What Up, Clevelaaaaaaaand!?
-
No offense but the "when they missed the season" argument is probably the dumbest, most illogical, most delusional argument I've ever heard.
In 2010 the Colts went 10-7 (including play offs).
Without Manning they went 2-14, and it would be slightly silly to not take into consideration that Indy was intentionally sucking for Luck and once they had secured the #1 pick magically starting winning games again against divisional rivals to knock them out of the post season.
Brady went 18-1 (a helmet catch away from undefeated).
Without Brady the Patriots went 11-5, didn't beat a single winning team, a single post season team, despite a largely intact 2007 team.
That's pretty God awful in comparison to the offensive record shattering season of 2007 when the Patriots came one miraculous helmet catch from being regarded as the greatest team of all time.
8 less wins without Manning (with a motive)
7 less wins without Brady (and horrible wins at that)
Care to revise the logic of your argument?
Peyton Manning has been treated like football royalty his entire life and entered the NFL on a red carpet. His team then got moved to an expansion division where he could rack up impressive regular season stats against expansion teams and then he would throw up a giant egg once he got to the post season and actually had to play real competition (outside his little dome). Or are you not familiar with the whole thing about Peyton Manning being a huge big-game choker? The one year he won his one loney Superbowl ring his post season stats were 3 touchdowns and 7 interceptions.
Pretty pathetic.
Brady's legacy speaks for itself. The man is a beast. He's completely eclipsed pouty-face by miles in the eyes of any fair minded and rational football fan and he did it, breaking nearly every performance-based record in the books, against real football teams, in real football games, in real football weather.
This picture pretty much sums up the Brady v Manning battle for best quarterback of their generation:
I'm honestly surprised to hear fans of a midwest, cold winter, blue collar football city sympathize with an overly entitled football brat whose legacy is a product of ESPN and not actual football, instead of with the 6th round draft pick who reached the level he's attained through hard work and an unrivaled passion for the game.
I'll take Brady and all his fire for the sport over Prince Peyton any day of the week and twice on Sunday Night Football.
No offense but the "when they missed the season" argument is probably the dumbest, most illogical, most delusional argument I've ever heard.
In 2010 the Colts went 10-7 (including play offs).
Without Manning they went 2-14, and it would be slightly silly to not take into consideration that Indy was intentionally sucking for Luck and once they had secured the #1 pick magically starting winning games again against divisional rivals to knock them out of the post season.
Brady went 18-1 (a helmet catch away from undefeated).
Without Brady the Patriots went 11-5, didn't beat a single winning team, a single post season team, despite a largely intact 2007 team.
That's pretty God awful in comparison to the offensive record shattering season of 2007 when the Patriots came one miraculous helmet catch from being regarded as the greatest team of all time.
8 less wins without Manning (with a motive)
7 less wins without Brady (and horrible wins at that)
Care to revise the logic of your argument?
Peyton Manning has been treated like football royalty his entire life and entered the NFL on a red carpet. His team then got moved to an expansion division where he could rack up impressive regular season stats against expansion teams and then he would throw up a giant egg once he got to the post season and actually had to play real competition (outside his little dome). Or are you not familiar with the whole thing about Peyton Manning being a huge big-game choker? The one year he won his one loney Superbowl ring his post season stats were 3 touchdowns and 7 interceptions.
Pretty pathetic.
Brady's legacy speaks for itself. The man is a beast. He's completely eclipsed pouty-face by miles in the eyes of any fair minded and rational football fan and he did it, breaking nearly every performance-based record in the books, against real football teams, in real football games, in real football weather.
This picture pretty much sums up the Brady v Manning battle for best quarterback of their generation:
I'm honestly surprised to hear fans of a midwest, cold winter, blue collar football city sympathize with an overly entitled football brat whose legacy is a product of ESPN and not actual football, instead of with the 6th round draft pick who reached the level he's attained through hard work and an unrivaled passion for the game.
I'll take Brady and all his fire for the sport over Prince Peyton any day of the week and twice on Sunday Night Football.
There are many ways to judge players: stats, win... I'd take Brady over manning any day. Brady has shown he wins during the important ones.
-
Matt Cassel managed to win 11 games with the same team as Brady.
That's really all that needs to be said.
-
Matt Cassel managed to win 11 games with the same team as Brady.
That's really all that needs to be said.
