Ok, Like for real, how do you want to go about this moving forward?

NE is famous for playing to win even when they're way ahead.

However, Brady is "rested" in the sense that a backup QB takes over at about the same rate as most other starting QB's (maybe counter-intuitive but the data shows this).

If you remove all years where a QB other than Brady started a game (makes it easier to get the stats), then we have to leave out 2001, 2008 and 2016 for Brady and he has 7365 attempts combined in all other years with backups having 153 attempts.. comes out to 98% of all attempts are from Brady when he's the only starter.

With Tannehill (excluding 2016) it's 98.7%, with Rodgers it's 98.6%, etc..

But I agree NE doesn't play much different in "tough" situations than in "easy" ones. Great mentality IMO.

 

Where was I proven wrong? You're reading the time wrong. LMAO! I would expect nothing less from you. lol

Landry Jones played ONE ****ING SERIES. He threw the ball one time the entire game. Ben played 99.9% of that game. hahaha

 

Yeah, but if you look at how many times the Pats were up by an insurmountable margin compared to those other teams and STILL had Brady playing I'm sure you'd find it was way more than those other QB's.

 

Okay, so I read it wrong, big deal, but an injured Big Ben didn't get back into the game until there was 3:51 left in the third quarter.

And that's your argument for Tannehill crushing Big Ben's Steelers while Moore's Dolphins lost to a healthy Steelers? Did Tannehill injure Big Ben or are you claiming that wasn't a big deal? Why are you giving him so much credit?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

BWHAHAHAH!!! You're reading the time wrong, again!! hahaha! You can't make this **** up folks.

 

How can you not agree NE doesn't play much different in tough situations? How do other teams play in the highest stakes compared to them?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

NE plays the same no matter what. That's his point.

 

First you said I read the time wrong when it was 12 seconds into the second quarter. Now you're saying I read the time wrong when there's 3:51 left in the third quarter.

Why are the rules changing from one time stamp to another?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

And my point is they play their best when it matters the most because other teams tend to falter when they dig deep to win.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

You think? That would mean NE takes Brady out in close games more often than other teams. Wouldn't make too much sense IMO.

Just looking at all games where Tannehill played most of the game and we won by 14 or more, in 2012 that was against Oakland, Jacksonville and Buffalo (NYJ game he got injured) and Tannehill was never taken out, in 2013 it was against the NYJ and he was never taken out, in 2014 it was against Oakland, Jacksonville and San Diego, and only against SD did Matt Moore have 4 attempts, in 2015 it was against Tennessee and Houston, and only against Houston did Matt Moore have 1 attempt, while in 2016 it was against Pittsburgh and he didn't get taken out.

So 5 attempts out of 305 for backups gets you to 98.4% for Tannehill, about the same as his overall average. Not going to do this for Brady because that's a ton more years, but I'd have to see evidence they'd take Brady out more often in close games than in games where they have an insurmountable lead before I believe it.. that's the only way the math works.

 

Look at the time next to the actual post. That's time left in the quarter.

 

Just going based on what I (think I) see, but NE has always reminded me of how Germans play soccer.. doesn't change much whether they're ahead, behind, leading by a lot or losing by a lot. It's always disciplined and you don't see "another gear" the same way you see with other teams.

Of course everyone is human so I'm sure there's SOME difference in how NE plays in "tough" situations vs. "easy" ones, but that difference looks very small to me. And I think it's due to coaching.

 

No, I think Brady stays in longer than other QB's when their respective teams are in a "can't lose" situation.

 

Well.. I'll believe that when I see evidence for it. Right now that doesn't make sense to me based on the numbers I posted. Like I said, the only way Brady stays in longer in "can't lose" situations given his overall average of 98% is for him to NOT stay in as long in close games.. you know, when you need Brady more!

 

Well we are talking about perception here, so I give more credit if they play the same no matter how high stakes the game is if other teams play nervous or erratically. But I have seen moments where they've turned the switch on, like this past SB, for example. You don't have to look far to see what I'm referring to. And there's plenty of examples we can find (although not quite as dramatic).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

How often are the Pats in a blow out? Very often, right? Yet he plays 98+% of the time. However, how often are the Dolphins in a blowout? Not often, right? Yet Tannehill is still in there 98+% of the time.

