Most clutch QB of all time - A true perspective

[AntonMcG]

Scott Kacsmar is not an overly well known writer, but he is in my mind one of the best out there. He is a stat guy and does not attempt to manipulate his stats in anyway.

 

This article focuses on the NFL Network's 2009 show on their 'Top 10 Clutch QBs', and how wrong it is.

 

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/captain-comeback-nfl-network-chokes-list-top-10-clutch-quarterbacks/23213/

[amfootball]

I have little issue with the list. I would swap Elway and Brady and put Brady at 2 but that is about it.

[ViriLudant]

Wait.

Kacsmar is a good writer?

Really?

The guy who is an admitted Patriots hater, and is 100% biased against them in every way possible?

He's a hack. Always has been, always will be.

[Yehoodi]

I am not a big fan of CHFF as at times come up with facts that are self evident, self serving, or directly related to themselves or obvious. . . for instance "we have looked at teams and games in which one team has a positive differential in the points at the end of the game . . . and have found that a team with the most positive differentials will 100% of the time will have the most wins in the NFL" or  "we have found that teams that keep the opponents QB rating to below 30 generally win" ah yah . . .

 

editorial aside . . . he seems to have a big interest in 4th qtr comebacks . . . for me, I would like to see a % of one completing a 4th comeback . . . for instant if two QBs play 100 games, QB1s games are decided by the 4th qtr in 85 of the games but goes on to win 10 of those 15 remaining, he wins 10/15 or 75% of the close game . . . if QB2 only has 70 games decided but only wins 15 of the 30 undecided games, he wins 15/30 or 50% of the close game but has a numerical superiority in 4th wins at 15 to 10 even though he was less efficient in the 4th wins . . .for me QB1 is more clutch . . .

 

I also find interesting, that he berates ones for focusing on SBs title yet he puts Montana at #1, while discounting Bart Starr who has 5 rings and one great comeback in the ice bowl . . .  

[AntonMcG]

I have little issue with the list. I would swap Elway and Brady and put Brady at 2 but that is about it.

 

You wouldn't.

 

Patriots fans will always refuse to acknowledge that Brady was no where near the player he is today when he won his Super Bowl rings. That team was led by its defense.

[AntonMcG]

I am not a big fan of CHFF as at times come up with facts that are self evident, self serving, or directly related to themselves or obvious. . . for instance "we have looked at teams and games in which one team has a positive differential in the points at the end of the game . . . and have found that a team with the most positive differentials will 100% of the time will have the most wins in the NFL" or  "we have found that teams that keep the opponents QB rating to below 30 generally win" ah yah . . .

 

editorial aside . . . he seems to have a big interest in 4th qtr comebacks . . . for me, I would like to seea % of one completing a 4th comeback . . . for instant if two QBs play 100 games, QB1s games are decided by the 4th qtr in 85 of the games but goes on to win 10 of those 15 remaining, he wins 10/15 or 75% of the close game . . . if QB2 only has 70 games decided but only wins 15 of the 30 undecided game s, he wins 15/30 or 50% of the close game but has a numerical superiority in 4th wins at 15 to 10 even though he was less efficient in the 4th wins . . .for me QB1 is more clutch . . .

 

I also find interesting, that he berates ones for focusing on SBs title yet he puts Montana at #1, while discounting Bart Starr who has 5 rings and one great comeback in the ice bowl . . .  

 

You formula is far too limited. There are many other factors including importance of game, supporting cast etc. That is why he focuses on two-minute drills, because it is mostly about the quarterback.

 

He berates the analysts for focusing too much on SB titles because they do... that does not mean Montana does not have a right to be #1... he proved on countless occasions that he is Clutch, with different players and across his entire career.

[LockeDown]

Finally, a little bit of truth. Without the hype. Any fan who is remotely capable of being objective when asked, would have to have Unitas, Manning, Montanna and Marino at the top of this list. Surprised by the Elway numbers though. Brady reminds me of Starr. Great system QBs where the coach is the star of the team. Glad he poked holes in the Staubach hype machine.

[amfootball]

You wouldn't.

 

Patriots fans will always refuse to acknowledge that Brady was no where near the player he is today when he won his Super Bowl rings. That team was led by its defense.

Ok but he was still clutch. He led two GW drives in two SBs. Not to mention his other comebacks in the playoffs and regular season during those champ years. He is clearly in top 3. Can't quibble too much with Elway being ahead of him but still I would swap them.

[amfootball]

Finally, a little bit of truth. Without the hype. Any fan who is remotely capable of being objective when asked, would have to have Unitas, Manning, Montanna and Marino at the top of this list. Surprised by the Elway numbers though. Brady reminds me of Starr. Great system QBs where the coach is the star of the team. Glad he poked holes in the Staubach hype machine.

