Can Brady win if he has to do it on his own merit?
-
And all the while being perfectly accurate and on point.
I have stated my view about Belichick. Not sure why...after I have explained this numerous times some of you still do not understand. My suggestion is that you take this post, print it out, save it, put it in your wallet....and when you again become confused about matters you can pull it out and read it over once again in an effort to comprehend it. Considering how simple this explanation is, perhaps after 8-10 readings the light bulb will go on in your respective heads:
A. Bill Belichick is a quality coach. On his own, his team's could likely be pretty consistent playoff contenders.
B. It is Tom Brady that makes BB a championship coach. BBs defense keeps games close.....Tom Brady leads them to championship.
C. Bill Belichick does not win 5 Super Bowls with the likes of Matt Cassell...or Brian Hoyer as his primary starting QB. But some of you banana brains think he walks on water and could have won 5 Super Bowls with Les Conner as his QB. (an inside joke for Steve).
D. Just some basic facts: Without Brady as BBs QB, he has had 2 seasons with winning records, and 5 with losing records; and he has had 1 team make the playoffs and 6 teams miss the playoffs. Nevertheless, I think he could likely, as I said, have had a consistent playoff contending team...but not a consistent championship team.
E. With Brady, they have taken that team now to 8 Super Bowls...winning 5....and maybe another. With Brady, that team has never had a losing record...or even a .500 record. You bring up the Matt Cassell year, and I say, yes....that is a good example of what things may have been like with Brady. A good record....challenging for a playoff spot...sometimes making it, sometimes not.
F. Is there some symbiosis between BB and Brady that has allowed them to be so good and such winners? Yes, certainly to an extent, I buy that. but that same symbiosis would never had existed with just about any other QB. Maybe if he had another of the top notch Hall of Famers, it is possible. But those QBs over the years that could challenge Brady in the last two decades could be counted on one hand: Peyton, Rodgers, maybe BR, maybe Brees...and that's it.
G. On Tom Brady...if you think I am diminishing him, then you have a brain full of banana slugs. I have said that the GOAT is a discussion likely between Jim Brown, Jerry Rice, and Tom Brady. Not sure where else I can go with him. Maybe you Patriot fans think he is the Reincarnation of Jesus Christ, or Thor come down from Asgard...but I regard him as simply one of the greatest football players ever.
H. On the issue of the refs helping the Patriots. Gee, I must be the only one here that thinks that on occasion...since it was I who started this thread.....OH, ERR, OOPs.....I was NOT the one to start this thread. Earlier in this thread I stated that I did not see the last quarter of that game....and asked if the Pats got any more help from the refs like they did on that PI call at the end of the first half. That WAS a horseshite call....and a gift to the Pats by the refs. That sort of thing has happened a number of times. That is the perception......and God forbid that someone who is not a Belichick or Patriots arse licker point it out.
So, here you go. Take this post, print it out...so that the next time you comment about what my opinions are, you can at least be accurate about what my opinions are....and not give YOUR opinions about what you think are my opinions.
Billy Belichick will be going to his 11th super bowl. Out of 52 Super Bowls, he has coached in more than 20% and has 7 rings. He controls the salary cap. That is why NE is never in cap trouble like the Saints were a few years ago after they won the Lombardi. He controls who is drafted and which FAs to pick up.While others like you are picking their noses and polishing your wee wees, he is making moves that afterwards the others say to themselves "Gee, why didnt we think of that?" He hires and fires coaches and staff. He picks out the facility 5hit paper so when the players want to take a gipper, it will be soft, but save money.
Quality.
Billy Belichick will be going to his 11th super bowl. Out of 52 Super Bowls, he has coached in more than 20% and has 7 rings. He controls the salary cap. That is why NE is never in cap trouble like the Saints were a few years ago after they won the Lombardi. He controls who is drafted and which FAs to pick up.While others like you are picking their noses and polishing your wee wees, he is making moves that afterwards the others say to themselves "Gee, why didnt we think of that?" He hires and fires coaches and staff. He picks out the facility 5hit paper so when the players want to take a gipper, it will be soft, but save money.
Quality.
Yes. like I said......he is a quality coach, whom, without Tom Brady would have his team's in playoff contention. ...for all the reason you state. But answer me this: how many Super Bowls did he make without Tom Brady? How many playoffs has he made without Tom Brady. How many playoff wins does he have without Tom Brady?
