Belichick Told Kraft that Brady was Washed in 2019!

[mykidsdad]

They were all taking turns on the table.

 

[transient]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Guerrero_(alternative_medicine)

 

Granted, it’s Wikipedia, but watch footage from Brady’s last few seasons in NE, and then watch some from TB and the way he’s throwing the ball. Now ask yourself, with someone’s history of following the rules such as Brady, what’s more likely, that it was the avocado ice cream… or that it was the same handful of pills that got Edelman busted. 

[K-9]

7 hours ago, Ridgewaycynic2013 said:

Kraft is a doddery old man.  Probably misconstrued Belichick saying Kraft and Brady should wash after visiting 'Orchids of Asia'. 🤔

[hondo in seattle]

21 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

Well, yes, Belichick probably was wrong about Garoppolo.   I think that's an open question, thought, because Garoppolo's failures in the league were based on his team's expecting him to be more than he was.  Part of Belichick's gift was to win by building around guys who were good and consistent, and by not asking them to do things they couldn't do.  There's no way to know whether Garoppolo would have succeeded under Belichick's tutelage. 

 

But my point wasn't that Belichick was right or wrong about Garoppolo.  My point was that Belichick's system was to move on from talent a few years too early rather than a year or two too late.  He did it with Gilmore and with the stud corner before him.   Someone else, said that he also did it for cap reasons, which is true.   But the point's the same - Belichick was willing to move on from talent before they were done.  Look at Wilfork.  They were paying him $7 million a year, declined their option for another year, and he signed with Houston for $4.5 million per year.   So, they presumably could have kept him for $4.5 million and didn't bite.    

 

Belichick was aware, of course, of how Bill Walsh moved on from Montana before Montana was completely done.  A lot of 49er fans were upset at the time.  But Walsh ended up winning Lombardi's with two different QBs: Montana and Young.  In Walsh's case, moving on from an aging HOFer worked out well.  

[NoHuddleKelly12]

48 minutes ago, hondo in seattle said:

 

Belichick was aware, of course, of how Bill Walsh moved on from Montana before Montana was completely done.  A lot of 49er fans were upset at the time.  But Walsh ended up winning Lombardi's with two different QBs: Montana and Young.  In Walsh's case, moving on from an aging HOFer worked out well.  

You're def not wrong about the moving on part with the 9ers, but going off the cuff, I believe that Young won his only SB under Seifert in '94? Walsh's last SB was also with Joe Cool in '89, but then helped push him out the door in 92/93? 

[hondo in seattle]

13 minutes ago, NoHuddleKelly12 said:

You're def not wrong about the moving on part with the 9ers, but going off the cuff, I believe that Young won his only SB under Seifert in '94? Walsh's last SB was also with Joe Cool in '89, but then helped push him out the door in 92/93? 

 

You're right, of course.  

 

As I recall, Walsh wasn't the coach anymore during most of Young's run but was still the power behind the scenes - unofficially at first and then officially.

 

Seifert, his DC, took over as HC in 1989 and simply kept the same systems in place - the same West Coast offense, the same defense, the same philosophy to training camp, etc.    Seifert's lack of success outside of SF suggests, to me anyway, that Seifert's two Lombardis with the 49ers owed more to Walsh - the passing game developed, the organization he built, the players he acquired, and the mentorship & guidance he provided - than Seifert. 

 

It was Walsh who traded for Young to be Montana's successor even though Montana was still in his prime.   

I wonder if Belichick had this in mind when he drafted Garoppolo.   You can't be loyal and sentimental in this business if you want to maintain success.  And normally a QB's play does start to decline once he's somewhere in his 30s.  Walsh moved on from Montana and the 49er dynasty continued with Young.  Maybe this was Belichick's mental model when he was thinking of moving on from Brady.    But the pieces didn't fall into place and ended up with Mac Jones.  

[somnus00]

Brady doesn't make it to, much less win, all of those Superbowls without Belichick's excellent defense. Belichick doesn't make it without Brady.

[Generic_Bills_Fan]

On 1/18/2024 at 12:12 PM, Beast said:

Belichick wasn’t right.

 

The Patriots never would have accomplished what they did during Garopplo’s time there if he was the starter. No way, no how.

Exclusively playing devils advocate here as I agree with you haha. But they would’ve had a ton of picks/cap to play with if they traded Brady at the right time and had a qb on a rookie contract which is what I’m sure bill was pushing for.  Very doubtful they would’ve won it all but they did win 11 with cassell and 10 with mac jones so I could at least see why the friction happened.  Bill probably thought he was gonna show the world how right he was this season and they absolutely flopped 😂

Edited January 19 by Generic_Bills_Fan

[Big Turk]

Guess Brady showed what he could do when he was not having to carry replacement level offensive skill position talent in TB.

[Brand J]

22 minutes ago, somnus00 said:

Brady doesn't make it to, much less win, all of those Superbowls without Belichick's excellent defense. Belichick doesn't make it without Brady.

Agreed on both accounts, but I’d tip percentages for success higher in Brady’s favor. Maybe 70% Brady, 30% Belichick’s defense. Can’t dismiss the amount of clutch throws Brady made that gave that defense a chance to close out opposing teams. Simply put, without Brady there is no New England dynasty. 

[stuvian]

There is an exception to every rule including better to get rid of players too early rather than too late. Brady is one exception, Rod Woodson was another.