While looking at QB playoff performance Football Outsiders notes that both Tom Brady and Eli Manning are among the top 3 in DYAR. To gain some perspective they compared them to the top DYAR QBs since 1995. Who is at the top of the list? You might recognize him.
(Hopefully this puts to rest the notion that Eli's older brother had a habit of choking in the playoffs. Peyton Manning's postseason numbers – 63 percent accuracy, 7.5 yards per pass, 2.6 percent interception rate – are nearly identical to his regular season performances of 65 percent accuracy, 7.6 yards per pass, and 2.7 percent interception rate.)
Brady could post the highest single-game DYAR in history in the Super Bowl and he still wouldn't catch Peyton Manning here. He's also unlikely to throw three or four interceptions and finish with negative DYAR, so he probably won't fall back behind Warner. In other words, win or lose in the Super Bowl, Brady's status amongst his peers probably won't change
I guess people have different definitions of "choking." A QB can put up good stats and then choke it away at the end of the game. The pick-6 in Superbowl 44, that was only the biggest individual choke in superbowl history. That was the biggest Int in the History of the NFL. I can't think of one Int in a more clutch moment that affected a QBs legacy more than that one. Plus the four Int game vs the Patriots, that was a huge choke. There probably have been others that I would say were chokes by Peyton in the playoffs, but that pick-6 tops them all. Hugest choke Int Ever! I think that's what we mean when we say Peyton is chokes in the playoffs.
@PeyForPlay You realize that Indy's winning percentage odds at the time of that pick were 22% right? That game was statistically almost over.
I did a piece on 10 bigger picks thrown in the Super Bowl in the last 10 years in terms of their affect on the game and actual win probability.
Had Manning thrown a TD there instead of a pick 6, the Colts were still not going to be favored to win that game. You realize that right?
@Nate Dunlevy I realize that if he had scored to fast they would've lost. some clutch qbs would be able to manage the clock and get in the redzone where either you make the saints spend timeouts or you kill most of the time and get the td. A tall order and easier said than done but doable for a truly clutch qb. Then you go to OT and take your chances with the coin toss. I'm not concerned with percentages. even if he had got the td and they lost, at least it's not a choke, which is what i'm talking about here.
As far as worse int's, there may be in terms of win % at time of the int and the swing in that sense. But there aren't any in terms of legacy at play. Manning's legacy would be better without that pick and he might be theee greatest if he wins the game. The int sealed the game for the saints, and that's a huge choke. It passes the eye test for the worse choke in one play.
looks like Peyton and Irsay are going at it in the media. nice, Peyton says Indy is not the best evironment right now, and Irsay calls him a blabber mouth politician. lol the apple doesn't fall far from the tree with Archie and Peyton.
Circular Firing Squad, keep it classy Indy
@PeyForPlay Domers aren't at that huge an advantage. You should read recent research. The stat gap isn't that big because there are actually reasonably few bad weather games each year. the Weather gap is vastly overrated, but then again anyone who has actually researched, knows that.
yes, I'm comparing Peyton to Brees, and yes it's a compliment not an insult. but my compliment puts some "context" (since you like that word so much) to your 21st century stats. domers are at a huge advantage, that's what makes brady so great. his stats may not completely measure up to Peyton's but part of that is because Peyton is a domer and Brady isn't. no surprise that Eli wins more than Peyton in the playoffs, he's not a domer either. not that that's the only reason but you gotta admit that playing the vast majority of your games indoors will result in better stats. i like how you didn't address that part of my argument when i said your researchers and critical thinkers don't take that into account, cause you know i'm right. they'll tell you it's a non factor if you ask them. Nice 21st Century research! they're running quite the operation at those websites.
@PeyForPlay If your idea of an insult is comparing a QB to Brees, then that says everything about you.
It's clearly Brees's fault they aren't in the Super Bowl. that's the most insane position ever taken.
Just...wow. Stop talking.
How is this for accurate and meaningful. Peyton is a domer just like Brees. At least Marino played outdoors and in the afc east even if he was a warm wheather qb. do your oh so smart people who do research, math and critical thinking ever account for the fact that Peyton played the vast majority of his games in a dome? i bet you they'll tell you it's a non factor, lol. ask Brees and the Saints what a difference it makes, that's why they're not in the superbowl.
@PeyForPlay Basically nothing you said is accurate or meaningful.
ok, have fun reading those people with their faulty research, skewed data, and correspondingly biased results.
