Joe Montana won 4 Superbowls and lost 0, right? So who is the QB who is 4-1? Anyone who even has a chance to do that? Brady is 3-2 and I could see him getting to 4-2 before he’s done.
Manning is 1-1, I think, so he could go to 2-1 and maybe 3-1 if he returns next year but I can’t see him getting to 4-1.
Roethlisberger is 2-0, but I don’t see the Steelers going anywhere for a while. The Giants could always come out of nowhere again, but Eli seems to have lost his way lately. He is also 2-0.
There’s nothing “of course” about this. If two QBs perform comparably and one of them goes 4-1 in five Superbowls and the other goes 4-0 in four Superbowls and misses the playoffs the fifth year, or loses in a playoff game, how is the second guy better?
Would it be considered nerdy to mention small sample size? I’ve never listened to Mike and Mike, but it sounds like they might be idiots.
It sounds like they’re arguing about a greater number of SB appearances vs. a perfect record, not about performance per se. But I think it’s no longer considered super-nerdy to mention sample size in the context of sports. I don’t usually watch sports talk shows but I think I heard Tony Kornheiser do that yesterday.
What would you have to say about sample size?
I think it’s just a hypothetical; I don’t think anyone’s gone 4-1. Terry Bradshaw also went 4-0, for the record.
They’re really not worth listening to, unless you have nothing else to do, but they are good at raising idiotic issues that fans will argue about all day and night. Witness this thread. Even though the argument is pretty one-sided, we still feel compelled to talk about it.
The underlying issue, of course, is how good can Peyton Manning really be if he’s just won one Super Bowl and never won an SEC championship when he was with Tennessee? He’s real good. But I do think his one flaw has always been that because he has such an outstanding pedigree, and great physical and mental skills, that he’s always been given too much responsibility for his team’s offense, and hence bears too much of the blame for his team’s results. Tom Brady became co-joined at the hip with Belichick because Brady was so lightly disregarded when he came into the league. I doubt if Peyton Manning would have worked so well with Belichick if Bill had taken the Colt’s head coaching job back in 1998.
So Mike and Mike are basically just trolling… and they’re good at it.
I’m assuming this is a Mike and Mike impression. It’s better than a Skip Bayless or Rick Reilly impression, at least.
This. A thousand times, this.
As others have said, judging a QB by his team’s W-L record is easy and completely misleading. For instance, 2 of Brady’s SB wins (over the rams and over the panthers) were secured by last second game winning FGs. Would he not be as good a QB if his team’s kicker had missed? It is absurd to say that Brady’s ability as a big-game QB depends on his team’s placekicker, but isn’t that indeed the case?
In New England, just about everyone (not I) wants Manning to fall on his ass this Sunday. Almost all of it is to preserve Tom Brady’s reputation as being better than Manning. It’s kind of like having your daughter in a figure-skating competition and rooting for the other little girls to fall, crash and burn during their routines.
Yes, it is more important. But not THAT important.
If Drew Brees or Tom Brady were traded to the Cleveland Browns, they would probably score more points but they would still suck. A quarterback is no good if his offensive lineman aren’t up to snuff. You cant throw every pass with 300 lb pass-rushers barrelling down on you. Or can only block by holding. It looks bad in the stats if you hit a receiver in the numbers but he can’t catch the ball. It looks bad in the win\loss column if if does catch the ball but keeps coughing it up. Or if you have no running game and defense can look pass for every play.
Do they they track the stats for dropped catchable passes? It’s already been mentioned how important special teams play is. Feild goals…hell punts are important.
A great quaterback can make a good team better. but I don’t know if he can make a bad team good.
Oh, I have no doubt about that.
If having no Superbowl losses is good, then the Browns are the best team in the league.
I agree with you but what Tom Brady is doing year in and year out in New England is making this a tougher argument to make. It’s not just changing out receivers. It’s changing out entire schemes. He went from 2 tight ends getting something like 40+% of all targets to the TE’s getting less than 15% of all targets in just 1 season.
Heck, Dan Marino is kind of a poster child for how silly Superbowl win/loss record is. One appearance, one loss.
Therefore, Trent Dilfer with his one appearance, one win is a better QB than Dan Marino. :dubious:
Even Jim Kelly vs Dan Marino favors Marino, despite Kelly’s 4 straight SB losses. So, even number of appearances is a dubious stat to judge QBs by.
I think it’s great quarterback and great coach. I believe that if Belichick and Brady (maybe the 2007 version of TB) went to the Browns this off-season, that the Browns would be a credible playoff team next January. Brady alone couldn’t do it. Nor Manning alone. Nor could Belichick without Brady.
The Pats lost the 2nd or 3rd most starters games to injuries this year. After Brady, they lost the 3 most highly paid players on the team (Wilfork, Mayo, Gronkowski) the 4th to prison (Hernandez) and the 5th, Ammedolia, was worthless after a mid-season groin injury. So it wasn’t just a case of number of injuries as it was WHO was injured.
Pats went 12-4 and made the NFL’s final four.
Depends how good their teams are. The chances of an 80% winning QB winning all 4 Super Bowls he plays in are about 40%. The chances of an 80% winning QB winning 4 of 5 Super Bowls he plays in are about 40%.
However the recent trend of SB winners is that they win about 66% of regular season games. In that case a 66% winning QB in 4 SBs would only win all 4 about 19% of the time. The same QB if he played in 5 would have a 12% chance of winning all 5 but a whopping 32% chance of only winning 4 out of 5.
I find it funny that the Browns are used as an example of where a great QB would fail because of the lack of support, which is funny, because they’re actually a pretty good team that’s made useless by lack of good QB play. If Peyton Manning was on the Browns this year, they’d be a 12 win team. The Browns offensive line has been in the top half of pass blocking over the last, oh, 7 years or so, sometimes amongst the top 5, but it’s wasted on having QBs who can’t get rid of the ball and create their own sacks. The receivers are generally incompetent, it’s true, other than, you know, having the NFL’s leading receiver.
The Browns are plugging in a good QB away from a deep playoff run, and are actually a good demonstration of how crippling it is in the modern NFL to try to get by with shit at the QB position, for a team with that much talent to be going for 4 wins.
Regardless of win%, it will always be more impressive to win 4 in a row rather than winning 4 in 5 tries because 4 in a row is just a special case of 4 in 5. The problem is that in setting the question up like this ignores all the winning it takes place leading up to the Super Bowl.
What does depend on win% is figuring out if it’s more impressive to win 4 in a row or 5 scattered? Turns out, if your probability of winning the Super Bowl is less than 0.789 it’s more impressive to go on a 4-year streak. If you’re a 12-win team, it’s easier to go on a streak than win 5 scattered SB’s.
The problem is figuring out how to quantify likelihood to win the Super Bowl.
That 4 or 5 games is too small a sample to draw conclusions on.