Fitzpatrick edges Brady for AFC Player Of The Month Honors

[PatsDeb]

You're only as good as your last game in the NFL, and so there goes your proof. I'll take Tommy over Fitzy any day of the week.

 

[Fball]

LOL

ha ha ha ha

Well, the Pats fans I used to know thought that yards were gaudy stats, and that wins mattered more.

One QB led 2 historic comeback wins; the other threw 4 picks which cost his team a game.

 

[Sivy]

Well, the Pats fans I used to know thought that yards were gaudy stats, and that wins mattered more.

One QB led 2 historic comeback wins; the other threw 4 picks which cost his team a game.

The question is..right now, who would you take as your QB

 

[Fball]

The question is..right now, who would you take as your QB

Somewhat easy answer - Brady (though Fitz does have youth on his side).

But, this is about who played better overall in September. Pretty meaningless in the long run, of course, but it is the thread.

 

[Sivy]

Somewhat easy answer - Brady (though Fitz does have youth on his side).

But, this is about who played better overall in September. Pretty meaningless in the long run, of course, but it is the thread.

Brady broke records in september.
Bills have one of the best backs in the game.

Brady carries his team...brady played better

 

[BradyFixesEverything]

If we apply that logic to the 2001 season, Warner was 14--2 and Brady was 11--5 in the regular season; so was Warner automatically the better QB that year? After all he won more games and the regular season MVP. I think not.

I'm sticking to this for the simple reason that we Pats fans can't have it both ways, arguing (as I do often) that we pick Brady over Payme or Marino because W's are more important than stats and then turn around and reverse ourselves in this case.

This has nothing to do with who the better quarterback is. The title of this thread is misleading as well. The award is AFC Offensive Player of the Month. Are you gonna tell me Tom Brady produced more offense then Kurt Warner in 2001? Really?

In 2007 Brady won the MVP AND the Offensive Player of the Year awards. They're not related, and this isn't the AFC MVP of the Month award. To further illustrate this, in 2009 Chris Johnson won the Offensive Player of the Year award on an 8-8 Titans team that didn't even make the playoffs. This is just a production award.

 

[VJCPatriot]

In 2007 Brady won the MVP AND the Offensive Player of the Year awards. They're not related, and this isn't the AFC MVP of the Month award. To further illustrate this, in 2009 Chris Johnson won the Offensive Player of the Year award on an 8-8 Titans team that didn't even make the playoffs. This is just a production award.

You want to talk about production? Ok.

Tom Brady 1,327 passing yards. #1 in the NFL.
Ryan Fitzpatrick 841 passing yards. #14 in the NFL.

This category isn't even close, and the #2 QB in yards had nearly 300 less than Brady.

Tom Brady 113.8 QBR. #2 in the NFL.
Ryan Fitzpatrick 103.5 QBR. #6 in the NFL.

And you really think Fitzpatrick 'produced' more than Brady? This award unfortunately is a knee-jerk reaction to the last game of the month. It's like they threw away whatever Brady was doing in the previous two weeks and only compared what they did in game 3. Doesn't make sense from a 'production' standpoint. Again in the big picture, this award means nothing, but it just doesn't make sense from a logical standpoint.

Let's just hope the people who decide the awards don't act like this again if Brady has a bad game in week 17. If he's sitting on 5,000 yards and 45+ TDs and they decide to give it to an inferior QB just because he had a bad game or even had to sit out the final game, that would make no sense whatsoever.

 

[Jangles]

You want to talk about
Tom Brady 113.8 QBR. #2 in the NFL.
Ryan Fitzpatrick 103.5 QBR. #6 in the NFL.

Using QBR invalidates your argument completely. ESPN came up with this, therefore it fails.

 

[BradyFixesEverything]

You want to talk about production? Ok.

Tom Brady 1,327 passing yards. #1 in the NFL.
Ryan Fitzpatrick 841 passing yards. #14 in the NFL.

This category isn't even close, and the #2 QB in yards had nearly 300 less than Brady.

Tom Brady 113.8 QBR. #2 in the NFL.
Ryan Fitzpatrick 103.5 QBR. #6 in the NFL.

And you really think Fitzpatrick 'produced' more than Brady? This award unfortunately is a knee-jerk reaction to the last game of the month. It's like they threw away whatever Brady was doing in the previous two weeks and only compared what they did in game 3. Doesn't make sense from a 'production' standpoint. Again in the big picture, this award means nothing, but it just doesn't make sense from a logical standpoint.

Let's just hope the people who decide the awards don't act like this again if Brady has a bad game in week 17. If he's sitting on 5,000 yards and 45+ TDs and they decide to give it to an inferior QB just because he had a bad game or even had to sit out the final game, that would make no sense whatsoever.

lol what?? I was arguing that Brady deserves the award...not Harvard... PatsFanSince74 was arguing that this award isn't about stats, and I was pointing out that it IS.

 

[VJCPatriot]

Using QBR invalidates your argument completely. ESPN came up with this, therefore it fails.

Did you click on the link? It's the official quarterback passer rating that NFL.com uses. It has nothing to do with ESPN's new rating.

 

[Lansdowne]

Lindell special teams player of the week also... allow me to remove my tin foil hat for a moment to say that I wonder if the NFL is doing all this to garner interest in Buffalo