Brady v. Brees: Two games to pass Marino

[PatsFanSince74]

People may value that one, but it doesn't mean people are right and that's the most valuable. That's actually my point.

Reason Brady's an amazing quarterback and has 3 rings has a lot more to do with that stat, his td-to-interception % than this one that people care about.

People are getting smarter though and hopefully 5 years from today we'll all be talking about what really matters. As it stands though the yards category and any stat that goes along with it, is the most meaningless one of them all.

Yards will get you on TV. Completion % will get you noticed. Points will get you credit. Interception % will get you to a Superbowl. And touchdown to interception % will win you a ring. Or even better TD to turnover %(fumbles are just as bad). TD to ints % will also get you a Dynasty

Tom Brady would probably still keep all his Starbucks records than trade them for all the other ones.

Gee, thanks for pointing out to me that Brady is an "amazing QB and has 3 rings." I guess I missed that.

Stats are what they are, but seldom as simple as they seem.

I've tracked them for a long time. I notice that you haven't been out here very much but I think people on this board will tell you that I keep my own databases of information on many key indicators. Turns out that one of them is the relationship between TD's and picks (which, by the rules of algebra, tracks the "td to interception %" on which you seem fixated).

The median TD/INT ratio for SB era QB's in the HOF is 1.29 (Average 1.32).

But, highly successful QB's are all over the place on this stat (as they are on most stats): Aikman, another "amazing" QB with "three rings," was only 1.17; Bradshaw, not a shabby QB with four rings, was only 1.01; Bart Starr, whom I personally consider the GOAT and who had five league championships to his name, was 1.10; Johnny U was 1.15. At the other end of the spectrum you have Steve Young at 2.17, Joe (Montana, not Namath who was actually 0.96) at 1.96 and Dan Marino at 1.67. The in-between crowd includes Roger at 1.40, Sonny Jurgensen and Jim Kelly at 1.35, Elway at 1.33 and Lenny Dawson at 1.31. I pick this mix because they cross several generations of NFL rules and CW as to how you win; and there are a lot of "rings" and a couple of "dynasties" at both ends of the spectrum.

So, Tommy at 2.61 as of this morning looks pretty good on that stat, as does Peyton at 2.02 and even Donovan McNabb, despite his problems in recent years, at 2.00. Donovan, of course, couldn't deliver a championship but by the measure you have highlighted, "smarter" people, in whose number you presumably did not count me, would put him at the top of the class, where he clearly does not belong. And, very relevant to this discussion, Drew Brees in his five years at NO is at 2.13 and Aaron Rodgers, as of this morning, is an other-worldly 3.47.

If we're looking for some measure that captures production and efficiency, Yards per Completion is as good as any. The average and median for SB era QB's in the HOF is 13.0. This number too is all over the place among the greats at this position: Joe Namath, of all people, is at the top of the class at 14.7, followed closely by Johnny U. at 14.2, with Terry Bradshaw at 13.8, Bart Starr at 13.7 and Staubach at 13.5. At the other end of this particular spectrum are Aikman at 11.4, Montana at 11.9, Steve Young at 12.4 and John Elway at 12.5. So, another stat with a bunch of rings and titles at each end of the continuum. Both Brady and Peyton are at 11.7 as of this morning.

My point is simple, taking any stat in isolation is kind of useless, thus the three bucks and a Latte analogy, with all respect to your pained analysis.

All I ever said about the regular season yards record is that it's kind of remarkable and something that people take notice of, but is not as important as winning the last game of the season; nothing more, nothing less. I really stand by that statement and nothing you've said changes my mind.

 

[PatriotSeven]

Ahm.. Brady threw 36 TDs to 4 INTs last season, that's a 9 to 1 ratio. That is the record, not the 50 to 8 he posted in 2007. For Rodgers to get over 9 to 1 he'd have to throw 10 TDs on sunday, so I guess Brady will still hold the efficiency record after this season.

I stand corrected. Thank you and Thank God.

I think I was confused and thinking of the largest differential. Which is 50-8. Aaron needs 3 more TD's and no picks to tie.

 

[Steve102]

Brady finished the day at 4,897 yards, needing 187 yards Sunday vs. the Buffalo Bills to eclipse Dan Marino's single season record of 5,084. Brady talked about that today on WEEI. "It doesn’t really matter to me. I’m most concerned with our wins and losses," said Brady. "I love Dan Marino. I have a lot of respect for him, a lot of admiration. He was one of my favorite players growing up. I’ve really been lucky over the years to be around him and see his competitiveness. He is very, very competitive. It’s a pretty impressive record that he’s held for a very long time. For one reason or another, Drew (Brees) and I have been throwing for a lot of yards this year. I think it’s just the way the league has been." Brady added "I've been very fortunate this year to throw to a bunch of great skilled players who are making a ton of yards, you know, run after catch, and doing a lot of great things with the ball in their hands."

I wonder if Dan Marino deferred to his teammates and talked about winning as much. I am not being sacastic, I haven't had the chance to research some old articles.

the rest of the story from above is here :
The Voice of The Fan: FVP: Golden Age Of Tom Brady

 

[PatriotSeven]

Gee, thanks for pointing out to me that Brady is an "amazing QB and has 3 rings." I guess I missed that.

Stats are what they are, but seldom as simple as they seem.

I've tracked them for a long time. I notice that you haven't been out here very much but I think people on this board will tell you that I keep my own databases of information on many key indicators. Turns out that one of them is the relationship between TD's and picks (which, by the rules of algebra, tracks the "td to interception %" on which you seem fixated).

The median TD/INT ratio for SB era QB's in the HOF is 1.29 (Average 1.32).

But, highly successful QB's are all over the place on this stat (as they are on most stats): Aikman, another "amazing" QB with "three rings," was only 1.17; Bradshaw, not a shabby QB with four rings, was only 1.01; Bart Starr, whom I personally consider the GOAT and who had five league championships to his name, was 1.10; Johnny U was 1.15. At the other end of the spectrum you have Steve Young at 2.17, Joe (Montana, not Namath who was actually 0.96) at 1.96 and Dan Marino at 1.67. The in-between crowd includes Roger at 1.40, Sonny Jurgensen and Jim Kelly at 1.35, Elway at 1.33 and Lenny Dawson at 1.31. I pick this mix because they cross several generations of NFL rules and CW as to how you win; and there are a lot of "rings" and a couple of "dynasties" at both ends of the spectrum.

So, Tommy at 2.61 as of this morning looks pretty good on that stat, as does Peyton at 2.02 and even Donovan McNabb, despite his problems in recent years, at 2.00. Donovan, of course, couldn't deliver a championship but by the measure you have highlighted, "smarter" people, in whose number you presumably did not count me, would put him at the top of the class, where he clearly does not belong. And, very relevant to this discussion, Drew Brees in his five years at NO is at 2.13 and Aaron Rodgers, as of this morning, is an other-worldly 3.47.

If we're looking for some measure that captures production and efficiency, Yards per Completion is as good as any. The average and median for SB era QB's in the HOF is 13.0. This number too is all over the place among the greats at this position: Joe Namath, of all people, is at the top of the class at 14.7, followed closely by Johnny U. at 14.2, with Terry Bradshaw at 13.8, Bart Starr at 13.7 and Staubach at 13.5. At the other end of this particular spectrum are Aikman at 11.4, Montana at 11.9, Steve Young at 12.4 and John Elway at 12.5. So, another stat with a bunch of rings and titles at each end of the continuum. Both Brady and Peyton are at 11.7 as of this morning.

My point is simple, taking any stat in isolation is kind of useless, thus the three bucks and a Latte analogy, with all respect to your pained analysis.

All I ever said about the regular season yards record is that it's kind of remarkable and something that people take notice of, but is not as important as winning the last game of the season; nothing more, nothing less. I really stand by that statement and nothing you've said changes my mind.

I don't mean to step on your toes if you are the stats guy...


But....

While you are correct in the many things that you say, you are making the cardinal sin in comparing them using only one category. Tom isn't just good in interception % but across all categories. I'm not fixated on it at all. I believe it's simply more important than the rest and the rest of the NFL seem very fixated on the yards category, which is by far the least important.

If you enjoy looking at historic numbers, this provides a pretty good tool.
Quarterback Ranking - The Adjustable NFL Passer Rating Calculator and Database

You can play with it as you choose.

As far as your argument of different "types" of quarterbacks go, while it is true that guys like Terry Bradshaw's career interception % is high, which also stood out to me when I looked at it, keep in mind it took place in a different era. It turns out you cannot compare them across eras due to rule changes and there were more interceptions than touchdowns throughout the league prior to about the early 90's. So his interceptions % doesn't mean what it would mean today. If you don't even it out, and don't take into consideration generational changes, you're going to come out with bad measurements.


In addition, the same can be said if you look at full career numbers. Season numbers are better. For example, John Elway who started very terrible in this category in his first year(Manning as well), dropped his interception % in half by his third year. The first year he made the Super Bowl.

There is no rule that quarterbacks can't improve or get worse especially if there are offensive changes or coaching changes. Take Alex Smith for example. He's a different guy with Harbaugh, his interception % dropped an everything else has improved about him this year. Career % are only good for guys that are incredibly consistent throughout their entire career.

Not everyone's as consistent as Tom Brady coming into the league and throughout their entire career but that doesn't mean interception % and td-to-interception % isn't one of the most important measurements for a quarterback as a passer. Far more than completion %, or yards, or overall count stats.

But to give you an example of what I am talking about.

Bradshaw's Super Bowl years were 1974, 1975, 1978 and 1979.

1973 378 touchdowns 470 interceptions
1974 376 touchdowns 500 interceptions
1978 468 touchdowns 639 interceptions
1979 538 touchdowns 597 interceptions

So yes Bradshaw can get away with a higher % number when the entire league is throwing more pics than touchdowns.

By comparison:
2007 720 touchdowns 534 interceptions
2008 646 touchdowns 465 interceptions
2009 703 touchdowns 517 interceptions
2010 746 touchdowns 510 interceptions

That's why you get your discrepancies. Compare them using seasons ,and then compare that to league average not career to career. That's a bad measurement. So what does that mean?

Well in 1978 the league average td to interception % was 137%.

QB's were throwing more pics than TD's and they could get away with it because of the better defenses. But even Terry Bradshaw...

Terry Bradshaw:
26 TD's to 25 interceptions = 96%
He was 30% more efficient than league average.

Nowadays, things have changed. A QB would get murdered throwing that many pics in 2011 and they do. I'm going to use Tom's last super bowl run in 2004 for a comparison.

2004: 732 touchdowns 524 interceptions = 72%
It's swung far in the other direction. They are more important than ever now.

Tom's 2004 numbers:
28 touchdowns 14 interceptions = 50%
Tom was 31% percent more efficient than league average that year.

Pretty close to Terry no? But this is a really backwards way of doing things. It's much easier to simply pull up the stats for all the QB's that played in Super Bowls...and see where the correlations stand. The ones with the better td-to-ints % or interception % win the most Super Bowls

John Elway is a perfect example. He won 1 out of 5 when he tied his opponent in interceptions. He won 1 out of 5 when his opponent threw more. He lost ALL 3 when he threw more interceptions than his opponent. John probably would have never won a Super Bowl had his opponents not thrown picks. He would have been 0-5. And TD to ints would probably clear it up even more.

PS: Yards per completion is very much dependent on your receivers and yards after catch. Interceptions, have much less to do with anyone other than QB's.

 

[RodThePat]

I don't mean to step on your toes if you are the stats guy...


But....

While you are correct in the many things that you say, you are making the cardinal sin in comparing them using only one category. Tom isn't just good in interception % but across all categories. I'm not fixated on it at all. I believe it's simply more important than the rest and the rest of the NFL seem very fixated on the yards category, which is by far the least important.

If you enjoy looking at historic numbers, this provides a pretty good tool.
Quarterback Ranking - The Adjustable NFL Passer Rating Calculator and Database

You can play with it as you choose.

As far as your argument of different "types" of quarterbacks go, while it is true that guys like Terry Bradshaw's career interception % is high, which also stood out to me when I looked at it, keep in mind it took place in a different era. It turns out you cannot compare them across eras due to rule changes and there were more interceptions than touchdowns throughout the league prior to about the early 90's. So his interceptions % doesn't mean what it would mean today. If you don't even it out, and don't take into consideration generational changes, you're going to come out with bad measurements.


In addition, the same can be said if you look at full career numbers. Season numbers are better. For example, John Elway who started very terrible in this category in his first 3 years, dropped his interception % in half his third year. The first year he made the Super Bowl.

There is no rule that quarterbacks can't improve or get worse especially if there are offensive changes or coaching changes. Take Alex Smith for example. He's a different guy with Harbaugh, his interception % dropped an everything else has improved about him this year. Career % are only good for guys that are incredibly consistent throughout their entire career.

Not everyone's as consistent as Tom Brady coming into the league and throughout their entire career but that doesn't mean interception % and td-to-interception % isn't one of the most important measurements for a quarterback as a passer. Far more than completion %, or yards, or overall count stats.

But to give you an example of what I am talking about.

Bradshaw's Super Bowl years were 1974, 1975, 1978 and 1979.

1973 378 touchdowns 470 interceptions
1974 376 touchdowns 500 interceptions
1978 468 touchdowns 639 interceptions
1979 538 touchdowns 597 interceptions

So yes Bradshaw can get away with a higher % number when the entire league is throwing more pics than touchdowns.

By comparison:
2007 720 touchdowns 534 interceptions
2008 646 touchdowns 465 interceptions
2009 703 touchdowns 517 interceptions
2010 746 touchdowns 510 interceptions

That's why you get your discrepancies. Compare them using seasons ,and then compare that to league average not career to career. That's a bad measurement. So what does that mean?

Well in 1978 the league average td to interception % was 137%.

QB's were throwing more pics than TD's and they could get away with it because of the better defenses. But even Terry Bradshaw...

Terry Bradshaw:
26 TD's to 25 interceptions = 96%
He was 30% more efficient than league average.

Nowadays, things have changed. A QB would get murdered throwing that many pics in 2011 and they do. I'm going to use Tom's last super bowl run in 2004 for a comparison.

2004: 732 touchdowns 524 interceptions = 72%
It's swung far in the other direction. They are more important than ever now.

Tom's 2004 numbers:
28 touchdowns 14 interceptions = 50%
Tom was 31% percent more efficient than league average that year.

Pretty close to Terry no? But this is a really backwards way of doing things. It's much easier to simply pull up the stats for all the QB's that played in Super Bowls...and see where the correlations stand. The ones with the better td-to-ints % win the most Super Bowls

John Elway is a perfect example. He won 1 out of 5 when he tied his opponent in interceptions. He won 1 out of 5 when his opponent threw more. He lost ALL 3 when he threw more interceptions than his opponent. John probably would have never won a Super Bowl had his opponents not thrown picks. He would have been 0-5. And TD to ints would probably clear it up even more.

PS: Yards per completion is very much dependent on your receivers and yards after catch. Interceptions, have much less to do with anyone other than QB's.

