Peyton is better than Brady?
Galen Boyer
Hm... Where is "IT" for Peyton? I'll give him the following accolades,
Peyton is the best regular season QB in football.
--
Galen Boyer
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
AllYou!
Galen Boyer <galen...@yahoo.com> mused:
> Isn't this what we heard from multiple Boston sports writers
> this week?
>
> Hm... Where is "IT" for Peyton? I'll give him the following
> accolades, Peyton is the best regular season QB in football.
This whole notion that a QB should be largely judged by the number
of SB rings he has is silly to me. And for the 'right-fighers' out
there, of course the QB is the most significant position, and so, of
course, the chances of a team winning with a really lousy QB is
dramatically less that a team wining with a spectacular QB.
Therefore, we can all agree that the number of rings a QB has is one
factor in how that QB should be evaluated.
But the issue is the degree to which that factor should count.
Football is such a team oriented game, and so many very small
factors can enter whether or not a team gets to the SB, muck less
wins it (e.g., a dropped pass, a deflection turned interception, a
recovered on-side kick turned into a two minute wrestling match,
etc...) that I just don't think SB rings alone matters all that
much. The overall performance of the team matters more, and the
degree to which that team relied upon the QB even greater.
From actually having watched the games, if I were building a team
and could draft any players I wanted, I'd take Manning over Brady.
I'd take Manning over anyone. And I say that as probably one of the
most fervent Pats fans, and Brady fans, in NE.
sQueezBox�
<galen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Isn't this what we heard from multiple Boston sports writers this week?
>
>Hm... Where is "IT" for Peyton? I'll give him the following accolades,
>Peyton is the best regular season QB in football.
he's certainly in Brady's league when it comes to stomping off the
field, without a handshake or showing any respect, like a whiny sore
loser bitch after getting his ass handed to him...
Peter Robbertsen
"Galen Boyer" <galen...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Isn't this what we heard from multiple Boston sports writers this week?
>
> Hm... Where is "IT" for Peyton? I'll give him the following accolades,
> Peyton is the best regular season QB in football.
>
> --
> Galen Boyer
Yes, Manning is better than Brady.
Peter
clouddreamer
Nope.
Haven't read it all, but their objective conclusion is straight forward.
Brady is the better QB:
http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Article.php?Page=261&Category=7
..
--
We must change the way we live
Or the climate will do it for us.
Galen Boyer
Peyton is a great QB, except in the big moments. Not only does he throw
a ridiculous interception to lose the game, but he also throws an
interception in the end-zone (guy has his a foot out of bounds) and he
throws a pass that should have been intercepted on the sidelines, all
within the waning moments of the game.
He just crumbles when it comes to the big moments. Those moments that
define greatness show him to not be a great one.
AllYou!
Galen Boyer <galen...@yahoo.com> mused:
Well, I respectfully disagree. The fact is that you can't count
some plays as interceptions when they weren't. If you do, then you
have to count dropped passes, and mis-run routes, and blown o-line
assignments in his favor. Had Garcon not dropped that pass on 3rd
down, the whole complexion of the game could've been entirely
different. To me, THAT was the key play of the day.
I think it's valid to look at a player's performance in big games as
opposed to all games in order to see if he tends to fold under the
pressure. I always thought that Clemens folded in big games when he
was with the Sox, but I think he outgrew it later. I think Manning
folded in big games against the Pats until he came back in the 2nd
half of the AFC Champoinionship game a few years ago, and from then
on, I think he's been spectacular across the board.
Julio
has been to two and won one, despite having a longer time
in the league as a starter. Brady beat Kurt Warner, Jake
Delhomme and Donovan McNabb, Manning beat Rex Grossman.
Manning couldn't do a thing until the rules change that
allowed his sensitive receivers to get off the line without
getting hit was instituted at the behest of Polian.
Right now, Eli Manning, who beat Brady, has as much claim
to the #2 spot as anyone.
J.
Ray O'Hara
"Julio" <hoolio3...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:EOEM68HY40...@reece.net.au...
Brady 14-2 in the P.O.s
Manning 9-9 in the P.O.s
Galen Boyer
They aren't counted as interceptions, but they were clearly poorly
poorly thrown balls, yet he has a great game up until then. The big
moments and the man crumbles, period.
> If you do, then you have to count dropped passes, and mis-run routes,
> and blown o-line assignments in his favor. Had Garcon not dropped
> that pass on 3rd down, the whole complexion of the game could've been
> entirely different. To me, THAT was the key play of the day.
Well, the Saints reciever, Colston had a very similar big play, where he
ran before he had caught the ball. That would have been just as big.
The key play of the day was the pick-6. I don't see how any other play
would trump it. Even the onside kick doesn't trump it and that was way
bigger than Garcon's drop.
