RD2/#62 - Brady's Heir to the Throne

[Phragle]

I started out explaining that your statement was completely void of fact (Aaron Rodgers), but then went off on a bit of a tangent. My apologies.
 
Your statement is dumb. It implies one of two things:
 
1.) Only QB's that are drafted and start immediately (not a backup) are successful.
 
or
 
2.) JP was drafted with the sole purpose of being a backup and can only be judged as such.
 
Whichever point you were trying to make, it's a dumb one.

 
It certainly wasn't number one. Two is closer. My problem with this is that I don't think Brady is close to done, and as long as he isn't done Graoppolo is a backup. I can re-list those reasons if you haven't read the whole thread.

 

[EricFeczko]

 
Check out stuff like the LCF for QB's. You can look at height-handsize ratio's too. Look at SACKSeer. Google it - you'll find some interesting stuff. 

Oh...I was hoping for something more predictive. There's a lot of data out there, but most of it seems to be too noisy to be useful.
I'm not really a big fan of LCF or Sackseer. Yeah, they give you projections and show some correlations with pre-existing data. However, the predictions made on future drafts are no better than chance.
Actually, I have that problem with pretty much every football outsider statistic.
 

 

[EricFeczko]

 
Sorry, I am having trouble making my point.  I fully agree that having a good draft process/methodology is key.  I am not in any way, shape or form saying that a team should not try to understand the draft to improve their process.
 
What I am saying is that ultimately if your process does not result in good drafts (on average), then your process sucks.  At some point you have to look at the results.  You can have the greatest process in the world and if your team isn't having good drafts then what's the point of the process?  A business that thinks it has great decision making processes that continually yield piss poor results isn't going to be around very long.
 
In terms of player evaluation, again, I agree that there is a ton of data and it can be studied and teams would be idiotic not to use this.  But, just look at the threads in this forum during the draft.  The Pats pick a player and half the draft gurus in here love it, the other half hate it.  The variance is off the charts.  So trying to evaluate process right after the draft by pointing to the Pats drafting Player A rather than Player B is, to me, highly, highly, subjective.

Alternatively, what it suggests is that the success of player A vs. player B is no better than chance, so the process cannot really be evaluated from the perspective of who will be more successful.

 

[Reverend]

 
Sorry, I am having trouble making my point.  I fully agree that having a good draft process/methodology is key.  I am not in any way, shape or form saying that a team should not try to understand the draft to improve their process.
 
What I am saying is that ultimately if your process does not result in good drafts (on average), then your process sucks.  At some point you have to look at the results.  You can have the greatest process in the world and if your team isn't having good drafts then what's the point of the process?  A business that thinks it has great decision making processes that continually yield piss poor results isn't going to be around very long.
 
In terms of player evaluation, again, I agree that there is a ton of data and it can be studied and teams would be idiotic not to use this.  But, just look at the threads in this forum during the draft.  The Pats pick a player and half the draft gurus in here love it, the other half hate it.  The variance is off the charts.  So trying to evaluate process right after the draft by pointing to the Pats drafting Player A rather than Player B is, to me, highly, highly, subjective.

 
Well, there are a couple of huge caveats here. The first is with respect to foreseeability and the second with respect to probability.
 
As to the first, it is entirely possible to get bad outcomes based on good process. For example: let's say your top draft pick gets hit by a meteor. When we look at the aggregate data over time after the fact and calculate things like total games played by players in different slots, the data tends not to be corrected for things that are entirely not caused by the process, good or bad. Since the n here is not particularly large for any NFL drafting regime, this is a huge consideration. To assess properly a drafting process, you need to know not only outcomes but the reasons for the outcomes, and some of that information we are not privy to.
 
As to the second, in a low n game, you can have shitty results or good results out of pure randomness--you keep emphasizing variance. I once flipped tails 13 times in a row (seriously). The odds of that are lower than what the droids calculate to be the odds of successfully navigating an asteroid field in a smuggler's freighter. Given the relatively high number of players (e.g. drafting regimes we are looking at) and the low number of plays involved, statistically we should expect some to look really good and some to look really bad in the results. The danger, then, is to create a narrative of skill and grafting it upon what is merely a function of probability, or, as XKCD calls it, "sports commentary."

 

[Devizier]

What I don't understand about critiquing a team's draft on the process level is that we have no information on how each team's draft process works. So it is at most an academic exercise.

 

[Reverend]

What I don't understand about critiquing a team's draft on the process level is that we have no information on how each team's draft process works. So it is at most an academic exercise.

 
Quite so. But that is not necessarily a reason to critique based on results simply because it's the only information we have available. Sometimes we just can't have what we want.
 
Also, at least with Belichick, he has made statements about some aspects of his approach... unless that's just what he wants us to believe!!
 
I'm not really into trying to assess drafts, though, or predict them, for this reason. I'm far more interested at looking at a draft and trying to glean what coaches think about their team. Like SMU said up-thread, the drafting of Garoppolo may well tell us that they think he's the real deal and that there's not anyone they think as good in next year's class. I think picking Easley tells us that the Patriots think Wilfork will be ok for another season or two as they took a guy who could be an excellent complement next to him. The stuff about the "meaning" of the OL picks is being developed in some detail in its own very cleverly titled thread.
 
Stuff like that is, I think, of far greater interest and where we can combine what we think we know about the players drafted with what we think we know about the teams and try to discern what is going on. But people like the whole "draft grade" thing, I guess because it's easy and seems clean. Not a fan, but it's an entertainment product, and to each their own.

 

[soxfan121]

I'm not really into trying to assess drafts, though, or predict them, for this reason. I'm far more interested at looking at a draft and trying to glean what coaches think about their team. Like SMU said up-thread, the drafting of Garoppolo may well tell us that they think he's the real deal and that there's not anyone they think as good in next year's class. I think picking Easley tells us that the Patriots think Wilfork will be ok for another season or two as they took a guy who could be an excellent complement next to him. 

 
I agree that the drafting of JG indicates that they see him as worthy of their (limited) development resources. But I don't think it means there is "not anyone...as good in next year's" draft. JG was drafted this year because at least one backup QB who knows the offense is required on the roster. JG won't know the offense in 2014, so he'll necessarily serve as the #3 behind Mallet and then assume the primary clipboard-holding duties next year. It is possible that JG's particular skillset/characteristics led the Pats coaches/scouts to conclude he would be a potentially excellent backup - not a starter. Perhaps they think his 'love of the game' being off the scale combined with his 'easy-going, everyone just enjoys having him around' personality makes him the perfect compliment to Brady's steadily-increasing 'get off my lawn' quotient. 
 
