 |
|
|
Remember that the ONLY thing Brady has over Manning is 3 Super Bowls to 1. I personally have said many times here that it's an ignorant argument to elevate championships over all over stats because then you wind up with Terry Bradshaw as the second best QB of all time and NO ONE BELIEVES THAT'S TRUE. If we only take into account the last two years, there is no stat, NOT ONE, in which Brady has the edge over Manning. Manning has more wins, playoff wins, TDs, yards, completion %, YPA, fewer INTs than Brady. Plus Manning's beat him three straight times. Right now, there is no debate. Manning is more accurate, makes fewer bad decisions and wins more. And it's not close.
Eloquent as always. Manning has been better than Brady since 2004. Again, when Tom Brady throws 49 TDs and only 10 INTs in one season, call me. Until then, get outta my face. King ranking Brady over Manning the two years prior provides us with even more evidence that Peter King doesn't watch the sport for which he is paid to write about.
Oh, and he's fat. Did we forget to mention that?
Ah, but it isn't Peter's Brady love that makes us, and many others scratch their head when looking at Peter's QB list. It's his insistence that Vince Young is a top 10 QB. Per usual, BSanders37 provides us with some sanity:
King's formula for ranking QB's is one we generally agree with (he uses yards-per-attempt and completion percentage as his two principle statistics), but his list also features Vince Young (he of the 51 percent completion rate) in the top ten. We know it's a combination of past results and 2007 projections, but come on, Peter. Vince Young is not one of the top 10 QB's in the NFL. And Tony Romo should not be ranked ahead of Donovan McNabb, one of the few QB's in league history to throw for more than 30 TD passes and less than 10 INT's in a single season.
The problem with King's list is it doesn't really rank the best QBs right now. It really ranks where he thinks they will be by year's end:
And, hey -- don't go saying, "King's such an idiot! He thinks Jon Kitna's one of the best quarterbacks in football.'' That's not what I think. What I think is that by the end of this year, we'll have seen Kitna as one of the 10 most productive quarterbacks in the NFL this season. Kitna's the golden child in the perfect spot for a quarterback in 2007, just as with every Mike Martz quarterback of the past few years. Now, it's fine if you want to say, "King's such an idiot! He thinks Kitna's going to throw for 4,300 again! No way!'' It's fine because it's your opinion, but it's probably wrong.
Fine Peter. It's your opinion to rank Jon Kitna and Vince Young ahead of guys like Chad Pennington and Steve McNair. Perfectly cool. However, do you think it would be ok if we... oh, I don't know, held you accountable for your opinions. I mean, you make a helluva lot more money than us, and you're supposed to be THE football expert. If you end up being wrong, which is very likely since you are usually wrong about most predictions you make, can we... oh, I don't know, maybe make fun of you or something? Call you an idiot? Belittle your ignorant and overpaid opinion? Make snippy comments that no one cares about what kind of friggin' coffee you buy at Starbucks? Because it is very likely that we will do that when you are proven wrong, Peter.
Again, it's cool for you to have that opinion. However, when someone makes the kind of suggestions you are making, it suggests that your opinion is not an informed opinion. And that is what you are paid for, right Peter? To be informed?
Thanks to BSanders37 for the photo link.