Championships Define Greatness; An NFL Quarterback Fallacy

Oct. 14, 2016

How many times have you heard; "How many rings did Dan Marino have?" or "Montana was 4 for 4, Brady can never compete with Perfection." or "Brady is a winner and Manning is a choker." These are 3 general fallacies that are repeated over and over in the world of NFL analysis. The truth is Championships MEAN ALMOST NOTHING!!!. I know, most people will stop reading right about now. But maybe I should rephrase that...Championships SHOULD MEAN ALMOST NOTHING!!! Still not satisfied? Give me a chance to convince you. A while back I posted Championships do NOT matter; Unless you are a Quarterback or NBA Superstar. That article explained the General Accepted "Championships Matter" debate and how the General Accepted truths about when "championships" are linked to legacy and when they are not. This post is tackling another dimension; Should they matter. In this post, I am arguing that Championships should not matter.

1. The NFL more than any other sport is a true "Team" game. Yes there are positions that tend to be more "important" than others, but in general, you need to be "firing on all cylinders" to win. So pinning "championships" on the legacy of a single player is absurd. For example, a quarterback (the ones that usually get dinged on the "Championship" importance debate), can affect about 50% of the game; give or take, depending on game plan, game flow, scoring, etc. What about the other side of the ball? What if you pair a generational QB (lets call him "Brees") with a suspect defense the majority of his career? He may win some, but not as much as others. What would happen if you put an elite QB (lets call him "Luck") with a horrendous offensive line? maybe he wins a couple games on sheer talent (which he does), but no championships will come out of that. What if your kicker misses the game winning field goal (Jim Kelly and the Bills anyone?). What if your coach calls a pass play on 1st and goal at the 1 yard line with a chance to win the Superbowl (Sorry fellow Seahawk fans). What if a no named WR makes a fingertip catch against his helmet (David Tyree, wait who? oh yah that guy)? How can you pin all that on the greatness of a quarterback. In Basketball 1 player can score (like WR), Pass (like QB), Dribble (like RB), Rebound (like a TE or FS), Set a Screen (like OFF LINE), On Ball Defend (like CB), Block a shot on Help (like Line Backer), take a charge (like DEF LINE), etc. etc (e.i. Lebron James leading both NBA Finals teams in Points, Rebounds, Assist, Blocks, and Steals...and winning a championship). As good as Peyton Manning was, he could never do that on a football field.

2. You CAN NOT win without a great quarterback is a generally accurate statement (with few exceptions guided by all time type defenses i.e. 2002 Tampa Bay or 2000 Ravens, or other circumstances like injuries or miraculous plays). But just because generally you can not win without a great qb does not mean the inverse is true in that "only if you win a championship can you be great" (Dan Marino being the best example). Is Eli Manning "Great" because Elisha (yes that's his real name) and David Tyree combined to make the luckiest play in NFL History to save the Superbowl game winning drive? Is Jim Kelly a bum because his kicker missed the game winning field goal? Dwight Clark's finger tip catch was a perfect throw by Montana but the perfect catch by Clark as well. Montana was only 50% of that play's success. The examples are endless and my point is that Championships are a byproduct of greatness. That's why "MOST" of the all time great quarterbacks have them, but it doesn't mean the ones that don't are not great.

3. What says more about a quarterback? A) Having the best defense and not winning the Superbowl or B) Having a terrible defense and winning a Superbowl. A) is suppose to win. B) is not. It's the Phil Jackson discussion (sorry to switch sports), Phil Jackson won 11 championships, and lost in the Finals 2x. He was the Favorite in all 11 Championships he won, if not a heavy favorite (Jordan Pippen Grant / Jordan Pippen Rodman / Shaq Kobe / Kobe Pau). He was also heavy favorite in a loss vs.the Pistons in 2004. And was favored in 2008 when he lost to the Celtics. Does it say more about him that he won 11 rings that he was suppose to win? or that he lost 2 rings he was suppose to win. Well the same analysis can be done in football too. Tom Brady has been to 6 Superbowls. His Defenses rank those years? 6 (W), 2 (W), 1 (W), 4 (L), 15 (L), 9 (W). What nobody dings him for is the 7 other times he had a top 10 Defense and did not even make the Superbowl. Joe Montana has been to and won 4 Superbowls. His Defenses those years? 2 (W), 1 (W), 8 (W), 3 (W). However shouldn't the Greatest QB of all time have made the Superbowl the 5 other times that he had a top 5 defense and did not make it to the Superbowl (and 1 more 7th ranked). Dan Marino made it to 1 Superbowl (with a 7th ranked defense in his 2nd year). The years that followed his defenses were ranked ...13, 26, 16, 24, 21, 4, 23, 23, 17, 10, 17, 15. Look at Marino's contemporaries below and their respective defenses (Rookie year on right, last year on left). Do you think its a coincidence that the ones with rings had better defenses too?

