Nfl Players Think Brady Is The Man To Build A Team Around

[-JJ-]

I have heard this point alot "they build the team around Manning" and I am not sure what that actually means??? . . . well specifically what it means in terms of one team doing more building around one player than another team . . .

I know we can't really get an answer from the media and they just like to talk, look "smart" and talk in cliches . . .

But honestly, from any of you colts fans, I like to hear an assesment of how/what the colts do differently that makes them build around a player more than another franchise . . . cause i don't see them any different than any other franchises . . . i would please like to hear specific examples and not generalizations as i can get from the NFL network . . . thanks . . .

Its very simple. They get a good Oline,WRs,and RB. Other teams don't do that <shrug> ;)

[Blue Horseshoe]

It's the system in New England. Any good quarterback would do just as well. Build the best offensive line you can afford to let the quarterback scan the field at his leisure. Throw dinks and dunks to two excellent tight ends and send welker into the seams while you have a speed guy on the outside take the top off of the defense. Gain massive yardage after the catch.

In Indianapolis Manning is the system and we have see what happens when he isn't there

[chad72]

yep.

in the snow and cold of chicago.

dome teams are soft in the cold weather, we all know this lol

Well, if that speculative thinking wasn't good enough for you. Game 1, 2007 season, in a dome, the Colts smoked the Saints. That Saints team, without Greg Williams at DC, was not going to hold up vs the 2006 Colts SB champs, enough said . That Saints team did not have the O-line to run the ball nor a D that could limit Manning. The 2009 team, yes, that 2006 or 2007 team, no. It may have saved us Colts fans from defending the Colts when questioned about winning a SB vs Grossman, we would have beaten Brees even worse since unlike the Bears D, that Saints D was nothing to challenge Peyton.

So much for the dome team beating the cold weather team in the rain, huh? How did that work out for the Bears? We beat the odds consistently that playoff season and if we could beat Brady with a 3-21 deficit, we would have found a way to beat any other QB. It was just meant to be, that team was not as talented as the 2005 team but way more hungry, most objective people can tell it was meant to be for the 2006 Colts.

Regardless, back to topic. Like I said before, the other 2 phases of any team with an elite QB feed off what the offense is doing. The Pats team of 2008 was a loaded team, coming off a 16-0 season, so they returned a lot of talent plus an easier schedule with good coaching should explain why they went 11-5, I can't explain it any other way. It is not like Cassel is a world beater, though I will admit he is better than Painter . Lightning doesn't strike twice with 6th and 7th round picks, Pats however managed to do that with unearthing Brady and Cassel and turning a back up at that point in time into a successful starter (though the caliber is different as we can all see). The Pats have a better system and coaching staff that knows to get more out of their players, IMO. Admitting that is not going to win arguments on any side for this thread, it just seems logical to me.

[Yehoodi]

Typical patriot fan response.

Call it what you want, Pats got CAUGHT cheating. Asterisk.

Colts at least beat the Bears fair and square.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EU1O-hGxgg

now that video was funny . . .

[ViriLudant]

It's the system in New England. Any good quarterback would do just as well. Build the best offensive line you can afford to let the quarterback scan the field at his leisure. Throw dinks and dunks to two excellent tight ends and send welker into the seams while you have a speed guy on the outside take the top off of the defense. Gain massive yardage after the catch.

In Indianapolis Manning is the system and we have see what happens when he isn't there

This post demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of both the Patriots' and Colts' "systems."

[shecolt]

At the risk of once again displaying my ignorance , I'm writing in the hopes that someone will be able to explain this to me. The article said:

A Sports Illustrated poll asked 272 NFL players, “Who would you pick first if you were building a team from scratch?” Brady came in first, with 24 percent of the votes. Peyton Manning came in second, with 18 percent — a result that likely would have been different if the poll had been taken later, as this survey was distributed to players before we all knew how severe Manning’s neck injury was. Coming in third place was Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers, at 14 percent

Now no offense to Tom Brady, the Patriots, or their fans. Even if this poll had said that Peyton had come in first I would have questioned the validity of this poll.

