The Bill megathread (HC at UNC, girlfriend, etc.)

[Rob0729]

I'm not defending Belichick (what he is doing currently on and off the field doesn't deserve it) but I consistently see his record without Brady brought up as proof that he is overrated. Again, this isn't a defense, he obviously isn't the same coach he was a decade ago.

But honestly, is there a legendary QB/coach combo in which the coach had a great record without the QB? I'm genuinely asking that.

Especially the salary cap era, does that exist? What is Reid's record without McNabb or Mahomes?

One more time, I'm not in the "cult" defending Bill, but by using the win/loss record without the QB metric to determine the greatness of a coach, which coaches are great?

I am very critical of Belichick in his final years here and I will say people who use his time coaching in Cleveland as proof he is a product of Brady is bunk.


The fact is Belichick could have won a Super Bowl in 2001 with probably a half dozen or so QBs in the league that year. Brady was good, but he wasn’t special. Same goes with most of 2003 where the defense carried the team during the regular season and most of the playoffs.

EDIT: I didn’t mean in 2003 he could have won with a half dozen QBs. Just that Brady was good and not yet special. The offense wasn’t great that season. Not really Brady’s fault, but he also wasn’t good enough to elevate the offense either like he did later in his career.

 

[lancerman]

I'm not defending Belichick (what he is doing currently on and off the field doesn't deserve it) but I consistently see his record without Brady brought up as proof that he is overrated. Again, this isn't a defense, he obviously isn't the same coach he was a decade ago.

But honestly, is there a legendary QB/coach combo in which the coach had a great record without the QB? I'm genuinely asking that.

Especially the salary cap era, does that exist? What is Reid's record without McNabb or Mahomes?

One more time, I'm not in the "cult" defending Bill, but by using the win/loss record without the QB metric to determine the greatness of a coach, which coaches are great?

For every reaction there is an opposite reaction. The Patriots were a unique situation where the coach was held in high deference even at the same level or above the QB. That is and was an outlier in the league. You really never here Niner's fans make the case that Montana deserves 50/50 credit with Walsh. Guys like Manning, Rodgers, Marino, Brees etc were always god on their teams. You wouldn't even debate whether the coach was the bigger priority. Even Reid and Mahomes the whole league sort of acknowledges that Andy (who has a better record than Belichick without his top QB) is a GREAT but Mahomes is the centerpiece.

Brady for a long time in many respects was minimized so Belichick could be propped up. When people called Brady a system QB... Bill Belichick was the system. Also for many years, there was a narrative that we should ignore Cleveland and only talk about 2008 and 4 games in 2016 for proof that Belichick could win with just about anybody and Brady was just a very good player along for the ride.

I can't tell you how many times on here or just with other fans elsewhere 2008 was treated like it was the finale definitive proof that the Patriots were really the Bill Belichick show so people could minimize Brady.

Well now we have a lot more time to look at and can say "well Bill from 2020-2023 actually looked a lot like that guy on the Browns that we glossed over" and we can say "the dynasty really started the day Brady took the field and it really ended when he left" and we can say "oh I guess Brady does win Super Bowls and play at an MVP level away from Belichick and maybe that system needed him more than he needed the system".

And then you had dumb **** like Bill's staff talking out their ass about winning with any of the top 15 QB's in the league.

So yeah in general a lot of what is going on is that the debate was slanted one way and now it wildly was shown that the traditional narrative was pretty inaccurate.

As far as your question, someone did the numbers earlier in the thread. The answer is that "yes every HOF level coach has a worse record without their premier QB in their career, BUT Belichick actually tends to have the bigger discrepancy between how good he is with Brady and how bad he's been without him". That does become notable when Bill himself becomes an outlier in that discussion where his peers tend not to be as bad without their signature QB's as Belichick.

 

[lancerman]

I am very critical of Belichick in his final years here and I will say people who use his time coaching in Cleveland as proof he is a product of Brady is bunk.


The fact is Belichick could have won a Super Bowl in 2001 with probably a half dozen or so QBs in the league that year. Brady was good, but he wasn’t special. Same goes with most of 2003 where the defense carried the team during the regular season and most of the playoffs.

EDIT: I didn’t mean in 2003 he could have won with a half dozen QBs. Just that Brady was good and not yet special. The offense wasn’t great that season. Not really Brady’s fault, but he also wasn’t good enough to elevate the offense either like he did later in his career.

