Tom "Iceman" Brady

[The Huddle]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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