PATRIOTS NEWS Belichick criticism mega-thread

[Rob0729]

I wholeheartedly disagree with this take. You can turn the legion of Boom into the legion of Gloom simply by putting them up against a QB who can sustain drives and wears them down.

Consequently, a rested Defense can perform at a much higher level if their offense is sustaining drives and giving them time to rest or make adjustments.

So you are saying any top QB could have made the 2001 defense better? Thanks for backing me up. Or are you saying Brady in 2001 was the only one or two QBs in the league who could sustain drives to allow the defense to rest? Again, this backs up my point that Bledsoe out and replaced with any QB who could run the Patriots' offense had a bigger affect to the teams success than the Pro-Brady crowd are willing to admit.

What you are saying is something any above average QB can do at least most of the time. Being able to sustain drives is an expectation of any good QB. Not just great. Not just elite. But any good QB.

And I seriously doubt the change in the defense is because they had more rest in between opposing offense's possessions.

 

[Rob0729]

Agreed, it’s a complementary game for sure. I do take @Rob0729‘s point that the quarterback is not necessarily going to transform a defense…there isn’t anything Brady could’ve done with the defense in that horrendous Philly Super Bowl, for example… But the quarterback’s play (and I would even say Brady’s demeanor) can definitely influence an entire organization.

Yes, it is a factor. But getting a QB who can sustain drives is not going to make an average defense into a top defense. It can make a defense slightly better. The only way changing a QB like that would make a big difference on the defense would be if the QB being replaced was constantly going 3 and out and keeping the defense on the field. But that is a damnation of the QB being pulled and not a testament to the QB replacing him.

And we also know from history that Belichick's defense almost always get significantly better as the season goes along. That is is because he gets a better feel of the team's strengths and weaknesses to develop stronger gameplans and the team jells together.

 

[RobertWeathers]

The undercurrent of all your posts is I think I'm smarter than you so therefore I must be right. That only works for you in your own mind. It's not convincing anyone else of anything, other than perhaps you sound like a douche.


Gronk and Hernandez were a force at TE that season. The offense needed it because they were typically undermanned at WR. Brady had a tremendous season, he set a career best with 8.6 Y/A and 5235 Yds. The offense was championship-caliber that season, the defense not so much, which was a reoccurring theme of Patriots teams post-2006. They were riding a 7-game winning streak heading into the '13 postseason. Brady blew-up Denver in the divisional with 6 TD's but they were lucky to get past Baltimore in the AFCCG. Had Gronk been healthy they would have won that Super Bowl. The Welker drop was a killer, gave NYG a chance they should not have had, and they took advantage of a bad Patriots defense.


I wasn't making a comparison, I was pointing out the hypocrisy of another poster's comment. I don't have to make any comparisons to know that Belichick cost the Patriots SB 52 with one decision that effected the entire game.


Still you. You're answering your own question that you're making up on the fly. I asked for any other quarterback in the history of the league who was a game manager yet won multiple Super Bowls. Rypien won 1 Super Bowl which is less than 2 Super Bowls. Rypien doesn't count. I would say try again but you'll only dig a bigger hole for yourself.


Brett Favre is in the hall of Fame but what's your point? And yes, he had a lot of turnovers, including many more than Brady between 2001 and 2003, when Brady was winning Super Bowls. The questions is simple... who was a better quarterback from 2001 to 2003? The answer is Brady.


What the hell are you talking about? Read what you said... it makes no sense at all. The tuck rule game happened the season before Gannon threw 5 picks in a Super Bowl. Obviously.


What's your point? Are you saying Manning was a better quarterback than Brady 2001-2003? Manning was only good in the third season of the three and that last season ended with an embarrassing loss to Brady in the AFCCG. Brady won 2 Super Bowls. Manning sucked, sucked, and embarrassed him. Now, I'll ask you again... who was better 2001-2003?


You seem to be forgetting a lot but I guess it's an excuse.


Brady didn't want to be franchised because he was done getting jerked around by Belichick. Brady wanted to end his career in New England but Belichick was only willing to go year by year. Brady always did his best to do right by the organization so the team could be in the best position possible to succeed. Belichick repaid him with rigidness, insulting contracts, and a deteriorating supporting cast. Now The Brady Dynasty continues elsewhere while the cold reality of life without Brady washes over New England. By the time Brady retires we'll be talking about first ballot hall of fame head coach Bruce Arians.

