Would the Pats Be Terrible Without Brady?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Would the Pats Be Terrible Without Brady?

    In Response to 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.
    Posted by p-mike



    Knowing full well how you watch the Vikings more than I do,  I will not yield the point.

    In conclusion, you are jealous of Visanthe Shiancoe's greatness. 
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino'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? :      Replace him with Hoyer. How do you think the Pats would have done this season if Hoyer played the entire season? 
    Posted by TexasPat3

    How can we tell?

    I shot out 6-10. 

    I just figure that games which featured a lot of hurry-up (something Hoyer probably cannot do) or were close shootouts, or involved a last minute hurry up drive for the win are "L's."

    Ummm .... 6-10. 

     
  3. 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






     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Would the Pats Be Terrible Without Brady?

    Against this schedule, with Hoyer playing decently, they might win 5-7 games.  BB is a great coach and would get a lot out of the remnant. The void absent Brady's 41 TD pace (only done 5 times in history) would add quite a few losses.


    As for 2008 - that D allowed 100 passing yards per game less than this D has. I don't see an 11-5 with this D and no Brady against this schedule. 6-10.
     
  5. 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)
     
  6. 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
     
  7. 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.
     
  8. 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
     
  9. 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.

     
  10. 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.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat3. Show TexasPat3'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? : How can we tell? I shot out 6-10.  I just figure that games which featured a lot of hurry-up (something Hoyer probably cannot do) or were close shootouts, or involved a last minute hurry up drive for the win are "L's." Ummm .... 6-10. 
    Posted by zbellino


         Nobody can tell for sure how well the Pats would do without Brady, or how well Hoyer would do. But, 6-10? BB wouldn't stand for that. Somehow,  someway, he would find a way to win Brady-less...just like he did with Matt Cassel. 

         Brady is one of the all-time great QBs. But, BB is one of the all-time great coaches. For this reason, and the fact that BB has been successful Brady-less before, I can envision the Pats winning as many as 10 games without Tom.  
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill'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 may still do well, but, the same question could be posed for any team with a top tier QB.  Saints without Brees, Packers without Rodgers etc...  Another good question would be:  What top tier team would fare the best if they lost their top tier QB? Considering how the Pats did in 2008 without Brady, my money would be on the Pats. The Pats missed the playoffs due to a fluke that year with a couple teams with worse records than the Pats making it that year. BB knows how to coach up a team and many are still amazed at what he has done with another patchwork defense.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli'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? :      Nobody can tell for sure how well the Pats would do without Brady, or how well Hoyer would do. But, 6-10? BB wouldn't stand for that. Somehow,  someway, he would find a way to win Brady-less...just like he did with Matt Cassel.       Brady is one of the all-time great QBs. But, BB is one of the all-time great coaches. For this reason, and the fact that BB has been successful Brady-less before, I can envision the Pats winning as many as 10 games without Tom.  
    Posted by TexasPat3


    People conveniently forget he wasn't so successful Bradyless in 2000 and cling to the anemic 2008 schedule as the BB gospel. As Pat's coach without Brady he is 16-16. That is the fact. Let the spin begin.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill'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? : People conveniently forget he wasn't so successful Bradyless in 2000 and cling to the anemic 2008 schedule as the BB gospel. As Pat's coach without Brady he is 16-16. That is the fact. Let the spin begin.
    Posted by BabeParilli

    Babe, given what we are seeing with the Colts, this would not be an issue only for the Pats.  As I posted earlier, take away a top tier QB from any team, how would they fare?
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli'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? : 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
    Posted by gmbill



    Superbowl hopes? BB is 0 for 2 even making the playoffs without Brady as Pats' coach, much less having Super Bowl hopes. Overall, he is 1 for 7 in playoff appearances without Brady. With Brady he is 10 for 11 (counting this year).

    I'm not knocking him as a coach. He is a superb coach. But you just don't subtract Hall of Fame ability at the most critical position and not see a big dropoff unless there is some other factor at work.


     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat3. Show TexasPat3'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? : People conveniently forget he wasn't so successful Bradyless in 2000 and cling to the anemic 2008 schedule as the BB gospel. As Pat's coach without Brady he is 16-16. That is the fact. Let the spin begin.
    Posted by BabeParilli


         Let the spin begin??? The spin has already begun...and you've started it. Are you seriously going to argue that, in the years prior to 2001, BB had the personnel, and the same control over all aspects of running the team, that he has now?

         Pardon me while I chuckle. 
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli'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? : Babe, given what we are seeing with the Colts, this would not be an issue only for the Pats.  As I posted earlier, take away a top tier QB from any team, how would they fare?
    Posted by agcsbill



    True. We wouldn't be as bad as the Colts for three reasons though. We probably wouldn't be mailing it in to get a draft pick, BB is a better coach and BB would not tolerate such abysmal play from a QB. Also, the Colts' schedule has been kinda tough.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli'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? :      Let the spin begin??? The spin has already begun...and you've started it. Are you seriously going to argue that, in the years prior to 2001, BB had the personnel, and the same control over all aspects of running the team, that he has now?      Pardon me while I chuckle. 
    Posted by TexasPat3


    Name me the teams in 2008 we beat that ended up with a winning record.

