Tom Brady MVP? (1 Viewer)

[Grigs Allmoon]

Brady was throwing ducks today

But to rookie receivers!!!1! Experienced vets catch ducks!!!!

Or in the case of Hernandez, they shoot them down, then catch them.

In all seriousness. Another bad game by Brady today. Yes, he's not getting a lot of help, but he's missed a ton of throws this year.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

On the other hand, the Peyton Manning honorary tribute parade may be put on hold just in case Drew Brees continues to outperform him week-in/week-out.

huh?

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Brady with an MVP-like performance so far today holding the Bengals to 0 pts while that pesky NE offense fails to do anything.

Btw, can't forget to add Hoyer/Weeden to the now-getting-lengthy list of QBs that put up as many or more points against Buffalo than NE did.

Your jelly is visible, have at least a little shame.

Please tell me you're still in high school. I really hope a grown man didn't just write "jelly".

 

[zoonation]

On the other hand, the Peyton Manning honorary tribute parade may be put on hold just in case Drew Brees continues to outperform him week-in/week-out.

huh?

Don't mind him. He is wrong about almost everything.

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

Brady with an MVP-like performance so far today holding the Bengals to 0 pts while that pesky NE offense fails to do anything.

Btw, can't forget to add Hoyer/Weeden to the now-getting-lengthy list of QBs that put up as many or more points against Buffalo than NE did.

Your jelly is visible, have at least a little shame.

Please tell me you're still in high school. I really hope a grown man didn't just write "jelly".

Am i old if I don't know what that means?

 

[weebs]

Brady with an MVP-like performance so far today holding the Bengals to 0 pts while that pesky NE offense fails to do anything.

Btw, can't forget to add Hoyer/Weeden to the now-getting-lengthy list of QBs that put up as many or more points against Buffalo than NE did.

Your jelly is visible, have at least a little shame.

Please tell me you're still in high school. I really hope a grown man didn't just write "jelly".

Am i old if I don't know what that means?

Yes. Jealous

 

[rockaction]

6 points.

 

[rockaction]

Brady with an MVP-like performance so far today holding the Bengals to 0 pts while that pesky NE offense fails to do anything.

Btw, can't forget to add Hoyer/Weeden to the now-getting-lengthy list of QBs that put up as many or more points against Buffalo than NE did.

Your jelly is visible, have at least a little shame.

Please tell me you're still in high school. I really hope a grown man didn't just write "jelly".

Am i old if I don't know what that means?

Yes. Jealous

Oh, wow. I had no idea what that meant.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Hold on a second. "Jelly" = "Jealousy?"

That's stupid.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

Hold on a second. "Jelly" = "Jealousy?"

That's stupid.

obv jelly

Brady is pretty awesome in general, but he had a #### game yesterday, and it wasn't the first this year. Not MVP so far, he's way down the list. Way down. No excuse is good enough at this point.

 

[Shutout]

Its bad. The haircut is bad. THe whole thing is bad. BUT...

In perspective, how many QBs in the league could look good with this much negative change at literally all receiving positions?

And he is kind of a victim of being compared to his own lofty standard. The guy DID throw a TD in 52 straight games and was on the door of setting an all-time NFL record. He's not a chump. He doesn't look bad in HIS portion of the game. He is not making bad decisions. But he can't run the routes and catch the ball.

We could say what if all day but I'm pretty sure if he had Gronk, Welker, and Hernandez, the nature of this MVP talk would be a different reason. What would Manning do if he lost both Thomases, Decker, Welker, and Moreno? Would he be Peyton Manning with Dreesen, Tamme, Ball, Bubba Caldwell and the rest of the crew? Probably not.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Hold on a second. "Jelly" = "Jealousy?"

That's stupid.

obv jellyBrady is pretty awesome in general, but he had a #### game yesterday, and it wasn't the first this year. Not MVP so far, he's way down the list. Way down. No excuse is good enough at this point.

That weather looked pretty crappy, it's all the weather's fault!

 

[purestrength]

I haven't read a single post here. So someone fill me in, why does this thread exist? Is it some ironic joke that I don't get?

 

[We Tigers]

I haven't read a single post here. So someone fill me in, why does this thread exist? Is it some ironic joke that I don't get?

No, Boston sports fans are just...uh...interesting.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

He doesn't look bad in HIS portion of the game. He is not making bad decisions. But he can't run the routes and catch the ball.

He has been less accurate this season than any I remember. He managed the end of yesterdays game very poorly. I think people should stop throwing Brady's faults onto the other players and accept that this season is a poor start for him. Yes, the END of the game had #### weather. Yes, Brady is playing with guys without experience. Yes, McDaniels called a very strange game (especially that stuff at the end). But that doesn't change the fact that he is struggling this season and some of the reasons he is struggling are things that he can control, not his teammates or the weather or Skip or anyone else. Gronk will get active and bail out the offense soon, however that doesn't change that Brady isn't the change resistant/insulated QB that we thought he was or that he used to be, at least not now.

Building in excuses is not part of football. The roster has 53 players on it. The salary cap is what it is. The Patriots have been lauded as the best run team in the league over the past decade. There are no roster excuses. I don't know if anyone got an award with an excuse as part of an award. I don't think anyone has ever won a game because of an excuse. The NFL seems to be a pretty merit based sport, and if you lose for whatever reason, tough ####. No one is going to give Brady the benefit of a perceived bad situation because of what he did in the past. Why should they? The 2013 MVP award is based on 2013's performance.

He still has time to start ripping #### up though. He's been in slumps before and gotten out of them.

 

[Run It Up]

Its bad. The haircut is bad. THe whole thing is bad. BUT...

In perspective, how many QBs in the league could look good with this much negative change at literally all receiving positions?

And he is kind of a victim of being compared to his own lofty standard. The guy DID throw a TD in 52 straight games and was on the door of setting an all-time NFL record. He's not a chump. He doesn't look bad in HIS portion of the game. He is not making bad decisions. But he can't run the routes and catch the ball.

