How Belichick lost his place in posterity

[Ian]

It'd be pretty naïve to ignore the disparity in records with/without Brady entirely. It'd also be pretty naïve to treat the "with Brady" games as one homogenous population. Their time together lasted 20 years and Brady went from late round pick afterthought who fit in with the team rather than stood out to the GOAT that the entire team looked to and rallied around in that time. They won Super Bowls (s as in plural) at both of those extremes and competed for them pretty much every year in between. Within that 20 years of "with Brady" record, BB deserves a lot more credit than he'll ever get with such a simplistic breakdown for those early years.

I hear what you’re saying, but what played out is essentially what happens with a new coach, both when taking over in the new program, and then transitioning out of having a top quarterback.

Belichick‘s record, with the exception of the last two seasons, was basically both of those scenarios.The years when he was bringing along a new program, i.e., Cleveland, and 2000 here in New England, and then transitioning to a new quarterback, when decisions from both a coaching and personnel standpoint went sour.

Again, in Cleveland, there were mitigating factors that were out of his control that ultimately submarined him there. The end here, was certainly more caused by issues of his own making.

Like I said, context does matter. But he honestly didn’t have a true stretch where you could argue the quarterback being the biggest factor, with the exception of the last few seasons. And his issues here at the end, went well beyond even that.

 

[Patriot Missile]

Meh, think what you want. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Yes he has 6 rings as a head coach. Not 8 obviously. However, his game plan stopping the k gun offense is and always be enshrined in the Hall Of Fame.

Helped add the key additions to complete the 01 Patriots. Another fantastic game plan which was a huge part of another superbowl. Defense scored 6 of the 20 points. Should of been 12 with Tebuckys fumble return. Coached Defenses that stymied Peyton Manning before the rule changes. The corners call to run vs Rams in 19. A lot of regular season and playoff games as well where his stamp was on the win. He was the greatest imo.

He definitely had his share of mistakes. It’s bound to happen in 20 years of coaching. The worst being the Butler benching imo. The last few years with so so drafting and putrid personnel decisions pretty much did him in. Along with maybe just not changing with the snowflake times. That’s hard to change when your running a team for as many years as he has. People naturally get set in their ways.

 

[TheRainMaker]

I do find this never ending argument strange and only among Pats fans.

Does Michael Jordan win 6 rings without Phil Jackson? As great as Michael was, even he needed great coaching to get over the hump.

Does Shaq and Kobe win 3 straight and go to the Finals 4 out 5 years and Kobe winning 2 more without Phil Jackson? As a long time Lakers fan, the answer is probably not. Although they were extremely talented in the mid 90's when Shaq showed up, they were very undisciplined and constantly outcoached by Jerry Sloan with less talented teams. Kobe was a damn bench player they were so good. They were dysfunctional as it gets by 1998-1999 when Rodman showed up and left because he thought they were entitled and soft. I haven't heard one Lakers fan or media bring up who was responsible for the success like we do here on a daily basis. Del Harris and finally Rambis were just not cut out for when the games got tougher.

On the flip side, does Phil win 10 rings without the talent on the two teams he had. No because his system is built for talented players and he's never been shy stating those are the only players he's willing to coach.

Players and coaches need each other.

 

[Stu Pidassle]

Yep, he was out for the 2013 AFCCG against Denver. They had no shot without him. Then it it got worse was when Talib tapped out for the 2nd straight time getting knock out by our old friend Welker.

The Talib play was the only time that I remember BB calling a player from the opposition dirty. If nothing else, that was a clear indication that BB and WW "hated" each other. I doubt he would have said it if it was another player.

 

[TheRainMaker]

The Talib play was the only time that I remember BB calling a player from the opposition dirty. If nothing else, that was a clear indication that BB and WW "hated" each other. I doubt he would have said it if it was another player.

I think it stemmed from the contract situation in the offseason. Welker wanted x, Bill gave him y, but then Welker left NE to take an offer from Denver that Bill offered him. Something like that.

 

[Sect140]

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.

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.

www.sportingnews.com

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.

Oh no here we go again.

 

[Lavictoire]

There are way more factors involved than just BB and Brady.

 

[Stu Pidassle]

I think it stemmed from the contract situation in the offseason. Welker wanted x, Bill gave him y, but then Welker left NE to take an offer from Denver that Bill offered him. Something like that.

No doubt the contract was the last straw. There was friction between the two personalities before that with the Rex Ryan foot monologue being most obvious example.

