The Mortality of Tommy Francis Brady: A Parable

[ivanvamp]

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.

The problem (if you can call it that) is that Brady is still one of the very best offensive weapons in the entire NFL. And as such, the Patriots would be silly to not take advantage of that fact. And so as long as he's playing at a high level, their default mode will always be to prefer Brady over a running game, no matter how talented the RBs are (unless we're talking about Peterson perhaps).

So maybe what the Patriots need is just what happened to Denver in Elway's last two years: a tremendous running game and enough decline in Brady's skills for Belichick to say, ok, we can't rely on Brady all the time because he's just too old for that. And if they rely on the running game and defense, and allow Brady to pick his spots for his magic, maybe that's the right formula.

*Note: Elway's last year, at age 38, he only threw 356 times for 2806 yds, 22 td, and 10 int, for a rating of 93.0. That rating was the highest of his career. The less he threw, the better he was, knowing that his running game was so good, he could go play-action, and he didn't need to carry his team.

 

[ivanvamp]

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

You're probably right. I have no idea what the CBA calls for.

 

[ivanvamp]

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.

In post #19 in this thread, you said, "To say he is not as good as he used to be is ridiculous. Brady is playing better than he ever has."

I think he's still great, but I think your claim that he's playing better than he ever has is incorrect. He's in a bit of a decline since 2010. Still tremendous, but not quite as good as he was.

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.

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

We're probably not really disagreeing much here.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

The problem (if you can call it that) is that Brady is still one of the very best offensive weapons in the entire NFL. And as such, the Patriots would be silly to not take advantage of that fact. And so as long as he's playing at a high level, their default mode will always be to prefer Brady over a running game, no matter how talented the RBs are (unless we're talking about Peterson perhaps).

So maybe what the Patriots need is just what happened to Denver in Elway's last two years: a tremendous running game and enough decline in Brady's skills for Belichick to say, ok, we can't rely on Brady all the time because he's just too old for that. And if they rely on the running game and defense, and allow Brady to pick his spots for his magic, maybe that's the right formula.

*Note: Elway's last year, at age 38, he only threw 356 times for 2806 yds, 22 td, and 10 int, for a rating of 93.0. That rating was the highest of his career. The less he threw, the better he was, knowing that his running game was so good, he could go play-action, and he didn't need to carry his team.

You show a lot of great stats comparing other QB's.

But, all of Brady's numbers since 2004 (Polian passing rules) should be adjusted if we're going to do historical comparisons. Joe Montana played in a time when 1 QB, if any, would pass over 4000 yards in a season. Now we have over a dozen QB's every year do that.

 

[ivanvamp]

You show a lot of great stats comparing other QB's.

But, all of Brady's numbers since 2004 (Polian passing rules) should be adjusted if we're going to do historical comparisons. Joe Montana played in a time when 1 QB, if any, would pass over 4000 yards in a season. Now we have over a dozen QB's ever year do that.

Right, I understand that. But Brady's numbers so blow those other guys' away that it can't be accounted for simply by the difference in the era they played in. Brady has aged far better than those other QBs. For which we should be grateful.

 

[ausbacker]

In post #19 in this thread, you said, "To say he is not as good as he used to be is ridiculous. Brady is playing better than he ever has."

I think he's still great, but I think your claim that he's playing better than he ever has is incorrect. He's in a bit of a decline since 2010. Still tremendous, but not quite as good as he was.


I agree with this wholeheartedly.

We're probably not really disagreeing much here.

I happen to think Brady is playing as well as he ever has. You're free to disagree with that given we're looking at the same statistics from a different starting point.

 

[fumbrunner]

The Pats lost two SBs because of a fluke catch after Brady gave them a late lead, and a Welker drop that would have iced the game.

Luck comes into play sometimes. Sometimes they go our way (tuck rule), sometimes they dont (tyree).

The fact of the matter is they are competitive every year. This year's loss stings a bit, but if not for Gronk, Talib, and Jones' injuries, the Pats would be in the SB. Gronk's injuries in particular in the past two years have come at absolutely awful times.

We will look back at the Brady era as the golden era of Patriots football, regardless if Brady wins another SB or not.

 

[upstater1]

In post #19 in this thread, you said, "To say he is not as good as he used to be is ridiculous. Brady is playing better than he ever has."

I think he's still great, but I think your claim that he's playing better than he ever has is incorrect. He's in a bit of a decline since 2010. Still tremendous, but not quite as good as he was.



I agree with this wholeheartedly.

We're probably not really disagreeing much here.

It looks to me like this was his best year. He looked better than ever. Control of the offense, making all the throws, no lost velocity. Accuracy was there.

This offense scored an insane amount of TDs.

 

[upstater1]

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.

You are totally ignoring a lot of relevant stats.

Passe rating is heavily tilted by pass completions. In case you didn't notice, pass completions for Brady and the Patriots are practically irrelevant stats. They convert 3rd downs at a clip of 55%. Manning's Broncos and Rodgers' Packers are in the 30% range. For them, an incompletion is meaningful. But for the Patriots this year, an inc. on 2nd down did not mean as much.

TD% down? Did you see how many points the offense scored? Brady had 4 TDs running, the offense had 26 running TDs. The Broncos and Packers combined didn't have as many running TDs.

He had a tremendous year, one of the best years by a QB ever.

 

[ivanvamp]

I happen to think Brady is playing as well as he ever has. You're free to disagree with that given we're looking at the same statistics from a different starting point.

Fair enough. I am not trying to pick any sort of fight with you because I think we both think that he's still incredible.

But in the span of a few posts you said that he's playing better than ever, then you suggested that you weren't saying he's playing at his peak, and now you're back to saying he's playing as well as he ever has.

I don't really care one way or the other..... I just know that there's no QB I'd rather have than Brady, even if I think both relative to his own standards and also relative to the league, he is in a bit of decline.

 

[ausbacker]

Fair enough. I am not trying to pick any sort of fight with you because I think we both think that he's still incredible.

But in the span of a few posts you said that he's playing better than ever, then you suggested that you weren't saying he's playing at his peak, and now you're back to saying he's playing as well as he ever has.

I don't really care one way or the other..... I just know that there's no QB I'd rather have than Brady, even if I think both relative to his own standards and also relative to the league, he is in a bit of decline.

We're seeing the same thing ivan but from a different view. It's perfectly fair to say he's playing as well as he ever has. There's always going to be an outlier (like 2007). 2010, 2011 and 2012 don't show anything significant to make that statement incorrect. It would be a marginal drop off at best, one which I'm not happy to connect with a major drop off given his continued level of excellence.

 

[ivanvamp]

You are totally ignoring a lot of relevant stats.

Passe rating is heavily tilted by pass completions. In case you didn't notice, pass completions for Brady and the Patriots are practically irrelevant stats. They convert 3rd downs at a clip of 55%. Manning's Broncos and Rodgers' Packers are in the 30% range. For them, an incompletion is meaningful. But for the Patriots this year, an inc. on 2nd down did not mean as much.

TD% down? Did you see how many points the offense scored? Brady had 4 TDs running, the offense had 26 running TDs. The Broncos and Packers combined didn't have as many running TDs.

He had a tremendous year, one of the best years by a QB ever.

It was a terrific year, absolutely. I agree 100%. Brady is still an absolutely elite quarterback in the NFL and there's nobody I'd rather have quarterbacking my favorite team. I've suggest nothing to the contrary.

 

[ivanvamp]

We're seeing the same thing ivan but from a different view.

Works for me.

 

[reflexblue]

Time to put a big target on my chest for people to shoot at.

From 2001-2006 the Pats under Brady compiled a regular season record of 70-25. During those years they made the playoffs 5 times, compiling a playoff record of 12-2, with 4 AFCCG appears and 3 SB appearances, all victories. The most yards Brady ever passed for in those seasons was 4110; he never attempted more than 530 passes except in the 2002 season (601), which (coincidentally or not) was the one season out of those 6 in which the Pats failed to make the playoffs. He never passed for more than 28 TDs. Brady never won an MVP in those 6 seasons, though he won 2 SB MVPs. He didn't put up the glitzy numbers of Peyton Manning, who won several MVPs during that time. And some called him a "game manager", though others considered him the best QB in the NFL in the clutch.

After the Pats lost the 2006 AFCCG to the Colts 38-34, they opened up the offense and put the team squarley on Bradey's right shoulder. Except for the 2008 season, which he essentially missed, Brady has passed for 565 or more attempts in 4 out of the 5 seasons he has played since 2007, has passed for 4398 yards or more and 34 TDs or more in 4 out of the 5 seasons (and 4800 or more in 3 of the 5), has won 2 MVPs, and has eclipsed previous season records for TDs (50, 2007) and yards (5235, 2011, though Drew Brees passed for even more yards). During those years the Pats have gone 65-15 during the regular season and earned the #1 seed three times and the #2 seed once, but have gone only 5-5 during the playoffs over those 5 years, losing twice in the divisional round (2009, 2010), once in the AFCCG (2012), and twice in the SB (2007, 2011).

Clearly the Pats lost a lot of talent after the 2004 Super Bowl, and again after 2007 when key players got old. The team was rebuilt around Brady, and he has produced historic numbers. But perhaps the team has been asking him to do too much, rather than building a more complete team around him. Certainly at times over the past 3 seasons in the playoffs, it seems as though Brady has been pressing too hard and trying to do too much.

