Debate Brady vs Belichick?

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Brady is more responsible for the dynasties. BB is the GOAT HC, but every HC needs a good quarterback to compete. GOAT HCs win multiple championships with all-time great QBs. Then you have guys like Shula who, while an all-time great, had one of the best QBs of all time and won nothing with him. Shula, therefore, should not be in the GOAT convo. I couldn’t care less about the undefeated season or the back to back titles in 72 and 73. He had Marino for 17 seasons, and won nothing. That people are trying to diminish BB as a HC is embarrassing. Now, diminishing him as a GM? ****in’ A. One has every right to do that.

BB as a coach and GM puts him in really unique category. Evaluating players, considering how to use them in specific schemes, calculating their market and draft comp value based on economics, and then using them on Sundays is unique.

I don’t think you can really separate BB as a coach and GM...both roles are unified since he has full control over every aspect of the team. And I think this is why personnel guys and coaches have had limited success elsewhere, or at least not even close to the success of BB. Some GMs understand value well (Newsome); some coaches have mastered Xs and Os (Reid), but I can’t think of any who can see all of it at once.

My only criticism of BB is that it’s time to do what he did so often for the first fifteen years in NE and adapt. The league no longer requires teams to outthink opponents like in 2001, the offense can’t be so complex that no college receiver can come into in it, and it seems that loyalties or familiarity with guys like McDaniels, Caserio, etc. have caused him to sort of stay in neutral.

Bill clearly needs some new influences when an offensive coordinator who has been there for 20 years cannot find out single free agent or draft pick that fits at WR or TE. And in terms of Caserio, I kind of backed off saying he should be fired two years ago and now wish I’d petitioned the team. The guy clearly cannot evaluate talent, and it’s well beyond a statistical aberration. The 2018 Super Bowl team was mainly built from 2010-14...it’s been over five years of head scratching personnel moves that’s caught up to them. The down season here doesn’t concern me; the ongoing personnel failures, which seem to have have become the process, is what concerns me. Time to change things up and rebuild with some fresh ideas.

 

[crawhammer]

The above is correct. Bill is a great coach, no question about it. But Brady was the secret sauce that made them SB winners. Bill made the pats a perennial playoff team and Brady put them over the top consistently. Bill simply doesn't win 6 SBs without Brady. Without Brady Bill is still a great coach, but I don't think anyone would be throwing around the word genius like they do with Bill now.

Based on what? Has Belichick ever been great without Brady? I mean this is the whole point of the exercise. Belichick has never won a division without Brady... 0-8. With Brady...17-1. It's right there, as obvious as can be. Win %, points per games, etc. all significantly better with Brady than without.

In 18 seasons with Brady, the Patriots finished outside the top 10 in points per game once (2003). 11 of those seasons they were top 5 and 8 times top 3.

Here's how Belichick's offenses finished in 8 seasons without Brady... 16th, 20th, 15th, 11th, 25th, 25th, 8th, 28th.

Bracketing the Brady years, when they finished outside the top 10 once (2003, 12th), the Patriots were 25th and 28th (this season with Newton). The one season they finished in the top 10 without Brady was 2008 (8th with Cassel). But the season prior, the historic 2007 season, they averaged 37 points per game, whereas in 2008 they averaged 26. Their yards per play also dropped from 6.2 to 5.3 and passing TD's dropped from 50 to 21.

 

[sb1]

Based on what? Has Belichick ever been great without Brady? I mean this is the whole point of the exercise. Belichick has never won a division without Brady... 0-8. With Brady...17-1. It's right there, as obvious as can be. Win %, points per games, etc. all significantly better with Brady than without.

In 18 seasons with Brady, the Patriots finished outside the top 10 in points per game once (2003). 11 of those seasons they were top 5 and 8 times top 3.

Here's how Belichick's offenses finished in 8 seasons without Brady... 16th, 20th, 15th, 11th, 25th, 25th, 8th, 28th.

Bracketing the Brady years, when they finished outside the top 10 once (2003, 12th), the Patriots were 25th and 28th (this season with Newton). The one season they finished in the top 10 without Brady was 2008 (8th with Cassel). But the season prior, the historic 2007 season, they averaged 37 points per game, whereas in 2008 they averaged 26. Their yards per play also dropped from 6.2 to 5.3 and passing TD's dropped from 50 to 21.

Bill is an all time great coach.

you don’t look at those kinds of results when looking at a coach unless you’re also looking at the teams the coach had at the same time. A great coach won’t win a thing with a lousy football team as Bill had this year. A coach doesn’t turn a bad team into a good or great one by himself. But a coach can maximize what he has and Bill has done that. The team was competitive for most of the year and let’s face it a lesser coach wouldn’t get 6-7 wins out of this group. The 2000 Pats were competitive too. out of their 11 losses only one was by more than a score.

