Tom "Iceman" Brady

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by wilsowilso

Peyton Manning's career playoff record is 5-6! Pretty mediocre for pressure situations especially seeing as how two of those five wins are from this year when he has been god awful!

Yeah, thats worse than I would expect from Manning, but what happens during the game is more significant in predicting future games than what the outcome was. So he lost six game...why should I think he'll ever lose again?

(Even though that last question is rhetorical, I still want you to answer it. If you can, that means we are at least on the same page.)

[wilsowilso]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Yeah, thats worse than I would expect from Manning, but what happens during the game is more significant in predicting future games than what the outcome was. So he lost six game...why should I think he'll ever lose again?

(Even though that last question is rhetorical, I still want you to answer it. If you can, that means we are at least on the same page.)

I'm sure I have no idea what in the world you are rambling on about. Can you please translate this post for me? I guess this means we are not on the same page.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by wilsowilso

I'm sure I have no idea what in the world you are rambling on about. Can you please translate this post for me? I guess this means we are not on the same page.

His record is 5-6. Fact. Does this mean he will win every playoff game the rest of his career? Does this mean that he will lose every playoff game the rest of his career? Basically, just tell me why his record of 5-6 in the playoff has significance to you.

If you are comparing it to Brady's 12-1 record, again we are getting into team statistics which have very little bearing on how good an individual is.

If you are trying to prove a different point with 5-6, please explain to me one more time what that point is.

[wilsowilso]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

His record is 5-6. Fact. Does this mean he will win every playoff game the rest of his career? Does this mean that he will lose every playoff game the rest of his career? Basically, just tell me why his record of 5-6 in the playoff has significance to you.

If you are comparing it to Brady's 12-1 record, again we are getting into team statistics which have very little bearing on how good an individual is.

If you are trying to prove a different point with 5-6, please explain to me one more time what that point is.

You're... you're crazy man. I like you, but you're crazy... "Frank the Tank"

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by wilsowilso

You're... you're crazy man. I like you, but you're crazy... "Frank the Tank"

I am crazy! Crazy about football!

Cool by me if you want to end this...but I thought for sure for as strong as your Brady>Manning opinion is, you'd have some interesting insight to back it up.

Guess not. Just a wing and a prayer.

[wilsowilso]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I am crazy! Crazy about football!

Cool by me if you want to end this...but I thought for sure for as strong as your Brady>Manning opinion is, you'd have some interesting insight to back it up.

Guess not. Just a wing and a prayer.

Let's see I started this thread so I figure I've backed up my opinion plenty. The problem is you are "trying to end this" as you say with garbage arguments, nonsensical gibberish, absurd reasoning and plenty of smoke and mirrors. Let me ask you three questions? Do you always laugh at your own jokes? Were you on the high school jv debate team? Do you smoke Crank, Crack and or Ice? Obviously we can go on and on, but I promise you one of us will never budge in their argument and it's not me. Why don't we talk on Sunday night? It's a real big game in this debate. One more question. Is your last name Manning?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by wilsowilso

Let's see I started this thread so I figure I've backed up my opinion plenty. The problem is you are "trying to end this" as you say with garbage arguments, nonsensical gibberish, absurd reasoning and plenty of smoke and mirrors. Let me ask you three questions? Do you always laugh at your own jokes? Were you on the high school jv debate team? Do you smoke Crank, Crack and or Ice? Obviously we can go on and on, but I promise you one of us will never budge in their argument and it's not me. Why don't we talk on Sunday night? It's a real big game in this debate. One more question. Is your last name Manning?

No, no, no, and uh, no. It's not Brunell either.

I'm a pretty crappy debater (as anyone in debate can plainly see). I just know my football and am passionate about it.

When did I try to end this? I asked you point blank why record was significant to future performance and have no answer yet. This post tells me that you simply don't understand my points. Either you aren't intelligent enough, or you simply don't want to stress yourself to think outside of the box woven for you by the talking heads, but thats not my place to decide that. Either way, we can't have a debate if you are unwilling to budge from your position under any circumstance.

Your arguement thus far reminds me of Dr. Z argueing that Monk shouldn't be in the hall. For a decade now, hes stated that people who catch 8 yd hitch routes for a living shouldnt be in the hall with no exception. It seems to be the only thing he ever says about Monk, and for whatever reason, many people agree with his weak postion.

You started this thread after Brady had a poor game. Already, I'm thinking you might have a tendency to misjudge QB performance, but who knows, you could have had some deep philosophical reasoning to back up why Brady is the games best QB.

So I inquired. I got the expected 3 rings arguement, explained to you exactly why that was worthless, then we moved on to the only slightly better team record debate, without ever touching my central point that Manning's performance is better. Even if you factor the playoffs in with his regular season production, his performance is still better. We then started talking exclusively playoffs, and all I got was the "record+this debate is over formula". If you truely think that Brady has some magical playoff power that seperates him from Manning (I don't), thats what we should be debating. I asked you about this point blank, and you've yet to respond.

It is to my knowledge at this point that you have nothing more to bring to this debate. Why debate it any further? If I'm wrong and you do have extra insight, this would be the time for it.