Matt Cassel managed to win 11 games with the same team as Brady.
That's really all that needs to be said.
Yeah, I already refuted that but don't let that stop you lol.
-
No offense but the "when they missed the season" argument is probably the dumbest, most illogical, most delusional argument I've ever heard.
In 2010 the Colts went 10-7 (including play offs).
Without Manning they went 2-14, and it would be slightly silly to not take into consideration that Indy was intentionally sucking for Luck and once they had secured the #1 pick magically starting winning games again against divisional rivals to knock them out of the post season.
Brady went 18-1 (a helmet catch away from undefeated).
Without Brady the Patriots went 11-5, didn't beat a single winning team, a single post season team, despite a largely intact 2007 team.
That's pretty God awful in comparison to the offensive record shattering season of 2007 when the Patriots came one miraculous helmet catch from being regarded as the greatest team of all time.
8 less wins without Manning (with a motive)
7 less wins without Brady (and horrible wins at that)
Care to revise the logic of your argument?
Peyton Manning has been treated like football royalty his entire life and entered the NFL on a red carpet. His team then got moved to an expansion division where he could rack up impressive regular season stats against expansion teams and then he would throw up a giant egg once he got to the post season and actually had to play real competition (outside his little dome). Or are you not familiar with the whole thing about Peyton Manning being a huge big-game choker? The one year he won his one loney Superbowl ring his post season stats were 3 touchdowns and 7 interceptions.
Pretty pathetic.
Brady's legacy speaks for itself. The man is a beast. He's completely eclipsed pouty-face by miles in the eyes of any fair minded and rational football fan and he did it, breaking nearly every performance-based record in the books, against real football teams, in real football games, in real football weather.
This picture pretty much sums up the Brady v Manning battle for best quarterback of their generation:
I'm honestly surprised to hear fans of a midwest, cold winter, blue collar football city sympathize with an overly entitled football brat whose legacy is a product of ESPN and not actual football, instead of with the 6th round draft pick who reached the level he's attained through hard work and an unrivaled passion for the game.
I'll take Brady and all his fire for the sport over Prince Peyton any day of the week and twice on Sunday Night Football.
There are many ways to judge players: stats, win... I'd take Brady over manning any day. Brady has shown he wins during the important ones.
-
Matt Cassel managed to win 11 games with the same team as Brady.
That's really all that needs to be said.
Yeah, I already refuted that but don't let that stop you lol.
Yeah, I already refuted that but don't let that stop you lol.
Show me where it was refuted and I'll gladly take back what I said.
What you said was that the Colts obviously tanked the season in order to get Andrew Luck and that the Patriots went from the best team ever to only a good team.
At no point did you refute the fact that Matt Cassel won 10 games as a starting QB for the New England Patriots, passing for 3,700 yards and 21 TD's and 11 INT's.
You did erroneously claim that the Matt Cassel-led Patriots didn't beat a single winning team that season, yet they beat the Miami Dolphins (11-4) by 20 points. And you then went on to say that he didn't beat a playoff-bound team either, yet the Patriots beat the NFC Championship winning Arizona Cardinals by 40 points. Those were off the top of my head, but judging by your complete lack of accuracy in your posts thus far, I'm inclined to believe that there are a couple more victories of teams above .500.
So, I'll wait...
-
Yeah, I already refuted that but don't let that stop you lol.
Show me where it was refuted and I'll gladly take back what I said.
What you said was that the Colts obviously tanked the season in order to get Andrew Luck and that the Patriots went from the best team ever to only a good team.
At no point did you refute the fact that Matt Cassel won 10 games as a starting QB for the New England Patriots, passing for 3,700 yards and 21 TD's and 11 INT's.
You did erroneously claim that the Matt Cassel-led Patriots didn't beat a single winning team that season, yet they beat the Miami Dolphins (11-4) by 20 points. And you then went on to say that he didn't beat a playoff-bound team either, yet the Patriots beat the NFC Championship winning Arizona Cardinals by 40 points. Those were off the top of my head, but judging by your complete lack of accuracy in your posts thus far, I'm inclined to believe that there are a couple more victories of teams above .500.
So, I'll wait...
Show me where it was refuted and I'll gladly take back what I said.
What you said was that the Colts obviously tanked the season in order to get Andrew Luck and that the Patriots went from the best team ever to only a good team.
