Tom "Iceman" Brady

[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 The Huddle

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

Well, I guess that depends on who was QBing them instead. Assuming you mean the average NFL backup, I completely and utterly agree with you on this point. And so does the rest of the world.

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.

It's hardly mind blowing. From the top down, the Patriots are a more structurally sound organization than the Colts. Their teams have more depth on both sides of the ball. They can afford to let defensive players walk, and replace them. The Colts simply can't afford to let their players walk and stay competitive. The Patriots seem to be the more soundly coached team, though I'm tired of people kissing Belichicks ass for winning with the best team.

4 out of the last 5 years the Colts defense has been in 2006 Redskins territory. They are undersized. For one year in 2005, teams tried throwing more then they ran against the Colts, and it didn't work. Consequently, that's the one year since 2003 that the Colts have had a better team than the Pats. Every other year, opponents pretty much just run it down the throats of the Colts, and it's up to Peyton to go out and outscore the opponent. That can work in the regular season vs. some crappy defenses, but when you go on the road in the playoffs and play a string of great defensive teams, the Colts offense gets lambasted. The offensive line, recievers, backs, Manning, everyone. Put quite simply, they get beaten by a better team. Rarely does Brady have to play a better team, he lost to Denver last year, he played bad last week in a win against SD, against Oakland in 2001 he did nothing for 3.5 quarters only to obviously turn the ball over on a possible game saving drive...later to have the call overturned on a rule no one knew prior to that. Brady pretty much suffers from all the things Manning does in the playoffs in the rare occasion he has to play a superior team. Their performance in those games are very similar, except Manning has to play those games more often because historically, his team hasn't been quite as good.

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.

As far as your opinion goes, you're more than welcome to it. But you are posting it in a public forum for many to see. I don't think you're arguement accurately answers the question who is better, so I take it as my duty to put my opinion out there to make sure that the "he just wins" theroy stops here. My problem isn't that people think Brady is better, it's that their reasoning is shoddy. If people truly think that rings and abstract ideas are more predictive of future performance than past performance, I cannot change their opinion. We haven't seen enough of the playoffs to really know if Brady's game elevates while Manning's drops. Brady's done better so far, but what's to say that winning 12 games as opposed to 6 isn't just luck? Probably is more than luck, but we don't know that. It's just a very, very small sample size. What we do know is that in non-playoff exclusive arguements, Manning is the better player. We know that all QBs tend to struggle in underdog situations, and Brady is no exception. The Patriots have done a great job in the playoffs, and the Colts a mediocre job, but mindlessly attributing that discrepency to QB play with no further evidence is nothing short of poor judgement.

I disagree that its all about leading a team over the hump in clutch time. I think its about consistent play from kickoff to final wistle. Comebacks are every bit as much luck as skill. Dominating an opponent is pretty much all about skill.

Playing under pressure is an abstract idea. There might be something there...might not. Tough to discredit a guy for not being a good pressure player when we aren't sure what effect it has on the game. One thing is for sure: the sports media makes it out to be a bigger deal than it is.

I disagree that most fans actually know what clutch is, as much as they might think they do. I doubt that you can actually explain it to me. I think it's an accepted term used in sports that people dont really understand. It's got mystique because people don't understand it. And if people don't understand it, how can one guy be better at it than another? Just because a guy on TV uses a word doesn't means he knows what it means. Can he define it? I can't.

Individual records mean nothing. It's certain statistics that matter. Past performance can predict future performance. That's the major idea. Past rings can't predict future rings, otherwise the Colts shouldn't even show up this week. Past wins can't predict future wins. I'm more interested in how a team won, then the fact that they won (unless of course, its the Redskins). I don't really care that the Pats won three championships because I'm not a Pats fan. I do care how they did it, because if I see a similar line of behavior in another team, I know that what they are doing is conducive to success.

If team A has Peyton Manning, then overall they would be better off then if team A had Tom Brady. Team A would have a great QB situation either way (in many cases the difference is negligible. Sometimes, it can be decisive), but they are better with Manning. You don't have to agree, but thats the bottom line.

[GiantsSuck703]

[quote=GTripp0012;271139]Well, I guess that depends on who was QBing them instead. Assuming you mean the average NFL backup, I completely and utterly agree with you on this point. And so does the rest of the world.

