Peyton Manning's Legacy

jose melendez

Earl of Acie
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2003
30,971
Geneva, Switzerland
Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:
 
I'm not counting that "drive" because they didn't try to score, they just kneeled the ball.  I'm not counting the KO return either.
 
FG, FG, TD, Punt, TD, TD - that's how Seattle's drives went in this game.  Denver couldn't stop them at all.
On the first two series Seattle got FG's after starting with godo but not great field positions.
 
They got down to Denver's 18 with a first down before settling  for a field goal  on posession one and on posession two they get down to the Denver 16 on first before having to kick a field goal.  Given the Denver offense had mustered four plays at that point (13 minutes in the game) only giving up two field goasls is kind of the definition of bend don't break.
 
Then comes the touchdown.  That was ona  short field starting at the Denver 37.  Not so good.  but really mostly the offenses fault.  Mannin throws a pick 6 and it's down 22.  Harvin takes it to the house and it's down 29.    
 
At that point what do you want from the defense?  The game is over, already.  13 points in a first half where you spent 20+ minutes on the field ain't that bad.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
The Seattle defense dominating the Denver offense and deciding the game and the Denver pass defense playing like dog shit are not mutually exclusive.  Both happened.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts way less than 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
14,425
Stitch01 said:
The Seattle defense dominating the Denver offense and deciding the game and the Denver pass defense playing like dog shit are not mutually exclusive.  Both happened.
 
The Denver pass defense playing like shit doesn't excuse the Denver offense. Denver wasn't going to win the game by scoring 8 points.
 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
19,271
H78 said:
By the way...could anyone even tell what the hell the Broncos' gameplan was yesterday? I mean maybe it's unfair to ask because they were down 15-0 in the blink of an eye, but looking back I don't know if I could even tell you how they planned to attack the Seahawks' defense.
A blink of an eye is 3 min into the second quarter? There's a million games where a team is down 2 scored in the early parts of the second.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
Kenny F'ing Powers said:
 
The Denver pass defense playing like shit doesn't excuse the Denver offense. Denver wasn't going to win the game by scoring 8 points.
No shit. 
 

EvilEmpire

paying for his sins
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 9, 2007
17,178
Washington
rodderick said:
If you have to go to that extreme than I guess you agree with the general point I'm making.
If you have an argument to make, you should use it. The question isn't what position is more difficult to master, the question is, in a given game, how much influence does that individual player have over the outcome of the given game?

I think it is similar for QBs and pitchers and listed a bunch of variables each can't control that influence the outcome of a game. If their impacts are similar, and collectively as knowledgeable baseball fans we frown on wins and losses as a good metric for pitchers, why do it for QBs?

Obviously you think different and I'd like to know why. Pitchers are more dependent on luck really doesn't cut it. I think a QB has more variables he can't control in a given play that what a pitcher contends with in a single AB. But I'm more a baseball fan than a football one, and I'm always interested to learn more.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,096
Seattle converted 3rd down with 9 , 7, 4, 5, 4, 7, 2, and 1 yards to go.  The Denver defense had chances to stop Seattle drives but couldn't.  
 
Granted, the Denver offense did the Broncos no favors, and the longest Seattle drives occurred essentially in garbage time.  I would say the Denver defense was OK at the start of the game, but really never made any great standout plays to stop Seattle drives until it was essentially too late.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
Kenny F'ing Powers said:
 
So what's your point?
 
If it's that the offense and defense played bad, then...
 
No shit.
The whole tangent started with someone saying the Broncos defense played decent
 
I also thought this pretty clearly showed I agree with you
 
The Seattle defense dominating the Denver offense and deciding the game and the Denver pass defense playing like dog shit are not mutually exclusive. Both happened.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,345
Philadelphia
jose melendez said:
On the first two series Seattle got FG's after starting with godo but not great field positions.
 
They got down to Denver's 18 with a first down before settling  for a field goal  on posession one and on posession two they get down to the Denver 16 on first before having to kick a field goal.  Given the Denver offense had mustered four plays at that point (13 minutes in the game) only giving up two field goasls is kind of the definition of bend don't break.
 
Then comes the touchdown.  That was ona  short field starting at the Denver 37.  Not so good.  but really mostly the offenses fault.  Mannin throws a pick 6 and it's down 22.  Harvin takes it to the house and it's down 29.    
 
At that point what do you want from the defense?  The game is over, already.  13 points in a first half where you spent 20+ minutes on the field ain't that bad.
Dude, 13 points on three possessions is awful. 27 points on six possessions is even worse. Teams typically get 11-12 possessions in an NFL game, so you can do the math. Just because the Denver offense and Peyton Manning in particular played terribly - which I'm certainly not disputing by any means - doesn't mean we have to lose our freaking minds and think that the defense played well or even OK. Denver sucked on both sides of the ball (and special teams).
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,652
where I was last at
lexrageorge said:
Seattle converted 3rd down with 9 , 7, 4, 5, 4, 7, 2, and 1 yards to go.  The Denver defense had chances to stop Seattle drives but couldn't.  
 
