538 Calls Tom Brady the 43rd Clutchest Postseason QB

[Hootie]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...s-eli-manning/

I found the following interesting:

Here’s the problem: This way of thinking about quarterbacks forces them to compete against themselves. Sure, the Patriots have often been favored to win their postseason games. But a lot of that is because Brady is their quarterback. How might the Pats have expected to do with a replacement-level QB instead?

They might not have been totally hopeless. Brady has usually had a little bit more talent surrounding him than Peyton Manning has. (Matt Cassel, who rates as somewhere between average and replacement-level, led New England to an 11-5 record when Brady was hurt in 2008.) Bill Belichick would probably have snuck them into the playoffs a few times. But they’d also have been playing good opponents. Our method projects them to a 12-14 or 13-13 postseason record rather than Brady’s 18-8.

I calculate these estimates based on a quarterback’s adjusted net yards per attempt (ANY/A), a metric that accounts for yardage, attempts, touchdowns, interceptions and sacks — basically it’s a better version of the NFL’s passer rating. A replacement-level quarterback typically posts an ANY/A at about 80 percent of the league average, so a QB gets credit for any performance above and beyond that.1 I then translate this into points added or subtracted in the regular season2 and translate points into a team’s Elo rating to evaluate the impact the QB had on his team overall.3

It’s notoriously difficult, of course, to distinguish the performance of a quarterback from that of his teammates, but this method produces some reasonable-seeming results. This year’s Green Bay Packers project as a slightly below-average team with a replacement-level guy subbed in for Aaron Rodgers , for instance. Instead of having been 59 percent favorites in their Sunday game against the Cowboys, as they were based on Elo ratings, they’d have been roughly 2-to-1 underdogs.

The principle is simply that the better the quarterback, the more his team would be harmed by removing him. In the case of Peyton Manning’s teams, I estimate that pulling Manning would hurt them by about a touchdown (7 points) per game. That’s enough to demote them to a projected 8-16 record in the 24 postseason games Manning has played.

This article projects that, with a replacement level QB, The Patriots postseason record would have been 12-14 or 13-13 without Tom Brady (they are taking out the Bledsoe game).

It projects that Manning's teams would have been 8-16 without Peyton Manning.

Pretty much has always been my point. Manning has a history of not playing like God in the playoffs, but he has always had a hell of a lot more on his shoulders than Tom Brady. And the whole idea of the "Tom doesn't have enough weapons!!!" is criminally stupid.

[LoneWolf]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

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

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

[RobBlake]

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.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

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.

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.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

lousy formula

riiiiiight

coldhardfootballfacts.com

!!!!

And we're back to Hootie gotta Hootie.

[RobBlake]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

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.

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

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

the 2001 SB Patriots?



You really want to go there?

Tuck rule. Drew Bledsoe.

LMFAO

Besides, I thought Manning was terrible until 2003.

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.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by RobBlake

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

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.

[SAUTO]

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

[RobBlake]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

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.

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

[Mother****erJones]

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.

[Hootie]

Originally Posted by Mother****erJones

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

[Hootie]

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.

[Mother****erJones]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

by the 1st metric used for Brady?

like 171

Interesting.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

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.

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.

[Easy 6]

Originally Posted by Iconic

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

www.coldhardfootballcrap.com