It Is Belichick Time

[XLIX]

The academies play with one hand tied behind their back. BB talking about the history of Navy football might be the highlight of their season.

Last night they tackled - or, I should say, tried to tackle - with both hands tied behind their backs.

 

[sb1]

I'd say that during the 2018 (2019) playoff run, the aspect of play that had the best performance consistently throughout the playoffs was the running game.

vs. LAC: 34 att, 155 yds, 4.6 avg, 4 td
vs. KC: 48 att, 176 yds, 3.7 avg, 4 td
vs. LAR: 32 att, 154 yds, 4.8 avg, 1 td

TOT: 114 att, 485 yds, 4.3 avg, 9 td

I mean, that's pretty impressive. But every unit did its job at one point or another. Clearly the defense was awesome in the first halves of all three games, especially in the KC game. But they played less than great in the second half of both the LAC and KC games. Brady did have big passing numbers, and he started like a house on fire against LAC, and obviously had huge, clutch throws in the KC game and on the TD drive in the Super Bowl. But he wasn't *great* in the last two games, with the bad turnovers along the way. The secondary got lit up by KC in the second half but played great against the Rams. The pass rush had its moments.

You're right...it was a total team effort where every unit contributed. I'd still say that the most consistently good unit during that run was the running game (not sure if it's called a "unit" or a phase or aspect of the game, but you get what I mean).

And leading up to the playoffs....
vs PIT: 19 att, 96 yards, 5.1 avg
vs BUF: 47 att, 273 yards, 5.8 avg, 2 TD
vs NYJ: 30 att, 131 yards, 4.4 avg

That running game unleashed late that year was absolutely phenomenal. The league had no answer for it. Made the QB's job that much easier when you have a threat like that. I would have put it up anyday against what the Ravens had last year. They were absolute $$$$ in the red zone.

It's too bad injuries hit and we couldn't see its full potential in 2019. With Cam here I can't wait to see what they have planned.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

As would be expected from a 42 year old QB. Father Time always wins in the end.

Speaking of him, how do Father Time and Mother Nature get along so well?

Or, do all these natural disasters represent spats?

 

[TomPatriot]

Last night they tackled - or, I should say, tried to tackle - with both hands tied behind their backs.

Well, they're waterboys. Meanwhile, over Stony Lonesome way . . . 42-0.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

Is that so? Tell me.... which season did the Patriots win a Super Bowl so comfortably that you can take away the greatest QB in the history of football, replace him with someone else, and still have won the Super Bowl?

I'm talking about the future.

 

[ivanvamp]

Really? You think a good-but-not-great QB leads the Patriots to victory against Oakland and then also leads a game winning FG in SB36? Really??? The team that was 5-13 before Brady took over would have won a Super Bowl with a lesser QB? Really..?!?!

Oh, and you'll note that I mentioned the entire season, not just the Super Bowl itself. A good-but-not-great QB may have been able to win SB53 for NE, but that same good-but-not-great QB would not have gotten us there in the first place by beating KC. So try again.

A fair number of good-but-not-great QBs have won SBs. Nick Foles, Eli Manning, Brad Johnson, and even Peyton Manning in 2015/16. Maybe a good-but-not-great QB leads the Pats to 24 points against the Rams in the last Pats' SB. Brady didn't really have a great game that day, which included a horrific interception at the beginning. Maybe a different QB puts up way more than 13 points in that one. Who knows.

 

[patfanken]

Again we are talking about (mostly) WR's or the lack of elite class WR's over the course of the last 20 years. On THAT we can agree. The Pats haven't been able to draft and develop less than an handful of WR's that reached the level of pretty good, let alone elite level of receiving at that position. Those are the undisputed facts of the case. To which I reply, SO WHAT!

As I have stated MANY many times, the correlation of Elite WR's to the success of a winning football team is STAGGERINGLY low. Even when we finally had a 3 year run WITH an elite WR, we had very good seasons, but none were championship seasons. Think about it. This team has been to EIGHT superbowls with ZERO elite level WR's

The fact is that the WR position is drawn from the LARGEST player pool that exists in football, which why you can find guys like Edelman and Welker who were a 7th round pick and a UDFA respectively. There are guys that the "WR poor" Patriots dropped this preseason who are fantastic athletes. Guys who if you saw working out would make you wonder why they aren't in the league.

Sure I wish we could start elite WR's at all 3 positions, but the fact remains that while we don't have that LUXURY, BB has proven that over a 20 year period they aren't necessary to win more football game than you lose. You can sweat a LOT of things about this year's edition of the NE Patriots, but WR should be at the bottom of that list of worries.

