Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
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!
If Tom Brady wants to be the best Quarterback of all time, he needs to (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Eminence
- Start date
Tom Brady was named Super Bowl MVP for the third time in his career on Sunday night, an award that came with a big red truck as a prize.
Judging from paparazzi photos of Brady over the years, he’s not lacking for transportation options to shuttle him around in his day-to-day life so he might find another use for this new set of wheels. During an interview on the Dennis & Callahan show on WEEI Tuesday, Brady talked about the “play of our season” that cornerback Malcolm Butler made to intercept Russell Wilson late in the fourth quarter and was asked if he might reward the undrafted rookie with the keys to the truck.
“I would love to give him the truck. I would love to do that. I’m going to figure out how to make that work,” Brady said.
There are procedural steps associated with gifting a car to someone, although we’d imagine that Brady has a few lawyers and accountants he can ring up to make sure that things are handled as well as Butler, who has already taken the Disney trip normally associated with the Super Bowl MVP, handled his moment in the spotlight on Sunday.
Judging from paparazzi photos of Brady over the years, he’s not lacking for transportation options to shuttle him around in his day-to-day life so he might find another use for this new set of wheels. During an interview on the Dennis & Callahan show on WEEI Tuesday, Brady talked about the “play of our season” that cornerback Malcolm Butler made to intercept Russell Wilson late in the fourth quarter and was asked if he might reward the undrafted rookie with the keys to the truck.
“I would love to give him the truck. I would love to do that. I’m going to figure out how to make that work,” Brady said.
There are procedural steps associated with gifting a car to someone, although we’d imagine that Brady has a few lawyers and accountants he can ring up to make sure that things are handled as well as Butler, who has already taken the Disney trip normally associated with the Super Bowl MVP, handled his moment in the spotlight on Sunday.
G
General Tso
Guest
This is a great post. Thanks for taking the time to put it together. Good stuff, and a nice trip down memory lane for me.Montana was one of my favorite quarterbacks from the moment he sent the Cowboys packing and ended their little mini-dynasty. And your stats match my recollections of Montana back then. When he played a good defense, he really didn't seem to rise to the occasion and play all that well. He was very fortunate to get some pretty crappy defenses to go up against in the Superbowls. The Bengals, Broncos and Dolphins weren't scaring anyone, I can assure you of that. The AFC were lap dogs back then, and if you listened to any John Madden broadcast in the 80's at some point during the game he'd attribute the disparity in conferences to the lack of any good defenses in the AFC. Heck, just look at what Jim McMahon did to the Pats in 86, or what Doug Williams did to Denver a couple years later. I remember going to take a dump in the second quarter and by the time I got back to the game the Redskins had scored 4 touchdowns. True story.
Montana was great quarterback and a cool customer to boot, but he also had some good fortune along the way. He had the best wide receiver to ever set foot on the planet, and let's face it - those Superbowl defenses he played against weren't murderer's row. And as pointed out above, when he did face tough defenses within the NFC conference playoffs his track record was actually pretty bad.
Montana was great, but Brady had stiffer competition and performed better over a longer period of time. And think about this... In the last three Superbowls, against some great defenses, Brady led his team to go ahead touchdowns on the Pats' last possession in each of those 3 games. You'd never know it though.
I watched both QB's - I pulled for both QB's - and at this point I think I can fairly say that after Brady's 4th quarter performance against Seattle last Sunday, he has officially overtaken Montana as the greatest of all-time. And with a good two or three years left - he's going to put some distance between the two before it's all said and done. And Brady did all this in the salary cap era, and without much of a supporting cast beside him on offense. I'm pretty certain we will never see another quarterback get to 9 Championship Games and 6 Superbowls. Not in our lifetimes.
Last edited:
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
This is incorrect.
NE/NYG - They got it back with 35 seconds left and a chance to tie, and Brady threw three incompletions and got it sacked once as they turned it over on downs to end the game.
NE/NYG, Part 2 - They got it back with 57 seconds left and a chance to win, and they could only get as far as around midfield.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
This part just isn't true - and I'm not saying it to down play Brady in anyway.
The lack of a salary cap both helped and hurt the Niners because every team (including their main competition was able to remain in tact for longer periods of time).
While the Super Bowl matchups may have been easier (although how great were Philly, Carolina and the NYGs? All were pretty mediocre teams in the grand scheme of Super Bowl teams) the road to the Super Bowl was far far tougher for Montana than it ever was for Brady. During the Pats run we've had a few good Pitt teams and an occasional good Baltimore pop up, but their biggest rivals were the Colts who were a very good but not great overall team and had a QB that's an all-time great but considered to be a playoff choker.
The NFC was stacked at the top during the Niner's dynasty period (80s-90s): Dallas, NYG, Chicago, Philly, Washington - you had some of the all-time great defenses there and plenty of stars on offense.
Both Brady and Montana are two of the greatest QBs in NFL history - why do we need to (unfairly) knock one down to build the other up?
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
And those Giant teams were not "great" defenses - the '07 team surely played great in that Super Bowl, but the Giants were a 9-7 team that year. Their defense finished 17th in points allowed and 7th in yards.
In 2011 the Giants defense ranked 25th in points and 27th in yards, that's actually terrible not great.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
No, you listed the number of points he scored in the game his team lost, leaving out his performances in the games they won, and then in the season his team didn't lose at all you pointed to a negative statistic. That's cherry-picking, and that's the hater perspective.
These are facts: Passing DVOA of playoff quarterbacks since 1989. Removes context, doesn't do stupid things like give Brady extra credit for winning a ring in 2001-02 even though the Pats' offense was horrible when he was on the field, or give Manning extra credit for winning a ring even though he threw 7 picks on the way there. And for good measure, here's playoff DYAR since 1989.
The fact that other quarterbacks are really good and just haven't had as much good fortune or as much defense/special teams support in the playoffs doesn't make Tom Brady any less awesome. He's still really awesome. It's strange that New England fans can't accept that and have instead chosen to turn into the football equivalent of Kobe fans, responding to praise of every other great quarterback in the league with anger or cherry-picked arguments.
Last edited by a moderator:
Looking at regular season defensive points allows can be misleading because it doesn't factor in defensive players returning from injuries. If I recall, the Giants had some key defensive injuries early in those seasons (who were back later that year and for the playoffs), that made their regular season defense look worse than it really was?
Here are the playoff points allowed by the Giants in 2007: 14, 17, 20, 14
Here are the playoff points allowed by the Giants in 2011: 2, 20, 17, 17
Those look much better than the 17th and 25th ranked defenses in points allowed.
Last edited by a moderator:
johnnycakes
Footballguy
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Spin it however you want. The Giants did not great defenses that year and a handful of games played in adverse weather conditions (Green Bay) or against a choking team (Atlanta) doesn't change that.
Niles Standish
Footballguy
This is cherry picking for Montana. He has 20 TDs and 5 INTs in the games used to calculate this number and 25 TDs and 16 INTs in the ignored playoff games. That's why they picked 1989 because it includes his best playoff run and ignores the bad ones.
I'm not a DVOA expert, but anything that ranks Mark Sanchez as the 5th best immediately becomes suspect.
But seriously, maybe some stats guy can determine the confidence intervals after factoring in the different playoff game sample sizes for each player?
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
I can't say for sure why they picked 1989 as the starting point but I would assume that it's because the needed data for DVOA and DYAR isn't available before that, not because they're going to bat for Montana. The people that put that stuff together aren't interested in pushing narratives or winning arguments.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Yeah the sample size is small for Sanchez. But he was pretty good in the playoffs back when his Jets teammates got him there. It's his contributions in getting his teams to the playoffs in the first place that are the problem.I'm not a DVOA expert, but anything that ranks Mark Sanchez as the 5th best immediately becomes suspect.
But seriously, maybe some stats guy can determine the confidence intervals after factoring in the different playoff game sample sizes for each player?
Well, stats can be spun by anyone to prove their point.
https://twitter.com/FO_ScottKacsmar/status/562773391896485888
According to the DVOA, Mark Sanchez is the 5th best playoff QB. If he was so awesome, why did the Jets release him?
I guess that's why we need confidence intervals or something to account for the differing sample sizes of playoff games for each QB.Yeah the sample size is small for Sanchez. But he was pretty good in the playoffs back when his Jets teammates got him there. It's his contributions in getting his teams to the playoffs in the first place that are the problem.I'm not a DVOA expert, but anything that ranks Mark Sanchez as the 5th best immediately becomes suspect.
