There are numerous people who insist on doing exactly that in baseball discussions, in a sport where individual performance levels are far more easily separable from those of their teams and generate far more numbers to be fascinated by. Of course you need to consider both - part of greatness is summoning your best when it matters most, but you have to play well enough to get there, too.
Agreed. You can’t just throw away Superbowl performances in the same way you can’t just throw away regular season performance.
Superbowls do count.
Roethlisberger has a higher career passer rating than everyone on that list but Brady. He has a higher completion percentage than all but Brady on your list. He has a better Adjusted Yards per Pass Attempt than all but Brady on that list. Fouts, Brady and Marino have a higher Net Yards per Pass Attempt than Roethlisberger, but not by much.
And he has two rings, and a third Super Bowl appearance. You could do a lot worse than picking Roethlisberger as your QB.
Roethlisberger’s QB rating in his 3 Super Bowl appearances is 69.9 which is truly crappy. In his first appearance, a win over the Seahawaks, his QB rating was 22.6 with ZERO TD’s, 2 INTs and a total of 123 passing yds on a pathetic 9 for 21. One could say the Steelers won, in spite of, Big Ben.
You don’t just give equal credit for every SB appearance or win. Performance counts. One of the most damning things about Sunday’s game, was not just that Manning was on the losing side, but that he sucked. Even hanging his head by the second quarter.
The lasting image of Peyton once again performing his famous pouty/whiny expression on the bench does not help him, either.
Alrighty then.
I don’t think Manning sucked. 34-49 for 279 yards isn’t sucking. That’s not many yards compared to a lot of Manning’s games this year, but that is because the Legion of Boom lived up to their name- there were hardly any yards after catch the whole game since they nailed the receiver immediately after almost every catch. Yes, there were the interceptions, but that’s what happens when your O line collapses and they hit your QB’s arm as he’s passing. This O line held up all year, this was the Only game in which Manning faced rushers in his face like this.
The turnovers were forced. The game was a humiliating ass-whupping, but I think the story is all about the Seahawks playing with so much power, not the Broncos sucking. YMMV.
Sure. And I’ve never said otherwise.
Jim Kelly lost 4 straight SBs. Marino lost his only Super Bowl That play can be judged all day. They’re still a HOF’ers and among the best to have ever played.
What I’ve never done is make up a caricature so I can judge a player both ways, by sum total of career and by only Super Bowls - but laying blame on any superficial analysis on so-called “casual fans”.
Yeah, Manning sucked Sunday. So what? He’s already got a ring. Might be one thing if he’s never won the big one, but he has.
It’s a weird sports fanboy thing to take a QB who is 1-2 in Super Bowls and has a bevy of passing records and try to claim he could even arguably considered “not that great” based on a couple stinkers.
Considering some of the posts seriously made in this thread, it was hard to tell. Some posters basically are making that argument. It’s bizarre.
Oh, and good catch on Brady. Forgot that 3rd ring.
I will note that “average playoff wins” is a bit of a misleading statistic. Even Steve Young was what? 7-6? Favre wasn’t much better. He’s like 14-12 or something. Even with 4 SB appearances, Jim Kelly is 9-8, which means a lot of early playoff exits for him, too. By comparison, Trent Dilfer is 5-1 in the playoffs. At 11-12, Manning could use a few more wins, but he’s not exactly looking like a chump by comparison to some HOF QBs even in this metric.
Small sample sizes and unless you go deep into the playoffs every time you make them (Brady, Montana, Roethlisberger look good here due to some deep runs each time they make it to the playoffs), your playoff record is going to float around 50%.
Sure. But you’d also have to say the opposite about his second Super Bowl victory, where the offensive line was so bad it gave up a safety and let Darnell Dockett tie the SB record for most sacks in a game; the running game was non-existent; the primary WR Hines Ward was hobbled; and the defense gave up a go-ahead touchdown with 2 minutes to go. One should say the Steelers won because of Big Ben. I’m always struck by how people try to define his career by his Super Bowl XL performance, as if he’s done nothing notable since then.
That’s cute, but I never claimed to have a solution or a dog in the fight, just pointing out flawed logic. Plus I even threw in a much better metric for you at the end too.
You had to pretend that I thought QB rating was the end all be all of judging QB’s, which I didn’t say, and it isn’t. I have a feeling we might actually agree on many of the factors that go into judging a NFL QB (which would include QB rating, among other things).
Winning percentage could be a good metric to add in, sure. Although football is a team game, a great QB has the ability to influence the game more than anyone else on the field. But even winning percentage has problems, unless you think Ben Rothlisberger is better than Johnny Unitas, Terry Bradshaw is better than John Elway, Bart Starr, and Steve Young, or Donovan McNabb is better than Drew Brees.
All metrics have flaws. Pointing that fact out isn’t too difficult.
I was making fun of you for stating that posters that don’t agree with you were basing a QBs worth solely on their performance in one game.
And it’s takes a sports fanboy to keep on taking strawmen out the closet to try and find an argument that holds up. Since you put “not that great” in quotes, I assuming your strawman talks to you.
“Not that great” is a dubious term, it could mean “Still great, but not as great as all the hype,” or “Just borderline great,” or “Not great enough to be in the HOF.” But the point is Manning’s legacy WAS tarnished by his utter failure in front of 113 million viewers on Sunday, whether you want to accept that or not.
One of the great football hypothetical questions is, “If you could pick any QB, in their prime, to win ONE game, who would it be?” I don’t think Manning would be in anyone’s top 5, maybe out of the top 10. Which is pretty amazing for a QB who’s on pace to hold most of the career, regular season passing records.
Why is that? (and you can even ask one of your strawman for his opinion.)
