2018 Tom M-F&^%$ing Brady: Still Proving It

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
30,193
That is a contradiction, no? If you're going to talk about the greatest in the Super Bowl era, don't use the term “GOAT”.
Until someone makes a cogent argument that there is somebody from the pre-super bowl era that is better than Brady, I think it's fair to say GOAT in whatever context people want, but sure it could theoretically be a contradiction if someone only means post-Super Bowl era. Otto Graham certainly doesn't make the cut, considering his teams won in spite of him in a lot of cases. I think that alone would make Brady superior to him. If you've got another name, throw it out there. Y.A. Tittle? Norm Van Brocklin? George Blanda? Brady eviscerates these guys in virtually every category and every context.

I don't know. Maybe Brady is the greatest of all time -- one can certainly make a very strong case that he is. But while it's fair to ask this question "How well would Graham do in today's NFL?", it's also fair to ask "How well would Brady do in the 1950's NFL?" How do his stats look if the defenders are allowed to mug his receivers, and the defensive lineman can whack him on the head, and the coaches frequently ask the QB to run for yardage?
Brady has more rushing yards than Graham, Tittle, Van Brocklin and Blanda. If you eliminate Blanda, Brady has more rushing yards than the other 3 combined. If you eliminate Graham, Brady has more than the other 3 combined. It's not even close. Those guys weren't asked to run much more than QB's are in today's game. Some of them did, but so does Cam Newton, Josh Allen and Russell Wilson, etc.

To answer your question, how would Brady do in the 1950's game? He'd dominate it. At 6'4, 225 pounds, he'd be one of the largest human beings on the field at any time, and probably be considered a pretty decent athlete by the standards of the time. Night Train Lane, who was one of the most feared defensive player of the time, was 6'1, 194 pounds. There were no 280lb defensive ends running 4.5-4.6 40's who were able to get to the quarterback in under 3 seconds. Chuck Bednarik was an absolute monster during the 1950's, he played center and linebacker (yes, center and linebacker) and he was only 6'3, 233lbs. And these are the exceptions. Most of the guys on the field back in those days would be small compared to a top tier high school program in America today.

On the flipside, at 6'1', guys like Sammy Baugh, and Graham and Van Brocklin were tall, All-American QB's. Drew Brees and Baker Mayfield are 6'1 and succeeding in today's game. Mayfield and Brees also have between 20-30 pounds on each of them. Guys today are just so, so much stronger and faster and physical, and the game is played at a speed that would have them dumbfounded.

It's kind of funny. In baseball, everyone discounts the guys from the turn of the century or before when having conversations about the GOAT in that sport, and in those cases, those guys stats dwarfed the guys in today's games (Cy Young anybody, Old Hoss Radbourne won 60 games and pitched over 600 innings in one season). We say it was a "different game" and we don't make qualifiers when talking about guys today by saying "Well, he's great, but he's nothing compared to Cy Young."

In football, when it comes to QB's, it's the opposite. The guys today are facing tougher competition, they are bigger, faster and stronger than ever before, they are playing in a much more balanced league and yet, the guys nowadays are putting up stats that dwarf the guys from the early days of the NFL, so what's the argument?

The reality is it's unfair to compare the guys that played in the 40's and 50's to the guys playing in today's game, and vice versa. Just like it's unfair to discount what Pedro did, because guys like Cy Young have numbers that make him look like a nobody.
 

