The NFL - Playoffs? PLAYOFFS?

[Kalbear]

Carry on.

[quote name='Rockroi' post='1628952' date='Dec 23 2008, 10.14']Tom Brady - we know as pure fact - was worth AT LEAST 5 wins last season to the Pats. How do I know this? because the Pats are now 10-5 when last season they were 15-0. And there have been virtually no other changes to the team (other than, of course, horrifying injuries on D). Thus, if he is "above average" than Cassell must fucking suck. Which, he might.[/quote]What?

So because the Pats went 10-5 against the NFC West and AFC West this year, and went 15-0 against the NFC East and AFC North last year...that means Brady was worth only those 5 games from this year?

I agree that Brady is simply a great QB, and he'd be doing fine anywhere. I do think that this season shows that Manning is better or at least more important to his team than Brady was, but that doesn't make Brady simply above average. But I think it's ludicrous to look at the record from the previous year against totally different teams and compare it reasonably to what's going on this year. I think it's equally ridiculous, by the way, to compare quarterbacks based on their head-to-head record, but people do that idiotic thing all the time too.

[mcbigski]

[quote]How do I know this? because the Pats are now 10-5 when last season they were 15-0. And there have been virtually no other changes to the team (other than, of course, horrifying injuries on D).[/quote]

How many wins are the injured defenders worth?

As for the roster staying the same, that means everyone is one year older. Not sure where the crossover is in football where another year of experience is worth more than the cost of another year of aging on the body. Probably depends on position, style of play etc.

Out of the 5 win differential, it seems reasonable to me that 'horrifying injuries on D' could account for roughly two losses, and I'd also attribute one to inexperience on the part of Cassel, rather than lack of ability. He's certain looks better now than he did earlier in the season. The loss against Miami I'd probably hang more on the D though.

Brady might be good for an extra two wins over Cassel, which again, IMO, made him one the top several in the league, but no where near as irreplaceable as people seemed to think based on last season's stats, where a lot of people in my part of New England seemed to think he was one of the top several of all time.

Also, in a 16 game season, luck has a huge impact on a teams final record. I tend to think that the Pats last year weren't a 15 win team based on expected value, any more than Miami was a 15 loss team. The team with the best record at the end of the season has to be both lucky and good, and the worst, generally, both unlucky and bad. (This years Lions might be an outlier though, a perfect storm of crappy on field talent, bad coaching, worse management and even supported by a fan base that expects nothing less than excellence at suckitude.)

Consider MLB v NFL, the best and worse winning percentages are much more extreme in the NFL, not because of a difference in parity between the leagues, just because MLB's season is ten times as long so luck evens out more.

Edited to add: OK, I forgot the Pats went 16-0 in the regular season last year. It would have been much harder to make that mistake had Brady performed better in the Superbowl. ;)

[Rockroi]

What?

[quote]So because the Pats went 10-5 against the NFC West and AFC West this year, and went 15-0 against the NFC East and AFC North last year...that means Brady was worth only those 5 games from this year?[/quote]

I am not 100% sure what the gripe is here. All I was pointing out is that with a weaker schedule (and this season's schedule is the defacto MVP of the Pats season, btw) the Pats are not as good as they were last season with a very harrowing scheudle (they played the NFC East- 3 teams from that division made it to the playoffs). THus, I think that saying Brady was good for AT LEAST 5 wins (Pats losses this season Colts, Dolphins, Jets, Chargers, Steelers... all teams we beat last season) seems reasonable. Yes, it could very well be more (and it probably is more because its very possible the Pats don't beat the Giants, Cowboys and Skins without Brady), but I wanted to set a base line.

[quote]I agree that Brady is simply a great QB, and he'd be doing fine anywhere. I do think that this season shows that Manning is better or at least more important to his team than Brady was, but that doesn't make Brady simply above average.[/quote]

I agree with the second thing: I think Manning is far more improtant to the Colts than Brady is to the Pats, but that's more a factor of the Colts being absolutely wretcehed without Manning while the Pats are a playoff calibre team without Brady.

