I thought you were the guy who was always talking about sample size??? 60 minutes isn't much of a sample now is it??
let me rephrase. you can talk about just one game, but just about any assertion you make will be incorrect when using it to measure career worth.
See, the thing is, I'm NOT using it to measure career worth, I'm using it point out that Brady was a non-factor in this one game, that Uncle Rico could have taken his place and the Bucs still win, and that saying that Tom Brady won this Super Bowl is among the silliest things one could say. You are having a different argument about his career value, but you don't seem to realize that you aren't having that argument with me.
@perkdog said:
The thing your missing though is the variables. You give special teams 6% of the teams success? Ok so say a QB goes 10-30 with 110 yards and 3 interceptions and the KR and PR each run one back all the way for a TD and the kicker kicks 2 60 yard FG’s to win 20-19 I’m giving special teams a hell of a lot more than 6% of the teams success. Anyways besides Gronk and Moss for a short time what other HOF’ers are you thinking of that “He played with over the years” ? Speaking of Gronk do you believe he would have had the success he has had if he had Josh Rosen or Trent Dilfer throwing to him?
I thought it went without saying, but my 47/47/6 allocation was a starting point. That is the expected allocation of credit in any given game, and in every game on average. In the specific game we're discussing I adjusted those, based on the evidence that was blindingly obvious to everyone who watched the game, so that the defense got 60% of the credit since they played so far above average while TB scored only a little above average. It's certainly a rarity but there probably have been games where the special teams get several multiples of their expected 6% and somebody on punt coverage is the MVP of the game. That can't ever happen if you start from the premise of because, you know, quarterbacks, and we credit the QB with elevating the play of the special teams, but in actual football, where sane people laugh out loud at the elevation theory, it could happen.
Before I go through the effort of finding the other HOFers Brady has played with over the years I noticed right away that you just listed a couple of receivers. Are you thinking about the players on defense? On the line? Since my whole point is that the defense gets half the credit, and the line gets close to half the credit for the offense, I was not just referring to the people Brady threw to.
Would Gronk have had the success he has had if he played elsewhere? No way to know but I'm inclined to say mostly yes. At least, I think we'd think of him as a great TE no matter where he played, and I think it is at least as likely that Gronk made Brady look better than he was than that Brady made Gronk look better than he was. Absent because, you know, quarterbacks there's no way to disentangle the two, though.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I thought you were the guy who was always talking about sample size??? 60 minutes isn't much of a sample now is it??
let me rephrase. you can talk about just one game, but just about any assertion you make will be incorrect when using it to measure career worth.
See, the thing is, I'm NOT using it to measure career worth, I'm using it point out that Brady was a non-factor in this one game, that Uncle Rico could have taken his place and the Bucs still win, and that saying that Tom Brady won this Super Bowl is among the silliest things one could say. You are having a different argument about his career value, but you don't seem to realize that you aren't having that argument with me.
@perkdog said:
The thing your missing though is the variables. You give special teams 6% of the teams success? Ok so say a QB goes 10-30 with 110 yards and 3 interceptions and the KR and PR each run one back all the way for a TD and the kicker kicks 2 60 yard FG’s to win 20-19 I’m giving special teams a hell of a lot more than 6% of the teams success. Anyways besides Gronk and Moss for a short time what other HOF’ers are you thinking of that “He played with over the years” ? Speaking of Gronk do you believe he would have had the success he has had if he had Josh Rosen or Trent Dilfer throwing to him?
I thought it went without saying, but my 47/47/6 allocation was a starting point. That is the expected allocation of credit in any given game, and in every game on average. In the specific game we're discussing I adjusted those, based on the evidence that was blindingly obvious to everyone who watched the game, so that the defense got 60% of the credit since they played so far above average while TB scored only a little above average. It's certainly a rarity but there probably have been games where the special teams get several multiples of their expected 6% and somebody on punt coverage is the MVP of the game. That can't ever happen if you start from the premise of because, you know, quarterbacks, and we credit the QB with elevating the play of the special teams, but in actual football, where sane people laugh out loud at the elevation theory, it could happen.
Before I go through the effort of finding the other HOFers Brady has played with over the years I noticed right away that you just listed a couple of receivers. Are you thinking about the players on defense? On the line? Since my whole point is that the defense gets half the credit, and the line gets close to half the credit for the offense, I was not just referring to the people Brady threw to.
Would Gronk have had the success he has had if he played elsewhere? No way to know but I'm inclined to say mostly yes. At least, I think we'd think of him as a great TE no matter where he played, and I think it is at least as likely that Gronk made Brady look better than he was than that Brady made Gronk look better than he was. Absent because, you know, quarterbacks there's no way to disentangle the two, though.
You saying Gronk probably made Brady better just tells me I need to stand down and not continue this debate with you because your taking it to a level that borderlines blindly hating Brady, I don’t believe you do but your unintentionally sounding like you do which is fine but we are done talking about this as far as I’m concerned. I will leave you with this, Brady has a model of winning and success that spans 20 years. Over that 20 years the amount of success he has had is far greater than any other player in the history of the NFL. I know you don’t think Super Bowls count for anything but for the rest of the population that does, he has won that FOUR times after the age of 37 and played at a high level in doing so. He has wrapped up two HOF careers into one career and at the age of 43 he is still not done. You will not see ever see this type of success by a player ever again I don’t believe. Either way your entitled to your opinions and trust me I know your a smart guy, much smarter than me especially when it comes to numbers and all that but we will just have to remain on the opposite sides of the spectrum with this discussion because we will never find common ground except both agreeing that Brady doesn’t “Elevate” Defense or special teams players. Also I don’t believe any QB can ever really be held in high regard by you anyways since it’s just the Quarteback position and you don’t believe that it’s all that important anyways.
Rob Gronkowski would have been a superstar anywhere. He probably isn’t a champion without having played where he did but I think certain receivers are made by the QBs they play with and others are going to make a QB better.
Just to step away from the current players, Big Ben has had a host of receivers over the years. Many looked like world beaters only to basically suck when they left - Mike Wallace comes to mind. Then there’s a guy like Hines Ward who was just fantastically skilled and was tremendous before Ben arrived and even better with Ben.
I think Randy Moss and Gronk fall into the ‘Hines Ward’ category of guys that would be great anywhere and then there’s a lot of receivers that ‘look good’ based on whom they’re paired up with.
Not sure if I said that all correctly but I definitely think Tom Brady was the type that made lots of receivers look better than they were, just not guys like Moss and Gronk. (More so Gronk, Moss was always a bit of a wimp to me. I still think, if had more stones and fire, that he could have and should have caught the Hail Mary from Brady on the 2nd down (?) throw of the last series in ‘07 SuperBowl.
He wimped out. If he wanted that one, he could have.
Watch it and tell me otherwise. Randy Moss has no heart.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
Again, I’m talking about receivers in general; I definitely think some guys hang the QB out to dry and others make plays that help the QB and it is more a reflection on receivers than the guy throwing them the ball.
It’s hard to explain with Brady because he’s so good in his own right but I think you probably know what I am driving at.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
If I remember correctly, that Hail Mary was thisclose
Edit to add: I say if I remember because honestly, for as many times as I watch old Patriots highlights, I try to avoid 07 and 11 clips like the plague. It's still too soon... (though I did watch the Welker drop a bunch of times for some reason
Again, I’m talking about receivers in general; I definitely think some guys hang the QB out to dry and others make plays that help the QB and it is more a reflection on receivers than the guy throwing them the ball.
It’s hard to explain with Brady because he’s so good in his own right but I think you probably know what I am driving at.
And I do and to your point and @dallasactuary about Gronk. Yes I’m well aware he would have been good anywhere else within reason but to say Gronk made Brady look good is unfair since Brady won a LOT before Gronk was even out of high school. “Yea but Brady had Gronk” I can hear that but nobody will ever say “Yea but Brady had Deion Branch, Troy Brown, David Givens, Bethel Johnson, David Patten, Daniel Graham, Ect..” To your Randy Moss comments I agree, I think he was a scumbag and is not anyone I would ever trust in a situation where he might not be up for giving the extra effort when needed.
@craig44 said:
that hail mary was that close. I have always believed Moss should have gone and gotten that throw. that would have been an amazing end to that game.
After really watching Hail Mary's over the years since then, I have come to the conclusion that the receivers have to be of the belief that there is chance of it happening and truly try. And if they do that, there is often plenty of opportunity to make a play. But unfortunately, for some, it is like just going through motions, a routine. And I can possibly ascribe this idea to Moss in that SB. But honestly, I have tried to avoid seeing it. And I certainly have never paused it or looked at a breakdown of it.
as far as Brady having a bad super bowl 55 or as Dallas said he had "no impact" on the game is absolutely foolish.
Brady had a great game. one of the better performances in SB history, at least according to the numbers. top 20 for sure.
9th best passer rating for SB game
9th best completion percentage for SB game
only six times has a QB thrown for more TD's than Bradys 3
0 turnovers.
he had very close to a perfect game. only 8 incompletions.
so, yes, he did have an impact on the game. a big one.
Again, I’m talking about receivers in general; I definitely think some guys hang the QB out to dry and others make plays that help the QB and it is more a reflection on receivers than the guy throwing them the ball.
It’s hard to explain with Brady because he’s so good in his own right but I think you probably know what I am driving at.
And I do and to your point and @dallasactuary about Gronk. Yes I’m well aware he would have been good anywhere else within reason but to say Gronk made Brady look good is unfair since Brady won a LOT before Gronk was even out of high school. “Yea but Brady had Gronk” I can hear that but nobody will ever say “Yea but Brady had Deion Branch, Troy Brown, David Givens, Bethel Johnson, David Patten, Daniel Graham, Ect..” To your Randy Moss comments I agree, I think he was a scumbag and is not anyone I would ever trust in a situation where he might not be up for giving the extra effort when needed.
I think that was the point. Gronk wasn’t sucking Tom Brady dry like Deion Branch, Troy Brown, David Givens, Bethel Johnson, David Patten, Daniel Graham, Ect.
It’s why Gronk became the ‘security blanket’; its a guy Tom could trust that when he was in trouble he could toss it toward Gronk and he would catch it or knock it down.
There’s a lot of receivers that don’t.
Like, the majority.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@craig44 said:
as far as Brady having a bad super bowl 55 or as Dallas said he had "no impact" on the game is absolutely foolish.
Brady had a great game. one of the better performances in SB history, at least according to the numbers. top 20 for sure.
9th best passer rating for SB game
9th best completion percentage for SB game
only six times has a QB thrown for more TD's than Bradys 3
0 turnovers.
he had very close to a perfect game. only 8 incompletions.
so, yes, he did have an impact on the game. a big one.
That wasn’t the point @dallasactuary was trying to make, though.
Tom Brady did have a great statistical game - no doubt - but it was probably the least memorable game he played in and there was never a point where he was needed.
He was needed to beat the Rams. He was needed to beat the Falcons.
But I n this one game? I tend to think it was forgettable. You never had Tom Brady riding in on the white horse, saying ‘Not today, fellas, not on my watch.’ Like he did many, many times before.
He just sort of stayed as Clark Kent this time. No Superman. No signature moment.
And it’s not his fault. Against Atlanta was when he had to spin around planet earth and reverse time to save Lois Lane.
This game was more like getting a cat out of a tree. I mean, sure you can have Superman do it but the fire department was there with the ladders up and everything so Superman, as Clark Kent, watches them and makes sure they don’t fall off the ladders. So he still technically saved the day but if he nodded off for a little bit or started texting Lois, no one really would have noticed.
😁
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
PS - Nearly everyone of you guys thinking Brady is being attacked here already sort of confirmed this being the case when you said ‘Man, this one was easy; not like the Patriots ones where you’re edge of your seat.’ And you are correct in that assertion.
Again, no ones saying ‘he sucked’. Just that when weighed against those other SB performances - contrasted against Atlanta, for ease of understanding - he just didn’t have that type of impact where he turned what by all rights looked like a sure loss into a miraculous win.
I mean, I really thought Tampa Bay was going to get on top of Kansas City and ask them to stop hitting themselves like my older sister used to do to me. 😂
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
again, i disagree. He was absolutely "needed" in the first half when he drove for 3 touchdowns, demoralized the chiefs after the last second TD to Brown and pretty much put away the game.
in the 4th quarter, the bucs were not playing for points, they were milking clock. the reason for all the running plays. I am sure they could have scored a couple more times and brady would have padded his stats, but for what?
just because he did the heavy lifting in the first half and they miked clock in the 2nd doesn't mean he wasn't "needed"
what an asinine statement.
it is like in a baseball game. sometimes the "closer" should enter the game in the 5th inning if there is a high leverage situation. there are times when the game is won or lost much earlier than the 9th. that doesn't mean the closer wasn't "needed" he was just "needed" at a different time, but for the same job.
@craig44 said:
again, i disagree. He was absolutely "needed" in the first half when he drove for 3 touchdowns, demoralized the chiefs after the last second TD to Brown and pretty much put away the game.
in the 4th quarter, the bucs were not playing for points, they were milking clock. the reason for all the running plays. I am sure they could have scored a couple more times and brady would have padded his stats, but for what?
just because he did the heavy lifting in the first half and they miked clock in the 2nd doesn't mean he wasn't "needed"
what an asinine statement.
it is like in a baseball game. sometimes the "closer" should enter the game in the 5th inning if there is a high leverage situation. there are times when the game is won or lost much earlier than the 9th. that doesn't mean the closer wasn't "needed" he was just "needed" at a different time, but for the same job.
After the Bucs were stopped on that 4th and goal, I thought to myself doesn't matter, they are going to be able to score at will against this defense
@craig44 said:
again, i disagree. He was absolutely "needed" in the first half when he drove for 3 touchdowns, demoralized the chiefs after the last second TD to Brown and pretty much put away the game.
in the 4th quarter, the bucs were not playing for points, they were milking clock. the reason for all the running plays. I am sure they could have scored a couple more times and brady would have padded his stats, but for what?
just because he did the heavy lifting in the first half and they miked clock in the 2nd doesn't mean he wasn't "needed"
what an asinine statement.
it is like in a baseball game. sometimes the "closer" should enter the game in the 5th inning if there is a high leverage situation. there are times when the game is won or lost much earlier than the 9th. that doesn't mean the closer wasn't "needed" he was just "needed" at a different time, but for the same job.
This conversation has devolved into fanboys defending against slights that aren’t even being made.
Enjoy it.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@craig44 said:
again, i disagree. He was absolutely "needed" in the first half when he drove for 3 touchdowns, demoralized the chiefs after the last second TD to Brown and pretty much put away the game.
in the 4th quarter, the bucs were not playing for points, they were milking clock. the reason for all the running plays. I am sure they could have scored a couple more times and brady would have padded his stats, but for what?
just because he did the heavy lifting in the first half and they miked clock in the 2nd doesn't mean he wasn't "needed"
what an asinine statement.
it is like in a baseball game. sometimes the "closer" should enter the game in the 5th inning if there is a high leverage situation. there are times when the game is won or lost much earlier than the 9th. that doesn't mean the closer wasn't "needed" he was just "needed" at a different time, but for the same job.
