Belichick criticism mega-thread

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

But Belichick the coach took at team with probably 3-5 win talent to 7 wins. That was my point. The Pats won games with a QB who couldn’t complete simple passes and no one to catch the ball if he could. Belichick did one hell of a job coaching up this team this year.

Typical nose-up-Belichick's-rear-end reasoning here. The Patriots won 12 games in 2019. How does a 12 win team suddenly have 3-5 win talent? It's great that you can just blame Belichick the GM when Belichick the coach doesn't meet expectations and yet still avoid the black hole circling around your head known as Tom Brady.

The Patriots were expected to win 8-9 games this season. Vegas determined that before the season based on their roster; handicappers don't give coaches themselves much consideration. What I mean is that the 8-9 win total already had Belichick baked into it. A handicapper said last year that Belichick might be worth 7 points a season when looking at the win/loss predictions.

I'm sure you'll talk about how these handicappers don't know as much as you, Rob, about the Patriots roster talent and Belichick's actual value because, you know, you are always the authority on that. But here's what actually happened in 2020:

• The Patriots were projected to be roughly a 9 win team competing for the AFC East or wild card.
• The Patriots had an overall net gain due to Covid (they were the only team in the NFL to get a starting QB for peanuts because Covid restrictions meant Cam couldn't do a physical and the Patriots were the only team looking for a starter. They lost some key players, notably Hightower, but overall the losses are highly exaggerated.)

The narrative as I heard it, as I have little doubt led by folks like you, was this:

• Because of Belichick's greatness, the Patriots will make the postseason.
• The Patriots will improve as the season goes on and be really good down the stretch.
• The Patriots have a team of overachievers and will never quit.
• The Patriots run a tight ship and will be better than the rest when it comes to Covid prevention and next man up.

Every single thing turned out to be the opposite. The Patriots underachieved all year. A 9-win projected team won 7 games. They got much worse down the stretch and collapsed in December. The team quit on numerous occassions with embarassing home blowout losses.

And yet, here you are, with Belichick did one hell of a job coaching up this team this year despite, as usual, every imaginable fact contradicting that. If they had gone 2-14, you would have marveled that no other coach would have won a single game. You're so predictable.

 

[203Pat]

Whether Belichick wanted Bledsoe and signed him or not or he was going to give him a short leash is irrelevant. Bledsoe just didn't fit the system. Blame Belichick the GM. Fine. But my point is that the night and day change of the team wasn't because Brady was elite. It had a lot to do with Bledsoe being a bad fit for the system.

I'm not Team Anyone. I am just not letting people turn Belichick just into another coach that was just lucky for having Brady otherwise he would have just been a two time loser. That's not what happened.

If anything I am right down the middle guy. I have said repeatedly that Belichick deserves more credit for the first two or three Super Bowls and Brady deserves more of the credit for the last three.

So Bill paid Bledsoe a record breaking about of money in March but was putting Drew on a short leash 6 months later? If Bledsoe didn't fit the system he shouldn't have been re-signed and that is on Bill. There was definitely an element of luck in regards to the 2001 season for both Brady and Bill. Patten lying there dead on the sidelines against Buffalo with the ball under his legs rendering him out of bounds, playing the Rams in the regular season and giving the team confidence they could hang, a blizzard slowing down the Raiders and of course "The Tuck Rule". Neither one of them was who they are now and have both came a long way.

 

[crawhammer]

In 2001, there were probably a half dozen QBs Belichick could have won the Super Bowl with a better QB wouldn't have had to win on that final drive because he probably would have score more than 10 point by that point.

Half dozen quarterbacks like Drew Bledsoe for instance?... who Belichick was 5-13 with.

The Rams had a top 10 defense in points and yards against. You understand 2001 was Brady's first season as a starting quarterback in the NFL? Very few quarterbacks would have had the stones to pull off that last minute game-winning drive. Brady would go on to do it routinely in Super Bowls.

Probably the same in 2003 season with that defense.

Brady led 5 game-winning drives during the 2003 regular season. He balled out in SB 38. The Patriots defense was excellent that season but they got completely smoked in the 4th quarter of the Super Bowl... by Jake Delhomme for Christ's sake... who had 211 yards passing in the quarter. Brady countered with 156 yards passing of his own in the 4th quarterback and he led the game-winning drive.

And in 2008, the Pats missed the playoffs because of a fluke.

