Team Balance Trend

[cstjohn17]

Spent some time looking at the balance of past Patriots teams. The lens used is number of wins with a QB rating under 100. Obviously when a team has a QB with a 100+ QB rating they tend to win. I was looking for past evidence of times when the QB had an average or below average game and the team still won.

Nothing surprising in 2001, Brady could afford to be ok, even into 2003. The past few years in has totally shifted.

The conclusion is simple
"Tom Brady plays superior the Patriots win"

Wins where Brady had a QB rating under 100, as a fraction of all wins

Pro-Football-Reference.com - Pro Football Statistics and History

2001
Won 8 / 11 with QB rating under 100

2003
Won 8 / 14 with QB rating under 100

2004
Won 6/14 with QB rating under 100

2010
Won 2/14 with QB rating under 100

2011 (so far)
Won 1/11 with QB rating under 100


Playoffs
Won 8/14 under with QB rating under 100

 

[RobertWeathers]

Not surprising at all. Interesting to see it in black & white.

Three word response: Defense, defense, defense.

 

[Mack Herron]

I thought it was odd that they rushed only 20 times for 79 yards against Washington, and especially that BJGE had only 5 carries, including one carry in the 2nd half which was an awful non-conversion on 3rd and short, and Ridley had zero. I've given up on expecting anything from Vereen this year, and Woodhead and Faulk are not big enough or strong enough to be every down backs. More generally, the running game has regressed over the season so that they now have an unreliable ground game that requires little attention from opposing defenses. The failure to run gives opposing teams big advantages in TOP, whereas I would think we'd want the defense (especially this defense) on the field as little as possible. Brady, Welker and Gronk can beat mediocre teams by themselves, but this does not look like a championship winning strategy.

 

[cstjohn17]

I thought it was odd that they rushed only 20 times for 79 yards against Washington, and especially that BJGE had only 5 carries, including one carry in the 2nd half which was an awful non-conversion on 3rd and short, and Ridley had zero. I've given up on expecting anything from Vereen this year, and Woodhead and Faulk are not big enough or strong enough to be every down backs. More generally, the running game has regressed over the season so that they now have an unreliable ground game that requires little attention from opposing defenses. The failure to run gives opposing teams big advantages in TOP, whereas I would think we'd want the defense (especially this defense) on the field as little as possible. Brady, Welker and Gronk can beat mediocre teams by themselves, but this does not look like a championship winning strategy.

I know teams are supposed to have the "killer instinct" but sometimes you have to just keep things simple. The final offensive drive (the one Brady threw the pick)it was not smart football. First and goal at the 6, time to develop a playoff mentality. Run the ball from a power formation 3 times in a row, worst case is you give the ball back to Washington with a 10 point lead and about 5 minutes left.

Best case is you ram it down their throats, take the wind out of their sails and build some of the mental and physical toughness they will need in January.

The more I see the less I like about this team.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I know teams are supposed to have the "killer instinct" but sometimes you have to just keep things simple. The final offensive drive (the one Brady threw the pick)it was not smart football. First and goal at the 6, time to develop a playoff mentality. Run the ball from a power formation 3 times in a row, worst case is you give the ball back to Washington with a 10 point lead and about 5 minutes left.

Best case is you ram it down their throats, take the wind out of their sails and build some of the mental and physical toughness they will need in January.

The more I see the less I like about this team.

I would have liked to have seen that and couple it with play-action but thats besides the point.

 

[oldrover]

I would have liked to have seen that and couple it with play-action but thats besides the point.

+1. Also, defense.

 

[mgteich]

My conclusion is that Brady has become a better quarterback over the years.

We might ask what contributes to that fact.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I know teams are supposed to havethe "killer instinct" but sometimes you have to just keep things simple.The final offensive drive (the one Brady threwthe pick)it was not smart football. First and goal atthe 6, time to develop a playoff mentality. Runthe ball from a power formation 3 times in a row, worst case is you givethe ball back to Washington with a 10 point lead and about 5 minutes left. Best case is you ram it downtheir throats, takethe wind out oftheir sails and build some ofthe mental and physical toughnessthey will need in January. The more I seethe less I like about this team.