This conversation has devolved into fanboys defending against slights that aren’t even being made.
Enjoy it.
you were the one who said Brady wasn't "needed" for the bucs to win. its just a crazy statement. you do understand that he was "needed" to put up points and the big lead in the first half, right?
was Montana not "needed" in the blowout vs the broncos? what about the SB against the Dolphins? Was Steve Young "needed" against the chargers?
the assertion that if a team doesn't need a QB to come in and run a 2 minute drill to win a super bowl his performance when building that lead or maintaining that lead is somehow not "needed" is crazy.
I am pretty sure you know what italics and quotes mean and your opinion of me must be pretty low otherwise to call me asinine for offering my opinions.
And your worship and defense of Brady is well placed and deserved as he is truly one of the greatest players the NFL has ever seen.
Be well.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
I am pretty sure you know what italics and quotes mean and your opinion of me must be pretty low otherwise to call me asinine for offering my opinions.
And your worship and defense of Brady is well placed and deserved as he is truly one of the greatest players the NFL has ever seen.
Be well.
I used Asinine to describe the assertion that Brady was not "needed" in the SB. I certainly did not mean it to be said about you personally. I can see now that using that word was a step too far and I apologize for it. I consider you to be a very valued poster in this forum and regret making you feel otherwise. no hard feelings were meant.
@LarkinCollector said:
All that was needed from a QB to win this latest SB was:
Don't turn over the ball
Score 10 points
A QB much lesser than Brady (but obviously greater than Winston) could have accomplished that.
If a QB not as good as Brady, but better than Winston, was leading the Bucs this past Sunday, would the Chiefs have approached the game differently? Maybe they would have had a different offensive game plan, feeling like they only needed to score x number of points to win. And maybe this game plan would have enabled them to score more than nine points. And if that was the case, it would have taken a QB maybe better than Winston, perhaps as good as Brady, to beat them. Can we extrapolate that out...
@LarkinCollector said:
All that was needed from a QB to win this latest SB was:
Don't turn over the ball
Score 10 points
A QB much lesser than Brady (but obviously greater than Winston) could have accomplished that.
If a QB not as good as Brady, but better than Winston, was leading the Bucs this past Sunday, would the Chiefs have approached the game differently? Maybe they would have had a different offensive game plan, feeling like they only needed to score x number of points to win. And maybe this game plan would have enabled them to score more than nine points. And if that was the case, it would have taken a QB maybe better than Winston, perhaps as good as Brady, to beat them. Can we extrapolate that out...
Ah, yes, I completely forgot it was Brady on defense overrunning the Chiefs cobbled together OL. My bad.
@LarkinCollector said:
All that was needed from a QB to win this latest SB was:
Don't turn over the ball
Score 10 points
A QB much lesser than Brady (but obviously greater than Winston) could have accomplished that.
If a QB not as good as Brady, but better than Winston, was leading the Bucs this past Sunday, would the Chiefs have approached the game differently? Maybe they would have had a different offensive game plan, feeling like they only needed to score x number of points to win. And maybe this game plan would have enabled them to score more than nine points. And if that was the case, it would have taken a QB maybe better than Winston, perhaps as good as Brady, to beat them. Can we extrapolate that out...
Ah, yes, I completely forgot it was Brady on defense overrunning the Chiefs cobbled together OL. My bad.
I actually wasn't trying to make a point about Brady getting the credit for the defense, or anything like that. I was trying to say that yes, the Chiefs only scored nine points, so yes, any QB who is somewhere in between Winston and Brady, could have theoritcally beaten the Chiefs "in a vacuum", but there are always outside, extenuating factors that lead to the Chiefs only scoring nine points. Certainly they went into the game with an offensive plan, but seemingly they were forced to possibly panic, change strategies, or go into catch up mode. And this was because Brady and the Bucs offense were scoring on them and not turning the ball over. And this directly influenced how they played on offense, because they had to react to a Bucs team that unexpectedly could drive on them fluidly and was taking care of the ball and eating clock.
@LarkinCollector said:
All that was needed from a QB to win this latest SB was:
Don't turn over the ball
Score 10 points
A QB much lesser than Brady (but obviously greater than Winston) could have accomplished that.
Wait a minute. You are assuming a lot. In your hypothetical world another QB is going to lead them in the first half to one, two or three touchdowns and not turn the ball over. What happens if that hypothetical QB turns the ball over, gives KC great field position or stalls drives or kick field goals instead and TB goes into the locker room say up 9-6 or tied 6-6 or even behind? How is the second half played? How does it turn out? You can guess/ hypothesize/ assume. I don't have to guess. I know how it turned out.
I think it's safe to say that the D can put the O in good positions. That happened in the SB. I think it's safe to say that the O can put the D in good positions. That happened in the SB. In the real world Brady threw for 3 TD's in the first half. We don't have to guess about that.
I'm pretty sure defensives play better when they are up by 15 or 22 points rather then tied or up by one score. I'm pretty sure Defenses play better when they are rested. I'm pretty sure defensives play better when they don't have to worry about the run because the other team is trailing by multiple scores. So while the TB defense was GREAT they had help as well.
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
all of these hypotheticals are driving me nuts. what actually happened is that Brady turned in one of the better SB performances by a QB. It could have been even better had they been going for points in the 2nd half.
@perkdog said:
Also I don’t believe any QB can ever really be held in high regard by you anyways since it’s just the Quarteback position and you don’t believe that it’s all that important anyways.
As for everything else in your post and everyone else's posts I'll just say "What Wheaties and Larkin said".
But your last statement here just isn't true and means you have completely misunderstood my position. I hold Nolan Ryan in the highest regard although he was only a pitcher. I hold Wilt Chamberlain in the highest regard although he was only a center. I hold Bobby Orr in the highest regard although he was only a defenseman. And I hold Tom Brady in the highest regard a reasonable person can although he is only a QB. My point is not that any of these people were "only" players at their one position, my point is that players at every position are absolutely necessary to make a winning team. You, and just about everyone else, ignores or mocks or pooh-poohs the idea of allocating credit in some manner that goes beyond because, you know, quarterbacks. But it's a team sport, and whether my numbers or anyone else's numbers are the "right" ones is beside the point, it is the single only correct way to think about a team sport. And if you start the process by giving the QB too much credit (like, say, 10%) or a laughably absurd level of credit (like, say, 20%) then you don't have enough left over to separate bad players from good players at every other position. If a good LT gets 2% of the credit and a bad one gets 1%, then it hardly matters who plays LT. But of course it does matter, it matters a great deal as the Chiefs just showed you. In a because, you know, quarterbacks world nobody else is allowed to be very good, let alone great - the QB gets credit for the good play of everyone else, the ones who made his good play possible.
I am not putting down QBs, and I'm certainly not putting down Brady. I am standing up for all the other players who are working just as hard, are just as good at what they do as QBs are at what they do, and without whom no QB, not even He of the Seven Rings, would be able to win any games at all.
