How Many Titles Would Belichick Have WITHOUT Brady?

[BobDigital]

At least 3.
BB had a lot to do with Brady's development. If he didn't find Brady he would have found someone else.
There is no way you can look at the way BB runs this organization and think he wouldn't be winning Super Bowls with someone else.
2001 is the perfect example.

The fact that the patriots became brady-centric is part of BBs leadership. Without the GOAT at QB the team would have won in different ways.

Maybe but I am not so sure he even wins 1. I went more into it after you quoted me when i edited my post as to why.

 

[sb1]

I am as skeptical that JG is the answer as the long term heir to Tom Brady as anyone else is... but I do not believe that not trading JG this year means Brady is being shown the door and his exit is imminent. If you think Bill would make a decision like that just for his ego or to prove a point then you haven't been paying much attention to the team.

I am all for trading JG at the right price and it's as clear as day the right price never materialized. Tells me the league doesn't think nearly as highly about him as many do on this board and in the media do. Maybe that price was never realistic for a guy with less than 6 quarters of live game experience with 1 year left on his deal. Who played well but hardly at the level that might justify that price.

To answer your question, yes I believe BB could have won titles without Brady. Might have in Cleveland if Modell didn't pull the plug on the franchise.

 

[XLIX]

At least 3.
BB had a lot to do with Brady's development. If he didn't find Brady he would have found someone else.
There is no way you can look at the way BB runs this organization and think he wouldn't be winning Super Bowls with someone else.
2001 is the perfect example.

The fact that the patriots became brady-centric is part of BBs leadership. Without the GOAT at QB the team would have won in different ways.

This is an attitude that baffles me. You want to have it both ways. You want to claim Brady is the GOAT (which he is) but hey, if we didn't have Brady, we still would've won anyway.

I'll ask you the same question no one else seems to want to answer: Which Super Bowls did the Patriots win in such convincing fashion that you feel they could have taken out the greatest QB of all time, replaced him with Joe Average, and still have won anyway?

 

[XLIX]

Which did they win that yubcould take away the greatest coach of all time and they would have won anyway?

Answer my question first, please, and I will gladly answer yours.

 

[Ring 6]

None or one. I'd guess none just cause without an elite QB it is more unlikely than likely. However teams that win without elite QBs tend to have elite coaches.

Since 2000.

Giants 2 - Tom Coughlin
Ravens 2 - John Harbaugh, Brian Billick
Seahawks 1 - Pete Carroll

So while not having the QB makes it hard great coaches can sometimes over come it by building good Ds and then finding a guy who can make some plays. Would BB have been able to do it? Maybe but who knows. Personally I think BB doesn't even though he is in many ways a better coach than the above people because his personality does not lend itself to win like they did.

BB wants to win every game and be competitive every year. That is a great trait but it has a downside. It makes you risk averse. You would rather take the most consistent and coachable player A than the the erratic but game changing player B.

All these teams that won above had something in common is that many times the coach took the back seat to players. Also you had guys on the team that would seem to disappear for stretches then turn it on in the important games.

BB doesn't really like players freelancing. Though he likes leaders BB will not let a Ray Lewis type (minus the murdering) make decisions coaches should or try to influence the culture of the team. He would not take the player who can be more game changing over a more steady player he can depend on.

All these coaches made those compromises (so to speak) to win cause they knew they didn't have the QB. I just don't see Bill making those same compromises. BB is a great coach but some of his biggest strengths would be weaknesses in a different situation.

So what you are saying is the things that make him a great coach are negatives.
If you honestly think letting players free lance makes a good coach then I have no idea what to say to you.
Belichick won 3 SB before the team became about the GOAT.
Arguably he had more success when the team did t revolve around the QB than when it did.
There are many explanations for this but one isn't that he sucks and cilldnt win **** without the best QB ever.

 

[XLIX]

I wouldn't be nearly so sure. He was a 6th-round pick. Given the overall crappiness of NFL head coaching I can absolutely imagine there are plenty of HCs who would have left Brady buried on the bench and never used him. I think it's very far from certain that he'd even have been a starter elsewhere, let alone winning rings.

Sorry, I don't believe for a single second that the greatest QB of all time - who also happens to be one of the most intense competitors of all time - would not have found a way to get into some team's roster and worked his way up the system in practice.

 

[Ring 6]

Answer my question first, please, and I will gladly answer yours.

