Has Brady become Manning? (1 Viewer)

[Kool-Aid Larry]

where's the giant head?

 

[dickey moe]

Brady's legacy has been somewhat tarnished with the two Super Bowl losses and no rings over the last several years. He could've been known as the best. Now that's debatable.

 

[LarryAllen'sJockstrap]

From a purely statistical standpoint, here's how the two stack up in the most important metrics, IMO.Games (W/L):Manning - 20; 9-11 (45% win percentage)Brady - 24; 17-7 (71% win percentage)TDs/INTs per Game:Manning - 1.6/1Brady - 1.75/0.9YPG:Manning - 284Brady - 248APG:Manning - 38Brady - 37YPA:Manning - 7.46Brady - 6.71QB Rating:Manning - 88.4Brady - 87.4Rushing (Yards(Tot)/TDs):Manning - 26/3Brady - 84/3Looking at the pure numbers, both players have very similar post-season stats. Brady has the slight edge in getting the ball in the end zone vs. turning it over (TD/INT ratio), but Manning has the edge in terms of moving the ball down the field (Yards, YPA...)Both players are down a bit from what they do during the regular seasons; across the board statistically. It makes sense since in the playoffs, there are no cupcake teams to pat your stats.Brady is still 5-5 in his last 10 playoff games. Manning has had 8 one and done's in his playoff career. Brady has only twice been one and done. Stats-wise, they are near twins; wins-wise, the advantage is still far in Brady's advantage.

 

[Chazzhawk]

This whole thread lost its merit when you started off saying he won 3 titles with a great defense and great running game.In 2001 his running backs were, Antowain Smith, Patrick Pass, Kevin Faulk, and Marc Edwards. His receivers were, Troy Brown,Bert Emanuel, Charles Johnson, David Patten, Torrance Small. In 2003 his running backs were, Antowain Smith, and Kevin Faulk, his receivers were Troy Brown, David Givens, and Deion Branch. You can't just take away the things he did since his last Super Bowl win, and your high lights of the playoff games don't tell the entire story either they just point out what you want people to see to make Brady average. The game against Baltimore in 2009 for example which was his first season back after the ACL injury and he didn't look right all year, not to mention they lost Welker in the final game of the year and the Patriots D gave up over 200 on the ground and they were down 24 - 0 in the first quarter. Yes he has had some bad games but did we really expect him to go 24 - 0?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

This whole thread lost its merit when you started off saying he won 3 titles with a great defense and great running game.

Exactly. You have to include the fact that his team was cheating during those three title runs as well.

 

[David Yudkin]

I have been saying for years that QBs get too much credit when their team wins and too much blame when they don't.The Pats had a better overall team in the early 00s. Brady didn't have to do as much and his receivers were average at best. The last 5 years (2007 on), the team took on a less balanced personna. Most years, the running game was not as good as the last time they won a title and the defense certainly has not been as good. Bottom line, the Pats winning games in recent seasons has fallen more on Brady's shoulders than it used to.Since NE won 3 out of 4 years 10 years ago, people jusge the Pat's seasons (and Brady) by whether they won a SB or not. That's how it goes when you win so much. Collectively the Pats laid an egg yesterday, and you can't pin that all on Brady. He didn't play well, but there were a laundry list of things that contributed to them losing. I'm sure 14 other AFC teams would have welcomed the chance to lose to the Ravens, so to suggest that Brady and the Pats had a bad year seems a bit off base.As for the comparisons to Manning, Peyton has gone one and done 8 times now. Brady has done it twice. It's true he has not put up Montana or Warner numbers in the post season. It's also true that Brady has done some stat padding in the regular season against some mediocre teams. But he hasn't had a ton of games where he was horrible in the post season. There were a few, but not many. It's not a one player game, and one guy usually doe not win a football game all by himself.

 

[SacramentoBob]

This whole thread lost its merit when you started off saying he won 3 titles with a great defense and great running game.In 2001 his running backs were, Antowain Smith, Patrick Pass, Kevin Faulk, and Marc Edwards. His receivers were, Troy Brown,Bert Emanuel, Charles Johnson, David Patten, Torrance Small. In 2003 his running backs were, Antowain Smith, and Kevin Faulk, his receivers were Troy Brown, David Givens, and Deion Branch.

Lol.And what was the defensive rankings those 2 years?

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

This whole thread lost its merit when you started off saying he won 3 titles with a great defense and great running game.In 2001 his running backs were, Antowain Smith, Patrick Pass, Kevin Faulk, and Marc Edwards. His receivers were, Troy Brown,Bert Emanuel, Charles Johnson, David Patten, Torrance Small. In 2003 his running backs were, Antowain Smith, and Kevin Faulk, his receivers were Troy Brown, David Givens, and Deion Branch. You can't just take away the things he did since his last Super Bowl win, and your high lights of the playoff games don't tell the entire story either they just point out what you want people to see to make Brady average. The game against Baltimore in 2009 for example which was his first season back after the ACL injury and he didn't look right all year, not to mention they lost Welker in the final game of the year and the Patriots D gave up over 200 on the ground and they were down 24 - 0 in the first quarter. Yes he has had some bad games but did we really expect him to go 24 - 0?

wasnt corey dillon on a title team? IIRC?

 

[packseasontix]

I forget how many Super Bowls has Manning been to? How many has Brady been too?You can't say Rings = Better QB but at the same time a QB who performs well enough to constantly get his team to the Super Bowl or 1 game away has to be respected more than a guy who gets into the Playoffs and falls flat.

 

[Da Guru]

I forget how many Super Bowls has Manning been to? How many has Brady been too?You can't say Rings = Better QB but at the same time a QB who performs well enough to constantly get his team to the Super Bowl or 1 game away has to be respected more than a guy who gets into the Playoffs and falls flat.

How about giving some credit the The Ravens?

 

[SacramentoBob]

This whole thread lost its merit when you started off saying he won 3 titles with a great defense and great running game.In 2001 his running backs were, Antowain Smith, Patrick Pass, Kevin Faulk, and Marc Edwards. His receivers were, Troy Brown,Bert Emanuel, Charles Johnson, David Patten, Torrance Small. In 2003 his running backs were, Antowain Smith, and Kevin Faulk, his receivers were Troy Brown, David Givens, and Deion Branch.

Lol.And what was the defensive rankings those 2 years?

 

[Jewell]

This whole thread lost its merit when you started off saying he won 3 titles with a great defense and great running game.In 2001 his running backs were, Antowain Smith, Patrick Pass, Kevin Faulk, and Marc Edwards. His receivers were, Troy Brown,Bert Emanuel, Charles Johnson, David Patten, Torrance Small. In 2003 his running backs were, Antowain Smith, and Kevin Faulk, his receivers were Troy Brown, David Givens, and Deion Branch. You can't just take away the things he did since his last Super Bowl win, and your high lights of the playoff games don't tell the entire story either they just point out what you want people to see to make Brady average. The game against Baltimore in 2009 for example which was his first season back after the ACL injury and he didn't look right all year, not to mention they lost Welker in the final game of the year and the Patriots D gave up over 200 on the ground and they were down 24 - 0 in the first quarter. Yes he has had some bad games but did we really expect him to go 24 - 0?

wasnt corey dillon on a title team? IIRC?

Dillon was only on the 2004 championship team.

