Worst BB coached game??

[Avenger]

As a matter of FACT, Brady has made Belichick...

Belichick without Brady:
7 seasons, 51-62 regular season record, 0 division titles, 1 postseason (1-1 record), 0 Super Bowl championships

Belichick with Brady:
10 seasons, 124-35 regular season record, 9 division titles, 9 postseasons (16-6 record), 6 AFCCG appearances, 5 Super Bowl appearances, 3 Super Bowl championships

The disparity is plainly obvious.

Taking a closer look, Belichick began his tenure in New England with a 5-13 record. After Brady became the starting QB, the team went on a 14-3 run that culminated with their first Super Bowl championship. In total of course they would go on to win 3 of 4 Super Bowls. It's not just a coincidence that Belichick became a winner immediately after Brady became his starting QB.

The first year in NE he essentially blew up the team, he had to get his system in place. Look at 2008, they still went 11-5. That's not 16-0 like it was the year before, but it is better than the 10-6 that we had the next year. In Cleveland he didn't have much to work with. Quick quiz, who was the last HC to win a playoff game for the Browns? Our friend BB.

 

[ausbacker]

As a matter of FACT, Brady has made Belichick...

Belichick without Brady:
7 seasons, 51-62 regular season record, 0 division titles, 1 postseason (1-1 record), 0 Super Bowl championships

Belichick with Brady:
10 seasons, 124-35 regular season record, 9 division titles, 9 postseasons (16-6 record), 6 AFCCG appearances, 5 Super Bowl appearances, 3 Super Bowl championships

The disparity is plainly obvious.

Taking a closer look, Belichick began his tenure in New England with a 5-13 record. After Brady became the starting QB, the team went on a 14-3 run that culminated with their first Super Bowl championship. In total of course they would go on to win 3 of 4 Super Bowls. It's not just a coincidence that Belichick became a winner immediately after Brady became his starting QB.

It's obvious that you're blissfully unaware of the operating conditions Bill Belichick was under in Cleveland.

 

[jsull87]

As a matter of FACT, Brady has made Belichick...

Belichick without Brady:
7 seasons, 51-62 regular season record, 0 division titles, 1 postseason (1-1 record), 0 Super Bowl championships

Belichick with Brady:
10 seasons, 124-35 regular season record, 9 division titles, 9 postseasons (16-6 record), 6 AFCCG appearances, 5 Super Bowl appearances, 3 Super Bowl championships

The disparity is plainly obvious.

Taking a closer look, Belichick began his tenure in New England with a 5-13 record. After Brady became the starting QB, the team went on a 14-3 run that culminated with their first Super Bowl championship. In total of course they would go on to win 3 of 4 Super Bowls. It's not just a coincidence that Belichick became a winner immediately after Brady became his starting QB.

All of that would be well and good except for the Matt Cassel season which shows what a quarterback with no NFL experience can do in a BB system after he had time to set up his team. 11-5 and no playoff birth is nothing to be sneezed at with basically a rookie QB who many pats fans wanted cut before the that very season.

 

[Wolfpack]

I don't know if this was his "worst" game, but it was pretty darn bad.

Since when is a 42 year field such an easy chip shot kick that you can waste 40 seconds - time for at least 2 plays if not more - taking a knee? I was screaming at the TV about how stupid that strategy was.

I think Belichick was coaching scared; he was terrified of what happened to Baltimore in last year's AFCCG that he did that moronic strategy of wasting 40 seconds.

 

[crawhammer]

It's obvious that you're blissfully unaware of the operating conditions Bill Belichick was under in Cleveland.

In that he stuck around for 5 seasons indicates: 1) he was content with his "operating conditions" and 2) he had plenty of time to fully impact that franchise. Bottom line, Belichick was a failure in Cleveland.

 

[crawhammer]

Obviously having Brady has attributed to many of those wins, but let's not act like Belichick didn't have a major part in them also.

Those Super Bowl teams were just as much about the defense as they were about Brady. Without Belichicks defensive schemes we don't beat the Rams in the Super Bowl and the Colts in their prime years. You also have to give Belichick credit in building the team as well as adapting to the changes in the NFL. When the league enforced the no contact rule with the WRs Bill adapted and went after Moss and Welker, completely changing the offence.

In my mind it took both Brady and Belichick to win those Super Bowls and all the games over the last decade. If either of them were missing from the equation we wouldn't have won any titles.

Overall a fair response however I disagree with your last statement. If for instance, Belichick retired after the 2003 season, I say they still win the Super Bowl in 2004 without Belichick and even an adequate replacement head coach.

Also, in my opinion Belichick has made numerous decisions (coaching and otherwise) that were detrimental to the team's chances for success in the postseasons since 2004.