We could say what if all day but I'm pretty sure if he had Gronk, Welker, and Hernandez, the nature of this MVP talk would be a different reason. What would Manning do if he lost both Thomases, Decker, Welker, and Moreno? Would he be Peyton Manning with Dreesen, Tamme, Ball, Bubba Caldwell and the rest of the crew? Probably not.

This is no longer worth arguing relative situations, it was made clear by 99% of the people in this thread that MVP means individual performance - which is why anyone ever discussing the merits of why one person should be the MVP over the other is now and apparently has always been ######ed - why people vote on an award at the end of the day that is based on a box score is beyond me.

It was silly of the OP to create this thread and discussion when apparently this was never even debatable.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Its bad. The haircut is bad. THe whole thing is bad. BUT...

In perspective, how many QBs in the league could look good with this much negative change at literally all receiving positions?

And he is kind of a victim of being compared to his own lofty standard. The guy DID throw a TD in 52 straight games and was on the door of setting an all-time NFL record. He's not a chump. He doesn't look bad in HIS portion of the game. He is not making bad decisions. But he can't run the routes and catch the ball.

We could say what if all day but I'm pretty sure if he had Gronk, Welker, and Hernandez, the nature of this MVP talk would be a different reason. What would Manning do if he lost both Thomases, Decker, Welker, and Moreno? Would he be Peyton Manning with Dreesen, Tamme, Ball, Bubba Caldwell and the rest of the crew? Probably not.

This is no longer worth arguing relative situations, it was made clear by 99% of the people in this thread that MVP means individual performance - which is why anyone ever discussing the merits of why one person should be the MVP over the other is now and apparently has always been ######ed - why people vote on an award at the end of the day that is based on a box score is beyond me.

It was silly of the OP to create this thread and discussion when apparently this was never even debatable.

You're ridiculous.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Its bad. The haircut is bad. THe whole thing is bad. BUT...

In perspective, how many QBs in the league could look good with this much negative change at literally all receiving positions?

And he is kind of a victim of being compared to his own lofty standard. The guy DID throw a TD in 52 straight games and was on the door of setting an all-time NFL record. He's not a chump. He doesn't look bad in HIS portion of the game. He is not making bad decisions. But he can't run the routes and catch the ball.

We could say what if all day but I'm pretty sure if he had Gronk, Welker, and Hernandez, the nature of this MVP talk would be a different reason. What would Manning do if he lost both Thomases, Decker, Welker, and Moreno? Would he be Peyton Manning with Dreesen, Tamme, Ball, Bubba Caldwell and the rest of the crew? Probably not.

This is no longer worth arguing relative situations, it was made clear by 99% of the people in this thread that MVP means individual performance - which is why anyone ever discussing the merits of why one person should be the MVP over the other is now and apparently has always been ######ed - why people vote on an award at the end of the day that is based on a box score is beyond me.

It was silly of the OP to create this thread and discussion when apparently this was never even debatable.

You're ridiculous.

Don't be jelly.

 

[skins001]

Its bad. The haircut is bad. THe whole thing is bad. BUT...

In perspective, how many QBs in the league could look good with this much negative change at literally all receiving positions?

And he is kind of a victim of being compared to his own lofty standard. The guy DID throw a TD in 52 straight games and was on the door of setting an all-time NFL record. He's not a chump. He doesn't look bad in HIS portion of the game. He is not making bad decisions. But he can't run the routes and catch the ball.

We could say what if all day but I'm pretty sure if he had Gronk, Welker, and Hernandez, the nature of this MVP talk would be a different reason. What would Manning do if he lost both Thomases, Decker, Welker, and Moreno? Would he be Peyton Manning with Dreesen, Tamme, Ball, Bubba Caldwell and the rest of the crew? Probably not.

This is no longer worth arguing relative situations, it was made clear by 99% of the people in this thread that MVP means individual performance - which is why anyone ever discussing the merits of why one person should be the MVP over the other is now and apparently has always been ######ed - why people vote on an award at the end of the day that is based on a box score is beyond me.

It was silly of the OP to create this thread and discussion when apparently this was never even debatable.

Yeah, it's a silly thread that only a Boston homer could create. No one else would even have such an absurd opinion cross their mind, let alone be serious about it. Especially when it's in comparison to a start that has statistically been the best of all time in so many areas. I wonder if these people argued the inverse in Brady's historic 2007 season, when these were the stats after 4 weeks:

Brady 4-0, 37 ppg, 13 TDs, 1118 passing yards

Manning 4-0,32.75 ppg, 8 TDs, 1066 passing yards

 

[Run It Up]

Its bad. The haircut is bad. THe whole thing is bad. BUT...

In perspective, how many QBs in the league could look good with this much negative change at literally all receiving positions?

And he is kind of a victim of being compared to his own lofty standard. The guy DID throw a TD in 52 straight games and was on the door of setting an all-time NFL record. He's not a chump. He doesn't look bad in HIS portion of the game. He is not making bad decisions. But he can't run the routes and catch the ball.

We could say what if all day but I'm pretty sure if he had Gronk, Welker, and Hernandez, the nature of this MVP talk would be a different reason. What would Manning do if he lost both Thomases, Decker, Welker, and Moreno? Would he be Peyton Manning with Dreesen, Tamme, Ball, Bubba Caldwell and the rest of the crew? Probably not.

This is no longer worth arguing relative situations, it was made clear by 99% of the people in this thread that MVP means individual performance - which is why anyone ever discussing the merits of why one person should be the MVP over the other is now and apparently has always been ######ed - why people vote on an award at the end of the day that is based on a box score is beyond me.

It was silly of the OP to create this thread and discussion when apparently this was never even debatable.

Yeah, it's a silly thread that only a Boston homer could create. No one else would even have such an absurd opinion cross their mind, let alone be serious about it. Especially when it's in comparison to a start that has statistically been the best of all time in so many areas. I wonder if these people argued the inverse in Brady's historic 2007 season, when these were the stats after 4 weeks:

Brady 4-0, 37 ppg, 13 TDs, 1118 passing yards

Manning 4-0,32.75 ppg, 8 TDs, 1066 passing yards

Since you seem to struggle with the idea of relative situations, explain to me how this is similar to '07.

