NFL Forum :: - Brady Vs Eli Manning

Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

FAQ Register Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

FootballsFuture.com Home

Brady Vs Eli Manning
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12, 13 Next

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL Comparisons

View previous topic :: View next topic

Which qb would you want for a big game?

Brady

61%

[ 78 ]

Manning

38%

[ 49 ]

Total Votes : 127

Author

Message

KingofSTATS

Joined: 29 Jan 2008
Posts: 7923

Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 7:17 pm Post subject:

kethnaab wrote:

KingofSTATS wrote:

kethnaab wrote:

KingofSTATS wrote:

Players who are "clutch" are just players people are being nice to and refusing to call them what they really are "inconsistent"

*laughs*

ah KoS, you're too funny

Why laughing cause it hits close to home to "clutch" Ben aka "inconsistent"

Clutch

how adorable. Call a Civic a Civic, don't call it a ferrari cause it gets you to your destination on time after clunking with it's hazard lights on the whole trip on the freeway.

I'm laughing at your feeble attempt at a pre-emptive strike to protect your boy, a notorious choke artist

If there is no "clutch" then of course there is no "choke", right??.

There is no such thing as clutch or choke. There is just success and failure and it's a percentage game. Either you have more success or more failure. Amplifying "definition" based on time dictated scenarios is whats feeble.

Pressure exist consistently through out competitive sports. As fans, sure we get caught up in those closing moments, because they are captivating, dramatic, intense. But more games are decided by plays in the first 3 quarters than they are in the final 5 minutes of the 4th.

How can Rivers "choke" when he has had alot more success than failure?

It's feeble when people try to associate an outcome of a game with a single players characteristic. It's not even their play, it's an imaginary skill set. I don't let situations dictate assessing a player, especially considering every player is in varying situations with completely incomparable scenarios and variables that dictate outcome of games or moments.

Until I see 2 players of equal skill set in identical scenarios and situations with all the same variables at play, using that barometer to measure them is an utter joke. Down right shameful how the media has ran with this idea and fans have gobbled it up like candy.
_________________

How QB's Should Truly be Judged Smile

KingofSTATS

Joined: 29 Jan 2008
Posts: 7923

Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 7:22 pm Post subject:

FirstDownFaulk wrote:

kethnaab wrote:

KingofSTATS wrote:

kethnaab wrote:

KingofSTATS wrote:

Players who are "clutch" are just players people are being nice to and refusing to call them what they really are "inconsistent"

*laughs*

ah KoS, you're too funny

Why laughing cause it hits close to home to "clutch" Ben aka "inconsistent"

Clutch

how adorable. Call a Civic a Civic, don't call it a ferrari cause it gets you to your destination on time after clunking with it's hazard lights on the whole trip on the freeway.

I'm laughing at your feeble attempt at a pre-emptive strike to protect your boy, a notorious choke artist

If there is no "clutch" then of course there is no "choke", right??.

Philip Rivers can sling it around like the best of them, but he's not a "winner". Whats the point of a ton of yardage if you don't win the game.

How is someone not a winner when they have won 66% of their games?

What do only certain types of wins, count as winning? If that's the case than Brady since 04 hasn't been much of a winner.
_________________

How QB's Should Truly be Judged Smile

FirstDownFaulk

Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Posts: 2993
Location: New York

Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 7:47 pm Post subject:

KingofSTATS wrote:

FirstDownFaulk wrote:

kethnaab wrote:

KingofSTATS wrote:

kethnaab wrote:

KingofSTATS wrote:

Players who are "clutch" are just players people are being nice to and refusing to call them what they really are "inconsistent"

*laughs*

ah KoS, you're too funny

Why laughing cause it hits close to home to "clutch" Ben aka "inconsistent"

Clutch

how adorable. Call a Civic a Civic, don't call it a ferrari cause it gets you to your destination on time after clunking with it's hazard lights on the whole trip on the freeway.

I'm laughing at your feeble attempt at a pre-emptive strike to protect your boy, a notorious choke artist

If there is no "clutch" then of course there is no "choke", right??.

Philip Rivers can sling it around like the best of them, but he's not a "winner". Whats the point of a ton of yardage if you don't win the game.

How is someone not a winner when they have won 66% of their games?

What do only certain types of wins, count as winning? If that's the case than Brady since 04 hasn't been much of a winner.

Really ?? Since 2004 he's 102-31 including the playoffs (76%). He has a Super Bowl, has played in THREE, and has had at least 12 wins five out of the seven years. In his best years from a win/loss perspective ('06 and '09) he has CHOKED it away in the playoffs (0.33 TD/INT ratio, 67.4 rating) and he's a sub .500 postseason quarterback (3-4).

