Brady last year in NE rumors continue

[nyjunc]

12 minutes ago, Joe W. Namath said:

Bellichek took the browns to the playoffs. But lets not let facts get in the way here.

Belichick took the OLD browns to the playoffs ONE time in 5 seasons.  The browns were coming off 3 trips to the AFC championship game in the 5 years before he got there and they'd win a SB as the Ravens 5 years after he left.  He had 4 losing seasons in 5 years there.  These are facts.

[nyjunc]

11 hours ago, Peace Frog said:

Yup. Belli made Brady, not the other way around. 

Great coach with unsurpassed cheating acumen. 

Brady goes down and they still go 11-5 with a jag QB. 

Brady gets suspended and they still go 3-1.

Brady is the puppet of the puppet master. 

Belichick has 5 losing seasons in 7 full seasons as a HC without Brady.  He was 5-13 in NE and on the verge of his job being in jeopardy before Brady saved his HC career.

He did go 10-5 with Cassell starting and MISSED the playoffs with a QB that would win a division title in KC.  Let's also not forget the year before with the same team they went 16-0.   Losing 5 more games is a HUGE difference.  

They did go 3-1 without him in '16 against an incredibly weak schedule with garropolo starting 2 of the games and he went 1-1 with brissett including being shut out.  They beat Miami by 7(when Miami was playing poorly) without Brady, with him they beat them by 21.  They lost to Buffalo 16-0 without him, they beat Buffalo 41-25 with him.

 

Brady made BB the HC not the other way around, BB would be someone's defensive coordinator right now if not for Brady.

[nyjunc]

9 hours ago, greenwichjetfan said:

The only opportunity he got with the Pats - 2001. Brady got hurt early before he could contribute to any scores, and the pats still beat the 13 win Steelers behind a garbage game by Bledsoe.

Brady also owns the record for the most wins in NFL postseason history when the QB throws multiple interceptions in a postseason game. That’s as big an indication as there is that the sum is greater than the individual, and in Brady’s case, the sum is managed entirely by Belichick. 

Brady owns every record for postseason wins, with INTs, without INTs, home, road, warm, cold, with air taken out of balls, with extra air in balls,...

Bill belichick has only been able to win big with Tom Brady, in his entire coaching career he's only made the playoffs with 1 other QB and that was a WC team that got thrashed in the div Rd by a team that didn't even reach the SB.

[Joe W. Namath]

12 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

Belichick took the OLD browns to the playoffs ONE time in 5 seasons.  The browns were coming off 3 trips to the AFC championship game in the 5 years before he got there and they'd win a SB as the Ravens 5 years after he left.  He had 4 losing seasons in 5 years there.  These are facts.

Correct.  Sounds like he did a pretty good job rebuilding the roster.

[nyjunc]

5 minutes ago, Joe W. Namath said:

Correct.  Sounds like he did a pretty good job rebuilding the roster.

There was 1 player left from his days in Cleveland that won the SB in 2000 with the Ravens.

[#27TheDominator]

17 hours ago, Hackenberg said:

Finishing your career in conference  championships and SBs  isn't stinking. 

Favre tore up the league his last year.

 

 

9 hours ago, Hackenberg said:

I was obviously  referring to Manning

Obviously.

[freestater]

26 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

There was 1 player left from his days in Cleveland that won the SB in 2000 with the Ravens.

[Peace Frog]

1 hour ago, nyjunc said:

Belichick has 5 losing seasons in 7 full seasons as a HC without Brady.  He was 5-13 in NE and on the verge of his job being in jeopardy before Brady saved his HC career.

He did go 10-5 with Cassell starting and MISSED the playoffs with a QB that would win a division title in KC.  Let's also not forget the year before with the same team they went 16-0.   Losing 5 more games is a HUGE difference.  

They did go 3-1 without him in '16 against an incredibly weak schedule with garropolo starting 2 of the games and he went 1-1 with brissett including being shut out.  They beat Miami by 7(when Miami was playing poorly) without Brady, with him they beat them by 21.  They lost to Buffalo 16-0 without him, they beat Buffalo 41-25 with him.

