The Goat Pen

Not sure how the Redskins factor into a comparison of Brady vs. Manning....

but if you want to compare the Redskins and the Colts, I gave the three parameters:

1) How are they currently doing? 3-2 > 0-6
2) How did they do last year? neither won a playoff game
3) How do they compare all-time? not even close...

sure, any fan could carve out a certain segment ("we were better than you between 1957 and 1961!!!!"), but who cares?

hell, even Indiana probably had 2-3 years somewhere where they were better than.....well, someone else, anybody else....

that said:


3 > 1

dave_rickart wrote:That is the difference between Brady and Manning which I have always said that the NE Coaching >>>>>> Indy Coaching at any point in time.

you misspelled 'postseason performance'.....

You brought up the subject of postseason performance as it relates to comparisons between a pair of qbs..a span that covers the last 10 years or so. You get that, right? Your statement, your segment of time.

Then someone innocently points out that your team hasn't had ANY significant postseason performance in that same specific span of time. See how it all ties together?

And if you manage to follow that reasoning this far, AND then see what everybody else sees -the irony of a foreskin criticizing anyone's postseason performance...well, it's all good. Reason prevails.

9 >1 ....

wait, the whole Purtty camp's defense is based on the seperation of the QB from the team's results.

(otherwise, Brady > Peyton is a slam-dunk...)

so, which is it - compare team performance, or compare QB performance? please pick one, we've gotten tired of the circular reasoning from ValNation

Funny you should mention circular reasoning. You are harder to target than a meth addicited hedgehog.

The Colts are proving this season that Manning is the primary reason for the success they've achieved over the past ten years. They haven't been able to win a single game without him.

This supports what those of us in the Manning camp have been saying for years. Brady has been the beneficiary of playing for the dominant team of his era, with the best coaching staff in football. Manning has not had that luxury. The eyeball test was obvious, but the Manning-haters didn't want to admit it. Rickart (and other Manning-haters) scoffed when we said the Colts would be mediocre without Manning. This season has been the realization of all their worst nightmares. They have been proven wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt. The argument is over. Period.

Honestly, this season's results have tarnished the NFL MVP awards of every player (other than Manning) who has won it in the last ten years. None more than Brady's.

What it proves is your backups suck.

dave_rickart wrote:wait, the whole Purtty camp's defense is based on the seperation of the QB from the team's results.

(otherwise, Brady > Peyton is a slam-dunk...)

so, which is it - compare team performance, or compare QB performance? please pick one, we've gotten tired of the circular reasoning from ValNation

You routinely bash Manning for "postseason performance," or you bash the colts, or a combo of both.

Meanwhile, your own team and their myriad gang of qbs, by comparison, has almost the worst playoff record in the NFL during that stretch. The irony has been pointed out. Cornered, you choose to play dumb.

That's as close to drawing a picture as I can come.

9 playoff wins incl. 2 SBs /1 SB win > 1 wildcard playoff win

i bash Purtty for HIS postseason performance, not the Colts.

it wasn't the long-snapper or the outside linebacker hitting Tracy Porter right between the numbers....


i guess by ValNation's logic....Purty is better than Brady because the Colts have more playoff appearances than the Redskins over a select period of years?

so, therefore, the Redskins have more playoff appearances than the Lions over that time....thus Phillip Rivers > Big Ben?

dave_rickart wrote:i guess by ValNation's logic....Purty is better than Brady because the Colts have more playoff appearances than the Redskins over a select period of years?

Facts trump logic. Fact is, Peyton has better individual stats than Brady. Another fact - PM's peers have voted him several rungs higher on the alltime qb list.

Why are you so obsessed about it, anyway? You don't have any skin in the game that I can see.

He never got over being wrong in the Manning or Leaf? debate.

"Fact is, Peyton has better individual stats than Brady."

ah, Valnation resorting to the 'big regular-season stats!' defense again....

At least they're relevant stats -- unlike your never-ending citations of TEAM stats to pump up Brady.

This is funny even though I think he's so much better than that pussy Colts QB.

Jungle Rat wrote:What it proves is your backups suck.

This gave me the idea to look up some stats related to Matt Cassel's performance.

Cassel's QB rating as a starter for New England, compared to this season with Kansas City: 89.4 (2008) and 89.7 (2011)

The Pats' winning % in '08, compared to the Chiefs with Cassel as their starter: 67% down to 45%

Likewise, I'm sure there are teams that Painter could go to right now and win a few games.

...like New England, for instance!

Hilarious. The Manning apologists are in full force.

Did you expect different?

Facts is facts, boys. I'm all about the facts.

how do Matt Cassel's stats with the Kansas City Chiefs have anything to do with the fact that Purrty is always one-and-done in the playoffs?

that's like comparing the Redskins' playoff history to the Colts' playoff history in an attempt to prove Peyton is better than Brady...... head-scratcher....

"how do Matt Cassel's stats with the Kansas City Chiefs have anything to do with the fact that Purrty is always one-and-done in the playoffs?"

First, you're lying about Peyton's teams never winning a playoff game. He has NOT "always" been "one-and-done" as you say. He has a SB ring -- a SB ring that you and a lot of other haters said he would never get. But that's not what makes him a better QB than Brady. As anyone with a brain understands, TEAMS win games and championships in football. As long as you act like you don't understand that simple fact, I will be here to remind you of it.

And you really don't understand how the Cassel stats are relevant? Really? I think you do.

...or maybe you don't...hell, that would explain a lot, actually.