|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 6, 2021 15:19:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by NJtoTX on Oct 6, 2021 15:24:57 GMT
Though the Chiefs and Packers don't have Tampa's cap issues.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 6, 2021 18:00:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Oct 6, 2021 18:04:22 GMT
So he’ll still be seeing Brady twice a year at least.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 7, 2021 13:21:35 GMT
Hey everyone, let's have another discussion about the brilliance of Bill Belichick. I mean, how many coaches could turn the Defensive Player of the Year in 2019 into a sixth round draft pick in 2023? Why pay the man who's proven he can excel in your 'system' when you can overpay bums from other teams to fill out your secondary? Why pay Tom Brady to take your shitty roster to a 12-4 record in 2019 when you can have Cam Newton throws balls into the dirt and go 7-9 with the same roster in 2020? Why throw Cam Newton out there at all when you have a capable backup who easily could've taken you to 7-9? (The answer to that last one is obvious. You keep throwing Cam out there so you have an excuse for losing. Better to have people second guessing your roster than to examine your ability to coach.) Let's take this thought experiment a step further. If 2008 was amazing because he went 11-5 with a backup QB, why can't he replicate that success? On what planet is a 5 game drop in the standings amazing coaching? I've been told Matt Cassel was a shitty QB by people on this board. Matt Cassel went to the pro bowl in 2010 with the Chiefs. More to the point, Cassel put up good numbers in 2008. So I don't care if Kermit the fucking Frog was the starting QB in 2008, those numbers are more than good enough to avoid a five game drop in the standings with a competent coach, considering the team was loaded and had a championship pedigree at that point. To circle back, you should be able to go 11-5 in 2020 with Brian Hoyer, who has been in your system for years, if you went 11-5 with Matt Cassel who is apparently terrible. Why couldn't he do it? Why the panic move to bring in a washed up Newton and stick with him when it was clear he couldn't play anymore? (Again, see the answer to that above.) Why the excuses for losing last season? Why point out covid opt outs when most of the players were practice squad level guys? The only real loss was Hightower, and he only played 5 games in 2017 and you made the Super Bowl-- in the same season that top WR Edelman was lost for the season in August with a blown ACL. Why were the Patriots able to absorb major injuries in still succeed when Tom Brady was here? Why did the Patriots never load up on talent while underpaying the best QB in the game, yet they printed money for every free agent under the sun following another losing season post-Brady? Which is worse, his GM capabilities or his coaching? Why, if he's so great, does his winning percentage drop so precipitously without Tom Brady? Why does he only make the playoffs when Tom Brady is around? So many questions with Bill Belichick, and nobody who claims he's great has any answers. Don't worry, I'll just keep asking. Mine is the easiest 'hot take' argument in history because the data is 100% in my favor. The only arguments I'm ever going to get are, "But he's great though." "Clearly he's great." "So and so said he's great, that settles it." Zero data to back it up. Zero.
|
|
|
Post by screamingtreefrogs on Oct 7, 2021 14:31:47 GMT
Lane Johnson took a leave of absence this week - was back yesterday but depending who you listen to/read - may not play Sunday
Jordan Mailata back at practice with a knee brace but no word yet if he's a go for Sunday
So come Sunday - 4 of our 5 starting Offensive Lineman may be out with Brooks and Seumalo on the shelf too
|
|
|
Post by stickman38 on Oct 7, 2021 14:58:12 GMT
Hey everyone, let's have another discussion about the brilliance of Bill Belichick. I mean, how many coaches could turn the Defensive Player of the Year in 2019 into a sixth round draft pick in 2023? Why pay the man who's proven he can excel in your 'system' when you can overpay bums from other teams to fill out your secondary? Why pay Tom Brady to take your shitty roster to a 12-4 record in 2019 when you can have Cam Newton throws balls into the dirt and go 7-9 with the same roster in 2020? Why throw Cam Newton out there at all when you have a capable backup who easily could've taken you to 7-9? (The answer to that last one is obvious. You keep throwing Cam out there so you have an excuse for losing. Better to have people second guessing your roster than to examine your ability to coach.) Let's take this thought experiment a step further. If 2008 was amazing because he went 11-5 with a backup QB, why can't he replicate that success? On what planet is a 5 game drop in the standings amazing coaching? I've been told Matt Cassel was a shitty QB by people on this board. Matt Cassel went to the pro bowl in 2010 with the Chiefs. More to the point, Cassel put up good numbers in 2008. So I don't care if Kermit the fucking Frog was the starting QB in 2008, those numbers are more than good enough to avoid a five game drop in the standings with a competent coach, considering the team was loaded and had a championship pedigree at that point. To circle back, you should be able to go 11-5 in 2020 with Brian Hoyer, who