Elephant in the Room -- Tom Brady's Mental block in big games

[Triumph]

Because of some complaints sent I have gone through 9 pages of this remarkable thread

It's full on everything. Personal insults. The usual people who only come on the board just to agitate. And the word "homer' used about 100 times. And then someone has to start bringing Manning into the conversation when this thread has nothing at all to do with Manning.

For now we will keep the thread open. But STOP THE NAME CALLING.

This is going to be a long off season.

LOLZ

The only thing that could make up for these last years is to win the next SB vs the Giants at their house. That would truly be sweet.

Bradys 4th Championship celebration in Rex Ryans locker room.

 

[Kontradiction]

Brady played fine up until the backbreaking turnover at the end of the game. The throw in the end zone was a little off, but all quarterbacks are going to have those every game. The gameplan in this one sucked and the team did nothing to help our smaller, more finesse receivers get clean releases off the LoS. Where was this thread a week before when he torched the Texans or after Super Bowl XLVI when the guy, again without one of his top weapons, set a Super Bowl record for consecutive completions and was one missed catch away from dragging the asses of the second worst pass defense in NFL history to a Super Bowl title?

 

[SHOWTIME15]

So, if you pretend that some playoff games aren't big games, you can make a ridiculously flawed argument.

But why would you want to make an argument that requires you to make such an obviously flawed claim in order for it to have any validity? Why wouldn't you look for a more reasonable and valid argument, instead?

Your premise is that EVERY playoff can be categorized together. To me AFCCGS and SBs are the ones which are legacy defining and carry more weight than divisional and wild card games. You see TB cannot at this moment of his career be GOAT with a 2-4 AFCCG/SB record since 2005....and in the two wins he sidn't even play that well.

 

[Deus Irae]

Your premise is that EVERY playoff can be categorized together.

No, my premise is that every playoff game is a BIG GAME. It's win or go home in every round, not just the AFCCG and SB.

To me AFCCGS and SBs are the ones which are legacy defining and carry more weight than divisional and wild card games. You see TB cannot at this moment of his career be GOAT with a 2-4 AFCCG/SB record since 2005....and in the two wins he sidn't even play that well.

Montana's last two CCGs were losses, and he managed only a combined total of 27 points. His final CCG had him with a whopping 39.2 QB rating.


So, no way Joe can be the G.O.A.T., right?

 

[SHOWTIME15]

No, my premise is that every playoff game is a BIG GAME. It's win or go home in every round, not just the AFCCG and SB.




Montana's last two CCGs were losses, and he managed only a combined total of 27 points. His final CCG had him with a whopping 39.2 QB rating.


So, no way Joe can be the G.O.A.T., right?

Fine we can agree to disagree on what is a "big" game. Just to correct you, Montana did not lose his last two CCGs. He lost to the Giants in 90' and won the super bowl in 88 and 89. After 1992 he went to KC but did not play in tr 92 CCG against dallas. And it's hard to blame Montana on the 90 CCG when leonard marshall knocked him out at the point in the game when the niners needed him the most (the niners were winning when he left the game). Joe montana is 8-2 overall lifetime in CCGs/SBs....Brady is 8-4. most importantly montana has 4 rings, brady does not. if brady gets that elusive 4th ring we can discuss him being GOAT.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

It's not a matter of who is a better QB in the play-offs. It's a matter of acknowledging that Brady was as much of an issue for the offense as people are claiming Welker was.

Aside from an inoppertune drop, Welker wasn't an issue. Any more than Brady was. Having no Gronk and replacing him with the equivalent of blocking sleds and given Hernandez hasn't played up to his potential in Gronk's absence whether due to lingering injury or something else, and having no legitimate 3rd WR beyond the remains of Deion Branch to threaten the perimeter and having a couple of young backs one of whom got consussed and fumbled the ball and the other whom they don't yet trust enough to include in the game plan...that was the issue on offense. Had everyone who was out there executed to perfection, including an OL that allowed 19 pressures and failed to open holes for the runners despite facing nickle coverage most of the time, we might have scored more. Unfortunately nothing is ever perfect, even if you were paying for more elite talent.

This roster was not well constructed to overcome injury on multiple levels, and its premier weapon was MIA for what would as a result become it's second consecutive post season finale.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Aside from an inoppertune drop, Welker wasn't an issue. Any more than Brady was. Having no Gronk and replacing him with the equivalent of blocking sleds and given Hernandez hasn't played up to his potential in Gronk's absence whether due to lingering injury or something else, and having no legitimate 3rd WR beyond the remains of Deion Branch to threaten the perimeter and having a couple of young backs one of whom got consussed and fumbled the ball and the other whom they don't yet trust enough to include in the game plan...that was the issue on offense. Had everyone who was out there executed to perfection, including an OL that allowed 19 pressures and failed to open holes for the runners despite facing nickle coverage most of the time, we might have scored more. Unfortunately nothing is ever perfect, even if you were paying for more elite talent.

