Meet The Sniper;3097097 said:
Nobody said Brady's success is BECAUSE of the coaching system. But Cassel and Bledsoe just HAVE to make you consider the strength of the system as a INSTRUMENT in Brady's success, as much as you Brady supporters want to run away from that fact palms up screaming.
first off, most of bledsoe's career was under bill parcell, not bill billchick.
2nd most good teams build their franchises up to substance some type of lost...cassell having one good year doesnt prove anything because he was playing with a team that went 18-1 the year before, and in 08 had a very weak schedule...what were you expecting them to go 8-8?, they didnt make the playoffs w cassell that year, and moss' numbers were not the same playing with cassell as they were with brady...and if you wanna consider the system then
steve young comes in for j.montana and ends up having a hof career, j. montana goes to K.C. and just does ok...where's the outcry for montana only playing in a system..which he played with jerry rice MOST of his career???
Meet The Sniper;3097097 said:
The main idea of using the Rings as a method to put Brady over Manning has to imply that pretty much the sole reason they got those rings was because of Brady. Otherwise the 2000 Ravens neatly disprove that theory every time. But the coaching under Belicheck has given them winning seasons, even without Brady, and improved the team in EVERY aspect. Unless Brady is secretly BB and every man on that roster those years, you can't hold that over Manning. It doesn't prove Brady was better than Manning, it proves the Pats were better than the Colts.
After that all you have is the dreaded stats, which we all know Manning is clearly superior, even though the Patriots are notorious for running up the score in decided contests.
There, I just proved Manning > Brady with logic.
again 1. rings are a measuring stick that ALL ATHELETES ON judged on, not soley but it's apart of the arguement. athelete on top of athelete has said that, hence the story of the 94 bball dream team..when bird made barkley and ewing leave once him, magic and jordan started talking about rings....
2nd you need to go back again and realize for most of bledsoe's career he was under bill parcell, than pete carroll and I THINK maybe 2 seasons with bill billichick, and like the link i posted reads....the seasons under bill bilichick were ok but not good, also he was about to be replaced regradless of his injuires.
3rd the superbowl bledsoe was in was because the start up franchise jaguars upset the denver broncos, given the pats the chance to play against the start up jags. that's why they made it to the superbowl, which in bledsoe didnt do ish in that superbowl
4. its funny when these arguements come up...Manning is superior in the reg season, but is ok in the playoffs; that gets over looked every time...how are you so bomd in the reg season but when the teams get better and the defense gets better, your not so cerebral..and for all this talk about his defense...for a long period of time the colts were putting up 10, 11 wins seasons...and the defense played a part in that..how is it when they come up short in the playoffs NOW IT'S manning's defense wasnt good
well they were good enough to help manning to 10, 11 wins season
and that running up the score b.s. is laughable...they are grown ass men..the defense's job is to stop them from scoring, and the offense job is to score...this aint pop warner...