This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
People aren't as smart as they thought they were around here.Brady 65
Manning 52
Manning shouldn't even be getting 10% of the vote.
You're right, people aren't as smart as you might think. But, you might be a tad bit off on who those people are.
WOW - what a huge surge for Brady in the past 24 hours.
WOW - what a huge surge for Brady in the past 24 hours.
Wrong poll. Two of them going on right now. This one started last year and Brady was KILLING Manning. Winning a SB, though, this poll has seen the surge for Manning to make it even (and will eventually surpass Brady, like on the other one).
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh. THAT makes sense. For a second I thought that Boston had a holiday yesterday and I somehow never heard about it.cobalt_27 said:JetsWillWin said:
These polls are constantly brought up, bumped and created at the wrong times in the scheme of things. It's always right after one player or the other does something to highly skew the results. It's no surprise that riding the high of a SB win, Manning would gather a ton of emotion and shortsighted based votes. If we revisit the poll in say.... May, I would have to guess that we would see a regression back to the true numbers as people again weigh the credentials of both players with equal importance.cobalt_27 said:JetsWillWin said:WOW - what a huge surge for Brady in the past 24 hours.
Wrong poll. Two of them going on right now. This one started last year and Brady was KILLING Manning. Winning a SB, though, this poll has seen the surge for Manning to make it even (and will eventually surpass Brady, like on the other one).
Fixed. Brady benefits from having a better team. Pats fans can argue all about the "talent" Manning has on offense, but that's 33% of the team. Pats overall have had a better team. Just go look at their defensive rankings. There is the reason the PAts have SuperBowls, it's NOT Brady, it's the team. And Brady isn't the reason the team is better, Belichek is the reason.
I would have to say Aikman, as I think he was a bigger beneficiary of TEAM than Montana.
Your takes are so biased, and borderline worthless its not even funny. New England had the 24th ranked defense in 2001 when Brady led them to their first title. Again, the 24th ranked defense. I dont mind you hating the guy, but atleast use some level of objectivity. Otherwise, just dont comment.Fixed. Brady benefits from having a better team. Pats fans can argue all about the "talent" Manning has on offense, but that's 33% of the team. Pats overall have had a better team. Just go look at their defensive rankings. There is the reason the PAts have SuperBowls, it's NOT Brady, it's the team. And Brady isn't the reason the team is better, Belichek is the reason.You couldnt be further from the truth. Brady is better because his team The PAts are better because of their wins in the playoffs and his their offense typically does not underperform.