But seriously, maybe some stats guy can determine the confidence intervals after factoring in the different playoff game sample sizes for each player?
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
You're stretching. One thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other. Some one called the two Giant Super Bowl teams great defenses. Over the course of those two seasons, they were anything but great - especially in 2011 where they were horrendous.
But to answer your question, the Jets released Sanchez because of what he did in the years following those playoff runs (which is turn into a turnover machine) and because it was time to move on. The sample size is extremely small, but Sanchez actually played very well in the playoffs for that two year stretch. At one point (I think Flacco moved ahead of him) he had more road playoff wins than any QB in NFL history. Of course the truly great QBs likely played most of their games at home so that stat is a bit skewed.
12punch
Footballguy
Road Warriors
Footballguy
No, but they did have the one thing that stops the NE offense, specifically in 2007, when NE was much more of a downfield passing team. The strong front 4 with pressure on the edge and a big push in the middle collapsing the pocket has always been the best ( maybe only? ) way to truly stop the NE offense.
I remember thinking in '07 that the Giants were the worst possible matchup of any of the NFC teams. Sometimes it doesn't have to be historical greatness. Sometimes, it's just about the matchups.
12punch
Footballguy
so, he's kind of the joe montana of his time?Yeah the sample size is small for Sanchez. But he was pretty good in the playoffs back when his Jets teammates got him there. It's his contributions in getting his teams to the playoffs in the first place that are the problem.I'm not a DVOA expert, but anything that ranks Mark Sanchez as the 5th best immediately becomes suspect.
But seriously, maybe some stats guy can determine the confidence intervals after factoring in the different playoff game sample sizes for each player?
Niles Standish
Footballguy
Looks like they only have estimated DVOA prior to 1989. That being said it would be interesting to see where Montana really stands with their numbers. Unfortunately what we see is wildly skewed for him and probably other QBs who were active prior to 1989.
I did find it interesting that Hostetler is the 2nd best playoff QB of the last 25 years.
Does passing DVOA isolate individual QB performance and adjust for things like team offensive line performance?
I noticed that Aikman is #4 on the DVOA list. His offensive line was widely regarded as extremely good, so they would have helped his numbers. I don't think many people would generally put Aikman in their top 5 playoff QBs.
http://sonsofsamhorn.net/topic/81560-dvoa-and-other-topics-in-football-analytics/
Seems that DVOA is kind of a "black box", and no one really knows how it is calculated?
I noticed that Aikman is #4 on the DVOA list. His offensive line was widely regarded as extremely good, so they would have helped his numbers. I don't think many people would generally put Aikman in their top 5 playoff QBs.
http://sonsofsamhorn.net/topic/81560-dvoa-and-other-topics-in-football-analytics/
Seems that DVOA is kind of a "black box", and no one really knows how it is calculated?
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
No. First, the DYAR rankings (which may be a better measure of quality of play- here's an explanation of the stats for anyone who's curious) don't think much of his playoff efforts. Second, his sample size is way too small. He's barely above the minimum # of pass attempts for inclusion in the DVOA list.so, he's kind of the joe montana of his time?Yeah the sample size is small for Sanchez. But he was pretty good in the playoffs back when his Jets teammates got him there. It's his contributions in getting his teams to the playoffs in the first place that are the problem.I'm not a DVOA expert, but anything that ranks Mark Sanchez as the 5th best immediately becomes suspect.
But seriously, maybe some stats guy can determine the confidence intervals after factoring in the different playoff game sample sizes for each player?
Anarchy99
Footballguy
DVOA (Defense-adjusted Value Over Average) calculates a team's success based on the down-and-distance of each play during the season, then calculates how much more or less successful each team is compared to the league average. According to Football Outsiders, DVOA "breaks down every single play of the NFL season to see how much success offensive players achieved in each specific situation compared to the league average in that situation, adjusted for the strength of the opponent. ... Football has one objective -- to get to the end zone -- and two ways to achieve that, by gaining yards and getting first downs. These two goals need to be balanced to determine a player's value or a team's performance."[3]
There is a separate DVOA measurement for special teams, which "compare each kick or punt to the league average for based on the point value of field position at the position of each kick, catch, and return."
