Patriots Fallout

[Gunz41]

On 1/12/2020 at 12:24 AM, crunchy said:

20 games is a significant sample size considering a season is only 16 games. People always say 'they didn't make the playoffs' but that was a statistical fluke. They're the only 11-5 team to miss since the playoffs went to 6 teams in 1990. 

When Brady came back the next year they won 1 LESS game and MADE the playoffs. 

According to the math the Patriots have won 7% more with Brady than a random replacement. And these were all ROOKIE replacements. Brady is only worth 7% more than a random rookie replacement? And this is with him having the benefit of years and years of experience playing with the team and the same coach and system the whole time while the rookies came in cold. That makes it way more favorable for Brady and he still does only 7% better. You made my case for me! 

For contrast, the Colts with Manning won 68% and the year without him won 14%. You may think Brady is a good qb but to credit him for team success over Belichick simply isn't born out by the facts. 

If you are going to try and prove a point or call someone out, try to use facts and not lies.

2008: Brady was credited with that 1st win as the starter, so Cassel was 10-5. But Matt was drafted in 2005, so he was NOT A ROOKIE.

The 4 game suspension was in 2016, 2 games by Jimmy G and 2 by Jacoby Brissett 

Jimmy G: was drafted in 2014, again NOT A ROOKIE.

Jacoby B: was a rookie 

That leaves the last game that was in 2001, and the other QB was Drew Bledsoe who TB12 replaced as the starter, so he obviously wasn't a rookie. So that makes 2 out of 20 games. A whopping 90% were NOT ROOKIES.

Secondly, nobody EVER said that BB had nothing to do with it, but you are saying that BB made TB12. Statistics show that to be completely false. As BB has a sub .500 record when not utilizing TB12. 

And using the year without Manning is trying to skew the narrative, as you know just as well as others that they were tanking. And it also doesn't correlate to the situation in NE. I can come up with countless examples of things like that which could indicate that a subpar player is "better" than a great player based solely on the use of 1 statistical data point. By one prime example, is by data that Emmitt Smith was basically the ENTIRE reason why Aikman won games, since Troy went 0-11 without Emmitt his rookie year. 

And though it wasn't in reply to me, you also are referencing BB making TB12 according to his "talent". Again BB entire record without TB is sub .500 so that argument doesn't hold water. For you argument to work, then he should have been able to take Bledsoe to GOAT with more talent. Or any of the other countless QBs hes had. Not even to mention that BB is a DEFENSIVE guy. Or are you trying to assert that BB is the end all be all and he coaches everyone individually.

As for saying it wasn't a big enough sample size, it really isn't. It doesn't show if he could have SUSTAINED success without TB12. History shows that he couldn't. 

Since that day that BB wanted to move on with Jimmy, TB has won 2 SB, been to another where he threw for 505 yards, scored the most points ever for a SB loser (35). 

I suspect that you are just trolling or just hate Brady that much. 

The truth of the matter is that even with the past evidence of BB failures without TB12, that BOTH deserve a lot of credit. And if BB wants to prove that he can win one without TB and vice versa, what does it say if NEITHER win 1 without the other? Does that mean that someone else was responsible for the dynasty? 

[crunchy]

22 hours ago, Gunz41 said:

If you are going to try and prove a point or call someone out, try to use facts and not lies.

2008: Brady was credited with that 1st win as the starter, so Cassel was 10-5. But Matt was drafted in 2005, so he was NOT A ROOKIE.

The 4 game suspension was in 2016, 2 games by Jimmy G and 2 by Jacoby Brissett 

Jimmy G: was drafted in 2014, again NOT A ROOKIE.

Jacoby B: was a rookie 

That leaves the last game that was in 2001, and the other QB was Drew Bledsoe who TB12 replaced as the starter, so he obviously wasn't a rookie. So that makes 2 out of 20 games. A whopping 90% were NOT ROOKIES.

Secondly, nobody EVER said that BB had nothing to do with it, but you are saying that BB made TB12. Statistics show that to be completely false. As BB has a sub .500 record when not utilizing TB12. 

