Why Brady is NOT the GOAT

[Superman]

1 minute ago, Luck is Good said:

Yes he does. 30-12 as a starting QB in the postseason.

 

W/L record is a team stat, not a QB stat. 

 

Quote

Brady orchestrated a GW drive

 

That's a stretch of epic proportions. There were six minutes left in the game, and the defense made the plays to win the game. On the follow up drive, Brady didn't attempt a single pass. 

 

He did precious little in that game. But you're acting like 'he just wins,' and that's bogus. Wins -- especially in the playoffs -- are a team accomplishment. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

Jerry Rice just summed it up, there are a fraternity of GOATs. I would put it in a small group = Brady, Montana, Peyton, Unitas, and Elway but that is just me. Marino not winning at least 1 SB looks bad but he was great other than that.

[Luck is Good]

7 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

W/L record is a team stat, not a QB stat. 

 

 

That's a stretch of epic proportions. There were six minutes left in the game, and the defense made the plays to win the game. On the follow up drive, Brady didn't attempt a single pass. 

 

He did precious little in that game. But you're acting like 'he just wins,' and that's bogus. Wins -- especially in the playoffs -- are a team accomplishment. 

When I say “he just wins,” I mean he finds ways to win. No one has ever denied he has the team around him. Brady takes pay cuts to make sure he has a team around him. He knows how important it is to have a complete team around him. My main point is that when the chips are on the table, I’m taking Brady. That’s it

[2006Coltsbestever]

7 minutes ago, Luck is Good said:

When I say “he just wins,” I mean he finds ways to win. No one has ever denied he has the team around him. Brady takes pay cuts to make sure he has a team around him. He knows how important it is to have a complete team around him. My main point is that when the chips are on the table, I’m taking Brady. That’s it

I know what you mean because Montana did the same thing in the 80's so did Magic and Jordan in their day. Peyton did it at times too but in the Playoffs he was shaky so I get your point where some may not.

[Superman]

6 minutes ago, Luck is Good said:

When I say “he just wins,” I mean he finds ways to win. No one has ever denied he has the team around him. Brady takes pay cuts to make sure he has a team around him. He knows how important it is to have a complete team around him. My main point is that when the chips are on the table, I’m taking Brady. That’s it

 

So he's the GOAT because he takes pay cuts?? That's a stretch, also, and I'm pretty sure you don't mean to present that as a legitimate argument.

 

He didn't 'find a way to win' yesterday. He benefited from a great defensive performance, which has been typical of his entire postseason career.

 

He didn't 'find a way to win' in the AFCCG. He lucked out due to a cheap alignment penalty, and went from throwing the game ending pick to winning in OT, over a matter of six inches. (By the way, big credit to Brady for the OT drive, three big third down throws; and he has plenty of signature clutch drives in the playoffs, so I'm not acting like he doesn't know how to come up big.)

 

He didn't 'find a way to win' against Seattle; the Seahawks gave the game away. Etc., etc.

 

And that's the other thing: They benefit from more blown plays, close calls, awkward penalties, random turnovers, etc., than any other team I can remember. That's not to take anything away from the Pats or from Brady, but when people start saying stuff like 'he just finds a way to win,' it becomes relevant. More often than not, other teams just find a way to lose, and Brady is the beneficiary of that.

[2006Coltsbestever]

6 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

So he's the GOAT because he takes pay cuts?? That's a stretch, also, and I'm pretty sure you don't mean to present that as a legitimate argument.

 

He didn't 'find a way to win' yesterday. He benefited from a great defensive performance, which has been typical of his entire postseason career.

 

He didn't 'find a way to win' in the AFCCG. He lucked out due to a cheap alignment penalty, and went from throwing the game ending pick to winning in OT, over a matter of six inches. (By the way, big credit to Brady for the OT drive, three big third down throws; and he has plenty of signature clutch drives in the playoffs, so I'm not acting like he doesn't know how to come up big.)

 

He didn't 'find a way to win' against Seattle; the Seahawks gave the game away. Etc., etc.

