Dan Wetzel:Brady suddenly struggling in Pats’ biggest games

[Jackson 2]

The Giants are 3-0. The Pats are 2-0 (with a bye). The regular season means nothing. Even BB says the team's 0-0 at the beginning of the playoffs every time the Pats go. That's what you should be looking at.

The idea that the regular season means nothing is BS. All I've heard about NE is that they didn't beat a team with a winning record all year until the play-offs and now those same people (not just you) say the regular season means nothing when the Giants' 9-7 record is cited. So, to follow your reasoning to one of its logical conclusions, the Giants' defeat of NE in the regular season means nothing. And Denver's regular season record means nothing - they were a play-off team which was dismantled piece by piece by NE in the play-offs, so that does mean something, right? Look, I'm not trying to be agrumentative, but cliches such as the regular season means nothing sound cute and simplistic, but they're simply not true. Every team develops into what they are in the play-offs during the regular season. It's important.

 

[IndianPat]

NO TURNOVERS. That is all I ask. Last week, the only reason the Ravens were in contention is because of the ten points they got out of the turnovers. This team is so good that even a pedestrian performance by Brady against a top defense netted FIVE scoring drives in a game that had net loss of two possessions.
This team, as it is constituted presently, is capable of netting at least 6 scoring drives against a team like Giants. Without turnovers. Will that be enough ?. I think so.

 

[Metaphors]

Couple of interesting points re: Brady postseason since 2004 title:

- 12 games, 7-5 record

- Over that time, Brady hasn't had a QB rating in the 90's. 4 in the 100's, 2 in the 80's, 2 in the 70's, 1 in the 60's, 2 in the 50's, 1 in the 40's (overall a 91.6 rating)

- In 5 of those games, Brady faced a defense yielding a QB rating 78 or higher (3-2 record).
-- His ratings in those games: 137.6, 116.4, 101.6, 82.5, 79.5
-- TD to Int ratio: 13-2 (7-1 in the four non-Denver games)

- The 2007 Giants defensive QB rating: 83.4 reg, 70.4 playoffs
- The 2011 Giants defensive QB rating: 86.1 reg, 80.2 playoffs

 

[ALP]

what got my attention was the fact that Montana lost three straight playoff games (so 3 years)

07: loss
09: loss
10: loss
11: SB?

then after those three years Montana won two straight superbowls? lol watch that happen to Brady

 

[oldskool138]

So, to follow your reasoning to one of its logical conclusions, the Giants' defeat of NE in the regular season means nothing.

Now you're getting it. The Pats lost that game because of a questionable at best PI call in the 4th quarter and because they lost two key players on D that they have either replaced or have healed since. The Giants played without two key players in that game that they have back now and have been beasts in their playoff run.

 

[jsull87]

Funny, I came from that story (via Reiss link) right to PatsFans because I figured there'd be a link.

Overall a pretty balanced and fair take. Not snipy or snippy or whatever.

i don't know how balanced it is when you exclude the denver game. Not saying i don't recognise brady hasn't played lights out over the past 4 years in the playoffs. But when you only use his average/bad do or die games and leave out the 6td 0 int performance that's not a very balanced look.

 

[Anteros]

On the flip side:

"I honestly can't believe you would take Eli in an obvious 'people think I am good again so I will show them how bad I can be' game."

Bill Simmons ranks the NFL QBs from the transcendent to the putrid - Grantland

Bill Simmons

 

[reflexblue]

I went back and looked at TB's playoff states from Snow bowl game until last weeks with Baltimore. I only focused on TD's vs INT's

From 2002 to 2005 11 TD's 3 IINT's

From 2006 to 2112 25 TD's 16 INT's

I chose 2006 to differentiate because it was the first playoff game (denver) that TB threw more than 1 INT (i actually that it was more). It was also his First playoff loss, up until tha game he was 10-0. I had to use more than one site to get the figures. It was 330 am when i started trying to count up the INT. vs TD i'm not sure i added them up correctly, but it should be close.

Tom Brady Gamelogs and Game Logs | Pro-Football-Reference.com

Tom Brady Has Only Played One Good Playoff Game Since 2008, And We Have No Idea Why - Business Insider


2008 against the Giants: 29/48, 266 yards, 1 TD, 5.54 yards per attempt
2009 against the Ravens: 23/42, 154 yards, 2 TDs, 3 INTs, 3.67 yards per attempt
2011 against the Jets: 29/45, 299 yards, 2 TDs, 1 INT, 6.64 yards per attempt
2012 against the Broncos: 26/34, 363 yards, 6 TDs, 1 INT, 10.68 yards per attempt
2012 against the Ravens: 22/36, 0 TDs, 2 INTs, 6.64 yards per attempt
The Broncos game was his only truly good game, the first Ravens game was his only truly bad game, and the other three were below average compared to Brady's regular season numbers.

"But another theory is that the league's best teams — despite all the chatter over the NFL becoming an offense-first league — still consistently have the best defenses.

"Every Pats opponent except the '11 Broncos and the '08 Giants had a top-5 scoring defense, and that Giants team didn't allow more than 20 points in any playoff game that year."

"But Brady was excelling against the stiff competition in the playoffs between 2002-05. So why has he fallen off recently?"


I have a couple of theories one of which is that in the first 4-5 years the offense was more diversified, it was balanced more between pass vs run with Smith and Dillon. After Dillon it became more of a passing offense that relied more heavily on Brady to make it function. Opposing defenses could focus on stopping TB.

The other i mentioned before a couple of times, hes pressing for what ever reason. Maybe trying to hard to live up to the legend he created.

After the loss to Indy in the AFCCG in 07 the pats became more of an offensive minded team, therefor more points had to be scored, and TB had to throw more. Up until then the Pats were a team with a very good defense that kept the other team in check. They didn't need to score a lot of points to win.

 

[Metaphors]

2008 against the Giants: 29/48, 266 yards, 1 TD, 5.54 yards per attempt
2009 against the Ravens: 23/42, 154 yards, 2 TDs, 3 INTs, 3.67 yards per attempt
2011 against the Jets: 29/45, 299 yards, 2 TDs, 1 INT, 6.64 yards per attempt
2012 against the Broncos: 26/34, 363 yards, 6 TDs, 1 INT, 10.68 yards per attempt
2012 against the Ravens: 22/36, 0 TDs, 2 INTs, 6.64 yards per attempt
The Broncos game was his only truly good game, the first Ravens game was his only truly bad game, and the other three were below average compared to Brady's regular season numbers.

Your sample includes 40% Ravens. Including Ravens: 11 TD/7 Int. Excluding Ravens: 9-2. Couldn't the analysis simply be that Brady struggles against the Ravens?

 

[vyrago]

I don't need a legendary performance. I will be perfectly happy with a ho-hum, pats annihilate another team, business as usual type of performance.

A repeat of the Ravens game will be o.k. by me, but a blowout by the Pats will mean I will watch the whole game and I won't come close to--or succumb to (ulp)--cardiac arrest.

 

[JMarr]

Absolute garbage article, not worth a click. As much as Brady puts things on himself, at the end of the day this is the ultimate team sport and GOAT arguments are absolutely worthless.

The Pats won their SBs with great defense and a balanced rushing/passing attack. For whatever reason (Poilan rules, lack of an elite RB, etc.) they decided to go pass happy since 2006 and Josh McDaniels fell in love with a Colts style unbalanced offense starting in 2007. No coincidence that neither the Pats nor the Colts have won d!ck since then. And the 2006 Colts would have been thrashed in SB41 had they faced even a competent team.

It's absurd to put every game on your QB's back, no matter who it is. (See Peyton in SB44). My biggest hope going forward is that McDaniels has learned a lesson or two since he left.

 

[makoute]

Absolute garbage article, not worth a click. As much as Brady puts things on himself, at the end of the day this is the ultimate team sport and GOAT arguments are absolutely worthless.

The Pats won their SBs with great defense and a balanced rushing/passing attack. For whatever reason (Poilan rules, lack of an elite RB, etc.) they decided to go pass happy since 2006 and Josh McDaniels fell in love with a Colts style unbalanced offense starting in 2007. No coincidence that neither the Pats nor the Colts have won d!ck since then. And the 2006 Colts would have been thrashed in SB41 had they faced even a competent team.

It's absurd to put every game on your QB's back, no matter who it is. (See Peyton in SB44). My biggest hope going forward is that McDaniels has learned a lesson or two since he left.

I think that is what the giants are counting on, hoping the Pats will put the game on Brady's shoulders, and forget about all the other aspect of the TEAM.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

This is pretty ridiculous. I'm not saying Brady has been great in the play-off losses recently, but this isn't a very well-researched article. It ignores the whole picture and makes me think the writer figured out what he wanted to claim first, then cherry-picked some stats to "back up" his claims.

Easiest example is how he includes the 2007 loss to the Giants as proof of how poorly Brady has played, while totally ignoring the San Diego game prior to the Superbowl, which was actually much worse.

