Brady vs. AFC West in the postseason
Heading into Super Bowl XLII, Tom Brady has played in 16 postseason games. He has a 14-2 record, has thrown 25 TDs and 12 INTs, and has a career postseason passer rating of 88.5.
Interesting tidbit (well… I found it interesting): Brady has faced the Chargers twice in the playoffs, and has thrown three INTs both times**. Those are the only two times he’s thrown three INTs in a postseason game - and he’s never thrown more. His team bailed him out both times and won the game regardless.
His only 2-INT game was against the Broncos in 2005. It was enough to cost his team the game and/or his team didn’t bail him out that time.
The only other time he faced an AFC West team in the playoffs was his first playoff game - you may recall that game for other reasons - and he threw one pick against the Raiders on that day.
So, in 4 playoff games vs. the AFC West, he’s 3-1 W/L, throwing 5 TDs and 9 INTs. In the other 12 games, he’s 10-1 W/L, throwing 20 TDs and 3 INTs. The four AFC West games represent four of his worst five playoff QB ratings - including the worst three: 57.6 (1/14/07 Chargers), 66.4 (1/20/08 Chargers), 70.4 (1/19/02 Raiders), and 74.0 (1/14/06 Broncos). On 1/10/04, in a 17-14 home win over Tennessee, he posted a 73.3 QB rating… featuring 1 TD and 0 INTs.
I’m not sure that’s really relevant to anything - indeed its likely the very definition of “trivial”, but I did find it interesting nonetheless.
**Somehow when he threw three picks last year, in perfect weather, folks weren’t so hyped up about whether he was hurt or not. Jaworski was on ESPN yesterday insisting he identified the point where Brady rolled his ankle a bit, requiring the famous walking boot that was picked up by every major (and minor) news outlet earlier this week - but Jaws then said that he didn’t think it was the reason for Brady’s poor play. I agree. I think he just had a bad game. He’s been beyond terrific this season, but he is still human and… this just in, the Chargers defense is pretty darn good (see above). Now he made enough plays when he had to which helped his team win, and that game-ending 9+ minute drive was a thing of beauty… but really, that was more thanks to Faulk’s receiving than Brady’s passing.
That said, I don’t expect to see two bad games in a row from Mr. Brady… much as the Giants (and their fans) can be hopeful.
January 26th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
As I posted in another thread, word out of Boston is that he was both hurt and sick during the game. Which could explain some of his poor throws.
Doesn’t explain the Jammer pick (as you site, great play), and doesn’t explain the end zone pick (combination of a good play and a bad job by Brady of not keeping track of the FS).
I’d say it’s a combination of the two, and yeah, let’s move on. I’m with you that he’s not likely to have two stinkers in a row.
Btw, I LOVE how the talking heads keep saying that the key to beating the Patriots and Brady’s Kryptonite is “getting pressure the way the Eagles, Ravens and Giants did”. Guess what folks, the Patriots scoring average for those three games was 32 points. Kryptonite indeed.
Can anyone tell me how many times the Patriots gave up 32 or more this year?
That’s right. Once. (Of course, it was to the Giants…but still).
January 27th, 2008 at 8:04 am
Yes… the Giants played well offensively and defensively in week 17 - nobody can deny that. Indeed, many have cited their effort and performance in that game as being the catalyst for this playoff run… and I put myself in that group holding that opinion.
But can we all agree that (a) Coughlin’s a very good coach, but Belicheck is better, and (b) Eli’s a very good QB (at least for the past month), but Brady’s better? Who benefits more from these two teams having played only a month ago? Is it fair to say that Belicheck (and Brady) fare better - given Belicheck has two weeks to break down that game tape (among other film) to develop a gameplan that will allow the Pats to perform better this time around? Is it fair to say that Brady is more likely to recognize what the Giants are doing on defense than is Eli (relative to the Pats defense) - conceding that Eli seems to do a nice job of this when running the no-huddle/hurry-up offense (which I’ve heard suggested should be done by the Giants early in the game - to get Eli in a rhythm and to get the Pats defense tired quicker… makes sense)?
I think the Giants have a chance in the Super Bowl… absolutely. But its more likely (relatively speaking) that the Pats blow them out (as we see too often in Super Bowls), given the givens. That said, the *most* likely scenario is the Pats winning by 3-10 points (depending on a late TD or not) - given that (a) the Pats three SB victories this decade have all been by 3 pts, (b) the Giants are a very good team who are playing well, and (c) despite the early-season whining about running it up, as we saw last week with San Diego, the Pats are focused on winning the game far more than they are about putting up points i.e. a nine-minute drive to close out the game (with no resulting points) rather than taking shots downfield to pad the lead.
On that note, can we now be more willing to accept Brady’s assessment of the “running up the score” in the first half of the season: That is, he hadn’t played with his top 3 WRs before this season - and Moss was out of much of training camp - so they were going to play their regular offense as much as possible for as long as possible, to get the reps and “practice” (if you like), to make sure they’re playing at a top level in subsequent games that are close (i.e. playoff games).
Final thought: The Pats won both their playoff games this year, against very good teams mind you, by 11 and 9 pts respectively. I expect the SB result to be closer to 10 pts than 3 pts… but won’t be surprised if the final score is that close. My two cents.