I guess it depends how you define clutch. Clutch in the biggest games, playoff games has to be the biggest factor. If you were going to do a list of clutch in regular season than Marino and Manning would be at the top for sure.

[Yehoodi]

You formula is far too limited. There are many other factors including importance of game, supporting cast etc. That is why he focuses on two-minute drills, because it is mostly about the quarterback.

 

He berates the analysts for focusing too much on SB titles because they do... that does not mean Montana does not have a right to be #1... he proved on countless occasions that he is Clutch, with different players and across his entire career.

 

 

he actually moves around a lot, kind of like a car salesmen . . . for somebody who purportedly works for a facts website and therefore would have all these numbers by his side . . . it would not take too much to make a table comparing the 10 QBs, on wins, 4th comebacks, game winning drives, opportunities of the same and so on . . . and then winning drives/opportunities under 2 mins and so on . . . and no he does not foceu solely on 2 min drives . . .

 

if I am not mistaken GWD and 4th comeback are anytime in the 4th qtr, so if one is behind 17-14 and drives late in the 3rd and into the 4th and you had the ball to a RB on 1st and goal and he scores with 14:10 on the clock its a comeback . . .perhaps not as clutch as later in the game . . .

 

Also, as Peyton once said about 4th qtr comeback, it means that you were not doing your job earlier in the game . . .

 

Getting back Montana, for me he is more myth than reality . . . great QB and has had some signature moments, but so did Starr . . . the writer falls under the same spell as many do, the see the Catch and is carries a lot of weight . . . it was not even 4th down . . . he had two late SB drives but so have many other QBs . . . and no I don't buy Montana was clutch throughout his career unlike other QBs. . . his record in opportunities is just above 500, not that much different than Peyton or Montana . . .  and he also neglected to mentioned that the 49ers had a 10 ten defense (scoring) in 9 of his 10 years at SF and top 5 in 8 of his 10 years . . .

 

or the fact that in the '81 SB run the SF D got 11 TOs in three games, Montana threw three picks in the NFCCG (and the D got 3 TOs from Dallas) and in the SB went 14-22 for 157 yards and one TD when the D got 4 TOs from Cinn, but yet the writer doesn't mention much about SF defense does he? . . . do you really think SF was in that SB in the end of the D does not turnover Cinn 4 times ?

[Yehoodi]

Finally, a little bit of truth. Without the hype. Any fan who is remotely capable of being objective when asked, would have to have Unitas, Manning, Montanna and Marino at the top of this list. Surprised by the Elway numbers though. Brady reminds me of Starr. Great system QBs where the coach is the star of the team. Glad he poked holes in the Staubach hype machine.

 

in his first SB against Cinn, Montana numbers were 14-22 for 157 yards and one TD, with the D forcing 4 TOs . . . the D garnered 11 TOs in the playoffs that year . . . in 1984 SF had the top ranked D in points, in 88 and 89 SF was 8th in points/3rd in yards (88) had a top 5 D in yards and points in 89 . . . just saying . . .

[Jay Kirk]

You wouldn't.

 

Patriots fans will always refuse to acknowledge that Brady was no where near the player he is today when he won his Super Bowl rings. That team was led by its defense.

Anton we don't always see eye to eye but on this we do,you are right on the money.I can think of 2 times that D kept us from the SB ,it wasn't TB.I also would agree Brady has developed into one of the best QBs out there.

[amfootball]

Anton we don't always see eye to eye but on this we do,you are right on the money.I can think of 2 times that D kept us from the SB ,it wasn't TB.I also would agree Brady has developed into one of the best QBs out there.

The Pats had a 17-3 lead with less than 10 minutes to go in SB 36. The defense gave up two TDs faster than you could blink. The reason why Brady was told to go for it with 1:17 to go is because everyone on the planet knew that if Warner and co. got the ball back in OT that it was game over. Brady calmly and cooly led his team all the way down to the 30 for a FG. That is clutch. Perhaps the most clutch drive in SB history given Brady only had a handful of starts under his belt and was going against a team that was looking to forge its own dynasty.

 

In SB 38, the Pats were up 11 points in the fourth quarter when the D wilted in the fourth quarter letting up consecutive scoring drives to Delhomme. The Pats were trailing when Brady led the go ahead drive and hit the two point conversion to go up 7 only to see Delhomme answer in a blink of an eye. With around a minute to go, Brady once again led the game winning drive with his D on life support.

 

For all the talk about the Pats D those years they had a habit of wilting in the fourth quarter in the biggest games only to be saved by Brady. Of course the trend has continued as Brady had the lead in BOTH SBs agains the Giants with minutes to play only see his defense let Eli and Co. drive the field for TDs.

 

This article is about clutch not the best stastical QBs and Brady was the most clutch QB in football those champ years. That is why he is 3 on the list deservedly so.

