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

[Rob0729]

I agree with this part. I've watched that play dozens of time, and i honestly believe that Brady (like the end of 07) was holding the ball way too long in an effort to make the big strike. Whatever happened to the 'get rid of the ball quickly' Brady? Alot of people want to blame Faulk (who wasnt even there), or Morris, but i think Tommy has to take some blame.

Either way, back OT. I would like to see them run the ball more. Not because im worried about TFB, but because i want the defense to stay fresh.

No one deserves blame on that play. It was a freak play. 99 times out of 100, Pollard never gets close to Brady in that situation.

As for blaming Brady for holding onto the ball too long, that is silly. Below is a video of the play over and over again. You see that Brady snaps the ball at the 2 second mark and releases the ball around the 5 second mark. That is three to four seconds to throw the ball. He takes a seven yard drop and has a quick two step stutter step and released the ball. It wasn't like he stood there flatfooted. It was only a 20 yard pass, not a 50 yard bomb. People are really starting to make up crap in their minds to blame someone for an injury that was unavoidable.

Also, for the record, it wasn't an empty backfield either. And Brady was not even in a shotgun on that play.

YouTube - Chiefs safety Bernard Pollard Drills Tom Brady's Knee!! Visit: www.mandurahomebiz.com

As for the defense staying fresh, in 2007 the Pats had a 32:31 time of possession average which was second best in the NFL. So no team kept their defense off the field better than the Pats that year other than the Steelers. In 2006, the Pats were sixth in time of possession with 31:35. In 2004 when the Pats ran the ball best during the Brady era, the Pats were seventh in time of possession with 31:22. So I see little coorelation to running the ball more and keeping the defense off the field. When the Pats were pass happy the most, they gave the defense the most rest.

 

[Ring 6]

Not surprised you can't understand the thread, since you've had problems in the past understanding arguments others put forth.

I'm not using that stat to figure out who has the best blocking or who is the best o-line at passing. That stat is very straight forward and clear: Brady was hit the most his two most recent seasons before injury.

The fact you then bring up Brady's QB rating during blitzes, shows you don't understand (again) the main point, which is that we have a QB coming off major injury and surgery, who prior to injury was already getting hit the most.

He probably also played the most plays.
It adds up to about 2 1/2 hits a game. Why are we crying?

 

[Pats726]

No one deserves blame on that play. It was a freak play. 99 times out of 100, Pollard never gets close to Brady in that situation.

As for blaming Brady for holding onto the ball too long, that is silly. Below is a video of the play over and over again. You see that Brady snaps the ball at the 2 second mark and releases the ball around the 5 second mark. That is three to four seconds to throw the ball. He takes a seven yard drop and has a quick two step stutter step and relased the ball. It wasn't like he stood there flatfooted. It was only a 20 yard pass, not a 50 yard bomb. People are really starting to make up crap in their minds to blame someone for an injury that was unavoidable.

Also, for the record, it wasn't an empty backfield either.

YouTube - Chiefs safety Bernard Pollard Drills Tom Brady's Knee!! Visit: www.mandurahomebiz.com

As for the defense staying fresh, in 2007 the Pats had a 32:31 time of possession average which was second best in the NFL. So no team kept their defense off the field better than the Pats that year other than the Steelers. In 2006, the Pats were sixth in time of possession with 31:35. In 2004 when the Pats ran the ball best during the Brady era, the Pats were seventh in time of possession with 31:22. So I see little coorelation to running the ball more and keeping the defense off the field. When the Pats were pass happy the most, they gave the defense the most rest.

Great points...There's a lot that's been missed...and you filled in with IMO high marks!!!

 

[PushnPencils]

When the offensively line has to practice against a horrible pass rush, how do you think they'll do against a good to great pass rush in a real game situation? Just a thought..I'm outty.

 

[PatsDeb]

He probably also played the most plays.
It adds up to about 2 1/2 hits a game. Why are we crying?

