More Brady v. Manning

by BigBlueShoe on Jul 10, 2007 10:52 AM EDT in Analysis

Hold my hand and smile, Tom.

So, Tommasse at Pats Pulpit responded to my response about his Brady is better than Manning post.

One big complaint is that I used "averages" instead of straight numbers. To that I say, "Of course Manning has more yards and touchdowns. He's played three full seasons more." Pretty obvious.

Hence, averages. Last I took a statistics class, which admittedly was a long time ago, averages are pretty key calculations in comparing statistics, and other calculations, like standard deviations, are derivative of averages.

Sorry, but averages of this kind are not an acceptable calculation method when it comes to comparing two players and their statistics. Averages PERIOD are bad when making statistical comparisons of any kind. All that does is weaken your argument and open it up for idiots like me to tear it to pieces. If the numbers don't stand on their own, then your argument (statistically speaking) is very weak. Read Tommasse's comments and you'll see fans, pretty much in unison, disagreeing with Tommasse's opinion that Brady, statistically, is superior to Manning.

In terms of the stats, Manning blows Brady completely out of the water. Absent from Tommasse's entire evaluation is the fact that throughout Brady's entire career he has had a defense ranked consistently in the top 10. Because of this, Brady has needed to throw the ball less because, quite frankly, he doesn't have to score as much to win. Meanwhile, in Colt Land, Peyton Manning has had a top 10 defense once in his entire nine year career.

Once.

Last year, the defense he won the Super Bowl with surrendered 173 rushing yards a game. Obviously, because of this, Manning gets the ball less but despite this he managed to lead the league in QB efficiency. Again, such factors are very key in comparing two players like this. It's much easier to compare, say, Carson Palmer to Manning. Like Peyton, Carson has no defense in Cincy and is forced to score more because his defense surrenders over 20 PPG. All that said, I firmly believe that if Tom Brady's defense stunk, he'd be able to lead his team to 28 PPG and give his team a chance. Obviously, come playoff time he'd get crushed because in the playoffs a defense is vital, but that wouldn't take anything away from Brady.

Like all QB comparisons, this entire thing is totally subjective and can't be "proven" either way. The general consensus now is Manning is the best because he overcame the one obstacle he needed to overcome: Winning a championship. All he had to do was win one. Now, he's cementing his legacy, and when he retires he'll likely own all the major passing titles, QB win percentage, and QB efficiency ratings.

Yet, despite all that, there will still be people that call him a "loser" and hate him. It's just how it is.

0 recs | Comment 35 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

I don't think

you're being fair to averages. They are a valuable statistic, especially when comparing two quarterbacks at different points in their career. I doubt Tom Brady will ever match Manning's production, but their total numbers should be put in perspective. Some quarterback exists (his name is Peyton Manning) that is better than Dan Marino, despite having less overall yards; explain that without averages. Even some of the statistics you use to evaluate QBs are averages, notably YPA. Or career completion %.

If Peyton Manning is a better statistical QB prior to averaging his numbers and a worse one afterwards, then it tells us something about Peyton Manning that is worthwhile to this discussion. As it stands, he's a better statistical QB before and after, so it's no big shakes for Colts' fans.

All that said, I also think there's something to valued about longevity. Being able to remain a productive QB for 10 years is more impressive than doing it for 5.

Hogs Haven

by Skin Patrol on Jul 10, 2007 11:25 AM EDT 0 recs

Thank you for commenting....

It's nice to have an unbiased opinion on the subject.

by rudy0498 on Jul 10, 2007 2:36 PM EDT up 0 recs

neither one is the best

because to be the best, you have to be better than everyone else. Thats not the case with either Manning or Brady because Manning isn't better than Brady and Brady isn't better than Manning. They're both great, future HOF qbs, end of story. Neither one is better than the other.

Now you can have a preference of one over the other, but that doesn't mean that player is better. Both guys are going to have fans who think they're the best and haters who think they're overrated. In reality, there is not much difference between them, they are both pocket qbs who are really good. Any further discussion is really meaningless.

by Terry on Jul 10, 2007 11:43 AM EDT 0 recs

No.

You are wrong. Manning is better than Brady. In reality, there is a substantial difference between them.