This roster was not well constructed to overcome injury on multiple levels, and its premier weapon was MIA for what would as a result become it's second consecutive post season finale.

no offense but these sound like excuses. every year it's the same thing - he didn't have receivers or his receivers didn't play well or the playcalling was suspect. Brady led one scoring drive in the second half of SB 46 - early in the 3rd quarter and was shut out the rest of the way. the fact he couldn't lead his team to two measely field goals that would have given the patriots the win was his receivers fault? patriots couldn't even score a field goal in the second half against the ravens? that's somehow welker's fault?

gronk's loss was huge, but teammates have to step up. the giants lost ballard and travis beckham early in SB46 but the team managed to find a way to win.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

29-54 for 320 with 2 Ints and 1 TD. And two others that could have been intercepted.

Those are the stats.

Brady normally completes 63-75% of his passes. He's gotten so good that he's got better than 2.7TD to Int ratio.

Like Bill always says, stats are for losers. Particularly those who can't comprehend the total lack of context in small sample vs. large sample. To Brady has never completed more than 68.7% of his passes over the course of a season, and that was only in the 2007 season. His career completion percentage (average) is 63.7% And his career playoff percentage is 62.3%.

And PM me when they start tracking others that could have been intercepted...

 

[MoLewisrocks]

no offense but these sound like excuses. every year it's the same thing - he didn't have receivers or his receivers didn't play well or the playcalling was suspect. Brady led one scoring drive in the second half of SB 46 - early in the 3rd quarter and was shut out the rest of the way. the fact he couldn't lead his team to two measely field goals that would have given the patriots the win was his receivers fault? patriots couldn't even score a field goal in the second half against the ravens? that's somehow welker's fault?

gronk's loss was huge, but teammates have to step up. the giants lost ballard and travis beckham early in SB46 but the team managed to find a way to win.

Teamates didn't step up. That's the problem. The next man up behind Gronk was Hooman who got benched for Fells not to mention they just gave up and went to 3 wide with Branch playing 47% of the snaps. Ridley got concussed and fumbled and Vereen did nothing aside from drop passes. Talib went out and foeced Cole into the game... Jones tried to play but could not and they got no pressure on Flacco. Drives stalled or continued because NEP players made mental mistakes including after converting 3rd downs. Brady had no viable red zone target absent Gronk. Those aren't excuses, they're simply what transpired. The Giants defense pressured Brady all night long in both contests, one of which it turned out his LT was playing on a torn ACL. NE's defense could never quite get to Eli including on an ill conceived jailhouse blitz. Eli had WR's who made circus catches in the closing minutes of two superbowls, some of whom were jags. Brady hasn't had receivers who step up like that since 2004.

Giselle was right. Some of you expect her husband to do everyone's job. Here the mantra is do your job so the guy beside you can do his. Because when he doesn't you're generally screwed out of any shot at doing yours.

 

[Ring 6]

When even you see this, as you almost always give all things Patriots the benefit of the doubt, it has to give even the most ardent Brady apologists pause.

Actually it should give you pause if he agrees with you on any topic.

 

[Deus Irae]

Fine we can agree to disagree on what is a "big" game. Just to correct you, Montana did not lose his last two CCGs. He lost to the Giants in 90' and won the super bowl in 88 and 89. After 1992 he went to KC but did not play in tr 92 CCG against dallas. And it's hard to blame Montana on the 90 CCG when leonard marshall knocked him out at the point in the game when the niners needed him the most (the niners were winning when he left the game). Joe montana is 8-2 overall lifetime in CCGs/SBs....Brady is 8-4. most importantly montana has 4 rings, brady does not. if brady gets that elusive 4th ring we can discuss him being GOAT.

In 1994, (from the 1993 season) Montana played in the AFCCG against Buffalo, and he went 9 for 23 in the loss.

And there's no disagreement on what a big game is. There's just you, and a few others, trying to frame an argument and willing to embarass yourselves by pretending not all playoff games are big games, because you know full well that all the playoff games are big games.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

In 1994, (from the 1993 season) Montana played in the AFCCG against Buffalo, and he went 9 for 23 in the loss.

i stand corrected. but 2-2 in his last four CCG/SB appearances is not bad at all considering 2 of them were super bowl wins.

all playoff games are important, but usually in the CCG and SB the competition gets a lot harder. This year Baltimore was better than Houston, and last years NYG were better than Baltimore and Baltimore was better than Denver. To me the wild card/division games for this patriots team should be a gimme. Just consider why Joe Flacco hasn't been considered elite up until now - a whole bunch of divisional/wild card wins and ZERO CCG/SB wins (up until last week). I'm not saying brady isn't elite because he is, but CCG/SB is where legacies are made.