Perhaps they go into next year's draft looking for the true Brady replacement - a late round guy who shared the starter's duties his senior year with marginal physical measurables and had the burning desire to prove everyone wrong. There might be someone better in next year's draft. If they have to pick that guy as well to make sure the team doesn't go 1-15 the year after Brady leaves, so be it. 
 
And given the number of NT types they are snagging in the UDFA phase, I wouldn't be positive about your Wilfork statement. But even if those are just camp bodies, both a number of NT types and JG send the same message to the big name veterans - no one is guaranteed a starting job. Remember how you got your jobs in the first place and keep working hard.

 

[Reverend]

Oh, I'm not confident in any of what I said. My point is what we now know is who they decided to draft based on who was there at each given point. For example, really what I was thinking about Easley wasn't as much Wilfork, as the fact that people said he's a pure 3-technique and what that meant for how they actually went about actually addressing the needs of the D-line. Stuff like that.
 
We know one thing for certain about Garoppolo: Belichick thought he was worth a second round pick. Bracketing whether we think it was wise or not, that's the rock solid information we have.

 

[The Best Catch in 100 Years]

 
Without assuming health there's no way to make a basic example, and that's what I wanted to do.
 
I'm fine with them being a year ahead of schedule replacing Mallett. I like the backup having experience in the system, and it's not only incase he has to play. It's cause he has an affect (perhaps small, but maybe not, we don't know) on every game. He's there in the film room, he's throwing to the WRs, other stuff like that. That's not one of the issues I have with this. I don't want them to always carry 3 QBs, but if you want to carry two, one can't be a rookie.
 
If you told me predraft they'd pick up a QB I'd be ok with it if it was done right. I don't think the did it right.

Perhaps "stupid, useless example" would be more appropriate than "basic example" in this case. I mean if you "assume health" of course the backup DL who will get some snaps even if the starter is healthy will end up more valuable than the backup QB who never sees the field. The entire reason why you invest in your backup quarterback is because you cannot assume health. Also please elaborate on what "doing it right" would have been--addressing something else in the second round and adding a QB later on in the draft who they almost certainly liked significantly worse than JG (Murray, McCarron, Boyd, Savage?)?

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

 
It certainly wasn't number one. Two is closer. My problem with this is that I don't think Brady is close to done, and as long as he isn't done Graoppolo is a backup. I can re-list those reasons if you haven't read the whole thread.

 
That's fine, but it remains a very bizarre point because your railing against the head coach, GM, and guy that decides if Tom Brady remains a Patriot when his contract is up. I can re-quote it for you if you haven't read the whole thread.
 
 
 

“I think you’re better off being early than late at that position.”
 
"We know what Tom’s age and contract situation is. I don’t think you want to have one quarterback on your team.”

 
BB doesn't say things just to say things. The fact that he brought up Tom's age and contract is very telling. Regardless of what the scouting reports say, BB thinks this kid is Brady's heir. If you're going to completely disagree with the head coach and GM of the team, its clear that you'd rather prove you're right instead of having a rational conversation.

 

[DJnVa]

 
It certainly wasn't number one. Two is closer. My problem with this is that I don't think Brady is close to done, and as long as he isn't done Graoppolo is a backup. I can re-list those reasons if you haven't read the whole thread.

 
 
But here's the thing--if the Patriots think he is, and they've made public statements that kind of lend a little weight to that, then if you are evaluating their process shouldn't you take that into account?
 
If you don't you're not evaluating their process, you're evaluating a process you'd prefer them to have.

 

[Cellar-Door]

History suggests it is highly unlikely that Brady plays every game for the rest of his contract.
Looking at QBs who were very effective into their late 30's (Brady will be 37 at the start of this season).
Manning- missed 16 games his age 36 season, (still acitve going into his age 38 season)
Marino- missed games in his age 34 and 35 seasons, then missed 5 games in his age 38 season and hung it up.
Montana- missed games in every one of his age 31-38 seasons before hanging it up including a full season at age 36.
Young- missed games every year from 34-38, 4or more 3 times, retired at 38.
Fouts- missed games every year from 31-36 retired at 36.
 
Only guy I could find who didn't miss games or retire between 35-40 was Brett Favre.

 

[lambeau]

BB has made it clear a rookie can't start; clearly he wants a 2-4 year training period like Rodgers had--the seamless transition. Luck being the exception--and the #1 pick BB will never have.

 

[Trlicek's Whip]

 
My problem with this is that I don't think Brady is close to done... I can re-list those reasons if you haven't read the whole thread.

Where you lost me (one of your first posts, and I am on my phone so can't quote directly) is where you essentially said that Brady is a d
"different animal" based on his health/career so far ("not apples to apples"), and reason that with modern sports medicine and advances, that we can kick the can down the road on taking a chance on a new QB with a higher pick.

Previous performance can't predict how Brady will scale over the rest of his career, bionic GOAT candidate or not. We only know he'll be fine until he isn't anymore and no one knows when exactly that will happen, and taking the under on 36-37 isn't foolish or inefficient. At the very least, and based on what has already been hashed in this thread, JG should at least be considered a push, not an abject failure that brings down a house of cards.

And the game theory about how BB should or shouldn't let Brady ride - "process" - is linked (or seems to be linked) to emotional side of the arguments in here as well. I love the guy too, but I understand the JG pick and think it's defensible and not a squander, nor a tipping point or future Achilles' heel for the franchise.

Wutang is fine with the Pats tanking for the rest of his life if they win one more ring with Brady. Clearly Kraft, the FO and Belichick don't share that sentiment at all.

 

[dcmissle]

 
That's fine, but it remains a very bizarre point because your railing against the head coach, GM, and guy that decides if Tom Brady remains a Patriot when his contract is up. I can re-quote it for you if you haven't read the whole thread.
 
 
 
 
BB doesn't say things just to say things. The fact that he brought up Tom's age and contract is very telling. Regardless of what the scouting reports say, BB thinks this kid is Brady's heir. If you're going to completely disagree with the head coach and GM of the team, its clear that you'd rather prove you're right instead of having a rational conversation.

It's as if 37 is the new 27 or we're stuck in a time warp. Time sure flies when you are having fun.

Life's about getting the big things right. You're screwed in this League without an adequate starting QB. That has been shown by pitiable organizations -- Cleveland -- and excellent ones -- Baltimore, 12 years between titles despite fielding very good talent during that period, especially on defense.

