Comparing the big 4 of the modern era: Brady, Brees, Manning, Rodgers

[drewskie]

Guest Post: Support for Manning, Brady, Brees, and Rodgers Part II

Guest Post: Support for Manning, Brady, Brees, and Rodgers Part III

I think these threads (and especially the comments) are GREAT reads on the tactical part of the game that is rare to see.

The biggest takeaway from the in depth analysis that I gathered is.. and Belichick said it himself. Tom is the best at not making negative plays. Which is the biggest reason why the defense doesn't have to work with a short field as often, which directly correlates to the winning percentage of the Pats.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Chase Stuart has spent his entire life trying to live inside Peyton Manning's underwear. He disguises himself as objective but is not. This looks like a pathetic, last-ditch effort to show "no one really knows whose better than who because these guys are all great!" now that no sane person would say Manning is better than, or even equal to, Brady. Maybe he can find a nice local bar in his hick town and tell the bartender about the entire conspiracy for the next 40 years.

 

[Deus Irae]

Another "Brady v. _____" thread this month. Is this number 435?

 

[Bledsoehasaring]

Serioulsy why are we still talking about A. Rodgers. He isnt that hard to figure out if you watch like 20 min of football. He is one on the most naturally gifted qbs to ever play the game. However, He has very average talent when it comes to pre snap reads. He extends plays and is an amazing improvisor. His arm strength and mobility are off the charts. Thats it. Thats all he will ever be. With all that talent he has one ring. I mean seriously whats the point. Great qb. Probably more talented than brady, but not even in the same universe when it comes to leadership, work ethic, will to win, or mastery of the position as Brady. Oh and i forget resume.

 

[jmt57]

If I recall correctly, isn't Chase Stuart an unabashed Colts/Peyton fan?

If so then this will be one of those rare instances where we should skip the article and only read the comments, rather than the reverse.





edit to add: Patriots Rant by Chase Stuart

 

[BobDigital]

Should Ben Roethlisberger be included? He is probably making the HOF too though not on a first ballot like the other 4 have a chance to do.

 

[Wheelman]

Tom Brady sucks, I got it! Good! Thanks! Moving on...

 

[DarrylS]

Stuart makes the "facts" fit his argument, perhaps he should consider public office... he also seems to want to minimize the impact that the other two aspects of the team has on the outcome of games..

At the end of any day..

Brady 5 Rings
Manning 2 Rings..
Brees 1 Ring..
Rodgers 1 Ring...

That is all that is important..

 

[Nehalem]

Should Ben Roethlisberger be included? He is probably making the HOF too though not on a first ballot like the other 4 have a chance to do.

He has more rings than Brees and Rodgers. And unlike Manning he at least played decently in one of his Super Bowls.

And if we account for all the rings that Brady/Rodgers cost him... he has what 5 rings? I believe that was someone's criteria for claiming Manning was the best, because he "could have" had 5 rings.

Note: Rodgers lost the NFCCG when Russell Wilson threw 4 ints, and scored 0 first half points against the Falcons. So really his max rings is 1.

Brees lost the NFCCG to the 2006 Bears 39-14... yeah those same Bears Manning beat for his 1st ring, and that would have easily gotten Brady his 4th with Reche Caldwell being his top WR.

So in terms of max rings we have
Brady: 10 (5 actual + 2006 + 2007 + 2011 + 2015 + 2010)
Manning: Some talking head calculate 5-6
Roethlisberger: 5
Rodgers: 1
Brees: 1

Poor Roethlisberger gets no respect.

 

[sean10mm]

Manning always threw more picks (251-152), and more picks as a % of passes thrown (2.7% vs. 1.8%), than Brady, and turnover differential is the strongest W-L predictor in the NFL.

If you want the big picture difference, that's literally it. Manning was always more prone to coughing up the football, and that loses games. Padding your stats against scrubs while throwing in a dome in mid December, on the other hand, doesn't gain you any wins.

 

[sean10mm]

The only interesting comparison is #2 for this era between Aaron Rodgers and Drew Brees IMO. Statistically both are off the charts, both have 1 ring, and both had outstanding Super Bowl runs where they weren't carried as dead weight, like both of Peyton's wins and one of Big Ben's. Big Ben has 2 rings and 1 of them actually was earned with his play, but season to season he's been inconsistent and just hasn't put up impressive numbers in spite of pretty much always having great weapons, and he's never been an All-Pro or MVP. He'll rightly make the HOF but he's not in the running for #2 behind Brady IMO.

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

I think pat of the defensive pluses for Brady/Peyton has to do with including the 2004- seasons where defenses were allowed to play tougher as well.

Peyton rushing (lack of ) support might have to do with his preference to pass the ball...hard to see these stats in a vacuum.

