I know but you are saying it's close and giving reasons why. I am just responding to those. Less than 2 PPG difference and his D's had to deal w/ more turnovers from their QB setting them up in bad situations and making the D look worse than it actually was.
You just love to argue, no matter how bad the argument. I am not saying Brady sucks, but to say Manning is not on the same level is just ridiculous. Keep on going, I'm done with you.
You are right. There is more to a team than Brady. That 1st SB team was driven by great defense. And as much as I'm proud the team went 11-5 last year, they benefitted from an extremely weak schedule, as did the Jets and Dolphins. No way were they a SB contender without Brady. I don't think you can overlook Brady's importance to the success. He's the catalyst. The pats were 0-2 and on their way down the toilet for the 2nd year in a row when Brady came in for an injured Bledsoe (who was considered a top 10 QB by most). They proceeded to lose only 3 times the rest of the way..., I don't think the Pats win ANY SB's with Bledsoe. He blew the only one he started with 4 int's against the Packers.
Great defenses, no doubt. But hardly tons of help on the offensive side early on. Vinatieri doesn't make make the SB kicks if Brady doesn't lead the team down the field into position in the last minute. Do you really think the Pats would have even gotten to 3 or 4 SB's if Bledsoe had remained? Nobody wins without good coaching and talent around them. We should all agree with that. But Brady is that special player who gets the team over the top.
1- Brady moved the team over 55 yards in less than a minute to set up the win in the two SB's that went down to the end. 2- Vinatieri needed to make a last second FG against Carolina because he missed two bunnies earlier in the game. 3- Vinatieri IS the greatest clutch kicker in playoff history, but he needed Brady and the Pats offense to get him into position for those heroics. 4- Do you think the Pats were better than the Rams in 2001? You are part of a very very small minority.
Here's the bottom line for me. Without Bledsoe beating Pittsburgh, the tuck rule, & Adam Viniterri what would Brady have won? And that's without considering the benefits he had from Belichick spying...
I am not saying Manning sucks I am just saying he's not close to Brady. That's not an insult to manning, he's still a lock 1st ballot HOFer he's just not in the same tier of the HOF as Brady. He's "down" w/ guys like Steve Young.
Bledsoe didn't beat Pitt. he made one play, he came in w/ a 1st down at the Pitt 40 and they scored a TD. The STs scored 2 TDs that day, the best thing Drew did was not turn it over like usual. The tuck rule set up the 1st one no doubt about it but he still had to lead them down the field for the tying and winning FGs. Adam Vinatieri kicked from 1996-2000 and 2006-2008 w/o Brady. AV w/o Brady: 1 SB title in 8 years AV w/ Brady: 3 SBs in 5 years
Brady's playoff stats since Weiss left. 2005 - 2008 8 games (5-3 record) 182/291 62.5% 2,003 yds 6.9 yds/att 15 TDs 9 INTs Rating below 80.0 4 times Brady's playoff stats with Weiss 2001 - 2004 9 games (9-0 record) 190 / 304 1,951 62.5% yds 6.4 yds/att 11 TDs 3 INTs Rating below 80.0 3 times
So what if Bledsoe only made I play? The bottom line is Brady didn't win that game. In the Carolina game he started that last drive from the 40 because their stupid kicker kicked the ball out of bounds. And didn't Vinatieri win a SB with Manning and without Brady? So what's your point? Brady may be better. They're close. That's all anyone is saying.. To me Brady has too much baggage. I also find it funny that the only thing u didn't address was the benefit of spygate. What the actual benefit was no one knows for sure but it enough to be a big mark against him in my eyes. But once again you're on a crusade to be right at all costs so have fun with that...
