(09-07-2021, 09:59 PM)BengalChris Wrote: Does anyone see Brady accomplishing what he did all this time without Belichick? Yeah, he did here in Tampa last season, but the Bucs are loaded on both sides of the ball. 

I agree in general with your post, but not this example. To say the Bucs were loaded on both sides of the ball implies they were a good team already- which they weren't. They'd won 7 games the year before and had a losing record in 8 of the previous 9 seasons. Loaded is not a term I would use.

The changes to the roster between 2019 and 2020 were subtle. The coaches/coords were exactly the same. On offense, a rookie RT came in for one of their top players and leaders (Wirfs for Dotson). A rusty Gronk and Scott Miller replaced the two-TE tandem of Brate and Howard. The rest of the starters were identical (Jones II, Evans, Godwin, 4 of 5 on the OL, etc.).

Same on the defensive side of the ball. Nunez-Roches came in for Vea at NT in a lateral move. The LBs corps did not change (Shaq, David, White, JPP). One CB was promoted (Murphy-Bunting for Hargreaves) while a rookie S was brought in to replace Adams (Winfield Jr). Same punter, new kicker... tomayto tomahto. In the end, the roster was generally unchanged- but their stats and rankings were a lot better.

Honesty, I think Brady deserves credit for almost singlehandedly changing the shape, culture and confidence of that team. I was a skeptic beforehand. I find it hard to believe even now. But he did it entirely without Belichick. Amazing.

Hopefully we can replicate that kind of success in Cincinnati.

(09-07-2021, 10:03 PM)tms Wrote: Good point. Marv ran a tight ship from Day 1, which was esp impressive given the time. You knew right away that he had staying power. And he was just average in retrospect. Zac hasn't even sniffed that mediocre level in two years. It's now or never for the guy... or at least it should be imo.

Good point bringing up Marv. He wasn't even a "great" coach just competent/good/solid (or whatever word you want to use), and he definitely had an instant impact himself.

I'm not one for excuses, myself. Great coaches adapt. Zac is clearly not great, and I'm not even sure he's "just a guy". Year 3 should cement his rep. It doesn't take half a decade to rebuild or get your footing as a coach in the NFL. Not many examples of guys being terrible for 3 years, then going on to great success. Are there any examples at all?

(09-08-2021, 12:23 AM)tms Wrote: I agree in general with your post, but not this example. To say the Bucs were loaded on both sides of the ball implies they were a good team already- which they weren't. They'd won 7 games the year before and had a losing record in 8 of the previous 9 seasons. Loaded is not a term I would use.

The changes to the roster between 2019 and 2020 were subtle. The coaches/coords were exactly the same. On offense, a rookie RT came in for one of their top players and leaders (Wirfs for Dotson). A rusty Gronk and Scott Miller replaced the two-TE tandem of Brate and Howard. The rest of the starters were identical (Jones II, Evans, Godwin, 4 of 5 on the OL, etc.).

Same on the defensive side of the ball. Nunez-Roches came in for Vea at NT in a lateral move. The LBs corps did not change (Shaq, David, White, JPP). One CB was promoted (Murphy-Bunting for Hargreaves) while a rookie S was brought in to replace Adams (Winfield Jr). Same punter, new kicker... tomayto tomahto. In the end, the roster was generally unchanged- but their stats and rankings were a lot better.

Honesty, I think Brady deserves credit for almost singlehandedly changing the shape, culture and confidence of that team. I was a skeptic beforehand. I find it hard to believe even now. But he did it entirely without Belichick. Amazing.

Hopefully we can replicate that kind of success in Cincinnati.

The Bucs have a ton of weapons, and Brady doesn't play defense. Hard to deny the talent there, and I doubt Brady went there because he thought they were terrible. Not to mention Arians is a great coach himself.

They won 7 games with their QB throwing what...31 picks? Add an elite QB, and that's what you get. They really had no weakness once they added Brady.

