**** The Official **** Brady/Orton/Cassel Thread (1 Viewer)

[DoubleG]

Okay, I've hinted at it in a few other threads, but here's where we debate it.

A "Patriots" offensive system (for lack of a better term) that:

1) Took a 6th round draft pick QB and made him a first ballot HOFer (Brady)

2) Took a QB who hadn't started a football game since high school, and made him one of the most sought after, one-year-wonder QBs in the league (Matt Cassel)

3) Took an average (at best) NFL QB, with a career passing rating of <76.2 , increased it 100.1 after 6 games with his new team. His TD/INT ratio coming into this season was 30/27 it is now 9/1.

So (and not to take anything away from Brady...or does it?), is it the system or is just a series of QBs who have happened to develop/succeeded given an opportunity?

 

[switz]

Okay, I've hinted at it in a few other threads, but here's where we debate it.A "Patriots" offensive system (for lack of a better term) that:1) Took a 6th round draft pick QB and made him a first ballot HOFer (Brady)2) Took a QB who hadn't started a football game since high school, and made him one of the most sought after, one-year-wonder QBs in the league (Matt Cassel)3) Took an average (at best) NFL QB, with a career passing rating of <76.2 , increased it 100.1 after 6 games with his new team. His TD/INT ratio coming into this season was 30/27 it is now 9/1.So (and not to take anything away from Brady...or does it?), is it the system or is just a series of QBs who have happened to develop/succeeded given an opportunity?

Its a bit of both. Take Brady out of the Pats system and I doubt he is half as successful. I would actually love to see him go to another team just to see what happens. But one thing the Pats system does is develop QBs very well. Though I don't think Brady entered the league as the most talented QB, he has been taught the nuances of the game so well, and he is smart enough, that he's become a very good QB. Cassel the same thing, though I don't think he's as smart as Brady. He also had less time to actually play and develop in the system, and as the backup got less tutoring than the starter.Now Orton has success before entering the Pats system, and was at draft time the most talented of the three IMO. Orton was a decent QB in Chicago before the injury last year, and given the tutelage in the Pats system has the potential to be very good. I doubt he'll ever have the Brady 2007 type season, but I believe he'll develop into a top-tier QB. I believe this would have happened in or out of the Pats system, to be honest, but being in the system will make it happen faster.Of course, you're biased against Orton, and include his terrible rookie season at the same weight as his other seasons, so you'll always excuse any of his success as system driven, ignoring what he did last year pre-injury as evidence of what he could develop into even outside the Pats system.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Okay, I've hinted at it in a few other threads, but here's where we debate it.A "Patriots" offensive system (for lack of a better term) that:

What exactly is the Pats system? Seems like the game plan according to opponent and don't otherwise run any kind of complex or gimmicky "system". It alwasy makes me laugh when people say its the Pats system, but can't explain what that system is. Seems like they just attack the defense.

1) Took a 6th round draft pick QB and made him a first ballot HOFer (Brady)

Which Pat's system made Brady? He's had a few different OCs, and many different supporting players. He's a great QB period. When did the Pats system transform him and why wasn't it helping Bledsoe that season (and the season before)?

2) Took a QB who hadn't started a football game since high school, and made him one of the most sought after, one-year-wonder QBs in the league (Matt Cassel)

Cassell was recruited by the premier college football program in America at the time and nearly beat out the eventual Heisman winner in the preseason camp. I'm guessing he had some talent. Also throwing to Moss and Welker didn't hurt last season.

3) Took an average (at best) NFL QB, with a career passing rating of <76.2 , increased it 100.1 after 6 games with his new team. His TD/INT ratio coming into this season was 30/27 it is now 9/1.

Kyle Orton was playing very well in another system last season prior to hurting his ankle. His career passer rating, doesn't really tell the story since he started as a rookie and was asked to be a game manager. He was a pretty good QB at Purdue and a good NFL QB last season.

 

[theglorydays]

Okay, I've hinted at it in a few other threads, but here's where we debate it.

A "Patriots" offensive system (for lack of a better term) that:

1) Took a 6th round draft pick QB and made him a first ballot HOFer (Brady)

2) Took a QB who hadn't started a football game since high school, and made him one of the most sought after, one-year-wonder QBs in the league (Matt Cassel)

3) Took an average (at best) NFL QB, with a career passing rating of <76.2 , increased it 100.1 after 6 games with his new team. His TD/INT ratio coming into this season was 30/27 it is now 9/1.

So (and not to take anything away from Brady...or does it?), is it the system or is just a series of QBs who have happened to develop/succeeded given an opportunity?

Its a bit of both. Take Brady out of the Pats system and I doubt he is half as successful. I would actually love to see him go to another team just to see what happens.



But one thing the Pats system does is develop QBs very well. Though I don't think Brady entered the league as the most talented QB, he has been taught the nuances of the game so well, and he is smart enough, that he's become a very good QB.

Cassel the same thing, though I don't think he's as smart as Brady. He also had less time to actually play and develop in the system, and as the backup got less tutoring than the starter.

Now Orton has success before entering the Pats system, and was at draft time the most talented of the three IMO. Orton was a decent QB in Chicago before the injury last year, and given the tutelage in the Pats system has the potential to be very good. I doubt he'll ever have the Brady 2007 type season, but I believe he'll develop into a top-tier QB. I believe this would have happened in or out of the Pats system, to be honest, but being in the system will make it happen faster.

Of course, you're biased against Orton, and include his terrible rookie season at the same weight as his other seasons, so you'll always excuse any of his success as system driven, ignoring what he did last year pre-injury as evidence of what he could develop into even outside the Pats system.

It is basically a spread offense.

 

[DoubleG]

Okay, I've hinted at it in a few other threads, but here's where we debate it.A "Patriots" offensive system (for lack of a better term) that:1) Took a 6th round draft pick QB and made him a first ballot HOFer (Brady)2) Took a QB who hadn't started a football game since high school, and made him one of the most sought after, one-year-wonder QBs in the league (Matt Cassel)3) Took an average (at best) NFL QB, with a career passing rating of <76.2 , increased it 100.1 after 6 games with his new team. His TD/INT ratio coming into this season was 30/27 it is now 9/1.So (and not to take anything away from Brady...or does it?), is it the system or is just a series of QBs who have happened to develop/succeeded given an opportunity?

Its a bit of both. Take Brady out of the Pats system and I doubt he is half as successful. I would actually love to see him go to another team just to see what happens. But one thing the Pats system does is develop QBs very well. Though I don't think Brady entered the league as the most talented QB, he has been taught the nuances of the game so well, and he is smart enough, that he's become a very good QB. Cassel the same thing, though I don't think he's as smart as Brady. He also had less time to actually play and develop in the system, and as the backup got less tutoring than the starter.Now Orton has success before entering the Pats system, and was at draft time the most talented of the three IMO. Orton was a decent QB in Chicago before the injury last year, and given the tutelage in the Pats system has the potential to be very good. I doubt he'll ever have the Brady 2007 type season, but I believe he'll develop into a top-tier QB. I believe this would have happened in or out of the Pats system, to be honest, but being in the system will make it happen faster.Of course, you're biased against Orton, and include his terrible rookie season at the same weight as his other seasons, so you'll always excuse any of his success as system driven, ignoring what he did last year pre-injury as evidence of what he could develop into even outside the Pats system.

