Manning vs. Brady Weapons Comparison

I recently got into a discussion with someone about the weapons argument between Brady and Manning. Focus is on talent & longevity. Can you say more with less?

The chart I posted is based on the top three targeted WR's & the top two TE's from seasons 2001 -2014 (leaving out Brady 2008 & Manning 2011)

Well done, that's brilliant. Also highlights a philosophical difference between the Patriots & the Colts/Broncos in how they value those positions and approach the draft. With Belichick now just looking for one more Pats ring for the thumb, it's hard to argue with his philosophy.

BradyManny said:

Well done, that's brilliant. Also highlights a philosophical difference between the Patriots & the Colts/Broncos in how they value those positions and approach the draft. With Belichick now just looking for one more Pats ring for the thumb, it's hard to argue with his philosophy.

Click to expand...

Thanks.....I didn't see the need (or have the time) to get into all the other numbers. I'll leave that up to the rest of you guys.

I mean...really! Has Manning ever faced any adversity at the receiver position?

Wayne, Harrison, & Clark have accounted for over 3k targets alone. That is just absurd

BradyManny said:

Well done, that's brilliant. Also highlights a philosophical difference between the Patriots & the Colts/Broncos in how they value those positions and approach the draft. With Belichick now just looking for one more Pats ring for the thumb, it's hard to argue with his philosophy.

Click to expand...

Agreed.....

But I do wonder what would have happened if BB made sure Brady had say a top 10 receiver for the majority of his career. I think they could have done that without changing the overall landscape too much. Pretty sure you would have had another Lombardi on the mantle if you had signed Branch in 06

I know someone who does not care and probably cant stand it.

That's a lot of receivers!

Would be helpful to rank by draft rank..

If I have time I'll make histogram of draft rank, and run the stats to see if significant difference. Unless one of you eager whippersnappers does it first.

If you made the data available in a link so I could just cut and paste that would be so swell... I could pull it from a spreadsheet into Matlab easily

please do it first I'm so damned busy right now

neuronet said:

Would be helpful to rank by draft rank..

If I have time I'll make histogram of draft rank, and run the stats to see if significant difference. Unless one of you eager whippersnappers does it first.

If you made the data available in a link so I could just cut and paste that would be so swell... I could pull it from a spreadsheet into Matlab easily

please do it first I'm so damned busy right now

Click to expand...

That's easy for me to do. Everything you see there is from an excel spread sheet. I can even send a copy to whoever is interested. You can then play with the numbers however you like

Nordberg said:

Agreed.....

But I do wonder what would have happened if BB made sure Brady had say a top 10 receiver for the majority of his career. I think they could have done that without changing the overall landscape too much. Pretty sure you would have had another Lombardi on the mantle if you had signed Branch in 06

Click to expand...

I disagree. If Belichick always made sure that we had a top 10 receiver talent (top 10 before coming here since Troy Brown was a top 10 talent while here), then we would have and maybe $8M a year less of defense.

Would our TEAM have been better off over the past year with a top receiver instead of Wilfork. BTW, by having such a receiver might have meant that some of those who were stars would not have been so: Welker, Brown and Edelman come to mind. Edelman was brought it on a vet minimum contract, because Belichick had little other choice. If we had an additional top receiver, Edelman would likely not be here. And consider 2014, if we had a top 10 receiver on the team, would we have signed LaFell? Also with large investments always made in a top receiver, there would be considerable dead money if any of these players were injured or underplayed their contracts, or even at the end of their contracts.

So, yes the offense would have been better with a top 10 receiver on the 53; but that would not necessarily have made the team any better, or resulted in any more wins or any more Super Bowls.
====
BOTTOM LINE
Belichick has known that he has Brady. He has been able to win more games, more playoff games and more Super Bowls than any coach-qb combo in history. The offense, even with so little spent at WR, has been among the top 5 offense for more than a decade. Brady has just set all kinds of passing records at the Super Bowl. If you must, question whether an additional top corner might have made the defensive heroics at the end of the game unnecessary. But believing that paying a lot for another receiver would have materially helped over the years seems to be poor analysis.

I don't know why folks continue to question Belichick's strategy with regard to where to use money.

