ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
It doesn't make them bad QBs but you cannot cherry pick which criteria you want to use on a given day of the week to make yourself feel better about a QB.
Ask yourself this, if you had to pick Brady to win a football game for you which Brady would you pick aside from 07 (when he was at his best) and 08 (he didn't play)? I sure wouldn't have chosen 09 Brady, I don't understand why there's a desire to convince oneself that things are other than what they are, he didn't have a #2 of his career season. He even said himself that he fell well short of his expectations.
His numbers average out to 3,084 yds/season as opposed to Manning's 4,177yds/season, even if you want to discount 2000 and 2008 he's at 3,855 yds/season, but I can also make the argument that Manning didn't get himself injured and was good enough to start his rookie year. Manning also has a higher career completion percentage and more yards per completion.
Does this mean I think Manning is automatically a better QB? NO, because I think stats only tell you part of the story, I'd take Joe Montana with his ok stats any day over Dan Marino with his monster stats.
The truth is that many people here are simply drinking Kool-Aid to make themselves feel better, you can cherry pick which standard you want to judge a player by but you cannot simply switch criteria when it suits you and remain consistent.
The fact that you would even consider using Brady's stats from 2000 and 2008 is really stupid. Also, I'm sure you've factored in playing in a dome and against south teams (warm weather all year) versus playing outside and against north teams (cold weather half the year).
Stat-wise, Brady is better, all things considered. If I told you that my quarterback would play in tough conditions throughout his career and your quarterback would play in perfect conditions, and I told you my quarterback would have a passer rating difference of about one point, you'd take my quarterback.
The lower INT %, by a fairly significant margin, is the most important indicator of W/L%, according to every statistical model.
FEATURED ADVERTISEMENT
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
How do YOU measure a quarterback? If he has high completion/low interception percentages (accurate passer), relatively few sacks (good pocket awareness), is among league leaders in yards, touchdowns, etc., etc., he's likely carrying his share of the load. You can say, "Well, I measure them by wins and championships." That's fine if you want to oversimplify the discussion. But for all intents and purposes, Brady held up his end of the bargain in '09 with what statistically was the second-best season of his career. Making it most remarkable was his coming off a major injury while missing nearly a full season. What more could be asked of the player, OR the QB position?
To answer your question, I would've taken '09 Brady with ANY team.
Ok, you would have taken 09 Brady over 07 or 06 Brady? Just want to make sure we're talking about the same thing here.
I measure a QB, or any player for that matter, by them doing or not doing what needs to be done when it needs to be done. I'll take a guy who produces mediocre numbers, doesn't make critical mistakes, and finds ways to win over a stat monster who fails when all you need him to do is hold on.
The fact that he's coming off of an injury is irrelevant, what he does on the field is all that matters, if 09 Brady isn't as good as a different Brady his performance isn't magically altered by taking into account that he was injured, whatever his performance is, it is what it is.
__________________
"The secret of steel has always carried with it a mystery, you must learn it's riddle, Conan, you must learn its discipline, for no one in this world can you trust, not men, not women, not beasts...this you can trust"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
This is one of football's biggest myth. For example, this year the Chargers and Colts had the 2 worst rushing average in all football (less than 3.5 yards per carry) and the 2 least amount of rushing yardage. But they were number 1 and number 4 in net yards per pass attempt. They were a combined 27-5 in regular season, and the Colts reached the Super Bowl.
Having a good running game certainly helps an offense, but you can succeed without one. Passing efficiency is much more important.
I agree with you, but you can't really use the Colts or Chargers as examples of why WE don't need an improved running game--different offensive schemes, different types of QBs. You frequently see Peyton and Rivers lining up under center and you have to respect the run to an extent, regardless of what stats say. Brady is Bledsoe-esque now in terms of mobility. I honestly don't think he's comfortable in anything but the spread now. Even in 2007 he made next to no plays scrambling, improvising, or even really having to slidestep rushers. It was drop back, (usually) stand there and eat a sandwich, and throw it as far as you can to Moss if the safety is the least bit hesitant in making a decision.
Last season, we saw teams just pin their ears back and Brady rarely had much time in the pocket. 9th in rushing didn't mean squat. You're going to see more YPC when you're in the spread all the time and more net rushing yards when your WR corps is a MASH unit.
I'd be fine if the Pats could go back to the 2007 shock and awe passing attack, but we simply don't have the horses for it, and like it or not, Brady/Moss and Co. absolutely need an effective running game now or Colts fans are going to being talking about the "BradyFace" a lot this year.
The fact that you would even consider using Brady's stats from 2000 and 2008 is really stupid. Also, I'm sure you've factored in playing in a dome and against south teams (warm weather all year) versus playing outside and against north teams (cold weather half the year).
Stat-wise, Brady is better, all things considered. If I told you that my quarterback would play in tough conditions throughout his career and your quarterback would play in perfect conditions, and I told you my quarterback would have a passer rating difference of about one point, you'd take my quarterback.
The lower INT %, by a fairly significant margin, is the most important indicator of W/L%, according to every statistical model.