 

Brady made BB the HC not the other way around, BB would be someone's defensive coordinator right now if not for Brady.

Please stop quoting me. 

I get you are a fan but this is creepy. 

You’ve been proven wrong time after time and I really wish you’d stop stalking me. 

Put me on Ignore and stop quoting me. 

[BUM-KNEE]

Both Brandi and BB suck.

So there.

[greenwichjetfan]

2 hours ago, slats said:

Not that I like being in a position of defending Brady, but he has the most postseason victories, period, and the game winning drive in six of them. 

Definitely, and it’s all about how you interpret it. At the end of the day, I’m not saying Brady is garbage or even average. He’s obviously an inner circle HoF, one of the very best QBs ever. 

But just like I always said about Montana, I think it’s important to note the context in which they played. I firmly believe that guys like Montana, Brady, Bradshaw benefited from playing in outstanding circumstances. The fact that they made the most of them to the tune of 14 SB wins is not to be discredited, but in such a team game in which 22 different players have an influence on every single play, and coaching/strategies can neutralize amazing players while propelling mediocre players, it’s hard to have such sustained excellence without consistently being in better situations than the rest of the field. 

I think the fact that Brady has played in and won the most postseason games ever is another thing that points to both his own greatness, but even more to the fact that he is consistently put in positions to succeed.

The whole GW drives thing always messes with my head because Not all GW drives were created equal. On one hand, yes the QB must be clutch at the end when it matters, but on the other hand, the reason they're in that situation was probably because he didn't play well but his team kept the game close,

Case in point:
- Brady threw a pick 6 against the falcons to put them in a 21-0 hole with 2 mins left in Q2, and only managed 3 points for his team midway through Q3 of that SB. Of course he deserves credit for being part of the reason they came back, but his team had to keep them in it too. That he won the MVP in that game is the same reason Eli won in his two games - because it’s impossible to give it to the entire team, even though the team is the reason they won, not the individual play of the QB. 
- Brady gets credited with a GW drive in the Chiefs AFC game, but he threw 2 INTs against 1 TD in that game, and would have thrown a third, would-be-game-ending INT if not for a seldom called penalty on an offsides.
- In one of the situations where he absolutely would have been deserving of the GW drive, MVP, and any other accolade, his team let him down by failing to stop the Eagles a single time, and Brady eventually fumbled away the game on a strip sack. 

The other side of GW drives which isn’t looked at for whatever reason is all of the times that the QB failed even though his team put him in situation to win it at the end. At minimum, all 3 SBs that Brady has lost, plus the 3 AFCCG that he lost against Peyton led teams, Brady was on the field with the ball in his hand in a one score game at the end but didn’t get it done. If we’re going to credit only the QB for getting it done when the team kept them in the game, how come we don’t discredit only the QB when he doesn’t get it done when the team kept them in the game?

The point of all of that was again to prove my theory that in football, the sum is greater than the parts, and I believe Belichick deserves more than 50% of the Pats recent successes.

Final point on this: The reason I brought up the multi int thing is because I feel it illustrates the my point clearly. 

Heres a list of the 11 QBs in postseason history to throw multiple ints in a game (not my data btw):

Again, this can be interpreted in many ways, but what stands out to me is the fact that the top of the list are 4 QBs who have won more SBs than the vast majority of QBs to ever play, and 3 of them are generally regarded as having played in outstanding situations (Montana with Walsh, Rice, etc; Plunkett the only 2 time SB winning QB to not be in HoF, so that tells you all you need to know; Bradshaw with Knoll and the Steel Curtain). I think that when football people look back at Brady, much like the other 3 QBs above, they’ll see a guy who played with  teammates such as perennial pro-bowlers, top 2 WR and top 2 TE ever, perennial top 10 defenses, and coaching that always put the team in positions to succeed.

[CTM]

58 minutes ago, Peace Frog said:

Please stop quoting me. 

