alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets?hl=enalt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Peyton is better than Brady? - 15 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/2443a8762013e97a?hl=en
* What the Saints have that the Jets dont... - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/8bf15d8278571b5d?hl=en
* Jared Odrick - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/90470891e95c09a8?hl=en
* Same old Jets all over again - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/6a48f96aeb19e482?hl=en
* Super Bowl Standings (after the 2010 Super Bowl) - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/560caa1f3ffcced7?hl=en
* humor world - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/d4ec1a57519bfca9?hl=en
* Joey Porter released from Dolphins ( According to NFL.com ) - 3 messages, 3
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/f752a7566d7b6be5?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Peyton is better than Brady?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/2443a8762013e97a?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 15 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 11 2010 9:08 pm
From: MZ
Grinch wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:59:22 -0500, "Ray O'Hara"
> <raymond-ohara@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Grinch" <oldnasty@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> news:orf9n5t9t50psikn0mo529eiovl9v71ok0@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:50:12 -0500, "Ray O'Hara"
>>> <raymond-ohara@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Julio" <hoolio3sanchez@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:EOEM68HY40221.399375@reece.net.au...
>>>>> Brady has been to four superbowls and won three, Manning
>>>>> has been to two and won one, despite having a longer time
>>>>> in the league as a starter. Brady beat Kurt Warner, Jake
>>>>> Delhomme and Donovan McNabb, Manning beat Rex Grossman.
>>> The way you guys talk, boxing is more of a team sport than football.
>>>
>>> At least we all now the boxer's cornerman and trainer have *something*
>>> to do with the contest.
>>>
>>>>> Manning couldn't do a thing until the rules change that
>>>>> allowed his sensitive receivers to get off the line without
>>>>> getting hit was instituted at the behest of Polian.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right now, Eli Manning, who beat Brady
>>> "Eli beat Brady". ;-)
>>>
>>>>> has as much claim to the #2 spot as anyone.
>>> Yeah, and George Chuvalo had as much claim as anyonme to be #2 behind
>>> Ali. After all, he lasted to lose a decision against Ali, while
>>> Liston, Patterson, Quary, Ellis, Foreman, Frazier (twice) all got
>>> knocked out.
>>>
>>>>> J.
>>>> Brady 14-2 in the P.O.s
>>>>
>>>> Manning 9-9 in the P.O.s
>>> Tell me that Brady's record in the playoffs would be 14-2 if the Lions
>>> had drafted him and I'll be really impressed.
>
>> who knows.
>> the Lions could use a QB.
>
> During the Matt Millen era they coulda used more prayer. By the Pope.
>
>> do you think Manning would have his nmbers if he played elsewhere?
>
> No QB's numbers would be the same on a different team.
>
> They don't stay the same on the same team as the team changes.
>
> Namath was a world-beater when throwing to Maynard, Sauer, Lammons
> etc, coached by Ewbank, on a team with a top D so he was usually
> throwing downhill.
>
> He was a bum when throwing to Eddie Bell, David Knight, Lou Piccone,
> etc., coached by Charlie Winner and Lou Holtz, on a team with a Swiss
> cheese D, so he was always chucking uphill. A bum!
>
>> Brady has not been blessed with HOFers on offence playing around him.
>
> No. And he never had passing numbers to match Manning's either --
> until 2007 and the all-pro receivers showed up. Team changed, his
> numbers changed.
>
> But his team was the best team of the decade all along, and had a
> better W-L record than Manning's team.
>
> If one believes NFL payroll data, the QB is about 8% of the average
> team. That means 92% of what his team does isn't him.
>
> For QBs like Manning and Brady it's more like 15%, which still means
> that 85% of what the team does is due to the other 52 players, not
> them. Even in the Super Bowl, and in other clutch situations. It's
> really not a mano a mano sport - that just sells papers.
>
> But for anyone who likes QB W-L records, "this QB beat that QB",
> Sanchez and Brady split 1-1 this year. They're equal!
W/L records are an oversimplification. Ray's point, I think, was that
Brady appears to be a better playoff QB than Manning. I don't think
you'll ever find a statistic to dissociate the player from the team, so
you'll have to rely a lot on observations. But I think you'd have a
very hard time convincing me that what you've seen from Manning in the
playoffs has been on par with (or better than) what you've seen from
Brady in the playoffs. Both have put up stinkers, but it seems Manning
has had more of them. Maybe he's simply faced better defenses in the
playoffs than Brady?
== 2 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 4:10 am
From: "AllYou!"
In news:EOEM68HY40221.399375@reece.net.au,
Julio <hoolio3sanchez@yahoo.com> mused:
> Brady has been to four superbowls and won three, Manning
> has been to two and won one, despite having a longer time
> in the league as a starter. Brady beat Kurt Warner,
No, he didn't.
> Jake
> Delhomme and Donovan McNabb, Manning beat Rex Grossman.
Didn't beat any of them, either.
> Manning couldn't do a thing until the rules change that
> allowed his sensitive receivers to get off the line without
> getting hit was instituted at the behest of Polian.
That's an overblown myth. Sure, Polian wanted a rules change, and
he was certainly driven to that request because of the type of team
he had. But it took an overwhelming number of other owners to agree
with him, and they did. He conducted himself within the NFL rules
to make rules, and he prevailed. If it was so unfairly favorable to
the Colts, the rules would've changed back again, and they have not.
In the meantime, all other teams have had plenty of time to adjust
to those rules changes, including the Pats. So those changes have
not favored Manning more than Brady unless you want to say that
Manning is the better QB.
>
> Right now, Eli Manning, who beat Brady, has as much claim
> to the #2 spot as anyone.
