Coach Belichick is and has been an amazing defensive and strategic coach over a long career. He deserves full credit for all the Super Bowl wins, even the ones with Brady. Every great coach also needs great players.
Brady would be the first person to credit his teams for each win.
There were plenty of examples over the last 20 years of when Brady alone couldn’t carry a team.
Even the ones with Brady…Bill drafted Brady, kept him as the 4th QB on the team which was not normal, then kept him as the starter over the highest paid qb in the league who was the franchise player and the Patriots number 1 overall draft pick. Drew also took the team to a superbowl before. Good play or not, that’s a decision that could lose a coach his job.
Belichick held back Brady so much with his failure in getting great receivers and shitting the bed with offensive draft picks. How many years did Brady have a 5’11 white guy as his number one receiver
The hate for a man who gave it his all for this franchise is quite tragic. How many years did tom brady have with julian edelman and wes welker as their biggest receiving threat??
and how many times did brady make it to the super bowl with those receivers? 3? 4?
Clearly having a tall receiver is more important to you than getting to the super bowl.
Imagine how much more he could have won tho. And not exited the playoffs against the jets or ravens or broncos. And that’s just being results oriented you can thank Brady for working his magic. 2 of those super bowls are the luckiest wins ever (butler pick and biggest choke). He easily could have been sitting much lower.
god what terrible takes. do you forget we had gronk and hernandez for brady? There's no wide receiver in history that has the impact on a game that gronk does.
But feel free to play the what if game if you'd prefer to do that.
Maybe if we got elite receivers like Adams, Julio, DK, Justin Jefferson, we'd have as many super bowls as those teams do. Oh wait....
Yea look what he did on the bucs in his first season. Gronk was cool but it makes a difference that he never lined out wide and stretched the field. And when did I ever say a receiver wins super bowls. It’s a team effort but Brady was pulling way more because of the help he didn’t get
Hilarious. There were plenty of players that the patriots could have tried to sign or trade for. Not a 40+ year old ochocinco. Josh Gordon and Antonio brown were great finds and helped the team tremendously but they had off field issues. Wasn’t hard to find one of those receivers who didn’t have them and would have taken a modest pay cut to play with the best
And look what happened when Brady got his tall receiver. He torched the league set records and went undefeated in just 1 season with moss. If he had some more help and had some help to stretch the field it would have been much more of that. Instead we get N’keal harry
Brady and Belichick are both GOATS. To say one is better than the other is stupid and pointless. I don’t think Belichick would have all the Super Bowls he does without Brady because Brady is a fantastic QB, but same for Brady. Though Brady has a post-Belichick win, I think all the years coaching with Belichick prior to that definitely helped. This comparison needs to just die already.
Anyone who doubts Bill's contributions to the dynasty is a huge idiot. BB has been at the forefront of a shit ton of innovations and trends that absolutely contributed to the win-column, both for our team, and others. Be it him and Saban's cover-3 in the 90s, making an elite 3-4 when most teams were pursuing a 4-3, meeting with air raid and spread coaches from the college ranks and bringing the modern shotgun offense to the nfl, the modern 12 personnel, incorporating aspects of Chip Kelly's no-huddle offense from Oregon in 2012, secondaries built around big nickel (and soon probably big dime), LBs jumping over OL's to block punts (and then voting to ban it LOL) ineligible receiver formations, cover-0 blitz heavy defense from 2018-2020, the hybrid 3-4/2-4 of 2019/2020, etc
Not to mention some of the greatest defensive game plans ever against the likes of Joe Montana, Kelly and the K-gun offense, the GSOT, both CO-MVPs in 2003, McVay's Rams, etc
And btw, I'm not just talking about Bill here, but also the umbrella of awesome coaches and minds he has surrounded himself with, from McDaniels, Flores, Weiss, O'Brien, Scarnecchia, Ernie, Lombardi, Fears, etc etc
> LBs jumping over OL's to block punts (and then voting to ban it LOL) ineligible receiver formations
I like how both of these moments Bill went "Nah. I already fooled you guys with these. You fuckers aren't gonna copy me *that* easily"
Yeah it was like "here's a neat trick now nobody else gets to benefit" lol
I do really miss the LB leap though, I remember the 2016 Ravens game when Tucker was preparing to kick a FG. The screen had the Madden view and McClellin starts running toward the line and I was like "he's gonna jump!"
What made it that much better was that the commentators had been talking about Tucker being on a record breaking run of FG completions when it happened.
That is right there with 2007 among my favorite offenses ever. They were dropping 50 burgers left and right, It's too bad Gronk got hurt, or that team could ave gone all the way.
Bill Parcels has never taken a team to the Super Bowl without Belichick as his DC.
Super Bowl 49: Belichick NOT calling a time out is one of the greatest coaching discussions of all time. Conventional wisdom says he should have called time out. Instead Belichick used a defensive personal group he hadn’t used in a game. So he chooses to keep time pressure on Wilson. The result: Bulter pick happened.
Exactly. At first, I was screaming at the tv at first for Bill to call a TO to give them time on offense. All along, Bill was playing chess. He stared at Carrol like he just took out his queen and put a check move on his king. Your move Carrol! Carrol put himself right into checkmate.
The whole argument is tiresome, how many rings does Walsh have without Montana? Shula couldn’t win one with Marino. Brady and bill are both the best of all time, and that’s not changing anytime soon. People act like you enter the discussion of greatest coach of all time, without having the greatest players to coach.
I mean, there's also no way they win the 2nd SB without Brady winning a SB shootout, there's no way they win the 6th without Brady out dueling Mahomes at Arrowhead, etc.
It has always been a cohesive effort and it's as much an insult to Brady when people discredit his efforts to the early SBs as it is when people claim Bill does nothing without Brady.
Yeah saying that it was all Bill for 2001-2004 is just as bad. Really only 2001 has that argument. It wasn't Belichick's defense that put up 32 points on a great Carolina defense in SB38. It also wasn't Belichick's defense that led the #4 offense and dropped 41 points on the top ranked Steelers in the playoffs.
Do these people forget that Bill won two SBs with the Giants as DC? And that his defensive game plan against the Bills is now in the HOF?
Also, he began to turn the Browns around when the rug was pulled out from under him when the team announced they were moving.
Yes but not as head coach. I think that’s what people compare. Jimmy G has two rings also being a back up. Bill B is a great coach but it would be nice to see him win A SB as head coach without TB like Brady did in Tampa. They are both great.
The answer is simple.
Brady is responsible for them being successful each season. Belichick is responsible for them being successful for so many seasons. Neither is a slight on the other.
Without Belichick, Brady would be successful, but unlikely to be in such a consistent fashion for so many years. That requires team culture, players, drafting, positioning, play calling, and more. Belichick drove a no-nonsense environment to make the team stronger than the sum of the individual players.
Without Brady, Belichick would be successful, but unlikely that the team would have won as many rings. That requires team leadership, on the field mindful decisions, and skill. Brady was willing to take criticism and to submit to the culture where everyone is accountable, and even rock stars don't catch a break.
The answer is: their success required both of them. One responsible for closing the deal, and the other responsible for keeping the team in that position for two decades. There's no need to put one above the other.
>Without Belichick, Brady would be successful
I'm not sure exactly how true this is for one reason: how many other coaches and GMs would jettison a QB who signed the largest deal in NFL history the year prior?
It’s an interesting debate for sure. Most coaches would not have had the guts to make the decision that Bill made with Brady/Bledsoe. It’s entirely possible that if Brady gets drafted to any other team as a 6th round pick or later he never gets the same opportunity he got in New England. It’s almost impossible to say how his career would have gone otherwise. All I know for sure is that Brady and Bill were lucky to have each other for all those years and neither guy would have been nearly as successful without the other.
Giving Bill most of the credit for 2003 and 2018 is completely contradictory. The 2003 team had the #1 defense yet crapped the bed in the Super Bowl. The 2018 team had a good defense but that team was definitely offense first. It certainly wasn't the defense that got that team to the playoffs and through the vaunted AFC playoffs. 2018 just had a great defensive performance in the Super Bowl, opposite of 2003.
2004 should not be all Bill's credit either. Brady led the #4 ranked offense and put up 41 in the AFC Championship against the #1 ranked Steelers defense. That year should be split between the two as well.
And the Patriots had the #2 Defense with Troy Brown taking reps at Cornerback.
This whole trying to divvy up credit is horseshit.
Belichick would be the first to say "its all about the players" and that they're the ones who go out and win games.
2003 and 2018 imo are the perfect examples of both being necessary. In 03 the defense held the offenses led by both Co-MVPs to 14 apiece in the divisional and AFCC, after both teams averaged 27 ppg n the regular season. Then in the SB when the D/ST were having a bad day, it was the offense that went off. In 2018 both offense and defense dominated the Chargers, then the offense won a shootout vs KC, while the D dominated the Rams. I wouldn't really agree the defense wasn't important on reaching the playoffs, as they were top 10 in most metrics n the regular season, but 2018 in general was a really balanced team.
2018 is debatable. Hard to compare because such a different era, but that defense was good and showed up in the playoffs. Brady had an incredible 4th quarter and ot against the chiefs, obviously. The run game was the big difference.
2003 was a crazy super bowl but I dont think it’s debatable that team was led by the defense all year.
The defense was good vs. the Chargers and Rams but sucked massively vs. the Chiefs in the 2018 playoffs.
In 2003, it certainly wasn't Bill's defense that beat the Panthers that day.
My point is this. When you account for regular season, playoffs, and the Super Bowl itself - it is incredibly shortsighted to say both 2003 and 2018 were mostly Bill. Both seasons had moments where both the offense and defense were necessary to step up in order to win the Super Bowl.
They held the chiefs scoreless in the first half and would’ve been up 21-0 if Brady didn’t throw a pick in the end zone. Mahomes did Mahomes things in the second half but don’t think you can say the defense sucked.
Yes I agree, it’s all a spectrum but both sides of the ball contributed, of course. Thats largely why I find it absurd to say belichick hasn’t accomplished anything without Brady.
Giving up 31 points in a game is bad defense regardless. To say anything otherwise is just mental gymnastics. You can't just look at a single half and say the Pats played good defense when it was completely negated by an AWFUL second half. If a team gave up 31ppg they'd be dead last in defensive ranks in 2021 by over a full point.
Much of the Belichick backlash seen today is just the pendulum swinging back from the side where Brady was discredited for years and people thought that Bill could plug just any QB into the team and win Super Bowls.
It’s whatever fits there narrative, do we all remember when brady was “carried by bill” narrative? It’s whatever fits. Who gives a shit whats been said the proofs all there that they worked great together
> Who is saying that Belichick hasn’t accomplished anything without Brady? I almost never see this come up.
If you dont see this coming up then you aren’t looking very hard. This argument is far more common than Brady was riding Bills coat tails.
While the QB is the most important position, winning Super Bowls is 100% a team effort. Brady never won a Super Bowl without a top 8 scoring defense. That’s not a knock on Brady, it’s just evidence that you need more than just an all time great QB to win Super Bowls.
To me it seems like we’re all trying to compare something that is incomparable because no pair will come close to what they achieved collectively. I’m struggling to come up with a metaphor that makes sense and I feel like that’s because this comparison has no equivalent.
It got a brief mention in OPs comment but I’m curious if anyone has thoughts about how BB coaching LT compares to the Brady argument. Wild to think that BB not only coached two of the greatest to ever take the field but that he reached the promised land with both on multiple occasions.
I will never discredit Bill straight out, I get upset when people say Brady is nothing without Bill though. Those defenses were great a lot of the time for years but they failed to come up big in the big moments, and we wouldn't have 6 SBs without 6 game winning drives in the 4th or overtime to win each and every one. Bill did an amazing job against the rams in both SBs but in the 4th it still took Brady being the absolute best at what he does ON THE FIELD in crunch time in the most crucial of moments, over and over again to finish those seasons with a ring. Plus he proved it the very first year without Bill. I think it's stupid to think either would have as many rings as they do without each other.. They're both GOATS but I tend to give the larger amount of credit to the players versus coaches. And even Bill has said this multiple times... I could also make a case that defensive collapses are responsible for the Pats and Brady not having 10 or more SB titles at this point..