> I think it's valid to look at a player's performance in big games as
> opposed to all games in order to see if he tends to fold under the
> pressure. I always thought that Clemens folded in big games when he
> was with the Sox, but I think he outgrew it later. I think Manning
> folded in big games against the Pats until he came back in the 2nd
> half of the AFC Champoinionship game a few years ago, and from then
> on, I think he's been spectacular across the board.
He's gotten better at not folding. But it rears its ugly head, and did
so in a big way on the biggest stage.
Grinch
<raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Julio" <hoolio3...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:EOEM68HY40...@reece.net.au...
>> Brady has been to four superbowls and won three, Manning
>> has been to two and won one, despite having a longer time
>> in the league as a starter. Brady beat Kurt Warner, Jake
>> Delhomme and Donovan McNabb, Manning beat Rex Grossman.
The way you guys talk, boxing is more of a team sport than football.
At least we all now the boxer's cornerman and trainer have *something*
to do with the contest.
>> Manning couldn't do a thing until the rules change that
>> allowed his sensitive receivers to get off the line without
>> getting hit was instituted at the behest of Polian.
>>
>> Right now, Eli Manning, who beat Brady
"Eli beat Brady". ;-)
>> has as much claim to the #2 spot as anyone.
Yeah, and George Chuvalo had as much claim as anyonme to be #2 behind
Ali. After all, he lasted to lose a decision against Ali, while
Liston, Patterson, Quary, Ellis, Foreman, Frazier (twice) all got
knocked out.
>> J.
>
>Brady 14-2 in the P.O.s
>
>Manning 9-9 in the P.O.s
Tell me that Brady's record in the playoffs would be 14-2 if the Lions
had drafted him and I'll be really impressed.
Ray O'Hara
"Grinch" <oldn...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:orf9n5t9t50psikn0...@4ax.com...
who knows.
the Lions could use a QB.
do you think Manning would have his nmbers if he played elsewhere?
Brady has not been blessed with HOFers on offence playing around him.
Grinch
<raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
During the Matt Millen era they coulda used more prayer. By the Pope.
>do you think Manning would have his nmbers if he played elsewhere?
No QB's numbers would be the same on a different team.
They don't stay the same on the same team as the team changes.
Namath was a world-beater when throwing to Maynard, Sauer, Lammons
etc, coached by Ewbank, on a team with a top D so he was usually
throwing downhill.
He was a bum when throwing to Eddie Bell, David Knight, Lou Piccone,
etc., coached by Charlie Winner and Lou Holtz, on a team with a Swiss
cheese D, so he was always chucking uphill. A bum!
>Brady has not been blessed with HOFers on offence playing around him.
No. And he never had passing numbers to match Manning's either --
until 2007 and the all-pro receivers showed up. Team changed, his
numbers changed.
But his team was the best team of the decade all along, and had a
better W-L record than Manning's team.
If one believes NFL payroll data, the QB is about 8% of the average
team. That means 92% of what his team does isn't him.
For QBs like Manning and Brady it's more like 15%, which still means
that 85% of what the team does is due to the other 52 players, not
them. Even in the Super Bowl, and in other clutch situations. It's
really not a mano a mano sport - that just sells papers.
But for anyone who likes QB W-L records, "this QB beat that QB",
Sanchez and Brady split 1-1 this year. They're equal!
MZ
W/L records are an oversimplification. Ray's point, I think, was that
Brady appears to be a better playoff QB than Manning. I don't think
you'll ever find a statistic to dissociate the player from the team, so
you'll have to rely a lot on observations. But I think you'd have a
very hard time convincing me that what you've seen from Manning in the
playoffs has been on par with (or better than) what you've seen from
Brady in the playoffs. Both have put up stinkers, but it seems Manning
has had more of them. Maybe he's simply faced better defenses in the
playoffs than Brady?
AllYou!
Julio <hoolio3...@yahoo.com> mused:
> Brady has been to four superbowls and won three, Manning
> has been to two and won one, despite having a longer time
> in the league as a starter. Brady beat Kurt Warner,
No, he didn't.
> Jake
> Delhomme and Donovan McNabb, Manning beat Rex Grossman.
Didn't beat any of them, either.
> Manning couldn't do a thing until the rules change that
> allowed his sensitive receivers to get off the line without
> getting hit was instituted at the behest of Polian.
That's an overblown myth. Sure, Polian wanted a rules change, and
he was certainly driven to that request because of the type of team
he had. But it took an overwhelming number of other owners to agree
with him, and they did. He conducted himself within the NFL rules
to make rules, and he prevailed. If it was so unfairly favorable to
the Colts, the rules would've changed back again, and they have not.
