9 AFCCG appearances vs 9 one and done's

[theanarchist]

If you had to pick a QB in a big game (SB) for 100K and you had Brady , Montana and Manning to pick from , who would you take ? I love PM and don't like TB so don't make me reveal who I would take. Now does that mean I think Brady is way above Manning when you compare the two ? Man... that's a tough one. I'd say they're different guys .....

 

I'm sorry but are you really going to try and convince us that Peyton didnt play like garbage on Sunday? It's ok to criticize your guy...heck, I do with Brady when its warranted.

 

The regular Patriots fans here have always been pretty open about Brady's play...the times when we defend him are say, when he scores to give him team a lead with a minute or two to go and then the defense couldnt stop the other team after. But that was not the case for Peyton on Sunday...he never gave them a chance, and the locals in Denver recognized it, and Elway is scapegoating the coaching staff because he wants Peyton back next year. 

Who would you want back next year if you were Denver? John Fox or Peyton Manning?

[dynasty13]

It has happened. Luck was down by 18 twice against the Chiefs. There it is, now luck is greater than brady.

 

This is why you dont understand any quarterback comparison arguments...because you are trying to deal in absolutes. One statistic never solely determines an answer when dealing with a 'whos better' type of argument. 

 

Noone is making the case that only rings determine who's better. Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson are not better than Dan Marino. Nobody will ever make that case because there are so many other factors that completely refute that thought process. But when you have some guys that are so close in all of the other factors, a championship pedigree DOES enter into the argument. I'm sorry that you dont want to admit it, but it happens that way in every sport. It's just the way it is whether that's fair or not. 

[Narcosys]

I'm sorry but are you really going to try and convince us that Peyton didnt play like garbage on Sunday? It's ok to criticize your guy...heck, I do with Brady when its warranted.

The regular Patriots fans here have always been pretty open about Brady's play...the times when we defend him are say, when he scores to give him team a lead with a minute or two to go and then the defense couldnt stop the other team after. But that was not the case for Peyton on Sunday...he never gave them a chance, and the locals in Denver recognized it, and Elway is scapegoating the coaching staff because he wants Peyton back next year.

I never said that. He didn't play garbage, or defense did amazing, but he didn't play super well either. I'm saying overall it's always been something for brady being excuse in the media, but it's always Manning's fault. Our maybe I'm just tuning in at the wrong times.

Your second point, fair and spot on.

[dynasty13]

Who would you want back next year if you were Denver? John Fox or Peyton Manning?

 

I didn't realize it had to be an 'either-or' type of situation.

[theanarchist]

I didn't realize it had to be an 'either-or' type of situation.

Someone said that Denver was "Scapegoating". I recall reading an article that indicated that the breakup was mutual and that Fox was wanting out in Denver prior to the game being played. I would think that the possibility that your coach was wanting out BEFORE you played your playoff game would be a HUGE indication to the GM who should be shown the door.

[jvan1973]

I didn't realize it had to be an 'either-or' type of situation.

I guess you didn't watch the elway PC it was pretty clear fox and elway had different philosophies on how to get over the hump. It was a metal split, he wasnt fired

[theanarchist]

I guess you didn't watch the elway PC it was pretty clear fox and elway had different philosophies on how to get over the hump. It was a metal split, he wasnt fired

 

Someone said that Denver was "Scapegoating". I recall reading an article that indicated that the breakup was mutual and that Fox was wanting out in Denver prior to the game being played. I would think that the possibility that your coach was wanting out BEFORE you played your playoff game would be a HUGE indication to the GM who should be shown the door.

 

[dynasty13]

I guess you didn't watch the elway PC it was pretty clear fox and elway had different philosophies on how to get over the hump. It was a metal split, he wasnt fired

 

Even so...I'm talking about the fact that it had to be an 'either Fox or Manning' type of thing....are you suggesting that Peyton would make such a huge decision like whether or not to retire from the game based solely on who the coach was? 

[jvan1973]

Even so...I'm talking about the fact that it had to be an 'either Fox or Manning' type of thing....are you suggesting that Peyton would make such a huge decision like whether or not to retire from the game based solely on who the coach was?

i have no idea?

