Does this sound a little more amazing than it actually is? It is incredible but the fact that you can win up to 3 or 4 times in the playoffs each year but never lose more than once seems like it would matter and that this is in part a volume stat. Maybe not, just sort of ruminating.
Manning is 14-13 in the playoffs, with 2 titles. He won 14 playoff games in 15 playoff seasons.
The average winning percentage in the playoffs is right around 50% so 75% is good.
Right, I get that but how is this different from saying “he won seven titles”? Seems like the same exact point. If another QB comes along and wins 7 titles, he likely will have an awesome playoff record. Maybe even a higher win percentage than Brady given that they are reducing byes so championships will more often take 4 wins.
Take away Brady’s 7 titles. That is 22 wins. He is then 12-11 in the playoffs. So he is still an “average” playoff QB without any of those wins. That is more playoff wins than Troy Aikman had in his career. It would be 7th most all time if his 34 wins didn’t exist.
Me and two friends are planning on going to that game as well. Will let you know if we solidify plans / tickets.
Brady is 22-0 in the playoffs in the 7 years he won a title, which means he's 12-11 in the playoffs in non-Super Bowl winning seasons, which is ridiculous. Even the greats go one and done frequently. Take out Montana's Super Bowls and he's 4-9 in the playoffs, take out Peyton's and he's 7-13. That kind of consistency over, once again, FOURTY FIVE games spanning 20 seasons is incredible.
If another QB comes along and wins 7 titles, like Brady, he will be considered the greatest or 2nd greatest player in the history of the game.
Brady has played in 10 Super Bowls. No other QB has played in 5. Let that sink in.
I mean, take away those 10 super bowl visits and what do you really have with Tom Brady? A guy has never played in a super bowl. Overrated.
It really is good one. If you take away the 7 best samples, he's still above 500. Comical. Clinical.
I think I didn’t make my point well. I admit it is a pedantic point but it was a small one. It was not denegrating Brady’s unlikely ever to be matched playoff performance. It is likely to never be matched. Nobody is likely ever to get close, especially with the elimination of byes.
I mean you are borderline describing Terry Bradshaw, Joe Montana, and Troy Aikman. Bradshaw went 2-5 in his non-title years. Montana went 4-7. Aikman went 2-4. They are all first ballot Hall of Famers and one of them (Montana) was considered the GOAT before Brady.
If I haven’t made it clear that I am not saying what Brady is doing is normal then I am never going to be able to. I will stop. Carry on.
It's not clear because you have invented a metric in your head and you're using that metric to come to a conclusion. But the metric is flawed.
Fair. Your hypothetical QB with a 15-5 record, 5 titles, and 5 one and dones would have been considered the GOAT in a world with no Tom Brady. That’s all. I’m done.
That’s why this is such an amazing stat:
Your hypothetical QB is now looking at .000 in the important WASABI metric, while TB12 is still over .500
Ok, last try. I am not making up a metric. I am saying that the metric that people are talking about is not a useful one.
Take out all 6 Super Bowl runs and it is still 13-12. So very similar stat to Brady. 1-1 in Cleveland and then the same 12-11 in NE.
Well, it comes to to ego but no reason to say whose was more an issue.
Listen "luckiest" winning Super Bowls is easy. Tom Brady has won a lot of them, but all that does is give him 3 free playoff wins (4 free wins last year, in fact) without a loss. He just gets to play more games when he wins Super Bowls, which, as noted, is easy, so it's unfair to count the playoff wins during Super Bowl years. Brady is just getting all those free, easy games. Boom, win the Super Bowl and get 3 free games on your win tally. How is anyone supposed to compete with a guy who gets easy victories in Super Bowl seasons?
Sure, but imagine what Peyton could have done if he had the offensive talent around him that Brady has had over the years (Corey Dillon, Randy Moss, Rob Gronkowski, Julian Edelman, Antonio Brown, Chris Godwin, Mike Evans).
That's why his playoff record is poor compared to Brady. He had a lot of one and dones. He didn't get those 3 to 4 free wins on the way to 7 Super Bowls like Brady did.
The loss to the Steelers in January of 2006 was one of the worst. Pitt was the 6 seed, Indy went 14-2, were home, and were 9 point favorites.
He left off the immortal Reche Caldwell.
I still have no idea how the Colts DB didn’t score on that Bettis goal line fumble with only Big Ben to beat, I think.
The two aren’t in the same universe. Manning also got to play more wild card teams. Brady almost never did. Nearly 90 percent of the time on the Patriots Brady had to play his first game against a team that had already shown it was good enough to beat another playoff team a week earlier.
It was.
Brady is the most impressive player in any sport ever, and by a wide margin in football. I am incredibly impressed by the stat that I think defines him: He has been to ten Super Bowls and won 7.
The reason the win percentage is impressive is because the competition is better.
There actually is a stat kind of about that, which is quite interesting (to me). I can’t remember where I saw it — maybe this thread — but it was Brady’s winning percentage across a bunch of different variables and he was remarkably consistent. Like he wins 70-75 percent of most situations.
