Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

We can argue all day about Brady, fact is the guy is a winner, there's absolutely no disputing that.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;270144]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.[/QUOTE]

That's completely wrong. Last year the Colts D was as dominant as it's ever been (11th in the NFL!) and they got bounced. No D to speak of? What do you call the last 2 weeks? Adam Vinatieri and that D are the only reason Peyton even gets to play Brady. You take away the best receiving corps in the league, his top 4 receivers and then we'll have an argument about how much better Peyton is than Brady. The fact is Peyton is a choker. Adam Vinatieri has saved his ass so far. He has thrown 1 td and 5 picks this postseason. That's garbage.

Peyton is hands down the better passer, however, if he weren't surrounded by the weapons that he has on offense he wouldn't have the passing numbers he has. The Pats are no doubt the more talented team, but their D hasn't played nearly as well as the Colts has this postseason. If they lose this week it will be because of that D and Vinatieri. If Peyton keeps playing the way he has so far, this argument will go on for a long time.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;270147]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.[/QUOTE]


Are you kidding me?! He has THE BEST receiving corps in the NFL. He also has a far better o line than Tom Brady. His backs are only marginally worse. His D has played lights out in the postseason and his kicker has carried him through the playoffs. I'm glad you're such a fan of fantasy football and all, but yards and touchdowns during the regular season don't mean a whole lot when you're playing for rings. Peyton hasn't produced any damn thing this postseason. That's the most "un-freakin-believable" thing he's done in his career, collapse in the postseason. It's ridiculous. Every year they are the team to beat and every year they lose because Peyton has a terrible game. This year Peyton has played very poorly and been bailed out by the people you accuse of giving him "no help." How, for such a "stat guy," do you not pay attention to wins and losses?

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=Mattyk72;270149]We can argue all day about Brady, fact is the guy is a winner, there's absolutely no disputing that.[/quote]No arguement here, Manning's a winner too.

But then again, doesn't being a winner just mean you've won more than you've lost.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=GTripp0012;270144]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. [B]If he beats Brady in the playoffs this week, the arguement should stop, IMO.[/B][/quote]

I think the Manning vs. Brady debate is one of the best arguments in football because there is evidence to support both sides, and I actually lean more towards Peyton myself. However, it's kind of funny that the first several paragraphs of your post make the argument that Brady has benefited from a superior team, and his 12-1 playoff record says more about the team than it does about Brady the quarterback. You then go on to say that if [I]Manning defeats Brady[/I] this weekend, all discussion on the topic should end, like it's a one on one battle.

How is it possible for Manning to beat Brady when Brady is only a small part of the entire New England Patriots? If Manning throws for 400 yards and 5 TD's, and Brady throws for 96 yards and 3 picks, but the Patriots somehow find a way to win, does that mean Peyton won the battle?

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=jdlea;270151]Are you kidding me?! He has THE BEST receiving corps in the NFL. He also has a far better o line than Tom Brady. His backs are only marginally worse. His D has played lights out in the postseason and his kicker has carried him through the playoffs. I'm glad you're such a fan of fantasy football and all, but yards and touchdowns during the regular season don't mean a whole lot when you're playing for rings. Peyton hasn't produced any damn thing this postseason. That's the most "un-freakin-believable" thing he's done in his career, collapse in the postseason. It's ridiculous. Every year they are the team to beat and every year they lose because Peyton has a terrible game. This year Peyton has played very poorly and been bailed out by the people you accuse of giving him "no help." How, for such a "stat guy," do you not pay attention to wins and losses?[/quote]Because trying to get through the playoffs on a one man team is a horrible strategy. If wins and losses were the only tool we had to measure individual performance, why is Jake Plummer not a lock for the hall of fame?

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=GTripp0012;270144]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.[/quote]

A 12-1 postseason record in the NFL- the biggest pressure games the sport of football has to offer- [I]says nothing[/I] about a team's quarterback? Somehow, I doubt you really believe that, but if you do, more power to you.

Being the best player on and single biggest reason for the success of the league's best team- as you have admitted - [I]doesn't help Brady's case[/I]? Now I [I]know[/I] you don't believe that.

Basically, what you're doing is trying to hold it against Brady that his team plays better football than Manning's. Manning's stats are the result of his being great- you don't think having Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne to throw to have anything to do with Manning's success.