The closest situation to this has been the '11 season when Manning didn't even ####### play football and many proclaimed him to be the MVP - the difference of course being that the Patriots are 4-1 with Brady and one of the worst receiving corps in the league.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Its bad. The haircut is bad. THe whole thing is bad. BUT...

In perspective, how many QBs in the league could look good with this much negative change at literally all receiving positions?

And he is kind of a victim of being compared to his own lofty standard. The guy DID throw a TD in 52 straight games and was on the door of setting an all-time NFL record. He's not a chump. He doesn't look bad in HIS portion of the game. He is not making bad decisions. But he can't run the routes and catch the ball.

We could say what if all day but I'm pretty sure if he had Gronk, Welker, and Hernandez, the nature of this MVP talk would be a different reason. What would Manning do if he lost both Thomases, Decker, Welker, and Moreno? Would he be Peyton Manning with Dreesen, Tamme, Ball, Bubba Caldwell and the rest of the crew? Probably not.

This is no longer worth arguing relative situations, it was made clear by 99% of the people in this thread that MVP means individual performance - which is why anyone ever discussing the merits of why one person should be the MVP over the other is now and apparently has always been ######ed - why people vote on an award at the end of the day that is based on a box score is beyond me.

It was silly of the OP to create this thread and discussion when apparently this was never even debatable.

Yeah, it's a silly thread that only a Boston homer could create. No one else would even have such an absurd opinion cross their mind, let alone be serious about it. Especially when it's in comparison to a start that has statistically been the best of all time in so many areas. I wonder if these people argued the inverse in Brady's historic 2007 season, when these were the stats after 4 weeks:

Brady 4-0, 37 ppg, 13 TDs, 1118 passing yards

Manning 4-0,32.75 ppg, 8 TDs, 1066 passing yards

Since you seem to struggle with the idea of relative situations, explain to me how this is similar to '07.

The closest situation to this has been the '11 season when Manning didn't even ####### play football and many proclaimed him to be the MVP - the difference of course being that the Patriots are 4-1 with Brady and one of the worst receiving corps in the league.

I'm the biggest Brady ballwasher out there, but you're being incredibly simplistic.

1) They've had a cupcake schedule for 3 of those wins in the 4-1 record.

2) Brady hasn't played very well in at least two of the games, in my opinion.

3) The defense is what has been keeping them in games.

If Brady was 4-1 and putting up 30 points per game with a rookie/crappy supporting cast, then you could maybe try and grade him on a curve vs. Manning's production. But right now, they are not close. At all. Manning is playing out of his mind.

 

[Run It Up]

Its bad. The haircut is bad. THe whole thing is bad. BUT...

In perspective, how many QBs in the league could look good with this much negative change at literally all receiving positions?

And he is kind of a victim of being compared to his own lofty standard. The guy DID throw a TD in 52 straight games and was on the door of setting an all-time NFL record. He's not a chump. He doesn't look bad in HIS portion of the game. He is not making bad decisions. But he can't run the routes and catch the ball.

We could say what if all day but I'm pretty sure if he had Gronk, Welker, and Hernandez, the nature of this MVP talk would be a different reason. What would Manning do if he lost both Thomases, Decker, Welker, and Moreno? Would he be Peyton Manning with Dreesen, Tamme, Ball, Bubba Caldwell and the rest of the crew? Probably not.

This is no longer worth arguing relative situations, it was made clear by 99% of the people in this thread that MVP means individual performance - which is why anyone ever discussing the merits of why one person should be the MVP over the other is now and apparently has always been ######ed - why people vote on an award at the end of the day that is based on a box score is beyond me.

It was silly of the OP to create this thread and discussion when apparently this was never even debatable.

Yeah, it's a silly thread that only a Boston homer could create. No one else would even have such an absurd opinion cross their mind, let alone be serious about it. Especially when it's in comparison to a start that has statistically been the best of all time in so many areas. I wonder if these people argued the inverse in Brady's historic 2007 season, when these were the stats after 4 weeks:

Brady 4-0, 37 ppg, 13 TDs, 1118 passing yards

Manning 4-0,32.75 ppg, 8 TDs, 1066 passing yards

Since you seem to struggle with the idea of relative situations, explain to me how this is similar to '07.

The closest situation to this has been the '11 season when Manning didn't even ####### play football and many proclaimed him to be the MVP - the difference of course being that the Patriots are 4-1 with Brady and one of the worst receiving corps in the league.

I'm the biggest Brady ballwasher out there, but you're being incredibly simplistic.

1) They've had a cupcake schedule for 3 of those wins in the 4-1 record.

2) Brady hasn't played very well in at least two of the games, in my opinion.

3) The defense is what has been keeping them in games.

If Brady was 4-1 and putting up 30 points per game with a rookie/crappy supporting cast, then you could maybe try and grade him on a curve vs. Manning's production. But right now, they are not close. At all. Manning is playing out of his mind.

I haven't disputed once in this thread that either of those things weren't the case. I think Brady played poorly week 2 and yesterday - I've also acknowledge the quite obvious fact that Manning is playing not only his best season but possibly the best season ever by a QB; in fact, I don't even deny that at this point after two poor games from Brady that he shouldn't even be in the discussion, but a few weeks ago after beating the Falcons absolutely.

Its also pretty disingenuous to suggest that the Pats D is carrying the team and in the same breath say that they are playing a cake schedule. The Broncos D are just as good if not better than the Pats (especially with the loss of Wilfork) and have a much softer schedule.

 

[rascal]

is Brady a buy low, that is my question

 

[Run It Up]

is Brady a buy low, that is my question

Well his value can't get any lower and his biggest weapon will return next week likely, with a failing run game and an exposed defense now I expect them to partially abandon their attempts at a balanced offense and throw more.

I don't think Brady will win anyones leagues for them, so not sure hes worth it even as a buy low.

 

[pizzatyme]

I'm not the biggest fan of Brady, and some would call me a Manning but Brady is off this year due to his lack of reps with his targets. Lets not get crazy here bashing Brady.

Well, no crazier than starting a thread like this at least.

