Debate Brady vs Belichick?

[Lagaffe_07]

What do you think explains why the offense was so bad the last 8 games last year? We should try to fix the problem. For me one glaring issue is the total lack of TE production now for 2 years in a row

.

The offense was bad the second half because Brown was not there, Gordon was not there, Sanu sucked and Edelman was injured, the OL was bad and the running game was inefficient, Brady was injured and was not that good probably because he was trying to do too much to compensate.

Meyers since he has started playing is at an Edelman level. You replace Cam with Brady and the offense wouldn’t be much of a problem. They are much more functional than last year. they just need a real QB. You’d still need a number 1 wr and a TE but I’m feeling better with Meyers and Byrd than with Sanu and Dorsett. Meyers, Byrd and Harry this year are better than Edelman, Sanu and Dorsett of the second half.

Edit: Sorry I added some stuff after my original post.

 

[Ring 6]

People have very short memories...

2020 Patriots (14 games): 20.6ppg, 6-8, 2.08 offensive TDs a game
2019 Patriots (last 9 games): 20.3ppg, 4-5, 1.9 offensive TDs a game

Why do we think the NEP would be better this year with Tom when he has less to work with than last year?

Because brady was clearly injured and not himself the second half of the season.

 

[lancerman]

Belichick went 11-5 with a QB that hadn't started since high school and went 3-1* with Garoppolo and Brissett
*the 1 loss being when Garoppolo decided he couldn't play and Brissett who needed season ending surgery on his throwing thumb did.

14-6 in non-rebuilding years without Brady.
That's a .700 winning percentage.


Anyone using 2000 and 2020 as an argument is just looking to sh!t on him. The first year in NE was always gonna be like that and then he went on to win a SB the next 3 out of 4 years and the 1st season without Brady was always gonna be a reset year especially with how the cap was and despite that if Newton was even 50% of what he was a couple years ago (I'm thinking of the Newton that came into Foxboro went 22/29 300 yards 3 TD and 1 rushing TD and was throwing to Kelvin Benjamin, Devin Fuchess and Ed ****son ) the division might have gone down to the final game. Think they would have beat Denver, Buffalo and probably would have won at least 1 of the last 2 games, maybe both if there was just competent QB play and the division would have come down to next Monday's game.

I think Bill’s the GOAT, but there is no point in picking 20 games out of what by the end of the season will be 134 without Brady and acting like those games answer the question. Especially when there is serious context like Brady going 18-1 the year before and the team dropping to 11-5 with it’s only playoff miss in a 17 years period or the fact that the team Bill went 3-1 without Brady, went 13-1 with Brady and won the SB and along the way Brady blew out the only team Bill’s team lost and got shut out to.

It’s very clear right now that Bill has a large sample size without Brady and the results with and without Brady are extremely lopsided. It also needs to be taken into account that Bill’s only non winning years in NE were benchmarked around periods where a Brady became the starter and left the starting role.

Everytime this conversation comes up it just becomes a contest of how much of Bill’s non Brady career are we allowed to consider and some people want to only use the best 14%. He has coached 8 years without Brady. John Madden coached 10 years and got in the HOF. That is not a sample size you can just ignore. Cleveland happened. It was 5 years of his career. Despite popular opinion that team didn’t remain horrible forever, 5 years after he was gone they were in Baltimore winning a SB. They went on to be one of the better caliber teams of the post 2000 era and right before Bill got there they had a period where they were making conference championships left and right. New England. Bill’s first year on the Pats was the worst record in 6 years. His first year without Brady was the first non winning season in 19 years. Of the 4 times he missed the playoffs in New England, 3 were the only seasons he coached without Brady.

This can’t just be ignored. It’s way too much, it’s just not reasonable. If you do his whole career without Brady it’s a losing record. If you just do New England without Brady, it’s a losing record.

 

[FCB02062]

I Really wanted to think it was coach Bill more than sad Tom. But right now the only thing that would lend any Credence to that would be a Tampa one and done in the playoffs. If sad Tom wins his first playoff game then the only two comparables we have are last year and this year. last year sad Tom with Bill was one and done and if Tampa wins a game this year sad Tom with the goofy beret wearing coach got further in the tournament.

 

[patsbrasilpatriotas]

It always will be the most important players. Always. Like we saw this year. We won 6 (maybe 7 games - Jets). But without a competent player not even Bill can do it. But thats pointless.

 

[sb1]

I think Bill’s the GOAT, but there is no point in picking 20 games out of what by the end of the season will be 134 without Brady and acting like those games answer the question. Especially when there is serious context like Brady going 18-1 the year before and the team dropping to 11-5 with it’s only playoff miss in a 17 years period or the fact that the team Bill went 3-1 without Brady, went 13-1 with Brady and won the SB and along the way Brady blew out the only team Bill’s team lost and got shut out to.