[GoPats]

All could be 100% true but my point is that Brady was not spectacular in that year that the Pats turned it around. If what you say is true , wouldn't you say there were a bunch of QB's that could have accomplished that. And I did mention that Bledsoe was terrible before Brady took over.

 

If you look at it from strictly a stats and numbers standpoint, that's true. It's not like he went out and lit up the league.

 

However, that view, to me, is too narrow, and fails to consider the immeasurables and intangibles. You have to give some consideration to what Brady brought to the table back then as a young and inexperienced QB. He is an infectious winner, and he very quickly earned respect among the veteran players on the team. They knew he gave them a better chance to win than Bledsoe did. Heck, even Bledsoe probably realized in on some level. 

 

Maybe he didn't throw for 350 yards a game, but he would make plays when they were needed most. The San Diego game that year, a comeback win in OT, was really the first sign of what Brady was, and what he'd become.

[Yehoodi]

It has happened. Luck was down by 18 twice against the Chiefs. There it is, now luck is greater than brady.

 

The stat has to do with being down, then coming back and tying it up and then getting down again.   Often times it is tough to comeback and have to do it a second time.   I am sure it has happen many times that a team has been down by 10, 14, 17, 18 and so on and score a TD and then the opponent would score a TD returning the losing team back to the original deficient.  So surely that has happened.

 

But the stat refers to being down, coming back to tie it up and then going down again.  And no one has come back from that being down 14 points twice.

[GoPats]

Ted Williams is considered a top five hitter all time. How many rings does he have

 

Irrelevant comparison. Baseball, while a team sport, has elements to it that don't really exist in football. The pitcher vs hitter aspect has no equal in football. 

 

I don't believe postseason accomplishments are the end-all, be-all. Joe Flacco has a winning postseason record. Mark Sanchez has won twice as many playoff games as he's lost. 

 

But it's disingenuous to simply dismiss it or downgrade the way you guys are doing it in this thread. Why do most people believe at this point that Montana should top the all-time list? Because of his multiple 3000-yard, 20-TD seasons? (Irony there is intentional.) From a numbers standpoint, he was not on par with Marino, and today his stats would be borderline pedestrian. Downright Alex Smith-ian. 

 

Every legacy is different. Manning will be remembered as an all-time great who struggled in the postseason. Fact not opinion at this point. Easily top-5 all time, IMO. 

[jvan1973]

Irrelevant comparison. Baseball, while a team sport, has elements to it that don't really exist in football. The pitcher vs hitter aspect has no equal in football.

I don't believe postseason accomplishments are the end-all, be-all. Joe Flacco has a winning postseason record. Mark Sanchez has won twice as many playoff games as he's lost.

But it's disingenuous to simply dismiss it or downgrade the way you guys are doing it in this thread. Why do most people believe at this point that Montana should top the all-time list? Because of his multiple 3000-yard, 20-TD seasons? (Irony there is intentional.) From a numbers standpoint, he was not on par with Marino, and today his stats would be borderline pedestrian. Downright Alex Smith-ian.

Every legacy is different. Manning will be remembered as an all-time great who struggled in the postseason. Fact not opinion at this point. Easily top-5 all time, IMO.

May i suggest you read the post i was responding to

[dw49]

 

If you had to pick a QB in a big game (SB) for 100K and you had Brady , Montana and Manning to pick from , who would you take ? I love PM and don't like TB so don't make me reveal who I would take. Now does that mean I think Brady is way above Manning when you compare the two ? Man... that's a tough one. I'd say they're different guys .....

 

I'm sorry but are you really going to try and convince us that Peyton didnt play like garbage on Sunday? It's ok to criticize your guy...heck, I do with Brady when its warranted.

 

The regular Patriots fans here have always been pretty open about Brady's play...the times when we defend him are say, when he scores to give him team a lead with a minute or two to go and then the defense couldnt stop the other team after. But that was not the case for Peyton on Sunday...he never gave them a chance, and the locals in Denver recognized it, and Elway is scapegoating the coaching staff because he wants Peyton back next year. 

