Reid vs BB at developing QBs

[crawhammer]

Are you honestly telling me that you watched those games in 2001 and said Brady carried them and they were the same team as 2000?

He didn't? They were 14-3.

Looking at the 2000 Patriots WRs... Terry Glenn, Troy Brown, and Tony Simmons. Compared with 2001 when Glenn was inactive or suspended effectively for the season... David Patten, Troy Brown, and Charles Johnson. The 2000 group is probably better.

TEs were basically the same (bad both seasons).

Antowain Smith at RB... meh. He's not a game-changer.

Defensively... McGinest, Bruschi, Johnson, Hamilton, Law, Otis, Milloy, Tebucky were some of the main guys on there for 2000/2001. They lost Slade (3rd in tackles) and Spires (1st in sacks). Added Phifer, Pleasant, and Seymour, in addition to whatever other changes you want to highlight.

Same team? No, obviously not, they're never the same from season to season. Dramatically different? Yes, but only because of the change at quarterback. Otherwise, not so much.

 

[Ring 6]

The guy who touches the ball every play, is the most important player on the team. And always will be

The defense can still be great with a non functional qb and not accomplish anything. Hence 2021

I think we should just stop there because you just don’t understand the game.
Trent Dilfer was the most important reason the 2000 Ravens won the SB?
Brad Johnson on the 02 Bucs? Peyton Manning on the 15 Broncos?
Ooo they touch the ball every play.

An entire defense combined us without question, indisputably more important than a QB alone. How anyone cannot get that is amazing. Damn fantasy football for lowering the football IQ of America.

 

[Ring 6]

He didn't? They were 14-3.

Looking at the 2000 Patriots WRs... Terry Glenn, Troy Brown, and Tony Simmons. Compared with 2001 when Glenn was inactive or suspended effectively for the season... David Patten, Troy Brown, and Charles Johnson. The 2000 group is probably better.

TEs were basically the same (bad both seasons).

Antowain Smith at RB... meh. He's not a game-changer.

Defensively... McGinest, Bruschi, Johnson, Hamilton, Law, Otis, Milloy, Tebucky were some of the main guys on there for 2000/2001. They lost Slade (3rd in tackles) and Spires (1st in sacks). Added Phifer, Pleasant, and Seymour, in addition to whatever other changes you want to highlight.

Same team? No, obviously not, they're never the same from season to season. Dramatically different? Yes, but only because of the change at quarterback. Otherwise, not so much.

Could be the worst analysis I’ve ever seen.

Tell me how many defenses allowed 17 or less for 9 straight wins through a SB championship.
Tell me how many QBs played better than 2001 Brady and didn’t win a championship.

 

[All3Phases]

I think we should just stop there because you just don’t understand the game.
Trent Dilfer was the most important reason the 2000 Ravens won the SB?
Brad Johnson on the 02 Bucs? Peyton Manning on the 15 Broncos?
Ooo they touch the ball every play.

Nope, common outlier that are always referenced. Like me saying defense doesn’t matter because of the chiefs last year. There’s outliers for everything in the world. But the qb is the most important player on the roster, do you agree?

An entire defense combined us without question, indisputably more important than a QB alone. How anyone cannot get that is amazing. Damn fantasy football for lowering the football IQ of America.

Tell that to the chiefs, tell that to every belichick team that didn’t have Brady on it.

Your argument has now moved to 11 players added up is more important than the qb.

 

[Ian]

Nope, common outlier that are always referenced. Like me saying defense doesn’t matter because of the chiefs last year. There’s outliers for everything in the world. But the qb is the most important player on the roster, do you agree?

Chiefs were top 10 in rush defense, 4th in passes defended, and second in the NFL in sacks. Defense absolutely matters and they don't win if they don't hold Philadelphia in that one.

Tell that to the chiefs, tell that to every belichick team that didn’t have Brady on it.

Your argument has now moved to 11 players added up is more important than the qb.

You're missing the point that more than just the QB goes into a win/loss on Sundays. That's like saying Brady was responsible for every game they lost because he didn't score enough points. It's ridiculous.