 

And that's the other thing: They benefit from more blown plays, close calls, awkward penalties, random turnovers, etc., than any other team I can remember. That's not to take anything away from the Pats or from Brady, but when people start saying stuff like 'he just finds a way to win,' it becomes relevant. More often than not, other teams just find a way to lose, and Brady is the beneficiary of that.

Great points as well, Brady has been lucky a lot. If Matt Ryan just hands the ball off 3 times and they kick a FG the game is over in SB 51. Seahawks gave them a gift in SB 49.

[Luck is Good]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

So he's the GOAT because he takes pay cuts?? That's a stretch, also, and I'm pretty sure you don't mean to present that as a legitimate argument.

 

He didn't 'find a way to win' yesterday. He benefited from a great defensive performance, which has been typical of his entire postseason career.

 

He didn't 'find a way to win' in the AFCCG. He lucked out due to a cheap alignment penalty, and went from throwing the game ending pick to winning in OT, over a matter of six inches. (By the way, big credit to Brady for the OT drive, three big third down throws; and he has plenty of signature clutch drives in the playoffs, so I'm not acting like he doesn't know how to come up big.)

 

He didn't 'find a way to win' against Seattle; the Seahawks gave the game away. Etc., etc.

 

And that's the other thing: They benefit from more blown plays, close calls, awkward penalties, random turnovers, etc., than any other team I can remember. That's not to take anything away from the Pats or from Brady, but when people start saying stuff like 'he just finds a way to win,' it becomes relevant. More often than not, other teams just find a way to lose, and Brady is the beneficiary of that.

I never said he was the GOAT because of taking pay cuts. You seem to think I’m knocking the team accomplishment of the Patriots. I’ve never once said they’re not a complete team. It’s not just Brady winning games. They win as a team. However, he’s the QB. Whether right or wrong, it’s the most scrutinized position in all of sports. All I’ve said is that when the chips are on the line, I’m taking Brady as my QB

[indyagent17]

5 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I still think Brady would be great on any team but he would not have 6 SB wins without Belichick that I am sure of and that is why people label him the GOAT. 

not even close, I agree he would be good. but that perfect storm in NE started by Bill will go down in history as one of greatest dynasties in NFL history. Everyone is that system is a cog in a larger machine and they add players every year to fit that mold. it makes me sick to see them in the hunt every year but Belichick will go down in history for this even though we was much less successful in other cities he found an owner that would give him full control over the team 

[Superman]

1 hour ago, Luck is Good said:

However, he’s the QB. Whether right or wrong

 

It's wrong, so let's stop presenting it as a legitimate talking point. 

 

This is what @2006Coltsbestever was arguing against earlier. Just because the team wins a game doesn't mean the QB played well or deserves credit for the win, and the opposite is true as well. 

 

Edit: And it's not that I think you're knocking the team accomplishment. It's that you're giving credit to one player for what a team is able to do. It's intellectually lazy, and just because it's become widely accepted doesn't mean we can't do better. 

[18to87]

47 minutes ago, indyagent17 said:

not even close, I agree he would be good. but that perfect storm in NE started by Bill will go down in history as one of greatest dynasties in NFL history. Everyone is that system is a cog in a larger machine and they add players every year to fit that mold. it makes me sick to see them in the hunt every year but Belichick will go down in history for this even though we was much less successful in other cities he found an owner that would give him full control over the team 

I agree. BB also won two rings as a DC. I believe, since 2000, you could plug in any top 5 to 15 QB into the Patriots and they would have the same success. Matt Cassell went 11-5 and he was not even a top 25 QB at any point of his career other than that year. If Jimmy G had stayed the starter (and managed to stay healthy) he may have been putting up Mahomes type numbers before Mahomes. 

[coltsorioles]

The colts without peyton manning won 2 games. The patriots without brady won 11. When Brady was suspended they went 3-1. When manning retired the Broncos missed the playoffs after winning the super bowl.   Take Brady off the patriots they are still a good team just not great. Take manning off the colts and they go from a great team to terrible

[2006Coltsbestever]

7 minutes ago, coltsorioles said:

The colts without peyton manning won 2 games. The patriots without brady won 11. When Brady was suspended they went 3-1. When manning retired the Broncos missed the playoffs after winning the super bowl.   Take Brady off the patriots they are still a good team just not great. Take manning off the colts and they go from a great team to terrible

Without Peyton we stunk , wasn't that bad in 2011, we looked lost without 18. 