[/QUOTE]
Passer rating does what it sets out to do tolerably well. It combines a QB’s stats into one number that you can look at to get an idea of how efficient he is as passer. It’s not worthless, for the same reason that all the other QB stats aren’t worthless (since it’s just an amalgamation of those stats).
But, of course, it’s idiotic to use it without context. Chad Pennington has a higher rating than Dan Marino, but was not actually a better QB. The discrepancy is not mysterious. First, Pennington played his career in an era that was more friendly to the passing game; everyone’s passing stats were better. Second, passer rating puts probably too much weight on completion percentage, which favors QBs who throw lots of short, accurate passes (e.g. Pennington) over cannon-armed bomb-throwers (Marino). So you have to take those things into account.
But, again, passer rating isn’t useless here. It alerts us to the fact Chad Pennington was, in fact, a very good QB when healthy; he kept the offense on schedule and didn’t throw too many INTs. It also makes it clear that, as great as Dan Marino was, he had sprinkled throughout his career a bunch of seasons which were more *prolific *than *efficient *(though, actually, still pretty efficient).
So it’s not useless. If you want to know who were the best QBs in a given season, the passer rating leaderboard is a pretty good place to start.
As to your specific question – “How is passer rating any better than using rings?” – It’s better because a QB has a lot more control over his passer rating than he does over the number of Super Bowls that his team wins.
That’s not entirely fair, though. Yeah, once it gets down to a field goal play, there’s not much a defense can do. But part of a defense’s job is to keep the other team from getting into field goal range to begin with. Denver’s defense failed at that, twice, and you have to take that into account.
Oddly, though, no one in this discussion can articulate HOW they know any simple metric analyis is flawed. Obviously, any single measurement can be met with counter-examples that make sense to both the person proposing the counter and almost all listeners. But HOW do we know that “Donovan McNabb is better than Drew Brees” is wrong? That’s what the measurement says. What measurement do you have to the contrary?
I don’t think we do. In the end, QB comparison is entirely subjective, supported by cherry-picked stats and infinite squabbling.
Yeah, I got that. I’ll let your posts speak for themselves.
Rather than a strawman, there’s more of a True Scotsman in this thread.
Are you sure you mean prime? Because Manning in his prime did win a big game. Manning in his prime would be in mine. This is precisely why I questioned your definition of “strictly team game”. I don’t know anybody who’d claim Manning is currently in his prime.
QBs, prime or not, are surrounded by 10 other guys and a bunch more on the bench. While the QB has perhaps the largest role to play in the game, those other guys matter.
Before the season, a lot of people pegged Denver for the Super Bowl. And claimed they had a decent shot at winning. They weren’t wrong.
What happened between then and now? One bad game. Sure, on the biggest stage. But not one that could be laid entirely on Manning, just as a win couldn’t be laid entirely on him. But we judge QBs that way all the same.
I’ve been saying from the beginning that Manning supporters will point to his record, his MVPs, and the sheer number of playoff/Super Bowl appearances.
I’ve also been saying from the beginning that Manning detractors will point to his lackluster playoff performances, including this game.
My conclusion was that both sides will entrench, which won’t affect his legacy either way - neither side changes their minds.
I’ve stated that at least 3 or 4 times in this thread, and that part is confirmed.
Sure, and that’s how Seattle gets into the 20s in the first place. That’s not exactly a low score, but it’s vastly better than 43 points.
Both defense and offense work off each other. Without the interceptions and the lost fumble, the defense also gets more time to rest between series, too and a longer field to protect. It’s hard to judge an offense or a defense in a vacuum, but Denver’s defense did at least a reasonable job under the circumstances, which was my point. That, and the fact that they did an acceptable job despite losing a lot of key starters, including Von Miller and some DBs.
I think the widely accepted rankings of QB’s indicates that it’s not entirely subjective at all. When almost the entire community agrees that Brady, Manning, Brees, and Rodgers are the best QB’s in the league now, and next to no one is saying that Cutler, Ryan, Flacco, E. Manning, and the rest are is pretty indicative that there is an objective element to the determinations. When you get to the close cases (like Manning v. Brady) there is certainly a higher level of subjectivity, but don’t try and pretend that it is ALL subjective.
But saying that “Both sides will entrench, which won’t affect his legacy” is just nonsensical.
The pro-Manning side is smaller numbers than it was before Sunday. Unless you live in a cave, you must be aware of the hammering that Manning is taking in the media… and I’m sorry to inform you that the media goes a long way in determining legacy. Long-time Manning apologists, like Mike Francesa, are deserting the ship.
I know old timers who are entrenched in the Bobby Layne camp. They won’t budge. But there aren’t that many of them I’m sure Manning still has his supporters, but there are less of them. His legacy WAS affected adversely, in the minds of many.
Tom Brady started his career with a 10-0 playoff record and 3 SB wins in his 1st 4 seasons as a starter. He’s been 8-8 since, and 0-2 in his 2 SB’s. Only a fool would insist that his ‘legacy’ has not been tarnished in the last 9 years, even if he’s built up his resume for the HOF with some excellent regular season numbers.
Brady is a great QB, but he’s not as great as he was made out to be 9 years ago, even if an argument could be made that he became a better QB after winning his 3rd SB ring in Feb, 2005. We’re talking legacy here, which you don’t seem to understand. 113 mil people saw Manning pee down his leg, last Sunday, and you insist it didn’t change a thing.
Whether his legacy was tarnished or not should be easy enough to determine by answering these two questions:
What was his legacy prior to this game?
What is his legacy now?
If the answer to the second is now worse than the answer to the first then it was in fact tarnished by the game.
How many of those completions and yards were in garbage time?