 

[Ian]

+ Montana too

Easy to say X wouldn’t win 6 without Y and absolutely if Y wasn’t anything special but what if Y was great too? Put Brady with Reid and they could have done some awesome things. Put BB with Peyton and ditto. At least in theory. I don’t know if those two would have gelled together…

Absolutely agree. I think Reid is underrated, albeit his in-game decision-making at times is questionable. Although having a guy like Brady who might have talked him out of a few of them wouldn't have hurt...I feel like that probably happened at times with Arians.

 

[All3Phases]

Chiefs were top 10 in rush defense, 4th in passes defended, and second in the NFL in sacks. Defense absolutely matters and they don't win if they don't hold Philadelphia in that one.

They were 21st in points per drive allowed, 16th in Ppg allowed, 20th in turnovers forced, 17th in DVOA. If we are going to nitpick stats then we can make anything look like anything. I think everybody would agree points allowed is the most important defensive statistic?

You're missing the point that more than just the QB goes into a win/loss on Sundays. That's like saying Brady was responsible for every game they lost because he didn't score enough points. It's ridiculous.

I’ve never denied your first line, simply he’s the most important and always has been. We have seen belichick rosters without him, good defenses, good personnel, great rosters, etc. none of them accomplished anything

 

[Ian]

They were 21st in points per drive allowed, 16th in Ppg allowed, 20th in turnovers forced. If we are going to nitpick stats then we can make anything look like anything.

I’ve never denied your first line, simply he’s the most important and always has been. We have seen belichick rosters without him, good defenses, good personnel, great rosters, etc. none of them accomplished anything

He's been gone for three years. They went 7-9 with Newton, landed Mac, and turned around and went 10-7 and made the playoffs. Last year was on Bill, we'll find out how this year goes. But this needs to end. We're hundreds of posts in (227) talking about the same tired argument. Enough is enough.

 

[crawhammer]

No - it's highly unlikely. You have to just accept that.

Absolutely does. Again, both coaches had Manning and Roethlisberger respectively. And barely won two.

Manning? Peyton, right? Choke artist. Roethlisberger turned the ball over too much to win more than he did... 36 turnovers in 23 postseason games. Brady didn't turn the ball over and he's the opposite of a choke artist. Indianapolis and Pittsburgh had good enough teams, with solid coaching, that Brady could have won 6 Super Bowls with either. That's my final answer.

Also not accurate. They opened the season 3-1. And the rumors swirled internally long before it was announced officially.

What exactly did I say that wasn't accurate?...

2-10 after September.
The move was announced in November.
They were bad on offense and defense.
They went 4-12 the following season in Baltimore.

Help me out here because those all look like facts to me.

They could have gone 5-11 or 8-8 if Bill was so terrible, but they didn't.

Seriously? They were 16-0 the season before with basically the same team. From that to 5 wins with the only significant change being at quarterback then we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

And, they got shutout with a guy with an injured thumb at QB. The things you point out sometimes to make a point are so weird.

Injured or not, Brissett was under center and throwing passes, 27 of them. The scored 0 points. Less than a month later Brady hung 41 on Buffalo's defense. You think it's a meaningless comparison, then fine. Brady pummeled Buffalo his entire career (33-3). He leaves and we can't beat them anymore (1-6 and 1 doesn't even really count). Kinda weird how that works.

 

[All3Phases]

He's been gone for three years. They went 7-9 with Newton, landed Mac, and turned around and went 10-7 and made the playoffs. Last year was on Bill, we'll find out how this year goes. But this needs to end. We're hundreds of posts in (227) talking about the same tired argument. Enough is enough.

Just pointing out why I think the qb is the most important position, doesn’t have to just be Brady. Andy Reid has found newfound glory once Mahomes started, Rodgers made two dummies look like great coaches. It’s a qb driven league, is what it is

 

[Ian]

Manning? Peyton, right? Choke artist. Roethlisberger turned the ball over too much to win more than he did... 36 turnovers in 23 postseason games. Brady didn't turn the ball over and he's the opposite of a choke artist. Indianapolis and Pittsburgh had good enough teams, with solid coaching, that Brady could have won 6 Super Bowls with either. That's my final answer.

Pretty sure you put either player with Belichick and the outcome would have been different. And no, Brady wouldn't have won six titles elsewhere.

What exactly did I say that wasn't accurate?...

2-10 after September.

If they opened the season 3-1 ... that math doesn't add up.

