Tom Brady Best QB Ever!!!!!!

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]

Assani, Manning's won at every level except college and the pros. I think you're asking a bit much of him.

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

[rwperu34]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Um, I guess we have different definitions of "well". This isn't Trent Dilfer. This is arguably one of the best QB's of all time. 27/42 0TDs, 1INT is not a "mediocre" day for him. It's horrid. 22-38, 1TD, 0INT at home as a 2TD favorite when trailing and trying to come from behind isn't a "pretty good day", it's poor.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I don't get. Manning has a pretty decent game against an amazing defense while he's playing on the road in the snow. He's at a huge, huge disadvantage coming into the game because the HFA for the Pats is massive. The whole offense collapses around him, and somehow this becomes evidence that he's a choker.

It's also funny that the definition of "big game" is "any game the Colts lost." What about his 3 wins in the playoffs? Weren't those big games?

[/ QUOTE ]

When your team is rolling and handing out violent beatings in the playoffs, that's not as clutch as being able to perform when you are tied or behind and need to make big plays and there is tons more pressure. That is where Manning has failed, and failed miserably. His overall playoff numbers are worse, although only slightly so, than Brady.

I want to end a myth right here. Brady is not better than Manning ONLY because he's performed better in the clutch. Take a look at his regular season numbers. Mannings are clearly better, right? Not so fast. When you take into account the fact that the Patriots play half of their games in a not so passer stat friendly stadium and road games against Buffalo and the J-E-T-S while Indy is playing 9 games in a dome and one in Jacksonville, that makes those stats a lot closer, eh? Now take into account the fact that Manning has thrown 1785 more passes, but yet been sacked the same number of times. Now add in the running of Edge vs the typical nags (save Dillon, 2004) that New England has been running out there. If you are not convinced that Brady has done more with what he's had to work with, how about thinking about Marvin Harrison vs Deion Branch as your #1 wide out. If that doesn't work for you, think about Reggie Wayne vs Troy Brown as your #2.

To summarize, not only has Brady played better overall in the playoffs and MUCH better in the high pressure situations, his regular season performance has been just as good, if not better, than Peyton Manning. If I had to pick one QB to start a team around, at this point in time there is no doubt it would be Tom Brady.

[Clarkmeister]

I'm not planning on beating my head against a wall on this, but two quick points:

[ QUOTE ]
In the past three years, Manning has played in six playoff games. Five of them have been against opponents whose defenses ranged from "very good" to "excellent," and three of whom wouldn't be stopped by anyone that year. In those six games, he posted a QB rating of 103.1

[/ QUOTE ]

His QB rating in the elimination games, please? Beefing it up with home field shellackings of Denver isn't particularly relevant to the discussion.

[ QUOTE ]
Say Manning has a 35% chance to beat the Patriots in '03, a 40% chance in '04, and a 60% chance to beat the Steelers in '05. If he loses each game, is it because he's a choker, or because that's going to happen about 16% of the time no matter what?

[/ QUOTE ]

His actual % chances of victory were more like 40, 45 and 80 based on the final point spreads of 3, 2 and 10.5. And similar to looking at a player who has just lost 300BBs, it's far more likely he's playing bad than on a 6% likely run of bad luck.

And his performance, again, is worse than that. He gets all of the credit for an offense that averages an otherworldly 33ppg and yet somehow it's not his fault and "the offense collapsed around him" when he nearly gets *shut out* against NE? Or when, with the game on the line, he runs what virtually every commentator noted was a horrible 2-minute drill.

This isn't Dan Marino, who very truly had very little opportunity to win it all through the years. Peyton is both (arguably) a better player and has inarguably a far superior supporting cast, one that looked like a team that could go undefeated. He's had his chances and blown them. Sorry, but blaming the luck gods is just a convenient excuse to absolve him of any blame, despite the fact that he gets all the credit when he succeeds.

[By-Tor]

Oooops

[ QUOTE ]
In a June statement to prosecutors about his intentions to stay mum, Greg Anderson said he and the New England Patriots quarterback had spoken over the phone -- but never established further contact.
.
.
"I had only one brief conversation with Tom Brady regarding a potential future workout," Anderson said. "I never had another phone conversation with him and never discussed it with anyone."

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
Paula Canny, an Anderson attorney and friend, said Brady's name appears along with "10 to 20" other athletes that Anderson's grand jury subpoena lists as people the trainer should be prepared to answer questions about. Canny said investigators may have gotten Brady's name from Anderson's phone records seized by the government, though Anderson doesn't refer to any other athletes in his brief statement.
.
.
Brady attended the same Bay Area high school as Bonds. His agent, Donald Yee, couldn't be reached for comment Wednesday, and the New England Patriots declined comment on Anderson's statement.
.
.
"I don't have any information on it," Patriots spokesman Stacey James said. "I'm not going on hearsay."

[/ QUOTE ]


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

[srjunkacct]

If Tom Brady's been taking 'roids, they clearly don't work.

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Um, I guess we have different definitions of "well". This isn't Trent Dilfer. This is arguably one of the best QB's of all time. 27/42 0TDs, 1INT is not a "mediocre" day for him. It's horrid. 22-38, 1TD, 0INT at home as a 2TD favorite when trailing and trying to come from behind isn't a "pretty good day", it's poor.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I don't get. Manning has a pretty decent game against an amazing defense while he's playing on the road in the snow. He's at a huge, huge disadvantage coming into the game because the HFA for the Pats is massive. The whole offense collapses around him, and somehow this becomes evidence that he's a choker.