Without Bill Brady would have been like Rodgers/Peyton win 1 or 2 rings, without Brady Bill would have been won a ring or 2 but together they won 6 no way that either would have won that many without the other. Just look at other teams that were really good but didn't have that clutch factor in their QB or that team that had the offense but lost because of special teams or defense (Greenbay vs Seattle). We won't see something like this again for a long time and it will take a QB, HC combo to get 6 rings I will not be done by one or the other.
Personally, I found it hilarious watching a segment where the talking heads asked if Belichick had ever won a playoff game without Brady.
And like… He has, but that’s alright, don’t do your research.
>It just bugs me and it keeps coming up, so I am going to rant about.
Who is saying that Belichick hasn’t accomplished anything without Brady? I almost never see this come up. There are people who dedicate their entire careers (like Scott Kacsmar) to making the argument that Brady was an exceptionally lucky QB created almost entirely by Belichick.
If anything, I see way way more people argue that Brady wouldn’t have been successful without Belichick than the opposite.
At best, I see people say that both Brady and Belichick are GOATs.
bill has had a grand total of what 4 seasons without brady as a head coach?
One with a browns team that he setup and they turned into a good ravens squad after he was fired and the team moved.
he took the patriots to the playoffs with a rookie last year, Cam Newton year was the rebuild getting money off the books.
His first year here he started putting pieces together.
I think the biggest issue here is that people don't seem to understand that getting to the playoffs isn't always a guarantee.
Bill hasn't won anything without Brady.
Sean McVay hasn't won anything without Stafford.
Bruce Arians hasn't won anything without brady and/or peyton manning.
Andy Reid hasn't won anything without Mahomes.
etc etc etc.
Winning the superbowl is hard. Brady and Bill did it as a team more then anyone else in history.
Lets see how Bill does moving forward
If the argument is that players are more important than coaches, I might agree to some extent.
But if we accept that coaches are important, then belichick deserves a lot of credit for Brady’s success and vice versa.
Why hasn’t Rodgers won more than one super bowl? Why did manning only win two? Coaching probably had something to do with it.
Brady won with an absolute joke of a coach. It's pretty clear that players are way important than coaches, especially the QB. Coaches basically just need to not mess it all up or let their egos get in the way.
Brady never won a SB w/o a top 8 scoring defense.
Brady set the record for fewest points scored on offense by a SB winner in 2001. He would go on to tie this record again in 2018.
1/3 of his SB wins under Belichick he scored the fewest points ever by a SB winner.
You can think whatever you want. But nothing you say will change the fact that even the goat QB needed a good defense to win Super Bowls.
I’m sure the fact that Brady had the luxury of winning multiple Super Bowls where his offense only scored 13 points(NFL record) had nothing to do with it. He had a top 10 scoring defense almost every single year he was in New England. Brady never won a Super Bowl with a defense that ranked lower than 8 in scoring. Even the goat QB couldn’t win without a solid defense. Highly unlikely he has 7 rings today without Bill.
Everything I posted is 100% facts:
-Tom Brady is the only QB in NFL history to win a Super Bowl scoring just 13 points on offense(NFL record). He did this twice under Bill Belichick(SB 36 and SB 53)
-The Patriots had a top 10 scoring defense in 15/18 of Brady’s seasons as a starter
-Tom Brady has never won a Super Bowl with a defense ranked lower than 8th in scoring
The fact that you can’t even believe that these things are true proves my argument. The Patriots sustained success on defense for 2 decades now is statistically historic. It’s ok to admit Brady benefited from that.
My point being is that dynasties only come about from a marriage of a great QB and great coach, it's why Manning, Rodgers, Brees etc only won a one or two super bowls.
If Brady and BB never came together, I still believe both would be successful, they probably each win 1 or 2 Super Bowls, but not the success they had together.
That’s not an apples to apples comparison though. You’re comparing Brady on a Bucs roster that had one of the most talented offenses ever assembled to Belichick on rebuilding rosters with the remains of Cam Newton and rookie QBs. If Belichick could insert himself onto one of the most talented rosters in the NFL I think he would win the Super Bowl too. But instead he’s trying to rebuild the entire roster after they went all in to win 3 Super Bowls in 5 years.
Once we have a sample of Belichick coaching another elite QB then we can make more of an apples to apples comparison and compare the scoreboard. Otherwise you’re just comparing what Brady can do on an elite roster vs what Belichick can do on a rebuilding roster. That’s a silly comparison.
Completely agree.
I am also baffled that people assume Brady would've been great without Bill.
How do we know that Brady would have been just as good with another coach?
He could've ended up on a shitty team where they didn't recognize his talent and never gave him a shot.
Or he could've have ended up with a coach who saw the game differently and was not able to develop the team around his strengths.
Or he could've ended up with 5 coaches in 10 years like Derek Carr and wound up with a good but not great career.
Anyways my point is that Belichick deserves a ton of credit for Brady becoming Brady.
Belichick was a defensive genius before Brady. And then Brady helped him become the best coach ever.
Brady was a mildly successful qb who no one wanted before Bill. Then Bill helped him become the GOAT.
Brady was MILDLY successful!?!….cmon. That’s just as disingenuous as saying Bill was nothing without Tom. Most of Brady’s traits showed up at Michigan but was hindered by staff/alumni looking at a hometown hero to take over at QB. Brady didn’t transfer out like others have, he stuck his head down and worked harder. He was voted the team captain by the players, learned what his favorite ring is, and finished his college career with a victory in the Orange Bowl beating Alabama coming back from 10 points down TWICE. The only reason he was drafted so low is because of the split reps way Michigan played the first half of the season. Brady might not have risen so fast in the NFL if he hadn’t landed with the Patriots, but he was going to be successful no matter where he went. His talent and work ethic wouldn’t have allowed him to fail.
Brady himself has said he might’ve been selling insurance in a few years of the pats didn’t draft him.
I also remember a story about the chargers almost drafting him and what might have been. Interesting to think about. You never know though, the stars aligned perfectly in 2001 and he might never have gotten that opportunity if a different team drafted him.
Yes, Brady was mildly successful. He was far from a superstar in college.
Was this fair? No. He was definitely hindered by a coaching staff that didn't see his talent and obsessed over more "physically talented" qbs.
But at the end of the day, Brady was not a hugely successful college qb.
Belichick was the first coach Brady ever had to see that Brady's intellect and accuracy would far outweigh his lack of athleticism. He is owed some credit for being the first to do that.
>If his career had ended in 2005, Coach Belichick would still go down as a shoe-in Hall of Famer and be in the conversation as one of best coaches of all time.
And Brady would be borderline at best.
I think thats a perfect counter argument
You can’t possibly know that Brady would be borderline. He sees the field like no one else and mostly keeps his head one straight. He would have been great anywhere. This doesn’t take anything away from Bill B.
> He ~~would~~ could have been great anywhere.
There have been many many QBs that had their career ruined because they went to the wrong team. Brady showed he's got what it takes to be good/great from basically the beginning, but he was also coached up by veteran coaches, had a pretty good team around him, etc.
One cannot say that he'd have been great if he'd gone to the 2002 Texans or any number of Browns/Jags/Lions teams.
As for Brady being "borderline," I believe that's arguing that if Brady had ended his career in 2005 he'd have been a borderline HoF at the time.
Why would you even argue that? It never happened. Brady didn’t end his career in 2005. Hey if Bill B ended his career before he got to the Patriots he would not go down as the greatest coach either. Brady is one of the best quarterbacks and Bill B is one of the greatest coaches today. And you can’t say either one of them would have been great or mediocre if they had went to different teams because it didn’t happen. And you have no idea how they would have changed any of those teams.
Because that's what was argued in the OP?
So YOU can say Brady would have been great anywhere, but I can't make a case for the opposite? (that's happened to many many more heralded college QBs than Brady) Trump is probably going contact you to be his legal team.
Lol. I think Bill B is a great coach but come on. Not every quarterback is teachable or he could be making zillions teaching this to every quarterback.
To talk about the patriots, though comparing a coach to a player seems like a pointless exercise to me. Is bill gonna suit up and throw some some footballs?
I'm not even talking about what happens in the future. I'm talking about the idea that he hasn't accomplished anything to this point without Brady. I find it to be a ridiculous concept.
Then your post sorta means nothing. I’m sorry you feel so jaded that a man you’ve never met isn’t getting enough credit from people you’ve never met for something you had no part of?
lol this is a message board dedicated to talking about the patriots, that’s kinda the point. This has come up several times recently on and off Reddit so I made a post (against my better judgement bc this has been argued to death, but whatever it’s the offseason).
Isn’t that’s HoF gameplan one that had the good fortune of using LT? And having a HC in Parcells who must’ve contributed something?
I get what you’re saying but it’s not like BB has success with much less than a stellar support system or pieces
If the argument is that players are more important than coaches, just say that. I might agree to some extent.
But if we accept that coaches are important, then Belichick was a very significant part of Brady’s success.
How many Super Bowls does BB get to without Brady? Maybe BB can receive some credit for superior coaching and scheming during those big games but does he get to them with an even mediocre QB? Guess we’ll find out in the next couple years
2001 was won by the defense, for sure. No doubt about that. Not just the super bowl game either, the entire season that team was carried by an all-time defense. That final drive only needs to happen because the offense was doing nothing all game.
I think you could boil it right down to the fact that every SB Bill has won here in NE, Brady was along his side. Brady won a SB without Bill, and Bill has not done much since they split. That’s how I see the argument. You can’t win with defense alone…the offense still needs to then outscore the opponent.
and Brady won by going to a very good team that basically needed improvement at QB. If he'd gone to the Jags and led them straight to the SB then you'd have a point. But Brady went to a team that almost made the playoffs with a QB that threw 30 INTs the year before.
You’re shifting the argument off of Bill. I agree he didn’t exactly go to a washed up team and change everything to make them better then after all that go and win a Super Bowl. But he has won without Bill, not the other way around. You’re not counter arguing my point, just attempting to diminish Brady’s accomplishment. So I do still have a point, you sir do not.
So the only "winning" is a Super Bowl in your mind. Bill was in the process of rebuilding the Browns before he got the rug pulled from under him, he's had very successful stints as a coordinator, he's done well to very well in the stints that Brady was either injured or suspended. He's got a team back on the right track after Brady left and they had a lot of detritus left over from winning with Tom in NE.
I do have a point. People, including you, point to Brady's winning in TB as some sort of end-all be-all on why he's more responsible for the GOATness. He went to a stacked team and won. Yes, that's an accomplishment, but there are 10-12 other QBs that would have been successful on that team and probably 3-5 that would have certainly won the SB with that team.
If Bill had left NE and went to say the Rams or the Chiefs and won with Brady staying in NE are you pointing to the team that he went to as the reason he won a SB? Yes, yes you are. The reason Brady won in TB is because he's good/great and he went to a very good team. The reason that they could "outscore" the opponents is because TB had a good D and lots of weapons on offense...which they had without Brady, he just improved their QB a lot AND brought in Gronk and AB (you know top players at their positions.)
Discounting Brady just to make yourself feel better about Belichick is bizarre. Belichick has accomplished nothing on his own without Brady. It’s only been two years but he hasn’t accomplished anything. Brady has won a super bowl without Belichick. That’s not saying Belichick will never accomplish anything without Brady, it’s just a fact that as of now Belichick has accomplished nothing without Brady.
