Sports: NFL

[Dad_Scaper]

Originally Posted by AMIS

So I do recognize your hatred for them and I even understand it...as I said before guess success breads contempt.

This is literally the opposite of "understanding" it. I say I don't hate them for winning, I list other reasons (led by assholes; fans are often insufferably entitled), then you say you understand me and then you repeat yourself, instead of addressing what I actually wrote.

You’re doing a terrible job of “trying not to sneer,” in that you are insisting that it is the Patriots' success that is why people hate them. Actually, it is *precisely that attitude among the fans* that is why many people hate the Patriots. Without meaning to do it, you are acting exactly like the reason why people hate the Patriots. Their fans can’t or won’t acknowledge anything or talk past “you hate us cuz you ain’t us.” Remember one of the reasons that I, and others, listed above: their fans are irritating.

Moving on: Do you really think an NFL quarterback doesn’t have precise control over the condition of the balls he’ll be throwing? Do you think if Brady had nothing to hide, he’d be destroying evidence and interfering with witnesses? As for a four-game suspension, (1) that’s nothing, particularly for a team that was a second time offender, and (2) just because he served a short suspension doesn’t mean we all forgot he cheated, with the help of New England Patriots staffers.

Go back to your Patriots fan sites if you want for your football news. This is the world outside. We will not pretend they aren't institutional cheaters; we won't pretend they aren't led by a couple of jerks; we won't pretend they have not, for years, been very fortunate with officiating in the postseason. Go ahead and root for them if you want; my brother does. But he knows that the team is led by jerks, and they cheat when they think they can get away with it, and they sometimes get dazzlingly lucky with calls or non-calls.

Edit: Consider this. Someone here made the point that the Jacksonville game would have been very different, and likely with a different outcome, if a ref didn’t prematurely blow a whistle on Myles Jack. That is undeniably true. And your response was “no, the difference was experience vs. inexperience,” which is to say it was the game was decided by the winning ways of the New England Patriots. That’s acting entitled, it’s not even analysis of the game played on the field, and it’s stuff like that that sets off fans of other teams. Now you know.

Edit 2: I hated the Cowboys when I was younger because of the "America's Team" thing, as Hahma says, below. I hate them now because they have, for no good reason, become the Cincinnati of the South, signing a bunch of criminals when they don't have to. Completely different from why I don't like the Patriots.

[Hahma]

I've always hated the Cowboys since the 70's, not for their success, but because they were forced down our throats as America's team. F that!

Also Walter Payton was better than Emmitt Smith...just saying.

I've always been fine with the 49rs, Steelers, Broncos etc. So successful teams don't bother me. Just like there's no reason for anyone to hate on the Blackhawks with their 3 Stanley Cups in the past decade or the Bulls with their run in the 90's.

[dok]

Originally Posted by japes

And how far did Cassel take that team in the playoffs...oh that right they didn't make it to the playoffs that year.

Are we blaming Cassel for the 2008 Pats being one of the, I think, two 11-win teams in my lifetime to not qualify for the playoffs? If he had been clutch like Brady then the Browns would have beaten the Ravens and the Pats get the 6 seed? I really don't understand your point.

Originally Posted by japes

to say that any good QB would have won all those Super Bowls is doing a disservices.

I didn't say that. I said Peyton Manning and Aaron Rogers would have won those Super Bowls if they had been the Pats QB. You know, two future HoFers.

As I said, I think Brady is one of the top 5 QBs of all time. I just don't think he's the best. I don't think we should confuse team success with individual greatness.

Originally Posted by AMIS

I said before guess success breads contempt.

Does victory leaven it?

[japes]

Originally Posted by dok

I didn't say that. I said Peyton Manning and Aaron Rogers would have won those Super Bowls if they had been the Pats QB. You know, two future HoFers.

Notice I steered clear of arguing the Aaron Rogers side...I agree there. I did however argue Peyton Manning...Not that I think Peyton is a significant drop but just different...My argument was that its a combination of the right guy in the right place with the right coach...all have to coexist and I don't think Peyton Manning works out to 4 SB with NE...

