Official Post Game Thread- Pats beat the Ravens

[Gumby]

Maybe a trivial thing but no locker room celebration after the Ravens game (or the Jets). Maybe they have stopped this until they have a winning record !

Maybe they have stopped it when gotohell started threatening to take draft picks for violating Covid rules ????

can u think of another team he would rather use to ‚set the example‘?

i wouldn’t be surprised to find out in 6 mo that some stuff may still be done -but off camera

 

[Jim Beankie]

Brady has had 126 fumbles in 20 year playing = 6.3 fumbles per year.
Beldsoe had 123 fumbles in 19 years = 7.68 fumbles per year.

The question becomes who had more passing yards per year on average to put that fumble ratio into perspective?

I know it's a simple error (unless I'm way off), but I'm not sure where you're getting 19 years for Bledsoe - I see 14.

Just wanted to throw these (regular season) stats out there that may be interesting. Not sure if I just made up this stat "Involved Snaps per Fumble," but it's interesting to see how many fumbles Brady had in his first 3 years. I'm also very surprised at how well Newton has taken care of the ball (well... just Fumbles but his 2.7 Int% is in line with Rothlisberger's and Montana's 2.6% and still better than Bledsoe's 3.1% - not saying much) over his career. I still feel his pain after that Bills fumble.

Bledsoe 14 yr: 385 Rushes + 6717 Pass Attempts = 7102 / 123 Fmb : 57.7 Involved Snaps per Fumble (higher is better)
Brady 20 yr: 625 Rush + 10373 Att = 10998 / 126 Fmb : 87.3
Newton 10yr: 1014 Rush + 4188 Att = 5202 / 58 Fmb : 89.7

1st 3 years:
Lamar: 413 Rush + 818 Att = 1231 / 27 Fmb : 45.6
Brady: 120 Rush + 1541 Att = 1661 / 36 Fmb : 46.1
Newton: 364 Rush + 1475 Att = 1839 / 18 Fmb : 102.2

 

[JoeA]

I know it's a simple error (unless I'm way off), but I'm not sure where you're getting 19 years for Bledsoe - I see 14.

Just wanted to throw these (regular season) stats out there that may be interesting. Not sure if I just made up this stat "Involved Snaps per Fumble," but it's interesting to see how many fumbles Brady had in his first 3 years. I'm also very surprised at how well Newton has taken care of the ball (well... just Fumbles but his 2.7 Int% is in line with Rothlisberger's 2.6% and still better than Bledsoe's 3.1% - not saying much) over his career. I still feel his pain after that Bills fumble.

Bledsoe 14 yr: 385 Rushes + 6717 Pass Attempts = 7102 / 123 Fmb : 57.7 Involved Snaps per Fumble (higher is better)
Brady 20 yr: 625 Rush + 10373 Att = 10998 / 126 Fmb : 87.3
Newton 10yr: 1014 Rush + 4188 Att = 5202 / 58 Fmb : 89.7

1st 3 years:
Lamar: 413 Rush + 818 Att = 1231 / 27 Fmb : 45.6
Brady: 120 Rush + 1541 Att = 1661 / 36 Fmb : 46.1
Newton: 364 Rush + 1475 Att = 1839 / 18 Fmb : 102.2

Error on my part and in a rush to leave. Trying to multi task in not a very good fashion LOL Thank you for the follow up and more interesting info.

What would be just as interesting to look at is on the quantity of fumbles, how many went to the other team? One could argue fumbling 8 times a year but keeping possession is better than fumbling 8 times and losing possession.

 

[Jim Beankie]

What would be just as interesting to look at is on the quantity of fumbles, how many went to the other team? One could argue fumbling 8 times a year but keeping possession is better than fumbling 8 times and losing possession.

I'm pretty sure I made errors below, but I've included both lost fumbles and overall turnovers (just INTs plus Lost Fumbles). It's amazing how Brady turned it around from his early years as far as taking care of the ball is concerned. I generously estimated Montana's ISpTO (they didn't keep track of Lost Fumbles back then), and it's worse than Newton's career mark.