Right. How many snaps did Brady play over that 3 yr. span vs. the other guys? Way more, I bet. A more accurate stat would be how many average hits somebody took over that 3 yr. period. I bet Brady returns to the pack if it is presented that way.

However, it will be no surprise if BB tailors the offense this year, at least at the beginning of the year, to rely more on the run to keep Brady upright, at least while he gets his game legs back.

 

[maverick4]

He probably also played the most plays.
It adds up to about 2 1/2 hits a game. Why are we crying?

Actually he didn't. On earlier pages it's been noted that others took more snaps and also attempted more passes, yet Brady was still pounded the most.

It's not 'crying'. It's taking proper steps to protect the best player on the team from continuing to take the same beating he took before his injury, now that he's coming back from a severe knee injury.

 

[Deus Irae]

Actually he didn't. On earlier pages it's been noted that others took more snaps and also attempted more passes, yet Brady was still pounded the most.

It's not 'crying'. It's taking proper steps to protect the best player on the team from continuing to take the same beating he took before his injury, now that he's coming back from a severe knee injury.

We're still waiting on those answers....

 

[maverick4]

Deus earned his way on the ignore list since he doesn't respond to direct questions.


As was already noted in previous pages, other QB's passed more and took more snaps, but Brady was hit the most. There are a number of factors for why he may have been hit the most. It could be the o-line, Brady holding the ball longer, the play calls, or the RB/TE not staying in as much.

If it was simply the fact that we passed so much, should we keep doing what we've been doing and subjecting Brady to more hits, or do we change our approach.

 

[Deus Irae]

Deus earned his way on the ignore list since he doesn't respond to direct questions.


As was already noted in previous pages, other QB's passed more and took more snaps, but Brady was hit the most. There are a number of factors for why he may have been hit the most. It could be the o-line, Brady holding the ball longer, the play calls, or the RB/TE not staying in as much.

If it was simply the fact that we passed so much, should we keep doing what we've been doing and subjecting Brady to more hits, or do we change our approach.

1.) I did answer your questions

2.) If I'm ignored, why did you respond to my post by saying I'm on ignore?

3.) You made a claim about the years prior to 2006-2007 and you don't have the data. Just admit that you were talking out of your backside.

4.) Again, who was negligent?

5.) It's nice to see that you're finally starting to figure out that there are many factors going into the stat and that it's not as easy as just blaming the O.C. and his playcalling.

edit: your questions were answered in post #111

 

[maverick4]

Thanks for agreeing with me, but I don't know if I draw the same conclusion from the same facts as observed.

I think that TB would be the first to agree that the Pats are about the "business of winning" and not about the business of protecting any one player, other than to the extent that doing so advances the cause of winning. 27--5 in the regular season over the past two years with two different QB's suggests that the formula is working.

The Belichick formula has worked and produced five trips to the AFCCG, four to the SB and three Lombardis in eight seasons--not to mention a 16--0 season. The long term cost of this success for Tom Brady and how he weighs that cost versus the well-demonstrated benefits for him personally is something that only he can assess and about which he will make a decision when he considers where to finish his career after his contract is up. I don't see the Pats making any major changes, nor do I think they should.

The Belichick Formula does work, and I think he's deviated it a bit from it the past few years. The old Belichick always drafted tight ends, not sexy busts at WR or RB. I would argue that the offense underwent a major transformation after Weiss left, and the Pats haven't won a ring since. I also think the transformed offense requires Brady to be more exposed and take more hits in order for it to work. Yes we have 3 Lombardis in eight seasons, but the last one was with different schemes and a long time ago.

 

[maverick4]

We know, for example, that some quarterbacks hold on to the ball longer than others while waiting for receivers to get open. We know that Brady is one of those quarterbacks. What we don't know is how much that affects the hit totals, although anyone capable of higher thought should understand that it will lead to the hit totals being higher. And, as I tried pointing out to you earlier, this, and other factors, must be taken into consideration before you go making idiotic blanket statements based upon a stat that's so prone to be misleading as "hits".

