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

[Rob0729]

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.

Personally, I would love for us to go back to the Pats of the 2001-2004 era with a dominant defense and an offense that doesn't make costly mistakes, but isn't spectacular even with Brady. Unfortunately, we don't have the defense to support that style of play.

I think for the Pats to go back to more of an offense of the Weis era, they need a defense that is the caliber of the Crennel era. I don't see this team as close to the 2003 or 2004 teams in that area. Unless the defense can do its part better, Brady and the offense needs to shoulder more of the load.

 

[maverick4]

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.

But what do you propose as actual changes? Do you proposing duming the Galloways and Mosses for more Welkers?

That's how I'd measure effectiveness, along with a low turnover percentage.

You're right, it can be done, and we've done it very well in recent history. Our vertical passing game has set records, is explosive, is one of the best ever statistically. However, I would argue that aggressive vertical passing games don't fare very well come playoff time (Moss's Vikings, Martz's Rams, Manning's Colts).

I propose more 2-WR sets with a TE or two, and with less 1-RB or no-RB backfields. The spread formations, aggressive play calls should be used as change-ups or surprises, rather than as our bread and butter. Obviously our strength is our devastating passing attack. But, kind of like with Elway's Broncos teams that won it, I'd rather use our other weapons more and have an ace in the hole at QB whenever we need it, rather than be known as an aggressive vertical passing team.

 

[Synovia]

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.

The only way to increase blocking is to block with more guys. That means less receviers on the field.


If you don't think that will make him less effective, then you don't understand the modern nfl passing game.

 

[Synovia]

However, I would argue that aggressive vertical passing games don't fare very well come playoff time (Moss's Vikings, Martz's Rams, Manning's Colts).

And what specific offense does?


The giants in 07 were almost completely vertical. Their offense was "run, run, 20 yard jump ball to plax, run, 20 yard jump ball to plax, run, run". The Steelers in 05 ran an almost entirely vertical offense in the first half, then ran the games out. The colts won in 06.

So, what specific offense fares well in the playoffs?

 

[maverick4]

The only way to increase blocking is to block with more guys. That means less receviers on the field.

If you don't think that will make him less effective, then you don't understand the modern nfl passing game.

So what if there are less receivers on the field?

Look at the success and correlation between rings that year and the QB's who led the league in total passing yards.

Your idea of 'effectiveness' doesn't equate to rings.

 

[Synovia]

Personally, I would love for us to go back to the Pats of the 2001-2004 era with a dominant defense and an offense that doesn't make costly mistakes, but isn't spectacular even with Brady. Unfortunately, we don't have the defense to support that style of play.

I think for the Pats to go back to more of an offense of the Weis era, they need a defense that is the caliber of the Crennel era. I don't see this team as close to the 2003 or 2004 teams in that area. Unless the defense can do its part better, Brady and the offense needs to shoulder more of the load.

So, they should get a better defense so they can be less effective with the offense? That makes a whole lot of sense. Why not have a great offense AND a good defense, like in 2004, when they had an offensive DVOA of 24%, and a defense of -10%.

 

[Deus Irae]

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.

1.) The Patriots lost to an "aggressive" offense in the Giants. Their game was built around the run and the downfield pass.

2.) The best team in the NFC this decade has been the Eagles. They've all but given up on the run.

3.) The Rams were all about the pass and the running of Faulk.

4.) The NFC representative in the Super Bowl last season was all about the pass.

So, when you break down who's been going to the Super Bowls this decade:

Steelers: conservative, but more than willing to throw deep
Cardinals: all about the pass
Giants: Aggressive downfield passing team who set it up with lots of running
Patriots '07: pass first
Colts: pass first
Bears: run and defend
Steelers: conservative
Seahawks: free throwing offense
Patriots: balanced offense, but plenty of throwing
Eagles: all pass, all the time
Patriots: balanced offense, but plenty of throwing
Panthers: conservative, using the run to set up the past
Buccaneers: great defense, timely offense
Raiders: loving the pass
Patriots: balanced offense tending towards the short pass over bombs
Rams: "Greatest show on Turf".

That's 8 teams aggressively throwing the ball and 8 more conservative style teams.

I actually prefer a physical team that pummels its opponents into submission to a team that wings the ball all over the place. However, I understand that both styles can produce winning football and that, with the change in the contact rules, teams with great QBs are more likely to air it out and take advantage of those rules. And, the reality is that QBs get hit when they pass the ball, unless they play like Peyton Manning and throw the ball the moment they even sniff pressure.

 

[Synovia]

Look at the success and correlation between rings that year and the QB's who led the league in total passing yards.

There is absolutely no correlation between passing yards and winning. Teams tend to have more passing yards when they're losing. Having very high passing yards typically means the QB is good, and the defense sucks.

There is, however, a VERY STRONG correlation between QB DVOA and winning. Brady had a historically high DVOA in 2007. They lost the superbowl because of injuries, and bad playcalling, not because of some fundamental "QB IS TOO GOOD" flaw.