This post oozes elitist, righteous thinking. Pot, meet kettle.

Brady got screwed. Belichick sucks. Rinse, repeat. Every. Single. Post.

I speak that way to you because that's what you and other posters deserve.

 

[Tony2046]

So you are saying any top QB could have made the 2001 defense better? Thanks for backing me up. Or are you saying Brady in 2001 was the only one or two QBs in the league who could sustain drives to allow the defense to rest? Again, this backs up my point that Bledsoe out and replaced with any QB who could run the Patriots' offense had a bigger affect to the teams success than the Pro-Brady crowd are willing to admit.
What you are saying is something any above average QB can do at least most of the time.

And I seriously doubt the change in the defense is because they had more rest in between opposing offense's possessions.

"A change in rest" or the wearing down of a Defense is how they won a lot of their big games.

Brady has always been different. The team felt it back then and the fans felt it back then. He has always had the "it" factor.

Without a doubt, you can wear down a great Defense by keeping them on the field. We've seen it multiple times.

Even BB knows that, "They can't blitz you like that the whole game".

It's a complimentary game.

 

[RobertWeathers]

The Brady cult keeps getting more and more embarrassing each day...

He, like the rest of the non-fans will go away in time.

 

[PatsWSB47]

I pointed out how the Redskins won two Super Bowls in a short period of time with two scrub game managers. That is harder to do than win two Super Bowls with the same game manager. I called you on your assertion and now you want to move the goal post.

Farve was a better QB. And Favre is a gun slinger. He threw a lot of interceptions throughout his career. But he was still an elite QB. And 2001-2003 was a relatively low period for his interceptions. Favre lead the league in TD passes in 2003.

And to say Manning was only good in one season those years is BS. In 2001, he was second in passing yards, 5th in TDs, and 6th in completion percentage (all significantly higher than Brady). In 2003, he was first passing yards and completion percentage and second in TDs.

And you have no idea why Brady put the no franchise tag clause. You are speculating.

And Bruce Arians is not going first ballot Hall of Famer. Stop with that silliness.

Stat stat stat stat stat stat. You play them to move the goal posts. You narrow the definition of elite to fit your conclusion. Consider this hypothetical. Your stat model fails to recognize that being 4 for 7 isn't worse than being 6 for 7 because it doesnt consider that the last play in each drive had different outcomes. The 4 for 7 guy's last pass put the team in scoring position and the 6 for 7 guy's last pass forced them to punt. Yet you throw out the raw stats to try and convince us otherwise. You're not convincing anyone. Brady came through when it mattered the most in his so called non elite years. He did that more times than anyone since 2001.That stat trumps raw stats. Get it?

 

[Tony2046]

Yes, it is a factor. But getting a QB who can sustain drives is not going to make an average defense into a top defense. It can make a defense slightly better. The only way changing a QB like that would make a big difference on the defense would be if the QB being replaced was constantly going 3 and out and keeping the defense on the field. But that is a damnation of the QB being pulled and not a testament to the QB replacing him.

And we also know from history that Belichick's defense almost always get significantly better as the season goes along. That is is because he gets a better feel of the team's strengths and weaknesses to develop stronger gameplans and the team jells together.

This is a discredit to BB. Multiple 3 and outs hurts a Defense. Turnovers hurt a Defense. BB knows that. Brady n crew lived it. We, as fans, have profited from it. You're completely wrong on this.

 

[Rob0729]

"A change in rest" or the wearing down of a Defense is how they won a lot of their big games.

Brady has always been different. The team felt it back then and the fans felt it back then. He has always had the "it" factor.

Without a doubt, you can wear down a great Defense by keeping them on the field. We've seen it multiple times.

Even BB knows that, "They can't blitz you like that the whole game".

It's a complimentary game.

Wearing down opposing defenses is a factor on why the Pats won, but again it doesn't make an average defense into the top defense in the league.

Brady was a big factor in the early factors, but anyone who says he was the factor is lying or ignorant. The Pats were a defensive focused team that just asked to be efficient.

