Why will we never see another Patriots dynasty again? Salary cap?

[William Lee]

On 2/6/2019 at 1:42 AM, NFLExpert49 said:

Gruden would have benched Brady by mid-season and the Patriots would have finished bottom 5 in both offense and defense. 

I believe you missed this, so I post again.

Gruden would have been a genius with Brady.

Watch this play, @1:56, ht tps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TazshKUz6XU&t=4s

Can you tell what Brady did special in the play? (of course, Edelmen was great too, I will argue that he deserves HOF in 2nd ballot.)

(Slow the play down by 3x if you can, and watch out the moment Edelmen turned and the moment Brady threw the ball.)

If you still can't figure out what Brady did special, please change your screen name.

*******************

BTW, EASY PASS DOESN'T MEAN EASY SCORE. You may complete several easy passes, but it is damn hard to keep it ALIVE, otherwise you won't be able to score. That, is something few football fans realize. 
Here are the easy parts of downfield passing games  :
#1, it takes few passes to move 50 yds while you have to complete lot of short passes to move 50 yds.
#2, the throwing windows last much longer for downfield passes.
#3, QB doesn't have to put balls at exact spots in deep passing, as his WR will run to the balls.
#4, defenders don't look at QB in the eyes, hence great rewards vs risk ratio for QB (this is huge!!!)
#5, QB doesn't have to worry about passing lanes in deep passing. (see Luck struggled against Chiefs defense?)
#6, penalty has much less impact in deep passing system.
Basically, except on arm strength, deep passing is much easier for QB to command than short passing system. That doesn't mean other QB can't do it, they can do here and there, get couple of first downs,  but they simply can't rely on WCO and DnD system to score more than 20 pts.

[William Lee]

6 hours ago, C0LTSFAN4L1F3 said:

Please enlighten me

There have been lot of good defenses (that were good for 5-10 years) but accomplished nearly nothing or won only 1 SB.

We are talking about what is required to build a dynasty, not winning ONE SB.

So you have to check what Pats have done that other teams were not capable of. Hence good defense was not the reason, as lot of other teams can do the same. (not mention there were lot of defenses that were far better than Pats,)

If you think this way, you will see that the difference is that when Pats won SB, Pats offense could score enough; when they failed to do so, they lost in playoff.

As good defense in playoff is about taking away your best play makers that make big plays (so what a QB can do in regular seasons doesn't automatically mean success in playoff), so the key to have a dynasty is that your have an offense that can utilize short n show WR, can turn average WR into playmakers.

So it all comes down to who has been the reason that Pats could do it, Brady or Belichick?

Determine it BEFORE  bring up the reasons that other teams are also able to do.

[buno67]

It’s hard to answer this. 

A NFL dynasty is all about having a great coach and great QB at the same time. 

We wont know until we see that kind of arrangement happen. 

You look at all the dynasties in the sport threw out NFL history. It ended up with a HOF QB and HOF HC. You won’t have a dynasty with out one or the other.

there will be another dynasty because we see one just about every generation. I just don’t see it happening for the Pats again

[Non-Issue]

There is literally no reason why we couldn't ever see another dynasty like the Pats again. It just takes the right set of circumstances. And I don't mean to say that as a way to minimize what the Pats have done. To build one of the greatest football dynasties ever, in an age where the league does everything reasonably possible to eliminate the possibility of a dynasty like the Pats, speaks for itself. So I mean I am not saying I expect to see a dynasty the likes of the Pats in my lifetime. But I can't rule out the possibility. Due to rules or anything else. Because the rules said this shouldn't have been possible. And... well...

[SBLIII]

There will be another dynasty in a few years. It probably won't be as successful though. But imo there totally can be another dynasty over 15-20 years that wins 3-4 titles. 

[Wolverine_Joe]

2 hours ago, SBLIII said:

There will be another dynasty in a few years. It probably won't be as successful though. But imo there totally can be another dynasty over 15-20 years that wins 3-4 titles. 

 

winning 3-4 titles sporadically in 15 years?  i wouldn't call that team a dynasty. 

 

[NFLExpert49]

 

11 hours ago, William Lee said:

I believe you missed this, so I post again.

Gruden would have been a genius with Brady.

Watch this play, @1:56, ht tps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TazshKUz6XU&t=4s

Can you tell what Brady did special in the play? (of course, Edelmen was great too, I will argue that he deserves HOF in 2nd ballot.)

(Slow the play down by 3x if you can, and watch out the moment Edelmen turned and the moment Brady threw the ball.)

If you still can't figure out what Brady did special, please change your screen name.

*******************

BTW, EASY PASS DOESN'T MEAN EASY SCORE. You may complete several easy passes, but it is damn hard to keep it ALIVE, otherwise you won't be able to score. That, is something few football fans realize. 
Here are the easy parts of downfield passing games  :
#1, it takes few passes to move 50 yds while you have to complete lot of short passes to move 50 yds.
#2, the throwing windows last much longer for downfield passes.
#3, QB doesn't have to put balls at exact spots in deep passing, as his WR will run to the balls.
#4, defenders don't look at QB in the eyes, hence great rewards vs risk ratio for QB (this is huge!!!)
#5, QB doesn't have to worry about passing lanes in deep passing. (see Luck struggled against Chiefs defense?)
#6, penalty has much less impact in deep passing system.
Basically, except on arm strength, deep passing is much easier for QB to command than short passing system. That doesn't mean other QB can't do it, they can do here and there, get couple of first downs,  but they simply can't rely on WCO and DnD system to score more than 20 pts.

