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

[ScottieC]

This thread isn't about McDaniels. It's about protecting our QB, who was hit the most in the league the last two full seasons he played.

But since you brought it up, I'm extremely happy, for one, that McKid is gone.

Was it the calling of plays that led to the greatest offense in the history of the game or the fact that our Tom F'n Brady thought so much of him that really set you off on Josh?

 

[Rob0729]

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.

I think the problem in the AFC Championship game in the 2006 season wasn't as much as they offense not keeping the defense off the field (although that was a problem too), but the fact the Pats had no answer for Dallas Clark or Joseph Addai which allowed the the Colts starting with the last drive in the second quarter to have four consecutive scoring drives of 80 yards, 76 yards, 76 yards, and 67 yards. I don't even know ifit was because the defense was gassed since the Colts scored 24 of their 38 points on those drives and only scored 10 points in the fourth quarter.

As for why the defense looked worn down at the end, it was part having to do with age and part having to do with injuries and lack of depth in some areas. When Colvin went down in 2003, the Pats had Willie McGinest. In 2006, the Pats had Eric Alexander replace the spot for Seau in the AFC Championship game and the Colts exploited it.

 

[Rob0729]

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.

Of course it is the offenses fault. Just like in the AFC Championship game vs. the Colts in the 2006 season, Maverick loves to point out that it was McDanield fault the Pats lost because they scored 34 points (27 on offense) in that game. The defense only gave up 38 points so clearly they shoulder no part of the blame. If the offense cannot overcome theirt defense giving up 39 points, the OC has no business being in the NFL.

 

[maverick4]

Was it the calling of plays that led to the greatest offense in the history of the game

It broke records because it was new and adapted from Meyer's spread offense. It also helps to have the 2nd best WR of all time and the best slot receiver ever on the team, not to mention one of the top 3 QB's ever. You could call almost any play and the talent would make it work most of the time and make you look good.

Mike Martz put up tons of points too with an innovative offense for a few years (before the league caught up to him and then he sucked); it doesn't make him a good coach.

That kind of style also doesn't win rings as much. Martz's ring almost went to Tennessee that year, and Manning got lucky playing the Bears

 

[Rob0729]

It broke records because it was new and adapted from Meyer's spread offense. It also helps to have the 2nd best WR of all time and the best slot receiver ever on the team, not to mention one of the top 3 QB's ever. You could call almost any play and the talent would make it work most of the time and make you look good.

Mike Martz put up tons of points too with an innovative offense for a few years (before the league caught up to him and then he sucked); it doesn't make him a good coach.

That kind of style also doesn't win rings as much. Martz's ring almost went to Tennessee that year, and Manning got lucky playing the Bears

Mike Martz won a Super Bowl as an OC. You keep comparing him to McDaniels like it is a bad thing. Yes, McDaniels sucks because he is just like a Super Bowl winning OC. McDaniels is good enough to be a Super Bowl winning OC, but that's about as good as he gets.

Again, where is the culability of the defense in your argument? You blame McDaniels for the AFC Championship game against the Colts, but really what was more responsible for the loss a failed final drive where it clearly wasn't all McDaniels' fault (Caldwell's drop while wide open and Brady staring down Troy Brown) or the fact the Pats gave up 35 points in the second half with a 21-3 lead at halftime? Any unbiased person with a modicrum of intelligence would blame the defensive problems especially since the Pats scored 34 points.

Football has three aspects of the game - offense, defense, special teams. Usually when a team wins or loses, it isn't solely the responsibility of one side of the ball. One side may have more responsibility than others, but it is rarely one unit or coach's fault. I look at the losses post 2004 in the playoffs and every game, I see plenty of blame to be passed around. None of them were solely the offenses' fault.

 

[maverick4]

Mike Martz won a Super Bowl as an OC. You keep comparing him to McDaniels like it is a bad thing.

Again, where is the culability of the defense in your argument?

You keep assigning undeserving and disproportionate credit to the defense for the rings, when each of those defenses failed late in those Superbowl games, and the ball-control, ground-heavy offense won those games.
Can't blame the 06-08 defenses for doing the same thing the 01-04 defenses did.

Mike Martz put up huge regular season points, but in Superbowls only barely beat an inferior Titans team, and lost to a completely inferior Pats team. The style of explosive offenses is sexy in the regular season, but isn't as good for playoffs or for rings.

 

[Rob0729]

You keep assigning undeserving and disproportionate credit to the defense for the rings, when each of those defenses failed late in those Superbowl games, and the ball-control, ground-heavy offense won those games.
Can't blame the 06-08 defenses for doing the same thing the 01-04 defenses did.

