PATRIOTS NEWS Belichick criticism mega-thread

[SHOWTIME15]

I don't have a problem with people siding with Brady and bashing Belichick for letting him go. I have a problem with people just recreating history to make it seem like it was all Tom from day one and Belichick was just along for the ride.

If you go back to 2001 and 2003 and most of the talk was about Belichick's defensive genius over how great Brady was. In fact, there were a lot people who thought Brady just benefitted from Belichick's system. Obviously that wasn't proven wrong, but discussed by even non-Patriots haters in the media and the fan base.

The Bradyites will tell you it was all Brady, but 4 out of the 6 super bowl winning seasons by Brady in NE was mostly defense:

2001 - Defense > Offense

2003 - Defense > Offense

2004 - Defense > Offense

2018 - Defense > Offense

2014 and 2016 I can say it was more offense, but Malcolm Butler did save the day in SB 49.

 

[Rob0729]

Absolutely they were a huge factor. I agree.

Could the difference between a top 5 defense and a top 10 defense be the offense's ability to sustain drives? I say yes.

Just thinking out loud here:

The Pats were top 6 or better in total drives, number of plays, starting field position and lowest turnover percentage.

I'm not saying that the defense wasn't a major key to those early championships because they were but I am saying that Brady and the offense wasn't a bunch schlubs because they weren't. Brady had the "it" factor from day one. He wasn't the Goat yet but had "it".

Defences absolutely do wear down during continuous drives. I've heard Brady and BB mention it a few times during the Games to Glory or the Do Your Job documentaries. We saw it during SB 51.

It's a complimentary game.

2003 NFL Standings & Team Stats | Pro-Football-Reference.com

Check out the 2003 NFL Standings & Team Stats including AFC and NFC results and standings on Pro-football-reference.com

www.pro-football-reference.com

The Patriots were the #1 defense in the league in 2003 and arguably one of the best defenses of all time. At least in the top 10-20. You are give that to Brady and not the defensive players and coaches because of time of possession?

 

[lancerman]

Do they get to the Super Bowl if the defense isn't bailing out the offense that scored 12 points vs. both the Cowboys and Dolphins and nine points vs. the Browns? Do they get to the Super Bowl if the Pats' defense doesn't turn over the Colts five times in the AFCCG? Do they get to the Super Bowl if the defense doesn't stop the Titans on their final drive in the division round? If the Patriots' defense wasn't a top defense of all time that year, they don't even get to the Super Bowl. The offense wasn't good enough to win without it.

Again, I have already Brady played like an elite player at time from 2001-2003. Just not consistently. That doesn't make him elite.

Okay so you can't answer whether a QB who got MVP votes in 2003 bailed out Bill's defense in the Super Bowl. Cool.

 

[Rob0729]

The Bradyites will tell you it was all Brady, but 4 out of the 6 super bowl winning seasons by Brady in NE was mostly defense:

2001 - Defense > Offense

2003 - Defense > Offense

2004 - Defense > Offense

2018 - Defense > Offense

2014 and 2016 I can say it was more offense, but Malcolm Butler did save the day in SB 49.

I think 2004 was balanced. And the defense had some issues late in the season and going into the playoffs with Law and Poole both gone and a them putting a revolving door of CBs. Still a very good defense, but not 2003 and the offense was much better with Dillon there and Brady developing. I think you needed both sides of the ball to play the way they did or they wouldn't have won it.

And I think in 2018, the defense improving was needed to get them over the hump from 2017. But Brady still was instrumental to the Patriots success that year. Although, in the Super Bowl it was more the defense than Brady that won that game.

 

[Rob0729]

Okay so you can't answer whether a QB who got MVP votes in 2003 bailed out Bill's defense in the Super Bowl. Cool.

LOL! I said played elite in the fourth quarter of that game multiple times in this thread. Stop it.

But I will turn it back on you then. You can't answer whether the best defense in the NFL and the best defense this team ever had bailed out Brady and the offense in games where they couldn't score a single TD or in the playoffs in 2003 just to get the Patriots to the Super Bowl. Cool.

And the defense great in the Super Bowl other than the last play of the first half until they started to lose players to injuries. They lost both Harrison and Wilson in the fourth quarter of that game and the defense revolved around them that year.

