For the "Brady made Belichick" crowd

[lancerman]

Who is trashing Brady? I'm not. He is the most clutch quarterback in the history of the NFL. Nobody comes close in terms of pre-snap and post-snap reactions to the opposing defense.

As I mentioned above, basing a conclusion on won-loss records with and without Brady is superficial, because to use that as evidence then all other factors would have to be identical. They weren't.

There’s several people in this thread trashing him and calling him a system QB. That is beyond dispute at this point.

As far as Bill vs Brady you can either choose to believe in a 7 year sample size Bill just happened to have 7 of his worst teams ever despite two being directly before and after runs where they made the Super Bowl and another being two years removed from an AFCCG OR you can believe that Belichick is very good coach in multiple facets but having Brady was a tremendous asset that simultaneously gave him a higher floor and ceiling, elevated an offense that wasn’t always rich at skill talent, and won him games that maybe shouldn’t have won but a clutch QB like Brady was able to over perform and take games into his own hands, which resulted in an unprecedented run.

Quite plainly someone like Alex Smith is a league average QB. Someone like a Phillip Rivers or Matt Stafford is a top 10. There’s only 4 QB’s at Brady’s tier at any time and at the biggest moments Brady often is in a class by himself. Having Tom Brady elevated the team much more than some people in this thread appreciate. That doesn’t discount Belichick, but there are guys like Andy Reid who built stacked teams year after year that would have had their careers changed if you swapped Brady for who they had at the time. Look at the Texans, they were STACKED many years this decade, the QB tanked them.

Let’s be a real a great QB turns Tony Dungy into a HOF’er. Getting Ben for a couple years rewrote Cowhers legacy.

I don’t doubt Bill improved since Cleveland. But there’s a fine line between winning and losing in this league, and between Bill being a Tomlin/Carroll/Reid and a guy who is the GOAT coach. Brady is the magic ingredient that pushed a great coach into an elite coach

 

[TheRainMaker]

That doesn’t discount Belichick, but there are guys like Andy Reid who built stacked teams year after year that would have had their careers changed if you swapped Brady for who they had at the time. Look at the Texans, they were STACKED many years this decade, the QB tanked them.

Andy Reid is a great example. He was a burnout with the Eagles, had some success with the Chiefs but wasn't going to be a major threat in the AFC because of the QB position. Then he lands Mahomes which put him over the top.

How about John Harbaugh? He was just about done until the emergence of Lamar Jackson.

 

[lancerman]

Andy Reid is a great example. He was a burnout with the Eagles, had some success with the Chiefs but wasn't going to be a major threat in the AFC because of the QB position. Then he lands Mahomes which put him over the top.

How about John Harbaugh? He was just about done until the emergence of Lamar Jackson.

Exactly. Give Reid Brady from 01-17 and give BB McNabb or Smith in the same frame.. what happens? You can never no for sure, but let’s be real, Andy gains a lot of “gotta have it moments” and Bill while still being very good is going to lose a lot more of those

 

[Deus Irae]

Does that mean that it is reasonable to think the 2000 Patriots should have won 70%-plus of their games, just like the 2001-2019 Patriots did?

No. My post doesn't make any particular record reasonable or unreasonable. It just points out the reality of what must be evaluated in order for the evaluation to be fair and accurate.

The quality of the roster, plus the cap situation makes a winning season for the 2000 Patriots almost impossible; it is not unlike judging the head coaches for the number of wins their teams finish with in 2020 for Washington, the Giants or Panthers.

That's not at all true. Come on, now. And, even if it were, why wouldn't BB be on the hook for that year's roster?

What may be the biggest issue in this debate is that some people are trying to look at this in a vacuum, as if the ONLY difference in 2000 (or the five years in Cleveland) was the QB, and everything else is identical. That is not close to being true, making comparisons between Belichick with Brady versus Belichick without Brady objectively extremely difficult.

My long winded response is that to believe comparing won-loss records with and without is some type of genuine scientific proof just makes no sense to me. There are many other factors involved.

