Damn right, Woody could care less what the Jets record is as long as he's making money. As for Jimmy G, you can't keep them both and do you really think the Pas are going to give up two or three more years of Brady playing like he is? Odds are the Pats find their next History, check into it, were the Pats in the basement the ten plus years before B.B. and Brady?
Yeah and if he didn't have Belichick, would you be singing his praises? Essentially, Belichick has afforded him the opportunity to be the drunken fan cheerleader that he is, and even still his ego slips through (Jimmy G)., I don't believe Kraft has a clue. Josh McDaniels sure as shit isn't the solution forward.
I agree (mostly). If Kraft didn't have Belichick, the Pats would be another also-ran franchise. But Kraft targeted Belichick, got him and let him do his thing. He deserves some credit for that. Yeah, if Josh McDaniels is the answer, someone will have to tell me what the question is. When I first read the ESPN story, I believed the ego/Brady theory on the Garoppolo trade. However, in light of the weirdness of the McDaniels situation, I'm starting to think that trade was part of Belichick's exit strategy. The problem is that so much of the "information" on the McDaniels situation and the Garoppolo trade seems to be Patriots PR published by sources well-known for sucking up to New England.
That’s an argument to extreme — because they didn’t fall to the basement thus Kraft is a brilliant executive capable of continuously building Super Bowl teams. Of course you have to either be dishonest and ignore how he couldn’t mantain Parcell’s Super Bowl team without Parcell’s and Belichick, or too fucking stupid to understand what a logical argument requires, to grasp that the very evidence you provided of the Pats decline after Parcell’s departure is a reflection of Kraft’s inability to lead an organization to success on his own accord. Hell, within 4 seasons they went from Super Bowl contender to 5-11, remember, until Brady emerged.
If Woody had this generations best coach and quarterback the complaints about his organizational skills would be as puny as shasta’s dick.
I admit, we do have a lousy owner. But that has little to do with the fall the Pats will experience when Brady and Belichick leave.
Define fall? I you mean the Patriots will never experience the same consistent level of success, then I agree with you, I would bet all rational Pats fans would. Now if you think that the Pats will just sink down to a bottom of the division for a decade, you are going to be very, very disappointed.
No, it's unlikely they'll become the new Cleveland Browns. It's more likely they would fall into a decade of mediocre hell. Belichick is the brains of that operation, both on the field and in the front office. Once he leaves, it's entirely possible that things fall off considerably. To fall into the hell of mediocrity, all you need is to make the wrong call on a FQB and have a couple of bad drafts. If Brady retired or suffered a career-ending injury, who's their QB? Without Belichick, what are the odds that they draft and develop a legitimate FQB? Who on their roster would you consider to be long-term impact players? Not Grownkowski because I can't see him playing at a high level for another five years. My point is that with a few wrong calls by Belichick's successor, things could go south pretty quickly. Those of us of a certain age will never forget what happened to the Yankees in 1965. They were coming off five consecutive pennants, and they dropped to sixth place in 1965 and last place in 1966. They didn't reach the post-season again until 1976. What happened was they had an old roster, suffered some unexpected injuries, and made some really poor decisions on player acquisition.
Hell, the Islanders went from a team that is arguably the greatest hockey team in history to a goid team and then the dreck of the league in no time. And that was with a superstar like LaFontaine taking over the reins.
Sure, there are plenty of examples of it happening both ways. My only prediction is to those Jet fans that believe the Pats are going to replace them in the basement of of the AFC East for a decade.
You guys are going to collapse after Brady, and especially if Bellichick rides off with him. You aren’t being honest if you claim losing the greatest QB and coach of all time isn’t going to lead to the end of your relevance because Bob Kraft will save the day.
And you aren't being honest with yourself if you ignore the fact that the Patriots were pretty damn relevant under Kraft for a decade before Brady and B.B. They were certainly more relevant than the Jets, and there's no denying that.
No, they were relevant with Bill Parcell’s. In the decade prior to Belichick, and not counting Parcells, they won 5 games, 1 game, 6 games, 2 games, and 5 games. I’m not sure if you are dishonest at this point, or are actually fucking stupid enough to think averaging 3.8 wins per season is being relevant.
