lancerman Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 15 hours ago, Daniel said: 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. It’s not a silly thing to say. You’re using the outcome of one scenario to justify a similar outcome in a different scenario. Peyton player in a very specific and very different offense his whole career. By playing in an offense that suited his strengths that he developed in and mastered over the course of his entire career he became one of the greatest QB’s in NFL history. That doesn’t mean you can simply change the formula and say “well Peyton’s still part of it” so he’ll yield the same return no matter what. No a lot of great QB’s were far better in one system compared to another when we’ve had examples of them being in more than one. I also think this outcome based analysis only gets used one way. Nobody ever says, “oh Brady’s the most successful QB ever, toss him him Manning’s system and he’ll still win 6 Super Bowls” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 6 minutes ago, lancerman said: It’s not a silly thing to say. You’re using the outcome of one scenario to justify a similar outcome in a different scenario. Peyton player in a very specific and very different offense his whole career. By playing in an offense that suited his strengths that he developed in and mastered over the course of his entire career he became one of the greatest QB’s in NFL history. That doesn’t mean you can simply change the formula and say “well Peyton’s still part of it” so he’ll yield the same return no matter what. No a lot of great QB’s were far better in one system compared to another when we’ve had examples of them being in more than one. I also think this outcome based analysis only gets used one way. Nobody ever says, “oh Brady’s the most successful QB ever, toss him him Manning’s system and he’ll still win 6 Super Bowls” And you're strawmanning. I did not say Peyton would have the same level of success no matter what. You do seem to be saying he'd have none if he wasn't playing the exact offensive scheme he played in. And if you're really arguing that Manning would not have succeeded in another offensive system, then yes, I stand by that being an objectively silly thing to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBLIII Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 2 hours ago, Daniel said: These are equally silly statements. No, I'm just stating facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rfournier103 Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 One of the many jobs of an NFL head coach is to use his players in the best possible way for success. Bill Belichick molds his game plan to take advantage of the talent he has on the team, and doesn’t usually force players into roles they’re not suited for. Many NFL head coaches insist on cramming square pegs into round holes. That is just one way Bill Belichick stands apart from his peers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearerofnews Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 8 hours 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. Come on, that was Belichick's first stint. There is no evidence that Brady can win without Bill. There is evidence that Bill can win without Brady. You can have the semantics of 07, 08 and 09 and use the order youd like. But in 08 without Brady they went 11-5 and with Brady back in 09 they went 10-6. Yes in 07 they went 16-0. But cant ignore 09 following 08. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7DnBrnc53 Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 9 hours ago, Bearerofnews said: Come on, that was Belichick's first stint. There is no evidence that Brady can win without Bill. There is evidence that Bill can win without Brady. You can have the semantics of 07, 08 and 09 and use the order youd like. But in 08 without Brady they went 11-5 and with Brady back in 09 they went 10-6. Yes in 07 they went 16-0. But cant ignore 09 following 08. Also, William Lee tries to say that Brady did better in 01 than Bledsoe did in 2000. The 2001 Pats played a weaker schedule, and Belichick improved their talent in the draft and FA. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CKS97 Posted June 22, 2019 Author Share Posted June 22, 2019 (edited) On 6/20/2019 at 1:06 PM, tom cody said: Coaching def helps. Brady helps as well. I say go to the Patriots if you want to be successful in the NFL. For me, going to the Patriots would be the last thing. I’d rather beat Goliath than team up with him. i would rather try and take down the boogeyman instead of be his buddy. Edited June 22, 2019 by CKS97 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HTTRDynasty Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 According to PFF it is. They had the most players in the league ranked in the top 10 at their respective positions in 2018. I know, PFF, but this isn’t some trash roster. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatJerkDave Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 I clicked here thinking we might actually have a good look at the roster of the Patriots and see where the strengths are and the weaknesses are, and maybe spark some good football discussion. Instead, the first two pages (before I stopped reading) were: "Nope they suck! ALL BB AND BRADY!" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mission27 Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 On 6/19/2019 at 8:08 AM, SBLIII said: Belichick was destined to be a 8-8 coach at best without Brady. Other coaches in NFL history who are seen as average would look elite with Brady. uh dude he won 11 games with Matt Cassell I'm as big a fan of Brady as anyone but come on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rfournier103 Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 (edited) Every great coach has at least one great quarterback. They just go hand in hand. For example: Brown - Graham. Lombardi - Starr. Halas - Luckman. Noll - Bradshaw. Walsh - Montana. Shula - Marino; Griese; AND Unitas. Belichick - Brady. What were ANY of these coaches’ records without their Hall of Fame quarterbacks? Every single coach AND quarterback on this list is in the Pro Football Hall of Fame in Canton, Ohio. Coach vs. quarterback is the football equivalent of chicken vs. egg. Coaches make the players great and vice versa. As for the roster as a whole, I think many of the current Patriots might not succeed on other teams, and I’ll bet a lot of good players around the NFL would not do well in Foxborough. It’s all about the right fit in the right system, and having the right players to execute the plan. It’s complicated. Edited June 22, 2019 by rfournier103 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KellChippy Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 It’s very versatile, but not necessarily full of explosive athleticism. Their versatility enables them to attack most teams weaknesses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bolts223 Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 5 hours ago, rfournier103 said: Every great coach has at least one great quarterback. They just go hand in hand. For example: Brown - Graham. Lombardi - Starr. Halas - Luckman. Noll - Bradshaw. Walsh - Montana. Shula - Marino; Griese; AND Unitas. Belichick - Brady. What were ANY of these coaches’ records without their Hall of Fame quarterbacks? Every single coach AND quarterback on this list is in the Pro Football Hall of Fame in Canton, Ohio. Coach vs. quarterback is the football equivalent of chicken vs. egg. Coaches make the players great and vice versa. As for the roster as a whole, I think many of the current Patriots might not succeed on other teams, and I’ll bet a lot of good players around the NFL would not do well in Foxborough. It’s all about the right fit in the right system, and having the right players to execute the plan. It’s complicated. Gibbs is probably the one exception. 3 different SB teams with 3 different QB's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancerman Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 On 6/21/2019 at 6:55 AM, Daniel said: And you're strawmanning. I did not say Peyton would have the same level of success no matter what. You do seem to be saying he'd have none if he wasn't playing the exact offensive scheme he played in. And if you're really arguing that Manning would not have succeeded in another offensive system, then yes, I stand by that being an objectively silly thing to say. I'm saying you can't determine any level of success in a totally different system based off success in another one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rfournier103 Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 2 hours ago, Bolts223 said: Gibbs is probably the one exception. 3 different SB teams with 3 different QB's. While that is a tremendous accomplishment, I don’t really put him in the same tier as those other coaches. He’s in the tier with Bill Parcells; Tony Dungy; and John Madden. I should have also included Tom Landry and Roger Staubach in my first list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.