The Career Arc of Tom Brady

[MoLewisrocks]

From the article [for those unwilling to read it]:

"When the Patriots were winning Super Bowls, Tom Brady’s passing, while excellent (as seen in his regular top-10 finishes in the league’s passer ratings), was a much smaller percent of the offensive production pie than it has been when they have not won Super Bowls."

IMO this is the more important point than Brady's "career arc." They absolutely need an above-average running attack, and to stop fantasizing that a high powered offense can overcome subpar defense when it really counts. Insanity is continuing to repeat the same mistakes over and over. There's too much evidence now that the Pats' playoff failures have been due mainly to various "fluke events."

We all know Brady will start to decline fairly soon [in some ways he already has, and those who continue to argue otherwise really need to seek therapy for why they are in such a state of denial].

FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | QUARTERBACKS 2012

 

[Deus Irae]

I asked this of MoLewisRocks earlier in the thread but he didn't reply so I'll ask you the same question. Can you please, in your own words, tell us what you think the article is trying to say?

1.) Brady's in decline

2.) Largely because of #1, the team cannot rely solely on Brady

3.) They're not winning Super Bowls because they're relying too much on Brady

4.) They have the talent to win without relying on Brady

5.) Brady's making too much money and that's a problem because they need to build around him now

6.) Yeah, the offense is much better now than before, but..... (the but is a bit open ended)

In short, it's a rambling piece that makes multiple mistakes because it begins with a questionable (at best) premise and then jumps all over the damned place. I mean, the "undisputed king" stuff was silly. With the exception of the second half of 2010, Brady's never been the "undisputed king", and acting as if it's a "decline" that Brady's fallen off from one of the 2-3 greatest seasons a QB has ever had is, to be kind, a real stretch of what's meant by "decline" in modern professional sports terms.

 

[ivanvamp]

1.) Brady's in decline

2.) Largely because of #1, the team cannot rely solely on Brady

3.) They're not winning Super Bowls because they're relying too much on Brady

4.) They have the talent to win without relying on Brady

5.) Brady's making too much money and that's a problem because they need to build around him now

6.) Yeah, the offense is much better now than before, but..... (the but is a bit open ended)

In short, it's a rambling piece that makes multiple mistakes because it begins with a questionable (at best) premise and then jumps all over the damned place. I mean, the "undisputed king" stuff was silly. With the exception of the second half of 2010, Brady's never been the "undisputed king", and acting as if it's a "decline" that Brady's fallen off from one of the 2-3 greatest seasons a QB has ever had is, to be kind, a real stretch of what's meant by "decline" in modern professional sports terms.

Ok, that's a reasonable critique. I see it this way: Brady is tremendous, but he is a human being, and at some point (perhaps it has begun, perhaps not, that is up for debate depending on how you want to measure it) he will begin to decline, because *EVERY* athlete, no matter how great, goes through that process (Babe Ruth, Joe Montana, Carl Lewis, Michael Jordan, Muhammed Ali, you name it). Brady is, or will be, no exception.

The question is whether the Patriots can win when (not if, but when) Brady is not quite the same player he has been the past number of years. The answer is yes, because they've proven it to be the case in the past. The first few years, when they won Super Bowls, they did not lean on Brady as much as they do now. Brady does shoulder a larger burden of the offensive responsibility than he did early in his career. So it can be done.

But one factor that may make it harder is the financial realities that go along with the fact that he is consuming a far greater percentage of the team's salary cap than he did early in his career, so getting the complementary pieces around him will be a bigger challenge.

So I see that as being a pretty reasonable argument. You dispute the idea that Brady is in decline at present. Fair enough. But he *WILL* be at some point. Even the biggest Brady rumpswab (and I'm a pretty big one) has to admit that. So the question is whether or not the Patriots can win when the inevitable decline occurs. Calling the article trash because you disagree with when the decline will occur seems to me to miss the point pretty much entirely.

But hey, maybe that's just me.

 

[RayClay]

So, Brady wins less championships in his prime than the three he won in his first seven years.

