My biggest issue with the demise of the Patriots dynasty when it comes to the media

[streetkings01]

6 hours ago, CLTbills said:

I think two things can be true at once. Cam Newton is certainly a downgrade from Tom Brady, there's no question about it. But the opt-outs have also been a big part of it as well. The Bills were very lucky with only having one starter (Lotulelei) opt out. Patriots had the most (8) players opt out of any team, many of whom were starters. You definitely can't say that that hasn't had an effect.

It's not one or the other. Both have had an impact.

Many of whom were starters? Only 3 were starters.....Hightower, Chung and Cannon. How much of a difference would they have made? Defense wasn’t the issue, not having #12 back there to save the day was.

[Freddie's Dead]

The media already ignores and downplays all the Cheating they did to win, so why would the demise be any different?  The Cheats will continue to get a pass, simply because Boston is a huge market.  ***** them and the horses they rode in on.

[Success]

BB can still out-coach anyone.  Problem is, he can't out-GM anyone.

 

He'll outsmart himself in the next few drafts, like he always does. Trading down, going for D3 "gems" that he thinks only he knows about.  He may get lucky here or there, but he very likely will NOT find the QB he needs.  

 

With Miami on the rise, and the Bills already there, it could be a long stretch of wilderness for NE now.  They are looking at a major rebuild, and BB might retire before it even comes to fruition.

 

The only move that I could see making them competitive next year would be getting Stafford somehow.

 

[freddyjj]

12 hours ago, streetkings01 said:

After watching the Pats this season it's clear that Brady the bigger part of their success.  Not once have I seen someone in the media admit that the loss of Brady was huge for the Pats instead they seem to have felt the Pats were going to continue the Patriot way regardless if #12 was there.

I agree wholeheartedly.  Tommy Boy was a big part of their being competitive.  Pioli does have a point that the losses on D due to opt outs have hurt their performance this year.

 

 

[ganesh]

14 hours ago, streetkings01 said:

They downplay the loss of Tom Brady.  They talk about the Patriots as if Brady was never there.  Watching GMF now and they have Scott Pioli there......he thinks the players opting out is what held them back this season and feels that a good draft and getting those players back will help the Patriots make another Super Bowl run.  After watching the Pats this season it's clear that Brady the bigger part of their success.  Not once have I seen someone in the media admit that the loss of Brady was huge for the Pats instead they seem to have felt the Pats were going to continue the Patriot way regardless if #12 was there.  I'm thinking it'll take next year when they go 9-7 at best before it really starts to sink in.

This is not too far fetched.  We did the same post 1996.   We re-loaded at QB with Flutie and almost made it to the SB if not for an illegal call.

[Jerry Jabber]

I was listening to Howard & Sal this morning on WGR550 and they were saying that other media members believe the Patriots are going to be down for a while as they have no QB’s, WR’s and TE’s. Love the sound of that! 

[Thurman#1]

14 hours ago, streetkings01 said:

They downplay the loss of Tom Brady.  They talk about the Patriots as if Brady was never there.  Watching GMF now and they have Scott Pioli there......he thinks the players opting out is what held them back this season and feels that a good draft and getting those players back will help the Patriots make another Super Bowl run.  After watching the Pats this season it's clear that Brady the bigger part of their success.  Not once have I seen someone in the media admit that the loss of Brady was huge for the Pats instead they seem to have felt the Pats were going to continue the Patriot way regardless if #12 was there.  I'm thinking it'll take next year when they go 9-7 at best before it really starts to sink in.

 

 

I wonder who you've been watching. I've seen people refer to Brady in that story maybe a thousand times. Are they talking about it less as the season goes along and there's more to talk about post-Brady? Sure, but that's what should be expected.

 

Agreed that losing Brady was huge. 

 

Not convinced it's been proven yet that he was the bigger part, though that's the way I've always leaned. 

 

And I'm guessing that next year they get Matt Stafford or Sam Darnold or someone like that and win significantly more than nine games. But I agree with you this far, I don't think they're going to be anywhere near what they have been in terms of being one of the Super Bowl contenders every season without Brady.

[Thurman#1]

6 hours ago, streetkings01 said:

Many of whom were starters? Only 3 were starters.....Hightower, Chung and Cannon. How much of a difference would they have made? Defense wasn’t the issue, not having #12 back there to save the day was.

 

 

Defense really was part of the issue. 

 

They went from far and away the best in the league last year to eleventh this year. Still good but nowhere near good enough to make up for offensive problems.