Like saying Jim Kelly with the 49rs and Joe Montana with the Bills gets you the same results...Two different style QB's..

I also think Manning does share some of the blame for not winning more. He had opportunities where he came up short.

It also seems like some people think Brady is just the Troy Aikman of this generation where all of his success happens to just be luck of the draft.

[dok]

Originally Posted by japes

Notice I steered clear of arguing the Aaron Rogers side...I agree there. I did however argue Peyton Manning...Not that I think Peyton is a significant drop but just different...My argument was that its a combination of the right guy in the right place with the right coach...all have to coexist and I don't think Peyton Manning works out to 4 SB with NE...

[...]

I also think Manning does share some of the blame for not winning more. He had opportunities where he came up short.

The evidence just doesn't support this. I mean... yes, he came up short, but he didn't actually do worse. It's just that his teams put him in worse situations. Our pattern-seeking brains love to create a narrative to explain the results we see, but sometimes the easy explanation is wrong, and this is one of those cases.

I could go through game by game, pointing out how Brady benefited from strong defensive performances that covered for his worse games and Manning didn't. I could point out the objectively mediocre performances Brady had for most of his early Super Bowl runs (he won the 2001 MVP based on a 145 yard performance). I could point out how Manning actually played really well despite no time to throw and getting sacked 5 times in the 2006 Pitt game, but because Vanderjagt shanked a field goal it's remembered as a choke job. I could play the game where we reverse the results of a handful of long field goals or other extreme plays where neither player was on the field, and you get vastly different ring counts for each player.

But that's exhausting and ultimately it's too deep in the weeds to really mean much. So let's just step back and take a broad look at each player's playoff career. We have that luxury here, because both have a huge volume of playoff games.

I'm going to use Adjusted Yards Per Attempt because it's a decent stat for measuring QB performance and it's easy to get a hold of. Manning and Brady have similar overall career averages in AY/A (7.17 for Manning, 7.12 for Brady). Neither of them have had a playoff game in between those numbers, so I'll just call their games "above their average" and "below their average" - same standard applied to both of them. Both have more "below-average" games (for them!) in the playoffs, which is unsurprising because defenses are better in the playoffs.

• Brady's playoff record when he has an above-average game is 15-2 (both losses at Denver; one in 2006 and one in 2014).
• Brady's playoff record when he has a below-average game is 12-7.

• Manning's playoff record when he has an above-average game is 5-4.
• Manning's playoff record when he has a below-average game is 9-9 (including all seven of his wins the two years he won the Super Bowl).

Simply put... their playoff performances have not been very different. The difference is that Brady's team has cemented the win nearly every time he plays well, and picked him up much more often when he's had a substandard game. The difference is context, not player. On the occasions when Manning's team did pick him up, he won the title.

Originally Posted by japes

Like saying Jim Kelly with the 49rs and Joe Montana with the Bills gets you the same results...Two different style QB's..

Also, Montana was way better. (And I actually agree that Steve Young was better than Montana, but both were better than Kelly.)

Originally Posted by japes

It also seems like some people think Brady is just the Troy Aikman of this generation where all of his success happens to just be luck of the draft.

Again, this is not what anyone here is saying. I will say it again - one of the 5 greatest QBs of all time. But I don't think he's #1 - I just think he's an all-time great who benefited from playing for an all-time coach that put together a consistently great team around him.

[Hahma]

Jim Kelly was "wide right" away from having a SB ring.

Patriots got a SB win because of a moronic play call by Pete Carroll. It was a gift.

Had the Seahawks won that 2nd Superbowl, is Russell Wilson one of the greatest QB's of all time?

[japes]

Originally Posted by dok

Again, this is not what anyone here is saying. I will say it again - one of the 5 greatest QBs of all time. But I don't think he's #1 - I just think he's an all-time great who benefited from playing for an all-time coach that put together a consistently great team around him.

