|
|
Post by poutinep on Feb 19, 2019 21:26:53 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Feb 20, 2019 3:27:34 GMT
Marv still isn't impressed.
|
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Feb 20, 2019 9:48:21 GMT
Marv still isn't impressed. One of my favorite jimanchower outbursts was when someone accused Peyton of running a "dink and dunk" offense. He went off on a tirade referencing rare intermediate and deep throws including some from multiple seasons prior. "Is that dink and dunk? Oh yeah real dink and dunk offense right lol?" This was of course during Peyton's last season. |
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Feb 20, 2019 9:53:25 GMT
Marv still isn't impressed. I’ve seen better. ::smoke1:: |
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Feb 20, 2019 14:34:42 GMT
Marv still isn't impressed. One of my favorite jimanchower outbursts was when someone accused Peyton of running a "dink and dunk" offense. He went off on a tirade referencing rare intermediate and deep throws including some from multiple seasons prior. "Is that dink and dunk? Oh yeah real dink and dunk offense right lol?" This was of course during Peyton's last season. My favorite jimanchower argument was when I pointed out Manning's postseason record and his defense was that you only play good teams in the postseason. That's your argument as a Manning defender? He can only beat bad teams? |
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Feb 20, 2019 15:42:25 GMT
One of my favorite jimanchower outbursts was when someone accused Peyton of running a "dink and dunk" offense. He went off on a tirade referencing rare intermediate and deep throws including some from multiple seasons prior. "Is that dink and dunk? Oh yeah real dink and dunk offense right lol?" This was of course during Peyton's last season. My favorite jimanchower argument was when I pointed out Manning's postseason record and his defense was that you only play good teams in the postseason. That's your argument as a Manning defender? He can only beat bad teams? What about his postseason record vs Brady? |
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Feb 20, 2019 15:44:20 GMT
My favorite jimanchower argument was when I pointed out Manning's postseason record and his defense was that you only play good teams in the postseason. That's your argument as a Manning defender? He can only beat bad teams? What about his postseason record vs Brady? You'd have to ask jim. I guess his argument would be the two times Manning won the Super Bowl, he didn't play good teams, including Brady's. |
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Feb 20, 2019 15:49:14 GMT
What about his postseason record vs Brady? You'd have to ask jim. I guess his argument would be the two times Manning won the Super Bowl, he didn't play good teams, including Brady's. I think it would be that Manning has only ever played amazing teams in the postseason so the fact that he reached four Super Bowls is actually MORE impressive. While Brady only ever played schmucks. Similar to how he’d argue that Manning was always held back by poor coaching while also describing Dungy as one of the all time great coaches. |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Feb 20, 2019 16:17:42 GMT
My favorite jimanchower argument was when I pointed out Manning's postseason record and his defense was that you only play good teams in the postseason. That's your argument as a Manning defender? He can only beat bad teams? What about his postseason record vs Brady? Peyton is 3-2 in postseason vs Brady, including 3-1 in AFC Championship Games. So Brady, the so-called "greatest of all-time" is owned by Peyton in the postseason. |
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Feb 20, 2019 16:26:52 GMT
What about his postseason record vs Brady? Peyton is 3-2 in postseason vs Brady, including 3-1 in AFC Championship Games. So Brady, the so-called "greatest of all-time" is owned by Peyton in the postseason. Mark Sanchez has a winning record against Brady in the postseason, too. Peyton is in good company. |
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Feb 20, 2019 16:28:09 GMT
Peyton is 3-2 in postseason vs Brady, including 3-1 in AFC Championship Games. So Brady, the so-called "greatest of all-time" is owned by Peyton in the postseason. Mark Sanchez has a winning record against Brady in the postseason, too. Peyton is in good company. So you admit that Brady has a losing record against Mark “Buttfumble” Sanchez? |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Feb 20, 2019 16:33:26 GMT
