Can Brady win if he has to do it on his own merit?

[The Gipper]

20 minutes ago, boo fagley said:

Incoherent ramblings

Did you continue to read Arseling?

[Gunz41]

5 hours ago, The Gipper said:

And all the while being perfectly accurate and on point.  

I have stated my view about Belichick.  Not sure why...after I have explained this numerous times some of you still do not understand.  My suggestion is that you take this post, print it out, save it, put it in your wallet....and when you again become confused about matters you can pull it out and read it over once again in an effort to comprehend it.   Considering how simple this explanation is, perhaps after 8-10 readings the light bulb will go on in your respective heads:

A.  Bill Belichick is a quality coach.  On his own, his team's could likely be pretty consistent playoff contenders. 

B. It is Tom Brady that makes BB a championship coach.  BBs defense keeps games close.....Tom Brady leads them to championship.

C. Bill Belichick does not win 5 Super Bowls with the likes of Matt Cassell...or Brian Hoyer as his primary starting QB.  But some of you banana brains think he walks on water and could have won 5 Super Bowls  with Les Conner as his QB.  (an inside joke for Steve).

D. Just some basic facts:  Without Brady as BBs QB,  he has had 2 seasons with winning records, and 5 with losing records;  and he has had 1 team make the playoffs and 6 teams miss the playoffs.  Nevertheless, I think he could likely, as I said, have had a consistent playoff contending team...but not a consistent championship team.

E. With Brady, they have taken that team now to 8 Super Bowls...winning 5....and maybe another.   With Brady, that team has never had a losing record...or even a .500 record.   You bring up the Matt Cassell year, and I say, yes....that is a good example of what things may have been like with Brady.  A good record....challenging for a playoff spot...sometimes making it, sometimes not. 

F. Is there some symbiosis between BB and Brady that has allowed them to be so good and such winners?  Yes, certainly to an extent, I buy that.  but that same symbiosis would never had existed  with just about any other QB.  Maybe if he had another of the top notch Hall of Famers, it is possible.  But those QBs over the years that could challenge Brady in the last two decades could be counted on one hand: Peyton, Rodgers, maybe BR, maybe Brees...and that's it.

G.  On Tom Brady...if you think I am diminishing him, then you have a brain full of banana slugs.  I have said that the GOAT is a discussion likely between Jim Brown, Jerry Rice, and Tom Brady.  Not sure where else I can go with him.  Maybe you Patriot fans think he is the Reincarnation of Jesus Christ, or Thor come down from Asgard...but I regard him as simply one of the greatest football players ever.

H. On the issue of the refs helping the Patriots.  Gee, I must be the only one here that thinks that on occasion...since it was I who started this thread.....OH, ERR, OOPs.....I was NOT the one to start this thread.   Earlier in this thread I stated that I did not see the last quarter of that game....and asked if the Pats got any more help from the refs like they did on that PI call at the end of the first half.  That WAS a horseshite call....and a gift to the Pats by the refs.  That sort of thing has happened a number of times.   That is the perception......and God forbid that someone who is not a Belichick or Patriots arse licker point it out.  

So, here you go. Take this post, print it out...so that the next time you comment about what my opinions are, you can at least be accurate about what my opinions are....and not give YOUR opinions about what you think are my opinions.

Two things Gip. I wouldn't use the Ghoolie as a help to my argument, no matter what the argument. I am sure there are A LOT of people who would agree with you about calls and the Pats. But saying Ghoolie argeed as he started the thread, well that speaks for itself.

2nd, the PI down the sideline at the end of the half WAS Pass Interference. Does that mean that they never get the benefit of calls, NO. Some teams do and some dont, and the Pats do get the benefit. But more times than not, what people see as a beneficial call is the correct call and they just don't see it that way, don't want to see it that way, or dont know the rules. Same thing happens at every level. I can't tell you the times I have heard people yelling about a call that didn't go their way, and 99% of the time they are looking at it with rose colored glasses or dont know the rules, or both.