 

[Chazzhawk]

This whole thread lost its merit when you started off saying he won 3 titles with a great defense and great running game.In 2001 his running backs were, Antowain Smith, Patrick Pass, Kevin Faulk, and Marc Edwards. His receivers were, Troy Brown,Bert Emanuel, Charles Johnson, David Patten, Torrance Small. In 2003 his running backs were, Antowain Smith, and Kevin Faulk, his receivers were Troy Brown, David Givens, and Deion Branch.

Lol.And what was the defensive rankings those 2 years?

In 2001 there were 6th in points and 19th in yards so just above average I would say not an elite defense but a good defense.In 2003 there were 12th in points and 17th in yards so pretty much an average defense.In 2004 they did have Corey Dillion and that was his last great year I will give you that, the defense that year was 2 in points and 9th in yards so ya their defense was one of the best in the league that year.So like I said his first statement isn't true at all in only one of the years did they have an elite running game and defense.

 

[Chazzhawk]

I forget how many Super Bowls has Manning been to? How many has Brady been too?You can't say Rings = Better QB but at the same time a QB who performs well enough to constantly get his team to the Super Bowl or 1 game away has to be respected more than a guy who gets into the Playoffs and falls flat.

How about giving some credit the The Ravens?

Of course, they played great. Flacco seems to be a clone of Eli Manning in the fact he has so-so regular seasons but leads his team to deep playoffs runs most of the time. Ray Lewis coming back and telling everyone he was going to retire at the end of the year has sparked a defense that looked horrible in the regular season.

 

[stewartcjae]

This whole thread lost its merit when you started off saying he won 3 titles with a great defense and great running game.In 2001 his running backs were, Antowain Smith, Patrick Pass, Kevin Faulk, and Marc Edwards. His receivers were, Troy Brown,Bert Emanuel, Charles Johnson, David Patten, Torrance Small. In 2003 his running backs were, Antowain Smith, and Kevin Faulk, his receivers were Troy Brown, David Givens, and Deion Branch.

Lol.And what was the defensive rankings those 2 years?

In 2001 there were 6th in points and 19th in yards so just above average I would say not an elite defense but a good defense.In 2003 there were 12th in points and 17th in yards so pretty much an average defense.In 2004 they did have Corey Dillion and that was his last great year I will give you that, the defense that year was 2 in points and 9th in yards so ya their defense was one of the best in the league that year.So like I said his first statement isn't true at all in only one of the years did they have an elite running game and defense.

Where are you getting your stats? From NFL.com has 2003 reg season as 1st in pts/game and yards per game at 7th.So In 2001 6th in pointsIn 2003 1st in pointsIn 2004 2nd in pointsLooks a little better then an average Def to me.I will give you that 2004 was the only year they had really good rushing attack. Although do no sell A. Smith too short in 2001 with 1100 yds and 12tds, which was good for 12th in the league. Not dominate but still good.

 

[stewartcjae]

This whole thread lost its merit when you started off saying he won 3 titles with a great defense and great running game.In 2001 his running backs were, Antowain Smith, Patrick Pass, Kevin Faulk, and Marc Edwards. His receivers were, Troy Brown,Bert Emanuel, Charles Johnson, David Patten, Torrance Small. In 2003 his running backs were, Antowain Smith, and Kevin Faulk, his receivers were Troy Brown, David Givens, and Deion Branch.

Lol.And what was the defensive rankings those 2 years?

In 2001 there were 6th in points and 19th in yards so just above average I would say not an elite defense but a good defense.In 2003 there were 12th in points and 17th in yards so pretty much an average defense.In 2004 they did have Corey Dillion and that was his last great year I will give you that, the defense that year was 2 in points and 9th in yards so ya their defense was one of the best in the league that year.So like I said his first statement isn't true at all in only one of the years did they have an elite running game and defense.

Where are you getting your stats? From NFL.com has 2003 reg season as 1st in pts/game and yards per game at 7th.So In 2001 6th in pointsIn 2003 1st in pointsIn 2004 2nd in pointsLooks a little better then an average Def to me.I will give you that 2004 was the only year they had really good rushing attack. Although do no sell A. Smith too short in 2001 with 1100 yds and 12tds, which was good for 12th in the league. Not dominate but still good.

Oh i see, you were looking at the offense rank on pro-reference.

 

[Chazzhawk]

This whole thread lost its merit when you started off saying he won 3 titles with a great defense and great running game.In 2001 his running backs were, Antowain Smith, Patrick Pass, Kevin Faulk, and Marc Edwards. His receivers were, Troy Brown,Bert Emanuel, Charles Johnson, David Patten, Torrance Small. In 2003 his running backs were, Antowain Smith, and Kevin Faulk, his receivers were Troy Brown, David Givens, and Deion Branch.

Lol.And what was the defensive rankings those 2 years?

In 2001 there were 6th in points and 19th in yards so just above average I would say not an elite defense but a good defense.In 2003 there were 12th in points and 17th in yards so pretty much an average defense.In 2004 they did have Corey Dillion and that was his last great year I will give you that, the defense that year was 2 in points and 9th in yards so ya their defense was one of the best in the league that year.So like I said his first statement isn't true at all in only one of the years did they have an elite running game and defense.

Where are you getting your stats? From NFL.com has 2003 reg season as 1st in pts/game and yards per game at 7th.So In 2001 6th in pointsIn 2003 1st in pointsIn 2004 2nd in pointsLooks a little better then an average Def to me.I will give you that 2004 was the only year they had really good rushing attack. Although do no sell A. Smith too short in 2001 with 1100 yds and 12tds, which was good for 12th in the league. Not dominate but still good.

Oh i see, you were looking at the offense rank on pro-reference.

it was the quickest way for me, if they are wrong I apologize they are usually right on the current stuff not sure about the older stuff.

 

[Chazzhawk]

This whole thread lost its merit when you started off saying he won 3 titles with a great defense and great running game.In 2001 his running backs were, Antowain Smith, Patrick Pass, Kevin Faulk, and Marc Edwards. His receivers were, Troy Brown,Bert Emanuel, Charles Johnson, David Patten, Torrance Small. In 2003 his running backs were, Antowain Smith, and Kevin Faulk, his receivers were Troy Brown, David Givens, and Deion Branch.

Lol.And what was the defensive rankings those 2 years?

In 2001 there were 6th in points and 19th in yards so just above average I would say not an elite defense but a good defense.In 2003 there were 12th in points and 17th in yards so pretty much an average defense.In 2004 they did have Corey Dillion and that was his last great year I will give you that, the defense that year was 2 in points and 9th in yards so ya their defense was one of the best in the league that year.So like I said his first statement isn't true at all in only one of the years did they have an elite running game and defense.

Where are you getting your stats? From NFL.com has 2003 reg season as 1st in pts/game and yards per game at 7th.So In 2001 6th in pointsIn 2003 1st in pointsIn 2004 2nd in pointsLooks a little better then an average Def to me.I will give you that 2004 was the only year they had really good rushing attack. Although do no sell A. Smith too short in 2001 with 1100 yds and 12tds, which was good for 12th in the league. Not dominate but still good.

Ya I did look at the wrong part sorry about that but the Pats ranked 13 in the league rushing that year, and Smith's average was 4.0 ypc which was horrible 10 years ago and not very good now, he also averaged about 70 yards per game.

 

[GreenNGold]

Has Brady done anything since spygate?

