Jump to content

Recommended Posts

On 10/6/2021 at 7:39 AM, Jet Nut said:

The hurry mop offense has nothing to do with Peyton, its from the Bengals under Sam Wyche and Boomer Esiason.  Not one single QB owes a single ounce of debt, never mind a massive one.  Wyche did it to catch defenses before they could substitute. 

You are out of your mind for even attempting to give Manning credit for the hurry up.  Manning changed nothing, he was a great QB.  Thats it.  Thats all it has to be stop making him out to being a system or approach changer.  

Yup and Marv Levy incorporated it into an every down and distance O.  Chip Kelly did it successfully in College and when he didn't have enough talent in the NFL showed that it didn't work.  If you didn't move the ball your D was on the field all day.  

Payton played in a dome with a very fast track and HOF WR and stud HOF running backs.   He's not only not better than Brady he's the second best Colts QB in NFL history.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 190
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Jets record with NE not having Brady?   3 and 20.  The Jets were also better when Brady was on NE.   That's how good Brady is.  

Most overrated head coach of all time. The guy stepped in sh!t 21 years ago.  If it weren't for Tom Brady, he'd be the defensive equivalent of Norv Turner.

Tampa Bay was averaging 4+ TDs and just under 38 pts/game. Last night they struggled to get a single TD and half their usual point total. The guy is doing something right.

Posted Images

On 10/6/2021 at 9:32 AM, PLO said:

Not if you ask actual people in the league. Peyton definitely changed the QB position. That's a fact. Can't say the same about Tom "I fell into the best situation possible with the best coach of all time" Brady. 

Eli who isn't in the same class as Peyton was arguably more clutch in big games than Peyton.   All you need to do is go back and watch the two Seattle back to back SB.  Peyton shat the bed right out of the gate.  Brady picked that same D apart in the SB.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Snell41 said:

 


Mac Jones is a worlds better NFL QB than Zach Wilson. It’s not even remotely close.


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

 

No, he's not.  He has one more win on a team that is worlds better than the Jets.

I am very grateful Mac Jones is not our QB of the future.  He's the QB that will assure you languish in mediocrity for a decade.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, FidelioJet said:

No, he's not.  He has one more win on a team that is worlds better than the Jets.

I am very grateful Mac Jones is not our QB of the future.  He's the QB that will assure you languish in mediocrity for a decade.

Saying Jones > Wilson is like saying trash > dog turds

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/4/2021 at 9:03 AM, nyjunc said:

He's coached over 8 full seasons without Brady.

6 losing seasons

62-75 record

36-44 in Cleveland in 5 years

26-31 in New England in 3+ full seasons

1 wild card playoff appearance

1 wild card playoff win(at home under the old playoff format when wild card teams could play at home in the wild card round)

If he won because of cheating he would have won before brady and would be winning after him.  He won because of Brady

This needs a little context.

First, the only correct answer is they needed each other.  

Second, those numbers have no context.  36-44 is not good.  I mean he did take over a 3-13 team.  He also did it in the era before the salary cap we love and loathe today.  I think during that time there was Plan B which if I remember correctly allowed the team to protect its top 30 or so players.  Then he took over a sinking Patriots team with salary cap issues. 

Third, his 2020 job might be his best coaching job after the 2001 and 2007 seasons.  Again, due to his GMIng, salary cap issues and COVID opt outs, he managed to coax a 7-9 record out.  That team was crap.   

Last, I agree, to a degree, he did win due to Brady.  Brady is the G.O.A.T.  However, this is much in the same manner as Bruce Arians is now considered a great coach because of Brady.  Just as Bill Walsh and Joe Montana benefitted from each other's greatness.  Yes, Bill benefitted from Tom's greatness and team friendly deals.  Tom also benefitted from Bill's greatness (for example Superbowl 36) and having a defense that was Top 10 in points allowed during 16 of his 19 seasons.  8 times  he had a Top 5 defense in points allowed.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not forget that the Bucs built probably the best team that Brady's ever had around him. I can't think of a better Pats team, seems like they were never nearly as strong on both sides of the ball.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, isired said:

Let's not forget that the Bucs built probably the best team that Brady's ever had around him. I can't think of a better Pats team, seems like they were never nearly as strong on both sides of the ball.

Thanks to their GM...........Bellichick 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/14/2021 at 12:01 AM, JoJoTownsell1 said:

Thanks to their GM...........Bellichick 

You are not wrong on that.

On 10/13/2021 at 10:01 PM, isired said:

Let's not forget that the Bucs built probably the best team that Brady's ever had around him. I can't think of a better Pats team, seems like they were never nearly as strong on both sides of the ball.

The 2007 and 2016 teams were pretty good on both sides of the ball.    I think defensively the 2016 Patriots were better, but man to man comparison on offense...the Bucs win.   You have to like his receivers now.  Moss was great and Welker was in his prime.  However, Evans, Godwin and Brown probably beat any Patriots trio.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2021 at 11:38 AM, FidelioJet said:

No, he's not.  He has one more win on a team that is worlds better than the Jets.

I am very grateful Mac Jones is not our QB of the future.  He's the QB that will assure you languish in mediocrity for a decade.

I completely agree.  He’s Chad 2.0

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/13/2021 at 1:35 PM, PFSIKH said:

This needs a little context.

First, the only correct answer is they needed each other.  

Second, those numbers have no context.  36-44 is not good.  I mean he did take over a 3-13 team.  He also did it in the era before the salary cap we love and loathe today.  I think during that time there was Plan B which if I remember correctly allowed the team to protect its top 30 or so players.  Then he took over a sinking Patriots team with salary cap issues. 

Third, his 2020 job might be his best coaching job after the 2001 and 2007 seasons.  Again, due to his GMIng, salary cap issues and COVID opt outs, he managed to coax a 7-9 record out.  That team was crap.   

Last, I agree, to a degree, he did win due to Brady.  Brady is the G.O.A.T.  However, this is much in the same manner as Bruce Arians is now considered a great coach because of Brady.  Just as Bill Walsh and Joe Montana benefitted from each other's greatness.  Yes, Bill benefitted from Tom's greatness and team friendly deals.  Tom also benefitted from Bill's greatness (for example Superbowl 36) and having a defense that was Top 10 in points allowed during 16 of his 19 seasons.  8 times  he had a Top 5 defense in points allowed.  

They were 3-13 but were a winning franchise that made 3 AFC Championship Games in the previous 5 seasons.  Bruce Coslet took over a 4-12 team that had one playoff win from 1983-1989(in 1986).  By year 2 he had the Jets in the playoffs and they were .500 in 2 of his 4 seasons.  Belichick had his only winning season in year 4.

 

Plan B started around 1990, full FA began in 1993.

 

The Patriots were 8-8 when he took over with their last losing season in 1995.  He went 5-11 year 1 then started 0-2 year 2 until Brady became the starter.

 

He got 2 wins against the pathetic Jets (1 of them was a miracle win), without the Jets they have 5 wins and remember that Newton played really well early last season.

 

They spent wildly in FA and are worse this year than last year.so far.

 

I'm sure Brady benefitted from Belichick but we have seen Belichick without Brady for over 8 seasons and it's not good.  In one season without Belichick Brady won a SB and in year 2 they look better than year 1.

The only postseason where the Pats D was "great" through most of the playoffs was 2001.  In that postseason they faced the raiders in a blizzard which hurt offenses then faced a kordell Stewart led O.  In the SB they were great for 3 qtrs then became the first D to ever blow a 14 point 4th qtr lead in a Super Bowl before Brady saved them.

 

Throughout Brady's time in NE his D's often came up small in big games only to be saved by brady and the offense.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/13/2021 at 11:01 PM, isired said:

Let's not forget that the Bucs built probably the best team that Brady's ever had around him. I can't think of a better Pats team, seems like they were never nearly as strong on both sides of the ball.

The pats had some really good rosters in the early 2000’s thanks to Pioli

Link to post
Share on other sites

Belichick is doing what Jets should’ve with last several QBs. Dumb everything down, play max protect, and let the rookie develop confidence. Disregard the actual wins/losses. Instead we get all these too clever by half HCs and/or OCs who would rather prove how innovative they are with their over engineered and complex systems. Psst, OCs, guess what gets you a HC job? Developing a young QB who doesn’t look like dog turd casserole. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2021 at 4:13 PM, nyjunc said:

They were 3-13 but were a winning franchise that made 3 AFC Championship Games in the previous 5 seasons.  Bruce Coslet took over a 4-12 team that had one playoff win from 1983-1989(in 1986).  By year 2 he had the Jets in the playoffs and they were .500 in 2 of his 4 seasons.  Belichick had his only winning season in year 4.

Plan B started around 1990, full FA began in 1993.

The Patriots were 8-8 when he took over with their last losing season in 1995.  He went 5-11 year 1 then started 0-2 year 2 until Brady became the starter.

He got 2 wins against the pathetic Jets (1 of them was a miracle win), without the Jets they have 5 wins and remember that Newton played really well early last season.

They spent wildly in FA and are worse this year than last year.so far.

I'm sure Brady benefitted from Belichick but we have seen Belichick without Brady for over 8 seasons and it's not good.  In one season without Belichick Brady won a SB and in year 2 they look better than year 1.

The only postseason where the Pats D was "great" through most of the playoffs was 2001.  In that postseason they faced the raiders in a blizzard which hurt offenses then faced a kordell Stewart led O.  In the SB they were great for 3 qtrs then became the first D to ever blow a 14 point 4th qtr lead in a Super Bowl before Brady saved them.

Throughout Brady's time in NE his D's often came up small in big games only to be saved by brady and the offense.

They were 3-13 but were a winning franchise that made 3 AFC Championship Games in the previous 5 seasons. - This is not relevant.  The 3-13 team that was outscored by over two TDs a game was not the one playing in any of those AFC Championship games.  Plus, Coslet made it to the playoffs as an 8-8 team.  It is not like the Jets were 12-4.  Again, that is not relevant, that is a totally different team.  In year two of his Patriots' tenure, Belichick won a ring.  Different teams with different situations.

The Patriots were 8-8 when he took over with their last losing season in 1995.   Again, this is not relevant.  The Patriots were an 11 win team in 96.  Then a 10 win team.  Then a 9 win team.  Then 8 wins as you stated.  See the direction the team is headed?  He did take over an 8 win team with a lot of salary cap problems.    He purged and started a rebuild.

2020.  Again, I think this is one of his best jobs.  He lost the G.O.A.T.  He lost players to FA and COVID opt outs.  No one that saw that team would confuse it with a good team.  The offense was devoid of talent.  The defense could not stop the run, but it had the 7th rated D in points and won 7 games.  It could have been a .500 team, but is also could have been a 5 win team.

2021.  Worse?  No.  Good?  No.  As Par$ells stated many years ago, "you are what your record says you are".  They are 2-4.  The OL has been terrible.  The RBs have put the ball on the ground too much.  The team has gotten too many penalties.  (62 last year; 36 already this year).  There is hope though.  Mac has looked good.  He is not the second coming of Brady, but he looks like an actual NFL QB unlike Cam.  

Playoffs.  If you are going to cherry pick, how about this:  Brady's scoring drives in 2001 Superbowl.  After Rams' TO, scored TD on a 5 play 40 yard drive.  After a Rams' TO, scored a FG on a 5 play 14 yard drive.  The bottomline, the Rams' offense whioch averaged 31 points a game was held to 17 points.  More importantly it was held to three when Brady's drives consisted of punt, punt, punt, punt, TD punt, punt, FG and 4th quarter drives of three and out, three and out before a game ending FG.  I will not even get into the Giants' Superbowls.  

Again, they needed each other.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/19/2021 at 11:59 AM, PFSIKH said:

They were 3-13 but were a winning franchise that made 3 AFC Championship Games in the previous 5 seasons. - This is not relevant.  The 3-13 team that was outscored by over two TDs a game was not the one playing in any of those AFC Championship games.  Plus, Coslet made it to the playoffs as an 8-8 team.  It is not like the Jets were 12-4.  Again, that is not relevant, that is a totally different team.  In year two of his Patriots' tenure, Belichick won a ring.  Different teams with different situations.

The Patriots were 8-8 when he took over with their last losing season in 1995.   Again, this is not relevant.  The Patriots were an 11 win team in 96.  Then a 10 win team.  Then a 9 win team.  Then 8 wins as you stated.  See the direction the team is headed?  He did take over an 8 win team with a lot of salary cap problems.    He purged and started a rebuild.

2020.  Again, I think this is one of his best jobs.  He lost the G.O.A.T.  He lost players to FA and COVID opt outs.  No one that saw that team would confuse it with a good team.  The offense was devoid of talent.  The defense could not stop the run, but it had the 7th rated D in points and won 7 games.  It could have been a .500 team, but is also could have been a 5 win team.

2021.  Worse?  No.  Good?  No.  As Par$ells stated many years ago, "you are what your record says you are".  They are 2-4.  The OL has been terrible.  The RBs have put the ball on the ground too much.  The team has gotten too many penalties.  (62 last year; 36 already this year).  There is hope though.  Mac has looked good.  He is not the second coming of Brady, but he looks like an actual NFL QB unlike Cam.  

Playoffs.  If you are going to cherry pick, how about this:  Brady's scoring drives in 2001 Superbowl.  After Rams' TO, scored TD on a 5 play 40 yard drive.  After a Rams' TO, scored a FG on a 5 play 14 yard drive.  The bottomline, the Rams' offense whioch averaged 31 points a game was held to 17 points.  More importantly it was held to three when Brady's drives consisted of punt, punt, punt, punt, TD punt, punt, FG and 4th quarter drives of three and out, three and out before a game ending FG.  I will not even get into the Giants' Superbowls.  

Again, they needed each other.

Belichick didn't have a winning record(his only winning record) until year 4.  If he finished 8-8 and missed the playoffs I'd give you that point.

 

Yep, they were getting worse by 1 game each season until Belichick took over and they got worse by 3 games then started 0-2 before Brady stepped in and saved the franchise and the HCs career.

Don't forget that the core of that first championship team was inherited.

 

He won 5 games against teams other than the Jets, Adam Gase won 7 a year earlier.

They did a great job yesterday but their 3 wins are over the Jets and the Texans.

 

The Rams weren't scoring 31 a game in NFC championship games and SBs with that team.  They only scored 23 in the SB 2 years earlier in the the 99 & 01 NFC championships and the Titan SB they averaged 20 PPG, NE allowed 17.  They did a great job for 3 qtrs but had an historic 4th qtr collapse before Brady saved them.

 

You can say they needed each other but without Brady Belichick has 6 losing seasons in 8 years with just 1 wild card app, without Belichick in 1 season Brady won a Super Bowl.  Did they help each other? Sure but Belichick needed Brady more than Brady needed Belichick.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, nyjunc said:

Belichick didn't have a winning record(his only winning record) until year 4.  If he finished 8-8 and missed the playoffs I'd give you that point.

 

Yep, they were getting worse by 1 game each season until Belichick took over and they got worse by 3 games then started 0-2 before Brady stepped in and saved the franchise and the HCs career.

Don't forget that the core of that first championship team was inherited.

 

He won 5 games against teams other than the Jets, Adam Gase won 7 a year earlier.

They did a great job yesterday but their 3 wins are over the Jets and the Texans.

 

The Rams weren't scoring 31 a game in NFC championship games and SBs with that team.  They only scored 23 in the SB 2 years earlier in the the 99 & 01 NFC championships and the Titan SB they averaged 20 PPG, NE allowed 17.  They did a great job for 3 qtrs but had an historic 4th qtr collapse before Brady saved them.

 

You can say they needed each other but without Brady Belichick has 6 losing seasons in 8 years with just 1 wild card app, without Belichick in 1 season Brady won a Super Bowl.  Did they help each other? Sure but Belichick needed Brady more than Brady needed Belichick.

Again, cherry picking your points.

He took over a bad team.  A team whose point differential was historically bad.  He doubled their wins and got them to 6 wins.  All the while doing it in a system designed to suppress player movement.  

I can only spell it out so much.  The Pete Carroll Patriots had salary cap issues,  He had to gut the team to get the cap back to manageable.  You can ramble on about less wins, but the nuance is there whether you choose to recognize it.  You can not ring the bell that the team gave up all those 4th quarter points and also the core of the team he inherited.  He did inherit a lot of players, but 2/3 of the starters had turned over.  

What does the 1999 Superbowl have to do with anything?  In 2001, the Rams scored 45 against the 5th ranked defense.  Then the Rans scored and 29 getting against the 2nd ranked defense.  The Rams had 3 until scoring a TD with a minute left in the third. 

Brady vs. Belichick.  Does Brady have 7 Superbowl rings without Belichick?  No.  He has one.  If Belichick stayed with Drew does, he have 6?  No way.  The D was pretty good, he might have two.   The early Superbowl success was largely Belichick and the D.  Holding the Rams.  Holding the Colts to 17 points over two playoff games, but when needed Brady delivered.  The later Superbowl success I think Brady deserves more credit. Down 24-14 to the Seahawks.  He was perfect.  Down 28-3, he was perfect.  Both comebacks had defensive help, but Brady had zero room for error.

Again, they needed each other. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/25/2021 at 4:01 PM, PFSIKH said:

Again, cherry picking your points.

He took over a bad team.  A team whose point differential was historically bad.  He doubled their wins and got them to 6 wins.  All the while doing it in a system designed to suppress player movement.  

I can only spell it out so much.  The Pete Carroll Patriots had salary cap issues,  He had to gut the team to get the cap back to manageable.  You can ramble on about less wins, but the nuance is there whether you choose to recognize it.  You can not ring the bell that the team gave up all those 4th quarter points and also the core of the team he inherited.  He did inherit a lot of players, but 2/3 of the starters had turned over.  

What does the 1999 Superbowl have to do with anything?  In 2001, the Rams scored 45 against the 5th ranked defense.  Then the Rans scored and 29 getting against the 2nd ranked defense.  The Rams had 3 until scoring a TD with a minute left in the third. 

Brady vs. Belichick.  Does Brady have 7 Superbowl rings without Belichick?  No.  He has one.  If Belichick stayed with Drew does, he have 6?  No way.  The D was pretty good, he might have two.   The early Superbowl success was largely Belichick and the D.  Holding the Rams.  Holding the Colts to 17 points over two playoff games, but when needed Brady delivered.  The later Superbowl success I think Brady deserves more credit. Down 24-14 to the Seahawks.  He was perfect.  Down 28-3, he was perfect.  Both comebacks had defensive help, but Brady had zero room for error.

Again, they needed each other. 
 

Facts are not cherry picking, he has a very long history without Brady and the majority of it is not good(though they had a nice win yesterday).

Newsflash- the majority of coaches take over bad teams.  The successful ones turn them around within 2 years or so.  It's easy to go from 3 to 6, getting to the playoffs and beyond is the hard part.  It took an eternity to make 1 wild card playoff app then a year later they were back to losing.  

He inherited a team in NE that a good coach could compete with.  Year 2 started out 0-2 and he was bailed out by the future greatest QB of all time taking over and changing the franchise.

The NFC championship games and SB SL played in tell is a lot, they just didn't score as much in those games so while SB XXXVI the Pats D was great for 3 qtrs they blew an historic lead and overall SL scored a similar average to the other NFC championship games/SB.

Brady has played 1 season without Belichick and has 1 Super Bowl.  Belichick has coached 8 seasons without Brady and has 1 wild card playoff appearance and 1 wild card playoff win.

If Belichick stayed with Drew(or of drew didn't get hurt) then Belichick is a defensive coordinator by 2003.

The Jets under Herm & Ted Cottrell held Peyton and Indy to ZERO points in a playoff game.

 

I'm not here saying the dynasty was only Brady, he obviously had help including from Belichick but Brady was THE reason for the dynasty and without him they don't see a single Super Bowl.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying to think of a GOAT lvl coach that didn't also have a great Qb at some point in their career.   Joe Gibbs maybe?  (Rypien, Theisman were ok)

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Hael said:

I'm trying to think of a GOAT lvl coach that didn't also have a great Qb at some point in their career.   Joe Gibbs maybe?  (Rypien, Theisman were ok)

 

Gibbs is the prime example.

Cowher won a lot of games with mediocre QBs

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

In being realistic about this....

BB is a very good football coach, and as much I hate to admit it, about as good as this game has seen...

But, it's a QB league and a coach can only do so much without a good one.   When you have a good one with a good coach, that's how you win championships.

So yes, the reason they had a dynasty was far more because of Brady than BB - but BB accomplishments are still impressive.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/1/2021 at 6:27 AM, nyjunc said:

Facts are not cherry picking, he has a very long history without Brady and the majority of it is not good(though they had a nice win yesterday).

Newsflash- the majority of coaches take over bad teams.  The successful ones turn them around within 2 years or so.  It's easy to go from 3 to 6, getting to the playoffs and beyond is the hard part.  It took an eternity to make 1 wild card playoff app then a year later they were back to losing.  

He inherited a team in NE that a good coach could compete with.  Year 2 started out 0-2 and he was bailed out by the future greatest QB of all time taking over and changing the franchise.

The NFC championship games and SB SL played in tell is a lot, they just didn't score as much in those games so while SB XXXVI the Pats D was great for 3 qtrs they blew an historic lead and overall SL scored a similar average to the other NFC championship games/SB.

Brady has played 1 season without Belichick and has 1 Super Bowl.  Belichick has coached 8 seasons without Brady and has 1 wild card playoff appearance and 1 wild card playoff win.

If Belichick stayed with Drew(or of drew didn't get hurt) then Belichick is a defensive coordinator by 2003.

The Jets under Herm & Ted Cottrell held Peyton and Indy to ZERO points in a playoff game.

 

I'm not here saying the dynasty was only Brady, he obviously had help including from Belichick but Brady was THE reason for the dynasty and without him they don't see a single Super Bowl.

You are cherry picking.  

"Newsflash- the majority of coaches take over bad teams."  Well, he took over a 3-13 team.  "Well it took four years to win a playoff game in Cleveland.....He did not turn it around in 2 years". 

Why did it take so long to rebuild the Browns, ignoring he made the team a lot better instantly and doubled their wins in the first season?  He did not have the unfettered free agency to rebuild.  He had to build through the draft.  He had to deal with Plan B.  The system that allowed a team to protect their Top 37 players, forced the player to allow the losing team to match an offer or require draft compensation from the singing team.  That is why you still to this day hear on a TV broadcast that coaches no longer have 5 years to build a team like back in the....oh early 90s.  I am not disagreeing that today, coaches do have a very short time to rebuild. Belichick was not operating in today's environment.  His first two years he dealt with plan B.  Two years into a true free agency era, he had arguably the best Cleveland team of the past 60 years.  His final season is not his fault as Cleveland was nuked by Modell announcing the movement of the team in mid-season.

You can ignore the fact, but the 1999 team was a .500 team with salary cap issues.  The latter you willfully ignore.  Good?  Debatable.   Yes, Belichick probably could have willed the team to 8-10 wins, but why be in perpetual mediocracy?  He gutted the team to reset the salary cap and that is why it fell to 5-11.  Then using your standard, he rebuilt the team by the second year.  Not for nothing, his second year post Brady is looking okay so far.  

As far as Brady, it is not like he dragged the Jets to a title.  He selected the best possible situation.  I am not knocking him for it.  A stacked offense.  A pretty good D and a pretty good coach.  Brady's degree of difficulty to win a title was a hell of a lot easier than Belichick's.  Free agency losses.  COVID Opt outs.  A salary cap issue partially due to Brady.  Brady's path is akin to KD going to Golden state.  It was a ready made situation.

"blew an historic lead"  28-3 is historic.  2 TDs?  No.  You can say it is historic, but it is not.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/3/2021 at 4:56 PM, PFSIKH said:

You are cherry picking.  

"Newsflash- the majority of coaches take over bad teams."  Well, he took over a 3-13 team.  "Well it took four years to win a playoff game in Cleveland.....He did not turn it around in 2 years". 

Why did it take so long to rebuild the Browns, ignoring he made the team a lot better instantly and doubled their wins in the first season?  He did not have the unfettered free agency to rebuild.  He had to build through the draft.  He had to deal with Plan B.  The system that allowed a team to protect their Top 37 players, forced the player to allow the losing team to match an offer or require draft compensation from the singing team.  That is why you still to this day hear on a TV broadcast that coaches no longer have 5 years to build a team like back in the....oh early 90s.  I am not disagreeing that today, coaches do have a very short time to rebuild. Belichick was not operating in today's environment.  His first two years he dealt with plan B.  Two years into a true free agency era, he had arguably the best Cleveland team of the past 60 years.  His final season is not his fault as Cleveland was nuked by Modell announcing the movement of the team in mid-season.

You can ignore the fact, but the 1999 team was a .500 team with salary cap issues.  The latter you willfully ignore.  Good?  Debatable.   Yes, Belichick probably could have willed the team to 8-10 wins, but why be in perpetual mediocracy?  He gutted the team to reset the salary cap and that is why it fell to 5-11.  Then using your standard, he rebuilt the team by the second year.  Not for nothing, his second year post Brady is looking okay so far.  

As far as Brady, it is not like he dragged the Jets to a title.  He selected the best possible situation.  I am not knocking him for it.  A stacked offense.  A pretty good D and a pretty good coach.  Brady's degree of difficulty to win a title was a hell of a lot easier than Belichick's.  Free agency losses.  COVID Opt outs.  A salary cap issue partially due to Brady.  Brady's path is akin to KD going to Golden state.  It was a ready made situation.

"blew an historic lead"  28-3 is historic.  2 TDs?  No.  You can say it is historic, but it is not.  

It took  so long because he wasn't a good GM or HC.  It's pretty simple.

Bill Walsh before plan B or regular FA won a SB year 3

Bill Parcells was in playoffs year 2, won SB year 4

Joe Gibbs won SB year 2

I can give many more examples.

4 years in that era was a ridiculously long time and then yay 5 he went right back to losing which was why he got fired.

The 2000 Patriots were loaded with talent they would win the SB with the next year.  The biggest difference was they didn't have Brady yet.

Brady did choose a good situation buddyy like Peyton did(except Denver was a playoff team with Tebow while TB had not made playoffs since 2007) and Peyton took 4 years to win and only won because of his D.  Brady won year 1.

 

No team had ever blown a 10+ point 4tg qtr lead in a SB prior to the 2001 Patriots in SB XXXVI.  That makes it historic, 2 years later they were the 2nd to ever do it

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/6/2021 at 7:28 AM, nyjunc said:

It took  so long because he wasn't a good GM or HC.  It's pretty simple.

Bill Walsh before plan B or regular FA won a SB year 3

Bill Parcells was in playoffs year 2, won SB year 4

Joe Gibbs won SB year 2

I can give many more examples.

4 years in that era was a ridiculously long time and then yay 5 he went right back to losing which was why he got fired.

The 2000 Patriots were loaded with talent they would win the SB with the next year.  The biggest difference was they didn't have Brady yet.

Brady did choose a good situation buddyy like Peyton did(except Denver was a playoff team with Tebow while TB had not made playoffs since 2007) and Peyton took 4 years to win and only won because of his D.  Brady won year 1.

 

No team had ever blown a 10+ point 4tg qtr lead in a SB prior to the 2001 Patriots in SB XXXVI.  That makes it historic, 2 years later they were the 2nd to ever do it

The NFL is far from simple.

Chuck Knoll took four years to have a winning record, does he suck?  No.  His situation was different than Bill Walsh's whose situation was different from Bill Par$ells' whose situation was different from Gibbs' whose situation was different Belichick's.  Gibss inclusion in your random criteria is an apples to orange comparison as he won during a strike year.  Joe Montana and Bill Walsh were 3-6 that year.  The Patriots made the playoffs.  Credit to him for winning and winning with three diferent QBs, but I digress.  Bill won in his second year with the Patriots. He met your criteria.  

The 2000 Patriots were not loaded with talent.  I agree Brady did have an impact.  Antowain Smith also had an impact.  A rookie LT named Matt Light had an impact.  This little known free agent from Pittsburgh named Mike Vrabel had an impact.  Bill brought in three of his guys in Roman Phifer, Anthony Pleasant and Bryan Cox.  Plus, the Patriots drafted an eventual HofFer in Richard Seymour.  That is more than half of 12 new starters Bill had that year.  Again, this is not a means to conflate Bill or deflate Brady.  As I have said, their paths are intertwined.  Neither would have been as successful.

I am not trying to conflate Bill's Cleveland tenure as being a beacon of success.  It was not the abject failure it is made out to be.  He has said he made mistakes.  He took over a bad team. He coached it up.   

Peyton's example is why the game is not simple.  He lost to Flacco who had a historically great postseason run.  He lost to Russell Wilson who QB'd a team with a historically (in the discussion) great D.  Then an inecxplicable loss to the Colts.  Then when his powers were the least, he won a title.  

Brady made a wise decision, but lets look at with a little more context.  The Bucs missed the playoffs twice as a 9-7 team and once as a 10-6 team. Brady's Bucs only scored 34 more points.  It was not having to overcome TOs that changed the teams fortunes around.  With all due credit to Brady.  As many have joked, I would have been mor eimpressed if he was able to drag the Jets to the playoffs than a team with one flaw.

10 Point Lead.  You are hung up on this like it means something.  It would mean something if the Patriots lost the game.  Like when the Seahawks blew a 10 point lead and lost a Superbowl.  Or the previously mentioned Falcons who led by 19 with 10 minutes left, but I digress.  Sadly, it is not the first team to have a 10 point lead in the 4th quarter of a Superbowl.  That honor falls under the Rams..two years earlier.  Similar to the Patriots, it means nothing because the Rams won the Superbowl.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2021 at 2:03 PM, PFSIKH said:

The NFL is far from simple.

Chuck Knoll took four years to have a winning record, does he suck?  No.  His situation was different than Bill Walsh's whose situation was different from Bill Par$ells' whose situation was different from Gibbs' whose situation was different Belichick's.  Gibss inclusion in your random criteria is an apples to orange comparison as he won during a strike year.  Joe Montana and Bill Walsh were 3-6 that year.  The Patriots made the playoffs.  Credit to him for winning and winning with three diferent QBs, but I digress.  Bill won in his second year with the Patriots. He met your criteria.  

The 2000 Patriots were not loaded with talent.  I agree Brady did have an impact.  Antowain Smith also had an impact.  A rookie LT named Matt Light had an impact.  This little known free agent from Pittsburgh named Mike Vrabel had an impact.  Bill brought in three of his guys in Roman Phifer, Anthony Pleasant and Bryan Cox.  Plus, the Patriots drafted an eventual HofFer in Richard Seymour.  That is more than half of 12 new starters Bill had that year.  Again, this is not a means to conflate Bill or deflate Brady.  As I have said, their paths are intertwined.  Neither would have been as successful.

I am not trying to conflate Bill's Cleveland tenure as being a beacon of success.  It was not the abject failure it is made out to be.  He has said he made mistakes.  He took over a bad team. He coached it up.   

