Tom Brady Was the Most-Hit QB in the League, from 2006-2007

[BradyFTW!]

Well see, here's the problem... it clearly wasn't the formation that was causing so many hits, as his hit/dropback ratio was very good. If you want to argue he shouldn't drop back as often, and that we should run the ball more, that is more valid. But saying it was McDaniels' spread formations that caused Brady to get hit more is simply not backed up by the real stats.

Exactly. Let me lay this out step-by-step, Sesame Street-style, so that maverick might have a fighting chance of comprehending it.

1) maverick points out that Brady was hit more than any other QB
2) maverick then attributes this to the spread formation
3) others point out that the spread formation has nothing to do with it. Brady is hit as often as he is because of the frequency with which he drops back, NOT the formations used.
4) this can be proven pretty easily by dividing the number of times he's hit by the number of times he drops back.

If you're trying to argue that the Pats should run the ball more, I'll actually agree with you on that. Instead, you chose to make another hamfisted and blatantly obvious attempt to bash McDaniels, who I'm convinced must have never called you back after he took you out for dinner or something.

 

[BradyFTW!]

So you're saying just accept it?

Brady wasn't hit nearly as much pre-2005, with much crappier offensive weapons.

I disagree with your implication that the Pats should just keep going deep and using slow developing pass plays, like they did in 2006 and 2007.

pre-2005, the Pats had a dominant defense. They don't anymore. With this defense, we can't win with a 2001-2004 offense. It's pretty obvious to anyone who watches the Patriots that Belichick has accepted that that era is over, due to natural evolution of the game and rule changes/points of emphasis. I'll agree that it sucks and that I miss those 2003-04 teams, but once again, that's not the point that you were making. The point is that you don't like McDaniels. That's not anyone else making it about him- you did, in the very first post on this thread.

 

[maverick4]

3) Brady is hit as often as he is because of the frequency with which he drops back, NOT the formations used.

If you're trying to argue that the Pats should run the ball more, I'll actually agree with you on that. .

I already agreed with Sicilian a few pages back that the Pats should run more. You should take the time to read before you post.

Brady isn't hit the most in the league because of only frequency. As Deus already pointed out, there are other QB's who pass even more often than Brady, and are hit less often.

 

[maverick4]

pre-2005, the Pats had a dominant defense. They don't anymore. With this defense, we can't win with a 2001-2004 offense.

The Patriots from 2006-2008 have had excellent defenses, what are you talking about? They have been top ranked league defenses, whether it be points-scored-against or yards.

The 01-04 defenses were solid, but all of them gave up late points in major playoff games, and the offense bailed them out in order to win championships.

The defense isn't the issue. The offense choking the past few years is.

 

[Rob0729]

I don't have Brady's hit numbers for any year but 2006 and 2007, I must have missed it when they were posted. But if the sack numbers are any indication, 2006 and 2007 were the years in which Brady was hit the least.

Isn't interesting that Brady's sack to attempt ratio is the lowest under McDaniels. It is clear indication that McDaniels sucks and he was getting Brady killed.

 

[eom]

I would just like to point a little something out.....

First, I am going to look at team sacks (for the defense - not given up sacks):

2007
1 - NYG 52
2 - Pats (represent!)
3 - Dallas 46
4 - Seattle 45
5 - Bears 42
6 - SD 42

2008
1 - Dallas 59
2 - Pitt 51
3 - Philly 48
4 - Minny 45
5 - Tenn 44
6 - Giants 43

That's a lot of sacks, and that's not even counting Mangina.
2007 - they had @Dal, Philly, Pitt, @NYG (+superbowl), and SD (x2 playoffs)
2009 - they have Tenn (-Haynesworth)

as for running the ball:
2007
week1 (NE 38 NYJ 14) - rushes 37 passes 28
week2 (NE 38 NYJ 14) - ra 32 pa 31
week3 (NE 38 Buf 07) - ra 38 pa 29
I think right about here is where we lost Maroney.
week4 (NE 34 Cin 13) - ra 34 pa 32
week5 (NE 34 Cle 17) - ra 32 pa 38
week6 is where we lose Morris for the season.
Our RB at this point is Kyle Eckel, with FB Heath Evans getting some carries.

 

[maverick4]

Isn't interesting that Brady's sack to attempt ratio is the lowest under McDaniels. It is clear indication that McDaniels sucks and he was getting Brady killed.

Why are you looking at sacks and not total hits taken, in which Brady led the league his last two full seasons? Oh right, because it makes your beloved McDaniels look bad.

The low sack ratios are a testament to Brady getting rid of the ball and getting creamed for it, not anything your offensive God did.