Who would you want back next year if you were Denver? John Fox or Peyton Manning?

 

 

Peyton

[GoPats]

May i suggest you read the post i was responding to

 

I did. Just hitting on the overall gist of the last couple pages though.

[dw49]

If you look at it from strictly a stats and numbers standpoint, that's true. It's not like he went out and lit up the league.

 

However, that view, to me, is too narrow, and fails to consider the immeasurables and intangibles. You have to give some consideration to what Brady brought to the table back then as a young and inexperienced QB. He is an infectious winner, and he very quickly earned respect among the veteran players on the team. They knew he gave them a better chance to win than Bledsoe did. Heck, even Bledsoe probably realized in on some level. 

 

Maybe he didn't throw for 350 yards a game, but he would make plays when they were needed most. The San Diego game that year, a comeback win in OT, was really the first sign of what Brady was, and what he'd become.

 

 

It's really impossible to quantify  this stuff. My point is the other side of what yours is. It's for sure somewhere in the middle .

[Luck-Fan12]

The more I read comments posted by some Patriots fans the more I appreciate the two most recent Super Bowl wins by the Giants.

most of them are like this that's what's sad

[Yehoodi]

Ted Williams is considered a top five hitter all time. How many rings does he have

 

I think we need to look at the differences between the sport Ted played and the present day football.  First, a QB can influence a team more so than a single hitter and fielder.  So the QB has more of a chance to have his finger on the outcome of a game, and thus get the credit and criticism.  Second, when Ted played only one team from each league made it to the World Series, there were no playoff rounds, so less opportunities.  Third, Ted missed nearly 6 seasons in his prime due to his service in WW2 and the Korean War.

 

So yeah I can see how some can say he is among the greatest hitter of all time.  As for his rings point people need to see the entire picture of Ted and his sport to get a better perspective on why he does not have a lot of rings.

[cdgacoltsfan]

Then why does Lucas Oil Stadium have an "AFC FINALIST' banner hanging both from its rafters and in the home locker room?

Pats havent won anything in 10 years so your "dynasty13" forum name is pretty much a joke.

[dw49]

Appreciate your honesty here. Now when you say they are different guys, how so?

 

BTW, loved your boxing analogy on the other thread ... great stuff.

 

Manning did things no other QB had ever done. He was IMO the most cerebral QB ever to play the game . He did a lot of winning , often with out a lot of help. If he plays next year , he'll have every passing record there is. That said , his record in the playoffs can't be ignored. Heck.. his teams are 3-3 when favored by 7 to more teams. I heard once that the one SB was the only championship he had ever one.This def included high school.. not sure about Pop Warner. Let's face it , there's a case to say he's not a big game QB. I think he should have found a way to win that game at home vs Pitt back in 2005 (?). People never mention the 2 really poor plays before the Vandy shank. Don't misunderstand me .. I think he's right there with Elway , Montana , Unitas and Brady. I just don't think you can put him at 1 considering his playoff record. It's a different season against the tougher teams. IMO , he should have had a few more wins where he just "willed" the team to a win. The KC playoff in about 10 years ago was an example of Manning doing that. It just didn't happen enough.

 

Brady on the other hand is a big game QB. Even in the 2 SB losses he was on the bench when the Pats lost the game. You have to take into consideration that he had the better coach and the more balanced team  but c'mon 9 AFCCG compared to 9 one and done games ?

 

That said , how you rate them in an all time list depends on the criteria you want to use. But IMO the Colt fans that try to say Manning is as "clutch" as Brady have a tall mountain to climb. 

[Narcosys]

This is why you dont understand any quarterback comparison arguments...because you are trying to deal in absolutes. One statistic never solely determines an answer when dealing with a 'whos better' type of argument.

Noone is making the case that only rings determine who's better. Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson are not better than Dan Marino. Nobody will ever make that case because there are so many other factors that completely refute that thought process. But when you have some guys that are so close in all of the other factors, a championship pedigree DOES enter into the argument. I'm sorry that you dont want to admit it, but it happens that way in every sport. It's just the way it is whether that's fair or not.

