Peyton Manning or Tom Brady ?
Options
Comments
-
Coo Coo Cal's Beanie wrote: »LOL you ? Matt Cassell is a good QB. Did you watch football last year? 3100 yards passing. 27 TDs. only 7 INTs. With the ? CHiefs.
Any QB wouldnt work in the system because they were average with drew bledsoe under center fuckboi. They went 8-6, 8-8, 5-11, 0-2 his last 4 years in the games he started with the Pats. Nobody screamed how great Belicheck's coaching staff was until Tom Brady was the QB. ? mills
you think its sweet
exactly, imagine him in a colts offense. This ? dont know what he saying -
No you ? idiot. They werent going to superbowls in that system. The last time they went Bill Belichick wasnt even the ? headcoach you ? chank. It was Bill Parcells. 2ndly when Bill Belichick was in cleveland his records were 6-10, 7-9, 7-9, 11-5, and 5-11. Its not the system fuckboi. Its the QB ? .JUXcaptainHOOK wrote: »I Hope u know the patriots been going to the super bowl before they got Brady... THAT SYSTEM WORKS... no it isn't just Brady. I get it .. 3 rings means your better... so does that mean Trent Dilfer is just as good as Brett Favre? cuz they both got 1 ring? No u wouldnt.. why? cuz u add in stats also ... look... 3 rings WITH SPY GATE... none post. i rest my case.
stop posting mills. You stay gettin sonned boi -
Coo Coo Cal's Beanie wrote: »didnt do much? he was like 1 quarter of play from a 1000 yard season and he missed 2 games. the point im making is edgerrin james made peyton's job easier. Then you wanna act like i didnt post the names of the stars. Reggie Wayne aint a star now? Dwight Freeney? Robert Mathis?
You said bob sanders didnt show up till '04. This is 2011 ? . Thats a long ass time ago. He didnt win alone clown. He didnt do ? the year edge was hurt. He's had running backs carry him to wins. edge rushed for 1700 they go 10-6. he miss a year they go 6-10. he come back they go 10-6
LOL you wont address facts tho.
yeah now they're stars they wasnt stars when they was rookies dumb ? and bob sanders broken ass stayed hurt he only had one or two good seasons so you aint said much there...you must've forgot peyton threw for 4000 yards in his second season so would you say give credit to james for that? lol ? no....lets address the facts that same year when edge came back he had a little over 900 yards but peyton threw for 4200 yards and they went 10-6 and you saying edge was the reason why they went 10-6? lmao stupid ass -
Coo Coo Cal's Beanie wrote: »No you ? idiot. They werent going to superbowls in that system. The last time they went Bill Belichick wasnt even the ? headcoach you ? chank. It was Bill Parcells. 2ndly when Bill Belichick was in cleveland his records were 6-10, 7-9, 7-9, 11-5, and 5-11. Its not the system fuckboi. Its the QB ? .
stop posting mills. You stay gettin sonned boi
you real slow for saying that they went to the superbowl way before brady was drafted back in 97 when they lost and dont forget brady got hurt in the 2001 playoffs where bledsoe finished the job against the steelers and they wasn't winning without brady? lol failed again -
u ? ? read the whole post. They went to the superbowl under Bill Parcells. Belichick wasnt even coaching the Pats nincompoop. Read for once you idiot.vageneral08 wrote: »you real slow for saying that they went to the superbowl way before brady was drafted back in 97 when they lost and dont forget brady got hurt in the 2001 playoffs where bledsoe finished the job against the steelers and they wasn't winning without brady? lol failed again
i swear to ? im dealing wit retards in here. look at the last 4 seasons of the Pats before brady took over. Bledsoe was garbage -
lmao its not about the yards, its about the team record u idiot. Manning threw for 4100 yards the year edge got hurt too. Result was 6-10. So like i said, he got carried to wins. FACT.vageneral08 wrote: »yeah now they're stars they wasnt stars when they was rookies dumb ? and bob sanders broken ass stayed hurt he only had one or two good seasons so you aint said much there...you must've forgot peyton threw for 4000 yards in his second season so would you say give credit to james for that? lol ? no....lets address the facts that same year when edge came back he had a little over 900 yards but peyton threw for 4200 yards and they went 10-6 and you saying edge was the reason why they went 10-6? lmao stupid ass -
Coo Coo Cal's Beanie wrote: »u ? ? read the whole post. They went to the superbowl under Bill Parcells. Belichick wasnt even coaching the Pats nincompoop. Read for once you idiot.