Higher is better for both:
ISpLF: Involved Snaps per Lost Fumble
ISpTO: Involved Snaps per Turnover

Career:
Bledsoe - Lost: 56, ISpLF: 126.8, INT/INT+Lost: 206,262; ISpTO: 27.1
Brady - Lost: 49, ISpLF: 145, INT/INT+Lost: 186,235; ISpTO: 46.8
Newton - Lost: 21, ISpLF: 247.7 115, INT/INT+Lost: 115,136; ISpTO: 38.25

1st 3 years:
Lamar - Lost: 9, ISpLF: 136.8, INT/INT+Lost: 14,23; ISpTO: 53.5
Brady - Lost: 13, ISpLF: 127.8, INT/INT+Lost: 38,51; ISpTO: 32.6
Newton - Lost: 6, ISpLF: 306.5, INT/INT+Lost: 42,48; ISpTO: 38.3

Newton this year: Lost: 1, ISpLF: 288, INT/INT+Lost: 7,8; ISpTO: 36

 

[1960Pats]

Not certain if you were born in 60 or that's when you attended your first game, but your issue is you don't quanitify that statistics you provide.

See below, even an idiot like me can find this information online pretty quick as I sincerely have better things to do with my time. Point being, for 2020, it appears you are incorrect in your statement per Lamar Jackson. When you state that Lamar Jackson leads the world in fumbling, can you at least provide information (and games played) in how you assumed your statement as factual?


View attachment 29262

Your "facts" are a partial list. You conveniently left out Jackson Lamar's career numbers. He has oodles and oodles of them in his short career. If you want to see the numbers look them up yourself.

 

[1960Pats]

Error on my part and in a rush to leave. Trying to multi task in not a very good fashion LOL Thank you for the follow up and more interesting info.

What would be just as interesting to look at is on the quantity of fumbles, how many went to the other team? One could argue fumbling 8 times a year but keeping possession is better than fumbling 8 times and losing possession.

Fumbling vs losing fumbles is a matter of the bounce of the ball and is not at all a reflection on the quality of a fumble. All fumbles are bad.

 

[1960Pats]

Brady has had 126 fumbles in 20 year playing = 6.3 fumbles per year.
Beldsoe had 123 fumbles in 19 years = 7.68 fumbles per year.

The question becomes who had more passing yards per year on average to put that fumble ratio into perspective?

Brady didn't play 20 years and Bledsoe didn't play 19. Brady has played 18 full years + 10 games while Bledsoe played 13 full years + 2 more totaling 8 games. That's a total of 101 more games for Brady.

Brady has 126 fumbles in 295 games over 18.6 years. That's .43 per game and 6.8 per year.
Bledsoe had 123 fumbles in 194 games over 13.5 years. That's .63 per game and 9.1 per year.

 

[Jim Beankie]

Your "facts" are a partial list. You conveniently left out Jackson Lamar's career numbers. He has oodles and oodles of them in his short career. If you want to see the numbers look them up yourself.

To be fair to Lamar, Brady was overall way more careless (Fumbles and especially INTs and INT%) with the ball over the 1st 3 years (including taking into account the 7 fewer games). Regarding fumbles and the snaps they were involved in (individual rushes plus pass attempts), they were virtually identical over that span.

 

[sb1]

Brady didn't play 20 years and Bledsoe didn't play 19. Brady has played 18 full years + 10 games while Bledsoe played 13 full years + 2 more totaling 8 games. That's a total of 101 more games for Brady.

Brady has 126 fumbles in 295 games over 18.6 years. That's .43 per game and 6.8 per year.
Bledsoe had 123 fumbles in 194 games over 13.5 years. That's .63 per game and 9.1 per year.

Must have been the deflated footballs or something.

 

[Doctor DDS]

To be fair to Lamar, Brady was overall way more careless (Fumbles and especially INTs and INT%) with the ball over the 1st 3 years (including taking into account the 7 fewer games). Regarding fumbles and the snaps they were involved in (individual rushes plus pass attempts), they were virtually identical over that span.

Hard to compare any QB stats in this era with QB stats from 20 years ago. A QB rating in the mid 80's and a 2-1 TD/Int ratio could get you in the Pro Bowl when Brady started out while now it would get you cut.

 

[Jim Beankie]

Hard to compare any QB stats in this era with QB stats from 20 years ago. A QB rating in the mid 80's and a 2-1 TD/Int ratio could get you in the Pro Bowl when Brady started out while now it would get you cut.