 

[Class Dismissed]

FG Dynasty, Film at 11

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

If you mean that Brady is the latest target for trolls and other people who generally don't know what they're talking about? Yes, Brady's become like Manning.

 

[SacramentoBob]

This whole thread lost its merit when you started off saying he won 3 titles with a great defense and great running game.In 2001 his running backs were, Antowain Smith, Patrick Pass, Kevin Faulk, and Marc Edwards. His receivers were, Troy Brown,Bert Emanuel, Charles Johnson, David Patten, Torrance Small. In 2003 his running backs were, Antowain Smith, and Kevin Faulk, his receivers were Troy Brown, David Givens, and Deion Branch.

Lol.And what was the defensive rankings those 2 years?

In 2001 there were 6th in points and 19th in yards so just above average I would say not an elite defense but a good defense.In 2003 there were 12th in points and 17th in yards so pretty much an average defense.In 2004 they did have Corey Dillion and that was his last great year I will give you that, the defense that year was 2 in points and 9th in yards so ya their defense was one of the best in the league that year.So like I said his first statement isn't true at all in only one of the years did they have an elite running game and defense.

Where are you getting your stats? From NFL.com has 2003 reg season as 1st in pts/game and yards per game at 7th.So In 2001 6th in pointsIn 2003 1st in pointsIn 2004 2nd in pointsLooks a little better then an average Def to me.I will give you that 2004 was the only year they had really good rushing attack. Although do no sell A. Smith too short in 2001 with 1100 yds and 12tds, which was good for 12th in the league. Not dominate but still good.

Lying to cover for Brady now. Pretty sad.

 

[sho nuff]

Brady's legacy has been somewhat tarnished with the two Super Bowl losses and no rings over the last several years. He could've been known as the best. Now that's debatable.

I don't think its that debatable.Montana was nails in the postseason.Brady having these struggles the past several years in some big games takes him down off that pedastal near Joe and drops him down just a tiny bit.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Who you are in the regular season is who you are in the postseason, minus a little because the quality of competition is higher. Any time it looks like someone is the exception, odds are that's just sample size screwing with your brain.

Bart Starr is an exception. 10 game post season sample size. 9-1 record.Regular season career QB rating of 80.5. Post season career QB rating 104.8. Regular season TD-INT ratio: a little over 1:1. Post season career TD-INT ratio: 5:1.

Sample sizes. How many QBs have there been in history, 500? 1000? With that many data points, it's a virtual certainty that one of them will put up values that anomalous over a 10 game sample. You can say "what are the odds Bart Starr would outperform by that much purely based on chance?", and the odds would be extremely low. If you ask "what are the odds SOMEONE would outperform by that much purely based on chance?", the odds would be substantially higher. That someone just happened to be Bart Starr. I've yet to see anything to convince me that anyone has any sort of magical "choke" or "clutch" skill, even guys like Montana or Schottenheimer. Montana was a phenomenal QB. The odds of him performing phenomenally over a 20 game sample are actually pretty decent. Schottenheimer has a putrid playoff record, but if you give 1000 guys some coins and tell them to flip them, someone's going to get 5 heads and 13 tails, it's just a question of who. I don't think either of these guys possessed/lacked any special ability. I think if you gave Schotty another 18 playoff games, he'd probably go .500 in them. I think if you gave Montana another 20 playoff games, he'd probably perform close to, but below, his regular season average.Jim Plunkett, over an identical sample size to Starr (10 games), put together an 8-2 record and saw his QB rating jump by 14 points over his regular season average. JIM PLUNKETT!!! Like I said, with as many players as have played QB over the years, it's a near-statistical-certainty that a couple of them are going to have eye-popping postseason performances owing strictly to random chance rather than inherent "clutch" ability. Unless you think that Jim Plunkett has more magical clutchness than Joe Montana, Steve Young, John Elway, Dan Marino, Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Johnny Unitas, or any others of the all-time greats.

This is right on the money, and something that has been frustrating me for years.I expect to hear people going on and on about "clutch" vs "choker" on talk radio shows where they need something to fill 4 hours a day for each show, but here on a fantasy football forum where we live and bathe in statistics as math it surprises me that people choose to ignore their most basic principles when it comes to this discussion.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Brady's legacy has been somewhat tarnished with the two Super Bowl losses and no rings over the last several years. He could've been known as the best. Now that's debatable.

I don't think its that debatable.Montana was nails in the postseason.

Brady having these struggles the past several years in some big games takes him down off that pedastal near Joe and drops him down just a tiny bit.

In three straight playoff games from 1985-1987, Montana had the following numbers: 0 TDs, 4 INTs, 503 total yards, led the offense to only 3 points in two of those games, and awful YPA and completion percentages in every game. I am not saying Brady is Montana, but he has never had a 3-game stretch in the playoffs as piss poor as that 3-game stretch Montana had.

 

[Phenix]

Brady's legacy has been somewhat tarnished with the two Super Bowl losses and no rings over the last several years. He could've been known as the best. Now that's debatable.

I don't think its that debatable.Montana was nails in the postseason.

Brady having these struggles the past several years in some big games takes him down off that pedastal near Joe and drops him down just a tiny bit.

In three straight playoff games from 1985-1987, Montana had the following numbers: 0 TDs, 4 INTs, 503 total yards, led the offense to only 3 points in two of those games, and awful YPA and completion percentages in every game. I am not saying Brady is Montana, but he has never had a 3-game stretch in the playoffs as piss poor as that 3-game stretch Montana had.

This whole thing is dumb, you do not win 3 Superbowls and be just a good game manager. Do people who post here have any shame? People with a straight face are trying to rag on arguable the best QB of all time, as a game manager. Someone even argued his 50 TDs were a joke. 334 TDs to 123 int ratio with over 44k yards and a 63% comp pct.? Gees, thats one hell of a game manager, how foolish are some people? Yes, I am telling all of the Brady haters that you have no clue about who is good at football. None what so ever. Your opinion now should not be viewed by anyone as it is a pure joke and pathetic.

 

[12punch]

Has Brady done anything since spygate?

He banged a supermodel

 

[Jewell]

Brady's legacy has been somewhat tarnished with the two Super Bowl losses and no rings over the last several years. He could've been known as the best. Now that's debatable.

I don't think its that debatable.Montana was nails in the postseason.

Brady having these struggles the past several years in some big games takes him down off that pedastal near Joe and drops him down just a tiny bit.

In three straight playoff games from 1985-1987, Montana had the following numbers: 0 TDs, 4 INTs, 503 total yards, led the offense to only 3 points in two of those games, and awful YPA and completion percentages in every game. I am not saying Brady is Montana, but he has never had a 3-game stretch in the playoffs as piss poor as that 3-game stretch Montana had.

People forget that in the '87 Divisional Playoff game vs. Minnesota, Montana was performing so poorly that he got benched in the third quarter in favor of Steve Young.

 

[shader]

Who you are in the regular season is who you are in the postseason, minus a little because the quality of competition is higher. Any time it looks like someone is the exception, odds are that's just sample size screwing with your brain.

Bart Starr is an exception. 10 game post season sample size. 9-1 record.Regular season career QB rating of 80.5. Post season career QB rating 104.8. Regular season TD-INT ratio: a little over 1:1. Post season career TD-INT ratio: 5:1.

