The Mortality of Tommy Francis Brady: A Parable

[supafly]

You might want to say "the defense minus their best CB and their best pass rusher was the side of the ball that allowed BAL to score 3 straight TDs in the last 20 minutes or so of the game". It's hard to compete when you've lost your best pressure option and your best big CB to man up on the bigger WRs. We saw in the divisional games that even Seattle's very good secondary had trouble stopping Matt Ryan from driving down the field in 30 seconds with the game on the line when they didn't have Chris Clemons and couldn't get effective pressure.

But yes, the defense will have to do better, injuries or not. So will the offense, which squandered multiple red zone chances and turned the ball over multiple times.

I will concede that the defense was playing much better prior to the departure of Talib, but this trend has been ongoing now for quite some time, and that's why I am not as inclined to give them as much benefit of the doubt as you may be due to injuries.

The defense has given up 33, 28, 28 in 3 of the last 5 playoff losses, and the other 2 were the entire field driving late game losing TD's in the past 2 SB's.

Talib's injury may have a lot to do with it this year, and I agree that they seemed to be growing and progressing on that side of the ball, but even this year we saw some pretty major defensive collapses. Until this side of the ball can continue to progress to the point where the secondary is no longer a liability against the pass, we will need to score 30+ in every single game.

The problem is that once you get to the playoffs, scoring 30+ becomes incredibly difficult due to better matchups, and more talented defenses overall. In my opinion it really shouldn't even be expected.

 

[mayoclinic]

The defense has given up 33, 28, 28 in 3 of the last 5 playoff losses, and the other 2 were the entire field driving late game losing TD's in the past 2 SB's.

Yes but "the defense" isn't the same defense.

- The team that gave up 33 points to the Ravens played a 3-4 with Wilfork and Warren, but was very thin on the DL. Outside of Jerod Mayo, they had very little at LB - remember BB raving about Derrick Burgess? That was the year that Adalius thomas decided to cop out. The secondary wasn't too bad, but the run defense got shredded early on - a turnover didn't help - and they were in a hole quickly.

- The team that gave up 28 points to the Jets had Meriweather and Sanders at safety and Jonathan Wilhite at outside CB. Brandon Spikes had just come back from suspension. There was no pass rush.

I fail to see what those defenses had to do with this year's crew. This defense has a lot of talent, but it was strained by injuries.

Most defenses these days need to have solid secondary coverage combined with effective pressure. We've seen big dropoffs in the effectiveness of the SF and Seattle defense when they lost 1 key defensive player up front (Justin Smith and Chris Clemons). The Pats have had to deal with a lot more in terms of injuries. By the time the Pats got decent secondary coverage with Talib and Dennard outside and McCourty at safety, Jones got hurt and Cunningham got suspended, and the pressure took a hit. We never really got the secondary back together for a prolonged period, and Jones never really got back to full strength. So I think that the defense on the field was never able to play to its full potential.

But it will have to be better in 2013. No question about it.

 

[patsfan13]

interesting to hear Joyner comment on a decline in accuracy, it is worth noting that this was Brady's first season without T Martinez. Perhaps that was a big an issue as anything age related.

 

[supafly]

I fail to see what those defenses had to do with this year's crew. This defense has a lot of talent, but it was strained by injuries.


But it will have to be better in 2013. No question about it.

Other than the fact that this year's playoff results on defense were following a trend that has proven to be extremely unsuccessful, you are right, this year's defense had nothing to do with the other ones.

Then again though, the same could be said for the offensive side of the ball too when so many point out the offense's failures to score points in the playoffs. Different years bring different teams and personnel groupings, so that is certainly a fair point to make.

My main point is that I do not believe that most of these "concerns" on the front page of the forum are actually concerns. I don't think that Brady has lost his mojo. I don't believe that Belichick can't win the big game, or that Welker can't catch passes in the playoffs. I don't believe that we need a new kicker. I don't believe that our lack of a downfield threat is a "need," although having a younger, faster WR with physical qualities is always a plus. As a matter of fact, those are attributes that every NFL team looks for in a WR these days, but is it a "need?" No. Not in my opinion.

