TNF: Chiefs vs. Patriots (Opening Day!!!)

[lancerman]

54 minutes ago, Jlowe22 said:

The Patriots ARE an extremely well built and well coached team.  I mean, Matt Cassell was able to go 10-5 with that team.    

This doesn't have anything to do with Brady, except that the obvious pairing of elite team and elite QB produces elite results.  

 

Cassell went 10-6 on a much worse Chiefs team. The Patriots played two divisions that year where the best team between the two of them was 9-7 and the remaining 7 were .500 or lower. 

Has more to do that Cassell is competent enough to win if he's put in a position to succeed , albeit not consist enough to do it on the regular, and that was likely the best team most QB's could ever play on (the 07 and 08 Patriots were stacked) and he benefited off a bunch of bottom feeders who he'd have to outright suck against to lose to. 

That was more of a lightning in the bottle case where they had a replacement who was good enough and the rest of the team was at a peak point and the schedule was at one of the lower points. You replace Cassell with alot of back ups in the league at the time (a lot, not the rarities like Rodgers who were starters in the making) or put them against the previous schedule from last year, and the team probably goes sub .500, or put Cassell and that schedule surrounded by most other Patriots teams, and they don't do that.

[Jlowe22]

2 minutes ago, lancerman said:

Cassell went 10-6 on a much worse Chiefs team. The Patriots played two divisions that year where the best team between the two of them was 9-7 and the remaining 7 were .500 or lower. 

Has more to do that Cassell is competent enough to win if he's put in a position to succeed , albeit not consist enough to do it on the regular, and that was likely the best team most QB's could ever play on (the 07 and 08 Patriots were stacked) and he benefited off a bunch of bottom feeders who he'd have to outright suck against to lose to. 

That was more of a lightning in the bottle case where they had a replacement who was good enough and the rest of the team was at a peak point and the schedule was at one of the lower points. You replace Cassell with alot of back ups in the league at the time (a lot, not the rarities like Rodgers who were starters in the making) or put them against the previous schedule from last year, and the team probably goes sub .500, or put Cassell and that schedule surrounded by most other Patriots teams, and they don't do that.

I'm not arguing any of that.  Only saying the team is extremely well built and extremely well coached.

This shouldn't be surprising, since a garbage team isn't going to win 5 superbowls regardless who is the QB.

[lancerman]

6 hours ago, ChazStandard said:

Go to bed, Peyton.

Well yeah when you take a stretch of seasons of Belichick coaching the team and then limit it so you conveniently get to ignore the outlier season in 2000 that makes your 1 season and 4 game sample size without Brady a wash, yeah it looks good. 

When you look at the reality of it Belichick had a piss poor season with Bledsoe, started 2 more games where he went 0-2 before Brady started and then went on his run with Brady, he had his best team ever in 2007 and almost went undefeated, lost Brady with virtually the same team the following year where they got the benefit of playing two trash conferences and went 11-5 which was a disappointment over the last year and cost them a playoff spot (coincidentally they lost the playoff spot to a team that went 1-15 the previous year, which tells you how big a difference that schedule made). then went on to have a 7 year stretch with a SB win, a SB loss, and 5 AFCCG appearances, had to play 4 games without Brady, one that they won off a missed field goal, two others that they one, and then a shut out loss. Then Brady took over and went on an 14-1 run to win the Super Bowl. 

In New England he's 19-19 without Brady and 208-62 with him. And it's alot worse if you go back to his last head coaching stint

[Revel8]

18 hours ago, onejayhawk said:

15 of those were in 2008. Matt Cassell went 10-5. That leaves a total of five games. 4-1 is a nice record starting a backup, but hardly head turning.

J

16 of them were.  IIRC Cassel hadn't started a football game since high school when he stepped in for Brady during the 1st quarter with the score tied 0-0.  They went on to win that game and 10 more, leading to an 11-5 record.  Through bad luck in tiebreakers, they became only the 2nd team in NFL history to ever miss the playoffs with an 11-5 record.  Then the next season when Brady came back, they went 10-6, making the playoffs.

 Then last season Brady was suspended 4 games.  The Patriots went 3-1 using their #2 and #3 QBs, as both back ups got injured while playing.  IIRC believe their #3 was still injured when he was forced to play in game 4 as well. 

When other teams lose their great QB, they typically don't end up with .700 records.  That's for good reason.  Most of these teams specifically rely upon how great their QB is to generate wins. 

When Peyton Manning got injured, the Colts completely collapsed.  The build of their entire team was predicated on having Peyton Manning in the line up.  When he wasn't there, they won a grand total of 2 games the entire season.  It's been a similar story when Aaron Rodgers gets injured, Rodgers is so important to the Packers that when he isn't in the game they struggle for wins, going 3-8-1 when the Packers lose him.

Now this doesn't mean that Brady doesn't help the Patriots win.  He does, obviously.  The Patriots are typically such a great, well prepared team that they can handle losing their great QB better than nearly other teams can.  A team that is of such high quality that they can generate a 14-6 record without their great QB will naturally have an astonishing amount of success when that QB returns to the line up.  

 

[ztoa]

18 minutes ago, Revel8 said:

When Peyton Manning got injured, the Colts completely collapsed. 

 

Tell the idiots in Colts to find a backup with driver licence.

That is really unbelievable, Cassel even took Chiefs to playoff without MOss.

[Revel8]

10 hours ago, Jlowe22 said:

The Patriots ARE an extremely well built and well coached team.  I mean, Matt Cassell was able to go 10-5 with that team.    

