Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=wolfeskins;271101]why is manning the best ?[/quote]

Because GTripp said so.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=GiantsSuck703;271074]I dont get your argument, your basically saying that no matter how many clutch games Tom Brady has won that in your mind its discredited because his defense helped him win those games, although you then say that its Peyton Mannings defense, not his awful play in big games that has kept him from winning superbowls. Which to me, means your using your extremely obvious bias towards Peyton as your excuse for him being the better player. Your wrong, this isnt a matter of opinion, your just flat out wrong, Tom Brady has won the meaningless games and hes won the important games, hes a gamer and a former sixth round pick who had all the odds against him when he came into the league and basically took it over, hes not the most physically gifted QB, but hes a great leader and will carve up defenses like its nothing, i have seen nothing from Peyton Manning that makes me believe hes better than the 3-time superbowl champion Tom Brady.[/quote]How many clutch games has Tom Brady won? What defines a clutch game? Why am I wasting my time answering a post that contains only stuff I've already responded to?

In my mind, Brady's record is discredited SOME because he has such a great team. This arguement can be easily avoided by keeping all team stats out of it. Record, rings, all of the such. Work with Brady's stats, Brady's history, Brady's resume. If you want to work with outside the box stuff like contract numbers, and even arbitrary stuff like pro bowl apperences (as bad as that is), I can work with that. Compare that to Manning. After all, is that not what we are debating? Comparing Manning's record to Brady's record is like comparing apples to oranges. Very different conditions. Leave the 52 other members of the Pats out of this, and we can move on.

If you want to call him clutch, I'll live, but first:

1) define what makes it a clutch game. How much time is left, how many points are they down, etc...

2) actually show me how this makes him better than Manning.

[QUOTE]i have seen nothing from Peyton Manning that makes me believe hes better than the 3-time superbowl champion Tom Brady.[/QUOTE]

OK. Hows this:

Tom Brady (Career): 1896/3064 61.9% 21564 yards 7.0 yards/attempt 147 TDs 78 INTs QB Rating 88.4

Peyton Manning (Career): 3131/4890 64.0% 37586 yards 7.7 yards/attempt 275 TD 139 INT QB Rating 94.4

Clear advantage Manning.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

if the colts lose on sunday it will prove, once again, that manning cracks under the pressure of big games.
if the colts win then manning will have proved his critics wrong and he will be one step closer to catching brady for the best stat of all....superbowl wins !

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=wolfeskins;271101]why is manning the best ?
is it because of his stats ?[/quote]Yes, his superior analytical mind and skill are reflected in his statistics.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=wolfeskins;271106]if the colts lose on sunday it will prove, once again, that manning cracks under the pressure of big games.
if the colts win then manning will have proved his critics wrong and he will be one step closer to catching brady for the best stat of all....superbowl wins ![/quote]What if Manning doesn't crack, and plays well, but the Colts poor run D returns and Dillion/Maroney/Faulk combine for 250 yards leading a Patriot victory?

Could happen.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

Lol!

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=GTripp0012;271105]
In my mind, Brady's record is discredited SOME because he has such a great team. This arguement can be easily avoided by keeping all team stats out of it. Record, rings, all of the such. .[/quote]


thats just plain stupid. so are we going to throw out some of mannings completions and passing yards and adjust his completion percentage because his recievers are,greatly, better than the patriots recievers. if we keep "all" stats out of it, then how do we determine who's better ? or do you just want to throw out the stats that favor brady ?

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

Yes.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=wolfeskins;271110]thats just plain stupid. so are we going to throw out some of mannings completions and passing yards and adjust his completion percentage because his recievers are,greatly, better than the patriots recievers. if we keep "all" stats out of it, then how do we determine who's better ? or do you just want to throw out the stats that favor brady ?[/quote]That's the thing, NO stats favor Brady. Part of that is Manning's offense, but mostly it's because he's jsut better, plain and simple.

Honestly, how much of a difference do you think his recievers make? How many tackles do Harrison and Wayne break? Probably fewer than Graham and Watson. Can't prove it though.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

You will soon realize you can not use any fact, stat or accomplishment of Bradys that might be better than Mannings.
If you point to the terrible games Manning had in the playoffs, Mr. GTripp0012 will blame the Colts offensive line, defense or the other teams incredible defense. Everyone else is to blame for Mannings terrible playoff performances other than Manning, including the bad NE weather. LOL.

According to Mr. GTripp0012 Manning has never had a bad playoff game. His bad individual performances in the playoffs are everyone elses fault, not Mannings. Manning is a patsie.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=Defensewins;271113]You will soon realize you can not use any fact, stat or accomplishment of Bradys that might be better than Mannings.
If you point to the terrible games Manning had in the playoffs, Mr. GTripp0012 will blame the Colts offensive line, defense or the other teams incredible defense. Everyone else is to blame for Mannings terrible playoff performances other than Manning.[/quote]But what in gods name does Brady do better than Manning. IMO, he moves around better in the pocket. That's it.

The reason this is such a dead end arguement for the Brady guys is because theres absolutely ZERO evidence that Brady does even one thing better than Manning. He doesn't complete more passes. He doesn't get more yards, he doesn't get more TD's.

His offenses score significantly less (this is a team stat, so you may dismiss this arguement as a product of his offensive unit, although Manning has significantly more control of this unit than Brady does over the final outcome of games).

