BB THE GOAT

[RobertWeathers]

I realize that. Its why I was very careful to acknowledge that it was a regular season accomplishment.

but I'll be damned before I let Mac10 diminish or repudiate what the '07 team achieved because he's been swimming in the deep end of crazy lately...

Hes just talking trash. Nothing to take seriously.

 

[Wozzy]

Belichick drafted Brady, so no matter how much Brady exceeded BB's expectations of a 6th round draft pick, BB gets full credit for everything Brady meant to the Patriots Dynasty?? If that's your simpleton argument then we're done here.

BB drafted, developed and continued to play Brady over the 100 million dollar man Drew Bledsoe, even though he was getting crucified in the media for it.

Yeah… he gets credit for Tom, the way all management get credit for smart hires. Unless you’re a hater with an axe to grind.

 

[Pape]

Hes just talking trash. Nothing to take seriously.

Oh I get who he is targeting and why.

I'm actually surprised he hasn't been dumpster fired out of this thread yet

 

[Steve102]

I realize that. Its why I was very careful to acknowledge that it was a regular season accomplishment.

but I'll be damned before I let Mac10 diminish or repudiate what the '07 team achieved because he's been swimming in the deep end of crazy lately...

 

[crawhammer]

The difference between us, is I can be scathing in my criticism of Belichick's decisions and understand how football is a team sport consisting of three phases and 53 players. You think Brady poops gold nuggets and can actually cure cancer and concussions.

You also think the QB position is responsible for everything in football and needs little to no help. It's an unrealistic, child-like, fantasy football centric interpretation of football that's insulting to everyone else involved who put their bodies on the line so QB's can get all the glory... and it's completely wrong.

Here's the problem... your reading comprehension is poor. I never said Brady is responsible for "everything." Like he literally is on the field all by himself with an empty sideline.

I know, three phases, 53 players, coaching staff, ownership, etc. Everyone plays a part in the success or failure of the team. BUT it's not three equal phases and 53 players each as important as any other. It's ok to qualify the importance of the phases and the individual players and the head coach and each of his assistants, etc.

Is special teams assistant coach Joe Houston (who?) as important as head coach Bill Belichick? **** no, and it's not even close. Was Michael Hoomanawanui as important as Tom Brady? No. How about Brandon LaFell? No again. Edelman? Still no. See how that works?

You can intersect the categories too... player vs coach, etc. Is offensive assistant coach Tyler Hughes as important as Mac Jones? Nope.

Was head coach Bill Belichick as important as quarterback Tom Brady? This may be the toughest comparison of all, and I get that (especially for this forum), but I think most people would answer either way. My answer is Brady and if I'm putting percentages on their importance, just either or, then it's Brady 65% and Belichick 35% (and I wouldn't argue with 60/40).

 

[Wozzy]

Here's the problem... your reading comprehension is poor. I never said Brady is responsible for "everything." Like he literally is on the field all by himself with an empty sideline.

I know, three phases, 53 players, coaching staff, ownership, etc. Everyone plays a part in the success or failure of the team. BUT it's not three equal phases and 53 players each as important as any other. It's ok to qualify the importance of the phases and the individual players and the head coach and each of his assistants, etc.

Is special teams assistant coach Joe Houston (who?) as important as head coach Bill Belichick? **** no, and it's not even close. Was Michael Hoomanawanui as important as Tom Brady? No. How about Brandon LaFell? No again. Edelman? Still no. See how that works?

You can intersect the categories too... player vs coach, etc. Is offensive assistant coach Tyler Hughes as important as Mac Jones? Nope.

Was head coach Bill Belichick as important as quarterback Tom Brady? This may be the toughest comparison of all, and I get that (especially for this forum), but I think most people would answer either way. My answer is Brady and if I'm putting percentages on their importance, just either or, then it's Brady 65% and Belichick 35% (and I wouldn't argue with 60/40).

It was all important, the offensive line was just as important as the QB or any other position because we’ve seen Tom running for his life when the line was bad due to injury.

The defense is just as important as the offense. Wins and losses are based on point differential, not just points scored.

You’re here telling us Brady had magic powers and BB was an overrated tourist all the time. Now you’re just speaking out both sides of your mouth.

 

[Ring 6]

Oh? When did I do that?


I just said Bledsoe in SB 31. His poor play gets majority blame for the loss. So yeah, there are examples of poor QB play being majoritively responsible for a loss.


Is your argument that Brady is responsible for all of these losses? I doubt that's what you're actually saying, but if so, let me know, and then I'll address it.