I think that the one glaring weakness is this team's current era of instability on the defensive side of the ball, as I pointed out in another thread 7 examples of playoff games won in the 2001-2004 dynasty era where we won by an average score of 18.7 to 14. No one complained about any lack of offensive output during those years. No one claimed that Brady was losing it, or any of the other concerns about our team...because the defense played like a playoff defense should play, and they showed the capacity to win close, low scoring games that define what playoff winning football is all about.

You are correct in pointing out the defensive progression, and the differences and positives since the 2009 and 2010 postseason losses. Let's hope that they can continue to move in the right direction, because they are not there yet. In the meantime, we can assume that the offense will continue to put up huge numbers and be successful all year long, but that when the competition increases during the postseason their odds will decrease significantly as it pertains to being able to score 30+ vs that kind of competition.

 

[ivanvamp]

Brady consumes far more of the salary cap now than he did early in his career, my guess is that the O dominates the salary cap distribution with the contracts of Gronk, Hernandez and Welker being put in the mix with Brady.

This makes it difficult to build a 'complete' rpster that can endure the number of injuries of say the 2003 team.

I think this is a really good point. Imagine if Brady said, screw it, I have more money than I, or my children, will ever need, and I will manage it well for the rest of my life, and I just want to win another Super Bowl more than anything. And then he restructured his contract whereby he actually took a massive pay cut - not just more money spread out thinly, but an actual pay cut. Say he accepted just $1 million a year to play QB. That would free up a ton of money to add all sorts of talent that would put them over the top.

 

[ausbacker]

I think this is a really good point. Imagine if Brady said, screw it, I have more money than I, or my children, will ever need, and I will manage it well for the rest of my life, and I just want to win another Super Bowl more than anything. And then he restructured his contract whereby he actually took a massive pay cut - not just more money spread out thinly, but an actual pay cut. Say he accepted just $1 million a year to play QB. That would free up a ton of money to add all sorts of talent that would put them over the top.

Wouldn't something like that go against contract validations in the CBA? Was it the 33% rule or something equivalent?

 

[upstater1]

They relied on Brady multiple times during that run as well. Remember the Carolina SB game? That was all Brady.

A big reason for Brady's stats rise is really the rules changes.

That's the difference right there. Al these QBs, Stafford, Ryan, Rodgers, Brees, are putting up numbers that the best of Brady's early period rarely did.

 

[patsinthesnow]

Although Ridley is a good RB, he's just like BJGE in the fact he can't take advantage of nickel, light defensive packages.

We tried pounding Ridley and make Brady do less...he ran like crap and fumbled...

 

[ausbacker]

Although Ridley is a good RB, he's just like BJGE in the fact he can't take advantage of nickel, light defensive packages.

We tried pounding Ridley and make Brady do less...he ran like crap and fumbled...

There's a difference between fumbling and being concussed then fumbling.

 

[supafly]

Although Ridley is a good RB, he's just like BJGE in the fact he can't take advantage of nickel, light defensive packages.

We tried pounding Ridley and make Brady do less...he ran like crap and fumbled...

You may be acting a little harsh towards him, no?

I wouldn't really blame him for the fumble in that case, and we basically saw Ridley run pretty effectively for the duration of the season, many times against nickel formations.

I'd give some credit to the decent play and talent of the Ravens in this case too. Until we see more of a sample size that proves that Ridley can't do this, I'm going to hold off on any judgment. I think he brings a nice aspect to our offense and am excited to have him here.

 

[ivanvamp]

Brady has been playing at an absurd level since 2010. To say he is not as good as he used to be is ridiculous. Brady is playing better than he ever has. The reality is, the team around him isn't as good as it used to be, especially on D (it's getting there).

What have you done for me lately right?

