Tom Brady now 100 games over .500 (1 Viewer)

[The_Man]

Tom Brady’s career record as a starting QB now stands at 139-39, making him the first QB in NFL history to be 100 games over .500. In fact only 12 QBs in NFL history have even won as many as 100 games! Pretty amazing – it’s the equivalent of going 13-3 for 10 straight seasons.

Here are some other QB stats – anything interesting jump out at you?

QBs to win 100 games all-time

1. Favre 186

2. Manning 157

3. Elway 148

4. Marino 147

5. Brady 139

6. Tarkenton 124

7. Unitas 118

8. Montana 117

9. Bradshaw 107

10. Brees 102

11. Moon 102

12. Kelly 101

Just short with 98 are McNabb, Dave Krieg, and Bledsoe. In my opinion, they are short of the HOF as well. Those three along with Stabler (96) and Simms (95) are the only guys to win more than 91 games not (or certain to be) in the HOF.

Active QBs with enough wins to rank in the Top 100 of all-time

1. Manning 157 (#2 all-time)

2. Brady 139 (#5)

3. Brees 102 (#10)

4. Roethlisberger 87 (#26)

5. Hasselbeck 80 (#36, I didn’t know he was still active as Indy’s back-up)

6. Eli Manning 78 (#40)

7. Rivers 71 (#49)

8, tie. Ryan, Vick, and Romo 57 (#67)

11. Flacco 56 (#72)

12. Cutler 54 (#78)

13. Rodgers 53 (#79)

14. Schaub 46 (#87)

15. Alex Smith 41 (#92)

I didn't realize Brees was a Top 10 all-time winning QB. If current trends continue, in about 3 more years Ryan and Flacco, both at age 30, will be right on the verge of entering the top 30 of all-time wins by NFL QBs.

All-time QB winning percentage (at least 50 wins)

1. Otto Graham .814

2. Daryle Lamonica .784

3. Brady .780 (active)

4. Staubach .746

5. Montana .713

6. Matt Ryan .704 (active)

7. P. Manning .692 (active)

8. McMahon .691

9. Bradshaw .677

10. Flacco .675 (active)

11 tie. Roethlisberger and Danny White .674

13, Frank Ryan .672

14. Stabler .661

15. Steve Young .657 (despite going 3-16 in Tampa! His SF win pct. Is .734)

16. Rodgers .654 (active)

17 Unitas .645

18. Elway .643

19. Kelly .631

Seems like there's a real good case for Stabler to be in the Hall of Fame - top 15 in wins and winning percentage for QBs, he should probably be in. And Ryan and Flacco show well again here.

 

[sports_fan]

He's 50 games over .500. He's the first to have 100 more wins than losses.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

He's 50 games over .500. He's the first to have 100 more wins than losses.

I tend to agree that your interpretation would be more correct, but in my experience when people say "X is Y games over .500," they mean "X has Y more wins than losses." It's just the way it is. When a team is 2-1, you don't hear anyone saying they're a half-game over .500.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

and this news just breaking today?

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

Otto Graham was absolutely epic. Amazing story.

Tom Brady & Peyton Manning are among the all time greatest QBs and I enjoy having watched nearly every game they've played.

Elway, Montana, Marino & Favre are absolute QB icons who I got to watch growing up and got to start in the earliest days of playing FF.

Johnny U, Daryle Lamonica & Fran Tarkenton were older time players who incredibly persevere through all of the noise that an increasingly pass happy league with inflated passing statistics and a longer schedule creates.

Bradshaw won 4, but frankly he's borderline and that's where I'd draw my greatest of all time line in the sand. Everyone else on those 3 lists are good QBs, even damn good. Some HOFers are on the other side of the line, like Steve Young. But to me, Steve Young wasn't an all time great. And I started Steve Young in fantasy for many years, he helped me win leagues (some of his FF games were incredible, and he was consistent). Ok, so maybe Steve Young can come on over. But I'm not putting the likes of Warren Moon, Jim Kelly, Drew Brees, Ben Rothlisberger or Roger Staubach on the greatest of all time list. We'll see if any of the active players other than Brady or Manning can do enough to cross the line. Maybe the guy with the best chance is Aaron Rodgers.

 

[The_Man]

and this news just breaking today?

Actually Sunday was when Brady became the first QB to go 100 games over .500. But today was the first time I heard about it and became interested in looking at his record in comparison to other great QBs.

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

And I agree with Stabler getting in the HOF, even though he wouldn't make my elite greatest QB of all time list. Stabler is also an amazing story and a legend that is needed to tell the story of football in his era.

I would also begrudgingly admit that Drew Brees will probably make the HOF when he's done, given his accomplishments already and what he's likely to do in the next 2-3 years. Everyone else active has much more to do to even be in the discussion.

 

[cstu]

Otto Graham was absolutely epic. Amazing story.

The Browns did have a rather decent defense.

