that pressure is felt by everyone on that field. they are all under pressure, and other positions are out there far more to actually make a difference in the game, while also having to endure more physically and mentally through the many plays they need to memorize. kickers are the easiest way to be good at football besides longsnapping

I'm sorry dude, but he is a profesional, he can't fail like that.

Imagine there is a astronaut that crashed his ship --- is "Well, it wasn´t easy, imagine the presure he had" a good excuse?

pressure? if you are supposed to be practicing kicking in all sorts of different angles countless times a day and are playing at the PROFESSIONAL level for this skill, you should be above pressure. it should be second nature at that level. from that point of view it is much easier to play a kicker than other positions

You can't emulate the pressure of a field goal that literally means the season to your team and your job.

that pressure is felt by everyone on that field. they are all under pressure, and other positions are out there far more to actually make a difference in the game, while also having to endure more physically and mentally through the many plays they need to memorize. kickers are the easiest way to be good at football besides longsnapping

nahhhhh

^^

How am I straying away from the subject? the guy made the comment about liking a page to comment. I can see it's on Facebook, im not stupid, but it's a facebook wiki article - not one that can be commented on - that's the subject.

On some pages you do have to like it before posting comments.

Direct quote for you.

"It's a wikipedia article. Not a page. Idiot "

Who is the idiot? you.

Oh lol, I thought you meant that the screenshot was ripped straight off of wikipedia.

^^

but you can't comment on it.

Don't stray away from the subject. My point is that it's not a wikipedia article. It's a fanpage on facebook with wikipedia info on it.

How am I straying away from the subject? the guy made the comment about liking a page to comment. I can see it's on Facebook, im not stupid, but it's a facebook wiki article - not one that can be commented on - that's the subject.

On some pages you do have to like it before posting comments.

Direct quote for you.

"It's a wikipedia article. Not a page. Idiot "

Who is the idiot? you.

Oh lol, I thought you meant that the screenshot was ripped straight off of wikipedia.

^^

Which is wrong.

www.facebook.com/pages/Lama...

That, my friend, is what we call a fan page. You can like somebody on it and learn neat things on it from wikipedia.

but you can't comment on it.

Don't stray away from the subject. My point is that it's not a wikipedia article. It's a fanpage on facebook with wikipedia info on it.

How am I straying away from the subject? the guy made the comment about liking a page to comment. I can see it's on Facebook, im not stupid, but it's a facebook wiki article - not one that can be commented on - that's the subject.

On some pages you do have to like it before posting comments.

Direct quote for you.

"It's a wikipedia article. Not a page. Idiot "

Who is the idiot? you.

Oh lol, I thought you meant that the screenshot was ripped straight off of wikipedia.

^^

You can get wikipedia articles on facebook..but you can't comment on them..

Or... A more plausible answer, it's Lamar Smith's facebook fanpage and info from wikipedia is on it.

Which is wrong.

www.facebook.com/pages/Lama...

That, my friend, is what we call a fan page. You can like somebody on it and learn neat things on it from wikipedia.

but you can't comment on it.

Don't stray away from the subject. My point is that it's not a wikipedia article. It's a fanpage on facebook with wikipedia info on it.

How am I straying away from the subject? the guy made the comment about liking a page to comment. I can see it's on Facebook, im not stupid, but it's a facebook wiki article - not one that can be commented on - that's the subject.

On some pages you do have to like it before posting comments.

Direct quote for you.

"It's a wikipedia article. Not a page. Idiot "

Who is the idiot? you.

Oh lol, I thought you meant that the screenshot was ripped straight off of wikipedia.

^^

Thank you Sammmy. And gigahiga, remember 2009? Even with Brady's sub Matt Cassell playing better than anyone could have possibly imagined, the Pats didn't make the playoffs. Yes, the Colts didn't make it this year without Peyton, but it wasn't just that. Even with Peyton, they would have been a mediocre team. They have no running backs, a bad o-line, and a crappy defense outside of Dwight Freeney. Also, 3 rings to 1. I think that answers the leader question. And indianboi, do the names Mike Vrabel, Rodney Harrison, Asante Samuel, Richard Seymour, Willie McGinest, or Tedy Bruschi ring a bell? Yeah, the Colts offense when they won was better than the '01/'03 Pats offenses, but those Patriots defenses were amazing. But we both think Brady's the best, your just saying he's sooooo much better, when they are really just different.

He was out... Thats like saying peyton threw more passes in 2008.

I know lol. I was being a smartass.

Or like saying Brady threw more touchdown passes than Joe Montana. You have to look at each of the quarterbacks in their primes. Also, MFW talking about football when 90% of sports convos on fj are about soccer

When it comes down to it, it's not just impressive numbers (A lot of QBs have impressive numbers) but who can get the job done. As of right now Terry Bradshaw ans Joe Montana have 4 SuperBowl rings. Brady has 3 and counting. How many does Peyton have again?

No, I am a pats fan and i love Brady. I was just saying that line of reasoning doesn't make sense. But Brady's first (definitely) and second (arguably) superbowls were won with defense, while Peyton won by himself. But I think Brady's a better leader and his stats are better so I think Brady's better.

Brady is not a better leader at all. Peyton pretty much runs the colts offense. The colts without peyton just aren't a playoff team anymore, the patriots can get by without brady. That being said, brady does have the better numbers and more wins.

Saying that Peyton won the ring by himself is the most disrespectful thing you could say to any team. You have to work with what you have. Pats defense has never been known for being the best ether. It's always been offense vs offense and Brady and Peyton have just as many great receivers and in fact the Colts had a great running game for a while with Addai while the Pats have never been known for their running game until now. So if anything Peyton had more tools and options at hand.

> Pats defense has never been known for being the best
The patriots defense was the best up until 2008 iirc. In 2007 I'm pretty sure they had the top ranked defense and offense.

Thank you Sammmy. And gigahiga, remember 2009? Even with Brady's sub Matt Cassell playing better than anyone could have possibly imagined, the Pats didn't make the playoffs. Yes, the Colts didn't make it this year without Peyton, but it wasn't just that. Even with Peyton, they would have been a mediocre team. They have no running backs, a bad o-line, and a crappy defense outside of Dwight Freeney. Also, 3 rings to 1. I think that answers the leader question. And indianboi, do the names Mike Vrabel, Rodney Harrison, Asante Samuel, Richard Seymour, Willie McGinest, or Tedy Bruschi ring a bell? Yeah, the Colts offense when they won was better than the '01/'03 Pats offenses, but those Patriots defenses were amazing. But we both think Brady's the best, your just saying he's sooooo much better, when they are really just different.