Tom "Iceman" Brady

[Hail2theskins]

Tom brady is very good, but not the sickest QB ive ever seen play, not by a longshot. Peyton Manning for one is a better quarterback than brady and a couple others i think better than brady just in the past decade, elway, marino, farve in his prime to name a few. Hats off to the pats, but they win because of superrior coaching than anything else.

[wilsowilso]

Originally Posted by Hail2theskins

Tom brady is very good, but not the sickest QB ive ever seen play, not by a longshot. Peyton Manning for one is a better quarterback than brady and a couple others i think better than brady just in the past decade, elway, marino, farve in his prime to name a few. Hats off to the pats, but they win because of superrior coaching than anything else.

That's crazy talk. He is better than Peyton Manning by one huge margin. It's called winning big games. I will argue Brady is better than every player you mentioned and after he wins another Super Bowl with an average team there will be no doubt. Indy might be able to win, but whoever does is going to walk all over the NFC representative in the Super Bowl.

[Hail2em]

Originally Posted by Hail2theskins

Tom brady is very good, but not the sickest QB ive ever seen play, not by a longshot. Peyton Manning for one is a better quarterback than brady and a couple others i think better than brady just in the past decade, elway, marino, farve in his prime to name a few. Hats off to the pats, but they win because of superrior coaching than anything else.

No Ithink you're wrong there... Brady is the better of the 2 and probably the best to ever play the game at his position... point blank period!!!

[GiantsSuck703]

Originally Posted by Hail2theskins

Tom brady is very good, but not the sickest QB ive ever seen play, not by a longshot. Peyton Manning for one is a better quarterback than brady and a couple others i think better than brady just in the past decade, elway, marino, farve in his prime to name a few. Hats off to the pats, but they win because of superrior coaching than anything else.

what makes Peyton better? He has never won anything in the NFL, the point of a QB is to be a leader and get your team to the superbowl, how many rings does Peyton have? Lets not forget who peyton has played with: Edgerin James,Marvin Harrison,Reggie Wayne,Dallas Clark,Marcus Pollard and many many others over the past five or so years, still no superbowl win. Now on the other hand, lets see who Tom Brady has had during his superbowl wins:Troy Brown,David Patten,Deion Branch,Antowain Smith, Corey Dillon, no where near the talent that has surrounded Peyton and hes still won 3 superbowls and is 12-1 in the playoffs, thats one hell of a Qb, one hell of a leader, and one hell of a champion.

[Hail2theskins]

Originally Posted by GiantsSuck703

what makes Peyton better? He has never won anything in the NFL, the point of a QB is to be a leader and get your team to the superbowl, how many rings does Peyton have? Lets not forget who peyton has played with: Edgerin James,Marvin Harrison,Reggie Wayne,Dallas Clark,Marcus Pollard and many many others over the past five or so years, still no superbowl win. Now on the other hand, lets see who Tom Brady has had during his superbowl wins:Troy Brown,David Patten,Deion Branch,Antowain Smith, Corey Dillon, no where near the talent that has surrounded Peyton and hes still won 3 superbowls and is 12-1 in the playoffs, thats one hell of a Qb, one hell of a leader, and one hell of a champion.

I ask you to read the progession of the posts rather than read my opener and jump to page 11...

[GiantsSuck703]

Originally Posted by Hail2theskins

I ask you to read the progession of the posts rather than read my opener and jump to page 11...

why? have you all of a sudden changed your tone? I wonder why

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by GiantsSuck703

what makes Peyton better? He has never won anything in the NFL, the point of a QB is to be a leader and get your team to the superbowl, how many rings does Peyton have? Lets not forget who peyton has played with: Edgerin James,Marvin Harrison,Reggie Wayne,Dallas Clark,Marcus Pollard and many many others over the past five or so years, still no superbowl win. Now on the other hand, lets see who Tom Brady has had during his superbowl wins:Troy Brown,David Patten,Deion Branch,Antowain Smith, Corey Dillon, no where near the talent that has surrounded Peyton and hes still won 3 superbowls and is 12-1 in the playoffs, thats one hell of a Qb, one hell of a leader, and one hell of a champion.

You conviently ignore defense, the main reason that teams win and lose in the playoffs, and a part of the game that the QB has no control over, while citing offensive skill players, people who are often made by their QB. You then cite wins as your arguement while ignoring both defense AND special teams. Shoddy at best.