The biggest issue is that you've got one group trying to add Cleveland into the mix, when it has nothing to do with the Patriots, and another group trying to cherry pick the Patriots seasons and ignore the down time prior to Brady. Both are nonsensical arguments.

 

[jmt57]

There’s several people in this thread trashing him and calling him a system QB. That is beyond dispute at this point.

As far as Bill vs Brady you can either choose to believe in a 7 year sample size Bill just happened to have 7 of his worst teams ever despite two being directly before and after runs where they made the Super Bowl and another being two years removed from an AFCCG

I am having a lot of trouble comprehending the portion in bold. Are you trying to imply that winning the Super Bowl in 2001 means that 2000 is evidence that Belichick is mediocre or overrated?

OR you can believe that Belichick is very good coach in multiple facets but having Brady was a tremendous asset that simultaneously gave him a higher floor and ceiling, elevated an offense that wasn’t always rich at skill talent, and won him games that maybe shouldn’t have won but a clutch QB like Brady was able to over perform and take games into his own hands, which resulted in an unprecedented run.

Quite plainly someone like Alex Smith is a league average QB. Someone like a Phillip Rivers or Matt Stafford is a top 10. There’s only 4 QB’s at Brady’s tier at any time and at the biggest moments Brady often is in a class by himself. Having Tom Brady elevated the team much more than some people in this thread appreciate. That doesn’t discount Belichick, but there are guys like Andy Reid who built stacked teams year after year that would have had their careers changed if you swapped Brady for who they had at the time. Look at the Texans, they were STACKED many years this decade, the QB tanked them.

Very true. By the same token another head coach doesn't come up with a game plan to defeat the Greatest Show On Turf, or later win with every starting defensive back sidelined with injuries.

Let’s be a real a great QB turns Tony Dungy into a HOF’er. Getting Ben for a couple years rewrote Cowhers legacy.

I don’t doubt Bill improved since Cleveland. But there’s a fine line between winning and losing in this league, and between Bill being a Tomlin/Carroll/Reid and a guy who is the GOAT coach. Brady is the magic ingredient that pushed a great coach into an elite coach

Brady is better because of Belichick. And Belichick was better thanks to Brady. That we can agree on.

Beyond that we agree to disagree then. From what I have seen you written you are going out of your way to denigrate Belichick in an attempt to defend Brady. You failed to address any of the points I made about any of the circumstances in Cleveland or in 2000, while implying that the ONLY difference was the presence or absence of Brady. Time after time you continue to lean on the won-loss record in Cleveland as if it is the smoking gun - while failing to acknowledge that there were other far more significant factors than a different quarterback. In addition the fact a franchise went to the playoffs a year or two previous is meaningless in determining how well a coach performed.

 

[Ras-IR Dowling]

Close enough. I was thinking the plug would've been pulled in 2003 if the team wasn't improving/QB position wasn't stabilized.

He would get at the least the same amount as Carroll IMO.

 

[jmt57]

The biggest issue is that you've got one group trying to add Cleveland into the mix, when it has nothing to do with the Patriots, and another group trying to cherry pick the Patriots seasons and ignore the down time prior to Brady. Both are nonsensical arguments.

Thank you for the response. This sums up my thoughts succinctly.

 

[pctronics0072]

My opinion in terms of if Brady and BB were not together:

-Brady wins 2 or so superbowls and has about 5-7 losing seasons over his 19+ year career
-BB wins 2-3 super bowls, does not have the streak of playoff appearances, and has a few (5-7) losing seasons sprinkled in.

I am "penalizing" Brady a bit more because I think for a QB the team/situation they start off in after the draft is quite important and having a year or more to basically learn like he did with the pats with zero expectations is about as close to best case scenario as you can get.

To me this is one of the stupidest questions in the world of NE patriots football. Of course neither of them would have been as great as they are without the other. In that same thread, neither would have sucked.

Full disclosure, while I hope that the patriots have a winning season this year and make the playoffs, I am not expecting it.

 

[lancerman]

I am having a lot of trouble comprehending the portion in bold. Are you trying to imply that winning the Super Bowl in 2001 means that 2000 is evidence that Belichick is mediocre or overrated?