In the meantime, all other teams have had plenty of time to adjust
to those rules changes, including the Pats. So those changes have
not favored Manning more than Brady unless you want to say that
Manning is the better QB.
>
> Right now, Eli Manning, who beat Brady, has as much claim
> to the #2 spot as anyone.
Actually, the Jets beat the Colts, so they have a better claim to
being #1.
AllYou!
"but he also throws an interception in the end-zone" Seems like you
do.
> but they were clearly
> poorly poorly thrown balls, yet he has a great game up until
> then. The big moments and the man crumbles, period.
Period? :-) I disagree that the "interception in the end zone" was
a poorly thrown ball. It was thrown where either his own guy, or no
one, would get it. The proof is in the result.
Anyway, my point is that conversly, that perfectly thrown ball that
was dropped must also be taken into consideration by your standards.
>> If you do, then you have to count dropped passes, and mis-run
>> routes, and blown o-line assignments in his favor. Had Garcon
>> not dropped that pass on 3rd down, the whole complexion of the
>> game could've been entirely different. To me, THAT was the key
>> play of the day.
>
> Well, the Saints reciever, Colston had a very similar big play,
> where he ran before he had caught the ball. That would have
> been just as big. The key play of the day was the pick-6. I
> don't see how any other play would trump it. Even the onside
> kick doesn't trump it and that was way bigger than Garcon's drop.
You're making my point for me. We can keep doing this all day, but
in the end, you can only count what actually happened in the game,
and not shoulda woulda coulda.
>
>> I think it's valid to look at a player's performance in big
>> games as opposed to all games in order to see if he tends to
>> fold under the pressure. I always thought that Clemens folded
>> in big games when he was with the Sox, but I think he outgrew
>> it later. I think Manning folded in big games against the Pats
>> until he came back in the 2nd half of the AFC Champoinionship
>> game a few years ago, and from then on, I think he's been
>> spectacular across the board.
>
> He's gotten better at not folding. But it rears its ugly head,
> and did so in a big way on the biggest stage.
Well, despite your "Period", I disagree. No QB will ever be
perfect, and when his team is behind with little time remaining,
he's got to take much bigger risks than he otherwise would, and when
one of them doesn't pan out, he's bound to look bad. To say that
this represents some sort of inherent tendency to fold in big games
makes no sense to me.
Johnctx
Maybe Brady has had a much better head coach. You just don't know. It
makes arguing sports fun & pointless at the same time.
I do find Pat fans funny and I know many, even outside this freak show,
who twist up about any accolades any other great player, coach or team
gets. The funny thing is that Brady rarely talks but has a few "me, me,
me" gaffes.
AllYou!
Johnctx <j...@spamtx.net> mused:
> Maybe Brady has had a much better head coach. You just don't
> know. It makes arguing sports fun & pointless at the same time.
Some sports lend themselves more easily to the use of stats as a
means of assiing player talent and value than others. I think
baseball is one which does, and football, not so much. But in any
case, stats are really only part of the picture, and their use is
frought with limitations. In the end, a much bigger factor is
actually watching the games, and subjectively assessing performance.
And even then.......
IMO, if all player contracts were torn up, and all curent players
were to majically revert back to their ages at the time they were
drafted, I'd take Manning over Brady in a heart beat. I think he's
a better field general overall, and I think he's got a slightly more
accurate arm. I think Brady has the edge in leadership.
Michael
dont know if you could say that brady is the better qb. the way i
usually put it is that brady is the more "successful" qb vs.
manning.
if brady had been with the colts, would he still have won 3
superbowls ??? the colts coaching staff was a joke until dungy...
brady never had to suffer a shitty excuse for a coaching staff.. the
day mo lewis got brady on the field, brady had one of the best
coaching crews in the game not to mention ownership/management that
ensured he'd have quality manpower on the field season to season.
i will say one thing... if brady was in that last superbowl at the
same exact spot manning was in when he threw the pick... i say brady
would not have thrown that shitty pass at that very important time.
AND.. I will also say... If brady was the qb of the Colts this year
and not manning, no way would the colts have gotten to the
superbowl... Manning's execution and brains was pretty much the whole
team. no way does brady carry a whole team.
MZ
> brady never had to suffer a shitty excuse for a coaching staff..
Haven't watched the Pats lately, huh?
>no way does brady carry a whole team.
Then who carried them to the AFCCG in '06? Manning's surrounding talent
has been better than Brady's throughout most of his career.
Michael
ok... what have you been smoking ???
MZ
This notion that Brady's been surrounded by better players is a new one.
