MERGED thread to talk about Peyton's performance in the Super Bowl (1 Viewer)

[Kwai Chang Caine]

Why do people care so much who is perceived as better between Manning and Brady? Always has been a strange phenomenon for me.

Who is stronger: superman or the hulk?

 

[MoveToSkypager]

Since people like to use the cut off as Spygate, since then . . .

Why would you use Spygate as a cut-off of some type when evaluating Manning's stats? Nobody is accusing Manning of having cheated in the years prior to Spygate, and none of his accomplishments has any sort of cloud following it around.

The poster I quoted said Manning was better than Manning over the past 7 years and had a way better QB rating. Others have indicated Brady hadn't done anything since Spygate. 7 years and Spygate were the same exact timeline.w

That's what I mean. Spygate doesn't have anything to do with Peyton Manning, so it seems silly artificially to truncate his career from that point forward. Manning won his SB fair and square.

And Brady didn't win his Superbowls fair and square? You do realize that the story of the Patriots videotaping the Rams walk-through before the Superbowl was thoroughly debunked, and that the Boston Harrald issued a front page apology for falsely running the story? The taping of the walk-through never happened. And that is an accepted fact -period, end of story. Even the ex film guy (Matt Walsh) who hates the Patriots acknowledged they never filmed the walk-through. Mike Martz and Arlen Specter also acknowledged as much after the investigation and closed the case. Yet the myth lives on.Totally ok to criticize the Pats for the 2006 season and the first game of 2007, and fine to wipe those numbers from the slate. But prior to the 2006 memo from the League clarifying the rules, what the Pats did (and what other teams were doing by the way) was not enforced by the league as illegal.

We probably need a sticky topic on Spygate. It's amazing ow many myths and misinformation are commonly floated in these rooms. To sum it up, what the Pats did that was wrong was this - they videotaped defensive signals (after the 2006 memo came out clearly outlawing this) and used them in subsequent games - not even during the games in which they were taped. Spygate was a non factor, plain and simple. Like I said, if anything should be thrown out it's the 2006 season.

The official newspaper of all Bostonian pirates. HARRRRR!

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Why do people care so much who is perceived as better between Manning and Brady? Always has been a strange phenomenon for me.

I agree completely. Manning was horrible in this year's SB. That doesn't somehow make Tom Brady better, but you wouldn't necessarily think so by reading some of the posts in here.

 

[ghostguy123]

Why do people care so much who is perceived as better between Manning and Brady? Always has been a strange phenomenon for me.

Who is stronger: superman or the hulk?

Superman. Unless there is some kryptonite around I guess.

Question is, who is the better superhero...............

 

[IHEARTFF]

Nothing that happened in this year's playoffs should make anyone think Brady is better.

 

[ghostguy123]

Nothing that happened in this year's playoffs should make anyone think Brady is better.

I would agree that, if anything, this season is at WORST a push, but really it favors Manning.

I realize Brady had a lot to deal with, and that MAYBE if put in Manning's shoes Brady might have set the records....................but he didn't.

I also don't see Brady as being elite if he loses half his arm strength. But then again, who cares, they are both great and damn near complete equals as far as how good they are and have been.

 

[fantasycurse42]

Nothing that happened in this year's playoffs should make anyone think Brady is better.

No, but that's why we judge careers over a long span of time, not one season... One season is just another piece of data. Over the last 15 years I like Brady's resume a lot more.

 

[JuniorNB]

Since people like to use the cut off as Spygate, since then . . .

Why would you use Spygate as a cut-off of some type when evaluating Manning's stats? Nobody is accusing Manning of having cheated in the years prior to Spygate, and none of his accomplishments has any sort of cloud following it around.

The poster I quoted said Manning was better than Manning over the past 7 years and had a way better QB rating. Others have indicated Brady hadn't done anything since Spygate. 7 years and Spygate were the same exact timeline.w

That's what I mean. Spygate doesn't have anything to do with Peyton Manning, so it seems silly artificially to truncate his career from that point forward. Manning won his SB fair and square.