It's hardly mind blowing. From the top down, the Patriots are a more structurally sound organization than the Colts. Their teams have more depth on both sides of the ball. They can afford to let defensive players walk, and replace them. The Colts simply can't afford to let their players walk and stay competitive. The Patriots seem to be the more soundly coached team, though I'm tired of people kissing Belichicks ass for winning with the best team.


Why dont you ask Peyton Manning why they cant afford to replace any of there players they lose, I bet hell give you 100 million reasons. I dont know why you keep arguing for a guy that has inflated stats on his record and really nothing more, no significant playoff wins, no Superbowl wins. Look Peyton is a great player, no doubt, but the purpose of a QB is to lead his team to championships, Tom does Peyton Doesnt. You keep ranting and raving about how Tom Brady played on better teams than Peyton Manning, yet the Colts have clearly had more talent every year. Would you like to know why the Patriots had better teams than the Colts, Talent aside, because they had a true leader, a guy to rally the troops, someone who doesnt buckle under pressure, Tom Brady. He makes them a better team, because all of the players on the Patriots are willing to put there own physical health at risk to protect him, and thats why Tom Brady is a better QB, Peyton Manning can have all the statistics in the world in his favor, but at the end of the day, Tom Brady still remains the better team player, and out of the two hes the only true champ.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by GiantsSuck703

Why dont you ask Peyton Manning why they cant afford to replace any of there players they lose, I bet hell give you 100 million reasons. I dont know why you keep arguing for a guy that has inflated stats on his record and really nothing more, no significant playoff wins, no Superbowl wins. Look Peyton is a great player, no doubt, but the purpose of a QB is to lead his team to championships, Tom does Peyton Doesnt. You keep ranting and raving about how Tom Brady played on better teams than Peyton Manning, yet the Colts have clearly had more talent every year. Would you like to know why the Patriots had better teams than the Colts, Talent aside, because they had a true leader, a guy to rally the troops, someone who doesnt buckle under pressure, Tom Brady. He makes them a better team, because all of the players on the Patriots are willing to put there own physical health at risk to protect him, and thats why Tom Brady is a better QB, Peyton Manning can have all the statistics in the world in his favor, but at the end of the day, Tom Brady still remains the better team player, and out of the two hes the only true champ.

You've responded to me three times and have said exactly the same thing every time. Try ingenuity. Or some light research. Either or.

What makes Tom Brady a better leader???? You obviously have inside information that the rest of us don't. Be a doll and share it.

What is your source that the Colts had more talent than the Pats?

Here's mine:
FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Football analysis and NFL stats for the Moneyball era - Authors of Pro Football Prospectus 2006 and 2005

OR

NFL.com - NFL Stats

At least guys like The Huddle or defensewins or wolfeskins are trying to back up their opinions, I just find you ignorant so far. I implore you to prove me wrong.

[GiantsSuck703]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

You've responded to me three times and have said exactly the same thing every time. Try ingenuity. Or some light research. Either or.

What makes Tom Brady a better leader???? You obviously have inside information that the rest of us don't. Be a doll and share it.

What is your source that the Colts had more talent than the Pats?

Here's mine:
FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Football analysis and NFL stats for the Moneyball era - Authors of Pro Football Prospectus 2006 and 2005

OR

NFL.com - NFL Stats

At least guys like The Huddle or defensewins or wolfeskins are trying to back up their opinions, I just find you ignorant so far. I implore you to prove me wrong.

Whats my source that the Colts had more talent than the patriots through the years:

Troy Brown vs. Marvin Harrison
Deion Branch vs. Reggie Wayne
Edgerin James vs. Antowain Smith
Marcus Pollard vs. Daniel Graham

ITs possible to go on and on with the individuals that were better on the colts, that were more talented physically. But everytime I tell you this, you say that it wasnt true and that no matter what Brady still had more talent on his side. The problem is you really dont understand football, its obvious in the fact that you keep arguing for a guy that has choked in every big game he has been in, you get caught up to much in stats. Let me put it to you like this, Michael Vick rushed for over 1000 yards this season, something no QB has ever done, does that make him the greatest of all time? of course not, stop looking at stats and pay attention to the more important things, like championships

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by GiantsSuck703

Whats my source that the Colts had more talent than the patriots through the years:

Troy Brown vs. Marvin Harrison
Deion Branch vs. Reggie Wayne
Edgerin James vs. Antowain Smith
Marcus Pollard vs. Daniel Graham

ITs possible to go on and on with the individuals that were better on the colts, that were more talented physically. But everytime I tell you this, you say that it wasnt true and that no matter what Brady still had more talent on his side. The problem is you really dont understand football, its obvious in the fact that you keep arguing for a guy that has choked in every big game he has been in, you get caught up to much in stats. Let me put it to you like this, Michael Vick rushed for over 1000 yards this season, something no QB has ever done, does that make him the greatest of all time? of course not, stop looking at stats and pay attention to the more important things, like championships

Well, you kinda sorta almost got some facts in there. And your comment about Vick's rushing has some semblance of an arguement...almost.