I haven't got a clue where you're getting your numbers but not under Parcell's or Belichick, the Patriots are 10-6, 9-7, and 8-8. So who's stupid here?
No, we’ve discussed that. That was between BP and Belichick with Carrol, in which, under Krafts management the team declined from Super Bowl contender to 8-8 in three years, and then 5-11 in the fourth. But you stated they were relevant for a decade prior to Belichick, which extends back to 89. From 89-94 they average 3.8 wins per season as I stated. That’s fact. I’d return your asinine question to you about how you couldn’t possibly be aware of these records, since you brought up the timeframe we are discussing, but you are continuously exhibiting that you are either dishonest, by ignoring it (which is strange since you brought it up) or are too stupid to know those records before pointing out that timeframe. The Pats were a joke before Parcells, and the players on the first SB team have even admitted the team that won was built by Parcells. The Pats success is directly attributed to Parcells and then Belichick; none of it reflects any expertise on Krafts part that will carry forward without Belichick. On the contrary, without BP and B.B., he averaged 3.8 wins as an owner preceding them as well as watched them decline from a SB team to 8-8 in three years. But maybe if we ignore those facts your argument is compelling.
You don't know what the hell you're talking about, Kraft has only had three coaches under his ownership two before B.B. Parcells and Carrol coached the Pats for about a decade before B.B. and Brady, care to compare the Jets and Pats records in that time? How about Super Bowl appearances? Playoff appearances? Winning seasons? So yes, only a moron would try and argue against the success the Pats have had under Kraft Before B.B. and Brady.
That’s simply not true. BP only coached them for 4 seasons. Carrol for 3. There are still 3 more seasons to account for. I’ve already established the criteria of excluding Bill Parcells, as it would be hard on your part to argue that the success under a HOF coach like BP is likely Krafts doing, especially when you can point to empirical evidence that shows a steep decline in success without BP and B.B. Like I said, you’re either dishonest or stupid when factual evidence points to Kraft not knowing what he’s doing. Your call, I’m happy to accept whichever you want to choose.
You want to talk about dishonest or stu You want to talk about dishonest and stupid? Ok, lets break down your comments. 1st off you want to eliminate the Parcell's years from the discussion because, well he was a great coach and the Patriots had wining records and went to the Super Bowl, so that doesn't fit your argument so lets just ignore those years. Then of course we can't count anything from the the B.B. and Brady years, because that just doesn't do anything at all to help your lame ass argument either, and your just sure Kraft had nothing to do with any of that. So now we are left with your "Steep decline in success without BP and BB." Ok, I'm game, lets take a look at what you call a steep decline, here we have three seasons, 10-6 playoffs, 9-7 playoffs, 8-8. I honestly don't know how Pats fans survived the horror!!! Do you realize that in the last 20 years the Jets haven't put up three consecutive seasons with that much success, and this is what you point to as proof that Kraft on his own is going to let the team collapse into the basement of the AFC East? Do you have any clue what the term, "Straw Man Argument", means? I suggest you look into it.
Your argument is about Kraft and how he can succeed without B.B. and Brady. It’s not illogically narrowing the criteria to examine Krafts results when not supported by a coach who was a proven HOF coach without Kraft. You have to be able to identify data that can be attributed to Kraft’s expertise. That’s like arguing Mitch Kupchak was a great GM for the Lakers simply because he rehired Phil Jackson and they won a championship. It would be asinine to attribute the success of the Lakers because if Jackson’s proven success to Kupchak. Super Bowl to 8-8 is a huge decline. Hell, it clearly wasn’t satisfactory for Kraft or he wouldn’t have fired Carrol, but you’re now attempting to applaud it as a reflection of success? Dishonest or stupid? You are making it tough to choose because I can’t imagine someone actually being that stupid. Maybe it’s both, dishonesty as a result of stupidity. Let’s keep that one on the table. You also conveniently ignore they then fell to 5-11 after the 8-8 season. But, if you want to celebrate 5-11 as relevant I assure you, again, it’s not a level of dominance Jets fans fear. I’m glad you’d be content being the the 2017 Jets.
