|
Post by hehatesshe on Jan 2, 2021 15:55:44 GMT
Are Belichick's Patriots the "luckiest" dynasty in sports history? You can argue that Brady was undervalued in the 2000 Draft. Brady looked good but Big 10 QB's sucked in the NFL, he couldn't win the Michigan job outright, blah blah blah. But no one ever thought him to be a 1st round QB, let alone arguably Mr. GOAT. Then you have the eternal question, did Brady make Belichick or did Belichick make Brady? Brady might have been a quality QB on another team. But Billy Boy's record sans TB is there for all to see. But a sub .500 coach pulled the luckiest draft pick in history and history was made. The Patriots were lucky to nab Brady. But let's not forget the hit that knocked Bledsoe out. That was very lucky for Bill. He would have played Drew over Tom all the way to 6-10.
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Jan 2, 2021 16:02:46 GMT
lols
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Jan 2, 2021 16:10:42 GMT
Are we saying that all the other coaches who have called Belichick the best evah are unable to isolate the Tom Brady factor in their evaluation of what Belichick has accomplished? If he was simply riding TB’s coat-tails all this time, you’d think they, of all people, would be able to recognize it. Even the great Belichick needs some talent on the field to make a team go. This year, he has been working with virtually nothing. Belichick has had plenty of talent in years where his record was terrible, including his first year in New England. In fact I'd argue that 2000 Patriots team was loaded, and Belichick went 5-11. They went to Super Bowl 46 with statistically the worst defense in the Super Bowl era.
Hell, this year has been a disaster on all fronts, and they were 12-4 last year with Brady. They were a top ten scoring offense last year, look it up. Brady threw for more yards than his 2010 MVP season with these bums. Yet the local press kept blaming the offense for losses, even the regular season finale where the Pats scored 24 points, including a go ahead TD with under four minutes to play. Yet Belichick's defense couldn't stop a 4-11 team from marching down the field and scoring a TD to knock the Pats out of a first round bye. Brady maximized the potential of the shit team Belichick gave him last year, this year BB has to lie in the bed he made alone.
5 straight division titles from 2003-2007 with Brady; 2008 - No Brady, no playoffs
11 straight division titles from 2009 to 2019; 2020 - No Brady, no playoffs
Belichick has a sub .500 record in New England alone without Tom Brady, never mind the 36-44 disaster in Cleveland.
So to answer your initial question, it's clear the pundits, coaches and various football peers are able to tune out the Brady factor just as you are now. Take comfort in knowing you aren't alone.
Already struggling to adhere to that new year's resolution. I've had too many carbs this morning already, so I sympathize. It's ok though, I'd say we can start on Monday.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 2, 2021 17:40:22 GMT
Are we saying that all the other coaches who have called Belichick the best evah are unable to isolate the Tom Brady factor in their evaluation of what Belichick has accomplished? If he was simply riding TB’s coat-tails all this time, you’d think they, of all people, would be able to recognize it. Even the great Belichick needs some talent on the field to make a team go. This year, he has been working with virtually nothing. Belichick has had plenty of talent in years where his record was terrible, including his first year in New England. In fact I'd argue that 2000 Patriots team was loaded, and Belichick went 5-11. They went to Super Bowl 46 with statistically the worst defense in the Super Bowl era.
Hell, this year has been a disaster on all fronts, and they were 12-4 last year with Brady. They were a top ten scoring offense last year, look it up. Brady threw for more yards than his 2010 MVP season with these bums. Yet the local press kept blaming the offense for losses, even the regular season finale where the Pats scored 24 points, including a go ahead TD with under four minutes to play. Yet Belichick's defense couldn't stop a 4-11 team from marching down the field and scoring a TD to knock the Pats out of a first round bye. Brady maximized the potential of the shit team Belichick gave him last year, this year BB has to lie in the bed he made alone.
5 straight division titles from 2003-2007 with Brady; 2008 - No Brady, no playoffs
11 straight division titles from 2009 to 2019; 2020 - No Brady, no playoffs
Belichick has a sub .500 record in New England alone without Tom Brady, never mind the 36-44 disaster in Cleveland.
So to answer your initial question, it's clear the pundits, coaches and various football peers are able to tune out the Brady factor just as you are now. Take comfort in knowing you aren't alone.
Wow. All that to completely miss the point. All the experts are wrong about Belichick, except you, who sees the truth via a cursory examination of wins and losses. The Brady & Belichick combo was a perfect storm of sorts, that led to 20 years domination of the NFL. Very few people “tune out” the Brady factor so they can heap praise upon Belichick alone. He’s a first ballot hall of fame coach. When he’s inducted into the HOF, I look forward to your whinny post proclaiming how the selection committee are a bunch of idiots.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jan 2, 2021 17:50:39 GMT
Wow. All that to completely miss the point. All the experts are wrong about Belichick, except you, who sees the truth via a cursory examination of wins and losses. The Brady & Belichick combo was a perfect storm of sorts, that led to 20 years domination of the NFL. Very few people “tune out” the Brady factor so they can heap praise upon Belichick alone. He’s a first ballot hall of fame coach. When he’s inducted into the HOF, I look forward to your whinny post proclaiming how the selection committee are a bunch of idiots. You're right, I completely missed the point. Coaching isn't about wins and losses at all.
