Jump to content

Turns out it was Bellichick not Brady!


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

He doesn't? Not even near it?

 

Yeah, he does.

 

And while Belichick does a hell of a job scheming for other QBs, the way he beats them ultimately is that his Brady-powered offense outscores them. We saw for five years in Cleveland what Belichick looked like without Brady. And yeah, there certainly was more to it than that, but the major problem he had there was a lack of a franchise QB.

 

Each would have been worse without the other. Brady was more of the reason they won SBs. If Belichick sticks around after Tommy Boy retires, I think you see a team that is almost always well above average but that the dynasty is over.

Sorry but that is your opinion. Everyone has them. No one knows what would have happened if..... So, we disagree, big deal. Belichick has more rings than Tommy. I still take the Coach. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

He doesn't? Not even near it?

 

Yeah, he does.

 

And while Belichick does a hell of a job scheming for other QBs, the way he beats them ultimately is that his Brady-powered offense outscores them. We saw for five years in Cleveland what Belichick looked like without Brady. And yeah, there certainly was more to it than that, but the major problem he had there was a lack of a franchise QB.

 

Each would have been worse without the other. Brady was more of the reason they won SBs. If Belichick sticks around after Tommy Boy retires, I think you see a team that is almost always well above average but that the dynasty is over.

I was right with you until this post.  Belichick was going to be a Hall of Fame coach with or without Brady.  Brady just made him better, because Brady was a perfect fit for Belichick - really smart, maniacal hard worker, intensely competitive.  Exactly, by the way, what McBeane say they're looking for in their players. 

 

But Brady needed a Hall of Fame coach to make it in the league.  He can't win games with any physical skills.  He cant throw like Brees or Peyton or Favre.  He cant run like Wilson or Elway or some others.  He can beat you only with his brain processing a complex offense that precisely targets weaknesses in the defense.  Brady succeeded because Belichick always figures out how to attack a defense, Belichick always adjusts the offense to attack successfully, and Brady understands both the theory and the execution. 

 

Belichick would have won with Ryan Fitzpatrick - not as much as with Brady because Brady is more accurate - but he would have won.  A young Brady in Buffalo wouldnt have been as good as Fitzpatrick was.  Brady and Sean Payton maybe. Brady and Andy Reid maybe. Brady would have been a journeyman with most other coaches.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Buffalo Junction said:

The closest comparison success-wise is Lombardi and Starr. However, the modern NFL and 60’s NFL aren’t comparable. The one true commonality is a dedication to discipline and perfection; mistake free football from the full roster. We often underrate BB’s ability to get a modern roster to buy in to that brand of football every year. Tactical brilliance aside, that alone makes him rather unique. 

 

Simply put, BB is the greatest modern era coach. Previous eras aren’t comparable because it’s almost a different sport. 

Wow! Bart Starr!  Gotta say you're right in the comparison insofar as a QB executing his coach's genius.  But the game was so simple then that it isn't easy to compare.  Hard to know whether Lombardi coulooks game plan with Belichick and whether Starr could execute it. Plus, Lombardi stockpiled talent in Green Bay in a way that no one can do now.  

 

As you say, it makes sense to talk only about the modern era.  

 

One other thing about Brady.  If it were legal to hit QBs the way Kelly and his era got hit, we wouldnt be having this discussion. Brady would be working on Wall Street today. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

 

You are what your record says you are.   You can only play the teams that are on your schedule.

 

Every year is different.

I get that. But you can't say "oh, look what he did without Brady" when 9 out of 11 wins came against non playoff teams 4 of which were 5-11 or worse and then 4 out of 5 losses against teams that did go to the playoffs and 3 of those teams they got destroyed by. With that kind of schedule any good coach could have done the same thing. 

Edited by Buffalo03
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Buffalo03 said:

I get that. But you can't say "oh, look what he did without Brady" when 9 out of 11 wins came against non playoff teams 4 of which were 5-11 or worse and then 4 out of 5 losses against teams that did go to the playoffs and 3 of those teams they got destroyed by. With that kind of schedule any good coach could have done the same thing. 