has been in your system for years, if you went 11-5 with Matt Cassel who is apparently terrible. Why couldn't he do it? Why the panic move to bring in a washed up Newton and stick with him when it was clear he couldn't play anymore? (Again, see the answer to that above.) Why the excuses for losing last season? Why point out covid opt outs when most of the players were practice squad level guys? The only real loss was Hightower, and he only played 5 games in 2017 and you made the Super Bowl-- in the same season that top WR Edelman was lost for the season in August with a blown ACL. Why were the Patriots able to absorb major injuries in still succeed when Tom Brady was here? Why did the Patriots never load up on talent while underpaying the best QB in the game, yet they printed money for every free agent under the sun following another losing season post-Brady? Which is worse, his GM capabilities or his coaching? Why, if he's so great, does his winning percentage drop so precipitously without Tom Brady? Why does he only make the playoffs when Tom Brady is around? So many questions with Bill Belichick, and nobody who claims he's great has any answers. Don't worry, I'll just keep asking. Mine is the easiest 'hot take' argument in history because the data is 100% in my favor. The only arguments I'm ever going to get are, "But he's great though." "Clearly he's great." "So and so said he's great, that settles it." Zero data to back it up. Zero.
The real question is this.... is Tom Brady really this good? Is he so good that he can make a below average coach look like a genius? lol...
Bruce Arians is probably just an average coach too but with Brady, he has a chance to win multiple super bowls.
I suppose the point is, does the coach make the players or do the players make the coach?
I think you bring up some decent points about Belichick but does the same hold true for every coach? I mean, is Phil Jackson just a crappy coach without Michal Jordan? What about Jimmy Johnson? Is he trash unless he has Aikman and Smith?
Perhaps a coach is only as good as the talent he's coaching. Sure, there are some coaches out there that have won titles with slightly above average teams or at least have made it to the playoffs. I would say a good example of this would be the 2002 Buccaneers. How do you win a title with Trent Dilfer running the gun? Jon Gruden must be an amazing coach.
|
|
|
Post by klawrencio79 on Oct 7, 2021 15:03:10 GMT
Hey everyone, let's have another discussion about the brilliance of Bill Belichick. I mean, how many coaches could turn the Defensive Player of the Year in 2019 into a sixth round draft pick in 2023? Why pay the man who's proven he can excel in your 'system' when you can overpay bums from other teams to fill out your secondary? Why pay Tom Brady to take your shitty roster to a 12-4 record in 2019 when you can have Cam Newton throws balls into the dirt and go 7-9 with the same roster in 2020? Why throw Cam Newton out there at all when you have a capable backup who easily could've taken you to 7-9? (The answer to that last one is obvious. You keep throwing Cam out there so you have an excuse for losing. Better to have people second guessing your roster than to examine your ability to coach.) Let's take this thought experiment a step further. If 2008 was amazing because he went 11-5 with a backup QB, why can't he replicate that success? On what planet is a 5 game drop in the standings amazing coaching? I've been told Matt Cassel was a shitty QB by people on this board. Matt Cassel went to the pro bowl in 2010 with the Chiefs. More to the point, Cassel put up good numbers in 2008. So I don't care if Kermit the fucking Frog was the starting QB in 2008, those numbers are more than good enough to avoid a five game drop in the standings with a competent coach, considering the team was loaded and had a championship pedigree at that point. To circle back, you should be able to go 11-5 in 2020 with Brian Hoyer, who has been in your system for years, if you went 11-5 with Matt Cassel who is apparently terrible. Why couldn't he do it? Why the panic move to bring in a washed up Newton and stick with him when it was clear he couldn't play anymore? (Again, see the answer to that above.) Why the excuses for losing last season? Why point out covid opt outs when most of the players were practice squad level guys? The only real loss was Hightower, and he only played 5 games in 2017 and you made the Super Bowl-- in the same season that top WR Edelman was lost for the season in August with a blown ACL. Why were the Patriots able to absorb major injuries in still succeed when Tom Brady was here? Why did the Patriots never load up on talent while underpaying the best QB in the game, yet they printed money for every free agent under the sun following another losing season post-Brady? Which is worse, his GM capabilities or his coaching? Why, if he's so great, does his winning percentage drop so precipitously without Tom Brady? Why does he only make the playoffs when Tom Brady is around? So many questions with Bill Belichick, and nobody who claims he's great has any answers. Don't worry, I'll just keep asking. Mine is the easiest 'hot take' argument in history because the data is 100% in my favor. The only arguments I'm ever going to get are, "But he's great though." "Clearly he's great." "So and so said he's great, that settles it." Zero data to back it up. Zero.