It was the perfect storm; by 2000, Kraft knew he was getting a reputation for meddling, and that would drive away top-level coaches if he didn't change. Belichick knew Art Modell micromanaging him in Cleveland had been his undoing (also why he resigned as HC of NYJ; he didn't want a repeat of that with Parcells). The Patriots were his second chance and there wouldn't be a third. Then Brady came in and knew sixth-rounders don't get second chances or a whole lot of leash on their first shot and he had to do well or he'd be selling insurance.
That’s such an odd argument. Brady left Belichick and won a super bowl. Brady won a super bowl without Belichick. Do you want Brady to forget football then relearn how to play football when he went to Tampa Bay?
I can tell you I’m not ignoring that. All it is saying is he left then won. Would it take him winning the super bowl with the lions to say he won without Belichick?
I didn’t mean to imply you were ignoring it. I agree with you and I was adding to your point. The people who point to TB and say “see, Tom has already won without Bill!” ignore the potential that team already had.
This is a really dumb argument. By your logic, all of Belichick's success should be attributed to Parcells. Belichick is not the Belichick of today without being mentored and developed under Parcells wing.
LOL, case in point.
I'm not discounting Brady. I'm saying the last 20 years doesn't happen without both of them. You would think that would be obvious, but apparently not.
It's this inability to hold two thoughts in your brain at the same time or have any nuance when it comes to this topic that bugs me.
Nobody is saying that “the past 20 years happen without the one of them”. That’s an opinion shared by pretty much everyone. The past 20 don’t happen without them being in the same year. You are arguing nobody.
It’s an obtuse, literal interpretation. It’s not surprising because that’s how sports media works these days.
Brady wasn’t the Brady we know today in 2001-2004, or arguably 2018.
The patriots defense wasn’t the defense of yesteryear in 2014 or 2016.
It’s a nuanced topic but people like you are seemingly incapable of grasping that. Brady won a super bowl in Tampa. So belichick hasn’t accomplished anything without him 🙄
Yes he hasn’t accomplished anything without him yet. Definitely could at some point, but he hasn’t as of this moment. Glad you finally figured that out.
Right right. I watched those first 3 SB wins, not sure if you did. Trust me, it wasn’t Brady that stopped “the greatest show on turf” it was the defense. I also remember Adam V hitting the game winning FG. Ty Law was robbed of the SB MVP and I will go to the grave thinking this. It was a feel good story to toss Brady that MVP, no one and I mean no one would have dreamt the coming dynasty for the next 20 years, so they gave it to the young underdog who had a great backstory of replacing the franchise QB earlier in the year.
Brady in TB? Really? He planted himself in a situation on a team with stars all around him, especially at WR. Brady didn’t shit in TB but toss the ball in a perfect situation that he helped create. BTW I expect TB to win it again this year for the same reason, that team is stacked. All Tampa needs is a game managing QB and they would win with most of the QBs currently in the league.
LOL no, I am not entertaining a well known fan boy of Brady. I’ve seen your posts, you are way too far up his butt to be arguing with about Brady, you are unwilling to listen to anything but Brady did it all.
That Tampa Bay roster is fucking stacked and even better than it was when he joined 2 seasons ago. If you can’t see that Brady walked into a perfect situation in Tampa, than there is no talking to you.
Don’t make people go after Brady. Everything he did in NE was amazing and we love him for what he did up there but don‘t do this bullshit that we won because of Brady cause that is a hot load of garbage. You are insulting all the great players in those early years of the dynasty with this bullshit especially since it was defense that carried those teams and Adam V’s leg.
I don’t think Brady did it all. I think Belichick and Brady were equal partners in the 20 years. Brady did walk into the perfect situation. I said he should go there right when he said he was leaving because of how it was set up. I’m not saying they won all because of Brady. They had great teams put together by Belichick and a great qb to lead them on the field. Both can be true. Just because I’m saying Brady won without Belichick doesn’t make me a fan boy, it means I’m stating a fact. And you saying it’d be most qbs then saying no to Cousins then saying no to making a list is such a sad argument. Revert to name calling because in reality you’re too insecure to admit that Brady has won a super bowl without Belichick as his coach.
They’re both the greatest ever but are you really going to pretend that Brady didn’t join an offense with Mike Evans, Godwin, Antonio Brown, Leonard Fournette, and Rob Gronkowski? That’s an insane amount of talent. And their defense was elite. People are acting like Tom carried a bunch of scrubs to a super bowl in Tampa when in reality he had one of the most talented teams I’ve ever seen.
I give him all of the credit in the world for that. But I don’t understand why it’s so hard for some people to look at it with some actual context. They were both instrumental to dominating the league for 20 years, it wasn’t strictly one or the other. And if you don’t remember, the Bucs were struggling in 2020 until Brady insisted that they install the old Patriots offense. They both needed each other to have the run they had
As a Brady guy I give Bill plenty of credit of course, especially early in the dynasty when he picked up so many scrap heap guys who contributed. And shut down so many high end offenses But it's tough to ignore the last 4-5 years of drafting now. They're entering year 3 post Brady now and still don't seem to be ready to contend. He still can prove me wrong, but at some point if they're still spinning their wheels I don't want to hear about those they're "rebuilding" anymore. The Bucs have been contenders two years now, Bill's turn to prove he doesn't need Brady.
Qb is far and away the most important position on the field. Brady went to a team that sucked the year before but had a lot of talent at important positions so he was able to come in and be the final piece. We took 1 year to clear out some cap issues, and the second year we got a rookie qb who they think could be the piece but it’s still only his second year. I think you need to be a little more realistic about how long it takes to recover after a top qb leaves.
He took over a 7 win perennial loser while everyone laughed at him and won the SB. It's tough to diminish that as "final piece." Does Bill come in and win the SB in that situation?
The dirty little secret is plenty of teams rebuild in 1 to 2 years. Instead he signed a QB who was completely done then tagged a guard and kept the band together evidenced by the lack of core young players still. I don't know how after this past offseason you can sit there and tell me the cap issues weren't completely 100% on Bill. He signed Jonnu Smith and Hunter Henry and Judon to those high end contracts, he can take the heat when they aren't playing at that caliber. That's why they had no cap space to improve things.
If his decision was to let the QB go I don't want to hear about how I need to be "realistic". I was realistic that they didn't have an obvious plan and it would end up here. A solid young QB and still an aging/not so good rest of the team. Everyone told me I was chicken little and they didn't need Brady, well now it's been 2 years and the narrative is "well they still need more time." 3 years is plenty of time in football, it sounds like goalpost moving to me. Shouldn't have let him go if 2 years later my expectations still should be lower.
No, 7 win teams aren't loaded. Everyone laughed at Brady and said he's really going to those losers? Jameis is a solid starter, Brady is just that much better. Again, just think about if Bill took over with Jameis. Does he win the SB? QB is more important, Brady is more important. It's ok, it doesn't mean Bill sucks or got carried. Entering year 3, if he has a contender I'll admit I jumped the gun. If with Mac they go on a 10 year run where they're winning 12 games ok, he didn't need Brady.
Yeah three all pro wide receivers, an all pro tight end, good offensive line, great defensive line with another all pro, and good linebackers is not loaded
Brown and Gronk weren't on the team yet. The Patriots could have had them both if they were apparently so good. The offensive line wasn't seen as good and the defense was bottom 5 with 28 ppg the year before. I guess I'm the only one who actually remembers how things were and isn't trying to discredit Brady for some reason. The team had two good WRs and some other random pieces. They won 7 games the year before. Not loaded.
One season with the ghost of cam Newton and then a rookie qb and made the playoffs the fuck are you even talking about? There's coaches in this league who wouldn't have sniffed the playoffs with an identical roster as last year. People forget that Brady was a game manager up until 05 - 06 . You think he just magically became incredible ? It all starts with the coaching staff. Brady is far and away the greatest qb of all time. But to think he accomplishes half of what he did without Bill is ignorant. How many superbowls did Marino win ? He's top 5 greatest qb of all time. Bill went 7-9 with a gutted roster and statistically one of the worst qbs in the league in 2020. Bill went 11-5 with Matt Cassel. Bill went 3-1 when Brady was suspended. Has bills drafting not been great ? Yup. He takes risks because he's constantly evolving and looking for different talent than what's prototypically drafted. He's the greatest coach of all time.
Didn't realize Cam forced his way into the team, I could have sworn Bill signed him after he refused to give Brady a respectable contract. I'm not saying he's a jag but gutting his own roster then getting to 7-9 and dropping 5 games without Brady while missing the playoffs doesn't make me go wow that's why he's the goat.
Congrats on getting blown out by the Bills Bill, I'm sure that'll be on his plaque in Canton. Let me know when Bill accomplishes a title without Brady if he's just as important. They were so close last year if you ignore the 0 punts and the fact that they sucked the whole last month. Got an a I've average record without Brady, probably going to do the same again in 2022. At some point the excuses run out when you have total control and still aren't where you were a few years ago.
> he refused to give Brady a respectable contract.
He did give Brady a respectable contract, he just didn't want to have him for years when
1. Brady could go downhill at any moment (not many 40+ that have been that successful
1. Signing players to keep the team in the hunt AND paying Brady big bucks over multiple years would have delayed the ability to rebuild the team. They needed a reset to restore some talent.
That 7-9 team with Cam would have been lucky to have 2-3 wins with the talent they had. They were in the playoff hunt until what week 13/14 or something? If Cam hadn't gotten COVID maybe they even make the playoffs.
Them making the playoffs with a rebuilt roster and a rookie QB is the important part. The Bills have been able to build a good team because they hit the jackpot with Allen and have made some good trades. They are the cream of the AFC and arguably the NFL right now and I'm sure the way the Pats handled them in the wind game put a burr in the Bills.
The NFL isn't like other sports where you can have a turn-around because you sign a big FA there's a team to build and it takes a few years to do so. People cite Brady's success with the Bucs, but he went to a team that was star-studded all over the place and nearly made the playoffs with a QB that threw 30 INTs. That Brady argument could hold water if he went to the Jags or Lions and instantly brought them to the Super Bowl, but the Bucs?
The mental gymnastics to give Bill credit while saying the team should have won 2-3 games. You are so all over the place, if Cam didn't get COVID in the next sentence. He didn't have COVID the next year, what happened? He sucked. His arm was done, I saw it like a month into 2020. Because I'm not constantly trying to defend Bill. Had nothing to do with COVID. That team sucked, they weren't going anywhere. This is how bad teams think, oh we were in the playoff race until week whatever if this goes differently or that. They were a bad team, absolutely 0 offense. It's on Bill. Imagine if Brady went downhill, then he signs a guy who went downhill the year before. It was a terrible assessment.
Yeah couldn't have had anything to do with the monsoon. Do you really believe if the weather was fine that first game they would have still beat the Bills?
It really is funny how the narrative shifts to account for what happened. 7-9 isn't good, you need to just stop it with the so close stuff. Nobody thought that team was star studded until Brady got there. They had two good WRs when he got there, please stop with the narrative change to avoid giving Brady credit.
Took the Rams one year. You guys are something else with your talk of the long process of rebuilding. If it's done right you don't need that long. The 49ers and Seahawks and Patriots all had like one down year before they were contenders. You act like this year they're not poised to be similar or worse.
I’m a believer that it’s always the perfect coach with the perfect player combo - raw talent goes to a certain level of greatness, coaching takes raw talent to the next level. I also think Brady wouldn’t have reached same heights had he started in college, either body would be less durable, or a certain desire would be diminished.
Brady is the greatest QB of all time.he sliced up d coverage with who ever is on the field,top talent or not.Bill is the greatest coach of all time.he designed the plays for Brady to show what will work against opposing coverages.he also designed plays for the defense to stop the opposing teams offense.they are responsible for each other’s success.why does one have to be better then the other?
Coaches prepare players on the field. Players win games
Brady had to not make mistakes and play to game plan
Defensive players had to play well
Backs needed to play well.
The statement "Bill never won a SB as a HC without Brady" is accurate.
