Tom Brady Was the Most-Hit QB in the League, from 2006-2007

[Ring 6]

I agree ESPN's 'hit' definition could be improved, but spending so much time on your part tearing apart the definition doesn't really prove the point you're trying to make, that Brady was barely hit or took damage that much relative to other QB's, simply because your eyes tell you so. It's unfortunate ESPN didn't count even further back to earlier years, but working with some figures is better than backing up assertions with nothing other than self proclaimed eye observation/expertise.

Others here going back to 2006 have noted that Brady seemed to be taking a beating (hits/slams into the ground) more than he did under Weiss. Do you remember that 2005 or 2006 Denver playoff game? I remember threads about it. Brady almost got killed in that one, and it's been like that the past few years, not just that game.

Forget the coordinator talk. There are two points, and only two, I'm trying to make in this thread: first, that Brady has been hit (into the ground) a lot the past four years, and that secondly, it is related to the spread pass-heavy attack/formations we use. Did you see that Reiss link I posted about just how much we used 4 and 3 WR sets? We rely on Brady's vision and willingness to take a pounding in order to hit the open man, even if it means waiting for the play to develop.

And I disagree with both of those points.
You say Brady has been hit (into the ground) a lot. Then you must accept that the stat you showed here is irrelevant, correct? Counting sacks would be more relevant, even if not complete.
The entire point of my saying he isnt hit that much was that people were EXAGGERATING, complaining every time he was hit, as if it were appropriate to accept zero hits. (I equate this also--and have said this for YEARS--to 1 3rd down conversion equals we cant get off the field, to one time beaten equals a corner is toast, to one sack makes an OL a turnstile, to any play that doesnt work equals the OC is a buffoon) That is exactly my point that those hits are blown out of proportion.
If you say I cannot judge the amount of time Brady took hard hits with my eyes, how should I judge that, and what are you judging it with other than your eyes?????

As far as the second part of your point, I disagree as well. Shotgun formations are designed to give the QB MORE TIME. Spreading the field is designed to spread the defense out, moving them further from the QB. You act as if we say we are going to leave unblocked players on every play and tell Brady to stand back there, accept he will get pummelled on every play, and try to get rid of the ball first. Thats just not the case.

It is very likely that, given that we want the ball in the hands of the best QB in the NFL, shotgun 3-4 wide formations give Brady better protection than a traditional offense.

 

[BradyFTW!]

And I disagree with both of those points.
You say Brady has been hit (into the ground) a lot. Then you must accept that the stat you showed here is irrelevant, correct? Counting sacks would be more relevant, even if not complete.
The entire point of my saying he isnt hit that much was that people were EXAGGERATING, complaining every time he was hit, as if it were appropriate to accept zero hits. (I equate this also--and have said this for YEARS--to 1 3rd down conversion equals we cant get off the field, to one time beaten equals a corner is toast, to one sack makes an OL a turnstile, to any play that doesnt work equals the OC is a buffoon) That is exactly my point that those hits are blown out of proportion.
If you say I cannot judge the amount of time Brady took hard hits with my eyes, how should I judge that, and what are you judging it with other than your eyes?????

As far as the second part of your point, I disagree as well. Shotgun formations are designed to give the QB MORE TIME. Spreading the field is designed to spread the defense out, moving them further from the QB. You act as if we say we are going to leave unblocked players on every play and tell Brady to stand back there, accept he will get pummelled on every play, and try to get rid of the ball first. Thats just not the case.

It is very likely that, given that we want the ball in the hands of the best QB in the NFL, shotgun 3-4 wide formations give Brady better protection than a traditional offense.

There's a certain type of people that love to make snap judgments based on a sample size of one. For some reason, Pats fans seems to have a disproportionately large number of these people.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

If you say I cannot judge the amount of time Brady took hard hits with my eyes, how should I judge that, and what are you judging it with other than your eyes?????