[Jay Kirk]

The Pats had a 17-3 lead with less than 10 minutes to go in SB 36. The defense gave up two TDs faster than you could blink. The reason why Brady was told to go for it with 1:17 to go is because everyone on the planet knew that if Warner and co. got the ball back in OT that it was game over. Brady calmly and cooly led his team all the way down to the 30 for a FG. That is clutch. Perhaps the most clutch drive in SB history given Brady only had a handful of starts under his belt and was going against a team that was looking to forge its own dynasty.

 

In SB 38, the Pats were up 11 points in the fourth quarter when the D wilted in the fourth quarter letting up consecutive scoring drives to Delhomme. The Pats were trailing when Brady led the go ahead drive and hit the two point conversion to go up 7 only to see Delhomme answer in a blink of an eye. With around a minute to go, Brady once again led the game winning drive with his D on life support.

 

For all the talk about the Pats D those years they had a habit of wilting in the fourth quarter in the biggest games only to be saved by Brady. Of course the trend has continued as Brady had the lead in BOTH SBs agains the Giants with minutes to play only see his defense let Eli and Co. drive the field for TDs.

 

This article is about clutch not the best stastical QBs and Brady was the most clutch QB in football those champ years. That is why he is 3 on the list deservedly so.

Your opinion,my point was without that D they don't even make the SB.You made my point for me to hold Warner to 3 for that length of time was mind boggling

[gacker65]

I can agree with the QBs on the list, but would move Johnnu U. to 2nd and Roger Staubach to 3rd with Brady 4th and Elway to 5th.

[chad72]

I agree with the posters who do feel that the NFL Network segment did let SB titles influence their ranking more. If Elway had not won his last 2 SBs, he probably gets left out of the top 5, it is easy to extrapolate.

 

Plus, it seems like clutch and comebacks in the playoffs only seem to matter. That is somewhat reasonable but at the same time, the best teams make it to the playoffs and team support starts mattering, those facts should not be ignored because the sample size chosen is already small. Like Yehoodi pointed out, if the game was not close thanks to the 49ers D, Montana does not make his comeback vs Bengals. If the Giants had not shut down the Pats after they went up 17-9 in SB 46, Eli does not make his comeback. Brady has not made a comeback in the last 5-6 minutes of any playoff game when down by more than 3, no 2 minute comebacks, no 3 minute comebacks, no 4 minute comebacks etc. but then his supporting cast has as much to blame too. But during his SB years, he definitely enjoyed playing with a lead for most of the time in the playoffs. In the Panthers SB, he went down by 1 or 2, if I remember right, that is it. Otherwise, he played all his SBs and most of his playoff games that he won with a lead in the 4th qtr., at least in those last 5-6 minutes.

 

But you cant factor in supporting cast (or lack of) for Brady when convenient, for Montana when convenient but ignore it completely when Peyton is talked about. Winning a 15 minute time of possession game, having at least 3 or more comebacks down by 17 with less than 5 minutes to go, having the largest championship game comeback in playoff history etc. are all feathers in Peyton's cap completely ignored when you ignore what Peyton did to get his team to the playoffs and sometimes in the playoffs too where he has lost his last 5 4th qtr. leads. If you are looking at only the QBs whose teams made it to the playoffs, include what they did to get their team to the playoffs as well. The numbers will tell a different story.

 

Best List From QBs of Winning Playoff Teams is a more appropriate title for this.

[amfootball]

Your opinion,my point was without that D they don't even make the SB.You made my point for me to hold Warner to 3 for that length of time was mind boggling

What? That same team and same defense went 5-11 the year before with Bledsoe and started '01 at 0-2. The difference was Brady not the D. It was a bend don't break D for the whole season. Gave up a ton of yards but held points down. In fact the Patriot O was ranked in sixth in points scored and the D was ranked sixth in points allowed. Contrary to the myth, Brady was not carried at all, he was the one making the plays all season that had the team go on a 9 game win streak at the end to take the second seed from the Raiders, a fact most Raiders hate to admit. In the 12 seasons that Brady has been QB the defense has only outranked the offense a couple of times and only once during the five seasons in which they made the SB.

[LockeDown]

There is no media that has it in for the Pats. ESPN loves them. Ex Pats on NFL and NBC and ESPN. Cowherd talks about them non stop. That is why it is good for someone to write an article against the homerism that the NFL is.

[amfootball]

There is no media that has it in for the Pats. ESPN loves them. Ex Pats on NFL and NBC and ESPN. Cowherd talks about them non stop. That is why it is good for someone to write an article against the homerism that the NFL is.

Guess you never listen to Stephen A. Smith or Michael Wilbon just to name two that loathe the Pats. Doesn't bother me as everyone hates a winner but it is not all lovey doevy out there...not at all.

[Superman]

 

Also, as Peyton once said about 4th qtr comeback, it means that you were not doing your job earlier in the game . . .