Granted, the Denver offense did the Broncos no favors, and the longest Seattle drives occurred essentially in garbage time.  I would say the Denver defense was OK at the start of the game, but really never made any great standout plays to stop Seattle drives until it was essentially too late.
 Denver's D kept them alive in 1Q by not giving up TDs, but 2 FG, and the score was only 8-0. It was still a game. but the 2 Manning picks that followed, that led to 2 TD, and 22-0, and was game over. Manning's impotence in the first half, and the offense's inability to keep a drive going, kept the Denver D on the field for too long. 
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,057
Hingham, MA
This further dilutes the sample, but if you look at numbers in just Super Bowls, the variance between Manning and Brady gets even wider.
 
Brady's average Super Bowl is 25.4-39.4 (64.5%), 255.4 yards, 6.48 YPA, 1.8 TD (4.6%), 0.4 INT (1.0%), 93.8 passer rating
Manning'a average Super Bowl is 30.0-44.0 (68.2%), 286.7 yards, 6.52 YPA, 1.0 TD (2.3%), 1.33 INT (3.0%), 81.0 passer rating
 
So while their YPA and completion % are similar, Brady has thrown TDs twice as often as Peyton, while Peyton has thrown picks three times as often as Brady. That is glaring.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
Brady has clearly been better in the Super Bowl, and that matters a little bit. Personally, its such a small sample of games that I cant put more than a little bit of weight on it.
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
8,016
Imaginationland
Stitch01 said:
Brady has clearly been better in the Super Bowl, and that matters a little bit. Personally, its such a small sample of games that I cant put more than a little bit of weight on it.
 
Beefing it up a bit, here's their stats in conference championships and super bowls:
 
Brady (13 games):  293 completions, 468 attempts (62.6%), 17 TDs, 11 interceptions, 3113 yards (6.7 y/a), 84.3 QB rating.  Brady also has 4 rushing TDs, and is 8-5 in these games. 
Manning (7 games):  198 completions, 308 attempts (64.3%), 10 TDs, 9 interceptions, 2223 yards (7.2 y/a), 84.4 QB rating.  Manning also has 1 rushing TD, and is 4-3 in these games. 
 
That looks pretty damn even...Manning completes a slightly higher percentage of his passes for an extra half a yard, but Brady takes much better control of the ball, and is actually a threat to sneak at the goal line.  I value the ability to protect the ball more than the ability to be slightly more efficient, and this isn't a small sample size event.  Brady has never thrown more than 14 picks in a season, something Manning has done 7 different times.  The ability to avoid turnovers is the major reason why I prefer Brady over Manning.
 

lars10

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
11,612
Stitch01 said:
Brady has clearly been better in the Super Bowl, and that matters a little bit. Personally, its such a small sample of games that I cant put more than a little bit of weight on it.
So it doesn't matter at all to you that Brady's been there (a lot) more or that he's won more? I could see how this skews towards Peyton... If the postseason doesn't matter then of course he's up there with the GOAT.... But a lot of people tend to think the post season matters I think and especially championship games or series. If you ignore all the ways Peyton is worse than Brady then he is clearly better.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
I think Peyton is easily a top five all time quarterback after taking into account postseason performance. 
 
I think Brady has been slightly better in the postseason, but not by enough to outweigh Manning's superior production in the regular season.
 
I think they're super close and both top five all time.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
bankshot1 said:
 Denver's D kept them alive in 1Q by not giving up TDs, but 2 FG, and the score was only 8-0. It was still a game. but the 2 Manning picks that followed, that led to 2 TD, and 22-0, and was game over. Manning's impotence in the first half, and the offense's inability to keep a drive going, kept the Denver D on the field for too long. 
After the second FG made it 8-0, I said to my wife "It's never good to leave Red Zone opportunites as FG's and not TD's.  And against Manning, it can come back to haunt you."  At the time, I kept thinking that Manning would right the ship and score at TD and it would be 8-7 and there would be a ball game.  But INT > TD, then INT/Pick-6, and it was Game OVer.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Stitch01 said:
I think Peyton is easily a top five all time quarterback after taking into account postseason performance. 
 
I think Brady has been slightly better in the postseason, but not by enough to outweigh Manning's superior production in the regular season.
 
