The Gipper Posted January 29, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 All time best postseason winning record......4 or more games: Bart Starr .900 Russell Wilson .857 Sid Luckman .833 Trent Dilfer .833 Jim Plunkett .800 Earl Morral .800 Jeff Hostetler .800 Otto Graham .750 Joe Theisman .750 Tommy Thompson .750 John Unitas .750 Terry Bradshaw .737 Troy Aikman .737 Eli Manning .727 Mark Rypien .714 Tom Brady .714 Other notables: Joe Montana .696 Elway .667 BR .667 Staubach .647 Brees .545 Rodgers .545 Favre .500 Baugh .500 Marino .444 Kosar .429 Nelsen .400 Testaverde .400 (.500 as member of Browns 1-1) Frank Ryan .400 Holcomb, McDonald, O'Connell, Plum, Strock, Sipe all .000 (each started and lost 1 playoff game for Browns) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombo Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 I know that is all true. That goes back to the whole 1970 QB debate. If Mike Phipps had been taken #1 overall and the Browns had gotten Bradshaw at #3....would it have been Phipps who has 4 Super Bowl rings? Or would the Browns have had a much superior team in the 70s with just Bradshaw. Butterfly effect. In that scenario, neither wins rings. Phipps woulda sucked wherever and Bradshaw would have been Dan Pastorini without Swann, Stallworth, Harris, Kolb, webster and the Steel Curtain D. (but see my prior post....I say that Brady's regular season records are pretty every bit as good as Peyton's....and that there is no comparison when it comes to postseason). Not so fast, my friend, let me visit that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted January 29, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 I can tell that you are either young, or haven't seem some of these players. I venture that I am probably older than you. Joe Namath was probably the best of them all, but suffered from injury at a time where there just wasn't the medical technology of today. Joe Namath was outstanding.....for a very short while....but when we are assessing the GOAT....Joe's short run doesn't cut the mustard. Nobody had that kind of arm strength in his day. Bradshaw was pretty close. Dan Fouts was a monster QB without a D, same for Marino. But winning still has to count. Neither of them did that. And Marino is being passed in the stats race. Staback was always clutch. Probably has as good or better argument than anyone you mention. Started 4 Super Bowls, won 2....in a career that got started late due to military committment. Lost 2 4 pt. games to Steelers in SBs. Had he won them.....HE would have been the standard that Joe Montana would have had to live up to. It's hard to rate the best because their legacy is tied to a team sport. Everybody has said that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted January 29, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 In that scenario, neither wins rings. Phipps woulda sucked wherever and Bradshaw would have been Dan Pastorini without Swann, Stallworth, Harris, Kolb, webster and the Steel Curtain D. Maybe. It is sometimes a case of right place right time (or wrong place right time) Not so fast, my friend, let me visit that. I did that for you above. Peyton will probably have a bit more ...but not by much...in terms of "volume" stats. Total yds/comps/atts/TDs etc. But he does have 2 years on Brady.....3 if you consider that Brady did not play much his rookie year, where Peyton was a full time starter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombo Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 Brady stands in these positions all time for each of these stats: Yards #5 Manning #2 Completions #5 Manning #2 Attempts #6 Manning #2 TDs #5 Manning #1 Rating #5 Manning #3 Yards per game #8 Manning #3 Completion % #12 Manning #4 Lowest Int. % #2 Manning #18 TD% #22 (note.....all of top ten here are pre-1975 QBs except Rodgers) Manning #14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted January 29, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 Modern stats? I don't think the modern QB, protected in the bubble and comfort of todays league rules can be compared fairly. When comparing the HITS that Montana, Aikman, and Elway et.al had endure, half of these guys playing today would have been out of the league years ago. Yes....and even those guys were protected compared to the likes of the 70s/60s/50s etc. QBs. That is why I said to look at dominance within an era, not cross era. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombo Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 Brady stands in these positions all time for each of these stats: Yards #5 Manning #2 Completions #5 Manning #2 Attempts #6 Manning #2 TDs #5 Manning #1 Rating #5 Manning #3 Yards per game #8 Manning #3 Completion % #12 Manning #4 Lowest Int. % #2 Manning #18 TD% #22 (note.....all of top ten here are pre-1975 QBs except Rodgers) Manning #14 Rating, Yards/game, completion % TD% ... not "volume stats" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted January 29, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 Brady stands in these positions all time for each of these stats: Yards #5 Manning #2 Completions #5 Manning #2 Attempts #6 Manning #2 TDs #5 Manning #1 Rating #5 Manning #3 Yards per game #8 Manning #3 Completion % #12 Manning #4 Lowest Int. % #2 Manning #18 TD% #22 (note.....all of top ten here are pre-1975 QBs except Rodgers) Manning #14 If we did some yearly averages we could possibly compare. I still think Peyton's volume would be more. Lets try this: Brady has had 13 years as a starter (he only threw 3 passes his rookie year) Both Brady and Peyton lost a full year to injury (giving Peyton 16 years as a starter) Peyton's average yards passing per year: 4355.69 Brady's: 4117.53 Peyton's average number of attempts per year: 565,56 Brady's: 551.36 Peyton has Yds. per att. avg of 7.7 Brady's is 7.4 Peyton has a Yds. per completion avg of 11.8 Brady's is 11.7 So they would probably be thisclose when all is said and done if given the same number of years/games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted January 29, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 Rating, Yards/game, completion % TD% ... not "volume stats" But they are still like both top 5 all time in those. (and I think ypg is