Jump to content
NBC Sports Edge Forums

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, ThreadKiller said:

 

No it doesn't. At all.

At least not to those who use logic. I'm obviously a huge number 12 fan and it can't be disputed by anyone with a brain that he is the GOAT. However, he joined a loaded team that he pushed over the hump, meanwhile, the Patriots roster was depleted of talent. You're comparing apples to oranges.

Just because Tom could join a loaded team and go the Superbowl and Bill couldn't bring Cam Newton and a terrible roster to the playoffs doesn't tell us ANYTHING in the dumb argument of "who was more responsible"? It's a silly argument driven by the media that people feed off of.

They shared in each other's success. That's really all it comes down to. Awarding percentage points to if Tom was 51% responsible and Bill was only 49% or vice versa is nonsense.

(You are missing a big part of this thread.)  Disregard. 

 

Numerous posters wrote numerous times Belichick was the straw who stirred the Patriots, Brady was just a pawn. 

Edited by shakestreet
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

A moment of your time sir please fill out this form!

Posted Images

26 minutes ago, ThreadKiller said:

 

No it doesn't. At all.

At least not to those who use logic. I'm obviously a huge number 12 fan and it can't be disputed by anyone with a brain that he is the GOAT. However, he joined a loaded team that he pushed over the hump, meanwhile, the Patriots roster was depleted of talent. You're comparing apples to oranges.

Just because Tom could join a loaded team and go the Superbowl and Bill couldn't bring Cam Newton and a terrible roster to the playoffs doesn't tell us ANYTHING in the dumb argument of "who was more responsible"? It's a silly argument driven by the media that people feed off of.

They shared in each other's success. That's really all it comes down to. Awarding percentage points to if Tom was 51% responsible and Bill was only 49% or vice versa is nonsense.

Oh, I agree, and you're the second person to take issue.  I think both are responsible.  What I meant was that, nobody's really going to talk about it anymore (i.e. the media and fans).

On 1/20/2021 at 2:59 PM, kp96 said:

Fair point, but I still think if Brady wins a championship, the discussion is over.  It's just the ultimate trump card in that debate.  In fairness, you could be totally right...but it'll be over.  It would literally take BB winning the SB the following year for it to be a discussion again.

As I said, it's just the ultimate trump card in that discussion.  How can someone say Belichick was the main reason when Brady got a ring the first year they were separated?

But I do agree...it took both to do what they did.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, shakestreet said:

You are missing a big part of this thread. Numerous posters wrote numerous times Belichick was the straw who stirred the Patriots, Brady wasn’t just a pawn. 

 

I'm not missing a big part of this thread at all. I think that is just as silly. It's a pointless exercise that can't be proven either way to try to figure out "who was more responsible".

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick score check:

1. He needs Bill to succeed: false

2. He can't get to the Superbowl without beating up on a weak AFC: absolutely false

3. He is washed: this is only true for a few seconds after every bad throw

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ThreadKiller said:

 

I'm not missing a big part of this thread at all. I think that is just as silly. It's a pointless exercise that can't be proven either way to try to figure out "who was more responsible".

I edited my post I seen the next post made by you. Carry on 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, kp96 said:

As I said, it's just the ultimate trump card in that discussion. 

 

Again, not really. Not to anyone with logic that's worth debating with at least.

Tom Brady having success with Tampa Bay in 2020-2021 has little to do with the Patriots' success while Tom was there there or this past season when he wasn't there.

"Tom was more important to the Superbowl in 2001 than Bill because Tom went to the Superbowl with a loaded Tampa team in 2020 and Bill didn't go to the playoffs with a roster without talent in 2020" is a statement/thought that makes absolutely zero sense and those who believe that don't deserve to be taken seriously in my mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, sSektor said:

Quick score check:

1. He needs Bill to succeed: false

2. He can't get to the Superbowl without beating up on a weak AFC: absolutely false

3. He is washed: this is only true for a few seconds after every bad throw

 

These I agree with. But the first point does NOT equate to "He was more responsible for Patriot's success than Belichick." Note that I'm not saying you specifically are making that connection, but some certainly try to.

Note that I'm not saying Bill was more responsible either. My point is that they were both close to equally responsible and it absolutely can NOT be proven who was more responsible. Either way, it's a pointless exercise.

