Make Manning work with only TEs and a slot man and he'd put up worse numbers than Brady.
This is so absurd it's almost not worth addressing, but I will just for the sake of saying I didn't ignore it.
Give Manning Gronk, Hernandez AND Welker and he destroys Brady's numbers no matter who the other wideouts are. No question.
But I'm not discussing Manning - I'm discussing Brady and his lack of skills compared with just about anyone else considered "great".
If you ignore visual evidence of him showcasing his skills, then yes, you are ignoring something.
No, I'm not. I just don't click on links to videos, period.
So I ask for descriptions instead, and YOU ignore that. It's on you to provide evidence other than a video you know I won't see.
If you dismiss statistics describing him making big plays under pressure, then you are ignoring something.
Statistics don't describe a big play under pressure.
The statistics you gave on that were dubious to begin with (what constitutes "under pressure" from the perspective of the person who gave the statistic?) and don't actually describe any plays and lists the skills allegedly shown.
If you describe how bad he is in bad weather, and are shown stats that show he might be the best QB ever in bad weather, and dismiss it, you are ignoring something.
I didn't dismiss it; I systematically debunked the very notion he's a great bad weather QB by showing how the statistic given was misleading. Apparently you ignored that.
I also described instances when he made big plays, under pressure, in big situations. You ignored it. In fact, you took a portion of my post and replied to it, while ignoring the other parts.
Now you're delusional. You never did any such thing. I'm still waiting on anyone to provide a description of a single example - if you claim you'd already done it, then go quote it and show me it again. I'm guessing you only did it in your own mind.
Um....they've responded to your requests with video evidence! What MORE proof do you need? Actually video!
Again, I've stated several times I do not click on video links and have asked for a description in lieu of video. It wouldn't be difficult to provide a description of the play you see on video if such a play actually showed what you claim it shows. Yet you keep saying you've posted a video when you know I haven't and won't watch it, as though it somehow means something.
VIDEO MEANS NOTHING. PROVIDE A DESCRIPTION OR YOU HAVE NOTHING.
I mean, if this were a murder trial, and they showed a video of the defendant stabbing the victim....i'd bet that they find him guilty.
If it was declared the jury wasn't allowed to watch the video, it would mean nothing. That's essentially the case here if you can follow your own metaphor.
Again:
VIDEO MEANS NOTHING. PROVIDE A DESCRIPTION OR YOU HAVE NOTHING.