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

[maverick4]

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.

You are getting at the heart of the issue, which is how replaceable a guy is. It's kind of like the VORP value in baseball, figuring out a person's value above an average replacement.

Now, I would argue that both Brady and Belichick are top 5 all time at their jobs. However, I would also argue that it is much more likely that Belichick can find and/or develop a guy to become a championship QB, given that he just transformed a guy who didn't start since HS into an upper tier QB this year, than it is likely that Brady could be paired with a coaching mind and teacher like Belichick who can coach up anybody and also find hidden gems on a constant basis.

Going back to the 80's, if you could have a HOF QB and a good coach, or a HOF coach and a good QB, which pair do you take? Marino and Elway never won the big one in the 80's and early 90's, meanwhile Joe Gibbs won with average QB's and Parcells/Belichick won with Phil Simms and Jeff Hostetler. Montana made the Chiefs exciting but the 49ers kept rolling.

 

[dtbrks]

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.

I agree completely. Cassel has proven to be a good QB in 17 regular season games. I would have loved to see how he performed in the playoffs this year but we can't.

Brady is the most clutch QB's I have ever seen and to reiterate your point, that he took an offense that had RECHE CALDWELL as the #1 receiver to the brink of the superbowl.

Where is reche now? What team is he the number one receiver for now?

 

[upstater1]

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.

Marino & co. were contenders in the early and mid part of the decade, but your point still stands.

Then again, if Shanahan were so irreplaceable, the owner wouldn't have fired him.

Jimmy Johnson and Aikman are another twinned pair.

What is Dungy without Peyton Manning?

 

[maverick4]

Belichick had a losing record in Cleveland without Tom Brady

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

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.

Brady never won a championship without Belichick.

To point out coaching records is misleading and I think you know that.

New coaches always start with horrible teams with no talent. Belichick took a bad Cleveland team and quickly turned it into a playoff winner until his owner screwed him by moving to Baltimore. In New England or any other situation when you want to clean house and have a long term view for winning, you know it will result in losses.

Look at Parcells' win-loss record. Nobody will dispute his greatness in constructing winning teams, yet his coaching record isn't spectacular, because of the high loss numbers you accumulate when you inherit a new (usually bad) team.

 

[maverick4]

I agree completely. Cassel has proven to be a good QB in 17 regular season games. I would have loved to see how he performed in the playoffs this year but we can't.

Brady is the most clutch QB's I have ever seen and to reiterate your point, that he took an offense that had RECHE CALDWELL as the #1 receiver to the brink of the superbowl.

Where is reche now? What team is he the number one receiver for now?

See, I would take what you just said to argue that the key piece is Belichick.

Look at not just Caldwell but a bunch of other players who left the Pats and how they did after. Their careers and their play turned to garbage the moment they left the Pats, which suggests that they were being coached up amazingly, or put in situations where they would succeed.

 

[Deus Irae]

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.

A playoff team with a good coach is given the right to select any player, coach, or front office person, that person would be a healthy Tom Brady, not Bill Belichick.

The problem with the "It's Bill" arguments is that that are being made as if football is a static situation.

 

[upstater1]

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.

True, but... that doesn't mean we only have one indispensable person on the Patriots.

I believe we have two.

 

[upstater1]

See, I would take what you just said to argue that the key piece is Belichick.

Look at not just Caldwell but a bunch of other players who left the Pats and how they did after. Their careers and their play turned to garbage the moment they left the Pats, which suggests that they were being coached up amazingly, or put in situations where they would succeed.

Here's the difference: without Brady, that Caldwell team doesn't make the playoffs. Put Phil Simms in there, and we eke into the playoffs, never mind compete for the Super Bowl.

 

[dtbrks]

See, I would take what you just said to argue that the key piece is Belichick.

Look at not just Caldwell but a bunch of other players who left the Pats and how they did after. Their careers and their play turned to garbage the moment they left the Pats, which suggests that they were being coached up amazingly, or put in situations where they would succeed.

I do agree that BB is the best coach in the game and I never doubt it. I also believe that Brady is the best at what he does. It's a great thing that the pats have had both for this long. Could they have won 3 superbowls with just one? I can't say for sure and nobody can.

 

[maverick4]

A playoff team with a good coach is given the right to select any player, coach, or front office person, that person would be a healthy Tom Brady, not Bill Belichick.

The problem with the "It's Bill" arguments is that that are being made as if football is a static situation.

I disagree with this, I think Scout is right.

If an expansion team could pick any player, coach, or personnel guy to start a team without restriction, #1 would be Belichick and they would give him whatever he wanted. It's a numbers issue. There are a lot more quarterbacks who can play smart, championship football in the right atmosphere, than there are coaches/evaluators who can spot key talent, construct teams, and coach up any player to play beyond their normal abilities with an average coach.

 

[Deus Irae]

Brady never won a championship without Belichick.

Which goes to my point, actually

To point out coaching records is misleading and I think you know that.

No, it's not. I'm not the one making the "indispensable" argument, therefore it's quite relevant, actually.

New coaches always start with horrible teams with no talent. Belichick took a bad Cleveland team and quickly turned it into a playoff winner until his owner screwed him by moving to Baltimore. In New England or any other situation when you want to clean house and have a long term view for winning, you know it will result in losses.

New coaches do not always start with horrible teams with no talent. I have defended BB's record in Cleveland. However, it's clear that he was not "indispensable" there, just as he was not "indispensable" in New England before Brady took the team to the mountaintop.

