What a weird postseason...

[Actual Pats Fan]

I give up. Not to be confused with conceding.

Lombardi's legacy is tarnished because he didn't win the Super Bowl with the Redskins.

And Auerbach's is too because he won only 1 division title and zero championships without Russell.

The fact that Auerbach and Belichick made critical exceptional decisions in acquiring and coaching Russell and Brady respectively can be conveniently ignored for the sake of supporting a specious argument.

Bobby Orr sucked because he couldn't skate backwards and won nothing without Esposito.

 

[Ian]

We can quibble over the relevance of a handful of wins in one forgettable season or we can focus on the broader picture which is Belichick being 0-8 in seasons with quarterbacks not named Tom Brady.

Seriously, give this consideration because I have a hard time understanding how a logical person can look at this and not conclude the obvious...

Belichick WITH Brady: 17 division titles in 18 seasons
Belichick WITHOUT Brady: 0 division titles in 8 seasons

I can't take this journey with you.

I'm one of those people who thought at the time that he got hosed in Cleveland after turning that team into a playoff contender, before ripping the rug out from underneath him - and the team - the next season when the owner announced a move in a city that went absolutely nuclear when that news came out.

He went 5-11 his first year here, revamped the roster and turned it into an extremely competitive team who instead of being really good year-in-and year out, became a championship-contending team. Brady just happened to be the difference with them being the latter rather than the former.

All you need to do is look around the league to realize, both of those guys are extremely rare. Now again, I'm someone who hated that they let Brady walk without a replacement...I thought it was a major mistake. I don't think they would have won a championship, but they'd be a lot closer to having a shot at getting back than they are right now. However, that being said, you completely discounting how good of a coach and how big of a difference Belichick really made is just a bit much.

Again, go back and look at the last few postseasons and you'll notice how many great players have been done-in by their coaches and see where it got them. Brady had Belichick over his entire career and that mentality Belichick came in with - and the fact Brady embraced it and then pushed himself continually year-in and year-out to be great - is what made it work. You can't just dismiss that.

 

[Cam2HarryGOAT]

I understand the animosity some people have against Brady and Gronk

I don't. I wouldn't be able to if I lived for another thousand years. After everything he did for this fan base? It is bizarre to me that any Patriots fan would want anything for him but happiness and success, except against the Patriots, of course.

 

[crawhammer]

I'm one of those people who thought at the time that he got hosed in Cleveland after turning that team into a playoff contender, before ripping the rug out from underneath him - and the team - the next season when the owner announced a move in a city that went absolutely nuclear when that news came out.

He had 5 seasons in Cleveland which is a decent enough sample size. There was nothing special about any of those seasons and he really never got the team beyond mediocre. You can start with the quarterback position which he never figured out there. Testaverde became a pro bowler one season removed from Belichick. Parcells squeezed Testaverde's best season out of him a couple of seasons after that. Belichick's defenses in Cleveland were middling as well. The best thing to be said for Belichick in Cleveland is Art Modell compromised his final season there... but I wouldn't die on that hill either considering the team was 4-5 and going nowhere fast when the announcement of the move was made.

He went 5-11 his first year here, revamped the roster and turned it into an extremely competitive team who instead of being really good year-in-and year out, became a championship-contending team. Brady just happened to be the difference with them being the latter rather than the former.

You said it right there. Fine, Belichick can make a team annually competitive, I can accept that. But Brady being the difference with the team being annually championship-contending has been my main argument all along. Brady's the difference maker, he was in New England for 20 years and he's one now for Tampa Bay. Why can't everyone just admit this?

 

[Ian]

He had 5 seasons in Cleveland which is a decent enough sample size. There was nothing special about any of those seasons and he really never got the team beyond mediocre. You can start with the quarterback position which he never figured out there. Testaverde became a pro bowler one season removed from Belichick.

You're 100% wrong and you're probably too young to remember it. Look at Testeverde's development, which reached a point where Belichick decided to bench Bernie Kosar, which really upset everyone in Cleveland. But Belichick - not Parcells - initially turned him around.

He had 5 seasons in Cleveland which is a decent enough sample size. There was nothing special about any of those seasons.nd he really never got the team beyond mediocre. You can start with the quarterback position which he never figured out there. Testaverde became a pro bowler one season removed from Belichick. Parcells squeezed Testaverde's best season out of him a couple of seasons after that. Belichick's defenses in Cleveland were middling as well. The best thing to be said for Belichick in Cleveland is Art Modell compromised his final season there... but I wouldn't die on that hill either considering the team was 4-5 and going nowhere fast when the announcement of the move was made.

That's also not true. The season before they made the playoffs and even beat the Patriots and Parcells. The following year, they were 3-1 and off to a good start before word leaked in the building of the move, which derailed that season. As a matter of fact, it's too bad because they had a good roster thanks to the fact Belichick had built a pretty good group.

Again, I get what you're trying to do but you're basically saying everything that happened here was all Brady, not Belichick and you're shifting to the point of absurd when you're completely discounting the type of an effect he had on Brady's career.