[LMsexyAO]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

You conviently ignore defense, the main reason that teams win and lose in the playoffs, and a part of the game that the QB has no control over, while citing offensive skill players, people who are often made by their QB. You then cite wins as your arguement while ignoring both defense AND special teams. Shoddy at best.

Are you going to honestly say you haven't done the SAME THING with Manning? I've read all 11 pages and all I have really seen from you is the same thing:

1. "If Manning wins it's because of his talent, just look at his numbers"
2. "If Brady wins it's because of his team, just look at his defense"

Not to mention that you have this theory that playoff preasure doesn't exist. You don't really believe that do you? Yes, it's the same players that suit up every other Sunday, but you have to admit that when Manning stops and thinks, "Hey, wait a minute. I'm not gaurenteed to play next week," he gets a little nervous. They both do, of course. But Brady doesn't show it in his play, Manning does. You can bring up the poor play of Brady yesterday if you want but look how Manning played in Baltimore, much worse. The fact is that Brady (at least more often than not) handles the playoff pressure exponentially better than Manning.

Even though I know it's been said several times before, numbers and stats don't mean anything in the end. Marino would have given up 16 wins for one super bowl. Even though Manning may have fantastic regular season games, he chokes when it counts, end of story.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by LMsexyAO

Are you going to honestly say you haven't done the SAME THING with Manning? I've read all 11 pages and all I have really seen from you is the same thing:

1. "If Manning wins it's because of his talent, just look at his numbers"
2. "If Brady wins it's because of his team, just look at his defense"

Not to mention that you have this theory that playoff preasure doesn't exist. You don't really believe that do you? Yes, it's the same players that suit up every other Sunday, but you have to admit that when Manning stops and thinks, "Hey, wait a minute. I'm not gaurenteed to play next week," he gets a little nervous. They both do, of course. But Brady doesn't show it in his play, Manning does. You can bring up the poor play of Brady yesterday if you want but look how Manning played in Baltimore, much worse. The fact is that Brady (at least more often than not) handles the playoff pressure exponentially better than Manning.

Even though I know it's been said several times before, numbers and stats don't mean anything in the end. Marino would have given up 16 wins for one super bowl. Even though Manning may have fantastic regular season games, he chokes when it counts, end of story.

"Rings" and stats don't even measure the same thing. This isn't about "rings vs stats". It's about Peyton Manning's production vs. Tom Brady's production. Stats are a great way of measuring production (provided you use success conducive stats), easily the best way, but hardly the only way. However, rings are not in ANY way a tool to measure individual performance.

If your case is that Brady's career is more fufilling because half the seasons he plays end in championships, I fully and totally agree with you. And I'd still take Manning on my team before him.

"He chokes when it counts..." Does the regular season not count? Did Peyton's lights out playoff performances in 2003 and 2004 not count? Did Brady not choke against Denver last year? Did he not choke last week with 3 INTs when his team needed him? There are so many questions that really prevent this from being the "end of story".

Regarding the playoffs being a whole different entity from the regular season, what happens if he goes in and beats the Patriots next week? What happens to the "he chokes under pressure theroy"? Is it invalidated? Refined?

[GiantsSuck703]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

You conviently ignore defense, the main reason that teams win and lose in the playoffs, and a part of the game that the QB has no control over, while citing offensive skill players, people who are often made by their QB. You then cite wins as your arguement while ignoring both defense AND special teams. Shoddy at best.

Ignore the defense? Do the patriots have a player with the abilities of Dwight Freeney? Dont the Colts have Bob Sanders,Cato June,Booger Mcfarland, and Robert Mathis on there defense? Why would i ignore Special teams? didnt they have one of the best kickers of his time in Mike Vanderjagt? and now they have Vinatieri. And Terrence Wilkins is one of the best kick returners in the league. Any way you look at it, Peyton has always lined up with more talent than Tom Brady and Tom has still won more important games than Peyton, look you can have Peyton, but if Im starting a team I choose to go with the guy who has three superbowl rings and will not cost me 100 million dollars

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by GiantsSuck703

Ignore the defense? Do the patriots have a player with the abilities of Dwight Freeney? Dont the Colts have Bob Sanders,Cato June,Booger Mcfarland, and Robert Mathis on there defense? Why would i ignore Special teams? didnt they have one of the best kickers of his time in Mike Vanderjagt? and now they have Vinatieri. And Terrence Wilkins is one of the best kick returners in the league. Any way you look at it, Peyton has always lined up with more talent than Tom Brady and Tom has still won more important games than Peyton, look you can have Peyton, but if Im starting a team I choose to go with the guy who has three superbowl rings and will not cost me 100 million dollars

Well, if you bring contract size into it, you may very well have an arguement. One could potentially attribute the Colts inability to have a consistent defensive threat to keep them in games to the fact that Manning's contract is so freakin massive.

