It's also cheating to take less money than the market will bear so that your team can go out and get a better supporting cast. That's why Peyton Manning is the GOAT - he took all the loot he could and then made do with a mediocre team. Go Peyton!
DrewDawg said:I love that there are 2 threads discussing Brady being the GOAT.
At some point, people are going to have to realize that the lack of true independent events and the capability to differentiate the greatness or one player involved in a pass from the other means we will never have something along the lines of WAR for the NFL.rodderick said:This shit is just as embarrassing as ESPN using "air yards" in their QBR formula. As if there's only one way to play quarterback.
Exactly. In all of the rush to create advanced stats that correlate to wins, people like Kascmar dismiss any outliers like Brady that win without fitting nicely into their formulas as "lucky". Maybe their analyses aren't truly capturing what makes Brady great. Here's an example of an intelligent person who, when faced with a situation like the Super Bowl where the outcome doesn't match the statistical model, suggests that his advanced stats may be flawed: http://www.footballperspective.com/super-bowl-xlix-and-thoughts-on-anya/Chuck Z said:At some point, people are going to have to realize that the lack of true independent events and the capability to differentiate the greatness or one player involved in a pass from the other means we will never have something along the lines of WAR for the NFL.
Mooch said:Exactly. In all of the rush to create advanced stats that correlate to wins, people like Kascmar dismiss any outliers like Brady that win without fitting nicely into their formulas as "lucky". Maybe their analyses aren't truly capturing what makes Brady great. Here's an example of an intelligent person who, when faced with a situation like the Super Bowl where the outcome doesn't match the statistical model, suggests that his advanced stats may be flawed: http://www.footballperspective.com/super-bowl-xlix-and-thoughts-on-anya/
Yeah he's right now comparing Manning's performance in the 9 one-and-done losses to Brady's 9 AFCCGs and arguing that Manning's stats show that he played better.BigJimEd said:Kacsmar used to post on another forum. From what I remember, he was very thin skinned and very good at cherry picking. Huge Manning homer. On a site with a lot of bad posters he was among the bottom.
https://twitter.com/fo_scottkacsmar/status/563595702690127873singaporesoxfan said:Yeah he's right now comparing Manning's performance in the 9 one-and-done losses to Brady's 9 AFCCGs and arguing that Manning's stats show that he played better.
Mooch said:Exactly. In all of the rush to create advanced stats that correlate to wins, people like Kascmar dismiss any outliers like Brady that win without fitting nicely into their formulas as "lucky". Maybe their analyses aren't truly capturing what makes Brady great. Here's an example of an intelligent person who, when faced with a situation like the Super Bowl where the outcome doesn't match the statistical model, suggests that his advanced stats may be flawed: http://www.footballperspective.com/super-bowl-xlix-and-thoughts-on-anya/
The less-impressive part? Gaining a first down on just 47.6% of your attempts is not as good, and even worse to do it on just 41.6% of your dropbacks.
he also converted 42% of his passes into first downs, and most importantly, 41.1% of his dropbacks turned into passing first downs.
It's not so clearly written, but I think he's trying to highlight the differential between passes completed for first downs and passes attempted for first downs:DrewDawg said:Interesting article, but am I missing something here?
. . .
Here he seems to be saying Brady converting 41.1% of dropbacks in first downs is good.
That 83.3% vs 56.8% comparison makes it look like a vertical attack is more effective. But the 41.6% vs. 41.1% suggests there isn't much benefit to a vertical approachHere’s the double-edged sword: Seattle was just the third team all season3 to pick up a first down on 83.3% or more of its completed passes. The less-impressive part? Gaining a first down on just 47.6% of your attempts is not as good, and even worse to do it on just 41.6% of your dropbacks.
The Patriots, meanwhile, completed 37 of 50 passes for 21 first downs. And while Brady may have only gained a first down on 56.8% of his completed passes, he also converted 42% of his passes into first downs, and most importantly, 41.1% of his dropbacks turned into passing first downs.
So that works to level the playing field quite a bit.
Mooch said:Exactly. In all of the rush to create advanced stats that correlate to wins, people like Kascmar dismiss any outliers like Brady that win without fitting nicely into their formulas as "lucky". Maybe their analyses aren't truly capturing what makes Brady great. Here's an example of an intelligent person who, when faced with a situation like the Super Bowl where the outcome doesn't match the statistical model, suggests that his advanced stats may be flawed: http://www.footballperspective.com/super-bowl-xlix-and-thoughts-on-anya/
I'm all for accounting for performance in higher leverage games but weighting performance in one Super Bowl game as equivalent to performance in 205 regular season games is totally crazy. Very few QBs even play in that many regular season games in their career!ifmanis5 said:538 article just posted: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/tom-bradys-statistical-place-in-the-pantheon-of-nfl-qbs/
They have Montana 1, Brady 2 but Brady can still pass with a few more high level seasons.
Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:I'm all for accounting for performance in higher leverage games but weighting performance in one Super Bowl game as equivalent to performance in 205 regular season games is totally crazy. Very few QBs even play in that many regular season games in their career!
Edit: Incidentally, this is how one reaches the conclusion that Jake Delhomme created more value during his career than Dan Marino.
Edit2: Mark Sanchez as the 30th best QB of all time is also pretty awesome given that he's not even the 30th best QB in the NFL right now.
Two AFC championships! IN A ROW!!!!simplyeric said:
wait...
wait...
Is this real?
Bingo.Beomoose said:I wonder if Rex Ryan had a foot in that 538 piece.