Mike Martz put up huge regular season points, but in Superbowls only barely beat an inferior Titans team, and lost to a completely inferior Pats team. The style of explosive offenses is sexy in the regular season, but isn't as good for playoffs or for rings.

Again, you want to blame the offense for anything that goes wrong on the field. The defense can make their own opportunities by creating 3 and outs just as easily as the offense can substain long drives. If a team gives up 35 points in the second half against a team, you can't blame the offense for that. They played a role, but it clearly isn't all their fault or even mostly their fault.

By the way, it is clear that you feel the Pats defense bailed out Weis in the Eagles Super Bowl and he almost single handily lost the Pats that game. In that game, the Pats had 12 drives in that game. The Pats went 3 and out on six of them. Had 4 plays for 17 yards on another. Lost the ball on another. The Pats had 8 horrible drives out of 12 in that game. So by your definition, the defense bailed out Weis because of his shoddy gameplan. If you make this argument for McDaniels, you gotta keep it for Weis. Or are you going to yet again expose yourself as a McDaniels obsessive bashing fraud and try to explain that one away.

As for the defense deserving the Super Bowl rings, they deserved the lionshare of the responsibility in 2 of the 3 wins. The Super Bowl against the Eagles, the offense was sporatic at best and the defense stepped up when they had to and against the Rams they shutdown the Greatest Show on Turf for three quarters. Only the Carolina game would I give the offense more credit than the derense.

 

[Synovia]

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.

No, the point is you're an idiot.


Brady isn't getting hit more than anyone else. The Patriots are throwing more than other people. Most of that is because their offense tends to stay out on the field for 8-10 plays each drive.


And anyways, none of this matters unless you show a correlation between hits and increased injury risk. I'm of the opinion that QB injuries are pretty much random.

 

[JSn]

And anyways, none of this matters unless you show a correlation between hits and increased injury risk. I'm of the opinion that QB injuries are pretty much random.

Agreed. Big Ben got hurt practicing, for Pete's sake.

Brady's tough and I don't think anyone (who matters) is more worried about his knee than any other year. The O-Line's job (on passing plays) is to protect the QB, no matter the play or formation.

 

[Rob0729]

No, the point is you're an idiot.


Brady isn't getting hit more than anyone else. The Patriots are throwing more than other people. Most of that is because their offense tends to stay out on the field for 8-10 plays each drive.


And anyways, none of this matters unless you show a correlation between hits and increased injury risk. I'm of the opinion that QB injuries are pretty much random.

Remember in 1989 when the Pats' season was trashed in a silly preseason game where they lost Andre Tippett, Ronnie Lippett, and Garvin Veris? A player can get hurt at any time. It is silly to talk about making Brady less effective to protect him. His accident was a freak injury where he was well protected, it was a medium range pass, and he got rid of the ball fairly quickly. How would minimizing the deep pass have avoided that?

 

[Synovia]

Brady's tough and I don't think anyone (who matters) is more worried about his knee than any other year. The O-Line's job (on passing plays) is to protect the QB, no matter the play or formation.

Right, but a big part of Brady's value is his ability to hold the ball much longer than most people (without panicking), allowing Welker/Faulk to get open. That ability/tendency, and the amount he gets hit are directly related. If he stops doing that to prevent getting hit, hes not going to be nearly as good of a QB.

 

[JSn]

Right, but a big part of Brady's value is his ability to hold the ball much longer than most people (without panicking), allowing Welker/Faulk to get open. That ability/tendency, and the amount he gets hit are directly related. If he stops doing that to prevent getting hit, hes not going to be nearly as good of a QB.

I agree, and that last-man slip is on him anyway.

I said way back in this thead I would hate to see them play safe and turn Brady into a lesser version of who he is. We can win games with the likes of Matt Cassel. We can dominate the league with the likes of TFB.

 

[maverick4]

Just because Brady is fearless in the pocket and is willing to take that hit, doesn't mean it should be built into the system so that he has to continue to a take a pounding in order for us to succeed. He's also now, what, 32 years old?

 

[maverick4]

I agree, and that last-man slip is on him anyway.

I said way back in this thead I would hate to see them play safe and turn Brady into a lesser version of who he is. We can win games with the likes of Matt Cassel. We can dominate the league with the likes of TFB.

That's too simplistic and ignores that we went 11-5 last year with major and multiple defensive starter injuries. I would argue that without the defensive injuries last year, the Pats would have gone maybe 13-3 and been tough to beat in the playoffs, with Brady on the sideline.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

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.