There is a separate DVOA measurement for special teams, which "compare each kick or punt to the league average for based on the point value of field position at the position of each kick, catch, and return."
Bigboy10182000
Footballguy
Using DVOA has always been suspect. It's main use is for cherry picking stats to support a failing argument.
I'd venture to say that a majority of Brady's peers both past and present would say he's the best ever. That's good enough for me. It doesn't have to get complicated.
I'd venture to say that a majority of Brady's peers both past and present would say he's the best ever. That's good enough for me. It doesn't have to get complicated.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
I included DVOA and DYAR. Also, I wasn't attempting to argue that Brady isn't the best ever- he may well be, although I think cross-era arguments in the NFL are impossible. I was just replying to Bostonfred's discussion of cherry-picking and his dismissal of Manning in particular with two objective statistical measures that show the players' individual playoff performances aren't that different. There are others as well- I think Brady has a slightly higher playoff passer rating, Manning has slightly higher completion %, etc.
Again, not trying to denigate Brady, who is amazing. I'm arguing that other players can't be dismissed from the discussion simply because their team's accomplishments don't match up, because a lot of things other than QB play go into winning and losing.
Also- players who don't yet have extensive front office backgrounds are notoriously poor talent evaluators. See the greatest athlete in any American sport in our lifetimes for Exhibit A.
Last edited by a moderator:
bostonfred
Footballguy
You're wrong on this one. You're smart enough to know it but too busy wagging your bias finger at me. You asked a question. It was your question, not mine, so it's not a biased question.
You asked if manning would have win more championships if we have him "Five seasons each paired with defenses that successful". Yudkin responded with a list of the seasons that manning did in fact have seasons that successful. They're were more than five of them. That's also not biased. It directly answers your question.
But it's also not complete. Because there were many years that manning did not have a top eight defense. It begs the question, would manning have won in those years with a better defense? In order to win those games, the defense would have to allow fewer points than the Colts scored. It doesn't make sense to look at games they won - the results wouldn't change if they had a better defense.
Since I'm answering your question - would manning have won more games if he'd had a better defense - the answer is no, probably not. if you go through every single season that manning went to the playoffs, he either a) had a top eight defense, or b) ended up scoring 17 or fewer in a loss. The only exception is the season that he did actually won a title.
And again, since I'm answering your question, it is absolutely relevant that the Colts defense carried manning to that title. Not because I'm a hater, but because your question is whether manning would have done better with better defensive performances. And it turns out that he did get a great defensive performance in 2006, and it was enough to carry him to a title despite his own poor performance. Which answers the last part of your question - the implication that the only reason he didn't win more rings was his defense's poor performance. when it turns out that the main reason he won his only ring was hours defense's outstanding performance.
So that's the answer to your question. It is a complete answer. I don't need to talk about Brady. I don't need to talk about dvoa or other statistics. I don't need to talk about how many points the Colts scored against the Broncos in the first round of the playoffs ten years ago. I'm just answering the question you asked. if it seems biased its just because the facts suck for you.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Yudkin answered my question just fine, and I thanked him for it. Everything you've posted since then has been cherry-picked nonsense with arbitrary benchmarks like "17 or fewer points" crafted with the goal of making Manning look bad instead of looking at the complete body of work of the player only and ignoring the outsize importance of things like D/ST touchdowns and other things that often make the difference between wins and losses in the playoffs. I responded with context-free stats. You chose to ignore them and instead continued with your arbitrary benchmarks and silly narratives. I don't really feel like indulging your Manning hatred any further, although I do admire your dedication to it. I'm sure there's plenty of people in Boston willing to listen to you rant about how much Manning sucks for days on end. Tell it to them instead, and everyone wins.
G
General Tso
Guest
Congrats - I knew someone would bring that up.Pretty good example of losing the forest through the trees... I don't really consider desperation possessions like that, where there's less than a 5% win probability, to be a reasonable standard to focus on.
12punch
Footballguy
that's entirely your perception.