Statisticspresented by SprintPlayer | TeamBy Player CategoryBy Player PositionBy Team Category Rank Team G Pts/G TotPts Scrm Plys Yds/G Yds/P 1st/G 3rd Md 3rd Att 3rd Pct 4th Md 4th Att 4th Pct Pen Pen Yds ToP/G FUM Lost1 Pittsburgh Steelers 16 13.2 212 919 258.6 4.5 15.9 68 199 34 4 17 24 71 585 26:17 27 122 Baltimore Ravens 16 16.6 265 1,010 277.9 4.4 16.4 70 227 31 6 15 40 105 902 30:21 22 123 St. Louis Rams 16 17.1 273 952 279.4 4.7 16.0 69 209 33 11 23 48 100 830 28:29 21 134 Dallas Cowboys 16 21.1 338 985 287.4 4.7 17.0 76 214 36 8 15 53 69 634 30:01 29 165 Miami Dolphins 16 18.1 290 957 288.0 4.8 17.7 70 201 35 6 15 40 82 623 29:56 27 116 Tampa Bay Buccaneers 16 17.5 280 950 290.8 4.9 16.4 78 216 36 4 13 31 91 742 28:33 22 117 Philadelphia Eagles 16 13 208 1,017 293.8 4.6 16.4 71 232 31 7 13 54 85 741 31:36 39 198 Denver Broncos 16 21.2 339 960 298.4 5.0 18.2 63 191 33 4 10 40 100 853 28:53 26 159 Cincinnati Bengals 16 19.3 309 1,013 302.0 4.8 17.6 86 225 38 5 13 38 101 837 31:14 33 1510 Washington Redskins 16 18.9 303 982 302.9 4.9 16.9 76 210 36 5 17 29 83 672 29:48 31 1111 San Diego Chargers 16 20.1 321 1,025 306.5 4.8 18.1 84 224 38 7 12 58 79 632 30:05 33 1212 Green Bay Packers 16 16.6 266 1,041 308.6 4.7 17.4 93 238 39 9 22 41 104 921 30:28 36 1913 San Francisco 49ers 16 17.6 282 988 309.6 5.0 18.1 78 210 37 11 19 58 95 812 28:43 24 1014 New York Giants 16 20.1 321 995 310.9 5.0 16.8 66 218 30 11 19 58 100 695 30:30 29 1315 Chicago Bears 16 12.7 203 1,023 311.1 4.9 17.3 80 223 36 4 17 24 97 808 29:30 34 1716 Jacksonville Jaguars 16 17.9 286 1,056 316.9 4.8 18.8 87 227 38 5 18 28 96 834 31:59 28 1216 New Orleans Saints 16 25.6 409 948 316.9 5.3 17.8 80 201 40 3 12 25 100 877 30:36 28 1518 Oakland Raiders 16 20.4 327 1,002 316.9 5.1 18.5 67 210 32 9 20 45 81 621 29:17 18 719 New York Jets 16 18.4 295 1,030 322.1 5.0 17.8 101 227 44 9 18 50 85 700 30:47 29 1920 Seattle Seahawks 16 20.2 324 1,028 325.4 5.1 18.8 92 223 41 6 11 54 101 805 30:21 28 1321 Buffalo Bills 16 26.2 420 969 330.8 5.5 18.9 86 205 42 4 9 44 93 835 31:11 26 822 Cleveland Browns 16 19.9 319 1,089 331.1 4.9 18.4 88 235 37 8 23 35 103 779 32:00 35 923 Kansas City Chiefs 16 21.5 344 1,003 331.5 5.3 18.5 86 218 39 5 8 62 87 761 31:10 23 1324 New England Patriots 16 17 272 1,016 334.5 5.3 18.9 80 215 37 5 15 33 93 839 29:30 23 1325 Tennessee Titans 16 24.2 388 996 344.7 5.5 18.8 74 212 35 7 14 50 88 832 28:36 21 1126 Detroit Lions 16 26.5 424 1,015 345.1 5.4 20.1 87 210 41 6 13 46 95 896 31:26 19 627 Minnesota Vikings 16 24.4 390 985 354.1 5.8 19.5 82 204 40 6 10 60 92 874 30:49 22 1028 Arizona Cardinals 16 21.4 343 1,071 355.3 5.3 19.9 84 220 38 12 24 50 110 980 32:30 27 729 Indianapolis Colts 16 30.4 486 1,004 357.2 5.7 20.2 90 207 44 7 15 47 96 759 29:28 16 1030 Atlanta Falcons 16 23.6 377 957 365.3 6.1 18.6 93 201 46 2 8 25 97 852 29:05 23 1231 Carolina Panthers 16 25.6 410 1,057 371.4 5.6 19.0 97 233 42 7 10 70 96 793 32:43 27 12ps - get over it. Gannon stunk.
that's selective grading man, and you know it. go to NFL.com and look up standard ranking NFL defenses, and theyre sorted by yardage first and foremost. Grab a USAToday. or your local sports paper. Dont bushleague me, now. I knew what their scoring rank was. Like I said before, hideous bias.And by the way, by those scoring standards youve cited, New England's scoring offense improved from 22nd in '00 to 6th in '01. Works both ways.switz said:
That's not SELECTIVE at all - that's the default, non-sortable listing on pro-football-reference.com. And to say yards are what grades a defense is missing a much bigger picture. Who cares how many yards are allowed if the team isn't allowed to score. That's what matters.You post their ranking YPG, and you get countered with the most important ranking - Points Allowed. It's not bushleague, it's truth. The Pats had a great defense that year, they were 6th in points allowed. And that's what matters when it comes to winning and losing.