 

[lancerman]

LOL! I said played elite in the fourth quarter of that game multiple times in this thread. Stop it.

But I will turn it back on you then. You can't answer whether the best defense in the NFL and the best defense this team ever had bailed out Brady and the offense in games where they couldn't score a single TD or in the playoffs in 2003 just to get the Patriots to the Super Bowl. Cool.

And the defense great in the Super Bowl other than the last play of the first half until they started to lose players to injuries. They lost both Harrison and Wilson in the fourth quarter of that game and the defense revolved around them that year.

Okay so you keep trying to spam how good the 2003 defense was, yet if it was up for them and not the QB that MVP voters considered the third best in the league, they wouldn't have a ring. Good.

 

[203Pat]

It's because he had the rug pulled out from under him.

Isn't a little disingenuous to say people are arguing "ignore" his prior stint, when people are really saying the team was 3-1 after a winning season, when the owner did everything he could to submarine not only the franchise in Cleveland, but the head coach as well.

You don't see the big difference here?

Rug pulled out from under him or not he went 6-10, 7-9, 7-9, then the playoff season, then “the rug pulled out from under him” season. He’s had 2 winning seasons without Brady and one playoff appearance. I hate making this argument because I think Bill is probably the greatest coach of all time but cherry picking stats to help build him up is ridiculous.

 

[Calhoun44]

Maybe we should change the thread title to Belichick Nitpick Mega-Thread. All I see so far is a bunch of nitpicking of BB. Of course, we all would like to see our favorite sports teams win a championship every year, but that is unrealistic unless you have Bill Russell.
Six Super Bowl Championships in 20 years!!
Do people really believe that BB is just a "lucky" coach? I would say that both BB and Brady should both feel gratitude and a bit lucky that circumstances brought them together. But luck/good fortune means nothing if you squander the opportunity, they didn't. How often do we see players and coaches/GM's squander situations by having their egos get in the way? It is amazing that their egos melded together so well for so long. But more than anything I feel the fans of this team should forever be grateful to both of them, along with the many others, for keeping this ship cruising along for so many years.

 

[Rob0729]

Okay so you keep trying to spam how good the 2003 defense was, yet if it was up for them and not the QB that MVP voters considered the third best in the league, they wouldn't have a ring. Good.

I am not spamming anything. I am stating facts. And he got a handful of votes in 2003 after going 14-2 in the regular season. It doesn't change the fact the offense didn't score a single TD in four games that season one where the Pats were completely shut out and another where they scored 3 points. It doesn't change the fact that there were two other games where the defense scored just as many TDs as the offense did.

The Pats won on defense for most of the 2003 season. That is how they played.

 

[venecol]

But to say Brady was the reason why the defense played well (which is what I was responding to) is an absolute insult to the defensive players like Bruschi, Law, Seymour, McGinest, etc.

Pretty sure Bruschi, Law, Seymour and McGinest would say that Brady was a player that lifted the entire team to be great with his leadership. Every player we've heard from coming out of Foxborough has said Brady was the ultimate leader, that led by example, first one in, last one out. This has been consistent for 20 years. His presence affects the "entire" team! He has "it."

Yet, here you are with your revisionist history, claiming Favre, Manning, and others were better QBs based on "stats." What have we heard from teammates about those two clowns? Lmao

We still hear it today, Mahomes and Rodgers are better QBs than Brady. Results: Brady wins, yet again, another SB (MVP).

Rob, what exactly is your goal with these 100s of posts minimizing Brady's leadership and accomplishments (any avg QB could've done blah, blah; he wasn't elite nonsense)?

Whatever your goal is, it's not working. You honestly sound like any fan from KC, IND, PIT that question Brady's greatness, saying he's been lucky.

Just stop, you're embarrassing yourself.

 

[lancerman]

I am not spamming anything. I am stating facts. And he got a handful of votes in 2003 after going 14-2 in the regular season. It doesn't change the fact the offense didn't score a single TD in four games that season one where the Pats were completely shut out and another where they scored 3 points. It doesn't change the fact that there were two other games where the defense scored just as many TDs as the offense did.

The Pats won on defense for most of the 2003 season. That is how they played.

He had 8 MVP votes. The winners got 16. He was definitley considered a top 3-5 QB that year. Without his late game heroics they don't win the SB. The defensive players on the defense you have been going on about for days have all credited him with lifting up the team.

