|
|
Post by hehatesshe on Sept 14, 2020 13:31:34 GMT
So apparently Brady looks washed in the new offense and Cam looks good in NE. Id say week 1 is in favor of Belichick. Newton threw for 155 yds and 0 TDs. They patched together a few drives and told Newton to make it up as he went along in short yardage situations. That genius Belichick, at it again. There were games in New England where Brady threw more than 2 picks, but I guess he's washed up. There's nothing funnier than week 1 overreactions, particularly in a year without a pre-season. I expect Newton and Brady to both play better as the season goes along, and the next time Belichick accomplishes anything as a head coach without Brady will be the first. Brady is on to Carolina. |
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Sept 14, 2020 13:41:17 GMT
Plus, did you see the Pats allow that one TD? Absolutely unacceptable. And it would have been even more if only their players didn’t just happen to make plays. On top of that, only 3 picks? Worst defense ever. I just wish they could've played that way against the same team week 17 of last year with a home field advantage on the line. I wish the receiver fell down and the ball went right into Gilmore's hands in that game, or Fitzpatrick threw the ball to nobody in the back of the end zone. Maybe some day somebody will explain Belichick's defense in that game, or in Super Bowl 52, or Super Bowl 38 which the Pats still won, or how the Patriots brought the worst statistical defense in the Super Bowl era to Super Bowl 46. Belichick is a defensive genius, how can that happen? Some more fun facts regarding this topic: (It's a 7 minute video, but you only really need to watch the first two minutes) I don't know what else needs to be said, but I'd like to mention Brady is second all time in 4th quarter comebacks. With his stats, it's not like they're winning games 10-7. If his defense was always so great, why does he have to make 4th qtr comebacks so often? Why does Belichick have such a terrible record without Brady? If he 'figured it out' the moment Brady became his starter (what timing!), why did he bring the worst statistical defense in the SB era to Super Bowl 46? Anyone can have a bad game, so maybe my criticisms and anecdotes of single games aren't fair. But the worst defense in the Super Bowl era over an entire season? Who do you think was more responsible for them getting to the Super Bowl that year? Who was more responsible for all those 4th quarter comebacks? Why has Belichick been a failure with every other QB he's had? But yeah, they sure showed a bad Dolphins team who's boss yesterday. Belichick is the GOAT.
|
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Sept 14, 2020 15:11:48 GMT
Plus, did you see the Pats allow that one TD? Absolutely unacceptable. And it would have been even more if only their players didn’t just happen to make plays. On top of that, only 3 picks? Worst defense ever. I just wish they could've played that way against the same team week 17 of last year with a home field advantage on the line. I wish the receiver fell down and the ball went right into Gilmore's hands in that game, or Fitzpatrick threw the ball to nobody in the back of the end zone. Maybe some day somebody will explain Belichick's defense in that game, or in Super Bowl 52, or Super Bowl 38 which the Pats still won, or how the Patriots brought the worst statistical defense in the Super Bowl era to Super Bowl 46. Belichick is a defensive genius, how can that happen? Some more fun facts regarding this topic: (It's a 7 minute video, but you only really need to watch the first two minutes) I don't know what else needs to be said, but I'd like to mention Brady is second all time in 4th quarter comebacks. With his stats, it's not like they're winning games 10-7. If his defense was always so great, why does he have to make 4th qtr comebacks so often? Why does Belichick have such a terrible record without Brady? If he 'figured it out' the moment Brady became his starter (what timing!), why did he bring the worst statistical defense in the SB era to Super Bowl 46? Anyone can have a bad game, so maybe my criticisms and anecdotes of single games aren't fair. But the worst defense in the Super Bowl era over an entire season? Who do you think was more responsible for them getting to the Super Bowl that year? Who was more responsible for all those 4th quarter comebacks? Why has Belichick been a failure with every other QB he's had? But yeah, they sure showed a bad Dolphins team who's boss yesterday. Belichick is the GOAT. Here's the problem. When you present every Patriots victory as either "Brady bailed them out" or "they just cobbled together some random plays and told the non-Brady QB to try and score and he somehow did" or "the other team's offense