Remember me
Forgot your username/password?
 
Print
Home>Articles

How Much Will Losing Brady Hurt the Patriots?

By Matt DiFilippo
September 9, 2008

For many people, the New England Patriots' chances of avenging their Super Bowl loss were blown to bits at the same time as Tom Brady's knee. That got me wondering: What is the effect of a good team losing its starting quarterback?

I did a study to answer this question, and found a group of 18 teams since the 1970 merger. To meet the criteria, the team had to have a winning record in the prior season and lose their quarterback to a holdout or an unexpected injury in the offseason or early in the next season.

I disregarded the 1982 season in the study because of the nine-game regular season. I also confined the study to good teams, because the Patriots are obviously a good team, and I wanted to study the effect of a strong team losing a quarterback. I disregarded free agents because I wanted to limit the study to players whose teams obviously wanted to keep them, and in many cases, deciding that with great certainty would be too difficult.

The parameters of my study eliminate two of the most obvious successes: Drew Bledsoe getting injured in 2001, and Brady taking over and leading the Patriots to the Super Bowl win, and Trent Green suffering a preseason injury in 1999, allowing Kurt Warner to take over and lead the Rams to the Super Bowl. Bledsoe is excluded because the Patriots were 5-11 with him the year before, and Green was excluded because he was not the Rams' starter during the previous season.

These 16 teams had an average record of 10.5 wins the season before their unexpected injury to their starting quarterback. To figure their expected wins, I looked at the  teams from 1978-2006 who were not in the study and posted a record of 10-6 or 11-5 (again, excluding 1982). This group of well over 100 teams had an average record of a little better than 9-7 the next season.

(Note: In all cases where a team played 14 games, I figured their percentage for a 16-game season by using the same winning percentage and multiplying by 16.)

Here are the 18 teams:

1972 Cowboys -- Roger Staubach (shoulder injury)

1972 Dolphins -- Bob Griese (injured in 5th game of 1972)

1978 Colts -- Bert Jones (separated shoulder in preseason)

1980 Rams -- Pat Haden (broken thumb in first game of 1980)

1981 Lions -- Gary Danielson (injured in 4th game of '81)

1984 Rams -- Vince Ferragamo (broken hand in third game of '84)

1986 Rams -- Dieter Brock (injured all season)

1989 Colts -- Chris Chandler (knee injury in 3rd game of '89) 

1990 Saints -- Bobby Hebert (held out all season)

1991 49ers -- Joe Montana (offseason elbow surgery)

1991 Eagles -- Randall Cunningham (knee injury 1st game of '91) 

1993 Dolphins -- Dan Marino (injured in 5th game of '93)

1998 Vikings -- Brad Johnson (injured in 2nd game of '98)

1999 Jets -- Vinny Testaverde (tore Achilles' tendon in 1st game of '99)

1999 49ers -- Steve Young (about 500th concussion in 3rd game of '99)

2002 Falcons -- Michael Vick (injured in first preseason game of '02)

2005 Jets -- Chad Pennington (various injuries knocked him out for good in September)

2006 Buccaneers -- Chris Simms (ruptured spleen in 3rd game of '06) 

All of these guys were at least good quarterbacks (Brock, the worst of the lot as far as NFL performance, was a very successful quarterback in the Canadian Football League for many years and was well past his prime by the time he joined the Rams.). Depending on how you rate Staubach, Griese, Montana and Marino, Brady would be somewhere between first and fifth if you rated the quarterbacks on this list.

THE SUCCESSES

Some of these kept right on rolling or even improved after their quarterback went down and didn't get up. The 1972 Dolphins are the best example, winning their last 10 regular season games after Griese went out.

The Vikings went from 9-7 in 1997 under Brad Johnson to 15-1 under Randall Cunningham in 1998. The 1972 Cowboys fell off by a game from their 11-3 mark of 1971, but still finished 10-4 and played in the NFC Championship game (although they wouldn't have gotten there without Staubach's performance in the previous playoff game).

The Rams got better when Vince Ferragamo replaced Pat Haden in 1980, and again when Jeff Kemp replaced Ferragamo in 1984. 

