Turns out it was Bellichick not Brady!

[LSHMEAB]

6 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

oops - Walsh and Montana are clearly second.   

 

I think Belichick is a football genius, and I agree that he could have succeeded with a lot of QBs.   In Brady, however, he found perhaps the perfect guy.  

 

I'm reading a biography of Belichick.   The author suggests that although Belichick certainly didn't wish for Bledsoe to get injured, the injury did for Belichick what he couldn't do himself.  Apparently Belichick had already decided he wanted to start Brady, but Kraft had recently extended Bledsoe with a big contract (as we all know!) and given his record, Belichick didn't have the clout to bench Bledsoe.   Although all of the rest of us were surprised when Brady succeeded from day one, It sounds like Belichick wasn't.

 

This whole damn thing is Mo Lewis's fault! I wonder how long they would have been saddled with Bledsoe if not for that injury. Not like Drew was injury prone either. They get all the breaks.

 

You could make a case that Bledsoe was the reason for Caroll's relative lack of success. He wasn't terrible, but Kraft mistakenly viewed him as an elite QB, and he wasn't. That set unrealistic expectations for the team. Coach killer.

Edited January 31, 2019 by LSHMEAB

[Shaw66]

22 minutes ago, CommonCents said:

Until the rest of the league improves he is always going to be in contention. Starts with the division.

The league will never improve to his level.   He's unique.  

 

And it has nothing to do with his division.   I checked the history a couple of weeks ago.   I think I checked 2002 through 2018.   Over that period, the other three teams in the AFC were just under .500 against all the other teams in the league.   That's what you'd expect of any three teams over that period - they'll be around .500.   More importantly, the Patriots' record against all of the other teams in the league is BETTER than their record against the AFC East.   Over 16 or 17 seasons, the Jets, Dolphins and Bills beat the Patriots MORE than all the other teams.  And remember, over just about all of that period, the Patriots were playing a tough schedule out of the division, playing teams that won their divisions the previous season.   

 

The Pats AFC East record is all about Belichick, not about the other three teams.  

Just now, LSHMEAB said:

This whole damn thing is Mo Lewis's fault! I wonder how long they would have been saddled with Bledsoe if not for that injury. Not like Drew was injury prone either. They get all the breaks.

You're right.   Apparently most people expected Belichick to be fired before the season ended.   He failed in Cleveland, had a really bad season his first in NE, and his second season had begun poorly, too.   Than Bledsoe got hurt and the Patriots won the Super Bowl.  

[Matt_In_NH]

The only way you get 9 straight AFC championship games (and 9 SB's over 18 years) is with coaching AND quarterbacking.  Its the combination, just one would not do it.

[LSHMEAB]

4 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

The league will never improve to his level.   He's unique.  

 

And it has nothing to do with his division.   I checked the history a couple of weeks ago.   I think I checked 2002 through 2018.   Over that period, the other three teams in the AFC were just under .500 against all the other teams in the league.   That's what you'd expect of any three teams over that period - they'll be around .500.   More importantly, the Patriots' record against all of the other teams in the league is BETTER than their record against the AFC East.   Over 16 or 17 seasons, the Jets, Dolphins and Bills beat the Patriots MORE than all the other teams.  And remember, over just about all of that period, the Patriots were playing a tough schedule out of the division, playing teams that won their divisions the previous season.   

 

The Pats AFC East record is all about Belichick, not about the other three teams.  

You're right.   Apparently most people expected Belichick to be fired before the season ended.   He failed in Cleveland, had a really bad season his first in NE, and his second season had begun poorly, too.   Than Bledsoe got hurt and the Patriots won the Super Bowl.  

Imagine them going through another sub 500 season. Belichick goes to Kraft insisting that the reason they weren't winning was because he couldn't play the 6th round pick over the golden boy overall number 1 stud. He may very well have been fired. Just crazy to think about.

[CommonCents]

4 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

The league will never improve to his level.   He's unique.  

