I'm waiting for the "How will it end for Brady?" thread. I know he plans/wants to play until 45, but will he hang it up before then if he's no longer performing at lets say, an average level?
Last edited:
2018 Tom M-F&^%$ing Brady: Still Proving It
- Thread starter InstaFace
- Start date
- Status
Especially since the rest of the team will be in a position no time soon to “carry” him?
When the time comes, I hope he leaves quickly and gracefully.
But it’s hard because these transitions are on you suddenly, even though they have been building beneath the surface for a while.
Another thread in the on deck circle: “The Rebuild”
When the time comes, I hope he leaves quickly and gracefully.
But it’s hard because these transitions are on you suddenly, even though they have been building beneath the surface for a while.
Another thread in the on deck circle: “The Rebuild”
The way it played out in Denver was that they surrounded Elway with a great OL, an all-time great RB, and a superb defense, plus nice weapons at receiver and TE.
Of course, they violated the salary cap twice in order to do it, but still. I'd like for that to be the plan here too, to some degree. I think they got potentially a stud RB, and when healthy, the OL is really good. The WR position and probably TE too could use serious upgrading, but it's the defense that looks like it's just not going to get to that next level. And because they've missed a fair amount in the draft lately, there's just a lot less wiggle room to make these transitions.
Of course, they violated the salary cap twice in order to do it, but still. I'd like for that to be the plan here too, to some degree. I think they got potentially a stud RB, and when healthy, the OL is really good. The WR position and probably TE too could use serious upgrading, but it's the defense that looks like it's just not going to get to that next level. And because they've missed a fair amount in the draft lately, there's just a lot less wiggle room to make these transitions.
The ole "Father Time is undefeated" line gets a lot of play, but it's true. The fact he has made it to 41 and is still a decent NFL QB is an amazing accomplishment. We will really find out how savvy the Pats are if they can retool without Brady while staying competitive.
Aaron Rodgers just played like dog shit here on 11/4 this year. I presume that most of you chicken little people watched that game. It was like within the last two weeks. He did so precisely because his OL was ass.
Nobody is making excuses for Brady. When the offensive line is that bad, every QB ever sucks that day.
Nobody is making excuses for Brady. When the offensive line is that bad, every QB ever sucks that day.
Then when will we know it's Brady declining and not just the OL? That day has to come at some point. Would it be a shock for a 41 year old QB to miss throws he would have made a few years ago? What can we expect from a 42 year old QB next year? Uncharted waters for sure.
People act like Tom Brady has never played like shit before. Was he over the hill when he looked like ass against the Giants in 2007, or again in 2011, or during his many road trips to his own personal hell in Denver, or the recent awful outings in Miami?
Did he have a bad game? Sure he did. Did he got much help from anyone? Nope, not from what I could see. Let's see how that game plays out:
Bill makes the unconscionably stupid decision to kick off short to start the game, the Titans unsurprisingly take advantage, resulting in a short field, and they score a touchdown.
So before Brady even takes the field, the Pats are down 7-0, the Titans are flying with momentum and a crowd behind them. On the very first series, Brady hits a long pass on the money to Gordon down the middle of the field and the Pats are immediately in scoring position. Then what happens? Gordon drops one ball that was an easy catch, and probably should have made another, Pats settle for a field goal, 7-3.
The defense goes on to give up 17 points in the first quarter to the Titans, who coming into the game had only scored 20 points in an entire game, twice all season. So now, the Pats are playing from behind, the Titans pass rushers are pinning their ears back and coming after Brady. I think they sacked him 3 times in the first half, including on the very last play, where the line couldn't pick up a late blitz and give Brady enough time to even throw a Hail Mary.
At that point, the game was over. We've seen games like this before, and we'll see them again. You beat Brady by getting pressure on him, particularly up the middle, early in games, and he starts getting antsy. Add in the fact that the offensive line was in shambles and guys were moving all over the place position to position, they couldn't run the ball, Gronk was out (and his replacement dropped another first down pass) and the end result was a bad game for everyone. And don't even get me started on the playcalling by Josh McDaniels in this one. Fucking joke.