Peyton's example is why the game is not simple.  He lost to Flacco who had a historically great postseason run.  He lost to Russell Wilson who QB'd a team with a historically (in the discussion) great D.  Then an inecxplicable loss to the Colts.  Then when his powers were the least, he won a title.  

Brady made a wise decision, but lets look at with a little more context.  The Bucs missed the playoffs twice as a 9-7 team and once as a 10-6 team. Brady's Bucs only scored 34 more points.  It was not having to overcome TOs that changed the teams fortunes around.  With all due credit to Brady.  As many have joked, I would have been mor eimpressed if he was able to drag the Jets to the playoffs than a team with one flaw.

10 Point Lead.  You are hung up on this like it means something.  It would mean something if the Patriots lost the game.  Like when the Seahawks blew a 10 point lead and lost a Superbowl.  Or the previously mentioned Falcons who led by 19 with 10 minutes left, but I digress.  Sadly, it is not the first team to have a 10 point lead in the 4th quarter of a Superbowl.  That honor falls under the Rams..two years earlier.  Similar to the Patriots, it means nothing because the Rams won the Superbowl.  

Chuck Noll took over one of the worst franchises in the sport in an era where a 5 year plan was a thing.  By the time BB became a HC that was out the window.

Who cares if Gibbs won during a strike year?  He won year 2.  Montana and Walsh were on a SB hangover year after the first one.

Bill won year 2 with team 2, those others were their first team and bill was losing with team 2 until the the best QB of all time saved his career.

2000 Pats had Faulk, Brown, Glenn, Armstrong, Andruzzi, Woody, mcginest, Bruschi, Jones, milloy, Law, Vinatieri, Smith, Johnson, ...  That's a heck of a group to walk into .  Yes, he made some good low cost moves that offseason heading into great 2 but the core was there minus the best QB of all time.

Tampa's last winning season was 2016, last one before that was 2010, last playoff app 2007, last playoff win 2002. He went to a talented team but talent alone doesn't win as he never had the most talented team in NE.

 

I'm hung up on 10+ points because it was the first and second time it ever happened.  It never happened in the first 35 Super Bowls so, yeah, it was a big deal.  He and the offense saved the D from historic chokes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/11/2021 at 2:05 PM, nyjunc said:

Chuck Noll took over one of the worst franchises in the sport in an era where a 5 year plan was a thing.  By the time BB became a HC that was out the window.

Who cares if Gibbs won during a strike year?  He won year 2.  Montana and Walsh were on a SB hangover year after the first one.

Bill won year 2 with team 2, those others were their first team and bill was losing with team 2 until the the best QB of all time saved his career.

2000 Pats had Faulk, Brown, Glenn, Armstrong, Andruzzi, Woody, mcginest, Bruschi, Jones, milloy, Law, Vinatieri, Smith, Johnson, ...  That's a heck of a group to walk into .  Yes, he made some good low cost moves that offseason heading into great 2 but the core was there minus the best QB of all time.

Tampa's last winning season was 2016, last one before that was 2010, last playoff app 2007, last playoff win 2002. He went to a talented team but talent alone doesn't win as he never had the most talented team in NE.

 

I'm hung up on 10+ points because it was the first and second time it ever happened.  It never happened in the first 35 Super Bowls so, yeah, it was a big deal.  He and the offense saved the D from historic chokes.

Way to move the goalposts.  The 5 year plan was real well into the 90s.  Why?  Prior to the free agency and the salary cap era, Coaches and/or GMs had to be build through the....wait for it....draft.  This means you need more timne to build which is why 5 years was coined.  

Noll - He did take over a historically bad franchise.  The similarities between the Steelers, 49ers and Patriots are scary, but I digress.  In Noll's first year, the Steelers GM drafted one HofFer (Greene).  In year two, Noll was the beneficiary of two HofFers being drafted (Bradshaw and Blount).  His third year of being the HC, saw another HofFer drafted (Ham).    Year 4?  One HofFer drafted (Harris).  I guess he needed five HofFers to secure a winning record.   Year 5 was clearly a weak draft class.  Year 6, the Steelers drafted four HofFers (Swann, Lambert, Stallworth and Webster) and signed one as an undrafted free agent (Shell).  I see a pattern developing.

Walsh - He also took over a bad franchise.  His first year saw the drafting of a future HofF QB.  Walsh muddled his way through an 8-24 start before Joe Montana finally became Joe f'ing Montana.   Show me Belichick's Superbowl hangover were the team had a losing record?     

Gibbs - The impact of a strike does matter.  The 82 strike caused teams to not play for two months.  The 87 Strike had varying impact as some teams did not play for a month, others played with a combination of scabs/vets and some only had scabs play three games.  That has an impact on each team.  This is not a knock on him as he managed to keep his players pushing in the right direction and win two titles.

Par$ells - Even Par$ells inherited a HofFer (Taylor) in NY.  Probably the most integral part of the late 80s Giants.  Of course, he did not really take off until he hired someone as a DC.   

In Cleveland, Bill had one HofFer he inherited (Newsome).  Bill's first year was his last season.  To quote Rick Pitino, Jim Brown and Otto Graham are not coming through that door.    Again, I am not conflating Bill's Cleveland tenure as a beacon of success, but what he was not dealt a great situation nor did he see a HofF QB come through the door until 2000.  

