Belichick criticism mega-thread

[amfootball]

Why does that make him a better coach than a guy who took a and developed him
Into a hall of famed? Coaching isn’t calling plays, it’s employing a system and teaching players to thrive in it.
Walsh wasn’t named the coach of a team with a HoF QB. He took over the worst team in the league and drafted a qb in the 3rd round and taught him how to play QB in the nfl.
Turning players into stars is a quality of a good coach not a reason to downgrade his success.

I was not insinuating that it makes him better but I am always amazed how Gibbs is never mentioned as an all time great HC along with Walsh, Parcells, Bill, etc.

 

[Rob0729]

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Bledsoe getting injured meant Brady coming in. Brady coming in is what put that team over the top. Bledsoe could have come out of the line up for Huard and it wouldn’t have meant a damn thing. Brady completely transformed that team and, even if he wasn’t a top quarterback at the time like he would be years later, he still had leadership intangibles that were very clearly documented and cited during docs about that season. So yeah, if you want to sound like you’re drunk or just your standard run-of-the-mill homer who is still clearly struggling with the grieving process, you can compare Bledsoe leaving the line up with Brady being inserted. The reality is that they run hand in hand and Brady was CLEARLY the most important piece to the puzzle for that 2001 team. Otherwise, that defense doesn’t even sniff the playoffs... much less a title. Sleep it off, Rob.

It makes perfect sense if you are not closed minded, Bledsoe struggled with the Patriots' offense. He sucked at it. Getting him out of the line up and replace him with just an average QB who is capable of running the Patriots offense and the offense improves.

And Brady was not clearly the biggest piece of the puzzle. He was a big piece of the puzzle, but not the biggest piece. He didn't shut down Marshall Faulk and the Greatest Show on Turf in the Super Bowl. He was injured in the game vs. the Steelers and had to come out of the game. The Pats defense played a big role in keeping that a close game. And the Pats had the best scoring defense in the second half of the 2001 season.

Why are you guys intent of rewriting history? Why is it so controversial to say Belichick was more important than Brady in Brady's first several years as a starter? Without Belichick, this team does not win a Super Bowl in 2001. This team could have won the Super Bowl with at least a small handful of QBs.

 

[sb1]

I was not insinuating that it makes him better but I am always amazed how Gibbs is never mentioned as an all time great HC along with Walsh, Parcells, Bill, etc.

Couldn't agree more.

Amazing fact about Gibbs... not sure if it's been mentioned here but he coached the scab Redskins to 3-0 during the 1987 strike including a win over the Cowboys which had Dorsett and a few other real NFL vets.

 

[sb1]

It makes perfect sense if you are not closed minded, Bledsoe struggled with the Patriots' offense. He sucked at it. Getting him out of the line up and replace him with just an average QB who is capable of running the Patriots offense and the offense improves.

And Brady was not clearly the biggest piece of the puzzle. He was a big piece of the puzzle, but not the biggest piece. He didn't shut down Marshall Faulk and the Greatest Show on Turf in the Super Bowl. He was injured in the game vs. the Steelers and had to come out of the game. The Pats defense played a big role in keeping that a close game. And the Pats had the best scoring defense in the second half of the 2001 season.

Why are you guys intent of rewriting history? Why is it so controversial to say Belichick was more important than Brady in Brady's first several years as a starter? Without Belichick, this team does not win a Super Bowl in 2001. This team could have won the Super Bowl with at least a small handful of QBs.

If you look at the SB game in a vacuum maybe that's true that some QB's could have put up similar numbers. But only one QB gets them to the game and he did.

I think any coach who put his job on the line sticking with Brady when Bledsoe was ready to come back would have won the SB with that group. We know Belichick did it. Would any other coach? Dunno. Probably not?

 

[Rob0729]

I'm not sure why you keep defending this. It's clear that from 2001 Bill was not winning without Brady and Vice Versa that Brady wasn't winning without Bill.

Bill is a genius coach but he needed a QB that could be elite but wasn't a premadonna. Bill did not have the clout at that time to deal with a Peyton Manning.

Brady was the perfect QB for Bill and Bill the perfect Coach for Brady in his early career. They were the perfect storm that came close to winning 9 Superbowls in 20 years and a perfect regular season.

