I agree w/ you there, I think they thought he might be done w/ that shoulder injury. When the 14th pt is score din the last 2 1/2 mins and gives you a 4 pt lead against a mediocre offensethat should be enough to win. Brees showed plenty of flashes in his year and a half starting. How was Cleveland a contender when they never even came close to a conf title game? and if they were building such a contender why did they fire him after 1995? They had the move excuse so why fire him? NE wound up winning 6 games so 1994 was irrelevant at that point. That's like Miami crowing about beating Minnesota in week 2 this year. The Bills missed the playoffs the year before and in postseason they lost to Pitt 40-21, det lost to Philly 58-37 so those big time teams lost by an average of 20 points in their playoff losses. They weren't playing well at the time of the announcement, things spiraled out of control after but that team was struggling at the time.
14 points was not enough to win. Brees did not give show them "plenty of flashes" prior to the 2004 draft. NE was a playoff team the year before and went to the Super Bowl the following season. They showed they could play especially on opening weekend. Belichick wasn't the perfect coach, but built that team into a playoff team and a contender before the team imploded. He learned from his Cleveland experience and is a good enough coach that when the Patriots lost Brady for the season they still went on to win 10 games.
14 pts was enough to win if NE had a true big time defense but, much like our paper tiger D, they folded in the biggest moment of the game. Brees absolutely showed them flashes, I know SD fans were very high on him at the time. The management team made a mistake. That's great that NE was a playoff team in 1994 and made the SB in 1996 but in 1995 when they played the 1995 browns they went 6-10 and that was their ONLY win in the seasons first 6 weeks so please let's stop w/ the nonsese that the '95 pats were a good team? Cleveland was NEVER a contender under belichick, he built them into a one time playoff team in 5 years as a HC. He's definitely a much better coach in NE than he was in Cle but that was mostly b/c of the QB and don't compare 2008 NE to those Cle teams. That team was winning for the entire decade and was undefeated a year earlier and faced one of the easiest scheds in team history. That team won 6 less games w/ Cassell than they did w/ Brady the year before- that is a dramatic difference.
14 points was not enough to win the game. Period. If the offense scored 20 that would have been enough. 14 was not, and it shouldn’t have been enough to win. Brees did not show flashes that he was a future franchise QB. It was the first week of the season and NE was coming off of a playoff berth. I didn’t say the 1995 Pats were a good team, but they had the pieces that just went to the playoffs. Cleveland was absolutely a contender in 1994 and going into 1995 before the team imploded. Where did I compare the 2008 NE team to Cleveland team? I said that he lost his starting QB in 2008 and still went on to win 10 games. That’s a big accomplishment no matter how you slice it.
If the O scores 20 thent he D allows 23, it was one of those games. The D had the game in their hands and they blew it. Sure he did, he led them to 8-8 in 2002 when they had won 6 total the previous 2 years. he definitely showed flashes, I remember seeing it and I remember SD fans being excited about him. How does a contender get slaughtered in the div rd? They weren't even competitive in the div rd so how were they a SB contender? That team that crushed them in '94 would lose the following week at home. Maybe going into '95 they were considered a contender, I can agree on that but they didn not play like a contender early in that year prior to the announcement. winning 10 w/ cassell as the starter sounds like a great accomplsihment until you realize they won 6 less games than the year before.
They did not score enough points to win. You can't say that the Giants would have scored 23 when they only put up 17. They won 8 games in 2002 (which was an increase of 3 games from 2001) because the running game was significantly better (106 yds / gm in 2001 to 134 yds / gm in 2002). In 2003 the Chargers averaged more points without Brees (23 w/o Brees vs. 18 w/ Brees). Comparing Belichick in Cleveland vs. New England is silly. Belichick improved as a coach and learned a lot from his earlier mistakes. Despite the mistakes, he turned the Browns into a competitive team who made the playoffs for the first time in 5 years in 1994. Modell tore the 1995 team apart with all the rumors that they were moving. They heard the rumblings long before the official announcement. They won 10 games with a QB who hadn't started a game since H.S. What does the 2007 NE team have to do w/ the 2008 NE team (especially considering your points regarding the 1994, 1995 & 1996 Patriots).
You applaud NE for winning 6 less games in 2008 w/ Cassell as the starter but you don't give Brees any credit for winning 3 more games in 2002? The running game was better in 2002 but so was the passing game. What a feat to turn the Browns into a playoff team, they were a year removed from being in the AFC Title Game when he took over so it was an amazing job to get them into the playoffs once in 5 years after he took over. 10 wins is 6 less than they won in 2007, right? That is a HUGE difference especially against a MUCH, MUCH, MUCH weaker schedule.
