What a weird postseason...

[amfootball]

I did enjoy watching Brady make his run through the NFC beating Brees and Rodgers at their places and then Mahomes in the SB in a beat down. It was like a Hollywood movie. I enjoyed every minute of it.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

Dante Scarnecchia: 34yrs
Sullivan family: 28yrs
Kraft family: 27yrs
Bill Belichick: 22yrs
Tom Brady: 20yrs

Faces of the franchise

Regards,
Chris

Bucko Kilroy: 36 years
Billy Sullivan: 31 years
Ernie Adams: 25 years
Julius Adams: 16 years
Steve Grogan: 16 years

Bucko should be in Canton. If not then why is Bobby Beathard?
Billy was team president through 1991.
Julius (and Bucko) belong in the Pats' HOF.

(grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.)

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

Doesn't it say Brady can still be great without Belichick? I mean, it's a fact. Brady won a Super Bowl with another head coach. Belichick has had 8 full seasons with other quarterbacks and none of those seasons were truly successful. None. Not even one divisional title, 0-8, when together Brady and Belichick won 17 division titles in 18 seasons. How does 7-9, even with a stiff at quarterback (chosen by Belichick by the way), say "a lot about how good Belichick is"?

11-5 twice and a playoff win are 'not successful'

Lombardi: Zero without Starr.

Landry: 6-8 in playoffs without Staubach ( no titles)

 

[patsfanincleveland]

The 11-5 Matt Cassel season does count. They didn't win the division (they lost the tiebreaker to Miami, who was also 11-5) but that was still an impressive year given the circumstances. You can talk about the talent they had on offense, but Cassel still had to get them the football and not turn it over.

If one considers how that team finished the last 4 games, they most likely would have won the Super Bowl.

People forget the the NFC champion Cardinals barely lost to the Steelers.

That same team got blown out 47-0 in Foxboro week 16.

Maybe it's just that some 11-5 teams count when some doofus thinks they are making a point vs other 11-5 teams.

 

[crawhammer]

The 11-5 Matt Cassel season does count. They didn't win the division (they lost the tiebreaker to Miami, who was also 11-5) but that was still an impressive year given the circumstances. You can talk about the talent they had on offense, but Cassel still had to get them the football and not turn it over.

Or you could say they were 5 games worse with virtually the same roster, the same head coach, an easier schedule, and a different quarterback.

The 16-0 season they played the AFC North and NFC East... 8 teams with only 2 UNDER .500
The 11-5 season they played the AFC West and NFC West... 8 teams with only 1 OVER .500 (and that 1 team was 9-7)

2008 always gets brought in the Brady vs Belichick debate. It's pretty telling that Brady's best (and only) season apart from Belichick he's throwing 40 TD passes and winning a Super Bowl. Whereas Belichick's best season is a soft schedule and second place.

 

[crawhammer]

If one considers how that team finished the last 4 games, they most likely would have won the Super Bowl.

You're serious?

 

[patsfanincleveland]

You're serious?

My posting?...yes

You.....well, hardly.

 

[crawhammer]

If one considers how that team finished the last 4 games, they most likely would have won the Super Bowl.

People forget the the NFC champion Cardinals barely lost to the Steelers.

That same team got blown out 47-0 in Foxboro week 16.

In the Patriots last four games they beat Seattle (4-12), Oakland (5-11), Arizona (9-7) and Buffalo (7-9).

As lame as Arizona was they had wrapped up their sh*tty division by the time they played the Patriots at Gillette in December. It was a warm weather/dome team playing in a meaningless game with a wind chill of 20 degrees. They didn't care about the outcome of the game and nor should you.

Arizona only won their division by virtue of sweeping their putrid divisional opponents (6-0); they were 3-7 against everyone else. They also had the great fortune of hosting the NFCCG against the 9-6-1 Eagles. Arizona had a good quarterback and outstanding receivers but they were one dimensional and their defense sucked.

 

[Ian]

Or you could say they were 5 games worse with virtually the same roster, the same head coach, an easier schedule, and a different quarterback.

The 16-0 season they played the AFC North and NFC East... 8 teams with only 2 UNDER .500
The 11-5 season they played the AFC West and NFC West... 8 teams with only 1 OVER .500 (and that 1 team was 9-7)

2008 always gets brought in the Brady vs Belichick debate. It's pretty telling that Brady's best (and only) season apart from Belichick he's throwing 40 TD passes and winning a Super Bowl. Whereas Belichick's best season is a soft schedule and second place.