i swear to ? im dealing wit retards in here. look at the last 4 seasons of the Pats before brady took over. Bledsoe was garbage
you dumb ? it's the system meaning the whole ? team it doesnt matter who's the coach bottom line pats had been winning before.....you need to pay attention special ed....but wasn't they winning with bledsoe? my point exactly -
Coo Coo Cal's Beanie wrote: »lmao its not about the yards, its about the team record u idiot. Manning threw for 4100 yards the year edge got hurt too. Result was 6-10. So like i said, he got carried to wins. FACT.
but 989 yards is the reason why the colts went 10-6 right? I'ma shut you up on this.....faulk was on the colts before manning right? he was still getting yards but was they winning? ? -
vageneral08 wrote: »you dumb ? it's the system meaning the whole ? team it doesnt matter who's the coach bottom line pats had been winning before.....you need to pay attention special ed....but wasn't they winning with bledsoe? my point exactlyCoo Coo Cal's Beanie wrote: ». They went 8-6, 8-8, 5-11, 0-2 his last 4 years in the games he started with the Pats. Nobody screamed how great Belicheck's coaching
ha ha and dude said they were winning wit bledsoe!!! wow...the beginning of bledsoe's last season with the pats, he was gonna get replaced ... -
ha ha and dude said they were winning wit bledsoe!!! wow...the beginning of bledsoe's last season with the pats, he was gonna get replaced ...
3-0 at home in the playoffs....how could they not be winning if they kept going to the playoffs???? -
vageneral08 wrote: »3-0 at home in the playoffs....how could they not be winning if they kept going to the playoffs????
so if they were "winning" why was brady set to take bledsoe's job way before he even got injuried?
also "winning" in the nfl means championships, what the hell does 3-0 at home do for you
doesnt keep your job in the NFL. -
so if they were "winning" why was brady set to take bledsoe's job way before he even got injuried?
also "winning" in the nfl means championships, what the hell does 3-0 at home do for you
doesnt keep your job in the NFL.
lol when was brady set to take bledsoe's starting job? lol he was just drafted in 2001 what are you talking about? the only reason why brady started was because bledsoe got hurt but bledsoe came back when brady got hurt in the playoffs......winning means championships? in order to go to the superbowl or even the playoffs you have to have atleast a winning record right? my point exactly you're a new england fan you know better than that -
Seahawks made it to the 2nd round of the playoffs last year and they went 7-9 in the regular season.vageneral08 wrote: »lol when was brady set to take bledsoe's starting job? lol he was just drafted in 2001 what are you talking about? the only reason why brady started was because bledsoe got hurt but bledsoe came back when brady got hurt in the playoffs......winning means championships? in order to go to the superbowl or even the playoffs you have to have atleast a winning record right? my point exactly you're a new england fan you know better than that
You're an idiot and you have made 0 points to negate anything ive said. -
vageneral08 wrote: »lol when was brady set to take bledsoe's starting job? lol he was just drafted in 2001 what are you talking about? the only reason why brady started was because bledsoe got hurt but bledsoe came back when brady got hurt in the playoffs......winning means championships? in order to go to the superbowl or even the playoffs you have to have atleast a winning record right? my point exactly you're a new england fan you know better than that
he was not drafted in 01...wow!!!
http://fs64sports.blogspot.com/2010/09/2001-tom-brady-replaces-injured-drew.html
In for Bledsoe came the unknown backup quarterback, Tom Brady. Brady was an unheralded sixth-round draft pick by the Patriots in 2000, having had an undistinguished college career at Michigan where he had difficulty competing for playing time against the likes of Brian Griese and Drew Henson. As a rookie, there were questions about his size (while he had good height at 6’4”, he was initially listed at 210 pounds) and arm strength. But Brady worked hard on the practice field and in the weight room.
