Jump to content

How much of Belichick's success is because of Brady ? ? ?


kelly
 Share

Recommended Posts

 -- It is the classic at-the-bar debate that has no correct answer, but many layers that spark passionate debate.

If the New England Patriots didn't select quarterback Tom Brady with the 199th pick in the 2000 NFL draft, with Brady beating the odds to become a future Pro Football Hall of Famer, would Bill Belichick still have had the same level of coaching success ?

In turn, if Brady had been drafted by another team and didn't have the luxury of playing in the same system over his entire career under a top-notch coaching staff, would he have had the same level of playing success ?

In 2001, the second year of Belichick's coaching tenure, some believed he was already on the hot seat early that season. Had Brady not emerged to help spark the Patriots to an unexpected run to their first Super Bowl championship, who knows what might have happened? At that point, Belichick was building an excellent foundation with an epic free-agent class and a cleaned-up salary-cap situation, but as we've seen across the professional sports landscape, sometimes patience is in short supply.

Meanwhile, would Brady ever have gotten a fair shake as a rookie with another team? From a physical-development standpoint, teammates recall a scrawny quarterback who had a lot of work to do in the weight room, yet Belichick had the foresight to keep him as the fourth quarterback in 2000. That's almost unprecedented, keeping a fourth signal-caller.We can go around and around on these hot-button questions, but for now, let's turn it over to AFC East colleagues Rich Cimini (Jets), Mike Rodak (Bills) and James Walker (Dolphins) to get their division-based view on the Belichick part of the story.

Cimini: You mean, would he have 13 division championships, six conference championships and four Super Bowl titles without Brady? No, of course not; but let's not sell the man short. Let's give Belichick credit for establishing a winning culture and surrounding Brady with the right pieces. If having a generational quarterback guarantees titles, how come Don Shula never won a Super Bowl with Dan Marino? It's because Shula failed to field a championship-caliber defense, robbing Marino of a chance to shine in the postseason. It has been a different story in New England. Belichick has Brady's back, putting him in the right system and giving him enough weapons to succeed. Belichick wouldn’t be an all-timer without Brady; he'd be like a lot of other good coaches -- successful, but vulnerable to the fickle nature of a parity-driven league.

Rodak: Probably not, but as Rich said, let's not discount Belichick entirely as a coach. I had the opportunity to re-watch the NFL Films documentary "Cleveland 1995" recently, which chronicled Belichick's final season as Browns coach. The film was a reminder of several points: One, Belichick had a detailed plan in place in Cleveland and surrounded himself with what became an all-star cast of scouts and assistant coaches; two, he had his flaws in dealing with the public and media; and three, he fell victim to external circumstances with Art Modell's ownership that doomed his tenure with the team. Belichick brought undeniable coaching talent to the Browns, but he was rendered mortal by factors out of his control. That hasn't been the case in New England, where owner Robert Kraft has developed a keen sense of how to run an NFL franchise. Because of that, I believe Belichick still would have been successful with the Patriots, even without Brady. But four Super Bowl wins? Let's give Brady some of the credit for those.

Walker: Absolutely not. The two are tied at the hip in creating the Patriots' dynasty. Each party is at least 50 percent responsible, and I would even go as far as giving Brady 60-40 credit for New England's run of four Super Bowl victories and six appearances. Having arguably the greatest quarterback ever not only solidified the NFL's toughest position for 16 years, but it also masked many of Belichick's personnel mistakes at other positions via the draft and free agency. The Patriots also are allowed to cut bait sooner than most teams with players -- good and bad -- because they know Brady annually keeps them in the title hunt. Belichick could answer this question once and for all by sticking  around for several years after Brady retires. But Belichick doesn't appear interested in doing so, which is a wise move.

>    http://espn.go.com/blog/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4793489/afc-east-qa-how-much-of-bill-belichicks-success-is-because-of-tom-brady

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom Brady is the reason Bill Belichick isn't a defensive coordinator somewhere today.  If Brady didn't emerge BB would have been fired w/in a year or so and never would have had a 3rd chance to be a HC.  w/ that said BB has developed into a great HC through the years but it was an opportunity he never gets if Brady doesn't step in and they start winning.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Mainejet said:

He would not have won a single championship without him, I know that. He never did in Cleveland and he had a pretty good defense and Vinny Testaverde still in his prime.

Of for effs sake......

Vinny's worst year in Cleveland was the year they won the most.  And Vinny capped that season with a solid 13-31 144 yard performance with two picks.  Plus, he was over 30.

12 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

Tom Brady is the reason Bill Belichick isn't a defensive coordinator somewhere today.  If Brady didn't emerge BB would have been fired w/in a year or so and never would have had a 3rd chance to be a HC.  w/ that said BB has developed into a great HC through the years but it was an opportunity he never gets if Brady doesn't step in and they start winning.