My whiny posts won't be half as bad as you complaining about snowflakes or begging admin to ban a poster for talking shit about your favorite comic book movie.
Have a better one.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 2, 2021 18:51:18 GMT
Wow. All that to completely miss the point. All the experts are wrong about Belichick, except you, who sees the truth via a cursory examination of wins and losses. The Brady & Belichick combo was a perfect storm of sorts, that led to 20 years domination of the NFL. Very few people “tune out” the Brady factor so they can heap praise upon Belichick alone. He’s a first ballot hall of fame coach. When he’s inducted into the HOF, I look forward to your whinny post proclaiming how the selection committee are a bunch of idiots. You're right, I completely missed the point. Coaching isn't about wins and losses at all. Oops, another swing and a miss! The point is - an evaluation of a future first ballot hall of fame coach is more than just tallying up the wins and loses. NFL experts understand this. You, apparently, don’t. Hopefully, they will be less numerous than your off-topic protests of the term “snowflake” and banning trolls.
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Jan 2, 2021 18:57:21 GMT
Vince Lombardi never won anything without Bart Starr. He also took over a Green Bay team that already had much of the talent that would win them titles. Starr, Paul Horning, Jim Taylor, Boyd Dowler, Forrest Gregg, Jim Ringo, Ray Nitschke, Henry Jordan. Would he have turned around a moribund Redskins franchise, who knows? He did break a 14 year losing streak in his one season.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jan 2, 2021 19:06:01 GMT
You're right, I completely missed the point. Coaching isn't about wins and losses at all. Oops, another swing and a miss! The point is - an evaluation of a future first ballot hall of fame coach is more than just tallying up the wins and loses. NFL experts understand this. You, apparently, don’t. Hopefully, they will be less numerous than your off-topic protests of the term “snowflake” and banning trolls. I've gone into explicit detail on BB's poor coaching over the years in games and seasons that they've done well (see my earlier example of going to the Super Bowl despite having a historically bad statistical defense). I'm sorry you either missed the party or conveniently decided to ignore reality. It isn't just about wins and losses, I never suggested it was. But the record sure drops off a cliff when Brady isn't around, good luck explaining that one. I'd be happy to hear a defense beyond, "Well you're wrong, and most people agree with me." That's always a solid argument until the next time you find yourself on the other side of it.
Look man, I've had this conversation a thousand times with people much more capable of creating a coherent argument. I'm glad the echo chamber you live in also has a sportscast.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jan 2, 2021 19:40:14 GMT
Vince Lombardi never won anything without Bart Starr. He also took over a Green Bay team that already had much of the talent that would win them titles. Starr, Paul Horning, Jim Taylor, Boyd Dowler, Forrest Gregg, Jim Ringo, Ray Nitschke, Henry Jordan. Would he have turned around a moribund Redskins franchise, who knows? He did break a 14 year losing streak in his one season. My point about coaching in general. Steve Kerr won coach of the year in a season where Luke Walton coached the team to more wins than he did. They go to a bunch of Finals in a row. The Warriors' best players get hurt and the Warriors finish dead last in the league last season. Meanwhile Walton has also been a disaster as a head coach elsewhere. Pretty sure that Warriors team could've had a sex doll on the bench and would've been just as successful.
Players are just great, you know the talent when you see it. Players in every sport are considered 'great' while never winning a title. Barkley, Marino, Ted Williams. A coach is considered 'great' when he starts winning multiple titles-- which he cannot do without talented players.
Jordan's teams had better playoff results each year and when Jackson arrived, they won three straight titles. Credit Jackson, right? Jordan leaves for two years, the Bulls finish 3rd and 5th in the conference respectively and don't even make the Finals either season. Jordan comes back for a full season, they trade for another all time great player in Rodman, three more titles. But it's all about Jackson? He was there when they finished fifth, and they still had good players. I wonder what he'd do with a terrible roster?
It goes on and on. Red Auerbach clearly has one of the greatest basketball minds ever. The greatest GM in the history of sports, I'll argue that with anyone. But as a coach, there isn't much to suggest the Celtics needed him as long as they had Russell. The winning didn't start until they had Russell, and the winning continued after Red stepped down as a coach and Russell was still playing. So the coaching value add is at least in question. I know this is sacrilege, I'm a Celtics fan! That doesn't make anything in this paragraph untrue.