    Stating the facts isn't spin. Leaving out facts that confound your fallacy is. Also, relying on subjective factors such as him not having full control is spinning. Are you saying people were telling him how to coach the team?

    Kind of funny you imply he didn't have "the personnel". EXACTLY. He didn't have Brady, ChucklinMAO.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bspikes55. Show Bspikes55'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

    if this board was regulated u should would prob get banned for saying shianco is talented
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Paul_K. Show Paul_K's posts

    Re: Would the Pats Be Terrible Without Brady?

    BB believes in preparedness for any possible injury.  Once in preseason he was suddenly running a substitute QB onto the field with the first team, just to see if Hoyer was ready.  I haven't seen another coach try this test. 

    Hoyer isn't great, but he apparently would be competent and he would have great offensive tools in front of him.  My guess is that even rookie Mallett would prove adequate.  The Patriots are a team with three guys -- Welker, Gronk and Hernandez -- all waving their hands in the air and hoping to get the football.  The two tight end line pushes people around, and the Law Firm has yet to fumble a football in his career,

    Last year the Patriot defense was 31st in passing yards given up, and yet they were 14-2.  This year they're 8-3 and next they're facing Indianapolis and Washington, two Rodney Dangerfield teams.  I don't care how bad the defense supposedly is, a 22-5 record puts the lie into those claims, and the D would carry the team to a few victories when needed.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Would the Pats Be Terrible Without Brady?

    In Response to Re: Would the Pats Be Terrible Without Brady?:
    BB believes in preparedness for any possible injury.  Once in preseason he was suddenly running a substitute QB onto the field with the first team, just to see if Hoyer was ready.  I haven't seen another coach try this test.  Hoyer isn't great, but he apparently would be competent and he would have great offensive tools in front of him.  My guess is that even rookie Mallett would prove adequate.  The Patriots are a team with three guys -- Welker, Gronk and Hernandez -- all waving their hands in the air and hoping to get the football.  The two tight end line pushes people around, and the Law Firm has yet to fumble a football in his career, Last year the Patriot defense was 31st in passing yards given up, and yet they were 14-2.  This year they're 8-3 and next they're facing Indianapolis and Washington, two Rodney Dangerfield teams.  I don't care how bad the defense supposedly is, a 22-5 record puts the lie into those claims, and the D would carry the team to a few victories when needed.
    Posted by Paul_K



    They are 22-5 WITH Brady.

    It is doubtful Hoyer or Mallet are better than Cassel who at least has shown he is a marginal NFL starter. He had 21 TD passes in 2008. It would be a stretch to think the backups we have would get any more and may well get less. How many less wins do you think we would have minus Brady's 20 more TDs (going by his 41 TD pace this year)? We average nearly a TD per game more scoring this year than in 2008.
     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino'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? : if this board was regulated u should would prob get banned for saying shianco is talented
    Posted by Bspikes55


    Man, what is with people being anti-Shiancoe?

    I'm not saying he's a pro-bowler here, but since 2008 he's been a good TE. He can run block and is good at using his frame.

    Since 2008 the guy averages 44 catches, 508 yards, and 6 TDs. Those are numbers that everyone here CROWS about for Hernandez.

    If you are saying he's a dud, I disagree. The guy is a quality player, and if he were a FA and NE lost one of their two TEs, I'd take him in a second.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat3. Show TexasPat3'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?
    : Name me the teams in 2008 we beat that ended up with a winning record.
     
    RESPONSE: Yawn. We've had this conversation already, at least once. You go back and pull up the games...I've done it once before. You're as big a ball washer for Brady as "The Dog(gggg) is for Manning. You believe that the lion's share of the credit for the Pats' success over the years is due to Tom. I respectfully disagree...and give at least equal credit to BB. 

    Stating the facts isn't spin. Leaving out facts that confound your fallacy is.
     
    RESPONSE: Yawn. Winning 11 games in an NFL season is an extremely hard thing to do...no matter who you play. I also recall some of the losses...an 18-15 loss in Indy, in a game where the Pats outplayed the Colts, and should have won...and a loss at home in OT to the Jets. The FACTS are that you refuse to give BB and the 2008 Pats their due...out of concern that this would somehow minimize the importance of Tom.

    Also, relying on subjective factors such as him not having full control is spinning. Are you saying people were telling him how to coach the team? Kind of funny you imply he didn't have "the personnel". EXACTLY. He didn't have Brady, ChucklinMAO.

    RESPONSE: Whatever...LOL!!!
    Posted by BabeParilli

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

    Re: Would the Pats Be Terrible Without Brady?

    Patriots would be terrible without BB
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share