I'm agnostic whether JG was the right pick, but surprised by the vehemence of some of the opposition here to the operating principle -- especially since swapping in another player for the QB in the second round would not likely have materially enhanced their chances of winning a SB in 14. How many rookies make that kind of difference, much less players selected where this guy was?

I fully expected the blowback from Boston columnists, who think being labeled a toady by Borges or Felger is worse than death. I didn't
expect three days of fierce opposition here.

 

[Cellar-Door]

edit- wrong thread/

 

[Reverend]

TWO DIVA's MATCHES?
NEW RECORD.
 
Is it too much to hope for Alicia Fox to come out and destroy the winner to build her heel cred.

 
Hrm.

 

[Cellar-Door]

 
Hrm.

wow that was up for maybe 15 seconds. Impressive response time.

 

[wutang112878]

BB doesn't say things just to say things. The fact that he brought up Tom's age and contract is very telling. Regardless of what the scouting reports say, BB thinks this kid is Brady's heir. If you're going to completely disagree with the head coach and GM of the team, its clear that you'd rather prove you're right instead of having a rational conversation.

This is a big leap. You're taking a state of the quarterback quote and inferring that it speaks to the quality of the guy we just drafted. BB also said that Easley is versatile but that doesn't mean that BB thinks Chandler Jones is a one trick pony

 

[Leather]

I loved her work in "The Truth About Cats and Dogs" and "Romy and Michelle's HS Reunion".

 

[Phragle]

Perhaps "stupid, useless example" would be more appropriate than "basic example" in this case. I mean if you "assume health" of course the backup DL who will get some snaps even if the starter is healthy will end up more valuable than the backup QB who never sees the field. The entire reason why you invest in your backup quarterback is because you cannot assume health.

What is stupid/useless about it? It means the backup DEs play a lot regardless of health, the opposite is true at the backup QB position.
 

adding a QB later on in the draft who they almost certainly liked significantly worse than JG (Murray, McCarron, Boyd, Savage?)?

 
Based on what?
 

That's fine, but it remains a very bizarre point because your railing against the head coach, GM, and guy that decides if Tom Brady remains a Patriot when his contract is up. I can re-quote it for you if you haven't read the whole thread.

No need to get pissy. I offered to restate my stance because I didn't know if you were keeping up. I don't remember you being that active in this thread.
 
Also not the coach, just the GM. They're different jobs and should be judged separately.
 

BB doesn't say things just to say things. The fact that he brought up Tom's age and contract is very telling. Regardless of what the scouting reports say, BB thinks this kid is Brady's heir. If you're going to completely disagree with the head coach and GM of the team, its clear that you'd rather prove you're right instead of having a rational conversation.

 
Well I'm obviously right. That should be clear with time, but for now we can only debate the decision making process.
 

Only guy I could find who didn't miss games or retire between 35-40 was Brett Favre.

And would you say at that point in their respective careers that he had a better or worse chance than Brady at accomplishing that? I would argue Farve's chances were considerably worse based on the league rules at the time and Farve's playing style.
 

Where you lost me (one of your first posts, and I am on my phone so can't quote directly) is where you essentially said that Brady is a d
"different animal" based on his health/career so far ("not apples to apples"), and reason that with modern sports medicine and advances, that we can kick the can down the road on taking a chance on a new QB with a higher pick.

No need, I remember the quote. You're leaving out the context and a couple addition points, but is that something you disagree with? You think the end of Trent Green's career is a legit data point to suggest Brady won't continue to play at a high level?
 

Previous performance can't predict how Brady will scale over the rest of his career, bionic GOAT candidate or not. We only know he'll be fine until he isn't anymore and no one knows when exactly that will happen, and taking the under on 36-37 isn't foolish or inefficient.

We can't predict the future? I'm glad I saved the magic 8 ball receipt.
 

At the very least, and based on what has already been hashed in this thread, JG should at least be considered a push, not an abject failure that brings down a house of cards.

 
Based on results, would you consider Brock Osweiler a push?
 

And the game theory about how BB should or shouldn't let Brady ride - "process" - is linked (or seems to be linked) to emotional side of the arguments in here as well. I love the guy too, but I understand the JG pick and think it's defensible and not a squander, nor a tipping point or future Achilles' heel for the franchise.

 
When I look at something from a front office perspective there's no emotion. No one said it was "a tipping point or future Achilles' heel" certainly not me.
 

Wutang is fine with the Pats tanking for the rest of his life if they win one more ring with Brady. Clearly Kraft, the FO and Belichick don't share that sentiment at all.

Neither do I.

 

[Cellar-Door]

 

And would you say at that point in their respective careers that he had a better or worse chance than Brady at accomplishing that? I would argue Farve's chances were considerably worse based on the league rules at the time and Farve's playing style.
 

He appears to have been THE ONLY ONE to ever do it. It was incredibly unlikely to happen then and is still incredibly unlikely to happen now.
Sure Brady might be in a slightly better position than Favre based on a few minor rule changes and being moire of a pocket passer (though Favre had never suffered a major injury before while Brady has a surgically reconstructed knee so...)
The point is that the odds are heavily stacked against it happening. Just because Brady has 5 mega millions tickets to Favre's 3 doesn't mean it is likely he'll win the lottery.

THe point isn't that the odds are slightly better of a late 30's QB staying healthy now, it is that the odds are poor no matter what, and betting heavily on bad odds is what morons do not well run football teams.

 

[SMU_Sox]

TWhip, I don't think Phragle is arguing in such strong black and whites. You can have middle ground or a different execution for the strategy of winning in the short and long run. There are quite a few ways to skin this cat. Phragle isn't saying not to do it at all (that's too binary and black and white); he is saying this way isn't ideal (or close to it).

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

As a note, this is why I love BbtL lately.
 
Good points on both sides. Good stuff, folks.

 

[Phragle]

He appears to have been THE ONLY ONE to ever do it. It was incredibly unlikely to happen then and is still incredibly unlikely to happen now.

Sure Brady might be in a slightly better position than Favre based on a few minor rule changes and being moire of a pocket passer (though Favre had never suffered a major injury before while Brady has a surgically reconstructed knee so...)
The point is that the odds are heavily stacked against it happening. Just because Brady has 5 mega millions tickets to Favre's 3 doesn't mean it is likely he'll win the lottery.

 
So what do you think his chances are percentage wise?
 
Also it's not just about whether he's a pocket passer or not. Farve played every snap like it was his last, much like Rodgers. Brady's style is the polar opposite of that, and it should translate to him staying healthier than his counterparts.
 
