Reply With Quote
Belichick was crucified for storming off the field with time remaining.
Same thing with Moss in Minnesota.
But when Peyton does it, it's because he cares so much.
Nobody gives a about some halfass phone call he made later.
Did you read the article?He then headed toward the locker room before the final seconds expired in New Orleans’ 31-17 win.
Belichick was crucified for storming off the field with time remaining.
Same thing with Moss in Minnesota.
But when Peyton does it, it's because he cares so much.
No different than the half ass hand shake he would've gave Brees.
Leaving the field early is some of dumbest to receive media coverage I've ever seen. Whether Peyton, Lebron, or Belichick does it, it shouldn't even be a story worth covering, but if Belichick is Judas for doing it then so it Peyton.
Peyton Manning for allowing a guy that would do that to his head to receive SB spotlight..that's actually disgusting..
The bottom line is 3>1
Peyton, IMO, is the better quarterback overall. But 3>1 is pretty ing convincing.
Peyton vs. Brees, 1=1, with Peyton having the big advantage for having taken his team to 2 SBs.
Also, FWIW, Favre and PM now have the same SB record
The fact that Montana owns 4 rings puts him head and shoulders above the rest.
Its not really measurable how well a QB has to play and guide his team through the playoffs, make some plays on his own(The Catch), NOT up, and end up with a ring.....Thats why its rare to find a QB with multiple SB rings.....Montana did it 4 times! Thats greatness right there.
How does it put him "head and shoulders" above the rest, when Brady is only one ring back while still being in his early 30's?
Don't take it so literally. But who cares how old Brady is? Were talking about to date. And to date, I think I'll take the guy with more rings, Montana over Brady and Manning. Do you mean to say Brady > Montana based on the fact that Brady has more career left?
why do you morons keep comparing players by using rings as the point of comparison? takes AT LEAST 22 players to win a ring, not ONE, you dumbasses.
lol anal hurt
Just saying "head and shoulder" is usually more than just one anything. And no I don't think that.
how does that make me anal hurt?
i just think its re ed to compare these guys simply by comparing rings
any other position and your argument is valid.
But QB is so much more important than any other position. That's why it's so rare that a team without an elite QB wins a Super Bowl. You've gotta be so completely badass in every other area of the game to make up for poor quarterbacking.
Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer are the extreme exception. Do you think the Saints win the Super Bowl with Trent Dilfer in his prime at QB? If Drew Bledsoe never got hurt, are the Patriots a dynasty?
Rings are an important argument for QB greatness. It's not the only factor, but it absolutely has to weigh heavily in judging a QB.
i can agree with that
but at the same time, you cant expect the most badass of QBs to be able to lead a ty team to a championship either
no way in does brady, montana, or a majority of other QBs lead a team with a defense and a massively overrated coach like the colts to a championship the way Manning did. that team constantly has depended on Manning to lead scoring drives over and over. their defense depends on manning, unlike guys like brady who could depend on their defense when the offense was sucking ass. but in mannings case, if hes having a horrible day, then its highly unlikely that the colts are gonna win, especially against really good teams. on the other hand, you gonna tell me that Peyton couldnt win a ring with a team like, say, the steelers? he has the luxury of a solid running game, a badass WR in Ward, and a monster defense that could win games for the steelers. notice, that this year, once the defense started sucking ass, worthlessburger (while putting up nice stats) couldnt win . on the other hand, manning has a defense, yet puts up 12 wins a season. i think that is enough proof for how good Manning is.
ive said it a number of times and ill say it again...
the best two QBs in NFL history are Peyton Manning and Tom Brady. they both have been able to do things that no other QB was able to do (Manning - winning a superbowl with a pass-only attack and an awful defense, Brady - winning consistently in a capped era with no real superstars around him and a seemingly different style of play every couple years). montana benefited like crazy from the WCO in an era where no one really knew how to defend lethal passing attacks like the WCO (the emergence of the WCO being the reason that the Bears with that loaded-ass defense only won 1 le, because they couldnt stop such an attack). i think that both of them could have won if you replaced montana with them. but i dont think if you replaced Brady or Manning with Montana, that the Pats or Colts would be as successful.
You can't really measure statistics of QB's over a generational gap. The game is alot different now than it was back in the 70's, 80's and , even 90's. The game is now tailored for higher scoring, to protect QBs, to increase offensive output. There are more rules and limitations that today's defenders have to adhere to. All of this has lead to a e in offensive production and "better" statistics for todays QBs. You take those considerations, and apply them to the exeptional talents of guys like Brady and Peyton and of course they are going to have massive statistical outputs compared to the QBs of yesteryear, and Montana specifically. Too bad we can't see Peyton and especially Brady play QB in the 70's and 80's with the lack of rules in place in todays game. Getting blown up on just about every passing attempt. You would see a decline in their production.
You state that the Bears only won 1 le in the 80s because of the advent of the WCO, but Im inclined to think that they only won 1 le because of their QB at the helm. Jim McMahon, who was just like Brad johnson and Trent Dilfer.
It was actually worse, if you consider the type of QBs they faced.
Stafford, Sanchez, Moore, Kolb, Henne, Freeman(twice), Delhomme, Edwards, Redman, Bulger
That ain't exactly a Murderer's Row.
Yeah, a pass-only attack that ran the ball 37 times a game in the playoffs.Manning - winning a superbowl with a pass-only attack and an awful defense
Is it awful when your defense gives up less than 90 rushing yards/playoff game, 5.5 YPA and creates 13 TOs?
Really?
well first off, they played kansas freaking city so its easy to pad some stats up
next, they played baltimore in awful weather conditions, so of course the offenses will stagnate.
the patriots were a very mediocre running team
the bears had rex grossman (nuff said)
come on man
generally, the teams that gave them problems were west coast/quick passing offenses. thats why the 46 was such a short lived defense.
Brady 2 not 3.
To get *rewarded* for a game ending Tuck fumbling ball makes Bowl 1 nullified to all but the Brady Butt/Pat Worshippers.
That having been said, sometimes in addition to cheating ^^^ it takes luck, ie Joe Montanas 4th qtr throwing the ball right into the hands of the Cinci db who popped off to him all week of the Bowl. Would have virtually sealed the game for Cinci, the rest is history.
Sometimes better to be lucky then good.
Oakland was up 13-3 in the 4th and couldn't hold the lead. Oakland couldn't convert a key 3rd and short on the drive before the "tuck" series. Oakland decided to kneel the ball with the game tied at 13 and send it to OT. Oakland's D couldn't stop the Pats in OT.
Using the tuck rule as the sole reason for why the Pats won that game is comedy. Bad calls are part of the game. Oakland was up 13-3 and had their chances to win that game and they couldn't execute.
i agree.
also Troy Aikman> Manning
shut up
And the NFL record books.
Last edited by monosylab1k; 02-11-2010 at 05:28 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
