The only indispensable part is William Belichick (not Tom Brady)

[fair catch fryar]

The only thing that really matters is that they both work for the Patriots.

 

[stcjones]

Without Tom Brady, with massive injuries to key starters all across the team, and with a backup QB who last started in high school, the Patriots finished 11-5 with the NFL's 2nd highest scoring offense and a top 10 defense, and were destroying teams in December for a strong potential playoff run. Any of the above factors (top QB down, numerous starter injuries, grooming an inexperienced QB and lots of other rookies to boot) would have crippled most other franchises' chances.

Tom Brady is my favorite football player ever, but the most recent season has ended the debate:
William Belichick is the only indispensable part when it comes to long term Patriot success.

Even if Brady's knee never heals, even if Pioli and the entire coaching staff leaves, the Patriots will continue to roll, over time, as long as William Belichick is the head coach of the team.

Who the HECK is WILLIAM Belichick??????

 

[ScottieC]

Who the HECK is WILLIAM Belichick??????

Actually it's, William Stephen Belichick.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

My gut disagrees. I think Bill Belichick is replaceable, but Ernie Adams is the real mastermind and is the indispensable part. BB is just the conduit by which Ernie's thoughts are turned to action.

 

[upstater1]

What team's did they destroy in December and what were the circumstances?

12/7 Seahawks

One of the worst teams in the league with just as many decimating injuries as the Patriots minus the hall of fame quarterback. Oh and they almost lost the game.

12/14 Raiders

Once again one of the worst teams in the league, maybe the worst team of the decade, who made no effort to tackle at any point during the game.

12/21 Cardinals

I have been watching football since the mid 90's and I have never seen a team give such a pathetic performance in my entire life. They gave up before they met at center field for the coin toss. And yes I am counting preseason football in my statement.

12/28 Bills

A tough division game and the only one that gives credence to your argument. BB outcoached **** all over the field and was probably the major difference in the game.

Bottom line is BB did great this year with what he had to deal with but to dismiss Brady and his accomplishments along with all the other players and what they contribute is homerism at best. The Pats win because of the players they assemble on the field and the way they respond to coaching. Seriously go back and look at their scheduale this year if Brady is their QB they are pushing 16-0 again.

Go back and look at our 2006 and 2001 schedule. We had weak schedules in those years as well. And in one instance we won the Super Bowl, while in the other we took the Colts down to the wire of the AFC CG.

 

[upstater1]

I don't buy the premise of the thread.

It's one thing to get 11 wins in the regular season, and it's quite another to do it through the playoffs and into the Super Bowl.

Matt Cassel may develop and improve but the fact is, nobody has better command of the pocket than Brady, and no one performs better in the clutch.

A slew of QBs have had some success in the NFL, but very few have dominated like Brady. Without Brady, we don't win any of our Super Bowls. NONE OF THEM. The guy almost took a team with Reche Caldwell as its best WR to the Super Bowl.

That performance was eye-popping.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

He's proven he can field a competitive team without Brady. Well he did that in Cleveland one year too so I'm not seeing the point. The bottom line is can this team win Super Bowls without Belichick and Brady? We still don't know that but thus far the answer is no.

 

[BradyManny]

Without Tom Brady, with massive injuries to key starters all across the team, and with a backup QB who last started in high school, the Patriots finished 11-5 with the NFL's 2nd highest scoring offense and a top 10 defense, and were destroying teams in December for a strong potential playoff run. Any of the above factors (top QB down, numerous starter injuries, grooming an inexperienced QB and lots of other rookies to boot) would have crippled most other franchises' chances.

Tom Brady is my favorite football player ever, but the most recent season has ended the debate:
William Belichick is the only indispensable part when it comes to long term Patriot success.

Even if Brady's knee never heals, even if Pioli and the entire coaching staff leaves, the Patriots will continue to roll, over time, as long as William Belichick is the head coach of the team.

