irrelevant. we are talking overall performance. just because Brady's D gave him the opportunity to make a meaningful drive doesn't eliminate the fact that his overall performance was poor. you are arguing Brady has never been shut down simply because he hasn't been held to under 8, but being held to 14 and under is not significantly different. Had the Giants offense been better the game wouldn't have been close, but Brady's performance is the same regardless if 14 points only led to a 3 point loss or a 30 point loss. likewise if the Patriots D hadn't shut down the high powered Rams, there is no game winning drive to even consider. the context of that drive is not solely the result of Brady's play so he doesn't deserve the credit for the context, and that is what you are arguing now -- context, not actual performance.
actually, let's look at only Super Bowls starting with the Patriots win over the Rams and forward. Average point total of winning team -- 29 points (only a 1 point difference) Average point total of losing team -- 19 points. that is ever worse for Brady. he has led his offense in three of his Super Bowls to less points than the average losing team (13, 14 and 17). in fact, has only led his team to a point total at or above the average winning score once, against the Panthers. there is no spin and nothing to support the declaration that Brady would not have been blown out that game when his own offensive performance in Super Bowls leads to a point total that is a losing point total. if the game happens to be close it isn't because of Brady, it is because the Patriots defense kept it close. you want to give credit for the Patriots defense for keeping it close which isn't the argument.
The bottom line is, people can still compare Peyton to Brady. When they play next season the comparisons will continue to happen and rightfully so. Brady is coming off a worse postseason IMO.
those #s are skewed b/c there are so many defensive pts scored. The actual pts scored by the winning offenses has been(since 2001): 22.8 NE's average in SBs 20 PPG on O. right on par know who the only O to actually score 30+ pts in a SB win in that span was? 2003 NE scoring 32. others that scored 30+ as a team: TB 48(21 pts on D), O scored 27 NO 31(7 on D), O scored 24 GB 31(7 on D), O scored 24 Bal 34(7 on STs), O scored 27 Sea 43(16 on D/STs), O scored 27
They are going to be compared for the rest of history. The two pre-eminent QBs of their era, both all-time greats. It's an incredible phenomenon. The debate will never be won or lost. _
not the discussion. you are looking at the winning score average, which is simply a side note. I've already acknowledge Brady had that one good game against Carolina, the question is what about the other 4 games. The Eagles game isn't a point of contention either. nobody has argued he hasn't had any good games, which is the only argument your point would be addressing. you claimed he would not have had a bad Super Bowl performance, comparable to Peyton's performance. clearly he has three Super Bowl's where his offensive performance has not only been bad or average, but are losing caliber performance. not coincidentally he lost two of those, and needed his defense to keep the game in striking distance to win the other, which is actually his worst offensive performance -- only 13 points. just because the Patriots defense kept those games close, and the Broncos team did not against the Seahawks, doesn't mean Brady's overall offensive performance was not bad, thus validating your claim that he hasn't been bad in the Super Bowl (or playoffs, since the SB is part of the playoffs and counts). we are talking about whether of any of Brady's offensive performances were bad performance and compare to other losing performances, and three of his 5 Super Bowls in fact do. 13 points, 14 points and 17 points. even his highest point total of those 3, 17 points, is almost 6 points below the average offensive performance of a winning team. and he lost that game because it is a losing point total and a losing offensive performance.
he's never had a performance anywhere near as bad as Peyton last week. You are strictly looking at pt totals but rewind back to 2001 and a first year QB starting in a SB against a huge favorite. the game was low scoring, when they needed him to WIN the game he led one of the greatest drives in SB history. 13 pts is still more than Peyton's 3 lowest scoring playoff games COMBINED.