Thank you.

[GiantsSuck703]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

His record is 5-6. Fact. Does this mean he will win every playoff game the rest of his career? Does this mean that he will lose every playoff game the rest of his career? Basically, just tell me why his record of 5-6 in the playoff has significance to you.

If you are comparing it to Brady's 12-1 record, again we are getting into team statistics which have very little bearing on how good an individual is.

If you are trying to prove a different point with 5-6, please explain to me one more time what that point is.

I dont get your argument, your basically saying that no matter how many clutch games Tom Brady has won that in your mind its discredited because his defense helped him win those games, although you then say that its Peyton Mannings defense, not his awful play in big games that has kept him from winning superbowls. Which to me, means your using your extremely obvious bias towards Peyton as your excuse for him being the better player. Your wrong, this isnt a matter of opinion, your just flat out wrong, Tom Brady has won the meaningless games and hes won the important games, hes a gamer and a former sixth round pick who had all the odds against him when he came into the league and basically took it over, hes not the most physically gifted QB, but hes a great leader and will carve up defenses like its nothing, i have seen nothing from Peyton Manning that makes me believe hes better than the 3-time superbowl champion Tom Brady.

[The Huddle]

Originally Posted by GiantsSuck703

I dont get your argument, your basically saying that no matter how many clutch games Tom Brady has won that in your mind its discredited because his defense helped him win those games, although you then say that its Peyton Mannings defense, not his awful play in big games that has kept him from winning superbowls. Which to me, means your using your extremely obvious bias towards Peyton as your excuse for him being the better player. Your wrong, this isnt a matter of opinion, your just flat out wrong, Tom Brady has won the meaningless games and hes won the important games, hes a gamer and a former sixth round pick who had all the odds against him when he came into the league and basically took it over, hes not the most physically gifted QB, but hes a great leader and will carve up defenses like its nothing, i have seen nothing from Peyton Manning that makes me believe hes better than the 3-time superbowl champion Tom Brady.

Exactly. The tired anti-Brady arguement boils down to:

Brady is good because of his team.
Manning is good in spite of his team.

Apparently Manning's stats were achieved without the benifit of an extremely talented offense designed to maximize his signature strength (his arm strength). It's all about Manning.

Meanwhile, the fact that the Pats are 12-1 in the playoffs with Brady says nothing about Brady.

Given a choice I guarantee you 2/3rds of the GMs in the NFL would take Brady over Manning if the goal was "winning a championship" and not "putting up gaudy stats".

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by The Huddle

Exactly. The tired anti-Brady arguement boils down to:

Brady is good because of his team.
Manning is good in spite of his team.

Apparently Manning's stats were achieved without the benifit of an extremely talented offense designed to maximize his signature strength (his arm strength). It's all about Manning.

Meanwhile, the fact that the Pats are 12-1 in the playoffs with Brady says nothing about Brady.

See, the arguement that Manning's offensive mates are a reason why his stats look so much better than Brady's is a completely valid argument, but no one has put foward much of an arguement along those lines for me to respond to yet. Nobody has looked at Manning's numbers vs. Brady's numbers and shown me that they are at least comprable (I believe while Brady has very solid numbers, Manning is just on a different level). If someone had done that this arguement wouldn't be so silly right now. The statement, "Manning's offense is better" is a blanket statement. That doesn't mean that Brady is automatically better. Brady has a better offense than Aaron Brooks, and surely Brooks isn't better, but by your logic he would be. Use stats, or other evidence to make a case.

"Meanwhile, the fact that the Pats are 12-1 in the playoffs with Brady says nothing about Brady." Exactly. You might be learning. It certainly doesn't hurt him, but that says nothing about Tom Brady's role in those 13 games. Actually, Brady's played pretty well in most of those games, but none of you have brought that up yet. You've just thrown the record figure out there with no subsequent arguement.

It's not really about Manning's team and Brady's team at all. You've made it that way. Here's how I would state my view.

Tom Brady is a very good NFL QB.
Manning is the best Quarterback on the planet.

Given a choice I guarantee you 2/3rds of the GMs in the NFL would take Brady over Manning if the goal was "winning a championship" and not "putting up gaudy stats".

And those 2/3 are the Matt Millen's of the world who will be out of a job in 5 years. Because if they can't see something as obvious as Manning>Brady (all hard evidence points this way), how can they be expected to select the best talent at OTHER positions where the evidence is less clear?

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Tom Brady is a very good NFL QB.
Manning is the best Quarterback on the planet.

why is manning the best ?
is it because of his stats ?

[The Huddle]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

See, the arguement that Manning's offensive mates are a reason why his stats look so much better than Brady's is a completely valid argument, but no one has put foward much of an arguement along those lines for me to respond to yet. Nobody has looked at Manning's numbers vs. Brady's numbers and shown me that they are at least comprable (I believe while Brady has very solid numbers, Manning is just on a different level). If someone had done that this arguement wouldn't be so silly right now. The statement, "Manning's offense is better" is a blanket statement. That doesn't mean that Brady is automatically better. Brady has a better offense than Aaron Brooks, and surely Brooks isn't better, but by your logic he would be. Use stats, or other evidence to make a case.

