Peyton or Tom?

Who do you think is better?

Poll ended at Sun Jul 15, 2007 1:59 am

 
Total votes: 0

The Rondo Show
Analyst
Posts: 3,588
And1: 327
Joined: Mar 16, 2006

 

Post#21 » by The Rondo Show » Mon Oct 15, 2007 8:25 pm

Elway=GOAT wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



I disagree, they completely torched by the Jets. But, almost everyone of the Colts playoff loses came because of the Colts offense not showing up. They paded there stats by torching the Broncos every year, and that game against the cheat(one of the rare playoff games, were the defense didnt play good enough to win).

Brady, has never shown the ability to just collapse in the playoffs(unless they are playing the Broncos). He has always been, the guy who isnt going to make you say holy ****, hes not going to bomb a pass 80 yards down field like Elway, but he does the little things to win. Very Joe Montanaish and he finally has his Jerry Rice.
Agreed. For all the talk about the D's being the difference in their rings; the Manning supporters don't seem to realize (or acknowledge) that it's often been Peyton Manning and the unstoppable Colts offense that has failed them in the playoffs...

They lost games in the playoffs by the following scores:
1999: Titans 19, Colts 16. Manning was 19-43 with 227 yards (0/0 TD/INT ratio). Pretty subpar performance.

2000: Dolphins 23, Colts 17. 17-32, 194 yards, 1 TD and 0 INT's. Not a real bad performance, but he definitely didn't put the team on his shoulders and carry them to a win when it was very possible.

2002: Jets 41, Colts 0. Manning was 14-31 with 137 yards and 0 TD's to 2 INT's. He probably wasn't winning that game anyways, but just another case of him and that Colts offense coming up small in a playoff loss.

2003: Patriots 24, Colts 14. He smoked Denver and KC but then **** the bed against the Patriots. 23-47 with 4 picks and 1 TD. If their offense played well, they certainly could've won this game.

2004: Patriots 20, Colts 3. He lit up Denver but once again, pulled a no show against the Patriots. 27-42 with 238 yards and 1 INT and led his team to 3 points.

2005: Steelers 21, Colts 18. 22-38, 290 yards, 1 TD and 0 INT's. Played very well, but the Colts offense still scored just 18 points. I'd say Vanderjagt is more to blame for this than his D.

2006: He was pretty horrible against KC and Baltimore, but his D and the pathetic offenses those two teams have bailed him out and he won both games. Was very good against the Patriots and solid against the Bears. He was really carried to this Super Bowl, aside from his amazing 2nd half vs. the Patriots. It sure seems to me like the Manning & the Colts offense deserves their fair share of the blame and it isn't a case of the Colts always losing 49-42 in the playoffs.

This guy has been way too inconsistent (and it's usually more of the **** games than the good ones) in the playoffs for me to even think about taking him over Brady.
Image
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 41,197
And1: 9,189
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Treys are for 'Kicks!...and Steph Curry
   

 

Post#22 » by Doctor MJ » Tue Oct 16, 2007 6:51 am

bigboy1234 wrote:Oh come you knew that, don't be too hard on yourself there buddy. It's definitely not like those silly WARP/VORP statistics in baseball though, thats for sure, with all it's tricky adjustments for defense.


Speak to the following on the following:

1) Why it is that Manning did better on DPAR than PAR relative to Brady.

2) What Brady tearing apart one of the highest rated defenses in the league while playing on the road means.

Thanks.
In another world...
Your Longshoremen of Long Beach...

And now introducing...
The Song of Westeros...
LeBron James
John Stockton
Bobby Jones
Rudy Gobert
Khris Middleton
Connie Hawkins
Otto Porter
Ryan Anderson
User avatar
Elway=GOAT
Analyst
Posts: 3,475
And1: 1
Joined: Jul 01, 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ

 

Post#23 » by Elway=GOAT » Tue Oct 16, 2007 9:02 am

kobeSTOPkobeDONT wrote:
Elway=GOAT wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



I disagree, they completely torched by the Jets. But, almost everyone of the Colts playoff loses came because of the Colts offense not showing up. They paded there stats by torching the Broncos every year, and that game against the cheat(one of the rare playoff games, were the defense didnt play good enough to win).