Manipulating #s is a great way to stengthen a case. And you guys have done a good job of it, so I'm letting this one go. Kudos for your sticktoitiveness.
No. Apparently the NFL does, though. Because they dont base overall defense rank on scoring. But I hear you. And Drew Bledsoe always threw plenty of TDs. That wasnt the reason he sucked. And as much as I appreciate what Antowin Smith did for the New England Patriots, to think that he was more of the reason for that offensive turnaround and improvement of 6 wins, 3 playoff wins and a Superbowl title than a Hall of Fame QB is something I'll still be laughing about when Im old and gray. nice one. Brady was a field general the minute he stepped on the field. Until this season, the #s were never any adequate measure of his greatness. But think what you will.
I agree, the Patriots played a lot of bend but don't break defense that year. But at the same time, scoring defense also ignores turnovers, field position, time of possession, and more. If we're arguing that the thing Brady did well is that he kept drives alive, kept the chains moving with short, dink and dunk passing, and kept games close while giving his team good field position, then you would expect opponents to be able to move the ball in chunks against them, while not scoring as much because they had a longer field to work with. And the numbers bear that out. If we're arguing that Manning's numbers were impressive because he threw for lots of TDs, it makes sense that his opponents were going to be more aggressive, so his defensive statistics would look worse. I believe that Manning's numbers have taken a hit because he plays a less aggressive, better game management game than he did in the past, just like Brady traditionally did. Brady didn't have the gaudy statistics because 1) he didn't have the receivers, which is now provable, and 2) he wasn't playing aggressively, which is also fairly provable. Meanwhile, the Patriots defense is by most accounts improved from last year with the addition of Adalius Thomas, and yet their numbers are significantly worse this year because teams are forced to play aggressively. It's silly to say that Manning didn't benefit from a great team around him. If you honestly believe that, then you must also believe that Brady was going to blow up for 30 TDs in his first eight games regardless of the receivers around him. But it's not just the offense. The Colts defense was 23rd in the league last year, but allowed just 16 PPG in the playoffs, and only 10 PPG in the games not against New England. Meanwhile, Manning threw 3 TDs against 7 INTs. It's disingenuous to say that Brady won because of his defense, but Manning didn't. It's also incorrect to imply, or outright say as some have in the past, that Manning would have won as many Superbowls as Brady if he had the same caliber of defense. Even ignoring the offensive weapons around Manning, which as we can see this year have allowed Brady to put up better numbers than anyone in the history of ever, Manning has some excellent defenses in his career:2005: #2 scoring defense. Lost in the first round of the playoffs. 2002: #7 scoring defense. Lost in the first round of the playoffs.If we look at yards allowed, his defenses have been even better, but if you guys want to use scoring defense as the gold standard for why Brady has won all these Superbowls, I'm happy to do the same. The question has been answered: If Manning had the defense that Brady has had, could he win as many Superbowls? No. If Brady had the kind of weapons that Manning has had, could he put up even better numbers? Yes. There's really nothing left to say. I'd take Brady by a mile.
Not sure how you come to this conclusion considering Manning won with the 23rd ranked defense in the league last year whereas Brady, with the number 2 defense in the league, only managed to choke away the biggest lead in playoff history.I also think Manning could have put up better numbers in 2004 if he stayed in during the 4th quarter of blowouts to pad his stats as Brady does, even without Randy Moss.
2007: #23 scoring defense. Won the Super Bowl.
