|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Nov 5, 2019 18:06:05 GMT
Because I know you guys can't get enough of this topic. Scary that I'm on the same side as Skip Bayless and James Harrison in this argument.
Board regulars have heard me make this argument before, so it's fun to see someone in the media actually having this conversation. At one point Skip brings up Super Bowl 52 and Shannon says that proves his point that it's Belichick, because the defense was poor so they lost. I can think of plenty of playoff games where the defense gave up a ton of points and they won. They gave up a ton of points to the Chargers and the Chiefs in that playoff run alone. They gave up two 4th qtr TDs in SB36, SB 38 was a shootout in the 2nd and 4th qtrs. Hell, even the three SBs they've lost they had a lead in the 4th quarter. I can't think of a single example of a game where Brady was downright terrible and they won. The closest example being SB 53, where the Patriots still scored ten points in the 4th quarter. In fact, Super Bowl 53 is the only Super Bowl where the defense played great all 4 quarters, and that's only because Gurley clearly couldn't play, Cooks had a drop around the goal line and Goff was already shitting his pants during warmups.
Brady has had bad games in the playoffs, and the Patriots have lost every one of them. Look up the final scores of every Patriots playoff game since 2003 and tell me the defense is what carried them. Never mind playoffs. Look at the numbers Brady and the Patriots offense have put up over the years all season long. The simple fact that Brady has the second most 4th quarter comebacks in history kind of says it all. When Brady retires or leaves NE, the football world is in for a rude awakening regarding Belichick's ability to build a winner. He's built a reputation that begins and ends with Brady. (With a little help from shutting down Peyton Manning, which as it turns out isn't that hard to do come playoff time. See Peyton's playoff record for more information on that.)
It's also worth noting that Harrison was actually on the defense that gave up a million points to the Eagles in that Super Bowl, and Shannon is still trying to blame Brady in that game while Harrison says it was clearly the defense's fault.
|
|
|
|
Post by hehatesshe on Nov 5, 2019 19:13:07 GMT
I decided after the loss to the Eagles that I was done pitting the two against each other. The Patriots needed both to win it all last year, and they will need the best out of both to win it all this year.
If either, or both, ever end up on different teams, I would be happy to engage in the conversation at that point.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Nov 6, 2019 13:38:53 GMT
I decided after the loss to the Eagles that I was done pitting the two against each other. The Patriots needed both to win it all last year, and they will need the best out of both to win it all this year. If either, or both, ever end up on different teams, I would be happy to engage in the conversation at that point. Belichick is the master of minutiae and I agree with his core philosophy of building a team with hungry guys who can do a lot of things well as opposed to superstars who do one thing great. If he's the greatest coach of all time it's due to his focus on preparation and the small details nobody else thinks about. The thing is, he only has time to think about that stuff because he spends zero time worrying about his quarterback. At no point in his week does Bill think, "What if Tom fucks this up?" Belichick also deserves credit for sticking with Brady in the first place (exhibit Z in my 'There is no system, Brady is the system' argument). Drew Bledsoe was a three time pro-bowler who had taken the Pats to a Super Bowl in the past, and Belichick saw something in Brady. Belichick isn't a hack. He's great at situational football and on keeping the team focused and motivated. He's steady, he doesn't get overexcited about wins or depressed over losses. "It is what it is." I love it. I just think he's overhyped as some schematic genius when the numbers don't bear that out over the years. Brady took a historically bad defense (31st in YPG, worst in Super Bowl Era) to the Super Bowl in 2011. What did Belichick contribute that year, and they made it to the Super Bowl anyway. I'm not saying Brady wins six rings with Freddie Kitchens, I'm just saying he deserves more credit than Belichick over the years. The career numbers for Brady back it up. Belichick's record without Brady back it up. The fact that Belichick kept Brady instead of Bledsoe, and then kept Brady instead of Cassel after 2008 back that up. The guy isn't dumb. It's also worth noting that in this digested-and-tossed-out windbag argument, the guy arguing in favor of Belichick is the one treating it like a 'hot take.' "Brady dropped that pass in the Super Bowl." Also as an aside. I'd stop bragging about beating the Patriots in 2002 if I were Shannon Sharpe. They went 9-7 and missed the playoffs, everyone beat them that year. I'm still trying to figure out why the cameras didn't work that season, but hey.