[Luck is Good]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

It's wrong, so let's stop presenting it as a legitimate talking point. 

 

This is what @2006Coltsbestever was arguing against earlier. Just because the team wins a game doesn't mean the QB played well or deserves credit for the win, and the opposite is true as well. 

 

Edit: And it's not that I think you're knocking the team accomplishment. It's that you're giving credit to one player for what a team is able to do. It's intellectually lazy, and just because it's become widely accepted doesn't mean we can't do better. 

Bottom line is that when the chips are on the table, I’m taking Brady as my QB

[18to87]

14 minutes ago, Luck is Good said:

Bottom line is that when the chips are on the table, I’m taking Brady as my QB

I don't necessarily disagree with you but his success in the clutch has been seriously influenced by luck. The KC game, the Falcons dropping an INT that is somehow caught by Edelman, Panthers kicking out of bounds on the kickoff, etc. 

I don't have the exact numbers; however, there are some interesting numbers out there for Manning and Brees where they scored to take the lead or tie very late in playoff games and still lost. This type of thing simply does not happen to Brady (except for '06  ) which brings it back to the coaching and the team around the QB. 

[Superman]

15 minutes ago, Luck is Good said:

Bottom line is that when the chips are on the table, I’m taking Brady as my QB

 

That's your prerogative. And if it makes you feel better about that choice to say 'he just finds a way to win,' that's also your prerogative.

 

But I don't think that claim holds up to scrutiny, so in a discussion about what makes QBs great, I'm gonna pick at it. I push back because I think QBs -- and Brady in particular -- get too much credit for postseason success. In the postseason, the Patriots win 60-70% of the games when Brady is average, or worse. They are able to win playoff games against good teams with average QBing, or worse. Saying 'he just wins' is a misrepresentation.

 

But whatever reason you have for preferring Brady in any situation, there's going to be a solid basis for it. Brady has plenty of clutch moments and big games, so wanting him when the game is on the line is reasonable. 

[Luck is Good]

17 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

That's your prerogative. And if it makes you feel better about that choice to say 'he just finds a way to win,' that's also your prerogative.

 

But I don't think that claim holds up to scrutiny, so in a discussion about what makes QBs great, I'm gonna pick at it. I push back because I think QBs -- and Brady in particular -- get too much credit for postseason success. In the postseason, the Patriots win 60-70% of the games when Brady is average, or worse. They are able to win playoff games against good teams with average QBing, or worse. Saying 'he just wins' is a misrepresentation.

 

But whatever reason you have for preferring Brady in any situation, there's going to be a solid basis for it. Brady has plenty of clutch moments and big games, so wanting him when the game is on the line is reasonable. 

Great teams find ways to win. That’s the Patriots. They’ve proven that during this 18 year run. It’s something we’ll never again see in the NFL

26 minutes ago, 18to87 said:

I don't necessarily disagree with you but his success in the clutch has been seriously influenced by luck. The KC game, the Falcons dropping an INT that is somehow caught by Edelman, Panthers kicking out of bounds on the kickoff, etc. 

I don't have the exact numbers; however, there are some interesting numbers out there for Manning and Brees where they scored to take the lead or tie very late in playoff games and still lost. This type of thing simply does not happen to Brady (except for '06  ) which brings it back to the coaching and the team around the QB. 

Some luck is always involved with great teams

[GoPats]

 

I’m gonna stay out of this one but just wanted to point out that if you remove “rings” from the discussion then Montana probablydoesn’t even crack the top 10. He was pretty average statistically but until the Brady/Manning era he was generally regarded as the GOAT. There are lots of factors so I respect whatever opinions people have. 