Well, first of all, Manning often did stay in in the fourth quarter. And Brady's been coming out with about twelve minutes left in the fourth quarter. Save the revisionist history for topics that are harder to look up. Second of all, Manning threw three picks and no TDs against Baltimore. 50% of his passes landed in his receivers' hands, 10% in the opponents', and the other 40% hit the ground. That's not too good. Why did they win? Did it have anything to do with the defense holding Baltimore to 6 points? Or KC to 8 points the week before? Or forcing turnover after turnover in the Superbowl against a baffled Rex Grossman? Manning even looked lost in the first half of the Pats game, when they were getting throttled 21-3. He had one good half of football, and only against the depleted Pats secondary. If you're honestly saying that Manning carried his team to that Superbowl in spite of his defense, then we don't have much to talk about here. On the other hand, the Patriots defense has only held its opponent to less than ten points twice - and once was against Manning. It's only had four INTs in a playoff game once - against Manning. The Patriots defense has allowed 18 PPG in the playoffs; the Colts defense has allowed 21 PPG. Surely having multiple hall of famers on offense would help Manning make up those three PPG if he was as good as you say, and yet in six attempts in the playoffs, he's been knocked out in the first round. Why? Because he's led his team to an average of 13 PPG in those games, while the defense has let up 25 points. Brady, on the other hand, has led his offense to 24 PPG in his losses, while the defense has let up 33 PPG in his two losses. It sure looks like Manning's the one who has relied on his defense to win, and has choked away the offense, especially when you consider how much more offensive talent he's squandered compared with the only two Brady-led Patriots teams that have lost in the playoffs.
Addressed in the post you quoted, and again right after your post. But thank you for pointing out that the regular season numbers of their respective defenses are not the reason that the teams have been successful in the playoffs - the fact that Manning's defense looked so much better in the playoffs last year just proves that the "Brady's defense was #6 in the league in 2001" argument is a load of crap.
As do those 7 INTs and 3 TDs that he was 'running' that offense to last year in the playoffs. If thats what running an offense produces, then give me a hand puppet with 30TDs and 2 picks all day every day.
Belichick and his staff? Can you tell me without looking the name of the Patriots offensive coordinator? I mean, he must be pretty good since he runs everything. Or does Belichick run the offense, defense, special teams, cameras, and wardrobe? I do agree with everything else you said, though. Brady is so busy doing commercials that he doesn't even attend practices. As a sixth round pick and the Patriots' fourth string quarterback, he didn't face the tremendous pressure of being the #1 pick in the draft, which made it much easier for him to ascend to displace the tremendously popular former #1 pick who was running the Patriots beforehand. He didn't face any pressure in any of the three point Superbowl victories, or have to make any clutch end of game drives, or have an undefeated record in overtime games, or really any other kind of pressure. In fact, when Brady has done something successful, it's been the all star talents of guys like Antowain Smith, David Patten, David Givens, and the guy they picked out of the pro wrestling ranks to play offensive line that really did all the work.
Hmmm...that really makes his choke job last year look bad.
Yes, he only led them to 34 points, while watching the defense collapse in the second half as player after player was sent to the sidelines. But let me see if I can use the Manning defenders' line: It wasn't a choke, it was Dungy's defense, and they were on the road, and it was too hot, and it wasn't fair, which is why he threw 4 INTs/led them to three points/completed less than 50% of his passes/threw the game losing interception to Polamalu/got sacked multiple times to kill a comeback drive/pulled up short on a drive when they needed a long field goal to win/insert most recent game ending mistake here.BassNBrew said:
Sorry, I was gone most of the day. Heaven forbid some people have jobs, or are buying houses, and have to attend a closing.Nonetheless, sure the offense improved, but as was cited earlier, it was not due to a dramatic increase in production from the QB. No, it was another aspect of the offense that led to overall improvement, the running game. So again, Brady benefitted from being part of a better team.
How much of Brady's improvement this year do you attribute to him having better receivers than in the past?
That post was a whopping 3 minutes after your reply. but your opinion certainly isnt changing, so I hope the closing went well, and I look forward to settling this Sunday or Monday sometime seeing how these teams are finally on somewhat of a level playing field. although Im sure after NE hammers those guys, I'll have to stomach an even more comical line of 'why Brady's overrated' logic.
Montana = down by 5 with 1:30 left in the Super Bowl. He'll get you in the end zone.
Good morning. I was starting to get worried about you. You've been asleep for eight weeks. I hope you're feeling well rested. Maybe you'd like to catch up on what's been happening in the NFL this season.
Brady = only if down by 2 with 1:30 left in the Super Bowl. He'll get your kicker in position for a FG.