And using the year without Manning is trying to skew the narrative, as you know just as well as others that they were tanking. And it also doesn't correlate to the situation in NE. I can come up with countless examples of things like that which could indicate that a subpar player is "better" than a great player based solely on the use of 1 statistical data point. By one prime example, is by data that Emmitt Smith was basically the ENTIRE reason why Aikman won games, since Troy went 0-11 without Emmitt his rookie year. 

And though it wasn't in reply to me, you also are referencing BB making TB12 according to his "talent". Again BB entire record without TB is sub .500 so that argument doesn't hold water. For you argument to work, then he should have been able to take Bledsoe to GOAT with more talent. Or any of the other countless QBs hes had. Not even to mention that BB is a DEFENSIVE guy. Or are you trying to assert that BB is the end all be all and he coaches everyone individually.

As for saying it wasn't a big enough sample size, it really isn't. It doesn't show if he could have SUSTAINED success without TB12. History shows that he couldn't. 

Since that day that BB wanted to move on with Jimmy, TB has won 2 SB, been to another where he threw for 505 yards, scored the most points ever for a SB loser (35). 

I suspect that you are just trolling or just hate Brady that much. 

The truth of the matter is that even with the past evidence of BB failures without TB12, that BOTH deserve a lot of credit. And if BB wants to prove that he can win one without TB and vice versa, what does it say if NEITHER win 1 without the other? Does that mean that someone else was responsible for the dynasty? 

You're right, Cassel and Jimmy weren't actually rookies, I was wrong about that. 

Cassel was still starting his first game at QB since high school and went 11-5. Brady was hurt in the 1st quarter, he clearly didn't win them that game.

Even though they weren't rookies, they were all 1st time NFL starters, and Cassel never even started in college at QB. And the team only won 7% less. Brady's not that important to the team's success. 

To say the Colts were tanking only helps my argument. That means that Manning was so important to the team they knew they had no chance without him and scuttled their whole season. The Pats knew Brady wasn't that important to them and kept trying to win, and they had a great record. 

As for BB having a sub-500 record without Brady, that's because he never won anything before he started filming in 2001. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Brady OR BB are any good. BB started winning when he started cheating, that's already been proven. Brady is just along for the ride. All the players on the Pats are successful because they all benefit from BB's cheating. Brady just gets the most credit because he's the QB and been there the whole time. 

So yes, someone else was responsible for the dynasty. That would be the cheating. 

And no, I'm not trolling, I really believe this. Imagine that BB was caught cheating and proved to be a fraud, by filming and stealing playsheets. Wait, that already happened in 2007. And they let him stay in the league because to invalidate his wins would erode public trust in the league, which would cost them money. It would mean the owners had overseen a fraudlent organization. 

I don't hate Brady, he's just the beneficiary of BB's cheating. I do hate BB for cheating. 

[Gunz41]

21 minutes ago, crunchy said:

You're right, Cassel and Jimmy weren't actually rookies, I was wrong about that. 

Cassel was still starting his first game at QB since high school and went 11-5. Brady was hurt in the 1st quarter, he clearly didn't win them that game.

Even though they weren't rookies, they were all 1st time NFL starters, and Cassel never even started in college at QB. And the team only won 7% less. Brady's not that important to the team's success. 

To say the Colts were tanking only helps my argument. That means that Manning was so important to the team they knew they had no chance without him and scuttled their whole season. The Pats knew Brady wasn't that important to them and kept trying to win, and they had a great record. 

As for BB having a sub-500 record without Brady, that's because he never won anything before he started filming in 2001. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Brady OR BB are any good. BB started winning when he started cheating, that's already been proven. Brady is just along for the ride. All the players on the Pats are successful because they all benefit from BB's cheating. Brady just gets the most credit because he's the QB and been there the whole time. 

So yes, someone else was responsible for the dynasty. That would be the cheating. 

And no, I'm not trolling, I really believe this. Imagine that BB was caught cheating and proved to be a fraud, by filming and stealing playsheets. Wait, that already happened in 2007. And they let him stay in the league because to invalidate his wins would erode public trust in the league, which would cost them money. It would mean the owners had overseen a fraudlent organization. 