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, GoPats said:

 

I’m gonna stay out of this one but just wanted to point out that if you remove “rings” from the discussion then Montana probablydoesn’t even crack the top 10. He was pretty average statistically but until the Brady/Manning era he was generally regarded as the GOAT. There are lots of factors so I respect whatever opinions people have. 

 

Congrats on the win, to me it was a no brainer though  . I knew the Pats would win, predicted it in here and predicted they would win big. My list still has Brady, Montana, and Peyton. Outside of those 3 is a crapshoot. I will take the 3 I just named and run with it.

[buffalo34]

11 hours ago, Superman said:

The Pats are well coached, disciplined, well prepared, they are never a highly penalized team, they get rid of players who don't buy in (even good ones), etc. Some think it's preferential treatment and luck, but I think they're just a well run organization, and they put the players in position to perform like no other team does. The saying goes 'luck is when preparation meets opportunity,' and I think the Pats are a great example of that. 

 

Eh, some people call them disciplined, others call it favorable treatment by the officials...

 

(I know some teams are more disciplined than others, but you can't tell me you can go an entire game without a single penalty, which only ever seems to happen to the Patriots.

[SouthernIndianaNDFan]

On 2/2/2019 at 6:15 PM, Luck is Good said:

It’s the bias against the Patriots that propels the hate. Every team cheats. It’s just whether it becomes public. Peyton was a great QB. No one can ever deny that. But he’s not better than Brady. That’s just a fact

 

You could never in a million years convince me that Tom Brady was a better quarterback than Peyton Manning. Don't give me team accomplishments to strengthen/support your case, either. You put those two guys in a neutral setting, on teams with equal talent and coaching, Peyton Manning wins 8 games out of 10. He was the best pure QB to ever play the game, and if you give him all of those Top 5-6 defenses and the best strategic coach to ever play, God only knows how many SB's he would have won. 

[Mel Kiper's Hair]

1 hour ago, SouthernIndianaNDFan said:

 

You could never in a million years convince me that Tom Brady was a better quarterback than Peyton Manning. Don't give me team accomplishments to strengthen/support your case, either. You put those two guys in a neutral setting, on teams with equal talent and coaching, Peyton Manning wins 8 games out of 10. He was the best pure QB to ever play the game, and if you give him all of those Top 5-6 defenses and the best strategic coach to ever play, God only knows how many SB's he would have won. 

 

Come on. This is a little silly in my opinion. You act like Peyton played with a bunch of scrubs. Peyton actually had more weapons than Tom Brady has ever had. Marvin Harrison (HOF), Marshall Faulk (HOF), Reggie Wayne (potential HOF), Edgerrin James (HOF Finalist). Manning had a Hall OF Fame Coach. I'm a Colts fan but this idea that Brady has had superior teammates than Manning is just not fair. Peyton was given a great team with a great coach and we got a Super Bowl. There is no shame in that. Tom Brady has done more plain and simple.

 

My criteria for who is the GOAT essentially boils down to this. Who do I want to lead my team on a final drive to win the Super Bowl? Tom Brady is the man I would want. My second choice would be Joe Montana and then Peyton. 

[Mel Kiper's Hair]

18 hours ago, Superman said:

 

So he's the GOAT because he takes pay cuts?? That's a stretch, also, and I'm pretty sure you don't mean to present that as a legitimate argument.

 

He didn't 'find a way to win' yesterday. He benefited from a great defensive performance, which has been typical of his entire postseason career.

 

He didn't 'find a way to win' in the AFCCG. He lucked out due to a cheap alignment penalty, and went from throwing the game ending pick to winning in OT, over a matter of six inches. (By the way, big credit to Brady for the OT drive, three big third down throws; and he has plenty of signature clutch drives in the playoffs, so I'm not acting like he doesn't know how to come up big.)

 

He didn't 'find a way to win' against Seattle; the Seahawks gave the game away. Etc., etc.

 

And that's the other thing: They benefit from more blown plays, close calls, awkward penalties, random turnovers, etc., than any other team I can remember. That's not to take anything away from the Pats or from Brady, but when people start saying stuff like 'he just finds a way to win,' it becomes relevant. More often than not, other teams just find a way to lose, and Brady is the beneficiary of that.

