The Goat Pen

Yeah I saw the Pats make the playoffs without Brady.

I saw the colts struggle to win a single game without Manning.

Big Orange Junky wrote:Yeah I saw the Pats make the playoffs without Brady.

I saw the colts struggle to win a single game without Manning.

Pats didn't make the playoffs without Brady...but I'm sure that's beside the point...

I thought they did but you are right. They went 11-5 and were the first team since 1985 to have that good of a record and miss the playoffs.

They were inched out on the last day when Miami got in by beating New York.'

I knew they had won over 10 games and I had thought they got in the playoffs but they didn't.

Still 11-5 without Brady.

Win 1 game without Manning.

Pretty clear right there.

Yes. And if you saw the Pats you would know that they don't win the AFC without Brady this year.

sardis wrote:

Big Orange Junky wrote:Yeah I saw the Pats make the playoffs without Brady.

I saw the colts struggle to win a single game without Manning.

Pats didn't make the playoffs without Brady...but I'm sure that's beside the point...

They won 11 games, which is 1 game fewer than their average win total with Brady at QB. The next season, with Brady back as the starter, they won fewer games than they did with the backup playing. "They didn't make the playoffs" is a dishonest argument. They were essentially the same team without Brady.

The Colts, OTOH, went from a perrenial playoff team to the worst team in the league without Peyton.

I realize that's hard for a lot of people to accept, but those are the facts. Once again, cold hard facts tell the story.

Jungle Rat wrote:Yes. And if you saw the Pats you would know that they don't win the AFC without Brady this year.

Brady might win the speculative argument, but Peyton wins the factual argument.

Hilarious!

I agree. This is fun! Dammit, it's fun being right.

It's fun to watch you try to convince yourself of that too.

What am I supposedly trying to convince myself of? Facts are facts. No convincing necessary. I have the facts on my side. When you have the facts, you need only to sit back and let them speak for you. So I post the facts and watch you guys scurry around like cockroaches when the lights go on. It's entertaining.

Hack...you know I love ya man...but seriously...stop. You're better than this.

Big Orange Junky wrote:Yeah I saw the Pats make the playoffs without Brady.

so now ValLogic is reduced to just making stuff up....

Yep.

Heh...pitifully, pathetically weak.

Pitiful, pathetic and weak are bountiful all around here.

Is there NO ONE here who would like to answer why Brady hasn't won a SB in the past 8 seasons, despite playing what is generally considered to be the best football of his career? I keep asking and it doesn't seem like anyone has an answer. That just seems curious to me.

why has Purtty only won one in 14 years?

They don't have to defend Pey-Pey. He is the greatest because the Colts suck without him.

Hacksaw wrote:Is there NO ONE here who would like to answer why Brady hasn't won a SB in the past 8 seasons, despite playing what is generally considered to be the best football of his career? I keep asking and it doesn't seem like anyone has an answer. That just seems curious to me.

Almost as curious as to why you believe 3 Super Bowl rings are not greater than 1 and your failed attempts to define regular season stats as a benchmark for greatness.

When hack wears his orange Vol Navy underwear his vision gets clouded...