Come on, guy. I know you got into a spitting contest with another poster in this thread and are defending a position, but you're losing credibility here with every post.

Saying we've become the Colts of 2001-2004 is just way off. We weren't an "explosive offense" last year and ended up with a Playoff-worthy record and team that didn't make it to January by the rules of the league; we won a lot of games by guts and Belichickian guile in 2007, especially towards the end of the year, not just in the now fabled runaways.

I also take exception to the idea that any team, including the Colts, is "handed" a Championship; Montana won at least one of his rings in a blowout and another via turnovers and nobody says they were "handed" to him.

Between the Colts comparison and the dis on an SB winner (no matter how angry the win made me, as it did), I really question your understanding of the League and its teams.

 

[Deus Irae]

So, apparently Maverick didn't have those numbers and was just making up some of his argument.

 

[JSn]

That's too simplistic and ignores that we went 11-5 last year with major and multiple defensive starter injuries. I would argue that without the defensive injuries last year, the Pats would have gone maybe 13-3 and been tough to beat in the playoffs, with Brady on the sideline.

I don't disagree. But Brady, with weapons on offense (and this year could be almost outlandish in that regard), can make up for a lackluster D.

Brady is a QB. He gets paid to stand in there and take the hit if necessary. He knows how to do that safely. The Pollard hit was pure bad luck.

Sage got up and walked away from the Rosencopter, and that was an epic beating. Qb's aren't the only players who get tagged pretty good on a lot of plays.

I think your fear of Bradyless Pats is clouding your view of how a winning team plays the game.

We did well last year and Cassel took a massive beating. It's the nature of the position. We want our D to have QB's playing scared because it minimizes their effectiveness. Which is precisely why Brady has to be allowed to play Brady-ball and hang in there for the high-reward plays.

 

[maverick4]

I don't disagree. But Brady, with weapons on offense (and this year could be almost outlandish in that regard), can make up for a lackluster D.

It's the nature of the position.

We want our D to have QB's playing scared because it minimizes their effectiveness. Which is precisely why Brady has to be allowed to play Brady-ball and hang in there for the high-reward plays.

1. The philosophy of just having a gunslinger who compensates for a lackluster D, sounds like you want to be the Colts or the 90's Dolphins with Marino.

2. The nature of the position is to get hit, but to continue doing it exactly the same way as before? Why? The 49ers got Steve Young knocked out and didn't take precautions after he returned, and he eventually had to quit the game not too long after due to head injuries.

3. Brady doesn't play scared either way, so I don't see the point here. Changing the scheme won't minimize his effectiveness, unless you measure effectiveness by yards and TD's. Increasing protection and using more conservative schemes isn't going to diminish his level of play. Perhaps his production (and risk of hits and injuries), but not his level of play.

 

[maverick4]

We weren't an "explosive offense" last year

I also take exception to the idea that any team, including the Colts, is "handed" a Championship

1. Towards the end of last season we ran the same offense as we did before Brady went down - lots of shotgun, spread formations, aggressive vertical attacking.

2. The issue isn't who was 'handed' a ring. It's that the aggressive offensive style of play isn't a strong performer during playoffs and championships. Martz and Manning set regular season records, yet Martz was defeated once by a much crappier Pats team once, and barely beat an inferior Titans team the other time. Manning was routinely stuffed in the playoffs, and made a miracle run one year and was aided by playing against an INT-prone QB opponent.

The aggressive style of vertical offense has a poor history of translating into rings. The Vikings with Moss didn't even make the Superbowl.

 

[JSn]

1. The philosophy of just having a gunslinger who compensates for a lackluster D, sounds like you want to be the Colts or the 90's Dolphins with Marino.

I'm not proposing it's a good way to play. I'm saying it can be done. And imo, WAS done in this teams' recent history.

2. The nature of the position is to get hit, but to continue doing it exactly the same way as before? Why? The 49ers got Steve Young knocked out and didn't take precautions after he returned, and eventually had to quit the game due to head injuries.

But what do you propose as actual changes? Only one guy has to break the line to smite the QB with great smiteliness. Do you proposing duming the Galloways and Mosses for more Welkers?

3. Brady doesn't play scared either way, so I don't see the point here. Changing the scheme won't minimize his effectiveness, unless you measure effectiveness by yards and TD's. Increasing protection and using more conservative schemes isn't going to diminish his level of play. Perhaps his production (and risk of hits and injuries), but not his level of play.

Maybe I really don't get football after all...cuz yep. That's how I'd measure effectiveness, along with a low turnover percentage.