 

 

One of the great misapplied, if not misquoted, lines of all time.

[Superman]

What? That same team and same defense went 5-11 the year before with Bledsoe and started '01 at 0-2. The difference was Brady not the D. It was a bend don't break D for the whole season. Gave up a ton of yards but held points down. In fact the Patriot O was ranked in sixth in points scored and the D was ranked sixth in points allowed. Contrary to the myth, Brady was not carried at all, he was the one making the plays all season that had the team go on a 9 game win streak at the end to take the second seed from the Raiders, a fact most Raiders hate to admit. In the 12 seasons that Brady has been QB the defense has only outranked the offense a couple of times and only once during the five seasons in which they made the SB.

 

Oh wow. 

 

Brady hit the scene and played really well that year. I paid extra close attention because a) I have a lot of family members that are UofM fans, and b) my last name is Brady. He was a sensation, and deserves a ton of credit for his play. He did make a difference, and the Patriots don't win the Super Bowl without him.

 

But during that nine game winning streak, which includes the postseason, the Patriots defense gave up 17, 16, 16, 9, 13, 6, 13, 17 and 17 points. They made a ton of plays, forced a lot of turnovers, and were one of the best defenses in the league. In the Super Bowl, the Patriots offense disappeared for much of the game. Without the defense playing extremely well, they don't win that game. Brady did a great job on the game winning drive, but he wouldn't have had that opportunity if the defense didn't hold one of the most explosive offenses in league history to 17 points.

 

I'm not sure why you're trying to discredit the play of the defense. Like Jay Kirk said, without the defense, they don't make the Super Bowl. They certainly don't win the Super Bowl. And that's true of virtually every Super Bowl winner in history.

[Superman]

 

 

But you cant factor in supporting cast (or lack of) for Brady when convenient, for Montana when convenient but ignore it completely when Peyton is talked about. Winning a 15 minute time of possession game, having at least 3 or more comebacks down by 17 with less than 5 minutes to go, having the largest championship game comeback in playoff history etc. are all feathers in Peyton's cap completely ignored when you ignore what Peyton did to get his team to the playoffs and sometimes in the playoffs too where he has lost his last 5 4th qtr. leads. If you are looking at only the QBs whose teams made it to the playoffs, include what they did to get their team to the playoffs as well. The numbers will tell a different story.

 

 

That's just scratching the surface.

[schwamm]

The Pats had a 17-3 lead with less than 10 minutes to go in SB 36. The defense gave up two TDs faster than you could blink. The reason why Brady was told to go for it with 1:17 to go is because everyone on the planet knew that if Warner and co. got the ball back in OT that it was game over. Brady calmly and cooly led his team all the way down to the 30 for a FG. That is clutch. Perhaps the most clutch drive in SB history given Brady only had a handful of starts under his belt and was going against a team that was looking to forge its own dynasty.

Sorry.  No doubt in my mind that the Steelers drive to come from behind to win the SB against the Cardinals (capped by Big Ben's perfect pass to Santonio Holmes, with the almost impossible toe taps to stay inbounds) stands as THE most clutch drive and play in the last 30+ years.

[Yehoodi]

One of the great misapplied, if not misquoted, lines of all time.

 

huh? I heard him say it last year . . . I believe it was after the SD game . . . just checked the NFL.com and yes it was the SD game . . . below is a link to the video . . . I think that is should work, if it does not is at the 4:00 min mark of the Broncos presser video of last years SD game . . .

 

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2012101500/2012/REG6/broncos@chargers#menu=highlights&tab=recap

 

his point is comebacks are great but means you screwed up earlier in the game . . . may not be true in all case, like in the case of a shootout . . . but PM's point is at time was don't give me too much credit as if had done my job earlier there would be no need for a comeback . . . his point is one of being humble and applies to all QBs . . . so in some cases those comeback victories and clutch results are to a degree self inflicted/self created . . . if a QB is doing his job and scoring earlier in the game he wont have the opportunity to be clutch . . . likewise a QB that gets going late will have more opportunities . . .

 

I do agree with Peyton that when we look at these kind of things we need to keep this modifying element in mind when we reviews one's resume . . .

 

EDIT: I tried the link and not sure if it will work, anyhoot (I have had this problem with nfl before) . . .if you want to find the video I mentioned, it is in the video collection of the SD/DEN last year and big come back game and is video number 17 down the list . . .he actually mentioned that he had made the same quote the prior week . . .

[Superman]

huh? I heard him say it last year . . . I believe it was after the SD game . . . just checked the NFL.com and yes it was the SD game . . . below is a link to the video . . . I think that is should work, if it does not is at the 4:00 min mark of the Broncos presser video of last years SD game . . .

