Setting Stidham up for Success

[jimnance]

You’re talking like our ex QB is the only NFL player in history to be a competitive athlete. Lol.

No way Brady would be in the league today if Bill didn’t give him a chance in 00. A guy whose scouting report was less than flattering. No way. No how. Nobody is going to convince me otherwise. Sorry if that offends the Bradyites. Nah not really.

You have no credibility on this board when it comes to Brady. You got some kind of weird agenda with him.
You do realize what you posted is insane,right?
That the greatest player of all time isn't even in the league if BB didn't give him a chance? Stop,you're killing me. I can't keep a straight face even as I type this.
Bwahaha

 

[sb1]

You have no credibility on this board when it comes to Brady. You got some kind of weird agenda with him.
You do realize what you posted is insane,right?
That the greatest player of all time isn't even in the league if BB didn't give him a chance? Stop,you're killing me. I can't keep a straight face even as I type this.
Bwahaha

Bradyites are so funny. They take it so personally when someone doesn’t smooch their binky on the backside or buy into their revisionist history and play Monday morning QB about his career. Bwahaha indeed.

 

[Ras-IR Dowling]

The point is, you don't become the goat w/o a combination of mad skills and killer competiveness. Even if Brady had been an udfa, wouldn't matter. He would've ended up a franchise QB somewhere and been an all-time great.
You're wrong about his time at Michigan.
He was clearly the best QB there by far and all the players knew it. Carr knew it after awhile as well. BB has said many times that prior to the 2001 season Brady was the best QB on the team.
But he felt he could benefit from being Bledsoes backup that year.
A player doesn't go from being the goat to never playing in the NFL based on who drafts them. I don't care if he went to the Bengals he still would've been the goat.

Brady showed some flashes in the 2000 preseason, enough for BB to keep 4 QBs on the roster since he didn’t believe he could sneak Brady onto the practice squad.

For 2001 I think BB expected an improved Brady to compete and ultimately win the backup job. But he wasn’t expecting TB to improve so much that he would become our best QB. Especially since they gave Drew that big contact extension.

 

[jimnance]

Bradyites are so funny. They take it so personally when someone doesn’t smooch their binky on the backside or buy into their revisionist history and play Monday morning QB about his career. Bwahaha indeed.

Bradyite? I'm also equally a Belichickite.
And above all, a Patriotite.
But whatever fits your narrative.
It's pretty clear you're the only one playing revisionist history and Monday morning qbing.
I've said all along we don't win 6 SBs w/o both Brady and BB. We did win 6 SBs right? Brady did smash all kinds of records in 2007 right? 28-3 DID happen didn't it? Brady DID destroy one of the all-time great D's in the 4th quarter of the SB vs. Seattle didn't he? How many 1st round skill players did he play with?
I guess that's all revisionist history,right?

 

[Wozzy]

Dude I didn't compare hoops to football.
I played both. Been a fan of both since the 60's.
You've obviously never coached.
Coaching matters more in football than any other team sport. Duh. We all know that. It's like saying dogs bark. Fish swim.
But as BB has said many times and it's FACT. Players win games. Players win games.
BB is not bringing the team back.from 28-3 in the SB. Ain't happening. There's no bigger BB fan than me. Like Brady, BB is the undisputed goat.
But there's no more important position in team sports than QB.
A great QB, Brady, Montana, Unitas ,maybe even Mahomes in a few years controls the outcome of a game more than any other individual on or off the field. That includes the goat coach.
I boxed, played a little football and played hoops. I know about the attrition if hard collision sports.
I think BB by himself would have a bigger impact on a game 99% of the time than any great player at any position EXCEPT QB.
For all his genius,Walsh isn't winning SBs w/o Montana.
Anyway I'm a realist. Brady did play for BB. Brady is the goat. So is BB. Who gives a fook which one was more important?
W/O either one, the NE Pats ain't winning close to 6 SBs.
Y'all can live in your hypothetical, fantasy lands. I live in reality.
W/o Brady Pats don't sniff anywhere close to 6 SBs . Same w/o BB.

Brady didn't bring them back from 28-3 alone, in fact some of that 25 point deficit was the result of a pick six. They don't come back in that game unless a large multitude of Patriot players on both sides of the ball and on special teams post individual "wins." Hightower's strip sack is a great example. It takes a team to win.

You don't have to tell me your resume, the truth doesn't cease to be true because you have a diploma. And if Nick Foles can beat Tom Brady and Joe Flacco has as many rings as Aaron Rogers... then it's pretty clear QB is not so much more important than any other position.