 

[PatsFanCT]

I'm not the biggest fan of Brady, and some would call me a Manning but Brady is off this year due to his lack of reps with his targets. Lets not get crazy here bashing Brady.

Well, no crazier than starting a thread like this at least.

Ya, cause I started this thread today.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

is Brady a buy low, that is my question

In my main league Im the top scoring team, with a need at quarterback. And I dont think Brady fits the bill.

Not that he cant have much better days then he has had, but I think some of these types of games (like in his first 5 weeks) are going to be seen throughout the year.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Its also pretty disingenuous to suggest that the Pats D is carrying the team and in the same breath say that they are playing a cake schedule. The Broncos D are just as good if not better than the Pats (especially with the loss of Wilfork) and have a much softer schedule.

All this proves is that you will say anything to make Brady look better. The Broncos are literally giving up twice as many points per game as the Patriots are, which is almost unheard of. For comparison, last year even the league's 32nd best defense didn't give up twice as many points as the league's best defense. No team doubled up another in points allowed.

Btw, Geno Smith just also hung 30 on the Falcons in a W against them. Since you're so keen on ignoring individual player stats and love W/L so much, we now have 3 common opponents between the Pats and Jets and against them the Geno Smith led Jets are also 3-0, and have scored more points than the Brady-led Pats against those same opponents. You could fairly easily argue that, with O-Line factored in, the Jets players around Geno are even worse than the players around Brady. So how is Brady MVP worthy for "winning" a few games when a rookie 2nd rounder that hasn't played particularly well is doing the exact same thing against the same competition with an arguably even worse supporting cast.

I'm sorry, because I usually try to avoid calling people out so much as calling out the argument, but your level of homerism in here is just off the charts out of the universe insane.

ETA: Geno had game-winning last minute drives in 2 of those games to boot.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Its bad. The haircut is bad. THe whole thing is bad. BUT...

In perspective, how many QBs in the league could look good with this much negative change at literally all receiving positions?

And he is kind of a victim of being compared to his own lofty standard. The guy DID throw a TD in 52 straight games and was on the door of setting an all-time NFL record. He's not a chump. He doesn't look bad in HIS portion of the game. He is not making bad decisions. But he can't run the routes and catch the ball.

We could say what if all day but I'm pretty sure if he had Gronk, Welker, and Hernandez, the nature of this MVP talk would be a different reason. What would Manning do if he lost both Thomases, Decker, Welker, and Moreno? Would he be Peyton Manning with Dreesen, Tamme, Ball, Bubba Caldwell and the rest of the crew? Probably not.

This is no longer worth arguing relative situations, it was made clear by 99% of the people in this thread that MVP means individual performance - which is why anyone ever discussing the merits of why one person should be the MVP over the other is now and apparently has always been ######ed - why people vote on an award at the end of the day that is based on a box score is beyond me.

It was silly of the OP to create this thread and discussion when apparently this was never even debatable.

Yeah, it's a silly thread that only a Boston homer could create. No one else would even have such an absurd opinion cross their mind, let alone be serious about it. Especially when it's in comparison to a start that has statistically been the best of all time in so many areas. I wonder if these people argued the inverse in Brady's historic 2007 season, when these were the stats after 4 weeks:

Brady 4-0, 37 ppg, 13 TDs, 1118 passing yards

Manning 4-0,32.75 ppg, 8 TDs, 1066 passing yards

Since you seem to struggle with the idea of relative situations, explain to me how this is similar to '07.

The closest situation to this has been the '11 season when Manning didn't even ####### play football and many proclaimed him to be the MVP - the difference of course being that the Patriots are 4-1 with Brady and one of the worst receiving corps in the league.

I'm the biggest Brady ballwasher out there, but you're being incredibly simplistic.

1) They've had a cupcake schedule for 3 of those wins in the 4-1 record.

2) Brady hasn't played very well in at least two of the games, in my opinion.

3) The defense is what has been keeping them in games.

If Brady was 4-1 and putting up 30 points per game with a rookie/crappy supporting cast, then you could maybe try and grade him on a curve vs. Manning's production. But right now, they are not close. At all. Manning is playing out of his mind.

I haven't disputed once in this thread that either of those things weren't the case. I think Brady played poorly week 2 and yesterday - I've also acknowledge the quite obvious fact that Manning is playing not only his best season but possibly the best season ever by a QB; in fact, I don't even deny that at this point after two poor games from Brady that he shouldn't even be in the discussion, but a few weeks ago after beating the Falcons absolutely.

Its also pretty disingenuous to suggest that the Pats D is carrying the team and in the same breath say that they are playing a cake schedule. The Broncos D are just as good if not better than the Pats (especially with the loss of Wilfork) and have a much softer schedule.

Yes, the defense has also had a cupcake schedule. The difference, of course, is that the defense is getting it done (2nd in the NFL in points per game allowed) while the offense is not (24th in ppg). Which is why I said the defense is carrying this team...which is why the notion of Brady being MVP is silly.

 

[Run It Up]

Its also pretty disingenuous to suggest that the Pats D is carrying the team and in the same breath say that they are playing a cake schedule. The Broncos D are just as good if not better than the Pats (especially with the loss of Wilfork) and have a much softer schedule.

All this proves is that you will say anything to make Brady look better. The Broncos are literally giving up twice as many points per game as the Patriots are, which is almost unheard of. For comparison, last year even the league's 32nd best defense didn't give up as many points as the league's best defense. No team doubled up another in points allowed.

Are you seriously gonna tell me that just because the broncos defense is allowing a lot of points that they aren't a top 10 defense? A teams defense regardless of how good they are are going to allow a lot of points when their offense puts up 40+ a game (see the Patriots from 2007-2012). If you measure how good a defense is by points allowed you're doing it wrong.

 

[drummer]

Anybody trying to put Geno Smith in this conversation is seriously on the glass pipe and searching the ground for the next hit.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

Its also pretty disingenuous to suggest that the Pats D is carrying the team and in the same breath say that they are playing a cake schedule. The Broncos D are just as good if not better than the Pats (especially with the loss of Wilfork) and have a much softer schedule.

All this proves is that you will say anything to make Brady look better. The Broncos are literally giving up twice as many points per game as the Patriots are, which is almost unheard of. For comparison, last year even the league's 32nd best defense didn't give up as many points as the league's best defense. No team doubled up another in points allowed.

Are you seriously gonna tell me that just because the broncos defense is allowing a lot of points that they aren't a top 10 defense? A teams defense regardless of how good they are are going to allow a lot of points when their offense puts up 40+ a game (see the Patriots from 2007-2012). If you measure how good a defense is by points allowed you're doing it wrong.

I want to be open minded here, but I'm having trouble understanding what you are saying here. What? Pts allowed isn't a good measure of how good a defense is? No way you can believe that.

 

[DoubleG]

Its also pretty disingenuous to suggest that the Pats D is carrying the team and in the same breath say that they are playing a cake schedule. The Broncos D are just as good if not better than the Pats (especially with the loss of Wilfork) and have a much softer schedule.

All this proves is that you will say anything to make Brady look better. The Broncos are literally giving up twice as many points per game as the Patriots are, which is almost unheard of. For comparison, last year even the league's 32nd best defense didn't give up as many points as the league's best defense. No team doubled up another in points allowed.

Are you seriously gonna tell me that just because the broncos defense is allowing a lot of points that they aren't a top 10 defense?

Oh Lord...*walks away shaking head*

Can someone please take this thread outback and shoot it? This has gone from silly/bizarre to downright outrageous.

How do measure defenses? By how handsome they look in their unis?? What's the point of a defense? TO NOT ALLOW THE OTHER TEAM TO SCORE.

FYI: If you defense is allowing a lot of points, they've kinda missed the point.

I am not a Patriots fan, but I think on behalf of the rest of them you should stop posting in this thread.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Its also pretty disingenuous to suggest that the Pats D is carrying the team and in the same breath say that they are playing a cake schedule. The Broncos D are just as good if not better than the Pats (especially with the loss of Wilfork) and have a much softer schedule.

All this proves is that you will say anything to make Brady look better. The Broncos are literally giving up twice as many points per game as the Patriots are, which is almost unheard of. For comparison, last year even the league's 32nd best defense didn't give up as many points as the league's best defense. No team doubled up another in points allowed.

Are you seriously gonna tell me that just because the broncos defense is allowing a lot of points that they aren't a top 10 defense? A teams defense regardless of how good they are are going to allow a lot of points when their offense puts up 40+ a game (see the Patriots from 2007-2012). If you measure how good a defense is by points allowed you're doing it wrong.

By what measure do you rate the Broncos as a top 10 defense?

 

[SacramentoBob]

Hold on a second. "Jelly" = "Jealousy?"

That's stupid.

You're getting old, man.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Its also pretty disingenuous to suggest that the Pats D is carrying the team and in the same breath say that they are playing a cake schedule. The Broncos D are just as good if not better than the Pats (especially with the loss of Wilfork) and have a much softer schedule.

All this proves is that you will say anything to make Brady look better. The Broncos are literally giving up twice as many points per game as the Patriots are, which is almost unheard of. For comparison, last year even the league's 32nd best defense didn't give up as many points as the league's best defense. No team doubled up another in points allowed.

Are you seriously gonna tell me that just because the broncos defense is allowing a lot of points that they aren't a top 10 defense? A teams defense regardless of how good they are are going to allow a lot of points when their offense puts up 40+ a game (see the Patriots from 2007-2012). If you measure how good a defense is by points allowed you're doing it wrong.

By what measure do you rate the Broncos as a top 10 defense?

FWIW, FBG has the Broncos ranked a solid 10 defenses higher than the Pat's defense and without giving away exact rankings FBG has the Broncos in the top 5 for defenses in their top 200.

But just like the MVP discussion where people only look at yards and TD's, the same people are only going to look at points given up in this discussion because that's how simplistic their thought processes are.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Its also pretty disingenuous to suggest that the Pats D is carrying the team and in the same breath say that they are playing a cake schedule. The Broncos D are just as good if not better than the Pats (especially with the loss of Wilfork) and have a much softer schedule.

All this proves is that you will say anything to make Brady look better. The Broncos are literally giving up twice as many points per game as the Patriots are, which is almost unheard of. For comparison, last year even the league's 32nd best defense didn't give up as many points as the league's best defense. No team doubled up another in points allowed.

Are you seriously gonna tell me that just because the broncos defense is allowing a lot of points that they aren't a top 10 defense? A teams defense regardless of how good they are are going to allow a lot of points when their offense puts up 40+ a game (see the Patriots from 2007-2012). If you measure how good a defense is by points allowed you're doing it wrong.

By what measure do you rate the Broncos as a top 10 defense?

FWIW, FBG has the Broncos ranked a solid 10 defenses higher than the Pat's defense and without giving away exact rankings FBG has the Broncos in the top 5 for defenses in their top 200.

Oh, so we measure NFL defenses by their fantasy rankings.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Its also pretty disingenuous to suggest that the Pats D is carrying the team and in the same breath say that they are playing a cake schedule. The Broncos D are just as good if not better than the Pats (especially with the loss of Wilfork) and have a much softer schedule.

All this proves is that you will say anything to make Brady look better. The Broncos are literally giving up twice as many points per game as the Patriots are, which is almost unheard of. For comparison, last year even the league's 32nd best defense didn't give up as many points as the league's best defense. No team doubled up another in points allowed.

Are you seriously gonna tell me that just because the broncos defense is allowing a lot of points that they aren't a top 10 defense? A teams defense regardless of how good they are are going to allow a lot of points when their offense puts up 40+ a game (see the Patriots from 2007-2012). If you measure how good a defense is by points allowed you're doing it wrong.

By what measure do you rate the Broncos as a top 10 defense?

FWIW, FBG has the Broncos ranked a solid 10 defenses higher than the Pat's defense and without giving away exact rankings FBG has the Broncos in the top 5 for defenses in their top 200.

Oh, so we measure NFL defenses by their fantasy rankings.

Not necessarily, hence the "FWIW" prefaced above. But they have the best return game out of the AFC, the only team that had returned a kickoff and a punt for a TD, leads the AFC in return yards, leads the AFC in kickoff return yard average and is 3rd in punt return yard average. They aren't doing bad in interceptions (2nd in AFC), passes defended (2nd in AFC) and sacks (7th in AFC) either. But please, keep your blinders on and only look at points allowed

 

[PatsWillWin]

Its also pretty disingenuous to suggest that the Pats D is carrying the team and in the same breath say that they are playing a cake schedule. The Broncos D are just as good if not better than the Pats (especially with the loss of Wilfork) and have a much softer schedule.

All this proves is that you will say anything to make Brady look better. The Broncos are literally giving up twice as many points per game as the Patriots are, which is almost unheard of. For comparison, last year even the league's 32nd best defense didn't give up as many points as the league's best defense. No team doubled up another in points allowed.

Are you seriously gonna tell me that just because the broncos defense is allowing a lot of points that they aren't a top 10 defense? A teams defense regardless of how good they are are going to allow a lot of points when their offense puts up 40+ a game (see the Patriots from 2007-2012). If you measure how good a defense is by points allowed you're doing it wrong.

By what measure do you rate the Broncos as a top 10 defense?

FWIW, FBG has the Broncos ranked a solid 10 defenses higher than the Pat's defense and without giving away exact rankings FBG has the Broncos in the top 5 for defenses in their top 200.

But just like the MVP discussion where people only look at yards and TD's, the same people are only going to look at points given up in this discussion because that's how simplistic their thought processes are.

Yeah, you're right, points allowed is too simplistic. Better to stick to fantasy rankings. One person's...fantasy...rankings.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Its also pretty disingenuous to suggest that the Pats D is carrying the team and in the same breath say that they are playing a cake schedule. The Broncos D are just as good if not better than the Pats (especially with the loss of Wilfork) and have a much softer schedule.

All this proves is that you will say anything to make Brady look better. The Broncos are literally giving up twice as many points per game as the Patriots are, which is almost unheard of. For comparison, last year even the league's 32nd best defense didn't give up as many points as the league's best defense. No team doubled up another in points allowed.

Are you seriously gonna tell me that just because the broncos defense is allowing a lot of points that they aren't a top 10 defense? A teams defense regardless of how good they are are going to allow a lot of points when their offense puts up 40+ a game (see the Patriots from 2007-2012). If you measure how good a defense is by points allowed you're doing it wrong.

By what measure do you rate the Broncos as a top 10 defense?

FWIW, FBG has the Broncos ranked a solid 10 defenses higher than the Pat's defense and without giving away exact rankings FBG has the Broncos in the top 5 for defenses in their top 200.

Oh, so we measure NFL defenses by their fantasy rankings.

Not necessarily, hence the "FWIW" prefaced above. But they have the best return game out of the AFC, the only team that had returned a kickoff and a punt for a TD, leads the AFC in return yards, leads the AFC in kickoff return yard average and is 3rd in punt return yard average. They aren't doing bad in interceptions (2nd in AFC), passes defended (2nd in AFC) and sacks (7th in AFC) either. But please, keep your blinders on and only look at points allowed

Oh. So you also don't know the difference between defense and special teams. Please keep posting about how we're all simplistic.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

Its also pretty disingenuous to suggest that the Pats D is carrying the team and in the same breath say that they are playing a cake schedule. The Broncos D are just as good if not better than the Pats (especially with the loss of Wilfork) and have a much softer schedule.

All this proves is that you will say anything to make Brady look better. The Broncos are literally giving up twice as many points per game as the Patriots are, which is almost unheard of. For comparison, last year even the league's 32nd best defense didn't give up as many points as the league's best defense. No team doubled up another in points allowed.

Are you seriously gonna tell me that just because the broncos defense is allowing a lot of points that they aren't a top 10 defense? A teams defense regardless of how good they are are going to allow a lot of points when their offense puts up 40+ a game (see the Patriots from 2007-2012). If you measure how good a defense is by points allowed you're doing it wrong.

By what measure do you rate the Broncos as a top 10 defense?

FWIW, FBG has the Broncos ranked a solid 10 defenses higher than the Pat's defense and without giving away exact rankings FBG has the Broncos in the top 5 for defenses in their top 200.

Oh, so we measure NFL defenses by their fantasy rankings.

Not necessarily, hence the "FWIW" prefaced above. But they have the best return game out of the AFC, the only team that had returned a kickoff and a punt for a TD, leads the AFC in return yards, leads the AFC in kickoff return yard average and is 3rd in punt return yard average. They aren't doing bad in interceptions (2nd in AFC), passes defended (2nd in AFC) and sacks (7th in AFC) either. But please, keep your blinders on and only look at points allowed

Maybe you shouldn't post a "FWIW" and then something that is worthless.

 

[Pots]

Its also pretty disingenuous to suggest that the Pats D is carrying the team and in the same breath say that they are playing a cake schedule. The Broncos D are just as good if not better than the Pats (especially with the loss of Wilfork) and have a much softer schedule.

All this proves is that you will say anything to make Brady look better. The Broncos are literally giving up twice as many points per game as the Patriots are, which is almost unheard of. For comparison, last year even the league's 32nd best defense didn't give up as many points as the league's best defense. No team doubled up another in points allowed.

Are you seriously gonna tell me that just because the broncos defense is allowing a lot of points that they aren't a top 10 defense? A teams defense regardless of how good they are are going to allow a lot of points when their offense puts up 40+ a game (see the Patriots from 2007-2012). If you measure how good a defense is by points allowed you're doing it wrong.

By what measure do you rate the Broncos as a top 10 defense?

FWIW, FBG has the Broncos ranked a solid 10 defenses higher than the Pat's defense and without giving away exact rankings FBG has the Broncos in the top 5 for defenses in their top 200.

Oh, so we measure NFL defenses by their fantasy rankings.

