OT: Official 2020 Tompa Bay Gronkaneers Thread

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Totally agree. QB heroics are an eye test at-best. If you look at NFL Fourth Quarter Comebacks Career Leaders (since 1960) | Pro-Football-Reference.com is has some HoF names but also has Matt Freaking Stafford. Hes prob there because he had the opportunities because his team sucked.

Yeah...it’s the hardest position to quantify in many ways. We all know Brady is the most deadly assassin with the ball trailing in Q4. And I believe that is easily proven by his success rate, but guys like Rivers, Stafford, Eli tend to play mediocre and find they are still in a contested game in the 4th quarter so much of the time.

There are all kinds of stats like that which are misleading.

Passing yards in another one where often a high total is because the QB isn’t efficient.

 

[venecol]

Good ideas here. I think passer rating can be very misleading too, but I think it's a good simple index to use for the right reasons. If you're looking to see if a guy is elite, it's usually pretty accurate. If you're looking to see if a guy sucks (maybe his team is carrying him), it usually tells you that too. Winning is by far the best measure of success; to me, the passer rating (or whatever stats being used) is more of way to separate within classes of players. We know that Russell Wilson is better than Joe Flacco; this gives us the statistical evidence. But a guy with a big passer rating by itself won't do so well in the eyes of history, and so yes, I think it's important to flatten out the impact when ranking QBs.

I think your last point about heroics is the one that makes it the biggest challenge because it's such a big deal and yet cannot be picked up in an algorithm. It's why, I think, a lot of us would have trouble ranking Manning ahead of Montana and even feeling dirty about ranking him in front of Starr; and same thing with Rodgers. These guys don't have the big moments to match their reputation and skill level.

Aside from playoff winning % do you factor in just career winning %? I may have missed it. It'd be a way to drop guys (Eli, Flacco, etc) that just got hot during the postseason and won.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

@Bleedthrough
@Deus Irae
@Tony2046

Here's an update on my QB rank project that I mentioned earlier. I saw some moronic thing on Profootball-reference that was supposed to be a Hall of Fame monitor, and it was really bad, inconsistent, and made no sense; and not only that, I started reading the comments and saw it was the same morons from 2003 still pimping out Manning > Brady, so I decided to make my own.

The rankings are based entirely on input data with a few small exceptions of giving a few prorated seasons (see notes.) And I think the weight I've applied to the data is accurate as a HofF monitor because as you can see, the actual Hall of Fame has a very clear cutoff at #37. The first 37 are all either in the Hall of Fame or not eligible but likely. Tony Romo is the first guy to miss the cut (and makes me think people may be surprised when a debate begins about him...because it probably will in a few years). After that, if you look down the list, there's only a few scatered Hall of Famers who are in for special reasons (Moon basically being given full credit for all those CFL Championships, Namath's guarantee and NY media bias, some old timers.)

I have an adjuster on the left, which allowed/allows me to fine tune it. So, there are three major indexes: the Windex, the Trophydex, and the Ratedex. How much you want each to make an impact will change the rankings a bit to favor winning championships, accolades, passer rating, etc. But the thing is that most of these Hall of Famers have all of these things so it often just changes a few slots but nothing major. The way I have it now, I think it's pretty balanced. I worked on it this week and found some things didn't look right, some guys too high and others too low. I found a pretty weird solution to the problem, which was to bring Dan Marino (who was at the time ranked near #25) and Terry Bradshaw (who was ranked near #8) together as a compromise in the middle at 16 and 17. I think most people would have these two close to each other in their rankings, but they have pretty opposite resumes. And in fact both are pretty frustrating to rank because you're looking for objective stats/accolades to put Marino up the list and objective ways to put Bradshaw down the list, but you don't want to open the can of worms of subjective rankings, counting stats (shuddering at the thought), etc. You can only work with what you have or you'll ruin the entire ranking system.