 

[Raymond]

Like all sports, Football is very much a mental game...............

The elephant thinks you've failed at mental.

 

[supafly]

To me the wild card/division games for this patriots team should be a gimme. Just consider why Joe Flacco hasn't been considered elite up until now - a whole bunch of divisional/wild card wins and ZERO CCG/SB wins (up until last week). I'm not saying brady isn't elite because he is, but CCG/SB is where legacies are made.

There's been plenty of talk every year about Flacco and his playoff record. As a matter of fact, he's been called a regular season mediocre QB and a playoff elite QB for at least the past couple of seasons. Everyone else is certainly counting those "gimme" games vs the top 8 teams in the NFL every year.

Up until one week ago, Brady had won 5/6 AFCCG games with the only one being the defensive collapse at Indy in the 2006 season. It's hard for me to believe that isn't "elite." All 5 SB's were within 4 pts, so it's not that big of a deal that he's 3-2 and didn't benefit from any good luck (or defensive play, that's for damn sure) over the 2 NYG Super Bowls, yet in BOTH he had his team in the lead with less than 3 minutes to play...

If you don't throw last year's SB right out the window by itself that's just unfair. At one point it was halfway through the 3rd quarter and he was clearly the MVP at that point having gone 20/24 for 2 TD's and a record setting 17 straight completions. If that isn't having a "big game" then I don't know what is. It wasn't his fault that the defense blew an 8 point lead in the second half.

And I'd still never put Flacco in the status of "elite" myself even if he wins on Sunday. Apparently his agents and he have the opinion that he's played better than Peyton Manning's/Drew Brees' 20 million dollar + salary and he somehow deserves more.

Keep in mind that we're talking about a guy who had put up 7 pts last Sunday as the game moved late into the 3rd quarter. Even then he still gets consideration for that kind of salary strictly BY winning those "gimme" playoff games up to this point.

 

[Tunescribe]

... that debacle to end the 1st half, if that had been Sanchez or Manning, I'd still be laughing at that choke job (excuse me, I mean that underperformance).

That was on BB, not Brady. It might serve you to take in the post-game press conferences.

 

[ivanvamp]

There's been plenty of talk every year about Flacco and his playoff record. As a matter of fact, he's been called a regular season mediocre QB and a playoff elite QB for at least the past couple of seasons. Everyone else is certainly counting those "gimme" games vs the top 8 teams in the NFL every year.

Up until one week ago, Brady had won 5/6 AFCCG games with the only one being the defensive collapse at Indy in the 2006 season. It's hard for me to believe that isn't "elite." All 5 SB's were within 4 pts, so it's not that big of a deal that he's 3-2 and didn't benefit from any good luck (or defensive play, that's for damn sure) over the 2 NYG Super Bowls, yet in BOTH he had his team in the lead with less than 3 minutes to play...

If you don't throw last year's SB right out the window by itself that's just unfair. At one point it was halfway through the 3rd quarter and he was clearly the MVP at that point having gone 20/24 for 2 TD's and a record setting 17 straight completions. If that isn't having a "big game" then I don't know what is. It wasn't his fault that the defense blew an 8 point lead in the second half.

And I'd still never put Flacco in the status of "elite" myself even if he wins on Sunday. Apparently his agents and he have the opinion that he's played better than Peyton Manning's/Drew Brees' 20 million dollar + salary and he somehow deserves more.

Keep in mind that we're talking about a guy who had put up 7 pts last Sunday as the game moved late into the 3rd quarter. Even then he still gets consideration for that kind of salary strictly BY winning those "gimme" playoff games up to this point.

I don't like that this discussion is morphing into an either/or; either Brady is an elite all-time great *or* he's become a big-game playoff underachiever. There are several facts that I'd like to highlight:

(1) By any measure - statistics, individual awards, team accomplishments, whatever - Tom Brady is one of the elite, all-time great quarterbacks. He's in the inner-inner-inner circle of QB greatness. He may in fact be the GOAT, but if he's not, he's nowhere worse than 3rd of all-time. By really any measure. And when *all* the measurements are taken into consideration, the complete portfolio ranks with anyone's.

