First 7 Years...Brady vs Ben(merged)

[RobertWeathers]

Pretty good research. Essentially the writer looks at wins, qb rating, TDs, playoffs, etc in their first 7 seasons and compares the two.

Ben Roethlisberger is in Tom Brady's league through his first seven seasons, statistics show - ESPN Boston

Nearly all the numbers point to highly comparable careers through seven seasons. Yet, Roethlisberger hasn't received nearly the same amount of attention that Brady did -- at least not positive attention, that is.

Yet, this much is hard to argue: If the Steelers win on Sunday, Roethlisberger will be right where Brady was four years ago.

The better quarterback? Brady's historic numbers in the past four seasons leave no doubt about that.

Brady has lost five of his last nine postseason games, including three in a row. Because of that, Sunday could have even greater meaning.

A distinction that seemed Brady's for life -- the best postseason quarterback of this generation might actually be up for grabs.

With his recent struggles, he's left that door open.

 

[Froob]

Damn packers better win tomorrow. Brady's been so damn close to #4.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

One important difference: the Patriots won a lot of those because of Brady, whereas much of Pittsburgh's success has been in spite of Rapistberger.

 

[WhiZa]

One important difference: the Patriots won a lot of those because of Brady, whereas much of Pittsburgh's success has been in spite of Rapistberger.

This is why I hate when people compare QBs based on wins. It's a team sport right? I will be rooting for GB so I don't have to hear the medidoits take all offseason ignoring stats when comparing QBs or teams as a whole.

 

[OldPatsfans]

One important difference: the Patriots won a lot of those because of Brady, whereas much of Pittsburgh's success has been in spite of Rapistberger.

I would not go to that extreme "in spite of" about Roth, although the Seahawks-robbed SB would qualify that characterization. But I agree with your point over all.

In the same vein, I don't want to see the Pats becoming one-man team. Brady can't do everything. Roth always has Steelers defense to back him up and a decent running game. Brady got similar supports in 2001, 2003, 2004, but not so much lately. Time for the Pats to get back to the complete team philosophy.

 

[DarrylStingley]

See, I think Ben is dam good and is fairly in the Tom conversation.

If he wasn't such a bad guy in his personal life, I think most Pats fans would readily agree that Ben is right up there.

The personal stuff is bad, but it really has nothing to do with the discussion, in my view.

If no Tom and Peyton wasn't available, I'd have a lot of trouble saying no to Ben.

 

[pherein]

This has to be confirmed. Are these figures accurate?

Ben Roethlisberger vs Tom Brady, Through 7 Seasons
Roethlisberger Brady
W-L 69-29 70-24
Comp pct 63.1 61.9
Yds per att 8.04 7.04
TD-Int 144-86 147-78
Rush TD 14 3
Passer rtg 92.5 88.4

Brady's Comp cant be lower than Bens , and Ben has a better PR over 7 seasons ? I find this hard to believe, please someone back me up by actually looking up the data.I don't see this as possible.

 

[MassPats38]

This has to be confirmed. Are these figures accurate?

Ben Roethlisberger vs Tom Brady, Through 7 Seasons
Roethlisberger Brady
W-L 69-29 70-24
Comp pct 63.1 61.9
Yds per att 8.04 7.04
TD-Int 144-86 147-78
Rush TD 14 3
Passer rtg 92.5 88.4

Brady's Comp cant be lower than Bens , and Ben has a better PR over 7 seasons ? I find this hard to believe, please someone back me up by actually looking up the data.I don't see this as possible.

Looking at 2000-2006, which this article compares to Roethlisberger, the numbers appear to be accurate. Brady had some years with completion percentages of about 60%. The article takes out the 2007-present stats, but appears to compare overall QB quality based on those limited stats.

Brady threw to journeymen for most of his career, and first saw some stability in 2007. Ben has had a great TE, Hines Ward, Burress and now Wallace as targets his entire career. I will acknowledge Ben as a great QB for the Steelers system and a good QB overall, but I will not compare him to Brady, Brees or Manning on terms of overall ability. He is not in their class.

 

[pherein]

Looking at 2000-2006, which this article compares to Roethlisberger, the numbers appear to be accurate. Brady had some years with completion percentages of about 60%. The article takes out the 2007-present stats, but appears to compare overall QB quality based on those limited stats.

Brady threw to journeymen for most of his career, and first saw some stability in 2007. Ben has had a great TE, Hines Ward, Burress and now Wallace as targets his entire career. I will acknowledge Ben as a great QB for the Steelers system and a good QB overall, but I will not compare him to Brady, Brees or Manning on terms of overall ability. He is not in their class.

Thanks, Mass, in other words more BS stats to promote a SB. I checked the leaders board but did not have enough time to figure it out, and don't remember seeing Ben there to much, Thanks for clarifying.
NFL Leaders, Football Records, NFL Leaderboards - Pro-Football-Reference.com

You could do the same cut job on mantana and make him look bad. It seemed silly to us that Ben is compared to Brady in anyway shape or form.