Here's another way of looking at it that just popped into my head (so I may be missing something important). Babe Ruth - the GOAT of baseball - has the record for WAR in a single season with 14.1 (he's also second and third). That means Ruth was responsible for the Yankees winning 14 more games than they would have if some schlub had been in RF instead. Now, the Yankees had plenty of other good players elsewhere, especially the pitchers (this was before Gehrig), and the idea that they would have won 84 games instead of 98 certainly seems plausible. And 14 games represents less than 10% of the schedule. In the football math that I've been using in this thread, that's giving Babe Ruth 9% of the credit for the Yankees success and, again, that sounds about right. So if it makes peace I will happily up my allocation to Brady to 9%, making him football's equivalent of Babe Ruth. If you, or anyone else, still thinks I'm disrespecting Brady by equating him with Babe Ruth then at this point that's on all of you, not me. If you, or anyone else, insists that Tom Brady, or any other QB, is significantly more important than the Babe, well, then I'm going to laugh at you and maybe this will help y'all understand why I'm laughing at you.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@perkdog said:
Also I don’t believe any QB can ever really be held in high regard by you anyways since it’s just the Quarteback position and you don’t believe that it’s all that important anyways.
As for everything else in your post and everyone else's posts I'll just say "What Wheaties and Larkin said".
But your last statement here just isn't true and means you have completely misunderstood my position. I hold Nolan Ryan in the highest regard although he was only a pitcher. I hold Wilt Chamberlain in the highest regard although he was only a center. I hold Bobby Orr in the highest regard although he was only a defenseman. And I hold Tom Brady in the highest regard a reasonable person can although he is only a QB. My point is not that any of these people were "only" players at their one position, my point is that players at every position are absolutely necessary to make a winning team. You, and just about everyone else, ignores or mocks or pooh-poohs the idea of allocating credit in some manner that goes beyond because, you know, quarterbacks. But it's a team sport, and whether my numbers or anyone else's numbers are the "right" ones is beside the point, it is the single only correct way to think about a team sport. And if you start the process by giving the QB too much credit (like, say, 10%) or a laughably absurd level of credit (like, say, 20%) then you don't have enough left over to separate bad players from good players at every other position. If a good LT gets 2% of the credit and a bad one gets 1%, then it hardly matters who plays LT. But of course it does matter, it matters a great deal as the Chiefs just showed you. In a because, you know, quarterbacks world nobody else is allowed to be very good, let alone great - the QB gets credit for the good play of everyone else, the ones who made his good play possible.
I am not putting down QBs, and I'm certainly not putting down Brady. I am standing up for all the other players who are working just as hard, are just as good at what they do as QBs are at what they do, and without whom no QB, not even He of the Seven Rings, would be able to win any games at all.
Here's another way of looking at it that just popped into my head (so I may be missing something important). Babe Ruth - the GOAT of baseball - has the record for WAR in a single season with 14.1 (he's also second and third). That means Ruth was responsible for the Yankees winning 14 more games than they would have if some schlub had been in RF instead. Now, the Yankees had plenty of other good players elsewhere, especially the pitchers (this was before Gehrig), and the idea that they would have won 84 games instead of 98 certainly seems plausible. And 14 games represents less than 10% of the schedule. In the football math that I've been using in this thread, that's giving Babe Ruth 9% of the credit for the Yankees success and, again, that sounds about right. So if it makes peace I will happily up my allocation to Brady to 9%, making him football's equivalent of Babe Ruth. If you, or anyone else, still thinks I'm disrespecting Brady by equating him with Babe Ruth then at this point that's on all of you, not me. If you, or anyone else, insists that Tom Brady, or any other QB, is significantly more important than the Babe, well, then I'm going to laugh at you and maybe this will help y'all understand why I'm laughing at you.
How would you adjust the 9% for additional players on the field on offense (9 BB vs. 11FB)? Asking for a friend who thinks 7% is the highest a rational person could get to.
then you don't have enough left over to separate bad players from good players at every other position. If a good LT gets 2% of the credit and a bad one gets 1%, then it hardly matters who plays LT. But of course it does matter, it matters a
This is the nonsense part
Watch the friggin game , who cares about apportioning credit down to the 1% ?People who own actual NFL teams are willing to pay QB's more than the entire offensive line . The people that write the paychecks are always right because they actually own the teams! They have skin in the game and put their own money on the line.
Stat wise Kelsey might seem to have had a good game but the box score doesn't tell you it was all garbage yards you have to watch the game to see that his 100+ yards were worthless to the outcome . A 3 yard catch by someone on the winning side means more than 200 yards by some loser on the other side. All yards aren't equal all catches arent equal all interceptions aren't equal either.
Just like how Rogers proudly showing off worthless MVP trophies is a joke while Brady has 7 rings.
The whole regular season 16 games played by every team is less important than the outcome of the superbowl. Its all that matters . Games won while in contention mean everything , wins after you are out might as well be cancelled. They mean nothing .
Tom Brady in one year doubled the value of the Tampa Bay Bucks . The people that write paychecks know that .
@LarkinCollector said:
How would you adjust the 9% for additional players on the field on offense (9 BB vs. 11FB)? Asking for a friend who thinks 7% is the highest a rational person could get to.
Yeah, I thought about that but it's guesswork and the headache I get when people want to give the QB around 10% credit is tolerable compared to the headaches the 25% (or more!) lunatics cause.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Watch the friggin game , who cares about apportioning credit down to the 1% ?People who own actual NFL teams are willing to pay QB's more than the entire offensive line .
I'm not willing to waste more time than this figuring out what all the teams do, but the Bucs pay Brady 25 million and their offensive line 40 million (and Cappa will get one hell of a raise once his rookie contract is up). There is no team, there has been no team ever, there never will be a team where the QB by himself is more responsible for winning games than an entire offensive line. It can't happen. Use that fact when allocating the 47% of the credit the offense gets (don't forget the receivers and backs, and all the backups who also collectively make a whole lot more than Brady) and you'll see pretty quickly that there's a cap on how much credit you can give the QB, and that the cap is a whole lot lower than you desperately want to believe it is.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I love what bronco said about all games and all plays not being equal. Wins and how a player performs when their team is in contention or in the playoffs/super bowl are just plain more important than regular season games with no import to the playoff picture.
there is something to playing under pressure. unlike baseball and basketball, the NFL playoff are not 5 or 7 game series. every NFL playoff game is a game 7. some players have an ability to perform well under that pressure. Joe Montana had it. Otto Graham had it, so did Unitas and Starr and yes, Brady too.
Quarterbacking teams with a cumulative 34-10 record in the playoffs is both unbelievable and a very large sample size as to Bradys greatness. He is, of course, the only constant in the 19 years of Patriots dominance. there has to be something to it. and I would dare say more than 5%
I’m not even suggesting that we are talking about this past Super Bowl or any of the other 9 that Brady has been in. I clearly stated I’m talking about his 20 year career and questioning a few of you guys who say his value is at 5% or MAYBE 7% of the reason behind the success of said 20+ career.
I agree that 5% is too low for his career, but I had to round up to get there for this Super Bowl. I am going to disregard the so-stupid-it-makes-my-ears-bleed argument that Brady makes the defense and special teams better and just focus on what he does affect - the offense. And I'm going to allocate 6% of a team's success to the special teams, leaving 47% for the offense and 47% for the defense. If we give Brady 7% of the credit (a figure I think has to be pretty close to correct), then the other 10 starters/positions on offense get an average of 4%. That makes Brady close to twice as valuable as everyone else. For some unknown reason that is taken as some gross insult to He Who Has Seven Rings, but it's not and it's not intended to be. If you give Brady some ridiculous level of credit like 25%, then that leaves 2% for everyone else, including Gronk and the other HOFers who have played with over the years, and Brady is more than 12 times as valuable as anyone else. I don't know if you believe that or not, but it doesn't matter - it's absurd.
dallasactuary
And lucky for Tampa Bay to realize that Tom Brady means more than 5% of winning. That is an absolute joke. If Brady is only 5% of winning, then sabermetrics and BIll James are ALL completely wrong, and Babe Ruth would only be 1% of winning for his sport. You are not understanding the complexity of the QB position, and the commodity needed to man that. You can plug in a Leonard Fournette, those are interchangable and easy to find on team's benches...not a Tom Brady. The elite QB is the commodity.
