NFC Championship: #5 New York Giants (12-6) @ #2 Green Bay Packers (14-3)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Jan 22 2008, 12:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jan 22 2008, 12:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Jan 22 2008, 12:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jan 22 2008, 12:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Jan 22 2008, 12:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thrilla @ Jan 22 2008, 12:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Wow, Peyton Manning and Jake Delhomme are better postseason QBs than Tom Brady, I've heard it all now.</div>

LOL.

The only player in the conversation is Joe Montana. Period.

However, that doesn't count for anything on February 3rd. The team that plays better will win no matter what Brady has done in the past.
</div>

Thrilla generalized my entire post, what point did he make?

He is living off of reputations, I actually provided some legitimate information.

The point is that not only are the playoffs a small sample size of information, brady's stats are not impressive. There are many people in his league in the post-season. his defense has kept him in games and that is inarguable.

Of course I would not take Delhomme over Brady, but you lost sight of context since that was never what I said.
</div>

I realize football is a team game and that a quarterback can't win a game by himself.

There are so many variables in football that skew stats. It's a unique sport that way.

Brady has come up huge in so many big spots. It's not necessary to haul out a bunch of data to know how incredible he's been in the postseason.
</div>

There is no doubt Brady is good in the playoffs, but that wasn't my point. Peyton and Delhomme have overall comparable performances and this is easily proved.

Brady has had good post-season comebacks (2-4 was it?), but his stats are a bit less impressive then you think, that was the whole point. Playing well in the first, second, and third quarter counts just as much.
</div>

No it does not.

If you suck the whole game and your teammates pick you up and give you a chance to win in the fourth quarter and you come through, that is what being a great quarterback is all about.

Your definition of "comparable performances" is unclear. Whatever it is, I doubt I agree with it.
</div>

If you suck the whole game, you only get a chance to win if your defense is good. That's not hard to understand.

I'll make it simple, Brady's Yards Per Pass is below average, and this is the single most important stat for QBs. This is determined by winning correlation.

Even if Brady is considered better in the playoffs than X QB, it cannot be by much since his overall performance is just somewhat above average and we have established that a defense saves one's ass (Brady against SD on Sunday).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jan 22 2008, 12:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Back to the Giants: What do you people think of Jeremy Shockey's impact on the team? I've heard some bad stuff being said about him recently.</div>
I've heard some of that and, for the most part, I think its unfair and short sighted. It is a bit of a coincidence that Eli and the offense has really taken it to another level since the Shockey injury, but it also coincides with when the Giants running game started to become a force (O-line started playing like it did early in the season and the coaches finally began using Ahmad Bradshaw). I think this team is still winning in spite of Shockey's absence. Kevin Boss has shown a lot of talent and Eli seems to trust the rook a lot, but there are still quite a few plays where Boss can't get separation from his man and provide an opportunity for Eli. Those are situations where Shockey would consistently get open (to the point where opponents sometimes doubled him more than Plax). And that's not even mentioning Shockey's blocking. Out of the premiere receiving tight ends in the league, I consider Shockey to be arguably the best blocker. Jacobs was able to turn the corner and get outside a lot more often when he was covering the end.

That said, I hope this run puts Shockey in his place. He's one of my favourite players and all, but he shoots his mouth too often and becomes a distraction at times. Part of that is because the Giants have yet to bring in a coordinator who uses him properly, ever since they fired Fassell. But it's still counterproductive and I think it made Eli's early seasons as a starting QB pretty difficult. Hopefully he comes back with a good attitude.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jan 22 2008, 12:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If you suck the whole game, you only get a chance to win if your defense is good. That's not hard to understand.</div>

Or your special teams. Or your RBs. Or your O-Line. Or the refs. Or the other team sucks even more than you. Or your coach. Or one of about a million other possibilities.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Jan 22 2008, 01:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jan 22 2008, 12:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If you suck the whole game, you only get a chance to win if your defense is good. That's not hard to understand.</div>

Or your special teams. Or your RBs. Or your O-Line. Or the refs. Or the other team sucks even more than you. Or your coach. Or one of about a million other possibilities.
</div>