As to your actual question, There are 32 starting QBs. Only 1 can lead the league in passing yards, and only one can win the superbowl, so you'd expect it, if random, to happen at a 3% clip. To be outside any sort of standard deviation, and have it mean anything, you'd have to have a QB with the top passing yard number not win for about 150 years.

Your idea of 'effectiveness' doesn't equate to rings.

And yours does? Please, define your idea of effectiveness.

 

[Synovia]

1
Steelers: conservative, but more than willing to throw deep

Dues, I can't agree that the steelers are conservative.


The steelers play remarkably similar in style to the patriots: They come out and throw A LOT in the first half, and then slow the game way down if they get a lead of more than 7 points. The difference between the Pats and steelers, is the steelers do it with 4 yard middle runs, whereas the Pats do it with 5 yard passes and draws to kevin faulk.


They most certainly are aggressive early though.

 

[DaBruinz]

Dues, I can't agree that the steelers are conservative.


The steelers play remarkably similar in style to the patriots: They come out and throw A LOT in the first half, and then slow the game way down if they get a lead of more than 7 points. The difference between the Pats and steelers, is the steelers do it with 4 yard middle runs, whereas the Pats do it with 5 yard passes and draws to kevin faulk.


They most certainly are aggressive early though.

I can't agree with this assessment of the Steelers.. When Willie Parker is healthy, they are a run first team. They only went away from the run when Parker wasn't available. Big Ben has yet to go over 500 attempt in any given season and his YPA is actually down from his 1st two years. That doesn't stem from an aggressive passing game.

But that is all off topic. The topic is whether or not the Spread offense, which was implemented by Weis and used by McDaniels is responsible for Brady getting hit more often than other QBs.. The reality is that, based on the number of attempts, Brady isn't hit any more often than other QBs..

 

[Rob0729]

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.

1.) And the Pats won six of their last seven after going 5-5 the first half of the season. I don't get your point.

2.) In 2007, the Pats revised their offense in both games of their playoff games leading up to the Super Bowl. Both games McDaniels ran a ball control type of offense. In the Super Bowl (where McDaniels deserves a decent share of the blame), they tried everything including a lot of screen passes and the Pats were unable to stop the pass rush even on quick screens. In the AFC Championship game vs. the Colts, the Pats weren't throwing a lot of passes down the field, but running the ball wasn't an option since Dillon was out by the first half end and Faulk was injured too.

 

[Deus Irae]

Dues, I can't agree that the steelers are conservative.


The steelers play remarkably similar in style to the patriots: They come out and throw A LOT in the first half, and then slow the game way down if they get a lead of more than 7 points. The difference between the Pats and steelers, is the steelers do it with 4 yard middle runs, whereas the Pats do it with 5 yard passes and draws to kevin faulk.


They most certainly are aggressive early though.

But they are conservative. They threw less than their opponents and ran far more often. They are willing to look downfield, but the running game is where they make their living (less so now than before, granted). However, it's important to call them conservative for 2 reasons:

1.) They are

2.) Take a look at the sack totals and sack% of the 2007 Patriots vs. 2008 Steelers:

2007 New England Patriots Statistics & Players - Pro-Football-Reference.com

2008 Pittsburgh Steelers Statistics & Players - Pro-Football-Reference.com

and then even look at the sack% for the 2005 Steelers team:

2005 Pittsburgh Steelers Statistics & Players - Pro-Football-Reference.com

In short form, Brady was sacked only 21 times in 2007, for a 3.5% sack percentage. Roethlisberger was sacked 46 times in 2008, for an 8.9% sack percentage and 23 times (in just 12 games) in 2005, for a 7.9% sack percentage.

In other words, using that conservative style hasn't been keeping Roethlisberger from getting pummeled.

 

[Synovia]

I can't agree with this assessment of the Steelers.. When Willie Parker is healthy, they are a run first team. They only went away from the run when Parker wasn't available. Big Ben has yet to go over 500 attempt in any given season and his YPA is actually down from his 1st two years. That doesn't stem from an aggressive passing game.

DaBruinz, the steelers actually pass significantly more in the first half than they run. Its the second half they do all the running. When they're trying to score points, they're throwing, and its been that way for 10 years.

 

[Rob0729]

So, they should get a better defense so they can be less effective with the offense? That makes a whole lot of sense. Why not have a great offense AND a good defense, like in 2004, when they had an offensive DVOA of 24%, and a defense of -10%.

No. They need to get better on defense so they don't have to rely on Brady and the offense to win so many games. I want a balanced team like 2004, but I have always said given a choice of having a team like the 2003 team (superior defense and a mediocre to average offense) or the 2007 team (superior offense and a mediocre to average defense) that I would choose the 2003 team.