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=GTripp0012;271112]That's the thing, NO stats favor Brady. Part of that is Manning's offense, but mostly it's because he's jsut better, plain and simple.[/quote]


i don't understand your logic, maybe it's just me but you seem to want to discredit brady's stats, and yes there are plenty of stat in his favor, you choose to call them "team stats" but yet you want to give all credit to manning for his completions and his passing yardage and his qb rating when you know very well just as much credit should be given to his recievers.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=GTripp0012;271114]But what in gods name does Brady do better than Manning. IMO, he moves around better in the pocket. That's it.[/quote]

He throws the ball to the players that are actually on his own team in the playoffs better.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=wilsowilso;271116]He throws the ball to the players that are actually on his own team in the playoffs better.[/quote]Does he? I think its pretty equal, ESPN posted the stats yesterday.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=wolfeskins;271115]i don't understand your logic, maybe it's just me but you seem to want to discredit brady's stats, and yes there are plenty of stat in his favor, you choose to call them "team stats" but yet you want to give all credit to manning for his completions and his passing yardage and his qb rating when you know very well just as much credit should be given to his recievers.[/quote]But WHY should I see those team stats as anything more than having a superior team (as his team is quite obviously superior, evidenced by the wins)? What's your reasoning that they SHOULDN'T be discredited in a debate about individual players, not teams? Every other piece of evidence says that Manning outplays Brady. So why all of a sudden does Brady get more credit for doing less?

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=GTripp0012;271118]But WHY should I see those team stats as anything more than having a superior team? What's your reasoning that they SHOULDN'T be discredited in a debate about individual players, not teams? Every other piece of evidence says that Manning outplays Brady. So why all of a sudden does Brady get more credit for doing less?[/quote]

but isn't it reasonable for manning to have better stats in certain areas because he has superior recievers ? when you say "superior team" are you speaking of offense , defense or both because it is debatable as to which team has had the best offense over the past few seasons.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=wolfeskins;271120]but isn't it reasonable for manning to have better stats in certain areas because he has superior recievers ? when you say "superior team" are you speaking of offense , defense or both because it is debatable as to which team has had the best offense over the past few seasons.[/quote]Yes, its very reasonable to say that Manning's stats are improved by his offensive teammates. But I don't think it comes close to explaining the massive distance he continues to put between himself and Brady year after year. There's a small minute possibility that if Harrison and Wayne are the two greatest recievers ever, that it may explain the enitre gap in production.

I don't buy it. Harrison and Wayne don't help Manning out after the catch nearly as much as Santana does for us. Is Joseph Addai really a better runner than Dillion or Maroney? For that matter, was Edgerrin James really that much better? He hasn't been so hot in Arizona.

Players who leave Indy's offense traditionally don't have success other places. Who could blame them?

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=wolfeskins;271066]there is a poll question on redskins.com that asks "if you were a GM starting a team who would be your pick at qb"

choices are brady, manning, breeze and grossman

brady is leading with 55.3 %
manning is 2nd with 29.6 %[/quote]

over 55 % of skins fans can't be wrong :)

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

Superior team refers to the offense, the defense, and special team. Superior team means if the teams played 100 times on a neutral field, I believe that the team I deem superior would win significantly more times than it lost.

If their stats were close, I wouldn't bother arguing it. My beliefe is that Manning is SO much better that it would be foolish to say otherwise. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, or even the majority. But I do want to see people who think Brady is the leagues best QB defend him with evidence that says he's the leagues best QB, not that he's a winner or clutch. If you say that, you havent said anything. Jake Plummer's a guy who is both a winner and clutch. There's a bunch of guys in the league who I'd rather have than Plummer. We have two on our team right now.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=GTripp0012;271123]Superior team refers to the offense, the defense, and special team. Superior team means if the teams played 100 times on a neutral field, I believe that the team I deem superior would win significantly more times than it lost.[/quote]

i'd say they were probably close overall over the last few seasons
just from what i remember i'd give an edge to the colts on offense,an edge to the pats on defense and sp.teams was pretty much even until the post season.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;271114]....The reason this is such a dead end arguement for the Brady guys is because theres absolutely ZERO evidence that Brady does even one thing better than Manning. ...[/QUOTE]

There is a ton evidence. The problem is you create some lame excuse to dismiss any factual evidence that proves Brady is as good or better Qb in certain catagories. Look Manning is ONE of the great QB.

Do not take this the wrong way, but you are 18 y.o.; believe it or not there are QB's like Joe Montana, Terry Bradshaw, Roger Staubach, Sammie Baugh, John Elway and Steve Young that have combined AWESOME TALENT and winning MULTIPLE (more than one) big games (super bowls). Tom Brady is closer to these all time greats then Manning or Dan Marino is.

You will soon realize America and the World likes a winner and Manning is not YET a winner. NOBODY remembers who came in second place.
Manning will be a winner some day. He is not yet there.
That is what seperates the great players from the all-time greats.
Dan Marino, Dan Fouts, Warren Moon , Fran Tarkenton, Archie Manning (peyton's dad) are players that fall in the same catagory as Peyton Manning, Great/Awesome Hall of Fame talent but never won the big games.