I don't really like how you compared Bradshaw's 1979 season to Brady's 2004. By all accounts, Brady was significantly better than Bradshaw in every adjusted passing category in the aforementioned seasons.

Brady in 2004 had a TD% of 5.9, 22% higher than the league average, while throwing 3 interceptions per 100 pass attempts, a 4% lower ratio than the remainder of NFL QBs. Bradshaw, in 1979, had a TD% 16 points higher than average (sitting at 5.5), but he was below average in INT%, throwing them at a 6% higher rate than the rest of the league (being intercepted on average 5.3 times for every 100 pass attempts). That resulted in Bradshaw having a passer rating of 77.0 in 1979, 10% higher than the league average, while Brady posted a 92.6 rating, 15% better than average.

If you want to compare quarterbacks across different eras, you have to not only adjust for the time period, weighing their stats against the league average at the time, but you also have to look at their efficiency stats, calculated by the rate in which they threw picks or touchdowns, and not the total number of scores and interceptions.

 

[BlueThunder]

yawn......

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I don't mean to step on your toes if you are the stats guy...


But....

While you are correct in the many things that you say, you are making the cardinal sin in comparing them using only one category. Tom isn't just good in interception % but across all categories. I'm not fixated on it at all. I believe it's simply more important than the rest and the rest of the NFL seem very fixated on the yards category, which is by far the least important.

If you enjoy looking at historic numbers, this provides a pretty good tool.
Quarterback Ranking - The Adjustable NFL Passer Rating Calculator and Database

You can play with it as you choose.

As far as your argument of different "types" of quarterbacks go, while it is true that guys like Terry Bradshaw's career interception % is high, which also stood out to me when I looked at it, keep in mind it took place in a different era. It turns out you cannot compare them across eras due to rule changes and there were more interceptions than touchdowns throughout the league prior to about the early 90's. So his interceptions % doesn't mean what it would mean today. If you don't even it out, and don't take into consideration generational changes, you're going to come out with bad measurements.


In addition, the same can be said if you look at full career numbers. Season numbers are better. For example, John Elway who started very terrible in this category in his first year(Manning as well), dropped his interception % in half by his third year. The first year he made the Super Bowl.

There is no rule that quarterbacks can't improve or get worse especially if there are offensive changes or coaching changes. Take Alex Smith for example. He's a different guy with Harbaugh, his interception % dropped an everything else has improved about him this year. Career % are only good for guys that are incredibly consistent throughout their entire career.

Not everyone's as consistent as Tom Brady coming into the league and throughout their entire career but that doesn't mean interception % and td-to-interception % isn't one of the most important measurements for a quarterback as a passer. Far more than completion %, or yards, or overall count stats.

But to give you an example of what I am talking about.

Bradshaw's Super Bowl years were 1974, 1975, 1978 and 1979.

1973 378 touchdowns 470 interceptions
1974 376 touchdowns 500 interceptions
1978 468 touchdowns 639 interceptions
1979 538 touchdowns 597 interceptions

So yes Bradshaw can get away with a higher % number when the entire league is throwing more pics than touchdowns.

By comparison:
2007 720 touchdowns 534 interceptions
2008 646 touchdowns 465 interceptions
2009 703 touchdowns 517 interceptions
2010 746 touchdowns 510 interceptions

That's why you get your discrepancies. Compare them using seasons ,and then compare that to league average not career to career. That's a bad measurement. So what does that mean?

Well in 1978 the league average td to interception % was 137%.

QB's were throwing more pics than TD's and they could get away with it because of the better defenses. But even Terry Bradshaw...

Terry Bradshaw:
26 TD's to 25 interceptions = 96%
He was 30% more efficient than league average.

Nowadays, things have changed. A QB would get murdered throwing that many pics in 2011 and they do. I'm going to use Tom's last super bowl run in 2004 for a comparison.

2004: 732 touchdowns 524 interceptions = 72%
It's swung far in the other direction. They are more important than ever now.

Tom's 2004 numbers:
28 touchdowns 14 interceptions = 50%
Tom was 31% percent more efficient than league average that year.

Pretty close to Terry no? But this is a really backwards way of doing things. It's much easier to simply pull up the stats for all the QB's that played in Super Bowls...and see where the correlations stand. The ones with the better td-to-ints % or interception % win the most Super Bowls

John Elway is a perfect example. He won 1 out of 5 when he tied his opponent in interceptions. He won 1 out of 5 when his opponent threw more. He lost ALL 3 when he threw more interceptions than his opponent. John probably would have never won a Super Bowl had his opponents not thrown picks. He would have been 0-5. And TD to ints would probably clear it up even more.

PS: Yards per completion is very much dependent on your receivers and yards after catch. Interceptions, have much less to do with anyone other than QB's.

Since my OP made it clear that my whole point was that you can't take stats "in isolation," I really have no idea what you're arguing here.

There is a wide range within the ratios that you highlight among highly successful QB's. Both ends of that spectrum produced rings and dynasties. In that context, I really don't know what your point is. The range crosses eras and generations and cannot be correlated in a meaningful way to the time in which a QB played. You try to correlate it anecdotally with your discussion of Bradshaw, but that's not a statistical argument.