Injured or not, Brissett was under center and throwing passes, 27 of them. The scored 0 points.

Again, it's such a bizarre way to go. Belichick doesn't call the offense, so I guess that's on McDaniels???

Like I said, the things you latch onto are bizarre. And this needs to end. We're 220+ posts in and these are all arguments that have already played out dozens and dozens of times in other threads with no resolution. And now you're even messing up the numbers.

I'm just telling you, it's not going to continue. It's a new season, and you need to let it go until you see how things play out. It's all on Bill and Mac this year and if the team falters, they'll both likely suffer the consequences.

 

[Ring 6]

Nope, common outlier that are always referenced. Like me saying defense doesn’t matter because of the chiefs last year. There’s outliers for everything in the world. But the qb is the most important player on the roster, do you agree?

Tell that to the chiefs, tell that to every belichick team that didn’t have Brady on it.

Your argument has now moved to 11 players added up is more important than the qb.

You said this
“The guy who touches the ball every play, is the most important player on the team. And always will be”

But now there are outliers? So it won’t “always be”?

Qb is the most important position, but that does not mean it is the only reason for winning or losing. The 2001 Patriots won for many reasons and Tom Brady was not the primary one.
The 2016 Patriots won for many reasons and Tom Brady was the primary one.

I said the defense had more to do with that championship than the QB. I said all of Theo that additions on offense were vital, and they did t just change the QB and he gets all the credit.

You are the one putting all of the credit on Brady and that is ignorant. Brady did his job. They don’t win a SB with Brady but without any number of the other contributors.
Just like they don’t win in 2014 if Hightower and butler don’t make plays or in 2016 if the defense doesn’t stifle Atlanta.

Football is a TEAM game. I am giving credit to the ENTIRE TEAM, you are giving it to one player.

AND CHOOSING TO BE ANNOUNCED AS A TEAM THE AFC CHAMPION NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS

 

[Wozzy]

Yes, the defenses were always much better under Smith...They got worse as Mahomes got there. The offenses were always better under Mahomes though regardless of personnel

Adding perennial all-pro Chris Jones probably changed the complexion of the defense. Why doesn’t he get credit for everything?

Adding new defensive coordinator Steve Spags also changed the defense into a more turnover reliant defense rather than a prevent every yard type defense.

They didn’t win a thing, even with Mahomes, until these guys arrived. It wasn’t any individual person, it was the entire team that improved.

Reid won 2/3 super bowl and is dominating the league right now. So its playing in 1 over 20 years, vs playing in 3 in 5 and winning 2. Coincidence?

It’s his time, he built the best team.

Thats true, not sure how that relates here though

You dismiss team football and attribute every success to a single magical player. Absurd.

Watson has never been a better player than Mahomes.

In 2020 Watson led the entire NFL in Total Offense ahead of Mahomes, he led the NFL in passing, he had the second highest QB Rating behind only league MVP Aaron Rogers. Watson was the best QB in the league.

He won 4 games, Mahomes won 14… you suggesting the difference in ten wins was some unquantifiable QB magic not visible from the stats is horssht.

But that’s the crux of this magic QB theory, it works when the team is good and falls apart when the team sucks… you QB fanboys simply ignore those examples.

 

[Ian]

2-10 after September.

I see where you got that. Doesn't change the fact they heard the whispers internally. Again, as we previously discussed, the documentary told the story of that season accurately.

Seriously? They were 16-0 the season before with basically the same team. From that to 5 wins with the only significant change being at quarterback then we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

You're right - and they went 11-5 ... so you can't crap on him for that season is a little ridiculous since that may be the only time in NFL history a team that was 11-5 missed the postseason because of what a bizarre year that was.

 

[Wozzy]

Who claimed that? Not sure who you're arguing with here.

So coaching matters…

Hence the 5th QB off the board I suppose. What kind of shape was he in last season? Because he was worse.

Wait… coaching no longer matters?

It’s funny how you vacillate between takes… it’s almost dishonest.

Sorry bud, Daniel Jones was very good last season. Learn how to judge a player. DJ wasn't bad his rookie season either, look it up. He and the rest of that team were garbage with Joe Judge (who's now back in our building for some unknowable reason). Yes, Daboll is a good head coach who's had a very favorable impact on his quarterback... congratulations to him for earning his money (unlike someone else we know).