Why would i want him to continue at his peak, then?

 

[Deus Irae]

...Calling the article trash because you disagree with when the decline will occur seems to me to miss the point pretty much entirely.

But hey, maybe that's just me.

The article is trash because it used flawed arguments as its core, was poorly laid out and wasn't well written in general.

Now, maybe you like articles that suck because they us wrong or plainly misleading information as their core arguments, ramble on all over the place and are written in a manner that seems designed to drive away the reader. I consider that to be a bad approach to an article.

But, hey, maybe that's just me.

And, for the record, the answer to the question you posed is not "Yes", it's "We don't know".

 

[ivanvamp]

The article is trash because it used flawed arguments as its core, was poorly laid out and wasn't well written in general.

Now, maybe you like articles that suck because they us wrong or plainly misleading information as their core arguments, ramble on all over the place and are written in a manner that seems designed to drive away the reader. I consider that to be a bad approach to an article.

But, hey, maybe that's just me.

And, for the record, the answer to the question you posed is not "Yes", it's "We don't know".

So ok, maybe the article isn't worthy of a Pulitzer. Forget the writing style, etc. Let's just focus on the premises. Tell me whether you agree or disagree with these points:

(1) At some point in his career, Tom Brady will decline in ability and effectiveness. (in other words, he just won't be as good as he is/was in his peak)

(2) Tom Brady's decline has already begun, even a little. (I know you disagree with this point, but I had to throw it in there b/c it's part of the argument in the article)

(3) The Patriots have the capacity of winning a title even if Brady isn't as good as he is/was in his peak. (sounds like from your last sentence above, your answer is "we don't know")

(4) One possible challenge the Patriots would have to overcome in a Brady decline scenario is that he now takes up more salary cap space than he did when he was young, which means there's less salary cap space to build up the rest of the team.

It seems to me that (1) and (4) are indisputable. (2) is disputable and arguments could be made either way. (3) has been borne out in the past, as we have seen the Patriots win Super Bowls before Brady was the record-setting Brady at his peak, and thus it seems reasonable to conclude that they could do it again.

But I'm curious do know your thoughts. Do you agree or disagree with these four points?

 

[RayClay]

So ok, maybe the article isn't worthy of a Pulitzer. Forget the writing style, etc. Let's just focus on the premises. Tell me whether you agree or disagree with these points:

(1) At some point in his career, Tom Brady will decline in ability and effectiveness. (in other words, he just won't be as good as he is/was in his peak)

(2) Tom Brady's decline has already begun, even a little. (I know you disagree with this point, but I had to throw it in there b/c it's part of the argument in the article)

(3) The Patriots have the capacity of winning a title even if Brady isn't as good as he is/was in his peak. (sounds like from your last sentence above, your answer is "we don't know")

(4) One possible challenge the Patriots would have to overcome in a Brady decline scenario is that he now takes up more salary cap space than he did when he was young, which means there's less salary cap space to build up the rest of the team.

It seems to me that (1) and (4) are indisputable. (2) is disputable and arguments could be made either way. (3) has been borne out in the past, as we have seen the Patriots win Super Bowls before Brady was the record-setting Brady at his peak, and thus it seems reasonable to conclude that they could do it again.

But I'm curious do know your thoughts. Do you agree or disagree with these four points?

Did you read the article? We won three titles while he wasn't that good statistically, zero when he was, or is.

Unless you're a fantasy football fan who's idea of greatness is individual achievement, not championships, the article itself says nothing.

It could be instructive to look back at the early games of the 2002 season. Statistically, he was off the charts. As a team, not so much.

Although his salary was a smaller part of the team than a high draft pick, it's hard to argue that we won in 2001 because of our expensive supporting cast. We had lots of low priced talent then as well as in subsequent years.

The article simply notes a statistical curve that has no relation to our success as a team, in fact it's inverse.

 

[ivanvamp]

Did you read the article? We won three titles while he wasn't that good statistically, zero when he was, or is.

