Oh it does.

Care to guess?

Ok I'll spoil it!

COLDHARDFOOTBALLFACTS.COM

And, once again, Hootie gotta Hootie.

and This.

and I never once said that the article in question proves that Manning is better than Brady in the postseason. People are grasping at straws on that one.

THE POINT OF THE THREAD IS TO SHOW WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING FOR YEARS:

BRADY ISN'T REALLY THAT CLUTCH. HE'S GOOD. BUT CLUTCH ISN'T THE WAY TO DESCRIBE HIM.

AND BRADY HAS HAD MORE WEAPONS ON HIS TEAM THAN ANYONE IN NFL HISTORY.

My God, A REPLACEMENT LEVEL QB, statistically would've played .500 football in the 26 postseason games Brady started ACCORDING to Nate Silver's advanced statistics.

No, this isn't proof that Matt Cassel would've gone 13-13 in the postseason in those 26 games. It's just advanced statistics. So brush them off, I don't care.

Pretty sure if these same statistics said Brady's teams would've been 8 - 18 and Manning's 12 - 12 everyone would've ROFL'D AND LMAO'D all over the place.

No double standard, at all!

Ad hominem. Attack the numbers, not the source. You're wasting time with this.

I'm not attacking Silver, or 538. I'm attacking the methodology which I think is sketchy at best. Basically, it's ok for discussion I guess, but I can't really feel any confidence at all in the numbers. Just too many variables. Waaaay too many variables.

You've brought brilliant analysis to this thread.

So, the advanced statistics say a replacement level QB would've gone 13-13 in Brady started (and finished) playoff games and the same replacement level QB would've gone 8-16 in Manning started (and finished) playoff games.

And you're rebuttal is ...

"Uh Nate Silver is dumb. Hootie gotta Hootie."

Brilliant.

Tom Brady has had better postseason teams than Peyton Manning. That is the premise of the argument. Tell me why this isn't true?

You've gone full Hootie on this. You seriously want to argue that any of his teams (excluding Brady) were the MOST talented teams in NFL history?

You're frothing at the mouth, and getting stupider. You need to stop.

unless he concluded that the replacement QB for the Pats would've gone 8-18 and for Manning 12-12 ...

and then you would've just said, "omg see!"

Kind of like that website you flaunt around coldhardfootballfacts.com.

Hypocrites.

You brought up a site with one lousy formula to defend another site with a lousy formula. When I pointed out the stupidity of that maneuver, your response was to bring up a third site that I hadn't mentioned in the thread.

You're an idiot.

That's not at all what I'm arguing.

It's quite simple.

A replacement level QB + 52 Patriots in 26 postseason games (they excluded the Bledsoe game) would have won 12.6 games and lost 13.4 games.

A replacement level QB + 52 Colts or 52 Broncos in 24 postseason games would have won 8 games and lost 16.

In conclusion, Tom Brady CLEARLY played on better teams than Peyton Manning where CLEARLY he didn't have to shoulder as much of the load to ensure a playoff victory.

That's Tom Brady after winning the AFC Championship Game against Baltimore in the Lee Evans / Billy Cundiff game.

So, first, you can post whatever you like, but others can create new arguments. The new argument I am introducing is that the same numbers YOU cite say Manning has UNDERperformed expected wins in the playoffs, while Brady has OUTperformed expected wins.

You havent' responded, presumably because you can't.


As to your question, I think some of Brady's teams have been better than anything Manning had. Specifically, 2004 and 2007. OTOH, I think some years Manning had better teams than, for example, the 2001 SB winning Patriots. That team's roster was a joke.

But bottom line -- like the article YOU cite says, my eyes have told me that Brady gets as much or MORE out of every team than can reasonably be had (exception of 2007 SB, when the Giants DLine dominating the offense), while Manning, well, doesn't.

Now, instead of attacking me, explain to me what this means in your honest opinion.

Go.

(To me, it means that Tom Brady has benefited from having better all-around teams. Better all-around teams usually win more playoff games. The end)

Your turn.

It means that someone put together yet another lousy formula, and you're clutching desperately at the flimsiest of straws.

the 2001 SB Patriots?

LMAO

You really want to go there?

Tuck rule. Drew Bledsoe.

LMFAO

Besides, I thought Manning was terrible until 2003.

lousy formula

riiiiiight

coldhardfootballfacts.com

!!!!

A replacement level QB + 52 Patriots in 26 postseason games (they excluded the Bledsoe game) would have won 12.6 games and lost 13.4 games.

A replacement level QB + 52 Colts or 52 Broncos in 24 postseason games would have won 8 games and lost 16.