Wrong.  I know the hatred of the Patriots blinds you to common sense, but as Rodak said, go watch "Cleveland 1995".

Again, he was not perfect there, but he had a plan that turned around a franchise.  If not for Modell cutting his legs out from under him by announcing the team was moving during the season, who knows what might have become.  With a nice foundation, a team running process and picks courtesy of Belichick, Ozzie was set-up real well with the newly christened the Ravens.

If there was no Brady would he have won?  Who knows.  Like in Cleveland, he had a plan that was working.  Now, would Drew lead them to the title.  Doubtful.  Despite the speculation, I do not think Kraft was looking to fire him.  That was media speculation.  I think Kraft has adopted the Steeler mantra of letting coaches coach regardless of media whining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, PFSIKH said:

Of for effs sake......

Vinny's worst year in Cleveland was the year they won the most.  And Vinny capped that season with a solid 13-31 144 yard performance with two picks.  Plus, he was over 30.

Wrong.  I know the hatred of the Patriots blinds you to common sense, but as Rodak said, go watch "Cleveland 1995".

Again, he was not perfect there, but he had a plan that turned around a franchise.  If not for Modell cutting his legs out from under him by announcing the team was moving during the season, who knows what might have become.  With a nice foundation, a team running process and picks courtesy of Belichick, Ozzie was set-up real well with the newly christened the Ravens.

If there was no Brady would he have won?  Who knows.  Like in Cleveland, he had a plan that was working.  Now, would Drew lead them to the title.  Doubtful.  Despite the speculation, I do not think Kraft was looking to fire him.  That was media speculation.  I think Kraft has adopted the Steeler mantra of letting coaches coach regardless of media whining.

I saw the excuse making cleveland 1995 thing.  He was terrible in cleveland and started off terrible in NE, there were already rumblings about job security in 2001.  they started 0-2 including losing to a bad Bengal team then magically Brady steps in and they win 11 of 14 en route to a SB.

 

he had a plan? what was it a 15 year plan? he was there 5 years w/ 1 playoff app and 1 WC playoff win.

the team stunk long before the announcement was made, that was an excuse.

in cleveland the plan clearly was NOT working, if it was working he never gets fired.  5 seasons in, took 4 seasons to make playoffs, missed the playoffs again the following year. It only took Bruce Coslet 2 seasons in a much WORSE situation to get to the playoffs.  he was an awful HC, Brady stepping in allowed him to grow into becoming a great HC.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Beerfish said:

The Pats would probably have another 2 or 3 superbowls if Belichick had done a better job with his team building around one of the best Qb's of all time.

Why do people continue to refer to this person as "One Of The Best Of All Time" when he's being publically called on the carpet as a "cheat"  ?

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Pats success is all Brady.  BB was a bust in Cleveland and the football Gods smiled down upon him when Bledsoe got injured.  If that didn't happen, Brady might have been a backup QB for his whole career. Brady took advantage of his chance and ran with it.  None of that had to do with BB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have to say early on with that great defense it was a little of both but as the years went on it was mostly Brady. After those first 3 SB runs I think the Pats would have fizzled out if not for Brady but early in his career Belichicks Cheating certainly put the pats over the top.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Tinstar said:

Why do people continue to refer to this person as "One Of The Best Of All Time" when he's being publically called on the carpet as a "cheat"  ?

 Because I guarantee you It was Belichick who suggested the balls be deflated not Brady. They had RB's with fumbling issues and softening the ball helped in that case. Brady was a great QB long before they started deflating balls. This is all Belichick.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Smashmouth said:

I would have to say early on with that great defense it was a little of both but as the years went on it was mostly Brady. After those first 3 SB runs I think the Pats would have fizzled out if not for Brady but early in his career Belichicks Cheating certainly put the pats over the top.

those D's were incredibly overrated.  they had a great run in 2001 but other than that they always folded in big spots only to be rescued by Brady(even in 2001 they folded late in the SB only to be rescued by Brady)

7 minutes ago, Smashmouth said:

 Because I guarantee you It was Belichick who suggested the balls be deflated not Brady. They had RB's with fumbling issues and softening the ball helped in that case. Brady was a great QB long before they started deflating balls. This is all Belichick.

I disagree there, I think this was all Brady.  every QB has a preference and his is slightly underinflated.  it's a minor issue that was made into a huge one and if BB and NE didn't have a history of cheating they wouldn't have gone after Brady at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, nyjunc said:

those D's were incredibly overrated.  they had a great run in 2001 but other than that they always folded in big spots only to be rescued by Brady(even in 2001 they folded late in the SB only to be rescued by Brady)

I disagree there, I think this was all Brady.  every QB has a preference and his is slightly underinflated.  it's a minor issue that was made into a huge one and if BB and NE didn't have a history of cheating they wouldn't have gone after Brady at all.

