I realized the other day that I somehow missed one of Tom Brady's games. Additionally, I did some poor calculations in regards to his completion percentage. Here is the updated table comparing Brady to P. Manning, E. Manning, Rodgers, and Flacco.
BREAKDOWN (2005-2014):
QB RECORD COMP % YPG Total Yds TDs per game INTs per game
E. Manning 8-3 (.727) 61.5% 229 2,519 1.5 (17 total) 0.6 (7 total)
J. Flacco 10-4 (.714) 54.6% 185 2,600 1.5 (21 total) 0.5 (8 total)
A. Rodgers 5-3 (.625) 66.1% 288 2,311 2.2 (18 total) 0.6 (5 total)
P. Manning 8-7 (.533) 66.1% 294 4,417 1.5 (23 total) 1.0 (16 total)
T. Brady 9-8 (.529) 61.9% 263 4,473 1.8 (32 total) 1.1 (19 total)
Brady has played two more games than Manning, but other than his higher touchdowns per game average, Manning has the better post season stats overall. Better winning percentage, better completion percentage, more yards per game, and has a smaller interception per game average (albeit by literally the slimmest margin possible).
I noted before that Peyton Manning is the only quarterback on that list who - since 2005 - has not had a post season game where he threw more interceptions than touchdowns. Flacco, Rodgers, E. Manning, and Brady have all done that. Even more, Brady leads the bunch with the most games throwing more INTs than TDs (he's done it 6 times in his past 17 post season games, meaning he's good for more turnovers than scores a little over a third of the time he plays). That fact, of course, has really been the root of my main argument. It's not that Brady is bad, or is somehow less of an all-time great. It's that if everyone were honest, he's been much more inconsistent in the past decade than he was in his Super Bowl victory years. Even more, he's been much more inconsistent than any other quarterback to play eight or more post season games, save for Joe Flacco (who was terrible every year except his Super Bowl run - this year will say more about him as a post season quarterback).
Let's compare Tom Brady Super Bowl winning runs to the ten years after:
Years RECORD COMP % YPG Total Yards TDs per game INTs per game
2001-2004 9-0 (1.000) 62.5% 216 1,951 1.2 (11 total) 0.3 (3 total)
2005-2013 9-8 (.529) 61.9% 263 4,473 1.8 (32 total) 1.1 (19 total)
Ultimately, the stats don't drop off too much. The yards per game as well as the touchdown rate both spike due to increased emphasis on quarterback play in New England over the past decade. Still, there's one glaring difference, and it's one that should get talked about more than it does: through his first ten post season games, Brady threw 14 TDs against 3 INTs. (That's 1.4 TDs each game to 0.3 INTs). In his last 16 games, he has thrown 29 touchdowns against 19 interceptions (that's 1.7 TDs each game to 1.2 INTs). Even more, he's an average .500 once his ten game post season win streak was snapped, going 8-8 in his last 16 games.
It stands to reason that the more you put on your quarterback, the more padded all subsequent stats will be. Touchdowns will be higher, but presumably interceptions will be as well. What's really strange though is that it could be argued that Brady's offenses haven't really changed that much in how much it asks of Brady. Sure, there were a few years in which he had to do a lot with clearly inferior talent. Still, in his first 10 games, Brady threw 331 times. (Simple math tells us he passed an average of 33.1 times per game.) In his previous 16 games, he threw 619 times, which averages out to 38.6 times per game. In the end, he wasn't asked to throw too much more over the past decade. There was definitely a gap where for a few years, he had inferior outside receiver talent. But the past four years in particular have really turned around for New England, often fielding one of the more dominant offenses in the league. Plus, they had a record breaking offense in 2007 that ultimately didn't change much until mid-2009. So it's not like he's never had a good offense around him. In support of the argument that the defense was much better in those Super Bowl years (it was), 2001-2004 saw New England beat opponents by an average score of 24.2 - 17.2. Compare that to the past 8 seasons which, despite a few major blowouts, has them winning with an average score of 25.5 - 21.7.
How does it stack up against another all-time great, and one of the few that actually can compete for Brady overall: Joe Montana. Montana played in 23 post season games from 1981 to 1994. Here's the overall comparison.
QB RECORD COMP % YPG Total Yds TDs per game INTs per game
J. Montana 16-7 (.695) 62.6% 250 5,772 1.9 (45 total) 0.9 (21 total)
T. Brady 18-8 (.692) 62.1% 247 6,424 1.6 (43 total) 0.8 (22 total)
I must admit, going into this, I expected to see Montana's stats a little more noticeably better. After all, here is a guy who is 4-0 in Super Bowls, having thrown 11 touchdowns to 0 interceptions in those big games. He's also been to 7 conference championships, going 4-3 and threw 16 touchdowns against 8 touchdowns in those games. Comparatively, Brady has been in 8 conference title games, going 5-3 and threw 8 touchdowns against 9 interceptions there. He's also 3-2 in Super Bowls, throwing 9 touchdowns to 2 interceptions.
The overall stats make them seem pretty even, and they are! Stats don't tell the whole story though. I mentioned in the last post about why sometimes Brady's post season stats are a little inflated (six touchdowns in one game, a nearly perfect completion percentage in one game - sometimes the stats are all in one period). Montana's stats are similar unclear.
I made the argument the other day that Brady is essentially all over the place come post season time, despite his reputation as clutch. I also argued that his stats look similar to Manning's, but also are deceptive because some of them came in a tiny percentage of games. Brady has also accounted for more turnovers than scores in 6 post season games (which also means almost one game every post season since the last Super Bowl win).
Montana isn't free of that criticism as well. His monster year was the 1990 season, wherein he threw for 11 touchdowns against 0 interceptions in there games (comparable to Joe Flacco's run a couple years ago, although he need that fourth wild card game to get to 11 TDs - not to take away though, given an extra game also increases the chances of turnovers). Not only that, but he had his 49ers squad beat opponents by a combined score of 126-26! The year before though, he also played extraordinarily well, throwing 8 touchdowns to 1 interception, again destroying teams by a combined score of 82-28.
Just to really hammer that point home: throughout two consecutive post seasons, Montana threw 19 touchdowns to just 1 interception and outscore playoff teams by a combined score of 208-54! (That's an average scoreline of 34 to 9.)
Brady has never had a stretch that good, though he's certainly had good stretches. As mentioned, in his first three post season appearances, he threw 11 TDs to 3 INTs and outscored competition by about 60 combined points. Definitely not bad at all. But Brady's post season greatness tends to come in single games. He competed 26 of 28 passes for 3 TDs and 0 INTs in a game against Jacksonville here. Threw 6 TDs against Denver there. He threw 3 TDs to 0 INTs here. He does it there. Interestingly, Brady has not followed up a great game with anything other than more turnovers than touchdowns since the last Super Bowl win. Since 2005, any time Brady starts a post season with more touchdowns than interceptions in a game, he follows it up with fewer touchdowns than interceptions the following game. Look:
2005:
Wild card - 3 TDs 0 INTs
Divisional - 1 TD 2 INTs
2006:
Wild card - 2 TDs 0 INTs
Divisional - 2 TDs 3 INTs
2007:
Divisional - 3 TDs 0 INTs
Conference - 2 TDs 3 INTs
2009:
First round loss
2010:
First round loss
2011:
Divisional - 6 TDs 1 INT
Conference - 0 TDs 2 INTs
2012:
Divisional - 3 TDs 0 INTs
Conference - 1 TD 2 INTs
2013 is a little strange though, because he didn't do much of anything in the first game.
