Is Brady's future performance "predictable"?

[ctpatsfan77]

I took a look at some of Brady's stats from 2010 to 2016 (e.g., DVOA, completion and INT %ages), and put them on a graph. They're normalized relative to 2010, and the vertical line represents the 2014 preseason where they drafted Garoppolo.

The key here is that there was a clear downward trend from 2010 to 2013, and then a clear rebound since then.



So, is Brady's performance the last three years the result of him "finding the fountain of youth" (i.e., something that will last for years) or a sort of "Indian summer" that will end soon?

What BB thinks is the answer to that question will go a long way in determining what the Pats do with Garoppolo.

 

[patfanken]

It doesn't matter either way. The ONLY thing that matters is the fact that Garappaalo's contract is going to expire after next season, so the only way to keep JG on the Pats past the 2017 season would be to get rid of Brady at the end of it. It's that simple. There are no machiavellian moves to make to change the equation.

Franchising JG beyond a few weeks to create a firesale trade scenario is simply ludicrous even though it MIGHT technically be possible to do. Having $50MM tied up in QB money wouldn't make sense to even the stupidest teams.....and to what end. What happens when the 2o18 season ends and you have the same situation happening again, only worse.

No. I will firmly believe that if JG is still on the Pats by the time TC starts, then this will be Tom Brady's last season. No other explanation makes any real sense. It would be a decision that would be consistent with the Pats past history, and explain why they didn't trade him this off season.

I won't be happy with the move, but I WILL understand it, and eventually respect it. What's the saying, "a year too early rather than a year too late". It will be sad to see Brady playing for another team, especially when he's playing well.

Personally I still hope to wake up one morning over the next 3 weeks to hear that JG has been traded to the Browns for an excellent package of picks

 

[bormio]

If the Patriots win the Super Bowl this year, and we let Tom Brady go with no chance for a 3-peat, the fan base will burn down the stadium with Kraft and Belichick locked inside.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

I took a look at some of Brady's stats from 2010 to 2016 (e.g., DVOA, completion and INT %ages), and put them on a graph.

View attachment 16804

Which stats are what, by color code? In particular, what is the blue one that dipped the most?

 

[jah]

Which stats are what, by color code? In particular, what is the blue one that dipped the most?

Would guess that one was related to TDs because it's 2013 and he threw very few that year (25, keeping in mind that it was 2013 and not 2001).

 

[supafly]

I will firmly believe that if JG is still on the Pats by the time TC starts, then this will be Tom Brady's last season.

Well, that's one hell of a leap to make in my opinion. There are plenty of scenarios:

1) They want to have depth at the most important position on the team and are fine with getting a 3rd round comp pick (assuming they don't go on a big spending spree in free agency)

2) They do not believe that Brissett is ready, and based on what we saw last year, why would they? How could they?

3) They know there will be a market for him next year, and are fine with keeping him via tag/trade (probably unlikely, but still a reasonable option)

4) Bill hasn't received as good of an offer as some here believe

5) Bill does not want to trade him to a team within the conference, or to an NFC team he deems as a competitor

6) Bill is waiting to see if Brady shows any decline before making what could be a very important decision

 

[Thelonious]

Take it from an old bastard, decline in age is not continuous; it comes in increments, in quanta if you like. Data based on multiple instances of decline is irrelevant to the (discontinuous) arc of decline of any individual within that group. Group patterns, that is, are somewhat "predictable"; the course of events for individuals are not. The fact that men are statistically taller than women does not mean that any particular man is necessarily taller than any particular woman.

The sillyass scientism of our day leads us to forget such simple facts, which is why we waste so much time and money trying to solve human problems as if they are scientific ones.

So no, Brady's decline is not predictable, though it is inevitable.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Yes.

My apologies. 2016 not yet represented.

 

[RobertWeathers]

If the Patriots win the Super Bowl this year, and we let Tom Brady go with no chance for a 3-peat, the fan base will burn down the stadium with Kraft and Belichick locked inside.

If that happened those fans are morons.

 

[XLIX]

Brady is an outlier. You can't predict outliers. That's why they are outliers. The best prediction is to go with what happened last year. I am comfortable with that.

 

[bormio]

Take it from an old bastard, decline in age is not continuous; it comes in increments, in quanta if you like. Data based on multiple instances of decline is irrelevant to the (discontinuous) arc of decline of any individual within that group. Group patterns, that is, are somewhat "predictable"; the course of events for individuals are not. The fact that men are statistically taller than women does not mean that any particular man is necessarily taller than any particular woman.

The sillyass scientism of our day leads us to forget such simple facts, which is why we waste so much time and money trying to solve human problems as if they are scientific ones.

So no, Brady's decline is not predictable, though it inevitable.

There is much wisdom here.

 

[moosekill]

And if football wasn't a team sport the numbers would be much more meaningful. A better o-line, better wide receivers, healthy tight ends, better running back, all can have a huge impact on how a QB performs. You have to grasp, which many here are unable to, that even the down year numbers are still elite, so a slight downward or upward trend has no statistical meaning. A pass dropped here or there, sitting out the 4th quarter in a blowout, running the ball extensively in a blowout, all will effect Brady's numbers and can easily account for the small changes that are present here.

My argument is simply there is no significant trend in these numbers. Changes both up and down are well within the statistical margin of error. Trying to draw any conclusion from these numbers is pointless.