The only thing about this game I didn't understand was the lack of targets for Chris Hogan. By all accounts, he was getting open, with Malcolm Butler covering him and Brady went to him once (and screamed at him after the play). Is Brady unhappy with Hogan, was he trying not to show up his old friend, Malcolm, as fuck you to Bill for not playing him in the Super Bowl? I don't know, I'm not a conspiracy guy, but something about that whole situation was odd.
They go into the bye 7-3, they've got 4 games left against the Jets, Bills and Dolphins, so at a minimum, they are probably looking at 11-5 and if they beat Minnesota or Pitt, it's 12-5. There are at least 26 teams in the NFL that would beg to be in their position right now. The offensive line is going to get healthy, and if Gronk comes back, and Michel recovers to where he was before he got hurt, Brady and the offense will be just fine. If the defense can hold teams to 24-25 points a game, they'll win and win and win and then we'll see what happens in the playoffs. If the Chiefs lose this week at the Rams, home field is not out of the question with the tiebreaker in the Pats back pocket.
And you know what, if Brady is only a top 10 QB and the Pats "only" win the division and lose in the conference championship, that is still a pretty damn successful season. I know we're all entitled bitches, and we're not used to having realistic expectations, but maybe if folks realize that what's happened over the last 18 years is unheard of, they won't be so upset and consider anything less a disaster. It's not.
Did he have a bad game? Sure he did. Did he got much help from anyone? Nope, not from what I could see. Let's see how that game plays out:
Bill makes the unconscionably stupid decision to kick off short to start the game, the Titans unsurprisingly take advantage, resulting in a short field, and they score a touchdown.
So before Brady even takes the field, the Pats are down 7-0, the Titans are flying with momentum and a crowd behind them. On the very first series, Brady hits a long pass on the money to Gordon down the middle of the field and the Pats are immediately in scoring position. Then what happens? Gordon drops one ball that was an easy catch, and probably should have made another, Pats settle for a field goal, 7-3.
The defense goes on to give up 17 points in the first quarter to the Titans, who coming into the game had only scored 20 points in an entire game, twice all season. So now, the Pats are playing from behind, the Titans pass rushers are pinning their ears back and coming after Brady. I think they sacked him 3 times in the first half, including on the very last play, where the line couldn't pick up a late blitz and give Brady enough time to even throw a Hail Mary.
At that point, the game was over. We've seen games like this before, and we'll see them again. You beat Brady by getting pressure on him, particularly up the middle, early in games, and he starts getting antsy. Add in the fact that the offensive line was in shambles and guys were moving all over the place position to position, they couldn't run the ball, Gronk was out (and his replacement dropped another first down pass) and the end result was a bad game for everyone. And don't even get me started on the playcalling by Josh McDaniels in this one. Fucking joke.
The only thing about this game I didn't understand was the lack of targets for Chris Hogan. By all accounts, he was getting open, with Malcolm Butler covering him and Brady went to him once (and screamed at him after the play). Is Brady unhappy with Hogan, was he trying not to show up his old friend, Malcolm, as fuck you to Bill for not playing him in the Super Bowl? I don't know, I'm not a conspiracy guy, but something about that whole situation was odd.
They go into the bye 7-3, they've got 4 games left against the Jets, Bills and Dolphins, so at a minimum, they are probably looking at 11-5 and if they beat Minnesota or Pitt, it's 12-5. There are at least 26 teams in the NFL that would beg to be in their position right now. The offensive line is going to get healthy, and if Gronk comes back, and Michel recovers to where he was before he got hurt, Brady and the offense will be just fine. If the defense can hold teams to 24-25 points a game, they'll win and win and win and then we'll see what happens in the playoffs. If the Chiefs lose this week at the Rams, home field is not out of the question with the tiebreaker in the Pats back pocket.