Sports are a macho playground, the closest thing to actual combat most people will ever experience. To win in war, you need superior training and superior officers, thus the prevailing wisdom surrounding the importance of 'great' coaches. But sports are about talent, always have been, always will be. Red Auerbach, Phil Jackson, Steve Kerr, Bill Belichick, Vince Lombardi, Nick Saban aren't winning championships with the two of us playing for them. They won because they had great players. All the coaches have to do is not fuck it up.
There are good coaches and there are bad coaches. There are even great coaches, but great coaches are much more rare than people want to admit. If you have success (you don't even have to win titles everywhere you go, just show considerable improvement at multiple stops), you can make an argument for 'greatness.' But coaches who fell into a situation with great players, while the coaches have a history of total failure at every other stop, shouldn't automatically be considered great.
I'm not worried about public perception or how many fans, pundits or hall of famers disagree with me. The results I mentioned in this post are 100% true and inarguable, and in my opinion, that casts doubt on how important the coaching aspect is to championship legacies. If the talent is great enough, the coaching only has to be adequate.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 2, 2021 19:45:56 GMT
I'd be happy to hear a defense beyond, "Well you're wrong, and most people agree with me. “most people” is not the argument. It’s, most experts ... and it’s not them agreeing with me, it’s me deferring to their expertise. Like Climate Change, there are elements to the topic that are beyond purview of the casual observer. We rely on the experts who work in the field. Climate deniers are great at concocting their own armchair analysis that defy the experts. 9/11 twoofers came up with some great theories on how planted bombs really took down the World Trade Center. Statistical anomalies and some odd occurrences are evidence of a stolen election. ... and Bill Belichick is really an awful coach. Lots of “explicit detail” all around. You’re in good company, Ace!
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jan 3, 2021 15:51:56 GMT
I'd be happy to hear a defense beyond, "Well you're wrong, and most people agree with me. “most people” is not the argument. It’s, most experts ... and it’s not them agreeing with me, it’s me deferring to their expertise. Like Climate Change, there are elements to the topic that are beyond purview of the casual observer. We rely on the experts who work in the field. Climate deniers are great at concocting their own armchair analysis that defy the experts. 9/11 twoofers came up with some great theories on how planted bombs really took down the World Trade Center. Statistical anomalies and some odd occurrences are evidence of a stolen election. ... and Bill Belichick is really an awful coach. Lots of “explicit detail” all around. You’re in good company, Ace! In this thread alone I've posted examples of poor coaching and the stark contrast between Belichick with and without Brady. Your argument: "I don't know, the television told me Belichick was great, so that's what I'm going with. I don't actually look into it to formulate my own opinion." Par for the course with you though, I expect nothing less, Ace!
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 3, 2021 18:27:34 GMT
“most people” is not the argument. It’s, most experts ... and it’s not them agreeing with me, it’s me deferring to their expertise. Like Climate Change, there are elements to the topic that are beyond purview of the casual observer. We rely on the experts who work in the field. Climate deniers are great at concocting their own armchair analysis that defy the experts. 9/11 twoofers came up with some great theories on how planted bombs really took down the World Trade Center. Statistical anomalies and some odd occurrences are evidence of a stolen election. ... and Bill Belichick is really an awful coach. Lots of “explicit detail” all around. You’re in good company, Ace! In this thread alone I've posted examples of poor coaching and the stark contrast between Belichick with and without Brady. Your argument: "I don't know, the television told me Belichick was great, so that's what I'm going with. I don't actually look into it to formulate my own opinion." Par for the course with you though, I expect nothing less, Ace!
You think you see the twoof about Belichick and the folks who actually play the game are all wrong. We get it, Champ. I recall reading the exact same sort of argument from 9/11 twoofers, years ago. I wonder what happened to them? Did they eventually smarted up, or are they still fuming in some remote corner of the internet? Will you smarten up after Belichick is inducted into the HOF in the first round, I wonder? Or will we be further entertained by your proclamations that the NFL selection committee are all wrong.
|
|
|
Post by hehatesshe on Jan 3, 2021 18:38:17 GMT
Bellycheck needs to retire soon. If he continues to put up sub .500 records without Brady, more people than Rey will begin to question his responsibility for a 20 year dynasty.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jan 3, 2021 21:14:11 GMT
In this thread alone I've posted examples of poor coaching and the stark contrast between Belichick with and without Brady. Your argument: "I don't know, the television told me Belichick was great, so that's what I'm going with. I don't actually look into it to formulate my own opinion." Par for the course with you though, I expect nothing less, Ace!