I think they're super close and both top five all time.
OK, let's playthis game:

Super Bowl Era only
Top Regular Season QBs (Career):
My list might look something like
  1. Manning, P
  2. Brady
  3. Marino
  4. Favre
  5. ??? could be Montana, could be Young, could be Brees.  I'd have to do some more analysis.
Then Top Post-Season QBs (Career):
  1. Montana
  2. Brady
  3. Aikman
  4. Bradshaw?
  5. Starr?
  6. Manning, E?  
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,652
where I was last at
Saints Rest said:
After the second FG made it 8-0, I said to my wife "It's never good to leave Red Zone opportunites as FG's and not TD's.  And against Manning, it can come back to haunt you."  At the time, I kept thinking that Manning would right the ship and score at TD and it would be 8-7 and there would be a ball game.  But INT > TD, then INT/Pick-6, and it was Game OVer.
I thought the same thing, that settling for the 2 FGs would come back to bite Seattle in the ass.
 

crystalline

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 12, 2009
5,771
JP
This year in a conf champ game Brady broke a tackle to score a rushing TD. I am pretty sure he threw his shoulder into an honest-to-goodness hard hitting linebacker.

Can Peyton do THAT?
 

taoofoj

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 16, 2007
227
laserbeam high school
Saints Rest said:
 
OK, let's playthis game:
Super Bowl Era only
Top Regular Season QBs (Career):
My list might look something like
  1. Manning, P
  2. Brady
  3. Marino
  4. Favre
  5. ??? could be Montana, could be Young, could be Brees.  I'd have to do some more analysis.
Then Top Post-Season QBs (Career):
  1. Montana
  2. Brady
  3. Aikman
  4. Bradshaw?
  5. Starr?
  6. Manning, E?  
 
 
Here are some numbers compiled for many of the guys mentioned throughout the thread...(I hope this displays right)
 
[tablegrid=  ] Regular    Season  Playoffs     Championship    Games              W L % W L % W L % Yds TD Int 1st Team All Pro MVPs Montana 111 47 0.703 16 7 0.696 4 0 1.000 40551 273 139 3 2 Brady 148 43 0.775 18 8 0.692 3 2 0.600 49149 359 134 2 2 Manning 167 73 0.696 11 12 0.478 1 2 0.333 64964 491 219 7 5 Bradshaw 107 51 0.677 14 5 0.737 4 0 1.000 27989 212 210 1 1 Starr 94 57 0.623 9 1 0.900 5 1 0.833 24718 152 138 1 1 Elway 148 82 0.643 14 7 0.667 2 3 0.400 51475 300 226 0 1 Unitas 118 64 0.648 6 2 0.750 3 1 0.750 40239 290 253 5 3 Favre 186 112 0.624 13 11 0.542 1 1 0.500 71838 508 336 3 3 Marino 147 93 0.613 8 10 0.444 0 1 0.000 61361 420 252 3 1 [/tablegrid]
 
What jumps out at me is that most of the greats have playoff winning % similar to their regular season winning %.  This is remarkable because the team wins at the same rate against tougher competition.  Manning & Marino are notable exceptions.  Their teams did significantly worse once the competition stiffened.
 
The best 'winners' appear to be Montana & Bradshaw.  Starr's postseason record is amazing but a little small of a sample (at one time Brady was 10-0).  Brady I would put a hair behind these guys.  He's ahead of them in regular season, on par for playoffs, but the 2 SB losses hurt put him just a hair behind.
 
The individual numbers are less instructive because the game has changed over the decades and it's tough to compare across eras - but to determine a GOAT you might look for the guy who is near at the top of every category and does not have an achilles heel (e.g. bad playoff record, zero MVPs):  regular season win %, playoff win%, SB wins, career stats, and awards.  Eyeballing it I'd say Montana most consistently compares favorably and would be my GOAT.
 
You could split a lot of hairs here but I think it's pretty clear Manning is not in the conversation for GOAT.  The postseason record is too damning and the sample size is large enough.
 
And for those talking about Brady having a better supporting defense than Peyton - while that may be incrementally true how many HOF players were on those Patriots defenses?  Offhand I count 1 if you include a fading Junior Seau.  They were very good defenses but never the Steel Curtain or 85 Bears.
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
5,595
02130
bankshot1 said:
I thought the same thing, that settling for the 2 FGs would come back to bite Seattle in the ass.
Especially since they had like 4th and 1 inch after that play they challenged where Wilson scrambled and reach as he was going out of bounds. Just stupid to not go for it there unless the FG wins you the game or something.
 

crystalline

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 12, 2009
5,771
JP
Found it




He broke the tackle of a DT: Mitch Umrein.

That was a pretty ballsy run.. Brady was one on one with the defender 3 yards out and clearly decided he was going to beat him to score, sliding be damned.
 

