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

[patsallday]

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

one writer's opinion vs. player's opinion.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[gspdx]

one writer's opinion vs. player's opinion.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Thanks for ignoring my entire post about how this isn't an accurate representation of the players opinion. Based on a statistical representation the confidence interval is just too wide.

[shakedownstreet]

is this where we start talking about ice cream & cake?

[Yehoodi]

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.

nor is the any more or less valid than the MVP award . . . this is my my point . . . we "accept" the MVP Award as having some sort of merit, like winning a championship ON the field of play, or games in the regular season, or some given statisitic that happens on the field and not by some hand selected voters . . .

the issue is not one of statistics but one of perspective and consistency . . . we accept the MVP award even tho its is voted on by a cherry picked few voters . . . I am not sure how many sports writers/talk show hosts/TV are AP members, but here in Boston alone there are least 20, which does not include the Cape, cities of Lowell, Worcester, Springfield, Pittsfield, Brockton and the other cities in Massachusetts and not to mentions the surrounding states . . . the AP has 1700 newpapers and over 5000 TV and radios stations, all of which have their sports writers . . .

so yes your statistics point are interesting but we want to be consistent . . . the pool in the instant case is 272/1696 or about 16% of its members, so there are the associated margin of errors as you indicated . . . to have the same margins of error or less one would have to have less than 312 sports members of the AP, that is 50/312=16% . . . there is probably more than 312 AP members in NY & Newe England along . . . ;and as such, the hand selected pool of the MVP voters is a much lower perchange of the over all population as the hand selected voters of the instant article . . .

so the botton line in all of this, if we accept a determination by a body in which it has x% of his members deciding, we should not then later dish a determination by a body which has a higher percentage of his members voting . . . :eyebrow:, well at least not dish the later body's decision based on the reason "its only asking a x% of its members"

[gspdx]

nor is the any more or less valid than the MVP award . . . this is my my point . . . we "accept" the MVP Award as having some sort of merit, like winning a championship ON the field of play, or games in the regular season, or some given statisitic that happens on the field and not by some hand selected voters . . .

the issue is not one of statistics but one of perspective and consistency . . . we accept the MVP award even tho its is voted on by a cherry picked few voters . . . I am not sure how many sports writers/talk show hosts/TV are AP members, but here in Boston alone there are least 20, which does not include the Cape, cities of Lowell, Worcester, Springfield, Pittsfield, Brockton and the other cities in Massachusetts and not to mentions the surrounding states . . . the AP has 1700 newpapers and over 5000 TV and radios stations, all of which have their sports writers . . .

so yes your statistics point are interesting but we want to be consistent . . . the pool in the instant case is 272/1696 or about 16% of its members, so there are the associated margin of errors as you indicated . . . to have the same margins of error or less one would have to have less than 312 sports members of the AP, that is 50/312=16% . . . there is probably more than 312 AP members in NY & Newe England along . . . ;and as such, the hand selected pool of the MVP voters is a much lower perchange of the over all population as the hand selected voters of the instant article . . .

so the botton line in all of this, if we accept a determination by a body in which it has x% of his members deciding, we should not then later dish a determination by a body which has a higher percentage of his members voting . . . :eyebrow:, well at least not dish the later body's decision based on the reason "its only asking a x% of its members"

[gspdx]

I see your point - and I wouldn't necessarily agree that the way the MVP is selected is valid - but that is the accepted method. We don't ask the player's to select the MVP and we don't ask a small sample of pplayers to select the MVP.

There is an agreed upon method and it is selected AP members. There is no accepted method of selecting the "QB to build a team aound". It was an unoffical poll that was taken that received a very low return. Based on a statistical analysis I wouldn't draw any conclusions about this.

But the further point is that Pats fans can come here and post what ever they want and that is fine. I wouldn't go to a Pats board and post anything because I'm not going to convince you of the "Manning is better that Brady" argument because that is what this was originally about. We can argue our sides all day long and when it's intelligent and well thought out like this I like the debate. But at the end of the day I know Manning is better that Brady.

And you know Brady is better than Manning. Like politics and religion.

[gspdx]

game. set. match.

A tennis analogy in a football thread?