Answers: -0- , 1, and 1.
-
Billy Belichick will be going to his 11th super bowl. Out of 52 Super Bowls, he has coached in more than 20% and has 7 rings. He controls the salary cap. That is why NE is never in cap trouble like the Saints were a few years ago after they won the Lombardi. He controls who is drafted and which FAs to pick up.While others like you are picking their noses and polishing your wee wees, he is making moves that afterwards the others say to themselves "Gee, why didnt we think of that?" He hires and fires coaches and staff. He picks out the facility 5hit paper so when the players want to take a gipper, it will be soft, but save money.
Quality.
Yes. like I said......he is a quality coach, whom, without Tom Brady would have his team's in playoff contention. ...for all the reason you state. But answer me this: how many Super Bowls did he make without Tom Brady? How many playoffs has he made without Tom Brady. How many playoff wins does he have without Tom Brady?
Answers: -0- , 1, and 1.
Yes. like I said......he is a quality coach, whom, without Tom Brady would have his team's in playoff contention. ...for all the reason you state. But answer me this: how many Super Bowls did he make without Tom Brady? How many playoffs has he made without Tom Brady. How many playoff wins does he have without Tom Brady?
Answers: -0- , 1, and 1.
Brady was the on field talent but Belichick is the brains behind the football operations make no mistake about that.
GO BUCKEYES, BROWNS, INDIANS, CAVS, YSU, NAVY and yes I like ND! -
Cooks would have been in a position to make a play on the ball if not impeded and pushed out of bounds.
Thank you for the video.
Again, I think the reasonable man's take is not to argue the calls against the Jags. That could have gone either way, but by definition it's a foul sure.
The question instead is why similar contact wasn't called against the Patriots. There's a myriad of examples in this game where it just wasn't, and it becomes a dubious point to consider.
Again, I think the reasonable man's take is not to argue the calls against the Jags. That could have gone either way, but by definition it's a foul sure.
The question instead is why similar contact wasn't called against the Patriots. There's a myriad of examples in this game where it just wasn't, and it becomes a dubious point to consider.
Correct me if I am wrong...but the called only 1 single penalty on the Pats the entire game,no? And what was that penalty for?
As noted, you could call holding on 90% of football plays. You could probably call PI on 75% of passing plays.
I will be fair and state that, while I was watching....which was for the first 3 quarters of the game....only the above play seemed egregious to me. But I did not see the 4th qtr....so I don't know.
It just seems to me that with the best pass rushing team in the league that they don't get any holding calls?
-
Yes. like I said......he is a quality coach, whom, without Tom Brady would have his team's in playoff contention. ...for all the reason you state. But answer me this: how many Super Bowls did he make without Tom Brady? How many playoffs has he made without Tom Brady. How many playoff wins does he have without Tom Brady?
Answers: -0- , 1, and 1.
Brady was the on field talent but Belichick is the brains behind the football operations make no mistake about that.
Brady was the on field talent but Belichick is the brains behind the football operations make no mistake about that.
And that is why in all his other years without Brady.....he has 2 winning seasons and 5 losing seasons?
-
There could be PI on every play, but he has both hands on him and forces the receiver out of bounds. It is PI, not saying that every official in every game would call it, as they wouldn't, but it certainly is
It was a horseshite call. He didn't have his hands on him and he didn't force the receiver out of bounds. There was some hand play...and the receiver put himself in a terrible position by allowing the defender to get the angle on him. Beyond that, it is highly possible that the pass was not catchable. It nearly hit the pylon...which was 10 yards downfield from where they were.
It was a horseshite call. He didn't have his hands on him and he didn't force the receiver out of bounds. There was some hand play...and the receiver put himself in a terrible position by allowing the defender to get the angle on him. Beyond that, it is highly possible that the pass was not catchable. It nearly hit the pylon...which was 10 yards downfield from where they were.
So exactly how long have you known a football rulebook? See, you are one that thinks they know what a call "should" be.
It IS pass interference whether you want to think so or like it or not. Could it have been a no call, YES. Doesn't change the legitimacy of the call
-
And that is why in all his other years without Brady.....he has 2 winning seasons and 5 losing seasons?