Soxy

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2008
6,095
taoofoj said:
You could split a lot of hairs here but I think it's pretty clear Manning is not in the conversation for GOAT.  The postseason record is too damning and the sample size is large enough.
 
This is exactly where I'm at.
 
As others have noted, it's not just that he's 11-12 in the playoffs.  You show me a QB that doesn't have a fair amount of playoff losses and I'll you show a QB who missed the playoffs a lot.  But Peyton's team's were favored in 9 of those 12 losses.  Five of those losses were at home.  He's thrown more INTs (24) than playoff games played (23).
 
Since everyone is gonna bring up the Brady comparison, his teams were favored in 5 of their 8 playoff losses.  Three of those were at home.  And the supporting cast thing has been covered.  As much as everyone likes to talk about how Brady had better defenses behind him, how long has it been since the Patriots had a great defense?  Ten years?  They were good in 2006-2007, but they haven't had a truly elite defense since 2004.  Peyton has had an all-star supporting cast on offense for pretty much his entire career, while Brady has had the equivalent, like, twice.  (Not to mention that those Indy defenses were usually better than people give credit for.)
 
If you want to be considered the GOAT, you got to be bringing more than that.  For all the pluses you can bring up, and there are a lot, the negatives are pretty damning.  This doesn't mean Peyton isn't a top 5 or top 10 QB.  But he's not the GOAT.  He's closer to the Marino-Favre tier than he is to the Montana-Brady tier.
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
27,957
Saskatoon Canada
I say the same thing about Elway as I do about Kobe when the GOAT conversation attempts to include them. For both of Elway's and most of Kobe's championships neither was the best player on his team, let alone the world.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,726
Deep inside Muppet Labs
crystalline said:
Found it




He broke the tackle of a DT: Mitch Umrein.

That was a pretty ballsy run.. Brady was one on one with the defender 3 yards out and clearly decided he was going to beat him to score, sliding be damned.
 
He juked the hell out of Uhrlacher a few years ago.
 

The Social Chair

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 17, 2010
6,082
taoofoj said:
The individual numbers are less instructive because the game has changed over the decades and it's tough to compare across eras - but to determine a GOAT you might look for the guy who is near at the top of every category and does not have an achilles heel (e.g. bad playoff record, zero MVPs):  regular season win %, playoff win%, SB wins, career stats, and awards.  Eyeballing it I'd say Montana most consistently compares favorably and would be my GOAT.
.
 
The super bowl w/l record for Montana needs the context that the AFC wasn't very competitive in the super bowl for a lot of the 80s and 90s. The NFC conference game could be argued as Montana's real super bowl and his record with SF was 4-2. Still really great but closer to Brady's super bowl record of 3-2.
 

coremiller

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
5,846
The Social Chair said:
 
The super bowl w/l record for Montana needs the context that the AFC wasn't very competitive in the super bowl for a lot of the 80s and 90s. The NFC conference game could be argued as Montana's real super bowl and his record with SF was 4-2. Still really great but closer to Brady's super bowl record of 3-2.
 
In a thread full of, well, questionable arguments, this one really takes the cake.  For one thing, the NFC superiority didn't really set in until the late 80s, after Montana had won two championships.  But more importantly, the Super Bowl is still the Super Bowl.  Even if you're playing a supposedly "inferior" team, you still have to actually win the game -- ask the 2007 and 2011 Patriots about that.  And FWIW, Montana's combined Super Bowl/NFCCG record is 8-2 (with the two losses by a combined 5 points); Brady's is 8-5, and he's lost the last two by 15 and 10 points.  And Montana's underlying post-season passing statistics are much better than Brady's despite playing in a significantly more difficult passing environment.
 
There's simply no way you can break down the statistics to show that Brady was as good a postseason QB as Montana.  Among non-active players, Montana's only real rival as a post-season QB is surprisingly (I would never have guessed until I looked it up) Kurt Warner, whose record was 9-4 with the highest rating and AY/A of any non-active post-season QB with more than 200 attempts.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,345
Philadelphia
coremiller said:
Among non-active players, Montana's only real rival as a post-season QB is surprisingly (I would never have guessed until I looked it up) Kurt Warner, whose record was 9-4 with the highest rating and AY/A of any non-active post-season QB with more than 200 attempts.[/size]
Terry Bradshaw was 14-5 in the playoffs with a passer rating of 83 mainly compiled during an era when DBs could maul receivers all over the field and it was common for the regular season passer rating leader to have a score in the high 80s or low 90s. He was 6-1 with a rating of about 100 after the rules were changed in 1978. I'd say he's Montana's biggest competition in terms of postseason performance.
 

WayBackVazquez

white knight against high school nookie
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2006
8,294
Los Angeles
coremiller said:
 
And FWIW, Montana's combined Super Bowl/NFCCG record is 8-2 (with the two losses by a combined 5 points); Brady's is 8-5, and he's lost the last two by 15 and 10 points. 
 
