The Bill megathread (HC at UNC, girlfriend, etc.)

[signbabybrady]

You do realize they had a last place schedule and played 10 games to teams that were below .500 in 2001 right? The teams that were at least .500 and above, the Pats were 2-4. Of those 6 games, 4 of them were divisional opponents with mediocre offenses. They were 0-2 outside of the division. Bledsoe was already 0-1 against a team that ended up in last place (Bengals). You really think Bledsoe would've led them to an 11-5 record like Brady did? Bledsoe/Huard/Bishop couldn't do any worse than 9-7 or they possibly lose the tie breaker to Seattle.

In 2002 when they had a 1st place schedule, they barely went 9-7 with that defense being absolute trash. You want to know why they didn't make the playoffs? It was because 81% of their schedule they faced teams that were .500 and above going 6-7.

It was in 2003 when the defense become dominant and there was no defense in the BB era that came close to it.

HC's can't survive without good QB play as Bill found out with Bledsoe early on and when he drafted Mac Jones. So let's try this again. If BB hadn't drafted Tom Brady, how long does he coach for?

Just making my point that you're hating on the 01 defense

 

[signbabybrady]

That 01 defense is remembered highly because they made big plays in one game which was of course the Super Bowl. They had some great players drafted by Parcells. But they were bottom third of the league in yards allowed and vs the pass. The idea they were this amazing defense is overstated. In 03- yes absolutely hands down the best of the BB era.

I remember that defense being tough, nasty, and very clutch making huge plays in huge moments all season and in each playoff game. You can choose to remember whatever you want. That was an excellent D.

 

[lancerman]

Hater

Nope just speak the truth. Not a blind fanboy like you.

Best defense the team ever had during the dynasty was 03. That was also the defense that had the worst Super Bowl performance besides the 17 defense.

Sorry you can't cope with facts that are unfortunate to you and your default is posting pictures that are unrelated that nobody cares about or just calling people "hater".

This thread would have ended 200 pages ago if you just were able to be honest with yourself and say "yeah Bill Belichick's record without Brady is bad compared to other coaches without their top QB". You can't bring yourself to do that. It's called being a fanboy. Same reason why you are pretending to give a **** about UNC.

 

[signbabybrady]

Nope just speak the truth. Not a blind fanboy like you.

Best defense the team ever had during the dynasty was 03. That was also the defense that had the worst Super Bowl performance besides the 17 defense.

Sorry you can't cope with facts that are unfortunate to you and your default is posting pictures that are unrelated that nobody cares about or just calling people "hater".

This thread would have ended 200 pages ago if you just were able to be honest with yourself and say "yeah Bill Belichick's record without Brady is bad compared to other coaches without their top QB". You can't bring yourself to do that. It's called being a fanboy. Same reason why you are pretending to give a **** about UNC.

You're just focusing on whatever negative BS you want. Otherwise known as hating.

You're discrediting the 03 defense because of the SB but conviently ignoring the PPG the 01 team had in the playoffs.

 

[lancerman]

You're just focusing on whatever negative BS you want. Otherwise known as hating.

You're discrediting the 03 defense because of the SB but conviently ignoring the PPG the 01 team had in the playoffs.

The 03 team was brought up because that was far and away the best defense the Patriots had in a Super Bowl run for their entire dynasty. Mentioning that their best ever defense needed to be bailed out in the most important game of the year and that effected how people view them and why they are never listed as one of the greatest ever defenses is relevant.

Once again, you don't like acknowledging real things so you deflect to argue something else.

Since you want to talk about 2001. The 2001 Patriots defense.

6th in ppg, 24th in yards per game. That's the regular season.

In the playoffs they were 2nd in ppg and 6th in yards per game. They weren't even the best defense in the playoffs that year. They were a plucky team that made clutch plays on both sides of the ball and also had a stud kicker who was icing games for them.

Not only are your arguments and deflections irrelevant to what is being discussed, they aren't even accurate to reality.

The defenses were good, but acting like they overwhelmed the offenses in those runs is misleading. The 01 and 04 teams were very balanced and they needed Brady to be clutch multiple times to win those games. The 03 team was the only time the defense was really the driving force of the team and they also decided to **** the bed at the worst time and needed Brady to have his best Super Bowl of the entire early dynasty.

There's so much revisionism about the first half of the dynasty because people want to simplify it to "It was all the defense and Brady only got good in 07". Nope. Those teams were winning jack and **** if they rolled with Bledsoe or about 25 other QB's in the league at the time.

 

[signbabybrady]

The 03 team was brought up because that was far and away the best defense the Patriots had in a Super Bowl run for their entire dynasty. Mentioning that their best ever defense needed to be bailed out in the most important game of the year and that effected how people view them and why they are never listed as one of the greatest ever defenses is relevant.

