Belichick's 'prove it' time table.

[Observer]

A point that many are missing.

Building a long term plan based on your QB to perform at a very high level at age 43 and 44 is not sound reasoning.

What Brady is doing now is unprecedented in sports history. To have expected this type of performance at his age as the basis of your multi-year forecast would not have been logical or rational. TB12 defied those odds in dramatic fashion; allegedly expecting this superior level of play to continue now is based solely on the benefit of hindsight.

Everything Brady does is unprecedented in NFL history and has been for nearly a decade.

 

[Observer]

You only have to look at Aaron Rodgers. Peyton Manning, and Drew Brees to understand how much Belichick meant to the last 20 years.

Comparing Brady to any of these makes your point invalid.

 

[Observer]

Yeah pretty much. This stuff is so narrative driven that Bill will take a serious ding if two years from now we are saying “Bill coached 10 seasons without Brady and he has 1 playoff appearance and win” . Is it 100% fair no, but it’s a little fair. 8 years isn’t a small sample size. Two more seasons like this and the narrative will be he basically had the same 5 seasons with the Browns that he had in NE when Brady isn’t involved.

For somebody so in tune with NFL history, Belichick made a monumental blunder with his own legacy.

 

[Observer]

Thats kinda the sad part about a lot the pats fan base. There is a severe sense of entitlement for things and immediate turning on their players and coaches. Again , i feel its a lot to do with access. Like today Brady spoke on the phone with peter king ,who writes 40000 word articles, same with andy reid. They will always be favored in the media . Now its open season on BB since he doesnt give that access. And it permeates into the fanbase.
If kraft had traded BB to tampa instead and kept brady and we wouldve sucked with this team, people will turn on kraft to continue to stick with brady instead of building for the future. its very instant and myopic view .
The same people outside of boston who are praising Brady and dissing BB are the ones who called brady a system QB. Now praising brady is easy because A) he is wearing another jersey and B) gives them a chance to diss on BB

Totally depends on how Belichick would have done in Tampa without Brady.

 

[SVN]

Totally depends on how Belichick would have done in Tampa without Brady.

But you think brady with the current NE roster wouldve done well without BB?

 

[Observer]

But you think brady with the current NE roster wouldve done well without BB?

No, just better than any other QB.

 

[Steve102]

The guy will crumble at the first critic

The first time Belichick let's it rip in practice I can't stand it! Jeezus Christ! Do it again Rodgers! or makes a Johnny Foxoboro reference... Rodgers will be pouting to all his pals on ESPN.

Say nothing of the fact that we already had a old guy and didn't want him. Pass.

 

[slifersd]

Can't people just accept the fact that it took both BB and Brady to have this success? Why does it always have to be zero or a hundred? BB either has to be the sole reason we had success or hes a complete idiot who drools into a cup. Weird logic.

 

[yukon cornelius]

Can't people just accept the fact that it took both BB and Brady to have this success? Why does it always have to be zero or a hundred? BB either has to be the sole reason we had success or hes a complete idiot who drools into a cup. Weird logic.

come on, there's many on this page that can't the fact that there's been some other very, very good QB's in the same generation as tom

i can think tom is the GOAT, but i can also respect the body of work that drew brees......or rodgers...has put out there

i can not stand the public persona that Mahomes puts out, but his early body of work is amazing.......that doesn't take away anything from tom being the GOAT


so when people can't even accept that there's others that while not in exactly the same orbit as tom, but are in similar neighborhoods, no, they cannot accept that this was a symbiotic, generational relationship, probably the single all time great coach/player combination in any sport, ever...

why they cannot, and why it must be boiled down to 'tom vs bb' blows my mind.....i'm not sure if it is a product of modern sports media, or if that's just a reflection.......i think there's some truth to the younger generation of fans and the idol worship, but i don't have data on that


to me Tom is the greatest QB to have played the game in terms of what he accomplished, and the high level he played on for such a long time, and for his knack of getting it done when it was needed most.......to me, he's the 2nd greatest NE athlete of all-time, and in light of some of the all-time greats we've had, that's big.......i could make the same case for BB, i guess, too.......but honestly to boil it down to one vs the other, or somehow thinking that acknowledging one's greatness somehow diminishes the other is just.....strange

 

[BobDigital]

Can't people just accept the fact that it took both BB and Brady to have this success? Why does it always have to be zero or a hundred? BB either has to be the sole reason we had success or hes a complete idiot who drools into a cup. Weird logic.

