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

[Figster]

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

 

 

[Boatdrinks]

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. 

[Boatdrinks]

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. 

[mannc]

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.

[Boatdrinks]

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. 

[Cripple Creek]

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?

[mannc]

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.

[C.Biscuit97]

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. 

[Gugny]

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.

[C.Biscuit97]

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. 

[Figster]

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

[Boatdrinks]

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. 

[Gugny]

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.

[mannc]

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.  

[Gugny]

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.

[Boatdrinks]

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. 

[Figster]

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.

[Figster]

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

[Gugny]

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 July 21, 2019 by Gugny

[Happy]

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.