And Brady didn't win his Superbowls fair and square? You do realize that the story of the Patriots videotaping the Rams walk-through before the Superbowl was thoroughly debunked, and that the Boston Harrald issued a front page apology for falsely running the story? The taping of the walk-through never happened. And that is an accepted fact -period, end of story. Even the ex film guy (Matt Walsh) who hates the Patriots acknowledged they never filmed the walk-through. Mike Martz and Arlen Specter also acknowledged as much after the investigation and closed the case. Yet the myth lives on.Totally ok to criticize the Pats for the 2006 season and the first game of 2007, and fine to wipe those numbers from the slate. But prior to the 2006 memo from the League clarifying the rules, what the Pats did (and what other teams were doing by the way) was not enforced by the league as illegal.

We probably need a sticky topic on Spygate. It's amazing ow many myths and misinformation are commonly floated in these rooms. To sum it up, what the Pats did that was wrong was this - they videotaped defensive signals (after the 2006 memo came out clearly outlawing this) and used them in subsequent games - not even during the games in which they were taped. Spygate was a non factor, plain and simple. Like I said, if anything should be thrown out it's the 2006 season.

It's only natural for Patriot fans to want to downplay Spygate as much as possible. And Patriot haters to play it up as much as possible. The truth is, we'll never know exactly what went on and for how long. I understand how much was proven by the investigation. But that doesn't mean they found out everything. It's like when a guy gets caught cheating. He admits to as much as his wife can prove. But he doesn't come clean about other affairs that she doesn't know about.

 

[Jercules]

Since people like to use the cut off as Spygate, since then . . .

Why would you use Spygate as a cut-off of some type when evaluating Manning's stats? Nobody is accusing Manning of having cheated in the years prior to Spygate, and none of his accomplishments has any sort of cloud following it around.

The poster I quoted said Manning was better than Manning over the past 7 years and had a way better QB rating. Others have indicated Brady hadn't done anything since Spygate. 7 years and Spygate were the same exact timeline.w

That's what I mean. Spygate doesn't have anything to do with Peyton Manning, so it seems silly artificially to truncate his career from that point forward. Manning won his SB fair and square.

And Brady didn't win his Superbowls fair and square? You do realize that the story of the Patriots videotaping the Rams walk-through before the Superbowl was thoroughly debunked, and that the Boston Harrald issued a front page apology for falsely running the story? The taping of the walk-through never happened. And that is an accepted fact -period, end of story. Even the ex film guy (Matt Walsh) who hates the Patriots acknowledged they never filmed the walk-through. Mike Martz and Arlen Specter also acknowledged as much after the investigation and closed the case. Yet the myth lives on.Totally ok to criticize the Pats for the 2006 season and the first game of 2007, and fine to wipe those numbers from the slate. But prior to the 2006 memo from the League clarifying the rules, what the Pats did (and what other teams were doing by the way) was not enforced by the league as illegal.

We probably need a sticky topic on Spygate. It's amazing ow many myths and misinformation are commonly floated in these rooms. To sum it up, what the Pats did that was wrong was this - they videotaped defensive signals (after the 2006 memo came out clearly outlawing this) and used them in subsequent games - not even during the games in which they were taped. Spygate was a non factor, plain and simple. Like I said, if anything should be thrown out it's the 2006 season.

It's only natural for Patriot fans to want to downplay Spygate as much as possible. And Patriot haters to play it up as much as possible. The truth is, we'll never know exactly what went on and for how long. I understand how much was proven by the investigation. But that doesn't mean they found out everything. It's like when a guy gets caught cheating. He admits to as much as his wife can prove. But he doesn't come clean about other affairs that she doesn't know about.

This is a good effort to be even-handed, but it's a false equivalency. To underline something that has been previously mentioned: The 'spygate' rule (about videotaping from the sidelines, the one the Pats broke) did not exist before 2006, when Brady was already a 3-time Superbowl winner.

I mean, there's a lot more that can be said, but that fact alone ought to suffice for reasonable people. It's not cheating if the rule doesn't exist!

 

[General Tso]

Since people like to use the cut off as Spygate, since then . . .

Why would you use Spygate as a cut-off of some type when evaluating Manning's stats? Nobody is accusing Manning of having cheated in the years prior to Spygate, and none of his accomplishments has any sort of cloud following it around.