(09-08-2021, 12:40 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: The Bucs have a ton of weapons, and Brady doesn't play defense. Hard to deny the talent there, and I doubt Brady went there because he thought they were terrible. Not to mention Arians is a great coach himself.

They won 7 games with their QB throwing what...31 picks? Add an elite QB, and that's what you get. They really had no weakness once they added Brady.

So then... you agree with me lol. Brady singlehandedly changed their fortunes. Pre-Brady, the Bucs weren't just a 7-win team coming off one bad year either. They had 7, before that 5, before that 5... the one winning season in the previous nine was 9-7 lol. Didn't exactly set the world on fire. Revisionist history notwithstanding, they were in molasses. 

If there ever was such thing as a "losing culture", TB were the poster boys for it right up until he came aboard. I mean, it's easy to look back now and say they were a potential champion slowed by one weakness. But no one was talking like that at the time. That "weakness" was a #1 overall pick in the prime of his career for whom many were still excited- despite the interceptions. In fact, his PFR Approximate Value in 2019 was equal to Brady's in 2020 (15)- again, despite the interceptions. It stands to reason that intangibles had a far more significant influence on the Bucs' outcomes than just one isolated statistic.

(09-08-2021, 01:05 AM)tms Wrote: So then... you agree with me lol. Brady singlehandedly changed their fortunes. Pre-Brady, the Bucs weren't just a 7-win team coming off one bad year either. They had 7, before that 5, before that 5... the one winning season in the previous nine was 9-7 lol. Didn't exactly set the world on fire. Revisionist history notwithstanding, they were in molasses. 

If there ever was such thing as a "losing culture", TB were the poster boys for it right up until he came aboard. I mean, it's easy to look back now and say they were a potential champion slowed by one weakness. But no one was talking like that at the time. That "weakness" was a #1 overall pick in the prime of his career for whom many were still excited- despite the interceptions. In fact, his PFR Approximate Value in 2019 was equal to Brady's in 2020 (15)- again, despite the interceptions. It stands to reason that intangibles had a far more significant influence on the Bucs' outcomes than just one isolated statistic.

I'm just providing context. Pointing out their win totals and talking about "losing culture" is ignoring all the positive changes they made preceding Brady. The weapons exist, do they not? Was the defense not elite?

Essentially they were turned around with Arians, they just needed the QB. I believe ANY top notch QB would've had the Bucs in contention for a chip. Brady isn't a dummy. He saw the situation there.

Kinda reminds me of LeBron "going home" back in 2015. I guess you would've pointed out how the Cavs were terrible from the time Bron left to when he came back, but that would be ignoring that the Cavs had a young Kyrie Irving, Andrew Wiggins (trade bait) and several other good pieces.

In short, it was a great situation for Bron to land in, and he got all the credit for "turning it around", even though the turn around was already in motion.

(09-08-2021, 01:18 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I'm just providing context. Pointing out their win totals and talking about "losing culture" is ignoring all the positive changes they made preceding Brady. The weapons exist, do they not? Was the defense not elite?

Essentially they were turned around with Arians, they just needed the QB. I believe ANY top notch QB would've had the Bucs in contention for a chip. Brady isn't a dummy. He saw the situation there.

Kinda reminds me of LeBron "going home" back in 2015. I guess you would've pointed out how the Cavs were terrible from the time Bron left to when he came back, but that would be ignoring that the Cavs had a young Kyrie Irving, Andrew Wiggins (trade bait) and several other good pieces.

In short, it was a great situation for Bron to land in, and he got all the credit for "turning it around", even though the turn around was already in motion.