Beyond that, I'm kind of done with this discussion.

My whole point, from the beginning, was that the total yards stat was an interesting one on which people focus and thus matters as long as achieving it doesn't interfere with the higher priority of being League Champion.

My ancillary point, in response to your flawed argument on the relationship between TD's and picks, was that no one statistical measure can be viewed as definitive (which argument you posit as though I had never heard of it, when it was actually the point I explicitly made) and that any particular stat can prove any number of points, so I'm not aware of committing any "cardinal sin" of statistical analysis.

We have clearly passed the point of diminishing returns in this discussion.

You seem like a smart person and I look forward to seeing what you have to say on other subjects in other threads, but, as I said, I'm done here.

Go Pats!

 

[PatriotSeven]

I don't really like how you compared Bradshaw's 1979 season to Brady's 2004. By all accounts, Brady was significantly better than Bradshaw in every adjusted passing category in the aforementioned seasons.

Brady in 2004 had a TD% of 5.9, 22% higher than the league average, while throwing 3 interceptions per 100 pass attempts, a 4% lower ratio than the remainder of NFL QBs. Bradshaw, in 1979, had a TD% 16 points higher than average (sitting at 5.5), but he was below average in INT%, throwing them at a 6% higher rate than the rest of the league (being intercepted on average 5.3 times for every 100 pass attempts). That resulted in Bradshaw having a passer rating of 77.0 in 1979, 10% higher than the league average, while Brady posted a 92.6 rating, 15% better than average.

If you want to compare quarterbacks across different eras, you have to not only adjust for the time period, weighing their stats against the league average at the time, but you also have to look at their efficiency stats, calculated by the rate in which they threw picks or touchdowns, and not the total number of scores and interceptions.

I know that and I was primarily looking at that specific measurement, to show the difference in generations, not to get into specifics. If you ask me, you should use all of them and give it some context which is what the NFL tries to do with their passer rating, but they kind of tinkered with it. But I like td-to-interceptions because it's results oriented, not work/result oriented, and it's a quicker way of doing exactly what you just did and makes a bit more sense for looking across generations.

If you want to get a ratio of the two categories together you would come out with td-to-interception %.

td/attempts divided by interception/attempts = "x"
or
td/attempts =" x" multiplied by interceptions/attempts

Attempts cancel each other out so you eventually get:

x= td/interceptions

It's a more general measurement but relates pretty damn good to winning/losing and better than either of those two categories separately. It also allows you to combine them.

It just doesn't care how you get it done and in which area you excel in. It puts more emphasis on the result not the efficiency. It doesn't matter whether you are in a west coast offense, and it doesn't matter whether you have good or bad receivers. But whether you are scoring more passing touchdowns than you are throwing interceptions.

This measurement also rewards those that score touchdowns. While interception % doesn't. So a guy who doesn't throw any picks, but throws no touchdowns can come out looking great. td-to-interceptions says you HAVE TO have passing touchdowns.

Interception % only tells you how disciplined you are in NOT throwing an interception. It tells you nothing about your ability to get touchdowns. td-to-ints tells you that and more. It almost measures how much you contributed to WINNING rather than how good you are in those categories.

A more general measurement, but never the less, a good one especially across generations. Reason for that is this. Terry took more risks in a generation when defenses were able to stop guys. So he took more chances and got picked off more often per passing attempt.

But KNOWING that defenses could actually STOP guys in those generations, it made sense, to take the higher interception % compared to league average, or force the ball at times, and get the much more important higher td % compared to league average. He took more risks because he could afford to and played behind a stout defense.

There's a completely different strategy that goes into place when playing in that era than in today's much more efficient era. Like I said, a team with Brady would destroy a team with Terry if he played like that today.

 

[PatriotSeven]

Since my OP made it clear that my whole point was that you can't take stats "in isolation," I really have no idea what you're arguing here.

There is a wide range within the ratios that you highlight among highly successful QB's. Both ends of that spectrum produced rings and dynasties. In that context, I really don't know what your point is. The range crosses eras and generations and cannot be correlated in a meaningful way to the time in which a QB played. You try to correlate it anecdotally with your discussion of Bradshaw, but that's not a statistical argument.

Beyond that, I'm kind of done with this discussion.

My whole point, from the beginning, was that the total yards stat was an interesting one on which people focus and thus matters as long as achieving it doesn't interfere with the higher priority of being League Champion.

My ancillary point, in response to your flawed argument on the relationship between TD's and picks, was that no one statistical measure can be viewed as definitive (which argument you posit as though I had never heard of it, when it was actually the point I explicitly made) and that any particular stat can prove any number of points, so I'm not aware of committing any "cardinal sin" of statistical analysis.

We have clearly passed the point of diminishing returns in this discussion.

You seem like a smart person and I look forward to seeing what you have to say on other subjects in other threads, but, as I said, I'm done here.

Go Pats!