 

They also had 36 takeaways last year, compared to 20 over 14 games this year. That's huge.

[Thurman#1]

13 hours ago, Doc said:

 

That Cheaters roster also almost lost to the Jets.  With division rivals, anything can happen.  Just look at last night.

 

 

Stafford's contract makes trading him almost impossible.  And they have no one to replace him with anyway.  Any QBs available to the Cheats will be little better than Cam.

 

 

Up to this year cutting or trading Stafford was prohibitive. If they'd cut him this year, he'd have cost them $47.5M in dead cap. Next year, though, it's very doable. $24.85M in dead cap, but they'd avoid paying his $9.5M salary, a $500K workout bonus and a $10M roster bonus.

 

Very doable if they want to go that way.

[What a Tuel]

19 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Defense really was part of the issue. 

 

They went from far and away the best in the league last year to eleventh this year. Still good but nowhere near good enough to make up for offensive problems.

 

They also had 36 takeaways last year, compared to 20 over 14 games this year. That's huge.

 

36 wasn't really sustainable.

 

Turnovers:

2016 (SB) - 23

2017 (SB) - 18

2018 (SB) - 28

2019 (No SB) - 36

2020 (No Playoffs) - 20 (14 games)

 

To say 20 turnovers is why they couldn't make the playoff let alone the super bowl in 2020 is a bit misleading.

 

Now look at offensive turnovers (giveaways)

2016 (SB) - 11

2017 (SB) - 12

2018 (SB) - 18

2019 (No SB) - 15

2020 (No playoffs) - 19 (14 games)

 

Differential

2016 (SB) - +12

2017 (SB) - +6

2018 (SB) - +10

2019 (No SB) - +21

2020 (No playoffs) - +1 (14 games)

Edited December 23, 2020 by What a Tuel

[Thurman#1]

21 minutes ago, What a Tuel said:

 

36 wasn't really sustainable.

 

Turnovers:

2016 (SB) - 23

2017 (SB) - 18

2018 (SB) - 28

2019 (No SB) - 36

2020 (No Playoffs) - 20 (14 games)

 

To say 20 turnovers is why they couldn't make the playoff let alone the super bowl in 2020 is a bit misleading.

 

 

Good point. To say that 20 turnovers is why they couldn't make the playoff let alone the super bowl in 2020 is a bit misleading indeed.

 

Could you real quick point out where I said that? I thought I said it was "part of the issue," but if you can find where I said it was "why," I'd love to see it, and I'd be willing to correct it.

 

As for 36 not being sustainable, maybe it was and maybe it wasn't. Long-term, no, but for another year or two? Maybe. But a lot of the reason they had 36 was that they were a terrific defense, strangling offenses slowly and making them take dangerous risks to break through.

 

36 was more than they'd gotten before. They were a much better defense than they'd had before.

Edited December 23, 2020 by Thurman#1

[What a Tuel]

7 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Good point. To say that 20 turnovers is why they couldn't make the playoff let alone the super bowl in 2020 is a bit misleading indeed.

 

Could you real quick point out where I said that? I thought I said it was "part of the issue," but if you can find where I said it was "why," I'd love to see it, and I'd be willing to correct it.

 

As for 36 not being sustainable, maybe it was and maybe it wasn't. Long-term, no, but for another year or two? Maybe. But a lot of the reason they had 36 was that they were a terrific defense, strangling offenses slowly and making them take dangerous risks to break through.

 

You are touting turnovers as the proof behind why they sucked - the defense, but the reality is it was both offense and defense.

 

 However using your own metric you are bringing to the table, the bigger impact as I pointed out above (I added a bit more) is the turnover differential. The Patriots made the superbowl in the years that had less turnovers on defense and less turnovers on offense. As opposed to the year where they had the most turnovers on defense and they didnt. This year there is no doubt, the offense is losing games because they are turning the ball over more. They lost one to precisely us as a result of Cam Newton fumbling.

 

Is turnover differential that the only reason? No, of course not, but don't bring that to the table as the tell tale sign then.

Edited December 23, 2020 by What a Tuel

[Thurman#1]

 

 

5 minutes ago, What a Tuel said:

 

You are touting turnovers as the proof behind why they sucked - the defense, but the reality is it was both offense and defense.

 

 However using the own metric you are bringing to the table, the bigger impact as I pointed out above (I added a bit more) is the turnover differential. The Patriots made the superbowl in the years that had less turnovers on defense and less turnovers on offense. As opposed to the year where they had the most turnovers on defense and they didnt. This year there is no doubt, the offense is losing games because they are turning the ball over more.