It’s very clear right now that Bill has a large sample size without Brady and the results with and without Brady are extremely lopsided. It also needs to be taken into account that Bill’s only non winning years in NE were benchmarked around periods where a Brady became the starter and left the starting role.

Everytime this conversation comes up it just becomes a contest of how much of Bill’s non Brady career are we allowed to consider and some people want to only use the best 14%. He has coached 8 years without Brady. John Madden coached 10 years and got in the HOF. That is not a sample size you can just ignore. Cleveland happened. It was 5 years of his career. Despite popular opinion that team didn’t remain horrible forever, 5 years after he was gone they were in Baltimore winning a SB. They went on to be one of the better caliber teams of the post 2000 era and right before Bill got there they had a period where they were making conference championships left and right. New England. Bill’s first year on the Pats was the worst record in 6 years. His first year without Brady was the first non winning season in 19 years. Of the 4 times he missed the playoffs in New England, 3 were the only seasons he coached without Brady.

This can’t just be ignored. It’s way too much, it’s just not reasonable. If you do his whole career without Brady it’s a losing record. If you just do New England without Brady, it’s a losing record.

Bill's record in Cleveland 3 decades ago means little to me. He was not a bad coach but he's much better now, like Brady is a much better QB than he was in 2001. The franchise also had the plug pulled by the owner in that last year and Bill lost a bunch of games. Doubt Lombardi would have done any better in those circumstances.

I'm way more interested in Bill's record as HC of the Patriots. .500 going into this season without Brady. This season proved Bill can get us to .500 or so with with a lousy defense and crap QB play. I think this team would win maybe a game or two - or maybe none at all - with a lesser coach than Bill during a season like this.

 

[1960Pats]

Is it REALLY up to 17 He must be" improving" because the last time I remember looking at that stat when some in the media were touting that Rodger would end up as the GOAT, that 4th quarter figure was in the SINGLE digits.

It is truly remarkable how UNCLUTCH he's been over the years, while putting up such outstanding stats in yds, TDs and pick ratio. NO question his is fun to watch, but like Brees and Peyton, when the chips were down and you HAD to have a 2 minute drive, Tom has proven to be the best there ever was. To me that has been his most important legacy. What is he up to now, 1960?

I found the site on 4QCs and looked into it more closely.

Brady leads all QBs in history with 39 4QCs + 9 in the playoffs for 48.
PEDton is next with 43 + 2 for 45.
As for the rest of the active QBs this is the list;
Brees 36+2=38
Ben 34+3=37
Stafford 31
Ryan 30+1=31
Rivers 29+1=30
Wilson 23+4=27
Dalton 23
Tannehill 21
Alex Smith 19+1=20
Carr 20
Flacco 18+1=19
Rodgers 17+1=18 with the only teams with winning records being the Bears in 2013 who were at 8-7, the Lions in 19 at 2-1-1 and the playoff game vs Dallas on the Dez Bryant call.
The last 6 came in the last 3 years against teams with a combined record at the time of 11-38-1
Captain Comeback my ***!

 

[XLIX]

Belichick went 11-5 with a QB that hadn't started since high school and went 3-1* with Garoppolo and Brissett
*the 1 loss being when Garoppolo decided he couldn't play and Brissett who needed season ending surgery on his throwing thumb did.

14-6 in non-rebuilding years without Brady.
That's a .700 winning percentage.

Lol..!! Talk about textbook cherry picking..!! Ok I’ll play:

We should take away the games after Brady’s first start until the time Brady left, whether Brady started or not. Those games don’t count because reasons.

Belichick is 11-21 as HC of the NEP.
That’s a .344 winning percentage.

 

[sb1]

Belichick went 11-5 with a QB that hadn't started since high school and went 3-1* with Garoppolo and Brissett
*the 1 loss being when Garoppolo decided he couldn't play and Brissett who needed season ending surgery on his throwing thumb did.

14-6 in non-rebuilding years without Brady.
That's a .700 winning percentage.


Anyone using 2000 and 2020 as an argument is just looking to sh!t on him. The first year in NE was always gonna be like that and then he went on to win a SB the next 3 out of 4 years and the 1st season without Brady was always gonna be a reset year especially with how the cap was and despite that if Newton was even 50% of what he was a couple years ago (I'm thinking of the Newton that came into Foxboro went 22/29 300 yards 3 TD and 1 rushing TD and was throwing to Kelvin Benjamin, Devin Fuchess and Ed ****son ) the division might have gone down to the final game. Think they would have beat Denver, Buffalo and probably would have won at least 1 of the last 2 games, maybe both if there was just competent QB play and the division would have come down to next Monday's game.

I agree with all of that but that's the narrative right now and the numbers say he is under .500 as Pats coach without Brady. If the Pats have a successful rebuild and are back in SB contention in the next couple of years, the narrative changes again.

I think if that Cam still existed he would probably still be a Panther. It's too bad it didn't work out here. I wish him well no matter what happens.

 

[sb1]

I think it applies. We started strong last year because the defense was elite and we had AB. Something changed after we traded AB and the offense has been anemic like this going back to Oct 2019.

.

And the team had a very easy schedule. It all changed when the Pats started playing good teams.

 

[1960Pats]

I don't care about his time in Cleveland. Coaches are able to get better. Also, as @Ring 6 said, he was able to build a winning culture after his 5-11 season in 2000. I didn't watch the Patriots back then, but it seems like most people say that Brady wasn't the main reason behind for the first couple superbowl wins.

Not true.

Brady went 8-8 and 9-9 passing in the tying and winning drives against Oakland in a blizzard to kick start the 2001 playoffs. He followed that up with 7-7 passing for the game winning FG in the SB, after taking a cheap shot from the Steelers and being knocked out of the AGCCG.

He followed that up in the 2003 SB by setting a record for scoring after knocking out the co-MVPs in the playoffs. Brady didn't do it alone, but no other QB makes that clutch run and without him there is no dynasty I or II.

 

[XLIX]

Keep your #9 dreaming. Even after taking 5 years off from music Lennon was way better than McCartney post Beatles.

 

[lancerman]

Bill's record in Cleveland 3 decades ago means little to me. He was not a bad coach but he's much better now, like Brady is a much better QB than he was in 2001. The franchise also had the plug pulled by the owner in that last year and Bill lost a bunch of games. Doubt Lombardi would have done any better in those circumstances.

I'm way more interested in Bill's record as HC of the Patriots. .500 going into this season without Brady. This season proved Bill can get us to .500 or so with with a lousy defense and crap QB play. I think this team would win maybe a game or two - or maybe none at all - with a lesser coach than Bill during a season like this.

How long ago it was doesn’t matter. You can’t just pretend 5 years didn’t happen, then call 2 other seasons rebuilding years, but then talk about 1.25 seasons as the real story.

Like I said, 8 seasons without Brady, that’s a large enough sample that guys in the HOF have been able to make their case with just a tad bit more.

It matters in this discussion. No Brady would not have 6 rings without Bill. But players matter more

 

[sb1]

How long ago it was doesn’t matter. You can’t just pretend 5 years didn’t happen, then call 2 other seasons rebuilding years, but then talk about 1.25 seasons as the real story.

Like I said, 8 seasons without Brady, that’s a large enough sample that guys in the HOF have been able to make their case with just a tad bit more.

It matters in this discussion. No Brady would not have 6 rings without Bill. But players matter more

I think it does matter. Players improve and so do coaches. There's a break in continuity there too as Bill also stopped being a HC for 5 or so years. Plus like I said, Bill's record in his final year comes with an asterisk because the franchise had the plug pulled so that's completely worthless in this discussion.

As for Brady I like this quote: "Great players need coaches and great coaches need players". That quote is from Brady himself and I agree with it.

 

[JMC00]

I think Bill’s the GOAT, but there is no point in picking 20 games out of what by the end of the season will be 134 without Brady and acting like those games answer the question. Especially when there is serious context like Brady going 18-1 the year before and the team dropping to 11-5 with it’s only playoff miss in a 17 years period or the fact that the team Bill went 3-1 without Brady, went 13-1 with Brady and won the SB and along the way Brady blew out the only team Bill’s team lost and got shut out to.

It’s very clear right now that Bill has a large sample size without Brady and the results with and without Brady are extremely lopsided. It also needs to be taken into account that Bill’s only non winning years in NE were benchmarked around periods where a Brady became the starter and left the starting role.

Everytime this conversation comes up it just becomes a contest of how much of Bill’s non Brady career are we allowed to consider and some people want to only use the best 14%. He has coached 8 years without Brady. John Madden coached 10 years and got in the HOF. That is not a sample size you can just ignore. Cleveland happened. It was 5 years of his career. Despite popular opinion that team didn’t remain horrible forever, 5 years after he was gone they were in Baltimore winning a SB. They went on to be one of the better caliber teams of the post 2000 era and right before Bill got there they had a period where they were making conference championships left and right. New England. Bill’s first year on the Pats was the worst record in 6 years. His first year without Brady was the first non winning season in 19 years. Of the 4 times he missed the playoffs in New England, 3 were the only seasons he coached without Brady.