We didn't make the playoffs. The 11-5 record is great, but it was a down season for the entire NFL, and our 11-5 record this season isn't quite the same as an 11-5 season in prior years. We lost to 4 AFC playoff teams. Seymour said it himself, they didn't do the things necessary to earn their playoff berth.

Ultimately its not a Brady v Belichick thing. The whole premise is silly. Where would we have been if Adalius Thomas hadn't gotten injured? What about Rodney? Maroney? It was a cumulative effect. But this is still a team that went 16-0 beating lots of playoff teams last season, there's a lot of talent on the team. Props to Belichick, but if Brady doesn't heal and we go into next season with Cassel or O'Connel, we're still likely scratching and clawing for a playoff berth again, instead of cruising into the playoffs and competing for a championship.

The whole premise is silly. A coach needs talented players to win, end of story.

 

[BradyManny]

Saying they missed the playoffs is true but stupid given that they're the second team since the merger to miss the playoffs with 11 wins. Regarding the schedule, their opponents had a .480 winning %, not a tough schedule but a representative one.

It's not though, its the purpose of the regular season. The team had opportunities to get in, and they didn't come through. Wasn't Belichick's fault (Dave Thomase, Gaffney drop, turnovers vs Steelers, 3rd & 15 v Jets), but its what happened. It doesn't matter how many wins you have, if you don't win your division, and you don't have the best record and tiebreakers out of non-division winners, you didn't do enough to make the playoffs. The 11-5 record is more indicative of the iffy competition across the NFL this season than anything else.

For instance, do you think Miami or Baltimore are truly dangerous teams? Miami went 1-15 last season and we handled them with ease the second time we faced them. This is the same Baltimore team that a year ago was a complete and utter disaster. I'm not trying to take anything away from what the Pats accomplished, but it was a weird NFL season, and I think if we had gotten into the playoffs, we probably would've destroyed some of these teams. As it is, I think the "well, we were 11-5, we deserved to get in" stuff is way off the mark. It is what it is, BB would say.

My whole point is this "is it Brady or is it Belichick" stuff is pointless. It's both, and then the other 52 players, and the coaches, and the trainers, and the Krafts and the scouts, etc., etc. It's a complete disservice to all the other talented players on the team and people in the organization to even have this discussion.

 

[maverick4]

Nobody is disputing that Brady is a top 5 all time QB. I stated in the first post he is my favorite player ever. But to say without Brady we would have no Superbowl championships is unfair. Perhaps we wouldn't have three but I think there's a good chance we would still have one or two.

Based on Cassel's amazing development this year (anyone remember what he looked like from August through September?), I have no doubt that Belichick would have discovered and developed someone to become at worst a Phil Simms type of game-manager QB who played smart, did not make many mistakes, and could generate first downs and control the clock.

One way to look at this is a slight comparable, the 49ers dynasty. Joe Montana was one of the best ever but the 49ers were still great after he left and won a championship largely based on Walsh's blueprint. Montana made the Chiefs exciting for a few years but even with a great Chiefs team, couldn't get to the Superbowl in any year.

I don't think we have to "choose" one or the other. We can like both. What I am trying to dispel is the idea that so long as we have both Belichick and Brady, that we will be contenders, that both are necessary. I think that we really only need Belichick. I love Brady, but pretty much any player or coach or personnel guy on the Patriots is expendable except for Belichick. And based on the comments here, that seems like a hard thought to swallow.

 

[upstater1]

It's not though, its the purpose of the regular season. The team had opportunities to get in, and they didn't come through. Wasn't Belichick's fault (Dave Thomase, Gaffney drop, turnovers vs Steelers, 3rd & 15 v Jets), but its what happened. It doesn't matter how many wins you have, if you don't win your division, and you don't have the best record and tiebreakers out of non-division winners, you didn't do enough to make the playoffs. The 11-5 record is more indicative of the iffy competition across the NFL this season than anything else.

