Belichick's record without Brady since the Brady era began

[Pats1971]

To me 2k was kinda like 2020 in that is was a reset year. It was all the Pete Carrol players.

You mean guys like Bruschi, Milloy, Ty Law, Andruzzi, Troy Brown, Kevin Faulk, Mcginist, Patten, Antowain Smith, AV, Woody
Yeah those guys never helped....

 

[Pats1971]

Belichick can consistently build a competitive roster in the salary cap era like no coach in history, and there is no doubt he's an all time great coach. The question for me is, would he have been given time to show what a great coach he is if Brady has not come along in 2001.

Brady was always the icing on the cake, he would make an average team a good team... a good team a great team... and a great team an all-time great team.

Lumping in the Cleveland years with now to make the point Belichick is under 500 without Brady, as some do, is like judging Paul McCartney as an artist in his entirety by combining Beatles, Wings and solo recordings.

Well which is worse, lumping in cle years or ignoring years belichick coached the pats because he had a losing record that year? I do not lump in or remove years. He has a record as a Cle coach, he has a record as the pats coach, he has a record overall, he has a record without Brady, he has a record with Brady. His record with Brady is the best of all time, his record without him is not as good. Not sure why this is such a weird thing for people.

 

[sb1]

Yep, Brady was the most important piece to the Bucs last year. He took everything he learned from Belichick to Tampa and won the SB.

Eh I don’t know if I’d put it that way. Bill was never a QB whisperer, he was and still is a defense whisperer. Brady becoming GOAT and that team winning last season was almost entirely on Brady himself.

 

[amfootball]

Eh I don’t know if I’d put it that way. Bill was never a QB whisperer, he was and still is a defense whisperer. Brady becoming GOAT and that team winning last season was almost entirely on Brady himself.

I generally agree with this but Brady has said that his Tuesday meetings every week with Bill where they went over the opponent's defense really helped him grow and mature as a QB. I do wonder though how Brady might have developed under a more offensive-minded HC like Reid or Shanny.

 

[Pats1971]

Eh I don’t know if I’d put it that way. Bill was never a QB whisperer, he was and still is a defense whisperer. Brady becoming GOAT and that team winning last season was almost entirely on Brady himself.

Tampa would not even be in any conversation right now if Brady didnt go there. Yeah Bill is not really an offensive guy, he is about the defense and kind of leaves the offense to other coaches, especially as Brady's career went further. If Bill could wave a magic wand and make goat QB's then what happened to the other 10 QB's he drafted? Some people just cant admit that sometimes a player is good and that makes the coaching job a bit easier. If it was just Bill producing hall of fame QB's on a QB machine, brady would have been gone from the pats years ago. Belichick knew the deal.

 

[Brotherblues]

You mean guys like Bruschi, Milloy, Ty Law, Andruzzi, Troy Brown, Kevin Faulk, Mcginist, Patten, Antowain Smith, AV, Woody
Yeah those guys never helped....

That was a good core but there were a lotta big holes still. Plus installing new schemes and culture. I see 2k as an evaluation year for BB to decide which players and staff are keepers and which needed to go.

 

[Brotherblues]

Well which is worse, lumping in cle years or ignoring years belichick coached the pats because he had a losing record that year? I do not lump in or remove years. He has a record as a Cle coach, he has a record as the pats coach, he has a record overall, he has a record without Brady, he has a record with Brady. His record with Brady is the best of all time, his record without him is not as good. Not sure why this is such a weird thing for people.

If a comparison must be made... The most scientifically fair comparison would be:

BB Record in games with Brady

vs

Games in the Brady era with a near league average or competent backup (i.e. Cassel, and Jimmy, and not Brisset).

The result is predictably a dropoff but still a very good team.

Comparing *anything* else, be it Cleveland, 2k, or 2020, is simply apples and oranges.

 

[Pats1971]

If a comparison must be made... The most scientifically fair comparison would be:

BB Record in games with Brady

vs

Games in the Brady era with a near league average or competent backup (i.e. Cassel, and Jimmy, and not Brisset).

The result is predictably a dropoff but still a very good team.

Comparing *anything* else, be it Cleveland, 2k, or 2020, is simply apples and oranges.

Why? He was the head coach of a team. He built the teams. You are cherry picking. Oh umm he has to have a great team with a good backup then lets compare...2020 was the team that Brady had in 2019, minus a beat up edelman, and you had a former mvp QB. 2000 we had a lot of the players that were on the early pats superbowl teams, I listed them off. The magically winning didnt start until Brady became the QB. In years Brady didnt play, 2000 2008 2020, they didnt make the playoffs and in two of those years they had a losing record. I am not sure why its so hard to say a coach has a worse record without a hall of fame QB. Hell if Jones got hurt right now and Hoyer played the rest of the year, do you think everything stays the same? Bill is a coach, he can call the best plays ever and if you have players that cannot execute you lose. Bill does not throw any passes.