Meh I appreciate the effort but this analogy is not apt. Let's keep it to football. It's apples and oranges otherwise. The NBA is a superstar league. 5 players on the court at a time, with the cream of the crop playing 80% of the game and dominating play. Football is 11 v 11 with 3 distinct phases, each player with his own niche, 53-man rosters in total, and far more moving parts. It's historically accepted in basketball that one player can change a team. Nobody ever wondered whether prime Lebron could singlehandedly make his teams competitive in CLE > MIA > CLE > LAL- or singlehandedly leave them in tatters by walking away- because that's what NBA superstars do. It's not so simple in the NFL for all the above reasons and more.   

In fact, the original point was precisely that debate: whether Brady could replicate his football success without Belichick. Not only did he prove that he could, but he didn't even need to join a proven contender to do it. We can argue about how close the Bucs really were until we're blue in the face, but that's pure speculation. The results are clear. Roughly the same crew that had won 7 games the year before (and 17 over the previous 3) promptly became a freaking Super Bowl winner (something we have NEVER done) by adding just one major piece.

It's football, not basketball. It's Brady, not Lebron. Yet he managed to do it anyway... and at 43 years old to boot. It is remarkable.

(09-08-2021, 02:16 AM)tms Wrote: It's football, not basketball. It's Brady, not Lebron. Yet he managed to do it anyway... and at 43 years old to boot. It is remarkable.

2019 Buccaneers Scoring Offense with Winston: 3rd
2020 Buccaneers Scoring Offense with Brady: 3rd

If you're arguing that Brady is the reason why the Bucs were good in 2020, that's a horrible hill to die on.

The difference is they went from the 29th scoring defense in 2019 to the 8th scoring defense in 2020. The less INT helped, obviously, but that defense was just tough. They played the 1st, 5th, and 6th scoring offenses in the playoffs and held them to 5.8, 10.1, and 20.6 points, respectively, below their season average.

(09-08-2021, 01:05 AM)tms Wrote:  In fact, his PFR Approximate Value in 2019 was equal to Brady's in 2020 (15)- again, despite the interceptions. It stands to reason that intangibles had a far more significant influence on the Bucs' outcomes than just one isolated statistic.

Actually what "stands to reason" is that whatever "PFR Approximate Value" measures does not have a lot to do with winning games.

2019 Winston...... 60.7 comp%..... 33 td..... 30 int.....   84.3 rating..... 12 fumbles
2020 Brady.......... 65.7 comp%..... 40 td..... 12 int..... 102.2 rating.....   4 fumbles

(09-07-2021, 06:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't believe that coaches can win without good players, but I also believe some coaches can win with less talent than others (or lose with more).  

Andy Reid is one of the greatest coaches of all-time.  He took over an Eagles team that won 3 games and had the unusual distinction of finishing dead last in both yards gained and yards allowed.  He only won 5 games his first season, but since then he has made the playoffs 16 out of 21 years.  He has won 17 playoff games with 2 different teams going to 6 Conference Championship Games and 3 Super Bowls.  But he also went 6-10 in '05 and 4-12 in '12.  Sometimes even the best coaches can't overcome losses of talent due to injury or free agency.

So if a guy like Andy Reid has a bad year, no one claims he is a terrible coach.  But when dealing with a lot of players and new coaches that don't have a track record it is very hard to determine how much of the problem is coaching and how much is lack of talent.

I have a couple of ideas, but once I will admit that I don't have all the answers in this area.  So I'd like to hear what you guys think.

-I think one way to separate coaching from talent is too look at what happens at the very end of a half or end of a game. I feel the effects of coaching are magnified in the more difficult situations.

-Some fans like to point to penalties, but when you look at the numbers every year there are a lot of the best teams that are among the most penalized.

-I find it very difficult to criticize play calling.  If a coach plays it by the books and fails he is not creative enough.  If he tries something out of the ordinary and fails then he is stupid for not doing what every other coach knows is best.  Fans want coaches to "keep their foot on the pedal" with a lead until they throw away a game like we did against Tampa Bay in 2010.  Lots of Bengal fans claim Marvin Lewis cost us a lot of games by being too conservative with a lead, but when asked to give just one single example most come up blank.  Lots of fans also claim the Bengals threw the ball too much last year, but our run game was really bad.  I felt we had to throw a lot to have any chance of winning.

