giants8307 wrote:Don't get me wrong, I love Brady. He's an alum of my high school and I'll root for him every game I see, but I don't believe in "winners" and "losers." I think winning's more a product of a team of good players, than one individual leading an average team. For example, I've herad people say luis castillo is better than giles because he has a ring(possibly 2?). That's extreme, but I'm saying Brady's overrated because people have been calling him the best QB in the league. He's for sure a very good, efficient QB who understands routes and timing with the best of them. But better than Manning just because he wins? No way.
You are comparing apples and oranges--footbal and baseball are nothing alike.
In baseball, it is a series of individual matchups. You throw the ball, I hit it. So comparing players based on winning doesn't fly.
I'd argue it doesn't work in football, either, except for the QB. By virtue of the position, he's in charge of the game. His job isn't necessarily to throw deep out patterns, it is to manage the game. He is directly responsible in a huge way for how his team performs. That is why it is the most indispensible position in football.
All Brady does is win. You'd be foolish to pick anyone else in football today if you want to win a game.
Someone on the other side said to me that Manning is very good, but has had a few bad games against good defenses in the playoffs... hello??!? And he wants a QB that doesn't perform outdoors against good defenses, in the playoffs? I'm sorry, I'll take Montana over Marino every day of the week, and I'll take Brady over Manning.
I still don't get how this guy is underrated. People say it's the system, or the coach, or something else. It's him, people. Anyone see that bomb in the Pitt game? Perfectly placed....
Anyway, sorry to hijack this thread. I'm dumbfounded.