Are Patriots achievements unprecedented in major sports?

[Ken Canin]

And I don't mean just all the record.

I mean having the team led by a star who by wins purely by mental skills, not physical ones.

Even in the 2000 combine, Brady was the slowest QB ever measured. Who knows what it would be now. Yet he just beat a QB who probably runs about 30% faster than he does. And even then, his arm was not notably strong, and so on. He wins essentially by out-thinking his opponents. He knows where they'll be before they do and who to throw to.

The whole Patriots team would rarely win a track-and-field competition against its opponents, but it nearly always wins on the field. They're not bigger or faster for the most part, but - presumably thanks to Belichick - they just play much smarter.

Every other major sport, the team's top star has amazing physical skills. But if you go back in history, has any team had anything like this kind of success just from pure understanding of strategy?

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

This can't be true. The media says that Peyton Manning is the only quarterback who can read defenses and call an audible at the line of scrimmage! Plus, he is in lots of commercials.

 

[Fencer]

Larry Bird is the obvious comparison.

• Like Brady, he was fully competitive in height and strength.
• Like Brady, he was below average in running and jumping. (The relative importance of running and jumping was of course a bit different between the sports.)
• Like Brady, he had excellent quickness results (in Brady's case eluding the rush, in Bird's case steals and rebounds and so on) that didn't seem to be based on physique, and hence were likely based on technique and anticipation instead.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

I think it says more about the way they evaluate QBs than anything about Brady's lack of athleticism. Tom is quite athletic, just not in a way that measures well at a combine. He doesn't run fast without pads, and if he was a WR, obviously that would be a big minus. But speed isn't as essential for his position, and if people use that as the main criteria to evaluate him, they're missing the point.

He was tall and stood tall in the pocket, has large hands, and a solid arm at the time of the draft. He also had great balance, and his footwork in the pocket was incredibly impressive. There are lots of faster QBs than Brady, but few can slide around the pocket as well as him to avoid the rush.

So I don't think he wasn't athletic when he was drafted. People just overlooked some of the important things, and focused on the wrong things.

 

[Froob]

San Antonio Spurs in the Duncan and Pop era are a great comparison for soooo many reasons. Been at or near the top of the West for like 16 years, Duncan is a humble superstar, Pop is a smart ass to the media, a lot of quality well coached players instead of a few super stars. And 5 championships and counting.

 

[1960Pats]

Larry Bird is the obvious comparison.

• Like Brady, he was fully competitive in height and strength.
• Like Brady, he was below average in running and jumping. (The relative importance of running and jumping was of course a bit different between the sports.)
• Like Brady, he had excellent quickness results (in Brady's case eluding the rush, in Bird's case steals and rebounds and so on) that didn't seem to be based on physique, and hence were likely based on technique and anticipation instead.

I'll see your Larry Bird and raise you a Bill Russell.

 

[Fencer]

I'll see your Larry Bird and raise you a Bill Russell.

Russell was one of the top high jumpers in the world.

 

[Fencer]

San Antonio Spurs in the Duncan and Pop era are a great comparison for soooo many reasons. Been at or near the top of the West for like 16 years, Duncan is a humble superstar, Pop is a smart ass to the media, a lot of quality well coached players instead of a few super stars. And 5 championships and counting.

Yep. Pretty much the two model franchises in US team sports.

 

[RayClay]

And I don't mean just all the record.

I mean having the team led by a star who by wins purely by mental skills, not physical ones.

Even in the 2000 combine, Brady was the slowest QB ever measured. Who knows what it would be now. Yet he just beat a QB who probably runs about 30% faster than he does. And even then, his arm was not notably strong, and so on. He wins essentially by out-thinking his opponents. He knows where they'll be before they do and who to throw to.

The whole Patriots team would rarely win a track-and-field competition against its opponents, but it nearly always wins on the field. They're not bigger or faster for the most part, but - presumably thanks to Belichick - they just play much smarter.

Every other major sport, the team's top star has amazing physical skills. But if you go back in history, has any team had anything like this kind of success just from pure understanding of strategy?

Your premise is ridiculous. Of course Brady has physical skills. He's not the one required to run, usually. The ability to process information quickly is physical and often more important than other skills in a sport.

Was Larry Bird the fastest, most agile player? was he stronger, could he jump higher than others at his position? compared to people at his position, he was probably at more of a deficit than Brady in athleticism.

 

[Fixit]

Larry Bird was a pretty athletic guy. He wasn't fast no, but he could jump pretty high, he could muscle for rebounds, his passing was beautiful, and he had great instincts. Flashy athleticism just wasn't his game.

He never looked athletic because his physical appearance always made him look awkward.

Brady is also athletic. Once again, not fast, but he has a strong arm, can absorb big hits, and is very agile within a limited space.

People need to stop equating "speed" with "athleticism."

 

[Bobsyouruncle]

This can't be true. The media says that Peyton Manning is the only quarterback who can read defenses and call an audible at the line of scrimmage! Plus, he is in lots of commercials.

Plus Manning changed the game. He calls plays at the line! Nobody has ever done that!

 

[shmessy]

And I don't mean just all the record.

I mean having the team led by a star who by wins purely by mental skills, not physical ones.

Please.

Contemporaneously: 6'9" Bill Russell 9 NBA Championships vs. Wilt Chamberlain 7'1" 1 NBA Championship.

All you have to do is to look at this picture to understand the height differential.

Bill Russell (left) and Wilt Chamberlain square off in a 1968 gam


Also Bill Russell won 2 NCAA Championships with USF and a Gold medal with the USA Basketball team.

He also won 2 of his total 11 NBA Championships as a player/ COACH (let's see Brady win 2 Lombardis as a Head Coach).