Divisional - 0 TDs 0 INTs
Conference - 1 TD 0 INT
It's so strange. The greatest quarterback of the past 30 years has only ever played well in consecutive games in his first three post seasons. He's also accounted for more turnovers than scores in a playoff game on six separate occasions.
Still, Joe Montana could be considered a bit streaky, whereas Brady is more hodgepodge. From 1985 to 1987, Montana threw 4 interceptions against 0 touchdowns as the Niners went one-and-done in three consecutive years. For all the general consistency you get from Montana overall, Brady has never gone three years in a row without at least one post season win. In 11 post seasons, he's only lost the first game twice.
For me though, it's this strange back and forth good Brady/bad Brady thing that's been going on for the past 8 years that makes me give the edge ever so slightly to Montana as Greatest of all Time. If Brady can string together a series of good games in a post season this year or in at some point, I think that would be enough to finally give him the nod. As it stands right now, I'll take the guy who showed up in big games consistently. There's something to be said about Montana's consistent performance in conference championships and especially Super Bowls, of which the same thing can't quite be argued about Brady. Brady hasn't played legitimately well in a conference championship or a Super Bowl since 2004. It's time for people to really start acknowledging that maybe, just maybe, he isn't as leaps and bounds better than everyone else as he's made out to be. He's still clearly up there! But the more you look back on Brady's post seasons overall, the harder it is to reconcile how great he's supposed to be with how inconsistently he's performed well in the post season.
Wednesday, January 7, 2015
Sunday, January 4, 2015
Once more, is Brady as great as they say?
All right, so it's post season time in the NFL and time for a yearly tradition - not unlike my salary cap in baseball posts. Living in New England and being a Patriots fan, I've been spoiled. Well, really, just living in New England as a sports fan has spoiled me. In the past 15 years, I've seen almost every one of our major sports teams win titles. The Celtics made two NBA championships and won one. The Bruins made two and won one as well. The Red Sox broke a nearly 100 year old curse with three World Series pennants. And the Patriots became arguably the most successful franchise in NFL history with 15 years of sustainable success seeing three Super Bowl wins on five appearances. Only the Revolution failed to win a title in its sport, and even then they appeared in five MLS cups in that span, losing three in extra time and one on PKs.
Point being, Boston and the New England sports franchises have somehow turned into title town in every sport. What non-Patriots fans forget though - and even some modern Pats fans do too - is that it wasn't always like this. The Patriots weren't always good, never mind this good. They made Super Bowls before, but weren't truly competitive for them. And even then, those were more like an oasis of success in the middle of a giant desert of failure. Still, 15 years of being perennial Super Bowl contenders, winning a dozen division titles and appearing in half a season's worth of AFC Championships alone have almost warped New Englanders' minds into a sense of over confidence - and perhaps reasonably so.
It's also been strange that having one of the greatest quarterbacks in the history of the game, we've always felt the need to constantly defend Tom Brady. There has always been this conversation about Brady versus Peyton Manning: who is better? Who do you take? Manning gets a lot of love, and so does Brady, but it does seem that Brady only gets love from the analysts and not the surrounding sports fans. It does seem at times that Brady lacks much fan support outside of New England, whereas Manning is a national hero.
One thing that's happened in the past ten years though is that New Englanders have begun to delude themselves into thinking of Brady as infallible. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Tom Brady is the new Peyton Manning. He's great in the regular season, at times looking downright invincible. And then in the post season? You're guaranteed to get him for at least one game looking flat and bad that, were he Manning, he'd be annihilated by New England fans for his poor play.
Of course, Brady is great. He's one of the greatest. I love Brady, and I would absolutely take him over Manning in the post season. And obviously, if you're New England, you would much rather have Brady than say, Tony Romo. This isn't an argument to say that Brady isn't a great quarterback, or that he needs to go. It's just about presenting him in a fair light, especially when compared to Peyton Manning.
Something interesting in New England is that there's always an excuse for Brady's poor play in the post season. Whenever he has a bad game making bad throws and bad decisions, it's always, "Well he can't do much with those receivers," or it's "How can Brady win the game if the offensive line isn't blocking anyone?" To be sure, the lack of quality receivers was very noticeable in that 2006 AFC Championship in which Brady's Patriots had quite the choke job against long time choker Peyton Manning and his Super Bowl bound Colts. And absolutely, the Giants defensive line was pretty much the sole reason the Giants upset them in the 2007 Super Bowl (the d-line was way more influential on that game than Eli Manning could have ever hoped to be).
But why is it that when Brady under performs in the post season, we remember that football is a team sport? When Manning under performs, it's because he's not up to snuff? I'd argue that while Manning had a better offense around him for most of his career than Brady (Brady has only really had maybe five years of stellar offense around him), Brady has been part of better overall teams. This is credit to the Patriots organization who for the first half of Brady's career, did not built around a single player. The Colts, however, always put all their eggs in the Manning basket. It was always offense, offense, offense, and oh yeah, here are some players to fill in the defensive roster. If Manning didn't play well, or the opposing defense got pressure or great coverage (as was often the case in early Manning years), the Colts didn't stand a chance. They just didn't have the defense. That's a big reason why the Patriots have had more success. (Plus, to be fair, Brady did perform more consistently than Manning.)
So let's just take a look at the past ten years and see whether Brady still deserves so much of this benefit of the doubt.
2005:
Brady shines at home against Jacksonville, defeating the Byron Leftwich-led Jaguars with a score of 28-3. Wasn't even close. Brady wasn't asked to do much - he didn't even throw the ball 30 times - but he made the most of his passes. He completed 15 of 27 passes for 201 yards. Most importantly, he threw 3 touchdowns and had no turnovers. Corey Dillon and Kevin Faulk combined for 91 yards on the ground, not bad, but a little deceptive. The Jags had Dillon averaging under 3 yards a carry, but were weirdly unable to contain Faulk.
The following week, the Patriots didn't stand much of a chance against the Denver Broncos, losing in Denver 27-13. Brady completed over 20 of 36 passes for 341 yards, but threw 1 touchdown to 2 interceptions. Though he got a lot of yards there, you'd be hard pressed to describe his first post season loss as anything other than a poor performance. He defeated Leftwich, but lost to Jake Plummer. The Broncos kept the New England ground game in check, with Dillon and Faulk combining for 80 yards.
2006:
Brady plays well in the wild card game against the Jets, led by Chad Pennington. He completed 22 of 34 passes for 212 yards, 2 touchdowns, and 0 interceptions. Definitely falls into the good category, but probably worth noting that the running game of Corey Dillon, Lawrence Maroney, and Kevin Faulk combined for almost 150 yards.
The Patriots are lucky to escape a game against the Chargers with a win, barely getting by 24-21 on a day in which Brady completed 27 of 51 passes for 280 yards. More significantly, he threw 2 TDs to 3 INTs in what can easily be described as his worst playoff game to that point. The ground game didn't help, not even combining for 40 yards.
The following week, the Patriots suffered one of the great collapses in NFL post season history, blowing a huge lead in the second half and losing in the AFC Championship to Peyton Manning, no less, 38-34. Brady played a very mediocre game, completing 21 of 34 passes for 232 yards, 1 TD and 1 INT. Granted, this was also a game wherein a Reche Caldwell drop on a well placed ball from Brady would have sealed it, and Brady's interception came at the end of the game while trying a desperate last minute drive down by four. (Brady might have had a reputation as being clutch at that point, but let's be real here: it was not very likely he would have conducted a drive 80 yards for a touchdown in a minute - not impossible, but not likely in the AFC Championship.) As one might expect, a mediocre Brady performance was matched by a poor ground game, which combined for about 60 yards.
