Tom Brady vs. Peyton Manning: Who's the Best? - Part III
by tommasse on Jul 25, 2007 9:32 PM EDT
in News
24 comments
Brady vs. Manning
Who Is the Better QB and Why?
There's more than statistics and supporting skill position players that impact a quarterback's performance. In Part III of "Tom Brady vs. Peyton Manning: Who's Better and Why?" we look at some of these other factors.
The Coaches
Brady has had just one coach his entire career. Bill Belichick became the HC of the NEP the year before in 2000. He succeeded Pete Carroll, who held the post for four years.
Manning has worked under two head coaches. He shared his rookie year (1998) with veteran coach Jim Mora Sr., who remained in Indy for four years. Predecessor Lindy Infante also held a four-year tenure. Manning has spend the last five years with Tony Dungy.
Belichick was not considered a successful coach in Cleveland. He took over a perennial contender that peaked and needed to rebuild. Under Belichick, they did. Slowly. Assuming control of a 3-13 team, Belichick's squads finished 6-10, 7-9 and 7-9 in his first three years. Then there was the breakout 11-5 season (and Cleveland beat New England in the Wild Card).
 |
 |
Five seasons: 36-44.
When Belichick came to New England, he was virtually anonymous, and lived in the shadow of Bill Parcells. He took over a team with tons of potential was failing to live up to it under quintessential college coach Pete Carroll. (Well, in retrospect.)
After finishing 8-8 in Carroll's final season, the Patriots began the Belichick Era with a 5-11 record. The 2001 season began with a pair of losses with Drew Bledsoe calling signals. To this point in his career, Belichick was 41-57. Since then, Belichick has gone 70-24, for a career regular-season record of 111-81 and a postseason record of 13-3 (1-1 with Cleveland, 12-2 with New England).
In Indianapolis, the Colts were inconsistent in the AFC East, but not long before Manning and Mora came to town, they were in the AFC Championship. That success failed quickly, and Mora, who enjoyed moderate success in 10-plus years with perennial doormat New Orleans, assumed control a team that finished 3-13.
The Colts finished 3-13 Mora's first season, too, but they quickly rebounded with one of the greatest reversals in NFL history, finishing 13-3, but losing their first playoff game in the divisional playoffs. That was followed by waning seasons of 10-6 (another opening-round playoff loss) and 6-10.
After compiling a regular-season record of 32-32 (0-2 in the postseason), Jim "Playoffs?!" Mora was history in Indy.
Enter Dungy who had taken another perennial doormat, Tampa Bay, from the depths of mediocrity (and that's being generous) to the doorstep of immortality.
The Bucs had just two winning seasons to their credit (1979, 1981) and hovered around 6-10 for several years before Dungy took over. It wasn't entirely smooth sailing in Florida. Dungy's first season as a head coach ended 6-10. That was followed by 10-6, a slip to 8-8, and a vault to 11-5 and a trip to the NFC Championship.
But that was the peak for Dungy's Buccaneers. They dropped to 10-6 and 9-7 before Tampa brought in Jon Gruden, who took Dungy's architected team to win the Super Bowl the following year. Dungy compiled a record of 54-42 (2-4 postseason).
Dungy turned Mora's 6-10 team and brought them back to 10-6 and a Wild Card loss, but never since have the Colts come close to miring in mediocrity: 12-4, 12-4, 14-2 and 12-4. The Colts were 3-4 in the playoffs under Dungy until 2006's 4-0 run to the Super Bowl.
In Indy, Dungy is 60-20 (7-4 postseason). For his career, he's 114-62 (9-8).
What does this tell us?
It tells us that Manning was successful without Dungy. It tells us that Dungy was successful without Manning. Belichick had just one winning season as a head coach before Brady became his starting quarterback, but Belichick encountered a very unusual circumstance when his first team may have been ready to flourish.
When Brady took over in New England, the turnaround was immediate. For all the "Brady is a product of the system" talk, Belichick, the offensive line and the defense were all 5-13 until Brady took the helm.
The Patriots went 11-3 the remainder of that 2001 regular season (Brady started 1-1 and then 10-2), followed by three straight wins for the championship. Two years later under Brady, the Patriots set an NFL record for consecutive wins.
Brady has had only Belichick as a head coach, but he's had a couple offensive coordinators, including a year with none, and a couple quarterbacks coaches, including a year with none.
The Front Offices
Scott Pioli, New England's vice president of player personnel, and Bill Polian, Indy's president, and their staffs, are the elite of talent analysis in the NFL. But Polian's track record is far longer and more impressive.