What was the fluke? The Patriots had an incredibly easy schedule in 2008. Had Brady not missed the season they probably would have made another run at 19-0. As it was they lost to most of their quality opponents. From Brady to Cassel, with essentially the same supporting cast, was a huge drop-off in production at the quarterback and it showed up on the scoreboard and their record.

2007
Brady: 50 TD's & 4806 yards
Team P/G: 36.8
Team Record: 16-0

2008
Cassel: 21 TD's & 3693 yards
Team P/G: 25.6
Team Record: 11-5

Another example of Belichick not being able to hack it without Brady.

 

[crawhammer]

And I never said Belichick pulled out a miracle in Cleveland. I said he turned around a 6-10 team to a 11-5 team in three years. Don't forget he inherited a broken down Bernie Kosar that he couldn't dump until year three. And turning around a team in the late 90s wasn't as easy as it is today.

It wasn't the late 90's... he was the head coach from 1991-1995. There was no "turnaround." Their records were 6-10, 7-9, 7-9, 11-5 & 5-11. Belichick did not win a division title there and managed only a single playoff win in 5 seasons. His last season there they finished out the season with a 2-10 record and the losing started before the move of the team was announced. Belichick got fired because he was a complete and utter failure in Cleveland.

 

[upstater1]

I agree that the Van Noy, and Trent Brown trades were home runs on the surface. They were very good players that Bill bought low on but they were also part of the snowballing of the poor drafts that caught up to us the last couple years. Brown was traded for because draft picks like Fleming and Garcia weren't capable for taking over at LT. Van Noy was brought in because Geneo Grissom wasn't able to replace Collins. That will happen here and there and in a vacuum it's not a huge deal. The issue was that it wasn't just here and there we started getting next to nothing out of large portions of our draft classes. I have talked on this before but how many resources have been used to find a receiver in the last couple years? To fill one receiver spot we have used a first round pick (Harry), a second round pick (trade for Sanu), and spent $9 million dollars for one game as well as a $4.5 million dollar dead cap hit this year (AB). That is a first and a second round pick, $10+ million, and three players for almost no production.

Bill has made some good personnel moves in the last few years but he has also made some very bad ones and the bad ones seem to have come in bunches. Add that to the bad drafting and that is how we get to Cam Newton attempting to throw bowling balls to UDFA's.

Thank god we didn't pay Brown and Van Noy. The fact we didn't pay them is why we're in good salary cap position now.

We've also been pretty hurt by deflategate and things like that. One year we took 4 guys and didn't start picking until late in the 3rd round. It is what it is. We're in a good place now. Let the players from the last draft develop. We have a bunch of good young guys in Damian Harris, Mason, Onwenu, Wynn, maybe Thuney and Andrews, at least one, Jakoby Meyers, Uche, Dugger, Terez, Winovich, JC Jackson, J Jones, etc. Let these 10-15 players develop, add 5 vets, draft well, and you have a core of 25 players, which is all you need. My big question mark is obviously everyone else's. The QB.

 

[crawhammer]

Belichick would have gotten fired in New England too, probably after the 2003 season, which would have been four floundering years with Drew Bledsoe. Brady saved his coaching career, made him a hall of farmer, and Belichick repaid him with deceit, cheap contracts, short-term commitments, revolving rosters, incompetent drafting, middling receivers, and sabotaging Super Bowls.

 

[amfootball]

Typical nose-up-Belichick's-rear-end reasoning here. The Patriots won 12 games in 2019. How does a 12 win team suddenly have 3-5 win talent? It's great that you can just blame Belichick the GM when Belichick the coach doesn't meet expectations and yet still avoid the black hole circling around your head known as Tom Brady.

The Patriots were expected to win 8-9 games this season. Vegas determined that before the season based on their roster; handicappers don't give coaches themselves much consideration. What I mean is that the 8-9 win total already had Belichick baked into it. A handicapper said last year that Belichick might be worth 7 points a season when looking at the win/loss predictions.

I'm sure you'll talk about how these handicappers don't know as much as you, Rob, about the Patriots roster talent and Belichick's actual value because, you know, you are always the authority on that. But here's what actually happened in 2020:

• The Patriots were projected to be roughly a 9 win team competing for the AFC East or wild card.
• The Patriots had an overall net gain due to Covid (they were the only team in the NFL to get a starting QB for peanuts because Covid restrictions meant Cam couldn't do a physical and the Patriots were the only team looking for a starter. They lost some key players, notably Hightower, but overall the losses are highly exaggerated.)

The narrative as I heard it, as I have little doubt led by folks like you, was this:

• Because of Belichick's greatness, the Patriots will make the postseason.
• The Patriots will improve as the season goes on and be really good down the stretch.
• The Patriots have a team of overachievers and will never quit.
• The Patriots run a tight ship and will be better than the rest when it comes to Covid prevention and next man up.

Every single thing turned out to be the opposite. The Patriots underachieved all year. A 9-win projected team won 7 games. They got much worse down the stretch and collapsed in December. The team quit on numerous occassions with embarassing home blowout losses.

And yet, here you are, with Belichick did one hell of a job coaching up this team this year despite, as usual, every imaginable fact contradicting that. If they had gone 2-14, you would have marveled that no other coach would have won a single game. You're so predictable.

Just to add to your list. Cam was also supposed to work better with our young receivers because he would not freeze them out like Brady.

 

[crawhammer]

Belichick was a great coach this year. And guess what? He had a losing record. You can say Belichick the GM was a failure. But Belichick the coach took at team with probably 3-5 win talent to 7 wins. That was my point. The Pats won games with a QB who couldn’t complete simple passes and no one to catch the ball if he could. Belichick did one hell of a job coaching up this team this year.

They lost 3 games in a row in December by a combined score of 84-24. That's a great coaching job? No wonder why you're so high on Belichick... look how low you set the bar. Adam Gase won as many games in December as Belichick... that's a good comp.

 

[Biffins]

Yeah, I get it. You worship at the cult of Brady. Yes, Belichick would have been been Rich Kotite 2.0 without Brady. Brady is swell. Belichick icky. I get it.

Belichick was a great coach this year. And guess what? He had a losing record. You can say Belichick the GM was a failure. But Belichick the coach took at team with probably 3-5 win talent to 7 wins. That was my point. The Pats won games with a QB who couldn’t complete simple passes and no one to catch the ball if he could. Belichick did one hell of a job coaching up this team this year.

So endeth the lesson.

This is all conjecture..... professor

 

[Deus Irae]

They lost 3 games in a row in December by a combined score of 84-24. That's a great coaching job? No wonder why you're so high on Belichick... look how low you set the bar. Adam Gase won as many games in December as Belichick... that's a good comp.

Yeah


The notion that BB was a great coach this year is dubious, to say the least. I, personally, would say that he was somewhere in the vast "average" range for coaching. But, when you look at the context of the games, you can actually make a reasonable case that he did an uncharacteristically poor job and benefitted from some big breaks, so "great" would seem to be out the window.

 

[203Pat]

Thank god we didn't pay Brown and Van Noy. The fact we didn't pay them is why we're in good salary cap position now.

We've also been pretty hurt by deflategate and things like that. One year we took 4 guys and didn't start picking until late in the 3rd round. It is what it is. We're in a good place now. Let the players from the last draft develop. We have a bunch of good young guys in Damian Harris, Mason, Onwenu, Wynn, maybe Thuney and Andrews, at least one, Jakoby Meyers, Uche, Dugger, Terez, Winovich, JC Jackson, J Jones, etc. Let these 10-15 players develop, add 5 vets, draft well, and you have a core of 25 players, which is all you need. My big question mark is obviously everyone else's. The QB.

Maybe I am just a "glass half empty" guy but the only thing we have going for us at the moment is cap room and with all the holes we have to fill that will dry up quickly. If we pay Andrews or Thuney and JC Jackson that right there probably 40% of it. Until we find a QB of the future we will be treading .500 territory.

 

[upstater1]

Maybe I am just a "glass half empty" guy but the only thing we have going for us at the moment is cap room and with all the holes we have to fill that will dry up quickly. If we pay Andrews or Thuney and JC Jackson that right there probably 40% of it. Until we find a QB of the future we will be treading .500 territory.

Let the young guys develop. JC Jackson, Uche, Dugger might be future Pro Bowlers. The whole offensive line is a seriously cohesive unit that seemed to plow open huge running lanes and gave up so few sacks on an offense that really didn't seem to threaten anyone in the air.

There are gaping holes on this team, more than most, but there are gaping holes on every team every year, even our Super Bowl winning teams had such players. I'm looking for 5 impact FAs, mostly on defense (i.e. 2 DLs, at least on LB), maybe a TE and/or WR.

 

[venecol]

Maybe I am just a "glass half empty" guy but the only thing we have going for us at the moment is cap room and with all the holes we have to fill that will dry up quickly. If we pay Andrews or Thuney and JC Jackson that right there probably 40% of it. Until we find a QB of the future we will be treading .500 territory.

I think there is zero chance Patriots re-sign both Andrews and Thuney. Hell there's a better chance they both walk then they both get re-signed.

