arrellbee said:
You are not a troll. You have had some very good posts and perspectives and I look forward to reading your posts when I see your name.
In this case, however, I think you are correct in pointing out that Peyton took over a struggling team. But why do you insist on ignoring that the Patriots in a similar number of games before Brady took over showed a very similar - even almost identical - poor showing ? You are picking and chosing, which is kind of almost what you are objecting to. I think you took a position and now don't want to acknowledge that there is a way to look at it that kind of counters your position. Oh well.
The point I was trying to make is the Colts were really bad when Peyton was drafted. The Pats may have been struggling, but not as much as the Colts were. There is a reason that they had the 1st overall pick to take Peyton and the 4th overall the next season to take Edge. They were bad. The Pats may have been bad when Brady took over, but the turn around that occured when he came in showed that the Pats weren't that far off. He was the missing piece. The only thing that I was onjecting to was including a different number of games/seasons to the record leading up to each QB, sorry if I did not make that clear. I was just trying to point out how awful the Colts were at the time and maybe I wasn't direct enough in my statements.
arrellbee said:
One thing I hope you will change your position on, because it is one of the really significant aspects of the way the Colts are put together. The Colts had a poorer defense because they spent more on the offense to give Manning more tools to score. So Peyton has to own the issue of the team's effectiveness with the poorer defense. I don't know what it is right now, but within the last 6 or 8 months, I looked at the cap numbers and the Colts were spending 65% on offense and 35% on defense. So you can't just say that Brady had an advantage. His ability to win was his ability to use less expensive weapons on offense but still do well enough given the defense to win. Your argument is also pretty much backwards in the sense that if Brady has done even as well or slightly better than Manning AS A QB with significantly less spent on his offensive weapons, doesn't that mean he is without question the more effective QB ?? ?? ?? Seems to me that is a sound argument. And you would have to guess, I would think, that Peyton or any QB would be less effective if you spent 23% less on the offensive tools that you gave him. Seems kind of hard to argue against that.
It is impressive what Brady has done with a shuffling receiver core. My point about the difference in the defenses is that Peyton is ask to do a lot more when the Colts' defense plays poorly. Winning the game, many times, is squarely on Peyton. With Brady, the fact that the Pats' defense has been pretty good most years allows him a little more corfort level. Brady knows he doesn't have to try to score on every possession, his defense is able to step up. I'm not sure how the cap numbers hit right now, but most of the Money was going to 5 players on offense. Peyton, Edge, Marvin, Reggie, and Stokley. I don't know can you count the QB's hit towards the cap in this breakdown? Obviously Marvin and Reggie have better one of the better tandems in the the league recently, but Stokley has been dinged lately and is looking like a bust for the money they are giving him. That being said, you play with what you have and Peyton has weapons and should do well with them. So from anoffensive stand point I agrre that Peyton should do weel and what Brady has done is impressive. But from a team stand point, Peyton has been asked to do more to make up for a lack of defense and at times has made some poor decisions when pressing. I don't know if this helps clear up where I was coming from.
arrellbee said:
Also, you really do have to consider that Brady has not lost ONE SINGLE GAME in a dome. That's pretty significant, irregardless of the CHFF stats. Granted, he has played far fewer games in domes, but it until he does lose one, you would have to think that he is certainly better than Manning in Manning's own advantageous dome environment. To bolster that argument even more, remember that EVERY SINGLE ONE of Brady's dome games - WERE AWAY GAMES !! !! !!
Piling up gaudy numbers in regular season games is just so meaningless compared to winning playoff games against the best teams of the year and when those teams are playing their most intense football.
JMHO.
The fact that their numbers are so similar in the other QBs environment just speaks to how good each of theses QBs are. And I agree with you about the playoffs. I haven't gone back and checked, but if memory serves, it seems that the problem that the Colts have faced in the playoffs is they always end up losing to the Super Bowl team. Hopefully, at least for me, they can get over that hump and BE the Super Bowl team.
5 Rings for Brady!! said:
You exhibit a complete failure to come to reality with what Brady has achieved on a far lesser offense than Manning. Manning is an overrated QB. There is a big difference. Take away Manning's weapons and he will be another happy foot guy who chokes and throws picks off of his back foot. He's not Mann enough to stand in the pocket and complete passes under pressure, never has been, never will be. Wants to keep his uniform clean, you know, for all those nauseating commercials. If he ever takes a hit, the refs will throw a flag, rather than have to face the wrath of the competition committee and the bully that runs it.
I think Peyton showed everyone last night that he can stand in under pressure or move outside the pocket and take hits and still get the job done.
