- Joined
- Jul 3, 2013
- Messages
- 43,453
- Reaction score
- 50,080
I’m not really a believer that a healthy Brady means a Super Bowl lock in 2008. That defense was not very good. They didn’t really do anything that well. Finished statistically middle-to-below-middle of the pack with the benefit of a very easy schedule. Still gave up 28 or more points five times that year.Going 14-6 with those guys isn't anything to write home about.
I'm not a "Belichick sucks without Brady" bandwagoner, but some of the ways we praise Bill displays a really low bar. A LOT of coaches have had 10-12 win seasons QBs that are no better or even worse than Matt Cassel, and rosters that were worse than that 2008 Pats team. Matt Nagy won 12 games with Mitch Tribusky, Rex Ryan got multiple 10-win seasons with Mark F'n Sanchez, Bill Cowher took Neil O'Donnell, Tommy Maddox, and Kordell Stewart to multiple deep playoff runs, etc. That Matt Cassell year was not impressive, and back then a lot of people (or at least me) were so angry because Brady and the Pats would have easily won that year given how weak the field was (which is ANOTHER reason why going 11-5 with Matt Cassell was not impressive; the schedule was one of the easiest ever).
Again, Belichick is still great, but we need to accept the fact that "winning with any QB" is NOT his strong suit or claim to fame. He's good with general gameplanning and managing/neutralizing opponents, and the subtleties (penalties, punting, special teams) that put his best players in position to make winning plays.
Pats probably finish 12-4, as the Colts loss was on Cassel but they are a one and done candidate.












