Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Apbaball wrote:

Reaser wrote: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?

That's pretty easy to do. Here are the average passer ratings for each year of Brady's career, followed by his rating, his rating minus the average rating for that year, and his rating as a percentage of the average rating (which I think is the best way to compare them). 2008 isn't shown because that's the season he got hurt in the first game after throwing only 11 passes.

2001 76.6 86.5 +9.9 1.13
2002 78.6 85.7 +7.1 1.09
2003 76.6 85.9 +9.3 1.14
2004 80.9 92.6 +11.7 1.14
2005 78.2 92.3 +14.1 1.18
2006 78.5 87.9 +9.4 1.12
2007 80.9 117.2 +36.3 1.45
2009 81.2 92.7 +11.5 1.14
2010 82.2 111.0 +28.8 1.35
2011 82.5 105.6 +23.1 1.28
2012 83.8 98.7 +14.9 1.18
2013 84.1 87.3 +3.2 1.04
2014 87.1 97.4 +10.3 1.12
2015 88.4 102.2 +13.8 1.16

Note the big jump in 2007, the year Welker and Moss arrived. By this measurement, his performance dropped way down in 2009, when he still had Welker and Moss, but he was coming back from that 2008 injury. It went way up again the following season, when Moss played only 4 games and had just 9 receptions for being cut. It stayed relatively high in 2011, when he had Welker, Gronkowski, and Hernandez, but leveled off in 2012 and has stayed about the same ever since.

Based on this analysis, it looks as if his apparent surge after 2006 was really built on 3 years when he was way above average, 2007, 2010, and 2011. For the last four years, he's been playing at about the same level from 2001 through 2006.

rhickok1109 wrote:
That's pretty easy to do. Here are the average passer ratings for each year of Brady's career, followed by his rating, his rating minus the average rating for that year, and his rating as a percentage of the average rating (which I think is the best way to compare them). 2008 isn't shown because that's the season he got hurt in the first game after throwing only 11 passes.

2001 76.6 86.5 +9.9 1.13
2002 78.6 85.7 +7.1 1.09
2003 76.6 85.9 +9.3 1.14
2004 80.9 92.6 +11.7 1.14
2005 78.2 92.3 +14.1 1.18
2006 78.5 87.9 +9.4 1.12
2007 80.9 117.2 +36.3 1.45
2009 81.2 92.7 +11.5 1.14
2010 82.2 111.0 +28.8 1.35
2011 82.5 105.6 +23.1 1.28
2012 83.8 98.7 +14.9 1.18
2013 84.1 87.3 +3.2 1.04
2014 87.1 97.4 +10.3 1.12
2015 88.4 102.2 +13.8 1.16

Note the big jump in 2007, the year Welker and Moss arrived. By this measurement, his performance dropped way down in 2009, when he still had Welker and Moss, but he was coming back from that 2008 injury. It went way up again the following season, when Moss played only 4 games and had just 9 receptions for being cut. It stayed relatively high in 2011, when he had Welker, Gronkowski, and Hernandez, but leveled off in 2012 and has stayed about the same ever since.

Based on this analysis, it looks as if his apparent surge after 2006 was really built on 3 years when he was way above average, 2007, 2010, and 2011. For the last four years, he's been playing at about the same level from 2001 through 2006.

That is a good way to do it, but you are off on your passer ratings, Your are using net passing yards, rather than passing yards. It makes a small difference, for example passing yards in 2014 were 128898 and net were 121247 and that makes the difference between 87.1 and 88.8. When the passer rating is applied to Brady or anyone they use gross yards, sacks are not included, so for an apples to apples comparison, passing yards has to be used, not net passing yards.

But, you chart still shows similar things and it's a good analysis, but also, remember he wasn't having "big seasons" prior to 2007. No MVP seasons, No First-team All-Pro seasons. I think the Welker and Moss thing was huge, as was his workouts which he began with his "guru" in 2005-2006 time frame. Josh McD maybe opened up playing calling, too, with Moss. So, there may not be one answer, maybe a many front storm that caused a spike

mwald wrote:

Jeremy Crowhurst wrote: 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, almost imperceptibly, 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.

I think people can say Brady has gotten better and they are being honest. You seem to dismiss it, though. Now that you have asked the question "can anyone honestly say Brady has gotten better". You may not like reading it, but those thoughts are out there, and I suspect they are being honest.

"Guregian: Tom Brady's increased mobility makes him even better"
"Ike Taylor: Brady Looks Like He’s Gotten Better In Pocket"
Tom Brady Surprised By His Improved Deep-Ball Accuracy In Patriots’ Passing Game
At 38, Brady playing better than anyone, including his younger self
Rex Ryan wants to know why Tom Brady isn't getting worse as he ages
New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady is looking better than ever
(and there are a lot more of these)

Add that to what I posted about what Brady said about himself. I suspect Brady is being honest. So, it seems honest people can disagree and that the answer to your question ""can anyone honestly say Brady has gotten better". is YES.