First, why 272 players? Is there some reason only 272 players were asked? And, who were these players? Were they chosen at random? If so, that could skew the results as there could have been more players from one team asked than from another.

A better way would have been to ask the same number of players from each team. But if so, 272 divided by 32 gives us 8.5. Which would say that one player from each team only received 1/2 of a vote. :???:

Although the article doesn't say it, I think it is far more likely that all the players were asked and that only 272 responded. So, if 53 players on every team were asked; that would give us a total of 1,696 players of which 272 is only a mere 16%. And again, of that 16%; it is also highly likely the results were skewed because more players from one team responded than from another.

When I see polls like this, I give them little to no credence. Am I missing something?

[MAC]

When I see polls like this, I give them little to no credence. Am I missing something?

About 1,424 players.

Of course you are right on the money. Leave it to a moderator to introduce reason into a Manning-Brady conversation.

I'm sure that this will now go in a much saner direction:

"The Pats must have cheated, they stacked the poling booths"

"The Colts tried to stack the polling booths but without Manning they couldn't find them."

[chad72]

To be honest, Peyton, if you quantify it across drafts, probably defied the odds as a #1 QB pick. Brady didn't do much in college to go by. So, are we going to do voting in hindsight and then make Brady the first pick??? It is a fruitless exercise, IMO. Out of all these picks, Peyton is the only No.1 pick, it makes more sense to compare No.1 picks and ask which No.1 pick would you build your franchise around?

If Brady had showed in college what he is showing now at the NFL level, he may never have gotten to the 6th round, isn't that a reasonable assumption? Is that Peyton or Rodgers' fault, where they were picked w.r.t Brady based on how they did in college?

What if I knew Joe Montana was not going to throw INTs in 4 SBs all of which that he won??? Then Tom Walsh better acknowledge Joe Montana be the No.1 pick then and not a 3rd rounder if he went back in time in hindsight, that would also mean the 49ers wouldn't have Joe Montana and history would have changed (same with Pats and Brady) . You see what I am trying to say here???

[-JJ-]

At the risk of once again displaying my ignorance , I'm writing in the hopes that someone will be able to explain this to me. The article said:

A Sports Illustrated poll asked 272 NFL players, “Who would you pick first if you were building a team from scratch?” Brady came in first, with 24 percent of the votes. Peyton Manning came in second, with 18 percent — a result that likely would have been different if the poll had been taken later, as this survey was distributed to players before we all knew how severe Manning’s neck injury was. Coming in third place was Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers, at 14 percent

Now no offense to Tom Brady, the Patriots, or their fans. Even if this poll had said that Peyton had come in first I would have questioned the validity of this poll.

First, why 272 players? Is there some reason only 272 players were asked? And, who were these players? Were they chosen at random? If so, that could skew the results as there could have been more players from one team asked than from another.

A better way would have been to ask the same number of players from each team. But if so, 272 divided by 32 gives us 8.5. Which would say that one player from each team only received 1/2 of a vote. :???:

Although the article doesn't say it, I think it is far more likely that all the players were asked and that only 272 responded. So, if 53 players on every team were asked; that would give us a total of 1,696 players of which 272 is only a mere 16%. And again, of that 16%; it is also highly likely the results were skewed because more players from one team responded than from another.

When I see polls like this, I give them little to no credence. Am I missing something?

No I questioned the 272 too...ok so what 272.

But it Doesn't matter. They're all wrong anyway. You don't build a team around over 34 yr old QBs. duh

You'd go with the Stafford's generation. Hey..maybe even Sanchez lol.

[Andy]

I would like to say something about Brady... it must be nice to have the best O-line in the NFL, a 1000 yard rusher, a receiver who turns 3 yard passes into 8 yard passes (Colts don't have a guy like that). Things are better on the Patriots than on the Colts. On their defense, they have one of the best DTs, an ever improving MLB, who is great, a great rookie CB. Their D, O-line and running backs are better than ours. If Manning had all that, OMG he would tear crap up...

[-JJ-]

To be honest, Peyton, if you quantify it across drafts, probably defied the odds as a #1 QB pick. Brady didn't do much in college to go by. So, are we going to do voting in hindsight and then make Brady the first pick??? It is a fruitless exercise, IMO. Out of all these picks, Peyton is the only No.1 pick, it makes more sense to compare No.1 picks and ask which No.1 pick would you build your franchise around?

