2012 Superbowl Thread.

[Chamillitary Click]

^Fair enough. But I can't credit him for it if he didn't do it. You crown him the greatest because he "should" have won the last fifteen rings if he was on any team with a good defense.

[Shallow]

^Fair enough. But I can't credit him for it if he didn't do it. You crown him the greatest because he "should" have won the last fifteen rings if he was on any team with a good defense.

All I hate is that people, not you, can't seem to differentiate between individual greatness and team greatness, and seem to rank guys so much higher because of team wins when with out those team wins they'd be nothing. Everyone one and their mother always said Manning had better numbers than Brady all those years because he had better weapons (and we saw how good these weapons were with out Manning this year). No one ever said Brady has more playoff wins than Manning because Brady had a team that can win when the QB plays poorly. Every time New England has made a Superbowl Brady has had at least one shit game in the playoffs, and New England won anyway. And no one even dreams of comparing o-lines. They like to leave it out of the discussion.

Manning is as better than Brady as New England is as better than Indy. I don't know if Manning on New England would have had 3 or 4 rings for sure, but there is a better chance that Manning wins 4 rings than Brady even plays 4 years on Indy and as good a chance of them even making the playoffs once in those 4 years with Brady. That's how much better Manning is. That doesn't automatically equal 6 rings, but he's still that much better as a player.

But I guess if Joe Namath can make the top 100 players of all time then Brady can be argued alongside Manning.