1 dropped int, 1 game sealing catch, and 1 strip sack away from being 9-0 in the Superbowl. That's crazy.

I think there were individual years each guy could have won the Super Bowl without the other. One such was 2001 where I think there were at least a few QBs that Belichick could have won the Super Bowl with. And I think one or two of the later Super Bowls, Brady probably could have won with maybe one or two other top coaches. But for the most part, they needed each other.

But 2001, the QB wasn't nearly as important as he is today. Teams won championships on defense a lot. Hell, they did the year before where a mediocre Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl.

 

[Ring 6]

I was not insinuating that it makes him better but I am always amazed how Gibbs is never mentioned as an all time great HC along with Walsh, Parcells, Bill, etc.

Gibbs should be ahead of parcels in any analysis. Parcels gets overrated because his tough guy bluster made him popular.
I think people who really pay attention include Gibbs but people rattling off names forget him.

 

[amfootball]

1 dropped int, 1 game sealing catch, and 1 strip sack away from being 9-0 in the Superbowl. That's crazy.

10-0

 

[Rob0729]

If you look at the SB game in a vacuum maybe that's true that some QB's could have put up similar numbers. But only one QB gets them to the game and he did.

I think any coach who put his job on the line sticking with Brady when Bledsoe was ready to come back would have won the SB with that group. Doubt anyone other than Bill would have done that.

That isn't true. In the playoffs in the 2001 season, the defense gave up 13, 17, and 17 points. You are going to tell me that no other QB could score at least 14, 18, and 18 points? In those games. In fact, Bledsoe scored one of the TDs vs Pittsburgh. Also, the only TD scored on offense. The Pats scored more on special teams on that game (2 TDs).

And in the last nine games of the regular season the Pats gave up 10 pts, 11 pts, 24 pts (loss to the Rams), 17 pts, 17 pts, 16 pts, 16 pts, 9 pts, 13 pts, and 6 pts. You telling me there was no QB in the league was capable of scoring 17-20 PPG? Sure with another QB the defensive points allowed could have changed, but if you have a top QB, not significantly.

Anyone who doesn't accept that the defense was the biggest reason the Pats won in 2001 aren't dealing with reality. The Pats had the best defense in the league the second half of that season and in the Super Bowl.

 

[Deus Irae]

We have a different definition of tire fire. So, I guess we will disagree. I always see the positives in my sports teams, it's never been enjoyable for me to tear into my teams' players. I enjoy sports by always hoping my team will prevail and will improve, that's one of the reasons why I don't gamble.

There's a difference between cheering for your team and being willfully blind when analyzing your team.

What do you mean by moving the goalposts in this context?

Since you can't look at your team with any honesty, what does it matter?

 

[sb1]

1 dropped int, 1 game sealing catch, and the worst coaching decision in the history of the Super Bowl away from being 9-0 in the Superbowl with the Pats. That's crazy.

FIFY

Yeah it could go the other way too but it's still amazing to think about it.

 

[gobesmug]

I think there were individual years each guy could have won the Super Bowl without the other. One such was 2001 where I think there were at least a few QBs that Belichick could have won the Super Bowl with. And I think one or two of the later Super Bowls, Brady probably could have won with maybe one or two other top coaches. But for the most part, they needed each other.

But 2001, the QB wasn't nearly as important as he is today. Teams won championships on defense a lot. Hell, they did the year before where a mediocre Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl.

It took both offense and defense to win in 2001 as both were rated top 10 for that season.

Do you think Peyton Manning would have been cool playing a dink and dunk offense when he had a deept threat wr in Terry Glenn on the bench?

IMO Peyton would have forced Kraft to dump Bill when Bill didn't cater the offense to him. Brady had no Ego and played the games exactly as coached.

Favre and Manning would not have done that. Rich Gannon maybe would have worked for 2001.

But honestly if your argument is Bill could have won if he had one of 3-5 other QBs playing that season, then clearly Bill wasn't some magician that would win with anyone and therefore Brady absolutely deserves credit for 2001.

 

[Rob0729]

It took both offense and defense to win in 2001 as both were rated top 10 for that season.

Do you think Peyton Manning would have been cool playing a dink and dunk offense when he had a deept threat wr in Terry Glenn on the bench?

IMO Peyton would have forced Kraft to dump Bill when Bill didn't cater the offense to him. Brady had no Ego and played the games exactly as coached.