The last sentence is really unnecessary for several reasons:1) I am not biased against Orton.2) There are already countless threads about Orton.3) What he did last year pre injury was go 4-3 as the starter, and in those 7 games, 5 of them he had a QB rating of 87.9 or lower and threw 4 INTs to 10 TDs. In one of the two games where he had a QB rating of over 100, he played Detroit.4) This thread is not only about Orton.

 

[Adebisi]

I have several questions:

1.) Why couldn't the Kevin O'Connells and Michael Bishops and Rohan Daveys of the league thrive under this system? For that matter, why couldn't Drew Bledsoe?

2.) Which "system" are we even talking about here? The Patriots offense in 2001 was far different than it is in 2009, and it's changed several times in between. You're going to have to be a lot more specific than just saying "the system" if you hope to have any sort of intelligent discussion on this matter.

3.) You're also going to have to somehow account for Randy Moss and Wes Welker, who are light years better than any other pair of receivers the Patriots have had during the Belichick era. You're also going to have to keep in mind that your "first ballot HOFer" quarterback only played one season with these receivers, and Cassel's single season as the starting QB happened with these receivers. And of course, Orton's receivers aren't bad, either. So how do we separate the effects of the receivers from the effects of the system?

 

[DoubleG]

I have several questions:1.) Why couldn't the Kevin O'Connells and Michael Bishops and Rohan Daveys of the league thrive under this system? For that matter, why couldn't Drew Bledsoe?2.) Which "system" are we even talking about here? The Patriots offense in 2001 was far different than it is in 2009, and it's changed several times in between. You're going to have to be a lot more specific than just saying "the system" if you hope to have any sort of intelligent discussion on this matter.3.) You're also going to have to somehow account for Randy Moss and Wes Welker, who are light years better than any other pair of receivers the Patriots have had during the Belichick era. You're also going to have to keep in mind that your "first ballot HOFer" quarterback only played one season with these receivers, and Cassel's single season as the starting QB happened with these receivers. And of course, Orton's receivers aren't bad, either. So how do we separate the effects of the receivers from the effects of the system?

First off, I would suggest that we only using Belichick's teams (and then his "minion" coaches) as a starting point. Bledsoe didn't really play for Belichick - he went to the Bills the year after Belichick took over. Secondly I was hoping for some help from Pats fans as to OCs. There are a few obvious breaking points statistcially, but that's admittedly doing it backwards (we could use 2003, when the Pats winning % changed, but I think that had more to do with the defense - we could use 2004, as that's when Brady's QB rating and y/att jumped noticeably - but again, I've had a hard time locating NE OC information for the time period in question.)Point 3 is well taken. Obviously the "system" was working fairly well 2003 (or 2004) on, but the arrival of Moss and Welker made things run at an incredible level of efficiency.

 

[moleculo]

as far as I can tell, the "system" is really a spread O, where the QB is responsible to make quick decisions, accurate pre-snap reads, and crisp throws to the open man. It's a system where mismatches are found after the play comes in and the QB can scout the D; it's not about creating mismatches through formations and motion (like Shanahan's O did and I presume other WCO systems). In this system, the desired traits for a particular QB are: smart, accurate in short yardage, careful with the ball, limiting mistakes, patience, play within the system and don't force a throw to someone who is covered. It's about high completion percentage, low risk/low reward plays.

Some QB's can thrive in a system like this obviously, and some cannot. I don't know how a Favre type player would do in a system like this before he goes back to his old ways and starts chucking it all around into double coverage. This is also not a system for scrambling QB's, and it's not a system where QB's can sit in the pocket and wait for someone to get open.

Other QB's who would flourish in a system like this include both Mannings, Brees, Palmer, Warner, Rogers. QB's who I don't think would work well (for various reasons) include Favre (takes too many chances), McNabb (throws too many short passes into the dirt), Roethlisberger, Rivers (both of these guys always look deep - don't seem content to take the underneath stuff). JMHO.

I also think that Brady would be a great QB regardless of system. I really think that Brady made the leap from "game manager" to "transcendental superstar" by working much harder than almost everyone else, plus his post-season mystique rubbed off into the regular season - he started to truly believe in himself, and could back up his pride by simply glancing at how many rings he has.

Saying that other QB's success is a knock on Brady is basically the same as saying other WCO QB success (especially Young) is a knock on Montanta.

 

[Adebisi]

I have several questions:1.) Why couldn't the Kevin O'Connells and Michael Bishops and Rohan Daveys of the league thrive under this system? For that matter, why couldn't Drew Bledsoe?2.) Which "system" are we even talking about here? The Patriots offense in 2001 was far different than it is in 2009, and it's changed several times in between. You're going to have to be a lot more specific than just saying "the system" if you hope to have any sort of intelligent discussion on this matter.3.) You're also going to have to somehow account for Randy Moss and Wes Welker, who are light years better than any other pair of receivers the Patriots have had during the Belichick era. You're also going to have to keep in mind that your "first ballot HOFer" quarterback only played one season with these receivers, and Cassel's single season as the starting QB happened with these receivers. And of course, Orton's receivers aren't bad, either. So how do we separate the effects of the receivers from the effects of the system?

First off, I would suggest that we only using Belichick's teams (and then his "minion" coaches) as a starting point. Bledsoe didn't really play for Belichick - he went to the Bills the year after Belichick took over. Secondly I was hoping for some help from Pats fans as to OCs. There are a few obvious breaking points statistcially, but that's admittedly doing it backwards (we could use 2003, when the Pats winning % changed, but I think that had more to do with the defense - we could use 2004, as that's when Brady's QB rating and y/att jumped noticeably - but again, I've had a hard time locating NE OC information for the time period in question.)Point 3 is well taken. Obviously the "system" was working fairly well 2003 (or 2004) on, but the arrival of Moss and Welker made things run at an incredible level of efficiency.

1.) Bledsoe had more starts at under Belichick than Cassel.2.) It was Charlie Weis, then Belichick (officially; most people speculate that it was actually McDaniels, and Belichick was "protecting" McDaniels) , then McDaniels. Still, the offense changed drastically from '05-'08.

 

[DoubleG]

I have several questions:

1.) Why couldn't the Kevin O'Connells and Michael Bishops and Rohan Daveys of the league thrive under this system? For that matter, why couldn't Drew Bledsoe?

2.) Which "system" are we even talking about here? The Patriots offense in 2001 was far different than it is in 2009, and it's changed several times in between. You're going to have to be a lot more specific than just saying "the system" if you hope to have any sort of intelligent discussion on this matter.

