I'm getting really sick of all the Brady-worship. Manning's a great QB. Period. he has a better arm. He has better instincts. He's one of the best signal callers ever. Brady is a good QB. He knows his limitations, is mostly accurate, and has a very good understanding of the game. Any coach would be delighted to have either players. Except... if the Colts GM (at gunpoint) called Bill Belicheck and asked if he'd like to trade Peyton Manning for Tom Brady, Belicheck would cover the phone, giggle a little bit, wipe the tears away, then snap the Colts' GM's hand off saying yes. Does anybody actually doubt this? Yet the media can't say nice things about Manning, without qualifying it with all the Brady praise. Then they go on, and on, and on about what a wonderful "winner" Brady is. It's sickening. He's a good QB, in the right system, with a really frickin' fantastic defense. It's not some sort of sacrilege for the better QB to be on the worse team. Believe it or not. There are dozens of other players on each team that can swing the balance. I expect the Patriots to win today. I think the two teams are almost even, but with homefield advantage... and the snow nullifying Manning a bit... I think the Patriots have the better chance. And I fully expect dozens of commentators to say things like "Manning may put up the #'s, but Brady wins you games." Which is horse manure. Trade defenses... and more importantly perhaps, coaches... and the comparison would be absurd.
Does this surprise you? The media loves to overhype players - especially quarterbacks. If your team makes the championship game, it has to be because of the quarterback - never mind the other 21 players on the field. New England's defense carried them here, but the media doesn't like to talk about the defense as much, so Brady gets the hype.
Doesn't surprise me, just annoys me. Watching all the NFL shows made me boil over and put up that post . I'd even agree with them that some players are better at "winning," than others... but the QB comparison is absurd. Although the media's gotten better about QB-worship lately... after the Ravens and Bucs won w/merely decent guys at the position. They still pay too much attention to them, but the talking heads seemed ready to admit that the QB was an interchangeable part on those teams, and that about 20 other QBs could have done the same damned thing with similar results. I'm pretty confident that if, say, Denver instead of Indianapolis were playing New England, you'd hear only a few snippets about Brady. But, oh no - they're praising the QB with the all-world #'s... better mmake sure that the "winner" gets equal attention.
We still talk to this day in chat when you *giggled* to Cat about the Pats' chances of beating the Rams. Take it that old wound hasn't healed yet, eh haven? But you are right - Brady is nowhere near Manning when it comes to physical attributes but he is the beneficiary of a good offensive system and outstanding defense. But don't forget that he has already won 1 Super Bowl (even if you feel it was more other people than him) and some might be looking at him as a "Mr. Ordinary Guy" compared to someone like Manning, thus that makes Brady an underdog in their eyes. But it is just a thought.
I do think that loss was bad for the league. I have no particular love of the Rams, but that offense, particularly before Martz went crazy, was very fun to watch. I still think that you can with with an effective offense as easily as you can with with a good defense. Don't forget - the Rams won a Superbowl with an even worse defense than the one they had when they lost to the Patriots. I admit I was shocked. The Patriots weren't rated highly - and thought they were overrated even at that. I was more surprised during that game than probably during any other... although the 2nd half of that horrible Bills-Oilers games comes close . I also don't like Boston fans regarding the Patriots. They love the Red Sox. They love the Celtics. They love the Bruins. They're sort of half-way fond of the Patriots. But they win the Superbowl? Suddenly, the entire city's bandwagoning. It was very disappointing, especially when Boston's such a great sports town generally. Physical attributes alone? Pfft. Try handing Brady the reigns to the Colts system, see how well he adjusts to defenses compared to Manning. Hmm. There are always a lot of "ordinary guy" story lines. But, you know, that's not the one they're playing - because if they were, they wouldn't be hyping him so greatly . They're actually eschewing that possible approach.
Uhhhhh....bandwagoning is when people having nothing to do with the city proclaim a team their favorite team just because the team won a championship. I see alot of that. And if yours is the real definition, then Houston has the same problem but worse. Damn New Englanders for supporting their team. What's up with that?
