Manning 49 TDs in 15 games. Brady 49+ in 16 games (1 Viewer)

[NE_REVIVAL]

For those trying to argue that Peyton was more impressive and the Pats ran up the score to help Brady, could you honestly tell me that if Brady ended up with 45, 46, 47, or 48 TDs BUT was pulled REALLY early (or sat this week) in a lot of games (like many suggest he should have been) you would be on here posting about Brady being more impressive even though he didn't get the record? I bet 99% of you who would claim to say 'yes you would' are lying or fooling yourself and instead would be shrugging your shoulders saying that it wasn't Manning's fault Brady got pulled so early in so many games.

I assume you'd lump me into that category. First off, it's splitting hairs. Their seasons are so close that regardless what happens this weekend I think they are equally good.That said, if forced to choose, even if Brady ends up with 50 TDs, I will personally feel that Manning's 2004 regular season performance was ever so slightly better. The Colts needed more of Manning's passing output to win than the Pats needed of Brady's IMO. Manning did it in fewer passing attempts. And the final stats will presumably be close enough for it to come down to small judgments like that. Also, from a statistical standpoint, as of right now, Manning's 2004 QB rating was better than Brady's is right now. While I think Brady will get the TD record, he may not pass Manning in QB rating.To answer your question, if he was pulled earlier in several games, and/or passed much less often with big leads, and/or sat out this upcoming game, and still had 45+ TDs, I'd give him credit for that.

Sorry, but I doubt you would; I think you would ignore it the way you are ignoring that Manning played in pristine conditions (dome) vs Brady playing in the winter outdoors in the Northeast. Huge disadvantage that somehow just doesn't get factored in to your careful analysis.

 

[bostonfred]

This was posted a while back, but it needs to be posted again, to remind some that Manning did not pad his stats in blowouts in '04 like Brady has this year.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti...8/1058/SPORTS03

Don't you hate it when the facts get in the way of a good story?

A reporter for the Boston Globe Web site, Eric Wilbur, wondered why there weren't accusations of running up the score and padding statistics in 2004, when Peyton Manning was setting the single-season TD pass record and the Colts were winning by huge margins.

Here's why, good friend.

Of the 49 TD passes, just one came in the fourth quarter of a one-sided game.

Wilbur specifically alluded to a four-game stretch of Colts blowouts to buttress his argument. Problem is, the numbers don't support the argument.

The Colts beat Houston 49-14. Manning threw five TD passes, none in the fourth quarter.

The Colts beat Chicago 41-10. Manning had four TD passes. Jim Sorgi played the fourth quarter.

The Colts beat Detroit 41-9. Manning threw for six TD passes. Sorgi went into the game with 1:15 left in the third quarter.

The Colts beat Tennessee 51-24. Manning's last TD pass, his fourth of the game, made it 48-24 with 13 minutes left. That's when Sorgi entered the game.

By comparison, Brady has thrown six fourth-quarter touchdown passes in the Patriots' first eight games, five of them with a lead of 17 points or more.

Facts. They're so inconvenient sometimes.

-- Bob Kravitz

Bob Kravitz, after the 51-24 blowout over the Titans, "At this point, we're not just watching football anymore. We're watching history. Every week, the Indianapolis Colts' offense uses the football field as its canvas, and every week, it creates an art form that is distinct from everything else in the copycat NFL.""After the Patriots went on a similar run, "In the last three weeks, New England has scored 48, 49, and 52 points, inspiring inquiring minds to wonder, 'Did the Patriots pile on?' And every week, the obvious answer is, 'Duh.'"

Some interesting tidbits: Manning's two second half TD passes in the Houston game were for 69 and 80 yards, respectively. The 80 yarder came when they were already up 28 with a minute and change left in the third quarter. Manning was also in and threw four straight passes on the first drive of the fourth quarter, for an incompletion, a 12 yarder, a 13 yarder, and an interception. Manning was in on the next drive, too, and threw a third down pass with less than five minutes left in the game.

In the Lions game, Manning threw 3 TDs of 10 yards or less, including both of this third quarter TD passes. In each case, James had just run for 6 yards on the previous play, before Manning. With two minutes left in a 25 point game, Manning threw his sixth and final touchdown pass of the day.

Two minutes into the fourth quarter of the Titans game, Manning threw a touchdown pass to Reggie Wayne despite being up by 17.

So during that stretch, Manning was out there throwing late in the game with a lead of three or more scores. Of course, Bob Kravitz then compares the number of times that Brady had done it through 8 games vs. Manning through those four games, and concludes that Brady had done it more often. He changes the statistic of interest - Manning throwing deep or throwing for TDs late in the game - to the number of TDs thrown specifically in the fourth quarter, when Manning had several in the waning minutes of the third while up by even bigger leads. That's his prerogative, but it's not the end-all, be-all rebuttal that you seem to think it is.

 

[bostonfred]

Why is it they're always '03 members....? Dude, you've been here for a few years, so I'm going to assume you probably watch some team play football, or at the very least watch a stat crawl. Let me ask you a question and you give me your honest informed football fan answer.

If Brady wanted more TD's this season, could he have gotten them, or is this all he could get?

Also, since I'm asking, what is it about a 34-21 TD that makes it so much more magically delicious than a 45-10 TD, which must be somehow better than a 54-9 TD?

Yes, I've been around since cheatsheets.net. Sure, Brady could have more if they tried to pad his stats even further. They certainly didn't go for it on every 4th down in their blowout wins, and he didn't throw every time inside the opponent's 10 yard line. But Manning could also have gotten more, so I'm not sure what your point is there. The numbers I posted showed that Brady passed 2-3 times as often with huge leads. It is factual, not opinion.

I don't know why you're using that statistic. Of course Brady has more attempts. The Pats have had injuries to their running backs, and have used the passing game in lieu of a running game when it's appropriate to do so. But that's the wrong statistic to be talking about. Brady is not looking to set the pass attempts record, or completions, or yards (although he looked good for a while). He is looking to set the TD record. And the fact is that the Patriots have rushed the ball for more TDs than the Colts. They've thrown for about the same number of TDs as the Colts when up big. In other words, they've done less to run up the record for Brady than the Colts did for Manning.

But you do bring up an interesting point about the number of passes. The fact that Brady has fewer INTs in more pass attempts is another feather in the cap of a season that has been better than Manning's 2004.

I'm using attempts because attempts show you the intent of the offense. How many attempts are converted to TDs is more about execution (which the Pats have excelled at, obviously). I realize the Pats have had RB injuries, but the fact remains they are 10th in rushing attempts, 10th in rushing yards, 9th in ypc, and 6th in rushing TDs. To me, that is a credit to the Pats in a number of ways: they have very good depth, a very good run blocking OL, a great passing game that keeps the defense focused on the passing game, a great coaching staff that knows how to adjust playcalling to different RBs, etc. I disagree with the notion that they needed to make all the pass attempts with large leads, as if they would have lost games had they done so.EDIT: If the coach/QB wants to pad passing TDs, what do they do? Do they just call the "sure TD" play a few times? No, they throw more passes, and in executing the passing offense more often, it leads to more passing TDs.

The bolded statement is simply untrue. As another example, besides the ones I have already given, Manning only threw 497 passes in 2004. As a team, the Colts were 15th in the NFL with 527. They obviously could have passed a good deal more often if they wanted to. Brady already has 536 attempts, despite the fact that the Pats have had an easier time winning games overall, and the Pats are 4th in the league.

I disagree with the use of attempts as some type of guideline for whether they're trying to pass for the record. The Colts in 2004 had Edgerrin James put up over 2000 combined yards, over 1500 on the ground, but only run for 9 TDs. The Patriots have rushed the ball, but they don't have an Edgerrin James. Yet they still have 15 rushing TDs compared with the 2004 Colts' 10. Do they pass the ball more often? Sure. That's how you move the ball when you have a stud QB but don't have a stud running back. But that hasn't translated to a greater proportion of rushing TDs vs passing TDs the way you seem to predict. Which goes to show that yes, the Colts were going for the record far more than the Pats.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Last but not least, Manning's offenses have been shut out and held to 3 points in the playoffs. Brady's offenses have never scored less than 13. So Manning has been the reason more often than not.

Fact: In Brady's 2nd playoff game, the 24-17 win over Pittsburgh in the AFC title game, the Patriots OFFENSE scored 10 points. Drew Bledsoe was the QB for all 10 of those points. In nearly a half of play, Brady led the Patriots to a whopping ZERO points. The Patriots other 14 points were scored by special teams. Sorry, but you cannot accuse others of not keeping their facts straight when you are incapable of doing the same yourself.

Sorry, but even this contrived attempt is incorrect. The Patriots were actually ahead 7-3 when Brady was knocked out. He was 12 of 18 for 115 yards, and had just completed a 28 yard pass to put the Pats in long field goal distance before halftime. But if your point is that Manning didn't show up for the second half of a bunch of playoff games, too, then it's well taken.

The Patriots were ahead 7-3 thanks to a punt return by Troy Brown. And Brady's pass put them inside the 45-yard line, hardly field goal range, even for a stud like Vinatieri. Funny how it then took Bledsoe a mere four plays to get them in the end zone after Brady failed to do so for almost the entire half up until that point. Bottom line, even if you want to give an assist to Brady for that drive, he still failed to produce 13 points in that game, making your earlier comment wrong either way.

 

[Ghost Rider]

This was posted a while back, but it needs to be posted again, to remind some that Manning did not pad his stats in blowouts in '04 like Brady has this year.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti...8/1058/SPORTS03

Don't you hate it when the facts get in the way of a good story?

A reporter for the Boston Globe Web site, Eric Wilbur, wondered why there weren't accusations of running up the score and padding statistics in 2004, when Peyton Manning was setting the single-season TD pass record and the Colts were winning by huge margins.

Here's why, good friend.

Of the 49 TD passes, just one came in the fourth quarter of a one-sided game.