Yes, I have an idea. So do you, if you're being honest. I mean Butler played 98% of the snaps to that point in the season. The coaching staff trusted him for the entirety of the 2017 season, 18 games. In fact, Butler played 98% of the defensive snaps from 2015 through 2017, 55 games. Yet on the 56th game he played 0% of defensive snaps.

And not only was Butler completely removed from the lineup but it threw the rest of the secondary into complete chaos. You're lying if you deny this, we all saw the results throughout that game, the secondary was a total disaster. Only a fool would think Butler's absence had nothing to do with that.

And "unprepared"? Please, like I just pointed out, Butler had played 98% of the team's defensive snaps for the previous 55 games. A minor illness, and a few underwhelming practices, or a dustup with an assistant coach, led him to be unprepared?? For the Super Bowl, a game he prepared his entire football life to participate in.

Butler was in uniform, on the sideline, BB deployed him on ST, Butler said after the game he could have played and helped the team, and yet BB kept him on the sideline out of spite or for some offer personally motived reason and they lost.

It's been 5 years since SB 52. I've watched the game start to finish multiple times. I've considered all of the variables. My opinion then, still, and probably always will be BB's benching of Butler lost SB 52 for the Patriots.

Poor offense was a major reason for most of those losses. You seem to think players deserve the credit for their play when they win, but don’t think they are responsible when they lose.

Butler himself said he was not focussed and had a terrible week of practice. You have absolutely no clue what state of mind or state of preparation he was in. You are creating a reason he did not play out of thin air, when he himself gave you reasons. Butler played 1 snap of special teams.

Your claim that it threw the secondary “into chaos” is uninformed and wrong.
The game plan was the 4 safety defense. The defense belichick created for the Andy Reid offense. He used it frequently and pretty exclusive against the chiefs. The only changes were Rowe played cb2 ahead of Butler and Bademosi played 11(?) snaps as the cb3. That is hardly chaos, it’s moving cb3 to cb2 and cb4 to cb3 just as would be done on any team any time cb2 was unavailable.

But again, if you are going to call 1 personnel decision the reason for a loss you would have to also consider poor offense for an entire game, few points produced by Qb and Ints the reason for losses when that happened.

You are holding belichick to a standard of every decision must be perfect based upon your opinion of what he should have done, even when you lack the knowledge of the entails that led to the decision, yet you don’t think bad Qb play is a reason for losing?
Do you think that averaging 17 points in 8 losses is good Qb play, and it was just the other 52 players and the coaches that were the reason for the loss?

 

[crawhammer]

So Foles is a superior QB... a franchise caliber QB?

He was in that postseason. Especially against a depleted NE secondary.

If you're crapping on Foles, which may be justified given the totality of his NFL career, then you're really crapping on the Patriots defense in SB 52, which is also justified, considering their epically bad performance.

So was Joe Flacco, Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson, Eli Manning (twice), all three of Joe Gibbs journeyman QB's, Jeff Hostetler, Jim McMahon, Jim Plunkett and on and on and on...

I just want clarification...

Dilfer? No. He was entirely carried by the running game and the Ravens all-time great defense. Somewhat the same with Brad Johnson but he was actually better in 2002 then most people remember.

Joe Gibbs is arguably the GOAT head coach. Like #1. So yeah, remarkable accomplishments with thoroughly underwhelming QBs. Hostetler had Parcells... it's ok to recognize exceptions to the rule... Parcells allows for such an exception.

McMahon had the GOAT defense. They had one defensive lapse that entire season (against Marino) but otherwise they were the most dominant defense to ever step foot on a football field.

Plunkett was a 1st overall pick so it's not like he wasn't talented. He was brilliant in SB 15.

I've detailed Flacco's and Eli's postseasons many times. Both played amazingly (and Eli x2).

 

[Wozzy]

He was in that postseason. Especially against a depleted NE secondary.

If you're crapping on Foles, which may be justified given the totality of his NFL career, then you're really crapping on the Patriots defense in SB 52, which is also justified, considering their epically bad performance.


Dilfer? No. He was entirely carried by the running game and the Ravens all-time great defense. Somewhat the same with Brad Johnson but he was actually better in 2002 then most people remember.

Joe Gibbs is arguably the GOAT head coach. Like #1. So yeah, remarkable accomplishments with thoroughly underwhelming QBs. Hostetler had Parcells... it's ok to recognize exceptions to the rule... Parcells allows for such an exception.

McMahon had the GOAT defense. They had one defensive lapse that entire season (against Marino) but otherwise they were the most dominant defense to ever step foot on a football field.