But that is EXACTLY what you guys are doing. You say oh brady had won more championships therefore he is better. That argument is used ALL THE TIME, and you can't deny it. That's absolutes, but you conveniently forget this when arguing for brady. What I was trying to show is how ridiculous that argument of the 14 point thing sounds. But you just proved my point about brady fans, you completely disregard certain stats when it's convenient but will turn around and disregard the same thing you're arguing for when it's proven someone else had done it too or better. There is no consistency in the points you all try to make. You yourself were making a big deal about the 14 point thing but when I show a counter point, you're like oh well is not important. It sure was when that argument supported brady tho.

Football is the biggest team sport there is among all the mainstream sports. So no, championships are not a deciding factor especially when not won decisively and had to squeeze by to win with your kicker.

[Narcosys]

He was? So he was down 18 and then tied the game and then was down 18 again? Don't recall that ...

18 points is 18 points regardless of you tie or not, heck he overcame 21 point and 24 point margins at different times during that game as well. I knew your argument would be the tying thing but the points are points regardless. Is happened during regular season to so what's the difference?

He overcame total of 28 points, same as luck in his game.

[Yehoodi]

Here's the thing, no one is going to convince me that Terry Bradshaw who has 4 SB rings was a better QB than Marino who has none. This is the flaw with the theory that because a QB has more rings he's automatically thought more highly of than one who has none or less. No one is going to convince me that because Manning only has 1 SB ring and has the most losses in playoff history that he isn't a better QB than Brad Johnson, or Mark Rypien or Troy Aikman or Trent Dilfer.

 

If we are talking golf or tennis maybe the "majors won" thing is a valid argument.

 

Too bad Bradshaw does not get the love that he deserves, he is a lot better than many give credit.

 

I hear what you are saying regarding playoff wins/looses team/individual accomplishment.  But typically one is looking at them as against ones peers.  So we look at flacco and Eli manning, Mark Sanchez versus similar QBs and so on.  So one is trying to compare Brady with Dilfer or Manning with Dilfer, but when we look a folks at the same level then we can compare.  When a player has helped his team make the playoffs how well has be done in the playoffs.  When some on is fortunate to be on a team that makes the playoffs a lot how does he compare with other players who have been on a team that has made the playoffs many times.  And when we look at similar players it comes into play.  Kind of like comparing Flacco and Dalton (or Luck and Dalton) when you compare Flacco and Dalton some will tip the scales to Flacco given the Ravens better success in the playoffs over Cinn, you get what I am saying.

 

And one caveat to this one "being on a good team" argument are the MVPs awards.  Many folks will look at MVPs as being a "personal" accomplishment, when in reality the award has a team element to them, one needs to be on a good team to be eligible and needs some good teammate around him to help garner great stats.  And if you are talented enough you are going to post good stats and if you are luckily enough to be on a great team you get handed the MVP award.  but there is a team element to it.    

 

People will look to MVPs as a qualification on how good a player is against his contemporaries.  Which is a fair statement on one level but it must be understood that the accomplishment has a team element.  Likewise, playoff wins, which have team element, are used as a qualification to ones resume even though it too has a team element.

[Narcosys]

The stat has to do with being down, then coming back and tying it up and then getting down again. Often times it is tough to comeback and have to do it a second time. I am sure it has happen many times that a team has been down by 10, 14, 17, 18 and so on and score a TD and then the opponent would score a TD returning the losing team back to the original deficient. So surely that has happened.

But the stat refers to being down, coming back to tie it up and then going down again. And no one has come back from that being down 14 points twice.

He overcame a total deficit of 28. Same as luck. So what's the difference?

[Yehoodi]

18 points is 18 points regardless of you tie or not, heck he overcame 21 point and 24 point margins at different times during that game as well. I knew your argument would be the tying thing but the points are points regardless. Is happened during regular season to so what's the difference?

He overcame total of 28 points, same as luck in his game.

 

What happened during the regular season.  Are we talking about last Saturday's game NE/Balt and you are taking about last year WC game between Indy and KC?