 

[MNF]

This has to be confirmed. Are these figures accurate?

Ben Roethlisberger vs Tom Brady, Through 7 Seasons
Roethlisberger Brady
W-L 69-29 70-24
Comp pct 63.1 61.9
Yds per att 8.04 7.04
TD-Int 144-86 147-78
Rush TD 14 3
Passer rtg 92.5 88.4

Brady's Comp cant be lower than Bens , and Ben has a better PR over 7 seasons ? I find this hard to believe, please someone back me up by actually looking up the data.I don't see this as possible.

This is a BS article because they start the stats from 2000 - a season which Tom was the backup not starter. A more accurate representation would be to start Tom's stats in 2001 when Tom became the starter for this team. Which compares the first seven seasons between starters. You can add on 50 more TDs to TB's numbers and 16 more wins. I think the comparison of the better QB is pretty obvious.

The thing people always forget is that Tom took over a very different team than Ben did. When Tom took over the Patriots the team came off a 5-11 season in 2000 and started the 2001 season 0-2. The general consensus was that the Patriots were the worst team in the league. Here is a link to a power ranking just prior to Tom making his first start (CNNSI.com - Pro Football - Dr. Z's NFL Power Rankings - Thursday September 27, 2001 03:37 PM). While power rankings are not stats they do give a good indication of what people thought of this team at the time. The view Dr. Z shares in his ranking was pretty accurate across the NFL at the time. After that point this team went on to lose only 3 more games the rest of the year. It's no coincidence the turn around started when TB took over.

Ben took over a much better Pittsburgh team than did Tom in New England. That Pittsburgh def has always been ranked in the top five especially the years they have gone to the Super Bowls. While the Patriots def has been very good it was not as good as that Pitt D and Tom had to do a lot more to help this team win games compared to Ben.

Finally, Pittsburgh has always been a run first team. The Patriots have always been a passing team and really only had two season with a legit number one running back in Corey Dillon. Teams knew that Tom would have to throw to win so they focused on stopping the pass and Tom still had success. When playing Pittsburgh, teams focused on stopping the run first which gives Ben more room to pass.

Ben's an excellent QB but he's no Brady. The numbers back it up (if you begin when Tom was labeled the starter and not backup which is when the analysis should begin) and any other arguments you want to use regarding the individual situations.

 

[Nikolai]

Eh, I guess now that people are down on Peyton, the Ben comparisons are beginning. It's flattering in a way.

 

[RobertWeathers]

In the same vein, I don't want to see the Pats becoming one-man team. Brady can't do everything. Roth always has Steelers defense to back him up and a decent running game. Brady got similar supports in 2001, 2003, 2004, but not so much lately. Time for the Pats to get back to the complete team philosophy.

This.

Belichick knew that he didn't have the 01-06 defense so he took advantage of having a HoF QB as a way to win games with an adequate defense. The problem is that method has not translated into Super Bowls and throughout NFL history, seldom does.

IMO, Pitt has not gone that route- yet. They've stuck with running the football and a punishing defense.

But as a whole, despite his unsavoriness as a human being, Ben deserves credit. Hes had some playoff game clunkers for sure, but he also has had some very good ones in which the moment required him to win games for the Squeelers- and hes done it.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

This is a BS article because they start the stats from 2000 - a season which Tom was the backup not starter. A more accurate representation would be to start Tom's stats in 2001 when Tom became the starter for this team. Which compares the first seven seasons between starters. You can add on 50 more TDs to TB's numbers and 16 more wins. I think the comparison of the better QB is pretty obvious.

The thing people always forget is that Tom took over a very different team than Ben did. When Tom took over the Patriots the team came off a 5-11 season in 2000 and started the 2001 season 0-2. The general consensus was that the Patriots were the worst team in the league. Here is a link to a power ranking just prior to Tom making his first start (CNNSI.com - Pro Football - Dr. Z's NFL Power Rankings - Thursday September 27, 2001 03:37 PM). While power rankings are not stats they do give a good indication of what people thought of this team at the time. The view Dr. Z shares in his ranking was pretty accurate across the NFL at the time. After that point this team went on to lose only 3 more games the rest of the year. It's no coincidence the turn around started when TB took over.

Ben took over a much better Pittsburgh team than did Tom in New England. That Pittsburgh def has always been ranked in the top five especially the years they have gone to the Super Bowls. While the Patriots def has been very good it was not as good as that Pitt D and Tom had to do a lot more to help this team win games compared to Ben.

Finally, Pittsburgh has always been a run first team. The Patriots have always been a passing team and really only had two season with a legit number one running back in Corey Dillon. Teams knew that Tom would have to throw to win so they focused on stopping the pass and Tom still had success. When playing Pittsburgh, teams focused on stopping the run first which gives Ben more room to pass.

