What if Brady succeeds elsewhere? Ramifications for BB.

[Jercules]

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.

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.

 

[Jercules]

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.

Well just like your argument Jimmy Garoppoflop failed.

What are you guys trying to say, other than "Brady GOOD!"?

 

[Kasmir]

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.

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

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

The most amusing part of this is to look at the 2001 season and see Brady homers attributing all the success to Brady. Particularly in the SuperBowl game. The defense held the "Greatest Show on Turf" that had scored a record 503 points to 17 points, and actually scored 7 points on Ty Law's interception return, for a net of 10. The Brady led offense scored 13 points against a defense that was giving up 17 a game. I mean WTF, it's obvious to any objective observer that the defense was amazing in that game. Brady was clutch. Vinatieri was clutch. The coaching was other worldly.

But the Brady-homers want to claim that he somehow carried the team that year. Nonsense. He was a decent QB that year -- 12th ranked by DVOA -- and he did his job when it counted. The whole team punched above their weight that year. Coaching won that superbowl.

Be honest: if Mike Martz was coaching the Patriots in that game, and Belichick was coaching the Rams, what do you think would have happened? If Kurt Warner was QB for the Pats that year, and Brady QB for the Rams, what would have happened?

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

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I'm sorry a foolish argument, as you don't know what QB Belichick would have gone to if not Brady. During the first dynasty run, no one other than Pats homers was arguing Brady was the best QB in the league.

The most amusing part of this is to look at the 2001 season and sere Brady homers attributing all the success to Brady. Particularly in the SuperBowl game. The defense held the "Greatest Show on Turf" that had scored a record 503 points to 17 points, and actually scored 7 points on Ty Law's interception return, for a net of 10. The Brady led offense scored 13 points against a defense that was giving up 17 a game. I mean WTF, it's obvious to any objective observer that the defense was amazing in that game. Brady was clutch. Vinatieri was clutch. The coaching was other worldly.

But the Brady-homers want to claim that he somehow carried the team that year. Nonsense. He was a decent QB that year -- 12th ranked by DVOA -- and he did his job when it counted. The whole team punched above their weight that year. Coaching won that superbowl.

You do realize the type of buffoonery that’s inherent in the term “Brady homer” right? You’re talking about the consensus greatest NFL player ever, who not only has dominated but done so for 20 years. He’s likely to retire with every imaginable record in the regular season, postseason, and Super Bowl, and will lap the field for any type of winning metric. Usually “homer” is applied to someone who is making excuses for their favorite player, justifying why he didn’t succeed but should have, or ranking him well above the consensus outside of his region. Considering that he’s a 6X Super Bowl champion and ranked #1 QB all-time in virtually every single publication list, you sound like an ignorant fool. “Brady homer” was a cool, hip term around 2003. In 2020, anyone using it should look in the mirror at a sad lost cause.

No, of course Brady didn’t carry the team that year. They weren’t 5-11 the previous year and 0-2 to start 2001. There wasn’t an article in the ProFootballWeekly that had a poll of GMs with unanimous agreement that the Patriots were ranked dead last in the NFL for teams likely to win a Super Bowl in the next decade. Bill Belichick wasn’t a failing head coach coming off of six years missing the playoffs versus one career playoff win. And Brady didn’t carry them because the Patriots played a solid defensive game in the Super Bowl? Way to reduce the season to one game (a game where Brady led the game winning TD drive) and act like you’re being objective. Also, speaking of that game, who did Warner have around him as opposed to Brady? That would be Faulk (Hall of Fame), Holt (will be Hall of Fame), Bruce (Hall of Fame), and Pace (Hall of Fame.) Out of context stats sure are cool. Most QBs with Brady’s joke of a supporting cast on offense would never have been in that game and probably would have tuned the ball over multiple times.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

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

Pretty average first three seasons.

