Breer looks for Collins' stuff, ends up talking Brady

[JMC00]

The most annoying part of the Seymour deal to me was the way the draft pick from them dropped. For years they would get at most 4 or 5 wins, then they get Seymour and their record jumps to 8-8 and the pick is in the middle of the round.

Would have had Tyron Smith if Raiders would have finished their usual 5-11

 

[NormZauchin]

The best part of the article in my opinion is the impact that Brady has on the team simply by being who he is. Bill can coach the team hard, because he can coach Brady hard. Bill can ask a player not to take top dollar, because Brady doesn't take the last dollar. Bill can demand hard work an focus from his players because Brady has the best work ethic on a team of hard workers. Lots of good things happen when your best player has totally bought into the program. But more importantly it doesn't stop at just Brady. Most of the team's best players are also the guys who lead the locker room. McCourty, Gronk, Hightower, Ninko, Edelman, right down to the team's most vocal leader, who is a ST's player.

So when every now and again one of the team's best players goes off the rails like Seymour, Moss, Mankins, and now Collins has, and puts THEIR interests over the team's, BB has let them go. So while I bet no one likes what he did emotionally, the locker room survives because the leadership believes it was done in the best interests of the TEAM.

I think that is one of the great myths of the BB era is that he is a controlling despot that keeps his players on a short leash. But the reality is that it is the PLAYERS who control that locker room. They don't give much to the media because they ALSO believe that nothing good can come of it. They don't give bulletin board material to the opposition, because they have come to believe nothing good can come of it. It's just that the leaders in that locker room have complete faith in BB's ultimate goal and process....even when they might disagree with the decision. Seymour, Mankins, Randy, and now Collins were ALL well liked and respected in that locker room. But the locker room survived (maybe with the exception of 2009)

Your listing of outstanding players with whom Belichick parted ways (usually to the consternation of the fan base) made me think of other good players either traded or not resigned. In addition to Seymour, Mankins, Moss, and Collins, there's Revis, Talib, Wilfork, Welker, Milloy, Branch, Chandler Jones, Woodhead, Samuel, Vinatieri, Givens, and Ty Warren. A lot of Pro Bowl selections among that group, which emphasizes your point.

 

[Rob0729]

With Brady that team would have been 14-2 at the worst. They were stacked and they had a cream puff schedule.

But they are poised to have 13-14 wins every year Brady is playing.

 

[Rob0729]

From my post:

And I never went into whether any move was a mistake. I was going into your assertion that the Patriots weren't able to overcome the loss of Seymour. That is a different argument. I am not arguing whether it was a good or bad move. I am arguing that the 2009 team would have been one and done with or without him. That team was soft with a bunch of bad eggs.

 

[Rob0729]

Considering that the opening play of the playoff loss was an 80 yard touchdown run right through what would've been Seymour's assignment, I think at a minimum it's reasonable to say that they had a chance to win it all with him and not having him hurt them.

That doesn't mean they were the favorite with him, or would have won with him--personally, I think as soon as Welker went down our title hopes were toast--but it's equally foolish to say it didn't make a significant difference than to say we would've definitely won with him, IMO. The playoffs are always about punching your ticket and hoping the odds work out in your favor, and every good player tilts those odds a little more toward you.

The Patriots offense was atrocious in that game. It was 24-0 at the end of the first quarter and the Pats never really ever got back in the game.

And for the Ray Rice run, I would argue that it wouldn't have been Seymour that made the difference. If you look at the play, for some reason James Sanders rushed from center field to the far right side of the line of scrimmage right before the ball was snapped leaving the center field open and both inside LBs ran the wrong gaps . That is the reason why what should have been a short gain (no more than a 5-10 yard gain) turned into an 83 yard gain because the center of the field was wide open.

 

[Rob0729]

Cassel aslo had Moss and Welker in their prime. Kevin Faulk had his last bit of juice and the defense was OK. They beat the teams you would expect them to beat but lost to everyone else. The game in San Diego was an example of what that team really was. Cassel was an OK QB but nowhere as good as Jimmy G. In that San Diego game, I remember some sideline throws to Moss, where he had a step that Cassel just could not make. You knew that Brady would have gotten it in there but that was beyond what Matt could do.

I am not saying Cassel was any good. I am arguing the opposite. Sure the offense had a lot of talent, but they had a marginal QB. In the NFL, that should be a recipe for a losing schedule no matter the QB.

Remember a few years back when the Texans had an awesome defense, Andre Johnson when he was still really good, Arian Foster when he wasn't injury prone, and they still had losing records in a crappy division. Why? Because their QB sucked.

 

[Satchboogie3]

I am not saying Cassel was any good. I am arguing the opposite. Sure the offense had a lot of talent, but they had a marginal QB. In the NFL, that should be a recipe for a losing schedule no matter the QB.

Remember a few years back when the Texans had an awesome defense, Andre Johnson when he was still really good, Arian Foster when he wasn't injury prone, and they still had losing records in a crappy division. Why? Because their QB sucked.