 

[The_Man]

Active QBs with enough wins to rank in the Top 100 of all-time

1. Manning 157 (#2 all-time)

2. Brady 139 (#5)

3. Brees 102 (#10)

4. Roethlisberger 87 (#26)

5. Hasselbeck 80 (#36, I didn’t know he was still active as Indy’s back-up)

6. Eli Manning 78 (#40)

7. Rivers 71 (#49)

8, tie. Ryan, Vick, and Romo 57 (#67)

11. Flacco 56 (#72)

12. Cutler 54 (#78)

13. Rodgers 53 (#79)

14. Schaub 46 (#87)

15. Alex Smith 41 (#92)

Manning and Brady are all-time greats, obviously, and I think Brees is a lock for the HOF at this point. Of the guys with 2 Super Bowls, I think Roethlisberger has already done enough to get in, but Eli is not there yet. Rivers and Hasselbeck, no way. Vick and Romo, no way. Rodgers and Ryan are the two most likely of the rest, I guess, though it's far too early to tell for either.

 

[tombonneau]

And I agree with Stabler getting in the HOF, even though he wouldn't make my elite greatest QB of all time list. Stabler is also an amazing story and a legend that is needed to tell the story of football in his era.

I would also begrudgingly admit that Drew Brees will probably make the HOF when he's done, given his accomplishments already and what he's likely to do in the next 2-3 years. Everyone else active has much more to do to even be in the discussion.

One of the saddest sights I've seen in Vegas was walking through Ceaser's shop area and Kenny Stabler was outside some store at a table with a thousand-yard stare sitting all by himself next a "Autographs $20" sign.

 

[buck naked]

Good Lord please keep this information from bostonfred.

 

[msudaisy26]

He's 50 games over .500. He's the first to have 100 more wins than losses.

No he is 100 games over .500 because he would have to lose the next game 100 games to be .500. I understand what you are saying but it isn't correct.

 

[msudaisy26]

Active QBs with enough wins to rank in the Top 100 of all-time

1. Manning 157 (#2 all-time)

2. Brady 139 (#5)

3. Brees 102 (#10)

4. Roethlisberger 87 (#26)

5. Hasselbeck 80 (#36, I didn’t know he was still active as Indy’s back-up)

6. Eli Manning 78 (#40)

7. Rivers 71 (#49)

8, tie. Ryan, Vick, and Romo 57 (#67)

11. Flacco 56 (#72)

12. Cutler 54 (#78)

13. Rodgers 53 (#79)

14. Schaub 46 (#87)

15. Alex Smith 41 (#92)

Manning and Brady are all-time greats, obviously, and I think Brees is a lock for the HOF at this point. Of the guys with 2 Super Bowls, I think Roethlisberger has already done enough to get in, but Eli is not there yet. Rivers and Hasselbeck, no way. Vick and Romo, no way. Rodgers and Ryan are the two most likely of the rest, I guess, though it's far too early to tell for either.

I forget where I read it and if I find a link I will come back and link it, but last year right before the playoffs someone talked to some of the pro football hall of fame voters and wrote an article on it. It was pretty unanimous that currently there was only 5 guys playing football at that could retire right that second and be in the hall of fame for sure. Brady, Peyton, Ray Lewis, Randy Moss, and I forget if the 5th was Champ Bailey or Ed Reed. If anyone else remembers the article please refresh my memory.

 

[drummer]

Good Lord please keep this information from bostonfred.

 

[sports_fan]

He's 50 games over .500. He's the first to have 100 more wins than losses.

No he is 100 games over .500 because he would have to lose the next game 100 games to be .500. I understand what you are saying but it isn't correct.

No, it is correct.

 

[msudaisy26]

He's 50 games over .500. He's the first to have 100 more wins than losses.

No he is 100 games over .500 because he would have to lose the next game 100 games to be .500. I understand what you are saying but it isn't correct.

No, it is correct.

No it isn't, what you are saying is if he lost 50 of those games he would be ,500 but there is another option he could have tied 50 of those games and he would still be 50 games over .500. It would be correct if winning or losing would be the only option

 

[sports_fan]

He's 50 games over .500. He's the first to have 100 more wins than losses.

No he is 100 games over .500 because he would have to lose the next game 100 games to be .500. I understand what you are saying but it isn't correct.

No, it is correct.

No it isn't, what you are saying is if he lost 50 of those games he would be ,500 but there is another option he could have tied 50 of those games and he would still be 50 games over .500. It would be correct if winning or losing would be the only option

Not according to McNabb.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

He's 50 games over .500. He's the first to have 100 more wins than losses.

Fight the good fight!

 

[MoveToSkypager]

He's 50 games over .500. He's the first to have 100 more wins than losses.

No he is 100 games over .500 because he would have to lose the next game 100 games to be .500. I understand what you are saying but it isn't correct.

No, it is correct.

No it isn't, what you are saying is if he lost 50 of those games he would be ,500 but there is another option he could have tied 50 of those games and he would still be 50 games over .500. It would be correct if winning or losing would be the only option

You are being cruel to math.