If Brady had showed in college what he is showing now at the NFL level, he may never have gotten to the 6th round, isn't that a reasonable assumption? Is that Peyton or Rodgers' fault, where they were picked w.r.t Brady based on how they did in college?

What if I knew Joe Montana was not going to throw INTs in 4 SBs all of which that he won??? Then Tom Walsh better acknowledge Joe Montana be the No.1 pick then and not a 3rd rounder if he went back in time in hindsight, that would also mean the 49ers wouldn't have Joe Montana and history would have changed (same with Pats and Brady) . You see what I am trying to say here???

that's a no brainer. If they mean when they started PM 100%. heck TB didn't even start for 2 yrs.

thats just hindsight.

In hindsight I'd go with Brady. As Kraft said, he had the one trait to carry a team..his enthusiasm level(vented into winning).It's extremely contagious.

[StaticColt77]

As great as Brady is, I'm still not convinced he's the best of this generation.

When I watch the Pats play, I see a great team. An awesome special teams, a hall of fame coach(spygate or not), a defense that gets turnovers(2nd last year in most TO's), and probably the best pass protecting lines in the league. I mean, he barely see's pressure. And when he has seen a good amount of pressure, that most QB's see regularly, he makes some questionable throws. Not to say he isn't good under pressure, he excels in pocket presence. But I don't see him doing that behind an average or inconsistent line.

His teammates excel in yard after catch(YAC), a lot of his 2-3yd passes easily turn into 20yds. I mean he's great, but people say he plays with NOBODIES, and that's simply not true.

There's no debate that he was the better QB last year, and probably will be this year. But he has unbelievable support around him, and I'm not convinced that another QB could easily step back there, and not be able to win with that team. But Tom comes through when his number is called, like most of the elite QB's in the game.

I think Manning has had superb talent around him too, but at least I can admit it. :-p

Either way, both sides cannot look at it objectively.

[Moose Of Woe]

I think Manning has had superb talent around him too, but at least I can admit it. :-p

On offense no question.

Marvin Harrison - second best receiver in NFL history IMO.

Edgerrin James and Jeff Saturday were great back in their primes.

Dallas Clark was (and still might be) a great TE.

Wayne is a solid receiver.

Collie is up and coming. (If he can stay healthy)

Where is the rest of this talent on the field you speak of? The O-line has regressed every season since Tarik Glenn retired.

Coaching staff?

Special teams?

Defense? (Granted Freeney is/was great) Sanders could never stay in once piece.

Surrounding a player with talent consists of more than just one phase of the game/receiving corps.

[StaticColt77]

Um...? What context are you reading my comment in?

"On offense no question."

That's what I meant.

" Defense? (Granted Freeney is/was great) Sanders could never stay in once piece."

Doesn't matter, defense is the reason we even won an SB under Manning. They were the number 1 D in the playoffs that year, when it mattered most.

[ReMeDy]

I would like to say something about Brady... it must be nice to have the best O-line in the NFL, a 1000 yard rusher, a receiver who turns 3 yard passes into 8 yard passes (Colts don't have a guy like that). Things are better on the Patriots than on the Colts. On their defense, they have one of the best DTs, an ever improving MLB, who is great, a great rookie CB. Their D, O-line and running backs are better than ours. If Manning had all that, OMG he would tear crap up...

You forgot one of the most important pieces to the puzzle... One of the best head coaches (if not THE) best head coach ever to play in the National Football League. Belichick is a genius at figuring out what guys are good at and readjusting the plays/scheme to complement their talents. Some head coaches, like Mike Shanahan, would not do that (it's either their way, or the highway). Furthermore, Belichick is a master at manipulating draft boards to secure superb middle round talent.

Brady also had Josh McDaniels for a long time. Say what you want about McDaniels, but he is a superb QB coach. McDaniels even coached Kyle Orton into a competent QB, and perhaps played a strong role in Matt Cassel's inevitable trade to Kansas as a qualified starter.