So, here are the data points that I put in:

• WINDEX: League Championships, Championships Appearances, Playoff Wins & Franchise (a formula using winning percentage). The first three are self-explanatory, but I should mention that Playoff Wins are ideal because they bridge pre-merger and post-merger. They give the modern QBs more opportunity to rack up points because it's harder to win it all. Franchise is a stat I created which is based on winning percentage and years played; it gives some points just for playing (winning at .60 like most QBs) but really rewards guys for long-term dominance.
• TROPHYDEX: MVP, All-Pro, All-Star, All-NFL (that's all-decade or NFL100 team.) These are self-explanatory and just weighted. All of the rankings here are based on the idea that they're connected, so an MVP isn't worth more than an All-Pro because if you win an MVP, you're also winning an All-Pro and and All-Star, so all together that's a lot of points (same with championships, appearances, and playoffs.)
• RATEDEX: I used a simple passer rating for every player on this one. There are definiteliy better measures of QB skills, but this isn't looking to be precise but just to get a general level of play. It's important to note, for example, a major difference in passer rating between two guys playing in the same era (Young/Aikman, Staubach/Bradshaw.) I created a formula which does two things with passer rating...first, it assigns points for pure passer rating, in a vaccuum, so basically you're just saying how is this guy compared to the most average QB in NFL history playing in 1963 with a passer rating of 72.3. That leads to recency bias, so the other half of it, the heavier weighted half, is to compare passer rating to the average of that era. It was pretty easy to calculate this (on average, passer rating goes up about 0.5 per year). Both of these categories are adjustable for fine tuning. But please note that by adjustments, I mean must apply to all, so there's no selective changes. After tuning it, I I was satisfied that Eli Manning was no longer a top 30 QB, the Hall of Fame index was aligned, Rodgers and Brees were neck and neck, Mahomes was 26 (seems right), and of course, Montana was ahead of Manning. After all this seemed aligned, it was really interesting to look at the sub-Hall of Fame guys and how the formula works to separate them out. I'm not sure it's right or not. That's when you really notice how finely tuned it is; the Hall of Fame guys are easier to rank because they have such big resumes.

Anyway, let me know what you guys think and glad to get suggestions/input. I'll create a Googe sheet if you're interested.

View attachment 30801
View attachment 30803
View attachment 30804

I'd like to see what it looks like without the hardware. Maybe replace it with peak performance(s)?

My top ten is very similar, changes on occasion. Brady, Manning, Young, Montana, Unitas, Staubach, Graham, Starr, Marino and I'd be ok Rodgers, Sammy or Sid at 10. I have np with Manning > Unitas, Montana. Deus doesn't know what he's talking about.

I'm a big Sonny J fan. Love seeing him up there. Good work.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Aside from playoff winning % do you factor in just career winning %? I may have missed it. It'd be a way to drop guys (Eli, Flacco, etc) that just got hot during the postseason and won.

Yes. I don’t do playoff winning pct. Just a small sample size. Winning a playoff game is counted though...just not as a percentage.

I use regular season win pct for exactly that reason..it rewards a guy like Wilson or even a guy like Big Ben to some degree because they‘re often the reason for that .650 winning pct,

It’s in that Franchise stat on the spreadsheet. Take two examples: Brady and Eli.

Both QBs would get a small reward for longevity alone. So let’s say they each have 15 seasons, so they each get a .1x bonus per season for 1.5 points. But then the second part of it is the bigger factor based on winning pct. Let’s say you win .800...well, that’s .300 from average, so now take that .3 and multiply by seasons...Brady gets 4.5 points, Eli gets 0 points (since he’s .500 and added nothing.). So in the end, Brady gets 6.0 and Eli gets 1.5. That’s an extreme case, but it helps even some of the more random postseason success from guys like Eli and Flacco and reward a guy like Marino, Rivers, etc...by reward I mean bridge the gap.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I'd like to see what it looks like without the hardware. Maybe replace it with peak performance(s)?

My top ten is very similar, changes on occasion. Brady, Manning, Young, Montana, Unitas, Staubach, Graham, Starr, Marino and I'd be ok Rodgers, Sammy or Sid at 10. I have np with Manning > Unitas, Montana. Deus doesn't know what he's talking about.

I'm a big Sonny J fan. Love seeing him up there. Good work.

By hardware, do you mean only based on performance (no championships, awards.) The factors I'd have there are just winning percentage and an adjusted passer rating, which can be tuned for era-adjustments or withouth them (more recency weight.) Should I include the championships, playoff wins, etc?

