Would the Pats Be Terrible Without Brady?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from BosoxJoe5. Show BosoxJoe5's posts

    Re: Would the Pats Be Terrible Without Brady?

    In 2008 they did not make the playoff but I truly felt at the end of the season they were the best team in the AFC. I don't know if this year they are the best team in the AFC with Brady. However, going forward this team seems like they are going to be good for a while at OL, TE, LB, and have figure out the DL. They are at least average at RB. They need to do something long term at safety hope between Arrington, Dowling, and  McCorty they figured out CB. I think they are/would be better then Colts if Brady went down.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Would the Pats Be Terrible Without Brady?

    In Response to Re: Would the Pats Be Terrible Without Brady?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Would the Pats Be Terrible Without Brady? :: Name me the teams in 2008 we beat that ended up with a winning record.
     
    RESPONSE: Yawn. We've had this conversation already, at least once. You go back and pull up the games...I've done it once before. You're as big a ball washer for Brady as "The Dog(gggg) is for Manning. You believe that the lion's share of the credit for the Pats' success over the years is due to Tom. I respectfully disagree...and give at least equal credit to BB. 

    Stating the facts isn't spin. Leaving out facts that confound your fallacy is.
     
    RESPONSE: Yawn. Winning 11 games in an NFL season is an extremely hard thing to do...no matter who you play. I also recall some of the losses...an 18-15 loss in Indy, in a game where the Pats outplayed the Colts, and should have won...and a loss at home in OT to the Jets. The FACTS are that you refuse to give BB and the 2008 Pats their due...out of concern that this would somehow minimize the importance of Tom.

    Also, relying on subjective factors such as him not having full control is spinning. Are you saying people were telling him how to coach the team? Kind of funny you imply he didn't have "the personnel". EXACTLY. He didn't have Brady, ChucklinMAO.

    RESPONSE: Whatever...LOL!!!
    Posted by BabeParilli
    Posted by TexasPat3[/QUOTE]

    The difference is I don't have to cling to the one year to prove my point.

    BB is 1 for 7 making the playoffs without Brady. He is about to be 9 out of 10 making the playoffs with Brady. It just doesn't get any more obvious than that.

    I'll give you the rundown on your one and only season you desperately cling to.

    W Chiefs 2-14
    W Jets 9-7
    L Dolphins 11-5
    W 49ers 7-9
    L Chargers 8-8
    W Broncos 8-8
    W Rams 2-14
    L Colts 12-4
    W Bills 7-9
    L Jets 9-7
    W Dolphins 11-5
    L Steelers 12-4
    W Seahawks 4-12
    W Raiders 5-11
    W Cards 9-7
    W Bills 7-9

    That's 3 out of 11 wins against teams with a winning record. And two of those teams that we beat with a winning record also beat us. And the Cards had clinched and were mailing it in.

    One fouth of the schedule was against teams that won no more than 5 games.

    We beat one team with more than 9 wins.

    Not impressive. Stick your head in the sand of 2008 if you like and ignore the obvious.


    Where you're going wrong is that you overrate the impact a great coach can have and underrate the impact a great QB can have.

    Are Tomlin, Cowher, Coughlin, Payton, Dungy and McCarthy as good a HC as BB? Of course they're not. But they have won a SB since BB has.

    BB is the best coach but a great HC is not the common denominator to winning SBs. It's the QB. You just have to have some other playmakers too. And that's where we have failed. BB has no coaching magic to make up for the playmakers getting old and him not replacing them through the draft and free agency.

    Rodgers, 2 Mannings, Roethlisburger and Brees are the common denominator for winning the SB. And they are very good to elite (except Eli who is inconsistent).

    The teams that have been consistent winners over the last 10 years or so all have a very good QB, and not necessarily a great HC.

    You will see in due time just how much a great coach can will a team to win. All through history the wins follow the great players, not the great coaches.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from timesedge. Show timesedge's posts

    Re: Would the Pats Be Terrible Without Brady?

    Cassel is not a horrible QB. The Chiefs have a horrible O-line which is why he has not had the ability to play the same as he did here. Our O-line was one of the most dominant in history for the 2007-2008 seasons.

    Cassel did something even Brady hasn't done - post back to back 400 yard games. He had a great year on the Pats and then has played at a fairly high level for the Chiefs, who prior to him were really awful. He even earned a Pro Bowl his first year with them, and has taken them decently far the last two seasons.

    That said, I think that the Pats have been great at identifying talent in almost every spot on the field with the exception of a WR, which is a crapshoot for almost any team. I think that the Pats might be able to win 10-11 games with Hoyer or Mallett as the QB. Keep in mind that even the games we've lost so far were lost by a total of only 15 points...
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Would the Pats Be Terrible Without Brady?

    In Response to Re: Would the Pats Be Terrible Without Brady?:
    [QUOTE]Cassel is not a horrible QB. The Chiefs have a horrible O-line which is why he has not had the ability to play the same as he did here. Our O-line was one of the most dominant in history for the 2007-2008 seasons. Cassel did something even Brady hasn't done - post back to back 400 yard games. He had a great year on the Pats and then has played at a fairly high level for the Chiefs, who prior to him were really awful. He even earned a Pro Bowl his first year with them, and has taken them decently far the last two seasons. That said, I think that the Pats have been great at identifying talent in almost every spot on the field with the exception of a WR, which is a crapshoot for almost any team. I think that the Pats might be able to win 10-11 games with Hoyer or Mallett as the QB. Keep in mind that even the games we've lost so far were lost by a total of only 15 points...
    Posted by timesedge[/QUOTE]

    Actually, he benefited last year from the same weak schedule as he did on the Pats. I was scorned rather robustly this pre-season when I pointed that out and said he would crash this year just as he did in 2009. But I think we all can agree he is better than Painter.
     

Share