What if Brady succeeds elsewhere? Ramifications for BB.

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

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

You're forgetting his paradigm-shifting Geico commercial.

Point to the places on the doll where Brady touched you.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

And half will change their username.

Ice_Ice_Stidham

 

[Jercules]

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.

The offense was terrible last year.

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.

What you guys say about Troy Brown goes for the early years Tom Brady. Awesome, clutch.... but not elite, and certainly not more important than the genius coach.

 

[upstater1]

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?

I can't read the entire 9 page thread but BBs legacy is cemented. It's been 20 freakin' years. Even the last SB win was because of BB/Flores and the defense (though Brady and the O were amazing in the AFC playoffs). In 20 years, you expect such turnover that you miss the playoffs several times, but BB keeps chugging.

If Brady leaves, it's because he can't wait for the rebuild that this team evidently needs. The players here are older. This is the end of a cycle. It happens.

I just hope Patriots fans accustomed to excellent QB play won't freak out when we get a taste of what it means when a young QB is not in command of the offense, and is flummoxed by NFL defenses.

As for Brady, I expect him to be highly successful if he goes elsewhere, but that won't be a reflection on BB. I do believe BB could win a SB with a lesser QB, he proved it in the first SB year. Give us, say, Matthew Stafford and this team wins 3 Super Bowls over 20 years. The other 3 are because of Brady (Carolina, Seattle, Atlanta).

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

The offense was terrible last year.


What you guys say about Troy Brown goes for the early years Tom Brady. Awesome, clutch.... but not elite, and certainly not more important than the genius coach.

MVP Winners: 2001-2010

I’m really sorry that you’re unable to see reality outside of a boxscore and QB rating. In 2003, Brady finished 3rd in MVP voting with 8 votes, while Manning and McNair won with 16 each. In 2005, Brady finished 3rd in MVP voting with 10 votes, while Alexander had 19 and Manning 13. He was also voted second team All-Pro. And he was just as good in 2004 (Manning had 49 TDs to overshadow that) and 2006 (carried a sad cast of receivers to what should have been another SB.)

Brady played without even a skill position pro bowl player in 2002-2006 while Manning had 3 Hall of Fame players in Harrison, James, and Wayne (will be elected) plus pro bowl linemen in Tarik Glenn and Jeff Saturday. That roughly 20% of voters still voted Brady as the MVP despite having non-elite stats shows that they were paying attention, unlike the lazy analysis that you’re doing. During that time, there’s also the accomplishment of winning 3 Super Bowls and 2 Super Bowl MVPs. Not elite, though, according to you.

Anyone who didn’t consider Brady elite after the 2004/05 season suffers from Brady Derangement Syndrome.

 

[RobertWeathers]

The offense was terrible last year.


What you guys say about Troy Brown goes for the early years Tom Brady. Awesome, clutch.... but not elite, and certainly not more important than the genius coach.

We know the offense was sub-standard last year. What is your point?

 

[QuantumMechanic]

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.

Even Belichick has said the 2001 win was totally unexpected.

 

[maust]

No question.

Hopefully the frontrunning 'members' who love to talk the talk but are too cheap to walk the walk and actually contribute to the cost of running the place won't shut the lights off on the rest of us on their way out.

 

[rochrist]

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

You're forgetting his paradigm-shifting Geico commercial.

What year was the goat posing ad?

 

[Kasmir]

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.

I get that Brady is your favorite part of the dynasty success. Doesn't mean that he was necessary or sufficient

MVP Winners: 2001-2010

I’m really sorry that you’re unable to see reality outside of a boxscore and QB rating. In 2003, Brady finished 3rd in MVP voting with 8 votes, while Manning and McNair won with 16 each. In 2005, Brady finished 3rd in MVP voting with 10 votes, while Alexander had 19 and Manning 13. He was also voted second team All-Pro. And he was just as good in 2004 (Manning had 49 TDs to overshadow that) and 2006 (carried a sad cast of receivers to what should have been another SB.)