 

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2012101500/2012/REG6/broncos@chargers#menu=highlights&tab=recap

 

his point is comebacks are great but means you screwed up earlier in the game . . . may not be true in all case, like in the case of a shootout . . . but PM's point is at time was don't give me too much credit as if had done my job earlier there would be no need for a comeback . . . his point is one of being humble and applies to all QBs . . . so in some cases those comeback victories and clutch results are to a degree self inflicted/self created . . . if a QB is doing his job and scoring earlier in the game he wont have the opportunity to be clutch . . . likewise a QB that gets going late will have more opportunities . . .

 

I do agree with Peyton that when we look at these kind of things we need to keep this modifying element in mind when we reviews one's resume . . .

 

EDIT: I tried the link and not sure if it will work, anyhoot (I have had this problem with nfl before) . . .if you want to find the video I mentioned, it is in the video collection of the SD/DEN last year and big come back game and is video number 17 down the list . . .he actually mentioned that he had made the same quote the prior week . . .

 

That game is a great example of why that line is misapplied. The Broncos turned the ball over twice on special teams in the first quarter, then Eric Decker fell down on what should have been a touchdown catch, with Manning throwing a pick a couple plays later. Blame Manning for the pick, but really Decker is the one that messed up. It wasn't really due to Manning's mistakes that they were down 24-0. It's a mistake to be dismissive of a quarterback's play during a comeback, as if it's necessarily his fault that they were behind in the first place. Chad72 gave another good example of the Colts vs. Dolphins game in 2009. Not the offense's fault that they had to come back late in the game.

 

As for the line, what Manning said was this: "It was important to get a win, on the road. I know that the road thing has been an issue here, and so, what you hope is, that if you get in a situation like this again, hey, we were here a couple weeks ago. Remember, on the road, we can do this. You know, hey, just imagine what we can do if we don't put ourselves in a hole in the first half.... Like I said last week, these comeback victories are great, but it means that all you did was screw up in the first half." http://www.denverbroncos.com/multimedia/videos/Broncos-at-Chargers-Manning/44833d6d-c54a-4200-a25a-ebf69a417f30 Go to the four minute mark, listen to about the six minute mark. The context is telling. He's talking about the team in general, not just the quarterback play.

 

The previous week, they lost to the Patriots. There were mistakes that led to them being behind. Thomas fumbled, there was a drive-ending sack, Manning fumbled, the defense already wasn't playing well, now you're down 31-7. They climbed back into it, but fell short. Again, Manning wasn't great early, but it's not like it was all his fault that they were down to begin with. If you care to watch the presser after that game, he never actually says that if you don't get behind, you don't have to come back. He again alludes to the need to play better, on the road, as a team, and how they were building a foundation to do so. He says there mistakes, and offensively and defensively they've got to get better. http://www.denverbroncos.com/multimedia/videos/Broncos-at-Patriots-Manning/d8c656d7-896c-46eb-9775-d0d8112188a5

 

You keep using this line to suggest that the reason a quarterback has a chance to comeback is because he didn't play well early in the game. That's true some of the time; not every time. It puts an unrealistic burden on the offense to suggest that the reason they're behind is simply because they didn't score enough. Most offenses aren't going to score every time they get the ball. But you do expect some defensive stops. Can't put it all on the offense and the quarterback.

 

And even if it is entirely the quarterback's fault that the team is behind, that doesn't take away from his strong play with the game on the line to help his team win it. If we're talking about a quarterback being "clutch," then it's not really relevant whether he played well early in the game. 

[chad72]

Sorry.  No doubt in my mind that the Steelers drive to come from behind to win the SB against the Cardinals (capped by Big Ben's perfect pass to Santonio Holmes, with the almost impossible toe taps to stay inbounds) stands as THE most clutch drive and play in the last 30+ years.

 

 

I think Eli's pass to Burress with 35 seconds to go to end the Pats' perfect season in SB 42, that drive topped it all. Eli was down 4 points (10-14), a FG was not an option. Big Ben was down 3 points (20-23) in SB 43, a FG was an option.

 

Eli was only down 2 points in SB 46 (15-17) when he drove them for the go ahead TD but since a FG was an option to burn the clock and win it, Belichick let 'em score. So, the 2nd SB comeback was nearly not as great as the first one. The first one (SB 42) takes the cake of them all.

[Superman]

I think Eli's pass to Burress with 35 seconds to go to end the Pats' perfect season in SB 42, that drive topped it all. Eli was down 4 points (10-14), a FG was not an option. Big Ben was down 3 points (20-23) in SB 43, a FG was an option.

 

Eli was only down 2 points in SB 46 (15-17) when he drove them for the go ahead TD but since a FG was an option to burn the clock and win it, Belichick let 'em score. So, the 2nd SB comeback was nearly not as great as the first one. The first one (SB 42) takes the cake of them all.

 

Not to mention the David Tyree helmet catch.

[amfootball]

Oh wow. 