Actually, the Jets beat the Colts, so they have a better claim to
being #1.
== 3 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 4:21 am
From: Johnctx
MZ wrote:
> Grinch wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:59:22 -0500, "Ray O'Hara"
>> <raymond-ohara@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Grinch" <oldnasty@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>> news:orf9n5t9t50psikn0mo529eiovl9v71ok0@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:50:12 -0500, "Ray O'Hara"
>>>> <raymond-ohara@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Julio" <hoolio3sanchez@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:EOEM68HY40221.399375@reece.net.au...
>>>>>> Brady has been to four superbowls and won three, Manning
>>>>>> has been to two and won one, despite having a longer time
>>>>>> in the league as a starter. Brady beat Kurt Warner, Jake
>>>>>> Delhomme and Donovan McNabb, Manning beat Rex Grossman.
>>>> The way you guys talk, boxing is more of a team sport than football.
>>>>
>>>> At least we all now the boxer's cornerman and trainer have *something*
>>>> to do with the contest.
>>>>
>>>>>> Manning couldn't do a thing until the rules change that
>>>>>> allowed his sensitive receivers to get off the line without
>>>>>> getting hit was instituted at the behest of Polian.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right now, Eli Manning, who beat Brady
>>>> "Eli beat Brady". ;-)
>>>>
>>>>>> has as much claim to the #2 spot as anyone.
>>>> Yeah, and George Chuvalo had as much claim as anyonme to be #2 behind
>>>> Ali. After all, he lasted to lose a decision against Ali, while
>>>> Liston, Patterson, Quary, Ellis, Foreman, Frazier (twice) all got
>>>> knocked out.
>>>>
>>>>>> J.
>>>>> Brady 14-2 in the P.O.s
>>>>>
>>>>> Manning 9-9 in the P.O.s
>>>> Tell me that Brady's record in the playoffs would be 14-2 if the Lions
>>>> had drafted him and I'll be really impressed.
>>
>>> who knows.
>>> the Lions could use a QB.
>>
>> During the Matt Millen era they coulda used more prayer. By the Pope.
>>
>>> do you think Manning would have his nmbers if he played elsewhere?
>>
>> No QB's numbers would be the same on a different team.
>>
>> They don't stay the same on the same team as the team changes.
>>
>> Namath was a world-beater when throwing to Maynard, Sauer, Lammons
>> etc, coached by Ewbank, on a team with a top D so he was usually
>> throwing downhill.
>>
>> He was a bum when throwing to Eddie Bell, David Knight, Lou Piccone,
>> etc., coached by Charlie Winner and Lou Holtz, on a team with a Swiss
>> cheese D, so he was always chucking uphill. A bum!
>>
>>> Brady has not been blessed with HOFers on offence playing around him.
>>
>> No. And he never had passing numbers to match Manning's either --
>> until 2007 and the all-pro receivers showed up. Team changed, his
>> numbers changed.
>>
>> But his team was the best team of the decade all along, and had a
>> better W-L record than Manning's team.
>>
>> If one believes NFL payroll data, the QB is about 8% of the average
>> team. That means 92% of what his team does isn't him.
>>
>> For QBs like Manning and Brady it's more like 15%, which still means
>> that 85% of what the team does is due to the other 52 players, not
>> them. Even in the Super Bowl, and in other clutch situations. It's
>> really not a mano a mano sport - that just sells papers.
>>
>> But for anyone who likes QB W-L records, "this QB beat that QB",
>> Sanchez and Brady split 1-1 this year. They're equal!
>
> W/L records are an oversimplification. Ray's point, I think, was that
> Brady appears to be a better playoff QB than Manning. I don't think
> you'll ever find a statistic to dissociate the player from the team, so
> you'll have to rely a lot on observations. But I think you'd have a
> very hard time convincing me that what you've seen from Manning in the
> playoffs has been on par with (or better than) what you've seen from
> Brady in the playoffs. Both have put up stinkers, but it seems Manning
> has had more of them. Maybe he's simply faced better defenses in the
> playoffs than Brady?
Maybe Brady has had a much better head coach. You just don't know. It
makes arguing sports fun & pointless at the same time.
I do find Pat fans funny and I know many, even outside this freak show,
who twist up about any accolades any other great player, coach or team
gets. The funny thing is that Brady rarely talks but has a few "me, me,
me" gaffes.
== 4 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 4:48 am
From: "AllYou!"
In news:Ot2dncZHeeta2ujWnZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d@giganews.com,
Johnctx <jc@spamtx.net> mused:
> Maybe Brady has had a much better head coach. You just don't
> know. It makes arguing sports fun & pointless at the same time.
Some sports lend themselves more easily to the use of stats as a
means of assiing player talent and value than others. I think
baseball is one which does, and football, not so much. But in any
case, stats are really only part of the picture, and their use is
frought with limitations. In the end, a much bigger factor is
actually watching the games, and subjectively assessing performance.
And even then.......
IMO, if all player contracts were torn up, and all curent players
were to majically revert back to their ages at the time they were
drafted, I'd take Manning over Brady in a heart beat. I think he's
a better field general overall, and I think he's got a slightly more
accurate arm. I think Brady has the edge in leadership.
== 5 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 6:46 am
From: Michael
On Feb 11, 8:35 pm, Julio <hoolio3sanc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Brady has been to four superbowls and won three, Manning
> has been to two and won one, despite having a longer time
> in the league as a starter. Brady beat Kurt Warner, Jake
> Delhomme and Donovan McNabb, Manning beat Rex Grossman.
