What if Brady succeeds elsewhere? Ramifications for BB.

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Sorry, Polian had him as a 1st round grade and would have taken if but for Peyton Manning supposedly. I’m going to say it not that I necessarily believe any of it but Polian knows more about NFL football than you. And maybe me, too. Maybe.

He knew Curtis Painter would be available later in the decade.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

Even Belichick has said the 2001 win was totally unexpected.

I take that with a grain of salt.

Not expected, due to it's only his second season as head coach. All the planning, drafting, organizing was built for the long term - Bill, as usual the smart guy he is, applied a lot of the lessons he learned in Cleveland. Among other things, shrewd salary cap management.

Brady changed the dynamic. Like the Bruins in '11, the '01 Pats won the title without sexy super stars. As the season progressed, they displayed the ability to make clutch plays, as well as the discipline to execute fundamental, seemingly ordinary plays in high pressure game situations to consistently win. Mike Martz, for one, flatly stated to his team after they took a physical beating in a hard fought victory in Foxborough, "That's a Super Bowl team."

My qualifications extend to being a couch potato and sports page addict, but after decades of watching the sport there were clear indications the team had very high potential, in my opinion similar to a previous Patriots edition thirteen years earlier:

A young, talented team with a sprinkling of veterans; lots of players with playoff experience and several with Super Bowl experience; a first-rate tough defense*; a poor start to the season before a young, gifted quarterback got his first extended starting opportunity, foreshadowing a record setting Hall of Fame career**; a solid running game*** and talented receivers; positioned down the stretch to qualify for and compete seriously in the postseason.


*1988 Patriots defense: 5th in NFL in points allowed
2001 Patriots defense: 6th in NFL in points allowed

**Flutie: CFL
Brady: NFL

***John Stephens, 1168 yards
Antowain Smith, 1157 yards


The 1988 team had impressive victories over the Bears (NFCCG) and Bengals (SB instead of us).


The difference, of course, is the decision made by the head coach. Bill made the right one, but it was the difficult, unpopular, unsafe, unconventional one - which I and lots of other Pats fans completely agreed with.

Even the great Red Auerbach later admitted he was mistaken in dismissing Bob Cousy as nothing more than a "local yokel". Raymond Berry had no such epiphany, abruptly benching the winning Flutie, and the team was promptly eliminated.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

There are no "facts" involved in your attribution of the key to 2001 success to Brady and prior failures to Belichick. That's just your bias.

And I notice you defend some of the great players on the team but not Belichick. That's my beef with you and your ilk. You refuse to credit Belichick for his contribution as the consensus GOAT Coach/GM because you fear it diminishes Brady.

Silly.

I like the use of the term, 'ilk'. Sounds cool.

'got ilk?'

 

[IllegalContact]

What if he goes elsewhere and falls on his face?

Is that better or worse than him staying here and falls in his face?

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

Is that better or worse than him staying here and falls in his face?

Look, this may not relate to football but if Tom falls on his face I hope he's wearing his helmet.

He's a handsome guy. Don't want to see those good looks messed up.

Other parts of the country are more superficial than us. Looks matter more to them.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

Simple question: In 2001, did Tom Brady have one of the greatest seasons of all time as a QB?

Because Bill Belichick had perhaps the greatest season of all time as a head coach. That 2001 Pats roster looked like a tank job. They had no business winning anything, let alone a Super Bowl.

I disagree.

There were lots of very good players on that team, and the post-2000 offseason is one of the best in team history.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

Whoa there buddy. I agree with most of what your saying but there's no need to disparage Troy Brown, who was not elite but a clutch big time player for the first dynasty. Patten was a great role player on offense in the early years as well.

I would take Troy in a second over most so called 'elite' players.

I'll take the clutch, character player every time.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

During the first dynasty run, no one other than Pats homers was arguing Brady was the best QB in the league.

Since he got the chance to start, I have not wanted any other quarterback than Tom Brady to be starting for us. I believe, and continue to believe, that Tom gives our team its best chance to win.

Brady is the GOAT, but he was an average QB until 2004.

No: way, way above average. His ability to make seemingly routine or unspectacular plays in clutch, high-pressure situations separates him.

This isn't anything new. Bill Russell was not a great shooter. Bobby Orr couldn't skate backwards. The Beatles couldn't read music.

 

[Tony2046]

Stop the ******** statistical argument implying BB would be a loser without Brady.

Again, I could equally argue Brady has won no games without Belichick. And at Michigan despite he couldn't beat out Drew Henson and was so unimpressive he barely got drafted. Without Belichick, Brady may never had played an NFL game.

