-- "I admit that there are good white men, but they bear no proportion to the bad. The bad must be strongest, for they rule. They enslave those not of their color. There is no faith to be placed in their words."
Manning is clearly the better QB in terms of talent. Where Brady has Manning beat is in rings, which is a function of team and coaching. I bet if you traded places of the two, Manning would have as many and maybe more rings, and possibly closed the deal on that perfect season too.
> Manning is clearly the better QB in terms of talent. Where Brady has > Manning beat is in rings, which is a function of team and coaching. I > bet if you traded places of the two, Manning would have as many and > maybe more rings, and possibly closed the deal on that perfect season > too.
Agreed, other than would Bellichek allow Manning the freedom he has at Indy?
> > Manning is clearly the better QB in terms of talent. Where Brady has > > Manning beat is in rings, which is a function of team and coaching. I > > bet if you traded places of the two, Manning would have as many and > > maybe more rings, and possibly closed the deal on that perfect season > > too.
> Agreed, other than would Bellichek allow Manning the freedom he has > at Indy?
What freedom does manning have that brady doesn't?
> > > Manning is clearly the better QB in terms of talent. Where Brady has > > > Manning beat is in rings, which is a function of team and coaching. I > > > bet if you traded places of the two, Manning would have as many and > > > maybe more rings, and possibly closed the deal on that perfect season > > > too.
> > Agreed, other than would Bellichek allow Manning the freedom he has > > at Indy?
> What freedom does manning have that brady doesn't?-
Manning has nearly total control over play selection.....he often calls the play at the line. Brady can audible, but his options are a bit more limited because of set formations, etc. (Both do have a lot of freedom, though)
hey, "deemsb...@aol.com" <deemsb...@aol.com>'s been through solid matter, for crying out loud. Who knows what's happened to his brain? Maybe it's scrambled his molecules...
>> > > Manning is clearly the better QB in terms of talent. Where Brady has >> > > Manning beat is in rings, which is a function of team and coaching. I >> > > bet if you traded places of the two, Manning would have as many and >> > > maybe more rings, and possibly closed the deal on that perfect season >> > > too.
>> > Agreed, other than would Bellichek allow Manning the freedom he has >> > at Indy?
>> What freedom does manning have that brady doesn't?-
> Manning has nearly total control over play selection.....he often >calls the play at the line. Brady can audible, but his options are a >bit more limited because of set formations, etc. (Both do have a lot >of freedom, though)
I thought they gave Manning about 3 plays to pick from each down. --
"the Democrat and Republican parties are destroying our country right now, They're destroying our political process." -- Jesse Ventura
"Education is the progressive discovery of our own Ignorance" Will Durant
"One can't have a sense of perspective without a sense of Humor" -- Wayne Thiboux
"the Glass is not only half full, it has been delicious so far!!" -- ME
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:03:09 -0500, Dennis J wrote: >hey, "deemsb...@aol.com" <deemsb...@aol.com>'s been through solid >matter, for crying out loud. Who knows what's happened to his brain? >Maybe it's scrambled his molecules...
>>On Nov 17, 9:20 am, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: >>> On Nov 17, 6:55 am, "deemsb...@aol.com" <deemsb...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> > On Nov 17, 3:03 am, Ron Blancarte <r...@bla.nca.rte.com> wrote:
>>> > > On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 23:28:58 -0600, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>> > > >Well, by a vote of 13.5 to 2.5, with 4 abstaining:
>>> > > Manning is clearly the better QB in terms of talent. Where Brady has >>> > > Manning beat is in rings, which is a function of team and coaching. I >>> > > bet if you traded places of the two, Manning would have as many and >>> > > maybe more rings, and possibly closed the deal on that perfect season >>> > > too.
>>> > Agreed, other than would Bellichek allow Manning the freedom he has >>> > at Indy?
>>> What freedom does manning have that brady doesn't?-
>> Manning has nearly total control over play selection.....he often >>calls the play at the line. Brady can audible, but his options are a >>bit more limited because of set formations, etc. (Both do have a lot >>of freedom, though)
>I thought they gave Manning about 3 plays to pick from each down.
At this point Manning pretty much gets whatever play he can run from the formation he is in.
Given the trust Bellichek has in Brady, I would say he woud have as much or more in Manning and give him this level of play calling.
On Nov 17, 9:20 am, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote:
> What freedom does manning have that brady doesn't?
How much freedom does one need knowing what the defense is going to do with that little extra knowledge?
Anyway, IMO, Brady, while he can be captain cool and I do not mean any disrepect, sticks out as being about 5 significant plays away from losing a significant portion of his legacy (the Bledsoe injury that put Brady in the lineup, the tuck rule play, Bledsoe saving the AFC game in Pittsburgh, and two Vinateri FGs).
Manning, IMO, had the tools and was a student of the game enough that he was going to be a HoF even if he didn't win a ring.