> Manning couldn't do a thing until the rules change that
> allowed his sensitive receivers to get off the line without
> getting hit was instituted at the behest of Polian.
>
> Right now, Eli Manning, who beat Brady, has as much claim
> to the #2 spot as anyone.
>
> J.
dont know if you could say that brady is the better qb. the way i
usually put it is that brady is the more "successful" qb vs.
manning.
if brady had been with the colts, would he still have won 3
superbowls ??? the colts coaching staff was a joke until dungy...
brady never had to suffer a shitty excuse for a coaching staff.. the
day mo lewis got brady on the field, brady had one of the best
coaching crews in the game not to mention ownership/management that
ensured he'd have quality manpower on the field season to season.
i will say one thing... if brady was in that last superbowl at the
same exact spot manning was in when he threw the pick... i say brady
would not have thrown that shitty pass at that very important time.
AND.. I will also say... If brady was the qb of the Colts this year
and not manning, no way would the colts have gotten to the
superbowl... Manning's execution and brains was pretty much the whole
team. no way does brady carry a whole team.
== 6 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 8:06 am
From: MZ
Michael wrote:
> brady never had to suffer a shitty excuse for a coaching staff..
Haven't watched the Pats lately, huh?
>no way does brady carry a whole team.
Then who carried them to the AFCCG in '06? Manning's surrounding talent
has been better than Brady's throughout most of his career.
== 7 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 8:52 am
From: Michael
On Feb 12, 11:06 am, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
> Michael wrote:
> > brady never had to suffer a shitty excuse for a coaching staff..
>
> Haven't watched the Pats lately, huh?
>
> >no way does brady carry a whole team.
>
> Then who carried them to the AFCCG in '06? Manning's surrounding talent
> has been better than Brady's throughout most of his career.
ok... what have you been smoking ???
== 8 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 8:55 am
From: MZ
Michael wrote:
> On Feb 12, 11:06 am, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
>> Michael wrote:
>>> brady never had to suffer a shitty excuse for a coaching staff..
>> Haven't watched the Pats lately, huh?
>>
>> >no way does brady carry a whole team.
>>
>> Then who carried them to the AFCCG in '06? Manning's surrounding talent
>> has been better than Brady's throughout most of his career.
>
> ok... what have you been smoking ???
This notion that Brady's been surrounded by better players is a new one.
I haven't really heard it before. Usually, it's been the other way
around. So maybe those who insist that Brady's been the lucky recipient
of where he landed and Manning has not, should explain their point of
view. I'd love to hear it! :)
== 9 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 9:05 am
From: Michael
On Feb 12, 11:55 am, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
> Michael wrote:
> > On Feb 12, 11:06 am, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
> >> Michael wrote:
> >>> brady never had to suffer a shitty excuse for a coaching staff..
> >> Haven't watched the Pats lately, huh?
>
> >> >no way does brady carry a whole team.
>
> >> Then who carried them to the AFCCG in '06? Manning's surrounding talent
> >> has been better than Brady's throughout most of his career.
>
> > ok... what have you been smoking ???
>
> This notion that Brady's been surrounded by better players is a new one.
> I haven't really heard it before. Usually, it's been the other way
> around. So maybe those who insist that Brady's been the lucky recipient
> of where he landed and Manning has not, should explain their point of
> view. I'd love to hear it! :)
who was brady's head coach for the first four years of his career ???
who was mannings ??? "playoffs ?!?!? dont talk about playoffs"
have a peek at the colts defensive stats for the past decade, then the
pats.
i'll admit that the belichick systems worked astonishingly well with
lesser talent in places from time to time and the colts had some big
name guys at the skill positions, but as a whole on both sides of the
ball, the pats outrank the colts as far as over all quality
== 10 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 11:36 am
From: MZ
Michael wrote:
> On Feb 12, 11:55 am, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
>> Michael wrote:
>>> On Feb 12, 11:06 am, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
>>>> Michael wrote:
>>>>> brady never had to suffer a shitty excuse for a coaching staff..
>>>> Haven't watched the Pats lately, huh?
>>>> >no way does brady carry a whole team.
>>>> Then who carried them to the AFCCG in '06? Manning's surrounding talent
>>>> has been better than Brady's throughout most of his career.
>>> ok... what have you been smoking ???
>> This notion that Brady's been surrounded by better players is a new one.
>> I haven't really heard it before. Usually, it's been the other way
>> around. So maybe those who insist that Brady's been the lucky recipient
>> of where he landed and Manning has not, should explain their point of
>> view. I'd love to hear it! :)
>
> who was brady's head coach for the first four years of his career ???
>
> who was mannings ??? "playoffs ?!?!? dont talk about playoffs"
>
> have a peek at the colts defensive stats for the past decade, then the
> pats.
>
> i'll admit that the belichick systems worked astonishingly well with
> lesser talent in places from time to time and the colts had some big
> name guys at the skill positions, but as a whole on both sides of the
> ball, the pats outrank the colts as far as over all quality
Not even close, Michael.
How many OCs has Manning had to work with? How many has Brady had to
adapt to? Does he even have one now? The Pats coaching staff is a
shell of its former self, and has been since '04. And now, in the '09
season and moving into '10, despite how smart you think Belichick is,
the Pats coaching staff is a mid-level group. The staff has been
poached. They've lost close to 10 of their coordinators/position
coaches over the past 5 or 6 years.
But most of all, Peyton's spent almost his entire career throwing to
hall of famers and being protected by a top tier line. Brady has only
recently had that luxury ('07, '09 -- which also happens to be his two
best seasons statistically -- and arguably better than Manning's). When
Manning was throwing to Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne, Brady was
throwing to Reche Caldwell and Jabar Gaffney. Or David Patten and Troy
Brown in the earlier days. Or Deion Branch and David Givens after that.
