For the "Brady made Belichick" crowd

[203Pat]

The anti Brady posters are just sad at this point. Anyone who claims that one carried the other is obviously a fool and there is no way either wins 6 rings without the other but if someone said in an alternate universe which person wings more rings without the other I would say Brady. Bill was on his second stint as a head coach after the wheels fell off in Cleveland and was 5-11 in his first year in New England. In 2001 the team started 0-2 and had Mo Lewis not decleated Bledsoe one could make a reasonable argument that the team wouldn't have fared much better than 5-11 without a major spark. Two losing seasons after a failed stint in Cleveland may have sealed the deal for his head coaching career and he very well could have ended up as a career DC. Brady, on the other hand, improved tremendously by all accounts from year one to year two and could have ended up starting somewhere with some strong showings in preseason games. In other words Brady would be on the cusp of getting his shot to play while Bill would have been on his way out as a HC.

The nonsense about Bill inheriting this awful roster is equally as foolish. Some of the most important pieces of the early dynasty were guys Bill inherited. Ty Law, Tedy Bruschi, Willie McGinest, Troy Brown, Adam Vinatieri, Kevin Faulk were all extremely important pieces from prior regimes that Bill was able to start to build a powerhouse roster with.

Bill is a tremendous coach and in my opinion the greatest coach of all time but the revisionist history to try and skew the credit for the two decade run away from Brady is pathetic. I can think of more coaching/GM blunders that cost us potential rings than Brady meltdowns in big games but in the end of the day there is no way either one would have the success they did without the other.

 

[Kontradiction]

FACT: In 7+ years without Tom Brady, Bill Belichick is career sub-.500 with all of 1 playoff win.

I can't help but laugh at seeing how triggered some people get at simple statements of fact.

How could this possibly be if it’s the sYsTeM?

 

[sb1]

Do you really think this tells us much? Most of that entire record came in the Cassel year when the team was loaded (19-1) the year before. The rest of it was a couple years ago and it really didn't tell us much at all. As well as Brisset played in that win of his, we were also shut out by the Bills the very next week.

It wasn't "loaded" at all in 2008. The defense was kinda bad.

Brissett shouldn't have played in that Bills game. He went out there and took one for the team since JG couldn't go. That loss has jack squat to do with Belichick.

Maybe Brady ought to have resisted the temptation to make a snarky comment to the Ravens about the rulebook which probably started the chain of events that led to his suspension.

If you ask me, the 14-6 is really a record of mediocrity if extended over time the same way that last year was a mirage (with a great record).

14-6 is 14-6. Clearly Belichick hasn't fallen flat on his face without Brady as some seem to hope happens this year for some bizarre reason.

 

[sb1]

It is very hard to win a Super Bowl. Never mind 6.

Patriots fans are so pampered. Pat Mahomes will be lucky if he wins 3.

I agree - but Mahomes has a good coach, a good supporting cast and an underrated defense. All the pieces are in place for multiple Super Bowl wins.

 

[lancerman]

I've said it before - the "5-11" record in 2000 was deceiving for that very reason even though the anti-Belichick folks like to talk about it a lot. If Pete had stayed it would have been no better, the team was ready to bottom out after declining since the SB appearance.

The Patriots weren't competitive against the Lions on Thanksgiving but against a very tough schedule they were very competitive in every other one of their games IIRC. That's coaching.

As is the 11-5 in 2008 but you make post after post propping it up.

Fact: Bill has a losing record as a HC without Brady.

Fact: in 7 years Bill made the playoffs once without Brady.

Fact: 17 of the 18 times Bill made the playoff, he had Brady.

Fact: Bill went 2-5 in winning seasons without Brady.

 

[Kdo5]

20 years later, remembering Bill Belichick’s grueling first season with Patriots

I originally typed "morons" instead of "crowd" but changed it, to appease the "that's uncalled for" snowflakes here. This is a great article by Howe, with honest insights from players, coaches and front office staff who don't have an ax to grind about Belichick and who recognize his brilliance, because they saw it firsthand. There is no doubt that Brady brought Belichick's program to a level that would not have been possible without him but the larger point remains....IT'S THE SYSTEM, STUPID(S).

I have read many times here that BB didn't start winning here until Brady took the field, using the team's 5-11 record during his first season as head coach as evidence that Brady was the real driving force behind the dynasty. That argument has been, and always will be, complete horsesh*t spewed by those whose every post is colored by an irrational distain for Belichick and/or the ridiculous notion that labeling the Belichick as the key to the dynasty is intended to belittle Brady and downplay his greatness (leading to the aggressive and largely unnecessary wagon circling around Tommy).
Here are a couple of very important realities about that 5-11 season (from the article):

Belichick had hurdles to overcome. He inherited a roster that was $10.5 million over the salary cap with just 42 players under contract. So they had to release some fan favorites, including tight end Ben Coates, and restructure other contracts to push cap hits into future seasons. The Patriots initially cut the roster to 39 players before the draft and free agency and then signed nearly 30 undrafted rookie free agents to fill out the roster on a budget. There was a firm plan in place to remain financially responsible for at least a couple years to eventually escape from their cap nightmare.


The Patriots lost their first four games and were 2-8 in mid-November. Combined with their 2-6 finish in 1999, they had won four times over a 16-game stretch. But in 2000, seven of their first eight losses were one-possession games. (Of their 11 losses in 2000, only two came against teams with losing records, so the Patriots also had a fierce schedule.)

They were largely irritated by the losing, but the team also recognized something bigger was at stake.

Finally, I love this:

The Patriots won three of their final six games. Even though they weren’t ever in the playoff race, they felt vindicated for all the work they invested in the turnaround. There was even a rallying call during a stretch when the Patriots only carried 51 players on the active roster, partly due to personnel decisions as well as salary cup struggles.

Pioli: There was a point in time, I remember Bill and I having a conversation, we felt there was something symbolic when we dropped down to 51 players. What Bill was telling the players was, “Listen, we want people who are going to be here to want to be here, and who want to do things to win the way we want to win. If those people don’t want to be here, that doesn’t mean they’re bad people or bad players. That’s just not what we’re looking for. That doesn’t mean that we’re right. It’s just the way we’re going to do it.” So when we had 51 players, people were like, “Why don’t they have 53 players on their roster?” Part of the narrative internally was we don’t know of 53 people right now who want to be Patriots.

That is some beautiful Gene Hackman "My team is on the court" sh*t right there.

Here endith the lesson.

This season Brady is going to prove why he was responsible and Bill is going to show what happens when he doesn’t have the GOAT to cover for his terrible roster.

 

[203Pat]

As is the 11-5 in 2008 but you make post after post propping it up.

Fact: Bill has a losing record as a HC without Brady.

Fact: in 7 years Bill made the playoffs once without Brady.

Fact: 17 of the 18 times Bill made the playoff, he had Brady.

Fact: Bill went 2-5 in winning seasons without Brady.

No no no! We don't like facts! We want to find arbitrary stats that poorly back up our stupid argument in this thread!

 

[sb1]

As is the 11-5 in 2008 but you make post after post propping it up.

Fact: Bill has a losing record as a HC without Brady.

Fact: in 7 years Bill made the playoffs once without Brady.

Fact: 17 of the 18 times Bill made the playoff, he had Brady.

Fact: Bill went 2-5 in winning seasons without Brady.

Fact: 14-6 without Brady in the last 15 years.

Fact: 11-5 with a QB that hadn't started a game since high school and looked dreadful in preseason.

Fact: Bill was Browns coach over 3 decades ago. I think he's entitled to be given the benefit of the doubt that he's a better coach today than he was then.

Fact: It's hilarious how much of a pretzel some have to contort themselves to try and convince us Belichick is a bad coach.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Maybe Brady ought to have resisted the temptation to make a snarky comment to the Ravens about the rulebook which probably started the chain of events that led to his suspension.

Ouch. One could also argue his laughing at Plaxico before SB 42 cost the team 19-0...I know the Giants players were really pissed about that and made it a point to smack Brady around.

 

[lancerman]

Bill Belichick cracker 118 games without Brady.

He’s 55-63.

@sb1 wants to only count the last 16% of them to make his point. When you have to ignore 84% of the sample size and are arguing “no this is really what we should be looking at” it’s called manipulating numbers to get the result you want. Belichick coached two full Patriots seasons without Brady. He missed the playoffs twice.

 

[sb1]

Ouch. One could also argue his laughing at Plaxico before SB 42 cost the team 19-0...I know the Giants players were really pissed about that and made it a point to smack Brady around.

"17 points? Hahaha. That's it?? yeah ok"

Absolutely it cost them. And yeah it was noticed - can't remember if it was Osi or Tuck who said they saw red when they heard this. I know how guys like Tedy or Rodney would have reacted if they heard another QB say this about the Patriots.

Completely unnecessary. You'd think he would have learned his lesson but couldn't help himself for some weird reason and it cost him again.

 

[XLIX]

Maybe Brady ought to have resisted the temptation to make a snarky comment to the Ravens about the rulebook which probably started the chain of events that led to his suspension.

There we have it folks. Deflategate was Tom Brady's fault.

Is there no low these people won't stoop to?

14-6 is 14-6. Clearly Belichick hasn't fallen flat on his face without Brady as some seem to hope happens this year for some bizarre reason.

 

[sb1]

Bill Belichick cracker 118 games without Brady.

He’s 55-63.

@sb1 wants to only count the last 16% of them to make his point. When you have to ignore 84% of the sample size and are arguing “no this is really what we should be looking at” it’s called manipulating numbers to get the result you want. Belichick coached two full Patriots seasons without Brady. He missed the playoffs twice.

I think a sample size of the last 15 years is much more relevant than 30 years ago, but maybe it's just me.

 

[203Pat]

Fact: 14-6 without Brady in the last 15 years.

Fact: 11-5 with a QB that hadn't started a game since high school and looked dreadful in preseason.

Fact: Bill was Browns coach over 3 decades ago. I think he's entitled to be given the benefit of the doubt that he's a better coach today than he was then.

Fact: It's hilarious how much of a pretzel some have to contort themselves to try and convince us Belichick is a bad coach.

Do you actually know what the word "fact" means?

 

[sb1]

There we have it folks. Deflategate was Tom Brady's fault.

Is there no low these people won't stoop to?
View attachment 28551

Didn't say it was his fault - but if he kept his mouth shut and didn't let his arrogance get the best of him then I doubt it would have gone down the way it did.

Bradyites make me giggle. They want to believe Belichick sucks because they think it takes away from their guy (even though that's ridiculous)

 

[SHOWTIME15]

"17 points? Hahaha. That's it?? yeah ok"

Absolutely it cost them. And yeah it was noticed - can't remember if it was Osi or Tuck who said they saw red when they heard this. I know how guys like Tedy or Rodney would have reacted if they heard another QB say this about the Patriots.

Completely unnecessary. You'd think he would have learned his lesson but couldn't help himself for some weird reason and it cost him again.

It was Strahan and Osi, I believe...

Honestly, the Belichick vs Brady debate is one that can be saved for later this year. I suspect Brady will have a decent season in Tampa, and Belichick will do pretty well with Cam. At the end of this, we'll realize that both were instrumental in our 6 super bowl wins.

 

[sb1]

Do you actually know what the word "fact" means?

Yes I do. Are you denying facts?

 

[NYCPATS4LIFE]

I agree - but Mahomes has a good coach, a good supporting cast and an underrated defense. All the pieces are in place for multiple Super Bowl wins.

I don’t trust anybody after mahomes. The quarterbacks are meh. I think if we had a healthy cam with a legit number 1 or 2 next to edelman and another big body upfront on the d-line especially tackle we would challenge them even with guys like Hightower missing. It would push harry as a 3rd option.

 

[sb1]

I don’t trust anybody after mahomes. The quarterbacks are meh. I think if we had a healthy cam with a legit number 1 or 2 next to edelman and another big body upfront on the d-line especially tackle we would challenge them even with guys like Hightower missing. It would push harry as a 3rd option.

Maybe. Cam and Edelman really have to stay healthy. Looks like the Chiefs found a replacement for Williams though. Yikes

 

[lancerman]

Fact: 14-6 without Brady in the last 15 years.

Fact: 11-5 with a QB that hadn't started a game since high school and looked dreadful in preseason.

Fact: Bill was Browns coach over 3 decades ago. I think he's entitled to be given the benefit of the doubt that he's a better coach today than he was then.

Fact: It's hilarious how much of a pretzel some have to contort themselves to try and convince us Belichick is a bad coach.

1. Your first “fact” is you ignoring 84% of the games BB coached without Brady so you can use the 16% that makes you look okay. It also still ignores that the only full season in that sample size was 50% of the non playoff seasons since Brady became a starter. So utterly worthless

2. Fact 2 deliberately ignores that 11-5 coming off 16-0 and an easy **** schedule. With a QB that went 10-6 without Bill on a worse team a couple years later.

3. Fact 3 is just “here’s my opinion for why I feel I deserve to manipulate the numbers and selectively not count things and also ignore 2000 which if I’m forced to use it he’s only 3 games over .500 as the Pats coach”

4. Not a fact, just you trying gaslight the people who want to use his entire sample size instead of 16%