This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
and the trend in the "copycat" NFL was to go with the athletic, mobile QB. The Michael Vick era had begun in the NFL and NE had a similar style player, Michael Bishop, on their roster. Many NE fans were screaming for Bishop. It had become clear to the NE fans that the statuesque. Bledsoe, while a nice guy and all, just wasn't the answer for New England... he lacked "It".Knowing Belichick's style now, he would always want a QB that could manage a game over a scrambling, wild-card like Vick or Bishop. Everything with BB is about control and preparation. Where he lucked out is that Brady is not only a fantastic game manager, he grew into a prolific passer with an unmatched work ethic.But both Bledsoe and Parcells deserve some credit in NE. Their arrival (along with Kraft) stabilized the franchise in the early 90s. Parcells and Bledsoe put NE Patriots' football on the map, for real; they were no longer floundering organization who occasionally produced an upstart season.I think most NE fans see Bledsoe as a necessary building block to getting where they are today. I'd imagine he'd still be well received by most of the fans in NE.
I agree with this. I also think that Belichick deserves all the credit for keeping Brady around - it wasn't by accident. They scouted him and liked his makeup which is why they drafted him, and they noted how hard he worked and how much he'd mastered the playbook. I believe at the beginning of the 2001 season, before Bledsoe's injury, the players were already of the belief that Brady could take over the team and run the offense. They found a diamond in the rough, but it wasn't by accident.
If you haven't, read Patriot Reign. It covers how Belichick and the scouting department wanted to pick a low round QB, and they were going to take whoever fell to their 6th round pick - Tim Rattay or Tom Brady. They got damn lucky Rattay was chosen first, because they were going to take him.
Phlash mentioned Patriot Reign above... I believe it was in Patriot Reign that M. Holley reported Bledsoe was part of the old-guard in NE that felt "entitled" to many perks and special treatment... a culture that was created by Pete Carroll and Bobby Grier and Belichick abruptly squashed.and while I do still like Drew Bledsoe... I file him under "positive" parts of Boston sports lore... it is incriminating that he never improved his footwork, never improved his touch on short passes. He was the big, strong, QB with a golden arm and he never really had to work for anything thru his career.
The popular belief was that Brady outplayed Drew in the 2001 preseason and if Drew played lackluster early on, Brady likely would have replaced him by midseason anyway. The Mo Lewis hit sped things up. BB wasn't a huge fan of Bledsoe, having handled him with relative ease while in Cleveland and NY.I think you have to keep in mind that Belichick had already gone thru a similar situation in CLE where Kosar was the starter and home-town golden boy, but BB wanted Testaverde to start. And BB didn't handle the whole QB controversy too well there; it became a distraction.BB was building a program in NE and the Pats weren't really on the SB radar for that season. Maybe he realized that handling the situation more delicately and giving it time to work itself out wasn't such a bad idea. Heck, maybe it was Belichick who got SportsRadio's Eddie and Dale to start the Bledsoe doesn't have "It" campaign. Though Belichick would never admit it, having the public support on a move like that was important... at least until he established some credibility with the fan base.The popular belief was that Brady outplayed Drew in the 2001 preseason and if Drew played lackluster early on, Brady likely would have replaced him by midseason anyway. The Mo Lewis hit sped things up. BB wasn't a huge fan of Bledsoe, having handled him with relative ease while in Cleveland and NY.Some may counter with "Well why did BB give Drew the $100M contract just before the 2001 season, then?" Well first off it wasn't a $100M contract, but a much smaller one (still making Drew rich) that only if all of the options were picked up would that number be reached. Second, I believe this was the last instance of Kraft meddling in football affairs (he had a history of this) in which he wanted his guy Drew (Kraft adored him) and probably would have given him the whole $100M contract, but BB probably talked him into a compromise on the contract's structure. After winning SB36, BB earned enough football management capital that Kraft finally decided to butt out once and for all.
I agree with handling a QB controversy delicately was part of the motivation, but handling it by giving the guy you don't like a monster contract doesn't strike me as BB's way of delicate handling. I think Kraft played a huge role in that contract.I think you have to keep in mind that Belichick had already gone thru a similar situation in CLE where Kosar was the starter and home-town golden boy, but BB wanted Testaverde to start. And BB didn't handle the whole QB controversy too well there; it became a distraction.BB was building a program in NE and the Pats weren't really on the SB radar for that season. Maybe he realized that handling the situation more delicately and giving it time to work itself out wasn't such a bad idea. Heck, maybe it was Belichick who got SportsRadio's Eddie and Dale to start the Bledsoe doesn't have "It" campaign. Though Belichick would never admit it, having the public support on a move like that was important... at least until he established some credibility with the fan base.
