2005 for Tom Brady

[QuikSand]

So, coming into this season, we had a pretty interesting thread about Brady, as many were arguing that he might be the very best QB in the game right now. The standard supporting argument for this was, generally, that even if he doesn't post huge stats, he wins games, especially big games.

Seems to me this season is an interesting one for Brady, in this light. In very shorthand, he put together probably his most impressive season statistically, but then came up empty in a "big game" in the playoffs. (Though I admit, the definition of "big game" has always eluded me in these debates)

Now I realize that many invariably want to talk about a certain other QB every time Brady is raised -- but my hope is just to discuss Tom Brady here. The question is:

How does the 2005 season, in its entirety, affect Tom Brady's status as a star, super star, legend, or whatever?

[Desnudo]

I think it doesn't change his superstar status, but definitely changed his legend status, or at least delayed it.

[kingfc22]

Still has 3 rings in 4 years and is the only QB to win 10 straight post-season games.

[molson]

This was Brady's best regular season (and not just statistically). He carried a team with a below average running game, awful secondary, and huge injuries on defense. I'm impressed by the improvement each year - he's gone from a guy who mainly threw screen passes and dump offs to a much more complete QB who can throw deep with anyone.

The playoff loss certainly took away a little of "undefeated" mystique, but he's still the most succesful playoff QB of all time in terms of Winning %, and he's still clearly the best "playoff QB" in football today, under any standard that one attempts to measure that.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Now I realize that many invariably want to talk about a certain other QB every time Brady is raised -- but my hope is just to discuss Tom Brady here. The question is:

well, I don't know how you can avoid the talk, and I don't think there's any harm in it. Tom Brady does have a way to go to catch up to Joe Montana...


...since Montana has 7 postseason losses.

[Draft Dodger]

interestingly, Brady's stats over his first 5 seasons are VERY close to Montana after his first five:

Brady: 1576 com 2545 att 61.9 % 123 TD 66 INT 3 rings, 2 pro bowls
Montana: 1311 com 2054 att 63.8 % 105 TD 54 INT 2 rings, 4 pro bowls

not presented at all for arguments sake, because I think Brady's accomplishments stand up on their own, but I did find the similarity in stats to be closer than I expected to find them.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

It doesn't change much, except that he is not completely flawless. That pick in the endzone was not good. Had to throw that one away when he was under pressure. He is still young, still has 3 rings, but more importantly showed that he can indeed carry the team if need be (let's forget the ol' "he's playing in a great system"). We'll continue to see great things. But, alas, he is no longer super-human. It's good. He'll be very hungry next season.

As for that other guy, I wonder what the excuses will be this time around. But, as you asked, I won't go there.

[Senator]

I think it doesn't change much, and I am pretty indifferent on the guy. I remember thinking this season while "really" watching him in a few games that:
1. He is smart/cool
2. His arm strength is much better than I thought
3. His accuracy is very good

You are only as good as the team around you they say, but this guy has some very Montana like qualities that are not so common.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

I think it doesn't change his superstar status, but definitely changed his legend status, or at least delayed it.

Think that is about right.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Senator

I think it doesn't change much, and I am pretty indifferent on the guy. I remember thinking this season while "really" watching him in a few games that:
1. He is smart/cool
2. His arm strength is much better than I thought
3. His accuracy is very good

You are only as good as the team around you they say, but this guy has some very Montana like qualities that are not so common.

And isn't it funny that the "Montana like" qualities isn't a rifle arm, quickest release, great legs or anything like that. Stay calm, throw accurately, make good decisions and lead the team. Simple, but so very hard.

[TroyF]

I don't think it really changed anything. He has the rings and he continues to develop at a staggering rate.

That said, there had been some very simple, very pure truths about Brady:

1) You don't blitz him. He kills you on the blitz.
2) He doesn't make stupid mistakes.
3) When the chips are down in the biggest of games, he keeps his composure and doesn't get rattled.

On Saturday night we saw all three truths turn against him, and #3 was the most interesting to me. It looked to me like he was getting rattled VERY early on. Taunting John Lynch, begging for a PI that wasn't there and screaming for a late hit that never occured, all within the first two series.