just sucked and the Pats' defenders just happened to make plays and if they didn't make those plays they would've been touchdowns" or "Matt Cassell was actually a great QB" it just doesn't come off as a fair argument. It's like Belichick can only justify his reputation as a genius if the Pats win every game 50-0 with an eyeless, limbless Nathan Peterman at QB. But no team is going to do that. Why did the Patriots lose in week 17? Why did they lose to the Titans in the playoffs? Because they can't win every game. But the Patriots HAVE won so much under Belichick that it just looks spoiled for fans to fixate on those times where they didn't win or, heaven forbid, allowed multiple touchdowns in a game as if they're more important and more emblematic of Belichick than the times they DID win and DID have a great defense. It comes off even worse when you're talking to fanbases who've over the last decade had to watch their teams trot out ACTUAL shit defenses with ACTUAL terrible rosters. Let's look at what the Patriots accomplished in the 2010s. Actually, I don't even want to, we've heard about it enough at this point. But winning the division every year since - what, 2009?- and reaching the AFC title game every season from - what, 2011-2018? - can't all be down to Brady. Why is Brady 2nd all time in 4th quarter comebacks? Because he's played a lot of games and he's a great QB, no one is denying that (except jimanchower). Why did he have to lead 4th quarter comebacks despite playing for the great Belichick? Because Belichick has coached a lot of games and every team is going to fall behind in a game. The difference is that most coaches don't have an all-time QB to make those comebacks. Look at any long-tenured head coach and find how many times they fell behind in a game during their career. It's gonna be a lot. We just don't hear about it because they didn't make those comebacks, they just lost. Even the great ones. No one is going to be perfect all the time, but you make it seem like Brady has been Drew Brees for most of the latter's career constantly involved in arcade style shootouts. Why did Belichick have a terrible pass defense in 2011? Well, what about all the years he DIDN'T have a terrible defense? Or even close to one? There has to be more of a balance. Not every Patriots' victory can be down to either Brady being great or the other teams' offense sucking. Not every Patriots' loss has to be down solely to Belichick's defense being shit. They're not getting blown out every week, for crying out loud. For every SB 52 there's also a SB 53. Come on now. And look at SB 52, by the way. The round before that, Philly wiped the floor with the Vikings and their vaunted defense under Zimmer, one of the more well-reputed defensive minds in the game today. But I guess their defense was also just terrible all along because they played bad that game? One game is one game. Yes, that goes both ways - SB 53 is one game etc - but like I said, there has to be some balance. You talk about Belichick's record pre-Brady. Really we're essentially talking about the Cleveland years and one season of a Pats team that was hardly a world-beater at that time. Correct me if I'm wrong about any of that. Winning takes time but it's something that Belichick LEARNED to do, a winning culture and standards of discipline and excellence that he had a huge, huge part in building. Did Brady help? Yes! Of course! But that doesn't mean that Bill Belichick isn't a genius and one of the most influential, impactful figures in NFL history. In conclusion: what do I even care? I WANT Belichick and the Pats to suck. Please wake me up when it finally happens.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Sept 14, 2020 16:01:57 GMT
I just wish they could've played that way against the same team week 17 of last year with a home field advantage on the line. I wish the receiver fell down and the ball went right into Gilmore's hands in that game, or Fitzpatrick threw the ball to nobody in the back of the end zone. Maybe some day somebody will explain Belichick's defense in that game, or in Super Bowl 52, or Super Bowl 38 which the Pats still won, or how the Patriots brought the worst statistical defense in the Super Bowl era to Super Bowl 46. Belichick is a defensive genius, how can that happen? Some more fun facts regarding this topic: (It's a 7 minute video, but you only really need to watch the first two minutes) I don't know what else needs to be said, but I'd like to mention Brady is second all time in 4th quarter comebacks. With his stats, it's not like they're winning games 10-7. If his defense was always so great, why does he have to make 4th qtr comebacks so often? Why does Belichick have such a terrible record without Brady? If he 'figured it out' the moment Brady became his starter (what timing!), why did he bring the worst statistical defense in the SB era to Super Bowl 46? Anyone can have a bad game, so maybe my criticisms and anecdotes of single games aren't fair. But the worst defense in the Super Bowl era over an entire season? Who do you think was more responsible for them getting to the Super Bowl that year? Who was more responsible for all those 4th quarter comebacks? Why has Belichick been a failure with every other QB he's had? But yeah, they sure showed a bad Dolphins team who's boss yesterday. Belichick is the GOAT. Here's the problem. When you present every Patriots victory as either "Brady bailed them out" or "they just cobbled together some random plays and told the non-Brady QB to try and score and he somehow did" or "the other team's offense just sucked and the Pats' defenders just happened to make plays and if they didn't make those plays they would've been touchdowns" or "Matt Cassell was actually a great QB" it just doesn't come off as a fair argument. It's like Belichick can only justify his reputation as a genius if the Pats win every game 50-0 with an eyeless, limbless Nathan Peterman at QB. But no team is going to do that. Why did the Patriots lose in week 17? Why did they lose to the Titans in the playoffs? Because they can't win every game. But the Patriots HAVE won so much under Belichick that it just looks spoiled for fans to fixate on those times where they didn't win or, heaven forbid, allowed multiple touchdowns in a game as if they're more important and more emblematic of Belichick than the times they DID win and DID have a great defense. It comes off even worse when you're talking to fanbases who've over the last decade had to watch their teams trot out ACTUAL shit defenses with ACTUAL terrible rosters. Let's look at what the Patriots accomplished in the 2010s. Actually, I don't even want to, we've heard about it enough at this point. But winning the division every year since - what, 2009?- and reaching the AFC title game every season from - what, 2011-2018? - can't all be down to Brady. Why is Brady 2nd all time in 4th quarter comebacks? Because he's played a lot of games and he's a great QB, no one is denying that (except jimanchower). Why did he have to lead 4th quarter comebacks despite playing for the great Belichick? Because Belichick has coached a lot of games and every team is going to fall behind in a game. The difference is that most coaches don't have an all-time QB to make those comebacks. Look at any long-tenured head coach and find how many times they fell behind in a game during their career. It's gonna be a lot. We just don't hear about it because they didn't make those comebacks, they just lost. Even the great ones. No one is going to be perfect all the time, but you make it seem like Brady has been Drew Brees for most of the latter's career constantly involved in arcade style shootouts. Why did Belichick have a terrible pass defense in 2011? Well, what about all the years he DIDN'T have a terrible defense? Or even close to one? There has to be more of a balance. Not every Patriots' victory can be down to either Brady being great or the other teams' offense sucking. Not every Patriots' loss has to be down solely to Belichick's defense being shit. They're not getting blown out every week, for crying out loud. For every SB 52 there's also a SB 53. Come on now. And look at SB 52, by the way. The round before that, Philly wiped the floor with the Vikings and their vaunted defense under Zimmer, one of the more well-reputed defensive minds in the game today. But I guess their defense was also just terrible all along because they played bad that game? One game is one game. Yes, that goes both ways - SB 53 is one game etc - but like I said, there has to be some balance. You talk about Belichick's record pre-Brady. Really we're essentially talking about the Cleveland years and one season of a Pats team that was hardly a world-beater at that time. Correct me if I'm wrong about any of that. Winning takes time but it's something that Belichick LEARNED to do, a winning culture and standards of discipline and excellence that he had a huge, huge part in building. Did Brady help? Yes! Of course! But that doesn't mean that Bill Belichick isn't a genius and one of the most influential, impactful figures in NFL history. In conclusion: what do I even care? I WANT Belichick and the Pats to suck. Please wake me up when it finally happens. The video points out that the Browns went to the playoffs 5 out 6 years before Belichick became the coach. They had losing seasons in 4 out of his 5 years. He went 5-13 with a Patriots team that had gone to a Super Bowl a few years previously. He was 0-2 until Brady became QB, then miraculously they win a Super Bowl and eventually five more, and somehow it's