2007:
Again against the Jaguars (this time with David Garrard at the helm), Brady played one of his best post season games to that point. He had almost a perfect game, completing an insane 26 of 28 passes for 262 yards, 3 TDs, and 0 INTs. It's one of the all time great performances from Brady (although worth noting, it's not his best, which is telling). Also worth noting, however, the ground game did its part this time. Maroney rushed for over 120 yards on the day in the 31-20 victory.
Brady followed up a nearly perfect game with another one of his worst games, once again against Philip Rivers and the San Diego Super Chargers. He completed 22 of 33 passes for 209 yards, and once again, threw 2 TDs against 3 INTs. This was very much a game in which the Patriots defense bailed out Brady. They remained perfect in spite of Brady's performance, largely because the d made Rivers look worse. Also worth noting that for the second week in a row, Maroney rushed for over 120 yards.
I've talked before about this weird pattern that emerges with Brady throughout a post season. If Brady plays in three games, you're going to get - in some order - a great game, a mediocre game, and a bad game. Brady has rarely been consistent throughout a single post season in the past ten years. In '05, he killed it against the Jags, then played poorly against the Broncos. In '06, he played well against the Jets, played terribly against the Chargers, and played all right against the Colts.
'07 was no exception. A nearly perfect game against the Jags, followed by a terrible outing against the Chargers, followed by an all right game against the Giants. In one of the most insane and memorable Super Bowls, Brady completed 29 of 48 passes for 266 yards, 1 TD, and 0 INTs. This game was notable for the amount of pressure the Giants got on him the entire game. He wasn't necessarily outplayed by Eli Manning (who had a very similar stat line: 19 of 34 for 255 yards, 2 TDs, 1 INT), but Brady just couldn't get anything going on offense against that defensive front. As is the pattern - if you haven't been noticing - Brady's poor performance coincides with a bad day on the ground, with Maroney rushing for under 40 yards. All things considered though, neither offense played well. New England's defense kept them in the game and in the lead late, before one fluky play really got things going for the Giants.
2008 was a lost year. Brady was injured on his first pass play of the season and was out. Credit to the team though for still finishing 11-5 with their backup QB. One can only imagine what might have happened if Brady - a year removed from a fresh Super Bowl loss in a perfect regular season - hadn't gone down so early.
2009:
There's just no way around it. This was a terrible performance from Brady. It also turns out that Ray Rice is capable of beating more than just smaller women. On a day where Joe Flacco threw just 10 passes (one of which was an interception), Brady managed to seem worse. 23 of 42 passes completed for 154 yards, 2 TDs against 3 INTs. Once again, the ground game rushed for about 60 yards. Bad day all around for the Patriots offense, and their defense. It was their first one-and-done post season series, and if memory serves, their first home post season loss in the Belichick/Brady era. (They had beaten Baltimore 27-21 earlier in the year.)
2010:
For the second straight year, the Patriots go one-and-done in a game where Tom Brady got outplayed by Mark freaking Sanchez. Brady completed 29 of 45 passes for 299 yards, 2 TDs, and 1 INT. This is a game wherein the numbers don't tell the full story. Those stats look average - nothing terrible, but nothing great either - yet all game long, Brady had been pressured consistently and looked confused. He almost looked like Peyton Manning during his classic bouts against the Patriots earlier in the decade. Brady just couldn't figure out the Jets defense, made a number of bad throws, and the only reason the scoreline of 28-21 makes it look close was a late junk time TD (which also serves to pad Brady's stats). The Jets went in with a swagger, and even though the Patriots are classically a second half team, everyone knew it was over by the middle of the third quarter. Even the rushing attack looks inflated. Four players combined for over 100 yards on the ground, but not one of them had more than 50, and two of them were essentially trick plays.
That game is what makes me a little bit nervous for the upcoming game against the Ravens. I've heard fans discuss that the last time the Patriots played the Ravens in the regular season, they beat them 41-7. It's true, this Patriots team isn't the same as years past, just as the Ravens team isn't the same as years past. Still, that whole "I'm not worried because we crushed them" attitude is something I can't really get behind. In 2010, the last time the Jets and Pats played before the post season, the Patriots crushed them 45-3. Regular season games don't mean jack when the post season happens. It really is a whole new mini-season.
2011:
When we think of all-time great performances by Tom Brady, it's almost impossible to default to anything other than his divisional game against the Denver Broncos. Brady broke records completing 26 of 34 passes for 363 yards. More mind blowing, he threw 6 TDs to 1 INT. To be clear, this is impressive against any NFL team. Still, one has to take this with a little grain of salt given that it was against Tim Tebow and an 8-8 Broncos team that literally backed into the playoffs on a losing streak. The ground game was also pretty effective overall, combining for about 120 yards, although their main back of BenJarvis Green-Ellis wasn't super effective himself.
In the following AFC Championship game, Brady was outplayed by Joe Flacco in a strange game the Patriots won despite really having no business doing so. Brady completed 22 of 36 passes for 239 yards. However, those mediocre stats become a bit worse when you see he threw 0 TDs to 2 INTs. He did have a rushing touchdown off of a goal line dive, but that doesn't really speak much about his overall performance. Though the Patriots suffered unfortunate fluky plays in the '07 Super Bowl, they were on the receiving end of them here, where in consecutive plays at the end of the game, Ravens receiver Lee Evans dropped the game winning touchdown and was followed by Billy Cundiff's shanked chip shot field goal to send the game to overtime. The ground game was working ok for the Patriots, combining for about 90 yards, but even that wasn't overly effective.
Then there was the second Giants/Patriots Super Bowl wherein this time, Eli Manning did outplay Brady. The Giants d-line still pressured Brady throughout the day and clearly impacted the game, and Brady wasn't terrible, but he looked very average. He completed 27 of 41 passes for 276 yards, 2 TDs, and 1 INT. Nothing says more about Brady's overall performance though than his opening drive, wherein he stupidly threw the ball away in what was a clear intentional grounding penalty from his own endzone, resulting in a safety. It was one of the most panicky and stupidest plays in Brady's career. To have it start a Super Bowl wasn't a good omen at all, and it impacted the game. (Imagine the final drive if Brady needed to just get into Gostkowski field goal range, being down by 2 instead of 4.) Granted, it was also a weirdly called game. And there's the controversial Welker drop that could have sealed the deal. (I'm not willing to pin it all on Welker. He could have and probably should have come down with it, but Brady threw it high and behind. Being a great quarterback that he is, he could have and should have also not made his receiver work that hard for what should have been an easy catch.) Of course, this was also a game in which we all learned about the many benefits of committing penalties in the final minute of the game (also made evident by yesterday's Panthers/Cardinals game where the punter ran around the endzone killing time before taking a safety - there was offensive holding on the play, but really, what incentive is there to NOT hold or chop block or whatever? They don't put time back on the clock.) And oh yeah, a bad day running the ball, with three backs combined for about 70 yards.
Just to really hammer the point home: that's three post season games. A great Brady performance, a bad Brady performance, and a mediocre Brady performance.
2012:
Well, when Brady plays multiple post season games, we know we're either going to get a bust and they're one and done, or we get a stunning performance. 2012 started similarly to 2011, with Brady completed 25 of 40 passes for 344 yards, 3 TDs, and 0 INTs against Matt Schaub's Houston Texans. The ground game was also effective, with Ridley and Vereen combining for 120 yards.