So, it is also odd, to me at least, that you dismiss the stats. You've done it twice. Everyone in the PFRA knows about stats, they know that stats can be used to lie, but they should know that stats are just accumulations of what happened in the plays of a game, inherently they are benign.

But, to dismiss them as though they are nothing is disingenuous. Stats are not everything, which is why I mentioned the quotes, the All-Pros, the MVPs, the offensive player of the year awards. They are SOMETHING. They have SOME value.

And when you look at them there is a line at 2007. He was consistently and 88 rated passer with similar completion %, TDs, and INTs and YPA. Then, he was pretty consistently doing better in all of those, over a long period. It was like a .300 hitter who averaged 27 HRs and 100 RBIS, going to a .330 hitter 38 HR and 130 RBI performance on average, to use a baseball analogy.

Finally, it's not your thoughts that may have caused a dust up, it's could be the tone and attitude in which you express them, so cock-sure and dismissive of other's thoughts while you use non-quantifiable terms such as "killer". How can anyone debate with that?

And to answer this snark- "Oh! You're talking about the statistical output." I would say, no, not only statistical output, but wins and losses and MVPs and other things I have mentioned, which are clear in the posts.

However, perhaps if you actually buttressed your opinion with more than "killer" and "I see no difference". Okay, since many others who are near and around Brady, (and I suspect you knew this narrative was out there for last 7-8 years) say he has improved, tell us why he is the same now as he was in 2001-2006.

Stats say he's not the same. Players, coaches, reporters say he's not the same. Those who vote for awards see a difference. Why are you right?

Bryan wrote:

mwald wrote: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?

Well said. And I think the Pats defense in early 2000s was underrated, it was excellent. Not so much lately, not bad, but in 2002-2004 or so (going by memory) they were a top 5 defense. Brady does seem to have to carry the team more than before.

JWL wrote:
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.

Not telling you anything, nor do I have any answer. I wanted discussion on this topic, to see what others may say. PFRA is full of excellent researchers who know football and know how to analyze not only stats, but the meaning behind them. Also, this board is not very active anymore, it's lost a lot of steam, so the duel purpose is to see what others thought of the differences and to create discussion. I am not saying Brady is on HGH or that he's cheating, or that the ball inflation makes a difference. After a few posts, I said I think it's a few things, one, his weapon arsenal increased with Moss and Welker and a McD may have opened things up more than Weiss, and that he began workouts to get quicker, and then threw in Giselle for humor.

I was hoping to do similar posts with Montana, and Elway in next few days, because there are trends on both as well. I spoke to Elway in 1998-99 about it and the reason was clear to him and he brought up those evil stats and passer rating.

It was a post to generate discussion.

JohnTurney wrote:

mwald wrote:

Jeremy Crowhurst wrote: 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, almost imperceptibly, 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.

I think people can say Brady has gotten better and they are being honest. You seem to dismiss it, though. Now that you have asked the question "can anyone honestly say Brady has gotten better". You may not like reading it, but those thoughts are out there, and I suspect they are being honest.

"Guregian: Tom Brady's increased mobility makes him even better"
"Ike Taylor: Brady Looks Like He’s Gotten Better In Pocket"
Tom Brady Surprised By His Improved Deep-Ball Accuracy In Patriots’ Passing Game
At 38, Brady playing better than anyone, including his younger self
Rex Ryan wants to know why Tom Brady isn't getting worse as he ages
New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady is looking better than ever
(and there are a lot more of these)

Add that to what I posted about what Brady said about himself. I suspect Brady is being honest. So, it seems honest people can disagree and that the answer to your question ""can anyone honestly say Brady has gotten better". is YES.

So, it is also odd, to me at least, that you dismiss the stats. You've done it twice. Everyone in the PFRA knows about stats, they know that stats can be used to lie, but they should know that stats are just accumulations of what happened in the plays of a game, inherently they are benign.

But, to dismiss them as though they are nothing is disingenuous. Stats are not everything, which is why I mentioned the quotes, the All-Pros, the MVPs, the offensive player of the year awards. They are SOMETHING. They have SOME value.

And when you look at them there is a line at 2007. He was consistently and 88 rated passer with similar completion %, TDs, and INTs and YPA. Then, he was pretty consistently doing better in all of those, over a long period. It was like a .300 hitter who averaged 27 HRs and 100 RBIS, going to a .330 hitter 38 HR and 130 RBI performance on average, to use a baseball analogy.

Finally, it's not your thoughts that may have caused a dust up, it's could be the tone and attitude in which you express them, so cock-sure and dismissive of other's thoughts while you use non-quantifiable terms such as "killer". How can anyone debate with that?

And to answer this snark- "Oh! You're talking about the statistical output." I would say, no, not only statistical output, but wins and losses and MVPs and other things I have mentioned, which are clear in the posts.