(2) Tom Brady has *not* performed nearly up to his career norms in the playoffs. That's a brute, honest, for-real fact. There may be good reasons for it (and many have been posted here). But it is true nonetheless. His last six championship games (be it AFCCGs or Super Bowls) have produced a very sobering and uninspiring stat line and team record. His teams are just 2-4 in those games and his QB rating in those games is poor. This is undeniably true. It would be one thing if he played poorly and the team won, or if he played great and the team lost. He hasn't played well in these games, the offense has woefully underperformed, and the team has a .333 winning percentage in those six games. All facts.

(3) No player of any caliber has not had subpar performances in big playoff games. Even a guy who everyone considers one of the greatest players of all-time (and certainly the greatest WR), Jerry Rice, has put up some pretty big stinkers:

1987, 49-3 loss to NYG: 3 rec, 48 yds
1988, 36-24 loss to Min: 3 rec, 28 yds
1990, 15-13 loss to NYG: 5 rec, 54 yds
1994, 44-3 win over NYG: 3 rec, 43 yds
1995, 44-15 win over Chi: 4 rec, 48 yds
1995, 38-28 win over Dal: 2 rec, 36 yds, 1 td
1999, 30-27 win over GB: 1 rec, 6 yds
2002, 16-13 loss to NE: 4 rec, 48 yds

You get the idea. Montana has had some horrendous games in the playoffs too. As has Elway, Marino, you name it. If you play in a lot of playoff games, you're bound to have plenty of bad ones. It goes with the territory.


These three facts demonstrate that it's totally normal for elite players to have bad games in big playoff spots. It doesn't make them less elite. It makes them *normal*. Brady is as big a winner as has ever existed in the NFL. He has put up an ungodly (I mean that in a good way) statistical resume. He has won tons of individual awards and set many individual NFL records. He is one of the very, very, very best players ever to put on an NFL uniform at any position, and QB specifically. And yet all that is true even though he has struggled in quite a few big playoff games.

 

[pherein]

Sorry, Pherein, but Brady didn't perform brilliantly in the play-off game against the Ravens. On the contrary. His play was not up to the standards he, himself, set.

Maybe not, but its understandable. Considering the performace of the WR's,gronk is out, and ravens defense VS NE's defense that day.

People think that Brees is losing games by interceptions, and that the offense can not play of turf, both completely false, but you would think it if you didnt dig deeper, and just looked at wins and losses.

Truth is we had 2 WR's in the top 10, and Graham was #1 in dropped balls this year in the NFL. That put Brees in 3rd and 7, or 3rd and 12, depending on the bad run play. Which forced him to thread the needle to guys that were actually catching that day, and force interceptions. Looks like Brees was blowing it on paper, but if you watch the game, he was trying to save it, and had to push it.
Im glad he does that.

Saints offence on turf is simple. Look at the points, and you see we should have won, but the defense cant play out of the dome. Thats the problem. When did SF or seahawks ever put up 36 pts in a game,lol.

The thread is that Brady chokes, and that just means that the OP didnt feel like digging deeper. Bradys going to lose playoff games, but calling him a choker is pretty crazy.

 

[supafly]

I don't like that this discussion is morphing into an either/or; either Brady is an elite all-time great *or* he's become a big-game playoff underachiever. There are several facts that I'd like to highlight:

(1) By any measure - statistics, individual awards, team accomplishments, whatever - Tom Brady is one of the elite, all-time great quarterbacks. He's in the inner-inner-inner circle of QB greatness. He may in fact be the GOAT, but if he's not, he's nowhere worse than 3rd of all-time. By really any measure. And when *all* the measurements are taken into consideration, the complete portfolio ranks with anyone's.

(2) Tom Brady has *not* performed nearly up to his career norms in the playoffs. That's a brute, honest, for-real fact. There may be good reasons for it (and many have been posted here). But it is true nonetheless. His last six championship games (be it AFCCGs or Super Bowls) have produced a very sobering and uninspiring stat line and team record. His teams are just 2-4 in those games and his QB rating in those games is poor. This is undeniably true. It would be one thing if he played poorly and the team won, or if he played great and the team lost. He hasn't played well in these games, the offense has woefully underperformed, and the team has a .333 winning percentage in those six games. All facts.

(3) No player of any caliber has not had subpar performances in big playoff games. Even a guy who everyone considers one of the greatest players of all-time (and certainly the greatest WR), Jerry Rice, has put up some pretty big stinkers:

1987, 49-3 loss to NYG: 3 rec, 48 yds
1988, 36-24 loss to Min: 3 rec, 28 yds
1990, 15-13 loss to NYG: 5 rec, 54 yds
1994, 44-3 win over NYG: 3 rec, 43 yds
1995, 44-15 win over Chi: 4 rec, 48 yds
1995, 38-28 win over Dal: 2 rec, 36 yds, 1 td
1999, 30-27 win over GB: 1 rec, 6 yds
2002, 16-13 loss to NE: 4 rec, 48 yds

You get the idea. Montana has had some horrendous games in the playoffs too. As has Elway, Marino, you name it. If you play in a lot of playoff games, you're bound to have plenty of bad ones. It goes with the territory.