still, not the argument. yes, Peyton's performance was worse. but your argument (let's discuss this) was that Brady wouldn't have been blown out in that game, as if his individual performance would undoubtedly been so significantly better as to keep the game close. absent of Manning's INT returned for a TD, Seattle still scored 36 points, which means Brady would have had to score 30 points or more to keep the game close. his history in Super Bowl's show he would have been unable to do so. obviously the first element to look at is point totals. p this has nothing to do with giving context of his first Super Bowl performance and justifying it was not as bad because it was his first year, because it isn't about arguing who had the worst game between the two. we are discussing your assertion that Brady has never been bad enough in the Super Bowl to validate the claim that the Patriots would have been blown out by Seattle as well. Brady's Super Bowl performances clearly show a QB who is unable to score many points, even with a high powered offense, and thus wouldn't have scored 30 points or even 20 points, against this defense, and thus would have been blown out. unless are you simply arguing that if Seattle only won 36-17 that would somehow validate Brady?
Agree with this. That was one of the worst QB performances I've seen in the playoffs in a while. Seahawks defense is spectacular but it's not like they were unbreakable. Friggin Schaub had 355 yard game against em and had em in position to win until he threw a blunder.
I didn't say he wouldn't have been blown out, I said he wouldn't have gone down w/o a fight. NE would have lost, I don't think they would have been non competitive like Denver despite Denver having much more talent.
getting blown out is the indicator of not being competitive. if you are saying they may have been blown out, what criteria are you using that they would have been competitive despite possibly being blown out? the talent argument is irrelevant to this question.
only one time in 25 games has Brady been non competitive, seen a game lost by halftime. he also hasn't ruined nearly as many chances as Manning. Brady doesn't have a pick 6 in postseason, Manning has many. how many one and dones? how many close games where the QB made the mistake to cost his team? happens frequently for Manning, rare for Brady.
your context of competitive is dependent on his defense keeping him in the game; not what we are discussing. we are discussing Brady's performance on its own merits. and could have Brady kept his team competitive with a greater offensive performance that kept up with Seattle. he has more games that say no than yes. If the Rams play against the Patriots like the Seahawks did against the Broncos, Brady's performance is not competitive; he loses somewhere around 36-13. if the Giants played as well as Seattle did, those games are not competitive. he loses 30-14 and 30-17. either you are arguing Brady would have scored in the mid-20's to 30's to keep it competitive simply because of the Eagles and Panthers games, that is easily disputed by pointing to a greater number of Super Bowls as indicators that he would not (especially his latest two games, against a very good defense, which are the best indicators). if you are arguing that his defense and special teams would have kept the game close, allowing the game to be competitive, than that has nothing to do with Brady.
they got the ball first, one snap and it was 2-0 Seattle. The D then held Seattle to a FG, 5-0. O goes 3 and out, D holds Sea to FG and it's 8-0. Peyton throws INT and sets up Sea's first TD to make it 15-0 Den gets ball back and he throws pick 6. bash the D all you want, the O was the main culprit in this loss. The Giants played really well, the difference was Brady wasn't giving them TO after TO. Even when Brady got a safety against the Giants and NYG took a 9-0 lead, was the game over? No and why? b/c he wasn't turning it over. Peyton was.
Manning only had two TO's. one because his offensive line failed to block and his arm got hit. Seattle scored on 4 other offensive possessions and on special teams. had the Giants scored like that it would not have been competitive. so, again, those games were competitive because the defense kept the Giants from scoring, not because Brady was putting up points.
only had 2 TOs, one led to a TD, one was a pick 6. That stretches lead from 8-0 to 22-0 which was HUGE. If Brady was turning it over like that NYG would have been scoring like that. Really 19 of the first 22 pts in a 22-0 halftime score came directly from the O. safety short kick setting up Sea in great FP where they kicked a FG to make it 5-0 INT sets up TD to make it 15-0 INT for TD to make it 22-0
there is nothing to indicate that the Giants offense would have taken a non-TD INT in for a TD against the Patriots. that is beyond baseless speculation and is simply convenient for you to claim because it supports your position. The Seahawks only punted once in the first half, that has nothing to do with TO's, that is an inability of the Broncos defense to keep them moving across the field. The Giants did not have such ease against the Patriots.
