NFL Vol. I

[awesome possum]

I think the Chicago media just detests Lovie Smith and his arrogantly blowing sunshine up everybody's ass. True there aren't very many Homers left in the media. CBS' Johnny Morris used to practically drop and blow Ditka on a weekly basis.

Hub Arkush used to be a big McCaskey apologist but they have lost even him. I hear him rip GM Jerry Angelo and Lovie on a weekly basis on The Score. People are sick of the cloak and dagger act coming out of Halas Hall over the smallest details. They have had poor drafts, poor free agent signings, poor play but year after year Lovie stands up and tells them how everything is great

I think this is it. I know of at least one fan I know who hates Lovie Smith with a passion because Lovie shows no passion. Even after the team takes a complete pounding he is out there telling the media that it wasn't so bad and the team played well but got outplayed. There's no fire there and he's more than wore out the good grace he earned after taking the team to the Super Bowl. And the sad thing is, if the Bears manage to somehow make the playoffs or just make it above the .500 mark, his job will be safe for another year.

Lovie just happens to be the face of the problem with the team. The problem goes all the way to the top. Ownership is happy as long as they make money. There was a recent Forbes piece about how the Bears are horribly run and the team response was that for having the smallest stadium they're in the top ten revenues in the league.

The problem is that Virginia McCaskey is too old and most of her family too football inept. The team president was an accountant and the general manager is as stubborn as the head coach in that they can't admit when they've made a mistake and thus can't then correct said mistake.

I hope the Bears do well but I secretly can't wait for the Bill Cowher era to begin...

[Kalbear]

I mean, really? Brady's had "shit" years before this, statistically? You mean like in 2002 when he led the NFL in TD passes? The only year he's thrown for less than 3000 yards or less than 23 TDs was 2001 -- when he took over for Bledsoe and won a Super Bowl. Last year, coming off the knee blowout, he faced a tougher collection of pass defenses than anyone has faced since 1993 and still had great numbers.

Okay, let's go with this.

In 2002 he 'led the league' with 28 TDs. Against 14 interceptions. This in other years would be good but nothing amazing. In that same year he was ahead in TDs over Peyton Manning(27), Aaron Brooks (27), Trent Green (26), Chad Pennington (26). Do you really think this is something to crow about? Passing for 3500 yards a season (which he's consistently done) is on average between the 7th and 10th best each season. Again, good but nothing amazing, and certainly nothing compared to Manning or even Drew Brees (Brees' worst full season he threw for 3300 yards).

If you want to say that this makes Tom Brady awesome, statistically, that's fine - but then let's anoint folks like Hasselbeck, Eli Manning, Chad Pennington, Donovan McNabb and Jake Delhomme as awesome. For the non-MOss years ,they're pretty close.

I do think that Brady's one of the greatest, but let's not make his pre-Moss years as some amazing story where he was awesome. He wasn't that special statistically. FO was created in part because raw statistics didn't capture how awesome Tom Brady was - the implication is that his stats kinda weren't all that.

[DanteGabriel]

Okay, let's go with this.

In 2002 he 'led the league' with 28 TDs. Against 14 interceptions. This in other years would be good but nothing amazing. In that same year he was ahead in TDs over Peyton Manning(27), Aaron Brooks (27), Trent Green (26), Chad Pennington (26). Do you really think this is something to crow about? Passing for 3500 yards a season (which he's consistently done) is on average between the 7th and 10th best each season. Again, good but nothing amazing, and certainly nothing compared to Manning or even Drew Brees (Brees' worst full season he threw for 3300 yards).

If you want to say that this makes Tom Brady awesome, statistically, that's fine - but then let's anoint folks like Hasselbeck, Eli Manning, Chad Pennington, Donovan McNabb and Jake Delhomme as awesome. For the non-MOss years ,they're pretty close.

I do think that Brady's one of the greatest, but let's not make his pre-Moss years as some amazing story where he was awesome. He wasn't that special statistically. FO was created in part because raw statistics didn't capture how awesome Tom Brady was - the implication is that his stats kinda weren't all that.

Brady in his early career was an excellent, efficient quarterback who did well in big games. When the Pats acquired top-flight receivers in 2007 and changed the offense to accomodate it, he also showed he's capable of amazing production. That's the extent of what I'd say about him.

