This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
On the whole of their starting careers to date, do you agree or disagree that the Pats have had a better team than the Colts?On the whole of their starting careers to date, do you agree or disagree that Manning has borne a greater responsibility for his teams' wins and losses than Brady?
The Pats have had a better team overall.
That's hard to say. His defense hasn't been as good, so he has had to score more. However, the team clearly built up the offense for him to be able to do that, and offensively I can't think of too many more QB's with as much help as Manning has had. I would agree with you more if the Colts were putting up big numbers in the playoffs and were mainly losing because the defense was letting them down, but that hasn't been the case. Manning has played horrible in those losses and the offense really faltered....the side of the ball with all the studs on it. Again, if Manning plays like his regular season self do you not see Indy winning more of those big games?
Maybe you missed the fact that I said wins and losses, not just wins. I mean, go back and look at where it was posted about all of the miserable games Manning has had in the playoffs. Wasn't he more responsible for their losses than Brady has been for the Pats' losses? It is more likely that the Colts lose when Manning plays poorly than that the Pats lose when Brady plays poorly. That is my entire point - the Colts are more dependent on Manning than the Pats are on Brady.
BF, how about you do this comparison when it is apples-to-apples. Do it AFTER the season. To compare a 5 game stretch to a full season is silly.
I like the broken down comparison on some of the playoff stats. Interesting stuff there. I also bolded what I was emphasizing earlier. Many people argue Brady being the best QB because of team accomplishments. I know it's a team game and it's hard to decipher how much to weigh things when talking about who is greater, but people always point out super bowl wins between these two and I find that one annoying.
I'm not saying that this is some statistically valid, smoking gun evidence that Brady will match up favorably to the best statistical season of all time. But right now, we have five games of data for how Brady will do with good receivers. That's 1/3 of a season, which is a decent, but still invalid, sample size. And right now, with the small sample size we have, he's on pace for better numbers than Manning put up in his best season ever. That's extremely relevant to a conversation where people have traditionally said, "Brady could have put up those numbers if he had Manning's weapons". Besides, if I wait until the end of the season, the new mantra will be, sure, Brady had a career year, but Manning does it every year. And if he does it twice, or three times, it will be, sure, Brady has had big numbers, but Manning still has better career numbers. Are you saying you won't do that?
On the whole, during their championship winning seasons, who had the better team around them, Brady or Manning? I would argue that the Colts had much better talent on offense in the playoffs, and that the defense that held the opponents to 16 points played a bigger part. That defense got 7 INTs in the same Superbowl run where Manning threw 7 INTs. Brady has never had a defense that held the opposing team. To give an idea, in 2001, the Patriots held their opponents to an average of 16 points per game, the same as the Colts' defense in 2006. Who had to do more to carry their offense, Manning, throwing to Harrison, Wayne and Clark, behind a line anchored by Glenn and Saturday, with Addai and Rhodes running the ball, or Brady, throwing to Troy Brown, David Patten, and Jermaine Wiggins, behind a line that was one of the worst in the league in sacks allowed the previous season, and with Antowain Smith running the ball?To give an idea, in 2003, the Patriots held their opponents to 19 points per game, allowing 3 more per game than the Colts, and never holding a team to one touchdown, the way the Colts did during Manning's bad playoff games last year. Brady was throwing to two second year receivers in Deion Branch and David Givens, to Troy Brown, and Daniel Graham, who had 5 catches for 45 yards in the playoffs. He had 31 year old Antowain Smith and Kevin Faulk behind him. Who had to do more to carry their teams to the Superbowl, Brady or Manning? It's not even close. Brady. Your argument above, though, is funny. But what about the losses? Didn't Manning have to do more in the losses? That's the thing - he didn't. And it's not like he was even close - he had some awful, awful games in there.
Nice dodge of my questions. You didn't answer either of the questions I asked, as I knew you wouldn't.I already illustrated that Brady didn't carry his offense or team in the 2003 playoffs. They played 3 games and he had a great game in the Super Bowl and very ordinary games in the other two playoff games. I noticed you ignored that the first time I posted it, but now you bring up the 2003 playoffs again.And, by the way, team includes the coaching staff. You love to talk about Manning's offensive teammates being better than Brady's but you never give credit the other way for Brady playing for a much stronger coaching staff for his entire career.It is clear you will never concede any ground in any argument relating to the Pats, period. I've made my points and stand by them. I'm done arguing with you (this time).
I do. The perception is that most of them would take Manning, especially since most of the talking heads on ESPN always say that, but I don't think that is the case. I'll bet it would be pretty even if you asked all 32 off the record.
I already illustrated that Brady didn't carry his offense or team in the 2003 playoffs. They played 3 games and he had a great game in the Super Bowl and very ordinary games in the other two playoff games. I noticed you ignored that the first time I posted it, but now you bring up the 2003 playoffs again.I wrote something out on my PC at home, but I'm not there anymore. I saw someone else had responded to your point, and you'd responded to them, so I took a different tack when I got to work. Apparently you were more concerned with setting the "I knew you wouldn't answer that" trap, so I'll prepare another response.
Of course I'll give credit to Belichick. I'm assuming though, that you're ready to mention that Manning has stayed in the same system, so that Harrison is still using the same "tree" that he's used for years, instead of learning a new offense each time? That the team has retained its top players at every offensive skill position for the majority of Manning's career, so he doesn't have to learn how they play each time? I didn't see a lot of credit from you for Brady firing on all cylinders this year despite having a brand new #1, #2, and #3 receiver. Or for the fact that he did the exact same thing the year before. Or for the fact that his top receivers have included Brown, Glenn, Patten, Givens, Branch, Caldwell, Gaffney, Moss, Welker, Stallworth, while working with new TEs in Rutledge, Wiggins, Fauria, Graham, Watson, Thomas, heck even Vrabel, and others. Certainly you have to give some credit to Brady for learning to work with new players, and admit that the benefits Manning gets from having continuity mean that he requires less coaching because they all know the system already. That's a huge advantage, but one that is generally swept under the carpet as people praise Manning for running the offense on the field.
At this stage in their career, I think they're neck and neck. I view it like a horse race going around the entire track. These two throgoughbreads are somewhere down the backstretch and have plenty still to do. They're both right there, neck and neck and as they turn for home and coming down to the finish line, one of them will do something to finally say "I think that player is better because of this." It will probably be VERY close. I seriously doubt any NE fans are EVER going to just flat out say Peyton Manning is better than Tom Brady. I'd be flat out shocked.True Indy fans probably won't be saying Tom Brady is the better QB, but will certainly admit he's great.Again, to me it's currently an incomplete race. These two have plenty left in them.
. Both are likely to be remembered as two of the greatest QBs of all time and both deserve it.
Probably worth noting that coldhardfootballfacts, while an excellent and largely statistically based site, is run by Massachusetts locals and may suffer slightly from homerism.
If your point is that in most years the Colts have been more dependant on Manning because their team hasn't been the best (especially defensively) then I agree..even though that kinda discounts all the extra offensive help he had, right? However, if that's your stance then don't you also have to agree that the team has clearly surrounded him with great offensive weapons to make "depending on him" easier, and that he has usually let them down in the postseason and had a downgrade in his individual level of play? It's also ironic that the year they finally win is when the team relied ont he defense, and not him. So I gues syou are saying more reliance makes you a better QB? So is McNabb the best QB in the league now? Is Moon the GOAT, because I can't think of any other QB to post such guady numbers without another offensive stud.
BF, for the record, I think Brady is a terrific QB. I think Brady is a wonderful leader. I have no reason to doubt Brady could do just as well if the roles are reversed. OTOH, I have no reason to doubt that Manning would have 3 rings if the roles were reversed either!Quit defending Brady, he has earned the respect of this Colts fan who has seen these two in action several times in person.Honestly, I grow tired of Pats and Brady apologists just like I grew tired of apologizing for the Colts and Manning.Rise above it man!