Last 3 seasons:

2010: 65.9%, 7.9 y/a, 36 td (7.3%), 4 int (0.8%), 111.0 rating
2011: 65.6%, 8.6 y/a, 39 td (6.4%), 12 int (2.0%), 105.6 rating
2012: 63.0%, 7.6 y/a, 34 td (5.3%), 8 int (1.3%), 98.7 rating

His QB ratings rank him as follows:

2010: 111.0 (#1) - next closest: Rivers (101.8)
2011: 105.6 (#3) - top guy: Rodgers (122.5)
2012: 98.7 (#6) - top guy: Rodgers (108.0)

Brady's numbers are still *outstanding*, and I am thrilled he's the QB of the Patriots. But his numbers are, pretty much by any objective standard, declining. Not just in an absolute sense (i.e., his passer rating is declining), but relative to the rest of the league as well.

Granted, Tom Brady at his best is better than pretty much anything that's been in the league in...like forever, but he's no longer at his best. That doesn't mean he's slipped below *incredible*, but he's no longer superhuman.

Hey, dude is 36 years old. How many QBs that age are still at their peak? Not many.

Look, Joe Montana at 34 put up this line: 61.7%, 3944 yds, 26 td, 16 int, 89.0 rating. Not shabby, especially for a 34-year old.

He missed all of his age 35 season due to injury, and at age 36 only played in one game. At age 37, he put up this line: 60.7%, 2144 yds, 13 td, 7 int, 87.4 rating.

John Elway at age 36 put up this line: 61.6%, 3328 yds, 26 td, 14 int, 89.2 rating.

Dan Marino at age 36 put up this line: 58.2%, 3780 yds, 16 td, 11 int, 80.7 rating.

Brett Favre at age 36 put up this line: 61.3%, 3881 yds, 20 td, 29 int, 70.9 rating.

So Brady is outperforming all these legends by a MILE at his age, but it doesn't mean he is performing at his peak level. He's slightly under that, which is still pretty damned impressive.

EDIT: Sorry, he's 35 years old, but the point still stands.

 

[ivanvamp]

There's a difference between fumbling and being concussed then fumbling.

I know, right? The guy got knocked *unconscious* and was out cold while still on his feet. Of COURSE he was going to fumble after that. That's not "fumbleitis" or any such thing. I'm with you on this one, Aus.

 

[patsinthesnow]

You may be acting a little harsh towards him, no?

I wouldn't really blame him for the fumble in that case, and we basically saw Ridley run pretty effectively for the duration of the season, many times against nickel formations.

I'd give some credit to the decent play and talent of the Ravens in this case too. Until we see more of a sample size that proves that Ridley can't do this, I'm going to hold off on any judgment. I think he brings a nice aspect to our offense and am excited to have him here.

I assume the winky face is due to my fair amount of criticism of Ridley. I feel that he is a good RB, but in my eyes I don't see him ever being a top 10 type of RB. He'll be a 12-18 type guy like BJGE, which isn't bad. He completely lacks a receiving game and is an above average runner for the most part.

 

[ausbacker]

Last 3 seasons:

2010: 65.9%, 7.9 y/a, 36 td (7.3%), 4 int (0.8%), 111.0 rating
2011: 65.6%, 8.6 y/a, 39 td (6.4%), 12 int (2.0%), 105.6 rating
2012: 63.0%, 7.6 y/a, 34 td (5.3%), 8 int (1.3%), 98.7 rating

His QB ratings rank him as follows:

2010: 111.0 (#1) - next closest: Rivers (101.8)
2011: 105.6 (#3) - top guy: Rodgers (122.5)
2012: 98.7 (#6) - top guy: Rodgers (108.0)

Brady's numbers are still *outstanding*, and I am thrilled he's the QB of the Patriots. But his numbers are, pretty much by any objective standard, declining. Not just in an absolute sense (i.e., his passer rating is declining), but relative to the rest of the league as well.