 

OK if that's what you think.  Personally, I think you're over processing.  They WERE 11-5 no matter how you slice it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

OK if that's what you think.  Personally, I think you're over processing.  They WERE 11-5 no matter how you slice it.

Sure they were. I would love for the same people that praise Belichick for this to give McDermott credit for the same thing if he was to do it. Beat all the teams you should beat and then get destroyed by the good ones and say "But they were 11-5". I bet most of those people would find a way to say that his wins were non impressive because most were against non playoff teams. But this is Belichick were talking about so everything he does is impressive

Edited by Buffalo03
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Buffalo03 said:

Sure they were. I would love for the same people that praise Belichick for this to give McDermott credit for the same thing if he was to do it. Beat all the teams you should beat and then get destroyed by the good ones and say "But they were 11-5". I bet most of those people would find a way to say that his wins were non impressive because most were against non playoff teams. But this is Belichick were talking about so everything he does is impressive

Actually, I think the first step in becoming good is beating the teams you should beat, so, yes, I'll be happy when the Bills go 11-5 with 5 losses to playoff teams.   Gotta get there before you become the team that beats good teams.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

Wow! Bart Starr!  Gotta say you're right in the comparison insofar as a QB executing his coach's genius.  But the game was so simple then that it isn't easy to compare.  Hard to know whether Lombardi coulooks game plan with Belichick and whether Starr could execute it. Plus, Lombardi stockpiled talent in Green Bay in a way that no one can do now.  

 

As you say, it makes sense to talk only about the modern era.  

 

One other thing about Brady.  If it were legal to hit QBs the way Kelly and his era got hit, we wouldnt be having this discussion. Brady would be working on Wall Street today. 

He would have retired earlier, but Brady is one tough cookie.  We make fun of the Uggs and other metrosexual stuff, but he is as tough as QBs come on the field.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Buffalo03 said:

Sure they were. I would love for the same people that praise Belichick for this to give McDermott credit for the same thing if he was to do it. Beat all the teams you should beat and then get destroyed by the good ones and say "But they were 11-5". I bet most of those people would find a way to say that his wins were non impressive because most were against non playoff teams. But this is Belichick were talking about so everything he does is impressive

 

Me too.

 

We won 9 games last year and made the playoffs and it was AWESOME and a great job by Coach McDermott. 

 

Yet I read over and over it was all luck.  The Denver win was luck due to the Von Miller penalty.  The Colts game was luck because we should have punted.  the Jets and Fish sucked anyway so those wins mean nothing.  On and on and on ...

Edited by reddogblitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/31/2019 at 6:52 AM, billsfan1959 said:

 If one were to make an argument as to why Tom Brady might be the GOAT, arm strength and throwing “the ball in the air over 20 yards”  would never even be in the discussion.

 

 I cannot wait until they are both gone; however, the truth is they may be one of the best QB/coaching combinations in the history of the NFL.  I do not believe the sustained success of NE would ever have occurred without both.

Although I agree they are the best combo ever.  I believe Belichick could have won even more SBs with Manning.

1 hour ago, Success said:

He would have retired earlier, but Brady is one tough cookie.  We make fun of the Uggs and other metrosexual stuff, but he is as tough as QBs come on the field.

That and you cant get near him without drawing a flag and also if an eligible reciever is within 100 yards of the ball it is not intentional grounding when Brady is involved.

Edited by formerlyofCtown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a head coach without Brady, Belichick has two winning seasons out of 8 with ONE playoff victory. Brady has never been the QB of a losing team and will be making his 9th SB appearance having already won 5. Just sayin...

Edited by LSHMEAB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

I was right with you until this post.  Belichick was going to be a Hall of Fame coach with or without Brady.  Brady just made him better, because Brady was a perfect fit for Belichick - really smart, maniacal hard worker, intensely competitive.  Exactly, by the way, what McBeane say they're looking for in their players. 