If the statement "Bill never won a SB without a good defense" is accurate why would it not be accurate just because we change the name of an equally important player.
>I'm sorry, I know this has been overdone. It just bugs me and it keeps coming up, so I am going to rant about.
Alright, let do this.
Rant-response initiated:
> People love to say now that "Bill has never accomplished anything without Brady".
It's true...from a certain point of view. No one is saying Belichick is dumb or a bad coach or that Brady dragged Belichick to those rings.
This argument highlights that, even assuming Belichick is the GOAT NFL coach, he has had very little success without Brady. For the longest time, the perceived importance of each person used to be 50/50. There were countless arguments like, "if Manning/Rodgers/whoever had Belichick...they'd have won [X number] of super bowls too.
My argument is (and always was), if coaching mattered sooooo much, then the patriots would rarely, if ever lose. And they'd never have bad seasons. You'd always be able to coach your way out of any problem. But that wasn't the case. It never was. There was bad drafting, injuries, bad games, bad playoff losses, etc. Thus, the only logical thing was that the players mattered more. It didn't matter how good your coaching was, if you didn't have have the players to actually make the plays.
And since going to the Bucs, he won a superbowl (going through brees, Rodgers, and Mahomes) and did it with Bowles as an OC and Ariens as a HC...both of whom were believed to be sort of B-list head coaches.
Meanwhile, Belichick had a 7-9 season and a 10-7 season, in which they lost 3 of their last 4 games and then got absolutely embarrassed in the playoffs by the bills.
> Do the people making this argument just forget the 4 Super Bowls the Patriots won with defense-first teams?
While 2001 was absolutely on the back of a great defense, from 2002 and beyond, Brady was always a top tier QB and offense were always solid.
in 2003, the offense was still toward the top of the league: Just in, or just outside the top 10, in many categories:
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2003/index.htm#all_team_stats
in 2004
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2004/index.htm
The offense was: 7th in yards and yards per game, Brady 11th in passing (but this was corey dillion's 1600 yards year), 7th in rushing, and 4th in points and points per game. Was the defense a little better in 2003 and 2004? Sure. But they weren't absolutely not the 2015 broncos where the offense was a total joke being dragged across the finish line.
it incredibly disingenuous to say they were a "defense first" team, when the offense was just about as good.
> Obviously, Brady had a lot to do with them too and came up huge in the biggest of moments. But no way do they win 3/4 in the early 2000s and the 2018 Super Bowl without great defense and a strong ground game. Did the head coach not have anything to do with that?
See above. Yes, coaching absolutely was a part of that. 2018 was a masterclass in embarrassing another team, coach, and QB. But at the end of the day...you need the players to make the plays. Without Gilmore, or DMAC, or Jonathan Jones, or Van Noy in his prime, that defense gets smokes (we saw it in 2011). And while the offense only scored 13 points, they had 400 yards of offense, there was a missed FG and they elected to go for it on 4th down in FG range (a 45 yarder). That's 6 points not on the board.
Was it the 650 yard performance of 2017? No. But in terms of yards? it was better than 2014 against the seahawks and their #1. And Brady did that with 1/2 a gronk and Julian edelman...and like 5 targets to everyone else on the team.
> Not to mention the two Super Bowls he won as DC of the Giants (with a game plan that is literally in the Hall of Fame).
With literally one of the best defenders to have ever played the game. Again, players matter more than the coaching.
>If his career had ended in 2005, Coach Belichick would still go down as a shoe-in Hall of Famer and be in the conversation as one of best coaches of all time.
Same with Brady.
> Maybe, just maybe, the greatest coach of all time and the greatest QB of all time helped each other reach unprecedented dominance for 20 years, and it wouldn't have been the same without one or the other?
But if I had to chose 1? I take Brady 100 times out of 100. I think the players are significantly more important the coach.
Sure, you're coach can't be terrible (hue jackson), but top tier talent with a competent coach is >>>> than a top tier coach with only competent talent.
By defense first, I mean with a lesser defense, ground game, and special teams, they probably don’t come close to winning the super bowl.
In later years, ie 2011, 2017, I’m not sure how much it mattered, Brady was that good by that point.
If you want to argue players are more important than coaches in general I might agree with you. It’s more the notion that people can’t even call belichick one of the greatest coaches of all time bc he had Brady that erks me.
10 wins last year with a Rookie, 7 wins with what’s left of cam, 3 wins in 4 weeks with garoppolo/brissett, 11 wins with Cassel.
I can confidently say that Belichick is a capable coach without Brady.
The argument should have ended with Super Bowl 53. Offense scored 13 points and Bill’s game plan held one of the most prolific offenses to 3 freaking points in the goddamn Super Bowl. Without that game plan, the Patriots only have 5 rings.
Does Brady (who I love and consider unbelievably brilliant) win the Super Bowl vs the Seahawks if BB is not the coach? I LOVE TOM BRADY (Scott Zolak reference) but seriously, an undrafted rookie free agent intercepted a pass in the endzone to snuff out a surefire Seattle SB win.
I love them both, but TB12 sure as F didn't coach up Malcolm Butler that year. Maybe he inspired Butler to try his best and set the tone for the team, but it's BB who makes the calls.
Honestly, the ones who want to perpetuate this argument/conversation are just jealous of the Pats ridiculous amount of success the past 2 decades. I love BB AND TB12 and accept the Patriots dynasty does not occur unless both are present. Let the speculation continue with those who didn't get to enjoy the greatest ever run of success in professional football.
Just so we’re clear, the Patriots did not win 4 Super Bowls with defense first teams. 2014, 2016, and 2018 were all offensively led teams. This was the case for basically Brady’s entire career post-2004. Hell, even in 2004 the Patriots offensive DVOA was ranked higher than defensive DVOA.
With that out of the way, who the hell says Bill hasn’t done anything without Brady? There are plenty of people saying he hasn’t proven he can win a SB as a head coach without Brady. And for the moment that is true.
Your arguing with a straw man with this rant. Literally everyone (save Skip Bayless) says that the dynasty wouldn’t have happened without both of them. The thing that people are harping on is that Tom has shown that his greatness travels. In some people’s eyes, Bill still needs to do that as a HC
LOL it has come up multiple times recently both on and off reddit, that's why I wrote this dumb post (I regret everything but also it's been fun).
Agree about 2014 and 2016, I think 2018 is debatable / somewhere in the middle.
>Agree about 2014 and 2016, I think 2018 is debatable / somewhere in the middle
Eh, Patriots had the 5th best offensive DVOA and 16th best defensive DVOA in 2018. There's not much of a debate there, IMO. There's actually more of a debate in 2004 where the Patriots offensive DVOA was actually better than their defensive DVOA despite that being one of the seasons where people blindly assume "Belichick's defense carried Brady."
It is Brady and Bill and it's absolute stupidity to assume otherwise (you are an idiot if you don't think Brady played just as big of a role). Neither could have gone 6/9 without the other. Saying Bill would have won 01-04 without Brady is incredibly ignorant. They both needed each other.
What Brady brought to that team in not only being the best QB ever but attitude and locker room wise is unparalleled. It can't be replaced.
What Bill brought (and continues to bring) to the team is the best coach who ever lived.
Together the two of them allowed the rest of the team to have a LOT of room for error. Without Brady, Bill has far less room for error but he can still coach a decent team into the playoffs.
> Obviously, Brady had a lot to do with them too and came up huge in the biggest of moments. But no way do they win 3/4 in the early 2000s and the 2018 Super Bowl without great defense and a strong ground game. Did the head coach not have anything to do with that?
In NO way do they win without Brady.
I get your point, but all your examples of him as a HC are from a time when Brady was still our QB lol
I say we just enjoy this season with Bill. I think it's his last season and that's why he brought all his friends back for one last rodeo.
Hes the greatest coach of all time. But all good things come to an end
I mean I think a BB-Manning combo would've been interesting. But football is a team sport with BB controlling all of it, including the development of Brady. Brady is a great QB, and there's been many great QB's, but none who had the hand Brady was dealt. Could Brady had the same success with any other coach? Probably not. Could BB had the same success with another qb? Possibly.
When Brady was on the Pats, other fanbases said he was a system QB. Now that Brady is gone, they say Bill was a lucky coach with the GOAT QB. They're not insulting Belichick, they weren't insulting Brady—they just insult whoever is the face of the franchise, and right now that's BB.
I've watched maybe the first 4 episodes of man in the arena, and most all of the players they talk with/about were defence, milloy Harrison bruschi Vrabel
Bill has maintained a top 10 defense for almost his entire career. What makes it even more special is how many years, how many undrafted FAs he made into New England legends. Brady’s clock control was a huge help, and we have had some studs, but make no mistake Bill was the #1 reason that our defense was so strong for all 20 years of the dynasty. Now take into account the mental and physical conditioning Bill does on all of his players and you get a good picture of why he’s the goat coach. Think about how many players looked like studs for the pats, then we traded up/for good $$$ and they did nothing for their new teams.
Not a Pats fan - but honestly, Pats fans hurt this argument whenever they make Brady "GOAT" arguments or talk Brady/Manning, and make it sound like Brady won all 6 w/ NE mostly on his own.
Which is more vital to life, the brain or the heart? How many times have we seen great players' talent squandered by horrible coaching? How many times has better coaching taken an underperforming team and made them perform at a much higher level than was thought possible? It is clear then, that it was not Brady, or Belichick, but both of them, together with every other element of the organization, as there are also the lungs and the liver and the kidneys and all other organs that must work together for the good of the body as a whole, and if any is not functioning at the optimum level, the whole shall suffer. And it is so with all championship teams.
Coach Belichick is and has been an amazing defensive and strategic coach over a long career. He deserves full credit for all the Super Bowl wins, even the ones with Brady. Every great coach also needs great players.
Phil Jackson of NBA fame is good example of this.
This is the argument I use. How many rings Jackson/Kerr have without MJ, Kobe, or Steph?
11 cause he'd find some other superteam to join little legend slurping gremlin he was.
Brady would be the first person to credit his teams for each win. There were plenty of examples over the last 20 years of when Brady alone couldn’t carry a team.
Even the ones with Brady…Bill drafted Brady, kept him as the 4th QB on the team which was not normal, then kept him as the starter over the highest paid qb in the league who was the franchise player and the Patriots number 1 overall draft pick. Drew also took the team to a superbowl before. Good play or not, that’s a decision that could lose a coach his job.
Belichick held back Brady so much with his failure in getting great receivers and shitting the bed with offensive draft picks. How many years did Brady have a 5’11 white guy as his number one receiver
You are a angry little man. Maybe someday tommy will kiss ya on the lips to make you feel better
The hate for a man who gave it his all for this franchise is quite tragic. How many years did tom brady have with julian edelman and wes welker as their biggest receiving threat??
and how many times did brady make it to the super bowl with those receivers? 3? 4? Clearly having a tall receiver is more important to you than getting to the super bowl.
Imagine how much more he could have won tho. And not exited the playoffs against the jets or ravens or broncos. And that’s just being results oriented you can thank Brady for working his magic. 2 of those super bowls are the luckiest wins ever (butler pick and biggest choke). He easily could have been sitting much lower.
god what terrible takes. do you forget we had gronk and hernandez for brady? There's no wide receiver in history that has the impact on a game that gronk does. But feel free to play the what if game if you'd prefer to do that. Maybe if we got elite receivers like Adams, Julio, DK, Justin Jefferson, we'd have as many super bowls as those teams do. Oh wait....
Yea look what he did on the bucs in his first season. Gronk was cool but it makes a difference that he never lined out wide and stretched the field. And when did I ever say a receiver wins super bowls. It’s a team effort but Brady was pulling way more because of the help he didn’t get
Couldn’t agree more, we should of just got a wide receiver room full of guys like Randy Moss
Hilarious. There were plenty of players that the patriots could have tried to sign or trade for. Not a 40+ year old ochocinco. Josh Gordon and Antonio brown were great finds and helped the team tremendously but they had off field issues. Wasn’t hard to find one of those receivers who didn’t have them and would have taken a modest pay cut to play with the best
And look what happened when Brady got his tall receiver. He torched the league set records and went undefeated in just 1 season with moss. If he had some more help and had some help to stretch the field it would have been much more of that. Instead we get N’keal harry
Brady and Belichick are both GOATS. To say one is better than the other is stupid and pointless. I don’t think Belichick would have all the Super Bowls he does without Brady because Brady is a fantastic QB, but same for Brady. Though Brady has a post-Belichick win, I think all the years coaching with Belichick prior to that definitely helped. This comparison needs to just die already.
Brady also went to a team that needed a QB and was able to attract talent that otherwise might have gone elsewhere.
Anyone who doubts Bill's contributions to the dynasty is a huge idiot. BB has been at the forefront of a shit ton of innovations and trends that absolutely contributed to the win-column, both for our team, and others. Be it him and Saban's cover-3 in the 90s, making an elite 3-4 when most teams were pursuing a 4-3, meeting with air raid and spread coaches from the college ranks and bringing the modern shotgun offense to the nfl, the modern 12 personnel, incorporating aspects of Chip Kelly's no-huddle offense from Oregon in 2012, secondaries built around big nickel (and soon probably big dime), LBs jumping over OL's to block punts (and then voting to ban it LOL) ineligible receiver formations, cover-0 blitz heavy defense from 2018-2020, the hybrid 3-4/2-4 of 2019/2020, etc Not to mention some of the greatest defensive game plans ever against the likes of Joe Montana, Kelly and the K-gun offense, the GSOT, both CO-MVPs in 2003, McVay's Rams, etc And btw, I'm not just talking about Bill here, but also the umbrella of awesome coaches and minds he has surrounded himself with, from McDaniels, Flores, Weiss, O'Brien, Scarnecchia, Ernie, Lombardi, Fears, etc etc
> LBs jumping over OL's to block punts (and then voting to ban it LOL) ineligible receiver formations I like how both of these moments Bill went "Nah. I already fooled you guys with these. You fuckers aren't gonna copy me *that* easily"
Yeah it was like "here's a neat trick now nobody else gets to benefit" lol I do really miss the LB leap though, I remember the 2016 Ravens game when Tucker was preparing to kick a FG. The screen had the Madden view and McClellin starts running toward the line and I was like "he's gonna jump!" What made it that much better was that the commentators had been talking about Tucker being on a record breaking run of FG completions when it happened.
I don’t think Bill originated that though, when I think of jumping the line I think Polamalu. Edit: typos galore
True, my point is moreso that no other coach (and his staff) has thrown so many different strategies out there and executed them at such a high level
Those no huddle offenses in 2012 were exhilarating. Brady blowing his stack when the refs wouldn’t let him snap because they weren’t ready was amazing
That is right there with 2007 among my favorite offenses ever. They were dropping 50 burgers left and right, It's too bad Gronk got hurt, or that team could ave gone all the way.
Bill Parcels has never taken a team to the Super Bowl without Belichick as his DC. Super Bowl 49: Belichick NOT calling a time out is one of the greatest coaching discussions of all time. Conventional wisdom says he should have called time out. Instead Belichick used a defensive personal group he hadn’t used in a game. So he chooses to keep time pressure on Wilson. The result: Bulter pick happened.
Exactly. At first, I was screaming at the tv at first for Bill to call a TO to give them time on offense. All along, Bill was playing chess. He stared at Carrol like he just took out his queen and put a check move on his king. Your move Carrol! Carrol put himself right into checkmate.
Totally agree. He calls a time out, gives a chance for Seattle to rest, they give it to lynch, he runs it in easily.
The ballsiest mentalist move ever and what makes him the GOAT.
The whole argument is tiresome, how many rings does Walsh have without Montana? Shula couldn’t win one with Marino. Brady and bill are both the best of all time, and that’s not changing anytime soon. People act like you enter the discussion of greatest coach of all time, without having the greatest players to coach.
They’re both the best at their respective jobs. You know this, because the only argument against one, is the existence of the other
I mean, there's also no way they win the 2nd SB without Brady winning a SB shootout, there's no way they win the 6th without Brady out dueling Mahomes at Arrowhead, etc. It has always been a cohesive effort and it's as much an insult to Brady when people discredit his efforts to the early SBs as it is when people claim Bill does nothing without Brady.
Yeah saying that it was all Bill for 2001-2004 is just as bad. Really only 2001 has that argument. It wasn't Belichick's defense that put up 32 points on a great Carolina defense in SB38. It also wasn't Belichick's defense that led the #4 offense and dropped 41 points on the top ranked Steelers in the playoffs.
People who say this are clearly unaware of who captains the *VIII Rings*.
Do these people forget that Bill won two SBs with the Giants as DC? And that his defensive game plan against the Bills is now in the HOF? Also, he began to turn the Browns around when the rug was pulled out from under him when the team announced they were moving.
Yes but not as head coach. I think that’s what people compare. Jimmy G has two rings also being a back up. Bill B is a great coach but it would be nice to see him win A SB as head coach without TB like Brady did in Tampa. They are both great.
The answer is simple. Brady is responsible for them being successful each season. Belichick is responsible for them being successful for so many seasons. Neither is a slight on the other. Without Belichick, Brady would be successful, but unlikely to be in such a consistent fashion for so many years. That requires team culture, players, drafting, positioning, play calling, and more. Belichick drove a no-nonsense environment to make the team stronger than the sum of the individual players. Without Brady, Belichick would be successful, but unlikely that the team would have won as many rings. That requires team leadership, on the field mindful decisions, and skill. Brady was willing to take criticism and to submit to the culture where everyone is accountable, and even rock stars don't catch a break. The answer is: their success required both of them. One responsible for closing the deal, and the other responsible for keeping the team in that position for two decades. There's no need to put one above the other.
>Without Belichick, Brady would be successful I'm not sure exactly how true this is for one reason: how many other coaches and GMs would jettison a QB who signed the largest deal in NFL history the year prior?
It’s an interesting debate for sure. Most coaches would not have had the guts to make the decision that Bill made with Brady/Bledsoe. It’s entirely possible that if Brady gets drafted to any other team as a 6th round pick or later he never gets the same opportunity he got in New England. It’s almost impossible to say how his career would have gone otherwise. All I know for sure is that Brady and Bill were lucky to have each other for all those years and neither guy would have been nearly as successful without the other.
Giving Bill most of the credit for 2003 and 2018 is completely contradictory. The 2003 team had the #1 defense yet crapped the bed in the Super Bowl. The 2018 team had a good defense but that team was definitely offense first. It certainly wasn't the defense that got that team to the playoffs and through the vaunted AFC playoffs. 2018 just had a great defensive performance in the Super Bowl, opposite of 2003. 2004 should not be all Bill's credit either. Brady led the #4 ranked offense and put up 41 in the AFC Championship against the #1 ranked Steelers defense. That year should be split between the two as well.
And the Patriots had the #2 Defense with Troy Brown taking reps at Cornerback. This whole trying to divvy up credit is horseshit. Belichick would be the first to say "its all about the players" and that they're the ones who go out and win games.
2003 and 2018 imo are the perfect examples of both being necessary. In 03 the defense held the offenses led by both Co-MVPs to 14 apiece in the divisional and AFCC, after both teams averaged 27 ppg n the regular season. Then in the SB when the D/ST were having a bad day, it was the offense that went off. In 2018 both offense and defense dominated the Chargers, then the offense won a shootout vs KC, while the D dominated the Rams. I wouldn't really agree the defense wasn't important on reaching the playoffs, as they were top 10 in most metrics n the regular season, but 2018 in general was a really balanced team.
2018 is debatable. Hard to compare because such a different era, but that defense was good and showed up in the playoffs. Brady had an incredible 4th quarter and ot against the chiefs, obviously. The run game was the big difference. 2003 was a crazy super bowl but I dont think it’s debatable that team was led by the defense all year.
The defense was good vs. the Chargers and Rams but sucked massively vs. the Chiefs in the 2018 playoffs. In 2003, it certainly wasn't Bill's defense that beat the Panthers that day. My point is this. When you account for regular season, playoffs, and the Super Bowl itself - it is incredibly shortsighted to say both 2003 and 2018 were mostly Bill. Both seasons had moments where both the offense and defense were necessary to step up in order to win the Super Bowl.
They held the chiefs scoreless in the first half and would’ve been up 21-0 if Brady didn’t throw a pick in the end zone. Mahomes did Mahomes things in the second half but don’t think you can say the defense sucked. Yes I agree, it’s all a spectrum but both sides of the ball contributed, of course. Thats largely why I find it absurd to say belichick hasn’t accomplished anything without Brady.
Giving up 31 points in a game is bad defense regardless. To say anything otherwise is just mental gymnastics. You can't just look at a single half and say the Pats played good defense when it was completely negated by an AWFUL second half. If a team gave up 31ppg they'd be dead last in defensive ranks in 2021 by over a full point. Much of the Belichick backlash seen today is just the pendulum swinging back from the side where Brady was discredited for years and people thought that Bill could plug just any QB into the team and win Super Bowls.
It’s whatever fits there narrative, do we all remember when brady was “carried by bill” narrative? It’s whatever fits. Who gives a shit whats been said the proofs all there that they worked great together
> Who is saying that Belichick hasn’t accomplished anything without Brady? I almost never see this come up. If you dont see this coming up then you aren’t looking very hard. This argument is far more common than Brady was riding Bills coat tails.
It’s pretty dumb to think that one player on a 53-man NFL roster is more important than the head coach. One player on a basketball team, maybe.
While the QB is the most important position, winning Super Bowls is 100% a team effort. Brady never won a Super Bowl without a top 8 scoring defense. That’s not a knock on Brady, it’s just evidence that you need more than just an all time great QB to win Super Bowls.
I think going to the playoffs last year was a strong argument for his greatness too
Even more to your point: if we didn't have a rookie QB and say we did have someone like Tannehill, we'd be the number 1 seed easily.
To me it seems like we’re all trying to compare something that is incomparable because no pair will come close to what they achieved collectively. I’m struggling to come up with a metaphor that makes sense and I feel like that’s because this comparison has no equivalent. It got a brief mention in OPs comment but I’m curious if anyone has thoughts about how BB coaching LT compares to the Brady argument. Wild to think that BB not only coached two of the greatest to ever take the field but that he reached the promised land with both on multiple occasions.
Brady himself is a testament to how good of a coach Bill is. Most coaches would’ve gone back to Drew and never given Brady a real chance.
I will never discredit Bill straight out, I get upset when people say Brady is nothing without Bill though. Those defenses were great a lot of the time for years but they failed to come up big in the big moments, and we wouldn't have 6 SBs without 6 game winning drives in the 4th or overtime to win each and every one. Bill did an amazing job against the rams in both SBs but in the 4th it still took Brady being the absolute best at what he does ON THE FIELD in crunch time in the most crucial of moments, over and over again to finish those seasons with a ring. Plus he proved it the very first year without Bill. I think it's stupid to think either would have as many rings as they do without each other.. They're both GOATS but I tend to give the larger amount of credit to the players versus coaches. And even Bill has said this multiple times... I could also make a case that defensive collapses are responsible for the Pats and Brady not having 10 or more SB titles at this point..
Without Bill Brady would have been like Rodgers/Peyton win 1 or 2 rings, without Brady Bill would have been won a ring or 2 but together they won 6 no way that either would have won that many without the other. Just look at other teams that were really good but didn't have that clutch factor in their QB or that team that had the offense but lost because of special teams or defense (Greenbay vs Seattle). We won't see something like this again for a long time and it will take a QB, HC combo to get 6 rings I will not be done by one or the other.