And once again, Brady followed it up with a poor performance in the AFC Championship, again against the Ravens. It was essentially the same as the previous year, with Brady being outplayed by Flacco. Only this time, the Ravens made the plays they flubbed up before. Brady's disappointing play resulted in 29 of 54 passes completed for 320 yards, 1 TD, and 2 INTs. Even though those stats don't look too too bad, they also don't really tell the whole story of just how bad the Patriots offense, including Brady, was. Bad overthrows seemed to plague the night, and resulted in turnovers and dead drives. (there was a killer Ridley fumble, but it's a little unfair to criticize him for it when he was knocked out for a moment. Nothing you can do about that.)
2013:
Of all the post seasons in which Brady played more than one game, 2013 was easily his worst. In his opening game against Andrew Luck and the Colts, he didn't really have to do anything. He completed 13 of 25 passes for 198 yards, 0 TDs, and 0 INTs. They won this game off their defense (with four interceptions) and their ground game, which combined for over 215 yards. Brady was asked to manage the game, which made it almost feel a bit more like the early 2000s where he wasn't being asked to do too much and they were winning Super Bowls. Not a bad performance from Brady, although completing just over 50% of his passes isn't super impressive, but he wasn't really spectacular when he did throw the ball either.
Brady improved from his recent string of terrible AFC Championship performances with the definition of mediocrity. 24 of 38 for 277 yards, 1 TD, and 0 INTs. Even more, most of those stats came late in the game. The Patriots weren't totally out of it going into the 4th quarter, but it was pretty clear they were getting beat. Brady also had one of his most questionable leadership moments when, after a failed two-point conversion, he looked totally shocked. He stood there, bent over, hands on his knees. Though there was still a fair amount of time left (a comeback at that point was unlikely, but still possible), you could just see that Brady knew it was over. And so did everyone else. I'm not going to harp too much on this moment, but it was easily one of the worst Brady moments I've seen. He's not a quitter, and you generally feel like you have a chance so long as he's there, but it was the first time where Brady's body language told me that that was it. It was essentially his Eli Manning moment. And go figure, his poor performance coincided with a bad day running the football, barely able to muster up 50 yards.
I've gone into greater detail about Brady's strange Good/Bad/Average post season pattern, and why - despite being one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time - he's not necessarily to be trusted in AFC Championship games (he's not very good in them overall). The Patriots have made it to three consecutive AFC title games, and more than just playing poorly in them, he just can't seem to generate points. They're 1-2 and have been outscored 74-52. The other general fact is that you can't really rely on Brady to win games for you on his own. Not that there aren't some exceptions, but overall, Brady's post season success throwing the ball clearly coincides with an effective ground game. In their 9 wins since their last Super Bowl victory, the Patriots average 118 yards in games they win. These are also typically when Brady is at his best. In 7 losses though, they average a paltry 71 yards. Of course, most quarterbacks are at their best with a complementary ground game.
So how does that compare to Peyton Manning in that same time frame? It's a little hard to tell. The numbers still favor Brady. In one fewer game, Manning has thrown for almost 100 more yards on 2 more passes than Brady, but he's also thrown 7 fewer touchdowns with the same number of interceptions. Similar to Brady and the Patriots, Manning and the Colts/Broncos have greater success with a solid running game. In Manning's 8 playoff wins since 2005, his offense averages 110 yards a game (8 fewer yards than the successful Patriots of that time period). Eerily, when Manning's offense sputters, it averages 71 yards rushing (the same average of Patriots squads that lose in the post season.)
Basic lesson here, of course, is if you want to win and your quarterback to succeed, run the ball. There's actually little difference between Brady's stats since 2005 and Manning's. Looking at the numbers straight up can be a little misleading though. At first glance, Brady looks clearly superior given the higher completion percentage, more touchdowns, and same number of interceptions on one more game than Manning. Their ground support has also been similar, with Brady benefiting from a slightly better ground attack. However, keep in mind that six of Brady's touchdowns came in one game! Additionally, it's worth noting that in this time frame, Peyton Manning has not thrown more interceptions than touchdowns in a game. Tom Brady has, multiple times.
In this ten year period, Brady has been in five AFC Championships to Peyton Manning's three, but Manning-led offenses have outscored opponents in these games 94-67. (That's an average score of about 31-22). Brady has been outscored in AFC Championships 107-95. (That's an average score of about 21-19, in favor of the opponents.) In ten years of AFC Championships, Manning not only has the better record than Brady (2-1 for Manning to 2-3 to Brady), but he's also generated 12 more points a game. Both have been pretty much equal in the Super Bowl in terms of stats, although one might argue that Brady has had more graceful Super Bowl losses, losing once to a superior team (the 2011 Giants) and essentially losing on a series of once in a lifetime plays (in 2007). In his two Super Bowl losses, Brady was competitive despite mediocre performances and lost both games by a total of 7 points. Manning, however, has been outscored in his three Super Bowl appearances 91-54!
All things considered though, the past ten years have seen Manning and Brady balance out. Brady was bolstered by a great team in the early aughts, though it's unfair and inaccurate to ignore his contributions to those Super Bowl runs. Still, it's hard to ignore that in 15 years of post season play, Brady has only been consistently good for 3 of them. He might be the only player to have so much early success in his first few years that he somehow manages to stave off criticism of mediocre or poor play in the following ten years.
I've argued before that Manning has gotten better in the post season while Brady appears to have gotten worse, and it's really hard to argue that isn't true. It's also sometimes hard to tell where Brady's influence begins and Belichick's influence ends. The Colts as an organization put a lot of eggs in the offensive basket. When Manning sat out with his neck injury, they turned into a joke. They used their first pick to select another talented quarterback and that helped right the ship. When Brady went down with his injury, the Patriots still went 11-5. It'd be hard to suggest they'd be this good today if this current team went in without Brady, but that statement is also true of the Broncos. Without Manning, they wouldn't be as good as they are either.
In the end, the point of this whole rant is to show this strange sort of double standard. Manning never has the benefit of football being a team game. When he loses, it's because he can't perform in the post season. Yet even though his stats aren't all that different than Brady's, and in some aspects, his stats are even slightly favorable (such as never committing more turnovers than touchdowns, better performance in AFC title games, and generally more consistent play throughout), when Brady loses, it's because of the receivers, or the offensive line, or the defense's inability to tackle a runner.
So that's the point: Manning and Brady aren't that different in the way they perform in the post season anymore. The idea that Brady is somehow more reliable than Manning is a myth, and frankly has been for the past decade. Don't get me wrong here. I'd still take Brady over Manning, although admittedly, I can't quite quantify the reasons. There are just a myriad of intangibles Brady possess that Manning doesn't seem to have, but otherwise, they're not too far apart in terms of post performances.
Just for prosperity's sake, I did some digging into other quarterbacks' stats. The main guys I was looking at were fellow Super Bowl champions Aaron Rodgers, Eli Manning, and Joe Flacco. Here are how some of the stats look:
Eli Manning has the best post season winning percentage, going 8-3 in the post season. However, this is also a case where the numbers don't tell the whole story. His 8 wins came in two seasons. The other three times he made the post season? One and done. He completed 61.5% of his passes for 17 touchdowns to 7 interceptions and 2519 yards. This means he essentially averaged 229 yards, 1.5 touchdowns, and 0.6 interceptions per post season game. What's really interesting about Eli Manning though is that he has had the best and most consistent running game among all these quarterbacks. The Giants average 108 rushing yards per game in their eight victories, but also averaged 103 rushing yards in their losses. It could be argued then that the ground game makes Eli look good, and that Eli can also make the ground game look bad. (To be fair, while he wasn't the reason the Giants won in '07, he definitely was the main reason they made the Super Bowl in '11.)
