PatsFans.com Article
Pro Bowl Player
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2007
- Messages
- 10,365
- Reaction score
- 7,459
The Career Arc of Tom Brady
By: John Vampatella
The vast majority of athletes ...
By: John Vampatella
The vast majority of athletes ...
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.We didn't lose our last 2 trips to the Superbowl because of anything Brady did or didn't do. There is a randomness to games in general and big games in particular that he has absolutely no control over. In both cases if not for random plays and unforseen performances and **** happening to others no one in their right mind would have anticipated, he'd have 5 rings by now. Maybe 6. Arc that.
Back in 2007 he had a 47% completion rate game against the Ravens... One game does not a trend make. And many purpotedly bright people believed an unathletic stick was was a risky bet to defy the odds back in 2000. Fortunately a rump swabber named Rehbein and the different player himself convinved an old defensive war horse like Belichick any risk was outweighed by the potential rewards reaped over a decade and counting. Fans who are unable or unwilling to embrace that and enjoy it while it lasts will come to regret that decision soon enough.
The greats fall off the map at 38, with the exception of Moon. Believing an unathletic stick will defy the odds is a risky bet. 53% completion rate vs Baltimore supports the author's case more than the "Brady is different" rump swabbers.
I could have sworn guys like Joe Montana, Steve Young, John Elway, Dan Marino, and Brett Favre were still offering something to their teams in their late 30's, and even if you're right and they all started sucking miserably at the invisible wall of age 38, that still gives us three more solid years of having Brady as the QB.
I'd also argue that Brady at 38 would be more like the "old" days of Brady at 35-36 just due to his phenomenal conditioning techniques alone. I think that it's safe to see that Brady at 38 won't be like most other QB's at age 38 due to being in top physical condition, talent, drive/motivation and his #1 abililty--which is to properly read other defense's and take advantage of potential mismatches. Obviously his gifts are much more cerebral than the majority of QB's.
Not to mention the fact that this current offense is becoming more and more tailored to extending Brady's career each year, where he had the quickest release time in the entire NFL last year at 2.47 seconds, and now has 2 young TE's and a viable running game ahead of him for the rest of his playing time here.
If Brady were trending down that quickly then how is the offense still putting up the top 5 offensive rankings of all-time every year? This year at #3...They've also made it to back to back AFCCG's, and had a first round bye in their last three years.
Yep, if anything I think Tom could get better. Just keep his targets healthy and him upright and he is straight up awesome.
Are you older than 38? Just wondering, unless you're Moon...The greats fall off the map at 38, with the exception of Moon. Believing an unathletic stick will defy the odds is a risky bet. 53% completion rate vs Baltimore supports the author's case more than the "Brady is different" rump swabbers.
The greats fall off the map at 38, with the exception of Moon. Believing an unathletic stick will defy the odds is a risky bet. 53% completion rate vs Baltimore supports the author's case more than the "Brady is different" rump swabbers.
Man, I admire you, and I mean that. Why would you even bother?Looking at the 53% completion rate in a vacuum is silly. If he completes another pass or two that were dropped, he'd have had a 60% completion rate and no one would have cared. He also converted 7/15 first downs in that game, and put up 428 yds of offense. They had the ball in FG range (inside the BAL 35) on EIGHT separate occasions. I don't know about you, but most of the time I will assume that if something like that happens we'd have a pretty good chance at winning the game.
They had a 13-7 lead with 5:00 remaining in the 3rd quarter, so in my opinion it doesn't really matter if they were winning 36-30, 23-17, or 13-7...the fact remains that Brady still had his team in the lead with 2/3 of the game being played vs a defense that came together and played nicely in the postseason.
Some of the much bigger factors of that game were:
--the 25+mph crosswinds that caused them to punt 3x in 8 opportunities in what normally is FG range, something that is no one's fault, and something that you'll rarely see
--the defensive side of the ball giving up 3 later game TD's in the last 1/3 (20 min) of the contest..again despite having the lead after 40 minutes
--Ridley's concussion which resulted in his knee moving forward and fumbling a split second before he was technically down
--A tipped pass at the LOS resulting in back to back turnovers when the offense had excellent drives that moved the ball down the field nicely
--Welker dropping the ball on their first drive of the 3rd quarter that would have either made the lead 16-7, or even potentially 20-7. That took away all the momentum they had, and changed the outcome of the game entirely
--Not being able to convert after the Pollard personal foul took the ball from the NE 25 all the way to the BAL 36, which once again would have given them a comfortable lead in the 3rd quarter
--Missing at least one/two shots at the EZ right before the half due to the mismanagement of time for a team who probably practices time management and situational football more than any other team in the NFL
--The lack of a running game despite BAL daring them to run in a nickel defense once again (NYJ 2010)
--The key loss of Rob Gronkowski the week before in a freak injury
--The early loss of Talib and Jones, which shifted the scheme and attack dramatically and led to being forced to play Marquice Cole on Anquan Boldin (arguably one of the top choices for most important aspect)
If you want to argue that the Patriot offense had an uncharacteristically poor performance in terms of converting their opportunities, then you'd be right, but let's not act like BAL totally shut down Brady either because it isn't true.
In the dynasty years of '01-'04 there were 9 playoff games, all victories. In 7 of those 9 playoff games (the anomaly being the Steelers game in the 04 AFCCG) the offense averaged 18.4 points....yet won every game.
I don't remember hearing anyone talk of how Brady wasn't good enough, or that the offense couldn't score enough back then, so I don't see how it's much different now aside from the fact that this defense cannot win close, low-scoring games. They have given up 33, 28, and 28 in three of the last four playoff losses. That's not on Brady..
The greats fall off the map at 38, with the exception of Moon. Believing an unathletic stick will defy the odds is a risky bet. 53% completion rate vs Baltimore supports the author's case more than the "Brady is different" rump swabbers.
Man, I admire you, and I mean that. Why would you even bother?
No, it doesn't. And that's not going to change no matter how much you troll on the issue. The piece was a steaming pile of garbage. I hope, for his sake as a would be analyst, that the author has reread it and figured that out by now.
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?
If you read it you should know what the article is "trying" to say, unless comprehension isn't your strong suit. In which case my explaining it to you would be a waste of time.