What blanket statement are you referring to, the need to reduce the number of hits on Brady? I am all for looking into the factors which end up with hits on Brady, in order to minimize further hits on our star QB. I'm not for listing all factors, saying it's too complicated or impossible to know, and then conclude that we should just keep doing the same thing we've always done just because it puts up tons of points.

Brady is fearless and will stand in the pocket to make the play. That doesn't mean the system should be designed so that we need Brady to take a hit in order to be successful.

 

[Deus Irae]

What blanket statement are you referring to, the need to reduce the number of hits on Brady? I am all for looking into the factors which end up with hits on Brady, in order to minimize further hits on our star QB. I'm not for listing all factors, saying it's too complicated or impossible to know, and then conclude that we should just keep doing the same thing we've always done just because it puts up tons of points.

Brady is fearless and will stand in the pocket to make the play. That doesn't mean the system should be designed so that we need Brady to take a hit in order to be successful.

1.) Obviously you need to talk to Ian about fixing your ignore feature

2.) There is no system that requires Brady to take a hit in order to be successful, as you must know.

3.) Hearkening back to your O.P., who was negligent?

4.) Where's the data on hits up until 2005, and where's the data for each individual year?

 

[PatsFanSince74]

The Belichick Formula does work, and I think he's deviated it a bit from it the past few years. The old Belichick always drafted tight ends, not sexy busts at WR or RB. I would argue that the offense underwent a major transformation after Weiss left, and the Pats haven't won a ring since. I also think the transformed offense requires Brady to be more exposed and take more hits in order for it to work. Yes we have 3 Lombardis in eight seasons, but the last one was with different schemes and a long time ago.

That's specious. 16--0 wasn't that long ago, nor was a freak catch that kept them from another trophy. They managed to go 11--5 last year without TB. I think the "schemes" are just fine. Everyone who plays for the Pats knows that the team is about winning and not about protecting one player. Everyone decides whether the benefits of being part of that outweigh the risks and/or costs. In that spirit, in a year or so, Tom Brady will evaluate the many benefits (both financial- and career-related) of being part of the Patriots system and decide whether to finish his career with the team.

 

[maverick4]

That's specious. 16--0 wasn't that long ago, nor was a freak catch that kept them from another trophy. .

It's true we came so close in 2007. The past few years we've basically become the Colts of 2001-2004, with an explosive offense that puts up tons of points. The only explosive offensive team to win it all in recent years were Manning's Colts, and only because they were handed the championship by Rex Grossman.

 

[Deus Irae]

It's true we came so close in 2007. The past few years we've basically become the Colts of 2001-2004, with an explosive offense that puts up tons of points. The only explosive offensive team to win it all in recent years were Manning's Colts, and only because they were handed the championship by Rex Grossman.

The Patriots were a helmet catch away from having the greatest season in NFL history. Much like taking just the raw number of hits into battle for your argument, taking the "The only explosive offensive team to win it all in recent years were Manning's Colts, and only because they were handed the championship by Rex Grossman." is just a way to ignore the fact that they also beat the Chiefs, Ravens and Patriots, and were 7 point favorites in that Super Bowl. Hell, look at your line. You're pulling the "only because" card about the Colts, but you don't concede the "only because" card about the Patriots.

 

[DaBruinz]

Maverick - YOU are more guilty of not answering questions than Deus. Also, there were only 2 QBs who took more snaps than Brady did. Palmer took 1 more snap and Favre took about 60 more.

Yes, you are crying. You're being absolutely pathetic with your BS obsession of crying over the spread formation, which was being used with WEIS as well. Weis even admitted it.

The other problem is that getting "hit" 2.5 times a game. YOU'D have everyone believe that those hits are ones that are taking Brady's head off. Many of those "hits" are just Brady getting pushed or shoved. Yet, you don't account for that. Its the problem with your whole BS theory.

