Tom Brady Best QB Ever!!!!!!

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]
im proly missing some other old guys. was namath any good?

[/ QUOTE ]

namath had more interceptions than touchdowns.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
im proly missing some other old guys. was namath any good?

[/ QUOTE ]

namath had more interceptions than touchdowns.

[/ QUOTE ]

And Bradshaw almost did.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
Assani,

First of all, you can find Manning's playoff stats here.


Let's go back over those playoff losses. In 1999 Manning was in only his second year, and his team overachieved in the W-L department to a ridiculous degree (FootballOutsiders has them ranked 17th that year on a per-play basis, behind six 8-8 teams). Keep in mind that Tennessee was also 13-3 that year, while the Colts' defense was awful. They lost by three points to a superior team.

[/ QUOTE ]

They lost at home coming off a bye. That's a bad loss.

[ QUOTE ]

In '02, Manning sure did have a bad game against an arguably weaker opponent. However, keep in mind that the entire team got blown the [censored] out, so to pin the loss on Manning is misleading. You don't lose 41-0 because your QB isn't clutch.

[/ QUOTE ]

However, they got behind huge early due in part to his poor play. Then they simply quit, which certainly isn't a testament to his in-question leadership skills.

[ QUOTE ]
In '03, the Colts lost to an excellent Patriots team that went on to win the Super Bowl. Manning threw four INTs in what was his only bad playoff game of the last three years.

[/ QUOTE ]

So somehow this game didn't exist?

[ QUOTE ]
In '04 the Colts again lost to the Super Bowl Champion Patriots, an even stronger team this year than last. The Colts' receivers drop lots of balls, Corey Dillon runs wild through Indy's defense, and Edgerrin James rushes 14 times for 39 yards. Manning has a mediocre day (27-42, 238, 1 INT), but this loss is all about his supporting cast and defense getting destroyed by New England.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the loss was all about Mr 49 TD's inability to move the offense. The defense gave the team more than enough opportunity to win. Heck it was 13-3 til midway through the 4th quarter! This was in some people's opinions the greatest offense of all time. Yet they only scored 3 points, and it should've been 0 since the play preceding the pre-halftime FG was a dropped interception. Was the D supposed to pitch a shutout for the greatest offense ever? He was simply awful, far worse than the stats indicated.

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, the '05 Colts lost to the Super Bowl Champion Steelers. It was a game that Indy probably should have won, but Pittsburgh, it's defense in particular, was playing at a ridiculously high level by that point. Despite a slow start, a poorly conceived blocking scheme, and a phenomenal opposing defense, Manning has a pretty good day (22-38, 290, 1 TD, 0 INT). The Colts outplay the Steelers for most of the game, and their idiot kicker honks the game-tying figgie.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, "the Colts outplay the Steelers for most of the game". WTF were you watching?? By all rights the game should've been a 4 score blowout. That was as thorough an ass-kicking as one will ever see given how misleadingly close the final score was. Again, a massive 2-TD favorite at home, he lays an egg. Given an amazing opportunity to salvage the season of a team that some thought good enough to go undefeated, he completely mismanages the 2-minute drill and leaves them with a longer than desireable FG attempt. Also telling, he doesn't even really attempt to try and actually win the game.


[ QUOTE ]
He's performed well in big games

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, I guess we have different definitions of "well". This isn't Trent Dilfer. This is arguably one of the best QB's of all time. 27/42 0TDs, 1INT is not a "mediocre" day for him. It's horrid. 22-38, 1TD, 0INT at home as a 2TD favorite when trailing and trying to come from behind isn't a "pretty good day", it's poor.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I most definitely see something that you can't: Clutchness. Brady is clutch. Manning is not. . .

But see thats just too much of a coincidence for me. Eventually the onus has to fall on Manning. Everywhere he has been since college, his teams have looked great when the games aren't all that important, but then his teams have lost the big games. And his stats in the pros in those big games clearly show that a big part of it is his fault. And the fact that his team got better(as you yourself said) after he left college is telling imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

I recently read a comparison that made sense to me: this "clutchness" thing is like a religion. There's no way to prove or disprove it, but some people think they can feel it, and there's no point in telling them that they're wrong.