It reminds me a bit of John Elway's early vs. late SB history with the Broncos. Like Brady, Elway started in 5 SBs. However, Elway lost his first 3, all fairly convincingly (losses of 39-20, 42-10 and 55-10 to the Giants, Redskins and 49ers). Those Denver teams were not particularly strong teams, and Elway was basically the "super man" who got them to the Super Bowl in the first place. But it wasn't enough against better teams from the NFC. It wasn't until Elway was past his "prime" and in "decline", and until Denver had built a more complete team around him, that the Broncos found Super Bowl success in back to back years in 1997 and 1998.

The Pats have been asking Brady to carry them for a long time. But they've also been methodically building the team up, piece by piece. Perhaps we need to get to the point where others guys step up and carry more of the burden, and where the team doesn't have to rely on Brady to carry them so much. That may be hard for Brady to do, and the team certainly hasn't reached that point yet. But the talent level is pretty close to being where it needs to be.

My guess is that Brady can carry this team only so far, and it's probably not quite far enough to win the Super Bowl. He's certainly among the GOAT. But maybe the route to more trophies is by asking him to do less, and others to do more.

OK, fire away.

I'm not going to shoot at you because ive been posting the same thing after every playoff or SB loss for the last 5 years. Those teams in the early 2000's were built on defense, and running the ball,Brady was asked to just manage the game, which i remember correctly was throwing short pass's most of the time.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

I'm not going to shoot at you because ive been posting the same thing after every playoff or SB loss for the last 5 years. Those teams in the early 2000's were built on defense, and running the ball,Brady was asked to just manage the game, which i remember correctly was throwing short pass's most of the time.

The funny in a sad kinda way thing is... in 2006 the Pats averaged 32 ppg in the POs, which "proved" that they needed their own high powered offense because they didn't keep up with the Colts. Since then they've averaged 24 ppg in the POs despite having far and away more talent on offense than that team, even without Gronk.

 

[BradyBranch39]

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.

This is a pretty good thread, so I just want to point out a small thing here: In the salary cap era, any team that wins a SB title is going to need quite a bit of that.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Ohhhhh that's what the "F" stands for.

 

[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.

Not to beat a dead horse mayo, but I thought this article from the Herald was appropriate for this particular subject. It states how much the defense's demise was NOT a part of Talib's injury on Sunday.

The author appears to be Matt Chatham, who does not buy into the whole Talib mystique over the stretch run of the season on any level:

"The Patriots defense simply didn’t play well enough on Sunday in critical moments, causing breakdowns you usually don’t see. I don’t know why, and neither does anyone outside their locker room.

What I do know is the answer has nothing to do with being “out-physicalled” or the loss of a cornerback whose play has been so misunderstood and exaggerated by local and national media in the last three months that Mother Goose wouldn’t touch the story."

I am glad to see that not everyone had the wool pulled over their eyes regarding Talib's "dominant performance."

Defense

That said, we're still in agreement that they seem to be building something and potentially progressing on that side of the ball, so let's hope that continues with another few key additions for next season. What didn't change though, was the defense's tendency to allow late game TD's and too many points in a big game setting, and that's what disappoints me.

 

[ivanvamp]

This is a pretty good thread, so I just want to point out a small thing here: In the salary cap era, any team that wins a SB title is going to need quite a bit of that.

Yes indeed. Winning a Lombardi Trophy: How the Ball Bounces atriots Coverage With John Vampatella

 

[mayoclinic]

Not to beat a dead horse mayo, but I thought this article from the Herald was appropriate for this particular subject. It states how much the defense's demise was NOT a part of Talib's injury on Sunday.

The author appears to be Matt Chatham, who does not buy into the whole Talib mystique over the stretch run of the season on any level:

"The Patriots defense simply didn’t play well enough on Sunday in critical moments, causing breakdowns you usually don’t see. I don’t know why, and neither does anyone outside their locker room.

What I do know is the answer has nothing to do with being “out-physicalled” or the loss of a cornerback whose play has been so misunderstood and exaggerated by local and national media in the last three months that Mother Goose wouldn’t touch the story."

I am glad to see that not everyone had the wool pulled over their eyes regarding Talib's "dominant performance."

Defense

That said, we're still in agreement that they seem to be building something and potentially progressing on that side of the ball, so let's hope that continues with another few key additions for next season. What didn't change though, was the defense's tendency to allow late game TD's and too many points in a big game setting, and that's what disappoints me.

I don't have the advantage of watching the All-22 film, and I'm not really interested in watching that painful loss again right now anyway. I buy that there were coverage lapses. I'm not so sure I buy that they weren't entirely related to Talib's absence. Take away your best outside CB and move your best slot guy outside, and Chatham basically says that there were gaping holes in the middle of the field. That seems like it could have some relationship to me. Obviously, it doesn't excuse poor defensive scheming and blown coverages, but the defense played a lot better when Talib was in as opposed to when he left. Also, there's that little matter of the Ravens' killing us in the red zone, where a big CB who could match up might have made it a bit tougher.