Also....Philip Rivers is 69-38 in his career including the playoffs, that's a 64% winning percentage, not 66%. To put that in perspective for you, Tony Romo has a 62% career winning percentage...would you consider him a "winner" ?? Philip Rivers is not a winner on the level of Tom Brady. In fact, no one is. Period. No quarterback, that qualifies, has a higher winning percentage than Tom Brady. Philip Rivers is more satisfied slinging the ball around and compiling his yardage for his fantasy owners, Tom Brady does whatever is needed by him to give his team the best chance to win. This is why he's been to FIVE Super Bowls and counting and Philip Rivers hasn't even been to one.
_________________
Stevan Ridley, Att: 225, Yds: 1010, Y/A: 4.0, TD:9

KingofSTATS

Joined: 29 Jan 2008
Posts: 7923

Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 7:59 pm Post subject:

FirstDownFaulk wrote:

KingofSTATS wrote:

FirstDownFaulk wrote:

kethnaab wrote:

KingofSTATS wrote:

kethnaab wrote:

KingofSTATS wrote:

Players who are "clutch" are just players people are being nice to and refusing to call them what they really are "inconsistent"

*laughs*

ah KoS, you're too funny

Why laughing cause it hits close to home to "clutch" Ben aka "inconsistent"

Clutch

how adorable. Call a Civic a Civic, don't call it a ferrari cause it gets you to your destination on time after clunking with it's hazard lights on the whole trip on the freeway.

I'm laughing at your feeble attempt at a pre-emptive strike to protect your boy, a notorious choke artist

If there is no "clutch" then of course there is no "choke", right??.

Philip Rivers can sling it around like the best of them, but he's not a "winner". Whats the point of a ton of yardage if you don't win the game.

How is someone not a winner when they have won 66% of their games?

What do only certain types of wins, count as winning? If that's the case than Brady since 04 hasn't been much of a winner.

Really ?? Since 2004 he's 102-31 including the playoffs (76%). He has a Super Bowl, has played in THREE, and has had at least 12 wins five out of the seven years. In his best years from a win/loss perspective ('06 and '09) he has CHOKED it away in the playoffs (0.33 TD/INT ratio, 67.4 rating) and he's a sub .500 postseason quarterback (3-4).

Also....Philip Rivers is 69-38 in his career including the playoffs, that's a 64% winning percentage. Philip Rivers is not a winner on the level of Tom Brady. Period. Philip Rivers is more satisfied slinging the ball around and compiling his yardage for his fantasy owners, Tom Brady does whatever is needed by him to give his team the best chance to win. No quarterback, that qualifies, has a higher winning percentage than Tom Brady.

Since 04 means Brady has 0 SB's in that span and is 0-2 in the SB and if my math off the top of my head isn't wrong is 7-6 in the playoffs since his last SB win. So does that mean he is barely a winner the past 7 years?

I don't get how people can qualify absolutes. Winning is winning and losing is losing. Those are absolutes. How can you qualify them. It's like saying midnight blue is too blue or powder blue is not blue enough. The absolute is they are both BLUE.

If you win more than you lose, you are a winner. There is no such thing as a super winner, big time winner, uber winner, epic winner, so-so winner. If you lose more than you win, you are a loser.
_________________

How QB's Should Truly be Judged Smile

FirstDownFaulk

Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Posts: 2993
Location: New York

Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 8:02 pm Post subject:

KingofSTATS wrote:

FirstDownFaulk wrote:

KingofSTATS wrote:

FirstDownFaulk wrote:

kethnaab wrote:

KingofSTATS wrote:

kethnaab wrote:

KingofSTATS wrote:

Players who are "clutch" are just players people are being nice to and refusing to call them what they really are "inconsistent"

*laughs*

ah KoS, you're too funny

Why laughing cause it hits close to home to "clutch" Ben aka "inconsistent"

Clutch

how adorable. Call a Civic a Civic, don't call it a ferrari cause it gets you to your destination on time after clunking with it's hazard lights on the whole trip on the freeway.

I'm laughing at your feeble attempt at a pre-emptive strike to protect your boy, a notorious choke artist

If there is no "clutch" then of course there is no "choke", right??.

Philip Rivers can sling it around like the best of them, but he's not a "winner". Whats the point of a ton of yardage if you don't win the game.

How is someone not a winner when they have won 66% of their games?

What do only certain types of wins, count as winning? If that's the case than Brady since 04 hasn't been much of a winner.

