Disturbing stats for Brady

[Dutchmaster617]

As researched by Ian Rapaport:

Brady's 10 INT's has resulted in FORTY points for the opponent's offense.

In the last 3 losses by a combined 15 points, Brady's INT's in those game led to 27 points scored by the opponent's offense.

Of the 10 INTs he had, 4 were tipped by the opponent's defense, 4 were outright catches, and 2 were tipped up by his own receivers.

To this I add:

Now, our defense ranks #19 in total points given up (184).

Let's assume Brady plays like himself (closer to last year) and gives up only 3 INT, and one TD, through 8 games.

This would be a total of 7 points given up, and the surprising thing is that our defense would then have given up only 151 points.

It would then be ranked #5 overall, in points given up.

As unthinkable as it is, to even consider it, Brady is the one player that has hurt this team the most, this year. Not Haynesworth, not Ocho, not Price, not Bodden, not Tate or anyone else, but Tom Brady.

It then behooves the coaching staff to take the ball out of his hands more and give it to one or more of the five RBs we have on this team, none of who (ironically) have turned the ball over once, this season.

This doesn't even include the fumbles, the one that led to a safety, and another that gave NY an easy TD run.

Also I disagree, if the defense was top 5 worthy Brady wouldn't have to try so hard and his stats would reflect that, you can't just say he hurts the defense and ignore that. The RBs won't automatically lead to wins, none of the 5 RBs are able to control a game without the help of Brady.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

This phenomenon is the "Colts Paradox".

When a team has a highly paid superstar quarterback, it's logical to build the team around the quarterback through the draft and player acquisitions. The result is success.

However, when the quarterback gets injured or slumps, the team's personnel moves in support of the quarterback are exposed as deficiencies in other areas, such as defense. The result is failure.

The paradox is that success by building the team around the quarterback can also be failure by building the team around the quarterback.

This phenomenom is called patsfans.com coming with every stupid excuse imaginable to excuse Brady despite the fact they hate it when it's done for Manning.

2011 NFL is a QB driven league. Winners in 2011 are teams with franchise QB's playing at elite levels.

The defense isn't making or forcing Brady to make bad reads and throws. Brady is doing that.

A few days ago some zero in Baltimore was posting the exact same nonsense in another thread.

I challenged him to review the Patriots defensive performance vs the Baltimore defensive performance against Pittsburgh. They are essentially identical.

Naturally, the zero didn't want to hear that because....it's reality. His answer is to the next even dumber observation.

The win and loss was determined by the play of the two visiting offenses.

Human history shows the the most obvious answer is the answer.

 

[Patspsycho]

This doesn't even include the fumbles, the one that led to a safety, and another that gave NY an easy TD run.

Also I disagree, if the defense was top 5 worthy Brady wouldn't have to try so hard and his stats would reflect that, you can't just say he hurts the defense and ignore that. The RBs won't automatically lead to wins, none of the 5 RBs are able to control a game without the help of Brady.

With all due respect, BJGE took over the first Jets game.

Ridley has not even had a shot, and neither has Vereen.

 

[everlong]

Of the 10 HINTs he had, 4 were tipped by the opponent's defense, 4 were outright catches, and 2 were tipped up by his own receivers.

Of the four that were outright catches on one of them 85 ran the wrong route and the other his elbow got hit, although he was trying to force a ball as well. The other two were nearly identical throws to Gronk up the left seam.

One would have been a TD and instead they marched down the field and scored so there's a 14 point turnaround. I know football is about momentum but you give up an 80 yard drive after an interception and it's on the defense.

The second although not technically in the red zone would have been completed in the redzone so that's a minimum of three points. I cannot remember if the defense gave up points on this one off the top of my head.

There's definitely some variance correction going on this year with Brady. Where as last year every tipped ball fell to the ground this year nearly every one is intercepted after being batted straight up. The Bears game last year they could have easily made 3 picks of big tips that somehow found safety.

Lets hope he gets them all out now.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

So somewhere between 2 and 4 were entirely on him...let's start Mallett...

I think even Rapaport was trying to make a different point than the OP decided to persue.

And I'm not entirely comfortable blaming strip sacks on QB's either...