Brees was mediocre. I give credit to the Chargers running game. The passing game was barely better from a TD / INT ratio and Comp %, but was lower on yds / att and was 20 yds / gm lower in 2002. They were a year removed from the AFC Championship game in 1991 but the team he took over for was horrible. The 1990 Browns weren't even close to the same team as the 1989 Browns. It's funny that you use these comparisons, but make sure to mention how the 1995 Patriots wasn't the same team as the 1994 or 1996 Pats. 2007 and 2008 are different seasons. Why the comparison? They won 10 games with a QB who hadn't started a game since H.S. The reason that team was held together was because of the job that Belichick did in 2008.
Which is better? 15 TDs and 18 INTs while leading the team to 5 wins or 17 TDs and 16 INts while leading the team to 8 wins? The mid 90s Pats didn't have a track record of success, the late 80s Browns did. they made 3 title games in 4 years and had a winning mentality as an organization. The '95 pats were coming off their first playoff app in 8 years. There's just a slight difference. Belichick didn't have to change the culture of an organization like BP did w/ NE. They won 6 less games in 2008 w/ the same talent as 2007 outside the QB and against a much weaker sched. The #s for BB w/ and w/o Brady are startling.
In 2002 the running game was the reason they won 8 games. The running game contributed an additional 28 yds / game while the passing game contributed 20 yards less per game. The passing game was not the reason, nor was Drew Brees. 15 / 18 vs 17 / 16 is hardly anything to brag about. Why didn’t the flashes carry over to 2003? Why did the Chargers score more points w/o Brees in 2003 than they did w/ him? The late 80’s Browns were old and most of them were gone by 1991. Belichick worked in many young players like Anthony Pleasant, James Jones, Leroy Hoard, Michael Jackson, Randy Hilliard, Pio Sagapolutele, Rob Burnett, Ernie Logan and Eric Turner. Guys from the late 80’s teams like Ozzie Newsome, Paul Farren, Cody Risien, Al Baker, Carl Hairston, Hanford Dixon, Felix Wright, Earnest Byner, Bob Golic and Sam Clancy among other key contributors from the late 80’s team were either no longer there or were not the same player they used to be by the time Belichick got there. They were a shell of their former self and the 1989 team was the end of that era. They won 10 games w/ a QB who had not started a game since H.S. nothing more needs to be said.
Is the goal to gain more yards or score more points? which is better 15 TDs and 18 INTs or 17 TDs and 16 INTs? I don't know, I think he had some injury issues in 2003. The guy clearly showed flashes, whether they thought he was durable or thought he'd become great is irrelevant. They made a mistake when they had a star QB right under their noses. When he took over in 1991 he still had: Kosar Mack Langhorne Slaughter Tony Jones Mike Baab Dan Fike eric Metcalf Michael dean perry Clay Matthews Frank Minnifield That's alot of starters from those late 80s teams that knew how to win(until they got to the title game). Cassell was in that system for years and he led KC to double the amount of wins they had the year before he got there in '09 and he has them at 5 wins already this year.
They scored 1 total point more in 2002 than in 2001. He didn’t show flashes. He was mediocre in 2002 in terrible in 2003. Mack wasn’t the same, Langhorne missed 7 games, Tony Jones barely played prior to 1990 and Baab was just coming back from the Patriots in 1990 and wasn’t the same player. Clay Matthews and Frank Minnifield were up there in age. They lost many many key contributors from there mid – late 80’s winning teams. They lost more players from those teams than they retained. That’s a lot to overcome. The 1990 team was awful and that was before Belichick. I know Cassel is doing well this year. He’s in that same QB friendly system Brady has been in. It’s actually quite ironic that another QB who is playing in that system is having a great year this year as well as last year (Kyle Orton).
Actually it was 13 pts less as they scored more non offensive pts in 2001 but using just pts scored may or may not be fair. When were these points scored? in meaningful action or garbage time? They allowed more pts in '02 yet won 3 more games. Alot of those guys were not the same but they had a winning attitude, they knew how to win and that is a huge help building a team. he didn't have to change the culture in Cleveland. How many QBs in that QB friendly system have won SBs besides Tom Brady/ and if this system was the biggest factor in all the winning why is BB's record so great w/ Brady and so awful w/o him?
Brees was 4-16 in his last 20 games prior to the 2004 draft. A winning attitude isn't going to get the job done alone...not when you are working in nearly a dozen rookies and young guys. They had not won a championship game and were 3-13 in 1990 with most of the veteran players they got them to those Championship Games were gone. BB was 10-6 w/ a QB running that system who hadn't started a game since High School.
Whether he was 4-20 or 0-24 they made a mistake. A winning attitude and teams knowing how to win sure can help, it's alot easier having older guys that know how to win passing it down to the younger guys than having to change the culture. He was 10-5 w/ Cassell starting and how did they do in the playoffs again? Winning 6 less games is a good job? So if we won 3 games this year w/ Kellen Clemens Rex would have done a good job this year? You still didn't answer the question- how many QBs in that system have won SBs besides Brady? Heck, how many have reached a SB? how many have won playoff games? or big college games?