So no, Bill's record if he never had Brady would not be as good as it was with him. Sorry to shock everyone with that statement.

 

[amfootball]

If a comparison must be made... The most scientifically fair comparison would be:

BB Record in games with Brady

vs

Games in the Brady era with a near league average or competent backup (i.e. Cassel, and Jimmy, and not Brisset).

The result is predictably a dropoff but still a very good team.

Comparing *anything* else, be it Cleveland, 2k, or 2020, is simply apples and oranges.

It depends what case you are trying to make. If one is arguing that Bill is one of the greatest coaches of all time (he is IMO) then if you qualify that by saying he needs competent QBs to win then that kind of nullifies the argument as many on this board, myself included believe
players >coaches and Bill just like every other coach needs good QBing to win. Now coaches like Parcells and Gibbs won chips with mediocre to below average QBs IMO so I would consider them to be all time greats as well specifically for that reason.

 

[Pats1971]

It depends what case you are trying to make. If one is arguing that Bill is one of the greatest coaches of all time (he is IMO) then if you qualify that by saying he needs competent QBs to win then that kind of nullifies the argument as many on this board, myself included believe
players >coaches and Bill just like every other coach needs good QBing to win. Now coaches like Parcells and Gibbs won chips with mediocre to below average QBs IMO so I would consider them to be all time greats as well specifically for that reason.

The question is also, win what? Go .500? go 9-7? Or win superbowls, Bill needs or has needed more than a competent QB to win the superbowl. As you said some coaches have won with QB's that will be on nobodies list of all time greats.

 

[Rob0729]

Why? He was the head coach of a team. He built the teams. You are cherry picking. Oh umm he has to have a great team with a good backup then lets compare...2020 was the team that Brady had in 2019, minus a beat up edelman, and you had a former mvp QB. 2000 we had a lot of the players that were on the early pats superbowl teams, I listed them off. The magically winning didnt start until Brady became the QB. In years Brady didnt play, 2000 2008 2020, they didnt make the playoffs and in two of those years they had a losing record. I am not sure why its so hard to say a coach has a worse record without a hall of fame QB. Hell if Jones got hurt right now and Hoyer played the rest of the year, do you think everything stays the same? Bill is a coach, he can call the best plays ever and if you have players that cannot execute you lose. Bill does not throw any passes.

So no, Bill's record if he never had Brady would not be as good as it was with him. Sorry to shock everyone with that statement.

The Pats were 11-5 in 2008. It wasn’t that they weren’t good enough to make the playoffs that year. It was because of a fluke that happens once every 20 years or so where an 11 win team doesn’t make the playoffs. If they made the playoffs with a 9-7 win team in another year, do they deserve more credit since they made the playoffs with a worse record.

I mean the way things are going this year, a 9 win team could very well make the playoffs even with one extra game. Does that make them better than the 11-5 2008 Patriots?

 

[amfootball]

The Pats were 11-5 in 2008. It wasn’t that they weren’t good enough to make the playoffs that year. It was because of a fluke that happens once every 20 years or so where an 11 win team doesn’t make the playoffs. If they made the playoffs with a 9-7 win team in another year, do they deserve more credit since they made the playoffs with a worse record.

I mean the way things are going this year, a 9 win team could very well make the playoffs even with one extra game. Does that make them better than the 11-5 2008 Patriots?

They missed the playoffs though because all 5 losses were to AFC teams. Two other playoff teams were 11-5 and beat us out because of that tiebreaker. You can all it flukey if you want but the schedule was also insanely easy which helped us pile up wins without Brady but we got beat badly by the other playoff teams and also lost to the wildcat Fins and broken bicep Favre.

 

[sb1]

If a comparison must be made... The most scientifically fair comparison would be:

BB Record in games with Brady

vs

Games in the Brady era with a near league average or competent backup (i.e. Cassel, and Jimmy, and not Brisset).

The result is predictably a dropoff but still a very good team.

Comparing *anything* else, be it Cleveland, 2k, or 2020, is simply apples and oranges.

This sounds like an argument that Bill needs a QB to be successful. I don’t think anyone here would disagree…

 

[Pats1971]

The Pats were 11-5 in 2008. It wasn’t that they weren’t good enough to make the playoffs that year. It was because of a fluke that happens once every 20 years or so where an 11 win team doesn’t make the playoffs. If they made the playoffs with a 9-7 win team in another year, do they deserve more credit since they made the playoffs with a worse record.