Again, it's about more than stats w/ Brady. He had Reche Caldwell and Jabar gaffney as his top 2 WRs in 2006 and he won 2 playoff games reaching the AFC Title Game and if Caldwell doesn't have a critical drop against Indy he probably wins another SB. You can't expected a guy to continue to be undefeated in posteason. I think 14-3 is pretty damn good. Where was this genius Weis before Brady? He certainly wasn't a genius w/ us as in our only playoff year w/ him he was stripped of playcalling duties and he has done a terrible job at ND so far. They don't even make the playoffs if Brady isn't their QB, w/ Bledsoe starting in 2000 they were 5-11 and their record would have looked similar. He also put up 30+ points on that supposedly great Carolina Defense. My point on AV is everyone gives him credit but why has Manning only won one w/ him? He hasn't set AV up for a game winner or tying FG since he's had him. The QB had to put AV in those spots for him to come through. I don't think it's close when you factor everything in. When I say it's not close I am not saying Manning sucks just that he always undreperforms in big spots and Brady comes through more often than not. I want my QB to come through in big spots and give his team confidence. When Manning is in a big spot you see that look, he's scared to lose while Brady knows he will win. Brady vs. Manning is like Jeter vs. ARod(when ARod was a SS). ARod puts up the better #s in the reg season then shrivekls in big games in october. ARod is the more talented player just like Manning is more talented than Brady but if I am building a winning team I take Brady and Jeter over the other 2. Until we found out what spygate meant to NE we'll never know. They weren't spying in 2007 after they were caught and they went 16-0. I'm not on any crusade but when I know I am right it comes across in debates. I know I am right here and I know I'll be in the minority b/c everyone hates the Pats and Brady- heck I hate them too but I appreciate greatness and Brady is quite possibly the best I have ever seen and at worst top 2-3.
Let's not twist words here. I didn't call Brady a "system QB", I said that there was more of a comprehensive offensive system designed for his success in place in New England. In Indy, Manning is given weapons and essentially told to make something of them. Brady's not a system QB. I happen to think he's the best in the game, but I honestly can't say how he'd do outside of New England. It makes for an interesting argument, but there's really no right or wrong answer. In the end, it really comes down to what you value. Belichick got exactly what he wanted in Brady: a QB with slightly above average tools and excellent mental toughness. He's efficient and won't compromise your gameplan by making mistakes. Belichick's plan was successful when he had all of the pieces in place and had that QB. The two complement each other, which is why their success together has been so phenomenal. As far as Belichick's other teams, I'd argue that his lack of a developmental QB hurt him in Cleveland. He had high turnover, with 6 different starting QBs in 5 seasons. None of those QBs started under Belichick, so he wasn't instrumental in their development. Of his two primary starters, Kosar predated him in Cleveland, and Testaverde was on his second team/system. He had a chance to mold Brady into exactly the QB he needed him to be. We saw evidence of that last season when Cassell was able to step in for Brady and post solid numbers while leading the team to an 11-5 record. Either way, I'm not sure how this turned into a thread denigrating Brady. Everyone should at least agree that he's one of the best in the game right now. I'd argue he's the best QB in the game because I value efficiency and mental toughness and feel that history will remember the results. To suggest, however, that he's 100% the better QB, with no room for dissent, is absolutely foolish. There is no way to intrinsically compare the two, given their different tools and systems. It comes down to a matter of opinion and value every time, and I'm certainly not arrogant enough to suggest that my values are objectively superior.
Like Winston said, the more they put on Brady the less success they've had. 14-3 is good. But he was 9-0 with Weiss as his OC and 5-3 since he left. Including 3 games with multiple INTs. He had none before Weiss left. I don't even believe they won those 9 games because of Brady or Weiss. Brady threw for less than 240 yards in 7 of the 9 games they played in with Weiss. The defense held the opponents to less than 17 points in 6 of the 9 games.
The QB had to put them in position? I'd say the offense had to put him in position. Do you remember that Super Bowl? The Rams were in a prevent defense that entire final drive, and it wasn't as though Brady was picking them apart through the air. Only one pass on that drive traveled more than 3 yards downfield. His receivers and backs accounted for 32 of the 53 yards on that drive, and the other 21 were given to him by the Rams defense. Who would you say is responsible for putting them in position to make additional YAC? The QB? The receiver? The coaching staff? I'd say the first choice is least likely. Against the Eagles? That game winning field goal came on the back of a roughing the passer call after New England started on its opponent's 47 yard line. Brady was unable to lead them in from a 1st and Goal at the 4 yard line for a TD that would have put the game well out of reach. He was ineffective in that 4th quarter. As a result, his defense had to step up and win the game. Again, I don't want this to turn into a Tom Brady sucks thread, and I'm not even suggesting that he's not the better QB. However, you can't acknowledge that his Super Bowls were a team effort? He didn't exactly carry the team on his back. BTW, your choice of Ben as your second QB? Have you watched the Steelers play lately? That team carries HIM more often than not.
I'm not knocking Brady the guy is a great QB and I mean all time list of great QB's. Manning at the end of the day is also an all time great. I think Manning has been asked to carry more water for IND than Brady has for NE. I think Manning calls the plays and is the man and the D while decent with nice pieces hasn't been anywhere near as good as NE's SB teams. I think they are both great but Manning has the additional burden of playing for an organization where he is carrying the water. The Pats management carries the water. Had Manning been asked to do less and had the kind of management that NE had I think he is even better. Brady has been far less magical since the Pats have become more of an offensive team than a defensive team. It's no shock that the one SB Manning has his defense stepped it up in the playoffs although when they had to beat the Pats after taking a beating in the first half, Manning was the man. The Pats at the end of the day won their SB as a defensive first team with a well run offensive scheme and a great sytem QB to operate it with unbelivable efficiency. The Colts on the other hand are a team where the QB is the major dominating weapon on the team, everything revolves around Manning. He runs the O, he calls the plays they win and die based on him. The D is decent not great with moments but mostly inconsistent. I can give the Brady argument this, if I'm building a team to win, I like Brady as the QB and the NE approach of Defense first and balance on O rather than building a team around one piece. I do think you need a great QB to win but in todays game asking the QB to carry everything is to much.
He got Vinny in 1993 and had him all 5 years he was in Cleveland. Vinny was still young when he acquired him in 1993. Do I think BB is a better coach now than he was in Cleveland? of course he is BUT the facts are he still hasn't had success w/o Brady. I am arrogant enough to suggest my opinion is correct especially when I have the facts backing me up. I'm confident enough in my ability to judge players, I have watched these 2 play for their entire careers and have watched every one of their postseason games and that is where the 2 seperate. Winston thinks the 10-6 '07 Giants were better than the 1986 14-2 NY Giants. That's pretty much all we nee dto know about his opinion. He set all kids of records and led his team to 16-0 in 2007 w/o Charlie Weis. Again, what has Weis ever done w/o Brady? I think that was more coincidence that after he left he had some problems and even w/ his few problems he still has never been one and done in postseason and still has never lost a playoff game at home unlike Peyton who has been one and done an astounding SIX times and has lost 3 home playoff games. I remember that SB very well, I made alot of money on it:grin: I don't care what D SL was playing, Brady and the O got the ball at their own 17 yard line w/ 1:21 to play and NO timeouts and he led them in posiiton for the SB winning kick. Who cares how many yards in the air the ball travelled? Brady took what the D gave them and got them in position to win. Contrast that w/ '05 div rd vs. Pitt where Peyton had 2nd and 2 from Pitt 28 w/ :31 secs and 2 timeouts left and instead of getting the first down and getting his K closer he took 2 shots at the EZ and settled for a long FG attempt w/ the Kicker version of Peyton Manning. of course Manning apologists will blame the K when in reality the QB cost them that game. They didn't need a GW FG against Philly. They were up 10 pts, Philly scored a late, meaningless TD to make it look closer than it was. I have never said it was ONLY Tom Brady but he was the biggest factor in their dynasty years. W/o him they don't have a SB this decade let alone a dynasty. That team really carried him in the SB, right? Did you see that drive? Did you see Pitt's D melt in the 4th qtr like NE '01? Have you noticed how Pitt could never break through until they got Ben? Ben is very underrated. he's not going to play as pretty as Peyton or others but he gets the job done and that is all that matters. After Brady there's not a QB I'd rather have leading my team than Ben.
