Could the next 2 games decide Manning vs Brady debate?

#203
#203
volinSmyrna said:
So Belichick all of a sudden became a good coach in 2001 after going 5-11 the year before with the same team? Come on man! Is he a good coach, sure. If Bledsoe hadn't gotten hurt in the 2nd game or Brady doesn't exist, they don't go to the SB in 2001....maybe not even the playoffs.
Click to expand...

Belichick was always a good coach. That's why the Patriots made him a big offer and stole him away from the Jets and gave up a first round pick for him. His first season was an adjustment period. Lots of coaches have them. Have you made up your mind that Butch Jones will fail here because his first season was lackluster?

But it's silly to pretend that Tom Brady was the guy who suddenly turned the franchise around. He had 18 tds vs 12 INTs that first year. That's not franchise savior type numbers. He threw 1 TD (and 1 INT) in the entire postseason that year. Anyone with half a brain who watched them knew they weren't relying on the passing game to win their games that year (or, really, for his first several years...in all of their Super Bowl championship years, Brady never threw over 28 TDs in a season. And in all of their postseason SB championship runs, Brady only once threw more than 2 TDs in a game). They won with defense, special teams, and the running game as much as they won with Brady in those first several years. To make him out as this superstar who came in and had more of an effect turning the franchise around than the head coach mastermind is preposterous.

Do they win the Super Bowl that first year without Brady? Probably not. Winning a Super Bowl requires alot of things to break right. Do they win a Super Bowl without a very loose interpretation of the "tuck rule"? Nope. Do they win the Super Bowl without taping opposing teams' defensive signals? Probably not. Do they win it without Belichick? Of course not.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#204
#204
I do think the Patriots will win this weekend and advance to the Super Bowl. They have gotten back to what worked for them in the early years - conservative football, relying on the running game and defense and de-emphasizing the passing game. Belichick has stopped trying to get Brady impressive numbers (only 25 TDs this year, much like his output all the years they actually won it all) and has focused on getting the most out of his team overall. He has really done an amazing job this year.
 
#205
#205
If the Broncos beat the Patriots, and win the Super Bowl, then I think it's over. 3 vs. 2 really isn't a big difference IMHO, and factor in Manning's records and regular season performance, then he gets the slight edge.

If the Patriots beat the Broncos and win the Super Bowl, then it's still over, just the other way. Brady will be declared the best ever because he matches Montana and Bradshaw.

If the Broncos beat the Patriots but loses the Super Bowl, I think it helps the Manning vs. Brady thing in Manning's favor. He still won't have as many rings but he still beat Brady in the AFCC.

Is it fair? Not really but it is what it is.
 
#206
#206
oregonvol said:
I do think the Patriots will win this weekend and advance to the Super Bowl. They have gotten back to what worked for them in the early years - conservative football, relying on the running game and defense and de-emphasizing the passing game. Belichick has stopped trying to get Brady impressive numbers (only 25 TDs this year, much like his output all the years they actually won it all) and has focused on getting the most out of his team overall. He has really done an amazing job this year.
Click to expand...

I agree. This is arguably his best coaching job this year.
 
#207
#207
volinSmyrna said:
I agree. This is arguably his best coaching job this year.
Click to expand...

I'll 3rd that. Pats won their 3 SuperBowls under Belichick with an outstanding, tough, tenacious defense and a great running game. The culture and mindset he instills in his teams is remarkable. They're a lot more talented than people think, especially where it matters, in the trenches....and they have a special, tough minded QB in Brady. But ultimately, IMHO, it's Belichick and Craft and the incredible organizational mindset that makes it work up there.

I'm all but praying that Peyton plays great and the Broncos get it done.... but if I was going to the bank, I'd very unfortunately and begrudgingly bet on NE.
 
#208
#208
VolsSportsFan said:
If the Broncos beat the Patriots, and win the Super Bowl, then I think it's over. 3 vs. 2 really isn't a big difference IMHO, and factor in Manning's records and regular season performance, then he gets the slight edge.

If the Patriots beat the Broncos and win the Super Bowl, then it's still over, just the other way. Brady will be declared the best ever because he matches Montana and Bradshaw.

If the Broncos beat the Patriots but loses the Super Bowl, I think it helps the Manning vs. Brady thing in Manning's favor. He still won't have as many rings but he still beat Brady in the AFCC.

Is it fair? Not really but it is what it is.
Click to expand...

Can't really argue with anything you said here. Well put!
 
#210
#210
triad280 said:
Colts-2-14 without Peyton
Pats-11-5 without Brady

that should be enough...

/thread
Click to expand...