 

But Brady needed a Hall of Fame coach to make it in the league.  He can't win games with any physical skills.  He cant throw like Brees or Peyton or Favre.  He cant run like Wilson or Elway or some others.  He can beat you only with his brain processing a complex offense that precisely targets weaknesses in the defense.  Brady succeeded because Belichick always figures out how to attack a defense, Belichick always adjusts the offense to attack successfully, and Brady understands both the theory and the execution. 

 

Belichick would have won with Ryan Fitzpatrick - not as much as with Brady because Brady is more accurate - but he would have won.  A young Brady in Buffalo wouldnt have been as good as Fitzpatrick was.  Brady and Sean Payton maybe. Brady and Andy Reid maybe. Brady would have been a journeyman with most other coaches.  

 

 

"A young Brady in Buffalo wouldn't have been as good as Fitzpatrick was," you say? I agree with you in two ways.

 

First, if by young you mean his first year and a few games into his second ... I agree. It took him a while to improve in N.E. He started his rookie year as the fourth-stringer and ended the year as the second-stringer. He made wild improvements, but he simply wasn't ready. Same would have been true anywhere, doubtless.

 

Second, if by "wouldn't have been as good as Fitzpatrick was," you mean he'd have been almost infinitely better, I'd agree with that too. Fitzy under pressure throws INTs with spectacular consistency. Brady right from his first moments on the field didn't do that as much as Fitzy did. Brady was a game manager his first couple of years. He'd have done that in Buffalo too.

 

"Brady can't throw like Brees or Peyton or Favre"? Um, yeah, he can. And he does. He throws with terrific accuracy. And he has has had a good strong arm though not an elite one through most of his career, though he seems to be losing a shade now. Manning and Brees have never had a rifle. They've had NFL arm strength, much like Brady. They were both sensational at pre-snap reads and have both benefitted from great consistency of scheme. Same with Brady. In fact, Brees and Peyton Manning are great comparisons for Brady. Not Favre, but the other two are.

 

"Brady would have been a journeyman with most other coaches"? I won't say directly what I think about that statement, because it would be insulting. I have great respect for your opinions, but that comment is far far below you and crosses over the border into Wackytown.

 

Belichick would have won without Brady? Yeah, I agree, and said so. I said I think if Belichick hangs around after Brady retires, he'll still win consistently. But the dynasty will be over. I agree he'd win. He's a smart coach. He'll win ten eleven games a year and not be a Super Bowl regular.

Edited by Thurman#1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

 

You are what your record says you are.   You can only play the teams that are on your schedule.

 

Every year is different.

 

 

Fair enough.

 

Their record said they didn't make the playoffs under Cassel. Their record said they won five games fewer than they did the year before with a healthy Brady instead of Cassel. 16-0 with Brady the year before, and 10-5 with Cassel.

 

 

 

And as for how their QBs fared, from 2007 Brady to 2008 Cassel, they went from 68.9% completions, 8.3 YPA, 300.4 yards per game, 50 TDs and 8 INTs and a 117.2 passer rating  .................  to 63.4% completions, 7.2 YPA, 230.8 yards per game, 21 TDs and 11 INTs and an 89.4 passer rating.

 

Out of this world to decent. And 16-0 with a Super Bowl loss to 11-5 and no playoffs.

 

 

 

And by the way, take Belchick's record in Cleveland and throw in that year with Cassel and his teams are 47-49. Throw in Brady's rookie year when Belichick was playing Bledsoe and it goes to 52-60. That's what his record says Belichick is when he doesn't have Brady as his starter.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

"A young Brady in Buffalo wouldn't have been as good as Fitzpatrick was," you say? I agree with you in two ways.

 

First, if by young you mean his first year and a few games into his second ... I agree. It took him a while to improve in N.E. He started his rookie year as the fourth-stringer and ended the year as the second-stringer. He made wild improvements, but he simply wasn't ready. Same would have been true anywhere, doubtless.