I think brady has gotten plenty of 'building' up w/o mention of another qb, and some random guy started this thread to compare great qb, so they're getting compared.
if we point out the bloated payroll or great defenses that helped montana out, that's not knocking anyone down --- that's just reality, so sry if you got disillusioned in the course of discussion.
there's some payroll info earlier in the thread for 1990, so I'll just look at that --- feel free to research other years if you want.
niners - 27m (7m higher than 2nd team)
bears, wash, philly, nyg ~20m
dallas - 16m (24th/28)
rest of niners division:
saints 14m (27th/28)
rams 17m (20th/28)
falcons 16m (23rd/28)
so htf you think a lack of a cap hurt them as much as helped them I have no ####### idea
I do, however, think that's a fair point about beating some stacked nfc teams to get to the sb to play some chump afc team, but every poster in this thread who backs montana does it on the back of 4-0 INSUPERBOWLZOMG!!
I'll take a look at those 4 magic sb years -- he was 4-7 in the playoffs in his other 10 yrs.
1981 - pretty strong, beat giants + cowboys while throwing 5 td to 4 picks en route to sb vs bengals in which montana was 14/22 for 157/1
1984 - beat giants + bears this year while throwing 4 td to 5 picks with a defense allowing 3 + 0 points, en route to sb vs miami in which his defense allowed 16
1988 - beat minny + bears this year with his defense allowing 9 + 3 points en route to sb vs bengals again in which his defense allowed 9
1989 - beat minny + rams with his defense allowing 13 + 3 en route to sb vs broncos where his defense allowed 10
but joe montana 4-0 INSUPERBOWLZOMG!!
Last edited by a moderator:
G
General Tso
Guest
That 2011 Giants team came together and got healthy, and by the time the playoffs came around that defense was playing at a very high level. Same with 2007. Both of those two defenses played better in the SB than any of San Fran's opponents. And it's not even close.People have very short memories. When I get grief from a Giants fan about "owning" the Pats, I always acknowledge first and foremost what a great defense they had. The pressure they put on Brady in 2007 was extraordinary. They deserved to win that game.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
The point of "no cap" is that all of the top teams were able to be kept together longer. I'm not talking about one year. Teams stayed together longer in tact making the playoffs a tougher road for the top teams.
I'm addressing only certain points. I think both Brady and Montana are/were great. Who was better doesn't really matter and the stats you throw out don't matter all that much since it was a much different game back then versus now.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
So the stats don't matter - just your perception?
The 2007 team had a great pass rush and a very poor secondary - that Super Bowl game they got to Brady and yes that's why they won. They surely played great that day, but they weren't a great defense. Brady laughed at the though that the Pats would only score 17 against that defense. Remember?
The 2011 team was not a great defense no matter how much your "memory" is superior to everyone else's or how you want to spin that they got healthy.
I never compared them to any team that SF played in the Super Bowl - but the Giants defenses were far better during that era.
12punch
Footballguy
yeah, the stats don't matter when they work against montana
I noticed you're only addressing certain points
I think in a thread about who the greatest qb is, who was better probably does have some significance, and I'll stand by my mountain of actual evidence for brady, and let you throw everything out and claim montana cuz that's how you want it to be and he was born 20 yrs earlier, or whatever it was -- oh, and also joe montana 4-0 INSUPERBOWLZOMG!!
12punch
Footballguy
yeah, I remember -- he laughed that their record setting offense could be held to only 17, 'against that defense' was spin added by you to make some convoluted point
maybe you don't remember so well
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Did I claim it was Montana - must have missed that?
yeah, the stats don't matter when they work against montana
I noticed you're only addressing certain points
I think in a thread about who the greatest qb is, who was better probably does have some significance, and I'll stand by my mountain of actual evidence for brady, and let you throw everything out and claim montana cuz that's how you want it to be and he was born 20 yrs earlier, or whatever it was -- oh, and also joe montana 4-0 INSUPERBOWLZOMG!!
The last comment I made on that issue is that Brady is the greatest (as in most accomplished) QB of all time now.
Last edited by a moderator:
G
General Tso
Guest
Just curious Dr. O - and I'm not trolling here - did you watch Montana in the 80's?Did I claim it was Montana - must have missed that?
yeah, the stats don't matter when they work against montana
I noticed you're only addressing certain points
I think in a thread about who the greatest qb is, who was better probably does have some significance, and I'll stand by my mountain of actual evidence for brady, and let you throw everything out and claim montana cuz that's how you want it to be and he was born 20 yrs earlier, or whatever it was -- oh, and also joe montana 4-0 INSUPERBOWLZOMG!!
