What if Brady succeeds elsewhere? Ramifications for BB.

[Kasmir]

Belichick was turning the Browns around when that douche Modell decided to move the team after 1995. Many thought the Browns would get to the Super Bowl - but the 1995 season collapsed for them once Modell announced the team was leaving. Remember, it was Belichick's scouting department in Cleveland that targeted a guy named Ray Lewis, who by the way was selected by the Ravens in the 1996 draft. Guess who drafted Lewis? Ozzie Newsome, who was with Belichick in 1995. Think that was a coincidence?

And BB was building an incredible organization. Freaking Nick Saban was his DC. He hired Ozzie Newsome into the front office, so he had a lot to do with establishing the Ravens success.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Probability is not your strong suit. There's no statistical significance to your argument. Or would rather explain why Brady having 0% wins without Belichick isn't even more compelling by your logic.

You are really embarrassing yourself here. You believe it’s a coincidence and not correlation that BB won 1 playoff game in 7 seasons without Brady and 30 in 17 seasons with him. And you are questioning my understanding of probability. Lol.

 

[Kasmir]

Wow! That 2001 team suddenly became "good" after Brady took over. Before that, they were trending in the wrong direction as they were 0-2 in 2001 and 5-13 the last two seasons. So your saying that team would've miraculously turned it around with anybody other than Brady?

That's an insult to Brady. 2003 doesn't even occur without Brady saving the season in 2001.

Another selective argument from coincidence. One could just as easily argue that the critical factor in 2001 was getting any kind of decent upgrade from Bledsoe.

I wonder if some of you Brady-only fans actually watched those early teams. No one in the NFL thought Brady played like the GOAT in 2001. He was a good game manager. He had a great clutch drive to set up Vinatieri's great kick. But he didn't effin hold the Rams to 17 points, and the Brady offense only scored 13 in that game. Utter BS to claim Brady carried that game.

 

[TheRainMaker]

Probability is not your strong suit. There's no statistical significance to your argument. Or would rather explain why Brady having 0% wins without Belichick isn't even more compelling by your logic.

Oh boy. Odds are that BB doesn't last as the HC without Brady completely turning the team around in 2001.

With your logic, Bledsoe or anyone else on that roster not named Brady would've led them to a Super Bowl in 2001. And don't even bother mentioning Bledsoe filling in for Brady in the AFCCG as they wouldn't have been there without Brady.

 

[TheRainMaker]

Another selective argument from coincidence. One could just as easily argue that the critical factor in 2001 was getting any kind of decent upgrade from Bledsoe.

I wonder if some of you Brady-only fans actually watched those early teams. No one in the NFL thought Brady played like the GOAT in 2001. He was a good game manager. He had a great clutch drive to set up Vinatieri's great kick. But he didn't effin hold the Rams to 17 points, and the Brady offense only scored 13 in that game. Utter BS to claim Brady carried that game.

Dude, just stop! Plenty of analysts were praising Brady for his play but of course weren't calling him the GOAT yet. Bledsoe or anyone else would've sh** the bed and they would've finished 6-10 or 7-9 at best. They were not a good team in 2001 with many retreads and aging vets on their roster.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Another selective argument from coincidence. One could just as easily argue that the critical factor in 2001 was getting any kind of decent upgrade from Bledsoe.

I wonder if some of you Brady-only fans actually watched those early teams. No one in the NFL thought Brady played like the GOAT in 2001. He was a good game manager. He had a great clutch drive to set up Vinatieri's great kick. But he didn't effin hold the Rams to 17 points, and the Brady offense only scored 13 in that game. Utter BS to claim Brady carried that game.

5-13 vs 14-3 in 2000/01.

Another CoInCiDENcE!

 

[TheRainMaker]

5-13 vs 14-3 in 2000/01.

Another CoInCiDENcE!

It's amazing people are actually arguing this.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

It's amazing people are actually arguing this.

It’s beyond absurd.

The whole point is that in all sports, coaches are dependent on players, and in the NFL the QB is like 10x more important than anyone else. Such an obvious, time tested truism comes under fire here. Bill can be an all-time great but still dependent on Brady. Both things can absolutely be true. Part of being an all-time great coach is maximizing your success when you have the advantage, which other coaches have failed to do.

 

[TheRainMaker]

It’s beyond absurd.

The whole point is that in all sports, coaches are dependent on players, and in the NFL the QB is like 10x more important than anyone else. Such an obvious, time tested truism comes under fire here. Bill can be an all-time great but still dependent on Brady. Both things can absolutely be true. Part of being an all-time great coach is maximizing your success when you have the advantage, which other coaches have failed to do.

Yep. And has anyone on here heard the phrase "Bad QB play gets coaches fired"?

 

[SHOWTIME15]

In five years in Cleveland he drafted a Hall of Fame player and had the team playing with high expectations before the move. Big whoop. That’s nothing that stands out. If the criteria for greatness is drafting a superstar player in the first round and building a theoretical contender in 4-5 years, I guess we have a heck of a lot of great coaches.