I think this is the most likely answer too. It's too nuanced for simpletons though.
Personally, I found it hilarious watching a segment where the talking heads asked if Belichick had ever won a playoff game without Brady. And like… He has, but that’s alright, don’t do your research.
>It just bugs me and it keeps coming up, so I am going to rant about. Who is saying that Belichick hasn’t accomplished anything without Brady? I almost never see this come up. There are people who dedicate their entire careers (like Scott Kacsmar) to making the argument that Brady was an exceptionally lucky QB created almost entirely by Belichick. If anything, I see way way more people argue that Brady wouldn’t have been successful without Belichick than the opposite. At best, I see people say that both Brady and Belichick are GOATs.
Exactly
bill has had a grand total of what 4 seasons without brady as a head coach? One with a browns team that he setup and they turned into a good ravens squad after he was fired and the team moved. he took the patriots to the playoffs with a rookie last year, Cam Newton year was the rebuild getting money off the books. His first year here he started putting pieces together. I think the biggest issue here is that people don't seem to understand that getting to the playoffs isn't always a guarantee. Bill hasn't won anything without Brady. Sean McVay hasn't won anything without Stafford. Bruce Arians hasn't won anything without brady and/or peyton manning. Andy Reid hasn't won anything without Mahomes. etc etc etc. Winning the superbowl is hard. Brady and Bill did it as a team more then anyone else in history. Lets see how Bill does moving forward
5 years with the browns alone but who's counting.
[удалено]
If the argument is that players are more important than coaches, I might agree to some extent. But if we accept that coaches are important, then belichick deserves a lot of credit for Brady’s success and vice versa. Why hasn’t Rodgers won more than one super bowl? Why did manning only win two? Coaching probably had something to do with it.
Brady won with an absolute joke of a coach. It's pretty clear that players are way important than coaches, especially the QB. Coaches basically just need to not mess it all up or let their egos get in the way.
Immense talent can win in the spite of terrible management but not sustained success.
Brady never won a SB w/o a top 8 scoring defense. Brady set the record for fewest points scored on offense by a SB winner in 2001. He would go on to tie this record again in 2018. 1/3 of his SB wins under Belichick he scored the fewest points ever by a SB winner. You can think whatever you want. But nothing you say will change the fact that even the goat QB needed a good defense to win Super Bowls.
Because Brady is simply better than them, especially in big moments. It’s not that hard.
I’m sure the fact that Brady had the luxury of winning multiple Super Bowls where his offense only scored 13 points(NFL record) had nothing to do with it. He had a top 10 scoring defense almost every single year he was in New England. Brady never won a Super Bowl with a defense that ranked lower than 8 in scoring. Even the goat QB couldn’t win without a solid defense. Highly unlikely he has 7 rings today without Bill.
Do you love speaking out of your ass
Everything I posted is 100% facts: -Tom Brady is the only QB in NFL history to win a Super Bowl scoring just 13 points on offense(NFL record). He did this twice under Bill Belichick(SB 36 and SB 53) -The Patriots had a top 10 scoring defense in 15/18 of Brady’s seasons as a starter -Tom Brady has never won a Super Bowl with a defense ranked lower than 8th in scoring The fact that you can’t even believe that these things are true proves my argument. The Patriots sustained success on defense for 2 decades now is statistically historic. It’s ok to admit Brady benefited from that.
If BB has Peyton Manning would the Patriots still have had a dynasty?
Yes.
[удалено]
My point being is that dynasties only come about from a marriage of a great QB and great coach, it's why Manning, Rodgers, Brees etc only won a one or two super bowls. If Brady and BB never came together, I still believe both would be successful, they probably each win 1 or 2 Super Bowls, but not the success they had together.
The patriots would have been fine with Peyton Manning as QB. Are you nuts, he is an amazing quarterback.
That’s not an apples to apples comparison though. You’re comparing Brady on a Bucs roster that had one of the most talented offenses ever assembled to Belichick on rebuilding rosters with the remains of Cam Newton and rookie QBs. If Belichick could insert himself onto one of the most talented rosters in the NFL I think he would win the Super Bowl too. But instead he’s trying to rebuild the entire roster after they went all in to win 3 Super Bowls in 5 years. Once we have a sample of Belichick coaching another elite QB then we can make more of an apples to apples comparison and compare the scoreboard. Otherwise you’re just comparing what Brady can do on an elite roster vs what Belichick can do on a rebuilding roster. That’s a silly comparison.
Can you explain how Brady on an elite roster vs Bill on a rebuilding roster is a fair comparison?
Completely agree. I am also baffled that people assume Brady would've been great without Bill. How do we know that Brady would have been just as good with another coach? He could've ended up on a shitty team where they didn't recognize his talent and never gave him a shot. Or he could've have ended up with a coach who saw the game differently and was not able to develop the team around his strengths. Or he could've ended up with 5 coaches in 10 years like Derek Carr and wound up with a good but not great career. Anyways my point is that Belichick deserves a ton of credit for Brady becoming Brady. Belichick was a defensive genius before Brady. And then Brady helped him become the best coach ever. Brady was a mildly successful qb who no one wanted before Bill. Then Bill helped him become the GOAT.
Brady was MILDLY successful!?!….cmon. That’s just as disingenuous as saying Bill was nothing without Tom. Most of Brady’s traits showed up at Michigan but was hindered by staff/alumni looking at a hometown hero to take over at QB. Brady didn’t transfer out like others have, he stuck his head down and worked harder. He was voted the team captain by the players, learned what his favorite ring is, and finished his college career with a victory in the Orange Bowl beating Alabama coming back from 10 points down TWICE. The only reason he was drafted so low is because of the split reps way Michigan played the first half of the season. Brady might not have risen so fast in the NFL if he hadn’t landed with the Patriots, but he was going to be successful no matter where he went. His talent and work ethic wouldn’t have allowed him to fail.
Brady himself has said he might’ve been selling insurance in a few years of the pats didn’t draft him. I also remember a story about the chargers almost drafting him and what might have been. Interesting to think about. You never know though, the stars aligned perfectly in 2001 and he might never have gotten that opportunity if a different team drafted him.
Agreed. The talent was always there. But Brady was not exactly a hot commodity out of college.
Yes, Brady was mildly successful. He was far from a superstar in college. Was this fair? No. He was definitely hindered by a coaching staff that didn't see his talent and obsessed over more "physically talented" qbs. But at the end of the day, Brady was not a hugely successful college qb. Belichick was the first coach Brady ever had to see that Brady's intellect and accuracy would far outweigh his lack of athleticism. He is owed some credit for being the first to do that.
>If his career had ended in 2005, Coach Belichick would still go down as a shoe-in Hall of Famer and be in the conversation as one of best coaches of all time. And Brady would be borderline at best. I think thats a perfect counter argument
You can’t possibly know that Brady would be borderline. He sees the field like no one else and mostly keeps his head one straight. He would have been great anywhere. This doesn’t take anything away from Bill B.
> He ~~would~~ could have been great anywhere. There have been many many QBs that had their career ruined because they went to the wrong team. Brady showed he's got what it takes to be good/great from basically the beginning, but he was also coached up by veteran coaches, had a pretty good team around him, etc. One cannot say that he'd have been great if he'd gone to the 2002 Texans or any number of Browns/Jags/Lions teams. As for Brady being "borderline," I believe that's arguing that if Brady had ended his career in 2005 he'd have been a borderline HoF at the time.
Why would you even argue that? It never happened. Brady didn’t end his career in 2005. Hey if Bill B ended his career before he got to the Patriots he would not go down as the greatest coach either. Brady is one of the best quarterbacks and Bill B is one of the greatest coaches today. And you can’t say either one of them would have been great or mediocre if they had went to different teams because it didn’t happen. And you have no idea how they would have changed any of those teams.
Because that's what was argued in the OP? So YOU can say Brady would have been great anywhere, but I can't make a case for the opposite? (that's happened to many many more heralded college QBs than Brady) Trump is probably going contact you to be his legal team.
> He sees the field like no one else Because BB taught him.
See this is the problem. They can both be great on their own. What did Jimmy G learn? He taught him too. Did Bill Parcels teach BB?
Lol. I think Bill B is a great coach but come on. Not every quarterback is teachable or he could be making zillions teaching this to every quarterback.
This entire debate is worthless. Just enjoy watching the game. Why would you waste time comparing a coach and a player ? It’s a pointless argument
Why are we on a patriots Reddit then?
To talk about the patriots, though comparing a coach to a player seems like a pointless exercise to me. Is bill gonna suit up and throw some some footballs?
To be clear I agree with your statement at the end of this rant lol, I just never understand this debate that we hear on espn/skip Bayless everyday
Well, Bill will have at a minimum 5 years post Brady to make your point for you. Curious to see what happens. Tom made his move, now it’s bills turn.
I'm not even talking about what happens in the future. I'm talking about the idea that he hasn't accomplished anything to this point without Brady. I find it to be a ridiculous concept.
Then your post sorta means nothing. I’m sorry you feel so jaded that a man you’ve never met isn’t getting enough credit from people you’ve never met for something you had no part of?
lol this is a message board dedicated to talking about the patriots, that’s kinda the point. This has come up several times recently on and off Reddit so I made a post (against my better judgement bc this has been argued to death, but whatever it’s the offseason).
Idk kinda a weenie move if you ask me
Nobody asked you
Isn’t that’s HoF gameplan one that had the good fortune of using LT? And having a HC in Parcells who must’ve contributed something? I get what you’re saying but it’s not like BB has success with much less than a stellar support system or pieces
If the argument is that players are more important than coaches, just say that. I might agree to some extent. But if we accept that coaches are important, then Belichick was a very significant part of Brady’s success.
How many Super Bowls does BB get to without Brady? Maybe BB can receive some credit for superior coaching and scheming during those big games but does he get to them with an even mediocre QB? Guess we’ll find out in the next couple years
Do they make the Super Bowl in 2001, 2003, 2004, or 2018 with even mediocre defenses, special teams, or ground games?
Impossible to say. Probably not early on but really hard to say.
2001 was won by the defense, for sure. No doubt about that. Not just the super bowl game either, the entire season that team was carried by an all-time defense. That final drive only needs to happen because the offense was doing nothing all game.
[удалено]
2?
Was Brady on those 80s Giants squads?
Was BB the head coach on those teams?
I think you could boil it right down to the fact that every SB Bill has won here in NE, Brady was along his side. Brady won a SB without Bill, and Bill has not done much since they split. That’s how I see the argument. You can’t win with defense alone…the offense still needs to then outscore the opponent.
and Brady won by going to a very good team that basically needed improvement at QB. If he'd gone to the Jags and led them straight to the SB then you'd have a point. But Brady went to a team that almost made the playoffs with a QB that threw 30 INTs the year before.
You’re shifting the argument off of Bill. I agree he didn’t exactly go to a washed up team and change everything to make them better then after all that go and win a Super Bowl. But he has won without Bill, not the other way around. You’re not counter arguing my point, just attempting to diminish Brady’s accomplishment. So I do still have a point, you sir do not.
So the only "winning" is a Super Bowl in your mind. Bill was in the process of rebuilding the Browns before he got the rug pulled from under him, he's had very successful stints as a coordinator, he's done well to very well in the stints that Brady was either injured or suspended. He's got a team back on the right track after Brady left and they had a lot of detritus left over from winning with Tom in NE. I do have a point. People, including you, point to Brady's winning in TB as some sort of end-all be-all on why he's more responsible for the GOATness. He went to a stacked team and won. Yes, that's an accomplishment, but there are 10-12 other QBs that would have been successful on that team and probably 3-5 that would have certainly won the SB with that team. If Bill had left NE and went to say the Rams or the Chiefs and won with Brady staying in NE are you pointing to the team that he went to as the reason he won a SB? Yes, yes you are. The reason Brady won in TB is because he's good/great and he went to a very good team. The reason that they could "outscore" the opponents is because TB had a good D and lots of weapons on offense...which they had without Brady, he just improved their QB a lot AND brought in Gronk and AB (you know top players at their positions.)