The last comment I made on that issue is that Brady is the greatest (as in most accomplished) QB of all time now.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
See above.
I wouldn't say he's "the best" QB because that's far too subjective and I think there are more talented QBs (but I could see some one arguing that). I'd say he's "the greatest" in that he has the most accomplished career.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Yes.Just curious Dr. O - and I'm not trolling here - did you watch Montana in the 80's?Did I claim it was Montana - must have missed that?
yeah, the stats don't matter when they work against montana
I noticed you're only addressing certain points
I think in a thread about who the greatest qb is, who was better probably does have some significance, and I'll stand by my mountain of actual evidence for brady, and let you throw everything out and claim montana cuz that's how you want it to be and he was born 20 yrs earlier, or whatever it was -- oh, and also joe montana 4-0 INSUPERBOWLZOMG!!
The last comment I made on that issue is that Brady is the greatest (as in most accomplished) QB of all time now.
He was a great quarterback. I think other than the (lack of) mobility, Brady plays very similar to Montana at this point in his career.
I think, like Brady and Manning, Montana was a master of his (Walsh's) offense and that went a long way towards making him great. He was smart, accurate and had tremendous field vision. He also played in an offenses for which he was perfectly suited and of course had some great weapons to work with.
Just about every all time great QB had a great coach (offensive philosophy) and a great supporting cast. It's just the way it is.
12punch
Footballguy
Workhorse
Footballguy
Here's one thing to keep in mind in the Brady vs. Montana debate: Montana was nearing the end at age 37 and Brady just won a Super Bowl and seems like he can keep playing at a high level.
From a stats perspective, here are their "Age 37" seasons:
Montana regular season: 60.7% completion, 13 TDs, 7 INTs, 194.9 YPG
Montana playoffs: 56.7% completion, 4 TDs, 3 INTs, 233.3 YPG
Brady regular season: 64.1% completion, 33 TDs, 9 INTs, 256.8 YPG
Brady playoffs: 68.9% completion, 10 TDs, 4 INTs, 307 YPG
Different eras explain some of the differences but at age 37, Joe Montana was the very definition of "game manager" (and a mediocre one at that). Brady is still an elite QB.
From a stats perspective, here are their "Age 37" seasons:
Montana regular season: 60.7% completion, 13 TDs, 7 INTs, 194.9 YPG
Montana playoffs: 56.7% completion, 4 TDs, 3 INTs, 233.3 YPG
Brady regular season: 64.1% completion, 33 TDs, 9 INTs, 256.8 YPG
Brady playoffs: 68.9% completion, 10 TDs, 4 INTs, 307 YPG
Different eras explain some of the differences but at age 37, Joe Montana was the very definition of "game manager" (and a mediocre one at that). Brady is still an elite QB.
The Westin
Footballguy
On the surface, we all obviously attribute some of these drastic stat differences to the rules allowing more passing yards.
However, you also can't overlook the fact that the rules for hitting the QB were different. Their bodies were most likely in completely different shape at age 37
pats3in4
Footballguy
Montana got knocked out of two conference title games (1990, 1993) and a divisional round game (1986).
I remember being in college watching this with an Eagles fan on TV:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/198909240phi.htm
Montana was sacked EIGHT times and generally harassed all game (Reggie White in his prime was something to behold). That Montana took that kind of abuse, yet threw FOUR 4th quarter touchdowns to come from behind on the road and win was incredible...and also a sign that extended greatness after years of abuse is asking a lot.
Workhorse
Footballguy
Certainly, the rules for hitting the QB were different back then and Montana took some brutal hits over the years. However, it's not like Brady hasn't been under siege during his career at times. Just last year, Brady was sacked more at age 36 than Montana was in any of his seasons.