20 or 30 years form now your kids will watch old NFL Films of the 80's, 90's, and 2000's and they see a limited amount of a great Dan Marino, but they see a ton of 3 time SB Champ Tom Brady.
Winning is what seperates the good from the great.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=wolfeskins;271125]i'd say they were probably close overall over the last few seasons
just from what i remember i'd give an edge to the colts on offense,an edge to the pats on defense and sp.teams was pretty much even until the post season.[/quote]Last year, I'd agree that the Colts had a better team than NE. They both lost pretty bad in the same round in the playoffs.

Every year before that, I'm sure most people would agree with me that the Pats were the better team.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=Defensewins;271126]There is a ton evidence. The problem is you create some lame excuse to dismiss any factual evidence that proves Brady is as good or better Qb in certain catagories. Look Manning is ONE of the great QB.

Do not take this the wrong way, but you are 18 y.o.; believe it or not there are QB's like Joe Montana, Terry Bradshaw, Roger Staubach, Sammie Baugh, John Elway and Steve Young that have combined AWESOME TALENT and winning MULTIPLE (more than one) big games (super bowls). Tom Brady is closer to these all time greats then Manning or Dan Marino is.

You will soon realize America and the World likes a winner and Manning is not YET a winner. NOBODY remembers who came in second place.
Manning will be a winner some day. He is not yet there.
That is what seperates the great players from the all-time greats.
Dan Marino, Dan Fouts, Warren Moon , Fran Tarkenton, Archie Manning (peyton's dad) are players that fall in the same catagory as Peyton Manning, Great/Awesome Hall of Fame talent but never won the big games.

20 or 30 years form now your kids will watch old NFL Films of the 80's, 90's, and 2000's and they see a limited amount of a great Dan Marino, but they see a ton of 3 time SB Champ Tom Brady.
Winning is what seperates the good from the great.[/quote]Every quarterback you listed there was a truely great player. Anyone that doesn't clump Marino in there with those guys is making a big mistake.

Marino was never a champion, and I'm sure he regrets that, but he was a [U]great[/U] Quarterback. When you talk about all time greatest QBs, Marino has to be right up there ahead of some guys who were Champions.

For my money, Elway was the greatest ever. I wasn't impressed as much about his two championships (the Broncos were over the cap both years, and the league office never caught it til 2003 when they took away some midround draft picks), as I was with the fact they came at the end of his career where he was still playing at a very high level.

I believe Peyton Manning could one day be the greatest ever. If he retired tomorrow, I'd place him short of the top 5, but in the top 10.

I don't think you are trying to say America won't remember Marino, but I'm certain they will. The guy's a hall of famer. Guys like Moon, and Archie, and Fran Tarkenton, were very very good players, but didn't do as much stat wise in this league as the all time greats. Brady is on pace to be greater, IMO, then these guys. He has to do it longer than 6 years, he will be up there, probably in the top 5 ever. Will he be greater than Montana or Young? Not sure, he might be. Manning almost certainly will be if the Colts don't fall off the map.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=GTripp0012;271099]See, the arguement that Manning's offensive mates are a reason why his stats look so much better than Brady's is a completely valid argument, but no one has put foward much of an arguement along those lines for me to respond to yet. Nobody has looked at Manning's numbers vs. Brady's numbers and shown me that they are at least comprable (I believe while Brady has very solid numbers, Manning is just on a different level). If someone had done that this arguement wouldn't be so silly right now. The statement, "Manning's offense is better" is a blanket statement. That doesn't mean that Brady is automatically better. Brady has a better offense than Aaron Brooks, and surely Brooks isn't better, but by your logic he would be. Use stats, or other evidence to make a case.

"Meanwhile, the fact that the Pats are 12-1 in the playoffs with Brady says nothing about Brady." Exactly. You might be learning. It certainly doesn't hurt him, but that says nothing about Tom Brady's role in those 13 games. Actually, Brady's played pretty well in most of those games, but none of you have brought that up yet. You've just thrown the record figure out there with no subsequent arguement.

It's not really about Manning's team and Brady's team at all. You've made it that way. Here's how I would state my view.

Tom Brady is a very good NFL QB.
Manning is the best Quarterback on the planet.

And those 2/3 are the Matt Millen's of the world who will be out of a job in 5 years. Because if they can't see something as obvious as Manning>Brady (all hard evidence points this way), how can they be expected to select the best talent at OTHER positions where the evidence is less clear?[/quote]

I "might be learning"? That's rich. Thanks.

I'll throw this out there: without Brady, the Patriots don't come close to that 12-1 playoff record.

I've actually stated my admiration of Manning several times in this thread, but at this point I feel compelled to add that if he is truly as superior to Brady as you claim, it's increasingly puzzling how the Colts have failed to win a Super Bowl with him at the controls considering some of the talent they've had on hand. Teams with mind-blowing offenses and mediocre defenses have made it to the Big Dance numerous times- but not "The Best Quatreback on the Planet" and his Colts.

