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.