Really Andrew, what a foolish question! You must judge these things with someone else's eyes (all the really important people know that!) - this relieves you of the responsibility of watching the entire game and allows you the leisure to dwell on those occasional errors which fulfill the dark hunger of your artistic soul. We're doooommmmed to be Patriots fans and must pray for a return to insignificance outside the light of national attention.

 

[Deus Irae]

Really Andrew, what a foolish question! You must judge these things with someone else's eyes (all the really important people know that!) - this relieves you of the responsibility of watching the entire game and allows you the leisure to dwell on those occasional errors which fulfill the dark hunger of your artistic soul. We're doooommmmed to be Patriots fans and must pray for a return to insignificance outside the light of national attention.

If we let Maverick and HEY BRO! take over the team, we could achieve this in less than a season.

 

[Ring 6]

There's a certain type of people that love to make snap judgments based on a sample size of one. For some reason, Pats fans seems to have a disproportionately large number of these people.

I actually dont think its disproportionate, I think fans in general overreact.
That is why almost every OC is roundly criticized. (This is bouyed by the fact that some people feel it makes them smarter to insult the intelligence of someone who is paid to make decisions)
A majority of fans only have the attention span for the big play.
Its also the reason guys like Dwight Freeney who gets manhandled in the running game but is a THREAT to make a big play is so overrated.

 

[efin98]

I actually dont think its disproportionate, I think fans in general overreact.
That is why almost every OC is roundly criticized. (This is bouyed by the fact that some people feel it makes them smarter to insult the intelligence of someone who is paid to make decisions)
A majority of fans only have the attention span for the big play.
Its also the reason guys like Dwight Freeney who gets manhandled in the running game but is a THREAT to make a big play is so overrated.

Meanwhile the people coaching the players who are directly responsible for the mistakes are ignored and the players who committed the mistakes given free passes in an attempt to vilify the OC...

seven weeks later and we are still waiting on those hit stats stats from 2001-2005.

 

[Ring 6]

Meanwhile the people coaching the players who are directly responsible for the mistakes are ignored and the players who committed the mistakes given free passes in an attempt to vilify the OC...

seven weeks later and we are still waiting on those hit stats stats from 2001-2005.

I'm not sure I understand your post.
Are you saying many fans expect perfection and blame the coaches when they don't get it?

I would agree with that. But you have to consider the source.
To say the player made a bad play is to give an assessment. Few, but some, fans would say they could do better than the player though.
To say it was coaching leads to the fan favorite move of claiming to be more intelligent and knowledgable than the coach, thereby creating a way to feel better about yourself through criticizing others.

 

[efin98]

I'm not sure I understand your post.
Are you saying many fans expect perfection and blame the coaches when they don't get it?

I would agree with that. But you have to consider the source.
To say the player made a bad play is to give an assessment. Few, but some, fans would say they could do better than the player though.
To say it was coaching leads to the fan favorite move of claiming to be more intelligent and knowledgable than the coach, thereby creating a way to feel better about yourself through criticizing others.

No I am saying that in their quest to crucify the OCs they ignore the other coaches who deserve blame more than the OCs. If it's the line that is clearly the cause, why isn't the o-line coach blamed? If it's the receivers, why aren't the receivers coaches blamed? If it's the defensive backs, why aren't their coaches getting blamed?

I have yet to see him blame anyone else but the former OC for the problems that happened in the losing games in 05-08. Rarely is anyone but that OC blamed nor are any direct problems caused by players or coaches brought out or blamed. It's just the OC.

 

[BradyFTW!]

No I am saying that in their quest to crucify the OCs they ignore the other coaches who deserve blame more than the OCs. If it's the line that is clearly the cause, why isn't the o-line coach blamed? If it's the receivers, why aren't the receivers coaches blamed? If it's the defensive backs, why aren't their coaches getting blamed?

I have yet to see him blame anyone else but the former OC for the problems that happened in the losing games in 05-08. Rarely is anyone but that OC blamed nor are any direct problems caused by players or coaches brought out or blamed. It's just the OC.

