Just FYI, a ton of people on ESPN and everywhere are downgrading Brady and the Patriots.
Been listening to talk radio the last day.
I learned that:
ONE, the Patriots filmed the Rams walkthrough before the 2001 SB [This was alleged by Tomase's friend but he didn't have the tapes he claimed he had; the Rams are on record as saying the only plays they went over during the walk through were red zone plays & the Rams scored a TD every time they were in the red zone so if the Patriots had tape, it didn't help them at all].
TWO, the deflated balls aided the Patriots in preventing them from fumbling because players could hold onto the ball easier [It was shown that the great +/- fumble differential relative to the rest of the NFL was created ENTIRELY on the road. I don't know the reason for this anomaly, but at home the Patriots were EVEN when it came to fumbles. On the road, the opposing team fumbled a lot more. of course, the opposing team controls the balls on the road, so those balls couldn't have been deflated].
THREE, Joe Montana, 4-0 Super Bowls blah blah blah [Yes, let's give credit to Montana for losing a lot in the 1st round of the playoffs].
FOUR, only reason Brady has more wins and top stats than Montana is because of longevity [If you look at first Brady's 15 years and match them against Montana's 15, Brady has 7 Super Bowl appearances and 5 wins, and he did it in the salary cap era where he wasn't throwing to Jerry Rice and the assortment of HOFers that SF kept together for a decade.]
FIVE, the best way to measure the quality of a player is not Super Bowl wins, but 1st team ALL-PROs. Brady made only 3 ALL-PRO teams, as many as Mike Alstott. Manning was 1st team in 7 of them!!!! [I'll address this below.]
There are 3 main arguments I make when it comes to gauging Brady relative to Manning or others based on All-Pro and season stats.
ONE, the ALL-PRO teams are voted on prior to the playoffs. Playoff performance is not taken into account. So you're ignoring playoff performance entirely if you're looking at that. I'd say Super Bowl MVPs are a good stand-in for ALL-PRO teams.
TWO, the voters don't seem very good at gauging the relative play of QBs. They go for gaudy stats. When Aaron Rodgers got the MVP in 2012 over Brady, they were looking at passer rating, TDs to INTs, and Rodgers had a great season. Brady meanwhile lead one of the most potent Patriot offenses ever, top 10 Offense in NFL history, and one secret inside his stats, they had 26 rushing TDs. Brady himself had 4 rushing TDs. And they did this WITHOUT a top running game or top running backs (it was Ridley's best year). The Packers and Aaron Rodgers? 7 rushing TDs the entire year. It boggles my mind that these stats are not taken into account. How much % of the offense is passing, total yards, running the ball in from the 1, the QB scoring, etc. All these stats should be accounted for.
THREE, Peyton Manning has a higher career passing rating than Brady. But Brady has a higher passer rating than Manning in games OUTDOORS and INDOORS in domes. A strange stat, but when you realize the differential for Brady is 10 points passer rating higher in domes, you understand that there is huge stat inflation for dome QBs. This stat alone tells me everything I need to know abut All-Pro teams and how they are measured.
The weird thing about the ALL-PRO argument and regular season stats is that it was being made by Buffalo talking heads. Guess what, Buffalo, your QB who plays in bad weather, your QB who runs the ball a lot, he's not going to get credit for what he does like, say, J. Herbert in Los Angeles. His passer rating will have 10 points shaved off just based on weather and running the ball. So you're making an argument AGAINST Josh Allen.
