Story on Patriots' documentary brings recent dysfunction to light

[BTTA]

Anyone that doesn't see any causality in the following:

The greatest QB of all time takes over the Patriots offense ===> Patriots go from losing team to winning team

is a complete and utter moron.

Thanks. Nice to be in such a generative, mature conversation with you.

 

[ahmed]

This is why Patriots won so much with Brady.

View attachment 57138

I knew he was the best at it but to see it this way - wow!

 

[signbabybrady]

This graph is more of the visual kind

 

[ahmed]

Somebody should add the graph for most TDs runs within 5 yards for the 20 years Brady was here.

 

[XLIX]

Thanks. Nice to be in such a generative, mature conversation with you.

Well, how would you deal with the sheer idiocy of someone who claimed there was no demonstrated causation to believe the Patriots success had anything to do with Tom Brady?

 

[tuckeverlasting]

Devin McCourty says he got ‘duped’ by ‘The Dynasty’ docuseries

Former Patriots safety Devin McCourty and Rodney Harrison give their opinions ‘The Dynasty: New England Patriots’ now that the series has come to a close.

www.audacy.com

 

[Wozzy]

 

[Wozzy]

Nothing is dumber than using stats to discuss what Brady was or wasn't in 2001 compared to what he became. The passing game exploded from when Brady entered the league to when he left.

In 2001 only 2 quarterbacks threw for over 4,000 yards. In 2021 it was 10 quarterbacks.
In 2001 only 10 quarterbacks threw for 20 or more touchdowns. In 2021 it was 19 quarterbacks.
In 2001only 5 quarterbacks had a passer rating of 90 or above. In 2021 it was 19 quarterbacks.

So all the stats citing to claim Brady was just along for the ride in the early 2000's is nonsense. Even the stats don't back it up in his first few years as a starter he was in, or close to, top 5 in all meaningful passing categories. Then when Bill decided to go on the F You tour in 2007 and actually invest in the offense we all saw what Brady could do.

You're right, the game changed. But what never changed was a player's standing in relation to his peers.

It's only fair to judge Tom on a per game basis, because he only started 14 games.

In 2001 Tom averaged 189 passing yards per game, ranked 24th in the NFL.

He threw 18 TD's and 12 INT's, ranked 6th in sacks, fumbled it 12 times but only lost one of them.

Among 32 starting QB's Tom was ranked near dead last in pass attempts, Charlie Weis managed him to limit mistakes... like most coaches do with first time starters.

By week 13 when Drew Bledsoe was cleared to play, there was a big contingent of media and fans who were calling for Bledsoe to get his job back... players aren't supposed to lose their starting position to injury and Drew passed for more yards and had a bigger arm.

Your attempt at revisionist history is stymied by one thing, some of us here are old enough to remember how it actually happened.

 

[NormZauchin]

This graph is more of the visual kind View attachment 57161

Brady doesn't need to use brass knuckles if he gets into a fight.

 

[Triumph]

Amazing how this argument will never go away. The 2001 team wasn't going anywhere without a stable QB and the QB wouldn't have been able to succeed without the coaching, defense allowing them to hang around games and easy schedule. They needed each other. Richard Seymour was the most important player on their defense. They only played against 6 teams .500 and above going 3-3. In those games, they gave up over 30 points twice and at least 20 points in two more of those matchups. The average score in those games were Pats 14.5 to the opponents 20.6.

They were a Cinderella team benefitting from a last place schedule. Even Ernie Adams in the documentary couldn't believe the miracle when it snowed the day of the divisional round against the Raiders. They would've ran the Pats off the field in clear conditions and put an end to their feel good story. The D wasn't that good and Brady wasn't able to contend in shootouts or major deficits. They needed a lot to go their way to win that Super Bowl in 2001.

The 2001 Pats reminded me of the Bird Celtics vs the Johnson Lakers.

The Lakers game was to run and gun and the Celtics were satisfied by deliberately slowing the game down. Later on the Pats passed to get ahead and ran to win.

 

[Triumph]

Its pretty sad that Bologna Bob Kraft has gone out of his way to take his Bentley down the low road to paint Belichick as a villain.

Real bad look.

 

[BTTA]

Well, how would you deal with the sheer idiocy of someone who claimed there was no demonstrated causation to believe the Patriots success had anything to do with Tom Brady?