Belichick hired Pioli, who then had no NFL experience, in Cleveland. When Belichick was fired, Pioli remained with the team and moved to Baltimore. But he rejoined Belichick in New England on Parcells's staff in 1997 and there has remained since.
Polian joined the Buffalo Bills in 1986 (technically, Dec. 30, 1985) and built a team that earned four straight Super Bowl bids. Polian was fired after the Bills third title game because of a fued with Buffalo's team treasurer. Polian then spent three years with the expansion Carolina Panthers (1994-1996), helping a brand new team reach the NFC Championship in two seasons. Polian joined Indy in 1998 and used the No. 1 pick of that year's NFL Draft to select Manning.
 |
 |
After New England disposed of the Colts in the 2003 AFC Championship, Polian set out to change the rules to benefit Indy.
Last fall in "The Polian Corner," a regular feature on Colts.com, Polian was discussing a defensive holding penalty in a loss to Dallas and claimed that he was responsible for the way officials called the penalty. (Text-only link)
"... A jersey grab is a jersey grab and it's a foul. I led the charge to have it made a foul on the NFL Competition Committee," he said.
The Home Fields: Surface and Weather
Manning has spent his entire career within the friendly, climate-controlled, carpeted confines of the RCA Dome. Eight games a season, he plays on an immaculate field with no wind, no rain, no snow, no mud, no divots for a team custom-tailored to take advantage of that surface.
Brady has spent his entire career on a field that at one time was called an "embarrassment" to the NFL, covered with dirt and loose sod, riddled with divots. His receivers had to run in and on that stuff too. That surface was twice changed last season in the middle of the season.
At Gillette Stadium, Brady has had to deal with ever-changing weather conditions from blazing sun and humidity, to sloppy mud and rain, to slippery blizzards, and wind blowing in all directions. He has succeeded in all conditions.
In such conditions, Brady led the Patriots to one of the longest home-field winning streaks in league history.
Until January, in domes, Brady was undefeated (now 10-1).
Early in Manning's career, when the Colts were in the AFC East, Manning had to play in Buffalo and New York every year. Now in the custom-made AFC South (Indianapolis is in the south?) he has the luxury to play in balmy Jacksonville, mild Tennessee and indoors in Houston. (Note also the two expansion teams.)
Meanwhile, Brady has always had to play in Buffalo and New York. And if there's one place he's had trouble, it's in hot and humid Miami.
In poor conditions, Manning has often struggled and often lost.
It's just more evidence that Brady is the more versatile and adaptable quarterback.
All photos by Associated Press
0 recs |
24 comments
Email
Print
Comments
I agree with a majority of your facts...
At best, your points are a mixed bag. One of your points is neutral (or even negative) by logical definition (the field quality). Two of them are weird and seem backwards (i.e. pass-friendly rules favor the lesser QB, and Belicheck is a bad coach.)
Crappy field - Does this mean Brady wins more or less? Does it just rain and snow on Brady and not the other team? The other team plays on the same field, so Brady had his winning streak against a bunch of teams playing on a crappy field. If anything, they know where the divots and sinkholes are, so the crappy field means that Brady looks better than he is. But really, this is just neutral.
Belicheck. You are basing part of your opinion of Brady on the notion that Belicheck is a bad coach. Do you know that sounds pretty silly? Did Brady build one of the consistently best defenses in the league?
Polian. If he's on the rules committee, he gets to invent secret rules that don't apply to the Colts. How can he know which rules favor the Colts and which rules favor their opponents? The league changes the rules to make things more pass-friendly, and this change favors the "lesser" QB Manning over the "greater" QB Brady? Doesn't it seem like the greater QB would be the one favored by such rule changes?
The good news is that this year Brady has his receivers, and Manning has lost his starting LT, so maybe when Brady turns in a 90 QB rating and Manning turns in a 105, you will admit that maybe the evidence is just a little more mixed. But it's your board - say what you want. You just had me fooled at the beginning that this was going to be analysis and not a go-Brady puff piece.
by SteveW on Jul 26, 2007 12:33 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Playoffs?
by 6thround on Jul 26, 2007 9:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That is a great Mora scene
The Colts didn't succeed against the Patriots until recently - both years after the rules changes, and in fact after the officials settled down a bit on calling interference. Therefore, "there was no time for the Patriots to react" is irrelevant, because in that period where you claim they had no time to react they in fact beat the Colts. In 2005 and 2006, they have had time to adapt.
by SteveW on Jul 26, 2007 9:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here we go again ...