But that was Pass Interference

[The Gipper]

32 minutes ago, Gunz41 said:

Two things Gip. I wouldn't use the Ghoolie as a help to my argument, no matter what the argument. I am sure there are A LOT of people who would agree with you about calls and the Pats. But saying Ghoolie argeed as he started the thread, well that speaks for itself.

Well....all I was pointing out really was that it was not I who started a thread about the Pats being favored by the refs.  Nor, clearly were we the only ones.

2nd, the PI down the sideline at the end of the half WAS Pass Interference. Does that mean that they never get the benefit of calls, NO. Some teams do and some dont, and the Pats do get the benefit. But more times than not, what people see as a beneficial call is the correct call and they just don't see it that way, don't want to see it that way, or dont know the rules. Same thing happens at every level. I can't tell you the times I have heard people yelling about a call that didn't go their way, and 99% of the time they are looking at it with rose colored glasses or dont know the rules, or both.

But that was Pass Interference

No, I disagree.   If that is PI, the PI can be called on every pass play.  There was a little bit of hand fighting.....and then the receiver either ran out of bounds....or was very nearly out of bounds.   The DB had the angle on him to the inside of the field...and it was the WR who was initiating contact to try to get back in position to attempt to make a catch.  I saw that play 3 ways to Sunday and that is what I saw.

 

[The Gipper]

[syd]

1 hour ago, The Gipper said:

that was a Sheet call

[Gunz41]

1 hour ago, The Gipper said:

There could be PI on every play, but he has both hands on him and forces the receiver out of bounds. It is PI, not saying that every official in every game would call it, as they wouldn't, but it certainly is

[boo fagley]

2 hours ago, The Gipper said:

Cooks would have been in a position to make a play on the ball if not impeded and pushed out of bounds.

Thank you for the video.

[Gunz41]

2 minutes ago, boo fagley said:

Cooks would have been in a position to make a play on the ball if not impeded and pushed out of bounds.

Thank you for the video.

Not the best word to use with impeded. He can be impeded from his destination all day long, he can't be illegally impeded. But corners are taught to impede the receiver by running him off his route legally.

[syd]

looked to me that he had stepped out on his own

[TexasAg1969]

1 hour ago, syd said:

looked to me that he had stepped out on his own

You have to watch the replay from the camera that was behind the official. From that view it was the proper call.

[boo fagley]

5 hours ago, Gunz41 said:

Not the best word to use with impeded. He can be impeded from his destination all day long, he can't be illegally impeded. But corners are taught to impede the receiver by running him off his route legally.

Both players have a right to make a play on the ball. Its fine to crowd the WR, but you cant be this obvious and push him out with the ball in the air.

[boo fagley]

14 hours ago, The Gipper said:

And all the while being perfectly accurate and on point.  

I have stated my view about Belichick.  Not sure why...after I have explained this numerous times some of you still do not understand.  My suggestion is that you take this post, print it out, save it, put it in your wallet....and when you again become confused about matters you can pull it out and read it over once again in an effort to comprehend it.   Considering how simple this explanation is, perhaps after 8-10 readings the light bulb will go on in your respective heads:

A.  Bill Belichick is a quality coach.  On his own, his team's could likely be pretty consistent playoff contenders. 

B. It is Tom Brady that makes BB a championship coach.  BBs defense keeps games close.....Tom Brady leads them to championship.

C. Bill Belichick does not win 5 Super Bowls with the likes of Matt Cassell...or Brian Hoyer as his primary starting QB.  But some of you banana brains think he walks on water and could have won 5 Super Bowls  with Les Conner as his QB.  (an inside joke for Steve).

D. Just some basic facts:  Without Brady as BBs QB,  he has had 2 seasons with winning records, and 5 with losing records;  and he has had 1 team make the playoffs and 6 teams miss the playoffs.  Nevertheless, I think he could likely, as I said, have had a consistent playoff contending team...but not a consistent championship team.

