Originally Posted by JD10367:
It’s easy to say Brady but you won’t win ANY games with a QB throwing for 90 yards and 3 picks. If Belichick has a half decent QB he’s only got 1 or 2 losses right now.
Alert us when Belichick wins consistently without a HOF QB.
He's a sub .500 HC without Brady and that includes a significant sample size. [Reply]
Brady went to a team with tons of weapons and a good to great defense. I wouldn't write belichek out for one down year. If he still is doing poorly the next two seasons then I'll agree it was brady.
Also he had the most key players opt out due to covid of any team [Reply]
Originally Posted by tyecopeland:
Brady went to a team with tons of weapons and a good to great defense. I wouldn't write belichek out for one down year. If he still is doing poorly the next two seasons then I'll agree it was brady.
7 seasons without Brady. Sub-500 record.
It's not about this year. It's about Bill's entire body of work. [Reply]
Originally Posted by St. Patty's Fire:
Yes it’s official after six games
If the Pats are bad for Three years straight maybe the arguments can begin.
It’s not like Brady went to a shit team with no talent and they’re all of the sudden good. Bucs have had talent but Winston is volatile. Did we forget that like half the Pats D opted out?
Originally Posted by kcclone:
It was booth of them. I think Brady could have won 1-2 rings with any other decent franchise.
I can't say the same thing about Belicheck because the QB is so important. But for them to win 6, it isn't one or the other, but the combination of both (along with cheating!).
This is correct. Remember, Brady wasn't so great last year in NE. I don't think Brady would have made a lot of difference in NE this year, either. But he is definitely better than Cam.
Originally Posted by Prison Bitch:
Bucs were 5-11 and 7-9 last two years.
Jamis Winston led them to the #1 offense in the league last year, if I recall correctly. His problem was that he turned over the ball too much. So let's not act as if the team wasn't already built into a good team. Brady walked into a great situation for him to succeed. But let's not get ahead of ourselves. Still a long way to go before you crown him. Personally, I hope he fails. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
And didn't win a Super Bowl.
Look, he's a good coach. Nobody is saying he's not.
Can he go 10-6 or 11-5 again? Sure.
But without Brady, he will never win another ring.
I wouldn't say that. But what I would say is that he needs another really good to great QB to win another SB. And that's probably not going to happen because he's getting old and will retire soon, most likely. These situations always prove that it is a combination of coach and QB. The marriage of Brady and Belicheck was the perfect situation. Hard to duplicate something like that. [Reply]
Originally Posted by dlphg9:
God damn its worse than I thought. New England hasn't drafted a Pro Bowler since 2013 (Jamie Collins) and haven't drafted an All Pro since 2012 (Chandler Jones). In the last 10 years they've only had 1 AP (Jones x2) and 3 PBs (Collins x ,1 Jones x 3, and Dont'a Hightower x 2).
You can really see how much a HOF QB matters, but it wasn't all Tom or all Bill. Probably 60% Tommy boy and 40% Hoodie Bill.
That's pretty sad. Proves how much a HOF QB matters. I also wonder how much the cheating mattered. There is just no way to measure that. [Reply]
Originally Posted by oldman:
You could make an argument for both when it comes to cheating, but I believe the Hood is the bigger fraud. One winning season in his first 6 years - not something that would inspire a lot of confidence in his coaching abilty. So Tommy-boy comes along and it's a match made in heaven. Even with Brady out for the 2008 season, he makes it to the playoffs. Well, even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile. But in a classic Machiavellian move, he pulls off the trade of the century, sending both Cassel and an aging Vrabel to the Chiefs, dooming us to years of mediocracy. To add a cherry on top, he talks the young Clark into hiring the only other egomaniac in the Pats front office, one Scoot Peeholi.
Bottom line, even "some members" of this board could win multiple SBs with Brady as their QB.
That whole fiasco is why I hope the Patriots suck for decades now. :-) [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
In 7 seasons without Tom Brady, Bill has won an average of 7 games. That includes his 11-5 season in Cleveland and the season with Cassel but does not include this current season since it isn't complete.
It would be one thing if he were an above-500 coach without Brady but he's not.
The NFL revolves around QB's. Is Bill a great coach? Absolutely. But without Brady, he's not a champion.
Just like Andy is not a champion without Mahomes.
QB's are the cake, coaches are the frosting.
I agree with most of what you're saying but there is a caveat. Sometimes, coaches do better in their second chance. Perhaps you should be asking what is Belicheck's record in New England without Brady? [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
And didn't win a Super Bowl.
[BL]ook, he's a good coach. Nobody is saying he's not.[/B]
Can he go 10-6 or 11-5 again? Sure.
But without Brady, he will never win another ring.
Thats exactly what is trying to be said by many in this thread. And when you say he has a sub .500 record without Brady thats what you are insinuating as well.
He could definitely win another ring, give him a good qb and let him get his defense back. He could win a ring. Its not like Brady carried them to the first one anyway.
Andy didn't win a ring without mahomes, does that mean he's not a good coach? Or that it was all mahomes? [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
In 7 seasons without Tom Brady, Bill has won an average of 7 games. That includes his 11-5 season in Cleveland and the season with Cassel but does not include this current season since it isn't complete.
It would be one thing if he were an above-500 coach without Brady but he's not.
The NFL revolves around QB's. Is Bill a great coach? Absolutely. But without Brady, he's not a champion.
Just like Andy is not a champion without Mahomes.
QB's are the cake, coaches are the frosting.
Oh, no question about that. At all. Said another way, a good coach can't win a Super Bowl without good players but good players can win a Super Bowl without a good coach.
I might imagine that for the bulk of the relationship, Belichick benefitted more from Brady than the reverse. But more recently - like in the season where they beat us in the AFCCG and the following one - Brady probably benefitted more from Belichick's defense mind as his physical skills declined. [Reply]
Originally Posted by tyecopeland:
Thats exactly what is trying to be said by many in this thread. And when you say he has a sub .500 record without Brady thats what you are insinuating as well.
No, it wasn't. There's context to add, such as the fact that he coached for the Browns, that I omitted because it's common knowledge.
I never said he was a BAD coach. I didn't say he was. I said his sub-500 record without Brady suggests he's not a Super Bowl winning coach without Brady. And it absolutely does.
Originally Posted by tyecopeland:
Andy didn't win a ring without mahomes, does that mean he's not a good coach? Or that it was all mahomes?
Andy is a great coach. So is Marty Schottenheimer.
The simple fact is that talent wins Super Bowls. Talent at QB wins Super Bowls.
Coaches don't win Super Bowls without that talent. In fact, they CAN'T win Super Bowls without that talent. It's nearly impossible.