It's ridiculous to say he had "such shit" years before 2007. You might have picked up that I was objecting specifically to that characterization if you'd read my post instead of reflexively arguing against the Douchebag Pats Fan In Your Head. I do not think that there is a year in his career that could be objectively described as "shit." There's a fair bit of distance between the language you're trying to ascribe to me and the "such shit" language you used. You oversold your case with "such shit". Just man up and own what you said instead of mealy-mouthing into comparisons to McNabb and Hasselbeck.

[The Wedge]

I hope the Bears do well but I secretly can't wait for the Bill Cowher era to begin...

I'll take a 3-13 season if it means Cowher comes to town.

[awesome possum]

I do not think that there is a year in his career that could be objectively described as "shit."

Well, I dunno. He did only throw for 76 yards and no TDs a few years ago :P

[Trebla]

I'll take a 3-13 season if it means Cowher comes to town.

Lot of ppl think he is eyeing Carolina. The Bears would be a tough team to switch to the 3-4.

[awesome possum]

I'll take a 3-13 season if it means Cowher comes to town.

Definitely. It just means I'll have to adopt another team in the meantime, because after this Cubs season I don't think I can handle the only other professional sports team I really care about taking a giant crap on me too.

[Kalbear]

Look, having 4300 yards in a year and crowing that was this amazing feat IS because the previous years were so bad compared to that. That's the facts. Peyton Manning has had at least 100 yards of that 8 times in his career. If you said something like "this was the second-best yards he's ever thrown for" it only matters in context.

When your context is year after year of 4000+ yards a season, that's a big deal.

When your context is year after year of 3000+ yards with two outliers, that's not as big a deal.

Statistically speaking, Tom Brady IS comparable to McNabb, Hasselbeck, and Delhomme until 2007. That's also a fact. It's a reasonable comparison. Here's an example: here are four years of QB play taking out the best year from that QB, and for this Tom Brady's years before Moss are only used. How different are they from each other?

QB1: 3219, 3421, 3288, 3886

QB2: 3764, 3620, 3692, 4110

QB3: 3365, 3553, 3875, 3916

QB4: 3238, 3244, 3336, 3762

QB5: 2897, 3094, 3836, 4035

QB6: 3075, 3382, 3459, 3841

And using the same methodology, here are two more:

QB7: 3576, 4388, 4423, 4418

QB8: 4200, 4267, 4397, 4500

Now, which group does Brady more fit into? Can you identify which line is Brady's?

I'm not saying Brady was bad at this time. He just wasn't that special, statistically, and saying he had his second best year last year isn't that special when it's his second year with Moss and Welker. That isn't to say you shouldn't expect big things from him; I think you will, partially because he'll be facing easier defenses and partially because he'll have to score a ton to keep up with his meh defense - but it's a silly statement to make, almost as silly as saying that a second-year QB had his second-best year statistically.

[Jaxom 1974]

I think the Chicago media just detests Lovie Smith and his arrogantly blowing sunshine up everybody's ass. True there aren't very many Homers left in the media. CBS' Johnny Morris used to practically drop and blow Ditka on a weekly basis.

Hub Arkush used to be a big McCaskey apologist but they have lost even him. I hear him rip GM Jerry Angelo and Lovie on a weekly basis on The Score. People are sick of the cloak and dagger act coming out of Halas Hall over the smallest details. They have had poor drafts, poor free agent signings, poor play but year after year Lovie stands up and tells them how everything is great

This. A lot of Chicago media seems to have decided to not just toe the line any longer with regard to the sports teams. Is the sports talk radio? The internet? The dying of the newspaper industry that needs more flashes to be noticed?

I listen to the Score a lot, and love 'em or hate 'em, most of the primary hosts all have a similar attitude, even if it's delivered differntly. They all want change. They want accountability. They want the average Chicago Sports fan to be knowledgeable and honest with themselves that they too want those things.

The fact that these things aren't easy to change certainly makes for better radio.

[DanteGabriel]

Look, having 4300 yards in a year and crowing that was this amazing feat IS because the previous years were so bad compared to that. That's the facts. Peyton Manning has had at least 100 yards of that 8 times in his career. If you said something like "this was the second-best yards he's ever thrown for" it only matters in context.

When your context is year after year of 4000+ yards a season, that's a big deal.

When your context is year after year of 3000+ yards with two outliers, that's not as big a deal.

Statistically speaking, Tom Brady IS comparable to McNabb, Hasselbeck, and Delhomme until 2007. That's also a fact. It's a reasonable comparison. Here's an example: here are four years of QB play taking out the best year from that QB, and for this Tom Brady's years before Moss are only used. How different are they from each other?

QB1: 3219, 3421, 3288, 3886

QB2: 3764, 3620, 3692, 4110

QB3: 3365, 3553, 3875, 3916

QB4: 3238, 3244, 3336, 3762

QB5: 2897, 3094, 3836, 4035

QB6: 3075, 3382, 3459, 3841

And using the same methodology, here are two more:

QB7: 3576, 4388, 4423, 4418

QB8: 4200, 4267, 4397, 4500

Now, which group does Brady more fit into? Can you identify which line is Brady's?

I'm not saying Brady was bad at this time. He just wasn't that special, statistically, and saying he had his second best year last year isn't that special when it's his second year with Moss and Welker. That isn't to say you shouldn't expect big things from him; I think you will, partially because he'll be facing easier defenses and partially because he'll have to score a ton to keep up with his meh defense - but it's a silly statement to make, almost as silly as saying that a second-year QB had his second-best year statistically.

I wasn't crowing about a damn thing. I'm not tag-teaming you with Rock. Your larger argument with Rock is not something I'm getting involved in.

Read what I wrote. You fucking well said Brady was bad. You said he had shit years. I called you on "such shit," and then you tried to move the goalpost by comparing him to top-half quarterbacks like it backs up your point about shitty years. I never used the word "awesome" -- you tried to put that in my mouth. Like I said, just own up to what you said. You said his early years were shit, and I argued against that. Now you're trying to say you never said that. Come on.

[Kalbear]

I said that the only reason that it was all impressive was because Brady had '

and the only reason it was his second best was because he's had such shit years before this statistically.

'.

I stand by that. Especially by comparison to what he's doing now. Take offense or don't. 3500 yards a season is not something to be thrilled about unless you're a Chicago fan. At best you can call it 'good'. It's otherwise fairly mediocre. As an example, in 2009 16 teams threw for 3500 yards or more. In 2008 13 teams did. In 2007 14 teams did. If you like, I will revise it to say that 'and the only reason it was his second best was because he's had such mediocre years before this statistically' but to me, mediocre and shit are fairly synonymous. Especially when you're comparing 3500 yards to 4300 yards and 4700 yards.

[Mexal]

Tell me true, Rock - if your team is up by 4 with 2 minutes remaining, do you fear Manning, Brees or Brady more?

Brady. He's proven over and over that he's great under pressure. I can't say the same for the other QBs, not in big games anyway. I love Manning and would take him 99% of the time, but come on, in a massive pressure situation, it has to be Brady.

And this is from someone who hates him.

[DanteGabriel]

So now you're arguing that "shit" is "good." Just checking.

[Kalbear]

Well, in the vernacular shit is good. :)

Actually, I'm arguing that shit is average. When you're comparing yourself against the likes of Jason Campbell, Jake Delhomme, Matt Leinart, Kyle Orton and whatnot - I don't feel too bad in calling that sort of quarterback "shit". They're better than random 2nd stringers that hang around for a couple years, but it's not like you really want them to be the face of your offense.

Really, this all speaks to the weakness of using yards as anything of a reasonable metric for...well, anything. Teams that throw for more yards tend to have shitty special teams and bad defenses because they throw a lot catching up and have much longer fields to go on. This was actually a big problem for Brady; his defense was really strong and they were ahead quite often, so there was no need to go nuts with throwing and he had short fields. But a normal yards measurement doesn't look at that at all; it looks at total yards and goes OMG, ignoring things like pass efficiency and ability to throw for yards needed for a first and keep drives alive.

And yes, I'd totally have been envious of 3500 yards a season year in and out with a 2:1 TD/Int ratio as a Chicago fan. That's a QB dream, right there. 3500 yards would be like the third best performance by a Chicago QB EVER. We so fucking need a dome.

[Swordfish]

25 ESPN people make their Super Bowl picks. Lots of Ravens and Packers.

Surprised to see the cowboys on there 5 times.

[Starkess]

Surprised to see the cowboys on there 5 times.

At least no one has them winning...

[Rockroi]

Non Brady-sucks comments:

The quick fix to ensuring the refs aren't hurt is to have them wear some safety equipment.

This is a solid point. I also think removing the ref’s from the “danger-zone” is also something to consider.