So I'm not going to try to convince that you're wrong about Brady's being clutch. But, please, consider the role that variance and sample size could play in your perceptions. Even if every pro football player was exactly as clutch as every other player, there would still be some players who performed extremely well in their "clutch" situations, and some who performed extremely poorly.

Brady's an excellent QB who has performed superbly in his high-leverage situations. Manning's an excellent QB who has performed only pretty well in his high-leverage situations. Does that say something about their character or abilities, or does it say something about their contexts and random chance? I don't know, but I don't think you do, either.


[/ QUOTE ]

See, we get carried away with crap like "variance" because this is a poker forum. It is not difficult to observe Manning, how he acts, his mannerisms, his decisions, etc. and see the difference in his performance in these games relative to his normal excellence. Phil Mickelson wasn't "unlucky" to have not won more majors earlier in his career. He made bad decisions. He started playing more conservatively, and he suddenly starts winning. He gets a brain cramp and reverts to the "old Phil", and he blows a major. That stuff ain't variance. It's in his head. Same with Manning. The dude is way, way too talented to need all these convoluted excuses. And the reason he does, isn't because of bad luck. It's because he's a nervious, can't handle the pressure choker.

[SuperUberBob]

Not MVP. Not best QB.

Elway, Montana, Marino, Favre and possibly Young and Kelly all beat him.

If Manning ever wins a Super Bowl, he'll beat Brady as well.

[tuq]

Clark, sorry to sound like a fanboi, but that analysis was superb.

Assani, Manning's won at every level except college and the pros. I think you're asking a bit much of him.

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
Um, I guess we have different definitions of "well". This isn't Trent Dilfer. This is arguably one of the best QB's of all time. 27/42 0TDs, 1INT is not a "mediocre" day for him. It's horrid. 22-38, 1TD, 0INT at home as a 2TD favorite when trailing and trying to come from behind isn't a "pretty good day", it's poor.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I don't get. Manning has a pretty decent game against an amazing defense while he's playing on the road in the snow. He's at a huge, huge disadvantage coming into the game because the HFA for the Pats is massive. The whole offense collapses around him, and somehow this becomes evidence that he's a choker.

It's also funny that the definition of "big game" is "any game the Colts lost." What about his 3 wins in the playoffs? Weren't those big games?

[Pudge714]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Um, I guess we have different definitions of "well". This isn't Trent Dilfer. This is arguably one of the best QB's of all time. 27/42 0TDs, 1INT is not a "mediocre" day for him. It's horrid. 22-38, 1TD, 0INT at home as a 2TD favorite when trailing and trying to come from behind isn't a "pretty good day", it's poor.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I don't get. Manning has a pretty decent game against an amazing defense while he's playing on the road in the snow. He's at a huge, huge disadvantage coming into the game because the HFA for the Pats is massive. The whole offense collapses around him, and somehow this becomes evidence that he's a choker.

It's also funny that the definition of "big game" is "any game the Colts lost." What about his 3 wins in the playoffs? Weren't those big games?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you about this however more is excepted of him Peyton because he such a good QB. It's similar to A-Rod and the Yankees until he wins a World Series/ Super Bowl nothing will be enough.

[VarlosZ]

Clarkmeister:

I don't want to get into one of those things were we each reply to 20 different parts of the others posts, so I'll just stick to a few things that stick out. If you really want more responses, let me know.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In '03, the Colts lost to an excellent Patriots team that went on to win the Super Bowl. Manning threw four INTs in what was his only bad playoff game of the last three years.

[/ QUOTE ]
So somehow this game doesn't exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Of course it exists, that's why I included it in the list and called it a bad game. WTF? My point is that Manning has this reputation of sucking balls in the playoffs, but in the last three years he's had six playoff games, and this is the only one you could point to as simply a bad game.

[ QUOTE ]
First, "the Colts outplay the Steelers for most of the game". WTF were you watching??

[/ QUOTE ]

Think before you speak. The Steelers dominated the first quarter and got two touchdowns out of it. For the rest of the game, the Colts outgained the Steelers 285-156 and won the turnover battle 2-0. It just wasn't quite enough to overcome the awful start.