I get you are a fan but this is creepy. 

You’ve been proven wrong time after time and I really wish you’d stop stalking me. 

Put me on Ignore and stop quoting me. 

Huh? The only point people bring up on the Belichick gets all the credit side of this arguement is 2008. But that point has been thoroughly thrashed. 

Going from 16-0 to 11-5 is a HUGE MASSIVE drop in relative performance. (Which is all that matters for this debate)

For the vast majority of teams every season a 5 win increase is the difference between making the playoffs and picking top 10. 

The fact the Pat's went from #1 seed to missing the playoffs all together proves the point 

The Pat's also went from one of the best offenses in the entire history of football to an above average offense in 2008. Again, a massive drop in relative performance.

Finally, the SOS was one of the hardest in 2007 and one of the easiest in 2008. The entire AFC east played the NFC and AFC west both of whom were very weak that year and 1/2 of whom had to travel east for 1pm games.

That is the reason the Pat's missed the playoffs at 11 wins, and the entire division was above .500 or just under (Bill's 7-9). Also why an extremely weak Dolphins team got demolished at home in the WC round.

On this topic, I'm afraid it is you who has been proven wrong time and time again

 

 

 

 

[Peace Frog]

37 minutes ago, greenwichjetfan said:

Definitely, and it’s all about how you interpret it. At the end of the day, I’m not saying Brady is garbage or even average. He’s obviously an inner circle HoF, one of the very best QBs ever. 

But just like I always said about Montana, I think it’s important to note the context in which they played. I firmly believe that guys like Montana, Brady, Bradshaw benefited from playing in outstanding circumstances. The fact that they made the most of them to the tune of 14 SB wins is not to be discredited, but in such a team game in which 22 different players have an influence on every single play, and coaching/strategies can neutralize amazing players while propelling mediocre players, it’s hard to have such sustained excellence without consistently being in better situations than the rest of the field. 

I think the fact that Brady has played in and won the most postseason games ever is another thing that points to both his own greatness, but even more to the fact that he is consistently put in positions to succeed.

The whole GW drives thing always messes with my head because Not all GW drives were created equal. On one hand, yes the QB must be clutch at the end when it matters, but on the other hand, the reason they're in that situation was probably because he didn't play well but his team kept the game close,

Case in point:
- Brady threw a pick 6 against the falcons to put them in a 21-0 hole with 2 mins left in Q2, and only managed 3 points for his team midway through Q3 of that SB. Of course he deserves credit for being part of the reason they came back, but his team had to keep them in it too. That he won the MVP in that game is the same reason Eli won in his two games - because it’s impossible to give it to the entire team, even though the team is the reason they won, not the individual play of the QB. 
- Brady gets credited with a GW drive in the Chiefs AFC game, but he threw 2 INTs against 1 TD in that game, and would have thrown a third, would-be-game-ending INT if not for a seldom called penalty on an offsides.
- In one of the situations where he absolutely would have been deserving of the GW drive, MVP, and any other accolade, his team let him down by failing to stop the Eagles a single time, and Brady eventually fumbled away the game on a strip sack. 

The other side of GW drives which isn’t looked at for whatever reason is all of the times that the QB failed even though his team put him in situation to win it at the end. At minimum, all 3 SBs that Brady has lost, plus the 3 AFCCG that he lost against Peyton led teams, Brady was on the field with the ball in his hand in a one score game at the end but didn’t get it done. If we’re going to credit only the QB for getting it done when the team kept them in the game, how come we don’t discredit only the QB when he doesn’t get it done when the team kept them in the game?

The point of all of that was again to prove my theory that in football, the sum is greater than the parts, and I believe Belichick deserves more than 50% of the Pats recent successes.

Final point on this: The reason I brought up the multi int thing is because I feel it illustrates the my point clearly. 

