- Joined
- Apr 3, 2006
- Messages
- 26,109
- Reaction score
- 52,116
"Two iconic SI covers".... lol.
You're forgetting his paradigm-shifting Geico commercial.
Point to the places on the doll where Brady touched you.
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments."Two iconic SI covers".... lol.
You're forgetting his paradigm-shifting Geico commercial.
And half will change their username.
Of course fans will be down on BB.
Once Tom leaves the franchise will officially be in rebuilding mode and fans better get used to it.
The point is that no QB would have an elite QB rating or DVOA with this group of skill players. I love Troy Brown...he was so awesome and clutch. But to measure Brady’s early years by a single metric like DVOA is absurd because it lacks context.
Don’t complain this thread is speculative and full of hyperbole. It’s in the very title.
What if Brady goes elsewhere, has a hugely successful season and meanwhile Patriots’ season flops as Stidham or whatever other QB throws pick after pick and has a full blown meltdown and Pats finish 4-12 or something or worse. What repercussions does that have to BB’s job, if any, as both a GM and HC? Will we then see Kraft split the GM and HC roles in that scenario to avoid any other obvious GM blunders. Thoughts?
The offense was terrible last year.
What you guys say about Troy Brown goes for the early years Tom Brady. Awesome, clutch.... but not elite, and certainly not more important than the genius coach.
We know the offense was sub-standard last year. What is your point?The offense was terrible last year.
What you guys say about Troy Brown goes for the early years Tom Brady. Awesome, clutch.... but not elite, and certainly not more important than the genius coach.
Even Belichick has said the 2001 win was totally unexpected.Simple question: In 2001, did Tom Brady have one of the greatest seasons of all time as a QB?
Because Bill Belichick had perhaps the greatest season of all time as a head coach. That 2001 Pats roster looked like a tank job. They had no business winning anything, let alone a Super Bowl.
No question.
What year was the goat posing ad?"Two iconic SI covers".... lol.
You're forgetting his paradigm-shifting Geico commercial.
Before Brady stepped onto the field, BB was 5-13 in New England, including 0-2 to start 2001. Once Brady took over the starting job, the Patriots went 11-3 in 2001, and then finished out the year by winning the title. So, whether you call it Brady carrying the team, or you make up some other term for it, any claim that Brady wasn't the difference is simply not backed up by the facts.
And that doesn't mean that Bruschi sucked, or that Seymour wasn't a monster talent who belongs in the HOF, and it's not an insult to either of them. It simply means that Tom Brady was, and always has been, the man.
MVP Winners: 2001-2010
I’m really sorry that you’re unable to see reality outside of a boxscore and QB rating. In 2003, Brady finished 3rd in MVP voting with 8 votes, while Manning and McNair won with 16 each. In 2005, Brady finished 3rd in MVP voting with 10 votes, while Alexander had 19 and Manning 13. He was also voted second team All-Pro. And he was just as good in 2004 (Manning had 49 TDs to overshadow that) and 2006 (carried a sad cast of receivers to what should have been another SB.)
Brady played without even a skill position pro bowl player in 2002-2006 while Manning had 3 Hall of Fame players in Harrison, James, and Wayne (will be elected) plus pro bowl linemen in Tarik Glenn and Jeff Saturday. That roughly 20% of voters still voted Brady as the MVP despite having non-elite stats shows that they were paying attention, unlike the lazy analysis that you’re doing. During that time, there’s also the accomplishment of winning 3 Super Bowls and 2 Super Bowl MVPs. Not elite, though, according to you.
Anyone who didn’t consider Brady elite after the 2004/05 season suffers from Brady Derangement Syndrome.
Before Brady stepped onto the field, BB was 5-13 in New England, including 0-2 to start 2001. Once Brady took over the starting job, the Patriots went 11-3 in 2001, and then finished out the year by winning the title. So, whether you call it Brady carrying the team, or you make up some other term for it, any claim that Brady wasn't the difference is simply not backed up by the facts.
And that doesn't mean that Bruschi sucked, or that Seymour wasn't a monster talent who belongs in the HOF, and it's not an insult to either of them. It simply means that Tom Brady was, and always has been, the man.
It all starts with the author of the thread. Thats all you need to know.This discussion is getting comical.
Deus is a Brady fan. Not a Patriots fan and don't let him debate otherwise.There are no "facts" involved in your attribution of the key to 2001 success to Brady and prior failures to Belichick. That's just your bias.
And I notice you defend some of the great players on the team but not Belichick. That's my beef with you and your ilk. You refuse to credit Belichick for his contribution as the consensus GOAT Coach/GM because you fear it diminishes Brady.
Silly.
Yes, it was definitely a funny question to start it off. And as most threads do, they get out of control.It all starts with the author of the thread. Thats all you need to know.
Its hard not to be loyal to Brady as his success is perhaps the biggest fluke in sports history.Deus is a Brady fan. Not a Patriots fan and don't let him debate otherwise.
I'm a TB12 fan as well but Deus is not a Patriots fan.Yes, it was definitely a funny question to start it off. And as most threads do, they get out of control.
Its hard not to be loyal to Brady as his success is perhaps the biggest fluke in sports history.
@Deus Irae is this true?I'm a TB12 fan as well but Deus is not a Patriots fan.
I get that Brady is your favorite part of the dynasty success. Doesn't mean that he was necessary or sufficient