And you know what, if Brady is only a top 10 QB and the Pats "only" win the division and lose in the conference championship, that is still a pretty damn successful season. I know we're all entitled bitches, and we're not used to having realistic expectations, but maybe if folks realize that what's happened over the last 18 years is unheard of, they won't be so upset and consider anything less a disaster. It's not.
the OL is supposed to be a strong point with Dante out of retirement. So the fact Shaq Mason being out completely disintegrated the line is not a good thing in terms of OL depth.
It probably won't be one-day cliff. 97% or 94% of Tom Brady is still an elite QB. We'll know that he is declining because he's 41. He's already declining. That doesn't have much to do with last weekend's shitshow.
It wasn't just Mason being out. Something was up with both Cannon and Brown as well. Waddle had to sub for each of them at one point. And no Gronk and an injured Allen doesn't help either.
Also White was terrible at picking up blitzes. Like truly awful. But the more that I think about it, the more that I figure that White just had no idea which gap the extra guys were going to fly through.
Two key pieces out (Mason, Gronk), and three others battling injury/illness may lead to unpredictable results. In that case, it probably doesn't matter who the OL coach is.
About 12 days ago, Washington lost both starting guards to season ending injuries. Already, their all world left tackle was — and remains — out after thumb surgery.
5 days ago their revamped o-line, including a guy off the street, held up well against a stout Bucs defense. Yes, Callahan is a great o-line coach; Scar is a HOFer.
I’m just not buying the injury get-out-of-jail-free card in this discussion. The Pats situation is not great, but it’s not terrible. And even if it were terrible, so was the Eagles’ injury situation last year and the Packers’ during their SB winning season.
I was just noting their depth isn't great. Not claiming it to be a get out of jail free card.
You saw it two weeks in a row with Rodgers and Brady, but you're not buying it.
Nobody said that having a bad or altered OL is a terminal illness. But the combination of personnel downgrades and gameplan seemed to have contributed to buns performances by two all time greats in back to back weeks. Or did you not watch the Packers game? Or is Rodgers falling off the cliff too?
Pats scored a ridiculous number of points in back to back to back to back to back games, but with Mason out and Cannon and Brown clearly hindered and getting spelled, it's obviously Tommy.
That, and there is a major difference to having stuff happen within a game and adjusting vs. being able to game plan. When both of their starting tackles had to come in and out of the game, that screws things up. Whereas say if they had the line in tact but only had Mason missing, it can be game planned and worked around. In-game injuries always screw things up. I don't watch other teams religiously but I would argue that due to how much of a game plan team the Pats are, in-game injuries screw up the Pats more than most teams.
I am not saying Tommy is bad. There has been talent deterioration across the roster. Maybe, just maybe, at age 41, he can’t John Elway a mediocre squad to a SB — or maybe if he can, they get squashed. That is all. It is not his fault.
If people really really thought he’d play at an elite level until age 45, there is a bridge ...
Really good article - thanks for sharing. In there it mentions that last year Brady had the worst 5-game stretch of his career - the last 5 games of the regular season:
106-173 (61.3%), 1203 yds, 6 td, 5 int, 81.6 rating
Compare that to his last 5 games of this season, where it sure feels like he's struggling:
121-192 (63.0%), 1489 yds, 5 td, 1 int, 93.4 rating
It should be noted that after his worst 5-game stretch ever last year, he followed it up with these three games (in the playoffs, no less):
35-53, 337 yds, 3 td, 0 int
26-38, 290 yds, 2 td, 0 int
28-48, 505 yds, 3 td, 0 int
TOT: 89-139 (64.0%), 1132 yds, 8 td, 0 int, 108.6 rating
So let's see how Brady does coming back from the bye before. I suspect we will see a remarkable improvement.
How they fare against the Jets (twice), Miami and Buffalo isn’t going to say much, unless things break badly, which will speak volumes.