These are all things I see "other" QB's do, but rarely Brady and I can't ever recall seeing those type of antics early in a game.

Brady was confused and rattled through much of that game on Saturday night. He looked eerily similar to the QB everyone likes to compare him to. But it was one game, nothing more. He's still the best QB in the game and he's still a living legend. The only thing Saturday night did in my mind is take off the cape lose a bit of the mystique. We now know he can't walk on water.

[st.cronin]

If anything, I'm more impressed with him than I was a year ago. Yes, he had a bad playoff game - we all knew that was coming one of these years.

[cougarfreak]

The same as every good qb, you pressure him, he makes mistakes.

[Honolulu_Blue]

He is still a legend and will go down as one of the best QBs ever.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

He is still a legend and will go down as one of the best QBs ever.

absolutely and as tribute to that he isn't allowed to ever, ever throw a bad pass now as evidence of all this doubt because of one pass picked by Champ Bailey.

pats will be very, very good next year.

[Butter]

Unless you expect the Pats to win every Super Bowl for 9 straight years, I don't know why this would lessen Brady's legend. The man comes off the bench in week 2 of 2001 to lead the 0-2 Patriots to their first ever Super Bowl win, then proceeds to win 2 more in his first 5 seasons as a starter. What more could you expect out of anybody, really.

[Raiders Army]

Well, he's proven he isn't God and that he's human, after all. Regardless, as others have said in this thread, he's a winner and a superstar. From what I saw, he didn't really have a running game all season or in the playoffs, but he carried the load on his shoulders.

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

absolutely and as tribute to that he isn't allowed to ever, ever throw a bad pass now as evidence of all this doubt because of one pass picked by Champ Bailey.

The guy is a great, great quarterback, but this is totally inaccurate. He had at least two more horrible throws (missed touchdowns) and was off all night long.

I just hope that maybe, just maybe, this season and game will help lend some rational thought to the Brady discussion. He is not "superclutch" or some kind of big game stud that lies in wait until the stakes are their highest. He is simply a great quarterback on a great team.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

The guy is a great, great quarterback, but this is totally inaccurate. He had at least two more horrible throws (missed touchdowns) and was off all night long.

I know but I guess the point was as said above that he's not "god". People knocking the guy for not being "god" is funny to me.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

The guy is a great, great quarterback, but this is totally inaccurate. He had at least two more horrible throws (missed touchdowns) and was off all night long.

I just hope that maybe, just maybe, this season and game will help lend some rational thought to the Brady discussion. He is not "superclutch" or some kind of big game stud that lies in wait until the stakes are their highest. He is simply a great quarterback on a great team.

You can't really dispute the fact that he more often than not plays his best in the biggest games. And coversely doesn't turn into goo when the game is on the line.

[judicial clerk]

He is not diminished in my eyes. Despite all the mistakes made by the Patriots, Brady and his teammates still made the broncos play their ass off for a full 4 quarters before they could claim victory. (and this comes from a guy who still resents the smug bastard. Tuck rule my ass.)

I suspect that if McNabb would have been in there he would have puked; if Favre was in there evry pass would have been deep into triple coverage like that last interception; and if manning was in there he would have been throwing the ball into the dirt because "some guys let him down on his protection"

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

How does the 2005 season, in its entirety, affect Tom Brady's status as a star, super star, legend, or whatever?

Anyone who doesn't think that Tom Brady is the best quarterback in the NFL is biased and isn't being fair. There is just no argument at this point for any other player.

[KeyserSoze]

I've been thinking for a while in a similar matter....

Players can't win anything in team sports. NE has 22 starters, some special team players and a bunch of coachs.

Did Brady lost that game? No. Did Brady have won 3 Superbowls alone? No.

The Saturday the Broncos played better than NE. As a team. Was it a bad day of Brady or was it that the Broncos won the Patriots in a lot of fields? A tackle, a bad block, a good blitz, good preparation against the other team plays...

The four teams surviving in the NFL are 4 good examples. They have some good players, very good, but they are very complete in almost every line. And they have good coaching too.

Brady has been a very good player in a great (and winning) team. And it deserves more respect than being a star.

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

You can't really dispute the fact that he more often than not plays his best in the biggest games. And coversely doesn't turn into goo when the game is on the line.

I don't dispute that. I dispute the fact that it's at all relevant in assessing some sort of clutch quality about the guy. Why?

Because he more often than not plays his best in every game. And he doesn't turn into goo at any point.

Let's be honest, he looked like crap on Saturday. He played horribly and he played very poorly when the game was on the line. Those that argued previously that he was Mr. Clutch and he had some intangible quality that always made him better in big situations have to confront the fact that Saturday showed that to be false. Or else they must determine that he somehow lost his magic clutch wand.

Me, I believed before that he was a great quarterback on a great team. Saturday doesn't affect that initial assessment in any way whatsoever. He had a bad game. It happens. As did his teammates, including Troy Brown and Adam Vinatieri, two other guys that had played well in their great run.

[Dutch]

How does the 2005 season, in its entirety, affect Tom Brady's status as a star, super star, legend, or whatever?

In a completely unbiased line of thinking, it doesn't affect his status as a future Hall of Famer. He's been superb.

The real question is what happens from here on out? As a star, legend, fan favorite? Who knows. If anything ruins him it will be him playing badly or losing a lot, the rest of his career. He's young and there is a lot of time for him to turn his fortunes around (The reverse of what you tell people down on their luck).

People forget. The NFL is very much a league of "What Have You Done For Me Lately?" One bad season and the people in New England will be disgruntled. Two bad ones and they will be calling for his head.

To a much lesser extent, I remember when Randle Cunningham was on the cover of Sports Illustrated and SI proclaimed, "Prototype Quarterback of the Future". And today people hardly remember Cunningham as a good running quarterback who couldn't read a defense to save his life. Times change.

Also, like the polls in college football, sometimes timing is everything. John Elway, for instance, was always known as a good quarterback who couldn't win the big one. Until he did in the waning years of his career when he couldn't throw for a 150 yards in a game to save his life. And he's remembered now as one of the all-time great quarterbacks because he's got a couple of Super Bowl rings.

Who knows what happens to Tom Brady. It's too early to tell, but he's on the fast track to being immortalized by the NFL and it's fans.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

I know but I guess the point was as said above that he's not "god". People knocking the guy for not being "god" is funny to me.

Only morons are doing that. I kind of agree with Huck here. This may allow us to have a rational discussion about him and the Pats dynasty as a whole and I think maybe that's what QS was thinking when he started this.

Based on the two teams play over the year and where the game was, Denver should have been a heavy favorite in that football game. The reason they weren't is because of Superman. And I'm not saying that was incorrect reasoning. Hell, I preached how good Denver's pass D was before the game and talked about how the Broncos confused good QB's all year and how this Denver team forced turnovers.

The Pats fumbled 4 times against the Jags. They recovered all four. It was silly to think that'd continue. But at the end of the day Brady had this mystique about him that he would never have a bad game and that if you tried to do certain things to him, he'd rip your heart out. And I was nervous as hell about it.

Now the God talk is over. He's human. He makes mistakes like any other living QB. His place in history, in my mind, is locked. He's a sure fire first ballot hall of famer. I'm not knocking him because he isn't God, I'm saying he finally proved to me he isn't.

Subtle difference, but a difference.

[Daimyo]

Just so I'm not labeled a Brady-hater, let me preface this by saying that I considered Brady one of the top two QBs in the league before this season and that I now have even more respect for abilities.

This topic is something I've been thinking a lot about nearly all season. I don't think this season hurts Tom Brady at all, but it should at least change the arguments. Before this season the common refrain from those toting Brady as the best QB in the league was that the only thing that mattered was team success. Now that Brady played his best season but saw the team have less success because the rest of the team didn't play up to his level, you'd think they'd now have to make allowances for other QB's who play exceptionally well but don't win the big games because the rest of their team disapoints.

Before a lot of people seemed to discount the rest of the Pats team and gave Brady almost all the credit for the 3 super bowls. I think that position becomes much harder to defend now. Afterall, if it was all (or mostly) Brady, why would the team do worse with Brady doing better?