Edited by ThreadKiller
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, sSektor said:

Quick score check:

1. He needs Bill to succeed: false

2. He can't get to the Superbowl without beating up on a weak AFC: absolutely false

3. He is washed: this is only true for a few seconds after every bad throw

4. He doesn't even make it to age 35 if he's playing in a different era. He thrives in the wussified NFL era. This is what he would have received in the 70s.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, FavreCo said:

4. He doesn't even make it to age 35 if he's playing in a different era. He thrives in the wussified NFL era. This is what he would have received in the 70s.

 

Good point. Please make sure you don't forget your blood pressure medication this morning grandpa.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also by Brady's own admission, he chose TB because they were loaded on O. He's no dummy. He had many teams to choose from and he took the easiest route. Can't blame him for that one. Heck, garbage winston won 7 games with the team and he's gawd awful.

Not denying his greatness but he was smart enough to bail on a New England team that was no longer in a division that was weak across the board and sign up with a team that was SB ready minus a franchise QB.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sSektor said:

Good point. Please make sure you don't forget your blood pressure medication this morning grandpa.

Take it every morning, I'll still be alive when you are long gone.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, ThreadKiller said:

 

Again, not really. Not to anyone with logic that's worth debating with at least.

Tom Brady having success with Tampa Bay in 2020-2021 has little to do with the Patriots' success while Tom was there there or this past season when he wasn't there.

"Tom was more important to the Superbowl in 2001 than Bill because Tom went to the Superbowl with a loaded Tampa team in 2020 and Bill didn't go to the playoffs with a roster without talent in 2020" is a statement/thought that makes absolutely zero sense and those who believe that don't deserve to be taken seriously in my mind.

If Brady wins the SB and the question is "Who was more responsible for the Pats success, Brady or Belichick?", there will be two acceptable answers.  Brady, or both.  If he does not win, then an argument can be made that it was Belichick still.

If you think the answer is "both", that's fine.  Perfectly reasonable.  But nobody is going to make the argument that it was Belichick when all you have to say is "Brady won without Belichick."  And because of this, nobody is going to ask the question "Who was more responsible, Brady or Belichick?" anymore.

That's my point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, kp96 said:

If Brady wins the SB and the question is "Who was more responsible for the Pats success, Brady or Belichick?", there will be two acceptable answers.  Brady, or both.  If he does not win, then an argument can be made that it was Belichick still.

If you think the answer is "both", that's fine.  Perfectly reasonable.  But nobody is going to make the argument that it was Belichick when all you have to say is "Brady won without Belichick."  And because of this, nobody is going to ask the question "Who was more responsible, Brady or Belichick?" anymore.

That's my point.

 

That's where we disagree. Nothing Brady does with a different team after the fact has anything to do with what was done during his time in NE in an entirely different situation. To say it was one or the other between Brady or Belichick while he was in NE is NOT an acceptable answer. At all.

And again, anyone making an argument that it is one or the other is flat out incorrect because as a fact, it can NOT be proven either way. Period. Sure, people can try to claim one or the other based off an incorrect way of looking at things, but that doesn't mean it deserves to be taken seriously.

Edited by ThreadKiller
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ThreadKiller said:

 

That's where we disagree. Nothing Brady does with a different team after the fact has anything to do with what was done during his time in NE in an entirely different situation. To say it was one or the other is NOT an acceptable answer. At all.

And again, anyone making an argument that it is one or the other is flat out incorrect because as a fact, it can NOT be proven either way. Period. Sure, people can try to claim one or the other based off an incorrect way of looking at things, but that doesn't mean it deserves to be taken seriously.

OK.  You think the answer to the debate is "both" or "cannot be determined".  Fine.  You're taking a position in the "Who was more responsible" argument.

I am saying that nobody's going to argue anymore because you can't say it was "Belichick".

Now, people will say "OK, that proves it was Brady not Belichick" if he wins and people like you will argue that this is not true.  That can definitely occur.  But who is going to ask the "Brady vs Belichick" question at all?

And I disagree with your comment that "Brady" is not a reasonable answer if Brady wins.  You may disagree, but an argument can be made that it was Brady.  He would have more rings.  That alone is an argument.  Just because you have a different opinion does not make it an invalid argument.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, kp96 said:

You're taking a position in the "Who was more responsible" argument.

I am saying that nobody's going to argue anymore because you can't say it was "Belichick".

Now, people will say "OK, that proves it was Brady not Belichick" if he wins and people like you will argue that this is not true.  That can definitely occur.  But who is going to ask the "Brady vs Belichick" question at all?