Nobody today wins every year in this parity by design NFL, NE has the closest thing to a dynasty going now.
GO BUCKEYES, BROWNS, INDIANS, CAVS, YSU, NAVY and yes I like ND! -
It was a horseshite call. He didn't have his hands on him and he didn't force the receiver out of bounds. There was some hand play...and the receiver put himself in a terrible position by allowing the defender to get the angle on him. Beyond that, it is highly possible that the pass was not catchable. It nearly hit the pylon...which was 10 yards downfield from where they were.
So exactly how long have you known a football rulebook? See, you are one that thinks they know what a call "should" be.
It IS pass interference whether you want to think so or like it or not. Could it have been a no call, YES. Doesn't change the legitimacy of the call
So exactly how long have you known a football rulebook? See, you are one that thinks they know what a call "should" be.
It IS pass interference whether you want to think so or like it or not. Could it have been a no call, YES. Doesn't change the legitimacy of the call
I am a lawyer/magistrate for 37 years.......I think I know how to deal with a rulebook. And with any rulebook, any law...you have to apply facts to that rule.
Sure...there is a rule called pass interference....just like there is a rule for something like say....aggravated murder, or running a red light. For there to be a violation there has to be a set of facts that properly apply to that rule, resulting in the violation.
Here, the facts do not match.
In this case....like many others perhaps....the law..the rule...may not be applied correctly to the fact.
In this case the thing that provides legitimacy to the call is : A. it was made....rightly or wrongly...and B. under the rules that apply...it cannot be disputed. That's it. It can't be disputed, whether or not the call is correct or not.
Ergo...if you think that every application of a rule to any set of facts is ALWAYS correct.....and that by being indisputable and not subject to correction....then you clearly believe, say....that OJ Simpson is indeed not guilty of murdering two people.
So, now, do yo see how this works?
-
And that is why in all his other years without Brady.....he has 2 winning seasons and 5 losing seasons?
Nobody today wins every year in this parity by design NFL, NE has the closest thing to a dynasty going now.
-
Either way they've more than eclipsed the browns, Steelers, cowboys, 49ers dynasties and arguably eclipsed the Packers as well
Early man walked away as modern man took control. Their minds weren't all the same and to conquer was their goal. So He built his great empires and he slaughtered his own kind, and he died a confused man and killed himself in his own mind... -
And that is why in all his other years without Brady.....he has 2 winning seasons and 5 losing seasons?
Nobody today wins every year in this parity by design NFL, NE has the closest thing to a dynasty going now.
Nobody today wins every year in this parity by design NFL, NE has the closest thing to a dynasty going now.
It is not a closest thing to a dynasty.....it is undeniably a dynasty. That is not the point. The question is....whose dynasty is it?
To me, it is the Tom Brady dynasty. Yes, both will be given credit.
But, in terms of saying who is primary in that dynasty....we can only go by the facts and evidence that we have....and be cognizant of what we don't have:
We do NOT have any record of how Tom Brady would perform under a different HC. So, it is all speculation.
But we DO have evidence of how BB has performed using different QBs.
He has a 52-60 record without Brady. (112 games is a fairly significant sample size) His primary QBs those years without Brady were: 1 year with Kosar, 1 year with Mike Tomscak, 3 years with Vinny Testaverde, 1 year with Drew Bledsoe, and 1 year with Matt Cassel.
OK, these guys are not Tom Brady....but what you do have here are 3 #1 overall draft picks (BK was taken in trade of the #1 overall pick...to be used in the supplemental draft), plus some other good QBs. Let's face it.....is it fair to say that just about everyone of these guys is likely better than any QB the Browns have had since Kosar and Vinny? Point being....the QBs were not slouches. They were pretty good. BB did not have to deal with the likes of Johnny Manziel or Brandon Weeden (well....except for when he dumped Kosar ....and relied on Todd Philcox).
-
So exactly how long have you known a football rulebook? See, you are one that thinks they know what a call "should" be.
It IS pass interference whether you want to think so or like it or not. Could it have been a no call, YES. Doesn't change the legitimacy of the call
I am a lawyer/magistrate for 37 years.......I think I know how to deal with a rulebook. And with any rulebook, any law...you have to apply facts to that rule.