Ok.... Yeah so the QB winning a lot can be very arbitrary. I am comfortable with what I have said, I don't care to repeat myself or anything like that so I am done.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jan 22 2008, 01:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jan 22 2008, 12:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Back to the Giants: What do you people think of Jeremy Shockey's impact on the team? I've heard some bad stuff being said about him recently.</div>
I've heard some of that and, for the most part, I think its unfair and short sighted. It is a bit of a coincidence that Eli and the offense has really taken it to another level since the Shockey injury, but it also coincides with when the Giants running game started to become a force (O-line started playing like it did early in the season and the coaches finally began using Ahmad Bradshaw). I think this team is still winning in spite of Shockey's absence. Kevin Boss has shown a lot of talent and Eli seems to trust the rook a lot, but there are still quite a few plays where Boss can't get separation from his man and provide an opportunity for Eli. Those are situations where Shockey would consistently get open (to the point where opponents sometimes doubled him more than Plax). And that's not even mentioning Shockey's blocking. Out of the premiere receiving tight ends in the league, I consider Shockey to be arguably the best blocker. Jacobs was able to turn the corner and get outside a lot more often when he was covering the end.

That said, I hope this run puts Shockey in his place. He's one of my favourite players and all, but he shoots his mouth too often and becomes a distraction at times. Part of that is because the Giants have yet to bring in a coordinator who uses him properly, ever since they fired Fassell. But it's still counterproductive and I think it made Eli's early seasons as a starting QB pretty difficult. Hopefully he comes back with a good attitude.
</div>

Yep that's exactly it Chutney.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jan 22 2008, 01:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Jan 22 2008, 01:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jan 22 2008, 12:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If you suck the whole game, you only get a chance to win if your defense is good. That's not hard to understand.</div>

Or your special teams. Or your RBs. Or your O-Line. Or the refs. Or the other team sucks even more than you. Or your coach. Or one of about a million other possibilities.
</div>

Ok.... Yeah so the QB winning a lot can be very arbitrary.
</div>

That's the exact opposite of the point I'm trying to make.

There's nothing arbitrary about it. Great QBs win consistently over time because they are great.

It's not fate, circumstances or coincidence.

How many players remain on the NE offense from Brady's first Super Bowl team?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Jan 22 2008, 01:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jan 22 2008, 01:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Jan 22 2008, 01:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jan 22 2008, 12:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If you suck the whole game, you only get a chance to win if your defense is good. That's not hard to understand.</div>

Or your special teams. Or your RBs. Or your O-Line. Or the refs. Or the other team sucks even more than you. Or your coach. Or one of about a million other possibilities.
</div>

Ok.... Yeah so the QB winning a lot can be very arbitrary.
</div>

That's the exact opposite of the point I'm trying to make.

There's nothing arbitrary about it. Great QBs win consistently over time because they are great.

It's not fate, circumstances or coincidence.

How many players remain on the NE offense from Brady's first Super Bowl team?
</div>

How old was Brady though?

Did he play well in that Superbowl? No he got that GW drive because the NE defense held the Rams off. You forget some things and no one is saying Brady is not overall a great QB (regular + post-season). Great QBs get too much credit and blame all the time though.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jan 22 2008, 01:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Jan 22 2008, 01:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jan 22 2008, 01:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Jan 22 2008, 01:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jan 22 2008, 12:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If you suck the whole game, you only get a chance to win if your defense is good. That's not hard to understand.</div>

Or your special teams. Or your RBs. Or your O-Line. Or the refs. Or the other team sucks even more than you. Or your coach. Or one of about a million other possibilities.
</div>

Ok.... Yeah so the QB winning a lot can be very arbitrary.
</div>

That's the exact opposite of the point I'm trying to make.

There's nothing arbitrary about it. Great QBs win consistently over time because they are great.

It's not fate, circumstances or coincidence.

How many players remain on the NE offense from Brady's first Super Bowl team?
</div>

How old was Brady though? You forget some things and no one is saying Brady is not overall a great QB. Great QBs get too much credit and blame all the time though.

</div>

There is some merit to that, but QB is the hardest position to win in spite of.

It makes things much, much easer on the whole team when your QB sees the game slowly and really understands how to maximize your offensive talent.

He's the guy touching the ball on every play, making the pre-snap reads, adjusting, orchestrating and excecuting the offense.

If everyone has confidence in him the whole team plays infinitely better.

