Best QB Debate: Most Clutch Under Pressure

[PatsFanSince74]

Most of this is just a waste of time since fans just tend to use the stats that support their argument anyways. People on here used to claim that Brady was the best b/c of his clutchness and lack of people around him, and downplay stats. Now that he has the TD records, people use that in their arguments, but will diminish Ben by saying he doesn't have the stats, but has won 2 super bowls. Bottom line:

Colts Fans think Manning is the best
Pats Fans think Brady is the best
Steeler fans think Ben should be right up there

I disagree. Or, rather, I think it depends on your definition of "fan." If a "fan" is a mindless supporter of one team who doesn't understand the game or its history and never looks beyond the end of his beer bottle (I'm thinking of the typical Jets fan there, I guess), then I'm afraid you're right. Those "fans" reflexively pick their player. Fans who understand the game and appreciate what it takes to play at a high level in the NFL take a different approach. This doesn't mean that we can't be homers and talk trash from time to time in support of our team, but it does mean that we respect the game and its great players.

My personal view is that Brady, by sheer force of numbers (five AFCCG's, four SB's, three Rings, League MVP and his record season) is way at the head of the Ben, Peyton and Tom class right now. But, the jury is still out on which of those three players history will call the best when they have all played out their careers and retired.

Manning will end up with awesome career stats, but he will also be 33 this season and is running out of time (and teammates) to put up the kind of championship string that will enable him to genuinely claim to be Brady's better; it's very unlikely that he could pull it off.

Roethlisberger, on the other hand, is just 26 and he could do it; he is part of a committed organization with a long history of winning and has a chip on his shoulder after a second SB win without being named MVP.

One of the main reasons that I don't want there to be a strike over the CBA is that I don't want TB (32 this season) to lose another one of his prime years to inactivity after losing last season to injury.

 

[mgteich]

Is this comparison about the best Qb of the decade? The why include 1998 and 1999?
==================================================================
SOME COMMENTS
There really two separate halves of the decade.

1) 2000-2001, 2001-2002, 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004-2005
I don't think there is any question that Brady and the patriots are the QB and team of the first half of the decade.

2) 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010
I personally don't think that Brady and the patriots are the team of this half. Rothlessberger and the steelers probably have bragging rights.

3) If the patriots win this year, then there will little debate. If the steelers win, then it seems we split the decade. If someone else wins, it seems that Brady and the patriots still get the nod.

Best QB of the Decade Debate​

Clutch Factor: Best Under Pressure​

Seems to me that ever since the Super Bowl the “best quarterback debate” has gained some volume. Specifically, Steelers fans appear to jump all over any column on any web site that does not include Ben Roethlisberger in the same sentence as Peyton Manning and Tom Brady; based on the final two minutes of the last two Super Bowls their theory is that Roethlisberger is more clutch than Brady and that given the choice, any team would be better off with the football in the hands of Big Ben rather than TFB.

I don’t have the time or resources to compare their NFL careers play-by-play, but I thought it might be worth looking at how their respective teams have done in the 4th quarter over their NFL careers – especially with the game on the line. As I write this, my pre-conceived notion is that none will ever compare to Elway or Montana, but I’ll have to save those comparisons for another day. Here is a look at what I found for their teams’ records in each season, and their team’s records when the game was in doubt – defined by within 14 points entering the 4th quarter.

Note: some totals won’t add up to 16 games in a year because I excluded games when backups were the primary QB – most often in season finales. As a result the won-loss totals below won’t be the same as official NFL won-loss records.

The first pair of numbers is that quarterback’s record in regular season and playoff games for that season. The second set of numbers is that quarterback’s record in regular and then playoff games that were within 14 points (“close” games) entering the fourth quarter; the number in parenthesis is the total for both regular season and playoff games.

This is by no means definitive, but I just wanted to shed some light and statistics on the whole ‘who is most clutch' debate that seems to be circulating.



Peyton Manning
1998: 3-13 regular season & 0-0 playoff record; 2-9 & 0-0 (2-9) in close games.
1999: 13-3 regular season & 0-1 playoff record; 10-2 & 0-1 (10-3) in close games.
2000: 10-6 regular season & 0-1 playoff record; 8-6 & 0-1 (8-7) in close games.
2001: 6-10 regular season & 0-0 playoff record; 5-6 & 0-0 (5-6) in close games.
2002: 10-6 regular season & 0-0 playoff record; 8-4 & 0-0 (8-4) in close games.
2003: 12-4 regular season & 2-1 playoff record; 9-4 & 1-1 (10-5) in close games.
2004: 11-4 regular season & 2-1 playoff record; 8-3 & 1-1 (9-4) in close games.
2005: 13-1 regular season & 0-1 playoff record; 9-1 & 0-1 (9-2) in close games.
2006: 12-4 regular season & 4-0 playoff record; 8-3 & 4-0 (12-3) in close games.
2007: 12-3 regular season & 0-1 playoff record; 8-2 & 0-1 (8-3) in close games.
2008: 11-4 regular season & 0-1 playoff record; 10-2 & 0-1 (10-3) in close games.
Total: 113-58 regular season & 8-7 playoff (121-65) record; 85-42 & 6-7 (91-49) in close games.


Tom Brady
2001: 11-3 regular season & 3-0 playoff record; 8-2 & 3-0 (11-2) in close games.
2002: 9-7 regular season & 0-0 playoff record; 6-6 & 0-0 (6-6) in close games.
2003: 14-2 regular season & 3-0 playoff record; 12-1 & 3-0 (15-1) in close games.
2004: 14-2 regular season & 3-0 playoff record; 12-1 & 3-0 (15-1) in close games.
2005: 10-5 regular season & 1-1 playoff record; 7-1 & 0-0 (7-1) in close games.
2006: 12-4 regular season & 2-1 playoff record; 8-4 & 2-1 (10-5) in close games.
2007: 16-0 regular season & 2-1 playoff record; 8-0 & 2-1 (10-1) in close games.
Total: 86-23 regular season & 14-3 playoff (100-27) record; 61-15 & 13-2 (74-17) in close games.


Ben Roethlisberger
2004: 13-1 regular season & 1-1 playoff record; 12-0 & 1-1 (13-1) in close games.
2005: 9-3 regular season & 4-0 playoff record; 5-3 & 4-0 (9-3) in close games.
2006: 7-8 regular season & 0-0 playoff record; 4-7 & 0-0 (4-7) in close games.
2007: 10-5 regular season & 0-1 playoff record; 6-3 & 0-1 (6-4) in close games.
2008: 12-4 regular season & 3-0 playoff record; 10-4 & 3-0 (13-4) in close games.

Total: 51-20 regular season & 8-2 playoff (49-22) record; 37-17 & 8-2 (45-19) in close games.​

Bottom Line: Roethlisberger has been very good, but despite two Lombardis he is not yet at Brady's level; in fact it would take not one, but two more 3-0 post-seasons to get there. Manning has more total wins (and yards, TDs, etc.), but he has also played in - and lost - more games. Though Tom Brady has not won a Super Bowl as recently as Manning or Roethlisberger, in my opinion he is still more clutch than either of his highly esteemed colleagues.​

 

[Deus Irae]

Is this comparison about the best Qb of the decade? The why include 1998 and 1999?
==================================================================
SOME COMMENTS
There really two separate halves of the decade.

1) 2000-2001, 2001-2002, 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004-2005
I don't think there is any question that Brady and the patriots are the QB and team of the first half of the decade.

2) 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010
I personally don't think that Brady and the patriots are the team of this half. Rothlessberger and the steelers probably have bragging rights.

3) If the patriots win this year, then there will little debate. If the steelers win, then it seems we split the decade. If someone else wins, it seems that Brady and the patriots still get the nod.

decades start with the 01 and end on the 10. In other words, it's 2001-2010, not 2000-2009. The year 2000 was the final year of the 90s and the final year of the millenium.

 

[mgteich]

If you choose to believe that the 2011 Super Bowl is in the first decade of Super Bowls, that is your choice.

decades start with the 01 and end on the 10. In other words, it's 2001-2010, not 2000-2009. The year 2000 was the final year of the 90s and the final year of the millenium.

 

[Deus Irae]

If you choose to believe that the 2011 Super Bowl is in the first decade of Super Bowls, that is your choice.

No, I choose to understand that the first year in a decade does not end in the number 0.

 

[ALP]

No, I choose to understand that the first year in a decade does not end in the number 0.

ive had this arguemnt before....sayint htat this decade is from 2001-2010................i lost the argument, dont remember how

either way a SB this season is part of this decade, any way u slice it

 

[Deus Irae]

ive had this arguemnt before....sayint htat this decade is from 2001-2010................i lost the argument, dont remember how

either way a SB this season is part of this decade, any way u slice it

Just ask people to show you the year "0" in history and on the Gregorian calendar.

 

[jmt57]

Is this comparison about the best Qb of the decade? The why include 1998 and 1999?

Very poor choice of words on my part. I posted the thread in response to what I have increasingly been seeing on national sites to any recent column about Brady or about who is the best active quarterback. Specifically I wanted to analyze who has been the most "clutch", as that was what so many of those responders have been talking about in their comments. Rather than "decade" I should have said "active" or "current era" or something like that.

Sorry for the confusion.

 

[mgteich]

The first Super Bowl of this decade occured in 2001, the tenth will take place in 2010. Do you disagree?