The poster I quoted said Manning was better than Manning over the past 7 years and had a way better QB rating. Others have indicated Brady hadn't done anything since Spygate. 7 years and Spygate were the same exact timeline.w

That's what I mean. Spygate doesn't have anything to do with Peyton Manning, so it seems silly artificially to truncate his career from that point forward. Manning won his SB fair and square.

And Brady didn't win his Superbowls fair and square? You do realize that the story of the Patriots videotaping the Rams walk-through before the Superbowl was thoroughly debunked, and that the Boston Harrald issued a front page apology for falsely running the story? The taping of the walk-through never happened. And that is an accepted fact -period, end of story. Even the ex film guy (Matt Walsh) who hates the Patriots acknowledged they never filmed the walk-through. Mike Martz and Arlen Specter also acknowledged as much after the investigation and closed the case. Yet the myth lives on.Totally ok to criticize the Pats for the 2006 season and the first game of 2007, and fine to wipe those numbers from the slate. But prior to the 2006 memo from the League clarifying the rules, what the Pats did (and what other teams were doing by the way) was not enforced by the league as illegal.

We probably need a sticky topic on Spygate. It's amazing ow many myths and misinformation are commonly floated in these rooms. To sum it up, what the Pats did that was wrong was this - they videotaped defensive signals (after the 2006 memo came out clearly outlawing this) and used them in subsequent games - not even during the games in which they were taped. Spygate was a non factor, plain and simple. Like I said, if anything should be thrown out it's the 2006 season.

It's only natural for Patriot fans to want to downplay Spygate as much as possible. And Patriot haters to play it up as much as possible. The truth is, we'll never know exactly what went on and for how long. I understand how much was proven by the investigation. But that doesn't mean they found out everything. It's like when a guy gets caught cheating. He admits to as much as his wife can prove. But he doesn't come clean about other affairs that she doesn't know about.

Except that you have all the alleged "ex lovers" of the husband, many of whom still have an axe to grind (Matt Walsh, Bill Cowher, Mike Martz, Eric Mangini) all conceding to the wife that nothing happened. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/01/eric-mangini-regrets-turning-in-the-patriots-over-spygate/

Believe me, I have every reason in the world to hate the Patriots. They've done some despicable stuff over the years. But ironically they are getting hosed on something that really wasn't all that big a deal. Say what you want about Belichek and his lousy demeanor, Brady and his rantings at his teammates, and Kraft and all his spurious business dealings (especially with my hometown of Hartford) - but to discredit their success and their Superbowls is just not factually correct. It's intellectual laziness at its finest.

 

[Jercules]

Since people like to use the cut off as Spygate, since then . . .

Why would you use Spygate as a cut-off of some type when evaluating Manning's stats? Nobody is accusing Manning of having cheated in the years prior to Spygate, and none of his accomplishments has any sort of cloud following it around.

The poster I quoted said Manning was better than Manning over the past 7 years and had a way better QB rating. Others have indicated Brady hadn't done anything since Spygate. 7 years and Spygate were the same exact timeline.w

That's what I mean. Spygate doesn't have anything to do with Peyton Manning, so it seems silly artificially to truncate his career from that point forward. Manning won his SB fair and square.

And Brady didn't win his Superbowls fair and square? You do realize that the story of the Patriots videotaping the Rams walk-through before the Superbowl was thoroughly debunked, and that the Boston Harrald issued a front page apology for falsely running the story? The taping of the walk-through never happened. And that is an accepted fact -period, end of story. Even the ex film guy (Matt Walsh) who hates the Patriots acknowledged they never filmed the walk-through. Mike Martz and Arlen Specter also acknowledged as much after the investigation and closed the case. Yet the myth lives on.Totally ok to criticize the Pats for the 2006 season and the first game of 2007, and fine to wipe those numbers from the slate. But prior to the 2006 memo from the League clarifying the rules, what the Pats did (and what other teams were doing by the way) was not enforced by the league as illegal.

We probably need a sticky topic on Spygate. It's amazing ow many myths and misinformation are commonly floated in these rooms. To sum it up, what the Pats did that was wrong was this - they videotaped defensive signals (after the 2006 memo came out clearly outlawing this) and used them in subsequent games - not even during the games in which they were taped. Spygate was a non factor, plain and simple. Like I said, if anything should be thrown out it's the 2006 season.