The Pats teams from 5 and 6 years ago had better defenses than the Colts
teams. But, in recent years, the Colts defenses have been better than
New England's. Indy had, by many measures, the best defense in the NFL
during their championship season.
Anyway, my point isn't necessarily that Peyton has had it easy and Brady
has had it hard. What I'm saying is that both QBs have been blessed to
have a lot of things go well for their teams (here is where I'd invoke
John's theory about teams with franchise QBs being able to divert more
attention elsewhere on the roster...). It's insane to think that
Brady's been the lucky guy and Manning's had to carry the load himself.
It's just not true. Look up and down the Colts roster this decade ...
from the continuity in the coaching staff; the pro bowl receiving groups
that have almost always included at least three pro bowl caliber
targets; the top tier OL, guys like Jeff Saturday, Tarik Glenn, etc; the
running backs, which have only recently become a weakness; and defensive
playmakers, Freeney, Mathis, Sanders, etc. The guy isn't exactly on the
Lions here..
== 11 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 12:40 pm
From: Michael
On Feb 12, 2:36 pm, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
> Michael wrote:
> > On Feb 12, 11:55 am, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
> >> Michael wrote:
> >>> On Feb 12, 11:06 am, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
> >>>> Michael wrote:
> >>>>> brady never had to suffer a shitty excuse for a coaching staff..
> >>>> Haven't watched the Pats lately, huh?
> >>>> >no way does brady carry a whole team.
> >>>> Then who carried them to the AFCCG in '06? Manning's surrounding talent
> >>>> has been better than Brady's throughout most of his career.
> >>> ok... what have you been smoking ???
> >> This notion that Brady's been surrounded by better players is a new one.
> >> I haven't really heard it before. Usually, it's been the other way
> >> around. So maybe those who insist that Brady's been the lucky recipient
> >> of where he landed and Manning has not, should explain their point of
> >> view. I'd love to hear it! :)
>
> > who was brady's head coach for the first four years of his career ???
>
> > who was mannings ??? "playoffs ?!?!? dont talk about playoffs"
>
> > have a peek at the colts defensive stats for the past decade, then the
> > pats.
>
> > i'll admit that the belichick systems worked astonishingly well with
> > lesser talent in places from time to time and the colts had some big
> > name guys at the skill positions, but as a whole on both sides of the
> > ball, the pats outrank the colts as far as over all quality
>
> Not even close, Michael.
>
> How many OCs has Manning had to work with? How many has Brady had to
> adapt to? Does he even have one now? The Pats coaching staff is a
> shell of its former self, and has been since '04. And now, in the '09
> season and moving into '10, despite how smart you think Belichick is,
> the Pats coaching staff is a mid-level group. The staff has been
> poached. They've lost close to 10 of their coordinators/position
> coaches over the past 5 or 6 years.
Yeah... and the staff members on the pats that look so good under bb
do nothing when they leave. bb's guys are suplicants like mangini and
not real brainpower. all bb needs is a few guys to pick up his
laundry and follow the mold...
not to mention players like matt cassel... he had teams drooling to
put him in a starting role. too bad he was a system guy and sucks in
general.
> But most of all, Peyton's spent almost his entire career throwing to
> hall of famers and being protected by a top tier line. Brady has only
> recently had that luxury ('07, '09 -- which also happens to be his two
> best seasons statistically -- and arguably better than Manning's). When
> Manning was throwing to Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne, Brady was
> throwing to Reche Caldwell and Jabar Gaffney. Or David Patten and Troy
> Brown in the earlier days. Or Deion Branch and David Givens after that.
and garcon and collie would look like shit without manning. how would
harrison and wayne look with kellen clemens ??? half of those guys
production numbers was a result of mannings brains.
> The Pats teams from 5 and 6 years ago had better defenses than the Colts
> teams. But, in recent years, the Colts defenses have been better than
> New England's. Indy had, by many measures, the best defense in the NFL
> during their championship season.
>
> Anyway, my point isn't necessarily that Peyton has had it easy and Brady
> has had it hard. What I'm saying is that both QBs have been blessed to
> have a lot of things go well for their teams
manning was blessed with one of the best qb brains and arms in
history. brady was blessed by mo lewis and the bb system. the colts
offense is anything BUT a system offense. it is one dimentional
simplicity driven by manning's demonsterable talents
>(here is where I'd invoke
> John's theory about teams with franchise QBs being able to divert more
> attention elsewhere on the roster...). It's insane to think that
> Brady's been the lucky guy and Manning's had to carry the load himself.
> It's just not true. Look up and down the Colts roster this decade ...
> from the continuity in the coaching staff; the pro bowl receiving groups
> that have almost always included at least three pro bowl caliber
> targets; the top tier OL, guys like Jeff Saturday, Tarik Glenn, etc; the
> running backs, which have only recently become a weakness; and defensive
> playmakers, Freeney, Mathis, Sanders, etc. The guy isn't exactly on the
> Lions here..- Hide quoted text -
sanders ??? he's a ghost.
== 12 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 1:03 pm
From: MZ
Michael wrote:
> On Feb 12, 2:36 pm, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
>> Michael wrote:
>>> On Feb 12, 11:55 am, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
>>>> Michael wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 12, 11:06 am, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
>>>>>> Michael wrote:
>>>>>>> brady never had to suffer a shitty excuse for a coaching staff..
>>>>>> Haven't watched the Pats lately, huh?
>>>>>> >no way does brady carry a whole team.