I don't hate Brady, he's just the beneficiary of BB's cheating. I do hate BB for cheating. 

Actually you just proved an opposite point. When the Colts tanked, it obviously wasn't because of how important Peyton was, as he never played another snap for Colts. They tanked for LUCK.

Yes, they were making their 1st starts, but all but Jacoby had been in the system for years. So them being aloof about it has no validity.

So your premise is that BB has been cheating since he started winning, even after being caught and having more of an eye on him? And I guess you are of the mindset that Patriots are the only ones "cheating"?

How did they cheat down 28-3? Or why didn't the cheating work against the Eagles? Or why didn't he cheat to best the lowly Dolphins with a BYE on the line? Or better yet on Browns topic, did BB cheat the 1 year he had a good record in Cleveland?

But let's go with this premise of the 7%. How do you know that is sustainable? And yes 20 games is a large sample size of games, but in comparison its 6% of the games played by TB12. Which is less than the 7% you want to use to make a point. As for Brady being the reason they won that game/etc., he was the starter so he is credited with that win. As for the 10-5 record of Cassel, here is the teams they beat (Jets: 4-12; 49ers: 5-11; Broncos: 7-9; Rams: 2-14; Bills: 7-9 (2); Dolphins: 11-5; Seahawks: 4-12; Raiders: 4-12; Cardinals: 9-7)

And just the previous season (with close to same roster) TB had went 16-0, the offense scored 589 points, had a +315 in point differential, Brady threw 4806 yards 50 TDs, Moss had 23 TD. 

The next year, 11-5, 410 points, a point differential of 101, Cassel 3693 yards 21 TDs, Moss 11 TDs.

So using the example you used (Cassel 2008) and compared to Brady the year before: Brady +6 (or even use 5 as Cassel "winning" game 1) wins, Brady +1113 yards (about 70 yards a game), Brady +29 TDs (1.8 TDs more), and Patriots (+11.2 PPG, and +13.4 margin).

Sure seems that the Patriots missed TB12 that year. 

 

[crunchy]

2 hours ago, Gunz41 said:

Actually you just proved an opposite point. When the Colts tanked, it obviously wasn't because of how important Peyton was, as he never played another snap for Colts. They tanked for LUCK.

Yes, they were making their 1st starts, but all but Jacoby had been in the system for years. So them being aloof about it has no validity.

So your premise is that BB has been cheating since he started winning, even after being caught and having more of an eye on him? And I guess you are of the mindset that Patriots are the only ones "cheating"?

How did they cheat down 28-3? Or why didn't the cheating work against the Eagles? Or why didn't he cheat to best the lowly Dolphins with a BYE on the line? Or better yet on Browns topic, did BB cheat the 1 year he had a good record in Cleveland?

But let's go with this premise of the 7%. How do you know that is sustainable? And yes 20 games is a large sample size of games, but in comparison its 6% of the games played by TB12. Which is less than the 7% you want to use to make a point. As for Brady being the reason they won that game/etc., he was the starter so he is credited with that win. As for the 10-5 record of Cassel, here is the teams they beat (Jets: 4-12; 49ers: 5-11; Broncos: 7-9; Rams: 2-14; Bills: 7-9 (2); Dolphins: 11-5; Seahawks: 4-12; Raiders: 4-12; Cardinals: 9-7)

And just the previous season (with close to same roster) TB had went 16-0, the offense scored 589 points, had a +315 in point differential, Brady threw 4806 yards 50 TDs, Moss had 23 TD. 

The next year, 11-5, 410 points, a point differential of 101, Cassel 3693 yards 21 TDs, Moss 11 TDs.

So using the example you used (Cassel 2008) and compared to Brady the year before: Brady +6 (or even use 5 as Cassel "winning" game 1) wins, Brady +1113 yards (about 70 yards a game), Brady +29 TDs (1.8 TDs more), and Patriots (+11.2 PPG, and +13.4 margin).

Sure seems that the Patriots missed TB12 that year. 