It's only natural for Patriot fans to want to downplay Spygate as much as possible. And Patriot haters to play it up as much as possible. The truth is, we'll never know exactly what went on and for how long. I understand how much was proven by the investigation. But that doesn't mean they found out everything. It's like when a guy gets caught cheating. He admits to as much as his wife can prove. But he doesn't come clean about other affairs that she doesn't know about.

Except that you have all the alleged "ex lovers" of the husband, many of whom still have an axe to grind (Matt Walsh, Bill Cowher, Mike Martz, Eric Mangini) all conceding to the wife that nothing happened. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/01/eric-mangini-regrets-turning-in-the-patriots-over-spygate/

Believe me, I have every reason in the world to hate the Patriots. They've done some despicable stuff over the years. But ironically they are getting hosed on something that really wasn't all that big a deal. Say what you want about Belichek and his lousy demeanor, Brady and his rantings at his teammates, and Kraft and all his spurious business dealings (especially with my hometown of Hartford) - but to discredit their success and their Superbowls is just not factually correct. It's intellectual laziness at its finest.

This is an honest question: What despicable things have they done? I've heard they practice guys they've IRed (which is forbidden), and I've heard they keep a stable of agents that give them below-market deals on certain players (not too clear on that, but apparently there's a lot of animosity towards them in the agent world). What else?

 

[General Tso]

Since people like to use the cut off as Spygate, since then . . .

Why would you use Spygate as a cut-off of some type when evaluating Manning's stats? Nobody is accusing Manning of having cheated in the years prior to Spygate, and none of his accomplishments has any sort of cloud following it around.

The poster I quoted said Manning was better than Manning over the past 7 years and had a way better QB rating. Others have indicated Brady hadn't done anything since Spygate. 7 years and Spygate were the same exact timeline.w

That's what I mean. Spygate doesn't have anything to do with Peyton Manning, so it seems silly artificially to truncate his career from that point forward. Manning won his SB fair and square.

And Brady didn't win his Superbowls fair and square? You do realize that the story of the Patriots videotaping the Rams walk-through before the Superbowl was thoroughly debunked, and that the Boston Harrald issued a front page apology for falsely running the story? The taping of the walk-through never happened. And that is an accepted fact -period, end of story. Even the ex film guy (Matt Walsh) who hates the Patriots acknowledged they never filmed the walk-through. Mike Martz and Arlen Specter also acknowledged as much after the investigation and closed the case. Yet the myth lives on.Totally ok to criticize the Pats for the 2006 season and the first game of 2007, and fine to wipe those numbers from the slate. But prior to the 2006 memo from the League clarifying the rules, what the Pats did (and what other teams were doing by the way) was not enforced by the league as illegal.

We probably need a sticky topic on Spygate. It's amazing ow many myths and misinformation are commonly floated in these rooms. To sum it up, what the Pats did that was wrong was this - they videotaped defensive signals (after the 2006 memo came out clearly outlawing this) and used them in subsequent games - not even during the games in which they were taped. Spygate was a non factor, plain and simple. Like I said, if anything should be thrown out it's the 2006 season.

It's only natural for Patriot fans to want to downplay Spygate as much as possible. And Patriot haters to play it up as much as possible. The truth is, we'll never know exactly what went on and for how long. I understand how much was proven by the investigation. But that doesn't mean they found out everything. It's like when a guy gets caught cheating. He admits to as much as his wife can prove. But he doesn't come clean about other affairs that she doesn't know about.

Except that you have all the alleged "ex lovers" of the husband, many of whom still have an axe to grind (Matt Walsh, Bill Cowher, Mike Martz, Eric Mangini) all conceding to the wife that nothing happened. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/01/eric-mangini-regrets-turning-in-the-patriots-over-spygate/

Believe me, I have every reason in the world to hate the Patriots. They've done some despicable stuff over the years. But ironically they are getting hosed on something that really wasn't all that big a deal. Say what you want about Belichek and his lousy demeanor, Brady and his rantings at his teammates, and Kraft and all his spurious business dealings (especially with my hometown of Hartford) - but to discredit their success and their Superbowls is just not factually correct. It's intellectual laziness at its finest.