InstaFace

MDLzera
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
7,910
6-3, no? That 34-31 2013 game was a Patriots win. Also not a great showing by Houston's D, which allowed 34 points and 450 yards of total offense. Close game, but that didn't really have much to do with Phillips.
Thank you, I was reading the pages from the perspective of Phillips' teams and didn't correct for every one. 6-3 certainly sounds a lot better than 5-4, doesn't it?
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
30,193
Having lived in south Louisiana for nigh 10 years (before moving back to Maine on January 5), I can tell you every one of the Who Dat’s will scream until they are red in the face Brees is better. They’ll say Brady could have never done what Brees has done with those shitty NO defenses, etc. I’ve tried reasoning, to no avail. Don’t get me wrong on this, the Saints are my other team, and it helps they hardly ever play each other; but the Brady hate game is strong, and it’s like arguing with a brick wall. I just can’t get over the fact that Brees, every single game - especially when it matters - seems to have an epic fuck up that kills their chances. Brady just doesn’t do that. Game, set, match: GOAT
Tell them the reason the Saints lose in the playoffs is not because of their defense. It's because Drew Brees can't play outside. He's 7-2 at home, and 1-6 on the road in the playoffs. His numbers outdoors are dreadful. Until he learns how to play anywhere besides on an indoor track in perfect weather conditions, he can never be considered the GOAT. Brady has more Super Bowl Appearances than Brees has playoff wins. The one time they did win the Super Bowl, the Saints had home field advantage throughout.
 

Hendu for Kutch

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2006
5,716
Nashua, NH
There's been some scattered talk today of how easy the Patriots have it with their cupcake division. I decided to poke around the all-time wins leaderboard and Brady's pro football reference page to come up with a list of some interesting winning percentages by "great" QBs to compare to Brady. These are sorted by winning percentage

Brady Home Games: .865
Brady vs. NFC North: .850
Brady vs. AFC North: .813
Brady vs. NFC East: .813
Brady vs. AFC South: .800
Brady vs. AFC East: .790
Brady Playoff Career: .750
Brady vs. NFC South: .750

Roger Staubach Regular Season Career: .743
Terry Bradshaw Playoff Career: .737
Joe Montana Regular Season Career: .713
Peyton Manning Regular Season Career: .702
Joe Montana Playoff Career: .696
Brady Road Games: .687
Terry Bradshaw Regular Season Career: .677
Ben Roethlisberger Regular Season Career: .675
Russell Wilson Regular Season Career: .674
Brady vs. NFC West: .667
Steve Young Regular Season Career: .657
Brady vs. AFC West: .647
Aaron Rodgers Regular Season Career: .636
Jim Kelly Regular Season Career: .631

-------------------------------------------------

And for fun:

Chris Chandler Regular Season Career: .514
Carson Palmer Regular Season Career: .511
Matt Schaub Regular Season Career: .511
Drew Bledsoe Regular Season Career: .508
Jake Plummer Regular Season Career: .507
Mark Sanchez Regular Season Career: .507
Eli Manning Regular Season Career: .504
Scott Zolak Regular Season Career: .375
Archie Manning Regular Season Career: .263

Of note:

- The AFC East is only Brady's 5th best winning percentage among the 8 divisions

- Brady's winning percentage against 6 of the 8 divisions is higher than ANY QB's CAREER winning percentage.

- Brady's playoff win percentage is higher than ANY QB's REGULAR SEASON CAREER winning percentage.

- Holy shit nobody lost games like Archie Manning. There are some awful QBs that easily clear him by well over .100 percentage points.

- Eli Manning is a 7-9 season away from having the most QB losses in NFL history.
 
Last edited:

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
34,328
Rotten Apple
Very nicely done. Loved the Zolak > A.Manning stats.
Also, both Peyton and Montana feasted on terrible divisions and nobody gives them grief for it and there is no Tomato Can narrative for them.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
2,845
around the way
Yeah good stuff, Hendu.

To assess against the others' full- Brady Regular Season Career: .775.

It's remarkable that his .750 playoff winning percentage is only a hamster dick off of his regular season winning percentage. He's a 12-4 quarterback when only the best remain. Mind-blowing.
 

PC Drunken Friar

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 12, 2003
9,398
South Boston
Copy and pasted from some number crunching I did before the Jets game in December, commenting on an Athletic article.

In the last 15 years (including this season, but not factoring in this weeks Jets outcome), the Patriots are 75-20 vs. AFC East opponents, for a .789 winning %. Factoring that out to a whole season, they should win 12.6 games a season. In the same time period, they are 124-36 vs. teams outside the AFC East, for a .775 winning %. That equates to 12.4 wins a year. And couple that with the fact that the Patriots can't play themselves and have to always play a 1st place schedule (meaning they will automatically play 2 first place teams from the previous year)...I would argue that the Patriots OUT of division record is more impressive than their in division record.