These three facts demonstrate that it's totally normal for elite players to have bad games in big playoff spots. It doesn't make them less elite. It makes them *normal*. Brady is as big a winner as has ever existed in the NFL. He has put up an ungodly (I mean that in a good way) statistical resume. He has won tons of individual awards and set many individual NFL records. He is one of the very, very, very best players ever to put on an NFL uniform at any position, and QB specifically. And yet all that is true even though he has struggled in quite a few big playoff games.

I enjoyed the post and I agree with a lot of what you said.

Personally, I don't care for the singling out of certain playoff games though, as each and every playoff game is certainly "big" at the time. Keeping that in mind, Brady has indeed had some enormous playoff games, and they have indeed been since the 2005 season.

If we pick and choose what some of us should consider "bigger" games than others, the whole argument tends to be watered down. All of the single elimination playoff games have been very, very big at the time as the loser's season is immediately over.

He had a 93% completion rate in the 2006 playoff game, and helped to put 34 pts on the board in the AFCCG (including a 21-3 lead). Again, we're looking at a complete defensive breakdown of epic proportions. Just last year he also had 6 TD's in a playoff game. This year alone he had a playoff game of 3 TD's and 0 INT's too.

Personally one other thing of note is that I do not have a problem with the NY teams and that 3 game span either. The NYG loss #1 wasn't all on Brady. Bringing your team back from behind to score what should have been yet another SB winning TD late in the game isn't something to be ashamed about, neither are those stats against that kind of defense.

Last year's SB isn't even close to being a bad game, no one will even begin to convince me otherwise. That leads us to the NYJ divisional game where he had an "average" QB rating rivaling his all time total. That also includes 2 TD/1 INT. If that is what we're going to group into poor playoff performances then we should all be ashamed. It wasn't "good" by Brady standards, but there are many teams who would be totally happy with their QB throwing 2 TD/1 INT with a QB rating in the mid 80's. It was average compared to most, yet sub-par for Brady. I can admit that it was a poor showing by him, but I don't agree with many posters who start threads about it and point to that specific game as though it's just downright awful.

That brings us to the 3 Baltimore games....

I see a very good QB in big game settings still, yet when competition increases and the defenses become harder other parts of the team must step up and that's where we've seen failure, but the 3 Baltimore games are what personally stick out to me.

The 0-3 record in the NY playoff games doesn't convince me personally that he has failed in big settings due to the circumstances. I see a good game, an average game, and maybe a poorer game all shuffled around.

The 3 Baltimore games now become the biggest common qualifier to me personally, yet you may feel differently. To me that is what could possibly be taken away from all of this, that Baltimore has proven to slow him down and make him look bad, and in a significant way. However that's still one team.

In the end your point rings true on many levels anyway.

 

[pherein]

29-54 for 320 with 2 Ints and 1 TD. And two others that could have been intercepted.

Those are the stats.

Brady normally completes 63-75% of his passes. He's gotten so good that he's got better than 2.7TD to Int ratio.

You just answered your own question DaBruinz with the word "normally". Means hes no choker. He normally does not.

#1 why was Brady doing 54 passes? you know your in trouble then. I cant think of a QB in the NFL that can throw 54 passes perfectly and not get and Int or 2.

No run game.

Look Im totally objective about the guy. My objectivity ends probably with my team.

 

[juny]

That brings us to the 3 Baltimore games....

I see a very good QB in big game settings still, yet when competition increases and the defenses become harder other parts of the team must step up and that's where we've seen failure, but the 3 Baltimore games are what personally stick out to me.

The 0-3 record in the NY playoff games doesn't convince me personally that he has failed in big settings due to the circumstances. I see a good game, an average game, and maybe a poorer game all shuffled around.

The 3 Baltimore games now become the biggest common qualifier to me personally, yet you may feel differently. To me that is what could possibly be taken away from all of this, that Baltimore has proven to slow him down and make him look bad, and in a significant way. However that's still one team.

In the end your point rings true on many levels anyway.

Don't forget that in 2 of the 3 Baltimore games, his best weapon (welker in 09 and gronk this year) was lost to injury in the week before the game. That has got to count for something when taking into account for the team's losses.