Until I see Manning lift his team to the next level in a title game, I will continue to believe that Brady is ultimately the better quarterback because [I]to me[/I] it's all about leading your team over the hump in clutch time (again, I realize you object to terms like "clutch" but I will continue to use them as I think most fans know exactly what I am talking about, even if they do not agree with my assessment of Brady), not setting individual records. Manning has a great arm and puts up great numbers, but I am not yet convinced that he is a pressure quaterback the caliber of Brady.
I think pressure adversely affects him, and I thought the same thing when he was at Tennessee. He now has a chance to make some progress in that area this weekend (actually, I feel like the Colts are just flat out due, but that's just a gut feeling). I would be interested in resuming this conversation when Manning has at least gotten his team into a Super Bowl game.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=The Huddle;271135]I'll throw this out there: without Brady, the Patriots don't come close to that 12-1 playoff record.[/quote]Well, I guess that depends on who was QBing them instead. Assuming you mean the average NFL backup, I completely and utterly agree with you on this point. And so does the rest of the world.

[quote]I've actually stated my admiration of Manning several times in this thread, but at this point I feel compelled to add that if he is truly as superior to Brady as you claim, it's increasingly puzzling how the Colts have failed to win a Super Bowl with him at the controls considering some of the talent they've had on hand. Teams with mind-blowing offenses and mediocre defenses have made it to the Big Dance numerous times- but not "The Best Quatreback on the Planet" and his Colts.[/quote]It's hardly mind blowing. From the top down, the Patriots are a more structurally sound organization than the Colts. Their teams have more depth on both sides of the ball. They can afford to let defensive players walk, and replace them. The Colts simply can't afford to let their players walk and stay competitive. The Patriots seem to be the more soundly coached team, though I'm tired of people kissing Belichicks ass for winning with the best team.

4 out of the last 5 years the Colts defense has been in 2006 Redskins territory. They are undersized. For one year in 2005, teams tried throwing more then they ran against the Colts, and it didn't work. Consequently, that's the one year since 2003 that the Colts have had a better team than the Pats. Every other year, opponents pretty much just run it down the throats of the Colts, and it's up to Peyton to go out and outscore the opponent. That can work in the regular season vs. some crappy defenses, but when you go on the road in the playoffs and play a string of great defensive teams, the Colts offense gets lambasted. The offensive line, recievers, backs, Manning, everyone. Put quite simply, they get beaten by a better team. Rarely does Brady have to play a better team, he lost to Denver last year, he played bad last week in a win against SD, against Oakland in 2001 he did nothing for 3.5 quarters only to obviously turn the ball over on a possible game saving drive...later to have the call overturned on a rule no one knew prior to that. Brady pretty much suffers from all the things Manning does in the playoffs in the rare occasion he has to play a superior team. Their performance in those games are very similar, except Manning has to play those games more often because historically, his team hasn't been quite as good.

[quote]Until I see Manning lift his team to the next level in a title game, I will continue to believe that Brady is ultimately the better quarterback because [I]to me[/I] it's all about leading your team over the hump in clutch time (again, I realize you object to terms like "clutch" but I will continue to use them as I think most fans know exactly what I am talking about, even if they do not agree with my assessment of Brady), not setting individual records. Manning has a great arm and puts up great numbers, but I am not yet convinced that he is a pressure quaterback the caliber of Brady.
I think pressure adversely affects him, and I thought the same thing when he was at Tennessee. He now has a chance to make some progress in that area this weekend (actually, I feel like the Colts are just flat out due, but that's just a gut feeling). I would be interested in resuming this conversation when Manning has at least gotten his team into a Super Bowl game. [/quote]As far as your opinion goes, you're more than welcome to it. But you are posting it in a public forum for many to see. I don't think you're arguement accurately answers the question who is better, so I take it as my duty to put my opinion out there to make sure that the "he just wins" theroy stops here. My problem isn't that people think Brady is better, it's that their reasoning is shoddy. If people truly think that rings and abstract ideas are more predictive of future performance than past performance, I cannot change their opinion. We haven't seen enough of the playoffs to really know if Brady's game elevates while Manning's drops. Brady's done better so far, but what's to say that winning 12 games as opposed to 6 isn't just luck? Probably is more than luck, but we don't know that. It's just a very, very small sample size. What we do know is that in non-playoff exclusive arguements, Manning is the better player. We know that all QBs tend to struggle in underdog situations, and Brady is no exception. The Patriots have done a great job in the playoffs, and the Colts a mediocre job, but mindlessly attributing that discrepency to QB play with no further evidence is nothing short of poor judgement.

I disagree that its all about leading a team over the hump in clutch time. I think its about consistent play from kickoff to final wistle. Comebacks are every bit as much luck as skill. Dominating an opponent is pretty much all about skill.

Playing under pressure is an abstract idea. There might be something there...might not. Tough to discredit a guy for not being a good pressure player when we aren't sure what effect it has on the game. One thing is for sure: the sports media makes it out to be a bigger deal than it is.

I disagree that most fans actually know what clutch is, as much as they might think they do. I doubt that you can actually explain it to me. I think it's an accepted term used in sports that people dont really understand. It's got mystique because people don't understand it. And if people don't understand it, how can one guy be better at it than another? Just because a guy on TV uses a word doesn't means he knows what it means. Can he define it? I can't.

Individual records mean nothing. It's certain statistics that matter. Past performance can predict future performance. That's the major idea. Past rings can't predict future rings, otherwise the Colts shouldn't even show up this week. Past wins can't predict future wins. I'm more interested in how a team won, then the fact that they won (unless of course, its the Redskins). I don't really care that the Pats won three championships because I'm not a Pats fan. I do care how they did it, because if I see a similar line of behavior in another team, I know that what they are doing is conducive to success.