Not necessarily, hence the "FWIW" prefaced above. But they have the best return game out of the AFC, the only team that had returned a kickoff and a punt for a TD, leads the AFC in return yards, leads the AFC in kickoff return yard average and is 3rd in punt return yard average. They aren't doing bad in interceptions (2nd in AFC), passes defended (2nd in AFC) and sacks (7th in AFC) either. But please, keep your blinders on and only look at points allowed

You're the one with blinders on, my friend. First of all, the discussion is about Defense, not special teams. Second, they obviously defend a ton more passes than every other team due to the fact that their opponent needs to pass to catch up and stay in the game.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Its also pretty disingenuous to suggest that the Pats D is carrying the team and in the same breath say that they are playing a cake schedule. The Broncos D are just as good if not better than the Pats (especially with the loss of Wilfork) and have a much softer schedule.

All this proves is that you will say anything to make Brady look better. The Broncos are literally giving up twice as many points per game as the Patriots are, which is almost unheard of. For comparison, last year even the league's 32nd best defense didn't give up as many points as the league's best defense. No team doubled up another in points allowed.

Are you seriously gonna tell me that just because the broncos defense is allowing a lot of points that they aren't a top 10 defense? A teams defense regardless of how good they are are going to allow a lot of points when their offense puts up 40+ a game (see the Patriots from 2007-2012). If you measure how good a defense is by points allowed you're doing it wrong.

By what measure do you rate the Broncos as a top 10 defense?

FWIW, FBG has the Broncos ranked a solid 10 defenses higher than the Pat's defense and without giving away exact rankings FBG has the Broncos in the top 5 for defenses in their top 200.

Oh, so we measure NFL defenses by their fantasy rankings.

Not necessarily, hence the "FWIW" prefaced above. But they have the best return game out of the AFC, the only team that had returned a kickoff and a punt for a TD, leads the AFC in return yards, leads the AFC in kickoff return yard average and is 3rd in punt return yard average. They aren't doing bad in interceptions (2nd in AFC), passes defended (2nd in AFC) and sacks (7th in AFC) either. But please, keep your blinders on and only look at points allowed

You're the one with blinders on, my friend. First of all, the discussion is about Defense, not special teams. Second, they obviously defend a ton more passes than every other team due to the fact that their opponent needs to pass to catch up and stay in the game.

No, you're just being simplistic. Defense includes special teams because on FBG's rankings it's Broncos "DST."

 

[Cliff Clavin]

FWIW, Broncos are tied with the Redskins for 2nd most yard per play allowed.

Don't be jelly of Peyton.

 

[Pots]

Don't be jelly

Stop please :(

 

[jvdesigns2002]

is Brady a buy low, that is my question

generally--I would say yes. Amendola is getting healthy, Gronk should be coming back soon, and the rookies are going to get better. The Pats running game is mediocre at best--which means--the passing game will have to become more featured. The hard thing about trading for Brady is in his namesake. Right now--he's a low end qb1 at best--which normally is something that can be obtained for relatively inexpensive--but I'm guessing that a lot of Bradys owners might be too proud to let him go for too cheap.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Its also pretty disingenuous to suggest that the Pats D is carrying the team and in the same breath say that they are playing a cake schedule. The Broncos D are just as good if not better than the Pats (especially with the loss of Wilfork) and have a much softer schedule.

All this proves is that you will say anything to make Brady look better. The Broncos are literally giving up twice as many points per game as the Patriots are, which is almost unheard of. For comparison, last year even the league's 32nd best defense didn't give up as many points as the league's best defense. No team doubled up another in points allowed.

Are you seriously gonna tell me that just because the broncos defense is allowing a lot of points that they aren't a top 10 defense? A teams defense regardless of how good they are are going to allow a lot of points when their offense puts up 40+ a game (see the Patriots from 2007-2012). If you measure how good a defense is by points allowed you're doing it wrong.

By what measure do you rate the Broncos as a top 10 defense?

FWIW, FBG has the Broncos ranked a solid 10 defenses higher than the Pat's defense and without giving away exact rankings FBG has the Broncos in the top 5 for defenses in their top 200.

Oh, so we measure NFL defenses by their fantasy rankings.

Not necessarily, hence the "FWIW" prefaced above. But they have the best return game out of the AFC, the only team that had returned a kickoff and a punt for a TD, leads the AFC in return yards, leads the AFC in kickoff return yard average and is 3rd in punt return yard average. They aren't doing bad in interceptions (2nd in AFC), passes defended (2nd in AFC) and sacks (7th in AFC) either. But please, keep your blinders on and only look at points allowed

You're the one with blinders on, my friend. First of all, the discussion is about Defense, not special teams. Second, they obviously defend a ton more passes than every other team due to the fact that their opponent needs to pass to catch up and stay in the game.

Oh we are talking only about Defense? I thought we were looking at points scored in a vacuum, like field goals, extra points, pick-6's, kickoff and punt returns for TD, since clearly all of those occur when the opponent's defense is on the field.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

Don't be jelly

Stop please :(

I agree-- this whole "jelly" thing needs to stop. No grown man should use this abbreviation. It'll seriously cause your #### to shrink.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Okay my 1st post got jacked up.

I like to look at TDs/1st downs allowed per play when evaluating a defense vs yards or points or yards or point. It's pretty common for people to say "well teams pass a lot against X so they give up a lot of passing yards" which may be true but doesn't necessarily show a bigger picture.

So here's the total defensive rankings using that metric. Note New England is 5th where Denver is 28th since that seems to be the topic of discussion.