Totally disagree with that. The team got a huge shot in the arm once Brady took over for Bledsoe. 2001 was the same old same old. That was a team where no particular unit were world beaters. It was a bunch of hard nosed guys that executed well and really believed they had something special and Brady being the Cinderella kid was a big part of that for the offense and for the rest of the team thinking he would show up when it counted and make sure they got across the finish line.

Tbh I really don't think at that particular time there were many QB's you could swap for Brady and get a similar outcome. The best QB were Peyton Manning who was still a turnover machine back then, Favre who also was a gunslinger type and the exact opposite of what we actually needed which was the unselfish smart player taking what was given, McNabb and Warner who were both playing with a very talented offense. Hell let's be real, Warner has always looked mediocre aside from like 4 years where he either was throwing to Bruce/Holt/Faulk OR Fitzgerald for one year in Arizona.

After that you basically are going into guys like Culpepper, Griese, Gannon, Brunnell, McNair. We aren't winning with any of those guys.

The 2001 Patriots were not a plug and play team. They were plucky and it was because of guys like Brady.

Also in 2003 that defense was great, but they did **** the bed in the Super Bowl. Brady really played like classic Brady to pull that out.

 

[State]

Empty stadium for UNC. I guess those people don't "In Bill I Trust" very much.

Hayseeds.

 

[signbabybrady]

For every reaction there is an opposite reaction. The Patriots were a unique situation where the coach was held in high deference even at the same level or above the QB. That is and was an outlier in the league. You really never here Niner's fans make the case that Montana deserves 50/50 credit with Walsh. Guys like Manning, Rodgers, Marino, Brees etc were always god on their teams. You wouldn't even debate whether the coach was the bigger priority. Even Reid and Mahomes the whole league sort of acknowledges that Andy (who has a better record than Belichick without his top QB) is a GREAT but Mahomes is the centerpiece.

Brady for a long time in many respects was minimized so Belichick could be propped up. When people called Brady a system QB... Bill Belichick was the system. Also for many years, there was a narrative that we should ignore Cleveland and only talk about 2008 and 4 games in 2016 for proof that Belichick could win with just about anybody and Brady was just a very good player along for the ride.

I can't tell you how many times on here or just with other fans elsewhere 2008 was treated like it was the finale definitive proof that the Patriots were really the Bill Belichick show so people could minimize Brady.

Well now we have a lot more time to look at and can say "well Bill from 2020-2023 actually looked a lot like that guy on the Browns that we glossed over" and we can say "the dynasty really started the day Brady took the field and it really ended when he left" and we can say "oh I guess Brady does win Super Bowls and play at an MVP level away from Belichick and maybe that system needed him more than he needed the system".

And then you had dumb **** like Bill's staff talking out their ass about winning with any of the top 15 QB's in the league.

So yeah in general a lot of what is going on is that the debate was slanted one way and now it wildly was shown that the traditional narrative was pretty inaccurate.

As far as your question, someone did the numbers earlier in the thread. The answer is that "yes every HOF level coach has a worse record without their premier QB in their career, BUT Belichick actually tends to have the bigger discrepancy between how good he is with Brady and how bad he's been without him". That does become notable when Bill himself becomes an outlier in that discussion where his peers tend not to be as bad without their signature QB's as Belichick.

They held Brady down because they wanted to Prop up Manning too.

I put Brady right up there with Montana the day after he won his 3rd. I would argue with friends that he's still playing he's going to at least tie Montana so why should we have to wait for it to actually happen to say it. I was telling everyone told you so in 07 when he and Moss were changing the league. It obviously wasn't until 14 that he finally tied Joe but point is shame on you if you didn't make him out to be every bit the same God you described and shame on you if for some odd reason that makes you hold it against Bill now.

You can split that pie however you want but I'll go down swinging forever that it was always a huge AND Tom AND Bill AND so much more too from smaller contributions like Wiggy to the biggest guys like Ted Washington. From position coaches like Scar to a guy like McDaniels still carrying the torch. And of course Vrabs going from Player to Coach.

 

[rkarp1]

Totally disagree with that. The team got a huge shot in the arm once Brady took over for Bledsoe. 2001 was the same old same old. That was a team where no particular unit were world beaters. It was a bunch of hard nosed guys that executed well and really believed they had something special and Brady being the Cinderella kid was a big part of that for the offense and for the rest of the team thinking he would show up when it counted and make sure they got across the finish line.

Tbh I really don't think at that particular time there were many QB's you could swap for Brady and get a similar outcome. The best QB were Peyton Manning who was still a turnover machine back then, Favre who also was a gunslinger type and the exact opposite of what we actually needed which was the unselfish smart player taking what was given, McNabb and Warner who were both playing with a very talented offense. Hell let's be real, Warner has always looked mediocre aside from like 4 years where he either was throwing to Bruce/Holt/Faulk OR Fitzgerald for one year in Arizona.

