CHFF/WEEI: Brady vs. Belichick is no contest

[JSn]

The "logic" here is astounding. I guess forumers with sucky grammar aren't the only ones who make snap decisions.

WEEI 850AM Sports Radio - Brady vs. Belichick Is No Contest

Excerpt (with some superb fact skewing):

• Belichick was 42-58 as a head coach before Brady arrived on the scene.

• Belichick was 100-27 as a head coach with Brady running the show.

• Belichick is now 2-2 in the four games started by Matt Cassel in the post-Brady era.


Even a lab rat, or Eric Mangini, could pick out the pattern.


The truth is that the Patriots became a contender and Belichick became a genius the day that Brady stepped out on the field.

 

[Jimke]

The "logic" here is astounding. I guess forumers with sucky grammar aren't the only ones who make snap decisions.

WEEI 850AM Sports Radio - Brady vs. Belichick Is No Contest

Excerpt (with some superb fact skewing):

Do you think Belichick could have won three Superbowls with Drew Bledsoe

at quarterback? Highly unlikely!

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

I would agree that the Patriots HAVE drafted relatively poorly in 2 of the last 3 years. Poorly in the sense of failure to sustain a dominant team with new quality younguns. As a homer and a summer training camp afficianado, I like this year's crop of rooks but it's still the honneymoon with most of the picks.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

Lets see. Kraft didn't want to draft Brady, nor did any other team. So Brady without BB, Brady's record is 0-0.

 

[JSn]

Lets see. Kraft didn't want to draft Brady, nor did any other team. So Brady without BB, Brady's record is 0-0.

I didn't know that about Kraft. I did read that it was a compensatory pick they used. What/who did they get the comp. pick for?

 

[upstater1]

Do you think Belichick could have won three Superbowls with Drew Bledsoe

at quarterback? Highly unlikely!

I think he could have won one.

How do I know this?

Because before Belichick joined the team in 1995, Parcells had us at 5-11.

Belichick joined and the next thing you know, we're in the Super Bowl. Why? Belichick.

The most amazing thing to watch is what happened to the Jets after Belichick joined. From Kotite to the AFC Championship game.

Explain that.

 

[Deus Irae]

These people all know better. A raw coaching record without context is useless in such a discussion, because it doesn't take into account the state of the franchise(s) when the coach arrived or the state of the franchise(s) after he left.

 

[JSn]

These people all know better. A raw coaching record without context is useless in such a discussion, because it doesn't take into account the state of the franchise(s) when the coach arrived or the state of the franchise(s) after he left.

Weren't the Browns on the way up when he left Cleveland? I might be misremembering the facts, but the franchise moved and he didn't go with them?

 

[BelichickFan]

Weren't the Browns on the way up when he left Cleveland? I might be misremembering the facts, but the franchise moved and he didn't go with them?

Yes they were, they had gone from 3-13 to 11-5 with a playoff win (over Parcells and the Patriots). I don't count the last year as the move was announced a few games in.

Regradless - they might be right who knows - but their "facts" are flawed because they can't look at Brady without Belichick. I think Brady would do just fine without Belichick but we have never actually seen it nor have we seen what Brady would have become without him. Again, I think Brady would have done just fine but there's no facts to prove it.

 

[sieglo]

If we put Brady on the Arizona Cardinals in 2001, would they have been to the SB four times?

 

[signbabybrady]

Weren't the Browns on the way up when he left Cleveland? I might be misremembering the facts, but the franchise moved and he didn't go with them?

THe Browns got better during his tenure. HE left when they moved to Balt....Balt won a SB 4/5 years later. SO while BB had very little to do with it one could argue his tenure got the team trending up.


The premise of the argument I think is stupid. Neither one of them was winning 3 without the other. I can say that with almost certainty. I think they each could have one a SB without the other obviously the circumstances would have to have been right but they each have proved their worth at this point and to argue one was more important than the other is foolish

 

[MassPats38]

Of course. Belichick brokered the deal to move the Browns to Baltimore after he had created a playoff contender, causing the team to tank. And, of course, he told Parcells to bail after the Super Bowl in 1996 and instructed Kraft to hire Carroll, ushering in the 3-year decline prompting a genuine rebuilding effort when he arrived. So some of his lousy seasons are clearly the product of his poor leadership.

Of course, any head coach losing a QB like Brady would be expected to roll through the season with a backup. Marv Lewis would do it with a great receiving corps and running back. No, scratch that. He couldn't do it with a top 5 QB, a great receiving corps and a great running back. I'm sure Lewis would be the exception.