I believe my point was that Terry Bradshaw and Tom Brady were only on different ends of the spectrum if you ignore the different eras and look strictly at career ratings while comparing the values of the categories directly. If you ignore the fact interceptions and TD's were reversed during Bradshaw's days then it looks like he doesn't have a good interception % compared to a QB playing today and then you would, incorrectly come to the conclusion, that the measurement is meaningless. But a closer look says otherwise.

Earlier I made a more general statement using interception % only because most people focus entirely on count yards or count stats. When talking to the general fan base I find it easier to point people in the right direction, than talk about complex specifics directly. Clearly you pay more attention than the general public, so naturally there's more to it than just that.

So then I went a step further and alerted you of the fact that if you look into the details in reality they are very much doing the same thing when you look at the bigger picture and are not really on different sides of the spectrum. It's the spectrum itself that changes and flips around the early 90s and on top of that we both know that not throwing a pick isn't going to get you a winning season if you can't also score touchdowns. But they are all throwing more touchdowns than interceptions and doing it at a better percentage than the rest of the league. And whether your goal is a winning season, a winning playoff record, or winning multiple Super Bowls, that category certainly has a whole heck of a lot to do with it and still more important than the rest. Point and turnovers matter most. Not yards. And this has never changed.

Whether it's 1979 or 2011. That still relates best to winning. It relates better to winning than yards avg. It relates better than total yards. It relates better to getting to the Super Bowl. And it relates better to winning Super Bowls. So I fail to see where my argument is "flawed".

But in today's era, interception % has an even greater importance than td %. And yards are even less meaningless than they were back then.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

...

Whether it's 1979 or 2011. That still relates best to winning. It relates better to winning than yards avg. It relates better than total yards. It relates better to getting to the Super Bowl. And it relates better to winning Super Bowls. So I fail to see where my argument is "flawed".

But in today's era, interception % has an even greater importance than td %. And yards are even less meaningless than they were back then.

You sucked me back in, but I just can't let you get away with this kind of analysis.

You say that "Whether it's 1979 or 2011. That still relates best to winning."

So, I actually took each of the 17 SB era HOF QB's and, using your criteria and argument, looked at two measures of "winning" for each, wondering whether maybe I was wrong given the vocal support you attach to your argument: "Win percentage in regular season games started" and "Number of League Championships won."

I then ran two regressions.

When I make "Win percentage..." the dependent variable and the TD/INT ratio the independent variable, the correlation, or R square, is 0.22. In other words, no statistically significant relationship exists between those two variables.

When I make "Number of League Championships..." the dependent variable, the R-square drops to 0.001, i.e., verging on a negative correlation.

So, unless you are willing to suggest to me a credible and statistically meaningful way of adjusting the TD/INT ratio over time for each of these 17 players (" But in today's era, interception % has an even greater importance than td %.") to reflect anecdotal differences in eras and then show me how you applied it in each case, I'm just not going to accept your argument or your conclusions but continue to believe that they are "flawed."

I tried to end this discussion earlier by suggesting that I would look forward to reading what you might write on other topics, but you persisted in defending a statistically indefensible position. I also tried to find areas in which we agree, to wit that no one measure should be taken in isolation, but again you persisted with an indefensible point.

From a common sense perspective, we all agree that picks are important and that their relationship to TD's is important, but you just can't make the claims you are making for that statistic, just as I don't attempt to lionize any others.

I truly am done here. Unless you can provide 51 data points (17 w/l %, 17 Championships Won and 17 TD/INT ratio or its algebraic equivalent), with the 17 related to the relationship between TD's and INT's adjusted for different eras using a credible metric in a replicable way, I really don't want to take this any further here and won't respond. Send me a PM if you do so, with the supporting data that support your contention that they are meaningfully correlated. Real data, real players, real correlations that I can replicate. Not vague statements or isolated looks at individual players.

 

[Ring 6]

Terry Bradshaw had many flaws as a QB but anyone who followed the NFL closely knows that in 78 and 79 he was an excellent QB, among the top few best in the NFL, and arguably could have been MVP either year.
He was in fact the AP NFL MVP in 1978, and the FBWA MVP in both of those years was Earl Campbell, on a team Bradshaw and the Steelers owned.
The Steelers won their first 2 SBs in spite of poor QB play (altough he had a good SB in 75) but he was the most important player on the team in 78 and 79.

 

[PatriotSeven]

You sucked me back in, but I just can't let you get away with this kind of analysis.

You say that "Whether it's 1979 or 2011. That still relates best to winning."

So, I actually took each of the 17 SB era HOF QB's and, using your criteria and argument, looked at two measures of "winning" for each, wondering whether maybe I was wrong given the vocal support you attach to your argument: "Win percentage in regular season games started" and "Number of League Championships won."

I then ran two regressions.

When I make "Win percentage..." the dependent variable and the TD/INT ratio the independent variable, the correlation, or R square, is 0.22. In other words, no statistically significant relationship exists between those two variables.

When I make "Number of League Championships..." the dependent variable, the R-square drops to 0.001, i.e., verging on a negative correlation.