They didn’t make a mistake based on the information they had. He was 4-16 in his last 20 games prior to the 2004 draft. No matter which way you try to spin it, that is horrible. Hindsight is 20 / 20 and the Chargers made the right decision based on the information they had. A lot of those guys retired and just preaching a winning attitude isn’t going to automatically get wins for the team. If that were the case then why didn’t the Packers of the 70’s win any SBs or the Steelers of the 80’s or the Cowboys of the 00’s? Are you actually trying to make a comparison of a 10-6 team w/ a 3-13 hypothetical team? There are two Pro QBs that came from that system in college, and 2 other QBs who are having great success within that system that are currently playing in the NFL. How many SBs has Brady won w/o a top rated defense or Adam Vinatieri?
No matter what way you slice it they made a mistake, they had an elite QB on their roster and they let him go. Just preaching a winning attitude will not help but it's still easier than changing a culture of losing. he did not do a good job in Cleveland, the proof is in the record. The packers of the 70s stop making good personnel moves, you claim Belichick brought in a ton of talent to Cleveland. The Steelers of the 80s still had competitive teams throughout the decade and even made a conf title game in '84(and were the only team to beat SF that year). The Cowboys of the late 90searly '00s stopped making good personnel decisions and made poor coaching choices. They got a great coach in parcells who was not a great personnel man and gave him the power over personnel. Yes. You are patting BB on the back for winning 6 less games w/ Cassell as his starter w/ a team that was undefeated ab year earlier and they were facing a MUCH easier schedule. he did a nice job, that's it. Obviously Cassell was ready to play after years of learning behind a master. How many SBs has Manning won w/ Adam Vinatieri or w/ a D that has allowed LESS points in regulation in postseason games than Brady's supposed great D's? Who are these QBs from that system that have ever done anything?
Based on the whopping 4-16 record he had in his last 20 games as their starter where he completed 58.7% of his passes threw 19 TDs to 25 INTs they sure did make a mistake. So, the 1970’s Packers and 2000’s Cowboys made bad personnel decisions and your theory that players with a winning attitude pass along that attitude is incorrect. The Steelers of the 1980’s did not win a SB and was missed the playoffs 6 times (1980, 81, 85, 86, 87 and 88). Belichick did bring in talent and it took a few years before that talent started realizing success. They lost a lot of the players that brought them to 3 AFC Championship Games in the late 1980’s and a lot of them was due to retirement. No, Belichick wasn’t a great coach in Cleveland, but he began turning that team around before the team imploded due to the franchise relocation rumors. Cassel didn’t start a game since High School and still Quarterbacked a National Football League Team to 10 wins w/o the benefit of facing a 1-15 Dolphins team twice and a 4-12 Jets team twice. Great coaching and a great QB system who has developed 2 College QBs into Pro players and have 2 other pro players playing at a high level. It’s a good QB friendly system. Manning has a SB w/ Vinatieri and that Pats defense that you keep ridiculing kept one of the great offenses to only 17 points. They were the reason the Pats won SB XXXVI and kept the Eagles to only 14 points until less than 2 minutes left in the game. They kept them in the game for SB XLII while the offense muttered thru the game putting up only 14 points. The only SB where the defense did not play well was SB XXXVIII against the Panthers.
He was also 6-16 if you go 2 games back and 10-17 if you include the beginning of 2002. Young QBs struggle, it happens. he got off to a good start in '02 and had some struggles after that but to say he showed nothing is completely inaccurate. SD made a mistake, they were unable to see his talent through the struggles. The Giants could have done the same thing w/ Eli, Philly w/ McNabb, GB w/ Rodgers, etc... Where did I say a winning culture guarantees success? I said it's alot easier to win when you have that winning culture than to have to change the culture of a losing franchise. GB replaced VINCE LOMBARDI and the other 2 teams were POST-DYNASTY and Dallas had terrible coaches and none of the teams were making the right decisions in the draft. Most teams would love to have a bad decade where you "only" make 4 playoff apps. You keep using the relocation excuse(sounding an awful lot like all the Manning excuses). In his first 4 years they made ONE playoff app and were humiliated in the div rd against a team that wasn't great. In 1995 the team was medicore at best before the announcement of the move. NE faced 4 playoff teams in 2008(5 games) and went 1-4 NE faced 6 playoff teams and went 6-0 winning by an average of 20 PPG Who are these QBs that have had so much success in this system? How many times do I have to ask? Manning in 4+ years w/ AV- 1 SB title Brady in 5 years w/ AV- 3 SB titles I thought Brady won b/c of AV so why hasn't peyton won 2-3 titles yet? The great pats D: -Blew 14 pt lead in SB XXXVI in 4th qtr, Brady rescues them -Allowed 19 4th qtr pts in SB XXXVII, Brady rescues them -Brady leads 80 yd TD drive in final minutes and the D blows SB XLII allowing a mediocre offense to go 83 yards in just over 2 minutes to lose the game.
