amfootball
Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2019
- Messages
- 6,721
- Reaction score
- 8,440
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.Bucko Kilroy: 36 yearsDante Scarnecchia: 34yrs
Sullivan family: 28yrs
Kraft family: 27yrs
Bill Belichick: 22yrs
Tom Brady: 20yrs
Faces of the franchise
Regards,
Chris
11-5 twice and a playoff win are 'not successful'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"?
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 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.
You're serious?If one considers how that team finished the last 4 games, they most likely would have won the Super Bowl.
In the Patriots last four games they beat Seattle (4-12), Oakland (5-11), Arizona (9-7) and Buffalo (7-9).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.
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...?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.
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.
You bought Amazon at $20.2001 was my first full season doing a site here...
You made some good points and cite strong facts, but in the comparison you're not taking into account chronology.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.
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.
LOL, don't I wishYou bought Amazon at $20.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.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...?
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).'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.