Favre and Manning would not have done that. Rich Gannon maybe would have worked for 2001.

But honestly if your argument is Bill could have won if he had one of 3-5 other QBs playing that season, then clearly Bill wasn't some magician that would win with anyone and therefore Brady absolutely deserves credit for 2001.

Again, it is scheme fit too. But Manning didn't have the juice in 2001 that he had in later years. He was stuck with Jim "Playoff?!?" Mara in 2001. I am guessing he would have liked to get rid of him too.

And Brady deserve credit for 2001, but saying that there weren't other top QBs capable of winning a Super Bowl with the Pats in 2001 isn't diminishing Brady. He was a first year starter who came into the league raw and not complete. The fact that he won a Super Bowl before he was the elite QB he became is a testament to him. Some QBs take upwards to a decade to develop into elite QBs like Warner and to a lesser extent, Gannon.

 

[gobesmug]

Again, it is scheme fit too. But Manning didn't have the juice in 2001 that he had in later years. He was stuck with Jim "Playoff?!?" Mara in 2001. I am guessing he would have liked to get rid of him too.

And Brady deserve credit for 2001, but saying that there weren't other top QBs capable of winning a Super Bowl with the Pats in 2001 isn't diminishing Brady. He was a first year starter who came into the league raw and not complete. The fact that he won a Super Bowl before he was the elite QB he became is a testament to him. Some QBs take upwards to a decade to develop into elite QBs like Warner and to a lesser extent, Gannon.

I won't argue that a few other QBs might have worked that year for the Pats. Rich Gannon is the only one that comes to my mind but he also had Tim Brown in his prime.

I don't think Manning would have worked nor Favre because of their gun slinging Style of play. It Manning years to curb that bad behavior.

Warner possibly but his best years has been when he played with multiple HOF talent. Rams with M Faulk, I Bruce and T Holt. Cardinals Fitzgerald and Boldin.

This makes a much more interesting discussion. Which QBs in 2001 would have fit the pats offense scheme. If I have time to research I'll look into it further but from a memory perspective I'd say Rich Gannon only.

 

[Rob0729]

I won't argue that a few other QBs might have worked that year for the Pats. Rich Gannon is the only one that comes to my mind but he also had Tim Brown in his prime.

I don't think Manning would have worked nor Favre because of their gun slinging Style of play. It Manning years to curb that bad behavior.

Warner possibly but his best years has been when he played with multiple HOF talent. Rams with M Faulk, I Bruce and T Holt. Cardinals Fitzgerald and Boldin.

This makes a much more interesting discussion. Which QBs in 2001 would have fit the pats offense scheme. If I have time to research I'll look into it further but from a memory perspective I'd say Rich Gannon only.

Off hand I don't know which QB specifically. The early 2000s was a weird time for QBs in general. It was before Manning and Brady really emerged as the two best. And the late 90s was so bad at QB that there were no hold overs from that period really other than Favre and Bledsoe.

 

[crawhammer]

It makes perfect sense if you are not closed minded, Bledsoe struggled with the Patriots' offense. He sucked at it. Getting him out of the line up and replace him with just an average QB who is capable of running the Patriots offense and the offense improves.

And Brady was not clearly the biggest piece of the puzzle. He was a big piece of the puzzle, but not the biggest piece. He didn't shut down Marshall Faulk and the Greatest Show on Turf in the Super Bowl. He was injured in the game vs. the Steelers and had to come out of the game. The Pats defense played a big role in keeping that a close game. And the Pats had the best scoring defense in the second half of the 2001 season.

Why are you guys intent of rewriting history? Why is it so controversial to say Belichick was more important than Brady in Brady's first several years as a starter? Without Belichick, this team does not win a Super Bowl in 2001. This team could have won the Super Bowl with at least a small handful of QBs.

Your entire premise is f*cked up. Brady wasn't "just an average QB" and that Patriots team wasn't "winning the Super Bowl with a handful of QB's." The team with Belichick and Bledsoe was 5-13. After Bledsoe got injured and Brady became the starter, the team went 14-3 and won the Super Bowl for the first time in the 40-year history of the franchise. Brady transformed everything, he obviously was the catalyst for the dynasty, and without him they would have won the same amount of Super Bowls Belichick has otherwise won without Brady, which is 0.

