OT - Patriots

[Waquoit]

Which guy was Megatron again?

 

[I Bleed Blue]

Which guy was Megatron again?

Revis made him his bitch on that play in the end zone.

 

[Cheeky]

I think we're watching the end of an era. They are just not very good . . . they will not go anywhere. They really need to start revamping the team if they want to compete in the future. But they are not what they once were.

BUMPING this thread, because, both in terms of wrongness and timing, this may go down as the worst prediction since Dewey/Truman.

 

[jleves]

I think we're watching the end of an era. They are just not very good - getting crushed right now by a 1-2 team. They will probably make the playoffs because they play in the weakest conference in football, but they will not go anywhere. Brady is 37 and last I checked, not getting any younger.

BUMPING this thread, because, both in terms of wrongness and timing, this may go down as the worst prediction since Dewey/Truman.

I think I already addressed this:

I have to admit - I was premature on my original post. It really looked bad after that game. I should know better than to underestimate what Belichick can do with any given roster. If you're starting a new team and can have any QB or head coach, you take Belicheck and let him work. QBs can get hurt, get old quickly, or go through bad spells. Genius on the sidelines doesn't evaporate easily.

 

[Cheeky]

I think I already addressed this:

Love you like a brother, but you're going to have to own this one all the way to February, at least! If the Pats beat GB in GB in 6 days, they are going to be the SB favorites.

 

[upstater]

I think I already addressed this:

Coaches have a shelf-life too though.

When you think about it, the great ones, outside of say Shula, only last as long as the great QBs. Brady came into the league in 2000. If he does what he says and plays at least another 3 years, that takes him to 2018. 18 years. That's a lot.

If you made the choice 3 years ago between Belichick and Andrew Luck, do you take Belichick? I think a good argument can be made that you take Luck because Luck is going to last longer than Belichick.

 

[jleves]

Coaches have a shelf-life too though.

When you think about it, the great ones, outside of say Shula, only last as long as the great QBs. Brady came into the league in 2000. If he does what he says and plays at least another 3 years, that takes him to 2018. 18 years. That's a lot.

If you made the choice 3 years ago between Belichick and Andrew Luck, do you take Belichick? I think a good argument can be made that you take Luck because Luck is going to last longer than Belichick.

First, let me say I'm an Arizona Cardinal fan - but in the AFC, the Patriots would be one of my favorite teams.

Luck or Belichick, I take Belichick. Three years ago he was 59 looking like he has a ton of longevity. Even today at 62, he has at least 8 more years. And he is a freakin genius. I wouldn't be a bit surprised that he could be diagnosed with aspergers. If you spilled toothpicks on the floor, he would know how many there were. If you spilled players on a field, he could arrange them in the most advantages order in seconds.

Brady is a witch, no doubt, but Belichick would find another witch or reinvent the team around a new non-witch to be highly competitive.

I'm old enough to have watched Shula, Landry, Walsh, Madden and Parcells all coach. Belichick is better than them all in my opinion.

 

[mauconnfan]

Hate Belichick as a person but I agree. If not better than all of them, he's as good as all and better than most! Heck he made Tuna what he was with the Giants with his defenses!

 

[upstater]

I love BB. Mostly I love the way he runs the team. He actually made me a football fan first, over baseball. Primarily because of his philosophy in stocking the team. Leave egos at the door. Let's bring as many solid players in as we can, and no, you're not going to swallow our salary cap unless your talent is otherwordly (Revis).

All that being said, I think that at the end of the day, it's Brady playing a system that was instituted by Charlie Weis.

 

[Husky25]

You're not implying that Brady is a system QB are you?

Brady's most productive individual seasons were post-Weist and Weist's system has not worked anywhere but New England...with Brady.

 

[upstater]

You're not implying that Brady is a system QB are you?

Brady's most productive individual seasons were post-Weist and Weist's system has not worked anywhere but New England...with Brady.

I don't even know what a system QB is. If you ask me, the entire NFL borrowed Weis's system, which was just a hybrid of Ray Perkins/West Coast. The Patriots have not moved much from Weis's system other than adding tempo to it.

Manning has also played the same system his entire career. So if Brady is a system QB, then Manning is too.

The term seems practically meaningless outside of college.

I would also say that Weis's system did work when Weis was OC at other places, when Weis was with the Jets (Vinny Testaverde and Pennington), when Weis's people like O'Brien to it to Penn State and I bet it will work in Houston as well. Chip Kelly and the Patriots are tight, by the way. The offensive coaching staffs spent a lot of time with Kelly years before he got the Eagles job.

 

[Husky25]

I don't even know what a system QB is. If you ask me, the entire NFL borrowed Weis's system, which was just a hybrid of Ray Perkins/West Coast. The Patriots have not moved much from Weis's system other than adding tempo to it.

Manning has also played the same system his entire career. So if Brady is a system QB, then Manning is too.

The term seems practically meaningless outside of college.

I would also say that Weis's system did work when Weis was OC at other places, when Weis was with the Jets (Vinny Testaverde and Pennington), when Weis's people like O'Brien to it to Penn State and I bet it will work in Houston as well. Chip Kelly and the Patriots are tight, by the way. The offensive coaching staffs spent a lot of time with Kelly years before he got the Eagles job.