the coach. You know when I'll give Belichick credit? When you and everyone else admits he wasn't a good coach before Brady. When any of you admit Brady built Belichick, and when he actually wins a playoff game without Brady, I'll give him some credit. How is any of it unfair? Me saying the offense didn't look crisp yesterday (And in this offseason, nobody is blaming anyone) is as fair as that ridiculous quote you posted about Belichick saying he was going to cater to Stidham's strengths like he did to Brady. What a dick move by Belichick, but I expect nothing less. People bring up Cassel, and when they do I point out the team won 7 less games and missed the playoffs. If you watched yesterday's game, you'd know I was right about those picks not being impressive plays or some kind of amazing defensive scheme. It's easier to just look up the stats. Kind of like last year, when everyone said the defense was elite, only to get their ass handed to them by every good team they played. I loved the Pats D back in the days of McGinest, Bruschi, Vrabel, Seymour, Law, Milloy. Even then they weren't infallible, but those guys made plays. The Patriots defense has been lousy ever since, but people pretend Brady is somehow carried by Belichick's mighty defense year after year. The worst statistical defense in the Super Bowl era goes to the Super Bowl and I'm supposed to be impressed with Belichick's ability? Yes, for every Super Bowl 52 there's a Super Bowl 53; the problem is you pretend Super Bowl 52 never happened and prop up Belichick as much as you can with games like Super Bowl 53, where the other team just shit itself. Have you watched the behind the scenes stuff for SB 53? McVay blows Belichick for like 5 minutes before the game, it's embarrassing. Then Goff looks like he's seen a ghost during warmups. Gurley couldn't play. Late in the game, there's a clip of Belichick saying, "If we're honest, they don't have anything." The Rams didn't have a plan B once Gurley couldn't play and Goff spit the bit. That was a garbage game; arguably one of Brady's worst as well (and yet the offense still scored 10 points in the 4th quarter). But you keep bringing it up over and over again, and brush aside week 17 of last year, Super Bowl 52 or Super Bowl 38 or entire seasons like 2011 as flukes. Brady carried this team to victory more than anything Belichick did over the last 20 years, and the numbers back it up. What about the years they didn't have a terrible pass defense? How about this-- the numbers suggest it doesn't fucking matter as long as Brady is your QB. The numbers spell out, unequivocally, that Belichick was a lousy head coach pre-Brady. It's inarguable. There is no balance. The Patriots didn't make the Super Bowl when they had a historically bad passing game, but they did with historically bad defense. "Most of his losing was in Cleveland." As Greenberg mentioned, Cleveland wasn't terrible until he took over. 5-13 his first year here, 0-2 his second. Enter Brady as a starter and he becomes the greatest coach of all time. Amazing. The thing I love most about the clip is that Greenberg goes out of his way to state he thinks Belichick is the greatest coach ever (despite every stat he just reported himself), so it's not like it's a Belichick hit piece. Other teams have had it much worse; you can call me spoiled and you'd have a point if I randomly started another thread about Brady being more important than Belichick. But I didn't. I replied to yet another ill informed comment about Belichick and Brady. You don't have to agree with me, all you have to do is look at the stats. "Brady has a bunch of comebacks because he's played so long." Come on, man. You make comebacks because you have to. Because the defense didn't get a stop. I've said this a million times, Belichick isn't Freddie Kitchens. I get it. But every time someone alludes to a Belichick/Brady comparison as smurfbate did, I'm compelled to point out the reality (backed up by results and statistics, as shown in that video by a guy insisting BB is the greatest) of the situation. Belichick was not a good coach pre-Brady, and as we've seen, not always a good coach with Brady.
|
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Sept 14, 2020 17:24:46 GMT
This dynamic between us gets more warped by the year, Rey. In 5 years I’ll have become a diehard Pats fan with “Bill” on the back of my jersey and you’ll be a deacon at The Church of TB12.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Sept 14, 2020 17:43:10 GMT
This dynamic between us gets more warped by the year, Rey. In 5 years I’ll have become a diehard Pats fan with “Bill” on the back of my jersey and you’ll be a deacon at The Church of TB12. Sooner or later everyone will figure out you're actually Archie Manning and I'm actually Alex Guerrero.