Believe me, if Bill or tom thought they could do that they would have done it. You don't test a theory like that in live action when you've tried and failed to prove it many times. It's like the old lawyer's adage, don't ask a question in open court you don't already know the answer to. Remember a couple of years ago when he told them in pre season he was going to test it a some point and they better be able to convert on 4th and 1 on the ground with a game on the line and they weren't? Unless he focuses on the run game in the off season it isn't going to just appear in a couple of series in the regular season. This off season he opted for some talent, but the lockout and injuries on the OL and to the rookie RB's who don't yet have the blocking skills anyway to be in there more than situationally if they are healthy hasn't given him any time to truly test or build it.

So for now we stick with our bread and butter and our proven playmakers. If you paid attention to the Sound FX piece last week he was calling for BOB to throw it...emphatically.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

My conclusion is that Brady has become a better quarterbackover the years. We might ask what contributes to that fact.

His drive coupled with a need for him to...

 

[xmarkd400x]

Spent some time looking at the balance of past Patriots teams. The lens used is number of wins with a QB rating under 100. Obviously when a team has a QB with a 100+ QB rating they tend to win. I was looking for past evidence of times when the QB had an average or below average game and the team still won.

Nothing surprising in 2001, Brady could afford to be ok, even into 2003. The past few years in has totally shifted.

The conclusion is simple
"Tom Brady plays superior the Patriots win"

Tom Brady - Wins versus QB rating over 100
Pro-Football-Reference.com - Pro Football Statistics and History

2001
Won 8 / 11 with QB rating under 100

2003
Won 8 / 14 with QB rating under 100

2004
Won 6/14 with QB rating under 100

2010
Won 2/14 with QB rating under 100

2011 (so far)
Won 1/11 with QB rating under 100


Playoffs
Won 8/14 under with QB rating under 100

I feel like the more accurate description would be "Wins where Brady had a QB rating under 100, as a fraction of all wins". Then the 1/11 makes sense for 2011.

If you say "Brady won 1/11 games with a QB rating under 100", it looks like the Patriots were 1-10 when Brady's QB rating was under 100.

/pedant

 

[ALP]

I feel like the more accurate description would be "Wins where Brady had a QB rating under 100, as a fraction of all wins". Then the 1/11 makes sense for 2011.

If you say "Brady won 1/11 games with a QB rating under 100", it looks like the Patriots were 1-10 when Brady's QB rating was under 100.

/pedant

yes, i dont understand the 1/11 number???

to me that shows 11 games where qb rating was under 100, and we won 1 of them only.....which is obviously not true....

 

[cstjohn17]

I feel like the more accurate description would be "Wins where Brady had a QB rating under 100, as a fraction of all wins". Then the 1/11 makes sense for 2011.

If you say "Brady won 1/11 games with a QB rating under 100", it looks like the Patriots were 1-10 when Brady's QB rating was under 100.

/pedant

Thanks, the title has been changed. Much better.

 

[Ring 6]

Spent some time looking at the balance of past Patriots teams. The lens used is number of wins with a QB rating under 100. Obviously when a team has a QB with a 100+ QB rating they tend to win. I was looking for past evidence of times when the QB had an average or below average game and the team still won.

Nothing surprising in 2001, Brady could afford to be ok, even into 2003. The past few years in has totally shifted.

The conclusion is simple
"Tom Brady plays superior the Patriots win"

Wins where Brady had a QB rating under 100, as a fraction of all wins

Pro-Football-Reference.com - Pro Football Statistics and History

2001
Won 8 / 11 with QB rating under 100

2003
Won 8 / 14 with QB rating under 100

2004
Won 6/14 with QB rating under 100

2010
Won 2/14 with QB rating under 100

2011 (so far)
Won 1/11 with QB rating under 100


Playoffs
Won 8/14 under with QB rating under 100

I'm not sure I understand. It looks like you are saying the Pats were 2-12 in 2010 and 1-10 in 2011 when Brady has a QB rating less than 100. That obviously isnt right.

Now that I reread this, I think you are listing the number of wins that Brady was under 100.
Is that really what you want?
It doesn't show the NEED for Brady to be over 100, it just shows how often he is.
Wouldn't a better yardstick be w/l record when Brady was under 100.

You implication is that the 100 needed, but it may not be consequential.

 

[Ring 6]

I know teams are supposed to have the "killer instinct" but sometimes you have to just keep things simple. The final offensive drive (the one Brady threw the pick)it was not smart football. First and goal at the 6, time to develop a playoff mentality. Run the ball from a power formation 3 times in a row, worst case is you give the ball back to Washington with a 10 point lead and about 5 minutes left.

Best case is you ram it down their throats, take the wind out of their sails and build some of the mental and physical toughness they will need in January.

