(12-27-2019, 06:18 PM)Rico Wrote: [ -> ] (12-27-2019, 05:50 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ]You just need the greatest coach and QB of all time and you too can miss badly on some drafts
He wasn't the greatest coach of all time until he had Brady.
It's all about having a franchise quarterback. The closest we've had was Brunell.
No but he's won games without Brady. 11-5 with Vinny T and Rypien to bring the Browns to the playoffs and 10 games with Matt Cassell.
I'd 100% take BB over Brady if I had the choice
(12-27-2019, 08:16 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ] (12-27-2019, 06:18 PM)Rico Wrote: [ -> ]He wasn't the greatest coach of all time until he had Brady.
It's all about having a franchise quarterback. The closest we've had was Brunell.
No but he's won games without Brady. 11-5 with Vinny T and Rypien to bring the Browns to the playoffs and 10 games with Matt Cassell.
I'd 100% take BB over Brady if I had the choice
Same. Even if he's a cheating son of a [BLEEP]. He's also responsible for building quality defenses and getting a lot of production out of virtually no names.
Went 3 - 1 with Garoppolo. Saw him as the future and was ready to part ways with Brady. Which in fairness now seems to be the right choice Kraft didn't allow him to make at that time.
I don't think this entirely true. But there's some pretty good [BLEEP] in here. And I really wouldn't put it past Belichick to pull this kind of [BLEEP] to prove a point.
https://youtu.be/1rWZIGS10TU
Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
(12-27-2019, 08:46 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] (12-27-2019, 05:47 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ]More so responding to their player aquisition not being special. That level of drafting and udfa recruiting is. They've brought in 5 above average offensive linemen purely through the draft or udfa. The Jags have 1 combined since 2013 using the draft , udfa and free agency.
Even if you can buy that EVERY OL draft pick except Linder was a mistake, that's not the whole story. The Jags have brought in Beadles, Parnell, and Norwell as free agents. Parnell was a solid replacement starter for Dallas, and both guards were Pro Bowlers. None played as well once they became Jags. Linder, Cann and Robinson had their best seasons as rookies and have gone downhill over time rather than improve. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the difference in the OL case is mainly player development and coaching, not player selection.
Its not "mainly coaching", but coaching is part of it.
Parnells best season was in 2017. Linders best season was easily 2016 or 2017, not his rookie year.
Only acquiring one good lineman in 7 years of offseasons is a system failure in the front office and in coaching. Giving the FO a pass on terrible player aquisition with regards to linemen because they don't have the coaching isn't something based in reality.
(12-27-2019, 05:50 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ]You just need the greatest coach and QB of all time and you too can miss badly on some drafts
Also kinda silly to compare draft lists that include almost exclusively top 10 and top 5 picks vs a draft list that is almost exclusively bottom 5 picks.
Inept front office with no big picture plan. A team drafting in the top five of almost every year’s draft should have a very deep roster.
(12-27-2019, 11:19 PM)jagsfan06 Wrote: [ -> ]Inept front office with no big picture plan.
A team drafting in the top five in every round of almost every year’s draft should have a very deep roster.
(12-27-2019, 08:16 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ] (12-27-2019, 06:18 PM)Rico Wrote: [ -> ]He wasn't the greatest coach of all time until he had Brady.
It's all about having a franchise quarterback. The closest we've had was Brunell.
No but he's won games without Brady. 11-5 with Vinny T and Rypien to bring the Browns to the playoffs and 10 games with Matt Cassell.
I'd 100% take BB over Brady if I had the choice
That's just plain stupid. Belichick coached the Browns for five seasons and made the playoffs
once during that time. If you include his time with the Browns he was 41-57 before Brady started a game. Jack Del Rio has coached three playoff teams with the likes of Byron leftwich, David Garrard, and Derek Carr at quarterback, by your reasoning you'd take Jack Del Rio over Tom Brady as well.
(12-29-2019, 08:23 AM)DragonFury Wrote: [ -> ] (12-27-2019, 08:16 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ]No but he's won games without Brady. 11-5 with Vinny T and Rypien to bring the Browns to the playoffs and 10 games with Matt Cassell.
I'd 100% take BB over Brady if I had the choice
That's just plain stupid. Belichick coached the Browns for five seasons and made the playoffs once during that time. If you include his time with the Browns he was 41-57 before Brady started a game. Jack Del Rio has coached three playoff teams with the likes of Byron leftwich, David Garrard, and Derek Carr at quarterback, by your reasoning you'd take Jack Del Rio over Tom Brady as well.