 

[Zarozzor]

It’s still so tough for me to rank Unitas and Starr. For a couple of years I was a Unitas > Starr person. But after reading and studying about the two, I’m convinced towards Starr being greater. I’ll probably still continue to flip the two in the future. It’s funny seeing them so close on the spreadsheet.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

By hardware, do you mean only based on performance (no championships, awards.)

Yep

The factors I'd have there are just winning percentage and an adjusted passer rating, which can be tuned for era-adjustments or withouth them (more recency weight.) Should I include the championships, playoff wins, etc?

Yea definitely, id love to see some combo of playoff/championships, adjusted rating and peak performance. That would be interesting to me.

 

[venecol]

By hardware, do you mean only based on performance (no championships, awards.) The factors I'd have there are just winning percentage and an adjusted passer rating, which can be tuned for era-adjustments or withouth them (more recency weight.) Should I include the championships, playoff wins, etc?

Looking at Manning behind Montana by only 0.1 looks wrong. It appears too much weight is given to subjective awards (all stars, all pro). Bacon has a point.

 

[Zarozzor]

Looking at Manning behind Montana by only 0.1 looks wrong. It appears too much weight is given to subjective awards (all stars, all pro). Bacon has a point.

I can both see where you're coming from with Pro Bowls and All-Pro's being subjective. But I feel that the voters usually nail the quarterback All-Pro (unlike some of the All-NBA and All-Defensive in basketball)

Since 2001 (Brady's first season)

2001: Kurt Warner (correct)
2002: Rich Gannon (correct)
2003: Peyton Manning (correct, but I understand if someone says McNair)
2004: Peyton Manning (correct)
2005: Peyton Manning (correct)
2006: Drew Brees (incorrect, should have been Peyton Manning)
2007: Tom Brady (correct)
2008: Peyton Manning (correct, Brees and Rivers had better numbers but Manning went 12-4 to their 8-8)
2009: Peyton Manning (toughest one, I leaned Brees for years but after diving deep into the numbers and their supporting cast, I don't have a problem with Manning over Brees or Favre)
2010: Tom Brady (correct)
2011: Aaron Rodgers (correct to everyone except Saints fans)
2012: Peyton Manning (incorrect. Brady led in DVOA, DYAR, his team scored 76 more points than Manning, and only had 3 less passing touchdowns despite his team having 25 rushing touchdowns. Brady also played against 8 top 10 defenses)
2013: Peyton Manning (correct)
2014: Aaron Rodgers (correct)
2015: Cam Newton (correct)
2016: Matt Ryan (correct I guess. Brady easily had this award if not for the BS suspension. I think this might be peak Brady)
2017: Tom Brady (correct)
2018: Patrick Mahomes (correct)
2019: Lamar Jackson (correct)
2020: Aaron Rodgers (correct)

From 2001-2020 I can only find two seasons where they got it flat out wrong.

 

[Deus Irae]

I can both see where you're coming from with Pro Bowls and All-Pro's being subjective. But I feel that the voters usually nail the quarterback All-Pro (unlike some of the All-NBA and All-Defensive in basketball)

Since 2001 (Brady's first season)

2001: Kurt Warner (correct)
2002: Rich Gannon (correct)
2003: Peyton Manning (correct, but I understand if someone says McNair)
2004: Peyton Manning (correct)
2005: Peyton Manning (correct)
2006: Drew Brees (incorrect, should have been Peyton Manning)
2007: Tom Brady (correct)
2008: Peyton Manning (correct, Brees and Rivers had better numbers but Manning went 12-4 to their 8-8)
2009: Peyton Manning (toughest one, I leaned Brees for years but after diving deep into the numbers and their supporting cast, I don't have a problem with Manning over Brees or Favre)
2010: Tom Brady (correct)
2011: Aaron Rodgers (correct to everyone except Saints fans)
2012: Peyton Manning (incorrect. Brady led in DVOA, DYAR, his team scored 76 more points than Manning, and only had 3 less passing touchdowns despite his team having 25 rushing touchdowns.)
2013: Peyton Manning (correct)
2014: Aaron Rodgers (correct)
2015: Cam Newton (correct)
2016: Matt Ryan (correct I guess. Brady easily had this award if not for the BS suspension. I think this might be peak Brady)
2017: Tom Brady (correct)
2018: Patrick Mahomes (correct)
2019: Lamar Jackson (correct)
2020: Aaron Rodgers (correct)

From 2001-2020 I can only find two seasons where they got it flat out wrong.