First off, I listed the numbers with and without 2000 and 2008, and Manning has more production either way, that's not my opinion, that's just plain fact.
That being said I find most stats to be very lacking, consider this: a QB throws to an open receiver with great ball placement but the receiver bobbles the ball and the DB grabs it out of the air, that counts as an INT just the same as a QB throwing right into the arms of the DB without a receiver anywhere around. Are those numbers indicative of the QB's skill and decision making? Of course not, which is why getting too obsessed with these stats leads to inaccurate conclusions.
Similarly, there is an enormous difference between a RB who consistently moves 3-4 yds as opposed to one who loses 1 or 2 yards, gets stopped at the line, and maybe picks up 2-3 yards when things go well, but his numbers are skewed because he breaks for 12-15 yards every now and then. They might look similar on paper but they affect the drive and the offense as a whole in dramatically different ways.
So, my criteria is very simple for judging a player, do they do what you need when you need it.
__________________
"The secret of steel has always carried with it a mystery, you must learn it's riddle, Conan, you must learn its discipline, for no one in this world can you trust, not men, not women, not beasts...this you can trust"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
..... I find most stats to be very lacking, consider this: a QB throws to an open receiver with great ball placement but the receiver bobbles the ball and the DB grabs it out of the air, that counts as an INT just the same as a QB throwing right into the arms of the DB without a receiver anywhere around. Are those numbers indicative of the QB's skill and decision making? Of course not, which is why getting too obsessed with these stats leads to inaccurate conclusions.
..............
So, my criteria is very simple for judging a player, do they do what you need when you need it.
So you have a very subjective way of measuring a QB.
You remember the bad decisions and poor plays and forget all the
great throws and critical good plays he made.
Then you try to compare that to years past.
Do you even remember the many poor plays Brady made in the Championship years? Well he did make them.
There were even 4 int games.
So get out your handy dandy good/bad play recorder and give us some
objective evidence to support your claims. While doing it be sure to
include other contributing factors to the bad plays.
(assuming you know what all other players were suppose to be doing,
how the plays were suppose to be run and the effect the defense
had on contributing to the bad plays in question)
I remember BB in one conference when discussing Brady. He said he
would ask Brady why he made such a play when BB didn't think he should
have. With Tom's answer, BB said he went back looked at the film and found Brady was right.
Stats as much as you dislike them Snake, give an indication of how well
a player did for a WHOLE season. Not just three or four games.
depends on how you look at it.....stat-wise, you are correct....
on the other hand, only 2 of his last 7 games did he have a rating of better than 74.0....that's the worst stretch of QB'ing he has ever had as a patriot
I'd say it was much more impressive to perform the way he did down the 2006 stretch given the WR's he had
also, Iam not sure if brady was ever as bad in the 4th quarter as he was in 2009
Last edited by tanked_as_usual; 03-21-2010 at 03:36 PM..
depends on how you look at it.....stat-wise, you are correct....
on the other hand, only 2 of his last 7 games did he have a rating of better than 74.0....that's the worst stretch of QB'ing he has ever had as a patriot
I'd say it was much more impressive to perform the way he did down the 2006 stretch given the WR's he had
also, Iam not sure if brady was ever as bad in the 4th quarter as he was in 2009
Couple of things here someone needs to remind the FO and the owner these franchise QB's don't grow on trees and in my opinion they "the Krafts" have not maximized this team around Brady except for one year "2007". Every decision is a fiscal decision not a football decision when you are the 3rd wealthiest team in the league and the prices you charge your season ticket holders were the highest in the league until last year, along with the parking etc... you owe your fans and the team. Someday soon we are going to wake up and TB will be gone then we will be back to what we had in the 70's & 80's with a turn style of qb's.
2006 was also Brady's second best year IMO for the record. He was stripped of his best recievers Branch and Givens who were proven winners and were part of the core of winners and Brady took the team within 1 minute of another Superbowl. But when your FO is not proactive you lose your good young players and eventually it catches up especially when you go through a couple of bad drafts.
Couple of things here someone needs to remind the FO and the owner these franchise QB's don't grow on trees and in my opinion they "the Krafts" have not maximized this team around Brady except for one year "2007".
I like the team they put around Brady in 2003 and 2004 better. That said it's valid to criticize Belichick for his moves that left Brady unarmed in 2006 when The Perfidious Twig went back on his word and quit on his deal after the draft. We still came SO close with Reche. One dropped pass. We all know how BB restocked after that year.
I'm in the camp that says we're better off trying to redo 03/04 than '07 in terms of style of team.
__________________
Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as "bad luck." RAH
I like the team they put around Brady in 2003 and 2004 better. That said it's valid to criticize Belichick for his moves that left Brady unarmed in 2006 when The Perfidious Twig went back on his word and quit on his deal after the draft. We still came SO close with Reche. One dropped pass. We all know how BB restocked after that year.
I'm in the camp that says we're better off trying to redo 03/04 than '07 in terms of style of team.
while fun to watch, the 2007 team would not win in a street rfight
Re: Tom Brady's 2nd best year was LAST YEAR!
Linear Mode
