Brady or Belichick: who would you choose

ahmed said:

He's essentially saying that any QB studying under Weis and BB can become one of the greatest QBs ever. If that is not dumb, I don't know what is.

Why not just draft a late round QB every few years, teach them to become HF material, trade them for a boatload of picks and draft the next HF QB in the late rounds and repeat cycle.

Click to expand...

No, specifically mentioned Cassel.

What sets apart Brady isn't his natural talent; it's his intellegence, desire, and calm charisma. The first one you can kinda coach, the other two you can't. Without Tom, BB would still win, but not to the extent which he has.

NEGoldenAge said:

Illness or death can end a coaches career pretty quickly.

Click to expand...

That's true for anyone, anytime. The injury risk--which is inherent in the QB's job and renders him unable to do his job--isn't present with coaches.

ahmed said:

He's essentially saying that any QB studying under Weis and BB can become one of the greatest QBs ever. If that is not dumb, I don't know what is.

Why not just draft a late round QB every few years, teach them to become HF material, trade them for a boatload of picks and draft the next HF QB in the late rounds and repeat cycle.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone in this thread is saying that either one of these guys is replaceable. You can (and I would) argue that they're both the best of all time at what they do.

Snake Eyes said:

No, specifically mentioned Cassel.

Click to expand...

Matt Cassel?

Didn't he take a 16-0 team to a 11-5 record?

While 11-5 (with no playoff) is not bad, that is a significant drop from 16-0.



.

In 2000, Belichick record was 5-11 (without Brady)

In 2001, Belichck record was 0-2 (losing to Bengals (!) and Jets at home before Brady).

With another losing 5-11 record in 2001 (without Brady), do you think Belichick would still be around coaching here?

.

mikey said:

Matt Cassel?

Didn't he take a 16-0 team to a 11-5 record?

While 11-5 (with no playoff) is not bad, that is a significant drop from 16-0.

.

Click to expand...

Yeah, he also hadn't started a game since high school and then won 11 games in the NFL. Anyway it's irrelevant, the original comment was speculation as was the criticism of it, if you can refute that go ahead, otherwise my point stands.

This is like Sophie's Choice. Can I just have the Nazis kill one of my children instead of choosing between Belichick and Brady?

mikey said:

In 2000, Belichick record was 5-11 (without Brady)

In 2001, Belichck record was 0-2 (losing to Bengals (!) and Jets at home before Brady).

With another losing 5-11 record in 2001 (without Brady), do you think Belichick would still be around coaching here?

.

Click to expand...

And without Belichick, Tom Brady would have likely fallen to 7th round or been a UDFA with an entire NFL career might have been as a one season camp arm.

I refuse to answer this question

This is a tough one, but I think I'll go with Belichick.

Ochmed Jones said:

I believe the NFL is a QB driven league.

There are two types of teams in the NFL, those with a franchise QB and those without.

Except for Baltimore has any team ever won a SB without a franchise QB?

Click to expand...

Brad Johnson, Mark Rypien

What a brutal poll question! It's like asking if you'd rather lose your eyesight or hearing.

Tom Brady is one of my favorite players and I consider him a top candidate for G.O.A.T., but a head coach is the leader of the entire team. From FO operations to schemes, I think a HoF coach is worth his weight in gold and then some. So with much reluctance, I went with Belichick.

TheGodInAGreyHoodie said:

....the issue of the owner choosing Fisher over Young came up. And several people suggested it is better to keep the QB than the coach.

Click to expand...

In that case it was perhaps best to chose NEITHER, so it's not analogous to the poll choice.

The Titans chose between having a mild fever and having the runs, and chucked the runs. You are asking us to chose between a filet and another filet.

Double Barrel said:

What a brutal poll question! It's like asking if you'd rather lose your eyesight or hearing.

Click to expand...

Actually that is a pretty easy question...hearing. Consider how dependent you are on your eyesight for pretty much everything. Much easier to learn sign language, read lips and cope with the world while deaf than cope with the world while blind.

Once as part of a college class I spent two hours with earphones that blocked all sound out. The following week two hours blindfolded. Lack of hearing made communication difficult, but not impossible. And didn't interfere with much else. Being blindfolded made every task damn near impossible.

TheGodInAGreyHoodie said:

Actually that is a pretty easy question...hearing. Consider how dependent you are on your eyesight for pretty much everything. Much easier to learn sign language, read lips and cope with the world while deaf than cope with the world while blind.

Once as part of a college class I spent two hours with earphones that blocked all sound out. The following week two hours blindfolded. Lack of hearing made communication difficult, but not impossible. And didn't interfere with much else. Being blindfolded made every task damn near impossible.

Click to expand...

Really good points. But I'm a musician, so the ears are kinda' important in that regard.

But yeah, I think if it's an either/or, I'd go with keeping sight, as well.