Yes, Brady always had certain characteristics that would make him elite. But he wasn't a finished product yet. He worked hard especially in his first few years to work mechanics to become a better QB. He had very little playing time in college. He wasn't a two or three year starter like most QBs coming out of college who actually get a chance to play in the NFL.

But to say Brady was the reason why the defense played well (which is what I was responding to) is an absolute insult to the defensive players like Bruschi, Law, Seymour, McGinest, etc.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

He, like the rest of the non-fans will go away in time.

They will only go away once Brady retires. As long as he is in the league, they will trash every QB not named Tom Brady like Rodgers, Mahomes, Manning, etc. and when they're not doing that they will trash Belichick. Nothing can touch their Tommy or they'll come after you. Funny thing is I never saw this with Bulls fans once Jordan left for Washington or Colts fans when Manning went to Denver. They've formed a cult around their leader Lord Brady.

 

[Rob0729]

Stat stat stat stat stat stat. You play them to move the goal posts. You narrow the definition of elite to fit your conclusion. Consider this hypothetical. Your stat model fails to recognize that being 4 for 7 isn't worse than being 6 for 7 because it doesnt consider that the last play in each drive had different outcomes. The 4 for 7 guy's last pass put the team in scoring position and the 6 for 7 guy's last pass forced them to punt. Yet you throw out the raw stats to try and convince us otherwise. You're not convincing anyone. Brady came through when it mattered the most in his so called non elite years. He did that more times than anyone since 2001.That stat trumps raw stats. Get it?

So when the Pro-Crowd use the same types of stats I used, it is ok. When I use them they are bogus. I love how you guys want to stack the decks in my favor. Go back and look how many times Brady's passing yards and TDs in 2002 were used in this thread to prove he was elite.

And I have Brady played elite at time in 2001. In very key situations. But to be elite, you have to one of most of the time. Not a few key drives or a quarter.

Eli Manning had a couple clutch drives at the end of each of the two Super Bowl game against the Pats. Does that mean Eli Manning was elite QB?

 

[Rob0729]

This is a discredit to BB. Multiple 3 and outs hurts a Defense. Turnovers hurt a Defense. BB knows that. Brady n crew lived it. We, as fans, have profited from it. You're completely wrong on this.

LOL! So when the Pats shut out both Dallas and Miami in 2003 while the offense didn't score a single TD in either game, that was the greatness of Brady because his long drives made the defense play well enough to shut out both games? Brady was the greatest defensive player the Pats ever had.

Psst! Wearing down an opposing defense would mean you score more points, not less.

You are the one who is wrong on this.

 

[RobertWeathers]

They will only go away once Brady retires. As long as he is in the league, they will trash every QB not named Tom Brady like Rodgers, Mahomes, Manning, etc. and when they're not doing that they will trash Belichick. Nothing can touch their Tommy or they'll come after you. Funny thing is I never saw this with Bulls fans once Jordan left for Washington or Colts fans when Manning went to Denver. It's a cult they've formed.

If they go 13-3 they'll either put their pink hat back on or already be attached to Tampa, Jets, or the season's chic pick

Tom was their identity. Plus the 7-9 season exposed them for who they are. Fugazi Fans.

For real fans we align/identify ourselves with the team therefore it's easier to move on.

Plus they never liked/appreciated BB and tolerated him because they won. That's why you have this whole cancel BB culture movement.

Only thing that comes close to a fan base loving the player more than the team is this.

 

[Biffins]

Bill is a great coach. Some of his defensive game plans are legendary. I'm not about trashing Bill, just shocked & disappointed he left the team in shambles regarding the QB position.

It was universally acknowledged that BA wasn't a good coach. Nobody here gave the Bucs a chance to win it all, mainly because of the "coaching." Yet, TFB overcame all of that and helped deliver a SB to Tampa despite BA's coaching style. So, we can see that Brady can be a winner despite lacking top notch coaching.

On the other hand we see guys like Andy Reid, who by all accounts is a great coach. Yet, he couldn't win it all until he found the "guy." So even good/great coaching needs great players to make things happen.

I think Tom could've won several SBs in NE with several coaches that didn't necessarily have to be great, like Payton, Carroll, Reid, Coughlin, even Gruden. TFB the GOAT would've made it happen, he's that unique of a player. Bill truly lucked out being able to keep such a generational talent as long as he was able to.