[quote]But I think it's ludicrous to look at the record from the previous year against totally different teams and compare it reasonably to what's going on this year. I think it's equally ridiculous, by the way, to compare quarterbacks based on their head-to-head record, but people do that idiotic thing all the time too.[/quote]

For one thing, they are not "totally" different teams the previous year. Like I stated, the Pats 5 losses all came to teams they defeated last season. Yes, there were some large changes to the Jets and Dolphins, but its not really anything that I dthink Brady could not have handled (and, in fact, even Cassell was able to handle both those teams). Try to factor into this that I am using only readily available information to defend against a pretty ludicrious claim. Otherwise, I am just saying "ZOMG! BRADY IS AWESOME!!11!!1!!!" And I stopped doing that days ago. The facts and figures can only go so far because I only have so much to work with.

[quote]Out of the 5 win differential, it seems reasonable to me that 'horrifying injuries on D' could account for roughly two losses, and I'd also attribute one to inexperience on the part of Cassel, rather than lack of ability. He's certain looks better now than he did earlier in the season. The loss against Miami I'd probably hang more on the D though.[/quote]

Well, the losses on D were cumulative; I mean Adelius Thomas was with us until the second Jets game, so no excuse there for losing to Miami, Pitt, SD, etc. And yeah, Cassel was rediculously inexperienced, and I will give you this: if Cassel NOW were to play the Miami team back in week 3, the Pats would wipe the mat with the Dolphins, so here I clearly see your point. But my point is that Brady wins that game no matter what.

[quote]Brady might be good for an extra two wins over Cassel, which again, IMO, made him one the top several in the league, but no where near as irreplaceable as people seemed to think based on last season's stats, where a lot of people in my part of New England seemed to think he was one of the top several of all time.[/quote]

I think the word here that is casuing problems is "irreplaceable." In my mind, the Pats could be anywhere from 13-3 to 15-1 this season with Brady. But the main difference is that they are clearly in the playoffs and maybe have home field advantage v. maybe not in the playoffs at all. This, to me, is a good definition of "irreplaceable." But, I think I agree with you in that Brady is not, truy "irreplaceable." I think a more proper word would be "intrigal" or "most valuable." Yes, the Pats can still compete in the NFL without Brady (and thus MOST EVERYONE was wrong when they said the opposite during the pre-season), but not at that high a level wherein you expect success. That's what Brady gives you.

And I do agree - take Manning off the Colts, Rivers off the Chargers (this season), Cutler off the Broncos, and those teams are all unwatchably bad. That is something, truly, that the Pats can be proud of this season- they lost the best player in football and still have a playoff caliber team.

[quote]Also, in a 16 game season, luck has a huge impact on a teams final record.[/quote]

I completey disagree with the word "huge." Yes, it did factor in- the Ravens game cannot be overlooked. I think the Pats were no more lucky in its 16-0 run than most teams are in a regular 16 game season. Obviously, the 2008 Colts seem to be having a love affair with Lady Luck but we are not really talking much about that. What I will say is that it did not suffer from any significantly BAD luck, and this is huge! Injuries were almost totally abscent from the Pats (Sammy Morris and Rosey Colvin being the only exceptions, neither crutial); they played in a miserable division; they made a trade with the Raiders- all very fortunate events. But luck? Nah- maybe one win.

[quote]I tend to think that the Pats last year weren't a 15 win team based on expected value, any more than Miami was a 15 loss team.[/quote]

I don't think this statement says very much. Frankly, the Dolphins last season were horrid from the word go. Both were within the realm of possibilities once the teams took the field.

[quote]It would have been much harder to make that mistake had Brady performed better in the Superbowl.[/quote]

Ho, ho ho...

[awesome possum]

I'd say Brady is now a great QB. He had the benefit of being put into an almost perfect system that over the years was then perfected around him and his playing ability. He's been coached by a guy who, love him or loathe him, is Hall of Fame bound and in contention as one of the best coaches of all time.

Would Tom Brady still be Tom Brady if Bledsoe had never gotten injured and he eventually moved on to another team? Doubtful. What made Tom Brady from a QB who was excellent in the clutch but mostly average to good regular stat-wise to a QB considered the best in the league going into this season is that he's simply had a near-perfect confluence of events and players built around him and the time and skills to forge himself into what he was last season and probably will be next season.