 

And it has nothing to do with his division.   I checked the history a couple of weeks ago.   I think I checked 2002 through 2018.   Over that period, the other three teams in the AFC were just under .500 against all the other teams in the league.   That's what you'd expect of any three teams over that period - they'll be around .500.   More importantly, the Patriots' record against all of the other teams in the league is BETTER than their record against the AFC East.   Over 16 or 17 seasons, the Jets, Dolphins and Bills beat the Patriots MORE than all the other teams.  And remember, over just about all of that period, the Patriots were playing a tough schedule out of the division, playing teams that won their divisions the previous season.   

 

The Pats AFC East record is all about Belichick, not about the other three teams.  

You're right.   Apparently most people expected Belichick to be fired before the season ended.   He failed in Cleveland, had a really bad season his first in NE, and his second season had begun poorly, too.   Than Bledsoe got hurt and the Patriots won the Super Bowl.  

The best QB in their division for the past 18 years is Chad Pennington. That’s sad. The divison is a problem. 

 

No one said anything about needing to coach at BB’s level. The Chiefs could have easily

won that game, Bedard broke the game down in depth. He was laughing out loud at how stupid the Chiefs D Coordinator was, playing a safety 30 yards down field time and time again. Outlining basic coverages that never had a chance.

 

How about the week before? The Chargers tried out the old Steelers soft zone. It was one of the worst gameplans I have seen. 

 

When teams make a better effort the Pats decline will be more evident. If teams want to keep acting like they don’t know what’s coming then yes, BB will beat you with the next Matt Cassell.

 

 

[Shaw66]

7 minutes ago, CommonCents said:

The best QB in their division for the past 18 years is Chad Pennington. That’s sad. The divison is a problem. 

 

No one said anything about needing to coach at BB’s level. The Chiefs could have easily

won that game, Bedard broke the game down in depth. He was laughing out loud at how stupid the Chiefs D Coordinator was, playing a safety 30 yards down field time and time again. Outlining basic coverages that never had a chance.

 

How about the week before? The Chargers tried out the old Steelers soft zone. It was one of the worst gameplans I have seen. 

 

When teams make a better effort the Pats decline will be more evident. If teams want to keep acting like they don’t know what’s coming then yes, BB will beat you with the next Matt Cassell.

 

 

Yeah, there's been a serious QB drought in the AFCE.  That's true.  But if the Pats were just NORMAL and had been just DECENT, they would have won 5 AFCE titles instead of twelve or whatever they won, and some other AFCE teams would at least have gone to the playoffs, bad QBs or not.  As good as the Pats are, it's almost impossible for another AFCE team to make it to the playoffs, because you're always playing for the wildcard, and you start the season 0-2.   

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

9 hours ago, papazoid said:

NE without brady assumes only trash backups at the position come next. they likely would have drafted or signed a different top QB....joey garrapolo, etc....

 

Brady is slightly better than manning, brees, etc.... In 2018 brady rated 12th in passer rating and 6th in total QBR.

 

the gap between Belichick and the next best HC is cavernous.

 

they need each other, but belichick's talents are more rare. salary cap management, trading away stars before huge contracts for more team controlled draft picks, discilpline, game plans, the patriot way.

/thread

 

Belichick was winning Super Bowls with hall of fans game plans when Brady was in middle school.

 

if youre the patsies, have to go back and time and only keep one of the two, it’s not even a hard choice.  

4 hours ago, Estelle Getty said:

I guess I watch a different game because the Brady I watched was pretty awful in the Cheifs game.  His poor 2nd half play is what kept the Chiefs in the game.  He looked fine on the last drive because he still has pinpoint accuracy within 15 yards but that won’t be enough for much longer.  

 

That offensive scheme always results in Edelman open on third down. It’s unbelievable 

[ExiledInIllinois]

16 hours ago, PrimeTime101 said:

Belichick without brady is like a glass without liquid.. a sandwich without meat or pbj. The day Brady retired Belichick retires.

It's like the Mob.  The shenanigans, cheating will stop.

[fansince88]

Wait, William Stephen Belichick and  Thomas Edward Patrick Brady, Jr.are on the same team? No wonder they have been to 6 Super Bowls

[Billsfanatic8989]

Brady gets too much credit for the win in KC. Chiefs defense was atrocious. So it's not some miracle that he converted three 3rd and 10's in OT. Brady threw three picks in that game. One of which was offset by a player being dumb (Ford). He missed open receivers plenty of times. There has clearly been a huge decline. He can't throw it deep. He also takes unnecessary sacks.