Wilbur specifically alluded to a four-game stretch of Colts blowouts to buttress his argument. Problem is, the numbers don't support the argument.

The Colts beat Houston 49-14. Manning threw five TD passes, none in the fourth quarter.

The Colts beat Chicago 41-10. Manning had four TD passes. Jim Sorgi played the fourth quarter.

The Colts beat Detroit 41-9. Manning threw for six TD passes. Sorgi went into the game with 1:15 left in the third quarter.

The Colts beat Tennessee 51-24. Manning's last TD pass, his fourth of the game, made it 48-24 with 13 minutes left. That's when Sorgi entered the game.

By comparison, Brady has thrown six fourth-quarter touchdown passes in the Patriots' first eight games, five of them with a lead of 17 points or more.

Facts. They're so inconvenient sometimes.

-- Bob Kravitz

Bob Kravitz, after the 51-24 blowout over the Titans, "At this point, we're not just watching football anymore. We're watching history. Every week, the Indianapolis Colts' offense uses the football field as its canvas, and every week, it creates an art form that is distinct from everything else in the copycat NFL.""After the Patriots went on a similar run, "In the last three weeks, New England has scored 48, 49, and 52 points, inspiring inquiring minds to wonder, 'Did the Patriots pile on?' And every week, the obvious answer is, 'Duh.'"

Some interesting tidbits: Manning's two second half TD passes in the Houston game were for 69 and 80 yards, respectively. The 80 yarder came when they were already up 28 with a minute and change left in the third quarter. Manning was also in and threw four straight passes on the first drive of the fourth quarter, for an incompletion, a 12 yarder, a 13 yarder, and an interception. Manning was in on the next drive, too, and threw a third down pass with less than five minutes left in the game.

In the Lions game, Manning threw 3 TDs of 10 yards or less, including both of this third quarter TD passes. In each case, James had just run for 6 yards on the previous play, before Manning. With two minutes left in a 25 point game, Manning threw his sixth and final touchdown pass of the day.

Two minutes into the fourth quarter of the Titans game, Manning threw a touchdown pass to Reggie Wayne despite being up by 17.

So during that stretch, Manning was out there throwing late in the game with a lead of three or more scores. Of course, Bob Kravitz then compares the number of times that Brady had done it through 8 games vs. Manning through those four games, and concludes that Brady had done it more often. He changes the statistic of interest - Manning throwing deep or throwing for TDs late in the game - to the number of TDs thrown specifically in the fourth quarter, when Manning had several in the waning minutes of the third while up by even bigger leads. That's his prerogative, but it's not the end-all, be-all rebuttal that you seem to think it is.

Yes, because Manning throwing a TD when his team is already up 17-0 is the same as Brady throwing one when his team is already up 38-0 in the 4th quarter.

Why is it they're always '03 members....? Dude, you've been here for a few years, so I'm going to assume you probably watch some team play football, or at the very least watch a stat crawl. Let me ask you a question and you give me your honest informed football fan answer.

If Brady wanted more TD's this season, could he have gotten them, or is this all he could get?

Also, since I'm asking, what is it about a 34-21 TD that makes it so much more magically delicious than a 45-10 TD, which must be somehow better than a 54-9 TD?

Yes, I've been around since cheatsheets.net. Sure, Brady could have more if they tried to pad his stats even further. They certainly didn't go for it on every 4th down in their blowout wins, and he didn't throw every time inside the opponent's 10 yard line. But Manning could also have gotten more, so I'm not sure what your point is there. The numbers I posted showed that Brady passed 2-3 times as often with huge leads. It is factual, not opinion.

I don't know why you're using that statistic. Of course Brady has more attempts. The Pats have had injuries to their running backs, and have used the passing game in lieu of a running game when it's appropriate to do so. But that's the wrong statistic to be talking about. Brady is not looking to set the pass attempts record, or completions, or yards (although he looked good for a while). He is looking to set the TD record. And the fact is that the Patriots have rushed the ball for more TDs than the Colts. They've thrown for about the same number of TDs as the Colts when up big. In other words, they've done less to run up the record for Brady than the Colts did for Manning.

But you do bring up an interesting point about the number of passes. The fact that Brady has fewer INTs in more pass attempts is another feather in the cap of a season that has been better than Manning's 2004.

I'm using attempts because attempts show you the intent of the offense. How many attempts are converted to TDs is more about execution (which the Pats have excelled at, obviously). I realize the Pats have had RB injuries, but the fact remains they are 10th in rushing attempts, 10th in rushing yards, 9th in ypc, and 6th in rushing TDs. To me, that is a credit to the Pats in a number of ways: they have very good depth, a very good run blocking OL, a great passing game that keeps the defense focused on the passing game, a great coaching staff that knows how to adjust playcalling to different RBs, etc. I disagree with the notion that they needed to make all the pass attempts with large leads, as if they would have lost games had they done so.EDIT: If the coach/QB wants to pad passing TDs, what do they do? Do they just call the "sure TD" play a few times? No, they throw more passes, and in executing the passing offense more often, it leads to more passing TDs.

The bolded statement is simply untrue. As another example, besides the ones I have already given, Manning only threw 497 passes in 2004. As a team, the Colts were 15th in the NFL with 527. They obviously could have passed a good deal more often if they wanted to. Brady already has 536 attempts, despite the fact that the Pats have had an easier time winning games overall, and the Pats are 4th in the league.

I disagree with the use of attempts as some type of guideline for whether they're trying to pass for the record. The Colts in 2004 had Edgerrin James put up over 2000 combined yards, over 1500 on the ground, but only run for 9 TDs. The Patriots have rushed the ball, but they don't have an Edgerrin James. Yet they still have 15 rushing TDs compared with the 2004 Colts' 10. Do they pass the ball more often? Sure. That's how you move the ball when you have a stud QB but don't have a stud running back. But that hasn't translated to a greater proportion of rushing TDs vs passing TDs the way you seem to predict. Which goes to show that yes, the Colts were going for the record far more than the Pats.

Oh, please. I don't have the stat handy, but I remember James being one of the worst short yardage runners in the league in '04. Remember his fumbles in the game against the Patriots in week 1? Both were in short yardage. Factor those in, and it makes it clear why the Colts passed more than they ran down near the goal line in '04.

 

[Road Warriors]

Last but not least, Manning's offenses have been shut out and held to 3 points in the playoffs. Brady's offenses have never scored less than 13. So Manning has been the reason more often than not.

Fact: In Brady's 2nd playoff game, the 24-17 win over Pittsburgh in the AFC title game, the Patriots OFFENSE scored 10 points. Drew Bledsoe was the QB for all 10 of those points. In nearly a half of play, Brady led the Patriots to a whopping ZERO points. The Patriots other 14 points were scored by special teams. Sorry, but you cannot accuse others of not keeping their facts straight when you are incapable of doing the same yourself.

Sorry, but even this contrived attempt is incorrect. The Patriots were actually ahead 7-3 when Brady was knocked out. He was 12 of 18 for 115 yards, and had just completed a 28 yard pass to put the Pats in long field goal distance before halftime. But if your point is that Manning didn't show up for the second half of a bunch of playoff games, too, then it's well taken.

The Patriots were ahead 7-3 thanks to a punt return by Troy Brown. And Brady's pass put them inside the 45-yard line, hardly field goal range, even for a stud like Vinatieri. Funny how it then took Bledsoe a mere four plays to get them in the end zone after Brady failed to do so for almost the entire half up until that point. Bottom line, even if you want to give an assist to Brady for that drive, he still failed to produce 13 points in that game, making your earlier comment wrong either way.

So, basically, in 1 of 13 playoff games, and one in which Brady left the game in the 1st half with an injury, the Pats offense was held to less than 13 points. OK. You're right, the OP was incorrect. So in 12 COMPLETED playoff games by Brady, he has never led his team to fewer than 13 points, while Manning has been held to 3 and 0 points during complete games. Does that meet with your level of fact? Its this level of nitpicking a post under the guise of "getting facts straight" that both sides of this argument do that is the primary problem I see. The difference in concept doesn't change, but by picking on one minute detail of the argument presented, you feel you debunk the entire point. It doesn't, unless you've come to the discussion with your position already made up.

 

[Master of Past and Present]

This was posted a while back, but it needs to be posted again, to remind some that Manning did not pad his stats in blowouts in '04 like Brady has this year.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti...8/1058/SPORTS03

Don't you hate it when the facts get in the way of a good story?

A reporter for the Boston Globe Web site, Eric Wilbur, wondered why there weren't accusations of running up the score and padding statistics in 2004, when Peyton Manning was setting the single-season TD pass record and the Colts were winning by huge margins.

Here's why, good friend.

Of the 49 TD passes, just one came in the fourth quarter of a one-sided game.

Wilbur specifically alluded to a four-game stretch of Colts blowouts to buttress his argument. Problem is, the numbers don't support the argument.

The Colts beat Houston 49-14. Manning threw five TD passes, none in the fourth quarter.

The Colts beat Chicago 41-10. Manning had four TD passes. Jim Sorgi played the fourth quarter.

The Colts beat Detroit 41-9. Manning threw for six TD passes. Sorgi went into the game with 1:15 left in the third quarter.

The Colts beat Tennessee 51-24. Manning's last TD pass, his fourth of the game, made it 48-24 with 13 minutes left. That's when Sorgi entered the game.

By comparison, Brady has thrown six fourth-quarter touchdown passes in the Patriots' first eight games, five of them with a lead of 17 points or more.

Facts. They're so inconvenient sometimes.

-- Bob Kravitz

Bob Kravitz, after the 51-24 blowout over the Titans, "At this point, we're not just watching football anymore. We're watching history. Every week, the Indianapolis Colts' offense uses the football field as its canvas, and every week, it creates an art form that is distinct from everything else in the copycat NFL.""After the Patriots went on a similar run, "In the last three weeks, New England has scored 48, 49, and 52 points, inspiring inquiring minds to wonder, 'Did the Patriots pile on?' And every week, the obvious answer is, 'Duh.'"