[gspdx]

One more point - some of you Pats fans are great on here. I love some of the insights and comments and I think those of you that are here for a good conversation know who you are.

But there are some homers and guys that just want to stir the pot. Too bad.

[shecolt]

nor is the any more or less valid than the MVP award . . . this is my my point . . . we "accept" the MVP Award as having some sort of merit, like winning a championship ON the field of play, or games in the regular season, or some given statisitic that happens on the field and not by some hand selected voters . . .

the issue is not one of statistics but one of perspective and consistency . . . we accept the MVP award even tho its is voted on by a cherry picked few voters . . . I am not sure how many sports writers/talk show hosts/TV are AP members, but here in Boston alone there are least 20, which does not include the Cape, cities of Lowell, Worcester, Springfield, Pittsfield, Brockton and the other cities in Massachusetts and not to mentions the surrounding states . . . the AP has 1700 newpapers and over 5000 TV and radios stations, all of which have their sports writers . . .

so yes your statistics point are interesting but we want to be consistent . . . the pool in the instant case is 272/1696 or about 16% of its members, so there are the associated margin of errors as you indicated . . . to have the same margins of error or less one would have to have less than 312 sports members of the AP, that is 50/312=16% . . . there is probably more than 312 AP members in NY & Newe England along . . . ;and as such, the hand selected pool of the MVP voters is a much lower perchange of the over all population as the hand selected voters of the instant article . . .

so the botton line in all of this, if we accept a determination by a body in which it has x% of his members deciding, we should not then later dish a determination by a body which has a higher percentage of his members voting . . . :eyebrow:, well at least not dish the later body's decision based on the reason "its only asking a x% of its members"

I do understand your point. However, we know who those 50 AP members are. When the MVP receives an overwhelming or unanimous vote, I do accept it.

In 2003, I did not accept it. That year Peyton Manning and Steve McNair shared the MVP. There was a Titan's writer who voted for McNair. If there had been a Colt's writer who had been among that 50, he/she may very well have voted for Manning thereby giving him the majority of the votes.

If I knew who those 272 players were, I may or may not give this poll more credence. Should it be the case that the votes were somewhat evenly distributed among the players of all 32 teams; then I would. But, if I found out that those votes were largely cast by players from a small handfull of teams, then I wouldn't.

[GoPats]

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).

Cool, and I've said all along that the Patriots would be better off without Brady than the Colts have been without Manning. They're a deeper team and the coaching isn't even in the same stratosphere. So there's a lot of truth to that editorial.

It does seem, though - and please understand this is an observation and not a criticism - that the Colts' organization, from the tippy top all the way down to the fans, just sort of "gave up" before this season even started. Maybe they'll win a few and prove me a liar, but aside from a decent game against the Steelers, your boys haven't shown a whole lot of fight. I almost feel like the team was mentally defeated before the first snap of the season.

All that said... give Manning all the MVPs for the remainder of his career. As a football fan, it's become kind of a consolation prize in my eyes. Brady's won two and those seasons ended very, very poorly for the Patriots. I've fully decided at this point that winning titles and having success in the postseason > having individual players break records and win awards. If the Patriots fail to win a playoff game this year (or fail to make the playoffs entirely), I will consider the entire 2011 season a complete failure, even if Brady throws for 5,000+ yards and 40+ TDs.

[GoPats]

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 ).

Dang I did not notice that. How perfect!

Did you get the haircut? ;)

"And please make my ends look like horses."

[GoPats]

is this where we start talking about ice cream & cake?

Holy crap, ice cream cake? Oh, dang... misheard you.

[dynasty13]

My opinion on the Brady/Manning debate goes beyond just the 'theres no point anymore' sentiment. The fact is, the rivalry isnt what it used to be, back at the peak of its intensity it wasnt about mutual respect. In other words, it was an 'immature' rivalry and it was more about clinging to any one thing that could show your guy and your team was better than the other. It was in the days of rings vs stats...when the two guys had two clearly different identities and the fans literally felt like they had to make a case for their guy and what each side felt was a more important indication of greatness. Now, it isnt just that theres no point to argue anymore...its more that the two guys have become so dang similar...both shattering the records, both winning rings, both winning MVPs...that there can be the same case made for either guy depending on what the argument is about that day. Their identities are no longer polar opposites...their legacies are intertwined and will no longer be based just on rings or just on stats, but both.