Bill is known for his postseason and SB success. That’s what separates him from the Andy Reids and Tony Dungys of the world.

You're missing the point. If you gave Bill 2-3 more years in Cleveland he would have delivered a Super Bowl to that franchise.

 

[TheRainMaker]

You're missing the point. If you gave Bill 2-3 more years in Cleveland he would have delivered a Super Bowl to that franchise.

Probably not. They woudn't have beaten the late 90's Broncos teams. But maybe they could've avoided them like the Pats in 1996 to get to the Super Bowl.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

You're missing the point. If you gave Bill 2-3 more years in Cleveland he would have delivered a Super Bowl to that franchise.

I’d say I understand the point very well. 7 seasons of actual results doesn’t stand up to the woulda coulda shoulda awesomeness he achieved in an alternate reality.

 

[Jercules]

Another selective argument from coincidence. One could just as easily argue that the critical factor in 2001 was getting any kind of decent upgrade from Bledsoe.

I wonder if some of you Brady-only fans actually watched those early teams. No one in the NFL thought Brady played like the GOAT in 2001. He was a good game manager. He had a great clutch drive to set up Vinatieri's great kick. But he didn't effin hold the Rams to 17 points, and the Brady offense only scored 13 in that game. Utter BS to claim Brady carried that game.

Thank you.

People forget how limited Brady was in those early seasons. The Pats were, by all accounts, under-talented in those years yet they became a dynasty. Few other QBs could have done it: NO other head coaches could have done it.

As for the OP, why are we so sure the Pats are screwed without Brady? They were terrible offensively last year and still managed 12-4. They can get similar output with a different QB and still win provided the defense retains its form. Don't get me wrong, Brady is our best option and the only chance we have at having a good offence next year, but this talk of going 4-12 and whatever with Stidham (or whomever else) is a little much.

(And regarding the 2019 offence: Gordon screwed up, AB screwed up, Harry didn't develop fast enough, Sanu battled injuries, and Gronk never returned yet left it up in the air enough to cost us Jared Cook at least. It was a perfect storm of crap. Let Sanu settle in, let Harry and Meyers develop, let Belichick add a guy or two, and hope for some half decent luck, and we should be absolutely fine).

 

[SHOWTIME15]

I’d say I understand the point very well. 7 seasons of actual results doesn’t stand up to the woulda coulda shoulda awesomeness he achieved in an alternate reality.

Then you should leave the team along with Deus once Brady leaves.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Thank you.

People forget how limited Brady was in those early seasons. The Pats were, by all accounts, under-talented in those years yet they became a dynasty. Few other QBs could have done it: NO other head coaches could have done it.

As for the OP, why are we so sure the Pats are screwed without Brady? They were terrible offensively last year and still managed 12-4. They can get similar output with a different QB and still win provided the defense retains its form. Don't get me wrong, Brady is our best option and the only chance we have at having a good offence next year, but this talk of going 4-12 and whatever with Stidham (or whomever else) is a little much.

(And regarding the 2019 offence: Gordon screwed up, AB screwed up, Harry didn't develop fast enough, Sanu battled injuries, and Gronk never returned yet left it up in the air enough to cost us Jared Cook at least. It was a perfect storm of crap. Let Sanu settle in, let Harry and Meyers develop, let Belichick add a guy or two, and hope for some half decent luck, and we should be absolutely fine).

Perennial pro bowler and MVP candidate playing with by far the worst receiving corp of anyone else in that category. Led the league in TD passes in 2002, his first full season as a starter. Back then a passer rating of 80 was about average.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I’d say I understand the point very well. 7 seasons of actual results doesn’t stand up to the woulda coulda shoulda awesomeness he achieved in an alternate reality.

Then you should leave the team along with Deus once Brady leaves.

Because you made a silly argument I should no longer be a fan?

 

[scout]

Let’s see him actually succeed without Brady before crowning him best coach ever.

How many Super Bowls were won due to Brady? If BB isn't the GOAT, then who is?

 

[mgteich]

Ya, well what about that Safety the Pats had that was a solid player, made a big game winning INT, comes of f the field and BB whi was mic'd up that game repeatedly yells "You're a WINNER!!" at the guy.

Next pre-season he cut his ***.

James something.........? Wore #36.

.

James Sanders. As I recall that was one of Bill's worst cuts ever. We needed Sanders that season.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

How many Super Bowls were won due to Brady? If BB isn't the GOAT, then who is?

All of them featured Brady and Belichick, so both were a part of the Super Bowl recipe.

All coaches are dependent on great players. I would argue that BB can be the GOAT and still be very dependent on Brady. It doesn’t mean he’ll be successful without him. He has maximized success over a 20 year period with him. That shouldn’t be taken for granted; Shula had Marino’s entire career and didn’t win. What Bill has achieved is remarkable. Again though, he hadn’t been successful in the past without Brady.

Every legendary coach is legendary mainly because he coaches legendary players. This is true in all sports. It’s not a knock on Bill so much as the reality about coaching.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Because you made a silly argument I should no longer be a fan?

So let me get this straight. You don't think Bill is the GOAT and I'm making a silly argument?