If team A has Peyton Manning, then overall they would be better off then if team A had Tom Brady. Team A would have a great QB situation either way (in many cases the difference is negligible. Sometimes, it can be decisive), but they are better with Manning. You don't have to agree, but thats the bottom line.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=wilsowilso;271116]He throws the ball to the players that are actually on his own team in the playoffs better.[/quote]

awesome, this one definately made me laugh

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[I][quote=GTripp0012;271139]Well, I guess that depends on who was QBing them instead. Assuming you mean the average NFL backup, I completely and utterly agree with you on this point. And so does the rest of the world.[/I]

[I]It's hardly mind blowing. From the top down, the Patriots are a more structurally sound organization than the Colts. Their teams have more depth on both sides of the ball. They can afford to let defensive players walk, and replace them. The Colts simply can't afford to let their players walk and stay competitive. The Patriots seem to be the more soundly coached team, though I'm tired of people kissing Belichicks ass for winning with the best team.[/I]


Why dont you ask Peyton Manning why they cant afford to replace any of there players they lose, I bet hell give you 100 million reasons. I dont know why you keep arguing for a guy that has inflated stats on his record and really nothing more, no significant playoff wins, no Superbowl wins. Look Peyton is a great player, no doubt, but the purpose of a QB is to lead his team to championships, Tom does Peyton Doesnt. You keep ranting and raving about how Tom Brady played on better teams than Peyton Manning, yet the Colts have clearly had more talent every year. Would you like to know why the Patriots had better teams than the Colts, Talent aside, because they had a true leader, a guy to rally the troops, someone who doesnt buckle under pressure, Tom Brady. He makes them a better team, because all of the players on the Patriots are willing to put there own physical health at risk to protect him, and thats why Tom Brady is a better QB, Peyton Manning can have all the statistics in the world in his favor, but at the end of the day, Tom Brady still remains the better team player, and out of the two hes the only true champ.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

One more point:

2002 NE was a better team (better ranked) than 2001 NE in all three phases of the game; offense, defense, and special teams...thus a bettter football team. However, 2001 NE won the super bowl, and 2002 NE missed the playoffs.

A last place schedule, a tuck rule, and the Steelers and Rams, teams far better than the Patriots, both laying respective eggs in championship games was all it took to turn Tom Brady into a legend.

Maybe Manning IS due this year.

Disclaimer: The 2003 Patriots and 2004 Patriots were both the leagues' best teams in their respective years. Both teams were most deserving of a Championship. All I'm saying is that the 2001 Patriots were lucky SOBs. The same source that has the 03 and 04 Pats as the leagues best team has 01 NE as the leagues 12th best team.

Source: Football Outsiders

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=GiantsSuck703;271141]Why dont you ask Peyton Manning why they cant afford to replace any of there players they lose, I bet hell give you 100 million reasons. I dont know why you keep arguing for a guy that has inflated stats on his record and really nothing more, no significant playoff wins, no Superbowl wins. Look Peyton is a great player, no doubt, but the purpose of a QB is to lead his team to championships, Tom does Peyton Doesnt. You keep ranting and raving about how Tom Brady played on better teams than Peyton Manning, yet the Colts have clearly had more talent every year. Would you like to know why the Patriots had better teams than the Colts, Talent aside, because they had a true leader, a guy to rally the troops, someone who doesnt buckle under pressure, Tom Brady. He makes them a better team, because all of the players on the Patriots are willing to put there own physical health at risk to protect him, and thats why Tom Brady is a better QB, Peyton Manning can have all the statistics in the world in his favor, but at the end of the day, Tom Brady still remains the better team player, and out of the two hes the only true champ.[/quote]You've responded to me three times and have said exactly the same thing every time. Try ingenuity. Or some light research. Either or.

What makes Tom Brady a better leader???? You obviously have inside information that the rest of us don't. Be a doll and share it.

What is your source that the Colts had more talent than the Pats?

Here's mine:
[URL="http://www.footballoutsiders.com/"]FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Football analysis and NFL stats for the Moneyball era - Authors of Pro Football Prospectus 2006 and 2005[/URL]

OR

[URL="http://www.nfl.com/stats"]NFL.com - NFL Stats[/URL]

At least guys like The Huddle or defensewins or wolfeskins are trying to back up their opinions, I just find you ignorant so far. I implore you to prove me wrong.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=wolfeskins;271066]there is a poll question on redskins.com that asks "if you were a GM starting a team who would be your pick at qb"

choices are brady, manning, breeze and grossman

brady is leading with 55.3 %
manning is 2nd with 29.6 %[/quote]


over 8000 votes and brady still has a comanding lead.:tongue

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=wolfeskins;271175]over 8000 votes and brady still has a comanding lead.:tongue[/quote]Behold the power of mass media!

Theres a reason polls aren't scientific.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=GTripp0012;271186]Behold the power of mass media!

Theres a reason polls aren't scientific.[/quote]

There is a reason that you are in the minority on this one. Just because you fail to see why doesn't make it any less significant.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=GTripp0012;271143]You've responded to me three times and have said exactly the same thing every time. Try ingenuity. Or some light research. Either or.

What makes Tom Brady a better leader???? You obviously have inside information that the rest of us don't. Be a doll and share it.