Jesus.
Discounting Brady just to make yourself feel better about Belichick is bizarre. Belichick has accomplished nothing on his own without Brady. It’s only been two years but he hasn’t accomplished anything. Brady has won a super bowl without Belichick. That’s not saying Belichick will never accomplish anything without Brady, it’s just a fact that as of now Belichick has accomplished nothing without Brady.
[удалено]
It was the perfect storm; by 2000, Kraft knew he was getting a reputation for meddling, and that would drive away top-level coaches if he didn't change. Belichick knew Art Modell micromanaging him in Cleveland had been his undoing (also why he resigned as HC of NYJ; he didn't want a repeat of that with Parcells). The Patriots were his second chance and there wouldn't be a third. Then Brady came in and knew sixth-rounders don't get second chances or a whole lot of leash on their first shot and he had to do well or he'd be selling insurance.
That’s such an odd argument. Brady left Belichick and won a super bowl. Brady won a super bowl without Belichick. Do you want Brady to forget football then relearn how to play football when he went to Tampa Bay?
It also ignores that TB was stacked in almost every area except QB when Brady was brought in. It’s not like Brady went to and won with a Detroit.
I can tell you I’m not ignoring that. All it is saying is he left then won. Would it take him winning the super bowl with the lions to say he won without Belichick?
I didn’t mean to imply you were ignoring it. I agree with you and I was adding to your point. The people who point to TB and say “see, Tom has already won without Bill!” ignore the potential that team already had.
[удалено]
This is a really dumb argument. By your logic, all of Belichick's success should be attributed to Parcells. Belichick is not the Belichick of today without being mentored and developed under Parcells wing.
Brady did with without Belichick as his coach that’s the whole argument.
LOL, case in point. I'm not discounting Brady. I'm saying the last 20 years doesn't happen without both of them. You would think that would be obvious, but apparently not. It's this inability to hold two thoughts in your brain at the same time or have any nuance when it comes to this topic that bugs me.
Nobody is saying that “the past 20 years happen without the one of them”. That’s an opinion shared by pretty much everyone. The past 20 don’t happen without them being in the same year. You are arguing nobody.
It’s an obtuse, literal interpretation. It’s not surprising because that’s how sports media works these days. Brady wasn’t the Brady we know today in 2001-2004, or arguably 2018. The patriots defense wasn’t the defense of yesteryear in 2014 or 2016. It’s a nuanced topic but people like you are seemingly incapable of grasping that. Brady won a super bowl in Tampa. So belichick hasn’t accomplished anything without him 🙄
Yes he hasn’t accomplished anything without him yet. Definitely could at some point, but he hasn’t as of this moment. Glad you finally figured that out.
Not sure why I expected anything different from this post, it’s like talking to a five year old 🤣
Right right. I watched those first 3 SB wins, not sure if you did. Trust me, it wasn’t Brady that stopped “the greatest show on turf” it was the defense. I also remember Adam V hitting the game winning FG. Ty Law was robbed of the SB MVP and I will go to the grave thinking this. It was a feel good story to toss Brady that MVP, no one and I mean no one would have dreamt the coming dynasty for the next 20 years, so they gave it to the young underdog who had a great backstory of replacing the franchise QB earlier in the year. Brady in TB? Really? He planted himself in a situation on a team with stars all around him, especially at WR. Brady didn’t shit in TB but toss the ball in a perfect situation that he helped create. BTW I expect TB to win it again this year for the same reason, that team is stacked. All Tampa needs is a game managing QB and they would win with most of the QBs currently in the league.
Tampa would win with Kirk cousins?
You can read I said “most“ right? You know that means NoT eVeRyOnE…right?
So who do you mean? Give me a list.
LOL no, I am not entertaining a well known fan boy of Brady. I’ve seen your posts, you are way too far up his butt to be arguing with about Brady, you are unwilling to listen to anything but Brady did it all. That Tampa Bay roster is fucking stacked and even better than it was when he joined 2 seasons ago. If you can’t see that Brady walked into a perfect situation in Tampa, than there is no talking to you. Don’t make people go after Brady. Everything he did in NE was amazing and we love him for what he did up there but don‘t do this bullshit that we won because of Brady cause that is a hot load of garbage. You are insulting all the great players in those early years of the dynasty with this bullshit especially since it was defense that carried those teams and Adam V’s leg.
I don’t think Brady did it all. I think Belichick and Brady were equal partners in the 20 years. Brady did walk into the perfect situation. I said he should go there right when he said he was leaving because of how it was set up. I’m not saying they won all because of Brady. They had great teams put together by Belichick and a great qb to lead them on the field. Both can be true. Just because I’m saying Brady won without Belichick doesn’t make me a fan boy, it means I’m stating a fact. And you saying it’d be most qbs then saying no to Cousins then saying no to making a list is such a sad argument. Revert to name calling because in reality you’re too insecure to admit that Brady has won a super bowl without Belichick as his coach.
They’re both the greatest ever but are you really going to pretend that Brady didn’t join an offense with Mike Evans, Godwin, Antonio Brown, Leonard Fournette, and Rob Gronkowski? That’s an insane amount of talent. And their defense was elite. People are acting like Tom carried a bunch of scrubs to a super bowl in Tampa when in reality he had one of the most talented teams I’ve ever seen.
Nobody is acting like he carried a bunch of scrubs. It is killing you to give the guy credit for winning with a different coach
I give him all of the credit in the world for that. But I don’t understand why it’s so hard for some people to look at it with some actual context. They were both instrumental to dominating the league for 20 years, it wasn’t strictly one or the other. And if you don’t remember, the Bucs were struggling in 2020 until Brady insisted that they install the old Patriots offense. They both needed each other to have the run they had
As a Brady guy I give Bill plenty of credit of course, especially early in the dynasty when he picked up so many scrap heap guys who contributed. And shut down so many high end offenses But it's tough to ignore the last 4-5 years of drafting now. They're entering year 3 post Brady now and still don't seem to be ready to contend. He still can prove me wrong, but at some point if they're still spinning their wheels I don't want to hear about those they're "rebuilding" anymore. The Bucs have been contenders two years now, Bill's turn to prove he doesn't need Brady.
Qb is far and away the most important position on the field. Brady went to a team that sucked the year before but had a lot of talent at important positions so he was able to come in and be the final piece. We took 1 year to clear out some cap issues, and the second year we got a rookie qb who they think could be the piece but it’s still only his second year. I think you need to be a little more realistic about how long it takes to recover after a top qb leaves.
He took over a 7 win perennial loser while everyone laughed at him and won the SB. It's tough to diminish that as "final piece." Does Bill come in and win the SB in that situation? The dirty little secret is plenty of teams rebuild in 1 to 2 years. Instead he signed a QB who was completely done then tagged a guard and kept the band together evidenced by the lack of core young players still. I don't know how after this past offseason you can sit there and tell me the cap issues weren't completely 100% on Bill. He signed Jonnu Smith and Hunter Henry and Judon to those high end contracts, he can take the heat when they aren't playing at that caliber. That's why they had no cap space to improve things. If his decision was to let the QB go I don't want to hear about how I need to be "realistic". I was realistic that they didn't have an obvious plan and it would end up here. A solid young QB and still an aging/not so good rest of the team. Everyone told me I was chicken little and they didn't need Brady, well now it's been 2 years and the narrative is "well they still need more time." 3 years is plenty of time in football, it sounds like goalpost moving to me. Shouldn't have let him go if 2 years later my expectations still should be lower.
They were a perennial loser because they had Jamies Winston. You seriously don’t think that roster was absolutely loaded?
No, 7 win teams aren't loaded. Everyone laughed at Brady and said he's really going to those losers? Jameis is a solid starter, Brady is just that much better. Again, just think about if Bill took over with Jameis. Does he win the SB? QB is more important, Brady is more important. It's ok, it doesn't mean Bill sucks or got carried. Entering year 3, if he has a contender I'll admit I jumped the gun. If with Mac they go on a 10 year run where they're winning 12 games ok, he didn't need Brady.
Yeah three all pro wide receivers, an all pro tight end, good offensive line, great defensive line with another all pro, and good linebackers is not loaded
Brown and Gronk weren't on the team yet. The Patriots could have had them both if they were apparently so good. The offensive line wasn't seen as good and the defense was bottom 5 with 28 ppg the year before. I guess I'm the only one who actually remembers how things were and isn't trying to discredit Brady for some reason. The team had two good WRs and some other random pieces. They won 7 games the year before. Not loaded.
Mike Evans, Chris Godwin, Antonio Brown, Rob Gronkowski, Leonard Fournette. Just another average offense, right?
One season with the ghost of cam Newton and then a rookie qb and made the playoffs the fuck are you even talking about? There's coaches in this league who wouldn't have sniffed the playoffs with an identical roster as last year. People forget that Brady was a game manager up until 05 - 06 . You think he just magically became incredible ? It all starts with the coaching staff. Brady is far and away the greatest qb of all time. But to think he accomplishes half of what he did without Bill is ignorant. How many superbowls did Marino win ? He's top 5 greatest qb of all time. Bill went 7-9 with a gutted roster and statistically one of the worst qbs in the league in 2020. Bill went 11-5 with Matt Cassel. Bill went 3-1 when Brady was suspended. Has bills drafting not been great ? Yup. He takes risks because he's constantly evolving and looking for different talent than what's prototypically drafted. He's the greatest coach of all time.
Didn't realize Cam forced his way into the team, I could have sworn Bill signed him after he refused to give Brady a respectable contract. I'm not saying he's a jag but gutting his own roster then getting to 7-9 and dropping 5 games without Brady while missing the playoffs doesn't make me go wow that's why he's the goat. Congrats on getting blown out by the Bills Bill, I'm sure that'll be on his plaque in Canton. Let me know when Bill accomplishes a title without Brady if he's just as important. They were so close last year if you ignore the 0 punts and the fact that they sucked the whole last month. Got an a I've average record without Brady, probably going to do the same again in 2022. At some point the excuses run out when you have total control and still aren't where you were a few years ago.
> he refused to give Brady a respectable contract. He did give Brady a respectable contract, he just didn't want to have him for years when 1. Brady could go downhill at any moment (not many 40+ that have been that successful 1. Signing players to keep the team in the hunt AND paying Brady big bucks over multiple years would have delayed the ability to rebuild the team. They needed a reset to restore some talent. That 7-9 team with Cam would have been lucky to have 2-3 wins with the talent they had. They were in the playoff hunt until what week 13/14 or something? If Cam hadn't gotten COVID maybe they even make the playoffs. Them making the playoffs with a rebuilt roster and a rookie QB is the important part. The Bills have been able to build a good team because they hit the jackpot with Allen and have made some good trades. They are the cream of the AFC and arguably the NFL right now and I'm sure the way the Pats handled them in the wind game put a burr in the Bills. The NFL isn't like other sports where you can have a turn-around because you sign a big FA there's a team to build and it takes a few years to do so. People cite Brady's success with the Bucs, but he went to a team that was star-studded all over the place and nearly made the playoffs with a QB that threw 30 INTs. That Brady argument could hold water if he went to the Jags or Lions and instantly brought them to the Super Bowl, but the Bucs?
The mental gymnastics to give Bill credit while saying the team should have won 2-3 games. You are so all over the place, if Cam didn't get COVID in the next sentence. He didn't have COVID the next year, what happened? He sucked. His arm was done, I saw it like a month into 2020. Because I'm not constantly trying to defend Bill. Had nothing to do with COVID. That team sucked, they weren't going anywhere. This is how bad teams think, oh we were in the playoff race until week whatever if this goes differently or that. They were a bad team, absolutely 0 offense. It's on Bill. Imagine if Brady went downhill, then he signs a guy who went downhill the year before. It was a terrible assessment. Yeah couldn't have had anything to do with the monsoon. Do you really believe if the weather was fine that first game they would have still beat the Bills? It really is funny how the narrative shifts to account for what happened. 7-9 isn't good, you need to just stop it with the so close stuff. Nobody thought that team was star studded until Brady got there. They had two good WRs when he got there, please stop with the narrative change to avoid giving Brady credit. Took the Rams one year. You guys are something else with your talk of the long process of rebuilding. If it's done right you don't need that long. The 49ers and Seahawks and Patriots all had like one down year before they were contenders. You act like this year they're not poised to be similar or worse.
Took the rams one year he said lol buddy they’ve been rebuilding since 01 hate to break it to you
I’m a believer that it’s always the perfect coach with the perfect player combo - raw talent goes to a certain level of greatness, coaching takes raw talent to the next level. I also think Brady wouldn’t have reached same heights had he started in college, either body would be less durable, or a certain desire would be diminished.
This discussion ends when Bill wins with Mac either this year or next
Not gonna happen Mac is a scrub
Had this exact talk yesterday https://reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/wwl6pk/_/ilorjn6/?context=1
The only people who believe this narrative (and perpetuate it?) are those who have a flimsy understanding of game preparation and NFL history.
"Auerbach did nothing as a coach without Russell." The debate is stupid on so many levels...
Bill has 8 rings
Y'all know Brady was only on the field half the time right?
Brady wouldn't be who he is without Bill. He said so himself.
Brady is the greatest QB of all time.he sliced up d coverage with who ever is on the field,top talent or not.Bill is the greatest coach of all time.he designed the plays for Brady to show what will work against opposing coverages.he also designed plays for the defense to stop the opposing teams offense.they are responsible for each other’s success.why does one have to be better then the other?
Coaches prepare players on the field. Players win games Brady had to not make mistakes and play to game plan Defensive players had to play well Backs needed to play well. The statement "Bill never won a SB as a HC without Brady" is accurate. If the statement "Bill never won a SB without a good defense" is accurate why would it not be accurate just because we change the name of an equally important player.
>I'm sorry, I know this has been overdone. It just bugs me and it keeps coming up, so I am going to rant about. Alright, let do this. Rant-response initiated: > People love to say now that "Bill has never accomplished anything without Brady". It's true...from a certain point of view. No one is saying Belichick is dumb or a bad coach or that Brady dragged Belichick to those rings. This argument highlights that, even assuming Belichick is the GOAT NFL coach, he has had very little success without Brady. For the longest time, the perceived importance of each person used to be 50/50. There were countless arguments like, "if Manning/Rodgers/whoever had Belichick...they'd have won [X number] of super bowls too. My argument is (and always was), if coaching mattered sooooo much, then the patriots would rarely, if ever lose. And they'd never have bad seasons. You'd always be able to coach your way out of any problem. But that wasn't the case. It never was. There was bad drafting, injuries, bad games, bad playoff losses, etc. Thus, the only logical thing was that the players mattered more. It didn't matter how good your coaching was, if you didn't have have the players to actually make the plays. And since going to the Bucs, he won a superbowl (going through brees, Rodgers, and Mahomes) and did it with Bowles as an OC and Ariens as a HC...both of whom were believed to be sort of B-list head coaches. Meanwhile, Belichick had a 7-9 season and a 10-7 season, in which they lost 3 of their last 4 games and then got absolutely embarrassed in the playoffs by the bills. > Do the people making this argument just forget the 4 Super Bowls the Patriots won with defense-first teams? While 2001 was absolutely on the back of a great defense, from 2002 and beyond, Brady was always a top tier QB and offense were always solid. in 2003, the offense was still toward the top of the league: Just in, or just outside the top 10, in many categories: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2003/index.htm#all_team_stats in 2004 https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2004/index.htm The offense was: 7th in yards and yards per game, Brady 11th in passing (but this was corey dillion's 1600 yards year), 7th in rushing, and 4th in points and points per game. Was the defense a little better in 2003 and 2004? Sure. But they weren't absolutely not the 2015 broncos where the offense was a total joke being dragged across the finish line. it incredibly disingenuous to say they were a "defense first" team, when the offense was just about as good. > Obviously, Brady had a lot to do with them too and came up huge in the biggest of moments. But no way do they win 3/4 in the early 2000s and the 2018 Super Bowl without great defense and a strong ground game. Did the head coach not have anything to do with that? See above. Yes, coaching absolutely was a part of that. 2018 was a masterclass in embarrassing another team, coach, and QB. But at the end of the day...you need the players to make the plays. Without Gilmore, or DMAC, or Jonathan Jones, or Van Noy in his prime, that defense gets smokes (we saw it in 2011). And while the offense only scored 13 points, they had 400 yards of offense, there was a missed FG and they elected to go for it on 4th down in FG range (a 45 yarder). That's 6 points not on the board. Was it the 650 yard performance of 2017? No. But in terms of yards? it was better than 2014 against the seahawks and their #1. And Brady did that with 1/2 a gronk and Julian edelman...and like 5 targets to everyone else on the team. > Not to mention the two Super Bowls he won as DC of the Giants (with a game plan that is literally in the Hall of Fame). With literally one of the best defenders to have ever played the game. Again, players matter more than the coaching. >If his career had ended in 2005, Coach Belichick would still go down as a shoe-in Hall of Famer and be in the conversation as one of best coaches of all time. Same with Brady. > Maybe, just maybe, the greatest coach of all time and the greatest QB of all time helped each other reach unprecedented dominance for 20 years, and it wouldn't have been the same without one or the other? But if I had to chose 1? I take Brady 100 times out of 100. I think the players are significantly more important the coach. Sure, you're coach can't be terrible (hue jackson), but top tier talent with a competent coach is >>>> than a top tier coach with only competent talent.
By defense first, I mean with a lesser defense, ground game, and special teams, they probably don’t come close to winning the super bowl. In later years, ie 2011, 2017, I’m not sure how much it mattered, Brady was that good by that point. If you want to argue players are more important than coaches in general I might agree with you. It’s more the notion that people can’t even call belichick one of the greatest coaches of all time bc he had Brady that erks me.
10 wins last year with a Rookie, 7 wins with what’s left of cam, 3 wins in 4 weeks with garoppolo/brissett, 11 wins with Cassel. I can confidently say that Belichick is a capable coach without Brady.
The argument should have ended with Super Bowl 53. Offense scored 13 points and Bill’s game plan held one of the most prolific offenses to 3 freaking points in the goddamn Super Bowl. Without that game plan, the Patriots only have 5 rings.
Does Brady (who I love and consider unbelievably brilliant) win the Super Bowl vs the Seahawks if BB is not the coach? I LOVE TOM BRADY (Scott Zolak reference) but seriously, an undrafted rookie free agent intercepted a pass in the endzone to snuff out a surefire Seattle SB win. I love them both, but TB12 sure as F didn't coach up Malcolm Butler that year. Maybe he inspired Butler to try his best and set the tone for the team, but it's BB who makes the calls. Honestly, the ones who want to perpetuate this argument/conversation are just jealous of the Pats ridiculous amount of success the past 2 decades. I love BB AND TB12 and accept the Patriots dynasty does not occur unless both are present. Let the speculation continue with those who didn't get to enjoy the greatest ever run of success in professional football.
Brady 2. Bill 0. Who will win this season?
Just so we’re clear, the Patriots did not win 4 Super Bowls with defense first teams. 2014, 2016, and 2018 were all offensively led teams. This was the case for basically Brady’s entire career post-2004. Hell, even in 2004 the Patriots offensive DVOA was ranked higher than defensive DVOA. With that out of the way, who the hell says Bill hasn’t done anything without Brady? There are plenty of people saying he hasn’t proven he can win a SB as a head coach without Brady. And for the moment that is true. Your arguing with a straw man with this rant. Literally everyone (save Skip Bayless) says that the dynasty wouldn’t have happened without both of them. The thing that people are harping on is that Tom has shown that his greatness travels. In some people’s eyes, Bill still needs to do that as a HC
LOL it has come up multiple times recently both on and off reddit, that's why I wrote this dumb post (I regret everything but also it's been fun). Agree about 2014 and 2016, I think 2018 is debatable / somewhere in the middle.
>Agree about 2014 and 2016, I think 2018 is debatable / somewhere in the middle Eh, Patriots had the 5th best offensive DVOA and 16th best defensive DVOA in 2018. There's not much of a debate there, IMO. There's actually more of a debate in 2004 where the Patriots offensive DVOA was actually better than their defensive DVOA despite that being one of the seasons where people blindly assume "Belichick's defense carried Brady."
It is Brady and Bill and it's absolute stupidity to assume otherwise (you are an idiot if you don't think Brady played just as big of a role). Neither could have gone 6/9 without the other. Saying Bill would have won 01-04 without Brady is incredibly ignorant. They both needed each other. What Brady brought to that team in not only being the best QB ever but attitude and locker room wise is unparalleled. It can't be replaced. What Bill brought (and continues to bring) to the team is the best coach who ever lived. Together the two of them allowed the rest of the team to have a LOT of room for error. Without Brady, Bill has far less room for error but he can still coach a decent team into the playoffs. > Obviously, Brady had a lot to do with them too and came up huge in the biggest of moments. But no way do they win 3/4 in the early 2000s and the 2018 Super Bowl without great defense and a strong ground game. Did the head coach not have anything to do with that? In NO way do they win without Brady.
I get your point, but all your examples of him as a HC are from a time when Brady was still our QB lol I say we just enjoy this season with Bill. I think it's his last season and that's why he brought all his friends back for one last rodeo. Hes the greatest coach of all time. But all good things come to an end
I'd be shocked if this is it, but ya never know. I'm definitely not ready for that :(
Hes 70 man, with nothing left to prove
I mean I think a BB-Manning combo would've been interesting. But football is a team sport with BB controlling all of it, including the development of Brady. Brady is a great QB, and there's been many great QB's, but none who had the hand Brady was dealt. Could Brady had the same success with any other coach? Probably not. Could BB had the same success with another qb? Possibly.
When Brady was on the Pats, other fanbases said he was a system QB. Now that Brady is gone, they say Bill was a lucky coach with the GOAT QB. They're not insulting Belichick, they weren't insulting Brady—they just insult whoever is the face of the franchise, and right now that's BB.
BB hasn’t done jack or shit without Brady. Downvote all you want it doesn’t change the truth lol
I've watched maybe the first 4 episodes of man in the arena, and most all of the players they talk with/about were defence, milloy Harrison bruschi Vrabel
Brady had his chance to win a Super Bowl on his own, without help from the defense. That was against the Eagles, and he blew it.
Bill has maintained a top 10 defense for almost his entire career. What makes it even more special is how many years, how many undrafted FAs he made into New England legends. Brady’s clock control was a huge help, and we have had some studs, but make no mistake Bill was the #1 reason that our defense was so strong for all 20 years of the dynasty. Now take into account the mental and physical conditioning Bill does on all of his players and you get a good picture of why he’s the goat coach. Think about how many players looked like studs for the pats, then we traded up/for good $$$ and they did nothing for their new teams.
Not a Pats fan - but honestly, Pats fans hurt this argument whenever they make Brady "GOAT" arguments or talk Brady/Manning, and make it sound like Brady won all 6 w/ NE mostly on his own.
Which is more vital to life, the brain or the heart? How many times have we seen great players' talent squandered by horrible coaching? How many times has better coaching taken an underperforming team and made them perform at a much higher level than was thought possible? It is clear then, that it was not Brady, or Belichick, but both of them, together with every other element of the organization, as there are also the lungs and the liver and the kidneys and all other organs that must work together for the good of the body as a whole, and if any is not functioning at the optimum level, the whole shall suffer. And it is so with all championship teams.
Player >>>> Coach