Jump to content

Hate to Admit it but Brady on Montana's Level


Recommended Posts

I disagree.  Obviously, Brady deserves credit for the last 15 seasons.

The argument that he was a failure in Cleveland is weak.  He took over a bad team during an era when there was not the total free agency of today.  He built them into a playoff team. 

He made mistakes there, but the argument he failed is dumb.

Belichick had a very mediocre head coaching resume before Brady.  That is simply a fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 457
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Teams were allowed to hit Montana, so spare me this crap. 

11 TDs, 0 INTS, zero losses in Super Bowls and for all of you idiots who are gonna scream about Jerry Rice, Montana won two SBs before he ever heard Rice's name. Brady couldn't win with Randy Moss. 

If the refs didn't let anyone touch Montana and called the same bs PI calls they get today then this wouldn't be a discussion.  Brady is the beneficiary of systematic cheating, a game catered to the

Belichick had a very mediocre head coaching resume before Brady.  That is simply a fact.

He took over a bad Browns team that lost games by an average of 15 points a game prior to his arrival.  He rebuilt the team and had them in the playoffs.

He took over a declining Patriots team.  Gutted the team his first year and won a  Superbowl in his second with a good QB not the HofF QB he is today.

The fact is he made the teams better.  Show me a great coach that consistently won without a very good to great QB.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

And what was the Bucs record in their 5th season?   I would give John Robinson a good job seeing he did not even have restricted free agency.

Anyways...you are judging Belichick by today's standard where it is rare an owner allows a FO to build a solid team over the old '5 year plan".  He took over a bad team.  They were were a lot better the next season.  And if not for Modell announcing their move in the middle of the season thus gutting the team; the team likely would not have collapsed.

 

John McKay not John Robinson- he took over in LA w/ the Rams.  year 5 they had a losing record, years 6 & 7 they were back in the playoffs.

 

I am not using today's standards.  In the 90s it wasn't about 5 year plans that was 80s and earlier.  they had plan B and eventually unrestricted FA.  jimmy Johnson went from 1-15 to dynasty w/in 4 seasons. 

BB took over a team that had just been to 3 title games in 4 years, they had a bad 1990 season but 5 years w/ 1 winning record and 1 WC playoff win doesn't cut it.  he was also 5-11 in 2000 w/o Brady which was NE's first losing record since 1995.  In 2001 he started 0-2 w/o Brady and his job was already in jeopardy.  he was a failure w/o Brady.

Modell announced the move to Baltimore on Nov 6, 1995.  The day before Cleveland lost 37-10 to Houston to lose their 4th in 5 games and fall to 4-5.  the move was an excuse, they were already playing awful football. 

He took over a bad Browns team that lost games by an average of 15 points a game prior to his arrival.  He rebuilt the team and had them in the playoffs.

He took over a declining Patriots team.  Gutted the team his first year and won a  Superbowl in his second with a good QB not the HofF QB he is today.

The fact is he made the teams better.  Show me a great coach that consistently won without a very good to great QB.

 

They actually lost their 13 games by an average of 19 PPG in 1990 before he got there.  great job closing that gap but still losing more games then they won the next 5 years. 

5 years pre Belichcik:

1986-1990:

44-34-1

1 losing season in 5 years

4 playoff apps

3 title game apps

1991-1995 w/ Belichick:

36-44

4 losing seasons in 5 years

1 playoff app

1 playoff win

 

he didn't elevate the franchise on the field in any way.  the franchise would then become the Ravens and wouldn't make the playoffs for another 5 years.  he did a poor job in Cleveland.

Link to post
Share on other sites

John McKay not John Robinson- he took over in LA w/ the Rams.  year 5 they had a losing record, years 6 & 7 they were back in the playoffs.

I am not using today's standards.  In the 90s it wasn't about 5 year plans that was 80s and earlier.  they had plan B and eventually unrestricted FA.  jimmy Johnson went from 1-15 to dynasty w/in 4 seasons. 

BB took over a team that had just been to 3 title games in 4 years, they had a bad 1990 season but 5 years w/ 1 winning record and 1 WC playoff win doesn't cut it.  he was also 5-11 in 2000 w/o Brady which was NE's first losing record since 1995.  In 2001 he started 0-2 w/o Brady and his job was already in jeopardy.  he was a failure w/o Brady.