But if so, I'm confused as to why you open your post by listing some talented players from the Colts' D. Whats your arguement? That the Colts have and have had a better defensive unit than the Patriots? On what basis?

FRPLG hits this one directly on the head. If you take Manning off the Colts, you have a really piss poor football team. If you take Brady off the Patriots, the team gets significantly worse but only probably to a 8-8 maybe 7-9 level. This of course implys that a replacement level backup (i.e crappy) would take the reins in both situations.

If the question was which quarterback has had the more fufilling career, the answer is Brady. If the question was which quarterback has ultimately been more successful, the answer is Brady. Citing three championships would be a great defense for both of those positions. But if you are trying to answer the simple questions "Which guy is the best?" or "Which one should I take on my team?", you have to look beyond rings to who actually gives his team the best chance to win. 3 rings does crap for Brady going foward. You think Robert Mathis will have Brady wrapped up this week for a sack, only let him go on the context that the guys a three time champion? Not likely.

From a philosophical point of view, I think the whole idea of "winning a ring" is BS anyway. Stay with me. Football is a team game. The players and coaches win and lose as a team. A ring is very much an individual award, and to me thats a crappy way to represent a team achievement. The Lombardi Trophy is the most soughtafter trophy in sports. It is awarded to the team who wins the NFL Championship each year. It's a team award given for team achievement. Playing for a ring is, at its core, a rather selfish thing to strive for. In effect, you are exerting effort for personal gain, instead of that of the team. Playing for a championship, and playing for a trophy for your team is completely selfless. If you are wondering, this is a very key reason why I put no value into how many "rings" a guy has.

I know that there is little distinction between the two because they come as a package, but the ring would be completely worthless if it didn't represent team achievement, so to use it as an arguement for individual achivement is downright silly.

[GiantsSuck703]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Well, if you bring contract size into it, you may very well have an arguement. One could potentially attribute the Colts inability to have a consistent defensive threat to keep them in games to the fact that Manning's contract is so freakin massive.

But if so, I'm confused as to why you open your post by listing some talented players from the Colts' D. Whats your arguement? That the Colts have and have had a better defensive unit than the Patriots? On what basis?

FRPLG hits this one directly on the head. If you take Manning off the Colts, you have a really piss poor football team. If you take Brady off the Patriots, the team gets significantly worse but only probably to a 8-8 maybe 7-9 level. This of course implys that a replacement level backup (i.e crappy) would take the reins in both situations.

If the question was which quarterback has had the more fufilling career, the answer is Brady. If the question was which quarterback has ultimately been more successful, the answer is Brady. Citing three championships would be a great defense for both of those positions. But if you are trying to answer the simple questions "Which guy is the best?" or "Which one should I take on my team?", you have to look beyond rings to who actually gives his team the best chance to win. 3 rings does crap for Brady going foward. You think Robert Mathis will have Brady wrapped up this week for a sack, only let him go on the context that the guys a three time champion? Not likely.

From a philosophical point of view, I think the whole idea of "winning a ring" is BS anyway. Stay with me. Football is a team game. The players and coaches win and lose as a team. A ring is very much an individual award, and to me thats a crappy way to represent a team achievement. The Lombardi Trophy is the most soughtafter trophy in sports. It is awarded to the team who wins the NFL Championship each year. It's a team award given for team achievement. Playing for a ring is, at its core, a rather selfish thing to strive for. In effect, you are exerting effort for personal gain, instead of that of the team. Playing for a championship, and playing for a trophy for your team is completely selfless. If you are wondering, this is a very key reason why I put no value into how many "rings" a guy has.

I know that there is little distinction between the two because they come as a package, but the ring would be completely worthless if it didn't represent team achievement, so to use it as an arguement for individual achivement is downright silly.