Sample sizes. How many QBs have there been in history, 500? 1000? With that many data points, it's a virtual certainty that one of them will put up values that anomalous over a 10 game sample. You can say "what are the odds Bart Starr would outperform by that much purely based on chance?", and the odds would be extremely low. If you ask "what are the odds SOMEONE would outperform by that much purely based on chance?", the odds would be substantially higher. That someone just happened to be Bart Starr. I've yet to see anything to convince me that anyone has any sort of magical "choke" or "clutch" skill, even guys like Montana or Schottenheimer. Montana was a phenomenal QB. The odds of him performing phenomenally over a 20 game sample are actually pretty decent. Schottenheimer has a putrid playoff record, but if you give 1000 guys some coins and tell them to flip them, someone's going to get 5 heads and 13 tails, it's just a question of who. I don't think either of these guys possessed/lacked any special ability. I think if you gave Schotty another 18 playoff games, he'd probably go .500 in them. I think if you gave Montana another 20 playoff games, he'd probably perform close to, but below, his regular season average.Jim Plunkett, over an identical sample size to Starr (10 games), put together an 8-2 record and saw his QB rating jump by 14 points over his regular season average. JIM PLUNKETT!!! Like I said, with as many players as have played QB over the years, it's a near-statistical-certainty that a couple of them are going to have eye-popping postseason performances owing strictly to random chance rather than inherent "clutch" ability. Unless you think that Jim Plunkett has more magical clutchness than Joe Montana, Steve Young, John Elway, Dan Marino, Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Johnny Unitas, or any others of the all-time greats.

This is right on the money, and something that has been frustrating me for years.I expect to hear people going on and on about "clutch" vs "choker" on talk radio shows where they need something to fill 4 hours a day for each show, but here on a fantasy football forum where we live and bathe in statistics as math it surprises me that people choose to ignore their most basic principles when it comes to this discussion.

Maybe its because some of us don't live and breathe statistics. We report what we see. It's easy to pontificate about what would happen if you flipped 1000 coins, but in reality that's irrelevant. What happens is what happens.QB's are judged by championships. I didn't start it. You didn't start it. It's been going on for years. Manning has earned the "choker" label rightly or wrongly, but he's stuck with it. Marino will always wear the label of "never won a championship". Is it fair? Not completely. It's life.Brady played like garbage the other night. I'm sure some Brady supporters (of which I almost always am) could pull some stats out and show why he really wasn't that bad. But anyone with eyes knows he stunk it up in big situations against the Ravens. Manning has made a habit out of that for many years. Are defenses tougher? Obviously. But lunatic decisions like the one Brady made at the end of the half, the across-the-field INT from Manning...these are not clutch decisions.Fortunately for Brady he has 3 championships to fall back on. But unfortunately for him, those 3 are tainted in the eyes of many because of Spygate (not me). It would do his legacy a lot of good to cash in one of these years. But in reality, Brady has become Manning. A regular season statistical machine, and a little nervous and jumpy at big spots in the playoffs.

 

[12punch]

Also, looking at some guy's record prior to the salary cap is kind of a joke

 

[Jewell]

Also, looking at some guy's record prior to the salary cap is kind of a joke

How does that alter a comparison between a player's regular season performance vs. his playoff performance?

 

[12punch]

Also, looking at some guy's record prior to the salary cap is kind of a joke

How does that alter a comparison between a player's regular season performance vs. his playoff performance?

it doesn't, but it affects how you look at their postseason record

 

[GregR]

Interesting portion of a Bill Barnwell article at http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8864682/bill-barnwell-conference-championships

Anyone who reads it and thinks the article has anything to do with whether Tom Brady is a good QB has completely missed the point.

You in Reverse



When discussing the clutch records of athletes like Matt Ryan and LeBron James in the past, I've brought up the idea of looking at Tom Brady's playoff record in reverse chronological order to highlight just how much of our opinions on athletes can be defined by what they do early in the "big moments" of their career. Just for fun, since we're all trying to figure out what this round of playoffs means for the legacies of guys like Ryan, Joe Flacco, and Peyton Manning, let's actually go through year-by-year and see what opinions might have cropped up with regard to Tom Brady if we flipped his 13-year career on its head. I promise that I will only be as jaundiced in the descriptions as most people would be about the likes of Ryan and Manning. You can play along with his playoff game log here.

2012

Record: 1-1

Career-to-date: 1-1

Brady makes his playoff debut and easily dispatches the Texans at home, but despite the fact that his Patriots are heavy home favorites against the Ravens, New England loses when they fail to produce in the red zone. Brady shows his inability to handle pressure situations when he mismanages the clock at the end of the first half and has to settle for a field goal, a problem that should hopefully go away when he matures. The Patriots have a shot late in the game, but an ill-timed Brady interception2 puts New England's title hopes to rest.

2011

Record: 2-1

Career-to-date: 3-2

Although Brady takes a leap forward and makes his first Super Bowl, his performance during the playoffs leaves a bit to be desired. Brady runs up his stats against the lowly Broncos and Tim Tebow, throwing for six touchdowns and 363 yards. In the AFC Championship Game, Brady throws two picks against the Ravens and posts a passer rating of 57.5, but his defense bails him out with the famous strip of Lee Evans in the end zone and the Billy Cundiff missed field goal. And despite a stretch of hot play in the second quarter, when he sets a consecutive completions record, Brady comes up short when his team needs him most in the second half, failing to connect with Wes Welker on a long would-be touchdown and failing to protect a lead inside four minutes of the fourth quarter. Brady almost literally hands Eli Manning and the Giants the Super Bowl.

2010

Record: 0-1

Career-to-date: 3-3

In a shocking upset, Brady's Patriots lose as 9.5-point home favorites to the Jets, who befuddle Brady while sacking him five times and forcing an early interception to set the tone. It's Brady's second playoff loss as a heavy home favorite in three years.

2009

Record: 0-1

Career-to-date: 3-4

It's another crushing loss for Brady, who appears to have never recovered after blowing the lead in the Super Bowl and failing to hit Welker with the game on the line. He turns over the ball four times, including three times on the first four drives, as the Patriots fall to 2-3 at home in the playoffs under Brady.

2007

Record: 2-1

Career-to-date: 5-5

The ultimate regular-season superstar comes up short yet again on the big stage. After a stunning 16-0 season earns Brady his first MVP award, a mediocre playoff run ends in failure for the Patriots. Sure, Brady beats up on the AFC South at home, as he throws for 262 yards and three touchdowns against the Jaguars, but what happens when the competition gets tougher? He throws three picks against the Chargers in the conference championship and only wins because he's playing a guy on a torn ACL. And while Brady manages to finally beat the Giants for the first time in Week 17, he still can't beat them when it really counts, as the perfect team falls just short. Brady can only muster a measly 5.5 yards per attempt as he endlessly checks down and scores just 14 points.

2006

Record: 2-1

Career-to-date: 7-6

Can Tom Brady ever beat a Manning brother? First, it was Eli. Now, it's big brother Peyton getting into the act, as the Colts launch a dramatic comeback in the AFC Championship Game to produce a 38-34 victory. Again, Brady beats up on the league's weaklings before playing worse in each successive game; he throws for 212 yards and two scores against the Jets, but then has another three-pick game against the Chargers in a contest where the Patriots only pull the game out after the Chargers try to return Brady's final pick deep in the fourth quarter and Troy Brown manages to strip the ball loose. In that AFC Championship Game, Brady fumbles a snap into the end zone that's recovered for a touchdown — wouldn't a clutch player be able to hold onto a snap? He also gets a pick-six to eventually go up 21-6 heading into halftime, but the Patriots blow a 15-point lead and lose when Brady fails to come through with a lead on third-and-4 inside of three minutes, giving the ball to Manning and setting up a game-winning score. Is he ever going to have a big drive when his team really needs it?