I haven't really heard it before. Usually, it's been the other way
around. So maybe those who insist that Brady's been the lucky recipient
of where he landed and Manning has not, should explain their point of
view. I'd love to hear it! :)
Michael
who was brady's head coach for the first four years of his career ???
who was mannings ??? "playoffs ?!?!? dont talk about playoffs"
have a peek at the colts defensive stats for the past decade, then the
pats.
i'll admit that the belichick systems worked astonishingly well with
lesser talent in places from time to time and the colts had some big
name guys at the skill positions, but as a whole on both sides of the
ball, the pats outrank the colts as far as over all quality
MZ
Not even close, Michael.
How many OCs has Manning had to work with? How many has Brady had to
adapt to? Does he even have one now? The Pats coaching staff is a
shell of its former self, and has been since '04. And now, in the '09
season and moving into '10, despite how smart you think Belichick is,
the Pats coaching staff is a mid-level group. The staff has been
poached. They've lost close to 10 of their coordinators/position
coaches over the past 5 or 6 years.
But most of all, Peyton's spent almost his entire career throwing to
hall of famers and being protected by a top tier line. Brady has only
recently had that luxury ('07, '09 -- which also happens to be his two
best seasons statistically -- and arguably better than Manning's). When
Manning was throwing to Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne, Brady was
throwing to Reche Caldwell and Jabar Gaffney. Or David Patten and Troy
Brown in the earlier days. Or Deion Branch and David Givens after that.
The Pats teams from 5 and 6 years ago had better defenses than the Colts
teams. But, in recent years, the Colts defenses have been better than
New England's. Indy had, by many measures, the best defense in the NFL
during their championship season.
Anyway, my point isn't necessarily that Peyton has had it easy and Brady
has had it hard. What I'm saying is that both QBs have been blessed to
have a lot of things go well for their teams (here is where I'd invoke
John's theory about teams with franchise QBs being able to divert more
attention elsewhere on the roster...). It's insane to think that
Brady's been the lucky guy and Manning's had to carry the load himself.
It's just not true. Look up and down the Colts roster this decade ...
from the continuity in the coaching staff; the pro bowl receiving groups
that have almost always included at least three pro bowl caliber
targets; the top tier OL, guys like Jeff Saturday, Tarik Glenn, etc; the
running backs, which have only recently become a weakness; and defensive
playmakers, Freeney, Mathis, Sanders, etc. The guy isn't exactly on the
Lions here..
Michael
Yeah... and the staff members on the pats that look so good under bb
do nothing when they leave. bb's guys are suplicants like mangini and
not real brainpower. all bb needs is a few guys to pick up his
laundry and follow the mold...
not to mention players like matt cassel... he had teams drooling to
put him in a starting role. too bad he was a system guy and sucks in
general.
> But most of all, Peyton's spent almost his entire career throwing to
> hall of famers and being protected by a top tier line. Brady has only
> recently had that luxury ('07, '09 -- which also happens to be his two
> best seasons statistically -- and arguably better than Manning's). When
> Manning was throwing to Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne, Brady was
> throwing to Reche Caldwell and Jabar Gaffney. Or David Patten and Troy
> Brown in the earlier days. Or Deion Branch and David Givens after that.
and garcon and collie would look like shit without manning. how would
harrison and wayne look with kellen clemens ??? half of those guys
production numbers was a result of mannings brains.
> The Pats teams from 5 and 6 years ago had better defenses than the Colts
> teams. But, in recent years, the Colts defenses have been better than
> New England's. Indy had, by many measures, the best defense in the NFL
> during their championship season.
>
> Anyway, my point isn't necessarily that Peyton has had it easy and Brady
> has had it hard. What I'm saying is that both QBs have been blessed to
> have a lot of things go well for their teams
manning was blessed with one of the best qb brains and arms in
history. brady was blessed by mo lewis and the bb system. the colts
offense is anything BUT a system offense. it is one dimentional
simplicity driven by manning's demonsterable talents
>(here is where I'd invoke
> John's theory about teams with franchise QBs being able to divert more
> attention elsewhere on the roster...). It's insane to think that
> Brady's been the lucky guy and Manning's had to carry the load himself.
> It's just not true. Look up and down the Colts roster this decade ...
> from the continuity in the coaching staff; the pro bowl receiving groups
> that have almost always included at least three pro bowl caliber
> targets; the top tier OL, guys like Jeff Saturday, Tarik Glenn, etc; the
> running backs, which have only recently become a weakness; and defensive
> playmakers, Freeney, Mathis, Sanders, etc. The guy isn't exactly on the
> Lions here..- Hide quoted text -
sanders ??? he's a ghost.