 

<div><object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/t;object width=&"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/t;object width=&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350" /></embed></object></div>
I dont know why it aint working, here is the link tho
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMekYaKreZ0

 

You're talking about Brady and the defense like he was Trent Dilfer riding the coattails of the Ravens defense. Saying Brady is an average post season QB is simply beyond stupid and I don't care what numbers you have to make that argument. I realize that Tom Brady wasn't winning these games with a bunch of high schoolers for teammates, so he certainly was not doing it by himself. However, he still lead these game winning drives with his passing. You can make a feeble attempt to discredit them by saying that they only lead to field goals, but you'll look foolish.

Who is better, Dan Marino or Joe Montana? Stats say Dan Marino, everyone else says Joe Montana. Why? Its about the wins.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (agoo101284 @ Jan 22 2008, 08:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You're talking about Brady and the defense like he was Trent Dilfer riding the coattails of the Ravens defense. Saying Brady is an average post season QB is simply beyond stupid</div>

Well that is what happened the first Superbowl Run. In the other two, The Pats had an elite defense, not offense.

I said he's an average post-season quarterback? Pay closer attention to my posts. He's above average, but not to a God-like extent the way some would think and I supported these claims with an intelligent analysis. His poor Yards per pass drags down the rest of his stats, which is why he's doesn't have better stats in the playoffs than Peyton.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>and I don't care what numbers you have to make that argument. I realize that Tom Brady wasn't winning these games with a bunch of high schoolers for teammates, so he certainly was not doing it by himself. However, he still lead these game winning drives with his passing. You can make a feeble attempt to discredit them by saying that they only lead to field goals, but you'll look foolish.

Who is better, Dan Marino or Joe Montana? Stats say Dan Marino, everyone else says Joe Montana. Why? Its about the wins.</div>

First off, Brady doesn't have Joe Montana's stats in the playoffs, and he's not Joe Montana. Peyton doesn't have Marino's stats and he has better stats in the playoffs.

I don't have to discredit any of his comebacks, they were nice, but even Peyton has the same type of comebacks. I said he's one of the best, but that's it. No one can prove he's the best and there is little evidence to support that. I like Kobe Bryant but I'm not going to say he's the best closer in the NBA right now, because the stats are not close to supporting that.

You know exactly what I said about Brady because I made a long post retorting all your points in a very patient fashion. If you're too lazy to retort that post then just don't bother me.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Jan 22 2008, 02:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jan 22 2008, 01:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Jan 22 2008, 01:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jan 22 2008, 01:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Jan 22 2008, 01:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jan 22 2008, 12:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If you suck the whole game, you only get a chance to win if your defense is good. That's not hard to understand.</div>

Or your special teams. Or your RBs. Or your O-Line. Or the refs. Or the other team sucks even more than you. Or your coach. Or one of about a million other possibilities.
</div>

Ok.... Yeah so the QB winning a lot can be very arbitrary.
</div>

That's the exact opposite of the point I'm trying to make.

There's nothing arbitrary about it. Great QBs win consistently over time because they are great.

It's not fate, circumstances or coincidence.

How many players remain on the NE offense from Brady's first Super Bowl team?
</div>

How old was Brady though? You forget some things and no one is saying Brady is not overall a great QB. Great QBs get too much credit and blame all the time though.

</div>

There is some merit to that, but QB is the hardest position to win in spite of.

It makes things much, much easer on the whole team when your QB sees the game slowly and really understands how to maximize your offensive talent.

He's the guy touching the ball on every play, making the pre-snap reads, adjusting, orchestrating and excecuting the offense.

If everyone has confidence in him the whole team plays infinitely better.
</div>

"Orchestrating" is kind of a vague term though. Brady calls pass protection plays at the line, Manning calls the most plays at the line right on the spot, which is why he loves the hand gestures. Just trying to be accurate.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jan 22 2008, 12:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If you suck the whole game, you only get a chance to win if your defense is good. That's not hard to understand.</div>

That's not true. You can suck the whole game, but make one play at the end that seals a game for your team. Your defense can be mediocre, as long as your offense keeps pace on the scoreboard. If it's a close game late, one play can make the difference, as we have seen time and time again.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jan 22 2008, 12:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'll make it simple, Brady's Yards Per Pass is below average, and this is the single most important stat for QBs. This is determined by winning correlation.</div>

