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:
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.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”
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
Also losing Wynn was a big blow to their depth to begin with.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.
If you are the type of person who has declared Brady finished, you are also the person who watches James Bond movies, sees him drink a poisoned martini or be targeted with an impending laser, and assumes this is finally it for him. It hasn’t happened yet, and it’s tiring to keep predicting that it will.
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.Also losing Wynn was a big blow to their depth to begin with.
I was just noting their depth isn't great. Not claiming it to be a get out of jail free card.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.
You saw it two weeks in a row with Rodgers and Brady, but you're not buying it.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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:
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.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.
@Miami is @ Miami, point taken. But the Jets are a bottom 4 team, and Buffalo is at home.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.
Eh, if they played the AFCCG at home they were going back to the Super BowlThose 2015 losses in Miami and NY did expose that Pats team as being "not quite there", which turned out to be a fair assessment.
The Jets are top 10 in yards/att, completion % allowed, passer rating allowed, interceptions.@Miami is @ Miami, point taken. But the Jets are a bottom 4 team, and Buffalo is at home.
I am not obsessed with Brady. I’m focused on the team.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 don't know--haven't we made the Super Bowl every season in which Brady lost to Buffalo?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.
Tampa Bay literally has the 32nd-ranked scoring defense this year.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 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.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.
And Football Outsiders ranked TBs D-line third of thirty-two through November 13.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.
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.And Football Outsiders ranked TBs D-line third of thirty-two through November 13.
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...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.
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.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.
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.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.
I don't think it's "Brady can do no wrong". He explicitly notes that Brady isn't his typical superlative self:This is a joke. Its the Brady can do no wrong crowd. He's had a much worse OL and much worse WR core (2006 and likely 2002-2004) in many other years and there was no drop. I love the guy don't get me wrong, but there was average pressure on him last Sunday and he crapped himself and saw pressure when there wasn't. He missed several throws and has been missing them all year. What came did he come on a bit?(I guess KC, he was not good against GB) I have no life and watch the all-22 when it comes out. He has missed throws to open or relatively open WRs all season. Again my hope is more its the missed training camp and not age but it's him and not so much the talent.
I'm tired of the when Brady does bad its the O-line fault, the WRs fault, the RB's fault etc etc etc. He's done great things here, but facts are its been Tom Brady's fault a lot on offense.
Not to say that all is just peachy with Brady - he doesn't appear to be quite the same player
but he's not nearly as "bad" (i.e., mediocre) as the numbers suggest.
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.Everyone has always said that he very well may fall off a cliff all at once, and maybe it just happened
Context much? Look at that sentence you quoted in the context of the rest of the paragraph.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.
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.Maybe he continues to be "off"...he may well fall off a cliff...maybe it just happened. Or maybe... there will be ups and downs
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.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.
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: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.
Is there a year you could not have said this in the past decade?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.
Maybe it how people talk? As in "sure, maybe it you have a point to complain about here, but probably not."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.
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".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.
So it's only a cliff if he has a bunch of games in a row that are bad, and maybe get worse?How can one game be a cliff when he was great the week before? It’s nonsensical