You cannot compare the offensive talent around Manning and Brady outside of NE '07. Brady won 3 SBs w/ a #1 WR that would have been a 3rd WR on Indy, he won 2 RBs w/ a RB that wouldn't have started on Indy at any point and the difference in the D's wasn't that much, less than 2 PPG allowed in postseason and factoring ina ll of peyton's TOs in can be argued the Indy D performed BETTER than NE's D in postseason this last decade. Manning puts that pressure on himself. He wants to do it all and brings that upon himself, Brady trsust his teammates and they reward him w/ that trust. Remember, before Brady played rumors were swirling Belichick was going to be fired so Brady took on a very heavy burden when he came in. he was playing for a coaches future. The talent around him on offense eroded to the point where Jabar Gaffney and Reche Caldwell were his starting WRs and he STILL led them to the title game. In '07 he had great talent around him for the first time in his career and he led them to a 16-0 season and the go ahead TD late in the SB. The Pats winning as a defensive team folded in the 4th qtr of the 1st SB then Brady rescued them, was awful against Carolina and Brady rescued them, played well against Philly and blew the Giants SB. How is one team a defensive team and one team an offensive team when the Pats D gives up less than 2 PPG more in postseason? The Pats D isn't nearly as good as you guys think and the Colts D isn't nearly as bad, both D's are comparable. The difference in the 2 teams has been at QB in January.
The one year Brady had all the talent he faced that weak NY Giants Team the one that couldn't compare to the 86 team and he choked he sucked he was outright terrible. This is a guy who threw for 50 TD's averaged close to 70% completions had the most offensive talent around him in decades and that crappy D that couldn't hold a candle to the 86 Giants took his YPA down from 8.3 to 5.5 his over 3TD passes a game down to 1, took his QB rating down a full 35 points and his completion % down almost 10%. The difference is that Brady won because of Defense. When Brady had more O talent than Manning has every had and had a team built around the passing game he put up huge stats and in the big game sucked the big one against what you call a mediocre team. Manning when he had O talent and not a great D choked. Brady with the greatest passing O every assembled in NFL history choked. It seems to me you like sucking Brady's sack more than Mannings when in fact the results have been very similiar.
Huh? Belichick was with the team from 91 - 95. How could Belichick have Vinny all 5 years when Vinny signed in 93? Not to mention Vinny was injured to start the season in 93 and never started a full season in his 3 years with Belichick. Also, Vinny was relatively young, but he'd been developed during his 6 years in Tampa. My point was with a fresh, young QB like Brady and Cassell, Belichick has been able to mold a winner. And yet, you're choosing to use some facts and ignore others. You're cherry picking, which is fine. However, someone else could make an argument based on statistics and bring in outside relevant information, which is what Winnie did. There you go with ad hominem attacks. You're saying that because you disagree with his opinion on one matter, he's wrong on everything? Wow. Thank you for inadvertently supporting my argument that the playcalling and gameplan that New England's coaches use puts Brady in a better position to win than Manning. I don't blame the kicker. I blame the playcalling. If they hadn't kicked that final FG, they would have been up 7 and Philly would have been able to tie the game. Those were their only points in the 4th quarter, so I'd argue that drive and that FG were rather meaningful. Are you sure you'd care to disagree? Perhaps you'd care to reread the phrase "more often than not". I think you missed it. It does not say always. He played well in the Super Bowl. He did not play well during the season. I saw about 14 of their 16 games, and he held that team back in most of them. They won all season long because of their defense. It would, however, align with most of your arguments to suggest that having a superior defense makes him a superior quarterback.