I got into a twitter argument with him before the Colts game. He was insinuating that the Patriots couldn't win rematch games after Spygate because they don't have the advantage of having tape on their opponents. It was complete trolling on his part. Very disappointing for a FO guy. In fairness when he sticks to straight analysis, he's pretty good. But he definitely likes to troll Patriots fans, for whatever reason.BigJimEd said:Kacsmar used to post on another forum. From what I remember, he was very thin skinned and very good at cherry picking. Huge Manning homer. On a site with a lot of bad posters he was among the bottom.
https://twitter.com/fo_scottkacsmar/status/563595702690127873singaporesoxfan said:Yeah he's right now comparing Manning's performance in the 9 one-and-done losses to Brady's 9 AFCCGs and arguing that Manning's stats show that he played better.
NortheasternPJ said:
What a moronic stat. Let's look at the points actually scored in those games, so we don't penalize them for not being greedy and calling a running TD:
Manning: 16, 17, 0, 18, 24, 17, 16, 35, 13: 156
Brady: 24, 24, 41, 34, 21, 23, 13, 16, 45: 241
So basically Brady's Offense in the AFC Championship scored 241 points and Manning's Offenses in the first or second round scored 156. I don't have time at the moment to go find defensive points and subtract them.
Also instead of just doing totals, if he actually looked at a game log 6 of those 10 INT for Brady came in 2 games (3 in each) so in 7 other AFC Championships he's had 4 total picks, had a horrid game against Baltimore and a bad game against SD (which they won)
DIAF
:rolling:BigSoxFan said:Not happening. The pundits have learned their lesson. They'll wait until AT LEAST week 5 or 6 this year.
The logic behind that decision is at least understandable, if it does throw up some funky results. If they replaced Adjusted Net Yards with WPA they would be showing career championship probability added, a logical metric for this debate given that the goal of every NFL team in any given year is to win the superbowl. Given that career and playoff WPA is very difficult to find, ANYs seem like a reasonable substitute.Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:I'm all for accounting for performance in higher leverage games but weighting performance in one Super Bowl game as equivalent to performance in 205 regular season games is totally crazy. Very few QBs even play in that many regular season games in their career!
Edit: Incidentally, this is how one reaches the conclusion that Jake Delhomme created more value during his career than Dan Marino.
Edit2: Mark Sanchez as the 30th best QB of all time is also pretty awesome given that he's not even the 30th best QB in the NFL right now.
If they go 2-2, it will be week 5....BigSoxFan said:Not happening. The pundits have learned their lesson. They'll wait until AT LEAST week 5 or 6 this year.
Thinking about the Cassell thing some more it occurred to me that I've never heard anyone make the argument that since the Bulls were 57-25 in 1993 with Michael Jordan and 55-25 in 1994 with Pete Myers as their starting shooting guard it is therefoe proven that Jordan was just a product of Phil Jackson's system and clearly NOT amongst the greatest players ever.snowmanny said:I'm happy that the argument is Brady/Montana, and that Manning, as great as he was and may still be, is basically out of the conversation.
But there are two anti-Brady arguments that annoy me. One is the Cassell 11-5 record. I mean, that team was OK, missed the playoffs, and 11-5 is nice but it was a five game drop-off from the year before. In other words, it wasn't nearly the team it would have been with Brady. And it's not like the 49ers tanked without Montana. Bono went 5-1. Young went 14-2 his first full year. There is way more evidence that the 49ers didn't need Montana than there is that the Patriots didn't need Brady.
The other is about how great Montana was in the Super Bowl, 4-0, as if that's all that matters in the playoffs. He deserves credit for those four games, sure, but he had a lot of crappy performances in the playoffs. What about 3 points against the Giants in the '85 AND'86 playoffs, and then getting BENCHED in the '87 playoffs? And not finishing a couple of other playoff games? And his goal-line interception against the Dolphins to end his career? I just can't see how all of that is better than actually scoring a bunch of points and actually winning playoff games and making it to the Super Bowl.
MentalDisabldLst said:Just in case some idiot gives you crap about Brady being a mere 4-2 in super bowls:
Among postseasons contested:
Joe Montana: 4-7 (let's exclude 1980 [not yet a starter] and 1982 [strike year] as well as 91-92 when he wasn't the starter; but include 1986 [returned from injury])
Tom Brady: 4-8 (excluding 2008 [injury], though you could argue for including 2002 as an effective loss)
Playoff Record:
Joe Montana: 16-7 (69.6%)
Tom Brady: 21-8 (72.4%)
If you're only going to give credit for super bowls won, then you surely have to give blame for exiting the postseason at any point.
tims4wins said:I love that if you take away every win from TB's Super Bowl winning seasons, he still has a better playoff record than Manning
ivanvamp said:#Seasons played:
- Brady: 15 (13 as a starter, 1 as a backup, 1 injured in the first quarter of game 1)
- Montana: 15 (13 as a starter, 1 as a backup, 1 injured)
Super Nomario said:Interesting "Tom Brady is good, you guys" stat: Brady is the best QB of all time at winning games when his team allows 21 or more points. It's not even close, really (Manning is #2 in wins above replacement in this stat and Brady has just 5 fewer raw wins and 27 fewer losses):
http://www.footballperspective.com/quarterback-records-when-their-team-allows-21-points/
No big deal, the Jets have Revis now, they won't be giving up points this yearSoxy Brown said:Just read that article. Pretty fun stat.
Also funny that the newest Jets QB, Ryan Fitzpatrick, has a robust 5-43 record in such situations. Yikes.
NortheasternPJ said:On mobile but looks like Chris Simms is back doubling down on Brady not being top 5 in the NFL.