>>65077357 >bill constantly makes manning look like shit and this is his best defense in years >people understand how to stop osweiller now and know his weaknesses >pats offense is back in gear and one of those shitters is going to need to go toe to toe with brady in a shootout to have a chance
>>65082263 >bill constantly makes manning look like shit
yeah that's a dank meme and all of that i know, but the reality is that brady/belichick manning are 5-5 in their last 10 meetings. if you take out the first 6 times they played (10 years ago) this series is pretty balanced and the outcome is anything but certain
>>65082627 >if we take out over the half of the games that he lost then his record is not so bad ye, no. fuck off. If we only count them from 2010 to now then Patriots are 4-1 vs Manning. I can cherrypick too
why doesn't Denver just start both Osweiler and Manning (take out one of the linemen). That would they could make who the ball snaps to unpredictable and Manning could block for Osweiler on some plays or serve as a decoy.
>>65082698 >too insecure to accept the fact that the series hasn't been a blow out through the last 10 years >too choked up on brody's dick to realized this sentence "bill constantly makes manning look like shit and this is his best defense in years" is factually wrong stick to your premier shit and boring ass rugby, britbong. seriously
>>65083150 >too insecure to accept the fact that the series has been blow out through the last 5 years >too choked up on manning's dick to realise that the arbitrary "last 10 years" timeframe is retarded
>>65083175 ok retard i'll try to make it simple for you. some guy brings up a dank opinion "bill constantly makes manning look like shit" i bring up a fact to counter that opinion "5-5 in their last 10 meetings". you get all hissy fit-sy in your panties because my comment doesn't have enough brady's dick flavoring in it and bring up a fact that neither proves the first opinion nor disproves my fact but somehow someway you think it did
>>65083222 if you wanna call a 5-5 record "CONSTANTLY look like shit" go right ahead. can't argue with this special kind of retard
>>65083880 But it's not a 5-5 record. it's only a 5-5 record after applying your "my arbitrary time period is more important than yours" criteria. What makes a game played in 2005 relevant to that match up but a game played in 2004 not?
>>65083913 >>65083926 belichik is kinda famous for owning young qbs. he shows things they've never seen before and gets in their heads. i'd say that fits the first few meetings: manning was still young and was nowhere near the field general that has become over the years. you might argue that doesn't apply to all the first 6 games. let's say it only applies to the first 3 meetings it'd still be a 5-8 record which to me is hardly "constantly make look like shit" considering peyton led offenses scored around 30 points on those tough defenses on most occasions
>>65084209 No matter how you try to rationalise it, you're still cherrypicking completely irrelevant time periods. Even if the whole Brady/Belichick dominance over Manning was just a result of Belichick owning young QBs as you're trying to claim, it's easily disproven by another "fact". Manning is just 1-4 vs the Patriots in his last 5 games.
The point is, any cherrypicked timeframe is irrelevant. No matter if you choose to include 10 games, 5 games, 1 game or 12 games, your argument will always boil down to "if you don't count the times he lost then he didn't lose all that much"
>>65084308 >No matter how you try to rationalise it, you're still cherrypicking completely irrelevant time periods except i gave you a reason why at least a couple of the first few match ups skew those numbers, unless you wanna claim mid 20s peyton manning who has faced a bill bilichick defense twice is as experienced as 30s peyton manning who knows bill better than anyone else
>Even if the whole Brady/Belichick dominance over Manning was just a result of Belichick owning young QBs >the whole Brady/Belichick dominance was just >THE WHOLE >JUST i've never said that, learn to read
>as you're trying to claim wrong
>disproven by another "fact". Manning is just 1-4 vs the Patriots in his last 5 games does the 4-1 record manning holds over belichick in the late 2000s prove that he made belichick look like shit during that period too? since your so fixated over this last 5 games here's another stat: out of the last 5 games 4 have been played in foxborough and 1 in denver. guess who won which games, and guess where the miraculous second half 24 points pats comeback + ot win happened.
> any cherrypicked timeframe is irrelevant. it depends on the criteria you use and what you're trying to point out. examples: if you say the chiefs are 10 in their last 10 games after starting 1-5 you're trying to point out that the team might have improved and is playing better than when it was 1-5. the pats started 10-0 and ended the season 2-4, same thing, the team started but is now struggling manning-brady started 0-6 but has since been 5-5, what once was a blow out and a given has since turned into an entertaining and unpredictable match up.
>your argument will always boil down to "if you don't count the times he lost then he didn't lose all that much" yeah whatever ignore the reasoning. what's your argument? bill constantly makes peyton look like shit and by constantly i mean except the last 10 years or exclusively in the last 5 years(after being made look like shit)
>>65085549 >except i gave you a reason why at least a couple of the first few match ups skew those numbers Which was a stupid reason not backed by any facts. inb4 he has a good record vs young quarterbacks - Brady and Belichick have a good record in 99% of scenarios. There is nothing "skewed" about those games, Manning played badly and he lost.
>unless you wanna claim mid 20s peyton manning who has faced a bill bilichick defense twice is as experienced as 30s peyton manning who knows bill better than anyone else No, unless you want to claim that the 2015 version of Peyton Manning is as good a quarterback as 03-09 version of Peyton Manning. And I'm quite sure there are a few people who know Bill better than Peyton does.
