AGAIN, Where is all the success or BB as a HC without Brady? He had 5 years in Cleveland, he's had 2+ years in NE and in all those years he made the postseason ONCE.
It takes a team effort to win a Super Bowl. That's my point. Using SB victories to determine who's a better QB does not work IMO. Take their two best seasons. 2008 Brady threw for 4806 yards and 50 TDs and a 117.2 rating 2004 Manning threw for 4557 yards and 49 TDs and a 121.1 rating Brady threw 83 MORE passes than Manning did in the comparison. If you prorate Mannings pass attempts to equal the number Brady threw Manning would have thrown for 57 TDs and 5300 yards. Also, considering Manning is a downfield passer and Brady is a shot quick passing QB it's VERY impressive to note that Manning has consistently completed 66% - 67% of his passes while Brady completed 60% - 63%. While Brady's completion percentage is impressive, Manning being 66-67 % while throwing downfield at a much higher rate is much more impressive. Both have an impressive 2 to 1 TD : INT ratio.
How many SB has Brady won since Weiss left NE? What is his INT ratio in the playoffs since Weiss left? Since NE went from a dominate Defensive team that ran the ball and asked the QB to make a few plays to one that is primarily a dominating passing O asking Brady to win how many SB victories does NE have?
You're cherry picking here. Give Belichick a slightly above average quaterback from 2001-present but keep the rest of the roster identical and he probably has 1 or 2 rings instead of 3. Brady is the extra edge that made the Pats a dynasty and offensive juggernaut in '07, but either way they have a solid roster all of those years and probably make deep playoff runs with a run of the mill "decent" quarterback.
He has been to one and led a potential GW drive in that SB. Hw many SBs did Weiss make as an OC before he had Brady? How is he doing at ND? I'm cherry picking? I am showing every season he had as a HC w/o Brady. That's not cherry picking. Bledsoe could be considered slightly above averag and he was 5-13 w/ him in '00 and '01. Brady won multiple SBs w/ Antowain Smith as his running threat and Troy Brown as his top WR.
He was awful in that SB outright sucked under pressure. I'm not a huge Weiss fan just pointing out that the more NE has thrown on Brady's shoulders the less well he has performed in the big spot. He lead a much better team into Denver and sucked, he was awful in the last SB and he has been much more of a turnover machine in the playoffs than he was when the NE team wasn't as dependent on winning at the QB position alone like Indianapolis is. He was spectacular at not making mistakes in a lower risk O when they were a more balanced team.
Let me give you a hint..... Tedy Bruschi Richard Seymour Rodney Harrison Troy Brown Ty Law Willie McGinest Dan Koppen Asante Samuel Adam Viniatieri (sp?) Kevin Faulk Corey Dillon Randy Moss Wes Welker Matt Light etc....etc....etc... There was more to this team than just Tom Brady. BB has always been great at finding players to fit roles and they just fit perfect into the system. To make a good team great, you need a Tom Brady. You need a David Patten, you need to think outside the box when your secondary is hurting to put Troy Brown back there. Brady is a big part of what they do, and it showed last year when he was out. But they still went 11-5. And don't throw the Browns numbers in the mix, BB had a totally different team there.
You're cherry picking because you're saying that Belichick has spent a good deal of his career being a mediocre coach and implying ( I think) that his mediocre record would have continued this decade were it not for Brady. Brady won multiple super bowls with very good defenses. On the other side of the ball he had Ty Law, Richard Seymour, Mike Vrabel, etc. helping him out. He only appeared in his first super bowl because Vinatieri made the craziest kick of all time, and only won it when he hit one of the most clutch kicks in super bowl history.... Not that I think that should really count against him because he at the end of the day he was the one leading those teams. The point is Brady was only part of some very deep and talented rosters and without him they probably would have had some success, even if not to the same degree. If Brady were playing with an awful defense for all those years, those splits would not look nearly as neat and pretty for you.
He didn't have his best game but he wasn't awful and again he led his team on a 80 yard TD drive in the final minutes to give his team the lead but their D couldn't hold it. The '05 pats would not have been close to a playoff team w/o Brady. '05 and '06 NE didn't have alot around him yet he still led NE to the div rd in '05 and the AFC Title Game in '06. His WRs in '06 were Reche Caldwell and Jabar Gaffney and he led his team to an AFC Title Game. Brady in '03 and '04 threw alot. In '01 he was more game manager but in '03 he threw it 527 times. he threw an average of 42 times a game in the '03 postseason. he threw 52 times against Oak in the snow in 2001. When the games were close he passed more and NE won.