You're giving Manning too much credit, IMO. That's a big swing right there.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Yep

Yea definitely, id love to see some combo of playoff/championships, adjusted rating and peak performance. That would be interesting to me.

Looking at Manning behind Montana by only 0.1 looks wrong. It appears too much weight is given to subjective awards (all stars, all pro). Bacon has a point.

So here's using a very similar adjustment as before but removing the Trophydex entirely.

I think there's some misunderstanding about what the accolade weighing is for here. More than anything, it's a guide that involves corrections when winning and stats don't tell the whole story. It finds bad outliers cases and corrects them.

So, you'll note the top 10 isn't too much different, though the order is changed some. In fact, the entire list isn't that much different from my list before, but the hardware stuff tends to correct ranking problems by deferring to public opinion in the only way it can (public opinion being those award voters.)

So, on the list below, perhaps it would be best if the top 10 had less accolade weight, since those guys don't really need more cherries on top and it may even tend to randomize some of the weighted numbers (Manning with 10 all-pros while Montana with 6, for example.) I'm working on a way to correct those unintended issues.

But you can see where the benefit of having those trophies comes in here:

-Roethlisberger is ranked way too high, but without All-Pro awards and MVPs, he doesn't look that much different from Rodgers. Sure, Rodgers has better passing numbers, but it's not by some huge margin that's enough show that gulf in their levels, and Roethlisberger has more winning success.

-Aikman ranked way too high; he was never all-pro while guys at his slot here should be numerous times. We're missing something important by flattening out the award scale. Meanwhile, Favre won 3 MVPs while Aikman was playing, but none of that shows up here.

-Marino is at 24 and Eli is at 29. Now, I know what youi're thinking, that the passing numbers should give Marino a sizeable edge, but it's not sizeable enough..it overcomes the two Super Bowl deficit, but it doesn't show these players are in two very different classes. Marino has 8 all-pro awards; Manning has none. That's the info that's needed to separate these two by about 30 slots.

So yes, the accolades do sometimes create some unwatned noise, for example with Montana and Manning, and in some cases they may even flip a few slots...but the primary purpose is to correct situations like these, where a guy like Marino is ranked way too low or a guy like Eli is ranked way too high.

Also, because I use simple passer rating and simple winning percentage, both as a career number, sometimes these awards can capture peak play better.

 

[Zarozzor]

So here's using a very similar adjustment as before but removing the Trophydex entirely.

I think there's some misunderstanding about what the accolade weighing is for here. More than anything, it's a guide that involves corrections when winning and stats don't tell the whole story. It finds bad outliers cases and corrects them.

So, you'll note the top 10 isn't too much different, though the order is changed some. In fact, the entire list isn't that much different from my list before, but the hardware stuff tends to correct ranking problems by deferring to public opinion in the only way it can (public opinion being those award voters.)

So, on the list below, perhaps it would be best if the top 10 had less accolade weight, since those guys don't really need more cherries on top and it may even tend to randomize some of the weighted numbers (Manning with 10 all-pros while Montana with 6, for example.) I'm working on a way to correct those unintended issues.

But you can see where the benefit of having those trophies comes in here:

-Roethlisberger is ranked way too high, but without All-Pro awards and MVPs, he doesn't look that much different from Rodgers. Sure, Rodgers has better passing numbers, but it's not by some huge margin that's enough show that gulf in their levels, and Roethlisberger has more winning success.

-Aikman ranked way too high; he was never all-pro while guys at his slot here should be numerous times. We're missing something important by flattening out the award scale. Meanwhile, Favre won 3 MVPs while Aikman was playing, but none of that shows up here.

-Marino is at 24 and Eli is at 29. Now, I know what youi're thinking, that the passing numbers should give Marino a sizeable edge, but it's not sizeable enough..it overcomes the two Super Bowl deficit, but it doesn't show these players are in two very different classes. Marino has 8 all-pro awards; Manning has none. That's the info that's needed to separate these two by about 30 slots.

