Okay, what are your theories for difference?

[Jeremy Crowhurst]

Honestly, I'm having trouble understanding what this thread is about. I can't tell if any of it is serious. Maybe I'm getting a little thick in my advancing years, but when a team goes from Reche Caldwell to Randy Moss, or Freddie Solomon to Jerry Rice... I mean, really? We're talking about this? It's about Jeff Kemp being replaced by Steve Young as the backup QB? Really?

Makes sense to me. And aside from the stats, can anyone honestly say Brady has gotten better or worse? From the second he stepped on the field he's been an absolute killer in critical moments, which is what it's all about.

I'd argue, if anything, he's gotten very slightly worse (age will do that to you); didn't see him throw bad passes at the end of his earlier Super Bowls like he did against the Giants.

But apparently, having such thoughts caused quite a dust up. Not sure why.

It is interesting, in that context. You get these things that happen in the course of a person's career that have a monumental impact, so that assessing the impact of the other factors becomes a real challenge. With QBs, there are two forces moving in opposite directions: physical ability, speed, and reaction time start to diminish ever so slightly, but the knowledge of the game, reading defenses, and overall craftiness improve.

[Bryan]

And aside from the stats, can anyone honestly say Brady has gotten better or worse?

I don't remember young Tom Brady being such a large part of the Patriots success. From 2007-present, the Pats offense has ranked higher in total points than the Pats defense 7 of 8 seasons in which Brady was QB. From 2001-2006, when the Pats won 3 SBs, the Pats offense ranked higher in total points than the Pats defense exactly once (in 2002 when they went 9-7 and missed the playoffs). Your implication that Tom Brady was actually slightly worse in 2007 (50 TDs, 117 rating) because at age 30 his talents were already starting to decline is...uh...interesting.

Also, not sure what you mean when you say "aside from the stats", its like you are saying "aside from what we can actually measure", which seems counterintuitive....aside from the stats can anyone honestly say that OJ Simpson got better or worse after his rookie year?

[mwald]

And aside from the stats, can anyone honestly say Brady has gotten better or worse?

I don't remember young Tom Brady being such a large part of the Patriots success. From 2007-present, the Pats offense has ranked higher in total points than the Pats defense 7 of 8 seasons in which Brady was QB. From 2001-2006, when the Pats won 3 SBs, the Pats offense ranked higher in total points than the Pats defense exactly once (in 2002 when they went 9-7 and missed the playoffs). Your implication that Tom Brady was actually slightly worse in 2007 (50 TDs, 117 rating) because at age 30 his talents were already starting to decline is...uh...interesting.

Also, not sure what you mean when you say "aside from the stats", its like you are saying "aside from what we can actually measure", which seems counterintuitive....aside from the stats can anyone honestly say that OJ Simpson got better or worse after his rookie year?

Other than that game winning drive in the Super Bowl when he put the team on his back as a wet-behind-the-ears second year man, you mean?

To your second point, I'd argue that looking at stats is counter intuitive. Intuition would dictate going with your eyes, or what you see. But stats are easier to make a case with: they don't move, so you can do with them what you want. Which is why most people live there.

I like to analyze how well the car is moving forward vs. trying to see patterns in the exhaust fumes. Just a preference.

[Bryan]

Other than that game winning drive in the Super Bowl when he put the team on his back as a wet-behind-the-ears second year man, you mean?

Makes sense...directing your team on a 53 yard drive so your kicker can make a 48 yard field goal means that when the same QB has a record-breaking season 6 years later, the logical conclusion to draw is that the QB has gotten slightly worse with age. Jim Kelly led his team on a longer drive (61 yards) for a shorter FG attempt (47 yards) at the end of SB XXV...I guess if Norwood had made that FG, Jim Kelly would be one of those rare QBs who somehow got slightly better with age.

To your second point, I'd argue that looking at stats is counter intuitive. Intuition would dictate going with your eyes, or what you see. But stats are easier to make a case with: they don't move, so you can do with them what you want. Which is why most people live there.

I like to analyze how well the car is moving forward vs. trying to see patterns in the exhaust fumes. Just a preference.

So when you analyze the car moving forward, you ignore things such as miles-per-hour and instead use only your eyes (but not your ears, because of the Doppler Effect) to conclude "that car is moving fast". I'm not understanding why its an either/or scenario...can't we use our eyes as well as stats? Again, when you say that Tom Brady was slightly worse in 2007, is that based on your eyes, or on what happened in the Super Bowl?

[JWL]

So... we're asking why it is that Montana's numbers went up when he started playing with the greatest receiver of all time, why Brady's numbers went up when he started playing with one of the greatest receivers of all time, and why Manning's numbers went up when the second future Hall of Fame receiver he played with had his breakout season?

Definitely it's the girlfriends.

This is what's known in some parts as opening the door and letting fresh air blow out the flatulence.

Have to ask, though, did you get permission to say that first?

Honestly, I'm having trouble understanding what this thread is about. I can't tell if any of it is serious. Maybe I'm getting a little thick in my advancing years, but when a team goes from Reche Caldwell to Randy Moss, or Freddie Solomon to Jerry Rice... I mean, really? We're talking about this? It's about Jeff Kemp being replaced by Steve Young as the backup QB? Really?

I also don't know what is going on in this thread. It reminds me of the first day in my high school poetry class in September of 1992. The teacher walked into the room and wrote, "Jeremy spoke ___ ___ ___" on the chalkboard. He asked all of us to fill in the blanks on a piece of paper. Those students unfamiliar with Pearl Jam, and I was one of them, did not produce correct answers. Nobody seemed to know what was going on including the kid who answered correctly. Then the teacher explained we would be analyzing song lyrics for much of the semester.

I am waiting for John Turney to tell us something but I don't know what it could be.

[Bryan]

I am waiting for John Turney to tell us something but I don't know what it could be.

I've learned that Tom Brady's career peaked in 2001, then, like a fine wine, began its steady, inevitable decline.

Hmm.

[mwald]

Other than that game winning drive in the Super Bowl when he put the team on his back as a wet-behind-the-ears second year man, you mean?

Makes sense...directing your team on a 53 yard drive so your kicker can make a 48 yard field goal means that when the same QB has a record-breaking season 6 years later, the logical conclusion to draw is that the QB has gotten slightly worse with age. Jim Kelly led his team on a longer drive (61 yards) for a shorter FG attempt (47 yards) at the end of SB XXV...I guess if Norwood had made that FG, Jim Kelly would be one of those rare QBs who somehow got slightly better with age.

To your second point, I'd argue that looking at stats is counter intuitive. Intuition would dictate going with your eyes, or what you see. But stats are easier to make a case with: they don't move, so you can do with them what you want. Which is why most people live there.

I like to analyze how well the car is moving forward vs. trying to see patterns in the exhaust fumes. Just a preference.

So when you analyze the car moving forward, you ignore things such as miles-per-hour and instead use only your eyes (but not your ears, because of the Doppler Effect) to conclude "that car is moving fast". I'm not understanding why its an either/or scenario...can't we use our eyes as well as stats? Again, when you say that Tom Brady was slightly worse in 2007, is that based on your eyes, or on what happened in the Super Bowl?

Hey Bryan, you're welcome to use anything you want. Just telling you what works for me. Just more interested in determining who will win than I am opining on what already happened based on numbers that are the result of things, not the cause of them.

And yeah, I think Tom Brady is almost exactly the same player today as he was the day he stepped on the field - a guy who delivers and will cut your heart out if he has the opportunity. And, based on my eyes, I believe him to be ever so slightly not quite as good as he once was. Which is still far better than anyone else.

[Bryan]

Hey Bryan, you're welcome to use anything you want. Just telling you what works for me.

I guess that's my question, what exactly is it that "works" for you? Thus far, all I can tell is that you watched SB XXXVI, SB XLIII, evidently missed SB KLIX, and then drew the conclusion that Tom Brady has gotten worse with age. What specifically about Tom Brady's performance, subjectively speaking, leads you to say that he has declined ever since his early SB-winning seasons? That's all I am asking.

[mwald]

Hey Bryan, you're welcome to use anything you want. Just telling you what works for me.

Thus far, all I can tell is that you watched SB XXXVI, SB XLIII, evidently missed SB KLIX, and then drew the conclusion that Tom Brady has gotten worse with age.

Yep. You nailed it.

[Apbaball]

Well this is kind of like saying Peyton Manning pre-2004 and Peyton Manning post-2004, what changed with Peyton Manning? Not a whole lot, what changed FOR him was rules (whether changes or "emphasis") - which is the same for all QB's in the period, the gradual increase in stats is essentially tied directly to the year-to-year rule changes to make passing easier and to further protect the QB's (and as the changes went along, to further protect the receivers) ... Drew Brees entire career - when looked at statistically - is basically pre-glorified 7 on 7 and then playing in the glorified 7 on 7 era.

Brett Favre's three best seasons of completion percentage were (not in order): 2007, 2008 and 2009. You'll note that he played for THREE different teams in three consecutive seasons. What changed for Favre? Did he become a much better player on his way to 40 years old? Stats don't tell the story, as they usually don't.

Brady would be no different. Plus, he plays for a coach/organization who are great at taking advantage of playing rules. Illegal contact? Gets better receivers. Already over-protected QB's get new rules to become even more protected? Build around QB. Middle of the field gradually becomes more and more of a free pass? TE's, slots. Competing passes easier than ever? Throw the ball.

Brady improved like any veteran player improves (game slows down, he himself is particularly a hard worker) but he statistically 'improved' because that's the sport now.

While I am sure having better receivers and more experience helps, I think this deserves some analysis. How much did the average passer rating increase during the 2000s? Shouldn't this be quantified to determine how much can be explained by the rule changes?