2005

Record: 1-1

Career-to-date: 8-7

Yawn. The book on Tom Brady's already been written. Sure, he throws for 201 yards and three touchdowns against the Jaguars at home in an early-round victory. Who doesn't beat up on the weaklings of the AFC South? When he has to travel on the road to play the Broncos, though, Brady puts up an empty 341 yards as he throws two picks, including one in the Denver end zone that Champ Bailey returns 99 yards to the 1-yard line on a drive that would have given New England the lead. The Patriots never recover.

At this point, Brady's playoff reputation is something resembling Peyton Manning. He's the guy who beats up on weak links and never shows up when his team really needs him. He's got various maladies: He can't beat the Giants or can't beat a Manning brother, he chokes when his team is a huge favorite at home, he can't produce a drive to kill off a game, he's distracted by his model wife. In what approximates a full season, Brady's line is good, but not great: 363-583 (62.3 percent completion percentage), 3,998 passing yards, 31 touchdowns, 19 interceptions. That's too many picks for a guy who averages only 10 interceptions per year. Antsy New England fans call for Bill Belichick's head because they want a head coach who has proven he can win Super Bowls.

And yet, despite the fact that you "know" Tom Brady, that he's the guy who can't come up with the big win, that he's just another quarterback who looks better in fantasy football than at the helm in the real thing, Tom Brady goes 9-0 in his next nine playoff games and wins three Super Bowls. He throws 11 touchdowns against three interceptions. He beats teams on the road. At home. As a favorite. As an underdog. He produces incredible, game-winning drives that will stand the test of time and redefine his legacy. Bizarro Simmons — undergoing a dramatic downward spiral that somehow takes him from hosting a show on ESPN to living in Charlestown and bumming cigarettes outside of Store 24 — has to laugh off years of columns about how he'll never be stupid enough to bet on Tom Brady when it really matters. Brady's career culminates with an incredibly gutsy performance against the Raiders at home in the snow, when he leads his team to a narrow victory before winning the next two games and claiming his third Super Bowl title. His legacy secure, Brady rides off into the sunset victorious.3

So, with that all in mind, you should take two things away from this silly exercise. First, what a quarterback does in the playoffs at the beginning of his career isn't any more meaningful than what he does in the middle or at the end of his career. You don't win an extra half Super Bowl if you do it before you turn 25. Second, you don't "know" what a quarterback is going to do in the playoffs because of how he's previously performed in the playoffs. We have 15 games over seven seasons saying that Tom Brady's a playoff flop, and that information means absolutely nothing in determining how Tom Brady would play in the future. Looking at the games under the proper chronological order says just as much: We had nine games suggesting that Tom Brady was unstoppable in the playoffs, and afterward, we've had 15 games implying that he's actually just like any other good quarterback in the postseason. That he's "been there before" means nothing, just like it did in 2001, when Brady made it to the Super Bowl and won it without having been there before. He's still capable of screwing up and making mistakes, as Sunday showed. He's also still capable of being great and winning a Super Bowl. The truth isn't quite as satisfying as a one-word label like "clutch" or "unclutch," but football's a lot more complicated than one-word labels. It deserves better, and just as the likes of Manning and Ryan are demeaned with overly simplistic stories about their playoff performance, so is Brady.

 

[SSOG]

Maybe its because some of us don't live and breathe statistics. We report what we see. It's easy to pontificate about what would happen if you flipped 1000 coins, but in reality that's irrelevant. What happens is what happens.

Nobody is arguing what happened, or that people should be judged by strange counterfactuals. When people consider Schottenheimer for the HoF, nobody's going to consider what his career would have looked like if not for The Drive and The Fumble. When Brady is discussed, nobody will muse about how many SBMVPs he'd have if his kicker were Vanderjagt instead of Vinatieri. When Vinatieri is up, nobody will care that Morton was a much better kicker, or that Akers had more playoff game-winners. Not should they. We aren't arguing about what DID happen. We're arguing about what it MEANS. Manning has the record for postseason losses. Brady has the record for wins. What does it mean? Well, for one, it DOESN'T mean Brady has been a better postseason QB. It doesn't mean that we should expect Brady to outperform Manning in the postseason going forward. And we can use statistics to illustrate that. So Rodgers and Brees have over performed in the playoffs, while Brady and Manning have underperformed. That's true from a descriptive standpoint, but what does it mean from a predictive standpoint. Does it mean they're better "postseason QBs", as if games in the postseason are fundamentally different from those in the regular season? Does it mean a magical football pixie appeared to them in a dream and sprinkled them with sparkly clutch-dust, while football gremlins snuck into Manning or Brady's bedrooms and coated them with choke-goop? And the goblins go on strike during the regular season, which is how Manning owns the career comeback record? And the goblins just got lost those two times Manning erased double digit deficits in the AFCCG? Are these the same football pixies that sprinkled Montana, and Starr, and...Plunkett, and Delhomme, and Sanchez, and Flacco?Or is it that over a long enough timeline, we should expect all QBs to perform as well in the postseason as they did in the regular season against playoff teams? Is it that small samples will obscure that simple truth in the short run, but not in the long run? Is it that "great regular season QBs who suck in the postseason" (Manning) will always be expected to outperform "great postseason QBs who suck in the regular season" (Flacco, Sanchez) going forward? Because, personally, my money's on the explanation that doesn't involve pixies, goblins, chokers, clutch performers, or any other figments of our imagination. If I created a list of the 10 greatest QBs of all time, and the 10 QBs who I'd want leading my team for one regular season game, and the 10 QBs I'd want leading my team for one Super Bowl, and the 10 QBs I'd want leading my team when down 7 with 2 minutes to go, and the 10 QBs I'd want leading my team when I'm a big favorite, and the 10 QBs I'd like leading my team when I'm a huge underdog... all of those lists would be identical. The best QBs are the best QBs in all situations, even if they produce wildly varied results over a tiny sample size. It's no coincidence that "chokers" like Marino, Manning, and Elway (who was 8-7 in the playoffs before his last two years) also are the career leaders in 4th quarter comebacks- because great QBs are great QBs and lowering your estimation of them based on ridiculous sample sizes is stupid.

 

[Popinski]

Has Brady done anything since spygate?

 

[moleculo]

Who you are in the regular season is who you are in the postseason, minus a little because the quality of competition is higher. Any time it looks like someone is the exception, odds are that's just sample size screwing with your brain.

Bart Starr is an exception. 10 game post season sample size. 9-1 record.Regular season career QB rating of 80.5. Post season career QB rating 104.8. Regular season TD-INT ratio: a little over 1:1. Post season career TD-INT ratio: 5:1.

