Still No # 1WR

[203Pat]

I don't fault him for wanting to get paid. That's not the point. Despite him getting paid, they were consistently competitive in every position group including QB during that time. Some years were better than others, some position groups were better than others, and again injury often played a role in that.

From 2000-2004 Brady was paid like a 6th round draft choice: 3 rings

From 2014-2019 he took a little less money and they kicked a bunch of salary cap down the road: 3 rings

The decade in between they came close but no cigar... if you want a real estimation of why they have six rings and other elite QB's don't, their talent acquisition, coaching and fiscal responsibility of having more money to spend on the remaining 52 players plus practice squad is a lot more reasonable than a superman QB who is six times/light years better than even the best of his peers.

It's not called the ultimate team sport for nothing, Tom Brady would be the first to tell you that and has.

We are talking about literally 3-4 plays in those 2 Super Bowls during that stretch. Those 3-4 plays go the other way and your argument is out the window. You could also go the other way and take the 2014 to 2019 run and take 3-4 plays and maybe we have 1 or even no rings in that run.

 

[Wozzy]

We are talking about literally 3-4 plays in those 2 Super Bowls during that stretch. Those 3-4 plays go the other way and your argument is out the window. You could also go the other way and take the 2014 to 2019 run and take 3-4 plays and maybe we have 1 or even no rings in that run.

It's hard to win a Super Bowl... Brees, Rogers, these guys have one. They never got paid like a 6th round rookie, they made more in year one than Tom made his entire rookie deal. They never took less or had their team mortgage the future by borrowing a bunch of future cap.

The last team to win three rings over a five year span prior to the Patriots was the Patriots, it's not coincidence they were paying less at QB both times. Depth of talent on the remainder of the roster matters just like good QB play matters. Sometimes Tom propped up the defense, sometimes the defense propped up the offense... it was never about one player.

Tom (505 yards passing, 3 TD's) did everything he could against the Eagles in 2017, the Pats D was wracked with injuries and a shell of themselves by the Super Bowl. Foles didn't beat Brady... the better team won as usual.

 

[Deus Irae]

In the vast history of QB's...?

Yes. And this is where you play the dishonest comparison game, denigrating the notion of NFL history, even though you've gone to that well by pointing to the Redskins' SB QBs, thus showing yourself to be a completely dishonest poster:

Until free agency players were indentured servants that teams owned wholly and unconditionally. Since then teams have paid QB's a premium not to leave. Tom played on the same team for twenty years until they maxed out what they could do by stressing their salary cap to the tune of four Super Bowls with three rings to show for it.

And there it is!

 

[Ollie]

Patriots 2019, with Brady: 12-4, playoffs
Patriots 2020, w/o Brady: 7-9, no playoffs

Bucs 2019, w/o Brady: 7-9, no playoffs
Bucs 2020, with Brady: 11-5, Super Bowl champs


My lane is the entire road. Your lane is apparently a pedestrian path off in the woods.

This is such an oversimplification. Brady was actually not that great in 2019 mainly as he struggled with a very poor supporting cast. many pundits were talking about the fact tha time might have been catching up with him. We went 8-0 against mediocre opposition and flattered to deceive. Most knew we weren't all that good and once we started playing decent sides went 4-4 and got dumped out of the playoffs by the first good side we faced. Brady couldn't alter that no matter how good he was.
in 2020 we lost 8 players to opt outs, had a front 7 made of cheese and virtually no qb. With a half decent qb and an ability to stop the run or put pressure on we could likely get 3-4 more wins.

 

[Deus Irae]

This is such an oversimplification.

No, it's really not. It's funny as hell watching people try claiming it to be so, though, particularly given how many people were dismissing the move when it first happened. Brady produced a -5 win difference for one team when he left, and a +4 win + SB difference for the team he went to.

Calling that an oversimplification is such a superficial attempt at dismissing that reality that it's laughable.