What is your source that the Colts had more talent than the Pats?

Here's mine:
[URL="http://www.footballoutsiders.com/"]FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Football analysis and NFL stats for the Moneyball era - Authors of Pro Football Prospectus 2006 and 2005[/URL]

OR

[URL="http://www.nfl.com/stats"]NFL.com - NFL Stats[/URL]

At least guys like The Huddle or defensewins or wolfeskins are trying to back up their opinions, I just find you ignorant so far. I implore you to prove me wrong.[/quote]


Whats my source that the Colts had more talent than the patriots through the years:

Troy Brown vs. Marvin Harrison
Deion Branch vs. Reggie Wayne
Edgerin James vs. Antowain Smith
Marcus Pollard vs. Daniel Graham

ITs possible to go on and on with the individuals that were better on the colts, that were more talented physically. But everytime I tell you this, you say that it wasnt true and that no matter what Brady still had more talent on his side. The problem is you really dont understand football, its obvious in the fact that you keep arguing for a guy that has choked in every big game he has been in, you get caught up to much in stats. Let me put it to you like this, Michael Vick rushed for over 1000 yards this season, something no QB has ever done, does that make him the greatest of all time? of course not, stop looking at stats and pay attention to the more important things, like championships

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=GiantsSuck703;271205]Whats my source that the Colts had more talent than the patriots through the years:

Troy Brown vs. Marvin Harrison
Deion Branch vs. Reggie Wayne
Edgerin James vs. Antowain Smith
Marcus Pollard vs. Daniel Graham

ITs possible to go on and on with the individuals that were better on the colts, that were more talented physically. But everytime I tell you this, you say that it wasnt true and that no matter what Brady still had more talent on his side. The problem is you really dont understand football, its obvious in the fact that you keep arguing for a guy that has choked in every big game he has been in, you get caught up to much in stats. Let me put it to you like this, Michael Vick rushed for over 1000 yards this season, something no QB has ever done, does that make him the greatest of all time? of course not, stop looking at stats and pay attention to the more important things, like championships[/quote]Well, you kinda sorta almost got some facts in there. And your comment about Vick's rushing has some semblance of an arguement...almost.

You are very, very far behind in this debate. You seem to me to be the kind of guy who would post on the cbssportsline boards, and I'm guessing you are either 14 or 15. Not that it matters much, I'm pretty young myself, but you should probably stop trying to "teach" me lessons, and sit back and do some reading yourself. Since you have nothing to add, I think you can learn a lot from reading what the rest of us have to say. We've all been around this sport awhile, and can understand why teams really win and lose. I suggest you look into it.

Not trying to downright disrespect you, but you just come off as a very narrow minded, irritable individual. Maybe you aren't, but all I can judge you on is your post. And from your posts, I can tell you flat out that you are too close minded when it comes to football to possibly understand my arguement. I'm not really a smart person, I just can seperate fact from fiction.

Anyway you forgot these guys:

Tedy Bruschi vs. Rob Morris
Mike Vrabel vs Cato June
Ty Law/Asante Samuel vs. Nick Harper
Rodney Harrison vs. Bob Sanders
Richard Seymour vs. Dwight Freeney
Vince Wilfork vs Raheem Brock

Adam Vinatieri vs Mike Vanderjagt

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=GTripp0012;271139]Well, I guess that depends on who was QBing them instead. Assuming you mean the average NFL backup, I completely and utterly agree with you on this point. And so does the rest of the world.

It's hardly mind blowing. From the top down, the Patriots are a more structurally sound organization than the Colts. Their teams have more depth on both sides of the ball. They can afford to let defensive players walk, and replace them. The Colts simply can't afford to let their players walk and stay competitive. The Patriots seem to be the more soundly coached team, though I'm tired of people kissing Belichicks ass for winning with the best team.

4 out of the last 5 years the Colts defense has been in 2006 Redskins territory. They are undersized. For one year in 2005, teams tried throwing more then they ran against the Colts, and it didn't work. Consequently, that's the one year since 2003 that the Colts have had a better team than the Pats. Every other year, opponents pretty much just run it down the throats of the Colts, and it's up to Peyton to go out and outscore the opponent. That can work in the regular season vs. some crappy defenses, but when you go on the road in the playoffs and play a string of great defensive teams, the Colts offense gets lambasted. The offensive line, recievers, backs, Manning, everyone. Put quite simply, they get beaten by a better team. Rarely does Brady have to play a better team, he lost to Denver last year, he played bad last week in a win against SD, against Oakland in 2001 he did nothing for 3.5 quarters only to obviously turn the ball over on a possible game saving drive...later to have the call overturned on a rule no one knew prior to that. Brady pretty much suffers from all the things Manning does in the playoffs in the rare occasion he has to play a superior team. Their performance in those games are very similar, except Manning has to play those games more often because historically, his team hasn't been quite as good.