2000 Patriots -  Troy Brown, Ty Law, Lawyer Milloy and Adam V were the only reliable players.  Bruce Armstrong was great, but retired after 2000.  Damien Woody was a rookie starting a very good career.  Kevin Faulk was a very good 3rd down back, but not a starting RB.  I emphasized the F for fumble.  Glenn and Tebucky were talented, but enigmas.  McGinest and Otis were good, but old.  Andruzzi and Johnson were also good players, but not great.  I would say Bruschi became a product of Bill's system.  Even with a B+ at QB, the team's offense was 25th in scoring, 22nd in total yards, 19th in passing and 26th in rushing. The defense was similarly bad, 17th in points, 20th in total yards, 21st in pass D and 21st in run D, but they are good right?  Their record said what they were. 5-11

10+ - Again, it means nothing.  Do you know why?  The 14 point favorite Rams, who had been averaging over 30 points a game were held to 3 points for three quarters.  Brady entered the 4th with 86 passing yards.  He preceded the last drive by going three and out twice.  The last scoring drive was the only scoring drive he led from Patriots' territory the entire game.  He finally went over a 100 yards passing on that last drive.

Tampa was not the Jets nor Browns or Bengals.  Tampa had a crap ton of talent on offense.  The D needed a QB that did not have nearly 40 TOs.  Tom provided that.  Tampa Bay had shown it was not toaly inept over the previous 15 years like the Browns, Bengals or Raiders.  

Again, they both needed each other.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/16/2021 at 4:52 PM, PFSIKH said:

Way to move the goalposts.  The 5 year plan was real well into the 90s.  Why?  Prior to the free agency and the salary cap era, Coaches and/or GMs had to be build through the....wait for it....draft.  This means you need more timne to build which is why 5 years was coined.  

Noll - He did take over a historically bad franchise.  The similarities between the Steelers, 49ers and Patriots are scary, but I digress.  In Noll's first year, the Steelers GM drafted one HofFer (Greene).  In year two, Noll was the beneficiary of two HofFers being drafted (Bradshaw and Blount).  His third year of being the HC, saw another HofFer drafted (Ham).    Year 4?  One HofFer drafted (Harris).  I guess he needed five HofFers to secure a winning record.   Year 5 was clearly a weak draft class.  Year 6, the Steelers drafted four HofFers (Swann, Lambert, Stallworth and Webster) and signed one as an undrafted free agent (Shell).  I see a pattern developing.

Walsh - He also took over a bad franchise.  His first year saw the drafting of a future HofF QB.  Walsh muddled his way through an 8-24 start before Joe Montana finally became Joe f'ing Montana.   Show me Belichick's Superbowl hangover were the team had a losing record?     

Gibbs - The impact of a strike does matter.  The 82 strike caused teams to not play for two months.  The 87 Strike had varying impact as some teams did not play for a month, others played with a combination of scabs/vets and some only had scabs play three games.  That has an impact on each team.  This is not a knock on him as he managed to keep his players pushing in the right direction and win two titles.

Par$ells - Even Par$ells inherited a HofFer (Taylor) in NY.  Probably the most integral part of the late 80s Giants.  Of course, he did not really take off until he hired someone as a DC.   

In Cleveland, Bill had one HofFer he inherited (Newsome).  Bill's first year was his last season.  To quote Rick Pitino, Jim Brown and Otto Graham are not coming through that door.    Again, I am not conflating Bill's Cleveland tenure as a beacon of success, but what he was not dealt a great situation nor did he see a HofF QB come through the door until 2000.  

2000 Patriots -  Troy Brown, Ty Law, Lawyer Milloy and Adam V were the only reliable players.  Bruce Armstrong was great, but retired after 2000.  Damien Woody was a rookie starting a very good career.  Kevin Faulk was a very good 3rd down back, but not a starting RB.  I emphasized the F for fumble.  Glenn and Tebucky were talented, but enigmas.  McGinest and Otis were good, but old.  Andruzzi and Johnson were also good players, but not great.  I would say Bruschi became a product of Bill's system.  Even with a B+ at QB, the team's offense was 25th in scoring, 22nd in total yards, 19th in passing and 26th in rushing. The defense was similarly bad, 17th in points, 20th in total yards, 21st in pass D and 21st in run D, but they are good right?  Their record said what they were. 5-11

10+ - Again, it means nothing.  Do you know why?  The 14 point favorite Rams, who had been averaging over 30 points a game were held to 3 points for three quarters.  Brady entered the 4th with 86 passing yards.  He preceded the last drive by going three and out twice.  The last scoring drive was the only scoring drive he led from Patriots' territory the entire game.  He finally went over a 100 yards passing on that last drive.

Tampa was not the Jets nor Browns or Bengals.  Tampa had a crap ton of talent on offense.  The D needed a QB that did not have nearly 40 TOs.  Tom provided that.  Tampa Bay had shown it was not toaly inept over the previous 15 years like the Browns, Bengals or Raiders.  

Again, they both needed each other.

BB took over a franchise used to winning, they needed to rebuild after a good run but there were not 5 year plans in that era.  Let's look at successful HCs that took over franchises from about 85-95.

 

Marc Levy: won division year 3, in SB year 5

Cowher: won division year 1, in SB year 4

Coughlin: AFC Championship Game year 2

Schottenheimer: playoffs year 2

Bobby Ross: playoffs year 1, in SB year 3

 

I can go on and on and on

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...