The Patriots had a QB that could walk and chew gum at the same time, and the Colts had Painter and Orlavsky (who went 0-16 as a starter with the Lions). Plus the Colts absolutely gutted their roster cutting MANY of the contributing veterans (Clark, Freeny, etc).

VolsSportsFan said:
If the Broncos beat the Patriots, and win the Super Bowl, then I think it's over. 3 vs. 2 really isn't a big difference IMHO, and factor in Manning's records and regular season performance, then he gets the slight edge.

If the Patriots beat the Broncos and win the Super Bowl, then it's still over, just the other way. Brady will be declared the best ever because he matches Montana and Bradshaw.

If the Broncos beat the Patriots but loses the Super Bowl, I think it helps the Manning vs. Brady thing in Manning's favor. He still won't have as many rings but he still beat Brady in the AFCC.

Is it fair? Not really but it is what it is.
Click to expand...

This is .... /thread
 
#211
#211
volinSmyrna said:
The Patriots had a QB that could walk and chew gum at the same time, and the Colts had Painter and Orlavsky (who went 0-16 as a starter with the Lions). Plus the Colts absolutely gutted their roster cutting MANY of the contributing veterans (Clark, Freeny, etc).
Click to expand...

Huh?

Freeney was still on the team last year. They didn't cut him until this offseason.

And Dallas Clark was also on the team that went 2-14.
 
#212
#212
oregonvol said:
Belichick was always a good coach. That's why the Patriots made him a big offer and stole him away from the Jets and gave up a first round pick for him. His first season was an adjustment period. Lots of coaches have them. Have you made up your mind that Butch Jones will fail here because his first season was lackluster?

But it's silly to pretend that Tom Brady was the guy who suddenly turned the franchise around. He had 18 tds vs 12 INTs that first year. That's not franchise savior type numbers. He threw 1 TD (and 1 INT) in the entire postseason that year. Anyone with half a brain who watched them knew they weren't relying on the passing game to win their games that year (or, really, for his first several years...in all of their Super Bowl championship years, Brady never threw over 28 TDs in a season. And in all of their postseason SB championship runs, Brady only once threw more than 2 TDs in a game). They won with defense, special teams, and the running game as much as they won with Brady in those first several years. To make him out as this superstar who came in and had more of an effect turning the franchise around than the head coach mastermind is preposterous.

Do they win the Super Bowl that first year without Brady? Probably not. Winning a Super Bowl requires alot of things to break right. Do they win a Super Bowl without a very loose interpretation of the "tuck rule"? Nope. Do they win the Super Bowl without taping opposing teams' defensive signals? Probably not. Do they win it without Belichick? Of course not.
Click to expand...

I'd wager that you consider Manning a "franchise savior" type of QB, yet his numbers his first year as a starter were equally underwhelming. 26 TD's against a league worst 28 INTS.
 
#213
#213
bleedorange0037 said:
I'd wager that you consider Manning a "franchise savior" type of QB, yet his numbers his first year as a starter were equally underwhelming. 26 TD's against a league worst 28 INTS.
Click to expand...

Those 26 tds and his 3700+ passing yds stood as NFL rookie passing records for many years. 1st year, after joining the worst team in the league, 3-13. Year 2...13-3.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#215
#215
bleedorange0037 said:
I'd wager that you consider Manning a "franchise savior" type of QB, yet his numbers his first year as a starter were equally underwhelming. 26 TD's against a league worst 28 INTS.
Click to expand...

No one is pointing to Manning's first year as evidence he is a great QB. Whereas, plenty have cited Tom Brady's championship first year as evidence for his greatness and evidence that he is bigger factor in the Patriot's success than Belichick, which is absurd.

If the Colts had won the Super Bowl Manning's first year, with his numbers, Mora would have deserved the bulk of the credit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#216
#216
No. Humans will find something to argue the point even when no reason exists to do so.
 
#217
#217
If you simply swapped careers of Brady and Manning would any of the current Manning supporters change their tune? I'm pretty sure they would point to Manning's Super Bowl wins, etc.

The bottom line, both are great QB's and we've been fortunate enough to be able to watch them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#218
#218
VolsSportsFan said:
If the Broncos beat the Patriots, and win the Super Bowl, then I think it's over. 3 vs. 2 really isn't a big difference IMHO, and factor in Manning's records and regular season performance, then he gets the slight edge.

If the Patriots beat the Broncos and win the Super Bowl, then it's still over, just the other way. Brady will be declared the best ever because he matches Montana and Bradshaw.

If the Broncos beat the Patriots but loses the Super Bowl, I think it helps the Manning vs. Brady thing in Manning's favor. He still won't have as many rings but he still beat Brady in the AFCC.

Is it fair? Not really but it is what it is.
Click to expand...