Yes, Belichick is human and makes mistakes. However, the amount of resources allocated to the WR position is NOT one of those mistakes, at least IMHO. Of course, evaluating draft wide receiver talent, and developing wide receiver talent can certainly be questioned.

Nordberg said:

Agreed.....

But I do wonder what would have happened if BB made sure Brady had say a top 10 receiver for the majority of his career. I think they could have done that without changing the overall landscape too much. Pretty sure you would have had another Lombardi on the mantle if you had signed Branch in 06

Click to expand...

I think the success is an endorsement of the philosophy, not a way to say if we did it like other teams we would have done better.
I keep hearing people saying things like 'BB handicaps the GOAT by the talent he gives him". The argument being if you have the GOAT QB give him great receivers and watch out.
I think the converse is true. Brady is SO good that if you give him average receivers, he plays like the GOAT, so why waste resources on top level WRs at the expense of other areas when you know Brady can win with any group of WRs, so lets strengthen everything else.
How much better are you really going to make the team by using your resources to make it easier for Tom Brady. He does just fine without extraordinary help.

Nordberg said:

I recently got into a discussion with someone about the weapons argument between Brady and Manning. Focus is on talent & longevity. Can you say more with less?

The chart I posted is based on the top three targeted WR's & the top two TE's from seasons 2001 -2014 (leaving out Brady 2008 & Manning 2011)

Click to expand...

Fantastic work! I've been making this argument for years; it's not only pedigree (in the form of draft round) but also consistency...'01-'06 Manning relied heavily on 1st rounder Harrison (six of the top fifteen targets over his career). '02-'10--with five years of overlap with Harrison--Manning had 1st rounder Wayne (eight of the top 23). 1st rounder Demaryius was the constant from '12-'14, with three of the top-10 totals.

That's three 1st rounders, spanning 13 seasons (01-14, minus the lost 2011), with 17 of the top 23 targets in Mannings career. The other six targets in the top-23 are Decker (twice), Sanders, Clark, Welker and Garcon--and Sanders was a 2nd, Decker a 3rd.

Eight guys, three first rounders, one second, one UDFA, and three 1st rounders were 'binkies' that formed a continuous stretch, with some overlap, from 2001-2014.

Compare that to the top-23 on Brady's list:
Welker (UDFA) five times, '07-'12
Gronk (2nd) twice recently
Moss (1st) twice mid
Edelman (7th) twice recently
Brown (7th) twice early
Patten (UDFA) twice early
Givens (7th) twice early-mid
Branch (2nd) twice early-mid
Lafell, Hernandez, Caldwell and Lloyd all on the list once.

Twelve guys, one first rounder, two 2nd rounders, 3 UDFA, one 8th, two 7th, and after Welker the longest stretch is two years by multiple players.

neuronet said:

If you made the data available in a link so I could just cut and paste that would be so swell... I could pull it from a spreadsheet into Matlab easily

please do it first I'm so damned busy right now

Click to expand...

Won't let me upload???

AndyJohnson said:

I think the success is an endorsement of the philosophy, not a way to say if we did it like other teams we would have done better.
I keep hearing people saying things like 'BB handicaps the GOAT by the talent he gives him". The argument being if you have the GOAT QB give him great receivers and watch out.
I think the converse is true. Brady is SO good that if you give him average receivers, he plays like the GOAT, so why waste resources on top level WRs at the expense of other areas when you know Brady can win with any group of WRs, so lets strengthen everything else.
How much better are you really going to make the team by using your resources to make it easier for Tom Brady. He does just fine without extraordinary help.

Click to expand...

Another argument I've been making for years Granted you can't leave the cupboard barren, like in 2006 when even a league-average receiver probably would have led to another ring (and that secondary was ATROCIOUS...bad year for BB but Brady almost single-handedly dragged that team to a SB). But there's no need to go scorched earth on offense ala 2007 when you can merely be 'top 3' every year with castoff receivers and spend the money elsewhere.

The Belichick haters will say he should have given Brady more weapons. The Brady haters will say Belichick built a team around him that can win regardless of the offense. The Pats fans know Brady and Belichick are both GOATs simply because Brady didn't need real weapons to succeed, and because Belichick knew this, and took advantage of it to build a more complete team that can win in the Playoffs.

hambone1818 said:

Another argument I've been making for years Granted you can't leave the cupboard barren, like in 2006 when even a league-average receiver probably would have led to another ring (and that secondary was ATROCIOUS...bad year for BB but Brady almost single-handedly dragged that team to a SB). But there's no need to go scorched earth on offense ala 2007 when you can merely be 'top 3' every year with castoff receivers and spend the money elsewhere.

The Belichick haters will say he should have given Brady more weapons. The Brady haters will say Belichick built a team around him that can win regardless of the offense. The Pats fans know Brady and Belichick are both GOATs simply because Brady didn't need real weapons to succeed, and because Belichick knew this, and took advantage of it to build a more complete team that can win in the Playoffs.

Click to expand...

I'm not a Belichick hater.
Belichick should have given Brady more weapons.

Both of those statements are true, and they are not contradictory.

Deus Irae said:

I'm not a Belichick hater.
Belichick should have given Brady more weapons.

Both of those statements are true, and they are not contradictory.

Click to expand...

At what cost? I'll give you 2006, that was a disaster and a huge missed opportunity. From 2001 to 2014 (excluding 2008) the Patriots have had the top-5 scoring offense eight times (including the past five years), #1 overall three times, and really only fell outside the top-5 early in Brady's career and in 2009 (when, to be fair, they could have used a 3rd option behind Welker and Moss).

I don't see it. 2006 they need an entire WR corp. 2009 they needed a legit third option. Beyond that the offense has been fantastic and needed no help, if they missed out on a SB their deficiencies were in other areas (mostly the secondary).

hambone1818 said:

At what cost? I'll give you 2006, that was a disaster and a huge missed opportunity. From 2001 to 2014 (excluding 2008) the Patriots have had the top-5 scoring offense eight times (including the past five years), #1 overall three times, and really only fell outside the top-5 early in Brady's career and in 2009 (when, to be fair, they could have used a 3rd option behind Welker and Moss).

I don't see it. 2006 they need an entire WR corp. 2009 they needed a legit third option. Beyond that the offense has been fantastic and needed no help, if they missed out on a SB their deficiencies were in other areas (mostly the secondary).

Click to expand...

No offense, but I really don't think you've thought through your question. You ask "At what cost?" Well, the cost of not doing it was 0 SB titles from 2005-2013. From 2005-2013, the Patriots had enough WRs in only 2 seasons. In 2007, they went 16-0 and were 3 minutes from becoming the first 19-0 team in NFL history. In 2008, Brady was on the shelf.

AndyJohnson said:

I think the success is an endorsement of the philosophy, not a way to say if we did it like other teams we would have done better.
I keep hearing people saying things like 'BB handicaps the GOAT by the talent he gives him". The argument being if you have the GOAT QB give him great receivers and watch out.

Click to expand...

I agree, overall you cannot say the team would be any more dominant as 'Offensive weapons better' <> 'Overall team better' within a fixed resource (salary cap) structure. OTOH, TB's stats would very likely be better. It'd probably be good for at least a 10% kick in his numbers. So as the OP stated, this info is best used when comparing GOAT TB to the JAG+ PM .

Thanks OP, very interesting data!

Deus Irae said:

No offense, but I really don't think you've thought through your question. You ask "At what cost?" Well, the cost of not doing it was 0 SB titles from 2005-2013. From 2005-2013, the Patriots had enough WRs in only 2 seasons. In 2007, they went 16-0 and were 3 minutes from becoming the first 19-0 team in NFL history. In 2008, Brady was on the shelf.

Click to expand...

My point is you subtract elsewhere when you add talent at WR. We can talk hindsight all we want, the Pats were minutes away from two more SB's and their defense couldn't hold; if you add weapons for Brady and subtract elsewhere--maybe the defense--what happens?

No one knows, but what we DO know is the offense has been an elite unit from 2007 until now, their deficiencies have been elsewhere. Adding MORE offense isn't the answer.

Anyway, I know you've been blowing this horn for a long time so I won't sidetrack this thread any longer.

Brady = GOAT, on that we can agree

Deus Irae said:

I'm not a Belichick hater.
Belichick should have given Brady more weapons.

Both of those statements are true, and they are not contradictory.

Click to expand...

Only if you abandon the reality that added to one area detracts from another. There is a cap, and other limits on resources.