MZ
If that's all he needs, then why can't he find guys to do that? Dean
Pees was the DC for four years under BB, but he couldn't get anything
done. Mangini was also terrible as the Pats DC. He hasn't been able to
replace McDaniels, either.
His staff has grown smaller because he hasn't been able to infuse the
staff with new coaches as quickly as they've been leaving. No matter
how you slice it, that's bad news.
I disagree with you, though, that those coaches didn't do anything after
they left. They're all still in the NFL in their original roles or in
higher roles (except Pees, who turned down another DC job to coach LBs
with the Ravens). So they must be doing something right to retain their
jobs.
You can't possibly be arguing that the Pats coaching staff in its
current form is as effective as they were in, say, '04.
> not to mention players like matt cassel... he had teams drooling to
> put him in a starting role. too bad he was a system guy and sucks in
> general.
He sucked with the Pats too, although as the season went on he got a
little better. He had Moss and Welker to throw to and they still
managed to miss the playoffs that year with an easy schedule. If he was
throwing at Patten, Brown, and Wiggins, I think he'd have been a little
less successful.
>
>> But most of all, Peyton's spent almost his entire career throwing to
>> hall of famers and being protected by a top tier line. Brady has only
>> recently had that luxury ('07, '09 -- which also happens to be his two
>> best seasons statistically -- and arguably better than Manning's). When
>> Manning was throwing to Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne, Brady was
>> throwing to Reche Caldwell and Jabar Gaffney. Or David Patten and Troy
>> Brown in the earlier days. Or Deion Branch and David Givens after that.
>
> and garcon and collie would look like shit without manning. how would
> harrison and wayne look with kellen clemens ??? half of those guys
> production numbers was a result of mannings brains.
Sure, the QB-WR relationship is symbiotic. But to suggest that Harrison
and Wayne would suck without Manning is just ridiculous. They were good
receivers. And so was Stokley. I think everyone acknowledges this.
I think Garcon and Collie are pretty good players though. Lots of
receivers couldn't get it done with Manning. Even Gonzalez has been a
bit of a disappointment, even putting the injury issues aside. If what
you say is true, they should be able to insert Garcon and Collie for a
Marvin Harrison in his prime and not miss a beat, right? But clearly
there was a downgrade at the position.
Let's also not forget that it took Wayne a little bit of time before he
became what he is. It's not like they inserted him and he magically
became the receiver he is today (in Belichick's words, the best receiver
the Pats faced all season).
>> The Pats teams from 5 and 6 years ago had better defenses than the Colts
>> teams. But, in recent years, the Colts defenses have been better than
>> New England's. Indy had, by many measures, the best defense in the NFL
>> during their championship season.
>>
>> Anyway, my point isn't necessarily that Peyton has had it easy and Brady
>> has had it hard. What I'm saying is that both QBs have been blessed to
>> have a lot of things go well for their teams
>
> manning was blessed with one of the best qb brains and arms in
> history. brady was blessed by mo lewis and the bb system. the colts
> offense is anything BUT a system offense. it is one dimentional
> simplicity driven by manning's demonsterable talents
And Wayne's, and Harrison's, and James', and Saturday's, and Scott's,
and Clark's, and Pollard's, and Stokely's.
And Dungy's, and Moore's.
The guy has been surrounded by unbelievable talent for most of his
career. You're probably the first person I've ever encountered who
doesn't acknowledge this.
>> (here is where I'd invoke
>> John's theory about teams with franchise QBs being able to divert more
>> attention elsewhere on the roster...). It's insane to think that
>> Brady's been the lucky guy and Manning's had to carry the load himself.
>> It's just not true. Look up and down the Colts roster this decade ...
>> from the continuity in the coaching staff; the pro bowl receiving groups
>> that have almost always included at least three pro bowl caliber
>> targets; the top tier OL, guys like Jeff Saturday, Tarik Glenn, etc; the
>> running backs, which have only recently become a weakness; and defensive
>> playmakers, Freeney, Mathis, Sanders, etc. The guy isn't exactly on the
>> Lions here..- Hide quoted text -
>
> sanders ??? he's a ghost.
Didn't he win defensive player of the year not too long ago? He's not
exactly Eric Smith. He's actually contributed to the team's success.
Harlan Lachman
MZ <ma...@nospam.void> wrote:
Mark, I think this is a stupid thread but I agree with the point Michael
made that I don't think any other Qb in the league could have gotten the
Colts to the SB.
I think if Caldwell had not been a pussy, the Colts would have been the
first team to win it all since the Fish did it in a much shorter season.
And, in one big game, one has to be nuts not to consider Brady who is
better than most of the other Qb in the league.
H
MZ
It really is a stupid thread. I don't know what's wrong with having two
great QBs in the league.