That's the point, it can't be answered.
They would be different teams built different. You can't assume the team built by belichick would even get there without him nor could you assume the team built around Brady would be the same one without him.

 

[XLIX]

That's the point, it can't be answered.

You just answered it anyway and proved my point. Thank you.

 

[Ring 6]

This is an attitude that baffles me. You want to have it both ways. You want to claim Brady is the GOAT (which he is) but hey, if we didn't have Brady, we still would've won anyway.

I'll ask you the same question no one else seems to want to answer: Which Super Bowls did the Patriots win in such convincing fashion that you feel they could have taken out the greatest QB of all time, replaced him with Joe Average, and still have won anyway?

Sorry but it doesn't work that way.
The last 17 years doesn't happen exactly the same way yet you delete the QB for the SB.
Plus there is no evidence whatsoever that he would have had Joe average if he didn't have Tom Brady.

This team wins because of many things including culture, organization, philiosophy, scheme, decision making.
To think all of the success vanishes because of one played is naive.

 

[Ring 6]

You just answered it anyway and proved my point. Thank you.

I answered that it can't be answered.

 

[BobDigital]

So what you are saying is the things that make him a great coach are negatives.
If you honestly think letting players free lance makes a good coach then I have no idea what to say to you.
Belichick won 3 SB before the team became about the GOAT.
Arguably he had more success when the team did t revolve around the QB than when it did.
There are many explanations for this but one isn't that he sucks and cilldnt win **** without the best QB ever.

I am arguing a strength can turn into a weakness due to the change in situation. I am not saying the things that make him a great coach are negatives on the whole. I am saying SOME things which make him a great coach could be negatives in a different situation. That is true for many things in many walks of life.

I am not saying letting players freelance (IE giving them more freedom) is a good thing or bad thing. It depends on the player. One the whole on the average player I think it is a bad thing. One a great player it has a much better chance of being get. Set your top players loose and allow them to take over the game and out talent the other team. Of course an overall scheme always exist and you don't ever have 11 chickens running around with their heads cut off but there are coaches or let players go on instinct more than others and certainly BB is not one of those.

There is more than 1 way to get things done. BB's well oiled machine is great and i don't dislike it but the most talented guys can't always play within this style. Saying no to talent when you are not sure your offense will produce can put you in a very hard spot cause while your D may be more consistent building it with more coach-able and smarter players the ability to take over that game on the D side drops somewhat and that is an issue.

No one said he sucked. I certainly didn't. Also he did very well in 2001-2004 but without Brady it is very unlikely he wins any of those.

 

[XLIX]

Sorry but it doesn't work that way.
The last 17 years doesn't happen exactly the same way yet you delete the QB for the SB.
Plus there is no evidence whatsoever that he would have had Joe average if he didn't have Tom Brady.

This team wins because of many things including culture, organization, philiosophy, scheme, decision making.
To think all of the success vanishes because of one played is naive.

All of this argument involves tons of conjectures, what-ifs and guesswork. If we want to work with facts, the facts are these:

We have no sample of Brady without Belichick, but in 6 seasons of coaching without Brady, Bill Belichick is sub-.500 with 1 career playoff win.

 

[Ring 6]

All of this argument involves tons of conjectures, what-ifs and guesswork. If we want to work with facts, the facts are these:

We have no sample of Brady without Belichick, but in 6 seasons of coaching without Brady, Bill Belichick is sub-.500 with 1 career playoff win.

Which I am 100% sure you realize is an inane argument.

 

[Ring 6]

I am arguing a strength can turn into a weakness due to the change in situation. I am not saying the things that make him a great coach are negatives on the whole. I am saying SOME things which make him a great coach could be negatives in a different situation. That is true for many things in many walks of life.

I am not saying letting players freelance (IE giving them more freedom) is a good thing or bad thing. It depends on the player. One the whole on the average player I think it is a bad thing. One a great player it has a much better chance of being get. Set your top players loose and allow them to take over the game and out talent the other team. Of course an overall scheme always exist and you don't ever have 11 chickens running around with their heads cut off but there are coaches or let players go on instinct more than others and certainly BB is not one of those.

There is more than 1 way to get things done. BB's well oiled machine is great and i don't dislike it but the most talented guys can't always play within this style. Saying no to talent when you are not sure your offense will produce can put you in a very hard spot cause while your D may be more consistent building it with more coach-able and smarter players the ability to take over that game on the D side drops somewhat and that is an issue.

