Playoff passer ratings for SB winning QBs since 1978

[TomBrady'sGoat]

passer rating is a craptacular stat. Peyton wasn't great in these playoffs and greatly benefitted from playing only one really good team, but he was good and definitely not "worst ever winner." They didn't win a single game in spite of him, like the Steelers last year in the superbowl.

Somebody has got their passer rating calculations all out of whack.

Ben Roethlisbergers 100+ rating should have been a giveaway!

According the this website http://www.primecomputing.com/ which calculates passer rating :

Manning 2006 - 81.8 (which lets be honest, is a more likely score for such a good completion % and 1 TD and 1 INT)

Roethlisberger 2005 - 22.6 (a slight difference from 101.7 )

Brady 2004 - 110.2

Brady 2003 - 100.5

Brady 2001 - 86.2

Montana 1989 - 147.6

Bradshaw 1978 - 119.1

NM

they're presumably for the entire playoffs, not just the supwerbowl.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I take three things away from this list (thank you very much for posting it):

1) Montana is still in a class by himself.

2) TB should have picked up his third MVP in SB XXXIX

3) The stat itself is misleading, when you consider TB's low rating in the 2001-02 playoffs and Big Ben's high rating in the 2005-06 postseason, when it comes to a player's contribution to his team's success.

 

[Brownfan80]

It's funny, I normally think of 2004 as Brady's worst Super Bowl, when statistically it was his best.

I will always remember the Carolina SB as Brady's finest game, regardless of what the stats say. The guy was HUGE that day.

 

[PromisedLand]

Somebody has got their passer rating calculations all out of whack.
NM

Good catch. I actually kind of suspected that because I thought I recalled Brady having a great SB passer rating. Since I couldn't bring myself to watch the Super Bowl I didn't know if Manning was really as bad as a 61 but I had seen his stats (completions, attempts, TDs and INTs) and would have guessed his rating was a lot better than that.

Still, it was so delightful to see him at the bottom of the list I just let myself believe it...

 

[Brownfan80]

Good catch. I actually kind of suspected that because I thought I recalled Brady having a great SB passer rating. Since I couldn't bring myself to watch the Super Bowl I didn't know if Manning was really as bad as a 61 but I had seen his stats (completions, attempts, TDs and INTs) and would have guessed his rating was a lot better than that.

Still, it was so delightful to see him at the bottom of the list I just let myself believe it...

Those stats are accurate, but they are for the entire playoffs for each player in each SB winning year, not just the SB itself.

So Manning statistically had the worst SB run of any successful QB in the history of the current rules. Even worse than Tom's run in his first year as a starter.

Now, we all know that winning is all that matters, but it's been the Manning backers that have always spouted about his stats in his defense. If he won with bad stats, then I guess winning IS all that matters, and they must finally admit that Tom's 3 are greater than Peyton's 1.

 

[PonyExpress]

Another interesting "statistic" for Manning lovers, who have been using statistics to deify him for years. Of the 22 times a QB has won SB MVP, Manning's 81.8 SB passer rating is the WORST of all time. That includes games prior to the 1977 rule changes.

 

[TomBrady'sGoat]

you know, I had never really thought of the fact that manning's performance should (but alas it won't) force colts fans to either give Brady his due or admit manning wasn't very good in these playoffs. this will be a fun topic next time I see my brother's father in-law, who loves peyton. this has actually made my day.

 

[Murphys95]

Okay, let's play then.

Tony Eason's QB rating for the entire '85 playoffs.....119.0

 

[the taildragger]

Nice one Pony.

Put it this way,
Brady + Branch + Givens + Graham = 109
Brady + Wayne + Harrison + Clark = ???

I'm guessing somewhere a tad north of, you know SIXTY-FIVE POINT ONE!!!...about 178.3 sounds right.

Then again, I guess I'm just not looking at this objectively? After all, Wayne/Branch/Givens/Harrison...just mix and match -- they're all the same...yeah, that rating system sure is a rock solid way to compare QBs.

If anything Peyton was a liability. He was carried to victory by his running game and defense.

In '01, Tommy was seven years younger than peynus is now -- and was up against much smaller odds.