Below is a list of the top 35 quarterbacks in the Superbowl era (arguably). Does not include legends like Otto Graham or Sammy Baugh because there was no Superbowl and therefore greatness was not determined by Superbowls as it is all to often done these days. The order of the quarterbacks here is based on how many years they had a top 10 defense while they played. The point I am trying to make is a QB without a good defense will not be successful (as defense is ~50% of the game). There are 4 quarterbacks in NFL history with 3+ Superbowls. Brady, Montana, Bradshaw, and Aikman. All 4 of them had an average defensive ranking of 9 or better. Montana, Bradshaw and Aikman had a top 5 def 7+ times each. All the quarterbacks to win 2+ Superbowls have had an Average Defensive Rank of under 12 with the exception of Peyton and Eli Manning. The only quarterbacks to win a Superbowl with a defensive rank worse than 20? Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, and Eli Manning. The exceptions that proves the rule.

This point is not trying to diminish the greatness associated with winners such as Brady, Montana, Bradshaw, etc., it is to show that its not as simple as counting rings. The whole story needs to be told before you can cast judgement on greatness. Please take a look at my Overrated; The real John Elway career (and the stats to prove it) post. John Elway is typically considered a Mount Rushmoresque type quarterback. I believe part of that is the career garbage time 2 SB wins on the back of great defenses and a great running game. Elway is a hall of fame great qb. Just overrated. Many people put Brady above Manning because of Rings, but Manning didn't have the defenses, didn't have the coaching, and didn't have the organization. That is not to say Brady isn't great, and possibly better than Manning, but it is to say that Championships should not be the main or only argument.

4. Check out the below analysis of Manning vs Brady (vs Brees). Who is the best and why?

Remember winning isn't everything.

Exhibit 1: Eli Manning has 2 Superbowls victories. Brett Favre has 1. MEANS NOTHING. Eli made the playoffs 4x in 12 years (33%). Favre made it 12x in 20 years (60%)
Exhibit 2: Eli Manning beat Tom freakin' Brady for those 2 Superbowl Rings. MEANS NOTHING. Thanks for nothing David Tyree and Super Mario

Exhibit 3: John Elway has 2 Superbowl wins and 3 Superbowl losses. MEANS NOTHING. ZERO ALL PRO SELECTIONS. He is considered an all time GOAT. He has NEVER been an All Pro (as in the best QB in a given year). How can he be a GOAT when he's never even been the best in a given year.

Winning needs context. Again, what if you take the best quarterback in NFL history (whoever you want to plug in here) and put him on the NFL all time worst defensive team? Probably isn't winning like Tom Brady. There are other factors to winning. It is said that coaching is more important in football than any other sport. You have Brady with Belichick vs Russell Wilson's coach running a pass play on the 1 yard line against Belichick (no offense to Pete Carroll). You have clutch kickers like Vinatieri vs "chokers" like Vanderjagt. You have plays like David Tyree's helmet catch, Santonio Holmes tiptoe catch, Dwight Clark finger tip catch, Franco Harris' immaculate catch. You have quarterbacks that win Superbowls but do not get the Superbowl MVP. If they are that important and control the outcome of the game, and have greatness associated with winning the big one, what does it say about their performances that they did not win Superbowl MVP. Big Ben with 2 rings has no Superbowl MVPs (Holmes, and Ward). All time greats like Brett Favre lost out to Howard, Elway to Davis, Brady to Branch, Aikman to Smith and Brown, Bradshaw to Harris and Swan, etc etc etc. You give these QB's legacy points for Superbowls that someone else out performed them?

The "Since 2000" Mount Rushmore of QB's is set for the foreseeable future. Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, and Drew Brees are complete locks. Aaron Rodgers appears to have laid claim to the final spot (maybe Warner). True only Manning's career is done, and Brady and Brees can continue to compile statistics and maybe even Superbowls...but lets look at these 3 quarterbacks as of the end of the 2015 Season.

1. "Defense Wins Championships!" It's one of the most popular sports cliche...but its right more than its wrong. Of the 50 Superbowls....50% of the time the winning team has a top 3 def (in terms of points allowed); conversely of the 50 Superbowls...38% of the time the winning team has a top 3 offense. Now granted, a real champion will likely have both a good defense and a good offense. Only 3x in Superbowl History a team won the Superbowl with a defensive ranking 20 or worse (Eli, Peyton, and Brees, ironically 2 of the players in this post)

So lets compare these 3 great quarterbacks and how their defenses stack up because Defense Wins Championships after all. The Bold/Underlined/Yellow Borders are Superbowl Winning Years. As you can see Brees has played on average on a 19.7 ranked defense. Manning on a 14.8 ranked defense...and Brady on a 8.1 ranked defense. Brady has had a top 10 ranked defense 78.6% of his career. Manning only 41.2% and Brees only 14.3%. How can Brees be expected to lead his team to victory with such bad defensive teams (which his greatness did 1x with a 26th ranked defense).

