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.
No comments:
Post a Comment