I'll spare you the need to wait for a response: It's because the Pats only ran 10 plays and telegraphed them all the time, so that the opposing team ALWAYS knew what was coming and knew full well how to scheme against it.

Which really makes you wonder how many points the Pats could have scored with a competent OC, since they managed 589 while apparently telling the defense exactly what they were going to do.

 

[efin98]

I'll spare you the need to wait for a response: It's because the Pats only ran 10 plays and telegraphed them all the time, so that the opposing team ALWAYS knew what was coming and knew full well how to scheme against it.

Which really makes you wonder how many points the Pats could have scored with a competent OC, since they managed 589 while apparently telling the defense exactly what they were going to do.

...telling them what was going to happen yet being unable to stop it.
...telling them what was going to happen yet coming up with new plays to divert attention away from one target only to open up another.
...telling them what was going to happen yet running the ball keeping LBs and linemen off kilter as to what they were really going to run.

Right only 589 point...if they had a "better" one they could have had 610 or 650 points if they weren't holding off in the fourth quarter in certain games when it was in hand in the second quarter.

 

[maverick4]

Counting sacks would be more relevant, even if not complete.

As far as the second part of your point, I disagree as well. Shotgun formations are designed to give the QB MORE TIME.

Brady is a unique QB.

1. Counting sacks isn't relevant because Brady gets rid of the ball and avoids sacks, but is fearless and will take the hit even though people (like yourself) ignore it or don't notice it.

2. It seems odd for you to continue to argue that shotgun protects the QB more, when the Pats disproportionately used shotgun over 50% of their plays (and for the VAST majority of their passes), and it *just so happens* that Brady was also the most-hit QB in the league.

Even without these articles/stats I linked, it makes sense conceptually as well. If an opposing defense knows that the vast majority of Patriot pass attempts are from shot-gun, it makes it easy for the defensive ends and linebackers to avoid looking for the run if they see the Patriots in shot gun, and to just go all out on pass rush against our slow offensive tackles.

 

[DaBruinz]

They didn't use 2 TE formations because they were ineffective. Much of that was because Kyle Brady was at the end of his rope. He got maybe 4 snaps and he ended up on the ground twice.

Anyways most of the pressure was coming up the middle, and Watson was never really that great at the wham block.

They didn't use 2 TE formations because Brady got hurt and they only had 2 TEs dressed for the game. After Kyle Brady went down, they didn't have another person to put out there. However, that wouldn't have helped the O-line from getting beaten by the stunts that the Giants were running.

 

[maverick4]

They didn't use 2 TE formations because Brady got hurt and they only had 2 TEs dressed for the game. After Kyle Brady went down, they didn't have another person to put out there. However, that wouldn't have helped the O-line from getting beaten by the stunts that the Giants were running.

You make it sound like there was NOTHING the Patriots scheme-wise could have done differently that day, that we were destined by fate to lose no matter what. How did you like that final drive?

 

[DaBruinz]

You make it sound like there was NOTHING the Patriots scheme-wise could have done differently that day, that we were destined by fate to lose no matter what. How did you like that final drive?

Nothing I said made it sound like there was nothing the Patriots could have done differently. Please stop responding to my posts if you are going to make such ludicrous assumptions. All you do is prove that you don't know what you are talking about and really didn't read what was said.

I was responding to the ONE person (unoriginal) who who stated that the Patriots weren't running 2 TE sets because they were ineffective. The reality was that they weren't running 2 TE sets because they didn't have the available personnel to do so with both Neal and Kyle Brady out and Stupar not active. Now, before you go hurting yourself by exclaiming that Neal isn't a TE, I understand that. The only other offensive player that the Patriots have used at TE who was active that day was Hochstein. And he was in at Guard for Neal because Yates had proved ineffective. In all honesty, I don't know what they could have done differently other than not using the zone blocking scheme. If they had used the in-line blocking scheme that they'd used under Weiss, they might have been better at picking up the stunts, but I don't know.

 

[maverick4]

In all honesty, I don't know what they could have done differently other than not using the zone blocking scheme. If they had used the in-line blocking scheme that they'd used under Weiss, they might have been better at picking up the stunts, but I don't know.