Anyway, remove Brady from the 2004 team and there's no way they compete for a championship. Remove Brady from any one of the teams he started for and their chances for success drop precipitously. Including 2008, when in fact the team did not make the postseason and lost 5 more games with a much softer schedule than the season before when of course they were 16-0.

 

[Deus Irae]

In that he stuck around for 5 seasons indicates: 1) he was content with his "operating conditions" and 2) he had plenty of time to fully impact that franchise. Bottom line, Belichick was a failure in Cleveland.

He took a 3 win team and got them to 11 wins, only to have the rug pulled out from under him when ownership decided to move and the word got out. When the Browns moved on from BB, they won 2 and 3 wins in their next two seasons.

I think it's fair to say that he had more learning to do, and I think he'd be the first to tell you that he could have done a lot better, but I also think calling him a failure is a bit much.

 

[crawhammer]

All of that would be well and good except for the Matt Cassel season which shows what a quarterback with no NFL experience can do in a BB system after he had time to set up his team. 11-5 and no playoff birth is nothing to be sneezed at with basically a rookie QB who many pats fans wanted cut before the that very season.

My god this 2008 Matt Cassel argument is so pathetic.

Again, the team had 5 more losses than the previous season with Brady. Their schedule was ridiculously soft in 2008. They lost their 3 most important conference matchups (vs Indy, Pitt, & SD) and Cassel was collectively abysmal in those contests (6 turnovers & 0 TD's). Most tellingly, they didn't make the postseason, and that 2008 season without Brady is surrounded by 7 division titles with Brady.

Specifically look at the decline of the passing game and overall offense from 2007 (with Brady) to 2008 (with Cassel)...

Passing categories which declined:
total yards (starting QB) from 4806 to 3693
Y/G from 300.4 to 230.8
Y/A from 8.3 to 7.2
Pct from 68.9 to 63.4
TD from 50 to 21
TD/INT differential from +42 to +10
TD% from 8.7 to 4.1
QBR from 117.2 to 89.4
overall (team) rank from 1st to 10th

(Brady led the NFL in all those individual categories in 2007)

Offensive categories which declined:
Pts/G from 36.8 to 25.6
3rdD% from 48.2 to 43.2
Red zone rank from 2nd to 19th
Red zone TD from 50 to 33
Red zone TD% from .694 to .508
Red zone scoring% from .944 to .892

Clear evidence of a sharp drop off without Brady.

 

[crawhammer]

He took a 3 win team and got them to 11 wins, only to have the rug pulled out from under him when ownership decided to move and the word got out. When the Browns moved on from BB, they won 2 and 3 wins in their next two seasons.

2 and 3 wins primarily with his players. Besides that, is going from 5 wins to 2 or 3 wins really that telling? 5 or less wins is all pretty bad.

I think it's fair to say that he had more learning to do, and I think he'd be the first to tell you that he could have done a lot better, but I also think calling him a failure is a bit much.

4 out of 5 losing seasons and an overall .450 winning percentage is pretty much a failure.

 

[Deus Irae]

2 and 3 wins primarily with his players. Besides that, is going from 5 wins to 2 or 3 wins really that telling? 5 or less wins is all pretty bad.

Yes, it's telling when it happens 2 seasons in a row after he leaves, as well as the season before he got there in the first place.

4 out of 5 losing seasons and an overall .450 winning percentage is pretty much a failure.

Only to people who aren't willing to look at more than just the raw numbers. He took a horrible QB (Testaverde) and made him decent. He took a team that had been in a state of absolute collapse and got it back to the playoffs, and he won a game in those playoffs. Furthermore, that winning percentage is based taking over an imploding team that had fallen to 3 wins, and that has to be noted by anyone being an honest analyst. He had gotten the team to a .500 record after his first season, and was trending upwards with, 6 wins, 7 wins, 7 wins and 11 wins, until the year of the move. That too has to be noted by anyone being an honest analyst.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

There will always be people wondering how good Brady would be without Belichick as HC while others wonder how Belichick would do without Brady as his quarterback.

I don't know if there can be an answer there cause we won't know until one retires before the other but I do know they work well together,most of the time.

 

[PatsDeb]

Nope. I think the worst-coached BB game was either the 2007 Superbowl or that Miami game where they ran the Wildcat on us like 50 times and we were never able to stop it. The D played well; the O was pretty pedestrian (but weren't people on here saying AZ had a good D and we'd better watch out?) Special teams lost the game for us. That blocked punt on the 2 (are you KIDDING ME?!) got them 7 pts. and then Ghost choked on the 42 yd. figgie that would have won it after the D got it back for them well within range. Gronk had a couple of DOH moments there at the end too (although the holding penalty was suspect). How can you blame BB for any of these gaffes?