3.) You're also going to have to somehow account for Randy Moss and Wes Welker, who are light years better than any other pair of receivers the Patriots have had during the Belichick era. You're also going to have to keep in mind that your "first ballot HOFer" quarterback only played one season with these receivers, and Cassel's single season as the starting QB happened with these receivers. And of course, Orton's receivers aren't bad, either. So how do we separate the effects of the receivers from the effects of the system?

First off, I would suggest that we only using Belichick's teams (and then his "minion" coaches) as a starting point. Bledsoe didn't really play for Belichick - he went to the Bills the year after Belichick took over. Secondly I was hoping for some help from Pats fans as to OCs. There are a few obvious breaking points statistcially, but that's admittedly doing it backwards (we could use 2003, when the Pats winning % changed, but I think that had more to do with the defense - we could use 2004, as that's when Brady's QB rating and y/att jumped noticeably - but again, I've had a hard time locating NE OC information for the time period in question.)

Point 3 is well taken. Obviously the "system" was working fairly well 2003 (or 2004) on, but the arrival of Moss and Welker made things run at an incredible level of efficiency.

1.) Bledsoe had more starts at under Belichick than Cassel.2.) It was Charlie Weis, then Belichick (officially; most people speculate that it was actually McDaniels, and Belichick was "protecting" McDaniels) , then McDaniels. Still, the offense changed drastically from '05-'08.

First off, I think something moleculo said is certainly true and bears on the situation. Basically the idea that only certain types of QBs would "work" in the system. The quote from moleculo that I think is particularly related to Bledsoe is the following:

This is also not a system for scrambling QB's, and it's not a system where QB's can sit in the pocket and wait for someone to get open.

Bledsoe took 45 sacks in 2000 (55 the year before). Brady took 41 in 2001, but then never took more than 32 (and from 2004 on never more than 26 - almost half as many as Bledsoe is 2000 and less than 1/2 compared to Bledsoe's 1999 numbers.) Bledsoe didn't fit in terms of what Belichick wanted in his QB. Not only did the Pats then draft Brady, but they actually kept 4 QBs on the roster (Brady being the "4th" - by the end of the season in 2000 he would become the #2).Obviously, Belichick had a very specific idea of what he wanted in terms of QB attributes. And while it is true that Bledsoe took more "game snaps" as a Patriot than Cassel, Cassel was drafted by the Pats in 2005 and spent 3 years in the system. Bledsoe was left from the previous regime and was simply keeping the "spot warm" until someone (ultimately Brady) - stepped up to take over.

In terms of the offense "changing drastically from '05 to '08 (outside of the obvious - personel) how so? Many would bemoan the fact that Brady had below average WRs and was still making them look good becuase of the "system" the Patriots had in place. In fact many Pats fans have long luaded Belichik's "plug and play" schemes that seemed to work no matter what the pieces were.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Saying that other QB's success is a knock on Brady is basically the same as saying other WCO QB success (especially Young) is a knock on Montanta.

Like has been said, the offense the Patriots are running now is NOT the same offense they were running when Charlie Weis was there. There might be a lot of similarities, but that could be said for a lot of offenses in the NFL. For example, Andy Reid and Mike Shanahan both run the WCO, but different variations of it, so it is not the same.

 

[TheWheel]

The Patriots "system":

1)A FO and Coaching Staff that are completely on the same page.

2)Amazing coaching and the development of new coaches.

3)Smart and/or Athletic players.

4)A stable and professional locker room.

Every team wants these things but it is awfully difficult to create.

The on-the-field "system":

1)Smart players.

2)Flexible gameplans.

3)Efficient passing.

4)Execution.

Again, everything a team wants.

The Patriots are simply a well ran team. Being well ran means that you have players that can execute (these are what we call good players) and a good gameplan to execute. When everyone executes, as long as they keep executing there is very little pressure to dominate individually.

Let's apply this to the QB's:

Tom Brady: with Weis, he simply had to make the correct read and all his wide receivers had to do was run the correct routes and make the catch. Under McDaniels was it any different? Under any coach is it any different? Add Welker and Moss. Now you have players that have greater ability and thus different ways of being used.

Matt Cassell: having been on the team for so long, he knew the playbook. He knew the system. All that was needed of him was making the transition from practice speed to game speed and for him to gain confidence. When he played was he asked to do? Make the correct read.

Kyle Orton:besides having to learn the playbook, what does Kyle Orton supposed to do? Make the correct read. And you guys who are down on Orton need to change your mind quick or you are going to look silly. Honestly the guy has a .692 win percentage. The guy wins.

ANY OTHER PROFESSIONAL QB: Make the correct read.

TL;DR version:

Smart Coaching Staff + Smart Players + Execution = the "system."

 

[CaptainHook]

The Patriots "system":1)A FO and Coaching Staff that are completely on the same page.2)Amazing coaching and the development of new coaches.3)Smart and/or Athletic players.4)A stable and professional locker room.Every team wants these things but it is awfully difficult to create.The on-the-field "system":1)Smart players.2)Flexible gameplans.3)Efficient passing.4)Execution.Again, everything a team wants.The Patriots are simply a well ran team. Being well ran means that you have players that can execute (these are what we call good players) and a good gameplan to execute. When everyone executes, as long as they keep executing there is very little pressure to dominate individually.Let's apply this to the QB's:Tom Brady: with Weis, he simply had to make the correct read and all his wide receivers had to do was run the correct routes and make the catch. Under McDaniels was it any different? Under any coach is it any different? Add Welker and Moss. Now you have players that have greater ability and thus different ways of being used. Matt Cassell: having been on the team for so long, he knew the playbook. He knew the system. All that was needed of him was making the transition from practice speed to game speed and for him to gain confidence. When he played was he asked to do? Make the correct read.Kyle Orton:besides having to learn the playbook, what does Kyle Orton supposed to do? Make the correct read. And you guys who are down on Orton need to change your mind quick or you are going to look silly. Honestly the guy has a .692 win percentage. The guy wins. ANY OTHER PROFESSIONAL QB: Make the correct read. TL;DR version:Smart Coaching Staff + Smart Players + Execution = the "system."

^^^ WhaT.These guys just value different QB qualities than the rest of the league. The first team to switch to a 3-4 defense is going to find players that fit very well for very low prices.You can think of it in Moneyball terms. Arm strength is batting average. Sure it's fun for the offensive coordinator to have any conceivable play as an option, but is it actually as valuable to a team at its current price?

 

[NE_REVIVAL]

First off, I would suggest that we only using Belichick's teams (and then his "minion" coaches) as a starting point. Bledsoe didn't really play for Belichick - he went to the Bills the year after Belichick took over.

Secondly I was hoping for some help from Pats fans as to OCs. There are a few obvious breaking points statistcially, but that's admittedly doing it backwards (we could use 2003, when the Pats winning % changed, but I think that had more to do with the defense - we could use 2004, as that's when Brady's QB rating and y/att jumped noticeably - but again, I've had a hard time locating NE OC information for the time period in question.)

Point 3 is well taken. Obviously the "system" was working fairly well 2003 (or 2004) on, but the arrival of Moss and Welker made things run at an incredible level of efficiency.

