The Nation's Tears: Volume III

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
12,310
Mansfield MA
I'm not sure your last conclusion really follows. The data shows is that if the Patriots had a league average QB throughout this period, they'd still be the 2nd best out of 32 teams in turnover differential. So factors other than Tom Brady are taking them from an anticipated 16th or 17th out of 32 (just based on having a league average QB) to 2nd.

I don't think its deflated football but its probably got a lot to do with coaching.
Brady also doesn't get sacked a lot, and sacks are the leading cause of fumbles.
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
2,853
Imaginationland
He should really put some money on it then. If he bet $1000 each on the Jets/Bills/Dolphins today, he'd win between $4k and $23k, depending on which also ran ends up capitalizing on the Pat's team plane exploding while in flight.

Pats are 5-1 favorites to win their division, no other team in the league is as much as 2-1 to win (Rams and Saints are both 1.8-1).
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
38,200
Pats are 5-1 favorites to win their division, no other team in the league is as much as 2-1 to win (Rams and Saints are both 1.8-1).
Do you mean 1-5 favorites? Because a 2-1 favorite is better than a 5-1 favorite.

Because if they're 5-1 to win the East, I need to get to Vegas ASAP.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
26,313
Robinson's picking the Bills. That betting line link had this note:

The Buffalo Bills are the team suffering through the longest drought. They have not won the division since 1995. The Indianapolis Colts have won this division more recently (1999).
 
Last edited:

johnmd20

literally like ebola
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
40,132
New York City
I may have it backwards:

Yes, they are 1-5 to win the East. Meaning, you have to put up 500 to win 100. Tough odds, of course, but it is the Pats.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
6,640
Not sure if this should be in this thread or the Brady thread, but...


"During a recent interview on The Dan Patrick Show, Rivers was asked if he thought Brady was the greatest quarterback to ever play the game, and let's just say the GOAT debate isn't an open and shut case for him. The reason Rivers isn't ready to crown Brady as the best ever is because he doesn't think the number of Super Bowls a quarterback has won should be the main factor in whether or not someone is crowned the GOAT.

To make his point, Rivers brought up the end of Super Bowl XLIX.

"I remember thinking when the Patriots beat the Seahawks, when they had that interception against the Seahawks down [on the goal line] and that gave them what, their [fourth] championship?" Rivers said. "You know everyone said, 'Well, he's now the greatest of all time.' And I thought to myself, I already thought he was already one of [the greatest] -- I mean, how do you ever decide that? It's like the old Michael Jordan [debate], right? We could talk about that forever, too -- but I already thought he was already one of the greatest of all-time, but because they intercepted the pass, he's now the greatest of all time? What if the Seahawks were to run it in? And the Seahawks were to have won? Brady would have just played the exact same game. He didn't do anything different, you know?"

The Patriots have played in some crazy Super Bowls and although Brady is 6-3, he could just as easily be 3-6.

"It is funny how that works, so I don't look at that [Super Bowl wins]," Rivers said. "

- - - - -

So he's been to *9* Super Bowls. But Rivers "doesn't look at that". Why? Because Brady could easily be 3-6 instead of 6-3. Well by that logic, he could also easily be 9-0. But even at 3-6...winning three, going to NINE, with the rest of Brady's accomplishments (3 MVPs, #4 in all-time passing yards, #3 all-time in passing TDs, #4 all-time in passer rating...I mean the list goes on and on)...come on Rivers, really?
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
18,307
Newton
It's almost as if a great quarterback who's never made it to the Super Bowl because of his terrible coaches doesn't think that winning Super Bowls is the metric we should be looking at to judge his own greatness.
 

Red Averages

owes you $50
SoSH Member
Apr 20, 2003
5,368
Rivers is 3-4 in the playoffs and has never been to a Super Bowl. Of course he tries to discount it in his head, otherwise it would reflect poorly on his own abilities.
 

SMU_Sox

loves his fluffykins
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
6,270
Dallas
Respectfully disagree. QB wins is a shitty way to evaluate anyone including the playoffs. Meaningful statistics in football are hard to come by and QB wins isn't one of them.

See exhibit A: Eli Manning has 2 SB rings. I'd take Rivers over Manning.
 

drleather2001

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,716
I don't think you can entirely discount them either, if we're comparing QBs with otherwise similar statistical portfolios.

