Originally Posted by tyecopeland:
So because they were under .500 (7-9 mind you) Chris godwin and Mike Evans aren't great wrs? Barrett, jpp. Vea, suh aren't good players because the team finished a game below. 500?
^ This. They finished 7-9 IN SPITE of Winston's 30 INTs. If he threw half as many as he did they are at worst a 10-6 team more likely a 11-5 or 12-4 and making the playoffs. To think their success is all Brady and they are somehow devoid of talent is ridiculous. He has made them better no doubt but they weren't scrubs before. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Pasta Giant Meatball:
Well, you aren't committing 40 turnovers with Brady. Talent means jack shit with poor execution
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
QB is by far the most important position on the field and it's not even close.
I'm just responding to posts. Presenting the ignored aspect in previous posts. JPB was phrasing his post as if Brady chose a shit team that had little talent and has single handedly turned it around when in fact most of the pieces were in place. Brady > winston. No doubt. But that doesn't mean much when Bridgewater > winston. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Prison Bitch:
We should be glad he didn’t choose Vegas. He’d have made them a SB threat too.
Of course folks here would be all “Dude Vegas was loaded with talent. Top RB, great TE, and speed WR, I mean like bro who COULDNT make them 12-4”?
Well they do have a better te. But not better wrs. Quite a bit better rb. But definitely at lot worse defense. Brady would have made them better though. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
And didn't win a Super Bowl.
Look, he's a good coach. Nobody is saying he's not.
Can he go 10-6 or 11-5 again? Sure.
But without Brady, he will never win another ring.
And how many rings did Reid have?
People who bring up Belichick's Browns seasons don't really look at the facts. The Browns suck. They've always sucked. They've had a whopping 3 winning seasons since 1990: 9 wins under Butch Davis, 10 wins under Romeo Crennel, and 11 wins under Belichick. Before the 11-5 season, Belichick had them winning 6, 7, and 7 games. He was clearly progressing them in the right direction. He beat Bill Parcells and the Patriots in the playoffs. And then the news came out about the team moving and it was all over. [Reply]
Originally Posted by JD10367:
And how many rings did Reid have?
Before Mahomes? Zero. That's exactly my point.
Originally Posted by JD10367:
People who bring up Belichick's Browns seasons don't really look at the facts. The Browns suck. They've always sucked. They've had a whopping 3 winning seasons since 1990: 9 wins under Butch Davis, 10 wins under Romeo Crennel, and 11 wins under Belichick. Before the 11-5 season, Belichick had them winning 6, 7, and 7 games. He was clearly progressing them in the right direction. He beat Bill Parcells and the Patriots in the playoffs. And then the news came out about the team moving and it was all over.
The best coach of all time should be able to manage .500 though shouldn't he?
Look, I'm not saying he's a bad coach. He's a really good coach. But he's still just a coach.
Let me make this even more clear since people don't seem to understand it:
Coaches DO NOT win championships, QB's do. Period. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Megatron96:
AFootball is the most coach-reliant sport in the world. Without decent coaching, the talent on the field has almost no chance of succeeding. Just see CLE last season with Kitchens. MIA when Gase was there. NYJ with Gase now. WAS with Jay Gruden. And so forth.
That's a long list of teams with shit quarterbacks. [Reply]
Originally Posted by tyecopeland:
I'm just responding to posts. Presenting the ignored aspect in previous posts. JPB was phrasing his post as if Brady chose a shit team that had little talent and has single handedly turned it around when in fact most of the pieces were in place. Brady > winston. No doubt. But that doesn't mean much when Bridgewater > winston.
With Brady they're probably a Super Bowl contender.
With Bridgewater, they aren't. It's that simple. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
I guess we'll see, won't we?
BB ain't winning shit without Brady.
I think he could have easily rode Jimmy G to the SB. If Rat Jr could do it, so could Bill.
This was a few years before Mahomes was drafted/starting. Bill’s defense was elite and they were a primarily running team. Very similar to last years 49ers. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Megatron96:
All the evidence supports the idea that the coach is more important than the player, even the QB.
Consider this: It's 1999-2000. The six QBs drafted before Brady were: Chad Pennington, Giovanni Carmazzi (sp?),Chris Redman, Tee Martin, Marc Bulger and Spergon Wynn. could any one of those guys have filled in for the Patriots in 200-2004 or so?
At the very least, Marc Bulger, right?
Now same thing, but this time take away Belichick. Install Freddie Kitchens. Or Lane Kiffen. Hue Jackson. Chris Palmer. Romeo Crennel. And so on. Do they win a SB? Almost definitely not.
Football is the most coach-reliant sport in the world. Without decent coaching, the talent on the field has almost no chance of succeeding. Just see CLE last season with Kitchens. MIA when Gase was there. NYJ with Gase now. WAS with Jay Gruden. And so forth.
Meanwhile, a really good to great coach can take just decent talent and find ways to put together a winning season, or even get their team into the playoffs. Sometimes even SBs.
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
In the regular season.
We're talking about winning championships.
Your only example that a great qb wins a championship with a bad coach is 9 td 17 int peyton manning winning with the Broncos. I'm still waiting for a real example of a great qb leading a team with a bad coach. [Reply]
Originally Posted by tyecopeland:
Your only example that a great qb wins a championship with a bad coach is 9 td 17 int peyton manning winning with the Broncos. I'm still waiting for a real example of a great qb leading a team with a bad coach.
Mike McCarthy won one with Aaron Rodgers. Mike McCarthy is a terrible head coach. [Reply]