|
|
|
|
Post by DSDSquared on Nov 6, 2019 14:53:57 GMT
Because I know you guys can't get enough of this topic. Scary that I'm on the same side as Skip Bayless and James Harrison in this argument. Board regulars have heard me make this argument before, so it's fun to see someone in the media actually having this conversation. At one point Skip brings up Super Bowl 52 and Shannon says that proves his point that it's Belichick, because the defense was poor so they lost. I can think of plenty of playoff games where the defense gave up a ton of points and they won. They gave up a ton of points to the Chargers and the Chiefs in that playoff run alone. They gave up two 4th qtr TDs in SB36, SB 38 was a shootout in the 2nd and 4th qtrs. Hell, even the three SBs they've lost they had a lead in the 4th quarter. I can't think of a single example of a game where Brady was downright terrible and they won. The closest example being SB 53, where the Patriots still scored ten points in the 4th quarter. In fact, Super Bowl 53 is the only Super Bowl where the defense played great all 4 quarters, and that's only because Gurley clearly couldn't play, Cooks had a drop around the goal line and Goff was already shitting his pants during warmups. Brady has had bad games in the playoffs, and the Patriots have lost every one of them. Look up the final scores of every Patriots playoff game since 2003 and tell me the defense is what carried them. Never mind playoffs. Look at the numbers Brady and the Patriots offense have put up over the years all season long. The simple fact that Brady has the second most 4th quarter comebacks in history kind of says it all. When Brady retires or leaves NE, the football world is in for a rude awakening regarding Belichick's ability to build a winner. He's built a reputation that begins and ends with Brady. (With a little help from shutting down Peyton Manning, which as it turns out isn't that hard to do come playoff time. See Peyton's playoff record for more information on that.) It's also worth noting that Harrison was actually on the defense that gave up a million points to the Eagles in that Super Bowl, and Shannon is still trying to blame Brady in that game while Harrison says it was clearly the defense's fault. I love when people bring up Super Bowl 52 as a negative on Brady. Seriously? He was amazing in that game. He was the only reason they were in it, honestly. He had a better game than Foles.
|
|
|
|
Post by WarrenPeace on Nov 6, 2019 14:58:56 GMT
It's like the chicken and egg question.
Who do you praise or blame for a teams wins and losses?
Coaches or players?
|
|
|
|
Post by FrankSobotka1514 on Nov 6, 2019 15:08:14 GMT
It's like the chicken and egg question. Who do you praise or blame for a teams wins and losses? Coaches or players? There is an actual answer to the chicken and egg question. If you believe in evolution and genetic mutation then you believe that every living thing evolved from something else through genetic mutations. Therefore, some predecessor of a chicken laid an egg that contained an animal with genetic mutations that resulted in what we call a chicken. Therefore the egg came first. |
|
|
|
Post by WarrenPeace on Nov 6, 2019 15:33:01 GMT
It's like the chicken and egg question. Who do you praise or blame for a teams wins and losses? Coaches or players? There is an actual answer to the chicken and egg question. If you believe in evolution and genetic mutation then you believe that every living thing evolved from something else through genetic mutations. Therefore, some predecessor of a chicken laid an egg that contained an animal with genetic mutations that resulted in what we call a chicken. Therefore the egg came first. If you believe so.