That's a ******** argument too, but it's at least as credible as yours. Stop demeaning Belichick and I'll stop defending him.

IMO, both Brady and Belichick are GOAT. That coincidence is why this team has had the greatest run in NFL history over the last 20 years.

Does ******* add emphasis to your little dramatic melt down?




Your posting DVOA is dropping.

I didn't say or imply anything negative about BB.

 

[Vindicate]

Here's my 2 cents:

Brady and Belichick are equally insanely good.

If you just have BB as a coach and no Brady, his teams will enjoy being in the top 5 often enough, they might suffer an 8-8 season here and there. They'll make it to the SB, win one or two.

If you just have Brady as a QB and no BB, his teams will enjoy being in the top 5 often enough, they might suffer an 8-8 season here and there. They'll make it to the SB, win one or two.

What it comes down to is, the combination of the two lead to unprecedented success that won't be replicated any time soon.

BB and TB had a lot of scenarios that just went right for them, and it's because of those two that they could make the most of it.

What we've seen is literally insane. It's simply unparalleled in this era. You can't expect either to do it themselves.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

why do we all prefer Ernie to Bert ?

Bert who?

Or do you mean Berj Najarian...or Bret Bielema?

what do we make of the ending of Inception ?

whatever we want, according to Christopher Nolan

why does anyone think pancakes are a meal ?

Well after putting away a stack with butter and syrup, if I don't think I just consumed a meal it still sure feels like it...

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

Here's my 2 cents:

Brady and Belichick are equally insanely good.

If you just have BB as a coach and no Brady, his teams will enjoy being in the top 5 often enough, they might suffer an 8-8 season here and there. They'll make it to the SB, win one or two.

If you just have Brady as a QB and no BB, his teams will enjoy being in the top 5 often enough, they might suffer an 8-8 season here and there. They'll make it to the SB, win one or two.

What it comes down to is, the combination of the two lead to unprecedented success that won't be replicated any time soon.

BB and TB had a lot of scenarios that just went right for them, and it's because of those two that they could make the most of it.

What we've seen is literally insane. It's simply unparalleled in this era. You can't expect either to do it themselves.

Red was still GM when Russell player/coached his last two titles.

Red proved his genius repeatedly after Russ hung 'em up. Of course, nothing like 8 straight.

 

[farn]

Bert who?

Or do you mean Berj Najarian...or Bret Bielema?

whatever we want, according to Christopher Nolan

Well after putting away a stack with butter and syrup, if I don't think I just consumed a meal it still sure feels like it...

Ernie & Bert from Sesame Street. No one prefers Bert.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Here's my 2 cents:

Brady and Belichick are equally insanely good.

If you just have BB as a coach and no Brady, his teams will enjoy being in the top 5 often enough, they might suffer an 8-8 season here and there. They'll make it to the SB, win one or two.

If you just have Brady as a QB and no BB, his teams will enjoy being in the top 5 often enough, they might suffer an 8-8 season here and there. They'll make it to the SB, win one or two.

What it comes down to is, the combination of the two lead to unprecedented success that won't be replicated any time soon.

BB and TB had a lot of scenarios that just went right for them, and it's because of those two that they could make the most of it.

What we've seen is literally insane. It's simply unparalleled in this era. You can't expect either to do it themselves.

I appreciate the attempt to quantify Brady and Belichick, though it is certainly theoretical. I personally would think of it like this:

Each QB has roughly a four-game spread that they'll win based on their play alone. Brady will win 11-14 games. Manning was about that or maybe 10-13. This isn't an absolute written in stone range but just a general rule of thumb.

So why does Brady win 14 games often instead of 11? Let's say that coaching is worth 0-2 wins, and personnel decisions/drafting is worth 0-2 wins. Hence, the coach and personnel will get you 0-4. Belichick is often closer to a 4 and rarely a 0. Average is 2.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

Ernie & Bert from Sesame Street. No one prefers Bert.

 

[Tony2046]

Here's my 2 cents:

Brady and Belichick are equally insanely good.

If you just have BB as a coach and no Brady, his teams will enjoy being in the top 5 often enough, they might suffer an 8-8 season here and there. They'll make it to the SB, win one or two.

If you just have Brady as a QB and no BB, his teams will enjoy being in the top 5 often enough, they might suffer an 8-8 season here and there. They'll make it to the SB, win one or two.

What it comes down to is, the combination of the two lead to unprecedented success that won't be replicated any time soon.

