PATRIOTS NEWS Belichick criticism mega-thread

[upstater1]

"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.

We have to look at TOP. I don't think anyone here disagrees with this. In fact, I was calling for more sustained drives for the Bucs when they were losing in the middle of the year.

Looking it up at Pro Football reference, the split was even for TOP that year, the Patriots did not hold the ball for longer than opponents.

But this doesn't really say much about the team having more confidence in Brady than Drew. They did. Drew used to get sacked a lot and he put the ball in dangerous places. Some of that play was deflating.

People argue in such a black and white way here though that people choose sides.

For instance, the argument about QB play that I was involved with wasn't about whether Drew would have lead them to the Super Bowl but rather the other poster said they would have had a losing season. I said I doubt that, given the quality of defense, and Drew's history (he did play for half the AFCCG and he had been in that position before, 0-2 after a losing season). I also said that whether he could win a playoff game is another story.

The defense though added Phifer, Vrabel, Seymour and other players. They improved. They gelled. Unless people are arguing those players didn't make for the huge jump in results, then you have to give it to Belichick for bringing them in and coaching that defense up.

The next year was a conundrum both in terms of Brady and the defense, because these new players were still developing, and so was Brady, but the results didn't show.

We could look at the 2003 improvement from the point of view of players again. These are the guys who came in: Rosevelt Colvin, Rodney Harrison, Ted Washington, Ty Warren, Eugene Wilson, Asante Samuel. 6 huge additions. These are the players who left: Terrell Buckley, Tebucky Jones.

When you see all these additions to the defense during the first 2 Super Bowl years (Rosevelt Colvin, Rodney Harrison, Ted Washington, Ty Warren, Eugene Wilson, Asante Samuel, Richard Seymour, Mike Vrabel, Roman Phifer) I can't see how anyone can conclude that the upgrade of the defense (these were 9 serious players, total transformation of the D) wasn't a huge factor in all this.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

if Arians wins 2 more SBs why not?

Did I miss something? Arians won 2 more SBs? Or are you just assuming that will happen since you carry Brady's jockstrap?

 

[1960Pats]

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.

Don't forget the Belichick rumpswabs. There's a few of those also.

 

[upstater1]

if Arians wins 2 more SBs why not?

Arians gets criticized because of the team's undisciplined play, their inability on offense to take advantage of their weapons.

If anything, I credit Todd Bowles, who looked to me like a very good coach even when he was the head of the graveyard of coaches.

The Bucs were going to get bounced until they handed the reins of the offense over to Brady. I watched every single Bucs game. It just wasn't enjoyable to watch Brady operate under Arians. In fact, it was much more a pleasure watching him throw to Brandon Lloyd!

 

[PatsWSB47]

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?

A couple of clutch drives does not make Eli elite because the rest of his body of work shows that they were outliers. The rest of Brady's body of work shows that his clutch drives is what he is made of through and through. It's the clutch drives time after time after time. That defines him as elite. As time went on we can say that was Tom all along.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Don't forget the Belichick rumpswabs. There's a few of those also.

Who?

 

[RobertWeathers]

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.

I'll be clear on this.

I have zero issue with fans supporting Tom over BB.

I have zero issue with saying BB is an idiot for not trying to do more to keep Tom. As everyone knows I disagree because of the complexity of the situation but whatever.

What I do have a serious issue with are fans who believe BB was some fringe role-player in building the dynasty and wanting him to go to hell.

I also have a major problem with posters who say they are no longer are Patriots fans because Tom left but still come here and bash the team.

 

[venecol]

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

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Thanks Chief. What does my incorrect take on Stidham have to do with your worship of Brady? You are one of the leaders of the Brady Cult...do you know what's even more embarrassing? changing your avatar to not Brady in a Bucs uniform, but of Antoine Winfield, who was never a Pat. This confirms you are a BUCS FAN. now get out and leave the rest of us alone.

 

[venecol]

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

 

[Rob0729]

A couple of clutch drives does not make Eli elite because the rest of his body of work shows that they were outliers. The rest of Brady's body of work shows that his clutch drives is what he is made of through and through. It's the clutch drives time after time after time. That defines him as elite. As time went on we can say that was Tom all along.

