Brady and Belichick are mortals, not gods

[RayClay]

I think his position is (minus the implied name calling) that this era of highly competitive play will not last forever. Seifert carried the torch for Walsh and Young carried one for Montana. After that the 49ers were in the basement for an extended period of time.

That's not true. From 1981 to 2003 they only had 3 seasons with less than ten wins, one being 1982.

I think Belichick would be insulted if someone said the organization would fall apart after he left.

 

[eagle eye]

The Patriots never won a Superbowl without Belichick and Brady. They have been in contention almost every year since Brady became starter and fans have been spoiled by this and now expect to win it all every year. They don't realise that the only thing that a great team can win time and time again is their division because thats based on who is the best over 16 games. It just takes one average performance to lose in the playoffs and you can even play great and just come up against a team playing to its maximum in one game.

 

[Rob0729]

Fact of the matter is the best team in football each year rarely wins the Super Bowl anymore. It is all about getting hot at the right time. I mean all but two teams who have won the Super Bowl since the Pats have won the Super Bowl have played Wild Card weekend. That means that at best, they had the third best record in their conference. The team that sat a top the week 17 power rankings haven't won the Super Bowl since the Saints and the Pats before them.

The Pats haven't wasted Brady's golden years. They have given him a number of teams that were in great position to win Super Bowls. People just don't give credit to other teams and can't accept that Brady and Belichick can't just will Super Bowls. In fact, you can actually blame poor performances in the playoffs by both Brady and Belichick as major contributors to why the Pats did not win Super Bowls in those years.

 

[Deus Irae]

And the other 31 teams are not the Washington Generals (look it up) tripping over their own shoelaces, with brain dead front offices and dumb QBs.

We could win Super Bowls without either Belichick or Brady, or both. Plenty of teams have.

discuss.

The Patriots have blown opportunity after opportunity to increase their Lombardi count, so they're clearly mortal. What's to discuss beyond that? Who claims either Brady or Belichick is a God, besides the implication from the "In Bill we trust" line?

 

[RayClay]

The Patriots have blown opportunity after opportunity to increase their Lombardi count, so they're clearly mortal. What's to discuss beyond that? Who claims either Brady or Belichick is a God, besides the implication from the "In Bill we trust" line?

People are screaming we won't ever win more than seven games again. I don't think they've made critical mistakes as much as bad breaks, or simply having a green defense.

Gronk got hurt, for one thing. I would have liked to see them start drafting linebackers a couple years earlier than they did for another.

Nevertheless, they have had a shot every year, including when Brady went down (11 wins).

 

[Deus Irae]

People are screaming we won't ever win more than seven games again. I don't think they've made critical mistakes as much as bad breaks, or simply having a green defense.

Gronk got hurt, for one thing. I would have liked to see them start drafting linebackers a couple years earlier than they did for another.

Nevertheless, they have had a shot every year, including when Brady went down (11 wins).

I haven't seen anyone make the 7 games claim, but I'm sure you realize that they'd be in a very small minority, so why the straw man thread?

Also, they had no shot in 2008. They didn't even make the playoffs with a team that had gone 16-0 the year before.

 

[lurker1965]

And the other 31 teams are not the Washington Generals (look it up) tripping over their own shoelaces, with brain dead front offices and dumb QBs.

We could win Super Bowls without either Belichick or Brady, or both. Plenty of teams have.

discuss.

So, Ray, can wee now discuss who pissed in your coffee?

 

[patsfan13]

1981 Walsh Montana

1984 Walsh Montana

1988 Walsh Montana

1989 Seifert Montana

1994 Seifert Young

So your position is, they are not flesh and blood?

Brady/BB have a higher winning % than Walsh Montana and have won more games including playoff games. What is your point?

BTW they are not done yet.

 

[lurker1965]

... You'll just love the 7-9 and 6-10 years after theyre gone

" 7-9 and 6-10 years" um, really? No getting the #1 overall pick and drafting busts?

Oh, in case you think I'm sarcastic, this team was 1-15 and 2-14. The latter twice. It will take years to get used to it, but 7-9 with hope to contend next year is a step UP for most of my fan/life.

 

[Ilikehappyppl]

I'm a stats\history guy, so I go by stats and history.

Let's compare the best three dynasty's to ever play in this league.

Pat's 2001-Present
Steelers 1972-1979
49'ers 1981-1994

Steelers:

List of Pittsburgh Steelers seasons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

49'ers:

List of San Francisco 49ers seasons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pat's:

List of New England Patriots seasons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Steelers Winning record(including playoffs) from 1972-1979 was 102-31 with 4 SuperBowl wins in four tries.


Pat's Winning record (including playoffs) from 2001-Present is 163-53 with 3 SuperBowl wins and 5 trips to the big game total.


49'ers Winning record (including playoffs) from 1981-1994 178 -63-1 with 45 Superbowl wins in 5 tries. Take into account the last SuperBowl winning team was lead by different coaches and players.


You could argue out the Steelers, since there run didn't stand the test of time like the Pats and the 49'ers have. I like to include them because of the history of the run and how good they were in that short time frame. Never the less we aren't going to see another run like the Steelers had again and that would be my argument.

The 49'er are the best dynasty ever at the moment, they have the wins the stats the rings.