[GoGoColts]

Patriots fans who get on a Colts board to try and convince us that Brady is better are only here because they don't fully believe that Brady is better. They are looking to convince us Colts fans that Brady is better so that they can believe it themselves.

[dynasty13]

This is getting silly.

The problem I have with the 'Pats won 11 games without Brady' argument as it relates to the Brady/Manning debate is that we are taking two extremes and comparing them as if they were similar situations. On one hand, you're taking an 18 win team that was generally thought to be the best to ever play this game and putting in a capable backup quarterback that was in the system for years. On the other hand, you're taking a team that struggled to 10 wins and putting in an aging backup quarterback that was retired until a week before the season started. Then we're looking at how each did in their respective situations and comparing them as though the results are indicative of the void left by the starter instead of how each situation set the replacements up to succeed.

I just dont see how we can use the results of two different situations, with different personnel and game strategies, as some great proof that one quarterback is better than the other. I certainly appreciate peoples opinions and wont try to change anyones mind if they said Peyton was better or Brady was better, but I simply cant accept when this is the argument that they use to prove their claim. Two many differences to make a legitimate comparison.

[GoGoColts]

This is getting silly.

The problem I have with the 'Pats won 11 games without Brady' argument as it relates to the Brady/Manning debate is that we are taking two extremes and comparing them as if they were similar situations. On one hand, you're taking an 18 win team that was generally thought to be the best to ever play this game and putting in a capable backup quarterback that was in the system for years. On the other hand, you're taking a team that struggled to 10 wins and putting in an aging backup quarterback that was retired until a week before the season started. Then we're looking at how each did in their respective situations and comparing them as though the results are indicative of the void left by the starter instead of how each situation set the replacements up to succeed.

I just dont see how we can use the results of two different situations, with different personnel and game strategies, as some great proof that one quarterback is better than the other. I certainly appreciate peoples opinions and wont try to change anyones mind if they said Peyton was better or Brady was better, but I simply cant accept when this is the argument that they use to prove their claim. Two many differences to make a legitimate comparison.

I don't agree with what you are saying, but you are a Pats fan so of course that is what you want to believe. However, if you really believed it, you would not be on this board looking for social proof that it is true.

[dynasty13]

I don't agree with what you are saying, but you are a Pats fan so of course that is what you want to believe. However, if you really believed it, you would not be on this board looking for social proof that it is true.

I wouldnt be on this board looking for proof that what is true? I made no claim one way or the other in regards to the Manning/Brady conversation...I simply made the case that saying that the Patriots can win without Brady and that proves something in the Manning/Brady debate is a flawed argument because in your attempt to compare the 2008 Pats success to that of the 2011 Colts failure you refuse to take into account the factors or situations that contributed to the results. You cant take two extremes and compare them as if they are equal.

[patsallday]

I would like to say something about Brady... it must be nice to have the best O-line in the NFL, a 1000 yard rusher, a receiver who turns 3 yard passes into 8 yard passes (Colts don't have a guy like that). Things are better on the Patriots than on the Colts. On their defense, they have one of the best DTs, an ever improving MLB, who is great, a great rookie CB. Their D, O-line and running backs are better than ours. If Manning had all that, OMG he would tear crap up...

keep making excuses for him.

[12>18]

Okay GoGoColts, what's more pathetic? The Patriots fans that come here to have discussions about football which inevitably turn into Brady vs Manning on EVERY SINGLE post about the Patriots in the NFL COMMON AREA, or the Colts fans who use their numbers to overwhelm them with their opinions on their own site, and in a board not even dedicated to talking about their team? Their fans need "social proof" their QB is good? I think they get plenty to proof year in and year out that he is. Peyton is too, before you snap. And stop it about SpyGate, you're only making yourself look bad.

As someone who can speak objectively about this, I watch as every single Patriots thread on here becomes this, and guess what? IT IS RARELY THE PATS FANS THAT START IT. Rarely. Not saying it doesn't happen, but more often than not they are civil. Everyone needs to get over it. We are watching two LEGENDARY quarterbacks who will both be remembered for all time in NFL history. There is no wrong answer. They are both QBs you would build your team around. This thread is merely stating that the people WHO PLAY THE GAME think that Brady is the QB who they would build their team around. And let's all face it. If we were playing Madden and were doing a fantasy draft for every player in the NFL and we had the first pick, ALL of us would choose Aaron Rodgers, because you wouldn't have to draft another star QB in 5 years. (At least if you're thinking rationally you would, which leads me to believe many here wouldn't).