Chargers: 66.4%, 209 yards, 2 TD, 3 INT, 66.4 QBR
Giants: 60.4%, 266 yards, 1 TD, 0 INT, 82.5 QBR

But we won that one, so he excluded it. Or he's blind. Or stupid. Or some combination.

He uses the 2010 loss to the Jets as well, where Brady threw for 299 yards, 2 TDs and 1 INT, 89 QBR, yet no mention of 9 other games prior to that where Brady finished with a lower QBR. In fact, 5 of Brady's first 6 play-off games resulted in a lower QBR, but we don't remember those because they were wins that ended in 2 Superbowls.

Results impact our memories. The 2001 Superbowl win was an incredible moment, yet Brady only threw for 145 yards and 1 TD while completing less than 60% of his passes. Earlier in that play-off run, he also threw for 115 yards against Pittsburgh. He was efficient, a game manager, but hardly a stellar performance.

By the 2003 and 2004 play-off runs, he was coming into his own as a Pro Bowl QB. Yet despite the big game against the Eagles, he didn't really light it up either year.

In 2003, he only threw for 438 yards, 2 TDs and 1 INT in the two games leading up to the Superbowl.

In 2004, he was solid, not throwing a single INT vs. 5 TDs passing (plus 1 rushing). Yet he still only threw for 587 yards total in those 3 play-off games.

The simple truth is the outcome of the game determines whether a performance was good enough. The Jets game, by QBR, was Brady's 10th best play-off performance out of 21 games, and beat all of Brady's first 5 play-off games, though those were all wins. The Giants game was the 13th out of 21. Neither was stellar, but hardly atrocious either.

If there's an area of concern, it'd be the Ravens, who have held Brady to his two worst games in the play-offs. That's what Wetzel should have focused on. But that's a boring storyline since the Ravens are vanquished, so instead he chose to extend into some ridiculous nonsense.

 

[Metaphors]

If there's an area of concern, it'd be the Ravens, who have held Brady to his two worst games in the play-offs. That's what Wetzel should have focused on. But that's a boring storyline since the Ravens are vanquished, so instead he chose to extend into some ridiculous nonsense.

Exactly. A better analysis would be to compare Brady's playoff output against comparable pass defenses. Problem is since the 2004 title season, Brady has only faced 2 pass defenses that are comparable to the 2011 Giants...the 2006 Jets and the 2011 Broncos.

If you throw out the 2005 and 2007 Jags games (they had good pass defenses but their scheme is just totally ineffective against Brady), you have a 10 game post-2004 sample...5 with positive DVOA, 5 with negative DVOA.

2011 Broncos 15.8% DVOA (24th) - Brady 137.6 rating
2006 Jets 6.9% DVOA (20th) - Brady 101.6 rating
2010 Jets 1.5% DVOA (7th) - Brady 89.0 rating
2007 Giants 3.4% DVOA (15th) - Brady 82.5 rating
2006 Colts 1.2% DVOA (13th) - Brady 79.5 rating

Pats went 2-3 in these games, but Brady had an 80+ rating in each. 12-3 TD/Int ratio.

2005 Broncos -10.0% DVOA (6th) - Brady 74.0 rating
2007 Chargers -13.8% DVOA (3rd) - Brady 66.4 rating
2006 Chargers -0.4% DVOA (11th) - Brady 57.6 rating
2011 Ravens -16.4% DVOA (1st) - Brady 57.5 rating
2009 Ravens -9.2% DVOA (8th) - Brady 49.1 rating

Pats went 3-2 in these games, but Brady had a below 80 rating in each. 7-13 TD/Int ratio.

Not brain surgery is it? Brady struggles against great pass defenses, does well against good pass defenses and cleans up against below average pass defenses. So what are the 2011 Giants?

2011 Giants 14.0% DVOA (21st)

That doesn't guarantee a Pats win, but I would be leaning towards a high-end Brady effort (95+ rating, 3-1 TD/Int ratio) versus him struggling.

 

[letekro]

I wonder how much Brady's inability to put touch on the football is related to this. Brady is perhaps the most accurate short passer I have ever seen. He also throws the 15-20 yard seam pass with great velocity and accuracy. he can't, however, throw a fade or the deep ball with any touch. He is so inaccurate on these throws that it seems you can really limit the field to a 20 yard field, mainly within the numbers, and he won't be able to make you pay. Teams with personnel to stay close to the receivers in that limited area can shut the Pats down. It seems this was the Giants plan in SB 42, although the problem wasn't Brady's inaccuracy as much, but his inability to get the time to throw it up to Moss. I think the Pats will have a tough time if they can't make the Giants pay at least once downfield with Ocho or Branch and/or establish a successful running game.