By the 2001 preseason, Brady had improved to the point that Coach Belichick was suitably impressed with his development - even if Bledsoe had not gone down to injury, he might have gotten an opportunity to play. Brady had also added about 25 pounds to his frame and no longer looked too spindly for the NFL
http://www.csnne.com/03/27/11/Revisting-Bledsoes-legacy/v1_landing.html?blockID=492055&feedID=3423
The truth is that if that injury never happens, things weren’t going to end well.
Not that his Patriot career had a storybook ending anyway, but this would have been worse.
Bledsoe stays healthy that year and more than likely flushes another season down the toilet. He continues to play in the shadow of a $100M extension that he couldn't live up to. At the time, Belichick was already unhappy. He didn’t like Bledsoe’s game and it wasn’t getting any better. His touchdown total had gone down in each of the four seasons since the Super Bowl; his decision-making was getting worse. He was as good as he was going to get, and it wasn’t good enough. If Bledsoe stays healthy, maybe there’s still a controversy; after all, Belichick wanted Brady running the show, but it would have been a mess. It wouldn’t have been any sweeter than what happened, only this time the season would have already been lost. Maybe Brady never catches that initial lightning in a bottle, maybe the Pats never catch that mystique.
So many different things could have happened from Drew Bledsoe escaping Mo Lewis, but relative to what actually did happen, all of them would be negative. And Bledsoe would’ve been the target. He could have dodged Lewis, but his brand would have continued to take a hit with every Pats loss, and who knows where it would've gone from there. Bledsoe finished his Patriots career with a record of 163-160. If he doesn’t get hurt, there’s a very good chance he goes below .500. And again, it wasn't getting any better.
considered yourself ether'd!
thanks for playing... -
he was not drafted in 01...wow!!!
http://fs64sports.blogspot.com/2010/09/2001-tom-brady-replaces-injured-drew.html
In for Bledsoe came the unknown backup quarterback, Tom Brady. Brady was an unheralded sixth-round draft pick by the Patriots in 2000, having had an undistinguished college career at Michigan where he had difficulty competing for playing time against the likes of Brian Griese and Drew Henson. As a rookie, there were questions about his size (while he had good height at 6’4”, he was initially listed at 210 pounds) and arm strength. But Brady worked hard on the practice field and in the weight room.
By the 2001 preseason, Brady had improved to the point that Coach Belichick was suitably impressed with his development - even if Bledsoe had not gone down to injury, he might have gotten an opportunity to play. Brady had also added about 25 pounds to his frame and no longer looked too spindly for the NFL
http://www.csnne.com/03/27/11/Revisting-Bledsoes-legacy/v1_landing.html?blockID=492055&feedID=3423
The truth is that if that injury never happens, things weren’t going to end well.
Not that his Patriot career had a storybook ending anyway, but this would have been worse.
Bledsoe stays healthy that year and more than likely flushes another season down the toilet. He continues to play in the shadow of a $100M extension that he couldn't live up to. At the time, Belichick was already unhappy. He didn’t like Bledsoe’s game and it wasn’t getting any better. His touchdown total had gone down in each of the four seasons since the Super Bowl; his decision-making was getting worse. He was as good as he was going to get, and it wasn’t good enough. If Bledsoe stays healthy, maybe there’s still a controversy; after all, Belichick wanted Brady running the show, but it would have been a mess. It wouldn’t have been any sweeter than what happened, only this time the season would have already been lost. Maybe Brady never catches that initial lightning in a bottle, maybe the Pats never catch that mystique.
