Brady vs. Manning: The Final Battle - Page 8

No one has to prove you wrong as you continue to do so on your own. Your always wrong actually.

1 Superbowl, and that one was at that time the most lopsided SB of all time. Not only were you beaten, but the team that beat you wrote a rap song about how they were going to beat you in the SB. Sox lose series is an understatement. Nobody cares about hockey. Also, I like the way you keep saying "Sox in series" if being good to you means that they almost won...then I'll let you have it.

EDIT: Ask the Buffalo Bills if the 80's were good for them. They kept coming close too. Also the Patriots have won all three of their SB by a total of 9 points. Just good enough I guess.

If you can't win a Superbowl with Clark, Wayne, Harrison, and Edge, why would you be able to win it with a bunch of players that became irrelevant the moment they left the pats?

Unless you're saying billy boy is the reason behind all the rings?

No. Coaches and defenses don't matter. It's only about three or four players that win Superbowls.

I know you are just a troll, but:



LOL.

^ I don't understand you point.

AFC Finalist? LOL

THat is actually quite funny. I guess that's better then winning 3 SB's by 9 points. Only in Indy do they celebrate AFC Finalist! What a joke!

How embarrassing! That's like when you are in a science fair in middle school and everyone else is doing volcanoes and shit and all you do is a fucking potato grown over a cup of water. You get the little "participant" ribbon.

It's such a pointless argument since it's a team game. I know for a fact as a player, Manning's talent is superior to Brady and there is no question in terms of commitment. I don't need to knock Brady to boost Manning. But NE and now KC show me that there is a clear blueprint to this team success. That is to be admired. However as individuals the stats don't bare out in Brady's favor even when you take into account Manning's played longer. And for all this postseason stuff, fact is Manning has always statistically proven to be equal or better.

What does this even mean?


This really isn't true, since Brady is superior in a number of statistical areas and also owns a variety of season records over Manning.

But if it were true, by your logic Manning > Montana. Do you really believe that?

You know for a FACT? Really? How do you know that for a fact? You must be the supreme judge of NFL talent. Funny how Manning has only one 1 SB and Brady has 3. Yet Manning is better in the postseason? Also Manning has almost always had better and more consistent talent around him as well as much more stable Coordinators. You don't think that has been an advantage.

I was responding to your point about Boston being a relevant sports town. I think a team playing for the championship is relevant. More importantly there are plenty of championships in that city through the decades.

You are right about the 80's for Patriots as I was thinking about their loss to the Packers. They got beaten pretty badly in that one as well But again, I think an appearance is the Superbowl counts as "relevant"

I don't kow how the Patriots winning 3 superbowls by a totasl of 9 points makes them irrevelant in the sports world. Ask the Buffalo fans if thetre city was more relevant this decade or the 80's or now.

I am not claiming here that Boston is the best sports town. I am just pointing out that they have teams through the decades that make it a relevant to the sports world.

But it is the best sports town. With the exception of New York, what town has more championships? On a per capita basis, Boston is ahead there too.

In fairness its a very very old city.