If Bradys preference was to play with an underinflated football why didn't he do that his entire career ?

IMO it would be much easier for Brady to explain why he slightly underinflated the footballs than Belichick. Obviously a QB has a preference but when a coach suggests it and his team has major fumbling issues I have to say it was the coach going with the easiest explanation which would have been Brady who had more contact with the ball boys than anyone. Keep in mind if Belichick shows up and asks the ball boys to do something the trust level goes way down and they could open the flood gates at any time and throw BB under the bus. Belichick is a master cheater don't think for a second he didn't look at every angle.

So ask yourself whats easier to explain ? Belichick deflated the balls to stop fumbling and cause kickers to have issues as well OR Brady's preference for a softer football ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Smashmouth said:

I would have to say early on with that great defense it was a little of both but as the years went on it was mostly Brady. After those first 3 SB runs I think the Pats would have fizzled out if not for Brady but early in his career Belichicks Cheating certainly put the pats over the top.

Would be shocked if he sticks around for even a  season when Brady bails. There's no benefit, he has all the money he needs.And while he treats the media like garbage, the networks will be lining up to overpay him for his insights. Before he became a complete douchebag(something that doesn't bother the networks anyway) he had a pretty good relationship with most of the Jets and Giants beat writers. Even if he stinks at it, so what, they'll overpay him for 2 or 3 seasons anyway. Recall when they had an NFLN special about the old AFL,he was actually engaging. Really they've  paid the likes of  MENSA candidates like  Ray Lewis and Keyshawn Johnson to break down end zone celebrations on a weekly basis . so he could hardly be worse that what they already do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BB is a great talent evaluator, he's also great at bringing in a supporting cast for Brady to work with. But the fact is, without Brady, all his efforts may very well be for not because he doesn't have Brady throwing the ball. And the fact is he never even believed in Brady after he had been drafted for a while. As you recall, he signed Drew Bledsoe to a 103 million dollar contract while he had Brady on the team. Lets tell the truth here, he literally pulled the Brady pick out of his A$$ and he does not deserve any more credit for the pick other than to say he was looking for a backup to Bledsoe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bugg said:

Would be shocked if he sticks around for even a  season when Brady bails. There's no benefit, he has all the money he needs.And while he treats the media like garbage, the networks will be lining up to overpay him for his insights. Before he became a complete douchebag(something that doesn't bother the networks anyway) he had a pretty good relationship with most of the Jets and Giants beat writers. Even if he stinks at it, so what, they'll overpay him for 2 or 3 seasons anyway. Recall when they had an NFLN special about the old AFL,he was actually engaging. Really they've  paid the likes of  MENSA candidates like  Ray Lewis and Keyshawn Johnson to break down end zone celebrations on a weekly basis . so he could hardly be worse that what they already do. 

I agree when Brady is gone so is Belichick but that's also partially due to age. Bill loves to coach

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Smashmouth said:

If Bradys preference was to play with an underinflated football why didn't he do that his entire career ?

IMO it would be much easier for Brady to explain why he slightly underinflated the footballs than Belichick. Obviously a QB has a preference but when a coach suggests it and his team has major fumbling issues I have to say it was the coach going with the easiest explanation which would have been Brady who had more contact with the ball boys than anyone. Keep in mind if Belichick shows up and asks the ball boys to do something the trust level goes way down and they could open the flood gates at any time and throw BB under the bus. Belichick is a master cheater don't think for a second he didn't look at every angle.

So ask yourself whats easier to explain ? Belichick deflated the balls to stop fumbling and cause kickers to have issues as well OR Brady's preference for a softer football ?

I believe he has played his entire career w/ slightly underinflated footballs.  I think others have done and still do it as well, I think others like it overinflated.  It's all personal preference.

how was the NE fumbling rate a year ago when they were being watched like a hawk?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Beerfish said:

The Pats would probably have another 2 or 3 superbowls if Belichick had done a better job with his team building around one of the best Qb's of all time.

All those drafts, year after year, hearing about how this or that future bust was such a great pick. Kiper, Mayock, et al, depending on which coverage one was watching, virtually pushing each other out of the way to outdo the other in terms of who could gush more about every player taken. Every player was a perfect fit or great pick in whatever rationale for "what Coach Belichick's doing up there" and how anything the genius touches is a genius pick, a genius move, every dump he takes is a genius turd...

I still remember the one from 10 years ago well, with all those picks used, in what was billed as a phenomenally deep draft; every one of them the commentators spread their mouths and legs wide during NE's pick analysis, but when the dust settled the only good one in the bunch was the freaking kicker they burned a 4th round pick to get.