-From what I saw last year it seemed like much of the problem in pass blocking was players not knowing what to do.  I saw more mental mistakes than guys just getting bullrushed or beaten with speed.  But I have absolutely no way of measuring that with statistics.  I do know that Baltimore got 5 sacks from DBs in our first meeting.  Those guys were not just running over our O-linemen.  I blame a lot of that on coaching, but again it is hard to say 100%.  Sometimes there are players so dumb that not even top coaches can do anything with them.

Any other suggestion on how to (or not how to) split the blame between players and coaches?

Interesting post.  

I think I have to give the current coaching staff some allowances.  Sure, it is easy for me to sit behind this keyboard and talk about how they needed better balance last year.  They needed to be less predictable and not put Burrow in such unfavorable down and distances where the opposition is going to be teeing off on him.  However, they didn't exactly have the personnel to do that.  The line was awful at run blocking (to make up for that, they were also awful at pass blocking...and to take a shot at the coach there, I have never seen a line develop less (actually regressed) on a Bengal team.  Bye, Turner, you won't be missed.  Back to personnel:  The defensive line lost its two highest-paid vets and their big FA acquisition early and their FA CB before the season even started.  They were almost always behind.  The lack of solid pass blocking, especially inside, forced the passing game to get the ball out quickly, thus restricting what the defense had to contend with.  Couple that with a lack of a deep threat (although Tee started to show here, Green all but disappeared) and you have a "perfect storm" as to a lack of efficiency on both offense and defense. 

I know, that goes back to the boring excuses.  It is hard to ignore them.  The coaches showed some flashes of at least competency, with a solid game plan against pitt, and the defense showed fairly well against Lamar Jackson (though the offense did not).  They had Cleveland beat, and the Browns are a very solid team.  

I think we are going to learn a lot about the coaches very early this season.  They got rid of the last of the 'old guard" and it is truly a "New Dey" from a personnel standpoint.  I love how they have put this team together, at least on paper, and I am very excited about what we saw in the preseason.  This will be the year where the coaching staff either sinks or swims.  I really don't see a middle ground. 

(09-07-2021, 06:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't believe that coaches can win without good players, but I also believe some coaches can win with less talent than others (or lose with more).  

Andy Reid is one of the greatest coaches of all-time.  He took over an Eagles team that won 3 games and had the unusual distinction of finishing dead last in both yards gained and yards allowed.  He only won 5 games his first season, but since then he has made the playoffs 16 out of 21 years.  He has won 17 playoff games with 2 different teams going to 6 Conference Championship Games and 3 Super Bowls.  But he also went 6-10 in '05 and 4-12 in '12.  Sometimes even the best coaches can't overcome losses of talent due to injury or free agency.

So if a guy like Andy Reid has a bad year, no one claims he is a terrible coach.  But when dealing with a lot of players and new coaches that don't have a track record it is very hard to determine how much of the problem is coaching and how much is lack of talent.

I have a couple of ideas, but once I will admit that I don't have all the answers in this area.  So I'd like to hear what you guys think.

-I think one way to separate coaching from talent is too look at what happens at the very end of a half or end of a game. I feel the effects of coaching are magnified in the more difficult situations.

-Some fans like to point to penalties, but when you look at the numbers every year there are a lot of the best teams that are among the most penalized.

-I find it very difficult to criticize play calling.  If a coach plays it by the books and fails he is not creative enough.  If he tries something out of the ordinary and fails then he is stupid for not doing what every other coach knows is best.  Fans want coaches to "keep their foot on the pedal" with a lead until they throw away a game like we did against Tampa Bay in 2010.  Lots of Bengal fans claim Marvin Lewis cost us a lot of games by being too conservative with a lead, but when asked to give just one single example most come up blank.  Lots of fans also claim the Bengals threw the ball too much last year, but our run game was really bad.  I felt we had to throw a lot to have any chance of winning.