Brady's the difference maker, he was in New England for 20 years and he's one now for Tampa Bay. Why can't everyone just admit this?

And Brady became a difference-maker, it didn't happen completely on its own and Belichick played a massive role. And yes, that experience absolutely allowed him to carry that same attitude into Tampa.

So I agree with you on the Brady effect in Tampa, and I also agree Belichick shouldn't have parted with him when he did, given that they didn't have a viable back-up. They should have extended him a couple of more years until they had at least one or two decent guys to turn to. But it obviously worked out for Brady, so whatever, good for him.

But again, your history is inaccurate and the fact you're dismissing the big picture involving Belichick is completely and categorically unfair.

 

[sb1]

Belichick's defenses in Cleveland were middling as well. The best thing to be said for Belichick in Cleveland is Art Modell compromised his final season there... but I wouldn't die on that hill either considering the team was 4-5 and going nowhere fast when the announcement of the move was made.

The 94 Browns were the #1 scoring defense in the league.

Doubtful that BB and the organization weren't aware of the move already when the announcement was made.

Also those 1995 Browns were 4-4 after 8 games. So were the 2001 Patriots. Sounds like a premature conclusion that they were "going nowhere fast"....

 

[amfootball]

I give up. Not to be confused with conceding.

Lombardi's legacy is tarnished because he didn't win the Super Bowl with the Redskins.

And Auerbach's is too because he won only 1 division title and zero championships without Russell.

The fact that Auerbach and Belichick made critical exceptional decisions in acquiring and coaching Russell and Brady respectively can be conveniently ignored for the sake of supporting a specious argument.

Bobby Orr sucked because he couldn't skate backwards and won nothing without Esposito.

What makes this different is we are talking about a 20 year run with the same coach and QB which has never happened. The narrative was always the Patriot org/coaching that fueled the success. Brady was just looked at as a product of that. Also Brady being a 6th round pick makes this different. There is no comparison of a guy selected that low becoming the GOAT in any sport. So that is what has created the narrative.
The idea that both are not the GOATs at what they do is plain silly but dividing up the credit pie is not.

 

[sb1]

What makes this different is we are talking about a 20 year run with the same coach and QB which has never happened. The narrative was always the Patriot org/coaching that fueled the success. Brady was just looked at as a product of that. Also Brady being a 6th round pick makes this different. There is no comparison of a guy selected that low becoming the GOAT in any sport. So that is what has created the narrative.
The idea that both are not the GOATs at what they do is plain silly but dividing up the credit pie is not.

Yeah. Great QBs can carry a subpar coach. Peyton Manning took Jim Caldwell to a Super Bowl. Caldwell is not a great or even good coach. And Bruce Arians is not a horrible coach nor in Belichick's class but with Brady there he won a championship.

The best great coaches can do with a subpar QB and roster - we saw it here in New England this year. There was no magical "system" to create a winner out of anyone. There never was.

 

[crawhammer]

You're 100% wrong and you're probably too young to remember it. Look at Testeverde's development, which reached a point where Belichick decided to bench Bernie Kosar, which really upset everyone in Cleveland. But Belichick - not Parcells - initially turned him around.

How can I be 100% wrong when I'm citing a fact? Testaverde made the pro bowl for the first time in his career in 1996 as a Baltimore Raven. So the statement Testaverde became a pro bowler one season removed from Belichick is 100% right.

I already did this but I'm looking at Testaverde's career numbers right now. His best season by far was 1998 with Parcells in New York... he was 3 years removed from Belichick by then. His second best season was his first year in Baltimore with the legendary Ted Marchibroda.

Testaverde in fact was not on an ascending trajectory under Belichick.

I can't figure out what was going on in 1993. Kosar, Testaverde and some epically bad quarterback named Todd Philcox all split the starts. None of them were any good. Cleveland started out 5-2 but then fell apart with a 2-7 finish. Must have been some other phenomenon that ripped the rug out from underneath them.

In 1994, when Cleveland was allegedly good, Testaverde was the main guy and he sucked. 16 TD's, 18 INT's, 183.9 Y/G, 70.7 passer rating. I'll say another thing about the 1994 season... Belichick had Bledsoe's number. In two starts against Cleveland, Bledsoe was 41-90 with 1 TD and 7 INT's. 7!!! Bledsoe alone probably improved Cleveland's defensive ranking by 10 spots.

Somehow Testaverde wasn't effected by the dreaded announcement of the move in 1995 because he rebounded statistically. But it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me that you would argue the team was in complete turmoil with the pending move yet Testaverde was still "developing" in the midst of the supposed chaos. Seem like you want to have an excuse for the team going 2-10 after a 3-1 start but you also want to say Belichick was still working effectively with Testaverde. Weakening this notion even further, Testaverde started out the season with 9 TD's and 1 INT in his first 6 starts with a 3-3 record. Then had 8 TD's and 9 INT's in his next 7 starts with a 1-6 record. That's getting worse not better.