My bad for not clarifying this part as it was more of a general statement of comments I've heard recently and not directed at you in particular.

Also don't take my comment as me saying Manning isn't a great QB...I'll say it again as well...I just don't think Manning fares as well in that system. I think if Manning existed in the Bills system back in the day he'd have 4 Super Bowls...instead of the Bills having 4 losses.
@dok , what would be your top 5 QB...no need to be in any order.

[dok]

Originally Posted by japes

Also don't take my comment as me saying Manning isn't a great QB...I'll say it again as well...I just don't think Manning fares as well in that system. I think if Manning existed in the Bills system back in the day he'd have 4 Super Bowls...instead of the Bills having 4 losses.

OK, that's an interesting argument. But I disagree... kind of. I think if Manning is the QB of the Pats all those years, Belichick makes the system fit Manning, and they win 4+.

Originally Posted by japes

@dok , what would be your top 5 QB...no need to be in any order.

I honestly haven't thought it through; I was just very confident that Brady would be in the top 5 so I said that.

Whenever you have these discussions, there's always the "peak vs. career" argument. I'd probably argue that the two best peaks (half-dozen seasons or so) are Steve Young and Aaron Rodgers. For career, I'd go Manning, then Brady. Marino and Montana are certainly in the discussion. I'm not as high on Favre, FWIW. There's other guys but they are before my time.

The best statistical look at this I've seen is this one, which is a few years out of date now but still interesting.

[Sherman Davies]

I love it when Dad Scaper gets riled up.

I'm not a football fan (although I attended my first NFL game this season with some Jets fan friends), but it seems to me as an outside observer that, in their own way, the Patriots are the perfect team for the times. The bad guys are winning everywhere we look, so why not in football too?

[japes]

Originally Posted by dok

OK, that's an interesting argument. But I disagree... kind of. I think if Manning is the QB of the Pats all those years, Belichick makes the system fit Manning, and they win 4+.

I honestly haven't thought it through; I was just very confident that Brady would be in the top 5 so I said that.

Whenever you have these discussions, there's always the "peak vs. career" argument. I'd probably argue that the two best peaks (half-dozen seasons or so) are Steve Young and Aaron Rodgers. For career, I'd go Manning, then Brady. Marino and Montana are certainly in the discussion. I'm not as high on Favre, FWIW. There's other guys but they are before my time.

The best statistical look at this I've seen is this one, which is a few years out of date now but still interesting.

Yeah I've not actually thought about my top five either...Favre wouldn't be in the top 10 probably...I think he cost his team as many times as he benefited them. I remember when I lived in Tampa Monte Kiffen made the comment that the defense just needed to be patient because Favre would give them a guaranteed three mistakes every game and they needed to be ready for them and make them hurt. I've never looked it up but I don't think his stats were very good against the Bucs those days...I know he had three interceptions in that particular game.

I'm not entirely sure if I leave Drew Brees out of the discussion if we are going purely on stats. You can argue that he's had significantly less talent around him during his peak than Manning.

Manning, Rogers, Brady, Young, Montana, Marino, Brees is a solid group to be arguing about. I'm also not sure where I'd put Warren Moon.

I hadn't seen that article and I skimmed it but now I'm going to fully read it. Thanks. It would be interesting to see how it advanced for a couple years so that Brady and Manning had the same amount of seasons since they are so close in his list.

Interesting note seeing Romo above Elway.

[Tornado]

Elway rules!

Then Marino.

Probably go for Joe in third.

I guess Brady. Not a fan of judging overall greatness until someone retires.

Jim Harbaugh or Doug Flutie. Jim brings the milk and Doug brings the Flutie Flakes!
OK those two are just personal favorites along with Randall Cunningham.
Go Eagles and Jeff Feagles!

[Dad_Scaper]

If we're going to compare quarterbacks across eras then you cannot have this discussion without including the

Golden Arm

Golden Arm

.