 

Second, if by "wouldn't have been as good as Fitzpatrick was," you mean he'd have been almost infinitely better, I'd agree with that too. Fitzy under pressure throws INTs with spectacular consistency. Brady right from his first moments on the field didn't do that as much as Fitzy did. Brady was a game manager his first couple of years. He'd have done that in Buffalo too.

 

"Brady can't throw like Brees or Peyton or Favre"? Um, yeah, he can. And he does. He throws with terrific accuracy. And he has has had a good strong arm though not an elite one through most of his career, though he seems to be losing a shade now. Manning and Brees have never had a rifle. They've had NFL arm strength, much like Brady. They were both sensational at pre-snap reads and have both benefitted from great consistency of scheme. Same with Brady. In fact, Brees and Peyton Manning are great comparisons for Brady. Not Favre, but the other two are.

 

"Brady would have been a journeyman with most other coaches"? I won't say directly what I think about that statement, because it would be insulting. I have great respect for your opinions, but that comment is far far below you and crosses over the border into Wackytown.

 

Belichick would have won without Brady? Yeah, I agree, and said so. I said I think if Belichick hangs around after Brady retires, he'll still win consistently. But the dynasty will be over. I agree he'd win. He's a smart coach. He'll win ten eleven games a year and not be a Super Bowl regular.

Thurm, thanks for the kind words.  The feeling is mutual.

 

I'll give you three pieces of evidence as to why I think I'm correct about this.   And, of course, we can't ever know, because we won't ever see Brady play for other teams.

 

1.  We've seen through the Pats' run of excellence that ordinary players play better for the Pats.  Bruschi and Vrabel to name a couple, just weren't all that good, but they made big plays consistently for the Pats.  It's true about their DBs year after year.   And players who look like stars never look so good when they leave New England.   Players play better in New England, and that's coaching. It makes sense that his QBs play better, too.  And, in fact, Cassel did.  

 

2.  I heard a guy a year or two ago on the radio.  He was a retired player, had played for several teams, including the Pats.  I missed the introduction, so I never heard who it was.   He said that every week the Pats coaches would give him three or four or five keys to watch for against particular players who would line up across for him, keys that would provide valuable information about what play was coming.  Sometimes just run or pass or inside or outside, but valuable information.   He said the information was always correct, and that no coaches on any other team that for him.  

 

3.  There was a time about 6 or 7 years ago when Brady started the first seven or eight games of the season completely mediocre.   He was, truly, at the Fitzpatrick level.   Then about the beginning of November, he caught fire and all through November he became the GOAT Brady again.   I heard him interviewed about it.   Someone asked him how he turned it around.   He said something like this:  "It's simple.   Bill and I have a routine.   Every Wednesday after practice we spend two hours watching film, talking about the game plan, talking about what I need to do in this or that situation.   As you know, this year we had a lot of young, new guys on defense, and our defense needed a lot of work.  Bill didn't have time to meet with me, because he needed to spend time on the defense.   So by about the end of October, the defense was in better shape, and Bill and I started meeting again."  He was completely clear that in order to play like the Brady we know, he needed his weekly download from Belichick.   

 

As I said, Brady is the only great quarterback who has no great physical skills.   Except his short-range accuracy, which I think is amazing, but even that was learned as a Patriot.  What makes Brady great is his brain.  But I think what's great about Brady is that he's smart enough and disciplined enough to absorb Belichick's brilliance and reflect it on the field.  

 

And, as you've said, I agree that they needed each other.  Belichick would never have won like this without Brady, because Brady is perfect for him.   But as I said, I think if they hadn't found each other, Belichick would still be in the Hall, and Brady wouldn't.    

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last night’s game showed that the OP was right all along. Coach put in a plan to stifle the second coming of the Greatest Show on Turf (after dismantling the best in the AFC) and well you know how it turned out by now. Brady was fairly pedestrian, doesn’t play defense and as Sean McVay said “ I got out coached.” I would still take Belichick over Brady. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...