Some interesting tidbits: Manning's two second half TD passes in the Houston game were for 69 and 80 yards, respectively. The 80 yarder came when they were already up 28 with a minute and change left in the third quarter. Manning was also in and threw four straight passes on the first drive of the fourth quarter, for an incompletion, a 12 yarder, a 13 yarder, and an interception. Manning was in on the next drive, too, and threw a third down pass with less than five minutes left in the game.

In the Lions game, Manning threw 3 TDs of 10 yards or less, including both of this third quarter TD passes. In each case, James had just run for 6 yards on the previous play, before Manning. With two minutes left in a 25 point game, Manning threw his sixth and final touchdown pass of the day.

Two minutes into the fourth quarter of the Titans game, Manning threw a touchdown pass to Reggie Wayne despite being up by 17.

So during that stretch, Manning was out there throwing late in the game with a lead of three or more scores. Of course, Bob Kravitz then compares the number of times that Brady had done it through 8 games vs. Manning through those four games, and concludes that Brady had done it more often. He changes the statistic of interest - Manning throwing deep or throwing for TDs late in the game - to the number of TDs thrown specifically in the fourth quarter, when Manning had several in the waning minutes of the third while up by even bigger leads. That's his prerogative, but it's not the end-all, be-all rebuttal that you seem to think it is.

Yes, because Manning throwing a TD when his team is already up 17-0 is the same as Brady throwing one when his team is already up 38-0 in the 4th quarter.

Why is it they're always '03 members....? Dude, you've been here for a few years, so I'm going to assume you probably watch some team play football, or at the very least watch a stat crawl. Let me ask you a question and you give me your honest informed football fan answer.

If Brady wanted more TD's this season, could he have gotten them, or is this all he could get?

Also, since I'm asking, what is it about a 34-21 TD that makes it so much more magically delicious than a 45-10 TD, which must be somehow better than a 54-9 TD?

Yes, I've been around since cheatsheets.net. Sure, Brady could have more if they tried to pad his stats even further. They certainly didn't go for it on every 4th down in their blowout wins, and he didn't throw every time inside the opponent's 10 yard line. But Manning could also have gotten more, so I'm not sure what your point is there. The numbers I posted showed that Brady passed 2-3 times as often with huge leads. It is factual, not opinion.

I don't know why you're using that statistic. Of course Brady has more attempts. The Pats have had injuries to their running backs, and have used the passing game in lieu of a running game when it's appropriate to do so. But that's the wrong statistic to be talking about. Brady is not looking to set the pass attempts record, or completions, or yards (although he looked good for a while). He is looking to set the TD record. And the fact is that the Patriots have rushed the ball for more TDs than the Colts. They've thrown for about the same number of TDs as the Colts when up big. In other words, they've done less to run up the record for Brady than the Colts did for Manning.

But you do bring up an interesting point about the number of passes. The fact that Brady has fewer INTs in more pass attempts is another feather in the cap of a season that has been better than Manning's 2004.

I'm using attempts because attempts show you the intent of the offense. How many attempts are converted to TDs is more about execution (which the Pats have excelled at, obviously). I realize the Pats have had RB injuries, but the fact remains they are 10th in rushing attempts, 10th in rushing yards, 9th in ypc, and 6th in rushing TDs. To me, that is a credit to the Pats in a number of ways: they have very good depth, a very good run blocking OL, a great passing game that keeps the defense focused on the passing game, a great coaching staff that knows how to adjust playcalling to different RBs, etc. I disagree with the notion that they needed to make all the pass attempts with large leads, as if they would have lost games had they done so.EDIT: If the coach/QB wants to pad passing TDs, what do they do? Do they just call the "sure TD" play a few times? No, they throw more passes, and in executing the passing offense more often, it leads to more passing TDs.

The bolded statement is simply untrue. As another example, besides the ones I have already given, Manning only threw 497 passes in 2004. As a team, the Colts were 15th in the NFL with 527. They obviously could have passed a good deal more often if they wanted to. Brady already has 536 attempts, despite the fact that the Pats have had an easier time winning games overall, and the Pats are 4th in the league.

I disagree with the use of attempts as some type of guideline for whether they're trying to pass for the record. The Colts in 2004 had Edgerrin James put up over 2000 combined yards, over 1500 on the ground, but only run for 9 TDs. The Patriots have rushed the ball, but they don't have an Edgerrin James. Yet they still have 15 rushing TDs compared with the 2004 Colts' 10. Do they pass the ball more often? Sure. That's how you move the ball when you have a stud QB but don't have a stud running back. But that hasn't translated to a greater proportion of rushing TDs vs passing TDs the way you seem to predict. Which goes to show that yes, the Colts were going for the record far more than the Pats.

Oh, please. I don't have the stat handy, but I remember James being one of the worst short yardage runners in the league in '04. Remember his fumbles in the game against the Patriots in week 1? Both were in short yardage. Factor those in, and it makes it clear why the Colts passed more than they ran down near the goal line in '04.

According to NFL spilts, Brady has 0 INTs inside the opp 19 yard line so why would you take the ball out of the hands of a guy who doesn't do something stupid with it? Mannings' worst spilt that year was inside the red zone for INTs and QB rating. Brady's best for those same categories are in that same spilt zone.

 

[Tau837]

So you think the Pats needed Brady to throw 124 times this season when they were up by 15+ points? I mean, do you think they needed those pass attempts to win those games? Do you think most teams would have passed as often if they were good enough to be in that situation as often as the Pats? Yes, there was some padding. In retrospect, I suspect they wish they had done just a bit more of it, so the record would already be Brady's by now.

There it is --- discussion over.I've noticed mind reading and fortune telling are staples of the Pats haters. Certainly can't argue with that.

You guys are more predictable than a Pats win.

Do you guys know what projection is?

You know what I've noticed? No one can discuss the Pats on this board using anything but 100% praise without being labeled a Pats hater, since Pats fans will accept nothing less than 100% praise. This is a big reason for the reputation of Pats fans on this board.I'm not a Pats hater. I'm not a Colts fan either. I call it like I see it as a NFL fan.

For someone who claims no dog in this fight, you sure did spend a lot of time digging up stats to show what "big meanies" the Pats have been all year. Why do you feel the need to diminish the passing TD record IF Brady gets it tomorrow? I really struggle with a collection of posters that claim no bias, but spend significant energy to lessen the accomplishments of the Patriots this year.

I already stated that I dug it up because others have continued to post that the circumstances for Brady's run were comparable to Manning's, which I didn't think was right. When I looked it up, I found that I was right. I was initially simply trying to keep the record straight, and here recently it evolved into a fair amount of discussion.

Guess what... Brady's pretty good. So's Manning. And the Pats and Colts are pretty good football teams, too. I'd assume an NFL fan would view the season at that level, not at the level of minutia I've seen from you in these recent posts.

I agree with everything you said here about Brady, Manning, the Pats, and the Colts. Why would you think that means I might not look at detailed statistics?

The amount of time you've spent digging into "proof" that Manning did it better seems to me to be on the "agendaish" side. Thats all I'm saying. Let me ask you... Did you spend as much energy digging into Marino's 48 TD season, you know, to compare who was the "real" record holder?

I'd love to look at Marino's season in detail. It would be a great data point to compare to Manning and Brady. The problem is, I don't know where to get split stats or game logs for 1984. Do you?

 

[Tau837]

For those trying to argue that Peyton was more impressive and the Pats ran up the score to help Brady, could you honestly tell me that if Brady ended up with 45, 46, 47, or 48 TDs BUT was pulled REALLY early (or sat this week) in a lot of games (like many suggest he should have been) you would be on here posting about Brady being more impressive even though he didn't get the record? I bet 99% of you who would claim to say 'yes you would' are lying or fooling yourself and instead would be shrugging your shoulders saying that it wasn't Manning's fault Brady got pulled so early in so many games.

I assume you'd lump me into that category. First off, it's splitting hairs. Their seasons are so close that regardless what happens this weekend I think they are equally good.That said, if forced to choose, even if Brady ends up with 50 TDs, I will personally feel that Manning's 2004 regular season performance was ever so slightly better. The Colts needed more of Manning's passing output to win than the Pats needed of Brady's IMO. Manning did it in fewer passing attempts. And the final stats will presumably be close enough for it to come down to small judgments like that. Also, from a statistical standpoint, as of right now, Manning's 2004 QB rating was better than Brady's is right now. While I think Brady will get the TD record, he may not pass Manning in QB rating.To answer your question, if he was pulled earlier in several games, and/or passed much less often with big leads, and/or sat out this upcoming game, and still had 45+ TDs, I'd give him credit for that.

Sorry, but I doubt you would; I think you would ignore it the way you are ignoring that Manning played in pristine conditions (dome) vs Brady playing in the winter outdoors in the Northeast. Huge disadvantage that somehow just doesn't get factored in to your careful analysis.

Sorry, you must have me confused with someone else in this thread. I haven't commented on the weather factor for them. I think someone noted previously that Brady is used to it, which is true and helps him in those conditions. But still, I'd agree with you that it can be more challenging to play outdoors and thus of course that is one thing that weighs in Brady's favor in any comparison.My "careful analysis" has been solely about comparing them in terms of padding their stats, not about comparing the worth of their seasons. The reasons I cited above that I would choose Manning if pressed aren't much affected by weather conditions. I suppose a few points of QB rating certainly could be, but my first two points aren't.

 

[Tau837]

New England never trailed in 9 of its games. I wonder what the record is... I wonder how this compares to other dominant teams, like the 85 Bears, 89 49ers, etc. Anyone know?

No one responded to this part of one of my previous posts. Anyone?

 

[Tau837]

Brady is not only having one of the best seasons of any quarterback ever, he's also architected several comeback wins, including a road win against the then-undefeated Colts.