I would agree. Brady has almost always had far more talent to work with than Manning. Without Manning, the Colts are probably a . 500 team. Without Brady--well, hell, you could just plug in a rookie like Matt Cassel who didn't even play in college, and still go 11-5.
> I would agree. Brady has almost always had far more talent to >work with than Manning.
What color is the sky on your planet?
Who were the receivers in New England before Moss and Welker arrived? That is right, they were nobodies. Who were the receivers in Indy during the same time frame? Oh, yes... future HoFers Marvin Harrison, Dallas Clark and Reggie Wayne. Advantage, Indy.
Who ran the ball in New England? Corey Dillon, a bunch of nobodies and an over the hill Fred Taylor. Who has been running the ball in Indy? Marshall Faulk, Edge and Joseph Addai. Advantage, Indy.
>Without Manning, the Colts are probably a >.500 team. Without Brady--well, hell, you could just plug in a rookie >like Matt Cassel who didn't even play in college, and still go 11-5.
-- "There is a time and a place for tact (and there are times when tact is entirely misplaced)." -Laurence VanCott Niven
> > I would agree. Brady has almost always had far more talent to > >work with than Manning.
> What color is the sky on your planet?
> Who were the receivers in New England before Moss and Welker arrived? > That is right, they were nobodies. Who were the receivers in Indy > during the same time frame? Oh, yes... future HoFers Marvin Harrison, > Dallas Clark and Reggie Wayne. Advantage, Indy.
> Who ran the ball in New England? Corey Dillon, a bunch of nobodies and > an over the hill Fred Taylor. Who has been running the ball in Indy? > Marshall Faulk, Edge and Joseph Addai. Advantage, Indy.
> >Without Manning, the Colts are probably a > >.500 team. Without Brady--well, hell, you could just plug in a rookie > >like Matt Cassel who didn't even play in college, and still go 11-5.
> -- > "There is a time and a place for tact (and there are times when > tact is entirely misplaced)." > -Laurence VanCott Niven
> At this point Manning pretty much gets whatever play he can run from the > formation he is in.
> Given the trust Bellichek has in Brady, I would say he woud have as much or more > in Manning and give him this level of play calling.
Neither actually calls the plays themselves, like QBs did in the old days (pre-1980s). Something to consider when comparing a Montana to a Unitas, etc.
-- "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning, the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please".
>> >I would agree. Brady has almost always had far more talent to >> >work with than Manning.
>> What color is the sky on your planet?
>> Who were the receivers in New England before Moss and Welker arrived? >> That is right, they were nobodies. Who were the receivers in Indy >> during the same time frame? Oh, yes... future HoFers Marvin Harrison, >> Dallas Clark and Reggie Wayne. Advantage, Indy.
>> Who ran the ball in New England? Corey Dillon, a bunch of nobodies and >> an over the hill Fred Taylor. Who has been running the ball in Indy? >> Marshall Faulk, Edge and Joseph Addai. Advantage, Indy.
> Defenses? Big Advantage: New England.
Traditionally, when you talk about what talent a quarterback has to "work with," you're talking offense. Up until Moss showed up in New England, Brady hasn't had the talent to work with that Manning has had in Indianapolis.
>> >Without Manning, the Colts are probably a >> >.500 team. Without Brady--well, hell, you could just plug in a rookie >> >like Matt Cassel who didn't even play in college, and still go 11-5.
-- "Learn to see in another’s calamity the ills which you should avoid." Publius Syrus
> >> >I would agree. Brady has almost always had far more talent to > >> >work with than Manning.
> >> What color is the sky on your planet?
> >> Who were the receivers in New England before Moss and Welker arrived? > >> That is right, they were nobodies. Who were the receivers in Indy > >> during the same time frame? Oh, yes... future HoFers Marvin Harrison, > >> Dallas Clark and Reggie Wayne. Advantage, Indy.
> >> Who ran the ball in New England? Corey Dillon, a bunch of nobodies and > >> an over the hill Fred Taylor. Who has been running the ball in Indy? > >> Marshall Faulk, Edge and Joseph Addai. Advantage, Indy.
> > Defenses? Big Advantage: New England.
> Traditionally, when you talk about what talent a quarterback has to > "work with," you're talking offense. Up until Moss showed up in New > England, Brady hasn't had the talent to work with that Manning has had > in Indianapolis.
The team wins games. The Colts, having had inferior defenses, have had to rely on Manning and the offense much more. (I know, the Colts couldn't afford both their offense and the Pats' defense)
On Nov 18, 11:41 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
> > Ron Blancarte wrote:
> > At this point Manning pretty much gets whatever play he can run from the > > formation he is in.
> > Given the trust Bellichek has in Brady, I would say he woud have as much or more > > in Manning and give him this level of play calling.
