Football It’s official: Pats were always Tom Brady. Not Bill Belichick. - Page 8

Bill falls to 2-4 without Brady.

Brady goes to 5-2 with Tampa, turning them into a title contender immediately.

Tampa had the #1 SRS (points above avg team) in the NFL of +13.1. And that was before they trashed the Fighting Chuckies today.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by TwistedChief:
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.

Yep, that's exactly what I'm saying.

Originally Posted by TwistedChief:
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.

Probably true.
[Reply]

Again, just so it's clear:

QB's are the cake. Coaches are the frosting.

QB's are the ribs. Coaches are the BBQ sauce.

To be GREAT, you have to have both.

But both the cake and ribs can be good without frosting or sauce. Without the cake or ribs, the frosting and sauce are virtually useless.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by tyecopeland:
Those were early in his career. And most with the browns. He went 10-6 with Matt cassel.

Todd Haley went 10-6 with Casshole and unlike Belichick made the playoffs with that piece of shit at QB.
[Reply]

He no longer has a QB to hide all his crappy draft picks and poor decisions on players. They got caught with their pants down on the most important position and will pay the price for years.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by htismaqe:
He has 6 Super Bowl rings BECAUSE of Tom Brady.

He won't win another SB without Brady. It's that simple.

I think that goes both ways. One could argue that the first two SBs they won were because of the defense and not Brady. Also their sixth one was all because of Bill's defensive masterpiece.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by tredadda:
I think that goes both ways. One could argue that the first two SBs they won were because of the defense and not Brady. Also their sixth one was all because of Bill's defensive masterpiece.

In their first Super Bowl, the Rams scored 14 unanswered points in the 4th quarter, the last of which left 1:30 on the clock. Brady marched the team down the field and they kicked the game-winning FG.

Their 2nd Super Bowl, Brady completed 32 passes for 354 yards and 3 TD's while the defense gave up over 300 yards and 3 TD's to Jake Delhomme.

The last one is really the only one where you can't make an argument for Brady.

Brady had a QB rating over 100 in every Super Bowl save the first one and the last one.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by htismaqe:
In their first Super Bowl, the Rams scored 14 unanswered points in the 4th quarter, the last of which left 1:30 on the clock. Brady marched the team down the field and they kicked the game-winning FG.

Their 2nd Super Bowl, Brady completed 32 passes for 354 yards and 3 TD's while the defense gave up over 300 yards and 3 TD's to Jake Delhomme.

The last one is really the only one where you can't make an argument for Brady.

Brady had a QB rating over 100 in every Super Bowl save the first one and the last one.

Fair enough. Either way they both benefitted from each other. I think Bill benefitted more as Brady masked a lot of the Patriots Way nonsense that has failed every other place it's been implemented. Its very hard to win a SB without an elite QB. That's why they get paid what they do.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by tredadda:
Fair enough. Either way they both benefitted from each other. I think Bill benefitted more as Brady masked a lot of the Patriots Way nonsense that has failed every other place it's been implemented. Its very hard to win a SB without an elite QB. That's why they get paid what they do.

So we agree. :-)
[Reply]

If you are going to blame belichick for the 14 points allowed in the 4th quarter I think you have to give him huge credit for only allowing 3 in the first 3 quarters to the #1 offense in the league. Top 5 in almost all offensive categories, #1 in a ton.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by tyecopeland:
If you are going to blame belichick for the 14 points allowed in the 4th quarter I think you have to give him huge credit for only allowing 3 in the first 3 quarters to the #1 offense in the league. Top 5 in almost all offensive categories, #1 in a ton.

Of course.

That doesn't diminish the fact that when the Patriots NEEDED a game winning drive, it was Brady that delivered it.
[Reply]

Fact: Pats defense is good this year. 4th in AFC SRS or +4.6 points above the avg defense. Right about where the Chiefs are.

Their offense is 15th in the AFC at -5.9 below avg, ahead of only the Jets. Pretty easy to draw a conclusion on why they’re struggling to win.
[Reply]

BB is 20-23 lifetime in NE without brady . ( mic drop?)
[Reply]

Dumbest argument in the world? A QB can carry a bad team/coach. My God.
[Reply]

What great qb has recently won a super bowl with a shitty coach/team?
[Reply]

Originally Posted by htismaqe:
Again, just so it's clear:

QB's are the cake. Coaches are the frosting.

QB's are the ribs. Coaches are the BBQ sauce.

To be GREAT, you have to have both.

But both the cake and ribs can be good without frosting or sauce. Without the cake or ribs, the frosting and sauce are virtually useless.

Mostly agree, but in the case of Andy Reid you can be very successful without the HOF QB.

Nobody would put McNabb in the HOF and Andy took that QB and team to 5 NFC championship games and a SB, losing to the best dynasty in history.

It’s possible to win without the elite QB but it’s really damn rare. Surprisingly the Ravens have done it twice.
[Reply]