Daniel Jones was “very good,” try “a winner” for the first time in his career because his coach turned the entire teams fortunes around.

Coaching matters, it doesn’t matter… make up your mind.

Okay, as I'm replying to your post.

Whatever, I'm a "hard-on weirdo" for recognizing Brady's unprecedented impact to two franchises. As opposed to oddly trying to diminish his undeniable importance to the Patriots dynasty (being the only player there for all of it), maybe you should just appreciate it more. I know it goes against your 53 equal parts theory but why don't you just look at the 3 seasons before and after Brady (plus 2008) and compare them to the sustained excellence of 2001 to 2019. 7 seasons with 0 division titles vs 18 seasons with 17 division titles. Pretty remarkable.

At least you can admit you’re an obsessed weirdo…

 

[crawhammer]

Could be the worst analysis I’ve ever seen.

Of course . I made some basic comparisons. I'm not going through all 53. Have at it.

Tell me how many defenses allowed 17 or less for 9 straight wins through a SB championship.

The Steelers in 1974 allowed 17 or less for 12 straight games (10-2). In 1975 they did it for 10 straight games (9-1). And in 1978 they it for 9 straight games (8-1).

The 49ers in 1984 allowed 17 or less for 11 straight games, all wins, week 9 through the Super Bowl.

The Bears in 1985 allowed 10 or less in 14 games, all wins, not straight, because Marino hung 38 on them in week 13.

The Ravens in 2000 allowed 10 or less in 15 games, not straight, and they actually lost 2 of those games because their offense was so putrid.

The Redskins in 1982, the strike shortened season, playing 13 games total (4 postseason), allowed 17 or less in their last 8 games (8-0).

This is a fun exercise but I'm not going through every SB champion. However, those are some examples of (or at least similar to) what you're talking about.

Tell me how many QBs played better than 2001 Brady and didn’t win a championship.

You just going to continue throwing random questions at me? I mean, what's the point in this question? How about this... you tell me how many QBs in 2001 (or ever) were unexpectedly thrown in action with a sputtering 0-2 team, went 14-3, won the Super Bowl on a game-winning drive, and were named Super Bowl MVP. In their first season ever as a starter in the NFL. Who?

 

[crawhammer]

Pretty sure you put either player with Belichick and the outcome would have been different.

No way on either. Peyton was a bad postseason quarterback. A lot worse than his overall numbers would indicate because he had two games when he blew up the Broncos defense in extremely lopsided wins. Minus those two games, Peyton had 31 TDs and 24 INTs in 25 postseason games. He was also a putrid Super Bowl performer, 3 TDs and 5 INTs in 4 games. Brady only had 6 INTs in 10 Super Bowls.

Roethlisberger, as I already pointed out, was a turnover machine in the postseason. He also had about 1% of the dedication Brady had to his craft. Basically ate and drank himself into retirement. There are reasons why Brady is the only QB in the history of the NFL to play exceptionally well into his mid-40's. I think he wrote a book about it.

And no, Brady wouldn't have won six titles elsewhere.

You can no and I can say yes all day long. If you want? See here, yes, Brady would have.

If they opened the season 3-1 ... that math doesn't add up.

You've lost me. Right, 3-1 in September. 2-10 after September. That's 5-11. What exactly isn't adding up?

Again, it's such a bizarre way to go. Belichick doesn't call the offense, so I guess that's on McDaniels???

Like I said, the things you latch onto are bizarre. And this needs to end. We're 220+ posts in and these are all arguments that have already played out dozens and dozens of times in other threads with no resolution. And now you're even messing up the numbers.

I'm just telling you, it's not going to continue. It's a new season, and you need to let it go until you see how things play out. It's all on Bill and Mac this year and if the team falters, they'll both likely suffer the consequences.

As you're in the midst of a discussion about it. Like it's my fault what you and others respond to and post. I'm just engaging in topics that I find interesting as we await the 2023 season when obviously all of this will be put back on the shelf until next offseason.

I'm pretty sure I'm not messing up any numbers either. But I'm open to correction if you accurately spot something.

 

[All3Phases]

Adding perennial all-pro Chris Jones probably changed the complexion of the defense. Why doesn’t he get credit for everything?

Cause their defense wasn’t good even though he’s a great player.