Really ?? Since 2004 he's 102-31 including the playoffs (76%). He has a Super Bowl, has played in THREE, and has had at least 12 wins five out of the seven years. In his best years from a win/loss perspective ('06 and '09) he has CHOKED it away in the playoffs (0.33 TD/INT ratio, 67.4 rating) and he's a sub .500 postseason quarterback (3-4).

Also....Philip Rivers is 69-38 in his career including the playoffs, that's a 64% winning percentage. Philip Rivers is not a winner on the level of Tom Brady. Period. Philip Rivers is more satisfied slinging the ball around and compiling his yardage for his fantasy owners, Tom Brady does whatever is needed by him to give his team the best chance to win. No quarterback, that qualifies, has a higher winning percentage than Tom Brady.

I don't get why people continuously cherry-pick numbers to attempt and prove a point to eventually realize that in the grand scheme of things, it simply proves that you did nothing but "qualify absolutes" to make a point. And you're criticizing me for it when you picked "after '04" as your initial qualifying year ?

You can't truly be considered a winner until you've won it all...that's my point. Philip Rivers hasn't and most likely never will. He's not a good NFL quarterback, he's average at best. His "glory days" lasted 3 years.
_________________
Stevan Ridley, Att: 225, Yds: 1010, Y/A: 4.0, TD:9

Last edited by FirstDownFaulk on Mon Oct 01, 2012 8:07 pm; edited 1 time in total

KingofSTATS

Joined: 29 Jan 2008
Posts: 7923

Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 8:04 pm Post subject:

FirstDownFaulk wrote:

KingofSTATS wrote:

FirstDownFaulk wrote:

kethnaab wrote:

KingofSTATS wrote:

kethnaab wrote:

KingofSTATS wrote:

Players who are "clutch" are just players people are being nice to and refusing to call them what they really are "inconsistent"

*laughs*

ah KoS, you're too funny

Why laughing cause it hits close to home to "clutch" Ben aka "inconsistent"

Clutch

how adorable. Call a Civic a Civic, don't call it a ferrari cause it gets you to your destination on time after clunking with it's hazard lights on the whole trip on the freeway.

I'm laughing at your feeble attempt at a pre-emptive strike to protect your boy, a notorious choke artist

If there is no "clutch" then of course there is no "choke", right??.

Philip Rivers can sling it around like the best of them, but he's not a "winner". Whats the point of a ton of yardage if you don't win the game.

How is someone not a winner when they have won 66% of their games?

What do only certain types of wins, count as winning? If that's the case than Brady since 04 hasn't been much of a winner.

If you actually think Rivers is satisfied with slinging the ball for stats and doesn't do anything it takes to win as much as any athlete playing sports, you are down right crazy bruh. Players who care about stats, don't have the type of passion, fiery demeanor, demonstrative stance that Rivers has. Only players who truly only care about winning have that type of personality. There is a reason Rivers blows a gasket over any mistake his offense or him make, because winning is all that matters to him, anything less is unacceptable. No one in the league wants to win more than Rivers, no way no how, no chance. Rivers slings the ball, because it gives his team the best chance to win and because the run game has been inconsistent as of late.

If you want to be honest, the reason Brady has been to 5 SB's and Rivers 0, lets call a spade a spade. Belichick/Turner-Marty is that reason.

Go ask Saints how much HC makes a difference. If you honestly believe Brady and NE would of been to 5 SB's with Turner/Marty you are nuts. If you think SD/Rivers wouldn't of been to multiple SB's with Belichick, equally crazy.

Now i'm going to get blamed for hijacking this thread, but for the record I did not bring up Rivers.
_________________

How QB's Should Truly be Judged Smile

Last edited by KingofSTATS on Mon Oct 01, 2012 8:08 pm; edited 1 time in total

KingofSTATS

Joined: 29 Jan 2008
Posts: 7923

Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 8:07 pm Post subject:

FirstDownFaulk wrote:

KingofSTATS wrote:

FirstDownFaulk wrote:

KingofSTATS wrote:

FirstDownFaulk wrote:

kethnaab wrote:

KingofSTATS wrote:

kethnaab wrote:

KingofSTATS wrote:

Players who are "clutch" are just players people are being nice to and refusing to call them what they really are "inconsistent"

*laughs*

ah KoS, you're too funny

Why laughing cause it hits close to home to "clutch" Ben aka "inconsistent"

Clutch

how adorable. Call a Civic a Civic, don't call it a ferrari cause it gets you to your destination on time after clunking with it's hazard lights on the whole trip on the freeway.

I'm laughing at your feeble attempt at a pre-emptive strike to protect your boy, a notorious choke artist

If there is no "clutch" then of course there is no "choke", right??.

