Notice: All Boston.com forums will be retired as of May 31st, 2016 and will not be archived. Thank you for your participation in this community, and we hope you continue to enjoy other content at Boston.com.

Would the Pats Be Terrible Without Brady?

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from mighty2012. Show mighty2012's posts

    Re: Would the Pats Be Terrible Without Brady?

    The Pats are awesome, with or without Brady.  Super Bowl champions either way.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from andrewmcintosh. Show andrewmcintosh's posts

    Re: Would the Pats Be Terrible Without Brady?

    Looking back, I have no idea how they were able to swindle 11 wins with Cassel...pretty remarkable esp. considering they were in the midst of a stretch of poor drafting.  My instinct is to say "they would stink" without Tom, because they don't have many playmakers on defense...But they probably have more talent now than they did in 2008, and they won 11 games.  Good question...
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from tompenny. Show tompenny's posts

    Re: Would the Pats Be Terrible Without Brady?

    Strength of schedules was very easy in 2008. AFC West was pathetic other than SD and they also played the NFC bottom feeders AZ, Sea, SF and St Louis who were horrific. They would have easily had home field through out the playoffs if Brady played that year.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Would the Pats Be Terrible Without Brady?

    I think the evidence has shown that no Brady = 5 less wins. 16-0 to 11-5 with a nearly identical roster. That's with an easier schedule. But really it depends on the replacement but the next guy won't be as good. Hope I'm wrong.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from raptor64d. Show raptor64d's posts

    Re: Would the Pats Be Terrible Without Brady?

    No, reference 2008.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from raptor64d. Show raptor64d's posts

    Re: Would the Pats Be Terrible Without Brady?

    Sorry Texaspat, I answered before I read your post. :)
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: Would the Pats Be Terrible Without Brady?

    I don't much like comparisons to 2008.

    I'm just gonna say it:

    Matt Cassell sucked then and he sucks now. The Pats beat exactly one -- ONE -- winning team that year, and that was an Arizona team (which, granted, almost -- really, should have -- won the Super Bowl) that didn't even show up. That said, New England doesn't do anything on offense that requires a pin-point passer. Brady doesn't go deep and he rarely throws any kind of timing route. The Pats take advantage of matchups that dictate primarily underneath stuff, and let's just admit it, this idea that Brady eats blitzes for breakfast simply isn't true. Send Brian Hoyer out there and he could do anything that Brady has done this season.

    Now . . .  that is not to say that Brady isn't awesome  . . . .     you're going to want him when Bitchburgh comes in in January . . .   but no, the Pats would not be terrible without Brady. They're designed to function in any contingency.

    Look at the defense.

    That's coaching.


     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from JohnHannahrulz. Show JohnHannahrulz's posts

    Re: Would the Pats Be Terrible Without Brady?

    Depends on the unknown variable of how good or bad Hoyer or Mallett is. P Mike is right Cassell is not that good and has benifitted from a very good running game (especially last year in KC). It would be dangerous to assume that the Pats offensive  playcalling stays the same without Brady. IMO the Pats offense would need more from the run game. I, like most, doubt that Hoyer or Mallett can win a game almost all by themselves......like Brady (who at times seems to will his team to win). You can have all the great arm strength in the world, but the intangibles are huge in this league.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: Would the Pats Be Terrible Without Brady?

    In Response to Re: Would the Pats Be Terrible Without Brady?:
    In Response to Would the Pats Be Terrible Without Brady? :  if you replaced Brady with Christian Ponder or some terrible QB they would only win one or two. 
    Posted by zbellino


    Christian Ponder is now the apotheosis of terrible QBs?

    Untold thousands of prairie rubes are not going to be happy to hear this.

    Frown




     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: Would the Pats Be Terrible Without Brady?

    We generally look for springtime 'round about the end of May, although it has been known to fool us.

    And thanx for that "talent" comment.

    You would be amazed at how many people around here actually believe that.


    But seriously . . .  Donovan McNabb??????????




