Jump to content

Who's Most Responsible for Pats* Dynasty: Brady or Belichick?


Gugny

Who's Most Responsible for Pats* Dynasty: Brady or Belichick?  

232 members have voted

  1. 1. Who's Most Responsible for Pats* Dynasty: Brady or Belichick?



Recommended Posts

On 7/14/2019 at 12:41 PM, H2o said:

I got Brady. How many SB wins do the Pats have without him as the starter?

My thoughts also, teams like the Ravens have won championships without a great QB. BB has arguably the GOAT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nihilarian said:

That 1990 SB Jim Kelly called his own plays and attempted passes far more then he should have considering Thurman Thomas ran 15 times for 135 yards. 

 

If the Bills coaches had watched the NY Giants play the 49ers in the NFC Championship game they should have noticed that the NY Giants defense shut down that 14-2 Niners offense that was the #2 passing offense that season. 

 

The reality is that Belichick usually doesn't lose twice to the same team in a year and the Buffalo Bills had beaten the NY Giants in Giants stadium in week 15. Both starting QBs left the game with injuries as Jim Kelly and Phil Simms were both sidelined that game. Bills won 17-13. 

I’m sure the Bills coaches noticed , as they watched the game film. Kelly definitely called too many passing plays, though. It’s always tougher to beat a team twice in a season, regardless of who their D coordinator is. The Bills offense scored the same amount of points in both games vs the Giants though, 17. The defense chipped in 2 points with a safety. After the game, the Giants Head Coach, Bill Parcells made some telling comments. Keep in mind that Parcells was a defensive minded Coach. He said the Bills “ are a little soft up the middle if you run right at ‘em “ and declared “ power football wins”. Yes, the Bills defense cost them a Super Bowl title that night. The slow, plodding Giants with a backup QB should have been held under 14 points. They had an elite defense, but 17- 20 points was totally realistic against them and enough for a win if the defense made a few key tackles. Belichick didn’t have a huge impact on SB XXV; the Bills D and Kelly’s playcalling had a greater role in the outcome. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Figster said:

My thoughts also, teams like the Ravens have won championships without a great QB. BB has arguably the GOAT

 

 

Not many , if any of those teams managed to become a dynasty though. That’s where the great QB comes in. B.B. is an excellent defensive coach, but that doesn’t get you what it used to in the NFL. A QB that makes very few mistakes, and rarely makes more errors than the opposing QB is paramount. The Pats may have stumbled into a SB win , but the dynasty doesn’t happen without Brady. Bill Walsh was considered the best Coach of his time , and was called “ the genius”. He was an offensive guru in an era when defense still mattered a lot. The forty niners dynasty continued without him, winning Superbowls under George Seifert. The key was they had Joe Montana, then Steve Young took over. 

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

3 hours ago, Boatdrinks said:

Not many , if any of those teams managed to become a dynasty though. That’s where the great QB comes in. B.B. is an excellent defensive coach, 

If you think that’s all Belichick is, then you’ve been napping for past 18 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, mannc said:

If you think that’s all Belichick is, then you’ve been napping for past 18 years.

No , I haven’t been napping through the 18 years of football torture. It’s been all too real. However, the dynasty is due to Brady. While I didn’t say that’s all Belichick is , none of what the Pats are thought of as today happens without Brady. Some could say that about the Coach, but they’d be wrong. It’s the QB, then anything else. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/19/2019 at 6:57 AM, Green Lightning said:

I hardly think Brady would have had a fraction of the success he has had w/o Belicheat. 

Yes, this X 1000. Bellichick is an offensive genius.

3 hours ago, Boatdrinks said:

No , I haven’t been napping through the 18 years of football torture. It’s been all too real. However, the dynasty is due to Brady. While I didn’t say that’s all Belichick is , none of what the Pats are thought of as today happens without Brady. Some could say that about the Coach, but they’d be wrong. It’s the QB, then anything else. 

Dad?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Boatdrinks said:

No , I haven’t been napping through the 18 years of football torture. It’s been all too real. However, the dynasty is due to Brady. While I didn’t say that’s all Belichick is , none of what the Pats are thought of as today happens without Brady. Some could say that about the Coach, but they’d be wrong. It’s the QB, then anything else. 