The more I see the less I like about this team.

There is a strong argument that when you have the GOAT, you live or die with him.
That plan hasn't failed often.

 

[ausbacker]

There is a strong argument that when you have the GOAT, you live or die with him.
That plan hasn't failed often.

It's been failing miserably in January for the past 3 playoff pushes. Living by Brady and dying by Brady is too simplistic a notion when you consider coaching, the offense, the defense, the special teams, state of the roster at the time and the opposition.

 

[Ring 6]

It's been failing miserably in January for the past 3 playoff pushes. Living by Brady and dying by Brady is too simplistic a notion when you consider coaching, the offense, the defense, the special teams, state of the roster at the time and the opposition.

Miserably, twice?

 

[ausbacker]

Miserably, twice?

That depends if you consider the Superbowl run in 2007/2008 as a success or not. I don't (but that also demonstrates my comment about other factors).

 

[Ring 6]

That depends if you consider the Superbowl run in 2007/2008 as a success or not. I don't (but that also demonstrates my comment about other factors).

I don't think you can call going to the SB and coming within 1 minute, a helmet catch, a dropped int, a missed in the grasp from a perfect season failing miserably. Is that what you are saying?


The point here isn't that if we could back in time we would make all the same decisions in building the 09 and 10 teams, which seems to be what you are saying.
The discussion was about relying on Brady or taking the ball out of his hands and running it. I don't see how that is a central issue to the 2 playoff losses.

 

[ausbacker]

I don't think you can call going to the SB and coming within 1 minute, a helmet catch, a dropped int, a missed in the grasp from a perfect season failing miserably. Is that what you are saying?

The point here isn't that if we could back in time we would make all the same decisions in building the 09 and 10 teams, which seems to be what you are saying.
The discussion was about relying on Brady or taking the ball out of his hands and running it. I don't see how that is a central issue to the 2 playoff losses.

The goal of making the Superbowl is winning the Superbowl. Since the Giants (and let's face it officiating) affected the outcome of the contest negatively for the Patriots, I consider losing Superbowl 42 a failure, thus the 2007 playoff run a failure. That's exactly what I am saying. Great ride, poor outcome, same result as 31 other teams.

As for the team composition, I am 100% that BB self-scouts and if he had the opportunity to re-do many personnel decisions, he would. So yes, I'm sure the roster composition, especially across 2009/2010 leaves room for much improvement. This notion also dismisses your idea about living and dying with Tom Brady. I hope you understand that.

When teams can exploit the Patriots D (like the Jets and Ravens have specifically) and there is no true vertical receiving threat to exploit defenses, do you not think that impacts Tom Brady? Do you not think that by utilizing a balanced running game to open up play action possibilities for Tom Brady that, that does not impact Tom Brady?

 

[Ring 6]

The goal of making the Superbowl is winning the Superbowl. Since the Giants (and let's face it officiating) affected the outcome of the contest negatively for the Patriots, I consider losing Superbowl 42 a failure, thus the 2007 playoff run a failure. That's exactly what I am saying. Great ride, poor outcome, same result as 31 other teams.

Winning 2 games and getting to the SB and being as close to winning as any team ever that didnt win is now described as failing miserably in the postseason?
So 2007 was as bad as 2010, 2008, even 1991 in your book, since we were the same as 31 other teams?

However, the discussion is about putting the ball in Bradys hands or running more. So your conclusion is that this is the same thing as putting the ball in Tyler Palkos hands since they won;t win the SB?
Are you even keeping up with the topic?

As for the team composition, I am 100% that BB self-scouts and if he had the opportunity to re-do many personnel decisions, he would. So yes, I'm sure the roster composition, especially across 2009/2010 leaves room for much improvement. This notion also dismisses your idea about living and dying with Tom Brady. I hope you understand that.

My idea wasn't living or dying with Tom Brady.
I am discussing the concept that when the game is on the line I want the ball in Bradys hands not BJGE.

When teams can exploit the Patriots D (like the Jets and Ravens have specifically) and there is no true vertical receiving threat to exploit defenses, do you not think that impacts Tom Brady? Do you not think that by utilizing a balanced running game to open up play action possibilities for Tom Brady that, that does not impact Tom Brady?

When the game is on the line, I want the ball in Tom Bradys hands. I did not say pass on 100% of the plays. I did not say ignore playing defense. I said that when the game is on the line and you have Tom Brady your best chance to win is to make it about whether he gets the job done that someone else.