Pats Pulpit: Manning v. Brady
Tommasse, SB Nation Patriots blogger over at Pats Pulpit, is doing a three part series dedicated to proving that Tom Brady is a better quarterback than Peyton Manning. Yes folks, three parts. I'd offer some words of wisdom to Tommasse, like how if your argument needs three entire stories dedicated to it then it is probably not a very strong argument. Sadly, Tommasse will likely not accept that advice.
His first part focuses on the two player's stats. Before getting to the stats, Tommasse offers us his insightful opinion on the debate. Tell us Tommasse, who is better:
I don't know that we can change that, but here upon the Pulpit, I give you in back-and-while and red-white-and-blue is the gospel truth. In Part I of our testimony, we discuss The Stats.
Looks like us heathens were right, again.
If Patriots fans ever wonder why no one listens to them, maybe it's because their outlandish statement are often proven dead friggin' wrong time, and time, and time again. Also, if you are making an argument and using stats to back it up, it helps the integrity of your argument if your stats start off as factually correct. Peyton is 31 years old, not 33 as Tommasse's stat sheets claims he is at the very top of the list:
|
|
So, where were we? Oh yes! The stats. Basically, Tommasse attempts to use statistics to prove Brady is better. Like any one-sided evil Patriots fan, Tommasse tries to sweep under the rug stats that measure things like touchdowns (Manning 275, Brady 147), yards (Manning 37,586, Brady 21,564), and completion percentage (Manning 64%, Brady 61%). Yes, yes, yes, all these are just meaningless stats that don't paint the "full picture." The full picture is Manning throws lots of picks compared to Brady.
Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
Yes, Brady has only thrown 78 INTs to Manning's 139. Forget the fact that Manning throws the ball more than Brady does (Manning 4,890, Brady 3,064), and played in more games than Brady (Manning 144, Brady 96). Such pesky details simply muddy the waters. Per Tommasse's suggestions, in order to get a better idea of who is better, we should do what any credible analyst or scientist would do when evaluating data to make an argument.
We should average.
Oh, and along the way, we should ignore all those pesky stats and other factors that might muddy the argument, like regular season stats. I mean, the regular season means nothing, right? It's the playoffs that matter. Heck, why even measure stats in the regular season! Why even have it, period!
The basic crux of Tommasse's statistical argument is Brady has more wins in the playoffs, and has better stats in the playoffs than Manning. He also has more Super Bowl wins. Therefore, Brady is better. Oh, and all those regular season stats; you know, the ones where Manning blows Brady out of the friggin' stratosphere, all those were as result of Manning having better offensive talent around. Oh, and Manning plays weaker competition more consistently than Brady does. Thus, he pads his stats. Thus, his stats are better than Brady. Oh, and George Bush intentially caused 9/11, the devil walks among us, and Dick Clark is actually one of those Highlander immortals from that movie with Sean Connery (Cue the Queen song: "Who wants to live foreverrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!").
See how easy it is to make unsupported statements.
It's the same old dull pathetic argument Patriots fans have used since this all began. The funny thing about Tommasse's stats argument is that those polled it don't even buy it.
|
|
Listen, a Manning v. Brady argument is always fun. But using selective stats and then averaging them only makes you look like a dim-witted fool. Obviously, I'm going to have a different opinion on the whole thing, and unlike Tommasse I don't need to cherry pick stats and average them to back it up. What often bothers me whenever some vindictive Pats fans makes a Manning v. Brady argument is that nowhere in the entire argument is there the following statement:
"I think Peyton Manning is a great player, but Tom Brady is better and here's why."
With Patriots fans, it is a never-ending battle to "discredit" Manning and expose him for the "fraud" he supposedly is. Whenever I make a Manning v. Brady argument, I make certain to give Tommy Terrific his due. No question, he's a great player. He's just not better than Manning. He just isn't. You very rarely see Colts fans rant and rave about how Brady stinks. Patriots fans NEVER give Manning his due. He throws 49 TDs in one season, they call it stat-padding. He breaks Steve Young's single season QB rating, they call it luck. He throws all over the Patriots and helps Indy beat them three straight times, they make excuses (injuries, bad officiating, sun spots, you name it). What I find funny in Tommasse's new argument is that prior to last season whenever Colts fans used statistics to prove Manning is better than Brady, Patriots fans (Tommasse included) were quick to respond with this familiar line:
"Stats are for losers. Brady wins championships. Manning hasn't won anything."
Now that Manning has his ring (and smoked the Patriots like a pack of Kools twice along the way), Pats fans are now reduced to doing what "losers" do to make an argument: They're using stats (badly, I might add). For parts two and three of Tommasse's argument that Tom Brady is better than Peyton Manning, check out Pats Pulpit. Rest assured though, for every fact that Tommasse overlooks (intentionally or not), Stampede Blue will be there to set the record straight, heathens that we are.
