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

[maverick4]

This year, Cassel and essentially that same offense was .688% with a weaker schedule. That's a pretty big drop.

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"

Of course the team is better with Brady than with Cassel, but that doesn't mean he is indispensable. We saw that this year without Brady and also with a half dozen injuries on defense we can still win 11 games in a very tough division.

Who knows, if we had all other starters healthy and only had a Brady injury, a case could be made that this team could have won 13 or more games.

 

[Patriot_in_NY]

Who knows, if we had all other starters healthy and only had a Brady injury, a case could be made that this team could have won 13 or more games.

Again....... like I said. You can make a case for anything. What we have to look at is results.

This offense, with Brady, was perfect, had a bye, home through the playoffs, and the division crown and led us to the SB.

This offense, with Cassel, was spunky, impressed the hell out of me at times and made me proud to be a fan, but ultimately got us sitting on our thumbs while other teams are still playing

As to dispensable vs. indispensable...... We'll ultimately have to agree to disagree. I think that BB is primarily the responsible party, but I do think that TFB makes a good case that without him, we're just a "good team" and not a "great team". I understand and respect your opinion too.

 

[maverick4]

This offense, with Cassel, was spunky, impressed the hell out of me at times and made me proud to be a fan, but ultimately got us sitting on our thumbs while other teams are still playing

Oh I see, to you the only difficulty was in integrating Cassel, not just overcoming massive injuries on the defensive side of the ball as well.
11-5 was phenomenal given all the hurdles we overcame this year.

To add another name that is top 10 at his job but also probably indispensable, is Scott Pioli, and McDaniels if he leaves. Next season we will see how Pioli does on his own, and Belichick too.

 

[the taildragger]

They won 11 games because of the offense....and because the QB was a very talented player who grew into his role and got PLAYING EXPERIENCE as the season progressed....not because of the 3 years of coaching he got while sitting on the sidelines.

There is no system that produces 11 wins with Rohan Davey.

There is no coach who produces 11 wins with Rohan Davey.

Especially a system as reliant on that position as ours is.

God bless Matt Cassel.

And God bless TB for producing clutch throw after clutch throw in razor thin victories in big game after big game without half the talent this team has now, and without whom the head coach and about 100 other guys do not have any rings.

It's not chess. It's not a video game. It's the most brutal, physical, violent sport in the world. The season ALWAYS comes down to the execution of the game plan and the adjustments made by players in real time on the field of battle during the chaos of each individual play. Coaches are the face of their teams. Planning is important, but ultimately it comes down to the ability of players to react to what's going on around them. In that sense, I always give the greater share of blame and credit to players not coaches.

 

[VJCPatriot]

There are always two, a master and an apprentice. You need a coach and a QB. You can have the greatest coach in the world but with no talent he looks like a fool. When you put a great coach together with great talent on the field, you win football games. So without both Brady and BB the Pats were going nowhere. There's so much that goes into a winning football team, particularly a championship team, that goes beyoned the oversimplification that is the title to this thread.

 

[Fencer]

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.

They tied another team in the division that played a similar schedule, and only edged a third team by a small margin.

 

[maverick4]

There is no system that produces 11 wins with Rohan Davey.

There is no coach who produces 11 wins with Rohan Davey.

Especially a system as reliant on that position as ours is.

'The system', which is essentially Belichick at the fundamental core, found and developed a 6th round QB in Brady and a 7th round QB in Cassel.

Yes, it is up to talented players to execute and win the game. Yes, Brady and Pioli are top 10 all time at their job.

But no, they are not indispensable or irreplaceable or priceless.

If Pioli, or McDaniels, or even Brady leave for whatever reason, the Pats will still roll as long as Belichick is around. The guy knows way too many people who he can call who know HIS system.

 

[Deus Irae]

'The system', which is essentially Belichick at the fundamental core, found and developed a 6th round QB in Brady and a 7th round QB in Cassel.

Yes, it is up to talented players to execute and win the game. Yes, Brady and Pioli are top 10 all time at their job.

But no, they are not indispensable or irreplaceable or priceless.

If Pioli, or McDaniels, or even Brady leave for whatever reason, the Pats will still roll as long as Belichick is around.

"The system" couldn't adapt to Bledsoe, and it failed to develop Rohan Davey and Kliff Kingsbury, so pointing to Brady as some "find" of the system is simply cherrypicking in an attempt to make a nonexistent point. Brady was already inherently Brady before he ever became a Patriot.