First and foremost, I don't think I posed any kind of definitive conclusion in this part of the series. This is a presentation of information, and only the third such presentation in a series. The definitive conclusion, to which I alluded in Part I, will be presented in the final installment (probably the next one). The only statement I made here is that Brady was more versatile and adaptable, and that was in regard to weather and field conditions.
I also never said that the poor weather conditions made Brady a better quarterback or that it helped him win more or less. What I did was illustrate that Brady consistently wins games and posts better than average statistics despite playing in less than ideal conditions, as opposed to the nearly ideal conditions in which Manning plays in a majority of his games. Manning more often than not plays poorly in less than ideal weather.
The old Boston Garden had a reputation for dead spots in the parquet floor, and opponents used to say that the Celtics players knew where the dead spots lay and were able to avoid them. People also fantasized about ghosts of the championship teams (despite the players still living) roaming the rafters, and leprechauns sitting on the rims. I say it's all nonsense.
Is it your contention that a Patriots receiver, running at full speed, can locate and avoid a several-inch divot in an area covering 29,700 square feet? Traverse it like a minefield? And that he somehow can lead his coverage into it? And that the Patriots can transfer this information through to an ever-changing roster with precision and efficiency?
Indeed, both teams do play on the same field, and Brady and the Patriots have consistently excelled playing on all fields in all conditions, where other quarterbacks and other teams have been less versatile and less adaptable.
On the other hand, the Colts play more than half their games in ideal conditions, and their offense is built to take advantage of that. Their receivers are not slowed by poor field and weather conditions (in those games).
Next, I appeal to you to identify where I made the statement "Belichick is a bad coach." But you are right about one thing: It sounds pretty silly.
What I said was that Belichick has had only one winning season and was never a consistent winner until Brady became his starting quarterback. I also said that his efforts in Cleveland may have been derailed by Art Modell's plan to move the team. None of that has any bearing on his coaching ability. As Bill Parcells said, "If they want you to cook the meal, they should at least let you shop for the groceries."
However, the fact remains that Belichick and the Patriots were 5-13 when Brady took over, and they went 14-3 and won a Super Bowl after. The only significant change in the team was Brady replacing Bledsoe -- unless you want to count the team benching its No. 1 receiver. And I will repeat that Brady played under the same coach behind the same offensive line with the same defense as his predecessor. If you have another reasonable explanation for the turnaround, I'd like to hear it.
Third: Polian (and, to a lesser extent) Dungy. "How can [Polian] know which rules favor the Colts ..."? Are you saying Polian, one of the best analyzers of talent ever can't tell what would benefit the players he's assembled? Are you kidding?
Polian has the ability to impact officiating to benefit his team -- as do all the teams that have representatives on the competition committee. [By the way, I have been unable to find any document that identifies the entire committee.] The defensive holding for which he "led the charge" was designed specifically to enhance the Colts offense, undeniably a majority-passing offense, and to handcuff opposing (and especially "physical") defenses, like New England's.
No, it doesn't make sense that the "greater" quarterback would benefit from such a rule. The quarterback whose offense is designed to take advantage of the rule would benefit more.
And, finally, no, I won't agree the evidence is a little more mixed based solely on Brady having improved receivers and Manning losing his left tackle (Tarik Glenn, who retired [despite another blog on this network calling people idiots, as they often do, when a legitimate journalistic entity broke the story .. but I digress]), unless the Patriots get to play 10 of their games in domes and the Colts have to play more than half their games on a field like Gillette prior to last season's resurfacing. However, that was a nice attempt to ignore half of the relevant factors.
by tommasse on Jul 26, 2007 7:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Again field is irrelevant
I'm not contending all that weird stuff about the Patriots receivers dodging divots - although certainly they could learn where the divot spots are. (Your argument about field size is strange because it would be like "watch out for the hole at the 30-yard line", not "there's a 6-inch hole out there somewhere - good luck", but I've gone too far into that already) All I'm saying is that as silly as that sounds, it makes more sense than you insisting that Brady should lose more games than he otherwise would because he plays on a crappy field. Again - the other team plays on the same crappy field. That is plain as day.
"What I said was that Belichick has had only one winning season and was never a consistent winner until Brady became his starting quarterback" - I guess you're not saying Belichick is a bad coach, but maybe you can imagine where I might get such a silly notion from.
