JR4

If you look at stats as a measurement.

Just got into an argument with someone saying PATs should trade Brady
because he so bad last year.
I thought he did pretty well but had to look up stats.

4,398 yds ( 2nd career best)
28 TDs ( only 50td year was better )
Int/TD ratio .46 ( 2nd career best)
Completion % = 65.7 ( 2nd career best)


And this is coming back from a bad injury.

Who wants to trade Tom?

Boston Boxer

some people just dont know what they have until it is gone

nashvillepatsfan

stat wise, he had a good year. In terms of decision making, not so good. With that said, i would not want to see him leave, and i believe he'll be fine this year.

Snake Eyes

Numbers only tell part of the story, did he get things done when we most needed him to?

If you want to go just by numbers than Brady isn't a fraction as good as Manning, if you want to go by the post-season then you must judge Brady by how he played against the Ravens, which was bad. You can't have your cake and eat it too, either we go by stats or we go by simply being able to get it done at the critical time.

Brady's only real "magic" last year was at the end of the first game against the Bills, that was TFB, the rest of the season there were moments of TFB surrounded by a ton of mediocrity with some downright bad play.

Early in his career Brady didn't have amazing stats but 'he just won games', give me a QB that passes for 179 yds, 1 TD, 0 int and gets the job done without critical mistakes rather than one who passes for 353 yds, 3TD, 3 INT and comes up short at the critical time.

__________________
"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.

spacecrime

Mind posting the numbers you used to determine that Tom Brady isn't a fraction as good as Manning?

Because when I look at the numbers at NFL.COM I see Brady and Manning to be very, very close statistically. Manning has a slight edge, but very slight. And Brady's TD to INT ratio is far better than Mannings the way I compute it.

I am missing your point. Brady is bad because he lost to the Ravens in post season? If you look at Brady's post-season body of work, and Manning's post-season body of work, the comparison should be pretty clear. Yeah, both Brady and Manning lost the last post-season games. So that makes them bad QBs?

__________________
“When we look at the board, based on everything we want in a football player at that particular time, we evaluate them and take the player that fits best for our football team. That’s what we always do, and I think the last nine years we’ve put a pretty competitive team out there on the field every year. I think that’s how you do it – you get good football players. Sometimes they are not always at the No. 1 position, but I don’t think you pass up good football players to get the guys who aren’t as good just because they’re at a position that somebody feels you need.”
BB on his draft philosophy, April 2010

Snake Eyes

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 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.

Patspsycho

This is what people don't want to hear or face. Like it or not, all good things come to an end.

BradyFTW!

Brady is as good as or better than Manning in just about every efficiency stat out there, with indoor/outdoor variance adjusted for. The only reason why Manning has superior bulk stats is because he's played significantly more games and he almost never plays outdoors in crappy weather.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

dhamz

Trading him is a stupid idea. He is still unquestionably one of the elite of elite NFL QBs, if not the best.

That doesn't mean last year was his 2nd best year. He put up his 2nd best stats which says more about how the team's offensive philosophy has changed since Moss and Welker came on board in 2007. I'm not saying he was bad or the problem but he wasn't the same clutch player and flawless decision maker in big spots he was in other years. FWIW, I'd take all 5 of Brady's years 2003-2007 over 2009 even though 4 of them aren't as statistically impressive.

They_Hate_We

gotta love it when reality smacks the naysayers in the grill.