Joe Flacco has the second best post season winning percentage of the group, going 10-4. If it isn't obvious, while I appreciate stats, I don't put too much stock in them necessarily. Flacco has been solid in the playoffs in recent years, but he definitely didn't start that way. Despite winning more playoff games than Brady and Manning (in fewer games and mostly on the road to boot), he himself hasn't played particularly well in them. Overall, he's completed 54.6% of his passes for 2600 yards. What makes him seem much better - and largely because of their one Super Bowl run - is that he's also thrown for 21 touchdowns to 8 interceptions. This averages out to 185 yards, 1.5 touchdowns, and 0.5 interceptions per game in the post season. To show the support though, his run game - though making up for Flacco's deficiencies early - has not been terribly different from Manning's or Brady's support. The Ravens averaged 113 yards per game on the ground with Flacco under center, and averaged 80 yards per game in losses.
Aaron Rodgers, who is without doubt the best quarterback in the game today, has the smallest pool of playoff games under his belt. He's 5-3, completing 66.1% of his passes for 2311 yards, 18 touchdowns, and just 5 interceptions. These are very Rodgers-like numbers. It all averages out to 288 yards, 2.2 touchdowns, and 0.6 interceptions per post season game. Pretty great. What's strange about his numbers though is that his ground game is generally better when they lose than when they win. In victory, they average 90 yards per game; that number jumps to 100 yards per game in losses though.
Then of course, we already know Brady's numbers. 9-7 in post season games since 2005, completing 70.6% of his passes for 4319 yards, 30 touchdowns, and 16 interceptions. This averages to 269 yards, 1.8 touchdowns, and 1 interception per playoff game. What might be a little telling about the nature of his teams, however, is that his Patriots see the biggest disparity between rushing yards per victory compared to loss. Leading the others on the list, the Patriots with Brady averaged 118 yards on the ground in playoff wins, but 71 yards in losses. Stop the run, you've got a great shot at stopping Brady, whereas it doesn't necessarily mean anything for Rodgers, Flacco, or Eli Manning.
Finally, there's Peyton Manning, who's 8-7 since 2005, completing 66.1% of his passes for 4417 yards, 23 touchdowns, and 16 interceptions. This averages to 294 yards, 1.5 touchdowns, and 1 interception per post season game. His run game has been pretty similar to Brady's. The Colts/Broncos averaged 110 yards on the ground in Manning-led playoff wins, but 71 yards in losses. Same thing: stop the run, you have a good shot at stopping Manning. What's even more is, Peyton Manning is the only quarterback of these five Super Bowl winners to not turn it over more in a game than score. Brady, Flacco, Rodgers, and Eli have all had post season games in the past ten years in which they threw more interceptions than touchdowns. Flacco, Eli, and Brady have even done it multiple times. Peyton Manning did it early in his career (and often badly, lest we forget his four interception day in Foxborough). Still, looking at the past 10 years, Peyton Manning has been pretty solid in the post season. He's not noticeably better than Brady or anyone else, but he's also not noticeably worse.
BREAKDOWN (2005-2014):
QB RECORD COMP % YPG Total Yds TDs per game INTs per game
E. Manning 8-3 (.727) 61.5% 229 2,519 1.5 (17 total) 0.6 (7 total)
J. Flacco 10-4 (.714) 54.6% 185 2,600 1.5 (21 total) 0.5 (8 total)
A. Rodgers 5-3 (.625) 66.1% 288 2,311 2.2 (18 total) 0.6 (5 total)
T. Brady 9-7 (.562) 70.6% 269 4,319 1.8 (30 total) 1.0 (16 total)
P. Manning 8-7 (.533) 66.1% 294 4,417 1.5 (23 total) 1.0 (16 total)
Well, there you go. Another "Tom Brady is human and is kiiinda being over rated lately" argument. It'll be interesting to see which team causes Brady to play poorly this post season to knock the Patriots out of contention again. Just to be clear one more time, I'd still take Brady over Manning on intangibles - it isn't very often you see Brady get blown out in big games, even if he himself doesn't play well - but it's also hard to say what might have happened if New England faced that Seattle team. 2013 was Brady's worst overall playoff performance and that Seattle defense was just insane. Part of me wants to believe the Patriots wouldn't have gotten blown out, but that would have been more a credit to Bill Belichick than Tom Brady in my mind.
But maybe I'm wrong. I'd like to be. I want a reason to put Brady above Joe Montana, but his overall postseason play still puts Montana ever so slightly ahead.
Point being, Boston and the New England sports franchises have somehow turned into title town in every sport. What non-Patriots fans forget though - and even some modern Pats fans do too - is that it wasn't always like this. The Patriots weren't always good, never mind this good. They made Super Bowls before, but weren't truly competitive for them. And even then, those were more like an oasis of success in the middle of a giant desert of failure. Still, 15 years of being perennial Super Bowl contenders, winning a dozen division titles and appearing in half a season's worth of AFC Championships alone have almost warped New Englanders' minds into a sense of over confidence - and perhaps reasonably so.
It's also been strange that having one of the greatest quarterbacks in the history of the game, we've always felt the need to constantly defend Tom Brady. There has always been this conversation about Brady versus Peyton Manning: who is better? Who do you take? Manning gets a lot of love, and so does Brady, but it does seem that Brady only gets love from the analysts and not the surrounding sports fans. It does seem at times that Brady lacks much fan support outside of New England, whereas Manning is a national hero.
One thing that's happened in the past ten years though is that New Englanders have begun to delude themselves into thinking of Brady as infallible. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Tom Brady is the new Peyton Manning. He's great in the regular season, at times looking downright invincible. And then in the post season? You're guaranteed to get him for at least one game looking flat and bad that, were he Manning, he'd be annihilated by New England fans for his poor play.
Of course, Brady is great. He's one of the greatest. I love Brady, and I would absolutely take him over Manning in the post season. And obviously, if you're New England, you would much rather have Brady than say, Tony Romo. This isn't an argument to say that Brady isn't a great quarterback, or that he needs to go. It's just about presenting him in a fair light, especially when compared to Peyton Manning.
Something interesting in New England is that there's always an excuse for Brady's poor play in the post season. Whenever he has a bad game making bad throws and bad decisions, it's always, "Well he can't do much with those receivers," or it's "How can Brady win the game if the offensive line isn't blocking anyone?" To be sure, the lack of quality receivers was very noticeable in that 2006 AFC Championship in which Brady's Patriots had quite the choke job against long time choker Peyton Manning and his Super Bowl bound Colts. And absolutely, the Giants defensive line was pretty much the sole reason the Giants upset them in the 2007 Super Bowl (the d-line was way more influential on that game than Eli Manning could have ever hoped to be).
