Tom Brady Best QB Ever!!!!!!

[Jack of Arcades]

Do people actually think it's possible that New England could've lost to anyone in the playoffs with HFA those years?

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
Assani,

Who would win in an awesome-off: Tom Brady or Steve Nash?

[/ QUOTE ]


With the long hair, Steve Nash. Without, a toss up.

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FTR, according to footballousiders.com, NE's defense in 2k4, 2k3, and 2k1 was ranked 6th, 2nd, and 13th.

[/ QUOTE ]Theres a lot of ways to measure defense. I think that I was looking at yardage allowed.

[/ QUOTE ] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Yardage allowed is the widely accepted way of ranking defenses. Most usually if you hear an annoucer say that a team is the "xxxth" ranked defense and they don't explain what stat they're referring to then its yardage allowed.

There are a lot of ways to rank a defense, good job at picking one of the worst.

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps this stat is points allowed or something else.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL

[/ QUOTE ]

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
Football outsiders looks at the performance of every team and player on a play by play basis, and adjusts for the context, then compares to all the teams in the league. If DVOA says the Pats were the 2nd best defense in 2003, there's a pretty damned good chance they were.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok.

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[quote Peyton Manning has been a loser in both college and the pros.

[/ QUOTE ]


40-9 as a sarter in college, including 3-1 in Bowl games. The only time you could ever call him a loser when regarding his college career is if Florida is in the conversation.

[/ QUOTE ]How many national titles? How did his college do the year after he left?

[/ QUOTE ]


Again, they would've been in the running for at least one, possibly two National Titles if not for their inability to beat Florida.


Edit - And before you pin those FLA. losses on Manning, Phil Fulmer has always had an extremly tough time competing with the Gators.

[/ QUOTE ]So, in other words, if he could've won the big game against his arch rivals, then they might have won it all. Boy, that sounds familiar.

But wait, it must have been the team and not Manning, right? Nope- the very next year after Manning left, Tennessee beat Florida and went on to win the national title.

[/ QUOTE ]


So he's a loser because he couldn't defeat a team that finished in the top 5 three years in a row during his tenure, including a National Championship in 1996? Even when he had a coach who self-admits that he cannot beat the team?


Also, his numbers against Florida:

1994: 3-5, 27 yards.
1995: 23-36 326 yards 2 TD's 0 Ints.
1996: 37-65 492 yards 4 td's 4 int's.
1997: 29-51 353 yards 2 TD's 1 INT.


Not all that bad of numbers. In addition, Tennessee finished 2nd in the National Polls following the 1995 season. Second to arguably the greatest college football team of all-time: the 1995 Nebraska Cornhuskers. I find it hard to call Manning a "loser" when discussing his college career.

[/ QUOTE ]The fact remains that hes always been "just not good enough" to be the best. And you still havn't addressed the fact that as soon as he left his team was suddenly able to beat Florida. How do you explain that?

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
LOUD NOISES

[/ QUOTE ] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you really think the NFL would admit the refs blew the call and wrongly sent a team to the AFC championship game?

[/ QUOTE ]the NFL has admitted its mistakes plenty of times. Most recently they admitted after the Colts/Steelers playoff game that they made a wrong call giving the Colts the ball on that one play.

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
its pretty funny that Aikman isnt even in the poll

[/ QUOTE ]

especially since both careers are similar to this point

[/ QUOTE ]Aikman had a little better RB and #1 WR I think.

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
yea, put Kurt Warner on the list but not Aikman, WELL DONE BRO

Brady is a great player, but this thread at this time is ridiculous, which is why I (and I guarentee a lot of others), will not waste my time arguing with a bunch of homers.

[/ QUOTE ]For the record, I'm being the #1 Brady supporter in this thread and I'm a Redskins fan first and a Ravens fan second. Its not too early either- he could retire today and be a first ballot HOFer.

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you really think the NFL would admit the refs blew the call and wrongly sent a team to the AFC championship game?

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, they've done it recently. anywho, I was drunk last night. here is what I should have said

Simmons:

Every time the Tuck Rule Game gets mentioned, three other things should also be mentioned: First, Gruden had second-and-3 to close out the game, ran the ball twice up the middle, didn't get the three yards, then punted on fourth-and-inches. If they had gotten those three yards, Brady never gets the ball back. Everyone seems to forget this. And second, on the famous play, WOODSON CHOPPED BRADY IN THE HEAD TO CAUSE THE FUMBLE!!! Not only is that illegal, it's one of the few guaranteed "we're calling that every time" whistles in football. Everyone forgets this, too. And third, not only was the rule interpreted correctly, but they voted on keeping it at the next Rules Committee Meeting.

To recap: Raiders fans have spent the last four years complaining about a play in which (A) their player should have been penalized, (B) the rule was interpreted correctly, and (C) it never should have happened in the first place because their coach choked away a second-and-3 situation and lacked the testicular fortitude to go for it on fourth down. Those are the facts. If you want to keep complaining, so be it.

[/ QUOTE ]I disagree here. The fact that the Raiders couldn't convert that 3rd and short has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the correct ruling was made. I don't remember Woodson doing anything illegal either, but I'll admit that I havn't seen the play in a long time.