What if Brady succeeds elsewhere? Ramifications for BB.

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

So let me get this straight. You don't think Bill is the GOAT and I'm making a silly argument?

Not if the criteria is a coach who can win with anyone. Until he proves he can, it’s a myth. If the criteria is accomplishments alone, then yes.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

Only a Brady homer would credit him with carrying the early dynasty teams. Those were great teams and would have been winning teams without Brady.

I'm sorry.

They were potentially good teams. Certainly not dominant, and not "good" in the conventional sense, with superstars and overachievers. It was a losing team with Bledsoe.

They don't win any Super Bowls without Brady. Their collaboration was and if he stays, remains mutually beneficial for Tom, his teammates and his coaches.

It's a freaking insult to Tedy, Rodney, Willie, Ty, Vince and Richard to suggest Brady was the reason those teams were good.

True. Tom wasn't the reason they were good. But he did give them the chance to go all the way.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

Not if the criteria is a coach who can win with anyone. Until he proves he can, it’s a myth. If the criteria is accomplishments alone, then yes.

Bill's got nothing to prove.

He has won with anyone.

Anyone...say, an obscure afterthought drafted in the sixth round in whom nobody else even showed any interest at all, who had the worst score in the history of the combine for a quarterback. Whom he kept on the roster even with three others ahead of him on the depth chart.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

Without Brady, here is BB’s track record. I agree he is a phenomenal coach/GM, but this narrative is crazy.

1991 Cleveland - 6-10 Missed Postseason
1992 Cleveland - 7-9 Missed Postseason
1993 Cleveland - 7-9 Missed Postseason
1994 Cleveland - 11-5 Won Wild Card
1995 Cleveland - 5-11 Missed Postseason
2000 New England - 5-11 Missed Postseason
2008 New England - 11-5 Missed Postseason

That’s 1 postseason appearance/win in 7 seasons.

With Brady, 17 postseason appearances in 18 seasons.

Let’s see him actually succeed without Brady before crowning him best coach ever.

OK but did Lombardi win any titles without Starr?

Landry without Staubach?

Noll without Bradshaw?

Walsh without Montana?

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

OK but did Lombardi win any titles without Starr?

Landry without Staubach?

Noll without Bradshaw?

Walsh without Montana?

No on all of them. As I’ve repeatedly pointed out, this isn’t a knock about Belichick and is just the norm for coaches. Because a coach can win with his ideal player(s) does not mean he will just be able to replicate it later.

The narrative that Bill has bucked this trend and has already demonstrated he can be highly successful without Brady, isn’t just unproven, in fact the results say the opposite is true.

I think Bill is brilliant and has a decent chance to do something special without Brady, but I’m not going to falsely say I’ve actually witnessed him be a successful coach without Brady. 1 postseason win in 7 seasons is not exactly a triumph.

 

[Jercules]

Perennial pro bowler and MVP candidate playing with by far the worst receiving corp of anyone else in that category. Led the league in TD passes in 2002, his first full season as a starter. Back then a passer rating of 80 was about average.

His rating that season was 85.7, tied for 9th in the league. Chad Pennington was better. Brad Johnson was better.

 

[Tony2046]

His rating that season was 85.7, tied for 9th in the league. Chad Pennington was better. Brad Johnson was better.

I love arguments when they escalate into using contextless stats.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

His rating that season was 85.7, tied for 9th in the league. Chad Pennington was better. Brad Johnson was better.

Go Jercules yourself off.

 

[Jercules]

Go Jercules yourself off.

Trent Green was better. Drew Bledsoe was better!

 

[Tony2046]

Trent Green was better. Drew Bledsoe was better!

This is just foolish if not trollish.

 

[Jercules]

No on all of them. As I’ve repeatedly pointed out, this isn’t a knock about Belichick and is just the norm for coaches. Because a coach can win with his ideal player(s) does not mean he will just be able to replicate it later.

The narrative that Bill has bucked this trend and has already demonstrated he can be highly successful without Brady, isn’t just unproven, in fact the results say the opposite is true.

I think Bill is brilliant and has a decent chance to do something special without Brady, but I’m not going to falsely say I’ve actually witnessed him be a successful coach without Brady. 1 postseason win in 7 seasons is not exactly a triumph.

You've also never witnessed Brady succeed without Belichick, but never mind that.

Simple exercise: would the Pat's have been better off with Belichick and... Manning? Brees? Rodgers? Rivers? McNabb?

Or

Brady and... Reid? Coughlin? Carroll? Anyone else?

The former set of combos are superior to me, especially when you remember Bill is not just the coach, but runs the entire football operation.

Brady is the GOAT though, don't get me wrong.

 

[Jercules]

This is just foolish if not trollish.

Better by QB rating in 2002. As factual as it gets.

 

[Tony2046]

Better by QB rating in 2002. As factual as it gets.

That's being as disingenuous as it gets.

You like stats so tell me who had a higher statistically rated defense than the Patriots in 2001? How many of them beat the young Brady?

The Rams were known for the " greatest show on turf" but also had a top rated defense. Higher ranked than the Patriots.