 

[Deus Irae]

Brady was actually not that great in 2019 mainly as he struggled with a very poor supporting cast. many pundits were talking about the fact tha time might have been catching up with him. We went 8-0 against mediocre opposition and flattered to deceive. Most knew we weren't all that good and once we started playing decent sides went 4-4 and got dumped out of the playoffs by the first good side we faced. Brady couldn't alter that no matter how good he was.
in 2020 we lost 8 players to opt outs, had a front 7 made of cheese and virtually no qb. With a half decent qb and an ability to stop the run or put pressure on we could likely get 3-4 more wins.

Brady won 12 games in 2019, even as his team was deteriorating all around him. Had the WR group, and the OL, not turned into twin disasters, the win differential from 2019 to 2020 would almost certainly have been even larger, and we'd possibly be talking about a team that had gone to the AFCCG or further then dropping to a 7 win team. Don't embarrass yourself here.

 

[50-yard-line]

I don't know what you're taking about. This was based on his cap number. The only thing that matters in this argument. I don't care if he made $4 billion or $4 million over the life of his career if it didn't count against the cap. The numbers I provided was a list of his cap numbers relative to the other QB's in the league over the same stretch.

How can you go to year-to-year based on CAP when contracts are shuffled all the damned time to create space (which benefits the player, as they get the actual money sooner)? Do you really think Tom F***ing Brady was the 17th highest paid QB in 2012?

They restructured his deal in 2012 to move 7.2 million forward for CAP purposes, while sticking a gazillion dollars in his pocket in 2012. Add that back in and he's 4th, not 17th. It's absurd to go by "Cap rankings" to measure how well someone's paid.

Brady has been among the top-earning QBs since he came off his tiny rookie deal. That money ALWAYS counts against the CAP, though a team has a lot of leverage in which years they'll take the CAP hit.

So yeah, the list you provided was exactly that, which means exactly squat. He made around $250 million in his time with the Pats and every dollar of it counted against the CAP, in uneven bursts based on signing bonuses and restructures.

It's the same "Gilmore won't play for $7 million-type of argument" which ignores that fact that he's only getting $7 million because he already got a lot of the money (8+ million) that he would have been paid this year, except that the signing bonus and restructures gave him the money early in order to lower the CAP hits (until the piper demands to be paid).

 

[Ollie]

No, it's really not. It's funny as hell watching people try claiming it to be so, though, particularly given how many people were dismissing the move when it first happened. Brady produced a -5 win difference for one team when he left, and a +4 win + SB difference for the team he went to.

Calling that an oversimplification is such a superficial attempt at dismissing that reality that it's laughable.

It is an over simplification when Brady leaving wasn't the only difference between the 2019 and 2020 patriots. One major issue as not replacing Brady with an even half decent qb. We even had Hoyer start two games ffs. If we had brought in a decent QB and Don't lose a huge part of our front seven we could easily get 3 more wins at least.

 

[Ollie]

Don't embarrass yourself here.

I think you'll find it's patronising comments like this that don't actually add anything to the debate and just attempt to belittle that are the real embarrassment here.

 

[Deus Irae]

I think you'll find it's patronising comments like this that don't actually add anything to the debate and just attempt to belittle that are the real embarrassment here.

I don't find that to be the case, at all. Then again, I've been on the internet from, basically, the beginning of the public era, and I don't require hospital corners style posting.


And I'm sure you meant nothing but the kindest of things when you began your responses to me with

This is such an oversimplification.

 

[Patsgofor4]

No, it's really not. It's funny as hell watching people try claiming it to be so, though, particularly given how many people were dismissing the move when it first happened. Brady produced a -5 win difference for one team when he left, and a +4 win + SB difference for the team he went to.

Calling that an oversimplification is such a superficial attempt at dismissing that reality that it's laughable.

No matter how many times you aggressively defend Brady on this site, he is never going to f*ck you. Sorry, dude. Someone had to break it to you.

 

[Deus Irae]

It is an over simplification when Brady leaving wasn't the only difference between the 2019 and 2020 patriots. One major issue as not replacing Brady with an even half decent qb. We even had Hoyer start two games ffs. If we had brought in a decent QB and Don't lose a huge part of our front seven we could easily get 3 more wins at least.

