Tom Brady Best QB Ever!!!!!!

[SharkTank43]

[ 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.

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah too many people are too results-oriented about this. Again, 2002-2005 great player. He was clearly pedestrian at best in 2001. IMO this is not even debatable and certainly not worth discussing with anybody who can't acknowledge such overwhelming evidence. The fact that nobody cares about individual single season performances in any sport not named baseball along with the fact that he eventually won 3 SB's makes it feel like a waste a time to argue anyway because all anybody remembers is "OMG 3 SB's". Whatever, the refs still gave them the division in 2001.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't remember bad calls going the Pats way in '01 (and "tuck rule" was a correct call).

The one play I do remember was late in the season (perhapse the second to last game?). David Patton was knocked unconcious, and fumbled. While lying on the ground, part of his body was on the sideline. While in this position, the ball roled into him, and was thus ruled (on review) to be a dead ball out of bounds. This prevented that Pats opponent form taking posesion, and the Pats went on to win that game. It was an inrcedably lucky break for the Pats, but the call was correct. The refs didn't give them that game (or any other that I can recall).

I won't argue that the '01 Pats were a great team, but I think they won everything fairly.

Also, watching that season was by far the most fun I've had watching pro sports.

[Pudge714]

This bugs me to death about the tuck rule. Brady has both hands on the football when getting hit thus making the tuck irrelevant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeeKW...ed&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtpKs...ed&search=

[tuq]

[ QUOTE ]
This bugs me to death about the tuck rule. Brady has both hands on the football when getting hit thus making the tuck irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah but by the letter of the law it was the correct call (at the time, I think it was changed that offseason?).

This topic should be exhausted by now - the Pats legitimately won the game according to the rules at that time. The most amazing thing that game was Vinatieri somehow nailing like a 47 yard FG in the blizzard. He made two, I can't remember if that was the one to tie or win, but seriously even if you're a Pats-hater you have to admit that was quite a feat.

[rwperu34]

I wouldn't call Peyton Manning a loser at any level. I prefer to think of it as "lack of charisma".

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This bugs me to death about the tuck rule. Brady has both hands on the football when getting hit thus making the tuck irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah but by the letter of the law it was the correct call (at the time, I think it was changed that offseason?).

This topic should be exhausted by now - the Pats legitimately won the game according to the rules at that time. The most amazing thing that game was Vinatieri somehow nailing like a 47 yard FG in the blizzard. He made two, I can't remember if that was the one to tie or win, but seriously even if you're a Pats-hater you have to admit that was quite a feat.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was the game tier. Also, it was the greatest field goal in the history of football.

[Pudge714]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This bugs me to death about the tuck rule. Brady has both hands on the football when getting hit thus making the tuck irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah but by the letter of the law it was the correct call (at the time, I think it was changed that offseason?).

This topic should be exhausted by now - the Pats legitimately won the game according to the rules at that time. The most amazing thing that game was Vinatieri somehow nailing like a 47 yard FG in the blizzard. He made two, I can't remember if that was the one to tie or win, but seriously even if you're a Pats-hater you have to admit that was quite a feat.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was the game tier. Also, it was the greatest field goal in the history of football.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice to know you aren't using hyperbole.

As for Brady having both hands on the ball. Once he gets both hands back on the ball it's need to be called a fumble, otherwise he could just pump fake right off the snap and than the QB could never fumble it.

[tuq]

[ QUOTE ]

As for Brady having both hands on the ball. Once he gets both hands back on the ball it's need to be called a fumble, otherwise he could just pump fake right off the snap and than the QB could never fumble it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ugh. Not to stir the hornets' nest on this - I'm not too big of a NE fan but I am in Phoenix and we don't have an NFL team so I have to choose someone else's - but this is the first I recall reading that the play was definitively illegal. I thought it was determined otherwise - really stupid rule but the call was in fact correct.

My old man wrote a book on Tom Brady and says he's a stand-up guy, as is his whole family. Not sure where I'm going with that but I do tend to root for him by default...

[Kneel B4 Zod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This bugs me to death about the tuck rule. Brady has both hands on the football when getting hit thus making the tuck irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah but by the letter of the law it was the correct call (at the time, I think it was changed that offseason?).

This topic should be exhausted by now - the Pats legitimately won the game according to the rules at that time. The most amazing thing that game was Vinatieri somehow nailing like a 47 yard FG in the blizzard. He made two, I can't remember if that was the one to tie or win, but seriously even if you're a Pats-hater you have to admit that was quite a feat.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was the game tier. Also, it was the greatest field goal in the history of football.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice to know you aren't using hyperbole.

As for Brady having both hands on the ball. Once he gets both hands back on the ball it's need to be called a fumble, otherwise he could just pump fake right off the snap and than the QB could never fumble it.

[/ QUOTE ]

your position is wrong and technically indefensible. you should stop making stuff up.

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This bugs me to death about the tuck rule. Brady has both hands on the football when getting hit thus making the tuck irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah but by the letter of the law it was the correct call (at the time, I think it was changed that offseason?).

This topic should be exhausted by now - the Pats legitimately won the game according to the rules at that time. The most amazing thing that game was Vinatieri somehow nailing like a 47 yard FG in the blizzard. He made two, I can't remember if that was the one to tie or win, but seriously even if you're a Pats-hater you have to admit that was quite a feat.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was the game tier. Also, it was the greatest field goal in the history of football.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice to know you aren't using hyperbole.

As for Brady having both hands on the ball. Once he gets both hands back on the ball it's need to be called a fumble, otherwise he could just pump fake right off the snap and than the QB could never fumble it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Three things:

1) I'm not using hyberbole at all

2) Haveing two hands on the ball is irrelevant both because there was nothing about it in the rule book at the time, and because it is legal to throw a two handed pass, and such a pass can be incomplete.

3) Thanks for the links to the pats videos. Prior to 2001, I seriously thought that no team I root for would ever win a championship. Since then, my teams have won 4.5 championships, and I am glad to have seen it.