If you could have BB or Tom Brady...

[maverick4]

This team got to the Super Bowl before BB. But we didn't win it until Brady.
Look at Super Bowl 36... "protect the ball." "Eff that, just sling it down there!"
BB wasn't going to win with Bleed-slow.

This reasoning makes NO sense at all. We're not comparing Bledsoe. Don't you think it's HIGHLY likely Belichick would simply have found another good, unknown QB? I mean this is the same guy who axed Bernie Kosar when he coached Cleveland.

Belichick is the man.

 

[belichickaholic]

Tom Brady was a 6th Round pick for a reason. He's been quoted as saying that playing for Belichick is like taking a test when you already know what the questions are going to be. That said, I hope they stay together for a long time.

 

[primetime]

Don't you think it's HIGHLY likely Belichick would simply have found another good, unknown QB?

No, I don't. Belichick got lucky.

And as for Brady being a 6th round pick... Joe Montana was a 3rd round pick. And Tim Couch was 1st overall. Who cares about that? Brady's one of the top 5 QBs of all time, and that's on him (and Mo Lewis), not Belichick.

 

[maverick4]

No, I don't. Belichick got lucky.

And as for Brady being a 6th round pick... Joe Montana was a 3rd round pick. And Tim Couch was 1st overall. Who cares about that? Brady's one of the top 5 QBs of all time, and that's on him (and Mo Lewis), not Belichick.

Brady is a top 10 all time QB right now, no doubt. But when he was drafted, he was nowhere close to the QB he is now. I would venture to say Belichick and Weiss developed Brady, and that Brady would not have gotten as good as he did without Belichick.

 

[maverick4]

No, I don't. Belichick got lucky.

And as for Brady being a 6th round pick... Joe Montana was a 3rd round pick. And Tim Couch was 1st overall. Who cares about that? Brady's one of the top 5 QBs of all time, and that's on him (and Mo Lewis), not Belichick.

Who cares? Belichick and Pioli also found Matt Cassel, who may be a good QB in the league in the future. The point is, Brady is a hall of famer now, but Belichick could have found another guy and made him great as well.

We need to stop thinking about Brady as if he was a finished product out of college.

 

[maverick4]

Would you rather have Red Auerbach or Havlicek?

Would you rather have Phil Jackson or Scottie Pippen?


Another thing to note is that football needs FIFTY THREE players. A single great football player has much less impact than in any other team sport.

 

[PromisedLand]

But not both... who would you take?

Sophie's Choice.

 

[primetime]

Would you rather have Red Auerbach or Havlicek?

Would you rather have Phil Jackson or Scottie Pippen?

Why'd you use guys who were the wingmen to the best players on their team? I'd rather have had Russell than Auerbach, Jordan (or Kobe, or Shaq) than Jackson, and basketball coaches are more or less useless compared to football coaches. Who was the coach of the Devils during their hockey dynasty? Would you rather have had him (I know who he is), or Brodeur?

The fact is, people think that because a Brady happened once, now it'll happen to the Patriots over and over. Matt Cassel will likely be nothing more than a career backup, a Zolak to Brady's Bledsoe. Brady wasn't a finished product out of college, but his development had as much to do with his own training regimen as it does Belichick (and, to a greater extent, Weis).

What this thread proves is that we, as Patriots fans, take Brady for granted. He's amongst the greatest QBs of all time, and yet we would rather take a guy who doesn't even play on the field over him. There's no way that Broncos fans in the late 90's would rather have had Shanahan than Elway, or Packers fans Holmgren over Favre. Why doesn't anyone appreciate Brady? We expect him to have a good game, and then when he doesn't we go on and on about it. Is all this because he didn't lead them to a TD with under a minute to go? I don't get it.

 

[sieglo]

Belichick is one of the best coaches ever. In the NFL today, I'd say there is one coach (Shanahan) who is as good, and one more (Dungy) who might be.

Brady is one of the best QBs ever. In the NFL today, I'd say there is one QB (Manning) who is as good, and maybe a couple more that are not quite so good but competitive.

Belichick and Brady are equally rare talents.

So to answer the question, Brady vs. Belichick, you need to ask yourself: what is more important -- head coach or QB?

 

[MrTibbs]

BB all day baby!

 

[Pats Fanatic]

This is the same question that has been raised with Bill Walsh and Joe Montana. Did Montana make Walsh a genus or was Walsh going to win no matter what. We will never know and hopefully we would find out with this team for a long time to come.

 

[maverick4]

So to answer the question, Brady vs. Belichick, you need to ask yourself: what is more important -- head coach or QB?

Sieglo, that was a great post.

In football it is unquestionably the head coach who is more important. Football isn't like basketball where 1 player can change the entire game. Football requires so many players, strategies, and plays, that a superior head coach will defeat a superior QB almost every time.

This is why a guy like Belichick can defeat the 1990 49ers offense, the 90's Superbowl Bills, the 01 Rams, and Peyton Manning's Colts. The coach is VITAL.

 

[Bella*chick]

LOL, I hate these Sophie's Choice type threads.

But I'd have to say BB.

 

[carolinatony]

I would take Brady....only time will tell

 

[maverick4]

Remember people, Belichick faced Joe Montana in the playoffs, and what happened? The Giants won, Montana went out with a near career-ending injury, and never played for the 49ers significantly again.

 

[Pats Fanatic]

Remember people, Belichick faced Joe Montana in the playoffs, and what happened? The Giants won, Montana went out with a near career-ending injury, and never played for the 49ers significantly again.

So that takes away from the 4 Super Bowls he won with the 49ers. I'm not sure what you mean. I know that you want to make the case for Belichick, I see that but in reality great teams have both a great QB and head coach. They work hand in hand, the Browns of the 40's and 50's, the Packers of the 60's, the Steelers of the 70's, the 49ers of the 80's , the Cowboys of the 90's and the Patriots of the 2000's all had both. We as fans of this team should feel very lucky, I don't believe either would be as great without the other.

 

[maverick4]

So that takes away from the 4 Super Bowls he won with the 49ers. I'm not sure what you mean. I know that you want to make the case for Belichick, I see that but in reality great teams have both a great QB and head coach. They work hand in hand, the Browns of the 40's and 50's, the Packers of the 60's, the Steelers of the 70's, the 49ers of the 80's , the Cowboys of the 90's and the Patriots of the 2000's all had both. We as fans of this team should feel very lucky, I don't believe either would be as great without the other.

My point is, Bill Walsh had the system, and Montana was his star. However, Belichick, a superior coach, took out the league's best stars and teams. He took down the 49ers with Montana, the unstoppable Bills with Kelly and Thomas, he shut down the Rams with Warner and Faulk, he stopped Peyton Manning multiple times, he stopped Steve McNair...

What I am trying to say is, the mastermind coach is the reason for franchise success. Even Joe Montana couldn't win it all without Bill Walsh.

Tom would have been a great player on another team, but Belichick would have won championships regardless of Brady.

 

[Jimke]

You should bite your tongue off for making this post. Seriously, I

believe that the Pats would fall like a stone to the bottom of the

NFL if they lost either of these people. Tom Brady is the best clutch

quarterback in the NFL and BB is the only head coach who could still

compete for a championship after the personnel losses the Pats have

suffered the past two years.

 

[BradyManny]

Tom would have been a great player on another team, but Belichick would have won championships regardless of Brady.

That's where you're wrong. Sorry, but we have ZERO championships right now if it's not for Brady.

 

[maverick4]

That's where you're wrong. Sorry, but we have ZERO championships right now if it's not for Brady.

I disagree. Brady would probably have a Drew Brees-like career, and Belichick still would have won at least one if not multiple titles.