Belichick criticism mega-thread

[mariomega]

I'm just using your logic but you're going back and forth and contradicting yourself constantly.

You wrote this earlier:

"He did not win without Brady. Period.
Prove me wrong. You cannot."

"Bill did not win without Brady.
"Brady won without BB."

You offered these as incontestable facts in order to reach your conclusion that Belichick rode Brady's coattails.

The facts are incontestable but, as I wrote, way too simplistic. We can apply the incontestable fact test to Jordan who didn't win without Phil Jackson. In fact, I also listed all the NFL great coaches who didn't win a championship in their first 4 years in the Super Bowl era.

I'd rather judge Belichick and Jordan by the things I know they did, rather than pretzel logic based off of these so-called "incontestable facts."

I mean, you're literally the only basketball fan I've ever known who gave Phil Jackson more credit than Michael Jordan. And I'd also note that you yourself said you were around 10 years old when all this was going on. The first half of Jordan's career was before your time.

Let me educate you and I will get the stats my guy 1960Pats posted:

Pats - 26 wins 28 losses, 0-0 playoffs - LOSING RECORD
Clev - 36 wins 44 losses, 1-1 playoffs - LOSING RECORD
Total - 62 wins 72 losses, 1-1 playoffs - LOSING RECORD

Too simplistic?
Nope.
A fact is a fact.

You can whine all you want, but you cannot dispute those above.

 

[mariomega]

If BB had many losing seasons, he would've been fired like every coach in history. But he didn't. What I contest is the idea that if he didn't have immediate success like he did he would have been fired by 2003. No, he wouldn't have been fired by then. Kraft isn't blind. He very well knew how Belichick transformed the Patriots defense 2001 through 2007. Belichick molded that defense into one of the all time greatest defenses in NFL history. You don't fire a coach like that. Not to mentioned the fact that adding Belichick in 1996 to be assistant head coach also transformed that D into a Super Bowl caliber D. Why do you think Kraft tried to hire him immediately afterward?

You failed miserably trying to link 2003 and 1996, as other posters already said.

BB is the luckiest coach of all time, that's what he is.

The GOAT fell into his arms and he made the most of it.

But his huge ego let us down, I will never forget and forgive him about what he did in SB 52. He lost us that game and a vintage GOAT performance.

 

[upstater1]

Bob passed on Bill after Parcells left as he didn't think Bill was ready to be a HC as much as he wanted to hire him. Capers was also in the running before he chose Carrell. He dumped Pete because they were trending in the wrong direction (10-6, 9-7, 8-8) and as I criticize Bill for, they couldn't draft worth a damn. Bill gained steam as a worthy HC candidate after derailing the red hot 6-2 Pats on MNF in '99 in a game where the Pats were heavily favored and slowing down Manning twice in a row when Manning set the league on fire. Bob was convinced the timing was now right.

But Bill was 5-13 until Brady took over. The defense would've kept them in games, but the Pats couldn't do squat on offense with a $100M QB. It wasn't looking good for Bill had he not got competent QB play.

McDonough reported Kraft wanted BB but BB would not commit (for obvious reasons). When you're turning a team around and turning over the roster, it doesn't happen overnight. The fact is, Belichick created an unbelievable defense in those years. And it wouldn't have been the first time that Drew Bledsoe lead a Patriots team that started 0-2 (after a bad previous season) with a Belichick defense to the playoffs (heck, the Super Bowl).

 

[mariomega]

McDonough reported Kraft wanted BB but BB would not commit (for obvious reasons). When you're turning a team around and turning over the roster, it doesn't happen overnight. The fact is, Belichick created an unbelievable defense in those years. And it wouldn't have been the first time that Drew Bledsoe lead a Patriots team that started 0-2 (after a bad previous season) with a Belichick defense to the playoffs (heck, the Super Bowl).

Yes, but the fact is: he had a losing record. He was a sensational DC, I will give you that, a brilliant D mind, but that's all.
He had a losing record career-wise before and after the GOAT. Too simplistic, why? It is the truth.

 

[upstater1]

Probably/Maybe.

So he would have been fired after the 2001 season?

It's crazy to think he believes they would have had another losing season.

Absolutely no awareness that they got rid of huge chunks of the roster. That they got rid of players who couldn't hack it under Belichick (and there were quite a few).

No awareness that they added Richard Seymour, Matt Light, David Patten, Larry Izzo, Mike Vrabel, Antowain Smith, Roman Phifer.

All these guys were good players and they were key to the improvement of the defense.

 

[skinnydog]

Let me educate you and I will get the stats my guy 1960Pats posted:

Pats - 26 wins 28 losses, 0-0 playoffs - LOSING RECORD
Clev - 36 wins 44 losses, 1-1 playoffs - LOSING RECORD
Total - 62 wins 72 losses, 1-1 playoffs - LOSING RECORD

Too simplistic?
Nope.
A fact is a fact.

You can whine all you want, but you cannot dispute those above.

That’s a pretty big sample size.

 

[skinnydog]

It's crazy to think he believes they would have had another losing season.

Absolutely no awareness that they got rid of huge chunks of the roster. That they got rid of players who couldn't hack it under Belichick (and there were quite a few).

No awareness that they added Richard Seymour, Matt Light, David Patten, Larry Izzo, Mike Vrabel, Antowain Smith, Roman Phifer.

All these guys were good players and they were key to the improvement of the defense.

I’ve noted this before that that the roster additions in 2001 and 2003 as well were awesome. If BB can return to that . . .

 

[mariomega]

It's crazy to think he believes they would have had another losing season.

Absolutely no awareness that they got rid of huge chunks of the roster. That they got rid of players who couldn't hack it under Belichick (and there were quite a few).

No awareness that they added Richard Seymour, Matt Light, David Patten, Larry Izzo, Mike Vrabel, Antowain Smith, Roman Phifer.

All these guys were good players and they were key to the improvement of the defense.

No, it is not.

I also believe they would have had another losing season.

 

[upstater1]

Yes, but the fact is: he had a losing record. He was a sensational DC, I will give you that, a brilliant D mind, but that's all.
He had a losing record career-wise before and after the GOAT. Too simplistic, why? It is the truth.

4 years. Big deal. And in Cleveland, the graveyard of coaches. How was Chuck Noll his first 4 years? Same trajectory as Belichick, 3 losing years, one winning.

It's simplistic because you should be judging what Belichick did as a head coach with the Patriots. Because he's done that for 20 years. So there is a much, much larger sample. On which he should be judged. That's why breaking it down to WITH Brady and WITHUT leaves you with such a small picture on the without side.

Judge him by what he did in 2001 putting together that defense and also by what he did in 2018 putting together that defense. In both cases, those defenses won us Super Bowls.

 

[mariomega]

That’s a pretty big sample size.

Almost 140 games, I think it is a big one.

 

[upstater1]

No, it is not.

I also believe they would have had another losing season.

Even with that great defense? Even with all those new players (who had no history with Drew Bledsoe and so weren't down on him for whatever reason)?

 

[mariomega]

4 years. Big deal. And in Cleveland, the graveyard of coaches. How was Chuck Noll his first 4 years? Same trajectory as Belichick, 3 losing years, one winning.

It's simplistic because you should be judging what Belichick did as a head coach with the Patriots. Because he's done that for 20 years. So there is a much, much larger sample. On which he should be judged. That's why breaking it down to WITH Brady and WITHUT leaves you with such a small picture on the without side.

Judge him by what he did in 2001 putting together that defense and also by what he did in 2018 putting together that defense. In both cases, those defenses won us Super Bowls.

Pats - 26 wins 28 losses, 0-0 playoffs - LOSING RECORD
Clev - 36 wins 44 losses, 1-1 playoffs - LOSING RECORD
Total - 62 wins 72 losses, 1-1 playoffs - LOSING RECORD

Almost 140 games.

Until he can prove me wrong and start winning, proves he can win a SB, he will get the heat.
And you can arrange all excuses you want to defend your guy.

 

[skinnydog]

Almost 140 games, I think it is a big one.

It’s almost 9 full seasons.

 

[mariomega]

Even with that great defense? Even with all those new players (who had no history with Drew Bledsoe and so weren't down on him for whatever reason)?

You need a QB in this league. Bledsoe couldn't get the job done.

 

[mariomega]

It’s almost 9 full seasons.

Yep, but my friend upstater1 believes it is an injustice to bring this to the conversation.

Only 9 full seasons, for ****'s sake!

 

[RobertWeathers]

It's crazy to think he believes they would have had another losing season.

Absolutely no awareness that they got rid of huge chunks of the roster. That they got rid of players who couldn't hack it under Belichick (and there were quite a few).

No awareness that they added Richard Seymour, Matt Light, David Patten, Larry Izzo, Mike Vrabel, Antowain Smith, Roman Phifer.

All these guys were good players and they were key to the improvement of the defense.

If we are speculating I think it would have gone like CLE if 1995 was a normal year.

2001-5-11
2001-8-8ish
2003-11-5
2004-12-4

People forget how talented and well-rounded those rosters became. They were f-ing loaded. Would they have won a SB? Tough to call.

Bill is not a splashy org builder. Hes foundational in his approach.

TB12 brought it to a whole different level but to denigrate Bill is nonsensical.

 

[mariomega]

If we are speculating I think it would have gone like CLE if 1995 was a normal year.

2001-5-11
2001-8-8ish
2003-11-5
2004-12-4

People forget how talented and well-rounded those rosters became. They were f-ing loaded. Would they have won a SB? Tough to call.

Bill is not a splashy org builder. Hes foundational in his approach.

TB12 brought it to a whole different level but to denigrate Bill is nonsensical.

Pats - 26 wins 28 losses, 0-0 playoffs - LOSING RECORD
Clev - 36 wins 44 losses, 1-1 playoffs - LOSING RECORD
Total - 62 wins 72 losses, 1-1 playoffs - LOSING RECORD

Almost 140 games.

This is not nonsensical.
It is what it is. BB is a losing coach without Brady.

He can prove us wrong and turn this ship. It's up to him. If he can, I will be the first to eat crow.

 

[skinnydog]

Yep, but my friend upstater1 believes it is an injustice to bring this to the conversation.

Only 9 full seasons, for ****'s sake!

Look, you can’t just ignore basically 9 seasons with an under .500 record. I get that Cleveland has been a dumpster fire for years, but it’s still on his record. I don’t 5hink he needs another ring but he does need to turn the Pats back into a legit Super Bowl contender, I mean AFC championship team for a couple years to show it was not just TB

 

[upstater1]

If we are speculating I think it would have gone like CLE if 1995 was a normal year.

2001-5-11
2001-8-8ish
2003-11-5
2004-12-4

People forget how talented and well-rounded those rosters became. They were f-ing loaded. Would they have won a SB? Tough to call.

Bill is not a splashy org builder. Hes foundational in his approach.

TB12 brought it to a whole different level but to denigrate Bill is nonsensical.

I'm on record here saying Belichick deserves credit for 2 Super Bowls and Brady for 4. But both needed each other anyway. Brady with Arians wins 1. Brady with Licht and, say, Rivera wins 2 or 3. Brady with Shanahan wins 5. Belichick with Manning wins 4. Belichick with, say, David Carr wins 2. Belichick with Jake Delhomme 1.

Belichick though put together a consistent team / approach / philosophy / team building. Getting rid of this so we can search the wilderness like the post Shula Phins and post Levy Bills is definitely an act of insanity.

 

[mariomega]

Look, you can’t just ignore basically 9 seasons with an under .500 record. I get that Cleveland has been a dumpster fire for years, but it’s still on his record. I don’t 5hink he needs another ring but he does need to turn the Pats back into a legit Super Bowl contender, I mean AFC championship team for a couple years to show it was not just TB

The clock is ticking.

He is already 70.

I think he has more 3 seasons, max.
Imagine, 3 more losing seasons?
Spineless Kraft then will pull the plug.