Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Belichick Vs. Brady?


Hov34

Brady or Belichick for 20 years in their prime?  

130 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, sn0mm1s said:

Dilfer wasn't the Raven's biggest star - wasn't even close. And, the 2003-2004 Pistons more or less fit that mold. Rip Hamilton was the "biggest" star while I wouldn't say he was in the bottom 1/2 of the league, I could still pick a bunch of guards over him.

Rasheed Wallace?!  Ben Wallace?!

Basketball- reference has Ben Wallace #4 that season in value over replacement. The Pistons would have has zero chance of winning a title with a replacement level player. Trent Dilfer WAS a replacement level player.

Edited by mbuehner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, sn0mm1s said:

Dilfer wasn't the Raven's biggest star - wasn't even close. And, the 2003-2004 Pistons more or less fit that mold. Rip Hamilton was the "biggest" star while I wouldn't say he was in the bottom 1/2 of the league, I could still pick a bunch of guards over him.

The argument isn't about Dilfer being the Ravens biggest star.  It's actually that he was just a guy and they still won where if you took away an NBA teams best player and replaced him with a Dilfer type they wouldn't be able to win the title.  The argument is about the NFL being more team oriented and the NBA being more player oriented. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Gally said:

The argument isn't about Dilfer being the Ravens biggest star.  It's actually that he was just a guy and they still won where if you took away an NBA teams best player and replaced him with a Dilfer type they wouldn't be able to win the title.  The argument is about the NFL being more team oriented and the NBA being more player oriented. 

C'mon Tony Banks got replaced by Trent Dilfer and they still had Ray Lewis, Rod Woodson, Jamal Lewis, and a ton of other players. Are you guys really trying to pitch to me that Tony Banks was a superstar getting replaced by a replacement player? Drew Bledsoe - actual superstar - who already took his team to a SB got replaced by Brady and the difference was night and day. Both for the Patriots and for BB's winning percentage as a coach.

In the NBA, Tiago Splitter and Danny Green have won rings as starters and they are nobodies. Again, we can play this game all day. The point is, a coach is never more valuable than the best player(s) on a team. Period. Anyone saying BB is more of a reason for the Pats success than Brady is fooling themselves. It is just people trying to hate on Brady and diminish what he has accomplished - just a bunch of sour grapes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, sn0mm1s said:

C'mon Tony Banks got replaced by Trent Dilfer and they still had Ray Lewis, Rod Woodson, Jamal Lewis, and a ton of other players. Are you guys really trying to pitch to me that Tony Banks was a superstar getting replaced by a replacement player? Drew Bledsoe - actual superstar - who already took his team to a SB got replaced by Brady and the difference was night and day. Both for the Patriots and for BB's winning percentage as a coach.

In the NBA, Tiago Splitter and Danny Green have won rings as starters and they are nobodies. Again, we can play this game all day. The point is, a coach is never more valuable than the best player(s) on a team. Period. Anyone saying BB is more of a reason for the Pats success than Brady is fooling themselves. It is just people trying to hate on Brady and diminish what he has accomplished - just a bunch of sour grapes.

LOL at calling the 2001 Drew Bledsoe a superstar.  His play had dropped off years before that (38 TDs, 36 INT's from 1999-2001). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, sn0mm1s said:

C'mon Tony Banks got replaced by Trent Dilfer and they still had Ray Lewis, Rod Woodson, Jamal Lewis, and a ton of other players. Are you guys really trying to pitch to me that Tony Banks was a superstar getting replaced by a replacement player? Drew Bledsoe - actual superstar - who already took his team to a SB got replaced by Brady and the difference was night and day. Both for the Patriots and for BB's winning percentage as a coach.

In the NBA, Tiago Splitter and Danny Green have won rings as starters and they are nobodies. Again, we can play this game all day. The point is, a coach is never more valuable than the best player(s) on a team. Period. Anyone saying BB is more of a reason for the Pats success than Brady is fooling themselves. It is just people trying to hate on Brady and diminish what he has accomplished - just a bunch of sour grapes.

I don't believe anybody said anything about Dilfer replacing a superstar.  The whole gist of the conversation is that football is more dependent on the team with 53 players on the roster and that they can absorb the loss of a superstar easier than and NBA team could.  I never mentioned anything about this taking away from Brady or giving more props to BB.  My comment was that NBA is superstar driven and you go as well as your superstars where football needs a complete team effort to get to the promised land. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, sn0mm1s said:

C'mon Tony Banks got replaced by Trent Dilfer and they still had Ray Lewis, Rod Woodson, Jamal Lewis, and a ton of other players. Are you guys really trying to pitch to me that Tony Banks was a superstar getting replaced by a replacement player? Drew Bledsoe - actual superstar - who already took his team to a SB got replaced by Brady and the difference was night and day. Both for the Patriots and for BB's winning percentage as a coach.

In the NBA, Tiago Splitter and Danny Green have won rings as starters and they are nobodies. Again, we can play this game all day. The point is, a coach is never more valuable than the best player(s) on a team. Period. Anyone saying BB is more of a reason for the Pats success than Brady is fooling themselves. It is just people trying to hate on Brady and diminish what he has accomplished - just a bunch of sour grapes.

You're not following the argument.  This was a side question about QBs vs basketball stars.  When there are 12 guys in an NBA huddle, the best one is relatively more important than the 1 QB on a roster of 45.  Even though QBs are the most important position in football. Its a question of numbers and the nature of the games.

That isn't evidence that BB is more important than TB, its just making a point that a QB can't dominate a game the way a basketball superstar can, but the nature of the game. Which at least suggests that the way the 22 starters are coached COULD BE more important than QB play.

I think you could make a real argument that over 20 years BB would be more successful without TB than TB would be without BB. I dont know that I agree with that argument, but its viable.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mbuehner said:

You're not following the argument.  This was a side question about QBs vs basketball stars.  When there are 12 guys in an NBA huddle, the best one is relatively more important than the 1 QB on a roster of 45.  Even though QBs are the most important position in football. Its a question of numbers and the nature of the games.

That isn't evidence that BB is more important than TB, its just making a point that a QB can't dominate a game the way a basketball superstar can, but the nature of the game. Which at least suggests that the way the 22 starters are coached COULD BE more important than QB play.

I think you could make a real argument that over 20 years BB would be more successful without TB than TB would be without BB. I dont know that I agree with that argument, but its viable.

:goodposting:

Heck, just look at the Eagles winning the Super Bowl last year after losing their QB in December (who at the time was the favorite to win the MVP).  That would never happen in the NBA. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, mbuehner said:

You're not following the argument.  This was a side question about QBs vs basketball stars.  When there are 12 guys in an NBA huddle, the best one is relatively more important than the 1 QB on a roster of 45.  Even though QBs are the most important position in football. Its a question of numbers and the nature of the games.

That isn't evidence that BB is more important than TB, its just making a point that a QB can't dominate a game the way a basketball superstar can, but the nature of the game. Which at least suggests that the way the 22 starters are coached COULD BE more important than QB play.

I think you could make a real argument that over 20 years BB would be more successful without TB than TB would be without BB. I dont know that I agree with that argument, but its viable.