 

 

So why doesn't anyone say these things when Bill Belichick is called the GOAT? Why don't we hear about his teams "lucked" into wins or the other teams lose? We don't hear that. It's widely accepted that he is the GOAT and even in this thread a detraction from Brady is that he has Belichick as his coach. If these statements apply to Brady wouldn't they also apply to Coach Belichick? 

[Superman]

1 hour ago, Mel Kiper's Hair said:

So why doesn't anyone say these things when Bill Belichick is called the GOAT? Why don't we hear about his teams "lucked" into wins or the other teams lose? We don't hear that. It's widely accepted that he is the GOAT and even in this thread a detraction from Brady is that he has Belichick as his coach. If these statements apply to Brady wouldn't they also apply to Coach Belichick? 

 

This discussion has been about QBs, not coaches. In a discussion about coaching, things like the Tuck Rule and Spygate and other factors would be considered when weighing Belichick's status.

 

(For instance, it matters that after 2005, Peyton Manning kind of owned Bill Belichick, including going 3-0 against him in the playoffs. Go back to the Chiefs game a few weeks ago; a Manning-led offense would have slowed down on that last TD drive in regulation, and maybe the Pats don't get another possession and the game ends 28-24. Andy Reid is famously bad with late game clock management.)

 

Belichick has benefited from some lucky bounces, some bad coaching by other teams, etc. I'd still defend his candidacy for GOAT, just like I've defended Brady's.

 

And I personally don't hold it against Brady that he has a great head coach. So in either matter, I'm not going to be held responsible for the opinions of others.

 

But it's still a different calculus. Belichick is in control of the entire football operation. And unlike other coaches who focus on one side of the ball, he is involved in the strategy and gameplanning in all phases. When the defense bails out the offense -- like they did Sunday night -- Belichick deserves credit; Brady doesn't. When the offense plays better than the defense, Belichick still deserves some credit, because he's part of the offensive gameplanning; of course, Brady as the QB deserves credit in those situations.

 

But Belichick is not a player who is only on the field 45-50% of the time. When the Patriots 'find ways to win,' that invariably involves him, as the head coach. The same can't be said for Brady, or for any QB. (It should also be noted that 'finds ways to win' isn't coming from me; I'm arguing against the 'finds ways to win' label that gets misapplied to Brady in games in which he doesn't really do anything.)

 

And the fact that the Patriots have been capable of winning so many games in the playoffs when Brady's performance is decidedly average (or worse) speaks to the operation that Belichick has put in place, and is a testament to his greatness. It doesn't speak to any greatness on Brady's part.

 

That's relevant when we're comparing Brady to other QBs. (Compared to Manning, for instance, who went to two SBs with coaches that were fired shortly after, and who have been fired again by other teams, because they weren't good coaches.) Brady has the best coach any player has ever had, and as a result, he doesn't have to do as much, as often, for the Patriots to win, especially in the playoffs. So when people say 'Brady just wins,' they are giving him credit that doesn't belong to him.

[Superman]

12 hours ago, buffalo34 said:

(I know some teams are more disciplined than others, but you can't tell me you can go an entire game without a single penalty, which only ever seems to happen to the Patriots.

 

Like when?

[Mel Kiper's Hair]

I keep reading that the Patriots win in the Playoffs in spite of Tom Brady. The numbers just don't support that. Did you know that Tom Brady's playoff numbers are BETTER than Peyton Manning's? Brady and Manning both have a 63.2% completion percentage in the playoffs. Tom Brady has thrown 73 TD's in 40 playoff games for an average of 1.83 TD's/gm. Manning threw for 40 TD's in 27 games for an average of 1.48 TD's/gm. Tom Brady has thrown 34 playoff interceptions or an average of .85 INT's/gm where Peyton Manning threw for 25 INT's or an average of .93 INT's/gm. Tom Brady has thrown for 11,179 YDS or an average of 279.5 YDS/gm. Peyton Manning threw for 7,339 YDS or an average of 271.8 YDS/gm. A few other tidbits Tom Brady has 9 4th quarter comebacks in the playoffs compared to Peyton Manning's 2. I love Peyton Manning but even the numbers say that Tom Brady is the GOAT.