Deshawn still made it in last ("this") year with 26/12/98.0 and 10 Fumbles. Brady with 29/11/97.7 the year before and Rothlisberger with 28/14/93.4 the year before that (holy crap - totally forgot Brady got into the 2002 Pro Bowl with 18/12/86.5). Not even getting into the alternates (like Carr 22/13/86.4 a few years ago).

 

[Joker]

I don't have any idea what is wrong with you....let me make this as clear as possible....YOU CANNOT PUT LAMAR JACKSON IN ANY COMPARISON WITH TOM BRADY. Just stop the idiocy.

 

[catent]

I don't have any idea what is wrong with you....let me make this as clear as possible....YOU CANNOT PUT LAMAR JACKSON IN ANY COMPARISON WITH TOM BRADY. Just stop the idiocy.

Sure you can. He just did.

Someone just compared Jackson's stats to Brady's stats, and low and behold, the world is still rotating, the sun is still rising, and the sky is still blue.

 

[Jim Beankie]

I don't have any idea what is wrong with you....let me make this as clear as possible....YOU CANNOT PUT LAMAR JACKSON IN ANY COMPARISON WITH TOM BRADY. Just stop the idiocy.

Of course I can. The guy's just in is his third year, and I wanted to see the development up until now. Brady was extra Mr. Game Manager dink and dunk for those first years, but even with that, he was much more careless with the ball, relatively speaking, even considering eras. In between rings for those 1st 3 starting years, he wasn't clutch for that season, and I remember watching the crappy game he played losing to Chad frickin' Pennington to lose out on going to the playoffs (and the year before, it was almost a one and done in the playoffs because what was a fumble just a couple of years before wasn't a fumble anymore). Next season, they started it getting blown out by the Bills (31-0) where he threw 0TD and 4INT en route to a 2-2 record. At that point, a lot of people thought he was a fraud.

 

[Thelonious]

I get it - you're one of those glass half full fans. Totally understandable. Some of the people closest to me have been like that. When someone gets overly optimistic, I switch to play devil's advocate, but most of the time, I stay optimistic until they're truly out of it (let's say 7 losses given who's in front of them) - even when we were down 10 to the Jets of all teams in the 4th quarter.

I vividly remember in 2001 watching a mid November Pats game in which they were HUGE underdogs with a backup QB who was drafted in the way lower rounds. They went toe to toe but lost to make them 5-5. I was watching with my best friend and said, "they have guts. I can see them running the table and seeing [the other team] again in the Super Bowl." It wasn't anywhere realistic, but I'm that kind of fan pretty much every year - it's like buying a powerball ticket and thinking about what I'm going to do if I win - pointless from a rational standpoint but fun. Until they're truly out of it, next year is relatively irrelevant to this year. The person who decides when they feel like they're out of it is BB. Players for the most part want to win (see Jamal Adams comments on being depressed while on the Jets), so not giving them the best chance to win is disheartening and morale-busting. I definitely don't want to relive 1-15.

As for your clear desire to sit Cam to play the "newbie," we've seen a lot of Stidham already - 3rd NFL throw in his 1st ever series was an interception (to Jamal Adams). Career 13for27 for 138yds, 1TD, 4INT. He's played 3 games of note and had an INT in all of them. You only get so many opportunities. Cam is technically the newbie here which is what BB is probably evaluating. Stidham's had lots of time to work with Harry/Edelman/Meyers. I do side with you in a way that I really wish they had started Stidham in KC, but even that is telling about how they feel.

Holy mackerel, as we used to say. This is such a wonderfully thoughtful post. I'll have to think about my being a "glass half full" sort of fella (I don't get that a lot to be honest, generally regarded as a curmudgeonly old S.O.B.).

The odd thing is that having been way out last week in predicting a debacle I actually am tentatively optimistic this week. The damage done by a dork like O'Brian is likely to run pretty deep, and our Bill runs pretty hot against your more adventurous sorts of qb's. I guess in a year like this if the team is gonna be up-and-down, it's OK for a fan to be the same. In a way it's almost more fun than just fretting each year as we have for the last twenty that the Pats might lose a game or two and fail to win a by on their way to another inevitable championship. Expectations can be a trap, and in a year like this it's pretty hard to cultivate a solid positive expectation of any kind. It's one of those curse-of-living-in-interesting-times situations.

As for Cam, I don't want him. If you let "Cam be Cam," you get game-killing screw-ups. If you force him to be a "game-manager," you just get the sort of play-safe mediocrity you can pick up (but shouldn't) for pocket change any time you want. I'm undeterred by the live prospect of a debacle in suggesting we give Stidham a legit look. If he blows, try somebody else. Maybe Warren Moon is available. But Cam is a trap and distraction in the team's efforts at finding a worthwhile qb.

Anyway, thanks for your post.

 

[1960Pats]

Hard to compare any QB stats in this era with QB stats from 20 years ago. A QB rating in the mid 80's and a 2-1 TD/Int ratio could get you in the Pro Bowl when Brady started out while now it would get you cut.

Welcome to the Polianic era of the NYFL. They might as well have DBs play with one hand tied behind their back.

 

[The Brandon Five]

Welcome to the Polianic era of the NYFL. They might as well have DBs play with one hand tied behind their back.

Don't give Goodell any ideas.

 

[1960Pats]

Don't give Goodell any ideas.

Goody & the 32 can't handle two things at once and right now they're still working on parity... unsuccessfully.

Their next move will be to add an eighth playoff team due to the virus, but if the Pats are in that position they'll stick with seven.

Oh crap, did I give them another idea?

 

[1960Pats]

Hard to compare any QB stats in this era with QB stats from 20 years ago. A QB rating in the mid 80's and a 2-1 TD/Int ratio could get you in the Pro Bowl when Brady started out while now it would get you cut.

You make a great point, but since @jbean9876abcd wants to compare I decided to take a closer look at each QB's first three years.

Regular Season Brady / Jackson
Record 34-12 / 25-6
Completion % 62.1 / 63.8
Passing TDs 69 / 56
Rushing TDs 2 / 15
Interception % 2.8 / 1.7
4QCs 8 / 1
GWDs 11 / 3
With the exception of the last two Lamar holds his own. But then comes playoff time.
Playoffs
Record 6-0 / 0-2
Completion % 61 / 51
Passing TDs 6 / 3
Rushing TDs 1 / 0
Interceptions 3 / 3
4QCs 2 / 0
GWDs 4 / 0
In Brady's case, he went on to bigger and better things and continued his clutch play in big games. We'll see about Jackson, but as of now he's on pace to be a bigger choker than PEDton, the king of the one and dones.

 

[Joker]

Of course I can. The guy's just in is his third year, and I wanted to see the development up until now. Brady was extra Mr. Game Manager dink and dunk for those first years, but even with that, he was much more careless with the ball, relatively speaking, even considering eras. In between rings for those 1st 3 starting years, he wasn't clutch for that season, and I remember watching the crappy game he played losing to Chad frickin' Pennington to lose out on going to the playoffs (and the year before, it was almost a one and done in the playoffs because what was a fumble just a couple of years before wasn't a fumble anymore). Next season, they started it getting blown out by the Bills (31-0) where he threw 0TD and 4INT en route to a 2-2 record. At that point, a lot of people thought he was a fraud.

you're obviously a complete whackjob. You realize you just stated Brady was thought to be a fraud and THIS is why you're comparing a player that has NOT EVEN SHOWN UP in the playoffs yet to a player that had two Super Bowl rings in three seasons , en route to SIX rings and 10 appearances? You "just wanted to see" the development? No you didn't, you want to pimp this running back that throws passes and wilts in the playoffs with the greatest QB in NFL history. I guess you want to argue that now too.I get it. Brady was lucky and your poor little moron that still can't read an NFL defense is "comparable" using YOUR idiotic Ron Borges fueled contention that Brady was "Mr. Dink&Dunk", a media canard that was a persistent mantra of the Drew Bledsoe Media Broken Hearts Club. Tell you what, try comparing your mancrush with Randall Cunningham or Michael Vick. The Tom Brady you obviously despise is obliterating any comparison with your little lost lamby pie Lamar this season...at age 43. You actually believe your little pinball RB/QB is going to last even 5 + years in this league?