That's what I'm talking about. Even though the Pats are stomping people, Brady plays just as much as everyone else.

 

I don't think they crapped the 1st half of the SB because they weren't trying as much.. or because they didn't care. It's because they just couldn't! So the SB thing isn't good evidence for the "turn it on when you need to win" IMO.

 

lol...Exactly. They were getting trounced and as per usual Brady was wearing his dress because people were too close to him.

Once the Falcons flamed out the Pats did what they were attempting to do all game long. Dink and dunk them to death. lol..Amendola did have a great catch, however. Although, I'm sure some posters here will give that credit to Brady, also.

 

Okay, you had your fun at my expense. So Ben was injured with 8:18 left in the second quarter and didn't return until there was 9:01 left in the third. So he didn't play most of the game healthy.

Back to the initial argument. Why would you give credit to Tannehill for beating the Steelers and put down Moore for losing when you know Ben was injured most of the game? It's not overblown. He missed his next game, which means he strained himself to get back in against us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

They will never stop with the BS and lies, because then they'd have to admit they were wrong.

 

Umm.. the logic is backwards there I think. Take the extreme case. Suppose every single game Brady played in is a blowout win and he's in there 98% of the time. Then that proves Tannehill's left in the game in blowout wins LONGER (98.4%) than Brady.

Your argument would possibly have more merit if Brady was in FEWER blowout wins because then the non-blowout games have greater influence on the average. So the fact Brady's in more blowout wins actually argues against your intuition.

 

lol...He missed one series. He played the same when he was "injured" as he did before that.

He aggravated a knee injury he previously had. He then had a scope to clean out some debris and missed a game.

 

I never said they crapped the 1st half of the SB because they weren't trying as much. You guys are wrong about the meaning of the phrase. Turning on the switch doesn't necessarily mean you weren't trying in the first place. It could mean you were ineffective initially. It could mean you took your play to another level.

By turned on the switch, I mean they flipped the game upside down by limiting their mistakes and capitalizing on the Falcons mistakes. They had missed opportunities in the first half. They were moving the balk the first hall. They were trying, they just didn't quite have the switch turned on yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

You can find an instance of me admitting I was wrong about something before you can find any of you or danmarino admitting you're wrong.

What's worse, making an honest mistake reading the time stamp incorrectly or making a false equivalency about Tannehill and Moore's competition when you know there was a major difference?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Cbrad, he's saying Brady stays in games that other QBs would come out of, due to the insurmountable lead. If 80% of Pats games are blowouts, and 10% of the dolphins games are blowouts, which QB is staying in more blowouts? 98% of 12 is still bigger than 98.4% of 1.6.

 

Now I'm confused.. what's the mechanism for "turning it on" then? That is, why would any team have an easier time "turning it on" in tough vs. easy games if we assume from the outset that they're trying equally hard to win the game.

At least saying a team can "turn it on" when they WANT to makes more sense from a mechanistic point of view. But you're not referring to differences in how people respond to pressure or differences in play quality based on how much the team is trying to win.. like I said I'm confused.

 

You wouldn't argue the same about Tannehill if he was injured that early in the game and had to miss the next regular season game.

But of course, because you can't wrap your head around Moore having a higher rating than Tannehill, you'll take whatever you can even if it's dishonest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

That's not what I understood and that wasn't the context either. Not only was danmarino responding to my posts which talk about percentage in different conditions, that's how his claim in post #53 reads:

"I think Brady stays in longer than other QB's when their respective teams are in a "can't lose" situation."

Anyway this isn't that important.. but for the claims I was making the math works out ONLY if they take Brady out in close games more often than other teams (that I looked at) do. Of course he plays in more situations where his team is blowing out the other team. That would never be up for debate.

 

I'm lost...lol

I said that Brady plays more often than other QB's even when their respective teams are in a "can't lose" situation.

If Brady has MORE blowout games than Tannehill (which I'm 100% sure is true), and yet both have the same amount of playing time, how does that mean RT stays in longer than Brady when each team has a blowout?

 

I didn't refer to play in quality based on how much the team is trying to win. It's not a matter of wanting to. It's a matter of being able to. The first person to claim turning it on had anything to do with effort was danmarino, not me.