Once again, you don't like acknowledging real things so you deflect to argue something else.

Since you want to talk about 2001. The 2001 Patriots defense.

6th in ppg, 24th in yards per game. That's the regular season.

In the playoffs they were 2nd in ppg and 6th in yards per game. They weren't even the best defense in the playoffs that year. They were a plucky team that made clutch plays on both sides of the ball and also had a stud kicker who was icing games for them.

Not only are your arguments and deflections irrelevant to what is being discussed, they aren't even accurate to reality.

The defenses were good, but acting like they overwhelmed the offenses in those runs is misleading. The 01 and 04 teams were very balanced and they needed Brady to be clutch multiple times to win those games. The 03 team was the only time the defense was really the driving force of the team and they also decided to **** the bed at the worst time and needed Brady to have his best Super Bowl of the entire early dynasty.

There's so much revisionism about the first half of the dynasty because people want to simplify it to "It was all the defense and Brady only got good in 07". Nope. Those teams were winning jack and **** if they rolled with Bledsoe or about 25 other QB's in the league at the time.

Like I said you hating.

 

[lancerman]

Like I said you hating.

I like how you did exactly what I said you would do. Post some irrelevant nonsense to deflect and avoid the point.

You're a hater of reality.

 

[signbabybrady]

I like how you did exactly what I said you would do. Post some irrelevant nonsense to deflect and avoid the point.

You're a hater of reality.

Tom Brady talking about the importance of developing young QBs is not irrelevant to the point.

Point is you will hate anything just to give more credit to Brady when he himself talks about the importance of all his teammates and coaches constantly.

If you want to hate the first dynasty defense that's your choice. Haters gonna hate.

Really I just enjoy watching these clips because they remind me of when this team was great and it's hilarious that you guys will burn anything just to make some rediculous point that proves hollow when you look at the scoreboard.

8 SB rings don't require any qualifications. GOAT QB and GOAT Coach.

 

[1960Pats]

.426 post Brady. The cult has no answer for this other than pretending Bill wasn’t the GM and didn’t really build the team. Lmao

Looking at it another way with only the Pats, Bill was .384 before Brady, .774 with Brady and .426 after Brady. Those numbers are eye-popping.

 

[signbabybrady]

Looking at it another way with only the Pats, Bill was .384 before Brady, .774 with Brady and .426 after Brady. Those numbers are eye-popping.

Get out of here. You mean someone's winning percentage is better during the period that person won 6 SBs. You've cracked a code.

 

[signbabybrady]

Looking at it another way with only the Pats, Bill was .384 before Brady, .774 with Brady and .426 after Brady. Those numbers are eye-popping.

Michael Jordan was 1-9 in the playoffs without Scottie Puppen. I guess his 6 doesn't count either?

 

[signbabybrady]

Joe Gibbs's winning percentage without Art Monk was approximately %46.3.

 

[Bill Lee]

Bill Belichick and Jordon Hudson Enjoy Romantic Dinner on Nantucket Getaway

Bill Belichick and Jordon Hudson are taking a much-needed break from the start to the legendary NFL coach's middling University of North Carolina tenure ... flying up for some R&R in Nantucket.

www.tmz.com

Remember this guy? What happened to his work ethic?

It must be that everything is going so well at his new gig that he doesn't need to put in any extra time to figure things out.

Otherwise he'd be bearing down on his work instead of being seen flying out to exclusive resort towns just to chase ****y, right?

A CFB coach surely doesn't want to project an image of him wasting time chasing ****y so his players also bear down too, right?

 

[lancerman]

Tom Brady talking about the importance of developing young QBs is not irrelevant to the point.

Yes it is. We weren't talking about developing QB's

 

[Gumby]

The 03 team was brought up because that was far and away the best defense the Patriots had in a Super Bowl run for their entire dynasty. Mentioning that their best ever defense needed to be bailed out in the most important game of the year and that effected how people view them and why they are never listed as one of the greatest ever defenses is relevant.

Once again, you don't like acknowledging real things so you deflect to argue something else.

Since you want to talk about 2001. The 2001 Patriots defense.

6th in ppg, 24th in yards per game. That's the regular season.

In the playoffs they were 2nd in ppg and 6th in yards per game. They weren't even the best defense in the playoffs that year. They were a plucky team that made clutch plays on both sides of the ball and also had a stud kicker who was icing games for them.

Not only are your arguments and deflections irrelevant to what is being discussed, they aren't even accurate to reality.