They (we?) definitely try to perfect the "run a non-story into the ground or until it becomes a story and then run it into the ground" narrative. As well as the bizarre and rather nasty, "Hey, remember that guy we absolutely loved a few months ago because he was awesome? Well he's less awesome now and I HATE HIS FUCKING GUTS AND HOPE HIS CHILDREN DIE IN A HORRIBLE CAR CRASH WHILE HE WATCHES AND CAN'T DO ANYTHING TO STOP IT!!!! Then gets traded out of town."

Ah, yes, the “Johnny Damon/NOMAH” Corollary. We know it well.

To be fair, I've said and thought this for a few years now. The disdain and sometimes sweeping hatred I've seen from some Pats fans towards Chicago is usually reserved for rivals or the team the media is engaged in a hardcore lovefest with.

I will say that I have not noticed this UNTIL Cutler arrived. I was very negative towards Grossman but that was only because he was horrible and everyone was pretending he was not that bad. That was amazing. The media IN THAT REGARD was overplaying THAT aspect of the Bears and that DID anger me. And in my own defense, I SPECIFICALLY stated last season that after Urlacher went down I was rooting for the Bears (which was hard with Cutler there). And I never disliked Orton.

His team? I don't think he's fearing Brady going rogue or anything.

I sometimes wake up in a nightmare scenario when Brady throws a pick on purpose to a Indy Defensive Back a-la Hulk Hogan-leg-drop on Randy Macho-Man Savage. Other than that, no I think its safe to say he’s a Patriot.

[Mack Kilimaro]

I sometimes wake up in a nightmare scenario when Brady throws a pick on purpose to a Indy Defensive Back a-la Hulk Hogan-leg-drop on Randy Macho-Man Savage. Other than that, no I think its safe to say he’s a Patriot.

I think it was Bill Simmons who envisioned a scenario like that with Adam Vinatieri when the latter signed with the Colts, only the Patriots would be on the right end of the player going rogue. The missed field goal late in a playoff game scenario, followed by "Good God, that's Bill Belichick's music!" as Vinatieri rips off his Colts jersey to reveal a Pats jersey.

So I think if something like that ever happens, you'll be on the right end of it.

[Kalbear]

As to comebacks, it's funny - because up until that fateful AFCCG, most everyone would pick Brady.

Now I think it's psychologically Manning's. Think about some of the non-comebacks Brady's been a part of recently:

We had the AFCCG, where he had a minute left and threw a pick. Tough place to be, but still, game over.

We have the superbowl, where he gets creamed and ends up doing nothing of consequence. Again, tough place to be, but game over with Brady having a chance and blowing it.

We have Brady vs. manning last year and the infamous 4th and 2.

We have Brady getting smashed vs. Baltimore last year.

Whereas until Manning threw that pick against the Saints, no one - not a single person not named Sean Payton - thought the SWaints would stop Manning. From that AFCCG, to the 4th and 2 game that Belichich gave away entirely because he couldn't trust his defense to stop Manning, to all those bizarre games last year where Manning seemed to will victory from nothing (or literally force Rosenfels to fumble with the power of his giant forehead).

I'm actually trying to remember the last time Brady led a comeback against a meaningful opponent since the AFCCG. And while I'm not a huge fan, I still can't think of any big ticket games. Does anyone else have some examples? I'm not trying to be facetious here; I'm sure this is selective memory and that it isn't that cut and dried, but I'm still coming up with nothing.

[Rockroi]

This is my new favorite game: let’s ignore evidence ON PURPOSE in the hopes that nobody notices.

And I am still not sure why kal quoted a raid post in a thread about the NFL. I find that fascinating.

I'm not saying that Brady's suddenly going to turn into Cutler or Trent Green or something, but the days of arguing about whether or not Brady or Manning is better I think are done.

Its possible. I stated that if we are going to have to settle on having the third best QB in the league I am cool with that. I don’t think that is happening, but its possible. You seem to treat it as a death sentence- openly comparing Brady to Cutler and Green (and pretending that you didn't).

Brees earned that other spot. Brady might have had his second-best statistical year last year, but that's still crap compared to Manning or Brees statistically, and the only reason it was his second best was because he's had such shit years before this statistically.