I like that new beer commercial where they aim to give idiot fans the in game experience...

 

[RIpats88]

to be honest, the positive I take from it is that I dont think Brady can play as bad as he did in this first half of the season in the 2nd half. this is a guy who is one of the best QB's of all time he'll right the ship

anyways there was an article on ESPN that basically said a large difference between last year and this year is turnovers. last year we were better than average when it comes to holding onto the ball. this year we are just average

 

[BradyManny]

As unthinkable as it is, to even consider it, Brady is the one player that has hurt this team the most, this year. Not Haynesworth, not Ocho, not Price, not Bodden, not Tate or anyone else, but Tom Brady.

Brady, at least going into last week, is also leading the league in Win Probability Added - even higher than Aaron Rodgers, so, go figure, for a player you cite as the one hurting us the most this year.

The major flaw in your argument is the assumption that the defense does not give up those points if Brady does not turn it over. Unfortunately, that's not the case.

With the exception of a pick-6 or an INT in our own redzone, blaming Brady for the ensuing points off TOs would be like blaming Zoltan Mesko for points off of punts.

Other than some major steps forward of late - our defense has been yielding point-scoring drives regardless of the situation, so no matter how the opposing offense gets the ball, and where the opposing offense gets the ball, the defense is liable to give up points. To remove possessions that were the result of offensive turnovers is huge statistical cherrypicking on your part.

Not to get too sidetracked here - but as much as I really appreciate the high-level analysis you bring to the table, I think in the end, you are a passionate fan just like any of us capable of inaccurate gut reactions. The difference is you have the wherewithal to not be completely reactionary like the chicken littles, but to seek further - however, I think you try too hard to avoid the obvious at times. In this case, I think you have done just that.

He hasn't been himself lately - true. But I think to consider what this team would be without him is not pretty. This is not the 2008 team. It would not survive in his absence.

Consider, even with his struggles of late - he's still in the top 3 in the league in yards, touchdowns, completion percentage - and even more refined metrics like win probability added (first), yards per attempt and Defense-Adjusted-Value (second).

I also think that fans have become rather spoiled of his 2007 & 2009 performances, and take for granted that he had a historically tough pass-defense schedule in 2008, and a rather difficult one this year so far as well. Those guys get paid too.

It's really hard for me to accept that a player who is - by even the more refined metrics - amongst the top three at his position, is hurting a team that is filled with cast-offs and scrubs on the defensive side of the ball.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Brady is also leading the league in Win Probability Added - even higher than Aaron Rodgers, so, go figure, for a player you cite as the one hurting us the most this year.

The major flaw in your argument is the assumption that the defense does not give up those points if Brady does not turn it over. Unfortunately, that's not the case.

With the exception of a pick-6 or an INT in our own redzone, blaming Brady for the ensuing points off TOs would be like blaming Zoltan Mesko for points off of punts.

With the exception of some major steps forward of late - our defense has been yielding point-scoring drives regardless of the situation, so no matter how the opposing offense gets the ball, and where the opposing offense gets the ball, the defense is liable to give up points. To remove possessions that were the result of offensive turnovers is huge statistical cherrypicking on your part.

Not to get too sidetracked here - but as much as I really appreciate the high-level analysis you bring to the table, I think in the end, you are a passionate fan just like any of us capable of inaccurate gut reactions. The difference is you have the wherewithal to not be completely reactionary like the chicken littles, but to seek further - however, I think you try too hard to avoid the obvious at times. In this case, I think you have done just that.

He hasn't been himself lately - true. But I think to consider what this team would be without him is not pretty. This is not the 2008 team. It would not survive in his absence.

Consider, even with his struggles of late - he's still in the top 3 in the league in yards, touchdowns, completion percentage - and even more refined metrics like win probability added (first), yards per attempt and Defense-Adjusted-Value (second).

It's really hard for me to accept that a player who is - by even the more refined metrics - amongst the top three at his position, is hurting a team that is filled with cast-offs and scrubs on the defensive side of the ball.

Ahhh no

Look at the Buffalo game

24 points off of turnovers.

Read the article.