|
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Sept 14, 2020 20:55:14 GMT
Not relevant to the discussion but I just learned this factoid:
"Tom Brady is the first QB to have three straight games with a pick-six since Matt Schaub and Blaine Gabbert in 2013."
|
|
|
|
Post by millar70 on Sept 14, 2020 21:16:27 GMT
Not relevant to the discussion but I just learned this factoid: "Tom Brady is the first QB to have three straight games with a pick-six since Matt Schaub and Blaine Gabbert in 2013." The only quarterback with more pick-six's than Tom Brady in the last 2 seasons? Jameis Winston |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Sept 14, 2020 21:28:50 GMT
Not relevant to the discussion but I just learned this factoid: "Tom Brady is the first QB to have three straight games with a pick-six since Matt Schaub and Blaine Gabbert in 2013." I think Tom Brady is 2 and and 4 against Drew Brees. |
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Sept 15, 2020 12:50:32 GMT
Here's the problem. When you present every Patriots victory as either "Brady bailed them out" or "they just cobbled together some random plays and told the non-Brady QB to try and score and he somehow did" or "the other team's offense just sucked and the Pats' defenders just happened to make plays and if they didn't make those plays they would've been touchdowns" or "Matt Cassell was actually a great QB" it just doesn't come off as a fair argument. It's like Belichick can only justify his reputation as a genius if the Pats win every game 50-0 with an eyeless, limbless Nathan Peterman at QB. But no team is going to do that. Why did the Patriots lose in week 17? Why did they lose to the Titans in the playoffs? Because they can't win every game. But the Patriots HAVE won so much under Belichick that it just looks spoiled for fans to fixate on those times where they didn't win or, heaven forbid, allowed multiple touchdowns in a game as if they're more important and more emblematic of Belichick than the times they DID win and DID have a great defense. It comes off even worse when you're talking to fanbases who've over the last decade had to watch their teams trot out ACTUAL shit defenses with ACTUAL terrible rosters. Let's look at what the Patriots accomplished in the 2010s. Actually, I don't even want to, we've heard about it enough at this point. But winning the division every year since - what, 2009?- and reaching the AFC title game every season from - what, 2011-2018? - can't all be down to Brady. Why is Brady 2nd all time in 4th quarter comebacks? Because he's played a lot of games and he's a great QB, no one is denying that (except jimanchower). Why did he have to lead 4th quarter comebacks despite playing for the great Belichick? Because Belichick has coached a lot of games and every team is going to fall behind in a game. The difference is that most coaches don't have an all-time QB to make those comebacks. Look at any long-tenured head coach and find how many times they fell behind in a game during their career. It's gonna be a lot. We just don't hear about it because they didn't make those comebacks, they just lost. Even the great ones. No one is going to be perfect all the time, but you make it seem like Brady has been Drew Brees for most of the latter's career constantly involved in arcade style shootouts. Why did Belichick have a terrible pass defense in 2011? Well, what about all the years he DIDN'T have a terrible defense? Or even close to one? There has to be more of a balance. Not every Patriots' victory can be down to either Brady being great or the other teams' offense sucking. Not every Patriots' loss has to be down solely to Belichick's defense being shit. They're not getting blown out every week, for crying out loud. For every SB 52 there's also a SB 53. Come on now. And look at SB 52, by the way. The round before that, Philly wiped the floor with the Vikings and their vaunted defense under Zimmer, one of the more well-reputed defensive minds in the game today. But I guess their defense was also just terrible all along because they played bad that game? One game is one game. Yes, that goes both ways - SB 53 is one game etc - but like I said, there has to be some balance. You talk about Belichick's record pre-Brady. Really we're essentially talking about the Cleveland years and one season of a Pats team that was hardly a world-beater at that time. Correct me if I'm wrong about any of that. Winning takes time but it's something that Belichick LEARNED to do, a winning culture and standards of discipline and excellence that he had a huge, huge part in building. Did Brady help? Yes! Of course! But that doesn't mean that Bill Belichick isn't a genius and one of the most influential, impactful figures in NFL history. In conclusion: what do I even care? I WANT Belichick and the Pats to suck. Please wake me up when it finally happens. Have you watched the behind the scenes