Tom Brady: The Cautionary Tale

[Crickett]

Originally Posted by descendency

It's strange, but yeah, that's what Randy Moss did in Tennessee. That's ALL he did there. He was a run blocker. Why they couldn't just use an extra TE, I don't know.

[LizardState]

Aaron Rodgers is the future of the position.

He & Brees + maybe Brady are the top tier nowadays, agreed. I did note that the 1st Brady INT in their loss was b/c he had a d-lineman's hand(s) up & in his face so he threw it high. These 3 are the top tier b/c the Mannings have started throwing predictable pick parties, hands in their face, passrushers draped on them, forced out of the pocket or not, noticeable lapse in accuracy over past yrs. Rapelisberger & Romo are hanging on that top tier by about 4 fingers now, & the young guns -- Ryan, Sanchez et. al -- are all looking to climb up too.....

We will be having this same thread in approximately 2-3 yrs saying Andrew Luck is the future of the position & Rodgers & Brees are in decline.

[Halsey]

I just don't buy into the simple minded thinking that the Patriots losing must mean Brady played poorly. The Jets just played better than the Patriots. Maybe Brady didn't have his best game, but had he played poorly the Jets would have blown the Patriots out. It sure wasn't the Patriots stellar running game and lock down defense that kept the game competitive. Sometimes a QB can play well and still lose. Many fans just change their opinions on QBs every week. Roethlisberger won so he's suddenly the best QB in the league and the Patriots lost, so Tom Brady is a playoff choker.

[Sniper]

Originally Posted by Forenci

Hey now, according the the Sniper School for Quarterback Analysis it's always the QBs fault and there is no such thing as extenuating circumstances.

Nice. Care to tell me where I said that? Good luck finding it, because I didn't.

[yourfavestoner]

Also, I'd like to point out that I think it's fairly disingenuous to call Brady a caretaker or game manager early in his career, especially when you consider what he was working with on offense. Before the Pats went on the Welker/Moss trade bonanza in 2007, the most skilled offensive player he worked with was Corey ******* Dillon. And that only worked out for a year. Meanwhile, he still had the statistical output of a top five quarterback.

I've said before, after his two MVP years (2007 and likely this year), his best season was the 2006 year when they lost to the Colts in the AFC Championship game. To make it that far with your top targets being Reche Caldwell, Jabar Gaffney, Kevin Faulk, and Troy Brown (playing both ways)? That's just ridiculous.

[yourfavestoner]

Originally Posted by Halsey

I just don't buy into the simple minded thinking that the Patriots losing must mean Brady played poorly. The Jets just played better than the Patriots. Maybe Brady didn't have his best game, but had he played poorly the Jets would have blown the Patriots out. It sure wasn't the Patriots stellar running game and lock down defense that kept the game competitive. Sometimes a QB can play well and still lose. Many fans just change their opinions on QBs every week. Roethlisberger won so he's suddenly the best QB in the league and the Patriots lost, so Tom Brady is a playoff choker.

I don't know what game you were watching, but Brady was terrible against the Jets. Like DMW said, he padded his stats and made the boxscore look respectable on meaningless drives at the end of the game.

[bigbluedefense]

For the record, I'm not a bandwagoner that is just saying now that Ben is a top 3 qb who could possibly be the best with another ring.

I've said this all year. And I specifically remember getting killed for it bc I said he was top 5 and Rivers wasn't, and I guess that's blasphemy on this board.

[Halsey]

Originally Posted by yourfavestoner

I don't know what game you were watching, but Brady was terrible against the Jets

No he wasn't. This point is not worth debating any further. If you think Brady played poorly then all you understand are big stats and highlight plays. Just because Brady didn't throw for 400 yards and complete multiple 50 yard TDs doesn't mean he played poorly.

[bigbluedefense]

Originally Posted by yourfavestoner

I don't know what game you were watching, but Brady was terrible against the Jets. Like DMW said, he padded his stats and made the boxscore look respectable on meaningless drives at the end of the game.

Brady was terrible bc his WRs were terrible. Rex realized that it's stupid to blitz a team that does nothing but 3 step drops and screen passes, and dropped everyone in coverage to prevent YAC.