Let’s see how they do against a decent and pretty well balanced Vikings team at home, and a formidable offense @ Pitts with the 2 seed likely on the line.
Let’s see how they do against a decent and pretty well balanced Vikings team at home, and a formidable offense @ Pitts with the 2 seed likely on the line.
Even then it won't "speak volumes" - look at the losses in 2015 and 2017 in Miami, the loss to the Jets at the end of 2015, etc. The 2015 losses mattered in terms of home field, but not in terms of judging how good those teams are.
@Miami is @ Miami, point taken. But the Jets are a bottom 4 team, and Buffalo is at home.
Considering the stakes (a week off, home field) if they squander the 2 seed as a result of these games, it won’t be a good look.
Right, and on top of that, the game vs. Minnesota may not tell us too much, because Brady's home/road splits are pretty stark this year:
Home: 68.2%, 1526 yds, 8.2 ypa, 11 td, 5 int, 101.5 rating
Road: 61.8%, 1222 yds, 6.7 ypa, 6 td, 2 int, 87.7 rating
Note that for his career, his home/road splits are almost identical, so this year's disparity is noticeable. His career home/road splits:
Home: 64.2%, 7.4 ypa, 249 td, 66 int, 98.7 rating
Road: 63.8%, 7.6 ypa, 256 td, 101 int, 96.2 rating
Home: 68.2%, 1526 yds, 8.2 ypa, 11 td, 5 int, 101.5 rating
Road: 61.8%, 1222 yds, 6.7 ypa, 6 td, 2 int, 87.7 rating
Note that for his career, his home/road splits are almost identical, so this year's disparity is noticeable. His career home/road splits:
Home: 64.2%, 7.4 ypa, 249 td, 66 int, 98.7 rating
Road: 63.8%, 7.6 ypa, 256 td, 101 int, 96.2 rating
Those 2015 losses in Miami and NY did expose that Pats team as being "not quite there", which turned out to be a fair assessment.
Here's how Brady has done against top-16 defenses on this year's schedule (by points allowed ranking):
vs. Hou (#7, 20.4 ppg): 26-39 (66.7%), 277 yds, 3 td, 1 int, 102.2 rating (team scored 27 points)
at Jax (#10, 22.1 ppg): 24-35 (68.5%), 234 yds, 2 td, 0 int, 106.1 rating (team scored 20 points)
vs KC (#16, 24.0 ppg): 24-35 (68.5%), 340 yds, 1 td, 0 int, 109.2 rating (team scored 43 points)
at Chi (#4, 19.4 ppg): 25-36 (69.4%), 277 yds, 3 td, 1 int, 108.2 rating (team scored 38 points)
vs GB (#16, 24.0 ppg): 22-35 (62.9%), 294 yds, 1 td, 0 int, 99.0 rating (team scored 31 points)
at Ten (#1, 16.8 ppg): 21-41 (51.2%), 254 yds, 0 td, 0 int, 70.6 rating (team scored 10 points)
So against these six top-16 scoring defenses, Brady's total line is:
142-221 (64.3%), 1676 yds, 10 td, 2 int, 98.5 rating, team averaging 28.2 points
Against just top-10 defenses, Brady's total line is:
96-151 (63.6%), 1042 yds, 8 td, 2 int, 96.0 rating, team averaging 23.8 points
vs. Hou (#7, 20.4 ppg): 26-39 (66.7%), 277 yds, 3 td, 1 int, 102.2 rating (team scored 27 points)
at Jax (#10, 22.1 ppg): 24-35 (68.5%), 234 yds, 2 td, 0 int, 106.1 rating (team scored 20 points)
vs KC (#16, 24.0 ppg): 24-35 (68.5%), 340 yds, 1 td, 0 int, 109.2 rating (team scored 43 points)
at Chi (#4, 19.4 ppg): 25-36 (69.4%), 277 yds, 3 td, 1 int, 108.2 rating (team scored 38 points)
vs GB (#16, 24.0 ppg): 22-35 (62.9%), 294 yds, 1 td, 0 int, 99.0 rating (team scored 31 points)
at Ten (#1, 16.8 ppg): 21-41 (51.2%), 254 yds, 0 td, 0 int, 70.6 rating (team scored 10 points)
So against these six top-16 scoring defenses, Brady's total line is:
142-221 (64.3%), 1676 yds, 10 td, 2 int, 98.5 rating, team averaging 28.2 points
Against just top-10 defenses, Brady's total line is:
96-151 (63.6%), 1042 yds, 8 td, 2 int, 96.0 rating, team averaging 23.8 points
The Jets are top 10 in yards/att, completion % allowed, passer rating allowed, interceptions.
