Patriots better?Originally Posted by Johnny Footstool
Could they get any better? I hope not! I'm ready for more variety in the Super Bowl, it's getting
Patriots better?
Indy's defense put Peyton Manning in a big hole because of time of possesion. They just couldn't get the Pats off the field long enough for the Colts offense to get on schedule. Couple that with sloppy feild conditions, and Patriots defense that seemingly becomes impregnable, Peyton had no chance.
Great players cannott win in the playoffs outside of the team concept. Peyton can't do it all, Marino couldn't do it all, and Elway couldn't do it all until changes were made to the team around him.
I love Tom Brady. He's everything anyone would want from a quarterback in that kind of system.
Plop him down in Indy, and do they even make the playoffs?
I don't think so.
I think Peyton's the best quarterback we're gonna see for quite some time, and nothing should be taken away from him, and on the other side, Tom Brady deserves all the credit he recieves. I just don't consider him to be a gun slinger like Peyton.
You could also throw Jim Kelly into this conversation. He's like a mix between the two, but never won the bigone. That's where the whole team concept thing comes in.
It's like a more extreme W/L record for pitchers.
"Baseball players are smarter than football players. How often do you see a baseball team penalized for too many men on the field?" ~ Jim Bouton
I take Manning, and don't even need 2 seconds to think about it. The Patriots don't win because of Brady. They win because of the coaching and the defense. Brady doesn't make mistakes and lose games, and there is value in that. But there's no way I can call a guy with Kitna-like numbers the best QB in the game simply because he plays on a really good team.
Good point, it's talent vrs. clutch. Brady is a good fit with the Pats because he's a playoff type QB. He doesn't blow it when under pressure.
Kevin Faulk has 2 rings, is he the best RB in the league?
When I say its all about the rings, I'm only talking about the quarterback position. Wide receivers and runningbacks don't dominate the game like a quarterback does. Obviously defense is key and the team, not an individual, wins games, but can you seriously argue after watching Manning two weeks ago that he could put up 41 points against Pittsburg's defense in that weather like Brady did yesterday? Its not about how many TD pasees you can throw in October in a temperature controlled dome, and its not about how "pure" a pass you throw in practice. Its about how you play in a blizard against the Steelers on 1/23/05. This kid is one game away from his third superbowl ring and hes not even 25 years old. That not all coaching and defense, not by a long shot. I'm a lifelong Packer fan and I think Starr is the most underated football player who ever lived (and if you don't believe me, watch that game winning drive against the great Dallas defense in the ice bowl). But after watching Brady at Michigan and in the NFL, he is close to Starr. Its time to give this kid his due.
FWIW, Brady is 27, not 24. And while Brady is good, you can't overlook the fact that the Pats defense got 4 turnovers off of Pittsburgh last night (one of which was an INT returned for a TD), which helps a lot. I'm sure it's a lot easier to succeed as an NFL QB if your defense is getting turnovers and stealing any momentum from the other team. Brady fits that system well, though. He's a smart QB who doesn't make mistakes. From a talent standpoint, though, I wouldn't say he is better than Manning.
A few years ago the NFL celebrated its 75th anniversary with a coffee table book that included "all decade" teams. The "all decade" QB for the 1960s was Johnny Unitas and the "all decade" QB for the 1970s was Terry Bradshaw. I disagreed with both picks, and there was an inherent inconsistency in those choices.
For the decade of the 1970s, Roger Staubach had far superior passing statistics to those of Terry Bradshaw; the criteria for picking Bradshaw was apparently the fact that his team won 4 Super Bowls to the 2 won by Staubach's teams. However, if championships were to be the deciding factor, how was Unitas picked over Bart Starr as the QB of the 1960s? Unitas's passing stats for the 1960s were not better than Starr's-Johnny U. threw more often, but not any better, than Starr, and Starr lead Unitas in championships won by a 5 to 0 margin.
If Bradshaw was the QB of the 1970s, despite having poorer stats than Staubach, solely because he "won" more titles, how was Unitas the QB of the 1960s, with stats no better than Starr, especially given that Unitas won no championships that decade to the five won by Starr's teams?
"Hey...Dad. Wanna Have A Catch?" Kevin Costner in "Field Of Dreams."
Without at least decent WR's and a good running behind him, a really good QB looks really bad. Even though quarterback is the probably the most important role, the team around a QB dictates the QB's sucsess. The RB must get yards and WR's must make big plays. A defense that turns the ball over to allow the QB to do his work increases a quarterbacks sucsess as well. The entire team deservers credit for a QB's sucsess
I'd say a brutally big offensive line will dominate a game before anything else.
What Denver Bronco running back had as much success someplace else other than Denver?
You only have to look as far as Clinton Portis to see that.
Everything's connected in football. It's a true team sport.
The offense can help the defense by controlling time of possesion, the defense helps the offense by forcing turnovers and giving the offense good field position, and good special teams can bail out both the offense and the defense.
A quarterback is extremely important, but they can't win big games all by themselves.
Manning and Brady are both great in different ways, and I'd be happy to have either one.
I happen to really like Carson Palmer alot, though.
"Baseball players are smarter than football players. How often do you see a baseball team penalized for too many men on the field?" ~ Jim Bouton
I agree. But its not like Manning doesn't have decent wr's (probaly better than New England) and a good running back.
My mistake Brady is 27 years old. And he only has 2 rings (at least for the next two weeks).
Starr versus Unitis, we could argue about that all day. Bart had a big advantage- Vince. While most people would take Unitis, I could make a good arguement the other way. And which quarterbacks have the lowest turnover stats in the history of postseason play- Starr and Brady.
Unitas had Don Shula for most of the 1960s, including 1964, when the Colts lost the NFL title game to the Browns, 27-0, and 1967, when the Colts lost the division title to the Rams, 34-10 in the final regular season game.
"Hey...Dad. Wanna Have A Catch?" Kevin Costner in "Field Of Dreams."
Yeah, I don't see how you could pick between the two. Flip a coin.
With Manning, the whole team rides on his back. He's asked to outscore the other team because his defense stinks. He is surrounded by good-to-great offensive players. His coach is NFL-average.
Brady isn't asked to win the game by himself. He is surrounded by the consumate Team. Belichick is state-of-the-art NFL coach now (Why oh why couldn't he do this with the Browns? They would have never moved). The Bart Starr/Lombardi/Packers analogy is a good one. The whole is better than the sum of the parts.
I think if they switched teams, they would both perform as well. Brady would put up gaudy numbers, Manning would win with the Pats.
She used to wake me up with coffee ever morning
Be realistic. If Brady were the QB for Indy, they would make the playoffs. No doubt about that. You make it seem like we're talking about Trent Dilfer here. Brady has thrown three INT in the playoffs (career). THREE. He doesn't have an Owens, Moss, or Harrison to throw to, but the Patriots don't stink it up offensively. He doesn't put up the gaudy stats that Manning does, but put him in the Colts offense, and he wouldn't make the playoffs? Right........
Oh, and I think Brady would flounder against a Belichick-designed Patriot defense just like Manning did.
She used to wake me up with coffee ever morning
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
Reply With Quote