You're also comparing "pieces of the puzzle" but arguing the entire defensive structure (players, coaches, game-plan, etc.) was more important than one player (Brady). That's not a fair comparison, obviously. When you're ranking 'pieces', you don't rank individuals with units, you rank individuals with other individuals. Brady was the most important individual of any single championship team AND of the collective dynasty.

 

[Rob0729]

Your entire premise is f*cked up. Brady wasn't "just an average QB" and that Patriots team wasn't "winning the Super Bowl with a handful of QB's." The team with Belichick and Bledsoe was 5-13. After Bledsoe got injured and Brady became the starter, the team went 14-3 and won the Super Bowl for the first time in the 40-year history of the franchise. Brady transformed everything, he obviously was the catalyst for the dynasty, and without him they would have won the same amount of Super Bowls Belichick has otherwise won without Brady, which is 0.

You're also comparing "pieces of the puzzle" but arguing the entire defensive structure (players, coaches, game-plan, etc.) was more important than one player (Brady). That's not a fair comparison, obviously. When you're ranking 'pieces', you don't rank individuals with units, you rank individuals with other individuals. Brady was the most important individual of any single championship team AND of the collective dynasty.

I think reading comprehension is a problem for the Boo-hoo Brady Crew. I never said that Brady was just an average QB. Never. Not once.

And I give credit for the defense that was a bunch of cast offs, washed up players, and never was on Belichick (and maybe Crennel) So there is your one person.

And if you aren't being fair. Belichick retooled that the team in 2001 and there were a lot of players replaced that season. He added players like Matt Light, Antowan Smith, Mike Vrabel, Anthony Pleasant, Bryan Cox, etc. Some of them were only good for one year, but it changed the team. Brady wasn't the only change from 2000 to 2001. For example, Smith was a huge upgrade over Kevin Faulk as the lead back.

 

[PatsWSB47]

Why are you asking me a question about something I never said?

I am saying Bledsoe leaving the starting line up played a bigger role than the poster was acknowledging. I never said it was the biggest reason. I think Belichick and the defense was the biggest reason in 2001. But to say that Bledsoe wasn't struggling with the Patriots' offense and having a competent QB who could run the Pats' offense was going to make a big difference whether it was a good QB like Brady or an average QB.

And Brady wasn't elite from day one. That is Brady homerism. The Pats struggled the first four games Brady played going 2-2.

Please give us your definition of what elite is.

 

[Rob0729]

Please give us your definition of what elite is.

One of the one or two best players in the league at your position or overall for a period of time whether it is a year or an era. You are better than everyone else or nearly everyone else. You are the best of the best.

And winning the Super Bowl never makes you elite. Otherwise, Eli Manning was elite. Or Ben Roethlisberger is/was elite. It can be the topping to an elite season, but it isn't what makes you elite.

 

[IllegalContact]

That isn't true. In the playoffs in the 2001 season, the defense gave up 13, 17, and 17 points. You are going to tell me that no other QB could score at least 14, 18, and 18 points? In those games. In fact, Bledsoe scored one of the TDs vs Pittsburgh. Also, the only TD scored on offense. The Pats scored more on special teams on that game (2 TDs).

And in the last nine games of the regular season the Pats gave up 10 pts, 11 pts, 24 pts (loss to the Rams), 17 pts, 17 pts, 16 pts, 16 pts, 9 pts, 13 pts, and 6 pts. You telling me there was no QB in the league was capable of scoring 17-20 PPG? Sure with another QB the defensive points allowed could have changed, but if you have a top QB, not significantly.

Anyone who doesn't accept that the defense was the biggest reason the Pats won in 2001 aren't dealing with reality. The Pats had the best defense in the league the second half of that season and in the Super Bowl.

I believe defense/special teams outscored the offense in the 2001 postseason

 

[Rob0729]

I believe defense/special teams outscored the offense in the 2001 postseason

They did in the AFCCG (two special teams TDs vs 10 offensive points with seven of them coming from when Bledsoe was QB). In the Super Bowl, the defense scored seven points (and would have had a second TD if it wasn't called back due to a holding call away from the play) vs. the offense's 13. If you count field goals for the special teams, yes, definitely.

But the Pats' offense only scored three TDs in the playoffs in 2001 and one of them was with Bledsoe under center.