Steelers (with BR as QB, starting in 2004, ending week 16 of this season. There were too many seasons where he missed 2, 3 or 4 games for me to JUST look at the record with him as QB).

72.5-26.5 vs AFC North for .732 winning %, 11.7 wins a season.
96-54 vs rest of the NFL for .640 winning %, 10.2 wins a season.

Steelers win 1.5 more games in a 16 game season if they just play AFC North.

Peyton Manning- 2002-2010 (In 2002, the AFC South was created)
Colts- 43-11 vs AFC South for a .796 winning %, 12.7 wins a year.
Colts- 66-24 vs the rest for a .733 winning %, 11.7 wins a year.

Colts win 1 more game a year if they just played the AFC South.


Packers 2008-present (with taking out their non-Rodgers record in 2013 and 2017.
Packers- 44.5-15.5 vs NFC North for .741 winning %, 11.8 wins a year.
Packers 57-40 vs. the rest for a .587 winning % a year, 9.4 wins a year.

The Packers win 2.4 more games in a 16 game season if they just play NFC North.

The Patriots, as in my previous post, win only .2 more wins a season if they played a 16 game season vs the AFC East.
 

simplyeric

aggressively nonsensical
SoSH Member
Feb 14, 2006
12,147
NYC
Until someone makes a cogent argument that there is somebody from the pre-super bowl era that is better than Brady, I think it's fair to say GOAT in whatever context people want, but sure it could theoretically be a contradiction if someone only means post-Super Bowl era. Otto Graham certainly doesn't make the cut, considering his teams won in spite of him in a lot of cases. I think that alone would make Brady superior to him. If you've got another name, throw it out there. Y.A. Tittle? Norm Van Brocklin? George Blanda? Brady eviscerates these guys in virtually every category and every context.

Brady has more rushing yards than Graham, Tittle, Van Brocklin and Blanda. If you eliminate Blanda, Brady has more rushing yards than the other 3 combined. If you eliminate Graham, Brady has more than the other 3 combined. It's not even close. Those guys weren't asked to run much more than QB's are in today's game. Some of them did, but so does Cam Newton, Josh Allen and Russell Wilson, etc.

To answer your question, how would Brady do in the 1950's game? He'd dominate it. At 6'4, 225 pounds, he'd be one of the largest human beings on the field at any time, and probably be considered a pretty decent athlete by the standards of the time. Night Train Lane, who was one of the most feared defensive player of the time, was 6'1, 194 pounds. There were no 280lb defensive ends running 4.5-4.6 40's who were able to get to the quarterback in under 3 seconds. Chuck Bednarik was an absolute monster during the 1950's, he played center and linebacker (yes, center and linebacker) and he was only 6'3, 233lbs. And these are the exceptions. Most of the guys on the field back in those days would be small compared to a top tier high school program in America today.

On the flipside, at 6'1', guys like Sammy Baugh, and Graham and Van Brocklin were tall, All-American QB's. Drew Brees and Baker Mayfield are 6'1 and succeeding in today's game. Mayfield and Brees also have between 20-30 pounds on each of them. Guys today are just so, so much stronger and faster and physical, and the game is played at a speed that would have them dumbfounded.

It's kind of funny. In baseball, everyone discounts the guys from the turn of the century or before when having conversations about the GOAT in that sport, and in those cases, those guys stats dwarfed the guys in today's games (Cy Young anybody, Old Hoss Radbourne won 60 games and pitched over 600 innings in one season). We say it was a "different game" and we don't make qualifiers when talking about guys today by saying "Well, he's great, but he's nothing compared to Cy Young."

In football, when it comes to QB's, it's the opposite. The guys today are facing tougher competition, they are bigger, faster and stronger than ever before, they are playing in a much more balanced league and yet, the guys nowadays are putting up stats that dwarf the guys from the early days of the NFL, so what's the argument?

The reality is it's unfair to compare the guys that played in the 40's and 50's to the guys playing in today's game, and vice versa. Just like it's unfair to discount what Pedro did, because guys like Cy Young have numbers that make him look like a nobody.
Thank you for this. I was trying to figure out a way to articulate this idea, but I don't know a fraction of the history of the game that you display here, and I didn't want to make a post based on a bunch of "feelings" about the differences between the current players and those from earlier days.

This line is great:
"At 6'4, 225 pounds, he'd be one of the largest human beings on the field at any time,"

followed by this
"and probably be considered a pretty decent athlete by the standards of the time"

One caveat to all of this is Brady's success depends on his ability to have such good timing with his receivers on very technical routes, especially the slot guys and receiving RB's. Is it fair to wonder how he'd do with a different level of receiver out there? I mean, in a sense he's clearly shown that he can do more with less talent out there than just about anyone...just an interesting thought.
 

McBride11

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,311
Charleston, SC
Jordan Spieth: Tom Brady is ‘the most competitive human being I’ve ever met’

Brady gave Spieth the silent treatment after a round of golf at Augusta National.

https://www.boston.com/sports/new-england-patriots/2019/02/10/jordan-spieth-tom-brady-is-the-most-competitive-human-being-ive-ever-met
I need to know more. Was that based upon handicap? Or Brady really went toe-to-toe with Spieth at Augusta? Will he be joining the PGA at age 55 when he retires?

I know many insanely competitive people, I was one in my teens and 20s, but few have the talent and ability Tom do to back it up. Even stupid stuff like that beer chugging. I bet Tom practiced for hours to win that, but with finely pH balanced water of course.
 

Old Fart Tree

the maven of meat
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2001
7,761
The Yay Area
Yeah, it was handicapped because spieth said Brady was getting a stroke on 18. That’s the 10th handicap hole so assuminng Spieth was the low handicap (and everyone stroked off Spieth’s handicap) that would suggest to me that Spieth is like a +4 and Brady is at least a six. I saw something online saying Brady was a 9, so that checks out, he’d be getting 13 from Spieth.
 

johnmd20

literally like ebola
Lifetime Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
37,898
New York City

InstaFace

MDLzera
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
7,910
Year-by-year ANY/A league leader, 10th-place value, # of players > 8, and then Tom Brady's ANY/A value and rank:

2018: 8.89 (Mahomes) to 6.96 (Rodgers), 3 - TB: 7.26 (8th)
2017: 7.72 (Goff) to 6.87 (Ryan), 0 - TB: 7.56 (5th)
2016: 9.03 (Ryan) to 6.84 (Luck), 2 - TB: 8.81 (2nd), 3rd was Prescott at 7.86
2015: 8.41 (Palmer) to 6.74 (E. Manning), 2 - TB: 7.48 (4th)
2014: 8.65 (Rodgers) to 6.72 (Wilson), 2 - TB: 7.01 (8th)
2013: 9.18 (Foles, on 318 att) to 6.40 (Stafford), 4 - TB: 6.13 (14th)
2012: 7.89 (P. Manning) to 6.76 (A. Smith), 0 - TB: 7.48 (3rd)
2011: 9.39 (Rodgers) to 6.52 (Vick), 3 - TB: 8.25 (2nd)
2010: 8.25 (Brady) to 6.40 (Orton), 1 - TB: 8.25 (1st)
2009: 8.31 (Brees) to 6.89 (E. Manning), 2 - TB: 7.38 (8th)
2008: 8.04 (Rivers) to 6.64 (Rodgers), 1 - TB: n/a
2007: 8.88 (Brady) to 6.30 (Cutler), 1 - TB: 8.88 (1st)
2006: 7.93 (P. Manning) to 6.08 (Brady), 0 - TB: 6.08 (10th)
2005: 8.03 (P. Manning) to 6.34 (Bulger), 1 - TB: 6.86 (5th)
2004: 9.78 (P. Manning) to 6.56 (Bulger), 2 - TB: 6.92 (8th)
2003: 7.81 (McNair) to 5.75 (Garcia), 0 - TB: 5.94 (9th) - that is basically a whole yard-per-attempt jump from 2003 to 2004.
2002: 7.67 (Bulger) to 5.93 (Vick), 0 - TB: 5.54 (19th)
2001: 7.41 (Warner) to 5.57 (Fiedler), 0 - TB: 5.39 (12th)