The defenses were good, but acting like they overwhelmed the offenses in those runs is misleading. The 01 and 04 teams were very balanced and they needed Brady to be clutch multiple times to win those games. The 03 team was the only time the defense was really the driving force of the team and they also decided to **** the bed at the worst time and needed Brady to have his best Super Bowl of the entire early dynasty.

There's so much revisionism about the first half of the dynasty because people want to simplify it to "It was all the defense and Brady only got good in 07". Nope. Those teams were winning jack and **** if they rolled with Bledsoe or about 25 other QB's in the league at the time.

Every week or so I come in and hit the >> button ; read the last couple posts & the
N feel I’m sufficiently caught up on the dead-horse beating

This is case in point of the inanity…but it goes on both sides of this pointless argument

To take the 4 Q of a SB ( LAST GAME OF YEAR, if I can remind you) after the team lost BOTH SAFETIES to injury in 3 Q [and we’re playing O guys on D] and extrapolate that out to condemn how he built a D for the entire 16 game season plus 2 playoff game…..

Bravo!!!!

A masterful logical progression in search of justifying an agenda !!!

 

[signbabybrady]

 

[Triumph]

That 01 defense is remembered highly because they made big plays in one game which was of course the Super Bowl. They had some great players drafted by Parcells.

True

Without question Parcells built the foundation of the Pats dynasty.

But they were bottom third of the league in yards allowed and vs the pass.

Bend don't break.

By design, so the opposing offenses would go on long protracted drives that typically ended in a turnover or just a FG. Its a beautiful system because opposing teams were contributing to their own demise by using up the clock. The 2001 NE defense was ranked 6th in points allowed. They were ranked 3rd in Redzone defense and TDs allowed.

Even today, yards don't matter without points.

The idea they were this amazing defense is overstated. In 03- yes absolutely hands down the best of the BB era.

The 2001 NE defense was good. 6th in points allowed and typically if the Pats held their opponent to 17 points or less, NE won.

After the Rams beat NE in Foxboro, the Pats went on a run of only allowing 17 or less vs 9 straight opponents.

2001 New England Patriots Rosters, Stats, Schedule, Team Draftees | Pro-Football-Reference.com

Check out the 2001 New England Patriots Roster, Stats, Schedule, Team Draftees, Injury Reports and more on Pro-Football-Reference.com.

www.pro-football-reference.com

 

[signbabybrady]

 

[lancerman]

Michael Jordan was 1-9 in the playoffs without Scottie Puppen. I guess his 6 doesn't count either?

Jordan was still making the playoffs and the whole league knew he was great and was going to be a force in the league once his team was ready. Dude was an MVP, All Star, and All MVP before his 6 titles. Nobody thought that about Belichick pre Brady. People understand there is a difference between someone who was good at his job and the company sucked and someone who was failing at his job despite his team being VERY good in the 5 years before he got thee.

Joe Gibbs's winning percentage without Art Monk was approximately %46.3.

Oh dude.... why do you reach so hard and make yourself look worse.

For those who aren't familiar..... Joe Gibbs coached from 81-92. Art Monk only wasn't on the team in 1980. Gibbs still went 8-8 that year. The only reason this clowns argument works is because Gibbs returned TWELVE years later to coaching and had two winning seasons and two losing seasons. His total during that run was 30-34. Which puts him at 46%. He's actually at 47% when you add in his firs year in 1980 without Monk.

So please notice that.

1. Gibbs without Monk has a better record than Belichick.
2. Gibbs without Monk still made the playoffs 40% of the time, Belichick only did 27% of the time.
3. Signbabybrady shifted the discussion from the most important position QB to WR. Gibbs still won Super Bowls with 3 different QB's and has an amazing record with different QB's compared to Belichick.
4. Art Monk wasn't even the considered the best WR of the 80's when he played. Jerry Rick and Steve Largent existed. So acting like Gibbs had the GOAT and Monk was
5. In one of those Super Bowls Art Monk missed half the games that season, and the next man up, Gary Clark, stepped in and did as well as him and won the All Pro that year. No such examples of a QB winning an All Pro with Belichick that wasn't named Brady.
6. From 87 on, Art Monk wasn't even the best WR on the team. So again acting like he was the catalyst is silly.
7. Gibbs has 2 winning seasons, 2 losing seasons, and 1 .500 season without Art Monk. Belichick has 8 losing seasons and 3 winning seasons. So even in that comparison, Gibbs kicks the **** out of Belichick.

That was an argument from a desperate man who wants to play fast and loose with facts and thinks people don't know what happened to pull numbers out of his ass.

 

[lancerman]

You can always tell signbabybrady is bothered about what is being posted or losing a debate when he post instagram pictures and quotes to try to clog up the thread and avoid what is being discussed.