RND 2. 2. BRADY VS 9. YOUNG

["THE" MoSav]

They never had that much of a lead for long. But that's beside the point. They didn't use Brady much; understandable, but that doesn't make him more of a candidate for MVP. My guess is rhey didn't know which defensive guy to give it to because so many made so many key plays that they just gave it to the QB because he's the QB. At least Manning put of strong numbers in his performance, and could have put a lot more up if he wanted to but he chose to let the ball run. Rhodes only really played half a game. And it's hard to give it to a guy that isn't full time. Plus the long ball threat was the main reason the run and short pass did so well. Chicago didn't want another wide open man downfield like what happened with Wayne. But it could have happened. Like when Cedric Maxwell was named MVP in the NBA Finals after a great performance. Everyone was so worried about Bird they left Maxwell alone, but rest assured you take Larry Bird off that court and there's no Championship or MVP award for anyone on the Celtics. In this case I think the threat of Manning was as important as Manning himself that day. Factor in what I said earlier about the QB getting the break, and the fact that this was a story book moment for Manning and they had to pick Manning. If this wasn't the first Superbowl for Peyton then it could have easily went to Sanders and maybe an Addai/Rhodes combo. But we all know that Rex Grossman was the real MVP.

IMO the same thing can be said about Manning in the SB this year.              ^^True
And i understand what youre saying about being a huge factor tacticaly. Just like Deion back in the day wasnt always huge numbers wise, but you knew he was taking away ONE HALF of the field. Im not that stupid guy that thinks numbers tell the whole story.

["THE" MoSav]

They never had that much of a lead for long. But that's beside the point. They didn't use Brady much; understandable, but that doesn't make him more of a candidate for MVP. My guess is rhey didn't know which defensive guy to give it to because so many made so many key plays that they just gave it to the QB because he's the QB. At least Manning put of strong numbers in his performance, and could have put a lot more up if he wanted to but he chose to let the ball run. Rhodes only really played half a game. And it's hard to give it to a guy that isn't full time. Plus the long ball threat was the main reason the run and short pass did so well. Chicago didn't want another wide open man downfield like what happened with Wayne. But it could have happened. Like when Cedric Maxwell was named MVP in the NBA Finals after a great performance. Everyone was so worried about Bird they left Maxwell alone, but rest assured you take Larry Bird off that court and there's no Championship or MVP award for anyone on the Celtics. In this case I think the threat of Manning was as important as Manning himself that day. Factor in what I said earlier about the QB getting the break, and the fact that this was a story book moment for Manning and they had to pick Manning. If this wasn't the first Superbowl for Peyton then it could have easily went to Sanders and maybe an Addai/Rhodes combo. But we all know that Rex Grossman was the real MVP.

IMO the same thing can be said about Manning in the SB this year.              ^^True
And i understand what youre saying about being a huge factor tacticaly. Just like Deion back in the day wasnt always huge numbers wise, but you knew he was taking away ONE HALF of the field. Im not that stupid guy that thinks numbers tell the whole story.

and the Colts got down early again so Manning was forced to throw, so of course he threw for 250 plus yds.He also could have thrown 4 or 5 int's and was lucky it was only 1. Im just saying if Grossman didnt play like a Peewee, IMO Mannings performance wasnt good enough to get the win if Grossman dont fuck up..but its all opinion..

[Shallow]

They never had that much of a lead for long. But that's beside the point. They didn't use Brady much; understandable, but that doesn't make him more of a candidate for MVP. My guess is rhey didn't know which defensive guy to give it to because so many made so many key plays that they just gave it to the QB because he's the QB. At least Manning put of strong numbers in his performance, and could have put a lot more up if he wanted to but he chose to let the ball run. Rhodes only really played half a game. And it's hard to give it to a guy that isn't full time. Plus the long ball threat was the main reason the run and short pass did so well. Chicago didn't want another wide open man downfield like what happened with Wayne. But it could have happened. Like when Cedric Maxwell was named MVP in the NBA Finals after a great performance. Everyone was so worried about Bird they left Maxwell alone, but rest assured you take Larry Bird off that court and there's no Championship or MVP award for anyone on the Celtics. In this case I think the threat of Manning was as important as Manning himself that day. Factor in what I said earlier about the QB getting the break, and the fact that this was a story book moment for Manning and they had to pick Manning. If this wasn't the first Superbowl for Peyton then it could have easily went to Sanders and maybe an Addai/Rhodes combo. But we all know that Rex Grossman was the real MVP.

IMO the same thing can be said about Manning in the SB this year.              ^^True
And i understand what youre saying about being a huge factor tacticaly. Just like Deion back in the day wasnt always huge numbers wise, but you knew he was taking away ONE HALF of the field. Im not that stupid guy that thinks numbers tell the whole story.

and the Colts got down early again so Manning was forced to throw, so of course he threw for 250 plus yds.He also could have thrown 4 or 5 int's and was lucky it was only 1. Im just saying if Grossman didnt play like a Peewee, IMO Mannings performance wasnt good enough to get the win if Grossman dont fuck up..but its all opinion..