This is an honest question: What despicable things have they done? I've heard they practice guys they've IRed (which is forbidden), and I've heard they keep a stable of agents that give them below-market deals on certain players (not too clear on that, but apparently there's a lot of animosity towards them in the agent world). What else?

Despicable is probably a little harsh, though I would use that word to describe the way they reneged on their deal to move the team to Hartford in 2001. That was as dirty as it gets. I also didn't like their signing of a known thug like Hernandez. If a local boy like me knew as much as I knew about the guy, I can't imagine what the Pats knew. But they still signed him. Karma came back to bite them on that one.These are legitimate criticism of the Patriots. But Spygate has been ridiculously overblown. It's actually become fashionable to throw logic away on this issue. Even noted TV personalities like Marshall Faulk are still allowed to lobby baseless accusations against the team with no repercussions whatsoever. If the Pats had it to do all over again I bet they would reverse their decision not to sue the Boston Herald for their false article about he team taping the Rams walk-through. The Pats should have sued them, and they would have won. Instead their legacy has been tarnished and the myths continue to linger on.

Anyways - enough of that. Back to Manning and his legacy, which in my opinion took a hit in the Superbowl, but nothing too substantial. He's still an all time great and if I had to wager I'd put my money on him winning another Superbowl before all is said and done. Tony Dungy said today he thinks he's got another 5 or 6 years in him, and I tend to agree.

 

[kyoun1e]

Think everyone should probably take a snapshot of both Manning and Brady's legacies right now.

Because I don't see how either of them get another ring with Seattle, SF, and CAR waiting for them.

Both Denver and NE need to become more physical and disruptive on D to compete. They, along with the entire AFC, is just plain soft.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

Since people like to use the cut off as Spygate, since then . . .

Why would you use Spygate as a cut-off of some type when evaluating Manning's stats? Nobody is accusing Manning of having cheated in the years prior to Spygate, and none of his accomplishments has any sort of cloud following it around.

The poster I quoted said Manning was better than Manning over the past 7 years and had a way better QB rating. Others have indicated Brady hadn't done anything since Spygate. 7 years and Spygate were the same exact timeline.w

That's what I mean. Spygate doesn't have anything to do with Peyton Manning, so it seems silly artificially to truncate his career from that point forward. Manning won his SB fair and square.

And Brady didn't win his Superbowls fair and square? You do realize that the story of the Patriots videotaping the Rams walk-through before the Superbowl was thoroughly debunked, and that the Boston Harrald issued a front page apology for falsely running the story? The taping of the walk-through never happened. And that is an accepted fact -period, end of story. Even the ex film guy (Matt Walsh) who hates the Patriots acknowledged they never filmed the walk-through. Mike Martz and Arlen Specter also acknowledged as much after the investigation and closed the case. Yet the myth lives on.Totally ok to criticize the Pats for the 2006 season and the first game of 2007, and fine to wipe those numbers from the slate. But prior to the 2006 memo from the League clarifying the rules, what the Pats did (and what other teams were doing by the way) was not enforced by the league as illegal.

We probably need a sticky topic on Spygate. It's amazing ow many myths and misinformation are commonly floated in these rooms. To sum it up, what the Pats did that was wrong was this - they videotaped defensive signals (after the 2006 memo came out clearly outlawing this) and used them in subsequent games - not even during the games in which they were taped. Spygate was a non factor, plain and simple. Like I said, if anything should be thrown out it's the 2006 season.

It's only natural for Patriot fans to want to downplay Spygate as much as possible. And Patriot haters to play it up as much as possible. The truth is, we'll never know exactly what went on and for how long. I understand how much was proven by the investigation. But that doesn't mean they found out everything. It's like when a guy gets caught cheating. He admits to as much as his wife can prove. But he doesn't come clean about other affairs that she doesn't know about.