The only way Brady can ever be put above Montana is if he wins 5 Super Bowls. Also Montana never threw an INT in a SB. That's a huge stat. Also I have been thinking about the whole GOAT thing and I beginning to think it's wholly unfair and inaccurate. We should start saying who is the greatest of their era.

Think about it for a minute. Montana, Bradshaw etc played in a much more difficult era for QBs. They played when the defense players could take a QBs head off and actually hit them without fear of a suspension. Take what Marino did in 1984. Over 5000 passing yards and 48 TDs in those days? I honestly think that's almost as impressive as what Peyton has done. I wonder what Marinos stats would have been with today's flag football rules?

All I am saying is the more I think about it comparing all of the greatest QBs cannot be done. So the real question should be who is the greatest of their era, Brady or Manning?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#219
#219
Boca Vol said:
If you simply swapped careers of Brady and Manning would any of the current Manning supporters change their tune? I'm pretty sure they would point to Manning's Super Bowl wins, etc.

The bottom line, both are great QB's and we've been fortunate enough to be able to watch them.
Click to expand...

It's going to be a strange day when there are no Brady or Manning in the NFL. I have always loved watching them play.
 
#220
#220
BigOrangeTrain said:
The only way Brady can ever be put above Montana is if he wins 5 Super Bowls. Also Montana never threw an INT in a SB. That's a huge stat. Also I have been thinking about the whole GOAT thing and I beginning to think it's wholly unfair and inaccurate. We should start saying who is the greatest of their era.

Think about it for a minute. Montana, Bradshaw etc played in a much more difficult era for QBs. They played when the defense players could take a QBs head off and actually hit them without fear of a suspension. Take what Marino did in 1984. Over 5000 passing yards and 48 TDs in those days? I honestly think that's almost as impressive as what Peyton has done. I wonder what Marinos stats would have been with today's flag football rules?

All I am saying is the more I think about it comparing all of the greatest QBs cannot be done. So the real question should be who is the greatest of their era, Brady or Manning?
Click to expand...
i agree, its hard to say who the best ever really is. though i do believe its much tougher now because the speed of the nfl is unreal. the defenses today are way faster. they had to make the rules because the players today will knock you retarded.
 
#221
#221
vs_635x250_1389819799.jpg
 
#222
#222
People can say what they want. But it takes 22 player in just off and def. add in kickers and a few special teams players it's probably 25+. Teams win Super Bowls. Player record stats and set records.

A quick searc shows just a few names.... Marino, Tony Gonzales, Warren Moon, Chris Carter, Earl Campbell, Jim Kelly, Eric Dickerson, Fran Tarkenton, Bruice Smith, Dick Butkus, Barry Sanders, Deacon Jones are all greats of all time that never won a ring. One player does not win or lose a Super Bowl. People need to separate who are the greatest teams from the who are the greatest players arguments. Stats and records make the man. Rings make the team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#223
#223
hndog609 said:
Over the last 5 post-seasons where both played (no '11 for Manning or '08 for Brady) Manning completed 66.9% of his passes for just under 299ypg. Brady over his last 5 was 61.2 for 254.4ypg.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Newsflash, geniuses - EVERY QB's stats drop off during the playoffs. Why? Because - SURPRISE, SURPRISE - all of the teams they face are good!!:crazy:

Some people are just too stupid to live.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#224
#224
BigOrangeTrain said:
The only way Brady can ever be put above Montana is if he wins 5 Super Bowls. Also Montana never threw an INT in a SB. That's a huge stat. Also I have been thinking about the whole GOAT thing and I beginning to think it's wholly unfair and inaccurate. We should start saying who is the greatest of their era.

Think about it for a minute. Montana, Bradshaw etc played in a much more difficult era for QBs. They played when the defense players could take a QBs head off and actually hit them without fear of a suspension. Take what Marino did in 1984. Over 5000 passing yards and 48 TDs in those days? I honestly think that's almost as impressive as what Peyton has done. I wonder what Marinos stats would have been with today's flag football rules?


All I am saying is the more I think about it comparing all of the greatest QBs cannot be done. So the real question should be who is the greatest of their era, Brady or Manning?
Click to expand...

You killed it with this post except for Brady and the 5 rings. He would still not be the best ever, even if he gets 4 more. He just happens to be the QB for the league's premier franchise.
 
#225
#225
bleedorange0037 said:
I'd wager that you consider Manning a "franchise savior" type of QB, yet his numbers his first year as a starter were equally underwhelming. 26 TD's against a league worst 28 INTS.
Click to expand...

If the Colts had not drafted Manning they would probably be in LA right now and that beautiful football stadium would not exist. Savior is probably the correct term.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top