Biffins
In the Starting Line-Up
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2010
- Messages
- 3,642
- Reaction score
- 5,112
Now that their careers are over, and we have enough games and data of them playing without the other, it's ok to do an objective assessment.
www.sportingnews.com
While Brady did win a Superbowl in Tampa Bay, his winning percentage did drop from 76.9% to 64.9% demonstrating that Belichick did have an impact on Brady's game and ability and helped Brady go up very good, to stratospheric, and best all time.
And we have the data the other way around as well as BB also seems to have benefitted from Brady
Without Brady, Belichick likely cannot hold on to a HC job for more than 3-4 years with a garbage 44.9% win percentage, which is exactly what happened to him both at the Browns, or at the Patriots after Brady left, and he was fired both times. So Brady seems to have elevated Belichick from below average, or mediocre at best, to in the discussion for best all time.
But it seems people have elevated Brady's contribution to the run far above Belichick's. e.g. when people mention Paul Brown and Otto Graham (10 titles), they seem to revere Brown more. And when they mention Lombardi and Starr, it's no doubt the credit is heavily favoured towards Lombardi (likely due to run heavy era). But Belichick and Brady debate has only gone one way recently. With press, media, fans, and overall history seems to firmly be in the camp that Belichick rode Brady's coattails to success. How did this happen so quickly? He seems to have helped Brady on the margins as well.
Bill Belichick's record without Tom Brady: How legendary Patriots coach has fared before, after divorce with QB | Sporting News United Kingdom
Bill Belichick is one of the greatest coaches in NFL history, but his record without Tom Brady isn't too pretty.
| Tom Brady | Wins | Losses | Winning % | Super Bowl titles |
| With Bill Belichick | 249 | 75 | .769 | 6 |
| Without Bill Belichick | 37 | 20 | .649 | 1 |
While Brady did win a Superbowl in Tampa Bay, his winning percentage did drop from 76.9% to 64.9% demonstrating that Belichick did have an impact on Brady's game and ability and helped Brady go up very good, to stratospheric, and best all time.
And we have the data the other way around as well as BB also seems to have benefitted from Brady
| Bill Belichick | Wins | Losses | Winning % | Super Bowl titles (as HC) |
| With Tom Brady | 249 | 75 | .769 | 6 |
| Without Tom Brady | 84 | 103 | .449 | 0 |
Without Brady, Belichick likely cannot hold on to a HC job for more than 3-4 years with a garbage 44.9% win percentage, which is exactly what happened to him both at the Browns, or at the Patriots after Brady left, and he was fired both times. So Brady seems to have elevated Belichick from below average, or mediocre at best, to in the discussion for best all time.
But it seems people have elevated Brady's contribution to the run far above Belichick's. e.g. when people mention Paul Brown and Otto Graham (10 titles), they seem to revere Brown more. And when they mention Lombardi and Starr, it's no doubt the credit is heavily favoured towards Lombardi (likely due to run heavy era). But Belichick and Brady debate has only gone one way recently. With press, media, fans, and overall history seems to firmly be in the camp that Belichick rode Brady's coattails to success. How did this happen so quickly? He seems to have helped Brady on the margins as well.
