Tom Brady says he's done "for good"

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Didn't we have a similar argument a while back re. UFOs? Again, where your argument fails is over reliance on quantification.

What you're saying is the degree to which coaching matters in winning football games is "vastly overblown" and "virtually irrelevant" for lack of defining metrics. Yet, there are countless examples throughout NFL history where coaching was the ONLY difference in supremely talented teams failing or teams with average talent succeeding. Sometimes, circumstantial evidence is overwhelming enough to represent proof beyond reasonable doubt; the examples I provided were illustrative. On balance, player talent might be the prime factor in winning but coaching is a very close second and often the essential difference. No way can its importance be considered vastly overblown.

Yes, UFOs haven't been proven to exist. Eyewitness accounts don't count, especially considering the ease nowadays of documenting these sightings. The landing in Africa you cited was shown to be biased as the woman who interviewed the children was a UFO truther.

In terms of coaching, yes, coaching decisions have an impact on the game. Absolutely. Anyone who watches the complexity of the game has to realize that when there are 22 players all given assignments, inevitably, those assignments become relevant to the outcome of the play. My issue, as I've clearly stated, is that much of this evens out over time and the advantage of one team over an other based on scheme alone is vastly overblown. Example I just gave: Super Bowl 49. You can praise the coaching staff for putting Butler into the game; you also have to criticize that same coaching staff for sticking short Arrington on tall Matthews for an entire half, and criticize them for that defensive meltdown touchdown drive before halftime. On every single play you can cite that one coach did something and another coach did something and then there was a result. But again, look at the oddsmakers and how much value they put into coaches: basically zilch. Because while coaching has an impact on the game, that impact is small over the course of 100+ plays. Ultimately, the coach who excels in execution is often the one with the better players, or a little more luck on that day. For the players, these playcalls are basically muscle memory...they play football all year, watch film, practice, etc.

 

[Triumph]

I generally don't like the 1-day contract deal with anyone. It's obviously a fraudulent scenario. I'm pretty sure Joe Montana didn't sign a 1-day contract with the 49ers. Brady should pass on it too. It won't change history, the 6 banners will still stand prominently at Gillette. The Brady statue will still cast a large shadow over the stadium entrance.

Montana retired a 49er.

Farve retired a Packer.

 

[venecol]

None of this is wrong, I think you're leaving out the preparedness portion, the game planning. It's not the NBA, where athleticism trumps all. Game planning, preparing, and scheme matter a lot in the NFL still. Very few players are Tom Brady who have all the answers to the tests, and fewer still who study film and prepare on their own to his level.

I'm not leaving it out though. I'm just assigning a lesser % of it to the final results. The fact is players do study film, more so than ever before. We saw the D players for the Jets and other teams state they knew what was coming based on their film study and experience. I think we underestimate the level of preparation and football IQ of the players, especially the elite players far too much. These players have been playing football since they were 5 or 6. Players are faster and stronger than ever before. I think the league continues to make changes to make it more difficult for the defenses to compete because they want more offensive production. We saw how scoring was way down this season. It's getting harder to come up with creative plays to trick defenses. At the end of the day, the team with the most talented players have a better chance of winning than a team with less talent but better coaching. Then there's the actual execution of the schemes on game day. How many times did we hear Mac say "we had a great week of practice" but after losing, saying "we just have to keep working at it." Same with Bill. Were they poorly prepared or were they outplayed? That's just how I feel about it.

 

[Disco Volante]

Brady shouldn't do the one day contract nonsense.

He should have authentically retired a Patriot for life but Kraft chose Belichick instead.

 

[Steve102]

I'm not leaving it out though. I'm just assigning a lesser % of it to the final results. The fact is players do study film, more so than ever before. We saw the D players for the Jets and other teams state they knew what was coming based on their film study and experience. I think we underestimate the level of preparation and football IQ of the players, especially the elite players far too much. These players have been playing football since they were 5 or 6. Players are faster and stronger than ever before. I think the league continues to make changes to make it more difficult for the defenses to compete because they want more offensive production. We saw how scoring was way down this season. It's getting harder to come up with creative plays to trick defenses. At the end of the day, the team with the most talented players have a better chance of winning than a team with less talent but better coaching. Then there's the actual execution of the schemes on game day. How many times did we hear Mac say "we had a great week of practice" but after losing, saying "we just have to keep working at it." Same with Bill. Were they poorly prepared or were they outplayed? That's just how I feel about it.

