The rules as they are now being enforced make defending the pass consistently next to impossible.
No they don't. For undisciplined cover guys who don't know how to bump and run effectively, it makes it harder to cover good receivers. But guys like Asante Samuel, Champ Bailey, Chris McAlister, Rashean Mathis, Nate Clements, Charles Woodson and Al Harris have excelled over the past few seasons at man coverage. Zone guys like Ed Reed and Bob Sanders (and, this season, the Colts cornerbacks Marlin Jackson and Kelvin Hayden) play off the ball particularly well and stop big gains with their solid tackling. Defending the pass isn't anywhere near impossible, especially with the lack of good quarterbacks in the NFL.
Polian invested heavily in Manning and giving him talented receivers so I don't blame him for doing it, but don't be upset that Belichick and Pioli were smart enough to recognize the direction the NFL was trending and making the decision that they could do it better and giving Brady the tools that Manning has had his entire career.
I am not upset about anything that the Patriots did to improve their personnel. Going out and getting Moss, Welker and the others was smart. That's what a good front office does in order to stay competitive and, in the Patriots case, dominant. I didn't bring this up; you did.
And, by the way, the difference between the Colts talent and the Patriots talent is that all the offensive weapons the Colts have had the last five-plus years has been home-grown, a product of solid drafting and player development. The Patriots went out and signed free agents; they took the "quick fix" path to upgrading their offense. Nothing wrong with that, but there's a huge difference between what the Colts have
built and what the Patriots have
put together.
Fair enough, but I'd say Tommy now has the distinction of having more rings
and the stats to back up whatever claim he'd like to make.
Well, without getting too far into this, I find it ridiculous that the national media takes the sport that is the most team-centric and grades individual players at one particular position based on whether or not they won a championship. At the end of their careers, we will have to sit back and judge Tom Brady and Peyton Manning by their individual accomplishments, including what they were able to do to help their teams win big games, and determine who is/was the best. I don't think it's fair to say that Tom Brady is better than Peyton Manning because he has three Super Bowls and Manning only has one (or, didn't have any). And I never thought it was fair or accurate to say that Manning was better than Brady because he put up better numbers. I think it has to be a healthy mix of a lot of different things that says who is the better player, including the teams they played on and the roles they had to assume for those teams.
You can say that Brady has better numbers now (which isn't true; he has two better numbers: single season passing yardage, and single season touchdowns), or you can say that he has more Super Bowls, or you can even say both. I don't think any of those things necessarily make him the better player.
By the way, this is something that we will probably never agree upon, you being a Patriots fan and me being a Colts fan. I'm more than happen to engage in the discussion with you, but it's going to be a lengthy one, so ...
In any event, I find the hate refreshing. Sure beats a bajillion bandwagon fans claiming they have loved the Patriots from day one.
Again, it's not about hate. It's about not liking. There's a huge difference. I have a great amount of respect for the Patriots, their coach, and their QB. But I don't enjoy seeing them set such historic milestones, and I don't appreciate the way they have approached the game or their opponents this season.