Sample sizes. How many QBs have there been in history, 500? 1000? With that many data points, it's a virtual certainty that one of them will put up values that anomalous over a 10 game sample. You can say "what are the odds Bart Starr would outperform by that much purely based on chance?", and the odds would be extremely low. If you ask "what are the odds SOMEONE would outperform by that much purely based on chance?", the odds would be substantially higher. That someone just happened to be Bart Starr. I've yet to see anything to convince me that anyone has any sort of magical "choke" or "clutch" skill, even guys like Montana or Schottenheimer. Montana was a phenomenal QB. The odds of him performing phenomenally over a 20 game sample are actually pretty decent. Schottenheimer has a putrid playoff record, but if you give 1000 guys some coins and tell them to flip them, someone's going to get 5 heads and 13 tails, it's just a question of who. I don't think either of these guys possessed/lacked any special ability. I think if you gave Schotty another 18 playoff games, he'd probably go .500 in them. I think if you gave Montana another 20 playoff games, he'd probably perform close to, but below, his regular season average.Jim Plunkett, over an identical sample size to Starr (10 games), put together an 8-2 record and saw his QB rating jump by 14 points over his regular season average. JIM PLUNKETT!!! Like I said, with as many players as have played QB over the years, it's a near-statistical-certainty that a couple of them are going to have eye-popping postseason performances owing strictly to random chance rather than inherent "clutch" ability. Unless you think that Jim Plunkett has more magical clutchness than Joe Montana, Steve Young, John Elway, Dan Marino, Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Johnny Unitas, or any others of the all-time greats.

This is right on the money, and something that has been frustrating me for years.I expect to hear people going on and on about "clutch" vs "choker" on talk radio shows where they need something to fill 4 hours a day for each show, but here on a fantasy football forum where we live and bathe in statistics as math it surprises me that people choose to ignore their most basic principles when it comes to this discussion.

Maybe its because some of us don't live and breathe statistics. We report what we see. It's easy to pontificate about what would happen if you flipped 1000 coins, but in reality that's irrelevant. What happens is what happens.QB's are judged by championships. I didn't start it. You didn't start it. It's been going on for years. Manning has earned the "choker" label rightly or wrongly, but he's stuck with it. Marino will always wear the label of "never won a championship". Is it fair? Not completely. It's life.Brady played like garbage the other night. I'm sure some Brady supporters (of which I almost always am) could pull some stats out and show why he really wasn't that bad. But anyone with eyes knows he stunk it up in big situations against the Ravens. Manning has made a habit out of that for many years. Are defenses tougher? Obviously. But lunatic decisions like the one Brady made at the end of the half, the across-the-field INT from Manning...these are not clutch decisions.Fortunately for Brady he has 3 championships to fall back on. But unfortunately for him, those 3 are tainted in the eyes of many because of Spygate (not me). It would do his legacy a lot of good to cash in one of these years. But in reality, Brady has become Manning. A regular season statistical machine, and a little nervous and jumpy at big spots in the playoffs.

why look at stats? Because the numbers don't lie. What you see is clouded by pre-conceived judgement - your eyes deceive you. The numbers on paper are what actually happened, and cannot be argued. Facts are facts.Here are the facts: Since Brady's last SB win, he is 8-7 in the playoffs (not that I put a whole lot of faith in w/l records for QB's). in these 15 games, he has thrown 583 passes, 363 completions, 3998 yards, 31 TDs, and 19 int's, for a QB rating of 86.6. If those were end of season numbers, that would be pretty damn good, considering it's 15 games.If you look at those stats and look at the record, you would day, hmm. how does a team with QB numbers that impressive only win 8 games? I don't have a good answer for that. Patriots have lost games where Brady had a QB rating of 91 (last years SB), and they have won games where Brady had a rating of 57 (last year vs Baltimore and 2006 vs SD). I think the only fair thing to say, in terms of the W/L record, is that sometimes things happen, and it's not always the QB's fault.*note: coincidentally, the above facts and conclusions are very similar to Peyton Manning. I suppose the real take-away is that both Brady and Manning are human and given a large enough sample size, we should expect their post-season metrics to approximate their regular season metrics with a slight decrease to account for level of competition. W/L records, however, remain fairly random and are not very good to judge QB's by. Saying Brady = Manning is not a knock against either guy.

 

[Popinski]

Maybe its because some of us don't live and breathe statistics. We report what we see. It's easy to pontificate about what would happen if you flipped 1000 coins, but in reality that's irrelevant. What happens is what happens.

QB's are judged by championships. I didn't start it. You didn't start it. It's been going on for years.

Manning has earned the "choker" label rightly or wrongly, but he's stuck with it. Marino will always wear the label of "never won a championship". Is it fair? Not completely. It's life.

What does this stuff even mean? I could care less what common perception or the media will tell you they believe is to be the case when it takes less than a minute of listening to their arguments to realize how flawed their logic is. As a fan you can choose to be a sucker and take it all in as gospel or choose to think for yourself and partake in non-superficial analysis.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Has Brady done anything since spygate?

Wow that was awful.

 

[matttyl]

Absolutely Peyton-like out there today. It has to be an issue now, and it deserves to be talked about. Assuming you're talking Peyton when you say "Manning-like", because Brady wishes he was as good as Eli in the postseason.

Peyton, Brady, and Eli are the 9th, 10th, and 11th highest rated passers in postseason history- pretty much identical QB ratings. There's no real difference between any of their play.

I'm talking going forward from today, Eli's the guy to have.

Lets hope so, cause if you're looking back Sanchez beats all 3 of them!

 

[Warrior]

Maybe its because some of us don't live and breathe statistics. We report what we see. It's easy to pontificate about what would happen if you flipped 1000 coins, but in reality that's irrelevant. What happens is what happens.

Nobody is arguing what happened, or that people should be judged by strange counterfactuals. When people consider Schottenheimer for the HoF, nobody's going to consider what his career would have looked like if not for The Drive and The Fumble. When Brady is discussed, nobody will muse about how many SBMVPs he'd have if his kicker were Vanderjagt instead of Vinatieri. When Vinatieri is up, nobody will care that Morton was a much better kicker, or that Akers had more playoff game-winners. Not should they. We aren't arguing about what DID happen. We're arguing about what it MEANS. Manning has the record for postseason losses. Brady has the record for wins. What does it mean? Well, for one, it DOESN'T mean Brady has been a better postseason QB. It doesn't mean that we should expect Brady to outperform Manning in the postseason going forward. And we can use statistics to illustrate that. So Rodgers and Brees have over performed in the playoffs, while Brady and Manning have underperformed. That's true from a descriptive standpoint, but what does it mean from a predictive standpoint. Does it mean they're better "postseason QBs", as if games in the postseason are fundamentally different from those in the regular season? Does it mean a magical football pixie appeared to them in a dream and sprinkled them with sparkly clutch-dust, while football gremlins snuck into Manning or Brady's bedrooms and coated them with choke-goop? And the goblins go on strike during the regular season, which is how Manning owns the career comeback record? And the goblins just got lost those two times Manning erased double digit deficits in the AFCCG? Are these the same football pixies that sprinkled Montana, and Starr, and...Plunkett, and Delhomme, and Sanchez, and Flacco?Or is it that over a long enough timeline, we should expect all QBs to perform as well in the postseason as they did in the regular season against playoff teams? Is it that small samples will obscure that simple truth in the short run, but not in the long run? Is it that "great regular season QBs who suck in the postseason" (Manning) will always be expected to outperform "great postseason QBs who suck in the regular season" (Flacco, Sanchez) going forward? Because, personally, my money's on the explanation that doesn't involve pixies, goblins, chokers, clutch performers, or any other figments of our imagination. If I created a list of the 10 greatest QBs of all time, and the 10 QBs who I'd want leading my team for one regular season game, and the 10 QBs I'd want leading my team for one Super Bowl, and the 10 QBs I'd want leading my team when down 7 with 2 minutes to go, and the 10 QBs I'd want leading my team when I'm a big favorite, and the 10 QBs I'd like leading my team when I'm a huge underdog... all of those lists would be identical. The best QBs are the best QBs in all situations, even if they produce wildly varied results over a tiny sample size. It's no coincidence that "chokers" like Marino, Manning, and Elway (who was 8-7 in the playoffs before his last two years) also are the career leaders in 4th quarter comebacks- because great QBs are great QBs and lowering your estimation of them based on ridiculous sample sizes is stupid.