Hogs Haven

by Skin Patrol on Jul 10, 2007 12:02 PM EDT up 0 recs

if you take both qb's

and switch their teams, both the Pats and Colts would be the same. You can't tell me the Pats would be a better team with Manning, there is no way thats true.

by Terry on Jul 10, 2007 2:09 PM EDT up 0 recs

Terry

That's exactly what I would say. The Patriots would be a better team with Peyton Manning. I'd love to discuss the point, but you've shut down even the possibility of us moving forward by insisting without argument or evidence that "there is no way" what I've said can be true.

I would suggest that having a quarterback who completes a higher percentage of his passes, scores more touchdowns, and gets more yards per attempted pass are all conducive towards winning, all things equal. If you switch Manning with Brady, the Patriots get a quarterback who is more accurate and better capable of moving the ball down the field and scoring. If you put Tom Brady on the Colts, they become a team with a quarterback who completes fewer passes, fewer yards per attempt, and scores less.

I understand that this comparison is close enough where there is some grey area, though the statistics are conclusive. The general point, that replacing quarterbacks is consequential, should be obvious to you, as your team replaced one QB with another midseason last year and were better off because of it.

Why is Tony Romo a better quarterback than Drew Bledsoe? I would wager it's because he's a more accurate passer, and more dangerous downfield passer, a more productive passer, (and a better scrambler) or some combination of those things, and I would proceed with that argument by quoting his statistics. The statistical breakdown of Manning vs. Brady was thankfully done by Pats Pulpit. The results were conclusive. Peyton Manning is a better quarterback. There is no interpretation of the data that points otherwise, unless one is willing to admit that a lower completion %, less overall production, a lower YPA, etc. makes for a better quarterback.

I love these kinds of discussions. I want to have this discussion with you. But I cannot do so if you deem this discussion "meaningless" or simply deny that any conclusion besides yours is possible. I apologize for my last response to you [which effectively was "You are wrong."] as it as meant as a joke in response to your dismissive thoughts.

I hope we compare the quarterbacks without resorting to platitudes or loaded questions.

Hogs Haven

by Skin Patrol on Jul 10, 2007 2:39 PM EDT up 0 recs

did you ever think

the reason he has better stats because he has much better offensive personnel around him? No way Manning puts up those numbers with the likes of David Givens, Deion Branch and Troy Brown as his primary WRs over the last few years as compared to Harrison, Wayne, Stokley and Clark. Not to mention Manning's O line has been superior as well.

by Terry on Jul 10, 2007 2:55 PM EDT up 0 recs

So wouldn't that make...

Troy Aikman a scrub, were it not for Michael Irvin and Emmitt Smith and that Offensive Line?

Honestly, and I've said it elsewhere, I think that arguments that proceed "Tom Brady's stats are worse than Manning's because of the surrounding personnel..." are far more convincing than any attempt to ludicrously deemphasize regular season stats (where Manning dominates) or overemphasize the postseason (where they're a wash or, slightly in Brady's favor).

Though that argument still begs the question: Is Marvin Harrison a HoF WR if he isn't catching passes from Peyton Manning? Wouldn't it stand to reason that Harrison and Reggie Wayne are better statistical wide receivers than Givens, Branch, and Troy Brown, given that the person passing to them is more accurate?

No argument against the Offensive Line, which would instruct me towards Brady if his numbers were comparable to Peyton Manning. Differences of personnel are most instructive when looking at comparable careers. In this case, we aren't.

Hogs Haven

by Skin Patrol on Jul 10, 2007 3:41 PM EDT up 0 recs

I disagree....

on the part about the O-Line. Manning makes his line look good because he adjusts their pass protections before the play, and he gets rid of the ball faster than any QB in the league. As much as it pains me to bring it up...they didn't look too superior against Pittsburgh in the playoffs 2 years ago. It's not like the Pats line is full of a bunch of chumps. They've done a pretty good protecting Brady over the years. And I've got to give props to my fellow boilermaker Matt Light. He's every bit as good of a blind side tackle as Tarik Glenn.

by rudy0498 on Jul 10, 2007 4:15 PM EDT up 0 recs

Did you ever think

The reason those guys are so good might have something to do with the fact they played with Payton Manning?

I've never seen Harrison or Wayne play with anyone else. How do you know they'd be that much better than Deion Branch if they didn't have Manning throwing to them?

