I've never been a staunch proponent of WAR, but I understand why people use it. WAR has been around for a number of years and baseball in general is easier to analyze through statistics. The article you posted uses an equation made up by one guy who has an agenda.

But he's talking about football! Doesn't matter that he's almost always wrong and admittedly said himself he's trolling

Nate Silver has an agenda?

That article actually had nothing to do with Peyton Manning or Tom Brady. Well, Peyton Manning a little bit.

I used his analysis to spawn this thread.

I found the WAR measurement to be interesting.

12.6 - 13.4
8 - 16

By that metric, replacement level QB is supposed to go 1-1 in the playoffs playing instead of Tom Brady and 1-2 in the playoffs playing instead of Peyton Manning.

Kinda dispels the notion Brady has never had enough weapons...

Unless you don't agree with WAR. I follow advanced statistics, Nate Silver is a highly respected advanced statistics guy ... so it's not gospel.

Pretty sure if it said something like :

Tom Brady : 8 - 18
Peyton Manning : 12 - 12

everyone would be like "omg hahahahah omg Peyton hahahah omg so bad!"

But, instead, it painted a picture that Tom has been on better teams his whole career so now it's just a nonsense agenda.

YEP.

GOT IT.

NOT ENOUGH WEAPONS!

Dear guy no one has ever heard of:

I said, in one post, the THREAD TITLE was a TROLL meant to GARNER ATTENTION.

At no other point in this thread, other than the knive juggling post, was a trolling anyone.

I've tried to discuss the featured article on ESPN.com's fivethirtyeight written by Nate Silver.

But, instead, the usual suspects showed up to tell me I'm pathetic, which, is pretty hypocritical considering I can post this thread once a day and get 500 responses every single time by the same 5 guys.

All I want is REAL DISCUSSION!

Tom : 12.6 - 13.4
Peyton: 8 - 16

REPLACEMENT LEVEL QB

DISCUSS!

PLEASE!

Suffers from the same problem all QB metrics do: isolating the effect of QB play. Stats like adjusted yards per attempt are great at measuring the effectiveness of a team's passing attack, which is whole lot more than QB performance.

I don't see how the idea of a replacement level QB solves the issue at all. You're simply measuring the Green Bay (or whoever) passing attack versus the average passing attack of a team with an injured QB, not Aaron Rodgers. Aaron Rodgers is a great QB, not doubt, but his coach and GM are pretty good, too. Didn't Flynn set some club records a few years ago?

You really shouldn't be surprised that if you cover yourself with shit, people will tell you smell, Hootie. That doesn't make it a good thing.

Hootie, when posters say that Brady hasn't had the same caliber of weapons as Manning, they are talking about offensive weapons. If you want to include their defenses, fine, but you are arguing with yourself when you choose to do that. Nobody in their right mind is saying Manning has had the same type of defenses on his teams that Brady has.

Weapons are weapons, bro. Tom has had better teams in more postseason games than Peyton, and it clearly isn't close

Stop trolling me or I'll report you. I can't handle it.

I'm trying to help you.

I agree, but nobody calls a teams defense a weapon when talking about a quarterback's play.

Oh. Nice! Thanks so much man. I really appreciate it.

You're welcome.

Matt Cassel 12 playoff wins ROFL

This thread is the stupidest ****ing thing ill read all day. JFC. 9 AFC championship appearances and Brady is trash and Manning is god. Get real.

Well we do know nine one and dones could be had by a replacement level QB

Just more confirmation that Brady has had a ton of help in getting the postseason wins he's had, which shouldn't be a surprise to anybody.

The biggest joke is the notion that Manning > Brady because Cassel won 11 games with the Patriots and Curtis ****ing Painter/Kerry Collins won 2. Is Curtis Painter even in the league anymore? And Kerry Collins was what, 38? Not to mentioned they waited til 2 weeks til the regular season to sign the broke bastard. That whole season in Indy was a shitfest because they wanted Luck.

Well, he'd already won the first thread, before he even posted in it (as he said), so time for a new thread for him to win.

out of 26 with Belichick as coach scheming his opponent?

is that really out of the realm of possibility? Remember, it wasn't Cassel getting them to the playoffs in this scenario. Tom and Peyton were still the regular season QB's.