 

[maverick4]

Matt Light needs to pick it up against teams with superb pass rushers on the left side and that right side is downright scary bad at times,especially when Neal is out - Thats why Brady took a pounding those years IMO

If it really was just about talent/personnel on the O-line, why was Brady pounded less (total hits, not just sacks) from 01-04 with an O-line made of mostly spare parts and castoffs? And if it really is a talent issue at O-line, why do we call so many slow developing pass plays that our O-line can't handle without help?

 

[BradyFTW!]

I already agreed with Sicilian a few pages back that the Pats should run more. You should take the time to read before you post.

Brady isn't hit the most in the league because of only frequency. As Deus already pointed out, there are other QB's who pass even more often than Brady, and are hit less often.

I didn't say that that was the only reason. I said that you have failed on every level to show that it is because of formation. And I was disagreeing with your initial post, first and foremost, where you made no such argument. As always, you ignored the legitimate points to make up an argument against McDaniels.

The Patriots from 2006-2008 have had excellent defenses, what are you talking about? They have been top ranked league defenses, whether it be points-scored-against or yards.

The 01-04 defenses were solid, but all of them gave up late points in major playoff games, and the offense bailed them out in order to win championships.

The defense isn't the issue. The offense choking the past few years is.

Wait, so which is it: can you evaluate a unit by points and yards, or can't you?

You claim that the Patriots' offense was flawed in 2007 because, despite putting up the most yards and points in history, you (incorrectly) claimed that it was less than excellent situationally.

Now you're claiming that the defense in 2007-08 was good because of pretty good yards-against and points-against numbers, which completely contradicts every argument that you've ever made against the 2007 offense. In the process, you're ignoring the fact that the Pats' 3rd down defense and red zone defense have left more than a little to be desired over the past few years.

As always, just making up your argument as you go along, either not knowing or not caring how little sense it makes...

 

[maverick4]

I do, however, think that the stat is not insignificant when we're considering TB's longevity as a QB. Abosrbing relatively more hits has to have some long term effects and they aren't necessarily good, not to mention the increased risk of injury. Let's hope that the Pats get Tommy his fourth ring this year.

This is the entire point. It doesn't matter how it happened, it could be any number of factors. But Brady has taken a pounding, the worst of any other QB from 06-07, and now with Brady coming back with his injured knee, it's amazing there are some here who think the Pats should keep doing everything the same way.

 

[BradyFTW!]

If it really was just about talent/personnel on the O-line, why was Brady pounded less (total hits, not just sacks) from 01-04 with an O-line made of mostly spare parts and castoffs? And if it really is a talent issue at O-line, why do we call so many slow developing pass plays that our O-line can't handle without help?

Because in 01-04 the Pats didn't have anyone who could stretch the field in any effective capacity, so deep throws were extremely rare. This made it easier to disguise the fact that the o-line was mediocre in talent. It was also one of many reasons why Brady was hit less.

Are you honestly trying to say that the Pats should keep Moss and Galloway from running because Brady might take a couple more hits as a result? When you have guys who can stretch the field, you'd be clinically insane not to do it. That's not a matter of spread or scheme or even philosophy- it's a matter of using the resources that you have available. When we didn't have anyone who could stretch the field, we didn't. Now that we can, we do.

 

[maverick4]

Because in 01-04 the Pats didn't have anyone who could stretch the field in any effective capacity, so deep throws were extremely rare. This made it easier to disguise the fact that the o-line was mediocre in talent. It was also one of many reasons why Brady was hit less.

And this is why Brady was pounded in 2006, before Moss showed up? Your arguments make zero sense. If the o-line was mediocre and Brady wasn't hit as much pre-2005, why was he hit so much in 2006 without Moss? It's also a scheme issue, which is blasphemy for some of you.

 

[unoriginal]

Why are you looking at sacks and not total hits taken, in which Brady led the league his last two full seasons? Oh right, because it makes your beloved McDaniels look bad.

The low sack ratios are a testament to Brady getting rid of the ball and getting creamed for it, not anything your offensive God did.

Could you please post the hit numbers for 2001-2005 since that is what you are basing your arguments on?

 

[maverick4]

As always, you ignored the legitimate points to make up an argument against McDaniels.

Now you're claiming that the defense in 2007-08 was good because of pretty good yards-against and points-against numbers, which completely contradicts every argument that you've ever made against the 2007 offense.

1. This thread is about reducing Brady's hits moving forward. The McKid ball-washers are making this about him, when it's not. As they've already posted, they want to keep doing the same things we've been doing, even if it kills Brady.

2. My comment about the defense, was in reference to someone who claimed we won championships because of an all-time great 01-04 Patriot defense. I responded with the facts that those 01-04 defenses still gave up late scores in playoff games, and the 01-04 offense, made up of spare parts, still came through time and time again.

The point about the 06-08 defenses were that you can't pin all the blame on the 01-04 defenses winning everything. The 06-08 defenses have been excellent, so don't deflect blame onto those squads for any hits Brady absorbed.

 

[Rob0729]

And this is why Brady was pounded in 2006, before Moss showed up? Your arguments make zero sense. If the o-line was mediocre and Brady wasn't hit as much pre-2005, why was he hit so much in 2006 without Moss? It's also a scheme issue, which is blasphemy for some of you.

And your McDaniels issues is stupidity for you. You obsessively look for any angle to blast McDaniels no matter how foolish it makes you. I will give you that you are unashamed to destroy whatever shread of dignity you have when you go on these rants on McDaniels.

Brady got pounded in 2006 in part because his receivers sucked. How many times did we see Brady tell a receiver he ran the wrong route. He had to wait for receivers to get open especially with the down the field passes. Remember the problems that Chad Jackson had with down the field routes.

 

[Deus Irae]

1. This thread is about reducing Brady's hits moving forward. The McKid ball-washers are making this about him, when it's not. As they've already posted, they want to keep doing the same things we've been doing, even if it kills Brady.

2. My comment about the defense, was in reference to someone who claimed we won championships because of an all-time great 01-04 Patriot defense. I responded with the facts that those 01-04 defenses still gave up late scores in playoff games, and the 01-04 offense, made up of spare parts, still came through time and time again.

The point about the 06-08 defenses were that you can't pin all the blame on the 01-04 defenses winning everything. The 06-08 defenses have been excellent, so don't deflect blame onto those squads for any hits Brady absorbed.

Where are the hit numbers for 2001-2005, and what were the hit numbers for the individual years 2006 and 2007?

 

[Rob0729]

Could you please post the hit numbers for 2001-2005 since that is what you are basing your arguments on?

Yeah, funny how those numbers are just assumed with no evidence to back them up. I also want to know what the percentage to attempts too. In 2001, Brady was sacked 20 more times than he was in 2007. In 2001 and 2002, Brady was sacked for a total of 71 times (compared to 47 times). So even if you don't count sacks as hits (which based on the description doesn't seem to be right), Brady would have only had to been hit 65 times in 2001 and 2002 (or an average of 32.5 hits a year) to equal the same amount of combined sacks and hits as 2006 and 2007. I am guessing he was hit more than 65 times during that time.

Another thing this article doesn't indicate was how many of the hits were in 2006 when Brady had horrible receivers who didn't run great routes and 2007 when he had Welker and Moss.

 

[maverick4]

Brady got pounded in 2006 in part because his receivers sucked. How many times did we see Brady tell a receiver he ran the wrong route. He had to wait for receivers to get open especially with the down the field passes. Remember the problems that Chad Jackson had with down the field routes.

If the main reason Brady got pounded in 2006 was because his receivers sucked, why did he get pounded again in 2007 when his receivers were great? It wasn't the receivers, it was the scheme.

 

[Rob0729]

If the main reason Brady got pounded in 2006 was because his receivers sucked, why did he get pounded again in 2007 when his receivers were great? It wasn't the receivers, it was the scheme.

Ummmm..... Do you have a break down of the hits per year? I sure didn't see them. How do we know that both years were bad for the amount of hits or just one? How do we know that either year was the most times Brady has been hit in a single season?

Funny how when other people use a single stat like third down percentages, you cry about cherry picking stats. Now you are using one stat that is consistent of two combined year with no historical data to provide relevence as your argument. At least when I compared 3rd down conversion percentages, I had historical data for every year that McDaniels and Weis coached so you could put the numbers in perspective. For all we know, Brady could have been hit more in 2001, 2002, or 2003 than either 2006 and 2007. Nothing in the article even suggests anything either way. Yet, you are talking about the unknown as fact eventhough you don't have a clue and other evidence (the number of sacks) suggesting that the opposite may be true.

Of course this argument will go right over your head.

 

[maverick4]

This thread isn't about McDaniels, so stop HIJACKING it and changing the subject. We already know that you have no problem Brady was hammered the most in the league, and want to keep punishing his body and post-injury knee.


We're fortunate that the Pats clearly don't share your view about the offense. Given the recent personnel signings, the RB and TE will likely play a much bigger role in the offense than in previous years.