I am following it. I don't disagree that Jordan can carry a team more than Brady. My point is that everyone is acting like somehow, in football, that QB is just 1 of 53. That is disingenuous at best. A QB can carry a team. A QB can turn a poor team into a contender. A coach rarely (and that is being generous) can so it is ludicrous to say that BB is more valuable - in any sense - over TB. BB is important. He isn't more important than Brady. Joe Torre is important - but not more than Jeter or Mariano. Phil Jackson is important - but not more than Jordan or Kobe or Shaq. Brady is the GOAT at the most influential position on a football team. But, for some reason, the GOAT at the most difficult and influential position in the sport isn't more of a factor than the coach?!?! It is just sour grapes period.

Edited by sn0mm1s
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, sn0mm1s said:

I am following it. I don't disagree that Jordan can carry a team more than Brady. My point is that everyone is acting like somehow, in football, that QB is just 1 of 53. That is disingenuous at best. A QB can carry a team. A QB can turn a poor team into a contender. A coach rarely (and that is being generous) can so it is ludicrous to say that BB is more valuable - in any sense - over TB. BB is important. He isn't more important than Brady. Joe Torre is important - but not more than Jeter or Mariano. Phil Jackson is important - but not more than Jordan or Kobe or Shaq. Brady is the GOAT at the most influential position on a football team. But, for some reason, the GOAT at the most difficult and influential position in the sport isn't more of a factor than the coach?!?! It is just sour grapes period.

We all have different opinions and perspective. Tom Brady does not play defense. Or make roster decisions. Or manage the draft selection process, free agent signings, or the salary cap. Brady does not to my knowledge develop the game plan from week to week that typically has great variation depending upon the opponent (he likely provides some feedback, but I don't believe he creates the game plan). He doesn't play special teams or make clutch kicks. He doesn't determine what the team does in practice. I would suggest that BB does way more in tape review and spotting other teams tendencies than TB does, so Brady may add something after the fact. He doesn't teach tackling, positioning, or proper technique. 

Sure, Brady can impact the offense and audible to different plays. He can lead comebacks at the end of games. He can help out the defense by playing keep away or scoring a lot of points. But IMO football coaching is way more involved and has way more impact than coaches in other sports. Basketball is essentially the best player on the court usually wins or the best 5 on the court wins. You can't have 5 run of the mill players and stand a chance.

In baseball, there isn't all that much that a manager does. There aren't individual plays, per say. The pitcher pitches, the batter swings, and the ball get put into play. In football, you can run and pass the ball, go forwards or backwards or side to side. You don't really do that in baseball. It's not like the batter is going to surprise someone and catch the ball and start running to third base.

As I have mentioned numerous times, there have been any number of great QBs. If it were so easy to win with a great QB, then there would be any number of teams with elite QBs that have gone to 9 Super Bowls. But there haven't been.

BB has coached in 13 conference championships with 3 different teams as a head coach , coordinator, or assistant coach. He's coached 13 teams with defenses that ranked in the Top 5 in points allowed and 12 others that ranked in the Top 10.

Brady could very well be the greatest QB to ever play, but I would suggest that he is not light years above other quarterbacks. He throws a good ball. He makes good reads and adjustments. He gets his teammates to believe in him. But it's not like he is Babe Ruth and other quarterbacks are Mario Mendoza. Yes, he's the most important player . . . on a 53 man roster.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Anarchy99 said:

We all have different opinions and perspective. Tom Brady does not play defense. Or make roster decisions. Or manage the draft selection process, free agent signings, or the salary cap. Brady does not to my knowledge develop the game plan from week to week that typically has great variation depending upon the opponent (he likely provides some feedback, but I don't believe he creates the game plan). He doesn't play special teams or make clutch kicks. He doesn't determine what the team does in practice. I would suggest that BB does way more in tape review and spotting other teams tendencies than TB does, so Brady may add something after the fact. He doesn't teach tackling, positioning, or proper technique. 

Sure, Brady can impact the offense and audible to different plays. He can lead comebacks at the end of games. He can help out the defense by playing keep away or scoring a lot of points. But IMO football coaching is way more involved and has way more impact than coaches in other sports. Basketball is essentially the best player on the court usually wins or the best 5 on the court wins. You can't have 5 run of the mill players and stand a chance.

In baseball, there isn't all that much that a manager does. There aren't individual plays, per say. The pitcher pitches, the batter swings, and the ball get put into play. In football, you can run and pass the ball, go forwards or backwards or side to side. You don't really do that in baseball. It's not like the batter is going to surprise someone and catch the ball and start running to third base.

As I have mentioned numerous times, there have been any number of great QBs. If it were so easy to win with a great QB, then there would be any number of teams with elite QBs that have gone to 9 Super Bowls. But there haven't been.

BB has coached in 13 conference championships with 3 different teams as a head coach , coordinator, or assistant coach. He's coached 13 teams with defenses that ranked in the Top 5 in points allowed and 12 others that ranked in the Top 10.

Brady could very well be the greatest QB to ever play, but I would suggest that he is not light years above other quarterbacks. He throws a good ball. He makes good reads and adjustments. He gets his teammates to believe in him. But it's not like he is Babe Ruth and other quarterbacks are Mario Mendoza. Yes, he's the most important player . . . on a 53 man roster.

Sorry - the logic just doesn't hold.

Look at George Seifert's switch from SF to Carolina.

Look at Kubiak going from Texas to Denver, to the final year without Manning.

Look at Holmgren going from GB to Seattle

Look at Dungy going from TB to Indy. Did he magically overnight learn how to game plan offensively? 

How about Caldwell when Manning left, Painter really got coached up.

Whisenhunt with the Cards before/after/with Warner. 

Hell, look at Belichick on the Browns and Pats before Brady. You really think Belichick just all of a sudden learned how to coach in 2001? His prior 6 seasons as a head coach he had 1 winning season. 

These guys didn't all of a sudden forget/learn how to coach. You are giving far too little credit to the QB running the team.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sn0mm1s said:

Sorry - the logic just doesn't hold.

Look at George Seifert's switch from SF to Carolina.

Look at Kubiak going from Texas to Denver, to the final year without Manning.

Look at Holmgren going from GB to Seattle

Look at Dungy going from TB to Indy. Did he magically overnight learn how to game plan offensively? 

How about Caldwell when Manning left, Painter really got coached up.

Whisenhunt with the Cards before/after/with Warner. 

Hell, look at Belichick on the Browns and Pats before Brady. You really think Belichick just all of a sudden learned how to coach in 2001? His prior 6 seasons as a head coach he had 1 winning season. 

These guys didn't all of a sudden forget/learn how to coach. You are giving far too little credit to the QB running the team.

All that is great but still doesn't fit the bill for what I asked about. What you listed off only enforces my point. Yes, it is easier to win a title or two with a HOF quarterback than not. But all the cases you brought up did not lead to 9 Super Bowl appearances for other elite QBs. The logic being that an elite QB trumps all coaching.

No one is saying that the Patriots would have been better off without Brady. It's nearly impossible to discuss Brady without BB. The question I am raising is if other elite QBs have won titles, how come guys like Peyton (2), Brees (1), Roethlisberger (2), Warner (1), etc. haven't won 4-6 of them? Is Brady himself the sole or main difference in having so many more titles? Or is it Belichick?