Brady, has never shown the ability to just collapse in the playoffs(unless they are playing the Broncos). He has always been, the guy who isnt going to make you say holy ****, hes not going to bomb a pass 80 yards down field like Elway, but he does the little things to win. Very Joe Montanaish and he finally has his Jerry Rice.
Agreed. For all the talk about the D's being the difference in their rings; the Manning supporters don't seem to realize (or acknowledge) that it's often been Peyton Manning and the unstoppable Colts offense that has failed them in the playoffs...

They lost games in the playoffs by the following scores:
1999: Titans 19, Colts 16. Manning was 19-43 with 227 yards (0/0 TD/INT ratio). Pretty subpar performance.

2000: Dolphins 23, Colts 17. 17-32, 194 yards, 1 TD and 0 INT's. Not a real bad performance, but he definitely didn't put the team on his shoulders and carry them to a win when it was very possible.

2002: Jets 41, Colts 0. Manning was 14-31 with 137 yards and 0 TD's to 2 INT's. He probably wasn't winning that game anyways, but just another case of him and that Colts offense coming up small in a playoff loss.

2003: Patriots 24, Colts 14. He smoked Denver and KC but then **** the bed against the Patriots. 23-47 with 4 picks and 1 TD. If their offense played well, they certainly could've won this game.

2004: Patriots 20, Colts 3. He lit up Denver but once again, pulled a no show against the Patriots. 27-42 with 238 yards and 1 INT and led his team to 3 points.

2005: Steelers 21, Colts 18. 22-38, 290 yards, 1 TD and 0 INT's. Played very well, but the Colts offense still scored just 18 points. I'd say Vanderjagt is more to blame for this than his D.

2006: He was pretty horrible against KC and Baltimore, but his D and the pathetic offenses those two teams have bailed him out and he won both games. Was very good against the Patriots and solid against the Bears. He was really carried to this Super Bowl, aside from his amazing 2nd half vs. the Patriots. It sure seems to me like the Manning & the Colts offense deserves their fair share of the blame and it isn't a case of the Colts always losing 49-42 in the playoffs.

This guy has been way too inconsistent (and it's usually more of the **** games than the good ones) in the playoffs for me to even think about taking him over Brady.



Great post, and just so you know. You wont get an argument from any Manning supporter.
User avatar
bigboy1234
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,116
And1: 7
Joined: May 29, 2006

 

Post#24 » by bigboy1234 » Tue Oct 16, 2007 10:12 am

Doctor MJ wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Speak to the following on the following:

1) Why it is that Manning did better on DPAR than PAR relative to Brady.

2) What Brady tearing apart one of the highest rated defenses in the league while playing on the road means.

Thanks.

1. Easy, Manning faced better defenses over the first 5 weeks. Manning had actually faced good defenses in Tampa Bay and Tennessee, unlike Brady.

2. Definitely means a good amount that Brady and company were able to beat Dallas. But I was simple stating that they were pretty much equal through their first 5 games, but no one would have known that by the sounds of things.
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 41,197
And1: 9,189
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Treys are for 'Kicks!...and Steph Curry
   

 

Post#25 » by Doctor MJ » Tue Oct 16, 2007 5:02 pm

bigboy1234 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-


1. Easy, Manning faced better defenses over the first 5 weeks. Manning had actually faced good defenses in Tampa Bay and Tennessee, unlike Brady.

2. Definitely means a good amount that Brady and company were able to beat Dallas. But I was simple stating that they were pretty much equal through their first 5 games, but no one would have known that by the sounds of things.


I think you put a little too much faith in a stat with small sample size. All that we knew objectively was 1) Brady had done better against the teams he played than Manning, and 2) Manning had done it against tougher competition. While it makes sense for you to subjectively believe that that made their accomplishments of equal value, their performances were simply not the same, and it should not confuse you in the slightest why people thought Brady had been more impressive. They simply didn't think Brady's superior performance was dependent on inferior competition, they thought he could keep it up against tough teams, and it turns out, at this point it seems they were right.