"but they finally had a team, and won the Superbowl"Just a comment about this one remark, which suggest that 2006 was the best year ever for the Colts. I am a Steeler fan and don't watch the Colts nearly enough, however:
Every other season, the Colts depended on Manning to win every game. If he didn't play great, they had no chance. Last season was a great example that it doesn't take a single player to win a championship. When Manning & the offense struggled, the defense picked the team up and carried them on their shoulders. It seems like when the Colts lost in the previous years, Manning got all the blame because without him, they had no chance to win it all."but they finally had a team, and won the Superbowl"Just a comment about this one remark, which suggest that 2006 was the best year ever for the Colts. I am a Steeler fan and don't watch the Colts nearly enough, however:I like the broken down comparison on some of the playoff stats. Interesting stuff there. I also bolded what I was emphasizing earlier. Many people argue Brady being the best QB because of team accomplishments. I know it's a team game and it's hard to decipher how much to weigh things when talking about who is greater, but people always point out super bowl wins between these two and I find that one annoying.
1. In Jan 04, after their very impressive playoff wins against Denver and Kansas City, I was positive the Colts were on their way to a championship, and I was really surprised when they lost at NE, to me this was an upset.
2. In Jan 05, despite the fact my Steelers were 15-1 and NE was 14-2, I thought the Colts were the best team and would win both games on the road. Once again, their loss to NE stunned me, as it did many experts.
3. In Jan 06 I really didn't think my Steelers had much of a chance against Indy, who I considered one of the great teams in the last ten years. To this day, I still think Indy wins that matchup 7-10
4. Jan 07 was the first time I did NOT think Indy had the best team, since their run D was so weak during the regular season. I thought, like most people that the Chargers were the best team, and the Ravens were #2. A New England/Indy matchup never even crossed my mind, but when it did happen, I never expected Indy to fall behind 21-3, as they had the year before. They barely came back in what was probably Peyton's greatest performance.
And yet last year was the first time Indy "had a team"? I think people must have short memories...
I don't know how to answer your question in a way where you won't jump all over me. Your goal is clearly to force me to choose that the Pats have had better teams each year, and that Manning has borne all of the responsibility for it. But that hasn't really been the case. I'd say that most people believe that most of the Colts teams have been better than the 2001 Patriots that were 5-11 the previous year, and 0-2 so far that season without Brady. And I think most reasonable people would be impressed by the fact that they went 14-3 the rest of the way when Brady took over the helm. Look at that transformation, and compare it to Manning's first season, when he turned around a 3-13 team and turned it into another 3-13 team, despite getting 3000 yards of offense from Marshall Faulk and Marvin Harrison. How could you say that Brady didn't bear a greater responsibility for his team right out of the gate? You might say it was the defense, but the defense was 24th in the NFL in yards allowed, and 6th in scoring. The offense was 19th in yards allowed and 6th in scoring. There's no question that the team needed Brady to do everything he did in order to win.
Nice post. You haven't changed my mind, but it's a good post. Like I said, I'm done debating this.Out of curiosity, who do you give more credit to for the Pats' success, Brady or Belichick?
That's such a hard thing to answer. The way you asked the question, I think you have to say Belichick. Belichick helped pick the majority of the talent, he built a winning organization, he coaches both sides of the ball, and he has made or been involved with some very tough decisions (like releasing Glenn, trading Bledsoe to a division rival, refusing to overpay for Milloy when he was on the downside of his career, and so on) that have, by and large, been very successful. But if you asked who the team needs more to win a Superbowl in any given year, I might have to lean towards Brady. If Brady got hurt, and Matt Cassel or Joey Harrington stepped in to replace him, I don't think the Pats would have a chance of winning the Superbowl. But if Belichick retired, and they put some random coach on the field, I think Brady could still lead them to the Superbowl. So maybe the answer is, Belichick contributed more to their winning percentage, while Brady contributes more to their ability to win championships? Does that seem reasonable?