Modell announced the move to Baltimore on Nov 6, 1995.  The day before Cleveland lost 37-10 to Houston to lose their 4th in 5 games and fall to 4-5.  the move was an excuse, they were already playing awful football. 

They actually lost their 13 games by an average of 19 PPG in 1990 before he got there.  great job closing that gap but still losing more games then they won the next 5 years. 

5 years pre Belichcik:

1986-1990:

44-34-1

1 losing season in 5 years

4 playoff apps

3 title game apps

1991-1995 w/ Belichick:

36-44

4 losing seasons in 5 years

1 playoff app

1 playoff win

 

he didn't elevate the franchise on the field in any way.  the franchise would then become the Ravens and wouldn't make the playoffs for another 5 years.  he did a poor job in Cleveland.

Too many Johns.  Good catch and I actually like McKay's quote about execution of his squad.

Again, the team Belichick took over was not any of the AFC Championship game teams.  He took over a 3-13 team who lost by 14.6 points.  I used a calculator this time.  :)  All the players that were still on the 91 team, were up to 5 years older with 5 years and playoffs worth of games on their bodies.  That is a bad analogy.  Teams do not operate in a vacuum.  Players got older, injured or leave. 

And Plan B was so awesome it was ruled to be antitrust violation as it still restrained movement.  It was not the FA that is enjoyed today.  Plus, Jimmy had the Herschel Walker trade which assisted him greatly. 

Modell announced the move on the 6th, which was the day after the Browns lost, but it was being reported by the NY Times  on the 4th that he was threatening to move.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/11/04/sports/football-baltimore-browns-may-be-a-done-deal.html?src=pm&pagewanted=all

That is what newspapers know.  I imagine the players knew before that.  The fact is the team did collapse after the news started circulating about the move. 

As far as the Ravens and Patriots, the Ravens kind of make my point.  The only time in a 10 year period the Browns/Ravens made the playoffs, Belichick was coach.  As far as the Patriots, he did not take over the Superbowl team.  He took over the team that followed an 11-5 season with a Superbowl trip with 10-6, 9-7 and finally 8-8 seasons.  Again, like the Browns, the team was older or lost players to free agency.

If you do not think he can coach, who is better?

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

He took over a bad Browns team that lost games by an average of 15 points a game prior to his arrival.  He rebuilt the team and had them in the playoffs.

He took over a declining Patriots team.  Gutted the team his first year and won a  Superbowl in his second with a good QB not the HofF QB he is today.

The fact is he made the teams better.  Show me a great coach that consistently won without a very good to great QB.

 

The Tuna and Gibbs come to mind..

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Too many Johns.  Good catch and I actually like McKay's quote about execution of his squad.

Again, the team Belichick took over was not any of the AFC Championship game teams.  He took over a 3-13 team who lost by 14.6 points.  I used a calculator this time.  :)  All the players that were still on the 91 team, were up to 5 years older with 5 years and playoffs worth of games on their bodies.  That is a bad analogy.  Teams do not operate in a vacuum.  Players got older, injured or leave. 

And Plan B was so awesome it was ruled to be antitrust violation as it still restrained movement.  It was not the FA that is enjoyed today.  Plus, Jimmy had the Herschel Walker trade which assisted him greatly. 

Modell announced the move on the 6th, which was the day after the Browns lost, but it was being reported by the NY Times  on the 4th that he was threatening to move.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/11/04/sports/football-baltimore-browns-may-be-a-done-deal.html?src=pm&pagewanted=all

That is what newspapers know.  I imagine the players knew before that.  The fact is the team did collapse after the news started circulating about the move. 

As far as the Ravens and Patriots, the Ravens kind of make my point.  The only time in a 10 year period the Browns/Ravens made the playoffs, Belichick was coach.  As far as the Patriots, he did not take over the Superbowl team.  He took over the team that followed an 11-5 season with a Superbowl trip with 10-6, 9-7 and finally 8-8 seasons.  Again, like the Browns, the team was older or lost players to free agency.

If you do not think he can coach, who is better?

 

I used the point differential in losses, you used the entire season.  they got killed that year, no doubt they improved and became competitive but the bottom line is 4 losing seasons in 5 years.