The Bills are #2 in yards/att, #4 in passer rating allowed, #2 in passing yards allowed.
Both are better, pretty much across the board, against the pass than Miami, but you think the Miami game will tell us more about how Brady is playing?
I am not obsessed with Brady. I’m focused on the team.
My assumption is Tom has slipped some and will continue to slip — though capable of achieving ceiling performance in a particular game.
My belief is that the team has degraded talent wise to the extent that they are not a realistic pick to win the Super Bowl, and that Tom cannot drag them over that threshold.
But we’ll see. In any case, if they lose to Buffalo at home or to the Jets period, it’s going to say something bad about the team.
@Miami I put in a separate category. Brady has never performed particularly well there for some reason and the team is seemingly always at risk to drop that game, no matter how good.
I don't know--haven't we made the Super Bowl every season in which Brady lost to Buffalo?
Tampa Bay literally has the 32nd-ranked scoring defense this year.
I don't think injuries affect a team by a static amount every game; it depends. I was worried about the Pats O going into GB minus Gronk, Mason, and Michel. It worked out, at home, against a defense with a lot of young players and having lost multiple safeties, with a lot of hurry-up, some misdirection stuff, and a nice performance by Brady, Patterson, Gordon, and the OL. Last week, on the road (where's it's harder to do no huddle and audible), against a better defense, the OL didn't hold up as well, the WRs had some drops / slips, and Brady wasn't as sharp. That the injuries weren't a factor vs GB (and the O wasn't humming that whole game either) doesn't mean they weren't a factor @ TEN. In the aggregate, injuries matter. How they show up week-to-week is going to vary.
And Football Outsiders ranked TBs D-line third of thirty-two through November 13.
If that isn't the evidence everyone needs to throw out everything that FO puts out, then I don't know what is. That's fucking disgraceful. The Bucs defense is not "stout." They aren't even in the fucking universe of stout. They are historically bad. Comically bad. Pathetically bad. They can't stop a nose bleed.
They have had what could be considered, a good defensive game, once this year, and that's the game you're talking about against the Redskins. You know what the Redskins offense is? Comically and Pathetically bad. Maybe even historically bad when you look at in the context of the offenses in the NFL now. Add to that the Redskins were playing without their two most important offensive weapons (under age 35 division) in Crowder and Chris Thompson, it was like the perfect storm for the Bucs defense to have a good game, and they still lost by two touchdowns.
Just because JPP has a bunch of sacks, and Gerald McCoy can make a few plays doesn't make their defense stout. "The 3rd best defensive line according to FO." That's going on the wall, next to the world record for "Largest shit that ever got flushed before anyone saw it."
I've defended FO for years. The more I learn about football the more I would tell you that they aren't even worth that grain of salt. This is the first year I have not looked at them at all. That's a bit of an overreaction maybe but with only so much time to spend on reading they don't make the cut. They are useful sometimes for pointing out pretenders who have a nice record. But you don't need FO to do that. It's hard to strip context from a statistic. Like for example the offensive line pressure efficiency ratings. If your QB gets the ball out quickly for example your line is going to possibly be rated high but not because of the reason you are trying to conclude. PFF is the next generation of analysis combining stats with live scouting and even that is subjective.