If you want a relative-to-league-average measure, PFR gives "indexed" values for a lot of passing stats, indexed like an IQ score where 100 is the mean and 15 is the standard deviation, so 115 is 68th percentile, 130 is 95th percentile, 145 is 99.6th percentile. The highest values of all time were Peyton in 2004 (153), Marino in 1984 (150), Rodgers in 2011 (147), Foles in 2013 (143), with Brady's 2007 in 5th (142).

How about passer rating? 1st, 10th, # of players > 100, and then Brady:

2018: 115.7 (Brees) to 99.7 (Cousins), 9 - TB: 97.7 (12th)
2017: 104.7 (A. Smith) to 95.4 (Wilson), 5 - TB: 102.8 (3rd)
2016: 117.1 (Ryan) to 95.6 (Mariota), 5 - TB: 112.2 (2nd)
2015: 110.1 (Wilson) to 95.4 (A. Smith), 6 - TB: 102.2 (4th)
2014: 113.2 (Romo) to 95.0 (Wilson), 4 - TB: 97.4 (5th)
2013: 119.2 (Foles, on 318 att) to 91.6 (Kaepernick), 7 - TB: 87.3 (17th)
2012: 108.8 (Rodgers) to 90.5 (Romo), 4 - TB: 98.7 (6th)
2011: 122.5 (Rodgers) to 90.1 (Roethlisberger), 4 - TB: 105.6 (3rd)
2010: 111.0 (Brady) to 91.9 (P. Manning), 4 - TB: 111.0 (1st)
2009: 109.6 (Brees) to 93.2 (Warner), 5 - TB: 96.2 (9th)
2008: 105.5 (Rivers) to 89.4 (Cassell!), 1 - TB: n/a
2007: 117.2 (Brady) to 89.8 (Warner), 3 - TB: 117.2 (1st)
2006: 101.0 (P. Manning) to 86.5 (Brunell), 1 - TB: 87.9 (9th)
2005: 104.1 (P. Manning) to 89.2 (Brees), 2 - TB: 92.3 (6th)
2004: 121.1 (P. Manning) to 92.4 (Favre), 4 - TB: 92.6 (9th)
2003: 100.4 (McNair) to 85.9 (Brady), 1 - TB: 85.9 (10th)
2002: 104.2 (Pennington?!) to 85.7 (Brady/Brunell), 1 - TB: 85.7 (T9th)
2001: 101.4 (Warner) to 84.1 (P. Manning), 1 - TB: 86.5 (6th)

Why show 1st to 10th? Gives a sense for what was an "above-average performance" that year, shows the year-to-year variability (high for 1st/2nd, but much lower variance for "the pack"), and much better illustrates the general progression in passing stats for the league. Also helps contextualize Brady's performance.

Fun fact, if you go by the indexed numbers for passer rating, the most frequent name in the top 20 seasons of all time is Otto Graham (who had 3: '46, '47, '53). The only other people with 2 seasons in the top 20 are Ed Danowski ('37-'38), Sammy Baugh ('37, '45), and Steve Young ('92, '94).
 

InstaFace

MDLzera
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
7,910

Boston Sports Info@bostonsportsinf


Tom Brady in all 9 Super Bowls, when the New England Patriots were losing or were tied in the 4th Qtr or OT

100/146 - 68.5% - 1,117 YDS
10 TD - 1 INT

111.0 Rate

you've got to be kidding me
I was wracking my brain to find that one interception, and the best I can figure is the 2nd play of the 4th quarter of the 2011 Super Bowl, where a pass for Gronk was intercepted by the Giants. But the Patriots were leading 17-15 at the time. I think their filters were not that tight or their text description doesn't quite match.
 

