It's not clear because you have invented a metric in your head and you're using that metric to come to a conclusion. But the metric is flawed.
Charles Haley is the one example you can cite as a guy who has a playoff record better than Brady. But you must realize that Haley was a victim of circumstance, he was on one dynasty and then moved to another dynasty at the perfect time. The fact there is only one player who proves your point actually proves the opposite. What Brady did is impossible, but not because #TB12.
Haley was just in the right places at the right time.
Ok, last try. I am not making up a metric. I am saying that the metric that people are talking about is not a useful one.
Point: Charles Haley has a better playoff win percentage than Tom Brady. Terry Bradshaw has a playoff win percentage close to Tom Brady (along with the other examples tim’s mentions).
Possible conclusions:
1) Haley and Bradshaw are as good or nearly as good as Tom Brady.
2) Playoff winning percentage is kind of a useless stat as compared to other stats about playoff performance because the playoffs are a closed tournament with weird rules.
I’m going to go with 2. Because any conclusion that puts Brady in the same category as Haley or Bradshaw with respect to playoff performance is fucking absurd.
I get that as Patriots fans we are sensitive to people trying to call Brady a game manager or whatever to denigrate his accomplishments, so that when we perceive someone is doing that we get prickly.
So, again, for the record, talking about playoff record does not tell much of the Tom Brady story. Or at least, there are better ways to say it. Because if you have a stat the puts Terry Broadshaw in the conversation, something is fucked up. 7 Super Bowls. Ten appearances.
(Again, I put the failure to communicate on myself. “Volume metric” was too much of a shorthand to say what I am trying to say about the unusual nature of playoff records. I sort of feel like maybe my point would be more easy to understand in the NCAA tournament context where you can only lose once each year. Record in the NCAA tournament is interesting but you can also construct ways that it’s dumb because all of the sudden coach whoever is Coach K if you do the math right.)
Edit — actually I guess I have pivoted. I went from the point about only having to lose once in the playoffs to almost always having to lose once. If I deconstruct the thread I can see where I went 180. I mean, even 14 losses in the playoffs is cool.