You'd have to ask jim. I guess his argument would be the two times Manning won the Super Bowl, he didn't play good teams, including Brady's. I think it would be that Manning has only ever played amazing teams in the postseason so the fact that he reached four Super Bowls is actually MORE impressive. While Brady only ever played schmucks. It's not that Peyton can only beat bad teams or that Peyton played against better teams in the postseason. The difference between Brady and Peyton is that Brady simply had much more support while Peyton had much less support. The Pats went 11-5 with Matt Cassel and 3-1 with Jimmy Garoppolo and Jacoby Brissett. So the Pats had a .700 winning percentage without Brady. So Brady starts with a team that is already winning 70% of its games. By contrast, the Colts went 2-14 without Manning in 2011. So Peyton has to start with a team that won only 12.5% of its games. Peyton is like the NFL's version of LeBron James. Sure, LeBron has lost 3 of the last 4 NBA Finals, but does anyone seriously think the Cavs even make any of those 4 straight NBA Finals without LeBron? The Cavs weren't a good team, but LeBron turned them into a championship contender during the past 4 years. Similarly, the Colts weren't a good team, but Peyton turned them into a championship contender year after year. The fact that LeBron didn't win more championships with the Cavs isn't a negative on LeBron because the Cavs just weren't a good team and the fact that the Peyton didn't win more championships isn't a negative on Peyton because the Colts just weren't a good team. On the contrary, the fact that LeBron was able to turn a bad team like the Cavs into championship contenders (and even a champion) during the past 4 years and the fact that Peyton was able to turn a bad team like the Colts into championship contenders (and even a champion) year after year is a positive for LeBron and Peyton and definitely much more impressive than Brady starting with a team that already wins 70% of its games without him. |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Feb 20, 2019 16:34:55 GMT
Peyton is 3-2 in postseason vs Brady, including 3-1 in AFC Championship Games. So Brady, the so-called "greatest of all-time" is owned by Peyton in the postseason. Mark Sanchez has a winning record against Brady in the postseason, too. Peyton is in good company. Sanchez only played 1 postseason game against Brady. 1 game isn't enough of a sample. Peyton played Brady 5 times in the postseason (including 4 times in AFC Championship Games) and has a winning record against Brady. |
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Feb 20, 2019 16:35:20 GMT
Mark Sanchez has a winning record against Brady in the postseason, too. Peyton is in good company. So you admit that Brady has a losing record against Mark “Buttfumble” Sanchez? In the playoffs. I don't know how Brady sleeps at night. |
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Feb 20, 2019 16:56:42 GMT
I think it would be that Manning has only ever played amazing teams in the postseason so the fact that he reached four Super Bowls is actually MORE impressive. While Brady only ever played schmucks. It's not that Peyton can only beat bad teams or that Peyton played against better teams in the postseason. The difference between Brady and Peyton is that Brady simply had much more support while Peyton had much less support. The Pats went 11-5 with Matt Cassel and 3-1 with Jimmy Garoppolo and Jacoby Brissett. So the Pats had a .700 winning percentage without Brady. So Brady starts with a team that is already winning 70% of its games. By contrast, the Colts went 2-14 without Manning in 2011. So Peyton has to start with a team that won only 12.5% of its games. Peyton is like the NFL's version of LeBron James. Sure, LeBron has lost 3 of the last 4 NBA Finals, but does anyone seriously think the Cavs even make any of those 4 straight NBA Finals without LeBron? The Cavs weren't a good team, but LeBron turned them into a championship contender during the past 4 years. Similarly, the Colts weren't a good team, but Peyton turned them into a championship contender year after year. The fact that LeBron didn't win more championships with the Cavs isn't a negative on LeBron because the Cavs just weren't a good team and the fact that the Peyton didn't win more championships isn't a negative on Peyton because the Colts just weren't a good team. On the contrary, the fact that LeBron was able to turn a bad team like the Cavs into championship contenders (and