 

Is turnover differential that the only reason? No, of course not, but don't bring that to the table as the tell tale sign then.

 

 

Let me try one more time with you.

 

I'm "touting turnovers as the proof behind why they sucked," hunh? Could you quickly please point out where I said that?

 

For the second time, I thought what I really said, word for word, was that "defense really was part of the issue."

 

And it absolutely was.

 

If you want to talk about turnover differential, fine, go tell it to someone who cares. I'm talking, as I said, about the defense and the fact that it "really was part of the issue."

 

 

Edited December 23, 2020 by Thurman#1

[What a Tuel]

3 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

36 was more than they'd gotten before. They were a much better defense than they'd had before.

 

 

Let me try one more time with you.

 

I'm "touting turnovers as the proof behind why they sucked," hunh? Could you quickly please point out where I said that?

 

For the second time, I thought what I really said, word for word, was that "defense really was part of the issue."

 

 

 

You are missing the point. The defense wasn't #1 in the league in 2016, 2017, 2018 when they made the super bowl either. You are touting the lack of their defense as a contributing factor, and I'd agree. Where we disagree is if they had a Tom Brady led offense, would they be able to overcome that? Absolutely. They did it in 2016, 2017, and 2018.

 

[Thurman#1]

Just now, What a Tuel said:

 

You are missing the point. The defense wasn't #1 in the league in 2016, 2017, 2018 when they made the super bowl either. You are touting the lack of their defense as a contributing factor, and I'd agree. Where we disagree is if they had a Tom Brady led offense, would they be able to overcome that? Absolutely. They did it in 2016, 2017, and 2018.

 

 

 

Jesus, dude.

 

One more time.

 

According to you, we disagree that "if they had a Tom Brady led offense [they'd be able] to overcome that."

 

For what is now the third time, could you please point out to me where I said that?

 

I choose my words very carefully. If I didn't say something, don't assume I meant it. If I'd meant something, I would have said it.

 

Now, I've tried with you three times. If you yet again continue on and pretend I'm making arguments I've never made, I will clearly see you're not worth having a discussion with.

[What a Tuel]

24 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Jesus, dude.

 

One more time.

 

According to you, we disagree that "if they had a Tom Brady led offense [they'd be able] to overcome that."

 

For what is now the third time, could you please point out to me where I said that?

 

I choose my words very carefully. If I didn't say something, don't assume I meant it. If I'd meant something, I would have said it.

 

Now, I've tried with you three times. If you yet again continue on and pretend I'm making arguments I've never made, I will clearly see you're not worth having a discussion with.

 

"Defense really was part of the issue. 

 

They went from far and away the best in the league last year to eleventh this year. Still good but nowhere near good enough to make up for offensive problems."

 

But ok dude, keep being cocky. Either you made the point or you didn't but ffs commit.

Edited December 23, 2020 by What a Tuel

[Thurman#1]

28 minutes ago, What a Tuel said:

 

"Defense really was part of the issue. 

 

They went from far and away the best in the league last year to eleventh this year. Still good but nowhere near good enough to make up for offensive problems."

 

But ok dude, keep being cocky. Either you made the point or you didn't but ffs commit.

 

 

Fine, you're not worth having a conversation with. You still haven't disagreed with a single word I said, and yet you're still salty about ... I don't know, something.

 

Thanks for letting me know who you are.

[What a Tuel]

Just now, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Fine, you're not worth having a conversation with. You still haven't disagreed with a single word I said, and yet you're still salty about ... I don't know, something.

 

Thanks for letting me know who you are.

 

I'm not the one being salty asking to re-read my own points, "letting me know who you are", get over yourself bud. Go Bills.

[Thurman#1]

2 hours ago, What a Tuel said:

 

I'm not the one being salty asking to re-read my own points, "letting me know who you are", get over yourself bud. Go Bills.

 

 

Yeah, you're not being salty:

 

3 hours ago, What a Tuel said:

 

But ok dude, keep being cocky.

 

So, what is this? This is you being not salty?

 

Know what, never mind, don't bother explaining.

 

I wasn't talking to you. You come in and reply to me and you tell me I'm wrong in saying something or other. But I'd never said that. If you're going to reply to a guy, reply to what he said. If you don't, expect people to wonder what the hell you're up to.

 

Edited December 23, 2020 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

17 hours ago, Ramza86 said:

 

Stafford. Never had a good coach, never had a good defense. 

 

He might not be the best, but he will be miles better than Cam.