[Buffalo03]

They went 11-5 in 2008 but only beat two teams with a winning record and those teams were only 9-7 Cardinals and then the 11-5 Dolphins (who actually destroyed the Patriots in New England). The Cardinals game was a late season blizzard in New England. The Dolphins who made the playoffs but weren't a very good team themselves coming off a 1-15 season the year before. They won 8 of 11 games against teams with losing records and another against the Jets who went 9-7 but missed the playoffs as well. 4 of those games against teams with losing records went 5-11 or worse.  The teams they beat were a combined 71-105. 

 

Ironically, out of Their 5 losses, 4 of them came against teams with winning records and 3 of those losses were a 38-13 loss in New England to the Dolphins, a 30-10 loss to the Chargers and a 33-10 loss to the Steelers. Their record against teams they lost to were 52-28

 

I hate how people talk about how Belichick went 11-5 without Brady. They had an extremely easy schedule and lost to really good teams. Three of those teams they got destroyed by. So how good were they really?

[reddogblitz]

2 hours ago, Buffalo03 said:

They went 11-5 in 2008 but only beat two teams with a winning record and those teams were only 9-7 Cardinals and then the 11-5 Dolphins (who actually destroyed the Patriots in New England). The Cardinals game was a late season blizzard in New England. The Dolphins who made the playoffs but weren't a very good team themselves coming off a 1-15 season the year before. They won 8 of 11 games against teams with losing records and another against the Jets who went 9-7 but missed the playoffs as well. 4 of those games against teams with losing records went 5-11 or worse.  The teams they beat were a combined 71-105. 

 

Ironically, out of Their 5 losses, 4 of them came against teams with winning records and 3 of those losses were a 38-13 loss in New England to the Dolphins, a 30-10 loss to the Chargers and a 33-10 loss to the Steelers. Their record against teams they lost to were 52-28

 

I hate how people talk about how Belichick went 11-5 without Brady. They had an extremely easy schedule and lost to really good teams. Three of those teams they got destroyed by. So how good were they really?

 

You are what your record says you are.   You can only play the teams that are on your schedule.

 

Every year is different.

Edited February 1, 2019 by reddogblitz

[iinii]

22 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

Sure, Belichick can coach as long as he wants.

 

And he'll do really well. 

 

But without Brady they wouldn't be close to the juggernaut they've been. Belichick without Brady will produce a fine team. Not a dynasty.

 

And while Brady has lost a little something from his arm strength, saying that he "can no longer throw the ball in the air over 20 yards with any real chance of success," goes beyond serious exaggeration into being just wrong. You do know he had a 28 yard TD throw last week, right, a catch that was caught six yards deep so it actually went 34 air yards beyond the LOS? You know that right, and that it was a pinpoint pass, right? And that that beautiful back shoulder ball to Gronk at the 9 with a minute left in the game was a 20 yard pass?

 

You say Brady is one of the most physically limited players in the NFL? Yeah, maybe. But it's been true his whole career and he's probably the GOAT despite that. It's both Brady and Belichick but if you had to pick one, it's more Brady.

Brady goes to any other team, he doesn’t have near the career or GOAT status. On the other hand Belichick without Brady still has a substantial legacy. I take Belichick over Brady every time, because Belichick can scheme for and beat Brady. 

[Thurman#1]

5 hours ago, iinii said:

Brady goes to any other team, he doesn’t have near the career or GOAT status. On the other hand Belichick without Brady still has a substantial legacy. I take Belichick over Brady every time, because Belichick can scheme for and beat Brady. 

 

 

He doesn't? Not even near it?

 

Yeah, he does.

 

And while Belichick does a hell of a job scheming for other QBs, the way he beats them ultimately is that his Brady-powered offense outscores them. We saw for five years in Cleveland what Belichick looked like without Brady. And yeah, there certainly was more to it than that, but the major problem he had there was a lack of a franchise QB.

 

Each would have been worse without the other. Brady was more of the reason they won SBs. If Belichick sticks around after Tommy Boy retires, I think you see a team that is almost always well above average but that the dynasty is over.