Unfortunately since 2004 with the decline of Bruschi and Harrison due to medical reasons and age, the loss of Law, McGinest, Phifers, etc.; the Pats haven't had the luxary of a superior defense in recent years. Ultimately, I would love the perfect team, but right now the defense is still a bit of a work in progress.

 

[Dino 6 Rings]

couldn't it also be argued that Great QBs are attacked more by a more agressive Defense because the Coordinator of that defense realizes he needs to take the head of the snake?

I mean, why would you all out blitz a guy like Jackson in Minnesota? He's not going to "beat you". For the Vikings, you attack Peterson first. Why would you attack Jake Delhoume or Kerry Collins? They aren't going to kill you. But Brady, Manning, McNabb, you send everything you got at them to take them out of their game. Breese, Rivers, you attack as hard as possible. Rex Grossman, Chad Pennington, Jeff Garcia, Matt Schaub, Jason Campbell, JT Osullivan, these guys aren't going to Beat you if you have a great defense already. Sure you blitz once in a while, but not like when you play the Elite QBs of the league. You unleash the kitchen sink at Manning and Brady, you ease up and play a safe soft run support zone and keep everything in front of you for those runnning backs and can't hit a 20 yard out QBs.

Just saying, the defenses adjust to the better QBs more agressively and that could be a reason why some of the Best QBs in the league are hit as much as they are.

 

[Rob0729]

There is absolutely no correlation between passing yards and winning. Teams tend to have more passing yards when they're losing. Having very high passing yards typically means the QB is good, and the defense sucks.

There is, however, a VERY STRONG correlation between QB DVOA and winning. Brady had a historically high DVOA in 2007. They lost the superbowl because of injuries, and bad playcalling, not because of some fundamental "QB IS TOO GOOD" flaw.

As to your actual question, There are 32 starting QBs. Only 1 can lead the league in passing yards, and only one can win the superbowl, so you'd expect it, if random, to happen at a 3% clip. To be outside any sort of standard deviation, and have it mean anything, you'd have to have a QB with the top passing yard number not win for about 150 years.




And yours does? Please, define your idea of effectiveness.

In fairness to maverick, there is a coorlation, but that doesn't mean his reasoning for that coorlation is sound. You gave a good reason why it isn't sound. QBs who lead the league in passing usually do so in part because their defense stinks.

 

[Rob0729]

Isn't it funny how maverick has found away to turn an argument about Brady getting hit too much to his tired argument that McDaniels cost the Pats Super Bowl wins during his tenure because he made the offense too good?

 

[PatsFanSince74]

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.

The West Coast Offense transformed the game and delivered a whole armful of Lombardis over the years. If you're just referring to a run and gun with a slinger like Culpepper, I think that tarring all vertical offenses under the run and gun rubric is really just another red herring argument here.

 

[DaBruinz]

DaBruinz, the steelers actually pass significantly more in the first half than they run. Its the second half they do all the running. When they're trying to score points, they're throwing, and its been that way for 10 years.

First of all, they do not pass significantly more in the first half than they run. Under Cowher, they were a run first team with Bettis leading the way and they used the run to set up the pass. And they continued that with Parker except during the times he's been hurt. And they have continued that under Tomlin.

I think what you are doing is confusing running more in the 2nd half because of a lead with running more in the 2nd half by design.

Pitt - 2008 (run vs pass 1st half - including plays where penalties were enforced, sacks incurred, or interceptions/fumbles by Roethlingsberger):
Game 1 : 15 runs and 10 passing plays
Game 2: 17 runs and 16 passing plays
Game 3: 6 runs and 18 passing plays * Against Philly who has a great run defense.
Game 4: 8 runs and 11 passing plays
Game 5: 13 runs and 30 passing plays * No Willie Parker
Game 6: 11 runs and 21 passing plays * No Willie Parker
Game 7: 9 runs and 15 passing plays *No Willie Parker
Game 8: 12 runs and 21 passing plays *No Willie Parker
Game 9: 16 runs and 19 passing plays
Game 10: 10 runs and 26 passing plays * No Willie Parker
Game 11: 15 runs and 17 passing plays
Game 12: 12 runs and 20 passing plays *Willie Parker used sparringly early
Game 13: 12 runs and 19 passing plays
Game 14: 16 runs and 18 passing plays
Game 15: 16 runs and 20 passing plays
Game 16: 16 runs and 20 passing plays

Looking at this, only 2 games stand out as being over-whelmingly pass over run.. The game against the Pats and the one against Dallas. Otherwise, there is no overwhelming use of the pass in the 1st half by the Steelers.

 

[maverick4]

The West Coast Offense transformed the game and delivered a whole armful of Lombardis over the years. If you're just referring to a run and gun with a slinger like Culpepper, I think that tarring all vertical offenses under the run and gun rubric is really just another red herring argument here.

West Coast is quick, timed short passes and hitting receivers in stride. Our offense is more similar to the old Vikings or Rams or Colts offenses.