The Tom Brady rumor thread

[Bourne Again Christian]

I think you're missing the point of what I was saying. Would BB even lasted that long? If the QB play was bad, he probably would've been gone around 2003.

No way

 

[Uptown]

 

[TheRainMaker]

Was it really a drought? Bad luck maybe...

10-6
12-4 AFCCG
16-0 SB app
11-5 Tb12 hurt
10-6 train wreck
14-2- jets
13-3- SB app
12-4-AFCCG
13-3- AFCCG

In terms of winning seasons, no. Winning a Super Bowl, yes as that's what I meant. Many of those years had really inferior teams winning the Super Bowl.

 

[farn]

I think you're missing the point of what I was saying. Would BB even lasted that long? If the QB play was bad, he probably would've been gone around 2003.

How “great” WAS the QB play in 2001 & 2002 ?

 

[Kontradiction]

My question to you: name one NFL GM or Coach that you even think would agree that Belichick would still be a 0.500 Coach/GM without Brady.

Evidence to the contrary is that it looks like BB is so respected that no one in the NFL dares to disagree with him in his harsh assessment that Brady is all but done. Dropping $30mm/year on Brady at 43 years old when BB is offering him $13mm is suicide as a GM if BB is right. He usually is.

So your argument is that BB is no longer BB? I’m confused by what you’re saying here. He’s a sub-.500 HC without Brady and was cruising toward getting fired in New England. That’s a fact. You’re arguing in hypotheticals while I’m arguing in facts.

 

[TheRainMaker]

Diana's jaw, hands and knees must be pretty sore right now.

 

[TheRainMaker]

How “great” WAS the QB play in 2001 & 2002 ?

Is this a serious question?

 

[Kontradiction]

This isn't a question about the which NEP was better. Thats obvious.

We are discussing the strength of schedule.

Both had 6 regular season games in which were against playoff teams.

And two were against Miami in 2008. That should tell you all you need to know about how tough the AFC playoff field was that year.

 

[Kontradiction]

Yea Bill might have had 8 but Tom f-ed up a couple of times. It happens to the best.

Tom doesn’t control the roster. Bill does. ‘09-‘13 were not good enough to get it done. That’s on Bill. Not Tom.

 

[Patsgofor4]

Yes. One of those seasons was 11-5 against one of the easiest schedules he’s played against as Pats HC, with a team that went 16-0 in the regular season the year before against a much harder schedule. The result? Missed the playoffs. Not that it would have mattered. They were no match for either the Ravens and the Steelers without Brady that season. All time, he’s a sub .500 HC. You can try to dress that up as nicely as you can, but that’s still a fact.

I can’t stand it when people say/write that it was the same team that went 16-0 other than Brady because that is total BS.

The 2007 defense was aging and was running on fumes by the end of the year. Bruschi was a shadow of his former self by 2008. Seau was gone, until they brought him back out of desperation because of injuries. An aging Harrison missed the last month and a half of the season with a thigh injury. Adelius Thomas went down for the rest of the season week 10. There was also significant turnover in the secondary with Samuel, Wilson and Gay gone, replaced by two rookies. Wheatley played pretty well but missed the last two months of the season. they struggled so much in the secondary that Deltha O’Neal played in all 16 games, despite being so God-awful that he never played another down in the NFL.

On offense, I’m sure that most of you remember that Cassel was so pathetic in the preseason that many speculated that he wouldn’t make the final roster. As we all know, BB lost the league MVP in week 1 and was forced to hand the keys to the guy who basically hadn’t played a real game since high school. On the fly adapted the offense to Cassel and turned him into a second round pick after winning 11 games with him. You may also recall that other than 2010, Cassel was terrible the rest of his career under coaches not named William Belichick. They still had Moss and Welker but Stallworth was gone and they had nobody at WR3 or 4 (and don’t try to throw out Gaffney, he sucked b*lls). Watson was their leading pass catcher at TE with a whopping 20 recs for 200 yds. Maroney played 3 games before being placed on IR. Neal missed the first 6 games of the season in the PUP list.

So please stop it with this notion that maybe they should’ve won even more in 2008 because of the team that almost went 19-0 the year before. It’s a pathetic lie. That was a masterful job of coaching by BB in 2008. Simply holding the team together after losing Brady week 1 should have earned him some coach of the year should have earned him some coach of the year votes.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Curiously, you can actually point at Bill, and his roster management, as the sole reason why Brady doesn’t have more than 6 championships.

Agreed. There were costly GM errors.
Sole reason? Be serious. Missing Gronk or missing The Squirrel helped miss rings.
On the other hand GM roster moves enabled the 6 rings they have.
And non GM fault issues like injuries, q.v. in game injuries 2007 cost rings as did player failures q.v. Welker drop 2011.
It's complex. Not sole reason bullcrap.

EDIT: I do agree with those who say the GM has made some awful draft decisions

 

[Kasmir]

Curiously, you can actually point at Bill, and his roster management, as the sole reason why Brady doesn’t have more than 6 championships.

Laughable hero worship.

 

[RobertWeathers]

In terms of winning seasons, no. Winning a Super Bowl, yes as that's what I meant. Many of those years had really inferior teams winning the Super Bowl.

I tend to agree kind of.

06, 07, 11, 12 and maybe a healthy 2013 team had enough. Play here and there doomed them.

05, 09, 10 were paper tigers.

 

[farn]

Is this a serious question?

2001 - 18 TD, 12 INT, 86% rating.
Is that great ?

 

[RobertWeathers]

And two were against Miami in 2008. That should tell you all you need to know about how tough the AFC playoff field was that year.

07 played Cowgirls and Skins.

 

[festy1986]

2001 - 18 TD, 12 INT, 86% rating.
Is that great ?

How does one define clutch and also does anyone take into account that the league as a whole was so much better? You could still play defense.

Those numbers suck but we dont win that superbowl without Brady and I think that's the important factor.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Tom doesn’t control the roster. Bill does. ‘09-‘13 were not good enough to get it done. That’s on Bill. Not Tom.

Fact: Tom has had bad playoff games.

Are you serious with this point the finger ********?

 

[TheRainMaker]

2001 - 18 TD, 12 INT, 86% rating.
Is that great ?

While he didn't put up "Pro Bowl" numbers, he stabilized a team that was 0-2. Back then, the likelihood of winning the division let along making the playoffs was slim to none after starting 0-2.

And an 86 rating back then was actually pretty good, especially for a first year starting QB.

 

[festy1986]

Fact: Tom has had bad playoff games.

Are you serious with this point the finger ********?

Yes sir.

Which could of been offset if the rosters werent gutted.

If brady was 34 right now he would be coming back here no issue but hes too old to go through another 4 year period of a bill re tool

 

[farn]

How does one define clutch and also does anyone take into account that the league as a whole was so much better? You could still play defense.

Those numbers suck but we dont win that superbowl without Brady and I think that's the important factor.

I love Brady. He is clutch. But then poster suggested BB wouldn’t have made it to 2003 without “great QB play” and I suggested Brady didn’t have “great QB play” in the two years preceding his 2003...