The rivalry has evolved, its matured to a point of mutual respect where opinions arent formed solely on blind homerism but of a simple appreciation of the game. The only reason we still have these debates is because there are those who havent matured along with the rivalry...their heads are still full of the immature hate from almost a decade ago when the rivalry was new and the similarities between were few. But those poeple are easy to spot, and both sides recognize the ones within their own fanbase. Its good to see that the great majority have learned to enjoy what we're witnessing and have learned not to get so caught up in every little thing that happens and how that will effect the guys' legacies. But theres still a few that care more about the quarterback than they do the team...and thats too bad.

[gspdx]

My opinion on the Brady/Manning debate goes beyond just the 'theres no point anymore' sentiment. The fact is, the rivalry isnt what it used to be, back at the peak of its intensity it wasnt about mutual respect. In other words, it was an 'immature' rivalry and it was more about clinging to any one thing that could show your guy and your team was better than the other. It was in the days of rings vs stats...when the two guys had two clearly different identities and the fans literally felt like they had to make a case for their guy and what each side felt was a more important indication of greatness. Now, it isnt just that theres no point to argue anymore...its more that the two guys have become so dang similar...both shattering the records, both winning rings, both winning MVPs...that there can be the same case made for either guy depending on what the argument is about that day. Their identities are no longer polar opposites...their legacies are intertwined and will no longer be based just on rings or just on stats, but both.

The rivalry has evolved, its matured to a point of mutual respect where opinions arent formed solely on blind homerism but of a simple appreciation of the game. The only reason we still have these debates is because there are those who havent matured along with the rivalry...their heads are still full of the immature hate from almost a decade ago when the rivalry was new and the similarities between were few. But those poeple are easy to spot, and both sides recognize the ones within their own fanbase. Its good to see that the great majority have learned to enjoy what we're witnessing and have learned not to get so caught up in every little thing that happens and how that will effect the guys' legacies. But theres still a few that care more about the quarterback than they do the team...and thats too bad.

Very true - I actually like watching Brady and the Pats because it's really good football. It reminds me of San Fran in the Montana heydays. And I have been rooting the last 2 years for the Pats when they play the Jets, but who doesn't?

The worst part about this is we might be seeing the beginning of the end. They can't play forever and I don't know if Peyton will have 2,3,4 good years left? You just never know when things will start to break down on a guy and not let him perform to the level he would like. And Brady isn't far behind. I was living in Wichita when Montana went to KC for his last few years and although it was fun to watch him, you could see he wasn't quite the same as the younger Joe.

[DILLIGAFER]

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

So, now i have to enjoy hearing about the flavor of the month. Frankly im sick of hearing about brady on a colts forum.

[Coltssouth]

True. It is an Colts forum but the topic (and most others) about the Pats are posted in NFL general. If you only want to talk to Colts fans, please stay in the Colts Football section of the forum. No need to make other teams fans feel unwelcome here.

I enjoy the other fans opinions that join our site. I also get tired of the Manning/Brady discussions sometimes so I get where you are coming from . . . but it is the greatest rivalry of our time, so of course it's going to be discussed.

If I don't want to hear it, I look for another topic I am intersted in.

As a friend of mine says: Why is it so hard to be civil?

[number28]

didn't Bledsoe take NE to the 1st SB that Brady won?

also Bledsoe took NE to SB in 97.

2 SB's.

Hmm...NE were a winning team before Brady was even there.

Seems like they find a way to win games without him. I wish our Colts can find a way without Peyton.

[shecolt]

Speaking of Brady, here is some great and very important news . . . he got his hair cut!

[Coltssouth]

Speaking of Brady, here is some great and very important news . . . he got his hair cut!

Oh oh

What did Giselle do to make him mad? :wave:

[GoPats]

didn't Bledsoe take NE to the 1st SB that Brady won?

also Bledsoe took NE to SB in 97.