>>>>>> Then who carried them to the AFCCG in '06? Manning's surrounding talent
>>>>>> has been better than Brady's throughout most of his career.
>>>>> ok... what have you been smoking ???
>>>> This notion that Brady's been surrounded by better players is a new one.
>>>> I haven't really heard it before. Usually, it's been the other way
>>>> around. So maybe those who insist that Brady's been the lucky recipient
>>>> of where he landed and Manning has not, should explain their point of
>>>> view. I'd love to hear it! :)
>>> who was brady's head coach for the first four years of his career ???
>>> who was mannings ??? "playoffs ?!?!? dont talk about playoffs"
>>> have a peek at the colts defensive stats for the past decade, then the
>>> pats.
>>> i'll admit that the belichick systems worked astonishingly well with
>>> lesser talent in places from time to time and the colts had some big
>>> name guys at the skill positions, but as a whole on both sides of the
>>> ball, the pats outrank the colts as far as over all quality
>> Not even close, Michael.
>>
>> How many OCs has Manning had to work with? How many has Brady had to
>> adapt to? Does he even have one now? The Pats coaching staff is a
>> shell of its former self, and has been since '04. And now, in the '09
>> season and moving into '10, despite how smart you think Belichick is,
>> the Pats coaching staff is a mid-level group. The staff has been
>> poached. They've lost close to 10 of their coordinators/position
>> coaches over the past 5 or 6 years.
>
> Yeah... and the staff members on the pats that look so good under bb
> do nothing when they leave. bb's guys are suplicants like mangini and
> not real brainpower. all bb needs is a few guys to pick up his
> laundry and follow the mold...
If that's all he needs, then why can't he find guys to do that? Dean
Pees was the DC for four years under BB, but he couldn't get anything
done. Mangini was also terrible as the Pats DC. He hasn't been able to
replace McDaniels, either.
His staff has grown smaller because he hasn't been able to infuse the
staff with new coaches as quickly as they've been leaving. No matter
how you slice it, that's bad news.
I disagree with you, though, that those coaches didn't do anything after
they left. They're all still in the NFL in their original roles or in
higher roles (except Pees, who turned down another DC job to coach LBs
with the Ravens). So they must be doing something right to retain their
jobs.
You can't possibly be arguing that the Pats coaching staff in its
current form is as effective as they were in, say, '04.
> not to mention players like matt cassel... he had teams drooling to
> put him in a starting role. too bad he was a system guy and sucks in
> general.
He sucked with the Pats too, although as the season went on he got a
little better. He had Moss and Welker to throw to and they still
managed to miss the playoffs that year with an easy schedule. If he was
throwing at Patten, Brown, and Wiggins, I think he'd have been a little
less successful.
>
>> But most of all, Peyton's spent almost his entire career throwing to
>> hall of famers and being protected by a top tier line. Brady has only
>> recently had that luxury ('07, '09 -- which also happens to be his two
>> best seasons statistically -- and arguably better than Manning's). When
>> Manning was throwing to Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne, Brady was
>> throwing to Reche Caldwell and Jabar Gaffney. Or David Patten and Troy
>> Brown in the earlier days. Or Deion Branch and David Givens after that.
>
> and garcon and collie would look like shit without manning. how would
> harrison and wayne look with kellen clemens ??? half of those guys
> production numbers was a result of mannings brains.
Sure, the QB-WR relationship is symbiotic. But to suggest that Harrison
and Wayne would suck without Manning is just ridiculous. They were good
receivers. And so was Stokley. I think everyone acknowledges this.
I think Garcon and Collie are pretty good players though. Lots of
receivers couldn't get it done with Manning. Even Gonzalez has been a
bit of a disappointment, even putting the injury issues aside. If what
you say is true, they should be able to insert Garcon and Collie for a
Marvin Harrison in his prime and not miss a beat, right? But clearly
there was a downgrade at the position.
Let's also not forget that it took Wayne a little bit of time before he
became what he is. It's not like they inserted him and he magically
became the receiver he is today (in Belichick's words, the best receiver
the Pats faced all season).
>> The Pats teams from 5 and 6 years ago had better defenses than the Colts
>> teams. But, in recent years, the Colts defenses have been better than
>> New England's. Indy had, by many measures, the best defense in the NFL
>> during their championship season.
>>
>> Anyway, my point isn't necessarily that Peyton has had it easy and Brady
>> has had it hard. What I'm saying is that both QBs have been blessed to
>> have a lot of things go well for their teams
>
> manning was blessed with one of the best qb brains and arms in
> history. brady was blessed by mo lewis and the bb system. the colts
> offense is anything BUT a system offense. it is one dimentional
> simplicity driven by manning's demonsterable talents
And Wayne's, and Harrison's, and James', and Saturday's, and Scott's,
and Clark's, and Pollard's, and Stokely's.
And Dungy's, and Moore's.
The guy has been surrounded by unbelievable talent for most of his
career. You're probably the first person I've ever encountered who
doesn't acknowledge this.
>> (here is where I'd invoke
>> John's theory about teams with franchise QBs being able to divert more
>> attention elsewhere on the roster...). It's insane to think that
>> Brady's been the lucky guy and Manning's had to carry the load himself.
>> It's just not true. Look up and down the Colts roster this decade ...
>> from the continuity in the coaching staff; the pro bowl receiving groups
>> that have almost always included at least three pro bowl caliber
>> targets; the top tier OL, guys like Jeff Saturday, Tarik Glenn, etc; the
>> running backs, which have only recently become a weakness; and defensive
>> playmakers, Freeney, Mathis, Sanders, etc. The guy isn't exactly on the
>> Lions here..- Hide quoted text -
>
> sanders ??? he's a ghost.