Plan B wasn't great but UFA came along 2 years later.

you think hearing rumblings on the 4th destroyed that team against a mediocre Houston team? either way they had lost 3 of 4 games and were at .500  before that game so they weren't playing well.

you said he made the browns better, if he left the Browns in good shape they wouldn't have had to wait 5 more years before making the playoffs.  the best thing he did as leave them in good draft position n where they got Ogden and lewis in the first post BB draft. 

Many of the players he would win the SB with were on the 2000 team.  they made a bunch of low cost, scrap heap moves for key players in 2001 but there was talent when he took over in 2000. He inherited Bledsoe, Faulk, Brown, Glenn, Woody, Andruzzi, Johnson, Bruschi, law, Milloy, Jones, McGinest, Vinatieri, etc...

 

I didn't say he couldn't coach.  he was a great ass't but a bad HC pre Brady.  Brady allowed him to develop into a great coach which he is now but w/o Brady he is someone's DC today and never gets another shot as a HC.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Belichick had a very mediocre head coaching resume before Brady.  That is simply a fact.

To think Brady's success is not greatly enhanced by Bellichick is just silly.  He is on a completely different level as a head coach. Not that they don't cheat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't even understand half you people anymore. If you're a Jets fan and you praise the greatness of Tom Brady, you do not deserve a penis.

Tom Brady sucks. Suckity suck suck s-s-s-s-suuuuuuuuuuuuucks. That was is and will always be the only acceptable answer on this matter. End. Period. Of. Period. Story. Period.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've tried reading this thread a couple times... and each time it blows me away... 

Some of you guys are actually dense enough to think that Montana is still ahead of Brady. What a ridiculous argument. I guess I could tolerate a windbag telling me why they're on equal playing fields, but my god.. wake up you guys. I hate that his career had to happen in our division too, but he's been the mopping the floor with Montana for years. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Teams were allowed to hit Montana, so spare me this crap. 

And defenses were a lot less sophisticated when Montana was playing, (and slower, windows close faster these days) (and weaker, DB's now press as much as LB's back then).. Also 49'ers system was wildly successful with 2 QB's, which knocks Montana.. Walsh was the real deal. Not to mention he played much of his career with Rice.

The correct way to look at this would be an analysis of incremental performance over peers. Marino, Kelly put up some gaudy stats while Montana was playing, Elway won a ton of games. With Brady you have Manning, Brees doing the same.

I think it's a good debate and not easily answered tbh. It's hard to argue with the sustained success Brady has had though. 6 SB's with this year looking very much like #7 is ridiculous

Edited by CTM
Link to post
Share on other sites

I know its tough to compare QB stats across eras but just indulge me for a second. 

Taking out his rookie year and starting with Marino's 2nd year in the league, when he was MVP and became the first guy to throw for 5000 yards in a season and going foward 7 years and comparing them to Rodgers first 7 years as a starter, including this year, and you find some interesting info. 

Marino, in that stretch, was 2307 of 3885 (60%) for 29,206 yards, 221 TDs, 130 INTs, 7.52 YPA and 67-37 record. 

Rodgers is 2410 of 3657 (65.9) for 30,069 yards, 241 TDs, 59 INTs, 8.2 YPA and 76-33 record.

Very comparable numbers. 

The first takeaway is that Marino threw a lot for his era as he put up numbers comparable to a modern day passing offense. The second is Rodgers clear edge in accuracy. Almost a full 6% better completion rate plus less than half the number of interceptions. Now you can chalk some of that up to rules changes but not all of it. Rodgers' accuracy numbers are better by a wide enough margin that you can easily conclude he's the better passer. 

The first take away is that Marino didn't play in a WCO, Rodgers does.. WCO is designed to improve completion % and it's one of the reasons Montana and Young were so good because they were ahead of the curve

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't even understand half you people anymore. If you're a Jets fan and you praise the greatness of Tom Brady, you do not deserve a penis.

Tom Brady sucks. Suckity suck suck s-s-s-s-suuuuuuuuuuuuucks. That was is and will always be the only acceptable answer on this matter. End. Period. Of. Period. Story. Period.

LOL.. This is pretty much the crux of Klacko's argument except he's trying to hide it behind facts, figures and video clips.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He took over a bad Browns team that lost games by an average of 15 points a game prior to his arrival.  He rebuilt the team and had them in the playoffs.

He took over a declining Patriots team.  Gutted the team his first year and won a  Superbowl in his second with a good QB not the HofF QB he is today.