Look at Parcells' win-loss record. Nobody will dispute his greatness in constructing winning teams, yet his coaching record isn't spectacular, because of the high loss numbers you accumulate when you inherit a new (usually bad) team.

Parcells is actually a great example of why your argument doesn't hold water.
6-9 in 1987 (Simms got hurt, team hit the skids)
6-10 in 1995
8-8 in 1999
9-7 in 2005 and 2006

Even after having a team for years, Parcells had bad, or disappointing, seasons.

 

[maverick4]

Here's the difference: without Brady, that Caldwell team doesn't make the playoffs. Put Phil Simms in there, and we eke into the playoffs, never mind compete for the Super Bowl.

I agree, Brady is an all time great and did better than most QB's could in the same situation.

Here is a question, just curious what your views are on this:
Who would win more championships, a Tom Brady - Marty Shottenheimer team, or a Bill Parcells or Belichick with Phil Simms team?
The 80's Giants won 2 Superbowls, Shottenheimer couldn't make the Superbowl with Joe Montana for a few years.

 

[Patriot_in_NY]

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.

Actually beyond Brady (the best guy on the roster, if not the NFL), the injuries factor is a wash from year to year. Sure, this year was worse then normal, but we've dealt with that in the past too. Hell, we won the SB in 2004 with 10 guys on IR and many other missing significant time due to injury. Injuries occur and are a part of this sport. Most people will never use it as an excuse.

Point is, we were decimated with injuries, but the bottom line is that stuff is a year in/year out issue for every team. A coach should build the team's depth chart around those possibilities. So it's hard use the "injury factor" from year to year on a wins and loss basis. Obviously TFB is a different scenario, as would any team losing the best player on the team 8 minutes into the season. How would Indy have done without Peyton this year, or SD without Rivers.

 

[Deus Irae]

I disagree with this, I think Scout is right.

If an expansion team could pick any player, coach, or personnel guy to start a team without restriction, #1 would be Belichick and they would give him whatever he wanted. It's a numbers issue. There are a lot more quarterbacks who can play smart, championship football in the right atmosphere, than there are coaches/evaluators who can spot key talent, construct teams, and coach up any player to play beyond their normal abilities with an average coach.

Wow.....

Do us all a favor and talk to some Cowboys fans about that great NFL coach Barry Switzer.

 

[maverick4]

However, it's clear that he was not "indispensable" there, just as he was not "indispensable" in New England before Brady took the team to the mountaintop.

Parcells is actually a great example of why your argument doesn't hold water.
6-9 in 1987 (Simms got hurt, team hit the skids)
6-10 in 1995
8-8 in 1999
9-7 in 2005 and 2006

Even after having a team for years, Parcells had bad, or disappointing, seasons.

I'm not sure that makes sense.

Regarding that first sentence, Brady was a big part of the first championship, but that defense carried the team and stopped multiple high powered offenses on the road to the trophy. As we've seen from Cassel this year in smarts and also come-from-behind drives, I'm not convinced that only Tom Brady could have won in 2001, how do you know Belichick wouldn't have developed another smart ball-control QB instead of Brady, since that is how Brady played that year?

As for your Parcells records, first of all 1999 was under Pete Carroll so I'm not sure why you listed that, and for the other years you are cherry-picking the years he rebuilt his teams or inherited bad ones.

 

[maverick4]

How would Indy have done without Peyton this year, or SD without Rivers.

They would have been screwed, as pretty much any other team would have... EXCEPT the Patriots didn't, because William Belichick is just that darn good!!! Which is the entire point.

 

[maverick4]

Do us all a favor and talk to some Cowboys fans about that great NFL coach Barry Switzer.

Switzer, like George Seifert, basically won using the teams that great minds already constructed. Jimmy Johnson then went to the Dolphins and turned a horrible team into a very good team. The Cowboys became mediocre and then terrible in just a few years after Switzer left.

 

[scout]

Wow.....

Do us all a favor and talk to some Cowboys fans about that great NFL coach Barry Switzer.

You mean the Barry Switzer who didn't get to the Super bowl after two consecutive Super bowl wins, or the Barry Switzer who won one and never got back to the playoffs with a very talented team. Jerry Jones was an idiot who told the press before the Super bowl that any number of 500 coaches could coach that Dallas team. He probably was right, tho, it cost him a great coach who just might have won three Super bowls in a row. I guess Switzer was coach 501.

 

[Patriot_in_NY]

They would have been screwed, as pretty much any other team would have... EXCEPT the Patriots didn't, because William Belichick is just that darn good!!! Which is the entire point.

Right, and my point was that we kinda were screwed too, to the tune of 5 games, a playoff spot, and a chance at SB glory..... again

 

[Deus Irae]

You mean the Barry Switzer who didn't get to the Super bowl after two consecutive Super bowl wins, or the Barry Switzer who won one and never got back to the playoffs with a very talented team. Jerry Jones was an idiot who told the press before the Super bowl that any number of 500 coaches could coach that Dallas team. He probably was right, tho, it cost him a great coach who just might have won three Super bowls in a row. I guess Switzer was coach 501.

Switzer won a Super Bowl.....

Keep rolling that over in your mind. As poor a job as Switzer did in the NFL, he still guided that Cowboys team to 12-4,12-4 and 10-6 seasons before the collapse to 6-10, along with a Super Bowl victory.

You are making my point for me.