PATRIOTS NEWS Belichick criticism mega-thread

[Rob0729]

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.

I don't get why people don't get this and why is so controversial to say. People are recreating "The Patriot Way" to it was all about Brady. That was what made the early Dyansty Patriots so special. There were no stars. Everyone just did their role and worked for the team and didn't look for personal glory.

 

[venecol]

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.

 

[mariomega]

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.

You seem to intentionally forget his days in Cleveland, am I right?

 

[Rob0729]

I certainly can handle the truth. Maybe I am the only one who understands the definition of word elite. Prove Brady was elite. He should be top three or four in every passing category from 2001-2003. You can't be elite and have stats that are middle of the pack.

 

[mariomega]

I certainly can handle the truth. Maybe I am the only one who understands the definition of word elite. Prove Brady was elite. He should be top three or four in every passing category from 2001-2003. You can't be elite and have stats that are middle of the pack.

We are not telling you he was elite. He was very good.

And as you said, I have facts to back it up my perception: Bill did not win **** without Brady. And he coached a different franchise. Right? So you can whine all you want.

 

[sb1]

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.

I actually don't think it's a certainty anymore that Belichick wins any titles with a QB other than Brady.

First of all he has to be paired with a really good QB. This year proved that "the system" cannot win without a good QB. Period.

The bigger issue is that the better QBs might not be as coachable or amenable to being coached BB's style as Brady was. How many QBs are both really good and amenable to BB's coaching? I'm not sure there are many. That's why someone like Rodgers would not win here IMO. He's great but him with Belichick would never work. Neither would someone like Peyton Manning. They would butt heads a lot more I think than win.

Brady was elite. He made everyone around him better. The defense was elite in 2003 but not really in 2001. Brady's presence turned that team around. Without Brady Belichick does not get a chance to crack the code on the Rams. I agree there are other QBs who would have provided the same offensive output as Brady in that game but none of them get the team there like Brady did.

 

[Rob0729]

You seem to intentionally forget his days in Cleveland, am I right?

He turned around the Browns and then was undercut by the owner the following year. And many coaches fail in their first job and become great coaches after that. Pete Carroll failed twice before he came to Seattle. Although Marv Levy didn't actually win a Super Bowl, he failed his first job and then brought the Bills to four consecutive Super Bowls.

 

[upstater1]

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.

It's a fallacy because in a couple of Super Bowls (the first and last wins) the defense was spectacular and many other QBs could have won those games.

I disagree with Rob about 2003. That was the 3rd greatest SB performance by a QB in history, at the time. Our defense broke down and was like a sieve from about the 2 minute warning of the fist half through the end of the game.

I actually think this is the game that cemented Brady into elite status. He played out of his mind, and without him, we don't win.

But 2001 & 2018 had a huge healthy load of Belichick's D design. It was the Rams both times but look at what those Ram teams did on offense in prior games:

2018: 26, 30, 48, 31, 23, 15, 30, 54, 36, 35, 29, 39, 23, 33, 38, 35, 34, 33. The Patriots held this team to 3 points.
2001: 29, 45, 31, 42, 38, 34, 27, 35, 17, 24, 48, 31, 34, 15, 35, 42, 30, 20. The Patriots held them to 17 points.

Add the points per game together for both Rams teams: average of 65 per game. The Patriots Ds held them to 20 points total. Less than a third of what they were able to do against the rest of the league.

The way I break down the Super Bowls (and only the Super Bowls) is like this:

Great D: 2001, 2004, 2007, 2018
Great play by Brady: 2003, 2004, 2011, 2014, 2016, 2017.
Not great play by D: 2003, 2011, 2016, 2017.
Not great play by Brady: 2007, 2018.
Young Brady, did what was needed: 2001

But this doesn't really take into account the fact that Brady played great in the 2018 AFC playoffs, or that in some of the games that preceded Brady's great SB performances, Brady was off (remember when he apologized to the fans, "Sorry I sucked today!"?), or the Titans game in 2003.

This is why I was only looking at the Super Bowls. In almost every season, BB and Brady operated with a kind of ying and yang. the D came through when Brady had a bad game, and the O came through when the D had a bad game.

 

[203Pat]

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]

I agree that Bill seems to be beyond reproach around here with a large group. If you dare say he hasn't drafted well lately you can a barrage of "Huh 7 rings huh!" or "Go root for the Jets" or some other idiotic reply.

 

[Rob0729]

We are not telling you he was elite. He was very good.

And as you said, I have facts to back it up my perception: Bill did not win **** without Brady. And he coached a different franchise. Right? So you can whine all you want.

No! Plenty of people are saying he was elite. Read the thread.

And I said he was very good.

The facts say the offenses in 2001 and 2003 were middle of the pack and the defenses were elite. The Pats won on defense. Those are facts. Those facts back me up. And the stats actually say that Brady was nothing special back then, but I will say the stats didn't really accurately reflect Brady's talent because he was asked to be a game manager.

 

[stinkypete]

Bill has poor choice in sponsorships. Subway sandwiches suck.

 

[mariomega]

He turned around the Browns and then was undercut by the owner the following year. And many coaches fail in their first job and become great coaches after that. Pete Carroll failed twice before he came to Seattle. Although Marv Levy didn't actually win a Super Bowl, he failed his first job and then brought the Bills to four consecutive Super Bowls.

He did not win horseshit mate. You can distort, twist and make your narratives all you want, but the fact is: he did not win without Brady.

And Brady won without him.

And you can see several players, like Amendola, saying the Patriot way was as a matter of fact the Brady way.

And yes, I am a Brady guy, he was nothing less than superb during a lifetime here, 20 years.
Spineless Kraft shoud've let him ride until his sunset, 2, 3 or 5 more years. He won 6 for us, so he had the right. He earned it.

 

[mariomega]

No! Plenty of people are saying he was elite. Read the thread.

And I said he was very good.

The facts say the offenses in 2001 and 2003 were middle of the pack and the defenses were elite. The Pats won on defense. Those are facts. Those facts back me up. And the stats actually say that Brady was nothing special back then, but I will say the stats didn't really accurately reflect Brady's talent because he was asked to be a game manager.

You said he was GOOD, not very good, so back up your comments.

 

[upstater1]

He turned around the Browns and then was undercut by the owner the following year. And many coaches fail in their first job and become great coaches after that. Pete Carroll failed twice before he came to Seattle. Although Marv Levy didn't actually win a Super Bowl, he failed his first job and then brought the Bills to four consecutive Super Bowls.

I wonder if these people were even Patriots fans to understand how transformational Belichick was for our defense in 1996 and in 2001. These Ds were rebuilt into Super Bowl contenders really really quickly. Anyone who watched the team in these years realizes that the X-factor was Belichick. Not to mention the fact that the loser Jets were transformed overnight from a sad sack 1-15 team to a 14-5 team really quickly. And if not for their Pro Bowl QB getting injured for the entire year, they might've continued the transformation into their 3rd year. But you can only do so much when your QB is Ray Lucas and Rick Mirer.

 

[mariomega]

I wonder if these people were even Patriots fans to understand how transformational Belichick was for our defense in 1996 and in 2001. These Ds were rebuilt into Super Bowl contenders really really quickly. Anyone who watched the team in these years realizes that the X-factor was Belichick. Not to mention the fact that the loser Jets were transformed overnight from a sad sack 1-15 team to a 14-5 team really quickly. And if not for their Pro Bowl QB getting injured for the entire year, they might've continued the transformation into their 3rd year. But you can only do so much when your QB is Ray Lucas and Rick Mirer.

He did not win without Brady. Period.

Prove me wrong. You cannot.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

It's a fallacy because in a couple of Super Bowls (the first and last wins) the defense was spectacular and many other QBs could have won those games.

I disagree with Rob about 2003. That was the 3rd greatest SB performance by a QB in history, at the time. Our defense broke down and was like a sieve from about the 2 minute warning of the fist half through the end of the game.

I actually think this is the game that cemented Brady into elite status. He played out of his mind, and without him, we don't win.

But 2001 & 2018 had a huge healthy load of Belichick's D design. It was the Rams both times but look at what those Ram teams did on offense in prior games:

2018: 26, 30, 48, 31, 23, 15, 30, 54, 36, 35, 29, 39, 23, 33, 38, 35, 34, 33. The Patriots held this team to 3 points.
2001: 29, 45, 31, 42, 38, 34, 27, 35, 17, 24, 48, 31, 34, 15, 35, 42, 30, 20. The Patriots held them to 17 points.

Add the points per game together for both Rams teams: average of 65 per game. The Patriots Ds held them to 20 points total. Less than a third of what they were able to do against the rest of the league.

The way I break down the Super Bowls (and only the Super Bowls) is like this:

Great D: 2001, 2004, 2007, 2018
Great play by Brady: 2003, 2004, 2011, 2014, 2016, 2017.
Not great play by D: 2003, 2011, 2016, 2017.
Not great play by Brady: 2007, 2018.
Young Brady, did what was needed: 2001

But this doesn't really take into account the fact that Brady played great in the 2018 AFC playoffs, or that in some of the games that preceded Brady's great SB performances, Brady was off (remember when he apologized to the fans, "Sorry I sucked today!"?), or the Titans game in 2003.

This is why I was only looking at the Super Bowls. In almost every season, BB and Brady operated with a kind of ying and yang. the D came through when Brady had a bad game, and the O came through when the D had a bad game.

Yes, it was the synergy that got them 6 super bowls, without BB we don't have six, without TB we don't haver six.

 

[upstater1]

He did not win without Brady. Period.

Prove me wrong. You cannot.

So Brady leaves and Belichick doesn't win the Super Bowl.

It means Belichick isn't good enough to win without Brady.

That's your argument?

 

[cmasspatsfan]

He did not win horseshit mate. You can distort, twist and make your narratives all you want, but the fact is: he did not win without Brady.

And Brady won without him.

And you can see several players, like Amendola, saying the Patriot way was as a matter of fact the Brady way.

And yes, I am a Brady guy, he was nothing less than superb during a lifetime here, 20 years.
Spineless Kraft shoud've let him ride until his sunset, 2, 3 or 5 more years. He won 6 for us, so he had the right. He earned it.

I don't think TB wanted to retire a Patriot so not sure if we can blame RK or BB.

 

[sb1]

So Brady leaves and Belichick doesn't win the Super Bowl.

It means Belichick isn't good enough to win without Brady.

That's your argument?

He proved in 2020 he's not good enough to overcome a deficient QB and a subpar defense. Doubtful any coach is.

The so called magical "system" that is supposed to turn a crap team and QB into hall of famers does not exist and never did.

 

[Rob0729]

It's a fallacy because in a couple of Super Bowls (the first and last wins) the defense was spectacular and many other QBs could have won those games.

I disagree with Rob about 2003. That was the 3rd greatest SB performance by a QB in history, at the time. Our defense broke down and was like a sieve from about the 2 minute warning of the fist half through the end of the game.

I actually think this is the game that cemented Brady into elite status. He played out of his mind, and without him, we don't win.

But 2001 & 2018 had a huge healthy load of Belichick's D design. It was the Rams both times but look at what those Ram teams did on offense in prior games:

2018: 26, 30, 48, 31, 23, 15, 30, 54, 36, 35, 29, 39, 23, 33, 38, 35, 34, 33. The Patriots held this team to 3 points.
2001: 29, 45, 31, 42, 38, 34, 27, 35, 17, 24, 48, 31, 34, 15, 35, 42, 30, 20. The Patriots held them to 17 points.

Add the points per game together for both Rams teams: average of 65 per game. The Patriots Ds held them to 20 points total. Less than a third of what they were able to do against the rest of the league.

The way I break down the Super Bowls (and only the Super Bowls) is like this:

Great D: 2001, 2004, 2007, 2018
Great play by Brady: 2003, 2004, 2011, 2014, 2016, 2017.
Not great play by D: 2003, 2011, 2016, 2017.
Not great play by Brady: 2007, 2018.
Young Brady, did what was needed: 2001

But this doesn't really take into account the fact that Brady played great in the 2018 AFC playoffs, or that in some of the games that preceded Brady's great SB performances, Brady was off (remember when he apologized to the fans, "Sorry I sucked today!"?), or the Titans game in 2003.

This is why I was only looking at the Super Bowls. In almost every season, BB and Brady operated with a kind of ying and yang. the D came through when Brady had a bad game, and the O came through when the D had a bad game.

The Super Bowl isn't an entire season. Also in the Carolina Super Bowl, the Patriots defense played great except at the first half when Vinatieri shanked a kick off and they allowed the Panthers to get in field goal range in two plays and in the fourth quarter when both starting safeties were lost due to injury.

And it isn't a fallacy. In 2001, a lot of QBs could scored 13 points against the Rams. Maybe they couldn't have won the way Brady did which was special, but they could have won that game. It is a harder argument in 2003, but Pats offense was shut out in the first and third quarter. Maybe another QB could have scored more points before the fourth quarter.