[gspdx]

gspdx, on 23 September 2011 - 01:49 PM, said:

Hey-I think I'll run to a Pats message board and start a thread about all of Peyton's MVP awards. Or not.

Why waste my time?

it's a current article in the nfl section. you guys sounds like you're either jealous, or about ten years old

I guess my point was it's childish to rush over to a Colts board and post stuff about Brady. The reason I wouldn't go to a Pats board and post anything about Manning is because I don't care to start the "Brady is better than Manning"or "Manning is better that Brady" threads. It's not like I'm going to change their minds about the issue. The point of doing this is just to stir the pot. They always end up being childish and pointless. Most of the content in this thread sounds like it is from a 10 year old.

[ViriLudant]

You forgot one of the most important pieces to the puzzle... One of the best head coaches (if not THE) best head coach ever to play in the National Football League. Belichick is a genius at figuring out what guys are good at and readjusting the plays/scheme to complement their talents. Some head coaches, like Mike Shanahan, would not do that (it's either their way, or the highway). Furthermore, Belichick is a master at manipulating draft boards to secure superb middle round talent.

Brady also had Josh McDaniels for a long time. Say what you want about McDaniels, but he is a superb QB coach. McDaniels even coached Kyle Orton into a competent QB, and perhaps played a strong role in Matt Cassel's inevitable trade to Kansas as a qualified starter.

Uh, McDaniels was with Brady for about 2 seasons.

[tinman11]

Let's not turn this into a Manning-Brady conversation...

But I think if you build a team around 1 person, it's Peyton Manning. Why? Because that's what the Colts been doing for the last 10 years, and they've won a SB. The Patriots DO NOT build their team around Brady, because they build their team around nothing. They stock up with young talent, and Belicheck turns some of them into stars like Mayo, or Hernandez, or Gronkowski, or Meriweather (not any more), or McCourty. They're asking to build a team around 1 person, and the Colts do that right now, and they succeed. The Patriots clearly don't build around Brady becuase they went 11-5 without him. Belicheck is the guy they "build around" So I'm being honest and I say Manning, not because I'm a Colts fan, because the Colts build their team around Manning and they succeed. However, building your team around one person is not the smartest thing... look at us now...

You would really choose a mid-30's qb, who's career is in jeopardy after major neck surgery, to build your team around? I think it's very obvious Manning's best years are behind him. Matthew Stafford or someone else in their twenties wouldn't be a more obvious option?

[GoPats]

It's the system in New England. Any good quarterback would do just as well. Build the best offensive line you can afford to let the quarterback scan the field at his leisure. Throw dinks and dunks to two excellent tight ends and send welker into the seams while you have a speed guy on the outside take the top off of the defense. Gain massive yardage after the catch.

In Indianapolis Manning is the system and we have see what happens when he isn't there

So if it's that simple, it begs the question.

Why don't the Colts and other teams run their offenses that way?

Not trying to be antagonistic. It's a real question that no one has ever been able to answer, or they've just chosen to ignore it because they realize it completely blows up their argument. ;)

[WSO]

The patriots build great teams but I feel Belichick is the reason moreso for that.

Brady is still a great quarterback and i would build my team around Brady, Manning or heck even Rodgers , Brees etc. all great qbs

[KyFan18]

First of all, why do Patriots fans even come to this board if not to stir up crap in the Manning/Brady debate? This is on colts.com, so there is no reason for Pats fans to be here, especially if they don't want their QB badmouthed when posting articles about him. The point is, don't come to a Colts forum posting articles about Brady and then get butt hurt when he gets criticized.

[shecolt]

Patriot fans (and fans of any other team) are always welcome to start a thread as long as they abide by forum rules when doing so.

However, I do agree that there have been times when the purpose of those threads seems to be nothing more than an attempt to

It would be best if Colt's fans would just ignore such threads because they would then quickly fade away. But, that isn't going to happen.

