And the adage that statistics are just a tool is even more evident in football than what I believe is your forte, baseball.
I confess you're annoying me with your terrible ad hominem guesses (I don't follow baseball). You're not impressing me with your acumen by such wild speculation, and all it does is suggest to me that you draw conclusions speculatively and wishfully. I suggest you drop the ad hominem crap.
Caldwell played well yesterday, really stepped up. But he was seriously MIA for the two preceding games. He's been up and down, but hopefully yesterday he finally turned a corner. We'll know soon enough if he performs as well consistently in the playoffs as Given always did, although if not I fully expect some here to point the finger at Brady even though the stats when taken in context including the entire performance circumstances will belie that.
Faint praise. Caldwell's produced all year. That was his second 100+ yard game. Most of the year he's been possession receiver (most first downs catches on the team), and folks were deriding him for not going deep. He had 61 receptions, 760 yards, 4 touchdowns, 11 20+ receptions, 3 40+ receptions, and 41 first downs.
Every one of those numbers was better than Givens last year. Caldwell didn't do all of that in the last game. Are you seriously arguing that Givens was somehow more consistent? Sounds like more wishful speculation.
Again, what I believe: Branch is an average #1 receiver (at least I assume he'll get back to that level next year). Caldwell is an average #2 receiver. Givens is an average #2 receiver. Givens was replaced by Caldwell. Branch hasn't yet been replaced.
I think you're getting a bit ahead of yourself in the playoffs. Why worry about assigning blame before we even play a game?
Carson Palmer made the pro bowl although his team didn't make the playoffs. What part his December swoon (56% completion rate, 77 passer rating, 6TD to 5 INTS + 5 fumbles) played in that collapse is debatable I guess given his pro bowl weaponry vs. a dysfunctional organization. He's a better pure passer than Brady, as is Manning and as was Marino over Montana. But the selection isn't for pro bowl passer, it's pro bowl QB. Brady down the stretch with his top TE and defacto #1 receiver and rookie RB sidelined for much of the month competed 66%, compiled a 90 passer rating, 4TD/1 Int/3 fumbles and his team won 12 games under duress in a tougher division in the same conference. Yet he didn't make the cut for the beauty contest. Go figure. I guess it's a combination of not matching up well enough against flash (vs. Manning and Palmer) and too much boring, plodding consistency (vs. Rivers and Palmer). It's that consistency that leads BB to periodically remind us there is no other QB he would rather have leading this team.
I don't think much of the Pro Bowl selection process in any year. It's a tri-partite popularity contest. The only point I was making was that this year, even though Brady remained a fan favorite, the players and coaches didn't vote for him. Presumably they're somewhat knowledgeable about the game, perhaps even more so than the fans. Why aren't they buying your argument that Brady is having an all-Pro year despite his miserable supporting cast?
Take away a couple of perenial pro bowl weapons from any of those 2006 Pro Bowl QB's and I guarantee you their passer rating plummets to something south of what Brady has consistently maintained without ever having any. Which is also why he already has 3 rings and they and their teams despite impressive offensive production statistics and gaudy passer ratings don't have any.
Perhaps. Some might say add Belichick's defenses contributed to those 3 rings, too. And perhaps Corey Dillon's career year in 2004 might even have helped Brady's career year. The Belioli hypothesis has been that raw WR talent is overrated, and that a great QB in a sound system can elevate the play of the WR's. They won three superbowls with mediocre to average wide receiver talent. Patten's disappearance at Washington and Branch's mediocre year in Seattle do nothing to disprove that, nor does Caldwell's career year here. Maybe Givens will find himself with Vince Young next year in Tennessee, but I think he's at least as likely to be a cap casualty.
Passing
Year Team G GS Att Comp Pct Yds YPA Lg TD Int Tkld 20+ 40+ Rate
2001 NE15 14 413 264 63.9 2843 6.88 91 18 12 41/216 32 6 86.5
2002 NE 16 16 601 373 62.1 3764 6.26 49 28 14 31/190 37 3 85.7
2003 NE 16 16 527 317 60.2 3620 6.87 82 23 12 32/219 44 8 85.9
2004 NE 16 16 474 288 60.8 3692 7.79 50 28 14 26/162 52 10 92.6
2005 NE 16 16 530 334 63.0 4110 7.75 71 26 14 26/188 59 9 92.3
2006 NE 16 16 516 319 61.8 3529 6.84 62 24 12 26/175 46 8 87.9
TOTAL 96 94 3064 1896 61.9 21564 7.04 91 147 78 182/1150 270 44 88.4
Third best completion percentage of his career, behind the glory years of a back to back SB Champion WR corps anchored by Branch and Givens (2003 and 2004). Slightly below his 2005 performance with them in a pass first by necessity (because we had no running game to speak of) offense, although his TD to INT ratio was off in '05 by his preferred 2 to 1 standards. Brady's never been about flash and awe, rather substance and consistency including particularly in the face of adversity. Nobody's perfect, which is why Belichick will take the guy who delivers most with the least most consistently.
I don't much care for NFL passing ratings I think the FO system is much better thought through, but both systems agree that this is Brady's third best year. 2004 was by far his best year (2nd ranked 41.6% DVOA), 2005 2nd (4th ranked 30.9%), and this year 3rd best going into Sunday's game (9th ranked 18.8%).
One of the things that the FO folks warn about is that it is very difficult to separate performance of quarterbacks from receivers, including TE's and backs of course. The Brady apologists suggest that pro-bowl voters should give some credit to Brady for losing his two starting wide receivers and still delivering decent production. But unbiased observers will notice that Caldwell replaced Givens, and Brady's running back group this year is the best he's ever had -- and excuses can be made for almost everyone in the league. It's not surprising that voters go for actual impact, not impact adjusted for hypotheticals.
I personally believe that if Branch had stayed, Brady would very likely had the numbers to make the pro-bowl again. Caldwell easily offset Givens, and the running back position was upgraded by Maroney and a healthy Dillon with Faulk. The continuity and new talent would have offset the accuracy problems that have been visible this year.
And Brady is still supreme in his pocket presence, his ability to read defenses, his leadership, his competitiveness, and his clutch abilities. I wouldn't be the least surprised to see him once again elevate everyone's game in the playoffs.
