Brady: Fact vs Fiction

[PonyExpress]

Let's examine these numbers...

1) 125 completions/217 attempts/57.6 completion %/7.2 yards per attempt/1573 yards/12 TDs/5 Ints/ 89.1 passer rating

2) 135 completions/232 attempts/58.2 comp %/ 6.9 YPA/1598 yards/14 TDs/4 Ints/ 92.2 passer rating


1) is Brady's performance weeks 4-10 (7 games) of the 2004 season, his best year statistically, when BRANCH WAS OUT with a freak injury. The team went 6-1.

2) is Brady's performance weeks 1-7 of the 2006 season, after Branch was shockingly dealt to Seattle. The team went 6-1.

Through the first 7 games of this year, Tom Brady was BETTER THAN EVER statistically, under the circumstances he was dealt. Factoring in his young coordinator and lack of experience with even his 2nd and 3rd receivers, supports the Brady Better than Ever theory.

So what happened in the last two weeks? Brady came up small in a big game! He threw 4 Ints! He lost to the Jets slipping and sliding on a muddy field!
Bulletin: Brady isn't GOD. He has thrown 4 INT games before (Miami, KC, Buffalo, Denver). The real shocker was the loss to the Jets. I personally blame his "poor" performance on the muddy track. That's my personal take, others may disagree. A number of the pressure sacks columnists have been writing about were really coverage/mud sacks, when Brady tried to step up as usual, or plant, and simply couldn't and had to take the sacks.

Interestingly, Brady never had to lead a come from behind performance in 2004 without Branch. Could he have done it? Probably, but we'll never know.

Is Brady being hurt by the O-coordinator? In raw numbers, marginally (in situational, key moments a great deal IMO). Without Branch in 2004 the Pats averaged 26.7 points per game. Without Branch in 2006, through week 7, the Pats averaged 23.9 points per game. Factor in the 2006 Gostkowski/2004 Vinatieri dynamic (G missed against the Jets, 2 vs. Denver, Cinci) all makeable FGs) The Pats would have been averaging 1 point per game fewer without Charlie. Do they play with the same cleverness, confidence, rhythm... no.

The Pats would have beat the Colts had Brady played marginally instead of poorly... and I have made my reason for the failed comeback against the Jets. I still believe Brady is BETTER THAN EVER, and the rest of the season will bear that out. The criticism he is receiving is OVER THE TOP, from fans and media. Frankly a disgrace. From the media, it is to be expected, because the Pats have ascended to the throne of the Boston sports scene, deposing the Red Sox after their late season collapse, and there are some writers, namely the awful Buckley and the incendiary Massarotti, baseball writers now hopping on the football beat, who would love to cut the Patriots back down to the Red Sox' inept size. But from fans... I guess here is where the fairweather crowd heads south for the winter.

 

[teamplay]

Thanks for the excellent post. I agree this season is not about Brady and the receivers per se, although I don't go as far as you ("Better than Ever"). This team puzzles me. Both the offense and defense seem to be underperforming: they intimidate for awhile, then go soft. I can't figure out if its talent (not up the complexity of the schemes) or the league just catching up and becoming more savvy about Patriots deception. When's the last time the team really seemed to surprise an opponent? The spread offense against Minnesota is the only time that comes to mind from this season.

Felger's stat that the Patriots are 5-10 against teams with winning records since the SB with the Eagles was a real paradigm shift for me.

Comments?

 

[BradyisGod]

Brady isn't GOD.

I disagree

 

[PonyExpress]

Thanks for the excellent post. I agree this season is not about Brady and the receivers per se, although I don't go as far as you ("Better than Ever"). This team puzzles me. Both the offense and defense seem to be underperforming: they intimidate for awhile, then go soft. I can't figure out if its talent (not up the complexity of the schemes) or the league just catching up and becoming more savvy about Patriots deception. When's the last time the team really seemed to surprise an opponent? The spread offense against Minnesota is the only time that comes to mind from this season.

Felger's stat that the Patriots are 5-10 against teams with winning records since the SB with the Eagles was a real paradigm shift for me.

Comments?