Even this thread which was based on a stupid poll has gone on for several pages. Since this thread is going nowhere other than to rehash the great debate, I could close it. But, I am sure that another such thread (started by either a Colt or Patriot fan) would soon be posted.

Maybe it would help if I edited the title of this thread to read . . . 3.8% of NFL Players. As I said before, this poll was based on a mere 16% response rate. Let't take the math even further.

Brady received 24% of those votes. Which equals 65 votes. So, 3.8% of NFL players voted for him.

Manning received 18% of those votes. Which equals 49 votes. So, 2.9% of NFL players voted for him.

Yes, Brady received 16 or 0.9% more votes. Seems like a rather paltry amount to me as a basis for this discussion. :eyebrow:

[Yehoodi]

First of all, why do Patriots fans even come to this board if not to stir up crap in the Manning/Brady debate? This is on colts.com, so there is no reason for Pats fans to be here, especially if they don't want their QB badmouthed when posting articles about him. The point is, don't come to a Colts forum posting articles about Brady and then get butt hurt when he gets criticized.

Thank You for the welcoming words KyFan18. . . the last time I checked this folder it is the NFL General section . . . also there are fans of more than just the Pats on this website . . . the one thing that I love about this website is that it does have a NFL General section so we all can come here and post stuff about the NFL, sometimes we post about the colts, in the colts section, and sometimes general stuff in this section . . . naturally a team will likely attract fans from their biggest rival, and as such there are more fans from that team, and sometimes subject matter/news from that team, you will get more posts . . . as opposed to say the Bills, where you have fewer fans, we have one (Mr. Buffalo34), and less news, but when there is news, Bills 3-0 :eyebrow: , we get threads . . .

it kind of like a big internet living room, or general store where people gather to chat about football . . . you may be too young for the Petticoat Junction/Green Arces analogy, but if you live in Hooterville and go down to Sam Drucker's general store to buy your supply of feed, flour and soap, and you see Uncle Joe playing checkers with Floyd near the woodstove and they are talking about who is a better QB, Bart Starr or Johnny Unitas, you don't have to stop and can just walk on by, perhaps tomorrow they will be talking about Johnny U and the Colts . . . fast forward about 45 years and the internet, please don't feel the need to stop by a thread if it is not your subject . . .

true, I have on more than one occasion dived out of the internet cloads to post a not so flatterning post about PM, or pumped up TB's tires, or just simply wanted to rustle the natives, and yes have welcomed one of the new smilies faces , and have used it on a few occasions, but this is all only in good jest . . . and true there have been here and there a post or two by some, perhap a thread, that might be off base, but that is a small price to pay for having fans from all teams in the room/store . . .

again, one thing that makes this board so great, it is like a good ole general store were we all can meet and discuss football in all forms, and there is Sam Drucker behind the counter with his apron, the aroma of coffee fills the store from the pot of coffee on the wood stove, the fresh crisp country air outside, a handful of checkers games agoing, and all are cheeringly taking shop about football and the harvest dance whilst we sip the freshly made java . . .

oh wait do I hear John Facenda . . .

" . . . on a crisp fall Saturday afternoon in northern Indiana there is no rain,

as an artic wind decents from Manitoba and brussles across the plain,

corn stalks lean and wheat fields sway,

as fans of all embark on their way,

all to decent on Sam Drucker's store,

cheerful in the company as they rummage through the door,

the coffee abrewing and the aroma the same,

as the patrons of all debate the thinking man's game,

the warmth of the stove fills the room,

as Sam whisks across the floor with his broom,

there is one that whistles a toon,

and all settle in for another Saturday afternoon . . . "

. . . and some think this internet forum thingie was just a plastic keyboard and LCD monitor . . . :rolleyes:

most may know who John Facenda is but if you dont, here he is as his best (quoting Sam Sabol's poem about the Autumn Wind and its effect on our beloved football, as a note the Raiders took the song as their anthem) . . . if this video doesn't get one pumped for football or discussing football, i don't know what does . . .

[Yehoodi]

Patriot fans (and fans of any other team) are always welcome to start a thread as long as they abide by forum rules when doing so.

