Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2012-2013 NFL Football Thread
- Thread starter einmusiker
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
^You forgot Aikman. Three SB wins.
For the sake of the discussion, here's his career stats:
Troy Aikman: 61.5% completion, 3.5 TD%, 3.0 INT%, 1.17 TD/INT, 81.6 rating, 94-71 W-L (.570), 3x SB Champion, 1x SB MVP.
He was definitely a quite good quarterback, and I'd say he's definitely in the top 15, and maybe even top 10, but I don't think you can put him in the same category as Montana/Brady/Manning.
There are a few other guys we could bring in to the top 10/15 discussion: Steve Young, Warren Moon, Terry Bradshaw, Roger Staubach, Johnny Unitas, Jim Kelly, Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, Eli Manning, Ben Roethlisburger.
Definitely an interesting discussion and coming up with an actual ranked top 15 list is quite difficult. I'm not exactly sure my top 5 was necessarily in the correct order, but I think those guys are the top 5. Anyone else have any thoughts?
good stuff and not too far off i reckon.
i'd love to be able to add my all time fave Raider QB Jim Plunkett but I know the numbers aren't there. he did win 2 SB's with the Raiders though.
Then comes the question, what makes a great quarterback? Superbowl wins? Percentages? Payton was being called a great qb long before he ever won the big game. Yet you have Marino who never did win the big game.
Man there is a lot to take in......
It's all of the above, and more. That's what makes it such a good discussion. Lots of variables and interpretations. But in the end, it all comes down to winning the game.
We're trying to evaluate individual performances in a team sport, which itself is inherently complicated. It takes the entire team to win or lose a game, but clearly there are players who have bigger impacts on their team than others. Their individual legacies are tied to the results of their teams, so in order to really evaluate them, you have to look at both their individual performances and what the rest of their team did.
Some great players played on teams that just weren't very good and we're never able to win a championship. Dan Marino is the classic example of this.
But then you can have a guy like a Brad Johnson or a Trent Dilfer, decent quarterbacks on great teams who did just enough to help put their team over the top.
And you could also have an ok team that goes far because of the play of one player. Although my Pats didn't win, they made it all the way to the Super Bowl last season with the worst defense in the league. You can bet Brady carrying the offense was the biggest reason this happened (and Billy Cundiff, haha).
You can definitely see why this debate could go on forever.
Brady had two really good decades, no doubt and if he finishes his 30s assuming there are no major injuries/concussions, then almost anything he does bad or mediocre won't bring down his overall second decade that much. That 66.3% percent completion from 30-35 is truly amazing, and 61.9% percent ain't bad, either. That high rate of completion percentage have also racked up an amazing 41,000+ yards (more than Montana, Unitas, or Steve Young). He could reach Favre's 71,000 before age 40 but if he plays past 40, he will get that many yards, and then some, assuming his completion percentage stays strong.
There is a tendency when a player is at their peak in their early 30s to thus assume that they will waltz through the rest of the decade and play until 40. Some players have a great age 33 or 34 but then fall apart the very next year. Cumulative injuries, and just the wear and tear of pro football ends many a career before what should be their time. If Brady goes on past this year, he will only start to break more records, maybe some of his own, but if he doesn't do as well, no biggie...Just like the Yankees have an arguably less than amazing Ichiro and the Giants are eying him for next year, he may lay an egg in postseason this month and totally falter next year for 162 games, with Yankees or Giants or another team, but he can finish at age 40 with an over .300 average, guaranteed. I think Brady will close out his 30s if he lasts that long with great overall numbers and maybe a better than 61.9% percent completion average from age 30-39.
Brady can have all types of interceptions and low yards and low touchdowns from now on and his 30s will be better than most in their 20s. He's cemented a trip to HOF. His 20s has those three rings in four years which is totally amazing and can stand alone as making an argument for him as best of all time.