Splitting hairs, but I think you overestimate how many players are self starters. Elite, top of the food chain types? Absolutely. What's the % of those players in the league? (rhetorical, let's not start parsing that. Jesus.) Even if it's 10-20 guys per roster, that leaves the rest of the 53 man roster that are just jags.

Again, I think we are splitting hairs. In the end, I am going to lean that more guys need to be coached up than you are, even the elites.

 

[Ian]

I'm not leaving it out though. I'm just assigning a lesser % of it to the final results. The fact is players do study film, more so than ever before. We saw the D players for the Jets and other teams state they knew what was coming based on their film study and experience. I think we underestimate the level of preparation and football IQ of the players, especially the elite players far too much. These players have been playing football since they were 5 or 6. Players are faster and stronger than ever before. I think the league continues to make changes to make it more difficult for the defenses to compete because they want more offensive production. We saw how scoring was way down this season. It's getting harder to come up with creative plays to trick defenses. At the end of the day, the team with the most talented players have a better chance of winning than a team with less talent but better coaching. Then there's the actual execution of the schemes on game day. How many times did we hear Mac say "we had a great week of practice" but after losing, saying "we just have to keep working at it." Same with Bill. Were they poorly prepared or were they outplayed? That's just how I feel about it.

Splitting hairs, but I think you overestimate how many players are self starters. Elite, top of the food chain types? Absolutely. What's the % of those players in the league? (rhetorical, let's not start parsing that. Jesus.) Even if it's 10-20 guys per roster, that leaves the rest of the 53 man roster that are just jags.

Again, I think we are splitting hairs. In the end, I am going to lean that more guys need to be coached up than you are, even the elites.

Keep in mind as well that I'd be willing to bet Saleh played a role in pointing some of that out. He's an underrated coach in the division and a pretty good defensive mind. Heaven forbid they end up with a competent quarterback.

 

[venecol]

Splitting hairs, but I think you overestimate how many players are self starters. Elite, top of the food chain types? Absolutely. What's the % of those players in the league? (rhetorical, let's not start parsing that. Jesus.) Even if it's 10-20 guys per roster, that leaves the rest of the 53 man roster that are just jags.

Again, I think we are splitting hairs. In the end, I am going to lean that more guys need to be coached up than you are, even the elites.

That's fine but the question has been how much of a difference does one have over the other in determining the outcome of games. You can say 51/49 if you want and that would just be a matter of differing opinions. It's certainly not 50/50.

Again, Bill has said this for years: "Players win games. Coaches lose them."

This certainly doesn't mean that Bill believes "that coaching doesn't matter." I think its his way of acknowledging that w/o the players (good players), there's no amount of coaching that can make a difference.

Here's what BA said on the subject:

“There’s no doubt,” Arians said Sunday when asked about players leading the way on the best teams he’s coached in his career. “Players win games, coaches lose them. Without that, I’ve never seen a real good football team where a coach had to lead it. I’ve never been on one anyway.”

 

[crawhammer]

Don't include me in the Tom vs Bill argument. I've been done with that for a while now. You're not going to convince anyone on either side. It's pointless.

I'm not. I didn't say anything about Tom vs Bill in that particular post. Based on Ian's comment, that you were posting for the sake of being difficult, I was merely saying you're invested in your arguments. Generally speaking.

 

[Steve102]

“There’s no doubt,” Arians said Sunday when asked about players leading the way on the best teams he’s coached in his career. “Players win games, coaches lose them. Without that, I’ve never seen a real good football team where a coach had to lead it. I’ve never been on one anyway.”

Says the guy who couldn't win until Brady was his QB. Sounds like he was a sucky leader.

Regardless, we agree that players matter more. A lot more. We disagree how much good coaching matters. I think a lot, I think Arians' quote confirms my point.

 

[Ian]

No it isn't. Execution is the absolute difference. Players execute, coaches coach.

I'm dismissing you and Steve's and Tune's statements that we are saying that coaching doesn't matter! I've never said that. In fact, I've said coaching matters. This isn't complicated.

At the end of the day, you're stuck in a chicken or the egg argument. Without a good game plan, the percentage of a loss is higher. Without good players, the percentage of a loss is higher.

I will say this. How many bad coaches did you see acquire a lot of talent and win a title vs a good coach acquiring talent and winning a title? I would say the latter happens more than the former. It's OK for both to be important. But on a team with both a great quarterback and a great coach? It's probably safe to say each had weeks where the other's effort potentially overcame any shortcomings either guy might have had that week.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Says the guy who couldn't win until Brady was his QB. Sounds like he was a sucky leader.

 

[Steve102]

View attachment 49700

View attachment 49699

 

[crawhammer]

My point follows what Ice posted about the effect of coaches vs players in general on the results of the games. You know that I've maintained a position that players matter more, including in losses. I'm on record for blaming the Bucs ****ty season on the players performing like crap more so than blaming the bad coaching. To me, a coach can definitely lose a game by making a poor decision on a key moment in a game (going / not going for it on 4th, time outs, challenges, etc.) which are things that only a coach can decide. But for the vast majority of a game, it's the level at which players execute that matters. Now you could argue that failure to motivate players falls under coaching, which is true to an extent, but not when you're dealing with veteran professionals getting paid a lot of money. To me, the lack of talented players is way more important than the level of coaching is on the outcome of a game. That's the point I've been trying to make. Others disagree, which is fine.

Right, it's on the players mostly, good and bad. However, there are examples of coaching royally ****ing up a game or even a season. I'll refrain from citing my own examples, but specific to the team you mentioned, the Bucs, I think most that follow their team closely agree Bowles was a huge problem this season. He's aloof, completely uninspiring, and nowhere near head coaching material in this area. Plus he's ultra conservative, overly projective of his defense, and too pigheaded to recognize the strengths of his offense. Specifically he handcuffed the offense with his conservative approach and insistence on "establishing the run" and treated the no huddle like break glass only in case of an emergency when it was literally the only thing that worked all season. So while there were other variables, toilet bowles took a big nasty dump on the team.

 

[venecol]

Says the guy who couldn't win until Brady was his QB. Sounds like he was a sucky leader.

Regardless, we agree that players matter more. A lot more. We disagree how much good coaching matters. I think a lot, I think Arians' quote confirms my point.

Lol, BA has a .624 winning %. That's pretty good and wasn't all because of Tom either.

ARZ: .619
TB: .633

Well at least we agree that players matter more, a lot more. I also agree that good coaching obviously matters. I mean if my choice was to have BB or Jeff Fisher as HC, I'm picking BB 10/10 times.

 

[sb1]

'It ain't happening;' NFL insider reveals how quickly Tom Brady shot down idea of Patriots reunion

Tom Brady's plan for 2023 was reportedly down to two options: return to the Buccaneers or retire.

www.masslive.com

It was reportedly down to the Buccaneers or retirement, according to Darlington, with the idea of a Patriots reunion quickly getting shot down.

“He thought about all the different scenarios, the 49ers, even the Patriots have one point,” Darlington said. “Someone had expressed to him the idea of going back to the Patriots to which he quickly was like, ‘It ain’t happening.’ The Dolphins was not happening. It was always going to be, in his head, playing for the Bucs or retiring”

Based on his past comments that's probably not a surprise. Sigh. What could have been...

 

[crawhammer]

Montana retired a 49er.

I'm pretty sure this is wrong. The 49ers retired his number but there was no 1-day contract that Montana signed with the 49ers after he announced his retirement from the NFL. Jerry Rice signed a 1-day contract with the 49ers but I don't believe Montana ever did that.

Farve retired a Packer.

Which time? He "retired" three times.

 

[Steve102]

I'm pretty sure this is wrong. The 49ers retired his number but there was no 1-day contract that Montana signed with the 49ers after he announced his retirement from the NFL. Jerry Rice signed a 1-day contract with the 49ers but I don't believe Montana ever did that.

This is correct, based on my very brief research as well. Which is funny really, because Rice went on a North American Tour at the end of his career.

 

[crawhammer]

Says the guy who couldn't win until Brady was his QB. Sounds like he was a sucky leader.

Arians wasn't a good game manager but he had a good instinct for his offense and he was a motivator who had a close bond with many of his players. The team missed both of those assets this season.

 

[Steve102]

Arians wasn't a good game manager but he had a good instinct for his offense and he was a motivator who had a close bond with many of his players. The team missed both of those assets this season.

I'm solidly in the camp that Brady didn't want him, but I know you guys are way more invested in that discussion than I want to get into. I'll defer to your Bucc fandom on it. I am in agreement that Bowles is not a good HC.

 

[crawhammer]

I'm solidly in the camp that Brady didn't want him, but I know you guys are way more invested in that discussion than I want to get into. I'll defer to your Bucc fandom on it. I am in agreement that Bowles is not a good HC.

Arians turned 70 in October and he's had some cardiac health problems over the last couple of years. That seems likely to have been his true motivation to retire. I don't know exactly how Brady feels about Arians but he's publicly praised him on many occasions. Brady doesn't say **** about Bowles. Because I think he hates Bowles with a passion.