stuff for SB 53? McVay blows Belichick for like 5 minutes before the game, it's embarrassing. Just briefly going back to this - my favorite part by far about the pre-SB 53 buildup was the media fixating on the supposed "text message" that Belichick sent McVay earlier in the season to congratulate them on their exciting play. They kept bringing it up over and over for 2 weeks. They did an interview where they asked McVay about the text message right in front of Belichick, and McVay just looked so embarrassed to have ever mentioned it in the first place. "What did Bill say to you in the text message, Sean?" "Uhhhh, well, he just told us good job and that he really enjoyed watching us play, and yeah..." meanwhile Bill was just staring blankly like he had no recollection of ever sending a text message/no idea what a text message was. It was hilarious.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Sept 15, 2020 13:17:27 GMT
Not relevant to the discussion but I just learned this factoid: "Tom Brady is the first QB to have three straight games with a pick-six since Matt Schaub and Blaine Gabbert in 2013." The only quarterback with more pick-six's than Tom Brady in the last 2 seasons? Jameis Winston Why else would Tampa sign him? They know Brady can do anything better if you give him the opportunity, even pick sixes. As Ozzy would say, "It's just a sign of the times, going forward in reverse."
|
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Sept 15, 2020 13:52:37 GMT
"Brady has a bunch of comebacks because he's played so long." Come on, man. You make comebacks because you have to. Because the defense didn't get a stop. I tried but I just can't let this one slide. How does a QB make a comeback if his defense can't get a stop? I mean, you know that (short of multiple successful onside kicks) they can't, that's why you made that distinction: the defense didn't get a stop. But then they did. Look at Matt Ryan basically every week. He's lighting it up in garbage time and it doesn't matter because his defense keeps leaking touchdowns again and again. You're punishing Belichick for daring to allow his team to be behind in games but all teams fall behind in games. Brady made all those comebacks - that proves he's great. It doesn't prove that Belichick's defenses were crap because they were behind at one point. The point is that they weren't behind by the end - and both the offense and defense need to perform for that to be possible. Look at SB 51 as just one example. Brady made that incredible comeback. Sure! It was definitely amazing. But we wouldn't be talking about it now if the Patriots didn't manage to stop Atlanta again and again and again through the 4th quarter and most of the 3rd. It can't just be that the Falcons simply decided to stop playing well and kept making mistakes. Who adjusted to what the Falcons were doing? Who forced them into those mistakes? Obviously some luck came into it too, but you have to admit that Belichick did something. Yes, the defense was awful in the first half (as was the offense) but sooner or later they started to do something right to make it possible for Brady to come back in the game. NFL history is filled with quarterbacks that tried valiantly and started playing well late on but it didn't matter because their defense couldn't get a stop at all. But the Patriots DID make those stops, even if it took a while. Both sides of the ball need to do their jobs to make comebacks possible. The quarterback gets the adulation, but they should both get credit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Sept 15, 2020 15:05:31 GMT
"Brady has a bunch of comebacks because he's played so long." Come on, man. You make comebacks because you have to. Because the defense didn't get a stop. I tried but I just can't let this one slide. How does a QB make a comeback if his defense can't get a stop? I mean, you know that (short of multiple successful onside kicks) they can't, that's why you made that distinction: the defense didn't get a stop. But then they did. Look at Matt Ryan basically every week. He's lighting it up in garbage time and it doesn't matter because his defense keeps leaking touchdowns again and again. You're punishing Belichick for daring to allow his team to be behind in games but all teams fall behind in games. Brady made all those comebacks - that proves he's great. It doesn't prove that Belichick's defenses were crap because they were behind at one point. The point is that they weren't behind by the end - and both the offense and defense need to perform for that to be possible. Look at SB 51 as just one example. Brady made that incredible comeback. Sure! It was definitely amazing. But we wouldn't be talking about it now if the Patriots didn't manage to stop Atlanta again and again and again through the 4th quarter and most of the 3rd. It can't just be that the Falcons simply decided to stop playing well and kept