I suspect we'll be seeing a lot of the good FAs due a big pay day walking. Why would they stay? Team is lacking a QB.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

The part I can't get over here is that Bill is the GM and the coach. There's zero reason to crap on the Patriots players and constantly devalue them. In fact, the 2001 team improved largely because of Bill's personnel decisions; this doesn't devalue his coaching. He makes GM moves based on his ability to coach/scheme these players, so it's really all the same thing. Here are his two best moves in 2001:

1. Replaced Drew Bledsoe with Tom Brady.
This is not the no-brainer, dumb luck situation that maybe the most ardent Brady supporters claim. Yes, Brady was that good, though no one has claimed he was perfect. The team went from 5-13, 16 ppg to 14-3, 24 ppg and that doesn't even get into sacks/turnovers. That's elite. It wasn't always beautiful to watch (partly due to Brady being less refined and partly due to the skill players around him), but scoring a full touchdown more a game while turning it over less, is beyond elite impact.

Yes, Belichick also deserves a crap ton of credit. Why? Because he had just paid Bledsoe $100M that same offseason and sided with the best player rather than the most popular player. Brady over Bledsoe may seem very obvious in hindsight, but it wasn't then. Not even close. The perception by the media was that the Patriots improvement merely coincided with a late round nobody coming into the lineup. Belichick held firm when Bledsoe was ready to return, despite public pressure, despite some internal pressure from his own players, despite risking looking incredibly foolish if Brady came crashing down.

I remember even as late as the postseason, some of my friends - and me too, to some degree - were angry as the Patriots appeared destined to lose to the Raiders. They reasoned that Bledsoe, a pro bowl QB and one of the league's most talented QBs - by reputation - would have won that game. The next week against the Steelers, Brady got injured and Bledsoe finished. It would have been the ideal time for Bill to say "Brady isn't 100%, so we're going with Bledsoe" and frankly put himself in a no-lose situation. But he didn't. So to me, it's never really been about whether or not Bill "knew what he was getting" with Brady in the 2000 draft or how much he "developed" him. I believe that Bill's gutsy decisions in the 2001 season gave Brady a tremendous amount of self-confidence and that (not magic fairy dust or 5D chess strategy) is why Bill was critical to Brady's success and why Brady's career path might have gone off in another direction if it hadn't been for Bill.

And here's the final part on this: Belichick put the ball in the hands of his best player twice in the playoffs with the season on the line. Brady threw the ball 52 times against the Raiders (in the snow) and then was told to drive the team down the field against the Rams, all the while the media and much of the fanbase focusing on Brady's limitations and inexperience and calling for Bledsoe who had both more perceived talent and more postseason experience.

2. Drafted Richard Seymour.
Luckily Ron Borges's words will live on forever, and while not everyone was as mistaken as Ron, few immediately jumped up and screamed "Bill just drafted a Hall of Fame talent who will change the defense instantly!!!" Or maybe let's look at it like this: what if Seymour was not the Tim Duncan type of fundamental freak with quiet dominance and instead was a sack artist, and in the second half of the 2001 season racked up 10 sacks down the stretch and 5 in the postseason? Then would the perception be different? Of course it would. Seymour made a gigantic impact on the front seven by making them much better againt the run and improving their pass rush. This is, like with Brady, another situation where the media/most fans (such as myself at the time) didn't realize just how important he was but could not look back on film and identify the impact immediately.

As we've seen with great linemen, especially guys who can eat space and draw more blockers like Seymour, it improves the rest of the defensive line; it improves the linebackers ability to pressure; and shutting down the running game to make a team one-dimensional improves the secondary. Like Brady, Seymour wasn't as good in 2001 as he'd be later in his career, and his greatness wasn't on a stat sheet. But like Brady, he was a Hall of Fame talent who made a huge impact on the team and caused a major multiplier effect on the rest of the defense.

Belichick knew just what to do with that multiplier effect. Suddenly some unheralded guy named MIke Vrabel seemed to be all over the field, and a guy named Tedy Bruschi, previously known to be a good player but not a great one, started to make a lot of impact plays. A top pick with a ton of talent but a mixed bag career name, Willie McGinest, stepped up as a dominant OLB and pass rusher. And guys in the secondary, who had always been really talented and celebrated, like Ty Law and Lawyer Milloy, all of a sudden started seeing a lot more opportunities to make huge plays, many of them clutch.