Like I mentioned earlier. Brady doesn't play defense. There have been 53 SB winning teams. The defenses in those teams ranked in points allowed in the regular season:

Top 1 - 15 times (28.3%)
Top 5 - 33 times (62.3%)
Top 10 - 45 times (84.9%)

Sure, once in a while a team and defense gets hot at the end of the season (01 or 11 Giants, 06 Colts, etc.), but their defenses showed up in the playoffs. The point being, the saying defense wins championships did come out of thin air.

In the 6 times the Patriots won the Super Bowl, those defenses ranked 7, 1, 8, 2, 1, and 6 in points allowed. Since 2001, the Patriots have ranked in the Top 10 in points allowed every year except 2002, 2005, and 2011. Guess what? If those other quarterbacks had defenses like the Patriots did, they very likely would have won more rings too. Belichick has produced Top 10 defenses 25 times over his career.

Seifert had 0 Top 10 defenses when he coached in CAR. Kubiak had 2 Top 10 defenses in HOU. Holmgren had only 3 seasons with a Top 10 defense in SEA and went to the SB in one of them. Dungy had one of the other blue chip QBs of this generation in Manning . . . yet still could only win one SB and with multiple years of so so defenses. Even in the years they HAD better defenses, they still didn't win.

You brought up 2001. Brady averaged 190 yards with 18 TD and 12 INT that year. Was that so outer worldly . . . or maybe it was the defense that more carried the team? Ditto for 2003 and 2004. Brady did not rank very high in most passing categories in either of those years . . . he was Top 10 in TD passes, but he was not the main reason they were winning (averaging 230 passing yards a game or so). The defense those years was outstanding.

Bottom line, the Patriots don't win their first 3 titles without a stellar defense. Brady had nothing to do with the defense being phenomenal. We can't tell what would have happened with a different QB as that's not how it played out, but the question has been raised many times how those teams would have fared with one of the other preeminent quarterbacks in the league.

In their more recent SB runs, Brady certainly has saved them and led come from behind victories in the post season.But it works the other way as well. NE scored 14 points against the Giants (and lost), 17 points against the Giants (and lost), and 13 points against the Rams (and won). If the Pats defense didn't show up to the extent it did this past weekend against the Rams, all the talk would be about how Brady could only get in the end zone one time. NE also lost when they only scored 13 against the Broncos in 2005, 14 against the Ravens in 2009, 13 against the Ravens in 2012, 16 against the Broncos in 2013, and 18 against the Broncos in 2015.

Brady and all his GOATness has failed to score 20 points 10 times in the playoffs on teams that scored a million points in the regular season. The defense bailed him out in 3 of those games. Ten games represents 25% of his post season starts. That's almost double the rate of games under 20 points compared to NE in the regular seasons. So sure, let's give Brady all the praise in the world when the team wins in the post season but not give him much blame when the team can't score and they lose.

The way things have typically worked out for NE is that they win when the defense plays well consistently and the offense does enough for them to win.Other than the Eagles game, NE pretty much scored less in the SB than they did in the regular season. Maybe that's the game planning and play calling, but several times Brady did not lead the Patriots to score a lot of points.
 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sn0mm1s said:

Sorry - the logic just doesn't hold.

Look at George Seifert's switch from SF to Carolina.

Look at Kubiak going from Texas to Denver, to the final year without Manning.

Look at Holmgren going from GB to Seattle

Look at Dungy going from TB to Indy. Did he magically overnight learn how to game plan offensively? 

How about Caldwell when Manning left, Painter really got coached up.

Whisenhunt with the Cards before/after/with Warner. 

Hell, look at Belichick on the Browns and Pats before Brady. You really think Belichick just all of a sudden learned how to coach in 2001? His prior 6 seasons as a head coach he had 1 winning season. 

These guys didn't all of a sudden forget/learn how to coach. You are giving far too little credit to the QB running the team.

Your fighting a losing battle.  Just wait til Brady retires and we see the real Bill.  I might actually start watching Patriot games again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

All that is great but still doesn't fit the bill for what I asked about. What you listed off only enforces my point. Yes, it is easier to win a title or two with a HOF quarterback than not. But all the cases you brought up did not lead to 9 Super Bowl appearances for other elite QBs. The logic being that an elite QB trumps all coaching.

No one is saying that the Patriots would have been better off without Brady. It's nearly impossible to discuss Brady without BB. The question I am raising is if other elite QBs have won titles, how come guys like Peyton (2), Brees (1), Roethlisberger (2), Warner (1), etc. haven't won 4-6 of them? Is Brady himself the sole or main difference in having so many more titles? Or is it Belichick?

For the same reason that Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, Patrick Ewing, Clyde Drexler, Gary Payton, Shawn Kemp etc. etc. etc. didn't. They were unlucky enough to play in the ERA where the GOAT was active. It is that simple. You may not think Brady is that much better than the QBs listed but, in reality, he is better enough that it translates into him winning while they do not.

38 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

Like I mentioned earlier. Brady doesn't play defense. There have been 53 SB winning teams. The defenses in those teams ranked in points allowed in the regular season:

Top 1 - 15 times (28.3%)
Top 5 - 33 times (62.3%)
Top 10 - 45 times (84.9%)

Sure, once in a while a team and defense gets hot at the end of the season (01 or 11 Giants, 06 Colts, etc.), but their defenses showed up in the playoffs. The point being, the saying defense wins championships did come out of thin air.

Defense wins championships is a myth no different than offenses win championships. Next you will be telling me that you need to establish the run or that a Team X wins 90% of the time if player Y rushes for 100 yards so you need to feed him the rock.

The truth is that offense is more important than defense. I don't feel like hashing all this out but here it is in a nutshell.

1) Defense is inconsistent from year to year compared to offense (generally because of the QB)

2) The best offenses compared to the average offense is a greater difference than the best defenses compared to the average D.

3) In general, offense/defense/st breakdown is about 50/35/15 in regards to importance.

You should build your team around the offense and hope to string together a few good defensive seasons.

38 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

In the 6 times the Patriots won the Super Bowl, those defenses ranked 7, 1, 8, 2, 1, and 6 in points allowed. Since 2001, the Patriots have ranked in the Top 10 in points allowed every year except 2002, 2005, and 2011. Guess what? If those other quarterbacks had defenses like the Patriots did, they very likely would have won more rings too. Belichick has produced Top 10 defenses 25 times over his career.

When given a good D Brady converts that into SB appearances/wins better than the other two GOAT contenders.

Brady won SB 6/9/15 times with top 10 D.

Manning 2/4/7

Montana 4/4/10

38 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

Seifert had 0 Top 10 defenses when he coached in CAR. Kubiak had 2 Top 10 defenses in HOU. Holmgren had only 3 seasons with a Top 10 defense in SEA and went to the SB in one of them. Dungy had one of the other blue chip QBs of this generation in Manning . . . yet still could only win one SB and with multiple years of so so defenses. Even in the years they HAD better defenses, they still didn't win.

LOL - Perhaps they should have used their mad coaching skills and coached up their D.

38 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

You brought up 2001. Brady averaged 190 yards with 18 TD and 12 INT that year. Was that so outer worldly . . . or maybe it was the defense that more carried the team? Ditto for 2003 and 2004. Brady did not rank very high in most passing categories in either of those years . . . he was Top 10 in TD passes, but he was not the main reason they were winning (averaging 230 passing yards a game or so). The defense those years was outstanding.

Bottom line, the Patriots don't win their first 3 titles without a stellar defense. Brady had nothing to do with the defense being phenomenal. We can't tell what would have happened with a different QB as that's not how it played out, but the question has been raised many times how those teams would have fared with one of the other preeminent quarterbacks in the league.

