For the "Brady made Belichick" crowd

[Kasmir]

Wouldn't that make you then.......a BB fan?

As a Patriots fan, I'm hoping it's the case that BB is more important than Brady was, because BB is still coach of the Patriots. If Belichick went to another team, I wouldn't be rooting for his success vs the Patriots. But you Brady homers are actively hoping the Pats do poorly to support your Brady fetish.

 

[TheRainMaker]

Here's a question that Brady haters:

Given that BB was 5-13 with a $100M QB, how long does BB last had he not found someone to stabilize the QB position?

 

[Wozzy]

Here's a question that Brady haters:

Given that BB was 5-13 with a $100M QB, how long does BB last had he not found someone to stabilize the QB position?

Who hates Brady?

Just an absurd moniker, he currently plays for another team, I'm not forced to root for Tampa now... sorry.

The fact is I'm rooting for a Tampa/NE Super Bowl. I doubt NE makes it because they're starting multiple 20+ year olds all over their roster in a reloading year, but they have enough talent if the youth play well and they stay healthy... I just doubt it.

Brady has a superteam and a creme puff schedule, I expect he'll get to the NFC title game at least.

BB drafted Brady in year two because he was looking for a QB. He was saddled with a declining Bernie Kosar in Cleveland which is partially why it took so long to rebuild, I doubt he was ever going to be stuck with a QB he didn't want ever again.

 

[TheRainMaker]

Who hates Brady?

Just an absurd moniker, he currently plays for another team, I'm not forced to root for Tampa now... sorry.

The fact is I'm rooting for a Tampa/NE Super Bowl. I doubt NE makes it because they're starting multiple 20+ year olds all over their roster in a reloading year, but they have enough talent if the youth play well and they stay healthy... I just doubt it.

Brady has a superteam and a creme puff schedule, I expect he'll get to the NFC title game at least.

BB drafted Brady in year two because he was looking for a QB. He was saddled with a declining Bernie Kosar in Cleveland which is partially why it took so long to rebuild, I doubt he was ever going to be stuck with a QB he didn't want ever again.

They're outnumbered, but there's a handful of Brady haters on this thread.

Back to the question, why was the $100M QB struggling so badly before he was injured? How long does BB last had Huard or Bishop not done what Brady did in 2001?

 

[PatsWSB47]

Almost everyone thought Peyton Manning was the best QB in that time. The Brady homers were saying "But Brady is a winner!". Belichick built a very strong team then, with players who refused to lose. It really upsets me to hear Rodney Harrison, Richard Seymour, Tedy Bruschi, Ty Law, Vince Wilfork, Troy Brown, Kevin Faulk, Matt Light and Bill Belichick dismissed as would be losers if Brady weren't on the roster in those days. Brady homers here actually act as if those teams would have had losing records with any other QB. Utter squalid nonsense. Those were great teams with great coaching and a promising young QB.

Of course it quarterbacks could have winning records but a difference to me was his calmness and execution under under fire. I remember he being asked how he managed it. See even reporters knew there was something about him evidenced by these kind of questions. His answer? "Well" he said, we already lost the game so what do I have to lose?"

 

[sb1]

Here's a question that Brady haters:

Given that BB was 5-13 with a $100M QB, how long does BB last had he not found someone to stabilize the QB position?

Not sure who you’re talking to since there aren’t any “Brady haters” here- at least from a football angle.

 

[sb1]

As a Patriots fan, I'm hoping it's the case that BB is more important than Brady was, because BB is still coach of the Patriots. If Belichick went to another team, I wouldn't be rooting for his success vs the Patriots. But you Brady homers are actively hoping the Pats do poorly to support your Brady fetish.

Of course they are. A couple of Bradyites have even said they wouldn’t know who to cheer for if NE/TB met in the Super Bowl. Lol. Yeah real “Patriots fans”.

 

[sb1]

This might be the most misleading post in this thread.

Starting with the fact that you seem to live in a universe where players don't get older which is exactly what happened to that Browns team BB took over. You are making it sound like he took over some kind of stacked team when it reality it was a trainwreck.

Each of the individual units got better through this rebuilt which is how you should measure how well a coach is doing and not using something as pointless as win/loss record. A couple of bounces one way or the other and you shift 2-3 wins. Outcome and performance are not the same thing and one should really not be used as a proxy for the other. One of the most reasonable way to cut through all the noise and randomness is looking at trends instead.

And that Browns team was a true contender before they got shipped off over night to another city.

Yes- Bradyite delusion and historical revisionism is just... way out there.

 

[jmt57]

This is misleading.

Cleveland’s record in the the 5 years before a Bill.

1986: 12-4 and went to the AFCCG

1987: 10-6 and went to the AFCCG

1988: 10-6 and made the playoffs

1989: 9-6-1 and made the AFCCG

1990: 3-13 and missed the playoffs

So yes while the year immediately before Bill was a bad year, it also was an anomaly and was largely because they switched coached in 1989 to Bud Carson and then he was flopping and they ditched him for an interim guy before settling on Bill the next year.

Compare those 5 years to the 5 with Bill.

1991: 6-10 and missed the playoffs

1992: 7-9 and missed the playoffs

1993: 7-9 and missed the playoffs

1994: 11-5 and won a wild card game to advance to the divisional round

1995: 5-11 and missed the playoffs.

The Browns were one of the top AFC teams in the 5 years before Bill. No Cleveland fan would have taken Bill over what they had in the period before. He was not well liked in Cleveland and not considered a success there. He actually finished as the worst Browns coach’s before they were brought back that lasted more than 2 years from a win percentage stand point.

These comments are extremely misleading at best. The notion that the 1990 Browns season was an anomaly, and the implication that the 1991 Cleveland team was just as good as the Browns teams from the late 80s is flat out factually untrue. Yes, they "were one of the top AFC teams in the five years before Bill" - but that was absolutely no longer the case in 1991.

The Browns run of being a good team was over. The notion that they were good a few years previously and should therefore still be successful defies reality. Based on that theory the Falcons have no excuse for the last two losing seasons, nor do the Eagles for failing to have a double-digit winning season in the same time span - and that any run of success should continue indefinitely as long as the QB remains in place.


I don't know why so many seem to feel it is necessary to say the credit should go to just one (or mostly one), rather than both.

That said, I would like to offer a rebuttal to those who point out Belichick's record in Cleveland as evidence for crediting Brady for the success of the franchise over the last two decades, and minimizing the effect BB had on the dynasty.

For the tl;dr crowd there were three specific circumstances: (a) the cupboard was bare, requiring a full rebuild; (b) Bernie Kosar became completely insubordinate and forced his own removal; and (c) Modell's decision to move to Baltimore became public early in the '95 season, causing an ugly and unprecedented distraction. Testaverde being hurt the same year Kosar anointed himself the HC and OC did not help either.​

When Belichick took over in Cleveland the roster was full of older veteran players with declining abilities and big contracts. Similar to what happened with the 2000 Pats, the 1991 Browns were a team transitioning to the future. The '91 club doubled the win total from three to six. Rookies drafted in '91 that would have impactful careers included safety Eric Turner, WR Michael Jackson and DT James Jones.

The team was 5-4 in '92, but wore down at the end to finish 7-9. While it was an improvement over the previous season, it was not as much as one would hope for. The draft was not good, particularly the use of a first round pick on RB Tommy Vardell.

In 1993 Bernie Kosar became insubordinate, far too often freelancing by changing the play calls made by the coaching staff. Kosar refused to reel it in, blatantly refusing to follow BB's decisions. Forced into a corner, Belichick cut Kosar. Vinny Testaverde was going to take over for Kosar but got hurt, and the Browns went 2-7 to end the season with a third string QB, once again finishing 7-9. In retrospect BB perhaps should have had a sit down meeting with other coaches, Kosar, maybe Kosar's agent, perhaps Modell - but the bottom line is that a coach cannot let a player constantly make play call changes like that. A club will never win if a single player believes he is above the team, and is constantly permitted to have the final say.

With Kosar gone, lo and behold the Browns went 11-5 in 1994 with a defense that led the NFL with the fewest points allowed. Belichick and the Browns defeated Parcells and the Patriots in the playoffs, before losing at Pittsburgh.

In 1995 the Browns began the season with a 3-1 record, and 1/4 of the way through the season they were considered to be a serious contender for the Super Bowl. Then word got out about the team moving to Baltimore, and the bottom fell out. The amount of distraction was unprecedented, coupled with an extremely angry rabid fanbase. The Browns lost ten of their final 12 games to finish 5-11.


Consider those factors, plus the circumstances of the 2000 season (see the link to the article in the original post of this thread) - and citing Belichick's career coaching record without Brady is a wreckless, lazy case of taking statistics out of context. Belichick's overall record without Brady is meaningless if one bothers to scratch the surface and objectively look at 1991-95 plus 2000.

 

[Deus Irae]

These comments are extremely misleading at best. The notion that the 1990 Browns season was an anomaly, and the implication that the 1991 Cleveland team was just as good as the Browns teams from the late 80s is flat out factually untrue. Yes, they "were one of the top AFC teams in the five years before Bill" - but that was absolutely no longer the case in 1991.

The Browns run of being a good team was over. The notion that they were good a few years previously and should therefore still be successful defies reality. Based on that theory the Falcons have no excuse for the last two losing seasons, nor do the Eagles for failing to have a double-digit winning season in the same time span - and that any run of success should continue indefinitely as long as the QB remains in place.


I don't know why so many seem to feel it is necessary to say the credit should go to just one (or mostly one), rather than both.

That said, I would like to offer a rebuttal to those who point out Belichick's record in Cleveland as evidence for crediting Brady for the success of the franchise over the last two decades, and minimizing the effect BB had on the dynasty.

For the tl;dr crowd there were three specific circumstances: (a) the cupboard was bare, requiring a full rebuild; (b) Bernie Kosar became completely insubordinate and forced his own removal; and (c) Modell's decision to move to Baltimore became public early in the '95 season, causing an ugly and unprecedented distraction. Testaverde being hurt the same year Kosar anointed himself the HC and OC did not help either.​

When Belichick took over in Cleveland the roster was full of older veteran players with declining abilities and big contracts. Similar to what happened with the 2000 Pats, the 1991 Browns were a team transitioning to the future. The '91 club doubled the win total from three to six. Rookies drafted in '91 that would have impactful careers included safety Eric Turner, WR Michael Jackson and DT James Jones.

The team was 5-4 in '92, but wore down at the end to finish 7-9. While it was an improvement over the previous season, it was not as much as one would hope for. The draft was not good, particularly the use of a first round pick on RB Tommy Vardell.

In 1993 Bernie Kosar became insubordinate, far too often freelancing by changing the play calls made by the coaching staff. Kosar refused to reel it in, blatantly refusing to follow BB's decisions. Forced into a corner, Belichick cut Kosar. Vinny Testaverde was going to take over for Kosar but got hurt, and the Browns went 2-7 to end the season with a third string QB, once again finishing 7-9. In retrospect BB perhaps should have had a sit down meeting with other coaches, Kosar, maybe Kosar's agent, perhaps Modell - but the bottom line is that a coach cannot let a player constantly make play call changes like that. A club will never win if a single player believes he is above the team, and is constantly permitted to have the final say.

With Kosar gone, lo and behold the Browns went 11-5 in 1994 with a defense that led the NFL with the fewest points allowed. Belichick and the Browns defeated Parcells and the Patriots in the playoffs, before losing at Pittsburgh.

In 1995 the Browns began the season with a 3-1 record, and 1/4 of the way through the season they were considered to be a serious contender for the Super Bowl. Then word got out about the team moving to Baltimore, and the bottom fell out. The amount of distraction was unprecedented, coupled with an extremely angry rabid fanbase. The Browns lost ten of their final 12 games to finish 5-11.


Consider those factors, plus the circumstances of the 2000 season (see the link to the article in the original post of this thread) - and citing Belichick's career coaching record without Brady is a wreckless, lazy case of taking statistics out of context. Belichick's overall record without Brady is meaningless if one bothers to scratch the surface and objectively look at 1991-95 plus 2000.

If you're dismissing 2000, you've got no argument against those who insist on counting the Browns years. You literally cannot make the evaluation a fair and accurate one without including 2000.

 

[jmt57]

If you're dismissing 2000, you've got no argument against those who insist on counting the Browns years. You literally cannot make the evaluation a fair and accurate one without including 2000.

Does that mean that it is reasonable to think the 2000 Patriots should have won 70%-plus of their games, just like the 2001-2019 Patriots did?

The quality of the roster, plus the cap situation makes a winning season for the 2000 Patriots almost impossible; it is not unlike judging the head coaches for the number of wins their teams finish with in 2020 for Washington, the Giants or Panthers.


What may be the biggest issue in this debate is that some people are trying to look at this in a vacuum, as if the ONLY difference in 2000 (or the five years in Cleveland) was the QB, and everything else is identical. That is not close to being true, making comparisons between Belichick with Brady versus Belichick without Brady objectively extremely difficult.

My long winded response is that to believe comparing won-loss records with and without is some type of genuine scientific proof just makes no sense to me. There are many other factors involved.

 

[Soliel]

It’s suspect being a Ohio coach

 

[Ochmed Jones]

Brady is the greatest qb of all time. Brady makes plays, especially in critical moments.

a coach’s job is to put players in position to make plays!

brady was the absolute best thing that ever happened to bb, because Brady ran bb’s offense to near perfection!

the bottom line is bb could find qb’s to run his offense, but it is Brady’s ability to make critical plays at critical times that separates him from the rest and makes him and bb 6 time super bowl champions,

 

[sb1]

Extremely angry rabid fanbase. The Browns lost ten of their final 12 games to finish 5-11.

Yup. But according to at least one Bradyite here that was belichick’s fault. Lol.

 

[lancerman]

If you're dismissing 2000, you've got no argument against those who insist on counting the Browns years. You literally cannot make the evaluation a fair and accurate one without including 2000.

Exactly. This is the point. People in this thread who want to trash Brady are basically going out of there way to argue for ignoring as much of Belichick’s career without him as possible so they can at this point pretty much only count the good points

 

[sb1]

If you're dismissing 2000, you've got no argument against those who insist on counting the Browns years. You literally cannot make the evaluation a fair and accurate one without including 2000.

no coach in this league would have changed the fortunes of the 2000 team. They were in salary cap hell and bereft of talent.

And before anyone says he should have started Brady that year- sure if he wanted an 0-16 record on his resume.

 

[jmt57]

Exactly. This is the point. People in this thread who want to trash Brady are basically going out of there way to argue for ignoring as much of Belichick’s career without him as possible so they can at this point pretty much only count the good points

Who is trashing Brady? I'm not. He is the most clutch quarterback in the history of the NFL. Nobody comes close in terms of pre-snap and post-snap reactions to the opposing defense.

As I mentioned above, basing a conclusion on won-loss records with and without Brady is superficial, because to use that as evidence then all other factors would have to be identical. They weren't.

 

[Ras-IR Dowling]

They're outnumbered, but there's a handful of Brady haters on this thread.

Back to the question, why was the $100M QB struggling so badly before he was injured? How long does BB last had Huard or Bishop not done what Brady did in 2001?

Considering the 1st round compensation we gave up for BB he gets at least 3 years. And at the end of 2002 his fate would be determined by the tragectory the team is going in.

 

[PatsWSB47]

Almost everyone thought Peyton Manning was the best QB in that time. The Brady homers were saying "But Brady is a winner!". Belichick built a very strong team then, with players who refused to lose. It really upsets me to hear Rodney Harrison, Richard Seymour, Tedy Bruschi, Ty Law, Vince Wilfork, Troy Brown, Kevin Faulk, Matt Light and Bill Belichick dismissed as would be losers if Brady weren't on the roster in those days. Brady homers here actually act as if those teams would have had losing records with any other QB. Utter squalid nonsense. Those were great teams with great coaching and a promising young QB.

Of course it quarterbacks could have winning records but a difference to me was his calmness and execution under under fire. I remember he being asked how he managed it. See even reporters knew there was something about him evidenced by these kind of questions. His answer? "Well" he said, we already lost the game so what do I have to lose?"

 

[TheRainMaker]

Considering the 1st round compensation we gave up for BB he gets at least 3 years. And at the end of 2002 his fate would be determined by the tragectory the team is going in.

Close enough. I was thinking the plug would've been pulled in 2003 if the team wasn't improving/QB position wasn't stabilized.