I mean the way things are going this year, a 9 win team could very well make the playoffs even with one extra game. Does that make them better than the 11-5 2008 Patriots?

The Pats lost 5 more games than the previous year with the same team...It just so happens the team was 16-0 the prior year. When teams lose 5 more games the next year that is a pretty big drop off. In fact from 2019 to 2020 they lost 5 more games.... The 2008 team with that pathetic schedule should not have lost a game to be honest. .386 schedule I have still not seen one as bad. I think we go 18-0 that year if Brady didnt get hurt.

 

[Ivan]

A head football coach and a quarterback, sharing the same team, do "literally nothing of each others job"?

Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion but I strongly disagree. It would seem to me that those two respective jobs have a lot of mutual dependence and overlap.

That quote fully demonstrates how little that turd knows about football. Executing the coaches game plan and plays is literally the QB’s job.

 

[Pats1971]

This sounds like an argument that Bill needs a QB to be successful. I don’t think anyone here would disagree…

I beg to differ. lol. I mean all teams need a QB, its how good of a QB. Thing is though, I really think for the most part you are what your QB is. If you have an all timer, you will most likely have an all timer win total. If you have an average QB, you will be pretty average, if you have a bad QB, you will most likely be bad in most years.

 

[Pats1971]

That quote fully demonstrates how little that turd knows about football. Executing the coaches game plan and plays is literally the QB’s job.

They do not have the same job. A QB probably has more of the coaches job than a coach has of the QB's job. What Job that a QB does does a coach also do? Its not like the coach comes out and throws on a series.

 

[StrawHatPatriot]

Belichick can consistently build a competitive roster in the salary cap era like no coach in history, and there is no doubt he's an all time great coach. The question for me is, would he have been given time to show what a great coach he is if Brady has not come along in 2001.

Brady was always the icing on the cake, he would make an average team a good team... a good team a great team... and a great team an all-time great team.

Lumping in the Cleveland years with now to make the point Belichick is under 500 without Brady, as some do, is like judging Paul McCartney as an artist in his entirety by combining Beatles, Wings and solo recordings.

The Pats gave up a haul to get Belichick from the Jets. If Brady didn’t come along and if the Pats continued on the path they were on I think they’d probably give BB some time but not unlimited time.

This is why the QB factor is so important

It's easy for Belichick to field competitive rosters when Brady is your QB

I'm not saying he's a bad GM (he's not great though), but other coaches and GMs have a VERY small margin for error with rebuilds and roster decisions.

If Brady was a bum, years like 2005, 2006, 2012, 2013, etc. With injuries and bad drafts would have been 6-10 and 7-9 years.

 

[Pats1971]

This is why the QB factor is so important

It's easy for Belichick to field competitive rosters when Brady is your QB

I'm not saying he's a bad GM (he's not great though), but other coaches and GMs have a VERY small margin for error with rebuilds and roster decisions.

If Brady was a bum, years like 2005, 2006, 2012, 2013, etc. With injuries and bad drafts would have been 6-10 and 7-9 years.

Easily. There were years like 2011, I was thinking how in the hell did we go to the superbowl with that mess.

 

[Brotherblues]

Why? He was the head coach of a team. He built the teams. You are cherry picking. Oh umm he has to have a great team with a good backup then lets compare...2020 was the team that Brady had in 2019, minus a beat up edelman, and you had a former mvp QB. 2000 we had a lot of the players that were on the early pats superbowl teams, I listed them off. The magically winning didnt start until Brady became the QB. In years Brady didnt play, 2000 2008 2020, they didnt make the playoffs and in two of those years they had a losing record. I am not sure why its so hard to say a coach has a worse record without a hall of fame QB. Hell if Jones got hurt right now and Hoyer played the rest of the year, do you think everything stays the same? Bill is a coach, he can call the best plays ever and if you have players that cannot execute you lose. Bill does not throw any passes.

So no, Bill's record if he never had Brady would not be as good as it was with him. Sorry to shock everyone with that statement.

Reducing variation of factors that were different is not cherry picking. Brady won with the teams as they were constructed from '01 to '19. We happen to have a sample of how *those* teams fared when Brady was not in the lineup, particularly when there was something approaching league average capability at QB.

I think you are confusing me with someone who wants to diminish Brady's impact to prop up Bellichick's. Not the case at all. My only point is that BB deserves credit for giving Brady good, well coached teams during his tenure. The success of *those* teams when Brady was sidelined is proof. Obviousy they were better when the goat was captaining the ship and reached heights that only the goat could take them to. But they were good regardless, in large part thanks to their coach.