Tom "Iceman" Brady

[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.

[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.

[The Huddle]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Ask a Dolphins fan if they would want Marino's state or Brady's SB wins. I bet about 99% pick the SB wins.

No joke. I'll never knock Marino; he's a legend for a reason. However if I have to pick between the two to win a single playoff or championship game, it's Brady every time. 12-1 lifetime in the postseason says it all.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by The Huddle

No joke. I'll never knock Marino; he's a legend for a reason. However if I have to pick between the two to win a single playoff or championship game, it's Brady every time. 12-1 lifetime in the postseason says it all.

Out of that 12-1 record, how many of those games were games that the Patriots wouldn't have won with some average QB? Maybe 3-4 tops. The Pats are a good team and Brady is a great QB, but if your sample size is 13 games, you don't prove very much.

[gabe1984]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Its becaus that when it came down to the win in the 4th he did what was needed to win the game. Yes the Chargers made mistakes but they had a chance at the end to win the game but failed.

What do you mean, he did what was needed? He threw an interception, and then he got lucky and the Pats got the fumble. My point is he threw and interception at a key moment, Troy Brown did what was needed for them to win the game, by stripping the ball, Brady got his team into a mess by throwing 3 interceptions and one crucial inteception in the fourth quarter.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Out of that 12-1 record, how many of those games were games that the Patriots wouldn't have won with some average QB? Maybe 3-4 tops. The Pats are a good team and Brady is a great QB, but if your sample size is 13 games, you don't prove very much.

If we're talking regular season I'd agree 13 games is a small sample. But when that sample of 13 games is from the post season only, it definitely means something. Any way you slice it, a 12-1 post season record is very impressive.

[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 Mattyk72

If we're talking regular season I'd agree 13 games is a small sample. But when that sample of 13 games is from the post season only, it definitely means something. Any way you slice it, a 12-1 post season record is very impressive.

No doubt it's impressive, its any coaches dream to have that much success. Obviously the Pats have done a great job just putting themselves in the playoffs all these years. But why have they avoided failure in the playoffs while the rest of the teams eventually meet their end? Not because Brady or Belichick are that much better than anyone else. Recovering 5 out of 5 possible fumbles helps. Sometimes the ball just bounces your way.

[MTK]

Of course luck plays a part sometimes, but when you have a 12-1 post season record and 3 trophies, you ARE that much better than everyone else.

[The Huddle]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

If we're talking regular season I'd agree 13 games is a small sample. But when that sample of 13 games is from the post season only, it definitely means something. Any way you slice it, a 12-1 post season record is very impressive.

Exactly my point. 12-1 is astonishing.

[firstdown]

At 12-1 is there a QB with a better post season record?

[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.

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Of course you'd rather have the ring, but that doesn't make him better.

i'm saying brady is better than manning because even though manning has better stats brady has the rings. manning has yet to prove he can handle the pressure of big time games (playoffs) while brady preforms at a very high level in the biggest games (superbowls). brady not only lead his team to victory 3 times in superbowl games but he was the games MVP twice.

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

thats kinda silly to say considering manning plays for a better "team". the colts have much more talent offensively than the pats and as of the past two games the colts defense has played just as good as the pats defense has. manning is a better "pure passer" than brady but brady is a better overall qb.

[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").