BB THE GOAT

[crawhammer]

I don’t know which is worse, the silliness of this comment or the fact that you think it reflects negatively on Belichick.

Belichick can’t be the GOAT because Belichick took the team that belichick made good enough to win 5 straight SBs and only won 3 in 5 years, which was accomplished for only the 3rd time history, twice by Belichick.

I think the 2015 and 2017 seasons reflect negatively on Belichick. You don't?

But absent the specific details of those circumstances, winning 3 Super Bowls as opposed to 5 in a 5-year span does not reflect negatively on Belichick. Winning 3 Super Bowls over any timeframe is a tremendous accomplishment for a head coach.

 

[RobertWeathers]

That's not fair. Obviously I have tremendous admiration, appreciation, and respect for the unprecedented success of the Patriots for nearly two decades. No fanbase has ever had it better for so long.

It is fair. You are blaming the coach for not winning 5 Super Bowls in a row.

Talk about entitlement.

 

[RobertWeathers]

This had to do with the way he handled giving up the #1 seed conceding both week 16 and 17 games.

Brain fart in NY no question.

Vs MIA he was protecting Tom and Gronk.

I can guarantee if either one of them got hurt v MIA fans would blame BB for not protecting them.

 

[crawhammer]

This had to do with the way he handled giving up the #1 seed conceding both week 16 and 17 games.

BB conceded week 17, which is ridiculous enough, and although he effectively conceded week 16, I don't think that was his intent. But seriously, how can any head coach justify electing to kickoff in OT with Tom Brady as your QB?? Career low point for Slater too... how does he confuse elementary coin toss procedure in that spot?

 

[ivanvamp]

Obviously gone all out to win the game. The #1 seed was on the line. BB already screwed up the Philadelphia and NYJ games, which made week 17 a must win to secure the #1 seed. The game plan was a complete joke, they lost the game, and it cost them another Super Bowl. With a win in week 17, Peyton Manning on fumes would have had to come to Gillette... no way the Patriots lose that game. Then they would have faced Cam Newton in the SB where he was completely overwhelmed with the gravity of the moment and folded like a cheap suit.

Then there's the SB 52 debacle. Seriously, the Patriots should have won 5 SBs in a row 2014-2018.

Saying "should have won" is really silly. Saying "could have won" is more accurate and fair.

2014 - Great comeback against Baltimore, where the coaching staff did amazing things to win that game, then went on to beat the juggernaut Seahawks in what was then the greatest comeback in Super Bowl history. Amazing season.

2015 - That team was beat up beyond belief, and it's amazing they got as far as they did. They still could have beaten Denver, and I'm with you - I hated how they handled the Miami game. But it's a far cry from saying they *should* have won the SB that year. I can definitely see a path to the SB title that year though, no doubt.

2016 - Dominant team that dug a HUGE hole in the SB, in part due to Blount's fumble and Brady's pick six. The coaching was excellent in that game, and the mistakes were on the players. But then they dug out of it and made the historic comeback. Thankfully, the Pats got the ball first in overtime because I'm not sure Atlanta wouldn't have scored there. Definitely a game they COULD have lost, pretty easily actually. The Pats were getting absolutely blown out in that one and Atlanta made some brain-dead mistakes to allow New England back into it.

2017 - The Pats got fortunate to make it to the Super Bowl. Brady's hand was like Schilling's ankle - radical, emergency, experimental surgery just before the game, and it was unclear that he'd even play in the AFCCG. They pulled out an amazing win in that one, and then in the Super Bowl they lost to an Eagles team that pulled out all the stops. The only blame I'll give the coaching staff in that one was the decision to sit Butler, but even then, you never know how it's going to go. Put it in the "could have", not "should have" won category.

2018 - Somehow beat the Chiefs in Arrowhead. That game was bonkers, and the Pats easily could have lost that one. Again, fortunate to get the ball first in overtime. Lucky coin flip. Then the win against the Rams was an absolute coaching clinic put on by BB. He did far better in that game than Brady did. Far better.

So yeah, they COULD have won five in a row, if a bunch of things had gone right. Of course, they easily could have only gone to one Super Bowl during that stretch (fortunate to beat Baltimore at home in the divisional round, fortunate to beat Jacksonville with Brady's hand surgically repaired - plus a beneficial call on a turnover, and fortunate to beat KC in the AFCCG), and in two of those Super Bowls, they were pretty fortunate to win (Sea/Atl). So it's entirely possible that they could have gone to just one Super Bowl during that time, and came away with zero Lombardis.

So you can play that game both ways. The fact is that NE went to 5 straight AFCCGS in that stretch, went to 4 Super Bowls, and won 3 of them. That's an amazing, astounding, incredible run that reflects very VERY well on Bill Belichick. (and Brady, and the rest of the team too, obviously)

 

[crawhammer]

No it doesn't. Once a legacy is established based on a tier of performance it can't be changed.