At no point did you refute the fact that Matt Cassel won 10 games as a starting QB for the New England Patriots, passing for 3,700 yards and 21 TD's and 11 INT's.
You did erroneously claim that the Matt Cassel-led Patriots didn't beat a single winning team that season, yet they beat the Miami Dolphins (11-4) by 20 points. And you then went on to say that he didn't beat a playoff-bound team either, yet the Patriots beat the NFC Championship winning Arizona Cardinals by 40 points. Those were off the top of my head, but judging by your complete lack of accuracy in your posts thus far, I'm inclined to believe that there are a couple more victories of teams above .500.
So, I'll wait...
No, I said (pointed out) the difference in wins for each team without Manning and without Brady were virtually identical.
The Patriots might not have dropped to 2 wins, because, well, the 2010 Colts WITH Manning weren't that great (one and done as usual), and so they dropped from 10 wins to 2, a difference of 8. Without Brady, the Patriots went from 18 wins to 11, a difference of 7 (see? almost identical?), but the difference is, w/ Brady the Patriots beat everyone, Superbowl contenders, play off contenders, winning football teams, the team that later became the WORLD CHAMPIONS, etc, and without him, the 2008 Patriots didn't beat a SINGLE team with a winning record and didn't even make the post season.
I don't know.... I'd say going from being one flukey helmet catch away from being known as the greatest football team of all time, to not beating a single winning team and not making the play offs... is a pretty big difference in team performance... duncha'think?
And, beyond all that, there's always the fact that measuring someone's ability by what a new team, with new personnel, looks like when he isn't even around, isn't really that.... logical?
Wouldn't it make more sense to compare them by the years they were both playing or am I in the bizarro universe?
Either way, Brady wins.
-
Show me where it was refuted and I'll gladly take back what I said.
What you said was that the Colts obviously tanked the season in order to get Andrew Luck and that the Patriots went from the best team ever to only a good team.
At no point did you refute the fact that Matt Cassel won 10 games as a starting QB for the New England Patriots, passing for 3,700 yards and 21 TD's and 11 INT's.
You did erroneously claim that the Matt Cassel-led Patriots didn't beat a single winning team that season, yet they beat the Miami Dolphins (11-4) by 20 points. And you then went on to say that he didn't beat a playoff-bound team either, yet the Patriots beat the NFC Championship winning Arizona Cardinals by 40 points. Those were off the top of my head, but judging by your complete lack of accuracy in your posts thus far, I'm inclined to believe that there are a couple more victories of teams above .500.
So, I'll wait...
No, I said (pointed out) the difference in wins for each team without Manning and without Brady were virtually identical.
The Patriots might not have dropped to 2 wins, because, well, the 2010 Colts WITH Manning weren't that great (one and done as usual), and so they dropped from 10 wins to 2, a difference of 8. Without Brady, the Patriots went from 18 wins to 11, a difference of 7 (see? almost identical?), but the difference is, w/ Brady the Patriots beat everyone, Superbowl contenders, play off contenders, winning football teams, the team that later became the WORLD CHAMPIONS, etc, and without him, the 2008 Patriots didn't beat a SINGLE team with a winning record and didn't even make the post season.
I don't know.... I'd say going from being one flukey helmet catch away from being known as the greatest football team of all time, to not beating a single winning team and not making the play offs... is a pretty big difference in team performance... duncha'think?
And, beyond all that, there's always the fact that measuring someone's ability by what a new team, with new personnel, looks like when he isn't even around, isn't really that.... logical?
Wouldn't it make more sense to compare them by the years they were both playing or am I in the bizarro universe?
Either way, Brady wins.
No, I said (pointed out) the difference in wins for each team without Manning and without Brady were virtually identical.
The Patriots might not have dropped to 2 wins, because, well, the 2010 Colts WITH Manning weren't that great (one and done as usual), and so they dropped from 10 wins to 2, a difference of 8. Without Brady, the Patriots went from 18 wins to 11, a difference of 7 (see? almost identical?), but the difference is, w/ Brady the Patriots beat everyone, Superbowl contenders, play off contenders, winning football teams, the team that later became the WORLD CHAMPIONS, etc, and without him, the 2008 Patriots didn't beat a SINGLE team with a winning record and didn't even make the post season.