>i've never said that, learn to read You heavily implied it. You said that if we don't count the first 6 games they played then the match up is very even. So by discounting those games you took it from Brady/Belichick dominance to a tie (no dominance) and the only reason you gave was "Bill is good vs young QBs". So you pretty much attributed the entire dominance of this matchup to some unverified claim. I mean, yea, he is good vs young QBs but Bill is good vs pretty much anything so it's not something that skews the statistics, it just shows what a good coach he is.
>does the 4-1 record manning holds over belichick in the late 2000s prove that he made belichick look like shit during that period too? How many times do I have to repeat that cherrypicked timeframes prove nothing? I'm only "fixating" on those 5 games to show you how easy it is to make a flawed argument by cherrypicking a timeframe.
>>65085549 >if you say the chiefs are 10 in their last 10 games after starting 1-5 you're trying to point out that the team might have improved and is playing better than when it was 1-5. the pats started 10-0 and ended the season 2-4, same thing, the team started but is now struggling I remember arguing the same thing before the divisional round and being told that "well, the Chiefs won 11 straight games, they only started badly because they faced good teams, they're better than the Patriots". How did that work out for the Chiefs?
>manning-brady started 0-6 but has since been 5-5, what once was a blow out and a given has since turned into an entertaining and unpredictable match up. Manning-Brady started 0-6, then went 4-1, before going 1-4. What was a clear victory for Manning in 05-09 (coincidentally 05 and 09 were some of the worst teams of the Brady/Belichick era), was a blowout in any other period. I can use the same stats to paint an entirely different picture and I have a reason for that too (a stupid one, just like yours) - Patriots late 00s teams were pretty bad, except for the 07 one that beat Manning's Colts.
>yeah whatever ignore the reasoning your reasoning is dumb. my argument is that Brady and Belichick hold the upper hand over Manning in a head to head matchup, this is categorically true.
>>65086206 They're professional football players, not nine year olds at the school play. Those statistics only exist so marketers and sportcasters can have something to talk about and create a storyline. Stop being a fucking retard
>>65085963 so your argument isn't bill constantly makes manning look like shit yet you had to come out of the woodwork to prove a point that no one is disputing (historically Brady and Belichick hold the upper hand over Manning in a head to head matchup), because me mentioning that the series is at 5-5 over the last 10 years and the outcome has literally been a toss up since 2005 (which is still true regardless of how you feel about it) upsets you because it doesn't show "teh dominance of teh brady". i honestly couldn't care less of teh dominance of brady or teh stats of manning, i'm embarrassed i let a fan boy drag into this long winded argument about nothing because i dared not genuflect hard enough to your hero, despite having you figured out from the get go >>65083150
>>65088135 hard to tell, probably will come down to the broncos running game having enough success to keep brady off the field and the game close, and who will have the most turnovers at the end of the game
>>65089144 So if i go back and compare everything like for like, ie, number of starts out for how many weeks, Denver will be the mos games missed by starts? No just number of players on IR? sounds like you are cherry picking from the way you say it but I'd have to check to be sure. But maybe it's just how you said it and im misinterpreting.
>>65089771 Yet the Broncos keep winning. If the receivers stopped greasing up before playing, they would have blown the steelers out. The only reason the Steelers were in that game was because of all the dropped passes.
>>65089589 >one day later >still can't tell difference between cherry picking and stats break down >still hasn't refuted the central point and where all of this started >b-but my dad isn't also my uncle i swear
you gotta the most obsessive home erotic tendencies than any of the other brady dags i ever talked to. daddy must be proud of you
>>65089780 You guys shouldve blown them out, they were missing LeVeon Bell, DeAngelo Williams, Antonio Brown, and Big Ben was hurt. And even still you needed a fumble from the 3rd string RB to squeak out the victory. The dropped passes occurred because of ducks Peyton was lobbing. A wobbling football becomes much harder to catch than a spiral.
>>65089853 Italy don't responding to these tools they just love guzzling any stats that makes Brady so called good when in the end we know he's fake that has never done anything on his own and will never will.
>>65089940 Dude, I don't know if Osweiler threw equally bad passes because I didn't see those games, but Peypey had awful throws. One was so bad that the announcers thought it had been tipped at the line, only to pan down and see the awful truth.
>>65090003 so you don't know. but that won't stop you from assuming the reason behind the drops was the qb (despite those drops being with constant even with a different qb) i'd say you and this inuit retard here >>65089909 never played football outside of your backyards, or you'd know that if the ball hits the receiver's hands and he drops it, it's only his fault period. "i only catch perfectly thrown spirals" doesn't cut it anywhere at any level
Thats fucking dense. If you whip a ball at 80 mph to a guy five feet away, he's gonna drop it. And when the trajectory of the ball is off, in this case when Peyton "I have no feeling in my fingers" Manning throws up a duck, the ball is more prone to bounce off of a finger because its harder to judge the nose of the football. Now get up from blowing Peyton and get a clue.
>>65090312 >Its not entirely Peyton's fault, but he's partly to blame. sounds a lot different than >The dropped passes occurred because of ducks Peyton was lobbing. glad to see you were able to admit you were wrong. you're certainly better than the britbong who can't let go 5-5 because it's "disrespectful" to tommy
>>65090429 >cucks manning in the first 6 matches including holding a record setting offense to just a field goal >handily stops manning in the first matchup after his comeback >limits manning as the patriots engineer a 24 point primetime comeback mostly caused by the offense fucking up in the first place >absolutely blows manning the fuck out last season, game is over at the half The last time manning won was when half the defense was on IR and even then, the top corner had to leave the game before he could do anything.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.