even a champion) during the past 4 years and the fact that Peyton was able to turn a bad team like the Colts into championship contenders (and even a champion) year after year is a positive for LeBron and Peyton and definitely much more impressive than Brady starting with a team that already wins 70% of its games without him. The Pats went 5-11 in 2000 and were 0-2 in 2001 when Brady became the starter. Belichick had a career HC record of 41-57 before Brady became his starting QB. The 2001 team went 11-5 (so that's 11-3 for Brady as a starter on a team with no winning culture whatsoever) and won the Super Bowl. The Patriots went 16-0 and lost a nail biter Super Bowl in 2007. Matt Cassell went 11-5 (winning five less games with an historic offense and winning culture still intact) and missed the playoffs in 2008. The Colts tanked without Manning to get the first pick in the draft and then released him, so credit to the Patriots for at least trying. One wonders why the Colts decided to move on from Manning while the Patriots have shipped out Brady's backups as he dominates into his 40s. It's funny how Belichick and the Patriots fortunes seemed to turn as soon as Brady became the starter, but his success is due to his supporting cast. How did Manning's Broncos do against the Seahawks #1 defense in Super Bowl 48? How did Brady's Patriots do against the Seahawks #1 defense in Super Bowl 49? No really, it's slow today and I want to hear this. |
|
|
|
Post by FrankSobotka1514 on Feb 20, 2019 17:20:42 GMT
It's not that Peyton can only beat bad teams or that Peyton played against better teams in the postseason. The difference between Brady and Peyton is that Brady simply had much more support while Peyton had much less support. The Pats went 11-5 with Matt Cassel and 3-1 with Jimmy Garoppolo and Jacoby Brissett. So the Pats had a .700 winning percentage without Brady. So Brady starts with a team that is already winning 70% of its games. By contrast, the Colts went 2-14 without Manning in 2011. So Peyton has to start with a team that won only 12.5% of its games. Peyton is like the NFL's version of LeBron James. Sure, LeBron has lost 3 of the last 4 NBA Finals, but does anyone seriously think the Cavs even make any of those 4 straight NBA Finals without LeBron? The Cavs weren't a good team, but LeBron turned them into a championship contender during the past 4 years. Similarly, the Colts weren't a good team, but Peyton turned them into a championship contender year after year. The fact that LeBron didn't win more championships with the Cavs isn't a negative on LeBron because the Cavs just weren't a good team and the fact that the Peyton didn't win more championships isn't a negative on Peyton because the Colts just weren't a good team. On the contrary, the fact that LeBron was able to turn a bad team like the Cavs into championship contenders (and even a champion) during the past 4 years and the fact that Peyton was able to turn a bad team like the Colts into championship contenders (and even a champion) year after year is a positive for LeBron and Peyton and definitely much more impressive than Brady starting with a team that already wins 70% of its games without him. The Pats went 5-11 in 2000 and were 0-2 in 2001 when Brady became the starter. Belichick had a career HC record of 41-57 before Brady became his starting QB. The 2001 team went 11-5 (so that's 11-3 for Brady as a starter on a team with no winning culture whatsoever) and won the Super Bowl. The Patriots went 16-0 and lost a nail biter Super Bowl in 2007. Matt Cassell went 11-5 (winning five less games with an historic offense and winning culture still intact) and missed the playoffs in 2008. The Colts tanked without Manning to get the first pick in the draft and then released him, so credit to the Patriots for at least trying. One wonders why the Colts decided to move on from Manning while the Patriots have shipped out Brady's backups as he dominates into his 40s. It's funny how Belichick and the Patriots fortunes seemed to turn as soon as Brady became the starter, but his success is due to his supporting cast. How did Manning's Broncos do against the Seahawks #1 defense in Super Bowl 48? How did Brady's Patriots do against the Seahawks #1 defense in Super Bowl 49? No really, it's slow today and I want to hear this. Logic and reason have no place in a Brady discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Mar 3, 2019 8:58:14 GMT