And bc that WR core is mediocre and the Jets have a good secondary, Rex said my guys will beat your guys and he was right.

Nobody was open all game, Brady can't magically make them get open. The Pats lost to the better team, bc let's be honest, talent wise, the Jets were better at everything except qb.

And that's coming from a guy who LOVED the Pats this year. One thing we overlooked was you can't win with rookies in the playoffs, and the lack of elite playmakers doomed the Pats this year.

I loved the Pats offense, but it got exposed by Rex in this game. The TEs needed to step up and have a great day for them to win, but they didn't. they relied on rookies and the result showed.

[yourfavestoner]

Originally Posted by SchizophrenicBatman

well, if we're going to make this a serious thread...

people make too much of the playoffs. it's too small of a sample size. over the course of a guy's career it can be a knock at the end if he's always there and always falls short. a couple games? no

knee jerking brady down is dumb. so is knee jerking someone else up. what if the bears win this SB? is cutler the new QB god like brees was last year? roethlisberger has moved up in my eyes because of how he's improved as a QB in the last couple years, not because he won 2 SBs playing with a great team and has another shot now. even after I grant how great he's playing now...the steelers went 3-1 without him this year. are they getting a shot at a SB with charlie batch or dennis dixon? probably not, because those guys suck (well, batch is decent for an old back up but whatever). but they missed the playoffs last year with big benzzz because they lost a ton of close games and the defense was good, not great with polamalu out most of the year. where was his clutchness then? quarterback is the most important position in football but it is not the only position. and it alone cannot overcome 11 other positions (an opposing defense).

the playoffs have great performances. occasionally by great players, occasionally by not so great players. marshawn lynch is a crappy NFL running back. the fact that he had the run of his professional life in the playoffs does not change that fact. where this gets muddied is when you try to determine how great a guy is because of how he plays in a couple games, especially compared to how great some other guy is in those couple of games.

right now I dont see how anyone can justifiably argue that one guy (or small group of guys) is that far ahead of anyone else right now since brady and manning are getting older while some of the better young QBs have really started to mature and step it up. it's all tiers to me right now and tier 1 is no longer manning/brady.

i mean, if you want to put one guy ahead of everyone else be my guest. good luck convincing even a small minority of people that, though. for one, this isn't the nba. it's 1 of 53, not 1 of 13. but hey, if the NFL michael jordan shows up, call me

I completely disagree with this. When you've played 18-19 playoff games, as Brady and Manning have, that's a huge sample size from which to draw a conclusion - and it's against the best competition. Hell, that's more than an entire season's worth of games.

Now, early in a player's career can you draw wrong conclusions based on the sample size being so small? The player you always like to point out is Jake Delhomme, but Jake did play magnificently in the playoffs early in his career, most notably during that Superbowl season. As his career went on, things evened out. He's had 8 postseason games now, and those overall postseason numbers reflect Delhomme pretty damn accurately (57% passer, 12 TDs, 10 INTs, 83 rating).

[bigbluedefense]

Wait, so now we shouldn't use the playoffs to evaluate quarterbacks?!

Why? Bc the fantasy season is over in week 15?

[Complex]

Originally Posted by descendency

I am serious, Jeff fisher brought him in on run plays because thats what Randy Moss is known for

[Morton]

Question: Why didn't teams try dropping everyone into coverage earlier in the season against the Pats when they were rolling up 35, 40, 45 points on people weekly?

Can it really be that simple - just drop eight into coverage, go man-to-man on Branch & Tate, and play soft zone in the middle?

[Complex]

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

For the record, I'm not a bandwagoner that is just saying now that Ben is a top 3 qb who could possibly be the best with another ring.

I've said this all year. And I specifically remember getting killed for it bc I said he was top 5 and Rivers wasn't, and I guess that's blasphemy on this board.

The refs and his defense gave him his 1st ring, he sucked against the seahawks. You could of put Akili Smith out there and the steelers would have won that game.

[bigbluedefense]

Originally Posted by Complex

The refs and his defense gave him his 1st ring, he sucked against the seahawks. You could of put Akili Smith out there and the steelers would have won that game.

