Content Post another late night rant

[203Pat]

Lol Jump to conclusions much?

Read the prior posts before commenting.

 

[fair catch fryar]

Read the prior posts before commenting.

Lol. You should follow your own advice.

 

[1960Pats]

I take the goat qb as well, but lets be reasonable with Bill. Of the 3 seasons here in ne without brady, 2 were full blown rebuilds, and one was 11-5.

Aside from that, he had His tenure in Cleveland which imo nothing in Cleveland from the 90s until very recent should be taken with any more than a grain of salt . Even then, he inherited another terrible situation and took them to the divisional round within a couple years. Then the move to Baltimore was announced and he was part of a sinking ship.

The next few years will be the true test for bb as he’s finally had a chance to build something without brady in a decent situation. If he continues to struggle, then you can say hes had a fair shake without brady.

I've been pretty reasonable when it comes to Bill, but the facts are the facts. He's an under .500 HC without Brady. It is what it is.

Bill has had 7 years of games as a HC without Brady. That's enough to get an accurate picture for me. No matter what though, I'll still support him and the team.

 

[1960Pats]

This is a reach... there's a reason why they have more rings than anyone, or Philadelphia broke a 48 year drought when they finally won in 2017. It's really hard to win a ring, just because the Pats made it look easy... doesn't make it so.

In the near decade in-between championship runs the Patriots paid their QB at the top of the league, at the bookends he was a rookie to start, and by the end he took a little less and the team was borrowing from future cap space.

One might argue that top end QB contracts are prohibitive to winning rings if you don't already have a championship roster secured around said QB.

Didn't I see a number here of 13% as the common % of the cap for a QB?

 

[sb1]

Bill is a sub .500 coach without Brady. That’s a fact.

Does that mean he was always a crap coach and should be fired? No it doesn’t but that fact will be a footnote on his career unless he can rebuild and coach this team back into a contender with Mac sooner than later. Hopefully he can.

 

[1960Pats]

Belichick had a game plan in the HOF and two SB rings before Tom Brady ever took a snap in high school. The 1990 NY Giants with a backup QB would never have made it past the dynasty 49ers and the K-Gun Bills, making their first of 4 straight SB appearances, without the man called Doom. Then, you add in 2001 coming out of nowhere with a 2nd year QB to beat a team most thought were the next NFL dynasty.

Anyone who thinks Bill Belichick still has to prove his greatness as a football coach without having Brady as his QB is being foolish. He proved his all-time coaching greatness 20 years ago.

I’m very happy Brady and Gronk won last year in Tampa. Brady chose a ready made contender to join and make a champion. But, Imagine if Bill had the same opportunity? Say he was given a 1 year sabbatical from the Pats to coach the Green Bay Packers last season. Do you think Brady and the Bucs would have beaten a Packer team coached by Bill to win the NFC championship? Me neither.

Bill's 62-73, 1-1 in the playoffs, as a HC without Brady. Counting Tuna Crap's wins doesn't count unless you want to count all of Bill's losses as an assistant during his career.

Even if you do count those Giant wins that defense was loaded with great players, which is what all coaches need to be successful. That's the point.

Do you think Bill would have beaten TB last year if he was the HC of the Falcons? Me neither.

 

[1960Pats]

Because painting it as either/or is frigging idiotic. It was a both/and. There's been no GM in the history of the sport that's kept putting quality teams together over a 20 year period like BB. Obviously Brady is a huge part of that but he's not the ONLY part of that. That's an absolute insult to the other great players and contributors that have helped NE win. Brady doesn't win SB 36 without Law or Vinatieri. He doesn't win SB 49 without Butler. He doesn't win SB 51 without Edelman and Hightower. And he didn't win SB 42 or 46 (when he didn't have a healthy Gronk). Football is the ultimate team game. It takes a LOT of things working together well in order to win. I mean, in SB 46, Brady hit Welker for what likely would have been the clinching completion but Welker didn't hang on. Conversely, Brady didn't play very well in SB 53 but the defense was phenomenal.

And it's been ONE YEAR. Nothing is proven other than that Brady has shown he can win a SB without Belichick. Which is awesome - great for Brady. But it doesn't mean Belichick cannot win without Brady. It's been one year.

Giving credit to a coach over a player is the insult, especially to the GOAT.

It's too bad that Bill's gal pal decided to belittle Brady last year on social media during his run to ring 7. That's akin to a smaller kid sucker punching one of the big kids and then getting his ass kicked.

 

[1960Pats]

Kevin Durant went to the Golden State Warriors, LeBron brought all his All Star friends to Miami to win rings, Tom went to the most talented team in the NFL that had everything but a starting QB and a left tackle... they used their #1 pick on a left tackle and spent their league leading cap space to improve the team depth.

Comparing a free agent player to a GM is dumb. It can take years, multiple seasons to fix a mess and rebuild a football team. Bill flipped the Pats in one, but he's not very good at his job.

I'm not big on coaches over players, but Bill is clearly the GOAT HC/GM. The problem is that every coach needs good to great players to win.

 

[Stu Pidassle]

I don't think that is the case at all.

Tom found money, his voice, a more relaxed environment, and a new team with a great offense.

BB has the opportunity to rebuild a consistent winner contending for Super Bowls every single year.

BB and Brady are the best at what they do. They are also human and ultimately got to the point where they could not work together. The best thing for everyone is if they both have success away from each other so that there collective greatness can be appreciated. In Red Sox terms Dan Duquette's twilight of his career comments about Clemens is the equivalent of Jimmy G for Brady. Could you imagine if Roger stayed on the Sox instead of moving closer to his family in Toronto? Now that would have been some major conflict. At least we got enjoy the benefits of the rejuvenated Brady for a number years after drafting Jimmy G.

 

[1960Pats]

Bobby Orr was an avatar on the ice....He was born for the big moment.

I remember when they started talking about Orr coming to the Bruins when he was a kid. I was thinking, yeah sure, how good can he be? Then I saw him play. Holy crap was he great.

Think about the players we've seen on our teams...Ted Williams, Bill Russell, Orr, Pedro and Brady. We've been blessed.

 

[scout]

Do you think Bill would have beaten TB last year if he was the HC of the Falcons? Me neither.

Although, if Bill was HC of the Falcons that lost to the Patriots in the Super Bowl, the Falcons would have won. Actually, the results would have been different had he coached a number of opposing teams the Patriots faced in the Super Bowl.

 

[1960Pats]

Although, if Bill was HC of the Falcons that lost to the Patriots in the Super Bowl, the Falcons would have won.

This could be fun.

If Bill was the HC of the Falcons against that Pats team they don't fall behind 28-3 but still could have lost.

 

[Froob]

Ok, so I'm listening to those pukes on the Felger and Mazz

Close thread

 

[p8ryts]

I've been pretty reasonable when it comes to Bill, but the facts are the facts. He's an under .500 HC without Brady. It is what it is.

Bill has had 7 years of games as a HC without Brady. That's enough to get an accurate picture for me. No matter what though, I'll still support him and the team.

figures don't lie but liars do figure.

 

[Pats1971]

The original quote that started this *********** literally claimed Brady single handedly turned the Buc's around. That's a gross oversimplification.

The owner/coach being willing to let Brady weigh in on personnel decisions was as much responsible for Brady landing there as anything else.

Did Brady single handedly make that decision?

He sure as hell didn't single handedly win the SB. The Tampa front 7 molly whopped KC all night.

Was he instrumental? Sure. Single handedly? Lol. When did he buy the team?

Some of you need to know the difference between most valuable and only valuable.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

I've been pretty reasonable when it comes to Bill, but the facts are the facts. He's an under .500 HC without Brady. It is what it is.