I see post like these all the time, and I don't understand why. I've literally never seen anyone argue it is 100% Brady and that the coach, defense, DC, OC, offensive cast, yada yada, didn't matter. That being said you can say Brady was the decisive factor that made everything else click, if you choose to. You can point to a team with and without Brady and say the difference is huge. But no one is saying this team never would have won a game without Brady. Or never would have had a winning season without him. Nearly half the teams in the NFL have winning seasons without Brady every year. Many teams have won super bowls with QBs far inferior to Brady.

It isn't zero or a hundred. It is debating the %s of what put a team over the top and brought them deep into the playoffs, into super bowls, winning super bowls. That is the discussion. The answer is never just one guy, but not everything is equal either.

 

[crawhammer]

Every coach needs a QB.

Someone tell the head coach of the Patriots.

Lets just hire some random guy to run the team and call plays.

Well it's sort of working that way in Tampa Bay.
Gronk, AB and Fournette are in Tampa Bay because of Brady; all three are making valuable contributions to the team.
Arians has said he's allowing Brady to coach the players and call the plays.
Give Arians credit for recognizing Brady's still an elite talent who can lead a team to a championship and he's afforded Brady the autonomy to do so.
In the end Belichick marginalized Brady and forced him out of town which has him looking like a complete fool.

Should we fire BB and hire someone else ?

Sure.

Give a solution now. Otherwise there is no use of following this team since they are going to suck in eternity.

Who said anything about eternity? The team will be good again. There will be future division titles and postseason runs. Just not with this head coach with this roster. Of course there's an entire offseason to unfold and we'll see what the team looks like heading into next season. But I doubt the next franchise quarterback will be starting next September. It'll probably be some other castoff veteran looking to reboot their career. Buffalo is going to be very good for the next 3-4 years anyway. Kansas City is going to be great for the next decade with Mahomes. The Patriots have a very long way to go with the current state of their roster. Had they held onto Brady then he would have kept them competitive because that's what all-time elite quarterbacks do.

 

[amfootball]

I wonder if Bill even went to bed last night.

 

[yukon cornelius]

I wonder if Bill even went to bed last night.

why not?

i'd ration a guess he loses far more sleep over getting this team to the next level of the rebuild, is losing far more sleep over pre-draft and free agency than he does over how another team does in the playoffs.....that's the type of thinking that makes him what he is

 

[TheRainMaker]

No loyalty to the team that made him.

20 years is not loyalty? Sticking with Bill through a 10 year drought of not winning a Super Bowl is not loyalty? Try the other way around. He saved Bill's job. Bill was 5-13 before Brady played and not many people, if at all, were high on Bill.

The NFL with Brady pulling this move is turning into the NBA.

Brady was a FA and has the freedom to do whatever the heck he wants. Bill screwed up drafting Harry over the many talented WR's that went after him, drafting a DB in the 2nd round in 2019 who still barely plays when the WR's Bill passed on where still available, signing and cutting Brown, trading for Sanu then putting him out to return a punt (only returned 1 punt his entire career) which he injured his ankle. Bill the GM the last two years was horrible. Tom lost trust in Bill flat out and staying with the Pats was a dead end.

The Jacksonville Jaguars defense and now Watson are closer to pulling NBA type moves than Brady. And get used to it. Players are finally starting to realize then can force their way out of teams.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

People still seem to forget how the Pats won at least their first two Super Bowls. The Patriots were designed to be a team that won on defense and asked the offense to be efficient. I would give Belichick more credit than Brady for the first two or three Super Bowls and Brady more credit than Belichick on the last three.

You skipped over my response to this (a similar post) this when I responded a few weeks ago.

The offense in 2001 and 2003 were "asked to be efficient" despite lacking the tools that would normally allow them to be efficient. Of course the defense is the better unit since all of the best players, big contracts, and draft picks are on that side of the ball. During that era, there were plenty of good defenses that were still bad teams because their offense sucked,. Having a really good, playmaking defense, during that era, wasn't like having a rare diamond as it is today.