Nobody is saying "Count the rings [and that's all]!" But a stellar playoff and Super Bowl resume is something that's fair to bring up as a point in Brady's favor.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
13,530
There are reasonable GOAT arguments to be made that don't necessarily have Brady at the top. That he could easily have been 3-6 in SuperBowls, instead of 6-3, is not one of them.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
18,307
Newton
Respectfully disagree. QB wins is a shitty way to evaluate anyone including the playoffs. Meaningful statistics in football are hard to come by and QB wins isn't one of them.

See exhibit A: Eli Manning has 2 SB rings. I'd take Rivers over Manning.
Funny, since they were effectively traded for one another.
 

SMU_Sox

loves his fluffykins
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
6,270
Dallas
I don't think you can entirely discount them either, if we're comparing QBs with otherwise similar statistical portfolios.

Nobody is saying "Count the rings [and that's all]!" But a stellar playoff and Super Bowl resume is something that's fair to bring up as a point in Brady's favor.
I would think the QB in question then would have statistics that you could measure his performance better than wins because he performed well. I would imagine his interception rate was low, his td % was high, his completion percent was good, etc. Maybe you adjust some of those by strength of schedule. Point is I think there would be better measures that show how he was good other than wins.

Maybe I should rephrase: QB wins are an important factor to consider but not an ideal descriptive statistic. It matters as a part of history. Post season games are more important and being a part of that many excellent teams is something to count. So I do agree with you there.
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
3,610
New York City
I actually kind of agree with Rivers in theory - one could imagine, I guess, a team that just has an absolutely dominant defense that is able to go to and win a number of Super Bowls with an above-average but not all-time-great QB. But that's emphatically not the case with Brady, as both the stats and the "eye test" make obvious (with occasional exceptions, of course, such as last year's SB and the Game That Must Not Be Named).

To take just a single stat - Brady has 13 game-winning drives in the playoffs. The next closest is Elway with 6. (Brady also leads all QBs with 9 4th-quarter comebacks in the playoffs, with Montana being second with 5.)
 

Rough Carrigan

reasons within Reason
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I actually kind of agree with Rivers in theory - one could imagine, I guess, a team that just has an absolutely dominant defense that is able to go to and win a number of Super Bowls with an above-average but not all-time-great QB. But that's emphatically not the case with Brady, as both the stats and the "eye test" make obvious (with occasional exceptions, of course, such as last year's SB and the Game That Must Not Be Named).

To take just a single stat - Brady has 13 game-winning drives in the playoffs. The next closest is Elway with 6. (Brady also leads all QBs with 9 4th-quarter comebacks in the playoffs, with Montana being second with 5.)
And the precursor to the Butler interception was Brady leading two 4th quarter touchdown drives against supposedly the toughest most badass defense in the whole league. It's not like he did nothing.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,259
I actually kind of agree with Rivers in theory - one could imagine, I guess, a team that just has an absolutely dominant defense that is able to go to and win a number of Super Bowls with an above-average but not all-time-great QB. But that's emphatically not the case with Brady, as both the stats and the "eye test" make obvious (with occasional exceptions, of course, such as last year's SB and the Game That Must Not Be Named).

To take just a single stat - Brady has 13 game-winning drives in the playoffs. The next closest is Elway with 6. (Brady also leads all QBs with 9 4th-quarter comebacks in the playoffs, with Montana being second with 5.)
His Marino point has merit too. Dan’s career a breathing indictment of Shula the GM and/or Shula the HC when it comes to GOAT status, which was rammed down our throats for a couple of decades.

Philip Rivers won me during that perfect season playoff game in Fox, when he basically played on one leg. He’s earned the right to offer reasonable takes on QB play. Baker Mayfield, love him too, has not.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
38,200
There are reasonable GOAT arguments to be made that don't necessarily have Brady at the top. That he could easily have been 3-6 in SuperBowls, instead of 6-3, is not one of them.
To me it's not a reasonable argument to adjust Brady's career downward to make an argument that his *actual* accomplishments are somehow lessened. He did NOT go 3-6. So how can you take a made up Super Bowl record, then compare someone else's career to it?
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
13,530
To me it's not a reasonable argument to adjust Brady's career downward to make an argument that his *actual* accomplishments are somehow lessened. He did NOT go 3-6. So how can you take a made up Super Bowl record, then compare someone else's career to it?
I think we agree. That's why my comment ends with the words, "...is not one of them......." ("Them" being reasonable arguments.)
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
38,200
I think we agree. That's why my comment ends with the words, "...is not one of them......." ("Them" being reasonable arguments.)
You're right, my bad on that.

Still like to see the arguments. I know Unitas was awesome and played in a different era, but someone needs to make the argument as to how those numbers compare favorably with Brady's (Unitas has more INTs than TDs in postseason as well).

