tOfficial "Tom Brady & the New England Patriots" Superthread

[HammerDown]

Honestly.... Yeah thats pretty much it. Both guys are great. Manning ( traditionally ) has been better in the regular season and Brady has been better in the postseason. Nothing will ever change that. As to being a Brady "apologist" there is simply no need. The man has been to 5 Super Bowls and 8 AFC title title games in his 11 years as a starter. Why would anyone apologize for that?? I just dont get people who cant admit that both guys are great. Why do we need to downgrade one to raise up the other?? There is no need in either instance to do that.

FIFY

Why do we need to downgrade one to raise up the other??

Your motivation is a mystery to me. I can't answer that for you.

 

[RoboticDreams]

Trends happen.

Hammerdown, why have the Celtics always owned the Lakers ?

Head to head it is not even close

Every one needs the little brother. Celts fans have LA. Maybe Brady was tired of being the big brother.

The Celtics beating the Lakers before most of us were ever born is really not that relevant. As of late, the Lakers have owned the Celts and are now one championship behind them (16). Make a more logical point if you ever had one to begin with.

 

[TexasExes98]

Post season>regular season

Super Bowl rings > than anything:

Brady - 3 rings

Peyton - 1 ring

Eli - 2 rings


Brady > Mannings

 

[NEhomer]

Certainly not by a Patriots fan's standards! Patriots fans would be screaming about "dynasty" already.

See that Denver fans? You haven't done shit yet. Ask hammer.

 

[ram29jackson]

Archie Mannings Sperm is better at QB than Brady

 

[NEhomer]

Now THERE'S some quality trolling ram! Good one. Lol!

 

[HammerDown]

Super Bowl rings > than anything:

Brady - 3 rings

Peyton - 1 ring

Eli - 2 rings


Brady > Mannings

Got it. So then it's a push between Trent Dilfer and Peyton Manning.

 

[HammerDown]

The Celtics beating the Lakers before most of us were ever born is really not that relevant. As of late, the Lakers have owned the Celts and are now one championship behind them (16). Make a more logical point if you ever had one to begin with.

I just ignored that. You have to understand these are Boston fans we're dealing with here. Logic has no place in a sports debate for them. They are the center of the sports universe and anyone who disagrees can fuck off. I've seen it my entire life.

 

[Broncos6482]

In the 6 playoff games vs the Mannings, Brady is 158-244, 1688 yards, 10 TD- 2 INT. Or 65% completion, 280 ypg, with a 5-1 TD to INT ratio. Remember a few days ago when debating Brady vs Manning and I said that a QB gets all the blame when his team loses and all the credit when his team wins and SOOOO many people said that wasnt fair and that was bullshit etc etc ( while defending Manning abysmal playoff record). Then I said that no matter who won on SUnday the other side would use it as "proof" that one guy is better than the other and everyone ( including you HD ) said that you wouldnt do that??? Well here you go. If you want to use this game to say Manning is better than Brady historically then whatever BUT dont tell me that Qb's arent judged based on team success regardless of how well they play. Brady has played exceedingly well in his 6 games vs the Mannings. He just happened to run into better teams those days. Thats it, BUT he will still get the blame. The same logic applies to Peyton who is finally now .500 in playoff games. Congrats on that.

Baloney. He wasn't good in the first Super Bowl against the Giants, and he wasn't good Sunday. Yes, at the end of the game his numbers looked ok, but anyone who watched that game objectively would tell you he wasn't very good. He missed open receivers that probably cost his team 10 points. He was not very good.

 

[HammerDown]

Baloney. He wasn't good in the first Super Bowl against the Giants, and he wasn't good Sunday. Yes, at the end of the game his numbers looked ok, but anyone who watched that game objectively would tell you he wasn't very good. He missed open receivers that probably cost his team 10 points. He was not very good.

You're wasting your breath, my man!

 

[Broncos6482]

Honestly.... Yeah thats pretty much it. Both guys are great. Manning ( traditionally ) has been better in the regular season and Brady has been better in the postseason. 1 win doesnt change that. As to being a Brady "apologist" there is simply no need. The man has been to 5 Super Bowls and 8 AFC title title games in his 11 years as a starter. Why would anyone apologize for that?? I just dont get people who cant admit that both guys are great. Why do we need to downgrade one to raise up the other?? There is no need in either instance to do that.

An apologist isn't someone who apologizes, it's someone who offers a defense. Since you are offering a defense of Brady, that would indeed make you a Brady apologist.

 

[rmilia1]

An apologist isn't someone who apologizes, it's someone who offers a defense. Since you are offering a defense of Brady, that would indeed make you a Brady apologist.

Why would anyone need to defend a man who has made it to 5 SB's and 8 AFC title games in 11 years??? A better question is how ANYONE would classify that man as anything other than great. Thats the real question. Brady being great doesnt mean Manning isnt you know. Its OK for both of them to be damn good, it really is. I promise you the Earth wont stop turning if we can all agree on that. LOL

 

[HammerDown]

Why would anyone need to defend a man who has made it to 5 SB's and 8 AFC title games in 11 years??? A better question is how ANYONE would classify that man as anything other than great. Thats the real question. Brady being great doesnt mean Manning isnt you know. Its OK for both of them to be damn good, it really is. I promise you the Earth wont stop turning if we can all agree on that. LOL

Fine, just stop with the "I'm just here to inject some objectivity" charade. Deal?

 

[rmilia1]

Baloney. He wasn't good in the first Super Bowl against the Giants, and he wasn't good Sunday. Yes, at the end of the game his numbers looked ok, but anyone who watched that game objectively would tell you he wasn't very good. He missed open receivers that probably cost his team 10 points. He was not very good.

So your theory is that in his 2 "bad" performances he went 54-86, threw for 0 INT's and almost 275 ypg and had a QB rating of almost 90??? Alright I guess... Not Brady like numbers for sure but still more than acceptable and those are the 2 games you picked out to show his poorest performances... Anyway. Good luck to the Broncos, should be a hell of a SB. Excited to see if Seattle can get any pressure, if they dont then Manning should have a whale of a game. If the Denver D steps up again then the Broncos should win.

 

[rmilia1]

Fine, just stop with the "I'm just here to inject some objectivity" charade. Deal?

Everything I wrote is totally objective. There is no arguing it, its facts. You are the one using subjective arguments and then throwing a fit when people call you on your inconsistent use of logic as it applies to these 2 guys. We all get it. You dont like Brady. Awesome. Doesnt change facts ( which is what I use ). The sky is blue, grass is green, water is wet, Brady has been to 5 SB's and 8 AFC title games in 11 years starting. FACTS. Jeez man.

 

[HammerDown]

So your theory is that in his 2 "bad" performances he went 54-86, threw for 0 INT's and almost 275 ypg and had a QB rating of almost 90??? Alright I guess... Not Brady like numbers for sure but still more than acceptable and those are the 2 games you picked out to show his poorest performances... Anyway. Good luck to the Broncos, should be a hell of a SB. Excited to see if Seattle can get any pressure, if they dont then Manning should have a whale of a game. If the Denver D steps up again then the Broncos should win.

LOL It's amazing to see to what extent you'll go to spin the same numbers that you use against Manning, rmilia. That's fine. You're doing do what Brady apologists do. But like I keep saying, if you're going to do that, pleeeeeease stop with the indignant little "let's be objective here, guys" act. It's tired.

You know those numbers don't tell the story.

What about the poorly thrown third-and-3 launch to Matt Slater on the Patriots first drive, an overthrow of a wide open Julian Edelman on the Patriots third drive, an overthrow of an open Austin Collie on the Patriots final drive of the first half, and a high-and-wide crossfield throw to Edelman that was just an ugly attempt?

Did you see Brady's press conference?

Asked why things turned around in the 4th for him?

"The defense went to prevent and we got some spacing."

Asked what happened?

"I overthrew my receivers."

That's what I respect about Tom Brady. The contrast between him and his apologists is black-and-white.

The guy played poorly. Just say it. I know you can. I have faith in you.

 

[HammerDown]

We all get it. You dont like Brady.

Okay, I give up. You win.

 

[Broncos6482]

Why would anyone need to defend a man who has made it to 5 SB's and 8 AFC title games in 11 years??? A better question is how ANYONE would classify that man as anything other than great. Thats the real question. Brady being great doesnt mean Manning isnt you know. Its OK for both of them to be damn good, it really is. I promise you the Earth wont stop turning if we can all agree on that. LOL

I never said Brady wasn't great. Just correcting your use of apologist.

 

[Broncos6482]

So your theory is that in his 2 "bad" performances he went 54-86, threw for 0 INT's and almost 275 ypg and had a QB rating of almost 90??? Alright I guess... Not Brady like numbers for sure but still more than acceptable and those are the 2 games you picked out to show his poorest performances... Anyway. Good luck to the Broncos, should be a hell of a SB. Excited to see if Seattle can get any pressure, if they dont then Manning should have a whale of a game. If the Denver D steps up again then the Broncos should win.

Stats alone don't tell you how well a qb played. Like I said, Sunday's game is a perfect example. If you just looked at Brady's stats you'd see 24-38 for 277 1 touchdown, another rushing, and no turnovers. Yep, pretty good game. Of course, if you watched the game you'd know that Brady didn't put up any numbers until Denver went into a prevent type defense in the 4th quarter, and that he missed wide open receivers that probably cost his team 10 points.

At the end of the day, his numbers looked good, but that was not a good performance.

 

[Broncos6482]

LOL It's amazing to see to what extent you'll go to spin the same numbers that you use against Manning, rmilia. That's fine. You're doing do what Brady apologists do. But like I keep saying, if you're going to do that, pleeeeeease stop with the indignant little "let's be objective here, guys" act. It's tired.

You know those numbers don't tell the story.

What about the poorly thrown third-and-3 launch to Matt Slater on the Patriots first drive, an overthrow of a wide open Julian Edelman on the Patriots third drive, an overthrow of an open Austin Collie on the Patriots final drive of the first half, and a high-and-wide crossfield throw to Edelman that was just an ugly attempt?

Did you see Brady's press conference?

Asked why things turned around in the 4th for him?

"The defense went to prevent and we got some spacing."

Asked what happened?

"I overthrew my receivers."

That's what I respect about Tom Brady. The contrast between him and his apologists is black-and-white.

The guy played poorly. Just say it. I know you can. I have faith in you.

If he hits that pass to Edelman, it's a touchdown. If he hits that pass to Collie, they probably get a field goal on that drive. That's 10 points the Patriots didn't get because of poor throws by Brady. Remind me again how many points the Patriots lost by?