Sure...there is a rule called pass interference....just like there is a rule for something like say....aggravated murder, or running a red light. For there to be a violation there has to be a set of facts that properly apply to that rule, resulting in the violation.
Here, the facts do not match.
In this case....like many others perhaps....the law..the rule...may not be applied correctly to the fact.
In this case the thing that provides legitimacy to the call is : A. it was made....rightly or wrongly...and B. under the rules that apply...it cannot be disputed. That's it. It can't be disputed, whether or not the call is correct or not.
Ergo...if you think that every application of a rule to any set of facts is ALWAYS correct.....and that by being indisputable and not subject to correction....then you clearly believe, say....that OJ Simpson is indeed not guilty of murdering two people.
So, now, do yo see how this works?
I am a lawyer/magistrate for 37 years.......I think I know how to deal with a rulebook. And with any rulebook, any law...you have to apply facts to that rule.
Sure...there is a rule called pass interference....just like there is a rule for something like say....aggravated murder, or running a red light. For there to be a violation there has to be a set of facts that properly apply to that rule, resulting in the violation.
Here, the facts do not match.
In this case....like many others perhaps....the law..the rule...may not be applied correctly to the fact.
In this case the thing that provides legitimacy to the call is : A. it was made....rightly or wrongly...and B. under the rules that apply...it cannot be disputed. That's it. It can't be disputed, whether or not the call is correct or not.
Ergo...if you think that every application of a rule to any set of facts is ALWAYS correct.....and that by being indisputable and not subject to correction....then you clearly believe, say....that OJ Simpson is indeed not guilty of murdering two people.
So, now, do yo see how this works?
No. You can use all this legalise you want, and if we are talking about law, sure you got me, you are a lawyer you would know more. But a coach, players, former players would know more about it than you.
The DB used his hands and HIS leverage to INTERFERE with the receiver. Had the DB just ran with the receiver and used the receivers momentum and leverage against him then no PI.
Being a lawyer doesn't mean you or anyone can read and interpret a rule in the correct way. If that were true, then I am a regular citizen could walk into court and defend someone because I read the law. Having a familiarity with applying the rules is a BIG part of it
-
Either way they've more than eclipsed the browns, Steelers, cowboys, 49ers dynasties and arguably eclipsed the Packers as well
Either way they've more than eclipsed the browns, Steelers, cowboys, 49ers dynasties and arguably eclipsed the Packers as well
Actually, the two that are most debatable is in fact the Browns of the 40s/50s. That lasted a full 11 years...and came away with 7 titles. And the 49ers...if you consider the period from 1981 to 1994 as one continuous. Unlike the Pats/Browns however, who had one coach and one QB, the 49ers did it with 2 coaches and 2 QBs Walsh/Seifert and Montana/Young.
The 90s Cowboys was really only about a 5 year run. The Packers went 8 years and were done. The Steelers run lasted 7 years.
-
The browns aafc titles don't count in any official NFL capacity so...their dynasty is only officially counted from 50-55
Early man walked away as modern man took control. Their minds weren't all the same and to conquer was their goal. So He built his great empires and he slaughtered his own kind, and he died a confused man and killed himself in his own mind... -
I am a lawyer/magistrate for 37 years.......I think I know how to deal with a rulebook. And with any rulebook, any law...you have to apply facts to that rule.
Sure...there is a rule called pass interference....just like there is a rule for something like say....aggravated murder, or running a red light. For there to be a violation there has to be a set of facts that properly apply to that rule, resulting in the violation.
Here, the facts do not match.
In this case....like many others perhaps....the law..the rule...may not be applied correctly to the fact.
In this case the thing that provides legitimacy to the call is : A. it was made....rightly or wrongly...and B. under the rules that apply...it cannot be disputed. That's it. It can't be disputed, whether or not the call is correct or not.
Ergo...if you think that every application of a rule to any set of facts is ALWAYS correct.....and that by being indisputable and not subject to correction....then you clearly believe, say....that OJ Simpson is indeed not guilty of murdering two people.
So, now, do yo see how this works?
No. You can use all this legalise you want, and if we are talking about law, sure you got me, you are a lawyer you would know more. But a coach, players, former players would know more about it than you.