Plunkett was a 1st overall pick so it's not like he wasn't talented. He was brilliant in SB 15.

I've detailed Flacco's and Eli's postseasons many times. Both played amazingly (and Eli x2).

So you’re answer to two handfuls of average/good QB’s winning Super Bowls is they discovered magic powers for one postseason… then miraculously it disappeared once that postseason was over.

In short… taking a torch to your magic QB theory.

You need at least good QB play to win a ring, time and Joe Gibbs alone have shown that to be true.

These guys aren’t unicorns. You need a top team a lot more than a top QB. You’d rather have great than good or average, but too many of those guys have rings of their fingers for it to be an outlier.

 

[crawhammer]

BB drafted, developed and continued to play Brady over the 100 million dollar man Drew Bledsoe, even though he was getting crucified in the media for it.

Yeah… he gets credit for Tom, the way all management get credit for smart hires. Unless you’re a hater with an axe to grind.

Don't rewrite history. Mo Lewis ended Bledsoe. And there was no going back to Bledsoe after Brady's comeback win over the Chargers.

I know there are some pretty strong Bledsoe fans here, and he had some respectable moments, especially with Parcells, but he sucked mightily in 1999, 2000 and the start of the 2001 season. After the first few throws he was frightening in the AFCCG and there's no way he was winning SB 36. That $100 mil contract was horrific but fortunately they able to weasel out of it pretty easily. Under no circumstances were the Patriots ever winning a Super Bowl with Bledsoe. Belichick and Bledsoe would have had 0 rings if Bledsoe finished out that contract (and BB wouldn't have been around at least for the last half of it).

 

[StockingAnarchyNumber12]

A few things: Its very possible BB wasn't yet the GOAT coach in Cleveland and the experience in Cleveland helped him become a better coach. Imo, his tenure in the 90s is irrelavant to his tenure in NE. Coaches and players can improve their craft. Using it to discredit him or even credit him isnt really fair either way. With that said, the opposite can be true too. Coaches and players tend to go downhill after a certain age. Bill wasn't yet the GOAT in Cleveland but became the GOAT in NE. It doesnt mean as of 2023 he is still the best coach in the league. It doesnt mean he isnt the GOAT, but him losing his fastball wouldnt be out of this world shocking. The dude is 70+!

 

[Wozzy]

Don't rewrite history. Mo Lewis ended Bledsoe. And there was no going back to Bledsoe after Brady's comeback win over the Chargers.

I know there are some pretty strong Bledsoe fans here, and he had some respectable moments, especially with Parcells, but he sucked mightily in 1999, 2000 and the start of the 2001 season. After the first few throws he was frightening in the AFCCG and there's no way he was winning SB 36. That $100 mil contract was horrific but fortunately they able to weasel out of it pretty easily. Under no circumstances were the Patriots ever winning a Super Bowl with Bledsoe. Belichick and Bledsoe would have had 0 rings if Bledsoe finished out that contract (and BB wouldn't have been around at least for the last half of it).

Bledsoe got cleared from injury (week 10) and the media were clamoring to give him his job back because Tom was scraping by (5-3) as a game manager… whereas Bledsoe was the big prototypical QB with the big arm and draft pedigree.

I don’t have to rewrite history… that’s you pretending Tom arrived as a rookie and rewrote all the passing records.

We’ve already determined you were either too young to remember or have allowed nostalgia to cloud the Brady origin story.

 

[crawhammer]

It was all important, the offensive line was just as important as the QB or any other position because we’ve seen Tom running for his life when the line was bad due to injury.

The defense is just as important as the offense. Wins and losses are based on point differential, not just points scored.

You’re here telling us Brady had magic powers and BB was an overrated tourist all the time. Now you’re just speaking out both sides of your mouth.

No, what I said in that post, I've consistently stated for years really. We agree, it's all important.

You're saying the entire offensive line is as important as Brady. Ok, fine. So what, 10 or so players are equal to Brady's importance? Good call.

Offense and defense equally as important? I suppose it depends on personnel. When you have a starting quarterback of Brady's caliber for 18 seasons, and he's the only player to have been there for all 6 Super Bowl championships, then on the whole the offense is more important (by the sheer weight of Brady's sole importance).

Generally, offense and defense are more important than special teams. Individual games could break down differently depending on circumstances but rarely ever is ST as important as the other two phases.

I put percentages on it before and I think I broke it down like this...