This topic has grown tired for me. You can have Manning and his numbers, he's a great QB. I can understand your aversion to words like "clutch" and "money" when supporting Manning because that's one thing he's never been in the playoffs (and I have nothing but respect for him, as I have said). I'll take Brady and his proven record for playing his best football in big games, under pressure- unlike Manning, and the record speaks for itself there as well.

The Patriots have beaten the Colts twice in the postseason when both men are playing, but now you want the discussion to end if Manning takes one of three? I can promise you this won't happen.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;270154]Because trying to get through the playoffs on a one man team is a horrible strategy. If wins and losses were the only tool we had to measure individual performance, why is Jake Plummer not a lock for the hall of fame?[/QUOTE]

Becaue he loses tons of games...that's pretty much it. That and he doesn't win in the playoffs (the wins and losses I'm referring to)

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=Southpaw;270153]I think the Manning vs. Brady debate is one of the best arguments in football because there is evidence to support both sides, and I actually lean more towards Peyton myself. However, it's kind of funny that the first several paragraphs of your post make the argument that Brady has benefited from a superior team, and his 12-1 playoff record says more about the team than it does about Brady the quarterback. You then go on to say that if [I]Manning defeats Brady[/I] this weekend, all discussion on the topic should end, like it's a one on one battle.

How is it possible for Manning to beat Brady when Brady is only a small part of the entire New England Patriots? If Manning throws for 400 yards and 5 TD's, and Brady throws for 96 yards and 3 picks, but the Patriots somehow find a way to win, does that mean Peyton won the battle?[/quote]Don't take the Manning defeats Brady clause out of context. All that means is that if Manning beats Brady this week and goes to the superbowl, then the very weak legs that support the winning in the playoffs arguement for Brady fall apart.

Manning is no greater of a QB if he wins this week (well, maybe a little), but I think more people will respect what hes done if he beats Brady. Don't get me wrong, my opinion won't change.

And you are 100% right, its not about Manning vs. Brady. It's about the Pats vs. the Colts. I'm sorry for getting caught up in the moment and oversimplifing.

If Manning throws for 5 TDs and a shitload of yards to Brady's 3 INTs and a handful of yards, and the Pats win, Manning has [U]vastly outperformed[/U] Brady. Neither of them win. The Patriots win the battle, not Brady.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=The Huddle;270157]A 12-1 postseason record in the NFL- the biggest pressure games the sport of football has to offer- [I]says nothing[/I] about a team's quarterback? Somehow, I doubt you really believe that, but if you do, more power to you.

Being the best player on and single biggest reason for the success of the league's best team- as you have admitted - [I]doesn't help Brady's case[/I]? Now I [I]know[/I] you don't believe that.

Basically, what you're doing is trying to hold it against Brady that his team plays better football than Manning's. Manning's stats are the result of his being great- you don't think having Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne to throw to have anything to do with Manning's success.

This topic has grown tired for me. You can have Manning and his numbers, he's a great QB. I can understand your aversion to words like "clutch" and "money" when supporting Manning because that's one thing he's never been in the playoffs (and I have nothing but respect for him, as I have said). I'll take Brady and his proven record for playing his best football in big games, under pressure- unlike Manning, and the record speaks for itself there as well.

The Patriots have beaten the Colts twice in the postseason when both men are playing, but now you want the discussion to end if Manning takes one of three? I can promise you this won't happen.[/quote]Again, I'm saying if Peyton proves that he can beat Brady under pressure, then an already weak arguement that Brady is a better playoff QB loses it's basis. Manning is no better for beating the Patriots, it's a team game.

Ultimately, someone needs to prove that something changes in Manning brain come playoff time that affects his performance. Because right now, I look at the 2 time league MVP, see the same guy on the field on Sunday, and know that he could have a huge day. Remember, 3 times (2 vs Denver, 1 vs KC), Manning has gone insane in the playoffs. This further weakens the arguement that he cant get it done in the playoffs, because he HAS.

Do you honestly believe that a different person throws on the Colts 18 uniform in the playoffs, a person of considerably less skill? It's BS IMO, that Brady's game elevates in the playoffs, it doesn't. He's the same guy, a top 3 QB in the league. Manning has struggled in some games in the playoffs, but hes also had 3 games in which his team punted a total of 3 times. He can get it done.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=jdlea;270158]Becaue he loses tons of games...that's pretty much it. That and he doesn't win in the playoffs (the wins and losses I'm referring to)[/quote]Since Plummer signed with Denver, he has the best win-loss % of any QB over that timeframe. That includes both Brady and Manning.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=GTripp0012;270152]No arguement here, Manning's a winner too.

