Moderators: The Talent, Hacksaw, bluetick, puterbac, 10ac
Because one of his receivers was better than one of the receivers on the Pats' team?sardis wrote:"It's just common sense. For instance, David Patten was a wide receiver who played on 3 Patriots Super Bowl winning teams. No one would say that David Patten was a better wide receiver than Marvin Harrison. But that's what Rickart's "logic" would lead you to believe."
Isn't that an argument that Manning had a better team?
BRM = Shiney?BigRedMan wrote:Sardis - Pats without Brady go what...12-4 the year he was hurt. If the Colts lose Manning they are a 3-13 team AT BEST.
The Pats clearly have a better coaching systems and scouting system. They truly do. They get players to play to their system and also know the limits of a player and put them in position to be successful. They maximize every players potential and use it to help them win. That I give them credit for.
However, they cheated on their 3 Super Bowl wins so they can kindly go fuck themselves in the ear with a big rubber dick.
Why do you feel the need to put words in my mouth? All I said was that wins/championships are team stats and that the Pats have clearly been the better team. I'm not even going to address the cheating aspect of N.E.'s SB wins, because it's not necessary to bring that up in order to prove, logically, that Peyton > Brady. It's irrelevant to the discussion, IMO.dave_rickart wrote:The Pats won 18 games the previous season..... 11 the year Brady was out.
So they were 7 games worse the year Brady was injured.
Colts just won 10 games last year.
So, by Hack's logic, without Purrty, they'd win 3.
which is 7 games worse.
...and this proves Brady has a better team around him.
wait, what?
Are you fucking serious? Please tell me you are just jabbing at the tiger with a stick from the safe side of the cage. Even for you Rat, that is just plain dumb.Jungle Rat wrote:So you agree Peyton is a media creation and that he's just an average QB?