     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from ChasaB. Show ChasaB's posts

    Re: Would the Pats Be Terrible Without Brady?

    The patriots would win less, but still be better then the colts if hoyer/mallet were in the driver seat.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from FishTaco64. Show FishTaco64's posts

    Re: Would the Pats Be Terrible Without Brady?

    With the schedule this year, had Brady gone down in the preseason or game 1, I would say they would go 8-8 with Hoyer at the helm. Those first few games were won due to Brady's ability to throw for 400+ yards in back to back games. They would most likely have lost to the Cowboys as well, and at least one to the Jets.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: Would the Pats Be Terrible Without Brady?

    In Response to Re: Would the Pats Be Terrible Without Brady?:
    In Response to Re: Would the Pats Be Terrible Without Brady? : You don't think Harvin, Shiancoe and Adrian Peterson are talented? I certainly do.  Peterson continues to dominate even though everyone and their Grandmother know he is coming at them.  And I understand why they are going with Ponder ... they think he can develop.  But McNabb handled the offense better, even if he is a dead end. 
    Posted by zbellino


    Well . . .  now there you go . . .

    You've fallen directly into the trap.

    Sure . . .  those guys are great . . .   but football is played at the line of scrimmage. Jared Allen can do what he does all by himself, and look good while the team looks bad, and he certainly does that. But Christian Ponder and Adrian Peterson and that other guy who smokes all the weed can't do what they do unless they have pathways . . .   and they don't.

    The O-Line stinks, there are no receivers and the defense is a revolving door.

    Talent?

    You know who was "talented"?

    Jim Plunkett.

    Remember him?

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: Would the Pats Be Terrible Without Brady?

    Well Z, I can't really argue the point.

    Ponder is doing what young QBs who don't yet know how to read do . . .  he's tucking it and running it and there is a segment of the fanbase that think's that's perfectly okay. Now . . .   I'm not really a Vikings fan, and therefore do not care, so I consider myself reasonably objective and don't really think Ponder is the problem. He's just as much of a rookie as Blaine Gabbert and Jake Locker and that red-headed kid over there in Cincinnatti (whose name I obviously don't remember) and Cam Newton and . . .

    well . . .  I guess that's all of them . . .

    But the larger point is that if you put Tom Brady or Drew Brees or Aaron Rodgers on the Vikings, they would still have Michael Jenkins as their #1 receiver, and even if Percy Harvin was Wes Welker (and he's not), he's easily game-planned because the Vikes don't have anywhere else to go . . .   and yes, I'll reitereate, as a pure runner, there probably isn't anyone better than Adrian Peterson (who's hurt, by the way), but in case you haven't noticed, the pure runner is not very necessary in today's NFL.

    In short, and as a prairire resident (although not a Vikings fan as such), there's not a quarterback anywhere you could put on this team to make them better.

    Either that . . .

    or I am entirely wrong.


    Foot in mouth



     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from dogbones. Show dogbones's posts

    Re: Would the Pats Be Terrible Without Brady?

    In Response to Would the Pats Be Terrible Without Brady?:
         Accordingly to Bob Ryan...yes...though not as bad as the Colts are:   http://www.boston.com/sports/video/globe10/?bctid=1304892141001      No slight on Tom, but I completely disagree. The Pats won 11 games without Brady in 2008...and would manage to win 7-10 games without him this year. The truth of the matter is that Bill Polian has done a lousy job of putting a team together in Indy. He has let the Colts grow old...and did not groom a QB to eventually replace the aging Peyton Manning. Let's not forget that the Colts barely won the weak AFC South last year...having to win their last five games in a row to  hold off Jacksonville, and finish 10-6.       What's you're take on this?         
    Posted by TexasPat3

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: Would the Pats Be Terrible Without Brady?

    In Response to Re: Would the Pats Be Terrible Without Brady?:
    In Response to Re: Would the Pats Be Terrible Without Brady? :  In conclusion, you are jealous of Visanthe Shiancoe's greatness. 
    Posted by zbellino


    That's the first time I've ever heard it called "greatness," but yeah . . .  he's . . .   ummmmm . . .    impressive.

