Whoooooooo!
Posted by
tgirsch
My pleasure is Kevin’s pain. And as an added bonus, I even got to watch Peyton Manning remember that he’s Peyton Manning.
All in all, a great weekend, even though the Patriots won.
I’ll say this, though: the Cowboys would have won that game if Dallas’ receivers hadn’t forgotten how to catch.
Looks like a Pat-Pack finale. Good to be a Boston fan these days.
Comment 1/13/2008
Never underestimate the ability of the Packers’ to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
I’m not booking my Super Bowl flight just yet.
But I doubt even a healthy San Diego team could beat New England; so with Gates, Rivers, and Tomlinson all injured, I think your Super Bowl chances are looking pretty good.
Comment 1/13/2008
Here’s hoping for San Diego/Green Bay.
And watch everyone whine about how Romo can’t win the big game (completely ignoring the short-arming done by his receivers)
Comment 1/13/2008
What’s wrong with the Patriots?
Comment 1/13/2008
completely ignoring the short-arming done by his receivers
And the fact that he’s a second-year player who was playing in his first ever playoff game.
Romo wasn’t stellar, but he didn’t play poorly, and he certainly wasn’t why the Cowboys didn’t win. Blame that on lack of team discipline (stupid penalties), the wideouts, and the Cowboys’ inability to stop the run in key situations.
Also, for all the talk of Dallas losing, let’s give credit where it’s due: the Giants played tough football, Eli Manning came through when he had to (132.4 rating), and Bradshaw ran like a man possessed when it mattered.
Comment 1/13/2008
I actually don’t mind the Patriots. Tom Brady’s a class act, and clearly the best QB in the league, by a pretty wide margin. I just don’t want them to go undefeated (I’m already sick of hearing about them). Because I’m a sick bastard, the outcome I was really hoping for is that the Pats would go 16-0 in the regular season, only to lose in their first playoff game (which they may have, if Northcutt makes the catch).
And I don’t want to have to face them.
When it looked like we were in for a Dallas-Green Bay NFC championship game, Kevin and I joked that we were just fighting for the right to get our asses kicked by the Patriots.
Comment 1/14/2008
I maintain that Manning is still better than Brady. But, that’s another discussion for another day.
That Giants win was huge. I haven’t been that excited since the short-lived joy that followed the Endy Chavez catch. The Maine near-no-no was pretty awesome, but again, only the prelude to greater gloom!
The Cowboys committed an inordinate amount of offensive procedure penalties for a home playoff team, let alone a #1 seed.
The biggest “drop” of the game though, wasn’t even by the Cowboys, or even by an offensive player. It Wilson (I think) dropping the gimme interception in the second quarter.
Romo wasn’t terrible, but he did make some questionable decisions late in the game. He was especially hesitant to get rid of the ball when pressure was coming. The one time he did, he was still in the tackle box and got called for grounding. I believe Romo had taken only 25 sacks all year. His O-line left him out to dry in the 4th Q. Combine that with the Giants having the best pass rush in the league, and Romo wasn’t given anything easy down the stretch.
I think the G-bay O-line gave up fewer than 20 sacks the whole season, so it will be another good match-up of top notch O-line and top notch pass rush.
Comment 1/14/2008
Agreed about the Giants’ dropped INT. That would have been huge.
I maintain that Manning is still better than Brady. But, that’s another discussion for another day.
Actually, I think today’s a great day for that discussion.
I think 50 TDs against only 8 INTs would be pretty hard to argue with. But never mind individual stats, and let’s look at what the two QBs have done in “big games.” Especially in games where the loser goes home. Brady absolutely crushes Manning in this category.
Brady is 13-2 in the playoffs, with an 89.9 QB rating, and six games with a rating over 100, against one game with a rating under 60 (still a win). Manning is just 7-7, with an 84.4 rating, and only three games with a rating over 100, and three games with a rating under 40.
If you’re going to call Manning a better QB than Brady, you’d have to use a standard that has absolutely nothing to do with wins and losses.
Late in the game, with your team tied or trailing by less than a TD and the season on the line, I can’t imagine any sane person choosing Manning over Brady. Brady’s got ice in his veins, and has only ever failed once in that situation.
Comment 1/14/2008
Correction to comment #5; this was Romo’s second playoff start, not his first. My bad.
Comment 1/14/2008
Oh.. I wasn’t aware that QBs stood in front of cement blocks and threw footballs pieces of foam with red and white concentric circles hanging in strategic locations…
I mean, QBs stand in front of O-lines, face defenses and throw to other players.