Belichick has built solid defensive units. He's salvaged washed up players. He's made things work throughout his career.
If you really think Brady is Brady without Belichick you're insane. It's a two way street. They've had some great defenses over the years.
Belichick doesn't sit back on the sidelines during games with his thumb up his [BLEEP] either. He's always onto something or someone.
He had Cleveland on the right path before they were moved to Baltimore and rebranded as the Ravens. In fact, Baltimore owes Belichick for landing them Newsome.
This idea though that Brady makes him is a bad take. When he's proven he can win games without him. He has a system. It works. He knows the game better than anybody.
Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
(12-29-2019, 08:59 AM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ] (12-29-2019, 08:23 AM)DragonFury Wrote: [ -> ]That's just plain stupid. Belichick coached the Browns for five seasons and made the playoffs once during that time. If you include his time with the Browns he was 41-57 before Brady started a game. Jack Del Rio has coached three playoff teams with the likes of Byron leftwich, David Garrard, and Derek Carr at quarterback, by your reasoning you'd take Jack Del Rio over Tom Brady as well.
Belichick has built solid defensive units. He's salvaged washed up players. He's made things work throughout his career.
If you really think Brady is Brady without Belichick you're insane. It's a two way street. They've had some great defenses over the years.
Belichick doesn't sit back on the sidelines during games with his thumb up his [BLEEP] either. He's always onto something or someone.
He had Cleveland on the right path before they were moved to Baltimore and rebranded as the Ravens. In fact, Baltimore owes Belichick for landing them Newsome.
This idea though that Brady makes him is a bad take. When he's proven he can win games without him. He has a system. It works. He knows the game better than anybody.
Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
The question of whether he can win without Brady isn't the issue. It's whether he's a great coach WITHOUT Brady. Maybe we'll find out one day. I'll bet he retires when Brady does.
A great quarterback can make a good coach look great.
(12-29-2019, 09:02 AM)Rico Wrote: [ -> ] (12-29-2019, 08:59 AM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ]Belichick has built solid defensive units. He's salvaged washed up players. He's made things work throughout his career.
If you really think Brady is Brady without Belichick you're insane. It's a two way street. They've had some great defenses over the years.
Belichick doesn't sit back on the sidelines during games with his thumb up his [BLEEP] either. He's always onto something or someone.
He had Cleveland on the right path before they were moved to Baltimore and rebranded as the Ravens. In fact, Baltimore owes Belichick for landing them Newsome.
This idea though that Brady makes him is a bad take. When he's proven he can win games without him. He has a system. It works. He knows the game better than anybody.
Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
The question of whether he can win without Brady isn't the issue. It's whether he's a great coach WITHOUT Brady. Maybe we'll find out one day. I'll bet he retires when Brady does.
A great quarterback can make a good coach look great.
I think he'll stick around a little longer or move onto a new team to try and prove that he can do it without him.
Brady is all but done. I just don't see him playing in 2020. All of the moves he's made have him with one foot out the door.
Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
(12-29-2019, 08:59 AM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ] (12-29-2019, 08:23 AM)DragonFury Wrote: [ -> ]That's just plain stupid. Belichick coached the Browns for five seasons and made the playoffs once during that time. If you include his time with the Browns he was 41-57 before Brady started a game. Jack Del Rio has coached three playoff teams with the likes of Byron leftwich, David Garrard, and Derek Carr at quarterback, by your reasoning you'd take Jack Del Rio over Tom Brady as well.
Belichick has built solid defensive units. He's salvaged washed up players. He's made things work throughout his career.
If you really think Brady is Brady without Belichick you're insane. It's a two way street. They've had some great defenses over the years.
Belichick doesn't sit back on the sidelines during games with his thumb up his [BLEEP] either. He's always onto something or someone.
He had Cleveland on the right path before they were moved to Baltimore and rebranded as the Ravens. In fact, Baltimore owes Belichick for landing them Newsome.
This idea though that Brady makes him is a bad take. When he's proven he can win games without him. He has a system. It works. He knows the game better than anybody.
Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
I'm not arguing Belichick is a bad coach. I'm arguing that picking Belichick over Brady is a fundamentally stupid decision to make considering Belichick's record prior to Brady entering the lineup.
(12-29-2019, 08:23 AM)DragonFury Wrote: [ -> ] (12-27-2019, 08:16 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ]No but he's won games without Brady. 11-5 with Vinny T and Rypien to bring the Browns to the playoffs and 10 games with Matt Cassell.