[ QUOTE ]
By all rights the game should've been a 4 score blowout.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the game, the Colts outgained the Steelers and won the turnover battle by two. But tell me again about the 4 score blowout?

[ QUOTE ]
Given an amazing opportunity to salvage the season of a team that some thought good enough to go undefeated, he completely mismanages the 2-minute drill and leaves them with a longer than desireable FG attempt. Also telling, he doesn't even really attempt to try and actually win the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Argggghhhhh!!!

The Colts had 2nd and 2 on the 28 yard line with about 23 seconds left. At that point, he "really attempts to try and actually win the game" by throwing two passes to the end zone. Given that he has the most accurate kicker in NFL history waiting in the wings, and that a win in overtime is no sure thing, this was probably the right decision.

I think Manning did the right thing at the end, but if you disagree with what he did you can criticisize him for not getting into better field goal position. If you somehow don't think those passes count as trying to win the game, then you can criticize him for not trying to win (I guess). You cannot criticize him for both, which is exactly what you did, somehow.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He's performed well in big games

[/ QUOTE ]
Um, I guess we have different definitions of "well". This isn't Trent Dilfer. This is arguably one of the best QB's of all time. 27/42 0TDs, 1INT is not a "mediocre" day for him. It's horrid. 22-38, 1TD, 0INT at home as a 2TD favorite when trailing and trying to come from behind isn't a "pretty good day", it's poor.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the past three years, Manning has played in six playoff games. Five of them have been against opponents whose defenses ranged from "very good" to "excellent," and three of whom wouldn't be stopped by anyone that year. In those six games, he posted a QB rating of 103.1 . . . and yet everyone talks about how Manning can't get it done, and how he's a choker. But, cripes, look at the numbers; don't you think there might be something else going on here?

This really is "truthiness" in action. I feel it to be true, thereofore I know it's the truth, in spite of what the facts say.

[ QUOTE ]
See, we get carried away with crap like "variance" because this is a poker forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's much more likely to be the other way around. Poker is a game whose mechanics we understand completely, so we're able to see exactly hom much variance is involved in short-term results. Football is a game with more abstract mechanics, but that doesn't mean that variance plays any less of a role. It just means that we can't see the variance nearly as well, and in those cases it's always more fun (and thus more intuitive) to explain events in terms of ability rather than luck.

Say Manning has a 35% chance to beat the Patriots in '03, a 40% chance in '04, and a 60% chance to beat the Steelers in '05. If he loses each game, is it because he's a choker, or because that's going to happen about 16% of the time no matter what? Or what if Manning plays six very tough playoff games in three years, and the odds say he should expect win about about half of them. If he actually does win half of them, how does that make him a choker?

Again, imagine, for the sake of argument, that every NFL player is exactly as clutch as every other player. Due to variance, there are still going to be a handful of players who seem to "choke" in big spots, and these players would get killed for not being clutch, even if that had nothing to do with it. How do you know that this isn't what you're doing to Manning? Because he looks unhappy when he's losing?

[rwperu34]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

yea, put Kurt Warner on the list but not Aikman, WELL DONE BRO

Brady is a great player, but this thread at this time is ridiculous, which is why I (and I guarentee a lot of others), will not waste my time arguing with a bunch of homers.


[/ QUOTE ]


Kurt Warner is on the "peak" list. His peak was 4,000,0000,0000,0000,0,0,0,0,0,,,00000,,00000 times better than Aikman.

[/ QUOTE ]

yea, if you base everything on stats, which I'm guessing you didnt or you wouldn't have made this thread

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm just trying to figure out some way possible that Aikman could possibly have had a better peak than Warner? If you can make some kind of argument, please do, becaue Warner dominated him in stats and won a Super Bowl, two NFC championchips, and two NFL MVP's in three seasons.

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
im proly missing some other old guys. was namath any good?

[/ QUOTE ]

namath had more interceptions than touchdowns.

[/ QUOTE ]most overrated player of all time. Not even in my top 100 all time QBs.