This is Cassel starting instead of Brady in 26 playoff games. And Cassel starting instead of Manning in 24 playoff games (assuming Cassel is replacement level exactly).

Nate Silver concluded in this scenario Cassel goes 12.6 - 13.4 with the Pats and 8 - 16 with the Colts / Broncos in playoff games started by those two HOF QB's.

Mark Sanchez is ranked #9 above Andrew Luck, Roethlisberger, and Russell Wilson. Lol.

I think you can do alot of things with numbers and stats, but what 538 is trying to do here seems way beyond the pale.

But putting all that aside, your post above sort of clinches the entire debate. Tom OUTPERFORMS expected wins, and Peyton UNDERperforms expected wins.

And that, really, is all anyone is saying about playoff performance.

Thanks for blowing up your own argument. Well done. Time to quit while you're so far behind it isn't even funny.

http://www.superiorsilkscreen.com/34...-was-first.jpg

where are you reading Brady is trash? where are you reading Manning is God? Please link me to where this has been said.

Thank you.

I'm honestly somewhat skeptical about WAR in football, regardless of the whole Brady thing.

The bottom line is baseball is barely a team game at all. It's essentially a long series of one-on-one matchups, and other than some fielding things (double plays, etc.), those one-on-one matchups determine everything.

Football involves many one-on-one matchups, of course. Two linemen facing off, and a receiver versus a CB, but they all occur within teh context of the team effort. There isn't a TON of talk about offensive line cohesion and communication because it just boils down to five guys "winning their [individual] battles", and a WRs/TEs route tree, decision whether to break off a route early, etc., isn't about one-on-one at all. It's about coordination wth the quarterback.

Stated differently, NFL players dont' plug and play nearly as well as baseball players in my view.

it's tougher for Peyton to win because he has to play flawless football to win playoff games, as evidenced by the 8 - 16 expected postseason record with a replacement level player at QB

Tom, just average, as evidenced by 12.6 - 13.4 expected postseason record.

Must be nice, to have all those weapons. No?

Never align yourself with Prison Bitch. And if you do find yourself aligned with his viewpoint, seriously consider why you're wrong, because the odds are very, VERY high that you are.

"PROOF"

Forgot to carry the 7, dumbass.

For instance,

When Tom Brady last won an AFC Championship Game, he admitted he played terrible, and his team picked him up. I mean, it's a direct quote:

Must be nice to only have to play replacement level football and still have a 50/50 shot of winning.

I'm sorry that you're so pathetic as to fall back on an obviously horribly flawed analysis in order to try scoring clearly non-existent points.

Then again, you wouldn't be Hootie...

I most certainly do not.

But he parades around the Royals thread using WAR as the "be-all-end-all" yet, when I make a football thread with a WAR theme he berates me for it.

So, technically, I am not aligned with PB at all ... but I do agree with your assessment in that regard.

whoa whoa whoa

NATE SILVER, BACKED BY ESPN.COM, PRINTS HORRIBLY FLAWED ANALYSIS, BUT COLDHARDFOOTBALLFACTS.COM, A BOSTON WEBSITE WITH A BOSTON WRITER, IS GOSPEL WHEN IT COMES TO THE TOM BRADY / PEYTON MANNING DEBATE?

Hilarious.

Hahahahahahaha.

I get it, man. No matter how reeruned he comes off as a result, Hootie gotta Hootie.

It's all good. :thumb:

Brady is better in a dome because he has a 2 game sample size ... /coldhardfootballfacts.com

you're right

Nate Silver who has made a living using advanced statistics and partnered up with ESPN.com always has 'horribly flawed analysis.'

But Coldhardfootballfacts.com, a website clearly everyone has heard of and clearly isn't a Boston fan boy website that clearly isn't owned by a guy who writes for a Boston paper (oh wait, yes it is), has amazing factual evidence and amazing, well thought out analysis (minus the 'Tom Brady is better in a dome with his 5 game sample size')...

Nope.

Patriot fans aren't hypocrites at all!

JFC LMAO

You called on a site (ESPN) that came up with the abomination known as QBR in support of Silver's formula.