His 30s are more consistent than his 20s, yes, but also consistent in 0 for 2 in Super Bowls, and like some NY Giants fans say, choking in big games. I can think of a lot of things that may define his 30s, but along with Romo (in his career), the word choke comes up all the time in conversation. Even if Brady scored 40+ points in both latest SBs he played in and still lost, people would still call those a choke. Brady is expected to win when in SB, most notably because he won that contest the first three times he suited up. After many years after any SB win, and no matter what the stats were, all people will be likely to remember is that the team "won" that game.
I don't think Brady can do anything in remaining 4 years and 10 months of his 30s to really match the glory of his 20s. He had among the best years any pro QB (or any football player) in the age 21-29 range could have with three close, pressure-filled SB wins. While he got picked by the Patriots I think at age 23, imagine what may have happened had he started at QB like a few who did at age 21! From age 30-39 adds another year in that lump of time and more chances to do and achieve (assuming no injuries which can happen worse in one's 30s), but most great QBs have their best glory before 30 other than some special cases like the great John Elway (showing it's never too late to achieve your ultimate dream).
There are a lot of great records in pro football, but though it's not a stat, I think longevity in this violent sport as a starter is an amazing, if not the most amazing thing. Favre did it, and if you consider him #5 greatest and not #1, I think he will still take that honor. I think Brady can make it to 40, but that's assuming a whole lot, including injuries and the slowdown (sometimes profound) that some players run into in their 30s. I thought Aikman or Young would easily play until 40 when they were running through their 30s with such great and apparently effortless play, but getting hit in this sport, even once if hard enough, can suddenly end a career. If Brady make it this far, he may break every important record, but same could possibly be said for Peyton Manning.
Some of Favre's big numbers based on skill, and helped with longevity, may never be broken.
I do have to ask, if you were him, would you rather have the early Tom Brady experience with 61.9% and 3 rings, or the 66.3 and no rings? ... or to put it into perspective using other players, would you have rather been Doug Williams with 1 SB appearance and 1 win but otherwise so-so career or be HOF on first shot Jim Kelly with 4 SB appearances in a row and 4 SB losses but with stellar numbers throughout most of career?
Last edited:
Actually we were 31 out of 32, so second worst. The Green Bay Packers were the worst defense in the NFL.
Carry on.
Yes, I am, but I just want to add one letter (put an extra o in the word to).
lol. wel don
lol. wel don
I really could have taken my post and cut it by 80% percent. Brady, while a Pat, is still a norcal legend here and the one we root for when the Raiders or Niners don't make it. Everyone here has an opinion of him, and many say he is as good as Montana or Young ever were, or better. Could you imagine how big he would be here if the Raiders or Niners signed him?
A legend will meet another one, soon and we have to be glad for every second that they are still out there. This could be their last head to head.
http://www.denverpost.com/kiszla/ci_21693985/peyton-manning-and-tom-brady-despite-age-at
Definitely agree with everything you say here.
No doubt a first ballot hall of famer. His numbers will no doubt regress a bit as he ages, but one thing I noticed when I was looking over all of the data was how consistent he was with throwing few interceptions. He has never thrown more than 14 interceptions in a season, and 8 of 11 years as a starter he threw between 12 and 14. (The other three years were 8, 4, and a projected 4 for this season). Compare that to Brett Favre, who had 6 seasons where he threw more than 20 interceptions (29 in one year), or even Peyton Manning who had 2 seasons with over 20. Brady has always been one to take care of the football, and him and Montana are the only ones who consistently kept their interception rate below 1 per game played over the course of a season.
This is where we come back to the individual vs team argument. You had two extremely different teams that matched up really well together... the defensive oriented but well-balanced Giants and the offense-heavy with a mediocre defense Patriots. They played each other very close and both of those Super Bowls could have went either way. Let's not discount the fact that Brady and the offense had the Patriots with the lead in both of those games within the last 5 minutes, and the Patriots defense blew it by letting Eli Manning drive down the field and score a touchdown both times. One player can only do so much, in the end it comes down to the entire team being able to execute.