Interesting question for you, Bostonfred. You are correct to point out that Tom Brady, when he took over NE in 2001, started winning and that he's never really stopped. This is very unusual for a young NFL QB starting out. In the past few years, two other QB's have had startling success: Big Ben has won as a rookie and ever since, and if you take out last year with all the injuries, his winning percentage is amazing. Also Romo has been winning quite handily since he took over in Dallas.In your opinion, do you see either or both of these QBs as special and do you think one or both of them might eventually merit the discussion of greatness that we are giving to Brady and Manning?
Spot on Boston. There are other very good coaches and good GMs around the league. San Diego comes to mind when they had Marty. Put Brady on that team, and theyre winning titles for years to come. Belichick is certainly great. Brady takes the team to an entirely different level. I dug up a stat on how in Brady's first year starting in '01, he didnt throw a pick in his first 162 attempts. Just think about that for a second. Thats his first 5 or 6 games as a starter with, as you mentioned, a previously 5-11 team. Who does that?
Twitch- same question: Like Brady, both Big Ben and Romo have had incredible early success- do you think one or either is or will be great?
I agree the answer is Belichick. As of right now, I would agree that if Belichick suddenly retired today, it would impact the team's chances at winning this year's Super Bowl less than it would if Brady suddenly retired today. However, I think that is largely because Belichick's influence on this year's team is already largely in place. The impact of losing Belichick would be felt more beyond this year IMO. I think losing Belichick now hurts their chances in 2+ years more than losing Brady now. I think next year is a gray area, and I'm not sure which one would hurt more... I lean towards Belichick, but I'm not sure if they would have enough time to find the right replacement for Brady, which obviously wouldn't be easy. In other words, I think Brady is more replaceable, given a reasonable amount of time - 1 or 2 offseasons - than Belichick. Note that doens't mean I'm saying it would be easy to replace Brady - just easier than replacing Belichick.Now, out of curiosity, who do you give more credit (blame) to for the Colts' success (or lack thereof)? Let's start with Manning's first 4 years, when Mora was HC. Who gets more credit/blame - Manning or Mora? Then on to the next 6 years so far... who gets more credit/blame - Manning or Dungy?
Manning got all the blame not because he didn't play great, but because he played so poorly. You guys keep ignorng the huge disparity between his regular season and playoff performances in those games. He went from great, almost error free QB play to poor, mistake prone QB play.gferrell20 said:Every other season, the Colts depended on Manning to win every game. If he didn't play great, they had no chance. Last season was a great example that it doesn't take a single player to win a championship. When Manning & the offense struggled, the defense picked the team up and carried them on their shoulders. It seems like when the Colts lost in the previous years, Manning got all the blame because without him, they had no chance to win it all.timschochet said:"but they finally had a team, and won the Superbowl"Just a comment about this one remark, which suggest that 2006 was the best year ever for the Colts. I am a Steeler fan and don't watch the Colts nearly enough, however:I like the broken down comparison on some of the playoff stats. Interesting stuff there. I also bolded what I was emphasizing earlier. Many people argue Brady being the best QB because of team accomplishments. I know it's a team game and it's hard to decipher how much to weigh things when talking about who is greater, but people always point out super bowl wins between these two and I find that one annoying.
1. In Jan 04, after their very impressive playoff wins against Denver and Kansas City, I was positive the Colts were on their way to a championship, and I was really surprised when they lost at NE, to me this was an upset.
2. In Jan 05, despite the fact my Steelers were 15-1 and NE was 14-2, I thought the Colts were the best team and would win both games on the road. Once again, their loss to NE stunned me, as it did many experts.
