But QB is never 1/3. I said at most because of 3 units. The QB has a high impact on a game but there are many instances where games could change that is out of their hands. A lot of football games come down to a few high impact plays. Even offensively the QB needs time to throw , a clear path to step up, a receiver on the same page, a receiver who catches it, a receiver who gets yac. Biggest plays of last super bowl, giants d line and manninghams catch. Eli is a part but no the main part. Super bowl before, packers defense picking off big Ben. Rodgers is a part by taking advantage. Super bowl before, onside kick and pick 6, out of Brees hands. Before that james Harrison running 100 yards and tones catch. Big Ben played a part, needs help. Biggest plays before that Eli escaping and one of the greatest catches ever only setup because Samuel dropped a pick. The QB has more of an impact than some players but a lot of times the biggest plays are out of their hands. Win and loss over a large amount of time can be telling. As shown above using one game or a small sample size of won loss is silly. Even over a large period time it still has to be looked at carefully but it's more likely to pass the eye test. If a QB kicked, caught, or tackled on top of their job, bigger impact. But won loss shouldn't be a QB stat. It signifies a team result much better
He got 67 dumpoffs which is what he does in NE. D's don't gameplan to stop him, we saw what happened when the jets actually put Revis on him last year. He average 10.3 yds per rec w/ Miami, only 2 years in NE has he been above 10.5. he's a good player who gets far too much credit. Kerley would put up similar #s, any of those types would. Why do you think NE has no plans to sign him long term?
Because he's 31 this year and Bill Belichik routinely sends stars like that away no matter how good (Ty Law, Richard Seymour, Randy Moss) they are? Look I'm not going to get in a long drawn out argument with you over whether Jeremy Kerley has it in him to catch 100-120 balls a year if he has a great QB throwing to him. Only a couple of guys in history (Marvin Harrison and Wes Welker) have had that ability. If you want to hallucinate in your normal fashion and say Kerley could do that, well have at it. I'm used to watching you prop everything Jets up like it was the best thing since sliced bread. I don't listen very hard when you make arguments as a result because you've lost credibility with me over time.
31 isn't old, Ty Law was basically done, Seymour has been good in oak but he got a premium for him. They cut Moss b/c of his attitude. Wes welker is in the perfect offense for him w/ the best QB in the game. he's not catching 100+ balls anywhere else. Don't confuse my objectivity w/ your pessimism. To you the Jets suck in all aspects, I see things as they are. I've lost credibility w/ the an anti-Jet fan that whines about every move and thinks Bill parcells was a great exec? should I lose sleep over this? Have you ever had credibility? you are turning into the younger version of champ. Stick to the topic, NE would not risk losing Welker if they thought he was that valuable.
there's a contradiction in your arguments. you claim Brady would not be Brady on the Jets because they do not have the same talent around him. if that is the case, and the team can either improve of decrease a player's performance, then why is it unfathomable that Kerley, when put on the Pats in their system and with Brady rather than Sanchez, can't elevate his game significantly? you can't claim one when it supports your argument and dismiss the other when it doesn't. I don't know how good Kerley would be on the Pats, but by that same token you don't know how much worse Brady would be on the Jets.
The supposition was that if Brady came to the Jets he could make Jeremy Kerley into Wes Welker. I called bullshit, because that proposition is bullshit on the face of it. Now as to whether or not Jeremy Kerley can turn into Wes Welker if he goes to the Pats? Well, I'll call bullshit on that one also. Only a few players in NFL history have demonstated the ability to catch 100+ balls season after season and I don't rank Jeremy Kerley with those guys and I think that anybody who does at this point is arguing from an indefensible position. If you want to go with the "anybody can be turned into a 100+ catch player by Tom Brady" argument then you need to point to the other guys he has done this with. I mean I guess Shonn Greene could turn into an 1,800+ yards a year back like Eric Dickerson if he was in the right situation. Right?
That's true but their defense underwent a downright historic turnaround in the postseason. Remember? Aside from the AFCCG, they rode their defense all the way to the SB.
The Colts Ds weren't preventing them from winning SBs, it was the FrankenManning gagging every January.
Brady is like any other QB when it comes to pass protection. He will not look as good running for his life. That's a no-brainer. But don't you remember the Pats-Panthers playoff game and the Warren Sapp / Russ Hochstein battle? The Pats made due with cast-offs and undrafted free agents several times over the course of Brady's career. The time clock in his head (something I've noticed that Sanchez needs to develop) that says "THROW THE DAMN BALL NOW" is unreal. As far as receivers go, there are plenty of examples of guys excelling in NE and doing nothing elsewhere. Branch is the best one. In 2006, the team's leading receiver was Reche Caldwell. And they got to within about 90 seconds of the Super Bowl. Welker is an ideal fit for what the Patriots run. That's the main reason behind his consistent production. I don't know enough about Kerley to guess either way if he'd be that good in NE.
You're making my argument for me though. Where were Branch's multiple 100 catch seasons? Where were Caldwell's?