This can’t just be ignored. It’s way too much, it’s just not reasonable. If you do his whole career without Brady it’s a losing record. If you just do New England without Brady, it’s a losing record.

Except no. I'll ignore it for the fact that his stint with the Browns he took over a team that went 3-13 they got better each year which led to the playoffs and won a playoff game then the next season he got the carpet yanked out from under him by Moddell.

As for 2000 he won 3 out of 4 SBs after. I'll give him a pass for that season.

And this year he's slightly better QB play from being in the playoffs with a roster that couldn't add anything significant because of the cap situation which was the result of going to 3 straight SBs


The 16-0 to 11-5 again he went from a guy that just had the best year a QB ever had to a QB that hadn't started since high school. Also it wasn't the exact same team so that's not a fair argument.

 

[sb1]

Except no. I'll ignore it for the fact that his stint with the Browns he took over a team that went 3-13 they got better each year which led to the playoffs and won a playoff game then the next season he got the carpet yanked out from under him by Moddell.

Yeah like I said, I doubt Lombardi himself would have done any better in the W-L column than Bill did in that last season. It's silly and at worst disingenuous to say those losses were on Bill.

The 16-0 to 11-5 again he went from a guy that just had the best year a QB ever had to a QB that hadn't started since high school. Also it wasn't the exact same team so that's not a fair argument.

There was definitely a downgrade at QB and 5 games isn't a small one. It's the same number of games as going from 11-5 to 6-10.
But I think the defense was pretty bad too in 2008. That's one of the reasons why they couldn't beat good teams.

 

[amfootball]

How long ago it was doesn’t matter. You can’t just pretend 5 years didn’t happen, then call 2 other seasons rebuilding years, but then talk about 1.25 seasons as the real story.

Like I said, 8 seasons without Brady, that’s a large enough sample that guys in the HOF have been able to make their case with just a tad bit more.

It matters in this discussion. No Brady would not have 6 rings without Bill. But players matter more

To your point, the Pats were 5-13 until Brady and then 14-3 and SB champs. Last year they were 12-4 and the 3rd seed to no playoffs and either 7-9 or 6-10 this year. Those are dramatic swings.

 

[1960Pats]

I Really wanted to think it was coach Bill more than sad Tom. But right now the only thing that would lend any Credence to that would be a Tampa one and done in the playoffs. If sad Tom wins his first playoff game then the only two comparables we have are last year and this year. last year sad Tom with Bill was one and done and if Tampa wins a game this year sad Tom with the goofy beret wearing coach got further in the tournament.

This year means nothing.
Tom is playing for a worse HC in a weaker conference.
Bill is coaching a worse team in a stronger conference.
What it does prove to me is something I already knew, that coaching matters but not as much as players.

 

[lancerman]

Except no. I'll ignore it for the fact that his stint with the Browns he took over a team that went 3-13 they got better each year which led to the playoffs and won a playoff game then the next season he got the carpet yanked out from under him by Moddell.

As for 2000 he won 3 out of 4 SBs after. I'll give him a pass for that season.

And this year he's slightly better QB play from being in the playoffs with a roster that couldn't add anything significant because of the cap situation which was the result of going to 3 straight SBs


The 16-0 to 11-5 again he went from a guy that just had the best year a QB ever had to a QB that hadn't started since high school. Also it wasn't the exact same team so that's not a fair argument.

In the 6 years before Bill took over the Browns they went to 3 AFC title games and were winning every season except the year right before. 5 years after he was gone that same franchise won a SB. His tenure was the worst era for that franchise possibly ever (not the glorified expansion team, the real Browns).

Again if you only want to count 20 out of 134 games to make your case, I think it says more about the case.

 

[sb1]

In the 6 years before Bill took over the Browns they went to 3 AFC title games and were winning every season except the year right before. 5 years after he was gone that same franchise won a SB. His tenure was the worst era for that franchise possibly ever (not the glorified expansion team, the real Browns).

Again if you only want to count 20 out of 134 games to make your case, I think it says more about the case.

IMO Bill's main problem in Cleveland wasn't so much his coaching it was he didn't know how to play the political game. He got on the wrong side of the fans. And the meddling owner hated the negative media attention from Bill dumping Kosar and the players not buying in so he was on the wrong side of the owner too. He also lied to Bill saying he would be brought over to the Ravens and he was let go anyway. Thankfully things worked differently here.