This is your defense? Your defense of your poor take is that, in an era of free agency, teams don't stay static?


By the way, your "One major issue" doesn't work in the context of this discussion. Go back and read the whole thing.


I love the completely random 3 win addition based upon nothing that no sane human being in the world would believe, though.

 

[50-yard-line]

The 2020 Patriots' defense was a shell of 2019 in both leadership and talent.

Hightower, Collins, Van Noy, Chung, Shelton...even Harmon...those are huge losses.

 

[Deus Irae]

Every year is a new year, every team starts over from scratch.

To add another point here.


2001, and only 2001 a/k/a the team's not starting over from scratch:



Patriots pre-Brady - 0-2, with a coach staring at the possibility of a second consecutive losing season
Patriots w/Brady - 11-3 and Super Bowl champions

 

[DropKickFlutie]

Tom (505 yards passing, 3 TD's) did everything he could against the Eagles in 2017, the Pats D was wracked with injuries and a shell of themselves by the Super Bowl. Foles didn't beat Brady... the better team won as usual.

I respectfully don't think the better team won. Our starting cornerback Butler, who made the Pro Bowl prior, was benched right beforehand forcing 3 DBs to all play out of position. Safeties covering WRs, backup corners covering the slot, etc. The Patriots did not punt on offense all game. All game. The better team did not win, we wrecked our secondary and it was a self inflicted wound.

 

[Ollie]

This is your defense? Your defense of your poor take is that, in an era of free agency, teams don't stay static?


By the way, your "One major issue" doesn't work in the context of this discussion. Go back and read the whole thing.


I love the completely random 3 win addition based upon nothing that no sane human being in the world would believe, though.

No you've completely missed the point..again. My defense isn't that teams don't stay static but that the 2020 patriots were inferior to the 2019 in more ways than just Brady leaving.

Also you don't think a better defense and a better qb would result in more wins? Don't embarrass
yourself here.

 

[Deus Irae]

No you've completely missed the point..again. My defense isn't that teams don't stay static but that the 2020 patriots were inferior to the 2019 in more ways than just Brady leaving.

Also you don't think a better defense and a better qb would result in more wins? Don't embarrass
yourself here.

I haven't missed the point, at all. I get a laugh out of the notion that one should ignore the disaster that became both the WRs AND the OL in 2019, while declaring 2020 to be clearly much worse, despite a much better OL in 2020, despite Shelton being a nothing loss, despite Bolden being a minor loss, and despite Chung being essentially replaced by Duggar. I mean, you're claiming that I'm oversimplifying about Brady, and you're then turning around and, with nothing to back up your assertion, claiming that

If we had brought in a decent QB and Don't lose a huge part of our front seven we could easily get 3 more wins at least.

It's amusing as all get out. The ridiculous lengths the honks will go to around here never seem to reach their finish.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

RE: The Brady v. Brees conversation, I certainly wouldn't say there are lightyears between the two. Brees is an exceptionally good QB, but Brady is better. How much better? I'd say 10-20%. I think what sets Brady apart from most is that he doesn't make back-breaking mistakes that lose his team games - that's one of his most important traits, along with the fact that he's mentally tough and elevates his play in the face of adversity and pressure.

I do think Wozzy has a fair point, though, and that is football teams win games. One needs to simply look at 2007-2011, when the Patriots won zero Super Bowls despite Brady arguably playing the best football of his career during that stretch, with his two of his three MVPs coming during that period of time (2007, 2011). The team didn't fail to win a Super Bowl because Brady wasn't lifting the team and carrying them; they failed to win a Super Bowl because a team comprised of 45/53 individuals, offense, defense, and special teams, didn't play well enough over the course of 3-to-4 postseason games.

For every offensive game-winning play, there is often a defensive or special teams equivalent.

The Patriots don't win in 2014/15 without Brady's clinical drives late in the Seattle Super Bowl including his lasers to Jules and Gronk; likewise, they don't win if Hightower doesn't make a crucial tackle and Malcolm Butler doesn't make the play of his life.