 

Brady hit the scene and played really well that year. I paid extra close attention because a) I have a lot of family members that are UofM fans, and b) my last name is Brady. He was a sensation, and deserves a ton of credit for his play. He did make a difference, and the Patriots don't win the Super Bowl without him.

 

But during that nine game winning streak, which includes the postseason, the Patriots defense gave up 17, 16, 16, 9, 13, 6, 13, 17 and 17 points. They made a ton of plays, forced a lot of turnovers, and were one of the best defenses in the league. In the Super Bowl, the Patriots offense disappeared for much of the game. Without the defense playing extremely well, they don't win that game. Brady did a great job on the game winning drive, but he wouldn't have had that opportunity if the defense didn't hold one of the most explosive offenses in league history to 17 points.

 

I'm not sure why you're trying to discredit the play of the defense. Like Jay Kirk said, without the defense, they don't make the Super Bowl. They certainly don't win the Super Bowl. And that's true of virtually every Super Bowl winner in history.

Kirk was insinuating that it was more the defense that carried Brady. I was refuting that. I watched the whole season. I live in Boston. Brady's O was sixth in scoring so he did his fair share. If anything it was equal in terms of credit for the SB win in 2001. The Pats D was not dominant like the Ravens of 2000 or Bears of 1985 as some would like to believe. Brady contributed just as much with junk at the skill positions. His ability to not turn over the ball, gain first downs to change field position helped the D to do their job and keep points down. That was the biggest difference btw him and Bledsoe. Drew forced everything and left yardage and points on the field and turned the ball over. Brady always took what the defense gave him and never was careless wtih the ball. Really that is half the battle at QB to becoming great. All know this but few can do it game and game out.

[GoPats]

Haters gonna hate!
 

The object of football is to win games. Doesn't matter if you do that handily, via a dramatic comeback, etc. Couldn't care less whether you throw for 100 yards or 500 in the process.

 

Stats geeks can pull it all apart any way they want. I don't care where Brady "ranks" for those guys. I'll still take the QB who's won more playoff games than any other, and who has the highest winning percentage - by a longshot - in the SB era. And as Joe Theisman points out, he's done it with an ever-changing cast of teammates and play makers.

[LockeDown]

Never fails. Put an NFL article on the General section and it becomes another Brady thread. Shame because there are some good points to talk about here.

[Yehoodi]

You keep using this line to suggest that the reason a quarterback has a chance to comeback is because he didn't play well early in the game. That's true some of the time; not every time. It puts an unrealistic burden on the offense to suggest that the reason they're behind is simply because they didn't score enough. Most offenses aren't going to score every time they get the ball. But you do expect some defensive stops. Can't put it all on the offense and the quarterback.

 

And even if it is entirely the quarterback's fault that the team is behind, that doesn't take away from his strong play with the game on the line to help his team win it. If we're talking about a quarterback being "clutch," then it's not really relevant whether he played well early in the game. 

 

[opps a tad long]

 

alas, your links do not work, perhaps this site does not allow one to see the entire link, altho it does appear when I quoted your post . . .

 

no my point is not every opportunity for a 4th qtr comeback is related to the QB shooting himself in the foot, or an arsonist lighting a fire and then coming back to help put it out and is claimed a hero . . . I was just pointing out that sometime, and only sometimes, a QB will under perform, regardless of how well or bad his teammates play around him, and such underperformance can result in situation in which he not otherwise see his team and that being tied or losing in the 4th, as opposed to his team having a comfortable lead had he just performed his average, or ever below average performance earlier . . .

 

I do know Manning mentioned this and did use the word "I", and he did so at some other time, I believe that I saw it on NFLN during the week when he was practicing, but for me his presser I cited is enough, he mentioned that comebacks are not necessary when you make mistakes early . . . now both you and I know that Peyton is a great player and an upstanding guy, and given the fact that the offense scored zero points and Peyton had a pick six, and I don't really care what the rest of the team did, the net contribution on offense was -7 points in the first half with the -7 coming from Peyton's mistake . . . you probably know Peyton's numbers better than me, but I am sure that being shotout in a half is very rare for a Peyton lead offense . . . heck even scoring only 7 points is rare for him and would be deemed below average . . . seeing that it was -7 as opposed to +7, the score goes from being 24-0 to 17-7 . . .

 

So stepping back for a moment if in the possession in the first hand Peyton just manages one TD, there is not 4th qtr comeback and the Broncos pulled ahead in the 3rd . . . and btw, any failure on the part of teammates in the first half was more than made up for by the fact that the D were a +14 in the second half , no points and 14 off TOs . . .

 

So that is my point, and I think you would agree with me that the Peyton lead offense being -7 in first half that his comments in the presser bout not performing were direct in part to himself and as such is a recognition by both you and I that Peyton had made statements regarding how a QB's performance and contribution to the overall process can determine at what point later in the game the game is in hand . . .

