I think it is a derogatory term, people act like he wouldn't thrive in any system or like that system has had any success w/o him in it. If the coaching and gameplan is so good in NE and w/ that CS, why haven't other QBs won big in that system? It's great that manning runs the offense but the bottom line is the results. he's a great regular season QB and a medicore postseason QB. There are always a million excuses for manning, he gets credit for everything that goes right in Indy but never anything that goes wrong. People will give him all the credit for running the offense when they play well but if they lose we'll hear excuses about playcalling. I don't buy those excuses. Where has this great Belichick system been w/o Brady? I need to know. What we do know is that w/o Brady Belichick has been a complete failure as a HC. We don't know what Brady can do w/o Belichick b/c he has never been w/o Belichick but BB w/o Brady? a disaster. I love this, it's ok when people(like you) attack me and try to belittle me but if I respond you guys get upset. Just like w/ peyton, you can't have it both ways. I am not a typical fan that just sees great #s, I see the game and what these guys are doing. Most typical fans see a 35 rating for ben against us and say he sucked or see a 90 rating for manning against Pitt in '05 and say he was great. I don't fall for that, I am sorry if you do. When speaking of winners it's " the guys who make the biggest plays to help their teams win the biggest games". I like how you convienently ignored that part. Peyton manning has had SB talent around him 90% of his career and he has ONE championship and is 9-10 in postseason. Indy is 9-10 in postseason BECAUSE of the play of the QB not in spite of his play.
It's amazing how these things change from year to year. 1. Brady 2. Manning 3. Brees (still my favorite) 4. Rodgers 5. Roethlisberger
I honestly don't see how Aaron Rodgers is so close behind Peyton Manning. I understand that he just won a Super Bowl, but no QBs scare opposing teams as much as Brady and Manning. It's just not even close.
Cassel was 10-5 w/ NE as the starter a year after the Pats were 16-0. I'll use this example again, give us 5 more losses this year and we are 5-11. a 5 game difference is a HUGE difference and they had a MUCH easier schedule in 2008. Look at this difference. 2007 vs. 6 playoff bound teams: 6-0, avg. score: NE 39 opp 19 2008 vs. 6 playoff bound teams: 2-4, avg. score: NE 24 Opp 26
Yeah but you're kidding yourself if you think a drop to 11-5 from 16-0 is the same as a drop to 6-10 from 11-5.
It's not but it is still a HUGE drop especially against a MUCH weaker schedule. NE still missed the playoffs in 2008, BB has ONE carreer playoff app and ONE career playoff win w/o Brady.
Not for me, I'm going with what I saw this past season instead of past glories. Peyton had guys hurt last year but Rodgers wasn't exactly throwing to Irvin and Harper either. He doesn't have a big time tight end, and aside from Jennings, none of GBs other receivers are exceptional. I rate Rodgers as #1 right now with Brady second, actually.
It's hard for me to hold that against him. A) 11-5 should be good enough for the playoffs B) This was Cassel's first time starting since high school...he took 0 starter reps in training camp. Clearly he's pretty talented but even still, that lack of experience is damning They were all pretty high draft picks (Jennings and Nelson were 2nd rounders, James Jones was a 3rd rounder) and all are at or past that magic 3rd year threshold for WRs.
It's a good point, even Chad Pennington was able to lead his team to 11 wins with that weak ass schedule. M-V-P M-V-P
It was 10-5 w/ Cassel as the starter, they faced an incredibly easy schedule and cassel had been in that system learning from the best QB in the game for years. I know you are trying to be funny but the sched was a big reason Miami won 11 games. Even w/ that easy sched they would have won 5-6 w/o Chad but it was an easy schedule. We easily should have won the division BUT as it turned out it's better that we choked or we wouldn't have Sanchez and rex.
I still think Peyton is number two. If peyton had green bay's defense, they'd be a near lock for the super bowl. The bigger question is #3 and #4. I think you can flip a coin between brees and rodgers basically, but rodgers is a more mobile and still is young enough to improve.
I know Jermichael Finley was injured, but...Greg Jennings, Donald Driver, Jordy Nelson, James Jones, and Andrew Quarless is a pretty solid group of receivers/tight ends. It's a little ridiculous that you'd rate Rodgers ahead of Tom Brady.
GB has a good defense but Indy has had good enough defenses to win. GB's D allowed 17 PPG in this SB run, Indy's D's in postseason w/ manning have allowed an average of 18.7 PPG. GB allowed 25 in the SB, Indy's D's have allowed 25 or more just 3 times in their 19 playoff games w/ Peyton.
C'mon man - I've agreed with most of the stuff you've said in this thread, but you can't say that the Colts' craptacular defense is on the same level as Green Bay's. Compare the rosters...it's not even close.
It was 0-0 that game when Cassel took over and he didn't finish a Brady drive..I'd say he earned that victory. And there's a difference between starting and even playing in a game and sitting on the sidelines with a clipboard learning.
I didn't say it was as good, my point is the Colts D's have been vastly underrated. They have performed pretty well in most postseasons. Indy hasn't lost many games b/c of the D, it has been b/c of the failures of the QB in most playoff losses. '99: lost 19-16, they scored a late garbaget time TD to make it look close. '00: against legenadary choking D scored 17 pts, only 3 of them in the 2nd half and OT '02: lost 41-0, both O and D were horrible BUT you can win giving up 41 pts while it is impossible to win scoring zero. '03: lost 24-14, Peyton throws 4 INTs and takes a safety '04: lose 20-3 '05: giving multiple gifts to stay alive in the game and still couldn't even get it to OT '07: led O to over 20 pts for only time in playoff loss BUT had 2 critical RZ INTs that cost at least 6 pts in a 4 pt loss. I will give both O and D equal blame for this one. '08: needed one 1st down to win game, fails and takes a sack at Indy 1 to set up GT FG. '09: throws game ending INT for TD '10: needs one 1st down to make sure we never see the ball again, fails and we come back and score to win.
OK so call it 11-5 even though official records would be 10-5. That's still a 5 game difference which is huge. of course playing is different than watching and I agree BB did a great job w/ him but obviously Cassel can play and they still lost 5 more games and missed the playoffs. I think BB did a really good job that year, I think BB has developed into a great HC. I don't think he would have had that chacne if Brady didn't rescue his career and the Patriots franchise.
Decent, sometimes better than decent, but by no means an exceptional receiving corps. I'd rather have Rodgers than Brady, right now, absolutely. Rodgers has as good an arm, much better mobility, and takes care of the football about as well as Brady. What does Brady have over him, intangibles? More championships? He won those Super Bowls years ago. It remains to be seen whether or not Rodgers will have a better career than Brady, but to use the old if "I was starting a team and I could pick one qb right now" argument it would be Rodgers.
