Tom "Iceman" Brady

[MTK]

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

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

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.

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

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?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

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

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.

[Southpaw]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

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 Manning defeats Brady 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?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by jdlea

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?

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?

[The Huddle]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

A 12-1 postseason record in the NFL- the biggest pressure games the sport of football has to offer- says nothing 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 - doesn't help Brady's case? Now I know 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.

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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?

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)

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Southpaw

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 Manning defeats Brady 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?

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 vastly outperformed Brady. Neither of them win. The Patriots win the battle, not Brady.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by The Huddle

A 12-1 postseason record in the NFL- the biggest pressure games the sport of football has to offer- says nothing 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 - doesn't help Brady's case? Now I know 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.

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.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by jdlea

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)

Since Plummer signed with Denver, he has the best win-loss % of any QB over that timeframe. That includes both Brady and Manning.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

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

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

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

Very true, and even more unfortunate.

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by Hail2theskins

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.

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.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

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.

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.