 

Bottom line the bringing it back to square and then falling behind is the stat.  Period.  You got a problem talk with the NFL person who keeps stats, not us. 

 

If you look at it logically and from a timing standpoint you can understand why a stat like that is kept and not one in regards to one who is down by 17 then 2 mins later down by 14 then 2 mins later down by 17 again.  When one is down by 14 there is a lot of time that is required to tie the game as the other team might still be scoring.  And then more time for the other team the get that 14 point lead back, as they are now tie, and then further time for a team to overcome that second 14 point deficit, as which point you are late in the game and have not much time to come back. 

 

Indeed in Saturdays game it took about 2 full quarters for this to happen, so one runs out of time to overcome the second 14 point deficient.  Whereas the if you are down by 17 score a FG to be down 14 and 3 mins later the opponent score a FG you are down by 17 points but only 3 mins in the game has gone by not 30 mins ;) .  You see what I am saying?

[Yehoodi]

He overcame a total deficit of 28. Same as luck. So what's the difference?

 

 

 

It is an issue of timing as I mentioned in my last post.   Also, you did indicated an overall deficient, which has its own stat.   I believe that 28 points is in the record books too, although it is not a top record, but its in the books at 2nd I believe.  And also should be in the HOF record book on its website.

[amfootball]

Manning did things no other QB had ever done. He was IMO the most cerebral QB ever to play the game . He did a lot of winning , often with out a lot of help. If he plays next year , he'll have every passing record there is. That said , his record in the playoffs can't be ignored. Heck.. his teams are 3-3 when favored by 7 to more teams. I heard once that the one SB was the only championship he had ever one.This def included high school.. not sure about Pop Warner. Let's face it , there's a case to say he's not a big game QB. I think he should have found a way to win that game at home vs Pitt back in 2005 (?). People never mention the 2 really poor plays before the Vandy shank. Don't misunderstand me .. I think he's right there with Elway , Montana , Unitas and Brady. I just don't think you can put him at 1 considering his playoff record. It's a different season against the tougher teams. IMO , he should have had a few more wins where he just "willed" the team to a win. The KC playoff in about 10 years ago was an example of Manning doing that. It just didn't happen enough.

 

Brady on the other hand is a big game QB. Even in the 2 SB losses he was on the bench when the Pats lost the game. You have to take into consideration that he had the better coach and the more balanced team  but c'mon 9 AFCCG compared to 9 one and done games ?

 

That said , how you rate them in an all time list depends on the criteria you want to use. But IMO the Colt fans that try to say Manning is as "clutch" as Brady have a tall mountain to climb. 

Great take on both QBs ... agree with all that you have here.

[Narcosys]

What happened during the regular season. Are we talking about last Saturday's game NE/Balt and you are taking about last year WC game between Indy and KC?

Bottom line the bringing it back to square and then falling behind is the stat. Period. You got a problem talk with the NFL person who keeps stats, not us.

If you look at it logically and from a timing standpoint you can understand why a stat like that is kept and not one in regards to one who is down by 17 then 2 mins later down by 14 then 2 mins later down by 17 again. When one is down by 14 there is a lot of time that is required to tie the game as the other team might still be scoring. And then more time for the other team the get that 14 point lead back, as they are now tie, and then further time for a team to overcome that second 14 point deficit, as which point you are late in the game and have not much time to come back.

Indeed in Saturdays game it took about 2 full quarters for this to happen, so one runs out of time to overcome the second 14 point deficient. Whereas the if you are down by 17 score a FG to be down 14 and 3 mins later the opponent score a FG you are down by 17 points but only 3 mins in the game has gone by not 30 mins ;) . You see what I am saying?

I understand the time thing. I still call it a frivolous stat. So hyping it up so much is beyond me. Same with Luck and overcoming 28 points. It's not being used to argue luck is the greatest but it does for brady.

[Narcosys]

Brady on the other hand is a big game QB. Even in the 2 SB losses he was on the bench when the Pats lost the game. You have to take into consideration that he had the better coach and the more balanced team but c'mon 9 AFCCG compared to 9 one and done games ?