Granted, Tom Brady at his best is better than pretty much anything that's been in the league in...like forever, but he's no longer at his best. That doesn't mean he's slipped below *incredible*, but he's no longer superhuman.

Hey, dude is 36 years old. How many QBs that age are still at their peak? Not many.

Look, Joe Montana at 34 put up this line: 61.7%, 3944 yds, 26 td, 16 int, 89.0 rating. Not shabby, especially for a 34-year old.

He missed all of his age 35 season due to injury, and at age 36 only played in one game. At age 37, he put up this line: 60.7%, 2144 yds, 13 td, 7 int, 87.4 rating.

John Elway at age 36 put up this line: 61.6%, 3328 yds, 26 td, 14 int, 89.2 rating.

Dan Marino at age 36 put up this line: 58.2%, 3780 yds, 16 td, 11 int, 80.7 rating.

Brett Favre at age 36 put up this line: 61.3%, 3881 yds, 20 td, 29 int, 70.9 rating.

So Brady is outperforming all these legends by a MILE at his age, but it doesn't mean he is performing at his peak level. He's slightly under that, which is still pretty damned impressive.

EDIT: Sorry, he's 35 years old, but the point still stands.

That looks like a model of consistency to me. Of course, there's always the absolute definition of decline.

 

[ivanvamp]

I assume the winky face is due to my fair amount of criticism of Ridley. I feel that he is a good RB, but in my eyes I don't see him ever being a top 10 type of RB. He'll be a 12-18 type guy like BJGE, which isn't bad. He completely lacks a receiving game and is an above average runner for the most part.

They won two Super Bowls with an "above average" but not "top 10" RB.

2001
- Pats' best RB: Antowain Smith - 1157 yds, 12 td, 4.0 ypc
- Those stats put him outside the top 10 in yds, #2 in td, way outside the top 10 in ypc, and he didn't contribute much in the passing game (19 rec).

2003
- Pats' best RB: Kevin Faulk - 638 yds, 0 td, 3.6 ypc, but also 48 rec, 440 yds
- His rushing numbers aren't even close to sniffing the top 10, but his receiving numbers were excellent for a RB. A. Smith had 4 more rushing yds and 3 more rushing TDs, but he added nothing in the passing game.

So in 2001 and 2003, the Pats really didn't have a stud running back at all. They had good, solid players across the board. Ridley is a better RB than Antowain Smith was, IMO.

Dillon in 2004 was a stud, no doubt about that. But in 2001 and 2003, their RBs weren't any better at all than they have this year.

 

[ivanvamp]

That looks like a model of consistency to me. Of course, there's always the absolute definition of decline.

Well my point is that he's still tremendously good. He's gone from superhuman to merely awesome. But his numbers *have* declined...there's no way around that. Passer rating in decline, YPA in decline, completion % in decline, TD% in decline, etc. And again, relative to the rest of the league, he's in decline, going from 1st to 3rd to 6th in passer rating.

This isn't a criticism of him - my point at the end was that he's FAR AND AWAY outperforming other legendary QBs at the same age. But he is no longer at his peak. That's ok...they shouldn't need him to be at his peak to win SBs. They won 3 way before he was at his peak.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

They won two Super Bowls with an "above average" but not "top 10" RB.

2001
- Pats' best RB: Antowain Smith - 1157 yds, 12 td, 4.0 ypc
- Those stats put him outside the top 10 in yds, #2 in td, way outside the top 10 in ypc, and he didn't contribute much in the passing game (19 rec).

2003
- Pats' best RB: Kevin Faulk - 638 yds, 0 td, 3.6 ypc, but also 48 rec, 440 yds
- His rushing numbers aren't even close to sniffing the top 10, but his receiving numbers were excellent for a RB. A. Smith had 4 more rushing yds and 3 more rushing TDs, but he added nothing in the passing game.

So in 2001 and 2003, the Pats really didn't have a stud running back at all. They had good, solid players across the board. Ridley is a better RB than Antowain Smith was, IMO.

