538 Calls Tom Brady the 43rd Clutchest Postseason QB

[Hootie]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...s-eli-manning/

I found the following interesting:

Here’s the problem: This way of thinking about quarterbacks forces them to compete against themselves. Sure, the Patriots have often been favored to win their postseason games. But a lot of that is because Brady is their quarterback. How might the Pats have expected to do with a replacement-level QB instead?

They might not have been totally hopeless. Brady has usually had a little bit more talent surrounding him than Peyton Manning has. (Matt Cassel, who rates as somewhere between average and replacement-level, led New England to an 11-5 record when Brady was hurt in 2008.) Bill Belichick would probably have snuck them into the playoffs a few times. But they’d also have been playing good opponents. Our method projects them to a 12-14 or 13-13 postseason record rather than Brady’s 18-8.

I calculate these estimates based on a quarterback’s adjusted net yards per attempt (ANY/A), a metric that accounts for yardage, attempts, touchdowns, interceptions and sacks — basically it’s a better version of the NFL’s passer rating. A replacement-level quarterback typically posts an ANY/A at about 80 percent of the league average, so a QB gets credit for any performance above and beyond that.1 I then translate this into points added or subtracted in the regular season2 and translate points into a team’s Elo rating to evaluate the impact the QB had on his team overall.3

It’s notoriously difficult, of course, to distinguish the performance of a quarterback from that of his teammates, but this method produces some reasonable-seeming results. This year’s Green Bay Packers project as a slightly below-average team with a replacement-level guy subbed in for Aaron Rodgers , for instance. Instead of having been 59 percent favorites in their Sunday game against the Cowboys, as they were based on Elo ratings, they’d have been roughly 2-to-1 underdogs.

The principle is simply that the better the quarterback, the more his team would be harmed by removing him. In the case of Peyton Manning’s teams, I estimate that pulling Manning would hurt them by about a touchdown (7 points) per game. That’s enough to demote them to a projected 8-16 record in the 24 postseason games Manning has played.

This article projects that, with a replacement level QB, The Patriots postseason record would have been 12-14 or 13-13 without Tom Brady (they are taking out the Bledsoe game).

It projects that Manning's teams would have been 8-16 without Peyton Manning.

Pretty much has always been my point. Manning has a history of not playing like God in the playoffs, but he has always had a hell of a lot more on his shoulders than Tom Brady. And the whole idea of the "Tom doesn't have enough weapons!!!" is criminally stupid.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

It's as if he wants to see just how stupid he can make himself look.

Isn't there an Aesop's fable, or fairy tale, or Greek Myth, where two people engage in a wager of who is the best bullshitter and engage in a contest of convincing others of absurdities.

Like convincing a community that baked cowflop is the most delicious dessert ever.

[WhiteWhale]

Well, this hypothetical evidence sure is absolute proof if I've ever seen it.

Or the dumbest argument ever made.

One of those things.

Seriously... Pooter... why can you NOT stop talking about Brady v. Manning? Why is this so ****ing important to you that you have to keep starting threads?

[GoChargers]

538 Calls Eli the Only Clutch Manning

[GoChargers]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

In Tom Brady's 9-0 start to his postseason career, the most important part of those teams were the defense. Tom was in charge of just trying to be efficient and not ****ing up. We all know that.

Skews the numbers.

Peyton has always had to be the best player on his team. Always. Tom? Not during the successful part of his postseason career. Those teams were always defensive minded teams with Tom being a very efficient game manager.

So in other words, he was Russell Wilson?

[RobBlake]

Originally Posted by GoChargers

So in other words, he was Russell Wilson?

and wouldn't he take Russell over Rodgers? Yet, Brady has the pedigree to back up his "game managing".

I don't understand the concept of a QB needing to be the hero when he can rely on other aspects of the team to get the job done. A great QB knows how to play chess.

[Pasta Little Brioni]

Over under 24 hours till he reaches full super hootie and is banned again. What u got?

[BigChiefFan]

Brady is one of the best QBs of all-time. Same with Manning. To argue anything but that, is an exercise in futility.

[MeatRock]

I guess Bethea, Sanders, Brock, Brackett, Mathis and Freeney were all shit players on defense for Manning during his time with the colts because ya know Brady always had better defenses.

So ****ing stupid its beyond reproach.

[lewdog]

Originally Posted by BigChiefFan

Brady is one of the best QBs of all-time. Same with Manning. To argue anything but that, is an exercise in futility.

Manning has had NINE one and dones in the playoffs. Did he play for the Chiefs?

[Mother****erJones]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

So ...


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.

Anyone wanna tell me Brady doesn't have enough weapons? I'm still waiting for someone to explain this one to me.

Brady only has gronk right now. He has the other pedestrian WRs (Edelman, amendola and LaFell). His RBs aren't anything special.

[Eleazar]

I guess the question is whether you want to pile up stats or whether you want to win super bowls.

[BigChiefFan]

Originally Posted by lewdog

Manning has had NINE one and dones in the playoffs. Did he play for the Chiefs?

His playoff record is bad, at times, but his numbers speak for themselves. He's set how many records? Which makes him the VERY best in those categories. Also, he does have a Super Bowl victory, as well as another trip there. I can't believe anybody in their right mind would argue he's not one of the best of all time. That's insanity to argue against him. He's a sure fire, first ballot hall of famer. Pull your head out of your ass and see the forest through the trees. Try be objective and quit being so obtuse.

[BigChiefFan]

Originally Posted by Cochise

I guess the question is whether you want to pile up stats or whether you want to win super bowls.

He's won a Super Bowl. That negates your argument.

[LoneWolf]

Originally Posted by BigChiefFan

He's won a Super Bowl. That negates your argument.

He said Super Bowls. His use of the s on the end of Bowl negates your response.

[BigChiefFan]

Originally Posted by LoneWolf

He said Super Bowls. His use of the s on the end of Bowl negates your response.

I read what he said. I just find it absurd. Take your Ticky tacky shit and eat a dick. This place has turned into a bunch of whiny bitches, that refuse to be objective. Enjoy arguing that Peyton isn't one of the best there is and expect to be taken seriously, yeah right imbecile. I've got better things to do then argue idiotic topics.