So, unless you are willing to suggest to me a credible and statistically meaningful way of adjusting the TD/INT ratio over time for each of these 17 players (" But in today's era, interception % has an even greater importance than td %.") to reflect anecdotal differences in eras and then show me how you applied it in each case, I'm just not going to accept your argument or your conclusions but continue to believe that they are "flawed."

I tried to end this discussion earlier by suggesting that I would look forward to reading what you might write on other topics, but you persisted in defending a statistically indefensible position. I also tried to find areas in which we agree, to wit that no one measure should be taken in isolation, but again you persisted with an indefensible point.

From a common sense perspective, we all agree that picks are important and that their relationship to TD's is important, but you just can't make the claims you are making for that statistic, just as I don't attempt to lionize any others.

I truly am done here. Unless you can provide 51 data points (17 w/l %, 17 Championships Won and 17 TD/INT ratio or its algebraic equivalent), with the 17 related to the relationship between TD's and INT's adjusted for different eras using a credible metric in a replicable way, I really don't want to take this any further here and won't respond. Send me a PM if you do so, with the supporting data that support your contention that they are meaningfully correlated. Real data, real players, real correlations that I can replicate. Not vague statements or isolated looks at individual players.

Well first of all I just want to say I don't have the type of data nor the type of programs to run the equations you are running to give you what you ask.

However, without actually seeing what you are doing, and it's hard for me to follow you, unless I am mistaking, you are trying to "match" quarterback career numbers to the formula and see if it spits out Super Bowl winners? Or Super Bowl winning HoF and ranks them accordingly? Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but is that correct? I hope not, and I hope you give me more credit than that because that's just silly and not at all what I am arguing. There are far too many other variables that come into play, especially for such a small sample size of 17, including supporting cast, play calling, schedule, playoffs, etc...

If you want to test the validity of it when it comes to winning though, why not just take super bowl passer statistics and run the formula for super bowl passers rather than HOF quartrebacks? Then compare it to the results you get to those you get by looking at who throws for more yards. You will most likely see a direct correlation to winners, not HOF quarterbacks. And instead of using passing td to interceptions, it makes even more sense if you have the data to use td to turnovers(this would also include your rushing TD's by QB's and fumbles lost by QB's).

Having said that my point isn't to proclaim that this is the be-all end-all measure to all HOF who have Super Bowl rings, especially across generations, but rather that the weight placement on the different QB rating categories and the perception associated with each category is flawed. Some are of more importance than others. And this applies across all generation regardless of the fact the values of the data isn't going to match up. I mean that's kind of the point.

We both agree that:

1. You need to score more points than your opponents to win a football game.
2. You need to make less mistakes that help your opponents score more points than you to win.

When it comes to a QB's primary contribution to winning that translates to touchdowns vs interceptions, correct? Is it going to account for those guys that are putting their teams in a position to win by FG's or handing the ball off for a strong running back to punch it once they get to the end-zone? Common sense would say, no. But combining it with interception % it will probably still do a good job. And still a better job than total yards. Naturally, a formula that includes all 4 efficiency ratings, similar to QB passer rating, will probably do an even better job.

But any formula that's going to more directly measure a player's or team's contribution to those two aspects is going to be more accurate than those that measure other sub-categories. And TD/INT is one of those, whereas total yards is pretty far down the list of importance or relevance when it comes to that.

So instead of trying to make the formula match up to expected results, or HOF quarterbacks and their rings across generations, simply try to find one that more closely measures the logic of winning according to the rules and logic of football and see what the results are. In fact that's probably going to reveal that some guys who are credited as HOF, might not rank the highest in this category and will open up a completely different argument.

But if you insist on believing total yards measures winning as good as that, then be my guest. I won't argue it any further either.

Oh and one final thing on your data. I would not be surprised to not find a significant statistical difference or visible pattern between one HOF's td/int percentage and their w/l percentage compared to another HOF, especially across generations. In fact I would expect them to be close if I am correct or see no correlation or ranking due to all the other variables which now come into play among the elites(you also need something that also measures total production not just a ratio). So if your statistical difference came out low it doesn't actually refute its validity. Now compare theirs to everybody else within their generation if you want to find your variation. The difference between one and the other can only be measured if they were playing under identical circumstances using any one category.

The question was which one of those does it best?

 

[pherein]

Brees will get it simply because he throws the ball a lot more than both Brady and Rodgers. It's that simple, really. By the way, Brees is a great QB, but throwing the football a million times and playing more than half his games in a dome every year certainly helps him an overwhelming amount in the stats department. This is a guy who threw for more than 5,000 yards while averaging less than 7 yards per pass attempt.