[Kalbear]

[quote]For one thing, they are not "totally" different teams the previous year. Like I stated, the Pats 5 losses all came to teams they defeated last season. Yes, there were some large changes to the Jets and Dolphins, but its not really anything that I dthink Brady could not have handled (and, in fact, even Cassell was able to handle both those teams). Try to factor into this that I am using only readily available information to defend against a pretty ludicrious claim. Otherwise, I am just saying "ZOMG! BRADY IS AWESOME!!11!!1!!!" And I stopped doing that days ago. The facts and figures can only go so far because I only have so much to work with.[/quote]I think Miami with a new coach, new QB, new scheme, a vastly different OLine and a revamped defense is definitely a different team. That they went from 2-14 to 10-5 should indicate that.

I think the Jets who went through more personnel changes if not more coaching changes are in the same boat.

Mostly, I think that while the Pats roster may not have changed (aging otherwise ignored) the other teams you played absolutely did - especially in your division. As did the NFC West and AFC West. San Diego and Denver last year were not the same team they are this year for instance.

It's just not a reasonable comparison to make. It's like saying that because Cassel ran for more yards this year, he's a better QB than Brady was last year. It doesn't even make sense to argue, and it certainly doesn't make sense to argue via a factual claim. This is, btw, why I think the 'longest winning streak between seasons' streak the Pats have is pretty much BS. Season to season things are so hugely volatile that it just isn't a useful metric of anything.

[Rockroi]

[quote]It's just not a reasonable comparison to make. It's like saying that because Cassel ran for more yards this year, he's a better QB than Brady was last year. It doesn't even make sense to argue, and it certainly doesn't make sense to argue via a factual claim. This is, btw, why I think the 'longest winning streak between seasons' streak the Pats have is pretty much BS. Season to season things are so hugely volatile that it just isn't a useful metric of anything.[/quote]

Its pretty reasonable when you are comparing how teams performed from year to year and then check to see how those teams faired against common opponents. In this case I am trying to disern how well the Pats did under Brady v. how they did without him the next season. Its the best I have under the circumstances. Yeah, the Jets and Miami are different teams; theya re all different teams insofar as no team has 100% exact roster. Okay, take that as a given, but how did Team A do against Team B from one year to the next?

Again, I am doing this ina very limited context- just trying to ascertain how well Brady was a factor in those games v. without him. If we do not use this measuring system (and I agree, its not great) than I would win the argument outright because I could just say- "Brady has overall better stats and sucess over a longer period of time against far better competition with (from time to time) less support than Cassel has had this one season." I would further it by stating that Brady's performance LAST season would be indicative of what he would do THIS season with a very similar team. I think the Jets and Dolphins are improved, but I don't think Brady would have had much trouble with either (especially when you consider how easiluy Cassel handled each in their each match ups' second meetings). Again, all I am trying to point out is that just because Cassel managed to go 10-5 (so far) does not mean Brady only would have gone 11-4.

[quote]This is, btw, why I think the 'longest winning streak between seasons' streak the Pats have is pretty much BS. Season to season things are so hugely volatile that it just isn't a useful metric of anything.[/quote]

Streaks are usually not a useful metric of much of anything except the streak itself. I mean, even Joe Dimaggio's hitting streak has an anomoly in it (apparently there is a game in the 30's where he went 1-4 and that 1 hit supposedly could have easily been an error). And as far as the longest concecutive winning sterak by any NFL team (currently held by the Patriots) its something no team has ever been able to reproduce so it MUSt be somewhat meaningful in and of itself just like every other streak. And IIRC, the longest consecutive game streak in a season is ALSO held by the Pats (16) and Post season (18).... stupid 18...

