Brees vs Manning

[C0LTSFAN4L1F3]

3 hours ago, Breesus mode said:

That's exactly why you can't, and lol at calling him the better player.

And yeah, no kidding, there are a QBS I have over Brees. (I have him #5 or 6 all time).

Just because they are in different eras doesnt mean they are simply dismissed from the GOAT conversation. All of it means is that you can't make a one-to-one comparison of their numbers without considering other factors/context. Still, Unitas was simply a far more dominant player than Brees was during their particular eras. 

[Breesus mode]

17 minutes ago, C0LTSFAN4L1F3 said:

Just because they are in different eras doesnt mean they are simply dismissed from the GOAT conversation. All of it means is that you can't make a one-to-one comparison of their numbers without considering other factors/context. Still, Unitas was simply a far more dominant player than Brees was during their particular eras. 

Yes, yes they are if the differences in eras is as vast as the ones Brees and Unitas played in. The difference is so vast you can't directly compare them. He dominated a completely different game

[Raves]

I wonder if people realize that MVP and All Pro voting is just as much a popularity contest as it is about a player having a legit season.  There is a reason why the Manning MVP flow chart meme exists as that was pretty much how the voters cast their ballots for years.

[C0LTSFAN4L1F3]

39 minutes ago, Breesus mode said:

Yes, yes they are if the differences in eras is as vast as the ones Brees and Unitas played in. The difference is so vast you can't directly compare them. He dominated a completely different game

Yeah, he dominated the game more than Brees did by all possible avenues of comparison. He had 5 FT All-Pro selections, 3 MVPs, 3x Y/A leader, 4x TD% leader, 3x passer rating leader, and had multiple championships. Brees can't say the same in any of these regards. 

[C0LTSFAN4L1F3]

8 minutes ago, Raves said:

I wonder if people realize that MVP and All Pro voting is just as much a popularity contest as it is about a player having a legit season.  There is a reason why the Manning MVP flow chart meme exists as that was pretty much how the voters cast their ballots for years.

It's not even remotely a popularity contest. The flow chart meme exists for no good reason. 

You're just trying to discredit it knowing that Brees doesn't excel in the area. He was only recognized by the respected Associated Press as the best player at his position, ONE time in his entire career. That's not encouraging especially when you lack playoff accolades to make up for it. 

[Raves]

32 minutes ago, C0LTSFAN4L1F3 said:

It's not even remotely a popularity contest. The flow chart meme exists for no good reason. 

You're just trying to discredit it knowing that Brees doesn't excel in the area. He was only recognized by the respected Associated Press as the best player at his position, ONE time in his entire career. That's not encouraging especially when you lack playoff accolades to make up for it. 

Of course being crowned the next John Elway or whoever it was back in 1998, leading a big market team with a history back to glory, being the son of an NFL QB and the #1 overall pick during a year where it was considered a debate on which QB you would take didn't have any part in building the Manning legend or in the Associated Press deciding who the best player at their positions were.  Manning was obviously great, but to say that some of his accomplishments weren't due to his name recognition when other players had just as good or better case is foolish.  Just like Brady will always have the "6th round pick to HOFer, wasn't even expected to play" tacked on.  Doesn't matter that besides being a great QB Brady also was part of the best run team in the NFL and never had anything worse than I think it was 17th defense in PPG his entire career.

For Manning he only had a defense ranked lower than 20th 4 times in PPG, 2010 and 2006 both ranked #23, both times he made the playoffs, and then 2001(31st) and 1998 (29th Rookie Season), both times he missed the playoffs.

Brees has had a defense ranked 25th or lower 6 times while in New Orleans, each time they missed the playoffs.  Their offensive ranks in PPG those years were, 2, 8, 9, 3, 1, and 12th... It's not like Brees and the offense weren't holding up their end of the bargain... 

Also playoff accolades, Brees has always performed well in the playoffs.  For his career he's completed 65.9% of his passes, 5.4 TD%, 1.7 INT% 11.9 Y/C, with a 100.7 QB Rating.

Manning in comparison: 63.2% Comp, 3.9 TD% 2.4 INT %, 11.3 Y/C, with an 87.4 QB Rating.  If you want to use just Indy that's still a 63.1% Comp, 4 TD%, 2.6 INT%, 11.9 Y/C, and a 88.4 QB Rating.

Brady- 62.8 Comp%, 4.8 TD%, 2.1 INT%, 11.1 Y/C, 90.9 QB Rating.

I'm not using raw TD, Int, Yardage numbers as those will favor the player with the most playoff games so I'm just using the % numbers.

[Breesus mode]

48 minutes ago, C0LTSFAN4L1F3 said:

Yeah, he dominated the game more than Brees did by all possible avenues of comparison. He had 5 FT All-Pro selections, 3 MVPs, 3x Y/A leader, 4x TD% leader, 3x passer rating leader, and had multiple championships. Brees can't say the same in any of these regards. 

In a completely different game, so there is no point in comparing the two.

[Asciimo]

2 minutes ago, Breesus mode said:

In a completely different game, so there is no point in comparing the two.

you're right. it was much harder to pass back when defenses could play ball. what unitas did is more impressive.

[C0LTSFAN4L1F3]

7 minutes ago, Breesus mode said:

In a completely different game, so there is no point in comparing the two.