Unless you're a fantasy football fan who's idea of greatness is individual achievement, not championships, the article itself says nothing.

It could be instructive to look back at the early games of the 2002 season. Statistically, he was off the charts. As a team, not so much.

Although his salary was a smaller part of the team than a high draft pick, it's hard to argue that we won in 2001 because of our expensive supporting cast. We had lots of low priced talent then as well as in subsequent years.

The article simply notes a statistical curve that has no relation to our success as a team, in fact it's inverse.

Interesting point. So I looked up from USAToday's archives and from the Jets' dude's salary cap page, and here's what I got. Here's the percentage of the Pats' Cap Value Brady took up:

Year - Total Cap Value - Brady's Cap Value - Brady's %
2001 - $54,404,881 - $314,993 - 0.58% - Pats win SB
2003 - $68,501,114 - $3,323,450 - 4.85% - Pats win SB
2004 - $70,383,779 - $5,062,950 - 7.19% - Pats win SB
2007 - $100,746,881 - $7,345,160 - 7.29% - Pats lose SB
2009 - $110,645,593 - $14,627,280 - 13.22% - Pats lose SB
2012 - $92,046,794 - $8,000,000 - 8.69% - Pats lose SB

I'm not responsible for the numbers, and I confess I'm not 100% sure I'm reading them right, so someone else can sure correct me if I'm wrong. But it certainly appears that Brady is consuming a much larger portion of the Pats' payroll than he was in the first few years of his career. And that should be self-evident. He was a 6th round draft pick and his first contract reflected that. As he became a star, his subsequent contracts reflected that development.

But the point here is that the more money that's spent on Brady, the less money there is to go around to the rest of the team. That also is self-evident. And that's all well and good so long as Brady produces accordingly (which he is). But if/when the decline comes, and if he's still taking up that percentage of the available cap space, then it becomes harder for the team to develop the rest of the complementary pieces to go with a declining Brady. And that also seems self-evident.

In fact, these points are so obviously true that it's very difficult for me to understand how anyone could be arguing about them.

 

[RayClay]

Interesting point. So I looked up from USAToday's archives and from the Jets' dude's salary cap page, and here's what I got. Here's the percentage of the Pats' Cap Value Brady took up:

Year - Total Cap Value - Brady's Cap Value - Brady's %
2001 - $54,404,881 - $314,993 - 0.58% - Pats win SB
2003 - $68,501,114 - $3,323,450 - 4.85% - Pats win SB
2004 - $70,383,779 - $5,062,950 - 7.19% - Pats win SB
2007 - $100,746,881 - $7,345,160 - 7.29% - Pats lose SB
2009 - $110,645,593 - $14,627,280 - 13.22% - Pats lose SB
2012 - $92,046,794 - $8,000,000 - 8.69% - Pats lose SB

I'm not responsible for the numbers, and I confess I'm not 100% sure I'm reading them right, so someone else can sure correct me if I'm wrong. But it certainly appears that Brady is consuming a much larger portion of the Pats' payroll than he was in the first few years of his career. And that should be self-evident. He was a 6th round draft pick and his first contract reflected that. As he became a star, his subsequent contracts reflected that development.

But the point here is that the more money that's spent on Brady, the less money there is to go around to the rest of the team. That also is self-evident. And that's all well and good so long as Brady produces accordingly (which he is). But if/when the decline comes, and if he's still taking up that percentage of the available cap space, then it becomes harder for the team to develop the rest of the complementary pieces to go with a declining Brady. And that also seems self-evident.

In fact, these points are so obviously true that it's very difficult for me to understand how anyone could be arguing about them.

It's quite a shock that 6th round draft choices don't make as much as veteran future hall of famers.

What i said was that, nevertheless, he won being surrounded by scrubs with a few veteran defensive players.

Also, most teams get by spending a large chunk on their QBs.

2001. 1 WR was a career special teamer recently starting to break out as a starter, the other was a street free agent who had recently been loading sacks of coffee beans. There was no depth at WR to speak of. The tight end was a street free agent, formerly a UDFA from the Jets. The main running back was a street free agent, another was a 3rd round pick who had a 50 game career.