 

it is no surprise that in the first have of the decade when the Pats offense was a tad more situational that Brady had more 4th qtr comebacks and GWD than in the later half of the decade . . .

 

I remember hearing a stat one time that Jake Plummer lead the league in GWD over a long period of time, I think even over the time he was in the NFL or something, but no one is saying he is overly clutch or is on some 10 ten list . . .

 

I just brought up the Denver game as I know PM made is comments and when one looks at the game and if Peyton even had a below average first half, there isn't even a 4th qtr comeback to talk about . . .

 

so my point is subtle one, and that like a lot of stats, like the "quickest" release in the NFL, we need to take a step back and look at things, and at times if the is a QB is a later start, or has a rare below average start, or has more below average starts than the rest, he will have more opportunities to have 4tr comebacks and GWD, like quick release QB but when you look at it and realize he throws a lot of WR screens it brings down his numbers . . .

 

Surely a QB has to still perform in the end but if had more opportunity than the next guy and is say 12-12 as opposed to one who is 8-4 in the same situation, some will think the 12-12 is more clutch by virtue of having 12 overall win but his average is only 500 as opposed to the other guy, who admittedly only has 8, has an average of 750 . . . sort of like trying to praise a QB for a quick release when in part his "quickness" is helped with maybe throwing more shorter passes than the others on the list . . .  

[Superman]

[opps a tad long]

 

alas, your links do not work, perhaps this site does not allow one to see the entire link, altho it does appear when I quoted your post . . .

 

no my point is not every opportunity for a 4th qtr comeback is related to the QB shooting himself in the foot, or an arsonist lighting a fire and then coming back to help put it out and is claimed a hero . . . I was just pointing out that sometime, and only sometimes, a QB will under perform, regardless of how well or bad his teammates play around him, and such underperformance can result in situation in which he not otherwise see his team and that being tied or losing in the 4th, as opposed to his team having a comfortable lead had he just performed his average, or ever below average performance earlier . . .

 

I do know Manning mentioned this and did use the word "I", and he did so at some other time, I believe that I saw it on NFLN during the week when he was practicing, but for me his presser I cited is enough, he mentioned that comebacks are not necessary when you make mistakes early . . . now both you and I know that Peyton is a great player and an upstanding guy, and given the fact that the offense scored zero points and Peyton had a pick six, and I don't really care what the rest of the team did, the net contribution on offense was -7 points in the first half with the -7 coming from Peyton's mistake . . . you probably know Peyton's numbers better than me, but I am sure that being shotout in a half is very rare for a Peyton lead offense . . . heck even scoring only 7 points is rare for him and would be deemed below average . . . seeing that it was -7 as opposed to +7, the score goes from being 24-0 to 17-7 . . .

 

So stepping back for a moment if in the possession in the first hand Peyton just manages one TD, there is not 4th qtr comeback and the Broncos pulled ahead in the 3rd . . . and btw, any failure on the part of teammates in the first half was more than made up for by the fact that the D were a +14 in the second half , no points and 14 off TOs . . .

 

So that is my point, and I think you would agree with me that the Peyton lead offense being -7 in first half that his comments in the presser bout not performing were direct in part to himself and as such is a recognition by both you and I that Peyton had made statements regarding how a QB's performance and contribution to the overall process can determine at what point later in the game the game is in hand . . .

 

it is no surprise that in the first have of the decade when the Pats offense was a tad more situational that Brady had more 4th qtr comebacks and GWD than in the later half of the decade . . .

 

I remember hearing a stat one time that Jake Plummer lead the league in GWD over a long period of time, I think even over the time he was in the NFL or something, but no one is saying he is overly clutch or is on some 10 ten list . . .

 

I just brought up the Denver game as I know PM made is comments and when one looks at the game and if Peyton even had a below average first half, there isn't even a 4th qtr comeback to talk about . . .

 

so my point is subtle one, and that like a lot of stats, like the "quickest" release in the NFL, we need to take a step back and look at things, and at times if the is a QB is a later start, or has a rare below average start, or has more below average starts than the rest, he will have more opportunities to have 4tr comebacks and GWD, like quick release QB but when you look at it and realize he throws a lot of WR screens it brings down his numbers . . .

 

Surely a QB has to still perform in the end but if had more opportunity than the next guy and is say 12-12 as opposed to one who is 8-4 in the same situation, some will think the 12-12 is more clutch by virtue of having 12 overall win but his average is only 500 as opposed to the other guy, who admittedly only has 8, has an average of 750 . . . sort of like trying to praise a QB for a quick release when in part his "quickness" is helped with maybe throwing more shorter passes than the others on the list . . .  