Brady attained the pinnacle. So did Belichick but double-standard setters like you create convenient truths.

A legacy can still grow even after it's reached unprecedented heights. Brady just kept raising the bar after 2014. He's the undisputed GOAT QB.

I've conceded multiple times that Belichick is at least one of the GOAT head coaches, if not the best, I'll leave room for debate.

But when it comes to the Patriots Dynasty: Brady > Belichick

That not 100% Brady and 0% Belichick... you put a number on it... just considering the two of them, I'll go Brady 65% and Belichick 35%. I'll even consider 60/40 if you twist my arm.

 

[crawhammer]

It is fair. You are blaming the coach for not winning 5 Super Bowls in a row.

Talk about entitlement.

That's not exactly what I meant so if it came across that way, then I retract it.

I've already commented further on this too in a prior post, but winning 3 SBs in 5 seasons is a tremendous accomplishment for any head coach, but I still blame Belichick for how the 2015 and 2017 seasons ended. He made huge, glaring, inexplicable mistakes.

 

[RobertWeathers]

A legacy can still grow even after it's reached unprecedented heights. Brady just kept raising the bar after 2014. He's the undisputed GOAT QB.

Not if it reached the top.

I've conceded multiple times that Belichick is at least one of the GOAT head coaches, if not the best, I'll leave room for debate.

...but you blame him for single-handidly screwing up several seasons. You are textbook passive-aggressive.

But when it comes to the Patriots Dynasty: Brady > Belichick

That not 100% Brady and 0% Belichick... you put a number on it... just considering the two of them, I'll go Brady 65% and Belichick 35%. I'll even consider 60/40 if you twist my arm.

50/50. Always will be.

 

[RobertWeathers]

That's not exactly what I meant so if it came across that way, then I retract it.

I've already commented further on this too in a prior post, but winning 3 SBs in 5 seasons is a tremendous accomplishment for any head coach, but I still blame Belichick for how the 2015 and 2017 seasons ended. He made huge, glaring, inexplicable mistakes.

People who make decisions are rarely always perfect.

When you look back, if Brady made better on-the-field decisions 05, 13 and 15 vs DEN, 06 vs Indy, 07 and 11 vs NYG, 09 vs BAL, 10 vs NYJ, 12 vs BAL, wasn't strip sacked vs Philly in 17 and gave up in 19 the outcomes to those seasons might have been different.

You do an amazing job at refusing to see both sides of things. Pretty impressive actually.

 

[crawhammer]

Saying "should have won" is really silly. Saying "could have won" is more accurate and fair.

2014 - Great comeback against Baltimore, where the coaching staff did amazing things to win that game, then went on to beat the juggernaut Seahawks in what was then the greatest comeback in Super Bowl history. Amazing season.

2015 - That team was beat up beyond belief, and it's amazing they got as far as they did. They still could have beaten Denver, and I'm with you - I hated how they handled the Miami game. But it's a far cry from saying they *should* have won the SB that year. I can definitely see a path to the SB title that year though, no doubt.

2016 - Dominant team that dug a HUGE hole in the SB, in part due to Blount's fumble and Brady's pick six. The coaching was excellent in that game, and the mistakes were on the players. But then they dug out of it and made the historic comeback. Thankfully, the Pats got the ball first in overtime because I'm not sure Atlanta wouldn't have scored there. Definitely a game they COULD have lost, pretty easily actually. The Pats were getting absolutely blown out in that one and Atlanta made some brain-dead mistakes to allow New England back into it.

2017 - The Pats got fortunate to make it to the Super Bowl. Brady's hand was like Schilling's ankle - radical, emergency, experimental surgery just before the game, and it was unclear that he'd even play in the AFCCG. They pulled out an amazing win in that one, and then in the Super Bowl they lost to an Eagles team that pulled out all the stops. The only blame I'll give the coaching staff in that one was the decision to sit Butler, but even then, you never know how it's going to go. Put it in the "could have", not "should have" won category.

2018 - Somehow beat the Chiefs in Arrowhead. That game was bonkers, and the Pats easily could have lost that one. Again, fortunate to get the ball first in overtime. Lucky coin flip. Then the win against the Rams was an absolute coaching clinic put on by BB. He did far better in that game than Brady did. Far better.

So yeah, they COULD have won five in a row, if a bunch of things had gone right. Of course, they easily could have only gone to one Super Bowl during that stretch (fortunate to beat Baltimore at home in the divisional round, fortunate to beat Jacksonville with Brady's hand surgically repaired - plus a beneficial call on a turnover, and fortunate to beat KC in the AFCCG), and in two of those Super Bowls, they were pretty fortunate to win (Sea/Atl). So it's entirely possible that they could have gone to just one Super Bowl during that time, and came away with zero Lombardis.