Edited February 1, 2019 by Thurman#1

[mannc]

21 hours ago, papazoid said:

NE without brady assumes only trash backups at the position come next. they likely would have drafted or signed a different top QB....joey garrapolo, etc....

 

Brady is slightly better than manning, brees, etc.... In 2018 brady rated 12th in passer rating and 6th in total QBR.

 

the gap between Belichick and the next best HC is cavernous.

 

they need each other, but belichick's talents are more rare. salary cap management, trading away stars before huge contracts for more team controlled draft picks, discilpline, game plans, the patriot way.

I’m starting to believe Belichick is going to coach for at least a few years after Brady retires, and that the Pats probably won’t miss a beat.  The gap between between Belichick and the Sean McDermotts of the league was never clearer than this year. And I have no doubt that Brady will be replaced with a very good NFL QB, not some scrub.

9 hours ago, Buffalo03 said:

They went 11-5 in 2008 but only beat two teams with a winning record and those teams were only 9-7 Cardinals and then the 11-5 Dolphins (who actually destroyed the Patriots in New England). The Cardinals game was a late season blizzard in New England. The Dolphins who made the playoffs but weren't a very good team themselves coming off a 1-15 season the year before. They won 8 of 11 games against teams with losing records and another against the Jets who went 9-7 but missed the playoffs as well. 4 of those games against teams with losing records went 5-11 or worse.  The teams they beat were a combined 71-105. 

 

Ironically, out of Their 5 losses, 4 of them came against teams with winning records and 3 of those losses were a 38-13 loss in New England to the Dolphins, a 30-10 loss to the Chargers and a 33-10 loss to the Steelers. Their record against teams they lost to were 52-28

 

I hate how people talk about how Belichick went 11-5 without Brady. They had an extremely easy schedule and lost to really good teams. Three of those teams they got destroyed by. So how good were they really?

Weak.   They went 11-5 against NFL teams.  And that was their worst year since 2000!

[vincec]

19 hours ago, LABILLBACKER said:

Yea but he squeezed 11 wins out of an awful Matt Cassel. He should get in the HOF for that alone. 

True. But that was the team that went 16-0 the season before so he had some other talent to work with.

[jahbonas]

Look at the other top QB's  - Drew Brees, Phillip Rivers, Andrew Luck , Russel Wilson - all went multiple years without making the playoffs often due to cap hell  - Belichek makes sure the Pats year after year dont get into cap hell

 

Of course Belichek is better with Brady than without  - but Belicheck has designed this entire team both offensively and defensively

 

Brady - plays QB in a great system  - has zero to do with anything on the defense

 

Belicheck

- designed the defense and the game plans

-designed the offense and the game plans

- head coach

- manages the salary cap

-makes all trades

- makes all drafts

 

[Another Fan]

If it was any consolation in the two annual losses to the Patriots this year the defense contained Brady.  Bill B dating back to Super Bowl 25 is the bane of this franchises existence 

[Buffalo Junction]

17 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

I'd suggest you edit your post and delete "Probably."    No other pair is close.   Shula and Marino might be second, but they never did the things that B and B are doing.  

The closest comparison success-wise is Lombardi and Starr. However, the modern NFL and 60’s NFL aren’t comparable. The one true commonality is a dedication to discipline and perfection; mistake free football from the full roster. We often underrate BB’s ability to get a modern roster to buy in to that brand of football every year. Tactical brilliance aside, that alone makes him rather unique. 

 

Simply put, BB is the greatest modern era coach. Previous eras aren’t comparable because it’s almost a different sport. 

[Cripple Creek]

On 1/31/2019 at 1:39 AM, Estelle Getty said:

The great debate of who has been more responsible for the *pats success was answered this season.  Look the Cheifs game, Bellichick was working with one of the most physically limited players in the NFL in Brady and he game planned for his only 2 strengths he has left accuracy and awareness.  Brady can no longer throw the ball in the air over 20 yards with any real chance of success. 

 

Even that heave into the endzone was just him floating it up and wishing for the best.  Brady has less than 8 games left as a formidable NFL QB.  Bellichick has shown he can coach as long as he wants. 