And I disagree with your comment that "Brady" is not a reasonable answer if Brady wins.  You may disagree, but an argument can be made that it was Brady.  He would have more rings.  That alone is an argument.  Just because you have a different opinion does not make it an invalid argument.

 

 

 

To the first bolded: Not really. My point is that there isn't an argument and that it's all nonsense because it's literally impossible to prove either way. Since it's impossible to prove either way, the only logical answer has to be "both".

To the second bolded: Again, no there can't be. How in the world does Brady winning in 2020 with the Buccaneers conclude that he had more to do with the Patriots winning in 2001 than Bill Belichick did lol? Brady getting a ring in Tampa has NOTHING to do with Belichick. At all. If Brady gets a ring in Tampa, the only thing anyone can say with logic supporting it would be that "Brady had a more successful 2020 in TB than Bill did in NE." That's IT. Not "Welp, Tom won in 2020 with TB and Bill lost in NE in 2020 so that means Tom had more to do with their success in NE dating all the way back to 2001!" Just typing that thought out is complete nonsense and I can't believe I'm actually trying to explain that lol.

It's a silly debate that isn't worth having IMO because it can't be proven either way. Since it can't be proven either way, it does in fact make it an invalid argument.

 

 

Edited by ThreadKiller
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ThreadKiller said:

it's all nonsense because it's literally impossible to prove either way.

Nothing is impossible when emotions on the internet are doing the thinking

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ThreadKiller said:

 

Bingo Bango!

Reminds me of the 'ol "system QB" argument that people would make against #12 that makes no sense. In reality, every QB is a "system QB" lol. Patrick Mahomes has only been in (1) system his whole career, welp I guess he's a "system QB"! Same goes for Lamar Jackson and every other QB who has thrived in the (1) system they've been in lol.

People will cling to nonsense when thinking with emotions instead of logic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ThreadKiller said:

 

To the first bolded: Not really. My point is that there isn't an argument and that it's all nonsense because it's literally impossible to prove either way. Since it's impossible to prove either way, the only logical answer has to be "both".

To the second bolded: Again, no there can't be. How in the world does Brady winning in 2020 with the Buccaneers conclude that he had more to do with the Patriots winning in 2001 than Bill Belichick did lol? Brady getting a ring in Tampa has NOTHING to do with Belichick. At all. If Brady gets a ring in Tampa, the only thing anyone can say with logic supporting it would be that "Brady had a more successful 2020 in TB than Bill did in NE." That's IT. Not "Welp, Tom won in 2020 with TB and Bill lost in NE in 2020 so that means Tom had more to do with their success in NE dating all the way back to 2001!" Just typing that thought out is complete nonsense and I can't believe I'm actually trying to explain that lol.

It's a silly debate that isn't worth having IMO because it can't be proven either way. Since it can't be proven either way, it does in fact make it an invalid argument.

 

 

You don't seem to be understanding what I am posting.  Please reread.

I'll conclude with this, and please read the whole point before responding, as you are taking portions of my argument and not understanding what I'm saying.  Let's say Brady wins this year and I say this -

"Brady and Belichick are both at the top of their profession.  But I tend to believe that Brady was more responsible given that he left NE and turned Tampa into a Superbowl champion, whereas BB didn't even make the playoffs.  I know there are plenty of factors involved in a team's success, but it appears that Brady's abilities and value is what really made the team a winner.  Not only was he good on the field, but his leadership turned around the culture of the team.  Even Arians said "It only took one man to make us believe we could do it".  This is what Brady brings to a team.  TB won a Superbowl with it, and I believe it is more of a factor than all the excellent management and coaching that BB does."

OK, let's say I make that argument.  I KNOW YOU DISAGREE, so don't bother saying that.  My question is this - Is that a reasonable viewpoint or is it the words of a madman?  Do I sound like a raving lunatic who is making crazy, illogical points?

You're trying to say that "anybody who thinks you can argue this is wrong".  I'm saying, it can be argued.

If you want to again harp on *your* viewpoint that this is a silly argument, then let's just agree to disagree.  There's a reason that the Brady vs. Belichick argument is out there.  If it was a moot point as you suggest, it would have died out long ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, kp96 said:

You don't seem to be understanding what I am posting.  Please reread.