The DB used his hands and HIS leverage to INTERFERE with the receiver. Had the DB just ran with the receiver and used the receivers momentum and leverage against him then no PI.
Being a lawyer doesn't mean you or anyone can read and interpret a rule in the correct way. If that were true, then I am a regular citizen could walk into court and defend someone because I read the law. Having a familiarity with applying the rules is a BIG part of it
No. You can use all this legalise you want, and if we are talking about law, sure you got me, you are a lawyer you would know more. But a coach, players, former players would know more about it than you.
The DB used his hands and HIS leverage to INTERFERE with the receiver. Had the DB just ran with the receiver and used the receivers momentum and leverage against him then no PI.
And THAT is exactly what happened.....thank you for putting succintly and accurately. The DB ran with the receiver...and used the receiver's momentum and leverage against him.
Being a lawyer doesn't mean you or anyone can read and interpret a rule in the correct way. If that were true, then I am a regular citizen could walk into court and defend someone because I read the law. Having a familiarity with applying the rules is a BIG part of it
Yes, fact, rules, law, evidence...that is all I am applying here. Your problem....which you don't see....is simply that you see the facts the way you want to see them.....even if they are not accurate. You stated it accurately....got it right....then contradicted yourself.
-
Nobody today wins every year in this parity by design NFL, NE has the closest thing to a dynasty going now.
It is not a closest thing to a dynasty.....it is undeniably a dynasty. That is not the point. The question is....whose dynasty is it?
To me, it is the Tom Brady dynasty. Yes, both will be given credit.
But, in terms of saying who is primary in that dynasty....we can only go by the facts and evidence that we have....and be cognizant of what we don't have:
We do NOT have any record of how Tom Brady would perform under a different HC. So, it is all speculation.
But we DO have evidence of how BB has performed using different QBs.
He has a 52-60 record without Brady. (112 games is a fairly significant sample size) His primary QBs those years without Brady were: 1 year with Kosar, 1 year with Mike Tomscak, 3 years with Vinny Testaverde, 1 year with Drew Bledsoe, and 1 year with Matt Cassel.
OK, these guys are not Tom Brady....but what you do have here are 3 #1 overall draft picks (BK was taken in trade of the #1 overall pick...to be used in the supplemental draft), plus some other good QBs. Let's face it.....is it fair to say that just about everyone of these guys is likely better than any QB the Browns have had since Kosar and Vinny? Point being....the QBs were not slouches. They were pretty good. BB did not have to deal with the likes of Johnny Manziel or Brandon Weeden (well....except for when he dumped Kosar ....and relied on Todd Philcox).
It is not a closest thing to a dynasty.....it is undeniably a dynasty. That is not the point. The question is....whose dynasty is it?
To me, it is the Tom Brady dynasty. Yes, both will be given credit.
But, in terms of saying who is primary in that dynasty....we can only go by the facts and evidence that we have....and be cognizant of what we don't have:
We do NOT have any record of how Tom Brady would perform under a different HC. So, it is all speculation.
But we DO have evidence of how BB has performed using different QBs.
He has a 52-60 record without Brady. (112 games is a fairly significant sample size) His primary QBs those years without Brady were: 1 year with Kosar, 1 year with Mike Tomscak, 3 years with Vinny Testaverde, 1 year with Drew Bledsoe, and 1 year with Matt Cassel.
OK, these guys are not Tom Brady....but what you do have here are 3 #1 overall draft picks (BK was taken in trade of the #1 overall pick...to be used in the supplemental draft), plus some other good QBs. Let's face it.....is it fair to say that just about everyone of these guys is likely better than any QB the Browns have had since Kosar and Vinny? Point being....the QBs were not slouches. They were pretty good. BB did not have to deal with the likes of Johnny Manziel or Brandon Weeden (well....except for when he dumped Kosar ....and relied on Todd Philcox).
I think Brady deserves more of the credit, and I dont care for BB. But he is a GREAT coach.
But your argument is flawed. You use all these guys that he had in the past to prove your point, but don't factor in 2 keys, 1 being his assistants, but more importantly would be growth.
I think it is fair to say that you are a much better lawyer now that you have grown and learned over the years as compared to when you first started.