But then again, doesn't being a winner just mean you've won more than you've lost.[/quote]

But ultimately these guys are judged on winning championships, and right now Brady is up there with Montana and Manning with Marino.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=Mattyk72;270163]But ultimately these guys are judged on winning championships, and right now Brady is up there with Montana and Manning with Marino.[/quote]Very true, and even more unfortunate.

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]

Give it up whie you are still behind. Your quote above is so wrong in so many ways it would take me days to prove each point wrong, so I will only address the most glaring ones:

1) The players and coaches are all in it for the rings/championships, not the stats you so cling to. Dan Marino would give up half of his good for nothing records/stats for one SB ring and a SB MVP.
2) Your rant about the The Patriots having a great coach and being a great team despite Brady. Fact: the Pats were not a good team when Brady took over for an injured Probowl QB Drew Bledsoe and coach Bellichek in 2001.
Under Bledsoe & Bellichek they were 5-11 in 2000 and started an ugly 0-2 in 2001. I know this better than most on this site because I lived in Boston from 2000-2004. I watched every Redskins and Pats game 2000-2004.
Brady stepped in on a VERY BAD team and took them to a SB WIN in his first year as a starter. So please check your facts before you run off at the mouth and say the Pats are/were a good team despite Brady. The fact is they were not a good team before Brady took over.
3) In all three SB's Brady drove the Pats in last second drives for game winning field goals with very little time on the clock. What makes Brady better than any other QB playing today: He handles the pressure of the big game better then anybody else. Manning and Marino do not handle the pressure of the big playoff games very well. Until last year Manning was terrible in the playoffs. Not so-so or average, he was TERRIBLE. Three and four interception games.
Manning has never won a single champonship at any level of his entire football career. That says it all about his ability to handle the preasure of the big games.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=Defensewins;270167]Give it up whie you are still behind. Your quote above is so wrong in so many ways it would take me days to prove each point wrong, so I will only address the most glaring ones:

1) The players and coaches are all in it for the rings/championships, not the stats you so cling to. Dan Marino would give up half of his good for nothing records/stats for one SB ring and a SB MVP.
2) Your rant about the The Patriots having a great coach and being a great team despite Brady. Fact: the Pats were not a good team when Brady took over for an injured Probowl QB Drew Bledsoe and coach Bellichek in 2001.
Under Bledsoe & Bellichek they were 5-11 in 2000 and started an ugly 0-2 in 2001. I know this better than most on this site because I lived in Boston from 2000-2004. I watched every Redskins and Pats game 2000-2004.
Brady stepped in on a very bad team and took them to a SB WIN in his first year as a starter. So please check your facts before you run off at the mouth and say the Pats are/were a good team despite Brady. The fact is they were not a good team before Brady took over.
3) In all three SB's Brady drove the Pats in last second drives for game winning field goals with very little time on the clock. What makes Brady better than any other QB playing today: He handles the pressure of the big game better then anybody else. Manning and Marino do not handle the pressure of the big playoff games very well. Until last year Manning was terrible in the playoffs. Not so-so or average, he was TERRIBLE. Three and four interception games.
Manning has never one a single champonship at any level of his entire football career. That says it all about his ability to handle the preasure of the big games.[/quote]I'd agree with your assesment that Brady is the biggest reason for the Patriots improvement, but a lot of the reasoning for such a sudden improvement was as much about Drew Bledsoe NOT being the Quarterback as it was about Tom Brady becoming the Quarterback.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;270168]I'd agree with your assesment that Brady is the biggest reason for the Patriots improvement, but a lot of the reasoning for such a sudden improvement was as much about Drew Bledsoe NOT being the Quarterback as it was about Tom Brady becoming the Quarterback.[/QUOTE]

Then how did Bledsoe get them to a Superbowl under Parcells and Bledsoe get nominated to so many Probowls? I'll admit Bledsoe was PART of the problem in 2000 and 2001. However look at the WR and RB's Brady had to work with in 2001, when he stepped in as a 6th round draft pick, never started an NFL game before. There are no hall of fame players there. Brady has done it with less big name talent than anybody else.
I'm sorry but you cannot fairly say Brady is overrated.
Yes the media has their knee pads on and blowing Brady and the Pats every night on TV.
But you can say that and even more for Manning and Urlacher. These two guys are the poster childs of the media and NFL and they have won nothing, THAT BY DEFINITION IS OVERRATED. Not Brady who has won three SB's.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=GTripp0012;270160]Again, I'm saying if Peyton proves that he can beat Brady under pressure, then an already weak arguement that Brady is a better playoff QB loses it's basis. Manning is no better for beating the Patriots, it's a team game.