Beyond that Brady has 89 more wins and 3 fewer losses.

Profootballreference.com has an Approximate Value number that is an attempt to be able to compare across eras. Unitas is 145. Brady is 269.
 

drleather2001

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,716
I would think the QB in question then would have statistics that you could measure his performance better than wins because he performed well. I would imagine his interception rate was low, his td % was high, his completion percent was good, etc. Maybe you adjust some of those by strength of schedule. Point is I think there would be better measures that show how he was good other than wins.

Maybe I should rephrase: QB wins are an important factor to consider but not an ideal descriptive statistic. It matters as a part of history. Post season games are more important and being a part of that many excellent teams is something to count. So I do agree with you there.
Hence my "...with otherwise similar statistical portfolios."

I think we agree, period.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
13,530
You're right, my bad on that.

Still like to see the arguments. I know Unitas was awesome and played in a different era, but someone needs to make the argument as to how those numbers compare favorably with Brady's (Unitas has more INTs than TDs in postseason as well).

Beyond that Brady has 89 more wins and 3 fewer losses.

Profootballreference.com has an Approximate Value number that is an attempt to be able to compare across eras. Unitas is 145. Brady is 269.
Ultimately, I dont care who the GOAT is. So I'm not making an argument that Unitas is/was better. Just that I dont think its ridiculous to "include him in the conversation," as they say. (That's how this got started; by Rivers using "alternative universe superbowls" as a measuring stick. That *is* ridiculous.)

It *is* hard to compare eras. I wasn't aware of pf-ref's AV number (or what goes into it), but a couple of things about that stand out. It's cumulative, career-wise, so it's significant that it cuts out three good Unitas seasons ('57 - '59). At the other end, Brady has an "extra" 60 points because he wasn't washed up at 38, like Unitas. OTOH--That's to Brady's credit; as is playing in 58 more games. He takes care of himself and remains good. OTTH, the climate of the league has gotten more favorable for old quarterbacks in the 21st century to add to the AV. I dont know what goes into AV, but I'd be surprised if it takes into account the fact that longevity seems to be a by-product of both quality and that latter-day QB's dont get, or have to worry about getting, maimed in the pocket. . And Unitas had nearly the same number of game winning drives and comebacks in his shorter career. (That, like "wins" is team-dependent, so may not mean much). Again, none of this is to denigrate Brady. He's far and away the best of his peers playing in the same conditions and I wont disagree with anyone who says he's the best ever. But I won't shit on someone who says, for example, that it's Unitas.

I think the marker for me is the pf-ref "black ink." Unitas led the league in various categories at least as often as Brady did. Does that "prove" anything? YMMV. But I think it gives a sense of just how good he was in his time.
And Unitas was a far superior runner. ;)

If you want to get depressed, google around for stories of Unitas's last season in san Diego.
 
Last edited:

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
39,138
Rivers is 3-4 in the playoffs and has never been to a Super Bowl. Of course he tries to discount it in his head, otherwise it would reflect poorly on his own abilities.
Would you trust him to rank effective method of birth control though?
 

InstaFace

MDLzera
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
10,059
All the arguments for Brady that make much of the number of opportunities he's gotten in the playoffs, counting stats, and the fact that he's had an incredible team and coaching staff around him his entire career, ring pretty hollow for me. I don't think he's the best because he's been on great teams - I think he's the best because I've seen his decision-making week after week, the throw precision and taking care of his receivers, his snap-to-throw speed, his ability to confuse a defense, his fearlessness and cool-headedness, his ability to focus better when the pressure rises, and his ability to inspire great effort out of his teammates at key moments. That's correlated, of course, with getting postseason opportunities and winning a lot, but is (imo) an overall minority relative to the contributions of the rest of the team.

(there's also a lot to be said about culture fit and getting buy-in from the whole roster, to which he contributes in New England and might not in another environment)
 

Joe D Reid

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
3,238
Alameda, CA
At what point do we find out that Bayless has been pulling a "Stephen Colbert" this whole time and is actually a mild-mannered improv comedian?
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
10,619
At what point do we find out that Bayless has been pulling a "Stephen Colbert" this whole time and is actually a mild-mannered improv comedian?
At this point I think it is really obvious that his work his schtick anyway and his Tweets are treated by most people as a satire/parody account.
 

snowmanny

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
10,438
I really would like to hear a breakdown of the logical argument that leads to concluding that “obviously” Belichick would like to replace the QB who has been to the last three Super Bowls “sooner” or that Stidham is that guy.

Or maybe not.