You never cease to entertain Estelle. You're bug nuts crazy, but entertaining.

[iinii]

4 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

He doesn't? Not even near it?

 

Yeah, he does.

 

And while Belichick does a hell of a job scheming for other QBs, the way he beats them ultimately is that his Brady-powered offense outscores them. We saw for five years in Cleveland what Belichick looked like without Brady. And yeah, there certainly was more to it than that, but the major problem he had there was a lack of a franchise QB.

 

Each would have been worse without the other. Brady was more of the reason they won SBs. If Belichick sticks around after Tommy Boy retires, I think you see a team that is almost always well above average but that the dynasty is over.

Sorry but that is your opinion. Everyone has them. No one knows what would have happened if..... So, we disagree, big deal. Belichick has more rings than Tommy. I still take the Coach. 

[Shaw66]

4 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

He doesn't? Not even near it?

 

Yeah, he does.

 

And while Belichick does a hell of a job scheming for other QBs, the way he beats them ultimately is that his Brady-powered offense outscores them. We saw for five years in Cleveland what Belichick looked like without Brady. And yeah, there certainly was more to it than that, but the major problem he had there was a lack of a franchise QB.

 

Each would have been worse without the other. Brady was more of the reason they won SBs. If Belichick sticks around after Tommy Boy retires, I think you see a team that is almost always well above average but that the dynasty is over.

I was right with you until this post.  Belichick was going to be a Hall of Fame coach with or without Brady.  Brady just made him better, because Brady was a perfect fit for Belichick - really smart, maniacal hard worker, intensely competitive.  Exactly, by the way, what McBeane say they're looking for in their players. 

 

But Brady needed a Hall of Fame coach to make it in the league.  He can't win games with any physical skills.  He cant throw like Brees or Peyton or Favre.  He cant run like Wilson or Elway or some others.  He can beat you only with his brain processing a complex offense that precisely targets weaknesses in the defense.  Brady succeeded because Belichick always figures out how to attack a defense, Belichick always adjusts the offense to attack successfully, and Brady understands both the theory and the execution. 

 

Belichick would have won with Ryan Fitzpatrick - not as much as with Brady because Brady is more accurate - but he would have won.  A young Brady in Buffalo wouldnt have been as good as Fitzpatrick was.  Brady and Sean Payton maybe. Brady and Andy Reid maybe. Brady would have been a journeyman with most other coaches.  

[Shaw66]

1 hour ago, Buffalo Junction said:

The closest comparison success-wise is Lombardi and Starr. However, the modern NFL and 60’s NFL aren’t comparable. The one true commonality is a dedication to discipline and perfection; mistake free football from the full roster. We often underrate BB’s ability to get a modern roster to buy in to that brand of football every year. Tactical brilliance aside, that alone makes him rather unique. 

 

Simply put, BB is the greatest modern era coach. Previous eras aren’t comparable because it’s almost a different sport. 

Wow! Bart Starr!  Gotta say you're right in the comparison insofar as a QB executing his coach's genius.  But the game was so simple then that it isn't easy to compare.  Hard to know whether Lombardi coulooks game plan with Belichick and whether Starr could execute it. Plus, Lombardi stockpiled talent in Green Bay in a way that no one can do now.  

 

As you say, it makes sense to talk only about the modern era.  

 

One other thing about Brady.  If it were legal to hit QBs the way Kelly and his era got hit, we wouldnt be having this discussion. Brady would be working on Wall Street today. 

[Buffalo03]

11 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

 

You are what your record says you are.   You can only play the teams that are on your schedule.

 

Every year is different.

I get that. But you can't say "oh, look what he did without Brady" when 9 out of 11 wins came against non playoff teams 4 of which were 5-11 or worse and then 4 out of 5 losses against teams that did go to the playoffs and 3 of those teams they got destroyed by. With that kind of schedule any good coach could have done the same thing. 

Edited February 1, 2019 by Buffalo03

[reddogblitz]

1 hour ago, Buffalo03 said:

I get that. But you can't say "oh, look what he did without Brady" when 9 out of 11 wins came against non playoff teams 4 of which were 5-11 or worse and then 4 out of 5 losses against teams that did go to the playoffs and 3 of those teams they got destroyed by. With that kind of schedule any good coach could have done the same thing. 

 

OK if that's what you think.  Personally, I think you're over processing.  They WERE 11-5 no matter how you slice it.

[Buffalo03]

30 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

OK if that's what you think.  Personally, I think you're over processing.  They WERE 11-5 no matter how you slice it.

Sure they were. I would love for the same people that praise Belichick for this to give McDermott credit for the same thing if he was to do it. Beat all the teams you should beat and then get destroyed by the good ones and say "But they were 11-5". I bet most of those people would find a way to say that his wins were non impressive because most were against non playoff teams. But this is Belichick were talking about so everything he does is impressive

Edited February 1, 2019 by Buffalo03

[Shaw66]

1 hour ago, Buffalo03 said:

Sure they were. I would love for the same people that praise Belichick for this to give McDermott credit for the same thing if he was to do it. Beat all the teams you should beat and then get destroyed by the good ones and say "But they were 11-5". I bet most of those people would find a way to say that his wins were non impressive because most were against non playoff teams. But this is Belichick were talking about so everything he does is impressive

Actually, I think the first step in becoming good is beating the teams you should beat, so, yes, I'll be happy when the Bills go 11-5 with 5 losses to playoff teams.   Gotta get there before you become the team that beats good teams.  

[Success]

5 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

Wow! Bart Starr!  Gotta say you're right in the comparison insofar as a QB executing his coach's genius.  But the game was so simple then that it isn't easy to compare.  Hard to know whether Lombardi coulooks game plan with Belichick and whether Starr could execute it. Plus, Lombardi stockpiled talent in Green Bay in a way that no one can do now.  

 

As you say, it makes sense to talk only about the modern era.  

 

One other thing about Brady.  If it were legal to hit QBs the way Kelly and his era got hit, we wouldnt be having this discussion. Brady would be working on Wall Street today. 

He would have retired earlier, but Brady is one tough cookie.  We make fun of the Uggs and other metrosexual stuff, but he is as tough as QBs come on the field.

[reddogblitz]

4 hours ago, Buffalo03 said:

Sure they were. I would love for the same people that praise Belichick for this to give McDermott credit for the same thing if he was to do it. Beat all the teams you should beat and then get destroyed by the good ones and say "But they were 11-5". I bet most of those people would find a way to say that his wins were non impressive because most were against non playoff teams. But this is Belichick were talking about so everything he does is impressive

 

Me too.

 

We won 9 games last year and made the playoffs and it was AWESOME and a great job by Coach McDermott. 

 

Yet I read over and over it was all luck.  The Denver win was luck due to the Von Miller penalty.  The Colts game was luck because we should have punted.  the Jets and Fish sucked anyway so those wins mean nothing.  On and on and on ...

Edited February 1, 2019 by reddogblitz

[KD in CA]

It's always been more Belichick.  I think that's why Brady wants to hang on so long....he's trying to prevent Belichick from having a chance to win with someone else.

[formerlyofCtown]

On 1/31/2019 at 6:52 AM, billsfan1959 said:

 If one were to make an argument as to why Tom Brady might be the GOAT, arm strength and throwing “the ball in the air over 20 yards”  would never even be in the discussion.

 

 I cannot wait until they are both gone; however, the truth is they may be one of the best QB/coaching combinations in the history of the NFL.  I do not believe the sustained success of NE would ever have occurred without both.

Although I agree they are the best combo ever.  I believe Belichick could have won even more SBs with Manning.

1 hour ago, Success said:

He would have retired earlier, but Brady is one tough cookie.  We make fun of the Uggs and other metrosexual stuff, but he is as tough as QBs come on the field.

That and you cant get near him without drawing a flag and also if an eligible reciever is within 100 yards of the ball it is not intentional grounding when Brady is involved.

Edited February 1, 2019 by formerlyofCtown

[LSHMEAB]

As a head coach without Brady, Belichick has two winning seasons out of 8 with ONE playoff victory. Brady has never been the QB of a losing team and will be making his 9th SB appearance having already won 5. Just sayin...