I don't know about that. Part of hte reason Manning's numbers weren't over 35 completions and 350 yards is because of a) how well the running game was, and b) the quick lead they took in the second have. If hte o-line didn't create the right holes at the right times then you would have seen a lot of short passes, and if Indy wasn't up beyond reach late in the game then you also wouldn't have seen stuff like 4 straight runs just to run the clock with a run on 4th down to turn the ball over. Manning was somehting like 18 for 25 and 200 yards in the first have (I don't remember the exact numbers). That's better than some winning Superbowl QB's entire games. Now if the O-line didn't allow the run, or if Chicago put up a few more points to keep it with in reach during the 4th quarter and Manning was let's say 35 for 55 with 360 yards then that's certainly MVP numbers. And the last drives of a close game could lead to a lot more completions. If NE had let the clck run out instead of driving while it was tied then Brady would have been 11 for 21 with 110 yards and not even close to MVP considerations. That final drive was the only factor in giving him the award. The next time he won it was was simply up to the victor. If Vini missed the kick and Carolina won then Delhomme would have taken it but I won't deny that Brady was the NE MVP of that game. Now I'm not trying to downplay Rhodes and Addai but I have to give a lot of credit to the O-Line because they came to play.

[Primo]

lol. Brady is a good QB. The year when Brady came in over an injured Bledsoe, they were doing horrible until Brady came in. Bledsoe would have never would have won them titles.

[Shallow]

lol. Brady is a good QB. The year when Brady came in over an injured Bledsoe, they were doing horrible until Brady came in. Bledsoe would have never would have won them titles.

Maybe not, but when Brady was injured in the AFC Championship and Bledsoe came in the team didn't lose a step.

["THE" MoSav]

lol. Brady is a good QB. The year when Brady came in over an injured Bledsoe, they were doing horrible until Brady came in. Bledsoe would have never would have won them titles.

Maybe not, but when Brady was injured in the AFC Championship and Bledsoe came in the team didn't lose a step.

cuz they had the lead. He Threw 1 td then managed the game..

["THE" MoSav]

And imo the Pats dont even make it to the AFC title game with Bledsoe leading the charge, There have been MANY qb's that have came in and were good if not great for a few weeks, Bledsoe proved after that he cant lead a team anywhere...

[Shallow]

Bledsoe had lead a team to a Superbowl before. It was a few years earlier but he did it. i think Bledsoe buckles with a mediocre O-line but NE had a great O-line and a very easy schedule that first year. He had made it to the playoffs a few times before that. But the team feel apart. His numbers still stayed alright but I don't think Brady coud have done much in the bad years. The team began a slow turn around in '01. Got lucky with an easy schedule and some breaks in the playoffs. The next year the schedule was tougher and they didn't make the playoffs, but the team was in full swing  by the year after that and they never looked back. I don't know if they'd be as good all these years with Drew or if they would have won 3 superbowls but that doesn't mean they wouldn't have.

["THE" MoSav]

Bledsoe had lead a team to a Superbowl before. It was a few years earlier but he did it. i think Bledsoe buckles with a mediocre O-line but NE had a great O-line and a very easy schedule that first year. He had made it to the playoffs a few times before that. But the team feel apart. His numbers still stayed alright but I don't think Brady coud have done much in the bad years. The team began a slow turn around in '01. Got lucky with an easy schedule and some breaks in the playoffs. The next year the schedule was tougher and they didn't make the playoffs, but the team was in full swing  by the year after that and they never looked back. I don't know if they'd be as good all these years with Drew or if they would have won 3 superbowls but that doesn't mean they wouldn't have.

The only reason NE got in that year in 96 was because the Broncos got knocked out suprisngly by the Jags. The Pats would NOT have went into Denver and beat the Broncos.

[Shallow]

Bledsoe had lead a team to a Superbowl before. It was a few years earlier but he did it. i think Bledsoe buckles with a mediocre O-line but NE had a great O-line and a very easy schedule that first year. He had made it to the playoffs a few times before that. But the team feel apart. His numbers still stayed alright but I don't think Brady coud have done much in the bad years. The team began a slow turn around in '01. Got lucky with an easy schedule and some breaks in the playoffs. The next year the schedule was tougher and they didn't make the playoffs, but the team was in full swing  by the year after that and they never looked back. I don't know if they'd be as good all these years with Drew or if they would have won 3 superbowls but that doesn't mean they wouldn't have.

The only reason NE got in that year in 96 was because the Broncos got knocked out suprisngly by the Jags. The Pats would NOT have went into Denver and beat the Broncos.

Probably not but I could say that NE would have missed their first Superbowl if a call was made the other against Oakland and they would have missed their second if the refs called illegal contact in the Colts game all game. This doesn't mean I'm right to say it. I think Oakland had NE beat, and I think the Colts would have come out on top that game but we'll never know for sure. All we know is that Bledsoe could lead teams to the post season and win in the post season and that he could win AFC an championship game in 2001 with NE. I also think NE would have won that Superbowl if Drew was picked to play instead of Brady. But we'll never know that either. I guess we'll only come close to knowing if an odd situation like I mentioned before; Cassel coming in for Brady and taking them deep in the playoffs. If that happens then there will be little doubt in my mind that the system was way more important than the man in the spotlight.