-From what I saw last year it seemed like much of the problem in pass blocking was players not knowing what to do.  I saw more mental mistakes than guys just getting bullrushed or beaten with speed.  But I have absolutely no way of measuring that with statistics.  I do know that Baltimore got 5 sacks from DBs in our first meeting.  Those guys were not just running over our O-linemen.  I blame a lot of that on coaching, but again it is hard to say 100%.  Sometimes there are players so dumb that not even top coaches can do anything with them.

Any other suggestion on how to (or not how to) split the blame between players and coaches?

In the NFL for the most part every team is equally talented, save for an elite QB or big playmaker.  Therefore, the team that most consistently executes comes out on top.  

You could say that good execution comes down to good coaching, and that's a valid argument.  But there's also a few plays that usually change the outcome of games.  In many cases these plays are turnovers.  The team on the plus side of the turnover battle generally comes out on top.  So are turnovers a result of good coaching or good playmaking?  Or bad coaching or bad playmaking?  Don't know the answer.

Guess I really got nothing to add to help solve this puzzle!

(09-07-2021, 06:54 PM)Synric Wrote: I'm excited to see the offense this year because it's the offensive scheme Zac Taylor has wanted to implement since he got to Cincinnati and has just had the cast to pull it off.

I would think any coordinator should be able to find a way to get production with Burrow at QB, Boyd, Higgins, and Chase at WR, Mixon at RB, and Uzomah at TE, even with a subpar OL. If the OL can even be middle-of-the-pack, the only thing that would hold this offense back would be injuries and/or playcalling.

(09-08-2021, 12:23 AM)tms Wrote: I agree in general with your post, but not this example. To say the Bucs were loaded on both sides of the ball implies they were a good team already- which they weren't. They'd won 7 games the year before and had a losing record in 8 of the previous 9 seasons. Loaded is not a term I would use.

Jameis Winston baby. 30 INTS in 2019. Just a drive killing machine he was.

I live in next to Tampa, I know what that team has.

 

(09-07-2021, 07:17 PM)George Cantstandya Wrote: Reid has a coaching background decades beyond Zac's.  He's coached teams with little talent and teams with a ton of talent and everything in between in the NFL since 1992 when Zac was about 10 years old.   So we really can't compare Reid's season's good or bad to Zac's.

So let's see Zac's background:  Assistant QB coach of the Dolphins 2012 (During the five games Taylor served as OC, the Dolphins went 2-3 and averaged 17 points per game), then a gap and Offensive Coordinator at UC 2016.  2017 Rams assistant wide receivers coach and 2018 QB coach. 2019 hired to be head coach of the Bengals.  And here we are now.  

Apparently the Bengals are now loaded on offense with Mixon, Chase, Boyd and Higgins.  Let's see what this offensive genius can do.  But in no current universe should Zac's name even come up when talking about Andy Reid's history. And yes I know the OP didn't mention Zac by name but I feel it was very much implied.  

I hope Zac isn't as bad has he has been for sure.  This season will be his go big or get out as far as I'm concerned.

George nailed it.

(09-07-2021, 06:54 PM)Synric Wrote: I'm excited to see the offense this year because it's the offensive scheme Zac Taylor has wanted to implement since he got to Cincinnati and has just had the cast to pull it off.

his scheme has been offensive since he got here.

(09-08-2021, 12:36 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Good point bringing up Marv. He wasn't even a "great" coach just competent/good/solid (or whatever word you want to use), and he definitely had an instant impact himself.

I'm not one for excuses, myself. Great coaches adapt. Zac is clearly not great, and I'm not even sure he's "just a guy". Year 3 should cement his rep. It doesn't take half a decade to rebuild or get your footing as a coach in the NFL. Not many examples of guys being terrible for 3 years, then going on to great success. Are there any examples at all?

hes what the wrestling world calls a Jobber.

