Training camp starts Thursday!

[PatsWickedPissah]

Red Auerbach would be in contention but I see your point

 

[Ivan]

Well, I think Belichick is the greatest coach I've ever witnessed, in any sport. Being that he signed the players, worked with the front office, taught the coaching staff, and supervised the players gives him easily the most responsibility of anyone. At his point, The Patriots = Belichick. Were it almost any other coach, I'd say the coach could only do so much. For instance, the Falcons in 2016 were not Dan Quinn; they were more than that.

As for players, I just don't see them like a sports fan or commentator. I'm going to get misunderstood for it, so I'll leave it at that and ask you not to assume the worst in me. I'm not putting down someone so much as I am saying the question, at least as stated, is invalid or too hard to determine.

The dynastic success of the Patriots goes to both Belichick and Brady, and Belichick's winning percentage without Brady is below .500. I think he's the greatest football mind, the greatest GM, and the greatest coach in history, but trying to separate the dynasty from Brady is total bullsh.t. Brady is the winningest QB in football history and he's authored the two biggest comebacks in Super Bowl history and won 80% of his games, pretending he's a JAG is crap.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

Well, I think Belichick is the greatest coach I've ever witnessed, in any sport. Being that he signed the players, worked with the front office, taught the coaching staff, and supervised the players gives him easily the most responsibility of anyone. At his point, The Patriots = Belichick. Were it almost any other coach, I'd say the coach could only do so much. For instance, the Falcons in 2016 were not Dan Quinn; they were more than that.

As for players, I just don't see them like a sports fan or commentator. I'm going to get misunderstood for it, so I'll leave it at that and ask you not to assume the worst in me. I'm not putting down someone so much as I am saying the question, at least as stated, is invalid or too hard to determine.

This camp is under MY control!

The banner goes over there!

C'mon, guys, it's not rocket science!

Will you guys wake up already?!

 

[miloofcroton]

The dynastic success of the Patriots goes to both Belichick and Brady, and Belichick's winning percentage without Brady is below .500. I think he's the greatest football mind, the greatest GM, and the greatest coach in history, but trying to separate the dynasty from Brady is total bullsh.t. Brady is the winningest QB in football history and he's authored the two biggest comebacks in Super Bowl history and won 80% of his games, pretending he's a JAG is crap.

I'm not pretending he's JAG any more than any other player in the league ever. It's not a binary thing for me. It's not about tearing one player down or building another up. I just refuse to place the fate of football teams on one player, especially when these fantasies preclude the possibility of getting a replacement player. Maybe if this were basketball or baseball, I'd consider saying otherwise.

I'd say you're full of **** if you don't think the Pats could have won several Super Bowls with a number of other QBs on the roster. There's no way Belichick's winning percentage is under .500 without Brady.

 

[Ivan]

I'm not pretending he's JAG any more than any other player in the league ever. It's not a binary thing for me. It's not about tearing one player down or building another up. I just refuse to place the fate of football teams on one player, especially when these fantasies preclude the possibility of getting a replacement player.

I'd say you're full of **** if you don't think the Pats could have won several Super Bowls with a number of other QBs on the roster. There's no way Belichick's winning percentage is under .500 without Brady.

Then you are an idiot, period. Belichick is 8 games under .500 as a coach without Brady, whereas his winning percentage is almost 80% with him, and he has never won anything without him but he's won 7 conference Championships and 5 Super Bowls with him. Brady's achievements are no " fantasy," and acting as if he's just along for the ride is so far beyond stupid as to qualify you as someone who has never watched a game in your life.

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

 

[Bruins29]

Then you are an idiot, period.

Yes. He is.

 

[long distance]

The dynastic success of the Patriots goes to both Belichick and Brady, and Belichick's winning percentage without Brady is below .500. I think he's the greatest football mind, the greatest GM, and the greatest coach in history, but trying to separate the dynasty from Brady is total bullsh.t. Brady is the winningest QB in football history and he's authored the two biggest comebacks in Super Bowl history and won 80% of his games, pretending he's a JAG is crap.

I'm not pretending he's JAG any more than any other player in the league ever. It's not a binary thing for me. It's not about tearing one player down or building another up. I just refuse to place the fate of football teams on one player, especially when these fantasies preclude the possibility of getting a replacement player. Maybe if this were basketball or baseball, I'd consider saying otherwise.

I'd say you're full of **** if you don't think the Pats could have won several Super Bowls with a number of other QBs on the roster. There's no way Belichick's winning percentage is under .500 without Brady.