Yawn. Alarm clock's busted...So, Brady's been winning Super Bowls with game winning TD passes???Good morning. I was starting to get worried about you. You've been asleep for eight weeks. I hope you're feeling well rested. Maybe you'd like to catch up on what's been happening in the NFL this season.
Montana = down by 5 with 1:30 left in the Super Bowl. He'll get you in the end zone.
Brady = only if down by 2 with 1:30 left in the Super Bowl. He'll get your kicker in position for a FG.
So, bf. Youre suggesting Brady actually has something to do with the team's success? Please. its all about the receivers and those 4 or 5 HOFers over there on that D. And of course the great BB. surely you know the answer you seek to the question you need not ask.
No, but you seem to have missed the memo that you're supposed to be complaining that he throws too many TD passes. It's a happy problem to have people complaining about how much the Pats win by with Belichick and Brady, but it's just hard to keep track of what they're doing wrong on any given day.Yawn. Alarm clock's busted...So, Brady's been winning Super Bowls with game winning TD passes???Good morning. I was starting to get worried about you. You've been asleep for eight weeks. I hope you're feeling well rested. Maybe you'd like to catch up on what's been happening in the NFL this season.
Brady = only if down by 2 with 1:30 left in the Super Bowl. He'll get your kicker in position for a FG.
No, I'm seriously curious what switz thinks.
WTF?!More pressure from being a top draft pick? Are you freakin' serious? Well, allow me to counter with "the confidence/arrogance that comes with being groomed from birth by an NFL QB father and generally annointed as a QB prodigy since childhood by everyone else on the planet". Please.
If by often you mean 'in one game against the Texans' you would be correct. Brady's thrown how many 4th quarter TDs this year? 6?
Yeah, the defense did play well in the playoffs. I'll acknowledge that, but will you acknowledge that Peyton and Brady have no control over whether or not their kickers wind up bailing them out as the clock runs out? Or that Edge has never been a reliable short yardage back? Or that Marvin Harrison has only ever shown up against Denver in the postseason? Or that very few QBs would even have got their teams to the playoffs with that Colts D last year? Or that those previous top 10 Colts D's played below their ranking in the postseason? Or that Brady fumbled?
To this I say, Brady took a 5-12 team to a Superbowl. It took how many years to get a Superbowl? And, even then it was a defensive run.
I think, now that htey have equivalent talent, we see how good Brady really was with the Subpar talent. Look at where Givens, Branch, Patten, or any other of the Pats WR's that Brady made optiimal use of, are now. None of them have been able to do much of anything. the argument has always been that they would put up similar stats, w/ a slight edge to Brady IMHO, w/ similar talent. Now, people are whining about the Pats beating people too badly, because the offense can't be stopped.
That really says it all. Brady w/ weapons appears to be above and beyond whatever Manning ever did. Sure, Manning finished once, with his defense carrying them early in the playoffs. Reality is that if Brady has Moss and co last year, that gme is like 35-3 before the Colts mount a comeback, and a different outcome ensues. Of, if the Pats secondary has less 3rd stringers in it, a difference is seen. Injuries happen, and teams change. Just supposing here. On that day, Manning won, and it was one of the better QB performances I've ever seen. Just don't pretend that there wasn't a huge difference in the talent level of the offensive talent to supplement those stats.
Were you watching the games last year? That defense gelled at the end. Without that defense, the Colts are done in thier first game, where the great Manning turned the ball over 3 times. They still won 23-8, because their own defense still held the Chiefs to 8 points in their 23-8 win. He did go 30/38 for 268-1-3 that day. But, make no mistake, his defense save his bacon, 23rd ranked or not.Then, in their second game, Manning was 15/30 for 170 w/ no TD's and 2 INT's. Thankfully the defense held Baltimore to 6. It was an all too typical Manning playoff performance, putting up only 15 against playoff caliber defenses. Only this timme, the Ravens were completely absent, aided by a very good Colts defense that saw Bob Sanders retur IIRC, at this point they were, by far, the #1 ranked defense in the playoffs.
