Super Bowl LI: Not Helpful For Brady’s Legacy
On Monday morning, February 6th, it could commonly be heard, “Brady with the win last night, he is now definitely the GOAT” (greatest of all time). I am not trying to argue that Tom Brady is not the greatest or that he did not have a strong season; rather, I am simply saying that his game last night in Super Bowl LI is not an indicator of being the best ever as he was not even the best player on the field.
Before I talk about why Matt Ryan had a better game, I would like to address the most common counterpoint of “Brady got his 5th ring so he has to be the best ever” argument. I argue that winning a championship is not necessarily indicative of being a great player. Many examples of this can be seen across sports, one being Marv Flem. Flem was a 12-season wide receiver who ended his career with four rings despite averaging a mere 1.33 touchdowns and 152 yards per season. Flem’s sub-par performance clearly shows that winning many championships is not indicative of being a great player.
Back to Super Bowl LI. Now, how did Matt Ryan have a better game than Brady? Let’s look at some stats. Given, Brady had 466 passing yards, much greater than Ryan’s 284, but you have to look past these raw numbers to account for time spent on the field. Brady had 43 minutes and 31 seconds of possession, almost double the amount of time Ryan had the ball (23 mins 27 secs). So, if you think about how many yards each quarterback obtained per minute in order to find who was more effective with the ball, it can be observed Ryan performed better. (Brady had 466 yards divided by his 40.52 minutes with the ball giving him 11.5 yards per minute. Ryan had 284 yards divided by his 23.45 minutes with the ball giving him 12.1 yards per minute, making him more effective with the ball.)
To further this idea of efficiency, Brady attempted 62 passes and completed 43 (69.4 completion %) while Ryan passed 23 times and connected on 17 (73.9 completion %). With a higher reception percentage it can again be seen that Ryan was more effective while throwing. Not only did Matt Ryan complete his passes more frequently, but he also had a vastly greater average yards per reception. Again, Brady had 466 yards divided by his 43 completions for an average of 10.8 yards per completion while Ryan had 284 yards over his 17 receptions giving him 16.7 yards per catch, a difference of nearly 6 yards between the average completion. So, QB Ryan delivered more yardage per average completion and also completed at a higher percentage which makes it easy to see why he was obtaining more yards per minute than Brady. With all of this data, it can be seen that Ryan was more effective with the football and therefore a better QB.
Some may argue that quarterbacks are affected by the teammates around
them and the defense of the other team. Both Brady and Ryan have one Pro Bowl wide receiver on their team, showing they both had stars to pass the ball to, and the Patriots had two Pro Bowl defensive players while the Falcons had none, revealing that Ryan was working against a better defense than Brady. This idea is further cemented through the regular season rankings which show the Pats as the 8th ranked defense and the Falcons as the 25th.
So, I now ask, how can Super Bowl LI advocate for Tom Brady being the best ever if he wasn’t even the best quarterback on the field, despite working against a weaker defense? Yes, he won the game and the ring but I question whether his performance in Super Bowl LI was deserving of “best ever” status. As the saying goes, “numbers never lie,” and if you look closely at the numbers, it can be seen that Brady’s stats were inferior to Ryan’s, showing that his performance in Super Bowl LI does not support him being the GOAT.
Related Stories:
Fantasy Football: A Year To Remember | By Max Curtin '17
Nate Kelsey is a member of the class of 2018 and is a writer for Lamplighter. If you are interested in reaching out to him or any of the other Lamplighter staff head on over to our 'Meet the Staff' page.