But why is it that when Brady under performs in the post season, we remember that football is a team sport? When Manning under performs, it's because he's not up to snuff? I'd argue that while Manning had a better offense around him for most of his career than Brady (Brady has only really had maybe five years of stellar offense around him), Brady has been part of better overall teams. This is credit to the Patriots organization who for the first half of Brady's career, did not built around a single player. The Colts, however, always put all their eggs in the Manning basket. It was always offense, offense, offense, and oh yeah, here are some players to fill in the defensive roster. If Manning didn't play well, or the opposing defense got pressure or great coverage (as was often the case in early Manning years), the Colts didn't stand a chance. They just didn't have the defense. That's a big reason why the Patriots have had more success. (Plus, to be fair, Brady did perform more consistently than Manning.)
So let's just take a look at the past ten years and see whether Brady still deserves so much of this benefit of the doubt.
2005:
Brady shines at home against Jacksonville, defeating the Byron Leftwich-led Jaguars with a score of 28-3. Wasn't even close. Brady wasn't asked to do much - he didn't even throw the ball 30 times - but he made the most of his passes. He completed 15 of 27 passes for 201 yards. Most importantly, he threw 3 touchdowns and had no turnovers. Corey Dillon and Kevin Faulk combined for 91 yards on the ground, not bad, but a little deceptive. The Jags had Dillon averaging under 3 yards a carry, but were weirdly unable to contain Faulk.
The following week, the Patriots didn't stand much of a chance against the Denver Broncos, losing in Denver 27-13. Brady completed over 20 of 36 passes for 341 yards, but threw 1 touchdown to 2 interceptions. Though he got a lot of yards there, you'd be hard pressed to describe his first post season loss as anything other than a poor performance. He defeated Leftwich, but lost to Jake Plummer. The Broncos kept the New England ground game in check, with Dillon and Faulk combining for 80 yards.
2006:
Brady plays well in the wild card game against the Jets, led by Chad Pennington. He completed 22 of 34 passes for 212 yards, 2 touchdowns, and 0 interceptions. Definitely falls into the good category, but probably worth noting that the running game of Corey Dillon, Lawrence Maroney, and Kevin Faulk combined for almost 150 yards.
The Patriots are lucky to escape a game against the Chargers with a win, barely getting by 24-21 on a day in which Brady completed 27 of 51 passes for 280 yards. More significantly, he threw 2 TDs to 3 INTs in what can easily be described as his worst playoff game to that point. The ground game didn't help, not even combining for 40 yards.
The following week, the Patriots suffered one of the great collapses in NFL post season history, blowing a huge lead in the second half and losing in the AFC Championship to Peyton Manning, no less, 38-34. Brady played a very mediocre game, completing 21 of 34 passes for 232 yards, 1 TD and 1 INT. Granted, this was also a game wherein a Reche Caldwell drop on a well placed ball from Brady would have sealed it, and Brady's interception came at the end of the game while trying a desperate last minute drive down by four. (Brady might have had a reputation as being clutch at that point, but let's be real here: it was not very likely he would have conducted a drive 80 yards for a touchdown in a minute - not impossible, but not likely in the AFC Championship.) As one might expect, a mediocre Brady performance was matched by a poor ground game, which combined for about 60 yards.
2007:
Again against the Jaguars (this time with David Garrard at the helm), Brady played one of his best post season games to that point. He had almost a perfect game, completing an insane 26 of 28 passes for 262 yards, 3 TDs, and 0 INTs. It's one of the all time great performances from Brady (although worth noting, it's not his best, which is telling). Also worth noting, however, the ground game did its part this time. Maroney rushed for over 120 yards on the day in the 31-20 victory.
Brady followed up a nearly perfect game with another one of his worst games, once again against Philip Rivers and the San Diego Super Chargers. He completed 22 of 33 passes for 209 yards, and once again, threw 2 TDs against 3 INTs. This was very much a game in which the Patriots defense bailed out Brady. They remained perfect in spite of Brady's performance, largely because the d made Rivers look worse. Also worth noting that for the second week in a row, Maroney rushed for over 120 yards.
I've talked before about this weird pattern that emerges with Brady throughout a post season. If Brady plays in three games, you're going to get - in some order - a great game, a mediocre game, and a bad game. Brady has rarely been consistent throughout a single post season in the past ten years. In '05, he killed it against the Jags, then played poorly against the Broncos. In '06, he played well against the Jets, played terribly against the Chargers, and played all right against the Colts.
'07 was no exception. A nearly perfect game against the Jags, followed by a terrible outing against the Chargers, followed by an all right game against the Giants. In one of the most insane and memorable Super Bowls, Brady completed 29 of 48 passes for 266 yards, 1 TD, and 0 INTs. This game was notable for the amount of pressure the Giants got on him the entire game. He wasn't necessarily outplayed by Eli Manning (who had a very similar stat line: 19 of 34 for 255 yards, 2 TDs, 1 INT), but Brady just couldn't get anything going on offense against that defensive front. As is the pattern - if you haven't been noticing - Brady's poor performance coincides with a bad day on the ground, with Maroney rushing for under 40 yards. All things considered though, neither offense played well. New England's defense kept them in the game and in the lead late, before one fluky play really got things going for the Giants.
2008 was a lost year. Brady was injured on his first pass play of the season and was out. Credit to the team though for still finishing 11-5 with their backup QB. One can only imagine what might have happened if Brady - a year removed from a fresh Super Bowl loss in a perfect regular season - hadn't gone down so early.
2009:
There's just no way around it. This was a terrible performance from Brady. It also turns out that Ray Rice is capable of beating more than just smaller women. On a day where Joe Flacco threw just 10 passes (one of which was an interception), Brady managed to seem worse. 23 of 42 passes completed for 154 yards, 2 TDs against 3 INTs. Once again, the ground game rushed for about 60 yards. Bad day all around for the Patriots offense, and their defense. It was their first one-and-done post season series, and if memory serves, their first home post season loss in the Belichick/Brady era. (They had beaten Baltimore 27-21 earlier in the year.)
2010:
For the second straight year, the Patriots go one-and-done in a game where Tom Brady got outplayed by Mark freaking Sanchez. Brady completed 29 of 45 passes for 299 yards, 2 TDs, and 1 INT. This is a game wherein the numbers don't tell the full story. Those stats look average - nothing terrible, but nothing great either - yet all game long, Brady had been pressured consistently and looked confused. He almost looked like Peyton Manning during his classic bouts against the Patriots earlier in the decade. Brady just couldn't figure out the Jets defense, made a number of bad throws, and the only reason the scoreline of 28-21 makes it look close was a late junk time TD (which also serves to pad Brady's stats). The Jets went in with a swagger, and even though the Patriots are classically a second half team, everyone knew it was over by the middle of the third quarter. Even the rushing attack looks inflated. Four players combined for over 100 yards on the ground, but not one of them had more than 50, and two of them were essentially trick plays.
That game is what makes me a little bit nervous for the upcoming game against the Ravens. I've heard fans discuss that the last time the Patriots played the Ravens in the regular season, they beat them 41-7. It's true, this Patriots team isn't the same as years past, just as the Ravens team isn't the same as years past. Still, that whole "I'm not worried because we crushed them" attitude is something I can't really get behind. In 2010, the last time the Jets and Pats played before the post season, the Patriots crushed them 45-3. Regular season games don't mean jack when the post season happens. It really is a whole new mini-season.
2011:
When we think of all-time great performances by Tom Brady, it's almost impossible to default to anything other than his divisional game against the Denver Broncos. Brady broke records completing 26 of 34 passes for 363 yards. More mind blowing, he threw 6 TDs to 1 INT. To be clear, this is impressive against any NFL team. Still, one has to take this with a little grain of salt given that it was against Tim Tebow and an 8-8 Broncos team that literally backed into the playoffs on a losing streak. The ground game was also pretty effective overall, combining for about 120 yards, although their main back of BenJarvis Green-Ellis wasn't super effective himself.