I agree as well.
On the other hand it’s not clear at all that BB can win a SB without a top-5 elite QB

 

[Ras-IR Dowling]

If they go 13-3 they'll either put their pink hat back on or already be attached to Tampa, Jets, the chic pick.

Tom was their identity. Plus the 7-9 season exposed them for who they are. Fugazi Fans.

For real fans we align/identify ourselves with the team therefore it's easier to move on.

Plus they never liked/appreciated BB and tolerated him because they won. That's why you have this whole cancel BB culture movement.

Only thing that comes close to a fan base loving the player more than the team is this.

The Pats Bucs GDT should be fun. Wonder what the percentage will be of fans openly rooting for Tampa in that game?

 

[upstater1]

I always love the “you can’t count Cleveland” nonsense when talking about Bill. We’re just supposed to ignore a prior stint as a head coach?

It's because he had the rug pulled out from under him.

Isn't a little disingenuous to say people are arguing "ignore" his prior stint, when people are really saying the team was 3-1 after a winning season, when the owner did everything he could to submarine not only the franchise in Cleveland, but the head coach as well.

You don't see the big difference here?

 

[Biffins]

I pointed out how the Redskins won two Super Bowls in a short period of time with two scrub game managers. That is harder to do than win two Super Bowls with the same game manager. I called you on your assertion and now you want to move the goal post.

Farve was a better QB. And Favre is a gun slinger. He threw a lot of interceptions throughout his career. But he was still an elite QB. And 2001-2003 was a relatively low period for his interceptions. Favre lead the league in TD passes in 2003.

And to say Manning was only good in one season those years is BS. In 2001, he was second in passing yards, 5th in TDs, and 6th in completion percentage (all significantly higher than Brady). In 2003, he was first passing yards and completion percentage and second in TDs.

And you have no idea why Brady put the no franchise tag clause. You are speculating.

And Bruce Arians is not going first ballot Hall of Famer. Stop with that silliness.

if Arians wins 2 more SBs why not?

 

[Biffins]

This post oozes elitist, righteous thinking. Pot, meet kettle.

Brady got screwed. Belichick sucks. Rinse, repeat. Every. Single. Post.

I speak that way to you because that's what you and other posters deserve.

Instead of responding to his logical and rational points, your thought process has disintegrated into righteous dismissiveness. Congrats. Reason is beyond you.

 

[RobertWeathers]

The Pats Bucs GDT should be fun. Wonder what the percentage will be of fans openly rooting for Tampa in that game?

I think you'll have multiple personas with varying rhetoric.

You have the Fugazi Fans who because the team is no longer dominant, are just disenfranchised, lacking a true-north fandom and bitter.

You have the Tom fans/non-NEP fans who will cheer Tom/TB and trash the NEP.

You have the "Cancel BB" crowd who will trash him for calling a run on 1st and 10 in the 1st quarter just because.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Instead of responding to his logical and rational points, your thought process has disintegrated into righteous dismissiveness. Congrats. Reason is beyond you.

If your evaluation of his rhetorical posts are "logical and rational points", that says a lot more about you than me.

I gave him a chance 3 weeks ago. He blew it.

...and if you notice I NEVER comment on your posts in which you use "logical and rational points". Nor do I comment on his "logical and rational points".

Let's be clear. The only time you and I or he and I interact is when you both come after me. When I do respond to your flack, you take umbrage with it. TFB.

If you want to interact with me in that way, that is how I will treat you.

If you don't appreciate it, don't comment on my posts. Simple solution.

 

[1960Pats]

If they go 13-3 they'll either put their pink hat back on or already be attached to Tampa, Jets, or the season's chic pick

Tom was their identity. Plus the 7-9 season exposed them for who they are. Fugazi Fans.

For real fans we align/identify ourselves with the team therefore it's easier to move on.

Plus they never liked/appreciated BB and tolerated him because they won. That's why you have this whole cancel BB culture movement.

Only thing that comes close to a fan base loving the player more than the team is this.

Some of us support players over coaches. That doesn't make us any less of a fan than the Belichick supporters. And seeing that Brady just led a team to a SB title with coaches that have been ridiculed here endlessly in the past, it shows very clearly who was more important.

Also, pointing out the stupidity of chasing away the GOAT QB after all he did for this team is our right as fans. We pay the freight.