(09-08-2021, 07:54 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: 2019 Buccaneers Scoring Offense with Winston: 3rd
2020 Buccaneers Scoring Offense with Brady: 3rd

If you're arguing that Brady is the reason why the Bucs were good in 2020, that's a horrible hill to die on.

The difference is they went from the 29th scoring defense in 2019 to the 8th scoring defense in 2020. The less INT helped, obviously, but that defense was just tough. They played the 1st, 5th, and 6th scoring offenses in the playoffs and held them to 5.8, 10.1, and 20.6 points, respectively, below their season average.

You totally misunderstood. If anything you're reinforcing my point. The team was obviously better- they wouldn't have won the SB otherwise. But what changed other than Brady? The roster, coaches and coords were not new. The defense swapped just three starters: at NT, CB and S. None was a game-changer. In fact, I might argue they were all were lateral moves. Yet the Bucs still made the ultimate leap.

If it wasn't Brady changing the culture of the team (as I said initially) then it must have been something else. Shake n Bake thinks they were already good enough. Likewise, BengalChris believes the roster was "loaded". They're fair points and everyone's entitled to their view, but this one is belied by the losing that preceded Brady. Were all those teams "loaded" as well? It's a tough argument to make. Unless you felt that any team with 7+ wins should join the Tom Brady sweepstakes, it was a surprise.

Despite how it looks with 20/20 hindsight, the Bucs had been mired in mediocrity for over a decade. They finished 8 of the previous 11 years in last place (!!!). There's nothing simple about turning those kinds of teams around- we know that in Cincinnati better than most- let alone doing it by adding a 43-yo quarterback whose weak arm can only be undershot by his weaker athleticism.

All I'm saying is that he brought some serious intangibles to the table that cannot be captured by stats (as you said yourself). Either it was a miracle or he has the secret sauce. Because he made chicken salad out of.... a 7-win team lol, and Belichick wasn't there to help him. 

(09-08-2021, 01:32 PM)BengalChris Wrote: Jameis Winston baby. 30 INTS in 2019. Just a drive killing machine he was.

I live in next to Tampa, I know what that team has.

 

I see what you're saying and it's a gruesome stat. But the Bucs fared even worse in the years when he threw fewer picks lol. There must have been more to the story. For that matter, you should bring it up with TheLeonardLeap. He seems to think they won because the defense improved. So unless he's suggesting the defensive improvement (and the team's more broadly) can be explained by Winston not throwing interceptions on offense, I'm just the middleman here. If anything I'm the common thread between all of you. It's clear that there was was an "X-factor" that impacted positively on all three phases of their team. 

I mean, you could say it was addition by subtraction, but I think that's too simple. These are professional teams. I personally think it was addition by addition- but exactly what they added is hard to isolate. It goes beyond stats and analytics. It's fascinating.

(09-08-2021, 01:46 PM)tms Wrote: You totally misunderstood. If anything you're reinforcing my point. The team was obviously better- they wouldn't have won the SB otherwise. But what changed other than Brady? The roster, coaches and coords were not new. The defense swapped just three starters: at NT, CB and S. None was a game-changer. In fact, I might argue they were all were lateral moves. Yet the Bucs still made the ultimate leap.

If it wasn't Brady changing the culture of the team (as I said initially) then it must have been something else. Shake n Bake thinks they were already good enough. Likewise, BengalChris believes the roster was "loaded". They're fair points and everyone's entitled to their view, but this one is belied by the losing that preceded Brady. Were all those teams "loaded" as well? It's a tough argument to make. Unless you felt that any team with 7+ wins should join the Tom Brady sweepstakes, it was a surprise.

Despite how it looks with 20/20 hindsight, the Bucs had been mired in mediocrity for over a decade. They finished 8 of the previous 11 years in last place (!!!). There's nothing simple about turning those kinds of teams around- we know that in Cincinnati better than most- let alone doing it by adding a 43-yo quarterback whose weak arm can only be undershot by his weaker athleticism.