 

[patsfan13]

So reading the articles and comments yes the comments are pretty interesting.

They use small differences in some stats to try to explain the Patriots success. But ignore the huge gulf in winning % between Brady and the "other guys".

Brady handles situations differently than other QB's. HE is focused on what will make his team better. He will take chances that (hurt) impact his 'ratings' if the game situation dictates it. That is why he is better in come from behind situations than say Rogers.

I did find the ST's stuff very insightful and interesting.

I thought the idea that Brady had more run support pretty lame, the Patriots play situations different than other teams and are not focused on the QB stats, IOW run it in from the 1 rather than throw a TD to pump stats a la Manning during his career.

They did a good job with the differential in the points vs yards metric in judging the effectiveness of a defense.

I remember hearing about how Polian constructed the Colts D, they counted on Manning and the O getting the lead, forcing the other team to pass. That played to the strength of their D light fast able to rush the passer, paly cover 2 to limit big plays. That is why BB went to heavy run to beat up their light players and wear them down.

The other factor in Brady's favor outside his personal greatness is the ability of BB to shape his game plan to the opponent both on offense and defense. Other teams play their scheme regardless of opponent, the Steeler D has been an extreme example of this.

Nice reading at the start of the season seeing fans of other teams trying to understand the greatness of the Patriots.

 

[ivanvamp]

Stuart makes the "facts" fit his argument, perhaps he should consider public office... he also seems to want to minimize the impact that the other two aspects of the team has on the outcome of games..

At the end of any day..

Brady 5 Rings
Manning 2 Rings..
Brees 1 Ring..
Rodgers 1 Ring...

That is all that is important..

I'm not a big math guy, but it looks to me like Brady has more Lombardis than Peyton, Brees, and Rodgers *combined*.

 

[ivanvamp]

Manning always threw more picks (251-152), and more picks as a % of passes thrown (2.7% vs. 1.8%), than Brady, and turnover differential is the strongest W-L predictor in the NFL.

If you want the big picture difference, that's literally it. Manning was always more prone to coughing up the football, and that loses games. Padding your stats against scrubs while throwing in a dome in mid December, on the other hand, doesn't gain you any wins.

Until the last year or two, one really interesting fact was that Brady had a better passer rating than Peyton both indoors AND outdoors, and yet Peyton had a better overall passer rating than Brady.

You may ask how can that possibly be true, and the answer, after a moment's consideration, is self-evident.

And it's a big reason why all of the statistical comparisons between Peyton and Brady need to take into account their respective home stadiums, something that passer rating and normal stats don't do.

 

[patsfan13]

Until the last year or two, one really interesting fact was that Brady had a better passer rating than Peyton both indoors AND outdoors, and yet Peyton had a better overall passer rating than Brady.

You may ask how can that possibly be true, and the answer, after a moment's consideration, is self-evident.

And it's a big reason why all of the statistical comparisons between Peyton and Brady need to take into account their respective home stadiums, something that passer rating and normal stats don't do.

Same with Brees, GB while cold isn't as windy as Foxboro, and he has a couple of division games indoors as opposed to away games at Buffalo and NY.

 

[Brandon_Cox]

I end up hating myself every time I open one of these threads

 

[XLIX]

You know how you can tell Brady is the GOAT? Because he is a part of every discussion regarding who the GOAT is, and anytime someone says he isn't the GOAT, that person has to justify it.

For example, you never see articles that say "Who is the GOAT: Rodgers or Manning?"

 

[chasa]

i mean lets be honest here, the only QB discussion even worth having is, Which manning would you rather have if someone said you had to have a manning as your QB.

 

[Ring 6]

You know how you can tell Brady is the GOAT? Because he is a part of every discussion regarding who the GOAT is, and anytime someone says he isn't the GOAT, that person has to justify it.

For example, you never see articles that say "Who is the GOAT: Rodgers or Manning?"

He is the GOAT because any one with a knowledgeable unbiased mind knows he is.

Then there are those who wish he wasn't that write articles like this.

The best part is that they think playing bad (statistically) and losing makes a better QB than playing bad (statistically) and winning.

This means that since QBs invariably gave their toughest games against the elite defenses this writer is arguing that if Peyton Manning is 20/40/186/2/1 and loses butvTom Brady is 20/40/186/2/1 but guts out a win by playing his best when the game is on the line, that means manning is a better QB.

Same with statistically playing well.
Manning puts up big stats in the first half, then chokes in the second half and loses. Brady plays consistently well and wins the game in crunch time and that makes manning better because it's someone else's fault that he had good stats and lost.

Using passing stats to judge QBs with no context to their impact on the game is foolish.