|
|
|
|
Post by FrankSobotka1514 on Nov 6, 2019 15:38:48 GMT
There is an actual answer to the chicken and egg question. If you believe in evolution and genetic mutation then you believe that every living thing evolved from something else through genetic mutations. Therefore, some predecessor of a chicken laid an egg that contained an animal with genetic mutations that resulted in what we call a chicken. Therefore the egg came first. If you believe so. Yes, if you believe in science over imaginary friends. |
|
|
|
Post by WarrenPeace on Nov 6, 2019 15:50:30 GMT
Yes, if you believe in science over imaginary friends. Whatevers. Know one knows and ever will know.
|
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Nov 6, 2019 16:04:18 GMT
Board regulars have heard me make this argument before, so it's fun to see someone in the media actually having this conversation. Is that rare? I feel like I've heard this on going bullshit for like a decade.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Nov 6, 2019 17:21:38 GMT
Board regulars have heard me make this argument before, so it's fun to see someone in the media actually having this conversation. Is that rare? I feel like I've heard this on going bullshit for like a decade. Locally the talking heads always come to the 50/50 conclusion because they don't want to piss off the fans or lose access to players/coaches. Nationally it usually dovetails out of the "Is Brady the GOAT?" conversation, where bitter rivals turned pundits (like Jeff Saturday) try to say Brady had an advantage by having Belichick as his coach.
|
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Nov 6, 2019 22:47:09 GMT
I think McDaniels & Weis get the shaft about this stuff too... Brady & both those guys were basically a 2 headed QB perfect for their system.
Without Brady, Belichick surely could be penciled in for several 10 win seasons. I do think it's Brady though who's the icing on the cake.
Neither wins much without the other btw.
Their first Giants SB was basically Belichick not ready for the Giants' D... which hurt Brady's chances. Their second Giants SB was Brady at his most shaky in a SB, which cost Belichick yes? Their Eagles loss was Belichick's underestimation of Foles I'd say... that game had zero punts, there wasn't much more Brady could've done (besides the trick reception, which doesn't seal the f'n thing).
Unless some other franchise started giving Tom some undersized gamechangers like K.Faulk, Welker, Amendola, & Edelman.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Nov 7, 2019 14:31:32 GMT
I think McDaniels & Weis get the shaft about this stuff too... Brady & both those guys were basically a 2 headed QB perfect for their system. Without Brady, Belichick surely could be penciled in for several 10 win seasons. I do think it's Brady though who's the icing on the cake. Neither wins much without the other btw. Their first Giants SB was basically Belichick not ready for the Giants' D... which hurt Brady's chances. Their second Giants SB was Brady at his most shaky in a SB, which cost Belichick yes? Their Eagles loss was Belichick's underestimation of Foles I'd say... that game had zero punts, there wasn't much more Brady could've done (besides the trick reception, which doesn't seal the f'n thing). Unless some other franchise started giving Tom some undersized gamechangers like K.Faulk, Welker, Amendola, & Edelman. I don't see why Belichick could be penciled in for several 10 win seasons. Cleveland6-10 7-9 7-9 11-5 (1-1 in playoffs) 5-11 New England5-11 0-2 (until Brady took over, then they went 11-3 and 3-0 in the playoffs) He had one good season as a coach before he had Brady. He went 11-5 in 2008 with Cassel, who inherited an all time offense that Brady set records with the previous season and didn't lose a regular season game. That's a five game drop in a season of only 16 games, nearly a third of a season's difference. Even if you're right, are people talking about Belichick as the greatest of all time with a bunch of 10 win seasons? Does he win 100 games, let alone 300? If Brady hadn't taken over he would've been fired after another 5-11 season in New England. Super Bowl 42 came down to Brady and McDaniels not making the necessary adjustments to move the ball consistently. Even then, they took a 4 point lead (meaning the Giants needed more than a FG) with less than 3 minutes to play and the defense couldn't get a stop. Super Bowl 46 is the only SB where the Patriots didn't score a point in the 4th, so some of that blame has to go on Brady. But they still had the lead in the 4th quarter, and it came down to a Welker drop (reminiscent of the Reche