So essentially a 'yes'. That's where we disagree. I refuse to believe the loss was basically out of our hands, out of our own control. For me that's just defeatist thinking.

You didn't say what you thought about that final drive.

 

[DaBruinz]

Brady is a unique QB.

1. Counting sacks isn't relevant because Brady gets rid of the ball and avoids sacks, but is fearless and will take the hit even though people (like yourself) ignore it or don't notice it.

2. It seems odd for you to continue to argue that shotgun protects the QB more, when the Pats disproportionately used shotgun over 50% of their plays (and for the VAST majority of their passes), and it *just so happens* that Brady was also the most-hit QB in the league.

Even without these articles/stats I linked, it makes sense conceptually as well. If an opposing defense knows that the vast majority of Patriot pass attempts are from shot-gun, it makes it easy for the defensive ends and linebackers to avoid looking for the run if they see the Patriots in shot gun, and to just go all out on pass rush against our slow offensive tackles.

Listen, you need to stop with the "most hit QB" BS because you've taken the article out of context. Hell, the context it was written in was bogus to begin with. You've been taken to task a gazillion times by numerous posters who clearly are more intelligent on the subject, yet you still sit there and beat your chest acting like you know what you are talking about. You clearly don't.

A vast majority of the Pats PLAYS (passing and rushing) are run out of the Shotgun. So, if they opposing teams stupid and look only for the Pass when the see the Pats offense in the shotgun, the Pats running game will tear them up.

 

[DaBruinz]

So essentially a 'yes'. That's where we disagree. I refuse to believe the loss was basically out of our hands, out of our own control. For me that's just defeatist thinking.

You didn't say what you thought about that final drive.

*ROFLMAO* God, you are such a complete fool. There was no answer to ANY question you posed. So why the hell are you acting like there was? Are you so deluded that you have to pretend people agreed with you when the truth is that YOU were not part of the conversation?

 

[maverick4]

A vast majority of the Pats PLAYS (passing and rushing) are run out of the Shotgun.

A lie, you just made that up, it's pretty funny how loosely you just pull stuff out of your arse here.

Do the math (if you can). Look at how many pass/run plays we ran, then see how many it says we passed out of shot gun in the article. We overwhelmingly passed out of shot gun, and we didn't run as much as you like to think out of shot gun. It's an easy key for the opposing defense to just pass rush.

You "clearly" don't like to delve into topics which go against your worldview. You do the same thing you accuse others of in getting into ad hominem or dismissing the validity of stats. You've done the same lame shtick here for years, the moment people disagree with you, you act like a petulant little CHILD with the insults.

 

[maverick4]

There was no answer to ANY question you posed.

Your post clearly answered it. Just because you're too obtuse (and arrogant) to say "yes, I don't believe the Pats could have done anything differently" doesn't mean you didn't say it.

Blow hard said:
[In all honesty, I don't know what they could have done differently other than not using the zone blocking scheme. If they had used the in-line blocking scheme that they'd used under Weiss, they might have been better at picking up the stunts, but I don't know.]

 

[DaBruinz]

Your post clearly says it. Just because you're too obtuse (and arrogant) to say "yes, I don't believe the Pats could have done anything differently" doesn't mean you didn't say it.

Blow hard said: \
[In all honesty, I don't know what they could have done differently other than not using the zone blocking scheme. If they had used the in-line blocking scheme that they'd used under Weiss, they might have been better at picking up the stunts, but I don't know.]

God, you are too stupid for your own good. My original response that you deemed it necessary to respond to was to Unoriginal. YOU are not the poster Unoriginal. I was correcting what he said. It had NOTHING to do with the pathetic ramblings that you have insisted on plaguing the board with.

Saying "I don't know" is NOT saying "I don't believe they could have done things differently." It's saying "I don't know."

The only arrogant person here is you. YOU are the arse who responded to me with your idiotic post when I was addressing what Unoriginal said.