1.) Bledsoe had more starts at under Belichick than Cassel.

2.) It was Charlie Weis, then Belichick (officially; most people speculate that it was actually McDaniels, and Belichick was "protecting" McDaniels) , then McDaniels. Still, the offense changed drastically from '05-'08.

First off, I think something moleculo said is certainly true and bears on the situation. Basically the idea that only certain types of QBs would "work" in the system. The quote from moleculo that I think is particularly related to Bledsoe is the following:

This is also not a system for scrambling QB's, and it's not a system where QB's can sit in the pocket and wait for someone to get open.

Bledsoe took 45 sacks in 2000 (55 the year before). Brady took 41 in 2001, but then never took more than 32 (and from 2004 on never more than 26 - almost half as many as Bledsoe is 2000 and less than 1/2 compared to Bledsoe's 1999 numbers.) Bledsoe didn't fit in terms of what Belichick wanted in his QB.

Are you serious? "Bledsoe didn't fit in terms of what Belichick wanted in his QB"?? Um. ya and apparently he didn't fit in Dal or Buf either. What on earth do you think your saying here? Belichick wanted a qb who could read and react quicker than Bledsoe did, just like virtually every other coach in the league.Let me admit that IMO, the "it's the system" nonsense really gets annoying and tiring after a while. There are a few of you out there (you know who you are) and I have yet to see a one of you that are able to make a logical coherent arguement when your theory is held up to even minor scrutiny.

Not only did the Pats then draft Brady, but they actually kept 4 QBs on the roster (Brady being the "4th" - by the end of the season in 2000 he would become the #2).

Obviously, Belichick had a very specific idea of what he wanted in terms of QB attributes. And while it is true that Bledsoe took more "game snaps" as a Patriot than Cassel, Cassel was drafted by the Pats in 2005 and spent 3 years in the system. Bledsoe was left from the previous regime and was simply keeping the "spot warm" until someone (ultimately Brady) - stepped up to take over.

So, they gave Bledsoe a 10 year $100 million contract to keep the spot warm? Bledsoe had every chance in the world to succeed and he was their franchise QB not a "spot warmer".

The fact of the matter is Brady came in and did all the little things Bledose couldn't and WOULDN/T (like work his #### off) do. Same basic team, much different results.

In terms of the offense "changing drastically from '05 to '08 (outside of the obvious - personel) how so? Many would bemoan the fact that Brady had below average WRs and was still making them look good becuase of the "system" the Patriots had in place. In fact many Pats fans have long luaded Belichik's "plug and play" schemes that seemed to work no matter what the pieces were.

You don't really need someone to point out how the offense changed when Moss and Welker arrived, do you ???Can you tell us what the difference is between the "system" NE runs and the system that Indy runs? After the year Brady had in 07, how in the wide world of sports can anyone say he wouldn't be successful in Indy's system, or vice versa? Based on what?

Many have made some great points, but some bear repeating.

The key (IMNSHO), to the success of NE's system, Indy's system and virtually every teams system is having extremely smart QBs who process information instantly and then react quickly and accurately.

Thats it, if you do that and you have some talent (players & coaches) around you it is more likely than not you will be sucessful. Just how sucessful then depends in large part on how much talent you have, how hard you are willing to work and fate.

NE's "system" is Brady & BB; thats the common thread

 

[The Real Hipster Doofus]

A couple thoughts on the subject....

1. I hear from a lot of people something along these lines - "It is the Patriots system that is great. Cassell didn't even start a game in college and Brady couldn't even hold on to the job in college so what does that tell you." Well Cassell rode the bench behind Palmer and Leinart, and Brady split time with Drew Henson, the #1 QB recruit in his class and I guy I think would have been a #1 overall pick had he stuck with football. I know nobody here in this thread said that, but its an argument I hear a lot.

2. I hear a lot of talk about what was done with a 6th round QB in Brady. To me that shouldnt be an issue, because Brady had no business going in the 6th round to begin with. A lot of scouts missed the boat on that one. As a Michigan fan I watched every single one of his games, and he deserved to go higher than that. If you ever catch the 1999 Michigan-Alabama bowl game on ESPN Classic, watch that and you will see what I mean. Brady lacked a rocket arm, but had the poise, intelligence and everything else needed to be an NFL QB. Now in no way did I predict a HOF lock career, but a Matt Hasselback type career was a reasonable expectation.

3. I do agree that the system and the team make the players better than they would be otherwise. But doesnt that apply to every great QB really? Would Montana be talked about the way he is if he spent his career playing for the Lions? You have to have the talent and intangibles to be a good to very good QB. You need that and the right situation to be a HOF QB. I could see Brady, Cassell and Orton all excelling in other systems, provided there is suffienct talent around them (that being the biggest problem with Cassell now).

 

[two_dollars]

Like Switz said, Orton will never have a "Brady-type" 2007 season.

However, he could have a

2000 or

2001 or

2002 or

2003 or

2004 or

2005 or

2006

"Brady-type" season.

 

[theglorydays]

A couple thoughts on the subject....

1. I hear from a lot of people something along these lines - "It is the Patriots system that is great. Cassell didn't even start a game in college and Brady couldn't even hold on to the job in college so what does that tell you." Well Cassell rode the bench behind Palmer and Leinart, and Brady split time with Drew Henson, the #1 QB recruit in his class and I guy I think would have been a #1 overall pick had he stuck with football. I know nobody here in this thread said that, but its an argument I hear a lot.

2. I hear a lot of talk about what was done with a 6th round QB in Brady. To me that shouldnt be an issue, because Brady had no business going in the 6th round to begin with. A lot of scouts missed the boat on that one. As a Michigan fan I watched every single one of his games, and he deserved to go higher than that. If you ever catch the 1999 Michigan-Alabama bowl game on ESPN Classic, watch that and you will see what I mean. Brady lacked a rocket arm, but had the poise, intelligence and everything else needed to be an NFL QB. Now in no way did I predict a HOF lock career, but a Matt Hasselback type career was a reasonable expectation.

3. I do agree that the system and the team make the players better than they would be otherwise. But doesnt that apply to every great QB really? Would Montana be talked about the way he is if he spent his career playing for the Lions? You have to have the talent and intangibles to be a good to very good QB. You need that and the right situation to be a HOF QB. I could see Brady, Cassell and Orton all excelling in other systems, provided there is suffienct talent around them (that being the biggest problem with Cassell now).

I think you made some excellent points. I was thinking about this the other day and I think it is worth mentioning.

Randy Moss has now been apart of the top 2 scoring offenses of all time. The 1998 vikings had 41 passing touchdowns as a team in his rookie year. Cunningham, a guy who hadn't been a full time starter since 1994, came in and had the best season of his career and one of the top quarterback seasons of all time.

Dante Culpepper had one of the best seasons of all time with Randy Moss as well and threw for 39 touchdowns.

 

[The Comedian]

"System" is one of those words that gets thrown around a lot here by FBG posters when they don't really know what it means.

Brady has been put in pretty good positions to succeed, but the offenses he's played in have varied drastically over his career.

As for the current "system," people like switz and others like to say that since the Patriots went 11-5 in 2008 with Cassel, Brady must not be anything special. I really don't get this logic - yes, the Patriots were a good, maybe very good, offense with Cassel - but with Brady, pretty much the same offense had been one of the most prolific and dominant units in the history of the NFL. They went from breaking records to missing the playoffs when Cassel replaced Brady, so I'm not sure where people get that from.

 

[switz]

1.) Why couldn't the Kevin O'Connells and Michael Bishops and Rohan Daveys of the league thrive under this system? For that matter, why couldn't Drew Bledsoe?

Bledsoe never played in the system. He played one year under BB, and was hurt the following season and Brady stepped in. They built a "safe" offense as a means to protect Brady as a young QB. It was very effective, and they've built upon that foundation ever since.

2.) Which "system" are we even talking about here? The Patriots offense in 2001 was far different than it is in 2009, and it's changed several times in between. You're going to have to be a lot more specific than just saying "the system" if you hope to have any sort of intelligent discussion on this matter.

Actually the same fundamental plays were called during Brady's 2007 season as were during 2001. It has expanded, and they looked downfield more frequently, but the system was the same. As someone earlier posted, it's basically a spread offense which is very detailed, down to which player will be the primary receiver dependent upon the defensive setup. I frankly don't think this type of offense could have worked prior to the use of headsets, as the communication is much more detailed than in most offenses. The time limits just wouldn't have allowed this prior to headsets.I don't think being in a good system is necessarily a knock on a QB. In fact, certain systems require certain attributes from their QBs. Cuter and Marino both have great arms, and are a lot like Bledsoe in their strengths, but none of these guys would succeed in the Pats system because they simply aren't smart QBs.I guess the thing is, I feel a smart, but not the most naturally talented QB, could have great success in the Patriots system, but not be very good in a traditional passing system. On the other hand, some really talented, but not very intelligent QBs, could excel in a traditional offense, but fail miserably in the Pats system. Then there are a few players who I think would excel regardless, smart and talented QBs like Manning & Jim Kelly who could look at a D pre-snap and call their own plays, not merely audible between a run or a pass.

3.) You're also going to have to somehow account for Randy Moss and Wes Welker, who are light years better than any other pair of receivers the Patriots have had during the Belichick era. You're also going to have to keep in mind that your "first ballot HOFer" quarterback only played one season with these receivers, and Cassel's single season as the starting QB happened with these receivers. And of course, Orton's receivers aren't bad, either. So how do we separate the effects of the receivers from the effects of the system?

So here's the difference. Moss and Welker, as much better WRs, were able to exploit the openings created by the system and turn them into significant gains. Look at what they did after the catch compared to prior Pats WRs. Moss and Welker turned that Pats system into the Pats 2007 results. As for Orton's WRs this year, Marshall isn't even on the field for every pass play yet. Royal has been dropping balls pretty badly, IIRC. When they all gel though, I think Marshall and Royal could put up very good numbers.

 

[switz]

"System" is one of those words that gets thrown around a lot here by FBG posters when they don't really know what it means.Brady has been put in pretty good positions to succeed, but the offenses he's played in have varied drastically over his career.As for the current "system," people like switz and others like to say that since the Patriots went 11-5 in 2008 with Cassel, Brady must not be anything special. I really don't get this logic - yes, the Patriots were a good, maybe very good, offense with Cassel - but with Brady, pretty much the same offense had been one of the most prolific and dominant units in the history of the NFL. They went from breaking records to missing the playoffs when Cassel replaced Brady, so I'm not sure where people get that from.

The problem is, you're comparing Cassel's first year playing in that system to Brady's what 7th? Of course there's going to be a dropoff. Of course Brady runs the system better than Cassel, he has more experience in it. The fact that Cassel didn't duplicate Brady's 2007 doesn't mean what you want it to. Cassel really struggled early in the season for starters, plus they faced a much different schedule. The fact Cassel was as successful as he was gives credence to the system being a large component of their success. And, I don't think Brady's "not anything special." I just feel his skillset would not lead to as much success in a different offense.There are some QBs that could be thrown into any offense and excel (PManning, Kelly). Some QBs can be good, but in the right system they are great (Montana, Brady, maybe even Orton). There are some QBs that NEED the right system to be good (Cassel, maybe Orton). And there are some QBs that are good, but won't be successful in certain systems (Bledsoe, Marino, Cutler).And of course, there are some QBs that will suck no matter what...

 

[NE_REVIVAL]

"System" is one of those words that gets thrown around a lot here by FBG posters when they don't really know what it means.

Brady has been put in pretty good positions to succeed, but the offenses he's played in have varied drastically over his career.

As for the current "system," people like switz and others like to say that since the Patriots went 11-5 in 2008 with Cassel, Brady must not be anything special. I really don't get this logic - yes, the Patriots were a good, maybe very good, offense with Cassel - but with Brady, pretty much the same offense had been one of the most prolific and dominant units in the history of the NFL. They went from breaking records to missing the playoffs when Cassel replaced Brady, so I'm not sure where people get that from.

The problem is, you're comparing Cassel's first year playing in that system to Brady's what 7th? Of course there's going to be a dropoff. Of course Brady runs the system better than Cassel, he has more experience in it. The fact that Cassel didn't duplicate Brady's 2007 doesn't mean what you want it to. Cassel really struggled early in the season for starters, plus they faced a much different schedule. The fact Cassel was as successful as he was gives credence to the system being a large component of their success. And, I don't think Brady's "not anything special." I just feel his skillset would not lead to as much success in a different offense.

There are some QBs that could be thrown into any offense and excel (PManning, Kelly). Some QBs can be good, but in the right system they are great (Montana, Brady, maybe even Orton). There are some QBs that NEED the right system to be good (Cassel, maybe Orton). And there are some QBs that are good, but won't be successful in certain systems (Bledsoe, Marino, Cutler).

And of course, there are some QBs that will suck no matter what...

Oy....."Cassel really struggled early in the season for starters, plus they faced a much different schedule." Um yeah, Cassel had a much EASIER schedule.

"And, I don't think Brady's "not anything special." I just feel his skillset would not lead to as much success in a different offense." Hmmmm, can you try and elaborate on your feelings toward Brady's skill set, such as what his skill set is. There isn't a throw he can not make, he is accurate, as smart or smarter than anyone in the game, he is as tuff as anyone in the game, he makes quick reads and quick decisions, again as well as anyone in the league. His ability to perform under pressure, etc, etc. He is not a scrambler obviously, but he is as good in the pocket as anyone.

Is performing well under pressure a skill set?

How about playing in adverse weather conditions?

What in your professional opinion is his skill set lacking?

"There are some QBs that could be thrown into any offense and excel (PManning, Kelly). Some QBs can be good, but in the right system they are great (Montana, Brady, maybe even Orton). "Again this is pure gibberish, you have never been able to articulate why Manning can play in any offense and Brady can't or what the difference is between Indys "system" and NE's. We have been down this raod before and you embarass yourself everytime; I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt but you have to bring something other than laughingly irrational bias to the table.

What are the major differences between Indys system (other than Peyton having the benefit of the same off coordinator year after year, having the luxury of playing more often than not in pristine passing conditions and having a team and offense built around him from day one. In other words we know that one of the MAJOR differences between Indys system and NEs is the fact that Manning has been given virtually every possible benefit\advantage you could give to a passer (from a passing statisical perspective) from day one).

 

[DoubleG]

What are the major differences between Indys system (other than Peyton having the benefit of the same off coordinator year after year, having the luxury of playing more often than not in pristine passing conditions and having a team and offense built around him from day one. In other words we know that one of the MAJOR differences between Indys system and NEs is the fact that Manning has been given virtually every possible benefit\advantage you could give to a passer (from a passing statisical perspective) from day one).

This is basically true of Brady as well - he was arguably drafted for the system they wanted to implement (which is the focus and reason for the thread) And many would argue that Moss and Welker > Wayne and Gonzo (or Garcon). While I realize I am not the topic police, but could we keep this thread on topic - this is NOT a(nother) Brady vs. Manning thread. Please try to keep it from going that way.

 

[moleculo]

A complete list of QB's selected to play in the NE "system":

Tom Brady

Kliff Kingsbury

Matt Cassel

Kevin O'Connell

Brian Hoyer

Matt Gutierrez

Vinny Testaverde (@ 43 yrs old)

Doug Flutie (@ 43 yrs old)

Rohan Davey

Michael Bishop

Brady Quinn (??? Weiss selection @ ND)

Kyle Orton

Chris Simms

Tom Brandstander

Obviously, everyone with exposure to the "system" is destined for greatness, no?

 

[Ghost Rider]

What are the major differences between Indys system (other than Peyton having the benefit of the same off coordinator year after year, having the luxury of playing more often than not in pristine passing conditions and having a team and offense built around him from day one. In other words we know that one of the MAJOR differences between Indys system and NEs is the fact that Manning has been given virtually every possible benefit\advantage you could give to a passer (from a passing statisical perspective) from day one).

This is basically true of Brady as well - he was arguably drafted for the system they wanted to implement (which is the focus and reason for the thread) And many would argue that Moss and Welker > Wayne and Gonzo (or Garcon). While I realize I am not the topic police, but could we keep this thread on topic - this is NOT a(nother) Brady vs. Manning thread. Please try to keep it from going that way.

Okay, I don't want to turn this into a Brady vs. Manning thread, but in regards to your comments that I bolded, that is not really fair. Brady has only a stud WR (Moss) since '07. Peyton has had a stud WR (and for years, had two stud WRs) in every single season he has played. Plus, he had a stud RB (James) for about half of his career. Brady, meanwhile, had no stud WRs his first six seasons as a starter (Troy Brown was the only NE WR who went over 1,000 in that time span), and the only stud RB Brady has ever had was Corey Dillon, and he was only studly for one season ('04). And Brady has never had a TE as great as Dallas Clark. I am not dogging on Peyton at all, as he is obviously a magnificent QB; one of the best of all-time. But it kind of goes without saying that Peyton has almost always had more talent, more stability (playing in the same system), and more favorable playing conditions than Brady. Peyton has never had to try and win a Super Bowl with his best skill positions players being Antowain Smith, Deion Branch and David Givens, something Brady had to do in '03 (and did, winning the Super Bowl that season).

 

[switz]

What in your professional opinion is his skill set lacking?

"There are some QBs that could be thrown into any offense and excel (PManning, Kelly). Some QBs can be good, but in the right system they are great (Montana, Brady, maybe even Orton). "Again this is pure gibberish, you have never been able to articulate why Manning can play in any offense and Brady can't or what the difference is between Indys "system" and NE's. We have been down this raod before and you embarass yourself everytime; I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt but you have to bring something other than laughingly irrational bias to the table.

First, if you cannot recognize the differences between the Indy O and the Pats O, then there's no use even debating it with you.Second, I'd like to see Brady have to throw the ball accurately between defenders. In many offenses the pass play has only one or two options, in fact it's surprising how often these types of plays are called. I've never seen that in the Pats offense at all.

Brady is mostly, by a large margin, asked to throw high percentage passes which result in EASY completions. Much like the WCO used high percentage, short passes, the NE does within a spread offense, which increases the number of short, high percentage options.

How frequently do you hear announcers during an NE game mention how wide open the WR is, it's a scheme that doesn't require Brady to put the ball in tight quarters. I don't think he'd be as successful in an offense which did require that.

 

[switz]

Okay, I don't want to turn this into a Brady vs. Manning thread, but in regards to your comments that I bolded, that is not really fair. Brady has only a stud WR (Moss) since '07. Peyton has had a stud WR (and for years, had two stud WRs) in every single season he has played. Plus, he had a stud RB (James) for about half of his career. Brady, meanwhile, had no stud WRs his first six seasons as a starter (Troy Brown was the only NE WR who went over 1,000 in that time span), and the only stud RB Brady has ever had was Corey Dillon, and he was only studly for one season ('04). And Brady has never had a TE as great as Dallas Clark. I am not dogging on Peyton at all, as he is obviously a magnificent QB; one of the best of all-time. But it kind of goes without saying that Peyton has almost always had more talent, more stability (playing in the same system), and more favorable playing conditions than Brady. Peyton has never had to try and win a Super Bowl with his best skill positions players being Antowain Smith, Deion Branch and David Givens, something Brady had to do in '03 (and did, winning the Super Bowl that season).

The flaw in your argument is that you assume because one or two wide receivers put up big numbers, it means they are studs, where if the team spreads the ball around to a number of receivers then they aren't studs. I think any Indy fan would have loved to have had Troy Brown on the team back in the day. Deion Branch was an excellent WR, outside of injury problems. And Smith was a highly drafted RB that was very good. Kelly Washington is looking pretty good this year, and Jabbar Gaffney is making plays in Denver IIRC. Brady has had a number of good WRs to work with throughout his career, many underrated because of how the ball gets spread around.Different systems require different types of players. Brady is asked to spread the ball around to 4 or 5 guys on each play. Manning has 3 options at most on each play. Hence Manning's WRs are going to end up with more receptions and thus more yards.And as far as stability in the same system, while NE has changed OCs, the stystem has barely changed at all. And Brady has most years had a better defense than Manning.

 

[Adebisi]

Brady is not asked to put the ball into tight spots between defenders?

Brown/Patten, Branch/Givens, and/or Caldwell/Brown are on par with Harrison/Wayne?

Are these really the arguments being made in this thread at this point?

 

[havox]

calling cassel a 1 year wonder at this point is a bit premature IMO.. he's currently playing with an atrocious offensive line and 1 legitimate target. he's running for his life nearly every drop back.. i'd say hes overachieving right now keeping his rating over 80.

 

[Ghost Rider]

The flaw in your argument is that you assume because one or two wide receivers put up big numbers, it means they are studs, where if the team spreads the ball around to a number of receivers then they aren't studs. I think any Indy fan would have loved to have had Troy Brown on the team back in the day. Deion Branch was an excellent WR, outside of injury problems. And Smith was a highly drafted RB that was very good. Kelly Washington is looking pretty good this year, and Jabbar Gaffney is making plays in Denver IIRC. Brady has had a number of good WRs to work with throughout his career, many underrated because of how the ball gets spread around.Different systems require different types of players. Brady is asked to spread the ball around to 4 or 5 guys on each play. Manning has 3 options at most on each play. Hence Manning's WRs are going to end up with more receptions and thus more yards.And as far as stability in the same system, while NE has changed OCs, the stystem has barely changed at all. And Brady has most years had a better defense than Manning.

Brady used to spread the ball around so much because those WRs were not even close to being studs. Notice that in '07, once he got Moss (a great WR) and Welker (a very good possession WR), those two guys caught a combined 210 passes.Deion Branch was never an excellent WR. Never. I have always given him props for playing big in the playoffs, especially in the Super Bowls he was a part of, but he was never consistent or productive enough to be called excellent. Why is Kelley Washington, who caught a whopping 1 pass in two years with NE, even being brought up? "The flaw in your argument is that you assume because one or two wide receivers put up big numbers, it means they are studs, where if the team spreads the ball around to a number of receivers then they aren't studs." - I never said that. Putting words in my mouth doesn't help the discussion, FYI. Yes, Brady has had a number of good WRs to work with, but most have been just that: good. The only WR he has ever worked with who could reasonably be called great is Randy Moss. TEs - nope. RBs - Dillon for a year. Again, compare that to Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, Dallas Clark and Edgerrin James. Are you really suggesting that Brady's talent at the skill positions has been comparable to Manning's?

 

[switz]

Are you really suggesting that Brady's talent at the skill positions has been comparable to Manning's?

Not on par, but not as big of a difference as Brady fans would like to suggest. Look what Manning is doing with Collie and Garcon this year, are we going to start hearing that they are studs because they are putting up big numbers?I think as time goes by, and I'm a huge Harrison fan, people are going to begin to think Harrison was made by Manning, not the other way around.

 

[Ghost Rider]

I am not a Brady or Manning fan (do not dislike either, either), so I have no axe to grind either way. I simply call it like I see it.

Yes, Manning has does an awesome job this season. He is playing as good as he ever has. Heck, I said in the MVP thread that he should be the MVP this year so far, and he was my MVP pick last year, too, so I am not some guy looking to bash Manning and praise Brady.

However, Collie and Garcon are not putting up big numbers. They have both made some nice plays, but both are still being dwarfed by Wayne and Clark, so let's not exaggerate their accomplishments, okay? And yes, the surprising play of both is definitely a credit to Peyton Manning.

 

[The Comedian]

And, I don't think Brady's "not anything special."

After this season, I don't think anyone could convince me Brady was anything special as a QB.

 

[switz]

And, I don't think Brady's "not anything special."

After this season, I don't think anyone could convince me Brady was anything special as a QB.

I'm not allowed to change my mind over the course of a year?

 

[The Comedian]

And, I don't think Brady's "not anything special."

After this season, I don't think anyone could convince me Brady was anything special as a QB.

I'm not allowed to change my mind over the course of a year?

Oh. You mean you never thought Brady was a special quarterback until his stellar play through the first 6 weeks of 2009?

 

[switz]

And, I don't think Brady's "not anything special."

After this season, I don't think anyone could convince me Brady was anything special as a QB.

I'm not allowed to change my mind over the course of a year?

Oh. You mean you never thought Brady was a special quarterback until his stellar play through the first 6 weeks of 2009?

No, but I did overreact probably to Cassel's successful 2008 season. Seeing what Orton and Cassel do in that system has to diminish Brady's accomplishments a bit... but it was an overreaction at the time to say Brady wasn't anything special at all.

 

[moleculo]

No, but I did overreact probably to Cassel's successful 2008 season. Seeing what Orton and Cassel do in that system has to diminish Brady's accomplishments a bit... but it was an overreaction at the time to say Brady wasn't anything special at all.

serious question - When Steve Young won a SB, did that diminish Montana's stature?

 

[NE_REVIVAL]

What in your professional opinion is his skill set lacking?

"There are some QBs that could be thrown into any offense and excel (PManning, Kelly). Some QBs can be good, but in the right system they are great (Montana, Brady, maybe even Orton). "Again this is pure gibberish, you have never been able to articulate why Manning can play in any offense and Brady can't or what the difference is between Indys "system" and NE's. We have been down this road before and you embarrass yourself every time; I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt but you have to bring something other than laughingly irrational bias to the table.

First, if you cannot recognize the differences between the Indy O and the Pats O, then there's no use even debating it with you.

Thats a lame cop out, it aint just me who can't see the distinction you are trying to make, it is virtually everyone. Please humor us and explain the major differences.

Second, I'd like to see Brady have to throw the ball accurately between defenders. In many offenses the pass play has only one or two options, in fact it's surprising how often these types of plays are called. I've never seen that in the Pats offense at all.

Sorry, but this is Twilight Zone territory; if you haven't seen Brady throw accurately between defenders then you haven't watched him play.

Brady is mostly, by a large margin, asked to throw high percentage passes which result in EASY completions. Much like the WCO used high percentage, short passes, the NE does within a spread offense, which increases the number of short, high percentage options.

Before 2007 this was largely true; however, in the very first and only year to date that Brady was given weapons and an offensive philosophy comparable to Indys, Brady had arguably the best season in NFL history. You can nitpick all you want, but there is no denying that in the one year to date that Brady was provided with similar opportunity, he had as good or better a year than Manning has every had. Again you can nitpick and say Mannings 2004 was better blah, blah; however the indisputable fact is that Brady produced very similar numbers when allowed to play with similar weapons and similar offensive philosophy.

How frequently do you hear announcers during an NE game mention how wide open the WR is, it's a scheme that doesn't require Brady to put the ball in tight quarters. I don't think he'd be as successful in an offense which did require that.

Dooo,doooo,dooo,doooo,dooo,doooo,doooo,dooooo......Twilight Zone theme....Honestly, that is ridiculous. I often feel as if Manning and other qbs have way more wide open downfield receivers then NE does; I chalk that up to my own bias and natural tendency to focus more on the opposing teams wide open players than those on the team I root for. Either way I feel certain that NE is far from the NFL leader in having wide open receivers.Here is the deal, as I have said before, Manning is the best pure passer in the game and probably one of the best throwers and QBs that has ever lived. Brady doesn't throw as beautiful a ball as Manning (who does), but much like Manning, the flaws in Brady's game are miniscule. 07 proved that given comparable weapons, Brady will produce comparable numbers to any qb. Would Brady be as statistically good as Manning in Indy if all things were equal? IMO probably not, would he still be statistically very, very good? I see no evidence to suggest otherwise.