The K(also a choker) gets the blame but it was Peyton's fault. First off he was given multiple gifts such as the Polamalu clear INT that basically would have ended the game that they overturned and the Bettis fumble w/ return to midfield. W/ all that he could only get his K in range for a 46 yd FG. he had 2nd AND 3rd and 1 from the Pitt 28 and took 2 shots at the EZ rather than getting his K closer- a K he knew was a choker(or as I liked to call him the kicking version of Peyton Manning). People can blame the K all they want, Peyton blew that game.
I wasn't disagreeing with you about Welker/Kerley/100 catches. Branch isn't a 100-catch guy regardless of who is throwing it to him. But I think Brady makes a 30-catch guy a 50-catch guy. Or, in Caldwell's case, a 30-catch guy into a 60-catch guy.
were those guys slot guys? how is that comparable? Caldwell stunk but Brady nearly had that team in the SB w/ Caldwell and Gaffney as his 2 main weapons in postseason of 2006.
I remember that last drive when he took those two deep shots. At the time I was thinking, "he threw those low-percentage passes to avoid screwing this up," lol... I do have more respect for Manning now though... he grew a pair in that comeback AFCCG win against the Patriots.
Brady makes a 30 catch guy a 50 catch guy in the Patriots system with the protection and talent they provide. Bill Belichik has always drafted tight ends and done whatever he could to keep the roster thick with guys who might be a plus tight end. He does this for two reasons. First, tight ends are swing guys on the offense and allow for mismatches and leverage all up and down the line of scrimmage. Second, tight ends are good on special teams as wedge busters (well, they were before the rules change). Put Tom Brady almost anywhere else and he's going to be much less effective. Put him on the Steelers right now and he's going to be retired in a season because the Steelers QB better be able to throw on the run and better not mind getting hit hard 3 or 4 times a game. Don't get me wrong. Tom Brady is a great player but he's a great player in the context of the system he plays in. A system that will contort whatever way that it has too to keep him great.
for 90% of his career Brady has had average talent around him, imagine a full career w/ the Indy weapons. It would be him gunning for all the records. he was great in that 2nd half(though his awful play in the 1st made the comeback necessary), he was great against us in the '09 title game but blew the SB 2 weeks later and his inability to get 1 more 1st down against us in the '10 WC rd gave us the chance to win which we did.
I can't really argue that because there is no evidence to support or contradict it! I guess we'll find out if the Patriots ever part ways with him while he's got some tread left on the tires. I suppose I'm just of the mind that the longevity of his success in the NFL is more about him than it is about personnel, scheme, etc. On the field, Brady's been the one constant since 2001.
I look at it liked this, how successful was BB w/o him? BB was a failure w/o him and now a HOF HC w/ him.
Engaging a poster here by quoting his post and talking about A PART of the post is merely that. It does not mean a continuation of arguments not addressed, or as you are really suggesting what amounts to agreement or acceptance by silence. No one else but you looks at it the way you say it works. I certainly did not mean to say anything about the 1/3rd assertion. I suppose in some games that might be true, but certainly not as a general rule. As for the bolded part, an individual stat can say a great deal about a PART of a player's performance, to be sure. No one is saying any one stat is a complete picture of ALL aspects of a player's performance. In fact my original point was that use of team won lost percentage, as a single measure of the Qb's performance, is not only incomplete but bound to be misleading. Now if one includes a team's won lost percentage as A PART of an overall assessment of a player, I have no argument with that. But that does not mean you and I have no argument. This brings us to your point about the correlation between a Qb's performance and his team's won lost stats. Well of course there is some correlation in general. All other things being equal, or on the average, better Qb's will tend to play with teams that have a better Qb record than bad Qb's. Nothing earthshaking about such an observation. The problem is you are arguing, or seem to be, the converse. You are saying that putting aside the average, IN INDIVIDUAL CASES one can make the argument that a team's won lost stat can be used to show that this Qb or that Qb is a good or bad one. That argument does not follow. You asked for examples. The most obvious one I think in football history of a very good Qb who played on teams with perennial poor won lost records was Archie Manning. As for the converse, I would say in terms of the metric of past Super Bowl winners that Doug Williams was not such a great Qb, and neither was Trent Dilfer. I don't mean to say they were bad Qb's. But one would hardly argue in either case that they were either in the top ten Qb's for those seaons, let alone the best Qb in the league. Another factor you are forgetting is that over time the better Qb's end up on better teams, on average. There are countless examples. But I think your main error is in correctly identifying the general or average correlation and then moving to an argument that in every case a team's won lost percentage says a good deal about the quality of the Qb. The Jets in fact are an excellent example of how that is not the case. A team like the Jets with an excellent D made it to the AFC Champ Game in Sanchez's rookie year. Did that mean Sanchez was a very good Qb? Hardly. The Jets made it DESPITE him, not because of him. That's what I am talking about. There are too many other variables in play when a team's overall record is held up for examination as a metric of the Qb's performance. Your identification of an average correlation does not support the utility of that metric, standing alone, in assessing the QB.