 

[borg]

Weiss developed Brady

To say the de facto D coordinator (BB) who met with Brady 1 our each week developed him..... is on par with crediting Al Gore for inventing the internet

 

[Ian]

Weiss developed Brady

To say the de facto D coordinator (BB) who met with Brady 1 our each week developed him..... is on par with crediting Al Gore for inventing the internet

Pretty sure Belichick provided Brady with some really good insight when it came to breaking down defenses and those meetings absolutely helped. Again, credit Brady for understanding that information and using it to his benefit. But to act like it was worthless isn’t exactly true either.

 

[Ian]

Again, when it comes to Belichick and Brady, you basically had two guys who didn’t freeze under pressure. Belichick could have easily knelt on the ball in that first Super Bowl and gone to overtime, but he went against what most other coaches would have done knowing he had a guy he could trust. And then Brady went out and did exactly what he was supposed to do, which can’t always be said for most quarterbacks. That was a clutch drive any way you look at it.

Having two guys who are both clutch in big moments is so unusual, and we were all very fortunate to witness it. We had two of the best to ever do it. That’s really all any of us can sort of take away from it and trying to pin it one way or the other is just something that takes away from that dynamic.

 

[BelizePats]

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.

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.

www.sportingnews.com

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.

This is a piss ant post.

 

[Ian]

I sort of mentioned this a while ago, but Brady always drove me crazy, in that it always felt like he took forever to get going in some of those Super Bowls. I mean, every one of them came down to the wire. Buccaneers fans got to at least enjoy him putting together a blowout performance. We never had that benefit.

So it’s not like Brady went out there in every Super Bowl and took over the game. It required a pretty solid defensive performance and an overall team effort. We all credit Brady for the comeback against Atlanta - and, rightfully so - but if the defense gives up even one score over that span, they lose. That was an unbelievable second-half coaching job to allow for that to play out.

Think about this. If they had gone on to lose, especially given the pick six he threw at the end of the first half, he might’ve been done here after that game given that so many things had to go right beyond his performance for everything to work out.

Thankfully, it did, and he obviously added another two years later, although, again, it should’ve been two. But still, it’s funny how differently things could’ve gone had that one gone south.

 

[FreeTedWilliams]

Bill the GM costs the Pats, Bill the coach is the greatest.

I guess he gets no credit for the two Giant SB wins, you know where his defensive game plan against the Bills is in the HOF.

Greatest show on turf scored 17 points.
Rams scored 3 points
Falcons scored 21 points (Brady gave up a pick six)
Let no forget Payton held to 3 points.

Anyone who says all the wins were because of Brady, is just lying.

 

[OldEngland]

Go on then its off-season. Whatever the motives, thank you for taking the time to put the info together and present it so clearly. However it is difficult to judge only looking at BB and Brady. What happens with other HOF QBs/coaches? To look at this objectively you need to explore comparable data within the modern salary cap era. For this purpose we'll go back to 1991 as fits with BB HC career.

1) Head Coaches.
Let's compare to the six most comparable coaches. The criteria is having had a HOF caliber QB plus being in the overall top 30 winningmost coaches.

Andy Reid.
Chiefs = 0.715 x3 SB. Eagles = 0.583. X0SB
Mike Tomlin
With Rapist 0.641 x1SB. Without Rapist = 0.527 x0SB
Mike McCarthy.
With Rogers = 0.618 x1SB. With Dak = 0.627. X0SB
Tony Dungy
With Manning = .0.736 x1SB. Without Manning 0.549 x0SB
Sean Payton
With Brees = 0.631 x1SB. Without Brees = 0.500 x0SB.
Mike Holmgren
With Favre = 0.670. Without Favre 0.541.

For completeness other coaches of note on the top 30 with SB wins without a HOF QB: John Harbaugh = 0.612, Tom Coughlin = 0.547. Pete Carroll = 0.587.

Tomlin, Payton, Holmgren and Dungy all dip below 0.550 without a HOF QB. Reid is highest dipping to 0.583 but he had Smith and McNab who are 21/22 on all time wins list. Holmgren and Reid got to a SB without their HOF QB but lost. I don't know what to say about McCarthy having a better record without Rogers! BB has a much larger SB win success rate with the HOF QB but also a larger drop off than the others without one.

Conclusion.
All coaches did worse without a HOF QB. Reid and BB were the only HCs to have turned having a HOF QB into mulitiple superbowl successes. Payton and Tomlin good case studies over next years.

2) QBs.
Criteria is top 100 most winningnest QBs list plus above 0.600 win %. Let's look at other QBs.

