There ya go Mike Brown ...

[Shake n Blake]

(01-25-2019, 05:00 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: See, I completely disagree with this. I don’t think Bill would have won with just anyone. He missed the playoffs the one year he didn’t have Brady. They were 16-0 the year before...

I mean, we’ve seen other HC’s that were insanely dominant like Lombardi, but has there ever been another QB as dominant as Brady? 9 SB appearances...

I see this argument a lot, and the easy counter is this: when they "missed the playoffs" the Pats went 11-5. In most years, that's good enough to win a division. We should acknowledge how fluky that was, rather than pretend the Pats were terrible without Brady. Some Bengals fans consider 2005 one of our greatest seasons, and we were 11-5, same as the Pats with Cassel.

Also, if you're going to bring up 16-0, it's just as easy to bring up that the Pats went 10-6 after Brady came back. Either way though, Belichick had the Pats at 11-5 with Matt "friggin" Cassel. If anything, that helps the pro-Belichick crowd. 

As for the 9 Super Bowls, heck yeah it's beyond impressive. That said, I wonder how many Montana would have if defenders weren't allowed to pummel him to oblivion. Or if Walsh had stuck around. It's just a combination of greatness combined with longevity and brilliant coaching. It's something that's really not been possible up to this point.