I think the people who try to put the "choke" label on him because of that are just bitter or just don't like the Patriots, for whatever reason. Can you really call the quarterback with the best winning percentage in the history of the league, who wins over 77% of the games he starts, and has 36 game winning drives to boot a choker? What would that mean for the rest of the players in the league then?
It would be impossibly hard for him to top the 3 SBs out of 4. But in our age of parity and free agency, there's a good chance that we'll never see that happen again. Winning back to back is hard enough. Only the future will tell though.
Ahh, but we do have a stat for this. Favre does hold the NFL record with 297 consecutive starts, which is extremely impressive. Only time will tell if Brady or Manning can play as long as Favre, but they both have a good shot at many of the records if they do play that long.
Well, the objective of playing is to win a championship, so personally I'd take the 1 ring and a good career over no rings and a stellar career.
As for Brady, what I really wish is that we could have seen the 66.3% Brady on the teams that won the Super Bowl. He's playing at a much higher level now, and you can bet if he had the 2003 defense in 2007, they would have won. Obviously, that's comparing apples to oranges, but whatever.
Great article, and it made me think of this. I didn't include Aaron Rodgers in my analysis yesterday only because he has only been a starter since 2008.
His numbers are impressive.
65.7% completion, 6.1 TD%, 1.8INT%, 3.39 TD/INT, 103.5 rating, 43-23 W-L (.651)
His career numbers are actually better than all of the other quarterbacks we discussed, but he's only done it over a span of 5 years, while most of the other guys had 10+ year careers.
But, was he even the best quarterback in the league during this span?
(2012 data is 4 games extrapolated out to a 16 game season)
2009-2012, Brady vs Rodgers:
Brady: 65.7% comp, 33 td/yr, 5.8 td%, 8.3 int/yr, 1.43 int%, 3.97 td/int
Rodgers: 67.1% comp, 33 td/yr, 6.2td%, 9 int/yr, 1.68 int%, 3.64 td/int
They are remarkably close. Rodgers has a slightly higher completion percentage and a slightly higher touchdown percentage, though they both throw on average 33 touchdowns per season. We can attribute this to New England's pass-heavy offense over the past few years, while Green Bay was a more balanced team. Over these four seasons, Brady attempted 142 more passes and had 59 more completions. The extra pass attempts bring down Brady's completion and touchdown percentages. Rodgers appears to be slightly more efficient with throwing the football, but often times an offense works better when you take a more balanced approach. It's hard to attribute this as a direct result of Rodgers play or the approach of their offense.
(It would be interesting to study completion percentages in regards to how many passes were attempted. From my observations, it seems like quarterbacks who attempt less passes usually have a higher completion percentage, but that's probably not always the case. I'd like to see numbers for it but that would be a very in depth study.)
Brady meanwhile throws on average 0.7 less interceptions per season than Rodgers, which combined with having more pass attempts, makes his interception percentage lower. So, Brady takes care of the ball a tiny bit better, but the difference is about 1 interception every 22 games. This, combined with the fact that they both average 33 touchdowns a year, puts Brady's TD/INT ratio .33 higher than Rodgers. Brady throws 3.97 touchdowns for every pick, while Rodgers throws 3.64.
Basically, Rodgers is slightly more efficient with his passes (completing a slightly higher percentage), but Brady's passes are just slightly more effective (more touchdowns per interception).
All of the above considered, I don't know if you can pick between them which one is actually better. But you do clearly have the 2 best quarterbacks in the league today right here. If I have time later, I'll do the numbers from 2009-2012 for Brees and the Manning brothers just for the sake of comparison.
There is one thing we definitely can conclude though: If Rodgers can keep up this level of play for the next 5+ years, or he takes home another championship or two with Green Bay, he definitely enters that top 5 discussion.
My apologies 63dot... see below
Definitely agree with everything you say here.