After that you basically are going into guys like Culpepper, Griese, Gannon, Brunnell, McNair. We aren't winning with any of those guys.

The 2001 Patriots were not a plug and play team. They were plucky and it was because of guys like Brady.

Also in 2003 that defense was great, but they did **** the bed in the Super Bowl. Brady really played like classic Brady to pull that out.

I don't recall Brady season 1 unfolding like that.
I thought the team was good enough, and the staff good enough, to win, as long as the QB didn't lose the game.
in 2001, Drew as 0-2. his comp% was 60%. he had 2 td's. 2 int's. 5 sacks.
in 2001, Tom came in and played conservatively. he had games that he threw for 86, 107, 108, 168, 185 and 198 yards. yet the Pats were 4-2 in those games. Tom played in 15 games. he had 12 int's. he had 18 td's. he took 41 sacks. his yards per attempt was under 7 yards. his rating was a fairly average 86 for the season.

 

[lancerman]

I don't recall Brady season 1 unfolding like that.
I thought the team was good enough, and the staff good enough, to win, as long as the QB didn't lose the game.
in 2001, Drew as 0-2. his comp% was 60%. he had 2 td's. 2 int's. 5 sacks.
in 2001, Tom came in and played conservatively. he had games that he threw for 86, 107, 108, 168, 185 and 198 yards. yet the Pats were 4-2 in those games. Tom played in 15 games. he had 12 int's. he had 18 td's. he took 41 sacks. his yards per attempt was under 7 yards. his rating was a fairly average 86 for the season.

He wasn't making mistakes and was coming up clutch when it mattered. The two top QB's that year were Manning and Favre. Two guys known for high interception rates and really slinging it to top tier receivers who in clutch moments had a horrible reputation of becoming deers looking at headlights.

Brady was the right guy at the right moment. The 2001 team was not some juggernaut that was so good that any QB would win in that situation. Until Brady took the field, it looked like we were getting more of what we saw in 2000. Drew was 0-2 and was making mistakes and still being a statue in the pocket. The team also wasn't built for some high risk, high reward guy to come in and excel.



I don't think a lot of people appreciate how crazy it was that the 2001 Patriots won the Super Bowl. There's a reason it was the biggest upset besides Super Bowl 3 (a game where people literally thought the AFL opponent was a glorified minor league team),

The team got out of some razor thin contests that season. The two overtime games against the Bills and Chargers and a 17-16 game against the Jets.

 

[signbabybrady]

He wasn't making mistakes and was coming up clutch when it mattered. The two top QB's that year were Manning and Favre. Two guys known for high interception rates and really slinging it to top tier receivers who in clutch moments had a horrible reputation of becoming deers looking at headlights.

Brady was the right guy at the right moment. The 2001 team was not some juggernaut that was so good that any QB would win in that situation. Until Brady took the field, it looked like we were getting more of what we saw in 2000. Drew was 0-2 and was making mistakes and still being a statue in the pocket. The team also wasn't built for some high risk, high reward guy to come in and excel.



I don't think a lot of people appreciate how crazy it was that the 2001 Patriots won the Super Bowl. There's a reason it was the biggest upset besides Super Bowl 3 (a game where people literally thought the AFL opponent was a glorified minor league team),

The team got out of some razor thin contests that season. The two overtime games against the Bills and Chargers and a 17-16 game against the Jets.

I wouldn't be me if I didn't point out the masterful job it took from the coaching staff to navigate everything that went down that year including those razor thin contests you mention.

 

[raduray]

North Carolina fans already have had it with Bill Belichick: ‘Saddest feelings’

North Carolina fans have had enough of Bill Belichick.

nypost.com

 

[Bill Lee]

Bill is just a complete moron for taking this job.

Yes, if his goal was to protect his legacy and reputation. Outside of that, why not take a $10M/year gig that gets your pal Fat Mike $1.5M/year and your son $1.3M/year and keeps Bunny in short pants and ice cream? You got Fat Mike writing that next email full of excuses for you. If they fire you, you can say they didn't give me enough time while you count your ten million dollars.

And UNC is even more moronic for hiring the clown show.

This I agree with. Someone bought Fat Mike's ******** hook line and sinker. The thing I wonder is if they will have the patience to sit through thrashings like this one, or decide to pull the plug instead.