Also FWIW, Montana also lost an AFCG with the Chiefs 30-13. He was 9 of 23 for 125 yards and an INT.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,726
Deep inside Muppet Labs
WayBackVazquez said:
 
Also FWIW, Montana also lost an AFCG with the Chiefs 30-13. He was 9 of 23 for 125 yards and an INT.
 
Also are we just going to skip over the fact that Montana lost a playoff game 49-3? That he went one and done 3 years in a row?
 

WayBackVazquez

white knight against high school nookie
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2006
8,294
Los Angeles
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
 
Also are we just going to skip over the fact that Montana lost a playoff game 49-3? That he went one and done 3 years in a row?
 
You can't really put those all on him. After all, there was only so much he could do against the Vikings after being benched in the third quarter at home.
 

coremiller

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
5,846
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
 
Also are we just going to skip over the fact that Montana lost a playoff game 49-3? That he went one and done 3 years in a row?
 
Montana stunk in the 49-3 game.  He got knocked out with an injury in the 2nd quarter and didn't play the rest of the game, but he'd already thrown 2 interceptions and SF was behind 28-3 when he went out. 
 
Anyway, the point isn't that Montana never had a bad playoff game.  He did, a few times.  Any QB who gets enough playoff starts will have a poor game sooner or later, the quality of the opposition is too good.  We could cherry-pick individual games that would make anyone look terrible or fantastic.   When you don't cherry pick but luck at the aggregate, Montana had fewer poor playoff games, and was better in the other games, than just about anyone else.  There's real substance behind the Montana legend.
 
Bradshaw is an interesting case.  It's all but impossible to compare pre-78 QBs to after, with the rule changes the expectations for what QBs could do and the offensive strategies teams employed were much different.  In Pittsburgh's first championship season, Bradshaw had 95 yards passing in the AFCCG and 96 yards passing in the Super Bowl.  Fair to say it's now impossible to win a championship with that kind of passing production.
 

WayBackVazquez

white knight against high school nookie
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2006
8,294
Los Angeles
coremiller said:
Anyway, the point isn't that Montana never had a bad playoff game.  He did, a few times.  Any QB who gets enough playoff starts will have a poor game sooner or later, the quality of the opposition is too good.  We could cherry-pick individual games that would make anyone look terrible or fantastic.   When you don't cherry pick but luck at the aggregate, Montana had fewer poor playoff games, and was better in the other games, than just about anyone else.  There's real substance behind the Montana legend.
 
But it's not cherry-picking individual games. it was a three-year period. Your contention seems to be that it's open-and-shut that Montana is the dominant playoff performer, and I think it's possible to argue otherwise. Brady does, after all, have a slightly better playoff record.
 
Montana had an absolutely flawless three-year playoff run from 1988-1990. He had a mirror-image awful playoff run the three years before that from 1985-1987, where he lost three straight playoff games, threw 8 INT and 0 TD, and led his offense to exactly 3 field goals combined, culminating with being benched at home against an 8-7 wild card team. If you give the same weight to the three stinker years as to the three flawless years, you're left with the 12 games that represent the other half of his playoff career. And he was fine, but no God in those games: 62% completion, 26 TD, 16 INT, and an 83.07 rating. The difference is, Brady's playoff highs have not been as high, and his lows not nearly as low. He's been more consistent. Where Montana had a three-year playoff run with a 50.5 passer rating, Brady has never had a three-year run below 80.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
My hypothesis is there is basically no magic to being a good playoff QB and that somewhere between most and all of the differentiation in playoff performance among top quarterbacks comes from a combination of variance and matchups over a small sample of games.  
 

coremiller

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
5,846
WayBackVazquez said:
 
But it's not cherry-picking individual games. it was a three-year period. Your contention seems to be that it's open-and-shut that Montana is the dominant playoff performer, and I think it's possible to argue otherwise. Brady does, after all, have a slightly better playoff record.
 
Montana had an absolutely flawless three-year playoff run from 1988-1990. He had a mirror-image awful playoff run the three years before that from 1985-1987, where he lost three straight playoff games, threw 8 INT and 0 TD, and led his offense to exactly 3 field goals combined, culminating with being benched at home against an 8-7 wild card team. If you give the same weight to the three stinker years as to the three flawless years, you're left with the 12 games that represent the other half of his playoff career. And he was fine, but no God in those games: 62% completion, 26 TD, 16 INT, and an 83.07 rating. The difference is, Brady's playoff highs have not been as high, and his lows not nearly as low. He's been more consistent. Where Montana had a three-year playoff run with a 50.5 passer rating, Brady has never had a three-year run below 80.
 