However, perhaps if you actually buttressed your opinion with more than "killer" and "I see no difference". Okay, since many others who are near and around Brady, (and I suspect you knew this narrative was out there for last 7-8 years) say he has improved, tell us why he is the same now as he was in 2001-2006.

Stats say he's not the same. Players, coaches, reporters say he's not the same. Those who vote for awards see a difference. Why are you right?

John (batting my eyelashes), I'm sorry. I just can't date you. I'm married.

JohnTurney wrote:

JWL wrote:
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.

Not telling you anything, nor do I have any answer. I wanted discussion on this topic, to see what others may say. PFRA is full of excellent researchers who know football and know how to analyze not only stats, but the meaning behind them. Also, this board is not very active anymore, it's lost a lot of steam, so the duel purpose is to see what others thought of the differences and to create discussion. I am not saying Brady is on HGH or that he's cheating, or that the ball inflation makes a difference. After a few posts, I said I think it's a few things, one, his weapon arsenal increased with Moss and Welker and a McD may have opened things up more than Weiss, and that he began workouts to get quicker, and then threw in Giselle for humor.

I was hoping to do similar posts with Montana, and Elway in next few days, because there are trends on both as well. I spoke to Elway in 1998-99 about it and the reason was clear to him and he brought up those evil stats and passer rating.

It was a post to generate discussion.

Okay, cool. I got thrown off by some of the early posts in the thread.

The changes in the sport helped greatly. I also think Belichick is smarter than most and has figured out the best way to play. Sometimes it is not even important to run the ball. See the win over the Jets this season and the first half of the playoff win vs the Chiefs.

JohnTurney wrote:

rhickok1109 wrote:
That's pretty easy to do. Here are the average passer ratings for each year of Brady's career, followed by his rating, his rating minus the average rating for that year, and his rating as a percentage of the average rating (which I think is the best way to compare them). 2008 isn't shown because that's the season he got hurt in the first game after throwing only 11 passes.

2001 76.6 86.5 +9.9 1.13
2002 78.6 85.7 +7.1 1.09
2003 76.6 85.9 +9.3 1.14
2004 80.9 92.6 +11.7 1.14
2005 78.2 92.3 +14.1 1.18
2006 78.5 87.9 +9.4 1.12
2007 80.9 117.2 +36.3 1.45
2009 81.2 92.7 +11.5 1.14
2010 82.2 111.0 +28.8 1.35
2011 82.5 105.6 +23.1 1.28
2012 83.8 98.7 +14.9 1.18
2013 84.1 87.3 +3.2 1.04
2014 87.1 97.4 +10.3 1.12
2015 88.4 102.2 +13.8 1.16

Note the big jump in 2007, the year Welker and Moss arrived. By this measurement, his performance dropped way down in 2009, when he still had Welker and Moss, but he was coming back from that 2008 injury. It went way up again the following season, when Moss played only 4 games and had just 9 receptions for being cut. It stayed relatively high in 2011, when he had Welker, Gronkowski, and Hernandez, but leveled off in 2012 and has stayed about the same ever since.

Based on this analysis, it looks as if his apparent surge after 2006 was really built on 3 years when he was way above average, 2007, 2010, and 2011. For the last four years, he's been playing at about the same level from 2001 through 2006.

That is a good way to do it, but you are off on your passer ratings, Your are using net passing yards, rather than passing yards. It makes a small difference, for example passing yards in 2014 were 128898 and net were 121247 and that makes the difference between 87.1 and 88.8. When the passer rating is applied to Brady or anyone they use gross yards, sacks are not included, so for an apples to apples comparison, passing yards has to be used, not net passing yards.

But, you chart still shows similar things and it's a good analysis, but also, remember he wasn't having "big seasons" prior to 2007. No MVP seasons, No First-team All-Pro seasons. I think the Welker and Moss thing was huge, as was his workouts which he began with his "guru" in 2005-2006 time frame. Josh McD maybe opened up playing calling, too, with Moss. So, there may not be one answer, maybe a many front storm that caused a spike

I didn't calculate the passer ratings, I got them from Pro-Football-Reference.com.

mwald wrote:
John (batting my eyelashes), I'm sorry. I just can't date you. I'm married.

Classy.

rhickok1109 wrote:


I didn't calculate the passer ratings, I got them from Pro-Football-Reference.com.

Aha, that explains it. They use net passing yards per attempt when doing league-wide rating. I do it the way Elias/Stats LLC/NFLGSIS do it, using yards per attempt. Pro Football Reference is an awesome site, but they have a few flaws, this is one of them. Their AP-only approach to All-pros is another, and they have flaws in starting lineups that are totally fixable, but I send them corrections with documentation (usually gamebook) and they never change them. They have Merlin Olsen moving from LDT to RDT in 1973, when that never occured. But, if you know to double-check certain things, they are a helpful resource.