NFL Old and Ongoing Bicker about Manning vs. Brady Thread. AKA The Biggest Loser - Page 50 - Sporting Events and Fantasy Sports

He had the same record as rodgers and a better record than rivers with a far inferior supporting cast and coaching, plus he's what 6 or 7 years younger?

Quote

01-24-2011 , 02:20 PM

#1227

Kneel B4 Zod

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 27,952

clark is right, Brady should have like 7 SB's

Quote

01-24-2011 , 02:22 PM

#1228

tarheeljks

The Dark Knight

Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 37,654

or mebbe none

Quote

01-24-2011 , 03:34 PM

#1229

vhawk01

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 31,866

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kneel B4 Zod

clark is right, Brady should have like 7 SB's

Quote:

Originally Posted by tarheeljks

or mebbe none

7 if he actually was clutch/a winner, 0 if he were kind of unlucky. Instead he has 3, meaning not clutch/a winner and just sort of kind of lucky a little bit.

Quote

01-24-2011 , 04:12 PM

#1230

tweedybirdd

Canadian national treasure

Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 21,399

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffMaggert

???

What is the debate? One has 3 rings and the other 2 **** the bed every postseason.

Riiiiight. Ben has 2 rings not 3. Rodgers really chokes in the postseason. 69.6 completion pct, 10 TD 3 INT, 113 QB rating, 303 ypg, 8.99 y/a, and a 3-1 record (all on the road) is just awful.

Rivers with back-to-back-to-back seasons of 101+ QB rating and 4000 yards is horrific amirite?

Quote

01-25-2011 , 10:52 AM

#1231

JeffMaggert

veteran

Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 2,589

16 tds 0 picks 9.1 ypa 71% in 314 a (games decided by more than 7 pts)

12 tds 11 ints 7.8 ypa 65% in 180 a ( 7 or less pts)

He doesn't have "it", he is just not very good when it's up to him to win the game in the 4 th q. 3/4 of his playoff games, he did his best to choke the game away (he succeeded vs arz), and the other was a blowout. Qbs he's beaten: Matt Ryan, mikevick, jay cutler. That speaks for itself

Last edited by JeffMaggert; 01-25-2011 at 10:58 AM.

Quote

01-25-2011 , 11:01 AM

#1232

Goodie

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 5,694

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClarkNasty

I hate Manning but Brady pooped the bed twice as the consensus SB favorite is a pretty strong mark against him. And let's face it, he had very little to do with the first rang. Pats are also the reason that Manning has even one rang, with a choke for the ages in Indy that bequeathed the Super Bowl to the Colts.

He had "very little" to do with the first ring? This is just crazy talk. He didn't put up fantastic numbers and clearly it was our defense that was the strength that year but he played really well to get them into the playoffs and definitely showed some magic in both the Raiders game and the Superbowl. Was he the main reason they won? Probably not. Was he a VERY important piece? Absolutely.

Quote

01-25-2011 , 11:05 AM

#1233

JeffMaggert

veteran

Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 2,589

I don't think Brady threw a ball more than 10 yards his first year starting. The whole game plan seemed to be "don't let Brady **** it up"

Quote

01-25-2011 , 11:08 AM

#1234

bottomset

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 26,286

and his magic was something like 6 plays 33yds to leave a 47yd fg attempt ftw, not exactly amazing stuff

Ty Law, Belichek, and Mike Martz stupidity is why NE won that superbowl

Quote

01-25-2011 , 11:11 AM

#1235

Goodie

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 5,694

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffMaggert

I don't think Brady threw a ball more than 10 yards his first year starting. The whole game plan seemed to be "don't let Brady **** it up"

And he didn't **** it up. I didn't say he was Joe Montana out there but to say he had "little" to do with the run is ludicrous. He was an important piece. Not the most important but important nonetheless.

Quote

01-25-2011 , 11:14 AM

#1236

vhawk01

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 31,866

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goodie

"He didnt **** it up" and "he had little to do with it" are basically the same thing. Thats what little is, for a QB. Had he thrown 73 interceptions no would would be saying he had "little to do with it" they'd be saying he was a disaster.

Quote

01-25-2011 , 11:16 AM

#1237

JeffMaggert

veteran

Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 2,589

He was important because he was the qb, yeah. I would say he was about league average that year without looking up his numbers. I agree that saying any qb had little to do with a rang is dumb because it's the most important position in sports.