For one thing Brady does not actually have a better playoff record; Brady is 18-8 (.692); Montana is 16-7 (.695).  Brady's postseason rating is 87.5; Montana's is 95.6 (in a more difficult era).  Montana has a big edge in AY/A, 7.80 to 6.63, and that's without considering the more difficult passing environment.
 
For another thing, I don't understand your logic behind the "bad years cancel out the good ones" argument.  For one, you're letting 3 bad games cancel out 8 good ones, so even if we want to play the cancel-out game it should be in terms of "games" and not "years".  But more fundamentally, why should we pretend those 8 games never happened?  They did, and during that stretch Montana won 2 Super Bowls with a combined passer rating of 126.5, with 22 TDs and 2 INTs.  Brady never had a postseason stretch anything remotely like that (nobody has).  Those games seem highly relevant to me when we're trying to figure out who the best postseason QB is.  That Montana also had some poor games is also relevant, but does not justify pretending the good games never happened.
 
If your point is that lower variance is better than higher variance, that's an interesting point, but 1) I'm not convinced that's correct, you may have a better chance of winning the Super Bowl with higher variance, and 2) either way, lower variance would only be preferable if the mean performances were the same, which they're not.  I don't see a good argument for trading away consistency in return for lower average performance.  
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
12,751
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
coremiller said:
 
For one thing Brady does not actually have a better playoff record; Brady is 18-8 (.692); Montana is 16-7 (.695).  Brady's postseason rating is 87.5; Montana's is 95.6 (in a more difficult era).  Montana has a big edge in AY/A, 7.80 to 6.63, and that's without considering the more difficult passing environment.
 
For another thing, I don't understand your logic behind the "bad years cancel out the good ones" argument.  For one, you're letting 3 bad games cancel out 8 good ones, so even if we want to play the cancel-out game it should be in terms of "games" and not "years".  But more fundamentally, why should we pretend those 8 games never happened?  They did, and during that stretch Montana won 2 Super Bowls with a combined passer rating of 126.5, with 22 TDs and 2 INTs.  Brady never had a postseason stretch anything remotely like that (nobody has).  Those games seem highly relevant to me when we're trying to figure out who the best postseason QB is.  That Montana also had some poor games is also relevant, but does not justify pretending the good games never happened.
 
If your point is that lower variance is better than higher variance, that's an interesting point, but 1) I'm not convinced that's correct, you may have a better chance of winning the Super Bowl with higher variance, and 2) either way, lower variance would only be preferable if the mean performances were the same, which they're not.  I don't see a good argument for trading away consistency in return for lower average performance.  
 
I wonder when you'll include in your argument the fact that Montana played in teams with a whole lot more talent than Brady's, including having many seasons with the undisputed best wide receiver (and arguably best player) of all time at his disposal. 
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
7,520
Maine
We are also glossing over the fact that Bradshaw (for instance) played with a legendary defense and a stacked team.  Montana only had the GOAT WR to throw to and played for a team that had the ability to acquire talent in a non salary cap league.
 
Both of those should "Tweak" your argument against them just as Bradshaws play in a league where mauling the WR was ok should tweak your argument FOR him.
 
Now that we have (some of) the tweaks out of the way..
 
GOAT should have 2 main pieces of the equation.
 
Name the Best "Winners" (incl Playoffs) of all time
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
 
Name the best Statistical QBs of All time.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
 
While Marino may be high in Group 2.....he is probably not in the top 5 of group 1.  While Bradshaw would be high in group 1 he is not even close to the top 5 in group 2.
 
What name appears highest on both?
 
For me its Brady.
For you it may be different.
 

coremiller

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
5,846
rodderick said:
 
I wonder when you'll include in your argument the fact that Montana played in teams with a whole lot more talent than Brady's, including having many seasons with the undisputed best wide receiver (and arguably best player) of all time at his disposal. 
 
Montana won two Super Bowls before the 49ers drafted Jerry Rice in 1985.  The 81 team had one All-Pro (Ronnie Lott; Fred Dean also made All-Pro after joining the team in midseason); the leading rusher was Ricky Patton, and the leading receiver was Dwight Clark.  The 84 team also had only one all-pro (RT Keith Farnhorst); the leading rusher was Wendell Tyler, and the leading receiver was Clark again, with 880 yards.  Guys like Clark and Tyler were solid players, but those early championship teams weren't exactly stacked with in-their-prime stars like the 1989 and 1994 teams were.
 