The Bills had exactly one (1) TD drive NOT off a turnover.

All you have to do is read the drive log to see how awful that observation is.

The observation on the mumbo jumbo stats is even worse.

Who gives a rat's rear.

Take the same calculations and do them on the three loses.

 

[ivanvamp]

So what's the lesson here? The Pats lose when they turn the ball over a lot, and when they take care of the ball, they win.

1-2 when they have more than one giveaway
4-1 when they have 0-1 giveaway

Not exactly rocket science. Don't turn the ball over and the Pats will win the vast majority of the time.

 

[BradyManny]

Ahhh no

Look at the Buffalo game

24 points off of turnovers.

Read the article.

The Bills had exactly one (1) TD drive NOT off a turnover.

All you have to do is read the drive log to see how awful that observation is.

The observation on the mumbo jumbo stats is even worse.

Who gives a rat's rear.

Take the same calculations and do them on the three loses.

OK, the drive chart.

- The Pats gave up a 96 yard scoring drive (not off a turnover)
- A 10 play, 66 yard drive in the closing minute of Q2 off of Brady's INT that fell off of Woodhead's hands at the goal line. Really hard to blame that on our offense with a straight face.
- A 2 play 95 yard TD drive off of the Brady-to-Gronk INT. Again, really hard to call that a points off turnovers considering they marched the entirety of the field.
- A 70 yard FG drive (that was effectively a TD, if you recall) after a Patriots TD.

So your one TD not off turnovers is purely semantics. Thanks for directing me to the drivechart that proves how bad & cursory your analysis was. I appreciate that.

Obviously the pick 6 was bad, but that was tipped and the other ball in their territory - which Rap blindly categorizes as a clean INT - was the one where Ocho blew the route.

So if we look further in that game - it certainly doesn't point to Brady's performance being the sole issue, to say the least. There was bad bounces (tipped INT off a leaping defender), good defensive plays (Gronk int), poor ball handling (Woodhead), bad route running (Ocho) and some terrible, terrible defense that all factored in as well.

The cursory glance at a box score - which is basically what Rap is doing - might point us to a different conclusion.

As for the mumbo jumbo stats - which one of them exactly is confusing? The ones that measures how many yards, touchdowns and completions per attempt Brady has made? Or the one that adjusts his performance for the defenses he's faced? I'm sorry these are horribly confusing for you.

 

[Zeus]

Yes, that 96 yard drive off of Brady's interception that fell off of Woodhead's hands was clearly our QB's fault.

Well, the drive certainly wasn't Brady's fault. But that pass was a poor decision in that situation and it cost the team a very good chance to put more points on the board. I said this in another thread - if Brady had an average game in Buffalo, they score 50 and win going away.

The point here isn't to dump on TB. But when things aren't going well, everybody called upon to play better. That includes #12.

 

[Patspsycho]

The major flaw in your argument is the assumption that the defense does not give up those points if Brady does not turn it over. Unfortunately, that's not the case.

I don't argue against that- the defense still does give up 151 points even if Brady never turns the ball over. But the difference between him not turning over the ball and turning over it this much so far has been 40 points and that is a huge difference.

In view of the fact that our losses have been by an average of just 5 points, 40 points is colossal. So unfortunately in this regard, Brady is hurting this team, no matter how one puts it.

 

[Darolyn72]

Brady is getting older but he's low on the problem list.

 

[BradyManny]

I don't argue against that- the defense still does give up 151 points even if Brady never turns the ball over. But the difference between him not turning over the ball and turning over it this much so far has been 40 points and that is a huge difference.

In view of the fact that our losses have been by an average of just 5 points, 40 points is colossal. So unfortunately in this regard, Brady is hurting this team, no matter how one puts it.

You're missing my point: the correlation between turnovers and points allowed is a very fragile one if we don't look at the turnovers in a case-by-case example. It is especially flawed because, by definition, we are giving the defense a free pass on any possession resulting from an offensive turnover.

Take the INTs to Woodhead and Gronk in the Bills game - both of which happened at the goalline. The Pats yielded a 66 yard FG drive to end the half & a 95 yard touchdown drive off of those.

We can't absolve the defense of such poor play after these interceptions.