It's also funny that the definition of "big game" is "any game the Colts lost." What about his 3 wins in the playoffs? Weren't those big games?

[/ QUOTE ]

When your team is rolling and handing out violent beatings in the playoffs, that's not as clutch as being able to perform when you are tied or behind and need to make big plays and there is tons more pressure. That is where Manning has failed, and failed miserably. His overall playoff numbers are worse, although only slightly so, than Brady.

I want to end a myth right here. Brady is not better than Manning ONLY because he's performed better in the clutch. Take a look at his regular season numbers. Mannings are clearly better, right? Not so fast. When you take into account the fact that the Patriots play half of their games in a not so passer stat friendly stadium and road games against Buffalo and the J-E-T-S while Indy is playing 9 games in a dome and one in Jacksonville, that makes those stats a lot closer, eh? Now take into account the fact that Manning has thrown 1785 more passes, but yet been sacked the same number of times. Now add in the running of Edge vs the typical nags (save Dillon, 2004) that New England has been running out there. If you are not convinced that Brady has done more with what he's had to work with, how about thinking about Marvin Harrison vs Deion Branch as your #1 wide out. If that doesn't work for you, think about Reggie Wayne vs Troy Brown as your #2.

To summarize, not only has Brady played better overall in the playoffs and MUCH better in the high pressure situations, his regular season performance has been just as good, if not better, than Peyton Manning. If I had to pick one QB to start a team around, at this point in time there is no doubt it would be Tom Brady.

[/ QUOTE ]Very good posting.

For those that know me well, I don't really like "stats" in general when evaluating football players because they're so often skewed. Although also imperfect, I prefer to trust my eyes to tell me who plays the best. And when I watch Brady, I see the best player in the NFL. I could be wrong, but its JMHO.

[Kneel B4 Zod]

[ QUOTE ]
when he nearly gets *shut out* against NE?

[/ QUOTE ]

quoted for awesomeness and remembering how drunk and jubiliant I was at that game

[Artdogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]




Kurt Warner is on the "peak" list. His peak was 4,000,0000,0000,0000,0,0,0,0,0,,,00000,,00000 times better than Aikman.



[/ QUOTE ]

yea, if you base everything on stats, which I'm guessing you didnt or you wouldn't have made this thread




[/ QUOTE ]
I'm just trying to figure out some way possible that Aikman could possibly have had a better peak than Warner? If you can make some kind of argument, please do, becaue Warner dominated him in stats and won a Super Bowl, two NFC championchips, and two NFL MVP's in three seasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, since when did 1 superbowl in 3 seasons become better then 3 superbowls in 4 seasons? Course he didnt have the NFL MVPS, but neither did your boy Tom Brady. Anyway I dont want to turn this into a Warner vs Aikman thing, the point is you think Brady is so far ahead of Aikman that you didnt even include him on the list, which is absolutely terrible. I know the Cowboys teams were better overall, but the Patriots did have the better coaching staff.

[rwperu34]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]




Kurt Warner is on the "peak" list. His peak was 4,000,0000,0000,0000,0,0,0,0,0,,,00000,,00000 times better than Aikman.



[/ QUOTE ]

yea, if you base everything on stats, which I'm guessing you didnt or you wouldn't have made this thread




[/ QUOTE ]
I'm just trying to figure out some way possible that Aikman could possibly have had a better peak than Warner? If you can make some kind of argument, please do, becaue Warner dominated him in stats and won a Super Bowl, two NFC championchips, and two NFL MVP's in three seasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, since when did 1 superbowl in 3 seasons become better then 3 superbowls in 4 seasons? Course he didnt have the NFL MVPS, but neither did your boy Tom Brady. Anyway I dont want to turn this into a Warner vs Aikman thing, the point is you think Brady is so far ahead of Aikman that you didnt even include him on the list, which is absolutely terrible. I know the Cowboys teams were better overall, but the Patriots did have the better coaching staff.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aikman is everything that Tom Brady haters think that Tom Brady is. Aikman never put up any kind of numbers and his supporting cast was far and away the best in the league at that time. Aikman was not a top contributer on his three Super Bowl teams, while Brady was THE top contributer. So to compare Aikman and Brady, well, there is no comparison.

With regards to Warner, his three year run is one of the tops of all time, there is no argument there. Since that is the case, and Aikman never really had a run as a great QB, it's doubtfull anyone can make a great case for Aikman being in the ballpark of Warner for peak.

Edited to add: I did not include Aikman on the list because, plain and simple, he is not one of the top QB of all time. That assesment is not only not terrible, it is the only logical assesment that a person could come to by looking at the facts.

[Artdogg]

Saying Aikman was not a top contributor shows you know nothing about Aikman or those teams. And if you are a Hall of Famer it means you ARE one of the great players of your generation. Also, I love people giving Brady all the credit for the Super Bowls. Is he the reason they held the Colts to 3 points? Is he the reason Peyton threw 4 pics the year before? Against the Panthers, he had the game losing easy pic bounce off the guys shoulder pads (wish I could remember the name.) Last year, he was the top contributor in losing the game for forcing a terrible pass. How many super bowls does he have without Vinatieri?

None of this means he isn't a great QB, he is a great QB, but him getting all the credit for a great team with a ton of great players is sickening.