Tom Brady Was the Most-Hit QB in the League, from 2006-2007

[maverick4]

I don't think much should change. Sorry, but Brady's playing style is that so he will be hit quite a bit on long passes. We just have to deal with it.

It's a good thing you're not a coach at any level. You would willingly put your post-injury QB at the same risk with the same schemes and offense that got him injured in the first place?

Brady's playing style isn't to get repeatedly hit; that's a false excuse. He wasn't getting pasted on the ground as much his first several years in the league.

 

[maverick4]

And the Pats didn't throw a lot of vertical passes prior to 2005. 2001 and 2002 were primarily dink and dunk, 2003 was a spread offense that relied on hitting the receiver in stride on quick routes, and 2004 had some deep passes but not nearly as much as post 2005. The offense was average, but solid in 2001 and 2002, unremarkable in 2003 and saved by a dominant defense, and solid in 2004. It isn't surprising that Brady's best year under Weis was when he opened up the offense.

You criticize those offenses, yet they won 3 championships and made key drives in playoffs after the defense failed them. Your Colts-fan obsession with offensive yards and points isn't what wins come playoff time.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

And you have no problem with his, moving forward with post-injury Brady?

I think Bill Belichick has a problem with it. Most people have a problem with it. That's why we have tons of blocking tight ends fighting to make it, craploads of depth at running back, and some competition on the O-line.

The problem that you are worrying about has already been fixed or at least addressed. We may run exactly the same percentage of plays out of a 3-wide base offense this year as we did in 2007, yet I bet we run the ball much more often and much more effectively even out of three-wide sets. Not to protect Tom, per se, but to have an offense diverse enough to win a title.

I don't understand the ongoing argument in this thread about whether it's a problem or not, since it is a problem that no longer exists. If you expect the 2007 offense, you're nuts. That overall offense wasn't good enough. It was all over the record books, but it lacked versatility to win games by ball control.

We might score 10 points a game less, have Tom with 35 TD passes, Randy with 10 TD catches, and still have a better offense. A byproduct will be Tom getting hit less, I guarantee you.

 

[maverick4]

I don't understand the ongoing argument in this thread about whether it's a problem or not, since it is a problem that no longer exists. If you expect the 2007 offense, you're nuts. That overall offense wasn't good enough. It was all over the record books, but it lacked versatility to win games by ball control.

You talk about personnel, but it's still a problem if we keep running the same deep, pass-happy offense which Rob and Deus don't want to change whatsoever. They're in love with the points that come from the 'Brady punching bag' offense.

 

[Deus Irae]

You talk about personnel, but it's still a problem if we keep running the same deep, pass-happy offense which Rob and Deus don't want to change whatsoever. They're in love with the points that come from the 'Brady punching bag' offense.

I'll ask again.... how many times was he hit in 2006 vs. 2007?

 

[Rob0729]

You criticize those offenses, yet they won 3 championships and made key drives in playoffs after the defense failed them. Your Colts-fan obsession with offensive yards and points isn't what wins come playoff time.

LOL! So it is unfair to criticize any aspect of the team in a Super Bowl season? Get real. I am pointing out the realities of the situation, the Pats won two of the Super Bowls with strong defense and offense that didn't screw up in the first two.

So you are telling me that I can't say the 2000 Ravens had a bad offense eventhough they went a month without an offensive TD and had Trent Dilfer as their QB because they won the Super Bowl that year? And if I did, I am a Colt fan.

Being a Colt fan is wanting great stats and caring about winning. Being a Patriots fan is about winning no matter how whether it be on offense, defense, or special teams. Pointing out weaknesses of the Super Bowl team season is not being a Colt fan.

You are far too predictable. I want the most prolific offense in history, the most stringent defense in history, and 19-0 every season.

 

[Deus Irae]

LOL! So it is unfair to criticize any aspect of the team in a Super Bowl season? Get real. I am pointing out the realities of the situation, the Pats won two of the Super Bowls with strong defense and offense that didn't screw up in the first two.

So you are telling me that I can't say the 2000 Ravens had a bad offense eventhough they went a month without an offensive TD and had Trent Dilfer as their QB because they won the Super Bowl that year? And if I did, I am a Colt fan.

Being a Colt fan is wanting great stats and caring about winning. Being a Patriots fan is about winning no matter how whether it be on offense, defense, or special teams. Pointing out weaknesses of the Super Bowl team season is not being a Colt fan.

You are far too predictable. I want the most prolific offense in history, the most stringent defense in history, and 19-0 every season.

Sure... just ignore those special teams.

 

[Rob0729]

It's a good thing you're not a coach at any level. You would willingly put your post-injury QB at the same risk with the same schemes and offense that got him injured in the first place?

Brady's playing style isn't to get repeatedly hit; that's a false excuse. He wasn't getting pasted on the ground as much his first several years in the league.

And Brady wasn't throwing the ball deep. Since when it comes to bashing McDaniels you football knowledge dwindles to nothing more than everything is McDaniels' fault and logic and common sense have no bearing on your warped reality, let me teach you about Brady's game. Two of Brady's biggest strengths are his quick release on short passes and his ability to step up in the pocket and buy his receivers an extra few seconds. The former allows him to avoid the hits and the latter causes him to take more hits.

Back in 2001 through 2004, the Pats had a dominant defense that wouldn't give up points. That allowed the Pats to play tight games and win while scoring 21 points or less. That hasn't been the case since 2005. The offense has been asked more to score points and win. That requires Brady to get the ball down the field more. We saw with the loss of Brady and the inability for this team to get off to fast starts how the defense can be exposed.