Bill has had 7 years of games as a HC without Brady. That's enough to get an accurate picture for me. No matter what though, I'll still support him and the team.

there is not a coach in the history of the planet that could have succeeded with that Cleveland team, the 2000 Patriots, or the 2020 patriots. If you want to make conclusions based off those years be my guest but ill wait to see how the next few years shake out.

 

[Pats1971]

Because painting it as either/or is frigging idiotic. It was a both/and. There's been no GM in the history of the sport that's kept putting quality teams together over a 20 year period like BB. Obviously Brady is a huge part of that but he's not the ONLY part of that. That's an absolute insult to the other great players and contributors that have helped NE win. Brady doesn't win SB 36 without Law or Vinatieri. He doesn't win SB 49 without Butler. He doesn't win SB 51 without Edelman and Hightower. And he didn't win SB 42 or 46 (when he didn't have a healthy Gronk). Football is the ultimate team game. It takes a LOT of things working together well in order to win. I mean, in SB 46, Brady hit Welker for what likely would have been the clinching completion but Welker didn't hang on. Conversely, Brady didn't play very well in SB 53 but the defense was phenomenal.

And it's been ONE YEAR. Nothing is proven other than that Brady has shown he can win a SB without Belichick. Which is awesome - great for Brady. But it doesn't mean Belichick cannot win without Brady. It's been one year.

A coach once said, until you do something, you can't. Nobody has said Brady is the only part of anything. What is said is that having Brady makes it a lot damn easier to do things than not having him. Screw up some draft picks? Oh well, put guys off a trash heap in at receiver? Oh well. Rebuild? Oh damn we go 10-6. The fact that some of you think that last year 7-9 was because of a rebuild. The pats rebuilt a lot when Brady was here, you just didnt notice it as much. Oh and you also need to understand that Most valuable, does not mean only valuable. Until there is a player that is the only one on a team you need to stop using that silly example. Oh Brady was just part of the team....No Brady was the most important player on this team the last two decades, there was one constant for 20 years. Coaches are great, and to have a great one is a big help, but I dont care if you have the greatest coach ever who never makes a mistake if players do not execute, you lose and the coach is a chump. Its really that simple.

 

[Pats1971]

there is not a coach in the history of the planet that could have succeeded with that Cleveland team, the 2000 Patriots, or the 2020 patriots. If you want to make conclusions based off those years be my guest but ill wait to see how the next few years shake out.

So no coach could have succeeded with 2000 team or the first two games of 2001....and then they could until 2020 then they couldnt....No no has nothing to do with Brady...So how do you think the next few years will shake out? 3 superbowls? Because then we could compare.

 

[captain insano]

Vince Lombardi didn't win with the redskins after he left the packers. Time to rename the trophy[insert sarcasm]. The whole argument of BB vs Tom is talk radio verbal diarrhea. .news flash. Coaches need good players to win. Like, QBs need a good team around them to win. Shocking I know.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

So no coach could have succeeded with 2000 team or the first two games of 2001....and then they could until 2020 then they couldnt....No no has nothing to do with Brady...So how do you think the next few years will shake out? 3 superbowls? Because then we could compare.

2000 and 2020 were rebuilds, if you cannot see what went into those years not sure what else i can tell you. When dynasty v1 hit its end in 2009 we had a team that in most cases would be 7-9ish but having brady here to drag their carcus to the wild card round was really the only difference between that year and 2020. That team needed to replace several aging or departed vets and the 06/07/08 drafts were even worse than the recent ones people complain about. If brady was here in 2020, maybe we win 10 games and get booted early again.

It takes years to build a team back up to contender status in this league once the window has closed. Now Bb might get them back to contender status in due time, hopefully even win one without tom like tom got one without him. The 2 being together obviously lead to 3 titles in a short span on multiple occasions, and most likely cannot do that without each other. You have to let it play out a few years.