Belichick, Brady and the New England Patriots

[L.C. Greenwood]

Isn't it amazing? People who played the game, coached the game, and probably know a little bit about what's good and
what's not so good, seem to disagree with the naysayers and others who berate success. Others, who never wore a cup
or took a forearm to the chin, try to promote their own weak efforts and jealously mask accomplishments. Still others
are simply haters and take the low road in any endeavor.

Let's see what those in the know have to say.

Somehow it seemed right that Bradshaw, working for Fox, anointed Brady and Belichick as the best in NFL history
during the Super Bowl trophy presentation. That was after Roger Goodell was nearly booed off the stage by Patriots fans,
who never will forgive him for putting Brady through the 18-month nightmare that was Deflategate.

http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/ron- ... 1702060039

Joe Greene says it’s time to recognize the Patriots for their accomplishments as coach Bill Belichick and quarterback
Tom Brady prepare to eclipse the Super Bowl record of four victories by Chuck Noll and quarterbacks Terry Bradshaw
and Joe Montana.
“Well, you know you have to have respect for what they do and what they’ve done,’’ said Greene, who lives in his native
Texas after a long career with the Steelers as Hall of Famer, assistant coach and scout.
“I was dismayed about the buzz about them in the past, the cheating, the supposedly cheating and that’s unfortunate
because they probably didn’t have to do any of that. I don’t know if they did, but they probably didn’t have to.”

http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/stee ... 1701310103

Dungy: Brady and Belichick are the best ever
Posted by Mike Florio on February 6, 2017, 1:39 PM EST
Hall of Fame coach Tony Dungy joined PFT Live on Monday to discuss a couple of guys whose bronze busts eventually
will be in the same place as his.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... best-ever/

And, even before a new breed of patriot fired the shots heard 'round the football world, there were those who
PLAYED THE GAME and admitted - without reluctance - that the Belichick / Brady New England Patriots
are without peers.

Hall of Fame quarterback Troy Aikman said he’s always considered Joe Montana the greatest, but has now changed his mind
and gives the nod to Brady.

After the Patriots won their 201st game with Brady starting, the most in NFL history, Brett Favre released a video saying
to Brady, “You’re the best.”

“I surrender,” wrote Hall of Fame quarterback Fran Tarkenton. “He is the greatest QB ever.”

Ray Lewis, perhaps the best defensive player of Brady’s generation, called Brady “the best quarterback we’ve ever seen.”

Lewis’s teammate Ed Reed agreed in an Inside the NFL segment, as did Boomer Esiason (although Phil Simms wouldn’t commit).

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... best-ever/

Funny! How quickly some jealous haters remove or change their "tags" - or perhaps that was an instruction.

For now, there are - and you can count them: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 - FIVE Lombardi Trophies resting at Patriot Place.

It's fine to recognize what the Patriots have accomplished, they've been on quite a run from 2001 to today. Whether or not it continues after Brady retires is a huge question mark, none of Brady's backups have played a significant amount in a postseason game since Drew Bledsoe.

If offensive football were similar to the way it was 20 or more years ago, I think we would have a better read on who is actually the best QB ever. Not sure if another sport has changed so drastically, and there isn't any formula we can use to adjust for eras. Just a decade ago, we didn't have these player safety rules, and that has helped boost offense productivity. If the great QBs of the past had the luxury of the offensive-friendly NFL, they too, would light up the scoreboard. Conversely, if Tom Brady had to play in a more defensive era, his receivers would have a far more difficult time getting open, which would lead to more sacks and punishment.

All things considered, I have to give the edge to Joe Montana, and the more talented 49ers. Never lost a Super Bowl, especially when a perfect season was on the line. His early Niners teams were worse than Brady's teams, and Montana was even able to lift a different team to a conference title game. The way the rules are now, Montana's offense would be unstoppable.