I'm so glad the new century of mathmaticians have found so many formulas to make you feel better about Peyton being a losing playoff qb. I hope you're doing some critical thinking yourself so you can see that usually all these guys start out with either a flawed premise, or a biased fantasy hypothesis.
Speaking of new century, i'll give you a little nugget to chew on. Stats, are completely padded because of new rules that favor offense in the nfl. So the significance of stats is overblown, that's what makes "wins" so important. They can change the rules all they want in the nfl, but wins will never lose value, stats will and do.
@PeyForPlay Actually I'm reading people like Smartfootball, Advanced NFL stats, and the footballoutsiders.
Join the new century where people actually do research, math, and critical thinking.
and if you're watching and reading people who don't value qb wins, then you are not watching and reading anybody outside of Indiana. That should tell you something. don't you guys have satellite tv and internet yet? jk, of course about the tv joke but seriously, pitchers/qb's apples/oranges, they even consider amount of wins when they vote pitchers into the hall of fame. they don't do that for qb's but i guarantee you that some hof voters will mention playoff wins when they write about why they voted yes on Brady to the hall of fame. that's just fact. again, you are in a tiny tiny minority, that should tell you something.
@PeyForPlay No thinking person does. Pitcher wins matter to some people too, but the smart people don't take them seriously.
If you are watching, reading people who value QB wins, then you are watching and reading the wrong people.
qb wins/losses? everybody takes wins/losses by a qb seriously. Did you see how many times cbs, espn, and nfl network flaunted those career wins by Brady when he and Belichick passed Montana and Walsh for most by a tandum? they were on tv all day every day for 3 weeks. I'd say those people on espn, nfl network, and cbs sports know a little something about football, a lot of those guys even played the game. Also, did you see what a fuss was made about Brady's 16th playoff win which tied Montana? everybody is talking about it on tv. I think it matters more than you think. maybe not in Indiana, which i can understand, but outside of that state it matters plenty to people "who understand football."
@PeyForPlay It's nice that you think that.
You are wrong, and it's probably the most singularly ridiculous point of view possible.
But you are welcome to think that.
Just don't expect anyone to take you seriously.
I think wins/losses do tell you something about the QB. Besides, a lot of losing QBs have good passer ratings because they get stats during garbage time. Or they accumulate a ton of stats, and then choke it out in one final play like superbowl 44, perfect example. Peyton is great but you're right that he is a Favre Marino type great QB which is still pretty great. you're right that if you have a team and need a qb for one playoff win you can't take Peyton UNLESS it's a regular season meaningless game. lol then it's peyton all day.
Yeah, the only problem is that QB 'record' isn't a real stat. There aren't even any rules for applying wins and losses. No one who understands football takes wins and losses seriously as a measure of QBs.
It's for simpletons. A losing playoff record says literally nothing about a quarterback. It's a non-thing.
Wins and losses are a team stat, not an individual stat. Manning holds the record for most playoff losses with a passer rating over 90 and the most with a passer rating over 80. Brady holds the record for the most wins under 75. That tells you that one guy played on much much better teams than the other guy.
It tells you nothing about the QB himself.
This is just delusional. Check the post-season records of the greatest QBs from Otto Graham to Johnny U to Montana to Brady. They all have outstanding playoff records. Yet, Manning who boasts a whopping 9-10 LOSING playoff record, is the greatest QB ever? Manning = Favre = Marino = Fouts. They are great passers but rather lousy total quaterbacks. If you absolutly need to win a playoff game with a generic football team, who are picking as your QB? The guy with the losing playoff record? Please. You're all abou the "stats" right? Yet, you can't handle the stats when they go against your own theory?
@PeyForPlay Yeah, I guess I just don't care at all what most people think. I consider most people to be idiots, and generally assume that they have no idea what is going on.
I guess we can say the "truth" is irrelevant when you're trying to measure the exact size of every choke. because a choke is a choke and the pick 6 is a choke. I will give you that it may be a small choke when you put it in context, but it's a huge choke when you just see it, and the way his legacy was negatively affected by it. but let's make this a resolvable conflict. I know you're a heck of a lot closer to the truth than I am, but I'm in the vast majority and you're in a tiny minority. More people will remember him the way I do than the way you do. Maybe that can give us a resolution that we can both accept.
You can have your context, measurables, and your objectivity with your microscopic analysis. you can take all his chokes and call them tiny chokes. Most people will still look at all those "tiny chokes" and add them up to the fact that a little choke is still a choke.
