they punted once in the 1st half b/c they had incredible FP. scored 2 on D Sea 36 FG Sea 28 FG Den 37 TD INT for TD they didn't punt at all in the 1st half. again, if Brady was turning it over like Manning then maybe NYG scores 22 pts in the 1st half? after the safety NYG got it at their 22 and went 78 yds for the TD for a 9-0 lead. NYG 1st half starting FP: (real possession, not counting kneel at end of half) NYG 22 Seattle's 1st half FP: (real possessions and NOT including INT for TD) SEA 42 see any difference?
The int. at 15-0 is the biggest play of the game, yeah he might have gotten hit, but you know what? pressure is part of the NFL, if you are a QB you have to know how to deal with pressure. A punt would have been a million times better at that point, but a pick 6 was the death blow.
the difference isn't the discussion, you seem intent on continuing to attempt to confuse the discussion to avoid the challenge to your actual point. your point wasn't that Brady had never been as bad as Manning, it was that Brady would never have been bad enough to allow the game to get out of hand. but based on his own performances in the Super Bowl, he needed his defense to keep his games close enough to win because his performances were even below the average losing performances. his performances were bad enough to be blow outs if his opponents were not kept in check by the Patriot defense. Brady's Super Bowls weren't close games close because of his offensive performance, they were close games despite his offensive performances because his defense kept the game close. so the argument isn't whether Brady would have kept the Patriots in the game or not, because based on his historical performances he would not have if the defense hadn't played as well. the question is whether the Patriot defense would have played well enough to provide Brady an opportunity to win, despite how bad he likely would have played, just like 3 of his 5 other Super Bowls. you are displacing the responsibility from the defense to Brady. if the game is a low scoring game, that is the defense keeping it close. the offense's job is to score, in a low scoring game the offense is not doing its job and thus the defense gets the credit for keeping it close. what you are doing is the equivalent of giving the defense credit in a 41-35 game simply because it was a close game, despite the fact that they kept giving up points but the offense kept it close by also scoring.
The Broncos defense did enough to keep the Broncos in the game though. 2-0 (safety on the broncos offense) 5-0 (3 points on the defense although this was coming off the punt so the field was shorter, good stop imo) 8-0 (Manning threw the pick that set the Seahawks up in FG range) 15-0 (pass interference call leads to TD, 7 points on the defense) 22-0 (Pick 6 on Peyton Manning) 29-0 (Special teams TD allowed) All in all I can only pinpoint 10 points on the Broncos defense in the first half, while Peyton and the offense can be blamed for 12 points (Safety+FG+TD). Without the mistakes we are looking at a 10-0 game at halftime and perhaps if Manning converts a few first downs its even less because the Seahawks offense is not on the field.
I'm not sure how many times this needs to be discussed. Clearly you are not reading the points I am posting. You are pretending like peyton was an innocent victim in the blowout but that's just not true. he was a culprit, if Brady turned it over like that then maybe his team gets blown out but that hasn't happened. The Patriot defense did not have to overcome 16 pts off TOs like the Denver D did. add 16 pts to any of the Pats SBs: SB XXXVI 33 pts SB XXXVIII 45 pts SB XXXIX 27 pts SB XLII 33 pts SB XLVI 35 pts see how that changes things? If peyton protects the ball and makes better decisions Den at least stays in that game for a half if not more.
I'm doing no such thing because I am not discussing Peyton Manning I am discussing Tom Brady, and a specific point about Tom Brady you brought up. In fact, I specified the exact discussion about Tom Brady in my last post and asked you to address it, and you have once again ignored it. Undoubtedly because I successfully disputed your assertion and shown Tom Brady has not been. A good QB in the Super Bowl and there is no evidence to support your assertion that he would have kept the game from being a blow out.
the specific fact is Tom has never turned it over like that in a SB. Manning threw 2 INTs in SB XLVIII leading directly to 14 pts Brady in 5 previous SBs had a TOTAL of 2 INTs which led to 7 pts. The TD off the INT was an 85 yd TD pass. You haven't successfully done anything other than deflect, you act like NE's Ds played great but again if their O was turning it over the way Peyton did they would have given up much more pts as well.
