Article unreal - Page 3 - New England Patriots Forums

ajcush · 11-01-2007, 02:12 PM

I wrote to Serensen and got a reply. It wasn't harsh. Unfortunately, my initial e-mail to him was prior to knowing it was a point-counterpoint article. I sent him an apology. But he did reply and said he really couldn't write too much about it and ran out of material after 2 paragraphs!

godef · 11-01-2007, 03:02 PM

The Charlotte Checkers? ... is that a hockey team?!?

***Lloyd_Christmas*** · 11-01-2007, 03:12 PM

Put me down in the group that thinks that article was so dumb it was funny.

That being said, it seems like kind of a cop-out. Any of us could have come up with enough ammo to argue that Peyton is better even if we don't believe it. I think this guy was just lazy.

The other guy (Scott Fowler, who wrote the counter article) actually made a well-reasoned argument as to why Brady is better.

***pats1*** · 11-01-2007, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Real World

What a goon. I have no problem with someone thinking Manning is better, since both are arguably the best. What I have a problem with is the stupid reasons why someone will pick one to argue for. So Manning is better because he doesn't have a tall reciever and Brady does? What a maroon. Um, Manning has had Harrison and Wayne who are 2 of the best in the business. How about Dallas Clark too? What an idiot.

BTW, who's Gazelle?

Also, Brady dated a woman named Gazelle. Manning has never dated a woman who is named after an animal.

Someone should tell that imbicile that it's Giselle, not gazelle, and there's just a wee bit of difference.

Giselle

gazelle

And that it's actually Gisele, not Gisselle.

Grogan's neck roll · 11-01-2007, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lloyd_Christmas

Put me down in the group that thinks that article was so dumb it was funny.

That being said, it seems like kind of a cop-out. Any of us could have come up with enough ammo to argue that Peyton is better even if we don't believe it. I think this guy was just lazy.

The other guy (Scott Fowler, who wrote the counter article) actually made a well-reasoned argument as to why Brady is better.

I think the point is that Sorenson agreed, and therefore made ridiculous arguments. I saw the whole thing as satire, as opposed to what the doofus Easterbrook wrote.