This doesn't even get into all the genius/brilliant FA moves, from Haynesworth to Ochocinco to Adalius to the ex-Jets to all the others I've forgotten about by now.

If BB wasn't so arrogant, and gave up some of that player acquisition authority, then with a full career of Brady's play, Belichick's coaching, on top of all the cheating we know about (as well as the cheating we don't know about), and the special treatment they get on the field, they should have won at least 8-10 rings. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When George Seifert was the 49'ers HC he won 2 bowls and never had a record worse then 10-6 as long as HOF QB's Montana or Young were on the team..When he was the the Panthers HC he went 8-8.7-9 and 1-15 and was canned.. So one might say that having a HOF QB is a nice thing to have..:)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

I believe he has played his entire career w/ slightly underinflated footballs.  I think others have done and still do it as well, I think others like it overinflated.  It's all personal preference.

how was the NE fumbling rate a year ago when they were being watched like a hawk?

someone posted the statistics on fumbling and kicking distance before and after the deflating of footballs and the numbers made it pretty obvious who benefited from the softer football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Smashmouth said:

someone posted the statistics on fumbling and kicking distance before and after the deflating of footballs and the numbers made it pretty obvious who benefited from the softer football.

I think they posted wrong #s

 

http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2016/01/05/nfl-new-england-patriots-deflategate-fumbles-tom-brady-bill-belichick

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tinstar said:

Why do people continue to refer to this person as "One Of The Best Of All Time" when he's being publically called on the carpet as a "cheat"  ?

He is cheat like all of them, the cheating angle is especially stupid because some of their cheats were not really needed.  However I can see you poiunt as for everything they have been caught at there are probably 5 things they have gotten away with.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

I'm not sure what you mean since the numbers below support exactly what I'm saying

 

So what happened in 2015?

The Patriots had the fewest fumbles of any NFL offense.
The Patriots had the best fumble rate of any NFL offense.
The Patriots had one of their best fumble rates of the past decade.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

duh.

without Brady (actually, Brady + cheating), Belichick is nothing... just a loser like he was in Cleveland.  People forget that he was on the ropes, even in NE, before Mo lewis took Bledsoe out of the game.  

Without Brady, Belichick never gets to the superbowl and has an all time losing record as HC.  Any Pats fan who protests this and claims otherwise is just lying thru his teeth and knows it too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Smashmouth said:

I'm not sure what you mean since the numbers below support exactly what I'm saying

 

So what happened in 2015?

The Patriots had the fewest fumbles of any NFL offense.
The Patriots had the best fumble rate of any NFL offense.
The Patriots had one of their best fumble rates of the past decade.

 

??? what exactly is your question. I think you are fishing for something that is not there. I do not or can't remember if it's the SI numbers or some place else. But those numbers came out and there was no difference in rating any other year prior or post. So once again blowing situation way out of proportion. 

 

 

and BB and Brady's success goes hand and hand..they both benefit off of each other, just like any other Great QB with a great coach.

  • Thumb Down 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ghost_in_pads02 said:

??? what exactly is your question. I think you are fishing for something that is not there. I do not or can't remember if it's the SI numbers or some place else. But those numbers came out and there was no difference in rating any other year prior or post. So once again blowing situation way out of proportion. 

 

 

and BB and Brady's success goes hand and hand..they both benefit off of each other, just like any other Great QB with a great coach.

what ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dcat said:

duh.

without Brady (actually, Brady + cheating), Belichick is nothing... just a loser like he was in Cleveland.  People forget that he was on the ropes, even in NE, before Mo lewis took Bledsoe out of the game.  

Without Brady, Belichick never gets to the superbowl and has an all time losing record as HC.  Any Pats fan who protests this and claims otherwise is just lying thru his teeth and knows it too.

One thing Parcells accomplished was to get his 2 teams to 3 Bowls won 2 without a HOF QB.. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As one poster in the article pointed out the Pats fumble rates for this last year while the league best actually prove that they had been cheating!

To Quote him:

"The fact is that the Patriots had one fumble every 187 plays during the deflatgate years, which was almost double what the second best team had every year. Now they have a fumble rate that is consistent with the rest of of league leaders.  You can put lipstick on a pig but it is still a pig.  And the fact that the fumble rate per play dropped by almost 50% proves beyond a reasonable doubt that something was funky in Patriot land.  The patriots have a great team without cheating.  The fact that they have to cheat to get that little bit or in this case huge edge shows the Pats and Brady to be GUILTY!"............................

It was typical Pat behavior.  They had a good team but always tried to do more than is needed...

Disgraceful...

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...