Hmmm... perhaps, given the bulk of Brady's career, you should rethink the rehashed system QB carried by D.

2001 Offense #6 defense #6 ... so how exactly is he being carried here?

2003 12, 1

2004 4, 2

2014 4, 8

2016 3, 1

2018 4, 7

38 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

In their more recent SB runs, Brady certainly has saved them and led come from behind victories in the post season.But it works the other way as well. NE scored 14 points against the Giants (and lost), 17 points against the Giants (and lost), and 13 points against the Rams (and won). If the Pats defense didn't show up to the extent it did this past weekend against the Rams, all the talk would be about how Brady could only get in the end zone one time. NE also lost when they only scored 13 against the Broncos in 2005, 14 against the Ravens in 2009, 13 against the Ravens in 2012, 16 against the Broncos in 2013, and 18 against the Broncos in 2015.

Yes, he has had his failures in the playoffs. No one is arguing perfection here only that he is more important than the coach.

38 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

Brady and all his GOATness has failed to score 20 points 10 times in the playoffs on teams that scored a million points in the regular season. The defense bailed him out in 3 of those games. Ten games represents 25% of his post season starts. That's almost double the rate of games under 20 points compared to NE in the regular seasons. So sure, let's give Brady all the praise in the world when the team wins in the post season but not give him much blame when the team can't score and they lose.

Who isn't giving him blame? As you said, it is a team sport. Manning scored less than 20 in 12 starts out of 27. Montana 5/23. Not only that, Brady often plays in some pretty bad weather in the playoffs which affects scoring.

38 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:


The way things have typically worked out for NE is that they win when the defense plays well consistently and the offense does enough for them to win.Other than the Eagles game, NE pretty much scored less in the SB than they did in the regular season. Maybe that's the game planning and play calling, but several times Brady did not lead the Patriots to score a lot of points.
 

He scores enough to win. That is all that is needed. Again, all of this other stuff is just sour grapes...picking nits as to diminish what he has done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Anarchy99 said:

We all have different opinions and perspective. Tom Brady does not play defense. Or make roster decisions. Or manage the draft selection process, free agent signings, or the salary cap. Brady does not to my knowledge develop the game plan from week to week that typically has great variation depending upon the opponent (he likely provides some feedback, but I don't believe he creates the game plan). He doesn't play special teams or make clutch kicks. He doesn't determine what the team does in practice. I would suggest that BB does way more in tape review and spotting other teams tendencies than TB does, so Brady may add something after the fact. He doesn't teach tackling, positioning, or proper technique. 

Sure, Brady can impact the offense and audible to different plays. He can lead comebacks at the end of games. He can help out the defense by playing keep away or scoring a lot of points. But IMO football coaching is way more involved and has way more impact than coaches in other sports. Basketball is essentially the best player on the court usually wins or the best 5 on the court wins. You can't have 5 run of the mill players and stand a chance.

In baseball, there isn't all that much that a manager does. There aren't individual plays, per say. The pitcher pitches, the batter swings, and the ball get put into play. In football, you can run and pass the ball, go forwards or backwards or side to side. You don't really do that in baseball. It's not like the batter is going to surprise someone and catch the ball and start running to third base.

As I have mentioned numerous times, there have been any number of great QBs. If it were so easy to win with a great QB, then there would be any number of teams with elite QBs that have gone to 9 Super Bowls. But there haven't been.

BB has coached in 13 conference championships with 3 different teams as a head coach , coordinator, or assistant coach. He's coached 13 teams with defenses that ranked in the Top 5 in points allowed and 12 others that ranked in the Top 10.

Brady could very well be the greatest QB to ever play, but I would suggest that he is not light years above other quarterbacks. He throws a good ball. He makes good reads and adjustments. He gets his teammates to believe in him. But it's not like he is Babe Ruth and other quarterbacks are Mario Mendoza. Yes, he's the most important player . . . on a 53 man roster.

Well said. :yes: 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the 2001 season, the Patriots scored 371 points . . . 322 by the offense and 49 by the defense and special teams. That’s just points they scored directly. That does not take into account when the defense forced turnovers and set the offense up with short fields. And in 19 games, the defense forced 42 turnovers.

In their post season run, the offense scored 3 touchdowns. That was good enough to match the 3 touchdowns the defense and special teams scored. 

Bottom line is the Patriots won that year. The organization won’t quibble over who did more or less in what was a team effort. Brady got a ring just like everyone else. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watching 'The Two Bills' on NFL Network. if everyone watched that, it would drop Brady down under 10%. Belichick was defeating superior teams with his ideas as a DC in NYG in his mid 30s. Played zone all year long and told Parcells that if they played zone against Montana, he would score every time. Switched to man for that game on their way to a SB win. Beat Parcells with the Browns in the playoffs. He's incredible.

Edited by lod001
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Anarchy99 said:

As for the 2001 season, the Patriots scored 371 points . . . 322 by the offense and 49 by the defense and special teams. That’s just points they scored directly. That does not take into account when the defense forced turnovers and set the offense up with short fields. And in 19 games, the defense forced 42 turnovers.

In their post season run, the offense scored 3 touchdowns. That was good enough to match the 3 touchdowns the defense and special teams scored. 

Bottom line is the Patriots won that year. The organization won’t quibble over who did more or less in what was a team effort. Brady got a ring just like everyone else. 

SMH, again i do not believe u can fairly split the BB/TB atom and do not believe it is all TB but I do believe box scores and stats often do not paint a complete picture. "You brought up 2001. Brady averaged 190 yards with 18 TD and 12 INT that year. Was that so outer worldly" no it wasn't other worldly but how many games did NE win in the 18 games prior to TB taking over? I dont see how anyone can dismiss that as not significant. Take your stats and slice them whatever way you want but the difference between a good pro bowl, maybe help get u to a SB QB like Bledsoe and a truly great, ultimate competitor QB like Brady was like night and day. You brought up 2003 and implied the NE def carried NE to the SB win, well I watched SB 38 and im wondering if u did? TB won that SB. BB's bend but dont break defs have given up crap loads of points in some of the biggest games and more often than not NE has won or been very competitive anyway. Not for nothing but how did Manning do at home in playoffs with the #1 def,,,,ya I know low blow. As BB says stats r for losers.

It isn't that TB doesn't make mistakes or is light yrs ahead of Marino, Rodgers, Manning, Montana hes not, he just the ultimate competitor who more often than not has been at his best when it has mattered most and he has been doing it for 2 freakin decades. Maybe Marino et al could have done something "similar" but i take exception to those who insist it would have been a given (nonsense); all of those guys were more talented in certain ways but none of them had more of the ultimate competitor intangibles (I already listed) than TB so I call horse poo on that. 

Again, to be clear i do not believe it is all TB or BB, I believe it is both and neither goes to 9 SBs (in this era) without the other. Both would have had some success without the other but let me point out that had TB not been gifted to BB the guy widely regarded now as the greatest HC of all time would have had another sub 500 season with the "franchise" qb and would have been coaching for his job in 2002. I have no doubt BB would have gone (tried to at least) with TB in 2002 (inj to DB or no inj, TB was better from day one) because he would have been coaching for his job and easily could have been fired; many/most forget that but I don't. None of this was preordained and had TB not shown up when he did BB most likely would have been fired (him or Bledsoe, who do u think was going?). NO ONE would have been breaking down the door to hire twice failed BB for a 3rd head coaching position. Yes, it is certainly fair to say coach BB helped make TB but it is equally fair to say TB helped make coach BB. They are an atom that cannot be split.

  

 

Edited by NE_REVIVAL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ZenoRazon said:

Brady would be a stud QB with any coach, I do doubt BB is a great coach with just any QB.

I'm not really buying it. Put Brady on a team with inferior talent and inferior coaching and play calling, and he likely would not win more SB's than other top QBs. I hate playing the let's put players on different teams game, but if Brady went to teams that had really long stretches of nothingness I doubt that suddenly they would become SB champions (CLE, DET, BUF, OAK, etc.). Maybe they might make the playoffs  a few times, but the way other teams make mistakes and coaches make dumb decisions, I don't see him going to 9 SB's not on NE.

The other fantasy sweepstakes is how would NE have done with another stud QB. Clearly no one would know as it didn't play out like that, but I would guess Rodgers / Peyton / Brees for 17 years would have won more titles than they did and even someone like Rivers would have won something compared to the nothing he stands at now.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

I'm not really buying it. Put Brady on a team with inferior talent and inferior coaching and play calling, and he likely would not win more SB's than other top QBs. I hate playing the let's put players on different teams game, but if Brady went to teams that had really long stretches of nothingness I doubt that suddenly they would become SB champions (CLE, DET, BUF, OAK, etc.). Maybe they might make the playoffs  a few times, but the way other teams make mistakes and coaches make dumb decisions, I don't see him going to 9 SB's not on NE.

The other fantasy sweepstakes is how would NE have done with another stud QB. Clearly no one would know as it didn't play out like that, but I would guess Rodgers / Peyton / Brees for 17 years would have won more titles than they did and even someone like Rivers would have won something compared to the nothing he stands at now.

I;ve decided to stop getting in these debates where we really have nothing but opinions to go with, no hard cold facts to back up an opinion.  They go on and on without anything close to actual facts ever being used.

There is noway anyone can convince me unless you are Navy, Seahawks, Georgia Tech where a running QB is your trip, Tom Brady wouldn't be an improvement over any QB situation you have.

Edited by ZenoRazon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, NE_REVIVAL said:

SMH, again i do not believe u can fairly split the BB/TB atom and do not believe it is all TB but I do believe box scores and stats often do not paint a complete picture. "You brought up 2001. Brady averaged 190 yards with 18 TD and 12 INT that year. Was that so outer worldly" no it wasn't other worldly but how many games did NE win in the 18 games prior to TB taking over? I dont see how anyone can dismiss that as not significant. Take your stats and slice them whatever way you want but the difference between a good pro bowl, maybe help get u to a SB QB like Bledsoe and a truly great, ultimate competitor QB like Brady was like night and day. You brought up 2003 and implied the NE def carried NE to the SB win, well I watched SB 38 and im wondering if u did? TB won that SB. BB's bend but dont break defs have given up crap loads of points in some of the biggest games and more often than not NE has won or been very competitive anyway. Not for nothing but how did Manning do at home in playoffs with the #1 def,,,,ya I know low blow. As BB says stats r for losers.

It isn't that TB doesn't make mistakes or is light yrs ahead of Marino, Rodgers, Manning, Montana hes not, he just the ultimate competitor who more often than not has been at his best when it has mattered most and he has been doing it for 2 freakin decades. Maybe Marino et al could have done something "similar" but i take exception to those who insist it would have been a given (nonsense); all of those guys were more talented in certain ways but none of them had more of the ultimate competitor intangibles (I already listed) than TB so I call horse poo on that. 

Again, to be clear i do not believe it is all TB or BB, I believe it is both and neither goes to 9 SBs (in this era) without the other. Both would have had some success without the other but let me point out that had TB not been gifted to BB the guy widely regarded now as the greatest HC of all time would have had another sub 500 season with the "franchise" qb and would have been coaching for his job in 2002. I have no doubt BB would have gone (tried to at least) with TB in 2002 (inj to DB or no inj, TB was better from day one) because he would have been coaching for his job and easily could have been fired; many/most forget that but I don't. None of this was preordained and had TB not shown up when he did BB most likely would have been fired (him or Bledsoe, who do u think was going?). NO ONE would have been breaking down the door to hire twice failed BB for a 3rd head coaching position. Yes, it is certainly fair to say coach BB helped make TB but it is equally fair to say TB helped make coach BB. They are an atom that cannot be split.

The other atom that can't be split is BB the coach vs. BB the GM. The 2001 Patriots allowed 66 fewer points than the 2000 team did. By 2003, that total decreased to 100 points fewer than the 2000 season. In those early BB drafts, they landed some key pieces. Does BB the GM get credit for drafting Brady . . . or is that off limits as a talking point?

Setting up a theme for later seasons, NE did not have a first round pick in the 2000 draft. But other early draft additions (first 5 years) included Richard Seymour, Matt Light, Deion Branch, Ty Warren, Asante Samuel, Dan Koppen, Vince Wilfork, and Ben Watson. BB was also around in 1996 when the team selected Lawyer Malloy and Tedy Bruschi. All those players were cogs in the early 00s success.

Certainly Brady became a large portion of their success. I won't argue that he helped make the 2001 team winners, but I still think IMO his influence was greater later on. The other thing that still seems odd is that Brady did not win a SB from age 28 through age 36. That's typically the peak years for QBs . . . yet the best years of his career they didn't win. That just doesn't add up, and I am not even going to fathom a guess as to if that is a Brady issue, a talent issue, a coaching issue, or a play calling issue.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/4/2019 at 9:36 AM, bostonfred said:

Brady without Belichick might not have won the superbowl last night. Belichick without brady would not have gotten there.

The first sentence is true based on what we saw on the field. The second sentence cannot be proven one way or the other, but IMO Belichick could have gotten there with several different QBs playing today.

On 2/4/2019 at 9:53 AM, Anarchy99 said:

if i could only have had one there's simply never been a quarterback with the combination of gaudy passing numbers, clutch playoff performances and selfless play

Again, unprovable, but Brady wouldn't have that combination of numbers and clutch performances without Belichick. So if you had to choose one, you wouldn't be getting that by choosing Brady.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Just Win Baby said:

The first sentence is true based on what we saw on the field. The second sentence cannot be proven one way or the other, but IMO Belichick could have gotten there with several different QBs playing today.

Again, unprovable, but Brady wouldn't have that combination of numbers and clutch performances without Belichick. So if you had to choose one, you wouldn't be getting that by choosing Brady.

 I was not the one that posted the gaudy passing numbers, clutch playoff performances, and selfless play comment, but it shows up as attributed to me. I don't really care . . . just curious if you intended to comment on something I had posted (about the team's record across the two halves of Brady's career).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

 I was not the one that posted the gaudy passing numbers, clutch playoff performances, and selfless play comment, but it shows up as attributed to me. I don't really care . . . just curious if you intended to comment on something I had posted (about the team's record across the two halves of Brady's career).

No, I used the quote function twice to quote highlighted portions of @bostonfred's post. No idea why it shows @Anarchy99 on the second one. Bizarre.

ETA: I agree with your posts in this thread, though. :thumbup: 

Edited by Just Win Baby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Just Win Baby said:

The first sentence is true based on what we saw on the field. The second sentence cannot be proven one way or the other, but IMO Belichick could have gotten there with several different QBs playing today.

Well, I think Brady leading them to 5 touchdowns and a field goal including two touchdown drives in the final 3 minutes of the afc championship game is more impressive than you seem to, and belichick's defense giving up 10 points in those same 3 minutes is not evidence that suggests to me that belichick would have won that game without brady.  

But tell me which quarterbacks would have done that to the chiefs in kc in the playoffs.  Let's start with Andrew luck.  Would he have beaten the chiefs this year? 

How about peyton manning in his prime?   

It's easy to play pretend. I think brady and the 2007 Patriots would have beaten the giants in the superbowl after beating them a month earlier in the regular season.  But it's not that simple. 

You've never given brady credit for his playoff success so it's unsurprising that you haven't changed in spite of all the evidence.  He's literally got as many playoff wins as the next two quarterbacks in history and you think there's several active guys who would have done the same thing. It's time to give credit where its due. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, bostonfred said:

You've never given brady credit for his playoff success so it's unsurprising that you haven't changed in spite of all the evidence.

I have posted many times in these forums in recent years that I rank him as the top QB of all time, in his own tier ahead of tier 2 which IMO includes only Montana and Unitas. Most recently here. I recently posted here that he is the most accomplished football player in history. The only reason I or anyone would post these things about him is because of his playoff success, so this statement of yours is incorrect. Maybe it's time to update your notebook.

If what you meant to say is that I've never been a Brady fanboy like you are, that is correct.

52 minutes ago, bostonfred said:

He's literally got as many playoff wins as the next two quarterbacks in history and you think there's several active guys who would have done the same thing. It's time to give credit where its due.

You claimed that Belichick could not have gotten to this year's Super Bowl without Brady. I disagree. I think Belichick would have won those two playoff games this year with this roster and this coaching staff with several other QBs in place of Brady, as I said. In no particular order, I think he would have done it with Brees, Rodgers (assuming healthy), Rivers, Mahomes, Luck, Ryan, and Wilson. Maybe others, but at least those guys. That is in large part because those are other great QBs (there are other great QBs, you know) but also largely because that is how good Belichick is IMO.

58 minutes ago, bostonfred said:

How about peyton manning in his prime?   

Not sure why you went here, because I didn't, but, if you want to open it up to players in their primes from other seasons, the list gets a lot longer. Montana, Unitas, Young, Peyton, Marino, Favre, Elway, and probably many others.

You reference Brady's accomplishments, such as career playoff wins, as if they belong to Brady and Brady alone, not his teammates and coaches. I don't see it that way at all. It is completely obvious to me that context and situation matter, and Brady got huge benefit from having Belichick as his head coach for his entire career. No other QB in history has had that level of coaching advantage.

We judge players and coaches based on what happened, not what might have happened, which is why Brady is viewed as the GOAT, but his accomplishments were not solely because of him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Just Win Baby said:

I think he would have done it with... Luck

That's what i like about your fantasy land.  There's no accountability when the players don't actually have to do things and you can just imagine what you think they'd do.

The actual Andrew luck played the same Kansas city defense in the same venue one week earlier and led the colts to 13 points, while the colts defense held the chiefs to the exact same number of points that the Patriots defense did.  

With 3 minutes left, the actual colts trailed and the real Andrew luck led the actual colts to zero touchdowns, as opposed to two. 

But the imaginary Patriots with the imaginary Andrew luck probably scored 21 points in the final 3 minutes to win 34-31 instead of losing 31-13 like the actual colts. 

That's the thing with your "better on paper" argument.  You don't have to give any credit to the guy who actually does things when you can just imagine that every player you like better will do just as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, ZenoRazon said:

Brady would be a stud QB with any coach, I do doubt BB is a great coach with just any QB.

bull ####. He would be a ham & egger with an idiot like Jeff Fisher. You don't seem to remember HOW they won some of their SBs. Mike Martz gave them a  win because he's stupid and out of football beeacse he's stupid. Pete Carroll/Bevell's worst call in Super Bowl history gave them a win. Shanahan's incompetence gave them a win.  VS competent coaching he wld be 3-6 in SBs.

Edited by lod001
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bostonfred said:

That's what i like about your fantasy land.  There's no accountability when the players don't actually have to do things and you can just imagine what you think they'd do.

The actual Andrew luck played the same Kansas city defense in the same venue one week earlier and led the colts to 13 points, while the colts defense held the chiefs to the exact same number of points that the Patriots defense did.  

With 3 minutes left, the actual colts trailed and the real Andrew luck led the actual colts to zero touchdowns, as opposed to two. 

But the imaginary Patriots with the imaginary Andrew luck probably scored 21 points in the final 3 minutes to win 34-31 instead of losing 31-13 like the actual colts. 

That's the thing with your "better on paper" argument.  You don't have to give any credit to the guy who actually does things when you can just imagine that every player you like better will do just as well. 

Maybe you didn’t understand the premise of the discussion initiated by your own statement. The premise is that the other QB, such as Luck, would be on the Patriots with Patriots teammates and coaches. 

In case it isn’t obvious, that means what Luck did with his Colts coaches and teammates previously is irrelevant. Surely even you would agree that Belichick >>> Reich, for example.

It is quite ironic that you accuse me of giving Brady no credit while you are apparently giving zero credit to Brady’s teammates and coaches for the wins under discussIon. If you can’t see how hypocritical and completely off base that is, I can’t help you. :shrug: 

Edited by Just Win Baby
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Just Win Baby said:

Maybe you didn’t understand the premise of the discussion initiated by your own statement. The premise is that the other QB, such as Luck, would be on the Patriots with Patriots teammates and coaches. 

It is quite ironic that you accuse me of giving Brady no credit while you are apparently giving zero credit to Brady’s teammates and coaches for the wins under discussIon. If you can’t see how hypocritical and completely off base that is, I can’t help you. :shrug: 

Again, no. 

You can't claim the Patriots beat the chiefs and colts didn't because the Patriots defense was better or better coached, because they allowed the exact same number of points.

You can make an argument that the Patriots had a better interior line, since that was one of the strengths of their team.  But the colts interior line was playing at an elite level too.

You can argue that gronk was better than ebron, but ebron had 19 more catches, 68 more yards and 10 more touchdowns than gronk this year.  

You can argue that the colts only had ty hilton and the Patriots had edelman - but Hilton had 925 yards in the 8 games prior to this.

You can argue that the running backs for the Patriots ran better, but none of the Patriots backs averaged over 4.2 per carry, and both colts backs averaged over 5. 

The difference in the afc championship game was that brady went 10 of 12 on first downs and left his backs with 6 opportunities for 3rd and 1 or 3rd and 2, where they completed 5. They controlled the clock because brady led an 8 minute, 15 play, 80 yard touchdown drive to start the game, and led another 6 minute drive (ending in an interception), a 5 minute drive, and a 2 minute drill which he capped off with a 29 yard touchdown pass to end the first half. That's what allowed them to run the ball as much as they did - they had the ball for 21 minutes in the first half and scored two touchdowns which meant the chiefs only got 3 possessions.  