0 recs |
26 comments
Comments
Give them Hell Blue
by MarkV0327 on Jul 9, 2007 2:08 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I hate both quarterbacks
If a compelling argument for Brady over Manning exists, it depends on comparing their supporting casts, though even this has its own limitations. You can't easily build a quarterback up by explaining their relative failure away through personnel. It's a good way to put two competing careers into context, perhaps to give an edge to one over equal production. But Brady and Manning don't have equal production, Peyton is clearly better. Also, personnel comparisons beg the chicken/egg argument: is Peyton Manning a HoFer because of Marvin Harrison or is Marvin Harrison a HoFer because of Peyton Manning?
Also, I am not personally swayed at all by arguments that depend on gross overemphasis on playoffs or Super Bowls, as the sample size on those two is necessarily and dramatically smaller than regular season. Super Bowl rings don't make the regular season statistics meaningless.
by Skin Patrol on Jul 9, 2007 2:09 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Does anyone remember.....
And I hate the "Manning has more weapons" crap. A QB can compensate for lack of talent on his side of the ball by calling the right plays and making the right reads. You could consider Brady's defensive counterparts a more valuable asset since the QB can't control what happens on that side of the ball. I'd like to see Brady try to beat his own defense in the playoffs (in the snow) sometime.....
by rudy0498 on Jul 9, 2007 3:27 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
What I posted over there
Also the conclusion that more rushing attempts means a QB is doing everything they can to win seems like a bit of a jump/stretch. I would say it means there were more plays where the QB couldn't find a open receiver or had designed run, but I would probably have just left that stat alone.
Finally, weak competition is used to try to explain away Manning's stats. Over their careers as starters Manning's division rivals have had a better record than Brady's. 8.13 wins/season to 7.45. (didn't forget that 1998-2001 had different division alignments). So Manning's regular season competition is not weaker than normal.
by shake n bake on Jul 9, 2007 3:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
3 points
- Tuck Rule
- Adam Vinatieri
- Defense
by Colt4Life on Jul 9, 2007 5:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Thank God for the NFL and their referees!
by ArchieManning on Jul 9, 2007 8:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
haha
by the21eraser on Jul 9, 2007 9:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
HeeHee
P.S. Please pray for Eli.
by ArchieManning on Jul 9, 2007 9:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Aww...
by the21eraser on Jul 9, 2007 10:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The 03 and 04
by ArchieManning on Jul 9, 2007 10:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Aha
Have you Pats fans ever even thought about how ridiculous your arguments sound? According to you, apparently the Colts have so much pull that the league is willing to change the rules to appease them. Seriously, does anybody outside of New England believe that this is the case?
Look, it's simple: Brady is an excellent QB. He's smart, clutch, and has rings. But Peyton is a freak. Nobody outworks Peyton, and nobody has his numbers (at least at this point in time and at this point in his career). Assuming that neither has his career cut short by injury or loss of desire, Brady will be in the Bradshaw/Starr/Aikman class of great QBs with multiple championships, and Peyton will be in a class all by himself.
by ctnyc on Jul 9, 2007 11:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The "rules changed"
Q: What happened on the holding penalty against (cornerback) Jason David that nullified the interception?
A: Jason has outside position there. He knows that (safety) Antoine (Bethea)'s inside him. All he has to do is funnel him to the inside. What he did was grab the jersey - albeit probably inadvertently. But a jersey grab is a jersey grab and it's a foul. I led the charge to have it made a foul on the NFL Competition Committee. What I said was, `If you grab a jersey in the school yard in the eighth grade, it's a foul. Why isn't it a foul in the National Football League?' The answer is it is. You shouldn't grab jerseys. We teach not to do it. He did and he got a flag on it and it changed the game dramatically. But you learn from it and you move on. There were years in the mid-1990s and even into the early part of this century when the officiating department said, `Well, it's OK to grab a jersey and we'll decide how great the restriction is.' As a result, guys were going out there with longshoreman's hooks and grabbing receivers and you heard, `No, no, there isn't any restriction there.' Restriction meant you yank him off of his feet. That's no way to play the game.
http://www.colts.com/sub.cfm?page=article7&news_id=67340ae2-81b5-466c-9dbc-c5d7779f7821
by ArchieManning on Jul 10, 2007 6:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Weak argument
It is true that the refs for a while let it slide and took it upon themselves to decide whether or not individual incidents merited a flag. In other words, they were lax in enforcing the rule. When given an inch, many players will take a mile. This led to the muggings of the Colts receivers by the Patriots. When the Colts pointed this out, the refs realized that they had gone too far and that the situation had gotten out of hand. It's one thing to let players play and let minor, inconsequential infractions slide. The debacle of the Colts/Pats playoff game is quite another thing; it clearly influenced the outcome of the game. So the referees decided to crack down and enforce the rule that was already on the books. In fact, going into the following season there were all kinds of stories in the media about the game and how because of it the refs had been instructed to enforce the rule more diligently.