Funny, NO and GB have had QBs as good as Brady the past 15 years, and yet they’ve been far less dominant than the Pats...there goes theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/19/2019 at 6:57 AM, Green Lightning said:

I hardly think Brady would have had a fraction of the success he has had w/o Belicheat. 

There’s zero evidence of this and Belichick was a losing head coach before Brady.  Those are proven facts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

There’s zero evidence of this and Belichick was a losing head coach before Brady.  Those are proven facts. 

 

I think if you read through the first 9+ pages of this thread, you'll see why the, "BB was a losing coach before Brady," is such a weak, lazy, twisted and biased narrative.  There's a lot of higher quality dialogue happening with regard to the topic.  Soak it in, man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gugny said:

 

I think if you read through the first 9+ pages of this thread, you'll see why the, "BB was a losing coach before Brady," is such a weak, lazy, twisted and biased narrative.  There's a lot of higher quality dialogue happening with regard to the topic.  Soak it in, man.

So let’s just make up things like Brady (who never played for another coach other than Belichick) won’t have been good.  

 

This is crazy, and stick with me here, maybe Belichick became a much better coach when he got handed the best qb ever!  But clearly the coach who was 43-55 before Brady (career record 207-60) is the main reason for their success. 

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

4 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

I think if you read through the first 9+ pages of this thread, you'll see why the, "BB was a losing coach before Brady," is such a weak, lazy, twisted and biased narrative.  There's a lot of higher quality dialogue happening with regard to the topic.  Soak it in, man.

Myself personally Gu, I think the odds of Brady teaming up with good coaching and supporting cast would be higher then BB finding another QB as good as Brady.( next to impossible )

 

with all due respect

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

55 minutes ago, mannc said:

Funny, NO and GB have had QBs as good as Brady the past 15 years, and yet they’ve been far less dominant than the Pats...there goes theory.

But are they as good ? Even removing the divisional advantage that Brady has enjoyed throughout the run ( no other good QBs in the East) , stats and talent alone don’t = winning football. I can’t stand Brady, but I know what I see. The guy just rarely has a bad day, makes very few mistakes and almost never makes more mistakes than the QB across from him. He does this more consistently than any QB I’ve seen. So, I’m not sure your theory holds water. Who says those QBs are as good as Brady, game in and game out ? Certainly the New England offensive staff/ system deserves some credit. Their system has arguably been the best and most consistent in the last dozen years or so. That’s not Belichick’s side of the ball ( let me guess , you’ll give him credit for the offense as well). The greater point though, is stats and media accolades don’t mean those QBs are interchangeable with Brady. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

So let’s just make up things like Brady (who never played for another coach other than Belichick) won’t have been good.  

 

This is crazy, and stick with me here, maybe Belichick became a much better coach when he got handed the best qb ever!  But clearly the coach who was 43-55 before Brady (career record 207-60) is the main reason for their success. 

 

Again.  Lazy.   There are plenty of reasons Belichick's HC record prior to Brady was not good.  Lots of justifications discussed upthread.  Just because you throw numbers into your argument doesn't make it any stronger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

But are they as good ? Even removing the divisional advantage that Brady has enjoyed throughout the run ( no other good QBs in the East) , stats and talent alone don’t = winning football. I can’t stand Brady, but I know what I see. The guy just rarely has a bad day, makes very few mistakes and almost never makes more mistakes than the QB across from him. He does this more consistently than any QB I’ve seen. So, I’m not sure your theory holds water. Who says those QBs are as good as Brady, game in and game out ? Certainly the New England offensive staff/ system deserves some credit. Their system has arguably been the best and most consistent in the last dozen years or so. That’s not Belichick’s side of the ball ( let me guess , you’ll give him credit for the offense as well). The greater point though, is stats and media accolades don’t mean those QBs are interchangeable with Brady. 

Don’t get me wrong; Brady is the best ever, but the past 10 years or so, Rodgers and Brees have been nearly as good, and at times, better.  And yet their teams haven’t had nearly the success of NE.  There’s not much doubt that neither wins six Super Bowls without the other.  