As to the statistical lesson here beyond small sample size, call it the blowout effect. When a team blows another team out, the exact score becomes basically meaningless. When you're outscoring your opponents by 20+ points per game, it's silly to say you'd have been more impressive if you outscored them by 30. Hence while it's not unreasonable to think that things would be very different against tougher teams, to try to actually calculate that out with statistics isn't going to be very effective. Until you see a team pushed, you don't have any basis for how high they can reach.
In another world...
Your Longshoremen of Long Beach...

And now introducing...
The Song of Westeros...
LeBron James
John Stockton
Bobby Jones
Rudy Gobert
Khris Middleton
Connie Hawkins
Otto Porter
Ryan Anderson
User avatar
bigboy1234
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,116
And1: 7
Joined: May 29, 2006

 

Post#26 » by bigboy1234 » Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:13 pm

Small sample size? You mean like saying Brady is better after 6 games, where he has never even been close to as good as Manning statistically.

It's fun to play the what if game like you are, but concerning their actual performances throughout the first 5 games this season, they were equal to me.

Who's to say the Pats weren't playing all out during their games like you're implying? I hear what you're saying with the blowout thing, I just don't necessarily agree with it fully.

And it doesn't confuse me why people/media thought Brady was far superior, it's called the Brady and Patriot effect.

I'm not saying it's clearly one or the other, but my preference right now is Manning, which is no knock on Brady at all considering in my opinion Manning will go down as the best ever. Brady has put up these phenomenal numbers for 6 weeks, Manning has put up great numbers throughout his career. I'm not saying Brady is a fluke or anything close to that, but I do think Manning is the safer choice, although that too is debatable. Like you've said so far this season is quite a small sample size, I'm going to wait a little longer to anoint Brady better. But the Pats/Brady have been amazing so far and it's only good for the sport and is fun as hell to watch, and really thats all that matters to me.
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 41,197
And1: 9,189
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Treys are for 'Kicks!...and Steph Curry
   

 

Post#27 » by Doctor MJ » Tue Oct 16, 2007 8:05 pm

bigboy1234 wrote:Small sample size? You mean like saying Brady is better after 6 games, where he has never even been close to as good as Manning statistically.

It's fun to play the what if game like you are, but concerning their actual performances throughout the first 5 games this season, they were equal to me.

Who's to say the Pats weren't playing all out during their games like you're implying? I hear what you're saying with the blowout thing, I just don't necessarily agree with it fully.

And it doesn't confuse me why people/media thought Brady was far superior, it's called the Brady and Patriot effect.

I'm not saying it's clearly one or the other, but my preference right now is Manning, which is no knock on Brady at all considering in my opinion Manning will go down as the best ever. Brady has put up these phenomenal numbers for 6 weeks, Manning has put up great numbers throughout his career. I'm not saying Brady is a fluke or anything close to that, but I do think Manning is the safer choice, although that too is debatable. Like you've said so far this season is quite a small sample size, I'm going to wait a little longer to anoint Brady better. But the Pats/Brady have been amazing so far and it's only good for the sport and is fun as hell to watch, and really thats all that matters to me.


-By small sample size, I'm specifically referring to there not being enough data to tell whether Brady's numbers would be drastically different if they had played a bit tougher schedule. By pointing to DPAR as the QED, you are essentially assuming that they would be significantly worse against better defenses, and that's a hasty conclusion imho. On the flip side, you can certainly knock others for not factoring in opponent strength. However there were people who did factor in opponent strength, but still felt that Brady's success wasn't dependent on a weak schedule.

-It's fine that you think the performances were equal, you are entitled to your opinion. It simply seemed to me that you thought it was unreasonable if others disagreed because of the stat you like.

-I didn't say that "the blowout effect" means that a team is definitely better than there scores indicate. I said that until a team is tested, you don't really know how good they are. Hence, pointing to a stat that says two guys are even, when the "blowout" player would have a clear lead if his team had scored more points which gave his team no clear benefit, is sketchy.