You are putting Bill Mazeroski in the HOF for taking credit of the pitcher who was able to roll a ground ball. If you want to discount credit, then Mazeroski's percentage is so small I would run out of room of zero's after the decimal point, since Mazeroski is getting credit for something in which the commodity is the pitcher, where Mazeroski's reserves actually fielded better percentage wise than he did. So if Brady is at 5%, then someone like Mazeroski is at .0000000000000000001%.
Same for Barry Larkin. If Brady is only 5%, then Larkin will be lucky to be 1%. 1% does not belong in the HOF.
To use your analogy of "Brady can't complete a pass if the WR doesn't catch it." Mazeroski can't field a ground ball if the pitcher doesn't throw it...but the pitcher can get outs without the aide of mazeroski.
Lets remind that when Brady gets compared to other QB's that those QB's were sitting on a couch somewhere while Brady was continuing to win and be elite up to age 43(and beyond)
Enough about the toughness of the previous era. Favre played in the same era as Montana. 1996 was no different than 1984. Favre had an ironman streak as a QB that set a record, so it wasn't as dangerous as everyone makes it out to be. Marino played almost every single game of his career. Same for Elway. You guys are acting as if they were not playing with equipment in 1985.
Vinny Testaverde played until age 44 in that 'tough time' back then. Dave Krieg played until age 40.
Like I said before, yes the rule changes favor protecting the QB, but that is a necessity because the players tackling them are all bigger, stronger, and faster, and will kill them if not held in check some way.
YA Title did not get tackled by the beasts out there today. He managed to play until he was ancient.
Unitas played until age 40.
So enough of that 'times were tougher back then for a QB." No, in totality, they weren't.
The fact is, none of them had the skill to last as long as Brady and still be elite. Their skill levels all dropped tremendously as they got older and that is why they had to retire, NOT because the game was tougher.
The fact remains that Brady has played at an elite status unmatched by anyone AND for a length of career of elite years unmatched by anyone, while all other QB's were sitting on the couch watching at his age. For a nice cherry on top, he also won more in the regular season, percentage wise and total wise, and won all the rings. Nobody can match any of that.
dallasactuary
And lucky for Tampa Bay to realize that Tom Brady means more than 5% of winning. That is an absolute joke. If Brady is only 5% of winning, then sabermetrics and BIll James are ALL completely wrong, and Babe Ruth would only 1% of winning.
There seems to be a lot of moving the goal posts to fit a narrative.
We are being told to look the other way on records and accomplishments that are fact and focus instead on theory, hypothesis and assumption. Then when intangibles such as leadership are bought into the debate to illustrate added value it is scoffed at. Strange .
I respect the opinion that the QB position in football or the goalie position in hockey is over rated as to general public perception. But you lose me when it's devalued to the point of major eye rolling.
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
dallasactuary
And lucky for Tampa Bay to realize that Tom Brady means more than 5% of winning. That is an absolute joke. If Brady is only 5% of winning, then sabermetrics and BIll James are ALL completely wrong, and Babe Ruth would only be 1% of winning for his sport. You are not understanding ...
I'm sorry, I have to stop here because I wet my pants.
OK, I'm dry again. Please pick any season in which Ruth played and allocate credit among he and his teammates so that it all adds up to 100%. One of us clearly is not understanding how this works, and I think if you'll do this it will become clear to you which one of us it is.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Bucs started 7-5 with Brady. It took a while for the chemistry to develop, to understand who is capable of what. After that they took off. Assuming they had a different QB who was capable of starting 7-5. Can some of you mathematical geniuses tell me the odds they would still have won the Super Bowl. ( I'm giving you 7-5 please don't tell me they could have been 11-1 with Joe Smoe at QB.)
@Brick said:
Bucs started 7-5 with Brady. It took a while for the chemistry to develop, to understand who is capable of what. After that they took off. Assuming they had a different QB who was capable of starting 7-5. Can some of you mathematical geniuses tell me the odds they would still have won the Super Bowl. ( I'm giving you 7-5 please don't tell me they could have been 11-1 with Joe Smoe at QB.)
SMH. That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.
Brady replaced a terrible QB on a very good team and made it a great team. The player on a great team that happens to be the last one to join does not get 100% of the credit. Put Brady on a bad team and they become a better team but still lose a lot of games and don't make the playoffs. If they then upgrade at another position or two and become great, by your logic Brady gets none of the credit because he was already there; all the credit goes to the guys who came later. That Brady was the last piece of the TB puzzle does not make him the only piece that matters. (Either that or you're just vomiting out the because, you know, quarterbacks argument with new lipstick.)
The answer to your question is that TB doesn't win the SB without Brady. It is also the answer to the same question if you asked it about Jason Pierre-Paul, Donovan Smith, and several others, depending on who plays instead of them. Your question is meaningless unless you specify who plays instead of Brady, but if you do specify who plays instead of Brady your question will all but answer itself.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
If Tampa Bay does not win the Super Bowl without Brady but wins if they have Brady wouldn't that put his importance somewhere near 100%?
Case closed
And it's not debatable.
I'm thinking there are at least several QBs, who if TB had picked up instead of Brady, could have got them all the way to second in their division, where they finished.
@Brick said:
Bucs started 7-5 with Brady. It took a while for the chemistry to develop, to understand who is capable of what. After that they took off. Assuming they had a different QB who was capable of starting 7-5. Can some of you mathematical geniuses tell me the odds they would still have won the Super Bowl. ( I'm giving you 7-5 please don't tell me they could have been 11-1 with Joe Smoe at QB.)
SMH. That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.
Brady replaced a terrible QB on a very good team and made it a great team. The player on a great team that happens to be the last one to join does not get 100% of the credit. Put Brady on a bad team and they become a better team but still lose a lot of games and don't make the playoffs. If they then upgrade at another position or two and become great, by your logic Brady gets none of the credit because he was already there; all the credit goes to the guys who came later. That Brady was the last piece of the TB puzzle does not make him the only piece that matters. (Either that or you're just vomiting out the because, you know, quarterbacks argument with new lipstick.)
The answer to your question is that TB doesn't win the SB without Brady. It is also the answer to the same question if you asked it about Jason Pierre-Paul, Donovan Smith, and several others, depending on who plays instead of them. Your question is meaningless unless you specify who plays instead of Brady, but if you do specify who plays instead of Brady your question will all but answer itself.
Well said.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@Brick said:
If Tampa Bay does not win the Super Bowl without Brady but wins if they have Brady wouldn't that put his importance somewhere near 100%?
Case closed
And it's not debatable.
I can't tell if you're kidding. Are you kidding? I really hope you're kidding.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
For the love of Brady, TELL ME YOU'RE KIDDING!!!!!
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@LarkinCollector said:
I'm thinking there are at least several QBs, who if TB had picked up instead of Brady, could have got them all the way to second in their division, where they finished.
that is speculation, we are talking about what actually happened.
Comments
See, the thing is, I'm NOT using it to measure career worth, I'm using it point out that Brady was a non-factor in this one game, that Uncle Rico could have taken his place and the Bucs still win, and that saying that Tom Brady won this Super Bowl is among the silliest things one could say. You are having a different argument about his career value, but you don't seem to realize that you aren't having that argument with me.