No, that is not really true either. Your yards per pass may be inflated due to your offense always having 3rd and very long each set of downs. A guy could throw 20 or so 14-yard passes in one game. That becomes kind of worthless when you needed to hit a receiver with a 15-yard pass to actually convert the first down. You can be an elite quarterback, and also rely on a great ground attack. You can run the ball with 2 RB's the entire game, run down the clock, pound the opponent into oblivion, and still win the game. If Brady throws only 5 passes the entire game, but they were only 5 yard passes to the endzone, his yards per pass would not be very good. Then again, he would have thrown 5 touchdown passes, which looks very good in the end.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jan 22 2008, 03:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>First off, Brady doesn't have Joe Montana's stats in the playoffs, and he's not Joe Montana. Peyton doesn't have Marino's stats and he has better stats in the playoffs.</div>

LOL, he was using those guys as an analogy when he brought them up for comparison. Of course Brady and Peyton's stats are not identical. Recognise when analogies are being used, and don't take them literally. That will demonstrate intelligent comprehension on your part.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jan 22 2008, 03:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I don't have to discredit any of his comebacks, they were nice, but even Peyton has the same type of comebacks. I said he's one of the best, but that's it. No one can prove he's the best and there is little evidence to support that. I like Kobe Bryant but I'm not going to say he's the best closer in the NBA right now, because the stats are not close to supporting that.

"Orchestrating" is kind of a vague term though. Brady calls pass protection plays at the line, Manning calls the most plays at the line right on the spot, which is why he loves the hand gestures. Just trying to be accurate.</div>

The point was who is better, not who does this or that thing better. Comebacks are just one of many things that go into how highly someone is regarded. Kobe Bryant is the best player in the NBA, and it matters very little what his "closing" history is.


LOL, why even bother commenting on the word "orchestrating"? Everyone else in the room knew what he's talking about, what's your problem? He even added more detail within the same sentence. Looks like you only saw the word "orchestrating" and ignored the rest.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jan 22 2008, 06:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>LOL, he was using those guys as an analogy when he brought them up for comparison. Of course Brady and Peyton's stats are not identical. Recognise when analogies are being used, and don't take them literally. That will demonstrate intelligent comprehension on your part.</div>

I knew exactly what he was saying, unlike you I don't accept any vague analogy.

Joe Montana has better stats, more rings, *everything*, over Dan Marino. He even has the second most efficient year per pass in the NFL, after Peyton's 2004 season .

To recognize that stupid analogy would be to generalize both Brady's and Peyton's careers. Brady has more rings than Peyton, but not better stats in the post-season (Adjusted Yards per pass).


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The point was who is better, not who does this or that thing better. Comebacks are just one of many things that go into how highly someone is regarded. Kobe Bryant is the best player in the NBA, and it matters very little what his "closing" history is.</div>

Uh yes I know, your point is what exactly? When did I imply comebacks were everything? Brady's good in the post-season, ok, I know.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>LOL, why even bother commenting on the word "orchestrating"? Everyone else in the room knew what he's talking about, what's your problem? He even added more detail within the same sentence. Looks like you only saw the word "orchestrating" and ignored the rest.</div>

What the hell are you so upset about?

Hmm i don't see what the big deal is in clarifying that, superfluous or not.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>No, that is not really true either. Your yards per pass may be inflated due to your offense always having 3rd and very long each set of downs. A guy could throw 20 or so 14-yard passes in one game. That becomes kind of worthless when you needed to hit a receiver with a 15-yard pass to actually convert the first down. You can be an elite quarterback, and also rely on a great ground attack. You can run the ball with 2 RB's the entire game, run down the clock, pound the opponent into oblivion, and still win the game. If Brady throws only 5 passes the entire game, but they were only 5 yard passes to the endzone, his yards per pass would not be very good. Then again, he would have thrown 5 touchdown passes, which looks very good in the end.</div>

If you can convert a 3rd and 20, how is that inflating your stats? Yards per pass is EXTREMELY difficult to inflate. Your example of throwing 20 14 yard passes on fourth down is extremely unlikely, and winning correlates the most with Yards per pass, more than any stat.

It's easy to inflate TD passes though, and your five TD example is a perfect example. Many of Brady's and Peyton's TDs are short passes, that's why empirical emphasis should be put on Interceptions and Yards per pass.

Either way, Adjusted Yards per pass takes everything into account and is a solid rating system. If I throw a one yard TD, that is an 11 yard pass based on average TD value, so that would not hurt one's Yards per pass. In fact, QB rating rewards stat padding on those short passes too much.