making mistakes. Who adjusted to what the Falcons were doing? Who forced them into those mistakes? Obviously some luck came into it too, but you have to admit that Belichick did something. Yes, the defense was awful in the first half (as was the offense) but sooner or later they started to do something right to make it possible for Brady to come back in the game. NFL history is filled with quarterbacks that tried valiantly and started playing well late on but it didn't matter because their defense couldn't get a stop at all. But the Patriots DID make those stops, even if it took a while. Both sides of the ball need to do their jobs to make comebacks possible. The quarterback gets the adulation, but they should both get credit. To be fair, everyone should get credit. It's not like basketball where Jordan can just score 69 points and completely take over the game. All the QB can do is throw the ball. Someone has to catch it, someone has to block, etc. But the QB is the one running the show, so he gets the credit. I don't even understand why they count 'wins' for individual players in team sports. Pitchers, QBs, goalies? No player does it by themselves. But in the case of a 4th qtr comeback, you're using an extreme example. Super Bowl 51 was like the comeback. Everyone had to pitch in on that one. In general, a 4th qtr comeback means your team is behind by a score with limited time remaining, and it's up to the QB to lead the team to victory. DC Fan would argue, "Well if the offense had scored 58 points in the first three quarters, the defense wouldn't have needed to make a stop." But since we're both rational human beings, I think you can see the distinction between Super Bowl 51 and say, Oct. 13, 2013 against the Saints. Regardless of everything that happened before that, it was up to the QB. There were no more possessions, no more defensive stops to be made to get the ball back if you failed. It was all or nothing, and the QB came through. 4th quarter comebacks are a relevant stat because it shows how the QB performs under pressure, and it shows that at the end of the day, he was required to pull out a win in what otherwise would've been a loss. Monumental comebacks such as SB 51 that require the defense to rise up, doesn't change the fact that they didn't do the QB any favors. And in the case of SB 51, Brady didn't do himself any favors by throwing a pick six in the first half. Nevertheless, it's impossible to say that game was in any way carried by the defense. I'm a football fan. I understand how valuable all three phases are (I wonder how many Pats fans have Nate Ebner and Matthew Slater jerseys?). My argument has never been that Tom Brady alone carried the team to victory week after week for 20 years. My only aim is to dispel the myth that he had some kind of advantage by having this genius head coach that made everything easy for him. This concept casual fans have that the Patriots defense is always great and Brady is some kind of game manager. Their defense has been terrible for entire seasons and in plenty of big games, Belichick doesn't have all the answers. He's not a hack at this point, but I personally believe Brady would've had a fair amount of success (multiple titles) with any competent coach. If Brady were taken in the top five instead of at 199, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Everyone would just say, "Duh, he's obviously the GOAT." The fact that everyone in the league whiffed on a talent of his caliber makes it impossible for some people to accept. "It must be the coach. Their schedule is too easy. They're cheating." The numbers Greenberg brought up in that clip say it all. Everyone can disagree with my opinion all they want, but there are two key facts-- beyond anecdotes or statistics, absolute facts-- that are inarguable: 1. Bill Belichick was a failure as a head coach before Tom Brady became his starting QB. 2. Tom Brady achieved instant success as a starting QB in this league, and continued to excel for nearly two decades. As I mentioned to you yesterday, the tenor of my posts on this topic tend to exaggerate my stance, sometimes intentionally, but not always. I want Belichick as my coach. I think he was the right kind of coach for Brady because he didn't put him on a pedestal. I think he was savvy enough to recognize Brady's talent in keeping him over Bledsoe all the way back in 2001, and to understand the league was trending toward offense in the mid to late oughts. Belichick isn't stupid. But to say he's the GOAT just because he has the greatest QB ever, or to say it's Belichick that makes Brady great is just absurd. And I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm just talking about the general outlook by fans. Brady wasn't cruising to victory behind his stellar defense, he was earning it the hard way.
|
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Sept 15, 2020 15:17:40 GMT
All this is fair.