 

[IllegalContact]

not sure, but the diddling they are doing with the offense is going to increase the chances of brady getting hurt.......lets suppose an instance of 'history repeating'...

next sunday night, an wierd hit on brady causes him to break a rib or 2 or some kind of injury that puts him out for 6 weeks as the pats lose to the ravens....the followwing weeks, mallet gets the starts, and the pats are forced to implement a much more conservative offense, and between a lack of mistakes on the offense and the defense being effective at not giving up points, the pats win in buffalo, at home against denver, in seattle, at home against the jets, at st. louis.....and head into the bye at 6-2

now brady is not 100% yet, but he is good enough to play but the pats decide to keep going with mallett given the following 2 weeks are at home against the bills and the colts and the pats win both. now the pats are 8-2, and heading to the jets with brady being declared 100%.

now most of the previous 7 wins were fairly decisive, but not necessarily to the heroics of the QB. but there were a couple of games where mallett leads the team down the field for game winning scores. and at this point, the team appears to be executing well and playing confident football.

where do you go from here?

 

[BananaRepublican]

BUT does anyone else feel like this has been one of the most poorly coached games we have seen in a while?

Unless you know why he did what he did you can't possibly call it right or wrong.

Bill didn't cause them to practice bad and he didn't cause Gronk or the defense to commit those horrible end-game penalties or cause Ebner to give up the blocked punt or for Gost to miss the FG or for AH to get hurt.

 

[BananaRepublican]

4 out of 5 losing seasons and an overall .450 winning percentage is pretty much a failure.

And Lombardi failed in Washington. I guess we should rename the trophy.

Shula eventually failed in Miami and geez, Jimmy Johnson did too. Would you call Dan Reeves a failure?

I mean if you really want to pick apart a career you can do it with anybody. What is the point? It's not easy to win SBs or to build teams. Every coach bets on certain players and certain players sometimes don't come through. It's not something they can know from looking into a crystal ball.

 

[crawhammer]

Only to people who aren't willing to look at more than just the raw numbers. He took a horrible QB (Testaverde) and made him decent. He took a team that had been in a state of absolute collapse and got it back to the playoffs, and he won a game in those playoffs. Furthermore, that winning percentage is based taking over an imploding team that had fallen to 3 wins, and that has to be noted by anyone being an honest analyst. He had gotten the team to a .500 record after his first season, and was trending upwards with, 6 wins, 7 wins, 7 wins and 11 wins, until the year of the move. That too has to be noted by anyone being an honest analyst.

So I'm lying? Look, I've looked at more than just the "raw numbers" but ultimately its wins and losses that count the most and the final result there was reflective of a failure. You can reference the "playoffs" all you want but the facts are the one playoff win came against New England with Bledsoe providing his usual postseason choke job and then the following week they got blasted by Pittsburgh in the divisional round. Belichick couldn't win with Tomczak, Kosar, Testaverde, or Bledsoe (in NE). It took the emergence of Tom Brady, who immediately turned New England into a championship franchise.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

.......the next game.









I was waiting for someone to say that

 

[1960Pats]

Look on the bright side, now no-one can talk about going undefeated..

Gee, I can't think of anything better than talking about the Pats going undefeated.

 

[1960Pats]

And Lombardi failed in Washington. I guess we should rename the trophy.

Shula eventually failed in Miami and geez, Jimmy Johnson did too. Would you call Dan Reeves a failure?

I mean if you really want to pick apart a career you can do it with anybody. What is the point? It's not easy to win SBs or to build teams. Every coach bets on certain players and certain players sometimes don't come through. It's not something they can know from looking into a crystal ball.

I've never understood why Belichick doesn't get more credit for his SB wins as an assistant with Tuna Crap. The HOF in Canton has a Belichick defensive game plan of the Giants sitting on display right inside the door. That should tell even the most ardent Belihaters that the guy wasn't just along for the ride. It doesn't mean that he's right all of the time, but he's about as good as there is right now.

 

[Deus Irae]

So I'm lying? Look, I've looked at more than just the "raw numbers" but ultimately its wins and losses that count the most and the final result there was reflective of a failure. You can reference the "playoffs" all you want but the facts are the one playoff win came against New England with Bledsoe providing his usual postseason choke job and then the following week they got blasted by Pittsburgh in the divisional round. Belichick couldn't win with Tomczak, Kosar, Testaverde, or Bledsoe (in NE). It took the emergence of Tom Brady, who immediately turned New England into a championship franchise.

Not that kind of "honest". You're not being an honest analyst when you're willfully ignoring legitimate data.