I thought it went without saying, but my 47/47/6 allocation was a starting point. That is the expected allocation of credit in any given game, and in every game on average. In the specific game we're discussing I adjusted those, based on the evidence that was blindingly obvious to everyone who watched the game, so that the defense got 60% of the credit since they played so far above average while TB scored only a little above average. It's certainly a rarity but there probably have been games where the special teams get several multiples of their expected 6% and somebody on punt coverage is the MVP of the game. That can't ever happen if you start from the premise of because, you know, quarterbacks, and we credit the QB with elevating the play of the special teams, but in actual football, where sane people laugh out loud at the elevation theory, it could happen.
Before I go through the effort of finding the other HOFers Brady has played with over the years I noticed right away that you just listed a couple of receivers. Are you thinking about the players on defense? On the line? Since my whole point is that the defense gets half the credit, and the line gets close to half the credit for the offense, I was not just referring to the people Brady threw to.
Would Gronk have had the success he has had if he played elsewhere? No way to know but I'm inclined to say mostly yes. At least, I think we'd think of him as a great TE no matter where he played, and I think it is at least as likely that Gronk made Brady look better than he was than that Brady made Gronk look better than he was. Absent because, you know, quarterbacks there's no way to disentangle the two, though.
You saying Gronk probably made Brady better just tells me I need to stand down and not continue this debate with you because your taking it to a level that borderlines blindly hating Brady, I don’t believe you do but your unintentionally sounding like you do which is fine but we are done talking about this as far as I’m concerned. I will leave you with this, Brady has a model of winning and success that spans 20 years. Over that 20 years the amount of success he has had is far greater than any other player in the history of the NFL. I know you don’t think Super Bowls count for anything but for the rest of the population that does, he has won that FOUR times after the age of 37 and played at a high level in doing so. He has wrapped up two HOF careers into one career and at the age of 43 he is still not done. You will not see ever see this type of success by a player ever again I don’t believe. Either way your entitled to your opinions and trust me I know your a smart guy, much smarter than me especially when it comes to numbers and all that but we will just have to remain on the opposite sides of the spectrum with this discussion because we will never find common ground except both agreeing that Brady doesn’t “Elevate” Defense or special teams players. Also I don’t believe any QB can ever really be held in high regard by you anyways since it’s just the Quarteback position and you don’t believe that it’s all that important anyways.
Paul,
Rob Gronkowski would have been a superstar anywhere. He probably isn’t a champion without having played where he did but I think certain receivers are made by the QBs they play with and others are going to make a QB better.
Just to step away from the current players, Big Ben has had a host of receivers over the years. Many looked like world beaters only to basically suck when they left - Mike Wallace comes to mind. Then there’s a guy like Hines Ward who was just fantastically skilled and was tremendous before Ben arrived and even better with Ben.
I think Randy Moss and Gronk fall into the ‘Hines Ward’ category of guys that would be great anywhere and then there’s a lot of receivers that ‘look good’ based on whom they’re paired up with.
Not sure if I said that all correctly but I definitely think Tom Brady was the type that made lots of receivers look better than they were, just not guys like Moss and Gronk. (More so Gronk, Moss was always a bit of a wimp to me. I still think, if had more stones and fire, that he could have and should have caught the Hail Mary from Brady on the 2nd down (?) throw of the last series in ‘07 SuperBowl.
He wimped out. If he wanted that one, he could have.
Watch it and tell me otherwise. Randy Moss has no heart.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
@perkdog
Again, I’m talking about receivers in general; I definitely think some guys hang the QB out to dry and others make plays that help the QB and it is more a reflection on receivers than the guy throwing them the ball.
It’s hard to explain with Brady because he’s so good in his own right but I think you probably know what I am driving at.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
If I remember correctly, that Hail Mary was thisclose
Edit to add: I say if I remember because honestly, for as many times as I watch old Patriots highlights, I try to avoid 07 and 11 clips like the plague. It's still too soon... (though I did watch the Welker drop a bunch of times for some reason
And I do and to your point and @dallasactuary about Gronk. Yes I’m well aware he would have been good anywhere else within reason but to say Gronk made Brady look good is unfair since Brady won a LOT before Gronk was even out of high school. “Yea but Brady had Gronk” I can hear that but nobody will ever say “Yea but Brady had Deion Branch, Troy Brown, David Givens, Bethel Johnson, David Patten, Daniel Graham, Ect..” To your Randy Moss comments I agree, I think he was a scumbag and is not anyone I would ever trust in a situation where he might not be up for giving the extra effort when needed.
that hail mary was that close. I have always believed Moss should have gone and gotten that throw. that would have been an amazing end to that game.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
After really watching Hail Mary's over the years since then, I have come to the conclusion that the receivers have to be of the belief that there is chance of it happening and truly try. And if they do that, there is often plenty of opportunity to make a play. But unfortunately, for some, it is like just going through motions, a routine. And I can possibly ascribe this idea to Moss in that SB. But honestly, I have tried to avoid seeing it. And I certainly have never paused it or looked at a breakdown of it.
as far as Brady having a bad super bowl 55 or as Dallas said he had "no impact" on the game is absolutely foolish.
Brady had a great game. one of the better performances in SB history, at least according to the numbers. top 20 for sure.
9th best passer rating for SB game
9th best completion percentage for SB game
only six times has a QB thrown for more TD's than Bradys 3
0 turnovers.
he had very close to a perfect game. only 8 incompletions.
so, yes, he did have an impact on the game. a big one.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I think that was the point. Gronk wasn’t sucking Tom Brady dry like Deion Branch, Troy Brown, David Givens, Bethel Johnson, David Patten, Daniel Graham, Ect.
It’s why Gronk became the ‘security blanket’; its a guy Tom could trust that when he was in trouble he could toss it toward Gronk and he would catch it or knock it down.
There’s a lot of receivers that don’t.
Like, the majority.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
That wasn’t the point @dallasactuary was trying to make, though.
Tom Brady did have a great statistical game - no doubt - but it was probably the least memorable game he played in and there was never a point where he was needed.
He was needed to beat the Rams. He was needed to beat the Falcons.
But I n this one game? I tend to think it was forgettable. You never had Tom Brady riding in on the white horse, saying ‘Not today, fellas, not on my watch.’ Like he did many, many times before.
He just sort of stayed as Clark Kent this time. No Superman. No signature moment.
And it’s not his fault. Against Atlanta was when he had to spin around planet earth and reverse time to save Lois Lane.
This game was more like getting a cat out of a tree. I mean, sure you can have Superman do it but the fire department was there with the ladders up and everything so Superman, as Clark Kent, watches them and makes sure they don’t fall off the ladders. So he still technically saved the day but if he nodded off for a little bit or started texting Lois, no one really would have noticed.
😁
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
PS - Nearly everyone of you guys thinking Brady is being attacked here already sort of confirmed this being the case when you said ‘Man, this one was easy; not like the Patriots ones where you’re edge of your seat.’ And you are correct in that assertion.
Again, no ones saying ‘he sucked’. Just that when weighed against those other SB performances - contrasted against Atlanta, for ease of understanding - he just didn’t have that type of impact where he turned what by all rights looked like a sure loss into a miraculous win.