Here's another one of those, let's use this argument for brady but not manning, scenarios.

Well over half of Manning's losses in the playoffs, especially his one and dones, have come in the last 2 minutes, 1 minute, and even 30 seconds. But we'll forget about that fact but use it to defend brady.

Keep the debate points even and or you can't be taken seriously. Stop applying points to one and not the other is all I ask.

[Narcosys]

Apparently Manning has no friends on the Broncos:

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2015/01/13/mckee-peyton-manning-miserably-failed-test-of-courage-has-no-friends-on-broncos/

There's so much wrong with that article Idk where to begin.

[Narcosys]

Double

[dw49]

Here's another one of those, let's use this argument for brady but not manning, scenarios.

Well over half of Manning's losses in the playoffs, especially his one and dones, have come in the last 2 minutes, 1 minute, and even 30 seconds. But we'll forget about that fact but use it to defend brady.

Keep the debate points even and or you can't be taken seriously. Stop applying points to one and not the other is all I ask

 

 

 

 

I'm a big Manning fan and don't like Brady. I haven't missed a Colt game in the last 20 years. Yes Manning had a few playoff losses where he played well and the defense let him down. But to try to turn that into he's as clutch as Brady in big games is a real stretch. All I mentioned was that in the two Super Bowls Brady led teams lost , he converted the drive toward the end of the game that he need to convert. And Welker dropped a pass that would have put the last one away.. Is what it is and I have zero venue to protect Brady and put PM down. I'm not even saying that I would rate Brady the over all better QB. What I'm saying is he's the more clutch QB.

[dynasty13]

Pats havent won anything in 10 years so your "dynasty13" forum name is pretty much a joke.

 

 

You're right.

 

BUT thanks, I think I'll keep my name, since I've been a member here for 10 years I don't see a point in changing it now.

[Iancolts]

Learn history?

The Patriots went 5-11 in 2000 (year before he took over). They were 0-2 when Brady took over when Bledsoe got hurt. Not sure which history class I missed but those are the facts, Jack.

You said he inherited a very good team. Learn history. ;)

[Narcosys]

I'm a big Manning fan and don't like Brady. I haven't missed a Colt game in the last 20 years. Yes Manning had a few playoff losses where he played well and the defense let him down. But to try to turn that into he's as clutch as Brady in big games is a real stretch. All I mentioned was that in the two Super Bowls Brady led teams lost , he converted the drive toward the end of the game that he need to convert. And Welker dropped a pass that would have put the last one away.. Is what it is and I have zero venue to protect Brady and put PM down. I'm not even saying that I would rate Brady the over all better QB. What I'm saying is he's the more clutch QB.

In no way did i turn that into, he is as clutch as manning, you are trying to draw conclusions from something that isnt there.  In all factual basis there are 4 or 5 games that the defense was last on field and they lost.  3 of which were under 40 seconds and then in overtime the other team got the ball and the defense couldnt stop them. 

 

I was merely pointing out that you cannot sit there and use an excuse for one while ignoring it for another.  I hear it way to many times that brady doesnt have a defense or receiving core, nearly excusing him for every loss and playoff loss.  But it is completely reversed when talking about manning.  I am all about a fair debate but at some point it gets frustrating and sickening to here all the excuses for Brady.  It makes debating with these kind of people who cannot hold to one standard pointless because they refuse to be fair about anything.

[Yehoodi]

I understand the time thing. I still call it a frivolous stat. So hyping it up so much is beyond me. Same with Luck and overcoming 28 points. It's not being used to argue luck is the greatest but it does for brady.

 

Yes the NFL has a lot of stats that have an overlap of other stats.  The NFL has more stats than any other sport I think and some, on one level, overlap.  The two that we are discussing do overlap but at the same time represent a different accomplishment. 

 

And yes, like I always say, "what is behind a stat and what does it mean, can we break it down in its parts to see how impressive it is, are there other stats like it, is there another stat that is more accurate, and so"

 

For example when folks look at 4th qtr comeback stat.  All we get is the raw number of positive results, which on its own is nice.  but for me I like to look at what percentage is that of his overall career.