A great QB can also make a subpar coach look good. Like Jim Caldwell. That’s why you don’t say coach X is good or bad because of stats.

Coaching also helped Brady become what he is.

 

[Lagaffe_07]

By and large BB put strong rosters around Brady (offense AND defense) during his New England tenure

Half the teams Bill build the last 20 years, wouldn’t have made the playoffs if he didn’t have Brady.

 

[Doctor DDS]

Aaron Rodgers and Drew Brees are all time great QB's and have only been to 1 Super Bowl. Both have very good post season stats and have lost games by scores of: 36-41, 32-36, 24-29 (Brees) 45-51, 31-45, (Rodgers). Rodgers has scored 20 or more points in every single post season start yet is only 11-8. Neither of them is as good as Brady or nearly as clutch but roster management and BB's coaching is a big reason why Brady has been to 9 Super Bowls vs their 2.

 

[Brady6]

How do you know this?

I lost my mother unexpectedly about a year ago it is not easy especially when you are in your 20s or 30s to lose a parent.

 

[Brady6]

Aaron Rodgers and Drew Brees are all time great QB's and have only been to 1 Super Bowl. Both have very good post season stats and have lost games by scores of: 36-41, 32-36, 24-29 (Brees) 45-51, 31-45, (Rodgers). Rodgers has scored 20 or more points in every single post season start yet is only 11-8. Neither of them is as good as Brady or nearly as clutch but roster management and BB's coaching is a big reason why Brady has been to 9 Super Bowls vs their 2.

It would be a mistake to think that Belichick is the same coach he was a decade ago. He is dealing with a different group of players and they don’t have the same response to his coaching.

 

[crawhammer]

Neither of them is as good as Brady or nearly as clutch but roster management and BB's coaching is a big reason why Brady has been to 9 Super Bowls vs their 2.

Disagree. The track clearly indicates that Belichick needs Brady more than Brady needs Belichick. There is a large sample size now in terms of what Belichick can do without Brady... 8 full seasons, 61-72, no division titles, 1 postseason victory. The team won't be any good next season either, there will be too many holes to fill (directly attributable to Belichick), so the record is only going to get worse.

Brady's going 11-5 in his first season with another head coach at age 43. We'll see what happens in the postseason, but if Brady leads Tampa Bay to a Super Bowl title, then this debate is really over.

These are fun facts too... Brady in 35 games against Buffalo is 32-3. Belichick, as the Patriots head coach, against Buffalo without Brady is 3-4 and averages a measly 13 points per game.

Also Belichick has had a dreadful season as a head coach. His roster management has been putrid for multiple seasons running. He also blew SB 52 and torpedoed the 2015 season with horrendously bad coaching.

Regarding Drew Brees in New Orleans, that's a situation where I'm leaning toward the head coach being more important. Payton is an offensive innovator who maximizes the talents of his roster. Brees is an under the radar choker because although his overall postseason stats look good, he has a tendency to make critical mistakes in crunch time. Had Payton had Brady as his quarterback, they would have won multiple Super Bowls together.

As for Aaron Rodgers, the one Super Bowl title he has, he was lucky to get there as he played like dog poo in the NFC Championship game. He also got shutdown completely by the Legion of Boom in 2014, the same defense that Brady spectacularly beat in the Super Bowl. Aside from his first postseason loss, when he put up 45 points, Rodgers been pretty pedestrian in their other postseason losses.

 

[Doctor DDS]

Disagree. The track clearly indicates that Belichick needs Brady more than Brady needs Belichick. There is a large sample size now in terms of what Belichick can do without Brady... 8 full seasons, 61-72, no division titles, 1 postseason victory. The team won't be any good next season either, there will be too many holes to fill (directly attributable to Belichick), so the record is only going to get worse.

So if Brady had signed with the Bengals this offseason and BB took over for Reid in KC we would expect to see the Bengals to be in the playoffs and the Chiefs to be looking at an early draft pick? It has been just Brady all along and the other circumstances around overall talent are irrelevant. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[203Pat]

So if Brady had signed with the Bengals this offseason and BB took over for Reid in KC we would expect to see the Bengals to be in the playoffs and the Chiefs to be looking at an early draft pick? It has been just Brady all along and the other circumstances around overall talent are irrelevant. Thanks for clearing that up.

Why does everyone admit that the talent level here is an issue but wants to put no blame on Bill for the lack of talent?