How many SBs were those guys winning before Brady became the QB? Remove Moss and welker who haven't even won with Brady. The facts show us w/o Brady BB is not even mediocre. Bill Belichick W/o Brady(7+ seasons, 113 games): 51-62 ONE postseason app ONE postseason win ZERO div titles 5 losing seasons, 2 winning seasons WITH Brady(7+ seasons, 111 games): 87-24 SIX postseason apps 14 postseason wins SIX div titles 4 AFC Titles 3 SB titles 7 winning seasons please read the article at this link on the "great" Pats Ds: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/football/nfl/07/25/chff.belichick/index.html
This is what Junc does not get, it was not all Brady, a big part sure, but not all him. It was really the Pats defense holding a very powerful offense with Bruce, Warner, Hakim, Holt, Faulk etc...to so few scores. Same goes for Manning, as the team goes, so does he. The run D of the Colts was horrid most of the season they won the title with Manning and the O carrying the team much of the year. Come playoff time they knew the D had to step up and it did. You play the run like they did earlier in the year and they would be one and done. It takes a team.
You got me. You're right. If the Bills had drafted Brady in 2000 their coach would have put up identical numbers. I stopped reading that when it listed the Pats giving up 17 points to the greatest show on turf as a big game defensive implosion.
The 05 team was loaded they had a number of injuries to the D but they were healthy in the Denver game and were the far superior team. Brady outright blew chunks against a very mediorcre Denver team with a Pats team that was easily the equal to any of the SB teams that year when the playoffs came around. Brady carried an injured team to the playoffs and took a healthy team out of the playoffs.
Exactly, you need the D to win. Thanks for proving my point. When the D failed, Brady alone could not get it done.
The Pats D also folded in the 4th qtr of that SB w/ the Rams and who rescued them? Why werre the Pats 5-11 in '00 and 0-2 in '01 before Brady? Buf may not have won 3 SBs but I guarantee they'd be alot better and wouldn't be o for the decade in playoff apps. They gave up 2 quick scores in the 4th qtr when the pats had the game in hand, they made it a close game late. Before you pat the Pats D on the back remember the '99 SB Champ Rams scored 11 pts in the NFC Title Game at home and just 23 in the SB and in the '01 title game they only scored 29 so they weren't scoring 40 points a game. 29 is a nice # but 11 sure isn't and 23 is ok for that O. Loaded? Dillon averaged 3.5 YPC that year, David Givens was a starting WR, Kaczur started only 11 games, koppen only 9, only their G's played all 16 games. This was the year Bruschi came back from his heart problem and only played 9 games and wasn't himself, Artrelle Hawkins and Eugene Wilson were the starting Safeties, please stop. I guess this is just like the '07 Giants were better than the '86 Giants? In 17 playoff games w/ Brady the Pats D has allowed 18.2 PPG In 15 playoff games w/ Manning the Colts D has allowed 20.4
I picked Brady, but to be honest, I think anyone picking Manning has a fair argument as well. Despite Brady's many accomplishments, I don't see very much distancing these two guys very much. A lot of folks made some good points about each, like Manning not having the Pats defense, or Brady not having the offensive talent. Brady certainly benefits from having a coach who is very good at putting players in position to win and succeed. Last season watching Cassell light up the scoreboards gives me a moments pause about Brady's success being largely due to a system, but the guy has almost always been clutch when it has counted and while he's one lucky bastard, it takes more than luck to win 3 SBs.
Last season NE lost 5 more games than the year before despite an easier schedule. Tony Dungy made an NFC Title game w/o Peyton Manning, Peyton Manning never made one w/ Dungy. BB never made one w/o Brady.
So what you are saying is Manning played with a D that allowed more points per game, making it harder for the offense while Brady's teams held them consistently under 20 pts. per game, making it easy to win most games. Thanks again for reaffirming that you need the entire team to win.
They set a fucking NFL record for wins in 2007. No comparison and just plain silly. 2007 was a record year. They went 11-5, pretty damn good with a first time starter who hadn't played a down in years.