The real question is this.... is Tom Brady really this good? Is he so good that he can make a below average coach look like a genius? lol...
Bruce Arians is probably just an average coach too but with Brady, he has a chance to win multiple super bowls.
I suppose the point is, does the coach make the players or do the players make the coach?
I think you bring up some decent points about Belichick but does the same hold true for every coach? I mean, is Phil Jackson just a crappy coach without Michal Jordan? What about Jimmy Johnson? Is he trash unless he has Aikman and Smith?
Perhaps a coach is only as good as the talent he's coaching. Sure, there are some coaches out there that have won titles with slightly above average teams or at least have made it to the playoffs. I would say a good example of this would be the 2002 Buccaneers. How do you win a title with Trent Dilfer running the gun? Jon Gruden must be an amazing coach.
There is a push/pull component to it, but yes, Brady is really this good. As for Trent Dilfer, that team had a historically good defense. His only job was to not fuck it up.
|
|
|
Post by stickman38 on Oct 7, 2021 15:19:22 GMT
Perhaps a coach is only as good as the talent he's coaching. Sure, there are some coaches out there that have won titles with slightly above average teams or at least have made it to the playoffs. I would say a good example of this would be the 2002 Buccaneers. How do you win a title with Trent Dilfer running the gun? Jon Gruden must be an amazing coach.
There is a push/pull component to it, but yes, Brady is really this good. As for Trent Dilfer, that team had a historically good defense. His only job was to not fuck it up.
But Dilfer would be a 3rd stringer in today's league. How do you do it? Even if you have a great defense, you still gotta put some points on the board.
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Oct 7, 2021 15:21:14 GMT
Trent Dilfer played for the 2000 Ravens, not the 2002 Buccaneers. As to how Gruden won: he inherited Tony Dungy's dominant defense and had the good fortune of going up against his old team - the Raiders (using the exact same playbook he knew like the back of his hand) - in the Super Bowl. Other than that he's achieved fuck all.
|
|
|
Post by stickman38 on Oct 7, 2021 15:30:16 GMT
Trent Dilfer played for the 2000 Ravens, not the 2002 Buccaneers. As to how Gruden won: he inherited Tony Dungy's dominant defense and had the good fortune of going up against his old team - the Raiders (using the exact same playbook he knew like the back of his hand) - in the Super Bowl. Other than that he's achieved fuck all.
But he won a super bowl with an average QB. That must count for something.
And shoot!!... that's right. I should have said the Ravens.
I think it was Brad Johnson playing QB for the Bucs and Dilfer for the Ravens. Johnson was a decent QB. But neither one are going to be hall of famers or anything like that.. yet, they won super bowls. Thanks to their amazing coaches. haha..