All I'm saying is that he brought some serious intangibles to the table that cannot be captured by stats (as you said yourself). Either it was a miracle or he has the secret sauce. Because he made chicken salad out of.... a 7-win team lol, and Belichick wasn't there to help him. 

What changed other than Tom Brady? They had a 2nd year in a new defense. That's generally when you see the big change. Just look at the Bengals in 2007 were the 24th scoring defense. Zimmer comes and they are the 19th scoring defense in 2008. Then 2009 happens and they are the 6th scoring defense and go to the playoffs.

You focus on the 2020 changes, but there were huge 2019 changes that just took time to all gel together in a new defense. They added Ndamukong Suh and Shaquil Barrett, they drafted Devin White. None of that was because of Brady.

So what changed for the Bucs? They went from the 29th scoring defense to the 8th scoring defense. Tom Brady's intangibles didn't make the defense become a top-10 defense. TWO 2nd Team All-Pro LBs along with a bunch of great pass rushers all in their 2nd year in the system did that. 

But sure, focus on what they did a decade ago as somehow proof that the 2020 Bucs wouldn't have been a good team without Brady even though those weren't the same players or coaches and thus completely irrelevant. The Bucs are loaded and Bruce Arians is getting the best out of them. The same way that he had Carson Palmer QB'd team go 13-3 and win a playoff game.

(09-07-2021, 06:54 PM)Synric Wrote: I'm excited to see the offense this year because it's the offensive scheme Zac Taylor has wanted to implement since he got to Cincinnati and has just had the cast to pull it off.

This is best way to describe my opinion.  If it doesn't go well this year, the possible excuses dwindle greatly, if not evaporate completely when considering if ZT is a good coach.

A good coach seemed to beat that Steelers team with Finley in primetime.  That same coach has a dreadful W-L record.  There are reasons on both sides and I think this will be our best year to evaluate fairly.

(09-08-2021, 02:14 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: What changed other than Tom Brady? They had a 2nd year in a new defense. That's generally when you see the big change. Just look at the Bengals in 2007 were the 24th scoring defense. Zimmer comes and they are the 19th scoring defense in 2008. Then 2009 happens and they are the 6th scoring defense and go to the playoffs.

You focus on the 2020 changes, but there were huge 2019 changes that just took time to all gel together in a new defense. They added Ndamukong Suh and Shaquil Barrett, they drafted Devin White. None of that was because of Brady.

So what changed for the Bucs? They went from the 29th scoring defense to the 8th scoring defense. Tom Brady's intangibles didn't make the defense become a top-10 defense. TWO 2nd Team All-Pro LBs along with a bunch of great pass rushers all in their 2nd year in the system did that. 

But sure, focus on what they did a decade ago as somehow proof that the 2020 Bucs wouldn't have been a good team without Brady even though those weren't the same players or coaches and thus completely irrelevant. 

There was no winning without Brady. That's not just a claim, it is a fact. You're shooting the messenger lol. 

It's an interesting theory that they all came together at the right time- and the right timing is ultimately every team's goal- but there's no way to prove that. There are far more teams whose Master Plan never materializes than there are those like the Bucs who manage to catch lightning in a bottle. And I mean, that they finished 29th in scoring defense in 2019 is not somehow proof that they were bound to finish in the Top 10 last year lol. Come on now. All we know for sure is that they won 7 games with largely the same roster. The rest is speculation- not just in terms of why they improved as a team, but also as individual players. 

Now, you could say that their development was inevitable, but there are plenty of holes in that argument. For one, Shaq was just a guy before 2019, when he blew up the league with 20 sacks- yet the Bucs only won 7 games then. It was only after Brady got there (and Shaq's production slipped) that they became a winner. it's another case where contradictions abound. There is no straight line in how they advanced to the next level other than Brady joining the team.