Bleeding Green Nation Philadelphia Eagles Blog

by JasonB on Jul 11, 2007 10:43 AM EDT up 0 recs

Also

I love that you brought up Clark. I honestly think that skills-wise Dallas Clark is as average as it gets. Colts fans won't like that, but I really think it's true. He is nothing special.

The only reason you'd ever bring him up a superior receiver is because he's played with Manning. You put him on most other teams and he's an afterthought. On the Colts, he's a fine player.

Bleeding Green Nation Philadelphia Eagles Blog

by JasonB on Jul 11, 2007 10:45 AM EDT up 0 recs

Wow

You really hate Clark since he killed your Eagles back in November, don't you.

Please make an account and post a diary, add some comments, and make some noise. Accounts are free, and only require an email address.

by BigBlueShoe on Jul 11, 2007 10:54 AM EDT up 0 recs

He wouldn't be in the top 3 TEs

in the NFC East alone.

Hogs Haven

by Skin Patrol on Jul 11, 2007 11:09 AM EDT up 0 recs

Harrison did have 2 years before Manning.....

And he had 64 receptions one year, 73 the other, and only about 800 or so yards receiving. Very Deon Branch'ish I would say.

I think Clark is lethal in the Colts system. But he wouldn't fit into 90% of the systems in the league, and is a liability in run blocking if the team was playing their base defense.

by rudy0498 on Jul 11, 2007 1:26 PM EDT up 0 recs

Let me add...

that this notion of "You can't tell me the Pats would be a better team with Manning..." isn't what we're discussing here. There is some sense that Tom Brady is the better man for the job in New England because he has rapport with his wide receivers, demands the respect of his teammates, and knows the offense. If you put Peyton Manning into that offense tomorrow, he will experience some growing pains. So would Brady in Indy.

But that's true for every QB comparison. We're trying to decide, all things equal, which is the better quarterback. Putting them through unfair hypotheticals obsfucates that pursuit more than it clarifies anything useful or worthwhile.

The better question is: If you knew nothing else about your team, which quarterback would you put on the roster: X or Y? That isolates coaching, that isolates receivers, that isolates running backs and defense. That question also strongly favors Peyton Manning, given his production in this National Football League.

Hogs Haven

by Skin Patrol on Jul 10, 2007 2:43 PM EDT up 0 recs

if i had to win just one game

I'd pick Brady, he's proven he's a better qb under pressure more often than Manning.

by Terry on Jul 11, 2007 9:51 AM EDT up 0 recs

But you'd pick

Brady after Terry Bradshaw, right?

If you had to score 45 points in a game to win, would you choose Brady or Manning?

Hogs Haven

by Skin Patrol on Jul 11, 2007 10:25 AM EDT up 0 recs

Brady

if like you said everything else was equal. Brady is certainly as capable of putting up monster numbers as well. I'm not saying Brady has better physical skills because he doesn't, I just think Brady gets less rattled than Manning under extreme pressure and difficult situations.

Regardless, I don't think its as clear cut as you point out. I've seen both of these qb's play a lot and I disagree that Manning is more accurate of a passer.

You make the argument that great qbs can make wrs look good, well I can make the same argument that great wrs can make a qb look good. Case in point, Terry Bradshaw. Without Swann and Stallworth, he's not even an average qb.

If a wr drops a ball or runs a wrong route, how is that the qb's fault if the pass is recorded as an incompletion? see my point?

by Terry on Jul 11, 2007 11:11 AM EDT up 0 recs

Right...

So were Tom Brady and Peyton Manning close to one another in completion %, you might be able to attribute that difference to a superior WR unit, though that would still depend on pure speculation as you really have no idea whether Harrison makes Manning or the other way around (thus the proper conclusion is suspended judgment). But they aren't comparable, Manning is simply more accurate and getting better -- his 64% rate is weighed down by a developmental rookie year, that Brady got to avoid on a bench. To illustrate, Manning has been more accurate every single season the past five years than Brady was in his single best season (2001) when, incidentally, he had the fewest attempts of his career.

A close look at their season statistics reveal that Brady's best year in every category looks about like Manning's 3rd-5th best season in similar categories. You might insist against evidence that Brady is only getting better, but of course his 2006 was a regression from previous years.