But he must have been elite in those seasons.

And Tom showed signs he would become elite. But all I am saying he wasn't there yet until 2004 or later.

 

[Rob0729]

if Arians wins 2 more SBs why not?

He isn't going to win two more Super Bowls. The Bucs are not going to be the first team in history to go three Super Bowl wins in a row. And Arians is old and already considering retirement. He may be out of the league before Brady.

 

[Rob0729]

I'll be clear on this.

I have zero issue with fans supporting Tom over BB.

I have zero issue with saying BB is an idiot for not trying to do more to keep Tom. As everyone knows I disagree because of the complexity of the situation but whatever.

What I do have a serious issue with are fans who believe BB was some fringe role-player in building the dynasty and wanting him to go to hell.

I also have a major problem with posters who say they are longer are Patriots fans because Tom left but still come here and bash the team.

I don't have a problem with people siding with Brady and bashing Belichick for letting him go. I have a problem with people just recreating history to make it seem like it was all Tom from day one and Belichick was just along for the ride.

If you go back to 2001 and 2003 and most of the talk was about Belichick's defensive genius over how great Brady was. In fact, there were a lot people who thought Brady just benefitted from Belichick's system. Obviously that wasn't proven wrong, but discussed by even non-Patriots haters in the media and the fan base.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I don't have a problem with people siding with Brady and bashing Belichick for letting him go. I have a problem with people just recreating history to make it seem like it was all Tom from day one and Belichick was just along for the ride.

If you go back to 2001 and 2003 and most of the talk was about Belichick's defensive genius over how great Brady was. In fact, there were a lot people who thought Brady just benefitted from Belichick's system. Obviously that wasn't proven wrong, but discussed by even non-Patriots haters in the media and the fan base.

Exactly.

I forget where I heard/read it but BB said he felt Tom was a talented player but it was around the 2006 season he felt Tom was a HoF-type QB.

Might have been on that NFL 100 show he did with Eisen...?

 

[PatsWSB47]

But he must have been elite in those seasons.

And Tom showed signs he would become elite. But all I am saying he wasn't there yet until 2004 or later.

He was but not by your narrow definition. The signs you mention with the benefit of hindsight show him as elite. The comebacks, the coolness, the never give up attitude when a missed play or interception slowed him down show it. It was always there. More than that it fueled him. The so called elite ones relied on their God given ability and rarely ever improved. Tom Brady took his limited one and made more out of than anyone else did. If that's not elite I dont know what is. They can have their stats . I'll Take Tom 10 out of 10 times over them.

 

[Rob0729]

Exactly.

I forget where I heard/read it but BB said he felt Tom was a talented player but it was around the 2006 season he felt Tom was a HoF-type QB.

Might have been on that NFL 100 show he did with Eisen...?

What Brady did in 2006 was nothing short of incredible with the talent around him and the fact the the Pats were one play away from going to and probably winning the Super Bowl. Reche Freakin' Caldwell was his #1 WR that year. And the defense was average.

 

[lancerman]

I don't have a problem with people siding with Brady and bashing Belichick for letting him go. I have a problem with people just recreating history to make it seem like it was all Tom from day one and Belichick was just along for the ride.

If you go back to 2001 and 2003 and most of the talk was about Belichick's defensive genius over how great Brady was. In fact, there were a lot people who thought Brady just benefitted from Belichick's system. Obviously that wasn't proven wrong, but discussed by even non-Patriots haters in the media and the fan base.

Do they win the 2003 SB if Brady isn't bailing out the defense in that game?

 

[Rob0729]

He was but not by your narrow definition. The signs you mention with the benefit of hindsight show him as elite. The comebacks, the coolness, the never give up attitude when a missed play or interception slowed him down show it. It was always there. More than that it fueled him. The so called elite ones relied on their God given ability and rarely ever improved. Tom Brady took his limited one and made more out of than anyone else did. If that's not elite I dont know what is. They can have their stats . I'll Take Tom 10 out of 10 times over them.