Heres a list of the 11 QBs in postseason history to throw multiple ints in a game (not my data btw):

Again, this can be interpreted in many ways, but what stands out to me is the fact that the top of the list are 4 QBs who have won more SBs than the vast majority of QBs to ever play, and 3 of them are generally regarded as having played in outstanding situations (Montana with Walsh, Rice, etc; Plunkett the only 2 time SB winning QB to not be in HoF, so that tells you all you need to know; Bradshaw with Knoll and the Steel Curtain). I think that when football people look back at Brady, much like the other 3 QBs above, they’ll see a guy who played with  teammates such as perennial pro-bowlers, top 2 WR and top 2 TE ever, perennial top 10 defenses, and coaching that always put the team in positions to succeed.

Montana also threw zero INTs in the SB. 

4-0 and 11 TDs - 0 INTs. 

[Peace Frog]

2 minutes ago, CTM said:

Huh? The only point people bring up on the Belichick gets all the credit side of this arguement is 2008. But that point has been thoroughly thrashed. 

Going from 16-0 to 11-5 is a HUGE MASSIVE drop in relative performance. (Which is all that matters for this debate)

For the vast majority of teams every season a 5 win increase is the difference between making the playoffs and picking top 10. 

The fact the Pat's went from #1 seed to missing the playoffs all together proves the point 

The Pat's also went from one of the best offenses in the entire history of football to an above average offense in 2008. Again, a massive drop in relative performance.

Finally, the SOS was one of the hardest in 2007 and one of the easiest in 2008. The entire AFC east played the NFC and AFC west both of whom were very weak that year and 1/2 of whom had to travel east for 1pm games.

That is the reason the Pat's missed the playoffs at 11 wins, and the entire division was above .500 or just under (Bill's 7-9). Also why an extremely weak Dolphins team got demolished at home in the WC round.

On this topic, I'm afraid it is you who has been proven wrong time and time again

 

 

 

 

Dude. 

[JustInFudge]

17 hours ago, Joe W. Namath said:

If Stidham is the guy, he will coach till hes 75.

I actually distinctly remember an interview with him where he said, he doesnt want to be like Marv Levy and coach into his 70's.  BB and Brady will ride off into the sunset together, as the biggest frauds in the history of sports. 

 

 

[CTM]

41 minutes ago, greenwichjetfan said:

perennial top 10 defenses,

 

By what metric? NE isnt a perennial top 10 defense by any metric that matters. They have been an offensive driven team since 2004. This is a fact and the facts do more to undermine Beli as as defensive mastermind than anything Brady 

 

[peebag]

4 minutes ago, Peace Frog said:

Dude. 

First day on the internet?

[greenwichjetfan]

3 minutes ago, CTM said:

By what metric? NE isnt a perennial top 10 defense by any metric that matters. They have been an offensive driven team since 2004. This is a fact and the facts do more to undermine Beli as as defensive mastermind than anything Brady 

 

I'm not going to do this with you if you're going to isolate 4 words from my huge post and use it to back your viewpoint.

If you want to deliberately be disingenuous about the fact that Belichick's defenses have consistently kept them in games even as recently as just the last two games against the #1 & #2 offenses in the league (and league MVP), then I'd suggest you go full nycjunc and start calling me names as well.

[Peace Frog]

2 minutes ago, greenwichjetfan said:

I'm not going to do this with you if you're going to isolate 4 words from my huge post and use it to back your viewpoint.

If you want to deliberately be disingenuous about the fact that Belichick's defenses have consistently kept them in games even as recently as just the last two games against the #1 & #2 offenses in the league (and league MVP), then I'd suggest you go full nycjunc and start calling me names as well.

Lol. Well done Sir. 

[CTM]

Just now, greenwichjetfan said:

I'm not going to do this with you if you're going to isolate 4 words from my huge post and use it to back your viewpoint.

If you want to deliberately be disingenuous about the fact that Belichick's defenses have consistently kept them in games even as recently as just the last two games against the #1 & #2 offenses in the league (and league MVP), then I'd suggest you go full nycjunc and start calling me names as well.