And you could say they were just five games worse comparing it to a team the year before that did what no one had done since 1972 - and he did it with a kid who hadn't started a game since high school...?

Also, while you mentioned the other eight games, go back and look at the difference between the overall records of the teams in the AFC East between 2007 and 2008. There was a significant difference in the level of competition between the two seasons within the division.

 

[patsfanincleveland]

In the Patriots last four games they beat Seattle (4-12), Oakland (5-11), Arizona (9-7) and Buffalo (7-9).

As lame as Arizona was they had wrapped up their sh*tty division by the time they played the Patriots at Gillette in December. It was a warm weather/dome team playing in a meaningless game with a wind chill of 20 degrees. They didn't care about the outcome of the game and nor should you.

Arizona only won their division by virtue of sweeping their putrid divisional opponents (6-0); they were 3-7 against everyone else. They also had the great fortune of hosting the NFCCG against the 9-6-1 Eagles. Arizona had a good quarterback and outstanding receivers but they were one dimensional and their defense sucked.

I already know teams get lucky and make (and even win) Super Bowls. Good to see you joining the party.

It appears venecol is writing something down. Maybe it's your phone number.

The two of you should date. You have a lot in common.

 

[BTTA]

2001 was my first full season doing a site here...

You bought Amazon at $20.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

Or you could say they were 5 games worse with virtually the same roster, the same head coach, an easier schedule, and a different quarterback.

The 16-0 season they played the AFC North and NFC East... 8 teams with only 2 UNDER .500
The 11-5 season they played the AFC West and NFC West... 8 teams with only 1 OVER .500 (and that 1 team was 9-7)

2008 always gets brought in the Brady vs Belichick debate. It's pretty telling that Brady's best (and only) season apart from Belichick he's throwing 40 TD passes and winning a Super Bowl. Whereas Belichick's best season is a soft schedule and second place.

You made some good points and cite strong facts, but in the comparison you're not taking into account chronology.

'01-'04 Brady isn't lighting it up like veteran '20 Brady. He had the opportunity to learn and grow under Belichick. It's not an either/or. If we win the Super Bowl next year it doesn't mean Tom sucks.

 

[Ross12]

The Pats never had a losing season with Brady. They went 9-7 in his second season and that was the only season they didn’t make a playoff appearance with him as the starter.

Thanks for the reality check, in my brain that's slotted as a "losing season" for some reason even though it wasn't. I guess "didn't make the postseason" = losing lol

 

[Ian]

You bought Amazon at $20.

LOL, don't I wish

 

[Tunescribe]

I've been thinking about this since the Super Bowl ended. Anyone else feel like this was just a strange postseason? I sort of let myself get caught up in the week-to-week way it all unfolded, forcing myself to forget about the disappointing Patriots season while watching the two conferences play out the way it did. It was also nice to see Brady and Gronk ultimately provide a nice distraction, which allowed me to retain some sort of rooting interest. I was pondering writing something about it and finally did last night, but I'm sort of assuming I'm not completely alone in this.

I understand the animosity some people have against Brady and Gronk but I honestly feel like it ended up being a cool side-story. I don't know if the postseason would have been as fun/interesting without that. For anyone questioning my loyalty, don't get me wrong, I've been pretty hardcore about it. The Peyton Manning years had me fired up quite a bit. I disliked him so much that we didn't watch the Super Bowl after they lost to him and we picked those nights to go out to dinner in what were generally pretty empty restaurants. Watching him potentially win a title was something I didn't want to see, especially hearing all the experts back then chime in about how much better they thought he was.

Again, at the end of the day, as happy as I am for Brady, it's a different story when he visits next season. But for this offseason, it definitely was a nice distraction after an otherwise long year and tough season for the team. Just wondering if anyone else found themselves in a similar mindset because I found myself otherwise enjoying a lot of the match-ups, and eventually Brady's finish at the end, without the stress of us getting bounced given that even if they made it, I didn't have much hope for a long playoff run.

My take: from the very start I had a difficult time taking this season seriously because of the pandemic's intrusion on everything, from player opt-outs to teams not practicing, bunches of players scratched by testing positive, travel restrictions, rescheduling, no fans in the stands, etc., etc. It didn't affect all teams equally and quality of play suffered. I welcomed the distraction of at least having games on TV but found myself not paying attention as closely as I otherwise would because things were so slipshod/watered down. I assume that won't change until Covid-19 is behind us. For me, NFL 2020 forever will be the season of the asterisk. As for Brady/Gronk, I was happy to see them humble the Chiefs but otherwise felt indifferent to their non-Patriot exploits as they got a huge leg up from a nearly all-star supporting cast.