[albionmoonlight]

Losing in the Playoffs in 2005 did more to hurt Tom Brady's legend than not making the playoffs in 2002 did, which shows me--in some ways--how contrived this whole "dynasty" thing was.

The media outlets all seemed to make a collective decision to just ignore a year where the Pats didn't even make the playoffs when they created the Tom Brady Dynasty in order to give themselves something about which to write.

Now that Tom Brady has lost in the playoffs, I am going to wait for the sports media to tell me what to think about him.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Losing in the Playoffs in 2005 did more to hurt Tom Brady's legend than not making the playoffs in 2002 did, which shows me--in some ways--how contrived this whole "dynasty" thing was.

The media outlets all seemed to make a collective decision to just ignore a year where the Pats didn't even make the playoffs when they created the Tom Brady Dynasty in order to give themselves something about which to write.

Now that Tom Brady has lost in the playoffs, I am going to wait for the sports media to tell me what to think about him.

It's inconceivable that 3 superbowls in 4 years is not considered a dynasty.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

It's inconceivable that 3 superbowls in 4 years is not considered a dynasty.

I certainly won't argue with you. I think that dynasty is one of those "I know it when I see it" words. And, IMO, the Patriots qualify. And, even if they didn't, one cannot take away how good they have been.

I just find it interesting that, in all of the talk of 10-0 in the playoffs, etc., everyone just seemed to forget the inconvenient fact that the Pats missed the playoffs in 2002. It didn't fit with the "Patriot Dynasty" storyline, so everyone just ignored it.

So, ironically to me, this year in which the Pats won their division, creamed a team in the playoffs and lost to a very good Denver team at Denver--will do more to tarnish the "Tom Brady as winner" image than the year where he couldn't lead his team to the playoffs.

But, overall, no disrespect to the Patriots, who managed to do something that all of the talking heads said was impossible to do in the Free Agency era--win multiple Super Bowls over a short period of time with the same core of players.

[Arles]

I can't think of any QB in the NFL I'd rather have on my team. All this season did is change Brady from "the guy I'd rather have on my team for a postseason game" to "the guy I'd rather have on my team for a regular season or postseason game".

The special teams turnovers were too much for Brady to overcome.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Daimyo

Just so I'm not labeled a Brady-hater, let me preface this by saying that I considered Brady one of the top two QBs in the league before this season and that I now have even more respect for abilities.

This topic is something I've been thinking a lot about nearly all season. I don't think this season hurts Tom Brady at all, but it should at least change the arguments. Before this season the common refrain from those toting Brady as the best QB in the league was that the only thing that mattered was team success. Now that Brady played his best season but saw the team have less success because the rest of the team didn't play up to his level, you'd think they'd now have to make allowances for other QB's who play exceptionally well but don't win the big games because the rest of their team disapoints.

Before a lot of people seemed to discount the rest of the Pats team and gave Brady almost all the credit for the 3 super bowls. I think that position becomes much harder to defend now. Afterall, if it was all (or mostly) Brady, why would the team do worse with Brady doing better?

This is pretty much me, too... and thanks for at least getting the idea I was trying to raise.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I just find it interesting that, in all of the talk of 10-0 in the playoffs, etc., everyone just seemed to forget the inconvenient fact that the Pats missed the playoffs in 2002. It didn't fit with the "Patriot Dynasty" storyline, so everyone just ignored it.

So, ironically to me, this year in which the Pats won their division, creamed a team in the playoffs and lost to a very good Denver team at Denver--will do more to tarnish the "Tom Brady as winner" image than the year where he couldn't lead his team to the playoffs.

I was thinking about that last night. I think Brady is the top QB in the league and that's who I would want if I were starting a team from scratch, but it just seems illogical to see that 10-0 stat being touted when they didn't make the playoffs in 2002. If Dallas had missed the playoff in '94, then Aikman would have won ten straight (after losing one in '91)...but instead, they lose in the NFC Championship game to the Niners and Aikman goes 11-1 over a four year span. It just seems like 11-1 like that is better than 10-0 would have been if they had missed the playoffs.