So yes, the accolades do sometimes create some unwatned noise, for example with Montana and Manning, and in some cases they may even flip a few slots...but the primary purpose is to correct situations like these, where a guy like Marino is ranked way too low or a guy like Eli is ranked way too high.

Also, because I use simple passer rating and simple winning percentage, both as a career number, sometimes these awards can capture peak play better.

View attachment 30825

So it seems if you weigh accolades less, Unitas, Favre, and Marino all get hurt. Interesting that Manning only drops from 4 to 5. No surprise Staubach jumps to 6, I think he got shafted in that department during his playing days.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

So here's using a very similar adjustment as before but removing the Trophydex entirely.

I think there's some misunderstanding about what the accolade weighing is for here. More than anything, it's a guide that involves corrections when winning and stats don't tell the whole story. It finds bad outliers cases and corrects them.

So, you'll note the top 10 isn't too much different, though the order is changed some. In fact, the entire list isn't that much different from my list before, but the hardware stuff tends to correct ranking problems by deferring to public opinion in the only way it can (public opinion being those award voters.)

So, on the list below, perhaps it would be best if the top 10 had less accolade weight, since those guys don't really need more cherries on top and it may even tend to randomize some of the weighted numbers (Manning with 10 all-pros while Montana with 6, for example.) I'm working on a way to correct those unintended issues.

But you can see where the benefit of having those trophies comes in here:

-Roethlisberger is ranked way too high, but without All-Pro awards and MVPs, he doesn't look that much different from Rodgers. Sure, Rodgers has better passing numbers, but it's not by some huge margin that's enough show that gulf in their levels, and Roethlisberger has more winning success.

-Aikman ranked way too high; he was never all-pro while guys at his slot here should be numerous times. We're missing something important by flattening out the award scale. Meanwhile, Favre won 3 MVPs while Aikman was playing, but none of that shows up here.

-Marino is at 24 and Eli is at 29. Now, I know what youi're thinking, that the passing numbers should give Marino a sizeable edge, but it's not sizeable enough..it overcomes the two Super Bowl deficit, but it doesn't show these players are in two very different classes. Marino has 8 all-pro awards; Manning has none. That's the info that's needed to separate these two by about 30 slots.

So yes, the accolades do sometimes create some unwatned noise, for example with Montana and Manning, and in some cases they may even flip a few slots...but the primary purpose is to correct situations like these, where a guy like Marino is ranked way too low or a guy like Eli is ranked way too high.

Also, because I use simple passer rating and simple winning percentage, both as a career number, sometimes these awards can capture peak play better.

View attachment 30825

Very interesting the way it plays out. I'd definitely keep tinkering on the criteria. Nice work!

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

So it seems if you weigh accolades less, Unitas, Favre, and Marino all get hurt. Interesting that Manning only drops from 4 to 5. No surprise Staubach jumps to 6, I think he got shafted in that department during his playing days.

Yes - it's unbelievable Staubach only had one All-Pro nod. I did include the NFL100 team in there too largely because it's an NFL sanctioned award and being on that team is more impressive than All-Pro award.. Staubach was better than Bradshaw; the difference between those two led me to a few big adjustments, including the addition of an adjusted passer rating as the only stat. Both those guys played in the same era and one had a passer rating 12 points higher...of course that matters.

I think this is the best example of what the accolades are supposed to balance (though some things may get caught in the crossfire):

Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, and Ben Roethlisberger are not very different in terms of their overall winning accomplishments and their efficiency/passer rating. Rodgers is above them in passer rating but has other choppy things that bring them all close together.

The accolades are supposed to merely confirm that Brees and Rodgers are better than Roethlsiberger. And I think they do. They're not really supposed to give a lot of weight to Rodgers for being an MVP...if that makes sense. They are supposed to show continuity with regards to performance and wins.

So in this case, Brees and Rodgers are indeed confirmed to be very close in accolades. Brees actually has six all-pro awards; most are second team so they aren't as flashy, but they show elite play. And 13 pro bowls. They have almost the same index number for accolades, and this also avoids the "3X MVP!!!!!" stuff for Rodgers, which frankly might cause the most bias when comparing the two. Rodgers gets credit for those, and it's fair credit, but overall the numbers here just show them as close, as it should be.

