Denver the year before Peyton won a playoff game and with Peyton lost a playoff game. Denver actually won games with Tebow.
So you want to attack Manning instead of discussing Brady? Fine. Let's look at that route, shall we?
With Tebow in 2011, the Broncos won 8 games in the regular season, barely made the playoffs by virtue of division winning tie breakers, and won a single playoff game. The playoff game was a close contest that went to overtime and was won on one play when the defense blew its coverage.
With Manning in 2012, the Broncos won 13 games (what do you know, there's that 5 game margin between Manning and replacement QBs again) and were the number one seed before running into an incredibly hot team that would go on to win the Super Bowl.
Besides outright wins, the other numbers suggest the 2012 Broncos were much better as well. The 2011 team scored 81 points less than their opponents. Meanwhile, the 2012 team scored 192 points MORE than their opponents. The "talent" Tebow had to work with was very similar, yet the Manning led team - factoring in both offense and defense by using net points - was effectively 273 points better.
Yeah, Brady's 1st year was dumbed down.
Brady's EVERY year is "dumbed down", and so was Cassel's one year there. The "dumbed down" system works, so there is no reason to fix it. It allows Brady to operate without screwing up talented teams so they still win, which they would do if he wasn't there (shown, as I demonstrated, by the Cassel lead season).
As for a schem to restrict Brady...huh? Pretty sure he hasn't be restricted since 2001.
Sure, he's been given more freedom to operate within the system over the years, but that doesn't mean the system isn't there - and that system is set up to deliberately restrict the ways Brady's limited physical tools and other weaknesses can make the team lose.
Also, your breaking down years to help your stats out. The year before Cassell was QB, the Pats were 16-0 in the reg season. Set all time highs for offenses. With Cassell, they dropped dramatically.
No, I'm breaking down years because a 16-0 season is a statistical outlier (if you don't believe that, tell me all the other 16-0 seasons which have occurred in NFL history).
You can't make accurate comparisons using outliers as your basis. What you CAN do is include the outlier in a larger sample if one is available - it will skew the sample, to be sure, but that can't be avoided if you want to include it. A larger sample of the Patriots seasons under Brady IS available, so I've included the outlier within that larger example.
If anything, trying to make comparisons by using the 16-0 outlier season as the basis would represent you trying to "help" your argument.
Wow, now I'm teaching fundamentals of statistics on here.
In 2001, Brady’s YPC was 10.76. In 2000, Bledsoe’s YPC was 10.54. This suggests that your argument that the offense became more conservative to limit the mistakes that Brady would make, is inaccurate.
Perhaps conservative is the wrong word, because you keep misinterpreting what I'm saying.
Brady's play was (and still is to some extent) limited by the system put in place for him. This does not necessarily mean the entire offense will perform worse with him as opposed to Bledsoe before him. All your YAC stats show is that the system was more effective for the team than the previous system with Bledsoe - a fact I already acknowledged.
In 2000, Bledose completed 84 of his 312 completions to running backs. 2001, Brady completed 76 of his 264 completions to running backs. It’s not a significant difference, and suggests that the offense didn’t change much.
Again, this shows you just don't understand what was changed. It was a system designed to limit Brady's abilities to make mistakes, not a system designed to throw to running backs.
In 2000, the Patriots went 5-11. In 2001, with Bledsoe, the Patriots went 0-2. This suggests the team was NOT already very talented.
Or maybe it suggests the offensive system in place wasn't working. A change in the system might fix things - oh look, that's exactly what happened, and they started winning. What a shock.
It would be difficult, which is why I’m arguing it hasn’t happened at any point in time.
Except it happened with Brady, and the system is still in place to this day - he just has more freedom than he used to because of his experience. It's the same system.
Your logic that brings you to the idea that Manning is five times as valuable as Brady is laughable, at best, and frightening, at worst.
I spelled out for you, using NFL wins statistics, exactly how Manning can be said to be five times as valuable as Brady. You can label it what you want, but it DESTROYS any argument that you can make for Brady being anywhere close to Manning.
Bledsoe went 5-11 in 2000. Brady averaged 12 wins a season. Brady’s wins above replacement is now 7.
If you want to compare Brady to Bledsoe, you have to average all of Bledsoe's seasons with NE, in which the team won an average of 8 games each year. That would put Brady at +4.
HOWEVER, Brady's teams (especially in recent years) have been far more talented. Also, Manning and Brady played in many of the exact same seasons, suggesting the teams they played against were comparable. Bledsoe's numbers come from a different era.
By the way, your examples of Orton and Dilfer in those season are PERFECT to make my point - those guys in those years are a lot like Brady has been his entire career, and I've said that before (I specifically used Dilfer as an example of what I think of Brady).