I agree with your first point, which is the important point, but the bolded part seemed like a bit of overstatement to me, so I looked it up. Here are the times New England trailed this season:Week 3: Trailed Buffalo 7-3 for about 12 minutes spanning the first and second quarters.

Week 6: Trailed Dallas 24-21 for about 5 1/2 minutes in the third quarter.

Week 9: Trailed Indy most of the game, going ahead for good with about 3 minutes remaining in the 4th.

Week 12: Trailed Philly twice, including in the 4th quarter, going ahead for good with about 7 minutes remaining.

Week 13: Trailed Baltimore most of the game, going ahead for good with 44 seconds remaining in the 4th.

Week 14: Trailed Pittsburgh 3-0 for less than 5 minutes in the first quarter.

I guess you will say that all of these technically qualify as comeback wins, but to me the only ones worthy of noting as having required Brady to "architect" comebacks were the Indy, Philly, and Baltimore games. I suppose the Dallas game could also qualify, since Dallas's brief lead was at least in the second half.

I watched all four of those games, and it felt to me like the comebacks against Philly and Baltimore had as much or more to do with other factors (mistakes by the other teams, the Pats defense, etc.) as with Brady. Not saying he doesn't deserve credit for those wins, just that those comebacks required help, particularly against Philly and Baltimore. Whereas, for example, I think Brady deserves the bulk of the credit (as much as one player can deserve in a team sport) for the Indy comeback.

EDIT: That's right, New England never trailed in 9 of its games. I wonder what the record is... I wonder how this compares to other dominant teams, like the 85 Bears, 89 49ers, etc. Anyone know?

No doubt the Indy comeback was the most impressive. The Philly comeback (trailing by 4 to start the quarter, leading a 10 play, 69 yard drive to break the Eagles' back) was also impressive. The Ravens comeback was less memorable for Brady's performance than for the Ravens' poorly timed timeout and the arguable call on the reception in the end zone. I won't argue that one too strongly. The Dallas game is not one of the comebacks I was referencing, but the fact that he has already outdueled Manning, Romo and Roethlisberger this season is remniscent of the 2003 playoffs when Brady beat both of the co-MVPs en route to a Superbowl duel where the entire New England secondary was hurt and Brady won a game where the team that held the ball last was bound to win. I guess what I was pointing out is that it hasn't just been a case of Brady throwing to these awesome receivers and getting out to huge leads. Brady has passed every test that's come up so far.

Forgot to respond to this. Agree Brady was impressive in the Philly comeback. I was referring to Feeley's inexplicably bad interception, when he already had the Eagles in range for a tying FG, with a timeout and 4 minutes remaining, on 2nd & 4. Of course, had he not done so, and Philly finished off a TD drive, it may have merely provided a stage for another game saving drive led by Brady. Agree with your bolded statement.

 

[Jambi]

This thread cracks me up. How could you say the record is tainted because of number of attempts or games? Peyton is tainted for throwing more picks and being sacked less. We know that's not a product of his footwork. "He was allowed more time in the pocket". This is the same old thread done 100 times over. The record will be broken tonight and be in the book shortly after that. Now, Tom will have more rings, more records, and more top shelf babes.

70+ people voted it will be tainted? That's like saying the guy the broke the marathon record did it in cool weather and it shouldn't count. But then again this would be more like the guy breaking the record in the desert and people still saying it's tainted

 

[Tau837]

Why is it they're always '03 members....? Dude, you've been here for a few years, so I'm going to assume you probably watch some team play football, or at the very least watch a stat crawl. Let me ask you a question and you give me your honest informed football fan answer.

If Brady wanted more TD's this season, could he have gotten them, or is this all he could get?

Also, since I'm asking, what is it about a 34-21 TD that makes it so much more magically delicious than a 45-10 TD, which must be somehow better than a 54-9 TD?

Yes, I've been around since cheatsheets.net. Sure, Brady could have more if they tried to pad his stats even further. They certainly didn't go for it on every 4th down in their blowout wins, and he didn't throw every time inside the opponent's 10 yard line. But Manning could also have gotten more, so I'm not sure what your point is there. The numbers I posted showed that Brady passed 2-3 times as often with huge leads. It is factual, not opinion.

I don't know why you're using that statistic. Of course Brady has more attempts. The Pats have had injuries to their running backs, and have used the passing game in lieu of a running game when it's appropriate to do so. But that's the wrong statistic to be talking about. Brady is not looking to set the pass attempts record, or completions, or yards (although he looked good for a while). He is looking to set the TD record. And the fact is that the Patriots have rushed the ball for more TDs than the Colts. They've thrown for about the same number of TDs as the Colts when up big. In other words, they've done less to run up the record for Brady than the Colts did for Manning.

But you do bring up an interesting point about the number of passes. The fact that Brady has fewer INTs in more pass attempts is another feather in the cap of a season that has been better than Manning's 2004.

I'm using attempts because attempts show you the intent of the offense. How many attempts are converted to TDs is more about execution (which the Pats have excelled at, obviously). I realize the Pats have had RB injuries, but the fact remains they are 10th in rushing attempts, 10th in rushing yards, 9th in ypc, and 6th in rushing TDs. To me, that is a credit to the Pats in a number of ways: they have very good depth, a very good run blocking OL, a great passing game that keeps the defense focused on the passing game, a great coaching staff that knows how to adjust playcalling to different RBs, etc. I disagree with the notion that they needed to make all the pass attempts with large leads, as if they would have lost games had they done so.EDIT: If the coach/QB wants to pad passing TDs, what do they do? Do they just call the "sure TD" play a few times? No, they throw more passes, and in executing the passing offense more often, it leads to more passing TDs.

The bolded statement is simply untrue. As another example, besides the ones I have already given, Manning only threw 497 passes in 2004. As a team, the Colts were 15th in the NFL with 527. They obviously could have passed a good deal more often if they wanted to. Brady already has 536 attempts, despite the fact that the Pats have had an easier time winning games overall, and the Pats are 4th in the league.

I disagree with the use of attempts as some type of guideline for whether they're trying to pass for the record. The Colts in 2004 had Edgerrin James put up over 2000 combined yards, over 1500 on the ground, but only run for 9 TDs. The Patriots have rushed the ball, but they don't have an Edgerrin James. Yet they still have 15 rushing TDs compared with the 2004 Colts' 10. Do they pass the ball more often? Sure. That's how you move the ball when you have a stud QB but don't have a stud running back. But that hasn't translated to a greater proportion of rushing TDs vs passing TDs the way you seem to predict. Which goes to show that yes, the Colts were going for the record far more than the Pats.

OK, you make some good points. I will agree to disagree with you in general on the use of attempts.Do you think the Pats needed Brady to throw so often with large leads to win games. I see you have said "that's how you move the ball" given their personnel. So do you think if they had chosen to give half of those attempts to RBs rushing the ball, they would have lost a game? I don't. Do you think most coaches with large leads would have passed as often? I don't.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Last but not least, Manning's offenses have been shut out and held to 3 points in the playoffs. Brady's offenses have never scored less than 13. So Manning has been the reason more often than not.

Fact: In Brady's 2nd playoff game, the 24-17 win over Pittsburgh in the AFC title game, the Patriots OFFENSE scored 10 points. Drew Bledsoe was the QB for all 10 of those points. In nearly a half of play, Brady led the Patriots to a whopping ZERO points. The Patriots other 14 points were scored by special teams. Sorry, but you cannot accuse others of not keeping their facts straight when you are incapable of doing the same yourself.

Sorry, but even this contrived attempt is incorrect. The Patriots were actually ahead 7-3 when Brady was knocked out. He was 12 of 18 for 115 yards, and had just completed a 28 yard pass to put the Pats in long field goal distance before halftime. But if your point is that Manning didn't show up for the second half of a bunch of playoff games, too, then it's well taken.

The Patriots were ahead 7-3 thanks to a punt return by Troy Brown. And Brady's pass put them inside the 45-yard line, hardly field goal range, even for a stud like Vinatieri. Funny how it then took Bledsoe a mere four plays to get them in the end zone after Brady failed to do so for almost the entire half up until that point. Bottom line, even if you want to give an assist to Brady for that drive, he still failed to produce 13 points in that game, making your earlier comment wrong either way.

So, basically, in 1 of 13 playoff games, and one in which Brady left the game in the 1st half with an injury, the Pats offense was held to less than 13 points. OK. You're right, the OP was incorrect. So in 12 COMPLETED playoff games by Brady, he has never led his team to fewer than 13 points, while Manning has been held to 3 and 0 points during complete games. Does that meet with your level of fact? Its this level of nitpicking a post under the guise of "getting facts straight" that both sides of this argument do that is the primary problem I see. The difference in concept doesn't change, but by picking on one minute detail of the argument presented, you feel you debunk the entire point. It doesn't, unless you've come to the discussion with your position already made up.

You have to think big picture here. bostonfred's tendency to skew the facts, along with his admitted favoritism towards the Patriots, are huge reasons why any posts he makes regarding the Patriots should be taken with a grain of salt, especially since his comments are always so slanted towards any and all Patriots. In short, I think he is incapable of being impartial when it comes to discussions like this.And I didn't come to this discussion with my mind already made up. Like I have said before, I have argued in Brady's favor for years whenever there is a Brady vs. Manning thread, but in the case of who blew their stats up more in the 4th quarters of blowouts and such, Brady obviously has done this much more than Manning did in '04. That is not a criticism; it just makes some of us wonder how many TDs Manning could have thrown had his team kept going all-out deep into blowouts or had he played all of their 16th game.