You are basically saying that statistically Brady is not that good, but in order to do that you HAVE to ignore the greatest regular season a QB has had in NFL history. In 2007, arguably, Brady had the greatest year ever by a QB- your argument is that Brady is mediocre… except when he CLEARLY IS NOT! You do this a lot. Last season you desperately tried to convince me that Sanchez was not that bad of a QB and your argument was that if you threw out the Bills game (where Sanchez threw 5 INTs) he was not THAT bad. This is monumentally illogical, but people do it all the time when discussing sports. “If you take away the games where Manning threw multiple INTS against the Pats in the playoffs, he’s a great post-season QB.”

We should extend this logic. “Other than that night in 1994, OJ Simpson was a pretty nice guy.” “Other than that whole Valdez incident, Exxon is a very environmentally conscious company.”

Thus, each time you try, like the dickens, to avoid 2007, you sound more and more like “But other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?”

In 2002 he 'led the league' with 28 TDs. Against 14 interceptions. This in other years would be good but nothing amazing. In that same year he was ahead in TDs over Peyton Manning(27), Aaron Brooks (27), Trent Green (26), Chad Pennington (26). Do you really think this is something to crow about?

Except we’re not “crowing” about it; you are trying to say its “shit.” Therefore, You must convince others that the year Brady threw 28 TD passes v. 14 INTs (on a team with no running game) was a “shit” year. What does that make all the other Qbs that season? Diarrhea years? I find that logic amazing.

Passing for 3500 yards a season (which he's consistently done) is on average between the 7th and 10th best each season. Again, good but nothing amazing, and certainly nothing compared to Manning or even Drew Brees (Brees' worst full season he threw for 3300 yards).

Except you are forgetting that Brady has done that CONSISTENTLY and without a huge swing in INTs or back-breaking mistakes or inconsistency. That is HUGE for a team. A team should not give a shit if you throw 50 TDs or 32 as long as when you have to do your job, you win. And that is shown in % of completions and lack of INTs, two Stats Brady always does well in (as well as total yards, Tds, etc- seriously kal, I am not even certain YOU know what you are arguing at this point). .

Now, I know at this point you would try to say something about DVOA and how statistics mean more when nobody has ever heard of them before. So, for this reason, I capitulate to that logic…

Here is a list from Football Outsiders for the 2009 season. Please review it, I will wait.

(Pauses while kal throws up a little in his mouth)

Did you happen to notice who FBO ranked as the most important QB in the NFL when using DYAR and second in in DVOA? The simple version: DYAR means a quarterback with more total value. DVOA means a quarterback with more value per play. Nopw, remember, YOU stated that based on last season, Tom Brady was WORSE than Manning and Breee and you then implied that you no longer fear him, etc. Why?

Look again, I will wait. Oh, in case you missed it here is the link again:

(Waits while kal tries to claim that this actually supports his point when it clearly does not)

Who was it again? Certainly it was Drew Breese who was …. No, no it wasn’t. Oh, than it MUST have been Peyton Manning the greatest QB in American His… no, no it wasn’t. Who was it again?

And If you cannot remember let me give you a hint: it was the SAME QB who was #1 in BOTH categories in 2007 (“But other than that season, Mrs. Polian, how as the play?”)

Yes. It was Tom Brady. And this is the web page you shove down our throats whenever we don’t agree with you. This is YOUR argument, not ours! Your argument to counter this is to say “But I am only arguing STATISTICS” and my reply is this: Tom Brady is not on this massive decline you seem to think he is (you say he is out of the top-two and seem to say it with just a hint of relish). And if I am wrong and Brady is just “Top 3” I can live with that.

But you seem to need to degrade him; to make it seem much worse (admit it: you are wearing your Bernard Pollard shirt right now, aren’t you? Be honest.). You want him to do poorly. And while I can see some of that (I readily admit I cheered when Manning threw that INT- almost as much as I cheered Favre’s two weeks earlier), I find that it impacts your impartiality. Me? I readily admit I am not impartial when it comes to the Pats; I am a fan (I also argue well on their side). But you seem to want to hide it.

And you consistently just pretend like 2007 did not happen. Which is fine because I often pretend it didn’t either.

So whittle it away- make your stats say what you want them to say: Brady has not defeated anyone of importance since 2006’s AFC Championship Game (forgetting, conveniently, who he was throwing to) and ignoring 2007 altogether, including two playoff games where Brady dominated (the third? Not so much).

Because that’s a fun game. Because besides 2006 and 2009, Peyton Manning and Drew Breese, respectively, have yet to win a Superbowl.

See? That is how much sense your argument makes!