The popular belief was that Brady outplayed Drew in the 2001 preseason and if Drew played lackluster early on, Brady likely would have replaced him by midseason anyway. The Mo Lewis hit sped things up. BB wasn't a huge fan of Bledsoe, having handled him with relative ease while in Cleveland and NY.
Some may counter with "Well why did BB give Drew the $100M contract just before the 2001 season, then?" Well first off it wasn't a $100M contract, but a much smaller one (still making Drew rich) that only if all of the options were picked up would that number be reached. Second, I believe this was the last instance of Kraft meddling in football affairs (he had a history of this) in which he wanted his guy Drew (Kraft adored him) and probably would have given him the whole $100M contract, but BB probably talked him into a compromise on the contract's structure. After winning SB36, BB earned enough football management capital that Kraft finally decided to butt out once and for all.
... but I thought that he was the best QB ever.
It is amazing how things change in the NFL. When Vick first came into the league the next thing the Cowboys drafted Quincy Carter, NE fans wanted Bishop..now nobody wants QBs like that anymore.
the '01 season was Brady's second year.in "00, NE kept the 4 QBs on the roster including Brady and Bishop.but by '01 Brady was the #2 guy, Bishop was gone, and NE had clearly gone in a specific direction with their QBs.
without question.it took some time before BB had the control he does with both the front office and the Fans.Kraft has talked at length about how much he had to get up to speed after Parcells hoodwinked him and I doubt he was fully trusting in BB when BB first became HC of the NEP.
I know I'm taking the bait, but for others who actually are interested in what happened...Brady was drafted in 2000. The reason he lasted until the 6th round was because a lot of the scouting report on him was true: skinny, mediocre arm, poor footwork, etc. His huge plus was that he could read a defense, master a playbook and all the other football smarts that everyone wants in their QB. The Pats QB depth chart was Bledsoe, Friez and Bishop. Brady wasn't physically ready to break that top three, but BB liked his smarts and saw potential. In a rare (if not unprecedented) move, BB kept 4 QBs on the active roster in 2000.
Er...no, they didn't get lucky. Rattay was still on the board, he wasn't taken until the 7th round.
No tuck rule sure would have made the 2001-2002 offseason interesting at least. Even after winning SB36, the Bledsoe vs. Brady debate amongst New England fans and media was in full blast. If the Pats went one-and-done with a Brady fumble sealing their fate, that debate would have amped up 100x. There would have been outrage if Bledsoe was traded to the division rival Bills in that scenario.Every franchise has pivotal moments that set in motion a lot of what follows. The tuck rule (combined with Vinatieri hitting that miraculous 45yd FG shortly thereafter) was without a doubt one of those moments for the Patriots.
Wasn't really dropping bait... was just surprised that Brady was almost cut. If anything I'm impressed by Brady having put in the hard work to make it. But I also can't stand the blind adoration of this guy by what appears to be the majority of Pats fans. He's a good QB, but he's not without flaws. If he didn't have flaws he wouldn't have to work so hard. Kudos to him for his work and for being at the top of his game. I honestly wish every NFL player had his work ethic. I also wish every Pats fan had a more realistic view of their team's QB.
Actually, I think you're describing the reason Pats fans 'blindly' adore him (how can you not adore the QB that brought your team 3 SB wins in 4 years?). You have a guy who maybe doesn't have the innate talent of some of the other QBs in the league, but has equaled or surpassed everyone else through hard work and determination. What's not to like about that? Plus, his real strengths are hard to measure. His ability to read the field while instinctively avoiding the pass rush is easily the best in the league, but that's not a sexy stat. He has nice touch on his short and intermediate throws, and his arm is better than is commonly thought. Heck, there was a thread conjecturing that he was on PEDs after he tossed a few huge bombs, even though you can see him doing that back in Michigan. But his physical tools are nothing more than average to slightly above average for an NFL QB. He makes up for it with a nice quick delivery, excellent decision-making skills, and a complete willingness to get popped in order to put that extra step into his throw. That might sound pedestrian, but the results are difficult to ignore.
I'd also add that the NE fanbase that so loves Brady is the same one that watched what should have been one of the best QBs of his generation in Bledsoe. He had a quick delivery and a rocket arm, could make all the throws. He was blessed with the tangibles in a QB that scouts drool over. What he didn't do was work at his profession and improve over time. NE is a lunchpail region, and as noted, Brady has worked his a** off to get to where he is, and that really resonates with the masses.
He was actually baiting you on that last one there....
I think a lot of the "blind adoration" comes from Pats fans knowing his story, which is well-chonicled in New England, but not elsewhere. And if you follow his career, you notice improvements, flaws and fixes to those flaws as well. You also notice how he's gone from a guy kept on a fairly tight leash by offensive coordinator Charlie Weis in 2001 to a guy allowed to audible at will the last few years. You also notice how he's gone from "one of many team leaders" in 2003 to "unquestioned alpha male" in 2006 & 2007...this is his team, not Bruschi's, not Seymour's, not Harrison's.Of course he has flaws. He's much better at picking apart a zone than he is at hitting receivers in stride while in man coverage (why Miami has given him trouble in the past), but it's something he's gotten better at over the years. He sometimes locks onto his favorite receiver too much and forces throws into coverage (Troy Brown in the past, Randy Moss this year), but again he's improved a lot in this area (he looked awful for stretches in 2002 when Brown was out...he'd handle things much better now as he handled the Branch situation last year). Like any other QB, hit him enough and he starts losing focus; However I think he is one of the best, if not the best, at overcoming this quickly...Manning closed the gap quickly in 2005/2006 and is right there with him, if not surpassing him. He busts his butt to improve in all of these areas, further leading to the "blind adoration" he receives.
Oops, my mistake. You are right that they decided on Brady over Rattay in that round... they were pretty high on him at that spot, IIRC.
I honestly don't know an answer to that. I think Brady is a great QB.I honestly think IF NE fans took more the angle of the post I'm replying to, more people would admire Brady. I know myself, the primary reason I get into these Brady threads is not because I don't think Tom is good, rather I think Pats fans have an unrealistic view of him.
Switz, let's be real here. Of course there are Pats fans who indeed think Brady is the best ever and weirdly take it as an insult if anyone thinks otherwise. However, I suspect the reason you get responses like that has more to do with your posting history. You get into more than your fair share of Brady vs. Manning pissing contests, most of which are arguments hashed over with stats and whatnot at least 50 times. Heck, even here you responded to a post with a sarcastic one liner "...but I thought he was the best QB ever." You just had to throw out a jab, as innocuous as it was. If you're going to do that kind of stuff, people will tweak you and honestly, deservedly so.As to the whole Brady vs. Manning debate, my view is that Brady clearly was the man prior to 2005 as Manning tended to fold under pressure. Something clicked in him in 2005 and especially 2006, though, in which suddenly he decided to man up when the heat was on. That improvement in his game was impressive. If people today argue that Manning and Brady are equal, I have a hard time arguing against that.
The Pats, like every other team, had no idea Brady would become this good. I believe it was the late QB coach **** Reihbein(sp?) who advocated taking Brady over Rattay with that 199th pick. The thinking at the time was perhaps Brady would develop into a reliable backup QB.GregR said:
I guess it's the chicken-egg argument. I never started those threads, and only jumped in after Pats fans made some ridiculous claims.I've stated time and again that I think Brady is a great QB.pats3in4 said:
Would you agree that Brady folded against SD last season in the playoffs then? 3 INTs and 1 FUM. Did Brady fold against DEN in '05?Did Big Ben fold under pressure last week?pats3in4 said:
Also for the way he handled getting benched. He could easily have fractured the team and they would never had won the SB. He also played well and helped get them to the SB after Brady got hurt in the AFCC.
So, if Brady was that close to being cut, why was he the one who got the start after the injury?
His rookie season, he was the 4th QB on the roster. He was behind John Friesz and Michael Bishop. He progressed to the point that in his second year in the league ( 2001 ) he jumped to the backup. I recall watching a couple of preseason games that year and thinking " that kid looks pretty good out there." Not to the point I thought he'd be great, or really even a starter ( this was solely Bledsoe's team back then ) But good enough to take note.
I do think, though, that the virtues that they saw in Brady (toughness; work ethic and preparation; reading defenses; etc.) that did cause them to draft him over more heralded prospects like Rattay were in fact the things that made him into what he is today.
The key word isn't "fold", but rather "tended". Just as Brady had rough games (or "folded" if you prefer...it's debatable based on the definition of "fold", but I'll concede that point for now) in those that you pointed out, Montana had rough outings in the '85, '86, '87 and '90 season-ending playoff games. It just goes to show that bad games can happen to the best. Why I wouldn't say these guys tended to fold under pressure is because they built up a resume of playing big when the heat was on (e.g. Brady's 2004 AFCCG victory in Pittsburgh and SB39 victory, Montana's SB23) at other times. Prior to 2005, Manning did not have that. Manning was expected to carve up the weaker teams, especially at home in the dome, but the better defensive teams were licking their chops at getting him outdoors in January. The Jets did this in 2002. The Pats in 2003 & 2004. And it seemed everyone knew it, too. It was a rep, and it was well-deserved. Manning got popped and wasn't very good at bouncing back from those hits.In 2005, something changed in him. Teams would try and rattle him by hitting him, but he'd bounce back with a vengeance. He could take a hard hit on one play and the very next play he'd have another guy in his face and hit Wayne for a back-breaking 1st down. He got even better in 2006 at this. That tendency he had to wilt against the top teams' pressure was gone. Now he's like Brady and Montana...obviously susceptable to a rough outing, but not predictably susceptable.
I'll buy that Manning had that reputation. But I would also say when Brady was winning, he wasn't in the same situation Manning was when Manning had that reputation. Whereas Brady's situation last year was much closer to Manning's previous situations, and Brady performed the same way Manning had.But I didn't mean to turn this into a Manning vs. Brady debate, which it seems to have...
Is the source of the bolded statement quotes from actual Patriots staff who were involved in the situation and can speak first hand as to what positives they saw that caused him to be ranked on their boards where he did? Or is that an assumption made in hindsight because we see those qualities in him after he developed as an NFL QB, so the natural assumption is that the Patriots saw those things and drafted him because of them?Asking out of true curiousity, not out of trying to shoot down a post. I've never actually heard from someone who would know first hand why they ranked him where they did, other than the NFL-N piece where IIRC, whoever it was they interviewed from the staff at the time said the QB coach, Rehbein, thought he seemed a good fit for their system. But I don't recall them going into details on why he was a good fit.I do think, though, that the virtues that they saw in Brady (toughness; work ethic and preparation; reading defenses; etc.) that did cause them to draft him over more heralded prospects like Rattay were in fact the things that made him into what he is today.
Luck is always a factor, but I think this is a situation where they made their own luck in a lot of ways. Kudos to them.
Do you have a source for this? I think it is very interesting, but I have trouble believing it. They drafted Brady in the 6th round, why would they cut him for Michael Bishop who had no potential at that point? The Bishop Bandwagon has run its course at that point and he was pretty much cooked. Brady was 4th on the depth chart, but I don't believe he would have been the 1st one cut. I will to endorse Patriot Reign to anyone, especially those who hate the Patriots. This whole thing in New England is no accident and Belichick inherited a complete mess in the locker room. It was a bunch of spoiled players who thought they knew all. Belichick and Pioli made some bold moves, such as cutting Milloy who they thought was vastly overrated and a stat padder, always the last guy on the pile etc. even though he was a clubhouse leader, the benching of Bledsoe when he returned etc.
From wikipedia on Bishop
The year the drafted Brady was the year that the masses saw a mobile Bishop look better than the less than speedy Bledsoe, and the calls for Bishop started. By the following year, Bishop was gone and Brady moved into the #2 slot.
I got that from Halberstam's Education of a Coach. It's been a while since I read it, so I was going off of recollection.Is the source of the bolded statement quotes from actual Patriots staff who were involved in the situation and can speak first hand as to what positives they saw that caused him to be ranked on their boards where he did? Or is that an assumption made in hindsight because we see those qualities in him after he developed as an NFL QB, so the natural assumption is that the Patriots saw those things and drafted him because of them?Asking out of true curiousity, not out of trying to shoot down a post. I've never actually heard from someone who would know first hand why they ranked him where they did, other than the NFL-N piece where IIRC, whoever it was they interviewed from the staff at the time said the QB coach, Rehbein, thought he seemed a good fit for their system. But I don't recall them going into details on why he was a good fit.I do think, though, that the virtues that they saw in Brady (toughness; work ethic and preparation; reading defenses; etc.) that did cause them to draft him over more heralded prospects like Rattay were in fact the things that made him into what he is today.
Luck is always a factor, but I think this is a situation where they made their own luck in a lot of ways. Kudos to them.
But Brady has said the Patriots coaches thought he was a slow decision maker, which of course turns out to be way off what he actually turned into. Actually, I'll try to remember to go read the section of Weis' book on his rookie period again, I've probably forgotten some detail by now.