Below you will see each players Offensive Team Ranking, Defensive Team Ranking, Off/Def Average Team Ranking, and Regular Season Wins (16 gm equivalent). Teams matter in the Wins department. Coaching matters. Organization matters. As you can see...offensively these 3 are in the same ballpark. Manning's average takes a hit because he actually played as a rooked (unlike Brees and Brady) and his last year was an offensive disaster.

2. The stats speak for themselves. Manning holds a bazillion QB passing records. Its true. And part of that talks to his greatness (yellow below = NFL Record)

Now these stats will change as Brady and Brees will continue to pile on the stats in the next 1, 2, 3+ years). These 3 QB stats are comparable in the sense that they all played in the prolific passing era that Dan Marino initiated and Peyton Manning mainstreamed. But when you throw in other eras stats become more meaningless. For example see the below all time Touchdowns list. Look at how many current QB's are either above or within a years worth of TD passes from the Mount Rushmore Goat Joe Montana. Anybody care to argue that Eli and Rivers are already better than Montana and that Big Ben, Palmer, Aaron Rodgers and Tony Romo are within an football throw away from Joe Montana? Stats can be deceiving.

3. Here is the best comparison. Awards. The reason they are the best comparison is they are relative for the era. For example. An MVP today means the same as an MVP in 1960 = Most Valuable Player. It by default adjusts for eras. This is the John Elway is over rated argument (see post here). John Elway was NEVER an all pro. All Pro is the best player at each position. In his 16 years playing, the following QB's were named All Pro (Joe Theismann 1x, Dan Marino 3x, Joe Montana 3x, Boomer Esiason 1x, Jim Kelly 1x, Steve Young 3x, Brett Favre 3x, and the All Time Great Randall Cunningham). How can Elway be considered better than Montana, Marino, Favre, and Young who all won 3 All Pro Selections during Elways career. Another typical comparison is total stats...like total Yards, TDs, completion %age. This comparison is misleading because the game has changed. How do you get around that. You look at things like All Pro Selections. How many times was the QB the best in the league. The best in the league means the same thing today as it did in Montana's day or Unitas's day. Best means best. Another way around the "total stats" fallacy, is "Leading the league". Leading the league today means the same as leading the league 40 years ago. It means you were the best given the era, the rules, the trends etc. So instead of Total Yards, Years leading league in Yards is a much better guide to greatness.
See the below QB Comparison and try to guess who they are...

Any questions on who the better QB is ? Who had a better Career?
QB #1 is the great Peyton Manning. Who collected 5 MVPs. 7 ALL PRO Selections. He had been top 3 in the league 10x for Comp %, 11x for Yards, 12x for Touchdown Passes, and 6x for Passer Rating.

Want to guess who QB #2 is, who is almost as accomplished as Peyton Manning. I'll give you a hint. Its a trick question.

QB #2 is actually the combined careers of Drew Brees and Tom Brady. THERE'S YOUR CONTEXT!!!

The person that argues championships is the same person that will tell you Bill Russell is the greatest basketball player of all time. I truly believe Tom Brady deserves to be on the All Time Mount Rushmore of NFL quarterbacks (as in top 4 qb of all time), and it's partly because of his Championships and Playoff accomplishments but it's mostly how he has been able to statistically keep up with the greatest quarterback of all time (PEYTON MANNING).

See below Manning, Brady, and Brees's year by year awards and rankings. Can you see why Brees is often underrated?

Just for fun I brought in arguably 31 of the best QB's broken down by each era. Pre 60's (Baugh, Luckman, Waterfield, Graham, Tittle, Van Brocklin), 60's-mid 70's (Starr, Unitas, Jurgensen, Dawson, Tarkenton, Namath), 70's-mid 80's (Griese, Staubach, Bradshaw, Stabler, Anderson, Fouts), 80's- mid 90's (Montana, Elway, Marino, Moon, Young, Kelly, Aikman, Favre), and 2000's (Warner, Manning, Brady, Brees, Rodgers). They are in order of combined top 3 rankings in Completion %, Yards, TDs. Its not perfect, but there is a reason the guys at the top tend to have many more All Pros then the guys at the bottom.