DourDoerr

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Oct 15, 2004
1,565
Berkeley, CA
Didn't see this otherwise posted:



Boston Sports Info@bostonsportsinf


Tom Brady in all 9 Super Bowls, when the New England Patriots were losing or were tied in the 4th Qtr or OT

100/146 - 68.5% - 1,117 YDS
10 TD - 1 INT

111.0 Rate

you've got to be kidding me
Thanks for this. A few things pop out to me. Twelve 1st downs on 13 receptions for Gronk. That's incredible. Scary to think how the offense will operate once he hangs it up. The three other TE's listed - Wiggins, Hernandez and Bennett went 3 for 6 for two 1st downs combined. Will BB go all out and trade up in the draft (if necessary) for a TE target he likes given the stakes enumerated here?

Also, Amendola was the security blanket's security blanket. An emergency Edelman who surpassed Edelman. And I think all of Redmond's production came on the last drive of 2001 SB. Thanks J.R.!
 
Last edited:

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
5,486
Didn't see this otherwise posted:



Boston Sports Info@bostonsportsinf


Tom Brady in all 9 Super Bowls, when the New England Patriots were losing or were tied in the 4th Qtr or OT

100/146 - 68.5% - 1,117 YDS
10 TD - 1 INT

111.0 Rate

you've got to be kidding me
Super Bowl 36
- Tied at 17: 5, 8 (1st), inc, 11 (1st), inc, 23 (1st), 6, inc - 5-8, 53 yds, 3 firsts (GW FG)

Super Bowl 38
- Down 22-21: 2, 5, inc, 6 (1st), 25 (1st), inc, 18 (1st), 1 (TD) - 6-8, 57 yds, TD, 3 firsts (GO AHEAD SCORE)
- Tied at 29: inc, 13 (1st), 13, 4, 17 (1st) - 4-5, 47 yds, FG, 2 firsts (GW FG)

Super Bowl 39
- Tied at 14: 14 (1st) - 1-1, 14 yds, 1 first (GW TD)

Super Bowl 42
- Down 10-7: 17 (1st), 3, inc, inc - 1-3, 17 yds, 1 first (failed to score)
- Down 10-7: 5, 10 (1st), 13 (1st), 4, 10 (1st), inc, 11 (1st), 12 (1st), inc, inc, 6 (TD) - 8-11, 71 yds, TD, 5 firsts (GO AHEAD TD)

Super Bowl 46
- Down 21-17: inc, inc, 19 (1st), 11 (1st), inc, inc, inc - 2-7, 30 yds, 2 firsts (failed to score)

Super Bowl 49
- Down 24-14: 4, 21 (1st), 9, inc, 21 (1st), inc, 4 (TD) - 5-7, 59 yds, TD, 2 firsts (TD DRIVE)
- Down 24-21: 8, 5 (1st), 9, 20 (1st), 0, 13 (1st), 7, 3 (TD) - 8-8, 65 yds, TD, 3 firsts (GW SCORE)

Super Bowl 51
- Down 28-9: 15 (1st), 7, inc, 18 (1st), 9, inc, 25 (1st), 2 - 6-8, 76 yds, 3 firsts (FG DRIVE)
- Down 28-12: 4, 12 (1st), 8, 6 (TD), 4-4, 30 yds, TD, 1 first (TD DRIVE)
- Down 28-20: inc, inc, 16 (1st), inc, 11 (1st), 23 (1st), 20 (1st), 13 (1st), 7 - 5-8, 90 yds, 5 firsts (SCORING DRIVE TO TIE GAME)
- Tied at 28: 6, 14 (1st), 18 (1st), -3, 15 (1st), inc - 5-6, 50 yds, 3 firsts (GW TD)