As far as your opinion goes, you're more than welcome to it. But you are posting it in a public forum for many to see. I don't think you're arguement accurately answers the question who is better, so I take it as my duty to put my opinion out there to make sure that the "he just wins" theroy stops here. My problem isn't that people think Brady is better, it's that their reasoning is shoddy. If people truly think that rings and abstract ideas are more predictive of future performance than past performance, I cannot change their opinion. We haven't seen enough of the playoffs to really know if Brady's game elevates while Manning's drops. Brady's done better so far, but what's to say that winning 12 games as opposed to 6 isn't just luck? Probably is more than luck, but we don't know that. It's just a very, very small sample size. What we do know is that in non-playoff exclusive arguements, Manning is the better player. We know that all QBs tend to struggle in underdog situations, and Brady is no exception. The Patriots have done a great job in the playoffs, and the Colts a mediocre job, but mindlessly attributing that discrepency to QB play with no further evidence is nothing short of poor judgement.

I disagree that its all about leading a team over the hump in clutch time. I think its about consistent play from kickoff to final wistle. Comebacks are every bit as much luck as skill. Dominating an opponent is pretty much all about skill.

Playing under pressure is an abstract idea. There might be something there...might not. Tough to discredit a guy for not being a good pressure player when we aren't sure what effect it has on the game. One thing is for sure: the sports media makes it out to be a bigger deal than it is.

I disagree that most fans actually know what clutch is, as much as they might think they do. I doubt that you can actually explain it to me. I think it's an accepted term used in sports that people dont really understand. It's got mystique because people don't understand it. And if people don't understand it, how can one guy be better at it than another? Just because a guy on TV uses a word doesn't means he knows what it means. Can he define it? I can't.

Individual records mean nothing. It's certain statistics that matter. Past performance can predict future performance. That's the major idea. Past rings can't predict future rings, otherwise the Colts shouldn't even show up this week. Past wins can't predict future wins. I'm more interested in how a team won, then the fact that they won (unless of course, its the Redskins). I don't really care that the Pats won three championships because I'm not a Pats fan. I do care how they did it, because if I see a similar line of behavior in another team, I know that what they are doing is conducive to success.

If team A has Peyton Manning, then overall they would be better off then if team A had Tom Brady. Team A would have a great QB situation either way (in many cases the difference is negligible. Sometimes, it can be decisive), but they are better with Manning. You don't have to agree, but thats the bottom line.[/quote]

Thank you for telling me what I already know- that I'm entitled to my opinion. You can't imagine the relief on this end. I had begun to fear that perhaps my failure to "learn" was going to get my yard priviledges yanked.

If you feel it is your duty to disagree with me, wonderful- I welcome it. However, I would caution that if you honestly think you are capable of "stopping" the 'he just wins' theory- or of "stopping" any school of thought anywhere about anything for that matter -well, I'm afraid you're simply dellusional. Like the rest of us (including me), you're just a fan having fun spouting off in an insignificant corner of cyberspace- nothing more. You have no effective connection to the teams, players, or events in question.

Once again, you are completey dismissive of the whole idea that it's ultimately about getting it done in the clutch- i.e., getting it done under pressure. This is not suprising, as it has been cited numerous times int his thread and elsewhere that this is where your beloved Mr. Manning is the weakest.

You can disagree all you want to that this is an abstract idea that no one really understands, but as I watched a recap of the 1981 NFC title game (January of '82) between the 49ers and Cowboys, Bill Walsh refered several times to Joe Montana's ability to "perform under pressure"- i.e., in the clutch. The fact that Walsh, a Hall of Fame coach, not only grasps the concept but cites it as Monatna's single greatest strength not only means that he feels there must be others out there who understand it as well, but also pretty much obliterates your insistance that this is a meaningless concept (in that I think most folks are going to defer to Walsh over you when it comes to pontificating on this game- no offense).

I do agree with your statement that "I doubt you could explain it to me", but that says more about you than the concept. All you're really saying is that since you can't understand it, no one can.

If, as you say, "Individual records mean nothing...It's certain statistics that matter," I can only imagine that you feel you are exactly the sort of individual who should determine just what those "certain" statistics are. What's also suprising is that it's the passing numbers, the individual statistics, that provide the only real backbone to the "Manning is the best quaterback on the planet" case you've been trying to make.

And again, with the comment that "comebacks are every bit as much luck as skill", you have reverted to your well-worn tactic of attributing Brady's success to the inexplicable intervention of some voodoo-like football shaman somewhere. Amazing.

No, the real "bottom line" is that just because you make a blanket statement that Team A would be better off with Manning than Brady doesn't make it so. In fact, if Team A were getting ready to take the field in a Super Bowl game, it's virtually impossible to see them not going with a 2-time Super Bowl MVP- a "been there, done that" quaterback with a history if [I]getting it done in the clutch[/I] - over any other active quarterback. Sorry, that's just the way it is.


PS- "The Patriots seem to be the more soundly coached team, though I'm tired of people kissing Belichicks ass for winning with the best team."

What exactly are you trying to say here? Isn't he part of what makes them the best team, if in fact that's what they are? Should they be kissing his ass for [I]losing[/I] with the best team? [I]Kicking[/I] his ass for winning with the [I]worst[/I] team?

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

The bottom line is that Gtripp values stats over wins, he was probably a HUGE Brunell fan!

Too bad the NFL isn't a giant game of fantasy football, ONLY then would I pick Manning over Brady.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=The Huddle;271226]Thank you for telling me what I already know- that I'm entitled to my opinion. You can't imagine the relief on this end. I had begun to fear that perhaps my failure to "learn" was going to get my yard priviledges yanked.