However, I do agree that there have been times when the purpose of those threads seems to be nothing more than an attempt to

It would be best if Colt's fans would just ignore such threads because they would then quickly fade away. But, that isn't going to happen.

Agreed, we do get a zinger thread here and there, and perhaps get more zinger subjects on an internet venue that one would get in person at the local bar or coffe shop . . . and for the most part if it is off base they are only rare, its it best to avoid them if they might go in the wrong direction . . . but it tough to do . . . i think you mods do a great job on this site, balancing the removal of zinger stuff but keeping the door open for different thought and also providing a venue for fans of all to come together to discuss our beloved football . . . its tough for me to find Bills, Colts, Chargers, and Steelers fan here in Massachusetts . . . nice to have forums as an outlet . . .

[GoPats]

Patriot fans (and fans of any other team) are always welcome to start a thread as long as they abide by forum rules when doing so.

However, I do agree that there have been times when the purpose of those threads seems to be nothing more than an attempt to

It would be best if Colt's fans would just ignore such threads because they would then quickly fade away. But, that isn't going to happen.

Even this thread which was based on a stupid poll has gone on for several pages. Since this thread is going nowhere other than to rehash the great debate, I could close it. But, I am sure that another such thread (started by either a Colt or Patriot fan) would soon be posted.

Maybe it would help if I edited the title of this thread to read . . . 3.8% of NFL Players. As I said before, this poll was based on a mere 16% response rate. Let't take the math even further.

Brady received 24% of those votes. Which equals 65 votes. So, 3.8% of NFL players voted for him.

Manning received 18% of those votes. Which equals 49 votes. So, 2.9% of NFL players voted for him.

Yes, Brady received 16 or 0.9% more votes. Seems like a rather paltry amount to me as a basis for this discussion. :eyebrow:

More importantly, who is the dreamy woman in your avatar? She's drinking coffee too. I think I'm in love.

[gspdx]

Quick - let's get over to the Pats board and post this article!

My link

No real surprise here.....

Peyton Manning won't receive any MVP votes in 2011.

But maybe he should (even as his status for this season remains hazy).

No one else can match Peyton Manning's four NFL MVP awards. Over the last 10 years, Manning became the NFL's only four-time MVP, led the Colts to more wins than any other team in any other decade, won a Super Bowl, amassed numbers that track toward all the league's major passing records and continuously built a Hall of Fame resume that will one day place him in the conversation as the greatest quarterback in history.

But has his absence also elevated him above Patriots QB Tom Brady, the reigning MVP and player to whom Manning is most often compared in this era?

New England went 11-5 in 2008 despite losing Brady, who was coming off an MVP effort in 2007, to a season-ending knee injury in the opener. The Steelers went 3-1 last year without suspended Ben Roethlisberger, putting them on track to their AFC championship. The rebuilding Titans are 2-1 this year despite getting next to nothing from RB Chris Johnson, who held out all summer. The Cowboys played their best last year after QB Tony Romo went down with a broken collarbone. The Eagles always seem to have competent subs at the ready. And then there are the Packers, who divorced themselves from three-time MVP Brett Favre after the 2007 season but were champions again three years later under Aaron Rodgers' leadership.

(Admittedly, there are arguments to be made for Rodgers, Troy Polamalu, Drew Brees and Ray Lewis -- the Ravens have missed the playoffs four times in the last 11 years, twice when Sugar Ray was hurt. Heck, even Matthew Stafford is making his case in 2011.)

Still, after nine consecutive playoff berths and 11 postseason appearances in the last 12 years, 0-3 Indianapolis looks utterly rudderless now without its injured leader.

[ViriLudant]

First of all, why do Patriots fans even come to this board if not to stir up crap in the Manning/Brady debate? This is on colts.com, so there is no reason for Pats fans to be here, especially if they don't want their QB badmouthed when posting articles about him. The point is, don't come to a Colts forum posting articles about Brady and then get butt hurt when he gets criticized.

Too bad. Many of us have posted here for years. Relax.

[Yehoodi]

Quick - let's get over to the Pats board and post this article!