I don't know if they had to spend much for free agent Compton, he was a decent veteran, but they sure didn't for Andruzzi or Neal, who didn't even play college football. Can't imagine youngsters Woodie or Light broke the bank either on their first contract.

So, whatever extra money they had from not paying Brady sure didn't go to the rest of the offense.

Again, many teams have a lot of money tied up in their QBs, why is that so surprising?

 

[supafly]

Interesting point. So I looked up from USAToday's archives and from the Jets' dude's salary cap page, and here's what I got. Here's the percentage of the Pats' Cap Value Brady took up:

Year - Total Cap Value - Brady's Cap Value - Brady's %
2001 - $54,404,881 - $314,993 - 0.58% - Pats win SB
2003 - $68,501,114 - $3,323,450 - 4.85% - Pats win SB
2004 - $70,383,779 - $5,062,950 - 7.19% - Pats win SB
2007 - $100,746,881 - $7,345,160 - 7.29% - Pats lose SB
2009 - $110,645,593 - $14,627,280 - 13.22% - Pats lose SB
2012 - $92,046,794 - $8,000,000 - 8.69% - Pats lose SB

I'm not responsible for the numbers, and I confess I'm not 100% sure I'm reading them right, so someone else can sure correct me if I'm wrong. But it certainly appears that Brady is consuming a much larger portion of the Pats' payroll than he was in the first few years of his career. And that should be self-evident. He was a 6th round draft pick and his first contract reflected that. As he became a star, his subsequent contracts reflected that development.

But the point here is that the more money that's spent on Brady, the less money there is to go around to the rest of the team. That also is self-evident. And that's all well and good so long as Brady produces accordingly (which he is). But if/when the decline comes, and if he's still taking up that percentage of the available cap space, then it becomes harder for the team to develop the rest of the complementary pieces to go with a declining Brady. And that also seems self-evident.

In fact, these points are so obviously true that it's very difficult for me to understand how anyone could be arguing about them.

I think that something may be wrong somewhere in the numbers.

Belichick has gone on record way back in the mid 2000's that "a franchise QB shouldn't take up more than 12% of your salary cap." I believe that Brady's next deal which came very close after that was directly on the 12% figure. I also don't think it has exceeded that value since, unless it was by a slight margin.

You also have an extra SB loss in there which occurs in the 2009 season.

 

[supafly]

I find it interesting that the article suggests that Brady shouldn't be needed to take up such a large piece of the pie, only a month or so after the season ended where the Patriots ran the ball almost 300 times or the 2nd most in the league.

 

[ivanvamp]

I find it interesting that the article suggests that Brady shouldn't be needed to take up such a large piece of the pie, only a month or so after the season ended where the Patriots ran the ball almost 300 times or the 2nd most in the league.

Well, they ran far more plays than anyone else in the league as well, so that number is just a little bit deceptive.

Here are the percentages of running play the Pats have had each season since 2001 (again, skipping 2008 since Brady missed the entire season):

Year - Total Plays - Rushes (%)
2001 - 1001 - 473 (47.3%)
2002 - 1031 - 395 (38.3%)
2003 - 1042 - 473 (45.4%)
2004 - 1035 - 524 (50.6%)
2005 - 1031 - 439 (42.6%)
2006 - 1055 - 499 (47.3%)
2007 - 1058 - 451 (42.6%)
2009 - 1076 - 466 (43.3%)
2010 - 986 - 454 (46.0%)
2011 - 1082 - 438 (40.5%)
2012 - 1191 - 523 (43.9%)

So they ran the ball more than anyone else in 2012, but as a percentage of their total offensive plays, that only ranked 6th most since 2001.

I still don't understand what we're arguing about. Again, which premise is not true?