Unless you want to go back to the tape of every game and record every single dropped pass, present it here, and we can argue over whether it was the receivers fault or the QBs, then all we have is the data available which strongly suggests that Manning is a more accurate passer. Beyond that you can only speculate, and frankly I'll take the Real Life statistics over your unsubstantiated speculation any day. Manning has a larger sample size and simply completes a higher % of his passes than Brady, and it appears that Manning is pulling away from Brady in that stat even now. The last time Manning threw below his career completion % was 2001. The last time Brady did it was last year.

For this nuance of personnel to matter, we need to compare two players with comparable production. That simply isn't the case.

Hogs Haven

by Skin Patrol on Jul 11, 2007 11:32 AM EDT up 0 recs

But how much pressure was it?

In comparison to Manning? And how high were the expectations? Did anyone "expect" him to win that first year? Just making to the playoffs was a hug success. And Brady had far better defenses who held the score low, gave him good field position. If he had to punt, he just shrugged, and most likely got the ball back with no more points on the board.

On the flip-side Manning has to go into every game thinking, I may have to score on every possession to win this game. Teams play keep away from him. And he also carried around the Archie's Son can't win the big game" title since college. How much pressure is that? Has Brady ever been under "that" kind of pressure. The pressure is different when you are overachieving versus not living up to expectations and trying to vindicate your entire family.

Now that he's done it, the pressure will never be the same and it will pale in comparison. I choose Manning.

by rudy0498 on Jul 11, 2007 1:42 PM EDT up 0 recs

Averages

The problem with averages I see and think you are talking about is that a QB that plays for longer or throws more passes is more valuable and has done more than a QB with similar averages that has thrown less passes.
Stat totals can be misleading when comparing QBs with a larger than normal number of attempts. Kitna in 2006 is a good example of this. He ranked 4th in total yards, but he threw just under 600 passes to get those yards. Using yards per attempt and other averages put him where he belongs, not 4th but in the middle of the pack.
Averages can be useful but should be used along with stat totals. Like I said on the Pats pulpit comments I like how pro-football-reference uses both.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/wordpress/?cat=8
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/wordpress/?p=139

by shake n bake on Jul 10, 2007 12:11 PM EDT 0 recs

Polian

I believe Bill Polian once said yards per attempt, completion percentage, and TD to INT ratio were the best QB ratings indicators.

Please make an account and post a diary, add some comments, and make some noise. Accounts are free, and only require an email address.

by BigBlueShoe on Jul 10, 2007 12:32 PM EDT up 0 recs

I would agree with Bill Polian

In this order: Completion %, YPA, TD:Int

The first covers the most basic QB passing issue; accuracy. All things equal, more accurate passers are better than less accurate ones.

YPA is partially a function of completion % but also speaks towards pass selection. A QB can have an unusually high completion % if they don't throw the ball down the field, meaning we can use YPA to weed out misleading Completion %s.

TD:Int speaks to decision making.

Hogs Haven

by Skin Patrol on Jul 10, 2007 1:50 PM EDT up 0 recs

which is exactly what comprises

the qb rating. Here is the formula:

[(completion %) + (yds per att x 5 + 2.5) + (TD% x 4) - (INT% x 5)]

by Terry on Jul 10, 2007 2:13 PM EDT up 0 recs

also

take that number divide by 6 and then multiply by 5.

by Terry on Jul 10, 2007 2:14 PM EDT up 0 recs

The Brady/Manning arguement is very similar to the

Montana/Marino arguement. Would you rather have Manning/Marino who put up great stats or Brady/Montana who put up almost as great stats but win big games. I'll take Brady/Montana. Sorry son.

by ArchieManning on Jul 10, 2007 6:49 PM EDT 0 recs

really now...?

that argument would hold some truth had you made it a year ago (which im sure you did a million times).

peyton won the super bowl which last time i checked qualified as a big game.

by jochexum on Jul 10, 2007 7:35 PM EDT up 0 recs

This is a horrible comparison.

Because Montana was not only a better quarterback statistically (higher completion %, higher YPA, better TD:Int, etc.) but he also won championships. If the two quarterbacks were identical, you might give the edge to Joe Montana because he's won more championships or you might give it to Dan Marino because of his longevity. As it stands, Joe Montana was simply a more accurate and better quarterback. Dan Marino was incredible because he was so good for so long. Personally, when I'm discussing "best" WR, I'm not taking Keenan McCardell over Gary Clark. None of which to say that Dan Marino is a bad quarterback, it's just that Joe Montana is probably better.

