TommyBrady12

it depends on the coach - see 2001 patriots.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"He’s the greatest quarterback to ever play the game. He goes from being a rookie that nobody is expecting anything from, to taking over with people saying he can’t do it, to winning three Super Bowls....It should already be obvious he’s the greatest quarterback to ever have played. "

- Steelers S Troy Polamalu on Tom Brady

AndyJohnson

2001 Patriots are at the heart of this.
I think they were as close to the team with no liabilities and no overwhelming strengths as I have ever seen.
As it occured, I felt that each part of the team could be used to exploit a weakness on the other team, to have an advantage against a medicore opponent in that area, but not be weak enough to get dominate by the best of the best.
If you remember back, one of the cliams to fame was that we could play whatever style the opponent led us to want to.

signbabybrady

i dont think you followed my logic

brady and moss are on the team of 5 great and six bad so why do they play average.

my point is that if you give me 5 great and six crappy i dont care who the other 3 greats are brady and moss duo would torch a team of all averages

__________________

AndyJohnson

I'm saying that Brady and Moss would produce about what they do on average against a group of aerage players. The fact that you have 5 or 6 liabilities oin the field probably means they play worse. Where do you hide them? Give me 1 or 2 awful OL and I will make sure Brady never gets the ball to Moss. Put them at receiver and I take away Moss, then what do you do? and so on

Gwedd

I respectfully disagree. The team with all average players will, in almost every case, trump a team that is unbalanced.

The problem with the Brady/Moss example is that it makes you a one-dimensional team. No matter how good the receiver is, or how magnificent the QB, the average guys know that that is where the ball is going. You become predictable, and the average team can find a way to counter that.

With a team of average players, they can each find a way to support the others on the field. they become interchangeable and can spell eachother.

The team with some great and others below average will end up draining it's talent through over-work because they will be getting NO support from the below-average guys. The Great players have to make a play EVERY time in order to carry the lesser players.

Respects,

AzPatsFan

That is easy. Three Superbowl victories and 4 appearances in 9 years...

BB plans his teams and CAP expenditures to have no liabilities and still no liabilities even after losing starters, to injuries...

AndyJohnson

Thats the way I see, and to take it a step further, from about the end of 2004, the cap constraints took over the team building philosophy.
Essentially to keep the team together after the 3 Vinces in 4 years would have required exceeding the cap by millions and millions. Naturally, that also means that to replace the players we could not afford to keep with equal players would also exceed the cap by millions and millions. We were drafting at the end of each round.
It was virtually impossible, without just a bunch of dumb luck, to prevent the liabilities from happening. IMO, BB saw this coming, saw that under those cap constraints he needed to approach it differently and set out to build a team around its greatest strengths. We became a passing team, with huge resources spent on receivers. We tried to keep the front 7 together and overcome the weaknesses that were created in the secondary.
Aside from the 2007 season when we essentially became so good at one thing that no one could stop and we almost went undefeated, the gradual trend of deteriorating by having more and deeper liabilities is clear. Its also clear to me that the trend has been reversed and we are heading in the other direction because we have turned the table on being able to afford our talent. Ironically, much like 2002, 2010 was a down year that was necessary for this transition.
Frankly the biggest difference between the 2010 Pats and better versions was the remarkable disappearance of clutch play. That is a sympton of turnover.
I think that 2007 disguises the trend but the Pats declined slowly and steadily from 03-04 to 10, and I see 10 as the start of the move in the opposite direction, altough, as is often the case, the results belie the changes that will lead to the turnaround.

signbabybrady

so what kind of performance do the average guys give you?

__________________

signbabybrady

In normall circamstances I agree but in the guidelines set forth by Andy

I am fielding a team under his assumption if I have the best at one spot I have the worst at another.

so 5 best 5 worst and one wild card VS a team of all average.

Now 5 best are Moss, Brady, 2 of the best OL and either the best RB or best TE (for this I will take the TE).....how do you stop this with an average pass rush, an average secondary, and average LB play? scheme all you want you need talent to stop talent.....


good thing is that in the NFL you can play the best of both and try and get the best talent while simaltaneuosly trying to eliminate your biggest weakness and in esence trying to create little or no weakness. Our team is evidence of this

__________________

signbabybrady

Huh what wait so except for arguably one of the greatest teams ever the team was trending down.

__________________