My link

No real surprise here.....

nice article, but it is written by a single individual, as opposed to be from a wider voting base as the vote in the OP . . . i understand where you are coming from . . . and actually i would not mind seeing an article on Manning on a Pats forum about a team being built around him especially if it is from a national magazine as SI . . .

I know it may seem like a small voting base - 272 voters, but if my math is correct, the AP MVP voting is only among 50 voters, a voting size 1/5 the size of the pool in the OP article . . . I think most of us would give some merit to the AP MVP Award in that it has some correlation to the talent of the individual honor; and as such, would likely welcome or at least lend some credence to a decision garnered by a voting pool 5 times its size . . . just a thought . . .

[dynasty13]

First of all, why do Patriots fans even come to this board if not to stir up crap in the Manning/Brady debate? This is on colts.com, so there is no reason for Pats fans to be here, especially if they don't want their QB badmouthed when posting articles about him. The point is, don't come to a Colts forum posting articles about Brady and then get butt hurt when he gets criticized.

Guess what, pal? I get my Patriots news here before I even get it on Boston sites...so lets not act like its always Patriots fans running here to post about the Patriots. And as others have mentioned, this is the NFL General section...and there have been times where we were able to count 11 threads at one time that contained the word "Patriots", "Brady", or "Belichick" in their titles.

[patsallday]

Guess what, pal? I get my Patriots news here before I even get it on Boston sites...so lets not act like its always Patriots fans running here to post about the Patriots. And as others have mentioned, this is the NFL General section...and there have been times where we were able to count 11 threads at one time that contained the word "Patriots", "Brady", or "Belichick" in their titles.

game. set. match.

[shecolt]

More importantly, who is the dreamy woman in your avatar? She's drinking coffee too. I think I'm in love.

I do like you, GoPats! A great attempt to derail this thread.

I have no idea who that woman is. I was searching google images one night for a new hairstyle, found that pic, and knew I had to make it my avatar.

I liked it that the woman looked somewhat carefree and was drinking coffee (or tea, my preference).

But, what attracted me to the photo was how her long flowing tresses turned into horses (or, in my eyes ).

[MAC]

I do like you, GoPats! A great attempt to derail this thread.

I have no idea who that woman is. I was searching google images one night for a new hairstyle, found that pic, and knew I had to make it my avatar.

I liked it that the woman looked somewhat carefree and was drinking coffee (or tea, my preference).

But, what attracted me to the photo was how her long flowing tresses turned into horses (or, in my eyes ).

Hey, you're right - and that's a terrific Avatar.

I never noticed that before, and suspect that most men aren't looking too closely at the flowing tresses.

Twinnings English Breakfast. Can't function without it.

[seomaster440]

we really watching nfl online in many sites and there is a site http://watchnflonline.org

they also provide this facilities, thanks.

[gspdx]

nice article, but it is written by a single individual, as opposed to be from a wider voting base as the vote in the OP . . . i understand where you are coming from . . . and actually i would not mind seeing an article on Manning on a Pats forum about a team being built around him especially if it is from a national magazine as SI . . .

I know it may seem like a small voting base - 272 voters, but if my math is correct, the AP MVP voting is only among 50 voters, a voting size 1/5 the size of the pool in the OP article . . . I think most of us would give some merit to the AP MVP Award in that it has some correlation to the talent of the individual honor; and as such, would likely welcome or at least lend some credence to a decision garnered by a voting pool 5 times its size . . . just a thought . . .

But let's talk statistics. If there were 272 repsonses out of a population of 1696 (53 players * 32 teams) and you calculate the confidence interval based on those two numbers:

To be 95% confident that your numbers are correct the confidence interval is 5.45%

To be 99% confident that your numbers are correct the confidence interval is 7.17%

In other words - if they conducted this poll 100 times 95 times Brady's score would be between 29.45 and 18.55 and Manning's score would be between 23.45 and 12.55.

If they conducted this poll 100 times 99 times Brady's score would be between 31.17 and 16.83 and Manning's score would be between 25.17 and 18.83.

So what I'm saying is this sample size is too small to have a reasonalbe confidence interval - say plus or minus 3%.

This article is no more valid than the article I posted.