The line between success and failure in such games is razor thin. The answer is situational play-calling, cohesion, and in game adjustments on offense. Those are needed to beat play-off caliber defenses with sharp, experienced coordinators. McDaniels isn't championship caliber yet. He doesn't give the Pats a competitive advantage, it may be be the opposite. That fact is maginifed against good competition. But just to clarify my position on McDaniels, as it differs from others. In time, McDaniels will become a BRILLIANT coach. My guess is 2008. That corresponds to my theory that the current Pats are the 1985-87 49ers, in the trough between dynasties.

 

[Oswlek]

The line between success and failure in such games is razor thin. The answer is situational play-calling, cohesion, and in game adjustments on offense. Those are needed to beat play-off caliber defenses with sharp, experienced coordinators. McDaniels isn't championship caliber yet. He doesn't give the Pats a competitive advantage, it may be be the opposite. That fact is maginifed against good competition. But just to clarify my position on McDaniels, as it differs from others. In time, McDaniels will become a BRILLIANT coach. My guess is 2008. That corresponds to my theory that the current Pats are the 1985-87 49ers, in the trough between dynasties.

Another reason to jump on the 2008 band wagon!

 

[Pat_Nasty]

The line between success and failure in such games is razor thin. The answer is situational play-calling, cohesion, and in game adjustments on offense. Those are needed to beat play-off caliber defenses with sharp, experienced coordinators. McDaniels isn't championship caliber yet. He doesn't give the Pats a competitive advantage, it may be be the opposite. That fact is maginifed against good competition. But just to clarify my position on McDaniels, as it differs from others. In time, McDaniels will become a BRILLIANT coach. My guess is 2008. That corresponds to my theory that the current Pats are the 1985-87 49ers, in the trough between dynasties.

I fail to see how situational playcalling was going to make the difference in all the plays where there was a free rusher because Brady and the Pats' oline couldn't identify where the Jets' rush was going to come from. I fail to see how it would have kept the ball in Gabriel's hands. I fail to see how you can blame situational playcalling for all of the runs that lost yardage because the Pats weren't able to pass the Jets out of their all-up defensive fronts.

It's so easy to blame play-calling after any loss. You simply look for a situation where we didn't score, and say "if we did something different, something different would have happened." Ultimately, though, it doesn't mean anything.

 

[PonyExpress]

I fail to see how situational playcalling was going to make the difference in all the plays where there was a free rusher because Brady and the Pats' oline couldn't identify where the Jets' rush was going to come from. I fail to see how it would have kept the ball in Gabriel's hands. I fail to see how you can blame situational playcalling for all of the runs that lost yardage because the Pats weren't able to pass the Jets out of their all-up defensive fronts.

It's so easy to blame play-calling after any loss. You simply look for a situation where we didn't score, and say "if we did something different, something different would have happened." Ultimately, though, it doesn't mean anything.

Your failure to see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If you stand in front of a mountain and cover your eyes, you won't see that either.

 

[Pat_Nasty]

Your failure to see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If you stand in front of a mountain and cover your eyes, you won't see that either.

Ok. Whatever. If you want to respond to my rhetoric, the way I phrased my point, and not the point I'm making, go right ahead.

 

[VJCPatriot]

What is the rhetoric about? Maybe the point is that the Pats didn't have a good enough gameplan going into the game. The fact that they executed poorly also didn't help things. The field didn't help things, etc. All adds up to a big loss and a lot of people wondering if New England can turn this around. We are all wondering because this team has looked outmatched and outcoached in its last two games and I've never remembered thinking that about this team except maybe 2002 when we had all the injuries. There's no injury excuse to stand on this year!

 

[oldschoold]

Very good post.

Is Brady being hurt by the O-coordinator? In raw numbers, marginally (in situational, key moments a great deal IMO).

I think that is true, he tries to go for the long ball to much when they are having success with the runs and screens. Certianly the Jets game was poorly called, bad field, bad weather, bad D against the run... wrong time to be slinging it.

The Pats would have beat the Colts had Brady played marginally instead of poorly.

I have to agree with this also, Brady had a bad night. Playcalling was bad again too.

 

[TruthSeeker]

I think stats can be overrated. A lot of football success and failure is confidence and attitude. Brady has shown a tendency this year to show he's human ie: He has shown a lot of frustration and lack of confidence in several games this year. I really can't say I've ever seen him like this before. They were talking about body language earlier this year, well it's plain as day for anyone to see this year. I've seen him hang his head more this year, than his first 5 years combined. He literally seems to have lost complete confidence in himself.