 

[maverick4]

Brady was already inherently Brady before he ever became a Patriot.

For Brady's personal qualities, work ethic, calm in big college games, and competitiveness, yes I completely agree.

For Brady the football player, no. Please look at game tapes of Brady in 2001 and 2002, a player with flaws.

Another example is look at Matt Cassel tapes from August 2008-October 2008, compared to December 2008. The guy was a totally different player, look at the difference in pocket presence, decision making, mechanics, etc.

'The system' doesn't work for everyone, like Bledsoe for example because he thought he was already a star and wasn't mold-able. Perhaps this is why Belichick likes QB's who were benched or handled adversity in college, because they will accept coaching.

 

[ManningOverratedHick]

Maverick, I respect you for trying to play devil's advocate, but you simply aren't going to win this argument here. It's like your favorite restaurant at the North End going out of commission for a year, then a Bertucci's or Olive Garden opening up near you. Is the Bertucci's or Olive Garden good? Sure. Is it, all-time, I'd pay top money to eat there and take my hot date there to impress her good? No. Bertucci's or Olive Garden are better than your local Mario's Fine Dining on Main St., but that doesn't make it all-time great good, or interchangable with the North End restaurant.

Brady is arguably the second best quarterback ever to play the game. (Montana gets my nod for now for first.) Montana had Walsh and Rice his whole career, and Young stepped in essentially the same system and won a Super Bowl. While Young is very good in his own right, most would agree that Montana was by far the better quarterback.

11-5, not making the playoffs and 21 TD doesn't equal 16-0 regular season and a 50-8 TD/INT ratio and 3 SB rings with banged up, opportunistic defenses and mediocre wide-outs.

It seems like I'm the only person that has been a loyal Brady fan. Like I said in another post, if you were dating Catherine Bell and she went into a wheelchair or a coma for a year and Catherine Keener came along, would you dump Bell and go out with Keener just because Keener is available at the moment?

 

[PatsFanSince74]

The Belichick "vs." Brady debate is a "hypothetical" wrapped up in a "possibility" and surrounded by a "maybe." It reminds me of the principle in Physics that posits that there are things in the universe that you can't observe without changing them, so you are left with trying to theorize what "they" really look like and how "they" really behave.

it's already been observed that most great coaches have been, at some point in their careers, joined at the hip with a great QB. Brown/Graham. Lombardi/Starr. Landry/Staubach. Noll/Bradshaw. Walsh/Montana. Shula/B. Griese. Belichick/Brady. Grant/Tarkenton and Levy/Kelly (the latter two w/o rings).

But, Bill Parcells went to three SB's, winning two, with three different QB's (Simms, Hostetler and Bledsoe). Gibbs went to four SB's, winning three, with three different QB's as well (Theismann, Williams and Rypien).

I think that this is so close a call that you can argue it either way.

The simple fact is that we don't know what Bill Belichick would have done between 2001 and 2007 without Tom Brady. Like the physicist trying to observe sub-atomic particles, we can only theorize. The same can be said of Brady. We just can't know how he would have performed without Belichick's system. Once again, we can hypothesize and argue; but, we can't know.

If forced to do so, I guess I'd come down on the side of those who suggest that the scales are tipped slightly (very slightly) towards Belichick in assigning credit for the Pats success since 2001. Their success this year (and I'm calling 11--5 "success" with or without a trip to the playoffs) with a QB who hadn't started a game since High School supports this perspective. The argument that BB wasn't as successful in Cleveland without a Tom Brady overlooks that it was his first job as an HC and that he was in an almost impossible position with Modell and Kosar. But, by the same token, if you asked me would there be a Bill Belichick without Tom Brady, I'd answer, I don't think so; conversely, we can only speculate as to whether Brady would have succeeded as wildly without Belichick.

 

[mesoslo]

Patriots should sign brett farve and see how BB handles it.

 

[maverick4]

It's like your favorite restaurant at the North End going out of commission for a year, then a Bertucci's or Olive Garden opening up near you. Is the Bertucci's or Olive Garden good? Sure. Is it, all-time, I'd pay top money to eat there and take my hot date there to impress her good? No. Bertucci's or Olive Garden are better than your local Mario's Fine Dining on Main St., but that doesn't make it all-time great good, or interchangable with the North End restaurant.

