However back when the Colts were decided between PM and AL, I thought the best move was for AL easily.
I've also been roasted on the Pats site for saying I would deal Brady for Luck in a heartbeat - and further in order to even have a shot the Pats would have to ship off their entire draft board, Brady, and take back one or two under performing contracts to have the Colts not laugh them out the door, but probably still not take the deal.
Last edited by bagwell368; 12-11-2012 at 11:07 AM.
I wonder when people will finally get sick of this one....Originally Posted by IndiansFan337
but remember him tearing his ACL and Matt Cassell leading Belichek's team to 11 wins without Brady?
Brady in 2007: 18-1 .948 - SB Team
Cassel in 2008: 11-5 .688 - Missed playoffs
Cassel was 8th in the NFL in QB Rating in 2010 on KC, so he wasn't exactly an idiot like the Colts offering last year. That's a .260 difference in winning percentage in favor of Brady.
Really?Therefore, Belichek gets some of NE's credit. When Manning missed an entire season his team didn't win a game until week 13 or 14 and only won two all year. That shows his immense importance. He has won with different head coaches too, so you can't just say his coach was a main factor.
2010: 10-7 .588 (typical Manning 1st round loss)
2011: 2-12 .125 (suck for Luck - 72.2 QB Rating by the 3 stooges at QB)
2012: 9-4 .692 (Luck)
So, are you going to have to change your story? Luck a rookie to date this year has a substantially better record than Manning in 2010, and a .104 better winning percentage. So Luck > Manning? If you think whatever Cassel did that year somehow overshadowed Brady, then you must agree Luck > Manning.
So your point is? Blown up.............
Had to add:
BTW, let's look at Moss, Brady's top target in 2007 and Cassel's in 2008:
R Moss: 98 for 1493 TD: 23
R Moss: 69 for 1008 TD: 11
Brady '07: 117.2 QB Rating (2nd highest outdoor QB Rating mark - all time)
Cassel '08 : 89.4 QB Rating (10th in 2008)
I can see how the uninitiated could confuse Brady in '07 and Cassel in '08
Yeah I know it was just a jab. I was gonna sig it but i would rather have my boys stuff up right now so I drew a line. As for Luck. I to think he is the real deal. I worry though the trend of late of these Rookies coming in doing so well it is real or not. My gut tells me with Luck it is real but i am not ready to say for sure say yes. As a football fan I hope so. I love to see greats become great. Brady still has a few years of great play left and right now he is by far IMO the best in the league and showd it last night.
Me and my Boy.
Thank you PSD for your support and prayers.
Mangina was a defensive coach. McDaniels is a joke. Weiss is a good OC but having watched him at ND pretty sick of him too.
Tom Brady is not a system QB.
is the system built around him? yes. there are good reasons for that.
Can other QBs succeed in this system? also yes.
Matt Cassell had "success" and threw 21 TDs. Brady had "success" and threw 50.
Oh but he had weapons. No ****. Is it a problem he didn't throw 50 TDs by himself?
**** Tom Brady but some people have skullarectalitis.
#17 10-1 UCF KNIGHTS!!!
Using the original pythagorean win formula created by Bill James (which is points for squared divided by points squared plus points against squared) you see that the '07 Patriots had a pythagorean winning percentage of .822. This amounts to somewhere between 13 and 14 wins. The '08 Patriots, using the same formula, had a pythagorean winning percentage of .637, good for just over 10 wins. Therefore, Brady was worth approximately 3 wins to the Patriots.
Now let's apply the same formula to the Colts. In 2010 they had a pythagorean winning percentage of .557, essentially 9 wins. Without Manning in 2011, that number goes down to .242, good for under four wins. Therefore Manning was essentially worth 5 wins to the Colts. Even if you account for changing rosters (no real significant changes to either team) or scheduling things, considering pythagorean expectations are designed to stay near the mean (meaning it is hard to get too extreme in any direction) that difference is significant.
