What if Brady succeeds elsewhere? Ramifications for BB.

[XLIX]

Not necessarily, it all depends on context especially at this stage of their careers. Brady could falter physically simply due to age factors and BB could "falter" due to roster rebuilding which has compromised the best of coaches. Conversely, Brady could latch onto a team that is stacked offensively or Brady's Patriots replacement could be the second coming. Neither case will be clear cut.

Since when do things have to be clear cut for people to form opinions and run with them?

 

[XLIX]

The Myth of the weak AFC EAST has been dispelled and disproven many times over

The AFC East is a phenomenally strong division because of the Patriots. Take away the Patriots and you have 3 teams with combined records/accomplishments worse than any other 3 team grouping from any of the other divisions over the past 19 years.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

They don't require 'explaining away'.

They don’t?

 

[PatsFanSince74]

You’ve attempted to explain away 117 games.

I'm not sure where the 117 comes from, but the seven seasons you cite total to 112 games over those seasons, in which BB had a win percentage of 0.464. We obviously disagree over the circumstances surrounding those games and that record and there's little point in arguing that any further.

But you did get me thinking. I had a little time so I looked at the HC's who would be on anyone's list of the greatest of all time and looked at their seven worst seasons. This is what I found, ranked by total number of Regular Season games coached (i.e., not including the Playoffs):

Don Shula: 490 total regular season games coached, 33 seasons, Win percentage 0.677. Seven worst seasons: 105 games, Win percentage .514

Tom Landry: 418 games, 29 seasons, 0.607 win %. Seven worst seasons: 99 games, Win Percentage 0.283

Bill Belichick: 400 games, 25 seasons, 0.683 win %. Seven worst seasons: 112 games, Win Percentage 0.464

Curly Lambeau: 380 games, 33 seasons, 0.631 win %, Seven worst seasons: 83 games, Win Percentage 0.422

Chuck Noll: 342 games, 22 seasons, 0.566 win %. Seven worst seasons: 105 games, Win Percentage 0.419

Paul Brown: 326 games, 25 seasons, 0.672 win %. Seven worst seasons: 94 games, Win Percentage 0.394

....

Bill Walsh: 152 games, 10 seasons, 0.609 win %. Seven worst seasons (of a total of 10 as HC): 111 games, Win Percentage 0.550

Vince Lombardi: 136 games, 10 seasons, 0.738 win %. Seven worst seasons (of a total of 10 as HC): 94 games, Win Percentage 0.638

What I learned:

1. I hadn't realized how relatively short the HC careers of Bill Walsh and Vince Lombardi were (doesn't change the fact that both were not only extremely successful as measured by Championships, the most important indicator, but they also revolutionized the game, Walsh with his Offense and Lombardi by building on Paul Brown's work in putting process and discipline into coaching a Football team). However, their short time in the job makes it difficult to compare them to HC's with, in some cases, three times more games as HC.
2. Every great coach has/had bad seasons.
3. BB's win percentage in his seven worst seasons is better than that of any coach with more than ten seasons coached, except for Don Shula. However, when you factor in championships and postseason records, there is really no comparison between Belichick and Shula.
4. So, picking out seven seasons in coaching careers that span two and three decades is really not a good way to judge accomplishment.
5. In the end, BB will be considered the greatest HC of all time based on his regular and post season accomplishments. People will understand that he was fortunate to have the greatest QB of all time playing for him for most of his career, but that will not diminish his place in NFL history, any more than Lombardi having Starr, Walsh having Montana and Rice, Shula having Unitas and Marino, Landry having Staubach, Brown having Graham or Noll having the Steel Curtain and Bradshaw.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I'm not sure where the 117 comes from, but the seven seasons you cite total to 112 games over those seasons, in which BB had a win percentage of 0.464. We obviously disagree over the circumstances surrounding those games and that record and there's little point in arguing that any further.