Football Outsiders has trouble adjusting for injuries. The NFL is a war of attrition. To compound on that problem of week to week predictability with not being able to account for injuries DVOA is a mix of descriptive and predictive so it turns out to be particularly good at neither.
Football Outsiders has trouble adjusting for injuries. The NFL is a war of attrition. To compound on that problem of week to week predictability with not being able to account for injuries DVOA is a mix of descriptive and predictive so it turns out to be particularly good at neither.
To be clear, I'm not an anti-stats guy by any means. I love them. I just don't think they work for football, in almost any context. Football is a game involving 11 guys, doing 11 different things, that are affected by 11 guys on the other side, doing their thing, with substitutions and injuries and weather and on and on and on...Add to that the fact that you're already starting with a 16 game sample, which is miniscule compared to the sample sizes in other sports, and there's just no way that anyone can formulate numbers that tell the story. You have to watch the games, you have to break down the film and watch every guy on every play to truly figure out what happened...
Even in your example with offensive line efficiency ratings, you talk about how quick a quarterback gets the ball out, what about the types of routes being run by the receivers? Are they long, or short? What about the receivers themselves? Is it a fast group, or a slower group? Are they taking into account whether or not a running back was kept in to block, or even two of them? One tight end, two, none? Were the facing the Texans front four, with or without Watt? Were they indoors or outdoors, raining or sunny, slippery or dry track.....I could literally do this all day long.
Football is not baseball, it's not even basketball or hockey. When I started playing football, the first thing that stood out to me was just how much everything was intertwined with everything else. How every play was doomed to fail, or destined to succeed because of one guy, or 11 guys. Football is chess, and everything else is checkers by comparison. It really is, and stats just don't do it justice, not because there is a problem with stats, but rather it's because they just can't account for everything. And anyone who thinks they have the secret sauce is, IMO, lying through their teeth.
This is where I am right now. Well said. I am actually arguing the bold or at least am in agreement with you there. Same side. I get way more understanding of a matchup listening to, for example, a LockedOnPodcast instead of what I did before which was basically glorified box-score scouting comparisons.
Edit: I want to make love to this post. Sweet sweet love.
One note though is that I do think there are some contextualized stats that over a season you can put a narrative together for. Like, for example, if your defense struggles defending against the run facing 11 personnel that's something that the numbers and the film would probably bear out over a year. I am looking at you 2017 Patriots. Also, over the course of a season, you might expect a bad defense to give up a lot of yards and points. I think that's fair. So I think there are some stats which can help backup observations. Nothing is perfect though and again it's all film study and review first for understanding. It's hard to explain well and I am admittedly struggling here.
There's definitely some value out there in some stats. If a team is averaging 35 points a game, well, that's a good offense, no matter what the FO guys are saying, but there's a ton of noise in all of the numbers too. I think everyone would agree that the Saints, Chiefs, Rams and Steelers are probably the four best offenses in football right now. But, how many people know that the aforementioned Tampa Bay Bucs are averaging more yards per game (452.8) than any of them. Kansas City is only averaging 423.1 and New Orleans is at 413.9. But, KC and the Saints are averaging 35.3 and 36.7 points per game, while TB is only averaging 25.8. TB is moving the ball up and down the field, but they aren't punching it in because of the huge amount of turnovers and for a variety of other reasons, like their complete inability to run. They are also playing from behind or in shootouts all the time, so they don't have a choice but to play four quarters of big strike offense, whereas, these other teams are in blowouts every now and then, and just looking to kill clock at the end of games.
There are good defenses that give up a ton of yards because their offenses are so good that opposing teams have to throw the ball all over the field to keep pace. That's why BB has always focused on third down and red zone defense, and doesn't worry so much if his team is giving up yards between the 20's. Keep them out of the end zone, bend don't break, etc...
On top of all that, you can't even really use historical data to compare players like you can in baseball over eras, because the rule changes in football happen so often and are so dramatic in their impact on the game, and the stats.