[Castlerock]

Originally Posted by VPI97

I was thinking about that last night. I think Brady is the top QB in the league and that's who I would want if I were starting a team from scratch, but it just seems illogical to see that 10-0 stat being touted when they didn't make the playoffs in 2002. If Dallas had missed the playoff in '94, then Aikman would have won ten straight (after losing one in '91)...but instead, they lose in the NFC Championship game to the Niners and Aikman goes 11-1 over a four year span. It just seems like 11-1 like that is better than 10-0 would have been if they had missed the playoffs.

Agree on all counts.

[vtbub]

FWIW, They went 9-7 and were in a three way standings tie with Miami and the Jets. Buffalo was 8-8 and in last. Brady had a decent year.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by vtbub

FWIW, They went 9-7 and were in a three way standings tie with Miami and the Jets. Buffalo was 8-8 and in last. Brady had a decent year.

they had tremendous injuries that year. Much like this season. This season was worse though.

[brimick123]

The man has 3 superbowl rings. It's hard to believe the Pats would have won a single won without him.


Far as I'm concerned he's a legend. If he retired today he'd be a first ballot hall of famer.

And as far as the other guy (we'll call him Peyton) I think he's the best QB in the league. Probably the best of all-time. But to be a legend you have to have the rings.

People want to combine the best QB/Legend debates. To me they're vastly different subjects.

[clintl]

Since Montana and Brady get compared so frequently, here's something to consider. The 49ers didn't make the playoff the year after they won their first Super Bowl, either. In fact, they were a bad team that year. And the 49ers suffered a few outright routs in Montana's years - one a 49-0 loss to the Giants. Did either of those things diminish his legacy? Of course not.

Brady's legacy shouldn't be affected by this year, either. New England just didn't have as good a supporting cast as in the previous couple of seasons.

[Tekneek]

I'd say that his stats this season, increased burden he carried for the team, and losing to Denver demonstrate how hard it can be for a QB to carry a team to a Super Bowl. I really think it takes a team to go all the way and is not indicative of any one player's skills/talent.

However, it does go a long way to build up the case for his ability as a QB overall and takes away from the 'system QB' label that many gave him.

[ISiddiqui]

I think Daimyo's point is a VERY good one. If anything, this loss tends to begin a reevaluation of Brady's postseason success. Brady is still on track to 'legendom' (if not there already), but more people are going to wonder how much was Brady and how much was the great Belicheck defense and how much was the offensive line. Beforehand, I mostly heard that it was most (if not all) Brady, because he knew how to win. I think people will realize that the team around him has a lot to do with it.

Like, hopefully, with other QBs in the league today.

[Riggins44]

Originally Posted by KeyserSoze

I've been thinking for a while in a similar matter....

Players can't win anything in team sports. NE has 22 starters, some special team players and a bunch of coachs.

Did Brady lost that game? No. Did Brady have won 3 Superbowls alone? No.

The Saturday the Broncos played better than NE. As a team. Was it a bad day of Brady or was it that the Broncos won the Patriots in a lot of fields? A tackle, a bad block, a good blitz, good preparation against the other team plays...

The four teams surviving in the NFL are 4 good examples. They have some good players, very good, but they are very complete in almost every line. And they have good coaching too.

Brady has been a very good player in a great (and winning) team. And it deserves more respect than being a star.

The bottom line is QB's get WAY too much credit for their teams success and failure. It's not like the Browns with Brady are running to the playoffs every year. He's a product... just like Montana to an extent. Heck, Steve Bono and Elvis Grbac looked good with the Niners during their run.

[ISiddiqui]

To be fair, Elvis Grbac was a pretty good QB in Kansas City as well (actually better in KC than he was in San Fran).

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Riggins44

Heck, Steve Bono and Elvis Grbac looked good with the Niners during their run.

You forgot Jeff Kemp.

[lytic]

Originally Posted by Arles

I can't think of any QB in the NFL I'd rather have on my team. All this season did is change Brady from "the guy I'd rather have on my team for a postseason game" to "the guy I'd rather have on my team for a regular season or postseason game".

The special teams turnovers were too much for Brady to overcome.

ditto.