["THE" MoSav]

Bledsoe had lead a team to a Superbowl before. It was a few years earlier but he did it. i think Bledsoe buckles with a mediocre O-line but NE had a great O-line and a very easy schedule that first year. He had made it to the playoffs a few times before that. But the team feel apart. His numbers still stayed alright but I don't think Brady coud have done much in the bad years. The team began a slow turn around in '01. Got lucky with an easy schedule and some breaks in the playoffs. The next year the schedule was tougher and they didn't make the playoffs, but the team was in full swing  by the year after that and they never looked back. I don't know if they'd be as good all these years with Drew or if they would have won 3 superbowls but that doesn't mean they wouldn't have.

The only reason NE got in that year in 96 was because the Broncos got knocked out suprisngly by the Jags. The Pats would NOT have went into Denver and beat the Broncos.

Probably not but I could say that NE would have missed their first Superbowl if a call was made the other against Oakland and they would have missed their second if the refs called illegal contact in the Colts game all game. This doesn't mean I'm right to say it. I think Oakland had NE beat, and I think the Colts would have come out on top that game but we'll never know for sure. All we know is that Bledsoe could lead teams to the post season and win in the post season and that he could win AFC an championship game in 2001 with NE. I also think NE would have won that Superbowl if Drew was picked to play instead of Brady. But we'll never know that either. I guess we'll only come close to knowing if an odd situation like I mentioned before; Cassel coming in for Brady and taking them deep in the playoffs. If that happens then there will be little doubt in my mind that the system was way more important than the man in the spotlight.

Then you could say Phil Simms was important to the Giants because they won a Superbowl with Hostetler 

["THE" MoSav]

Cmon, Shallow just admit youre rooting for Brady too fail, and you look for any and every little reason to knock him, due to youre love for Peyton we can all see this 

[Shallow]

Of course I'm rooting for him to fail. I'm not trying to hide that. I think he's the most overrated player in sports given the praise he gets. I don't think he sucks. I just don't think he deserves to be mentioned with the likes of Peyton. Let alone Starr, Unitas, and Monatana. In my ideal world Peyton would go on to 3peat with the Colts all the while losing Wayne, and Harrison for his 3rd Superbowl and then win one more at the end of his career while Brady gets stuck with a not so amazing defense and a losing record for the next 7 years. So that everyone can see what I see. Make no mistake. I have no intention of hiding it. But I'm not close minded if BRady keeps winning and does it with new coaches and new receivers I'll give his due.


As for Simms. I think he was a key factor in that Superbowl game and I think Scott Brunner sucked. I like Simms but I think there were plenty of QBs in that league that could have taken the Giants to a couple Superbowls, but his performance in thsat game was incerdible. That being said you could take away his 3 TD passes in that game and the Giants still would have been with in 2 points of that game and with in one if the extra point at the end of a TD run wasn't missed. Their defense played like animals until the late in the 4th. Scott Brunner would have lost that game but I can htink of a bunch of QBs from that time that would have made the Giants still win despite Simms' great game. He had a terrible playoffs up until that game. I know he had 4 TD in the game against SF but he only through 9 total completions in that game, leaving only 5 passes during the drives.

["THE" MoSav]

Of course I'm rooting for him to fail. I'm not trying to hide that. I think he's the most overrated player in sports given the praise he gets. I don't think he sucks. I just don't think he deserves to be mentioned with the likes of Peyton. Let alone Starr, Unitas, and Monatana. In my ideal world Peyton would go on to 3peat with the Colts all the while losing Wayne, and Harrison for his 3rd Superbowl and then win one more at the end of his career while Brady gets stuck with a not so amazing defense and a losing record for the next 7 years. So that everyone can see what I see. Make no mistake. I have no intention of hiding it. But I'm not close minded if BRady keeps winning and does it with new coaches and new receivers I'll give his due.


As for Simms. I think he was a key factor in that Superbowl game and I think Scott Brunner sucked. I like Simms but I think there were plenty of QBs in that league that could have taken the Giants to a couple Superbowls, but his performance in thsat game was incerdible. That being said you could take away his 3 TD passes in that game and the Giants still would have been with in 2 points of that game and with in one if the extra point at the end of a TD run wasn't missed. Their defense played like animals until the late in the 4th. Scott Brunner would have lost that game but I can htink of a bunch of QBs from that time that would have made the Giants still win despite Simms' great game. He had a terrible playoffs up until that game. I know he had 4 TD in the game against SF but he only through 9 total completions in that game, leaving only 5 passes during the drives.

I was talking about Simms in 90 he got hurt right before the playoffs yet the Giants won it all..

Brady 3 Rings
Peyton 1 ring
 

["THE" MoSav]

LOL@ winning with  different coach!!

I dont remember anyone calling Bellicheck a genius when he was coaching in Cleveland! IT GOES BOTH WAYS!!

And The Pats d was never amazing!! Good, even VERY GOOD but never amazing.
In 2004 which was probably there best team of the 3 that won it all, TROY BROWN A WR HAD TO PLAY CB!! They didnt even have enuff db's! How can you call that amazing?