Brady is arguably the second best quarterback ever to play the game. (Montana gets my nod for now for first.) Montana had Walsh and Rice his whole career

11-5, not making the playoffs and 21 TD doesn't equal 16-0 regular season and a 50-8 TD/INT ratio and 3 SB rings with banged up, opportunistic defenses and mediocre wide-outs.

Nice post but I have to disagree with some things. Using the restaurant analogy, as long as the master chef is making the meals or teaching others how to cook and act with clients, it doesn't matter if his #1 hall of fame hostess or apprentice cook or best waitress leaves, the core is the master chef.

Montana did not have Jerry Rice for his first few Superbowl wins, look it up, he won with some no-names.

Yes 11-5 isn't close to 18-1 and 50/8, but it was a PHENOMENAL season. If we didn't have so many defensive injuries this team might have gone 13-3 with a QB who didn't start since high school.

What is interesting is I remember an article (was it CHFF?) who did a study and found that a top QB going down had a VORP difference of something like 2 wins over a 16 win season. Does anybody else remember this article? It was written before this season.

 

[maverick4]

The Belichick "vs." Brady debate is a "hypothetical" wrapped up in a "possibility" and surrounded by a "maybe." It reminds me of the principle in Physics that posits that there are things in the universe that you can't observe without changing them, so you are left with trying to theorize what "they" really look like and how "they" really behave.

it's already been observed that most great coaches have been, at some point in their careers, joined at the hip with a great QB. Brown/Graham. Lombardi/Starr. Landry/Staubach. Noll/Bradshaw. Walsh/Montana. Shula/B. Griese. Belichick/Brady. Grant/Tarkenton and Levy/Kelly (the latter two w/o rings).

But, Bill Parcells went to three SB's, winning two, with three different QB's (Simms, Hostetler and Bledsoe). Gibbs went to four SB's, winning three, with three different QB's as well (Theismann, Williams and Rypien).

I think that this is so close a call that you can argue it either way.

The simple fact is that we don't know what Bill Belichick would have done between 2001 and 2007 without Tom Brady. Like the physicist trying to observe sub-atomic particles, we can only theorize. The same can be said of Brady. We just can't know how he would have performed without Belichick's system. Once again, we can hypothesize and argue; but, we can't know.

If forced to do so, I guess I'd come down on the side of those who suggest that the scales are tipped slightly (very slightly) towards Belichick in assigning credit for the Pats success since 2001. Their success this year (and I'm calling 11--5 "success" with or without a trip to the playoffs) with a QB who hadn't started a game since High School supports this perspective. The argument that BB wasn't as successful in Cleveland without a Tom Brady overlooks that it was his first job as an HC and that he was in an almost impossible position with Modell and Kosar. But, by the same token, if you asked me would there be a Bill Belichick without Tom Brady, I'd answer, I don't think so; conversely, we can only speculate as to whether Brady would have succeeded as wildly without Belichick.

This is an excellent cogent post.

I wish we didn't have so many massive defensive injuries this year because then it would have been highly possible we win the Colts and Jets games, finish 13-3, and end up on an improbably playoff run.

This season in my opinion already shows how great Belichick is, given the backup QB and defensive injuries factors, but I almost wish that we had a better 'control' experimental environment in which the defense was at full strength and we go 13-3 on a great playoff run as well.

 

[ManningOverratedHick]

Let me also say that I love Belichick, can't think of anyone else I'd rather have coach the team. It's not like I'm not giving him any credit and saying Brady is the team. Far from the case. In fact, I'm of the opinion that if Tony Dungy were the coach of the Patriots and he had Brady as his quarterback and the 01-04 defense, he wouldn't have got the best out of Brady or the team. Belichick makes Brady better; Brady makes Belichick look even better.

I think that if you took any good team, and put Brady as the QB and Belichick as the head coach, they'd be the Patriots. The Colts if you gave them Brady and Belichick instead of "even-keeled" Dungy and "playoff choker" Manning, that the Colts with their receivers and defense would be the Patriots and wouldn't have lost tonight (with a healthy Brady).

While Cassel stepped in admirably and Belichick got the best of him, my point was that even with Belichick directing the other chefs, the other chefs were only to able to make Olive Garden caliber food instead of North End food.

 

[maverick4]

Seth Wickersham on the Patriots' latest departures - ESPN