I'd 100% take BB over Brady if I had the choice
That's just plain stupid. Belichick coached the Browns for five seasons and made the playoffs once during that time. If you include his time with the Browns he was 41-57 before Brady started a game. Jack Del Rio has coached three playoff teams with the likes of Byron leftwich, David Garrard, and Derek Carr at quarterback, by your reasoning you'd take Jack Del Rio over Tom Brady as well.
"The Browns" is an important part of that situation.
And it's plain stupid to compare Belichick to Del Rio. Me taking Belichick over Brady isn't just based on his games won without Brady, more so, his track record as the greatest football mind in the history of football.
I thought that would have been obvious but I guess it still needs to be said about Bill after dominating an entire sport for the bones of two decades
(12-29-2019, 12:11 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ] (12-29-2019, 08:23 AM)DragonFury Wrote: [ -> ]That's just plain stupid. Belichick coached the Browns for five seasons and made the playoffs once during that time. If you include his time with the Browns he was 41-57 before Brady started a game. Jack Del Rio has coached three playoff teams with the likes of Byron leftwich, David Garrard, and Derek Carr at quarterback, by your reasoning you'd take Jack Del Rio over Tom Brady as well.
"The Browns" is an important part of that situation.
And it's plain stupid to compare Belichick to Del Rio. Me taking Belichick over Brady isn't just based on his games won without Brady, more so, his track record as the greatest football mind in the history of football.
I thought that would have been obvious but I guess it still needs to be said about Bill after dominating an entire sport for the bones of two decades
Brady and Belichick dominated the sport for two decades. Without Brady Belichick would be little more than a few lines in the Patriots history.
And just by comparison, Chuck Noll is considered by many to be one of the greatest coaches ever, having won four Super Bowls in six years. But after Bradshaw retired the Steelers only made the playoffs in two out of next eight seasons. Players, not plays.
(12-29-2019, 02:03 PM)DragonFury Wrote: [ -> ] (12-29-2019, 12:11 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ]"The Browns" is an important part of that situation.
And it's plain stupid to compare Belichick to Del Rio. Me taking Belichick over Brady isn't just based on his games won without Brady, more so, his track record as the greatest football mind in the history of football.
I thought that would have been obvious but I guess it still needs to be said about Bill after dominating an entire sport for the bones of two decades
Brady and Belichick dominated the sport for two decades. Without Brady Belichick would be little more than a few lines in the Patriots history.
And just by comparison, Chuck Noll is considered by many to be one of the greatest coaches ever, having won four Super Bowls in six years. But after Bradshaw retired the Steelers only made the playoffs in two out of next eight seasons. Players, not plays.
You make it sound like Bill would be Doug Marrone without his qb. Ignore Brady for a sec and you still have one of the greatest defensive minds to ever step foot in the NFL, one of the greatest gameplanners and overall arguably the smartest HC ever. Swap Philip Rivers with Brady and Bill would still win 11 games a year and still have multiple SBs
(12-29-2019, 02:29 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ] (12-29-2019, 02:03 PM)DragonFury Wrote: [ -> ]Brady and Belichick dominated the sport for two decades. Without Brady Belichick would be little more than a few lines in the Patriots history.
And just by comparison, Chuck Noll is considered by many to be one of the greatest coaches ever, having won four Super Bowls in six years. But after Bradshaw retired the Steelers only made the playoffs in two out of next eight seasons. Players, not plays.
You make it sound like Bill would be Doug Marrone without his qb. Ignore Brady for a sec and you still have one of the greatest defensive minds to ever step foot in the NFL, one of the greatest gameplanners and overall arguably the smartest HC ever. Swap Philip Rivers with Brady and Bill would still win 11 games a year and still have multiple SBs
Swap Brady with Matt Cassel and you get an 11-5 season FCOL.
(12-29-2019, 11:55 AM)DragonFury Wrote: [ -> ] (12-29-2019, 08:59 AM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ]Belichick has built solid defensive units. He's salvaged washed up players. He's made things work throughout his career.
If you really think Brady is Brady without Belichick you're insane. It's a two way street. They've had some great defenses over the years.
Belichick doesn't sit back on the sidelines during games with his thumb up his [BLEEP] either. He's always onto something or someone.
He had Cleveland on the right path before they were moved to Baltimore and rebranded as the Ravens. In fact, Baltimore owes Belichick for landing them Newsome.
