Reply With QuoteNothing else you say means anything. That's worse than ranking a defense based on yardage. I continue to be perplexed why anyone publishes those numbers, let alone quotes them.Originally Posted by StriderKyo
Nothing else you say means anything. That's worse than ranking a defense based on yardage. I continue to be perplexed why anyone publishes those numbers, let alone quotes them.
the original and best
agreed. i was a big brady hater (well, i still am) and thought he was merely a good QB in a great system all those years the pats had a great D and could run the ball. but this year he has taken a nonexistent running game, an questionable offensive line and merely average to no-name receivers and turned them into an absolute offensive juggernaut for a team that (last week notwithstanding) cannot really play defense. he will absolutely deserve to win MVP this year unless (are you listening jesus) the pats completely collapse.
is not nearly as indicative as "did he play for purdue or dallas"
Last edited by burgundy; 09 Dec 2010 at 07:58 PM.
or bust.
Just so I've got this straight:
1. Tom Brady's touchdowns don't count because he had a short field.
2. But that only counts for QBs, because even though special teams and poor offence lead to short fields, you should only measure defences by points allowed.
3. Yet despite this emphasis on points as an absolute measure, somehow a quarterback being top 3 in TD passes over half a decade doesn't count.
-Kyo
1. The Patriots' defense (or arguably the Jets' offense) won the Monday night game. As I already said, and quoted, Brady won several games roughly by himself this year. What I don't understand is why no one said anything after any of those and instead waited to once again be wrong.
2. You should measure an offense or defense by points first. Turnover margin is probably second. Yardage is somewhere on the list though.
3. Read your own stat. It doesn't say he was in the top 3 in TD passes over any period of time.
I don't agree with you that the Patriots defense won that game. In fact, one would write that only if he hadn't watch the game and just read the box scores/stats. If you had watch the game, the Patriots scored a shit ton of points, forcing the Jets into a one-dimensional team. The Patriots defense dared Sanchez to throw the ball, they were playing pass basically from the second quarter and on. That's why Jets actually had success running the ball but got stuck once they were in the red zone. The offense won that game by torching the Jets defense. If you couldn't see that, then you really didn't watch the game or know a thing about football.
the original and best
actually, the first things that pop out at me on the stat sheet are 21-29, 326 yards, 4TD
or bust.
I don't know how you come to that conclusion. Like KoF said, the Pats put up 17 points in the 1st quarter, 24 at the half. The Jets only had 3 turnovers, and they were all INTs by Sanchez who had to throw into the dime for three quarters. It was Brady who made it easy for his D, not the other way around.
This is a pretty awesome site, I can't find the actual article right now but they found that defensive QB rating has the highest correlation to winning:2. You should measure an offense or defense by points first. Turnover margin is probably second. Yardage is somewhere on the list though.
http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/index.php
-Kyo
the original and best
also, the "brady had a short field all night" argument is BS. the pats only started drives in jets territory in the first quarter after the botched punt and in the fourth quarter off an INT well after the game was decided. NE did not start any other scoring drives outside their own 35 all night long. in fact, the other two INT pinned the pats back at their own 7 and 6 respectively and brady promptly marched down the field both times.
http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/drivec...meId=301206017
the original and best
LOL nice job blair white
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks