PATRIOTS NEWS Belichick criticism mega-thread

[venecol]

Do the Rams' games not count? Only the Eagles game?

The poster didn't say Belichick's defenses are without flaw. In fact, he didn't even say that every game he's coached has been flawless - the phrase he used is, "good many games", and he's absolutely correct.

Poster had already mentioned the Rams game (a SB) as an example but he ignored the previous SB (not just any game). I was just reminding him, lol.

Anyway it tied into the Malcolm benching from the other thread.

Man, people sure are sensitive around here. You bring up valid criticism of Belichick and all of a sudden he accuses me of being a fan of another team. Idc, but I don't see you clarifying that to him, since you know I'm a Pats fan.

 

[mariomega]

I think Bill and Tom obviously helped each other, but on reflection I do believe that Bill’s flaws (mostly in personality) would have cost him dearly if he had anyone other than Tom as the QB.

Bill is a great tactician and was an early pioneer in understanding the importance of value in a salary cap world. But he is NOT an easy coach to play for; his style obviously wears on people and players may have tuned him out at various points over a two decade period but for Brady accepting Bill’s leadership without much question. 2003, 2009, 2018 and this past year come to mind in particular, often tied to when Bill suddenly shipped a popular leader in the locker room out of town.

Beyond his obvious contributions on the field, Tom’s personality and acceptance of Bill’s style suggest to me that he is the ONLY qb Bill could have co-existed with for so long. I find it very hard to believe that Peyton or Rodgers wouldn’t have rejected Bill at some point leading to a showdown that usually results in the franchise QB winning and often creating a negative locker room situation imploding a season before the final showdown (see: Jim Mora, Mike McCarthy).

Moreover, what other star QB would have sat mostly silent as the Coach/GM stacked resources on the defense and repeatedly sent away offensive weapons / personnel and left the QB to “figure it out” with spare parts on offense. Ironically I believe that this is a better way to win than overloading resources on offense because great QBs can often score enough even with bad supporting casts (within reason - so not 2006/2013 level bad), but it certainly doesn’t make it fun for the QB nor does it help with the all-important throwing statistics. I find it impossible to think Peyton or Aaron would have bit their tongues throwing to the likes of Reche Caldwell, Aaron Dobson / Kembrell Thompkins, and Chris Hogan (to name a few) as their top outside WRs while the defensive genius coach poured draft picks and salary cap space on the defense.

Then you also have to consider that Brady never pushed the boundaries on his contracts, which enabled not only more cap space but also was used as a point of negotiating leverage when signing other players.

No doubt that Bill mostly built the team the right way to maximize the chances of winning under Brady and few other coaches/GMs would have done the same. But I doubt Bill would have lasted more than 5-10 years tops with any other quarterback - he either would have adjusted to survive (with less winning as a result) or more likely would have been shown the door.

I will sum it up: without Brady Bill would not win ****. Simple as that.

 

[Rob0729]

You agree the latter part of the dynasty was more Brady and I think most people would agree with that (anyone who doesn't can chime in here). I think most people would agree too the more about Brady started in 2007.

So let's look at some numbers and details from 2000 to 2004 (which seem to be the seasons mostly in question)...

2000 (5-11)

Offense P/G: 25th
Defense P/G: 17th
Offense Y/G: 22nd
Defense Y/G: 20th

Bledsoe: 5-11, 77.3 passer rating

2001 (11-5)

Offense P/G: 6th
Defense P/G: 6th
Offense Y/G: 19th
Defense Y/G: 24th

Overall team was looking pretty bad through Week 2, having gone 5-13 with Belichick & Bledsoe. The offense would improve significantly with Brady as the starter and so did the team's fortunes.

Brady: 14-3, 86.5 passer rating (up 9.2 from Bledsoe in 2000), Pro Bowl, SB36 MVP
Season Highlights: 364 and 2 TD's in OT win vs SD; 80% and 3 TD's in win at Indy; 75% and 4 TD's in win vs NO; 138 in 4th & OT in Snow Bowl; game-winning drive in SB36

2002 (9-7)

Week 16 loss at home vs Jets led to the only non-division winning season of the Brady era.

Season Highlights (Brady): 294 and 3 TD's in opener vs Pittsburg; 410 and 4 TD's in shootout win over KC; led NFL in TD's

2003 (14-2)

Offense P/G: 12th
Defense P/G: 1st
Offense Y/G: 17th
Defense Y/G: 7th

Brady: 0 TD & 4 INT's in opener put him in a huge hole statistically; in 11 of remaining 15 games, all wins, he had 14 TD's & 0 INT's; SB38 MVP
Season Highlights (too many to mention): 82-yard bomb to Brown in OT win at Miami (still an all-time favorite replay); 350 and 3 TD's including game-winning pass to Givens with 0:30 left at Denver; 368 in OT win at Houston where he connected with Graham with 0:40 left in regulation before leading a game-winning drive in OT; 4 TD's in Week 17 rematch vs Buffalo; Divisional win over Tennessee in literally 20-below; 354, 3 TD's and game-winning drive in SB38

2004 (14-2)

Offense P/G: 4th
Defense P/G: 2nd
Offense Y/G: 7th
Defense Y/G: 9th

Brady: Pro Bowl; highest postseason passer rating of career (109.4); only QB to win back-to-back Super Bowls in 2000's
Season Highlights: 335 and 3 TD's in opener vs Indy; 300 and 2 TD's at Buffalo; 5 TD's, 0 INT's & 109.4 passer rating in postseason

Brady looks like a definite elite quarterback 2001-2004. How can you even question it?

Thanks for proving my point. When did 12th in points and 17th in yards become elite?!?

When did 14 passing TDs in 11 of 15 games become elite? And why did you exclude the other four games? Brady in 2003 had 23 TDs and 12 INTs with a completion percentage of 60.1% and 85.9 QB rating. None of that says elite. In fact, you can argue that is either average or below average. Now I am not saying he was average or below average, but his product was.

And in 2001, he had 18 TDs and 12 INTs in 14 1/2 games. Again, not horrible. Not elite. But the Patriots were 21st in passing yards. And they were 20th in passing TDs. Where is this elite?

 

[Rob0729]

So, Brady's been the LOAT, Luckiest of all time?

Didn't realize Rob Parker's had an acct here since 2006. That's a lot of dedication from a hater. Lol

Stop being silly. Way to miss the point. Brady is the greatest of all time. I am just not willing to rewrite history and deny the fact that he wasn't an elite QB his few years in the league.

 

[Rob0729]

Ask Belichick. He thought guys like Victor Green and Donald Hayes were worth adding to the roster.

Back in the early 2000s Belichick was more right than wrong on personnel moves. I love how this thread wants to turn Brady into a deity and Belichick into a Rich Kotite wannabe.

 

[Rob0729]

This is what a 32 yo man that actually played with Brady said about him, just the other day.

“He’s the only player that I’ve ever been around that, when he speaks, when he talks, I believe him,” McCoy said, via MassLive.com. “He could tell me, ‘Shady, go walk on that water. You won’t drown.’ I’m going to be like, ‘OK.’ He has that type of thing about him. And the way he works. When I was younger, I wish I worked as hard as he does. We just won a Super Bowl and he’s back training, doing little things.”

We get it Rob Parker, you hate TFB, and are obviously envious of his charisma and leadership qualities but give it up, you're coming across as a salty loser like the fans from BUF, SEA, NYJ, PIT, KC, ATL, CAR, etc.

LOL! Now I am Brady hater because I don't drink the Brady cult Kool-Aid.

I love Brady. One of my most favorite players of all time. I just live in the real world where I accept the truth that Brady took several years to become elite.

I wonder how old some of you cultists were in 2001. What ten? I was at the Snow Bowl game. I was at Super Bowl 36.

 

[mariomega]

Stop being silly. Way to miss the point. Brady is the greatest of all time. I am just not willing to rewrite history and deny the fact that he wasn't an elite QB his few years in the league.

I can concur with that. But he was, at the very least, very good.

 

[Rob0729]

Rob can say that Brady "walks on water and turns water into wine," but I can't make a joke about Rob vis-a-vis Parker saying he's the LOAT?

Come on drei, some of you guys are taking yourselves way too seriously. Football is a form of entertainment. This isn't a place where serious policies are being discussed.

When some guys have outrageous takes they open themselves up to ridicule. I'm on record saying the dynasty was the result of "both" BB and TFB being together for as long as they were. However, there is no doubt that BB benefitted way more from having the GOAT than the other way around. We can argue about the level of things but when some (upstater) come out with rose colored lenses posting like they're literally Little Steven in defense of Dad, I'm going to have fun.

If you want I can add the below to my signature. Lol

WARNING: Entering a tongue in cheek zone.

First, my take isn't outrageous. It's the truth. Brady elite for the few years he started. The Pats won defense and asked the offense to be efficient. The stats and eyeball test back that up.

Second, I was responding to someone who claimed that Brady's leadership in 2001 turned the Patriots DEFENSE to be the best defense in the league. That is a laughable statement. And I mocked it like you tried to mock me.

Third, Belichick benefitted more from Brady than the other way around 2005 or so. Prior to that other than maybe 2004, Brady benefitted from Belichick more. To say otherwise is ignoring the truth. Brady was a game manager his first three years as starter. The Pats defense was the best in the league the second half of 2001 while the offense was average. And in 2003, the Pats had a historically good defense one of the top ten or twenty best of all time. And the offense sputtered quite a bit that season.

 

[venecol]

LOL! Now I am Brady hater because I don't drink the Brady cult Kool-Aid.

I love Brady. One of my most favorite players of all time. I just live in the real world where I accept the truth that Brady took several years to become elite.

I wonder how old some of you cultists were in 2001. What ten? I was at the Snow Bowl game. I was at Super Bowl 36.

I'm just messing with you but you fail to recognize the man has a hidden quality about him. He seems to command the attention and respect of his players. He seems to elevate others game around him. I've never heard of one single player in 20 years that didn't have anything but glowing things to say about him (not talking about haters that never played with him). These are qualities that can't be taught. Belichick had zero to do with his "natural talent" as a leader. Stats don't explain everything.

 

[Rob0729]

I can concur with that. But he was, at the very least, very good.

I never said he was bad. I just said he wasn't elite and the Pats won at least their two Super Bowls more on defense than because of Brady. I don't get how this either controversial or makes me a Brady hater though.

 

[Rob0729]

I'm just messing with you but you fail to recognize the man has a hidden quality about him. He seems to command the attention and respect of his players. He seems to elevate others game around him. I've never heard of one single player in 20 years that didn't have anything but glowing things to say about him (not talking about haters that never played with him). These are qualities that can't be taught. Belichick had zero to do with his "natural talent" as a leader. Stats don't explain everything.

Sorry, with these message boards, you never know who is just messing with people or being serious.

Although I said multiple times in this thread that he showed flashes of greatness his first three years. I never said he was bad. I just said that he wasn't elite yet, he was used primarily as a game manager those seasons, and the defense was more instrumental to the Pats getting to and winning the Super Bowl in the first two (well, Brady was more instrumental than the defense in the actual Super Bowl vs. the Panthers, but not the entire season and playoffs).

 

[mariomega]

I never said he was bad. I just said he wasn't elite and the Pats won at least their two Super Bowls more on defense than because of Brady. I don't get how this either controversial or makes me a Brady hater though.

So do you agree he was very good by then? Without him, Bill would not win horseshit. This is the truth.

 

[venecol]

Back in the early 2000s Belichick was more right than wrong on personnel moves. I love how this thread wants to turn Brady into a deity and Belichick into a Rich Kotite wannabe.

Funny, I see it the other way around throughout the forum, where Belichick is a deity that molded Brady from a clump of mud.

They actually call themselves "Team Bill" and demand a loyalty oath. Some are actually counting the days until March 4th.
LMAO, truly deranged. [Not you]

 

[Rob0729]

So do you agree he was very good by then? Without him, Bill would not win horseshit. This is the truth.

I thought he was good. But that is a fallacy that without Brady Belichick wouldn't have won anything. Again, Brady was good in 2001 and 2003, but elite. The defense was. Belichick cracked the code on how to stop the Greatest Show on Turf which for two years no team seemed to figure out how. After that Super Bowl, the Rams were never the same.

I will maintain there were at least a handful of QBs in this league who could have won those two Super Bowls with the Pats. After that, I think Brady was more important to the team than Belichick.

 

[mariomega]

I thought he was good. But that is a fallacy that without Brady Belichick wouldn't have won anything. Again, Brady was good in 2001 and 2003, but elite. The defense was. Belichick cracked the code on how to stop the Greatest Show on Turf which for two years no team seemed to figure out how. After that Super Bowl, the Rams were never the same.

I will maintain there were at least a handful of QBs in this league who could have won those two Super Bowls with the Pats. After that, I think Brady was more important to the team than Belichick.

Fallacy? Nope.
What did he win without Brady? Unless he proves he can win without Brady, it's not a fallacy at all Rob.

He was very good. Good? Nope. Very good.

You can maintain whatever you want, but none of your facts can prove anything whatsoever.

 

[Rob0729]

Funny, I see it the other way around throughout the forum, where Belichick is a deity that molded Brady from a clump of mud.

They actually call themselves "Team Bill" and demand a loyalty oath. Some are actually counting the days until March 4th.
LMAO, truly deranged. [Not you]

There are people on both sides like that. People have attacked me and labeled me a Brady hater just because I won't say Brady was elite right away and have the nerve to say that in the first two Super Bowls that Belichick was more important to the team than Brady. Not only is what I am saying not controversial, it's the truth.

 

[Ryan]

I think if we're talking about the first 3 Super Bowl wins, you have to give the defense AT LEAST equal credit as you'd give Brady. To say otherwise I believe is really short changing some of the great contributors to our teams success. This is not saying Brady didn't play a huge role too, he did. I'm just saying he was not the clear cut #1 reason we won those games. And I'm not just referring to the Super Bowl games themselves, I'm talking big picture reasons why our teams were so good those years.

 

[mariomega]

There are people on both sides like that. People have attacked me and labeled me a Brady hater just because I won't say Brady was elite right away and have the nerve to say that in the first two Super Bowls that Belichick was more important to the team than Brady. Not only is what I am saying not controversial, it's the truth.

It is not the truth, just your perception.

 

[Rob0729]

Fallacy? Nope.
What did he win without Brady? Unless he proves he can win without Brady, it's not a fallacy at all Rob.

He was very good. Good? Nope. Very good.

You can maintain whatever you want, but none of your facts can prove anything whatsoever.

Belichick spent most of his coaching career with Brady. This is such a silly argument. His three years with the Patriots without Brady was his first year where almost coaches win anything, a year that Brady went down the first quarter of the first game of the season, and this past year which was a transition year post Brady where they had to get Cam Newton to start shortly before the season.

 

[Rob0729]

It is not the truth, just your perception.

Nothing contradicts my perception other than other people's perceptions. The facts and stats back it up. There was nothing special about the Patriots' offense in either 2001 or 2003 other than certain situations. To be elite, you have to special most of the year. Not the last two minutes or fourth quarter of the Super Bowl. Again, Brady showed flashes of eliteness and greatness, but he wasn't elite. Elite is great all or most of the time. Elite means best of the best.