While its true that BB's winning % with Patriots w/o TB is only slightly above .500 (19-18) the 5-11 was in his first year when new culture was only being introduced..

Belichick restructured the team's personnel department in the offseason, and later proclaimed that the team "could not win with 40 good players while the other team has 53," after a number of players showed up out of shape for the start of training camp.

From 2001 Pats are 14-7 w/o Brady . which is not too far from their average win % in last 16 yrs. That doesn't take anything away from Brady's GOAT record but to suggest that BB would never win anything without a player he drafted in the 6th round and then made him the player (and somewhat the person) he is (according to TB himself) and made him part of the teams he created year after year is really excessive and futile.

Calling somebody stupid for contributing his own thoughts on subjective matters . and simply arguing team records are more about team than individuals (which again TB would be the first to say so himself) in the ultimate team sport ..?

 

[PatsGuy]

Just a thought for those going to camp for the first time, or haven't been for a while. I'd avoid the first few days of camp like the plague. IIRC the first 3 days of camp will be shorts and T-shirts affairs. This is league mandated, and you won't learn much from the experience. It is worth the wait until the pads come on. Of course the premier events with be the joint practices. Just a thought

I remember what,.. 2-3 years ago? Joint practices with the Eagles. The place was mobbed! Half were Eagle fans. I had a hard time finding a spot even on the little hill

 

[miloofcroton]

Then you are an idiot, period. Belichick is 8 games under .500 as a coach without Brady, whereas his winning percentage is almost 80% with him, and he has never won anything without him but he's won 7 conference Championships and 5 Super Bowls with him. Brady's achievements are no " fantasy," and acting as if he's just along for the ride is so far beyond stupid as to qualify you as someone who has never watched a game in your life.

>Belichick is 8 games under .500 as a coach without Brady

With that number, you're mixing in Belichick's time with the Browns and his first year in New England. We're talking about losses that happened 2 decades ago. If you look at Belichick's success with Cassel in '07 and Jimmy/Jacoby in '16, I think you find much more relevant numbers, which are 10-5 and then 3-1 for a total of 13-6, far over .500. It's .684 if you're counting at home.

Furthermore, you're talking about situations where the team had to go with a backup because their starter went down. No matter how good you are as a team, that's a different situation. Give the team a couple years to put extra resources into finding the starter, and then adapt to a starter before you compare the team's performance with that starter versus a starter that has provided 15 years of stability at the position (which is certainly a feat in itself, to be fair).

While its true that BB's winning % with Patriots w/o TB is only slightly above .500 (19-18) the 5-11 was in his first year when new culture was only being introduced..

Belichick restructured the team's personnel department in the offseason, and later proclaimed that the team "could not win with 40 good players while the other team has 53," after a number of players showed up out of shape for the start of training camp.

From 2001 Pats are 14-7 w/o Brady . which is not too far from their average win % in last 16 yrs. That doesn't take anything away from Brady's GOAT record but to suggest that BB would never win anything without a player he drafted in the 6th round and then made him the player (and somewhat the person) he is (according to TB himself) and made him part of the teams he created year after year is really excessive and futile.

Calling somebody stupid for contributing his own thoughts on subjective matters . and simply arguing team records are more about team than individuals (which again TB would be the first to say so himself) in the ultimate team sport ..?

You see where I'm coming from.

 

[BlacknGold77]

Well, I think Belichick is the greatest coach I've ever witnessed, in any sport. Being that he signed the players, worked with the front office, taught the coaching staff, and supervised the players gives him easily the most responsibility of anyone. At his point, The Patriots = Belichick. Were it almost any other coach, I'd say the coach could only do so much. For instance, the Falcons in 2016 were not Dan Quinn; they were more than that.

As for players, I just don't see them like a sports fan or commentator. I'm going to get misunderstood for it, so I'll leave it at that and ask you not to assume the worst in me. I'm not putting down someone so much as I am saying the question, at least as stated, is invalid or too hard to determine.

I'll give it to you with the 'witnesses' qualifier....but take that out and it's Red Auerbach. Not only was he the coach, he was the GM and he built every Celtics championship team from scratch (up until Pitino unceremoniously kicked him out the door to give himself the job...)

 

[miloofcroton]

I'll give it to you with the 'witnesses' qualifier....but take that out and it's Red Auerbach. Not only was he the coach, he was the GM and he built every Celtics championship team from scratch (up until Pitino unceremoniously kicked him out the door to give himself the job...)