 

[Master of Past and Present]

This thread cracks me up. How could you say the record is tainted because of number of attempts or games? Peyton is tainted for throwing more picks and being sacked less. We know that's not a product of his footwork. "He was allowed more time in the pocket". This is the same old thread done 100 times over. The record will be broken tonight and be in the book shortly after that. Now, Tom will have more rings, more records, and more top shelf babes. 70+ people voted it will be tainted? That's like saying the guy the broke the marathon record did it in cool weather and it shouldn't count. But then again this would be more like the guy breaking the record in the desert and people still saying it's tainted

It would be nice to know why people feel this way towards Brady taking more games and yet no one (or certainly not a huge deal if it was mentioned) said a thing about Favre. Marino 242 gamesFavre 256 games.Any record not broken during or before week 1 this year is still Marino's since he did it in less games? Marino 8358 pass attemptsFavre 8747 pass attemptsAny record not broken before or during attempt number 135 this year means Favre didn't do it as good as Marino?

 

[Road Warriors]

Why is it they're always '03 members....? Dude, you've been here for a few years, so I'm going to assume you probably watch some team play football, or at the very least watch a stat crawl. Let me ask you a question and you give me your honest informed football fan answer.

If Brady wanted more TD's this season, could he have gotten them, or is this all he could get?

Also, since I'm asking, what is it about a 34-21 TD that makes it so much more magically delicious than a 45-10 TD, which must be somehow better than a 54-9 TD?

Yes, I've been around since cheatsheets.net. Sure, Brady could have more if they tried to pad his stats even further. They certainly didn't go for it on every 4th down in their blowout wins, and he didn't throw every time inside the opponent's 10 yard line. But Manning could also have gotten more, so I'm not sure what your point is there. The numbers I posted showed that Brady passed 2-3 times as often with huge leads. It is factual, not opinion.

I don't know why you're using that statistic. Of course Brady has more attempts. The Pats have had injuries to their running backs, and have used the passing game in lieu of a running game when it's appropriate to do so. But that's the wrong statistic to be talking about. Brady is not looking to set the pass attempts record, or completions, or yards (although he looked good for a while). He is looking to set the TD record. And the fact is that the Patriots have rushed the ball for more TDs than the Colts. They've thrown for about the same number of TDs as the Colts when up big. In other words, they've done less to run up the record for Brady than the Colts did for Manning.

But you do bring up an interesting point about the number of passes. The fact that Brady has fewer INTs in more pass attempts is another feather in the cap of a season that has been better than Manning's 2004.

I'm using attempts because attempts show you the intent of the offense. How many attempts are converted to TDs is more about execution (which the Pats have excelled at, obviously). I realize the Pats have had RB injuries, but the fact remains they are 10th in rushing attempts, 10th in rushing yards, 9th in ypc, and 6th in rushing TDs. To me, that is a credit to the Pats in a number of ways: they have very good depth, a very good run blocking OL, a great passing game that keeps the defense focused on the passing game, a great coaching staff that knows how to adjust playcalling to different RBs, etc. I disagree with the notion that they needed to make all the pass attempts with large leads, as if they would have lost games had they done so.EDIT: If the coach/QB wants to pad passing TDs, what do they do? Do they just call the "sure TD" play a few times? No, they throw more passes, and in executing the passing offense more often, it leads to more passing TDs.

The bolded statement is simply untrue. As another example, besides the ones I have already given, Manning only threw 497 passes in 2004. As a team, the Colts were 15th in the NFL with 527. They obviously could have passed a good deal more often if they wanted to. Brady already has 536 attempts, despite the fact that the Pats have had an easier time winning games overall, and the Pats are 4th in the league.

I disagree with the use of attempts as some type of guideline for whether they're trying to pass for the record. The Colts in 2004 had Edgerrin James put up over 2000 combined yards, over 1500 on the ground, but only run for 9 TDs. The Patriots have rushed the ball, but they don't have an Edgerrin James. Yet they still have 15 rushing TDs compared with the 2004 Colts' 10. Do they pass the ball more often? Sure. That's how you move the ball when you have a stud QB but don't have a stud running back. But that hasn't translated to a greater proportion of rushing TDs vs passing TDs the way you seem to predict. Which goes to show that yes, the Colts were going for the record far more than the Pats.

OK, you make some good points. I will agree to disagree with you in general on the use of attempts.Do you think the Pats needed Brady to throw so often with large leads to win games. I see you have said "that's how you move the ball" given their personnel. So do you think if they had chosen to give half of those attempts to RBs rushing the ball, they would have lost a game? I don't. Do you think most coaches with large leads would have passed as often? I don't.

But again, you're arguing that you don't agree with the Patriots offensive philosophy. Most coaches would run the ball. This one doesn't. He throws 3-5 yard curls, slants and ins, WR screens, RB flats, in other words, with a set of skill players and a very capable and accurate QB, extended handoff plays that put playmakers in space. If you can execute that offense to run 10+ play drives that drain 5-8 minutes off the clock, why would you change it up to "conventional" wisdom of running the ball? Just to appease a collection of fans that would likely find something else the team has done to complain about.There have been a few memorable down the field plays when it was "run out the clock" time. I'll admit there have been a couple of games that I've cringed at the last TD. However, the fact is, this Patriots team uses the ball control passing game to keep possession and run the clock. I don't understand why a successful strategy to win games is now proof positive that the Pats were going for the record.

 

[Tau837]

Why is it they're always '03 members....? Dude, you've been here for a few years, so I'm going to assume you probably watch some team play football, or at the very least watch a stat crawl. Let me ask you a question and you give me your honest informed football fan answer.

If Brady wanted more TD's this season, could he have gotten them, or is this all he could get?

Also, since I'm asking, what is it about a 34-21 TD that makes it so much more magically delicious than a 45-10 TD, which must be somehow better than a 54-9 TD?

Yes, I've been around since cheatsheets.net. Sure, Brady could have more if they tried to pad his stats even further. They certainly didn't go for it on every 4th down in their blowout wins, and he didn't throw every time inside the opponent's 10 yard line. :whoosh: But Manning could also have gotten more, so I'm not sure what your point is there. The numbers I posted showed that Brady passed 2-3 times as often with huge leads. It is factual, not opinion.

I don't know why you're using that statistic. Of course Brady has more attempts. The Pats have had injuries to their running backs, and have used the passing game in lieu of a running game when it's appropriate to do so. But that's the wrong statistic to be talking about. Brady is not looking to set the pass attempts record, or completions, or yards (although he looked good for a while). He is looking to set the TD record. And the fact is that the Patriots have rushed the ball for more TDs than the Colts. They've thrown for about the same number of TDs as the Colts when up big. In other words, they've done less to run up the record for Brady than the Colts did for Manning.

But you do bring up an interesting point about the number of passes. The fact that Brady has fewer INTs in more pass attempts is another feather in the cap of a season that has been better than Manning's 2004.

I'm using attempts because attempts show you the intent of the offense. How many attempts are converted to TDs is more about execution (which the Pats have excelled at, obviously). I realize the Pats have had RB injuries, but the fact remains they are 10th in rushing attempts, 10th in rushing yards, 9th in ypc, and 6th in rushing TDs. To me, that is a credit to the Pats in a number of ways: they have very good depth, a very good run blocking OL, a great passing game that keeps the defense focused on the passing game, a great coaching staff that knows how to adjust playcalling to different RBs, etc. I disagree with the notion that they needed to make all the pass attempts with large leads, as if they would have lost games had they done so.EDIT: If the coach/QB wants to pad passing TDs, what do they do? Do they just call the "sure TD" play a few times? No, they throw more passes, and in executing the passing offense more often, it leads to more passing TDs.

The bolded statement is simply untrue. As another example, besides the ones I have already given, Manning only threw 497 passes in 2004. As a team, the Colts were 15th in the NFL with 527. They obviously could have passed a good deal more often if they wanted to. Brady already has 536 attempts, despite the fact that the Pats have had an easier time winning games overall, and the Pats are 4th in the league.

I disagree with the use of attempts as some type of guideline for whether they're trying to pass for the record. The Colts in 2004 had Edgerrin James put up over 2000 combined yards, over 1500 on the ground, but only run for 9 TDs. The Patriots have rushed the ball, but they don't have an Edgerrin James. Yet they still have 15 rushing TDs compared with the 2004 Colts' 10. Do they pass the ball more often? Sure. That's how you move the ball when you have a stud QB but don't have a stud running back. But that hasn't translated to a greater proportion of rushing TDs vs passing TDs the way you seem to predict. Which goes to show that yes, the Colts were going for the record far more than the Pats.

OK, you make some good points. I will agree to disagree with you in general on the use of attempts.Do you think the Pats needed Brady to throw so often with large leads to win games. I see you have said "that's how you move the ball" given their personnel. So do you think if they had chosen to give half of those attempts to RBs rushing the ball, they would have lost a game? I don't. Do you think most coaches with large leads would have passed as often? I don't.

But again, you're arguing that you don't agree with the Patriots offensive philosophy. Most coaches would run the ball. This one doesn't. He throws 3-5 yard curls, slants and ins, WR screens, RB flats, in other words, with a set of skill players and a very capable and accurate QB, extended handoff plays that put playmakers in space. If you can execute that offense to run 10+ play drives that drain 5-8 minutes off the clock, why would you change it up to "conventional" wisdom of running the ball? Just to appease a collection of fans that would likely find something else the team has done to complain about.There have been a few memorable down the field plays when it was "run out the clock" time. I'll admit there have been a couple of games that I've cringed at the last TD. However, the fact is, this Patriots team uses the ball control passing game to keep possession and run the clock. I don't understand why a successful strategy to win games is now proof positive that the Pats were going for the record.

You are correct in that I disagree with their offensive philosophy when they have a big lead.To the bolded question, because I think the Pats running game is good enough that a "conventional" offensive approach with big leads would still lead to long drives that drain plenty of time off the clock. And it's obvious that their passing offense is dominant... if they need work in any area, it would be in the area of the running game, not the passing game... why not get more work in that area in those big lead situations? It also would have had the side effect of giving critics less ammunition to complain about running up the score.

Perhaps it isn't proof positive that they did it specifically to go for the record. But it has certainly had the effect of enabling one or both of the records to be possible, where a different (conventional) offense with games in hand would not have.

