Haha there you go again, removing years to prove your point. Funny how you didn't exclude the year Smith was hurt in 2000. Give it up with the "this counts, this doesn't count." NOTE: I just noticed you measured 3 years for Smith and Faulk, and 6 years for James? Dude you are seriously insane. The hoops you jump through to prove your point is like nothing I've ever seen
You think he would. All we can go by are the facts. Your post is written as if you are the last word on the matter and that your assumptions are facts (They're not). The facts are that Brady and Manning are great QBs. You can have Manning and I'll take Brady any fucking day! Their career numbers are about even statistically. You could easily argue that Brady has had less offensive talent around him most of those year (the last couple of years accepted). I've seen Manning toss the big int to lose big games. Haven't seen Brady do that. Anyway, I know I'm not going to convince you, so I agree to disagree.
This whole you know better than everyone else is outrageous (nice word for bullshit). Brady's numbers are almost identical to Mannings and many are better.
Lets go back and count the Ints that Manning threw that didn't get caught. You haven't thrown one stat or reason to back up your argument that Manning is better. Just your assumptions of how much more Manning would have won with the Pats, which is a wild guess and not based on any facts.
I should have said running back core. I never stated once that Smith was better than Edge. I have said several times the combination for Smith and Faulk was more balanced than Edge in Indy, and they allowed the Pats a lot more flexibility and took more pressure off Brady. I'm not saying "if you remove games 3-6 of 2000-2003 NE has a better RB core," this is an entire body of work over the last 10 years. Junc is the one who steered the debate into Smith and Edge, which is understandable because of the debate at hand despite the fact he can't get over the idea of removing/adding particular years/stats to prove his point is almost any debate I've seen him apart of in this board. And Junc, I was hoping you would reply in this thread as to why you pulled another one of your "this counts, this doesn't count" tactics on the success of the Jets D during the last game of the season. http://forums.theganggreen.com/showthread.php?t=62915
How about we judge them on rings won with talent around them. Peyton has had a slew of amazing receivers, strong running backs and an offensive line that gives him a good 1-2 seconds more in the pocket than most QB's. Brady has won with far less. Advantage- Brady. Fuck Manning.
How about this- without google, name three wide receivers and a running back from the first two SB's Brady won and then name the same players for the one Manning won. I'm betting just about everyone can name Manning's supporting cast and maybe non-Patriots fans or true football geeks can name only one WR from Brady's first two rings. I hate this debate because I hate Brady because he's a Patriot fag. But I loathe anyone who thinks Manning is better because I give far more credit to someone who can do more with less.
Up until this weekend, both Manning and Brady had played in 18 career playoff games. In those 18 games, Manning's defenses allowed 21.3 PPG. Brady's allowed 19.1. I think Manning is an all-time great QB, don't get me wrong, but I also don't think he's the same guy in the postseason. It's not an indictment of his career or anything because he's won a title. I just always question why the same defenses and running games have been good enough to help the Colts win more regular season games than any team in any decade prior to the 00's suddenly aren't good enough in January. I've never had a Colts fan give me a good explanation for that.
I didin't include Smith 2000, I included his 3 years w/ NE as the starting RB for Brady and the Pats. Why would I include years he didn't play for NE? You are in over your head here. Actually it's less than that b/c there are Manning INTs for TDs and STs TDs included. The Colts D's have actually allowed LESS pts in regulation than NE's supposed great D's. The other night makes it SEVEN times peyton has gone one and done in postseason, Brady has done it once!(hopefully twice this coming weekend)
Manning led his team for what should have been game winning points but the defense and special teams cost the Colts the game. Or does that explanation only work for Brady?
The KEY differences are Brady led hios team to a TD and a FOUR point lead, he didn't have the opportunity to get another 1st down. manning just needed one 1st down but he couldn't do it and gave his K a long FGA and gave us 50 secs to work w/. Do you not see the difference? I don't gove Manning all the blame but it is comical how the Manning excuse makers instantly come out and blame the STs and the D when manning had the ball in his hands w/ a chance to run out the clock and win the game. He gave the Jets a chance and the Jets took advantage.
Manning did the same thing Brady did for years. Drive them down for a game leading FG. Manning needed a FG to take a 2 point lead. He drove them down in FG range and Vinatieri hit the FG to give them the lead. The defense and special teams blew the game for Colts. Did he not lead them to game leading points w/ less than a minute left? The defense and special teams blew it for the Colts. At least according to your logic. :rofl:
This is hilarious. For YEARS junc gives all the credit in the world to Brady for the whopping 14 points the Pats put up in SB XLII. He says he drove the Pats down for a game leading TD only to watch the Pats defense blow the game. Then Manning plays against us and leads a game leading drive only to watch the Colts ST's and Defense blow the game, but yet junc blames Manning. This is too funny.
Don't even bother responding if you can't answer this one simple question, Did Manning get the Colts in position to take the lead w/ less than a minute to go in the game?
Really? Did Brady leave 53 secs on the clock aftre those FGs? I give him credit for leading Indy to a FG to take the lead BUT he had a chance to end it, did Brady have a chance to end the game against the Giants? Deflecting again. I gave Brady credit for leading his team to a late TD to take a 4 pt lead despite not having a great game overall. Brady led his team 80 yds in the final minutes to put his team up 4 points meaning the opponent needed a TD to beat his team. He didn't have a chance to get another 1st down and milk the clock like Peyton had. Let's compare what peyton did to waht Brady did vs. SL, vs. carolina and vs. NYG in SBs. Manning was down 1 point at HOME, got the ball at his 26 w/ 2:36 to play w/ 1 TO and the 2 min warning. He led them to our 32 for a 50 yd FGA w/ :57 secs to play. Brady vs. SL was tied, got the ball at his 17 w/ NO timeouts and NO 2 min warning and 1:21 to play. he led his O to SL 30 for 48 yd GW FG as time expired. Brady vs. Carolina was tied, got the ball at his 40 w/ 1:08 to play and all 3 TOs. led them to Car 23 and AV kicked 41 yd FG to win it w/ 4 secs left. Brady vs. NYG was down 3 w/ 7:54 to play. he led NE on an 80 yard TD drive to take a 4 pt lead and gave the Giants the ball back w/ 2:42 to play. The Giants needed a TD. In the 2 FG winning drives he left his opponents no time, in the TD drive vs. NYG he took as much time as he ciould and gave NE a 4 pt lead which meant NYG needed a TD to win. Yes, these are the EXACT same situations:rofl: By the way, I don't blame Manning for the loss. There were many factors, it's not like he threw away like so many postseason losses before BUT it's comical that the Manning excuse makers are blaming the STs and the D when manning had his hands in this one as well. Oh and I never said Brady was blameless for the NYG SB, the differnce is Brady did all he could late and gave them a 4 pt lead. Manning could have gotten one 1st down and Indy would have won- he didn't do that. Yep, then he left us w/ almost a minute to play. Thank you Peyton!
