Manning failed four times in ANOTHER first round playoff exit(top seeded exit), but that counts for nothing.
Sure it counts, but you might consider Manning put his team in position to win the game unless there was a miracle play by Baltimore, so when one actually did happen (through NO fault of Manning's) that doesn't mean his legacy is forever tarnished because they lost the game.
That's the kind of screwed up reasoning that causes people to over rate QBs based on wins. Broncos lose, you think less of Manning.
But if Rahim Moore doesn't act like he's a high school DB with no clue and either knocks down or perhaps intercepts that Flacco bomb that shouldn't have stood a chance, maybe Manning gets another ring, and then you think he's better than you did before.
I look at a QBs skills and what value they add to a team as being much greater than the random chance of whether or not the team wins the SB. Sure, wins have value, but you act like that's the only way any QB should ever be evaluated.
I see Biz ignored my bet offer. Good call.
It was pointless to the argument being made. Also, I'm not wasting my time with that.
Virtually all NFL QBs are over rated based on wins, especially in the playoffs and Super Bowl. This is certainly true of Brady.
Also, people tend to forget Brady's mistakes and focus on his successes. He's won 3 SBs a decade ago, and that somehow trumps two losses since.
Think of it this way: If Brady had never been to a single Super Bowl and certainly didn't win any of them, how great would you think he is?