No doubt a first ballot hall of famer. His numbers will no doubt regress a bit as he ages, but one thing I noticed when I was looking over all of the data was how consistent he was with throwing few interceptions. He has never thrown more than 14 interceptions in a season, and 8 of 11 years as a starter he threw between 12 and 14. (The other three years were 8, 4, and a projected 4 for this season). Compare that to Brett Favre, who had 6 seasons where he threw more than 20 interceptions (29 in one year), or even Peyton Manning who had 2 seasons with over 20. Brady has always been one to take care of the football, and him and Montana are the only ones who consistently kept their interception rate below 1 per game played over the course of a season.
This is where we come back to the individual vs team argument. You had two extremely different teams that matched up really well together... the defensive oriented but well-balanced Giants and the offense-heavy with a mediocre defense Patriots. They played each other very close and both of those Super Bowls could have went either way. Let's not discount the fact that Brady and the offense had the Patriots with the lead in both of those games within the last 5 minutes, and the Patriots defense blew it by letting Eli Manning drive down the field and score a touchdown both times. One player can only do so much, in the end it comes down to the entire team being able to execute.
I think the people who try to put the "choke" label on him because of that are just bitter or just don't like the Patriots, for whatever reason. Can you really call the quarterback with the best winning percentage in the history of the league, who wins over 77% of the games he starts, and has 36 game winning drives to boot a choker? What would that mean for the rest of the players in the league then?
It would be impossibly hard for him to top the 3 SBs out of 4. But in our age of parity and free agency, there's a good chance that we'll never see that happen again. Winning back to back is hard enough. Only the future will tell though.
Ahh, but we do have a stat for this. Favre does hold the NFL record with 297 consecutive starts, which is extremely impressive. Only time will tell if Brady or Manning can play as long as Favre, but they both have a good shot at many of the records if they do play that long.
Well, the objective of playing is to win a championship, so personally I'd take the 1 ring and a good career over no rings and a stellar career.
As for Brady, what I really wish is that we could have seen the 66.3% Brady on the teams that won the Super Bowl. He's playing at a much higher level now, and you can bet if he had the 2003 defense in 2007, they would have won. Obviously, that's comparing apples to oranges, but whatever.
Great article, and it made me think of this. I didn't include Aaron Rodgers in my analysis yesterday only because he has only been a starter since 2008.
His numbers are impressive.
65.7% completion, 6.1 TD%, 1.8INT%, 3.39 TD/INT, 103.5 rating, 43-23 W-L (.651)
His career numbers are actually better than all of the other quarterbacks we discussed, but he's only done it over a span of 5 years, while most of the other guys had 10+ year careers.
But, was he even the best quarterback in the league during this span?
(2012 data is 4 games extrapolated out to a 16 game season)
2009-2012, Brady vs Rodgers:
Brady: 65.7% comp, 33 td/yr, 5.8 td%, 8.3 int/yr, 1.43 int%, 3.97 td/int
Rodgers: 67.1% comp, 33 td/yr, 6.2td%, 9 int/yr, 1.68 int%, 3.64 td/int
They are remarkably close. Rodgers has a slightly higher completion percentage and a slightly higher touchdown percentage, though they both throw on average 33 touchdowns per season. We can attribute this to New England's pass-heavy offense over the past few years, while Green Bay was a more balanced team. Over these four seasons, Brady attempted 142 more passes and had 59 more completions. The extra pass attempts bring down Brady's completion and touchdown percentages. Rodgers appears to be slightly more efficient with throwing the football, but often times an offense works better when you take a more balanced approach. It's hard to attribute this as a direct result of Rodgers play or the approach of their offense.
(It would be interesting to study completion percentages in regards to how many passes were attempted. From my observations, it seems like quarterbacks who attempt less passes usually have a higher completion percentage, but that's probably not always the case. I'd like to see numbers for it but that would be a very in depth study.)
Brady meanwhile throws on average 0.7 less interceptions per season than Rodgers, which combined with having more pass attempts, makes his interception percentage lower. So, Brady takes care of the ball a tiny bit better, but the difference is about 1 interception every 22 games. This, combined with the fact that they both average 33 touchdowns a year, puts Brady's TD/INT ratio .33 higher than Rodgers. Brady throws 3.97 touchdowns for every pick, while Rodgers throws 3.64.
