Brady > Manning not because of the playoffs. Unless you are arguing Manning 05-09 > Brady 05-09? Because ya know Manning won a SB in that timeframe and Brady did not. Brady > Manning (barely) because of many reasons, not "because playoffs count more".
Brady is better than Manning because of playoffs. Manning has outplayed Brady in the regular season. Brady has outplayed Manning in the playoffs. And one game in 2006 doesn't change things, especially since the game was totally bogus.
one (you) can argue whatever they want but no objective rational human being thinks Brady was at his best in 2003.
Brady was certainly better in the 2003 postseason than he was in the 2007 postseason. Hard to deny that. Look at the actual record. Brady was totally off against the Chargers. And for me rationality means having a logical point; you're ok at tossing around insults, but you lack substance.
And I'll re-iterate, this made up notion of "stepping up" in the clutch has been thoroughly disproven. Do some research, and use common sense.
Research, eh? Laughable. Show me the research. NFL players for decades have talked about the speed of the game changing in the playoffs, the intensity changing. That's because a lot more is at stake. And no, the Ravens are not 20 odd points better than the Patriots. Clearly, they won because they stepped up their game. Also, we've seen people get frazzled and choke in playoff situations. Don't tell me that this doesn't happen.
I am absolutely aware that Dillon wasn't on the 2003 team. It is YOU who are unaware of things (e.g. claiming Branch won SB MVP against Carolina in 2003). I put two thoughts in back to back sentences, so maybe that part was confusing but I was never under the illusion that Dillon was here in 2003.
So then the argument that Branch only had good games because the D was focusing on Dillon goes out the window. Clearly, Branch had an excellent game in that Super Bowl with the emphasis being on passing in a very tight game.
Uhh he hasn't been injured his entire career there and they never intended on him being WR#1. Are you seriously suggesting his injuries lowered him on their depth chart?
He missed games each year, 5 games in 07 when he had his ACL injury. He's been an afterthought ever since, and 06 has been his only healthy year, but even then he was banged up. of course he's been a disappointment, but are you asking me if I believe a healthy Branch would be a better player for WR? OK, what is the argument against that point-of-view? That injuries haven't hampered him? Really? Even Branch is on record as saying he doesn't have the same speed and explosion he once did.
This is horrendous logic. 2 different situations, 2 different teams, 2 different trades. If the Raiders traded Moss for Branch, then you'd have a point.
It's not horrendous at all. It's spot on. Don't get me wrong, I think Moss is a lot more valuable than Branch and the trades were loony. But, you asked me about what NFL scouts and front office guys might think. Unless you believe Al Davis took less for Moss than he could have gotten or that Seattle bid against themselves (and we know Branch had other bidders) then we can say that Branch was more highly valued after 2005 than Moss was after 2006. I don't even know how you can possibly argue with that. Seriously, come on. One was traded for a 1st rounder and the other for a 4th.
You make absolutely 0 sense. Seriously, ZERO sense.
There you go again, talking about sense and logic and rationality, but offering up nothing of substance.
I've already disproven this. Stop regurgitating easily disproven crap, it only makes you look foolish.
You're the only one I've ever talked to that thinks it was a close game. The Patriots dominated the second half, and it's hard for Peyton to score from the bench. You see totally unaware that a team can slow the game down, take the air out of the ball, win by 10 points, and still dominate. I'll say it again: the Patriots ran for 200+ yards, their top receiver was Corey Dillon, they had 2 90 yard drives, 15+ play drives, held the ball for 16 out of 17 minutes, and you think this shows badly on branch because he disappeared? Really? You think the Patriots should have been throwing to Branch in these circumstances? I challenge you to find one person on this board that agrees with that. Absurd logic.
You said the Patriots weren't throwing it in the IND game, and I used the first 2 rounds of 2007 (only 6 more pass attempts) to say "same thing".
Let's look at other things, like total number of plays, third down conversions. In one game, the Patriots are converting, running and not throwing, have a lot more plays. In the other, the defense is stopping them, and that's why the passing game isn't producing. Two different animals.
Small sample sizes. Given enough playoff games, his numbers will mimic his seasonal averages. Just like the "clutch" Jeter in baseball.
The point is, Moss hasn't produced yet. Branch has. I'm not going by fantasyland stats, but the reality. And your argument about mimicking season averages certainly doesn't apply to Peyton Manning whose INT % goes up in the playoffs, and he's had plenty of chances. He's been in the playoffs a lot.
Maybe he loses in 2003 but maybe he wins in 2005 or 2007, who knows. Bottom line 2-3 SBs with the Pats because he's GREAT.
I didn't say he wasn't great. I just said he's a choker.
[/QUOTE]
The facts are totally on my side. My main criteria is playoff performance, and that's why I think Brady has produced more as a Patriot than Manning has as a Colt, and Branch more as a Patriot than Moss has as a Patriot. Those are the comparisons. The stats and facts back this up. I don't really care if you think my criteria for judging this or my emphasis on the playoffs is flawed. But the facts to back up my judgment based on the criteria are absolutely there for both players.