I agree that the Seahawks got hosed. But what if the Pats didn't spy? Does Brady win ANY rings? And why isn't that effecting his perception?

And let's be honest, Ben was a stud in his 2nd SB. Go back and watch that game winning drive.

Just watch all the plays that Ben made in that drive alone. That more than made up for his 1st SB.

Ben proved himself. The guy is going to be a first ballot HOFer.

[yourfavestoner]

Originally Posted by Halsey

No he wasn't. This point is not worth debating any further. If you think Brady played poorly then all you understand are big stats and highlight plays. Just because Brady didn't throw for 400 yards and complete multiple 50 yard TDs doesn't mean he played poorly.

Yes, he did. You're really going to accuse me of only understand stats and highlight plays? Really?

I saw a guy who came out expecting man, saw zone, and could never readjust. I saw a guy who masked his offensive line's deficiencies this season with great pocket awareness and getting the ball out quickly. He did neither. His pocket awareness was as bad as I've ever seen it. He couldn't read the blitz and throw hot.

I said in my original post, if you look at his numbers and the box score, you can make a Manning-fan argument: he played well enough to win, his teammates ****** him, his o-line sucked, blah, blah, blah. And that's just wrong. Like DMW said, almost all of his numbers came on those two long drives at the end of the game...crunch time drives where they needed to score quickly and they didn't do anything make the box score look less ugly. They didn't threaten the Jets the entire game.

Like the announcer said during the game: the offense is an orchestra and Brady is the composer. And everyone was reading different sheet music.

[ShutDwn]

Originally Posted by yourfavestoner

Now, early in a player's career can you draw wrong conclusions based on the sample size being so small? The player you always like to point out is Jake Delhomme, but Jake did play magnificently in the playoffs early in his career, most notably during that Superbowl season. As his career went on, things evened out. He's had 8 postseason games now, and those overall postseason numbers reflect Delhomme pretty damn accurately (57% passer, 12 TDs, 10 INTs, 83 rating).

Those 2 TDs and 8 INTs in his last two post season games completely wrecked him. He posted ratings in his first six playoff games I doubt anyone matches, as a Panther fan it sucks it evened out.

I really hope that Brady and Manning's recent failures finally stop the over accreditation of post season success to the QB. But, with so many "analysts" being historic QBs I doubt that happens.

[SchizophrenicBatman]

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

Wait, so now we shouldn't use the playoffs to evaluate quarterbacks?!

Why? Bc the fantasy season is over in week 15?

i dont even play fantasy football. seriously. ive played it 1 time, this year. didnt get it. wont play again. what is the appeal to watching a game and hoping this is the week devery henderson catches one of his 80 yard tds?

anyway, this is too much of a strawman argument. if you want a response...aaron rodgers was a "fantasy qb" because kurt warner beat him in a shootout one time. now what?

Originally Posted by yourfavestoner

Now, early in a player's career can you draw wrong conclusions based on the sample size being so small? The player you always like to point out is Jake Delhomme, but Jake did play magnificently in the playoffs early in his career, most notably during that Superbowl season. As his career went on, things evened out. He's had 8 postseason games now, and those overall postseason numbers reflect Delhomme pretty damn accurately (57% passer, 12 TDs, 10 INTs, 83 rating).

I don't see how this goes against what I said at all. If you draw conclusions too quickly it can be like that year the Lions started out hot with Jon Kitna. Or it could be like every year the Colts/Pats start out hot. Just let it play out. If a guy hasn't gotten it done over the course of 20 games, then there probably IS something there. Over the course of 3 games? 4 games? Not to me. Maybe he's choked once or twice but that doesn't make him a choker for life. And if Mark Sanchez wins the Super Bowl this season it doesn't make him the clutchest QB ever, no matter what the NY Post writes.