The fact that it is a different game doesn't matter whatsoever. You simply take into account the difference in the landscape of the league and the game itself when you make the comparison. 

You're just trying to artificially rank Brees higher by dismissing anybody who played before some arbitrary time frame. 

[AK41]

Why are y’all still entertaining this clown?

[C0LTSFAN4L1F3]

47 minutes ago, Raves said:

Of course being crowned the next John Elway or whoever it was back in 1998, leading a big market team with a history back to glory, being the son of an NFL QB and the #1 overall pick during a year where it was considered a debate on which QB you would take didn't have any part in building the Manning legend or in the Associated Press deciding who the best player at their positions were.  Manning was obviously great, but to say that some of his accomplishments weren't due to his name recognition when other players had just as good or better case is foolish.  Just like Brady will always have the "6th round pick to HOFer, wasn't even expected to play" tacked on.  Doesn't matter that besides being a great QB Brady also was part of the best run team in the NFL and never had anything worse than I think it was 17th defense in PPG his entire career.

I don't care to speculate about possible biases based on nothing but conjecture. This is just a cheap way to downplay the fact that Brees was literally only named the best player at his position once in his career by the most respected organization that does it. 

 

47 minutes ago, Raves said:

For Manning he only had a defense ranked lower than 20th 4 times in PPG, 2010 and 2006 both ranked #23, both times he made the playoffs, and then 2001(31st) and 1998 (29th Rookie Season), both times he missed the playoffs.

Brees has had a defense ranked 25th or lower 6 times while in New Orleans, each time they missed the playoffs.  Their offensive ranks in PPG those years were, 2, 8, 9, 3, 1, and 12th... It's not like Brees and the offense weren't holding up their end of the bargain... 

Disregarding the fact that is inherently flawed because it doesn't take into account the pace of the game and tries to compare games with completely different flow, I'm not sure what exactly this is supposed to disprove. 

[C0LTSFAN4L1F3]

3 minutes ago, AK41 said:

Why are y’all still entertaining this clown?

Yeah, I'm a clown because I disagreed with you about your precious Brees.

How dare I say that players with superior career accomplishments are better than Drew Brees!!! 

[Raves]

1 hour ago, C0LTSFAN4L1F3 said:

I don't care to speculate about possible biases based on nothing but conjecture. This is just a cheap way to downplay the fact that Brees was literally only named the best player at his position once in his career by the most respected organization that does it. 

 

Disregarding the fact that is inherently flawed because it doesn't take into account the pace of the game and tries to compare games with completely different flow, I'm not sure what exactly this is supposed to disprove. 

It's not flawed, it just destroys your argument.

[C0LTSFAN4L1F3]

28 minutes ago, Raves said:

It's not flawed, it just destroys your argument.

It doesn't even address a single thing I said, so it sure as hell doesn't destroy my argument.

It is immensely flawed.  Watching the Broncos vs Colts game several years back, the Broncos offense was playing very poorly with a slew of miscues and mistakes that were related to their loss, but if you're irrational and strictly use PPG, then the 33 points would look like a very good performance. People saw the game and thought the Broncos offense looked like ****. Why? Because they were. They had 17 possessions and scored 33 pts which amounts to a very average performance. the 17 possessions included 8 punts, an interception and a 2 fumbles. Then in the playoffs, they scored 26 pts against the Pats and at face value that would look like a lesser performance, but they literally scored on 6 out of their first 7 possessions, before running out the clock on their 8th possession. 

So unless you think every drive ending in a score other than one punt is worse than having 8 punts, 2 fumbles and an interception, then I think the stat is incredibly flawed. (I would imagine you dont think 1 punt<8 punts, 2 FMB, 1 INT) 

But if you do think that this 33 pt performance is better than the 26 pt performance, then I think we are done with this conversation. 

[Raves]

7 hours ago, C0LTSFAN4L1F3 said:

It doesn't even address a single thing I said, so it sure as hell doesn't destroy my argument.

It is immensely flawed.  Watching the Broncos vs Colts game several years back, the Broncos offense was playing very poorly with a slew of miscues and mistakes that were related to their loss, but if you're irrational and strictly use PPG, then the 33 points would look like a very good performance. People saw the game and thought the Broncos offense looked like ****. Why? Because they were. They had 17 possessions and scored 33 pts which amounts to a very average performance. the 17 possessions included 8 punts, an interception and a 2 fumbles. Then in the playoffs, they scored 26 pts against the Pats and at face value that would look like a lesser performance, but they literally scored on 6 out of their first 7 possessions, before running out the clock on their 8th possession. 

So unless you think every drive ending in a score other than one punt is worse than having 8 punts, 2 fumbles and an interception, then I think the stat is incredibly flawed. (I would imagine you dont think 1 punt<8 punts, 2 FMB, 1 INT) 

But if you do think that this 33 pt performance is better than the 26 pt performance, then I think we are done with this conversation. 

Well if you would like stats based on points per drive success.

2016 - 2.65 PPD 2nd

2015 - 2.24 PPD 6th

2014 - 2.35 PPD 5th

2012 - 2.35 PPD 4th

2008 - 2.54 PPD 1st

2007 - 1.92 PPD 11th

So that is points per offensive drive and their ranking in comparison to the rest of the NFL.  Does that better illustrate that in the years that the Saints had a bad defense that the offense did their jobs?