• 2X Super Bowl Champion (youngest player in NFL history)
• 2X Super Bowl MVP (youngest player in NFL history)
• 4 Game Winning postseason drives
• 6-0 postseason record
• 40-12 record
• Pro Bowl (2001)
• League leader in TD passes (2002)
• 3rd in MVP voting (2003)
• Two iconic SI covers
• Frequent comparisons to Joe Montana

 

[Kasmir]

Pretty average first three seasons.

• 2X Super Bowl Champion (youngest player in NFL history)
• 2X Super Bowl MVP (youngest player in NFL history)
• 4 Game Winning postseason drives
• 6-0 postseason record
• 40-12 record
• Pro Bowl (2001)
• League leader in TD passes (2002)
• 3rd in MVP voting (2003)
• Two iconic SI covers
• Frequent comparisons to Joe Montana

Most of those are team achievements and most of the rest are subjective. Brady was 12th in DVOA in 2001, 16th in 2002, and 13th in 2003. He rose to 4th in 2004, and was high up thereafter -- usually #1 or #2 -- until this year when he fell to 17th.

All of us who were arguing he was great QB back then in 2003 were basing it on his being a winner, with the rest of the fans in the league believing he was Belichick's overrated game manager. Not fair, but not unreasonable either. He clearly wasn't yet a truly great QB.

2007 really first proved his greatness, and 2010-2018 was unarguably amazing and established the consensus the he really is the GOAT. For me Superbowl LI vs the Falcons was the game that proved he was the GOAT, because he brought that team back from 28-3 without Gronkowski, the GOAT tight end.

 

[Kasmir]

You do realize the type of buffoonery that’s inherent in the term “Brady homer” right? You’re talking about the consensus greatest NFL player ever, who not only has dominated but done so for 20 years. He’s likely to retire with every imaginable record in the regular season, postseason, and Super Bowl, and will lap the field for any type of winning metric. Usually “homer” is applied to someone who is making excuses for their favorite player, justifying why he didn’t succeed but should have, or ranking him well above the consensus outside of his region. Considering that he’s a 6X Super Bowl champion and ranked #1 QB all-time in virtually every single publication list, you sound like an ignorant fool. “Brady homer” was a cool, hip term around 2003. In 2020, anyone using it should look in the mirror at a sad lost cause.

As someone who has followed the Patriots since the early 60's I truly dislike the fans here who are avowed Brady fans and not Patriots fans. And I despise the Brady fans who try to denigrate Belichick and the rest of the team to venerate Brady. That's the ****head nonsense that rightfully gets you called a Brady-homer by me.

I'll still be here when Brady finally goes. For any Brady-homer who goes with him: good riddance.

 

[Deus Irae]

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.

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

Before Brady stepped onto the field, BB was 5-13 in New England, including 0-2 to start 2001. Once Brady took over the starting job, the Patriots went 11-3 in 2001, and then finished out the year by winning the title. So, whether you call it Brady carrying the team, or you make up some other term for it, any claim that Brady wasn't the difference is simply not backed up by the facts.

And that doesn't mean that Bruschi sucked, or that Seymour wasn't a monster talent who belongs in the HOF, and it's not an insult to either of them. It simply means that Tom Brady was, and always has been, the man.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Most of those are team achievements and most of the rest are subjective. Brady was 12th in DVOA in 2001, 16th in 2002, and 13th in 2003. He rose to 4th in 2004, and was high up thereafter -- usually #1 or #2 -- until this year when he fell to 17th.

All of us who were arguing he was great QB back then in 2003 were basing it on his being a winner, with the rest of the fans in the league believing he was Belichick's overrated game manager. Not fair, but not unreasonable either. He clearly wasn't yet a truly great QB.

2007 really first proved his greatness, and 2010-2018 was unarguably amazing and established the consensus the he really is the GOAT. For me Superbowl LI vs the Falcons was the game that proved he was the GOAT, because he brought that team back from 28-3 without Gronkowski, the GOAT tight end.

2007 proved that DVOA is a flawed stat that’s the product of supporting cast more than anything. I find your observations of Brady’s career pre-2007 to be ludicrous; he was 3rd in MVP voting in 2003 and 2005 despite having the most un-MVP skill players. He was regarded as a top-3 QB by the vast majority of the NFL world.

