Rumor: Some Patriots Players Have Doubts About Cam Newton

203Pat said:

Bill could take a crap at midfield at half time on opening day and half the board would say he made the right decision.

Click to expand...

He's made more right then wrong decisions the past 20 years then anyone else....so yeah midfield sounds good to me.

Zuma said:

He's made more right then wrong decisions the past 20 years then anyone else....so yeah midfield sounds good to me.

Click to expand...

Has he, though? His seasons without Brady as his QB1 would seem to indicate that your position is suspect, and that this has, quite possibly, been more of an elongated run with an elite QB sort of thing (i.e. Reid with Mahomes, Seifert with Young, etc...).

Deus Irae said:

Has he, though?

Click to expand...

Zuma said:

...

Click to expand...

If you think that's an actual answer, you're out of your mind.

Example of a coach - Switzer
Example of a QB - Dilfer

Deus Irae said:

If you think that's an actual answer, you're out of your mind.

Example of a coach - Switzer
Example of a QB - Dilfer

Click to expand...

Looked like an actual answer to me. The actual and only kind of answer that counts. Amazed that is lost on you.

One-If-By-Sea said:

Looked like an actual answer to me. The actual and only kind of answer that counts. Amazed that is lost on you.

Click to expand...

It's "lost" on me, because it's not an answer. I'm not amazed that such is lost on you.

The reality is that Belichick has never won a title without Brady. The reality is that even elite coaches tend to have such a problem. The reality is also that winning a title doesn't mean you had "more right then wrong decisions the past 20 years then anyone else". Anyone who understands sports knows that to be true, and it's not just restricted to football. The Bulls, for example, didn't necessarily have "more right then wrong decisions ... then anyone else", but they did have Michael Jordan.

Deus Irae said:

It's "lost" on me, because it's not an answer. I'm not amazed that such is lost on you.

The reality is that Belichick has never won a title without Brady. The reality is that even elite coaches tend to have such a problem. The reality is also that winning a title doesn't mean you had "more right then wrong decisions the past 20 years then anyone else". Anyone who understands sports knows that to be true, and it's not just restricted to football. The Bulls, for example, didn't necessarily have "more right then wrong decisions ... then anyone else", but they did have Michael Jordan.

Click to expand...

Deus - you are always lost in the weeds.

One-If-By-Sea said:

Deus - you are always lost in the weeds.

Click to expand...

Not at all. Your inability to accept that elite players cover up mistakes is not a failing on my part.

Deus Irae said:

The reality is that Belichick has never won a title without Brady.

Click to expand...

It’s not like he’s putting together a band of misfits and coming up short in the waning seconds of the Super Bowl.

He’s 61-72 without Brady with one playoff berth and one playoff win in seven seasons.

How one can just brush that off is nuts. That’s a lot of games. That’s a huge sample size.

Currently Team Bill is in the midst of seeing whether or not Mac Jones succeeds. If he succeeds, it’s because of a next level development system, incredibly good scouting, and Bill/Josh imparting football wisdom on him. If he fails, it’s because he was never going to make it.

That‘s the logic behind every Patriots homer discussion on this forum. It‘s just like last year’s outcome…everything they said Bill would do (give them an advantage with coaching, improve team as season goes on, ensure team is always motivated and can hang with anyone) the opposite happened, so they just moved the goalposts (the team had the talent of a 3-13 squad! and great coaching is how they won 7 games.) That team had an over/under of 9 wins, which was about the same as the Bucs (9.5).

Not even worth trying to discuss anymore. You’re wrong because you don’t personally have six rings, and then you’re wrong because through hindsight, it turns out Bill gave us the best possible outcome.

The Patriots defense woulda allowed 60 points in SB52 with Butler, Brady woulda only wun 9 games and then we’d be screwed forever after that, that Bucs team was already going to be elite, etc. etc.

Ice_Ice_Brady said:

It’s not like he’s putting together a band of misfits and coming up short in the waning seconds of the Super Bowl.

He’s 61-72 without Brady with one playoff berth and one playoff win in seven seasons.

How one can just brush that off is nuts. That’s a lot of games. That’s a huge sample size.

Click to expand...