But also, this weeds out Roethlisberger, as he really doesn't belong in the conversation with those two. He's not in their class, and the accolade index is the only way to shake that all out.

I think Rodgers is better than Brees, but I don't think it's because he won three MVP seasons; if those seasons are so terrific, he also gets the benefit of a statisticalliy favorable season (for his rating) and should have the championships to show for it. Plus an all-pro and pro bowl nod. That's why I don't give a lot of weight to the awards themsevles but more the totality of getting a lot of accolades.

Brady isn't the best because he has five Super Bowl MVPs. Those are indicators...he's the best because he played great in those five Super Bowls (actualliy eight) and played great throughout his career to get there. So it would be double dipping to give a crap ton of weight to the awards themselves.

 

[Zarozzor]

It’s amazing that only 5 quarterbacks have managed to win 70+% of their games

Otto Graham - .861% or .814% depending on how you look at it
Tom Brady - .769%
Roger Staubach- .746%
Joe Montana- .713
Peyton Manning- .702%

Mahomes is at .826 but only has 46 games played so I expect that number to drop as he continues his career and that contract kicks in.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I can both see where you're coming from with Pro Bowls and All-Pro's being subjective. But I feel that the voters usually nail the quarterback All-Pro (unlike some of the All-NBA and All-Defensive in basketball)

Since 2001 (Brady's first season)

2001: Kurt Warner (correct)
2002: Rich Gannon (correct)
2003: Peyton Manning (correct, but I understand if someone says McNair)
2004: Peyton Manning (correct)
2005: Peyton Manning (correct)
2006: Drew Brees (incorrect, should have been Peyton Manning)
2007: Tom Brady (correct)
2008: Peyton Manning (correct, Brees and Rivers had better numbers but Manning went 12-4 to their 8-8)
2009: Peyton Manning (toughest one, I leaned Brees for years but after diving deep into the numbers and their supporting cast, I don't have a problem with Manning over Brees or Favre)
2010: Tom Brady (correct)
2011: Aaron Rodgers (correct to everyone except Saints fans)
2012: Peyton Manning (incorrect. Brady led in DVOA, DYAR, his team scored 76 more points than Manning, and only had 3 less passing touchdowns despite his team having 25 rushing touchdowns. Brady also played against 8 top 10 defenses)
2013: Peyton Manning (correct)
2014: Aaron Rodgers (correct)
2015: Cam Newton (correct)
2016: Matt Ryan (correct I guess. Brady easily had this award if not for the BS suspension. I think this might be peak Brady)
2017: Tom Brady (correct)
2018: Patrick Mahomes (correct)
2019: Lamar Jackson (correct)
2020: Aaron Rodgers (correct)

From 2001-2020 I can only find two seasons where they got it flat out wrong.

Manning may have been the most MVP worthy player in 2009, but it still goes against pro sports precedent to give a photo finish to the guy who already won three over a guy who had won none, especially since Manning had just won one of the biggest “by default” MVPs in 2008. The narrative of Manning‘s injury recovery in 2008 was a big part of the rationalization of giving to him. In 2009, any type of feel good story about Brees and Katrina were secondary to the voters who had suddenly pledged a somber oath to consider only the numbers.

What always bothered me is how Manning went from being awarded these to having “won“ them, in the eyes of the sports world, like “winning an MVP” is just like “winning a Super Bowl.” That was so stupid, and yet it’s still the mantra of so many pundits.

Usain Bolt may have won the race, but I was voted fastest runner. So, we’re even.

 

[Zarozzor]

Manning may have been the most MVP worthy player in 2009, but it still goes against pro sports precedent to give a photo finish to the guy who already won three over a guy who had won none, especially since Manning had just won one of the biggest “by default” MVPs in 2008. The narrative of Manning‘s injury recovery in 2008 was a big part of the rationalization of giving to him. In 2009, any type of feel good story about Brees and Katrina were secondary to the voters who had suddenly pledged a somber oath to consider only the numbers.

What always bothered me is how Manning went from being awarded these to having “won“ them, in the eyes of the sports world, like “winning an MVP” is just like “winning a Super Bowl.” That was so stupid, and yet it’s still the mantra of so many pundits.