What was the stat I heard today? The Saints have scored on 66% of their possessions this year. To put that in context, the 2007 Patriots, who were a juggernaut to end all juggernauts, scored on something like 55% of their possessions? Drew Brees is completing almost 80% of his passes right now.
I could literally talk about this topic and explain a thousand different ways the numbers simply can't keep up with the game and how it's played. PFF and FO and everyone else can keep trying all they want to quantify football with advanced stats, but every time you see a stat that makes sense, you look down the list and you go, wait a second, how can that be?
I don't think it's "Brady can do no wrong". He explicitly notes that Brady isn't his typical superlative self:
But it's just trying to add context to the discussion of people saying that he's cooked:
I think it's partly him, partly talent and injuries, and partly a turd of a game that he laid last week.
We'll see...maybe he continues to be "off" and we're suddenly seeing The New Tom Brady. Everyone has always said that he very well may fall off a cliff all at once, and maybe it just happened. Or maybe he's just roaming the piedmont and there will be ups and downs.
Um... huh? Falling off a cliff is Manning in 2015, throwing 9 TD against 18 picks with a sub-60 completion % and 6.79 YPA. Brady just came off a 6 game stretch with passer ratings of 94.2, 102.6, 109.2, 108.2, 85.8, and 99.0, in which the Pats scored 35.5 PPG. He has one lousy game and he might have fallen off a cliff? That is a scorching hot take. Oh and those ratings include 4 picks that either came on tipped balls or passes literally through his receivers hands.
Context much? Look at that sentence you quoted in the context of the rest of the paragraph.
It's not a fucking hot take. It's referring to what people on SoSH have been saying: that we all know he'll decline someday and maybe it will be abrupt, but maybe, just maybe, this was just part of occasional ups and down.
I agree, it was likely part of occasional ups and downs. Maybe you shouldn't have said "maybe it just happened". Because it didn't.
Again, Brady's last five games (i.e., the latest "cliff"): 121-192 (63.0%), 1489 yds, 5 td, 1 int, 93.4 rating
He's had several 5-game stretches in his career that were worse than this. Other than him being 41, there's no reason to believe this is the "cliff". I predict the last six games of this season will be, on the whole, a tremendous stretch for him. I think he'll struggle in Miami (because that's what often happens there) but I think we'll see Brady be BRADY.
He's had several 5-game stretches in his career that were worse than this. Other than him being 41, there's no reason to believe this is the "cliff". I predict the last six games of this season will be, on the whole, a tremendous stretch for him. I think he'll struggle in Miami (because that's what often happens there) but I think we'll see Brady be BRADY.
I don't think it's a "cliff" but we need to be realistic that at least a decline is going to happen at some point. Best to just accept it.
Of course. He's not going to be TOM BRADY forever. I just think it's too soon to say this 5-game stretch is indicative of it. After all, in the five games that preceded it (without Edelman and Gordon mostly), he put up this stat line:
67.6%, 1259 yds, 12 td, 6 int (three of them shouldn't have happened), 96.1 rating (which would have been well over 100+ if not for the three interceptions that were right in teammates' hands)
Plus of course, he was the MVP last year and had a ridiculously great playoff run including a record-setting Super Bowl. So it is hard to believe that suddenly, in the last five games, the decline has hit.
So hard to tell. I think I just need more time. I actually thought years ago that the decline hit. From 2010-2013 here were his passer ratings: 111.0, 105.6, 98.7, 87.3. So statistically, it was easy to say, obviously he's in decline. Then he followed that up with 97.4, 102.2, 112.2, 102.8. Well, so much for that idea.
So who knows.
He had a horrible game. So did the O-Line, so did Gilmore, so did a lot of guys. I couldn't tell what percentage of his problem was decreased mobility vs. lousy o-line vs him getting gun shy due to the other two. But it's hard to call it a cliff when they have the sixth best record in the league, have scored the fourth most points, are fifth in 538's stupid Elo, etc.
It's not as if whatever success they've had this year is all due to some other unit (like say, Denver's defense in Peyton's last year) or some other offensive weapon. Unless by cliff we mean he doesn't look like the best quarterback and they don't look like the best team.
The thing is that this year they'll probably have to upset one or two teams on the road to get to the Super Bowl, which increases degree of difficulty. So we get to see how that plays out.
It's not as if whatever success they've had this year is all due to some other unit (like say, Denver's defense in Peyton's last year) or some other offensive weapon. Unless by cliff we mean he doesn't look like the best quarterback and they don't look like the best team.
The thing is that this year they'll probably have to upset one or two teams on the road to get to the Super Bowl, which increases degree of difficulty. So we get to see how that plays out.
Maybe it how people talk? As in "sure, maybe it you have a point to complain about here, but probably not."
You're really overwrought about a turn of phrase. Relax.
You're quoting stats to refute an argument that I didn't actually make. In fact, just the opposite: I was relying on your own text to clarify to jp9183 that the context is that Brady has been pretty darned good, but that you aren't pulling a "Brady can do no wrong".
It's possible that this latest single game was "the cliff". I did not at all state that I believe it is, and I don't believe it is, but technically it could be. It always can be, for any player, coach, person, whatever. I'm not hot-taking.
We won't know it's a cliff until he's halfway down. If the cliff comes, someone will have said "this is the cliff!" and that person will be a motherfucking genius, right? That's not me. I don't think this is the cliff. Someone will also have said "he's had bad stretches before, this isn't the cliff! You're an asshole for even talking about the idea of a cliff!" and that person will be incorrect, and will also have been an asshole. I doubt you guys are former, why bother being the latter?
So it's only a cliff if he has a bunch of games in a row that are bad, and maybe get worse?
Like, apparently more than 5 I assume?
Just to fast forward:
simplyeric: So it's only a cliff if he has a bunch of games in a row that are bad, and maybe get worse?
tims4wins: Yes, you fucking idiot. It's only been one game.
simplyeric: And what does the first game of an actual post-cliff scenario look like? How can you tell it's "the cliff" after one game?
tims4wins: You can't. You don't know it's a cliff. It's only been one bad game after a stretch of 5 good ones. Moron.
simplyeric: Have you seen what a cliff looks like? They call it a "cliff" for a reason.
It looks like "5 good games, and suddenly things are bad". That's why it's a "cliff" and not a "gentle decline".
I'm not saying this is the cliff. I've clearly said that we won't know it's a cliff until well after the cliff came, if it ever even comes. I actually clearly said it's probably just a little downswing.
But, just for logic's sake, the first game of a cliff could very well look like what we just saw. Or not. The fact that he's had bad 5-game stretches in the past is neither here nor there. And you wouldn't know it was "the cliff" after that one game. The great law of sports predicting: Someone will be right, someone will be wrong. I'm barely even taking a stance beyond a bunch of maybe's and probably's.
simplyeric: So it's only a cliff if he has a bunch of games in a row that are bad, and maybe get worse?
tims4wins: Yes, you fucking idiot. It's only been one game.
simplyeric: And what does the first game of an actual post-cliff scenario look like? How can you tell it's "the cliff" after one game?
tims4wins: You can't. You don't know it's a cliff. It's only been one bad game after a stretch of 5 good ones. Moron.
simplyeric: Have you seen what a cliff looks like? They call it a "cliff" for a reason.
I'm not saying this is the cliff. I've clearly said that we won't know it's a cliff until well after the cliff came, if it ever even comes. I actually clearly said it's probably just a little downswing.
But, just for logic's sake, the first game of a cliff could very well look like what we just saw. Or not. The fact that he's had bad 5-game stretches in the past is neither here nor there. And you wouldn't know it was "the cliff" after that one game. The great law of sports predicting: Someone will be right, someone will be wrong. I'm barely even taking a stance beyond a bunch of maybe's and probably's.
- Status