You are very, very far behind in this debate. You seem to me to be the kind of guy who would post on the cbssportsline boards, and I'm guessing you are either 14 or 15. Not that it matters much, I'm pretty young myself, but you should probably stop trying to "teach" me lessons, and sit back and do some reading yourself. Since you have nothing to add, I think you can learn a lot from reading what the rest of us have to say. We've all been around this sport awhile, and can understand why teams really win and lose. I suggest you look into it.

Not trying to downright disrespect you, but you just come off as a very narrow minded, irritable individual. Maybe you aren't, but all I can judge you on is your post. And from your posts, I can tell you flat out that you are too close minded when it comes to football to possibly understand my arguement. I'm not really a smart person, I just can seperate fact from fiction.

Anyway you forgot these guys:

Tedy Bruschi vs. Rob Morris
Mike Vrabel vs Cato June
Ty Law/Asante Samuel vs. Nick Harper
Rodney Harrison vs. Bob Sanders
Richard Seymour vs. Dwight Freeney
Vince Wilfork vs Raheem Brock

Adam Vinatieri vs Mike Vanderjagt

[GiantsSuck703]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Well, you kinda sorta almost got some facts in there. And your comment about Vick's rushing has some semblance of an arguement...almost.

You are very, very far behind in this debate. You seem to me to be the kind of guy who would post on the cbssportsline boards, and I'm guessing you are either 14 or 15. Not that it matters much, I'm pretty young myself, but you should probably stop trying to "teach" me lessons, and sit back and do some reading yourself. Since you have nothing to add, I think you can learn a lot from reading what the rest of us have to say. We've all been around this sport awhile, and can understand why teams really win and lose. I suggest you look into it.

Not trying to downright disrespect you, but you just come off as a very narrow minded, irritable individual. Maybe you aren't, but all I can judge you on is your post. And from your posts, I can tell you flat out that you are too close minded when it comes to football to possibly understand my arguement. I'm not really a smart person, I just can seperate fact from fiction.

Anyway you forgot these guys:

Tedy Bruschi vs. Rob Morris
Mike Vrabel vs Cato June
Ty Law/Asante Samuel vs. Nick Harper
Rodney Harrison vs. Bob Sanders
Richard Seymour vs. Dwight Freeney
Vince Wilfork vs Raheem Brock

Adam Vinatieri vs Mike Vanderjagt

Wow i think your little age comment was funny, although i do have you by like 5 years. And trust me I was around the game for a long time. I have made point after point, yet you shoot them down, and go and ramble on about pointless stats, well let me tell you the truth, if you ask any NFL coach who they would rather have in an important situation, Brady or Manning, Im sure there wont be to many excited about Peyton. This is what you seem to forget, he was given the game last year against Pittsburgh several times, and still lost. And correct me if Im wrong, but Vanderjagt was actually the most accurate kicker for like the past 3-4 seasons, not Viniatieri. And you keep on about how I never give statistics and show valid points, I just ramble on about the same things, you blatently disregard the fact that Tom Brady has 3 superbowl rings and Peyton has none, and you say its more so about Bradys team than him, but if Peyton loses it should be held on someone elses shoulders, not the almighty Mannings. Look I understand, you like Peyton Manning, thats cool, but you really know nothing about the game, you would rather have a choke artist leading your team rather than a proven winner, and thats what tells me, you, not everyone else, needs to sit back and watch film of a genlteman named Joe Montana, he was Tom Brady before there ever was a Tom Brady, and then you will understand wow all the coaches on the face of the earth would take Montana to lead his team over the likes of stat king Dan Marino. Your problem is you like gaudy stats over a hard working guy who just goes out and gets the job done everyday the way you supposed too.

And since you like to bitch about stats so much, give me five reasons why Peyton Manning is a better leader and a better QB than Tom Brady.