Very true. By the same token another head coach doesn't come up with a game plan to defeat the Greatest Show On Turf, or later win with every starting defensive back sidelined with injuries.


Brady is better because of Belichick. And Belichick was better thanks to Brady. That we can agree on.

Beyond that we agree to disagree then. From what I have seen you written you are going out of your way to denigrate Belichick in an attempt to defend Brady. You failed to address any of the points I made about any of the circumstances in Cleveland or in 2000, while implying that the ONLY difference was the presence or absence of Brady. Time after time you continue to lean on the won-loss record in Cleveland as if it is the smoking gun - while failing to acknowledge that there were other far more significant factors than a different quarterback. In addition the fact a franchise went to the playoffs a year or two previous is meaningless in determining how well a coach performed.

The bolder means that 2000 and 2008 were very close to Super Bowl teams that had 5-6 additional wins with Brady and while there were a few differences.... Brady was the significant difference

 

[sb1]

My opinion in terms of if Brady and BB were not together:

-Brady wins 2 or so superbowls and has about 5-7 losing seasons over his 19+ year career
-BB wins 2-3 super bowls, does not have the streak of playoff appearances, and has a few (5-7) losing seasons sprinkled in.

I am "penalizing" Brady a bit more because I think for a QB the team/situation they start off in after the draft is quite important and having a year or more to basically learn like he did with the pats with zero expectations is about as close to best case scenario as you can get.

To me this is one of the stupidest questions in the world of NE patriots football. Of course neither of them would have been as great as they are without the other. In that same thread, neither would have sucked.

Full disclosure, while I hope that the patriots have a winning season this year and make the playoffs, I am not expecting it.

Bill outlook sounds about right. Doubtful he spends 20 years with the Pats though.

Brady would probably win none. Certainly wouldn’t have had a 19 year career either. Probably not in the league for long at all if he gets drafted by another team. His scouting report speaks for itself and that’s why he was ignored by teams until pick 199. Would have never gotten a fair shot if it wasn’t the Patriots. No chance.

 

[Tony2046]

Not sure who you’re talking to since there aren’t any “Brady haters” here- at least from a football angle.

You passive aggressively take a dump on Brady every chance you get.

 

[pctronics0072]

Bill outlook sounds about right. Doubtful he spends 20 years with the Pats though.

Brady would probably win none. Certainly wouldn’t have had a 19 year career either. Probably not in the league for long at all if he gets drafted by another team. His scouting report speaks for itself and that’s why he was ignored by teams until pick 199. Would have never gotten a fair shot if it wasn’t the Patriots. No chance.

Agree with what you said. Reason I gave him that was because his performance at UMich and his work ethic (Source: Brady 6). Even looking at the highlights from the 2000 preseason games he just seemed to have the "it" factor after having been with Bill for a few months. However, you are absolutely right that he may never have gotten the chance for another team.

 

[sb1]

Agree with what you said. Reason I gave him that was because his performance at UMich and his work ethic (Source: Brady 6). Even looking at the highlights from the 2000 preseason games he just seemed to have the "it" factor after having been with Bill for a few months. However, you are absolutely right that he may never have gotten the chance for another team.

Agreed. It would have been unfair for sure but it’s tough seeing him getting the shot he got here.

 

[Triumph]

So you admit you're actually hoping for the team's failure to prove you right? You have become a troll. What the pro-Belichick crowd has gong for them is that they're actually Patriots fans, not Brady fans.

I have to admit the insane anti-Belichick hatred here makes it impossible to root for Brady. You won't enjoy your popcorn much when your 43 year old QB fails to complete the season, will you...

I will never be a Homer. So, I cannot relate to your world where your head is firmly up Belichicks ***.

Therefore, I call it the way I see it. Belichick has made mistakes and not acquiring help for Brady is a big one.

 

[Tony2046]

Agreed. It would have been unfair for sure but it’s tough seeing him getting the shot he got here.

The Greatest QB the league has ever seen "may have not" gotten a shot somewhere else. You're a freaking genius. Holy crapola.