Edited February 2, 2019 by LSHMEAB

[Thurman#1]

11 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

I was right with you until this post.  Belichick was going to be a Hall of Fame coach with or without Brady.  Brady just made him better, because Brady was a perfect fit for Belichick - really smart, maniacal hard worker, intensely competitive.  Exactly, by the way, what McBeane say they're looking for in their players. 

 

But Brady needed a Hall of Fame coach to make it in the league.  He can't win games with any physical skills.  He cant throw like Brees or Peyton or Favre.  He cant run like Wilson or Elway or some others.  He can beat you only with his brain processing a complex offense that precisely targets weaknesses in the defense.  Brady succeeded because Belichick always figures out how to attack a defense, Belichick always adjusts the offense to attack successfully, and Brady understands both the theory and the execution. 

 

Belichick would have won with Ryan Fitzpatrick - not as much as with Brady because Brady is more accurate - but he would have won.  A young Brady in Buffalo wouldnt have been as good as Fitzpatrick was.  Brady and Sean Payton maybe. Brady and Andy Reid maybe. Brady would have been a journeyman with most other coaches.  

 

 

"A young Brady in Buffalo wouldn't have been as good as Fitzpatrick was," you say? I agree with you in two ways.

 

First, if by young you mean his first year and a few games into his second ... I agree. It took him a while to improve in N.E. He started his rookie year as the fourth-stringer and ended the year as the second-stringer. He made wild improvements, but he simply wasn't ready. Same would have been true anywhere, doubtless.

 

Second, if by "wouldn't have been as good as Fitzpatrick was," you mean he'd have been almost infinitely better, I'd agree with that too. Fitzy under pressure throws INTs with spectacular consistency. Brady right from his first moments on the field didn't do that as much as Fitzy did. Brady was a game manager his first couple of years. He'd have done that in Buffalo too.

 

"Brady can't throw like Brees or Peyton or Favre"? Um, yeah, he can. And he does. He throws with terrific accuracy. And he has has had a good strong arm though not an elite one through most of his career, though he seems to be losing a shade now. Manning and Brees have never had a rifle. They've had NFL arm strength, much like Brady. They were both sensational at pre-snap reads and have both benefitted from great consistency of scheme. Same with Brady. In fact, Brees and Peyton Manning are great comparisons for Brady. Not Favre, but the other two are.

 

"Brady would have been a journeyman with most other coaches"? I won't say directly what I think about that statement, because it would be insulting. I have great respect for your opinions, but that comment is far far below you and crosses over the border into Wackytown.

 

Belichick would have won without Brady? Yeah, I agree, and said so. I said I think if Belichick hangs around after Brady retires, he'll still win consistently. But the dynasty will be over. I agree he'd win. He's a smart coach. He'll win ten eleven games a year and not be a Super Bowl regular.

Edited February 2, 2019 by Thurman#1

[wppete]

[Thurman#1]

21 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

 

You are what your record says you are.   You can only play the teams that are on your schedule.

 

Every year is different.

 

 

Fair enough.

 

Their record said they didn't make the playoffs under Cassel. Their record said they won five games fewer than they did the year before with a healthy Brady instead of Cassel. 16-0 with Brady the year before, and 10-5 with Cassel.

 

 

 

And as for how their QBs fared, from 2007 Brady to 2008 Cassel, they went from 68.9% completions, 8.3 YPA, 300.4 yards per game, 50 TDs and 8 INTs and a 117.2 passer rating  .................  to 63.4% completions, 7.2 YPA, 230.8 yards per game, 21 TDs and 11 INTs and an 89.4 passer rating.

 

Out of this world to decent. And 16-0 with a Super Bowl loss to 11-5 and no playoffs.

 

 

 

And by the way, take Belchick's record in Cleveland and throw in that year with Cassel and his teams are 47-49. Throw in Brady's rookie year when Belichick was playing Bledsoe and it goes to 52-60. That's what his record says Belichick is when he doesn't have Brady as his starter.

 

 

 

[Shaw66]

10 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

"A young Brady in Buffalo wouldn't have been as good as Fitzpatrick was," you say? I agree with you in two ways.

 

First, if by young you mean his first year and a few games into his second ... I agree. It took him a while to improve in N.E. He started his rookie year as the fourth-stringer and ended the year as the second-stringer. He made wild improvements, but he simply wasn't ready. Same would have been true anywhere, doubtless.

 

Second, if by "wouldn't have been as good as Fitzpatrick was," you mean he'd have been almost infinitely better, I'd agree with that too. Fitzy under pressure throws INTs with spectacular consistency. Brady right from his first moments on the field didn't do that as much as Fitzy did. Brady was a game manager his first couple of years. He'd have done that in Buffalo too.

 

"Brady can't throw like Brees or Peyton or Favre"? Um, yeah, he can. And he does. He throws with terrific accuracy. And he has has had a good strong arm though not an elite one through most of his career, though he seems to be losing a shade now. Manning and Brees have never had a rifle. They've had NFL arm strength, much like Brady. They were both sensational at pre-snap reads and have both benefitted from great consistency of scheme. Same with Brady. In fact, Brees and Peyton Manning are great comparisons for Brady. Not Favre, but the other two are.

 

"Brady would have been a journeyman with most other coaches"? I won't say directly what I think about that statement, because it would be insulting. I have great respect for your opinions, but that comment is far far below you and crosses over the border into Wackytown.

 

Belichick would have won without Brady? Yeah, I agree, and said so. I said I think if Belichick hangs around after Brady retires, he'll still win consistently. But the dynasty will be over. I agree he'd win. He's a smart coach. He'll win ten eleven games a year and not be a Super Bowl regular.

Thurm, thanks for the kind words.  The feeling is mutual.

 

I'll give you three pieces of evidence as to why I think I'm correct about this.   And, of course, we can't ever know, because we won't ever see Brady play for other teams.

 

1.  We've seen through the Pats' run of excellence that ordinary players play better for the Pats.  Bruschi and Vrabel to name a couple, just weren't all that good, but they made big plays consistently for the Pats.  It's true about their DBs year after year.   And players who look like stars never look so good when they leave New England.   Players play better in New England, and that's coaching. It makes sense that his QBs play better, too.  And, in fact, Cassel did.  

 

2.  I heard a guy a year or two ago on the radio.  He was a retired player, had played for several teams, including the Pats.  I missed the introduction, so I never heard who it was.   He said that every week the Pats coaches would give him three or four or five keys to watch for against particular players who would line up across for him, keys that would provide valuable information about what play was coming.  Sometimes just run or pass or inside or outside, but valuable information.   He said the information was always correct, and that no coaches on any other team that for him.  

 

3.  There was a time about 6 or 7 years ago when Brady started the first seven or eight games of the season completely mediocre.   He was, truly, at the Fitzpatrick level.   Then about the beginning of November, he caught fire and all through November he became the GOAT Brady again.   I heard him interviewed about it.   Someone asked him how he turned it around.   He said something like this:  "It's simple.   Bill and I have a routine.   Every Wednesday after practice we spend two hours watching film, talking about the game plan, talking about what I need to do in this or that situation.   As you know, this year we had a lot of young, new guys on defense, and our defense needed a lot of work.  Bill didn't have time to meet with me, because he needed to spend time on the defense.   So by about the end of October, the defense was in better shape, and Bill and I started meeting again."  He was completely clear that in order to play like the Brady we know, he needed his weekly download from Belichick.   

 

As I said, Brady is the only great quarterback who has no great physical skills.   Except his short-range accuracy, which I think is amazing, but even that was learned as a Patriot.  What makes Brady great is his brain.  But I think what's great about Brady is that he's smart enough and disciplined enough to absorb Belichick's brilliance and reflect it on the field.  

 

And, as you've said, I agree that they needed each other.  Belichick would never have won like this without Brady, because Brady is perfect for him.   But as I said, I think if they hadn't found each other, Belichick would still be in the Hall, and Brady wouldn't.    

[iinii]

Last night’s game showed that the OP was right all along. Coach put in a plan to stifle the second coming of the Greatest Show on Turf (after dismantling the best in the AFC) and well you know how it turned out by now. Brady was fairly pedestrian, doesn’t play defense and as Sean McVay said “ I got out coached.” I would still take Belichick over Brady.