fourth quarter with Brady at QB than anyone else in football right now. I'd take him over Peyton because I know when the game's on the line, he's gonna produce. He's not gonna let the bright lights of the playoffs stun him and he's gonna lead his team. That's what a quarterback is, a lot more than a passer. To quote Al Pacino, "it's the top spot kid. It's the guy who gets the credit and it's the guy who takes the blame. And the other guys on your team will break their noses and their ribs and their necks for you...once they understand you." That's what Brady is. He has guys who believe and he makes em believe with 4th quarters like yesterday...playing quarterback is about a whole lot more than passing.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=Hail2theskins;270132]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.[/quote]

All crap, pure and simple. Your arguement ("I guarantee you the Pats could win with a different QB") is all a bunch of hot air with no factual evidence whatsoever. You're basically saying "I hate Brady and don't think he's as good as everybody says he is, so even though I have nothing to back it up you should believe me".

Winning is what its all about and the bottom line is that the Pats are a good team largely because of Brady, certainly not in spite of him. The guy gets it done when it matters: 80-25 as a starter (he'll almost certainly be the fastest QB ever to 100 wins), 12-1 in the postseason (that's an NFL record by the way), including leading 2 game-winning drives in Super Bowls...Brady does what his team asks him to do: if they ask him to hand the ball off 50 times and just throw screens that's what he does, and when they ask him to put the team in his shoulders in the toughest spots and hit the big plays, he does that, too.

It's fine to hate him for whatever reason you want, but you'd better get used to the idea that he's headed to Canton and nothing's likely to stop that.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

For clarification:
When someone asks what Tom Brady has done, it doesn't help your case to spout off what the New England Patriots have done. The New England Patriots have won 3 championships in the last 5 years. The New England Patriots have won their division and made the playoffs 4 times in the last 5 years. Tom Brady is a player on the New England Patriots. He is not the team. He's the best player on the team and the biggest reason why they are so good.

Let's say you are trying to win an election, lets say for town mayor of Foxborough, MA, against 52 other people. The rules are simple, most votes wins. You are the most qualified candidate and collect 10% of the votes. You win by a significant margin. Does that mean that if you ran for President of the U.S., against a candidate from Indianapolis by the name of Peyton Manning, that you are a lock to win?

You could have a lot of national media talking heads that call you a "winner", or a "money-man" or "clutch", but none of those titles actually says anything about you as a candidate.

Likewise, a 12-1 record says nothing about you as a football player. It says that you played on a pretty good team. Did you make them good? Who knows?

In the case of Brady, he does contribute a hefty part to his team's success. Probably more than any other individual on the Patriots. But it's very, very clear that Peyton Manning does a lot more to help the Colts win than Brady does to help the Pats win. Peyton has consistently been putting up 12 win seasons with no defense to speak of whatsoever.

The Patriots have been a better football team than the Colts for years. But Manning wins just as many games if not more than Brady does every year. If he beats Brady in the playoffs this week, the arguement should stop, IMO.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

The Colts are a flawed football team so I will agree that Manning does a lot more to create that problem than you think. He is all numbers and absolutely no substance. The team has the mindset that they can run anybody off the field and then when the pressure rises what happens? Have you noticed what happens to that team whenever they meet a good defense in the playoffs? They lose. Every time. One win won't change that, but it will help. If the Colts lose next week the argument should never have even happened in the first place.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=wilsowilso;270141]I'm not sure if anyone who says Tom Brady is a "good" QB has any idea what he actually does on the field. There isn't anyone in the NFL that has his football awareness and poise and most importantly the ability to make the correct read with his accurate delivery. I will say you are right that Brady doesn't deserve all the credit, but he is the smartest player on the field whenever he plays and that's including next week. One thing is for certain. If NE goes to INDY and wins next week anyone who still says Manning is better than Brady is a fool. Quite honestly I hope the Colts win because I am sick of Belichik and the Patriots in general, but I know better. The Iceman Cometh![/quote]You're definately coming off like a Brady fanboy.

The only sentence I take large issue with in this post is this one: "If NE goes to INDY and wins next week anyone who still says Manning is better than Brady is a fool."

That's too general. What if they go into Indy and win in the same fashion they beat San Diego. What have they proved? That they can get lucky at key times and win despite getting outplayed? Brady 4 Prezident!!!!

The only arguement that could possibly hold any water is one that says the playoffs and regular season are two seperate seasons, and that the complexity of the playoffs is so different from the regular season that its practically not even football. In which case, Brady's performance over 13 games is better than Peytons over 10. But why? Why would it be any different? The pressure is always really, really high during an NFL game. Any game. Peyton Manning obviously isn't bothered by pressure. Cold weather maybe, but not pressure.

The last two times these teams have played, Manning killed them. Torched them. Both times on the road. Where were you for those games?

There obviously is one QB who is more poised with better leadership than Brady, and thats Manning. His production is unbe-freakin-leavable. He wins 75% of his games with little to no help. He is better that Brady in every facet of the game.

I think we will see that this week.