[GiantsSuck703]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Well, you kinda sorta almost got some facts in there. And your comment about Vick's rushing has some semblance of an arguement...almost.

You are very, very far behind in this debate. You seem to me to be the kind of guy who would post on the cbssportsline boards, and I'm guessing you are either 14 or 15. Not that it matters much, I'm pretty young myself, but you should probably stop trying to "teach" me lessons, and sit back and do some reading yourself. Since you have nothing to add, I think you can learn a lot from reading what the rest of us have to say. We've all been around this sport awhile, and can understand why teams really win and lose. I suggest you look into it.

Not trying to downright disrespect you, but you just come off as a very narrow minded, irritable individual. Maybe you aren't, but all I can judge you on is your post. And from your posts, I can tell you flat out that you are too close minded when it comes to football to possibly understand my arguement. I'm not really a smart person, I just can seperate fact from fiction.

Anyway you forgot these guys:

Tedy Bruschi vs. Rob Morris
Mike Vrabel vs Cato June
Ty Law/Asante Samuel vs. Nick Harper
Rodney Harrison vs. Bob Sanders
Richard Seymour vs. Dwight Freeney
Vince Wilfork vs Raheem Brock

Adam Vinatieri vs Mike Vanderjagt

Im close minded, you will not even listen to any one, in your mind its Peyton or no one, thats pretty close minded to me. I have never tried to "teach" you a lesson, you would take Peyton Manning if you were starting a team, thats great, I applaud you, because I would be laughing the whole time as I took Tom Brady with the next pick, you can Pay your guy 100 million dollars to choke in the playoffs, and Ill give my guy an average salary and still have three superbowl rings to put on.

[The Huddle]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Well, I guess that depends on who was QBing them instead. Assuming you mean the average NFL backup, I completely and utterly agree with you on this point. And so does the rest of the world.

It's hardly mind blowing. From the top down, the Patriots are a more structurally sound organization than the Colts. Their teams have more depth on both sides of the ball. They can afford to let defensive players walk, and replace them. The Colts simply can't afford to let their players walk and stay competitive. The Patriots seem to be the more soundly coached team, though I'm tired of people kissing Belichicks ass for winning with the best team.

4 out of the last 5 years the Colts defense has been in 2006 Redskins territory. They are undersized. For one year in 2005, teams tried throwing more then they ran against the Colts, and it didn't work. Consequently, that's the one year since 2003 that the Colts have had a better team than the Pats. Every other year, opponents pretty much just run it down the throats of the Colts, and it's up to Peyton to go out and outscore the opponent. That can work in the regular season vs. some crappy defenses, but when you go on the road in the playoffs and play a string of great defensive teams, the Colts offense gets lambasted. The offensive line, recievers, backs, Manning, everyone. Put quite simply, they get beaten by a better team. Rarely does Brady have to play a better team, he lost to Denver last year, he played bad last week in a win against SD, against Oakland in 2001 he did nothing for 3.5 quarters only to obviously turn the ball over on a possible game saving drive...later to have the call overturned on a rule no one knew prior to that. Brady pretty much suffers from all the things Manning does in the playoffs in the rare occasion he has to play a superior team. Their performance in those games are very similar, except Manning has to play those games more often because historically, his team hasn't been quite as good.

As far as your opinion goes, you're more than welcome to it. But you are posting it in a public forum for many to see. I don't think you're arguement accurately answers the question who is better, so I take it as my duty to put my opinion out there to make sure that the "he just wins" theroy stops here. My problem isn't that people think Brady is better, it's that their reasoning is shoddy. If people truly think that rings and abstract ideas are more predictive of future performance than past performance, I cannot change their opinion. We haven't seen enough of the playoffs to really know if Brady's game elevates while Manning's drops. Brady's done better so far, but what's to say that winning 12 games as opposed to 6 isn't just luck? Probably is more than luck, but we don't know that. It's just a very, very small sample size. What we do know is that in non-playoff exclusive arguements, Manning is the better player. We know that all QBs tend to struggle in underdog situations, and Brady is no exception. The Patriots have done a great job in the playoffs, and the Colts a mediocre job, but mindlessly attributing that discrepency to QB play with no further evidence is nothing short of poor judgement.

I disagree that its all about leading a team over the hump in clutch time. I think its about consistent play from kickoff to final wistle. Comebacks are every bit as much luck as skill. Dominating an opponent is pretty much all about skill.