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 7, 2021 15:56:06 GMT
Hey everyone, let's have another discussion about the brilliance of Bill Belichick. I mean, how many coaches could turn the Defensive Player of the Year in 2019 into a sixth round draft pick in 2023? Why pay the man who's proven he can excel in your 'system' when you can overpay bums from other teams to fill out your secondary? Why pay Tom Brady to take your shitty roster to a 12-4 record in 2019 when you can have Cam Newton throws balls into the dirt and go 7-9 with the same roster in 2020? Why throw Cam Newton out there at all when you have a capable backup who easily could've taken you to 7-9? (The answer to that last one is obvious. You keep throwing Cam out there so you have an excuse for losing. Better to have people second guessing your roster than to examine your ability to coach.) Let's take this thought experiment a step further. If 2008 was amazing because he went 11-5 with a backup QB, why can't he replicate that success? On what planet is a 5 game drop in the standings amazing coaching? I've been told Matt Cassel was a shitty QB by people on this board. Matt Cassel went to the pro bowl in 2010 with the Chiefs. More to the point, Cassel put up good numbers in 2008. So I don't care if Kermit the fucking Frog was the starting QB in 2008, those numbers are more than good enough to avoid a five game drop in the standings with a competent coach, considering the team was loaded and had a championship pedigree at that point. To circle back, you should be able to go 11-5 in 2020 with Brian Hoyer, who has been in your system for years, if you went 11-5 with Matt Cassel who is apparently terrible. Why couldn't he do it? Why the panic move to bring in a washed up Newton and stick with him when it was clear he couldn't play anymore? (Again, see the answer to that above.) Why the excuses for losing last season? Why point out covid opt outs when most of the players were practice squad level guys? The only real loss was Hightower, and he only played 5 games in 2017 and you made the Super Bowl-- in the same season that top WR Edelman was lost for the season in August with a blown ACL. Why were the Patriots able to absorb major injuries in still succeed when Tom Brady was here? Why did the Patriots never load up on talent while underpaying the best QB in the game, yet they printed money for every free agent under the sun following another losing season post-Brady? Which is worse, his GM capabilities or his coaching? Why, if he's so great, does his winning percentage drop so precipitously without Tom Brady? Why does he only make the playoffs when Tom Brady is around? So many questions with Bill Belichick, and nobody who claims he's great has any answers. Don't worry, I'll just keep asking. Mine is the easiest 'hot take' argument in history because the data is 100% in my favor. The only arguments I'm ever going to get are, "But he's great though." "Clearly he's great." "So and so said he's great, that settles it." Zero data to back it up. Zero.
The real question is this.... is Tom Brady really this good? Is he so good that he can make a below average coach look like a genius? lol...
Bruce Arians is probably just an average coach too but with Brady, he has a chance to win multiple super bowls.
I suppose the point is, does the coach make the players or do the players make the coach?
I think you bring up some decent points about Belichick but does the same hold true for every coach? I mean, is Phil Jackson just a crappy coach without Michal Jordan? What about Jimmy Johnson? Is he trash unless he has Aikman and Smith?
Perhaps a coach is only as good as the talent he's coaching. Sure, there are some coaches out there that have won titles with slightly above average teams or at least have made it to the playoffs. I would say a good example of this would be the 2002 Buccaneers. How do you win a title with Trent Dilfer running the gun? Jon Gruden must be an amazing coach.
The players make the coach. It's been proven time and time again in sports. Tom Brady is a perfect example. The Patriots went 5-11 in 2000, and were off to an 0-2 start in 2001. Tom Brady became the starter and went 11-3 in the regular season and they won the Super Bowl (+6 in the standings during the regular season). The Patriots won five consecutive division titles from 2003-2007 (along with two more Super Bowls), including a 16-0 2007 culminating in a Super Bowl loss. Brady is lost for the season in week one of 2008, they go 11-5 and miss the playoffs. That's a -5 in the standings. Brady returns, the team wins eleven consecutive division titles from 2009-2019 (along with three more Super Bowls). The Patriots had a terrible roster in 2019 and still went 12-4. Brady departs, the same team goes 7-9 in 2020. A -5 in the standings. The 2019 Buccaneers finished 7-9. They hadn't been to the playoffs since 2007. Brady joins the team, they go 11-5 (in a season with no real training camp or preseason) and win the Super Bowl. Again, a +5 in the win column for the regular season. So that's two different teams that had losing seasons the previous year and ended up winning the Super Bowl as soon as Brady joined the team. There's a trend here that's confirmed by the overall W-L record of his team without him over the years. Belichick is a career 63-75 without Tom Brady. 