again not the point. the point is Brady struggled in those games, and couldn't score enough points to win (and in the Rams game only scored 13 points which should have been enough to lose had his defense not shut down the best offense in the league). there is no deflection at all in that argument. whether the D may have given up more points had Brady played even worse is irrelevant. the only thing that is relevant is that he played poorly and the D kept him in those games despite that. address that specific fact, don't raise another, separate discussion about whether New England's D may have given up more points had Brady not been able to score points (the actual argument) and turned the ball over (a separate argument that doesn't negate the actual discussion because it didn't happen). absent of the two TD's from the INT's for Seattle, they still score 29 points, and considering New England's defense wasn't any better, and worse in many aspects than Denver's, there is no basis to claim that Seattle couldn't have moved the ball all over New England, like they did Denver, and scored those points on the Patriots as well. conversely, Brady's Super Bowl performances show a very significant likelihood that he would have been unable to score against Seattle's D. In two Super Bowls he scored 10 points (Rams) and 7 points (Giants 1) through the first 55 minutes of the game. in Giants 2 he got completely shut out in crunch time -- the 4th quarter. at best the Patriots lose 29-13 against the Seahawks, which isn't as bad as Denver's loss, but only you would attempt to claim that indicates Brady keeping the game competitive.
he struggled but he didn't compound those struggles by turning it over. games are 60 minutes long, right? NYG's D played as well as Seattle's D in their 2 SB runs, the difference in the SBs was Brady wasn't turning it over left and right and gave his team a chance. Peyton removed any chance Denver had.
I'm not arguing that Manning didn't hurt his team with the turnovers. I am arguing Seattle still dominates the Patriots whether Brady turns the ball over or not, because even without turnovers Brady is unlikely to score against the Seahawk's defense, just like he was unable to score against the Giants, and it is easily a two TD win for Seattle. and to your orginal argument, he goes out without a fight in a meaningless 4th quarter.
I said Seattle would won and probably by double digits but I don't think NE gets humiliated like Denver did even though they have much less talent around the QB. we'll never know, what we do know is he wasn't a TO machine in those SBs and his teams didn't get blown out b/c of it.
I don' t think they get beaten as badly either, but I don't think it is close. but Brady likely losing only by 14-20 isn't a reason to celebrate Brady.
I don't think the Patriots would have had a shot against Seattle either, but what makes you say Brady hasn't been a good Super Bowl QB? In his five appearances he's got 9 TDs to 2 INTs, with a 93.8 QB rating. Their offense struggled to put up points against the Giants, like you said, but he hasn't had a lot of back-breaking negative plays.
Junc logic: Start of the game safety: a. IS Peyton's fault. b. is NOT Brady's fault if it happened with Pats. OL blocking like shit a. IS Peyton's fault b. is NOT Brady's fault if it happened with Pats. Receivers getting jammed at the line a. IS Peyton's fault b. is NOT Brady's fault if it happened with Pats. OL can't open a hole for a mouse a. IS Peyton's fault b. is NOT Brady's fault if it happened with Pats. ======================================================== No. I know absolutely nothing about football, thank you.
obviously turning the ball over hurts your ability to win a game, but it isn't the only thing that hurts. you still need to outscore your opponent to win games, and he has failed to score even average winning point amounts in 3 of his 5 Super Bowls. he played losing football in those games, and just happen to win one because his defense shut down the other team.
Are you suggesting Seattle didn't play really well? Look, all I know is that Seattle's offense struggled against the Saints and Niners, but against the Broncos they were able to drive the ball at will. The only thing stopping Seattle's offense was a couple iffy redzone playcalls and return TDs which denied Seattle's offense more possessions with which to score points. If you look at the first 3 quarters of that game, how many possessions by Seattle's offense ended in anything but a score? The kneeldown before half and maybe one punt, everything else was a long drive (or the length of the field if they started in good field position). Those are not ideal situations for any QB, let alone when you are playing one of the greatest Ds in NFL history.
It's his fault and the entire team's fault. At least his offense had the excuse of facing an all-time great D playing at the top of their game. What were the special team's and D's excuses? I guess you could say the return of Harvin, but the Patriots special teams and D would have had to deal with that too.
can we stop w/ the all time great D stuff, in the 2 playoff games at home they allowed 15 & 17 pts. '85 Bears ZERO, '00 Ravens 16 in THREE games COMBINED, '02 Bucs 16 in 2 games combined.
Well when you consider that Brees had 30 yards passing at half and got shutout, this after being shutout for 4 quarters previously in Seattle, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that is good. You seem to be enamored with some of the stats Brees put up while down 2 scores late in the game. Did these other teams cause a historically great passer like Brees to have such a complete lack of success? And Manning for that matter? Kaepernick is a divisional opponent and an extraordinarily difficult runner to deal with from the QB position. He had some success with his legs. I mean, I know Phil Simms, Dieter Brock, and Tony Eason were extraordinarily dangerous to deal with as runners and dual threats, so you probably make some great points