I'm saying they can and have pulled through in tougher situations than anybody by getting in gear and making it happen (or turning it on). If you want to assume I meant they weren't trying in the first place, that's on you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

OK.. let's try to clarify exactly what we're talking about lol

There are two conditions: blowout games vs. non-blowout games. If you combine both conditions into a single one, then I listed the percent of attempts Brady has vs. backup QB's compared to some other teams.

So.. what I was doing is the same calculation of percent of attempts vs. backup QB's but in each of the two separate conditions. Since both together give you the total, you only need to look at one of the two. So I looked at blowouts for Tannehill and showed he stays in 98.4% of all attempts in blowouts (defined by the game being won by 14 or more points).

Based on what you wrote (maybe it's not what you meant) I thought you were claiming that Brady would have a higher percentage than Tannehill or Rodgers, etc.. in blowout games. In other words his percentage should be greater than 98.4% at least.

If that's what you meant, then my argument stands. You can't argue that it's more likely he has a higher percentage because he played in more blowout games because the more blowouts you are in (relative to all games) the less the non-blowout game percentage (whatever that is) affects the overall average of 98%, meaning the blowout game average is more likely CLOSER to 98%.

I guess if this debate continues I may suck it up and actually go get the data haha!

 

There's an unsurprising logic gap going on. If a team or player "turns it on" at a given moment, that means they weren't playing their best prior to that moment. If they are willingly "turning it on", then they were willingly not playing their best before that moment.

Not understanding this relatively simple logic problem is the person's fault who doesn't get it.

 

Yeah, I think we have more of a misunderstanding than anything.

In short, I think Brady stays in longer in regards to blowout games than other QB's. If the Dolphins, or nearly any other team, are leading by 5 scores with 5 minutes to go in the 4th quarter their starting QB is usually on the bench. That's usually not the case for Brady.

 

I think most people interpret "turning it on" starts with the desire to play better..

Either way, if you're just referring to an outcome irrespective of desire to win then I think all you're talking about is the percentage of close games won (those are generally the "tougher" games to win). Good teams tend to win close games more often than weak teams. So from that point of view there's no reason to think NE will "turn it on" any better than any other good team.

Back to my original point: we need to improve some more to challenge NE but like I said it's not THAT much.. and Gase already showed he can win in close games. In that sense NE isn't any different than any other good team we have to challenge.

 

If the Pats feel we're a threat in the division late in the season, I see them crushing anybody in front of them to claim the top spot.
----finsfandan

What exactly do you think that infers? I'll help you out by simplifying what you wrote.

"If the Pats feel we're a threat they will crush anybody in front of them to win."

So, you're saying that if the Pats don't think we are a threat they will play at a lesser level.

Wrong.

 

Reading this I don't think I misunderstood your point. Maybe my logic wasn't explained well. I think there's no other solution now except to get the data. I'll do that later this afternoon with the same condition of 14+ win margin (damn Brady's longevity for all the data I have to comb through LOL!!)

 

Maybe just do the last 5 years or so?

 

Well, there goes this thread. We're into Tannehill/Moore/Pittsburgh/Miami BS all over again when the thread is about the draft and how to defend against NE, but someone has to turn it into TannehillvsMoorevsPittsburgh BS.

Shocking.

 

Since 2011 the Pats have had 29 games where they were up by 14 or more points at the start (or within a minute or 2) of the 4th quarter. I only used games in which they won. (I'm not sure if they were ever up by 14+ in the 4th and lost, I didn't check)

Out of those 29 games:

Brady played every second: 19 times
Brady left only to have his back-up come in and kneel down and not attempt a pass (with 2 minutes or less left to play): 8 times
Brady came out with greater than 2 minutes to play: 2 times (2014 with 4 min left, 2012 with 4 min left)

 

I think the best route is be cognizant of the holes we have. There are quite a few. So knowing that, I think the right way is to continuer to supercharge the offense. It's our better part right now. If we can't stop the Pats then we need to be able to outscore them.

I miss having a dominant D but I would say that the chance of filling all the holes we have in this draft successfully is far fetched. Finish building the offense as the priority. Take OJ Howard if he's there then double back in two and take Lamp (I just did the fancied draft using CBS and Lamp was still there at #54).