Playing in a Dome doesn't diminish anything. Lots of outdoor QB's , like Farve, had horrible records in a dome. It goes both ways usually. The game is faster, and sometimes they can't cope with the speed. We did a comparison on Brees a year ago in forum, and his play doesn't suffer from being in a dome or being outside. He threw fine vs GB in the opener too. If playing in a dome is so much easier, why didn't P.Manning of another dome QB, like warner, break this record before ?
Brees is also not responsible for having to playing SP's playbook. He passes so much because that is how our playbook is designed, and that is how our offense is built to play.
Many, pick on his Interceptions, but rarely point out how many more times he passes than Rogers or Brady when bringing up that in a conversation. Would either of these QB's have less interceptions if they passed as much?
Our run game includes the short pass or screen to breach the line of scrimmage . Sometimes the short pass run game is stopped and it reflects negatively on his numbers.
Marinos record seems to be how some fans are gauging Brady in Brees in this year, and Im not sure why that comparison is even made, or finding a way to diminish one or the other is even relevant. Brady's obviously has a better record than Brees. And Brees is not a great QB, he's one of the best to play the game of football, period. He's breaking more than that record this year.
Tanier: Brees already belongs among all-time greats - NFL- NBC Sports

He's no Brady or the greatest ever, but constantly in the shadow, and will be remembered as one of the best to ever play the QB position.
.. and no Brees has already said, he learned his lesson from 2008, he is not interested in the record as much, he wants a ring.
Drew Brees focused on wins, not record - NFC South Blog - ESPN

Just think these are relevant points

 

[RodThePat]

Playing in a Dome doesn't diminish anything. Lots of outdoor QB's , like Farve, had horrible records in a dome. The game is faster, and sometimes they can't cope with the speed. We did a comparison on Brees a year ago in forum, and his play doesn't suffer from being in a dome or being outside. He threw fine vs GB in the opener too. If playing in a dome is so much easier, why didn't P.Manning of another dome QB, like warner, break this record before ?
Brees is also not responsible for having to playing SP's playbook. He passes so much because that is how our playbook is designed, and that is how our offense is built to play.
Many, pick on his Interceptions, but rarely point out how many more times he passes than Rogers or Brady when bringing up that in a conversation. Would either of these QB's have less interceptions if they passed as much?
Our run game includes the short pass or screen to breach the line of scrimmage . Sometimes the short pass run game is stopped and it reflects negatively on his numbers.
Marinos record seems to be how some fans are gauging Brady in Brees in this year, and Im not sure why that comparison is even made, or finding a way to diminish one or the other is even relevant. Brady's obviously has a better record than Brees. And Brees is not a great QB, he's one of the best to play the game of football, period. He's breaking more than that record this year.
Tanier: Brees already belongs among all-time greats - NFL- NBC Sports

He's no Brady or the greatest ever, but constantly in the shadow, and will be remembered as one of the best to ever play the QB position.
.. and no Brees has already said, he learned his lesson from 2008, he is not interested in the record as much, he wants a ring.
Drew Brees focused on wins, not record - NFC South Blog - ESPN

Just think these are relevant points

This season in particular Brees has been markedly better in domes, rather than outside. We are talking like a difference of 30 points in passer rating. If Rodgers and Brady threw the ball as much as Brees does, not only would they very likely have less picks (their career INT% is lower than Brees'), but they would also throw for more yards and touchdowns too, based on the fact that they have a higher average of yards per attempt and also a better TD%.

Brees is a great quarterback, but he's also in the best situation of any passer in the league when we talk about accumulating stats. Dude has a great record in big games, though, and I give him major props for that.

 

[pherein]

This season in particular Brees has been markedly better in domes, rather than outside. We are talking like a difference of 30 points in passer rating. If Rodgers and Brady threw the ball as much as Brees does, not only would they very likely have less picks (their career INT% is lower than Brees'), but they would also throw for more yards and touchdowns too, based on the fact that they have a higher average of yards per attempt and also a better TD%.

Brees is a great quarterback, but he's also in the best situation of any passer in the league when we talk about accumulating stats. Dude has a great record in big games, though, and I give him major props for that.

We can go over that theory all day. Look, I just hope if he breaks it, the guy gets some credit, and people don't try to belittle how hard he has worked.

 

[PatsWSB47]

We can go over that theory all day. Look, I just hope if he breaks it, the guy gets some credit, and people don't try to belittle how hard he has worked.

You're right. Whatever advantages his environment has given him, he still has to deliver. Not many, in fact very few, given the same environment would likely achieve what Drew has. Congrats to him.

 

[TheGreatestEVER]

Congrats to Brees! Even better that came on a touchdown pass.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

woooo won my FF SB for $$ :rocker:



wonder if brady will break it against buffalo

 

[jah]

woooo won my FF SB for $$ :rocker:



wonder if brady will break it against buffalo

My dad just won his money league too...gonna be hearing about it nonstop for a week :bricks:

 

[PatriotSeven]

You know the win itself is equally as impressive. Atlanta's been a hot team the last couple of months. I was expecting a much closer game but the Saints absolutely demolished them.

What interesting about Brees and the Saints is that these guys can throw picks and they can still come back and win it against a pretty hot NFL team. He threw 2 last night. Matt only threw 1. Saint's D is probably one of the better defenses out of your offensive power houses, but to throw 2 interceptions and still win 45-16 against a team like Atlanta, in a playoff scenario, that's saying something. The difference between your offensive horses and your average NFL team is pretty significant this year.

Congrats on both.

Having said that I also expect those turnovers to be their weakness against a more efficient, but even more productive team like Green Bay and maybe even the Pats. 1 turnover did them in against Green Bay. If Brees doesn't tighten up, it may cost them a chance at playing in February.