If you take away all the QBs that suck, are from a different era, and played beyond the age of 36 [edit: meant the opposite on the last qualifier], there are only two players you can compare to Brady. Manning and Warner, and both played well after 36. They posted ratings of 115 and 95 respectively and both appeared in the Super Bowl. They missed one game combined.  Warner retired after he was 38. Manning is 38 now and still going strong despite the neck surgery and related issues. Both are IMO are/were worse bets that Brady.

 

[Cellar-Door]

 
So what do you think his chances are percentage wise?
 
Also it's not just about whether he's a pocket passer or not. Farve played every snap like it was his last, much like Rodgers. Brady's style is the polar opposite of that, and it should translate to him staying healthier than his counterparts.
 
If you take away all the QBs that suck, are from a different era, and played beyond the age of 36, there are only two players you can compare to Brady. Manning and Warner, and both played well after 36. They posted ratings of 115 and 95 respectively and both appeared in the Super Bowl. They missed one game combined.  Warner retired after he was 38. Manning is 38 now and still going strong despite the neck surgery and related issues. Both are IMO are/were worse bets that Brady.

Why are you eliminating all the rest of the guys, the era differences aren't that big to totally eliminate the data.
 
Manning just recently missed an entire year, and Warner retired two years before hitting 40 and had missed 48 games in his 30's out of 128 possible games, almost 40%
 
The fact that there aren't many guys who played well and regularly into their 37-40 year range highlights that guys start breaking down in their mid 30's, eliminating everyone else because they didn't even make 36 makes no sense.
 
So If I understand it your argument is basically:
"Well only one player in the history of the game has ever done this thing, but I believe based on no facts, and blind belief that this situation is different."
 
What is the factual basis to assume that Brady will play every game for the next 4 years?
 
We have data that shows that historically including recently it has been incredibly hard to stay healthy and in the league through your late 30s. Now I can agree that all the advances in medicine and training increase that chance, and even that QB protection rules increase the chance. I just don't see how it can be argued that it increases the chances from almost none all the way to a point that makes it smart bet heavily on it.
 
Edit-for clarity.

 

[singaporesoxfan]

 
If you take away all the QBs that suck, are from a different era, and played beyond the age of 36, there are only two players you can compare to Brady. Manning and Warner, and both played well after 36. They posted ratings of 115 and 95 respectively and both appeared in the Super Bowl. They missed one game combined.  Warner retired after he was 38. Manning is 38 now and still going strong despite the neck surgery and related issues. Both are IMO are/were worse bets that Brady.

 
That seems very close to cherry-picking data. Why doesn't Favre count? Why doesn't, say, Testaverde? Basically your argument is: "if you take away all QBs that aren't like Brady, you'll find out that there are only two players that are like Brady, and Brady is healthier than them. PS: the two are this one guy who retired 2 years after turning 36 and this one guy who had season-ending neck surgery at 35 but is still going strong.". That's not a particularly convincing argument.
 
In general, I suspect you're more likely right than not that Brady will be playing for a few more years. But even with an 80% probability of Brady playing for 16 games a season for four more years, I think it makes sense to get a backup, and I think you're severely underweighting the value of insurance, and have the opportunity cost (the expected value of a 2014 second round pick) too high.

 

[Phragle]

Why are you eliminating all the rest of the guys, the era differences aren't that big to totally eliminate the data.

 
This is where I stopped reading. Of all the things said in the thread (by people other than Chemistry Schemistry) this is the most absurd. All the rule changes were designed to do one thing - keep the QB healthy. Defenders can't go high, can't go low, can't use their helmets in any way, can't play physical coverage, and bountygate happened. If Farve played with those rules he might not be a vegetable right now.

 

[Cellar-Door]

 
This is where I stopped reading. Of all the things said in the thread (by people other than Chemistry Schemistry) this is the most absurd. All the rule changes were designed to do one thing - keep the QB healthy. Defenders can't go high, can't go low, can't use their helmets in any way, can't play physical coverage, and bountygate happened. If Farve played with those rules he might not be a vegetable right now.

You've done this several times in this thread. it is a cheap way of not defending baseless assertions, and you should do better.

 

[EricFeczko]

History suggests it is highly unlikely that Brady plays every game for the rest of his contract.
Looking at QBs who were very effective into their late 30's (Brady will be 37 at the start of this season).
Manning- missed 16 games his age 36 season, (still acitve going into his age 38 season)
Marino- missed games in his age 34 and 35 seasons, then missed 5 games in his age 38 season and hung it up.
Montana- missed games in every one of his age 31-38 seasons before hanging it up including a full season at age 36.
Young- missed games every year from 34-38, 4or more 3 times, retired at 38.
Fouts- missed games every year from 31-36 retired at 36.
 
Only guy I could find who didn't miss games or retire between 35-40 was Brett Favre.

George Blanda and Steve DeBerg say hi. Though neither were really full-time starters for 14 straight years...
In any case, how many of these were due to decline versus fluky injuries/being replaced by younger QBs?

Manning -- Rare problem with spine that seems unrelated to aging
 
Marino -- torn Achilles tendon at age 34-35, replaced by a backup at age 38; probably the only actual example of decline

Montana had a QB controversy with Steve Young until the last two years with the chiefs; his only actual injury resulted from a sack

Young -- missed games due to concussions resulting from sacks. Showed no age related decline, but decided to retire anyway

Fouts was injured in his 31-36 seasons because of injuries due to...sacks and hits out of the pocket.

Out of all the examples you cite, only Marino may be an example of age related decline and the rest are either injuries due to hits, rare oddities, or QB controversies. An examination of QB, adjusted-yard-per attempts shows very little decline as a function of age:


http://www.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2011/08/how-quarterbacks-age.html

 

 
One of the more interesting things in the numbers was that the final year of a QB's career, regardless of age, is usually pretty bad, but not necessarily worse than the usual year-to-year variation in any individual QB's resume. In fact, the final year of a QB's career, on average, represents a decline of -0.75 AYPA. This is far worse than any one year of average decline due to age--actually equivalent to about 6 years of decline. To me, this suggests that natural variance is helping end many QB careers.

 

 A lot goes into the decision to retire, and it's not always completely the player's choice. Older QBs are checking out of the league after a down year, but there's no guarantee that the downward trend would continue. Although it's unlikely they'll reach the highs of their peak years, regression to the mean says that the following season is more likely going to be an up-year, at least relative to the previous one. At some point, a QB has absorbed enough sacks, had enough surgeries, made enough money, won enough thrillers, and lost enough heart-breakers for a lifetime. If the prospects for future success aren't very good, it's time to hang up the cleats, even if those prospects are somewhat of a statistical illusion.

