This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
That's the bottom line for me; absolutely the only thing he has going for him for the Hall of Fame is the three rings. But does every player on New England go to the Hall of Fame because they got three rings?He'll make it if stays in the league long enough to at least be respectable on the overall lists; not today.
It's understandable, because some of it really flies in the face of conventional thinking. For instance, they said that, on a per-play basis, Ricky Williams was only the 13th best RB in the NFL in the season he led the league in rushing- he just got such a ridiculous amount of carries that he managed to compile some great stats. Sort of like Eddie George, but not quite as bad. Still, I've been following them for 3 years now, and both the stats and the writers are incredible. They have unflinchingly defended every single accusation of the system, they have constantly searched for flaws in the system and impose sanity-checks (for instance, last season SF and Hou were so brutal that Indy dropped from #1 to #6 in their rankings one week despite having a good game, just because their schedule adjustment was so laughable. They explained the flaw in detail, showed some historical comparisons to demonstrate how extreme the adjustment was, and then listed Indy at the top of the list in the #1 spot, but kept the #6 results that the formula put out). They are constantly improving the system, and after every improvement they run back and check it against previous years' data to ensure that they have improved the correlation between DVOA in one week and winning the following week (testing its accuracy as a predictive stat as well as as a descriptive stat). They have posted the correlation several times (I forget it offhand), but it's currently better than any other statistic out there (points scored, points allowed, scoring differential, record, YPA, YPA allowed, YPA - YPA allowed, etc). People also tested FO's formula against several internet power rankings, and again found a greater correlation between the FO rankings and winning the following week than any other power rankings on the 'net. At the end of every season, King Kaufman compares preseason playoff projections with actual playoff teams and lists who had the most accurate predictions, and for 2 straight years someone from FO has taken home the "prize". FO's formulas predicted Washington's dramatic turnaround at midseason last year, Carolina's dramatic turnaround at midseason the year before, and as far as I know, DVOA was the only thing on the face of the planet that called San Diego a playoff team before the 2004 season. They've also been referred to by numerous sources such as the New York Times (for whom they occassionally write articles) as "The Bill James of football".What I like best about them is that they don't just say "Here are these numbers, they're great"... they actually put their money where their mouth is and SHOW why the numbers are great. The explain where the numbers succeeded, explain where the numbers failed, and are constantly looking for ways to make them better. And they aren't just numbers people- they have volunteers who actually watch the games and chart data on such things as missed tackles, uncatchable balls, etc. They break down game film and discuss matchups and all of that. They place a huge emphasis on blocking and frequently will write articles about matchups between Offensive and Defensive linemen (like two straight pieces on the Johnathon Ogden vs. Dwight Freeney matchups). For someone like me, who is in love with all aspects of the game of football, they're really heaven on the internet.
Curious, since Peyton Manning has the #1 record for most meltdowns in the playoffs would he make it in?
This guy has been the greatest post-season QB ever. Since QB is the most important position on the field and the post-season is the most important time of the year, I think that speaks volumes. It isn't like he was the punter or a nickel back. IMO, he's in and it isn't even close.
No he doesn't. I count 2 "meltdowns", 3 RIDICULOUS performances (perfect Qb rating, or darn close), and 4 pretty mediocre games. John Elway had more "meltdowns" than that. Are you saying Elway shouldn't be a HoFer?Fun stats of the day. Let's compare Peyton "the choker" to Brady "the savior". Postseason only.Curious, since Peyton Manning has the #1 record for most meltdowns in the playoffs would he make it in?
Gah, how many times do I have to run the numbers? He has most definitely *NOT* been the greatest postseason QB ever. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't even be close. He's been remarkably pedestrian during the postseason- actually worse than he's been in the regular season.Here, let's compare the numbers to the guy who is generally considered the ACTUAL greatest postseason QB ever, shall we?
Who is the second best?
Brady has been more consistent, and faced better teams. You can't just ignore that.Manning got shut out against the Jets, threw 4 picks against New England, and (in a separate game) put up 3 points against New England. Three times in nine games (one third of the time) Manning has thrown more INTs than TDs; Brady has only done so twice in eleven games. You say Manning has had two meltdowns (I count three, as mentioned above); but Brady has yet to have even one (though he obviously didn't play particularly well against Denver last season).No he doesn't. I count 2 "meltdowns", 3 RIDICULOUS performances (perfect Qb rating, or darn close), and 4 pretty mediocre games. John Elway had more "meltdowns" than that. Are you saying Elway shouldn't be a HoFer?Fun stats of the day. Let's compare Peyton "the choker" to Brady "the savior". Postseason only.Curious, since Peyton Manning has the #1 record for most meltdowns in the playoffs would he make it in?
Comp%
Brady- 61.3%
Manning- 60.0%
YPA
Brady- 6.79
Manning- 7.64
TD:INT
Brady- 15:5
Manning- 15:8
QB Rating
Brady- 89.4
Manning- 89.1
Points Allowed by defense per game
Brady- 16.8
Manning- 23.7
That's a little dose of what I like to call "reality".
I think this statistic is a lot more important than you realize. Turnovers are huge, especially in the postseason. And that is a pretty significant difference - Montans's 3% is excellent, but Brady's 1% is otherworldly.I'm not saying Brady is the best postseason QB ever (I'm not denying it, either), but if he's not at the top of the list, he's certainly very, very close to it.