Having said all that, if your definition of success for a system and qb begins and ends with compiling "regular season passing stats" then Manning is obviously your guy. However, if your QB evaluation includes a bit more comprehensive analysis and intangibles such as responding to adversity and performing best when it matters most, then the facts overwhelmingly tend to favor Brady as the better “QB”.

 

[DoubleG]

No, but I did overreact probably to Cassel's successful 2008 season. Seeing what Orton and Cassel do in that system has to diminish Brady's accomplishments a bit... but it was an overreaction at the time to say Brady wasn't anything special at all.

serious question - When Steve Young won a SB, did that diminish Montana's stature?

Now that's an interesting point. I don't think it diminishes Montana much, but I do recall thinking something along the lines of "well of course he did - same good franchise, same good players (Rice, specifically) + he even has tools that Montana didn't (his mobility)." I'd be totally guessing if the 9ers ran anything close to what they ran with Montana, in terms of schemes. I'd bet with Rice and the success they had, they likely did. Kudos on bringing up another excellent example (and deflecting the discussion away from the typical Brady vs. Manning argument that seems to automatically insue as soon as anyone starts talking about QB play).

 

[NE_REVIVAL]

First off, I would suggest that we only using Belichick's teams (and then his "minion" coaches) as a starting point. Bledsoe didn't really play for Belichick - he went to the Bills the year after Belichick took over.

Secondly I was hoping for some help from Pats fans as to OCs. There are a few obvious breaking points statistcially, but that's admittedly doing it backwards (we could use 2003, when the Pats winning % changed, but I think that had more to do with the defense - we could use 2004, as that's when Brady's QB rating and y/att jumped noticeably - but again, I've had a hard time locating NE OC information for the time period in question.)

Point 3 is well taken. Obviously the "system" was working fairly well 2003 (or 2004) on, but the arrival of Moss and Welker made things run at an incredible level of efficiency.

1.) Bledsoe had more starts at under Belichick than Cassel.

2.) It was Charlie Weis, then Belichick (officially; most people speculate that it was actually McDaniels, and Belichick was "protecting" McDaniels) , then McDaniels. Still, the offense changed drastically from '05-'08.

First off, I think something moleculo said is certainly true and bears on the situation. Basically the idea that only certain types of QBs would "work" in the system. The quote from moleculo that I think is particularly related to Bledsoe is the following:

This is also not a system for scrambling QB's, and it's not a system where QB's can sit in the pocket and wait for someone to get open.

Bledsoe took 45 sacks in 2000 (55 the year before). Brady took 41 in 2001, but then never took more than 32 (and from 2004 on never more than 26 - almost half as many as Bledsoe is 2000 and less than 1/2 compared to Bledsoe's 1999 numbers.) Bledsoe didn't fit in terms of what Belichick wanted in his QB.

Are you serious? "Bledsoe didn't fit in terms of what Belichick wanted in his QB"?? Um. ya and apparently he didn't fit in Dal or Buf either. What on earth do you think your saying here? Belichick wanted a qb who could read and react quicker than Bledsoe did, just like virtually every other coach in the league.Let me admit that IMO, the "it's the system" nonsense really gets annoying and tiring after a while. There are a few of you out there (you know who you are) and I have yet to see a one of you that are able to make a logical coherent arguement when your theory is held up to even minor scrutiny.

Not only did the Pats then draft Brady, but they actually kept 4 QBs on the roster (Brady being the "4th" - by the end of the season in 2000 he would become the #2).

Obviously, Belichick had a very specific idea of what he wanted in terms of QB attributes. And while it is true that Bledsoe took more "game snaps" as a Patriot than Cassel, Cassel was drafted by the Pats in 2005 and spent 3 years in the system. Bledsoe was left from the previous regime and was simply keeping the "spot warm" until someone (ultimately Brady) - stepped up to take over.

So, they gave Bledsoe a 10 year $100 million contract to keep the spot warm? Bledsoe had every chance in the world to succeed and he was their franchise QB not a "spot warmer".

The fact of the matter is Brady came in and did all the little things Bledose couldn't and WOULDN/T (like work his #### off) do. Same basic team, much different results.

In terms of the offense "changing drastically from '05 to '08 (outside of the obvious - personel) how so? Many would bemoan the fact that Brady had below average WRs and was still making them look good becuase of the "system" the Patriots had in place. In fact many Pats fans have long luaded Belichik's "plug and play" schemes that seemed to work no matter what the pieces were.

You don't really need someone to point out how the offense changed when Moss and Welker arrived, do you ???Can you tell us what the difference is between the "system" NE runs and the system that Indy runs? After the year Brady had in 07, how in the wide world of sports can anyone say he wouldn't be successful in Indy's system, or vice versa? Based on what?

Many have made some great points, but some bear repeating.

The key (IMNSHO), to the success of NE's system, Indy's system and virtually every teams system is having extremely smart QBs who process information instantly and then react quickly and accurately.

Thats it, if you do that and you have some talent (players & coaches) around you it is more likely than not you will be sucessful. Just how sucessful then depends in large part on how much talent you have, how hard you are willing to work and fate.

NE's "system" is Brady & BB; thats the common thread

Ok, in response to your other post, how about you respond to my first post where I didn't mention any other QBs, just systems (thats allowed, isn't it?). Apparently I offended you by pointing out how mistaken you were with regard to NE and their system when you began the thread; you didn't respond to any of what I consider to be very valid points and questions. Instead you waited until Switz chimed in and then castigated me (not switz) for responding specifically to something he first brought up.

 

[twistd]

Take Brady out of the Pats system and I doubt he is half as successful. I would actually love to see him go to another team just to see what happens.

That shows a massive lack of understanding of playing the QB position. Brady has elite skills. He would be successful in any system.

Now Orton has success before entering the Pats system, and was at draft time the most talented of the three IMO.

So you are saying that Orton was the most talented of the three? Orton is one of the lesser talented QBs in the league now. Cassell had success with the Patriots last year, because of the talent around him. When Cassell went to the Chiefs, with much weaker talent, he looks like a back up. Orton plays in the same system as Cassell but has much more talent around him. If you put Orton on the Chiefs he is every bit as pitiful as Cassell has been. Orton has been the beneficiary of great circumstances. In Chicago he had a good defense, and a good running game. Not much was asked of him. In Denver he has an average running game, excellent receivers, and a very good defense.

Orton was a decent QB in Chicago before the injury last year, and given the tutelage in the Pats system has the potential to be very good. I doubt he'll ever have the Brady 2007 type season, but I believe he'll develop into a top-tier QB. I believe this would have happened in or out of the Pats system, to be honest, but being in the system will make it happen faster.

Orton is Chad Pennington. If Orton was on the Chiefs this year he'd be pathetic. If the Bronco defense fell apart, and Orton had to throw the ball 40 times a game, he would be terrible. He has adapted to the system well, but let us not overestimate his limited skills. If Josh McDaniel had gotten his wish, and gotten Cassell, Cassell would probably be just as successful as Orton has been in Denver.