I wasn't even really trying to go there. I was just responding to the notion that there's some iron clad rule that having rings = fewest errors. Belichick's a great HC, but he's been a much better HC when he's had Brady there to cover for his ass when he makes mistakes. That's not bashing BB. That's just acknowledging the obvious. Reid's a great HC, but he's a better HC when he's coaching Mahomes than when he's coaching some other QB. Again, that's not knocking Andy Reid, but is acknowledging the obvious. Tony Dungy couldn't win in Tampa Bay, despite having a great team, but he managed to win in Indianapolis, because had Peyton Manning. And Barry Switzer's almost universally considered to be a joke of an NFL head coach, but he won a title while coaching Troy Aikman and the boys.

Zuma said:

He's made more right then wrong decisions the past 20 years then anyone else....so yeah midfield sounds good to me.

View attachment 34523

Click to expand...

It always turns into “Yeah well he’s done good things!” Obviously. Kicking out the greatest QB of all time too early is clearly not one of them.

I'm just going to go ahead and say it clearly...

They hate their coach.

::Que the duckboats::

Deus Irae said:

It's "lost" on me, because it's not an answer. I'm not amazed that such is lost on you.

The reality is that Belichick has never won a title without Brady. The reality is that even elite coaches tend to have such a problem. The reality is also that winning a title doesn't mean you had "more right then wrong decisions the past 20 years then anyone else". Anyone who understands sports knows that to be true, and it's not just restricted to football. The Bulls, for example, didn't necessarily have "more right then wrong decisions ... then anyone else", but they did have Michael Jordan.

Click to expand...

It’s not “winning a title”. It’s not Barry Switzer or Trent Dilfer.
It’s a 20 year run of the best regular season, post season and championship success anyone has ever had by far.

203Pat said:

It always turns into “Yeah well he’s done good things!” Obviously. Kicking out the greatest QB of all time too early is clearly not one of them.

Click to expand...

Ultimately brady leaving will end up being the right thing.
They would not have won last year with him. It’s not even debatable because they had no chance to win the year before with him and if he stayed there would have been no resources to improve the roster, or even keep it the same because other free agents couldn’t be retained as well.
The free agent spending that rebuilt half of this team could not have happened because it was fueled by 50+ million saved by not paying Brady last year and this.
Keeping Brady would have meant surrounding him with the worst team of his career, and hoping to rebuild and contend when he was 45 or 46.
I know it’s an emotional topic for many posters but Brady leaving ultimately was best for him and best for the patriots.

I have always been confused by this argument so I would love it if someone could clarify it for me. I generally try to avoid the “who is the greatest” debate for these reasons. The logic that any player who plays alongside other great players takes away from their accomplishments. Great coaches can’t be as great as they are because they coached great players. Using the logic from the posts above, wouldn’t Joe Gibbs be considered the greatest coach? Who else won three superbowls with three different QBs, who were good but not HOF worthy.

Sicilian said:

Whether or not you prefer the dynasty 1.0 guys better, Hightower and McCourty are absolutely in the same stratum as Vrabel, Bruschi, and McGinest. Team captains, three rings each, clutch plays in the postseason, lifetime Patriots. They're not just "some good vets".

That said, I'm not endorsing the idea that we'd be "wasting" a year if the rookie plays. If he earns it, there's no reason to hold him back just based on his rookie status alone.

Click to expand...

Hightower goes down in my book as the best defensive player of the belichick era. Ironically the fact that it’s hard to prove with stats is the proof, because Hightower has been so valuable that he has played multiple roles, doing what is needed rather than be cut loose to just focus in being great at one thing.
I’d rank Seymour 2nd. There would be a lot of debate around longevity vs peak play after that.

Deus Irae said:

Has he, though? His seasons without Brady as his QB1 would seem to indicate that your position is suspect, and that this has, quite possibly, been more of an elongated run with an elite QB sort of thing (i.e. Reid with Mahomes, Seifert with Young, etc...).

Click to expand...

Oh good lord.

Well you can only hope and pray Mac Jones will be the real deal. And really hope he can really thrive.

tom444 said:

Oh good lord.

Click to expand...

You must be a Switzer fan, then.

Medway Patriot said:

I have always been confused by this argument so I would love it if someone could clarify it for me. I generally try to avoid the “who is the greatest” debate for these reasons. The logic that any player who plays alongside other great players takes away from their accomplishments. Great coaches can’t be as great as they are because they coached great players. Using the logic from the posts above, wouldn’t Joe Gibbs be considered the greatest coach? Who else won three superbowls with three different QBs, who were good but not HOF worthy.

Click to expand...

You don't evaluate players based solely upon one thing. You don't evaluate coaches based solely upon one thing.