No one said he sucked. I certainly didn't. Also he did very well in 2001-2004 but without Brady it is very unlikely he wins any of those.

You are simply making things up here.
When does belichick "say no to talent"?
Jr Seau freelanced like crazy.
Brady has more autonomy than any QB in the league.
Moss free lanced.

You seem to want to create a misinformed stereotype of belichick so that you can then go create an argument.

I'm not going down that path. Have a nice day.

 

[BobDigital]

You are simply making things up here.
When does belichick "say no to talent"?
Jr Seau freelanced like crazy.
Brady has more autonomy than any QB in the league.
Miss free lanced.

You seem to want to create a misinformed stereotype of belichick so that you can then go create an argument.

I'm not going down that path. Have a nice day.

Woah there buddy. I am not saying BB says no to talent or doesn't let anyone freelance ever. You took what I said to extremes. I said he is more likely to take a more coachable player over a more talented player that depends more on instincts given the option generally. We have seen him pick those types often. Also I said he lets players freelance less than other coaches. I think that is a pretty safe to say statement.

Bill is a control freak and wants his team the way he wants it and the defense to be run the way he designs it. At times he has said no to more talented players he didn't think he could get to play in his system over guys less talented that he felt he could. I am saying that can at times pose an issue cause though you may be more consistent your ceiling might be lower.

I don't see why that is such a horrible thing to say and why it pisses you off so much.

 

[Soul_Survivor88]

Belichick won 3 SB before the team became about the GOAT.
Arguably he had more success when the team did t revolve around the QB than when it did.

Co-sign wholeheartedly....those three titles -- particularly the 2001 SB -- had so much to do with Belichick's masterful roster-building (especially around the defense) and his coaching acumen.

The Patriots are not winning (much less getting to) SB 49 and SB 51 without Brady...but those first three SB wins were less dependent on his quarterbacking abilities- and this was well before Brady became an elite, perennial Top 5 QB (around 2006/2007, when he first entered the MVP conversation).

 

[Ring 6]

Woah there buddy. I am not saying BB says no to talent or doesn't let anyone freelance ever. You took what I said to extremes. I said he is more likely to take a more coachable player over a more talented player that depends more on instincts given the option generally. We have seen him pick those types often. Also I said he lets players freelance less than other coaches. I think that is a pretty safe to say statement.

Bill is a control freak and wants his team the way he wants it and the defense to be run the way he designs it. At times he has said no to more talented players he didn't think he could get to play in his system over guys less talented that he felt he could. I am saying that can at times pose an issue cause though you may be more consistent your ceiling might be lower.

I don't see why that is such a horrible thing to say and why it pisses you off so much.

Please provide a list of all these talented players he blackballed.

You are now arguing that a coach who is one of the greatest defensive minds in NFL history couldn't win Super Bowls because he wants players that fit his system.

Please also give me the list of all of these head coaches who are better than him because they won SBs and were not incapable of winning without having the greatest QB ever carry their crappy coaching who won with all these players that didn't fit their system.

 

[XLIX]

Which I am 100% sure you realize is an inane argument.

The only thing that is inane about it is I accidentally typed 6 instead of 7.

Beyond that, it is a statement of fact. We don't have any sample of Brady without Belichick, but we have 7 years of Belichick without Brady. That's a pretty decent sized sample.

 

[XLIX]

Co-sign wholeheartedly....those three titles -- particularly the 2001 SB -- had so much to do with Belichick's masterful roster-building (especially around the defense) and his coaching acumen.

The Patriots are not winning (much less getting to) SB 49 and SB 51 without Brady...but those first three SB wins were less dependent on his quarterbacking abilities- and this was well before Brady became an elite, perennial Top 5 QB (around 2006/2007, when he first entered the MVP conversation).

I've been saying this on Patriots forums for 17 years now:

The Patriots were 5-13 under Belichick before Brady. They went 14-3, including a Super Bowl Championship, the rest of the season after Brady took over.

Some people think this is just a coincidence.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

I've been saying this on Patriots forums for 17 years now:

The Patriots were 5-13 under Belichick before Brady. They went 14-3, including a Super Bowl Championship, the rest of the season after Brady took over.

Some people think this is just a coincidence.

If we just completely ignore the roster and cap situation that Belichick was saddled with entering 2000 and all the roster changes (esp on defense) he made entering 2001, then yep -- it is all because of Brady.