> Neither actually calls the plays themselves, like QBs did in the old > days (pre-1980s). Something to consider when comparing a Montana to a > Unitas, etc.
QBs in the old days also had coaching input on plays....that's many times why subs were sent in.
deemsb...@aol.com wrote: > On Nov 18, 11:41 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >> > Ron Blancarte wrote:
>>> At this point Manning pretty much gets whatever play he can run from the >>> formation he is in. >>> Given the trust Bellichek has in Brady, I would say he woud have as much or more >>> in Manning and give him this level of play calling. >> Neither actually calls the plays themselves, like QBs did in the old >> days (pre-1980s). Something to consider when comparing a Montana to a >> Unitas, etc.
> QBs in the old days also had coaching input on plays....that's > many times why subs were sent in.
yes, but nevertheless, those old QBs had far more latitude than today's QBs have. they called the game, pretty much.
--
I do not think the United States would come to an end if we lost our power to declare an Act of Congress void. I do think the Union would be imperiled if we could not make that declaration as to the laws of the several States.
> deemsb...@aol.com wrote: > > On Nov 18, 11:41 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >> > Ron Blancarte wrote:
> >>> At this point Manning pretty much gets whatever play he can run from the > >>> formation he is in. > >>> Given the trust Bellichek has in Brady, I would say he woud have as much or more > >>> in Manning and give him this level of play calling. > >> Neither actually calls the plays themselves, like QBs did in the old > >> days (pre-1980s). Something to consider when comparing a Montana to a > >> Unitas, etc.
> > QBs in the old days also had coaching input on plays....that's > > many times why subs were sent in.
> yes, but nevertheless, those old QBs had far more latitude than today's > QBs have. they called the game, pretty much.
They had more latitude overall. A few of today's come close...Manning being one. Then there are those who have every play called from the sidelines. The reasons given are offenses are much more complicated and defenses are also more sophisticated. It's easier to see things from up high and with modern communications, it's easier to relay the info to the field.
> I do not think the United States would come to an end if > we lost our power to declare an Act of Congress void. I do > think the Union would be imperiled if we could not make > that declaration as to the laws of the several States.
>> >> >I would agree. Brady has almost always had far more talent to >> >> >work with than Manning.
>> >> What color is the sky on your planet?
>> >> Who were the receivers in New England before Moss and Welker arrived? >> >> That is right, they were nobodies. Who were the receivers in Indy >> >> during the same time frame? Oh, yes... future HoFers Marvin Harrison, >> >> Dallas Clark and Reggie Wayne. Advantage, Indy.
>> >> Who ran the ball in New England? Corey Dillon, a bunch of nobodies and >> >> an over the hill Fred Taylor. Who has been running the ball in Indy? >> >> Marshall Faulk, Edge and Joseph Addai. Advantage, Indy.
>> > Defenses? Big Advantage: New England.
>> Traditionally, when you talk about what talent a quarterback has to >> "work with," you're talking offense. Up until Moss showed up in New >> England, Brady hasn't had the talent to work with that Manning has had >> in Indianapolis.
> The team wins games. The Colts, having had inferior defenses, >have had to rely on Manning and the offense much more. (I know, the >Colts couldn't afford both their offense and the Pats' defense)
The question was about how the QB affects the offense. Manning has always had backs as good or better than Brady and has had better receivers for most of his career. If Gonzalez were healthy, I'd argue that Wayne, Gonzalez, Clark, Garcon and Collie were better than Moss, Welker and the Stooges. heck, they might be *as* good even without Gonzalez. -- "On a morning from a Bogart movie In a country where they turn back time You go strolling through the crowd like Peter Lorre Contemplating a crime." Al Stewart & Peter Wood
stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > deemsb...@aol.com wrote: > > On Nov 18, 11:41 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >> > Ron Blancarte wrote:
> >>> At this point Manning pretty much gets whatever play he can run from the > >>> formation he is in. > >>> Given the trust Bellichek has in Brady, I would say he woud have as much or more > >>> in Manning and give him this level of play calling. > >> Neither actually calls the plays themselves, like QBs did in the old > >> days (pre-1980s). Something to consider when comparing a Montana to a > >> Unitas, etc.
> > QBs in the old days also had coaching input on plays....that's > > many times why subs were sent in.
> yes, but nevertheless, those old QBs had far more latitude than today's > QBs have. they called the game, pretty much.
Offensive schemes and defensive schemes are more elaborate. Perhaps quarterbacks have as much latitude as they always had, but is only less relative to the amount of variability in the play book.
On Nov 17, 10:46 pm, "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Who were the receivers in Indy > during the same time frame? Oh, yes... future HoFers Marvin Harrison, > Dallas Clark and Reggie Wayne. Advantage, Indy.
Who are you kidding ... I don't think any of the three are going to the Hall. You think that all three are going to the Hall of Fame?
|