 

I think any decent aging QB will put the Pats in a decent spot.

 

 

Yeah, I'm with you on this. If they bring in Stafford, for example, they're not going to be a seven-win team. IMO they'll be good again, though not as good as they were for so long and with such consistency with Brady there.

 

I thought Newton was a great choice when they brought him in. But I don't think he was even replacement-level.

[GunnerBill]

3 hours ago, What a Tuel said:

 

You are missing the point. The defense wasn't #1 in the league in 2016, 2017, 2018 when they made the super bowl either. You are touting the lack of their defense as a contributing factor, and I'd agree. Where we disagree is if they had a Tom Brady led offense, would they be able to overcome that? Absolutely. They did it in 2016, 2017, and 2018.

 

 

But in 2019 take away the defensive brilliance and they miss the playoffs. They are worse with Cam than they would be with Tom. But the only reason they made the dance with Tom last year was by playing exceptional defense and special teams. I am totally unconvinced they win double digits in 2020 if you keep everything else as is and just swap Tom back in. They win 8 or 9 and still miss the playoffs IMO.

[Thurman#1]

18 hours ago, SCBills said:

 

How is this even close to comparable?

 

First off, NE can't draft WR's and when they tried to trade for one, Belichick sent a 2nd out the door for Sanu.  No more discounts for upper echelon WR's coming to NE without Brady.

 

Second, yes, they lost some players on defense, but we also lost Star and DB depth, while playing half the season with no linebackers.

 

Someone said it perfectly last night before MNF.... The Pats are just another team now.  They are searching for a QB, like everyone else.  They have some good players and weak areas, like everyone else...

 

 

I'd argue that spending one 1st round pick on WRs (N'Keal Harry) in Belichick's 20 drafts has a major part of that bad record in drafting WRs, not to mention their tendency to want to rely on TEs rather than WRs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[FieldGeneral]

They should have never signed Cam. Outside of a few games, he passes for 150 average and immensely hinders their offense. Nobody is afraid of his arm anymore. Yes their talent on offense is also poor, but even the Jets seem to have more gunpowder in their offense. 

[CLTbills]

13 hours ago, streetkings01 said:

Many of whom were starters? Only 3 were starters.....Hightower, Chung and Cannon. How much of a difference would they have made? Defense wasn’t the issue, not having #12 back there to save the day was.

Again. I'm not saying that was the only issue. When a team isn't playing well, it's not usually one thing. But saying that the opt-outs didn't affect them and that the ONLY issue is not having #12, is just not true. Not having #12 IS definitely part of the problem, but not the only one.

 

 

[GunnerBill]

12 minutes ago, CLTbills said:

Again. I'm not saying that was the only issue. When a team isn't playing well, it's not usually one thing. But saying that the opt-outs didn't affect them and that the ONLY issue is not having #12, is just not true. Not having #12 IS definitely part of the problem, but not the only one.

 

 

 

They also lost numerous players off that D in free agency. Shelton, Collins, Van Noy to name but three. They made the playoffs in 2019 with a terrific D and STs and Brady avoiding big mistakes. It was almost back to rookie year Brady. There is much more to the drop back this year than just losing #12.

[mjt328]

I don't really care what the primary reason is for their demise.  I'm just thrilled it's finally happened.

 

And truthfully, this media narrative is probably the best thing for us.  The longer that New England's front office believes their downfall is only due to opt-outs, the less priority they will put on drafting a new franchise QB.  And that will ultimately mean them getting stuck in endless 6-10, 7-9, 8-8 win cycles.  

 

Nobody should understand QB purgatory more than Bills fans.  

 

[atlbillsfan1975]

NE fans are delusional, kind of like we were after Kelly hung it up. We thought we’d find another QB and be right back where we were. Belichick is an average drafter, and his way of doing things is turning guys off. Brady’s presence and “buy in” to Belichick’s process was a big part of the success. Look at Gronk, there is no big indication of how players feel than they would rather retire than play for Belichick. Belichick’s way isn’t fun, and now that he isn’t winning, it will become harder to attract vets looking for rings. 

[Doc]

8 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

Defense really was part of the issue. 

 

They went from far and away the best in the league last year to eleventh this year. Still good but nowhere near good enough to make up for offensive problems.

 

They also had 36 takeaways last year, compared to 20 over 14 games this year. That's huge.

 

Their defense was dominating early in the season.  And like last year, it's fading as the season wears on.  And Belicheat is a defensive genius.  If there's one place they can overcome a couple lost starters, it's defense.

