Is the Patriots roster actually GOOD? Or is it propped up by coaching?

[tom cody]

Coaching def helps. Brady helps as well. I say go to the Patriots if you want to be successful in the NFL. 

[William Lee]

39 minutes ago, BleedTheClock said:

Can you please explain this statement? I've seen you spew it out a few times and I think I speak for everyone else here when we say that it makes no sense. I can't even comprehend the argument you're trying to piece together.

Belichick almost never talk to his offense on sidelines, meaning the system must be quite simple if it is Belichick's, as Brady was able to command it in his first year as starter, including lot of Pats receivers in last 18 years, even some just join in.

That, makes other QB and coaches idiots 

Edited June 20, 2019 by William Lee

[William Lee]

43 minutes ago, BleedTheClock said:

Other QB's have had success running the Pats offense dude. Not Brady level success obviously, but it's not like the other QB's were abominations. Remember Jimmy Garoppolo? Remember Matt Cassel?

So when Brady retires and the next QB comes in and does well are you going to eat crow?
Spoiler: you won't be posting here that long.

Pat's won ALL SB they played in when Brady played dink n dunk, and lost ALL three when Brady didn't.

Dink n dunk is the key reason that #1, Pats don't have to overpay WR, #2, Pats don't need solid running games, #3, Pats don't need to overpay O line, #4, Pats played time consuming offense when against top offense.

Dink n dunk is fundamentally different from any other offense system in that a completed pass doesn't give you first down.

No other QB in NFL history was able to depend on dink n dunk to score enough. (read my second post on first page), most of them can't even depend on WCO to score enough.

So it is utterly clueless to claim "it is Belichick's", as it is simply impossible that a (defense) coach could come up such marvelous scheme overnight, annnnnd he doesn't even have to talk to his QB and receivers. 

Edited June 20, 2019 by William Lee

[game3525]

1 hour ago, William Lee said:

Meaning every (good) QB should be able to learn Pats system if it is Belichick's.

Or you mean no other QB can understand Belichick's terminology, after so many years? the

The offense in 2007 shared the same terminology with the ones before?

What I mean is most offenses run the same type of plays. The difference really comes down to how the plays are organized. The EP system the Pats run organizes plays by passing concepts (which stresses versatility), instead of a route tree based offense like an Air Coryell offense does, which is more rigid.

The EP system isn't some magical new difficult offense that only Brady can run. The Chargers are an EP based offense, so are the Steelers. The Broncos under Mike McCoy/Adam Gase were like this as well, which is why it is a bit silly to think Manning couldn't run Brady's offense. 

 

[William Lee]

6 minutes ago, game3525 said:

What I mean is most offenses run the same type of plays. The difference really comes down to how the plays are organized. The EP system the Pats run organizes plays by passing concepts (which stresses versatility), instead of a route tree based offense like an Air Coryell offense does, which is more rigid.

 

Did you see the screen shots of those play designs? Can you remember in detail 3 of them?

Versatility needs intelligence, it is not like an OC puts a design in front of a QB, then the QB can play, otherwise every team would have hired an army of OC. How do you think Dan Marino turned Don Shula and Jimmy Johnson to idiots?

Also, as showed in my 2nd post on first page, lot of designs work because of Brady:

Throw the balls so quick that when defenders realize who his targets are, it is already too late.

Without this ability, a QB simply can't depend on dink n dunk to score enough, as any hiccup may kill the drive.

Edited June 20, 2019 by William Lee

[Bolts223]

55 minutes ago, Daniel said:

What Belichick does post-Brady will define the career of both.  If Brady retires and the next QB plays comparably, it'll sink Brady's legacy forever.  If Belichick struggles, it'll do the opposite.

I expect that there'll be success, just less consistently because like you said, they can both be very good.

I do think trying to argue the point with him is a big waste of time though.  Just let him make his arguments that no one's listening to and move on to other points of discussion.

First of all, whoever replaces Brady is not going to play comparably. 