Yeah, a blanket statement like that would be pretty silly.

 

[BTTA]

This graph is more of the visual kind View attachment 57161

So his TB ring is where the wedding ring normally goes.

 

[203Pat]

You're right, the game changed. But what never changed was a player's standing in relation to his peers.

It's only fair to judge Tom on a per game basis, because he only started 14 games.

In 2001 Tom averaged 189 passing yards per game, ranked 24th in the NFL.

He threw 18 TD's and 12 INT's, ranked 6th in sacks, fumbled it 12 times but only lost one of them.

Among 32 starting QB's Tom was ranked near dead last in pass attempts, Charlie Weis managed him to limit mistakes... like most coaches do with first time starters.

By week 13 when Drew Bledsoe was cleared to play, there was a big contingent of media and fans who were calling for Bledsoe to get his job back... players aren't supposed to lose their starting position to injury and Drew passed for more yards and had a bigger arm.

Your attempt at revisionist history is stymied by one thing, some of us here are old enough to remember how it actually happened.

I am not saying Brady was a world beater in 2001. What I am saying is by the next season, his first full season as a starter, he was already a top 5 QB in the league so he wasn't just along for the ride for 3 super bowls. Brady may have been in the backseat for a good amount of 2001 but he showed flashes of what he could be whether it was shredding the Chargers, battling back against the Jets, or leading the game winning drive in the Super Bowl. Charlie Weis didn't manage Brady when he had a 1:30 to get in field goal range in the biggest game of his life.

 

[XLIX]

Yeah, a blanket statement like that would be pretty silly.

Well then which is it?

A) Correlation does not imply causation, or
B) There is a direct relationship between the Patriots starting Tom Brady and the team's success

 

[Wozzy]

I am not saying Brady was a world beater in 2001. What I am saying is by the next season, his first full season as a starter, he was already a top 5 QB in the league so he wasn't just along for the ride for 3 super bowls. Brady may have been in the backseat for a good amount of 2001 but he showed flashes of what he could be whether it was shredding the Chargers, battling back against the Jets, or leading the game winning drive in the Super Bowl. Charlie Weis didn't manage Brady when he had a 1:30 to get in field goal range in the biggest game of his life.

His next season Charlie Weis and company let it fly, they allowed Tom to sow his oats and they did what coaches do... develop the player.

Sure, he led the NFL in passing TD's in year three, but he also threw the most interceptions of his career, had the 4th highest interception percentage of his career. His yards per attempt was also ranked 23rd in the NFL, he used to be called a "dink & dunk QB," or a "system QB," because he was.

Also what nobody seems to remember those first few years were the sacks and fumbles. Early on the coaches told Tom rather than screw up and throw an interception, to just take the sack... which he did. His sack percentages in those first few years were the highest of his career. He also put the ball on the ground by fumbling 12, 11 and 13 times from 2001-2003, by 2004 he cleaned that up to 7 times followed by 4 times in 2005.

In 2002 he was ranked 10th in QB Rating, so while he might have ranked somewhere in the middle of the league... calling him top five is being generous.

This isn't to disparage Tom, it's to provide a reality check for the revisionist historians of Patriot nation, or those who were too young to remember and see things through a prism of fanboy nostalgia.

Tom was a flabby 6'4" 211 pound project with a "weak arm" who sat for a year watching Bledsoe, who beefed up in the strength and conditioning program closer to 225 pounds by 2001, and who needed multiple years of development to become a top five QB by year four.

This notion that he arrived and saved BB's ass, or set the NFL alight with a passing explosion is total nonsense. He was more efficient than Drew so BB liked him, but he was nowhere near the talent Bledsoe was... which is why most of the media and fans at the time were calling for Drew to start in week 13 when he was cleared.

BB knew better... now he's getting skewered in some Kraft produced hit piece for doing something few would have the balls to do, sit the 100 million dollar QB for the 6th round pick making 300K. Ridiculous.

 

[Wozzy]

Well then which is it?

A) Correlation does not imply causation, or
B) There is a direct relationship between the Patriots starting Tom Brady and the team's success

There's a direct correlation to the Patriots drafting Seymour and winning.

There is a direct correlation to the swarm of value vets BB and Pioli brought in before 2001 that led to team success.

If it was all Tom, why only 9 wins in 2002?

How'd they win 10 games in 2008 with a 7th round QB who didn't start a single game in college?