27-31 in New England alone. He's had one playoff appearance and two winning seasons in eight years as a head coach without Brady. The data strongly suggests this guy cannot coach. It's hard to honestly argue otherwise. Every time Brady isn't his starter, his winning percentage falls off a cliff. Regarding Phil Jackson, he won three straight titles with Jordan. Jordan 'retires' and the same team can't make the finals for two years. Jordan returns for a full season in 1995-96, and they win three straight titles again. Phil Jackson was still the coach, what happened? Phil would later find success in LA with two more all time greats. Funny how we never got to see what he'd do with a rebuilding team. Steve Kerr hilariously won coach of the year in 2016 despite the fact that he missed half of the season due to back surgery, and the Warriors actually had a better record while Luke Walton was the head coach! (And for that matter, how has Luke Walton done as a head coach elsewhere?) Now I'll go after basketball God himself, Red Auerbach. I love Red, he's the greatest GM in basketball history. There's no questioning his brilliance in that regard. As a coach? The Celtics didn't start winning until Bill Russell arrived. They won 11 titles in 13 years, the only two losses being when Russell was injured. During that span, Auerbach eventually retires and names Russell player/coach. Russell goes on to win his final two titles in this capacity before himself retiring. What does the data suggest? We have ten years plus of Auerbach without Russell and zero titles. We have three years (two healthy ones) of Russell without Auerbach and two more titles. What does the data suggest? Dilfer had an elite defense. To your point, Gruden is a clown. And flukes happen. The Philadelphia Eagles fell into a title in Super Bowl 52 because Belichick shit the bed and a career backup who has accomplished nothing since, lit up his defense. The Patriots had the worst statistical defense in the Super Era the season they went to Super Bowl 46. The worst statistical defense ever. What did Belichick bring to the table that year? There effectively was no head coach as Brady guided the offense to the Super Bowl with a completely useless defensive unit. Coaching in general is overrated at the elite level, in Belichick's case it's completely overrated.
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Oct 7, 2021 15:59:46 GMT
Trent Dilfer played for the 2000 Ravens, not the 2002 Buccaneers. As to how Gruden won: he inherited Tony Dungy's dominant defense and had the good fortune of going up against his old team - the Raiders (using the exact same playbook he knew like the back of his hand) - in the Super Bowl. Other than that he's achieved fuck all.
But he won a super bowl with an average QB. That must count for something.
And shoot!!... that's right. I should have said the Ravens.
I think it was Brad Johnson playing QB for the Bucs and Dilfer for the Ravens. Johnson was a decent QB. But neither one are going to be hall of famers or anything like that.. yet, they won super bowls. Thanks to their amazing coaches. haha..
I just told you why he won the Super Bowl. He had a dominant defense that he inherited from Dungy and he knew every play the opposing offense was running because the coach used the same game plan. MVP Gannon threw five picks against that defense; think Gruden gets the credit for that?
|
|
|
Post by stickman38 on Oct 7, 2021 16:24:58 GMT
But he won a super bowl with an average QB. That must count for something.
And shoot!!... that's right. I should have said the Ravens.
I think it was Brad Johnson playing QB for the Bucs and Dilfer for the Ravens. Johnson was a decent QB. But neither one are going to be hall of famers or anything like that.. yet, they won super bowls. Thanks to their amazing coaches. haha..
I just told you why he won the Super Bowl. He had a dominant defense that he inherited from Dungy and he knew every play the opposing offense was running because the coach used the same game plan. MVP Gannon threw five picks against that defense; think Gruden gets the credit for that?
Wasn't it you that in here judging coaches based on the number of titles they've won? I can't remember who it was but someone in here was talking like this a few months ago.
This whole thing is like judging QBs by the number of titles they win. As if Dilfer is a better QB than Dan Marino because, you know... he won a SB and Dan didn't.
It's the debate that never ends.
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Oct 7, 2021 16:32:29 GMT
I just told you why he won the Super Bowl. He had a dominant defense that he inherited from Dungy and he knew every play the opposing offense was running because the coach used the same game plan. MVP Gannon threw five picks against that defense; think Gruden gets the credit for that?
Wasn't it you that in here judging coaches based on the number of titles they've won? I can't remember who it was but someone in here was talking like this a few months ago.
This whole thing is like judging QBs by the number of titles they win. As if Dilfer is a better QB than Dan Marino because, you know... he won a SB and Dan didn't.
It's the debate that never ends.
No.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 7, 2021 16:32:41 GMT
Continuing my rant, at least some of the legendary coaches previously mentioned could field competitive teams. Red and Phil both made the playoffs in their careers without their superstar. Belichick can't even make the playoffs without Tom Brady. Two winning seasons and one playoff appearance (all the way back in 1994) in 8 years, going on 9 now and off to a 1-3 start.
Great coaches win wherever they go, and by win I don't just mean titles, I mean improvement and competitiveness. Larry Brown is one of the best basketball coaches in history. He's a basketball nomad and wins wherever he goes. He won an NCAA title, an NBA title, and took eight different teams to the playoffs. He's ten times the coach Phil Jackson is.
Bill Parcells won 2 Super Bowls with the Giants (one with a backup QB), took the Patriots to the Super Bowl, took the Jets to the AFC Championship game, and took the Cowboys to 10-6 and the playoffs his first season there after they had gone 5-11 the previous three years. When you win at that many stops, you're doing something right.
Meanwhile the Patriots hadn't had a losing season since 1995, and Belichick managed to go 5-11 with them in his first season in 2000. The futility continued in 2001 until guess who started. There is literally nothing to suggest the guy can coach without Tom Brady. Nothing.
Coaches can be good, or even great. But the term is thrown around far too frequently. And the fact that some coaches are better or worse than others doesn't somehow elevate their value overall when compared to the talent on the field. Vince Lombardi, Red Auerbach and Scotty Bowman aren't winning titles with people from this board playing for them. But I'm pretty sure the Patriots would've made it to Super Bowl 46 anyway if I were coaching the team.
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Oct 7, 2021 17:00:10 GMT
Continuing my rant, at least some of the legendary coaches previously mentioned could field competitive teams. Red and Phil both made the playoffs in their careers without their superstar. Belichick can't even make the playoffs without Tom Brady. Two winning seasons and one playoff appearance (all the way back in 1994) in 8 years, going on 9 now and off to a 1-3 start. Great coaches win wherever they go, and by win I don't just mean titles, I mean improvement and competitiveness. Larry Brown is one of the best basketball coaches in history. He's a basketball nomad and wins wherever he goes. He won an NCAA title, an NBA title, and took eight different teams to the playoffs. He's ten times the coach Phil Jackson is. Bill Parcells won 2 Super Bowls with the Giants (one with a backup QB), took the Patriots to the Super Bowl, took the Jets to the AFC Championship game, and took the Cowboys to 10-6 and the playoffs his first season there after they had gone 5-11 the previous three years. When you win at that many stops, you're doing something right. Meanwhile the Patriots hadn't had a losing season since 1995, and Belichick managed to go 5-11 with them in his first season in 2000. The futility continued in 2001 until guess who started. There is literally nothing to suggest the guy can coach without Tom Brady. Nothing. Coaches can be good, or even great. But the term is thrown around far too frequently. And the fact that some coaches are better or worse than others doesn't somehow elevate their value overall when compared to the talent on the field. Vince Lombardi, Red Auerbach and Scotty Bowman aren't winning titles with people from this board playing for them. But I'm pretty sure the Patriots would've made it to Super Bowl 46 anyway if I were coaching the team. I was seriously gearing up for a long response to this (we must have typed up a novel between us over the years on this subject) but honestly, I don't have the energy right now. Instead, let's all enjoy the following presentation:
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 7, 2021 17:10:50 GMT
I was seriously gearing up for a long response to this (we must have typed up a novel between us over the years on this subject) but honestly, I don't have the energy right now. Instead, let's all enjoy the following presentation: I'd say, "I'm glad he at least helped bring the Broncos a title," but I'm not really sure he did.
|
|
|
Post by stickman38 on Oct 7, 2021 19:27:50 GMT
Wasn't it you that in here judging coaches based on the number of titles they've won?
No.
I'm going to have to research it and find out who this was. It might take a while but hopefully I will find it.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 8, 2021 13:41:10 GMT
The Stephon Gilmore trade is the worst personnel handling of Bill Belichick’s Patriots careerNo he isn't, you just listed several examples of his ineptitude. And you forgot the most obvious one: Letting Tom Brady walk. He's as clueless a GM as he is a coach, it just didn't matter when he had Brady to cover up his mistakes. Now we're stuck with an imbecile who doesn't know how to win games or properly assess trade value, or even when to trade players. Welcome to the Belichick Shit show 2.0 The same dipshit who went 36-44 in Cleveland is now 27-31 in New England without Tom Brady. 7-9 last season, 1-3 so far this season. He's as terrible now as he ever was. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
|
|