Except that you have all the alleged "ex lovers" of the husband, many of whom still have an axe to grind (Matt Walsh, Bill Cowher, Mike Martz, Eric Mangini) all conceding to the wife that nothing happened. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/01/eric-mangini-regrets-turning-in-the-patriots-over-spygate/

Believe me, I have every reason in the world to hate the Patriots. They've done some despicable stuff over the years. But ironically they are getting hosed on something that really wasn't all that big a deal. Say what you want about Belichek and his lousy demeanor, Brady and his rantings at his teammates, and Kraft and all his spurious business dealings (especially with my hometown of Hartford) - but to discredit their success and their Superbowls is just not factually correct. It's intellectual laziness at its finest.

This is an honest question: What despicable things have they done? I've heard they practice guys they've IRed (which is forbidden), and I've heard they keep a stable of agents that give them below-market deals on certain players (not too clear on that, but apparently there's a lot of animosity towards them in the agent world). What else?

Despicable is probably a little harsh, though I would use that word to describe the way they reneged on their deal to move the team to Hartford in 2001. That was as dirty as it gets. I also didn't like their signing of a known thug like Hernandez. If a local boy like me knew as much as I knew about the guy, I can't imagine what the Pats knew. But they still signed him. Karma came back to bite them on that one.These are legitimate criticism of the Patriots. But Spygate has been ridiculously overblown. It's actually become fashionable to throw logic away on this issue. Even noted TV personalities like Marshall Faulk are still allowed to lobby baseless accusations against the team with no repercussions whatsoever. If the Pats had it to do all over again I bet they would reverse their decision not to sue the Boston Herald for their false article about he team taping the Rams walk-through. The Pats should have sued them, and they would have won. Instead their legacy has been tarnished and the myths continue to linger on.

Anyways - enough of that. Back to Manning and his legacy, which in my opinion took a hit in the Superbowl, but nothing too substantial. He's still an all time great and if I had to wager I'd put my money on him winning another Superbowl before all is said and done. Tony Dungy said today he thinks he's got another 5 or 6 years in him, and I tend to agree.

The Hernandez drafting is textbook "Patriot Way". Find players that are value depressed and acquire them. Some of them are of questionable character like Hernandez, some of them are injury cases like Gronk. There are a hundred examples of each. As long as some of them work out, it's a success because of the strong existing leadership in the locker room. The failures go away.

I never was concerned with people chirping about Spygate. The titles aren't going away. In 10 years, no one will even remember this crap.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

For the out there, there is a theory that says the Patriots jam/intercept the radio transmissions of the opposing QB/Defense playcaller. None of these rumors have been found to be true, of course.

 

[Anarchy99]

For the out there, there is a theory that says the Patriots jam/intercept the radio transmissions of the opposing QB/Defense playcaller. None of these rumors have been found to be true, of course.

This topic came up on a national radio show recently. Radio signals and helmet microphones occasionally have issues in every stadium in the league, and there were no more issues in NE than anywhere else. Yet when it happens in NE, the conspiracy theorists come out in force and the Pats have to be the one doing it and somehow it is to their advantage. In those situations, both teams have to stop using electronic communication until the problem is resolved, so it's not like it helps one team or the other.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

For the out there, there is a theory that says the Patriots jam/intercept the radio transmissions of the opposing QB/Defense playcaller. None of these rumors have been found to be true, of course.

This topic came up on a national radio show recently. Radio signals and helmet microphones occasionally have issues in every stadium in the league, and there were no more issues in NE than anywhere else. Yet when it happens in NE, the conspiracy theorists come out in force and the Pats have to be the one doing it and somehow it is to their advantage. In those situations, both teams have to stop using electronic communication until the problem is resolved, so it's not like it helps one team or the other.

Plus their defense hasn't really been all that good in recent years.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

For the out there, there is a theory that says the Patriots jam/intercept the radio transmissions of the opposing QB/Defense playcaller. None of these rumors have been found to be true, of course.

This topic came up on a national radio show recently. Radio signals and helmet microphones occasionally have issues in every stadium in the league, and there were no more issues in NE than anywhere else. Yet when it happens in NE, the conspiracy theorists come out in force and the Pats have to be the one doing it and somehow it is to their advantage. In those situations, both teams have to stop using electronic communication until the problem is resolved, so it's not like it helps one team or the other.

Yeah, not to mention that RF signals in a football stadium aren't dependable to start with. I am not a fan of using those radios anyway. I prefer to do away with that altogether.