THE FAILURES

Strangely enough, the five most recent teams on this list bombed worse than Gilbert Gottfried doing stand-up in a convent.The 1999 Jets went from 12-4 to 8-8. The 49ers that year fell from 12-4 to 4-12. The '02 Falcons went from 9-6-1 to 5-11, and three of those wins came in Michael Vick's four starts at the end of the season. The '05 Jets and '06 Bucs dropped off six and seven games, respectively.

The 1978 Colts also went straight downhill when Bert Jones was injured, and were in fact shut out in their first two games. From 1975 to 1979, the Colts were 36-13 in the regular season when Jones started, and 5-20 when he didn't.

THE BOTTOM LINE 

On average, the teams in the study went from 10.5 wins per 16-game schedule to 8.6 -- a drop of 1.89 wins, and around a half win less than expected. 

I don't know about you, but that number surprises me. The recent numbers aren't encouraging, and it's a small sample size, but I would have thought the study would have showed a greater effect on a team's fortunes.

My study of 43 teams who finished 13-3 or better from 1978-2006 (as always, excluding 1982) found that on average, they lost four wins the next year. With that as a history, the Patriots should have been expected to finish about 12-4 this season (I think that would have been low if Brady had stayed healthy, but that's why we look at that many teams.).

Combine those two, and you get a decline of around five or six wins from last season. Absent some unforeseeable factors, I think 10 or 11 wins is a reasonable estimate of how the Patriots will fare this season.

What you can't help noticing, though, is that only seven of the 18 teams made the playoffs, and those seven teams were a combined 5-6. Based on last season's records, the Patriots have the easiest schedule in the NFL this season, and you should never underestimate this team and what it has done, but history says their Super Bowl dreams have probably gone poof.

Matt DiFilippo may be reached at allthings222@fastmail.fm 

 
 

COMMENTS (14 Comments, most recent shown first)

MattDiFilippo
It could have been worse -- I could have compared it to Larry Andersen's radio work.

Actual dialogue from a recent Phillies game, with an opposing pitcher making his major league debut:

LEAD ANNOUCNER: Do you remember your first major league game?
LARRY ANDERSEN: Yup.
(Long pause)
8:38 PM Sep 10th
 
RoelTorres
The fact that you would compare Brady's handsomeness to Hebert's work on a radio show completely invalidates all the credibility this site has built up in the long proud history of Bill James Online.
4:09 PM Sep 10th
 
MattDiFilippo
Thanks Evan. Glad you liked it. When I first started putting the study together on Sunday night, I had included quarterbacks who retired, traded or bolted to another league (like Ferragamo in '81 or Brian Sipe and Cliff Stoudt in '84). Roger Staubach made a point of saying when he retired something to the effect of "The system was successful before I got here, and will continue to be successful now that I'm gone." And the Cowboys did improve their record under Danny White in 1980. I ended up eliminating the traded/retired cases because I had to rein in the study before it got away from me.

Very ironic that Brady goes down. Last year, I would have cited two major points in favor of the 1972 Dolphins vs. the 2007 Patriots. First, of course, Griese was injured. Second, the Dolphins had to play the AFC Championship game on the road because of the rotating home-site system the NFL used at that time.

Thanks for the additions to the study. It was fun reading.
12:40 PM Sep 10th
 
MattDiFilippo
I don't know Roel, I remember my college girlfriend swooning when Joe Montana was in a suit on the NBC pregame show. It may have been the only positive commentary on Montana's studio work. A good percentage of these guys went on to TV work, and Hebert now hosts a radio show. Then there was Vince Ferragamo, who, when talking about how the experts made the Steelers big favorites over the Rams in the Super Bowl, said, "How they arrived at their conclusions behooves me."
12:26 PM Sep 10th
 
evanecurb
Interesting perspective. Thanks very much for putting it together. The consensus I have been hearing from "epxerts" on sports talk radio is 10 or 11 wins. In looking at your study, both the teams you list and other successes, the number of teams that succeeded is very encouraging to New Englanders . Vikings in '98 went 15-1 (with Randy Moss at WR); Dolphins in '72 went 17-0; '79 Rams went only 9-7 but made the Super Bowl, and the '99 Rams and '01 Patriots WON the Super Bowl. I also would cite the '65 and '68 Colts as successful seasons where the starter was injured; the '65 Colts famously lost BOTH of their QBs that year and lost to GB in a sudden death playoff game on a disputed call (FG went directly over one of the uprights). '68 Colts were the Joe Namath victims in SB III but were 15-1 up to the Super Bowl. Other examples of teams who succeeded after their starter went down were the '85 Skins (10-6 but missed the playoffs in '85 but played better after Theismann went down; then went 14-5 and to the NFC championship game in '86. I think the '90 Giants and '00 Ravens are also deserving of mention. Tom Brady is a big loss but all hope is not lost. The quality of the backup relative to the starter is probably the biggest variable in the study and in this case that is an unknown quantity at this point. Another team to add to the group could be the '08 Packers. Let's see how they do without their '92-'07 starter.
10:37 AM Sep 10th
 
RoelTorres
This study is irreparably marred by the fact that none of the other QBs included in the research are as handsome as Brady. You forgot to factor that in.
9:31 AM Sep 10th
 
MattDiFilippo
I think the cap definitely could have something to do with it. The quarterbacks who filled in well after injury in recent years, like Brady and Warner, were under-the-radar guys. I think it absolutely helped a guy like Ken Stabler to not be expected to play or carry his team until he had been in the league a few years.

I'm trying to think of guys in the post AFL/pre-cap era who never actually got a shot to be a starter. The only one I came up with Don Strock. Clint Longley, maybe, although him sucker-punching Staubach didn't do much for his career. Usually, I think there was enough need for a quarterback in the league that guys got a shot somewhere.
8:01 AM Sep 10th
 
jalbright
One reason the more recent teams may have done worse is the cap. Before the cap, teams could stockpile talent to guard against injury. QB is a hard place to have a real talent in the wings, unless the main guy is aging and you're grooming a young guy to take his place. At other positions, there's more available spots for a stud who can fill in and cushion the blow.
6:22 AM Sep 10th
 
MattDiFilippo
Thanks Richie. I'm glad you liked it. One example of that is how well Scott Mitchell played when Marino went out in 1993. A lot of teams paid Mitchell a lot of money hoping he would repeat that performance. I found it interesting that Belichick said the Patriots didn't change any plays after Cassel came in at quarterback.

11:35 PM Sep 9th
 
Richie
Outstanding study. I myself would bet my life's savings (yes, I'm a low-roller) on a whole lot of what looks like QB performance actually being team performance.
10:34 PM Sep 9th
 
MattDiFilippo
That's a great point. There are definitely other factors at work which can cause a change in a team's level of play. I don't think there's a way to say "a quarterback injury will cause X games decline in wins." There's also a big difference between a perennially strong team that finishes 11-5, and a team finishing 11-5 because it played a weak schedule and won a lot of close games. I don't wish there were more quarterback injuries, but I wish I had a larger sample size to study some of those issues.
7:17 PM Sep 9th
 
monahan
Agreed on the point about team performance.

I wonder, too, what other major differences may account for some of these performances. For example, the 97-98 Vikings lost Brad Johnson in game 2 of '98, but had already received an MVP quality upgrade during the 97-98 offseason when they drafted Randy Moss, who would go on to catch 17 TDs.
6:53 PM Sep 9th
 
MattDiFilippo
Thanks Jeremy. You may be on to something with the loss of defensive players being as or more important. Especially at cornerback, where the offense can "pick" on that player.

Another thought: Bill James has said that a lot of we think is pitching is actually defense. Along the same lines, I think a lot of what we feel is quarterback performance is actually team performance. A lot of QBs like Brian Sipe and Dan Fouts looked awful as part of lousy teams, then put up great numbers when they had better protection, better receivers, and a better running game. I think the Patriots are too strong across the board to go into a free fall.

6:18 PM Sep 9th
 
Jeremy
Good study. I wonder if there's another position at which it is more important to have a star. Last year, when Bob Sanders of the Clts and Albert Haynesworth of the Titans got hurt, it seemingly crippled their defenses. It essentially ties into the concept of replacement level at different positions. It seems intuitively that the top tier of QBs (Brady, Manning, Romo) are leaps and bounds better than lower tiers (Orton, Cassell, Leinart) but I wonder if the difference is greater at other positions.
6:02 PM Sep 9th
 
 
©2024 Be Jolly, Inc. All Rights Reserved.|Powered by Sports Info Solutions|Terms & Conditions|Privacy Policy