3. In Jan 06 I really didn't think my Steelers had much of a chance against Indy, who I considered one of the great teams in the last ten years. To this day, I still think Indy wins that matchup 7-10
4. Jan 07 was the first time I did NOT think Indy had the best team, since their run D was so weak during the regular season. I thought, like most people that the Chargers were the best team, and the Ravens were #2. A New England/Indy matchup never even crossed my mind, but when it did happen, I never expected Indy to fall behind 21-3, as they had the year before. They barely came back in what was probably Peyton's greatest performance.
And yet last year was the first time Indy "had a team"? I think people must have short memories...
1. I think in Jan 06 Dungy was outcoached by the Steeler coaching staff; the Colts were not expecting Pitt to open up the offense- that loss was on Dungy, Manning was not to blame. I also think Dungy was outcoached in last years playoff game against NE, but in that case, Manning gets the credit for pulling them out of the hole
I couldn't resist responding to this one portion of your post. Manning started out of the gate as a rookie in that initial 3-13 season. And that season was also Mora's first season, so there was presumably a change in most or all of the coaching staff and their philosophies/schemes.In Manning's second season, the Colts were 13-4, counting postseason. So IMO Manning did help accomplish a similar turnaround to Brady, who did not step in as a rookie and also was not stepping into a situation with a new coaching staff. But obviously, the biggest difference is Brady's postseason run over multiple years right out of the gate (10 straight wins, IIRC).
I don't think so because Manning has shown more times than not when the pressure rises he will make a mistake. Maybe I am just putting too much emphasis on the ability to get better in crucial games, but that's what I expect out of the best. Can you honestly think of any other athlete in the GOAT convo in any sport that had a history of getting worse when it mattered the most? Not rising to the occassion....BF, for the record, I think Brady is a terrific QB. I think Brady is a wonderful leader. I have no reason to doubt Brady could do just as well if the roles are reversed. OTOH, I have no reason to doubt that Manning would have 3 rings if the roles were reversed either!Quit defending Brady, he has earned the respect of this Colts fan who has seen these two in action several times in person.Honestly, I grow tired of Pats and Brady apologists just like I grew tired of apologizing for the Colts and Manning.Rise above it man!
So Manning gets no blame for the poor offensive performance in that game, even though he has more leeway over playcalling then most QB's to ever play, at least in this era? Dungy made poor defensive adjustments…and that somehow has something to do with Manning failing to put a high powered offense in the end zone and tossing the ball to Steelers instead of Colts?
I remember playoff perfomances for Manning that were quite outstanding. In Jan 04 he went into to Kansas City, which was 13-3 and a big favorite to win, and Manning looked as good as any playoff QB as I have ever seen. And in last years 2nd half against NE, he put on a show and saved his team. I don't believe he is a poor playoff performer. He gets the same criticism that A-Rod gets aqnd Karl Malone got, and I think its all undeserved because the samples are usually too short. I think Manning is a good, not great Playoff performer. Brady, on the other hand, is GREAT.I don't think so because Manning has shown more times than not when the pressure rises he will make a mistake. Maybe I am just putting too much emphasis on the ability to get better in crucial games, but that's what I expect out of the best. Can you honestly think of any other athlete in the GOAT convo in any sport that had a history of getting worse when it mattered the most? Not rising to the occassion....BF, for the record, I think Brady is a terrific QB. I think Brady is a wonderful leader. I have no reason to doubt Brady could do just as well if the roles are reversed. OTOH, I have no reason to doubt that Manning would have 3 rings if the roles were reversed either!Quit defending Brady, he has earned the respect of this Colts fan who has seen these two in action several times in person.Honestly, I grow tired of Pats and Brady apologists just like I grew tired of apologizing for the Colts and Manning.Rise above it man!
Yes, actually, I think it does. The Steeler defense, like New England, is an agressive 3-4 that performs much better from ahead than behind. the early lead for the Steelers allowed them to take chances on D which led to the interceptions- much the same way Indy lost two playoff games against NE. Dungy's passive zone defense allowed Pitt to jump ahead, creating this situation. In Jan 07, New England using Pitt's same strategy (or maybe they originated it and Pittsburghs the one who copied!) jumped out to a big lead. Only the heroics of Peyton pulled Indy out of another Dungy-gets-outcoached loss.
Manning has more bad playoff games than good ones, and the majority of his good games are in the earlier rounds while most of the bad ones are in the later rounds, save last years Patriot game (which was a GREAT performance. Even taking his good games into consideration, he still has a large dropoff in his level of play in the postseason. Manning has been in the postseason enough times to have a good sample size (compare it to other QB's). The same goes for Karla Malone, who had plenty of playoff chances and two Finals appeareances to show what he was made of. A-Rod I'm not so sure about (I don't follow baseball as much).So you don't expect the best to get better, or at least maintain their standard level of play?I remember playoff perfomances for Manning that were quite outstanding. In Jan 04 he went into to Kansas City, which was 13-3 and a big favorite to win, and Manning looked as good as any playoff QB as I have ever seen. And in last years 2nd half against NE, he put on a show and saved his team. I don't believe he is a poor playoff performer. He gets the same criticism that A-Rod gets aqnd Karl Malone got, and I think its all undeserved because the samples are usually too short. I think Manning is a good, not great Playoff performer. Brady, on the other hand, is GREAT.I don't think so because Manning has shown more times than not when the pressure rises he will make a mistake. Maybe I am just putting too much emphasis on the ability to get better in crucial games, but that's what I expect out of the best. Can you honestly think of any other athlete in the GOAT convo in any sport that had a history of getting worse when it mattered the most? Not rising to the occassion....BF, for the record, I think Brady is a terrific QB. I think Brady is a wonderful leader. I have no reason to doubt Brady could do just as well if the roles are reversed. OTOH, I have no reason to doubt that Manning would have 3 rings if the roles were reversed either!Quit defending Brady, he has earned the respect of this Colts fan who has seen these two in action several times in person.
Honestly, I grow tired of Pats and Brady apologists just like I grew tired of apologizing for the Colts and Manning.
Rise above it man!
Nice response. So Peyton's heroics pulled Indy out of the hole, but he gets no blame for throwing the ball directly to Troy P? That isn't one-sided? I mean, how many chances do you have to take when the QB is basically throwing the ball directly at you? It seems like you are saying the Pitt D took more chances and made great plays. I remember differently, with Manning just making some dumb throws (i.e. Brett Farve throws at times, lol).
I do. but the problem for Karl Malone and Manning through most of their careers was that eventually they faced teams that were quite simply better than the teams they were on. Malone was great in the playoffs until he ran into the Bulls, probably the best defensive team in the history of the NBA- against them, he was awful, but that speaks more to their greatness than to him choking, and I think the rap he gets is a terrible injustice to the greatest power forward in NBA history. Manning should have beaten my Steelers, I agree- but except for that inexplicable shutout against the Jets (can't explain!)his main losses were to New England teams that were clearly better. A-Rod is more problematic, I have to admit, because baseball is more of an individual sport. Even if the Yankees are losing, A-Rod should puit up better numbers in October. I have no explanation for this; maybe he is the one true choker out of the three of them...Manning has more bad playoff games than good ones, and the majority of his good games are in the earlier rounds while most of the bad ones are in the later rounds, save last years Patriot game (which was a GREAT performance. Even taking his good games into consideration, he still has a large dropoff in his level of play in the postseason. Manning has been in the postseason enough times to have a good sample size (compare it to other QB's). The same goes for Karla Malone, who had plenty of playoff chances and two Finals appeareances to show what he was made of. A-Rod I'm not so sure about (I don't follow baseball as much).So you don't expect the best to get better, or at least maintain their standard level of play?I remember playoff perfomances for Manning that were quite outstanding. In Jan 04 he went into to Kansas City, which was 13-3 and a big favorite to win, and Manning looked as good as any playoff QB as I have ever seen. And in last years 2nd half against NE, he put on a show and saved his team. I don't believe he is a poor playoff performer. He gets the same criticism that A-Rod gets aqnd Karl Malone got, and I think its all undeserved because the samples are usually too short. I think Manning is a good, not great Playoff performer. Brady, on the other hand, is GREAT.I don't think so because Manning has shown more times than not when the pressure rises he will make a mistake. Maybe I am just putting too much emphasis on the ability to get better in crucial games, but that's what I expect out of the best. Can you honestly think of any other athlete in the GOAT convo in any sport that had a history of getting worse when it mattered the most? Not rising to the occassion....BF, for the record, I think Brady is a terrific QB. I think Brady is a wonderful leader. I have no reason to doubt Brady could do just as well if the roles are reversed. OTOH, I have no reason to doubt that Manning would have 3 rings if the roles were reversed either!Quit defending Brady, he has earned the respect of this Colts fan who has seen these two in action several times in person.