 

I don't think we're going to convince each other, I guess we'll have to see what happens when Brady finally leaves. If I'm right, as long as BB is still the coach they'll be a SB contender. 

[The Gipper]

56 minutes ago, crunchy said:

I don't think we're going to convince each other, I guess we'll have to see what happens when Brady finally leaves. If I'm right, as long as BB is still the coach they'll be a SB contender. 

You won't be right. 

[Gunz41]

18 hours ago, crunchy said:

I don't think we're going to convince each other, I guess we'll have to see what happens when Brady finally leaves. If I'm right, as long as BB is still the coach they'll be a SB contender. 

I don't think that proves you right. I mean does it mean that Joe Montana wasn't any good because Steve Young won after? 

For you to be right, BB would have to go to SB 45% of the years remaining he coaches. And win the SB in 30% of years remaining. Anything less wouldn't that be the opposite side?

[crunchy]

On 1/14/2020 at 2:31 PM, The Gipper said:

You won't be right. 

Well, we'll have to wait and see

[The Gipper]

2 minutes ago, crunchy said:

Well, we'll have to wait and see

 I know.  But how many times is a Joe Montana followed by a Steve Young;   or a Brett Favre followed by an Aaron Rodgers?  And they would need that sort of thing to continue to win big. 

[crunchy]

On 1/15/2020 at 8:01 AM, Gunz41 said:

I don't think that proves you right. I mean does it mean that Joe Montana wasn't any good because Steve Young won after? 

For you to be right, BB would have to go to SB 45% of the years remaining he coaches. And win the SB in 30% of years remaining. Anything less wouldn't that be the opposite side?

So anything less than an exact replica of the past 20 years won't convince you. It looks like you've got your mind made up! 

[crunchy]

Just now, The Gipper said:

 I know.  But how many times is a Joe Montana followed by a Steve Young;   or a Brett Favre followed by an Aaron Rodgers?  And they would need that sort of thing to continue to win big. 

Not if I'm right. They would need any old QB, even, say, a 6th rounder with barely any experience and a terrible combine 😜

[Unsympathetic]

This is ridiculous.

It's never been just BB, Brady, and a few other QB stats.

Patriots win when they have a dominant defense especially at the DL [and Hightower a ProBowl LB], one or two OL All-Pros, and Brady.  What didn't they have this year outside of Gilmore? Yep.  Seymour was a very big part of the dominance.

Once teams figured out how Bill was having Gilmore guess, Patriots D was nowhere near as formidable.

Outside of Slater at special teams, the Browns had the same number of first team All-Pros [Bito] as the Patriots.

It's not cheating, it's actual coaching and execution of the rest of the team.  But hey, if conspiracy theories are more exciting, keep on posting.

[The Gipper]

Just now, crunchy said:

Not if I'm right. They would need any old QB, even, say, a 6th rounder with barely any experience and a terrible combine 😜

Don't get your thinking there.    You seem to be saying that if the Browns had taken Tom Brady and the Pats had taken Spergon Wynn, that  Wynn would have been the  6 time SB champ, and Brady the one game wonder?   I dont think so. 

[Gunz41]

6 hours ago, crunchy said:

So anything less than an exact replica of the past 20 years won't convince you. It looks like you've got your mind made up! 

Not at all, but it sounds like yours is. Because it appears as if you fail to look at past statistics. 

I believe from your argument that you are comparing apples and oranges. Because just saying that if TB12 leaves and Patriots are SB contenders means you are right and it was about BB, then that would equate to Montana not being good because Young won after he left. Or that the entire reason for Montana's success was because of Walsh. 

Along those lines, I also don't think that its comparable when discussing a 43 year old QB. If this were 10 years ago then maybe, but TB12 has regressed, and that has zero to do with Belichick. 

But ultimately, if TB12 does leave and for example goes to the Chargers and they become contenders, does that mean that it was ALL Brady? I don't think so. I think what it means is that TB went to a team who had some good players. And if the Patriots fall on their face without Brady, I don't think that is an indictment of Belichick. The whole point I was making is that no single season result is conducive of giving the responsibility of the Patriots success. 

[DieHardBrownsFan]