But you did get me thinking. I had a little time so I looked at the HC's who would be on anyone's list of the greatest of all time and looked at their seven worst seasons. This is what I found, ranked by total number of Regular Season games coached (i.e., not including the Playoffs):

Don Shula: 490 total regular season games coached, 33 seasons, Win percentage 0.677. Seven worst seasons: 105 games, Win percentage .514

Tom Landry: 418 games, 29 seasons, 0.607 win %. Seven worst seasons: 99 games, Win Percentage 0.283

Bill Belichick: 400 games, 25 seasons, 0.683 win %. Seven worst seasons: 112 games, Win Percentage 0.464

Curly Lambeau: 380 games, 33 seasons, 0.631 win %, Seven worst seasons: 83 games, Win Percentage 0.422

Chuck Noll: 342 games, 22 seasons, 0.566 win %. Seven worst seasons: 105 games, Win Percentage 0.419

Paul Brown: 326 games, 25 seasons, 0.672 win %. Seven worst seasons: 94 games, Win Percentage 0.394

....

Bill Walsh: 152 games, 10 seasons, 0.609 win %. Seven worst seasons (of a total of 10 as HC): 111 games, Win Percentage 0.550

Vince Lombardi: 136 games, 10 seasons, 0.738 win %. Seven worst seasons (of a total of 10 as HC): 94 games, Win Percentage 0.638

What I learned:

1. I hadn't realized how relatively short the HC careers of Bill Walsh and Vince Lombardi were (doesn't change the fact that both were not only extremely successful as measured by Championships, the most important indicator, but they also revolutionized the game, Walsh with his Offense and Lombardi by building on Paul Brown's work in putting process and discipline into coaching a Football team). However, their short time in the job makes it difficult to compare them to HC's with, in some cases, three times more games as HC.
2. Every great coach has/had bad seasons.
3. BB's win percentage in his seven worst seasons is better than that of any coach with more than ten seasons coached, except for Don Shula. However, when you factor in championships and postseason records, there is really no comparison between Belichick and Shula.
4. So, picking out seven seasons in coaching careers that span two and three decades is really not a good way to judge accomplishment.
5. In the end, BB will be considered the greatest HC of all time based on his regular and post season accomplishments. People will understand that he was fortunate to have the greatest QB of all time playing for him for most of his career, but that will not diminish his place in NFL history, any more than Lombardi having Starr, Walsh having Montana and Rice, Shula having Unitas and Marino, Landry having Staubach, Brown having Graham or Noll having the Steel Curtain and Bradshaw.

117 games without Brady if you count the first two games of 2000 and the four games in 2016. Maybe is should be 119.

I agree BB is probably the best coach ever. The issue at hand, though, is how likely he is to replicate his success or even have a contending team without Brady. I don’t see indicators that he’ll be successful without Brady. That’s fine considering the importance of the QB today. But it doesn’t change that the narrative doesn’t match the actual past results. Maybe we should be rooting for TB to return instead of quickly kicking him to the curb like he’s “holding back” Belichick.

 

[ViperGTS]

Brady has everything to lose. Absolutely everything. His passes this season weren’t very good overall yet since he is who he is, and in a place like this, he gets a massive pass. He is going to be 43 next season, and trying to gel with a new team and new players with brand new coaching styles. Plus, he will have to show up to OTA’s and all voluntary camps.

How does he do that, and still hold his “muh family time” BS he spewed for years now as to why he doesn’t go to those here? Compete hypocrite if he does that and should rightfully be attacked for that. If he skips those at his new team, he alienates the new fan base and his teammates. Lose lose for him.

According to reports this season, he needed maintenance days at practice. Can he afford those in his new spot? Doubt it. I really think his advisors have led him astray and at his age moving to a new team will be most likely very underwhelming. 6 years ago it would be a different story.

 

[rochrist]

They don’t?

No. They don't.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

No. They don't.

No?