 

[RDS11]

I don't recall Brady season 1 unfolding like that.
I thought the team was good enough, and the staff good enough, to win, as long as the QB didn't lose the game.
in 2001, Drew as 0-2. his comp% was 60%. he had 2 td's. 2 int's. 5 sacks.
in 2001, Tom came in and played conservatively. he had games that he threw for 86, 107, 108, 168, 185 and 198 yards. yet the Pats were 4-2 in those games. Tom played in 15 games. he had 12 int's. he had 18 td's. he took 41 sacks. his yards per attempt was under 7 yards. his rating was a fairly average 86 for the season.

That 86 ratings was 6th best on the NFL that year. For the time, it wasn't ''average''. Brady was already very efficient with the ball compared to other QBs.

 

[sb1]

Totally disagree with that. The team got a huge shot in the arm once Brady took over for Bledsoe. 2001 was the same old same old. That was a team where no particular unit were world beaters. It was a bunch of hard nosed guys that executed well and really believed they had something special and Brady being the Cinderella kid was a big part of that for the offense and for the rest of the team thinking he would show up when it counted and make sure they got across the finish line.

Tbh I really don't think at that particular time there were many QB's you could swap for Brady and get a similar outcome. The best QB were Peyton Manning who was still a turnover machine back then, Favre who also was a gunslinger type and the exact opposite of what we actually needed which was the unselfish smart player taking what was given, McNabb and Warner who were both playing with a very talented offense. Hell let's be real, Warner has always looked mediocre aside from like 4 years where he either was throwing to Bruce/Holt/Faulk OR Fitzgerald for one year in Arizona.

After that you basically are going into guys like Culpepper, Griese, Gannon, Brunnell, McNair. We aren't winning with any of those guys.

And does anyone really think we win it all if there was no Mo Lewis hit or Bill put Bledsoe back in when he was healthy?

I don’t care what his stats were. It was Brady that made the difference. Also his stats were a product of that era so they were actually pretty decent for then.

The 2001 Patriots were not a plug and play team. They were plucky and it was because of guys like Brady.

This.

Also for all the credit Bill gets for the 2001 defense they did allow Warner to set the then-SB passing record.

 

[sb1]

Guess taking that Nantucket trip with Bunny instead of preparing for Clemson wasn’t such a great idea. I wonder what BB 20 years ago would have thought of this BB.

 

[signbabybrady]

And does anyone really think we win it all if there was no Mo Lewis hit or Bill put Bledsoe back in when he was healthy?

I don’t care what his stats were. It was Brady that made the difference. Also his stats were a product of that era so they were actually pretty decent for then.

This.

Also for all the credit Bill gets for the 2001 defense they did allow Warner to set the then-SB passing record.

Otherwise known as the greatest coaching decision of all time.

 

[DH523]

Part of me thinks there was way too much hype around Belichick being the savior of UNC out of the gate and making them immediately playoff bound (not helped by guys like Lombardi). They were coming off a 6-7 season ranked 89th in PAPG (45th in points scored) while playing in a pretty tough conference.

Clemson's been struggling but they are still Clemson and their schedule isn't easy: Cal, a ranked Virginia, Syracuse, Duke & NC State in rivalry games.

People will argue the payments/contract + expectations but reasonable expectations should've been a 6-7 win season in Year 1 and then a big step forward for Years 2 & 3. Nick Saban at Alabama went 7-6 in his first season there with a much better program in place to come out of the gate.

 

[signbabybrady]

Part of me thinks there was way too much hype around Belichick being the savior of UNC out of the gate and making them immediately playoff bound (not helped by guys like Lombardi). They were coming off a 6-7 season ranked 89th in PAPG (45th in points scored) while playing in a pretty tough conference.

Clemson's been struggling but they are still Clemson and their schedule isn't easy: Cal, a ranked Virginia, Syracuse, Duke & NC State in rivalry games.

People will argue the payments/contract + expectations but reasonable expectations should've been a 6-7 win season in Year 1 and then a big step forward for Years 2 & 3. Nick Saban at Alabama went 7-6 in his first season there with a much better program in place to come out of the gate.

I think next year will be better

 

[lancerman]

Part of me thinks there was way too much hype around Belichick being the savior of UNC out of the gate and making them immediately playoff bound (not helped by guys like Lombardi). They were coming off a 6-7 season ranked 89th in PAPG (45th in points scored) while playing in a pretty tough conference.

Clemson's been struggling but they are still Clemson and their schedule isn't easy: Cal, a ranked Virginia, Syracuse, Duke & NC State in rivalry games.