Adding new defensive coordinator Steve Spags also changed the defense into a more turnover reliant defense rather than a prevent every yard type defense.

They give up points every year, under Smith they were a much better defense, fact not opinion. Under Spags 15th, 13th, 21st, 21st in points per drive allowed

They didn’t win a thing, even with Mahomes, until these guys arrived. It wasn’t any individual person, it was the entire team that improved.

It’s his time, he built the best team.

“It’s his time” conveniently when a generational qb took over his team

You dismiss team football and attribute every success to a single magical player. Absurd.

They’re a great complimentary team, that revolves around a dynamic offense, which revolves around a generational qb

In 2020 Watson led the entire NFL in Total Offense ahead of Mahomes, he led the NFL in passing, he had the second highest QB Rating behind only league MVP Aaron Rogers. Watson was the best QB in the league.

No he wasn’t

He won 4 games, Mahomes won 14… you suggesting the difference in ten wins was some unquantifiable QB magic not visible from the stats is horssht.

I suggested that Mahomes is the centerpiece to the chiefs dynasty, which he is

But that’s the crux of this magic QB theory, it works when the team is good and falls apart when the team sucks… you QB fanboys simply ignore those examples.

 

[Wozzy]

Cause their defense wasn’t good even though he’s a great player.

They give up points every year, under Smith they were a much better defense, fact not opinion

They also force turnovers at a higher rate. About halfway through last season after the bye their defense improved at forcing turnovers. They led the league from that point forward and went 12-1. Their one loss came when their D failed to force a turnover and their offense did turn it over.

They led the entire postseason in forced turnovers, per game and in total. Mahomes is better than Smith, the defense is better for what they want to do.

“It’s his time” conveniently when a generational qb took over his team

New defensive coordinator, all world DT, the whole team is different. Your entire schtick is dependent on your ability to ignore all the facts that shoot holes in it.

They’re a great complimentary team, that revolves around a dynamic offense, which revolves around a generational qb

No he wasn’t

Statistics (facts) say you’re wrong. The world doesn’t revolve around your vivid imagination and fan histrionics.

I suggested that Mahomes is the centerpiece to the chiefs dynasty, which he is

Reid drafted Mahomes and Chris Jones and hired Steve Spagnoulo when his defenses were failing in the postseason. It takes a team.

You engaging in simplistic hero worship doesn’t change that.

 

[Ring 6]

Of course . I made some basic comparisons. I'm not going through all 53. Have at it.


The Steelers in 1974 allowed 17 or less for 12 straight games (10-2). In 1975 they did it for 10 straight games (9-1). And in 1978 they it for 9 straight games (8-1).

The 49ers in 1984 allowed 17 or less for 11 straight games, all wins, week 9 through the Super Bowl.

The Bears in 1985 allowed 10 or less in 14 games, all wins, not straight, because Marino hung 38 on them in week 13.

The Ravens in 2000 allowed 10 or less in 15 games, not straight, and they actually lost 2 of those games because their offense was so putrid.

The Redskins in 1982, the strike shortened season, playing 13 games total (4 postseason), allowed 17 or less in their last 8 games (8-0).

This is a fun exercise but I'm not going through every SB champion. However, those are some examples of (or at least similar to) what you're talking about.


You just going to continue throwing random questions at me? I mean, what's the point in this question? How about this... you tell me how many QBs in 2001 (or ever) were unexpectedly thrown in action with a sputtering 0-2 team, went 14-3, won the Super Bowl on a game-winning drive, and were named Super Bowl MVP. In their first season ever as a starter in the NFL. Who?

I don’t have to go through all 53, the Patriots overhauled the roster and made significant changes bringing in a ton of players who made huge contributions.

So you basically listed the greatest defenses ever accomplishing what the patriots did and you don’t think the defense deserves credit for that leading to winning the SB because it’s all Brady and some of the names on defense the year before were the same.

Your question is irrelevant. Brady deserves credit for his contribution. The question is how much the contribution was. If you can say Tom Brady playing at his 2001 level was THE reason the Patriots won the SB then you are refuting your daily, repetitive argument that it’s all about the QB. Brady is the GOAT, Brady in 2001 is an example of how it’s not all about the QB and how it was a team effort that carried a young QB who was just asked to do his job and contribute.