Playing under pressure is an abstract idea. There might be something there...might not. Tough to discredit a guy for not being a good pressure player when we aren't sure what effect it has on the game. One thing is for sure: the sports media makes it out to be a bigger deal than it is.

I disagree that most fans actually know what clutch is, as much as they might think they do. I doubt that you can actually explain it to me. I think it's an accepted term used in sports that people dont really understand. It's got mystique because people don't understand it. And if people don't understand it, how can one guy be better at it than another? Just because a guy on TV uses a word doesn't means he knows what it means. Can he define it? I can't.

Individual records mean nothing. It's certain statistics that matter. Past performance can predict future performance. That's the major idea. Past rings can't predict future rings, otherwise the Colts shouldn't even show up this week. Past wins can't predict future wins. I'm more interested in how a team won, then the fact that they won (unless of course, its the Redskins). I don't really care that the Pats won three championships because I'm not a Pats fan. I do care how they did it, because if I see a similar line of behavior in another team, I know that what they are doing is conducive to success.

If team A has Peyton Manning, then overall they would be better off then if team A had Tom Brady. Team A would have a great QB situation either way (in many cases the difference is negligible. Sometimes, it can be decisive), but they are better with Manning. You don't have to agree, but thats the bottom line.

Thank you for telling me what I already know- that I'm entitled to my opinion. You can't imagine the relief on this end. I had begun to fear that perhaps my failure to "learn" was going to get my yard priviledges yanked.

If you feel it is your duty to disagree with me, wonderful- I welcome it. However, I would caution that if you honestly think you are capable of "stopping" the 'he just wins' theory- or of "stopping" any school of thought anywhere about anything for that matter -well, I'm afraid you're simply dellusional. Like the rest of us (including me), you're just a fan having fun spouting off in an insignificant corner of cyberspace- nothing more. You have no effective connection to the teams, players, or events in question.

Once again, you are completey dismissive of the whole idea that it's ultimately about getting it done in the clutch- i.e., getting it done under pressure. This is not suprising, as it has been cited numerous times int his thread and elsewhere that this is where your beloved Mr. Manning is the weakest.

You can disagree all you want to that this is an abstract idea that no one really understands, but as I watched a recap of the 1981 NFC title game (January of '82) between the 49ers and Cowboys, Bill Walsh refered several times to Joe Montana's ability to "perform under pressure"- i.e., in the clutch. The fact that Walsh, a Hall of Fame coach, not only grasps the concept but cites it as Monatna's single greatest strength not only means that he feels there must be others out there who understand it as well, but also pretty much obliterates your insistance that this is a meaningless concept (in that I think most folks are going to defer to Walsh over you when it comes to pontificating on this game- no offense).

I do agree with your statement that "I doubt you could explain it to me", but that says more about you than the concept. All you're really saying is that since you can't understand it, no one can.

If, as you say, "Individual records mean nothing...It's certain statistics that matter," I can only imagine that you feel you are exactly the sort of individual who should determine just what those "certain" statistics are. What's also suprising is that it's the passing numbers, the individual statistics, that provide the only real backbone to the "Manning is the best quaterback on the planet" case you've been trying to make.

And again, with the comment that "comebacks are every bit as much luck as skill", you have reverted to your well-worn tactic of attributing Brady's success to the inexplicable intervention of some voodoo-like football shaman somewhere. Amazing.

No, the real "bottom line" is that just because you make a blanket statement that Team A would be better off with Manning than Brady doesn't make it so. In fact, if Team A were getting ready to take the field in a Super Bowl game, it's virtually impossible to see them not going with a 2-time Super Bowl MVP- a "been there, done that" quaterback with a history if getting it done in the clutch - over any other active quarterback. Sorry, that's just the way it is.


PS- "The Patriots seem to be the more soundly coached team, though I'm tired of people kissing Belichicks ass for winning with the best team."

What exactly are you trying to say here? Isn't he part of what makes them the best team, if in fact that's what they are? Should they be kissing his ass for losing with the best team? Kicking his ass for winning with the worst team?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by The Huddle

Thank you for telling me what I already know- that I'm entitled to my opinion. You can't imagine the relief on this end. I had begun to fear that perhaps my failure to "learn" was going to get my yard priviledges yanked.