45% Offense
35% Defense
20% ST

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Don't rewrite history. Mo Lewis ended Bledsoe. And there was no going back to Bledsoe after Brady's comeback win over the Chargers.

except brady himself said he would have been the backup in 2002 had the Pats lost to the Raiders in the snowbowl game…so as usual you are wrong,

 

[Wozzy]

No, what I said in that post, I've consistently stated for years really. We agree, it's all important.

You're saying the entire offensive line is as important as Brady. Ok, fine. So what, 10 or so players are equal to Brady's importance? Good call.

Say 5 starters… and the bench is as important as a backup QB, but they’re entirely more likely to play. QB’s rarely get touched.

Offense and defense equally as important? I suppose it depends on personnel. When you have a starting quarterback of Brady's caliber for 18 seasons, and he's the only player to have been there for all 6 Super Bowl championships, then on the whole the offense is more important (by the sheer weight of Brady's sole importance).

Generally, offense and defense are more important than special teams. Individual games could break down differently depending on circumstances but rarely ever is ST as important as the other two phases.

I put percentages on it before and I think I broke it down like this...

45% Offense
35% Defense
20% ST

A kicker is unimportant… until you’re staring at a 45 yard attempt to win or lose a playoff game. Then he’s vitally important.

 

[crawhammer]

Poor offense was a major reason for most of those losses. You seem to think players deserve the credit for their play when they win, but don’t think they are responsible when they lose.

I'm sure the offense, and Brady specifically, were in part responsible for those losses. I can't break them all down, it's too time consuming, but if individual games come up then I'll be willing to take a closer look.

Butler himself said he was not focussed and had a terrible week of practice. You have absolutely no clue what state of mind or state of preparation he was in. You are creating a reason he did not play out of thin air, when he himself gave you reasons. Butler played 1 snap of special teams.

Butler said after the game that the team "gave up" on him and he felt he "could have changed that game."

Belichick said after the game: "he was active for the game and anybody that is active for the game is ready to go"

My reasons aren't out of thin air either. We've all heard or read the speculation. Maybe we'll find out something more in Butler's book. But Butler was "ready to go" in SB 52 just like Belichick said and he didn't play (coach's decision).

Your claim that it threw the secondary “into chaos” is uninformed and wrong.
The game plan was the 4 safety defense. The defense belichick created for the Andy Reid offense. He used it frequently and pretty exclusive against the chiefs. The only changes were Rowe played cb2 ahead of Butler and Bademosi played 11(?) snaps as the cb3. That is hardly chaos, it’s moving cb3 to cb2 and cb4 to cb3 just as would be done on any team any time cb2 was unavailable.

I'll interpret this post: Belichick had a terrible game plan, and as it dramatically blew up in his face, he inexplicably stuck with it when he had other options.

I'll accept that. But it still doesn't excuse the Butler benching.

You also left out Jordan Richards. How could anyone forget that clown. Or his blown coverage and inept tackling on Clement's 55-yard catch and run.

What else?... Chung played (poorly) out of position. Devin McCourty ended up in single coverage with Ertz on the decisive score and literally tripped over his own feet trying to keep up.

Chaos is a good word.

 

[BB8XSBW]

Back in 2000, Bill Belichick took a $1 bet with Robert Kraft to see if he could take some random 6th round system QB and win 6 Super Bowls with him.

Two decades later, Bill Belichick not only won that $1 bet, but won the title of undisputed football GOAT.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Back in 2000, Bill Belichick took a $1 bet with Robert Kraft to see if he could take some random 6th round system QB and win 6 Super Bowls with him.

20 years later, Bill Belichick not only won that $1 bet, but won the title of undisputed football GOAT.

We have that payment on record....

 

[crawhammer]

So you’re answer to two handfuls of average/good QB’s winning Super Bowls is they discovered magic powers for one postseason… then miraculously it disappeared once that postseason was over.

Well, if you're writing a fairy tale for children, which you seem to have an affinity for, then you could characterize it like that.

Or we could just say, average/good QBs played elite caliber football in the postseason. Eli did it twice so at that point it's unlikely to be a mistake. His postseason record, and multiple comeback wins, prove it, Eli was a clutch postseason competitor. Eli was 10x the postseason quarterback than his brother.

 

[Wozzy]

Well, if you're writing a fairy tale for children, which you seem to have an affinity for, then you could characterize it like that.

Or we could just say, average/good QBs played elite caliber football in the postseason. Eli did it twice so at that point it's unlikely to be a mistake. His postseason record, and multiple comeback wins, prove it, Eli was a clutch postseason competitor. Eli was 10x the postseason quarterback than his brother.

Yeah… skills and talent rise and fall like power levels in a video game.

Sounds legit…