 

[pizzatyme]

Why is it they're always '03 members....? Dude, you've been here for a few years, so I'm going to assume you probably watch some team play football, or at the very least watch a stat crawl. Let me ask you a question and you give me your honest informed football fan answer.

If Brady wanted more TD's this season, could he have gotten them, or is this all he could get?

Also, since I'm asking, what is it about a 34-21 TD that makes it so much more magically delicious than a 45-10 TD, which must be somehow better than a 54-9 TD?

Yes, I've been around since cheatsheets.net. Sure, Brady could have more if they tried to pad his stats even further. They certainly didn't go for it on every 4th down in their blowout wins, and he didn't throw every time inside the opponent's 10 yard line. But Manning could also have gotten more, so I'm not sure what your point is there. The numbers I posted showed that Brady passed 2-3 times as often with huge leads. It is factual, not opinion.

I don't know why you're using that statistic. Of course Brady has more attempts. The Pats have had injuries to their running backs, and have used the passing game in lieu of a running game when it's appropriate to do so. But that's the wrong statistic to be talking about. Brady is not looking to set the pass attempts record, or completions, or yards (although he looked good for a while). He is looking to set the TD record. And the fact is that the Patriots have rushed the ball for more TDs than the Colts. They've thrown for about the same number of TDs as the Colts when up big. In other words, they've done less to run up the record for Brady than the Colts did for Manning.

But you do bring up an interesting point about the number of passes. The fact that Brady has fewer INTs in more pass attempts is another feather in the cap of a season that has been better than Manning's 2004.

BF, you're certainly on a roll! How does Brady's TDs/game rate this season versus Manning's Tds/game in '04?

Since you like to pull every stat that skews the argument towards the Pats/Brady. Give us some more.

I guess what concerns me most about all of your statistical puking is that you have the need to know this in the first place.

Scary, really scary.

Great question about Brady's TDs/game rate. The season's not over. If Brady threw five TDs tomorrow, it would be better than Manning's. At that point, would you be more impressed with Brady's season than Manning's? What if he doesn't do it, but I contend that he COULD have done it, just like you seem to contend that Manning COULD have thrown for more in week 17 at Denver? I'll tell you what. You write a letter to Roger Goodell and ask him to put a statistic in the record books for most passing TDs (but don't include rushing TDs) through 15 games, and another one for most passing (not total) TDs/game, minimum 15 games played. Cc me, and I'll send him a letter asking him to do the same. Maybe we can get a grass roots effort going.

As for how much I need to know in the first place, you're the one who started this thread. I'm answering your questions. But since you like my statistical puking, here's one:

Who posted in: Manning 49 TDs in 15 games. Brady 49+ in 16 games

Poster Posts

pizzatyme 39

Footballg 24

bostonfred 23

Just Win Baby 16

.

.

I guess I'm a little concerned with the number of posts you've had in your losing cause to convince people that Manning's season was better. If you've posted so much more than me, but you're concerned about how much information is in my posts, then my preliminary statistical analysis shows that your posts generally don't have that much to say. Maybe that's why the poll is still about 70/30 in favor of Brady, despite you writing almost a full page of this 5+ page thread yourself.

at least you have a sense of humor.

 

[Footballg]

And it's obvious that their passing offense is dominant... if they need work in any area, it would be in the area of the running game, not the passing game... why not get more work in that area in those big lead situations? It also would have had the side effect of giving critics less ammunition to complain about running up the score.

 

[Truman]

For those enquiring about Edgerrin James' prowess inside the redzone in '04, he averaged 1.3 ypc inside the opponents 10

 

[bostonfred]

You are correct in that I disagree with their offensive philosophy when they have a big lead.To the bolded question, because I think the Pats running game is good enough that a "conventional" offensive approach with big leads would still lead to long drives that drain plenty of time off the clock. And it's obvious that their passing offense is dominant... if they need work in any area, it would be in the area of the running game, not the passing game... why not get more work in that area in those big lead situations? It also would have had the side effect of giving critics less ammunition to complain about running up the score.Perhaps it isn't proof positive that they did it specifically to go for the record. But it has certainly had the effect of enabling one or both of the records to be possible, where a different (conventional) offense with games in hand would not have.

The thing that gets lost here is that these guys are still in their first season together. Gaffney, who joined the rotation in week 8 last season, is the grizzled vet of the receiving corps, and he's emerged as a solid option after a good finish last year and a virtual disappearance earlier this year because of the late game looks he's gotten. The team put its best running-the-clock-out option, Morris, on IR early in the season. Kevin Faulk is a 31 year old, 200 pound third down back. Heath Evans is their starting fullback, and they don't have a #2. Maroney has had injury problems. That leaves Eckel, and he has gotten some late game looks, including a couple of late game TDs when they were running the clock out. It's a thin position. If you were the head coach, why would you run one of them instead of passing? I hope it isn't seriously because you'd be "giving the critics less ammunition to complain about running up the score".

 

[bcr8f]

Peyton didn't try that hard at the end and said he wouldn't mind just tying Marino. Belichick is so insecure he needs to break all records.

 

[Footballg]

 

[bostonfred]

Yes, because Manning throwing a TD when his team is already up 17-0 is the same as Brady throwing one when his team is already up 38-0 in the 4th quarter.

Show me one TD that Brady threw when the Pats were up 38-0 in the fourth quarter. Just one. You should be able to do it, since you were such a stickler about the game Brady got knocked out of. I know you wouldn't dare to make an erroneous statement in the same thread where you jumped all over for me for making a statement that didn't include a game where Brady got knocked out in the first half.

Oh, please. I don't have the stat handy, but I remember James being one of the worst short yardage runners in the league in '04. Remember his fumbles in the game against the Patriots in week 1? Both were in short yardage. Factor those in, and it makes it clear why the Colts passed more than they ran down near the goal line in '04.

I'm completely fine with you explaining why Manning should have been throwing on the goal line, even though Manning threw 3 TDs inside the ten in the same game after watching Edge run for six yards on the previous play. It's probably because they were worried about Edge fumbling, even though Manning had 5 fumbles to Edge's 6, and that's not counting INTs. That's fine. But the fact of the matter is that if you add up the TDs Manning got that "could have been rushed in" and the TDs he got when up late in games, it adds up to about the exact same number as the number that Brady got that "could have been rushed in" and the TDs he got when up late in games. Brady even ran a couple in himself, instead of throwing the easy one yard pass to Vrabel or Moss. I'm not saying that Manning ran it up more than Brady. I'm just saying that both of them (like most QBs) could have had more passing TDs if they'd tried, and both of them could have "padded their stats" a little less. At the end of the day, their accomplishments stand on their own merits.

 

[Road Warriors]

You are correct in that I disagree with their offensive philosophy when they have a big lead.

To the bolded question, because I think the Pats running game is good enough that a "conventional" offensive approach with big leads would still lead to long drives that drain plenty of time off the clock. And it's obvious that their passing offense is dominant... if they need work in any area, it would be in the area of the running game, not the passing game... why not get more work in that area in those big lead situations? It also would have had the side effect of giving critics less ammunition to complain about running up the score.

Perhaps it isn't proof positive that they did it specifically to go for the record. But it has certainly had the effect of enabling one or both of the records to be possible, where a different (conventional) offense with games in hand would not have.

The thing that gets lost here is that these guys are still in their first season together. Gaffney, who joined the rotation in week 8 last season, is the grizzled vet of the receiving corps, and he's emerged as a solid option after a good finish last year and a virtual disappearance earlier this year because of the late game looks he's gotten. The team put its best running-the-clock-out option, Morris, on IR early in the season. Kevin Faulk is a 31 year old, 200 pound third down back. Heath Evans is their starting fullback, and they don't have a #2. Maroney has had injury problems. That leaves Eckel, and he has gotten some late game looks, including a couple of late game TDs when they were running the clock out. It's a thin position. If you were the head coach, why would you run one of them instead of passing? I hope it isn't seriously because you'd be "giving the critics less ammunition to complain about running up the score".

I read a book recently that discussed this philosophy from a different perspective, and its an interesting viewpoint. If you are great at one thing, and mediocre at another, conventional wisdom says you work on your weakness to improve and be more "well rounded" The net effect of this is you become better, maybe even good, at your weakness. However, you tend to depend on how great you are at the other, and let it atrophy a bit while working on the weakness.Unconventional wisdom, for those that would rather be exceptional than good and well rounded, talks of focusing your energy on the things you're good at, perfecting strengths to become dominant.

It seems thats the approach the Pats have taken this year. Again, disagreeing with philosophy is fine. The passing record may be a byproduct of this philosophy, but the philosophy, thus far, has proven to be solid. And I'm pretty sure the Patriots don't worry a whole lot about giving critics ammunition when determining their gameplan.

 

[Road Warriors]

Peyton didn't try that hard at the end and said he wouldn't mind just tying Marino. Belichick is so insecure he needs to break all records.

And this is a good thing? You want your "face of the franchise" to not try that hard?

 

[twitch]

Its interesting how NE's season has unfolded. I dont think it was their intention coming into the season to be some record setting passing O. The circumstances and some pretty outstanding play have been the root cause. But entering week 6, the Dallas game, a game which Maroney missed (3rd consecutive DNP for him), NE was actually pretty dominant running the ball. Prior to week 6, they were averaging 155yds on 34.6 attempts per game. Those #s would currently place them 2nd in the NFL in yardage and 1st in attempts. But during the Dallas game, with Maroney out with a groin injury and still probably not quite back to 100% following his offseason shoulder surgery, Sammy Morris went down for the season early in the 3rd quarter. That left NE with 2 fullbacks and Kevin Faulk to finish that game. They threw most of the remainder of the 2nd half and sliced and diced Dallas to death thru the air, and they outscored them 27-3 to close the game.