I think you have to compare the trajectory of the two teams. Sure, 11-5 is a good season, but Cassel took a team that was a fist-full-of-jersey away from the first ever 19-0 team, shattering every offensive record, with a pretty tough schedule. Cassel took basically the same team and his difference was 5 more losses and 7 less wins. 7 less wins, against a much much easier schedule, and of course the offense was middle of the road. The people who try to use that '08 season to prove Brady is just a system QB... that season proves just the opposite, morons!

 

[Pats2000]

People forget that Belichick had an 11-5 record with Matt Cassel. People discount that achievement because because of a fluke occurrence that happened only one other time in NFL history, 11-5 wasn't good enough to get into the playoffs.

Sure that team probably had no shot of getting to the Super Bowl if they got in and they didn't beat any of the playoff teams they faced (although most were early in the season when the Pats were trying to figure out how to run the offense without Brady), but Cassel was a marginal starter and teams have had easier schedules than the Pats had in 2008 and never gotten close to 11-5.

Yes, Brady gives Belichick the luxury to take risks that other Head Coaches and GMs cannot. But Belichick has shown he can win without any one player including Brady. Maybe not a Super Bowl without Brady, but get into the playoffs.

I hear that argument a lot, but that was the exact same team that had a perfect regular season one year before. 5 losses is huge on that team

 

[BradyFTW!]

The most annoying part of the Seymour deal to me was the way the draft pick from them dropped. For years they would get at most 4 or 5 wins, then they get Seymour and their record jumps to 8-8 and the pick is in the middle of the round.

Agreed, would have been pretty awesome to get a top 5 pick out of it, since it's so rare for us to have access to that kind of talent. I can't complain about Solder though, last week aside he's been pretty good for us.

 

[NG Pats Fan]

Would have had Tyron Smith if Raiders would have finished their usual 5-11

Ummmm JJ Watt?

 

[wolverinejoe80]

we all know jimmy ain't tommy, but with jimmy we are till a top 5 team. we just happen to be #1 with tommy

 

[Mike the Brit]

Link in case anyone missed it:

Thanks! I should have posted the link. It's really revealing and I'm surprised it didn't get more discussion in the off-season.

 

[deroc5050]

I'm convinced Brady is the most important piece to winning games. Belichick second. Gronk 3rd.

 

[TBR]

Thanks! I should have posted the link. It's really revealing and I'm surprised it didn't get more discussion in the off-season.

Yea I just listened to it for the first time, thanks for mentioning it. It's really interesting.

Now Lombardi is out there on his weekly podcast + appearances on Fox + appearances on Bill Simmons' podcast, often giving even more interesting Patriots insight.

 

[deroc5050]

4 weeks ago:
- See, they are 3-1 without Brady.
- He is just a system QB
- BB is the real genius, obviously

Now:
- Well, Brady is just too good
- Anyway would win with Brady
-#12 allows BB to do whatever he wants


Which is it people

WHICH IS IT!?

To be fair I always thought Brady was the most important piece. But Belichick is still by far the best coach, taking everything into account. Between gameplanning, in game adjustments, drafting and developing and managing the salary cap Bill is the best. Brady allows him to win even when there in "rebuilding mode".. a rebuilding mode for New England with Brady at QB is 11-5.

If Belichick had Andy Dalton over 15 years he probably would have had a couple 8-8 seasons.

 

[slam]

That's something to ponder. Belichick with Andy Dalton vs. Brady with a Marv Lewis coach team over a long period of time.

I'd wager that Belichick would upgrade Dalton if he could, and that Brady would get Marv Lewis fired if he could. Both would feel they could do better with their situation.

 

[Deus Irae]

And I never went into whether any move was a mistake. I was going into your assertion that the Patriots weren't able to overcome the loss of Seymour. That is a different argument. I am not arguing whether it was a good or bad move. I am arguing that the 2009 team would have been one and done with or without him. That team was soft with a bunch of bad eggs.

If you can't admit something as obvious as the Patriots not overcoming the loss of Seymour in 2009, we have nothing to discuss.

 

[n6249c]

To be fair I always thought Brady was the most important piece. But Belichick is still by far the best coach, taking everything into account. Between gameplanning, in game adjustments, drafting and developing and managing the salary cap Bill is the best. Brady allows him to win even when there in "rebuilding mode".. a rebuilding mode for New England with Brady at QB is 11-5.

If Belichick had Andy Dalton over 15 years he probably would have had a couple 8-8 seasons.

Belichick would not have had Dalton for over 15 years. Question is whether he would have had him at all.

 

[rochrist]

I'm convinced Brady is the most important piece to winning games. Belichick second. Gronk 3rd.

They won 3 out of their 4 SBs without Gronk.

 

[rochrist]

...and Jimmy was on a trajectory to be deadly but didn't establish himself as a stone-cold killer and lethal when the game is on the line as Tom.

That might be the sentiment.

Of course. The point wasn't really about JG, it was more about the general level of idiots running the other teams in the league.