I don't know.... I'd say going from being one flukey helmet catch away from being known as the greatest football team of all time, to not beating a single winning team and not making the play offs... is a pretty big difference in team performance... duncha'think?
And, beyond all that, there's always the fact that measuring someone's ability by what a new team, with new personnel, looks like when he isn't even around, isn't really that.... logical?
Wouldn't it make more sense to compare them by the years they were both playing or am I in the bizarro universe?
Either way, Brady wins.
This argument is stupid because both quarterbacks can win their team a Super Bowl and that is all that matters.
That said, you are using playoff games to try and make your point which is extremely biased. Bottom line, the Patriots had a great year in 2007. But you are smoking crack if you think a healthy Brady would have led the Patriots to another 16-0 regular season. It never happens. So you can't realistically take 18 wins (or even 16) and compare it to 11 the next year. Did Brady win 16 games in 2009? Didn't think so..
But again, you can't give QBs all the credit for wins and losses so like I initially stated, these arguments are pointless..
-
No, he didn't win 16 games, because he was recovering from a potentially career ending injury and not attending practices. The next season he went 14-2.
I think Peyton Manning gets way too much love, usually from people with a vendetta against the Patriots. It just seems as if he's their little act of vengeance and simply dishonestly claim he's a superior quarterback for sheer spite.
You say both quarterbacks can lead their teams to Superbowls.
Manning threw 2 two touchdown passes and 6 interceptions on his way to his Superbowl, and then went 1/1 once there. Not exactly leading anything.
More like getting carried.
Peyton's career is unimpressive if you want to interject him into a conversation of the greatest of all time.
Brady's only rival is Montana.
Eli could make a strong case for being superior to Peyton.
-
No, he didn't win 16 games, because he was recovering from a potentially career ending injury and not attending practices. The next season he went 14-2.
I think Peyton Manning gets way too much love, usually from people with a vendetta against the Patriots. It just seems as if he's their little act of vengeance and simply dishonestly claim he's a superior quarterback for sheer spite.
You say both quarterbacks can lead their teams to Superbowls.
Manning threw 2 two touchdown passes and 6 interceptions on his way to his Superbowl, and then went 1/1 once there. Not exactly leading anything.
More like getting carried.
Peyton's career is unimpressive if you want to interject him into a conversation of the greatest of all time.
Brady's only rival is Montana.
Eli could make a strong case for being superior to Peyton.
No, he didn't win 16 games, because he was recovering from a potentially career ending injury and not attending practices. The next season he went 14-2.
I think Peyton Manning gets way too much love, usually from people with a vendetta against the Patriots. It just seems as if he's their little act of vengeance and simply dishonestly claim he's a superior quarterback for sheer spite.
You say both quarterbacks can lead their teams to Superbowls.
Manning threw 2 two touchdown passes and 6 interceptions on his way to his Superbowl, and then went 1/1 once there. Not exactly leading anything.
More like getting carried.
Peyton's career is unimpressive if you want to interject him into a conversation of the greatest of all time.
Brady's only rival is Montana.
Eli could make a strong case for being superior to Peyton.
The Patriots went 10-6 the year Tom Brady came back from injury. Not sure where your are getting 14..
And you should take a second look at Tom Brady's postseason stats. He has consistently played well in the first round of the playoffs, but since 2004 he has been anything but special in the later rounds. He doesn't have many more TDs than INTs in the games that matter the most. He benefited from a great defense in the early 2000s that put him in great field position.
I have nothing against Brady, I'm just trying to point out that you are extremely biased towards Brady when comparing him to Manning. Manning finally has a good defense with the Broncos (I would say better than the Pats) so it will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
-
No, he didn't win 16 games, because he was recovering from a potentially career ending injury and not attending practices. The next season he went 14-2.
I think Peyton Manning gets way too much love, usually from people with a vendetta against the Patriots. It just seems as if he's their little act of vengeance and simply dishonestly claim he's a superior quarterback for sheer spite.
You say both quarterbacks can lead their teams to Superbowls.
Manning threw 2 two touchdown passes and 6 interceptions on his way to his Superbowl, and then went 1/1 once there. Not exactly leading anything.
More like getting carried.
Peyton's career is unimpressive if you want to interject him into a conversation of the greatest of all time.
Brady's only rival is Montana.
Eli could make a strong case for being superior to Peyton.
