Cole: Great interest in Brady, Manning negotiations - Page 2 - New England Patriots Forums

xmarkd400x · 06-16-2010, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob0729

I do have to agree with Cole that Manning has far more leverage than Brady. The Pats won 11 games in 2008 without Brady. The Colts would struggle to win 6 games without Manning. I think I would rather have Brady as my QB (at least pre-injury), but the Colts rely on Manning far more to win games.

In the AFCE that year, the Colts probably would have won 11. The division and the divisions the AFCE played against that year were horrible.

***jmt57*** · 06-16-2010, 01:02 PM

Another thing to consider is that the owners may have talked about big contracts this year with each other, and agreed to try to avoid them if possible as it would give them a bit less leverage in negotiations for the CBA. Free agents like Julius Peppers would be fair game, but players like Brady and Manning and Revis that still have time left on their contract would not be extended. Yes, I know that's collusion, but I wouldn't doubt that the owners had some type of agreement along those lines.

Jetssuck · 06-16-2010, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob0729

I do have to agree with Cole that Manning has far more leverage than Brady. The Pats won 11 games in 2008 without Brady. The Colts would struggle to win 6 games without Manning. I think I would rather have Brady as my QB (at least pre-injury), but the Colts rely on Manning far more to win games.

The Pats only won 11 games because they played one of the weakest schedules in their history. In fact, their third weakest schedule ever according to the numbers at New England Patriots Team Encyclopedia | Pro-Football-Reference.com

If it's all about Manning when the Colts are 14-2, what is it all about when the Colts are 3-13 (1998) and 6-10 (2001) with Manning?

Peytonsbetter · 06-17-2010, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetssuck

The Pats only won 11 games because they played one of the weakest schedules in their history. In fact, their third weakest schedule ever according to the numbers at New England Patriots Team Encyclopedia | Pro-Football-Reference.com

If it's all about Manning when the Colts are 14-2, what is it all about when the Colts are 3-13 (1998) and 6-10 (2001) with Manning?

Umm, 98 was Mannings rookie season, as well as Bill Polians first with the Colts. That team was also the remnants of the ATROCIOUS Tobin/Infante era.

In 01, they had one of the worst defenses in NFL HISTORY, while also losing Edgerrin James for the season with a torn ACL.

As for Peyton's importance to the success of the Colts, consider this-the Colts made the Super Bowl last season DESPITE having the WORST running game in the league. If thats not a testament to how crucial Manning is to the success of the team, I don't know what is.

Jetssuck · 06-18-2010, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peytonsbetter

Umm, 98 was Mannings rookie season, as well as Bill Polians first with the Colts. That team was also the remnants of the ATROCIOUS Tobin/Infante era.

In 01, they had one of the worst defenses in NFL HISTORY, while also losing Edgerrin James for the season with a torn ACL.

That's exactly what happened and that just proves what I said. Manning needs talent around him to succeed. The idea that the Colts are Manning and a bunch of jags is complete nonsense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peytonsbetter

As for Peyton's importance to the success of the Colts, consider this-the Colts made the Super Bowl last season DESPITE having the WORST running game in the league. If thats not a testament to how crucial Manning is to the success of the team, I don't know what is.

Manning is important to the success of the Colts, but no more important than Brady is to the success of the Patriots. In 2003 the Patriots won the Super Bowl despite having the third worst running game in the league and a receiving corps not in the same league as the corps that has both Reggie Wayne and Dallas Clark.