Tom Brady leaving New England

[Kevinicus]

The “mastermind” only became a mastermind HC once Brady took over at QB.

In 7 years of coaching without Brady, he is barely .500 with all of 1 playoff win.

It's important not to forget/ignore the situation in Cleveland and how that played out.

It's also important not to forget the 14-6 (I'm counting week 1 of 2008 since they were losing when he left the game) record in NE without Brady.

 

[Ghost12]

It's important not to forget/ignore the situation in Cleveland and how that played out.

It's also important not to forget the 14-6 (I'm counting week 1 of 2008 since they were losing when he left the game) record in NE without Brady.

I haven't forgotten anything, and my statement holds: In 7 years of coaching without Brady, Belichick is barely .500 with all of 1 playoff win. In his first two season in NE, he went from 5-13 with Bledsoe to 14-3 with Brady (3 of which were playoff/Super Bowl wins). It's amazing how brilliant Belichick became the day Mo Lewis knocked Bledsoe out of commission.

 

[Kevinicus]

I haven't forgotten anything, and my statement holds: In 7 years of coaching without Brady, Belichick is barely .500 with all of 1 playoff win. In his first two season in NE, he went from 5-13 with Bledsoe to 14-3 with Brady (3 of which were playoff/Super Bowl wins). It's amazing how brilliant Belichick became the day Mo Lewis knocked Bledsoe out of commission.

It holds if you want to be blind to context.

 

[Ghost12]

It holds if you want to be blind to context.

It is a statement of fact. It holds, period. Using the tired excuse that the Browns experienced upheaval in his final year there does nothing to change the facts but even if you take that away, it is still 6 years of coaching with all of 1 playoff victory.

Nobody called Bill Belichick a good HC - let alone a great one - prior to Tom Brady.

 

[Kevinicus]

It is a statement of fact. It holds, period. Using the tired excuse that the Browns experienced upheaval in his final year there does nothing to change the facts but even if you take that away, it is still 6 years of coaching with all of 1 playoff victory.

Nobody called Bill Belichick a good HC - let alone a great one - prior to Tom Brady.

Facts that ignore context hold no water in analysis.

 

[Ghost12]

Facts that ignore context hold no water in analysis.

If you have any context to add, feel free to add it. Otherwise you're just disagreeing without even remotely supporting your thesis.

In Belichick's first 2 years in NE, he was 5-13 under Bledsoe and 14-3 under Brady. It's amazing how much smarter Belichick got when Bledsoe was injured. That's a fact and there's no context which can change it.

 

[Kevinicus]

If you have any context to add, feel free to add it. Otherwise you're just disagreeing without even remotely supporting your thesis.

In Belichick's first 2 years in NE, he was 5-13 under Bledsoe and 14-3 under Brady. It's amazing how much smarter Belichick got when Bledsoe was injured. That's a fact and there's no context which can change it.

And Matt Cassell? Was he much better than Bledsoe too?

It's not lot Brady was just awesome those first few years. They were a defensive team.

You're also not accounting for time to mold/develop the teams. Cleveland was 3-13 when he took over, building them up to 11-5 before they bombed out the transition year.

 

[Ghost12]

And Matt Cassell? Was he much better than Bledsoe too?

Matt Cassell inherited a 16-0 team and went 11-5 and missed the playoffs.

It's not lot Brady was just awesome those first few years. They were a defensive team.

Nice try, but for someone lecturing me about context, you seem woefully unaware of the facts:

In 2001, the Patriots were #6 in the league in both points scored and points allowed in Brady's first year as a starter. They were exactly as good on offense as they were on defense.
In 2002, the Patriots were #10 in the league in offense and #17 in the league in defense, and Brady led the league in TD passes. Neither unit was all that impressive, but the offense was clearly better.
2003 is the season where the defense carried the team. They had the top defense in the league with an average offense.
In 2004, they had the #4 offense with the #2 defense so both units were extremely good.

Facts > made up "context"

You're also not accounting for time to mold/develop the teams. Cleveland was 3-13 when he took over, building them up to 11-5 before they bombed out the transition year.

The Patriots were 5-13 when Brady took over. It took him 4 months to win a Super Bowl, not 4 years to win a playoff game.

 

[Kevinicus]

Matt Cassell inherited a 16-0 team and went 11-5 and missed the playoffs.
Nice try, but for someone lecturing me about context, you seem woefully unaware of the facts:

In 2001, the Patriots were #6 in the league in both points scored and points allowed in Brady's first year as a starter. They were exactly as good on offense as they were on defense.
In 2002, the Patriots were #10 in the league in offense and #17 in the league in defense, and Brady led the league in TD passes. Neither unit was all that impressive, but the offense was clearly better.
2003 is the season where the defense carried the team. They had the top defense in the league with an average offense.
In 2004, they had the #4 offense with the #2 defense so both units were extremely good.

Facts > made up "context"

The Patriots were 5-13 when Brady took over. It took him 4 months to win a Super Bowl, not 4 years to win a playoff game.

Ugh, my phone died deletimg my response.

Youcre confusing team play for individual play. You're confusing qty for quality. You're ignoring the defenses role in the points scored (7 D & SP TDs in 2001). And so on and so forth. You're misrepresenting the context.

 

[Ghost12]

Ugh, my phone died deletimg my response.

Youcre confusing team play for individual play. You're confusing qty for quality. You're ignoring the defenses role in the points scored (7 D & SP TDs in 2001). And so on and so forth. You're misrepresenting the context.

And you’re giving absolutely nothing substantial to support your argument.

Facts are facts. Belichick has all of 1 playoff win in 7 years coaching without Brady. Care to wager on whether or not he gets a playoff win this coming season?

 

[Kevinicus]

And you’re giving absolutely nothing substantial to support your argument.

Facts are facts. Belichick has all of 1 playoff win in 7 years coaching without Brady. Care to wager on whether or not he gets a playoff win this coming season?

This is false. I have given info, and I had a lot more info in my original post that got deleted.

Facts are facts, and if you ignore context and additional facts in analysis, you make poor analysis, as you have done.

Belichick didn't get a playoff win last year, with Brady. So, if they don't this year without him, what will that prove? It's probably unlikely they will this year either, but I don't know what changes they'll make before then. No idea who their QB will be at this point, who the WRs will be, etc. It's definitely possible.

6 years without a playoff win, 1 year with an 11-5 team that didn't make the playoffs, and a few other years building up teams, one that was in decline before he took over, and another that was bottom of the barrel. It's not a compelling case that you have.

 

[Ghost12]

This is false. I have given info, and I had a lot more info in my original post that got deleted.

Facts are facts, and if you ignore context and additional facts in analysis, you make poor analysis, as you have done.

I have brought facts and stats. All you've brought is excuses and more excuses under the guise of "context".

Your "context" might work if it was a shorter timespan. If he had, say, 1 or 2 years without Brady then we should look at some context. Unfortunately, he has had 7 full years without Brady.

Belichick didn't get a playoff win last year, with Brady. So, if they don't this year without him, what will that prove? It's probably unlikely they will this year either, but I don't know what changes they'll make before then. No idea who their QB will be at this point, who the WRs will be, etc. It's definitely possible.

The undeniable facts of the situation are these:

7 years without Brady: 1 playoff win
18 years with Brady: 30 playoff wins

That's what we call a statistically significant difference. All your excuse making does nothing to change the facts, and facts trump excuses every day of the week.

 

[Kevinicus]

I have brought facts and stats. All you've brought is excuses and more excuses under the guise of "context".

Your "context" might work if it was a shorter timespan. If he had, say, 1 or 2 years without Brady then we should look at some context. Unfortunately, he has had 7 full years without Brady.
The undeniable facts of the situation are these:

7 years without Brady: 1 playoff win
18 years with Brady: 30 playoff wins

That's what we call a statistically significant difference. All your excuse making does nothing to change the facts, and facts trump excuses every day of the week.

This is again false. I gave some stats that kind of poke holes in your 2001 analysis. There are lots of others to blow holes in the other years. Excuse me for that post getting deleted before I hit send.

This is what we call you not understanding logic, statistical analysis, facts beyond the ones you like, and more. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Pape]

jeeze .... Belichick or Brady? Really?

It was BOTH of them together ... Belichick found in Brady a QB who would do what he wanted/needed ... Brady found a coach who would put a game plan that worked to his strengths as a growing player... It was the perfect storm so to speak, that peaked in 2007, but overall lasting 20 years...

Both are great - but at the end of the day Brady is a 43 year old QB who is nearing the end of his career... Belichick? who knows how long he has left... there is no way you can separate out the successes of the Patriots organization and lay it at the feet of one or another... Both are to be lauded... what happens from here on out? who knows ... but both are diminished because they no longer work together

 

[sean10mm]

As great as Belichick is, at some point you need players who can execute your ideas, otherwise you're just making a list of things that don't happen. Belichick himself always makes a point to say that it's ultimately about the players.

It's funny how people who keep calling Brady a "system player" somehow don't notice that every attempt to apply that system to somebody else hasn't produced Tom Brady results. Or that nobody cared about the offensive system Brady runs (which dates back to the 1970s Patriots nobody cared about) until he was the one using it. The people who make the "system" argument are invariably the kind of football fan who doesn't know Erhardt-Perkins from Mutual of Omaha.

You can't overstate the value of having the most important position in the sport absolutely locked down for 18 out of 20 seasons (minus his rookie year and the season lost to the ACL tear.) That's what Tom Brady gave them, and it's basically unprecedented.