So Tom Brady throws more TDs than Manning in the year in which Brady’s team adds the best WR in football and his coach uses a chip on his shoulder to justify (and seemingly enjoy) running up scores on beleaguered opponents (not I think it’s wrong, but it’s something most teams don’t do - Peyton isn’t throwing 50 yard passes to Wayne in the 4th Q of 42-10 games). In the meantime, Manning loses the 4th (I think off the top of my head) leading WR of all time. At one point, Indy had 13 starters on injured reserve!
As far as winning goes, isolating the QBs, the Pats are just a better team, period. Their defense is better - especially with Bob Sanders and Dwight Freeney missing time. Their O-line is incredible. They have the better coach…
Here are the potential edges that Indy has.
Starting RB, Addai over Maroney, but Maroney’s damn good. Kicker? Maybe Vinateri over Gostkowski.
TE - Clark is really good, but Watson’s no slouch.
#2 WR (assuming both are healthy) Moss is better than either Wayne or Harrison, but the other guy beats out Welker. Mind you, the category NE is losing here is #2 wide out with over 100 receptions…
I just think Manning is better. His pseudo-coaching responsibilities exceed that of any other player in the sport. I think he’s got a better arm. Brady’s outproduced him once.
The winning shit is like the A-Rod and Jeter debate (Jeter supporters convinced yet?). Are you prepared to say that if Indy and NE switched QBs over the past five years, Tony Dungee would have three Championships and the Sleeveless Diplomat would have one? Because unless you are, the “winning” argument isn’t the slam dunk you seem to think it is.
Big Ben has the same number of championships as Peyton, does that make them equal too?
Also, I don’t want to have a discussion about the legitimacy of QB ranking as a stat. But, do you think it is really valid enough to be thrown around as prima facie evidence of anything? At the very least using TD/INT and QB rating is kinda redundant, it’s like me telling you a guy hit a lot of homers and also had a high SLG.
Comment 1/14/2008
Digg:
To answer your meatiest question, I think that if you put Peyton Manning in New England, and changed nothing else, then no, New England would not have won three championships (and be contending for a fourth). Further, if the Colts had Brady instead of Manning, there’s simply NO WAY they lose to Pittsburgh in the divisional round in 2005.
The bottom line is that when the chips are down and the game is on the line, Brady has historically performed in ways that Manning has not. It’s really just that simple. The rest is details, as far as I’m concerned.
Recall the Patriots’ first Super Bowl title. It was against a heavily-favored Rams team. I submit that there’s no way Peyton Manning wins that game, even with the same cast of characters around him.
You can blame the rest of the Colts team all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that year in and year out, the Colts have dominant regular seasons, only to flame out in the playoffs. In playoff games against a high-quality opponent, Manning has come through exactly once — last year, against the Patriots in the AFC championship game. I thought that his Trent Dilferish performance in last year’s Super Bowl was vastly overrated, and that Dominic Rhodes was the true MVP.
Further, several of Manning’s playoff losses (including the most recent one) came in games in which the Colts were favored, often heavily. Complain all you want that the Colts aren’t as good or that the other team is better, but that logic doesn’t fly here. Going all the way back to his college career, he’s got a storied history of laying an egg in the big one.
It would be interesting, I think, to look at how the two QBs have historically played in games when their teams are either underdogs, or favored by three or less. I don’t have figures in front of me, but I suspect Brady would come out well ahead. Both guys have proven that they can put up obscene numbers against inferior competition. What’s far more important to me is how they do in big games, close games, when it really matters. With one exception, Manning folds like a chair.
Manning might be a better QB than Roethlisberger, I’ll grant, but it’s not by as much as you might think.
I agree with you that QB rating is overvalued. If the stat had much meaning, Manning’s playoff rating would be MUCH lower than Brady’s, rather than just a few points lower.
Also, I have to say this: If Peyton Manning is standing in front of his offensive line, that may explain a lot of his problems. You might have a better view from up there, but you’re bound to take a lot of sacks. Most QBs choose to stand behind the line, where there’s some modicum of protection.
Seriously, though: In 2007, Manning was sacked just 21 times, for a total loss of just 124 yards. Tom Brady’s vastly superior (in your estimation) offensive line allowed him to be sacked — wait for it — 21 times, for a total loss of 128 yards. In 2006, Tom Brady was sacked 26 times. Manning? 14. In 2005 (Pats win Super Bowl), Brady was sacked 26 times; Manning 17. 2004 (Pats win Super Bowl): Brady sacked 26 times, Manning 13. 2003: Brady 32 times, Manning 18. 2002 (Pats win Super Bowl): Brady 31 times, Manning 23. 2001: Brady 41 times, Manning 29. So I don’t see how you can pin the difference on the O-line, unless you’re counting it as a liability for Brady.