Quote

01-25-2011 , 11:17 AM

#1238

Goodie

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 5,694

Quote:

Originally Posted by vhawk01

That's not how I took it. I took it literally that Tom Brady had little to do with them winning the super bowl that year and I disagree. I don't think you could have put in anyone (or for that matter - Bledsoe) and had the same result. He played great when he needed to and good the rest of the time. That's not "little to do with it", that's an important piece.

Quote

01-25-2011 , 11:20 AM

#1239

ClarkNasty

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 35,397

Quote:

Originally Posted by bottomset

Ty Law, Belichek, and Mike Martz stupidity is why NE won that superbowl

THIS, THIS and THIS

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goodie

Trent Dilfer's job was also to not **** it up. Brady was about as important as Dilfer that year.

Quote

01-25-2011 , 11:31 AM

#1240

Goodie

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 5,694

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClarkNasty

THIS, THIS and THIS

Trent Dilfer's job was also to not **** it up. Brady was about as important as Dilfer that year.

I don't know a lot about Dilfer's super bowl run but I would be very surprised if that was the case. And Brady did more than just "not **** it up". They asked him to do some things that not every QB excels at, and he was great doing them.

Quote

01-25-2011 , 11:35 AM

#1241

JeffMaggert

veteran

Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 2,589

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClarkNasty

THIS, THIS and THIS

Trent Dilfer's job was also to not **** it up. Brady was about as important as Dilfer that year.

I agree with the spirit of the post but the part about dilfer is harsh Imo.

Quote

01-25-2011 , 11:36 AM

#1242

capone0

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 43,152

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goodie

Maybe Bledsoe would have failed but any league average QB or better could have probably had a similar shot at winning the SB with the Pats that year. Brady in 2001 was better than Bledsoe was in 2000 which isn't saying much. Bledsoe in 2000 was league average or slightly below. In 2002 with Buffalo, Bledsoe had better stats than Brady did in 2001. And they had similar stats in 2002 with different teams.

Quote

01-25-2011 , 11:42 AM

#1243

Goodie

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 5,694

Quote:

Originally Posted by capone0

Stats are very important, I'm really not arguing that but there are other things that go beyond stats. Being able to go out there in the biggest game of the franchises existence with half the country thinking you're going to kneel and putting together a drive with 1:30 left and no timeouts is not easy to do and many, many, many NFL QB's are not capable of performing that task, especially in their first year as a starter.

Quote

01-25-2011 , 11:45 AM

#1244

ClarkNasty

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 35,397

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goodie

Romanticism of 30yards and an eternity of time ITT.

Quote

01-25-2011 , 11:48 AM

#1245

JeffMaggert

veteran

Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 2,589

While Brady was rarely asked to do as much as an elite qb, you can't argue that he did more than he was asked to. The game vs the raiders and rams, he made a lot of huge throws. He wasn't a big factor in getting to the sb, but he delivered when his team needed him.

Quote

01-25-2011 , 11:57 AM

#1246

Goodie

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 5,694

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClarkNasty

Romanticism of 30yards and an eternity of time ITT.

Possibly, but it was still a HUGE part of them winning that Super Bowl and I don't believe that there's a ton of QB's out there that make that drive happen. I think you're "little to do with it" was an overstatement. You disagree. I don't think we'll be proving either here today.

Quote

01-25-2011 , 11:58 AM

#1247

Goodie

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 5,694

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffMaggert

This is what I'm saying. Hence "little to do with it" being an overstatement.

Quote

01-25-2011 , 12:01 PM

#1248

EPiPeN11

banned

Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 18,605

first off dilfer had a better team around him than brady did. brady was def a good qb at the time and we def wouldn't have won it all with bledsoe imo. when brady took over the team was also 0-2 under bledsoe who was considered a pro bowl qb even if bledsoe was the 2nd most overrated qb of all time behind peyton loveable loser manning.

and even if u want to argue that brady's 1st superbowl wasn't his explain the other 2 rangz pls. heck if u argue brady's 1st superbowl wasn't his i'll argue manning has 0 super bowl rangz since he sucked it up hard in the postseason before the super bowl and the defense carried him.