You think you see the twoof about Belichick and the folks who actually play the game are all wrong. We get it, Champ. I recall reading the exact same sort of argument from 9/11 twoofers, years ago. I wonder what happened to them? Did they eventually smarted up, or are they still fuming in some remote corner of the internet? Will you smarten up after Belichick is inducted into the HOF in the first round, I wonder? Or will we be further entertained by your proclamations that the NFL selection committee are all wrong. Two words: Analytics, champ. The experts saw the game one way for a hundred years, then we all decided the experts were wrong and started looking at it a different way. I'd say we can agree to disagree, but I'm actually making an argument while you're just going with what you heard on tv. So I guess I can agree to disagree with whatever media source is using your empty head as a megaphone. We get it, champ. You have no argument, you're just here to mindlessly repeat what someone else said without using any critical thinking of your own. That's a slippery slope you're on, just saying.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jan 3, 2021 21:17:53 GMT
Bellycheck needs to retire soon. If he continues to put up sub .500 records without Brady, more people than Rey will begin to question his responsibility for a 20 year dynasty. They already are. Right now it's only the hot take guys like Cowherd and Bayless, because they don't care what people think. Belichick won't be the first or last guy to be completely overrated by the public at large, but eventually people will look back and wonder why the GOAT coached eight seasons without Brady as his starter, six of them were losing seasons and only one playoff appearance.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 4, 2021 3:35:25 GMT
You think you see the twoof about Belichick and the folks who actually play the game are all wrong. We get it, Champ. I recall reading the exact same sort of argument from 9/11 twoofers, years ago. I wonder what happened to them? Did they eventually smarted up, or are they still fuming in some remote corner of the internet? Will you smarten up after Belichick is inducted into the HOF in the first round, I wonder? Or will we be further entertained by your proclamations that the NFL selection committee are all wrong. Two words: Analytics, champ. There’s nothing new about Analytics (one word), champ. Belichick has been using it for years. If you’re trying to suggest that your argument is the next evolutionary step in the evaluation of coaching talent, rendering previous expert views obsolete ... well ... excuse me while I bust a gut laughing. That’s what’s so funny! You think comparing wins/loses with and without Tom Brady is a comprehensive evaluation of the coaches abilities. That’s the sort of simple argument you hear drunks at a bar make. One does not need a counter argument in order to recognize a crock.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2021 3:53:48 GMT
At least with Phil Jackson, he went on to win more Rings without Michael Jordan.
Looks like Belichick needed Brady.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jan 4, 2021 13:17:01 GMT
Two words: Analytics, champ. There’s nothing new about Analytics (one word), champ. Belichick has been using it for years. If you’re trying to suggest that your argument is the next evolutionary step in the evaluation of coaching talent, rendering previous expert views obsolete ... well ... excuse me while I bust a gut laughing. That’s what’s so funny! You think comparing wins/loses with and without Tom Brady is a comprehensive evaluation of the coaches abilities. That’s the sort of simple argument you hear drunks at a bar make. One does not need a counter argument in order to recognize a crock. 'Analytics, champ' is two words. Hope that helps. That aside, eight seasons worth of evidence without Tom Brady is more than enough. How many seasons do you need? Beyond that, I've mentioned poor coaching in seasons where the team actually had success. (i.e., bringing the worst statistical defense in the Super Bowl era to Super Bowl 46, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.) Oh, and no I wasn't suggesting my analysis is the next step, simply pointing out that leaning on prevailing wisdom as an argument is hollow. Science works the same way. Everyone thinks they understand how something works, until they try looking at it a new way. New wisdom replaces the old. Thanks to analytics, sports works the same way. Whether you agree with the old school or the new, at some point all the 'experts' agreed on information that was flat out wrong. You don't need a counter argument because you never had one. Nobody does. It doesn't exist. Throw out the Brady years and Belichick is a sub .500 coach. He's even missed the playoffs with Brady, and Brady's offense took them to the Super Bowl in a season where the defense literally did nothing. I'm happy to point out more examples of terrible coaching to you. But to keep this argument going, you'll have to do what no one else has done: provide an example of sustained success by Bill Belichick as a head coach without Tom Brady. Eight seasons without Brady, six of them with a losing record, one playoff appearance. Like I said, he isn't the first or the last guy to be completely overrated. I just find it comical that nobody can provide an example of his great head coaching ability that doesn't involve Brady. And by the way, insisting coaching isn't about wins and losses is one of the dumbest fucking arguments I've ever read. If a team had six of eight losing seasons and lost every game by a FG as time expired, I'm pretty sure that coach isn't going to the hall of fame. Please come up with an actual argument next time, champ/ace/sport/cupcake. And learn how to count.
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Jan 4, 2021 15:37:28 GMT
BRADY IS OVERRATTED
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jan 4, 2021 15:40:49 GMT
Agreed, the Colts made up a story to rat on him and he still won the Super Bowl. Then he came back from his bogus suspension and won another one. And another one.
|
|