I get what your saying, and I understand its a team effort, but a QB has a bigger responsibility than most other players on the team, hes looked at as the leader and cant buckle under pressure. Brady is a cold-blooded leader, plain and simple, Peyton folds to much in important games, and I would much rather have Tom Brady who may not be as athletic a QB as Peyton Manning yet he has that extra something that just makes average athletes great QBs, I guess many people say they have that look in there eyes. Peyton Manning is an incredible player, to me hes the next best QB in the league behind Tom Brady, but to say that the colts would be a horrible team without Peyton is a stretch, and to say that the Patriots would still be average without Brady is laughable, Tom Brady is the glue that holds that team together, just read interviews about him made by players on his team. But I do see where your coming from and Ill ask you this, would you rather have a great fantasy football QB leading your team or would you rather have a 3-time Champion QB leading your team?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by GiantsSuck703

I get what your saying, and I understand its a team effort, but a QB has a bigger responsibility than most other players on the team, hes looked at as the leader and cant buckle under pressure. Brady is a cold-blooded leader, plain and simple, Peyton folds to much in important games, and I would much rather have Tom Brady who may not be as athletic a QB as Peyton Manning yet he has that extra something that just makes average athletes great QBs, I guess many people say they have that look in there eyes. Peyton Manning is an incredible player, to me hes the next best QB in the league behind Tom Brady, but to say that the colts would be a horrible team without Peyton is a stretch, and to say that the Patriots would still be average without Brady is laughable, Tom Brady is the glue that holds that team together, just read interviews about him made by players on his team. But I do see where your coming from and Ill ask you this, would you rather have a great fantasy football QB leading your team or would you rather have a 3-time Champion QB leading your team?

Hmmm, would I rather have a great fantasy football QB or a 3 time Champion to lead my team? Well, not to cop out, because I'll have a decision by the end of the post, but I can't really make a call from that.

I think I know what you mean by FF QB. But to me, fantasy football QB means a guy that throws a lot of touchdowns. In most scoring systems, the yard between the one and the goalline counts for 151 times every other yard. (25 yards/point, TD=6 points) To me, stats that lead to NFL success, and stats that lead to FF success are very, very seperate statistics. Quarterbacks who complete more of their passes for more yards per attempt will in general be more successful than those who don't. QBs who do that in FF are worthless unless they also throw TDs.

3-time champion means nothing unless I know something else about him. Based on history, I would be forced to take nameless 3 time champion over great fantasy player. All QBs that have won 3 times have been good players (Brady is 2nd only to Montana of the group that also includes Bradshaw and Aikman, IMO). Sometimes you can get great fantasy QBs who arent good NFL QBs.

But once I know more about the QBs, which is the whole idea of having stats on them, I could make a much better decision. Like Peyton Manning over Tom Brady for example.

[Defensewins]

This disscussion is getting silly. Reminds me little kids arguing the Super Man is better then Spider Man fight. Or Aqua Man can Kick Bat Man's ass. Sonny is better than Billy. Gary Clarke is better than Art Monk.

The truth is it is all OPINION as to who is better. They are both great QB's regardless of what you or I think or say.

They have different strength and weakness'. This is not a science, it is all opinion. Let see what happens on Sunday and form our own opinions then.
Even after Sunday I am sure we will all disagree then anyway.

If Manning chokes and throws three or four interceptions in a big game yet again, Manning fans will say the Pats have a better team. If Brady chokes and has a bad game the Brady fans will say he can't win every time.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

This disscussion is getting silly. Reminds me little kids arguing the Super Man is better then Spider Man fight. Or Aqua Man can Kick Bat Man's ass. Sonny is better than Billy. Gary Clarke is better than Art Monk.

The truth is it is all OPINION as to who is better. They are both great QB's regardless of what you or I think or say.

They have different strength and weakness'. This is not a science, it is all opinion. Let see what happens on Sunday and form our own opinions then.
Even after Sunday I am sure we will all disagree then anyway.

If Manning chokes and throws three or four interceptions in a big game yet again, Manning fans will say the Pats have a better team. If Brady chokes and has a bad game the Brady fans will say he can't win every time.

As your username would remind us, it's far more important and conducive to success to have a dominant defense than a great QB. It's also far more difficult to sustain defense year to year. Like the Redskins.

Also the Pats do have a better team and Brady can't win every time. It's true. Which will win out? Tune in on Sunday (That's GTripp for "it ain't that simple").