The Patriots went 10-6 the year Tom Brady came back from injury. Not sure where your are getting 14..
And you should take a second look at Tom Brady's postseason stats. He has consistently played well in the first round of the playoffs, but since 2004 he has been anything but special in the later rounds. He doesn't have many more TDs than INTs in the games that matter the most. He benefited from a great defense in the early 2000s that put him in great field position.
I have nothing against Brady, I'm just trying to point out that you are extremely biased towards Brady when comparing him to Manning. Manning finally has a good defense with the Broncos (I would say better than the Pats) so it will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
The Patriots went 10-6 the year Tom Brady came back from injury. Not sure where your are getting 14..
And you should take a second look at Tom Brady's postseason stats. He has consistently played well in the first round of the playoffs, but since 2004 he has been anything but special in the later rounds. He doesn't have many more TDs than INTs in the games that matter the most. He benefited from a great defense in the early 2000s that put him in great field position.
I have nothing against Brady, I'm just trying to point out that you are extremely biased towards Brady when comparing him to Manning. Manning finally has a good defense with the Broncos (I would say better than the Pats) so it will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
Brady's first year back he was still rehabilitating his ACL injury. He wasn't attending practices. He was phoning that season in.
2 years is standard for that injury (which makes Adrian Peterson's season phenomenal). The next year he went 14-2 with a rookie defense and two rookie tight ends and lost Welker to injury for the play offs.
Anyway, the Bronco defense is tailor made to get handled by the Patriots. They have strong corners but they're soft in the middle and can't defend TE's. Brady and Belichick are going to feast on them.
-
Show me where it was refuted and I'll gladly take back what I said.
What you said was that the Colts obviously tanked the season in order to get Andrew Luck and that the Patriots went from the best team ever to only a good team.
At no point did you refute the fact that Matt Cassel won 10 games as a starting QB for the New England Patriots, passing for 3,700 yards and 21 TD's and 11 INT's.
You did erroneously claim that the Matt Cassel-led Patriots didn't beat a single winning team that season, yet they beat the Miami Dolphins (11-4) by 20 points. And you then went on to say that he didn't beat a playoff-bound team either, yet the Patriots beat the NFC Championship winning Arizona Cardinals by 40 points. Those were off the top of my head, but judging by your complete lack of accuracy in your posts thus far, I'm inclined to believe that there are a couple more victories of teams above .500.
So, I'll wait...
No, I said (pointed out) the difference in wins for each team without Manning and without Brady were virtually identical.
The Patriots might not have dropped to 2 wins, because, well, the 2010 Colts WITH Manning weren't that great (one and done as usual), and so they dropped from 10 wins to 2, a difference of 8. Without Brady, the Patriots went from 18 wins to 11, a difference of 7 (see? almost identical?), but the difference is, w/ Brady the Patriots beat everyone, Superbowl contenders, play off contenders, winning football teams, the team that later became the WORLD CHAMPIONS, etc, and without him, the 2008 Patriots didn't beat a SINGLE team with a winning record and didn't even make the post season.
I don't know.... I'd say going from being one flukey helmet catch away from being known as the greatest football team of all time, to not beating a single winning team and not making the play offs... is a pretty big difference in team performance... duncha'think?
And, beyond all that, there's always the fact that measuring someone's ability by what a new team, with new personnel, looks like when he isn't even around, isn't really that.... logical?
Wouldn't it make more sense to compare them by the years they were both playing or am I in the bizarro universe?
Either way, Brady wins.
No, I said (pointed out) the difference in wins for each team without Manning and without Brady were virtually identical.
The Patriots might not have dropped to 2 wins, because, well, the 2010 Colts WITH Manning weren't that great (one and done as usual), and so they dropped from 10 wins to 2, a difference of 8. Without Brady, the Patriots went from 18 wins to 11, a difference of 7 (see? almost identical?), but the difference is, w/ Brady the Patriots beat everyone, Superbowl contenders, play off contenders, winning football teams, the team that later became the WORLD CHAMPIONS, etc, and without him, the 2008 Patriots didn't beat a SINGLE team with a winning record and didn't even make the post season.
I don't know.... I'd say going from being one flukey helmet catch away from being known as the greatest football team of all time, to not beating a single winning team and not making the play offs... is a pretty big difference in team performance... duncha'think?