Just ask people to show you the year "0" in history and on the Gregorian calendar.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

The Manning playoff stats are off. He is 7-8, not 8-7 in the playoffs, for his career:

Peyton Manning Gamelogs and Game Logs - Pro-Football-Reference.com

The discrepancies: He was 0-1 in the 2002 postseason and 1-1 in the 2004 postseason. (fixed upon edit)

I am sure of this since I often remind my Colts friends that Peyton, for his career in the playoffs, has a losing record. Further, the odds of Peyton winning any particular playoff game (46.7%) are far less than the odds of Shaquille O'Neal making any particular free throw (52.8% for his career).

Here'a another one, one and done in the playoffs...
Brady- 6/6 getting past the first round
Roethlisberger 3/4 getting past first round..
Manning 3/9 getting past first round. IOW, Peyton was one and done 6 times in the playoffs

 

[eagle eye]

Personally I see it like this, and without going into detail but,

Brady>Manning>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Roethlisberger>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Rest.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

Nobody is better than Brady but Roethlisberger is showing he can be in that category as well. Big Ben could have just thrown in the white towel on the last drive of the super bowl with that pathetic excuse for an O-line he had. In fact, that O-line helped put him on a stretcher in week 17. But no, Roethlisberger led his team down field despite him running for his life on almost every snap during that last drive. These are the only two QB's that should be considered to be clutch down the stretch. Peyton has turned out to be a fluke and seems satisfied he won one super bowl.

 

[PatsChowder]

Of the three listed, I don't think there is much debate that Brady is number one. Manning is great, but I am not sure how clutch he really is. Ben is just not as good. He's not bad, but if you take away the defense he plays with (which means you take away his 2 rings) the guy wouldn't be much better than Jay Cutler.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

1. Brady. This is obvious. There is no one close in the NFL today. While Roethlisberger is clutch, Brady has been clutch for much longer.

2. Roethlisberger. Even before the Super Bowl drive, I would have ranked him second. There aren't many times in the last few minutes when he doesn't step up. Overall I think he is overrated because the offense is built on their running game, but he is definitely good in the waning minutes.

3-10. A bunch of other guys.

Not in the top 10: Peyton Manning.

 

[maverick4]

Not in the top 10: Peyton Manning.

I'd put Eli above Peyton in terms of clutch-ness or playing under pressure or from behind.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

They all have their moments...part of the any given Sunday mantra. But it takes nothing more than the old eye test to figure out who is the most consistently clutch across the board. Manning is equally clutch, but only in the regular season. Ben and Eli are inconsistently clutch. And each is prone to throw a game away, only Eli does that more consistently...

The Steelers are 2-0 in Superbowls with Ben under center. They won the first one in spite of him and with a little help from their 12th man...

Eli is 1-0 in Superbowls and while tenacious as they come that night he is living proof that it's often better to be lucky than good.

Manning is 1-0 in Superbowls and having been at it longer than any of the others that has to be a disappointment. He got the MVP nod in his only trip but it should have gone to the RB tandem of Rhodes and Addai. And it took NE's former PK to even get them that far that year.

Brady is 3-1 in Superbowls. Three won by 3 points. One lost by 4. Two won on closing drives. Other guys also stepped up at various points in three out of four instances but Brady got the nod for MVP twice. Could just as easily gotten it in all 3 as he had to lead them back from behind at some point every time. And his defense collapsed almost every time, and might have again had Donovan not developed the dry heaves and negated any attempts at conducting two minute drills...

 

[Yehoodi]

Just ask people to show you the year "0" in history and on the Gregorian calendar.

Those calendars aren't really relevant, although I do agree with you on the starting time of the calendar and the first year being 01 as oppoosed to 00. However a "decade" is merely a 10 year span and has no ties to a specific year unless one puts a tie to them. for example a decade could run from 1967 to 1976 . . .

For the most part historian have tied "decade" to years as decribing them in the tens of the years, for example "the 1790s", "the 1980s", the "1870s" and as such the 9 in the 1790s (8 in 1980s and 7 in 1870s) is the controlling factor to determine where the 10 year span is located. so when one talks about the 1980s, the controling number is the "8" and as such in that ten year span (decade) one will include years that start with 8, so 80-89.

Regarding Brady being the most clutch I would agree . . .

 

[Dirk3601215]

Who do we think is more physically talented? Brady or Manning?

 

[maverick4]

Who do we think is more physically talented? Brady or Manning?

Not going to directly answer this, but:
Ben Watson may be more physically talented than Chris Baker, but Baker is the better tight end.

 

[Dirk3601215]

Not going to directly answer this, but:
Ben Watson may be more physically talented than Chris Baker, but Baker is the better tight end.

i think watson is better but anyways...... it is a debatable question. Which qb has the better throwing skills in other words?