I don't know if Brady could have gotten the Colts to the SB or not. I
see no reason why he couldn't though. I mostly take issue with the idea
that Brady has been surrounded by all this great talent whereas Manning
(with more pro bowlers on his roster than Brady every year...) has
carried the team on his shoulders.
Harlan Lachman
MZ <ma...@nospam.void> wrote:
> I
> see no reason why he couldn't though
I think I disagree but who cares? We will never know. Only those who
think their opinions mean something will persist in disagreeing.
Both Qbs have done things no Qb (other than possibly Namath and Warner)
in my memory has ever done.
I thought Brady's best game was versus the Giants. His pass to Moss (?)
that was tipped away at the last minute 70 yards downfield from the
hands of the receiver should not be allowed in this universe in that
situation.
H
Galen Boyer
> when his team is behind with little time remaining, he's got to take
> much bigger risks than he otherwise would,
There was plenty, plenty of time. This was not a need to move 70 yards
in 1 1/2 minutes, he had almost 6 minutes when they got the ball.
AllYou!
Galen Boyer <galen...@yahoo.com> mused:
> "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> writes:
>
>> when his team is behind with little time remaining, he's got to
>> take much bigger risks than he otherwise would,
>
> There was plenty, plenty of time. This was not a need to move
> 70 yards in 1 1/2 minutes, he had almost 6 minutes when they got
> the ball.
I didn't say it was a two minute drill.
Galen Boyer
Michael
> Harlan Lachman wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mark...
Let me blow some smoke up your ass... As usual, you always inculde the
full compliment of qualified into to support your poins/arguments.
This time, though, you are complicating the obvious. From time to
time, you say I'm full of shit citing my lack of attention to the
actual games. This time, I have to apply the same to you. I think as
far as Manning goes, you are losing the forest for the trees. When
the Patriots beat the snot out of the Jets at the Razor this past
seaon, it was the entire Pats team, including the coach that did the
job on us. Not Brady... Not even close. When the Colts beat the Jets
in the AFCCG, it was Manning that beat them. Yeah, there were 11 guys
on the field, but it was Manning that did them in, and not so much
"the Colts". Rex himself said so. "He did it to me again", is what
Rex said in referance to Manning carving up the Jets the way he carved
up the Ravens. If you think Brady single handedly beats teams the way
Manning does, than I have to say to you what you said to me a few
tims. "This is where you are so full of shit". You must not be
watching the games. I'll give this to Brady, though... Along with
being the best system qb's I've had the pleasure to watch, he also
pilots super models better than Manning could ever dream of.
MZ
You're right. I don't watch the Patriots' games. You caught me.
Your sample of 2 isn't exactly a convincing argument. While you were
going on and on about Randy Moss "dogging it" this year, Manning was
throwing to Reggie Wayne and Dallas Clark. While you were talking about
how suspect the Patriots defense was, the Colts D ended up ranked in the
top 10. But now you say that Manning won games all by himself and Brady
had all kinds of help? You need to pick a story and stick with it.
I'm curious, did you also hold the same opinion in 2006, when they both
went to the AFCCG? Here are the starting rosters of the two offenses
that year (pro-football-reference.com)
*=pro bowl, +=first team all-pro
Patriots
QB Tom Brady
RB Corey Dillon
RB Laurence Maroney
WR Troy Brown
WR Reche Caldwell
WR Doug Gabriel
WR Jabar Gaffney
TE Daniel Graham
TE Ben Watson
LT Matt Light*
LG Logan Mankins
C Dan Koppen
RG Steve Neal
RT Nick Kaczur
RT Ryan O'Callaghan
Colts
QB Peyton Manning*
RB Dominic Rhodes
RB Joseph Addai
WR Marvin Harrison*+
WR Reggie Wayne*
TE Dallas Clark
TE Ben Utecht
LT Tarik Glenn*
LG Dylan Gandy
LG Ryan Lilja
C Jeff Saturday*
RG Jake Scott
RT Ryan Diem
So this whole "Brady's gotten help" thing is a new development, right?
Or are you saying that Caldwell and Gaffney were world-beaters while
Harrison and Wayne were scrubs? Because the difference in talent, prior
to 2007 at least, was staggering for all those years. Yet Brady and his
team full of all-pros amassed three rings during that time, while Peyton
and the scrubs he carried only got one.