It's doesn't get much stupider than that.

I pay no attention to baseball threads, so I will take your word for it. Sounds like we have one thing we agree on.

The real problem for you here is that you posted this link to prove one thing -- that Brady's teams (absent Brady) have been better than Manning's teams (absent Manning).

The other thing the article "proves" is that Brady has outperformed his team's expected wins, while Manning has underperformed them. Specifically, Brady has gotten 1.2 MORE wins than ELO projected, and Manning has gotten 2.2 FEWER wins than ELO projected.

1.2 more wins and 2.2 fewer wins doesn't sound like much, but in the context of the number of games played, it's significant. Brady wins 5% MORE than he "should", and Manning wins 10% LESS than he "should".

So who is more clutch?

But let's put all that aside. I think it's basically all junk science. None of it holds any water at all with me.

That QBR thing is whacky. Hootie keeps mentioning Brady got an 8 QBR in one game, but if it's the game I think it is, Brady wasn't that bad. 2 TDs, 1 Int, 65% completion rating.

Maybe I'm looking at the wrong game, but seriously, if that results in a near-zero QBR, then QBR is kinda messed up. Unless 0 QBR is flatline average and you can get a negative score, or soemthing.

Note I'm not necessarily a huge fan of passer rating either. It also has issues.

I have tremendous respect for Silver's political analysis. I think he's a very bright guy.

This QB WAR thing though. I'm beyond skeptical.

BRady > Peyton in the post season. its not even close. If anyone thinks Peyton is better than brady in the post season then thats all you gotta know about their football intelligence and must grasp to statistics and not actually watching the game.. not only watching the game, but understanding what you are watching.

The issue with that is that you're comparing the QB to himself, essentially. If QB A and QB B play identically in the postseason, but QB A played better in the regular season, using that method would show that QB B was better in the postseason, when in reality, they played the same.

His second analysis shows those QBs against a replacement, rather than against their regular season selves. That's where the 18-8 vs 13-13 and 11-13 vs 8-16 comes from.

Oh it does.

Care to guess?

Ok I'll spoil it!

COLDHARDFOOTBALLFACTS.COM

And, once again, Hootie gotta Hootie.

and This.

and I never once said that the article in question proves that Manning is better than Brady in the postseason. People are grasping at straws on that one.

THE POINT OF THE THREAD IS TO SHOW WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING FOR YEARS:

BRADY ISN'T REALLY THAT CLUTCH. HE'S GOOD. BUT CLUTCH ISN'T THE WAY TO DESCRIBE HIM.

AND BRADY HAS HAD MORE WEAPONS ON HIS TEAM THAN ANYONE IN NFL HISTORY.

My God, A REPLACEMENT LEVEL QB, statistically would've played .500 football in the 26 postseason games Brady started ACCORDING to Nate Silver's advanced statistics.

No, this isn't proof that Matt Cassel would've gone 13-13 in the postseason in those 26 games. It's just advanced statistics. So brush them off, I don't care.

Pretty sure if these same statistics said Brady's teams would've been 8 - 18 and Manning's 12 - 12 everyone would've ROFL'D AND LMAO'D all over the place.

No double standard, at all!

Ad hominem. Attack the numbers, not the source. You're wasting time with this.

I'm not attacking Silver, or 538. I'm attacking the methodology which I think is sketchy at best. Basically, it's ok for discussion I guess, but I can't really feel any confidence at all in the numbers. Just too many variables. Waaaay too many variables.

You've brought brilliant analysis to this thread.

So, the advanced statistics say a replacement level QB would've gone 13-13 in Brady started (and finished) playoff games and the same replacement level QB would've gone 8-16 in Manning started (and finished) playoff games.

And you're rebuttal is ...

"Uh Nate Silver is dumb. Hootie gotta Hootie."

Brilliant.

Tom Brady has had better postseason teams than Peyton Manning. That is the premise of the argument. Tell me why this isn't true?

You've gone full Hootie on this. You seriously want to argue that any of his teams (excluding Brady) were the MOST talented teams in NFL history?