a volume stat) Championships and championship game appearance may be however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombo Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 If we did some yearly averages we could possibly compare. I still think Peyton's volume would be more. Lets try this: Brady has had 13 years as a starter (he only threw 3 passes his rookie year) Both Brady and Peyton lost a full year to injury (giving Peyton 16 years as a starter) Peyton's average yards passing per year: 4355.69 Brady's: 4117.53 Peyton's average number of attempts per year: 565,56 Brady's: 551.36 Peyton has Yds. per att. avg of 7.7 Brady's is 7.4 Peyton has a Yds. per completion avg of 11.8 Brady's is 11.7 So they would probably be thisclose when all is said and done if given the same number of years/games. You can just use per/game stats. Here's a couple more "volume" stats though Game winning drives: Manning #1 with 52, Brady #4 with 45 Comebacks: Manning #1 with 41, Brady #4 with 34 and one more key "prorated" stat: Career sacked %: Manning #1 with 3.07%, Brady #14 with 4.83 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted January 29, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 Rating, Yards/game, completion % TD% ... not "volume stats" Also....if we look at just those particular stats.....Aaron Rodgers leads both Manning and Brady in every single category. So look out there. Rating: Rodgers, Romo, Brees each ahead of both YPG: Stafford and Brees ahead of both Completion %: Brees, Rodgers, Warner, Pennington ahead of both TD%: Luckman, Graham, Baugh, Rodgers ahead of both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted January 29, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 You can just use per/game stats. Here's a couple more "volume" stats though Game winning drives: Manning #1 with 52, Brady #4 with 45 Comebacks: Manning #1 with 41, Brady #4 with 34 With 3 more years under his belt Manning would have that advantage.....but I predict Brady would surpass those numbers with 16 full starter years....as Manning has had. (Brady at only 13) and one more key "prorated" stat: Career sacked %: Manning #1 with 3.07%, Brady #14 with 4.83 I also propound that Brady has not had nearly the kind of talent at WR that Manning has had over the years. Harrison/Wayne. Only for a brief time did Brady have Moss. And the guys that Denver has had overall have been much better than NEs WRs over the last couple of years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudfly Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 Too many stats and ways to slice it.....how about using Approximate Value(AV) Ratings....they weigh EVERYTHING into account and give a total value score for the players entire career....stats...wins....years played....etc etc....and based upon AV rating.... Peyton Manning and Brett Favre are tied as the 2 most valuable players to EVER play(not just qbs)....after them, the next 8 are... 3) Fran Tarkenton 4) Dan Marino 5) John Elway 6) Tom Brady 7) Drew Brees 8) Steve Young 9) Warren Moon 10) Joe Montana Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombo Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 You can just use per/game stats. Here's a couple more "volume" stats though Game winning drives: Manning #1 with 52, Brady #4 with 45 Comebacks: Manning #1 with 41, Brady #4 with 34 With 3 more years under his belt Manning would have that advantage.....but I predict Brady would surpass those numbers with 16 full starter years....as Manning has had. (Brady at only 13) and one more key "prorated" stat: Career sacked %: Manning #1 with 3.07%, Brady #14 with 4.83 I also propound that Brady has not had nearly the kind of talent at WR that Manning has had over the years. Harrison/Wayne. Only for a brief time did Brady have Moss. And the guys that Denver has had overall have been much better than NEs WRs over the last couple of years. I propound that you want to give Brady credit for seasons he hasn't played yet, could get his arm ripped off in the Super Bowl. I also propound that it is not Manning's fault that Brady didn't start as a rookie. Manning started and got beat up, his worst statistical year by far ... but he still wins almost every per/game and per/start stat. Using your Phipps/Bradshaw thing ... what if Manning played his entire career with Belichick ... I think he'd have at least three rings ... but we'll never know. Zombo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted January 29, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 Too many stats and ways to slice it.....how about using Approximate Value(AV) Ratings....they weigh EVERYTHING into account and give a total value score for the players entire career....stats...wins....years played....etc etc....and based upon AV rating.... Peyton Manning and Brett Favre are tied as the 2 most valuable players to EVER play(not just qbs)....after them, the next 8 are... 3) Fran Tarkenton 4) Dan Marino 5) John Elway 6) Tom Brady 7) Drew Brees 8) Steve Young 9) Warren Moon 10) Joe Montana But the AV stat is also a volume stat. Believe me, I have used it enough times to know that. The longer and more productive a career is the higher that stat will go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted January 29, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 I propound that you want to give Brady credit for seasons he hasn't played yet, could get his arm ripped off in the Super Bowl. I am saying that if they play the same number of seasons...their stats/production would end up being close to the same. (I also "warned" that Rodgers could surpass them both). Yes, it is a projection. I also propound that it is not Manning's fault that Brady didn't start as a rookie. Who is assigning fault? Peyton was the #1 overall pick in the draft and was handed the keys to the mint. Brady was #199 overall and had to wrest the starting position away from another #1 overall pick (Bledsoe). Manning started and got beat up, his worst statistical year by far ... but he still wins almost every per/game and per/start stat. He doesn't win the winning pct. stat. Using your Phipps/Bradshaw thing ... what if Manning played his entire career with Belichick ... I think he'd have at least three rings ... but we'll never know. No, but you know my view......BBs winning is a factor of having Brady, not vise versa. Zombo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larryfine Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 You are an idiot. The game say, in the 70s was a lot more like the game played in the 40s/50s than it is to today's game. Ergo, since the game was so different....we MUST discount any titles won in the 70s....per your theory. Hi. Basically starting in the super bowl era players were beginning to be bigger, faster and stronger than the previous decades. If thinking those so called "champinships" from 70 years ago make you feel better about the ineptness of our franchise for the last thirty years go for it, no need to get mad. Tell Ergo I said hi! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 Modern stats? I don't think the modern QB, protected in the bubble and comfort of todays league rules can be compared fairly. When comparing the HITS that Montana, Aikman, and Elway et.al had endure, half of these guys playing today would have been out of the league years ago. Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Tony Romo, Rodgers, Rivers never dealt with the constant and legal hits after the ball was thrown. Manning would have been in a wheel chair.. Its impossible to say that these guys couldn't take the same hits. I venture that they could just like physically ungifted Bernie kosar did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 Hi. Basically starting in the super bowl era players were beginning to be bigger, faster and stronger than the previous decades. If thinking those so called "champinships" from 70 years ago make you feel better about the ineptness of our franchise for the last thirty years go for it, no need to get mad. Tell Ergo I said hi!in the 70s 1/8th of the current league didn't exist. The 70s have the same significance as the 60's 50's 40's and before Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browns149 Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 in the 70s 1/8th of the current league didn't exist. The 70s have the same significance as the 60's 50's 40's and before unless you are a stoolers fan, and then it's when the NFL started Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted January 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 Hi. Basically starting in the super bowl era players were beginning to be bigger, faster and stronger than the previous decades. If thinking those so called "champinships" from 70 years ago make you feel better about the ineptness of our franchise for the last thirty years go for it, no need to get mad. Tell Ergo I said hi! Well, you are wrong. You apparently were not alive when all that went down. As I said, players in the 70s were much, much closer to the size, strength speed of the players in the 50s than they are to today's players. That is an uncontroverted fact. Players, especially linemen did not to get like 300 pounds until the mid 80s. Also, the nature of the game changed far far in favor of the offense. There was no 5 yard rule, no can't hit the QB rule etc. etc. Otto Graham and Joe Montana were about the same height/weight. The Browns last champion qb, Frank Ryan was 6'3". Pretty average for today's QBs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted January 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 The physically ungifted Kosar couldn't take the hits either. He fell of the face of the earth faster than any QB I can remember, it just looked worse on him. His arm lost whatever strength it had to begin with, and his mobility became even more of a joke. That kid got belted around something fierce, and if he were playing under today's rules, his career would have been extended. If we were playing under old rules, the neck fused Manning wouldn't be playing the last two years. Possibly true about Manning. Kosar got hammered after the Browns OL fell apart, first with the retirement of Cody Risien and then other OL losses. The Browns did nothing much really to get quality OL to replace the lost ones....and BK suffered for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonBrown Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 In 2007 Patriots went 12-4 with Brady. In 2008 they went 11-5 with Matt Cassell In 2010 Colts went 10-6 with Manning. In 2011 then went 2-14 without him. Brady not fit to lace Manning's boots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 The 2011 colts fully tanked to get luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonBrown Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 The 2011 colts fully tanked to get luck. 50+ NFL players all tanked to draft a rookie QB? I dont buy that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 The only "can't miss" prospect since manning. Nobody was polarized on luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 You don't need fifty guys to tank. You just need to install shit at a few key positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardejw Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 The Manning brothers and Andrew Luck are so good because of genes. Archie was a great QB who played on really crappy teams in New Orleans.Oliver was a good QB who also played on pitiful teams in Houston. Brady's fought for everything he got. State champion in California, became the starter because of injury. 1 college offer, Michigan where he was 3rd string. Promoted because of injury. This was the case every year in Ann Arbor. Drafter low, not a starter injury gave him a chance again. He wins at every level but he had to work for it. I hate him but I respect him. He works hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted January 31, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 50+ NFL players all tanked to draft a rookie QB? I dont buy that You only needed the Coach/owner to tank.....and they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyceRolls Posted February 1, 2015 Report Share Posted February 1, 2015 Brady is 3-0 when he gets away with cheating 0-2 after the cheat tactic is exposed... I don't care about either of these teams but it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see this Seahawks D make Brady's asshole hurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.