-"Brady and Patriot effect"? Well touche with the word choice there I suppose. I don't really see what the effect is supposed to mean. I guess it could be a reference to their 3 Super Bowls, but realistically this wave isn't about previous seasons, it's about the current one. So, do people overrate teams who blow out 5 teams (now 6) in a row in the NFL? Well if they do, can you blame them?

-To your last paragraph, that sounds reasonable. To me Brady looks better right now, but the Brady/Manning debate is still very much in play for me, whereas comparing those two with any other current quarterback is pretty silly to me.
In another world...
Your Longshoremen of Long Beach...

And now introducing...
The Song of Westeros...
LeBron James
John Stockton
Bobby Jones
Rudy Gobert
Khris Middleton
Connie Hawkins
Otto Porter
Ryan Anderson
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 41,197
And1: 9,189
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Treys are for 'Kicks!...and Steph Curry
   

 

Post#28 » by Doctor MJ » Tue Oct 16, 2007 8:13 pm

Just for closure, updated DPAR's:

Brady 80.1
Manning 57.8

Interestingly, a bigger gap than between Pro Bowl-bound quarterbacks like Romo and Favre, and Joey Harrington. Huge, but I'm guessing Brady will cool down some.
In another world...
Your Longshoremen of Long Beach...

And now introducing...
The Song of Westeros...
LeBron James
John Stockton
Bobby Jones
Rudy Gobert
Khris Middleton
Connie Hawkins
Otto Porter
Ryan Anderson
TheSheriff
Analyst
Posts: 3,658
And1: 1,132
Joined: Aug 04, 2007

 

Post#29 » by TheSheriff » Tue Oct 16, 2007 8:30 pm

I like using stats to calculate success as very much. But in football they are much dependent on other factors than in say baseball. For instance, If Brady was playing with a worse defense and constantly had to throw the ball, he would have better career numbers. It also depends a lot on WR, coaching scheme, and running game. It look at one stat and not judge the player by context fails to take into account the whole picture. That is why success of a QB's teams is so important for judging who is better than whom.
J.Kim
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 10,689
And1: 22
Joined: Jan 12, 2003
Location: Washington D.C.

 

Post#30 » by J.Kim » Tue Oct 16, 2007 8:33 pm

TheSheriff wrote:I like using stats to calculate success as very much. But in football they are much dependent on other factors than in say baseball. For instance, If Brady was playing with a worse defense and constantly had to throw the ball, he would have better career numbers. It also depends a lot on WR, coaching scheme, and running game. It look at one stat and not judge the player by context fails to take into account the whole picture. That is why success of a QB's teams is so important for judging who is better than whom.


DVOA and DPAR?
User avatar
Basketball Jesus
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 31,180
And1: 6
Joined: Sep 04, 2003
Location: P-nuts + hair doos

 

Post#31 » by Basketball Jesus » Tue Oct 16, 2007 8:50 pm

Even those are too dependent to seriously rely on.
Manocad wrote:The universe is the age it is. We can all agree it's 13 billion years old, and nothing changes. We can all agree it's 6000 years old, and nothing changes. We can all disagree on how old it is, and nothing changes. Some people really need a hobby.
J.Kim
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 10,689
And1: 22
Joined: Jan 12, 2003
Location: Washington D.C.

 

Post#32 » by J.Kim » Tue Oct 16, 2007 8:54 pm

Basketball Jesus wrote:Even those are too dependent to seriously rely on.


The only dependant varaibles which have not been taken care of are Offensive philosophies/coaching schemes right?
And considering most offenses are similar nowadays, it's nearly negligeable?
User avatar
Basketball Jesus
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 31,180
And1: 6
Joined: Sep 04, 2003
Location: P-nuts + hair doos

 

Post#33 » by Basketball Jesus » Tue Oct 16, 2007 8:57 pm

Also the quality of the players surrounding said player.
Manocad wrote:The universe is the age it is. We can all agree it's 13 billion years old, and nothing changes. We can all agree it's 6000 years old, and nothing changes. We can all disagree on how old it is, and nothing changes. Some people really need a hobby.
User avatar
bigboy1234
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,116
And1: 7
Joined: May 29, 2006

 

Post#34 » by bigboy1234 » Tue Oct 16, 2007 9:00 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:Just for closure, updated DPAR's:

Brady 80.1
Manning 57.8

Interestingly, a bigger gap than between Pro Bowl-bound quarterbacks like Romo and Favre, and Joey Harrington. Huge, but I'm guessing Brady will cool down some.