This idea though that Brady makes him is a bad take. When he's proven he can win games without him. He has a system. It works. He knows the game better than anybody.
Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
I'm not arguing Belichick is a bad coach. I'm arguing that picking Belichick over Brady is a fundamentally stupid decision to make considering Belichick's record prior to Brady entering the lineup.
And I am telling you that picking one player over an entire team that's been built by a pretty damn football coach is stupid because it's HIS system, HIS philosophy and HIS approach to the game that makes it work.
You think any other coach in Belichick's shoes up there in New England succeeds with Brady? Highly [BLEEP] doubt it. Again, the defenses he's built, the runningback by commitee approach, the offensive lines he's built and players he's added around Brady are why they succeed.
He's not JUST a coach. He's a general manager. He works relentlessly to gain any and all advantages that he can within and outside of the rule book. Say whatever you want about Cleveland.
He had them moving in the right direction. Also, comparing Chuck Noll's era along with Terry Bradshaw is kind of stupid when you factor in the absence of free agency. They didn't have to contend with that every off season.
We can play patty cake all day with this. But go back and look at what happened in that Superbowl loss to Philadelphia. Belichick proved a point to Brady and Kraft by deliberatley checking out as the head coach in that one while benching Malcolm Butler.
How many times did Adam also bang a FG through for Brady in those earlier SB wins? You all act like he displayed "The Drive" in some of those games. Most of them were won on HUGE kicks with stacked defenses keeping their opponents in check.
Again. Two way street. But Brady would [BLEEP] buckle like a baby back [BLEEP] anywhere else in the NFL. We'll never know because Kraft chose to force Belichick into trading away Garoppolo two years ago instead of Brady.
And it was Belichick's defense that won that Superbowl against the Rams. Just like it's been this year winning them games. Not Brady. . .
Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
Seriously??? I think it's pretty obvious BB would be more successful without Brady than Brady without BB.
BB, regardless of everything, is at the very least a top 3 HC ever.
Super Bowl 36: 1:21 left on the clock, the Patriots drive 53 yards in nine plays to set up Vinatieri's game winning field goal.
Super Bowl 38: 1:08 on the clock, the Patriots drive 37 yards in six plays to set up Vinatieri's game winning field goal.
Super Bowl 44: 6:52 on the clock, the Patriots drive 64 yards in ten plays finished by a 3 yard touchdown catch by Edelman to take the lead.
Super Bowl 51: 3:31 on the clock, the Patriots drive 91 yards in ten plays finished by a 1 yard touchdown run and a 2 pt conversion to tie the game. They follow it with an eight play, 75 yard drive to win the game in overtime.
Brady made those drives happen, not Belichick. As for "tough defenses" the only two losses the Patriots had in Super Bowls happened when the defense folded like a deck of cards in the final minutes leaving Brady with hardly any time left on the Patriots final drive. Heck, they only won SB44 because the Seahawks decided to get fancy and call a pass play on the Patriots one yard line. Seattle went 79 yards in 1:42 prior to that play, some "tough" defense.
(12-29-2019, 04:03 PM)DragonFury Wrote: [ -> ]Super Bowl 36: 1:21 left on the clock, the Patriots drive 53 yards in nine plays to set up Vinatieri's game winning field goal.
Super Bowl 38: 1:08 on the clock, the Patriots drive 37 yards in six plays to set up Vinatieri's game winning field goal.
Super Bowl 44: 6:52 on the clock, the Patriots drive 64 yards in ten plays finished by a 3 yard touchdown catch by Edelman to take the lead.
Super Bowl 51: 3:31 on the clock, the Patriots drive 91 yards in ten plays finished by a 1 yard touchdown run and a 2 pt conversion to tie the game. They follow it with an eight play, 75 yard drive to win the game in overtime.
Brady made those drives happen, not Belichick. As for "tough defenses" the only two losses the Patriots had in Super Bowls happened when the defense folded like a deck of cards in the final minutes leaving Brady with hardly any time left on the Patriots final drive. Heck, they only won SB44 because the Seahawks decided to get fancy and call a pass play on the Patriots one yard line. Seattle went 79 yards in 1:42 prior to that play, some "tough" defense.
Funny story about the Seattle play actually. Bill had prepared that exact formation and defensive play months previous. Then decided to implement game week...and had the UDFA play it too perfection.
Nobody is saying Brady isn't an all time great. But if you look at most of those SB years they had elite defenses and very effective run games too.
Your take that Bill would be an average HC without Brady isn't based in reality