You're frothing at the mouth, and getting stupider. You need to stop.

unless he concluded that the replacement QB for the Pats would've gone 8-18 and for Manning 12-12 ...

and then you would've just said, "omg see!"

Kind of like that website you flaunt around coldhardfootballfacts.com.

Hypocrites.

You brought up a site with one lousy formula to defend another site with a lousy formula. When I pointed out the stupidity of that maneuver, your response was to bring up a third site that I hadn't mentioned in the thread.

You're an idiot.

That's not at all what I'm arguing.

It's quite simple.

A replacement level QB + 52 Patriots in 26 postseason games (they excluded the Bledsoe game) would have won 12.6 games and lost 13.4 games.

A replacement level QB + 52 Colts or 52 Broncos in 24 postseason games would have won 8 games and lost 16.

In conclusion, Tom Brady CLEARLY played on better teams than Peyton Manning where CLEARLY he didn't have to shoulder as much of the load to ensure a playoff victory.

That's Tom Brady after winning the AFC Championship Game against Baltimore in the Lee Evans / Billy Cundiff game.

So, first, you can post whatever you like, but others can create new arguments. The new argument I am introducing is that the same numbers YOU cite say Manning has UNDERperformed expected wins in the playoffs, while Brady has OUTperformed expected wins.

You havent' responded, presumably because you can't.


As to your question, I think some of Brady's teams have been better than anything Manning had. Specifically, 2004 and 2007. OTOH, I think some years Manning had better teams than, for example, the 2001 SB winning Patriots. That team's roster was a joke.

But bottom line -- like the article YOU cite says, my eyes have told me that Brady gets as much or MORE out of every team than can reasonably be had (exception of 2007 SB, when the Giants DLine dominating the offense), while Manning, well, doesn't.

Now, instead of attacking me, explain to me what this means in your honest opinion.

Go.

(To me, it means that Tom Brady has benefited from having better all-around teams. Better all-around teams usually win more playoff games. The end)

Your turn.

It means that someone put together yet another lousy formula, and you're clutching desperately at the flimsiest of straws.

the 2001 SB Patriots?

LMAO

You really want to go there?

Tuck rule. Drew Bledsoe.

LMFAO

Besides, I thought Manning was terrible until 2003.

lousy formula

riiiiiight

coldhardfootballfacts.com

!!!!

A replacement level QB + 52 Patriots in 26 postseason games (they excluded the Bledsoe game) would have won 12.6 games and lost 13.4 games.

A replacement level QB + 52 Colts or 52 Broncos in 24 postseason games would have won 8 games and lost 16.

I present to you Hootie's scarlet letter of football stupidity.

Manning has had more first round talent and higher graded talent overall in his career than Brady has EVER had. Stop with that bullshit. Manning has had way better talent than Brady.

Do you happen to have any quotes handy for the game the Colts won against the Ravens in 2006 when Manning went 15 for 30 for 170 yards, with zero TDs and two interceptions, on the way to winning the Super Bowl?

Because if he didn't say he sucked, and that he's happy his teammates bailed him out, then he wasn't very honest.

When he had three picks against only one touchdown against the Chiefs in the 2006 playoffs, and yet his team won? Did he mention his suckitude and tahnk his teammates for that?

How about when he was 14 for 31 with two picks and zero TDs against the Jets in the playoffs in 2002? They lost that one 41-0 against Herm Edwards and Chad Pennington. Did he admit how much he sucked in that one?

When he was 23 for 47 with FOUR picks against the Patriots in the 2003 playoffs? Did he say how much he sucked?

You're endlessly stupid. It's seriously old.

And we're back to Hootie gotta Hootie. LMAO

or how he had 70 yards of offense in the first half of this past game?

Or how he was completely blown out vs SEA.

Or how he won the SB vs a Rex Grossman led team.

Or how he choked vs the Saints.

I highly doubt Peyton on the patriots vs Ravens would have came back twice from 14 pt deficits

The Tuck Rule was a rule. Nobody liked the rule, but there are plenty of rules people don't like. The Dez Bryant controversy is another one. It was correctly called.

And Bledsoe played a not-terrible half of a game in that playoff run. Good for him. Brady still saved the season (Patriots were 0-2 under Bledsoe to start the season, and went 5-11 with him the prior year), and won the Super Bowl.