I mean, I really thought Tampa Bay was going to get on top of Kansas City and ask them to stop hitting themselves like my older sister used to do to me. 😂
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
again, i disagree. He was absolutely "needed" in the first half when he drove for 3 touchdowns, demoralized the chiefs after the last second TD to Brown and pretty much put away the game.
in the 4th quarter, the bucs were not playing for points, they were milking clock. the reason for all the running plays. I am sure they could have scored a couple more times and brady would have padded his stats, but for what?
just because he did the heavy lifting in the first half and they miked clock in the 2nd doesn't mean he wasn't "needed"
what an asinine statement.
it is like in a baseball game. sometimes the "closer" should enter the game in the 5th inning if there is a high leverage situation. there are times when the game is won or lost much earlier than the 9th. that doesn't mean the closer wasn't "needed" he was just "needed" at a different time, but for the same job.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
After the Bucs were stopped on that 4th and goal, I thought to myself doesn't matter, they are going to be able to score at will against this defense
Correct-a-mun-do!
This conversation has devolved into fanboys defending against slights that aren’t even being made.
Enjoy it.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
you were the one who said Brady wasn't "needed" for the bucs to win. its just a crazy statement. you do understand that he was "needed" to put up points and the big lead in the first half, right?
was Montana not "needed" in the blowout vs the broncos? what about the SB against the Dolphins? Was Steve Young "needed" against the chargers?
the assertion that if a team doesn't need a QB to come in and run a 2 minute drill to win a super bowl his performance when building that lead or maintaining that lead is somehow not "needed" is crazy.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
@craig44
I am pretty sure you know what italics and quotes mean and your opinion of me must be pretty low otherwise to call me asinine for offering my opinions.
And your worship and defense of Brady is well placed and deserved as he is truly one of the greatest players the NFL has ever seen.
Be well.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
I used Asinine to describe the assertion that Brady was not "needed" in the SB. I certainly did not mean it to be said about you personally. I can see now that using that word was a step too far and I apologize for it. I consider you to be a very valued poster in this forum and regret making you feel otherwise. no hard feelings were meant.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
All that was needed from a QB to win this latest SB was:
A QB much lesser than Brady (but obviously greater than Winston) could have accomplished that.
@craig44 👍
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Look at the martyrs in this thread
You people are ridiculous
If a QB not as good as Brady, but better than Winston, was leading the Bucs this past Sunday, would the Chiefs have approached the game differently? Maybe they would have had a different offensive game plan, feeling like they only needed to score x number of points to win. And maybe this game plan would have enabled them to score more than nine points. And if that was the case, it would have taken a QB maybe better than Winston, perhaps as good as Brady, to beat them. Can we extrapolate that out...
Ah, yes, I completely forgot it was Brady on defense overrunning the Chiefs cobbled together OL. My bad.
Cobbled together ol now , its still the nfl though right ?
not a tball league eith do overs right ?
If coach kfc isnt distracted by regret at hiring his worthless offspring maybe he makes an adjustment ?
Did the ol (cobbled ) make hill drop a bunch of passes ?
I actually wasn't trying to make a point about Brady getting the credit for the defense, or anything like that. I was trying to say that yes, the Chiefs only scored nine points, so yes, any QB who is somewhere in between Winston and Brady, could have theoritcally beaten the Chiefs "in a vacuum", but there are always outside, extenuating factors that lead to the Chiefs only scoring nine points. Certainly they went into the game with an offensive plan, but seemingly they were forced to possibly panic, change strategies, or go into catch up mode. And this was because Brady and the Bucs offense were scoring on them and not turning the ball over. And this directly influenced how they played on offense, because they had to react to a Bucs team that unexpectedly could drive on them fluidly and was taking care of the ball and eating clock.
Apparently tampas defense would play exactly the same wether they were ahead behind or tied zero each
Wait a minute. You are assuming a lot. In your hypothetical world another QB is going to lead them in the first half to one, two or three touchdowns and not turn the ball over. What happens if that hypothetical QB turns the ball over, gives KC great field position or stalls drives or kick field goals instead and TB goes into the locker room say up 9-6 or tied 6-6 or even behind? How is the second half played? How does it turn out? You can guess/ hypothesize/ assume. I don't have to guess. I know how it turned out.
I think it's safe to say that the D can put the O in good positions. That happened in the SB. I think it's safe to say that the O can put the D in good positions. That happened in the SB. In the real world Brady threw for 3 TD's in the first half. We don't have to guess about that.
I'm pretty sure defensives play better when they are up by 15 or 22 points rather then tied or up by one score. I'm pretty sure Defenses play better when they are rested. I'm pretty sure defensives play better when they don't have to worry about the run because the other team is trailing by multiple scores. So while the TB defense was GREAT they had help as well.
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Sorry, forgot where I was. All Hail the mighty TB! Just look at his winning percentage and rings!
all of these hypotheticals are driving me nuts. what actually happened is that Brady turned in one of the better SB performances by a QB. It could have been even better had they been going for points in the 2nd half.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
So hypothetically, if Roger Clemens had no suspicion of PED usage, would he be a HOFer?
As for everything else in your post and everyone else's posts I'll just say "What Wheaties and Larkin said".
But your last statement here just isn't true and means you have completely misunderstood my position. I hold Nolan Ryan in the highest regard although he was only a pitcher. I hold Wilt Chamberlain in the highest regard although he was only a center. I hold Bobby Orr in the highest regard although he was only a defenseman. And I hold Tom Brady in the highest regard a reasonable person can although he is only a QB. My point is not that any of these people were "only" players at their one position, my point is that players at every position are absolutely necessary to make a winning team. You, and just about everyone else, ignores or mocks or pooh-poohs the idea of allocating credit in some manner that goes beyond because, you know, quarterbacks. But it's a team sport, and whether my numbers or anyone else's numbers are the "right" ones is beside the point, it is the single only correct way to think about a team sport. And if you start the process by giving the QB too much credit (like, say, 10%) or a laughably absurd level of credit (like, say, 20%) then you don't have enough left over to separate bad players from good players at every other position. If a good LT gets 2% of the credit and a bad one gets 1%, then it hardly matters who plays LT. But of course it does matter, it matters a great deal as the Chiefs just showed you. In a because, you know, quarterbacks world nobody else is allowed to be very good, let alone great - the QB gets credit for the good play of everyone else, the ones who made his good play possible.
I am not putting down QBs, and I'm certainly not putting down Brady. I am standing up for all the other players who are working just as hard, are just as good at what they do as QBs are at what they do, and without whom no QB, not even He of the Seven Rings, would be able to win any games at all.
Here's another way of looking at it that just popped into my head (so I may be missing something important). Babe Ruth - the GOAT of baseball - has the record for WAR in a single season with 14.1 (he's also second and third). That means Ruth was responsible for the Yankees winning 14 more games than they would have if some schlub had been in RF instead. Now, the Yankees had plenty of other good players elsewhere, especially the pitchers (this was before Gehrig), and the idea that they would have won 84 games instead of 98 certainly seems plausible. And 14 games represents less than 10% of the schedule. In the football math that I've been using in this thread, that's giving Babe Ruth 9% of the credit for the Yankees success and, again, that sounds about right. So if it makes peace I will happily up my allocation to Brady to 9%, making him football's equivalent of Babe Ruth. If you, or anyone else, still thinks I'm disrespecting Brady by equating him with Babe Ruth then at this point that's on all of you, not me. If you, or anyone else, insists that Tom Brady, or any other QB, is significantly more important than the Babe, well, then I'm going to laugh at you and maybe this will help y'all understand why I'm laughing at you.
How would you adjust the 9% for additional players on the field on offense (9 BB vs. 11FB)? Asking for a friend who thinks 7% is the highest a rational person could get to.
then you don't have enough left over to separate bad players from good players at every other position. If a good LT gets 2% of the credit and a bad one gets 1%, then it hardly matters who plays LT. But of course it does matter, it matters a
This is the nonsense part
Watch the friggin game , who cares about apportioning credit down to the 1% ?People who own actual NFL teams are willing to pay QB's more than the entire offensive line . The people that write the paychecks are always right because they actually own the teams! They have skin in the game and put their own money on the line.