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

8 minutes ago, Figster said:

Myself personally Gu, I think the odds of Brady teaming up with good coaching and supporting cast would be higher then BB finding another QB as good as Brady.( next to impossible )

 

with all due respect

 

I'm not disagreeing with you at all, Figgy.  That's the reason for my wording including "MOST responsible."

 

I think everyone can agree that it takes two to tango and the dynasty has been a product of BOTH Belichick and Brady.

 

My main argument for Belichick is that he's not only the HC, but he's the GM.  Football is a team sport.  He's been responsible for assembling the team AND coaching it.

 

I look at the lack of success Belichick disciples have had after they left New England.  That tells me how instrumental BB is.

 

HOWEVER ... would there have been a dynasty without Brady?  Absolutely not.  It has taken both of them.

 

I do think Brady is good enough to have made any team in the NFL better; perhaps, even, a winning team.  But I don't think there is a dynasty in today's game without a mastermind at GM, a mastermind at HC and an elite QB.  Pats had them all and 2/3 of that formula has been Belichick.

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

Just now, mannc said:

Don’t get me wrong; Brady is the best ever, but the past 10 years or so, Rodgers and Brees have been nearly as good, and at times, better.  And yet their teams haven’t had nearly the success of NE.  There’s not much doubt that neither wins six Super Bowls without the other.  

Again, I’ll disagree. I could see Brady winning those Superbowls , perhaps even on two different teams. I cannot see the Head Coach pulling that off, though. I think Belichick could win a couple, but Brady would win more. The Superbowls they lost were the ones where the opposing QB was just a bit better that day than Brady. Two of the wins would almost certainly have been losses if not for the opposition choking / self destructing with terrible decisions.Those were on SEA and ATL , not Brady or B.B. I’d have to go back to the first SB win vs Rams to find one where I think B.B. gave them the deciding edge. I’m actually surprised at the results of this poll, as the Bills have needed a QB since Kelly retired. Yet the HC gets all the credit here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, mannc said:

Don’t get me wrong; Brady is the best ever, but the past 10 years or so, Rodgers and Brees have been nearly as good, and at times, better.  And yet their teams haven’t had nearly the success of NE.  There’s not much doubt that neither wins six Super Bowls without the other.  

What decides it for me is who stands to have more success without the other and its Tom Brady IMO. If say Brady teamed up with Harbaugh and the Ravens by way of example.

 

BB is a great coach, but does he beat Harbaugh/Brady?

 

We have a few Championship caliber HC's in my humble opinion. Only one GOAT in Tom Brady.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

I'm not disagreeing with you at all, Figgy.  That's the reason for my wording including "MOST responsible."

 

I think everyone can agree that it takes two to tango and the dynasty has been a product of BOTH Belichick and Brady.

 

My main argument for Belichick is that he's not only the HC, but he's the GM.  Football is a team sport.  He's been responsible for assembling the team AND coaching it.

 

I look at the lack of success Belichick disciples have had after they left New England.  That tells me how instrumental BB is.

 

HOWEVER ... would there have been a dynasty without Brady?  Absolutely not.  It has taken both of them.

 

I do think Brady is good enough to have made any team in the NFL better; perhaps, even, a winning team.  But I don't think there is a dynasty in today's game without a mastermind at GM, a mastermind at HC and an elite QB.  Pats had them all and 2/3 of that formula has been Belichick.

Compelling argument GU

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

11 minutes ago, Figster said:

Compelling argument GU

 

Bottom line (to me) is that they are both the GOATs in their respective fields.  

 

There's a reason that none of the other elite QBs during Brady's tenure has more than 2 Super Bowl wins.  I think that reason is that none of the other QBs have had a coach/GM like Brady had.

 

 

Edited by Gugny
  • Like (+1) 1
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gugny said:

 

Bottom line (to me) is that they are both the GOATs in their respective fields.  

 

There's a reason that none of the other elite QBs during Brady's tenure has no more than 2 Super Bowl wins.  I think that reason is that none of the other QBs have had a coach/GM like Brady had.

 

Seems to be the most likely explanation.  The Pats have the right combination of coach, GM, QB, and an owner who did not get in the way.  