There's a reason why the phrase "going full Hootie" is popular around here. You can keep arguing the same thing over and over and over, but it doesn't get any more right, or less stupid, by repitition.

Not this year, certainly, but it's not really fair to hold this year against him. He was god-awful the second half of the year, and Father Time has seemingly caught up to him in a big way.

He couldnt' do diddily against a not-great Colts defense.

HOW MUCH WEIGHT DID WHO WAS FAVORED CARRY IN THE MATHEMATICAL EQUATION?

I agree. Let us also take into consideration of longevity.. brady still looks like he can go another 3-4 years

So if Brady is 43rd what's that make Peyton? Peyton has had better weapons. The only time Brady has had better weapons is when he had Moss and Welker.

by the 1st metric used for Brady?

like 171

I just think it's funny that Nate Silver analyzes postseason clutch factor, determines the Pats would've gone 13-13 with a replacement level QB, and then the Pats fans come here and shit all over it and call it terrible analysis ...

Would love to have seen it it was turned around.

Tom 8-18
Peyton 12-12

It would have been great analysis and well researched if that was the case.

So, in essence, this thread is exactly what I expected. Amnorix and Just Passin' By never let me down.

They are both more qualified to analyze QB's than Nate Silver.

Interesting.

You started yet another troll thread, no doubt specifically to draw Amnorix and I into it. You're reaping what you sowed. And appealing to the authority of Nate Silver isn't going to change that. He's not going to miraculously save your dumb ass.

LMAO

www.coldhardfootballcrap.com

Yeah. It's interesting, actually. Manning is only about 18 months older than Brady, but because he came into the league younger and started earlier, he has played WAAY more games. 256 to Brady's 209. That 47 game difference is just one shy of three full years.

It will be interesting to see how much longer both of them play. If the second half of the season si where Manning is now, physically, then he ought to retire. Brady, meanwhile, doesn't look all that bad for his advanced years. There was a LONG article on his unusual workout routine designed in part to extend his career.

Fitness nuts might find it interesting.

http://www.si.com/nfl/2014/12/10/tom...ts-age-fitness

This whole discussion is missing a heaping bowl of regular season to playoff falloff.

Manning has plenty of record breaking seasons followed by squaddush.

Brady has plenty of pitched regular season battles followed by nutting up to the SB.

I responded, but only once, so I understand if you didn't see it.

They're 2 all-time great QBs. You guys are just splitting hairs really.

Second? Shit I wish it was just the second. He's going Bobtard stupid and shitting on every thread.

Here's the thing Hootie; clutch is a SUBJECTIVE term based on OPINION. It's a team game. These are performances spread over various years, against uncommon opponents, with varying teammates, varying weather conditions, varying officiating crews, etc etc.

There aren't going to be stats that prove or disprove this. People may use stats to try and support their argument, but they will never be definitive.

At the end of the day, you hold an opinion that very few people agree with. It's such an uncommon opinion, you're very unlikely to change anyone's opinion. So it's time to let it go.

Sanchez isn't really ranked #9 on the list we're referencing that Brady is #6 on, for the record.

He's #9 on the Brady is #43 list.

So ...


A replacement level QB + 52 Patriots in 26 postseason games (they excluded the Bledsoe game) would have won 12.6 games and lost 13.4 games.

A replacement level QB + 52 Colts or 52 Broncos in 24 postseason games would have won 8 games and lost 16.

Anyone wanna tell me Brady doesn't have enough weapons? I'm still waiting for someone to explain this one to me.

If you don't buy the formula, the reported results are meaningless. That should have been easy enough for you to figure out. Even Silver understood that, and tweaked things.

Silver on that very list:


I love that you're ignoring the whole

"Brady at 6, Manning way down at 28" part, though.

Hootie gotta Hootie.

I haven't talked about the 'somewhat ridiculous list' one time.

I've talked about the 12.6 - 13.4 and the 8 - 16

Premise: Tom Brady has QB'd better teams than Peyton Manning. Thus, it's not strange he has more playoff wins than Peyton Manning.

The end.