For instance, do you think Miami or Baltimore are truly dangerous teams? Miami went 1-15 last season and we handled them with ease the second time we faced them. This is the same Baltimore team that a year ago was a complete and utter disaster. I'm not trying to take anything away from what the Pats accomplished, but it was a weird NFL season, and I think if we had gotten into the playoffs, we probably would've destroyed some of these teams. As it is, I think the "well, we were 11-5, we deserved to get in" stuff is way off the mark. It is what it is, BB would say.

My whole point is this "is it Brady or is it Belichick" stuff is pointless. It's both, and then the other 52 players, and the coaches, and the trainers, and the Krafts and the scouts, etc., etc. It's a complete disservice to all the other talented players on the team and people in the organization to even have this discussion.

About the schedule, we can make this claim every year. I don't think this year's NFL was any more down than before.

Consider, last year we could have gone 8-8 with wins over the Jets, Phins, Bills, Bengals and Browns. We always have a few patsy games in the schedule. Maybe 8 of them a year. Maybe we had an additional one this year?

 

[upstater1]

Nobody is disputing that Brady is a top 5 all time QB. I stated in the first post he is my favorite player ever. But to say without Brady we would have no Superbowl championships is unfair. Perhaps we wouldn't have three but I think there's a good chance we would still have one or two.

Based on Cassel's amazing development this year (anyone remember what he looked like from August through September?), I have no doubt that Belichick would have discovered and developed someone to become at worst a Phil Simms type of game-manager QB who played smart, did not make many mistakes, and could generate first downs and control the clock.

One way to look at this is a slight comparable, the 49ers dynasty. Joe Montana was one of the best ever but the 49ers were still great after he left and won a championship largely based on Walsh's blueprint. Montana made the Chiefs exciting for a few years but even with a great Chiefs team, couldn't get to the Superbowl in any year.

I don't think we have to "choose" one or the other. We can like both. What I am trying to dispel is the idea that so long as we have both Belichick and Brady, that we will be contenders, that both are necessary. I think that we really only need Belichick. I love Brady, but pretty much any player or coach or personnel guy on the Patriots is expendable except for Belichick. And based on the comments here, that seems like a hard thought to swallow.

I just disagree. Brady came through in the clutch in a way that Peyton manning could not. We were down to Carolina and tied with the Rams in 2 of the Super Bowls, and Brady lead us to game-winning drives.

As for Montana, that was at the end of his career. I can't draw any judgment from that. I agree with you that Brady may not be as good without Belichick, but I don't see how you can say BB could develop another QB and experience similar success.

The Patriots of this decade did not have Carl Banks, Lawrence Taylor, Harry Carson back there. That was a fearsome defense. I believe Brady was much more valuable than Phil Simms was.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

My gut disagrees. I think Bill Belichick is replaceable, but Ernie Adams is the real mastermind and is the indispensable part. BB is just the conduit by which Ernie's thoughts are turned to action.

Whoa! That's quite a claim. I read The Education of a Coach, where Adams certainly gets his due, but I didn't come away with that sense at all. Do you have another source or sources for that?

Happy New Year, BTW

 

[Patriot_in_NY]

Ummm. Not to dispute that Belichick is the absolute man, or even discount the great job he did this year but................ lets get real.

Last year, we went 16-0, and made the super bowl.

This year, with an arguable more talented roster (going in) we slide 5 games to 11-5 and miss the playoff's altogether. If last years Super Bowl Champions (Giants 10-6) did that this year and went to 5-11, Coughlin would have been out on his ass.

Excuse me if I'd just as soon have my TFB back next year. He ain't no system QB.

 

[condon84]

I C/S this thread. BB worked with some leftovers in defense this year and still led the team to an 11-5 record. After AD got hurt, you look at our defense, and after the DLs, Mayo, Vrabel, and Brandon, we had scrubs running around. We still managed 11 wins and BB maximized the team's strength which was our offense. My only criticism of Belly is that he let the defense get old and tried to patch it up with scrubs. Even though we had a good rookie class full of promising defenders, it was a year or two too late.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

Whoa! That's quite a claim. I read The Education of a Coach, where Adams certainly gets his due, but I didn't come away with that sense at all. Do you have another source or sources for that?