Manning and Brady have both basically played a season worth of playoff games. Their postseason stats should reflect it:

Manning playoff stats in 18 games: 435/692 5164 yds 28 TD 19 INT 7.5ypa 62.9% 87.6 QBrating (9-9 record)

Brady stats in 18: 395/637 4108 yds 28 TD 15 INT 6.4ypa 62.0% 85.5 QBrate (14-4)

(not updated for this season's losses. peyton is 9-10 now and brady 14-5, 4-5 since his 10 game win streak ended)

That really looks exactly like I would expect it from their regular season stats if you adjust down considering more difficult competition in the playoffs. The only big difference is the record (and peyton throwing more picks) and that's something to go on, I agree. Then again this is the NFL. You can go 12-4 one year and 4-12 the next. And there have been years where Peyton has thrown picks like that. Hell, his 2002 basically mirrors those stats

I'm not even a huge Peyton guy. I think most of his (the Colts') problems are his fault. He's the reason that team is the way it is. Some of it is the result of circumstance. If he had walked into a situation like Ben did with the Steelers (or Flacco did with the Ravens, Sanchez/jets, etc) maybe he isn't such a huge factor towards the success of his team. But he is. And he hasn't changed it. He hasn't told his FO "hey, maybe we'd be better if we spent those two luxury first round RB picks on defense." He had to sign the biggest contract out there, putting them in a bind to the point where they basically have 3-4 huge impact guys (him, a WR, Freeney, etc) locked up and then there's just a bunch of fluff around that. Ultimately, I think he probably deserves more than 1 ring before he retires and he's still got a few more seasons to pull that off. Then again, he didn't really "deserve" the one he has with the way he played that year

I just think you guys want the myth to be bigger than it is. I doubt many will disagree with you that you can't just look at the box score and determine everything from that. Ben plays better than his stats indicate. I completely agree. But so do guys like Vick and Vince Young with the way they open up the run game. That doesn't vault them over everyone else. I mean, I'm as big a Josh Freeman fan as anyone on this board. And I do think some guys aren't all they appear to be, ie Joe Flacco. That doesn't mean that I think Flacco sucks or that Freeman is a god, though. I'd take Vick over a guy like Cassel but I wouldn't put him up there with the top tier QBs either.

If you want to put Roethlisberger #1 that's your prerogative. I wouldn't have a huge problem with it. He's in my group of guys that are up in that echelon. I'm not a huge rankings guy anyway. I just have players I like and a few I dont like. I don't rank out 50 guys at each position in the draft, I just look for some guys I think are undervalued and overvalued. Roethlisberger at #1 to me would be like putting Cam Newton #1 in this QB draft. Hey, maybe you could be right. It's not like there's anyone else who has separated themselves. Right now I just see 4 guys with different playstyles who could all be awesome. One I don't care for much (Mallett) but that's just what I think. I could be overanalyzing him and he could end up the best

Again, if a Jordan shows up I'm there. He murdered everyone all the time. Regular season, postseason, it didn't matter. He had the stats AND the postseason wins. 6 for 6 in the big series. That's what really does it for me. Kobe/Lebron/whoever can't match that. Brady and Manning have both lost SBs. Ben hasn't, yet. I'll spare you the "he played like crap in that one game" talk and just say, if he can go 6 for 6, you got me on your side.

[AHungryWalrus]

I just fail to see any argument you can present to say that Ben is a better quarterback than Brady, Manning, Rivers, Rodgers, and Brees.

The ONLY thing is rings. Accuracy, pre-snap adjustments, ability to read and react to coverage, getting the ball out quickly, ALL the real measurements you can base a quarterback on, Ben gets beat by those 5.

The only thing he has that people love to point out is "clutchness", which is a ******** argument, because he was anti-clutch against the Seahawks, he had a great chance to win the game against the Jets this year and didn't, etc. Being "clutch" is ridiculous. Apparently someone needs the perfect opportunity. He has to be in the Superbowl, have it come down to the last drive, and drive for a touchdown. If never given that opportunity, apparently you can't be the best.

Like I said, unless Santonio makes a *ridiculous* catch in the Superbowl, no one comes close to saying Ben is the best QB in the league. People are basing his career on One. Freaking. Play. Even if he wins this Superbowl, he's not the best quarterback. He's great, yes. But come on. Being a part of a ridiculously talented team does not the best Quarterback make.