So, entering week 7 with the Dolphins, NE's two-headed RB tandem of Morris and Maroney was short a man, and LM still wasnt 100%. He suited up for that game, but only had 6 whole carries for 31yds. Was he being punished for being injury prone? In the proverbial doghouse? Nah. They guy was still banged up, and it was at that point that BB started limiting his action and playing his cards brilliantly. NE only had 84 rushing yds on 22 attempts in the Miami game, but mainly due to their success throwing it, and rostering 2 fullbacks, a 3rd down back, and dinged up back that wasnt needed.

From week 7 thru week 13, New England's rushing O, a unit that had been averaging over 34 carries and 155 yds a game, cut back its RB workolad. They averaged over 10 carries per game less and only 88 yds rushing. Many theories could be discussed as to why this happened. Mine is simple. They came into the season with a goal of winning the Superbowl. They lost a solid RB when Morris went down. They still had one, but he has a history of getting dinged as was the case last year in the AFCC game. Maroney was worthless in that Colts game, and part of the reason NE lost. Belichick decided that wasnt happening again. He's been protecting the guy for nearly 2 months, and after seeing what the kid has done the past 2 weeks, does anyone actually question why?? 3 weeks away from the playoffs, and BB starts feeding Maroney the ball. All the kid does is gain 260 rushing yds and 2 scores. With one more game to prepare for the playoffs, Id say he's right where he needs to be.

This is the big picture for New England. Its about coaching and playing smart. Its about getting ready to win another title. It hasnt been about records. Its been about doing whatever is needed to win every game, play every game of the playoffs at home, and get to the big show. These records are tons of fun for all of us fans to discuss. Those guys couldnt care less right now about any of that. The one important cog that needed to lay low for 'protection' during the #s onslaught was Maroney. Brady and the rest of the O more than picked up his slack while he was out and on the sidelines. And just a simple reminder that the 3 primary receivers on this team are all 1st year Patriots. Does anyone doubt theyre on the same page at this point? Can we assume that the chemistry has been a work in progress all season? I sure do. I couldnt imagine anyone could ever be so prolific throwing to 3 brand new guys as Brady has been this year. That's the most impressive aspect of NE's season, imo.

A little bit of a minor refresher rant here, and of course only one man's opinion. But for those that actually call into question Bill Belichick's coaching, his approach to the game, and his strategic tactics, you might want to remind yourself how many Superbowl titles the man has had a hand in. Devalue the passing #s all you want, its really irrelevant, but dont think it's ever been any semblance of a goal. Brady just happens to be that damn good.

 

[Bill Lust]

Peyton didn't try that hard at the end and said he wouldn't mind just tying Marino. Belichick is so insecure he needs to break all records.

It must have been Dungy's "quiet strength" rubbing off on him.

 

[Tau837]

You are correct in that I disagree with their offensive philosophy when they have a big lead.To the bolded question, because I think the Pats running game is good enough that a "conventional" offensive approach with big leads would still lead to long drives that drain plenty of time off the clock. And it's obvious that their passing offense is dominant... if they need work in any area, it would be in the area of the running game, not the passing game... why not get more work in that area in those big lead situations? It also would have had the side effect of giving critics less ammunition to complain about running up the score.Perhaps it isn't proof positive that they did it specifically to go for the record. But it has certainly had the effect of enabling one or both of the records to be possible, where a different (conventional) offense with games in hand would not have.

The thing that gets lost here is that these guys are still in their first season together. Gaffney, who joined the rotation in week 8 last season, is the grizzled vet of the receiving corps, and he's emerged as a solid option after a good finish last year and a virtual disappearance earlier this year because of the late game looks he's gotten. The team put its best running-the-clock-out option, Morris, on IR early in the season. Kevin Faulk is a 31 year old, 200 pound third down back. Heath Evans is their starting fullback, and they don't have a #2. Maroney has had injury problems. That leaves Eckel, and he has gotten some late game looks, including a couple of late game TDs when they were running the clock out. It's a thin position. If you were the head coach, why would you run one of them instead of passing? I hope it isn't seriously because you'd be "giving the critics less ammunition to complain about running up the score".

No, as I said that would merely be a side benefit. Then, if it is necessary because the RBs can't take the extra load, I would expect to see Cassell earlier if the record is truly not a factor.

 

[Tau837]

You are correct in that I disagree with their offensive philosophy when they have a big lead.

To the bolded question, because I think the Pats running game is good enough that a "conventional" offensive approach with big leads would still lead to long drives that drain plenty of time off the clock. And it's obvious that their passing offense is dominant... if they need work in any area, it would be in the area of the running game, not the passing game... why not get more work in that area in those big lead situations? It also would have had the side effect of giving critics less ammunition to complain about running up the score.

Perhaps it isn't proof positive that they did it specifically to go for the record. But it has certainly had the effect of enabling one or both of the records to be possible, where a different (conventional) offense with games in hand would not have.

The thing that gets lost here is that these guys are still in their first season together. Gaffney, who joined the rotation in week 8 last season, is the grizzled vet of the receiving corps, and he's emerged as a solid option after a good finish last year and a virtual disappearance earlier this year because of the late game looks he's gotten. The team put its best running-the-clock-out option, Morris, on IR early in the season. Kevin Faulk is a 31 year old, 200 pound third down back. Heath Evans is their starting fullback, and they don't have a #2. Maroney has had injury problems. That leaves Eckel, and he has gotten some late game looks, including a couple of late game TDs when they were running the clock out. It's a thin position. If you were the head coach, why would you run one of them instead of passing? I hope it isn't seriously because you'd be "giving the critics less ammunition to complain about running up the score".

I read a book recently that discussed this philosophy from a different perspective, and its an interesting viewpoint. If you are great at one thing, and mediocre at another, conventional wisdom says you work on your weakness to improve and be more "well rounded" The net effect of this is you become better, maybe even good, at your weakness. However, you tend to depend on how great you are at the other, and let it atrophy a bit while working on the weakness.Unconventional wisdom, for those that would rather be exceptional than good and well rounded, talks of focusing your energy on the things you're good at, perfecting strengths to become dominant.

It seems thats the approach the Pats have taken this year. Again, disagreeing with philosophy is fine. The passing record may be a byproduct of this philosophy, but the philosophy, thus far, has proven to be solid. And I'm pretty sure the Patriots don't worry a whole lot about giving critics ammunition when determining their gameplan.

Interesting point. And I agree they don't care about critics.

 

[Road Warriors]

You are correct in that I disagree with their offensive philosophy when they have a big lead.To the bolded question, because I think the Pats running game is good enough that a "conventional" offensive approach with big leads would still lead to long drives that drain plenty of time off the clock. And it's obvious that their passing offense is dominant... if they need work in any area, it would be in the area of the running game, not the passing game... why not get more work in that area in those big lead situations? It also would have had the side effect of giving critics less ammunition to complain about running up the score.Perhaps it isn't proof positive that they did it specifically to go for the record. But it has certainly had the effect of enabling one or both of the records to be possible, where a different (conventional) offense with games in hand would not have.

The thing that gets lost here is that these guys are still in their first season together. Gaffney, who joined the rotation in week 8 last season, is the grizzled vet of the receiving corps, and he's emerged as a solid option after a good finish last year and a virtual disappearance earlier this year because of the late game looks he's gotten. The team put its best running-the-clock-out option, Morris, on IR early in the season. Kevin Faulk is a 31 year old, 200 pound third down back. Heath Evans is their starting fullback, and they don't have a #2. Maroney has had injury problems. That leaves Eckel, and he has gotten some late game looks, including a couple of late game TDs when they were running the clock out. It's a thin position. If you were the head coach, why would you run one of them instead of passing? I hope it isn't seriously because you'd be "giving the critics less ammunition to complain about running up the score".

No, as I said that would merely be a side benefit. Then, if it is necessary because the RBs can't take the extra load, I would expect to see Cassell earlier if the record is truly not a factor.

So we've gone from Brady getting the record being less impressive to the Pats shouldn't even try to get the record, because it looks bad to critics? Not sure where you're going with this other than to continue to shine a less than favorable light on the Patriots accomplishements. At this point, 1 TD back with 1 to play? I absolutely would be going for the record. Why not? How often are you going to near 50 passing TDs? It's been a pretty impressive year, and punctuating it with a record ( even a "less impressive" accomplishment in your eyes ) would be a nice icing on the cake.

 

[Tau837]