Caldwell drop against Indy in 2006 AFC championship game that probably would've put the Patriots in the Super Bowl) and the worst ranked regular season defense in the Super Bowl era not being able to get a stop. SB 52 was just a clusterfuck by Belichick. Underestimating Foles, benching your #1 corner minutes before the game; he did everything he could to screw that game up. But those are just the losses. I'll give Belichick a ton of credit for SB 36, even if the defense gave up two TDs to tie it in the 4th quarter. They shut the Rams down and scored a defensive TD in that game. And Belichick had the balls to let Brady go for it instead of kneeling down and playing for overtime. I still don't think they win that game without Brady's calm under pressure in that final drive. And those were the days where you could really manhandle receivers on defense, which was the key to BB's game plan back in those days. Still, Super Bowl 38 was a shootout with Jake Delhomme of all people. They gave up a late score to Philly in SB 39 which made it a three point game. They took a TD lead in Super Bowl 49 with 31 seconds remaining in the first half and the Seahawks still tied it. Brady comes storming back from 10 down in the 4th qtr (a record until he broke it himself two years later) against the league's #1 defense, only to watch in horror as the idiot defense gives up yet another bomb to the red zone. They bailed themselves out of that one, but they never should've been in that situation. I'm trying to understand why Belichick gets so much credit for a defense that performs so poorly on a consistent basis in big moments. Somebody actually wrote an article about the masterful defense of last year's title run. They gave up 14 points in the 4th quarter to the Chargers (to be fair, the offense only scored 6 points in the second half I think, so maybe they just collectively took their foot off the gas early) and 24 points in the 4th to the Chiefs in the AFC title game. They even went up by 3 with 39 seconds to go and the game still went into OT. It literally came down to a coinflip. And that's masterful defense? These are just playoff games, though. The best QBs in the league are going to make some plays. Fair enough. I'll point to the 35 4th qtr comebacks in Brady's career, second most in history. If the defense is carrying the team, why has he had to make so many 4th qtr comebacks? It isn't like the Patriots offense is hurting for production over the years, Brady's passing numbers can attest to that. Where is this vaunted defense I keep hearing about? The defense hasn't been great since 2004. Even this year, they feast on scrubs and get their asses handed to them the first time they play a talented QB. All these years later, even with Brady missing an entire season to injury, and a quarter of another one to a bullshit suspension, Belichick still has a sub .500 record without Brady. He was 41-57 as a head coach before Brady's first start. 5-11 his first year in New England and 0-2 in 2001-- enter Brady, they go 11-3 the rest of the way and 3-0 on the playoffs but it's all because of Grandmaster Belichick. He's known as a defensive guru, yet his QB has put up a million yds, TDs, and 4th qtr comebacks and somehow it's more Belichick than Brady. It's an indefensible position once you sit down and actually contemplate the numbers. I disagree on one of your points in particular. As long as he's given the opportunity to start somewhere, Brady wins at least two rings somewhere. There's too much talent, too great an obsession with winning to be denied. Belichick gets fired after another losing season in NE and probably gets one more HC gig in some other shitsville where he rubs the press the wrong way and doesn't get immediate results with arguably the greatest QB falling into his lap, and gets canned after a couple losing seasons there. He might get another ring as a DC for some other coach somewhere, but he never builds a winner without Brady. Everything I appreciate about Brady's approach to the game revolves around talent and mindset, that stuff translates wherever you go. All of Belichick's coaching philosophies (which as I mentioned earlier in the thread, I also respect) only work when your best player is the ultimate team player and sets the example for everyone else to follow. You can build a blue collar team that'll fight their asses off and make the community proud while going 9-7 every year. But you can't build a winner out of underdogs without the most consistent on and off the field presence, maybe in the history of the game, setting the tone and making the game easier for the entire staff, let alone players.
|
|