Note, too, that this year is the first time in the last five or six years that anyone could reasonably claim the Patriots have better receivers than the Colts. I’d be willing to concede that the Patriots have typically had a better defense than the Colts, but I think it’s laughable to argue that the Pats’ offense was more talented than the Colts’ offense.
But really, even set all that aside, because you seem to be using “intangibles” in ranking Manning as better than Brady. But it is in this very area that I think Manning is the worst. Watch a Colts game, and watch a Patriots game. Watch how the two QBs react, especially when things aren’t going well. Brady fires up his teammates. Manning pouts, and calls out his teammates.
Comment 1/14/2008
Okay.
I admit, I’m not on as firm ground in football as I am in baseball. You make some good points, no doubt.
As far as the sacks, Peyton, although not very fast does seem very adept at avoiding the rush. Perhaps some of the sack disparity can also be explained by mobility within the pocket. I dunno.
I happen to think that Manning’s 49 TD season was more impressive than Brady this year. Brady threw 8 picks this year, Manning only threw 10, so that’s not a big difference. Brady did attempt 80 or so more passes this year than Manning did when he threw 49. Those 80 passes also netted Brady fewer than 300 yards too.
Yes, this is the first year you could compare Brady’s receivers to Manning’s. It’s also the first year Brady had a true monster offensive season. Manning threw 31 TDs and for over 4,000 yards without his number 1 receiver for 12 games and all kinds of injuries to key teammates.
And, this is gonna sound dick-ish, but I truly have nothing against NE or Brady, but the Pats were 12-0 against the NFL this year, and 4-0 against the Dolphins and Jets.
This is kinda like Marino/Montana - and yes, I take Marino there too.
But, anyway, I’ll stop addressing the “details.” Call me crazy, but gimme the choice of anybody, and I still want to give the ball to Manning. Just like I’d rather send A-Rod up there than Jeter, a thousand times out of a thousand.
Comment 1/14/2008
I wanted to keep this separate.
This is one of my pet peeves about mainstream sports coverage, and you kinda echoed it earlier, TG, but we moved away from it so I didn’t want to include it in my reply post.
The media rails against the individually-centric athlete. They brand them as concerned about their own stats and legacy, and reluctant to buy into the team concept. They praise chemistry, and continue to remind us that teams win and lose, not players.
But, they always use that phrase in the same direction. Teams with championships, so that means Allen Iverson’s style wasn’t going to lead the Sixers to a championship. How come it doesn’t also mean that teams win championships, so as amazing as Allen Iverson is, it’s gonna be hard to win when Theo Ratliff is his team’s “answer” to Shaq…
The other thing is when it’s time to compare players to each other - the team concept is (unintentionally abandoned again) as referencing Brady’s or Jeter’s championships compared to Manning or A-Rod, ignores the contributions of others, and implicitly attribute credit to that player for his whole team’s performance.
Granted, Brady to Manning is far less egregious than Jeter to A-Rod. In the latter there is not even the beginning of an argument, the former is clearly a question of who is 1A and 1B.
That’s why I hate the rings arguments. How good do you have to be to claim credit for your team’s success in one these arguments? So, we can bring up titles for Brady vs. Manning, ehh, okay. But, really, we can do this for Jeter and A-Rod too? Um, what about a small forward comparison between Robert Horry and Dominique Wilkins, can we bring up Horry’s six rings to ‘Nique’s zero? It’s just such a slippery slope. Not to mention a small sample size.
Comment 1/14/2008
digg:
I think our differences of opinion boil down to our answer to a single question: When weighing the value of an athlete, are some games more important than others? I contend that they are. I don’t want to speak for you, but you seem to value all games equally. Hence, how a baseball player performs in June is no less important than how he performs in October. And how Manning performs against, say, the Jets (a cellar dweller), is no less important than how he performs against the Chargers (a playoff team). I, of course, disagree.
At the same time, I don’t think winning is everything, and you’re right that circumstances do play a large part; hence, Marino was a great quarterback even though he never won the big one (even though I’d still take Montana), and Dilfer wasn’t a great quarterback even though he did. But when comparing Manning and Brady, I think the sample size is large enough, and the teams good enough, to make a valid judgment. There just aren’t a lot of examples of the Colts losing in the playoffs despite a great performance by Manning (none I can find), or of the Pats winning despite a bad performance by Brady (two). Conversely, the Colts won three times despite mediocre-to-bad performances by Manning. So again, I don’t see how you can pin the differences on the surrounding cast. (Sources for Manning and Brady.)