Ya, if we open it up to times long before I was born as well as other sports, there are lots of other legends. Lombardi, Landry, Paul Bear Bryant (only coached college football, but still).

Ironically, it seems like there are more good coaches in college football than in the NFL these days. I realize a guy like Nick Saban didn't have the best short tenure in the NFL, but he had a bad team and organization, it was his first HC position in the NFL, and he was coming from college, so extra adjustments were necessary. I got curious about Paul Bear Bryant, since I haven't thought about him in a while, so I looked up who was in his tree. Saban is one (although it is a stretch). Mike Riley, Phil Fulmer, Mark Richt, etc. Obviously, they dumb some things down for college athletes, but you have to think they could have cut it in the NFL if that had been their focus. Just from what I gather about their values, as people and coaches, they're already ahead of many of the NFL coaches these days, especially the young so-called hotshots.

If you want a good football movie, check out The Junction Boys. It's my all-time favorite. It's not about little kids, not a Disney "we all give each other backrubs during sleepovers" movie, not a comedy/drama cheap on action. It's, to me, what football is all about. Since we're just getting into training camp right now, it's good timing.

In basketball, Wooden for sure. I don't follow basketball very much though, to be honest. College basketball has its appeal, but the NBA doesn't do enough to spread out the talent. I don't like knowing which 4 dream teams are going to be in the semi-finals before the season has already started. I like that in the NFL, you can't likely win more than a single Super Bowl on raw talent, and even then, that's only if you're lucky. They should force NBA teams to use more strategy by doing more with less. I don't know what kind of rule changes that would involve, if it would even be possible, but that's what it would take to interest me.

 

[Ivan]

>Belichick is 8 games under .500 as a coach without Brady

With that number, you're mixing in Belichick's time with the Browns and his first year in New England. We're talking about losses that happened 2 decades ago. If you look at Belichick's success with Cassel in '07 and Jimmy/Jacoby in '16, I think you find much more relevant numbers, which are 10-5 and then 3-1 for a total of 13-6, far over .500. It's .684 if you're counting at home.

Furthermore, you're talking about situations where the team had to go with a backup because their starter went down. No matter how good you are as a team, that's a different situation. Give the team a couple years to put extra resources into finding the starter, and then adapt to a starter before you compare the team's performance with that starter versus a starter that has provided 15 years of stability at the position (which is certainly a feat in itself, to be fair).



You see where I'm coming from.

No, I don't. I think you are ridiculous.

 

[miloofcroton]

No, I don't. I think you are ridiculous.

Go back and look who I said that to.

 

[Ivan]

Go back and look who I said that to.

You quoted two people in that response, I was one of them. You said I was " full of sh.t" if I thought Belichick was under .500 without Brady and I proved he was exactly that. Your take that Brady was just one of the players is without question the dumbest thing anyone has ever said here.

 

[Tuck]

You quoted two people in that response, I was one of them. You said I was " full of sh.t" if I thought Belichick was under .500 without Brady and I proved he was exactly that. Your take that Brady was just one of the players is without question the dumbest thing anyone has ever said here.

To be fair I think 2008 is a better estimate of where this team would be without Brady than using Belichick's career stats in Cleveland.

 

[BlacknGold77]

To be fair I think 2008 is a better estimate of where this team would be without Brady than using Belichick's career stats in Cleveland.

Why? That is the greatest team in history, and a roster that just went 18-0 and lost the SB on the final drive. How is swapping a QB into that juggernaut a better example? Even then the team saw a 5 game drop off without Brady. If they were 12-4 the year before, that wouldve put them at 7-9

and FYI, he is exactly .500 without Brady in New England.

2000: 5-11
2001: 0-2
2008: 11-5
2016: 3-1

19-19

 

[Tuck]

Why? That is the greatest team in history, and a roster that just went 18-0 and lost the SB on the final drive. How is swapping a QB into that juggernaut a better example? Even then the team saw a 5 game drop off without Brady. If they were 12-4 the year before, that wouldve put them at 7-9

and FYI, he is exactly .500 without Brady in New England.

2000: 5-11
2001: 0-2
2008: 11-5
2016: 3-1

19-19

I actually agree with your point that the credit for this run belongs to both Brady and Belichick. I'm just saying Belichick's early stats aren't realy relevent to the argument anymore. Thanks for pointing out how bad his first year was here. I had forgotten that.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

No major injuries...and we are set for the 7th at 8:30 for #5

 

[oldrover]

Star Wars 8....

Brady versus Belichick!!!!