For the "Brady made Belichick" crowd

[203Pat]

Yes I do. Are you denying facts?

I had been giving you the benefit of the doubt assuming you were just a very subpar troll. Apparently that isn't the case, you really are this dense and frankly an embarrassment to the fanbase.

 

[lancerman]

Do you actually know what the word "fact" means?

No he doesn’t. That’s the irony. He made his argument worse by trying to sound smart but having to reach so far that his arm went around the world and up his anus and now is covered in dung

 

[sb1]

I had been giving you the benefit of the doubt assuming you were just a very subpar troll. Apparently that isn't the case, you really are this dense and frankly an embarrassment to the fanbase.

LOL. Yup my last fact is soooo true.

 

[lancerman]

I had been giving you the benefit of the doubt assuming you were just a very subpar troll. Apparently that isn't the case, you really are this dense and frankly an embarrassment to the fanbase.

No he’s just one of those people that is incapable of admitting he is wrong and rather then concede that he’s being selective he wants to just try to put on a little performance hoping he can save face. Pretty sad display

 

[sb1]

No he’s just one of those people that is incapable of admitting he is wrong and rather then concede that he’s being selective he wants to just try to put on a little performance hoping he can save face. Pretty sad display

What am I wrong about? This ought to be good

 

[SHOWTIME15]

OK, can someone remind me whose defenses helped Tom win SB 36, and 38-39?

 

[lancerman]

What am I wrong about? This ought to be good

The part where you pass off opinions as facts and the only real fact you used relies on ignoring 84% of the information. Just those small mistakes

 

[sb1]

OK, can someone remind me of whose defenses helped Tom win SB 36, and 38-39?

Patriots would have won Super Bowl 36 if Drew started.

Don't be mad Bradyites, Ty Law said it not me.

Ty Law: Patriots still would've won Super Bowl 36 with Drew Bledsoe instead of Tom Brady

Law's pick-six was responsible for one of the Patriots' two touchdowns in the 20-17 win.

www.masslive.com

 

[XLIX]

Didn't say it was his fault - but if he kept his mouth shut and didn't let his arrogance get the best of him then I doubt it would have gone down the way it did.

LOLOLOL!!!!!!! You are literally stating "I didn't say it was Brady's fault, I am just saying Brady's arrogance is the reason the whole thing happened."

That is the textbook definition of saying it was Brady's fault. ROFLLOLOLLL

I think a sample size of the last 15 years is much more relevant than 30 years ago, but maybe it's just me.

No it is not just you. Several other people make the same mistake because they do not understand logic or the rules/strategies of debate. Let me school you on how your logic is faulty:

If the subject was Bill Belichick as a head coach, then the sample size would be 26 years. Taking the past 15 years out of that 26 year sample would be fairly reasonable. It would not be the final word, but at least it would be a reasonable argument.

Unfortunately (for you), the subject is Belichick as a head coach without Brady. The sample size is 7.3 years. Taking the past 1.3 years from a 7.3 year sample is very weak reasoning. You would lose a point in a formal debate every single time when your opponent gave the full 7.3 year sample.

 

[XLIX]

Patriots would have won Super Bowl 36 if Drew started.

Don't be mad Bradyites, Ty Law said it not me.

Ty Law: Patriots still would've won Super Bowl 36 with Drew Bledsoe instead of Tom Brady

Law's pick-six was responsible for one of the Patriots' two touchdowns in the 20-17 win.

www.masslive.com

Patriots were 5-13 with Belichick/Bledsoe. If Bledsoe stayed healthy and stayed the starter, there would not have been a Super Bowl run in the first place. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just living in fantasyland.

 

[XLIX]

OK, can someone remind me whose defenses helped Tom win SB 36, and 38-39?

Absolutely the defenses helped. But the margin of error on getting to those Super Bowls and winning those Super Bowls was so razor thin that even a modest downgrade at the QB position would have made all the difference.

 

[sb1]

LOLOLOL!!!!!!! You are literally stating "I didn't say it was Brady's fault, I am just saying Brady's arrogance is the reason the whole thing happened."

