Brady is washed up

[Ghost12]

It's The. most. Recent. Thus, the most apt comparison. It's 6 games because that is how many the Pats had played this year. It is the epitome of NOT cherry picking. It is the closest to apples to apples you're going to get.

OK you obviously skipped school the day they taught logic. You have nothing but cherry picking and excuses, excuses, excuses. The simple fact of the matter is that without Tom Brady starting, Belichick is career 12 games below .500 as an HC with all of 1 playoff win.

12-4 last year.
2-5 this year.

No seriously... please explain to us all again how that's pretty much the same record and no dropoff.

BTW, Tom Brady inherited a team that was 5-13 in their previous 18 games. Very Cleveland-like. But you won't hear me making excuses about it because he took that 5-13 team and won a Super Bowl.

And it was the 90's. Teams didn't make huge dramatic shifts from 3-13 to 12-4 back then. Things took time.

The Rams went from 4-12 one year to Super Bowl champs the next in the 90's.

 

[Ranched]

 

[Kevinicus]

OK you obviously skipped school the day they taught logic. You have nothing but cherry picking and excuses, excuses, excuses. The simple fact of the matter is that without Tom Brady starting, Belichick is career 12 games below .500 as an HC with all of 1 playoff win.

12-4 last year.
2-5 this year.

No seriously... please explain to us all again how that's pretty much the same record and no dropoff.

BTW, Tom Brady inherited a team that was 5-13 in their previous 18 games. Very Cleveland-like. But you won't hear me making excuses about it because he took that 5-13 team and won a Super Bowl.
The Rams went from 4-12 one year to Super Bowl champs the next in the 90's.

Comparing the most recent data is not cherry picking. It's the opposite. Those are the two most relevant data sets. The 6 games that had been played since Brady left to the last 6 games before he left. Those are the two most analogous sets (and even then there are still stark advantages to the Brady set).

So, how did that team that was 10-1 last year "drop off" to 2-4 the last 6 games they played? 10-1 to 2-4. What happened?

There is cognitive dissonance in your reasoning. On one hand, you're arguing players don't matter and it's just excuses when they're not there, but on the other hand you're saying Brady, a player, is all the difference.

I have not claimed that Brady is not a better QB than Newton or Hoyer (or Bledsoe or whoever was in Cleveland). I've also not argued that Brady didn't help Belichick. They both helped each other.

 

[atlantacowboy]

That is primarily b/c Brady has played in what is consistently the worst division in football his entire career. The NFC South is not the AFC EAST. Much more competition.

The game that matters will be in January. You taking Brees over Brady in January?

 

[Ghost12]

Comparing the most recent data is not cherry picking.

Except that's not what you are doing. You are setting an arbitrary line. There is no reason to look only at the last 6/7/8 games of the 2019 season, other than your attempt to deliberately mislead. It would be moch more intellectually honest to look at the full 2019 season, not just arbitrarily pick a certain portion of it.

FACT: Bill Belichick is 11 games below .500 in his career without Tom Brady starting. He was 12-4 in 2019 (with Brady) and is 3-5 in 2020 (without Brady).

 

[Kevinicus]

Except that's not what you are doing. You are setting an arbitrary line. There is no reason to look only at the last 6/7/8 games of the 2019 season, other than your attempt to deliberately mislead. It would be moch more intellectually honest to look at the full 2019 season, not just arbitrarily pick a certain portion of it.

FACT: Bill Belichick is 11 games below .500 in his career without Tom Brady starting. He was 12-4 in 2019 (with Brady) and is 3-5 in 2020 (without Brady).

It wasn't arbitrary. At the time, there were 6 games played in 2020 since Brady left. I used the exact same number prior to when Brady left.

I'm not sure you know what arbitrary or cherry-picking mean.

 

[Ghost12]

It wasn't arbitrary. At the time, there were 6 games played in 2020 since Brady left. I used the exact same number prior to when Brady left.

I'm not sure you know what arbitrary or cherry-picking mean.

It is arbitrary. The sample set we are comparing this season to is the 2019 season. You arbitrarily took the final 6 games because you need to intentionally mislead in order to strengthen an obscenely weak point you are desperately trying to make. With that logic, why not just take the final game of the season and say they went 0-1?

So now, even though the 2019 season is long finished, you have to expand your 2019 sample to be consistent, which makes zero sense at all (to those who understand logic and reasoning).

 

[joseephuss]

Had Brady stayed in New England and Belichick went over to coach Tampa Bay this season, both teams would have different results.

 

[Kevinicus]

It is arbitrary. The sample set we are comparing this season to is the 2019 season. You arbitrarily took the final 6 games because you need to intentionally mislead in order to strengthen an obscenely weak point you are desperately trying to make. With that logic, why not just take the final game of the season and say they went 0-1?

So now, even though the 2019 season is long finished, you have to expand your 2019 sample to be consistent, which makes zero sense at all (to those who understand logic and reasoning).

No. We aren't comparing "Seasons." We were comparing 6 games. BECAUSE. THAT. IS. ALL. THAT. HAD. BEEN. PLAYED.

The final 6 games of last year, are the CLOSEST to the 6 games that had been played. These are the two data sets with the greatest relation to each other. It is the very epitome of NOT being arbitrary.

 

[Ghost12]

No. We aren't comparing "Seasons." We were comparing 6 games. BECAUSE. THAT. IS. ALL. THAT. HAD. BEEN. PLAYED.

The final 6 games of last year, are the CLOSEST to the 6 games that had been played. These are the two data sets with the greatest relation to each other. It is the very epitome of NOT being arbitrary.

You can keep saying it, but it won't make you right. According to your logic, now that 8 games have been played, you have to expand you 2019 data set. But that makes no sense since 2019's data hasn't changed. And we each know how 2019 ended up. So we each know what you will have 8 weeks from now, when (according to your logic) you will have to include all of 2019.

An intelligent person gives as much data as possible. We are comparing 2019 to 2020. As such, an intelligent person gives the whole picture for 2019 (since that is known) and as much 2020 info as is available at the time (keeping in mind that, as the weeks go by, our 2020 data set gets larger).

2019: 12-4 (0-1 in the playoffs)
2020: 3-5

Learn to deal with FACTS.

 

[Kevinicus]

You can keep saying it, but it won't make you right. According to your logic, now that 8 games have been played, you have to expand you 2019 data set. But that makes no sense since 2019's data hasn't changed. And we each know how 2019 ended up. So we each know what you will have 8 weeks from now, when (according to your logic) you will have to include all of 2019.

An intelligent person gives as much data as possible. We are comparing 2019 to 2020. As such, an intelligent person gives the whole picture for 2019 (since that is known) and as much 2020 info as is available at the time (keeping in mind that, as the weeks go by, our 2020 data set gets larger).

2019: 12-4 (0-1 in the playoffs)
2020: 3-5

Learn to deal with FACTS.

You are trying to compare unequal data sets. Two extremely different sample sizes. That is just absurd.

If you want to compare seasons, you need to actually let 2020 play out.

But, let's go back to how players don't matter, but Brady, the player, does.

 

[kskboys]

Someone is jumping the gun. There will have to be a ton more data to conclude anything in this debate.

Looks to me as if Brady/Arians were exposed a bit during the Saints. Honestly, DC's around the league must be just really stupid. The ONLY way to beat Brady is to get in his face and hit him. He's too smart, way too wily, way too quick in getting rid of the ball.

So, how do you beat a guy like that? Jam the WR's and get in his face. Ironic thing is, that's exactly how Brady won his first 3 super bowls, w/ a D that jammed the WR's and got to the Qb. Because that's the only way to beat good QB's.

 

[khiladi]

Brady had the most consistent OL play in his 20 year career in NE. Scarnecchia retired this off-season and he's not coming out of retirement a second time.

Defensively, which is Bellichek's bread and butter statistically is just fine right now.

 

[Ghost12]

You are trying to compare unequal data sets. Two extremely different sample sizes. That is just absurd.

Are you being serious here? You have got to be kidding. You can't possibly be that clueless. There is absolutely nothing "absurd" about comparing 2 different sample sizes. It happens all the time. A wide variety of statistical methodology is available for precisely those situations. You've obviously never worked with data if you think sample sizes are always nice and tidy and equal to each other.

And here's another thing you don't realize: IF someone wanted to chop the first data set proportionally to the 2nd data set, you would take the first figures, not that last. For example (and I am trying to dumb it down as much as possible here for you), suppose I wanted to compare deaths from January 1 to September 30 of 2020 to the number of deaths from last year. I would take the first 9 months of last year, not the last 9 months.

In other words, the Patriots are 3-5 in the first 8 games of 2020 compared to 8-0 in the first 8 games of 2019.

 

[Ghost12]

Are you being serious here? You have got to be kidding. You can't possibly be that clueless. There is absolutely nothing "absurd" about comparing 2 different sample sizes. It happens all the time. A wide variety of statistical methodology is available for precisely those situations. You've obviously never worked with data if you think sample sizes are always nice and tidy and equal to each other.

And here's another thing you don't realize: IF someone wanted to chop the first data set proportionally to the 2nd data set, you would take the first figures, not that last. For example (and I am trying to dumb it down as much as possible here for you), suppose I wanted to compare deaths from January 1 to September 30 of 2020 to the number of deaths from last year. I would take the first 9 months of last year, not the last 9 months.

In other words, the Patriots are 3-5 in the first 8 games of 2020 compared to 8-0 in the first 8 games of 2019.