All of us who were arguing he was great QB back then in 2003 were basing it on his being a winner, with the rest of the fans in the league believing he was Belichick's overrated game manager. Not fair, but not unreasonable either. He clearly wasn't yet a truly great QB.

Right, he wasn’t a truly great QB until he got Moss, Welker, and Stallworth at which point he suddenly “got good!” DvOa sAyS sO! You fail to address the major difference in 2007, which was the skill players around him, just like you failed the acknowledge the same point about SB36, instead choosing to whine and cry about “Brady homers.”

Essentially what happened is that:

A. Many people, mainly in New England, observed that Brady was an outstanding QB prior to 2007, but his lack of big weapons effected his stats. In addition, a lot of people in the national media made the same observation, hence finishing 3rd in MVP voting twice despite not having great stats.

B. You, per your own account, gave into the herd mentality outside of NE and didn’t trust your own observations, as you describe that you argued in 2003 that Brady was great but now have gone back on that because DVOA doesn’t support it.

C. The “homers” were proven right about Brady, as he immediately shattered records the first season he had the skill players to do so.

D. You still don’t get it.

If Kurt Warner was QB for the Pats that year, and Brady QB for the Rams, what would have happened?

Faulk, Bruce, Holt, and Pace are all going to Canton. Warner throwing to Brown, Patten, Fauria, and Pass? Do you really not see the humongous difference here? Do you understand that quarterbacks are largely dependent on the rest of their offense when it comes to their DVOA and passer rating?

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

As someone who has followed the Patriots since the early 60's I truly dislike the fans here who are avowed Brady fans and not Patriots fans. And I despise the Brady fans who try to denigrate Belichick and the rest of the team to venerate Brady. That's the ****head nonsense that rightfully gets you called a Brady-homer by me.

I'll still be here when Brady finally goes. For any Brady-homer who goes with him: good riddance.

Ahhh...yes, the fake Brady/Patriots dichotomy. Because it’s been such a struggle to choose who to root for between the two. Lol. Is this the part where I need to read off my credentials to prove I was a fan of the Patriots long before Brady, too?

Acknowledging that in the modern NFL the quarterback is the ultimate chess piece is not denigrating to anyone else. To deny it comes across as desperate and willfully ignorant.

 

[farn]

What if Brady moves on and NE still wins is another question ? So are

why do we all prefer Ernie to Bert ?
what do we make of the ending of Inception ?
why does anyone think pancakes are a meal ?

 

[PatriotReign]

2007 proved that DVOA is a flawed stat that’s the product of supporting cast more than anything. I find your observations of Brady’s career pre-2007 to be ludicrous; he was 3rd in MVP voting in 2003 and 2005 despite having the most un-MVP skill players. He was regarded as a top-3 QB by the vast majority of the NFL world.

All of us who were arguing he was great QB back then in 2003 were basing it on his being a winner, with the rest of the fans in the league believing he was Belichick's overrated game manager. Not fair, but not unreasonable either. He clearly wasn't yet a truly great QB.

Right, he wasn’t a truly great QB until he got Moss, Welker, and Stallworth at which point he suddenly “got good!” DvOa sAyS sO! You fail to address the major difference in 2007, which was the skill players around him, just like you failed the acknowledge the same point about SB36, instead choosing to whine and cry about “Brady homers.”

Essentially what happened is that:

A. Many people, mainly in New England, observed that Brady was an outstanding QB prior to 2007, but his lack of big weapons effected his stats. In addition, a lot of people in the national media made the same observation, hence finishing 3rd in MVP voting twice despite not having great stats.

B. You, per your own account, gave into the herd mentality outside of NE and didn’t trust your own observations, as you describe that you argued in 2003 that Brady was great but now have gone back on that because DVOA doesn’t support it.

C. The “homers” were proven right about Brady, as he immediately shattered records the first season he had the skill players to do so.