That is the textbook definition of saying it was Brady's fault. ROFLLOLOLLL

Take that whatever way you wish. He made a stupid comment and got btch slapped for it. Again.

No it is not just you. Several other people make the same mistake because they do not understand logic or the rules/strategies of debate. Let me school you on how your logic is faulty:

If the subject was Bill Belichick as a head coach, then the sample size would be 26 years. Taking the past 15 years out of that 26 year sample would be fairly reasonable. It would not be the final word, but at least it would be a reasonable argument.

Unfortunately (for you), the subject is Belichick as a head coach without Brady. The sample size is 7.3 years. Taking the past 1.3 years from a 7.3 year sample is very weak reasoning. You would lose a point in a formal debate every single time when your opponent gave the full 7.3 year sample.

And about 6 of those years were entirely 3 decades ago going back to what I said before that it's reasonable to conclude Belichick is a better coach today than he was 3 decades ago. Not to mention that almost an entire season was under a cloud of a plug being pulled on a franchise so his "losses" after that decision was made are completely meaningless. Bzzzt try again.

Instead of 15 years want me to go back to 2001 when Brady was named starter? Sure I'll do that. 14-8 without Brady is still not too shabby at all. Sorry Bradyites, Belichick ain't an 0-16 caliber coach without your binky.

 

[sb1]

Absolutely the defenses helped. But the margin of error on getting to those Super Bowls and winning those Super Bowls was so razor thin that even a modest downgrade at the QB position would have made all the difference.

"helped"...lol.

 

[PatsWSB47]

They had to have each other. What other quarterback but Brady would have ever lasted 20 years with Belichick? What other coach other than Belichick would have replaced Bledsoe with Brady when he was cleared to play again? Needed a coach and a quarterback who lived and breathed football to make the dynasty. Once in a lifetime.

 

[lancerman]

They had to have each other. What other quarterback but Brady would have ever lasted 20 years with Belichick? What other coach other than Belichick would have replaced Bledsoe with Brady when he was cleared to play again? Needed a coach and a quarterback who lived and breathed football to make the dynasty. Once in a lifetime.

Most coaches would have kept Brady after Bledsoe was cleared. He completely turned the team around and the fans would have crucified him if they brought in Bledsoe back and they had even one loss

 

[IllegalContact]

FACT: Brady had done nothing in the NFL without BB.........except collect dingleberries in his underwear

This season may change that, and it may not

 

[lancerman]

This thread is one guying throwing a humongous tantrum on why he should be allowed to ignore all the data that doesn’t suit him

 

[IllegalContact]

This thread is one guying throwing a humongous tantrum on why he should be allowed to ignore all the data that doesn’t suit him

watch the excuses fly when the pats wind up with a better record than the bucs

 

[sb1]

1. Your first “fact” is you ignoring 84% of the games BB coached without Brady so you can use the 16% that makes you look okay. It also still ignores that the only full season in that sample size was 50% of the non playoff seasons since Brady became a starter. So utterly worthless

No I think the sample size is very relevant and meaningful. See my posts above. 14-8 without Brady this century. I'd say that's quite good. How did the Colts do without Manning?

2. Fact 2 deliberately ignores that 11-5 coming off 16-0 and an easy **** schedule. With a QB that went 10-6 without Bill on a worse team a couple years later.

Omitting that the very same QB was pathetic in camp and preseason and somehow turned into a serviceable to pretty good QB by the end of the year. Gee. Funny what happens when you have a great coach.

The defense sucked btw so there's no guarantee Brady would have done much better.

3. Fact 3 is just “here’s my opinion for why I feel I deserve to manipulate the numbers and selectively not count things and also ignore 2000 which if I’m forced to use it he’s only 3 games over .500 as the Pats coach”

4. Not a fact, just you trying gaslight the people who want to use his entire sample size instead of 16%

Funny you say gaslight... after trying to convince me Belichick sucks as a coach. ROFLcopter.

 

[Simpelton]

Having Brady on offense allowed the best defensive coach in harness today to focus on honing the defense. Brady could make the team work on offense in a way that you just can't scheme for because he had an elite football IQ even at a very young age.