Rk Team G Scrm Plys 1st P_TD R_TD TD Total_D
1 Kansas City Chiefs 5 321 83 4 2 6 27.73%
2 New York Jets 5 333 82 9 3 12 28.23%
3 Baltimore Ravens 5 327 84 9 1 10 28.75%
4 Cleveland Browns 5 354 94 2 8 10 29.38%
5 New England Patriots 5 339 95 4 2 6 29.79%
6 Houston Texans 5 285 76 7 4 11 30.53%
7 Cincinnati Bengals 5 324 91 6 2 8 30.56%
8 Tampa Bay Buccaneers 4 274 80.8 5 0 5 31.31%
9 Carolina Panthers 4 242 71.2 3 2 5 31.49%
10 Pittsburgh Steelers 4 253 70 4 6 10 31.62%
11 Buffalo Bills 5 363 105 9 2 11 31.96%
12 San Francisco 49ers 5 331 96 5 6 11 32.33%
13 Indianapolis Colts 5 303 90 4 4 8 32.34%
14 Seattle Seahawks 5 315 95 5 3 8 32.70%
15 Tennessee Titans 5 313 94 6 3 9 32.91%
16 Arizona Cardinals 5 335 104 8 1 9 33.73%
17 New Orleans Saints 5 278 87 6 2 8 34.17%
18 Detroit Lions 5 323 101 5 5 10 34.37%
19 Chicago Bears 5 315 98 8 3 11 34.60%
20 Miami Dolphins 5 351 110 8 4 12 34.76%
21 Atlanta Falcons 5 302 94 12 2 14 35.76%
22 Green Bay Packers 4 253 79.2 9 3 12 36.05%
23 Oakland Raiders 5 322 106 9 3 12 36.65%
24 St. Louis Rams 5 314 100 11 5 16 36.94%
25 New York Giants 5 367 121 12 5 17 37.60%
26 Jacksonville Jaguars 5 332 109 12 4 16 37.65%
27 Washington Redskins 4 278 92 9 4 13 37.77%
28 Denver Broncos 5 330 110 11 5 16 38.18%
29 San Diego Chargers 5 312 109 10 2 12 38.78%
30 Minnesota Vikings 4 295 104 10 4 14 40.00%
31 Dallas Cowboys 5 334 118 14 2 16 40.12%
32 Philadelphia Eagles 5 368 133 11 4 15 40.22%

And here's the same thing broken out by passing defense with a sack and int rate included for good measure. You'll note that Denver is a below average team overall, but their volume of turnovers/sacks makes them a good fantasy defense. Of note, Denver is 3rd overall in pass attempts defended, but is 21st overall in pass defense. So yeah, teams pass against them a lot to stay in the game, but they seem to be pretty good at it too. The numbers aren't strength adjusted or anything, but I think it's a good look into what's really happening.

D_Rank Int_Rank Sack/Rank Team G Att TD Int 1st Sck TD_1st/Play Int/Play Sack/Play
1 1 2 Pittsburgh Steelers 4 120 4 0 32 4 30.00% 0.00% 3.33%
2 23 31 Kansas City Chiefs 5 191 4 7 55 21 30.89% 3.66% 10.99%
3 13 26 Cleveland Browns 5 195 2 4 59 18 31.28% 2.05% 9.23%
4 2 22 New York Jets 5 190 9 1 54 16 33.16% 0.53% 8.42%
5 26 21 Tampa Bay Buccaneers 4 159 5 6 48 13 33.33% 3.77% 8.18%
6 32 27 Carolina Panthers 4 127 3 6 40 12 33.86% 4.72% 9.45%
7 16 12 Cincinnati Bengals 5 189 6 5 58 13 33.86% 2.65% 6.88%
8 24 19 San Francisco 49ers 5 163 5 6 51 13 34.36% 3.68% 7.98%
9 7 32 Houston Texans 5 121 7 2 35 14 34.71% 1.65% 11.57%
10 18 14 New England Patriots 5 184 4 6 61 13 35.33% 3.26% 7.07%
11 20 23 Tennessee Titans 5 178 6 6 59 16 36.52% 3.37% 8.99%
12 28 18 Seattle Seahawks 5 167 5 7 56 13 36.53% 4.19% 7.78%
13 31 28 Indianapolis Colts 5 153 4 7 52 15 36.60% 4.58% 9.80%
14 30 24 Buffalo Bills 5 197 9 9 65 18 37.56% 4.57% 9.14%
15 27 6 Detroit Lions 5 195 5 8 69 10 37.95% 4.10% 5.13%
16 9 30 Baltimore Ravens 5 176 9 3 58 19 38.07% 1.70% 10.80%
17 22 13 Arizona Cardinals 5 202 8 7 70 14 38.61% 3.47% 6.93%
18 21 3 Chicago Bears 5 174 8 6 60 8 39.08% 3.45% 4.60%
19 29 25 New Orleans Saints 5 163 6 7 58 15 39.26% 4.29% 9.20%
20 17 9 Miami Dolphins 5 205 8 6 73 13 39.51% 2.93% 6.34%
21 19 15 Denver Broncos 5 209 11 7 76 15 41.63% 3.35% 7.18%
22 12 1 New York Giants 5 199 12 4 73 5 42.71% 2.01% 2.51%
23 25 4 Minnesota Vikings 4 187 10 7 70 9 42.78% 3.74% 4.81%
24 5 20 Green Bay Packers 4 147 9 2 56 12 44.22% 1.36% 8.16%
25 15 10 Dallas Cowboys 5 211 14 5 81 14 45.02% 2.37% 6.64%
26 4 8 Jacksonville Jaguars 5 159 12 2 60 10 45.28% 1.26% 6.29%
27 14 5 Philadelphia Eagles 5 220 11 5 89 11 45.45% 2.27% 5.00%
28 8 17 Oakland Raiders 5 178 9 3 72 13 45.51% 1.69% 7.30%
29 3 16 San Diego Chargers 5 179 10 1 74 13 46.93% 0.56% 7.26%
30 6 29 Washington Redskins 4 141 9 2 58 15 47.52% 1.42% 10.64%
31 9 7 Atlanta Falcons 5 176 12 3 72 11 47.73% 1.70% 6.25%
32 11 11 St. Louis Rams 5 162 11 3 67 11 48.15% 1.85% 6.79%

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Anybody trying to put Geno Smith in this conversation is seriously on the glass pipe and searching the ground for the next hit.

The point is not that Geno is in the race for MVP. The point is that Geno, who is clearly NOT in the race for MVP, has done all the same things that the Brady-crew claims make Brady an MVP candidate, with just as bad a supporting cast. The only reason this thread is called "Tom Brady for MVP" and not "one of those other guys that's done the same thing for MVP" is because we have a bunch of Pats homers and because of Brady's name history.