Dillon in 2004 was a stud, no doubt about that. But in 2001 and 2003, their RBs weren't any better at all than they have this year.

Don't forget the TE in 2001 was Jermaine freaking Wiggins. The RB on that game winning drive was JR Redmond. The O-line was made of castoffs. All against the Rams defense that was 4th in the league that year. 2003 was not much different. TE's were Graham/Fauria (both with limitations), RB was still Antowain. The O-line was still castoffs but that entire playoffs they gave up zero sacks even against the best D-line in the league in Carolina.

 

[patsinthesnow]

They won two Super Bowls with an "above average" but not "top 10" RB.

2001
- Pats' best RB: Antowain Smith - 1157 yds, 12 td, 4.0 ypc
- Those stats put him outside the top 10 in yds, #2 in td, way outside the top 10 in ypc, and he didn't contribute much in the passing game (19 rec).

2003
- Pats' best RB: Kevin Faulk - 638 yds, 0 td, 3.6 ypc, but also 48 rec, 440 yds
- His rushing numbers aren't even close to sniffing the top 10, but his receiving numbers were excellent for a RB. A. Smith had 4 more rushing yds and 3 more rushing TDs, but he added nothing in the passing game.

So in 2001 and 2003, the Pats really didn't have a stud running back at all. They had good, solid players across the board. Ridley is a better RB than Antowain Smith was, IMO.

Dillon in 2004 was a stud, no doubt about that. But in 2001 and 2003, their RBs weren't any better at all than they have this year.

Great point and I agree. The topic at hand is Brady doing less and letting the team carry him more. Two ways would be a great defense or a great running game. While the runninggame was ranked pretty high, it really only came through big time in the Denver game. It really stunk in the first baltimore game and the seattle game, forcing Brady to air it out more.

 

[ivanvamp]

Don't forget the TE in 2001 was Jermaine freaking Wiggins. The RB on that game winning drive was JR Redmond. The O-line was made of castoffs. All against the Rams defense that was 4th in the league that year. 2003 was not much different. TE's were Graham/Fauria (both with limitations), RB was still Antowain. The O-line was still castoffs but that entire playoffs they gave up zero sacks even against the best D-line in the league in Carolina.

Makes you wonder how they won the Super Bowl, doesn't it? Here's how:

1. They had a very good, and physically punishing, defense. Ranked #6 in the league in points allowed, they hit you hard and didn't allow a high percentage of points in the red zone.

2. They controlled the game. Their running game and short passing game (remember, we all called it "dink and dunk" back then?) kept the tempo as they wanted it.

3. They made big plays when it counted, in all phases of the game - offense, defense, and special teams.

4. They got some HUGE breaks. In the Raider game, not only the tuck rule play but also Troy Brown fumbled a punt but the Pats were fortunate to get it back. In the Steeler game they blocked a FG, and the ball came right to a Patriot who ran it in. In the SB, Vrabel pressured Warner for the Ty Law pick, but he smacked Warner in the face mask, which, even then, was an automatic 15-yard penalty. No call.

So it all came together for them at the right time, and they got the breaks they needed. We need a little more of that for another SB title, IMO.

 

[ausbacker]

Well my point is that he's still tremendously good. He's gone from superhuman to merely awesome. But his numbers *have* declined...there's no way around that. Passer rating in decline, YPA in decline, completion % in decline, TD% in decline, etc. And again, relative to the rest of the league, he's in decline, going from 1st to 3rd to 6th in passer rating.

This isn't a criticism of him - my point at the end was that he's FAR AND AWAY outperforming other legendary QBs at the same age. But he is no longer at his peak. That's ok...they shouldn't need him to be at his peak to win SBs. They won 3 way before he was at his peak.

Who said he's at his peak? I've put forward the position that Brady is still playing to a very high level. Joyner in his ultimate stupidity has positioned Brady for a monumental decline despite evidence to the contrary.

Whilst his performance may by definition be in decline, as you've pointed out, he is still playing to a very high and elite level.