 

We're spending a lot of words and time on a peripheral argument. All I'm saying is that just because a team has to come from behind doesn't mean the quarterback wasn't playing well up to that point. Even in the most extreme cases, like being down 24-0 at halftime, it's not necessarily true that the quarterback had a bad first half. (Yeah, throwing a pick six doesn't help, but Manning was foiled by his receiver tripping over a shadow, plus two special teams fumbles. Manning wasn't playing poorly, even after you assign blame for the pick six, which would never have happened if Decker didn't trip.)

 

It's peripheral, though. Even if it's true that every comeback victory a quarterback has a part in is only made possible by the quarterback playing poorly in the first half, that doesn't mean the quarterback isn't clutch, or that he didn't turn in a clutch performance. By the same token, comeback victories don't necessarily make the quarterback clutch. The Broncos had several late game victories with Tim Tebow, but a lot of them were due to defensive scores and ridiculous field goals. 

[Jules]

[ViriLudant]

There is no media that has it in for the Pats. ESPN loves them. Ex Pats on NFL and NBC and ESPN. Cowherd talks about them non stop. That is why it is good for someone to write an article against the homerism that the NFL is.

Thanks for the laughs. ESPN has no love for the Pats, and hasn't for a long, long time. Ask any Patriots fan.

[LockeDown]

Thanks for the laughs. ESPN has no love for the Pats, and hasn't for a long, long time. Ask any Patriots fan.

That is crazy. Big city..east coast bias.. Yankees Red Sox . Celtics and Doc Rivers. Pats. Bruins. Teddi B. top analyst. Harrison prime time NBC. McGinnest and Ritchie NFL network homers. BB considered best coach today by ESPN. Brady is loved by Cowherd and every female sportsersonality. Van pelt show with that homer Russo. Giselle. On and on and on, ...for a team that doesn't want pub, that's all you get is pub. Don't come to a small Midwestern city message board asking for sympathy. Colts writers probably grow watermelons for extra income.

[House]

Thanks for the laughs. ESPN has no love for the Pats, and hasn't for a long, long time. Ask any Patriots fan.

Ask any fan of any team and they will tell you the media hates them.

ESPN loves you guys, ask anybody who isn't a Pats fan.

[amfootball]

That is crazy. Big city..east coast bias.. Yankees Red Sox . Celtics and Doc Rivers. Pats. Bruins. Teddi B. top analyst. Harrison prime time NBC. McGinnest and Ritchie NFL network homers. BB considered best coach today by ESPN. Brady is loved by Cowherd and every female sportsersonality. Van pelt show with that homer Russo. Giselle. On and on and on, ...for a team that doesn't want pub, that's all you get is pub. Don't come to a small Midwestern city message board asking for sympathy. Colts writers probably grow watermelons for extra income.

Your bitterness is palpable.

 

Could all the pub possibly be because Boston has won 7 major championships since 2002 across all four major sports with just one team per sport?  Or the fact that the Brunis were just in the Stanley Cup final again and the Sox are in first place when most expected last place this year? Just fodder for you to dwell on as you count all the ways Boston sports is ruining your life and the lives of your sports writers ...

[Superman]

Your bitterness is palpable.

 

Could all the pub possibly be because Boston has won 7 major championships since 2002 across all four major sports with just one team per sport?  Or the fact that the Brunis were just in the Stanley Cup final again and the Sox are in first place when most expected last place this year? Just fodder for you to dwell on as you count all the ways Boston sports is ruining your life and the lives of your sports writers ...

 

LockeDown isn't complaining. He's pointing out that Boston sports get plenty of love from national media, and they do. As you say, they have good reason, as they've done a great job at making themselves relevant.

 

But it's always ironic when Boston sports fans start complaining about how ESPN and other national media hate them. 

[bayone]

LockeDown isn't complaining. He's pointing out that Boston sports get plenty of love from national media, and they do. As you say, they have good reason, as they've done a great job at making themselves relevant.

 

But it's always ironic when Boston sports fans start complaining about how ESPN and other national media hate them. 

 

there is a bias at least in football, as the AP people with award votes have much more allegience to east coast than elswhere, many serving the same market, was a thread last year with each members allegience and was obvious and many other cities like INDY not even represented

 

Sorry I dont have that link from last year during award voting time at years end

[amfootball]

LockeDown isn't complaining. He's pointing out that Boston sports get plenty of love from national media, and they do. As you say, they have good reason, as they've done a great job at making themselves relevant.

 

But it's always ironic when Boston sports fans start complaining about how ESPN and other national media hate them. 

It is not all lovey dovey out there rest assured. But I agree it is more love than hate but the hate stems from the winning as well. It really does not bother me but I was just thinking of how many former Pats are on TV now - Light, Bruschi, Harrison, McGinest. I can see how that might be bothersome but I guess the Pats cornered the market on not only great players but also smart, good-looking, and well-spoken ones too. The new Patriot Way maybe?  ha,ha...