I thought we were gonna go 'round and 'round again, Upstater , but I couldn't agree more.

Notre Dame, Kansas City, Florida, KU... Players play. Weist was always wrong for college football, IMO. College coaches have to have a keen eye on recruiting and development. At the college level, Weist is not a program (re)builder. For the most part, NFL Players are already highly motivated and the OC doesn't really have that much do with development or selection of player personnel.

Anyhow, since 2014 basically represents season #19 out of the last 22 in which the 'Skins have dropped a heater on themselves, the Patriots are my only hope at maintaining my football sanity through January.

 

[Matt (Chicago)]

I thought we were gonna go 'round and 'round again, Upstater , but I couldn't agree more.

Notre Dame, Kansas City, Florida, KU... Players play. Weist was always wrong for college football, IMO. College coaches have to have a keen eye on recruiting and development. At the college level, Weist is not a program (re)builder. For the most part, NFL Players are already highly motivated and the OC doesn't really have that much do with development or selection of player personnel.

Anyhow, since 2014 basically represents season #19 out of the last 22 in which the 'Skins have dropped a heater on themselves, the Patriots are my only hope at maintaining my football sanity through January.

Charlie Weis*, TJ Weist

 

[Husky25]

Charlie Weis*, TJ Weist

oops.

 

[johnhuskies95]

If you go post rules change in 2006, both Brady and Rodgers are in the midst of their 7th season. Since the rules change, Brady is 236 Tds to 61 Ints. Rodgers is 215 TDs to 54 Ints. I would not call this so much better for Rodgers though it is slightly better.

Rodgers is at 25.1% Ints to TDs while Brady is at 25.8%. They are very similar.

But let me give you an example of why I don't like QB ratings.

In 2012, Rodgers had one of his best seasons ever. He was touted for the NFL MVP and finished a very close second to Adrian Petersen. This is what Rodgers did:

39 TDs, 8 INTs, 4,295 yards, 108 rating. Those are fantastic MVP stats.

But, what do they miss?

While the stats are better than Brady's line...

34 TDs, 8 INTs, 4,827 yards, 98.7 rating

...they put a heavy emphasis on TD passes and completely eliminate rushing TDs from the equation. The Patriots were not a running juggernaut that year, and yet they ran the ball for 26 TDs. They passed for 2.5x more yards than rushing yards. Brady himself had 4 of those rushing TDs.

The Packers had 7 rushing TDs.

To me, this is a stat that is totally ignored by QB-centric stats, and it misses a huge part of the game, which is how the QB helps his team get into position to score, and actual scoring on the ground.

I think this is part of the new mania for fantasy stats. People used to have a much more balanced vision of what a QB did for his team, but right now we're looking for stats that isolate scoring only when the QB passes the ball forward, and not everything he does to get his team into that position in the first place.

Almost any efficiency stat in NFL history is going to have Rodgers at the top or in the top 3. If you don't value those those then fine, but other types of stats are much more flawed.

And of course the passer rating isn't going to take into account team rushing. It's an individual stat.

 

[johnhuskies95]

If you go post rules change in 2006, both Brady and Rodgers are in the midst of their 7th season. Since the rules change, Brady is 236 Tds to 61 Ints. Rodgers is 215 TDs to 54 Ints. I would not call this so much better for Rodgers though it is slightly better.

Rodgers is at 25.1% Ints to TDs while Brady is at 25.8%. They are very similar.

But let me give you an example of why I don't like QB ratings.

In 2012, Rodgers had one of his best seasons ever. He was touted for the NFL MVP and finished a very close second to Adrian Petersen. This is what Rodgers did:

39 TDs, 8 INTs, 4,295 yards, 108 rating. Those are fantastic MVP stats.

But, what do they miss?

While the stats are better than Brady's line...

34 TDs, 8 INTs, 4,827 yards, 98.7 rating

...they put a heavy emphasis on TD passes and completely eliminate rushing TDs from the equation. The Patriots were not a running juggernaut that year, and yet they ran the ball for 26 TDs. They passed for 2.5x more yards than rushing yards. Brady himself had 4 of those rushing TDs.

The Packers had 7 rushing TDs.

To me, this is a stat that is totally ignored by QB-centric stats, and it misses a huge part of the game, which is how the QB helps his team get into position to score, and actual scoring on the ground.

I think this is part of the new mania for fantasy stats. People used to have a much more balanced vision of what a QB did for his team, but right now we're looking for stats that isolate scoring only when the QB passes the ball forward, and not everything he does to get his team into that position in the first place.

Almost any efficiency stat in NFL history is going to have Rodgers at the top or in the top 3. If you don't value those those then fine, but other types of stats are much more flawed.

And of course the passer rating isn't going to take into account team rushing. It's an individual stat.

 

[upstater]

Almost any efficiency stat in NFL history is going to have Rodgers at the top or in the top 3. If you don't value those those then fine, but other types of stats are much more flawed.

And of course the passer rating isn't going to take into account team rushing. It's an individual stat.

