SITE MENU
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.3 rings vs 1 1 who wins?teams win championships
not players
its hilarious that is the only thing pats fans have to hang their hats on
teams win championships
not players
its hilarious that is the only thing pats fans have to hang their hats on
teams win championships
not players
its hilarious that is the only thing pats fans have to hang their hats on
This is rather funny given Colts fans justifications over the years being entirely regular season stats based.teams win championships
not players
its hilarious that is the only thing pats fans have to hang their hats on
brady will never win this argument .there will be always BB's shadow.And even BB will be always questioned of his sucess without brady. Unfortunately no one wonders how dungy would be without manning .
That's because we know. What we don't know is how Manning would be without Moore/Mudd and a GM in Polian determined to build and maintain a team around him. And we may never know because Polian did whatever it took to retain them for 12 seasons and counting and 9 years in the formula worked and 12 years in it is on the verge of working again... Oddly this would be the first time the formula really worked because of Manning, as the last time it worked almost in spite of him. (Which kind of puts him more in Big Ben's league...) It took a shift towards emphasizing defense and signing our legendary FA PK to get him there and a couple of jag RB's having career days to win it all the first time. This one appears to be all on Manning, which ultimately was the case in all four of the superbowls we competed in, so if they win or lose on Sunday that should be a factor...
Brady did what he did without the benefit of being treated like a coddled centerpiece.
But at the end of the day what will always seperate them in the minds of those doing the evaluating is draft position. It was bad enough the reigning GOAT Montana emerged from the third round while another #1 who should by rights have been (and whom the often insist remains in the conversation) never won one (of course because his team was at fault). But that Brady was picked 199th to Manning's #1 drives some of them to cling to the belief that somehow on some level (talent) Manning must be better. Ergo less is more and he will never have to surpass Brady's post season accomplishments, just approach them to validate their preconceived notions. They point to Belichick and defense as an excuse, which is comical considering ours folded down the stretch in all 4 superbowls...
The argument will rage on as long as the debate over what makes a QB great (prolific passing capacity vs. the capacity to do whatever it takes to win) continues. Brady's 2007 season caused the passing prowess (talent) contingent fits. That it didn't result in a ring and was followed by a season lost to injury has been their salvation. They were dreading 2008 and 2009 has given them renewed hope. They are therefore scrambling to pronounce Manning while they have the chance...
That's a fairly Brady-centric view of things.
It's a real stretch to say it was almost all Brady because the defense folded down the stretch in all 4 SB's. They held the greatest show on turf to 14 points. I'm sure Manning would take that on Sunday against the Saints, if he could. They also held the Giants to 17 points, and forced the Eagles into multiple turnovers & a long last scoring drive that basically left them no further opportunity to score.
They also played a major role in actually getting the Pats to those Superbowls.
Brady's "clutch" credentials are undeniable, and this is not meant as a slam on him, because that would be dumb. He's an all-time great, without a doubt.
But I do think there is little doubt that Manning would have another ring or 2 if Belichek had been coaching him, with those defenses that the Pats had earlier in the decade.
The only reason these articles are appearing is because in the here and now, Manning is in the SB. Of course he has the upper hand. I don't recall this stuff being written in 2007 because Brady was in the here and now. It's all just a waste of time.
But I do think there is little doubt that Manning would have another ring or 2 if Belichek had been coaching him, with those defenses that the Pats had earlier in the decade.
teams win championships
not players
its hilarious that is the only thing pats fans have to hang their hats on
I'm a Pats fan and this is 100% right.
SB wins is a TEAM accomplishment not an individual one.
I'm so sick of the "Well Brady has 3 rings and Peyton has 1 so that's all that matters." argument. It's terrible.
News flash: The Patriots during the SB years were A LOT better overall than the Patriots of today.
You can talk about Peyton's overall record in the playoffs but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you replaced Brady with Peyton on the Patriots and gave him Belichick I'm sure he'd have a few more rings too.
So is Peyton better? I don't know. I'd wait until their careers are over to judge them. Right now I'd give him the edge if I had to.