[njx9]

player X (sucks/is good) (because of/in spite of) his supporting cast and defense. if player Y was in that same situation, they'd have (won/lost) ALL the super bowls. not only that, even when he played demonstrably poorly, it's still not player X's fault: stop looking at the (box score/game tape) and just look at the (box score/game tape).

[SchizophrenicBatman]

Ben has improved a lot as a QB in the last couple years, man. I think too many people assumed he was maxed out because he came into the league and played so well right away. And his one superb talent is extending plays and, to make it sound as simple as possible, "make **** happen."

Originally Posted by ShutDwn

Those 2 TDs and 8 INTs in his last two post season games completely wrecked him. He posted ratings in his first six playoff games I doubt anyone matches, as a Panther fan it sucks it evened out.

I really hope that Brady and Manning's recent failures finally stop the over accreditation of post season success to the QB. But, with so many "analysts" being historic QBs I doubt that happens.

yea, but this IS the definition of jake delhomme. if we never made it back to the playoffs after the SB run and NFC Championship run people would always look at the best postseason QB stats of all time be like "wtf, jake delhomme?" but that was only through a few games. he turned back into jake delhomme against the seahawks when a team finally took away steve smith, then he just completely melted down against the cards. that's jake delhomme. if he played 20 postseason games he'd have 6-7 great games, 6-7 awful games and 6-7 mediocre games

[DMWSackMachine]

Anyone who tries to defend Brady's performance--especially through the use of stats that do not tell the story of what happened in the game--is an idiot. Brady's two best attributes are his ability to read coverages and his pocket presence/awareness. He is among the best ever at those two things. The only time I EVER saw him as antsy in the pocket as he was vs. the Jets was in the SB against the Giants when Tuck and Co. were using him like a tackling dummy. He was horrific. He felt pressure that wasn't there, didn't anticipate it when it was there, got blindsided (which you almost NEVER see from him) twice in one game and allowed his skittishness to effect his accuracy and footwork at times. Sure, you can attribute that to the Jets ability to get pressure on him, but I've seen him handle that type of pass rush much better than he did yesterday.

One of the funniest aspects of it all was listening to Simms and Nance bend over backwards trying to excuse him for his mistakes. At one point in the 2nd to last drive he threw a short out to Welker that bounced at his feet. Welker had run his DB off and had TWO YARDS OF SEPARATION. Brady throws a duck and the announcers say "the coverage is so tight that Brady is forced to throw it away." This is the **** that drives me crazy. Because the dude was the QB for 3 Super Bowl victories, people just can't give an honest analysis of his play.

Everyone knew that the Pats had a mediocre (if not worse) defense. The Jets, you'll notice, haven't been world-beaters offensively themselves. But we're talking about one of the 5 highest scoring offenses of all time. Don't tell me that Brady didn't have weapons. Just because there isn't an elite guy who stands out doesn't mean that they don't. The pressure was on Tom to be The Guy. And he choked. That's the exact situation that Peyton has found himself at the start of every game he's ever played in a Colts uniform. Going in, he knows HE has to be the difference maker. Since Tom has been in that situation, his track record has been very spotty.

[AHungryWalrus]

Originally Posted by SchizophrenicBatman

Ben has improved a lot as a QB in the last couple years, man. I think too many people assumed he was maxed out because he came into the league and played so well right away. And his one superb talent is extending plays and, to make it sound as simple as possible, "make **** happen."

Oh, I agree that Ben is an extremely good quarterback. I have him 6th. Me saying he is not the best =/= me saying he sucks. After the front 5, I take Ben over anyone.

I just don't see the argument where Ben is better than them. Other than rings, which, as I said, I think is a ridiculous argument in an extremely team oriented sport. Unless you're putting up Jordan like stats, that are out of this world better than everyone else.

[bigbluedefense]

Tommy boy definitely got outsmarted by Rex's defense. No question about it.

I just love Rex's style on defense. Im so envious, I just wish the Giants ran that scheme.

[SchizophrenicBatman]

Brady was as flustered as I've ever seen him in the playoffs against the Jets. Even in the Giants SB he had more consistent pressure on him and handled it better