Football It’s official: Pats were always Tom Brady. Not Bill Belichick. - Page 11

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]

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”?
[Reply]

Originally Posted by htismaqe:
And 30 interceptions.

And a losing record
[Reply]

Originally Posted by tyecopeland:
Brady went to a team with tons of weapons and a good to great defense. I wouldn't write belichek out for one down year. If he still is doing poorly the next two seasons then I'll agree it was brady.

Also he had the most key players opt out due to covid of any team

Brady went to a team that hasn't been above .500 since 2016 and, prior to that, hadn't been above .500 since 2010.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by htismaqe:
It isn't about the team.

We're talking about QB's vs. coaches.

Several teams have won Super Bowls with great QB's and mediocre coaches. The most recent that comes to mind is Denver in 2015.

Wat

Denver had the worst QB in the league in 2015 and won because of a historic defense.

Peyton Manning was the worst QB in the league that year, the very worst.

T34 out of 34 QB's in QB rating. He was out of the league after. He got lucky. Denver pulled his ass to a free Super Bowl. He deserved one though before, and didn't get one. Didn't deserve it that year and got one. Funny how that happens.

https://www.pro-football-reference.c...15/passing.htm
[Reply]

Originally Posted by KChiefs1:
Belichick has a losing record as a HC without Tom Brady.

I still can't get over how ****ing stupid we were to pick up Matt Cassel. Brady goes 16-0. The next year they go 10-6 with Matt Cassel. Sooooo Matt Cassel is SIX ****ING GAMES worse than Tom Brady in one year...and we think that is..good?

I blame the Belichick coaching tree and New England for that nonsense.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by BWillie:
I still can't get over how fucking stupid we were to pick up Matt Cassel. Brady goes 16-0. The next year they go 10-6 with Matt Cassel. Sooooo Matt Cassel is SIX FUCKING GAMES worse than Tom Brady in one year...and we think that is..good?

Pioli!
[Reply]

Originally Posted by TwistedChief:
Oh, no question about that. At all. Said another way, a good coach can't win a Super Bowl without good players but good players can win a Super Bowl without a good coach.

I might imagine that for the bulk of the relationship, Belichick benefitted more from Brady than the reverse. But more recently - like in the season where they beat us in the AFCCG and the following one - Brady probably benefitted more from Belichick's defense mind as his physical skills declined.

:-)
[Reply]

Originally Posted by htismaqe:
Pioli!

I hate clam chowder.

I hate harvard.

I hate wicked anything.

Will Hunting was a ****ing punk and Robin Williams should have drowned him in the lake by that park.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by BWillie:
I hate clam chowder.

I hate harvard.

I hate wicked anything.

Will Hunting was a ****ing punk and Robin Williams should have drowned him in the lake by that park.

:-)
[Reply]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By:
Brady went to a team that hasn't been above .500 since 2016 and, prior to that, hadn't been above .500 since 2010.

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?
[Reply]

One good thing is the shithead Pats fans are gone. They are done and Bill isn't going back the Bowl ever. Players will not line up and take pay cuts for them anymore. That day is dead. They are now regular ole nothing.
[Reply]

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?

Well, you aren't committing 40 turnovers with Brady. Talent means jack shit with poor execution
[Reply]

QB is by far the most important position on the field and it's not even close.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by htismaqe:
QB is by far the most important position on the field and it's not even close.

They should take it out of his hands and run it more

:-)
[Reply]

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.
[Reply]