 

if QB in a given number of games does his job and only had 10 games where the game is tied but pulls is out in the 4th qtr to win 7 times, he had 7 4th qtr comeback and has 70% success rate when things are tied in the 4th

 

if on the other hand in the same number of given games we have a dufus QB who cant do his job and has his team tied in 20 of the games but only pulls out 9 of them, he does have 9 4th qtr comeback but only has a 45% success rate, even though folks would say he is more clutch as he has 9 comebacks to 7 comebacks

 

so yah, stats and records need to be looked at to see what they actually mean and I think you are I agree on this pretty much.

 

the 28 point overall deficient is one thing in which a team comes back in one long string.

 

the two 14 pointers indicated that they come back, tied it, and fell back again and had to do it all over again.  So there is a comeback, a tied, a let down and a need to have to do it all over again.

 

on one level the two are similar, but are different in that the latter one has more of a roller coaster emotion to it and has a different dynamic with respect to the timing throughout the game.  

[Narcosys]

Yes the NFL has a lot of stats that have an overlap of other stats.  The NFL has more stats than any other sport I think and some, on one level, overlap.  The two that we are discussing do overlap but at the same time represent a different accomplishment. 

 

And yes, like I always say, "what is behind a stat and what does it mean, can we break it down in its parts to see how impressive it is, are there other stats like it, is there another stat that is more accurate, and so"

 

For example when folks look at 4th qtr comeback stat.  All we get is the raw number of positive results, which on its own is nice.  but for me I like to look at what percentage is that of his overall career.

 

if QB in a given number of games does his job and only had 10 games where the game is tied but pulls is out in the 4th qtr to win 7 times, he had 7 4th qtr comeback and has 70% success rate when things are tied in the 4th

 

if on the other hand in the same number of given games we have a dufus QB who cant do his job and has his team tied in 20 of the games but only pulls out 9 of them, he does have 9 4th qtr comeback but only has a 45% success rate, even though folks would say he is more clutch as he has 9 comebacks to 7 comebacks

 

so yah, stats and records need to be looked at to see what they actually mean and I think you are I agree on this pretty much.

 

the 28 point overall deficient is one thing in which a team comes back in one long string.

 

the two 14 pointers indicated that they come back, tied it, and fell back again and had to do it all over again.  So there is a comeback, a tied, a let down and a need to have to do it all over again.

 

on one level the two are similar, but are different in that the latter one has more of a roller coaster emotion to it and has a different dynamic with respect to the timing throughout the game.  

 

Try being a Colt fan and watching that game.  lol

[Yehoodi]

In no way did i turn that into, he is as clutch as manning, you are trying to draw conclusions from something that isnt there.  In all factual basis there are 4 or 5 games that the defense was last on field and they lost.  3 of which were under 40 seconds and then in overtime the other team got the ball and the defense couldnt stop them. 

 

I was merely pointing out that you cannot sit there and use an excuse for one while ignoring it for another.  I hear it way to many times that brady doesnt have a defense or receiving core, nearly excusing him for every loss and playoff loss.  But it is completely reversed when talking about manning.  I am all about a fair debate but at some point it gets frustrating and sickening to here all the excuses for Brady.  It makes debating with these kind of people who cannot hold to one standard pointless because they refuse to be fair about anything.

 

 

I hear you 110% and totally agree with your points about looking at things equally.  However when one does look at the bad bounces, if teammates could just make a play, things really do not get any better and perhaps get worst for manning in the debate 

 

Untouched the records look like this

 

Brady

 

3 SBs

5 AFFCGs

9 AFFCG appearances

2 one and dones

 

Manning

 

1 SB

3 AFCCGs

4 AFCCG appearances

9 one and dones

 

if we add in the two SBs for Brady and the say 5 one and dones for manning in which a play or two by his teammates make a loss a win the results look like this:

 

Brady

 

5 SBs and the only 19-0 season

5 AFFCGs

9 AFFCG appearances

2 one and dones

 