The fact is he made the teams better.  Show me a great coach that consistently won without a very good to great QB.

 

Parsmells? Besides the point though.. the important fact here is that Belicheat is a career loser without Brady, there are plenty of coaches that are career winners without a potential GOAT under center.

Belicheat is a cheater and fraud who lucked into Brady. Case closed until he proves otherwise

Edited by CTM
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Tuna and Gibbs come to mind..

 It is not like they had crap.  Theismann is a good to very good QB.  Simms was also a pretty good QB as well. 

And if anything when their QB situation as less than great, their records dipped.  Gibbs had a losing record in stint #2 with an over the hill Brunell.  Look at Par$ells record with the Boyz and their QB situation .500.  So did Par$ells over achieve or under achieve in 99?

Even great coaches struggle with inferior talent.  And I am not saying Belichick's Cleveland stint was great.  He built the team, but even he admits to making mistakes. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I used the point differential in losses, you used the entire season.  they got killed that year, no doubt they improved and became competitive but the bottom line is 4 losing seasons in 5 years.

Plan B wasn't great but UFA came along 2 years later.

you think hearing rumblings on the 4th destroyed that team against a mediocre Houston team? either way they had lost 3 of 4 games and were at .500  before that game so they weren't playing well.

you said he made the browns better, if he left the Browns in good shape they wouldn't have had to wait 5 more years before making the playoffs.  the best thing he did as leave them in good draft position n where they got Ogden and lewis in the first post BB draft. 

Many of the players he would win the SB with were on the 2000 team.  they made a bunch of low cost, scrap heap moves for key players in 2001 but there was talent when he took over in 2000. He inherited Bledsoe, Faulk, Brown, Glenn, Woody, Andruzzi, Johnson, Bruschi, law, Milloy, Jones, McGinest, Vinatieri, etc...

I didn't say he couldn't coach.  he was a great ass't but a bad HC pre Brady.  Brady allowed him to develop into a great coach which he is now but w/o Brady he is someone's DC today and never gets another shot as a HC.

Watch a football life Cleveland 1995.  Ozzie Newsome said as much.

Again, you act like teams exist in a vacuum.  Go look at the rosters of the 1995 Browns and 1996 Ravens.  The Ravens turned over half their starters and changed schemes.  That was not the same team.  You would have a point if Marchibroda went 11-5 with essentially the same team, but they went in another direction.  He took over a bad team.  He made them better. 

The same can be said of the Patriots.  He changed from Pete's 4-3 to 3-4.  He replaced 3 of the 5 starters on the OL.  He turned over a couple of players on D.  Faulk was a starting RB.  He was a 3rd down back on his best day.  Then onto 2001, he juggled the OL, Brady took over, Antowain Smith was the RB, Troy Brown and David Patten were the wideouts, etc. etc. etc. 

For a what might have been, Jimmy Johnson tried to get Belichick to Miami when he took over.  Think about how all three teams fates would have changed then.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Watch a football life Cleveland 1995.  Ozzie Newsome said as much.

Again, you act like teams exist in a vacuum.  Go look at the rosters of the 1995 Browns and 1996 Ravens.  The Ravens turned over half their starters and changed schemes.  That was not the same team.  You would have a point if Marchibroda went 11-5 with essentially the same team, but they went in another direction.  He took over a bad team.  He made them better. 

The same can be said of the Patriots.  He changed from Pete's 4-3 to 3-4.  He replaced 3 of the 5 starters on the OL.  He turned over a couple of players on D.  Faulk was a starting RB.  He was a 3rd down back on his best day.  Then onto 2001, he juggled the OL, Brady took over, Antowain Smith was the RB, Troy Brown and David Patten were the wideouts, etc. etc. etc. 

For a what might have been, Jimmy Johnson tried to get Belichick to Miami when he took over.  Think about how all three teams fates would have changed then.

I have seen it and I don't buy it.

if BB did such a great job building the browns why would they turn half the roster over?

nothing changed until Brady became the QB.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And defenses were a lot less sophisticated when Montana was playing, (and slower, windows close faster these days) (and weaker, DB's now press as much as LB's back then).. Also 49'ers system was wildly successful with 2 QB's, which knocks Montana.. Walsh was the real deal. Not to mention he played much of his career with Rice.

The correct way to look at this would be an analysis of incremental performance over peers. Marino, Kelly put up some gaudy stats while Montana was playing, Elway won a ton of games. With Brady you have Manning, Brees doing the same.

I think it's a good debate and not easily answered tbh. It's hard to argue with the sustained success Brady has had though. 6 SB's with this year looking very much like #7 is ridiculous

Correct.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They also called olines for holding, let Db's hang all over receivers and allowed Dlineman to crush QB's in any fashion they pleased when Montana played.  It's far easier to play Qb now than back then all things considered.

2015 has it's own challenges that didn't exist in the 80s. That's a rather unscrupulous assessment. I think CTM's post address this. 

there's really nothing more to say other than Brady's proven himself to be in the conversation as the best all time. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2015 has it's own challenges that didn't exist in the 80s. That's a rather unscrupulous assessment. I think CTM's post address this. 

there's really nothing more to say other than Brady's proven himself to be in the conversation as the best all time. 

Sure Brady is in the conversation.  Making a point that this era is tougher on QBs than earlier eras is imply not true imo.  Defenses better?  sure, Defense game planning better?  Sure.  My three points are also very applicable.  Qb's are far and away protected more than they were back then.  The restrictions placed on Db's are far far far worse than in that era.  Especially when you have a mismatch like a Gronk vs smaller DB's.

Brady is a great QB, one of the best but using the modern era to accentuate that is simply not correct imo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 It is not like they had crap.  Theismann is a good to very good QB.  Simms was also a pretty good QB as well. 

And if anything when their QB situation as less than great, their records dipped.  Gibbs had a losing record in stint #2 with an over the hill Brunell.  Look at Par$ells record with the Boyz and their QB situation .500.  So did Par$ells over achieve or under achieve in 99?

Even great coaches struggle with inferior talent.  And I am not saying Belichick's Cleveland stint was great.  He built the team, but even he admits to making mistakes. 

 

Gibbs won w/ 3 different QBs.  Theismann was a decent QB, Dog Williams was decent in the early 80s- he was way past his prime and Mark Rypien.

Simms was a solid QB w/ the Giants then he won w/ a career backup after Simms got hurt late in the season.

 

Gibbs came back after a long layoff and led Wash to 2 playoff apps in 4 years(one w/ Jason Campbell/Todd Collins).  Gibbs left after 1992 the first time.  From 1992-2015(removing the 4 years Gibbs came back) Wash has made the playoffs a grand total of two times.

 

Parcells took a Dallas team that was 5-11 every year and made multiple postseasons(one w/ Quincy Carter).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Parsmells? Besides the point though.. the important fact here is that Belicheat is a career loser without Brady, there are plenty of coaches that are career winners without a potential GOAT under center.

Belicheat is a cheater and fraud who lucked into Brady. Case closed until he proves otherwise

George Seifert is the all time winning HC of the 49'ers his worst record was 10-6..Then he went to the Panthers and went 16-32 in 3 years and was fired. I think he may missed Montana and Young??:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen it and I don't buy it.

if BB did such a great job building the browns why would they turn half the roster over?

nothing changed until Brady became the QB.

Well.  ALOT of BB success does come at the feet of brady, BUT I wouldn't equate everything to that.

 

1. All BB ever knew is football, when others were playing it in college he was already learning the NFL system.

2. yea, his time in Cleveland sucked but your not gonna still be in any pro league if you hadn't learned to get better, and that is of any coach or player. Cause if BB was just a middle of the pack coach, hit really wouldn't have matter if he had brady or not.

3. Despite having brady, BB is a great NFL mind (again his defensive scheme being in canton) and "thinking outside" the box when to keep, or release players. of all the players he ever let go, none of them have ever come back to bite him. Even the players he has found... M.Vrabel, T. Bruschi, W.Welker, D.woodhead, S.Vereen, and now D.Lewis...Almost all of them were from different organizations and were afterthoughts.

he's just a great football mind, would he have 4 SB without Brady, maybe not 4, but i'm sure he would of won a few without Brady.

Edited by ghost_in_pads02
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well.  ALOT of BB success does come at the feet of brady, BUT I wouldn't equate everything to that.

 

1. All BB ever knew is football, when others were playing it in college he was already learning the NFL system.

2. yea, his time in Cleveland sucked but your not gonna still be in any pro league if you hadn't learned to get better, and that is of any coach or player. Cause if BB was just a middle of the pack coach, hit really wouldn't have matter if he had brady or not.

3. Despite having brady, BB is a great NFL mind (again his defensive scheme being in canton) and "thinking outside" the box when to keep, or release players. of all the players he ever let go, none of them have ever come back to bite him. Even the players he has found... M.Vrabel, T. Bruschi, W.Welker, D.woodhead, S.Vereen, and now D.Lewis...Almost all of them were from different organizations and where afterthoughts.

he's just a great football mind, would he have 4 SB without Brady, maybe not 4, but i'm sure he would of won a few without Brady.

He is quite possibly the most brilliant football man to ever walk the planet but there is much more to being a great Head Coach than just knowing the game inside and out.  he clearly didn't get that in Cleveland and early in NE, Brady gave him time to adapt and he has been a great HC for a long time now but w/o Brady he never gets that chacne to become a great HC.

 

Bruschi was a Pat since the mid 90s, he didn't find him.  Brady made Welker, Woodhead is doing the same things in SD, Vereen is having success w/ NYG.

he wouldn't have any SBs w/o Brady b/c he would have been fired before he had the chance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Admit that the only reason you believe this is because Tecmo Bowl only had four defenses.

I mean, look how open Rice is on this play

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOh_moZ2N0A

 

 

^^ why doesn't this sh*t just embed anymore... Crusher must of eaten the embed function that fat pos

 

Edited by CTM
Link to post
Share on other sites

He is quite possibly the most brilliant football man to ever walk the planet but there is much more to being a great Head Coach than just knowing the game inside and out.  he clearly didn't get that in Cleveland and early in NE, Brady gave him time to adapt and he has been a great HC for a long time now but w/o Brady he never gets that chacne to become a great HC.

 

Bruschi was a Pat since the mid 90s, he didn't find him.  Brady made Welker, Woodhead is doing the same things in SD, Vereen is having success w/ NYG.

he wouldn't have any SBs w/o Brady b/c he would have been fired before he had the chance.

I think you are wrong. 1. you are putting too much on his time in Cleveland, it was his first head coaching job, there's been plenty of other instances where he has proven to be a great coach (Xs and Os) ask his players? He only had one full season without Brady in New England, the sec. year went 11-5, i'm not gonna sit there and say just that quick a 6 round pick as great as he is now, made that big jump to improve that team that quick.

 

You do not know if he would of won a SB without brady or not, again he had won two as a defensive coordinator and during his run in N.E. there's plenty of times when the offense is on the field his back is turned and he is talking to the defense.

 

as I said there's plenty of instances where you can tell he is a great coach, and you admit that, Brady helps a great deal, but he would of been a great coach regardless. The only thing you can question is how many SBs would he had won.

 

and I said most of the players he found. I already knew Bruschi was there, Welker although Brady helped, it was BB who noticed how much Welker was killing them while he played for Miami, again, BB knew of Woodhead when Rex Ryan cut him, who else picked him up before BB? Nobody.

Edited by ghost_in_pads02
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are wrong. 1. you are putting too much on his time in Cleveland, it was his first head coaching job, there's been plenty of other instances where he has proven to be a great coach (Xs and Os) ask his players? He only had one full season without Brady in New England, the sec. year went 11-5, i'm not gonna sit there and say just that quick a 6 round pick as great as he is now, made that big jump to improve that team that quick.

 

You do not know if he would of won a SB without brady or not, again he had won two as a defensive coordinator and during his run in N.E. there's plenty of times when the offense is on the field his back is turned and he is talking to the defense.

 

as I said there's plenty of instances where you can tell he is a great coach, and you admit that, Brady helps a great deal, but he would of been a great coach regardless. The only thing you can question is how many SBs would he had won.

we are allowed to disagree.  In NE he did a poor job in 2000 then 2001 started like 2000 until things magically changed the moment Brady stepped on the field.

11-5 in 2008 w/ a creampuff sched w/ a team that was 16-0 a year earlier.  5 more losses is a lot.

he was on the hot seat before Brady came in, he was likely going to be fired after 2001.  there's no way they go on that run w/ Bledsoe.  He is a DC somewhere today if Brady doesn't save that season, save the franchise and save BB's HC career.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...