Its interesting how NE's season has unfolded. I dont think it was their intention coming into the season to be some record setting passing O. The circumstances and some pretty outstanding play have been the root cause. But entering week 6, the Dallas game, a game which Maroney missed (3rd consecutive DNP for him), NE was actually pretty dominant running the ball. Prior to week 6, they were averaging 155yds on 34.6 attempts per game. Those #s would currently place them 2nd in the NFL in yardage and 1st in attempts. But during the Dallas game, with Maroney out with a groin injury and still probably not quite back to 100% following his offseason shoulder surgery, Sammy Morris went down for the season early in the 3rd quarter. That left NE with 2 fullbacks and Kevin Faulk to finish that game. They threw most of the remainder of the 2nd half and sliced and diced Dallas to death thru the air, and they outscored them 27-3 to close the game. So, entering week 7 with the Dolphins, NE's two-headed RB tandem of Morris and Maroney was short a man, and LM still wasnt 100%. He suited up for that game, but only had 6 whole carries for 31yds. Was he being punished for being injury prone? In the proverbial doghouse? Nah. They guy was still banged up, and it was at that point that BB started limiting his action and playing his cards brilliantly. NE only had 84 rushing yds on 22 attempts in the Miami game, but mainly due to their success throwing it, and rostering 2 fullbacks, a 3rd down back, and dinged up back that wasnt needed. From week 7 thru week 13, New England's rushing O, a unit that had been averaging over 34 carries and 155 yds a game, cut back its RB workolad. They averaged over 10 carries per game less and only 88 yds rushing. Many theories could be discussed as to why this happened. Mine is simple. They came into the season with a goal of winning the Superbowl. They lost a solid RB when Morris went down. They still had one, but he has a history of getting dinged as was the case last year in the AFCC game. Maroney was worthless in that Colts game, and part of the reason NE lost. Belichick decided that wasnt happening again. He's been protecting the guy for nearly 2 months, and after seeing what the kid has done the past 2 weeks, does anyone actually question why?? 3 weeks away from the playoffs, and BB starts feeding Maroney the ball. All the kid does is gain 260 rushing yds and 2 scores. With one more game to prepare for the playoffs, Id say he's right where he needs to be. This is the big picture for New England. Its about coaching and playing smart. Its about getting ready to win another title. It hasnt been about records. Its been about doing whatever is needed to win every game, play every game of the playoffs at home, and get to the big show. These records are tons of fun for all of us fans to discuss. Those guys couldnt care less right now about any of that. The one important cog that needed to lay low for 'protection' during the #s onslaught was Maroney. Brady and the rest of the O more than picked up his slack while he was out and on the sidelines. And just a simple reminder that the 3 primary receivers on this team are all 1st year Patriots. Does anyone doubt theyre on the same page at this point? Can we assume that the chemistry has been a work in progress all season? I sure do. I couldnt imagine anyone could ever be so prolific throwing to 3 brand new guys as Brady has been this year. That's the most impressive aspect of NE's season, imo. A little bit of a minor refresher rant here, and of course only one man's opinion. But for those that actually call into question Bill Belichick's coaching, his approach to the game, and his strategic tactics, you might want to remind yourself how many Superbowl titles the man has had a hand in. Devalue the passing #s all you want, its really irrelevant, but dont think it's ever been any semblance of a goal. Brady just happens to be that damn good.

This is a great post. Very good info here. I know this is what Fred was getting at, but I wasn't familiar enough with the game by game history to know all of this. I agree this does give credence to continued passing emphasis. The only minor quibble I'd have with them then is not bringing Cassell in earlier in several of the blowouts. Or getting Gutierrez more work, for that matter.As for the last paragraph, I haven't intended for any of my posts to question Belicheck's coaching ability. I think he is the best coach in the NFL, and possibly in the history of the NFL, though comparing across eras is just as difficult with coaches as it is with players IMO. I don't think he would make any decision that would compromise his team's ability to win both a given game and the Super Bowl in a given season, with the possible exception of leaving in key starters and thus exposing them to possible injury, which has been much discussed elsewhere. However, none of that would preclude BB from coaching in such a way as to get his players records.

 

[Tau837]

You are correct in that I disagree with their offensive philosophy when they have a big lead.To the bolded question, because I think the Pats running game is good enough that a "conventional" offensive approach with big leads would still lead to long drives that drain plenty of time off the clock. And it's obvious that their passing offense is dominant... if they need work in any area, it would be in the area of the running game, not the passing game... why not get more work in that area in those big lead situations? It also would have had the side effect of giving critics less ammunition to complain about running up the score.Perhaps it isn't proof positive that they did it specifically to go for the record. But it has certainly had the effect of enabling one or both of the records to be possible, where a different (conventional) offense with games in hand would not have.

The thing that gets lost here is that these guys are still in their first season together. Gaffney, who joined the rotation in week 8 last season, is the grizzled vet of the receiving corps, and he's emerged as a solid option after a good finish last year and a virtual disappearance earlier this year because of the late game looks he's gotten. The team put its best running-the-clock-out option, Morris, on IR early in the season. Kevin Faulk is a 31 year old, 200 pound third down back. Heath Evans is their starting fullback, and they don't have a #2. Maroney has had injury problems. That leaves Eckel, and he has gotten some late game looks, including a couple of late game TDs when they were running the clock out. It's a thin position. If you were the head coach, why would you run one of them instead of passing? I hope it isn't seriously because you'd be "giving the critics less ammunition to complain about running up the score".

No, as I said that would merely be a side benefit. Then, if it is necessary because the RBs can't take the extra load, I would expect to see Cassell earlier if the record is truly not a factor.

So we've gone from Brady getting the record being less impressive to the Pats shouldn't even try to get the record, because it looks bad to critics? Not sure where you're going with this other than to continue to shine a less than favorable light on the Patriots accomplishements. At this point, 1 TD back with 1 to play? I absolutely would be going for the record. Why not? How often are you going to near 50 passing TDs? It's been a pretty impressive year, and punctuating it with a record ( even a "less impressive" accomplishment in your eyes ) would be a nice icing on the cake.

Of course, as of right now, the players and coaches should all be going for the records. No doubt. My point was that throughout the season, if they weren't pushing for the record(s), then they could have easily pulled Brady earlier in blowouts. Most teams would have IMO. That, in turn, would have changed the current situation.

 

[BelichicksRevenge]

Peyton didn't try that hard at the end and said he wouldn't mind just tying Marino. Belichick is so insecure he needs to break all records.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Yes, because Manning throwing a TD when his team is already up 17-0 is the same as Brady throwing one when his team is already up 38-0 in the 4th quarter.

Show me one TD that Brady threw when the Pats were up 38-0 in the fourth quarter. Just one. You should be able to do it, since you were such a stickler about the game Brady got knocked out of. I know you wouldn't dare to make an erroneous statement in the same thread where you jumped all over for me for making a statement that didn't include a game where Brady got knocked out in the first half.

http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/gamecenter/l...20071028_WAS@NE

Oh, please. I don't have the stat handy, but I remember James being one of the worst short yardage runners in the league in '04. Remember his fumbles in the game against the Patriots in week 1? Both were in short yardage. Factor those in, and it makes it clear why the Colts passed more than they ran down near the goal line in '04.

I'm completely fine with you explaining why Manning should have been throwing on the goal line, even though Manning threw 3 TDs inside the ten in the same game after watching Edge run for six yards on the previous play. It's probably because they were worried about Edge fumbling, even though Manning had 5 fumbles to Edge's 6, and that's not counting INTs. That's fine.

Comparing how many times a QB fumbled vs. how many times a RB fumbled is ludicrous. A QB touches the ball on every offensive play. A RB will usually not touch the ball more than 20-25 times a game, give or take depending on game situations. I have never looked those stats up, but I would bet that the QB usually has the most fumbles on most offenses in the NFL, so James having more than Manning in '04 was probably pretty significant.

 

[[scooter]]

Yes, because Manning throwing a TD when his team is already up 17-0 is the same as Brady throwing one when his team is already up 38-0 in the 4th quarter.

Show me one TD that Brady threw when the Pats were up 38-0 in the fourth quarter. Just one. You should be able to do it, since you were such a stickler about the game Brady got knocked out of. I know you wouldn't dare to make an erroneous statement in the same thread where you jumped all over for me for making a statement that didn't include a game where Brady got knocked out in the first half.

http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/gamecenter/l...20071028_WAS@NE

 

[Colin Dowling]

Who cares?

 

[PatsWillWin]

Who cares?

Patriot haters and Peyton ball-washers.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Who cares?

Patriot haters and Peyton ball-washers.

 

[North]

No, it's Brady's record! It's not his fault that Manning sat out the majority of the final game. Manning started the game and came out for personal reasons (didn;t want to get hurt). Brady could have done the same thing but he played the entire game. A record is a record.

Do you also think that Moss's record is less significant because it took him 16 games to beat Rice when it only took Rice 12 games to score 22 TD's?

The answer is NO, a record is a record. Get over it.

 

[posty]

The one with the better TD% between the two...

 

[Jason Wood]

The one with the better TD% between the two...

In which case neither holds the record...

 

[posty]

The one with the better TD% between the two...

In which case neither holds the record...

Yes I know, but we are just talking about Brady and Manning in this thread...

 

[Joe Bryant]

No problem with Brady. The bar is how many games. Brady and Manning are on same field.

Moss and Rice were not on same. That makes it different in my opinion.

J

 

[Jason Wood]

No problem with Brady. The bar is how many games. Brady and Manning are on same field.

Moss and Rice were not on same. That makes it different in my opinion.

J

I agree Joe...in fact, I would say, at least from a fantasy perspective, this was the THIRD most impressive season by a WR in league history. Of course, not many people were playing fantasy football in the 60s. http://blog.footballguys.com/2007/12/29/ra...wr-season-ever/

 

[Keepers]

As a Brady fantasy owner and watching some of the weather conditions he played in December, it makes Brady's record this year is even more impressive than Manning's 49 in a Dome.

 

[Green and Gold]

Situation is irrelevant. Dome vs. outdoor, good weather vs. bad, number of games it took, it's all beside the point. The records are for 'complete seasons.' The record is the record.

 

[Bill Lust]

Considering that defensive backs are not even allowed to touch receivers anymore without being called for pass interference or holding, the record will fall again soon. It wouldn't surprise me if Manning makes a run for it with a full year of Harrison, Wayne, Gonzales and Clark next year.

 

[Balco]

Absolutely no. THen we can start getting into records achieved when the NFL had a 14 game schedule. Brady set the record fair and square. What an awesome year he had.

 

[bostonfred]

I will probably never forget Brady throwing his record breaking 50th touchdown pass on a deep bomb to Moss (who had been blanketed all day, especially in the end zone) while making a fourth quarter comeback, in a game they absolutely needed to win to keep the 16-0 record alive. It was the perfect "Heisman moment" for what may be the best season ever by a quarterback. I think the fact that he handed the ball off to Maroney for two TDs in an effort to win the game shows he wasn't only being focused on the record, much like Manning in his comeback win against the Chargers in 2004.

I'm obviously happy about the accomplishment, but I think it's worth reflecting on the season he just had, in the context of the career he is having. The most passing TDs in history, and the most combined passing/rushing TDs in history. The third most yards in a season in NFL history. The fewest INTs/pass in NFL history for a 16 game starter. Four more comeback wins, for a total of 28 in a career where he is now 98-26 as a starter, by far the best winning percantage of any QB in the modern era. The list goes on.