Crack must be cheap where you live. I'm a relatively new fan, but I've done plenty of research. Articles from the time called it luck and claimed Bledsoe was the more talented of the two. Yeah, articles from DECEMBER 2001.
I don't buy (but wasn't there to see) that Brady was lighting up offenses in 2001 alone. If I'm wrong, awesome. But I'd like to hear it from someone with a less antagonistic bent.
JSn-
"More talented" really isn't an accurate statement. Brady was an enigma as there was little data on him at the time. Bledsoe, in my opinion, had a stronger arm and that got him into trouble at times. Brady had worked his way up from 4 or 5 on the QB depth chart in 2000, so that gives an indication of his progress in Belichick's eyes.
As stated previously, Bledsoe was a media darling so when you do research reading articles showing Bledsoe love, read them through that lens. I don't think avid Brady fans will argue he lit up the world offensively in 2001 as the passing game was dink and dunk short passes but the important fact to note is Brady hit the receivers and lesser QBs may not have done so.
There is an intangible to player responses to QBs - Brady got the offense to play, Bledsoe could not. Even when Bledsoe substituted for Brady against the Steelers it showed. Receivers held on to Brady's throws. After catching the TD from Bledsoe, receivers started dropping passes again. It just looked sloppy and drives halted on mistakes. There is no way that team would have made it to the playoffs let alone won the championship with Bledsoe - the offense just did not rally around his leadership. And I actually like Bledsoe and respect what he did for this team.
Do QBs matter? Yes. Look at Chicago in 2006 with Rex Grossman. Great defense, great special teams, good running backs, lousy QB. When Grossman showed up, the team could win, but teams would gamble he would not show up and stop the run. The defense often times had to pitch shutouts and actually score TDs to offset Grossman's 20 QB rating and frequent turnovers.
It is a team effort to win but a QB will touch the ball every snap on offense. A failure at QB means the defense gets worn down, running backs get hurt and the offense cannot move the chains or hands the ball over. Any statement that QBs don't play defense overlooks the fact that a team creates the same effect if it can pose a credible running and passing threat, make throws when necessary, move the chains and kill the clock. That was the 2001 Patriots (6th ranked offense and defense (based on points allowed), 1000 yard rusher). The defense was "bend don't break," which means it would have just broken without any offense. The defense had to spend a good amount of time on the field if the offense executed as it had to (the defense was also opportunistic, so a good portion of the yards given up ended with no points). Defenses do wear down, so offensive execution matters.