[quote]Would Tom Brady still be Tom Brady if Bledsoe had never gotten injured and he eventually moved on to another team? Doubtful.[/quote]

I don't know if I would say "doubtful." Bledsoe was showing signs of slowing down with the Pats and Belichick was (supposedly) considering a QB change if Drew did not improve. Now, this could be revisionist history (two sources claim this- Michale Holly's Book "Patriot Reign" and David Halberstam's "The Education of a Coach"... however, both books had ths same primary source- Bill Belichick), but consider Belichick's past. In the 90's Belcihick cut Cleveland favorite son Bernie Kosar because he thought Kosar lost a step (he had). He apparently was seeing similarities in Drew as he had seen in Bernie.

The Pats were always high on Brady, even when they drafted him. Again, I'm not saying you are wrong- maybe if Bledsoe never gets hurt Brady languishes -but back-up QBs who have talent usually get a chance to shine... except Doug Flutie; the NFL screwed the pouch there.

[Kalbear]

Fine, Rock, but don't claim that it's PURE FACT as you stated. Because it's not. It's a hugely flawed analogy with holes you could drive Warren Sapp through.

[quote]And as far as the longest concecutive winning sterak by any NFL team (currently held by the Patriots) its something no team has ever been able to reproduce so it MUSt be somewhat meaningful in and of itself just like every other streak.[/quote]How does that follow? The streak that the Seahawks never had a rainy game at home for 3 years was not particularly meaningful.

[mcbigski]

[quote name='Rockroi' post='1629167' date='Dec 23 2008, 17.03']the NFL screwed the pouch there.[/quote]

That's 'screwed the pooch' unless, perhaps, you're from a land down under, chock full of marsupials.

[Rockroi]

[quote]How does that follow? The streak that the Seahawks never had a rainy game at home for 3 years was not particularly meaningful.[/quote]

Because the Seahawks themsleves had absoluetly nothing to do with the rain or sunshine, while the Patriots had a lot to do with winning those games.

[Kalbear]

Not really. It's basically whether the Pats had good scheduling the next year after they won the superbowl - which they did. That's about it. It's as much in their control as the Seahawks and their rain. Take the game they lost (Indy, right?) and put it in week 1 instead of week 8, and there's no streak.

Winning 18 games in a row in one season? That's pretty incredible. Winning 21 over two seasons in a row? Meh.

[Space Bandito]

Wes Welker fined $10,000 for making a Snow Angel? I guess it was automatic, but seriously. A snow angel? If he did it on the sidelines it would be ok? The NFL needs to take a look at what they are trying to do. Yes, the games are very fun to watch, but so are the players.

Does the NFL want just passionless football? The players are not allowed to take their helmets off on the field. What defines them for the fans is their individuality. I would guess many casual fans relate to a team by 2 - 5 players. You would think the NFL would want to show their players beyond soup commercials or police reports.

Fans watching a cold game identified with a player making a snow angel. I don't see how fining him helps the NFL beyond padding their wallets.

[Lord O' Bones]

[quote name='Space_Bandito' post='1630029' date='Dec 24 2008, 17.42']Fans watching a cold game identified with a player making a snow angel. I don't see how fining him helps the NFL beyond padding their wallets.[/quote]
Yeah, I just don't see the point. Celebrations that delay the game, hokey planned out bullshit (cell phones and Sharpies; coordinated "dance" routines) or are somehow offensive to people (I don't have a problem with "throat-slashing" or fake mooning, myself) and unsportsman-like taunting, should be penalized I guess. But spontaneous celebration? Snow angels? Come on.

If it's any consolation, I believe the pocket being lined is some sort of player emergency relief fund.

[grozeng]

[quote name='Space_Bandito' post='1630029' date='Dec 24 2008, 20.42']Wes Welker fined $10,000 for making a Snow Angel? I guess it was automatic, but seriously. A snow angel? If he did it on the sidelines it would be ok? The NFL needs to take a look at what they are trying to do. Yes, the games are very fun to watch, but so are the players.

Does the NFL want just passionless football? The players are not allowed to take their helmets off on the field. What defines them for the fans is their individuality. I would guess many casual fans relate to a team by 2 - 5 players. You would think the NFL would want to show their players beyond soup commercials or police reports.

Fans watching a cold game identified with a player making a snow angel. I don't see how fining him helps the NFL beyond padding their wallets.[/quote]

I think the rule is you can't touch the ground during your celebration. It's an automatic penalty and subject to a fine. He knew the rule but did it anyway. I thought it was great, but I knew the fine was coming.