You are being revisionist. The 03-04 teams were both balanced. The defense had the higher concentration of star talent and Brady was asked to elevate an okayish offensive cast to win games.

 

[Rob0729]

Pretty sure Bruschi, Law, Seymour and McGinest would say that Brady was a player that lifted the entire team to be great with his leadership. Every player we've heard from coming out of Foxborough has said Brady was the ultimate leader, that led by example, first one in, last one out. This has been consistent for 20 years. His presence affects the "entire" team! He has "it."

Yet, here you are with your revisionist history, claiming Favre, Manning, and others were better QBs based on "stats." What have we heard from teammates about those two clowns? Lmao

We still hear it today, Mahomes and Rodgers are better QBs than Brady. Results: Brady wins, yet again, another SB (MVP).

Rob, what exactly is your goal with these 100s of posts minimizing Brady's leadership and accomplishments (any avg QB could've done blah, blah; he wasn't elite nonsense)?

Whatever your goal is, it's not working. You honestly sound like any fan from KC, IND, PIT that question Brady's greatness, saying he's been lucky.

Just stop, you're embarrassing yourself.

I am sure they would say that too. What they wouldn't say is that there defense was only that good because of Brady. There is a huge difference.

And when did being an a-hole to your teammates have anything to do with your talent? Charles Haley was one of the best defensive players of all time and you cannot find a single teammate to say a nice word about him.

And I am not minimizing anything. I am not willing to ignore the facts and go to crazy town and say Brady's leadership made the entire Patriots turn around in 2001. That stupid platitudes.

And when did I say Brady was lucky or not the greatest of all time.

I am not embarrassing myself. I am laughing my butt at the ridiculousness of the Brady cult. You guys are insane.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

The Pats won on defense for most of the 2003 season. That is how they played.

Yep, 2003 the defense was ranked 1st in points allowed, while the offense was ranked 12th.

 

[Rob0729]

He had 8 MVP votes. The winners got 16. He was definitley considered a top 3-5 QB that year. Without his late game heroics they don't win the SB. The defensive players on the defense you have been going on about for days have all credited him with lifting up the team.

You are being revisionist. The 03-04 teams were both balanced. The defense had the higher concentration of star talent and Brady was asked to elevate an okayish offensive cast to win games.

LOL! I am doing the revisionist history? The 2003 defense was the best defense in the NFL by all measures. They had three freaking shut outs in one season. That doesn't happen except by elite historical defenses. And the Patriots offense was middle to lower part of the top 3rd of the league all measures. It wasn't balanced at all. Almost half the season, the Patriots offense scored 17 points or less. In four of them, they scored 12 points or less. That is a quarter of he season.

Anyone who say the 2003 Patriots were balanced are either clueless or lying.

 

[Rob0729]

Yep, 2003 the defense was ranked 1st in points allowed, while the offense was ranked 12th.

Seriously, I don't know if these people just were too young to remember the 2003 season or just are so pro-Brady/anti-Belichick that they refuse to admit the truth. But 2003 was all about the defense. It incredible. Easily the best defense the Patriots ever had.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Maybe we should change the thread title to Belichick Nitpick Mega-Thread. All I see so far is a bunch of nitpicking of BB. Of course, we all would like to see our favorite sports teams win a championship every year, but that is unrealistic unless you have Bill Russell.
Six Super Bowl Championships in 20 years!!
Do people really believe that BB is just a "lucky" coach? I would say that both BB and Brady should both feel gratitude and a bit lucky that circumstances brought them together. But luck/good fortune means nothing if you squander the opportunity, they didn't. How often do we see players and coaches/GM's squander situations by having their egos get in the way? It is amazing that their egos melded together so well for so long. But more than anything I feel the fans of this team should forever be grateful to both of them, along with the many others, for keeping this ship cruising along for so many years.

In response to a hard-line BB basher I posted this.

Thomas Brady & Associates - Our People

If Tom didn't make it in the NFL he was going to work for his dad's insurance firm. Obviously Tom had the talent and drive to be the GOAT but there are 1000s of stories where the highways jammed with broken heroes on a last chance power drive....