If we're going to ding Montana for winning the Super Bowl twice while playing with Rice, how much should we ding Brady for not winning the Super Bowl while playing with Randy Moss?  You can't spin every issue only in Brady's favor.
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
58,870
San Andreas Fault
coremiller said:
 
Montana won two Super Bowls before the 49ers drafted Jerry Rice in 1985.  The 81 team had one All-Pro (Ronnie Lott; Fred Dean also made All-Pro after joining the team in midseason); the leading rusher was Ricky Patton, and the leading receiver was Dwight Clark.  The 84 team also had only one all-pro (RT Keith Farnhorst); the leading rusher was Wendell Tyler, and the leading receiver was Clark again, with 880 yards.  Guys like Clark and Tyler were solid players, but those early championship teams weren't exactly stacked with in-their-prime stars like the 1989 and 1994 teams were.
 
If we're going to ding Montana for winning the Super Bowl twice while playing with Rice, how much should we ding Brady for not winning the Super Bowl while playing with Randy Moss?  You can't spin every issue only in Brady's favor.
Rice and John Taylor though, who for a few years was as dangerous a receiver as Rice. And, Roger Craig catching passes out of the backfield, one of the best ever at that.
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
12,751
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
coremiller said:
 
Montana won two Super Bowls before the 49ers drafted Jerry Rice in 1985.  The 81 team had one All-Pro (Ronnie Lott; Fred Dean also made All-Pro after joining the team in midseason); the leading rusher was Ricky Patton, and the leading receiver was Dwight Clark.  The 84 team also had only one all-pro (RT Keith Farnhorst); the leading rusher was Wendell Tyler, and the leading receiver was Clark again, with 880 yards.  Guys like Clark and Tyler were solid players, but those early championship teams weren't exactly stacked with in-their-prime stars like the 1989 and 1994 teams were.
 
If we're going to ding Montana for winning the Super Bowl twice while playing with Rice, how much should we ding Brady for not winning the Super Bowl while playing with Randy Moss?  You can't spin every issue only in Brady's favor.
 
I'm not dinging Montana for that, just saying this should be factored in the argument. How many All-Pros did Brady have in 01, 03 and 04? He won Super Bowls with Deion Branch, Troy Brown and David Patten being his leading receivers, he won Super Bowls with Antowain Smith as his leading rusher. Brady had two full seasons of Randy Moss at his disposal. Yeah, he didn't win a ring with him, but how many seasons did Montana not win the Super Bowl while throwing to Jerry Rice?
 
On average, Montana played with a lot more talent, for a lot longer. This is indisputable. 
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
rodderick said:
 
I'm not dinging Montana for that, just saying this should be factored in the argument. How many All-Pros did Brady have in 01, 03 and 04? He won Super Bowls with Deion Branch, Troy Brown and David Patten being his leading receivers, he won Super Bowls with Antowain Smith as his leading rusher. Brady had two full seasons of Randy Moss at his disposal. Yeah, he didn't win a ring with him, but how many seasons did Montana not win the Super Bowl while throwing to Jerry Rice?
 
On average, Montana played with a lot more talent, for a lot longer. This is indisputable. 
I agree with a lot of this: Deion Branch (loved him), Troy Brown (loved him) and David Patten don't get a sniff of the starting lineup for the 49ers the years they were stacked with Rice/Taylor.  Troy Brown (did I mention I loved him?) maybe makes the team as a special teamer.  Patten doesn't even make the team if I have to guess.  Faulk is/was a poor mans Roger Craig.  Montana had and made the most of the talent he had available.  Brady had one year with that level of WR talent and set records with them.  The remainder of the time he (and the system) made the most of whatever he had to work with.  The Patriots offensive talent has been no where on a par with the talent available to Montana (or Manning, or Bradshaw if one wants to go there).  And yet statistically he is only a couple of hairs lower than the numbers Montana put up.
 
There use to be an old coaching compliment.  "He could beat you coaching his team, and then he could beat you coaching your team against his."  That's where I am with Brady versus Manning.  Brady showed he could win with whatever team he was given, and if you gave him a stacked team (like in 2007) he could win that way as well.  He didn't win the superbowl in 2007 but he didn't exactly lose it either.  Being one defensive play away from winning a superbowl two times doesn't equate to personal failure in my mind.  I don't know that Manning could have won in New England the way Brady was asked to - I think (with no way to prove it), that some of those playoff games would have gone differently.  A pick here, an errant throw there.  Just my opinion.
 

coremiller

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
5,846
rodderick said:
 
I'm not dinging Montana for that, just saying this should be factored in the argument. How many All-Pros did Brady have in 01, 03 and 04? He won Super Bowls with Deion Branch, Troy Brown and David Patten being his leading receivers, he won Super Bowls with Antowain Smith as his leading rusher. Brady had two full seasons of Randy Moss at his disposal. Yeah, he didn't win a ring with him, but how many seasons did Montana not win the Super Bowl while throwing to Jerry Rice?
 