I am not advocating for Brady to get injured. I am advocating for Brady to put the Pats in a position to win and that means do not take away one of his greatest strengths. Again Brady tore his ACL with great protection and everyone including McDaniels doing their job perfectly (well other than Moss dropping the ball). Injuries are unavoidable in the NFL.

 

[Rob0729]

You talk about personnel, but it's still a problem if we keep running the same deep, pass-happy offense which Rob and Deus don't want to change whatsoever. They're in love with the points that come from the 'Brady punching bag' offense.

So let's go back to 2003 offense and hope the defense can with the Pats 14 games and every game up to the Super Bowl. If we can have a defense like 2003, I am more than happy to go back to the 3 and out style of offense we had that year.

We need to win games. We need to protect Brady too. But to revise the offense just to protect Brady is stupid and Brady will never go for it.

 

[Rob0729]

I'll ask again.... how many times was he hit in 2006 vs. 2007?

I actually want to see the percentage of passes to hits for Brady each year of his career and the rest of the league for his entire career. Brady had under 500 passing attempts in 2001 (414) and 2004 (476). What percentage of those passes was Brady hit and vs. his percentages in 2006 and 2007. Brady was sacked 41 times in 2001 (the most of his career) vs. 47 times for 2006 and 2007 combined. So I bet percentagewise, he got hit more in 2001. In fact, Brady's three most sacked years were in the 2001 (41 sacks and fewest pass attempts of his career), 2002 (31 sacks and most pass attempts of his career), and 2003 (32 sacks and fourth fewest pass attempts of his career) seasons eventhough other than 2002, his pass attempts were among his lowest.

But I bet it was McDaniels fault that he got sacked more under Weis than McDaniels. Or is it Brady's doing that he cut down on the sacks, but McDaniels' fault that he got hit more. And of course Weis isn't at fault for letting Brady get sacked so much because sacks are much different than hits.

 

[Dino 6 Rings]

So let's go back to 2003 offense and hope the defense can with the Pats 14 games and every game up to the Super Bowl. If we can have a defense like 2003, I am more than happy to go back to the 3 and out style of offense we had that year.

We need to win games. We need to protect Brady too. But to revise the offense just to protect Brady is stupid and Brady will never go for it.

Oh, no, by all means, please, go back to not throwing it as much. I wouldn't mind at all. And if you feel like trading Moss to the NFC or something, please, feel free.

 

[brdmaverick]

I think part of Brady's greatness is his fearlessness to stand in the pocket until the last second until he finds an open receiver. I think that is another reason why he is tops on this list.

 

[TriplecHamp]

With the backs we have we better be running the ball more. I love the spread but Mav is right on this one. Its not about ratio's or percentages, its about how many times the QB was hit. Plain and simple we need to run the ball more!

 

[Deus Irae]

I actually want to see the percentage of passes to hits for Brady each year of his career and the rest of the league for his entire career. Brady had under 500 passing attempts in 2001 (414) and 2004 (476). What percentage of those passes was Brady hit and vs. his percentages in 2006 and 2007. Brady was sacked 41 times in 2001 (the most of his career) vs. 47 times for 2006 and 2007 combined. So I bet percentagewise, he got hit more in 2001. In fact, Brady's three most sacked years were in the 2001 (41 sacks and fewest pass attempts of his career), 2002 (31 sacks and most pass attempts of his career), and 2003 (32 sacks and fourth fewest pass attempts of his career) seasons eventhough other than 2002, his pass attempts were among his lowest.

But they don't count. You're just being myopic. This isn't about bashing the O.C. even though it's about bashing the O.C. It's about something else. Nobody really knows what, exactly, but that's what it's about. Something else.

This was clear to anyone who regularly watched the Pats that Brady pre-injury was regularly taking a beating on the field. With Brady coming back from major knee injury, reducing the hits will be even more important. Hopefully our new coordinator won't be as negligent with the minimal protection and obsessed with repeated spread passing formations.

You see? It's about something else...

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

Matt Light needs to pick it up against teams with superb pass rushers on the left side and that right side is downright scary bad at times,especially when Neal is out - Thats why Brady took a pounding those years IMO

 

[unoriginal]

So you're saying just accept it?

Brady wasn't hit nearly as much pre-2005, with much crappier offensive weapons.

I disagree with your implication that the Pats should just keep going deep and using slow developing pass plays, like they did in 2006 and 2007.

I don't have Brady's hit numbers for any year but 2006 and 2007, I must have missed it when they were posted. But if the sack numbers are any indication, 2006 and 2007 were the years in which Brady was hit the least.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I'll leave the "number of hits" vs. the "percent of dropbacks" debate to those who know more about these matters than do I. I'll leave the McD and O-line bashing to those who do such things, as I have no problem with either McD or the line.

I do, however, think that the stat is not insignificant when we're considering TB's longevity as a QB. Abosrbing relatively more hits has to have some long term effects and they aren't necessarily good, not to mention the increased risk of injury. Let's hope that the Pats get Tommy his fourth ring this year.

 

[Deus Irae]

I don't have Brady's hit numbers for any year but 2006 and 2007, I must have missed it when they were posted. But if the sack numbers are any indication, 2006 and 2007 were the years in which Brady was hit the least.

Yes, someone who frequently contacts Reiss or some other person with Patriots connections should find out the hit numbers on Brady and see if they can get some insight into where the 'responsibility' for those hits lies in the minds of the Patriots' coaching staff.

And while they're at it, see if someone can tell us why they don't use Maroney more as a receiver and why they don't run outside very often with him.

 

[eom]

maybe this has already been posted, but isn't the obvious solution to just throw 10x/game?

how many hits could he take then?

might not win as many games, though.

 

[eom]

ProFootballFocus.com - By Position

mankins #1 !!!