This lack of confidence, passion, and attitude seems to be missing from the entire team as well. Especially in the losses, I saw no passion in the Denver, Indy and Jets games from the team, coaching staff, etc. Some of this passion and heart was missing from some of the wins as well. For that, I blame the coaches, and the players that have become too content with 3 rings. Obviously some of these players won't put forth the effort anymore. Some of it may be age, some may be contentness. Players like Bruschi, Seymour & Warren (when he was playing) seem to have lost a lot of their big play ability, and you can put Vrabel in there too. Though they are averaging less points against per game than last year, the big playability seems to be missing from the defense. The plays we used to see from Brauschi, Vrabe, Seymour, etc, just don't seem to be happening with the frequency of the Dynasty years.

 

[RayClay]

I think Brady's a little out of synch with the new receivers, running back, rookie OLineman or two and losing his buddy Neion.

I think his mechanics have suffered as well as his mental approach.

Testaverde's no brain surgeon, but he is a loose relaxed type that has bounced around and seen about everything you can see infootball.

Hopefully, he can help Brady work out his adjustment problems.

We're far from a final receiver rotation. If you use the same 2 all the time, you get tighter but you leave yourself vulnerable too.

They're just going to have to keep practicing.

It's more important to peak at playoff time anyway.

 

[PonyExpress]

Brady is now on pace this season to throw 30 TDs 14 ints and 3700 yards. His completion percentage, once spotty, has been over 64.5% 4 out of the last 5 weeks. His Yards per attempt, once in the low 6 range, is now 6.9 and rising. I believe the Colts/Jets slump was a glitch in a steady upward trend in his performance. The Bears tough pass D will be a stiff test. The increased use of Maroney in the passing game will help him as a check down outlet. Whether all this is good enough to overcome some spotty situational play-calling is still a ?. Increased use of the play-action pass against Green Bay was spot on, and a good sign. Now, CJackson needs more opportunities. IMO Gabriel and Gaffney have done little to distinguish themselves over Jackson, and the youngster needs more reps. I can't remember a QB throwing 30+ Tds to a receiving corps as spotty as the one the Pats currently field. Maybe Favre, with Antonio Freeman?

Here are Brady's numbers, before the bye week and after.

5 games before Bye Week:

88 comp/162 att/54.3 comp%/1031 yards/6.4 YPA/8 TDs/3 ints/ 82.6 rating/4-1 record

5 games after bye week:

111 comp/172 att/64.5 comp%/1265 yards/7.4 YPA/11 TDs/6 ints/93.3 rating/3-2 record

Massive, though inconsistent, improvement in raw numbers, if not wins. My guess is that over the next 5 games Brady will increase his completion %, his YPA, maintain his TD rate and decrease his INT rate, as he develops even more of a rapport with the new receiving corps.

 

[DaBruinz]

I fail to see how situational playcalling was going to make the difference in all the plays where there was a free rusher because Brady and the Pats' oline couldn't identify where the Jets' rush was going to come from. I fail to see how it would have kept the ball in Gabriel's hands. I fail to see how you can blame situational playcalling for all of the runs that lost yardage because the Pats weren't able to pass the Jets out of their all-up defensive fronts.

It's so easy to blame play-calling after any loss. You simply look for a situation where we didn't score, and say "if we did something different, something different would have happened." Ultimately, though, it doesn't mean anything.

McDaniels hasn't shown himself to be a good field tactician. In fact, I see McDaniels as being a worse field tactician than Charlie Weis. Weis was a amazingly fantastic strategist, but only a good (not great) field tactician.

If the Pats couldn't identify where the Jets rusher was coming from, then their play-calling needs to adjust to accommodate that. If it doesn't its a failure of the play-calling. And the situation is lack of picking that up. Not sure how its that hard to understand.

Also, if you read his post, he said that the situational play-calling was just PART of the reason for the difference between success and failure in tight games. Other parts are the cohesion of the team and the in game adjustments. When you look at the BIG picture, what was mentioned is the truth.

 

[DaBruinz]

Ok. Whatever. If you want to respond to my rhetoric, the way I phrased my point, and not the point I'm making, go right ahead.

Maybe your point is off topic and really doesn't have much to do with the original post. And, if that is the case, you are the one off topic and you need to re-phrase your point so its applicable to the topic at hand.