No he didn't have the big numbers back then, but he had a poise and command far beyond his years -- or anyone's years for that matter...only one INT in that postseason, made timely throws, and put together TWO legendary signature drives (one against Oakland and the clincher in the SB). Yet because of his youth, everyone tried to make the kicker out to be more valuable.

I don't know how anyone can look at the body of work by Peyton's playoff career (not his numbers, or the points allowed by his defense, but HIS INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCES OVERALL) and put him up there in the pantheon of greats.

Let's not forget the Colts were FAVORED to win the SB, and yes, even the AFC Championship. There were serious doubts on that '01 team...football players aren't dumb...that Rams team was "unbeatable"...in the most critical moments, when they probably should've cracked, the looked their 24 year old QB in the eye and felt a strange sense of calm and focus...you can ask David Patten.

That's the difference. Tom makes his guys play great -- Peynus is made to look great by all the talent around him. There has never been a more jittery shizoid QB in terms of postsnap adjustments than Peyton Manning...the read and react part of the game. And there's never been a more cool and adept reader of postsnap chaos than Tom. Indy's system is designed to hide Peyton's weaknesses -- having receivers who can blow 10 yards past cover-2, or 10 yards clear of the underneath coverage on a simple comeback, is the reason it works (see: last Sunday). There's no way Peyton could handle an offense where he was asked to consistently make 2-3 reads and fire it into the guy who was least covered like a blanket.

Yet we continue to compare QBs with weapons as diverse as Jerry Rice, Reggie Wayne and Troy Brown.

Had we beaten the Colts, it would've justified the front office decision to play musical chairs with reject receivers all year.

I guess I'm in the minority but I'm sick of could'ves, should'ves would'ves...if you want to see this team dominate like say the '89 Niners then put some freaking talent around Tom...he's the best player in the game...sure, Adalius Thomas would be a nice upgrade, but we'd be THREE TIMES as good with elite receivers...enough reject crackheads...time for some TALENT!!! Are we saving our money for future generations?? We have a window of opportunity RIGHT NOW! We're better off overspending now and ending up in salary cap hell in the future. We just flushed one SB down the toilet. YOu're not going to notice aging linebackers if we're averaging 35 points a game. No more "we can get by" with these receivers crap. I'm sick of just getting by.

TIME TO DOMINATE!

 

[frankiesfly]

Aikman makes top 11 three times. Pretty good.

 

[ChoWZa]

Nice one Pony.

Put it this way,
Brady + Branch + Givens + Graham = 109
Brady + Wayne + Harrison + Clark = ???

I'm guessing somewhere a tad north of, you know SIXTY-FIVE POINT ONE!!!...about 178.3 sounds right.

Then again, I guess I'm just not looking at this objectively? After all, Wayne/Branch/Givens/Harrison...just mix and match -- they're all the same...yeah, that rating system sure is a rock solid way to compare QBs.

If anything Peyton was a liability. He was carried to victory by his running game and defense.

In '01, Tommy was seven years younger than peynus is now -- and was up against much smaller odds.

No he didn't have the big numbers back then, but he had a poise and command far beyond his years -- or anyone's years for that matter...only one INT in that postseason, made timely throws, and put together TWO legendary signature drives (one against Oakland and the clincher in the SB). Yet because of his youth, everyone tried to make the kicker out to be more valuable.

I don't know how anyone can look at the body of work by Peyton's playoff career (not his numbers, or the points allowed by his defense, but HIS INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCES OVERALL) and put him up there in the pantheon of greats.

Let's not forget the Colts were FAVORED to win the SB, and yes, even the AFC Championship. There were serious doubts on that '01 team...football players aren't dumb...that Rams team was "unbeatable"...in the most critical moments, when they probably should've cracked, the looked their 24 year old QB in the eye and felt a strange sense of calm and focus...you can ask David Patten.

That's the difference. Tom makes his guys play great -- Peynus is made to look great by all the talent around him. There has never been a more jittery shizoid QB in terms of postsnap adjustments than Peyton Manning...the read and react part of the game. And there's never been a more cool and adept reader of postsnap chaos than Tom. Indy's system is designed to hide Peyton's weaknesses -- having receivers who can blow 10 yards past cover-2, or 10 yards clear of the underneath coverage on a simple comeback, is the reason it works (see: last Sunday). There's no way Peyton could handle an offense where he was asked to consistently make 2-3 reads and fire it into the guy who was least covered like a blanket.

Yet we continue to compare QBs with weapons as diverse as Jerry Rice, Reggie Wayne and Troy Brown.

Had we beaten the Colts, it would've justified the front office decision to play musical chairs with reject receivers all year.

I guess I'm in the minority but I'm sick of could'ves, should'ves would'ves...if you want to see this team dominate like say the '89 Niners then put some freaking talent around Tom...he's the best player in the game...sure, Adalius Thomas would be a nice upgrade, but we'd be THREE TIMES as good with elite receivers...enough reject crackheads...time for some TALENT!!! Are we saving our money for future generations?? We have a window of opportunity RIGHT NOW! We're better off overspending now and ending up in salary cap hell in the future. We just flushed one SB down the toilet. YOu're not going to notice aging linebackers if we're averaging 35 points a game. No more "we can get by" with these receivers crap. I'm sick of just getting by.

TIME TO DOMINATE!

I agree with this post except for the all-star offense. The patriots won superbowls with their linebackers and secondary. The only need one star on offense and thats tom brady. Their O-Line held up when it needed to. It doesn't take a 7mil/yr receiver to catch passes(in reference to Caldwell). They need to get younger on defense and get some veterans back in that group. Defense still wins championships, Brady will still give you the points. Some depth on defense would be good too, losing Seau and Harrison killed our superbowl, combined with the flu and some incompetant penalty calls (No call on hayden, "faceguarding", roughing the passer).

 

[workhorse]

Man it must really chap your @ss that Manning finally won one. Why else would this thread even exist?

 

[lutontown_fc]

Man it must really chap your @ss that Manning finally won one. Why else would this thread even exist?

Ass?

Chaps?

How is Peytons close friend the Cowboy?

NM

 

[patchick]

Somebody has got their passer rating calculations all out of whack.

Ben Roethlisbergers 100+ rating should have been a giveaway!

Yes, thank you!!! If you watched the last two Superbowls you should know immediately that those ratings are bogus. Manning had a perfectly decent game...while Roethlisberger's stats were worse than Rex Grossman's!

(Edit: missed some intervening posts...just want to say that full postseason stats aren't comparable because of different numbers of games played.)

 

[Caspir]

Hey, Brady can have the stats, Peyton will take the Lombardi.

Spectacular. I seem to recall Brady having quite a few of those. What a perfect post.

 

[Peytonsbetter]

Man it must really chap your @ss that Manning finally won one. Why else would this thread even exist?

Good call.

2006 Indianapolis Colt's- First team EVER to defeat the top 3 ranked defenses in the league on their way to winning the Super-Bowl.

 

[PonyExpress]

Yes, thank you!!! If you watched the last two Superbowls you should know immediately that those ratings are bogus. Manning had a perfectly decent game...while Roethlisberger's stats were worse than Rex Grossman's!

(Edit: missed some intervening posts...just want to say that full postseason stats aren't comparable because of different numbers of games played.)

Patchick,
I have to respectfully disagree with you. Manning's stats ARE comparable, as several other QBs had to play more than 3 games en route to SB victory. And even if you take away Manning's wild card rd performance against KC, his first game this postseason (in which he threw 3 picks), his postseason passer rating still is 69.7, by far the worst mark in history. And while some claim that "Peyton's stats are misleading", is he the first and only QB for whom stats have been misleading? Were Brady's stats misleading in the Oakland Snow Bowl game? There are countless examples of the insignificance of QB statistics, because we all know that WINNING IS WHAT MATTERS, NOT STATISTICS. That is what we've been saying for years, while these fantasy chumps from the heartland have been propping up their paper tiger hero and diminishing Brady's SB accomplishments with the exact opposite argument. Finally they are forced to recognize what we have known forever, and have to conceed that if winning is what matters and not statistics, Brady is the superior Qb to Manning. But, hypocrites that they are, they will no doubt slither out of this noose made of reason and logic. I would expect no less.