Or were those rings all smoke and mirrors by Crennel and Weis (who I
believe you also have a low opinion of)? You're just not being
consistent here, Michael. You say one thing in one thread, and then you
say the opposite thing in another thread.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
wtf ??? when the heck did I say moss was dogging it ??? you got me
mixed up with another poster. honestly. also... you are way WAY off
on what i have posted about weiss. I am a HUGE ND fan and was excited
when weiss went there. i expected my golden domers to top the polls in
short order. there are also recent posts of me suggesting that weiss
should replace shott despite weiss not having success at nd. i have
my opinions on why he did not win at ND but that is another story...
before we go ahead, you need to stop confusing what i say with what
other posters say. not once...did I ever bash moss or weiss. the
only pats wr that i ever posted against was that waist of a roster
spot galloway. i never said anything about crennel either other than
he was another guy that looked good under guy that proved to be
nothing more than a lucky suplicant under bb. if you ask me, that
"nixonesque" bastard has been your whole team. as far as pure passing
skills and qb brainpower brady is no match for manning. not even
close. again... and PLEASE... I do mean PLEASE... try to digest this
point. Appart from who's been surrounded by talent at the skill
position... dig this and dig it good. manning has been driving an
offense that is dependant almost solely on the uncanny perfection of
qb brains and execution. brady has been emerced in a system. get
it ???
MZ
No, I really don't. I thought after his second, maybe third,
championship the "system QB" argument had been put to rest. All the
records the Brady-led offense in '07 broke. But he's a mere cog. And
apparently so were perennial all-pros Harrison, Wayne, Clark, James,
Glenn, and Saturday.
AllYou!
Galen Boyer <galen...@yahoo.com> mused:
> "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> writes:
>
>> In news:usk95a...@www.yahoo.com,
>> Galen Boyer <galen...@yahoo.com> mused:
>>> "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> when his team is behind with little time remaining, he's got
>>>> to take much bigger risks than he otherwise would,
>>>
>>> There was plenty, plenty of time. This was not a need to move
>>> 70 yards in 1 1/2 minutes, he had almost 6 minutes when they
>>> got the ball.
>>
>> I didn't say it was a two minute drill.
>
> So, did he have "little time remaining"?
Given the ebb and flow of the game, and being down by a touchdown,
and given that giving up the ball at that point could easily have
resulted in only getting it back again with only about two minutes
left, yes, I do think he had to take greater risks at that point in
the game than he otherwise would.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
what ever... this is a stupid thread...
Galen Boyer
That interception had nothing to do with risk or amount of time left.
It was a simple route and Peyton threw a completely ridiculous
interception. The man crumbles in the big times. Has all the talent in
the world, but can't handle the biggest moments.
Johnny Morongo
Is it really over? :)
MZ
Why don't you go start a thread to complain about this one again, and
then we can turn that one into a 200-post debacle. :)
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
Quien es mass macho Tom Brady o Peyton Manning ?
Johnny Morongo
LOL! Really.
MZ
It's the offseason. Only a matter of time before the "who's got the
coolest uniforms" threads start appearing.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
glad you reminded me.
kewlest uniforms
chargers (powder blue)
bucks
uniforms that should never be changed other than mild color and accent
adjustments to go with the times
eagles
vikes
bengals
ravens
jags (should go back to the original colors)
carolina
lions
falcons
rams
uniforms that should never be changed period.
colts
browns
raiders
fish
steelers
cowboys
saints
jets
kc
redskins (though i would not mind a "pc" name change. how about the
"dc wampum hogs" ???"
giants
cards
tems that need to go back to their old uniforms
pats (who in creation came up with the new logo ??? go back to the
patriot guy hiking the ball)
bills (throw backs sooo much better)
denver (orange crush was classic)
seahawks (old silver color much better)
teams that need a complete re-do
titans (good colors, but helmet logo stinks)
texans ( a total disaster of a uniform)
Vic Carleton
Brady is much better than Peyton. Brady has never
coughed up a superbowl game, in fact in his last
one he drove his team down the field for the
winning touchdown, but his defense gave it up
to the Giants.
cloud dreamer
And the Giants had the benefit of the refs stopping the clock on a
running play. Gave them just enough time to get down the field for the TD.
..
AllYou!
Galen Boyer <galen...@yahoo.com> mused:
> "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> writes:
>
>> In news:uk4uga...@www.yahoo.com,
>> Galen Boyer <galen...@yahoo.com> mused:
>>> "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> In news:usk95a...@www.yahoo.com,
>>>> Galen Boyer <galen...@yahoo.com> mused:
>>>>> "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> when his team is behind with little time remaining, he's got
>>>>>> to take much bigger risks than he otherwise would,
>>>>>
>>>>> There was plenty, plenty of time. This was not a need to
>>>>> move 70 yards in 1 1/2 minutes, he had almost 6 minutes when
>>>>> they got the ball.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't say it was a two minute drill.
>>>
>>> So, did he have "little time remaining"?
