NFL 2021

Status
Not open for further replies.
Brady walked into a massively stacked team and played decently. Relax.

The Patriots lost way more than Brady last year, and had the rotting corpse of Cam Newton at QB, and still went 7-9.

All facts, not sure how anyone can argue otherwise.
 
The Bucs had a losing record the year prior to Brady's arrival. They won the Super Bowl the year he arrived. Maybe Belichick can match that this season.

Because Winston threw 30 picks. Anyone who examined the team knew that they were stacked. Including Brady, that’s why he chose them.
 
As someone who thinking Brady is the GOAT, and who thinks Bill is the GOAT, and being a Patriots fan, for once I feel I can be actually objective :lol:

I just think this debate is pointless. They both contributed. We can bicker who did more all day but we would never know. And it’s one of those debates where there really is no tangible evidence of what would have happened. Brady winning at Tampa is very impressive but doesn’t really say that much. Likewise if Bill wins this year, it also doesn’t say that much. People who like or don’t like Brady (@altodevil I’m looking at you) will always show confirmation bias in finding information that supports their view. It’s just a discussion which cannot ever be answered with any kind of evidence. So to me it’s pointless. In my mind neither wins 6 SBs without the other. I don’t even think they win 3 without the other.

I agree. Brady’s not winning six Super Bowls without Belichick’s consistently good defenses (worth noting that Tampa Bay had a top ten defense last year) and Belichick is not winning 6 Super Bowls without a great QB. It’s as simple as that. Saying Brady is more responsible is just wrong.
 
As someone who thinking Brady is the GOAT, and who thinks Bill is the GOAT, and being a Patriots fan, for once I feel I can be actually objective :lol:

I just think this debate is pointless. They both contributed. We can bicker who did more all day but we would never know. And it’s one of those debates where there really is no tangible evidence of what would have happened. Brady winning at Tampa is very impressive but doesn’t really say that much. Likewise if Bill wins this year, it also doesn’t say that much. People who like or don’t like Brady (@altodevil I’m looking at you) will always show confirmation bias in finding information that supports their view. It’s just a discussion which cannot ever be answered with any kind of evidence. So to me it’s pointless. In my mind neither wins 6 SBs without the other. I don’t even think they win 3 without the other.
Brady may win 2 in 2 without him :wenger:
 
I agree. Brady’s not winning six Super Bowls without Belichick’s consistently good defenses (worth noting that Tampa Bay had a top ten defense last year) and Belichick is not winning 6 Super Bowls without a great QB. It’s as simple as that. Saying Brady is more responsible is just wrong.
No, that’s 100% accurate. Brady is more responsible, he just wouldn’t win as many as he did without Bill.

But saying he carried BB is laughable.
 


200.gif
 
I think in that case I might actually not watch it.

It may be a good chance to see how Brady performs against Belichick on a neutral field. The Pats are much better now than when Brady came here and beat them earlier in the year.
 
No, that’s 100% accurate. Brady is more responsible, he just wouldn’t win as many as he did without Bill.

But saying he carried BB is laughable.

Not in my opinion. Seeing as one guy just has to play (a very difficult position no doubt) and the other was the coach and freaking general manager at the same time. There’s 53 guys on a team and people are saying that one of those guys is more responsible than the guy who picks and oversees the 52 other players every year. The mind boggles……
 
Not in my opinion. Seeing as one guy just has to play (a very difficult position no doubt) and the other was the coach and freaking general manager at the same time. There’s 53 guys on a team and people are saying that one of those guys is more responsible than the guy who picks and oversees the 52 other players every year. The mind boggles……
You got that one right at least

‘One guy out of 53’ as if it isn’t the most important position in sport. Literally took a 7-9 train wreck and won the super bowl too.

Just one guy of 53 :lol:
 
You got that one right at least

‘One guy out of 53’ as if it isn’t the most important position in sport. Literally took a 7-9 train wreck and won the super bowl too.

Just one guy of 53 :lol:

The Buccs were hardly a train wreck, they just had a fecking garbage QB who kept throwing the ball to the opposition.
 
I thought San Francisco was Brady’s other preferred destination.

He rated both NO and SF as destinations, believe the latter as he grew up supporting the 49ers and Cali was his youth home. Saints were probably more loaded for a SB run and a better head coach. SF would have been a solid choice in the West but injuries ruined 2020 season for them if memory serves.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/...-had-drew-brees-decided-to-retire-per-report/
https://bleacherreport.com/articles...serious-mutual-interest-if-drew-brees-retired
https://boston.cbslocal.com/2021/10...y-wanted-to-join-49ers-patriots-book-excerpt/
https://bucswire.usatoday.com/2021/10/18/tom-brady-49ers-free-agency-nfl-bucs-seth-wickersham-book/
 
The Buccs were hardly a train wreck, they just had a fecking garbage QB who kept throwing the ball to the opposition.
But in some ways, doesn’t this actually therefore support the argument of demonstrating how important that QB is? If people are saying Brady only wins at Tampa because he had a good team, but then saying that good team only were crap before because they had a bad QB, then aren’t these two completely contradictory statements/arguments?
 