So many different things could have happened from Drew Bledsoe escaping Mo Lewis, but relative to what actually did happen, all of them would be negative. And Bledsoe would’ve been the target. He could have dodged Lewis, but his brand would have continued to take a hit with every Pats loss, and who knows where it would've gone from there. Bledsoe finished his Patriots career with a record of 163-160. If he doesn’t get hurt, there’s a very good chance he goes below .500. And again, it wasn't getting any better.
considered yourself ether'd!
thanks for playing...
a year off and you're excited? lol sad.....a sixth round pick is suppose to take the starting job of another qb? right that is so common smh you're ethered yourself....look at the quote again.........."even if bledsoe didnt get hurt brady MIGHT have started" meaning it wasnt for sure there's alot of what if's in the paragraph nothing proof showing brady had the starting job for sure so you failed there -
vageneral08 wrote: »a year off and you're excited? lol sad.....a sixth round pick is suppose to take the starting job of another qb? right that is so common smh you're ethered yourself....look at the quote again.........."even if bledsoe didnt get hurt brady MIGHT have started" meaning it wasnt for sure there's alot of what if's in the paragraph nothing proof showing brady had the starting job for sure so you failed there
excited about what??? you're a ? , hence the sec. link......done with you completely you are beyond stupid. -
excited about what??? you're a ? , hence the sec. link......done with you completely you are beyond stupid.
I'm dumb but you're posting links to a what if scenario ? ....lol ? outta here cocksucka you lose again -
Brady. Manning is great but the 3 rings to 1 is really the only arguement you need. It's all about winning, the individual numbers are cool but at the end of the day winning is what's most important.
-
Brady. Manning is great but the 3 rings to 1 is really the only arguement you need. It's all about winning, the individual numbers are cool but at the end of the day winning is what's most important.
so is asante samuel better than revis or nnamdi? since he has 2 rings...the rings arguement is way overrated -
vageneral08 wrote: »so is asante samuel better than revis or nnamdi? since he has 2 rings...the rings arguement is way overrated
i agree ..... -
LOL @ "the rings argument is overrated" when we're discussing the best qb of all time. You ? is dumb. If thats the case Marino > Manning.
-
Stop these threads.
By the way manning is better.
Football being a team sport kills the "Kiss the rings, ? " arguement 100 fold.
Imagine if that arguement had any weight. Would Flacco be better than Matt Ryan for winning more playoff games? Joe Theisman > Marino?Coo Coo Cal's Beanie wrote: »LOL @ "the rings argument is overrated" when we're discussing the best qb of all time. You ? is dumb. If thats the case Marino > Manning.
But he isn't better than Manning and pretty much any catagory. -
The rings argument is valid because the whole offense is dictated by the play of the QB. QB doesnt execute or make enough plays, the team cant win. FOH wit that logicMeet The Sniper wrote: »Stop these threads.
By the way manning is better.
Football being a team sport kills the "Kiss the rings, ? " arguement 100 fold.
Imagine if that arguement had any weight. Would Flacco be better than Matt Ryan for winning more playoff games? Joe Theisman > Marino?
But he isn't better than Manning and pretty much any catagory.
plus manning played on stacked teams offensively compared to the people marino played with. Throwing picks in playoff games lowers your rank. Manning is known to do that. -
Coo Coo Cal's Beanie wrote: »LOL @ "the rings argument is overrated" when we're discussing the best qb of all time. You ? is dumb. If thats the case Marino > Manning.
wrong again....because manning's numbers ? on marino....who was first to break the marino td record? my point exactly -
Coo Coo Cal's Beanie wrote: »The rings argument is valid because the whole offense is dictated by the play of the QB.
LOL. Number of rings can be a factor in the argument, but not the sole reason of determining a better QB. AT ALL.
Yeah the whole offense is dictated by the QB, but the defense ain't. The special teams ain't. So only 1/3 of the team's play is dictated by the QB.
You can have an average to below average QB win rings if the defense and/or special teams is THAT good.
If that's the case, the QB doesn't even have to be good, he just has to not ? up and turn the ball over.
Hello 2000 Ravens. Hello 2002 Bucs.
? Trent Dilfer was the only QB to win a Super Bowl and be cut by his team directly afterwards. Clearly you can be a SB-winning QB and NOT BE GOOD.Coo Coo Cal's Beanie wrote: »QB doesnt execute or make enough plays, the team cant win. FOH wit that logic
So how bout a QB going 9/21, 123 yards 0 TD and 2 int in a Super Bowl game. Do you think that's making enough plays and executing?
Hope you said yes cuz that's exactly what happened with Big Ben against the Seahawks. DEFENSE and SPECIAL TEAMS won the game for them.
Getting rings is totally circumstantial.
