Now we know, right?

[BlitzFritz]

while we all lick our wounds and prepare for the long season ahead, can i ask the obvious question?

if you look at the history of BB and the Pats, is it factual to say the following?:

from the moment TB became starting QB to the moment he stopped, the Pats have been a serious NFL contender and force. before TB, BB and the pats were weak. and after TB, BB and the Pats are weak.

im pretty sure this is no exaggeration.

i would also point out that the QB IS the most important position. And he does change the whole game, including defense, by the amount of risk he takes and how he performs keeping the D off the field, not taking sacks, managing the game, hitting wide open receivers, and taking risk per the situation.

(of course, even TB cant win a game if the O-Line cant block anyone, or Reche Caldwell cant catch an easy pass.)

but dont the facts seem to indicate its TB not BB?
there i said it.

 

[xmarkd400x]

Coaches put their players in a position to succeed, players succeed.

If you take an uncoached Brady vs. Me with the best coaching ever, Brady would still outperform me. Vastly. And that's an understatement.

I think BB is a very good coach, and I think he manages the team well from a salary cap standpoint.

To borrow from tuna, think of a chef and ingredients. A chef still needs filet mignon to make filet mignon. A coach needs super bowl talent to win a super bowl.


Even the best coach of all time would have a better win % with Brady than without.

 

[BlitzFritz]

ok but isnt it true -- Pats have been mediocre under BB, except exactly when TB was QB. i mean to the minute, on each side?

 

[DisgruntledTunaFan]

while we all lick our wounds and prepare for the long season ahead, can i ask the obvious question?

if you look at the history of BB and the Pats, is it factual to say the following?:

from the moment TB became starting QB to the moment he stopped, the Pats have been a serious NFL contender and force. before TB, BB and the pats were weak. and after TB, BB and the Pats are weak.

im pretty sure this is no exaggeration.

i would also point out that the QB IS the most important position. And he does change the whole game, including defense, by the amount of risk he takes and how he performs keeping the D off the field, not taking sacks, managing the game, hitting wide open receivers, and taking risk per the situation.

(of course, even TB cant win a game if the O-Line cant block anyone, or Reche Caldwell cant catch an easy pass.)

but dont the facts seem to indicate its TB not BB?
there i said it.

What is Chuck Knoll didn't have Terry Bradshaw?

What if Joe Gibbs didn't have his Hogs OL?

What if Bill Parcells didn't have Lawrence Taylor?

What if Bill Walsh didn't have Joe Montana AND Jerry Rice?

What if Jimmy Johnson didn't have Emmitt Smith?

Really-the same can be said for ALOT of "genious" HCs.

 

[dtbrks]

What is Chuck Knoll didn't have Terry Bradshaw?

What if Joe Gibbs didn't have his Hogs OL?

What if Bill Parcells didn't have Lawrence Taylor?

What if Bill Walsh didn't have Joe Montana AND Jerry Rice?

What if Jimmy Johnson didn't have Emmitt Smith?

Really-the same can be said for ALOT of "genious" HCs.

Agreed. Most have had both. It's very rare a coach wins multiple titles with average joe's at QB's.. and maybe Gibbs would be the BEST example of a guy who pluged in different QB's and still won.

 

[Rob0729]

I am tired of people saying the loss of Brady shows that Belichick is a product of Brady. The Pats struggling this year does not show that at all.

It isn't like Brady retired at the end of the offseason last year and the Pats had either grown his replacement or acquired a starting quality QB in preparation of of life without Brady (and no having a veteran back up to Brady doesn't qualify). It isn't like Belichick and his coaching staff spent the entire offseason to mold the talent and the team identity to accomodate the loss of Brady.

The fact is the Pats lost Brady at the beginning of the season. Although losing any player for the season is always a possibility, it didn't seem likely with a tough guy like Brady. Now this team is a work in progress trying to find its identity without Brady where it was built around Brady. To expect Belichick, Pioli, and their staff to magically change this team where Brady would pound defenses in submission and the defense had to not blow it to a team where the defense carries the team and the offense just doesn't blow it overnight is crazy.

Even when Brady took over the the team the team went through growing pains. In 2005, the team also went through growing pains early in the season because of the loss of Law, Bruschi, and a few other players. The Pats went 4-4 to start the season that year even with Brady.

Sorry, these threads are stupid. Life without Brady when a team is prepared to go forward without him is very different than losing him unexpectedly during the season and trying to adapt to it.

 

[stinkypete]

Look at the first 5 games of the 2008 season, then think back to 2005. Remember the total absense of a running game, Monty Beisel and Chad Brown getting pushed around, Duane Starks getting burned by Ashley Lelie. My question is, is this team actually any worse than that team was?

Because that team won 10 games and a playoff game, and I think this team, without Brady, is still better than that team was.

 

[Rob0729]

ok but isnt it true -- Pats have been mediocre under BB, except exactly when TB was QB. i mean to the minute, on each side?

The Pats went 9-7 in 2002 WITH BRADY. The Pats started the 2005 season 4-4 WITH BRADY. How do you explain that?