[Space Bandito]

It is a fairly new rule. Without a doubt the rule was not his first thought. He has since stated he will never make the same mistake.

[quote]"It was a spur of the moment deal, and you can be sure that it won't happen again," Welker told Gasper.

Per NFL rules, players are not allowed to go to the ground for a touchdown celebration (unless it is a prayer). The official reason Welker was fined, the NFL confirmed today, was for "unsportsmanlike conduct for participation in an illegal demonstration by going to the ground."[/quote] (Boston Globe)

[Mack Kilimaro]

[quote name='Space_Bandito' post='1630029' date='Dec 24 2008, 20.42']Fans watching a cold game identified with a player making a snow angel. I don't see how fining him helps the NFL beyond padding their wallets.[/quote]

Do fines pad the NFL's wallets? I don't know why but I thought I remember getting the impression (it may have been from baseball) that fines are actually donated to charity. Maybe there is a level of difference between team fines and league fines, or maybe I'm just completely insane.

Making a snow angel in the snow may be against the letter of the celebration rule, but I don't think it's against the spirit. To me it seemed pretty apparent he was having fun without showing anybody up.

[Lord O' Bones]

OK, I looked it up. Which was surprisingly difficult.

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello [url="http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/10/10/so-where-do-the-fines-go/"]says[/url]: “Player fines collected by the league are used to support the NFLPA Players Assistance Trust and charitable initiatives supporting youth, education and sports-related medical research.”

[grozeng]

[quote name='Space_Bandito' post='1630052' date='Dec 24 2008, 22.32']It is a fairly new rule. Without a doubt the rule was not his first thought. He has since stated he will never make the same mistake.[/quote]

I find it funny that the fine is the same that Ellis got for throwing a ton of snow on a fan.

[Jaime L]

The taunting penalty/fine is the most awkward in the game. Welker's was ridiculous. The worst kind of overreaction to something that wasn't a problem to begin with.

It's ridiculous that if the Fun Bunch played today, they'd draw a flag and a fine every time. Feels draconian to legislate how guys can celebrate. And arbitrary. Keith Bulluck was showing up his opponent more than anyone by stepping on a terrible towel. What if Shannon Sharpe was calling the National Guard to help the Patriots again? Would that draw a flag? Probably not.

They're trying to get rid of judgment calls throughout the game, but now they're making refs decide what an acceptable and unacceptable celebration look like? And Fans go right along with. Shoulda heard the rancor among Washington Radio hosts after Santana Moss drew a flag for celebrating by using a towel to shine his shoes. But why wasn't the question ever asked: How is [i]that [/i]showing up an opponent? I know he's using a prop which is against the letter of the law, but Jesus. I mean shouldn't the Lambeau Leap be banned under those guidelines? Not only for using a prop (fans), but for having multiple people in on the celebration. It gets ridiculous fast.

[dornish prince]

teh lions are looking bad so far :(

millen should be permabanned from the nfl.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

Who wants to do some betting on the Chargers/Broncos game tonight? I love going for the underdog, and as far as I can tell not ONE single anal-yst picked Denver to win out tonight and go to the playoffs.

I'm betting on the arm of Jay Cutler.

I'm hoping on the dreams of Champ Bailey.

I'm believing that somehow the undrafted rookies on defense who played so well when the starters all got hurt, will find a way to play tonight.

And when things are darkest in San Diego, when it looks like Denver cannot possibly pull out a win because Cutler jams his finger on the helmet of an o-lineman, and when Darryl Hackney, our backup QB, is called to go in, that a miracle happens.

That in the distance, as Hackney straps on helmet, we hear the low rumble of a Honda Element coming from the east. And that Honda Element, driving slow in the left lane with its bright lights on, jumps the stadium and lands at the 50 yard line. A drunk, bearded, Jake Plummer steps out in his pads, flipping off the fans.

And he throws three more interceptions in the 3rd quarter, yet somehow pulls out a win to cement his legacy in the league.

Jake Plummer. The John mother-fuckin' Rambo of the NFL.