No it does show him as elite in hindsight. It showed that he had the ability to become elite but he had to work on the things to get there. There is no such thing as being sneakily elite. If you are elite, you are the best of the best. You see it real time. Not with the benefit of hindsight. If you need hindsight to realize he was elite, you are just recreating history.

Why is it so bad to say that Brady, who barely played in college, was a sixth pick who everyone agreed wasn't a complete product, and was thrusted into the starting role before he could develop all the tools he needed had to take 3-4 four years to become elite. Hell, some QBs like Kurt Warner took almost an entire to do it. Steve Young took many years to get there and he was supposed to a finished product coming out of BYU.

 

[Rob0729]

Do they win the 2003 SB if Brady isn't bailing out the defense in that game?

Do they get to the Super Bowl if the defense isn't bailing out the offense that scored 12 points vs. both the Cowboys and Dolphins and nine points vs. the Browns? Do they get to the Super Bowl if the Pats' defense doesn't turn over the Colts five times in the AFCCG? Do they get to the Super Bowl if the defense doesn't stop the Titans on their final drive in the division round? If the Patriots' defense wasn't a top defense of all time that year, they don't even get to the Super Bowl. The offense wasn't good enough to win without it.

Again, I have already Brady played like an elite player at time from 2001-2003. Just not consistently. That doesn't make him elite.

 

[Tony2046]

We have to look at TOP. I don't think anyone here disagrees with this. In fact, I was calling for more sustained drives for the Bucs when they were losing in the middle of the year.

Looking it up at Pro Football reference, the split was even for TOP that year, the Patriots did not hold the ball for longer than opponents.

But this doesn't really say much about the team having more confidence in Brady than Drew. They did. Drew used to get sacked a lot and he put the ball in dangerous places. Some of that play was deflating.

People argue in such a black and white way here though that people choose sides.

For instance, the argument about QB play that I was involved with wasn't about whether Drew would have lead them to the Super Bowl but rather the other poster said they would have had a losing season. I said I doubt that, given the quality of defense, and Drew's history (he did play for half the AFCCG and he had been in that position before, 0-2 after a losing season). I also said that whether he could win a playoff game is another story.

The defense though added Phifer, Vrabel, Seymour and other players. They improved. They gelled. Unless people are arguing those players didn't make for the huge jump in results, then you have to give it to Belichick for bringing them in and coaching that defense up.

The next year was a conundrum both in terms of Brady and the defense, because these new players were still developing, and so was Brady, but the results didn't show.

We could look at the 2003 improvement from the point of view of players again. These are the guys who came in: Rosevelt Colvin, Rodney Harrison, Ted Washington, Ty Warren, Eugene Wilson, Asante Samuel. 6 huge additions. These are the players who left: Terrell Buckley, Tebucky Jones.

When you see all these additions to the defense during the first 2 Super Bowl years (Rosevelt Colvin, Rodney Harrison, Ted Washington, Ty Warren, Eugene Wilson, Asante Samuel, Richard Seymour, Mike Vrabel, Roman Phifer) I can't see how anyone can conclude that the upgrade of the defense (these were 9 serious players, total transformation of the D) wasn't a huge factor in all this.

Absolutely they were a huge factor. I agree.

Could the difference between a top 5 defense and a top 10 defense be the offense's ability to sustain drives? I say yes.

Just thinking out loud here:

The Pats were top 6 or better in total drives, number of plays, starting field position and lowest turnover percentage.

I'm not saying that the defense wasn't a major key to those early championships because they were but I am saying that Brady and the offense wasn't a bunch schlubs because they weren't. Brady had the "it" factor from day one. He wasn't the Goat yet but had "it".

Defences absolutely do wear down during continuous drives. I've heard Brady and BB mention it a few times during the Games to Glory or the Do Your Job documentaries. We saw it during SB 51.

It's a complimentary game.

2003 NFL Standings & Team Stats | Pro-Football-Reference.com

Check out the 2003 NFL Standings & Team Stats including AFC and NFC results and standings on Pro-football-reference.com

www.pro-football-reference.com