That being said, Brady did show significant decline in his stats last year, relative to the past 5 years. His AYPA dropped to 5.5, his completion percentage dropped to 60 percent. His expected points added dropped to 114.7.  His success rate at 48.7 percent The last time Brady had a year this bad was in 2006 (relatively speaking, he was still a top-5 QB last year). Now some of that has to do with poor offensive line play last year (43 sacks are the most since 2001), however some of it may be decline...unfortunately, 16 games is not a stable sample size for QBs for any statistic.

Nevertheless, if Brady has another relatively sub-par season, it is feasible that he might retire before he reaches 40, or that BB decides to play another QB...

 

 

[Cellar-Door]

George Blanda and Steve DeBerg say hi. Though neither were really full-time starters for 14 straight years...
In any case, how many of these were due to decline versus fluky injuries/being replaced by younger QBs?

Manning -- Rare problem with spine that seems unrelated to aging
 
Marino -- torn Achilles tendon at age 34-35, replaced by a backup at age 38; probably the only actual example of decline

Montana had a QB controversy with Steve Young until the last two years with the chiefs; his only actual injury resulted from a sack

Young -- missed games due to concussions resulting from sacks. Showed no age related decline, but decided to retire anyway

Fouts was injured in his 31-36 seasons because of injuries due to...sacks and hits out of the pocket.

Out of all the examples you cite, only Marino may be an example of age related decline and the rest are either injuries due to hits, rare oddities, or QB controversies. An examination of QB, adjusted-yard-per attempts shows very little decline as a function of age:
 

To clarify, the argument wasn't about decline and more that guys get injured or decline, or have to hang it up for whatever reason. Phragle had argued that it was reasonable to assume that Brady would play every game from age 37-40, and as such investing in a possible replacement should be minimized I argued that between decline. and injury it has almost never happened, and as such spending a 2nd rounder for someone the team thinks could be a replacement makes good sense, even if there is a small chance that Brady manages to beat the odds.
 
Edit- Blanda is a nice find, he did play basically full time for his late 30s. DeBerg's last full season was at age 37

 

[EricFeczko]

To clarify, the argument wasn't about decline and more that guys get injured or decline, or have to hang it up for whatever reason.

Huh? I'm not sure I follow this statement, would you mind clarifying? It seems to contradict itself.

 
 

Phragle had argued that it was reasonable to assume that Brady would play every game from age 37-40, and as such investing in a possible replacement should be minimized.

NFL games are high-variance when it comes to health, Assuming that any single player, regardless of age, will play every game in a season is poor planning, and I don't think Phragle would disagree with that. However, there's a difference between minimal investment, and trading down to the next available QB while picking up an extra pick or two. Case Massey has shown that the difference between the 6th (or whatever) QB in a draft and the 7th is insignificant.

 
 

I argued that between decline. and injury it has almost never happened.

The article I cited suggests that the reason it has never happened may be mere statistical illusion resulting in replacement (e.g. Montana/Marino) or retirement (e.g. Young) instead of decline. Regarding the injuries, the injuries that occur are likely to occur regardless of the age of the QB; the QB is just more likely to say "no thanks" at a later age.

 
 

as such spending a 2nd rounder for someone the team thinks could be a replacement makes good sense

 
Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that BB should have drafted someone else (I'm not a big believer in evaluating draft process on the basis of best player available or need). BB could recoup that surplus value by trading Mallet for a future pick or two. If JG happens to develop well AND Brady continues to excel, we can always trade JG for a pick or two down the road as well. 

 
 

Edit- Blanda is a nice find, he did play basically full time for his late 30s. DeBerg's last full season was at age 37

 
Thanks. It's late, and I get a little screwy about dates/years stuff.

To be fair, both did not play much *starting QB* when they were younger, so they aren't great comparisons relative to the others already mentioned.
 

 

*EDIT: Both did not play much starting QB when they were younger. Blanda was a kicker I think, and DeBerg a backup.

 

 

[Phragle]

That seems very close to cherry-picking data. Why doesn't Favre count? Why doesn't, say, Testaverde? Basically your argument is: "if you take away all QBs that aren't like Brady, you'll find out that there are only two players that are like Brady, and Brady is healthier than them. PS: the two are this one guy who retired 2 years after turning 36 and this one guy who had season-ending neck surgery at 35 but is still going strong.". That's not a particularly convincing argument.

You're new to this argument so this I don't mind repeating myself. Why would they count? They're not compareable. We're back to counting the careers of Gus Frerotte and Trent Green against Brady's? What in the world does the end of Todd Bouman's career have to do with the end of Brady's? Testaverde doesn't count because he retired years before the Brady Rule. Farve doesn't count because he played just two years with the Brady Rule and none with the new headshot rules. They aren't from his era.
 

In general, I suspect you're more likely right than not that Brady will be playing for a few more years. But even with an 80% probability of Brady playing for 16 games a season for four more years, I think it makes sense to get a backup,

 
I never said it didn't make sense to get another backup
 

and I think you're severely underweighting the value of insurance, and have the opportunity cost (the expected value of a 2014 second round pick) too high.

 
Certainly possible but the only GM in the league that spent a second round pick on a backup is Elway, and that was when we had no idea the status of Manning's flipper-hand.
 

You've done this several times in this thread. it is a cheap way of not defending baseless assertions, and you should do better.

 
Is it not an absurd line?

 

[Stitch01]

<p>Then you're a results-orientated thinker? I don't care much about results. I care about the process. There's too much luck/variance in the roster building process to worry much about results in SSS. Jon Bales tweeted about this yesterday.  Jonathan Bales @BalesFootball · 14hmabrowndog is a dingusI think the idea that we should wait years to grade drafts is silly and misleading. The choices are either good or bad right now, right? Jonathan Bales @BalesFootball · 14hmabrowndog is a dingusIf we wait, we're seeing one possible path for the player selected..one path of many. Jonathan Bales @BalesFootball · [url=" [URL="https://twitter.com/BalesFootball/status/465662966277623808%22%5D14h

https://twitter.com/BalesFootball/status/465662966277623808%22%5D14h"]https://twitter.com/BalesFootball/status/465662966277623808"]14h
mabrowndog is a dingus[/url][/url]We wouldn't say that someone who hits on 18 in blackjack and gets a 3 made a good decision after the fact, right? Jonathan Bales @BalesFootball · [url="[URL="https://twitter.com/BalesFootball/status/465663213913513984%22%5D14h

