|
|
Post by carookie on Feb 10, 2017 19:48:46 GMT -6
My point is its misleading to give any one player (or for that matter coach) an abundance of credit for their team winning a title (at least on the pro level). So to have the primary point in an argument for a player being greater than another being team success is a mistake. For certain everyone's goal is to win, but we need to look at what each given player did to contribute to the win. Arguing whether Brady or Belichick is more to blame ignore the fact that there are 50+ other players and a handful of other coaches that lead to the win. If you figure that a QB doesnt play defense or special teams, then he literally has zero impact on 55% of his team's plays. For most pro QBs they don't really run the ball, so thats 1/3 of the remaining 45% that he just takes a snap and hands it off. So only on 30% of his team's play does the QB do something post snap; but he doesnt block, doesnt pick up YAC, doesnt catch the ball, doesnt run the route. So even if we give him 1/3 of the credit on the passing play (with the other 2/3 going to the OL and receivers) that means during the game he only contributed 10% to his team's play. Now, does the QB make audibles & checks at the line, absolutely; but even at most that can only change offensive plays and can't impact the game more than what he does post snap. Still, we'll say that increases his overall impact by 25% (which pushes his overall impact to 12.5%) Lastly, we can add in all the esoteric stuff (he's a good leader, he's good in the locker room, he's a hard worker, he motivates his teammates). In the end, there is no way, no matter how hard he works, that he is going to make everyone better by a significant margin (sorry, Tom Brady's work ethic did not turn the Patriots D into a top 10 D). Still, just for fun we'll give a really good leader bump on their impact and add another 2.5%. That means, at most, Tom Brady's overall impact on his team's ability to win is only 15% of the total outcome (relative to all the other players on the team, not counting coaches). Now for certain as a QB he wields greater impact on the game than any other individual player on the roster. But in the end his impact is far dwarfed by all others on the roster combined. Thus, to base an argument that he is better than another all time great QB primarily on team success is faulty. |
|
|
|
Post by jg78 on Feb 11, 2017 4:44:36 GMT -6
How Brady and Belichick would have fared without each other would make for some very interesting alternative history. Not just in Brady's case but Belichick's too. Obviously Belichick's a great one, but his record as a HC prior to Brady is not exactly spectacular. I think they're both very lucky to have each other.
In the Brady vs. Manning debate, Brady obviously has the edge on rings and probably will surpass several of Manning's key passing records too. No doubt his career has been better. But on the flip side, you can say two things for Manning that you can't say for Brady: 1) he won a Super Bowl with two different franchises (and made it there with three different coaches) and 2) his teams fell apart without him when he left or was injured. Now I'm not saying that Brady couldn't be successful with other teams or coaches, but he hasn't had to. Also, NE has managed to keep the car on the road without Brady when he was injured or suspended. The Pats began this year 3-1 with two QB's who'd never started a game before and only had a combined 20 pass attempts entering the season.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2017 0:18:01 GMT -6
It would be interesting if you could have reversed the situations and put Manning on the Patriots and Brady on the Colts during those same stretches of their careers.
IMO, Manning on those Patriots teams would have likely came away with just as many rings as Brady, if not more.
Brady pretty much always had the better overall team around him. There were fewer standout individuals relative to Manning's Colts' teams, but the Patriots defenses were better, special teams were better, and they had possibly the best coach and front office in league history.
The Colts were always more about individual star power and flash, with a front office that seemed to treat roster building the same way an 8 year old would approach a franchise in Madden. Only in Denver did a past-his-prime Manning get the level of organizational competence around him that Brady had for his entire career--he promptly took them to 2 Superbowls in 3 years with a ring to show for it.
As for which one would I pick? Both are great. You might as well flip a coin. I'd probably lean toward Manning, simply because I get tired of seeing Brady's pretty boy face, but I also think there were times in his career where Manning's ego actually hurt his team--can't really say that about Brady.
|
|
jaydub66
Sophomore Member
Varsity D-Line Coach
Posts: 223 
|
Post by jaydub66 on Feb 13, 2017 0:48:19 GMT -6
There is a book on the Brady/Belichick relationship where Brady is subservient to the coaching staff. He wants to be coached rather than see himself as a coach. Which he is still having his input but he isn't controlling the operation. The culture of the team is built around putting in work to be the best version of the player you can be.
Manning, from my point of view, saw himself as a coach because of what he demanded from his teammates and how his coaches talked about their relationship. Telling WRs to stay late rather than encouraging them. Opposite of the Patriots culture, where players do the extra things because it's expected.
Not to mention their throwing motions. Brady's throws cut through the air, downward angle, and torque with his body generates catchable, accurate, faster balls. Manning's throws were accurate but it's almost like a free throw where he is rolling it off the fingers. There has been much made about his winning % in 40 degree or colder games, but the stats with him playing in windy games is more telling where he has like a 20% drop in completion and I think Brady's is like a 5% drop.
I feel like Manning's proclivity to do one thing hurt him, "I control the offense, I run the calls, me me me" it's just too much for one guys. You see it with Phillip Rivers late in his career where all he does is call stuff from the line. Brady balances it out.
They're both really good, saying you like one doesn't mean the other sucks. If you're drafting them, you take Manning because Brady didn't look like an NFL qb coming out of college. Manning looked like a QB coming out of High School.
|
|