I don't deny that the Colts are a "majority passing team." They run about 55% pass, where New England runs 50% pass. The Colts run darn near 2 more pass attempts per game than the Patriots. Whoop de doo.
I'm not saying the evidence is a little more mixed, just that you should admit the evidence is mixed if Manning posts a 15 point rating advantage on Brady again this season. However, you have clearly stated your position that the evidence will not matter to you, so that's fine.
If Polian is "one of the best analyzers of talent ever", would you take his word on who the better QB is? I didn't think so.
There are 22 guys on the field, and too many factors to sort through this, so really the question can never be answered. People can't even definitively decide between Montana and Marino (especially with the confusing "pure passer" thrown in - and it's Montana). We're both looking at the same evidence and think it clearly favors our own position, so what else is there to say on this topic?
Now - which team is going to win this year is something that can be decided. We'll see you guys on November 4. Good luck (but not too much). =)
by SteveW on Jul 27, 2007 3:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Field is so completely NOT irrelevant
So much so, that you chose to ignore (again) the difference if Brady and his teams played in domes for more than half the season, and Manning and his team played in windy minefields, mud and snow for more than half the season. I know it's impossible, but it's something you refuse even to contemplate. You just want to say, "Well, there's a 15-point difference in QB rating" with no consideration for anything beyond statistics.
To be precise, using 2006 numbers, New England threw passes on 51.4 percent of their plays. Indy threw 55.9 percent. But New England gained 63.3 percent of their yards through the air, where Indy gained 71.0 percent. That's a throwing team, and a lot of that has to do with playing on carpet with no wind or weather. It's so blatantly obvious. It's half the reason Adam Vinatieri chose to play for the Colts. Or are you going to say wind, snow, rain, mud and holes have nothing to do with kicking field goals too?
And while Polian is a great analyst of talent, of course he's going to say Manning is better. Have you ever heard anyone say someone else's players are better than the ones he picked himself? That doesn't alter the voluminous evidence that supports the argument that he is an elite judge of talent or change my opinion of his abilities. It also doesn't mean I'm going to accept his extremely biased opinion that Manning is better. Ridiculous comments like that are why we can't have a legitimate discussion.
It's one of those, "If Brady doesn't throw 50 touchdowns this year, I never want to hear this argument again." We in New England could easily say, "We'll if Manning doesn't have three Super Bowl wins by the end of the year, we don't want to hear it either." But we don't, because that's not rational.
You say we never compliment Manning or the Colts, but we do -- constantly. You guys just gloss over it and make inane, unconditional demands.
Of course the question "Who is better?" can never be answered. Patriots fans are going to say Brady, Indy fans will say Manning. What a revelation. I never believed or even thought for a second I was going to convince anyone to change his mind.
My goal was to lay out information to support the argument for Brady. But Colts fans refuse to see anything beyond statistics, and regardless what evidence is presented, they just say, "That's irrelevant. Manning has better statistics."
I don't know what you do for a living, but I'm a computer network engineer. If I am working on state of the art equipment with the best, most efficient software available in a quiet office, I'm going to be far more productive than if I'm forced to use old servers with failing and degraded parts and obsolete software in a room with blasting sirens and flashing strobe lights. The environment in which one works and the resources supplied have a tremendous impact on performance.
So, no, we're not going to settle anything here, and I hope both our teams retain the services of their respective quarterbacks for several more years and they continue build their legacies. It's very likely they will surpass Montana and Marino or whatever other pairing you're willing to offer up, and we will argue our points for many, many winters.
But, please, stop with the "if Brady doesn't do this, end of discussion" crap, because you refuse to acknowledge any extenuating factors beyond statistics, and that insults our intelligence.
by tommasse on Jul 27, 2007 9:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lighten up
Once again:
- I agree that statistics are affected by field conditions. I always have, check the previous posts. I repeat that this is not the point you made in the original post here.
- It is illogical that field conditions affect the chance to win. If you insist that "Brady is less likely to win in poor conditions" then you must agree that "the visiting team is more likely to win in poor conditions" and the logical fallacy is revealed. Everybody cannot be more likely to lose.
I'm not going to go into what I do for a living, but I argue technical points on technological matters every day. You really do have the winning on a bad field thing dead wrong. Read 2) above a couple of times.