 

[sb1]

I will never be a Homer. So, I cannot relate to your world where your head is firmly up Belichicks ***.

Therefore, I call it the way I see it. Belichick has made mistakes and not acquiring help for Brady is a big one.

Brady sucked ass last year both on the field and his attitude. Nothing Belichick could have done about that.

 

[Kasmir]

I will never be a Homer. So, I cannot relate to your world where your head is firmly up Belichicks ***.

Therefore, I call it the way I see it. Belichick has made mistakes and not acquiring help for Brady is a big one.

I know you will be surprised if the Pats make the playoffs this year, but will you be happy? I doubt it.

 

[Tony2046]

Brady sucked ass last year both on the field and his attitude. Nothing Belichick could have done about that.

Guaranteed you'll be watching every Tampa Bay game with that fetish.

Brady is the only reason you're wearing a Pats Jersey and you find it comforting to take a dump on him after he leaves. You're junk.

 

[Wozzy]

They're outnumbered, but there's a handful of Brady haters on this thread.

Back to the question, why was the $100M QB struggling so badly before he was injured? How long does BB last had Huard or Bishop not done what Brady did in 2001?

Going back two decades the Patriots have "struggled" the first four weeks of the season, this included teams with Brady at QB... or what was the whole "we're on to Cincinnati" thing about?

They struggle the first four to five games, they also lose in Miami early in the season, Brady hasn't been immune to that.

BB drafted Brady, he moved Tom up the depth chart at 21 year's old directly behind the 100 Million dollar man, we don't have to play "what if."

Brady didn't discover Belichick, Belichick picked Brady, it's literally there in the name "draft pick."

Game over.

 

[Falcons2020]

I'll take two years they won the Super Bowl (2016, 2018) and some simple stats to highlight why "defensive DVOA" and these analytics are garbage.

In 2018 the Patriots defense was 7th best in points allowed (per drive) and 7th in total points allowed... any stat that ranks them 19th is crap. They were 8th in offensive points scored per drive... the D also held the Rams to a historically low Super Bowl score of three points.

In 2016 the Patriots defense was 2nd best in points allowed (per drive) and 1st in total points allowed... any stat that ranks them 16th is total horse s**t.

Bill's opinion on analytics...

Belichick, during his weekly Friday press conference, was asked how big of a role analytics plays into the Patriots' day-to-day operations. "Less than zero," Belichick said, via ProFootballTalk.com. "Analytics is not really my thing."Belichick essentially said the same thing in 2016 when asked about analytics. "You could take those advanced websites and metric them wherever you want," Belichick said less than three months before winning his fifth Super Bowl, an overtime win over Atlanta in Super Bowl LI. "I don't know. I have no idea. I've never looked at one. I don't even care to look at one. I don't care what they say ... All the metric pages and all of that, I mean I have no idea. You'd need to ask that to a smarter coach than me."

Stop letting PFF or whomever tell you what is good, go by records and point differential instead. They judge win/loss based off points, not analytics.

Bill Belichick says he puts 'less than zero stock' into analytics during Patriots' presser

Belichick's way of building championship teams has nothing to do with science

www.cbssports.com

The offense stats are elite every year according to metrics and stats. The same can’t be said for the Patriots defense. If DVOA is irrelevant to you, how about total defense. And it’s not like Brady benefited from a great run game


Patriots (excluding 2008)

1. 2001: #23 Total D, #28 Rushing O
2. #9Total D, #27 Rushing O
3. #7 Total D, #8 Rushing O
4. #26 Total D #28 Rushing O
5. # 6 Total D, #12 Rushing O
6. #4 Total D #12 Rushing O
7. #25 Total D, #9 Rushing O
8. #31 Total D, #20 Rushing O
9. #25 Total D, #7 Rushing O
10. #26 Total D, #10 Rushing O
11. #13 Total D, #9 Rushing O
12. #9 Total D, #30 Rushing O
13. #8Total D, #7 Rushing O
14. #29 Total D, #10 Rushing O
15. #21 Total D, #5 Rushing O
16. 2019: #1 Total D, #24 Rushing O