Post of the year.

 

[shader]

Maybe its because some of us don't live and breathe statistics. We report what we see. It's easy to pontificate about what would happen if you flipped 1000 coins, but in reality that's irrelevant. What happens is what happens.

Nobody is arguing what happened, or that people should be judged by strange counterfactuals. When people consider Schottenheimer for the HoF, nobody's going to consider what his career would have looked like if not for The Drive and The Fumble. When Brady is discussed, nobody will muse about how many SBMVPs he'd have if his kicker were Vanderjagt instead of Vinatieri. When Vinatieri is up, nobody will care that Morton was a much better kicker, or that Akers had more playoff game-winners. Not should they. We aren't arguing about what DID happen. We're arguing about what it MEANS. Manning has the record for postseason losses. Brady has the record for wins. What does it mean? Well, for one, it DOESN'T mean Brady has been a better postseason QB. It doesn't mean that we should expect Brady to outperform Manning in the postseason going forward. And we can use statistics to illustrate that. So Rodgers and Brees have over performed in the playoffs, while Brady and Manning have underperformed. That's true from a descriptive standpoint, but what does it mean from a predictive standpoint. Does it mean they're better "postseason QBs", as if games in the postseason are fundamentally different from those in the regular season? Does it mean a magical football pixie appeared to them in a dream and sprinkled them with sparkly clutch-dust, while football gremlins snuck into Manning or Brady's bedrooms and coated them with choke-goop? And the goblins go on strike during the regular season, which is how Manning owns the career comeback record? And the goblins just got lost those two times Manning erased double digit deficits in the AFCCG? Are these the same football pixies that sprinkled Montana, and Starr, and...Plunkett, and Delhomme, and Sanchez, and Flacco?Or is it that over a long enough timeline, we should expect all QBs to perform as well in the postseason as they did in the regular season against playoff teams? Is it that small samples will obscure that simple truth in the short run, but not in the long run? Is it that "great regular season QBs who suck in the postseason" (Manning) will always be expected to outperform "great postseason QBs who suck in the regular season" (Flacco, Sanchez) going forward? Because, personally, my money's on the explanation that doesn't involve pixies, goblins, chokers, clutch performers, or any other figments of our imagination. If I created a list of the 10 greatest QBs of all time, and the 10 QBs who I'd want leading my team for one regular season game, and the 10 QBs I'd want leading my team for one Super Bowl, and the 10 QBs I'd want leading my team when down 7 with 2 minutes to go, and the 10 QBs I'd want leading my team when I'm a big favorite, and the 10 QBs I'd like leading my team when I'm a huge underdog... all of those lists would be identical. The best QBs are the best QBs in all situations, even if they produce wildly varied results over a tiny sample size. It's no coincidence that "chokers" like Marino, Manning, and Elway (who was 8-7 in the playoffs before his last two years) also are the career leaders in 4th quarter comebacks- because great QBs are great QBs and lowering your estimation of them based on ridiculous sample sizes is stupid.

I wouldn't have identical lists. I think it's ridiculous to think that there is no such thing as "choking" or "clutch performers". The fact that you are putting those two categories in there with "pixies and goblins" is completely ridiculous. There are some who step there game up in big situations and some who don't quite play as well.Peyton is clearly one who doesn't quite get things done at the same level in the playoffs. It's statistical fact. Are we too harsh in labeling Peyton a choker? Maybe so. But that's a term that can't be quantified. I've seen enough big Peyton mistakes in big games to feel secure in saying he often chokes in big playoff games. If you disagree, fine. I don't care anymore. I guess us "dummies" will call Peyton a choker, and you smart stat nerds can use fake coin tosses to make you feel better about his joke of a post-season resume.

 

[sho nuff]

Brady's legacy has been somewhat tarnished with the two Super Bowl losses and no rings over the last several years. He could've been known as the best. Now that's debatable.

I don't think its that debatable.Montana was nails in the postseason.

Brady having these struggles the past several years in some big games takes him down off that pedastal near Joe and drops him down just a tiny bit.

In three straight playoff games from 1985-1987, Montana had the following numbers: 0 TDs, 4 INTs, 503 total yards, led the offense to only 3 points in two of those games, and awful YPA and completion percentages in every game. I am not saying Brady is Montana, but he has never had a 3-game stretch in the playoffs as piss poor as that 3-game stretch Montana had.

Well, one of those games that he only led them to 3 points he was out after the half.

 

[moleculo]

Peyton is clearly one who doesn't quite get things done at the same level in the playoffs. It's statistical fact. Are we too harsh in labeling Peyton a choker? Maybe so. But that's a term that can't be quantified. I've seen enough big Peyton mistakes in big games to feel secure in saying he often chokes in big playoff games. If you disagree, fine. I don't care anymore. I guess us "dummies" will call Peyton a choker, and you smart stat nerds can use fake coin tosses to make you feel better about his joke of a post-season resume.

statistical facts are, by definition, quantifiable. Show me the metric where Manning fades late. It's gotta be out there somewhere, so many folks are convinced it's God's honest truth. Maybe find his passer rating in the 4th quarter in the playoffs. Show me the y/a in critical games. Find something verifiable...don't just say that its a statistical fact that cannot be quantified.

 

[treat88]

Maybe its because some of us don't live and breathe statistics. We report what we see. It's easy to pontificate about what would happen if you flipped 1000 coins, but in reality that's irrelevant. What happens is what happens.

