LMAO Now that's funnyThere have been as many Tommy Boy threads on this site as Oregon football has uniforms.
LMAO Now that's funny
Only delusional wishful thinkers....
Even those that deny the truth, know the truth.
Peyton was great.
But not THE greatest.
Well based on the teams represented on your page that makes sense.Thank you.
And like I've said in the past the only thing I have against Brady is where he played his college ball. I can't root for anyone that played in ann arbor.
#charles-woodson-is-a-douchebag
I never clicked on the Spoiler until now, had no idea what that was. I am a Golden Domer fan I too have disdain toward Mich.Dammit don't make me show you my business card again!
And a N.D. fan trying to talk shit about Ohio State.Classic.
No, calling you obtuse because it's obvious.
You should probably stop replying, because your logic is illogical. Terry Bradshaw is not some top 5 QB all time. Eli Manning, Trent Dilfer and Jim Plunkett don't come solar system close to Dan Marino, Dan Fouts or Fran Tarkenton, Troy Aikman isn't the best QB in Cowboys history...etc. etc. etc.
Super Bowl rings by themselves, is an idiotic argument. Period.
So again a QB guides a team all year, in Brady's case a lot more and all those games mean nothing? LMAO and that makes no sense to you?
We all know Marino, Fouts, Tarkenton etc are better than Eli or Dilfer. But you can't negate the fact they failed in big games, or their D failed. The Ring itself is an indicator of what they did the whole year. I can't make that any clearer, of you choose to remain obtuse that is on you.
OK then...it it's so obvious, care to point out exactly how I'm 'obtuse' based on this thread?
Ready for the Kitchens!
Here you go! Brady has lead his team to nine SBs, and won six of them, you seem to think SB rings as a measurement of success has no bearing. Brady has been to 9 SBs that means he lead that team for 144 regular season games, games which eventually led to SBs and of the nine he was won 6 Rings, Six rings which are a clear indicator of his dominance. So dismissing Rings as a non factor is an obtuse point of view, ignoring success to keep an already weakened argument alive is OBTUSE
Have a nice weekend.
Well, Manning didn't last as long as Brady. Also, prime Manning did win more than Brady. Further, a lot talk of Manning's playoff record. Well, Manning went one and done to two teams who could not beat NE. NYJ and Baltimore spanked NE the round after they beat Indy.
If Manning took better care of himself, and could still play, he most certainly would have prevented NE from going to three straight SBs.
Brady, unfortunately, has the credits and the rings.
Here comes the semantics back track., I guess jock straps themselves are a pathetic reasoning too. Oyyyy What facts?Wrong. I said specifically that rings, THEMSELVES, are a pathetic reasoning...and they are. I have stated factually as to why. I could've went much further, but realized the level of football intellect I was going up against, and realized it wasn't necessary, so....
Again....if it's so obvious, care to point out exactly how I'm 'obtuse' based on this thread?
Here comes the semantics back track.
….and Super Bowl rings by themselves. A really dumb number.
Super Bowl rings by themselves, is an idiotic argument. Period.
Semantics back track?
PS - 'Obtuse?' Still (forever) waiting on that one....