https://twitter.com/BalesFootball/status/465663213913513984%22%5D14h"]https://twitter.com/BalesFootball/status/465663213913513984"]14h
mabrowndog is a dingus[/url][/url]In the same way, a team that makes a high-percentage pick that doesn't work out didn't mess up after the fact. Jonathan Bales @BalesFootball · https://twitter.com/BalesFootball/status/465663299691249664%22%5D14h"]https://twitter.com/BalesFootball/status/465663299691249664"]14h[/url][/url]I think that sort of results-oriented thinking is what plagues a lot of the really poor drafting organizations. Jonathan Bales @BalesFootball · https://twitter.com/BalesFootball/status/465663411377152001%22%5D14h"]https://twitter.com/BalesFootball/status/465663411377152001"]14h[/url][/url]We don't need to wait to see the prospects play to grade them. In fact, doing so could be really detrimental to future decisions. Jonathan Bales @BalesFootball · https://twitter.com/BalesFootball/status/465663581154205696%22%5D14h"]https://twitter.com/BalesFootball/status/465663581154205696"]14h[/url][/url]Not only are current draft grades fine, they're the ONLY time we should be grading the choices. Jonathan Bales @BalesFootball · https://twitter.com/BalesFootball/status/465665562480508929%22%5D14h"]https://twitter.com/BalesFootball/status/465665562480508929"]14h[/url][/url]To be clear, I don't think teams should draft players and then just forget about them and make future picks independently of past results.. Jonathan Bales @BalesFootball · https://twitter.com/BalesFootball/status/465665706068303872%22%5D14h"]https://twitter.com/BalesFootball/status/465665706068303872"]14h[/url][/url]..just that those player results need to be collected on the level of a position or player type... Jonathan Bales @BalesFootball · https://twitter.com/BalesFootball/status/465665883541864448%22%5D14h"]https://twitter.com/BalesFootball/status/465665883541864448"]14h[/url][/url]...as opposed to individual level, i.e. saying the Beckham pick for NYG, for example, was a good one if he has a good first few seasons. Jonathan Bales @BalesFootball · https://twitter.com/BalesFootball/status/465666002051936256%22%5D14h"]https://twitter.com/BalesFootball/status/465666002051936256"]14h[/url][/url]I think there's good evidence with WR size/college market share stats to suggest that pick in particular was a poor one... Jonathan Bales @BalesFootball · https://twitter.com/BalesFootball/status/465666165269082112%22%5D14h"]https://twitter.com/BalesFootball/status/465666165269082112"]14h[/url][/url]So if he has a good career, that's just going to be a small part of the overall picture...a '3' that follows hitting on 18.No, I'm not, but good luck evaluating whether the Pats evaluated QBs properly. The idea of taking a QB this year was clearly correct, of you are a good enough talent and process evaluator to say a Jimmy G and Stork are worse than Savage and and a second rounder I defer to your greater wisdom.

I'm skeptical. It's not poker or stocks or blackjack. Trying to evaluate process here is massively difficult (for example, you'd have to have an informed view on future QB classes)

 

[mauf]

 
That seems very close to cherry-picking data. Why doesn't Favre count? Why doesn't, say, Testaverde? Basically your argument is: "if you take away all QBs that aren't like Brady, you'll find out that there are only two players that are like Brady, and Brady is healthier than them. PS: the two are this one guy who retired 2 years after turning 36 and this one guy who had season-ending neck surgery at 35 but is still going strong.". That's not a particularly convincing argument.
 
In general, I suspect you're more likely right than not that Brady will be playing for a few more years. But even with an 80% probability of Brady playing for 16 games a season for four more years, I think it makes sense to get a backup, and I think you're severely underweighting the value of insurance, and have the opportunity cost (the expected value of a 2014 second round pick) too high.

If you want insurance, you don't use a second-round pick on a guy from Eastern Illinois -- you stick with Mallett for another year, then grab a retread off the FA pile next offseason who has actually played in a few NFL games without soiling himself. This move only makes sense if you think there's a decent chance Brady only plays 2-3 more seasons.

It's not hard to see why the Pats might plan for that -- phragle's point about rule changes being likely to prolong QBs' careers is well-taken, but the list of QBs who have enjoyed success at age 39 or later is considerably shorter than the list of guys who fizzled out at age 36-38. The Pats might also have private information that makes them believe Brady won't beat those odds -- for example, he might not be the sort of guy who'd take the health risks that Favre took, and Manning is currently taking, to continue playing.

And at the risk of mentioning the elephant in the room that we've all agreed to ignore, Brady is coming off what was arguably his worse season statistically (relative to league norms) in a decade. I'm the first one to argue that even the best stats don't tell the whole story when it comes to QB play, but you have to acknowledge the possibility that Brady has begun his decline phase -- and while I'm still not inclined to believe that, I can't dismiss the thought as quickly as I did a few days ago.

 

[Jettisoned]

You're new to this argument so this I don't mind repeating myself. Why would they count? They're not compareable. We're back to counting the careers of Gus Frerotte and Trent Green against Brady's? What in the world does the end of Todd Bouman's career have to do with the end of Brady's? Testaverde doesn't count because he retired years before the Brady Rule. Farve doesn't count because he played just two years with the Brady Rule and none with the new headshot rules. They aren't from his era.

 
I don't think the Brady/Headshot rules are going to reduce the overall chance that Brady gets injured as much as you're asserting here.  For one thing, those rules don't physically stop players from making dirty hits.  Sure, they make it less likely, but really if some DE decides he wants to take out Brady's head/knee all it's going to cost him is a few game checks and a 15 yard personal foul.  Brady could also get injured in accidents like some guy falling on his legs, or smacking his hand against a defender's helmet while throwing the ball etc. that basically nobody has any control over.  Also who's to say he has to get hit to get injured?  The older he gets the more likely he is to strain muscles, suffer from tendonitis, spinal disc herniation, etc.

 

[singaporesoxfan]

 
Certainly possible but the only GM in the league that spent a second round pick on a backup is Elway, and that was when we had no idea the status of Manning's flipper-hand.

 
If your definition of the type is so narrow that you only have three QBs that fit your criteria - Brady, Manning, and Warner - there's just so much variance that I think it's hard to say with any definitiveness and without access to the medicals that Brady is definitely going to be healthier and last longer than those two. Again, I think it's likely that Brady lasts a long time, especially with the changes in the rules, but it's very far from a slam-dunk in my mind.
 
Even using your comps, I think it's telling that Elway felt compelled to use a 2nd round pick on Brock Ostweiler and that the Cardinals decided in Warner's age 35 season to use their 1st round pick on Matt Leinart. NFL GMs appear to be very cautious about aging superstar QBs, either by getting a backup or by already planning for transition (though obviously in Leinart's case that was a flop). 
 
 

 
 
If you want insurance, you don't use a second-round pick on a guy from Eastern Illinois -- you stick with Mallett for another year, then grab a retread off the FA pile next offseason who has actually played in a few NFL games without soiling himself. This move only makes sense if you think there's a decent chance Brady only plays 2-3 more seasons. 

 
I think we're in agreement here. When I used the word 'insurance' with regards to Jimmy Truth About Cats and Dogs, I meant both insurance against an in-season injury and insurance against the chance that Brady only plays 2-3 more seasons. Mallett+NFL retreads are adequate insurance if all you want is a pure backup QB to Brady, but I see the JG pick as kind of a hybrid backup/potential starter.

 

[Cellar-Door]

 
 
Is it not an absurd line?

 
No it isn't.
As Jettisoned noted, you are arguing that the Brady and headshot rules make a major difference in injury chances, but there  doesn't seem to be any evidence that it is actually the case.
 
I haven't been able to find a year by year QB injury breakdown, but 2013 had more QB games missed due to injury in the first half than 2012 or 2011 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/10/24/some-think-line-play-to-blame-for-rising-qb-injury-rates/
 
And it isn't an issue of mobile QBs being more prevelant as it appears that mobile QBs are not more likely to be injured than pocket passers:http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2013/02/quarterback_injuries_are_mobile_qbs_like_colin_kaepernick_more_injury_prone.2.html
 
Just because the intent of putting in rules is to reduce QB injuries doesn't mean that they have actually resulted in any change in QB injury rates. The Brady rule is the more likely to have an impact since lower body injuries are the most common type of QB injury (see the slate link) and headshot rules are less likely since head injuries are the least common injury type.
 
So unless there is some evidence that the new rules actually reduce QB injuries in a dramatic way, there doesn't seem to be a strong reason to discard the players from before 2009.
 
Sure with any sports trend there are small differences between eras, but without any indication that there has been a major change I don't see any reason to drop out players in the modern era. It isn't like post 2008 there was some seismic change in QB injury rates equivalent with the difference between the deadball era and the current era in baseball.

 

[Chemistry Schmemistry]

It's no point arguing with someone who believes in magic fairies and cannot see that coaches rarely start quarterbacks who can't play well any more, except in desperation.

The data is fairly clear. Someone with Brady's experience has only a small percentage chance of remaining the starter for the next three years.

As for this silly argument that the new contact rules change everything regarding quarterback injuries, and thus all accumulated data is worthless...

Number of QBs with 6+ games, significant playing time:

2013: 41
2012: 39
2011: 38
2010: 35
2009: 40
2008: 37
2007: 41
2006: 39
2005: 42
2004: 37
2003: 41
2002: 39
2001: 33
2000: 41
1999: 46
1998: 40
1997: 41
1996: 36
1995: 38
1994: 36
1993: 37
1992: 39
1991: 36
1990: 35

It's a fairly consistent number. The magic fairy argument would be that injuries/aging is lower while coaches are more anxious to yank a guy for poor performance. But, again, the data shows that older quarterbacks generally maintain a performance level until they no longer start. There are plenty of examples, both average and excellent quarterbacks.

 

[The Best Catch in 100 Years]

What is stupid/useless about it? It means the backup DEs play a lot regardless of health, the opposite is true at the backup QB position.
 
 
Based on what?

It is the NFL and you simply cannot "assume health," so your "example" doesn't correspond to anything in reality, and (surprise, surprise) in assuming a perfectly healthy starting quarterback throws out all the possible cases where a backup quarterback would be valuable. It's worse than useless, it's misleading.
 
Perhaps I'm giving BB too much benefit of the doubt, but I have a hard time seeing this regime burning a second-rounder on a guy the likes of whom they thought they could get a couple rounds later, particularly in such a (if the scouting consensus is to be believed, and matches the Patriots' internal thinking) deep draft. I'll concede that I could be wrong about this--it's conceivable that the Patriots liked him as much as Savage, Murray and McCarron, and passed up a better value at a different position at pick #62--or that JG could simply not be the right guy, even if the Patriots liked him a lot. Still, I'll echo KFP: given what we know now, I can't really see "hating" this pick. In totally abstract roster management terms, it seems perfectly sensible to take a quarterback in the second round given (a.) the general importance of QB depth, (b.) the age and contract situations of the QB's on the Patriots' roster.

 

[jacklamabe65]

In summation: People will hate this pick until Brady goes down with an injury. That is what he was drafted for. If JG turns out to be decent or even good, they will change their minds. If not, they will keep on saying, "I told you so."

 

[Granite Sox]

And at the risk of mentioning the elephant in the room that we've all agreed to ignore, Brady is coming off what was arguably his worse season statistically (relative to league norms) in a decade. I'm the first one to argue that even the best stats don't tell the whole story when it comes to QB play, but you have to acknowledge the possibility that Brady has begun his decline phase -- and while I'm still not inclined to believe that, I can't dismiss the thought as quickly as I did a few days ago.

 
 

... Brady could also get injured in accidents like some guy falling on his legs, or smacking his hand against a defender's helmet while throwing the ball etc. that basically nobody has any control over.  Also who's to say he has to get hit to get injured?  The older he gets the more likely he is to strain muscles, suffer from tendonitis, spinal disc herniation, etc.

 
 

In summation: People will hate this pick until Brady goes down with an injury. That is what he was drafted for. If JG turns out to be decent or even good, they will change their minds. If not, they will keep on saying, "I told you so."

 
I recognize that I'm late and trying to catch up to everything, but perhaps BB and the Pats believe Brady is both aging and susceptible to injury (and I recognize how obtuse that sounds).  BB et al laud Brady's physical toughness, but let's not forget the mysterious hand injury (sideline shots of a swollen/puffy hand, constantly holding it in the hand warmer on the field/sidelines) that he played through last season.  So there's a likelihood that this injury contributed to Brady's inconsistent accuracy at times.  Additionally, time after time after time Brady was missing wide open receivers, which may be a reflection of his confidence in the receivers, but it may also be a sign that his game management and decisions are perhaps not quite as sharp as they need to be.
 
Just as it's okay to question the JG pick and decision relative to other team-building opportunities that the draft offers, I also think it is clear that BB et al have seen physical and mental signals that tip the scales towards selecting JG in the 2nd now vs. going the FA retread or 2015+ drafts later.

 

[Trlicek's Whip]

TWhip, I don't think Phragle is arguing in such strong black and whites. You can have middle ground or a different execution for the strategy of winning in the short and long run. There are quite a few ways to skin this cat. Phragle isn't saying not to do it at all (that's too binary and black and white); he is saying this way isn't ideal (or close to it).

 
You absolutely can have middle ground. Only he's building his position on a foundation that was best summarized thusly:
 

Basically your argument is: "if you take away all QBs that aren't like Brady, you'll find out that there are only two players that are like Brady, and Brady is healthier than them. PS: the two are this one guy who retired 2 years after turning 36 and this one guy who had season-ending neck surgery at 35 but is still going strong." That's not a particularly convincing argument.

 
That's filtering your strawmen in advance - *and* drafting enough of them for an unstoppable straw army. This shifting sand allows longtime-listener, first-time caller defenses - i.e. "Oh, so Trent Green and Tom Brady are the same?" or "The rules protect the QB in this era and something something science" or "I stopped reading you after this sentence."
 
I'll take the under on "Brady plays 16 games/year for the duration of his contract," btw.  

 

[finnVT]

Well, for one thing, the blackjack analogy is hogwash.  In blackjack, you can compute an analytic solution to give you the exact probability of each action.  A much better analogy would be poker.  Poker where you never (even in retrospect) get to see the other player's cards.
 
I think the way to look at this in terms of "how much does he play" is this: over the next 3 years, what % of plays do you expect Brady to miss?  I would argue that suggesting it will continue to be 0% is being incredibly optimistic.  But there's more to the calculation.  What % of plays would you have expected a different pick than JG to play?  And finally, how much more valuable is a QB snap than a snap at a different position?
 
I.e., let's say the other option was CJ Fed.  Last season hooman played 57% of snaps.  Gronk was ~37% (that was injury related, of course, but again, injuries are a possibility with any pick).  Lets be generous and say CJ Fed catches on quickly, becomes #2 on the depth chart, and gets 50% of the snaps over the next 3 years.  Let's also say Brady stays relative healthy, and manages to play 90% of the snaps in that time frame, leaving 10% to JG (I'll assume the plays missed are more likely to happen down the road, after Mallet is gone).  Is it unreasonable to say that 1 QB snap is worth at least 5x a TE snap?  If anything, I suspect that's underselling it.
 
 
Of course, this is all related to the question of whether a QB should be picked #2.  I think this discussion would be much more interesting if it was focused instead on the question of whether JG is the right QB, regardless of where he was taken (which has been touched upon, but has gotten quite lost in the discussion).

 

[Ralphwiggum]

I think there is room for a discussion of whether the QB pick in round 2 was right or not, but it is an incredibly inexact science and the discussion is ridiculous without allowing for the fact that the alternative viewpoint is valid.  You can think that based on assumptions regarding Brady's health and effectiveness over the next 3 years, that using a 2nd round pick on a QB was a waste of an opportunity to grab an asset that is more likely to see the field over the next few years.  The problem with that is that there are no actuarial tables and no crystal ball to get an exact read on either Brady's health over the next few years, or on how good or bad JG is going to be.  You can certainly think that the Pats reached to grab the QB too early, but presenting that as absolute fact and dismissing arguments to the contrary is absurd.
 
I also understand having discipline to your process (if you believe it is the right process) regardless of results.  But as someone pointed out up thread, we have no basis to evaluate the Pats process because we don't have nearly enough information.  Assuming that your process is the optimal process seems to me to be the height of arrogance, particularly when discussing something that a lot of people think is just a crapshoot to begin with.

 

[wutang112878]

I think the way to look at this in terms of "how much does he play" is this: over the next 3 years, what % of plays do you expect Brady to miss?  I would argue that suggesting it will continue to be 0% is being incredibly optimistic.  But there's more to the calculation.  What % of plays would you have expected a different pick than JG to play?  And finally, how much more valuable is a QB snap than a snap at a different position?

 
Another factor is the incremental value of JG over either Mallet or another QB that you could sign as a free agent.  That depends on the projection for JG but considering he went to Eastern Illinois, its unclear how complex the offense was and most likely he needs some grooming, that incremental value probably isnt that high especially in the first couple of years.  The real value would probably be had post-Brady if you genuinely think he can be passed the torch but considering his college pedigree I dont think they can really determine that until he gets some significant NFL snaps.

 

[Reverend]

Well, for one thing, the blackjack analogy is hogwash.  In blackjack, you can compute an analytic solution to give you the exact probability of each action.  A much better analogy would be poker.  Poker where you never (even in retrospect) get to see the other player's cards.

 
Well, no--that you can compute the analytic solution is precisely the foundation of the analogy, the point being that a good outcome on a bad bet doesn't make the bet a good decision.
 
I'm actually warming to the pick, but I think phragle does have some important considerations that are getting lost. I don't think it's possible to think of QBs in large aggregates or across relatively narrow eras for a couple of reasons.
 
First of all, age is problematic because of the massive selection bias based on success. The older QBs are the ones who are allowed to continue to play because they are really good; this is true of all positions, but has become even more so for QBs. So if you look through the years, you see lots of years with a relatively low average age for starting QB but the better QBs tend to be older. (Link) It's just a residual outcome of success begetting opportunity.
 
I also think that looking at straight up injury numbers is misleading because there's a difference between being hurt and being injured. Even if the new rules have no impact on games lost through injury, I have little doubt that they will extend the careers of QBs simply through them not hurting as badly. A lot of players hang it up not out of injury, but just because it hurts too much to get up on Monday. I don't know how you would quantify that effect, but it's very real.
 
As far as when Brady will hang'em up, the real wild card here that hasn't been brought up is whether or not another trophy would make him more likely to be willing to walk away. 

 

[singaporesoxfan]

As far as when Brady will hang'em up, the real wild card here that hasn't been brought up is whether or not another trophy would make him more likely to be willing to walk away. 

 
Imagine if that trophy was won by JG throwing a TD pass as the holder on a fake FG attempt. SoSH might explode.

 

[RedOctober3829]

 
Imagine if that trophy was won by JG throwing a TD pass as the holder on a fake FG attempt. SoSH might explode.

VALUE!!!!

 

[soxfan121]

 
Imagine if that trophy was won by JG throwing a TD pass as the holder on a fake FG attempt. SoSH might explode.

 
Imagine if that trophy is won because the quality backup comes into the second half of an AFCCG when Brady sprains an ankle and preserves a victory.
 
Oh, that actually happened? What, did this place conveniently forget about it?