Debate Brady vs Belichick?

[Boomer B]

Brady never takes a snap in a pro game if not for Coach. 'nuff said.

BS. There are undrafted QBs like Tony Romo, Warren Moon. and Kurt Warner who played long careers. Coaches aren’t stupid. They can see who plays well in practice and are grasping the offence. Whether in New England or elsewhere he would have eventually got his shot.

 

[Rob0729]

I get it. The defense was really good in 2003. Guess what... Brady still led 5 game-winning drives that season. He still was named the Super Bowl MVP.

And yes, the safety was a bad start against the NYG but Brady put the team in position to win the game. The defense gagged.

That's misleading though. That means the Pats scored last and the lead changed in a close game. It doesn't mean that Brady did anything special to get wins. Let's look at some of the games.

Miami - They won in overtime, but they went into overtime with a 13-13 tie. The offense couldn't score points in regulation time. That is why they went into the OT in the first place. The Brady of a few years later would probably never have been in that situation. In overtime, both teams had two possessions. The Pats and Dolphins were forced to punt in their first drives. In the Dolphins' second drive, Tyrone Poole intercepted Jay Feeley on the NE 19 to set up the game winning drive.

Denver - That was the famous game where Belichick purposely took a safety with 2:49 left in the game and said to the defense "go win this game". They gave Brady a short field on that last drive too. The Pats started on their own 39.

Houston - The Pats won the game in overtime on a Vinatieri field goal. But the Pats only scored 20 points in regulation. And the Pats failed on their first two drives in overtime (the first one started on the Houston 23 because of a great kick return and ended with a block field goal and the second one was a three and out) and the Pats' defense forced two three and outs on the Texans' drives in overtime. It took three drive attempts in overtime to win that game even with the first attempt with the drive being in field goal range.

Tennessee - The Pats scored with 4:17 left in the game winning 17-14. And that last drive only went 13 yards and the Pats kicked a field goal. And as someone pointed out, the game might have ended differently if Drew Bennett didn't drop an easy pass right to him on third down with under two minutes left which would have converted downs. But again, the Pats only scored 17 points in that game. This win was like 90% on the defense.

The Super Bowl - Won't take anything from that drive.

See. Just throwing out that point without looking at the situations is very misleading.

 

[PatsWSB47]

That's misleading though. That means the Pats scored last and the lead changed in a close game. It doesn't mean that Brady did anything special to get wins. Let's look at some of the games.

Miami - The won in overtime, but they went into overtime with a 13-13 tie. The offense couldn't score points in regulation time. That is why they went into the OT in the first place. The Brady of a few years later would probably never have been in that situation.

Denver - That was the famous game where Belichick purposely took a safety with 2:49 left in the game and said to the defense "go win this game". They gave Brady a short field on that last drive too. The Pats started on their own 39.

Houston - The Pats won the game in overtime on a Vinatieri field goal. But the Pats only scored 20 points in regulation. And the Pats failed on their first two drives in overtime (the first one started on the Houston 23 because of a great kick return and ended with a block field goal and the second one was a three and out) and the Pats' defense forced two three and outs on the Texans' drives in overtime. It took three drive attempts in overtime to win that game even with the first attempt with the drive being in field goal range.

Tennessee - The Pats scored with 4:17 left in the game winning 17-14. And that last drive only went 13 yards and the Pats kicked a field goal. And as someone pointed out, the game might have ended differently if Drew Bennett didn't drop an easy pass right to him on third down with under two minutes left which would have converted downs. But again, the Pats only scored 17 points in that game. This win was like 90% on the defense.

The Super Bowl - Won't take anything from that drive.

See. Just throwing out that point without looking at the situations is very misleading.

He did enough to get to those games that others failed to. In those games he got to he did enough to be the last quarterback standing. The others didn't. No one else in the last 20 years comes close to be able to say that as much as he did. No one.

 

[Kontradiction]

The Pats didn't give up a point in the third quarter of that game. It wasn't until Harrison and Wilson went out with injuries that the defense fell apart. The defense played pretty awesome for most of three and half quarters. It was the end of the first half (aided by one of the worst kick offs ever by Vinatieri) and the the last five minutes of the game where the Panthers scored on offense.

Brady was awesome in the fourth quarter of that game, but let's not recreate history.

Remind me again - is the 4th quarter in the first half or the second half?

 

[Rob0729]

Raiders easily beat them had there not been a snow storm.

BB struggles against West Coast style teams and TB was not ready for shootouts.

Raiders showed them what would’ve happened in 2002.

You can certainly make the argument that they were the better team. And yes, they were were a fairly high powered offense that was grounded by the snow.

 

[sb1]

That's true. There are plenty of individual moments that could have changed any one of the Patriots' Super Bowl seasons.

Someone brought up the Snow Bowl game and how well Brady played at the end. But he was also lucky. He fumbled that ball. Yes, because of a quirk in the rules, he didn't technically fumble the ball and the Pats kept the ball. But in reality he didn't protect the ball when he was hit and he even admits that he wasn't really in the process of throwing it. It was really a matter of inches that he would have gone from hero of the game to the reason the Pats lost.

Again, I am not trying to crap on Brady. But I am just talking about the reality of the situation.

Yeah Brady fumbled for sure and even he admitted it.

 

[Rob0729]

He did enough to get to those games that others failed to. In those games he got to he did enough to be the last quarterback standing. The others didn't. No one else in the last 20 years comes close to be able to say that as much as he did. No one.

Plenty of the top QB in the league in 2003 could have done the same thing in most if not all of the games. Brady was a very good QB in 2003, but he wasn't elite. The defense carried that season. Again, they had like four games where the offense didn't score a single TD and I think another where the defense scored as many TDs as the offense.

I love Brady. He is the greatest QB ever. But we cannot revise history to make the Brady of the his first three to five years be the same Brady as his last 15-17 in New England. The Pats were a team that won on defense and just asked the offense to be efficient in the early part of the Brady/Belichick era.

 

[PatsWSB47]

You can certainly make the argument that they were the better team. And yes, they were were a fairly high powered offense that was grounded by the snow.

We need to have an "if not for this or if not for that, they would have, could have won" award. For some it seems those awards are more meaningful and substantial than the actual wins(not saying you).

 

[Rob0729]

We need to have an "if not for this or if not for that, they would have, could have won" award. For some it seems those awards are more meaningful and substantial than the actual wins(not saying you).

That is the thing about football. It is a game of inches. Many things, some small and other big, can significantly change the outcome of most games.

Some people take it to the extreme.

 

[203Pat]

Ok? The patriots looked great against the chargers. You're a clown.

Yes I am a clown. I am the one calling the guy with 4200 yards and 36 TDs leading his team to the playoffs "pathetic". Tell me how Tom hurt you. We will get through this together buddy.

 

[RIpats88]

While jimmy G at 29 misses another season for the 49ers and Cam newton at 32 looks washed up it's crazy to think of what brady is doing at 43 putting up 36 tds and just being durable.

Yet Bill threw him to the curb offering one year deals but defends Cam Newton all day.

 

[StrawHatPatriot]

That offense is loaded. He has been thoroughly unimpressive (if we are ignoring his age) and would have looked mediocre in the pats current offense, which BB deserves criticism for.

Have the Buccaneers been slightly underwhelming? Based on expectations, yes.

But all things considered, Brady hasn't been "thoroughly unimpressive". He has been really solid all things considered:

• The combination of Learning a New System with a new head coach + No Preseason + Limited Offseason
• Bruce Arians having a reputation for having first-time Quarterbacks struggle and throw many interceptions (which Brady has only thrown 11)
• Very limited playcalling early on
• No continuity (Joe Montana, for example, brought his OC from San Francisco to Kansas City)

Still top 5-6 in all major QB stats, at age 43.

 

[StrawHatPatriot]

You cannot use Belichick's time with the Browns as proof of anything. He was a first time head coach and had a horrible owner who undercut him.

But you can argue that Brady wasn't the GOAT Brady in at least two of his first three Super Bowl wins. He was a pure game manager in 2001. And they won in 2003 with a defense that is easily in the top ten or fifteen greatest defenses of all time with the offense just being good not great. You can make a strong case that Belichick could have won both those seasons with several other QBs in the NFL those years.

Not taking away from Brady because he was still a huge part of those seasons, but he really didn't start to become that special, once in a lifetime QB that he was for most of his career until about 2004.

Why does this narrative still exist?

When all evidence points to the contrary?

Belichick literally had an all-pro level pro-bowler who made a super bowl in Drew Bledsoe and went 5-13 across two seasons in 2000 and 2001! He has never won more than 11 games in a season without Brady and has only made the playoffs 1 without Brady with only 2 winning seasons - and those were with QBs who had better seasons without Bill (Testeverde, Cassel, and Cam all made it further without Bill).

Are we gonna call Mike Zimmer the GOAT because he took Case Keenum to 13-3 and the NFC Title game?

Like, damn. I'm not saying Belichick isn't a good coach but these arguments people use to prop him up are pathetic.

I put innovators like Landry, Paul Brown, etc. in the highest esteem.

 

[Kdo5]

Have the Buccaneers been slightly underwhelming? Based on expectations, yes.

But all things considered, Brady hasn't been "thoroughly unimpressive". He has been really solid all things considered:

• The combination of Learning a New System with a new head coach + No Preseason + Limited Offseason
• Bruce Arians having a reputation for having first-time Quarterbacks struggle and throw many interceptions (which Brady has only thrown 11)
• Very limited playcalling early on
• No continuity (Joe Montana, for example, brought his OC from San Francisco to Kansas City)

Still top 5-6 in all major QB stats, at age 43.