E. With Brady, they have taken that team now to 8 Super Bowls...winning 5....and maybe another.   With Brady, that team has never had a losing record...or even a .500 record.   You bring up the Matt Cassell year, and I say, yes....that is a good example of what things may have been like with Brady.  A good record....challenging for a playoff spot...sometimes making it, sometimes not. 

F. Is there some symbiosis between BB and Brady that has allowed them to be so good and such winners?  Yes, certainly to an extent, I buy that.  but that same symbiosis would never had existed  with just about any other QB.  Maybe if he had another of the top notch Hall of Famers, it is possible.  But those QBs over the years that could challenge Brady in the last two decades could be counted on one hand: Peyton, Rodgers, maybe BR, maybe Brees...and that's it.

G.  On Tom Brady...if you think I am diminishing him, then you have a brain full of banana slugs.  I have said that the GOAT is a discussion likely between Jim Brown, Jerry Rice, and Tom Brady.  Not sure where else I can go with him.  Maybe you Patriot fans think he is the Reincarnation of Jesus Christ, or Thor come down from Asgard...but I regard him as simply one of the greatest football players ever.

H. On the issue of the refs helping the Patriots.  Gee, I must be the only one here that thinks that on occasion...since it was I who started this thread.....OH, ERR, OOPs.....I was NOT the one to start this thread.   Earlier in this thread I stated that I did not see the last quarter of that game....and asked if the Pats got any more help from the refs like they did on that PI call at the end of the first half.  That WAS a horseshite call....and a gift to the Pats by the refs.  That sort of thing has happened a number of times.   That is the perception......and God forbid that someone who is not a Belichick or Patriots arse licker point it out.  

So, here you go. Take this post, print it out...so that the next time you comment about what my opinions are, you can at least be accurate about what my opinions are....and not give YOUR opinions about what you think are my opinions.

Billy Belichick will be going to his 11th super bowl. Out of 52 Super Bowls, he has coached in more than 20% and has 7 rings. He controls the salary cap. That is why NE is never in cap trouble like the Saints were a few years ago after they won the Lombardi. He controls who is drafted and which FAs to pick up.While others like you are picking their noses and polishing your wee wees, he is making moves that afterwards the others say to themselves "Gee, why didnt we think of that?" He hires and fires coaches and staff. He picks out the facility 5hit paper so when the players want to take a gipper, it will be soft, but save money.

Quality.

[Nero]

5 hours ago, boo fagley said:

Both players have a right to make a play on the ball. Its fine to crowd the WR, but you cant be this obvious and push him out with the ball in the air.

THIS. It happens in soccer too. There are many fouls that aren't called because the game could last 6 hours. 

Most of the times, the fouls that are called are because they are made in the area the play is happening (either on the throwing or the receiving end). 

The thing is: you can't complain about people that have to make decissions in seconds watching players at high speed. If you have both hands in the rival, don't be surprised if you get called, even if in the end it didn't affect the play (I doubt Cooks was catching that ball).

I don't know what you think about this, guys, but the only play I complained about in that game during the broadcast is the fumble recovery by Jack the LB (Myles Jack?). I don't like that too often they call the play dead and prevent touchdowns on INTs or fumble recoveries, to later realize that the defensive player wasn't down by contact or whatever.

Even if he hadn't gone all the way through, I bet he would at least get to FG range, and that FG would have been decisive, as the Jaguars, down by 4, IIRC got into FG range in the last drive they had. 

[mjp28]

[jrb12711]

11 hours ago, boo fagley said:

Cooks would have been in a position to make a play on the ball if not impeded and pushed out of bounds.

Thank you for the video.

Again, I think the reasonable man's take is not to argue the calls against the Jags. That could have gone either way, but by definition it's a foul sure.

The question instead is why similar contact wasn't called against the Patriots. There's a myriad of examples in this game where it just wasn't, and it becomes a dubious point to consider.