 

8 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

Up to this year cutting or trading Stafford was prohibitive. If they'd cut him this year, he'd have cost them $47.5M in dead cap. Next year, though, it's very doable. $24.85M in dead cap, but they'd avoid paying his $9.5M salary, a $500K workout bonus and a $10M roster bonus.

 

Very doable if they want to go that way.

 

Sure, it's doable if you want to have a $25M cap hit and no QB.  And likely no fans showing up.

[Thurman#1]

On 12/23/2020 at 10:19 PM, Doc said:

 

Their defense was dominating early in the season.  And like last year, it's fading as the season wears on.  And Belicheat is a defensive genius.  If there's one place they can overcome a couple lost starters, it's defense.

 

 

Sure, it's doable if you want to have a $25M cap hit and no QB.  And likely no fans showing up.

 

 

It'd be $24.85M in dead cap, but again, they'd also avoid paying his $9.5M salary, a $500K bonus and a $10M roster bonus, a total of $20M saved. Financially very doable. That's why Spotrac has 2021 listed as a potential out for Stafford.

 

And you watch, if Stafford goes somewhere with a program that has a clue, he's going to unexplainably be better than he ever was when he was working in that dysfunctional Detroit environment. 

 

And if Stafford went to the Pats, he'd be going to a team that is going to have a sensational chance at picking up FAs to fill their many holes. The Pats optouts killed them this year but also put them in a much better situation for next year. They have the 4th most unused cap space this year ($25M), and they will roll it over into next year. In a year that looks like it will have very little money available for teams league-wide, the Pats will have plenty in a buyer's market. They'll be able to shore up receivers, TEs, and fill their holes about as well as anyone in the league.

Edited December 24, 2020 by Thurman#1

[Victory Formation]

Garoppolo will end up in New England next year.. Either the 49ers let him go or Belichick sends them a mid round pick for him. I do think the Patriots will be considerably better.. Obviously the Bills should win the AFCE again but I don’t think the Patriots will just roll over..

[atlbillsfan1975]

On 12/23/2020 at 7:47 AM, atlbillsfan1975 said:

NE fans are delusional, kind of like we were after Kelly hung it up. We thought we’d find another QB and be right back where we were. Belichick is an average drafter, and his way of doing things is turning guys off. Brady’s presence and “buy in” to Belichick’s process was a big part of the success. Look at Gronk, there is no bigger indication of how players feel, than they would rather retire than play for Belichick. Belichick’s way isn’t fun, and now that he isn’t winning, it will become harder to attract vets looking for rings. 

 

[Doc]

6 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

It'd be $24.85M in dead cap, but again, they'd also avoid paying his $9.5M salary, a $500K bonus and a $10M roster bonus, a total of $20M saved. Financially very doable. That's why Spotrac has 2021 listed as a potential out for Stafford.

 

And you watch, if Stafford goes somewhere with a program that has a clue, he's going to unexplainably be better than he ever was when he was working in that dysfunctional Detroit environment. 

 

And if Stafford went to the Pats, he'd be going to a team that is going to have a sensational chance at picking up FAs to fill their many holes. The Pats optouts killed them this year but also put them in a much better situation for next year. They have the 4th most unused cap space this year ($25M), and they will roll it over into next year. In a year that looks like it will have very little money available for teams league-wide, the Pats will have plenty in a buyer's market. They'll be able to shore up receivers, TEs, and fill their holes about as well as anyone in the league.

 

Ah, well, if it's only $24.85M and not $25M...

 

Spotrac does that all the time.  But I can't recall the last time a team cut a player and took a $24.85M cap hit.  Much less a still-productive player like Stafford.  The Lions will have a new HC coming in and he'll likely want to see if he can build around Stafford, given the lack of options.  I also suspect the Lions would want a decent pick for Stafford, and the Cheaters would have to take over his contract. 

 

And no, the opt-outs didn't kill them: their offense did, starting with QB and then the skill positions, especially after Edelman went down.  Again they lost just Hightower, yet the defense was still dominating teams, because that's Belicheat's specialty. 

 

 

 

 

[ColoradoBills]

21 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Ah, well, if it's only $24.85M and not $25M...

 

Spotrac does that all the time.  But I can't recall the last time a team cut a player and took a $24.85M cap hit.  Much less a still-productive player like Stafford.  The Lions will have a new HC coming in and he'll likely want to see if he can build around Stafford, given the lack of options.  I also suspect the Lions would want a decent pick for Stafford, and the Cheaters would have to take over his contract. 