Didn't he win defensive player of the year not too long ago? He's not
exactly Eric Smith. He's actually contributed to the team's success.
== 13 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 1:25 pm
From: Harlan Lachman
In article <2s2dnRdTGvEY4ejWnZ2dnUVZ_rJi4p2d@giganews.com>,
MZ <mark@nospam.void> wrote:
> Michael wrote:
> > brady never had to suffer a shitty excuse for a coaching staff..
>
> Haven't watched the Pats lately, huh?
>
>
> >no way does brady carry a whole team.
>
> Then who carried them to the AFCCG in '06? Manning's surrounding talent
> has been better than Brady's throughout most of his career.
Mark, I think this is a stupid thread but I agree with the point Michael
made that I don't think any other Qb in the league could have gotten the
Colts to the SB.
I think if Caldwell had not been a pussy, the Colts would have been the
first team to win it all since the Fish did it in a much shorter season.
And, in one big game, one has to be nuts not to consider Brady who is
better than most of the other Qb in the league.
H
== 14 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 2:13 pm
From: MZ
Harlan Lachman wrote:
> In article <2s2dnRdTGvEY4ejWnZ2dnUVZ_rJi4p2d@giganews.com>,
> MZ <mark@nospam.void> wrote:
>
>> Michael wrote:
>>> brady never had to suffer a shitty excuse for a coaching staff..
>> Haven't watched the Pats lately, huh?
>>
>>
>> >no way does brady carry a whole team.
>>
>> Then who carried them to the AFCCG in '06? Manning's surrounding talent
>> has been better than Brady's throughout most of his career.
>
> Mark, I think this is a stupid thread but I agree with the point Michael
> made that I don't think any other Qb in the league could have gotten the
> Colts to the SB.
>
> I think if Caldwell had not been a pussy, the Colts would have been the
> first team to win it all since the Fish did it in a much shorter season.
>
> And, in one big game, one has to be nuts not to consider Brady who is
> better than most of the other Qb in the league.
>
> H
It really is a stupid thread. I don't know what's wrong with having two
great QBs in the league.
I don't know if Brady could have gotten the Colts to the SB or not. I
see no reason why he couldn't though. I mostly take issue with the idea
that Brady has been surrounded by all this great talent whereas Manning
(with more pro bowlers on his roster than Brady every year...) has
carried the team on his shoulders.
== 15 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 2:52 pm
From: Harlan Lachman
In article <-aCdnb4rsMIOT-jWnZ2dnUVZ_oFi4p2d@giganews.com>,
MZ <mark@nospam.void> wrote:
> I
> see no reason why he couldn't though
I think I disagree but who cares? We will never know. Only those who
think their opinions mean something will persist in disagreeing.
Both Qbs have done things no Qb (other than possibly Namath and Warner)
in my memory has ever done.
I thought Brady's best game was versus the Giants. His pass to Moss (?)
that was tipped away at the last minute 70 yards downfield from the
hands of the receiver should not be allowed in this universe in that
situation.
H
==============================================================================
TOPIC: What the Saints have that the Jets dont...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/8bf15d8278571b5d?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 4:16 am
From: Johnctx
papa.carl44 wrote:
> "Johnctx" <jc@spamtx.net> wrote in message
> news:va6dnRQl1aEX-ezWnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> papa.carl44 wrote:
>>> "Michael" <mjd1966@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>> news:fb1193fa-caac-4191-ab0e-f26f556385af@l26g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Obviously, Brees... But... That was not the reason the Saitns did what
>>>> the Jets could not. And, no... It was not that the Saints had the
>>>> better pass rush. I think the Jets hit Manning more than the Saints
>>>> did. Even with the rookie qb Sanchez, the Jets still generated enough
>>>> offense to win. The Sanits defensive backfield as a whole was the
>>>> key.
>>>>
>>>> IMHO, the Jets priority in FA & the draft is DB, DB, DB.
>>>>
>>>> I'm also all but convinced that they Jets defensive scheme can still
>>>> do wonders without big money stars on the defensive line so long as
>>>> they maintain their level of quality at MLB and SS.
>>>>
>>>> What would your assessment of the Jets DB's be now ???
>>>>
>>>> Revis ?
>>>>
>>>> Lito ?
>>>>
>>>> Leonhard ?
>>>>
>>>> Rhodes ?
>>>>
>>>> Lowrey ?
>>>>
>>>> Strickland ?
>>> Revis is the best there is...as far as the rest go, you have to have
>>> something to go to before you run away from any of them. This idea of
>>> just getting rid of guys with no idea of who will replace them is nuts.
>>> Let's see who becomes available, then we can have a discussion.
>> Papa, thanks for the injection of sanity.
>>
>> Let's put things in perspective. Shepard & Strickland were both hurt all
>> year. They both are better than any CB we have had since we shipped Aaron
>> Glenn back to Texas.
>
> Isn't it amazing how many really good players get shipped off to somewhere
> else and become even better "really good players" ? Good teams recognize
> guys they have that are good and find a way to hold on to them. There just
> aren't a lot of the Revis type players out there. I live close to Philly.
> A LOT of Eagles fans were really upset that Lito was let go, they liked him.
> Philly fans can be nuts, but a lot of the blue collar guys I run into do
> know football and they follow the team a lot more than most fans do when it
> comes to actually watching guys and keeping tabs on them. Another
> myth...when they find out I'm a Jets fan...I rarely get any grief, you just
> have to know how to walk with the wolves and they leave you alone :-)
>
>
Think of the very average CB's we have been dealing with since 2002.