The only one being deliberately  disingenuous (or undeliberately ignorant) is the one who said NE was a perennial top 10 defense. 

The facts are NE's historic run of success has been driven by Brady and their offense for over a decade. I know this undermines your position and you'd rather cherry pick exceptions but thems the facts.

[CTM]

10 minutes ago, Peace Frog said:

Lol. Well done Sir. 

Amazing 

[Matt39]

16 minutes ago, CTM said:

The only one being deliberately  disingenuous (or undeliberately ignorant) is the one who said NE was a perennial top 10 defense. 

The facts are NE's historic run of success has been driven by Brady and their offense for over a decade. I know this undermines your position and you'd rather cherry pick exceptions but thems the facts.

They've been top 10 in takeaways (besides '17 ranked 11th)  like the last 6 seasons or so. They give up yards but force turnovers. 

 

*edit hell go even further back, it's remarkable how consistent the Patriots defense has been at forcing turnovers

http://www.espn.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/givetake/year/2014

https://www.footballdb.com/stats/turnovers.html?yr=2011&conf=

[CTM]

7 minutes ago, Matt39 said:

They've been top 10 in takeaways (besides '17 ranked 11th)  like the last 6 seasons or so. They give up yards but force turnovers. 

 

*edit hell go even further back, it's remarkable how consistent the Patriots defense has been at forcing turnovers

http://www.espn.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/givetake/year/2014

https://www.footballdb.com/stats/turnovers.html?yr=2011&conf=

They were 25th in takeaways last year and 14th in 2016??

[Matt39]

2 minutes ago, CTM said:

They were 25th in takeaways last year and 14th in 2016??

Tied for 5th last year.

[Matt39]

@CTMMy bad, site was populating by differential. I misread. Pats still force a bunch of turnovers though.

[greenwichjetfan]

22 minutes ago, CTM said:

The only one being deliberately  disingenuous (or undeliberately ignorant) is the one who said NE was a perennial top 10 defense. 

The facts are NE's historic run of success has been driven by Brady and their offense for over a decade. I know this undermines your position and you'd rather cherry pick exceptions but thems the facts.

Seriously? First of all, I said over and over again that Brady is great. Sorry I'm not on his dick like you'd like me to be. Secondly, talk about cherry picking...you cherry picked 4 words of mine out of a post with 100s of words to argue about. Thirdly, are you really asserting that Brady was the reason they got to and won the SB last year?

The real facts are as follows: Brady has been great. Brady has been in an unbelievable situation for the entirety of his career. Your extremely odd lust for Brady forces you to foolhardily try to undermine the second to artificially inflate the first, because for whatever reason, in your mind, the two are mutually exclusive.

[Beerfish]

19 minutes ago, Matt39 said:

They've been top 10 in takeaways (besides '17 ranked 11th)  like the last 6 seasons or so. They give up yards but force turnovers. 

 

*edit hell go even further back, it's remarkable how consistent the Patriots defense has been at forcing turnovers

http://www.espn.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/givetake/year/2014

https://www.footballdb.com/stats/turnovers.html?yr=2011&conf=

More than any other thing if you look at the plus minus turnover ratio in the AFC east you will know why the Pats have owned it for 15 years.  The numbers are sickening if not mind boggling.

[CTM]

4 minutes ago, Matt39 said:

Tied for 5th last year.

Good god. You are better than this. The difference between #5 ranking and #10 ranking was 2 turnovers.  If you think 2 turnovers over the course of 16 games and 500 or so plays supports a comment like "perennial top 10 defense" than I'm not sure what to say.

Remember also that they only won11 games last year and 13 the year prior despite going from 25 to 5 in TO ranking. The reason for that of course was the offense wasn't nearly as good.

Why don't we look at our best metric for measuring unit performance, one that looks at all plays in a season rather than a handful, adjusts for opponent and situation and yes credits for TO's.

