Music Banter

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)
-   Sport & Recreation (https://www.musicbanter.com/sport-recreation/)
-   -   Let's talk about God for a minute, shall we? (https://www.musicbanter.com/sport-recreation/75086-lets-talk-about-god-minute-shall-we.html)

Trollheart 01-29-2014 12:50 PM

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._Reed_1971.JPG

Ahh sorry... that's Mike Brady isn't it. Probably no relation... :rofl:

TheBig3 01-29-2014 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Forward To Death (Post 1411494)
Manning has more networth than Brady. JS.

Anyways, I think everyone just knows that Brady is the Brett Favre of his generation. His fanboys all think he's the best, and it's kind of annoying since Manning is obviously the better QB by almost any metric.

His net worth is higher because he switches teams to make more money, while Brady sticks with his team and takes less. That's why we love him here, its something called loyalty.

And get back to me on how Manning is better when you use the metric: Super Bowl rings.

Because I'm not getting the same math as you apparently.

Forward To Death 01-29-2014 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBig3 (Post 1411532)
His net worth is higher because he switches teams to make more money, while Brady sticks with his team and takes less. That's why we love him here, its something called loyalty.

And get back to me on how Manning is better when you use the metric: Super Bowl rings.

Because I'm not getting the same math as you apparently.

I always thought Super Bowl rings were a team accomplishment, and not a metric of personal greatness. That's just me though. :laughing:

butthead aka 216 01-29-2014 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBig3 (Post 1411532)
His net worth is higher because he switches teams to make more money, while Brady sticks with his team and takes less. That's why we love him here, its something called loyalty.

And get back to me on how Manning is better when you use the metric: Super Bowl rings.

Because I'm not getting the same math as you apparently.

Wat




Dey see me trollin dey hatin

Paul Smeenus 01-29-2014 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBig3 (Post 1411532)
His net worth is higher because he switches teams to make more money, while Brady sticks with his team and takes less. That's why we love him here, its something called loyalty.

And get back to me on how Manning is better when you use the metric: Super Bowl rings.

Because I'm not getting the same math as you apparently.


I count Manning 1 Brady 0 since spygate

YorkeDaddy 01-29-2014 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBig3 (Post 1411532)
His net worth is higher because he switches teams to make more money, while Brady sticks with his team and takes less. That's why we love him here, its something called loyalty.

And get back to me on how Manning is better when you use the metric: Super Bowl rings.

Because I'm not getting the same math as you apparently.

Switches teams to make more money? That's a funny way of describing how the Colts literally kicked Manning to the curb and Manning simply took the best deal that was offered to him.

There are 52 players on an NFL roster, and like 20 coaches. One player having more rings on his hand than another means nothing.

Manning is ALWAYS among the most respected individuals in all of sports for a reason, among both players and fans. Nobody ever mentions Brady when they're making a list of nice guys in sports, and that's because he's an overly entitled pretty boy douche bag. He's unquestionably in the top 3 Quarterbacks to ever play the sport along with Manning and Joe Cool, but that doesn't make him a role model or somebody worth rooting for unless you're a Patriots fan, which you clearly are.

butthead aka 216 01-29-2014 04:28 PM

Manning. Brady. Montana.

Rate em



Rings are always overrated when rankin players imo



I love brady he was handed nothin. He fought to the top if the food chain

YorkeDaddy 01-29-2014 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by butthead aka 216 (Post 1411570)
Manning. Brady. Montana.

Rate em



Rings are always overrated when rankin players imo



I love brady he was handed nothin. He fought to the top if the food chain

First of all, Brady didn't fight for ****. The right pieces fell into place for him. If Drew Bledsoe had never gotten hurt, Tom Brady probably would have never even been an NFL starter. He then proceeded to ride an incredible defense and kicker while being taught by the greatest coach of all-time for a few seasons, and THEN Brady became the excellent quarterback he is today. Brady was not that great for his first few seasons.

Anyway, the top 3 is definitely 1. Montana 2. Manning 3. Brady. Montana was 4-0 in Super Bowls and never threw an interception versus 11 touchdowns in those Super Bowls. He was untouchable.

Montana literally paved the way for modern day NFL offenses. The Patriots offense every year is basically a modified version of what Montana and Bill Walsh revolutionized. No one really has the resume that Montana has, unless Manning plays another year and lights it up again or unless Brady dominates for a few more seasons.

TheBig3 01-29-2014 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Forward To Death (Post 1411537)
I always thought Super Bowl rings were a team accomplishment, and not a metric of personal greatness. That's just me though. :laughing:

Then don't say "every single metric." You wanted to be proven wrong - I proved you wrong. Don't rejigger the argument after you've lost.

YorkeDaddy 01-29-2014 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBig3 (Post 1411599)
Then don't say "every single metric." You wanted to be proven wrong - I proved you wrong. Don't rejigger the argument after you've lost.

says the guy that won't even try and refute my statements.

you will lose this argument against me, so i guess you're making a good choice

oh wait, no brady fan has ever lost an argument ever according to themselves l0l


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:49 AM.


© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.