Ben's an excellent QB but he's no Brady. The numbers back it up (if you begin when Tom was labeled the starter and not backup which is when the analysis should begin) and any other arguments you want to use regarding the individual situations.

Thank you. Apples and oranges comparisons are useless, but that never stops the media from attempting to sell them as relevant... If we compared Steve Young's first 7 years in the league (beginning in 1985) to Matt Cassel's first 6 (beginning in 2005) Matt would probably look like an equal if not better bet to be a future HOF QB...

Brady's first 7 years as a starter in this league were 2001-2007.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

Not really a good comparison, but that doesn't diminish what Ben has accomplished so far. He's a very good QB, still behind Brady but ahead of Peyton.

And at least people are starting to acknowledge Brady as the head of the class, using him as the measuring stick to compare all others to.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

The premise is somewhat flawed because they really should've done 2001-2007 for Brady. Still, if Ben wins tonight he is in Brady's league much as I hate to say, until Brady starts getting rings again. Brady's still better but they're going to start mentioning Ben with Brady and Peyton.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Thank you. Apples and oranges comparisons are useless, but that never stops the media from attempting to sell them as relevant... If we compared Steve Young's first 7 years in the league (beginning in 1985) to Matt Cassel's first 6 (beginning in 2005) Matt would probably look like an equal if not better bet to be a future HOF QB...

Brady's first 7 years as a starter in this league were 2001-2007.

When I read the article last night, it's didn't even dawn on me that the writer cherry-picked the argument (as a starter, 6 years for TB with BR having 7).

With all things being equal, TB owns this argument by a landslide- even if they use the first 6 years as a starter.

However, since 2005 Big Ben has TB beat

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I guess this is accurate for the first seven years.

I don't know many people used Brady's championship as the sole reason he was better than Manning. I always thought he was better because of his clutch play, his extremely underrated production with lesser talent at the skill positions, and his stellar statistical accomplishments.

From '07-'10, Brady does not have any rings, but he's also put together arguably the most dominating statistical stretch of any QB in NFL history, shattering records left and right.

To summarize, championships are probably the most important factor in gauging a QB, but to be in Brady's category, you also need to show you can dominate the league. We know you can take a handful of players off the Pats roster and Brady will still win a lot of football games. Has anyone seen Roethlisberger's W/L splits without Polamalu? Ben still has a way to go to be compared to Brady through his first 11 seasons. A long way.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Has anyone seen Roethlisberger's W/L splits without Polamalu? A long way.

Yep. Last two years 14-4 w/ him. 5-7 w/o.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

When I read the article last night, it's didn't even dawn on me that the writer cherry-picked the argument (as a starter, 6 years for TB with BR having 7).

With all things being equal, TB owns this argument by a landslide- even if they use the first 6 years as a starter.

However, since 2005 Big Ben has TB beat

Since 2005 Steelers have Patriots beat...although not one on one. Matchups are generally and routinely more significant than fans grasp. Ben has had the more consistent weapons and consistent defense and until now even the more favorable matchups along the way. Still Stillers are more boom or bust in many respects, as is their QB. And we never won one in spite of Tom as the Stillers did with Ben...SB career 1TD 2INT...and barely at that due to some pretty horrendous execution by the so called 12th men...

I'd take him over Eli and depending on my defense maybe over Peyton when it matters most, but not over Tommy. He's kind of the ultimate blue collar QB who landed in probably the only exactly right place for one. But he's not elite and he won't be no matter how many rings the Steelers ultimately win in his career.

Here's hoping the Steelers don't win another in spite of him tonight...

 

[redsx8827]

This article IS biased for many reasons, including the difference in games started by the two QBs. But Ben has had Ward, Plaxico, Mike Wallace and a great running game his entire career. Brady had troy brown and deion branch for a few of those first 6 years as a starter, but he only had one good running game. The steelers virtually had the same record this year with and without ben. And in his first few seasons, Ben was asked to do less than sanchez has done , yet was lucky enough to be surrounded by great WRs, RBs and defense that led to a SB.

Was his QB rating above 40 in the SB against a bad seahawks team?
Even against a bad AZ team that we beat by 40pts at the end of the season, he was only able to put up 20 points and he had a costly INT that led to an AZ TD.

I think Ben does have a better deep ball than brady, but that is about it. he has had better players surrounding him his first "seven" years and still isn't comparable to Brady (despite this article cherry-picking which seasons to use).

By the way, the QB ratings for QBs who came into the league in 2004 are ridiculous because of the rule changes pushed by Polian. Look at Aaron Rodgers' career rating, ben's, brady's post 2003, matt ryan, rivers, Romo, etc. Good QBs are expected to put up ratings in the 90s, whereas just 8 years ago, good QBs were expected to have ratings above 80. That's why in the top 13 all time QB ratings list, 11 of them are active. Only Montana and Young are in the top 13 all time of retired players. Even guys like Flacco and Schaub are in the top 13 all time