In 2000/2001, the offense was a bottom-of-the-barrell unit with no notable offensive linemen (zero pro bowl players), Troy Brown as their #1 receiver, David Patten, Antowain Smith, Patrick Pass, Christian Fauria, etc. Asking them to be "efficient" or even average would seem to be a lot to ask, which is why they were horrible with Bledsoe as the QB. It turns out, in hindsight, in looking at all of the players, coaches, etc. and what they proved later, is that this was not just a really smart chess game with incredible coaching, Charlie Weis's next level gameplanning, etc. It was almost entirely because Tom Brady came in and carried a really subpar cast of players. And the offense was pretty good, above average, after Brady took over. 14-3 after Brady took over; 5-13 prior to that.

In 2003, the offense did have Branch and Givens, two good (but certainly not superstar) receivers but had a running game averaging 3.4 yards per carry, easily the worst among the league's better overall offenses. The Patriots still finished as one of the best performing offenses overall (points to turnovers) despite having maybe an average receiving corps and a very bad running game. Again, this should not have been an efficient unit that could score when it needed to; 17-2 with that offense should be nearly impossible in any era, but for Brady carrying them.

I give Bill credit for the 2001 and 2003 Super Bowls, but that doesn't change that your take is full of holes. You once again point to the overall performance of the offense and overall performance of the defense. What you leave out (again) is that Brady was still by far the most valuable player on the team and was dragging subpar players, while the defense was studded with talent and contracts. That is what defines a lot of the relationshiop between Brady/BB, and I'm not saying it's a bad thing. BB managed the roster correctly; that doesn't change that Brady was a massive outlier in being capable of making a terrible supporting cast "efficient."

 

[SVN]

Someone tell the head coach of the Patriots.


Well it's sort of working that way in Tampa Bay.
Gronk, AB and Fournette are in Tampa Bay because of Brady; all three are making valuable contributions to the team.
Arians has said he's allowing Brady to coach the players and call the plays.
Give Arians credit he recognized Brady's still an elite talent who can lead a team to a championship and he's afforded Brady to autonomy to do so.
In the end Belichick marginalized Brady and forced him out of town which has him looking like a complete fool.


Sure.


Who said anything about eternity? The team will be good again. There will be future division titles and postseason runs. Just not with this head coach with this roster. Of course there's an entire offseason to unfold and we'll see what the team looks like heading into next season. But I doubt the next franchise quarterback will be starting next September. It'll probably be some other castoff veteran looking to reboot their career. Buffalo is going to be very good for the next 3-4 years anyway. Kansas City is going to be great for the next decade with Mahomes. The Patriots have a very long way to go with the current state of their roster. Had they held onto Brady then he would have kept them competive

Alright what is your suggestion the pats should do ? Who should we replace BB with ?

 

[condon84]

Yes he did. He's LeBron Brady. No loyalty to the team that made him. His move is like LeBron James looking at all times to move around to get to where he can win or recruit like minded types. The NFL with Brady pulling this move is turning into the NBA. Is this what the NFL has really turned into.
I can't wait to see/hear from the critics who will surely attack. Have at it.

Maybe you're being sarcastic. But if you're not, that take is completely off. In no way is Brady like LeBron the way LeBron has moved around the NBA chasing superstar teams.

 

[TheRainMaker]

Alright what is your suggestion the pats should do ? Who should we replace BB with ?

Bill has plenty of tools this offseason to build a better team then last year. Lots of cap and draft picks. I won't hold my breath on him using those draft picks to get any game changers. If he can't get them back to at least a WC game next year, the seat will be warming up for sure. Who they hire, I don't know. But as Bill gets older (getting closer to 70), he's going to have a harder time relating to these young kids. He's leaving one way or another.

 

[Rob0729]

You skipped over my response to this (a similar post) this when I responded a few weeks ago.

The offense in 2001 and 2003 were "asked to be efficient" despite lacking the tools that would normally allow them to be efficient. Of course the defense is the better unit since all of the best players, big contracts, and draft picks are on that side of the ball. During that era, there were plenty of good defenses that were still bad teams because their offense sucked,. Having a really good, playmaking defense, during that era, wasn't like having a rare diamond as it is today.

