This is a follow up to the thread started on June 1, 2017 here: Cian Fahey on Tom Brady . That thread noted that Cian Fahey (Pre-Snap Reads QuarterBack Catalogue 2017) had claimed that Brady threw more interceptable passes late in the 2016 season.
That analysis is one reason I've been advocating not forcing Brady to play full 16 or 19 game season but rather to replicate the successful 2016 schedule and rest him. I initially advocated that Brady be rested the first 4-6 games of 2017, and as the season trudged on I've continually advocated resting him.
Neither Fahey's analysis nor my recommendations were greeted with enthusiasm. Responses were: that my suggestion to preserve Brady's health must have come from a Steeler's plant; that Fahey was a fraud; that Brady's recent interceptions didn't count because they were not his fault (seriously); and so on. There was no, or virtually no, serious analysis.
In view of the recent games and the increased interception rate, I think Fahey's analysis deserves a reevaluation, even among skeptics who appear to believe that Brady is so talented that he would not benefit from rest. This late in the season it might be too late to rest Brady, but it's still something that should be considered. More important, it should be re-asked why the abundantly obvious fact that base rate of performance for 40 year old quarterbacks should override, from a Bayesian point of view, a small sample size and that Brady ought to have been rested to start this season. All the more so because Garoppolo, based on his SF performance, would clearly have been able to spell Brady.
That analysis is one reason I've been advocating not forcing Brady to play full 16 or 19 game season but rather to replicate the successful 2016 schedule and rest him. I initially advocated that Brady be rested the first 4-6 games of 2017, and as the season trudged on I've continually advocated resting him.
Neither Fahey's analysis nor my recommendations were greeted with enthusiasm. Responses were: that my suggestion to preserve Brady's health must have come from a Steeler's plant; that Fahey was a fraud; that Brady's recent interceptions didn't count because they were not his fault (seriously); and so on. There was no, or virtually no, serious analysis.
In view of the recent games and the increased interception rate, I think Fahey's analysis deserves a reevaluation, even among skeptics who appear to believe that Brady is so talented that he would not benefit from rest. This late in the season it might be too late to rest Brady, but it's still something that should be considered. More important, it should be re-asked why the abundantly obvious fact that base rate of performance for 40 year old quarterbacks should override, from a Bayesian point of view, a small sample size and that Brady ought to have been rested to start this season. All the more so because Garoppolo, based on his SF performance, would clearly have been able to spell Brady.
