The only indispensable part is William Belichick (not Tom Brady)

[PatsWickedPissah]

Nobody is disputing that Brady is a top 5 all time QB. I stated in the first post he is my favorite player ever. But to say without Brady we would have no Superbowl championships is unfair. Perhaps we wouldn't have three but I think there's a good chance we would still have one or two.

Based on Cassel's amazing development this year (anyone remember what he looked like from August through September?), I have no doubt that Belichick would have discovered and developed someone to become at worst a Phil Simms type of game-manager QB who played smart, did not make many mistakes, and could generate first downs and control the clock.

Well reasoned regarding what BB woulda done as an alternative, however the Pats won all 3 SBs by slim margins. No way would Bledsoe have won the first. In the 2nd it took Brady fireworks in an offensive last possesion shootout. Even the 3rd game was close. If Brady is as great as we think he is, any alternate would have lost those close contests.

 

[DefenseRules]

Why do some fans have to belittle all that Brady has accomplished in his 7 year career in order to glorify the success of others? I just don't understand it.
BB is a great coach, end of discussion. He'll probably go down in NFL history as one of the best of all time. I didn't need Brady's injury to know that either. I've known that since 2001.

Tom Brady is a great QB none of you (doubters/haters) can take that away from him. Jeez, one injury and the guy becomes a worthless overrated bum.

 

[Deus Irae]

I'm not sure that makes sense.

Regarding that first sentence, Brady was a big part of the first championship, but that defense carried the team and stopped multiple high powered offenses on the road to the trophy. As we've seen from Cassel this year in smarts and also come-from-behind drives, I'm not convinced that only Tom Brady could have won in 2001, how do you know Belichick wouldn't have developed another smart ball-control QB instead of Brady, since that is how Brady played that year?

How did Davey develop? How about Kingsbury?

As for your Parcells records, first of all 1999 was under Pete Carroll so I'm not sure why you listed that, and for the other years you are cherry-picking the years he rebuilt his teams or inherited bad ones.

In 1999, he went 8-8 with the Jets coming off of a 12-4 season and talk of a Super Bowl run. The reason? Testaverde went down in game 1, against the Patriots.

 

[upstater1]

I agree, Brady is an all time great and did better than most QB's could in the same situation.

Here is a question, just curious what your views are on this:
Who would win more championships, a Tom Brady - Marty Shottenheimer team, or a Bill Parcells or Belichick with Phil Simms team?
The 80's Giants won 2 Superbowls, Shottenheimer couldn't make the Superbowl with Joe Montana for a few years.

I already answered that I think Belichick is probably more valuable, but you wrote "the only indispensable" part.

I am much less optimistic about Belichick's chances of winning a Super Bowl in the next few years if we don't have Tom Brady.

I'll say this again about Joe Montana: he was late in his career. I would have liked to see a mid-career Montana competing elsewhere. For that matter, if Dan Marino were on the Patriots in the mid-1980s, I would imagine seeing huge success for the Patriots, and that's not because of Raymond Berry.

 

[maverick4]

I am much less optimistic about Belichick's chances of winning a Super Bowl in the next few years if we don't have Tom Brady.

I think this is a key issue that is relevant given current situations.

If the Patriots for some reason traded away Tom Brady, who would win the most championships post-trade, Brady or Belichick? Let's say Brady was traded to a team with Shottenheimer as coach, and Belichick signed Cassel to a long term deal.

You would still go with Brady?

By the way, it's not a knock on Brady to say he is not indispensable.

 

[groganbootleg]

Bob Kraft has a bit to do with this team's success (imagine if Al Davis was our owner). Kraft, Pioli and Belichick are what makes this franchise great... but as far as greatest impact, you are right.

I think this is a point that should not be lost here. The only reason why Pioli and BB are successful is due to the exceptional owner we have who has built an organization which is solid and not dependent on any one person. The framework for the success this team has started at the top and without that structure (See Detroit today and NE during the 70s/80s) even a great coach can not succeed.
I am fine with Pioli leaving and the eventual departure of BB because the leadership at the top of this team will build replacements from within that will keep the winning going.

 

[maverick4]

I am fine with Pioli leaving and the eventual departure of BB because the leadership at the top of this team will build replacements from within that will keep the winning going.

Remember Pete Carroll? I would argue there are more great owners in the league than there are expert architects of football teams. But you make a good point, Bobby Kraft is a great owner and we are all lucky to have him and his wacky son Jonathan (still not sure what he does)

 

[Sivy]

No, they're not. That is the point.