If you feel it is your duty to disagree with me, wonderful- I welcome it. However, I would caution that if you honestly think you are capable of "stopping" the 'he just wins' theory- or of "stopping" any school of thought anywhere about anything for that matter -well, I'm afraid you're simply dellusional. Like the rest of us (including me), you're just a fan having fun spouting off in an insignificant corner of cyberspace- nothing more. You have no effective connection to the teams, players, or events in question.

Once again, you are completey dismissive of the whole idea that it's ultimately about getting it done in the clutch- i.e., getting it done under pressure. This is not suprising, as it has been cited numerous times int his thread and elsewhere that this is where your beloved Mr. Manning is the weakest.

You can disagree all you want to that this is an abstract idea that no one really understands, but as I watched a recap of the 1981 NFC title game (January of '82) between the 49ers and Cowboys, Bill Walsh refered several times to Joe Montana's ability to "perform under pressure"- i.e., in the clutch. The fact that Walsh, a Hall of Fame coach, not only grasps the concept but cites it as Monatna's single greatest strength not only means that he feels there must be others out there who understand it as well, but also pretty much obliterates your insistance that this is a meaningless concept (in that I think most folks are going to defer to Walsh over you when it comes to pontificating on this game- no offense).

I do agree with your statement that "I doubt you could explain it to me", but that says more about you than the concept. All you're really saying is that since you can't understand it, no one can.

If, as you say, "Individual records mean nothing...It's certain statistics that matter," I can only imagine that you feel you are exactly the sort of individual who should determine just what those "certain" statistics are. What's also suprising is that it's the passing numbers, the individual statistics, that provide the only real backbone to the "Manning is the best quaterback on the planet" case you've been trying to make.

And again, with the comment that "comebacks are every bit as much luck as skill", you have reverted to your well-worn tactic of attributing Brady's success to the inexplicable intervention of some voodoo-like football shaman somewhere. Amazing.

No, the real "bottom line" is that just because you make a blanket statement that Team A would be better off with Manning than Brady doesn't make it so. In fact, if Team A were getting ready to take the field in a Super Bowl game, it's virtually impossible to see them not going with a 2-time Super Bowl MVP- a "been there, done that" quaterback with a history if getting it done in the clutch - over any other active quarterback. Sorry, that's just the way it is.


PS- "The Patriots seem to be the more soundly coached team, though I'm tired of people kissing Belichicks ass for winning with the best team."

What exactly are you trying to say here? Isn't he part of what makes them the best team, if in fact that's what they are? Should they be kissing his ass for losing with the best team? Kicking his ass for winning with the worst team?

Luck obviously plays a big outcome in the game. Seriously ask anyone. Not even joking. A bunch of things can be controlled by no player or coach.

Every term you use can be defined by you. You don't need someone to do it for you. This is your arguement, not someone elses. Just say "clutch refers to all situations in which a QB leads his team from behind to win with 5 mins remaining or less on the clock" or even simpler "clutch=the NFL definition of 4th Quarter/Overtime game winning drives". It's simple, just don't be making assumptions. Once you actually define your terms, you can see who is more clutch, or who performes better under pressure. You may find yourself correct, or dead wrong, but at least you'll know.

If your definition is "clutch=winning playoff games", thats fine, but then clutch is obviously team dependant. In that case it would say little about Brady.

In the regular season there are about 150 starts for Manning and about 100 starts for Brady. In the playoffs there are 13 starts for Brady and 11 for Manning. You can see which season will produce sounder results.

If you look at the playoffs seperate from the regular season, you'll have a tough time proving anything about the playoffs. Theres just not enough games to work with.

You're a pretty intelligent person, I'm sure none of this is too much for you. Just a little research, thats all.

[The Huddle]

[quote=GTripp0012;271236]
If your definition is "clutch=winning playoff games", thats fine, but then clutch is obviously team dependant. In that case it would say little about Brady.
quote]

I don't have time to reply to all of this at the moment, but I do want to point this out: either it's all team dependent- stats, wins, interceptions, etc. - or none of it is. With a supporting cast of 10 on every snap, you can't very well pick and choose what's team dependent and what isn't. One of the biggest problems I've had with your postion since the begining is that you seem to swing beak and fourth between (and I'm paraphrasing) "it's all about the team" (explaining points favoring Brady) and "it's all about individual dominance" (explaining the points favorable to Manning) as it suits you.

Or, put another way, Manning's passing yardage says as much or more about the Indianapolis recievers during his career as it does about Manning as a quarterback...