 

[Biffins]

The AFC East is a phenomenally strong division because of the Patriots. Take away the Patriots and you have 3 teams with combined records/accomplishments worse than any other 3 team grouping from any of the other divisions over the past 19 years.

This is verifiably inaccurate. You need to look at the records of the other 3 AFC East teams excluding their losses against the Patriots. They are quite decent.

 

[Biffins]

Brady has everything to lose. Absolutely everything. His passes this season weren’t very good overall yet since he is who he is, and in a place like this, he gets a massive pass. He is going to be 43 next season, and trying to gel with a new team and new players with brand new coaching styles. Plus, he will have to show up to OTA’s and all voluntary camps.

How does he do that, and still hold his “muh family time” BS he spewed for years now as to why he doesn’t go to those here? Compete hypocrite if he does that and should rightfully be attacked for that. If he skips those at his new team, he alienates the new fan base and his teammates. Lose lose for him.

According to reports this season, he needed maintenance days at practice. Can he afford those in his new spot? Doubt it. I really think his advisors have led him astray and at his age moving to a new team will be most likely very underwhelming. 6 years ago it would be a different story.

Explain to me the downside against if he gets offered 2yrs at $60m guaranteed or 3 years at 90m guaranteed.

 

[XLIX]

This is verifiably inaccurate. You need to look at the records of the other 3 AFC East teams excluding their losses against the Patriots. They are quite decent.

If it’s verifiably inaccurate, then prove me wrong. I said what I meant and I meant what I said. For you to resort to cherry picking 114 games out of the equation shows how weak your contention is.

 

[Biffins]

If it’s verifiably inaccurate, then prove me wrong. I said what I meant and I meant what I said. For you to resort to cherry picking 114 games out of the equation shows how weak your contention is.

Go read it.

The Myth of the Easy AFC East, the Definitive Guide | Patriots Dynasty


Key chart

See below the record of the 2nd to 4th placed teams in every division against the rest of the NFL since 2000. AFC East bottom 3 teams are almost the best. Again, this is the record of the non-division winners for each division for last 2 decades, to gauge the strength of the competition the division winners faced each year. AFC East is one of the toughest divisions to win.

Division W - L - T Win Percentage
NFC Central * 61 - 67 - 0 0.477
AFC East 450 - 542 - 0 0.454
AFC Central * 71 - 89 - 0 0.444
NFC East 436 - 554 - 2 0.440
NFC South 396 - 531 - 1 0.427
AFC North 368 - 491 - 5 0.426
AFC West 419 - 573 - 0 0.422
AFC South 362 - 502 - 0 0.419
NFC North 360 - 500 - 4 0.417
NFC West 381 - 544 - 3 0.411
* The Central divisions were only around for 2000 & 2001, before the NFL realignment.

 

[XLIX]

Go read it.

The Myth of the Easy AFC East, the Definitive Guide | Patriots Dynasty


Key chart

See below the record of the 2nd to 4th placed teams in every division against the rest of the NFL since 2000. AFC East bottom 3 teams are almost the best. Again, this is the record of the non-division winners for each division for last 2 decades, to gauge the strength of the competition the division winners faced each year. AFC East is one of the toughest divisions to win.

Division W - L - T Win Percentage
NFC Central * 61 - 67 - 0 0.477
AFC East 450 - 542 - 0 0.454
AFC Central * 71 - 89 - 0 0.444
NFC East 436 - 554 - 2 0.440
NFC South 396 - 531 - 1 0.427
AFC North 368 - 491 - 5 0.426
AFC West 419 - 573 - 0 0.422
AFC South 362 - 502 - 0 0.419
NFC North 360 - 500 - 4 0.417
NFC West 381 - 544 - 3 0.411
* The Central divisions were only around for 2000 & 2001, before the NFL realignment.