It's not that Peyton can only beat bad teams or that Peyton played against better teams in the postseason. The difference between Brady and Peyton is that Brady simply had much more support while Peyton had much less support. The Pats went 11-5 with Matt Cassel and 3-1 with Jimmy Garoppolo and Jacoby Brissett. So the Pats had a .700 winning percentage without Brady. So Brady starts with a team that is already winning 70% of its games. By contrast, the Colts went 2-14 without Manning in 2011. So Peyton has to start with a team that won only 12.5% of its games. Peyton is like the NFL's version of LeBron James. Sure, LeBron has lost 3 of the last 4 NBA Finals, but does anyone seriously think the Cavs even make any of those 4 straight NBA Finals without LeBron? The Cavs weren't a good team, but LeBron turned them into a championship contender during the past 4 years. Similarly, the Colts weren't a good team, but Peyton turned them into a championship contender year after year. The fact that LeBron didn't win more championships with the Cavs isn't a negative on LeBron because the Cavs just weren't a good team and the fact that the Peyton didn't win more championships isn't a negative on Peyton because the Colts just weren't a good team. On the contrary, the fact that LeBron was able to turn a bad team like the Cavs into championship contenders (and even a champion) during the past 4 years and the fact that Peyton was able to turn a bad team like the Colts into championship contenders (and even a champion) year after year is a positive for LeBron and Peyton and definitely much more impressive than Brady starting with a team that already wins 70% of its games without him. The Patriots went 16-0 and lost a nail biter Super Bowl in 2007. Matt Cassell went 11-5 And you've just proved my point. The Pats had Brady in 2007. In 2008, take away Brady and the Pats still go 11-5 (68.75%). By contrast, the Colts had Manning in 2010. In 2011, take away Manning and the Colts go 2-14 (12.5%). So like I said in my previous post, the Pats already win about 70% of their games without Brady while the Colts were 1 of the worst teams in the league without Manning. So Brady has had much more support than Manning had and thus Brady has had a much easier job while Manning has had to be like the NFL's version of LeBron and basically turn a really bad team into a championship contender year after year.
|
|
|
|
Post by hehatesshe on Mar 3, 2019 9:10:53 GMT
The Patriots went 16-0 and lost a nail biter Super Bowl in 2007. Matt Cassell went 11-5 And you've just proved my point. The Pats had Brady in 2007. In 2008, take away Brady and the Pats still go 11-5 (68.75%). By contrast, the Colts had Manning in 2010. In 2011, take away Manning and the Colts go 2-14 (12.5%). So like I said in my previous post, the Pats already win about 70% of their games without Brady while the Colts were 1 of the worst teams in the league without Manning. So Brady has had much more support than Manning had and thus Brady has had a much easier job while Manning has had to be like the NFL's version of LeBron and basically turn a really bad team into a championship contender year after year. That took you 10 days to come up with? |
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Mar 3, 2019 14:44:17 GMT
The Patriots went 16-0 and lost a nail biter Super Bowl in 2007. Matt Cassell went 11-5 And you've just proved my point. The Pats had Brady in 2007. In 2008, take away Brady and the Pats still go 11-5 (68.75%). By contrast, the Colts had Manning in 2010. In 2011, take away Manning and the Colts go 2-14 (12.5%). So like I said in my previous post, the Pats already win about 70% of their games without Brady while the Colts were 1 of the worst teams in the league without Manning. So Brady has had much more support than Manning had and thus Brady has had a much easier job while Manning has had to be like the NFL's version of LeBron and basically turn a really bad team into a championship contender year after year. You didn't answer any of my questions. Why did the Colts move on from Manning while the Patriots keep trading Brady's backups as he dominates into his 40s? How did Manning do against Seattle's #1 defense in SB 48? How did Brady do against Seattle's #1 defense in SB 49? Why is Belichick a sub-.500 coach without Brady? Why is it that the only season since 2002 that the Patriots missed the playoffs is the season Brady was lost for the year in week 1?
You can try to strip away the context of my post but the facts remain the same. Good try, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Mar 3, 2019 17:18:45 GMT
Wearing 6 rings makes it hard to go deep.
|
|