D. You still don’t get it.

If Kurt Warner was QB for the Pats that year, and Brady QB for the Rams, what would have happened?

Faulk, Bruce, Holt, and Pace are all going to Canton. Warner throwing to Brown, Patten, Fauria, and Pass? Do you really not see the humongous difference here? Do you understand that quarterbacks are largely dependent on the rest of their offense when it comes to their DVOA and passer rating?

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.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Don’t complain this thread is speculative and full of hyperbole. It’s in the very title.

What if Brady goes elsewhere, has a hugely successful season and meanwhile Patriots’ season flops as Stidham or whatever other QB throws pick after pick and has a full blown meltdown and Pats finish 4-12 or something or worse. What repercussions does that have to BB’s job, if any, as both a GM and HC? Will we then see Kraft split the GM and HC roles in that scenario to avoid any other obvious GM blunders. Thoughts?

Of course fans will be down on BB.

Once Tom leaves the franchise will officially be in rebuilding mode and fans better get used to it.

 

[Ladypatsfan]

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

The most amusing part of this is to look at the 2001 season and see Brady homers attributing all the success to Brady. Particularly in the SuperBowl game. The defense held the "Greatest Show on Turf" that had scored a record 503 points to 17 points, and actually scored 7 points on Ty Law's interception return, for a net of 10. The Brady led offense scored 13 points against a defense that was giving up 17 a game. I mean WTF, it's obvious to any objective observer that the defense was amazing in that game. Brady was clutch. Vinatieri was clutch. The coaching was other worldly.

But the Brady-homers want to claim that he somehow carried the team that year. Nonsense. He was a decent QB that year -- 12th ranked by DVOA -- and he did his job when it counted. The whole team punched above their weight that year. Coaching won that superbowl.

Be honest: if Mike Martz was coaching the Patriots in that game, and Belichick was coaching the Rams, what do you think would have happened? If Kurt Warner was QB for the Pats that year, and Brady QB for the Rams, what would have happened?

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

How can he be the Goat and average at the same time? Just say it, all of you have been trying to say it. He was never that good and he ain't that good now. He is not the GOAT. He is just a guy. Everyone seems to feel that way. I am not going to argue about it anymore. His time is up here. We all have seen how BB operates. I don't expect him to even try to resign him.

 

[Triumph]

As someone who has followed the Patriots since the early 60's I truly dislike the fans here who are avowed Brady fans and not Patriots fans. And I despise the Brady fans who try to denigrate Belichick and the rest of the team to venerate Brady. That's the ****head nonsense that rightfully gets you called a Brady-homer by me.

I'll still be here when Brady finally goes. For any Brady-homer who goes with him: good riddance.

Brady has been the perfume on so many of Belichick's drafting mistakes its comical.

Take your pick. No WRs, no run game, porous OL and Brady still wins. After 20 years of winning some people believe that this type of success is perfectly normal and reality. Just wait until the next guy takes over at QB who is a mere mortal. Like all the NE QBs before Brady who were good, but not good enough

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

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.

The point is that no QB would have an elite QB rating or DVOA with this group of skill players. I love Troy Brown...he was so awesome and clutch. But to measure Brady’s early years by a single metric like DVOA is absurd because it lacks context.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Once Tom leaves the franchise will officially be in rebuilding mode and fans better get used to it.

Half the people on this board will leave....which is a good thing.

 

[Clonamery]

Half the people on this board will leave....which is a good thing.

And half will change their username.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Half the people on this board will leave....which is a good thing.

No question.

 

[Jercules]

Pretty average first three seasons.

• 2X Super Bowl Champion (youngest player in NFL history)
• 2X Super Bowl MVP (youngest player in NFL history)
• 4 Game Winning postseason drives
• 6-0 postseason record
• 40-12 record
• Pro Bowl (2001)
• League leader in TD passes (2002)
• 3rd in MVP voting (2003)
• Two iconic SI covers
• Frequent comparisons to Joe Montana

"Two iconic SI covers".... lol.

You're forgetting his paradigm-shifting Geico commercial.