Re: Dieon Sanders "we need to revisit Manning VS Brady"
2001: Brown, Patten, Wiggens, Charles Johnson and Antowain Smith may be close to a wash with what the Colts had on the field tonight.
2003: Branch, Givens, Graham, Patten, Antowain Smith and Brown are better than what the Colts had out there tonight.
2004: Branch, Givens, Graham, Patten, Corey Dillon and Brown are far better than what the Colts had on the field tonight.
2005: Caldwell, Gaffney, Brown, Graham, Watson, Dillon, Maroney, Brown and Jackson is better than what the Colts had on the field tonight. The Colts had Wayne, Moorehead, Thorpe and a bunch of TE's. I give the edge to the Pats in terms of better recievers to throw to.
If 2001 was a wash, then I guess 1 Ring > 6 picks. You're making our point dude.
And in any of those years the Pats would have been infinitely better with Reggie Wayne on their offense....moreless both Wayne AND Harrison.
And, since you're a Colts fan, I'll give you a pass for giving the 06 Pats any credit (I think you meant 2006?). Take our word for it....it was a complete joke. Moorehead = Caldwell (except for the fact that he and Peyton have worked together for years)....but dude, please understand that Reggie Wayne is a great freaking receiver -- I'm so sick of hearing how Peyton makes him look great....you drafted him in the first round....apparently he means so much to Peyton that the Colts have paid him an average of $5M a year for the past five years under the cap.....that's five times the value the Pats put on Deion Branch. Peyton's receivers look good because they are good.
For the entire Brady era, NE fans overwhelmingly devalued talent on offense (believing that scrub receivers would suffice)....they won 3 SBs with arguably the worst supporting casts a championship QB has ever had, so it was hard for people to argue for a change.
Tom spoiled everyone....they were too happy to send Branch packing when he wanted more than minimum wage for a #1 receiver (when he was really all we had)....that cost us a Super Bowl and woke a lot of folks the hell up.
For years, we've had to hear how Peyton was the greatest QB of all time....an argument based on stats (every bit a "team" byproduct as are rings)....we'd try to explain how impressive Brady's stats were given his supporting cast but the fantasy geeks didn't get it....or didn't want to. Now the experts are finally starting to see the light.
Peyton is one of the better QBs in the league....I'd still take CP over him though (without hesitation). Peyton's a bit more of a system guy. The alarming thing tonight, wasn't so much the 6 picks, but the number of times he simply threw the ball away when his first read wasn't there (often times without pressure)....Madden was praising his "internal clock" but, as often happens with Peyton, he starts breaking down in the pocket after about 1.5 seconds...if he has to hold the ball at all he starts sensing pressure EVEN WHEN IT ISN'T THERE. I've actually never seen a QB look less comfortable and more jittery in the pocket. That's why Peyton isn't ever going to be a guy who can just drop back and find the open guy, ala Brady or Marino.
In 05 Brady led the league in both passing and getting hit. He had zero protection and his receivers were constantly blanketed, causing Brady to GET HIT MORE THAN ANY QB IN THE NFL, but he STILL looked smooth back there.
Most of us on this board can't even argue Brady's superiority because we're too spoiled by him....we don't realize how incredible his physical tools are: ridiculous footwork, perfect arm, peerless vision, inhuman nerves...he's the "prototype," but the media has had it backwards....wooed by Manning's gyrations....and facial contortions....he makes the position look like rocket science, while Tom makes it look like a trip to the beach.
But most Pats fans still just point to the rings and talk about "intangibles"....but we learn a little more everyday....SKILLS PEOPLE....it's SKILLS! Manning's great, he's just not the total package. Nobody is on Brady's level as a pure passer....nobody that I've ever seen.