In 2000/2001, the offense was a bottom-of-the-barrell unit with no notable offensive linemen (zero pro bowl players), Troy Brown as their #1 receiver, David Patten, Antowain Smith, Patrick Pass, Christian Fauria, etc. Asking them to be "efficient" or even average would seem to be a lot to ask, which is why they were horrible with Bledsoe as the QB. It turns out, in hindsight, in looking at all of the players, coaches, etc. and what they proved later, is that this was not just a really smart chess game with incredible coaching, Charlie Weis's next level gameplanning, etc. It was almost entirely because Tom Brady came in and carried a really subpar cast of players. And the offense was pretty good, above average, after Brady took over. 14-3 after Brady took over; 5-13 prior to that.

In 2003, the offense did have Branch and Givens, two good (but certainly not superstar) receivers but had a running game averaging 3.4 yards per carry, easily the worst among the league's better overall offenses. The Patriots still finished as one of the best performing offenses overall (points to turnovers) despite having maybe an average receiving corps and a very bad running game. Again, this should not have been an efficient unit that could score when it needed to; 17-2 with that offense should be nearly impossible in any era, but for Brady carrying them.

I give Bill credit for the 2001 and 2003 Super Bowls, but that doesn't change that your take is full of holes. You once again point to the overall performance of the offense and overall performance of the defense. What you leave out (again) is that Brady was still by far the most valuable player on the team and was dragging subpar players, while the defense was studded with talent and contracts. That is what defines a lot of the relationshiop between Brady/BB, and I'm not saying it's a bad thing. BB managed the roster correctly; that doesn't change that Brady was a massive outlier in being capable of making a terrible supporting cast "efficient."

The offenses in the first few years of Brady starting were not all that talented. I never denied that. But to say Brady was a elite player right off the bat and in at least the first two Super Bowls is re-writing history. In 2003, the Pats had four games where they didn't score a single TD including one where they were completely shut out. That is one quarter of the season. In another game against the Giants, the defense scored as many TDs and three less points than the offense, Against Miami, they only scored 13 points in regulation. In their loss to Washington, they only scored 17 points. Right there, that is half the season. If Brady was elite at that point, the offense would have done better.

And I wouldn't say Brady was the most valuable player on either 2001 or 2003. In 2003, I would say Ty Law was the MVP of the team especially in the playoffs. They don't get by the Titans and Colts without that defense and the defense shutdown both teams. Again, that defense was one of the best defenses of all time. That is primary reason the Pats went 14-2 and won the Super Bowl. And I don't know if there was an MVP in 2001 because it really was a bunch of nobodies and castoffs working together putting the team first to win.

It is great to go back and recreate history, but back in 2003 and 2004 people were still calling Brady a system QB and a product of Belichick. And it was clear the Pats still subscribed to the win on defense and the offense just don't screw up philosophy. And I guess you forget how much more defenses were to the game before the league changed the rules to counter how the Patriots totally mugged Manning and the Colts' offense in the AFCCG in the 2003 season.

 

[sb1]

The offenses in the first few years of Brady starting were not all that talented. I never denied that. But to say Brady was a elite player right off the bat and in at least the first two Super Bowls is re-writing history. In 2003, the Pats had four games where they didn't score a single TD including one where they were completely shut out. That is one quarter of the season. In another game against the Giants, the defense scored as many TDs and three less points than the offense, Against Miami, they only scored 13 points in regulation. In their loss to Washington, they only scored 17 points. Right there, that is half the season. If Brady was elite at that point, the offense would have done better.

And I wouldn't say Brady was the most valuable player on either 2001 or 2003. In 2003, I would say Ty Law was the MVP of the team especially in the playoffs. They don't get by the Titans and Colts without that defense and the defense shutdown both teams. Again, that defense was one of the best defenses of all time. That is primary reason the Pats went 14-2 and won the Super Bowl. And I don't know if there was an MVP in 2001.

It is great to go back and recreate history, but back in 2003 and 2004 people were still calling Brady a system QB and a product of Belichick. And it was clear the Pats still subscribed to the win on defense and the offense just don't screw up philosophy.

My vote would have been Law for SB36 MVP. It wasn't offense that won that game.