 

And no, the opt-outs didn't kill them: their offense did, starting with QB and then the skill positions, especially after Edelman went down.  Again they lost just Hightower, yet the defense was still dominating teams, because that's Belicheat's specialty. 

 

 

 

 

 

Great post Doc.  Yes their D will be pretty good still next year.  The O is a complete mystery.

I'm going to wait to see what happens with the Pats* UFAs this offseason especially on the O.

Joe Thuney and David Andrews jump out to me.  Will they stay or move on?

 

The "Patriots* Way" may be in trouble if they cannot get a QB, WR, TE and keep their excellent G and C.

 

 

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

On 12/22/2020 at 8:34 AM, streetkings01 said:

They downplay the loss of Tom Brady.  They talk about the Patriots as if Brady was never there.  Watching GMF now and they have Scott Pioli there......he thinks the players opting out is what held them back this season and feels that a good draft and getting those players back will help the Patriots make another Super Bowl run.  After watching the Pats this season it's clear that Brady the bigger part of their success.  Not once have I seen someone in the media admit that the loss of Brady was huge for the Pats instead they seem to have felt the Pats were going to continue the Patriot way regardless if #12 was there.  I'm thinking it'll take next year when they go 9-7 at best before it really starts to sink in.

 

Personally I think BB was he bigger part of their success but the one way losing Brady did hurt more than they realized was in attracting mid level FA's that BB loved to sign.  Players would sign maybe even for less $$ as they knew with Brady, they'd have a shot at winning SB and for that would deal with BB's prison like atmosphere too.  No Brady, go sign elsewhere.  Couple that too with BB's track record in the draft the last ten years was not nearly as good as his first 10 years.

[Call_Of_Ktulu]

On 12/22/2020 at 7:35 AM, DeltaDigital said:

Cam Newton is horrific. That's the only reason they suck. Much like buffalo during the drought. NO QB = Perpetual 7-9. I hope they choke on it. 

I agree, if they would’ve brought in a better QB that fit in that quick hitter system they might still be in the hunt. Newton seemed like the wrong fit right from the start. If someone asked me who is the complete opposite of Tom Brady I would answer Cam Newton in less than a second. 
 

Newton has maybe one potential job after the Patriots release him and that’s being Lamar Jackson’s back up. In that offense he might even be somewhat successful.

[Doc]

1 minute ago, Ed_Formerly_of_Roch said:

Personally I think BB was he bigger part of their success but the one way losing Brady did hurt more than they realized was in attracting mid level FA's that BB loved to sign.  Players would sign maybe even for less $$ as they knew with Brady, they'd have a shot at winning SB and for that would deal with BB's prison like atmosphere too.  No Brady, go sign elsewhere.  Couple that too with BB's track record in the draft the last ten years was not nearly as good as his first 10 years.

 

Without Brady, Belicheat has a losing record.  But without Belicheat, Brady probably doesn't win more than a SB, if even.

[DeltaDigital]

1 hour ago, Call_Of_Ktulu said:

I agree, if they would’ve brought in a better QB that fit in that quick hitter system they might still be in the hunt. Newton seemed like the wrong fit right from the start. If someone asked me who is the complete opposite of Tom Brady I would answer Cam Newton in less than a second. 
 

Newton has maybe one potential job after the Patriots release him and that’s being Lamar Jackson’s back up. In that offense he might even be somewhat successful.

dudes arm is DONE. he should quit and be the victorias secret model he wants to be. 

 

[TwistofFate]

3 years since the arrival of Belichick the Patriots missed the playoffs. Three years Brady wasn't the Qb. 

 

Brady was New England. 

[GunnerBill]

9 hours ago, DeltaDigital said:

dudes arm is DONE. he should quit and be the victorias secret model he wants to be. 

 

 

Now that is a way to excite me on xmas morning.....

[Warcodered]

On 12/23/2020 at 5:47 AM, atlbillsfan1975 said:

NE fans are delusional, kind of like we were after Kelly hung it up. We thought we’d find another QB and be right back where we were. Belichick is an average drafter, and his way of doing things is turning guys off. Brady’s presence and “buy in” to Belichick’s process was a big part of the success. Look at Gronk, there is no big indication of how players feel than they would rather retire than play for Belichick. Belichick’s way isn’t fun, and now that he isn’t winning, it will become harder to attract vets looking for rings. 

Brady's buy in with his status in the league was a big help but more than anything winning is what's helped players put up with Belichick being tough on players. Without the winning I think people start to wonder more about why they're even putting up with this *****.