Make this as scientific as you want, throw in all the numbers, stats, percentages, fractions, and variables into the equation. In the end people will still solve for X and X = choker. You might say he's a little choker, but people will say yeah, but he's a big choker when you consider how great he's supposed to be. this guy is no Tony Romo, he's Peyton, and by Romo standards he may not be a huge choker, but by Peyton standards he is.
I'm not a dumbass but I partially agree with you. We are not experts. polls aren't meant to find truth, just to find what people think. So most people think he's a choker and from our LIMITED vantage point we are right. so fair or not, that is and will be his reputation because we apply the eye test.
You are admitting that your test is not an eye test, it is a rational in depth analysis that breaks down the play to what it REALLY was. You win that. but that play may score low on your choke meter but most will score it very high. You can score all the chokes down to a 2 on a scale of 10, but most people have scored it a 7-10 with our simplistic unintelligent eye test. but i win this conflict in that people will vote and form an opinion and that vote will stand. If people vote a president in based on the simplistic eye test, he is still the president. most people vote Peyton a choker, and that will stand, simplistic or not. Your rational analysis puts you in a considerable minority. As far as legacies go, the minority has little say.
@PeyForPlay Polling people is generally a lousy way to get at the truth.
If you actually look at the numbers and analyze it rationally, it wasn't nearly the play you think it was.
I tend to consider your kind of analysis simplistic and unintelligent. I'm not saying that you are as a person, but your method of viewing football is not compelling and your opinions have no merit.
you favor emotion and subjectivity. I do not. I favor context and measurables.
I don't think this is a resolvable conflict.
The pick as a choke, if you polled people nationally, they would agree with me. because it passes the eye test for a choke. You're in the game, you float a balloon that gets picked, now your team is out of it. That's the eye test and that's a choke. I think you would be surprised what a minority you are in if you disagree with that assessment.
Your test is not an eye test, it's blood work. You can make it sound like less of a choke with 22% and all but people's eyes tell them they were in the game, he tossed a pick, and the game was over.
I'm telling you, his reputation as a playoff choker is not completely unwarranted, and i'm being nice. I would go as far as to say it's deserved. He probably has some of the best stats ever in the playoffs if I looked it up. But at certain key moments he choked, hence the reputation.
@PeyForPlay It was 5;35 when the drive started. At the point of the pick it was around 4 minutes.
"Mine is more simplified, if something looks like a choke, it is."
Yeah, see, that's assuming that your judgment is sound. Most people's ability to assess situations using their eyes is not. In this case, yours isn't.
It looks like a choke...to you. You don't get to create your own reality. You live in a world with people who have access to actual facts. They will use those facts to call into question your subjective appraisal of a situation.
The numbers say you are wrong. The numbers are much much more reliable than your eyes.
I just looked it up. the time was 5:35 when the drive started. You honestly never heard of a drive lasting five minutes? as good as addai was running, run the ball, stay in bounds, hike the ball with 5 secs or less on the clock. It's not fantasy, come on, it's totally doable now that I looked at the time.
So my point that Peyton has choked enough times that the reputation is valid is a good point. That's not fantasy.
Also i think your view of the eye test is different. Mine is more simplified, if something looks like a choke, it is. I'm sure his stats for the game and all were good. but that play was a choke, and the eye test is right. It's like looking at a girl's breasts without a bra, if they pass the eye test, they're nice breasts. Very simple. I don't have to go measure for perfect symmetry, and feel around for lumps. If they pass the eye test they're nice. You probably need her to go get a health check and a mammogram before you can say they are nice. I think your eye test is too in depth to be an eye test.
@PeyForPlay There were 4 minutes left. They were at the 35. There is no way they were going to score so slowly the Saints wouldn't have time to win.
The Indy D forced 1 THIRD down that whole half.
Your position is pure fantasy and out of line with all reason and probability.
The Saints had 3 TO and the 2 minute warning. A first down would have given Indy the ball at the 30. With around 4 minutes to play, Indy would have had put together another 7-10 plays to score without giving NO time to win the game.
Sorry, the eye test is almost always wrong.
Some people consider any playoff loss where the QB had a chance to pull it out and didn't to be considered a choke. i kind of agree with that sentiment but i'm not against narrowing the definition of "choke" to specific moments where the qb makes a really bad play or fails to make a play where it ends up costing the game. Like when Peyton couldn't score in the chargers loss in 07' after having 1st and goal in the closing minutes to win the game. He had 1st and goal and turned it over on downs, that can be considered a choke, and it is a choke.