BobDigital
Pro Bowl Player
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2013
- Messages
- 16,350
- Reaction score
- 15,044
This question is asked a lot and being asked a lot now. Who is more responsible and who is more valuable.
To me this was never a debate. The answer is Tom Brady and frankly all due respect to Bill it is not close (and i say that believing he is the best coach of all time). So why do i say this? Well lets talk about it.
#1 Brady built the Culture - Skip Bayless said this too but he did not say it completely and was wrong about some points. The truth is the hardest thing for a coach to do is to get players to buy in. To get players to want to come to his team (without over paying) and to get players to put the work in needed to be a champion. Bill as good as he is can not do these things alone. When Bill came to the Patriots he had zero credibility with players. Coaches knew who he was as did some owners but he had no way to get players to buy in and believe they were making a championship team here. Not until Brady. The Patriots under BB were 5-13 before Brady. Bill can talk about championship football all he wants and schemes but it is hard to get players to buy in without results. Brady is the man who made it possible for BB to deliver those results. They started winning and by the time they played the Rams the first time and almost won you could tell a skip in their step changed. They where playing faster and harder on D and could see a chance to build something here instead of playing for a contract. Once they got that first Superbowl win it gave legitimacy to everything Bill said about team building. Without Brady they go maybe 8-8 at best.
#2 Brady brought in the players - As a consequence of winning players look a different view of the Pats. They were not just another bottom level team. They were now a contender with a young promising QB and good defensive talent. 2002 didn't work out due to injuries but I believe 2003 would not have been possible without the credit build in 2001. The Pats got some cheap vets who were skilled and looking to win. If they Pats never drafted Brady and had 2 losing seasons in 2001 and 2003 would Rodney Harrison and others choose to come here? I don't think so. I think they spend their last years on a contender. It was getting Brady that was the selling point to get these players. Like a college recruiter coaches sometimes must coax players into being on their team. By either breaking the bank or giving them someone they can most likely get there. This was key for the Pats. Also they were able to keep players Like Brushi and Vrabel ect on cheap contracts. This was because of the Pats winning culture they established thanks to Brady. Brady is the reason the team has had sustained excellence and he is the reason the team did so well without him cause his cheap contract and gravitas (and timing) allowed the Pats to form power house teams which he has unfortunately not always been a part of. that 2008 team was a machine which Brady helped build but did not get to run. Much of BB's legend is based off that season. Facing a substantially weaker schedule IMO and with much of last year in tack that Pats managed 11-5. However this powerhouse team was only able to be built like this cause Brady was there. If not BB would likely have long been fired before this point.
#3 Fake it till you make it - This is misleading in a way cause i believe BB was always the best coach in the NFL since joining the Pats. However a big reasons he is so effective now particularly is cause he has won 4 rings as a head coach. That credit allows everyone to completely buy into everything he says and also gives him bargaining power. Belief someone is right and what they say will work makes it more effective. This means the championships BB would not have won early on without Brady do in fact make him while not a better coach more able to be effective.
#4 Lucky timing - While I hit on this before I think it is important to do it again. BB has won well here without tom Brady EVER SINCE game 3 in 2001. Before then he was not so good without Brady. With Brady making it possible to build the Program here it has just so happened he has gone out at the single most convenient times. 2008 was arguably one of the best groups of 52 other players besides QB since the salary cap era and against bad competition and did so with a fairly competent QB familiar with their system. In 2016 they Pats are 3-0 so far. Much has to do with having the highly competent JAG and when not having him playing the incompetent Texans with a crappy QB and a better mix of 52 players than them. If Brady got injured in 2002 for the season and suspended 4 games in 2006 the Pats would have been much much worse 14-5 without him.
To put it another way in games before Brady without him the Pats are 5-13. In games without Brady and after he join the Pats are 14-5. This effect is largely based on the impact Brady had IMO and i would argue the fact these stats are near mirrors is highly interesting.
To me this was never a debate. The answer is Tom Brady and frankly all due respect to Bill it is not close (and i say that believing he is the best coach of all time). So why do i say this? Well lets talk about it.
#1 Brady built the Culture - Skip Bayless said this too but he did not say it completely and was wrong about some points. The truth is the hardest thing for a coach to do is to get players to buy in. To get players to want to come to his team (without over paying) and to get players to put the work in needed to be a champion. Bill as good as he is can not do these things alone. When Bill came to the Patriots he had zero credibility with players. Coaches knew who he was as did some owners but he had no way to get players to buy in and believe they were making a championship team here. Not until Brady. The Patriots under BB were 5-13 before Brady. Bill can talk about championship football all he wants and schemes but it is hard to get players to buy in without results. Brady is the man who made it possible for BB to deliver those results. They started winning and by the time they played the Rams the first time and almost won you could tell a skip in their step changed. They where playing faster and harder on D and could see a chance to build something here instead of playing for a contract. Once they got that first Superbowl win it gave legitimacy to everything Bill said about team building. Without Brady they go maybe 8-8 at best.
#2 Brady brought in the players - As a consequence of winning players look a different view of the Pats. They were not just another bottom level team. They were now a contender with a young promising QB and good defensive talent. 2002 didn't work out due to injuries but I believe 2003 would not have been possible without the credit build in 2001. The Pats got some cheap vets who were skilled and looking to win. If they Pats never drafted Brady and had 2 losing seasons in 2001 and 2003 would Rodney Harrison and others choose to come here? I don't think so. I think they spend their last years on a contender. It was getting Brady that was the selling point to get these players. Like a college recruiter coaches sometimes must coax players into being on their team. By either breaking the bank or giving them someone they can most likely get there. This was key for the Pats. Also they were able to keep players Like Brushi and Vrabel ect on cheap contracts. This was because of the Pats winning culture they established thanks to Brady. Brady is the reason the team has had sustained excellence and he is the reason the team did so well without him cause his cheap contract and gravitas (and timing) allowed the Pats to form power house teams which he has unfortunately not always been a part of. that 2008 team was a machine which Brady helped build but did not get to run. Much of BB's legend is based off that season. Facing a substantially weaker schedule IMO and with much of last year in tack that Pats managed 11-5. However this powerhouse team was only able to be built like this cause Brady was there. If not BB would likely have long been fired before this point.
#3 Fake it till you make it - This is misleading in a way cause i believe BB was always the best coach in the NFL since joining the Pats. However a big reasons he is so effective now particularly is cause he has won 4 rings as a head coach. That credit allows everyone to completely buy into everything he says and also gives him bargaining power. Belief someone is right and what they say will work makes it more effective. This means the championships BB would not have won early on without Brady do in fact make him while not a better coach more able to be effective.
#4 Lucky timing - While I hit on this before I think it is important to do it again. BB has won well here without tom Brady EVER SINCE game 3 in 2001. Before then he was not so good without Brady. With Brady making it possible to build the Program here it has just so happened he has gone out at the single most convenient times. 2008 was arguably one of the best groups of 52 other players besides QB since the salary cap era and against bad competition and did so with a fairly competent QB familiar with their system. In 2016 they Pats are 3-0 so far. Much has to do with having the highly competent JAG and when not having him playing the incompetent Texans with a crappy QB and a better mix of 52 players than them. If Brady got injured in 2002 for the season and suspended 4 games in 2006 the Pats would have been much much worse 14-5 without him.
To put it another way in games before Brady without him the Pats are 5-13. In games without Brady and after he join the Pats are 14-5. This effect is largely based on the impact Brady had IMO and i would argue the fact these stats are near mirrors is highly interesting.
Last edited:
