ESPN: Prove it's not all Brady

[Willie Andrews23]

Re: ESPNrove its not all brady

Why doesn't ESPN prove that they are a sports channel and go back to their fine days of rodeo and Australian Rules Football. Come to think of it, I liked them back then.

 

[DisgruntledTunaFan]

Re: ESPNrove its not all brady

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=chadiha_jeffri&id=3576284

now you will see the sharks coming out for BB again this season. i really dont understand this logic of BB is nothing without brady. Sure he needs brady to win but so does every coach need a qb. This is hypocritical of the highest order. these idiots claimed spygate helped the pats. so it must mean it helped brady right ? no...brady was still a HOF QB but they cant accept that bb is one..

BB also has a (very)tough-minded team. It's not like he's coaching the Cowboys and their mental midgets, nor the Chargers and their explosive, whining personalities.

 

[Boston Jay]

Re: ESPNrove its not all brady

lol.. knock out Roethlisberger, Manning, Rivers, etc and see how far the teams go.

Why does anyone read ESPN anymore?

 

[GrogansArmy]

Re: ESPNrove its not all brady

I dunno why people are getting upset about this. Its been questioned for the past 5 years: how would BB do without Brady or how would Brady do without BB. Its been a mantra for opposing fans "Brady is nothing without BB/BB is nothign witout Brady".

Kind of like that other popular question "how would Brady do in Indy and how would Peyton do in NE"

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Re: ESPNrove its not all brady

BB also has a (very)tough-minded team. It's not like he's coaching the Cowboys and their mental midgets, nor the Chargers and their explosive, whining personalities.

Yeah, Belichick got so lucky to just repeatedly happen on non-whining, team oriented players!

How much luck can one guy get!

LOL... ya know what? If Cassel plays well, it'll just be a case of how Scott Pioli (did I mention he's Parcell's son-in-law? Now there's a great coach!) caught lightning in the bottle twice. (And how it's such a tragedy he'll have to go back to the bench next year.)

Come on guys. A team has enough variables that you can ascribe a QB to his great receivers, a coach and the receivers to the QBs, and both to the offensive line.

All such analyses will be indulged in derogatorily to a greater extent with the Pats, because the Pats are (still) hated.

Get ready to be hated more for struggling back without Brady.

The only way for it not to happen is for the Pats to decline to mediocrity, and become a non-story, a "once-proud franchise." It's the template they need to see come true.



PFnV

 

[DisgruntledTunaFan]

Re: ESPNrove its not all brady

I dunno why people are getting upset about this. Its been questioned for the past 5 years: how would BB do without Brady or how would Brady do without BB. Its been a mantra for opposing fans "Brady is nothing without BB/BB is nothign witout Brady".

Kind of like that other popular question "how would Brady do in Indy and how would Peyton do in NE"

The same could also be said, "How would BB do without Rodney Harrison?", "How would BB do without Vince Wilfork manning the middle?", "How would BB do without Teddy Bruschki?", etc.

These guys have also been just an integral part to the Pats as Brady.

 

[GuyClinch]

Re: ESPNrove its not all brady

If Cassell does well (doubtful IMHO) then it will be OMG BB got lucky again. <g>. The haters will never give up.

 

[jmt57]

Re: ESPNrove its not all brady

There will be two scenarios:
The Pats succeed, and we will hear how Brady is a system QB
The Pats miss the playoffs, and 'BB is nothing without Brady'.

Either way, the media gets their story they can feed to the sharks (i.e., haters/fans from other teams) and increase their ratings and profits.


Embrace the Hate - trust me, since I stoped visiting espn, my IQ has increased, my blood pressure is lower, and I enjoy life more. I suggest more of you try the same diet.

 

[Krugman]

Just like Dungy is nothing without Manning,and Walsh would have been nothing without Montana.....(there are many others) why dont they say that?

 

[363839]

Re: ESPNrove its not all brady

Yeah, there's no logic. What about Jimmy Johnson without Aikman, Chuck Noll without Bradshaw, Mike Shannahan without Elway. Etc, etc.

....and Tony Dungy(all bow your heads)with out Manning.

Sorry Krugs. I missed your post.

 

[Halifax_Pats_Fan]

Guys, are you serious?

This article is AWESOME?

The media is doing all the work for BB....

We are back to being the underdog.

I LOVE this man, are you kidding me?

 

[onegameatatime]

This line being thrown around about this being a referendum on a career is grossly unfair.

If the Pats win 2 or more playoff games, would it mean that Brady was not that great?

Can BB get that $14m in cap back and start the off-season over knowing that his guy at the most important position in team sports would be unavailable for the whole season?

 

[Cartwright]

IMO, this is a no win situation. If the Pats falter, BB will be 'outed', if they do well, then TB's accomplishments might be discounted. "System QB" will be floated out there some more. I suspect the end result will be somewhere in between. I don't see your team 'faltering', but I will be surprised to see them in a SB this season.

 

[DaBruinz]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=chadiha_jeffri&id=3576284

now you will see the sharks coming out for BB again this season. i really dont understand this logic of BB is nothing without brady. Sure he needs brady to win but so does every coach need a qb. This is hypocritical of the highest order. these idiots claimed spygate helped the pats. so it must mean it helped brady right ? no...brady was still a HOF QB but they cant accept that bb is one..

You know what is really pathetic about the entire thing?

Since day one, the pundits and Patriots haters have said that Brady is nothing but a "System QB" and that the Patriots didn't need him to win. Now, all were hearing is how it was BRADY and not BB?

Anyone else see the hypocracy in that?

 

[BradyManny]

You know what is really pathetic about the entire thing?

Since day one, the pundits and Patriots haters have said that Brady is nothing but a "System QB" and that the Patriots didn't need him to win. Now, all were hearing is how it was BRADY and not BB?

Anyone else see the hypocracy in that?

Yes, and the whole topic matter is absurd.

If Bill Belichick can't win without Tom Brady, it doesn't do anything to discredit him. If Bill Belichick can win without Tom Brady, it doesn't say anything about Tom Brady. These two guys were key figures in building this winning franchise, but there's 53 players on the team, and its stocked with as much talent as its ever had, even with Brady on IR.

 

[Jackson 2]

Re: ESPNrove its not all brady

Yeah, Belichick got so lucky to just repeatedly happen on non-whining, team oriented players!

How much luck can one guy get!

LOL... ya know what? If Cassel plays well, it'll just be a case of how Scott Pioli (did I mention he's Parcell's son-in-law? Now there's a great coach!) caught lightning in the bottle twice. (And how it's such a tragedy he'll have to go back to the bench next year.)

Come on guys. A team has enough variables that you can ascribe a QB to his great receivers, a coach and the receivers to the QBs, and both to the offensive line.

All such analyses will be indulged in derogatorily to a greater extent with the Pats, because the Pats are (still) hated.

Get ready to be hated more for struggling back without Brady.

The only way for it not to happen is for the Pats to decline to mediocrity, and become a non-story, a "once-proud franchise." It's the template they need to see come true.



PFnV[/QUOTE:Correct.

 

[MassPats38]

This is the chicken and the egg argument. Is Brady a great quarterback because of Belichick or is Belichick a great coach because of Brady?

Last year, everyone jumped on the "Patriots Success Tied to Cheating" line, before the team ran roughshod over the NFL while under a microscope. The rest of the fans reveled in the final loss, now you will see the "kick 'em when they're down" line given the team's past success and the need for the fans of other teams to hear the Patriots' success was just an illusion. (ESPN isn't the only media outlet throwing this line around, here is another recent example from Chicago Now we'll see just how much of a genius Belichick is).

Belichick has never been personable and the media hates him for it. He made the same type of decisions he now makes in New England in Cleveland (kicking the beloved Bernie Kozar to the curb for the good of the franchise), rebuilt a declining team and got it back to the playoffs, then suffered the devastating effects of Art Model's franchise move and never was able to reap the benefits of his efforts in Cleveland. Or that is one version of the story.

In 2003, his defense shut down the Colts offensive attack and it was because the secondary was mugging the receivers. In 2004, the NFL emphasizes contact and Belichick uses a no name secondary and does the same thing to the Colts, but that could have been the genius of his supporting staff. His coordinators leave and the team continues to compile league leading records, but now the media is pointing to big game wins in recent years. That's not Brady's fault, that's Belichick's fault despite all the players' statements that they were well-prepared.

The argument will never be finally answered because there will always be alternative theories. Brady is a great quarterback, and a quarterback who may never have been a household name but for his impressing Belichick. Belichick may never be mentioned with the likes of Lombardi but for having a quarterback like Brady who could stay cool in the greatest of pressure games (nobody ranks consistent big game loser coaches with Lombardi, despite being the 2nd best in the NFL).

The question of why the Pats are great is great for ticking off Pats fans and giving all the other fans hope that their team will find lightning in a bottle despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary over the past 7 years. As for Pats fans, why does it matter which came first, the chicken or the egg, when your team has both the chicken and the egg? The organization is successful and we as fans reap the benefits, so the only relevant question is has this organization, with the remainder of its offensive personnel, taken such a blow that no amount of planning can offset the damage? I am hoping not, and the other NFL fans and media get to once again fall back on cheating claims or Belichick's unfair mind reading abilities or ability to control the cosmos or some other theory to explain why their teams are second rate to the Patriots.

 

[Leave No Doubt]

You know what is really pathetic about the entire thing?

Since day one, the pundits and Patriots haters have said that Brady is nothing but a "System QB" and that the Patriots didn't need him to win. Now, all were hearing is how it was BRADY and not BB?

Anyone else see the hypocracy in that?

LOL seriously Freakin media-already setting BB/Brady up in a damned if you do,damned if you don't situation. If BB wins without Brady it'll be thanks to the system. If he loses without Tom, then he's only good because of Brady.

I sense another Belichick-Under-The-Microscope season:banned:

 

[sieglo]

Guys, are you serious?

This article is AWESOME?

The media is doing all the work for BB....

We are back to being the underdog.

I LOVE this man, are you kidding me?

+1, this is great.

 

[Rob0729]

Do people forget that Brady's first few years he was more of a game manager than a stud QB especially in 2001. If we had the Tom Brady of 2007 on the 2001 team, the Pats would not have been huge underdogs and potentially favorites in the Super Bowl. People felt Brady was good, not great that season and more of a guy who could not get the offense in trouble than a guy who could carry the team (at least until the final drive in the Super Bowl).

Then again, this is a Jeffri Chadiha column. He is slightly more objective about the Patriots than Gregg Easterbrook.