[jeckle_and_heckle]

If the great QBs of the past had the luxury of the offensive-friendly NFL, they too, would light up the scoreboard.

You make many good points. It's important to remember, however, today's quarterbacks are lighting up the stat sheet, not the scoreboard. At least not to a material degree greater than they did in the late 1940s.

[jeckle_and_heckle]

If the great QBs of the past had the luxury of the offensive-friendly NFL, they too, would light up the scoreboard.

You make many good points. It's important to remember, however, today's quarterbacks are lighting up the stat sheet, not the scoreboard. At least not to a material degree greater than they did in the late 1940s.

[Bob Gill]

I don't mean to denigrate Graham's or the Browns accomplishments in any way, but I think it is a lot more difficult to get to a Super Bowl in the modern era than it is to get to an NFL (or even an AFL or AAFC) Championship Game in the pre-1967 era.

I think that's not quite right. It seems to me that it's much, much easier to win a championship now than in the old days -- IF you're not a real outstanding team. Just take the Giants' two title-winners of the last few years: They didn't win their division either time (at least I don't think they did), so in the earlier days they would've had absolutely no chance to win the title. The expanded playoff system gives teams like that a chance -- not that they don't deserve credit when they win, because everybody knows the rules going in. But honestly, a team like that could not possibly have won a championship in 1965 or 1955 or whenever.

On the other hand, it might be harder for a genuinely good team to win a championship today, because after rolling to a 13-3 record (or whatever) they still have to navigate a three-game minefield in the postseason, where even a C-plus team with a 9-7 record stands a chance of knocking them out prematurely. Since the Patriots are just about always 13-3 or thereabouts, this might be a slight disadvantage for them. Of course, as Matt pointed out elsewhere, they also have an advantage in that they've almost never faced any kind of challenge to keep them from winning their own shrunken division and sailing into the playoffs, so maybe it all balances out in the end.

[jeckle_and_heckle]

Of course, as Matt pointed out elsewhere, they also have an advantage in that they've almost never faced any kind of challenge to keep them from winning their own shrunken division and sailing into the playoffs

Despite that, they went almost ten years without winning a Super Bowl after having won three Super Bowls in four years.

The biggest thing folks overlook about the two Giants titles is that Coughlin was on the same coaching staff with Belichick under Parcells. No fear, mystery, or intimidation on the part of him and his teams when facing Belichick. Most teams/coaches are beat by New England before the opening kickoff.

[rhickok1109]

Comparing across eras is challenging. But there's one thing that's a constant: all these other guys in the conversation had Hall of Fame receivers to throw to, and great (if not Hall of Fame) running games to take the pressure off of them. Brady won five Super Bowls with some pretty marginal talent surrounding him. He led the league in passing yards in 2005 with, like, Deion Branch as his top target. Throughout his career, he had Randy Moss for two seasons, and recently he's had Gronk. He had one season where he had a dominating running back - Corey Dillon in 2004 - but the rest were basically scrubs, year in and year out.

Another big factor is the system. Montana and Graham in particular were elevated to greatness in large part because their coaches were playing chess when everyone else was playing checkers. Manning is the complete opposite of that. He owes virtually nothing to his coaching. Brady is somewhere in the middle, probably closer to Manning than to the other guys.

That's the thing about Brady/Belichick that has been most amazing - that they have been so successful with a constantly changing cast of characters and few if any of them will wind up in Canton. Ty Law made the final 15, which is a good sign he will probably get in one day. Vinatieri is a shoo in. Randy Moss is a shoo in but they only had him for three plus seasons. Gostkowski may break the career scoring record as long as he stays in NE and stays healthy and he is a possibility. A good argument can probably be made for Wes Welker for what he did in New England. Gronkowski is a stellar tight end but misses about a quarter of each season due to injury. I don't know how Belichick does it.

