View Single Post
01-26-2005, 07:33 AM
Registered User
JCD's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 14,432
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by FlyersGuy69
ok, but I don't remeber comparing Manning, McNabb or Culpepper together in this thread, someone else did. I simply replied to a post that stated it wasn't about Brady as much as it was the coach and system and I disagreed. it also said that under these circumstances Vick, Culpepper and "others" could be considered on Brady's level. that's speculative at best and that's all I was trying to say. I am not going to put Culpepper, Vick, Manning or McNabb on Brady's level until they do what he has. to me, it's like saying, this basketball player could have been better than Michael Jordan, if he had them players and that coach.
Perhaps I misunderstood. You said Culpepper and Vick could be great one day, they have the tools, but are not yet.

The Michael Jordan comparison doesn't hold up. Individually, Brady has nothing on Culpepper, Manning or McNabb. What he does have is a SuperBowl ring. A TEAM accomplishment. Judging an individual by a team accomplishment as a reason for them being better is a stretch. Does that mean Marino wasn't a great to you? Put it this way, since you are using the team accomplishment as the basis for comparison, why not sub in 'Dilfer' for Brady. You are not going to put Vick, Culpepper, Manning or McNabb on Dilfer's level until they do what he has?

Brady is clutch. His team won it all. Twice. Going for the third. Winning a Superbowl is a hallmark of greatness, but not the end-all, be-all of it.

Originally Posted by Flyersguy69
his TO's are overblown? I never heard such a thing...they are what they are. and yes he feasted on a horrible Green Bay team and got stopped by a really good Eagles team. he needed to not only play at the same level he had been but elevate his level against the Eagles...and he didn't. the Vikings had the talent and ability IMO to beat the Eagles, but they didn't step up. they could have won that game.
Yes, overblown. Culpepper isn't the turn-overmachine he is made out to be. He is a risktaker and fumbles, but nowhere near as often as he is credited for. Green Bay wasn't a 'horrible' team, they were on the same level as the Vikes. Culpepper had a near perfect game. Eagles were a better team than the Vikes, hands down. For the Vikes to win, they needed to bring their 'A' game and the Eagles needed to bring their 'B' or worse. Didn't happen. Culpepper had a horrible outing, 2nd worst game of the season. He proved lacking in the clutch. Until Culpepper does perform great under pressure, he won't seperate himelf from the other top-QBs. Then again, I wouldn't consider losing to a better team choking.

Originally Posted by Flyersguy69
well, again, I never said that one was better than the other. just that they weren't on Brady's level. but if I had my choice of the three, I would pick McNabb. just my preference. as far as Manning getting the MVP and maybe some more props for his season, he still had a more impressive year statistically. he did break a pretty impressive NFL record this year. as far as I am concerned McNabb, Manning and Culpepper are in the same's just who you prefer.
You give me weight to the SuperBowl wins, putting Brady ahead. The rest are on par with each other. We agree in part. I consider the SuperBowl more of a team accomplishment and that Brady's role in those wins is overblown. If McNabb wins a SuperBowl in two weeks, does that elevate him to Brady's level?

JCD is offline