[Pumpy Tudors]

I think the only thing that changes is that (in a few weeks) nobody will be able to say that Brady has "won 3 of the last 4 Super Bowls." He's still an excellent quarterback. In general, he still does all the things that we would expect him to do. I don't think any quarterback in the history of the NFL is so great that we would expect him to go to the Super Bowl every year.

So the Patriots didn't make it this time. That doesn't really change anything about the perception of Brady, does it? It's not like it erases the extraordinary things he's already accomplished. This isn't like John Elway in reverse, is it? Elway's teams lost three Super Bowls, and people wondered if he'd ever win one. When he finally did, we could conveniently "forget" about the three losses and focus on the two wins. That thinking couldn't possibly happen the other way around, could it? Even if Tom Brady never gets to another Super Bowl, it will never wash away his achievements.

I don't mean to change the discussion, and I hope that what I'm about to say adds to it instead of replacing it. If we want to discuss whether Tom Brady is a "superstar" or a "legend" or whatever, I propose a compelling question: If Tom Brady retired today, does he belong in the Hall of Fame?

[ISiddiqui]

You know, I wonder... if the Pats from now on never get beyond the 2nd game of the playoffs under Tom Brady, does Tom Brady's status decline with people thinking that the 3 in 4 years was more a result of the total team and Brady was just a cog, instead of what people think now, that Brady was the reason for the run?

It's an interesting question, I think. I have to disagree with Pumpy and think that it COULD happen the other way around. They won't say Brady is crap, but they would think that he wasn't as good as people thought in 2005/06.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by KeyserSoze

I've been thinking for a while in a similar matter....

Players can't win anything in team sports. NE has 22 starters, some special team players and a bunch of coachs.

Did Brady lost that game? No. Did Brady have won 3 Superbowls alone? No.

The Saturday the Broncos played better than NE. As a team. Was it a bad day of Brady or was it that the Broncos won the Patriots in a lot of fields? A tackle, a bad block, a good blitz, good preparation against the other team plays...

The four teams surviving in the NFL are 4 good examples. They have some good players, very good, but they are very complete in almost every line. And they have good coaching too.

Brady has been a very good player in a great (and winning) team. And it deserves more respect than being a star.

Actually you could argue that Brady was a major contributing factor to the loss. Interceptions are a huge factor in deciding wins and losses. QBs that don't make mistakes lead their team to victory. His pick to Champ Bailey was the dagger in the heart.

I'd still give him the ball every time in a big game, but some positions are more important than others and QB is the most important of all. When your QB makes big mistakes, you lose.

Edit: to be clear, I think Denver's pressure forced those mistakes, but they are still mistakes.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I have to disagree with Pumpy and think that it COULD happen the other way around. They won't say Brady is crap, but they would think that he wasn't as good as people thought in 2005/06.

What about Brett Favre? He's only been to the Super Bowl twice, and he's only won once, if my count is right. I understand that he's loved for his toughness and durability, but that Super Bowl win was what? Nine years ago? Following that, his playoff appearances include throwing 6 interceptions in one game, getting waxed at home in the cold by Atlanta, and throwing 4 interceptions in another game. Yet he's still a legend. Sure, if his career is over, people will remember that his last season was a terrible one, but they'll also remember that he won a Super Bowl and also won in his final game. The bad playoff games in between? Only Atlanta fans will remember any part of that stuff.

If Brett Favre is legendary with only one Super Bowl win, I don't see how anyone could think less of Brady since he's won three, especially at such a young age. He'll eventually reach a point at which people will say "He wasn't as good as he used to be," but you could say that about Favre, Dan Marino, Jim Kelly, or maybe even Joe Montana. To me, the only thing that makes this year negative for Brady's image is that his team isn't going to the Super Bowl, and that's just because we've almost come to expect it.

[Tekneek]

Favre being legendary has a lot to do with how long he has been in the league and his relative consistency over that time. Despite the postseason success, Brady has only played in 80 NFL regular season games. How many players in the modern era get in with only 80 regular season games on their resume?

[Daimyo]

Brett Favre won three MVPs and has great career numbers to complement his super bowl win and did it all with less talent (relative to his era) than Brady's had in New England.