Stat wise Kelsey might seem to have had a good game but the box score doesn't tell you it was all garbage yards you have to watch the game to see that his 100+ yards were worthless to the outcome . A 3 yard catch by someone on the winning side means more than 200 yards by some loser on the other side. All yards aren't equal all catches arent equal all interceptions aren't equal either.
Just like how Rogers proudly showing off worthless MVP trophies is a joke while Brady has 7 rings.
The whole regular season 16 games played by every team is less important than the outcome of the superbowl. Its all that matters . Games won while in contention mean everything , wins after you are out might as well be cancelled. They mean nothing .
Tom Brady in one year doubled the value of the Tampa Bay Bucks . The people that write paychecks know that .
Yeah, I thought about that but it's guesswork and the headache I get when people want to give the QB around 10% credit is tolerable compared to the headaches the 25% (or more!) lunatics cause.
I'm not willing to waste more time than this figuring out what all the teams do, but the Bucs pay Brady 25 million and their offensive line 40 million (and Cappa will get one hell of a raise once his rookie contract is up). There is no team, there has been no team ever, there never will be a team where the QB by himself is more responsible for winning games than an entire offensive line. It can't happen. Use that fact when allocating the 47% of the credit the offense gets (don't forget the receivers and backs, and all the backups who also collectively make a whole lot more than Brady) and you'll see pretty quickly that there's a cap on how much credit you can give the QB, and that the cap is a whole lot lower than you desperately want to believe it is.
he would have a 5% chance
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I love what bronco said about all games and all plays not being equal. Wins and how a player performs when their team is in contention or in the playoffs/super bowl are just plain more important than regular season games with no import to the playoff picture.
there is something to playing under pressure. unlike baseball and basketball, the NFL playoff are not 5 or 7 game series. every NFL playoff game is a game 7. some players have an ability to perform well under that pressure. Joe Montana had it. Otto Graham had it, so did Unitas and Starr and yes, Brady too.
Quarterbacking teams with a cumulative 34-10 record in the playoffs is both unbelievable and a very large sample size as to Bradys greatness. He is, of course, the only constant in the 19 years of Patriots dominance. there has to be something to it. and I would dare say more than 5%
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I say MAYBE 7%
dallasactuary
And lucky for Tampa Bay to realize that Tom Brady means more than 5% of winning. That is an absolute joke. If Brady is only 5% of winning, then sabermetrics and BIll James are ALL completely wrong, and Babe Ruth would only be 1% of winning for his sport. You are not understanding the complexity of the QB position, and the commodity needed to man that. You can plug in a Leonard Fournette, those are interchangable and easy to find on team's benches...not a Tom Brady. The elite QB is the commodity.
You are putting Bill Mazeroski in the HOF for taking credit of the pitcher who was able to roll a ground ball. If you want to discount credit, then Mazeroski's percentage is so small I would run out of room of zero's after the decimal point, since Mazeroski is getting credit for something in which the commodity is the pitcher, where Mazeroski's reserves actually fielded better percentage wise than he did. So if Brady is at 5%, then someone like Mazeroski is at .0000000000000000001%.
Same for Barry Larkin. If Brady is only 5%, then Larkin will be lucky to be 1%. 1% does not belong in the HOF.
To use your analogy of "Brady can't complete a pass if the WR doesn't catch it." Mazeroski can't field a ground ball if the pitcher doesn't throw it...but the pitcher can get outs without the aide of mazeroski.
Lets remind that when Brady gets compared to other QB's that those QB's were sitting on a couch somewhere while Brady was continuing to win and be elite up to age 43(and beyond)
Enough about the toughness of the previous era. Favre played in the same era as Montana. 1996 was no different than 1984. Favre had an ironman streak as a QB that set a record, so it wasn't as dangerous as everyone makes it out to be. Marino played almost every single game of his career. Same for Elway. You guys are acting as if they were not playing with equipment in 1985.
Vinny Testaverde played until age 44 in that 'tough time' back then. Dave Krieg played until age 40.
Like I said before, yes the rule changes favor protecting the QB, but that is a necessity because the players tackling them are all bigger, stronger, and faster, and will kill them if not held in check some way.
YA Title did not get tackled by the beasts out there today. He managed to play until he was ancient.
Unitas played until age 40.
So enough of that 'times were tougher back then for a QB." No, in totality, they weren't.
The fact is, none of them had the skill to last as long as Brady and still be elite. Their skill levels all dropped tremendously as they got older and that is why they had to retire, NOT because the game was tougher.
The fact remains that Brady has played at an elite status unmatched by anyone AND for a length of career of elite years unmatched by anyone, while all other QB's were sitting on the couch watching at his age. For a nice cherry on top, he also won more in the regular season, percentage wise and total wise, and won all the rings. Nobody can match any of that.
dallasactuary
And lucky for Tampa Bay to realize that Tom Brady means more than 5% of winning. That is an absolute joke. If Brady is only 5% of winning, then sabermetrics and BIll James are ALL completely wrong, and Babe Ruth would only 1% of winning.
Come ON he agreed to 7%!
There seems to be a lot of moving the goal posts to fit a narrative.
We are being told to look the other way on records and accomplishments that are fact and focus instead on theory, hypothesis and assumption. Then when intangibles such as leadership are bought into the debate to illustrate added value it is scoffed at. Strange .
I respect the opinion that the QB position in football or the goalie position in hockey is over rated as to general public perception. But you lose me when it's devalued to the point of major eye rolling.
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I'm sorry, I have to stop here because I wet my pants.
OK, I'm dry again. Please pick any season in which Ruth played and allocate credit among he and his teammates so that it all adds up to 100%. One of us clearly is not understanding how this works, and I think if you'll do this it will become clear to you which one of us it is.
Bucs started 7-5 with Brady. It took a while for the chemistry to develop, to understand who is capable of what. After that they took off. Assuming they had a different QB who was capable of starting 7-5. Can some of you mathematical geniuses tell me the odds they would still have won the Super Bowl. ( I'm giving you 7-5 please don't tell me they could have been 11-1 with Joe Smoe at QB.)
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
SMH. That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.
Brady replaced a terrible QB on a very good team and made it a great team. The player on a great team that happens to be the last one to join does not get 100% of the credit. Put Brady on a bad team and they become a better team but still lose a lot of games and don't make the playoffs. If they then upgrade at another position or two and become great, by your logic Brady gets none of the credit because he was already there; all the credit goes to the guys who came later. That Brady was the last piece of the TB puzzle does not make him the only piece that matters. (Either that or you're just vomiting out the because, you know, quarterbacks argument with new lipstick.)
The answer to your question is that TB doesn't win the SB without Brady. It is also the answer to the same question if you asked it about Jason Pierre-Paul, Donovan Smith, and several others, depending on who plays instead of them. Your question is meaningless unless you specify who plays instead of Brady, but if you do specify who plays instead of Brady your question will all but answer itself.
If Tampa Bay does not win the Super Bowl without Brady but wins if they have Brady wouldn't that put his importance somewhere near 100%?
Case closed
And it's not debatable.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
I'm thinking there are at least several QBs, who if TB had picked up instead of Brady, could have got them all the way to second in their division, where they finished.
Well said.
I can't tell if you're kidding. Are you kidding? I really hope you're kidding.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
For the love of Brady, TELL ME YOU'RE KIDDING!!!!!
that is speculation, we are talking about what actually happened.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.