People will argue the payments/contract + expectations but reasonable expectations should've been a 6-7 win season in Year 1 and then a big step forward for Years 2 & 3. Nick Saban at Alabama went 7-6 in his first season there with a much better program in place to come out of the gate.

It's a multifaceted issue. UNC was not a "bad" team that really needed a savior. They were mid team that needed to uplevel to really become a contender style team that was on everyone's radar. However, they weren't some dumpsterfire.

Realistically the trajectory they probably wanted was for Bill to come in and take a C+ team and get them to a B or B+ this year where they beat all the usual suspects they play and then have respectable showing against a Clemson. Get in a half decent bowl game and then use that momentum to keep going into a real contending status in year two.

Two years ago they played Clemson and lost 31-20. This year they lost 38-10. Clemson this year is weaker than 2 years ago and they also called the dogs off and put backups in. That was really a game that could have been 50 to 10 or something crazy with how one sided it was.

The problem right now isn't that he isn't winning right away despite all the hype. The problem is that UNC is as high profile as ever because of Belichick and they are WORSE than they were with the last coach and all the other distractions are being piled on. College is an arms race, it's not the NFL where you have a bad year and get to draft high and maybe have some cap to build on what you have while developing younger guys. College is an all out war to get the best players. You have 4-5 years with these guys and you also have to sell yourself to the guys coming in

 

[Bill Lee]

Part of me thinks there was way too much hype around Belichick being the savior of UNC out of the gate and making them immediately playoff bound (not helped by guys like Lombardi). They were coming off a 6-7 season ranked 89th in PAPG (45th in points scored) while playing in a pretty tough conference.

Clemson's been struggling but they are still Clemson and their schedule isn't easy: Cal, a ranked Virginia, Syracuse, Duke & NC State in rivalry games.

People will argue the payments/contract + expectations but reasonable expectations should've been a 6-7 win season in Year 1 and then a big step forward for Years 2 & 3. Nick Saban at Alabama went 7-6 in his first season there with a much better program in place to come out of the gate.

Bill and Fat Mike could have tried to take the reins and tweak things but no, they took on 70 new players. To me it feels like a choice to suck so that they could get themselves a second season. Either that or they believe their own press and thought anything they touch turns to gold. Regardless they do suck, and the blow back from that along with the huge distraction that Bunny has been could lead to an early end to the gravy train.

 

[Toofy]

Part of me thinks there was way too much hype around Belichick being the savior of UNC out of the gate and making them immediately playoff bound (not helped by guys like Lombardi). They were coming off a 6-7 season ranked 89th in PAPG (45th in points scored) while playing in a pretty tough conference.

Clemson's been struggling but they are still Clemson and their schedule isn't easy: Cal, a ranked Virginia, Syracuse, Duke & NC State in rivalry games.

People will argue the payments/contract + expectations but reasonable expectations should've been a 6-7 win season in Year 1 and then a big step forward for Years 2 & 3. Nick Saban at Alabama went 7-6 in his first season there with a much better program in place to come out of the gate.

When you get a contract worth 50 million dollars expectations are immediate results especially when the stature of person involved is bill. Underperformance would be a wild exaggerated understatement, that's how bad it is.

Bill should just resign and at least try to salvage a bit of his legacy .

 

[Kargetina]

I don't recall Brady season 1 unfolding like that.
I thought the team was good enough, and the staff good enough, to win, as long as the QB didn't lose the game.
in 2001, Drew as 0-2. his comp% was 60%. he had 2 td's. 2 int's. 5 sacks.
in 2001, Tom came in and played conservatively. he had games that he threw for 86, 107, 108, 168, 185 and 198 yards. yet the Pats were 4-2 in those games. Tom played in 15 games. he had 12 int's. he had 18 td's. he took 41 sacks. his yards per attempt was under 7 yards. his rating was a fairly average 86 for the season.

Let's not try and re-write history. Even after 22 years of watching his leadership, intangibles, his will to win, and the ability to get the best lemonade out of dry lemon zest, people will still deconstruct Brady's contributions to mere stats.

The Pats were 5-13 in the their 18 games under Belichick. There was absolutely nothing to suggest that the tide was turning, let alone that they were a SB contender. Belichick couldn't lead a dog to a kennel. It took someone who can accept full authority, that can lead as an example for the rest of the team so Belichick's schtick can work. As soon as Brady took over, so did Belichick's philosophy, and that's how it was for 20 years. If Bledsoe played out the season, they wouldn't have made the playoffs.