NE_REVIVAL
Footballguy
I'm fine with Brady being one of the best of all time; his record speaks for itself and I don't think he is done yet. Heck it wasn't all that long ago I had a hard time convincing people he was better than Bledsoe, then it was manning, now it's Montana. Whatever helps people sleep at night, as I said, Brady's record speaks for itself.TobiasFunke said:
FTR,
A. Brady was far from horrible vs Oak in 2001.
B. Brady was far from horrible vs a very good Pitt def before he got hurt (multiple cheap shots from Flowers iirc)
C. Brady was far from horrible when he lead the Patriots game winning drive vs STL (#1 def iirc).
When winning doesn't matter (no context) you are forced to reach for formulas demonstrating that Mark Sanchez is the 5th best playoff QB and Brady is the 11th.
Context matters, winning matters, 6 Super Bowls and 9 Conference championship games in 13 years matters. NE fans have no problem acknowledging that luck plays a role in winning championships, but so does talent, determination and heart. You want to pretend that P Manning was "just unlucky" last year vs Sea in the SB while Brady was "just lucky" this year. Nonsense
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
I didn't say any of the bolded items you claim I said, nor did I dispute any of the bolded points you've made. Or really anything else in your post. I'm not sure what you're arguing about, to be honest.I'm fine with Brady being one of the best of all time; his record speaks for itself and I don't think he is done yet. Heck it wasn't all that long ago I had a hard time convincing people he was better than Bledsoe, then it was manning, now it's Montana. Whatever helps people sleep at night, as I said, Brady's record speaks for itself.TobiasFunke said:
FTR,
A. Brady was far from horrible vs Oak in 2001.
B. Brady was far from horrible vs a very good Pitt def before he got hurt (multiple cheap shots from Flowers iirc)
C. Brady was far from horrible when he lead the Patriots game winning drive vs STL (#1 def iirc).
When winning doesn't matter (no context) you are forced to reach for formulas demonstrating that Mark Sanchez is the 5th best playoff QB and Brady is the 11th.
Context matters, winning matters, 6 Super Bowls and 9 Conference championship games in 13 years matters. NE fans have no problem acknowledging that luck plays a role in winning championships, but so does talent, determination and heart. You want to pretend that P Manning was "just unlucky" last year vs Sea in the SB while Brady was "just lucky" this year. Nonsense
And nobody thinks Sanchez is the 5th best playoff QB of all time. I even said that (1) the sample size is far too small to be considered legitimate, and that (2) DVOA is not the be-all end-all of player stats, in fact I said it's the lesser of the two I cited in that post.
You guys really need to relax and enjoy the victory without going into attack mode on every single comment on the internet that you perceive as a slight to Brady, even ones that are merely nods to other great QBs. You are turning into Kobe-type fans when it comes to Brady, and as Boston sports fans I assume you know how annoying and terrible that can be.
bostonfred
Footballguy
this is just irrational ranting. You asked a question. Everything I've posted relates to that question. nothing you've posted here is related to your own question. you even quoted me, quoting your question, before changing the subject entirely. It's not cherry picking stats to look at manning's playoff losses in years that he didn't have a top 8 defense. Your specific question was whether he would have won more superbowls if he'd had a top eight defense. The answer is thatactually, he often did have a top eight defense, and in the years he didn't, he probably wouldn't have advanced further because the Colts didn't score that many points in the games they ended up losing. That's not cherry picking. It's a direct answer to your question.TobiasFunke said:
You're right though - I didn't look at the complete body of work of the player. That's because I'm answering your question . I didn't bring up a lot of things that don't answer your question. For example, kangaroos can't hop backwards. Apologies for not mentioning that, even though it has nothing to do with your question.
And youre right that I ignored your context free stats. That's because they have nothing to do with the question you asked. you started blathering about bradys stats and bemoaning that i didn't discuss games that manning won, and advised me of being back hater because of it - but none of those things have anything to do with your question.
you're welcome to talk about anything you want. But when you ask a question and I answer it, don't change the subject and say I'm the problem. that's bush league.