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

7 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

Bottom line (to me) is that they are both the GOATs in their respective fields.  

 

There's a reason that none of the other elite QBs during Brady's tenure has more than 2 Super Bowl wins.  I think that reason is that none of the other QBs have had a coach/GM like Brady had.

 

 

Alas, we get stuck playing them twice a year and in all likeihood a 3rd time to advance in the playoffs.

 

Yippee!

 

Then along came Josh/McD...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Happy Gilmore said:

 

Seems to be the most likely explanation.  The Pats have the right combination of coach, GM, QB, and an owner who did not get in the way.  

Assuming Belichick sticks around after Brady retires, we may finally get an answer to this question.  Me, I’m expecting the Pats to continue to dominate in the post-Brady era.  With their new emphasis on the ground game, Belichick is already setting the stage.  And every year, the Pats seem to have more draft picks than anyone else.  It’s very frustrating because there never seems to be any light at the end of this particular tunnel.

Edited by mannc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everybody knows the refs are the most responsible giving them all the calls, not calling the obvious holding calls, and continuous second chances!!!! 

 

?                                                                                           ?

Edited by Patrick_Duffy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Boatdrinks said:

But are they as good ? Even removing the divisional advantage that Brady has enjoyed throughout the run ( no other good QBs in the East) , stats and talent alone don’t = winning football. I can’t stand Brady, but I know what I see. The guy just rarely has a bad day, makes very few mistakes and almost never makes more mistakes than the QB across from him. He does this more consistently than any QB I’ve seen. So, I’m not sure your theory holds water. Who says those QBs are as good as Brady, game in and game out ? Certainly the New England offensive staff/ system deserves some credit. Their system has arguably been the best and most consistent in the last dozen years or so. That’s not Belichick’s side of the ball ( let me guess , you’ll give him credit for the offense as well). The greater point though, is stats and media accolades don’t mean those QBs are interchangeable with Brady. 

If thats not Belichicks side of the ball, then who is it?  If you say McDaniels. Who made him the coach that he is today. That entire organization is BB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, mannc said:

Assuming Belichick sticks around after Brady retires, we may finally get an answer to this question.  Me, I’m expecting the Pats to continue to dominate in the post-Brady era.  With their new emphasis on the ground game, Belichick is already setting the stage.  And every year, the Pats seem to have more draft picks than anyone else.  It’s very frustrating because there never seems to be any light at the end of this particular tunnel.

So they will continue to dominate by running the ball ? Why would they try to do this? Oh , because : no Brady. There’s your answer right there. You appear to be shell shocked by the Pats beyond all logic. This isn’t 1975, no team is going to dominate with a ground game in this era. Anyway, I think B.B. doesn’t risk tarnishing his legacy and exits around the same time as Brady. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, mannc said:

Assuming Belichick sticks around after Brady retires, we may finally get an answer to this question.  Me, I’m expecting the Pats to continue to dominate in the post-Brady era.  With their new emphasis on the ground game, Belichick is already setting the stage.  And every year, the Pats seem to have more draft picks than anyone else.  It’s very frustrating because there never seems to be any light at the end of this particular tunnel.

 

Once Brady retires, I would suspect they will still be competitive but not dominant like they have been; assuming BB sticks around.  Brady is a smart QB who has seen every defense thrown at him, executes their version of the E-P system to perfection, will be near impossible to replace.  

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

1 hour ago, Boatdrinks said:

So they will continue to dominate by running the ball ? Why would they try to do this? Oh , because : no Brady. There’s your answer right there. You appear to be shell shocked by the Pats beyond all logic. This isn’t 1975, no team is going to dominate with a ground game in this era. Anyway, I think B.B. doesn’t risk tarnishing his legacy and exits around the same time as Brady. 

Modern defenses are designed to stop the pass.  Belichick is creating an offense that will exploit that tendency, while at the same time relying less on QB brilliance, as Brady’s limitations become more apparent and the team transitions to a new QB.  That may change if and when they find a new franchise QB.   The run-first post-Brady Pats might not be dominant, but they certainly won’t be the pushover many Bills fans seem to expect.

