Because this needed a second thread?

again, prove it


or shut the **** up

So the moron who wrote this article predicts Brady's teams would have lost 6-7 more playoff games without Brady and predicts Manning's teams would have lost 3 more games without Manning, and you are using this article as some sort of validation to your Manning > Brady argument?

Hootie gonna Hootie.

it didnt need a second post, let alone thread

The "Hootie Double-Down"

Always great for a cheap laugh

I don't have to prove anything.

538 (owned by ESPN) has a guy who is paid to research these things and provide mathematical analysis of what he finds.

I linked the article, stop trying to accuse me of pulling things from thin air.

According to his research, Matt Cassel would have gone 12-14 or 13-13 in playoff games started by Tom Brady.

Matt Cassel would have gone 8-16 in games started by Peyton Manning.

Now, if you want to dig deeper, this still doesn't suggest Peyton > Tom in the postseason.

Since Tom is 18-8 (they threw out the Bledsoe game) and Peyton is 11-13.

So Tom has still been 5 games better than replacement to Peyton's 3.

The point it really makes is ...

TOM BRADY HAS ALWAYS HAD BETTER TEAMS SO STOP WITH THE GOD DAMN "TOM HAS NO WEAPONS" TRIPE.

Hootie's still going at it I see

Nope.

Read my last post.

Just said the same thing.

Tom has been 1.2 wins better than his ELO predictions and Peyton has been 2.2 wins worse than his.

This is more or less proof that debunks the idea that Tom Brady doesn't have any weapons.

He's had the weapon of having the best team in football for about 1.5 decades now. Not to mention his head coach...

This is turning into Michael Scott on Football.

so, in an imaginary world....


in the real world, Brady trumps Manning in every category

end of story

This obsession has gone too far, turn off the laptop and step outside for some fresh air and sunshine.

Haha.

I'm going at it by posting an article that states what I've been stating for years with statistical proof.

Tom has been OK in the postseason. Not great. Not clutch. He's been pretty good. According to this article, even a little bit better than Manning.

But neither of them have been great by any standard.

Approaching blackbob levels.

so some guys mathematical analysis says it so it HAS to be right?


seriously?

I don't think he's going to stop anytime soon.