On average, Montana played with a lot more talent, for a lot longer. This is indisputable. 
 
If you don't count Rice's rookie year in 1985 when Rice was still learning the ropes and only started four games, Montana and Rice played five seasons together.  From 1986-1990, they won the Super Bowl twice and lost a third NFCCG on a last second field goal after Montana got knocked out of the game with an injury while leading in the fourth quarter and Roger Craig fumbled while running out the clock.  Even with great players it's really hard to win the Super Bowl every single season.
 

WayBackVazquez

white knight against high school nookie
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2006
8,294
Los Angeles
coremiller said:
 
Montana won two Super Bowls before the 49ers drafted Jerry Rice in 1985.  The 81 team had one All-Pro (Ronnie Lott; Fred Dean also made All-Pro after joining the team in midseason); the leading rusher was Ricky Patton, and the leading receiver was Dwight Clark.  The 84 team also had only one all-pro (RT Keith Farnhorst); the leading rusher was Wendell Tyler, and the leading receiver was Clark again, with 880 yards.  Guys like Clark and Tyler were solid players, but those early championship teams weren't exactly stacked with in-their-prime stars like the 1989 and 1994 teams were.
 
If we're going to ding Montana for winning the Super Bowl twice while playing with Rice, how much should we ding Brady for not winning the Super Bowl while playing with Randy Moss?  You can't spin every issue only in Brady's favor.
 
Yeah, he won two Super Bowls, but before Jerry Rice caught his first playoff touchdown, Joe Montana was 7-4 in the playoffs with 17 TD and 15 INT, and a sub-60% completion percentage for an 80.3 rating. Then...things changed.
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
12,751
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
coremiller said:
 
If you don't count Rice's rookie year in 1985 when Rice was still learning the ropes and only started four games, Montana and Rice played five seasons together.  From 1986-1990, they won the Super Bowl twice and lost a third NFCCG on a last second field goal after Montana got knocked out of the game with an injury while leading in the fourth quarter and Roger Craig fumbled while running out the clock.  Even with great players it's really hard to win the Super Bowl every single season.
 
It's even harder when you're surrounded by middling offensive talent for 80% of you career. 
 
On average, I don't see how there's a question Montana played with significantly better talent. That should count when you compare his raw playoff stats to Brady's (which, by the way, are pretty much identical, aside from YPA). That's it.
 

coremiller

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
5,846
RetractableRoof said:
I agree with a lot of this: Deion Branch (loved him), Troy Brown (loved him) and David Patten don't get a sniff of the starting lineup for the 49ers the years they were stacked with Rice/Taylor.  Troy Brown (did I mention I loved him?) maybe makes the team as a special teamer.  Patten doesn't even make the team if I have to guess.  Faulk is/was a poor mans Roger Craig.  Montana had and made the most of the talent he had available.  Brady had one year with that level of WR talent and set records with them.  The remainder of the time he (and the system) made the most of whatever he had to work with.  The Patriots offensive talent has been no where on a par with the talent available to Montana (or Manning, or Bradshaw if one wants to go there).  And yet statistically he is only a couple of hairs lower than the numbers Montana put up.
 
Oh, Montana definitely had a better supporting cast in the late 80s, no question.  But his late 80s performance is also way better than anything Brady (or anyone else) has ever done in the playoffs.  The early 80s supporting casts were nothing special.  2001 Troy Brown would probably have started at WR on the 81 and 84 Niners, and 2004 Corey Dillon was almost certainly better than any of those Niners' teams running backs (Roger Craig was on the 1984 team but played fullback and didn't carry the ball that much.  His breakout year was 1985).
 
WayBackVazquez said:
 
Yeah, he won two Super Bowls, but before Jerry Rice caught his first playoff touchdown, Joe Montana was 7-4 in the playoffs with 17 TD and 15 INT, and a sub-60% completion percentage for an 80.3 rating. Then...things changed.
 
Yes, although those numbers are a bit misleading b/c of the high variance.  In his first 7 games, he was 6-1 with 2 championships and 17 TD:11 INTs and an 89.8 rating; in the next three, 0-3 with a dreadful 50.5 rating and 0 TDs, 4 INTs.  Whether the high variance is a good thing or a bad thing is an interesting question.  I think there are arguments both ways.
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
8,878
Dallas
So we're debating performance in small sample sizes... Might I suggest we take everything with a grain of salt? Just a reminder that football is already a game of small sample sizes. When you take the playoffs, and playoffs alone, into account that's an even smaller sample size. We're talking about assessing an individual's performance in a team game with a tiny sample size. I'm sorry - but I'm already skeptical.
 
Football Outsiders has a piece up from 1989-2013 on this topic. It's a good read. It's not the be-all-and-end-all.