I never said "if Brady doesn't do this, end of discussion". I made the VERY modest assertion that you should go back and consider your position more deeply (consider that the "data is mixed" I think) if Brady and Manning continue to have the same statistical offset they traditionally have this year. I think that's an eminently fair position, and it doesn't involve any stifling of debate, refusing to acknowledge extenuating factors, or any of that other nasty stuff you accused me of. Brady's position has incrementally improved, Manning's position has incrementally declined, so there should be a closing of the gap - understanding of course that our sample size is so small that it may not appear, but it might be worth evaluating at the end.
I think you are attributing some of the Colts homer abuse you have taken over the years to me. I have not said anything in the nature of most of the items you are attributing to me in this post. I look forward to reasonable discussions with you in the future.
by SteveW on Jul 28, 2007 12:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You want "data"? Here's data
Yes, both teams play on the same field, but some players are better suited to play on varying surfaces and in varying environmental conditions. Some players are better than others in adapting to changing conditions. Yes, wins are a team effort, but we can easily see that the two quarterbacks in question have different levels of success in different conditions.
Let's get one thing straight up front: I never said "Brady is less likely to win in poor conditions." Show me where I said that. Once again, you claim that I say things that I have never said nor implied. I say that Brady is more likely to win in poor conditions, because he is much better at adapting to varying conditions.
Poor conditions "level the playing field," so it lessens clear advantages one team has over another. This is universally accepted. As such, a team that plays a majority of its games in poor conditions has less of a chance to maintain a dominance (e.g. a winning streak). It's not harder to win any single game in poor conditions, since (as we have so obviously declared) both teams play on the same field, but it is harder to win consistently playing in consistently poor conditions. So, yes, a winning streak in consistently poor, variable conditions is significant.
With that out of the way, I've wasted some time gathering some data, without which you can't seem to accept that which is almost universally held.
According to Manning's bio on the Colts official website, the pairing of Manning and Dungy have the third highest-regular season winning percentage since 1970 with a minimum of 50 games (amazing Manning's stats always have to be qualified with something). Manning-Dungy are are 60-20 (.750). Brady-Belichick are fourth at 70-24 (.745).
Pretty good. Too bad that's just the quarterback-coach pairings and it's just the regular season.
Let's add playoffs. Now Manning-Duny are 67-24 (.736). Brady-Belichick are 82-26 (.759). And few people are going to say that playoff games are easier to win than regular-season games. Advantage: Brady.
Now lets look at their entire careers. Brady remains the same, because he's spent his entire career with Belichick. Manning, who was 32-32 (0-2) under Mora, becomes 99-58 (.631). (I think this adds evidence to the "Dungy made Manning" argument, but that's another story.)
So clearly Brady has a much better winning percentage (and if we had done this before last season, the discrepancy would be far greater). In fact, Brady has the best winning percentage among all active starting QBs (more than 16 games, not 50) and 1st among all starters in the Super Bowl era (more than 16 games).
Now, I know such trivial numbers aren't going to satisfy you, so let's look at some more specific data, particularly playoff games. (Again, this is incomplete, because I don't have ready access to every datum required.) That said, here we go:
Peyton Manning:
| Opponent | Score | Rating | Sky | Surface | Temp | Wind | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| @ NY Jets | 0-41 | 31.2 | Cloudy | Grass | 35 | 10 mph | |
| vs Denver | 41-10 | 158.3 | Indoors | ||||
| @ Kansas City | 38-31 | 138.8 | Clear | Grass | 51 | 13 | |
| @ New England | 14-24 | 35.5 | Light Snow | Grass | 32 | 2 | |
| vs Denver | 49-24 | 145.7 | Indoors | ||||
| @ New England | 3-20 | 69.3 | Snow | Grass | 25 | 7 | |
| vs Pittsburgh | 18-21 | 90.9 | Indoors | ||||
| vs Kansas City | 23-8 | 71.9 | Indoors | ||||
| @ Baltimore | 15-6 | 39.6 | Light Rain | Sportexe | 63 | 4 | |
| vs New England | 38-34 | 79.1 | Indoors | ||||
| Chicago | 29-17 | 81.8 | Rain | Grass | 67 | 10 |
Tom Brady:
| Opponent | Score | Rating | Sky | Surface | Temp | Wind | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| vs Oakland | 16-13 | 70.4 | Heavy Snow | Grass | 19 | ? | |
| @ Pittsburgh | 24-17 | 84.3 | Cloudy | Grass | 50 | ? | Brady injured |
| St. Louis | 20-17 | 86.2 | Indoors | ||||
| vs Tennessee | 17-14 | 73.3 | Clear | Grass | 4 | 10 | Wind Chill -11 |
| vs Indianapolis | 24-14 | 76.1 | Snow | Grass | 32 | 2 | |
| Carolina | 32-29 | 100.5 | Indoors | Grass | |||
| vs Indianapolis | 20-3 | 92.2 | Snow | Grass | 25 | 7 | |
| @ Pittsburgh | 41-27 | 130.5 | Fair | Grass | 11 | 9 | Wind Chill -1 |
| Philadelphia | 24-21 | 110.2 | Clear | Grass | 59 | 12 | |
| vs Jacksonville | 28-3 | 116.4 | Clear | Grass | 24 | ? | |
| Denver | 13-27 | 74.0 | Cloudy | Grass | 54 | 3 | |
| vs NY Jets | 37-16 | 101.6 | Sunny | Grass | 50 | 8 | |
| @ San Diego | 24-21 | 57.6 | Clear | Grass | 53 | 6 | |
| @ Indianapolis | 34-38 | 79.5 | Indoors |
So what do we see here?
