Football It’s official: Pats were always Tom Brady. Not Bill Belichick. - Page 16

Bill falls to 2-4 without Brady.

Brady goes to 5-2 with Tampa, turning them into a title contender immediately.

Tampa had the #1 SRS (points above avg team) in the NFL of +13.1. And that was before they trashed the Fighting Chuckies today.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by WhiteWhale:
Season isnt halfway over yet.

I've seen the patriots have a rough first half more than once. I'll let things play out.

The idea that one person is entirely responsible for new England's 20 years of success is just a bad take.

This is different.
[Reply]

Maybe it was neither Bill or Tom, but the cheating.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by htismaqe:
It's not just about this year.

It's about 20 years of dominance.

Brady was the Patriots. That ship has sailed. Bill won't win another ring. Bet on it.

So Bill's defensive genius had absolutely nothing to do with their success? Bullshit.
[Reply]

It's pretty simple.
They played great defense, didn't make stupid mistakes and they had a clutch QB. Usually 2/3 will win you the game in the NFL, so having all three made them damn tough to beat. Brady didn't have anything to do with the defense and Bill didn't have anything to do with the clutch QB, but they both were great at preventing the team from making bone-headed mental gaffes that many other teams do repeatedly.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by kccrow:
So Bill's defensive genius had absolutely nothing to do with their success? Bullshit.

Who said that? I didn't.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by crispystl:
It's pretty simple.
They played great defense, didn't make stupid mistakes and they had a clutch QB. Usually 2/3 will win you the game in the NFL, so having all three made them damn tough to beat. Brady didn't have anything to do with the defense and Bill didn't have anything to do with the clutch QB, but they both were great at preventing the team from making bone-headed mental gaffes that many other teams do repeatedly.

He may not have had anything to do with the clutch factor, but he always provided Tom with a very good offensive line and receivers that could get open underneath, both playing in favor of Tom's success.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by htismaqe:
Who said that? I didn't.

You think it's all Tom, and that's complete hogwash.
[Reply]

Hank stram couldn't win with the saints, therefore he was never a good coach. It was all lenny. Let's not even mention the defense.

That's what some of you sound like.

Likewise Andy sucks. It's all mahomes.

That's how football works right? Success can only be attributed to 1 coach or player.

Brady's Bucs ain't won shit yet. Stop crowning them.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by kccrow:
You think it's all Tom, and that's complete hogwash.

I've NEVER said it was all Tom.

I've gone on record saying SEVERAL times that Tom was the driving force behind the championships, but I've NEVER said BB contributed nothing. I've literally never said that.

I've even gone on record saying it's somewhere between 60/40 and 75/25.

So you're wrong.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by WhiteWhale:
Hank stram couldn't win with the saints, therefore he was never a good coach. It was all lenny.

That's what some of you sound like.

Likewise Andy sucks. It's all mahomes.

That's how football works right? Success can only be attributed to 1 coach or player.

Who said Bill sucks? Thats pure hyperbole.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by htismaqe:
I've NEVER said it was all Tom.

I've gone on record saying SEVERAL times that Tom was the driving force behind the championships, but I've NEVER said BB contributed nothing. I've literally never said that.

I've even gone on record saying it's somewhere between 60/40 and 75/25.

So you're wrong.

Even this take is atrocious.

Just those two? Those 16 of 20 years with a top 10 defense, and all those players, dont deserve 1% of credit?
[Reply]

Originally Posted by htismaqe:
Who said Bill sucks? Thats pure hyperbole.

Hyperbole is acting like the other 52 players never mattered.

I mean goddamn, did anyone expect the patriots to get better this year?
[Reply]

Originally Posted by WhiteWhale:
Even this take is atrocious.

Just those two? Those 16 of 20 years with a top 10 defense, and all those players, dont deserve 1% of credit?

What?

The title of the thread is literally Tom vs. Bill. Of course the other players deserve credit but that's not the discussion.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by WhiteWhale:
Hyperbole is acting like the other 52 players never mattered.

The other 52 players aren't being discussed. Sorry.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by htismaqe:
The other 52 players aren't being discussed. Sorry.

Yeah, that's the problem.

If it was only about billy and Tommy, they would have won 20 rings. So the whole conversation is silly.

I'm shitting on the premise itself.
[Reply]