The one thing you need is good QB play, Dan Marino was plenty good enough, Eli Manning isn't twice as good as Aaron Rogers. Walsh was in the front office when Steve Young won his ring, he didn't need another QB because he had Montana, the same way BB didn't need another QB because he had Brady.

Brady needed other players to play well for him to win rings as well, he doesn't get past the Texans in the 2016 playoffs without Dion Lewis saving his ass scoring a TD three different ways.

Brady doesn't sniff six rings without Seymour, Vinatieri and a host of others.

BB assembles good teams, that's why the Pats win rings.

 

[jimnance]

Brady didn't bring them back from 28-3 alone, in fact some of that 25 point deficit was the result of a pick six. They don't come back in that game unless a large multitude of Patriot players on both sides of the ball and on special teams post individual "wins." Hightower's strip sack is a great example. It takes a team to win.

You don't have to tell me your resume, the truth doesn't cease to be true because you have a diploma. And if Nick Foles can beat Tom Brady and Joe Flacco has as many rings as Aaron Rogers... then it's pretty clear QB is not so much more important than any other position.

The one thing you need is good QB play, Dan Marino was plenty good enough, Eli Manning isn't twice as good as Aaron Rogers. Walsh was in the front office when Steve Young won his ring, he didn't need another QB because he had Montana, the same way BB didn't need another QB because he had Brady.

Brady needed other players to play well for him to win rings as well, he doesn't get past the Texans in the 2016 playoffs without Dion Lewis saving his ass scoring a TD three different ways.

Brady doesn't sniff six rings without Seymour, Vinatieri and a host of others.

BB assembles good teams, that's why the Pats win rings.

So you're saying the Pats still win the 6 SBs w/o Brady?

 

[Wozzy]

So you're saying the Pats still win the 6 SBs w/o Brady?

I didn't say that.

But BB drafted Brady, moved him up the depth chart... Brady didn't appear out of thin air.

He also was nurtured in a great environment with a perfect teacher and play caller in Weis. He wasn't a finished product out of Michigan.

 

[Uptown]

Have at it, haters

 

[lancerman]

Bradyites are so funny. They take it so personally when someone doesn’t smooch their binky on the backside or buy into their revisionist history and play Monday morning QB about his career. Bwahaha indeed.

You do say a lot of dumb things on this topic though.

Belichick only coached 2 years without Brady on this team. He only missed the playoffs 3 times. It’s no secret that the 2 years without Brady make up 2/3rd’s of him not making the post season.

This idea that Brady wasn’t a huge factor in this teams success is so wrong headed. Same with the idea that Stidham should easily improve on Brady

 

[lancerman]

Brady didn't bring them back from 28-3 alone, in fact some of that 25 point deficit was the result of a pick six. They don't come back in that game unless a large multitude of Patriot players on both sides of the ball and on special teams post individual "wins." Hightower's strip sack is a great example. It takes a team to win.

You don't have to tell me your resume, the truth doesn't cease to be true because you have a diploma. And if Nick Foles can beat Tom Brady and Joe Flacco has as many rings as Aaron Rogers... then it's pretty clear QB is not so much more important than any other position.

The one thing you need is good QB play, Dan Marino was plenty good enough, Eli Manning isn't twice as good as Aaron Rogers. Walsh was in the front office when Steve Young won his ring, he didn't need another QB because he had Montana, the same way BB didn't need another QB because he had Brady.

Brady needed other players to play well for him to win rings as well, he doesn't get past the Texans in the 2016 playoffs without Dion Lewis saving his ass scoring a TD three different ways.

Brady doesn't sniff six rings without Seymour, Vinatieri and a host of others.

BB assembles good teams, that's why the Pats win rings.

Marino never won

Eli only one twice. One was very similar to
Brady’s 2001 (great defense doing the work and Eli making some clutch plays). Then 2011 he actually was having one of the all time great playoff runs for a QB. So he need to hit that level to become a multi time champion

Brady did need other players to play well in 2016..... but there’s very QB’s who you sub in and get that result. Manning one of the greatest ever would have rolled over at that point. Rodgers would have gotten desperate and vetoed all the plays to lob the ball down field. Montana is the only other guy I can say is going to play cool in that situation

 

[sb1]

You do say a lot of dumb things on this topic though.