This doesn't have anything to do with Brady, except that the obvious pairing of elite team and elite QB produces elite results.  

 

This is one reason I feel so sorry for Brees.  A lot of his greatness has been squandered as his surrounding teams have mostly been really bad.  Especially the defense.  It's not like Brees is to blame for his team's bad records, he's what's actually giving them a chance.

In fact, a recent analysis at Football Perspective pointed out that out of Brees, Manning, Rodgers, and Brady, Brees has had the least amount of help from his team out of all 4 QBs.  Brady's had the most help from his team, obviously, and by a rather large amount.

 

"Rodgers takes the overall lead in QB performance, coming in with the fewest bad games across all metrics, followed by Peyton Manning, Tom Brady and then Drew Brees. In the playoffs, Drew Brees takes the playoff lead as he’s only had one bad game by the numbers, followed by Rodgers, Brady and then Manning.

Across the board, Tom Brady has won the most games while putting in a poor performance, sometimes by massive margins. If you look at the actual number of poor games across all three metrics, Drew Brees has a similar number of poor performances – but Brady has about double the wins across the board. When you look at these numbers, you can see that Peyton Manning has actually had very good support in his bad games when compared to Rodgers and especially Brees; it’s just not the otherworldly support that Belichick and company provided Brady with."

http://www.footballperspective.com/guest-post-support-for-manning-brady-brees-and-rodgers-part-iii/

 

[ztoa]

17 minutes ago, Revel8 said:

"Rodgers takes the overall lead in QB performance, coming in with the fewest bad games across all metrics, followed by Peyton Manning, Tom Brady and then Drew Brees. In the playoffs, Drew Brees takes the playoff lead as he’s only had one bad game by the numbers, followed by Rodgers, Brady and then Manning.

Across the board, Tom Brady has won the most games while putting in a poor performance, sometimes by massive margins. If you look at the actual number of poor games across all three metrics, Drew Brees has a similar number of poor performances – but Brady has about double the wins across the board. When you look at these numbers, you can see that Peyton Manning has actually had very good support in his bad games when compared to Rodgers and especially Brees; it’s just not the otherworldly support that Belichick and company provided Brady with."

http://www.footballperspective.com/guest-post-support-for-manning-brady-brees-and-rodgers-part-iii/

 

How do you define good performance? How do you define poor performance, huh?

Do you consider he had bad game against Falcons? (Brady would have given Packers a chance)

Do you consider he had bad game against Seahawks? (Brady would have won that one)

Do you consider Brady had bad games against Broncos ? (With the line that penetrated within 3 seconds, Rodgers would be killed)

Do you consider Brady had bad games against Chargers in 2006? (How the heck would Pats have had chance if the QB didn't even want to take risk with that support?)

Put Rodgers in any playoff games Brady played, he would play worse or much worse than Brady did.

Rodgers simply didn't take risk even when he had to , that is the greatness you brag about?

[ztoa]

For example, against Falcons : 

Brady didn't force the balls until Falcons led by 2 TD, and he forced the pass and threw a pick 6.

Why didn't Rodgers force balls basically the whole 2nd half? How on earth is it possible when your team is losing big? trailing by 17 pts was not enough  that he had to make something happen?

Unbelievably still brag about his stats. 

_____

What kind of idiot (of the link) would consider the two games against Chargers and Broncos were bad game by Brady? Could any QB have done better with Jabar Gaffney as #1 WR? could any QB have done better with that line?

I guess that all the playoff games Brady won before 2007 were bad games by Brady based on his criteria  (QBR < 95 I guess). He never thought if Rodgers could have won those games with WR like Troy Browns or Deion Branch or Jabar Gaffney.

[ztoa]

Here are the key differences of how Brady and Rodgers play differently in redzone.

Difference 1 :

Quote

 

Without big WR, lot of Brady's pass in redzone are not thrown into the endzone, like first 3TD in redzone in regular times in SB LI, 3 passes (2 to James White, 1 to Amendola) were caught within 5 yds lines, but not in endzone. So even though it was Brady who put his team in good position to score TD,  he didn't get credit on stats unless his WR can run into the endzone, like the tying TD, Brady got no credit at all on stats. (not mention he used "easy" plays to move his offense into scoring position, hence even less credit)

With big WRs, Rodgers can afford throwing the balls directly into endzone and a TD, so if score a TD, Rodgers gets all the credit on stats.

 

 

Difference 2 :

Quote

 

Near goal line, Rodgers threw lot on first and goal, that is the key reason that he had lot of TD in redzone, while Brady's plays completely depend on what is given by defense.

Against Atlanta in NFCCG :

Quote

 

1st TD, Rodgers threw 3 times within 7 yds.

2nd TD, 3 consecutive plays by Rodgers from 14 yd line.

3rd TD, 2 pass by Rodgers from 1 yd line.

 

Basically, Packers RB were not even given a chance to make a play. Result? all three TDs credited to by Rodgers. 

Pats last game against Chiefs.

Quote

Brady handed balls to Mike Gillislee on 1st down in all 3 TD drives 

Result? Brady got no credit at any of the 3 TD.

 

 

Now, when under pressure, Brady moves the chains by short passes, unlike Rodgers who always look for big plays. So even though the results  of one pass for 15 yds  is no different from two completed passes for 15 yds (better for defense), on stats, one pass for 15 yds gives QB better stats.

This, plus the way how they play in redzone, put Rodgers stats ahead of Brady's stats.

In summary, even though Brady's way is better than Rodgers way, even though Brady's way can score more than Rodgers way, even though Brady's way is better for the team, Rodgers gets better stats.