    Wink






     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsLifer. Show PatsLifer's posts

    Re: Would the Pats Be Terrible Without Brady?


    I think people are pretty delusional if they think Hoyer or Mallett could step in for Brady and we would roughly have the same results.

    I will say this team is more balanced than the Colts, and would win at least 1 game with Hoyer/Mallett at the helm. How many games I have no idea, but there is no way they are sitting at 8-3 right now with Hoyer or Mallett.

    Generally, I think what Brady does, and how he runs this offense is very special. A lot of little things he makes happen that we don't necessarily see. Even when he's throwing underneath or down the seam, he's still incredibly accurate for the most part. That TD to Gronk in the Eagles game...neither Hoyer nor Mallett make that throw. And, there are many more like that one.

    My best guess is that we be 3-8 without Brady running the show.
    This is how I got there
    1. Miami (L)
    2. Chargers (L)
    3. Buffalo (L)
    4. Oakland (W)
    5. Jets (L)
    6. Dallas (L)
    7. Pitt (L)
    8. NYG (L)
    9. Jets (W)
    10. KC (W)
    11. Philly (L)
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Would the Pats Be Terrible Without Brady?

    Well I don't like to reference 08' because that was an easy schedule (much like GB's this year actually). I remember before Brady was hurt saying we could run the table again.

    But, I don't think BB would let the team go completely in the drink either without Brady. Hoyer is a very good game manager. Not a great QB but I think he could start on the lower 1/3 of teams and be good. Like Dilfer or Flacco he'd be able to manage a game and not make to many mistakes. Much like Dilfer or Flacco he alone won't win you a game either. I could see the team being just about .500 give or take a game, with Hoyer as QB, which in my mind isn't to bad.

    Shenanigin is right Brady makes a 4-5 game difference which happens to be the difference between the playoffs and watching the playoffs from your couch
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Would the Pats Be Terrible Without Brady?

    I think we'd win 7 games or so, and that's because Belichick would devise something to keep things close. I just think that you'd be asking a lot of any backup QB to come into a game and have to put up a lot of points...which our defense requires. And for the people that say, well we aren't the worst defense at giving up points (only lower end) - with the yards and time the defense would give up - it would be painful to see what would happen when you don't have an offense that scores.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from gmbill. Show gmbill's posts

    Re: Would the Pats Be Terrible Without Brady?

    In Response to Would the Pats Be Terrible Without Brady?:
         Accordingly to Bob Ryan...yes...though not as bad as the Colts are:   http://www.boston.com/sports/video/globe10/?bctid=1304892141001      No slight on Tom, but I completely disagree. The Pats won 11 games without Brady in 2008...and would manage to win 7-10 games without him this year. The truth of the matter is that Bill Polian has done a lousy job of putting a team together in Indy. He has let the Colts grow old...and did not groom a QB to eventually replace the aging Peyton Manning. Let's not forget that the Colts barely won the weak AFC South last year...having to win their last five games in a row to  hold off Jacksonville, and finish 10-6.       What's you're take on this?         
    Posted by TexasPat3



    Pats have proven that they can survive sans TB. They will not be the dominant team they are today but they would be a div contender and have SB hopes
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from oklahomapatriot. Show oklahomapatriot's posts

    Re: Would the Pats Be Terrible Without Brady?

    I would expect them to be the same with Cassell, when TB got hurt, as when Bledsoe got hurt. I would expect some drop off though.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from kjfiton. Show kjfiton's posts

    Re: Would the Pats Be Terrible Without Brady?

    it depends on what the backup can do. belichick wouldn't have him doing anything too complicated. when brady first came in for bledsoe the offense was completely different, they made it very simple for him. As brady became more comfortable they put more on him, leading up to what he has become today. imo belichick is underrated on how he handles and works with quarterbacks.

    depending on the schedule they could be anything from a 5-11 to an 11-5 team.
     
Sections
Shortcuts