(1) At some point in his career, Tom Brady will decline in ability and effectiveness. (in other words, he just won't be as good as he is/was in his peak)

(2) Tom Brady's decline has already begun, even a little. (I know you disagree with this point, but I had to throw it in there b/c it's part of the argument in the article)

(3) The Patriots have the capacity of winning a title even if Brady isn't as good as he is/was in his peak. (sounds like from your last sentence above, your answer is "we don't know")

(4) One possible challenge the Patriots would have to overcome in a Brady decline scenario is that he now takes up more salary cap space than he did when he was young, which means there's less salary cap space to build up the rest of the team.

Again, I can see #2 being in dispute. I cannot see how #1 or #4 are even close to disputable. Brady is not a machine. He's a human athlete who is subject to the ravages of time. He's still better than anyone else, so that decline is later in coming than 99% of athletes, but it'll be here if it hasn't started already. And he *is* taking up more cap space than he did his first few years, which means that there is less money to use on the rest of the team. So I don't see how #4 is disputable.

As for #3, I think most of us believe the answer is yes. They were two frickin' plays away from two more SB titles, so I believe they can do it.

 

[RayClay]

What you fail to acknowledge is, the years we were most successful were the years we were most balanced, not the years where Brady put up monster numbers.

If by decline, we mean Brady relies more on the running game and managing the offense, that means the type of offense which is more conducive to winning Super Bowls, which should be the only objective. That's why the loss of gronk hurt so much. He was a threat in the running game and the individual in the passing game who could not be stopped athletically.

Everyone "declines." It's the definition of decline that is the problem. Offenses that rely too much on the passing game get analyzed and shut down by great defenses in the post season. A healthy gronk is a pass/rush option nightmare and his loss hurts our offense more than a wr would.

All teams QBs take up a large part of the cap. we are very prudent in adding players and manage things nicely. as i have illustrated in previous posts, Brady's cap number didn't cause us to field a highly paid all star team in the championship years either, we simply built smarter. We have always built well regardless of lack of money, picks, etc.
The fact that Brady, like most QBs, takes up a lot of the cap is simply baked in.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

What you fail to acknowledge is, the years we were most successful were the years we were most balanced, not the years where Brady put up monster numbers.

If by decline, we mean Brady relies more on the running game and managing the offense, that means the type of offense which is more conducive to winning Super Bowls, which should be the only objective. That's why the loss of gronk hurt so much. He was a threat in the running game and the individual in the passing game who could not be stopped athletically.

Everyone "declines." It's the definition of decline that is the problem. Offenses that rely too much on the passing game get analyzed and shut down by great defenses in the post season. A healthy gronk is a pass/rush option nightmare and his loss hurts our offense more than a wr would.

All teams QBs take up a large part of the cap. we are very prudent in adding players and manage things nicely. as i have illustrated in previous posts, Brady's cap number didn't cause us to field a highly paid all star team in the championship years either, we simply built smarter. We have always built well regardless of lack of money, picks, etc.
The fact that Brady, like most QBs, takes up a lot of the cap is simply baked in.

Yup. Based on cherry picked stats I could start a thread on the decline of the two TE set and the TE's who are earning a lot more now than they were in it's heyday... **** happens that impacts a QB's ability to perform. Sometimes it's **** that happens to him, which is not the case where Brady is concerned. **** happened to his weapons that rendered many of them less effective and some of them useless. That impacts #'s like completion % and the historically flawed passer rating. He's still so good that it didn't impact his TD:INT ratio although in the absence of Gronk he threw 5 fewer TD's than Rodgers...while running for twice as many (LOL). I keep going back to FO's QB rankings which incorporate ESPN's newer QBR rating. Both simply underscore what my own eyes tell me.

Brady isn't in decline. In fact he's either gotten better or maintained at a higher level than has the team around him. And money has little to do with that. They've had what they wanted to spend and simply spent some of it wrong or had an unfortunate spate of bad luck where injuries to key pieces not named Brady were concerned at a time when they appeared poised to capitalize on the opportunities he continues to provide them with.