 

[RIpats88]

no matter how anyone wants to spin it for who is to blame for the losses, the patriots NEED to take beter care of the ball. you cant expect to win games when you turn it over 4 times

 

[BradyManny]

no matter how anyone wants to spin it for who is to blame for the losses, the patriots NEED to take beter care of the ball. you cant expect to win games when you turn it over 4 times

I agree with this completely - and we know Belichick does as well.

But to point to Brady as the sole reason of these turnovers, and the resulting points off of the turnovers, if not a fair analysis.

 

[RIpats88]

I agree with this completely - and we know Belichick does as well.

But to point to Brady as the sole reason of these turnovers, and the resulting points off of the turnovers, if not a fair analysis.

of course not, hes not the sole reason, although hes part of it.

we have to look at why our offense has stalled/there are so many tipped balls. and the answer goes to us not really having anyone who can effectively play the sidelines/deep threat. that allows opposing teams to crowd the middle of the field with linebackers.

this is really where we need Ochocinco to finally produce, because like Bedard said...Branch excels mainly in the middle of the field while Ocho can bring us a wider range of route trees on the sidelines that can help out offense move

 

[ivanvamp]

You're missing my point: the correlation between turnovers and points allowed is a very fragile one if we don't look at the turnovers in a case-by-case example. It is especially flawed because, by definition, we are giving the defense a free pass on any possession resulting from an offensive turnover.

Take the INTs to Woodhead and Gronk in the Bills game - both of which happened at the goalline. The Pats yielded a 66 yard FG drive to end the half & a 95 yard touchdown drive off of those.

We can't absolve the defense of such poor play after these interceptions.

Many of the turnovers came in spots where it seemed a relative certainty that the Pats were going to score points of their own. So consider Harrison's pick-six of Warner in the Cards-Steelers SB. The Cards were almost certainly about to score a TD, but the TD was seven for the Steelers. That's a 14-point swing.

If it's a 3rd and long from the Pats' 30 and they go for a deep bomb that gets intercepted 45 yards downfield, and the other team's offense then goes on a 75 yard scoring drive, well, come on...that INT is like a punt. But if it's 1st and goal from the other team's 1, and Brady throws a quick out that gets picked and returned for a TD, well, that 14-point swing is clearly on him.

So the general point is probably valid, but not all turnovers that lead to the other team scoring points are equal.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

You're missing my point: the correlation between turnovers and points allowed is a very fragile one if we don't look at the turnovers in a case-by-case example. It is especially flawed because, by definition, we are giving the defense a free pass on any possession resulting from an offensive turnover.

Take the INTs to Woodhead and Gronk in the Bills game - both of which happened at the goalline. The Pats yielded a 66 yard FG drive to end the half & a 95 yard touchdown drive off of those.

We can't absolve the defense of such poor play after these interceptions.

You're missing the point.

Turnovers happen on a case by case basis. It's not some aggregate number over a multi game time frame.

Furthermore, it's completely incorrect to assume that turnovers are like punts. That's patently false.

Go over to advancedfootball stats and look at the probability of scoring by field position. The reality is there are few examples where turnovers can occur without providing the opponent with better field position to score or you don't turn the ball over and not score points.

Any turnover from your one yard line to the opponent's 40 means the opponent has better field position to score. To be conservative, any turnover inside the opponent's 30 means you most likely don't score points.

This leaves a very thin 10-15 stretch where the punt/turnover overlap MIGHT be immaterial.

The FG observation is also incorrect. Why?

Here's a question.

What defense "sucks"?

The defense that allowed 2 TD's on four drives

The defense that allowed 3 TD's on ten drives

Does 21 or 14 points infer a better chance to win?

One major fault of football stats is it's oblivious to the amount of drives a team is afforded and why the hysteria over pass yards is overdone.

Our defense (when Brady's good) and the Packers should give up more yards because we score with abandon and pretty quickly.

What turnovers do is give the opponent more chances and by definition you have zero chances to score to match.

Also, there's momentum.

 

[larek]

this team has NO wide recievers- go with the inside game- OPPs know this-
its welker and the 2 TE -thats it!!