Not presumptuous at all. I made my case.
You have said many times that the players are more important than the coaches. And that Brady is more important than Belichick. Except I made the case that without Belichick Brady would have most likely been a forgotten name like those other QBs I listed drafted in the same draft.
I disagree. There are transformative coaches. Bill Walsh comes to mind. Buddy Ryan comes to mind as a Defensive coordinator. And of course, the subject of this thread, Billy B.
If you think you know for sure that Brady would be selling insurance without the Patriots then more power to you I guess. I'd call it presumptuous.
As far as who is more valuable out of those 2, think that 1 is obvious. So is Manning, etc.....Not gonna run down the list.
Without Brady, BB could've gotten fired and been a defensive coordinator for the Cowboys by 2004, who knows. Works both ways. Not like I'm saying he's a bum by saying he's not as valuable as the best QB's of all time.
If Walsh was so transformative, why did he flop at Stanford? Any coach sticks around long enough and the volatility and variance of the game will humble you. Ask....Well, you know.
I never said that I "know" what would have happened to Brady without being drafted and brought along by Belichick. I simply made the case that he likely would have been a speck name in football history without Belichick. We do probabilities around here. The probability of him being a nothing was a lot greater than him finding some obscure circuitous route to GOAT status without his coach. You know a lot about this stuff. What were you predicting for Tom Brady back in the 2000 draft? I'll answer that. Nothing. Just like everybody else . EXCEPT the guy who drafted him and coached him.
You want to discredit the innovation of Bill Walsh's West Coast Offense because of what he did at Stanford?
OK. Sure.
You want to discredit the innovation of Bill Walsh's West Coast Offense because of what he did at Stanford?
OK. Sure.
I was just saying I think he would've gotten a shot given everything I said, if you don't think it is likely then fine. And I never said he would have the success he had without NE either, just that I think he would've had a good chance to make it. Obviously I give BB credit for developing him similar to Walsh with Montana.
And just saying being a brilliant coach has its limits, if Walsh sticks around in the NFL he likely has the same problems he had at Stanford. Best QB's don't have too many years on down teams (especially in the 21st century) because their intrinsic value is higher.
If these guys were more valuable than the best players, they wouldn't have so many down years that the best players in their primes seldom have. That's all.
Obviously I'm not discrediting him or BB or XYZ other great coaches, but without players they all get seen with their makeup off eventually. Xs and Os has its limits if you don't have the horses.
Coaching is just harder to constantly smash the opposition at too, everyone rips off what you do which creates mean regression over time as edges dry (like a lot of the stuff I said BB was early on in a post on the 1st page) Whereas some dude that can drop back never gets old, until the dude himself does. It is more a philosophical opinion about that than those 2 individuals.
