Peyton Gets the TD Record

1. That is debatable, but yes, he is easily near the bottom of the list of QBs to play in a SB. Some of those won. Some lost.
2. He played very poorly against Pittsburgh in '05. Outside of that I don't know what you're referring to.

 

I didn't realize Brady was playing FS on the defense that held the greatest show on turf to an astounding 17 points. Brady had one touchdown drive in that game.

 

I don't think any of this is true. Your Packers being exhibit A of the competitiveness in the league.

 

He didn't beat the greatest show on turf. The Patriots did.

If you get sucked into an argument about "which QB wins games" you've already lost.

 

by competitiveness you seem to mean parity. parity should make it easier for a great qb to win, not harder.

 

I don't quite buy the theory that brady is worse because he lost to two very good giants teams just because they happened to be wild card teams. both of them have lost to teams everyone thought they should beat. brady has just won more of those games than peyton has.

 

Parity is a cute buzzword but it doesn't defend how your Packers are a prime example to the League's competitiveness. Just because teams are attempting to play like the 2010 Packers does not make them the 2010 Packers.

 

I'm not following you.

 

You aren't following how the Packers could remain virtually unchanged since a dominant 2010 SB run yet not reach the NFC Championship since be an example of the league's competitiveness?

 

I probably agree with you but I am having a tough time following you, Huffman. Give us a thesis statement.

 

On which part? My statement that the NFL is more competitive now than it was when the Patriots were a machine?

 

do you forget that the patriots also went 15-1 and lost? the bears in 1986 went 14-2 and lost in the divisional round. And the packers in 2010 were a wild card team as well. so I'm not sure why that is a dominant run and the giants doing the exact same thing the next year was a sign of anything other than parity. and parity, to me, means that it doesn't take a lot for a bad team to be good enough to win the super bowl which should make it easier for a great qb to win a super bowl. back in the 80s you needed 4 or 5 hall of famers to do it. not so much anymore.

 

I'd argue that parity came along when the salary cap came along in 1994.

 

Parity has definitely been the rule once free-agency got into full swing and the great Cowboy and Niner teams were finally broken up.

 

I have to agree with this.

 

Patriots have never gone 15-1 in their team history. They did go 1-15 in 1990 though.

 

Peyton stinking it up yet again; 3 TD's no INT's early in the 3rd quarter.

 

But if the Patriots with Tom Brady don't do it doesn't that tell you it's more than QB play?

 

Is there a sixth MVP in the works?

Through seven games:
174/252 (69.0%) 2134 yards 304.9 y/g 8.5 y/a (3 300+ yard games) 22 TD 3 INT

 

Nah he sucks, remember?