It's bandwagoning whenever indifferent fans suddenly become crazy about a team, just because they're winning. Living in Boston for 4 years, I developed a real love of Boston sports... partly because of how great the fans are. Having lived in both Houston and Boston... you can't compare the two sets of fans. The Boston fans are much, much better. But in Boston, the Patriots are the ugly, red-headed step-child. You don't have nearly as many hardcore followers... and you barely ever see Patriots jerseys, etc, compared to the other teams. Hell, "Hail Flutie" is probably still a bigger play in Boston than Vinateiri's FG... and half of Boston hates BC. They love the C's, B's, and Red Sox there, win or lose. They love the Patriots only when they win. The bandwagoning was just so uncharacteristic for otherwise great fans, that it made me really dislike the Pats.
Peyton Manning is the better QB, but I don't think Brady is overhyped. His stats are very good and he wins lots of games. He took over for Bledsoe, not a bad quarterback himself, and the team changed from mediocre to Super Bowl contender. Here's a stat comparison for this year: Manning- 99.0 QB Rating, 67% completion, 4267 yards, 7.5 yards/attempt, 29 TDs, 10 INT Brady- 85.9 QB Rating, 60.2% completion, 3620 yards, 6.9 yards/attempt, 23 TDs, 12 INT For their careers, Manning's QB rating is 88.1 and Brady's is 85.9. Not a huge difference. Also, Manning has much better weapons. New England has no running game to speak of, and their WR's also are mediocre. Manning has Edge, Harrison (best QB in the game), and some good TE's. I went to both the NE and the Indianapolis games at Reliant Stadium, and Brady was much more impressive. Whenever Brady went back to pass, I felt like the Texans couldn't stop him. The guy is incredibly clutch. The Texans were able to shut down the Indianapolis passing game, though.
haven is right about the Pats taking a back seat in athletics compared to the other teams. I remember reading the Globe every day on news about the ARod deal that never happened and someone, maybe it was Bob Ryan, commented on how the Pats have won all these games in a row and all anyone wanted to talk about in New England was the Sox and them *possibly* getting ARod!
I've listened to all of you guys, actually, and I think the sum total of what you're all saying is that Tom Brady is regressing, he's going backwards. I'm sorry to say this; I don't think he's been that good from the get-go. I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. I think the media has been very desirous that a Michigan quarterback do well. We're interested in Michigan coaches and Michigan quarterbacks doing well. I think there is a little hope invested in Brady, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he really didn't deserve.
I think a part of it is "big game performance". Tom Brady has done what was necessary to win the "big games" in his career. Peyton Manning, up until this year, has had a history of sucking in the big games. In college, he never could beat Florida, and Tennessee won the national title the year after he left. His teams had also not won a playoff game in his NFL career. Through these games, I believe his numbers have sucked as well - lots of INTs, etc. That's where a player like Brady gets hyped. Just smart decisions and making the "big plays" in the "big games".
Law is the MVP of this game. Brady vs Manning hasn't lived up to the hype. Brady's been lucky he hasn't matched Manning in INTs today.
What if the two QBs traded offenses?? If Brady had Harrison, Wayne and James, would the comparison still be absurd?
Suddenly this game is getting a whole lot more interesting. 7pt game, 2:00 left in the game. Colts ball.
CBS really needs to be more careful when they interview people close to a shower. I swear I saw somebody butt naked when they were interviewing Dungy. Than they move the camera to the right. Pretty poor TV if you ask me And Brady is the real deal. Hes going for his 2nd superbowl in just 3 years. Very few QBs can say that.
I called the Pats winning . Manning did have a bad game. OTOH, he had a very good game a few weeks ago against the Pats (and the Patriots just outscored them). Still, the evidence of the season suggests you take Manning every day and twice on Sunday... the scouts say the same thing... and my guess is Bill Belicheck himself would as well. And even though there are a few hecklers above... my guess is they'd *still* take Manning over Brady if they had to choose between the two for their own hypothetical team. I was actually surprised how low scoring the game was on both sides, though... perhaps the snow, but perhaps not.
