Favre is Rooting for the Ravens This Weekend

[goheels22002]

If the Broncos lose to the Ravens, Peyton Manning will tie Bret Favre at 11 playoff losses as a starting QB. Manning is currently tied with Dan Marino at 10 playoff losses, a pretty amazing statistic. It indicates great success in the NFL but futility on an epic scale.

See: NFL starting quarterback playoff records - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tom Brady is tied with a bunch of guys at 6 playoff losses - Roger Staubach, Steve Young, Randall Cunningham, Matt Hasselback, and Dave Krieg.

 

[Nehalem]

All it means is that your team was good at making the playoffs, but not good at winning the Super Bowl.

Is it better to miss the playoffs entirely?

 

[BradyFTW!]

In order to lose 11 times in the playoffs, you have to lead 11 teams to the playoffs. That's a pretty damn good stat.

Counting this as a blemish on his resume isn't that far off from thinking that it's better to be 3-3 in the Super Bowl (with 2 more one-and-dones) than 3-5 in the Super Bowl.

 

[RodThePat]

In order to lose 11 times in the playoffs, you have to lead 11 teams to the playoffs. That's a pretty damn good stat.

Counting this as a blemish on his resume isn't that far off from thinking that it's better to be 3-3 in the Super Bowl (with 2 more one-and-dones) than 3-5 in the Super Bowl.

It's not a "pretty darn good stat" when the player in question is in the discussion for greatest ever at his position. Even if Brady has lost 2 SuperBowls, he's won 3, a number that only 2 QBs in the history of the game have exceeded. He also has a chance to become the leader in pretty much every single postseason statistical category when he retires, including wins. Brady's postseason record can't be affected by pretty much anything at this point. Manning, on the other hand, has gone one-and-done in the playoffs 7 times, and when he did win a title, he threw 3 TDs to 7 INTs in the postseason, the worst performance ever by a SuperBowl winning quarterback. His legacy is very much in question at this point, and if he ties the record for most playoff losses, coupled with a sub .500 playoff record, he'll pretty much be out of the discussion for greatest ever, even if he does win 5 MVPs.

 

[Rick Sanford 25]

It's not a "pretty darn good stat" when the player in question is in the discussion for greatest ever at his position. Even if Brady has lost 2 SuperBowls, he's won 3, a number that only 2 QBs in the history of the game have exceeded. He also has a chance to become the leader in pretty much every single postseason statistical category when he retires, including wins. Brady's postseason record can't be affected by pretty much anything at this point. Manning, on the other hand, has gone one-and-done in the playoffs 7 times, and when he did win a title, he threw 3 TDs to 7 INTs in the postseason, the worst performance ever by a SuperBowl winning quarterback. His legacy is very much in question at this point, and if he ties the record for most playoff losses, coupled with a sub .500 playoff record, he'll pretty much be out of the discussion for greatest ever, even if he does win 5 MVPs.

The only thing wrong with that logic is if Manning does what Elway did. Find that team that can take him to consecutive Super Bowls (Elway had Terrell Davis take care of that for him). That's at least 6 wins in a row. His record would be then 15-10 with 3 Super Bowls which does add luster to a legacy. Especially if it comes at Tom's expense.

Eli's post season record is easily the most head scratching. 0-3 (Twice as the 1 seed) and in two seasons 8-0.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Let's summarize this in a snappy sentence:

This weekend Peyton Manning could become the most frequent LOSER in NFL playoff history

and Tom Brady could become the most frequent WINNER in NFL playoff history.

:rocker:

 

[RodThePat]

The only thing wrong with that logic is if Manning does what Elway did. Find that team that can take him to consecutive Super Bowls (Elway had Terrell Davis take care of that for him). That's at least 6 wins in a row. His record would be then 15-10 with 3 Super Bowls which does add luster to a legacy. Especially if it comes at Tom's expense.

Eli's post season record is easily the most head scratching. 0-3 (Twice as the 1 seed) and in two seasons 8-0.

That only confirms my line of thought, it doesn't contradict it. All I'm saying is that Manning needs postseason success more than Brady does at this point. It's great that he lead teams to the postseason that many times, but in the end, if he retires with only one trophy and the most playoff losses ever to show for it, that's a dramatic blow to his legacy.

 

[Deus Irae]

All it means is that your team was good at making the playoffs, but not good at winning the Super Bowl.

Is it better to miss the playoffs entirely?

In order to lose 11 times in the playoffs, you have to lead 11 teams to the playoffs. That's a pretty damn good stat.

Counting this as a blemish on his resume isn't that far off from thinking that it's better to be 3-3 in the Super Bowl (with 2 more one-and-dones) than 3-5 in the Super Bowl.

The reason it's a blemish is because he's sub .500, with 10 losses, despite being on teams that were highly rated. Manning's never been to the playoffs on any team without double digit wins, and 8 of his 11 previous playoff runs have been with a team having 12 wins or more. He's been one-and-done with a 14 win team, and he's done it twice with a 13 win team. He's never won a playoff game with any team that hadn't won at least 12 regular season games, either, going 0-3 with his 10 win teams including the 41-0 waxing at the hands of the 9-7 Jets in 2002. The one season he did win the Super Bowl, he played 4 games and never had higher than 81.8 for a QB rating and never had a game where he threw more TDs than INTs (3 TDS and 7 INTs during that run).

You might be able to defend an item from above here and there but, when you put that all together, it paints a very ugly picture of Mr. Manning in the playoffs.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Has everyone learned nothing from the NFL world of Peyton Manning's sycophants? If he wins, he's the greatest ever. If he loses, he's the greatest ever, but he played on a baaahhhd, baaaaahhhhddd team. Poooohhh pooooohhhhh Peyton.