2 SB's.

Hmm...NE were a winning team before Brady was even there.

Seems like they find a way to win games without him. I wish our Colts can find a way without Peyton.

You're off on several points.

Bledsoe was hit by Mo Lewis in Week 2 of the 2001 season. Brady became the starter and when Bledsoe was cleared to play in November, he was Brady's backup.

In the AFC Championship Game against the Steelers, Brady injured his ankle and Bledsoe took over a few minutes before halftime and finished out the game. Drew played well that day and didn't make the mistakes that had contributed to him losing his job when he was hurt.

The Patriots were in the Super Bowl after the '96 season. Then Parcells left and Pete Carroll was hired as their HC. In each year that followed, the team regressed. They went 10-6 in '97, 9-7 in '98, and 8-8 in '99. Then Belichick came in for the 2000 season, and the Patriots went 5-11 his first year here. They were 0-2 in 2000 when Brady took over.

So when Tom Brady became a starter in the NFL, he inherited a team that had won five of its previous 18 games.

Sorry to throw all these facts out that kind of blow up your argument. ;)

[patsallday]

Sorry to throw all these facts out that kind of blow up your argument. ;)

don't worry, i'm sure he'll ignore 'em.

[-JJ-]

You're off on several points.

Bledsoe was hit by Mo Lewis in Week 2 of the 2001 season. Brady became the starter and when Bledsoe was cleared to play in November, he was Brady's backup.

In the AFC Championship Game against the Steelers, Brady injured his ankle and Bledsoe took over a few minutes before halftime and finished out the game. Drew played well that day and didn't make the mistakes that had contributed to him losing his job when he was hurt.

The Patriots were in the Super Bowl after the '96 season. Then Parcells left and Pete Carroll was hired as their HC. In each year that followed, the team regressed. They went 10-6 in '97, 9-7 in '98, and 8-8 in '99. Then Belichick came in for the 2000 season, and the Patriots went 5-11 his first year here. They were 0-2 in 2000 when Brady took over.

So when Tom Brady became a starter in the NFL, he inherited a team that had won five of its previous 18 games.

Sorry to throw all these facts out that kind of blow up your argument. ;)

Was that the same defense that was 0-2 2001 and 5-11 in 2000?

same offense?

[GoPats]

Was that the same defense that was 0-2 2001 and 5-11 in 2000?

same offense?

Core-wise, yup. Remember they brought in Bryan Cox in '01? He kind of helped them turn things around with a punishing hit in Brady's first start (against the Colts, which was 10 years ago to the day this Friday). But he also got hurt eventually, missed some time, and also lost his starting job as a result.

[Yehoodi]

So, now i have to enjoy hearing about the flavor of the month. Frankly im sick of hearing about brady on a colts forum.

not to be snippy, but perhaps then you should think about not visiting certain portions of the board . . . its funny when I was responding to this thread earlier this week, I got to thinking "is there an NFL General section in the Patriot forum I visit" perhaps I am stupid, but NEVER realized that that forum actually had a general section, never really visited it, as when I go that forum simply go for the purposes of getting my Pats news . . . maybe someday I might pop over to that section but maybe not, and if I do I would probably skip the things I don't want to read . . . we just gotta let the guests have their fun & echange ideas . . .

actually I come here to get my NFL General info, and do so, as opposed to other forums, as I enjoy the company . . . and there really aren't many TB threads here . . .

and perhaps to put a positive spin on it, you are seeing the TB threads because of PM and the rivalry between the two . . . and it just goes to show you the respect/admiration that other fans have of PM as they include him in the conversation . . . you probably are not going to see many TB threads on Bronco fan forum . . . so its becuase of your great QB you have these threads/post . . . and for me I would take a decade of greatness from my QB in exchange for some references to his rival, as opposed to be a fan of a team that made the playoffs say once and no references to TB . . .

[Yehoodi]

didn't Bledsoe take NE to the 1st SB that Brady won?

also Bledsoe took NE to SB in 97.

2 SB's.

Hmm...NE were a winning team before Brady was even there.

Seems like they find a way to win games without him. I wish our Colts can find a way without Peyton.

the colts will find a way to win, they just got to find the right QB . . .