 

Tom Brady's Playoff Stats   Peyton Manning's Playoff Stats 

[Superman]

6 minutes ago, Mel Kiper's Hair said:

the Patriots win in the Playoffs in spite of Tom Brady

 

When did you read that?

[James]

I am a Colts fan, and I will always be a Colts fan. I've always hated how great they are up there in New England during the Peyton era and now also during the Luck era. They have a history of questionable ethical behavior on the field and off the field. But... I simply can't deny the greatness of Tom Brady anymore.

 

6 rings. 6! That's as many as Michael Jordan. 

 

And Brady says he isn't done. He'll keep going. Not to cement his legacy (that's already set), but simply because he loves the game of football and he seems addicted to winning. That's actually just contributing to his legacy, but I digress.

 

His era up there in New England will come to an end, and most fan bases, casual viewers who know players, experts and such consider Brady the GOAT. But from what I'm reading on here it seems some Colts fans have a difficult time accepting that notion. 

 

I'm just curious.. but I want to know:

 

What does Brady have to do in order to be considered the GOAT?

 

- Win more Super Bowls?

- Win more Super Bowl MVPs (he has 4 out of 6)

- Win more regular season MVPs?

- Win more first team All Pros?

- Beat Peyton's all time TD or total yards record?

- Win a ring with a HC not named Bill Belichick?

- Win a ring outside New England?

[That Guy]

Lose the asterisk.

[James]

Just now, That Guy said:

Lose the asterisk.

 

Yeah, but now give a serious answer.

[Superman]

Serious question: What's wrong with the other thread that is entirely about Brady's status? The one with four pages of discussion already?

[Four2itus]

Do it without BB. 

[James]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

Serious question: What's wrong with the other thread that is entirely about Brady's status? The one with four pages of discussion already?

 

I mean, you're the mod and can move it to that thread if you wan't.

 

I didn't think about it.

[18to87]

4 hours ago, Mel Kiper's Hair said:

 

Come on. This is a little silly in my opinion. You act like Peyton played with a bunch of scrubs. Peyton actually had more weapons than Tom Brady has ever had. Marvin Harrison (HOF), Marshall Faulk (HOF), Reggie Wayne (potential HOF), Edgerrin James (HOF Finalist). Manning had a Hall OF Fame Coach. I'm a Colts fan but this idea that Brady has had superior teammates than Manning is just not fair. Peyton was given a great team with a great coach and we got a Super Bowl. There is no shame in that. Tom Brady has done more plain and simple.

 

My criteria for who is the GOAT essentially boils down to this. Who do I want to lead my team on a final drive to win the Super Bowl? Tom Brady is the man I would want. My second choice would be Joe Montana and then Peyton. 

 

The "he had more weapons than Brady" thing is often overstated. Faulk??? Harrison went missing in the playoffs against physical coverage when PM needed him most. If PM had it over again, I bet he would have traded in one or two of those weapons for an OL like what Brady has had. Also, I was looking at the stat box for one of PM's last games vs NE as a Colt. He was throwing TD passes to Blair White. Yes, his weapons did get injured quite a bit over the years.

 

I also have serious doubts that Brady could start at a new team mid-career and be elite. Manning went to Denver and made many of his teammates rich (Julius Thomas anyone?). It most certainly wasn't the coaching.

[Luck 4 president]

Winning on a different team/with a different coach. Nobody has had the level of coaching and management that Brady has had his entire career. Put him with an average coach and he wins 0 Super Bowls 

[Mel Kiper's Hair]

18 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

When did you read that?

20 hours ago, Superman said:

 

 

But I don't think that claim holds up to scrutiny, so in a discussion about what makes QBs great, I'm gonna pick at it. I push back because I think QBs -- and Brady in particular -- get too much credit for postseason success. In the postseason, the Patriots win 60-70% of the games when Brady is average, or worse. They are able to win playoff games against good teams with average QBing, or worse. 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Superman said:

 

 

 

And the fact that the Patriots have been capable of winning so many games in the playoffs when Brady's performance is decidedly average (or worse) speaks to the operation that Belichick has put in place, and is a testament to his greatness. It doesn't speak to any greatness on Brady's part.