Now let's talk about the Luck factor. At their current pace, this year's Colts have a pythagorean winning percentage of .441, essentially 7 wins. But wait, how are they statistically a 7 win team if they're going to end up with 10 or 11? Because they're eeking out close games, which statistically speaking, are random. If the Colts maintained this exact level of play next year odds are they'd lose a few more games than they will this year for that reason. Still, that's a 2 win difference between what Manning did and what Luck is doing. However, you also have to account for roster differences (Indy just had a great draft, they have had far less injury issues), schedule (the Colts played the 10th hardest schedule in the league in 2010, this year's Colts have played the 14th) and coaching (Manning had Jim Caldwell, arguably the worst coach in the league, Luck has the Chuck Pagano/Bruce Arians combo which has done a very good job this year AND has provided emotional motivation). As great as Luck has been thus far, he doesn't have the Colts where Manning did in his last season and statistically it's not particularly close.
Now let's talk about Cassel specifically. You say Cassel is good because he was 8th in QB rating in 2010. Well then, please explain him being 25th in 2009, 25th in 2011, and 35th in 2012 (not a typo, he's actually 35th). So why then, was he so good in 2008? Could it have something to do with their historically weak schedule? The 10 teams they beat in 2008 had a combined winning percentage of .381. Of their 6 losses, only one (to Indianapolis) was against a playoff team. The Colts were the only playoff team the Chiefs played in 2010 (before the Ravens in round one). Cassel may not be as bad as Curtis Painter or Dan Orvovsky, but he's pretty ****ing bad in his own right. Yet the Patriots still played well with him. That tends to happen when you have a hall of fame coach, two hall of fame receivers and a great offensive line.
Now as for Moss' stats, your entire argument just makes me . First let's talk about the touchdowns. 23 is a completely unsustainable number. There have been 11 individual seasons in which a receiver has caught 16 or more touchdowns, and statistically they always regress. Just using Moss as an example, he's had 3 and on average he falls to 11.67 in the following season. Guys like Mark Clayton and Braylon Edwards have fallen all the way down to 4 and 3, respectively.
Next, you're only looking at counting stats. Brady attempted 578 passes in 2007, Cassel attempted 516 in 2008. Right there you're eliminating 62 potential catches for Moss, or just over 12 percent. Next, Moss is a receiver best used going deep. If you're using a quarterback who not only was a backup, but a backup in college, odds are you're not going to throw it deep as often as you would with a hall of famer. Notice that Wes Welker's stats didn't drop off at all in 2008 (1 less catch, 10 less yards). That's why. Now does Moss' statistical drop make sense?
I'm an ardent supporter of Manning, so take what I say with a grain of salt, but everything I just said is supported by stats. Give the man his due, he's one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time. I'd argue he's the best, but that's an argument for another day.
We're better than you
And we know it
Unquoted arguments: very fine job.
The point is that Cassel was capable on two teams. Please make an argument for the 3 stooges the Colts used at QB being as good as Cassel collectively.Now let's talk about Cassel specifically. You say Cassel is good because he was 8th in QB rating in 2010. Well then, please explain him being 25th in 2009, 25th in 2011, and 35th in 2012 (not a typo, he's actually 35th). So why then, was he so good in 2008? Could it have something to do with their historically weak schedule? The 10 teams they beat in 2008 had a combined winning percentage of .381. Of their 6 losses, only one (to Indianapolis) was against a playoff team. The Colts were the only playoff team the Chiefs played in 2010 (before the Ravens in round one). Cassel may not be as bad as Curtis Painter or Dan Orvovsky, but he's pretty ****ing bad in his own right. Yet the Patriots still played well with him. That tends to happen when you have a hall of fame coach, two hall of fame receivers and a great offensive line.
You still only explained part of the difference, not all of it.. Now does Moss' statistical drop make sense?
I have Manning at about# 8 all time adjusted for era. That's pretty fine. I cannot see any argument where he rises above that number. Brady is ahead of Manning, but not #1 or even #2 or probably 3 at this time. So, pretty close. If one applies the cold weather vs indoor/warm weather adjustments even you I wager would have to agree that Brady is hard to beat.I'm an ardent supporter of Manning, so take what I say with a grain of salt, but everything I just said is supported by stats. Give the man his due, he's one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time. I'd argue he's the best, but that's an argument for another day.
Comparing stats from Patriots 2008 season and Colts 2011 season gives us zero information in the Brady-Manning debate.
"Look at what this team did without x player" is a terrible argument in any case. Like all the people last year who were saying Manning should be MVP because of how bad the Colts were ... what an insanely stupid conclusion.
The Colts BUILT THEIR WHOLE TEAM AROUND MANNING - even the defense. What did you think was gonna happen when he went down?
Last edited by Patriot Pride; 12-12-2012 at 03:42 PM.
Ignoring the 2008 season (when Cassel had that ridiculous supporting cast), Cassel's stats are pretty bad even with the inflated numbers from 2010's easy schedule. His QB rating with the Chiefs is 76.93, his completion percentage is 57.35, his interception percentage is 3.08, and his Y/A is 6.41. That's obviously better than Painter's 66.6/54.3/3.7/6.3, but it's pretty close.
Also take into account supporting cast. Let's say the receivers cancel out or even give Indy a small edge. The Colts averaged 4.2 yards per carry on the ground last year. Since 2009 the Chiefs have averaged 4.4, 4.7, 3.9 and 4.6. That means other than when Jamaal Charles was out, KC had a far better rushing game. Combine that with the differences in offensive line and I think Cassel had a better overall supporting cast by a decent margin.
Brady also has certain advantages that can't be accounted for with stats. Brady has had one head coach throughout his entire career, and he's arguably the greatest head coach of all time. Manning has had four, only one of which has a shot at the hall of fame and that would only happen if he came out of retirement and won another ring or two. Brady also had the #6, #17, #1, #2 #17 and #2 defenses in terms of PPG for his first six years whereas Manning had famously bad defenses for most of his. You can't measure the effect that has on a QB, but I always get more than a little bit annoyed when people conveniently forget how good Brady's defenses were during his three title runs.
There are valid arguments on both sides because there are so many factors that we can't accurately assign value to. I personally favor Manning because his per game numbers are better, he had a much longer period of true greatness (nobody seems to realize this, but Brady didn't become truly elite until 2005 and didn't even finish in the top 5 of passer rating until 2007. His finishes before that were 22nd, 9th, 10th, 9th, 6th and 9th), and the pythagorean difference between the 2010 and 2011 Colts favoring Manning as more important to the success of his team than Brady. My other reason is entirely anecdotal, but I think it holds true. The moment I really realized Peyton's greatness was when Belichick went for it on 4th and 2 against Indy on their own 30 late in the 4th quarter in 2009. I don't think there's another quarterback in history who could have scared Bill Belichick enough to do that, including Brady. Again entirely anecdotal, but if you can put the fear of god in Bill Belichick you're probably pretty ****ing good.
We're better than you
And we know it
We're better than you
And we know it
Virutally Identical stats?Here's my thing with indoor/outdoor weather adjustments. Manning is playing in Denver now and he looks as good as ever. He and Brady have virtually identical stats down to QB ratings (Brady is ahead 104.2 to 104, so essentially negligible). We'll have to see how Manning plays these next few weeks in colder weather, but so far playing outdoors hasn't deterred him.
10 INT's vs 4 INT's
Not close...not at all close
PSD's Shane Vereen.
Manning: 3812 yards, 30 TD, 104 rating, 68 completion %, 7.89 Y/A, 10 INT
So, with four major stats that are virtually identical, you choose the one in your guys' favor to mention without mentioning Manning's edge in completion percentage? Shut up and let the smart people talk.
We're better than you
And we know it
Oh smart people? So, with 4 identical stats you assume that we should overlook the one that separates them and just assume because they are mostly similar they are indeed similar and it is "close?"
Smart assumption, let's ignore the one thing that makes it not close in order to have a legitimate case.
Last edited by lolollort; 12-12-2012 at 04:27 PM.
PSD's Shane Vereen.
Brady leads the league in INT% Peyton is tied with MATT STAFFORD and behind such greats as Kevin Kolb, Joe Flacco, Nick Foles, and Josh Freeman.
So yes, let the smart people talk please.