I know, we are suppose to just agree with you becaus you used the name William instead of Bill. How clever and professional of you.

 

[SoonerPatriot]

Maybe you missed it, and don't get me wrong BB did a hell of a job considering the injuries, but with the easiest scheduale I think I have ever seen as a Pats fan they missed the playoffs. BB is probably the best coach ever but even the best can't win without talent. Check out the performance of the defense over the past few years if you need more evidence. I'm not blaming the defensive collapses on BB I'm blaming it on a lack of talent to work with. Anyone willing to right off Brady as a needed component of Patriot's success is a fool.

Bingo. I'm simply amazed at the delusional thinking re Brady around here lately. Some people just don't get it.

 

[AzPatsFan]

Without Tom Brady, with massive injuries to key starters all across the team, and with a backup QB who last started in high school, the Patriots finished 11-5 with the NFL's 2nd highest scoring offense and a top 10 defense, and were destroying teams in December for a strong potential playoff run. Any of the above factors (top QB down, numerous starter injuries, grooming an inexperienced QB and lots of other rookies to boot) would have crippled most other franchises' chances.

Tom Brady is my favorite football player ever, but the most recent season has ended the debate:
William Belichick is the only indispensable part when it comes to long term Patriot success.

Even if Brady's knee never heals, even if Pioli and the entire coaching staff leaves, the Patriots will continue to roll, over time, as long as William Belichick is the head coach of the team.

You said it, Brother!

 

[skri65]

No, they're not. That is the point.

Exactly. I believe this has been put to rest.

 

[Brady'sButtBoy]

Saying they missed the playoffs is true but stupid given that they're the second team since the merger to miss the playoffs with 11 wins. Regarding the schedule, their opponents had a .480 winning %, not a tough schedule but a representative one.

Stupid? To become the second 11-5 team to miss the playoffs they had to screw up pretty good, didn't they?

I think the talent argument has a point here - BB did put Gaffney in a position to succeed in the Colts game, plus Ben Watson and the defense in the second Jets game, but they failed to execute, doesn't that speak somewhat to the team's talent?

I mostly agree with you, Belichick is the focus of all this team's success. But Tom Brady is no system QB, and his skill and guile won the games they needed to win to win three 3 SB's. BB put him in the right place and he did it. Meanwhile, Cassel threw a killer INT in Indy and we miss the playoffs. Brady won a SB in his first year as starter.

 

[LoganMankinsPancakeBlocks]

Meanwhile, Cassel threw a killer INT in Indy and we miss the playoffs.

Agree with the rest of your post, but how did Cassel throw a killer INT in Indy? He had 1 INT and it was on 4th and 16 and no one was open. He threw it into coverage because holding onto the ball longer and getting sacked there would've been even worse. The "killer" there was Dave Thomas' 15 yard penalty while Cassel was marching them down the field to at least tie it up on a Gostkowski field goal, if not take the lead on a TD. Gaffney's drop was huge as well...but not Cassel's INT.

 

[LoganMankinsPancakeBlocks]

belichik pretty much proved this year that it's the system and the HC, not the qb and the players

brady is very good, but look what belichik just did with a guy who hadn't ever started since HS.....his stats in his first season starting were amazing when compared to brady's 1st year starting stats

Cassel had Randy Moss and Wes Welker to throw to. Brady had Troy Brown and David Patten to throw to. Cassel had similar stats to Brady with far better receiving weapons; weapons that Tom Brady threw 50 TD's to 8 INT's with last year and had as dominant a year as the NFL has seen.

Kind of misleading to compare the stats of Cassel throwing to the 2nd greatest WR of All-Time and the best slot receiver in the NFL by far to the stats of Brady throwing to a solid but unspectacular WR core...don't you think?

 

[scout]

Cassel had Randy Moss and Wes Welker to throw to. Brady had Troy Brown and David Patten to throw to. Cassel had similar stats to Brady with far better receiving weapons; weapons that Tom Brady threw 50 TD's to 8 INT's with last year and had as dominant a year as the NFL has seen.

Kind of misleading to compare the stats of Cassel throwing to the 2nd greatest WR of All-Time and the best slot receiver in the NFL by far to the stats of Brady throwing to a solid but unspectacular WR core...don't you think?

Your reasoning is also misleading. JCDavey was comparing Cassel's performance to Brady's in his first year. Essentially Welker was Troy Brown in 2001 (101 rec, 1199 yards). Granted Patten is not Moss, but he did have a top reciever.
Then, to compare what Brady did last year after many years and playing in four SB's to a *rookie is a little skewed.