NE defense by DVOA

18 -  16th

17 - 31st

16 - 16th 

15 - 12th

14  - 12th

13 - 20th

12 - 15th

11 - 30th

10 - 21st

09 - 14th 

08 -  17th

07 - 11th

06 - 7th

We have to go back over a decade before finding a top 10 defensive ranking. Conclusion? Perennial top 10 defense?? 

Want me to do offense?

[CTM]

10 minutes ago, Matt39 said:

@CTMMy bad, site was populating by differential. I misread. Pats still force a bunch of turnovers though.

I thought that was the issue when i was clicking through

[CTM]

13 minutes ago, greenwichjetfan said:

Secondly, talk about cherry picking...you cherry picked 4 words of mine out of a post with 100s of words to argue about

I cherry picked those 4 words because they were so over the top incorrect it had to be addressed. Just like Peace's post about the idea that Brady being the driving factor has been proven wrong time and time again. I've yet to see a compelling argument otherwise.

If you want me to engage with you implying I'm gay for Brady rather than deal in facts you are barking up the wrong tree. Maybe @joewilly12 will play

[CTM]

I'm tagging out, @nyjunc has far more stamina for this debate than I do. 

 

[Peace Frog]

3 minutes ago, CTM said:

I cherry picked those 4 words because they were so over the top incorrect it had to be addressed. Just like Peace's post about the idea that Brady being the driving factor has been proven wrong time and time again. I've yet to see a compelling argument otherwise.

Dude.

[TNJet]

4 hours ago, Joe W. Namath said:

Bellichek took the browns to the playoffs. But lets not let facts get in the way here.

Lol. He got fired there too. But lets not let facts get in the way.

[greenwichjetfan]

28 minutes ago, CTM said:

I cherry picked those 4 words because they were so over the top incorrect it had to be addressed. Just like Peace's post about the idea that Brady being the driving factor has been proven wrong time and time again. I've yet to see a compelling argument otherwise.

It's not going to be compelling for you if you don't want it to be compelling. Turnover differential now doesn't matter because it undermines your point? Ok fine. How about Points Against - do they matter for ranking defenses? If so, here you go taken directly from pro football reference. Not doctored or cherry picked. The average defensive rank for points against in the Brady era for the Pats is 7.5 (7.47 if removing the Cassell year). Only 3 out of 18 were not top 10, and one of those was still top half of the league. The years they've won the super bowl (highlighted in yellow) are all top 10, including two #1s and one #2.

I look forward to your thoughts on how over the top incorrect "perennial top 10 defenses" is now.

[CTM]

27 minutes ago, greenwichjetfan said:

It's not going to be compelling for you if you don't want it to be compelling. Turnover differential now doesn't matter because it undermines your point? Ok fine. How about Points Against - do they matter for ranking defenses? If so, here you go taken directly from pro football reference. Not doctored or cherry picked. The average defensive rank for points against in the Brady era for the Pats is 7.5 (7.47 if removing the Cassell year). Only 3 out of 18 were not top 10, and one of those was still top half of the league. The years they've won the super bowl (highlighted in yellow) are all top 10, including two #1s and one #2.

They have a ball control offense that excels at converting first downs and protecting the ball which chews the clock and rarely leaves the defense with a short field. They play outdoors in the northeast which naturally suppresses offense and have the luxury of facing 3 of the worst offenses in football 6 times a year. ( 38% of thier games). This is not a defensive juggernaut as the advanced stats clearly show but kudos for doing the work, much better than calling me gay 

I've already conceded they were more defensive driven team early in the run.

[Hael]

I'd say you were both right and wrong.  NE's D by points allowed (the only metric that really matters) has been really solid for quite some time, with 2011 the notable exception.  Many of those D's are bend but don't break, and have really high turnover and really excellent redzone efficiency ratings.

On the other hand, Tom Brady's offenses have been consistently blah barring him.  With the notable exception of 2007 and 2011 he has played with mostly average skill position players and with very average Olines.  

Gronk was injured for a significant portion of the career, and outside Gronk their best receivers have been slot receivers.  Again at no point since Moss (who was already well past his prime), has he really had a true number one wide receiver.