Eh, thats kind of unfair, Manning did have the week off, although Brady was sick against Dallas. Their DVOA difference of 9 is the same as Garrard is away from Peyton.
J.Kim
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 10,689
And1: 22
Joined: Jan 12, 2003
Location: Washington D.C.

 

Post#35 » by J.Kim » Tue Oct 16, 2007 9:05 pm

Basketball Jesus wrote:Also the quality of the players surrounding said player.


Oh, Right.

Larry Johnson in a Kansas City Offense, surrounded by the Kansas City O-Line, WRs and QB

I still don't agree that "Success of a QB's Team" is important for judging who is better than whom, as TheSheriff had stated.
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 41,197
And1: 9,189
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Treys are for 'Kicks!...and Steph Curry
   

 

Post#36 » by Doctor MJ » Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:59 am

bigboy1234 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-


Eh, thats kind of unfair, Manning did have the week off, although Brady was sick against Dallas. Their DVOA difference of 9 is the same as Garrard is away from Peyton.


Good point.
In another world...
Your Longshoremen of Long Beach...

And now introducing...
The Song of Westeros...
LeBron James
John Stockton
Bobby Jones
Rudy Gobert
Khris Middleton
Connie Hawkins
Otto Porter
Ryan Anderson
User avatar
wigglestrue
RealGM
Posts: 24,124
And1: 170
Joined: Feb 06, 2003
Location: Wiggling, after hitting a four-pointer of Truth

 

Post#37 » by wigglestrue » Sun Oct 21, 2007 8:55 pm

On pace now for, um, 61+ TD.
Passer rating is well over 130.
Complete % is about 74%.
0:01.8 A. Walker makes 3-pt shot from 28 ft (assist by E. Williams) +3 109-108
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_9qvmXiEuU
CBS7
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 25,182
And1: 1,986
Joined: Jan 21, 2005
Location: Dallas

 

Post#38 » by CBS7 » Mon Oct 22, 2007 12:10 am

Through 7 games:

2125 yards 27 TDs 2 INT 73.8% 9.3 yards/attempt

Projected for the year:

4857 yards 61 TDs 5 INT

To tie Peyton's record, he'll need to throw 22 in the final 9 games, just 2.44 TDs a game, not much compared to the 3.86 per game he's thrown in the first 7 weeks.

Another thing, his 4857 projected yards would be #2 ever, behind Marino's 5000+ season.
User avatar
Elway=GOAT
Analyst
Posts: 3,475
And1: 1
Joined: Jul 01, 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ

 

Post#39 » by Elway=GOAT » Mon Nov 5, 2007 1:57 am

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/s ... id=3088974

Very intresting article, as scouts breakdown the 2. Its good to see Peyton Manning and Brady are back to the old ways after this game.

Watching Brady will the Pats back, in a touch game. Then watching Manning, lget the happy feet and deer in headlights look when he comes under pressure, just like he always has.
User avatar
NO-KG-AI
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 36,636
And1: 7,732
Joined: Jul 19, 2005
Location: The city of witch doctors, and good ol' pickpockets

 

Post#40 » by NO-KG-AI » Mon Nov 5, 2007 2:52 am

^^ Lol, it's funny that you always say that, he played well until the Patriots had guys hanging all over him, and Brady played bad until they kept guys off him.

I'm chalking that win up to coaching, not to Tom outplaying Peyton :dontknow:
Doctor MJ wrote:I don't understand why people jump in a thread and say basically, "This thing you're all talking about. I'm too ignorant to know anything about it. Lollerskates!"

Return to Player Comparisons