Basically, Rodgers is slightly more efficient with his passes (completing a slightly higher percentage), but Brady's passes are just slightly more effective (more touchdowns per interception).
All of the above considered, I don't know if you can pick between them which one is actually better. But you do clearly have the 2 best quarterbacks in the league today right here. If I have time later, I'll do the numbers from 2009-2012 for Brees and the Manning brothers just for the sake of comparison.
There is one thing we definitely can conclude though: If Rodgers can keep up this level of play for the next 5+ years, or he takes home another championship or two with Green Bay, he definitely enters that top 5 discussion.
zioxide - u win!
Here we go. I also added attempts and completions per game averages just so we can get an idea of which guys throw more and which guys are on teams that run more. Also adjusted a couple of the formulas so Brady's and Rodgers' numbers will be more accurate.
2009-2012:
Code:
E. Manning: 64 games, 22/36 comp/att per game (1427/2277), 62.67 comp%, 29 td/yr, 5.05 td%, 18int/yr, 3.12 int%, 1.62 td/int, 91.4 rating
P. Manning: 48 games, 26/39 comp/att per game (1239/1862), 66.53 comp%, 33 td/yr, 5.26 td%, 15 int/yr, 2.42 int%, 2.18 td/int, 96.23 rating
D. Brees: 63 games, 27/41 comp/att per game (1719/2593), 66.29 comp%, 38 td/yr, 5.9 td%, 17 int/yr, 2.58 int%, 2.28 td/int, 99.3 rating
A. Rodgers: 62 games, 23/35 comp/att per game (1441/2142), 67.27 comp%, 33 td/yr, 6.12 td%, 9 int/yr, 1.68 int%, 3.64 td/int, 105.7 rating
T. Brady: 64 games, 23/36 comp/att per game (1500/2284), 65.67 comp%, 33 td/yr, 5.74 td%, 8 int/yr, 1.44 int%, 3.97 td/int, 103.8 ratingTake from this what you will.
A few things I noticed:
Eli is not as good as the rest of them. He has the lowest completion percentage, and between having the least touchdowns and most interceptions, he has the worst td/int ratio.
Brees throws on average 5-6 more passes per game than Brady and Rodgers, of which 2 are completed. Because of this, even though he throws more touchdowns per year than Rodgers, his percentage of passes that go for touchdown is less, meaning Rodgers is more efficient.
Aaron Rodgers throws the least amount of passes per game and has the highest completion percentage. Brees and P. Manning throw the most passes per game.
While Brees' other numbers are on par with Brady and Rodgers, he throws about as many interceptions as both Brady and Rodgers combined. This puts his td/int ratio at 2.28, just over half of Brady (3.97) and Rodgers (3.64).
The TD/INT numbers are the most intriguing, and support my argument from my earlier post that Brady and Rodgers are clearly the 2 best quarterbacks in the game today. There is a large gap between Brady (3.97) and Rodgers (3.64) and the rest: Brees (2.28), P. Manning (2.18), E. Manning (1.62). Brees and the Manning bros throw nearly twice as many interceptions per touchdown than Brady and Rodgers.
Obviously this is not scientific by any means, and there are many other things that go in to evaluating quarterbacks, but this is definitely fun and interesting to look at.
Those are great numbers, especially Brady and Rodgers. Brady, or Peyton Manning are the best for their generation, as is Rodgers leading his class of QBs.
I wish they were the same age and we could have had a great and long career rivalry and multiple super bowls against each other. While the Brady vs. Eli Manning thing happened, it's not as much fun as if it were Brady vs. Rodgers or Brees in more than one super bowl.
I wish they were the same age and we could have had a great and long career rivalry and multiple super bowls against each other. While the Brady vs. Eli Manning thing happened, it's not as much fun as if it were Brady vs. Rodgers or Brees in more than one super bowl.
Anyone know where to fine MNF online? They are carried on Westwood One but I can't find a stream.
After a long weekend I went to bed during the third quarter because I just couldn't keep my eyes open. Never fall asleep on a Manning!