Yes, I’ve seen this intellectually bankrupt argument before (and knew you’d be mentioning it eventually). The contention is the Patriots have had it easier than any other team by virtue of playing in the AFC East. Whether right or wrong, it is logically bankrupt to counter that argument by selecting the yearly bottom 3 teams from other divisions because those 3 teams change from year to year.

I said what I meant and I meant what I said: the Jets, Bills and Dolphins have a worse record and fewer accomplishments than any other same-division 3 team grouping over the past 19 years.

 

[TheRainMaker]

Go read it.

The Myth of the Easy AFC East, the Definitive Guide | Patriots Dynasty


Key chart

See below the record of the 2nd to 4th placed teams in every division against the rest of the NFL since 2000. AFC East bottom 3 teams are almost the best. Again, this is the record of the non-division winners for each division for last 2 decades, to gauge the strength of the competition the division winners faced each year. AFC East is one of the toughest divisions to win.

Division W - L - T Win Percentage
NFC Central * 61 - 67 - 0 0.477
AFC East 450 - 542 - 0 0.454
AFC Central * 71 - 89 - 0 0.444
NFC East 436 - 554 - 2 0.440
NFC South 396 - 531 - 1 0.427
AFC North 368 - 491 - 5 0.426
AFC West 419 - 573 - 0 0.422
AFC South 362 - 502 - 0 0.419
NFC North 360 - 500 - 4 0.417
NFC West 381 - 544 - 3 0.411
* The Central divisions were only around for 2000 & 2001, before the NFL realignment.

When was the last time since 2002 you thought to yourself "Man, _____ team could threaten the Pats for the division title?" Yeah, I haven't asked that myself either.

From the Patriots perspective, the AFC East has been weak.

 

[ViperGTS]

Explain to me the downside against if he gets offered 2yrs at $60m guaranteed or 3 years at 90m guaranteed.

Financially there is none. Well actually there is if he has seasons worse than this past season and the fans start getting irritated. Also if he he has to go do everything, every rep in every camp and every practice...how long is he going to hold up? I don’t pay 30 a year for a 43 year old and allow him to take as much time off as he wants.

 

[Biffins]

Yes, I’ve seen this intellectually bankrupt argument before (and knew you’d be mentioning it eventually). The contention is the Patriots have had it easier than any other team by virtue of playing in the AFC East. Whether right or wrong, it is logically bankrupt to counter that argument by selecting the yearly bottom 3 teams from other divisions because those 3 teams change from year to year.

I said what I meant and I meant what I said: the Jets, Bills and Dolphins have a worse record and fewer accomplishments than any other same-division 3 team grouping over the past 19 years.

Let me ask YOU this. Where’s your proof that the other 3 teams were worse?

 

[Biffins]

When was the last time since 2002 you thought to yourself "Man, _____ team could threaten the Pats for the division title?" Yeah, I haven't asked that myself either.

From the Patriots perspective, the AFC East has been weak.

That just means Pats were strong. Not thst others were weak.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Let me ask YOU this. Where’s your proof that the other 3 teams were worse?

That Ryan Fitzpatrick is the best QB of all 3

 

[Tony2046]

117 games without Brady if you count the first two games of 2000 and the four games in 2016. Maybe is should be 119.

I agree BB is probably the best coach ever. The issue at hand, though, is how likely he is to replicate his success or even have a contending team without Brady. I don’t see indicators that he’ll be successful without Brady. That’s fine considering the importance of the QB today. But it doesn’t change that the narrative doesn’t match the actual past results. Maybe we should be rooting for TB to return instead of quickly kicking him to the curb like he’s “holding back” Belichick.

All of the greatest coaches had a great QB. So to judge BB during his shlub QB days vs those who had great QBs seems unfair.

 

[XLIX]

Let me ask YOU this. Where’s your proof that the other 3 teams were worse?

I ran the numbers some time ago. It’s true.

You cannot find a same-division 3 team combination with a worse combined record than Buf/Mia/NYJ over the past 19 years.