PATRIOTS NEWS Belichick criticism mega-thread

[Rob0729]

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.

I agree with that.

 

[upstater1]

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.

I think we agree on your second paragraph.

 

[lancerman]

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 had one winning season with the Browns in 5 years. The Browns were perrennial playoff contenders and made 3 AFCCG in the 6 years before him. Within 5 years that same team became a SB winner after he left. His tenure with the Browns is the most overrated half assed attempt to prop him up ever. He coached 8 seasons without Brady. He had 2 seasons where he went 11-5 as his highlight, one was with one of the best teams ever sans the QB and he couldn't even make the playoffs on one of the easiest schedules of his life. The other 6 years he didn't win.

Not a small sample size. His 01 team wasn't going anywhere with Bledsoe and everyone knew it. His 2003 team got bailed out by Brady in the Super Bowl despite defense supposedly being a strength of the team.

You are being selective to make your argument. Belichick without Brady maybe wins in 04 depending on who the QB is.

 

[mariomega]

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?

Yes. This is it.

In Cleveland, what did he win? Nothing.

Until Brady, what did he win? Nothing.

After Brady, what did he win? Nothing.

He can prove me wrong. He just needs to win a SB without Brady. Good luck with that.

Conversely, Brady won without him.
And look all his new coaches and teammates: they all are saying that only took one man. One man.
He transformed that sore ass organization into a SB winner in one year.
He proved he could win without BB.
This is a fact. Fight it all you want. But it is the truth.

 

[mariomega]

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

Ok, give a pass to that spineless old man. I won't.

 

[lancerman]

Yes. This is it.

In Cleveland, what did he win? Nothing.

Until Brady, what did he win? Nothing.

After Brady, what did he win? Nothing.

He can prove me wrong. He just needs to win a SB without Brady. Good luck with that.

Conversely, Brady won without him.
And look all his new coaches and teammates: they all are saying that only took one man. One man.
He transformed that sore ass organization into a SB winner in one year.
He proved he could win without BB.
This is a fact. Fight it all you want. But it is the truth.

Yeah. Brady answered the bell. Ball is in Bill's court now. He has the advantage of time over Brady. Let's see what he does.

 

[Rob0729]

Yes. This is it.

In Cleveland, what did he win? Nothing.

Until Brady, what did he win? Nothing.

After Brady, what did he win? Nothing.

He can prove me wrong. He just needs to win a SB without Brady. Good luck with that.

Conversely, Brady won without him.
And look all his new coaches and teammates: they all are saying that only took one man. One man.
He transformed that sore ass organization into a SB winner in one year.
He proved he could win without BB.
This is a fact. Fight it all you want. But it is the truth.

You are oversimplifying the argument. Brady had a stacked team with three #1 quality WRs, a very TE, an o-line that played really well in the playoffs, and a defense that played out of its mind in the playoffs. Belichick had no good QB and a depleted team with no receivers and about 6 starters on defense from the previous year gone. It isn't an apples to apples comparison.

If you want to blame Belichick the GM for the state of the Patriots' roster, I am there with you. But Belichick the coach was left with little to work with this past season and did better than most head coach could have with what he had.

 

[upstater1]

Not a small sample size. His 01 team wasn't going anywhere with Bledsoe and everyone knew it.

Are you basing this on the 2 losses to start the season?

That defense was ranked 6th in the league. And it wasn't because the offense was so stellar it dominated TOP.

Just to give us a sense of how good that team was, the AFCCG against the Steelers was supposed to be a blowout for the Steelers, and the Patriots team still won that game.

 

[sb1]

Not a small sample size. His 01 team wasn't going anywhere with Bledsoe and everyone knew it. His 2003 team got bailed out by Brady in the Super Bowl despite defense supposedly being a strength of the team.

I think the defense was a strength of that team. Guys like Wilson and Harrison getting hurt in that Super Bowl didn't help.

 

[sb1]

Are you basing this on the 2 losses to start the season?

That defense was ranked 6th in the league. And it wasn't because the offense was so stellar it dominated TOP.

vs a last place schedule. 24th in yards.

It was excellent in the Super Bowl but during the season maybe not as much.

 

[lancerman]

Are you basing this on the 2 losses to start the season?

That defense was ranked 6th in the league. And it wasn't because the offense was so stellar it dominated TOP.

Just to give us a sense of how good that team was, the AFCCG against the Steelers was supposed to be a blowout for the Steelers, and the Patriots team still won that game.

The team looked worse with Bledsoe. It's really no secret that the players had a lot more confidence in the offense with Brady and the players have said as much.

 

[ScottishPatriots]

My major criticism of Bill already in 2021 is if they try and cheap out on the quarterback position again and expect a different outcome.

Take a gamble and try and invest in the position, i would rather draft a bust and at least try and find a pro bowl calibre quarterback than plug in Trubisky and Brissett and just go down the road to nowhere.

 

[Ryan]

vs a last place schedule. 24th in yards.

It was excellent in the Super Bowl but during the season maybe not as much.

They gave up less than 20 points in 14 of 19 games including playoffs though. Pretty damn good.

 

[crawhammer]

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?

************ dude this is why you're getting labelled as a Brady-hater. You're twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to marginalize Brady's impact.

With Bledsoe in 2000, the Patriots offense ranked 25th in P/G, which is bad.
With Brady in 2001, the Patriots offense ranked 6th in P/G, which is good.
The Patriots offense was more productive with Brady.
Brady made the offense/team better.

You said the defense carried the team in 2001. The offense in fact had better league rankings than the defense.
Brady was a Pro Bowler and Super Bowl MVP in his first season as a starter. That's highly impressive.

I'm not ignoring anything about 2003. You are.

I pointed out the season opener, when the whole team sucked, including Brady who had 4 picks. They went 17-1 and won the Super Bowl from there. Brady was a major reason why. 14 TD's in 11 games, all wins, is impressive when you're also not throwing any interceptions. You conveniently excluded that part of my statement.

Brady had 5 game-winning drives in the 2003 regular season. Including an 82-yard bomb to Brown in an OT win at Miami; 350 and 3 TD's including a game-winning completion to Givens with 0:30 left at Denver; 368 in an OT win at Houston where he connected with Graham with 0:40 left in regulation before leading a game-winning drive in OT.

In Super Bowl 38 Brady threw for 354, 3 TD's, led a game-winning drive, and was named MVP again. At that point he had become only the 4th player in the history of the league to win multiple Super Bowl MVP awards.

Brady 2001-2004

3x Super Bowl winner
2x Super Bowl MVP
9-0 postseason record (with 5 game-winning drives including all three Super Bowls)
2x Pro Bowler
1x NFL TD leader
1x NFL Passing Yards leader
Hall of Fame career already by end of 4th season
In the discussion as the greatest of all-time

Keep this in mind too...

New England Patriots 1960-2000 (41 years)
5 Division titles
10 Postseason appearances
7-10 record
0-2 record in Super Bowl

New England Patriots 2001-2004 (4 years)
3 Division titles
3 Postseason appearances
9-0 record
3-0 record in Super Bowl

Brady changed the entire narrative of the New England Patriots franchise in his first four seasons. And you say he wasn't elite? You couldn't be more wrong.

 

[mariomega]

Yeah. Brady answered the bell. Ball is in Bill's court now. He has the advantage of time over Brady. Let's see what he does.

Yes, this is it.
Simple as that.

 

[mariomega]

You are oversimplifying the argument. Brady had a stacked team with three #1 quality WRs, a very TE, an o-line that played really well in the playoffs, and a defense that played out of its mind in the playoffs. Belichick had no good QB and a depleted team with no receivers and about 6 starters on defense from the previous year gone. It isn't an apples to apples comparison.

If you want to blame Belichick the GM for the state of the Patriots' roster, I am there with you. But Belichick the coach was left with little to work with this past season and did better than most head coach could have with what he had.

This same stacked team was 7-9 last year lad.
Stop it.
Please, stop it.
Look what all his coaches and teammates are saying about him. Stop it. You are embarrassing yourself.

BB the coach has to prove he can win without Brady.
Until then, the lonely truth is: Brady can win without BB. BB cannot.

 

[mariomega]

************ dude this is why you're getting labelled as a Brady-hater. You're twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to marginalize Brady's impact.

With Bledsoe in 2000, the Patriots offense ranked 25th in P/G, which is bad.
With Brady in 2001, the Patriots offense ranked 6th in P/G, which is good.
The Patriots offense was more productive with Brady.
Brady made the offense/team better.

You said the defense carried the team in 2001. The offense in fact had better league rankings than the defense.
Brady was a Pro Bowler and Super Bowl MVP in his first season as a starter. That's highly impressive.

I'm not ignoring anything about 2003. You are.

I pointed out the season opener, when the whole team sucked, including Brady who had 4 picks. They went 17-1 and won the Super Bowl from there. Brady was a major reason why. 14 TD's in 11 games, all wins, is impressive when you're also not throwing any interceptions. You conveniently excluded that part of my statement.

Brady had 5 game-winning drives in the 2003 regular season. Including an 82-yard bomb to Brown in an OT win at Miami; 350 and 3 TD's including a game-winning completion to Givens with 0:30 left at Denver; 368 in an OT win at Houston where he connected with Graham with 0:40 left in regulation before leading a game-winning drive in OT.

In Super Bowl 38 Brady threw for 354, 3 TD's, led a game-winning drive, and was named MVP again. At that point he had become only the 4th player in the history of the league to win multiple Super Bowl MVP awards.

Brady 2001-2004

3x Super Bowl winner
2x Super Bowl MVP
9-0 postseason record (with 5 game-winning drives including all three Super Bowls)
2x Pro Bowler
1x NFL TD leader
1x NFL Passing Yards leader
Hall of Fame career already by end of 4th season
In the discussion as the greatest of all-time

Keep this in mind too...

New England Patriots 1960-2000 (41 years)
5 Division titles
10 Postseason appearances
7-10 record
0-2 record in Super Bowl

New England Patriots 2001-2004 (4 years)
3 Division titles
3 Postseason appearances
9-0 record
3-0 record in Super Bowl

Brady changed the entire narrative of the New England Patriots franchise in his first four seasons. And you say he wasn't elite? You couldn't be more wrong.

Great great post. Legendary. Thank you mate.

 

[upstater1]

Yes. This is it.

In Cleveland, what did he win? Nothing.

Until Brady, what did he win? Nothing.

After Brady, what did he win? Nothing.

He can prove me wrong. He just needs to win a SB without Brady. Good luck with that.

Conversely, Brady won without him.
And look all his new coaches and teammates: they all are saying that only took one man. One man.
He transformed that sore ass organization into a SB winner in one year.
He proved he could win without BB.
This is a fact. Fight it all you want. But it is the truth.

Such a simplistic argument to base this off what happened last year.

Lots of great coaches don't win a Super Bowl their first 4 years as HCs. Heck, there are a bunch of underwhelming coaches who have done it, like Don McCafferty, Tom Flores, Barry Switzer, Mike Ditka, Gary Kubiak, Doug Pederson, etc. What became of these guys? A few of them were laughingstocks. All won it in their first 4 years. And then there are a bunch of all time greats who couldn't do it. Like Belichick, Andy Reid, Tom Coughlin, **** Vermeil, Chuck Noll, Mike Shanahan, Mike Holmgren. Heck, even Tom Landry and Don Shula did not win one in their first 4 years as coaches in the Super Bowl era. You make it sound like Belichick didn't prove his mettle during the 4 years with the Browns by winning a Super Bowl, therefore he wouldn't have afterward with any QB other than Brady.

 

[Rob0729]

************ dude this is why you're getting labelled as a Brady-hater. You're twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to marginalize Brady's impact.

With Bledsoe in 2000, the Patriots offense ranked 25th in P/G, which is bad.
With Brady in 2001, the Patriots offense ranked 6th in P/G, which is good.
The Patriots offense was more productive with Brady.
Brady made the offense/team better.

You said the defense carried the team in 2001. The offense in fact had better league rankings than the defense.
Brady was a Pro Bowler and Super Bowl MVP in his first season as a starter. That's highly impressive.

I'm not ignoring anything about 2003. You are.

I pointed out the season opener, when the whole team sucked, including Brady who had 4 picks. They went 17-1 and won the Super Bowl from there. Brady was a major reason why. 14 TD's in 11 games, all wins, is impressive when you're also not throwing any interceptions. You conveniently excluded that part of my statement.

Brady had 5 game-winning drives in the 2003 regular season. Including an 82-yard bomb to Brown in an OT win at Miami; 350 and 3 TD's including a game-winning completion to Givens with 0:30 left at Denver; 368 in an OT win at Houston where he connected with Graham with 0:40 left in regulation before leading a game-winning drive in OT.

In Super Bowl 38 Brady threw for 354, 3 TD's, led a game-winning drive, and was named MVP again. At that point he had become only the 4th player in the history of the league to win multiple Super Bowl MVP awards.

Brady 2001-2004

3x Super Bowl winner
2x Super Bowl MVP
9-0 postseason record (with 5 game-winning drives including all three Super Bowls)
2x Pro Bowler
1x NFL TD leader
1x NFL Passing Yards leader
Hall of Fame career already by end of 4th season
In the discussion as the greatest of all-time

Keep this in mind too...

New England Patriots 1960-2000 (41 years)
5 Division titles
10 Postseason appearances
7-10 record
0-2 record in Super Bowl

New England Patriots 2001-2004 (4 years)
3 Division titles
3 Postseason appearances
9-0 record
3-0 record in Super Bowl

Brady changed the entire narrative of the New England Patriots franchise in his first four seasons. And you say he wasn't elite? You couldn't be more wrong.

First, I said 2001-2003, not 2004.

Second, Eli Manning won two Super Bowls in three years and won two Super Bowl MVP. Does that make him elite?

Third, Brady got the MVP in Super Bowl 36 because no one stood out. Ty Law should have won the Super Bowl MVP that year.

Fourth, being the TD and passing yard leader in one of four seasons is the definition of not being elite especially since Brady was middle of the pack in those categories in 2001 and 2003. Why are you focusing on the one year he had great stats.

Fifth, you seem to forget the Pats scored 12 points vs the Cowboys and 12 points vs. the Dolphins and nine points vs. the Browns and 17 points vs. the Giants. Those aren't times of offensive production that wins you games unless you have a defense that can only give up 0 points, 0 points, three points, and six points.

Sixth 14 TDs in 11 games even if you don't throw INTs is going to lose you a lot of games unless you have a great running game or a great defense. I don't know why you keep going to that stat. That is a stat that shows Brady is efficient, but not elite. That is 1.3 TDs a game.

 

[upstater1]

The team looked worse with Bledsoe. It's really no secret that the players had a lot more confidence in the offense with Brady and the players have said as much.

Impossible to know what would have happened. But given what Belichick does with Ds and what he did with that defense in specific, I have high confidence they would have turned around the previous year. But again, impossible to know. Drew managed that 2001 AFCCG after coming in rusty. Didn't really do anything other than manage the game.

He was in a similar position before in 1996. Coming off a 6-10 season, they began the year 0-2. And then Drew rode the back of a defense that was largely designed and controlled by Belichick. So 2001 was not the first time this happened.

I have a very hard time figuring out how you guys don't mostly credit Belichick for that 1st Super Bowl season.