True, Bledsoe was one of the components that help save the franchise here in NE (along with Kraft and Parcells), and got the fan base back into things in the 90's and yes did have some success with the Pats, and help out in the '01 AFCCG (but did so not as a replacement for merit purposes but because TB got injuried) . . .

so yes we did win some games, but our franchise record really was not that different than the colts record sucess prior to Manning coming to Indy, some winnings seasons and one deep run in the playoffs . . . (the colts missed a late game hail mary that would of gotten them in the SB in '95) . . .

but the games before TB started, the pats were a collective 5-13 under BB . . . now I am not going to go all "plug-in-play" and say the turn around all TB, but he was a factor in the equations, and frankly the biggest factor . . . the pats did make some moves between 00 and 01, Seymour was drafted, Cox and Vrabel came in . . . , but teams always make changes . . .

but the Pats fortune changed dramatically after the Mo Lewis hit . . . not night and day but a big change . . . and TB had a lot to do with change . . . true sometimes if one is the "last piece to the puzzle" he will get some created for "saving the franchise" when he really shouldn't as he is merely the last piece (as a note I think Curt Schilling might get too much credit for the '04 world series and Pedro Martinez doesn't get enough love), so to so degree TB was the last piece in the puzzle, and is why i don't go all plug and play . . .

the same can be said when we look PM's career, his first five season were not that impressive and frankly not that much different than when Harbaugh was under center, but when the colts got Coach Dungy, Freeney/Mathis, Wayne/Clark, Sanders, Brackett, etc, in the 2002-2003 era, the colts took off . . . and I will always look to PM's 2003-2009 years as stacking up against the best in history, and then we can add the other years as supplementally additions. . . bottom line all great QBs need good teams around them, and all of the great QBs we have seen have had great teams around them, I can think of any great QB in the modern day of football that has not had a great team around them . . . but it is what you do with the team around you that is important, do you go on to great success lie PM '03-'09 or do you "waste" the opporunity . . .

[Yehoodi]

I see your point - and I wouldn't necessarily agree that the way the MVP is selected is valid - but that is the accepted method. We don't ask the player's to select the MVP and we don't ask a small sample of pplayers to select the MVP.

There is an agreed upon method and it is selected AP members. There is no accepted method of selecting the "QB to build a team aound". It was an unoffical poll that was taken that received a very low return. Based on a statistical analysis I wouldn't draw any conclusions about this.

But the further point is that Pats fans can come here and post what ever they want and that is fine. I wouldn't go to a Pats board and post anything because I'm not going to convince you of the "Manning is better that Brady" argument because that is what this was originally about. We can argue our sides all day long and when it's intelligent and well thought out like this I like the debate. But at the end of the day I know Manning is better that Brady.

And you know Brady is better than Manning. Like politics and religion.

I think we pretty much agree . . . actually I am not the biggest fan of the MVPs awards as the awards also invariably go to a player on a top teir team (hence the "team" element in the award in my view), unlike the some awards, say the Norris Trophy (best defenseman) and Selke Award (best Defensive forward) in hockey which will go to the best player in that catagory notwithstanding his team's record, so you could be on a 0.500 and get one of these awards (and for what is worth Hockey has an award voted by the players for the best overall player - the Ted Lindsey award) . . .

but overall the MVPs awards in the major sports will tend to go to a player on a top tier team, perhaps the voters are just lazy or there is a presumption that the team is good simply becuase of how great the player is . . . In think in the NFL, only twice has the award gone to a player not on a playoff team, OJ Simpson in his 2000 yard season and i think Johnny U in '67 (but as a note that was the year that the NFL split the conferences into two divisions, and the 11-1-2 Colts lost out to a tiebreaker with the 11-1-2 Rams in the Costal division meanwhile the 9-4-1 Packers made it to the playoffs while winning the Central Division, and then onto SB2, had the NFL not split the conferences into two divisions, the Colts would of made the '67 playoffs and not the packers, so bottom line Johnny U was bascially "on" a playoff team; thereby only leaving OJ's MVP as a non playoff team) . . . and only a few occasions did it go to a wild card team player . . ,.