They just did it on the Indy-TN game! They compared the first 9 weeks of this year to the first 9 weeks of last year (with a stat involving penalties and points). So like I said... the Patriots are 3-5 in the first 8 games of 2020 compared to 8-0 in the first 8 games of 2019.

 

[Kevinicus]

They just did it on the Indy-TN game! They compared the first 9 weeks of this year to the first 9 weeks of last year (with a stat involving penalties and points). So like I said... the Patriots are 3-5 in the first 8 games of 2020 compared to 8-0 in the first 8 games of 2019.

LOL, Now using the start of the year is arbitrary. There is no reason to using the first 8 games of last year. There is a greater separation using those games. Comparing current to what most recently came before it is the only logical way to do it. Their is no intrinsic similarity to the start of the years. That's just dumb.

Maybe this is why you have such trouble with Bill's time in Cleveland. You want to compare to the teams they had a few years before he got there, and not look at the team he actually inherited.

Using the 2 closest data sets is the logical and non-arbitrary way to do it.

But of course, you keep deflecting for your flawed argument about players. The strength of the 2019 Patriots was their defense, and they had significant contributors on that defense opt out this year. But that's just an "excuse" because players don't matter...except Brady, and only Brady, apparently.

And you still seem to be missing the fact that nobody is suggesting that Brady didn't matter, and wouldn't make the Patriots better.

 

[jnday]

You think Belichick wants to have a do over in kicking Brady out of NE?

I doubt it. He has been wanting Brady to leave since Jimmy G was still with the Pats. BB wanted to move on from Brady and turn the team over to Jimmy G, but Kraft overruled the move.

 

[Ghost12]

LOL, Now using the start of the year is arbitrary. There is no reason to using the first 8 games of last year. There is a greater separation using those games. Comparing current to what most recently came before it is the only logical way to do it. Their is no intrinsic similarity to the start of the years. That's just dumb.

Not true. And as I pointed out, the NFLN broadcast of Titans-Colts last night did that exact thing: They compared the first 9 weeks of this year to the first 9 weeks of last year.

Maybe this is why you have such trouble with Bill's time in Cleveland. You want to compare to the teams they had a few years before he got there, and not look at the team he actually inherited.

Well gee, let's see... Belichick was in Cleveland 5 years. According to you, we should take the 5 year period before he arrived as the comparison set? After all, using data sets of different sizes is "absurd", right?

Cleveland in the 5 years before Belichick arrived: 44-34-1, 3 CCG appearances
Cleveland in the 5 years Belichick was there: 36-44, 1 playoff victory

Looks like the team Belichick inherited wasn't all that bad, were they? BTW, the Patriots are 3-5 in the first 8 games of 2020 compared to 8-0 in the first 8 games of 2019.

 

[Pape]

Not true. And as I pointed out, the NFLN broadcast of Titans-Colts last night did that exact thing: They compared the first 9 weeks of this year to the first 9 weeks of last year.
Well gee, let's see... Belichick was in Cleveland 5 years. According to you, we should take the 5 year period before he arrived as the comparison set? After all, using data sets of different sizes is "absurd", right?

Cleveland in the 5 years before Belichick arrived: 44-34-1, 3 CCG appearances
Cleveland in the 5 years Belichick was there: 36-44, 1 playoff victory

Looks like the team Belichick inherited wasn't all that bad, were they? BTW, the Patriots are 3-5 in the first 8 games of 2020 compared to 8-0 in the first 8 games of 2019.

You really need to add the context of what happened in cleveland to your "analysis", if just looking at records can be considered an analysis... Shottenheimer put together the winning teams in cleveland... when he couldnt get over the hump, Modell fired him, replacing him with Bud Carson, who did well with Schottemheimers team for a season, and then ran them into the ground, going 3-13 before getting fired half way thru the season...

When Belichick came into Celveland, he reworked the roster to his liking... granted the turn around was not as great/dramatic as what he did in New England, but he didnt have Brady... Then the world caved in when Modell announced the move to Baltimore in 1995... A Football Life had a great episode about it...

What your point in this whole argument? That it was all Brady? Ok, maybe it was... but that also negates the great defensive efforts made by the first three super bowl championship teams... But regardless, you need a greater sample size of Post-Brady Belichick to see how the whole story will turn out...

The two, Brady and Belichick, are in two completely different situations... Obviously Brady was a significant reason for the success in New England... It cannot be denied... 2008 is the perfect illustration of that... and no i dont mean the record... But the overall offensive production of the team dropped significantly, dropping from a 315 point differential to a 101 point differential...

Been saying this for a while... This argument isn't going to be answered in the first half of the season, or even this year...

and for me, the successes in New England are the direst result of both of them

 

[Ghost12]

You really need to add the context of what happened in cleveland to your "analysis", if just looking at records can be considered an analysis...

What other metric would you suggest using when evaluating a head coach? Net passing yards per attempt?