>>
>> Given the ebb and flow of the game, and being down by a
>> touchdown, and given that giving up the ball at that point
>> could easily have resulted in only getting it back again with
>> only about two minutes left, yes, I do think he had to take
>> greater risks at that point in the game than he otherwise would.
>
> That interception had nothing to do with risk or amount of time
> left. It was a simple route and Peyton threw a completely
> ridiculous interception.
In your opinion. In my opinion, the Colts have run that exact play
very many times this year with success, but it does require the DB
to bite on the long route. Therein lies the risk. If the DB
doesn't, it's a disaster. In this case, the Saints had practiced
for that exact play, and the DB took the chance that the WR wasn't
going long. In this case, it was a calculated risk which, had the
Colts not been behind with that late in the game, they probably
would not have taken that risk.
> The man crumbles in the big times.
> Has all the talent in the world, but can't handle the biggest
> moments.
Yes, I know that's your opinion. I'm not sure that repeating it
with so supporting argument does any good, though.
Galen Boyer
> In your opinion. In my opinion, the Colts have run that exact play
> very many times this year with success, but it does require the DB
> to bite on the long route. Therein lies the risk. If the DB
> doesn't, it's a disaster.
What a bunch of bunk. If the DB doesn't bite, then the QB is supposed
to go elsewhere. Never, ever will a play be designed that will
sometimes be an interception solely based on how the DB reacts. The QB
is always supposed to bail-out if the DB reads the play.
--
Galen Boyer
AllYou!
Galen Boyer <galen...@yahoo.com> mused:
> "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> writes:
>
>> In your opinion. In my opinion, the Colts have run that exact
>> play very many times this year with success, but it does
>> require the DB to bite on the long route. Therein lies the
>> risk. If the DB doesn't, it's a disaster.
>
> What a bunch of bunk.
Glad to see what an open minded person you are.
> If the DB doesn't bite, then the QB is
> supposed to go elsewhere.
Yes, in a very conservative play call, the QB waits to make sure
that the WR is open BEFORE throwing the ball. At other times, there
are such things as timing plays where the QB throws the ball to the
spot where the WR will be. And then yet at other times when greater
risks are appropriate, the QB is forced to anticipate what will
happen. Kinda like the risk taken with an onside kick. It's
anticipated what the other team will do.
Also, in the quick slant that Brees threw to Shockey for the TD,
Brees threw the ball before he saw what the DB would do. In that
case, the Saints anticipated that the DB would not have scouted that
play, and jumped it to the inside. It was a very calculated risk to
take because the chances of a DB jumping it was very slim. But
contrary to your point, Brees did not wait to see if Shockey was
open. It was all anticipation. And it's done in every single NLF
game, to varying degrees. In this case, some risk, but not great
risk, was called for.
In other situations, like late in the 4th, with momentum against
you, and down by a TD, and no tomorrows, greater risks are called
for. In the case of the Colts, that play worked for them all season
long. Whenever they ran it, the ball was in the air before all the
breaks were made, and all the DB reactions were seen. Sure, in a
perfect world, with a tomorrow to recover, Manning would've waited
to see everything he could see. But that's my point. In that
situation, he had to play the odds, and based upon how many times
that play, executed exactly with that kind of anticipation, it was a
calculated risk.
Just like the onside kick was a calculated risk. Sometimes, they
work out, and sometimes, they do not. In the case of the pass, it
was worth taking, but it failed.
> Never, ever will a play be designed
> that will sometimes be an interception solely based on how the
> DB reacts.
Really? Are there ever plays designed that will sometimes give the
ball to the opponents with tremendous field position at the worst
possible time? How about 4th and 2s well in your own territory?
How about on-side kicks to start the 2nd half? How about fake punts
and fake field goals? All of those plays are based upon a gamble as
to how the players on the other team will react. It happens with
all gadget plays, and in all sorts of other situations as well.
> The QB is always supposed to bail-out if the DB
> reads the play.
Not really.
JeePee
>
> If one believes NFL payroll data, the QB is about 8% of the average
> team. That means 92% of what his team does isn't him.
>
> For QBs like Manning and Brady it's more like 15%, which still means
> that 85% of what the team does is due to the other 52 players, not
> them. Even in the Super Bowl, and in other clutch situations. It's
> really not a mano a mano sport - that just sells papers.
>
But those 52 share 85%, so the biggest weight is still on the QB. He
fails, it is felt a lot. One of the 1.6%'s fail it's not that bad,
unless that person had to block the pass rusher that caused the sack
that lost them the game.
Even if you divide the 85% by the other 10 players in the field at the
same time, the resulting 8.5% is almost half of the QB's 15.
--
--
JeePee
And HEY!!
Let's be careful out there.
- Sgt. Phil Esterhaus -
By the time you can make ends meet, they move the ends.