Ultimately, someone needs to prove that something changes in Manning brain come playoff time that affects his performance. Because right now, I look at the 2 time league MVP, see the same guy on the field on Sunday, and know that he could have a huge day. Remember, 3 times (2 vs Denver, 1 vs KC), Manning has gone insane in the playoffs. This further weakens the arguement that he cant get it done in the playoffs, because he HAS.

Do you honestly believe that a different person throws on the Colts 18 uniform in the playoffs, a person of considerably less skill? It's BS IMO, that Brady's game elevates in the playoffs, it doesn't. He's the same guy, a top 3 QB in the league. Manning has struggled in some games in the playoffs, but hes also had 3 games in which his team punted a total of 3 times. He can get it done.[/quote]

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.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

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.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=Defensewins;270171]Then how did Bledsoe get them to a Superbowl under Parcells and Bledsoe get nominated to so many Probowls? I'll admit Bledsoe was part of the problem in 2000 and 2001. However look at the WR and Rb's in 2001. There are no hall of fame players there. Brady has done it with less big name talent thatn anybody else.[/quote]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.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=GTripp0012;270147]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.[/quote]
Whats wrong if someone is a Brady fanboy. It sure sounds better than a Manning I can't score a TD or win a playoff fanboy.LOL

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=The Huddle;270173]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.[/quote]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.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=GTripp0012;270175]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.

[/quote]
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

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;270175]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;270179]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=GTripp0012;270179]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.[/quote]



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.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[QUOTE=Hail2theskins;270174]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=Hail2theskins;270140]that wasnt directed towards you 12thman, i was late to put my quote in.[/quote]


sorry..

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=Defensewins;270194]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.[/quote]

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.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=GTripp0012;270179]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.[/quote]

He may have a fourth here in a few weeks.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[QUOTE=TheMalcolmConnection;270198]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

People want it both ways when they bring up the Peyton vs. Brady argument. On one hand they say, Brady is on a better team with a better coach and his wins and losses are more a bye product of his supporting cast than his actual physical prowess and football leadership and skills. Okay, fine.

But then on the other hand, they point to Peyton's individual stats, totally leave out his supporting cast for the past several years, which by the way is better than Brady's, and the fact that he too has a brialliant head coach in his own right.

The one thing that validates Manning as a great quarterback is the one thing that has eluded him. And it's that one thing that Tom Brady just happens to have three times over.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

I watched Jason Taylor on ESPN last week talk about Tom Brady to no end. He felt very strongly, in fact, that Tom Brady is the best quarterback in the NFL today. Okay, so here's the defensive MVP of the league this year, he has no vested interest in being biased one way or another, and he plays them both twice a year.

He pointed out that the thing that makes Brady so special is that he has, what I thought he said was "Phone booth [I]quicks[/I]" In other words, Brady can move around in very tight and limited spaces with defenders all around him and still deliver accurate throws. He said almost to a quarterback in the NFL, once they feel pressure they immediately adjust their throw. He said Brady has to actually get 'hit' in order to change his delivery, he's oblvious to just pressure.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=wolfeskins;269979]a lot of people choose to dislike tom brady and the pats for the simple fact that they're winners. fact is the pats are a very good team and tom brady is argueably the best qb in the league today. he could go down as one of the best qbs to ever play in the nfl and like someone said earlier, if he retired after this season he would be a first ballot hall of famer.[/quote]

I dislike them because I lived in Boston for 4 years (way before the Pats were good). Massholes suck.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=Defensewins;270200]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.[/quote]

So should the receivers who will inevitably put up two-thousand yard seasons have a * put next to their accomplishment because of the addition of the illegal contact rule?