We see Manning in cold temperatures in New York having a terrible game. We see Manning in cold and snow in New England having a terrible game. we see Manning in cold and snow in New England again having a terrible game. His only other loss was at home to Pittsburgh, and it was a mediocre game. Otherwise, we seem him dominate indoors with a couple exceptions, and we see him with only two games in rain, neither of which are statistcally impressive.
We see Brady winning and excelling in all kinds of conditions, and if not excelling, generally beating the pants off Manning, including edging him in QB rating in the AFC Championship game last year. His only two losses include that game (for which you can make the argument that he outplayed Manning on Manning's home field) and the divisional playoff game at Denver the year before, which was truly a poorly played game.
But even Brady's arguable worst playoff performance (The San Diego game was not his best, but he did lead several key drives, including the game-winner), his QB rating was 74.0, which is better than most of Manning's QB ratings in more than half of Manning's playoff games.
Look at Manning's worst games: Jets (41-0), Patriots (24-14), Patriots (20-3), Ravens (15-6). See any commonalities? Ya. I thought you might. It's pretty clear. The Colts hardly scored points, they were 1-3, and Manning was terrible in poor weather and field conditions.
What about Brady? I see a snow game in which he had a QB rating of 92.2 (same game: Manning, 69.3). I see a game on the road in Pittsburgh with a -1 degree wind chill where he had a rating of 130.5. Correct me if I'm wrong: a common gripe of Manning supporters is that Brady has had a good defense, and Manning has had to play against it. If I'm not mistaken, the Steelers had a pretty good defense -- and Brady destroyed them.
Who has Manning destroyed on the road? In bad weather? That's right: No one. (Not in the playoffs.)
I had a hard time finding Brady's QB ratings for his first three playoff games (scroll to the bottom). But since I did, let's look at his stat line from the "Snow Bowl" win over Oakland: 32-52, 312 yards, 1 INT. Not bad for a "rookie."
You think Manning throws 61.5 percent for 312 yards in a blizzard on grass? You think he could have in his first season as a starter?
What does it all mean?
Well, if your contention is that Manning is one of the greatest quarterbacks ever (and he is), then this data supports the theory that field and weather conditions have a huge impact on performance and the ability to win (and it does). And if that's all true (and it is), then it's also evidence that Brady performs better in those more difficult conditions (and he does) and that he is, in fact, the better quarterback (and he is).
So I can read No. 2 indefinitely, but it won't change my opinion. The fact is: It's wrong.
(This is where, when faced with an untenable position, many people resort to "We'll just have to agree to disagree.")
by tommasse on Jul 28, 2007 9:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
you said...
The conditions part of this is only meaningful if it is more difficult to win games in bad weather than it is to win games in decent weather. If it is more difficult to win a game, one is more likely to lose. Therefore the logical argument you originally made was:
- A QB is less likely to win in bad conditions
- Brady wins in bad conditions
- Therefore Brady is (enter superlative here)
My point was that, assuming a QB has a bell curve of performance, and assuming that bell curve degrades in bad weather, a better QB to begin with is better after degradation, and that therefore a win is a sign of a great QB but not necessarily a win in bad conditions.
I think the argument you might actually be trying to make is that because Brady faces a variety of bad conditions, it's likely that a QB of average versatility would find some types of conditions that he's exceptionally bad at. Since there seem to be no types of conditions that Brady is exceptionally bad at, he has above average versatility, and that's a good thing. Fine - I'll agree with that, but that's not the argument you started out with.