I guess we'll just have to see how the Patriots do this year. I believe that Belichick is a much better coach now than he was 25 years ago. They might not win it all - hell, I hope they don't - but I think they'll show that they can function without Brady.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Sept 15, 2020 15:47:23 GMT
All this is fair. I guess we'll just have to see how the Patriots do this year. I believe that Belichick is a much better coach now than he was 25 years ago. They might not win it all - hell, I hope they don't - but I think they'll show that they can function without Brady. Honestly that's why I was surprised with the Newton move. I really thought BB wanted to prove he could do it with anyone, bringing in a former MVP was stunning. I hope Cam has a career year and you're taunting me in February as the confetti gets shot out of the canon in Tampa. "Looks like Silly Billy knows what he's doing, Rey!"
|
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Sept 15, 2020 15:58:42 GMT
All this is fair. I guess we'll just have to see how the Patriots do this year. I believe that Belichick is a much better coach now than he was 25 years ago. They might not win it all - hell, I hope they don't - but I think they'll show that they can function without Brady. Honestly that's why I was surprised with the Newton move. I really thought BB wanted to prove he could do it with anyone, bringing in a former MVP was stunning. I hope Cam has a career year and you're taunting me in February as the confetti gets shot out of the canon in Tampa. "Looks like Silly Billy knows what he's doing, Rey!" And you'll say "no he doesn't."
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Sept 15, 2020 16:14:26 GMT
All this is fair. I guess we'll just have to see how the Patriots do this year. I believe that Belichick is a much better coach now than he was 25 years ago. They might not win it all - hell, I hope they don't - but I think they'll show that they can function without Brady. Honestly that's why I was surprised with the Newton move. I really thought BB wanted to prove he could do it with anyone, bringing in a former MVP was stunning. I hope Cam has a career year and you're taunting me in February as the confetti gets shot out of the canon in Tampa. "Looks like Silly Billy knows what he's doing, Rey!" How long do you think Cam is going to last if he keeps running like he did Sunday? He's coming off a bunch of injuries for being a big running quarterback. |
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Sept 15, 2020 16:17:55 GMT
Honestly that's why I was surprised with the Newton move. I really thought BB wanted to prove he could do it with anyone, bringing in a former MVP was stunning. I hope Cam has a career year and you're taunting me in February as the confetti gets shot out of the canon in Tampa. "Looks like Silly Billy knows what he's doing, Rey!" How long do you think Cam is going to last if he keeps running like he did Sunday? He's coming off a bunch of injuries for being a big running quarterback. Just as long as he doesn’t run from the police - or they’d give him a real injury. Isn’t that right movieliker? |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Sept 15, 2020 16:29:40 GMT
How long do you think Cam is going to last if he keeps running like he did Sunday? He's coming off a bunch of injuries for being a big running quarterback. Just as long as he doesn’t run from the police - or they’d give him a real injury. Isn’t that right movieliker? I would hope nothing worse happens to him --- if he runs from police --- than would happen to me, if I would run from police. Being a running quarterback is dangerous. But it's not illegal. And usually not fatal But running from police is not only dangerous --- but stupid, and often fatal --- for white and black people. |
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Sept 15, 2020 16:39:35 GMT
Honestly that's why I was surprised with the Newton move. I really thought BB wanted to prove he could do it with anyone, bringing in a former MVP was stunning. I hope Cam has a career year and you're taunting me in February as the confetti gets shot out of the canon in Tampa. "Looks like Silly Billy knows what he's doing, Rey!" How long do you think Cam is going to last if he keeps running like he did Sunday? He's coming off a bunch of injuries for being a big running quarterback. I have faith the offense will continue to evolve once he gets in synch with his receivers as the season goes on. Either way I'm sure he's a one year rental so it's not like the franchise is hanging in the balance.
|
|