Mahomes = 0.771 x3SB
Brady with BB = 0.769 x6SB
Lamar =0.753 x0SB
Peyton = 0.702 x2SB
Josh Allen = 0.677 x0SB
Rapist = 0.670 x2SB
Rogers = 0.663 x1SB
Brady without BB = 0.649 x1SB.
Prescott = 0.640 x0SB
Favre = 0.625 x1SB
Russell Wilson = 0.614 x1SB
McNab = 0.612 x0SB
Brees = 0.601 x1SB
* Mahomes, Lamar, Wilson and Allen obviously have much smaller sample than the others but are included as active. Alex Smith, Goff, Rivers, Ryan, Flacco, and Eli all were on the 100 list but below 0.600 so not included.

Conclusion.
Brady's 0.649 without BB is excellent ( and he was 42+!), but this is not in the same otherworldly elite 0.769 category as with BB. Brady with BB, and Mahomes with Reid are outliers when it comes to SB wins. Brady with BB has the same amount of SBs as Peyton, Rapist, Rogers and Brees combined. HOF QBs and borderline ones have a shot a getting a SB, x2 if team stacked. Statistically Brady without BB is still HOF quality but in the pack of Brees, Rogers and Rapist rather than GOAT with win%. Lamar Jackson just a huge outlier.

Overall in the modern salary cap era:
1) a HOF quality QB AND coach are needed to have a dynasty;
2) a head coach who has won a SB with a HOF QB has not won another SB without his HOF QB in the modern era. With no QB they are below average, with a good one have made SBs but lost.
3) A HOF QB without a HOF coach might only get x1 SB in their career, or x2 if end up on stacked teams.
4) The second half of Mahomes career without Reid is worth watching, as is how Tomlin, McCarthy and Payton do without their HOF QBs.
5) Peyton Manning must be pissed he came up again BB and Brady.
6) There is a parallel universe with Lamar and BB that would be quite interesting.
7) Andy Reid really has an HOF career, but has the luxury of multiple high quality QBs.

Final thoughts
A criticism BB wasn't a HOF standard coach without Brady is unfair, as no other coach has come close either. The criticism BB is average at best without Brady is perfectly valid, he does worse than other similar coaches without their HOF QB. BB got more success out of Brady than any other HC got from any other HOF QB by some measure (with Mahomes/Reid the closest and still active).

P.s this makes me want Mayo to just draft whatever QB he has the feeling about.

 

[Tunescribe]

Does that mean McDaniels is a 3 time SB HC? LOL. Bill's rings as an assistant as the only ones I ever saw counted for some reason.

I am not being critical of Bill here but saying he won 8 is ridiculous when we all now non HC rings don't count with HC rings.

It's not at all ridiculous when you consider the contributions he made to those Giants titles as innovative defensive coordinator. His defensive game plan for Super Bowl 25 is enshrined in the NFL Hall of Fame.

 

[Vindicate]

Brady has a lower % yes but he also did it at 42-44. It is crazy impressive when you add that context.

Context is something sorely lacking from 98% of analysis in this current debate, on both Brady and Belichick. It's some lazy ass discussion and feels almost furtive, like everyone knows that the answer is borderline mundane with its nuance and becomes a lot less sexy than the Small Boys Who Wear Cool Underwear Stories Of Bad vs. Evil.

Like we got people willing to give McCarthy more of a loving, fond sign of support before the puppy has even pissed on their jackets, more than we're willing to give Belichick his roses just because he **** on the rug towards the end.

**** is insufferable.

 

[ahmed]

I didn't qualify as a head coach. Any other coaches have 8 even as an assistant?

It's false equivalency. When people do a list of coaches with SBs, nobody gives Bill 8 just like nobody puts McDaniels on said list with 3.

 

[Steve102]

 

[Biffins]

Leave it to you to bring some fresh material to the table. Nothing better to do with your life on a Saturday morning?

I think BB has materially tarnished his legacy. I think this can only be judged in posterity. Now that BB's career is over, judgments made in discussions and forums like these, and similar conversations in hundreds of other forums and mediums, online and offline, will collectively determine how BB's contribution to the 2 decade run will be judged relative to Brady's contribution.

Is it too soon to discuss this? Is it too soon to pass such judgments. Will it be better to reflect after another 5 years have passed. I don't think so. I don't think it's too soon.

So I firmly disagree that this is akin to beating a dead horse. BB's HC career has only recently ended. We can ONLY NOW assess how we will remember the run, and who we give credit to. Discussions such as these will shape how the era will be remembered.