I'll conclude with this, and please read the whole point before responding, as you are taking portions of my argument and not understanding what I'm saying.  Let's say Brady wins this year and I say this -

"Brady and Belichick are both at the top of their profession.  But I tend to believe that Brady was more responsible given that he left NE and turned Tampa into a Superbowl champion, whereas BB didn't even make the playoffs.  I know there are plenty of factors involved in a team's success, but it appears that Brady's abilities and value is what really made the team a winner.  Not only was he good on the field, but his leadership turned around the culture of the team.  Even Arians said "It only took one man to make us believe we could do it".  This is what Brady brings to a team.  TB won a Superbowl with it, and I believe it is more of a factor than all the excellent management and coaching that BB does."

OK, let's say I make that argument.  I KNOW YOU DISAGREE, so don't bother saying that.  My question is this - Is that a reasonable viewpoint or is it the words of a madman?  Do I sound like a raving lunatic who is making crazy, illogical points?

You're trying to say that "anybody who thinks you can argue this is wrong".  I'm saying, it can be argued.

If you want to again harp on *your* viewpoint that this is a silly argument, then let's just agree to disagree.  There's a reason that the Brady vs. Belichick argument is out there.  If it was a moot point as you suggest, it would have died out long ago.

 

Actually, I do understand what you're posting. The fact that I disagree with it doesn't mean I don't understand it. In fact, I'd argue that you don't understand what I'm saying, which is that it's pointless to debate in favor of either 12 or BB because it can't be proven either way. Again, what Brady does in TB has little to do with what happened during his time in NE.

And yes, there is a reason that the Brady/Belichick argument is out there...We just disagree on what that reason is. I think it's nonsense because it can't be proven either way. The fact that it can't be proven either way isn't my opinion either, it's simply reality. That clear reality is why I think the "debate" is nonsense.

To the first bolded part: I guess, as long as it's clearly stated as an opinion. The fact that it's entirely subjective is why I think the argument is nonsense. Too often people try to look at these things as if they're black and white when in reality, they are much more complex. I'll say it again, what Brady does in Tampa has very little to do with what happened in NE and nothing to do with who was more responsible for the success in NE between Brady and Belichick.

To the last bolded point: What? That's not even close to being true. People drag moot points on for ages! For example, the Brady vs Manning "debate" or the "Brady is a 'system QB' debate. Those (especially the 2nd point) are moot points that don't deserve the time of day, yet they continue to be dragged on.

I think you're missing the point that what Brady does in 2020 in TB has littleto do with what happened in NE in 2001. You must think they have something to do with each other if you're able to come to the conclusions you're coming to? Makes no sense to me.

 

Look, you think Brady having success in 2020 with a different team can be compared to what Bill did in 2020 with a different team is enough to conclude something from years ago and that that is a logical debate to be had. I disagree. Let's move on.

Edited by ThreadKiller
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FavreCo said:

Also by Brady's own admission, he chose TB because they were loaded on O. He's no dummy. He had many teams to choose from and he took the easiest route. Can't blame him for that one. Heck, garbage winston won 7 games with the team and he's gawd awful.

Not denying his greatness but he was smart enough to bail on a New England team that was no longer in a division that was weak across the board and sign up with a team that was SB ready minus a franchise QB.

The Bucs were so loaded it had only been 13 years since their last playoff game. 🤣

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, ThreadKiller said:

To the first bolded part: I guess, as long as it's clearly stated as an opinion. The fact that it's entirely subjective is why I think the argument is nonsense.

This is fair.

Going back to my original point, I was not actually taking a side on who was more important, Brady or Belichick.  I was making a separate point which I think you missed.  My point is that, if Brady wins the SB, nobody is going to discuss this anymore.  It will be nearly impossible to argue that Belichick was the more responsible party then, so the question will not come up.  I wasn't actually making a statement on whether one or the other (or neither) was the right answer.  I'm saying, that debate is dead.  You will probably be happy with that lol.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, fletch44 said:

The Bucs were so loaded it had only been 13 years since their last playoff game. 🤣

Right lol. The goal posts with Brady just move farther and farther every year. I’m astounded at this point and also curious to see what his detractors will come up with next. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, kp96 said:

This is fair.

Going back to my original point, I was not actually taking a side on who was more important, Brady or Belichick.  I was making a separate point which I think you missed.  My point is that, if Brady wins the SB, nobody is going to discuss this anymore.  It will be nearly impossible to argue that Belichick was the more responsible party then, so the question will not come up.  I wasn't actually making a statement on whether one or the other (or neither) was the right answer.  I'm saying, that debate is dead.  You will probably be happy with that lol.

 

 

My point is that along with that, it's also impossible to argue that Brady was the more responsible party too regardless of what happens outside of NE (in Tampa Bay) which is why I think the whole debate is pointless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...