But it is to say that your comparison is bogus. Marino wins in longevity, Montana wins everything else. That isn't the case between Brady and Manning. Brady wins in championships, Manning wins everything else. Were they identical, perhaps Brady would get the nod since <strike>he's won</strike> the Patriots won the big dance more. But they aren't identical, Manning is demonstrably better. Similar case with Montana.

The interesting discussion would be Montana vs. Peyton Manning. Reasonable minds might disagree about who is better, given how close they match up and that Montana has the championships. I'd still say Peyton has it in a landslide if he continues his production, since longevity will favor him over Montana (he's very nearly matched overall production in a far shorter period of time) and that team could easily win a few more championships. But I'm granting that reasonable minds could disagree about who is better when looking at Montana's stats vs. Manning's.

Reasonable minds cannot disagree when comparing Brady vs. Manning. Fanatic Football Partisans such as yourself and myself might. But that doesn't mean it's a worthwhile disagreement. This is especially evidenced by your simplification of what is actually a pretty nuanced and complicated comparison as merely "Well isn't this the Marino/Montana thing? Peyton=Marino. Ergo..."

I guess the better question is, what makes you think Tom Brady deserves to be compared to Joe Montana... at all? [At this point.]

Hogs Haven

by Skin Patrol on Jul 10, 2007 8:02 PM EDT up 0 recs

What????????

Looking on NFL.com at career and season passing records Marino is first or second in almost every category while Montana is listed only in completion percentage for major categories. Marino has dominant statistical advantage over Montana except for playoff/Super Bowl stats/wins.

by ArchieManning on Jul 10, 2007 8:49 PM EDT up 0 recs

No,

Montana has much better QB ratings than Marino. It's flat untrue that Marino has a dominant statistical advantage over Montana. Only in the bulk statistics, but not in the averages. Montana led Marino in QB rating 7 of the 10 years they played together. Manning led Brady in QB rating 5 of the 6 years they have both started full-time. Montana's career rating is 6 points higher than Marino's, Manning's career rating is 5 points higher than Brady's.

by SteveW on Jul 10, 2007 9:55 PM EDT up 0 recs

QB rating is

a fairly meaningless statistic.

by ArchieManning on Jul 10, 2007 9:58 PM EDT up 0 recs

Right, because

it only takes into account completion %, TD/INT ratio, and YPA.

If only we could find some statistics relevant to quarterbacking...

by SteveW on Jul 10, 2007 9:59 PM EDT up 0 recs

I don't disagree

but I think completion %, YPA, TD:Int are all meaningful stats. Which one of them does Marino lead Montana or Manning in? For that matter, which one of them does Brady lead Manning or Montana in?

If you really want to go by absolute stats, than are you willing to grant that both Manning and Marino are better than Brady?

When you look at Marino vs. Montana statistically, there really isn't a comparison. Marino was better for longer, and deserves credit for that, but he was less accurate, didn't protect the ball as well relative to scoring, and didn't move the ball as far per attempt.

Hogs Haven

by Skin Patrol on Jul 11, 2007 7:53 AM EDT up 0 recs

Who will Peyton throw to?

Are we sure that Harrison's wrist is healthy? If so great if not. Moorehead better step it up. Gonzalez will need time to learn the system. That puts a big load on Wayne.

www.indysportsblog.com

by indysportsblog on Jul 10, 2007 9:14 PM EDT 0 recs

The WRs will be fine

Marvin's been having wrist problems for at least the last two seasons maybe more and he hasn't missed a game or lost production. I think it was his wrist but it might have been another injury, Marvin refused to let the trainers look at it because they might make him sit out some games.
I think Gonzalez will get some playing time right away and they will increase his time as he gets more use to the offense. He's a smart, hardworking guy, he'll get enough of the offense down to play some early and be the full time slot WR before the season's over.
If Gonzalez isn't ready they will either use Moorehead in the slot or Clark with Fletcher and Ute at TE like they did in the playoffs. If they can win the superbowl with Marvin, Wayne and Clark as their WRs they'll be fine this year.

by shake n bake on Jul 11, 2007 11:33 AM EDT 0 recs