As for the "standard" with which they rule on the award, I am not sure if there is one, well perhap not one any more scienitific and the instant article, persuming for the moment a "scienfitic" method is the "proper" method for voting on something . . . an the NFL has adopted the AP awards probably becuase it is the biggest organization as opposed to whether or not it is "right." True the AP likely selects the "educated" and "knowledgeable" writers, but over the years I have placed less and less credence on these said writers . . . some of the things I hear Peter King say/write aren't anymore more insightful than what I here from Terrell Suggs . . .

[Yehoodi]

I do understand your point. However, we know who those 50 AP members are. When the MVP receives an overwhelming or unanimous vote, I do accept it.

In 2003, I did not accept it. That year Peyton Manning and Steve McNair shared the MVP. There was a Titan's writer who voted for McNair. If there had been a Colt's writer who had been among that 50, he/she may very well have voted for Manning thereby giving him the majority of the votes.

If I knew who those 272 players were, I may or may not give this poll more credence. Should it be the case that the votes were somewhat evenly distributed among the players of all 32 teams; then I would. But, if I found out that those votes were largely cast by players from a small handfull of teams, then I wouldn't.

yes i agree, unless you pole everyone, or know who the voters are, you are not going to know the distribution and if some are more from one team than another . . . but my guess would be that it would be evenly distibuted amongst the players, teams, starters, backups, all pros, etc . . . but i could be wrong as i am just assuming . . .

[-JJ-]

Core-wise, yup. Remember they brought in Bryan Cox in '01? He kind of helped them turn things around with a punishing hit in Brady's first start (against the Colts, which was 10 years ago to the day this Friday). But he also got hurt eventually, missed some time, and also lost his starting job as a result.

oh..so Brady didn't make any difference, it was the 5-11 defense all along. Just wanted to clear that up. :devil:

[ViriLudant]

Jerry Rice today:

"If I could come back and play today, I would pick New England & Tom Brady. He's just like Joe Montana." -Jerry Rice on SportsCenter

[Coltssouth]

Jerry Rice today:

"If I could come back and play today, I would pick New England & Tom Brady. He's just like Joe Montana." -Jerry Rice on SportsCenter

Meh. One person's opinion. I'm sure we could find just as many to say the same of Peyton.

[ViriLudant]

Meh. One person's opinion. I'm sure we could find just as many to say the same of Peyton.

:shrug:

All I know is that NFL coaches in a 2008 poll picked Brady over Peyton. In fact, it wasn't even close; something like 25-3. There exists no such poll from any other year where they picked Peyton.

And that poll was answered by all but 2 NFL coaches. BB was one of the coaches who decided not to participate.

Then there's this one.

Now the best WR of all time has added his thoughts.

:shrug:

Not definitive at all... but certainly helps the argument.

[Coltssouth]

I don't think you're going to convince any of the Colts fans on this forum that Tom is better than Peyton.

I don't bash Tom. In fact I think he is a very good qb, but just because "so and so" stated it regardless of who it is is not going to change my mind. That was the point of my post.

Good for Tom.

I support Peyton and I don't care if 500,000 other people state that they think Tom is better, it does not make it true.

[dynasty13]

I don't think you're going to convince any of the Colts fans on this forum that Tom is better than Peyton.

I don't bash Tom. In fact I think he is a very good qb, but just because "so and so" stated it regardless of who it is is not going to change my mind. That was the point of my post.

Good for Tom.

I support Peyton and I don't care if 500,000 other people state that they think Tom is better, it does not make it true.

Absolutely correct. One persons opinion does not 'end' the argument. However...i WILL say that as much as you crazy Colts fans claim to hate the media when they dont pick the Colts for greatness...whenever one of them DOES pick the Colts...or DOES pick Peyton, you do tend to use that as all the proof you need to end the debate ;)

[Coltssouth]

Absolutely correct. One persons opinion does not 'end' the argument. However...i WILL say that as much as you crazy Colts fans claim to hate the media when they dont pick the Colts for greatness...whenever one of them DOES pick the Colts...or DOES pick Peyton, you do tend to use that as all the proof you need to end the debate ;)

Ah fans are fans. We're not the only ones like that.