I’ll defer to you on the Jeter/A-Rod debate, because you pay a lot more attention to baseball in general, and the Yankees in particular, than I do. But it does seem to me that A-Rod tends to pull a disappearing act in October. You’ll undoubtedly have numbers to prove me wrong on that count.
Comment 1/15/2008
In my opinion, Manning was a better QB playing on a better offense until a couple of years ago. Brady and his O are clearly better this year. By any quantifiable measure (which of course does not include “pseudo-coaching responsibilities” …how does one determine the magntude of a player’s pseudo-coaching responsibility? And if it can’t be measured, how is it ranked?)
Brady is at a point where he can go an entire game without throwing a single bad pass. Manning can’t do that. I submit the most recent games as evidence.
And enough with the A-Rod / Jeter references. Football is a team game, baseball not so much. Just look at TO or even R. Moss 06/07 to see how chemistry matters in football. All A-Rod needs to be the best offensive player in the AL is a good hitter behind him.
Comment 1/15/2008
It’s not that I don’t think that performances in some games aren’t more important than performances in others. It’s just that I don’t think it you can extrapolate that to conclude that one player is “better” than another.
Also, at least in baseball, it’s been exhaustively proven that over time a player’s performances in big games/ABs will regress to closely mirror that player’s overall performance level.
Sometimes, I think the notion of pressure in general is overplayed in professional sports. To be clear, I am not saying that it does not exist - far from it. I’m just saying nobody ever really considers the notion that those who truly choke under pressure, as a characteristic of who they are as an athlete, are likely weeded out long before the professional level due to all the high pressure situations an athlete will face along the way.
That’s more of an argument against the existence of clutch - but then again, your argument is sort of a derivative of the clutch argument. What I’m saying here is that big performances in big games count, but I’m not sure the difference between two players’ performances in those games is the reflection a disparity of skill between the two players.
Just for the hell of it, here are some A-Rod, Jeter “clutch” numbers - all career. Generally speaking, as players, Jeter usually hits for a bit higher average and A-Rod hits for a ton more power. They are almost exactly equal OBP-wise .389/.388 in favor of A-Rod.
RISP:
AR: .306/.404.561
DJ: .311/.407/.435
RISP 2 Out:
AR: .274/.399/.491
DJ: .317/.417/.448
Bases Loaded:
AR: .353/.409/.757
DJ: .359/.419/.447
Man on 3rd
Comment 1/15/2008
Continuing:
Man on 3rd
Comment 1/15/2008
I tried to add more, but I got cut off.
Anyway, the point is I think winning plays a big role in evaluating players in football because numbers are so difficult to compare.
There are even more profound variables between contemporaries than there are in baseball. There is huge sample size issue. Standard deviations belie “typical performances.” Throwing for 400 yards can be a sign of kicking ass or getting your ass kicked…
I think you’re on pretty shaky ground using either numbers or wins when it comes to football.
Also, the sport can be so system-driven…
It’s all very difficult.
I think either ordering of Brady and Manning is perfectly defensible.
Comment 1/15/2008
digg:
It’s just that I don’t think it you can extrapolate that to conclude that one player is “better” than another.
Again, it depends how you define “better.” And what could be more important than performing when the chips are down?
Also, at least in baseball, it’s been exhaustively proven that over time a player’s performances in big games/ABs will regress to closely mirror that player’s overall performance level.
I thought somebody recently proved the opposite. Well, sort of. But again, I’ll defer to you on the baseball stuff.
Comment 1/15/2008
(I>Again, it depends how you define “better.” And what could be more important than performing when the chips are down?
As a fan, nothing. As an analyst or GM, statistical objectivity - or the best attempt you can make at it.
Take A-Rod for example. Lost in the discussion of how he performs in the clutch is the question of how many clutch situations even exist, that wouldn’t otherwise, because of his overall contributions. I’ve seen plenty of Yankee games where A-Rod has failed in a big spot, yet the game is only close because of big hits he had earlier in the game. How many other players got clutch hits in games that were only close because of things A-Rod did earlier. Same thing with Manning, how many big games that “choked” in are the Colts even playing if Big Ben was at the helm?
As for the article about the clutch factor, this college junior is up against the likes of Bill James, Pete Palmer, Tom Tango, etc. if he wants to argue such a position. Good for him, but the consensus among the most respected researchers in the field is to the contrary.
Comment 1/17/2008