 

[Uncle Rico]

Has everyone learned nothing from the NFL world of Peyton Manning's sycophants? If he wins, he's the greatest ever. If he loses, he's the greatest ever, but he played on a baaahhhd, baaaaahhhhddd team. Poooohhh pooooohhhhh Peyton.

Just reading Schefter's 10 Spot for this weekend:

A Patriots win Sunday would be the 17th of Brady's postseason career, breaking the tie he's in with his boyhood idol, Joe Montana, for most by a starting quarterback in NFL history. And on Saturday, Manning will join Brett Favre as the only quarterbacks in NFL history to start in 12 different postseasons, a fact the Elias Sports Bureau confirmed.

Nothing about the potential tying of the record for losses.

And yes, you do have to be good to get in a position to lose a playoff game. So among the frequent playoff contenders, winning pct. is worth a look. Check out this sortable table. Click percent twice to sort by pct., best to worst, and keeeeeeeeeep scrollllllllinnnnng til you find Peyton.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

. Check out this sortable table. Click percent twice to sort by pct., best to worst, and keeeeeeeeeep scrollllllllinnnnng til you find Peyton.

So among active QBs, in playoff winning percentage,

Peyton Manning is only 8 spots behind Mark Sanchez, 5 spots behind Rex Grossman, and 4 spots behind Tim Tebow.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

"futility?" "epic scale?"

11 trips to the playoffs? most nfl qb's would take that in a heartbeat.

i'm glad that others have pointed that out as well. this is the kind of thread that embarrasses the board.

 

[Deus Irae]

"futility?" "epic scale?"

11 trips to the playoffs? most nfl qb's would take that in a heartbeat.

i'm glad that others have pointed that out as well. this is the kind of thread that embarrasses the board.

What embarrasses the board is people defending Manning based upon reaching the playoffs, when he was dealing with a horrible division for most of his time in Indianapolis, and he couldn't do anything with the vast majority of those appearances.

 

[VrabelJr]

What embarrasses the board is people defending Manning based upon reaching the playoffs, when he was dealing with a horrible division for most of his time in Indianapolis, and he couldn't do anything with the vast majority of those appearances.

Have you looked at our division over the last decade?

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

this is the kind of thread that embarrasses the board.

Nobody's saying he's an awful QB because he's 9-10 in the playoffs.

It's a fact to consider when you are trying to place Manning somewhere alongside Brady, Montana, Favre, Unitas, Starr, Baugh, Marino, Elway, Bradshaw, Young, and others in the pantheon of all-time greats, though.

 

[Uncle Rico]

Nobody's saying he's an awful QB because he's 9-10 in the playoffs.

It's a fact to consider when you are trying to place Manning somewhere alongside Brady, Montana, Favre, Unitas, Starr, Baugh, Marino, Elway, Bradshaw, Young, and others in the pantheon of all-time greats, though.

Exactly. And the national media seem fixated on Brady and Belichick not having won a Super Bowl in a few years (the gall); almost nothing about Peyton's post-season legacy.

 

[Deus Irae]

Have you looked at our division over the last decade?

Yes. Did you miss the rest of my post?

he couldn't do anything with the vast majority of those appearances.

Manning has made the playoffs 11 times. He's won one Super Bowl and has failed to win a game 7 of the 11 times, meaning he's won at least one playoff game in only 4 of 11 playoff seasons (36%). By comparison, since you brought up "our" division, Brady has made the playoffs 9 times, and has gone one-and-done only twice, which means that he's won at least one playoff game in 7 of 9 playoff seasons (78%).

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Have you looked at our division over the last decade?

From the archived Sagarin ratings,

the AFC east was stronger than the AFC south in
2012
2011
2010
2009
2006
2004
2002

The opposite was true in
2008
2007
2005
2003

link to 2002:
USATODAY.com

for other seasons, replace the "02" in the url with the 2-digit year.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

What embarrasses the board is people defending Manning based upon reaching the playoffs, when he was dealing with a horrible division for most of his time in Indianapolis, and he couldn't do anything with the vast majority of those appearances.

i didn't say that. what i said was that you can't dis Peyton for losing more Playoff games than most QB's could ever dream of contesting. how he got there is a separate discussion.

But, the last time I checked, the AFC East hasn't been a Murderer's Row over the last decade.

At the risk of confusing this discussion with facts, if you go back to the realignment in 2002 and look at the combined W/L records of the other (ex NE) AFC East teams and compare them to the records of the other (ex IND) AFC South teams over the ten seasons between 2002 and 2011 (the last year Peyton was on the Colts roster), you find the following:
AFC East (BUF, MIA, NYJ): 215--265 (0.448)
AFC South (HOU, JAX, TEN): 227--253 (0.473)

Personally, I don't think you can draw any comparative conclusions from those data, and that includes the conclusion that Manning was up against any more "horrible" divisional opposition than TB.


[PS: If you remove the seasons missed by Brady (2008) and Manning (2011), the records are
AFCE: 188--244 (0.435)
AFCS: 203--229 (0.470)]

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Yes. Did you miss the rest of my post?



Manning has made the playoffs 11 times. He's won one Super Bowl and has failed to win a game 7 of the 11 times, meaning he's won at least one playoff game in only 4 of 11 playoff seasons (36%). By comparison, since you brought up "our" division, Brady has made the playoffs 9 times, and has gone one-and-done only twice, which means that he's won at least one playoff game in 7 of 9 playoff seasons (78%).

Fair question.

If you make the playoffs a dozen times (more than any QB in history), but don't win a game seven (and hopefully eight) of those times, should the emphasis be on the accomplishment of getting there or on all the losing? Or, should it, as I believe, be on both?