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=Mattyk72;270087]The Patriots really amaze me, they just find ways to win while Marty and co. seem to find ways to lose.[/quote]


Man isnt that the truth! I mean seriously, the Marty ballers are equally unlucky as the pats are lucky.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=Hail2theskins;269951]Tom brady is very good, but not the sickest QB ive ever seen play, not by a longshot. Peyton Manning for one is a better quarterback than brady and a couple others i think better than brady just in the past decade, elway, marino, farve in his prime to name a few. Hats off to the pats, but they win because of superrior coaching than anything else.[/quote]

what makes Peyton better? He has never won anything in the NFL, the point of a QB is to be a leader and get your team to the superbowl, how many rings does Peyton have? Lets not forget who peyton has played with: Edgerin James,Marvin Harrison,Reggie Wayne,Dallas Clark,Marcus Pollard and many many others over the past five or so years, still no superbowl win. Now on the other hand, lets see who Tom Brady has had during his superbowl wins:Troy Brown,David Patten,Deion Branch,Antowain Smith, Corey Dillon, no where near the talent that has surrounded Peyton and hes still won 3 superbowls and is 12-1 in the playoffs, thats one hell of a Qb, one hell of a leader, and one hell of a champion.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=GiantsSuck703;270244]what makes Peyton better? He has never won anything in the NFL, the point of a QB is to be a leader and get your team to the superbowl, how many rings does Peyton have? Lets not forget who peyton has played with: Edgerin James,Marvin Harrison,Reggie Wayne,Dallas Clark,Marcus Pollard and many many others over the past five or so years, still no superbowl win. Now on the other hand, lets see who Tom Brady has had during his superbowl wins:Troy Brown,David Patten,Deion Branch,Antowain Smith, Corey Dillon, no where near the talent that has surrounded Peyton and hes still won 3 superbowls and is 12-1 in the playoffs, thats one hell of a Qb, one hell of a leader, and one hell of a champion.[/quote]

I ask you to read the progession of the posts rather than read my opener and jump to page 11...

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=Hail2theskins;270253]I ask you to read the progession of the posts rather than read my opener and jump to page 11...[/quote]

why? have you all of a sudden changed your tone? I wonder why

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=GiantsSuck703;270244]what makes Peyton better? He has never won anything in the NFL, the point of a QB is to be a leader and get your team to the superbowl, how many rings does Peyton have? Lets not forget who peyton has played with: Edgerin James,Marvin Harrison,Reggie Wayne,Dallas Clark,Marcus Pollard and many many others over the past five or so years, still no superbowl win. Now on the other hand, lets see who Tom Brady has had during his superbowl wins:Troy Brown,David Patten,Deion Branch,Antowain Smith, Corey Dillon, no where near the talent that has surrounded Peyton and hes still won 3 superbowls and is 12-1 in the playoffs, thats one hell of a Qb, one hell of a leader, and one hell of a champion.[/quote]You conviently ignore defense, the main reason that teams win and lose in the playoffs, and a part of the game that the QB has no control over, while citing offensive skill players, people who are often made by their QB. You then cite wins as your arguement while ignoring both defense AND special teams. Shoddy at best.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=GTripp0012;270268]You conviently ignore defense, the main reason that teams win and lose in the playoffs, and a part of the game that the QB has no control over, while citing offensive skill players, people who are often made by their QB. You then cite wins as your arguement while ignoring both defense AND special teams. Shoddy at best.[/quote]

Are you going to honestly say you haven't done the SAME THING with Manning? I've read all 11 pages and all I have really seen from you is the same thing:

1. "If Manning wins it's because of his talent, just look at his numbers"
2. "If Brady wins it's because of his team, just look at his defense"

Not to mention that you have this theory that playoff preasure doesn't exist. You don't really believe that do you? Yes, it's the same players that suit up every other Sunday, but you have to admit that when Manning stops and thinks, "Hey, wait a minute. I'm not gaurenteed to play next week," he gets a little nervous. They both do, of course. But Brady doesn't show it in his play, Manning does. You can bring up the poor play of Brady yesterday if you want but look how Manning played in Baltimore, much worse. The fact is that Brady (at least more often than not) handles the playoff pressure exponentially better than Manning.

Even though I know it's been said several times before, numbers and stats don't mean anything in the end. Marino would have given up 16 wins for one super bowl. Even though Manning may have fantastic regular season games, he chokes when it counts, end of story.