What will be telling is if the Patriots can still be a SB contender without having elite QB play. I'm going to say that they can. Brady in 2001 (and to a lesser extent 2003) was not near the QB he was today. The Patriots offenses were not putting up big points in any games and the Patriots won with exceptional defense and special teams.

I think Belichick is capable of reverting his teams back to that style of play with a lesser QB if need be. 

[William Lee]

6 minutes ago, Bolts223 said:

First of all, whoever replaces Brady is not going to play comparably. 

What will be telling is if the Patriots can still be a SB contender without having elite QB play. I'm going to say that they can. Brady in 2001 (and to a lesser extent 2003) was not near the QB he was today. The Patriots offenses were not putting up big points in any games and the Patriots won with exceptional defense ...

Who else could score 351 in 14 games with Troy Brown as top WR? Do you really expect a QB to lead winning drive in SB with Troy Brown?

You know Belichick's defense has a habit of collapse in later 4th quarter.

To put that into perspective, Aaron Rodgers couldn't score 380 when he didn't have Jordy Nelson.

Edited June 20, 2019 by William Lee

[game3525]

36 minutes ago, William Lee said:

Did you see the screen shots of those play designs? Can you remember in detail 3 of them?

Versatility needs intelligence, it is not like an OC puts a design in front of a QB, then the QB can play, otherwise every team would have hired an army of OC. How do you think Dan Marino turned Don Shula and Jimmy Johnson to idiots?

Also, as showed in my 2nd post on first page, lot of designs work because of Brady:

Throw the balls so quick that when defenders realize who his targets are, it is already too late.

Without this ability, a QB simply can't depend on dink n dunk to score enough, as any hiccup may kill the drive.

I have no idea what you are trying to say and I don't think you even you know what you are trying to say. 

[Bolts223]

33 minutes ago, William Lee said:

Who else could score 351 in 14 games with Troy Brown as top WR? Do you really expect a QB to lead winning drive in SB with Troy Brown?

You know Belichick's defense has a habit of collapse in later 4th quarter.

To put that into perspective, Aaron Rodgers couldn't score 380 when he didn't have Jordy Nelson.

You are really simplifying this far too much.

a) Troy Brown was solid. He almost single handedly won that AFC Championship game against the Steelers with 2 ST touchdowns.

b) Brady was absolutely clutch in 2001,I'm not denying that. But he wasn't going to take over a game like you would see him do now. The 2001 Patriots could not have won a shootout like the 2018 Patriots did in the Chiefs game. The offense the Patriots were running back then under Charlie Weis was very different to now and Brady didn't have anywhere close to the same amount of control in being able to change plays based on pre/post snap reads. If a younger QB were to come in now, you'd see an offense much more similar to the 2001-2003 offenses rather than the one you see now.

c) Defenses tire out at the end of games. A great gameplan can only do so much against an elite offense. Belichick's defenses still do better jobs than most at making big plays at the end of games when needed. The Gilmore interception this year, the Hightower strip-sack in SB51, the Butler interception in SB49, etc.

d) The situation with the Packers offense this year is neither here nor there. Completely different situations.

 

 

Edited June 20, 2019 by Bolts223

[BleedTheClock]

@William Lee I'm out. You win. Enjoy your remaining years!

[lancerman]

3 hours ago, NJerseypaint said:

But how do you make the logical leap from "Peyton and Rodgers don't run Brady's system" to "Peyton and Rodgers couldn't/can't run Brady's system, because it's too hard from them"? Maybe, and I know this is a big stretch, but maybe they each just like their own system better? (or maybe even the coaches do)

 

I think it’s logical leap because they’ve both never been in it and have been in offenses that schematically were not as dynamic or adaptable in general. 

Peyton particularly. His offense was very simple and the skill was the deception they pulled at the line. Brady also does a lot more post snap compared to Peyton doing the bulk pre snap. 

It’s so different that it’s silly to say they’d succeed in other systems. Even from a fundamental level they’d be running it different. It’s like saying “well he’s s great skier so he probably is a great snowboarder because they are so similar,”. Like kinda but the fundamental approaches are different.