When Brady does begin to decline two things will happen: He will remain well above average for a time and continue to provide them with their best chance to compete and he will walk away when he can't.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

We had a different defense back then that was capable of winning games too. I still have high hopes for the current version, but it's clearly not as dominant at this stage of their careers. It also doesn't help that so many teams are copying the Patriots in almost every conceivable way. Others have definitely caught up to what we've done, including the draft. Ozzie Newsome gets a ton of credit for the job he's done, but his extra 1st round pick for Ray Lewis came courtesy of BB, and Ozzie learned under BB. More teams adopted the 3-4 which started to change the value of certain types of players, which is why you can see BB starting to go the other way. A guy like Vince Wilfork wouldn't have dropped as far today as he did before, while guys like Tyson Jackson get incredibly overdrafted.

I think people really do look back at the Super Bowl years with rose-coloured glasses. They must forget that Brady threw for 1 TD TOTAL in 3 play-off games in the first Super Bowl win, throwing for less than 150 yards in the final 2 play-off games of that run. Yet we still won somehow. Brady wouldn't have a multi-TD play-off game until his 6th, the 2nd Super Bowl win. Lots of people think Brady played terrible in the Super Bowl but his QBR was higher than 5 of the 6 play-off games in the first two SB years.

Bottom line is if you think modern Tom Brady is worse than that kid, I don't even know what to say.

 

[Deus Irae]

...Although his salary was a smaller part of the team than a high draft pick, it's hard to argue that we won in 2001 because of our expensive supporting cast. We had lots of low priced talent then as well as in subsequent years.

The article simply notes a statistical curve that has no relation to our success as a team, in fact it's inverse.

It should also be noted that, while Brady's 2001 salary was very low, the QB position was taking up a good chunk of coin, because Bledsoe was on the books. Failing to note that, and to acknowledge that it undercuts the "too much money" argument, is yet another problem with the article.

 

[ivanvamp]

What you fail to acknowledge is, the years we were most successful were the years we were most balanced, not the years where Brady put up monster numbers.

No, I agree with you there.

If by decline, we mean Brady relies more on the running game and managing the offense, that means the type of offense which is more conducive to winning Super Bowls, which should be the only objective. That's why the loss of gronk hurt so much. He was a threat in the running game and the individual in the passing game who could not be stopped athletically.

By "decline" I mean that Brady's skills aren't, or won't be, as good as they are/were at his peak.

Everyone "declines." It's the definition of decline that is the problem. Offenses that rely too much on the passing game get analyzed and shut down by great defenses in the post season. A healthy gronk is a pass/rush option nightmare and his loss hurts our offense more than a wr would.

Yes, everyone declines. That was my point, and the article we're discussing made that clear right from the beginning.

All teams QBs take up a large part of the cap. we are very prudent in adding players and manage things nicely. as i have illustrated in previous posts, Brady's cap number didn't cause us to field a highly paid all star team in the championship years either, we simply built smarter. We have always built well regardless of lack of money, picks, etc.
The fact that Brady, like most QBs, takes up a lot of the cap is simply baked in.

Yes, I agree again. So there is less money left for the Patriots to come up with the complementary pieces. So work with me here, because it appears we actually agree.

Point 1 - If Brady is consuming a greater percentage of the Pats' salary cap, there's less money to build the rest of the team. He consumed far less of a percentage in his early years than he does now. Thus, it's not as easy now to build up the rest of the team, because there isn't as much money to go around. This is indisputable - it's simple arithmetic.

Point 2 - Brady has always been a good QB. But he has improved over the course of his career. He is a better QB now than he was in 2001. It's normal. Very few athletes are at their peak their first year in the league. I don't think this is a disputable point either. Unless you are, in fact, disputing it....are you?

Point 3 - At some point (whether it's happening now or will in the future), Brady's skills will decline. Maybe the decline will be very slow and he'll still be elite for a while before dropping into the merely "really good" category. Maybe the decline will happen relatively quickly due to injury or whatever. But a decline *will* happen. Why? Because it happens to EVERY SINGLE ATHLETE THAT HAS EVER COMPETED IN SPORTS.