Philip Rivers can sling it around like the best of them, but he's not a "winner". Whats the point of a ton of yardage if you don't win the game.

How is someone not a winner when they have won 66% of their games?

What do only certain types of wins, count as winning? If that's the case than Brady since 04 hasn't been much of a winner.

Really ?? Since 2004 he's 102-31 including the playoffs (76%). He has a Super Bowl, has played in THREE, and has had at least 12 wins five out of the seven years. In his best years from a win/loss perspective ('06 and '09) he has CHOKED it away in the playoffs (0.33 TD/INT ratio, 67.4 rating) and he's a sub .500 postseason quarterback (3-4).

Also....Philip Rivers is 69-38 in his career including the playoffs, that's a 64% winning percentage. Philip Rivers is not a winner on the level of Tom Brady. Period. Philip Rivers is more satisfied slinging the ball around and compiling his yardage for his fantasy owners, Tom Brady does whatever is needed by him to give his team the best chance to win. No quarterback, that qualifies, has a higher winning percentage than Tom Brady.

You can't truly be considered a winner until you've won it all...that's my point. Philip Rivers hasn't and most likely never will.

That's a negative. You can't be considered a SB winner, until you win a SB. But if you win more than you lose, by simple definition you are a WINNER. Why are you attempting to change the definition of words?

While we're at it, you are also predicting the future to now?
_________________

How QB's Should Truly be Judged Smile

FirstDownFaulk

Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Posts: 2993
Location: New York

Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 8:12 pm Post subject:

KingofSTATS wrote:

If you actually thing Rivers is satisfied with slinging the ball for stats and doesn't do anything it takes to win as much as any athlete playing sports, you are down right crazy bruh. Players who care about stats, don't have the type of passion, fiery demeanor, demonstrative stance that Rivers has. Only players who truly only care about winning have that type of personality. There is a reason Rivers blows a gasket over any mistake his offense or him make, because winning is all that matters to him, anything less is unacceptable. No one in the league wants to win more than Rivers, no way no how, no chance.

If you want to be honest, the reason Brady has been to 5 SB's and Rivers 0, lets call a spade a spade. Belichick/Turner-Marty is that reason.

Go ask Saints how much HC makes a difference. If you honestly believe Brady and NE would of been to 5 SB's with Turner/Marty you are nuts. If you think SD/Rivers wouldn't of been to multiple SB's with Belichick, equally crazy.

Now i'm going to get blamed for hijacking this thread, but for the record I did not bring up Rivers.

Bill Belichick before Brady: 41-55 (43%) 1-1 playoff record
Bill Belichick since Brady: 126-37 (77%) 16-6 playoff record, 3 Super Bowl titles

"let's call a spade a spade"....bruh.....
_________________
Stevan Ridley, Att: 225, Yds: 1010, Y/A: 4.0, TD:9

FirstDownFaulk

Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Posts: 2993
Location: New York

Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 8:15 pm Post subject:

KingofSTATS wrote:

Who's changing the definition of words ?? How can you be considered a winner on the same level as guys who have actually won Super Bowl's, when you haven't ??

Yeah, I'm a psychic, and I would bet my net worth that Philip Rivers will NEVER win a Super Bowl. I mean, he couldnt win with the greatest running back and tight end of all-time (by your accounts)....his window has closed.

Seriously, just give up on your crusade to prove to the world that Philip Rivers is so great. You're on an island all alone, and everyone is laughing. No one is going to drink your "chargerade"....he's not very good anymore.
_________________
Stevan Ridley, Att: 225, Yds: 1010, Y/A: 4.0, TD:9

DarrellGreen28

Joined: 16 Jan 2011
Posts: 408
Location: Rockville, MD

Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 8:24 pm Post subject:

If I had to pick one of them and play a team who had the other, I'm taking Eli Laughing

Any other situation is Brady
_________________
RG3

KingofSTATS

Joined: 29 Jan 2008
Posts: 7923

Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 8:31 pm Post subject:

FirstDownFaulk wrote:

KingofSTATS wrote:

FirstDownFaulk wrote:

KingofSTATS wrote:

FirstDownFaulk wrote:

kethnaab wrote:

KingofSTATS wrote:

kethnaab wrote:

KingofSTATS wrote:

Players who are "clutch" are just players people are being nice to and refusing to call them what they really are "inconsistent"

*laughs*

ah KoS, you're too funny

Why laughing cause it hits close to home to "clutch" Ben aka "inconsistent"

Clutch

how adorable. Call a Civic a Civic, don't call it a ferrari cause it gets you to your destination on time after clunking with it's hazard lights on the whole trip on the freeway.