[Daniel]

6 minutes ago, lancerman said:

It’s so different that it’s silly to say they’d succeed in other systems. Even from a fundamental level they’d be running it different. It’s like saying “well he’s s great skier so he probably is a great snowboarder because they are so similar,”. Like kinda but the fundamental approaches are different.

I don't think he said they'd succeed in other systems, he said they prefer their own systems.  But if you really think Peyton, one of the greatest QBs of all time, wouldn't succeed in any other offensive scheme, that's a silly thing to say.  And it's definitely not as different as two completely different sports.  It's still football, and it's still the QB position, and it's still being played by a cerebral pocket-passing QB with little mobility.  Yall are acting like we're comparing Brady with Lamar Jackson.

But the statement of "only Brady can run the system he runs" is ludicrous at face value.

[Bearerofnews]

Put it like this. Give the Chargers from 2004 to now bilichick, with their talent they have 8 SBs. Give Brady, the Pats and their talent Chargers coaches in that span.... they dont make the superbowl, not once.

Bilichick is 95% of their success. He went 11-5 with Cassell. The next year Brady went 10-6. Brady is clutch and great. But alot of that is Bill being able to strategize masking deficiencies. That brady homer makes no sense and yet to make a single logical argument. Confusing people to submission is not making sound arguements.

I cant even imagine how horrible NE with Brady would be with Norv Turner and Mike Mccoy. 

When Brady retires, if Bill stays in NE they will still be yearly contenders. If Bill leaves, NE will be horrible.

Edited June 21, 2019 by Bearerofnews

[SBLIII]

6 hours ago, Bearerofnews said:

Put it like this. Give the Chargers from 2004 to now bilichick, with their talent they have 8 SBs. Give Brady, the Pats and their talent Chargers coaches in that span.... they dont make the superbowl, not once.

Bilichick is 95% of their success. He went 11-5 with Cassell. The next year Brady went 10-6. Brady is clutch and great. But alot of that is Bill being able to strategize masking deficiencies. That brady homer makes no sense and yet to make a single logical argument. Confusing people to submission is not making sound arguements.

I cant even imagine how horrible NE with Brady would be with Norv Turner and Mike Mccoy. 

When Brady retires, if Bill stays in NE they will still be yearly contenders. If Bill leaves, NE will be horrible.

Belichick is a sub .500 coach without Brady. The year before he went 11-5 Cassell against the weakest schedule in the NFL, he went 16-0 with Brady which you ignore.

 

There isn't a single evidence that Brady wouldn't dominate with any other coach, there is a ton of evidence showing that Belichick is a subpar coach without Brady. 

 

Belichick is 19-19 at NE without Brady and 36-44 at Cle.

 

 

[Daniel]

6 hours ago, Bearerofnews said:

Put it like this. Give the Chargers from 2004 to now bilichick, with their talent they have 8 SBs. Give Brady, the Pats and their talent Chargers coaches in that span.... they dont make the superbowl, not once.

Bilichick is 95% of their success. He went 11-5 with Cassell. The next year Brady went 10-6. Brady is clutch and great. But alot of that is Bill being able to strategize masking deficiencies. That brady homer makes no sense and yet to make a single logical argument. Confusing people to submission is not making sound arguements.

I cant even imagine how horrible NE with Brady would be with Norv Turner and Mike Mccoy. 

When Brady retires, if Bill stays in NE they will still be yearly contenders. If Bill leaves, NE will be horrible.

 

17 minutes ago, SBLIII said:

Belichick is a sub .500 coach without Brady. The year before he went 11-5 Cassell against the weakest schedule in the NFL, he went 16-0 with Brady which you ignore.

There isn't a single evidence that Brady wouldn't dominate with any other coach, there is a ton of evidence showing that Belichick is a subpar coach without Brady. 

Belichick is 19-19 at NE without Brady and 36-44 at Cle.

These are equally silly statements.