But why does it have to count? It's great if you're that player, and the decade between wins is cool, but it's hardly evidence of anything. Brady's a common denominator, and so is Belichick and so is having a championship calibre team. Even just looking at the last two, if Seattle runs the ball and scores, if Atlanta runs the ball and kicks a field goal, two instances completely out of Brady's hands yet could have monumentally affected his career? Makes zero sense to me.
I too thought for the longest time that winning had to count for something, but the more I thought about it, I could never come up with a reason why.
Brady's kind of a great example of why it's flawed to look at wins. Not because I'm saying he's a game manager system QB, but when you look at it more closely, it's easy to see how he benefitted from being on great team. He has a playoff record of 8-5 having a sub 80 QB rating. 7 AFC Championship wins, he was bad or mediocre in 4 of them. So maybe he just has some innate quality that makes him win games, or maybe he's routinely on great teams that carry him when he has an off night.
See that's the thing. Brady could easily be 7-0 or 1-6 in the SB (39 wasn't a nail biter, the Pats were in control most of the game). Doesn't change how great he has been for how long he has been. We agree here, I guess.
Manning is 14-13 in the playoffs. Change a few plays here and there and I guess things could be completely different. Also doesn't change how successful he has been over a very long period of time. Manning's playoffs numbers are on par with Brady. Brees's are superior to both, yet, no one (except you to your credit) mentions him. He only played in 11 playoff games though, the sample size is significantly different.
So, considering they have nearly identical per game numbers, how do we separate them? Or, most importantly, should we try to separate them? I mean, it gives us great insightful discussions from time to time and is rather fun, but does it really matter and can it really be objectively determined? I guess not. I guess it depends on what one values. When it is that close, I guess it will always end up being somewhat subjective. Of course, now, there seems to be a consensus based on the 5 rings. But, with distance, people might change their mind. I can live with that as I can live with people saying winning isn't a good measure. I think it has to be factored in as it is the ultimate goal, but I will gladly conceed how flawed it can be.
Now, back to Brady.
The ironic thing with Brady is that in 2001, he was totally a game manager who got carried to a championship. He did what he needed to do when he needed to do it, minimized mistakes and had that one clutch drive at the end. Outside of that, yes, he was pedestrian.
2003 and 2004, he was much better but I wouldn't say he was elite. He was close, perhaps top 5 in the league, but not trully above the field yet. To me, he really became elite in 2006. He had crap weapons and a not-as-good-as-before D and was one drop away from beating the Colts in Indy in the AFCGG. That being said, Manning had a legendary 2nd half and the Colts totally deserved to win.
From 2006 on, Brady has steadily been elite (2007, 2010 and perhaps this year being his best years). I would be curious to see how his per game averages compare to Manning's from 2006 to 2015... or maybe 2014 to leave out Manning's decline year and have a better view of their primes. At the same time, it would be unfair to Manning as he was elite prior to 2006. Comparing them over their entire body of work gives a much better picture.
I mean, let's be honest, at the end of the day, you cannot go wrong with either of them. Or Montana, or Marino, or Elways, or Unitas, or Tarkinton, or Rodgers, or Brees. I am not a big Favre fan, but maybe him too.