That's why we're fans . . . . we believe in our teams and players.

And speaking of crazy fans . . . nope not going to even go there.

(Although I can think of at least two off the top of my head I would consider "out there" as a fanbase.)

[xeroboy]

:shrug:

All I know is that NFL coaches in a 2008 poll picked Brady over Peyton. In fact, it wasn't even close; something like 25-3. There exists no such poll from any other year where they picked Peyton.

All i have to say to this is that it happened in 2008.

if it was 2007 (after our SB win) or after the 2004 season they would have picked Manning.

IIRC after we won the SB people were ready to crown #18 the greatest QB and if you remember during the 2 weeks prior to our loss to the Saints in the SB (after the amazing game by Manning against the best defense that year the Jets) everybody was discussing how Manning might be the GOAT and if we won the game (Garcon makes the 3rd down catch in the 2nd quarter which hits him in the chest) maybe now Manning would be regarded as the GOAT.

The reason i typed the above rant is because i came to a conclusion that it will be different every year(maybe even every month).Manning throws 49 TDs then he is better,Brady goes 16-0 the he is better,Manning wins the SB then his the greatest,Brady throws 50 then he is the greatest,Manning destroys the Jets in the AFCCG then he is better........etc

[gspdx]

:shrug:

All I know is that NFL coaches in a 2008 poll picked Brady over Peyton. In fact, it wasn't even close; something like 25-3. There exists no such poll from any other year where they picked Peyton.

And that poll was answered by all but 2 NFL coaches. BB was one of the coaches who decided not to participate.

Then there's this one.

Now the best WR of all time has added his thoughts.

:shrug:

Not definitive at all... but certainly helps the argument.

As far as the 2008 poll - that's a long time ago in football years. No owner would pick either TB or PM to build a team around now. They are too old. And Peyton isn't around for Jerry Rice to pick this year to play with. According to your post he said it was about playing now - this year.

Plus the player's poll data is not statistically reliable based on my earlier post.

I guess I don't know what you are trying to accomplish. You said it helps the argument but what argument is that? You aren't going to convince us TB > PM so why do you try? Like I said way earlier in this thread it's like me going to the Pats board and posting anything great said about PM. Kind of a waste of time.

[WSO]

:shrug:

All I know is that NFL coaches in a 2008 poll picked Brady over Peyton. In fact, it wasn't even close; something like 25-3. There exists no such poll from any other year where they picked Peyton.

And that poll was answered by all but 2 NFL coaches. BB was one of the coaches who decided not to participate.

Then there's this one.

Now the best WR of all time has added his thoughts.

:shrug:

Not definitive at all... but certainly helps the argument.

c'mon anyone with common sense knows the media favors the latest and the greatest

I also would have chose Brady that year

And using your logic Brady came out and said Manning was the best to ever play so do we suddenly crown Manning the goat? No.

[12>18]

If you "aren't going to be convinced" and are bothered by these postings there's an easy way to solve that. And please do post things about PM in the general section on the Patriots forum. If it makes you feel better about the Patriots fans posting here, or at the very least keeps you out of the general section here, I am all for it.

[gspdx]

If you "aren't going to be convinced" and are bothered by these postings there's an easy way to solve that. And please do post things about PM in the general section on the Patriots forum. If it makes you feel better about the Patriots fans posting here, or at the very least keeps you out of the general section here, I am all for it.

Actually I never go to the Pats forum.

I enjoy many of the discussions in the general forum and as I have already said I really like some of the Pats fans here and their posts.

But clearly the point of this post is to troll. It was as your screen name says - 12>18 - and you are right, I'm not going to be convinced by ANYTHING you post here.

[12>18]

Yes and the point of your posts previous to this one certainly weren't intended to get a response.................

OK.

Oh shucks, you don't care about my opinion. I'm gonna go cry now.

Several people have already attempted to end this thread. Some people are keeping it going. Which one are you? Oh, and more than one player in the NFL wears a #12 jersey so don't jump to conclusions without thinking.

Last three threads about the Pats specifically....1883 views, 1334 views, 1793 views.

Must all be Pats fans. Quit fueling the fire and complaining of burns.