- Joined
- Sep 13, 2004
- Messages
- 58,968
- Reaction score
- 12,731
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.Apparently the OP was not content with the response he received two weeks ago, and elected to go a bit further and double down in seeking some attention.OP, honestly you may want to delete this and forget about it before it gets too late. This is an all-time bad thread and those tend to get brought up for years to come. Just ask Patrodamus... if you can find him.
Before everyone throws stones at me, consider....
* Apparently, BB has decided to keep his backup QB and NOT trade him for what would be a huge amounts of picks, meaning he truly, truly values JG.
* After this season, no matter what happens, JG will be a free agent and if BB let's him walk, it means he got a season of having a quality backup QB who rarely played (likely scenario) and that would be it. Unless...
* He either gives JG the franchise tag or signs him to a new long term deal which of course would only happen if JG thought he was going to be the NE QB the following season; otherwise, JG would never sign a long term deal.
* So, let's consider the possibility that JG is given the franchise tag for a season. That means paying him more than Tom Brady and committing HUGE bucks to the QB position. Does anyone in his right mind think that's going to happen? Of course not.
* So keeping JG comes down to this: choosing between Tom Brady and JG. After this season, you can't have both. And you've (BB) already turned your back on multiple draft picks to keep JG so logically doesn't it make sense to keep the guy who's younger?
* As crazy as it seems, keeping JG this season reveals what's likely to happen the following season: Belichick keeping JG long term, making him the starter, and moving on from Tom Brady. I'm just not sure how it plays out any other way. What would a franchise give up for a 40 year old QB -- even one as good as Tom Brady? You might get a late 1st on a contending team.
* Tom Brady clearly wants to play 5 more seasons. Sticking with JG this year is a HUGE clue that that isn't likely to happen. Some will surely be very angry with BB. But does anyone doubt Belichick's fearlessness when it comes to doing what he thinks is best for the franchise? Bottom line here: enjoy this season. Hopefully it ends in another Super Bowl victory because Brady's last season as a Patriot could be this one.
I'll add -- that's my conclusion looking at the situation. I could be wrong, sure. But if BB keeps JG this year, he's wanting him to be the QB and that only happens if you trade #12. BB isn't the type of guy to be left holding an empty hand. He won't let JG walk (assuming he wants to keep him) for merely a one year luxury.
You don't know that. There's no sample of "Brady without Bill."
I, for one, think the greatest QB of all time would have a ring or two wherever he went. Maybe not 5, but certainly not 0.
Honestly, it's amazing to me that in 2017, with Brady's age, we have people who are so salty about the idea of maybe keeping an heir apparent on the roster that they make posts like this.
I get that Brady is still playing well, but how dumb is it to demand that belichick throw away the future just for a draft pick.
Gimme a freakin' break.I actually think Brady's skill set is sufficiently unique that most coaches would have miserably failed with him. I present the following:
* Brady wasn't immediately great - his first three years as a starter were good, better than most of us remember them (mid-80s QB rating back then was quality), but they weren't Tom Brady, the GOAT. He didn't break 7.0 YPA until 2004 (though 2003 was close), didn't break 250 YPG until 2005, didn't break a 90 QB rating until 2004; he was top-10, but not top-2.
* Brady lacked elite athletic ability; his strengths were pre-snap recognition, quickly progressing through reads, infrequent mistakes (there's a reason we remember the 4 Int games so well), and seemingly never losing his composure under pressure. Those are skills you need to build a scheme around, and frankly most coaches are either too stupid or too stubborn to adapt to a young QB.
* Bear in mind the competition: no matter how much the Patriots have dominated the AFC in the past decade and a half, there were always other would-be powerhouses: the Colts and Chargers, then Colts and Steelers, then the Ravens moving up, etc. Peyton is a good example of what happens when you burden a superior QB with inferior team building and good-to-poor coaching, and his skill set doesn't require anything special to build around.
If you put Brady onto a team like the Eagles - say they draft him late, and then McNabb goes down injured - then he collects a few rings, but if you put him on the Bengals, then he'd be mentioned alongside Marino as an all-time great who never won it all. The Browns would probably manage to ruin him entirely.
Which Super Bowls would they have won without the greatest QB of all time playing for them?Bill Parcells always said that a great coach is one who can beat yours with his - or beat his with yours.
That sums up Belichick perfectly (does anyone doubt if spotted a 25 point lead in the Super Bowl, Belichick wouldn't have a better strategy to hold onto it than the Falcons?)
However keep in mind that we're talking about giving BB an assortment of guys other GMs picked. In the case of Belichick he'd still be shopping for the groceries.
Would the team average 12 wins a season for 17 years without Brady? Nope. But would they be MUCH better than 31 other mediocre teams and win a share of the Super Bowls?
Yup. Not sure how anyone in their right mind would deny that.
If he had been playing somewhere else, he may not have 5 rings, but he would certainly have a couple. He would not have - as you say - "miserably failed" no matter where he went.
That is not a parcells quote.Bill Parcells always said that a great coach is one who can beat yours with his - or beat his with yours.
That sums up Belichick perfectly (does anyone doubt if spotted a 25 point lead in the Super Bowl, Belichick wouldn't have a better strategy to hold onto it than the Falcons?)
However keep in mind that we're talking about giving BB an assortment of guys other GMs picked. In the case of Belichick he'd still be shopping for the groceries.
Would the team average 12 wins a season for 17 years without Brady? Nope. But would they be MUCH better than 31 other mediocre teams and win a share of the Super Bowls?
Yup. Not sure how anyone in their right mind would deny that.
At least 3.None or one. I'd guess none just cause without an elite QB it is more unlikely than likely. However teams that win without elite QBs tend to have elite coaches.
Since 2000.
Giants 2 - Tom Coughlin
Ravens 2 - John Harbaugh, Brian Billick
Seahawks 1 - Pete Carroll
So while not having the QB makes it hard great coaches can sometimes over come it by building good Ds and then finding a guy who can make some plays. Would BB have been able to do it? Maybe but who knows.
Which did they win that yubcould take away the greatest coach of all time and they would have won anyway?Which Super Bowls would they have won without the greatest QB of all time playing for them?
Which Super Bowls did they dominate so completely that you could take the greatest QB of all time away, replace him with Joe Average, and have won the game anyway?