You're not the judge here, you're just another member of the jury. You don't get to decide which evidence is admissible and which isn't.
In this case I am both judge and jury. If you want to prove something to me, you'll have to do it within the thread or I won't accept it. So either play by that rule or don't expect to prove anything to me - your choice.
"I'm not ignoring your visual evidence, I'm just ignoring your visual evidence."
I don't click on links to videos. Period. You want to prove something to me, the onus is on you to do it without those links.
You might want to provide a description of the video if you claim it shows Brady's skills. You still haven't even attempted that when I've spoon fed you the suggestion of doing it.
Next you'll be asking me to argue your opinions for you.
You don't click on videos, because you don't want to see the truth! Simple as that.
No. I don't click on links to videos because I don't do it for any reason, period, ever. I'm sure not going to change my policy on that just so to see what you post in this debate.
Its the stats that say how Brady has faired with teams blitzing with 5+ players.
My argument supports the idea that Brady would do well against that many blitzers. You cannot provide defensive coverage for long when that many people are coming to get the QB.
I've been arguing that much of Brady's game is on getting the ball to an outlet guy, such as Welker, because that's a designed part of the offense - on many plays, the role of one guy is to specifically serve as the quick strike if Brady is pressured and/or to be the guy who gets open underneath if Brady can't find anyone wide open downfield.
So if one guy is supposed to get open in case of pressure, if he does his job even somewhat well, you would expect even an average NFL QB to look right for that guy as soon as he sees five or more guys coming on a blitz. If the QB can get the ball to that guy - sometimes it doesn't go well, but if he can get it done - the guy should have plenty of room to run on many plays since the defense devoted so many guys to the blitz.
Bottom line: When your offense is set up to compensate for your QBs lack of skills at making plays under pressure by making sure someone is ready to take that pass, you would expect to be more successful than other offenses which aren't set up to compensate for a QB who can't perform under pressure.
This is right from your article, and supports what I just said:
Most blitzes leave the middle of the field exposed or in one-on-one coverage, which both tight ends have been able to exploit. Wes Welker
also does most of his damage in the middle of the field.
How did you "systematically debunk" Brady being a bad bad-weather QB? Man, you're delusional.
I'll keep this short: I pointed out how Brady has made many errors in bad-weather games, but has been lucky enough that they didn't cost the team the game. I showed how fumbles, interceptions, and even referee calls have helped his team to win bad weather games they probably should have lost. I also pointed out the team's record is a flawed measure of how well a QB has performed in a given game or number of games, and how the sample size of games considered "bad weather" games Brady has played in is too small to measure overall success by wins and losses even if that weren't an otherwise flawed metric to begin with.
If you missed all of that and want the details, you can go find them earlier in the thread and read them.
You're the only one that saying that the video doesn't matter.
And I'm the one you're trying to convince, so if you want any real shot at doing that, you might want to try doing it with evidence I would actually see.