Why The Brady Speculation is DEAD Wrong
 

I posted this at the end of a much longer thread, but I think it deserves a new one by itself.

I was as shocked as anyone to see the allegationsmade by Pro FootballTalk that Brady's late game heroics were a product of stealing defensive signals, so I did some stat hunting to find out for myself.

Football is a game of turnovers. If the Pats were using defensive signals stolen in the first half, you would expect Brady's Interception numbers to drop pretty drastically in the second half of the game, because he would know the coverages etc.

Wrong. They don't decrease. In fact, in every season but 2004, they increase.

I will write the first half INT totals first and second half totals second beneath each year.

2006

6 10

2005

7 9

2004

8 6

2003

6 8

2002

6 8

2001

6 7

Now, even if you were to say that these increased INT's could be attributed to something fluky, like a deflection off a receiver, it would imply that Brady was still throwing into coverage.

Re: Why The Brady Speculation is DEAD Wrong
 

Link

http://www.nfl.com/players/tombrady/...56&season=2006

Re: Why The Brady Speculation is DEAD Wrong
 

this just in Tom brady has been determined to be not human, he is a bionic man and is controlled by remote contol by Belichick

Re: Why The Brady Speculation is DEAD Wrong
 

At some point, and I thought about doing this the other night, someone needs to go over the last few years and look at 1st half sacks and offensive production vs 2nd half.

Re: Why The Brady Speculation is DEAD Wrong
 

The sack numbers are a little up and down, not as conclusive

2006

14 16

2005

18 12

2004

22 11

2003

17 13

2002

17 14

2001

19 27