Interesting though, the correlation of having an elite TE in you offense and superbowl success is VERY high, but that is a discussion for another day.

 

[LJRomanoff]

So how do you want to do this, since you started the nitpick? Do you want to look at stats? Or do you want to look at MVPs and pro-bowl and all-pro appearances? Or do you want to look at pro-football-reference's "AV" rating, which contextualizes their performance and value? Tell me which way you want to go to examine this besides you just saying I'm wrong.

Stats are fine.

 

[patsfanincleveland]

Again we are talking about (mostly) WR's or the lack of elite class WR's over the course of the last 20 years. On THAT we can agree. The Pats haven't been able to draft and develop less than an handful of WR's that reached the level of pretty good, let alone elite level of receiving at that position. Those are the undisputed facts of the case. To which I reply, SO WHAT!

As I have stated MANY many times, the correlation of Elite WR's to the success of a winning football team is STAGGERINGLY low. Even when we finally had a 3 year run WITH an elite WR, we had very good seasons, but none were championship seasons. Think about it. This team has been to EIGHT superbowls with ZERO elite level WR's

The fact is that the WR position is drawn from the LARGEST player pool that exists in football, which why you can find guys like Edelman and Welker who were a 7th round pick and a UDFA respectively. There are guys that the "WR poor" Patriots dropped this preseason who are fantastic athletes. Guys who if you saw working out would make you wonder why they aren't in the league.

Sure I wish we could start elite WR's at all 3 positions, but the fact remains that while we don't have that LUXURY, BB has proven that over a 20 year period they aren't necessary to win more football game than you lose. You can sweat a LOT of things about this year's edition of the NE Patriots, but WR should be at the bottom of that list of worries.

Interesting though, the correlation of having an elite TE in you offense and superbowl success is VERY high, but that is a discussion for another day.

The reality is scheme and match-ups are more important than individual talent.

BB can scheme to take away your $20M superstar WR

If your CB 4/5 are hopeless against your opponents WR 4/5.......you got major issues with a moderately competent QB.

 

[Doctor DDS]

Those claiming that Brady was anything less than tremendous against KC have a completely idea of what great is than I do. I could have sworn he led 3 consecutive must have TD drives in the final moments of the conference championship game to lead the Pats to an upset of the Super Bowl favorites on the road. And he did it with basically just Edelman and an obviously banged up Gronk as quality receiving options. Guess he played poorly against the Seahawks and Falcons in those Super Bowls as well.

 

[TomPatriot]

Those claiming that Brady was anything less than tremendous against KC have a completely idea of what great is than I do. I could have sworn he led 3 consecutive must have TD drives in the final moments of the conference championship game to lead the Pats to an upset of the Super Bowl favorites on the road. And he did it with basically just Edelman and an obviously banged up Gronk as quality receiving options. Guess he played poorly against the Seahawks and Falcons in those Super Bowls as well.

He gave up at least 3-7 points with Ragland's pick, which was his fault. The Sorensen pick was on Edelman. And if Dee Ford doesn’t line up offside . . . Damn, that KC D was pretty bad.

Some guy named Sony rushed for 113 yards and that might have helped the Pats win.

 

[captain stone]

Interesting though, the correlation of having an elite TE in you offense and superbowl success is VERY high, but that is a discussion for another day.

I'm sure that's what Bill is hoping for with the double-dip during the draft...a year too late unfortunately, but better late than never...

 

[captain stone]

He gave up at least 3-7 points with Ragland's pick, which was his fault. The Sorensen pick was on Edelman. And if Dee Ford doesn’t line up offside . . . Damn, that KC D was pretty bad.

Then the INT would've been on Gronkowski.

 

[TomPatriot]

Then the INT would've been on Gronkowski.

Mostly, but not the best location or the softest touch, iirc.

 

[Bruins29]

Some guy named Sony rushed for 113 yards and that might have helped the Pats win.

Not to shabby for a JAG

 

[ivanvamp]

Stats are fine.

Heh, ok.

Best individual passing season:
Grogan (1979): 206-423 (48.7%), 3,286 yds, 28 td, 20 int, 77.4 rating
Newton (2015): 296-495 (59.8%), 3,837 yds, 35 td, 10 int, 99.4 rating

Best individual rushing season:
Grogan (1978): 81 att, 539 yds, 6.7 avg, 5 td
Newton (2012): 127 att, 741 yds, 5.8 avg, 8 td

Career passing:
Grogan: 1,879-3,593 (52.3%), 26,886 yds, 182 td, 208 int, 69.6 rating
Newton: 2,371-3,980 (59.6%), 29,041 yds, 182 td, 108 int, 86.1 rating

Career rushing:
Grogan: 445 att, 2,176 yds, 4.9 avg, 35 td
Newton: 934 att, 4,806 yds, 5.1 avg, 58 td

Whether you take them at their peak, or over the course of their respective careers, there's literally nothing that Grogan did better than Newton. Newton is a better passer than Grogan was. He's a better runner than Grogan was. He produced WAY more touchdowns (Grogan 217 rush+pass TD, 13.6 per season; Newton 240 rush+pass TD, 26.7 per season). He turned the ball over way LESS.

