Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruhskins
Ok maybe Brady is not top 5 all-time, but he has easily been the most dominant player in the past 7 years in one of the toughest conference. Brady made the playoffs with subpar WRs two years ago, and he's been the reason for the success of the Patriots. To think that the Patriots are going to be fine without him is a bit ridiculous. Maybe I underrated Bledsoe, probably b/c of his performance late in his career, but I just don't think it is fair to compare this situation with what happened in 2001.
|
I know this is splitting hairs, and for the sake of argument, I'll say it. Peyton Manning has been more dominant over the past 7 years, Brady has had the better TEAM.
Manning:
29339 yards, 234 total tds, turnovers- 95 int + 37 fumbles = 132 total turnovers, 99.44 rating over the 7 years. 79-33
Brady:
26364 yards, 202 total tds, turnovers- 86 int + 53 fumbles = 139 total turnovers, 92.59 rating over the 7 years. 86-24.
So Manning beats him in every catagory, yet Manning's record over the past 7 years is 79-33, while Brady's is 86-24. Clearly the Patriots team has been better over the years.
I do think you're right about not comparing this to when Brady came in for Bledsoe, however, the Patriots TEAM will be fine. They won't be a super bowl contender, but they will be a playoff team and that speaks to the talent they have aquired, and (gag) the coaching.
I thought the pats were going to win 12 games this year, and after Brady was lost for the season, I think they will win 10 games. If Manning was lost in Indy, I'd expect a 8 win season or so.