"Meanwhile, the fact that the Pats are 12-1 in the playoffs with Brady says nothing about Brady." Exactly. You might be learning. It certainly doesn't hurt him, but that says nothing about Tom Brady's role in those 13 games. Actually, Brady's played pretty well in most of those games, but none of you have brought that up yet. You've just thrown the record figure out there with no subsequent arguement.

It's not really about Manning's team and Brady's team at all. You've made it that way. Here's how I would state my view.

Tom Brady is a very good NFL QB.
Manning is the best Quarterback on the planet.

And those 2/3 are the Matt Millen's of the world who will be out of a job in 5 years. Because if they can't see something as obvious as Manning>Brady (all hard evidence points this way), how can they be expected to select the best talent at OTHER positions where the evidence is less clear?

I "might be learning"? That's rich. Thanks.

I'll throw this out there: without Brady, the Patriots don't come close to that 12-1 playoff record.

I've actually stated my admiration of Manning several times in this thread, but at this point I feel compelled to add that if he is truly as superior to Brady as you claim, it's increasingly puzzling how the Colts have failed to win a Super Bowl with him at the controls considering some of the talent they've had on hand. Teams with mind-blowing offenses and mediocre defenses have made it to the Big Dance numerous times- but not "The Best Quatreback on the Planet" and his Colts.

Until I see Manning lift his team to the next level in a title game, I will continue to believe that Brady is ultimately the better quarterback because to me it's all about leading your team over the hump in clutch time (again, I realize you object to terms like "clutch" but I will continue to use them as I think most fans know exactly what I am talking about, even if they do not agree with my assessment of Brady), not setting individual records. Manning has a great arm and puts up great numbers, but I am not yet convinced that he is a pressure quaterback the caliber of Brady.
I think pressure adversely affects him, and I thought the same thing when he was at Tennessee. He now has a chance to make some progress in that area this weekend (actually, I feel like the Colts are just flat out due, but that's just a gut feeling). I would be interested in resuming this conversation when Manning has at least gotten his team into a Super Bowl game.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by GiantsSuck703

I dont get your argument, your basically saying that no matter how many clutch games Tom Brady has won that in your mind its discredited because his defense helped him win those games, although you then say that its Peyton Mannings defense, not his awful play in big games that has kept him from winning superbowls. Which to me, means your using your extremely obvious bias towards Peyton as your excuse for him being the better player. Your wrong, this isnt a matter of opinion, your just flat out wrong, Tom Brady has won the meaningless games and hes won the important games, hes a gamer and a former sixth round pick who had all the odds against him when he came into the league and basically took it over, hes not the most physically gifted QB, but hes a great leader and will carve up defenses like its nothing, i have seen nothing from Peyton Manning that makes me believe hes better than the 3-time superbowl champion Tom Brady.

How many clutch games has Tom Brady won? What defines a clutch game? Why am I wasting my time answering a post that contains only stuff I've already responded to?

In my mind, Brady's record is discredited SOME because he has such a great team. This arguement can be easily avoided by keeping all team stats out of it. Record, rings, all of the such. Work with Brady's stats, Brady's history, Brady's resume. If you want to work with outside the box stuff like contract numbers, and even arbitrary stuff like pro bowl apperences (as bad as that is), I can work with that. Compare that to Manning. After all, is that not what we are debating? Comparing Manning's record to Brady's record is like comparing apples to oranges. Very different conditions. Leave the 52 other members of the Pats out of this, and we can move on.

If you want to call him clutch, I'll live, but first:

1) define what makes it a clutch game. How much time is left, how many points are they down, etc...

2) actually show me how this makes him better than Manning.

i have seen nothing from Peyton Manning that makes me believe hes better than the 3-time superbowl champion Tom Brady.

OK. Hows this:

Tom Brady (Career): 1896/3064 61.9% 21564 yards 7.0 yards/attempt 147 TDs 78 INTs QB Rating 88.4

Peyton Manning (Career): 3131/4890 64.0% 37586 yards 7.7 yards/attempt 275 TD 139 INT QB Rating 94.4

Clear advantage Manning.

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

In my mind, Brady's record is discredited SOME because he has such a great team. This arguement can be easily avoided by keeping all team stats out of it. Record, rings, all of the such. .

thats just plain stupid. so are we going to throw out some of mannings completions and passing yards and adjust his completion percentage because his recievers are,greatly, better than the patriots recievers. if we keep "all" stats out of it, then how do we determine who's better ? or do you just want to throw out the stats that favor brady ?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by wolfeskins

thats just plain stupid. so are we going to throw out some of mannings completions and passing yards and adjust his completion percentage because his recievers are,greatly, better than the patriots recievers. if we keep "all" stats out of it, then how do we determine who's better ? or do you just want to throw out the stats that favor brady ?

That's the thing, NO stats favor Brady. Part of that is Manning's offense, but mostly it's because he's jsut better, plain and simple.

Honestly, how much of a difference do you think his recievers make? How many tackles do Harrison and Wayne break? Probably fewer than Graham and Watson. Can't prove it though.