Super Bowl 52
- Down 32-26: 3, 7 (1st), 30 (1st), 9, inc, 4 (TD) - 5-6, 53 yds, TD, 2 firsts (GO AHEAD SCORE)
- Down 38-33: 8 - 1-1, 8 yds (failed to score)
- Down 41-33: inc, inc, inc, 13 (1st), inc, 11 (1st), 16, inc, inc - 3-9, 40 yds, 2 firsts (failed to score)

Super Bowl 53
- Tied at 3: inc - 0-1, 0 yds (failed to score)
- Tied at 3: 18 (1st), 13 (1st), 7, 29 (1st) - 4-4, 64 yds, 3 firsts (GW SCORE)

So overall....

When tied:
6 possessions
19-25 (76.0%)
228 yds
103.4 rating
12 first downs
5 scoring drives (3 TD, 2 FG)
5 times got the game-winning score
1 time failed to score

When behind:
12 possessions
54-80 (67.5%)
596 yds
6 TD
114.3 rating
29 first downs
8 scoring drives (7 TD, 1 FG)
1 time got the game-winning score
4 times failed to score

OVERALL:
18 possessions
73-105 (69.5%)
824 yds
6 TD
0 INT
111.7 rating
41 first downs
13 scoring drives (10 TD, 3 FG)
6 times got the game-winning score
5 times failed to score


So I'm not sure what I missed compared to that tweet, but the point remains: Brady's been unreal in those situations.
 

Koufax

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,274
Yeah, but if he's so good, why does he get behind in SO MANY SUPERBOWLS?

(Ducks).
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,781
Santa Monica, CA
Thank you for this. I was trying to figure out a way to articulate this idea, but I don't know a fraction of the history of the game that you display here, and I didn't want to make a post based on a bunch of "feelings" about the differences between the current players and those from earlier days.

This line is great:
"At 6'4, 225 pounds, he'd be one of the largest human beings on the field at any time,"

followed by this
"and probably be considered a pretty decent athlete by the standards of the time"

One caveat to all of this is Brady's success depends on his ability to have such good timing with his receivers on very technical routes, especially the slot guys and receiving RB's. Is it fair to wonder how he'd do with a different level of receiver out there? I mean, in a sense he's clearly shown that he can do more with less talent out there than just about anyone...just an interesting thought.

No reasonable person could actually doubt that Tom Brady would be better than Otto Graham (or Johnny Unitas...or anyone from the pre-Super Bowl era) if you dropped him off in a time machine in 1960 and told him to try out for an NFL team.

Not only would he be the greatest QB anyone had seen, they would also start him at middle linebacker and he'd be good there. Not only that, but if you dropped off Nathan Peterman in the same time machine, he'd be the second best QB they'd ever seen.

I have to assume that when people argue that Otto Graham is the best QB ever, or whatever athlete from 1955 is better than a modern player at the same position, that they're adjusting for time period and making the argument that historical player X is better relative to his peers.

Because otherwise it just doesn't pass the smell test, at least to me.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
12,692
No reasonable person could actually doubt that Tom Brady would be better than Otto Graham (or Johnny Unitas...or anyone from the pre-Super Bowl era) if you dropped him off in a time machine in 1960 and told him to try out for an NFL team.

Not only would he be the greatest QB anyone had seen, they would also start him at middle linebacker and he'd be good there. Not only that, but if you dropped off Nathan Peterman in the same time machine, he'd be the second best QB they'd ever seen.

I have to assume that when people argue that Otto Graham is the best QB ever, or whatever athlete from 1955 is better than a modern player at the same position, that they're adjusting for time period and making the argument that historical player X is better relative to his peers.

Because otherwise it just doesn't pass the smell test, at least to me.
I injected the pre-SB QB idea; yes, of course, I was thinking adjusting for era.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
5,486
I'm sure many here have seen this video, but it's been updated. :)


Disappointed they haven't added the GW touchdown drive early in the fourth against the Rams though.
 