 

[Ras-IR Dowling]

Why does everyone admit that the talent level here is an issue but wants to put no blame on Bill for the lack of talent?

I think there’s been plenty of blame directed at Bill for the recent string of bad drafts and lack of talent.

 

[203Pat]

I think there’s been plenty of blame directed at Bill for the recent string of bad drafts and lack of talent.

Not from half the Bill apologists. You get the standard "Yeah well show me another GM who is better" instead of just acknowledging Bill has drafted very poorly the last 5-6 years.

 

[Doctor DDS]

Why does everyone admit that the talent level here is an issue but wants to put no blame on Bill for the lack of talent?

BB has certainly been responsible for the recent poor drafts and that along with the cap pain has put them where they are right now. After the best 19 year run in NFL history and a strategy that has them in great shape cap wise I am willing to give him some time to turn it around.

 

[TheRainMaker]

Why does everyone admit that the talent level here is an issue but wants to put no blame on Bill for the lack of talent?

Because the excuse is it's a "bridge" or "rebuilding" year after loses in Free Agency and COVID. Like HT/Chung were going to fix the D all by themselves and Vitale/Marquise Lee were the saviors on Offense.

Bill's excuse of "selling out" is my favorite as there were hardly any big contracts on this team. Surprised the media haven't challenge him on this. Colin Cowherd is the only talking head that has questioned where the money is on his show after looking at the salaries on the roster. He's in the position he's in because he drafts terribly, then has to use future draft capital or waste money in FA on veterans to stop the bleeding. They leave and we're back to square 1.

These are years of f*** ups by Bill that's starting to show up as I predicted well before the season. The media is finally starting to go back in time and realize Bill the GM hasn't been so great contrary to the average fan's belief.

Another overlooked trait of Bill is that he has a terrible habit of ignoring needs while hoarding players that weren't needed and don't last on the team (See 2019/2020 using early picks on DB's when the O was in dire need of playmakers). Tom covered that up for years, but that won't work anymore.

Not from half the Bill apologists. You get the standard "Yeah well show me another GM who is better" instead of just acknowledging Bill has drafted very poorly the last 5-6 years.

7 for me. It started again in 2013. No Pro Bowlers drafted since 2013. NONE! I would bet anybody on this board could've drafted at least one Pro Bowl player.

 

[1960Pats]

I get it. The defense was really good in 2003. Guess what... Brady still led 5 game-winning drives that season. He still was named the Super Bowl MVP.

And yes, the safety was a bad start against the NYG but Brady put the team in position to win the game. The defense gagged.

That safety was in the games first possession. I remember it well because it cost me $100,000.00 when I didn't get that bet in before the game. I wanted to but got tied up while going to various bars to get my square numbers.

My belief is that the reason the Pats lost that game was because they got pass-happy against a Giants team that was weak against the run.

 

[1960Pats]

Brady pulling away by a LARGE margin.

He was losing early but made a comeback. Typical Brady.

 

[1960Pats]

And Brady doesn't win at least the first three championships without Belichick. It isn't Brady's game plan to defend Marshall Faulk that is in the Hall of Fame. Brady didn't intercept Manning four times in the AFCCG in January of 2004 because he was mugging the Colts' receivers off the line.

They both needed each other especially in the early Super Bowls. I give Belichick more credit in the first two than Brady when we are talking the season as a whole to get to and win a Super Bowl.

I could be wrong, but I believe that the game plan that's in the HOF is the one from Bill's days as the DC with the Giants that knocked out the Bills. No matter what though, it's the players who made the plays that made it work, either on offense, defense or special teams.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

There never should have been a debate.

This isn’t like deciding between John Lennon and Paul McCartney. It’s like deciding between John Lennon and George Martin (their producer who was instrumental in arranging their records and bringing them to stardom.)

Lennon versus McCarthy, in terms of overall value. is an interesting discussion; Lennon versus Martin is not. Like with Brady and Belichick, they are supposed to make each other better since they are in fundamentally different professions even with the same end goal. One is concerned with creating and performing music; the other is concerned with arranging that music with consideration to the audience.

Brady to Manning/Montana and Belichick to Walsh/Brown are valid value comparisons, even if difficult. Brady to Belichick is nonsensical.

 

[1960Pats]

I think there are too many posters in this thread who are missing the point. BOTH Tom and Bill are responsible for the success the team has had. It isn't an either or option. The question is which has been more important. Since I'm a players guy first I'll go with Tom, but it doesn't mean that I don't recognize Bill as the GOAT HC.

 

[Tunescribe]

Half the teams Bill build the last 20 years, wouldn’t have made the playoffs if he didn’t have Brady.

But he did have Brady and built the team accordingly, which was my point.