Donnie Abraham squeezed a few last years out for us but outside of that
who even approaches Lito & Strickland? Marty Barret, Ray Mickens?
Most football fans love another good football fan. The really passionate
fans can't standard BS artist & a handful of idiots with 10 beers in
them & one Santa Claus can give a city a bad name.
:)
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Jared Odrick
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/90470891e95c09a8?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 5:59 am
From: Johnctx
I watched 1/2 this video. Now it is one game, but this is a highlight reel?
http://www.wikio.com/video/2385490
Now I have to admit I am biased toward SEC players but if by some
miracle Dan Williams of Tenn drops I will be doing a dance. if the Pats
get him I will be sick.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 1:13 pm
From: Ian White
Johnctx wrote:
> I watched 1/2 this video. Now it is one game, but this is a highlight
> reel?
>
> http://www.wikio.com/video/2385490
>
>
> Now I have to admit I am biased toward SEC players but if by some
> miracle Dan Williams of Tenn drops I will be doing a dance. if the Pats
> get him I will be sick.
Why on Earth would the Jets be looking at a RB in the first round?
--
Ian
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Same old Jets all over again
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/6a48f96aeb19e482?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 6:26 am
From: Dano58
On Feb 10, 10:51 am, "RickyBobby" <nasca...@cox.net> wrote:
> "Steve Russo" <srusso...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:34a71465-f16d-46ec-a210-cb98f3cec50c@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Feb 3, 2:06 pm, "RickyBobby" <nasca...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> Usually it is the Jets team that humiliates themselves. But now that the
> >> team has gotten halfway decent the morbidly obese excuse for a coach has
> >> to
> >> humiliate himself on behalf of the Jets.
>
> > You should read this before passing judgement. What would any of us
> > have done?
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/ycxthkq
>
> The better folks among us would have acted like a mature adult.
Mature adults don't call names and write -
"Rex Ryan is a big fat embarrassment to the greatest city in the
world. He
belong in MMA, not the NFL. Fat slob cannot even control himself in a
decent fashion." - RickyBobby
Dan D
central NJ USA
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 6:33 am
From: "AllYou!"
In
news:edbdc25f-6be0-4661-9c15-26f1a3f0f65b@h2g2000yqj.googlegroups.com,
Dano58 <dan.dibiase@gmail.com> mused:
> On Feb 10, 10:51 am, "RickyBobby" <nasca...@cox.net> wrote:
>> "Steve Russo" <srusso...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:34a71465-f16d-46ec-a210-cb98f3cec50c@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> On Feb 3, 2:06 pm, "RickyBobby" <nasca...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> Usually it is the Jets team that humiliates themselves. But
>>>> now that the team has gotten halfway decent the morbidly
>>>> obese excuse for a coach has to
>>>> humiliate himself on behalf of the Jets.
>>
>>> You should read this before passing judgement. What would any
>>> of us have done?
>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/ycxthkq
>>
>> The better folks among us would have acted like a mature adult.
>
> Mature adults don't call names
Then, by that standard, you're immature.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Super Bowl Standings (after the 2010 Super Bowl)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/560caa1f3ffcced7?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 8:43 am
From: Turban Joe Balasootoe
On Feb 9, 2:14 pm, "4poster" <voca...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> Good post. I'll save it.
>
> --http://promoteworldpeace.blogspot.com/"observer" <obser...@cableone.net> wrote in message
>
> news:hkrv0k$315$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
>
>
> > ---
>
> > Super Bowl Appearances
> > Team .............................. W L Pct. Total Appearances
> > 1. Dallas Cowboys ............. 5-3 .625 8
> > 2. Pittsburgh Steelers .......... 6-1 .857 7
> > 3. New England Patriots ...... 3-3 .500 6 3. Denver Broncos
> > .............. 2-4 .333 6
> > 5. San Francisco 49ers ........ 5-0 1.000 5 5. Oakland/L.A.
> > Raiders ..... 3-2 .600 5 5. Washington Redskins ...... 3-2
> > .600 5 5. Miami Dolphins ............... 2-3 .400 5
> > 9. Green Bay Packers ......... 3-1 .750 4 9. New York Giants
> > ........... 3-1 .750 4 9. Baltimore/Indy Colts ....... 2-2
> > .500 4 9. Minnesota Vikings .......... 0-4 .000 4
> > 9. Buffalo Bills .................... 0-4 .000 4
> > 14. St. Louis/L.A. Rams ....... 1-2 .333 3
> > 15. Chicago Bears ................ 1-1 .500 2 15. Kansas City
> > Chiefs ......... 1-1 .500 2 15. Cincinnati Bengals ...........
> > 0-2 .000 2 15. Philadelphia Eagles .......... 0-2 .000
> > 2
> > 19. Baltimore Ravens ............ 1-0 1.000 1 19. New York Jets
> > ................ 1-0 1.000 1 19. Tampa Bay Buccaneers ... 1-0
> > 1.000 1 19. New Orleans Saints ......... 1-0 1.000 1 19.
> > Atlanta Falcons ................ 0-1 .000 1 19. Carolina
> > Panthers ............. 0-1 .000 1 19. San Diego Chargers
> > ......... 0-1 .000 1 19. Seattle Seahawks ............. 0-1
> > .000 1 19. Tennessee Titans ............. 0-1 .000 1
> > 19. Arizona Cardinals ............ 0-1 .000 1
> > 29. Cleveland Browns ............ 0-0 .000 0 29. Detroit Lions
> > ................... 0-0 .000 0 29. Jacksonville Jaguars
> > ......... 0-0 .000 0 29. Houston Texans ............... 0-0
> > .000 0
> > ---
>
> > Super Bowl Wins
> > Team ............................. W L Pct. Total Appearances
> > 1. Pittsburgh Steelers .......... 6-1 .857 7
> > 2. Dallas Cowboys ............. 5-3 .625 8 2. San Francisco
> > 49ers ....... 5-0 1.000 5
> > 4. New England Patriots ..... 3-3 .500 6 4. Oakland/L.A.