So the best two teams ever are the Pat's of today and the 49'ers of yesterday.

So the question of:

We could win Super Bowls without either Belichick or Brady, or both. Plenty of teams have

Well sure we could we could also win a Superbowl with R.Leaf, doesn't mean its gonna happen...lol

The Pat's in the whole history of the game are in the top 2 of all time, BB and Tommy have nothing to prove that they haven't already. I'm so proud of this team and its coaches, injury,drama whatever they always pull together and they might not always win or have 5 rings but they are always in the game and they play lights out!

In 1996 when I walked into a card shop, (you know those things we used to drive to to buy a pack of card or trade them in) the guy working asked me what team I liked I said the Pat's and he just laughed....I'll never forget that moment. When the Pat's won the SuperBowl in 2001 I remembered that after the game,(I was loaded too) and I just laughed....it brought a smile to my face.

People forget how bad things used to be, they forget the bad years and it seems a ton of fans just think its easy to win or something....ITS NOT! We are watching history!!! I for one am amazed how some fans can be so complacent...and i'm not talking about the OP he just asked a question.

 

[Lifer]

1981 Walsh Montana

1984 Walsh Montana

1988 Walsh Montana

1989 Seifert Montana

1994 Seifert Young

So your position is, they are not flesh and blood?

So who is the Steve Young in this scenario? Ryan Mallett? And this happens so often in NFL history, that a dynasty continues? Even with the transition to Siefert and Young the winning seasons only lasted thru 1998, 18 years. Your expectation is that when a Patrick Sullivan or Bobby Grier takes over the front office and a Josh McDaniel takes over as coach and Ryan Mallet or a Matt Cassel takes over the AFC East titles, and hosting AFC Championship Games and Super Bowl appearences will continue? Sure.

 

[RayClay]

Brady/BB have a higher winning % than Walsh Montana and have won more games including playoff games. What is your point?

BTW they are not done yet.

And i doubt the organization and tradition they built will die immediately either.

 

[RayClay]

I haven't seen anyone make the 7 games claim, but I'm sure you realize that they'd be in a very small minority, so why the straw man thread?

Also, they had no shot in 2008. They didn't even make the playoffs with a team that had gone 16-0 the year before.

Here you go

Dumbass Thread. Yeah, Belichick and Brady arent anything special. Just because they've been Super Bowl contenders for 12 years. Every team does that. You'll just love the 7-9 and 6-10 years after theyre gone

He's posted on the next page. Doesn't think our organization can last like San francisco's.

 

[Lifer]

And i doubt the organization and tradition they built will die immediately either.

Tradition doesnt carry a thing. In 2012, without Tom Brady and Bill Belichick, this great organization would have been lucky to be 7-9. Do you disagree?

 

[Lifer]

Here you go



He's posted on the next page. Doesn't think our organization can last like San francisco's.

The ONLY reason the Niners run extended is they had a hall of fame QB replacement for Montana. If the Patriots get a Steve Young, by all means it can go on. Sure. So easy.

 

[RayClay]

Tradition doesnt carry a thing. In 2012, without Tom Brady and Bill Belichick, this great organization would have been lucky to be 7-9. Do you disagree?

You mean if they were in a bus crash, or Kraft hired a greeat coach and we groomed another quarterback?

Hypotheticals like that are hard to make real.

We do know the team managed 11 wins with a quarterback who hardly played in college and could have been picked up for nothing.

Teams have made the playoffs with less than 11 wins.

 

[RayClay]

The ONLY reason the Niners run extended is they had a hall of fame QB replacement for Montana. If the Patriots get a Steve Young, by all means it can go on. Sure. So easy.

He just signed a long term contract, so who knows? Of course, we're now a pretty young team, so by then we might win without an all pro quarterback. Jeff Hostetler and Trent Dilfer aren't unique, there are more on teams with strong D's and running games.

 

[Lifer]

You mean if they were in a bus crash, or Kraft hired a greeat coach and we groomed another quarterback?

Hypotheticals like that are hard to make real.

We do know the team managed 11 wins with a quarterback who hardly played in college and could have been picked up for nothing.

Teams have made the playoffs with less than 11 wins.

A 16 win team won 5 less games when Brady went down. Cassel replaces Brady in 2012, they go 7-9

 

[Lifer]

He just signed a long term contract, so who knows? Of course, we're now a pretty young team, so by then we might win without an all pro quarterback. Jeff Hostetler and Trent Dilfer aren't unique, there are more on teams with strong D's and running games.

You need a better QB than Hostetler and Dilfer to win a SB now. Look at the last 10 years. Flacco was the worst qb to win one and hes proved to be pretty damned good.

 

[Salva135]

A 16 win team won 5 less games when Brady went down. Cassel replaces Brady in 2012, they go 7-9

This attempt at a linear analysis is absurd. The only thing one could say accurately about this hypothetical is that without Brady, the Pats are likely to be less successful. To say "without Brady and BB, the Pats would be XYZ" is meaningless unless we know who is replacing them. If the Pats replaced Brady with Rodgers, they'd still be pretty good... with Curtis Painter, not so much.

That said, the Cassel year is a unique situation just like any other, and provides us with little predictive utility.