Yes, Grogan played in a different era where it was harder to pass. That's why I asked if you wanted to look at AV, which adjusts for that. And if you use that metric, Newton's top 3 AV seasons were 2015 (20), 2011 (19), and 2012 (19). Grogan's top 3 AV seasons were 1978 (16), 1977 (15), and 1979 (14). Career AV: Newton 123 over 9 seasons (13.7 per season), Grogan 116 over 16 seasons (7.3 per season).

Newton was better at everything a QB is asked to do. Newton has been a 3x pro bowler, 1x all-pro, and 1x MVP. Grogan never even made a single pro bowl, never mind all-pro and of course never mind league MVP. At his best, Grogan doesn't stack up to Newton's best. And it pains me to say that because I loved Steve Grogan more than any other player besides Andre Tippett growing up.

But facts are facts. It's not even really particularly close.

 

[captain stone]

Mostly, but not the best location or the softest touch, iirc.

True...The ball might've sailed a bit, because Gronk didn't really make a great leap for it, as if he under-estimated how high it was...

 

[LJRomanoff]

But facts are facts. It's not even really particularly close.

Except it is close. I'm not arguing that Newton is better. "Much better" is hyperbolic.

 

[sb1]

Those claiming that Brady was anything less than tremendous against KC have a completely idea of what great is than I do. I could have sworn he led 3 consecutive must have TD drives in the final moments of the conference championship game to lead the Pats to an upset of the Super Bowl favorites on the road. And he did it with basically just Edelman and an obviously banged up Gronk as quality receiving options. Guess he played poorly against the Seahawks and Falcons in those Super Bowls as well.

Brady was clutch and that clutchness was of course the difference between a win and loss.

Clutch doesn't mean he had a tremendous game. He wasn't dominant in that game, nor the SEA or ATL games, nor any Super Bowl game except for one which was a loss.

 

[rochrist]

Heh, ok.

Best individual passing season:
Grogan (1979): 206-423 (48.7%), 3,286 yds, 28 td, 20 int, 77.4 rating
Newton (2015): 296-495 (59.8%), 3,837 yds, 35 td, 10 int, 99.4 rating

Best individual rushing season:
Grogan (1978): 81 att, 539 yds, 6.7 avg, 5 td
Newton (2012): 127 att, 741 yds, 5.8 avg, 8 td

Career passing:
Grogan: 1,879-3,593 (52.3%), 26,886 yds, 182 td, 208 int, 69.6 rating
Newton: 2,371-3,980 (59.6%), 29,041 yds, 182 td, 108 int, 86.1 rating

Career rushing:
Grogan: 445 att, 2,176 yds, 4.9 avg, 35 td
Newton: 934 att, 4,806 yds, 5.1 avg, 58 td

Whether you take them at their peak, or over the course of their respective careers, there's literally nothing that Grogan did better than Newton. Newton is a better passer than Grogan was. He's a better runner than Grogan was. He produced WAY more touchdowns (Grogan 217 rush+pass TD, 13.6 per season; Newton 240 rush+pass TD, 26.7 per season). He turned the ball over way LESS.

Yes, Grogan played in a different era where it was harder to pass. That's why I asked if you wanted to look at AV, which adjusts for that. And if you use that metric, Newton's top 3 AV seasons were 2015 (20), 2011 (19), and 2012 (19). Grogan's top 3 AV seasons were 1978 (16), 1977 (15), and 1979 (14). Career AV: Newton 123 over 9 seasons (13.7 per season), Grogan 116 over 16 seasons (7.3 per season).

Newton was better at everything a QB is asked to do. Newton has been a 3x pro bowler, 1x all-pro, and 1x MVP. Grogan never even made a single pro bowl, never mind all-pro and of course never mind league MVP. At his best, Grogan doesn't stack up to Newton's best. And it pains me to say that because I loved Steve Grogan more than any other player besides Andre Tippett growing up.

But facts are facts. It's not even really particularly close.

You can't possibly compare QB play via pure stats when one QB played in the 21st century and the other played in the mid seventies. If you try to, you end up with none of the QBs were any good until post-2000.