Tom "Iceman" Brady

[TheMalcolmConnection]

I'm sick of freaking Brady. That little pretty boy bitch is due to get smoked soon. I'm so sick of the Pats. They ARE a team where one good player a team makes. A totally mediocre receiving corps that is made good by Brady.

They might as well just let the Pats start the season during the playoffs. It's almost like they have fifteen guys on defense sometimes. They always show up with a bunch of no-names and somehow win games. This sucks for LT, I really wanted this one for him.

The Pats are the last team left I want to lose.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

I'm sick of freaking Brady. That little pretty boy bitch is due to get smoked soon. I'm so sick of the Pats. They ARE a team where one good player a team makes. A totally mediocre receiving corps that is made good by Brady.

They might as well just let the Pats start the season during the playoffs. It's almost like they have fifteen guys on defense sometimes. They always show up with a bunch of no-names and somehow win games. This sucks for LT, I really wanted this one for him.

The Pats are the last team left I want to lose.

I'm with you on this one TMC! I hope Indy knocks the Pats out! I'm going for the Saints.

[squrrelco3]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

I'm sick of freaking Brady. That little pretty boy bitch is due to get smoked soon. I'm so sick of the Pats. They ARE a team where one good player a team makes. A totally mediocre receiving corps that is made good by Brady.

They might as well just let the Pats start the season during the playoffs. It's almost like they have fifteen guys on defense sometimes. They always show up with a bunch of no-names and somehow win games. This sucks for LT, I really wanted this one for him.

The Pats are the last team left I want to lose.

It's hard to argue with performance...take Sunday for instance. He played some of the worst football in his career for 3 and a half quarters and then guess which quarter the SOB shows up for. Say what you want to about him but he's d*mn good at what he does.

[The Huddle]

Originally Posted by squrrelco3

It's hard to argue with performance...take Sunday for instance. He played some of the worst football in his career for 3 and a half quarters and then guess which quarter the SOB shows up for. Say what you want to about him but he's d*mn good at what he does.

Exactly. Because the bottom line is that Brady is The Money Man and that's all there is to it. People can hate him and call him a pretty boy and whatnot- personally I chose to admire his accomplishments although he's on another team - but when the game is on the line there's no other quarterback who can touch him.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by squrrelco3

It's hard to argue with performance...take Sunday for instance. He played some of the worst football in his career for 3 and a half quarters and then guess which quarter the SOB shows up for. Say what you want to about him but he's d*mn good at what he does.

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

On a side note of the hall of fame debate, let's be assured that Tom Brady is a shoe in for the hof, and he rightly should be. People get too caught up in stats and numbers, but when you are leading your team to the Super Bowl almost every single freakin' year, you don't have to have the best stats in the NFL to be considered a future Hall of Famer. With that said, I still hate the New England Patriots and I dislike Brady, the player.

[SouperMeister]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

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

On a side note of the hall of fame debate, let's be assured that Tom Brady is a shoe in for the hof, and he rightly should be. People get too caught up in stats and numbers, but when you are leading your team to the Super Bowl almost every single freakin' year, you don't have to have the best stats in the NFL to be considered a future Hall of Famer. With that said, I still hate the New England Patriots and I dislike Brady, the player.

Brady and Belichik are products of one another - a perfect marriage of clutch QB and great X's and O's coach. Belichik was widely regarded as a D-coordinator in over his head before Brady fell into his lap (thanks no less to a Bledsoe injury). I doubt Belichik wins any of his Super Bowls without Brady since they were all decided by 3 points or less. On another note, both are very fortunate to have had Adam Vinatieri as their kicker. It would be very ironic if the AFC Championship came down to a Vinatieri FG at the gun.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by squrrelco3

It's hard to argue with performance...take Sunday for instance. He played some of the worst football in his career for 3 and a half quarters and then guess which quarter the SOB shows up for. Say what you want to about him but he's d*mn good at what he does.

I don't deny skills, but I cannot even stand to look at his bitch ass. I hate him. I hate him with every part of my soul, almost as much as TO.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

There is only ONE QB I'd take over Brady in a long drive, must score situation: Joe Montana. Neither was/is the best passer of their day, but both of them have the greatest intangible: poise.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

I won't deny though, that it's mainly due to jealousy. Oh, what I WOULDN'T give to have a perennial winner with marginally talented players.

[saden1]

I really use to think Brady was overrated but as time went by I realized he was a great player who carried his offense and had a great defense. IF he goes to another SB and wins it he should be a in the HoF without having to even wait 5 years.

[GTripp0012]

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

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

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

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

When do these guys get their HOF tickets?

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

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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

When do these guys get their HOF tickets?

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

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

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

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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

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

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

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

When do these guys get their HOF tickets?

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

With that said Brady also threw 3 ints which the Chargers did not take advantage of unlike the Pats. If the Chargers won all the bad plays from them would be forgotten and only those three int's is what we would be talking about. Its just the bad plays for the loosing team always looks worse than the winners.Those QB's you named have one SB ring Brady has 3 which is what sets him apart. I guess you can pick a stat guy I'll go with the winner. I also noticed that you left Farve off your list.

[The Huddle]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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

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

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

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

When do these guys get their HOF tickets?

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

"The game chooses it's champion?" What the hell does that mean? Is "the Game" some dark spirit in a cloak that waves a magic wand? A little pixie that appears out of thin air and zaps one team with magic? Why are we even watching the damn game then?

The world isn't fair? Recovering fumbles is luck? Overcoming three interceptions is luck?

BS. Yes, the Pats got some breaks yesterday but if San Diego had been good enough to stop Brady when it mattered then it becomes a moot point.

Winning in the playoffs requires luck, but in the same breath we're supposed to accept the the fact that the Chargers are "the best team in the league" because winning in the regualr season doesn't require luck?

San Diego didn't get it done when it mattered, Brady and the Pats did. That's the end of the story and the way it will be written.

Brady is the best money-time QB in the game and his 12-1 postseason record says it all; it's silly to argue with this.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by The Huddle

"The game chooses it's champion?" What the hell does that mean? Is "the Game" some dark spirit in a cloak that waves a magic wand? A little pixie that appears out of thin air and zaps one team with magic? Why are we even watching the damn game then?

The world isn't fair? Recovering fumbles is luck? Overcoming three interceptions is luck?

BS. Yes, the Pats got some breaks yesterday but if San Diego had been good enough to stop Brady when it mattered then it becomes a moot point.

Winning in the playoffs requires luck, but in the same breath we're supposed to accept the the fact that the Chargers are "the best team in the league" because winning in the regualr season doesn't require luck?

San Diego didn't get it done when it mattered, Brady and the Pats did. That's the end of the story and the way it will be written.

Brady is the best money-time QB in the game and his 12-1 postseason record says it all; it's silly to argue with this.

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.