What still cracks me up is the conspiracy theory that so many Pats fans subscribe to. As I said in my earlier post, does anybody outside of New England really believe that the Colts got the rules changed? Here's a franchise that had not won a Super Bowl since the early '70's, caused a lot of bad sentiment by moving from Baltimore, endured years of terrible teams and miserable attendance, and had just started to become a perennial playoff contender. And yet Pats fans apparently believe that the franchise has so much pull that when they complain a little, the league jumps to attention and changes the rules to appease them. Unbelievable. I only wish it were true.
Nice try though...
by ctnyc on Jul 11, 2007 9:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If the rule wasn't changed
by ArchieManning on Jul 11, 2007 6:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
not a new rule
by shake n bake on Jul 11, 2007 7:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Polian's exact quote
by ArchieManning on Jul 11, 2007 8:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
rules
If you can find NFL rulebook info on this it would prove it one way or the other.
Either way the change was approved by the right NFL procedure so it don't really matter if it was changed because enough of the owners agreed with Polian.
by shake n bake on Jul 11, 2007 9:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is my understanding as well
In the meantime, I will trust my memory on this. The Colts were up in arms after the playoff game not because rules didn't exist to stop the muggings, but because the rules were not enforced. You don't complain to the league about officiating because referees are not enforcing non-existent rules, you complain because they are not enforcing rules that are on the books. To me, this just seems like common sense. Of course, given many Pats fans' insistence that Brady's numbers prove he's better than Peyton, I'm not sure common sense is in great supply in New England.
As for Polian's quote, it doesn't prove anything definitively either way (unless you believe that his word is final). I like Polian as a GM very much, but accept the possibility that he has been misinterpreted, misquoted, self-promoting, or flat wrong in his memory. So unless you believe that Polian's word is law and is omnisicent, I'm not taken in by the argument.
by ctnyc on Jul 12, 2007 12:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This post...
by Marked Hoosier on Jul 10, 2007 10:21 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Highlander
by BigBlueShoe on Jul 10, 2007 10:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
a better way to compare
How about faceguarding? Talk about a phantom rule that was not even in the books anymore
"2) Adam Vinatieri"
Funny you would want to bring that one up. He seems to have been pretty damn crucial to the Colts run last year
"3) Defense"
Ummm...Maybe we are not talking about the same Colts team, but the Colts D really stepped it up and carried the team through the playoffs.
"3 things that helped Brady win and you can argue that without them, Brady would have 1, maybe even 0 rings."
Let me correct this statement "Three things that helped Manning win, and you can argue that without them, Manning would not have a ring.
If you are going to bash Brady and the Pats, make sure the same reasons you give dont apply to the Colts as well.
This is fundamentally a flawed comparison due to completely different philosophies practiced by the two teams.
The Pats have a system where the offense and defense are relatively balanced, a defense capable of a strong bend and don't break philosophy. Give up yards, but don't let them score. Its not as flashy of a D like San Diego, or the Ravens, but its highly complicated, and highly effective. The Offense is designed to eat up the clock, sustain long drives and get first downs, and wear out the opposing D. Pats fans loved Clock Killin Corey Dillon for this exact reason, when he was healthy, he was a monster in the offense, a key portion of the game plan for the 21 game win streak. Basically, neither side of the ball had to win the game on their own, when the O needed help, the D could step it up and vise versa.
The Colts seem to have a system predicated on the offense scoring and the D just slowing down the opposition just enough. Where the Colts really shined it seems is where the O could rack up an early lead, and unleash their pass rushers, like Freeney, and their excellent defensive backfield. The O, loaded to the gills with talented players, and HOF'ers and near HOF'ers (Manning, Harrison, Wayne(in time it seems), Edge, Faulk, their O line) seemed designed to put other teams in a position where they could not afford to run out the clock, and had to score and score fast, the Colts D was tailor made to rip the guts out of an opposing O that was starting to feel the pressure to score fast.
Each QB seems to be tailor made to the system they play in. Manning racks up amazing numbers in a system where that is the goal. Brady puts up great numbers in a system where that is the goal.
The fundamental argument should be less about which QB is better, but what system is better, and how those QB's succeed in that system compared to the ultimate goal of each team of winning a SB.
by CGM on Jul 10, 2007 12:05 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Part 2
by shake n bake on Jul 11, 2007 5:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Interesting
by CGM on Jul 12, 2007 11:33 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Tom Brady and Heath Shuler
It's a wash! Go Shuler!
by Skin Patrol on Jul 12, 2007 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
LOL
by BigBlueShoe on Jul 12, 2007 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 





