If we agree on the first three points, then we are faced with the question of whether the Patriots will be able to win with a declining Brady. I think the answer is yes, because (a) Belichick is a great coach, (b) Brady will still, IMO, be a good QB, and you don't need a megastar QB to win the Super Bowl, and (c) they've put together a pretty nice overall roster apart from Brady.

Now maybe you agree with that last paragraph. You tell me. If you do, then we can move on to this last point: One of the challenges they will face is the Brady situation - he will be consuming a greater percentage of their salary cap, but he won't be as good a player as he was at his peak. In his first few years, he wasn't as good as he is now, but he consumed a smaller percentage of the salary cap. In his decline (whenever that is), he will not be as good as he is now, but he will consume a much larger percentage of the salary cap.

Now, I don't know how this is disputable either. Unless people out there just think that Brady will never ever decline - which is a ridiculous proposition. Or unless people think that Brady is *not* consuming a greater percentage of the salary cap - which is also a ridiculous proposition considering that it is a mathematical fact that he is taking up more cap space than he once did.

So the only thing that I think is disputable is whether Brady is in decline already or not. And the larger point is completely missed if people focus on whether he is in decline now, because at some point the Pats will have to deal with that reality. And when that happens, all the above points will come into play.

 

[ivanvamp]

It should also be noted that, while Brady's 2001 salary was very low, the QB position was taking up a good chunk of coin, because Bledsoe was on the books. Failing to note that, and to acknowledge that it undercuts the "too much money" argument, is yet another problem with the article.

That is a very good point.

But you leave out 2003 and 2004, when Bledsoe's $$ were off the books, but Brady's portion of the cap pie was less than it is now.

 

[ivanvamp]

Yup. Based on cherry picked stats I could start a thread on the decline of the two TE set and the TE's who are earning a lot more now than they were in it's heyday... **** happens that impacts a QB's ability to perform. Sometimes it's **** that happens to him, which is not the case where Brady is concerned. **** happened to his weapons that rendered many of them less effective and some of them useless. That impacts #'s like completion % and the historically flawed passer rating. He's still so good that it didn't impact his TD:INT ratio although in the absence of Gronk he threw 5 fewer TD's than Rodgers...while running for twice as many (LOL). I keep going back to FO's QB rankings which incorporate ESPN's newer QBR rating. Both simply underscore what my own eyes tell me.

Nobody that I know of is arguing that Brady is anything less than frickin' awesome. Certainly not me. Certainly not that article. To suggest otherwise is to offer a straw man.

Brady isn't in decline. In fact he's either gotten better or maintained at a higher level than has the team around him. And money has little to do with that. They've had what they wanted to spend and simply spent some of it wrong or had an unfortunate spate of bad luck where injuries to key pieces not named Brady were concerned at a time when they appeared poised to capitalize on the opportunities he continues to provide them with.

In your opinion Brady isn't in decline. You can make a very good case for that position. But there are metrics out there that suggest he might be, and that it's looking just like what you describe below. So that's a matter of opinion.

When Brady does begin to decline two things will happen: He will remain well above average for a time and continue to provide them with their best chance to compete and he will walk away when he can't.

Now you've ventured into the land of you-dont-have-any-idea. You have no idea what Brady's decline will look like. Suppose his shoulder gives him problems and he just can't throw like he used to. Anything can happen. I tend to think that you're right, but you have no idea. None of us do.

As for that last phrase, about him walking away, you have no idea about that either. He is so competitive that maybe he decides to do what Favre did and just keep playing, because he *thinks* he is still elite, even if he's not. And he ends up being a serviceable NFL starting QB, that shows flashes of what he used to be able to do - kind of like a Freddy Couples in golf. He can't consistently perform like he used to, but in any given tournament, even on the regular PGA tour, he can compete for a championship.

 

[ivanvamp]

Bottom line is if you think modern Tom Brady is worse than that kid, I don't even know what to say.

Who is suggesting anything like that?