So you can play that game both ways. The fact is that NE went to 5 straight AFCCGS in that stretch, went to 4 Super Bowls, and won 3 of them. That's an amazing, astounding, incredible run that reflects very VERY well on Bill Belichick. (and Brady, and the rest of the team too, obviously)

I could nitpick a few things here but overall this is a really well thought out and constructed post.

 

[crawhammer]

Not if it reached the top.

Which is better, 624 TDs or 649 TDs? Or let me simplify it, which is more, 624 or 649?

 

[Ring 6]

no just no
i argued with you because you call parcell's stats mediocre while you call Bill the GOAT despite Bill having worse stats in his tenure without brady
so you measure with two different standards

I called Parcells entire post Giant career results mediocre, which they are.
Comparing an 11 year stretch to picking out the worst years of a 28 year career while ignoring all of the success is stupid.

 

[Ring 6]

I think the 2015 and 2017 seasons reflect negatively on Belichick. You don't?

But absent the specific details of those circumstances, winning 3 Super Bowls as opposed to 5 in a 5-year span does not reflect negatively on Belichick. Winning 3 Super Bowls over any timeframe is a tremendous accomplishment for a head coach.

You think they reflect negatively because you think he did such a great job with those teams that he should have been guaranteed a SB win.

I blame injuries for 2015 because healthy they may have gone 19-0. Being down to an unretiring RB along with a completely decimated OL is not a guaranteed SB.
2017 they made it to the SB and lost a close game. Im not sure how blame is a thing in that case.

Winning 6 and contending for so long is a more than tremendous accomplishment it is the greatest anyone has ever done and it isn’t even close.

 

[patsfanfromoversea]

I called Parcells entire post Giant career results mediocre, which they are.
Comparing an 11 year stretch to picking out the worst years of a 28 year career while ignoring all of the success is stupid.

post giants career results or career results without the GOAT QB, i don't know, i think either you compare it with the same standards or not

 

[RobertWeathers]

Which is better, 624 TDs or 649 TDs? Or let me simplify it, which is more, 624 or 649?

If you are already the greatest of all-time and that will never change.......does it matter?

 

[crawhammer]

...but you blame him for single-handidly screwing up several seasons. You are textbook passive-aggressive.

That's probably overstating my arguments. BB made mistakes, some cumulatively, and one solely, that were not in the best interest of the team (which I suppose you could chalk up to an opinion) and torpedoed the 2015 and 2017 seasons. I can complain too about some coaching decisions and/or personnel decisions in 2006, 2013 and 2019 but I'm not ultimately "blaming him" for those seasons. I have said several positive things about BB as well.

 

[203Pat]

I hear you. At that point in the year they were so limited offensively and their RB depth demolished resorting to SJAX was a bad situation made worse.

I looked back on that season to see who else we had and it was pretty grim by week 17. Bolden, James White and Jackson. Looks like Blount went on IR a couple weeks beforehand and Dion Lewis tore his knee up against Washington. Woof.

 

[crawhammer]

When you look back, if Brady made better on-the-field decisions 05, 13 and 15 vs DEN, 06 vs Indy, 07 and 11 vs NYG, 09 vs BAL, 10 vs NYJ, 12 vs BAL, wasn't strip sacked vs Philly in 17 and gave up in 19 the outcomes to those seasons might have been different.

Brady was amazing in SB 52 so come on. He had the team in the lead late in both NYG SBs, but the defenses couldn't stop Eli when it counted (and the refs "missed" 5 NYG penalties on the helmet catch). But sure, Brady wasn't perfect in those games, and he probably made costly mistakes, however, nothing Brady ever did wrong rises to the level of Belichick benching Butler in the Super Bowl. I sorry too, but 2015 was a showcase in bad coaching.

 

[crawhammer]

If you are already the greatest of all-time and that will never change.......does it matter?

It will if Mahomes ends his career with 648 TDs. Being even 1 more is better than not.

Come on, you may not agree with how it's done, but you know how it works. When all is said and done, people are going to lineup Brady's numbers side by side with Mahomes' numbers. And go down the checklist to see who has more. Whoever has the most checkmarks will be "better."

 

[RobertWeathers]

It will if Mahomes ends his career with 648 TDs. Being even 1 more is better than not.

You are preoccupied with the wrong stats.

Having 649 TDs will not make Mahomes better than Tom.

Winning 8 Super Bowls and more career reg season and playoffs games will.

Come on, you may not agree with how it's done, but you know how it works. When all is said and done, people are going to lineup Brady's numbers side by side with Mahomes' numbers. And go down the checklist to see who has more. Whoever has the most checkmarks will be "better."

What people? Who?