New England's crappy offensive line contributed to Denver's impressive defense against them. In order to do what Denver did you need great edge rushers and a very good secondary. If you haven't got those and you put 8 in the box a QB like Brady will torch you. Most teams especially in the AFC east don't have those two things, hence why the Patriots are perennial winners in that division.
I'll give Tom Brady this much credit - if you give him sufficient protection - the odds of beating him become extremely low, even with him relying on an average receiving corps.
But on that same token - you just have to credit Denver for recognizing where the Pats weaknesses were and exploiting them. Even at that - they damned near lost that game, and all because of Brady's awareness. I'm not going to trash Brady in what might appear to some as an effort to endlessly defend Manning from something that may or may not have happened 20 years ago.
To be completely fair - I would be no different if it were Brady being exploited for something he may or may not have done 20 years ago.
I ain't that petty, and I sure as hell ain't that stupid.
sdandrea1 The media, in general, all report with bias. I wonder why they think it's more fun to hate Brady...............
I don't think the media hates Brady. He gets pulled down by the reputation of Belichick and the Patriots. The cheating incidents have tainted the organization as a whole and Brady is the face of the team. People were willing to believe deflategate because the reputation had already been established. Do I think any of the crap Belichick has pulled helped the Patriots much to win games? No. He is stupid for giving rival fans ammunition to discredit their success.
I hate Brady. I also think he's one of the best QB's I've seen in my lifetime. I hate Brady because I'm jealous. He sleeps with Gisele! He is such a loser!
Wow. That's sensationalism at it's finest. This Naughtright, if portrayed accurately above, sounds like a delight of a person. Sarcasm. She sounds like a gold digger big time.
This is the issue with these things...we never really get to know. I hate that. One day it sounds like Manning is a first class pppprick and the next it sounds like he's the victim.
Now, he's gay and likes to smoke poles? Wow, wow, wow. Well, he and Papa John did kiss on the field after the SB...not that there's anything wrong with that.
Can't wait to see what happens next. 
Speaking of Joe Montana... one of the rumors from the industry I used to work in was that he never had back surgery (there's no scar, allegedly) and he was suspended by the NFL (secretly) for a raging cocaine addiction which accounted for the "recovery time" for the surgery he never had.
If Peyton and him are "buddies" Peyton probably wishes his name was "Joe" so he could be "Smokin' Joe".
Tom and Gisele bought a home on the Brookline Country Club Golf Course (home of the 1999 Ryder Cup). The powers that be haven't allowed him to join yet (and may not). So he's obvious not great enough for the blue bloods at Brookline.
Sneakylong Tom and Gisele bought a home on the Brookline Country Club Golf Course (home of the 1999 Ryder Cup). The powers that be haven't allowed him to join yet (and may not). So he's obvious not great enough for the blue bloods at Brookline.
They don't believe his handicap index..............................8*)
sdandrea1 Sneakylong Tom and Gisele bought a home on the Brookline Country Club Golf Course (home of the 1999 Ryder Cup). The powers that be haven't allowed him to join yet (and may not). So he's obvious not great enough for the blue bloods at Brookline.
They don't believe his handicap index..............................8*)
It's deflated?
Sorry, couldn't help myself
:/
According to Freeman, Manning is able to get away with this because he is to a certain degree immune from criticism.
“Part of the reason why Manning hits back twice as hard—which is his right—is because he knows he’ll receive cover from large swaths of the media who will believe anything he says,” he wrote. “There are football writers, lots of them, that would lay their bodies over a puddle of water and let Manning walk over their bodies so his cleats don’t get wet.”
Don't get too wet yourself.
Or possibly Manning wasn't guilty of the allegations and although the school settled - he wasn't about to set idly by and let someone tarnish his career.
It all just comes down to which side one prefers to believe. Although, I personally have to chuckle when evidence comes forward that the alleged "victim" has more of a questionable history than the alleged perpetrator himself, yet that just doesn't factor into the equation to some people.
Some people look at things objectively, some refuse to consider anything but what they want to believe, as though they were there and witnessed the allegation themselves. The underlying agendas in both of those instances can't help but be recognized for what they are.
Let's see. Who should we believe? Malcom Saxon who lost his eligibility and then wrote Peyton a letter imploring Peyton to tell the truth / come clean or do we believe Manning who has everything to gain by continuing the lie about mooning Saxon?
Does common sense say we're to believe a guy would lie and lose his eligibility or believe a guy would lie to cover up a sexual assault?
The mooning incident was a made up cover story. Then one might ask what is it he's covering up? Dot, dot, dot..............
Choose to believe who you want to believe, but only a few people know the truth. We never will.
You contend that you enjoy a good discussion/debate. If that's true, then maybe you should stop automatically discounting what everyone else might offer when they provide something substantive that runs contrary to your position.
At that point it's no longer a good discussion, it's just one guy banging out words on a keyboard and everyone else being amused and entertained about what he might post next. You're making yourself the brunt of a joke that you clearly don't realize you're perpetuating when you continuously do this, over and over.
It doesn't make you a bad person. It just makes you someone to avoid when a discussion evolves into a debate.
But again and again and again we do know the mooning claim was not true. Manning did not come up with that story himself, but he did latch on to it once that lie was made up. We know it's a lie because the guy (Saxon) who Manning says he was mooning says so. So why lie about a mooning if nothing happened?
Now, do we know if Manning's rectum and testicles actually touched Naughright's face? No. But does it really make a difference?
Just as Manning has not denied his wife received HGH thru the mail, he also has never denied dropping his drawers in front of Naughright. No need to drop your shorts when someone is checking for a stress fracture in your foot. So if the mooning never happened why pull your shorts down?
I mean at the very least we have some admissions here that don't look good for Manning.