> > Raiders ..... 3-2 .600 5 4. Washington Redskins ..... 3-2
> > .600 5 4. Green Bay Packers ........ 3-1 .750 4
> > 4. New York Giants ........... 3-1 .750 4
> > 9. Denver Broncos ............. 2-4 .333 6 9. Miami Dolphins
> > .............. 2-3 .400 5 9. Baltimore/Indy Colts ....... 2-2
> > .500 4
> > 12. St. Louis/L.A. Rams ........ 1-2 .333 3 12. Chicago Bears
> > ................. 1-1 .500 2 12. Kansas City Chiefs ..........
> > 1-1 .500 2 12. Baltimore Ravens ............. 1-0 1.000
> > 1 12. New York Jets ................ 1-0 1.000 1 12. Tampa Bay
> > Buccaneers ... 1-0 1.000 1 12. New Orleans Saints ......... 1-0
> > 1.000 1
> > 19. Minnesota Vikings ........... 0-4 .000 4 19. Buffalo Bills
> > ..................... 0-4 .000 4 19. Cincinnati Bengals
> > ............ 0-2 .000 2 19. Philadelphia Eagles ........... 0-2
> > .000 2 19. Atlanta Falcons ................ 0-1 .000
> > 1 19. Carolina Panthers ............. 0-1 .000 1 19. San Diego
> > Chargers ......... 0-1 .000 1 19. Seattle Seahawks
> > ............. 0-1 .000 1 19. Tennessee Titans ..............
> > 0-1 .000 1 19. Arizona Cardinals ............. 0-1 .000
> > 1 19. Cleveland Browns ............ 0-0 .000 0 19. Detroit
> > Lions .................... 0-0 .000 0 19. Jacksonville Jaguars
> > .......... 0-0 .000 0 19. Houston Texans ............... 0-0
> > .000 0
> > ---
>
> > Super Bowl Standings (by winning/losing percentage)
> > Team ............................. W L Pct. Total Appearances
> > 1. San Francisco 49ers ........ 5-0 1.000 5 1. Baltimore Ravens
> > ............ 1-0 1.000 1 1. New York Jets ................ 1-0
> > 1.000 1 1. Tampa Bay Buccaneers ... 1-0 1.000 1 1. New
> > Orleans Saints ......... 1-0 1.000 1
> > 6. Pittsburgh Steelers ........... 6-1 .857 7
> > 7. Green Bay Packers ......... 3-1 .750 4 7. New York Giants
> > ............ 3-1 .750 4
> > 9. Dallas Cowboys ............. 5-3 .625 8
> > 10. Oakland/L.A. Raiders ..... 3-2 .600 5 10. Washington
> > Redskins ...... 3-2 .600 5
> > 12. New England Patriots ..... 3-3 .500 6 12. Baltimore/Indy
> > Colts ....... 2-2 .500 4 12. Chicago Bears ................
> > 1-1 .500 2 12. Kansas City Chiefs ......... 1-1 .500
> > 2
> > 16. Miami Dolphins ............... 2-3 .400 5
> > 17. Denver Broncos .............. 2-4 .333 6 17. St. Louis/L.A.
> > Rams ....... 1-2 .333 3
> > 19. Minnesota Vikings ........... 0-4 .000 4 19. Buffalo Bills
> > ..................... 0-4 .000 4 19. Cincinnati Bengals
> > ........... 0-2 .000 2 19. Philadelphia Eagles .......... 0-2
> > .000 2 19. Atlanta Falcons ................ 0-1 .000
> > 1 19. Carolina Panthers ............. 0-1 .000 1 19. San Diego
> > Chargers ......... 0-1 .000 1 19. Seattle Seahawks
> > ............. 0-1 .000 1 19. Tennessee Titans ............. 0-1
> > .000 1 19. Arizona Cardinals ............ 0-1 .000
> > 1 19. Cleveland Browns ............ 0-0 .000 0 19. Detroit
> > Lions .................... 0-0 .000 0 19. Jacksonville Jaguars
> > .......... 0-0 .000 0 19. Houston Texans ............... 0-0
> > .000 0
> > ---- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The 1983 Raiders are the only club to have defeated the
previous year's champion, clocking the Redskins of
John Riggins' biggest run fame.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: humor world
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/d4ec1a57519bfca9?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 8:52 am
From: lowes@msn.com (TIM LAWYER)
http://www.webspawner.com/users/humorworld
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Joey Porter released from Dolphins ( According to NFL.com )
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/f752a7566d7b6be5?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 2:39 pm
From: UnixUser
Think he is worth bringing in for the JETS?
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 2:53 pm
From: Harlan Lachman
In article <hl4lav$3ul$1@speranza.aioe.org>,
UnixUser <unixuser@nospam.com> wrote:
> Think he is worth bringing in for the JETS?
I think the Fish hope the jets do which is why they turned him lose so
early. They were just taking out the trash.
A more intriguing question is whether his former Pittsburgh coaches make
any effort to bring him in.
h
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 11:35 pm
From: Tutor
On Feb 12, 5:39 pm, UnixUser <unixu...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Think he is worth bringing in for the JETS?
no no no no no no no no no no no
I give Porter the Rex-Finger.
Would rather get Adalius Thomas FWIW
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
Posts