I can't put it any plainer than I already have. The QB's play on the field is not captured by the stats you're showing me. Any time the media or analysts go gaga because a QB threw 5 more TDs, even while his team scored 19 fewer rushing TDs, shows that the level of evaluation isn't rising above a fascination with fantasy stats.

This is why I love the NFL so much. Because pro baseball and pro basketball are lorded over by stat geeks that want all athletic performance boiled down to numbers. Football is a sport with so many intangibles not addressed by stats. Especially passing yards.

Soccer and hockey have even more intangibles than football.

An individual stat that doesn't take into account the QBs contribution to rushing TDs should only be of interest to fantasy stat people. Not people evaluating a QB.

 

[upstater]

Reprise:

On Saturday, toward the end of game, before his 2nd INT, Flacco was shown to have a higher passer rating than Brady. Flacco had thrown for 250 yards, while Brady had thrown for 350. Completion % was the same. Same amount of INTs. Flacco had 4 TDs thrown and 100 fewer yards. Brady threw for 100 more yards, had 3 TDs thrown, and ran another one in himself. And Flacco's rating was 10 points higher. And this is how stats lie.

 

[superjohn]

Dude, you are arguing with yourself. Rodgers has the best stats ever. I'll throw all the stats out the window though, the reason I think Rodgers is the best I've ever seen is because I have eyes and he's easily the most talented QB I've seen, he is excellent in every single aspect of being a quarterback.

 

[upstater]

Blah stats.

And get some glasses.

 

[upstater]

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/nfl-playoff-power-rankings-who-do-you-love/

3. Aaron Rodgers

Possibly the best quarterback I have ever seen. On the other hand …

2. Tom Brady

Is Aaron Rodgers just an off-brand version of Tom Brady?

Think about it.

• They were both overlooked and doubted initially and given thatunderdog label, but where Rodgers fell all of 20 picks, Brady fell six rounds.
• They bounced back to take over the starting job from entrenched incumbents, but when Brady did it, he went and won three out of four Super Bowls.
• They put up big numbers, but when Brady was really let loose in the Patriots offense, he put up numbers Rodgers has never touched.
• Oh, Aaron Rodgers dates Olivia Munn? Well, Tom Brady married Gisele.
• They are both cocky in a dickish kind of way, but Brady pulls it off better. He’s the more convincing villain, and he’s also the villain who would be most fun to be friends with.
• They are both funny, but … Brady wins again.

Just saying: There’s been a lot of talk this year about Rodgers eventually turning into the greatest quarterback of all time, but think back to what we’ve seen the past 10 years and what we’re still seeing now. If we’re watching potentially the best quarterback of all time this weekend, it’s probably not Rodgers. For reference, go back and watch that throw to LaFell last week.

 

[mauconnfan]

Reprise:

On Saturday, toward the end of game, before his 2nd INT, Flacco was shown to have a higher passer rating than Brady. Flacco had thrown for 250 yards, while Brady had thrown for 350. Completion % was the same. Same amount of INTs. Flacco had 4 TDs thrown and 100 fewer yards. Brady threw for 100 more yards, had 3 TDs thrown, and ran another one in himself. And Flacco's rating was 10 points higher. And this is how stats lie.

Stats didn't lie here - Flacco was the better QB that day for the whole game. What's the problem with that? He's not as good as Brady but he was real good that day. You need to quit worrying about glasses and take off the Patriotic ones. Brady's great everyone knows that but if someone has an argument that Rogers is better they have a good one. And your rebuttal is also a good one with Brady being the better of the 2. It's just that close on top of the mountain.

 

[boba]

Stats didn't lie here - Flacco was the better QB that day for the whole game. What's the problem with that? He's not as good as Brady but he was real good that day. You need to quit worrying about glasses and take off the Patriotic ones. Brady's great everyone knows that but if someone has an argument that Rogers is better they have a good one. And your rebuttal is also a good one with Brady being the better of the 2. It's just that close on top of the mountain.

There's a difference between lying and and incompleteness. Flacco had a bonehead turnover overturned on a ticky tack defensive holding call and another bad throw awarded a PI on a similar ticky tack call. While Brady made a costly mistake at the end of the first half, he had time to overcome it. Flacco made a costly mistake without any chance of redeeming himself. The statistics did not tell the complete story, the final score is the one that told the correct version of events.

 

[mauconnfan]

There's a difference between lying and and incompleteness. Flacco had a bonehead turnover overturned on a ticky tack defensive holding call and another bad throw awarded a PI on a similar ticky tack call. While Brady made a costly mistake at the end of the first half, he had time to overcome it. Flacco made a costly mistake without any chance of redeeming himself. The statistics did not tell the complete story, the final score is the one that told the correct version of events.

The only event it tells is the final score. They were both real good, Flacco deserved better but his defense couldn't stop the other guy either. Both deserved the W but the Pats defense woke up and made plays while the Ravens D wasn't up for the challenge. Few have been.

 

[Gampeltiles]

Watching the game tonight reminded me of watching a UConn football game almost unwatchable

At least w/UCONN football I have yet to awaken with Deflated Balls.