For the "Brady made Belichick" crowd

[Patriot Missile]

Whats done is done. The Patriots have 6 superbowls regardless of who you think is better. I think they are both swell guys in my book for making the last 20 years great.

I kind of laugh off both crowds because in the end the result is the same. 6 championships.

Even if Tom goes off and wins another in TB it still changes nothing. Tom was able to go to the best situation for him, if BB was able to just up and leave and take over a stacked team his chances of getting 7 would be just as good.

 

[Falcons2020]

Belichick is the GOAT....Brady is also the GOAT. Together they were the envy of 31 other franchises and tens of millions of fans. To discredit one in an effort to form a narrative for the other is an exercise in futility & stupidity.

Neither will be as successful without the other. But that doesn’t mean they both aren’t the GOAT’s at their respective job

 

[MassPats38]

QB talent is reading defenses, moving around the pocket, arm strength, all of that.

Watch Brady this year and you'll figure out how wrong you are.

As much as I will cheer for Brady, I am hoping he isn't asked to throw for 5,000 yards at age 43. I wouldn't be surprised if he is cooked by game 12 if he does all the heavy lifting. All the pliability in the world won't make him 25 again. However the season plays out, his legacy is already secure.

Mahomes may break all of Brady's regular season records (Brady played for 5 seasons under less favorable passing rules). He is more athletic than Brady ever was. But let's see how well he does if the salary cap tanks and he loses receivers and linemen or doesn't win again this year before he wears the greatest ever crown. I am not about to put him as Brady's equal in terms of rising to the moment (his moment last year would be very different if a Niners LB held onto the pass thrown directly into his chest).

 

[farn]

The Super Bowls don't happen without Brady.

Same with Favre, Montana, Elway, Kelly, Bradshaw, Aikman, the Mannings. Whats happened is that NE fans have been living in a drunken stupor of always winning. 12 wins last season with a pile of horse$hit for a roster on offense.

I remember the Bledsoe years and his erratic play all so well. The main topic on Pats messageboards back in those days was getting rid of Bledsoe or keeping him.

Reality is about to pay Pats nation a visit.

Favre. One win, doesn’t belong in convo.

 

[FCB02062]

Without Brady the Pats don't sniff a Lombardi

 

[Captain Cliche]

Brady doesn’t win squat w/o great defenses on the other side of the ball.

 

[Danger Zone]

I read the first post and wondered who really is the snowflake?

For one, I've never seen a post that said Brady made Belichick.
For two, the idea that there's a magical system here that is unreproduceable elsewhere is more than just a little magical thinking. So if it's the system, how come no one else has tried it elsewhere and had success with it?

First rule of the "special snowflake" callers is that the person using it is probably the biggest snowflake of them all.

And exactly that, I've never seen a post that says Brady made Belichick and I bet I can count the number of users on one hand that think the relationship between them and winning is anything more than 60/40 in either direction.

 

[Deus Irae]

Brady doesn’t win squat w/o great defenses on the other side of the ball.

In 2011, he took a garbage heap of a defense to within 5 minutes of a SB win. Try again.

 

[BobDigital]

NFL records can often be decieving to degrees. One or two plays this or that way in your season and you win or lose 2 more games. Personally I don't worry about it. There are losing teams every year better than their record suggest and winning teams every year worse than their record suggest. Maybe the Pats deserved to be 6-10 or 7-9 that year. I'm willing to buy that. They were still a bad team, just not horribly bad. They had some pieces in place. 1 or 2 players can make all the difference sometimes. In 2001 they lost the first 2 games by 7 points each. So they were one score games too. The fact is Brady didn't make Belichick. He was a great coordinator before Brady and would have gone on to be a very good and likely SB winning HC without him. He knows more about football than anyone alive most likely. That being said, I firmly believe he would not be considered the GOAT if Brady never came here. I think Brady would likely still be the GOAT without BB. It was more Brady than Belichick, and frankly it's not close.

 

[StockingAnarchyNumber12]

NFL records can often be decieving to degrees. One or two plays this or that way in your season and you win or lose 2 more games. Personally I don't worry about it. There are losing teams every year better than their record suggest and winning teams every year worse than their record suggest. Maybe the Pats deserved to be 6-10 or 7-9 that year. I'm willing to buy that. They were still a bad team, just not horribly bad. They had some pieces in place. 1 or 2 players can make all the difference sometimes. In 2001 they lost the first 2 games by 7 points each. So they were one score games too. The fact is Brady didn't make Belichick. He was a great coordinator before Brady and would have gone on to be a very good and likely SB winning HC without him. He knows more about football than anyone alive most likely. That being said, I firmly believe he would not be considered the GOAT if Brady never came here. I think Brady would likely still be the GOAT without BB. It was more Brady than Belichick, and frankly it's not close.

I fully agree Brady deserves a little more credit than Belichick. Without Brady, Belichick doesn't win six lombardis. He probably doesn't even last the 2001 season without being fired. Brady being there allowed Belichick to perfect a system. With that said, how many lombardis does Brady win without Belichick? I don't see 6.

 

[DaBruinz]

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.

This is a perfect example of someone purposely using a stat without context and making a ridiculous statement. Especially when you consider that one of the reasons his last season in Cleveland was atrocious was because the OWNER F'ed him over. That owner flat out screwed that entire team by announcing during the season that the team was moving and that very few people in the front office and coaching staff would be back. THAT is a FACT.

You also completely discount the fact that was pointed out about this team being in Cap Hell when he took over. You act as if the Cap has zero impact on teams. THAT is a FACT.

The fact that Belichick was able to turn the Browns around and get a WINNING season with a QB like Testaverde is a testament to his abilities.

It would seem that someone who ignores reality the way you do shouldn't be claiming that others are triggered over statements of fact when you ignore facts that put your claim into context.

What's Belichick's record with the Patriots without Brady: 5-11, 0-1, 11-5, 3-1 = 19-18. And that first 5-11 year was due to cap hell.. If you so choose to keep putting up statements bastardizing the truth, there are plenty of people here willing to point out your lies of omission.

 

[lancerman]

This is a perfect example of someone purposely using a stat without context and making a ridiculous statement. Especially when you consider that one of the reasons his last season in Cleveland was atrocious was because the OWNER F'ed him over. That owner flat out screwed that entire team by announcing during the season that the team was moving and that very few people in the front office and coaching staff would be back. THAT is a FACT.

You also completely discount the fact that was pointed out about this team being in Cap Hell when he took over. You act as if the Cap has zero impact on teams. THAT is a FACT.

The fact that Belichick was able to turn the Browns around and get a WINNING season with a QB like Testaverde is a testament to his abilities.

It would seem that someone who ignores reality the way you do shouldn't be claiming that others are triggered over statements of fact when you ignore facts that put your claim into context.

What's Belichick's record with the Patriots without Brady: 5-11, 0-1, 11-5, 3-1 = 19-18. And that first 5-11 year was due to cap hell.. If you so choose to keep putting up statements bastardizing the truth, there are plenty of people here willing to point out your lies of omission.

No it’s just using a stat. It’s better than somebody only using a season and 4 games to say Belichick is some sort of savant without Brady

 

[DaBruinz]

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.

Yeah. YOU want to count the first 84% when he was in his first HC gig AND when the owner of the Browns SCREWED over Belichick and the team by announcing the move to Baltimore. You want everyone to ignore the fact that the Browns owner announced that most of the Coaching staff and Front office wouldn't be back.. And you want to ignore that it took place 29 years ago. As if the game hasn't changed AT ALL since then.

The ones "manipulating the numbers" are the likes of you who are lying by omission by not putting ANY context with them. Claiming that they missed the play-offs twice when they lost the 2nd time on a tie-breaker is completely disingenuous and shows the level you'll stoop to to make an asinine point.

People like yourself who flat out ignore the salary cap hell the Patriots were in prior to Belichick being hired and refuse to take that into consideration just show that you aren't willing to talk truthfully. You are willing to ignore ACTUAL facts for your statistics..

There is a reason for the saying "There are lies. Damn Lies. And Statistics." That's what you and the others who insist on pushing that Brady is the ONLY reason for the success of BB and the Patriots over the last 20 years resort to because when you put context to it, your claims look petty.

 

[DaBruinz]

No it’s just using a stat. It’s better than somebody only using a season and 4 games to say Belichick is some sort of savant without Brady

ROFLMAO. No. It's lying by omission. That's fact. You refuse to accept it because it puts a HUGE dent in your ridiculous argument.

Stats without context are meaningless and superfluous.

 

[DaBruinz]

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%

1 - It's actually an acknowledgement of how the game has changed.

2 - No. It wasn't an "easy *** schedule". That was the year they made 2 West Coast trips. You're ignoring the fact that Maroney went down after 3 games and missed the rest of the season. You're ignoring that Lamont Jordan missed 8 games Mid-Sedason. You're ignoring that BJGE missed the last 3 games of the season. You're ignoring that Sammy Morris missed 3 games Mid-Season. This was also the year of the Adalius Thomas melt-down. And the depth at CB was laughable.

3 -The first part is fact. The second part is his opinion.

4 - That's just your flawed opinion as someone who refuses to take actual pertinent facts into consideration so there is context.

 

[lancerman]

Yeah. YOU want to count the first 84% when he was in his first HC gig AND when the owner of the Browns SCREWED over Belichick and the team by announcing the move to Baltimore. You want everyone to ignore the fact that the Browns owner announced that most of the Coaching staff and Front office wouldn't be back.. And you want to ignore that it took place 29 years ago. As if the game hasn't changed AT ALL since then.

The ones "manipulating the numbers" are the likes of you who are lying by omission by not putting ANY context with them. Claiming that they missed the play-offs twice when they lost the 2nd time on a tie-breaker is completely disingenuous and shows the level you'll stoop to to make an asinine point.

People like yourself who flat out ignore the salary cap hell the Patriots were in prior to Belichick being hired and refuse to take that into consideration just show that you aren't willing to talk truthfully. You are willing to ignore ACTUAL facts for your statistics..

There is a reason for the saying "There are lies. Damn Lies. And Statistics." That's what you and the others who insist on pushing that Brady is the ONLY reason for the success of BB and the Patriots over the last 20 years resort to because when you put context to it, your claims look petty.

No I want to count 100% of it. Not selectively ignoring four fifths of his career without Brady for excuses. The move to Baltimore only effected one season. Congratulations he’s still sub .500 when you remove that.

Sorry bro let’s talk about ignoring context.

1.You only want to talk about 16% of his sample size. Either way you slice it that’s an insane number to wittle down what you count as valid. And I’m sure...... it has nothing to do with the fact that it’s the most beneficial 16% available to you.

You have a lot of balls critiquing anyone when your argument is “dur let me only count the parts that help my argument, you guyz are unreasonable”. It’s laughable and childish

2. The CONTEXT of the 16% we are talking about is that Belichick took what was effectively the vast majority of a 16-0 record breaking team, that only lost Brady, and went from playing a schedule that featured a division with 3 playoff teams including the number 1 seed in the NFC, and went to the SB to playing 2 division which featured 8 teams where only 1 of which had a winning record and even that team was only 9-7 so one game over .500 and the results were....

a) He lost 5 more games without his QB

b) He missed the playoffs for his 3rd time as a Patriots head coach. Aka the only time since 2003 where Belichick couldn’t coach the Patriots to the playoffs was the only year they didn’t have Brady

Oh and the other Context to that whopping 16% Sample size is that in 2016 Belichick’s team

a) beat two teams fluttering around .500 and then a pretty good Miami team

b) got shut out for one of the few times in Bill’s time in NE against a 7-9 Bills team that Brady 4 weeks later dropped 41 points on.

c) then Brady came back and went on a 13-0 run that ended in a Super Bowl victory which wouldn’t have happened with the other two QB’s.

But let’s add more context.

1. Belichick only missed the playoffs as a Patriots head coach 3 times. Weirdly he only coached 2 seasons with Brady not being the starter. Strangely those seasons make up 2 of his 3 years where he missed the playoffs with the Patriots. That’s context.

2. Belichick without Brady made the playoffs 1 time out of 7 chances. Belichick with Brady made the playoffs 17 out of 18 times. I’m sure that’s just coincidence.

2. Belichick had 5 out of 7 losing seasons without Brady. Strangely he only had winning seasons with Brady.

3. Belichick has 1 playoff without Brady. Belichick has 30 playoff wins with Brady. Weird. He’s 10 over the 2nd place coach just counting his Brady playoff wins, but tied for 98th with his 1-1 record without him.

4. When you just use his time with the Patriots, without Brady, Belichick is 19-17. So only two games over .500. With Brady he averages over 12 wins a year. So even if I limit it to just with this team, just since since the 2000’s, he is a pinch above average with no playoff appearances to show for it.

That’s the context of the pathetic sample size you are desperately fighting for.

So as much as you and the other clown jump up and down, you are still shamelessly arguing for only counting the things that help your argument and ignoring everything else. Little kids do that. I’m saying count everything. You are saying only count what helps you. Whatever.

 

[lancerman]

ROFLMAO. No. It's lying by omission. That's fact. You refuse to accept it because it puts a HUGE dent in your ridiculous argument.

Stats without context are meaningless and superfluous.

Me: count all the stats

You: only count the minority of stats they helps my argument. Plz guyz

ROFLMAO.

 

[lancerman]

1 - It's actually an acknowledgement of how the game has changed.

2 - No. It wasn't an "easy *** schedule". That was the year they made 2 West Coast trips. You're ignoring the fact that Maroney went down after 3 games and missed the rest of the season. You're ignoring that Lamont Jordan missed 8 games Mid-Sedason. You're ignoring that BJGE missed the last 3 games of the season. You're ignoring that Sammy Morris missed 3 games Mid-Season. This was also the year of the Adalius Thomas melt-down. And the depth at CB was laughable.

3 -The first part is fact. The second part is his opinion.

4 - That's just your flawed opinion as someone who refuses to take actual pertinent facts into consideration so there is context.

1. The game changed for everyone not just a Belichick. If anything it makes your argument weaker. It’s much harder to build a consistent winner in the modern era yet with Brady Belichick defied the odds but in a much easier era he couldn’t.

2. The west coast trips were the result of playing 2 divisions that had 1 winning team that was 9-7. So you took those trips in exchange for playing the two worst divisions in football that year. But we already established you don’t context that doesn’t help your argument. “Lie of omission”

3. Not even getting into this

4. I’m counting all facts. Even your 16%. The ones you want to use are part of my consideration. That’s the dumb part about this. I’m using everything and because I’m not selectively trying to manipulate the argument like you are, you somehow are trying to spin it. Hilarious

 

[luuked]

b) got shut out for one of the few times in Bill’s time in NE against a 7-9 Bills team that Brady 4 weeks later dropped 41 points on.

I mean don't call other people disingenuous and produce this garbage sentence. You are talking about a game where they started an injured JB because they ran out of QBs in Week 4.

Similarly, the way you emphasize shut out as if it means something is pretty absurd. You know that they were multiple times in FG distance but unlike the Jets they didn't care to score points to avoid the embarrassment of a shut out but tried until the end to score enough points to be in a position to compete in that very game. Even in the last few minutes they elected to go for it in hope to recover an onside kick.

Ironically this is something that should go into the plus column for the coaching staff but somehow it went over your head.

 

[DarrylS]

Who would that QB be?

The best BB Pats draft pick of Brady was due to dumb luck. Cassel had his limits. Jimmy Baby is a fraud and choker. Klingsbury, Davey, Brisket, Mallet.

BB is not a great drafter. Look at his Cleveland drafts. I would trust the Candy Man's mock draft first.

If you had Brady as your QB the priority for BB would not have been on QB's... your argument makes little sense.

Brissett (3rd round pick), spell the guys name right and give him respect, may have done a pretty good job.. but he was traded so we will never know.

If BB makes a mistake on a draft pick, he will not hang on to the guy to save face.. he moves on.

We will see how the very pedestrian Bruce Arians does with all of his talent.. so far he has is 1 win and 2 losses in 7 years of coaching.