The facts are that Brady has always had composure and has delivered against the toughest opponents on the biggest of stages. Over and over again.

I can't wait until Brady goes because the likes of you and the Garoppolites will finally see what we've had for the last twenty years.

Anyway continue on with your baseless facts.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Not if the criteria is a coach who can win with anyone. Until he proves he can, it’s a myth. If the criteria is accomplishments alone, then yes.

Apply that same criteria to Brady, and you're argument about Brady being the GOAT runs into a problem.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Apply that same criteria to Brady, and you're argument about Brady being the GOAT runs into a problem.

That’s fine. But the reason this is brought up about Belichick is the prevalent Patriots fan attitude that Belichick’s presence means everyone, including Brady, is somewhat of a cog in the wheel, and Belichick will just adapt and continue dominating the NFL. It’s largely based on the 2008 season, which saw a massive five game drop off without Brady. Then people point to “Belichick’s history” as proof.

If people had the same borderline arrogance that Brady would be successful outside of New England, then sure, the point would be brought up that we really don’t know yet. But as of now, that attitude reserved for Belichick’s “guaranteed” success going forward. People are a lot more cautious and nuanced when ascribing success to Brady.

 

[Jercules]

That's being as disingenuous as it gets.

You like stats so tell me who had a higher statistically rated defense than the Patriots in 2001? How many of them beat the young Brady?

The Rams were known for the " greatest show on turf" but also had a top rated defense. Higher ranked than the Patriots.

The facts are that Brady has always had composure and has delivered against the toughest opponents on the biggest of stages. Over and over again.

I can't wait until Brady goes because the likes of you and the Garoppolites will finally see what we've had for the last twenty years.

Anyway continue on with your baseless facts.

How many passing yards did he have against the Rams again? Less than 200? And they scored what, 20 points, including a pick six? But you nevertheless feel Brady was more important to that effort than Bill Belichick?

Belichick is a better coach and executive than Brady is a QB. Now, and especially back in the early aughts.

(And yes, I am a Garoppolite, and I'll tell you why. If Bill had never drafted JG, lighting a fire under Brady's ass, the crap QBing we got in 2010 vs. the Jets might have become the norm).

 

[TheRainMaker]

Are some of you really sleeping on the fact that BB may have ran out of time in NE had he not had competent QB play relatively soon? Did he not start out 5-13 in 2000/2001? BB was also not known as the “GOAT” at that time either so he didn’t have have a pass as he does now.

Some of you actually believe that they were going to miraculously turn it around with that roster in 2001 after starting 0-2 with Bledsoe.

Some of you fail to realize Brady stabilized the Pats that year and the team fed off of that. He was by no means a Pro Bowler off the bat, but he made quick decisions and kept them within reach, which Bledsoe was having a hard time doing. He clearly was not comfortable in that offense.

You are lying if you were a Pats fan in 2001 and didn’t start to have doubts BB was the right guy after the 5-13 start to his tenure with some random guy named Tom Brady taking over at QB.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

How many passing yards did he have against the Rams again? Less than 200? And they scored what, 20 points, including a pick six? But you nevertheless feel Brady was more important to that effort than Bill Belichick?

Belichick is a better coach and executive than Brady is a QB. Now, and especially back in the early aughts.

(And yes, I am a Garoppolite, and I'll tell you why. If Bill had never drafted JG, lighting a fire under Brady's ass, the crap QBing we got in 2010 vs. the Jets might have become the norm).

Lol...another spoiled loser who thinks winning over .776 is a birthright. Imagine if he had to root for any other QB in NFL history! This offseason has been eye opening and absolutely fcking embarrassing.

Bill should leave NE because so many in the deranged fanbase have absolutely no idea about what’s coming and weren’t even satisfied with the greatest run in American sports history.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Are some of you really sleeping on the fact that BB may have ran out of time in NE had he not had competent QB play relatively soon? Did he not start out 5-13 in 2000/2001? BB was also not known as the “GOAT” at that time either so he didn’t have have a pass as he does now.

Some of you actually believe that they were going to miraculously turn it around with that roster in 2001 after starting 0-2 with Bledsoe.

Some of you fail to realize Brady stabilized the Pats that year and the team fed off of that. He was by no means a Pro Bowler off the bat, but he made quick decisions and kept them within reach, which Bledsoe was having a hard time doing. He clearly was not comfortable in that offense.

You are lying if you were a Pats fan in 2001 and didn’t start to have doubts BB was the right guy after the 5-13 start to his tenure.

They have posters on their wall of a shirtless Max Kellerman.

 

[Tony2046]

How many passing yards did he have against the Rams again? Less than 200? And they scored what, 20 points, including a pick six? But you nevertheless feel Brady was more important to that effort than Bill Belichick?

Belichick is a better coach and executive than Brady is a QB. Now, and especially back in the early aughts.

(And yes, I am a Garoppolite, and I'll tell you why. If Bill had never drafted JG, lighting a fire under Brady's ass, the crap QBing we got in 2010 vs. the Jets might have become the norm).

Well just like your argument Jimmy Garoppoflop failed.