 

 

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean, but when you say that someone is worse than average to me that means they are below average. Putting 2 and 2 together if the QB is playing below average thenthe team is winning in spite of the QB. So maybe you didn't say that and if that isn't what you meant then I am happy to hear your explanation.

[James]

2 minutes ago, Luck 4 president said:

Winning on a different team/with a different coach. Nobody has had the level of coaching and management that Brady has had his entire career. Put him with an average coach and he wins 0 Super Bowls 

 

I used to think that, but when you see him play it's clear he is a great QB. You can't deny that.

 

I don't think he wins 6 Super Bowls, but he is too great not to win one or two. 

[Mel Kiper's Hair]

34 minutes ago, 18to87 said:

 

The "he had more weapons than Brady" thing is often overstated. Faulk??? Harrison went missing in the playoffs against physical coverage when PM needed him most. If PM had it over again, I bet he would have traded in one or two of those weapons for an OL like what Brady has had. Also, I was looking at the stat box for one of PM's last games vs NE as a Colt. He was throwing TD passes to Blair White. Yes, his weapons did get injured quite a bit over the years.

 

I also have serious doubts that Brady could start at a new team mid-career and be elite. Manning went to Denver and made many of his teammates rich (Julius Thomas anyone?). It most certainly wasn't the coaching.

 

Tom Brady has thrown TD's to 71 DIFFERENT targets compared to 45 for Peyton Manning. Brady has had a revolving door of recievers over the course of his career. It doesn't matter who you give to Tom Brady he is going to throw TD's. So Brady makes everyone a weapon.

[Superman]

6 minutes ago, Mel Kiper's Hair said:

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean, but when you say that someone is worse than average to me that means they are below average. Putting 2 and 2 together if the QB is playing below average thenthe team is winning in spite of the QB. So maybe you didn't say that and if that isn't what you meant then I am happy to hear your explanation.

 

"In spite of" has a negative connotation and implies that bad play by Brady has to be overcome by the Patriots to win, and that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that Brady doesn't have to be any better than average, in a lot of cases (sometimes below average), for the Patriots to win in the playoffs, and that's borne out by the numbers I posted earlier.

 

And there are a lot of comparisons around the Internet that highlight just how much of an outlier this is among QBs. (For example: since 2001, if the QB has more INTs than TDs in a playoff game, teams besides the Patriots are 4-51; the Patriots are 6-4.)

[Mel Kiper's Hair]

47 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

"In spite of" has a negative connotation and implies that bad play by Brady has to be overcome by the Patriots to win, and that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that Brady doesn't have to be any better than average, in a lot of cases (sometimes below average), for the Patriots to win in the playoffs, and that's borne out by the numbers I posted earlier.

 

And there are a lot of comparisons around the Internet that highlight just how much of an outlier this is among QBs. (For example: since 2001, if the QB has more INTs than TDs in a playoff game, teams besides the Patriots are 4-51; the Patriots are 6-4.)

 

 

I would say that just because a QB throws more INT's than TD's in an individual game doesn't necessarily mean the QB had a bad game. Brady threw for almost 350 against the Chiefs in the AFCCG. Sometimes it is just a lucky pick. I would have to look closer at each individual game to determine what were actual bad games by Brady that the Pats still won.

[Superman]

31 minutes ago, Mel Kiper's Hair said:

I would say that just because a QB throws more INT's than TD's in an individual game doesn't necessarily mean the QB had a bad game. Brady threw for almost 350 against the Chiefs in the AFCCG. Sometimes it is just a lucky pick. I would have to look closer at each individual game to determine what were actual bad games by Brady that the Pats still won.

 

I agree that every game and every pick is different, and I never said that more picks than TDs = a bad game by the QB. But in 17 seasons, every other team is 4-51 when the QB throws more picks than TDs. The Pats alone have six wins with Brady in that time period. That statistical anomaly speaks for itself.