I'm laughing at your feeble attempt at a pre-emptive strike to protect your boy, a notorious choke artist

If there is no "clutch" then of course there is no "choke", right??.

Philip Rivers can sling it around like the best of them, but he's not a "winner". Whats the point of a ton of yardage if you don't win the game.

How is someone not a winner when they have won 66% of their games?

What do only certain types of wins, count as winning? If that's the case than Brady since 04 hasn't been much of a winner.

Really ?? Since 2004 he's 102-31 including the playoffs (76%). He has a Super Bowl, has played in THREE, and has had at least 12 wins five out of the seven years. In his best years from a win/loss perspective ('06 and '09) he has CHOKED it away in the playoffs (0.33 TD/INT ratio, 67.4 rating) and he's a sub .500 postseason quarterback (3-4).

Also....Philip Rivers is 69-38 in his career including the playoffs, that's a 64% winning percentage. Philip Rivers is not a winner on the level of Tom Brady. Period. Philip Rivers is more satisfied slinging the ball around and compiling his yardage for his fantasy owners, Tom Brady does whatever is needed by him to give his team the best chance to win. No quarterback, that qualifies, has a higher winning percentage than Tom Brady.

Ok well I can see you took a civilized debate and turned it into a troll fest. Congrats.

Sorry me picking a duration of time to prove a point is not qualifying absolutes. It's me showing you outcomes and results change. Brady was 3-0 in SB's and almost unbeatable in the playoffs. Since then, he has become a better QB, yet somehow the outcome and results have gotten much worse.

So what gives? Ohhh yeah, it takes more than just a great QB.

You are right Rivers is not a good QB, he is a Great QB.
_________________

How QB's Should Truly be Judged Smile

KingofSTATS

Joined: 29 Jan 2008
Posts: 7923

Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 8:34 pm Post subject:

FirstDownFaulk wrote:

KingofSTATS wrote:

Bill Belichick before Brady: 41-55 (43%) 1-1 playoff record
Bill Belichick since Brady: 126-37 (77%) 16-6 playoff record, 3 Super Bowl titles

"let's call a spade a spade"....bruh.....

You really comparing the Browns to the Pats? His first head coaching run in the NFL to boot. BB went 11-5 with Cassel for God's sake. Like I said Brady with Turner/Marty no chance he makes 1 SB, let alone 5. Bring BB to SD since 06 and they are the most recent dynasty, no doubt in my mind about it. Coaches are the engine that make the car run.
_________________

How QB's Should Truly be Judged Smile

KingofSTATS

Joined: 29 Jan 2008
Posts: 7923

Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 8:42 pm Post subject:

FirstDownFaulk wrote:

KingofSTATS wrote:

You are attempting to change the definition of winning, by qualifying it and when you do, it ruins your argument because the past 7 years, Brady has not been a winner. If anything he has been the biggest "choker" in pro sports. Who else has lost 2 championships in pro sports the past 7 years without winning a championship in that span? Since you believe in choking and qualifying wins.

I hope you don't have alot of value in your net worth, cause you'll be broke before you know it.

Guess that means Brady will never ever win a SB again, since he couldn't do it with an 18-0 team. Without Crennel and Weis, he's just not a SB winning QB, unless he's leaning on the shoulders of strong defensive teams. Your logic is fun, so reckless and unstable, I love it.

1 down year after 3 elite seasons, is not a sign of regressing big guy. It's a fluke down year that everyone experiences. Simmer down big guy.
_________________

How QB's Should Truly be Judged Smile

Bobikus

Joined: 07 Jun 2009
Posts: 6288

Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 9:31 pm Post subject:

KingofSTATS wrote:

You are right Rivers is not a good QB, he is a Great QB.

*Looks at thread title*

Rivers is neither Eli nor Brady.
_________________
Geno Smith, Tavon Austin, Stedman Bailey, and Bruce Irvin will all have at least 1 pro bowl season each by the end of the decade.

KingofSTATS

Joined: 29 Jan 2008
Posts: 7923

Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:25 pm Post subject:

Bobikus wrote:

KingofSTATS wrote:

You are right Rivers is not a good QB, he is a Great QB.

*Looks at thread title*

Rivers is neither Eli nor Brady.

Look at the chain of replies, I didn't bring up Rivers. I was talking about Eli vs Brady and like always someone else brings up Rivers.

Can mods start handing out warnings for baiting??
_________________

How QB's Should Truly be Judged Smile

Display posts from previous:

       FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL Comparisons All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12, 13  Next

Page 11 of 13

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum