NFL Corner

[M.D.]

Yeah, I hope the Falcons roll it! It would be cool if they blow out NE.. I would be routing for NE in the superbowl (cause I like dynasties), except it really pisses me off that the NE commentators immediately come out gloating with "Peyton sucks, Brady is the better QB" articles. Their reasoning is always, Look who has the superbowl ring. Dudes, TRENT DILFER has a super bowl ring. Are these NE guys seriously saying Dilfer is a better QB because he has a superbowl ring and Peyton doesnt? I agree NE was the better team, but please stop with the Peyton-hatin'... And just because of the NE attitude... Go Falcons!

[TVHOG]

I guess Manning better learn how to pass in the snow, cause the Pats stopped him cold, again.

[Kal-L, The Original]

Well, I was 2-1-1 last weekend-- the tie was the Jets-Chargers, which was just too close to call, and the loss was Vikings-Packers, which I still have a hard time believing-- and I was 3-1 this weekend. The only game I let my heart overrule my head was Indy-NE because I like Peyton so much, and it was, predictably, the only one I lost. I still can't believe the way the Colts were man-handled but that's what happened. Hats off to the Patriots coaching staff and players, who came up with an effective game plan against one of the best offenses in football history and executed it to perfection. My only problem with this now is that Peyton and Tony Dungy are now left with this game as the last memory of this stellar season, and now they have to answer all the questions, while no one is going to ask Bill Polian why he would waste _any_ draft pick on an offensive player, especially in the first three rounds, when this team so desperately needs defensive help.

My Super Bowl's still intact, but I really wish Indy had won because the Pats did to them what I expected the Steelers to do , now I'm not sure what's going to happen. The coolest thing about this game is that it matches a quarterback who's never lost a playoff game-- Brady-- against a quarterback who's never lost a game in the NFL at all-- Roethlisberger-- and now something's gotta give. I'm not changing my pick, but I have to say that NE may be the team again this year. This should be a great game.

Philly is at home and they have a great defense and a great offense and the game is outside in the cold and it's probably going to be snowing and Atlanta's a dome team with nothing on offense except a running game and Vick's athleticism and a good offense that doesn't match the Eagles'. Despite all that I'm sticking with the Falcons. I think this is going to be a great game as well, probably lower scoring than it would appear from this weekend's games in which both of these superior teams played sub-par defenses.

[Zungas]

I'm praying the fourth time is a charm of the eagles. The city and I can't handle another disappointment.

[fanofsteel]

Originally posted by M.D.
Yeah, I hope the Falcons roll it! It would be cool if they blow out NE.. I would be routing for NE in the superbowl (cause I like dynasties), except it really pisses me off that the NE commentators immediately come out gloating with "Peyton sucks, Brady is the better QB" articles. Their reasoning is always, Look who has the superbowl ring. Dudes, TRENT DILFER has a super bowl ring. Are these NE guys seriously saying Dilfer is a better QB because he has a superbowl ring and Peyton doesnt? I agree NE was the better team, but please stop with the Peyton-hatin'... And just because of the NE attitude... Go Falcons!

Brady is the better quarterback, undefeated in the playoffs, 2 SuperBowl wins, back to back 14-2 seasons, the evidence is there to see and difficult to argue against; but that doesn't infer that Manning sucks.
Some of the ire here was generated by the canonization of Manning and the vaunted Colt's offense without a peep about the Patriots capabilities.
Pittsburgh's game against the Jets didn't exactly look impressive. If they bring the same effort against the Pats next Sunday they are done!
Phillie should handle Atlanta fairly easily. The Falcon's are a one trick pony ( Vick ).
Gonna be another great day for football fans!

[Kal-L, The Original]

Originally posted by fanofsteel
Brady is the better quarterback, undefeated in the playoffs, 2 SuperBowl wins, back to back 14-2 seasons, the evidence is there to see and difficult to argue against; but that doesn't infer that Manning sucks.

But this is exactly the kind of nonsense MD was talking about. See, the problem with that argument is that Tom Brady didn't go 14-2 the last two years, and Tom Brady didn't win two Super Bowls-- the New England Patriots did. Tom Brady had a hand in it-- and I'm by no means saying he's a "caretaker" here; he is definitely a playmaker-- but your argument says that he would've done these same things if he played for the Arizona Cardinals, and that's just not reality.

Look at what happened two seasons ago, when the Pats couldn't run the ball at all and their defense wasn't as strong. Did Tom Brady win the Super Bowl that season? Did he even get into the playoffs that season? Did he even have a winning record that season? The answer to all these questions is no. And my question now is, "Why didn't he?"

He didn't because this is a team game and without a solid team around him no quarterback, no matter how good he is, can win a championship.

As for your picks this weekend: I don't really have an argument. NE can beat Pitt-- it wouldn't be a huge surprise; the Pats are battle-tested, although I still think the Steelers are the better team this season-- and Philly is actually a better team than Atlanta-- but the Eagles were a better team than Carolina last season, too, so I'll believe it when I see it from them.

[Disco]

I've learned long ago never to bet against the Patriots. Not that they will win again but they just have a nack for squeeking by when needed.

[TVHOG]

I have to take it up with you on Philly being a better team last year than Carolina. Last year the Panthers beat the Eagles because McNabb couldnt get it in the inzone. Carolina had/has the best front four in the NFL and they played really great defense on the Eagles receivers in that game. So maybe Philly had a better record than the Panthers, but I still dont think they were a better team. This year, I would have said that the Eagles would be in the Superbowl, but when Owens got hurt I counted them out. They played great against the Vikes, but Atlanta is total different team. I think it will be close, because of the Hotlanta defense and for the simple fact that Owens probably will not play.

[fanofsteel]

Kal-L, when did I say that Tom Brady could make Arizona a Super Bowl contender?
Of course there has never been a quarterback who can single handedly carry a football team to victory on a consistent basis, he must be surrounded by equally capable players, both on offense and defense, and the coaching staff must also be strongly factored in.
Tom Brady has absolutely no input that allowed the Pats defense to shut down the Colt's, but I think you can agree that the quarterback is the central position on a football team, and it makes pefect sense to evaluate the talent of a quarterback based on the consistent success of the team he plays for. I certainly recognize that Peyton Manning is also a great quarterback and if he played for the Patriots he also would be collecting the rings, but my personal opinion is that Tom Brady is the better player.

My response to M.D. was spurred on by his comparison of the quality of Tom Brady's quarterback play to Trent Dilfer because Dilfer has a Super Bowl ring also? I was pointing out a record that demonstrates the futility of that argument.

[Kal-L, The Original]

Originally posted by fanofsteel
Kal-L, when did I say that Tom Brady could make Arizona a Super Bowl contender?
Of course there has never been a quarterback who can single handedly carry a football team to victory on a consistent basis, he must be surrounded by equally capable players, both on offense and defense, and the coaching staff must also be strongly factored in.
Tom Brady has absolutely no input that allowed the Pats defense to shut down the Colt's, but I think you can agree that the quarterback is the central position on a football team, and it makes pefect sense to evaluate the talent of a quarterback based on the consistent success of the team he plays for. I certainly recognize that Peyton Manning is also a great quarterback and if he played for the Patriots he also would be collecting the rings, but my personal opinion is that Tom Brady is the better player.

My response to M.D. was spurred on by his comparison of the quality of Tom Brady's quarterback play to Trent Dilfer because Dilfer has a Super Bowl ring also? I was pointing out a record that demonstrates the futility of that argument.

You said Tom Brady won two Super Bowls; I pointed out that he was a member of a _team_ that won those games. And the Cardinals only came into it because the "<name a quarterback> won x number of championships" argument excludes the team concept and the logical extension of that line of reasoning is that that player would win anywhere, with any other players around him and that just doesn't make any sense.

Same with the amount of wins a pitcher has being used to determine the Cy Young winner.

BTW, sorry if the earlier post seemed harsher than I meant it to.

[fanofsteel]

Originally posted by Kal-L, The Original
You said Tom Brady won two Super Bowls; I pointed out that he was a member of a _team_ that won those games. And the Cardinals only came into it because the "<name a quarterback> won x number of championships" argument excludes the team concept and the logical extension of that line of reasoning is that that player would win anywhere, with any other players around him and that just doesn't make any sense.

Same with the amount of wins a pitcher has being used to determine the Cy Young winner.

BTW, sorry if the earlier post seemed harsher than I meant it to.

No problem here Kal-L.

We totally agree , especially in football. No one player is the show.

But again I think that the consistent success of a football team is a valid factor to site when evaluating the quality of the quarterback play.

[Unbreakable Lex]

That’s like saying that Elway was a better quarterback then Marino. It simply is not true.

Brady is a great leader, an above average quarterback.

Many can say that you have to judge a quarterback by his record, and I find that unfair. What if Brady had guys dropping passes or fumbling or a defense that couldn’t stop anyone? What if their O line was horrible? Too many factors are involved in football to rate a player on their won - loss ratio.

The best way to judge a quarterback is yards per attempt.

That, by the way, is also the same exact stat you should use to uncover the team that has the best chance to win the superbowl.

Check it out.

But to say Brady is better then Manning because of the rings and his won loss record is absolutely ridiculous.

[fanofsteel]

I believe it is a valid factor, but not a be all end all rule.

[Kal-L, The Original]

Originally posted by fanofsteel
I believe it is a valid factor, but not a be all end all rule.

My only question there is if you admit that Manning would have those rings and would've won those games had he played for the Pats, how can you then turn around and say that Brady is a better QB? That just doesn't make any sense to me.

[M.D.]

Sorry to have started the Bruhaha guys! I think that Brady is a phenominal QB to have led his team to 2 superbowl wins, but like UL, its like comparing Marino and Elway.. Elway was more successful at his position, but Marino was more proficient at his position. See the difference? Obviously, Brady is a more successful QB. Manning is more proficient.