Regarding your data: First, Kudos for gathering it. I applaud you for digging up the available facts. I'd just point out that this is a small sample size, and the correlation between Manning-bad performance is probably more strongly related to the quality of the defense and not the weather, with the exception that Manning seems to have Denver's number. 35 degrees is not a cold day when playing football, I think that's just a Manning bonehead game. You throw out "with a couple of exceptions" like they're meaningless, when in fact a couple of exceptions is almost 20% of your data.
by SteveW on Jul 29, 2007 2:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Playoffs is a small data size?
The Jets defense was so good they shut out Manning? Or was that the offensive line's fault? C'mon, SteveW, you must have a better explanation [excuse] for a 14-of-31 for 137 yards and 2 INT performance. The correlation to Manning's rating and the weather is so strong that no rational person can ignore it. You also conveniently ignored the part about Brady playing against tough defenses in poor conditions and dominating.
Manning "has Denver's number" because the two times he's played them have been indoors at home. This is blatantly obvious to even the most casual observer.
35 degrees with a 10 mph wind is a cold day, compared to playing in a 72-degree, windless dome, and playing on frozen grass in New York is not playing on indoor carpet in Indianapolis. And if 35 isn't cold (i.e. if temperature is not a factor) why has Brady won all of his playoff games with temperatures 35 degrees or below, and Manning has lost all of his? Once again, blatantly obvious.
Throwing out a couple data points -- "anomalies" -- is common in statistical analysis. You're grasping at straws to ignore the overwhelming evidence.
The argument I started out with (in Part I) is that Brady is better than Manning. That Brady led New England to the longest winning streak in NFL history is supporting evidence, not the argument itself. In fact, it was one supporting statement out of seven in one section of one part of a four-part discussion. Once again, you're grasping at straws.
But the fact remains, poor conditions (and I'll repeat it again) "level the playing field" -- they make players more likely to make mistakes (fumbles, interceptions, slipping in mud, tripping in divots, missing tackles, missing field goals, kicking wide, kicking short, etc., etc.). The law of averages says that it's going to catch up with you. Brady (and the Patriots) limited their mistakes. Thus, to consistently win in those conditions is significant.
by tommasse on Jul 29, 2007 8:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The fact that it is all the data available
You could argue (although I might disagree) that your bad-weather theory is the best available explanation, but your simple denial that this is a small sample set stretches credibility. When you have 20% outliers (and more in my opinion though we disagree on the Jets I guess - and I blame Manning not the O-line or the Jets D), you have some combination of a bad theory, an incomplete theory, or a small sample set.
by SteveW on Jul 29, 2007 10:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That is the sample size.
by scsatr on Jul 29, 2007 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
As an added bonus ...
by tommasse on Jul 27, 2007 10:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Putting words in his mouth
by 6thround on Jul 26, 2007 12:27 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: field
In any given field situation, the other team is also exposed to the same elements. Again, if anything, harsh field conditions favor the home team, but really they're probably just neutral. Manning plays on comfy turf, but so do his opponents. Brady plays (played) on a crappy moonscape, but so did his opponents. Is a team going to have more difficulty preparing for a game with turf or a torn up field? I think they know what surface they are getting at Indy, and it has been an unknown in Foxborough.
Consider SuperBowl XLI. Did Manning beating Grossman in the rain mean Manning is better compared to Brady? No, because he was playing against a team that was also playing in the rain. All it meant is that Manning was better in the rain than Grossman was, and it doesn't say anything about Manning-Brady.
by SteveW on Jul 26, 2007 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Versatility is an ability
"No, the ability to overcome a variety of weather/field challenges is not an indicator of his ability."
Huh? Maybe that was just a poor word choice, but you refute yourself in your own sentence. If a given QB is just a strong-armed, downfield thrower, his team is likely to struggle in adverse conditions against a QB that is adept at a short, quick tempo. If a given QB doesn't have the ability to throw deep when possible, his team is likely to get blown away by a team that can throw deep on a nice day. There are plenty of one-dimensional QB's in the league, and they are all mediocre. The fact that Brady has been able to repeatedly demonstrate the versatility needed to win in any given condition is indicative of his overall ability. Of course Manning has won games in the rain, but I don't think that your example proves that he beat a good bad-weather QB. Come on, Grossman is not a good-anything QB. There must be a better example than that.by 6thround on Jul 26, 2007 7:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh my goodness....