[Gunz41]

6 hours ago, boo fagley said:

Both players have a right to make a play on the ball. Its fine to crowd the WR, but you cant be this obvious and push him out with the ball in the air.

Exactly. I was just pointing out that using the word impeding wasn't the best choice, as you can do that legally as well as illegally 

[The Gipper]

14 hours ago, Gunz41 said:

There could be PI on every play, but he has both hands on him and forces the receiver out of bounds. It is PI, not saying that every official in every game would call it, as they wouldn't, but it certainly is

It was a horseshite call.  He didn't have his hands on him and he didn't force the receiver out of bounds.  There was some hand play...and the receiver put himself in a terrible position by allowing the defender to get the angle on him.   Beyond that, it is highly possible that the pass was not catchable. It nearly hit the pylon...which was 10 yards downfield from where they were.

[The Gipper]

13 hours ago, boo fagley said:

Cooks would have been in a position to make a play on the ball if not impeded and pushed out of bounds.

Thank you for the video.

He was permissibly impeded simply because the defender was running along side of him. The defender does not have to stop and let the receiver go by him just because the receiver got himself cornered in the end zone.  And it was the receiver who did the pushing off.

[The Gipper]

12 hours ago, TexasAg1969 said:

You have to watch the replay from the camera that was behind the official. From that view it was the proper call.

Show it.

[The Gipper]

8 hours ago, boo fagley said:

Both players have a right to make a play on the ball. Its fine to crowd the WR, but you cant be this obvious and push him out with the ball in the air.

Correct....except. of course, from this view...that did NOT happen.

[The Gipper]

7 hours ago, boo fagley said:

Billy Belichick will be going to his 11th super bowl. Out of 52 Super Bowls, he has coached in more than 20% and has 7 rings. He controls the salary cap. That is why NE is never in cap trouble like the Saints were a few years ago after they won the Lombardi. He controls who is drafted and which FAs to pick up.While others like you are picking their noses and polishing your wee wees, he is making moves that afterwards the others say to themselves "Gee, why didnt we think of that?" He hires and fires coaches and staff. He picks out the facility 5hit paper so when the players want to take a gipper, it will be soft, but save money.

Quality.

Yes. like I said......he is a quality coach, whom, without Tom Brady would have his team's in playoff contention. ...for all the reason you state.  But answer me this:  how many Super Bowls did he make without Tom Brady?     How many playoffs has he made without Tom Brady.  How many playoff wins does he have without Tom Brady?

Answers: -0-   , 1, and 1.

[mjp28]

1 minute ago, The Gipper said:

Yes. like I said......he is a quality coach, whom, without Tom Brady would have his team's in playoff contention. ...for all the reason you state.  But answer me this:  how many Super Bowls did he make without Tom Brady?     How many playoffs has he made without Tom Brady.  How many playoff wins does he have without Tom Brady?

Answers: -0-   , 1, and 1.

Brady was the on field talent but Belichick is the brains behind the football operations make no mistake about that.

[The Gipper]

2 hours ago, jrb12711 said:

Again, I think the reasonable man's take is not to argue the calls against the Jags. That could have gone either way, but by definition it's a foul sure.

The question instead is why similar contact wasn't called against the Patriots. There's a myriad of examples in this game where it just wasn't, and it becomes a dubious point to consider.

Correct me if I am wrong...but the called only 1 single penalty on the Pats the entire game,no?  And what was that penalty for?

As noted, you could call holding on 90% of football plays.  You could probably call PI on 75% of passing plays. 

I will be fair and state that, while I was watching....which was for the first 3 quarters of the game....only the above play seemed egregious to me. But I did not see the 4th qtr....so I don't know.   

It just seems to me that with the best pass rushing team in the league that they don't get any holding calls?

[The Gipper]

1 minute ago, mjp28 said:

Brady was the on field talent but Belichick is the brains behind the football operations make no mistake about that.