Last edited:

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
59,669
Oregon
I'm sure many here have seen this video, but it's been updated. :)


Disappointed they haven't added the GW touchdown drive early in the fourth against the Rams though.
Just started watching, but a couple of things jumped out

I'd forgotten that AV had been 0-for-2 on FG in the Carloina game before the winning kick

And, damn you can tell when a running back has a certain something. Corey Dillon ran HARD in that Eagles game
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
21,021
Hingham, MA
Just started watching, but a couple of things jumped out

I'd forgotten that AV had been 0-for-2 on FG in the Carloina game before the winning kick

And, damn you can tell when a running back has a certain something. Corey Dillon ran HARD in that Eagles game
One of em was blocked.

Coincidentally, in the 2003 regular season game in Houston, he also had a missed FG and a blocked FG.

To that point, those were his only career misses indoors.
 

drbretto

guidence counselor
SoSH Member
Apr 10, 2009
9,239
Concord, NH
This one popped up on my feed. It's a fun watch


Edit: Didnt' realize this was some Trump fan channel, though. Don't watch it on Youtube if you don't want them to get the clicks.
 

DrewDawg

Dorito Dink
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
34,889
This one popped up on my feed. It's a fun watch


Edit: Didnt' realize this was some Trump fan channel, though. Don't watch it on Youtube if you don't want them to get the clicks.

The best line is when the guy asks Parker for a game Brady lost them and he said "The Eagles Super Bowl with the fumble at end." When asked for another he gave...the Snow Bowl game against the Raiders. Lol

Dude is a straight clown.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
26,267
AZ
One of em was blocked.

Coincidentally, in the 2003 regular season game in Houston, he also had a missed FG and a blocked FG.

To that point, those were his only career misses indoors.
In Vinatieri's defense, his long snapper had been teaching Sunday school for three years until being called out of retirement with 2 games to go in the regular season. On the morning of the Super Bowl he sliced his snapping hand open with a steak knife and already had the serious yips. He bounced the first one. The one that got blocked was a good snap, but apparently Walter and Vinatieri were all messed up at that point.
 

InstaFace

MDLzera
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
7,910
This one popped up on my feed. It's a fun watch


Edit: Didnt' realize this was some Trump fan channel, though. Don't watch it on Youtube if you don't want them to get the clicks.
Now that is definitely the first time I've seen the trolling capabilities of the alt-right used for good or for awesome.

That is "Daily Show video team"-level quality, when it comes to editing together videos of people speaking to show their bias, self-contradiction and/or stupidity.

Be aware, it gets super Trump-promote-y at the end. But other than that it's a very good hater-reel.
 

DavidTai

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
691
Herndon, VA
In Vinatieri's defense, his long snapper had been teaching Sunday school for three years until being called out of retirement with 2 games to go in the regular season. On the morning of the Super Bowl he sliced his snapping hand open with a steak knife and already had the serious yips. He bounced the first one. The one that got blocked was a good snap, but apparently Walter and Vinatieri were all messed up at that point.
Article on the snapper version of the yips here:

https://www.si.com/mmqb/2017/02/03/nfl-super-bowl-38-xxxviii-brian-kinchen-new-england-patriots
 

drbretto

guidence counselor
SoSH Member
Apr 10, 2009
9,239
Concord, NH
Now that is definitely the first time I've seen the trolling capabilities of the alt-right used for good or for awesome.

That is "Daily Show video team"-level quality, when it comes to editing together videos of people speaking to show their bias, self-contradiction and/or stupidity.

Be aware, it gets super Trump-promote-y at the end. But other than that it's a very good hater-reel.
Yeah, I didn't even notice the Trump part of it at all until i had already posted it (and only watched 80% of it). I almost took it down, but the video itself was good. If you click on the embedded link in the browser, it shouldn't give them any clicks, though. If I understand that correctly.

Still, though, ignore the source, this video had me chuckling all the way through. I hope people are spamming him with the link.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
21,021
Hingham, MA
Pats are 5-0 in playoff games where Brady doesn't throw a TD.

Rest of the NFL is something like 13-48 in such games since 2001.
 
Last edited: