PATRIOTS NEWS Belichick criticism mega-thread

[PatsWSB47]

I'm going to end this now. Belichick is the greatest coach of all time. Brady has always been elite. Thank you.

 

[sb1]

LOL, there are plenty of good QBs whom Belichick could have inserted into the 2001-2004 teams to give us the same result. He easily could have won SBs with Brees, Manning, Favre, or Marino, to name a few.

Those guys were not available and even if they were - no I don't think so. I don't see those guys buying in at all to BB's and the Pats way of doing things. That's why the whole "Manning has 10 rings if Belichick was his coach" is nonsense. And Bill's Pats were 5-13 with Bledsoe up to that point. Draw your own conclusions.

 

[Deus Irae]

LOL, there are plenty of good QBs whom Belichick could have inserted into the 2001-2004 teams to give us the same result. He easily could have won SBs with Brees, Manning, Favre, or Marino, to name a few.

He couldn't do **** with Bledsoe, but Brees, who didn't have his first decent year until 2004, he would have been equal to Brady at that time?

 

[TheRainMaker]

He couldn't do **** with Bledsoe, but Brees, who didn't have his first decent year until 2004, he would have been equal to Brady at that time?

Yeah Brees was a bad choice. Marino was cooked long before the Jags sent him into retirement.

 

[Deus Irae]

Yeah Brees was a bad choice. Marino was cooked long before the Jags sent him into retirement.

There's a group of 3-6 posters who continue to push a combination of bad trolling and worse arguing, in an attempt to prop up Belichick at the expense of Brady. Every new argument they try seems more ridiculous than the last. It's stupid of them because it just ends up making Belichick look worse than he should, but, when you look at who the posters doing it are, it makes sense.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Yeah Brees was a bad choice. Marino was cooked long before the Jags sent him into retirement.

I'm talking about those players in their prime. The point I was making was that Brady didn't do anything between 2001-2004 another star QB couldn't have done. You don't think any of those QBs I mentioned in their primes plus Belichick's defenses wouldn't have won multiple super bowls? They absolutely would have.

 

[Rob0729]

He said "great players." Who is greater than the GOAT?

Rob nobody cares about your take about Brady being elite in 2001 or 2003 or whenever. It doesn't matter. We have the benefit of seeing his entire career unfold. There isn't any doubt in anyone's mind (aside from Rob Parker) that Brady is the GOAT.

This is on the field of play, in the locker room, and even when practicing with players during the offseason. He has the "it" of the greats (Russell, Orr, MJ). The thing that elevates the play of his teammates around him. If you can't see it, you're just being obtuse or your blind.

For someone who doesn't care about my take, you sure respond to my posts a lot.

And again, I have said a hundred times Brady is the GOAT. That isn't the argument.

 

[venecol]

Let me help. Bill's record without Brady is:
Pats - 26 wins 28 losses, 0-0 playoffs
Clev - 36 wins 44 losses, 1-1 playoffs
Total - 62 wins 72 losses, 1-1 playoffs

Total - 62 wins 72 losses, 1-1 playoffs - LOSING RECORD

That's all I will say to you from now on.

Oof, that's a 0.463% record. That would put him in Joe Philbin (remember him?) territory. Better than Kelly and Wyche. And of course, Tony Soprano. LMAO

 

[Rob0729]

Those guys were not available and even if they were - no I don't think so. I don't see those guys buying in at all to BB's and the Pats way of doing things. That's why the whole "Manning has 10 rings if Belichick was his coach" is nonsense.

There is always a scheme fit and system fit issue. So it is more a hypothetical of who might be talented enough to do something rather than whether they would be right for the system.

For example, Bledsoe played really well for the Bills when he was first traded (in fact, 2002 was one of his best years as a pro). There was a lot of talk national talk that Belichick traded the wrong QB in 2002. That quickly faded after that year, but where Bledsoe failed in the Pats' system under Belichick he thrived in the Bills' system. But Bledsoe failed in 2000 and the beginning of 2001 not because he wasn't talented enough, but because he was not a good fit. Bledsoe also played fairly well in Dallas under Parcells.

 

[crawhammer]

I pointed out how the Redskins won two Super Bowls in a short period of time with two scrub game managers. That is harder to do than win two Super Bowls with the same game manager. I called you on your assertion and now you want to move the goal post.

Rob, my friend, you are not following along very well. You made an assertion which essentially was any average quarterback could have won 3 Super Bowls in his first four seasons in the NFL. Aside from the fact that Brady is the ONLY quarterback to ever do that, I asked to you name any other quarterback in the history of the league who was a game manager, or average, yet won multiple Super Bowls. I reiterated the question multiple times. The best you could come up with was two quarterbacks, not one, who won Super Bowls four years apart. The only point you're really making is Joe Gibbs is a better head coach than Belichick. I agree.

Farve was a better QB. And Favre is a gun slinger. He threw a lot of interceptions throughout his career. But he was still an elite QB. And 2001-2003 was a relatively low period for his interceptions. Favre lead the league in TD passes in 2003.

And to say Manning was only good in one season those years is BS. In 2001, he was second in passing yards, 5th in TDs, and 6th in completion percentage (all significantly higher than Brady). In 2003, he was first passing yards and completion percentage and second in TDs.

Well, at least you've given up on Warner and Gannon, so that's progress.

We agree, Favre threw a lot of interceptions, and that's a HUGE PROBLEM. From 2001-2003 Favre threw 52 INT's in the regular season. He threw 10 more INT's in the postseason. If you add in the 2004 postseason, Favre had 14 INT's in 6 games. He was constantly killing his teams with backbreaking interceptions. Sticking with 2001-2004, Favre threw 14 INT's in 6 postseason games (2-6 record). 2001-2004, Brady threw 3 INT's in 9 postseason games (9-0 with three Super Bowl titles). In what Universe was Favre a better QB?

We can have basically the same conversation about Manning. From 2001-2003 Manning threw the same amount of regular season INT's as Favre (52). In the postseason, while Brady was winning three Super Bowls with a perfect record, Manning was throwing 7 INT's in Indy's three postseason losses. So go ahead and cite meaningless stats that amounted to nothing... Manning, like Favre, absolutely killed his team when it counted.

Brady 2001-2004, or if you want to narrow it down to 2001-2003, whatever... Brady > Favre... Brady > Manning

And Bruce Arians is not going first ballot Hall of Famer. Stop with that silliness.

Silliness? Arians is arguably a hall of fame head coach after Super Bowl 55. If Brady plays 2-3 more seasons then Arians is likely winning another Super Bowl and two Lombardi's gets him in.

LOL, there are plenty of good QBs whom Belichick could have inserted into the 2001-2004 teams to give us the same result. He easily could have won SBs with Brees, Manning, Favre, or Marino, to name a few.

Those four quarterbacks have a combined 4 Super Bowl rings, three less than Brady's 7, that's not an accident.

Brees, Manning, Favre & Marino combined in Super Bowls:

8 games
4 wins
4 losses
11 TD's
7 INT's
1 game-winning drive
2 MVP's

Brady in Super Bowls:

10 games
7 wins
3 losses
21 TD's
6 INT's
6 game-winning drives
5 MVP's

Brees, Manning, Favre & Marino combined in postseason:

87 games
11 game-winning drives

Brady in postseason:

45 games
14 game-winning drives

Brady's a unique cat, there's never been anyone like him and nor will there ever be. Saying Belichick would have had comparable success with another quarterback is complete nonsense. Firstly, we've seen Belichick with other quarterbacks and it's not pretty. Secondly, we've now seen what Brady can do with another head coach (who most would argue is average at best), which is continue winning at the highest level. We've also seen what those four hall of fame quarterbacks look like with hall of fame head coaches and it's well below the bar set by Brady.

This post oozes elitist, righteous thinking. Pot, meet kettle.

Brady got screwed. Belichick sucks. Rinse, repeat. Every. Single. Post.

I speak that way to you because that's what you and other posters deserve.

Dude, I'm here to talk football. How you characterize my posts and chose to respond to them is not going to affect anything I'm doing.

 

[Rob0729]

Rob, my friend, you are not following along very well. You made an assertion which essentially was any average quarterback could have won 3 Super Bowls in his first four seasons in the NFL. Aside from the fact that Brady is the ONLY quarterback to ever do that, I asked to you name any other quarterback in the history of the league who was a game manager, or average, yet won multiple Super Bowls. I reiterated the question multiple times. The best you could come up with was two quarterbacks, not one, who won Super Bowls four years apart. The only point you're really making is Joe Gibbs is a better head coach than Belichick. I agree.


Well, at least you've given up on Warner and Gannon, so that's progress.

We agree, Favre threw a lot of interceptions, and that's a HUGE PROBLEM. From 2001-2003 Favre threw 52 INT's in the regular season. He threw 10 more INT's in the postseason. If you add in the 2004 postseason, Favre had 14 INT's in 6 games. He was constantly killing his teams with backbreaking interceptions. Sticking with 2001-2004, Favre threw 14 INT's in 6 postseason games (2-6 record). 2001-2004, Brady threw 3 INT's in 9 postseason games (9-0 with three Super Bowl titles). In what Universe was Favre a better QB?

We can have basically the same conversation about Manning. From 2001-2003 Manning threw the same amount of regular season INT's as Favre (52). In the postseason, while Brady was winning three Super Bowls with a perfect record, Manning was throwing 7 INT's in Indy's three postseason losses. So go ahead and cite meaningless stats that amounted to nothing... Manning, like Favre, absolutely killed his team when it counted.

Brady 2001-2004, or if you want to narrow it down to 2001-2003, whatever... Brady > Favre... Brady > Manning


Silliness? Arians is arguably a hall of fame head coach after Super Bowl 55. If Brady plays 2-3 more seasons then Arians is likely winning another Super Bowl and two Lombardi's gets him in.


Those four quarterbacks have a combined 4 Super Bowl rings, three less than Brady's 7, that's not an accident.

Brees, Manning, Favre & Marino combined in Super Bowls:

8 games
4 wins
4 losses
11 TD's
7 INT's
1 game-winning drive
2 MVP's

Brady in Super Bowls:

10 games
7 wins
3 losses
21 TD's
6 INT's
6 game-winning drives
5 MVP's

Brees, Manning, Favre & Marino combined in postseason:

87 games
11 game-winning drives

Brady in postseason:

45 games
14 game-winning drives

Brady's a unique cat, there's never been anyone like him and nor will there ever be. Saying Belichick would have had comparable success with another quarterback is complete nonsense. Firstly, we've seen Belichick with other quarterbacks and it's not pretty. Secondly, we've now seen what Brady can do with another head coach (who most would argue is average at best), which is continue winning at the highest level. We've also seen what those four hall of fame quarterbacks look like with hall of fame head coaches and it's well below the bar set by Brady.


Dude, I'm here to talk football. How you characterize my posts and chose to respond to them is not going to affect anything I'm doing.

When did I ever say that any average QB could have won three Super Bowls with the Pats? Stop twisting my words. I am not even going to bother to read and respond to the rest of your post when you lead with a statement like that.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Those four quarterbacks have a combined 4 Super Bowl rings, three less than Brady's 7, that's not an accident.

Brees, Manning, Favre & Marino combined in Super Bowls:

8 games
4 wins
4 losses
11 TD's
7 INT's
1 game-winning drive
2 MVP's

Brady in Super Bowls:

10 games
7 wins
3 losses
21 TD's
6 INT's
6 game-winning drives
5 MVP's

Brees, Manning, Favre & Marino combined in postseason:

87 games
11 game-winning drives

Brady in postseason:

45 games
14 game-winning drives

In Belichick's system and with the Pats stacked defenses, those other QBs in their primes would have done just fine. Maybe not 6 super bowls, but certainly 3-4. It's not as if Brady uplifted a crappy Pats team and won those games by himself.

 

[Deus Irae]

In Belichick's system and with the Pats stacked defenses, those other QBs in their primes would have done just fine. Maybe not 6 super bowls, but certainly 3-4. It's not as if Brady uplifted a crappy Pats team and won those games by himself.

You keep trying to make this claim, and acting as if it means something that Brady, who's playing football, needed to have other people on the roster in order to win games.

It's a meaningless claim. Everyone understands that team games require there be more than one player.


But, yes, Brady did uplift a crappy team. Prior to Brady's insertion into the starting lineup, the Bill Belichick led Patriots were 5-13.

 

[Rob0729]

In Belichick's system and with the Pats stacked defenses, those other QBs in their primes would have done just fine. Maybe not 6 super bowls, but certainly 3-4. It's not as if Brady uplifted a crappy Pats team and won those games by himself.

I think a top QB with a system fit could have won in 2001 and 2003. Especially 2001. I don't about the rest. They might have been able to win one of the other one.

I do think more of the seasons where Brady did the most to carry the Pats are the ones where they didn't win or even go to the Super Bowl like 2006. Most of the Super Bowl years, the team had a great defense. Some of the years the Pats lost in AFCCG or Super Bowl, the team had no reason to be there if not for Brady.

 

[Tony2046]

Wearing down opposing defenses is a factor on why the Pats won, but again it doesn't make an average defense into the top defense in the league.

Brady was a big factor in the early factors, but anyone who says he was the factor is lying or ignorant. The Pats were a defensive focused team that just asked

Yes, Brady always had certain characteristics that would make him elite. But he wasn't a finished product yet. He worked hard especially in his first few years to work mechanics to become a better QB. He had very little playing time in college. He wasn't a two or three year starter like most QBs coming out of college who actually get a chance to play in the NFL.

But to say Brady was the reason why the defense played well (which is what I was responding to) is an absolute insult to the defensive players like Bruschi, Law, Seymour, McGinest, etc.

I'm ok with that for the most part.

My only point was that an offense can absolutely hurt its own defense by not giving them time to rest, by turning the ball over deep in the opponent's redzone and by not scoring.

That's not taking anything away from any defense. That's the nature of the game. It's complimentary.

I could expand on that and equally say that a good defense makes a QBs job easier by creating turnovers or getting three n outs etc... giving the offense more chances to score.

That doesn't take anything away from the offense either.

Anyway we're not far apart on this.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Dude, I'm here to talk football. How you characterize my posts and chose to respond to them is not going to affect anything I'm doing.

Likewise.

 

[Rob0729]

I'm ok with that for the most part.

My only point was that an offense can absolutely hurt its own defense by not giving them time to rest, by turning the ball over deep in the opponent's redzone and by not scoring.

That's not taking anything away from any defense. That's the nature of the game. It's complimentary.

I could expand on that and equally say that a good defense makes a QBs job easier by creating turnovers or getting three n outs etc... giving the offense more chances to score.

That doesn't take anything away from the offense either.

Anyway we're not far apart on this.

Sure, an offense that cannot stay on the field can kill a defense. That said, the bar isn't that high in asking for a QB who doesn't go three and out a lot and on a regular basis. Most good QBs can sustain drives to give the defense a rest in most games.

But I would say the Pats defense in late in 2001 and in 2003 did help the offense. They both very opportunistic defenses and had a lot of turnovers. In 2003, the Pats had 41 turnovers which is still the Patriots' team record.

 

[Tony2046]

LMAO at Timmy (TrollingBadly12 - stole this) being full in on Stidham being the full time replacement for the GOAT TFB.

Could there ever be a worse take in the history of this forum? Idk, maybe since I haven't been around since the onset, but either way, this is gold.

I'm surprised he didn't change his handle to JarrettStidham4.

@KontradictioN may have even worse takes from our Timmy, maybe.

"Only 50 deaths", "let's see how it plays out"

Should be on the list.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

"Only 50 deaths", "let's see how it plays out"

Should be on the list.

What's wrong with what I said? At the time, there weren't that many deaths and I said "let's see how bad it is" because I'm not a scientist. When things got a lot worse, I admitted I underestimated the threat of Covid. Should I bring up your Dr. Faucci takes? What happened to the US was going to hit 500K deaths within a few months? It took a year for us to get there.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

I think a top QB with a system fit could have won in 2001 and 2003. Especially 2001. I don't about the rest. They might have been able to win one of the other one.

I do think more of the seasons where Brady did the most to carry the Pats are the ones where they didn't win or even go to the Super Bowl like 2006. Most of the Super Bowl years, the team had a great defense. Some of the years the Pats lost in AFCCG or Super Bowl, the team had no reason to be there if not for Brady.

They are acting like Brady was the ONLY QB who could have delivered multiple super bowls to us...not true.