Do the Pats need to run a balanced offense? Yes. Have they done that before? Yes. Is everything the fault of McDaniels and the spread offense? NO. If/when you get your head out of your rear end, you might actually figure that out. Until then, you're being nothing but ignorant.

 

[Rob0729]

It's true we came so close in 2007. The past few years we've basically become the Colts of 2001-2004, with an explosive offense that puts up tons of points. The only explosive offensive team to win it all in recent years were Manning's Colts, and only because they were handed the championship by Rex Grossman.

I agree that we have become too offense reliant, but that is more damning on the defense than the offense. The reason the Colts in 2001-2004 never got to the Super Bowl wasn't their offense, it was their defense. They relied on Manning, Harrison, and Edge to get them to the playoffs in shootouts and when the Colts' offense faced tougher defenses in the playoffs, their lack of defense exposed them as pretender (offenses especially back then struggled in the playoffs and teams needed good defenses to not allow the other team to control the ball and score).

Look at the Colts' losses in the playoffs during that stretch. They lost 41-0 against the Jets with the Jets scoring 24 points by halftime and 34 by the end of the third. Also, Pennington threw for 3 TDs and LaMont Jordan rushed for two. In 2003, the Pats scored six times on offense in a 24-14 win. In the 2004 season, they lost 20-3 with Corey Dillion rushing for 144 yards in a slopfest. If they had a better defense those games would have been closer and they may have won one or two of them.


Defense wins Super Bowls plain and simple. Look at all the teams that have won Super Bowls this decade and all of them other than the Colts had great defenses. Even the Colts' defense has some miracle turnaround in the 2005. They beat the Patriots in the AFC Championship because the Pats' defense ran out of gas in the second half. I think that every team that has won a Super Bowl in the last decade including the Rams (and excluding the Colts) had a top two-three defense. Maybe not the Giants because they did struggle earlier in the season.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Is maverick trying to argue that explosive offenses hurt your chances to win a Super Bowl? Scoring too many points works against you? That seriously might be the most idiotic thing that I have ever read on this board.

 

[nashvillepatsfan]

I agree that we have become too offense reliant, but that is more damning on the defense than the offense.

Defense wins Super Bowls plain and simple. Look at all the teams that have won Super Bowls this decade and all of them other than the Colts had great defenses. Even the Colts' defense has some miracle turnaround in the 2005. They beat the Patriots in the AFC Championship because the Pats' defense ran out of gas in the second half. I think that every team that has won a Super Bowl in the last decade including the Rams (and excluding the Colts) had a top two-three defense. Maybe not the Giants because they did struggle earlier in the season.

This is the point i was trying to make in post #138 that you responded to.
http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...dy-most-hit-qb-league-2006-2007-a-page14.html
The defense needs to be fresh at the end of the season. 06, they were not. They even seemed a little gassed in 07, but still they managed to do a decent job in the SB. You were showing stats that show us ranked high in T.O.P. but then why did they seem so worn down at the end? age perhaps? Whatever the case, i would prefer we play more of a ball control, running offense, and not have Brady dropping back every down. I'm not concerned with Bradys health, just the defenses health.

I also agree with your response to my previous post. It was a freak play that resulted in that injury. I was merely pointing out, that Morris, and Faulk should not be blamed. I do believe Brady was waiting, and shouldve gotten rid of the ball faster, but it really doesnt matter. Thats the past.

 

[maverick4]

Whatever the case, i would prefer we play more of a ball control, running offense, and not have Brady dropping back every down. I'm not concerned with Bradys health, just the defenses health.

The 01-04 defenses still failed in the playoffs and the offense won those rings. I think it comes down to STYLE of play on offense. The yards/stats obsession on offense doesn't win rings. Manning's ring was a complete fluke handed to him by Rex Grossman.