 

[sb1]

If one considers how that team finished the last 4 games, they most likely would have won the Super Bowl.

People forget the the NFC champion Cardinals barely lost to the Steelers.

That same team got blown out 47-0 in Foxboro week 16.

Maybe it's just that some 11-5 teams count when some doofus thinks they are making a point vs other 11-5 teams.

Agreed they were playing well down the stretch and sometimes - like in the season that just ended - that matters a lot. I can't see them winning the Super Bowl though for the same reason they wouldn't have won it either if they had Brady. Their defense was pretty bad...a big step backwards from the year before and weren't competitive against good teams.

 

[sb1]

Agreed they were playing well down the stretch and sometimes - like in the season that just ended - that matters a lot. I can't see them winning the Super Bowl though for the same reason they wouldn't have won it either if they had Brady. Their defense was pretty bad...a big step backwards from the year before and weren't competitive against good teams.

With that said - I think they would have made the playoffs at least if Brady was there. The Colts loss was on a Cassel blunder.

 

[patsfanincleveland]

Agreed they were playing well down the stretch and sometimes - like in the season that just ended - that matters a lot. I can't see them winning the Super Bowl though for the same reason they wouldn't have won it either if they had Brady. Their defense was pretty bad...a big step backwards from the year before and weren't competitive against good teams.

Unfortunately, we'll never know.

 

[crawhammer]

And you could say they were just five games worse comparing it to a team the year before that did what no one had done since 1972 - and he did it with a kid who hadn't started a game since high school...?

We can quibble over the relevance of a handful of wins in one forgettable season or we can focus on the broader picture which is Belichick being 0-8 in seasons with quarterbacks not named Tom Brady.

Seriously, give this consideration because I have a hard time understanding how a logical person can look at this and not conclude the obvious...

Belichick WITH Brady: 17 division titles in 18 seasons
Belichick WITHOUT Brady: 0 division titles in 8 seasons

When you also consider Brady just had a spectacular season, won the Super Bowl in his first opportunity with another head coach, and was credited as being the primary reason for the team's success by the team owner, GM, head coach and teammates... how are you not concluding Brady validated his legacy further while Belichick's has taken a hit? At least for right now. If Belichick coaches the team on a deep playoff run, or better yet wins a Super Bowl, well then, he can restore his legacy. As it is right now Belichick has a spectacular record as a head coach with Brady and a bad record without him... fact.

'01-'04 Brady isn't lighting it up like veteran '20 Brady. He had the opportunity to learn and grow under Belichick. It's not an either/or. If we win the Super Bowl next year it doesn't mean Tom sucks.

You can't light it up unless you have the proper supporting cast to do so. Brady's not a magician but he was a pro bowler (2001, 2004 & 2005), he lead the NFL in TD's (2002), and yards (2005), before he lit it up (2007).

In 2006 Brady was surrounded by complete trash and statistically had one of his worst seasons (24 TD's & 3529 yards). In 2007 he was surrounded by a much improved supporting cast and he had at that time the best season for a quarterback in the history of the league (50 TD's & 4806 yards). What was the difference?... Brady finally catching onto Belichick's teachings?... Or the supporting cast?

Furthermore, look at the drop-off in Brady's production from 2011 & 2012 to 2013.

2011 & 2012 (Average 36 TD's & 5031 yards): Welker, Branch, Lloyd, Gronk, Hernandez

2013 (25 TD's & 4343): Edelman (1st season as starter), Amendola (1st season as Patriot), Dobson (rookie), Thompkins (rookie), Hoomanawanui (bum)... remember Gronk missed 10 games with injuries

How about the increased production from 2019 (24 TD's & 4057 yards) to 2020 (40 TD's & 4633 yards)? Brady didn't relearn how to play football in Tampa Bay this season. He had a much better supporting cast. Brady's the GOAT, and quarterback is the most important position, but football is a team sport.

One of Brady's greatest assets is his preparation and film study... he has to process that information, no one else can do it for him. He also has the great advantage of experience (over literally every other player in the NFL).

Where Belichick impacted Brady the most was as a GM. When Belichick had enough players around Brady, he was great and they won championships. Remarkably Brady hasn't declined once in his entire career. Only the talent around him in New England had.

 

[crawhammer]

...