I was referring to his 10-1 playoff record. When your ratio of championships to losses is running 3:1, I think a good case can be made that you're the best. So Brady's playoff numbers are slightly worse than his regular season numbers. Wouldn't that be the logical expectation for any QB? After all, there are no weak sisters to pad your stats on in January.
Troy Aikman.
I disagree with you. He's got the rings, and while rings alone shouldn't be enough in to put someone in the HoF my mind , they do contribute.But the other major factor for me is that I want to see a guy that I regard him as one of the elite players at his position during a fair portion of the time he played. In his first few seasons it was very debatable how much of the Pats success was Brady and how much was the defense. Then they added Dillon and had a good running game and were a very dominant team that season.
Aikman's playoff numbers are excellent. On one hand, you have to give him credit for "raising his game". On the other hand, his rather ordinary regular season numbers set the bar for post-season improvement relatively low. Aikman definitely belongs in this discussion, however.
Jim Plunkett's 8-2 in the post-season, Trent Dilfer is 5-1 and Jeff Hostetler is 4-1. The ability of a QB is just one of many, many factors that go into whether or not his team wins or loses. I certainly wouldn't want to rank my QBs based on win-loss record.
I'm not suggesting one should rank QBs exclusively by W-L record. Dilfer is as good of an example as any why you should not. His playoff stats are awful.But if we're judging history, a guy that has gone 10-1 with 3 Super Bowls is historically unparalled. His other post-season numbers are very solid. I'm not a Brady fan, but it is what it is.
Dilfer in the 2000 post-season played better than Brady in the 2001 post-season. Brady deserves less credit for the 2001 post-season than probably any QB that won a SB in the last 15 years.Brady deserves a ton of credit for the 2003 and 2004 SBs, and the Patriots team as a whole was unbelievable in the 2004 playoffs. But no sense in lumping 2001 in there, when it was significantly different.
I would disagree with that. Brady completed 62% in the 2001 post-season, while Dilfer completed only 48% while attempting only 73(!!) passes in 4 games. Brady threw 24 more passes in the '01 playoffs than Dilfer did in '00, although Dilfer played in 1 1/2 more games than Brady. Dilfer's job was to hand the ball off and not throw up on himself.
I wouldn't go that far. Down 13-3 to Oakland, Brady went 8-8 on the drive that ended with him scrambling for a TD to cut the lead to 13-10. He then led the tying and winning drives, too.
Dilfer averaged 8 Y/A and had 3 TD and 1 INT.Brady averaged 5.9 Y/A and had 1 TD and 1 INT.
One big passing play of note was pretty important. He averaged 8 Y/A. He had three TDs. Dilfer's remembered as a caretaker, but that's not really what he was. He was a big play guy -- he threw a lot of INTs that year for Baltimore too, but cut down on that in the playoffs.Brady playing poorly in the first three quarters of every post-season game doesn't give him a magical edge over Dilfer when he plays better in the fourth quarter. Dilfer's big plays early on (especially in the AFCC and the SB) made those games easy.
Fair points, but I still maintain Dilfer's primary job was to hand it off and get out of the way.Brady's numbers are not sterling but, as Ghost Rider noted, he led key drives that resulted in victory against Oakland and St. Louis.
That statistic you highlighted also suffers from the statistically smallest sample size by a very large margin. That fluctuation is far more likely to occur just to random chance than any other margin. In short- it's the least reliable number of the bunch. Let's give Brady another 12 playoff games and see where his Int% is at after that.
First off, no, not all players numbers get worse in the postseason. Terrell Davis is one example. Troy Aikman is an example at QB. Regardless, while I agree that it's perfectly reasonable to expect at least a slight decline from your regular season numbers, you cannot then say that that player "raised his game". It's just not true. He didn't raise his game- if anything, he lowered his game by a lesser amount than most Qbs do in that situation.Also, regarding playoff records... rather than compare two unknown quantities, let's compare two very much known quantities. John Elway, from 1983 to 1995, was 7-7 with 3 SB losses. John Elway from 1995 to 1998 was 7-1 with 2 SB wins. Would you argue that John Elway from 1995 to 1998 was better than Elway from 1983 to 1995? Because I would argue that that was just categorically untrue. Elway in the late '80s and early '90s was able to carry his team on his back. He was in his prime, and was virtually unstoppable. If you put the late 90's Elway on those teams, he wouldn't have lost 3 Superbowls. He probably wouldn't have lost *ANY* superbowls. Why not? Because he wouldn't have MADE any superbowls. Judging QBs- even in the slightest- based on their record in playoff games is, in my opinion, asinine. You can judge them by what they do in those playoff games, but not based on what their TEAM does in those playoff games. Did you miss the post where I said Manning's team has allowed 7 more points per game than Brady's? Don't you think that's significant in their career playoff records?
I don't judge a QB's greatness on playoff record alone. I think Elway was better than Brady ... but I'll take Brady's playoff record over Elway's. I'm not arguing Brady is the greatest QB ever; just that he has the greatest record of playoff success (to this point in his career - for all we know, he could go 5-8 the remainder of his career and drop down the list). There are several QBs I'd probably rather have to start a franchise.But, as for the HOF question, he's 10-1 with 3 SB titles and I think that HOF worthy.
I'll give you Plunkett for the point you're driving at, but Brady's got twice as many wins as either of those other two guys.