Would Bill have 5 SB with Brady? Absolutely not. Would Brady have 5 without Bill? Absolutely not. They are great together, but Brady deserves the majority of credit for it
-
I don't generally count the 49ers 5th super bowl in with their joe Montana/Walsh dynasty but I guess you could look at it that way ...either way Patriots Still superior.
-
No. You can use all this legalise you want, and if we are talking about law, sure you got me, you are a lawyer you would know more. But a coach, players, former players would know more about it than you.
The DB used his hands and HIS leverage to INTERFERE with the receiver. Had the DB just ran with the receiver and used the receivers momentum and leverage against him then no PI.
And THAT is exactly what happened.....thank you for putting succintly and accurately. The DB ran with the receiver...and used the receiver's momentum and leverage against him.
Being a lawyer doesn't mean you or anyone can read and interpret a rule in the correct way. If that were true, then I am a regular citizen could walk into court and defend someone because I read the law. Having a familiarity with applying the rules is a BIG part of it
Yes, fact, rules, law, evidence...that is all I am applying here. Your problem....which you don't see....is simply that you see the facts the way you want to see them.....even if they are not accurate. You stated it accurately....got it right....then contradicted yourself.
Yes, fact, rules, law, evidence...that is all I am applying here. Your problem....which you don't see....is simply that you see the facts the way you want to see them.....even if they are not accurate. You stated it accurately....got it right....then contradicted yourself.
No, you are seeing them the way you want. He used his hands AND forced the receiver out.
I will all but guarantee that you know more law than I, and I know more football rules than you.
It's obvious you aren't going to change your view of the play no matter what is said, and I KNOW the rule, so instead of arguing I will just let it go and you can go ahead and think you are correct. It's not like the other 95% of people who think they "know" the rules and actually just just formulate an opinion are any different.
Good day and God bless
-
Nobody today wins every year in this parity by design NFL, NE has the closest thing to a dynasty going now.
It is not a closest thing to a dynasty.....it is undeniably a dynasty. That is not the point. The question is....whose dynasty is it?
To me, it is the Tom Brady dynasty. Yes, both will be given credit.
But, in terms of saying who is primary in that dynasty....we can only go by the facts and evidence that we have....and be cognizant of what we don't have:
We do NOT have any record of how Tom Brady would perform under a different HC. So, it is all speculation.
But we DO have evidence of how BB has performed using different QBs.
He has a 52-60 record without Brady. (112 games is a fairly significant sample size) His primary QBs those years without Brady were: 1 year with Kosar, 1 year with Mike Tomscak, 3 years with Vinny Testaverde, 1 year with Drew Bledsoe, and 1 year with Matt Cassel.
OK, these guys are not Tom Brady....but what you do have here are 3 #1 overall draft picks (BK was taken in trade of the #1 overall pick...to be used in the supplemental draft), plus some other good QBs. Let's face it.....is it fair to say that just about everyone of these guys is likely better than any QB the Browns have had since Kosar and Vinny? Point being....the QBs were not slouches. They were pretty good. BB did not have to deal with the likes of Johnny Manziel or Brandon Weeden (well....except for when he dumped Kosar ....and relied on Todd Philcox).
.....he has a 52-60 record without Brady. (112 games is a fairly significant sample size) His primary QBs those years without Brady were: 1 year with Kosar, 1 year with Mike Tomscak, 3 years with Vinny Testaverde, 1 year with Drew Bledsoe, and 1 year with Matt Cassel.
OK, these guys are not Tom Brady....but what you do have here are 3 #1 overall draft picks (BK was taken in trade of the #1 overall pick...to be used in the supplemental draft), plus some other good QBs. Let's face it.....is it fair to say that just about everyone of these guys is likely better than any QB the Browns have had since Kosar and Vinny? Point being....the QBs were not slouches. They were pretty good. BB did not have to deal with the likes of Johnny Manziel or Brandon Weeden (well....except for when he dumped Kosar ....and relied on Todd Philcox).
And that's where you get into the apples/oranges thing remember Belichick was just learning how to be THE head coach in Cleveland, plus it was a different era, management, etc. The Browns were already headed down. Bill was also very much a defensive guy first, Bernie has some great stories about that!
To combine those records is very misleading to say the least.