It was all about the players, and it was all about Belichick. Both of these things can be true. It really didn't involved any super advanced chess schemes, though, and using schemes that somehow turn bad players into an elite unit. These guys were really good (some were elite) players that Belichick identified and put in a great position to showcase their talents. He should get a ton of credit for being a great coach/GM, but it's such a bad look to try to dissect every player and claim "but he wasn't good back then!!!!!!" in some childish rant to prove a ridiculous and unncessary argument.

 

[crawhammer]

Brady was good when he became a starter. He wasn't elite yet. He wasn't the GOAT.

Obviously. Who ever was the greatest of all-time after 1 year?

Montana was 2-5 in the first 7 starts of his career in 1980. After he won his first Super Bowl in 1981 he wasn't considered the GOAT either because obviously you have to build up your resume for that over time. Go back and look at Montana's first postseason run, he wasn't spectacular... 6 TD's and 4 INT's. He won SB MVP with very similar numbers to Brady... Montana SB 16 (14-22 for 157 and 1 TD); Brady SB 36 (16-27 for 145 and 1 TD).

Montana was considered the GOAT after his 7th season when he won his third Super Bowl. By then he was a 3x Super Bowl winner and 2x Super Bowl MVP. He added another Super Bowl title, Super Bowl MVP and his first NFL MVP in the following season.

Brady was getting GOAT mention after he won his third Super Bowl in 2004 but it wasn't until after his unbelievable 2007 regular season that he was being legitimately debated as the GOAT. Like Montana that was after his 7th season when he was a 3x Super Bowl winner, 2x Super Bowl MVP and 1x NFL MVP.

The GOAT debate was over for most after Brady beat the Legion of Boom in SB 49 but certainly the comeback over Atlanta in SB 51 should have ended it. Brady's added two more Super Bowls since and this year's has cemented his legacy as the greatest NFL player of all-time (any position) and probably pushed him to the top of the list as the GOAT of all the major sports.

 

[venecol]

Obviously. Who ever was the greatest of all-time after 1 year?

So easy. Mahomes of course.

Chefs Asteroid says so.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Obviously. Who ever was the greatest of all-time after 1 year?

 

[Calhoun44]

Belichick would have gotten fired in New England too, probably after the 2003 season, which would have been four floundering years with Drew Bledsoe. Brady saved his coaching career, made him a hall of farmer, and Belichick repaid him with deceit, cheap contracts, short-term commitments, revolving rosters, incompetent drafting, middling receivers, and sabotaging Super Bowls.

I'm not trying to be antagonistic (I am genuinely curious), but after reading the last couple pages of this thread, I am wondering if you think BB should be replaced or should have been replaced earlier in his career? I'm an honestly confused about what you are advocating for, or are you just trying to show that Brady is greater than what he has shown and without BB he would have won even more games? Personally, I don't know and I guess no one can ever know if BB has hindered Brady at all, but I do know that I am happy that they did what they did for as long as they did in my favorite teams uniform.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I'm not trying to be antagonistic (I am genuinely curious), but after reading the last couple pages of this thread, I am wondering if you think BB should be replaced or should have been replaced earlier in his career? I'm an honestly confused about what you are advocating for, or are you just trying to show that Brady is greater than what he has shown and without BB he would have won even more games? Personally, I don't know and I guess no one can ever know if BB has hindered Brady at all, but I do know that I am happy that they did what they did for as long as they did in my favorite teams uniform.

I can only speak for myself.

1. Bill is an all-time great, and maybe the best ever, despite some mistakes he's made and despite that being an all-time great for a coach/GM doesn't mean what Team Bill thinks it does. And as the customers (fans), it's important that we criticize, ask for accountability, etc. rather than Kool-Aid drinking and making some of the more far-fetched excuses you'll find. It's especially important because of the gigantic schism that the Brady loss has caused within the fan base and terrible short-term results.

2. Every organization or company led by a leader like Bill generally moves along the same path: giving absolute authority to someone who is a genius and trailblazer, reaping the rewards, then seeing some negative effects of what happens when the team undergoes some pretty big changes requiring adaptation and being left with an echo chamber. In this case, it's concerning that there's almost no transparency about why Hall of Fame players are leaving or some very, very questionable "big-time" decisions, and it seems that we're seeing the bad side of having no checks and balances. This isn't anything against Bill; it's just the nature of having an all-powerful leader...could be a CEO, coach, poliical leader, etc.

3. I'd love to see the Patriots bring in some outsiders. When they brought in Floyd Reese from 2009-12, they drafted almost every important player of the 2010s dynasty, and yet those years without him, they've sruggled mightily. I think Bill should challenge himself with some new voices but remain the primary delegator and decision maker. I'm not sure that having a ton of people here whose success was completely tied to Brady (ex: Josh McDaniels) is necessarily the right mindset for a rebuild. Steven Belichick...I mean, come on. Re-hiring Matt Patricia as an assistant? A whole bunch of position coaches, assistants, scouts, personnel leaders...these guys have all been here for so many years. They may "push back" and offer "new ideas" but even those are steeped in the Patriots philosophy.

Many have criticized their drafting, their offensive philosophy, etc. and pointed to the same mistakes made over and over; I don't see a lot of people within that organization "thinking outside the box" or "continuous improvement" anymore. In the last twenty years, there have been tons of rule changes, personnel changes, offensive and defensive innovations. It seems to me, from an amateur/outsider viewpoint, that this organization is somewhat confused about what they need but adament they have the right coaches and leadership guys to make those decisions. That's not a good place to be in.

And from a team culture standpoint, you're a rebuilding team trying to forge an identity, not a winner and prized free agency destination anymore. It seems their player relations, rigidness, and overall "smirking about how great they are" may not be what the franchise needs right now. If this organization were not called the New England Patriots, it would appear to be pretty dysfunctional from about 2017-present. I could cite many things, but none of us can deny there appears to be power struggles, infighting, a lack of planning, etc.

Bill should bring in new people who are excited about rebuilding a football team and get rid of "the loyalists", or at the very least, start challenging them through outside hires.

 

[crawhammer]

Bill should bring in new people who are excited about rebuilding a football team and get rid of "the loyalists"

You think Belichick willfully would allow himself to be challenged? He can't even handle players who think for themselves anymore. There's no way he's listening to anyone else regarding the construction of the team. What moron, if given the opportunity, would agree with for example drafting an unheralded placekicker in the 5th round? You think Belichick wants to deal with pushback on that? No way. He'd rather draft "outside of the box", realize his mistake after the fact, then have to bury the player for a year while they get a white supremacist tattoo removed.

I'm not trying to be antagonistic (I am genuinely curious), but after reading the last couple pages of this thread, I am wondering if you think BB should be replaced or should have been replaced earlier in his career? I'm an honestly confused about what you are advocating for, or are you just trying to show that Brady is greater than what he has shown and without BB he would have won even more games? Personally, I don't know and I guess no one can ever know if BB has hindered Brady at all, but I do know that I am happy that they did what they did for as long as they did in my favorite teams uniform.

Regarding the Patriots dynasty, it was more about Brady than Belichick. Especially the latter decade. I think Belichick was well aware of this impression so he wanted to change it. I believe he thought he would have the opportunity sooner but Brady outlasted his expectations. But instead of continuing to ride the wave of Brady's greatness he started to rebel against it. He openly talked up Brady's demise after the 2014 draft. He initially tossed Brady under the bus with deflategate before coming to his defense likely out of concern that Goodell would do something crazy like suspend Brady for the Super Bowl. It's probable Belichick contemplated trading Brady 2016-2017 but got shot down by Kraft. Instead Belichick made things difficult for Brady (access to Guerrero, etc.) and lowballed him with short-term contracts. The final straw for Brady was the poor roster construction mostly stemming from weak drafts. In the end Belichick ironically pushed Brady onto achieving what he had desired, which was to prove one could win without the other.

To answer some of your other questions... yes I believe Belichick squandered a chunk of Brady's prime and trashed two seasons entirely (2015 & 2017). Belichick basically deferred the #1 seed in 2015 which cost them that Super Bowl. And he completely sabotaged SB 52 with the Butler benching. At which point I was done with Belichick and wanted him fired.

Looking at the offseason after the SB 53 victory, that's not an occasion where you're willfully moving on from your head coach. However, given the choice between Brady for 3, 4 or maybe even 5 more seasons or Belichick in a rebuild without a quarterback, well we've seen that script before (Cleveland), so I'm moving on from the head coach and keeping the franchise quarterback to conclusion of his career.

I think Brady with another head coach/GM would have provided a greater opportunity for continued success than what we're getting now, which is likely multi-seasons of mediocre teams possibly contending for a wild card spot. Buffalo is going to be too good and I don't have faith in Belichick to rebuild a championship caliber team over the next 3-5 seasons (unless he lands a franchise quarterback through free agency which is highly unlikely). I think Belichick will retire no later than 2024 (he won't win another division title). Brady will play two more seasons and win one more Super Bowl (next season).