And, beyond all that, there's always the fact that measuring someone's ability by what a new team, with new personnel, looks like when he isn't even around, isn't really that.... logical?
Wouldn't it make more sense to compare them by the years they were both playing or am I in the bizarro universe?
Either way, Brady wins.
Your argument is flawed in the fact that you continue to claim the Matt Cassel-led Patriots didn't beat a winning team, yet you are completely wrong.
In Matt Cassel's first start in that season, the Patriots defeated the New York Jets who finished the season 9-7. He then routed an 8-8 Denver Broncos team, and routed a 9-7 Arizona Cardinals team that went on to the Super Bowl that season.
Your argument, just like everything you have said thus far, is not only stupid...it's erroneous. But, I'll play along because I love proving stupid people wrong.
The 2010 Colts (under Manning) went 10-6 in the regular season and lost their first playoff game, bringing their total record to 10-7. That's a 58.8% win percentage.
The 2011 Colts (not under Manning) went 2-14 and missed the postseason. That's a 12.5% win percentage.
The 2007 Patriots (under Brady) went 16-0 in the regular season and lost in the Super Bowl, bringing their total record to 18-1. That's a 94.7% win percentage.
The 2008 Patriots (under Cassel) went 11-5 in the regular season and missed the postseason. That's a 68.7% win percentage.
The Colts win percentage was 46.3% higher with Manning in than with another QB whereas the Patriots win percentage is only 26% higher with Brady in than with another QB.
Nobody is claiming that Tom Brady isn't a good QB. What we are saying, and what the stats are proving, is that Peyton Manning was and is more important to his team than Brady is to the Patriots. The Patriots have the closest thing to a "system" in the NFL. They are a plug and play team. The talent level, scheming and offensive playbook of the Patriots are all head and shoulders above that of anyone else in the league.
With Brady in, the Pats are a great team. Without him the Pats are still a very good team.
You don't have to agree, but it's proven. There's no need to even respond past this point, it's done. But please, I'd love to hear what the Masshole has to say on the subject.
-
No, he didn't win 16 games, because he was recovering from a potentially career ending injury and not attending practices. The next season he went 14-2.
I think Peyton Manning gets way too much love, usually from people with a vendetta against the Patriots. It just seems as if he's their little act of vengeance and simply dishonestly claim he's a superior quarterback for sheer spite.
You say both quarterbacks can lead their teams to Superbowls.
Manning threw 2 two touchdown passes and 6 interceptions on his way to his Superbowl, and then went 1/1 once there. Not exactly leading anything.
More like getting carried.
Peyton's career is unimpressive if you want to interject him into a conversation of the greatest of all time.
Brady's only rival is Montana.
Eli could make a strong case for being superior to Peyton.
No, he didn't win 16 games, because he was recovering from a potentially career ending injury and not attending practices. The next season he went 14-2.
I think Peyton Manning gets way too much love, usually from people with a vendetta against the Patriots. It just seems as if he's their little act of vengeance and simply dishonestly claim he's a superior quarterback for sheer spite.
You say both quarterbacks can lead their teams to Superbowls.
Manning threw 2 two touchdown passes and 6 interceptions on his way to his Superbowl, and then went 1/1 once there. Not exactly leading anything.
More like getting carried.
Peyton's career is unimpressive if you want to interject him into a conversation of the greatest of all time.
Brady's only rival is Montana.
At what? Greatest QB of all time?
Lets see: Otto Graham...7 titles, 11 title game appearances. Brady isn't even half way to that count in either category in his career yet.
Don't get me wrong, I think Brady is Top 5...and I personally would rank him somewhat over P. Manning.
But yea, he still has to compete with OG, Starr, Montana, Luckman, Baugh, Elway for best ever.
Eli could make a strong case for being superior to Peyton.
-
@boo-radley said:
Yeah
And Shanahan and Elway.
And Noll and Bradshaw
And Johnson and Aikman
And Cower and Rothlisberger
And Dungy and P Manning
And Couglin and E Manning
And Shula and Griese
Fair statement.....but you forgot Montana and Walsh, Starr and Lombardi, Brown and Graham...or any great coach/QB duo in history.
-
This dude's love for Tom Brady is starting to feel creepy...
Zombo
If I were a chick I would probably think that Brady is a good looking dude. As it is, I would prefer his wife.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login