In the following AFC Championship game, Brady was outplayed by Joe Flacco in a strange game the Patriots won despite really having no business doing so. Brady completed 22 of 36 passes for 239 yards. However, those mediocre stats become a bit worse when you see he threw 0 TDs to 2 INTs. He did have a rushing touchdown off of a goal line dive, but that doesn't really speak much about his overall performance. Though the Patriots suffered unfortunate fluky plays in the '07 Super Bowl, they were on the receiving end of them here, where in consecutive plays at the end of the game, Ravens receiver Lee Evans dropped the game winning touchdown and was followed by Billy Cundiff's shanked chip shot field goal to send the game to overtime. The ground game was working ok for the Patriots, combining for about 90 yards, but even that wasn't overly effective.
Then there was the second Giants/Patriots Super Bowl wherein this time, Eli Manning did outplay Brady. The Giants d-line still pressured Brady throughout the day and clearly impacted the game, and Brady wasn't terrible, but he looked very average. He completed 27 of 41 passes for 276 yards, 2 TDs, and 1 INT. Nothing says more about Brady's overall performance though than his opening drive, wherein he stupidly threw the ball away in what was a clear intentional grounding penalty from his own endzone, resulting in a safety. It was one of the most panicky and stupidest plays in Brady's career. To have it start a Super Bowl wasn't a good omen at all, and it impacted the game. (Imagine the final drive if Brady needed to just get into Gostkowski field goal range, being down by 2 instead of 4.) Granted, it was also a weirdly called game. And there's the controversial Welker drop that could have sealed the deal. (I'm not willing to pin it all on Welker. He could have and probably should have come down with it, but Brady threw it high and behind. Being a great quarterback that he is, he could have and should have also not made his receiver work that hard for what should have been an easy catch.) Of course, this was also a game in which we all learned about the many benefits of committing penalties in the final minute of the game (also made evident by yesterday's Panthers/Cardinals game where the punter ran around the endzone killing time before taking a safety - there was offensive holding on the play, but really, what incentive is there to NOT hold or chop block or whatever? They don't put time back on the clock.) And oh yeah, a bad day running the ball, with three backs combined for about 70 yards.
Just to really hammer the point home: that's three post season games. A great Brady performance, a bad Brady performance, and a mediocre Brady performance.
2012:
Well, when Brady plays multiple post season games, we know we're either going to get a bust and they're one and done, or we get a stunning performance. 2012 started similarly to 2011, with Brady completed 25 of 40 passes for 344 yards, 3 TDs, and 0 INTs against Matt Schaub's Houston Texans. The ground game was also effective, with Ridley and Vereen combining for 120 yards.
And once again, Brady followed it up with a poor performance in the AFC Championship, again against the Ravens. It was essentially the same as the previous year, with Brady being outplayed by Flacco. Only this time, the Ravens made the plays they flubbed up before. Brady's disappointing play resulted in 29 of 54 passes completed for 320 yards, 1 TD, and 2 INTs. Even though those stats don't look too too bad, they also don't really tell the whole story of just how bad the Patriots offense, including Brady, was. Bad overthrows seemed to plague the night, and resulted in turnovers and dead drives. (there was a killer Ridley fumble, but it's a little unfair to criticize him for it when he was knocked out for a moment. Nothing you can do about that.)
2013:
Of all the post seasons in which Brady played more than one game, 2013 was easily his worst. In his opening game against Andrew Luck and the Colts, he didn't really have to do anything. He completed 13 of 25 passes for 198 yards, 0 TDs, and 0 INTs. They won this game off their defense (with four interceptions) and their ground game, which combined for over 215 yards. Brady was asked to manage the game, which made it almost feel a bit more like the early 2000s where he wasn't being asked to do too much and they were winning Super Bowls. Not a bad performance from Brady, although completing just over 50% of his passes isn't super impressive, but he wasn't really spectacular when he did throw the ball either.
Brady improved from his recent string of terrible AFC Championship performances with the definition of mediocrity. 24 of 38 for 277 yards, 1 TD, and 0 INTs. Even more, most of those stats came late in the game. The Patriots weren't totally out of it going into the 4th quarter, but it was pretty clear they were getting beat. Brady also had one of his most questionable leadership moments when, after a failed two-point conversion, he looked totally shocked. He stood there, bent over, hands on his knees. Though there was still a fair amount of time left (a comeback at that point was unlikely, but still possible), you could just see that Brady knew it was over. And so did everyone else. I'm not going to harp too much on this moment, but it was easily one of the worst Brady moments I've seen. He's not a quitter, and you generally feel like you have a chance so long as he's there, but it was the first time where Brady's body language told me that that was it. It was essentially his Eli Manning moment. And go figure, his poor performance coincided with a bad day running the football, barely able to muster up 50 yards.
I've gone into greater detail about Brady's strange Good/Bad/Average post season pattern, and why - despite being one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time - he's not necessarily to be trusted in AFC Championship games (he's not very good in them overall). The Patriots have made it to three consecutive AFC title games, and more than just playing poorly in them, he just can't seem to generate points. They're 1-2 and have been outscored 74-52. The other general fact is that you can't really rely on Brady to win games for you on his own. Not that there aren't some exceptions, but overall, Brady's post season success throwing the ball clearly coincides with an effective ground game. In their 9 wins since their last Super Bowl victory, the Patriots average 118 yards in games they win. These are also typically when Brady is at his best. In 7 losses though, they average a paltry 71 yards. Of course, most quarterbacks are at their best with a complementary ground game.
So how does that compare to Peyton Manning in that same time frame? It's a little hard to tell. The numbers still favor Brady. In one fewer game, Manning has thrown for almost 100 more yards on 2 more passes than Brady, but he's also thrown 7 fewer touchdowns with the same number of interceptions. Similar to Brady and the Patriots, Manning and the Colts/Broncos have greater success with a solid running game. In Manning's 8 playoff wins since 2005, his offense averages 110 yards a game (8 fewer yards than the successful Patriots of that time period). Eerily, when Manning's offense sputters, it averages 71 yards rushing (the same average of Patriots squads that lose in the post season.)
Basic lesson here, of course, is if you want to win and your quarterback to succeed, run the ball. There's actually little difference between Brady's stats since 2005 and Manning's. Looking at the numbers straight up can be a little misleading though. At first glance, Brady looks clearly superior given the higher completion percentage, more touchdowns, and same number of interceptions on one more game than Manning. Their ground support has also been similar, with Brady benefiting from a slightly better ground attack. However, keep in mind that six of Brady's touchdowns came in one game! Additionally, it's worth noting that in this time frame, Peyton Manning has not thrown more interceptions than touchdowns in a game. Tom Brady has, multiple times.
In this ten year period, Brady has been in five AFC Championships to Peyton Manning's three, but Manning-led offenses have outscored opponents in these games 94-67. (That's an average score of about 31-22). Brady has been outscored in AFC Championships 107-95. (That's an average score of about 21-19, in favor of the opponents.) In ten years of AFC Championships, Manning not only has the better record than Brady (2-1 for Manning to 2-3 to Brady), but he's also generated 12 more points a game. Both have been pretty much equal in the Super Bowl in terms of stats, although one might argue that Brady has had more graceful Super Bowl losses, losing once to a superior team (the 2011 Giants) and essentially losing on a series of once in a lifetime plays (in 2007). In his two Super Bowl losses, Brady was competitive despite mediocre performances and lost both games by a total of 7 points. Manning, however, has been outscored in his three Super Bowl appearances 91-54!