Happy New Year, BTW

As I said my gut disagrees. Of course none of us really knows how much is Bill, how much is Scott, how much is Ernie.

EA strikes me as the absolute genius type that just doesn't like to deal with people or the limelight. So while I have no proof of this, it would not shock me if we learn after BB retires, that BB has never made a football decision as HC and that 100% of what he did was simply what Ernie fed into his ear.

 

[BradyManny]

I don't think we have to "choose" one or the other. We can like both. What I am trying to dispel is the idea that so long as we have both Belichick and Brady, that we will be contenders, that both are necessary. I think that we really only need Belichick. I love Brady, but pretty much any player or coach or personnel guy on the Patriots is expendable except for Belichick. And based on the comments here, that seems like a hard thought to swallow.

No, of course not. As long as we have Belichick and GOOD PLAYERS, we will be OK. Tom Brady is a very good player. Matt Cassel is a good player himself.

If Tom Brady left and we did not have more good players to replace him, we'd be screwed.

Likewise, if Belichick left and we didn't have a good coach to replace him with, we'd be screwed.

But I also think if we had Brady, Belichick left, and we replaced Belichick with a good coach, we'd be just fine.

It's not rocket science: good players + good coaches = good team. No one is technically irreplaceable under the condition that they are replaced with someone with comparable talent...but thats the problem.

 

[maverick4]

This year, with an arguable more talented roster (going in) we slide 5 games to 11-5 and miss the players altogether. If last years Super Bowl Champions (Giants 10-6) did that this year and went to 5-11, Coughlin would have been out on his ass.

Excuse me if I'd just as soon have my TFB back next year. He ain't no system QB.

Nobody said Brady was a system QB, so stop worrying if people are trying to knock down your guy (my favorite player as well). People said Montana was a system QB as well, which is BS.

Your first sentence doesn't factor that we also lost a half dozen other key injuries and lots of inexperienced players and still finished 11-5, it wasn't just losing Brady, it was about 5 separate amazing coaching jobs in the same season.


Here is a better example besides the Montana-Walsh example:
Dan Marino is an all time QB and his Dolphins teams were good but never contenders.
John Elway is an all time QB and his Broncos never won the big one until Terrell Davis and Mike Shanahan came along.

 

[Deus Irae]

Belichick's never won a Super Bowl as a head coach without Tom Brady as his quarterback

Belichick had a losing record in Cleveland without Tom Brady

Belichick has a losing record in New England without Brady as the starter

The Patriots played the weakest divisions in both the AFC and NFC this season

The Patriots had a more difficult schedule last season, yet won 5 more games in the regular season

The Patriots won the same amount of games, this season, as a team in the same division that had 1 win last season, and 1 more game than a team in the division that had 4 wins last season

Unless someone sees a mistake in what I posted above, I don't see how anyone can possibly make the claim that BB is the indispensable part of the machine. Now, don't get me wrong, because I've said repeatedly that I think BB is the best coach in the league, but it seems pretty clear to me that when you look at history and see long-term success, you generally see a great coach paired with a great quarterback, and some teams are fortunate enough to have a longer period of excellence if they find that second great quarterback (see San Francisco).

Belichick/Brady
Dungy/Manning
Walsh/Montana (Young)
Johnson/Aikman
Shula/Griese
Landry/Staubach
Knoll/Bradshaw
Lombardi/Starr

It seems to me that history shows you generally need both to be succesful over time, although single season greatness can be achieved without one, the other, or both.

 

[scout]

An expansion franchise is given the right to select any player, coach, or front office person and the Pats could put a block order on one individual, that person would be BB.