I present to you Hootie's scarlet letter of football stupidity.

Manning has had more first round talent and higher graded talent overall in his career than Brady has EVER had. Stop with that bullshit. Manning has had way better talent than Brady.

Do you happen to have any quotes handy for the game the Colts won against the Ravens in 2006 when Manning went 15 for 30 for 170 yards, with zero TDs and two interceptions, on the way to winning the Super Bowl?

Because if he didn't say he sucked, and that he's happy his teammates bailed him out, then he wasn't very honest.

When he had three picks against only one touchdown against the Chiefs in the 2006 playoffs, and yet his team won? Did he mention his suckitude and tahnk his teammates for that?

How about when he was 14 for 31 with two picks and zero TDs against the Jets in the playoffs in 2002? They lost that one 41-0 against Herm Edwards and Chad Pennington. Did he admit how much he sucked in that one?

When he was 23 for 47 with FOUR picks against the Patriots in the 2003 playoffs? Did he say how much he sucked?

You're endlessly stupid. It's seriously old.

And we're back to Hootie gotta Hootie. LMAO

or how he had 70 yards of offense in the first half of this past game?

Or how he was completely blown out vs SEA.

Or how he won the SB vs a Rex Grossman led team.

Or how he choked vs the Saints.

I highly doubt Peyton on the patriots vs Ravens would have came back twice from 14 pt deficits

The Tuck Rule was a rule. Nobody liked the rule, but there are plenty of rules people don't like. The Dez Bryant controversy is another one. It was correctly called.

And Bledsoe played a not-terrible half of a game in that playoff run. Good for him. Brady still saved the season (Patriots were 0-2 under Bledsoe to start the season, and went 5-11 with him the prior year), and won the Super Bowl.

There's a reason why the phrase "going full Hootie" is popular around here. You can keep arguing the same thing over and over and over, but it doesn't get any more right, or less stupid, by repitition.

Not this year, certainly, but it's not really fair to hold this year against him. He was god-awful the second half of the year, and Father Time has seemingly caught up to him in a big way.

He couldnt' do diddily against a not-great Colts defense.

HOW MUCH WEIGHT DID WHO WAS FAVORED CARRY IN THE MATHEMATICAL EQUATION?

I agree. Let us also take into consideration of longevity.. brady still looks like he can go another 3-4 years

So if Brady is 43rd what's that make Peyton? Peyton has had better weapons. The only time Brady has had better weapons is when he had Moss and Welker.

by the 1st metric used for Brady?

like 171

I just think it's funny that Nate Silver analyzes postseason clutch factor, determines the Pats would've gone 13-13 with a replacement level QB, and then the Pats fans come here and shit all over it and call it terrible analysis ...

Would love to have seen it it was turned around.

Tom 8-18
Peyton 12-12

It would have been great analysis and well researched if that was the case.

So, in essence, this thread is exactly what I expected. Amnorix and Just Passin' By never let me down.

They are both more qualified to analyze QB's than Nate Silver.

Interesting.

You started yet another troll thread, no doubt specifically to draw Amnorix and I into it. You're reaping what you sowed. And appealing to the authority of Nate Silver isn't going to change that. He's not going to miraculously save your dumb ass.

LMAO

www.coldhardfootballcrap.com