The Patriots don't win in 2016/17 without Brady's perfect 18 minutes + OT to finish that game; likewise, they don't win without Hightower's strip sack, or Long forcing a holding call to knock the Falcons out of FG range.

The Patriots don't win in 2018/19 without Brady's dime to Gronk to move the ball to the goal-line; likewise, they don't win without the defense not allowing a TD, holding the Rams high-powered offense to 3 total points over the course of 60 minutes.

This also goes in the opposite direction:

2007 - Brady engineers a beautiful drive to finally give the Pats the lead late in the game, but ultimately doesn't walk away with a Super Bowl victory because the defense couldn't make a stop or catch multiple INTs ... coupled with horrible officiating.

I think the point Wozzy is making is that Super Bowl victories, by their very nature, are completely team-dependent. You can have the most talented players, including the most talented QB, but if the team doesn't play complete games in the postseason, you will not win a Super Bowl.

Obviously the QB position has a relatively large amount of influence on the outcome of games and Brady deserves all the credit in the world for the Patriots' postseason successes - he's the undisputed GOAT and there's no QB I'd rather have. That said, Super Bowl victories are always team achievements.

I "liked" this, mainly because I "know what you mean," and also you're pretty cool in gen., but 10-20% better is a bizarrely numerical and specific way to say something qualitative -- Brady was just full of win. I mean, measure the stats, and good luck finding a "10-20% better" comp b/w Brady and Brees, Brees flat out beats Brady in many... Enter SB wins, and of course, we're talking way more than 10-20% better. SB appearances? We might be talking an order of magnitude in Brady's favor. In stat measurements, 10-20% is huge. In things like SB games/wins, it doesn't express anything, because only 1 QB ever can have meaningful increments of 10% assigned to SB games. I mean, if Brees had 6 rings and had one stolen Seattle-vs.-Pittsburgh style, you could say Brady was 10% better at winning SBs.

Sorry to rant, creating numbers for things that just aren't numerical drives me nuts. Brady wins everything, all he does is win, we lost him, I'm gonna eat some worms. Eh, he might be past his career midpoint anyway.

 

[Ollie]

I haven't missed the point, at all. I get a laugh out of the notion that one should ignore the disaster that became both the WRs AND the OL in 2019, while declaring 2020 to be clearly much worse, despite a much better OL in 2020, despite Shelton being a nothing loss, despite Bolden being a minor loss, and despite Chung being essentially replaced by Duggar. I mean, you're claiming that I'm oversimplifying about Brady, and you're then turning around and, with nothing to back up your assertion, claiming that



It's amusing as all get out. The ridiculous lengths the honks will go to around here never seem to reach their finish.

Weird how you conveniently forget to mention Collins, Van Noy and Hightower just because it doesn't suit your argument. And whilst i quite like Dugger he wasn't quite at Chungs level yet.

 

[Tony2046]

Brees is the all time leader in passing yards, but the difference between Brady’s seven rings and his one is Brady has some magical superpower that wills his defense to play better... it wasn’t that BB is one of the greatest defensive minds in pro football history? Got it... let me join the fanclub.

Brees is the all time passing leader? Wow.

He's also 13th on the all time intercepted list.

He also played mostly in domes.

Anywho back to Brady. It comes down to decision making. Reading defenses. Brady is light years beyond anyone else let alone Brees.

Sometimes games come down to a few good or bad decisions. Somehow Brady seems to have made enough good ones in the biggest moments umpteen times.

You want to harp about "it's the team" and then harp about Brees???? He's had some freaking loaded teams over the last few years. He won nothing.

You want to harp about coaching??? Brady just won with a coach that some were saying was a joke.

Brady has blown every argument out of the water except the one that says Brady was a major reason for those wins.

Defenses wear out when the offense goes three and out much of the game. They wear out if the offense doesn't hold on to the ball long enough. A rested defense plays at a higher level than one that's on the field after multiple three and outs.

To say Brady doesn't help a defense do it's job is asinine. He often gives them a lead to work with, doesn't often make mistakes and often sustains drives giving them a chance to catch their breath. They might even play a little more aggressively with a lead.

So anyway I completely disagree with your point.