If you feel it is your duty to disagree with me, wonderful- I welcome it. However, I would caution that if you honestly think you are capable of "stopping" the 'he just wins' theory- or of "stopping" any school of thought anywhere about anything for that matter -well, I'm afraid you're simply dellusional. Like the rest of us (including me), you're just a fan having fun spouting off in an insignificant corner of cyberspace- nothing more. You have no effective connection to the teams, players, or events in question.

Once again, you are completey dismissive of the whole idea that it's ultimately about getting it done in the clutch- i.e., getting it done under pressure. This is not suprising, as it has been cited numerous times int his thread and elsewhere that this is where your beloved Mr. Manning is the weakest.

You can disagree all you want to that this is an abstract idea that no one really understands, but as I watched a recap of the 1981 NFC title game (January of '82) between the 49ers and Cowboys, Bill Walsh refered several times to Joe Montana's ability to "perform under pressure"- i.e., in the clutch. The fact that Walsh, a Hall of Fame coach, not only grasps the concept but cites it as Monatna's single greatest strength not only means that he feels there must be others out there who understand it as well, but also pretty much obliterates your insistance that this is a meaningless concept (in that I think most folks are going to defer to Walsh over you when it comes to pontificating on this game- no offense).

I do agree with your statement that "I doubt you could explain it to me", but that says more about you than the concept. All you're really saying is that since you can't understand it, no one can.

If, as you say, "Individual records mean nothing...It's certain statistics that matter," I can only imagine that you feel you are exactly the sort of individual who should determine just what those "certain" statistics are. What's also suprising is that it's the passing numbers, the individual statistics, that provide the only real backbone to the "Manning is the best quaterback on the planet" case you've been trying to make.

And again, with the comment that "comebacks are every bit as much luck as skill", you have reverted to your well-worn tactic of attributing Brady's success to the inexplicable intervention of some voodoo-like football shaman somewhere. Amazing.

No, the real "bottom line" is that just because you make a blanket statement that Team A would be better off with Manning than Brady doesn't make it so. In fact, if Team A were getting ready to take the field in a Super Bowl game, it's virtually impossible to see them not going with a 2-time Super Bowl MVP- a "been there, done that" quaterback with a history if [I]getting it done in the clutch[/I] - over any other active quarterback. Sorry, that's just the way it is.


PS- "The Patriots seem to be the more soundly coached team, though I'm tired of people kissing Belichicks ass for winning with the best team."

What exactly are you trying to say here? Isn't he part of what makes them the best team, if in fact that's what they are? Should they be kissing his ass for [I]losing[/I] with the best team? [I]Kicking[/I] his ass for winning with the [I]worst[/I] team?[/quote]Luck obviously plays a big outcome in the game. Seriously ask anyone. Not even joking. A bunch of things can be controlled by no player or coach.

Every term you use can be defined by you. You don't need someone to do it for you. This is your arguement, not someone elses. Just say "clutch refers to all situations in which a QB leads his team from behind to win with 5 mins remaining or less on the clock" or even simpler "clutch=the NFL definition of 4th Quarter/Overtime game winning drives". It's simple, just don't be making assumptions. Once you actually define your terms, you can see who is more clutch, or who performes better under pressure. You may find yourself correct, or dead wrong, but at least you'll know.

If your definition is "clutch=winning playoff games", thats fine, but then clutch is obviously team dependant. In that case it would say little about Brady.

In the regular season there are about 150 starts for Manning and about 100 starts for Brady. In the playoffs there are 13 starts for Brady and 11 for Manning. You can see which season will produce sounder results.

If you look at the playoffs seperate from the regular season, you'll have a tough time proving anything about the playoffs. Theres just not enough games to work with.

You're a pretty intelligent person, I'm sure none of this is too much for you. Just a little research, thats all.

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=LMsexyAO;271234]The bottom line is that Gtripp values stats over wins, he was probably a HUGE Brunell fan!

Too bad the NFL isn't a giant game of fantasy football, ONLY then would I pick Manning over Brady.[/quote]For the last freakin time, its not about stats vs. wins. It's about using information available to us to predict wins.

If its about wins, why are we talking about individual players anyway.

Brunell was 3-6 (.333), to Campbell's 2-5 (.286). Seems to me that whether valuing stats OR wins, Brunell led in both.
:smashfrea

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=wilsowilso;271204]There is a reason that you are in the minority on this one. Just because you fail to see why doesn't make it any less significant.[/quote]What makes it less significant is ITS A FREAKIN POLL!!!

Re: Tom "Iceman" Brady
 

[quote=GTripp0012;271236]
If your definition is "clutch=winning playoff games", thats fine, but then clutch is obviously team dependant. In that case it would say little about Brady.
quote]

I don't have time to reply to all of this at the moment, but I do want to point this out: either it's [I]all [/I]team dependent- stats, wins, interceptions, etc. - or none of it is. With a supporting cast of 10 on every snap, you can't very well pick and choose what's team dependent and what isn't. One of the biggest problems I've had with your postion since the begining is that you seem to swing beak and fourth between (and I'm paraphrasing) "it's all about the team" (explaining points favoring Brady) and "it's all about individual dominance" (explaining the points favorable to Manning) as it suits you.

Or, put another way, Manning's passing yardage says as much or more about the Indianapolis recievers during his career as it does about Manning as a quarterback...