Post by masterofallgoons on Nov 19, 2019 23:30:09 GMT
I get the argument that Brady is more crucial to the success than Belichick, but to discount either of them is asinine. They're both much better for having worked together.
How does that suggest a system? Cassel inherited a team that had an all time offense the previous season and had an established culture of winning. With all that, he lost five more regular season games than Brady did the previous year. The Patriots went 5-11 the year before Brady became a starter, and they were 0-2 when he became a starter. He went 11-3 as a starter and went on to win the Super Bowl.
What system was Belichick running as he racked up a 41-57 record as a head coach pre-Brady?
It suggests a system because they still won 11 games after losing the player who is being argued as the best ever the drop off is pretty god damn minimal, especially when we are talking about the drop off in quarterback. If the difference between the greatest who has ever played and a footnote in NFL history is 18 and 1 to 10 and 5; then yes, that suggests a successful system.
I get the argument for Brady being more important, but the idea that you could put anyone in Belichick's place and it wouldn't make a difference is as absurd as expecting that you could put anyone into Brady's place and they could replicate going 18 and 1.
P.S. What an original topic we have going here.