All things considered though, the past ten years have seen Manning and Brady balance out. Brady was bolstered by a great team in the early aughts, though it's unfair and inaccurate to ignore his contributions to those Super Bowl runs. Still, it's hard to ignore that in 15 years of post season play, Brady has only been consistently good for 3 of them. He might be the only player to have so much early success in his first few years that he somehow manages to stave off criticism of mediocre or poor play in the following ten years.
I've argued before that Manning has gotten better in the post season while Brady appears to have gotten worse, and it's really hard to argue that isn't true. It's also sometimes hard to tell where Brady's influence begins and Belichick's influence ends. The Colts as an organization put a lot of eggs in the offensive basket. When Manning sat out with his neck injury, they turned into a joke. They used their first pick to select another talented quarterback and that helped right the ship. When Brady went down with his injury, the Patriots still went 11-5. It'd be hard to suggest they'd be this good today if this current team went in without Brady, but that statement is also true of the Broncos. Without Manning, they wouldn't be as good as they are either.
In the end, the point of this whole rant is to show this strange sort of double standard. Manning never has the benefit of football being a team game. When he loses, it's because he can't perform in the post season. Yet even though his stats aren't all that different than Brady's, and in some aspects, his stats are even slightly favorable (such as never committing more turnovers than touchdowns, better performance in AFC title games, and generally more consistent play throughout), when Brady loses, it's because of the receivers, or the offensive line, or the defense's inability to tackle a runner.
So that's the point: Manning and Brady aren't that different in the way they perform in the post season anymore. The idea that Brady is somehow more reliable than Manning is a myth, and frankly has been for the past decade. Don't get me wrong here. I'd still take Brady over Manning, although admittedly, I can't quite quantify the reasons. There are just a myriad of intangibles Brady possess that Manning doesn't seem to have, but otherwise, they're not too far apart in terms of post performances.
Just for prosperity's sake, I did some digging into other quarterbacks' stats. The main guys I was looking at were fellow Super Bowl champions Aaron Rodgers, Eli Manning, and Joe Flacco. Here are how some of the stats look:
Eli Manning has the best post season winning percentage, going 8-3 in the post season. However, this is also a case where the numbers don't tell the whole story. His 8 wins came in two seasons. The other three times he made the post season? One and done. He completed 61.5% of his passes for 17 touchdowns to 7 interceptions and 2519 yards. This means he essentially averaged 229 yards, 1.5 touchdowns, and 0.6 interceptions per post season game. What's really interesting about Eli Manning though is that he has had the best and most consistent running game among all these quarterbacks. The Giants average 108 rushing yards per game in their eight victories, but also averaged 103 rushing yards in their losses. It could be argued then that the ground game makes Eli look good, and that Eli can also make the ground game look bad. (To be fair, while he wasn't the reason the Giants won in '07, he definitely was the main reason they made the Super Bowl in '11.)
Joe Flacco has the second best post season winning percentage of the group, going 10-4. If it isn't obvious, while I appreciate stats, I don't put too much stock in them necessarily. Flacco has been solid in the playoffs in recent years, but he definitely didn't start that way. Despite winning more playoff games than Brady and Manning (in fewer games and mostly on the road to boot), he himself hasn't played particularly well in them. Overall, he's completed 54.6% of his passes for 2600 yards. What makes him seem much better - and largely because of their one Super Bowl run - is that he's also thrown for 21 touchdowns to 8 interceptions. This averages out to 185 yards, 1.5 touchdowns, and 0.5 interceptions per game in the post season. To show the support though, his run game - though making up for Flacco's deficiencies early - has not been terribly different from Manning's or Brady's support. The Ravens averaged 113 yards per game on the ground with Flacco under center, and averaged 80 yards per game in losses.
Aaron Rodgers, who is without doubt the best quarterback in the game today, has the smallest pool of playoff games under his belt. He's 5-3, completing 66.1% of his passes for 2311 yards, 18 touchdowns, and just 5 interceptions. These are very Rodgers-like numbers. It all averages out to 288 yards, 2.2 touchdowns, and 0.6 interceptions per post season game. Pretty great. What's strange about his numbers though is that his ground game is generally better when they lose than when they win. In victory, they average 90 yards per game; that number jumps to 100 yards per game in losses though.
Then of course, we already know Brady's numbers. 9-7 in post season games since 2005, completing 70.6% of his passes for 4319 yards, 30 touchdowns, and 16 interceptions. This averages to 269 yards, 1.8 touchdowns, and 1 interception per playoff game. What might be a little telling about the nature of his teams, however, is that his Patriots see the biggest disparity between rushing yards per victory compared to loss. Leading the others on the list, the Patriots with Brady averaged 118 yards on the ground in playoff wins, but 71 yards in losses. Stop the run, you've got a great shot at stopping Brady, whereas it doesn't necessarily mean anything for Rodgers, Flacco, or Eli Manning.
Finally, there's Peyton Manning, who's 8-7 since 2005, completing 66.1% of his passes for 4417 yards, 23 touchdowns, and 16 interceptions. This averages to 294 yards, 1.5 touchdowns, and 1 interception per post season game. His run game has been pretty similar to Brady's. The Colts/Broncos averaged 110 yards on the ground in Manning-led playoff wins, but 71 yards in losses. Same thing: stop the run, you have a good shot at stopping Manning. What's even more is, Peyton Manning is the only quarterback of these five Super Bowl winners to not turn it over more in a game than score. Brady, Flacco, Rodgers, and Eli have all had post season games in the past ten years in which they threw more interceptions than touchdowns. Flacco, Eli, and Brady have even done it multiple times. Peyton Manning did it early in his career (and often badly, lest we forget his four interception day in Foxborough). Still, looking at the past 10 years, Peyton Manning has been pretty solid in the post season. He's not noticeably better than Brady or anyone else, but he's also not noticeably worse.
BREAKDOWN (2005-2014):
QB RECORD COMP % YPG Total Yds TDs per game INTs per game
E. Manning 8-3 (.727) 61.5% 229 2,519 1.5 (17 total) 0.6 (7 total)
J. Flacco 10-4 (.714) 54.6% 185 2,600 1.5 (21 total) 0.5 (8 total)
A. Rodgers 5-3 (.625) 66.1% 288 2,311 2.2 (18 total) 0.6 (5 total)
T. Brady 9-7 (.562) 70.6% 269 4,319 1.8 (30 total) 1.0 (16 total)
P. Manning 8-7 (.533) 66.1% 294 4,417 1.5 (23 total) 1.0 (16 total)
Well, there you go. Another "Tom Brady is human and is kiiinda being over rated lately" argument. It'll be interesting to see which team causes Brady to play poorly this post season to knock the Patriots out of contention again. Just to be clear one more time, I'd still take Brady over Manning on intangibles - it isn't very often you see Brady get blown out in big games, even if he himself doesn't play well - but it's also hard to say what might have happened if New England faced that Seattle team. 2013 was Brady's worst overall playoff performance and that Seattle defense was just insane. Part of me wants to believe the Patriots wouldn't have gotten blown out, but that would have been more a credit to Bill Belichick than Tom Brady in my mind.
But maybe I'm wrong. I'd like to be. I want a reason to put Brady above Joe Montana, but his overall postseason play still puts Montana ever so slightly ahead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)