Brady ranks #1 in Super Bowl player rankings

Share this page

The Sheriff #18 said:
You just landed squarely on my shit list by starting this thread.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there's all kindsa shakin' in the boots things going on now. :coffee:








But also, since I'm being charitable, I will say that not only is Peyton the second best quarterback in his family, but he was also the clear #2 QB in Super Bowl XLI.
 
Excuse me... But did you guys just conveniently forget that Manning beat the dog crap out of Brady in the AFC Championship just a few days ago?

These disputes are settled on the field not on message boards...

Hell-lo Mcfly!
 
The Sheriff #18 said:
Excuse me... But did you guys just conveniently forget that Manning beat the dog crap out of Brady in the AFC Championship just a few days ago?
Click to expand...

Brady DID get the crap beat out of him in the AFC Championship, but not by Manning.

Tebow might have done just as well as Manning did.

coffee
 
The Sheriff #18 said:
Excuse me... But did you guys just conveniently forget that Manning beat the dog crap out of Brady in the AFC Championship just a few days ago?

These disputes are settled on the field not on message boards...

Hell-lo Mcfly!
Click to expand...

You really are amazingly dense. Over and over you clearly show a total lack of logical understanding of facts.The most successful quarterback in NFL history in terms of playoff games won is Tom Brady, who has won a total of 18 playoff games. The other quarterbacks who have won ten or more playoff-games are Joe Montana, Terry Bradshaw, John Elway, Brett Favre, Roger Staubach, Peyton Manning, Troy Aikman and Ben Roethlisberger.


http://www.footballdb.com/stats/qb-records.html?type=&alltime= This is an overall count of games If you look at the winning pct. Brady at .764 is far and away tops. Manning .684 winning pct. started in 31 more games than Brady yet at this point has only 5 more wins.
Again you fail.
 
Undertaker #59* said:
Brady DID get the crap beat out of him in the AFC Championship, but not by Manning.

Tebow might have done just as well as Manning did.

coffee
Click to expand...
..

But you guys give Brady ALL the credit for those Playoff and Super Bowl wins... How come Manning isn't afforded the same courtesy?
 
The Sheriff #18 said:
..

But you guys give Brady ALL the credit for those Playoff and Super Bowl wins... How come Manning isn't afforded the same courtesy?
Click to expand...

I don't know about all the credit, but Brady was integral to winning those Superbowls.

The Broncos won the AFC Championship not because of Manning, but despite him.
 
Undertaker #59* said:
I don't know about all the credit, but Brady was integral to winning those Superbowls.

The Broncos won the AFC Championship not because of Manning, but despite him.
Click to expand...

Two words:

Manning 0 INT'S
Brady 3 INT'S

Take away those three picks and you win the ball game...

Manning beat Brady

PERDIOD! PARAGRAPH!
 
The Sheriff #18 said:
..

But you guys give Brady ALL the credit for those Playoff and Super Bowl wins... How come Manning isn't afforded the same courtesy?
Click to expand...
Show me one post where you can reasonably infer that the poster is giving all the credit to Brady. And if you could find one or a few, it sure as hell isn't anywhere close to a majority view. The Pats have had the G.O.A.T. coach, a great staff, unbelievable game plans, stunningly dedicated and focussed teammates, great management and they all get TONS of credit from virtually all of us. Don't you ever stop making up shit?

Meanwhile, because everyone of his nuthuggers are too busy blaming his o-line, his D, his coaches, and anyone else they can come up with for his losses and since they simply refuse to hold him accountable for his patently pitiful big game history, he doesn't get jack for those occasional games they win in spite of him.:coffee:

---------- Post added at 11:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:37 AM ----------
The Sheriff #18 said:
I knew that would shut you up..
Click to expand...

That may be because no one has a chance to get a word in edgewise.
 
Undertaker #59* said:
I don't know about all the credit, but Brady was integral to winning those Superbowls.

The Broncos won the AFC Championship not because of Manning, but despite him.
Click to expand...

I'd characterized Big Ben's 1st SB win that way. He played a genuinely bad game.

Manning played a perfect game-manager type game. Threw 2 nice TD's, and didn't turn the ball over. The D had more to do w/ the win, but I don't know how anyone could characterize it as winning despite PM.
 
The Sheriff #18 said:
Excuse me... But did you guys just conveniently forget that Manning beat the dog crap out of Brady in the AFC Championship just a few days ago?

These disputes are settled on the field not on message boards...

Hell-lo Mcfly!
Click to expand...

So, dog crap equals 2 points? Dew...get your eyes tested. Your vision needs to be examined.
 
TheColtGuy said:
I'd characterized Big Ben's 1st SB win that way. He played a genuinely bad game.

Manning played a perfect game-manager type game. Threw 2 nice TD's, and didn't turn the ball over. The D had more to do w/ the win, but I don't know how anyone could characterize it as winning despite PM.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the fact that Mr Conservative kubiak called about 25 running plays (in obvious run situations) to about 4 passing in the second half...

---------- Post added at 10:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:47 AM ----------
Big/Sky/Fly said:
So, dog crap equals 2 points? Dew...get your eyes tested. Your vision needs to be examined.
Click to expand...


We started trying to run out the clock in the 3 quarter...a little too early in my opinion..We got up by 10 lengths and coasted home

We can't do that vs Cam
 
The Sheriff #18 said:
Not to mention the fact that Mr Conservative kubiak called about 25 running plays (in obvious run situations) to about 4 passing in the second half...

---------- Post added at 10:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:47 AM ----------




We started trying to run out the clock in the 3 quarter...a little too early in my opinion..We got up by 10 lengths and coasted home

We can't do that vs Cam
Click to expand...

I don't see next week's game being close...right after the coin toss it'll be over.
 
The Sheriff #18 said:
We started trying to run out the clock in the 3 quarter...a little too early in my opinion..We got up by 10 lengths and coasted home

We can't do that vs Cam
Click to expand...


10 lengths.....the Broncos were up by a max of 8 points, one score, partly because of Brady throwing an interception in his end. They weren't sitting on a lead; the Pats' D shut them down nearly as much as the Broncos D shut down the Pats. And, Peyton wasn't stopped from calling audibles because of crowd noise.

The rivalry's been fun, but I'm actually not a Peyton or Bronco hater. I wouldn't mind seeing him end his career with an upset Super Bowl win. But, realistically, the Broncos barely got past the Steelers & Patriots, who both were debilitated by injuries to their offense. You might not have beaten either team on a neutral field.

Now, the Broncos will be in a neutral field, facing a stronger defense and a much more explosive offense. It will be a big test of how great Denver's defense is, and if they can keep it close and Peyton delivers a few key plays and doesn't make any mistakes, maybe they can pull off an upset, but it's not the most likely scenario.
 
Did you guys look at ESPN's rankings of the top 80 teams to play in Super Bowls?

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=super/rankings/80-61
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=superlist/070124

There's some interesting calls there that I think would cause more disputes than the top 50 players list. They ranked the 2001 Rams at 23, ahead of a lot of teams that did win Super Bowls (the 2001 Patriots are at #47). The highest ranked Pats team is 2004 at #9, but although the 2004 Eagles are #46, unless I'm missing something, the 2007 Patriots (and the 2007 Giants) aren't on the list at all.
 
Mark_Henderson said:
Did you guys look at ESPN's rankings of the top 80 teams to play in Super Bowls?

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=super/rankings/80-61
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=superlist/070124

There's some interesting calls there that I think would cause more disputes than the top 50 players list. They ranked the 2001 Rams at 23, ahead of a lot of teams that did win Super Bowls (the 2001 Patriots are at #47). The highest ranked Pats team is 2004 at #9, but although the 2004 Eagles are #46, unless I'm missing something, the 2007 Patriots (and the 2007 Giants) aren't on the list at all.
Click to expand...


Nevermind, I was a dumbass. Those lists are from 10 years ago and only cover the first 40 Super Bowls. I'm surprised they didn't update it for 50. Either way, I think there's some goofy choices on the list. The 2003 Pats aren't 25 slots worse than the 2004 Pats.
 
Mark_Henderson said:
Nevermind, I was a dumbass. Those lists are from 10 years ago and only cover the first 40 Super Bowls. I'm surprised they didn't update it for 50. Either way, I think there's some goofy choices on the list. The 2003 Pats aren't 25 slots worse than the 2004 Pats.
Click to expand...

They are basing the ranking on the teams in the regular season not the games themselves.

The 2001 Rams were by far a better team than the 2001 Pats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top