I agree about all the one-dimensionality and other stuff you're saying. However, this is beyond the scope of Brady winning on a bad field meaning that he's a great QB (because of the field, not the winning). Brady's not playing in the twilight zone where he lands on a new planet each week to play football in unknown terrain. It's just a bad field. If we're going to play basketball, and we both get 12 foot rims, who has the advantage? Is the Patriots field uphill to whichever way Brady is facing? Is the wind always in his face?
Of course the SuperBowl didn't mean that Manning beat a good bad-weather QB. Neither does Brady winning in Gillette. That is my point. Go back and think about what you were trying to say to me in that last paragraph and I think you will have it.
by SteveW on Jul 27, 2007 3:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So it wasn't a poor choice of words,
by 6thround on Jul 27, 2007 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The lack of definition of "ability"
How can you say ability to win on a poor field is better than some other kind of ability? The ability to win in the rain is important when it's raining, in snow when it's snowing, etc. The ability to win on turf is mighty important when you're playing in a SuperBowl on turf. Manning wins in all kinds of conditions, Brady wins in all kinds of conditions. That's because they are better than most QBs, and win in most kinds of conditions.
Where is your data indicating that Brady is better in poor weather, or in "all kinds of conditions" than Manning? Where is your data showing that Brady's performance declines less relative to his average in poor conditions compared to any QB in the league? If Brady is better than QB "X" and they both decline in bad weather to the same degree, it's likely that Brady wins against "X" anyway, and it doesn't say anything about his bad weather ability.
Brady is a good QB playing for a great team (especially a great defense), and he played on a bad field for a long time. The teams he played likewise played on a bad field.
I decline to define QB ability because it's impossible. I can say it's not arm strength because I consider Manning to be in a small handful of top all-time QBs, and arm strength is certainly not his noteworthy characteristic, nor is passing accuracy. I mean the raw tire-through-the-hoop type accuracy, because he often selects open receivers well and therefore has a high completion percentage even if his passes often don't look that great. Jeff George beats Manning in both categories, and I don't think either of us will put him up there with Brady or Manning. I think it would be something along the lines of difference-making in games, but that's pretty vague. Even if a QB can win with his feet, he's a great QB. If he is merely handing the ball off under instructions, even if he is winning, he is not a great QB, because in that situation even if he is doing what he's supposed to he's not doing anything that anybody else couldn't do.
Here is how I rate Brady and Manning, somewhere in there maybe you can dig up my definition of "ability".
I rate Brady as "very good" because he has incredible consistency, poise under a pass rush, he does not throw many interceptions, and he's flexible to whatever the game plan is. He loses a few points, in my book, because he throws many short passes, he bails on the pocket often before he has to, and his long ball is suspect (flame away - we shall see now that he has Moss). When he is forced to go long under pressure, he often throws interceptions.
I rate Manning as great because he has the ability to change routes and plays at any time and has shown the tendency to do that well. He creates a lot of blown coverages, and has one of the best play-action techniques in the league. He has a sixth sense to avoid sacks. He also completes longer passes to his receivers, although he has a tendency to play the short game to his running backs. He has one of the best 25+ yard completion rates ever seen, which opens up the defense considerably. He loses a few points, in my book, because his run-of-the-mill passes tend to be wobbly, and he seems to start slow often opening up games with a strange interception. His long ball is highly accurate, but he does not have the same distance as George, Marino, Culpepper, Elway, etc.
by SteveW on Jul 27, 2007 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hard to define
I'm not saying that Manning couldn't be a successful bad-weather QB, but the fact is that he has had to do it far less often as Brady, and hasn't exactly redeemed himself often when he has had to. I'm sure he has played well in bad weather, but given equal teams and opponents, on a bad day I'd take Brady over Manning in a heart beat. Does this fact alone make Brady a better QB? No, but it is a factor in an overall assessment.
by 6thround on Jul 27, 2007 6:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Poll
Ah, and I really want to punch the smirk off of Manning's face in the picture of him with the Lombardi trophy. Yeah, you have a million billion bucks and now you can retire because you got the whole 'haven't won a super bowl' off your back cough given to you like Bettis' was cough But do you have to smirk? I mean, even Bledsoe was better about it when Brady won Bledsoe's super bowl... Is my reason for not liking Brady rational, nope, but hey, I'm a Red Sox and Patriots fan, we're totally crazy anyway right??? ;)
by DanieXJ on Jul 26, 2007 5:44 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I'd really like to hear from the people ...
( I know the answer. I just want to hear someone explain it. )
by tommasse on Jul 26, 2007 8:04 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Peyton wins the price war!
by timkassouf on Jul 31, 2007 9:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