And that is why in all his other years without Brady.....he has 2 winning seasons and 5 losing seasons?

[Gunz41]

17 minutes ago, The Gipper said:

It was a horseshite call.  He didn't have his hands on him and he didn't force the receiver out of bounds.  There was some hand play...and the receiver put himself in a terrible position by allowing the defender to get the angle on him.   Beyond that, it is highly possible that the pass was not catchable. It nearly hit the pylon...which was 10 yards downfield from where they were.

So exactly how long have you known a football rulebook? See, you are one that thinks they know what a call "should" be.

It IS pass interference whether you want to think so or like it or not. Could it have been a no call, YES. Doesn't change the legitimacy of the call

[mjp28]

1 minute ago, The Gipper said:

And that is why in all his other years without Brady.....he has 2 winning seasons and 5 losing seasons?

Nobody today wins every year in this parity by design NFL, NE has the closest thing to a dynasty going now.

[The Gipper]

26 minutes ago, Gunz41 said:

So exactly how long have you known a football rulebook? See, you are one that thinks they know what a call "should" be.

It IS pass interference whether you want to think so or like it or not. Could it have been a no call, YES. Doesn't change the legitimacy of the call

I am a lawyer/magistrate for 37 years.......I think I know how to deal with a rulebook.    And with any rulebook, any law...you have to apply facts to that rule.

Sure...there is a rule called pass interference....just like there is a rule for something like say....aggravated murder, or running a red light.  For there to be a violation there has to be a set of facts that properly apply to that rule, resulting in the violation.

Here, the facts do not match. 

In this case....like many others perhaps....the law..the rule...may not be applied correctly to the fact.

In this case the thing that provides legitimacy to the call is : A.  it was made....rightly or wrongly...and B. under the rules that apply...it cannot be disputed.   That's it.  It can't be disputed, whether or not the call is correct or not.

Ergo...if you think that every application of a rule to any set of facts is ALWAYS correct.....and that by being indisputable and not subject to correction....then you clearly believe, say....that OJ Simpson is indeed not guilty of murdering two people.

So, now, do yo see how this works?

[The Cysko Kid]

45 minutes ago, mjp28 said:

Nobody today wins every year in this parity by design NFL, NE has the closest thing to a dynasty going now.

It is a dynasty- either the longest and most impressive in history or two separate dynasties depending on how you want to look at it. 

[The Cysko Kid]

Either way they've more than eclipsed the browns, Steelers, cowboys, 49ers dynasties and arguably eclipsed the Packers as well

[The Gipper]

33 minutes ago, mjp28 said:

Nobody today wins every year in this parity by design NFL, NE has the closest thing to a dynasty going now.

It is not a closest thing to a dynasty.....it is undeniably a dynasty.  That is not the point.  The question is....whose dynasty is it?

To me, it is the Tom Brady dynasty.  Yes, both will be given credit.   

But, in terms of saying who is primary in that dynasty....we can only go by the facts and evidence that we have....and be cognizant of what we don't have:

We do NOT have any record of how Tom Brady would perform under a different HC.   So, it is all speculation.

But we DO have evidence of how BB has performed using different QBs.

He has a 52-60 record without Brady.  (112 games is a fairly significant sample size)  His primary QBs those years without Brady were:  1 year with Kosar, 1 year with Mike Tomscak, 3 years with Vinny Testaverde, 1 year with Drew Bledsoe, and 1 year with Matt Cassel. 

OK, these guys are not Tom Brady....but what you do have here are  3 #1 overall draft picks (BK was taken in trade of the #1 overall pick...to be used in the supplemental draft), plus some other good QBs.    Let's face it.....is it fair to say that just about everyone of these guys is likely better than any QB the Browns have had since Kosar and Vinny?  Point being....the QBs were not slouches. They were pretty good. BB did not have to deal with the likes of Johnny Manziel or Brandon Weeden  (well....except for when he dumped Kosar ....and relied on Todd Philcox).