What happens to Tom w/o BB drafting and developing him and surrounding him with talent? Is he able to develop into the GoAT or does he go to some ****bag org and get sacked 50+ times a year. Does he sit behind a sacred cow for 5 years? Does he bounce around and finally catch on? Does he become Dan Marino and put up great stats but falls short?

It a colossal waste of time because....

 

[lancerman]

LOL! I am doing the revisionist history? The 2003 defense was the best defense in the NFL by all measures. They had three freaking shut outs in one season. That doesn't happen except by elite historical defenses. And the Patriots offense was middle to lower part of the top 3rd of the league all measures. It wasn't balanced at all. Almost half the season, the Patriots offense scored 17 points or less. In four of them, they scored 12 points or less. That is a quarter of he season.

Anyone who say the 2003 Patriots were balanced are either clueless or lying.

And that defense would be ringless if the QB who came in third in MVP voting didn't bail them out. Subtract Brady and we don't have that ring

Of course the 03 defense with the crap weapons Brady had wasn't going to rank as high as the defense. Do you understand how this works?

 

[RobertWeathers]

And that defense would be ringless if the QB who came in third in MVP voting didn't bail them out. Subtract Brady and we don't have that ring

Of course the 03 defense with the crap weapons Brady had wasn't going to rank as high as the defense. Do you understand how this works?

I'm not sure Branch, Smith, Givens, Faulk, Brown, Fauria and Graham fall into the category of being crap weapons.

The 03 team played with a distinctive style. They were absolutely a defense first team but certainly had enough firepower to score points when needed.

 

[ralmat55]

Do they get to the Super Bowl if the defense isn't bailing out the offense that scored 12 points vs. both the Cowboys and Dolphins and nine points vs. the Browns? Do they get to the Super Bowl if the Pats' defense doesn't turn over the Colts five times in the AFCCG? Do they get to the Super Bowl if the defense doesn't stop the Titans on their final drive in the division round? If the Patriots' defense wasn't a top defense of all time that year, they don't even get to the Super Bowl. The offense wasn't good enough to win without it.

Again, I have already Brady played like an elite player at time from 2001-2003. Just not consistently. That doesn't make him elite.

Rob, you pointed out something earlier in this thread that you forget when you bring up certain games to say Brady wasn’t elite in 01 or 03.

The game was a lot different back then in the amount of contact defenders could use against receivers. The tactics the Pats used to stop Peyton Manning were also used by opponents against Brady as well.

You have fought the good fight, but the argument that Brady wasn’t an elite QB from the beginning is a losing argument.

He lifted as bad of a collection of skill players the Pats have ever had up to that point into an offense good enough to win a SB. It was almost as bad as the 06 cast. I love Troy Brown, but he, David Patten, Antwain Smith, Jermaine Wiggins, Rod Rutledge and JR Redmond (who was on the field rather than Pats HoFer Kevin Faulk in the SB winning drive) are in my opinion the worse collection of skill players to win a SB. Oh, I forgot they also had a rookie LT and a center who had to switch positions with a guard when they went into the shotgun. Winning a SB with that cast is the GOATist of all the GOAT’s accomplishments. 03 was only a little better.

This whole argument is unfair. Bill Belichick is right up there with Paul Brown, Bill Walsh and Tom Landry as a HC in my humble estimation. But, he’s the one who’s put himself in this situation by outlasting his great QB who went on to win a championship in his 1st season with another team.

Tom’s proven he can win without Bill. The cruel reality is Bill hasn’t proven he can win without Tom. I really don’t think this will end well for Bill which doesn’t make me happy. I’ve rooted for BIll since he was the DC of the NYG, and I still root for him despite Butler and other decisions that I can’t defend. Being 69 years old is a lot different than being 43. All of us have a shelf life. And, a coaches job is harder than the QBs especially when he does not have a great QB. I really don’t think Belichick still has greatness in him. I hope I’m wrong.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

And that defense would be ringless if the QB who came in third in MVP voting didn't bail them out. Subtract Brady and we don't have that ring

Of course the 03 defense with the crap weapons Brady had wasn't going to rank as high as the defense. Do you understand how this works?

What a genius take...saying the Pats wouldn't have won without Brady. No one is denying that, but the fact remains the defense in the early dynasty years were more important. Put any other star QB on the Pats of 2001-2004 like Dan Marino and you'd have the same result.