BB developed Brady, something Tom has said repeatedly.

You don't have the team success they had without both guys and all the guys BB brought in over the years.

This isn't singles tennis. It's the ultimate team sport.

 

[Wozzy]

Yeah, a blanket statement like that would be pretty silly.

Because absolutely nobody said it... it's a lie.

Saying it's a team sport and only great teams win rings is not a slight to Tom or any other QB for that matter... it's reality.

 

[Trocadile]

Your attempt at revisionist history is stymied by one thing, some of us here are old enough to remember how it actually happened.

I remember how it actually happened. I remember that two games into the 2001 season the Patriots were 5-13 under Belichick and, going back to the end of the Pete Carroll days, 7-19 in their last 26 games. I remember that they were at the bottom of everyone's Power Rankings (or whatever they called Power Rankings in those days) and were widely viewed as having the worst roster in the NFL. They were unanimously viewed as having the worst offensive talent (and especially so by all the Drew Bledsoe apologists).
I remember Joel Buschbaum's article in Pro Football Weekly, from before the 2001 season, declaring the Patriots the least likely team to win a Super Bowl in the next five years, as voted on by NFL GMs and personnel heads.
And I remember the transformation in the team when Brady took over. I remember declaring after the San Diego game that that was the best game from a Patriots' quarterback that I had ever seen - and I go back to Babe Parilli as a fan. And I remember the incredible obtuseness of fans and media who were convinced Drew Bledsoe would be doing even better - obtuseness that obviously continues to this day.
Brady eventually put up great numbers in his career, but he had what made him great right from the beginning. Numbers don't tell the whole story of great QBs but here's one you should check out: drives in the 4th quarter and overtime to tie or take the lead. Compare Brady's numbers at the beginning of his career to, oh. say, Mac Jones'. You'll see the difference a great quarterback makes when playing with marginal offensive talent, even when he's not putting up big numbers.

 

[203Pat]

His next season Charlie Weis and company let it fly, they allowed Tom to sow his oats and they did what coaches do... develop the player.

Sure, he led the NFL in passing TD's in year three, but he also threw the most interceptions of his career, had the 4th highest interception percentage of his career. His yards per attempt was also ranked 23rd in the NFL, he used to be called a "dink & dunk QB," or a "system QB," because he was.

Also what nobody seems to remember those first few years were the sacks and fumbles. Early on the coaches told Tom rather than screw up and throw an interception, to just take the sack... which he did. His sack percentages in those first few years were the highest of his career. He also put the ball on the ground by fumbling 12, 11 and 13 times from 2001-2003, by 2004 he cleaned that up to 7 times followed by 4 times in 2005.

In 2002 he was ranked 10th in QB Rating, so while he might have ranked somewhere in the middle of the league... calling him top five is being generous.

This isn't to disparage Tom, it's to provide a reality check for the revisionist historians of Patriot nation, or those who were too young to remember and see things through a prism of fanboy nostalgia.

Tom was a flabby 6'4" 211 pound project with a "weak arm" who sat for a year watching Bledsoe, who beefed up in the strength and conditioning program closer to 225 pounds by 2001, and who needed multiple years of development to become a top five QB by year four.

This notion that he arrived and saved BB's ass, or set the NFL alight with a passing explosion is total nonsense. He was more efficient than Drew so BB liked him, but he was nowhere near the talent Bledsoe was... which is why most of the media and fans at the time were calling for Drew to start in week 13 when he was cleared.

BB knew better... now he's getting skewered in some Kraft produced hit piece for doing something few would have the balls to do, sit the 100 million dollar QB for the 6th round pick making 300K. Ridiculous.

I wouldn't frame it as "He saved Bill's ass" more that if Drew didn't go down when he did and Brady didn't step in there's a very solid chance that Bill would be fired by the end of 2001 or at some point in 2002. Brady technically "saved" Bill in that sense but Bill saved himself by developing and carrying Brady on the roster his rookie year.

My aim isn't to discredit Bill for the early super bowls but just to state that Brady wasn't just a passenger on the Bill train for the first 3. I won't argue Bill and the coaching staff deserve a ton of credit for finding and developing Brady into a top 5 quarterback. I just think that it gets neglected by some of the staunch pro-Bill crowd that he was a top 5 quarterback from 2002-2006 by most metics.