And when the chiefs took their first lead of tha game halfway through the 4th quarter, brady led a touchdown drive ending with a little over 3 minutes on the clock, the chiefs scored the go ahead touchdown,  and brady led a second comeback drive, a two minute drill where he passed 6 straight times for 56 yards then handed it off to burkhead for the game capper. That wasn't just his second 4th quarter comeback drive in the game, it was also his second two minute drive in the game after doing the same thing in the first half. 

And if that wasn't enough, in overtime, knowing that giving the ball back would likely lose the game because the chiefs scored on every drive in the second half, brady completed 3 straight 3rd and 10 passes in overtime to win the game. 

And you think that that was all coaching. 

You actually believe that there are several active quarterbacks who would have led ball control drives, converted two 2 minute drills for touchdowns, completed two fourth quarter comeback drives for touchdowns, and gone 3 for 3 on 3rd and 10 in overtime to win the game. 

And that wasn't even his only playoff game with two fourth quarter comeback touchdowns. He did it in the superbowl against the seahawks.  The same year that he came back from 28-14 and 31-28 in the second half of the ravens playoff game. 

And by the way there's that 28-3 game.

And that's just the last 5 years. 

Belichick was absolutely the bigger reason they won the superbowl, but the Patriots don't get to this superbowl without brady. They don't get to last year's superbowl without Brady's MVP performance.  They don't win the previous two superbowls without Brady's superbowl mvp performances. 

The argument that any quarterback would have just stepped in and done the same thing is easily defeated by the fact that no other quarterback has ever done these things. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bostonfred said:

You actually believe that there are several active quarterbacks who would have led ball control drives, converted two 2 minute drills for touchdowns, completed two fourth quarter comeback drives for touchdowns, and gone 3 for 3 on 3rd and 10 in overtime to win the game. 

Another QB may not have had to convert 2 comeback drives, because another QB may not have thrown 2 interceptions, including one in the end zone that kept NE points off the board and another at the NE 23 yard line that set up KC for a go ahead score with 7:55 remaining.

You seem to be ignoring that, as well as ignoring the fact that Brady led the Pats to just 17 points in the first 56 minutes of the game, even though he was facing a poor defense.

1 hour ago, bostonfred said:

And that wasn't even his only playoff game with two fourth quarter comeback touchdowns. He did it in the superbowl against the seahawks.  The same year that he came back from 28-14 and 31-28 in the second half of the ravens playoff game. 

And by the way there's that 28-3 game.

And that's just the last 5 years. 

...They don't get to last year's superbowl without Brady's MVP performance.  They don't win the previous two superbowls without Brady's superbowl mvp performances. 

None of that was under discussion. I've already said multiple times in this tangent that Brady is the GOAT QB, so obviously that means he did great things.

(By the way, did you update your notebook on my stance about Brady's ranking among the all time greats? You didn't comment on that after I pointed out your error.)

Saying that Brady is the GOAT QB does not mean is that every single thing he did would have been impossible for other QBs to do if they were in the same situation. It also does not mean he walks on water or has the ability to cure leprosy, among other things.

1 hour ago, bostonfred said:

The argument that any quarterback would have just stepped in and done the same thing is easily defeated by the fact that no other quarterback has ever done these things. 

Once again, you seem very challenged to stay on point. Here, you seem to be addressing whether another QB could have stepped in and had Brady's career. That is not what we have been discussing.

As a reminder, we have been discussing TWO GAMES and whether or not any other QB could have won those games on this year's Patriots instead of Brady. This tangent is based upon your original statement I responded to, which you just repeated in this post.

That said, even if this argument of yours  is about Brady’s career, it is easily defeated because no other QB has ever played in the same situation as Brady. Specifically, Belichick is the greatest coach of all time, and it isn't close. No other QB has played with the GOAT HC for 19 years.

And, on the flip side, Brady has never played in the NFL without Belichick as his head coach, so it is impossible to say how successful he would have been without Belichick, though one must assume Brady's success would have been diminished UNLESS ONE IS INCLINED TO GIVE BELICHICK ZERO CREDIT FOR THOSE ACCOMPLISHMENTS.

I'm sure that isn't actually your stance, right? Because I'm sure you are actually smarter than that. Is this some kind of bizarre fishing trip? If so, I guess you hooked me. :thumbup: 

Edited by Just Win Baby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Anarchy99 said:

The other atom that can't be split is BB the coach vs. BB the GM. The 2001 Patriots allowed 66 fewer points than the 2000 team did. By 2003, that total decreased to 100 points fewer than the 2000 season. In those early BB drafts, they landed some key pieces. Does BB the GM get credit for drafting Brady . . . or is that off limits as a talking point?

Setting up a theme for later seasons, NE did not have a first round pick in the 2000 draft. But other early draft additions (first 5 years) included Richard Seymour, Matt Light, Deion Branch, Ty Warren, Asante Samuel, Dan Koppen, Vince Wilfork, and Ben Watson. BB was also around in 1996 when the team selected Lawyer Malloy and Tedy Bruschi. All those players were cogs in the early 00s success.

Certainly Brady became a large portion of their success. I won't argue that he helped make the 2001 team winners, but I still think IMO his influence was greater later on. The other thing that still seems odd is that Brady did not win a SB from age 28 through age 36. That's typically the peak years for QBs . . . yet the best years of his career they didn't win. That just doesn't add up, and I am not even going to fathom a guess as to if that is a Brady issue, a talent issue, a coaching issue, or a play calling issue.

Does a better more efficient offense help a def play better? I certainly believe it does and the 2001 pats also scored about 100 more points than they did in 2000 thanks in part to better 3d and rz conversion rates. Sure the defense got better but having a real leader on offense played a big role in that. Yes in 2003 their def had improved quite a bit but it was nowhere to be found in the 2nd half of the 2003 (04 sb38).

I think BB the GM overall has done a marvelous job managing the cap, finding nondescript players who went on to be significant contributors; nobody has done it better. However, the down side is it often meant letting key/good players go and the quality of the team clearly suffered thru some talent challenged times (more on that later).

Does BB get credit for drafting Brady, absolutely, never said he didn’t. My comment on lucking into him is the fact he was a 6th rd throw away type pick. I give BB more credit for keeping him as the 4th qb (unheard of) in 2000 and recognizing what he had. BB has done ok job with his draft picks and fa signings. Some great hits and some misses. By and large he always seems to do a really good job with all of his 1st rd picks which were almost always def players or lineman. Terrible for the most part with his high offensive skill player picks with Gronk being one of the few exceptions. But again I would point out that TB gets little credit for saving BBs bacon, no TB and BB likely doesn’t get past 2002 in NE and everything changes.  

Side note, it is funny that Ron Borges did the HOF presentation for Seymour who hated BB (still does, also huge Bledsoe better than Brady guy lol, probably literally the last guy on planet to admit he was so wrong) and ripped the Seymour pick at the time saying he was tweener body type who couldn’t play tackle or de. Absolutely ripped them for not taking the player they needed which in his opinion was wr David Terell, hahahahaa what an ### clown. Anyway, I digress.

I don’t split BB the def guru HC and BB the GM, they are a package deal but imho he has clearly been both brilliant and horrific at each at times over the last 18 yrs. Ruthless cap management which has led to sustained success, but clearly at short term costs. All and all he has been far better in aggregate than any of his peers and is the greatest of all time.

You mention it is odd that Brady didn’t win the SB more in Bradys prime? I am surprised that you would word it in that way as if intending to dismiss anything other than a SB win (some pretty good seasons being overlooked there). I also would have said NE didn’t win more SBs rather than TB didn’t win SBs, but ok I know where u r going here. Why? I guess 2006 (age 29?) would be one of the first examples to pop into my mind. NE goes on the rd to play the afccc with Reche Caldwell and Jabar Gafney as their leading receivers, they still manage to put up 34 points and yet they lose. Why didn’t NE win more SBs in Bradys prime? I think the ruthless GM and def guru could have done a better job……  

We could go back n forth now and u would say well why didn’t they score more in the nyg SBs and I would say u r right but if Assante Samuel and Wes Welker make makeable catches or Tyree\Manningham\Kearse don’t make phenomenal ones, 500+ yds vs eagles etc, etc.

I don’t think we r all that far apart on how we feel about them and it is impossible to say one way or the other. I love them both and I think it is pretty hard to definitively try and give one much more credit over the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, fred_1_15301 said:

Sure he can.  Because it's true.

The chiefs scored 31 points against the colts and 31 points against the Patriots despite the Patriots having way more time of possession. 

You don't have to admit you're wrong just delete your post and i'll delete this so you don't look bad. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/5/2019 at 9:11 AM, Ghost Rider said:

:goodposting:

Heck, just look at the Eagles winning the Super Bowl last year after losing their QB in December (who at the time was the favorite to win the MVP).  That would never happen in the NBA. 

I'm not sure that's true.  The Bulls were right in the mix for the championship during Jordan's first retirement.  The Knicks were in the mix for a championship during a Ewing injury.  Neither won a championship but a few lucky breaks and they could have.  And that's just in the last 25 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may have been mentioned but I haven’t followed the thread from the start. Let’s not forget that Terrific Tom was not the most electrifying QB in college. As a Michigan fan, he was downright terrible at times and incredibly frustrating. He was a 6th round pick for a reason. I know, that’s college, 20 years ago. But he didn’t make astronomical leaps in just a few short years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, bostonfred said:

The chiefs scored 31 points against the colts and 31 points against the Patriots despite the Patriots having way more time of possession. 

You don't have to admit you're wrong just delete your post and i'll delete this so you don't look bad. 

:lol:    The part that you seem to refuse to acknowledge is that Belichick is completely head and shoulders above any other coach.  If this year's super bowl run doesn't cement that, then :shrug:     Pretty much everyone in this thread has already acknowledged that Brady is the greatest QB but maybe a good portion of that success is due to the coach.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Niles Standish said:

I'm not sure that's true.  The Bulls were right in the mix for the championship during Jordan's first retirement.  The Knicks were in the mix for a championship during a Ewing injury.  Neither won a championship but a few lucky breaks and they could have.  And that's just in the last 25 years.

So neither won the championship.  I cannot remember how that Knicks team sans Ewing finished, but I know the Bulls in that only season without Jordan in 1992-1993 lost in the 2nd round.  Winning four rounds is a lot different than winning a round and losing the second. 

Can you give a single example of an NBA team losing their best player, who was also a leading candidate for league MVP,  prior to the playoffs and still winning the championship? 

Edited by Ghost Rider
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ghost Rider said:

So neither won the championship.  I cannot remember how that Knicks team sans Ewing finished, but I know the Bulls in that only season without Jordan in 1992-1993 lost in the 2nd round.  Winning four rounds is a lot different than winning a round and losing the second. 

Can you give a single example of an NBA team losing their best player prior to the playoffs and still winning the championship? 

That 2nd round loss was impacted by a very bad call if you ask any Bulls fan (I am not one myself).  Then we're talking a weak Indiana Pacers team away from the finals.

My overall point is even great NBA players don't win championships without great teams around them.  Jordan certainly didn't (although I know he is so revered someone will argue that).  Neither has Durant, LeBron, Dr. J, Wilt etc... etc...

Maybe Olajuwon in his first or Shaq in his first title when Kobe wasn't much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, fred_1_15301 said:

:lol:    The part that you seem to refuse to acknowledge is that Belichick is completely head and shoulders above any other coach.  If this year's super bowl run doesn't cement that, then :shrug:     Pretty much everyone in this thread has already acknowledged that Brady is the greatest QB but maybe a good portion of that success is due to the coach.

Patriots fans are an interesting bunch when it comes to Belichick.  Many of them will defend him like crazy, until anyone suggests that he is as or more important than Brady, and then they have no problem picking nits with him and/or throwing him under the bus (see above where NE_REVIVAL actually said that Belichick did a horrific job at at some point as head coach in the last 18 years).  I get that it is more fun to root for the player than the coach, so there will always be more loyalty to the player, but it sure is fascinating to see some Patriots fan turn on their own simply because they cannot handle everyone not genuflecting to Tom Brady.  

10 hours ago, Niles Standish said:

That 2nd round loss was impacted by a very bad call if you ask any Bulls fan (I am not one myself).  Then we're talking a weak Indiana Pacers team away from the finals.

My overall point is even great NBA players don't win championships without great teams around them.  Jordan certainly didn't (although I know he is so revered someone will argue that).  Neither has Durant, LeBron, Dr. J, Wilt etc... etc...

Maybe Olajuwon in his first or Shaq in his first title when Kobe wasn't much.

LeBron in 2016, Dirk in 2011, Wade in '06 are three recent examples of great players who won championships despite not having great teams around them (take those guys off those teams and the Mavs and Heat don't get past the 1st round, and we've see what taking LeBron away does to the Cavs. 

Edited by Ghost Rider
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, fred_1_15301 said:

:lol:    The part that you seem to refuse to acknowledge is that Belichick is completely head and shoulders above any other coach.  If this year's super bowl run doesn't cement that, then :shrug:     Pretty much everyone in this thread has already acknowledged that Brady is the greatest QB but maybe a good portion of that success is due to the coach.

If the ATL SB doesn't cement that Brady is completely above any other QB I am not sure what to tell you. I just can't believe there are so many people that think the guy who never touches the ball, never steps on the field, and is never responsible for making a clutch play is considered more important to the team's success than the guy that actually has to go out there and perform. Also, it isn't like this year's run was anything special in regards to gameplan/coaching. The SB was a masterpiece but SD and KC weren't anything amazing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, sn0mm1s said:

If the ATL SB doesn't cement that Brady is completely above any other QB I am not sure what to tell you. I just can't believe there are so many people that think the guy who never touches the ball, never steps on the field, and is never responsible for making a clutch play is considered more important to the team's success than the guy that actually has to go out there and perform. Also, it isn't like this year's run was anything special in regards to gameplan/coaching. The SB was a masterpiece but SD and KC weren't anything amazing.

So much wrong with one post...

Do we not give Belichick credit for holding the Falcons offense to 21 points in that game?  An offense that score 80 points in their first two playoff games.  And the defense made two huge plays that made the comeback possible: the strip sack of Ryan when it was 28-12, and then the sack that helped push the Falcons out of FG range when it was 28-20 late. 

SD and KC weren't anything amazing? Oh, so holding the number 1 offense scoreless in the first half on their home field was no big deal, right?  Sure, the dam broke in the second half, but that first half was a gem.  And while the Chargers scored a ton in the second half to make the final score look closer than the game really was, the Patriots defense had Rivers running for his life for most of that game.  I am wondering if you actually watched those games. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...