Yup. But maybe Brady lucked into Bellichek also. Most supposedly "great" coaches would have had him riding pine. Bellichek's defining trait is to promote the niche player to their utmost

I prefer to think Bellichik learned a lot of lessons from his failed (failed being relative) stint in Cleveland. He had already won two SB's with Parcell's at that point and would get another with him with the Pats team that lost to the Packers.

As for Brady, yeah I think he is a huge factor; they are obviously made for each other. It's funny when people say Brady is a "system" QB: Which system are they talking about? I'm pretty sure they have run three completely different offenses during his tenure and Bellichik is always trying to get better, doing shit like going to Corch Irving Meyer's practices in Gainesville to learn the spread and whatnot.

Don't even get me started on the importance of ownership and front office.

Pro football is exhausting to think about sometimes.

Actually, I believe it's Belichick's front office skills that make him a good coach. No one understands selecting players in the salary cap era like he does. He's the anti-Dan Snyder.

I would say whichever NY Jet it was who collapsed Bledsoe's lung triggered the Patriots Noughts Dynasty.

Brady wasn't going to become the starter, at least in '01, except via injury to the no. 1 quarterback. That happened, & the rest -- & the Tuck Rule -- is history.

(Something to consider about the Tuck Rule Game: supposing the call goes the other way -- more that the Tuck is not invoked -- might we be looking at Jon Gruden, still in Oakland, as the best coach of the decade? I doubt he would have won three SB, a la Belichick, & there's still the matter of Pittsburgh to consider, but did the Raiders collapse begin not in Super Bowl XXXVI, but, instead, in Foxboro a year earlier? Or, even, the year before that, in the homefield loss to the Ravens in the AFC Championship? (Raiders '00-'02 had a nice run, at least.))

And I don't think it's any coincidence that the Falcons' fortunes have improved since they hired Dimitroff (who was the Pats director of college scouting) as GM and moved Rich McKay (good football business guy but a pretty shitty draft guy) upstairs. Dimitroff hired Mike Smith, drafted Matt Ryan and off we go.

Dimitroff and Scott Pioli started working for BB in Cleveland like cutting grass and fetching laundry and shit and now both guys run teams that appear to be on the upswing. Meanwhile, none of BB's former assistant's have had any success (unless you count Nick Saban and to some extent Kurt Ferentz's college success)

shiv FTW!

some loose ends to tie up...

first, i believe it was mo lewis who put that lick on bledsoe.

as for the brady/belichick talk, i think that bloor is absolutely right on all counts. first that brady and belichick compliment each other, and also that belichick's front office skills are amazing. he is also a genius of knowing when to cut bait. look at moss. the whole world was talking about the pats losing a deep threat. please. he has cut and released a number of pro bowlers, and of all of them, the only guy with significant production for another team would be asante.

and look at what he has gotten back. in addition to being 12-2 with an incredibly young defense, he has 2 picks per round for the first 3 rounds of the draft next year. the second rounder is carolina's. too bad oakland won some games, but that's a sweet pick too. they are really set up for another dynasty. and all of this, the 3 sb's already, and the bright future is all created at a time when the league is designed to have no dominant teams. it's remarkable.

as for brady, he's the best the league has ever seen. look what happens to manning when his receivers go down. suddenly he looks like ryan leaf. brady has done it all with a variety of personnel. in a way i think he is a system qb, but how many guys can adapt to the different systems they have put in during his tenure? the only time he has been undisciplined at all is when he was forcing the ball to moss, which he was probably doing to keep the locker room from blowing up.

i know people resent their success, but man i am impressed with my squad over the last decade. they are so team oriented that they eliminated individual introductions at the superbowl. once they did it, the whole league followed suit. when tommy went down, they won 11 games with a guy who never started a game in college. that's crazy.

i could go on and on of course. don't get upset.

i'm sure not.

I do have to disagree with this statement....just because he's thrown a few picks in the last few games it's crazy to compare Manning to Ryan Leaf.

When people throw in statements like this it makes impartial observes call bullshit on everything.

You're better than that......i think.

This raised my eyebrow.

If i hadda win one game on a neutral field, I'm still going to war with Montana, but I think Brady has entered the conversation and is undoubtedly Top 5 of all time. A lot of that talk is dependant on who you watched growing up (sorta like music actually)

I'd go with Otto Graham... 'cause he'd also be a zombie. Indestructible!

Now waiting for the inevitable video-game re-imagining Tecmo Super Bowl & Zombies. I mean, if it "worked" for Jane Austen (Pride & Prejudice... & Zombies), why not?

I think this is one of Andy Reid's strengths. His rebuilding years have never lasted more than a season. He's had some glaring holes like not getting McNabb receivers worth a damn for most of his career. But for the most part he's been really good at bringing in young talent and getting rid of aging players at exactly the right time.

Unfortunately he's not the best in-game coach and I'm hoping Vick can offset this as he did this past Sunday.

I didn't see much of Montana before Jerry Rice, and I know he was good before him, but Brady has never had 5 players that add up to Jerry Rice.

One thing Brady has had is one of the best offensive lines in football. He stays pretty upright and usually has time to find an open receiver. Almost every QB is pretty good in the NFL if he's given time. I'm not saying Brady isn't great, he clearly is. But I'd bet that given the option for great WR's or great OL's, smart QBs would take the OL every time.

tis true, the Giants got to him frequently in the Super Bowl

Justin Tuck Rules!

Sort of a chicken/egg argument with offensive lines though IMHO. It's like when people say that Emmitt Smith was only great because of the Cowboys OL as if he had nothing to do with making them great. I also saw that same line get Aikman's head caved in on a number of occasions.

Statistically speaking, I don't know if Brady would be in the top 5. I think the top 5 in the modern era currently is something like Unitas, Montana, Tarkenton, Marino and Elway. I mean, dang think about all the great QBs of the last 30 years even--Farve, Moon, Young, Manning...

Its funny because statistically Aikman and Brady are fairly close after the same amount of years. Brady has the edge though in a few categories like total yardage. Plus Brady has 1 more SB. But my point is, how many people would pick Aikman in the top 5 OAt? In my mind, Brady is great, don't get me wrong. But he isn't a top 5'er yet.

Or, The Barry Sanders Greatness Corollary - to wit, Barry Sanders would not be as memorable a back if he had a better O-Line, because the juking and faking and stop-starts and running up the field for 60 yards would not have been necessary if his O-Lines would have been better.

Like you said, Kurtz, the NFL is mind-bogglingly complicated.

Brady has a large to very large edge in yards, TDs, interception %, winning %, completion %

Aikman only won two Super Bowls?

I'm reading that Cowboys book by Jeff Pearlman. Pretty great in a salacious trash kind of way.

I know some of Aikman's "fantasy" stats are lower because of Emmit Smith