Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I dont get ESPN...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Doogansquest View Post
    Because Brady's runs were magical?

    2001
    *52 passes against the Raiders for a whopping 16 points and the Tuck Rule (which was incorrect). Playoff run should have ended there.
    *Brady didn't play against Pittsburgh, but the Patriots still won. Go figure, Brady was irrelevant.
    *145 yards in the Super Bowl. 3 Rams turnovers lead to the first 17 points for the Patriots. Brady is clearly a super QB...

    2003
    *201 yards on 51% completion against the Titans. Stud.
    *237 yards on 59% completion against the Colts. The Patriots defense forced 5 turnovers, by the way. Brady is a monster...
    *354 yards against the Panthers. Not bad, but Delhomme had 328 on 16 fewer completions. The game became a weird shootout in the 4th quarter. Vinatieri wins it again, but Brady was very good in this game. Credit where credit is due.

    2004
    *144 yards against the Colts in the cold. Brady is supposed to be AMAZING in the cold... Defense forced 3 turnovers, and the Patriots rushed for 210 yards. But remember, rushing as a strategy doesn't count in the cold. The QB is supposed to do it all...
    *207 yards against the Steelers. Oh, the Patriots defense forced 4 turnovers, by the way.
    *236 yards against the Eagles. Patriots defense forced 4 turnovers.

    In 7 of those 9 games, the Patriots won time of possession and rushing yards. The turnover ratio was roughly 4:1 in favor of the Patriots.

    Brady had tons of help from the defense and the ground game, and was only really productive in one contest (Carolina). All three Super Bowls were won by a total of 9 points and were largely decided without Brady really having to do anything.

    Brady takes less risks than Manning, that's for sure, but that's because Tom only had to be a game manager for the Patriots to win.

    Face it, he had better teams. He had to do less to be successful.
    Brady had better defenses. Manning had way better offenses. (Though the year Peyton won his defense was exceptional in the postseason.) This is why it's absurd to compare things like yards, completion %, etc. Manning should have had better stats. Just like he should have had better efficiency stats a couple of weeks ago (but didn't.)

    When Brady was put in a position to win the game, he came through every time. And just as important, he didn't turn the ball over nearly as much as Peyton (especially in crucial situations.) Each of Brady's SB runs that you outlined above were significantly more impressive than Manning's 3TD and 7 INT performance.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by psychobilly View Post
      Well, he has a point and an opinion. Fortunately games are decided on the football field and not in the media.
      He has a point with the exception of SF. They have been far too inconsistent this season to be considered in the top 3.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by RandomVariable View Post
        Filming Chargers cheerleaders is cheating?

        Manning sucked in the playoffs the year his defense won him the SB. 3 TDs and 7 INTs. He literally made it more difficult for the Colts to win, yet they still found a way despite his atrocious performance.
        Do you REALLY wish to rehash spygate? seriously?
        sigpic

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by RandomVariable View Post
          Brady had better defenses. Manning had way better offenses. (Though the year Peyton won his defense was exceptional in the postseason.) This is why it's absurd to compare things like yards, completion %, etc. Manning should have had better stats. Just like he should have had better efficiency stats a couple of weeks ago (but didn't.)

          When Brady was put in a position to win the game, he came through every time. And just as important, he didn't turn the ball over nearly as much as Peyton (especially in crucial situations.) Each of Brady's SB runs that you outlined above were significantly more impressive than Manning's 3TD and 7 INT performance.
          Actually what came through for the win was the field goal unit.

          At least be honest...
          sigpic

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by RandomVariable View Post
            Brady had better defenses. Manning had way better offenses. (Though the year Peyton won his defense was exceptional in the postseason.) This is why it's absurd to compare things like yards, completion %, etc. Manning should have had better stats. Just like he should have had better efficiency stats a couple of weeks ago (but didn't.)

            When Brady was put in a position to win the game, he came through every time. And just as important, he didn't turn the ball over nearly as much as Peyton (especially in crucial situations.) Each of Brady's SB runs that you outlined above were significantly more impressive than Manning's 3TD and 7 INT performance.
            He came through a decade ago. So this means he's gotten worse since 2004?

            The bottom line -- in Brady's three post-season championships, his defense held an offense to 17 points or less 7 out of 11 games. During that same time period, Manning had that kind of help only once in the playoffs and was 30-0 in all games where the opposjng team was held to 17 or less.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by #87Birdman View Post
              Regular season just gets you to the playoffs what you do there is what matters.
              This^^^^^.

              Comment


              • #82
                The biggest difference between what the Broncos and the Seahawks have done is the TO margin. If memory serves they are +15 and we are -4. So it is fair that the analysts are leaning towards the hawks. Solid in all 3 phases and dont turn the ball over. However, I do not think any team can beat us if we do not turn the ball over. Our numbers would be Madden like if we turned it over a little less and caused a few more.
                res ipsa loquitur

                Comment


                • #83
                  Most announcers favor NFC teams because they are "tougher." I tell you Seattle is a good team, but not as good as they are made out to be. I saw them almost loose to rams on Thursday nite at home having to rely on the rams running out of time. They are a home team, decent on the road, but not unbeatable. Russell Wilson is okay, but MVP he is not. Denver will only get credit when they win a super bowl and maybe then they will say the other team just didn't show up.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    I think the Broncos have the lines to match up with the Seahawks, especially at a neutral field.
                    "Stultum est timere quod vitare non potes." ~ Publilius Syrus

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X