BB and TB had a lot of scenarios that just went right for them, and it's because of those two that they could make the most of it.

What we've seen is literally insane. It's simply unparalleled in this era. You can't expect either to do it themselves.

Perfect post but it lacks drama.

Next time start with, " Here's my ******* 2 cents".

 

[Tony2046]

I appreciate the attempt to quantify Brady and Belichick, though it is certainly theoretical. I personally would think of it like this:

Each QB has roughly a four-game spread that they'll win based on their play alone. Brady will win 11-14 games. Manning was about that or maybe 10-13. This isn't an absolute written in stone range but just a general rule of thumb.

So why does Brady win 14 games often instead of 11. Let's say that coaching is woth 0-2 wins, and personnel decisions/drafting is worth 0-2 wins. Hence, the coach and personnel will get you 0-4. Belichick is often closer to a 4 and rarely a 0.

I always thought of it as BB won off the field and Brady won them on it. Both are valuable. Environment, preparation etc etc.

Anyway discussing who was more valuable is one thing but painting 2001 Brady as an average JAG is just ridiculous. It's a " pull something out of my ass to prove my point is correct and yours is wrong" type of ridiculous.

Anyway your 0-4 and 11-14 thoughts is interesting.

 

[primetime]

I take that with a grain of salt.

Not expected, due to it's only his second season as head coach. All the planning, drafting, organizing was built for the long term - Bill, as usual the smart guy he is, applied a lot of the lessons he learned in Cleveland. Among other things, shrewd salary cap management.

Brady changed the dynamic. Like the Bruins in '11, the '01 Pats won the title without sexy super stars. As the season progressed, they displayed the ability to make clutch plays, as well as the discipline to execute fundamental, seemingly ordinary plays in high pressure game situations to consistently win. Mike Martz, for one, flatly stated to his team after they took a physical beating in a hard fought victory in Foxborough, "That's a Super Bowl team."

My qualifications extend to being a couch potato and sports page addict, but after decades of watching the sport there were clear indications the team had very high potential, in my opinion similar to a previous Patriots edition thirteen years earlier:

A young, talented team with a sprinkling of veterans; lots of players with playoff experience and several with Super Bowl experience; a first-rate tough defense*; a poor start to the season before a young, gifted quarterback got his first extended starting opportunity, foreshadowing a record setting Hall of Fame career**; a solid running game*** and talented receivers; positioned down the stretch to qualify for and compete seriously in the postseason.


*1988 Patriots defense: 5th in NFL in points allowed
2001 Patriots defense: 6th in NFL in points allowed

**Flutie: CFL
Brady: NFL

***John Stephens, 1168 yards
Antowain Smith, 1157 yards


The 1988 team had impressive victories over the Bears (NFCCG) and Bengals (SB instead of us).


The difference, of course, is the decision made by the head coach. Bill made the right one, but it was the difficult, unpopular, unsafe, unconventional one - which I and lots of other Pats fans completely agreed with.

Even the great Red Auerbach later admitted he was mistaken in dismissing Bob Cousy as nothing more than a "local yokel". Raymond Berry had no such epiphany, abruptly benching the winning Flutie, and the team was promptly eliminated.

The 01 team also got lucky. They played the second best offense in the NFL at home in a driving blizzard and won in part due to a thoroughly correct ruling on a thoroughly idiotic rule, won the AFCCG on a special teams play, and their Super Bowl opponent refused to make any sort of adjustment to their offensive gameplan.

 

[Vindicate]

I appreciate the attempt to quantify Brady and Belichick, though it is certainly theoretical. I personally would think of it like this:

Each QB has roughly a four-game spread that they'll win based on their play alone. Brady will win 11-14 games. Manning was about that or maybe 10-13. This isn't an absolute written in stone range but just a general rule of thumb.

So why does Brady win 14 games often instead of 11? Let's say that coaching is worth 0-2 wins, and personnel decisions/drafting is worth 0-2 wins. Hence, the coach and personnel will get you 0-4. Belichick is often closer to a 4 and rarely a 0. Average is 2.

I was on the toilet at work writing that. You're expansion on it is precisely what I'm thinking.

 

[TheRainMaker]

The 01 team also got lucky. They played the second best offense in the NFL at home in a driving blizzard and won in part due to a thoroughly correct ruling on a thoroughly idiotic rule, won the AFCCG on a special teams play, and their Super Bowl opponent refused to make any sort of adjustment to their offensive gameplan.

Oakland would’ve beat them in regular conditions. Regardless, getting a 1st round bye far exceeded everyone’s expectations - especially given they started 0-2.