The fact is Brady and Belichick are great at their respective jobs, and logically each derives benefit from the other's abilities. Brady did not create the defensive juggernauts that crushed opposing offenses and Belichick did not make clutch passes and decisions when needed. The argument that Belichick is great because of Brady is as ridiculous as the argument that Brady is a system QB great because of Belichick. The facts speak otherwise if you are capable of reviewing the history.

 

[Deus Irae]

Weren't the Browns on the way up when he left Cleveland? I might be misremembering the facts, but the franchise moved and he didn't go with them?

Well, the year before BB took over the Browns, they won 3 games. He won 6,7,7 and 11 games, and took the Browns to the playoffs in that 4th season. The following year, the team started of pretty well, but then news of the move got out and the team collapsed. A 3-1 start turned into a 5-11 season and BB was fired.

However, when you look at the next 4 seasons, you see a Browns/Ravens team that won 4,6,6 and 8 games, so it's not as if the team soared to magnificent heights as soon as he was fired or anything.

 

[captadamnj]

How about that Tom Brady devised defense in the SB win over the Rams? That was really something. He's also come up with some great defensive game plans against the Colts (and other teams) over the years. I'm also sure that Brady has been developing all of his own game plans on offsense since entering the game against the Jets in '01.

Whew, glad we got that one out of the way, I was really starting to worry about all the "Brady is nothing without Belichick" talk I've been hearing.

 

[TheComeback]

Everyone forgets the job Belichick did for the Giants as their defensive coordinator. His gameplans have shut down two of the greatest offenses ever--the Buffalo Bills of the 1990s, and the Rams of 2001. And he did both in the Superbowl. Tom Brady did not win either of those games--Bill Belichick's defenses did. He is definitely one of the greatest, if not the greatest, defensive coaches ever.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Of course. Belichick brokered the deal to move the Browns to Baltimore after he had created a playoff contender, causing the team to tank. And, of course, he told Parcells to bail after the Super Bowl in 1996 and instructed Kraft to hire Carroll, ushering in the 3-year decline prompting a genuine rebuilding effort when he arrived. So some of his lousy seasons are clearly the product of his poor leadership.

Of course, any head coach losing a QB like Brady would be expected to roll through the season with a backup. Marv Lewis would do it with a great receiving corps and running back. No, scratch that. He couldn't do it with a top 5 QB, a great receiving corps and a great running back. I'm sure Lewis would be the exception.

I do hope you just forgot the [sarcasm][/sarcasm] identifiers!

The fact is Brady and Belichick are great at their respective jobs, and logically each derives benefit from the other's abilities. Brady did not create the defensive juggernauts that crushed opposing offenses and Belichick did not make clutch passes and decisions when needed. The argument that Belichick is great because of Brady is as ridiculous as the argument that Brady is a system QB great because of Belichick. The facts speak otherwise if you are capable of reviewing the history.

I guess you did...(whoo, needed to read this a couple more times after I got my jaw off the floor. )

 

[Clonamery]

How about that Tom Brady devised defense in the SB win over the Rams? That was really something. He's also come up with some great defensive game plans against the Colts (and other teams) over the years. I'm also sure that Brady has been developing all of his own game plans on offsense since entering the game against the Jets in '01.

Whew, glad we got that one out of the way, I was really starting to worry about all the "Brady is nothing without Belichick" talk I've been hearing.

Hmm, I thought it was "Parcells is nothing without Belicheck." Well, add Brady to the list.

 

[Ian]

Do you think Belichick could have won three Superbowls with Drew Bledsoe

at quarterback? Highly unlikely!

It takes someone who can execute the game plan put in place by the coaching staff to win games. Brady did that.

Ask yourself this question: do they win three Super Bowls with Pete Carroll at the helm with Brady at quarterback?

 

[Ian]

THe Browns got better during his tenure. HE left when they moved to Balt....Balt won a SB 4/5 years later. SO while BB had very little to do with it one could argue his tenure got the team trending up.


The premise of the argument I think is stupid. Neither one of them was winning 3 without the other. I can say that with almost certainty. I think they each could have one a SB without the other obviously the circumstances would have to have been right but they each have proved their worth at this point and to argue one was more important than the other is foolish

Exactly. They were a playoff team and then it fell apart when it was announced the team was moving the following season. I always thought Belichick got too much criticism considering he turned that team back into a playoff contender. They tanked the following year because of the fact they were moving to Baltimore. But the media in Cleveland hated him and I believe so did much of the national media. Whatever, it worked out just fine here

 

[JSn]

You guys are gonna love the Belichick transcript of today's PC.