Manning

 

1 SB

3 AFCCGs

4 AFCCG appearances

3 one and dones

 

3 more AFCCG appearances for 7 overall

2 more divisional round appearances

 

So the numbers go to 5-1 SBs for Brady and the only 19-0 season when we look at virtual wins.  Yes Peyton would of had a few more AFCCG appearances and made it through to the divisional round a few more times, but it might be a tough argument to say they could of went on to then win two more games to win a SB (three for div round appearances).  It is one thing to add a virtual win by turning around a play or two, but a tad more difficult argument to give a team the next game, but certainly it can be considered

 

Actually one of Brady's gees if his teammates make one more play or a call doesn't go against us is the 2006 AFCCG and if we give the bad bounces in Brady's favor the SB tally goes to 5-0. 

 

Yes one could make a point that the '05 colts could have beaten the '05 broncos and '05 seahawks, but at the same time folks could say that the '06 pats could of beaten Grossman's bears, which brings the SB tally to 5-2 or 6-1 depending on how you give the bounces in the 2006 CG and again the 05 colts needed two games.

 

the bottom line, Brady and the pats outside of there actual SB victories have made deep deep runs in the playoffs and have come close to a few more, when you have done that, 3 actual wins and 2-3 close ones, it tough to overcome that kind of resume.

 

Yes I guess one could put the 2009 SB in manning camp if bounces go his way in the 4th qtr, but it still does not close the gap and for the most part the gap widens once we start to add virtual wins on both sides of the equation.

[Yehoodi]

Try being a Colt fan and watching that game.  lol

yah that KC game was a great one . . . classic

[Narcosys]

I hear you 110% and totally agree with your points about looking at things equally.  However when one does look at the bad bounces, if teammates could just make a play, things really do not get any better and perhaps get worst for manning in the debate 

 

Untouched the records look like this

 

Brady

 

3 SBs

5 AFFCGs

9 AFFCG appearances

2 one and dones

 

Manning

 

1 SB

3 AFCCGs

4 AFCCG appearances

9 one and dones

 

if we add in the two SBs for Brady and the say 5 one and dones for manning in which a play or two by his teammates make a loss a win the results look like this:

 

Brady

 

5 SBs and the only 19-0 season

5 AFFCGs

9 AFFCG appearances

2 one and dones

 

Manning

 

1 SB

3 AFCCGs

4 AFCCG appearances

3 one and dones

 

3 more AFCCG appearances for 7 overall

2 more divisional round appearances

 

So the numbers go to 5-1 SBs for Brady and the only 19-0 season when we look at virtual wins.  Yes Peyton would of had a few more AFCCG appearances and made it through to the divisional round a few more times, but it might be a tough argument to say they could of went on to then win two more games to win a SB (three for div round appearances).  It is one thing to add a virtual win by turning around a play or two, but a tad more difficult argument to give a team the next game, but certainly it can be considered

 

Actually one of Brady's gees if his teammates make one more play or a call doesn't go against us is the 2006 AFCCG and if we give the bad bounces in Brady's favor the SB tally goes to 5-0. 

 

Yes one could make a point that the '05 colts could have beaten the '05 broncos and '05 seahawks, but at the same time folks could say that the '06 pats could of beaten Grossman's bears, which brings the SB tally to 5-2 or 6-1 depending on how you give the bounces in the 2006 CG and again the 05 colts needed two games.

 

the bottom line, Brady and the pats outside of there actual SB victories have made deep deep runs in the playoffs and have come close to a few more, when you have done that, 3 actual wins and 2-3 close ones, it tough to overcome that kind of resume.

 

Yes I guess one could put the 2009 SB in manning camp if bounces go his way in the 4th qtr, but it still does not close the gap and for the most part the gap widens once we start to add virtual wins on both sides of the equation.

 

And thats what i dislike about comparing wins.  With any QB.  Even like Montana and Brady, or Big Ben and Rodgers.  Wins are so tough to narrow down to one deciding factor that its hard to really consider it being all on one person.  But the onus comes down on the QB's in this day and age.