 

[IllegalContact]

people underrate the idea of keeping one's options open as long as possible

 

[patfanken]

Well, that's one hell of a leap to make in my opinion. There are plenty of scenarios:

1) They want to have depth at the most important position on the team and are fine with getting a 3rd round comp pick (assuming they don't go on a big spending spree in free agency)

If you don't believe that having the best back up QB in the league for one season is a reason to pass up a reasonable package of draft picks. How would you explain then the OTHER 16 seasons BB handled the back up QB position. It's never been an issue before. Why is it such a big one now.

2) They do not believe that Brissett is ready, and based on what we saw last year, why would they? How could they?

If Brissett hasn't developed into your cup of tea in his 2nd year, Ryan Fitzpatrick would be a more than admirable back up, who might actually get a lot better in this system.

3) They know there will be a market for him next year, and are fine with keeping him via tag/trade (probably unlikely, but still a reasonable option)

I actually wonder just how effective a franchise and trade scenario would actually work with a team who doesn't have Scott Piolli as a new GM and Mike Vrabel as an additional throw in. Also who knows how the QB market is going to look next season as well as next year's draft class will be.

This isn't a scenario that can work up to the draft. This is a scenario that only has a life of about a week after the start of the new year before it implodes. All the leverage lies with JG. By just threatening to sign it would force the Pats into a big problem.

4) Bill hasn't received as good of an offer as some here believe

I'm guessing we turned down a deal that includes the #12 among others, but I could be dead wrong, and I certainly wouldn't blame Bill for not moving on any deal that hasn't included that pick.....,at least.

If no deal ever happens I doubt we will know the truth about what was offered and what was refused, and of course it one does happen, we will know exactly what it is.

5) Bill does not want to trade him to a team within the conference, or to an NFC team he deems as a competitor

I think BB would RATHER trade him to a team that isn't a playoff contender (ie Houston) and rather to a non-conference team or a bad team like the Browns. But if BB got the right package of picks he'd trade him to any team outside of the division, and I'm not sure he wouldn't trade him within the division either.

6) Bill is waiting to see if Brady shows any decline before making what could be a very important decision

Doesn't matter about when and by how much Brady declines over the next few years. It isn't as much as Brady's clock is running out, as is when JG's clock runs out.

That's the point I'm trying to make. Everyone is talking about when Brady's clock will run out, but to me that's irrelevant. JG's clock with the Pats is what is running out so much faster. And the question is what is the best use of JG as an asset during the short time we still have him,

If you honestly believe its as a one year back up, then I'd respectfully have to disagree with you

 

[supafly]

That's the point I'm trying to make. Everyone is talking about when Brady's clock will run out, but to me that's irrelevant. JG's clock with the Pats is what is running out so much faster. And the question is what is the best use of JG as an asset during the short time we still have him,

If you honestly believe its as a one year back up, then I'd respectfully have to disagree with you

I think if the right offer from the right team comes up, Belichick will jump on it, and while the clock may be running out, it's not up until next spring. Even then, there may be options, depending upon other variables.

We can all debate this every single day, but as you know, there's only one person whose opinion matters, so as always, in Belichick we trust.

 

[patfanken]

I think if the right offer from the right team comes up, Belichick will jump on it, and while the clock may be running out, it's not up until next spring. Even then, there may be options, depending upon other variables.

We can all debate this every single day, but as you know, there's only one person whose opinion matters, so as always, in Belichick we trust.

I don't disagree with anything except that we have until the end of March 2018 to make the final decisiion. By then most of our options will be gone and only the scraps will be left. Unless of course Brady keeps JG and dumps Brady after this season.

I can't help but be concerned that the long term health of the Pats team will be damaged by the Jet-like hole we currently have from our recent first and 2nd round picks (not thans to Fraudger). Bad enough we have to pick at the end of the draft every year to begin with.

 

[Thelonious]

For the record, here's my admittedly equivocal view. I'd keep JG as insurance given Brady's age and the risk of injury which is always there for any qb. I wouldn't be horrified if they traded him, though, as long as the compensation were adequate to make up for the risks involved in giving him up. That compensation, though, would have to be pretty d----d high for me to be anything like happy about that decision.

The short version: it's really a win/win situation, and our disagreements are about which way is likely to be the winningest. We're lucky to be fans of this team; that at least is for sure.

 

[SlowGettingUp]

So no, Brady's decline is not predictable, though it is inevitable.

The key issue for me is recovery from injury. That gets slower and harder as you age, whether you are eating avocado ice cream and sleeping with Giselle or not.

Partly all this is a question of this year vs. the out years. If they are primarily concerned with winning this year, then keep JG as he has tremendous option value in case of a TB injury. But if they care more about the next five years, then trading JG is likely the right move. Signing high-priced free agents instead of first and second round draft picks helps you this year but hurts you for the following four years. Trading JG would fix that.

 

[aluminum seats]

The only thing I would say is that the idea of keeping a back up quarterback--if he could in fact bring in a first round pick or more--for a season of insurance is insane. And no one would suggest the Pats trade a first round pick if this guy was on another team to keep him as back up for a year.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

The only thing I would say is that the idea of keeping a back up quarterback, if he could in fact bring in a first round pick or more for a season of insurance is insane. And no one would suggest the Pats trade a first round pick if this guy was on another team to keep him as back up for year.

The only thing we can say for certain is BB has not seen sufficient value to make a deal.