It's like talking to a wall.

Gruden. Would. Have. Benched. Brady. What part of that do you not understand?

Gruden doesn't care who the QB is; HE IS GOING TO BENCH HIM THE MOMENT HE STRUGGLES.

That's because Gruden is a capricious moron.

It doesn't matter how good Brady is; Gruden would have benched him.

 

[C0LTSFAN4L1F3]

12 hours ago, ChazStandard said:

...and only 1 non-top ten scoring offense (2003 rank 12). In fact the offense has, on average, out-ranked the defense. Not to mention that a quite major part of the reason Patriots defenses always have a better points ranking than yards ranking is how little the offense turns the ball over.

Generally speaking, the Pats have had more big-name players on defense than offense - because Brady has shown two things: 1) He's willing to take less money  to keep the team competitive (nothing to do with Giselle, this started in 2004) & 2) He will put up decent efficiency numbers and a top 10 offense with mediocre to slightly above average talent on offense. For example this year, where he lead the no. 4 scoring offense with a bits and pieces cast of characters.

None of this actually refutes anything I said. You're refuting points that I never made. 

[Fongool]

The question should be - will we ever see another Bill Belichick. Why Belichick is not the highest paid person in football is beyond me. Its the system. All the players buy into the Belichick system. There is any number of quarterbacks that could fill the role of Brady. Brady is offered maximum protection and the other pawns run to a predetermined spot on the field and Brady delivers the ball. Brady is rarely pressured but when he is he is like a deer in the headlights. I don't blame Brady for wanting to play forever as long as Belichick is the coach. Its the system.

[William Lee]

10 minutes ago, C0LTSFAN4L1F3 said:

None of this actually refutes anything I said. You're refuting points that I never made. 

Who else could score 380 pts with the squad Brady had between 2001 and 2006?

Who else could score 24 or more pts in SB with the squad Brady had between 2001 and 2006?

Who else could score 41 or 31 in playoff without good deep threats?

BRADY WAS IRREPLACEABLE, PATS DEFENSE WAS REPLACEABLE.

[William Lee]

5 minutes ago, Fongool said:

 Its the system. All the players buy into the Belichick system. 

Ya, opponent D has to leave some spaces open for Brady to throw to because Belichick is standing there, right?

and other OCs, even an army of OC, can't design plays that taking advantage of those weak spots because Belichick is not in the room, right?

and Belichick is so good that he doesn't even have to talk to offense during the game most of the time, right?

With him standing there, Pats WR suddently become much smarter, and defenders on the other side become stupid, right?

What kind of alien system is this?

[C0LTSFAN4L1F3]

6 minutes ago, William Lee said:

Who else could score 380 pts with the squad Brady had between 2001 and 2006?

Who else could score 24 or more pts in SB with the squad Brady had between 2001 and 2006?

Who else could score 41 or 31 in playoff without good deep threats?

BRADY WAS IRREPLACEABLE, PATS DEFENSE WAS REPLACEABLE.

At this point I'm questioning your basic literacy skills. 

[William Lee]

2 minutes ago, C0LTSFAN4L1F3 said:

At this point I'm questioning your basic literacy skills. 

Who is the #1 reason for Pats dynasty?

Go back to read your posts.

[7DnBrnc53]

55 minutes ago, William Lee said:

Who else could score 380 pts with the squad Brady had between 2001 and 2006?

Who else could score 24 or more pts in SB with the squad Brady had between 2001 and 2006?

Who else could score 41 or 31 in playoff without good deep threats?

BRADY WAS IRREPLACEABLE, PATS DEFENSE WAS REPLACEABLE.

They went 11-5 without Brady in 2008, and 3-1 without him in 2016.

In addition, here are Brady's passer ratings from 2001-06: 86.5, 85.7, 85.9, 92.6, 92.3, & 87.9. Not exactly elite.

He usually doesn't have ratings over 100 without an elite player or two, like Moss, Welker, Gronk, or Hernandez.

[William Lee]

1 hour ago, 7DnBrnc53 said:

They went 11-5 without Brady in 2008, and 3-1 without him in 2016.

In addition, here are Brady's passer ratings from 2001-06: 86.5, 85.7, 85.9, 92.6, 92.3, & 87.9. Not exactly elite.

He usually doesn't have ratings over 100 without an elite player or two, like Moss, Welker, Gronk, or Hernandez.

2008 season proved that without Brady, Pats were just another AFCE team, even with Moss. BTW, Jets, Bills and Phins won 19 out of 30 against non AFCE teams.The worst AFCE team in that year won 7 games.

Can your favorite QB turn a short n slow WR into playmaker? Can your favorite QB stay on field for 36 min and 39 min so to help his defense? can your favorite QB get rid of the balls so quickly that makes opponent pass rush completely irrelevant so to help his O-line?

Answer : NO.

BTW, do you know why he struggled to score even 20 pts with much better weapons between 2007 and 2013 in playoff? Let me tell you : he tried to play like Peyton.