Edited by mannc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t understand how Belichick is ahead here.  Prior to Brady he had done nothing as a head coach.  Aside from one playoff season his record with the Browns was lousy.  5-10 in his first season with NE.  0-2 to begin his 2nd season.  Then Brady takes over and suddenly he finally starts winning.  Yes they have been great ever since but that has been with Brady.  What am I missing here?

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

39 minutes ago, Talley56 said:

I don’t understand how Belichick is ahead here.  Prior to Brady he had done nothing as a head coach.  Aside from one playoff season his record with the Browns was lousy.  5-10 in his first season with NE.  0-2 to begin his 2nd season.  Then Brady takes over and suddenly he finally starts winning.  Yes they have been great ever since but that has been with Brady.  What am I missing here?

Years of media driven conditioning to believe in the mystical powers of Belichick, rather than just believing what your eyes see. It’s overridden common sense at this point. The closest parallel in the modern passing era is the 49ers. Their success continued under a lesser HC due to the QB and an incredibly good immediate replacement.  That Brady has done it without anything close to a Jerry Rice at WR is even more astounding. He’s the most consistent performer I’ve ever seen at QB. His few bad outings are the only time they lose. Other than that it takes a truly superior performance by the opposing QB , such as Foles in the SB vs Eagles. . 

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

18 hours ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

There’s zero evidence of this and Belichick was a losing head coach before Brady.  Those are proven facts. 

The 1994 11-5 Cleveland Browns beg to differ... and that was with Vinnie Testaverde at QB!  11-5 with that roster of bums...

 

The 1995 Browns went into the tank the next season for very specific reasons. They started the 95 season 3-1. Although, there were significant rumors about the team needing to be sold because the owner was in deep financial trouble. The Browns started to falter and by the time week 9 arrived they were 4-4. After the next game the Browns owner, Art Modell suddenly announced the team was moving from Cleveland to Baltimore after the season. 

 

Needless to say, the team stunned by that news, the floor fell out and the team collapsed. After that the Browns only won one game and Belichick was fired. 

 

Had Modell kept Belichick as HC with the Baltimore Ravens and with Ozzie Newsome as director of pro personnel who move to director of football operations, later to GM.  I think the history/story of both the Patriots/Ravens would be very, very different today. 

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

On 7/20/2019 at 1:21 PM, Boatdrinks said:

The Bills defense lost the game by allowing 40 minutes of possession time to a plodding, dinosaur offense. Many tackles were missed and execution was sloppy.  The Bills offense scored 17 points in 19 minutes of possession. I’ve always thought the legend of Belichicks role in Supe XXV was vastly exaggerated. Seriously, a kick drifts two feet to the left and B.B. is a footnote in that game. 

 

Fans in all sports usually look at results as a credit or indictment of their team, disregarding the other team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Boatdrinks said:

That would include NYG and Belichick fans. 

 

Of course, but as a Bills fan, I can still appreciate the greats on other teams. A lot of fans can't or won't do this. Not directed at you. I don't know you.

 

People who constantly rip Brady and Belichick would be their biggest boosters if they were Bills, so I don't take them seriously.

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

1 minute ago, Kemp said:

 

Of course, but as a Bills fan, I can still appreciate the greats on other teams. A lot of fans can't or won't do this. Not directed at you. I don't know you.

 

People who constantly rip Brady and Belichick would be their biggest boosters if they were Bills, so I don't take them seriously.

Likewise. The greater point of my analysis was not to discredit, but rather to state that the matchup between the NYG offense and the Bills defense had a much greater impact on the outcome of the game. Far more than the much ballyhooed B.B. led defense vs the Bills offense. In fact, the Bills offense produced exactly the same amount of points that it did in their victory over the Giants in NY several weeks prior. The defense, however was a different story. It was telling that Parcells stated “ power football wins” and cited the soft middle of the Bills D line when exalting in the win immediately after the game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/21/2019 at 12:26 PM, C.Biscuit97 said:

There’s zero evidence of this and Belichick was a losing head coach before Brady.  Those are proven facts. 

 He won 10 games with a washout quarterback. He put Brady in the perfect system with the perfect tools and the perfect scheme. Brady would still not have anywhere near the same success with multiple coaches like most quarterbacks have in their careers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...