.......Belichick began his coaching career in 1975, and by 1985, was the defensive coordinator for New York Giants head coach Bill Parcells. Parcells and Belichick won two Super Bowls together (XXI and XXV), before Belichick left to become the head coach in Cleveland in 1991. He remained in Cleveland for five seasons, and was fired following the team's 1995 season. Belichick then rejoined Parcells, first in New England where the team lost Super Bowl XXXI, and later with the New York Jets.
After being named head coach of the Jets in early 2000, Belichick resigned after only one day on the job to accept the head coaching job for the New England Patriots on January 27, 2000........
GO BUCKEYES, BROWNS, INDIANS, CAVS, YSU, NAVY and yes I like ND! -
The browns aafc titles don't count in any official NFL capacity so...their dynasty is only officially counted from 50-55
The browns aafc titles don't count in any official NFL capacity so...their dynasty is only officially counted from 50-55
Fuyuck off arsebag. Are you also a holocaust denier? Do you think the south won the civil war. The fuyucking facts are the fuyucking facts. The AAFC was a better league at the time than the NFL.
Do you actually know why the NFL does not want to recognize the AAFC? Even when every single other entity does? Do you know the fact surrounding that situation?
It was pure resentment and jealousy on the part of Bert Bell....then NFL commissioner AND owner of the Philadelphia Eagles....the defending NFL champs who got there asses stomped by the Browns in the first game played. He got embarassed by his team's arse kicking...and the proclaimed in a snit....."we are not going to recognize the previous accomplishment of AAFC teams". It was a pure petty and vindictive move.
So...now you have been educated about that. It was a pure venal matter
And as I said....every reputable entity other than them does "recognize" it. The Pro Football HOF, the Sporting News....I don't know, all of them...name your favorite.
-
It is not a closest thing to a dynasty.....it is undeniably a dynasty. That is not the point. The question is....whose dynasty is it?
To me, it is the Tom Brady dynasty. Yes, both will be given credit.
But, in terms of saying who is primary in that dynasty....we can only go by the facts and evidence that we have....and be cognizant of what we don't have:
We do NOT have any record of how Tom Brady would perform under a different HC. So, it is all speculation.
But we DO have evidence of how BB has performed using different QBs.
He has a 52-60 record without Brady. (112 games is a fairly significant sample size) His primary QBs those years without Brady were: 1 year with Kosar, 1 year with Mike Tomscak, 3 years with Vinny Testaverde, 1 year with Drew Bledsoe, and 1 year with Matt Cassel.
OK, these guys are not Tom Brady....but what you do have here are 3 #1 overall draft picks (BK was taken in trade of the #1 overall pick...to be used in the supplemental draft), plus some other good QBs. Let's face it.....is it fair to say that just about everyone of these guys is likely better than any QB the Browns have had since Kosar and Vinny? Point being....the QBs were not slouches. They were pretty good. BB did not have to deal with the likes of Johnny Manziel or Brandon Weeden (well....except for when he dumped Kosar ....and relied on Todd Philcox).
I think Brady deserves more of the credit, and I dont care for BB. But he is a GREAT coach.
But your argument is flawed. You use all these guys that he had in the past to prove your point, but don't factor in 2 keys, 1 being his assistants, but more importantly would be growth.
I think it is fair to say that you are a much better lawyer now that you have grown and learned over the years as compared to when you first started.
Would Bill have 5 SB with Brady? Absolutely not. Would Brady have 5 without Bill? Absolutely not. They are great together, but Brady deserves the majority of credit for it
I think Brady deserves more of the credit, and I dont care for BB. But he is a GREAT coach.
But your argument is flawed. You use all these guys that he had in the past to prove your point, but don't factor in 2 keys, 1 being his assistants, but more importantly would be growth.
I think it is fair to say that you are a much better lawyer now that you have grown and learned over the years as compared to when you first started.
Would Bill have 5 SB with Brady? Absolutely not. Would Brady have 5 without Bill? Absolutely not. They are great together, but Brady deserves the majority of credit for it.
....I HAVE said...consistently...if you had paid any attention....that indeed BB had grown as a coach.....that is why I said that he WOULD likely have his teams be consistent playoff contenders. I point out his non-Brady record for two reasons: A. to say...yes...he is now better than this record was in those days...and B. to prove the ultimate point...that you agree on: the majority of credit goes to Brady.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login