If Brady wins the Super Bowl will it be considered more impressive then when he won his first in 2001?

[GoPats]

Probably because winning a SB is hard.

 

He only made it to 2 more, went 16-0, Broke the TD record, won 2 MVPs, a CPoY, and 2 OPoY. 

 

Brady won 3 SB with a fantastic TEAM, that the NFL clearly was not ready for. He has arguably the greatest coach of all time, but the constant attempt to diminsh his laundry list of achievements has gone beyond petty, and into the realm of absurd......Just accept the fact that he is one of, if not the greatest QB of all time, for every Manning argument there is a Brady counter point, and vice versa....

 

Colts fans will never admit Brady is better, and that is fine, but the constant attempt to try and discredit Brady in anyway embarrasses me as a Colts fan.....  

 

 

 

 

Same here, just flip the names. I can't stand it when Patriots fans attempt to tear down Manning. It's fine to think one is better than the other, but to suggest the margin between them is anything more than paper-thin is pretty ridiculous. 

[braveheartcolt]

I posted the exact same question as Nadine last week. It in no way was to discredit Brady. It was to put to bed this ridiculous theory that SB rings is the only 'mark' on how to rate greatness. We know who the great QBs are. You don't need rings, or yards or MVP awards to justify or prove who is the best ever, as there is no such thing. Colts fans, misguidedly, do try to discredit Brady, but I feel a lot of that is because Pats fans use play-offs and rings as the tie breaker over Manning. 

 

It's all fackocta of course.

 

In a segment on NFL Network a day or two after Manning broke the TD record, the Panel was asked if Peyton was the Goat. Faulk said yes (Colts bias?), Sanders said 'don't know, but he is a classy guy', and Irvin said no, it's all about the rings. As the segment faded away, I heard Faulk or Sanders ask Irvin if Eli was better than Peyton.......no, but......then it went to commercials.

[Shane Bond]

I posted the exact same question as Nadine last week. It in no way was to discredit Brady. It was to put to bed this ridiculous theory that SB rings is the only 'mark' on how to rate greatness. We know who the great QBs are. You don't need rings, or yards or MVP awards to justify or prove who is the best ever, as there is no such thing. Colts fans, misguidedly, do try to discredit Brady, but I feel a lot of that is because Pats fans use play-offs and rings as the tie breaker over Manning.

It's all fackocta of course.

In a segment on NFL Network a day or two after Manning broke the TD record, the Panel was asked if Peyton was the Goat. Faulk said yes (Colts bias?), Sanders said 'don't know, but he is a classy guy', and Irvin said no, it's all about the rings. As the segment faded away, I heard Faulk or Sanders ask Irvin if Eli was better than Peyton.......no, but......then it went to commercials.

Thank you.

[southwest1]

Quiet Riot.

Good Metal band there BTW TAPLOOK. Sorry, SW1 got all nostalgic there for a second. LOL! 

 

In all seriousness, my stance on the Patriots organization will always remain the same. A top tier NFL franchise with a HOF QB & a sharp HC that has probably done his best coaching this year since Robert Kraft hired him in 2000. Is Brady a great QB? Absolutely, but so are Dan Marino & Jim Kelly that never won a ring either. There is plenty of elite QB praise to go around: Peyton, Drew, Aaron, Brady, Eli. 

 

I am a firm believer in acquiring rings while you play, but once a field general retires, I evaluate their whole career in context. I can't always pinpoint greatness or articulate it chapter & verse across the NFL landscape historically, but I know it when I see it. 

 

I won't criticize any of my friends. You, Shane, or anybody else that's not who I am. I am just eagerly anticipating a great Colts/Patriots game this weekend.

[amfootball]

I posted the exact same question as Nadine last week. It in no way was to discredit Brady. It was to put to bed this ridiculous theory that SB rings is the only 'mark' on how to rate greatness. We know who the great QBs are. You don't need rings, or yards or MVP awards to justify or prove who is the best ever, as there is no such thing. Colts fans, misguidedly, do try to discredit Brady, but I feel a lot of that is because Pats fans use play-offs and rings as the tie breaker over Manning. 

 

It's all fackocta of course.

 

In a segment on NFL Network a day or two after Manning broke the TD record, the Panel was asked if Peyton was the Goat. Faulk said yes (Colts bias?), Sanders said 'don't know, but he is a classy guy', and Irvin said no, it's all about the rings. As the segment faded away, I heard Faulk or Sanders ask Irvin if Eli was better than Peyton.......no, but......then it went to commercials.

I agree with all of this. But Brady has a lot more than just rings to his resume. It is just that the post-season is where the most glaring differences exist between the two which is why each fanbase goes there to either justify or discredit. It is what it is. I don't lose sleep over it and this thread which I started had to do with comparing this year's SB if the Pats should win it with their first one. Some good discussion there earlier, perhaps we can get back to it.

 

And BTW, all of this will be small potatoes if Luck should get a ring either this year or in the next couple of years....

[Shane Bond]

Here we go again .

 

Both are same BUT there is a post season, the blah continues

 

And one classy Colts fan was trying to rip me for this.

[amfootball]

Here we go again .

 

Both are same BUT there is a post season, the blah continues

 

And one classy Colts fan was trying to rip me for this.

What are you talking about? That is the biggest difference between them which is why it is brought up by BOTH sides or didn't you catch that?

[Shane Bond]

What are you talking about? That is the biggest difference between them which is why it is brought up by BOTH sides or didn't you catch that?

 

AMF - Please, pretty please. I am not getting into Brady/Manning with you.

 

I have said enough and a lot of them have done the same here and it always goes to deaf ears and we are back to square one.

[Yehoodi]

From a mental standpoint, did he rejuvenate the team? Sure I can buy into that, but he didn't play defense, he didn't  run the ball, he didn't coach nor did he call plays at the line... and he didn't kick.

 

He played well, managed the game beyond his years, but would a win this year be more impressive... yes, because he carries the team now, he didn't then.

 

yah, I hear yah . . . and agreed he is a more important element to the team than he was in 2001 . . . and yes to a degree his contribution in helping out the injury ravel offense is noteworthy and our defense is hurt and less strong than in 2001 . . . but I still might lean towards 2001, I guess to the point of it was not expected back in 2001, and having had success in the recent years one might lean and think that the 2013 team is stronger overall than the 2001 team . . . although with the injuries maybe they are the same  . . .

 

I do think the years are the same in that we had more close games and have pulled out a lot of close games, more so than we have since before 2007 . . . I can see argument for both performances being special . . .  

[amfootball]

AMF - Please, pretty please. I am not getting into Brady/Manning with you.

 

I have said enough and a lot of them have done the same here and it always goes to deaf ears and we are back to square one.

Fantastic. I know IndyTrav pretty much squashed the "debate" you were hoping to have.

[Shane Bond]

Fantastic. I know IndyTrav pretty much squashed the "debate" you were hoping to have.

 

Yes, you win. Now please shall we move on.