I don't see the great influence Belichick had on Testaverde. He didn't help out Todd Philcox much either. We know he killed Bernie Kozar's career.

Again, I get what you're trying to do but you're basically saying everything that happened here was all Brady, not Belichick and you're shifting to the point of absurd when you're completely discounting the type of an effect he had on Brady's career.

I never said Brady gets 100% of the credit. I said he gets more credit.

Belichick positively effected Brady's development as a player. Brady himself has said as much. You're trying to discredit my argument by distorting it to a point of absurdity. Belichick impacted Brady's development as a player, obviously. You, or I, or anyone can speculate as to what type of player Brady would have developed into with another head coach but the only known variable is Brady with Belichick (until 2020). We know Brady became the greatest quarterback of all-time with Belichick as his head coach. So that player-coach relationship had to have effected Brady in some meaningful way. No doubt about it.

And Brady became a difference-maker, it didn't happen completely on its own and Belichick played a massive role. And yes, that experience absolutely allowed him to carry that same attitude into Tampa.

Brady's the difference maker.
Brady became a difference maker.

Are we really saying anything too different there? We're close enough as far as I'm concerned. I needlessly conceded Belichick's role in Brady's development because I never denied it in the first place. Brady's the greatest of all-time. A lot of people including Belichick had a profound effect on his development. But there's no question Brady is uniquely talented enough to have the collective influence of others get him to the unprecedented heights he's achieved.

Would Brady have won multiple Super Bowls with another head coach? He may be on the verge of doing just that in his mid-40's which is ridiculous. But if we were to take those 20 years in New England and exchange them for 20 years with another head coach in another city... would Brady have become the GOAT? I'm not sure a convincing argument could be made that he would have but I feel strongly that had he not become the starting quarterback of the Patriots then there is no dynasty for sure. All others being present (the head coach, assistant coaches and players), they all needed Brady to win Super Bowls... 1, 3 or 6.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

The narrative was always the Patriot org/coaching that fueled the success.

That narrative was always nonsensically stupid.

Drew had to go. Many of us saw this but we were drowned out by the Kraftfans/Bledsoe worshippers. He was a big kid with a strong arm who was drafted #1, given the starting job with no competition, dropped back to pass fifty times a game and thus threw for a lot of yards. We were going nowhere with him. Someone, anyone had to replace him and it just so happened to be the GOAT.

Since his very first start I considered us to have the advantage at quarterback in every game Brady played. Not because he was the most talented or flashy. Because of his attitude. Would Tom have done as well with another team? I don't think so because he never got the credit he deserved here because we're the Patriots, which of course made him bear down harder. And he would not have had the Parcells/Belichick team approach, or necessarily as good a defense somewhere else.

Brady was just looked at as a product of that.

Again nonsensically stupid, and ignorant.

Also Brady being a 6th round pick makes this different. There is no comparison of a guy selected that low becoming the GOAT in any sport.

Johnny Unitas was drafted by the Steelers in the ninth round.
Kurt Warner was undrafted.
Bart Starr was drafted by the Packers in the seventeenth round.
Roger Staubach was drafted by the Cowboys in the tenth round and the Chiefs in the sixteenth round as a 'future' selection (like Bird).
Doug Flutie was drafted by the Rams in the eleventh round.
Joe Kapp was drafted by the Redskins in the eighteenth round. He stunk in his last year here but he was great before that.
Kirk Gibson was drafted by the Cardinals in the seventh round. (He is in the College Football Hall of Fame).
Pete Rose was signed by the Reds only because his uncle was a scout for them and pleaded his case for him.

I suppose only Unitas is definitely in GOAT class, but there are lots of players who are hall of famers who came out of nowhere.

The issue with Brady is that he played for the Patriots. The denigration of the Patriots spans generations since 1970, is legion among local and national media extending beyond sports, opponents and the NFL itself.

The issue with Bobby Orr is not the length of his career; he played almost as long as Jim Brown. It's the media explosion of sports coverage since 1980. Gretzky is obviously the most prolific scorer ever but he got hyped to the point where everybody everywhere knew about him. My aunt in Atlanta in 1980 never heard of Bobby.

Bill Russell has a similar deal in the comparison with Michael Jordan, but there are other nuances. Russell was a dorky, shy kid who spent his teen years reading books in the local library. He never was a great shooter or scorer. His self-deprecating personality is a bit similar to Tom's humility, but there's also Russ' uncompromising nonacceptance of conventional white supremacy that turns many off.

Ted Williams is the poster child for disproving the stupid notion that a player must win championship(s) to be the GOAT. If he or Ernie Banks played for the Yankees and won a million World Series there wouldn't be any wrong questions to their greatness.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

I feel strongly that had he not become the starting quarterback of the Patriots then there is no dynasty for sure.

100% correct. Everyone has rode Tom Brady's coattails to glory. That is no disrespect to the many, many contributors to the great run the team made this century.

The 'system quarterback' nonsense is strictly unique to the Patriots. It doesn't exist if he plays for any other team.