Wait a minute. You think the Pats went 11-5 and the Colts went 2-14 because the Colts TRIED to suck and the Pats just got by on talent and a weak schedule? Pats fans can NOT explain away that Cassell year. Bottom line, Brady went down and the Pats had an amazing year with a nobody. _
Not that simple. The next year in 2012 the Colts won 10 games and a playoff game. So the 2011 team was clearly tanking and not that bad. Not to mention that the put a handful of others stars on. IR that year to make sure they would get the number 1 pick. So yeah the argument can be easily denied. Not to mention the colts are basically the same team since Manning left, winning the weak division But Luck actually has performed better in the playoffs than Manning did, in fact even beating Manning in Denver. If Manning was so vital to the Colts success, how come the Colts performance has not dipped since he left.
They drafted another #1 overall pick in Andrew Luck who is pretty good himself. The Colts have dipped though. Peyton Manning has taken the Broncos to 2 Super Bowls since leaving Indianapolis, winning 1 of them, while the Colts have not appeared in the Super Bowl since his departure.
How do you figure they had an "amazing" year. They beat 2 team with winning records all year, and they were the Jets and Phins who also benefited from the cupcake schedule. They also didn't make the playoffs for the only time since 2002. They lost to the only 3 really good teams they played, the Chargers, Colts, and Steelers. Cassell was definitely better than what the Colts had on the bench, but that goes to show that the Colts organization was flawed. Spent all their money on aa QB, 2 WR's, a TE, and 2 DE's. Cassell also had a good year with KC in 2010. Also, I never said they got by on talent, I said they got by because their coach got the most from his team, while the Colts waved the white flag and tanked on purpose. They did better because the Pats had a superior organization to the Colts. If you want to go by stats and say Manning is the best, I got no problem with that. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one or knows one (Burning Elvii). I don't think how each team did is a barometer of which QB is better. Two completely different circumstances.
I've always hated this rationalization. Oh they only beat bad teams and lost to all the good teams. 11-5 by any NFL team in any year is amazing. _
I think Kluwe is voting for someone other http://offthemonstersports.com/2016...ic-rant-about-peyton-mannings-sexual-assualt/
so peyton gave some chick a tea bag while at tennessee? is that what all the fuss is about? that actually makes me think he isnt a robot, and that makes him better in my book.
So by sexually assaulting a non-consenting female he's better in your book? You're a fucking scumbag, not even a question there. Easy to tell why you're a New York fan.
I give you credit for trying, but the arguments are weak, and pales in comparison to the highlights of Peyton's resume i previously posted. In terms of your arguments: "Brady played outdoors" Ok, you realize Manning won an MVP playing in Denver right? I'd say the rockies qualifies as succeeding in the elements.. in terms of Foxboro, was the 'home field advantage' due to overcoming the elements, or more affected due to systematic cheating practices? the team wasn't as successful in the elements away from Foxboro, which certainly poses the question. matter of fact, was just recently beat twice in Denver, where Br*dy played poor games. "Brady didn't have talent" This is by far the weakest argument I've seen. He's played with 2 slam dunk HOF targets in Moss and Gronk. Welker went to 5 Pro Bowls while in New England, twice as a 1st team All-Pro. Troy Brown, Edelman, and Hernandez (pre-murders) have all been very solid versatile players, as the RB's have been. and 'talent' doesn't stop with receiving weapons. Br*dy has benefited from a HOF coach, the only coach of his career. Has also had some great offensive lines, the best Kickers and special teams in the game, and very good defenses which the Patriots rode to 3 Super Bowls. If i were a QB, i'd sign up for all that talent in a hearbeat. All the stats and records go to Manning, as do the MVP's and all the first team All-Pro selections. the individual production all favors Manning, which is why you quickly jumped to team production, as that is really the only argument left to be made. 4 Super Bowls to 2. .689 postseason winning % to .519. team stats. that's essentially what you are hanging your hat on, a 17% difference in postseason TEAM success. the only people outside of New England who favor Br*dy heavily weigh post season team Wins as a QB accomplishment, while ignoring the cheating, and the coaching factor, and the 3-1 record Manning has vs Br*dy in championship games. it's tunnel vision. there will always be a few who will point to 4 Super Bowls, and consider the case closed. it's the same crowd who considers Bradshaw and Aikman among the best. I do believe that crowd is in the vast minority though, and rightfully so. Peyton is the clear cut best of this generation. The only question is whether he is the best all time.
Dude I like you but trust me as a phins fan that schedule was a joke. Nfc west and afc west at that time were a joke. 5 less wins by the pats was a huge dropoff
Cassel the jokester who got paid for no talent - benefit of a system . Read and digest this When Belichick makes comments like that....he's telling you Brady isn't great by his own accord. The last paragraph speaks volumes . Tom is still on the lower third of top paid QBs. When does someone go against the code red?