Belichick criticism mega-thread

[upstater1]

Is Bill Belichick sabotaging the Patriots on purpose?​

Very good podcast. Guy makes some great points.

What were the good points? I turned it off after he got the JimmyG. and Brady situation totally absolutely definitely verifiably wrong.

 

[upstater1]

Given his recent track record.

What do you mean by recent record? Last 2 years? 4 years?

 

[StockingAnarchyNumber12]

So now people think Belichick is sabotaging the team on purpose?

Lol

 

[203Pat]

What do you mean by recent record? Last 2 years? 4 years?

His last 5-6 years of drafts, trades, and free agent signings.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

This is what scares me. Bill has to completely change the way he builds a roster now. There is no more Brady acting as the rising tide lifting all ships. Cody Davis, and Chris Hogan aren't going to get it done anymore as he isn't supplementing a 12-4 team to bump them up to 13-3. This isn't like 2009 which I keep seeing mentioned as a "rebuild". This isn't even like 2000 when he inherited a mess but at least inside the mess Bill had some core players to build around. This roster is barebones and missing the most important position on the team and while I think Bill is a better coach than anyone I am not sure if he can put together a team that can turn into a contender given his recent track record.

I was just talking about this with someone on a pod the other. I think the past is the past and it's a new day. Or should be at least.

Brady allowed for so much flexibility when it came to roster management, draft choices, never maximizing his worth ... Bill has to realize this. I can't imagine it's business as usual with respect to those specifics. I don't expect a "new" Bill in terms of a 180 but some things have to change.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Here's a breakdown of Belichick's record with Brady as his starting quarterback, Brady's TD's and INT's, compared with Belichick's record with all other quarterbacks, their combined TD's and INT's.

Belichick with Tom Brady...

Starts: 283
Record: 219-64
TD: 541
INT: 179

Belichick with all other quarterbacks (listed below)...

Starts: 133
Record: 61-72
TD: 161
INT: 133

Bernie Kosar*
Todd Philcox*
Mike Tomczak*
Brad Goebel
Vinny Testaverde*
Mark Rypien*
Eric Zeier
Drew Bledsoe*
John Friesz
Michael Bishop
Rohan Davey
Damon Huard
Matt Cassel*
Doug Flutie
Matt Gutierrez
Kevin O'Connell
Brian Hoyer*
Ryan Mallett
Jimmy Garoppolo*
Jacoby Brissett*
Jarrett Stidham
Cam Newton*

*started at least 1 game (all others appeared in games but no starts)

Belichick pretty much sucks without Brady.

It would be a good project to take each of these QBs.
-Take their career winning percentage (minus their games with BB)
-Multiply that percentage by the number of games they started under BB for "expected wins"

Examples (not accurate, just to illustrate exercise):

Jacoby Brissett was a .500 quarterback in non-Bill games. Bill coached him as a starter in two games. Expected wins is 1 with an average coach.
Cam Newton was a .600 quarterback in non-Bill games. Bill coached him as a starter in fifteen games. Expected wins is 9.

Most of these will have expected wins as fractions/decimals, but that's fine and they can all be added up. If the QB doesn't have any additional starts (Stidham) just call them .500.

 

[203Pat]

I was just talking about this with someone on a pod the other. I think the past is the past and it's a new day. Or should be at least.

Brady allowed for so much flexibility when it came to roster management, draft choices, never maximizing his worth ... Bill has to realize this. I can't imagine it's business as usual with respect to those specifics. I don't expect a "new" Bill in terms of a 180 but some things have to change.

Brady set the bar for everything. Brady took less for the good of the team and his salary was the ceiling and because of that everyone else who signed/re-signed fell in line. Brady also elevated the play of the guys around him which made so many of the lower end free agent signings work. Now Bill is going to have to pay market value (or as most of the board calls it overpaying) in free agency. You’re not going to get guys that come in at a discount. Brady made every facet of Bill’s professional life easier and that is what makes me nervous about his ability to rebuild without Brady.

 

[Midship]

So now people think Belichick is sabotaging the team on purpose?

Lol

Sounds outrageous, I'll give you that. But what in the cinnnamon toast **** was the Malcolm Butler SB benching? 500+ yards and an all-time, stellar game from Brady and they lost to a career backup and garbage tier franchise. Hard to explain that one away.

 

[Rob0729]

Here's a breakdown of Belichick's record with Brady as his starting quarterback, Brady's TD's and INT's, compared with Belichick's record with all other quarterbacks, their combined TD's and INT's.

Belichick with Tom Brady...

Starts: 283
Record: 219-64
TD: 541
INT: 179

Belichick with all other quarterbacks (listed below)...

Starts: 133
Record: 61-72
TD: 161
INT: 133

Bernie Kosar*
Todd Philcox*
Mike Tomczak*
Brad Goebel
Vinny Testaverde*
Mark Rypien*
Eric Zeier
Drew Bledsoe*
John Friesz
Michael Bishop
Rohan Davey
Damon Huard
Matt Cassel*
Doug Flutie
Matt Gutierrez
Kevin O'Connell
Brian Hoyer*
Ryan Mallett
Jimmy Garoppolo*
Jacoby Brissett*
Jarrett Stidham
Cam Newton*

*started at least 1 game (all others appeared in games but no starts)

Belichick pretty much sucks without Brady.

This is so misleading. Belichick didn't have the best career in Cleveland, but he did turn around a bad team into an 11-5 playoff team only to have the owner totally sandbag him the following year by announcing the team was being moved out of Cleveland to Baltimore. I don't think Belichick was a great coach then, but he wasn't nearly as bad as his detractors made it,

When he came to the Patriots, he inherited a bad team that didn't fit his system and turned it around into a Super Bowl champion the second year. Sure Brady was the QB most of the season that year, but he was mostly a game manager and the Pats won on defense. They won the Super Bowl, not because the 13 points they got on offense, but because they shut down the greatest show on turf.

And Belichick was 11-5 with Matt Cassell as QB when Brady went down.

With the Patriots, Belichick has only coached three seasons without Brady. Two of those years were rebuilding years. One they went 11-5 and only missed the playoffs because of a fluke.

To say Belichick has sucked without Brady is a very superficial analysis only looking at the wins and losses. And even looking at TDs doesn't make sense since six of the eight years that Belichick coached without Brady were before the NFL offensive explosion where defenses could actually play defense.

 

[Biffins]

I was just talking about this with someone on a pod the other. I think the past is the past and it's a new day. Or should be at least.

Brady allowed for so much flexibility when it came to roster management, draft choices, never maximizing his worth ... Bill has to realize this. I can't imagine it's business as usual with respect to those specifics. I don't expect a "new" Bill in terms of a 180 but some things have to change.

And Brady’s contract allowed him to negotiate and leverage others down as well.

Noone cares now that Cam took a below market contract. They are avoiding the Pats. Without the wins and playoff / SB run, noone cares. You have to win first.

 

[Biffins]

This is so misleading. Belichick didn't have the best career in Cleveland, but he did turn around a bad team into an 11-5 playoff team only to have the owner totally sandbag him the following year by announcing the team was being moved out of Cleveland to Baltimore. I don't think Belichick was a great coach then, but he wasn't nearly as bad as his detractors made it,

When he came to the Patriots, he inherited a bad team that didn't fit his system and turned it around into a Super Bowl champion the second year. Sure Brady was the QB most of the season that year, but he was mostly a game manager and the Pats won on defense. They won the Super Bowl, not because the 13 points they got on offense, but because they shut down the greatest show on turf.

And Belichick was 11-5 with Matt Cassell as QB when Brady went down.

With the Patriots, Belichick has only coached three seasons without Brady. Two of those years were rebuilding years. One they went 11-5 and only missed the playoffs because of a fluke.

To say Belichick has sucked without Brady is a very superficial analysis only looking at the wins and losses. And even looking at TDs doesn't make sense since six of the eight years that Belichick coached without Brady were before the NFL offensive explosion where defenses could actually play defense.

Calling 8 seasons and 133 starts without Brady as superficial is also silly

TONS of coaches have taken a losing franchise and turned them around over FIVE seasons for 1 measly playoff appearance. I think you are overstating the miracle BB apparently pulled at the Browns. I mean for god sake they never won their division and had 1 playoff appearance in 5 years he was HC. Why do people keep praising his time at Browns. You know there are 30 other HC examples like that or even better. Hell Rex Ryan got to 2 AFC championships.

 

[Rob0729]

Calling 8 seasons and 133 starts without Brady as superficial is also silly

TONS of coaches have taken a losing franchise and turned them around over FIVE seasons for 1 measly playoff appearance. I think you are overstating the miracle BB apparently pulled at the Browns. I mean for god sake they never won their division and had 1 playoff appearance in 5 years he was HC. Why do people keep praising his time at Browns. You know there are 30 other HC examples like that or even better. Hell Rex Ryan got to 2 AFC championships.

I am calling the analysis superficial. I don't care about about the sample size. I am saying you are looking at simple stats to draw a grande conclusion. You have to look at every season and see what happened and the conditions. In 2001, there were probably a half dozen QBs Belichick could have won the Super Bowl with a better QB wouldn't have had to win on that final drive because he probably would have score more than 10 point by that point. Probably the same in 2003 season with that defense. And in 2008, the Pats missed the playoffs because of a fluke.

And I never said Belichick pulled out a miracle in Cleveland. I said he turned around a 6-10 team to a 11-5 team in three years. Don't forget he inherited a broken down Bernie Kosar that he couldn't dump until year three. And turning around a team in the late 90s wasn't as easy as it is today. Free agency was still in its infancy and teams were able to keep a lot of their best players and the free agent market was bare.

 

[Biffins]

I am calling the analysis superficial. I don't care about about the sample size. I am saying you are looking at simple stats to draw a grande conclusion. You have to look at every season and see what happened and the conditions. In 2001, there were probably a half dozen QBs Belichick could have won the Super Bowl with a better QB wouldn't have had to win on that final drive because he probably would have score more than 10 point by that point. Probably the same in 2003 season with that defense. And in 2008, the Pats missed the playoffs because of a fluke.

And I never said Belichick pulled out a miracle in Cleveland. I said he turned around a 6-10 team to a 11-5 team in three years. Don't forget he inherited a broken down Bernie Kosar that he couldn't dump until year three. And turning around a team in the late 90s wasn't as easy as it is today. Free agency was still in its infancy and teams were able to keep a lot of their best players and the free agent market was bare.

Even with all that said, his time at the Browns was nothing special. And his 5th season was a disaster so the up-trajectory or winning culture nonsense doesn’t hold. And hence he was fired.

 

[Deus Irae]

This is so misleading. Belichick didn't have the best career in Cleveland, but he did turn around a bad team into an 11-5 playoff team only to have the owner totally sandbag him the following year by announcing the team was being moved out of Cleveland to Baltimore. I don't think Belichick was a great coach then, but he wasn't nearly as bad as his detractors made it,

When he came to the Patriots, he inherited a bad team that didn't fit his system and turned it around into a Super Bowl champion the second year. Sure Brady was the QB most of the season that year, but he was mostly a game manager and the Pats won on defense. They won the Super Bowl, not because the 13 points they got on offense, but because they shut down the greatest show on turf.

And Belichick was 11-5 with Matt Cassell as QB when Brady went down.

With the Patriots, Belichick has only coached three seasons without Brady. Two of those years were rebuilding years. One they went 11-5 and only missed the playoffs because of a fluke.

To say Belichick has sucked without Brady is a very superficial analysis only looking at the wins and losses. And even looking at TDs doesn't make sense since six of the eight years that Belichick coached without Brady were before the NFL offensive explosion where defenses could actually play defense.

I am calling the analysis superficial. .

You see the irony, right?

 

[Rob0729]

Even with all that said, his time at the Browns was nothing special. And his 5th season was a disaster so the up-trajectory or winning culture nonsense doesn’t hold. And hence he was fired.

Art Modell announced the Browns were moving to Baltimore in Belichick's fifth season. We have no idea what Belichick would have done if that didn't happen. After Modell pulled the rug out from under him, the team basically gave up because they were savaged by the home crowd.

And Belichick was fired because Modell wanted a new start in Baltimore. He changed virtually everything.

 

[Rob0729]

You see the irony, right?

I didn't go into great depth with my analysis of each year. I did explain what happened each of those years. But what I didn't do is just put an aggregate statistic all the years Belichick coached without Brady and draw conclusions on how good of a coach he was like the post I was responding to.

So I didn't see irony that doesn't exist.

 

[Deus Irae]

I didn't go into great depth with my analysis of each year. I did explain what happened each of those years. But what I didn't do is just put an aggregate statistic all the years Belichick coached without Brady and draw conclusions on how good of a coach he was like the post I was responding to.

So I didn't see irony that doesn't exist.

But it does exist. Your answer was every bit as superficial as the post you were calling superficial.

And we all get it. It has to be superficial, because it can't hold up to scrutiny. But, still...

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

This is so misleading. Belichick didn't have the best career in Cleveland, but he did turn around a bad team into an 11-5 playoff team only to have the owner totally sandbag him the following year by announcing the team was being moved out of Cleveland to Baltimore. I don't think Belichick was a great coach then, but he wasn't nearly as bad as his detractors made it,

When he came to the Patriots, he inherited a bad team that didn't fit his system and turned it around into a Super Bowl champion the second year. Sure Brady was the QB most of the season that year, but he was mostly a game manager and the Pats won on defense. They won the Super Bowl, not because the 13 points they got on offense, but because they shut down the greatest show on turf.

And Belichick was 11-5 with Matt Cassell as QB when Brady went down.

With the Patriots, Belichick has only coached three seasons without Brady. Two of those years were rebuilding years. One they went 11-5 and only missed the playoffs because of a fluke.

To say Belichick has sucked without Brady is a very superficial analysis only looking at the wins and losses. And even looking at TDs doesn't make sense since six of the eight years that Belichick coached without Brady were before the NFL offensive explosion where defenses could actually play defense.

Impressive to get all your Greatest Misses in one post like this. Thanks for this gem though: To say Belichick has sucked without Brady is a very superficial analysis only looking at the wins and losses.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Rob, after firing off his 6,857th consecutive post referencing the 2008 Patriots.

 

[Tony2046]

He wasn't focused on winning Super Bowl 52 which was only one of the most important games in the history of the franchise.


What about when he's moving on way too early from the greatest player of all-time? You love that?