NE_REVIVAL
Footballguy
You did when you said, Removes context, doesn't do stupid things like give Brady extra credit for winning a ring in 2001-02 even though the Pats' offense was horrible when he was on the fieldI didn't say any of the bolded items you claim I said, nor did I dispute any of the bolded points you've made. Or really anything else in your post. I'm not sure what you're arguing about, to be honest.I'm fine with Brady being one of the best of all time; his record speaks for itself and I don't think he is done yet. Heck it wasn't all that long ago I had a hard time convincing people he was better than Bledsoe, then it was manning, now it's Montana. Whatever helps people sleep at night, as I said, Brady's record speaks for itself.TobiasFunke said:
FTR,
A. Brady was far from horrible vs Oak in 2001.
B. Brady was far from horrible vs a very good Pitt def before he got hurt (multiple cheap shots from Flowers iirc)
C. Brady was far from horrible when he lead the Patriots game winning drive vs STL (#1 def iirc).
When winning doesn't matter (no context) you are forced to reach for formulas demonstrating that Mark Sanchez is the 5th best playoff QB and Brady is the 11th.
Context matters, winning matters, 6 Super Bowls and 9 Conference championship games in 13 years matters. NE fans have no problem acknowledging that luck plays a role in winning championships, but so does talent, determination and heart. You want to pretend that P Manning was "just unlucky" last year vs Sea in the SB while Brady was "just lucky" this year. Nonsense
And nobody thinks Sanchez is the 5th best playoff QB of all time. I even said that (1) the sample size is far too small to be considered legitimate, and that (2) DVOA is not the be-all end-all of player stats, in fact I said it's the lesser of the two I cited in that post.
You guys really need to relax and enjoy the victory without going into attack mode on every single comment on the internet that you perceive as a slight to Brady, even ones that are merely nods to other great QBs. You are turning into Kobe-type fans when it comes to Brady, and as Boston sports fans I assume you know how annoying and terrible that can be.
Didn't you?
I am relaxed, couldn't be happier and far from responding to every single comment, most of us (certainly I do) ignore 75-90% of the hater crap guys like you obsessively write. Just like I have done with most of your posts in this thread; I honestly haven't looked but I bet your anti Brady posts far out number my pro Brady posts.
If you are going to post formulas implying that stiffs like Mark Sanchez are much better playoff QBs than Brady or that the NE offense was horrible with Brady on the field in 2001-2002 then I will occasionally chime in and call you on it. Nothing personal here, but rather than lecturing pats fans on how we need to relax, how about you take your own advice and give it a rest for a while?
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Re the bolded: The Pats' offense scored a grand total of two touchdowns in ten quarters with Brady behind center in the 2001-02 postseason. That's poor offensive production by any measure. That doesn't mean he was poor on the final drive of one game- that's a completely different question. And it wasn't meant as a slight on Brady as much as a reason why measuring QBs by titles won is kinda silly.
Otherwise, I think you're mis-reading my posts and the discussion. I haven't been hating at all. Go ahead and look back if you don't believe me. Here's how I'd say it went down:
[lots of talk about Brady vis a vis other great QBs, including one post using titles as comparison point]
Me: I don't like using titles to measure players. Would Manning/Marino have more titles with defenses on par with those Brady has played with?
Anarchy99: Probably not. Here's some work I've done looking into that.
Me: Interesting. Thanks.
Conversation could have happily ended here as far as I'm concerned. Instead, we got ...
Bostonfred: OMG MANNING TOTALLY SUCKS LOOK AT HOW FEW POINTS MANNING'S TEAM SCORED IN THE PLAYOFF GAMES HIS TEAM LOST AND ALSO HE THREW LOTS OF PICKS WHEN THEY WON A SUPER BOWL WHAT A LOSER LOL
Me: You're cherry-picking here when you dismiss Manning. You're only looking at negative results, eliminating Manning's many excellent playoff efforts and team wins from the data (except in the one case where it helps your argument), and ignoring the role things like defense, special teams and just plain old luck have to do with postseason success.
Bostonfred: (repeats the above)
Me: Look, here's one objective measure of player value. And here's another. And there are other objective stats that recognize that Manning and Brady have been about the same in the playoffs. None of them are perfect, but taken together they suggest that the difference between their teams' postseason success is more about differences in what their teammates have done than in how they have performed.
A bunch of other people: Mark Sanchez sucks!
Me: Yes. Yes he does.
Sure, I probably got in a jab or two after Bostonfred lost his mind about Manning, because hey, I'm human. And you're right, I shouldn't have "lectured" anyone about how to enjoy their team. My bad there. Enjoy the rest of your parade day and the rest of the careers of your team's incredible QB and head coach.
