The Secret of Bill Belichick

[Maxie the Taxi]

I don't think Tommy is overrated, slightly or hugely. I mean, he was a 6th round pick, for Gaylord Focker's sake. Perhaps Adams indeed has big role within Belichickism, but in a QB-plagued league, there would be no Patriot Dynasty without Brady. In addition to possessing a great arm, Brady's the greatest field general since Spartacus. No doubt in my humble mind, Brady is the GOAT of pro pigskin.

Gotta asks: Do you think Bart Starr was overrated? I wasn't around during Starr's heydays, so I can't say whether or not he's overrated. But based on my reading of wiki, seems like Starr was a late round pick who excelled mainly b/c of the Lombardi system.

Starr definitely profited from the Lombardi system. It's hard to compare QB's from that era to this, given the fact that then QB's called their own plays all day long. Some HC's sent the plays in every down with messengers, but Lombardi rarely did.

I think the biggest factor in the Packers' success in the era was talent at every position, offense and defense. High draft choices and great trades stocked the team with super talent and Lombardi wrung the last drop out of the players. I never felt we went into a game in those days out-manned or out-coached. With the team he had Lombardi didn't need Johnny Unitas to win. He needed a brilliant field general with an adequate arm and guts. Starr was that.

In that context, Starr was the greatest QB of his era. On the other hand, if I had a team then with mediocre talent, I'd probably want Unitas at QB instead of Starr. In many ways, Unitas was similar to Rodgers. He could carry a team on his back and win games with his arm alone. That's not to say the Colts weren't stacked with talent too in those days, but they weren't stacked across the board like the Packers were.

If you had your druthers, would you rather the Packers have Brady or Arod as our QB, given the quality of the Packers' players and HC?

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Starr definitely profited from the Lombardi system. It's hard to compare QB's from that era to this, given the fact that then QB's called their own plays all day long. Some HC's sent the plays in every down with messengers, but Lombardi rarely did.

I think the biggest factor in the Packers' success in the era was talent at every position, offense and defense. High draft choices and great trades stocked the team with super talent and Lombardi wrung the last drop out of the players. I never felt we went into a game in those days out-manned or out-coached. With the team he had Lombardi didn't need Johnny Unitas to win. He needed a brilliant field general with an adequate arm and guts. Starr was that.

In that context, Starr was the greatest QB of his era. On the other hand, if I had a team then with mediocre talent, I'd probably want Unitas at QB instead of Starr. In many ways, Unitas was similar to Rodgers. He could carry a team on his back and win games with his arm alone. That's not to say the Colts weren't stacked with talent too in those days, but they weren't stacked across the board like the Packers were.

If you had your druthers, would you rather the Packers have Brady or Arod as our QB, given the quality of the Packers' players and HC?

That's a good question. Both are elite QBs. Have strong arms. Brady's more accurate, more durable and a better pocket passer than Rodgers. Rodgers' more athletic, obviously. I'm leaning toward Brady, especially if both in are their prime.

One thing for sure, I would never subscribe to that draft and develop bullshit with an elite QB like Brady or Rodgers on my team. Belichickism works.

[Maxie the Taxi]

That's a good question. Both are elite QBs. Have strong arms. Brady's more accurate, more durable and a better pocket passer than Rodgers. Rodgers' more athletic, obviously. I'm leaning toward Brady, especially if both in are their prime.

One thing for sure, I would never subscribe to that draft and develop bullshit with an elite QB like Brady or Rodgers on my team. Belichickism works.

I agree with you, but I'm in the minority around here.

And for the record, I'd for sure pick Arod. His mobility and creativity is the deciding factor for me. Packers don't have the coaching for Brady's game to succeed here.

[woodbuck27]

That's a good question. Both are elite QBs. Have strong arms. Brady's more accurate, more durable and a better pocket passer than Rodgers. Rodgers' more athletic, obviously. I'm leaning toward Brady, especially if both in are their prime.

One thing for sure, I would never subscribe to that draft and develop bullshit with an elite QB like Brady or Rodgers on my team. Belichickism works.

Most definitely.