Honestly, I grow tired of Pats and Brady apologists just like I grew tired of apologizing for the Colts and Manning.
Rise above it man!
That's just silly. Brady wasn't the #1 overall pick waiting in the wings being groomed to be the #1. He was the #4 QB, something extremely rare in the NFL. They were grooming another QB to be #3, and they had their veteran #2. Plus, Brady didn't have the advantage of starting for four years at a major college program (where he also threw to first round picks at WR). Brady's first year as a starter was hardly different from Manning's first year as a starter.
I don't think the question should be Mora or Dungy. It should be Tom Moore, who has been there since 1998. Manning's been running the same offensive system since he got there, Harrison's been running it along with him, so have Wayne and Clark, the offensive line has had great continuity over the years and they've all been in the same system - really, that's a huge advantage. Serious question: can you name the Patriots' offensive coordinator right now without looking?
I think Roethlisberger has the potential to be great. Romo might, too, but for now, he's the guy that throws to Terrell Owens (and Jason Witten).
I wouldn't agree with this line of thinking, as I think the head coach has more responsibility. But I guess that means you think Moore deserves more credit/blame than Mora/Dungy...? So do you think Moore or Manning deserves more credit/blame for the Colts' success (or lack thereof)?
Manning, of course. But the reason this is worth bringing up is that you seem to be harping on how important Belichick is to the team. And it is a huge advantage for Brady to have worked with one of the best coaches of all time, even if he isn't the offensive coordinator (by the way, were you able to think of who the Pats' OC is?) But Manning also has a huge advantage, and he hasn't won as much. Manning + a smaller coaching advantage = less wins than Brady + a bigger coaching advantage... that's not really conclusive, is it?
Brady's last five games:71.8% completion percentage4.2 TDs/game309.8 yards/game1 INT9.1 YPAManning's best five games ever69.1% completion percentage4.8 TDs/game301.4 yards/game4 INT9.5 yards/attemptIs this still considered disingenuous or deliberately misleading? Because Brady's stretch is now arguably better than, or at least as good as, Manning's best five game stretch, and Brady's best seven game stretch is better than Manning's best seven game stretch. You asked the question before the season started, if Brady doesn't put up sick numbers to start the season, what's his excuse? Well, now he's put up numbers as good as or better than anything Manning's ever done. What's your excuse?
Fro what do I need an excuse?
Brady now has the best weapons in the NFL at WR, arguably the best WR group EVER, and he's putting up incomparable numbers. The question was regarding the possibility he wouldn't, which is moot at this point. Regardless, the point I was drawing regarding your blatant twist of stats is that a 5 game, or even a 7 game stretch, is not comparable to an entire year. When this year is done, I'm sure Brady will still have tremendous stats, maybe the best season ever for a QB. And at that time, you can compare him to other seasons by a QB.
Wins are not the sole product of an offense. They are the product of a team. Indianapolis for many years has had a great offense, but haven't had a great team.A good offense may beat an average, even a good team. But come playoffs, you need to have a great TEAM to beat another great TEAM. That's where the Pats have consistently had the edge, until last season.