 

[LoganMankinsPancakeBlocks]

Your reasoning is also misleading. JCDavey was comparing Cassel's performance to Brady's in his first year. Essentially Welker was Troy Brown in 2001 (101 rec, 1199 yards). Granted Patten is not Moss, but he did have a top reciever.
Then, to compare what Brady did last year after many years and playing in four SB's to a *rookie is a little skewed.

I wasn't really comparing what Cassel did this year to what Brady did last year at all. I was just stating that Brady had the best season of any QB in NFL history last year with these weapons and that shows not only how great Brady is, but how amazing the current receivers the Patriots have are that they could have a record setting season like that. I didn't make my point entirely clear in that last post, so I can see how you thought I was comparing Brady of last year to Cassel of this year.

Comparing what Cassel did with a record setting caliber offense to what Brady did with good talent, but talent that doesn't approach this current offense, is misleading.

 

[AzPatsFan]

Cassel had Randy Moss and Wes Welker to throw to. Brady had Troy Brown and David Patten to throw to. Cassel had similar stats to Brady with far better receiving weapons; weapons that Tom Brady threw 50 TD's to 8 INT's with last year and had as dominant a year as the NFL has seen.

Kind of misleading to compare the stats of Cassel throwing to the 2nd greatest WR of All-Time and the best slot receiver in the NFL by far to the stats of Brady throwing to a solid but unspectacular WR core...don't you think?

They were not quite the same:

How is 2800 yards 18TDs and 12 INTs the same as 3700 yards 21 TDs and 11 INTs?

 

[LoganMankinsPancakeBlocks]

They were not quite the same:

How is 2800 yards 18TDs and 12 INTs the same as 3700 yards 21 TDs and 11 INTs?

I didn't say "the same", I said "similar". The only thing not similar is the yardage, which is because this years Patriots threw the ball a lot more.

QB Rating (MC: 89.4 to TB: 86.5) was very similar, completion % (MC: 63.4% to TB: 63.9%) was very similar, yards per attempt (MC: 7.2 to TB: 6.9) was very similar, TD's were very similar (MC: 21 to TB: 18) and INT's (MC: 11 to TB: 12) were very similar.

 

[363839]

Cassel had Randy Moss and Wes Welker to throw to. Brady had Troy Brown and David Patten to throw to. Cassel had similar stats to Brady with far better receiving weapons; weapons that Tom Brady threw 50 TD's to 8 INT's with last year and had as dominant a year as the NFL has seen.

Kind of misleading to compare the stats of Cassel throwing to the 2nd greatest WR of All-Time and the best slot receiver in the NFL by far to the stats of Brady throwing to a solid but unspectacular WR core...don't you think?

Good post but you're selling Randy short here.

 

[Patriot_in_NY]

We can get on with semantics forever, but in regards to the initial question, to say Belichick is the "ONLY" indispensable part is just not borne out by the fact's.

Sure there were lots of injuries, sure the WR's had a few key drops that probably (def. did in some cases) had impact on game outcomes, or that they missed the playoff's as a fluke, etc, etc..... But those are really factors that can happen every year. We've won in years with major injuries and we've lost games we thought we should have one.

Everything is so intertwined, it is too difficult to compare one thing to another without countering. It's often said that TFB throws one of the most catchable balls in the NFL. Perhaps some of those drops by WR would have been catches had he been in there, thereby nullifying the "Cassel would have done better without all the drops" argument. That's just one example.

Big picture, this Team with a Brady led offense (and great WR's) was batting 1.000% in the ONLY stat that ultimately matters (W & L) in the regular season. This year, Cassel and essentially that same offense was .688% with a weaker schedule. That's a pretty big drop. sure the "we weren't gonna be perfect again" argument could apply, but I submit we would of won (at least Indy and the Jets game with him in there). That's still .812%, which is way higher and 13-3 gives us a HF throughout and a 1st round bye instead of well........ an early round of golf.

That takes nothing away from Cassel and the great season he had. In fact, with one exception, there is no one at this point that I rather see taking snaps for the patriots then him. Nor does it takes any away from the MASTER, who I am the biggest homer "can do no wrong" fan of.

But to say that TFB is just another "interchangable part" doesn't bare out in the most important categories of all. The Patriot are a far better team with, then without him, and that is a "Straight fact, homey"