The last one was in 1969, where he led a 4th place team that was old, decrepit and very low on talent to win it all in a 7th game in Los Angeles against what is still considered to be one of he most talent laden teams in NBA history.

Bill Russell was BIBLICAL.


End of story. We all love TFB, but please........

 

[OhExaulted1]

And I don't mean just all the record.

I mean having the team led by a star who by wins purely by mental skills, not physical ones.

Even in the 2000 combine, Brady was the slowest QB ever measured. Who knows what it would be now. Yet he just beat a QB who probably runs about 30% faster than he does. And even then, his arm was not notably strong, and so on. He wins essentially by out-thinking his opponents. He knows where they'll be before they do and who to throw to.

The whole Patriots team would rarely win a track-and-field competition against its opponents, but it nearly always wins on the field. They're not bigger or faster for the most part, but - presumably thanks to Belichick - they just play much smarter.

Every other major sport, the team's top star has amazing physical skills. But if you go back in history, has any team had anything like this kind of success just from pure understanding of strategy?

Actually, no. If you compare SF's run from '81-'98 of 18 years our 14 year run and counting is almost there. SF had double digit wins in 17 of 18 years (NE 13 of 14), 10 NFCCG (NE 9 AFCCG) and 5 SB wins (NE 4 of 6). The analogies are hard to dismiss.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/sfo/

Joe Montana was the last pick in the 3rd Rd of the 1979 draft. Not exactly considered an "amazing" physical specimen at the time and Walsh was definately an innovater.

I'm no 49er fan or apologist by any means but I can step back and be objective. The paralells between the 2 are very similar and compareable IMO. I realize FA has changed the way the league operates, but there was still player movement before 1989.

I know I'm going to get flamed for this post as sacriledge, but if you're looking at the successes of the 2 teams objectively as say, a soccer fan in Germany, the comparisons are really quite undeniable.

 

[kennyb]

Brady has tons of physical skills. The ability to throw a football quickly and accurately is a physical skill. He didn't get that just by "mental toughness". Gazillion mentally tough guys who give their all to play in the league and they don't make it.

Brady can't run that fast, he's slow afoot, but that's just one physical trait.

 

[hambone1818]

San Antonio Spurs in the Duncan and Pop era are a great comparison for soooo many reasons. Been at or near the top of the West for like 16 years, Duncan is a humble superstar, Pop is a smart ass to the media, a lot of quality well coached players instead of a few super stars. And 5 championships and counting.

Yup...this has been and continues to be the perfect comparison. I'll add that the media constantly discounts the Spurs, year after year, because the 'true stars' of the league are on different teams. Lebron and Durant (these days); Lebron and Kobe (five, seven years ago); Kobe, Shaq and Iverson (10-12 years ago).

Duncan and Brady have both been among the best--if not THE best--at their positions in the sport the entire time. But their historic greatness shines through in their willingness to 'win at all costs', team ahead of individual, whole is greater than sum of the parts, etc. Pop and Belichick are easily the best coaches in their respective leagues, but what makes them among the best ever (if not THE best ever) is seeing the entire game through the lens of a 'team'--53 players, 15 players, utilizing a guy like Ginobli not as another good starting piece but as the best 6th man in the history of the game; BB valuing the importance of special teams, teaching up Edelman and Brown on defense for the 'holy ****' situation where they might be needed.

Lebron and Kobe and Shaq and others got theirs, just like Manning and Rodgers and Brees and others have won in the NFL. What separates Brady and Belichick, Duncan and Pop, is their consistent greatness, always looking toward the end-goal of a championship, ignoring the noise about 'this guy is better, this team is better' and just doing what needs to be done to win.

Patriots = Spurs = GREATNESS

 

[Kdo5]

San Antonio Spurs in the Duncan and Pop era are a great comparison for soooo many reasons. Been at or near the top of the West for like 16 years, Duncan is a humble superstar, Pop is a smart ass to the media, a lot of quality well coached players instead of a few super stars. And 5 championships and counting.

Yes they've been my comparison for a while but that 4th title really solidifies it. The Spurs are the Patriots equivalent in modern day sports. Lots of titles, consistent, not the flashiest organizations, led by legendary players over a long period (Tom, Duncan).

 

[chasa]

did you just say brady doesn't have the physical skills?

wtf?

 

[patsfanincleveland]

Please.

Contemporaneously: 6'9" Bill Russell 9 NBA Championships vs. Wilt Chamberlain 7'1" 1 NBA Championship.

All you have to do is to look at this picture to understand the height differential.

Bill Russell (left) and Wilt Chamberlain square off in a 1968 gam


Also Bill Russell won 2 NCAA Championships with USF and a Gold medal with the USA Basketball team.

He also won 2 of his total 11 NBA Championships as a player/ COACH (let's see Brady win 2 Lombardis as a Head Coach).

The last one was in 1969, where he led a 4th place team that was old, decrepit and very low on talent to win it all in a 7th game in Los Angeles against what is still considered to be one of he most talent laden teams in NBA history.

Bill Russell was BIBLICAL.


End of story. We all love TFB, but please........

Bill Russell played basketball. Bill Russell would never have been a player/coach in football.

Any comparison between a highly sophisticated 22 guy on the field game vs a very unsophisticated 10 guy on the court game is specious.

 

[Froob]

The weird thing about the Spurs is they are nationally loved instead of hated despite their success. Only team like that I can thunk of.

 

[Fixit]

Any comparison between a highly sophisticated 22 guy on the field game vs a very unsophisticated 10 guy on the court game is specious.

Wait, what? Is this where we start talking about how all sports other than football are stupid and suck?