Usain Bolt may have won the race, but I was voted fastest runner. So, we’re even.

That season definitely had 3 good candidates.

Peyton Manning
14-2 Record
68.8% Completion
33 TD/16 INT
1 Fumble lost
4,500 Yards
7.9 YPA
99.9 Passer Rating
7 4QC
7 GWD
#18 Running Game
#16 Defense

Drew Brees
13-2 Record
70.6% Completion
34 TD/11 INT
6 Fumbles lost
4,388 Yards
8.5 YPA
109.6 Passer Rating
2 4QC
4 GWD
#1 Running Game
#12 Defense

Brett Favre
12-4 Record
68.4% Completion
33 TD/7 INT
2 Fumbles (not sure how many he lost)
4,202 Yards
7.9 YPA
107.2 Passer Rating
2 4QC
2 GWD
#19 Running Game
#10 Defense

I think they just gave it to Manning because of the whole 14-0 in games he started and finished, and the 7 4QC and 7 GWD.

Brees ended up getting the last laugh though.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Yeah...it’s the hardest position to quantify in many ways. We all know Brady is the most deadly assassin with the ball trailing in Q4. And I believe that is easily proven by his success rate, but guys like Rivers, Stafford, Eli tend to play mediocre and find they are still in a contested game in the 4th quarter so much of the time.

There are all kinds of stats like that which are misleading.

Passing yards in another one where often a high total is because the QB isn’t efficient.

Yards and TDs thrown mean nothing to me.

 

[venecol]

It’s amazing that only 5 quarterbacks have managed to win 70+% of their games

Otto Graham - .861% or .814% depending on how you look at it
Tom Brady - .769%
Roger Staubach- .746%
Joe Montana- .713
Peyton Manning- .702%

Mahomes is at .826 but only has 46 games played so I expect that number to drop as he continues his career and that contract kicks in.

Mahomes shouldn't be on this list at all, YET imo. 3 years doesn't qualify for an All Time Greatest QB ranking list

 

[venecol]

Yes - it's unbelievable Staubach only had one All-Pro nod. I did include the NFL100 team in there too largely because it's an NFL sanctioned award and being on that team is more impressive than All-Pro award.. Staubach was better than Bradshaw; the difference between those two led me to a few big adjustments, including the addition of an adjusted passer rating as the only stat. Both those guys played in the same era and one had a passer rating 12 points higher...of course that matters.

I think this is the best example of what the accolades are supposed to balance (though some things may get caught in the crossfire):

Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, and Ben Roethlisberger are not very different in terms of their overall winning accomplishments and their efficiency/passer rating. Rodgers is above them in passer rating but has other choppy things that bring them all close together.

The accolades are supposed to merely confirm that Brees and Rodgers are better than Roethlsiberger. And I think they do. They're not really supposed to give a lot of weight to Rodgers for being an MVP...if that makes sense. They are supposed to show continuity with regards to performance and wins.

So in this case, Brees and Rodgers are indeed confirmed to be very close in accolades. Brees actually has six all-pro awards; most are second team so they aren't as flashy, but they show elite play. And 13 pro bowls. They have almost the same index number for accolades, and this also avoids the "3X MVP!!!!!" stuff for Rodgers, which frankly might cause the most bias when comparing the two. Rodgers gets credit for those, and it's fair credit, but overall the numbers here just show them as close, as it should be.

But also, this weeds out Roethlisberger, as he really doesn't belong in the conversation with those two. He's not in their class, and the accolade index is the only way to shake that all out.

I think Rodgers is better than Brees, but I don't think it's because he won three MVP seasons; if those seasons are so terrific, he also gets the benefit of a statisticalliy favorable season (for his rating) and should have the championships to show for it. Plus an all-pro and pro bowl nod. That's why I don't give a lot of weight to the awards themsevles but more the totality of getting a lot of accolades.

Brady isn't the best because he has five Super Bowl MVPs. Those are indicators...he's the best because he played great in those five Super Bowls (actualliy eight) and played great throughout his career to get there. So it would be double dipping to give a crap ton of weight to the awards themselves.

If you do one with just the accolades, you'll be surprised what you end up with and may be a way to factor them in better (weighted).