If one takes into account all the Pats teams from 2001-2016, you've got the following:

Definite HoFers: Belichick, Brady, Seau, Revis, Moss
Very likely HoFers: Law, Seymour, Vinatieri, Kraft
Possible HoFers to varying degrees: Mankins, Wilfork, Gronkowski, Welker.

Not to take away from your argument, but that's actually a fair number of folks even without the three rent-a-stars.

That's not a very impressive list to me, especially when you consider that three of the four definite HOF players spent a combined total of 8 seasons with the Patriots and one of them, Seau, started only 16 games in his four seasons with the Patriots.

[Bryan]

All things considered, I have to give the edge to Joe Montana, and the more talented 49ers. Never lost a Super Bowl, especially when a perfect season was on the line. His early Niners teams were worse than Brady's teams, and Montana was even able to lift a different team to a conference title game. The way the rules are now, Montana's offense would be unstoppable.

I think Brady, Graham & Montana are among the top 5 QBs in history, but what separates Brady IMO is his longevity. Graham played 10 seasons, Montana had 10 starting seasons with the Niners then tacked on two more with KC...Brady has had 16 very good-to-elite seasons with the Patriots.

[BD Sullivan]

All things considered, I have to give the edge to Joe Montana, and the more talented 49ers. Never lost a Super Bowl, especially when a perfect season was on the line. His early Niners teams were worse than Brady's teams, and Montana was even able to lift a different team to a conference title game. The way the rules are now, Montana's offense would be unstoppable.

I think Brady, Graham & Montana are among the top 5 QBs in history, but what separates Brady IMO is his longevity. Graham played 10 seasons, Montana had 10 starting seasons with the Niners then tacked on two more with KC...Brady has had 16 very good-to-elite seasons with the Patriots.

15, actually, since he missed almost all of the 2008(?) season.

[7DnBrnc53]

As the Patriots players and coaches graciously give their props to Atlanta and give credit to each other for this historic win, it seems their fans didn't get the memo about winning with class.

It's not enough, it seems, for Patriots fans to enjoy this great victory. They have to roam the countryside, torches in tow, in search of anyone who won't anoint their heroes not just as the best NFL team of the 2016 season, or among the greatest in league history, but THE GREATEST TEAM OF ANY KIND EVER IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE.

Whoever's not on board with this coronation for all eternity is simply jealous. Or ignorant. Or -- my personal favorite -- NEVER PLAYED THE GAME. I'm seeing this nonsense not just here, but all over.

I admire the Patriots. I've looked askance at some of their methods over the years, but the results don't lie. They are a model sports franchise and they deserve a prominent place in the history of the sport. In the end, it's their obnoxiously belligerent fans who make them hard to like, not anyone associated with the team.

I know. On another football forum, they had a "Brady is GOAT" thread. I disagreed, and a NE fan said that I was insecure (I have had run-ins with these fans before over Brady).

[Terry Baldshaw]

There is a difference between team and franchise.

The New England Patriots are not the greatest team of all team, whether one considers the entire history of the NFL or just the Super Bowl era.

The Green Bay Packers primarily had one TEAM that won five championships from 1961-1967. That is the most dominant run of the pre-Super Bowl era, though their final two wins were in the first two Super Bowls.

The Pittsburgh Steelers primarily had one TEAM that won four Super Bowls from 1974-1979, winning back-to-back twice. That is the most dominant run of the Super Bowl era.

The San Francisco 49ers FRANCHISE won 5 Super Bowls in a span of 14 years (1981-1994) with two, and perhaps three teams.

The New England Patriots FRANCHISE won 5 Super Bowls in a span of 16 years (2001-2016), a magnificent run of 3 titles in four years early in the 2000s and the current team which has won 2 of the past three titles.

Are the Patriots the greatest team in NFL history ... no way. Has the Patriots' franchise had the greatest run in Super Bowl history? Factor in 2 Super Bowl losses, a near-perfect season in 2007 and consistent excellence since 2001, and a compelling argument can be made that it is.

You decide.