Brady played without even a skill position pro bowl player in 2002-2006 while Manning had 3 Hall of Fame players in Harrison, James, and Wayne (will be elected) plus pro bowl linemen in Tarik Glenn and Jeff Saturday. That roughly 20% of voters still voted Brady as the MVP despite having non-elite stats shows that they were paying attention, unlike the lazy analysis that you’re doing. During that time, there’s also the accomplishment of winning 3 Super Bowls and 2 Super Bowl MVPs. Not elite, though, according to you.

Anyone who didn’t consider Brady elite after the 2004/05 season suffers from Brady Derangement Syndrome.

I agree that after 2004 the consensus opinion was that Brady had become an elite QB. The vast majority of people still thought that Peyton was better, and most people still scoffed at the idea that Brady was the GOAT over Montana, but folks conceded that Brady was now elite. And all the statistical measures agree that 2004 was the year he ascended.

There absolutely were people who were claiming Brady was elite prior to 2004 for all the reasons you mention, and there were folks correctly predicting that Brady would become the GOAT. But his play hadn't risen to that level yet.

It's actually demeaning to Brady's 2010-2017 play to claim the earlier Brady was playing at a GOAT level. Most people at the time attributed the winning to the team -- and to Belichick -- and not to Brady alone.

I've shown in particular that the 2001 superbowl was clearly more of a defense and coaching success than a QB/offense success. To suggest otherwise is just Brady homerism.

My beef is with those who want to venerate Brady by trashing Belichick. I don't want to be pushed into the opposite effort, to try and defend the GOAT Coach/GM by attacking the GOAT QB.

But if I had to choose, I'd say the early years were more Belichick than Brady, and the later years more Brady than Belichick. But both are the GOAT.

Perhaps it would be best if Brady stays with the Pats and he and Belichick retire together, leaving this as a debate for the ages.

 

[Kasmir]

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.

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.

 

[TheRainMaker]

This discussion is getting comical.

 

[amfootball]

Bill has said himself every year that it is the players that win the games. He has also said that there is no single player more responsible for the Pats success than Brady. He said that when he was asked about Adam V's importance to the team I think either last year or the year before. It is always the players that make coaches great not the other way around. I mean Harbaugh was about to be fired in Baltimore because of awful Joe Flacco and one year later he is coach of the year because of Lamar. That is the way it is regardless if sport but probably more so in football because the QB impacts the game more than any other position in any team sport.

That being said, I have complete faith that BB can find the next guy and the Pats success will continue. Probably not to the tune of 6 SBs but if he can get an above average QB, I see no reason the Pats can't continue to dominate. He is the best coach and the best GM and had the incredible fortune of drafting the GOAT QB. We are a blessed fanbase.

 

[RobertWeathers]

This discussion is getting comical.

It all starts with the author of the thread. Thats all you need to know.

 

[RobertWeathers]

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.

Deus is a Brady fan. Not a Patriots fan and don't let him debate otherwise.

 

[amfootball]

I have no issue with Brady fans. The guy is the best to ever do it. Everyone's fandom is different and that is Ok. I will always vote for the Pats but what Brady has done is incredible.

 

[TheRainMaker]

It all starts with the author of the thread. Thats all you need to know.

Yes, it was definitely a funny question to start it off. And as most threads do, they get out of control.

Deus is a Brady fan. Not a Patriots fan and don't let him debate otherwise.

Its hard not to be loyal to Brady as his success is perhaps the biggest fluke in sports history.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Yes, it was definitely a funny question to start it off. And as most threads do, they get out of control.

Its hard not to be loyal to Brady as his success is perhaps the biggest fluke in sports history.

I'm a TB12 fan as well but Deus is not a Patriots fan.

 

[TheRainMaker]

I'm a TB12 fan as well but Deus is not a Patriots fan.

@Deus Irae is this true?

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I get that Brady is your favorite part of the dynasty success. Doesn't mean that he was necessary or sufficient

Is this real life?