In terms of 2020, I’d still take TB12 out of all the playoff QBs with the one exception of Patrick Mahomes.

Plenty of the top QB in the league in 2003 could have done the same thing in most if not all of the games. Brady was a very good QB in 2003, but he wasn't elite. The defense carried that season. Again, they had like four games where the offense didn't score a single TD and I think another where the defense scored as many TDs as the offense.

I love Brady. He is the greatest QB ever. But we cannot revise history to make the Brady of the his first three to five years be the same Brady as his last 15-17 in New England. The Pats were a team that won on defense and just asked the offense to be efficient in the early part of the Brady/Belichick era.

Rob, I know you aren’t trying to **** on Brady but purely in terms of this argument I don’t believe you can say Bill played a larger role in those earlier Super Bowls than Brady. I’d be willing to call it a tie with the early dynasty. But 2007-2018 it was clearly Brady who was more responsible for getting us to the promised land six times.

thus overall Brady is definitely more responsible for the dynasties than Bill. And this season is being taken as proof of it, especially if Tom has success in the playoffs which is very possible. I’d define “success” as taking his team to the conference championship.

 

[skinnydog]

Yeah Brady fumbled for sure and even he admitted it.

Didn;t matter, his arm was going forward and that was the rule back then.

 

[StrawHatPatriot]

Plenty of the top QB in the league in 2003 could have done the same thing in most if not all of the games. Brady was a very good QB in 2003, but he wasn't elite. The defense carried that season. Again, they had like four games where the offense didn't score a single TD and I think another where the defense scored as many TDs as the offense.

I love Brady. He is the greatest QB ever. But we cannot revise history to make the Brady of the his first three to five years be the same Brady as his last 15-17 in New England. The Pats were a team that won on defense and just asked the offense to be efficient in the early part of the Brady/Belichick era.

That's a more of a product of the era as well. Outside of Peyton's 2004 season, even Peyton Manning himself didn't have gaudy stats as we like to think back then.

This is the 2003 passing leaders chart


Look at how Brady's touchdowns, interceptions, etc. are within range of Peyton Manning's, despite not having his weapons. (No Corey Dillon to alter the defensive coverage, for instance). He had Deion Branch who has good, and Troy Brown who was solid, but that was kind of it.

And he had 5 game winning drives, which was 2nd in the league. And was runner-up for MVP. (Priest holmes should have won that year though).

 

[sb1]

Didn;t matter, his arm was going forward and that was the rule back then.

That’s true. But the original call was fumble and to reverse it there had to be conclusive evidence that the call was wrong. For the tuck rule to apply the QB has to be in the process of tucking the ball and not complete it. It’s not conclusive whether he had done that and by rule the call should have not been overturned. The video showed right before the ball came out Brady appeared to have two hands on the ball.

That’s what the Raiders objected to and they had a valid point. Brady himself basically admitted he did fumble. But that’s ok it made up for roughing the passer. That was a worse call.

 

[Rob0729]

In terms of 2020, I’d still take TB12 out of all the playoff QBs with the one exception of Patrick Mahomes.

Rob, I know you aren’t trying to **** on Brady but purely in terms of this argument I don’t believe you can say Bill played a larger role in those earlier Super Bowls than Brady. I’d be willing to call it a tie with the early dynasty. But 2007-2018 it was clearly Brady who was more responsible for getting us to the promised land six times.

thus overall Brady is definitely more responsible for the dynasties than Bill. And this season is being taken as proof of it, especially if Tom has success in the playoffs which is very possible. I’d define “success” as taking his team to the conference championship.

I most certainly can say that Belichick played a bigger role than Brady in the early dynasty. This was a defense first team for the first three years of Brady's starting career. It wasn't until 2004, which was the most balanced team of the Belichick/Brady era, did the offense become as or more important than the defense.

But getting to the conference championships aren't always on the QB. Sometimes they are. Sometimes they aren't. I would say the 2006 season, that was a majority on Brady. In 2003, it was Belichick and the defense. If they relied on Brady to get to the AFC Championships in the 2003 season without Belichick and the defense carrying a majority of the load most of the season and against Tennessee, they wouldn't have gotten there. In contrast, they basically got to the AFC Championships in the 2003 because Brady carried an offense with no weapons and with a decent defense.

But it is never black and white like that. You cannot say all the success is mostly or majority on Brady. Every year is different.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Brady never takes a snap in a pro game if not for Coach. 'nuff said.

Not only an incredibly dubious point but an irrelevant one too.

 

[lancerman]

Absolutely tragic Brady isn’t retiring a Patriot.

Montana didn’t retire a Niner, Farve didn’t retire a Packer, Unitas didn’t retire a Colt, Manning didn’t retire a Colt, Namath didn’t retire a Jet. It happens. Brady was with us 20 years. That’s longer than any other great QB was with a team