Belichick only coached 2 years without Brady on this team. He only missed the playoffs 3 times. It’s no secret that the 2 years without Brady make up 2/3rd’s of him not making the post season.

This idea that Brady wasn’t a huge factor in this teams success is so wrong headed. Same with the idea that Stidham should easily improve on Brady

As is the take that Belichick is a subpar coach without Brady. He’s proven otherwise and it’s revisionist history and wishful thinking to say differently. Also wishful thinking to say the Patriots are a Super Bowl team if Brady had stayed here. Last year demonstrated otherwise.

 

[lancerman]

As is the take that Belichick is a subpar coach without Brady. He’s proven otherwise and it’s revisionist history and wishful thinking to say differently. Also wishful thinking to say the Patriots are a Super Bowl team if Brady had stayed here. Last year demonstrated otherwise.

He had 7 full seasons without Brady. How many winning seasons. How many playoff wins.

It’s entirely foolish to say he doesn’t have questions to answer without Brady

 

[sb1]

He had 7 full seasons without Brady. How many winning seasons. How many playoff wins.

It’s entirely foolish to say he doesn’t have questions to answer without Brady

14-6 this century without Brady. That’s more than good enough for me.

Brady has no track record at all without Belichick. I’m afraid it’s not Belichick that has those questions.

 

[lancerman]

14-6 this century without Brady. That’s more than good enough for me.

Brady has no track record at all without Belichick. I’m afraid it’s not Belichick that has those questions.

Bill Belichick coached 118 games without Tom Brady as a starter. You are limiting sample size to 16%. Thats your problem

 

[Ras-IR Dowling]

It’s funny how the two people in a debate right now are 2 that are either the most anti TB or anti BB on this board. Where as the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Having not just one GOAT but 2 is why the patriots have sustained this dynasty in a league where parity is king.

 

[sb1]

Bill Belichick coached 118 games without Tom Brady as a starter. You are limiting sample size to 16%. Thats your problem

Most of that is almost 3 decades ago man. Some of that record had an asterisk as he was a token coach after a franchise was terminated by its owner and thus completely meaningless. Completely irrelevant to today. He wasn’t GOAT coach then but he is arguably so today. Same with Brady compared to when he started.

Why do Bradyites think QBs can get better but not coaches?

 

[sb1]

It’s funny how the two people in a debate right now are 2 that are either the most anti TB or anti BB on this board. Where as the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Having not just one GOAT but 2 is why the patriots have sustained this dynasty in a league where parity is king.

If you’re referring to me I’m not anti Brady.

 

[sb1]

Brady didn't bring them back from 28-3 alone, in fact some of that 25 point deficit was the result of a pick six. They don't come back in that game unless a large multitude of Patriot players on both sides of the ball and on special teams post individual "wins." Hightower's strip sack is a great example. It takes a team to win.

You don't have to tell me your resume, the truth doesn't cease to be true because you have a diploma. And if Nick Foles can beat Tom Brady and Joe Flacco has as many rings as Aaron Rogers... then it's pretty clear QB is not so much more important than any other position.

The one thing you need is good QB play, Dan Marino was plenty good enough, Eli Manning isn't twice as good as Aaron Rogers. Walsh was in the front office when Steve Young won his ring, he didn't need another QB because he had Montana, the same way BB didn't need another QB because he had Brady.

Brady needed other players to play well for him to win rings as well, he doesn't get past the Texans in the 2016 playoffs without Dion Lewis saving his ass scoring a TD three different ways.

Brady doesn't sniff six rings without Seymour, Vinatieri and a host of others.

BB assembles good teams, that's why the Pats win rings.

Couldn’t agree more. Wins are and forever will be a team accomplishment not a QB accomplishment. Dilfer’s one ring doesn’t make him better than Marino.

It’s also funny because Brady never played particularly awesome from wire to wire in any Super Bowl win. The one where he did (Eagles 17) was a loss.

 

[Wozzy]

Marino never won

Yeah, kind of my point.

If Marino, Tarkenton and others have never won a championship then the theory that magical amazing franchise caliber QB's is why you win rings is bunk.

Amazing teams win rings, you need good QB play... but Nick Foles and Joe Flacco provided that enough to win.

Tom played with great O-Lines, defenses and had good weapons for most of his twenty year career.

 

[Ras-IR Dowling]

If you’re referring to me I’m not anti Brady.

Bad choice of words. My fault.

Would you say if you had TB on one side and BB on the other, you would lean towards BB as far as the reason for the success?