Nobody is arguing what happened, or that people should be judged by strange counterfactuals. When people consider Schottenheimer for the HoF, nobody's going to consider what his career would have looked like if not for The Drive and The Fumble. When Brady is discussed, nobody will muse about how many SBMVPs he'd have if his kicker were Vanderjagt instead of Vinatieri. When Vinatieri is up, nobody will care that Morton was a much better kicker, or that Akers had more playoff game-winners. Not should they. We aren't arguing about what DID happen. We're arguing about what it MEANS. Manning has the record for postseason losses. Brady has the record for wins. What does it mean? Well, for one, it DOESN'T mean Brady has been a better postseason QB. It doesn't mean that we should expect Brady to outperform Manning in the postseason going forward. And we can use statistics to illustrate that. So Rodgers and Brees have over performed in the playoffs, while Brady and Manning have underperformed. That's true from a descriptive standpoint, but what does it mean from a predictive standpoint. Does it mean they're better "postseason QBs", as if games in the postseason are fundamentally different from those in the regular season? Does it mean a magical football pixie appeared to them in a dream and sprinkled them with sparkly clutch-dust, while football gremlins snuck into Manning or Brady's bedrooms and coated them with choke-goop? And the goblins go on strike during the regular season, which is how Manning owns the career comeback record? And the goblins just got lost those two times Manning erased double digit deficits in the AFCCG? Are these the same football pixies that sprinkled Montana, and Starr, and...Plunkett, and Delhomme, and Sanchez, and Flacco?Or is it that over a long enough timeline, we should expect all QBs to perform as well in the postseason as they did in the regular season against playoff teams? Is it that small samples will obscure that simple truth in the short run, but not in the long run? Is it that "great regular season QBs who suck in the postseason" (Manning) will always be expected to outperform "great postseason QBs who suck in the regular season" (Flacco, Sanchez) going forward? Because, personally, my money's on the explanation that doesn't involve pixies, goblins, chokers, clutch performers, or any other figments of our imagination. If I created a list of the 10 greatest QBs of all time, and the 10 QBs who I'd want leading my team for one regular season game, and the 10 QBs I'd want leading my team for one Super Bowl, and the 10 QBs I'd want leading my team when down 7 with 2 minutes to go, and the 10 QBs I'd want leading my team when I'm a big favorite, and the 10 QBs I'd like leading my team when I'm a huge underdog... all of those lists would be identical. The best QBs are the best QBs in all situations, even if they produce wildly varied results over a tiny sample size. It's no coincidence that "chokers" like Marino, Manning, and Elway (who was 8-7 in the playoffs before his last two years) also are the career leaders in 4th quarter comebacks- because great QBs are great QBs and lowering your estimation of them based on ridiculous sample sizes is stupid.

Post of the year.

Seconded. Great post SSOG.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

There are some who step there game up in big situations and some who don't quite play as well.

Which category is Brady in? Elway? Don't you find it odd that one of the all-time 'clutch' guys has turned in to a 'choker' and the biggest 'choker' in history mic dropped after his 2nd consecutive Super Bowl win?You should find it very confusing given your argument. According to you that just shouldn't happen.

 

[shader]

Peyton is clearly one who doesn't quite get things done at the same level in the playoffs. It's statistical fact. Are we too harsh in labeling Peyton a choker? Maybe so. But that's a term that can't be quantified. I've seen enough big Peyton mistakes in big games to feel secure in saying he often chokes in big playoff games. If you disagree, fine. I don't care anymore. I guess us "dummies" will call Peyton a choker, and you smart stat nerds can use fake coin tosses to make you feel better about his joke of a post-season resume.

statistical facts are, by definition, quantifiable. Show me the metric where Manning fades late. It's gotta be out there somewhere, so many folks are convinced it's God's honest truth. Maybe find his passer rating in the 4th quarter in the playoffs. Show me the y/a in critical games. Find something verifiable...don't just say that its a statistical fact that cannot be quantified.

Read the post and figure out what people are saying before you make a silly retort. I never said it's a "statistical fact that cannot be quantified". Its a statistical fact that his QB rating is about 7 points lower in the playoffs than the regular season. The term "choker" can't be quantified, which is what I said.

 

[SacramentoBob]

I would definitely prefer a goblin to a pixie QB.

 

[moleculo]

Peyton is clearly one who doesn't quite get things done at the same level in the playoffs. It's statistical fact. Are we too harsh in labeling Peyton a choker? Maybe so. But that's a term that can't be quantified. I've seen enough big Peyton mistakes in big games to feel secure in saying he often chokes in big playoff games. If you disagree, fine. I don't care anymore. I guess us "dummies" will call Peyton a choker, and you smart stat nerds can use fake coin tosses to make you feel better about his joke of a post-season resume.

statistical facts are, by definition, quantifiable. Show me the metric where Manning fades late. It's gotta be out there somewhere, so many folks are convinced it's God's honest truth. Maybe find his passer rating in the 4th quarter in the playoffs. Show me the y/a in critical games. Find something verifiable...don't just say that its a statistical fact that cannot be quantified.

Read the post and figure out what people are saying before you make a silly retort. I never said it's a "statistical fact that cannot be quantified". Its a statistical fact that his QB rating is about 7 points lower in the playoffs than the regular season. The term "choker" can't be quantified, which is what I said.

It is a fact that his passer rating is lower in the post-season than the regular season (I'm not sure 7 points is statistically significant, given the questionable letitimacy of passer rating, but whatever). However, Brady suffers from a similar reduction, as do most QB's with a sufficient sample size. however, not all QB's are labeled "choker".Therefore, you need to clearly define what "choker" means.If it can't be quantified, it doesn't exist.

 

[shader]

There are some who step there game up in big situations and some who don't quite play as well.

Which category is Brady in? Elway? Don't you find it odd that one of the all-time 'clutch' guys has turned in to a 'choker' and the biggest 'choker' in history mic dropped after his 2nd consecutive Super Bowl win?You should find it very confusing given your argument. According to you that just shouldn't happen.

Where have I said that "just shouldn't happen"? QB's change. Brady looks to me like he's "pressing" out there right now. I have no way to "quantify" him pressing. It's just how he looks. He looked that way against the Giants last year, and definitely against Baltimore. I have no idea why.Elway earned the "choker" label earlier in his career by putting up huge duds in the super bowl. That doesn't mean he was destined to "always" be a choker. But he did choke in the super bowl. Yes, he redeemed himself at the end of his career, and that's great for him. Michael Jordan didn't earn the "clutch" nickname by accident. He dominated in the NBA playoffs and especially in the finals. My main argument over the past few days is simple: Peyton isn't at his best in the playoffs. That's undeniable and has led many to conclude he's a choker. You may laugh at that nickname, and you may think it's ridiculous. But you can't deny that his game takes a step back when the playoffs roll around.

 

[shader]

Peyton is clearly one who doesn't quite get things done at the same level in the playoffs. It's statistical fact. Are we too harsh in labeling Peyton a choker? Maybe so. But that's a term that can't be quantified. I've seen enough big Peyton mistakes in big games to feel secure in saying he often chokes in big playoff games. If you disagree, fine. I don't care anymore. I guess us "dummies" will call Peyton a choker, and you smart stat nerds can use fake coin tosses to make you feel better about his joke of a post-season resume.

statistical facts are, by definition, quantifiable. Show me the metric where Manning fades late. It's gotta be out there somewhere, so many folks are convinced it's God's honest truth. Maybe find his passer rating in the 4th quarter in the playoffs. Show me the y/a in critical games. Find something verifiable...don't just say that its a statistical fact that cannot be quantified.

Read the post and figure out what people are saying before you make a silly retort. I never said it's a "statistical fact that cannot be quantified". Its a statistical fact that his QB rating is about 7 points lower in the playoffs than the regular season. The term "choker" can't be quantified, which is what I said.

It is a fact that his passer rating is lower in the post-season than the regular season (I'm not sure 7 points is statistically significant, given the questionable letitimacy of passer rating, but whatever). However, Brady suffers from a similar reduction, as do most QB's with a sufficient sample size. however, not all QB's are labeled "choker".Therefore, you need to clearly define what "choker" means.If it can't be quantified, it doesn't exist.

Most QB's do? That's false. Choker is just something people say. I'm not going to get into a long drawn out discussion where we "quantify" what a choker is. It's a fake label we put on people. If you want to say it doesn't exist, go for it. I honestly don't care.