Hollywood Donahoe

You are what you are. I'm sure the Colts aren't losing sleep about getting 4 wins penciled in from the Texans and Titans. 6-2 > 4-4. To quote Ron Burgandy, "it's science." Me, "prejiduce?" I didn't jidge anyone.

You don't understand a number of facts, but I'll point out the most obvious: THE POINT of playing in the NFL is to WIN SUPER BOWLS.

I'm not the one excluding the most important part of the NFL season.

So does every QB, unless I missed some team eschewing the standard 53-man roster in favor of the one-man roster. A kicker who plays a dozen or so snaps a game is not the most important guy on the field, ever. Arguing that just make you seem silly. I'll have to ask Adam to show me his game MVP trophies. You were probably more afraid that I'd bring up his two shanks tonight. If this is intended to imply that I live in MA, I don't. But we've been over that. Your memory must be on par with you intellectual and emotional maturity.

Brady was crap tonight, no doubt, but so were 52 other players and a handful of coaches. Last year at this time: 4-4 This year at this time: 6-2 I'm not a math guy, but that looks like an incline. I was glad he was bitching out the ref for calling a ticky-tack penalty when the WR ran into the DB. But officiating was not the problem. The Colts got a lot of calls, but the Pats got a big one on the questionable 4th down spot, so it all evened out. Next you'll be saying that the homeless guy pissing at the bus station is by far the richest man in America, even with Bill Gates having $50 billion. Some things just don't make sense, no matter how many times they're repeated.

INDIVIDUAL PLAYERS PLAYING WELL LEADS TO SUPER BOWL WINS! Your knob-gobbling of Manning shows that you and I agree on one thing - that the QB is the most important of the 22 guys on the field. The Patriots have won three Super Bowls because their most important guy on the field has nearly always been better than the other team's most important guy on the field.

3-0 Brady and the Pats played like crap tonight, and lost to a better team. But even after that... 3-0 Holding onto Manning's nutsack for dear life and pretending that the NFL historians stop paying attention in late December doesn't change that, at least not for the foreseeable future. Have fun rooting for your "second team."

I forgot that sportscasters and sports journalists know everything. Silly me.

After seeing the Pats lay one of the worst eggs I've seen in a while on national TV, this is one of the few things that could make me laugh.

I never said that Manning doesn't call his own plays, I said that he's not the only QB who does so. But then, reading comprehension was never your strong suit.

I'm not judging Manning's rookie season, I'm saying that he HAD MARSHALL FAULK DURING THAT SEASON. If you don't want to tell me, that fine, but there's no need to make stuff up.

120+ (more than 120) occupies, on a number line, those numbers from 120 to infinity. You indicated that Brady threw for more than 120+ yards on one of the Super Bowls. If 120+ yards represents the numbers between 119 and infinity, then how could someone ever hope to throw for more than 120+ yards? He would have to throw for more than an infinite number of numbers. Ah, I see, we have a semantical problem. For future clarity, I took your post as an indication that of the three Super Bowls Brady played in, you only remember him throwing for 120 yards or more in one of them. Simple misunderstanding. It's still beyond dumb, though, to cite yardage as an indicator of a player's greatness, particularly when he, in the referenced game, orchestrated the game-winning drive and was named the game's MVP. This is a thread about the top 10 all-time QBs, not the top 10 2006 QBs. McR? Who is she? Whoever she is, the girl in your avatar looks a lot like Ally Sheedy.

Even if he threw for under 120 yards in the first SB, he still threw for more than that in the two other ones, so your statement ("Brady threw for only 120+ yards in 1 of those SB's I remember") would still have been wrong. You got called on a falsehood. Move past it. Oh yeah, I forgot that Manning's rookie season never existed. And why do you have an Ally Sheedy avatar? I mean, I liked Short Circuit too, but I wouldn't put Steve Guttenberg in my avatar.

Marshall Faulk, Edge James, Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne. Brady has NEVER had a skill position player as good as any of those guys, and Manning's had four. The Patriots and Colts spend their money in different areas. Brady's been more successful with what he's been given. And Manning knows that when he puts the ball in the air, chances are that an all-pro type will be on the other end of the completion. Brady's often throwing to guys who other teams decided they didn't want. Your memory sucks. SB 36: 145 yards SB 38: 354 yards SB 39: 236 yards

A QBs JOB IS TO WIN BIG GAMES! Imagine if we were talking about doctors instead of QBs. "John is a good doctor who performs well in important surgeries, but Bill is an AMAZING doctor whose patients always end up dying on the table." Your position makes no sense. Good QBs/doctors who are at their best during important games/surgeries ARE the amazing ones.

Congrats.

Not this again... Every QB lays down stinkers. Brady's W/L record indicates that he's laid down stinkers at a rate much less frequent than the vast majority of NFL QBs throughout history. This bit got me thinking. Brady, at the start of the '06 season, had the 7th best QB rating of all time. Some might dismiss that as an insignificant percentage, though, so I averaged out Brady's current '06 stats to a full season, then calculated his average full season, which came out to: Comp: 314 Att: 513 %: 61.3% Yards: 3,622 TD: 26 INT: 13 Brady's closest comparison is largely agreed to be Montana, so if one assumes that Brady, like Montana, plays for 15 years, his career numbers will end up like this: Comp: 4402 Att: 7183 Yards: 50,714 TD: 362 INT: 175 As of now, those numbers would rank on the all-time lists in the following fashion: Comp: 3rd Att: 4th Yards: 3rd TD: 3rd My math may be off, because I put this together rather hastily, and Brady's numbers are likely to diminish as he nears the end of his career, but it seems evident that, if he remains healthy, he's going to end his career with numbers that are clearly among the best of all time. Coupled with, at a minimum, three Super Bowl wins, that's a damn good résumé.

Did I just discover the secret of time travel?

The point you're missing is that we're not arguing over who the better QB is, we're arguing over what the purpose of an NFL QB is or should be.

No, I didn't (Hint: Plurals are different from singulars). As irrelevant as this is to the debate, you realize that Manning has a three year head start on Brady, correct? Which brings us to the key question: Is a QB's job to lead his team to wins/championships, or to accumulate statistics? I know my answer. If you're going to trot out this argument, you must also acknowledge that Manning's defense has been lacking because the team spends all its money on providing Manning with an All-Pro supporting cast, which allows him to put up the statistics you cite as proof of his greatness. Manning's team spends money on offense. Brady's team spends money on defense. They're both working within the confines of the same cap. Which QB has led his team to more success within that system?

Peyton Manning isn't the best QB in the league, and winning a Super Bowl won't change that, because there will still be a guy in the league who has a better track record of winning than he has. That said, you claim was that I (or fans like me) would consider Manning "just an average QB" until he wins a Super Bowl. That's simply not true. Just because I don't consider him to be the best QB in the league doesn't mean I think he's "average." On the contrary, I think it's clear that outside of Brady, there is no better QB in football than Manning.

I've been meaning to ask you, who is that weird looking woman in your avatar?

I was thinking the same thing. That INT was every bit as effective as a punt. Certainly nothing to blow a gasket over as Theismann did.

I don't recall ever making such a statement.