The Buccs were hardly a train wreck, they just had a fecking garbage QB who kept throwing the ball to the opposition.
They’ve pretty much sucked every year since they won the super bowl in ‘02. BA hasn’t come close to winning a super bowl as a head coach and some will lead you to believe it’s coincidence it all turned around when Brady came on board.

Of course it’s a talented squad but the main factor in that team was Brady.
 
People also ignore Brady’s influence on the wider team too.

Anyway, it’s that time of the year for the Brady debate. One more in the year I think - when they get knocked out of the play offs or when they win.
 
But in some ways, doesn’t this actually therefore support the argument of demonstrating how important that QB is? If people are saying Brady only wins at Tampa because he had a good team, but then saying that good team only were crap before because they had a bad QB, then aren’t these two completely contradictory statements/arguments?

I don’t think they necessarily contradict one another, but I’m by no means saying Brady only wins there because the team was stacked, but I will say that the team didn’t need the QB to be setting the world on fire they “just” needed someone reliable and steady.

I’ll also add that him being him, he adds more then what he does on the field.
 
I don’t think they necessarily contradict one another, but I’m by no means saying Brady only wins there because the team was stacked, but I will say that the team didn’t need the QB to be setting the world on fire they “just” needed someone reliable and steady.

I’ll also add that him being him, he adds more then what he does on the field.
You’re equating Brady to Brad Johnson here. Brady was a little more impactful than that.
 
They’ve pretty much sucked every year since they won the super bowl in ‘02. BA hasn’t come close to winning a super bowl as a head coach and some will lead you to believe it’s coincidence it all turned around when Brady came on board.

Of course it’s a talented squad but the main factor in that team was Brady.

It didn’t ‘all turn around’ when Brady came on board though. The previous QB, despite the aforementioned 30 picks threw for 5000 yards in Byron Leftwich’s offence. Do you know how many 5000 yard seasons there have been in NFL history? Look it up. I can tell you for nothing that the handful of guys that have managed it were almost all Hall of Fame level players, not Jameis Winston level players. Everything was already set.

Man, Brady is a great player but people don’t half overstate his influence.
 
I don’t think they necessarily contradict one another, but I’m by no means saying Brady only wins there because the team was stacked, but I will say that the team didn’t need the QB to be setting the world on fire they “just” needed someone reliable and steady.

I’ll also add that him being him, he adds more then what he does on the field.

I think it does though. If you’re saying Tampa were rubbish because they had a bad QB, you’re indirectly saying the QB can, alone, be the difference between a losing team which Tampa were, to a Superbowl winner which Tampa became. If you’re then also saying that even a QB who didn’t set the world alight would also make that impact, then you’re saying a QB who would set it alight would have an even bigger impact. You’re at this point saying a QB can cause a significant swing on performance.

That then links back to this wider debate on coach vs QB on impact. Surely this line of reasoning would suggest a QB has significant impact - beyond the coach - if it was he who converted a team to winning vs losing when nothing else, inc. coach, changed?

Then you get people now coming out saying how the way we are doing this year proves how amazing BB is and therefore why it wasn’t Brady why they won / or Brady had little impact. But if someone mentions last year, there were lots of reasons why we did crap last year. Well there’s also lots of reasons why we’ve done good this year too but they often get ignored.

And on and on.

Worth stating though that the argument that Brady did it all and not Bill is also utter garbage. The win at Tampa doesn’t show that. What it does show is that Brady is worth more than his QB skills. He can change the entire mentality of a ball club. But without BB, I wonder if he ever develops to that level. I don’t think so. BB managed a guy like Brady perfectly over his career. And made the big decisions which kept the players around Brady motivated and eager, even if not always the best in their positions.

Just to clarify when I say you I say you generically. This post isn’t aimed at any one individual, just trying to weed out what is clearly sometimes contradictory statements people get themselves stuck in to when downplaying Brady’s role. As I said, I have no bias in this one. And I honestly think Brady wins SBs at other teams in his career if he didn’t join the Pats, and BB would have won a Super Bowl with another QB if Brady didn’t join the Pats. Neither of them would have come anywhere close to 6 though. It was a perfect partnership (even if not a perfect relationship), combing a genius coach with a genius leader.
 
You got that one right at least

‘One guy out of 53’ as if it isn’t the most important position in sport. Literally took a 7-9 train wreck and won the super bowl too.

Just one guy of 53 :lol:

Yes, one guy who’s not even on the field half the time. Does he play defense and special teams too?
 
Yeah because that’s what I obviously said. What else of significance changed Y/O/Y, though, out of interest?

How about not throwing the ball to the other team 30 times? How’s that for a change?
 
Would love to know how they got to that conclusion. Both the Cardinals and Packers are looking better bets to represent the NFC in the Super Bowl this year.

They may be banking on the experience factor of getting to the big game. I do agree that the Cardinals will be hard to beat if they get home field.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.