Belichick without TB12

[Ghost_002!]

3 minutes ago, Beast said:

Google it.

 

 

Seem a little testy. Calm down killer.

[Beast]

38 minutes ago, Ghost_002! said:

 

 

Seem a little testy. Calm down killer.

Testy?

 

No, I just said google it. As in if you want to know the record, look it up. 

Edited February 6 by Beast

[Brand J]

1 hour ago, Ghost_002! said:

 

Tom Brady was past up repeatedly during the draft. He was a 6 round pick for a reason. He had a hungrier to get better.

 

 

Look of all the teams whom past on Mahomes? Who seen Mahomes turning into who he turned into?

Reason being he was athletically underwhelming, kept getting rotated out with Drew Henson at Michigan, and most importantly, it’s impossible to measure intangibles. It was a missed evaluation from all 32 clubs, but you can’t blame the teams. Tom Brady was an exception, no one saw his success coming. 
 

Mahomes had his own set of reasons for not being the #1 QB taken in the draft, but when the coach/QB discussion comes up, I’d say 70-75% of a coach’s success depends on his QB. It’s not the other way around, nor is it 50/50. Belichick, though a great defensive mind, would be nowhere near GOAT debate if Brady hadn’t lucked into his lap at pick 199 AND if Mo Lewis hadn’t ended Bledsoe’s tenure in NE.

[Einstein]

1 hour ago, Ghost_002! said:

 

What's Ried's record head to head again BB. Just for the sake of the discussion?

 

If I recall correctly, I believe he is 4-6 against Belichick.

[Einstein]

12 minutes ago, Brand J said:

Belichick, though a great defensive mind, would be nowhere near GOAT debate if Brady hadn’t lucked into his lap at pick 199

 

First SB Win: 59%, 145 yards, 1 TD

Third SB Win: 69%, 236 yards, 2 TD, 1 Fumble

Sixth SB Win: 60%, 262 yards, 0 TD, 1 INT, 1 Fumble

 

Id say Belichick carried Brady for 3 SB’s and Brady carried Belichick for 3.

 

It was a good partnership.

 

 

[hondo in seattle]

On 1/12/2024 at 6:08 AM, Dubie54 said:

Taken as a whole Belichick's, overall record is impressive, but when you look at the one variable, (TB12) that has impacted his record, it's a little less impressive. 

 

With TB12:                                  249-75 (.769)

Without TB12, incl. Cleve.:         83-104 (.449)

 

Impossible to say how he would have fared in NE if they had not drafted TB12 in the 7th round, but one thing is for sure, he would not have had the success he has had. 

 

Great coach or great QB?

 

The record doesn't prove that Belichick isn't a great coach.  It's just the reality that coaches don't suit up.  Coaches help but players play the games.

 

And what these comparative stats don't measure is how much Belichick helped Brady become Brady.  Brady's success isn't just about his precision.  It's about his ability to read defenses, process information, and make good decisions.  I don't know how much of that is due to Belichick, but I assume some of it is.  

 

If I were an owner, these are the three staff positions I'd want to fill first with superstars:  GM, HC, and opposite coordinator (if the HC is a defensive guy, I'd want a genius OC; and vice versa).  And I'd want my GM to find a superstar QB.  With those four in place, it's hard to lose.  

 

The Pats dynasty isn't all about Brady.  Belichick played a critical role.  He also played a key role in the collapse of the dynasty with his failures as a GM.  

[Brand J]

36 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

First SB Win: 59%, 145 yards, 1 TD

Third SB Win: 69%, 236 yards, 2 TD, 1 Fumble

Sixth SB Win: 60%, 262 yards, 0 TD, 1 INT, 1 Fumble

 

Id say Belichick carried Brady for 3 SB’s and Brady carried Belichick for 3.

 

It was a good partnership.

 

 

Oh yeah, never did I say every SB win was due to Brady, of course it wasn’t. But the Pats don’t make it to all those SBs if it wasn’t for Brady. His influence on the regular season and the playoffs was greater than his HC and that’s the point. Coaches can only do so much, it’s up to the players to execute and more often than not, Brady made the plays that needed to be made when he needed to make them. And his supporting cast also helped. 

[jkeerie]

1 hour ago, Brand J said:

Reason being he was athletically underwhelming, kept getting rotated out with Drew Henson at Michigan, and most importantly, it’s impossible to measure intangibles. It was a missed evaluation from all 32 clubs, but you can’t blame the teams. Tom Brady was an exception, no one saw his success coming. 
 

Mahomes had his own set of reasons for not being the #1 QB taken in the draft, but when the coach/QB discussion comes up, I’d say 70-75% of a coach’s success depends on his QB. It’s not the other way around, nor is it 50/50. Belichick, though a great defensive mind, would be nowhere near GOAT debate if Brady hadn’t lucked into his lap at pick 199 AND if Mo Lewis hadn’t ended Bledsoe’s tenure in NE.

I also believe a QBs success is dependent on his coach.  If Mahomes isn't with Reid, he'll still play like Mahomes, but would he have had such early playoff success?  Look at Stafford.  He languishes in Detroit, but wins a SB under McVay.

[Brand J]

32 minutes ago, jkeerie said:

I also believe a QBs success is dependent on his coach.  If Mahomes isn't with Reid, he'll still play like Mahomes, but would he have had such early playoff success?  Look at Stafford.  He languishes in Detroit, but wins a SB under McVay.

I’d have to lean towards “yes.” If it was a matter of simply being fortunate enough to play with two future hall of famers, we could point to his supporting cast. Last year and this year tells me it’s Mahomes. He likely would’ve thrived in whatever situation - as long as his OL was at least adequate.

Stafford was always a good player, but comparing his rosters in Detroit with the one he had in the SB, there’s no comparison. I think Stafford would’ve had just as much success as Goff in Detroit this year if we switched the QBs, because that Detroit roster is much better now than the ones he had to work with. 

[gonzo1105]

Any coach that isn't with a franchise QB isn't going to be as successful in the NFL. QB's make coaches not the other way around.

 

Look at how many QB's gave guys jobs including Tom Brady who not only kept Belichick employed but also got numerous assistants HC jobs that they failed at because they didn't have Tom Brady.

 

Adam Gase with Peyton Manning, Nathaniel Hackett with Aaron Rodgers. The list goes on and on.

[jkeerie]

12 minutes ago, Brand J said:

I’d have to lean towards “yes.” If it was a matter of simply being fortunate enough to play with two future hall of famers, we could point to his supporting cast. Last year and this year tells me it’s Mahomes. He likely would’ve thrived in whatever situation - as long as his OL was at least adequate.

Stafford was always a good player, but comparing his rosters in Detroit with the one he had in the SB, there’s no comparison. I think Stafford would’ve had just as much success as Goff in Detroit this year if we switched the QBs, because that Detroit roster is much better now than the ones he had to work with. 

I don't agree with this in full.  I do agree that a QBs success...no matter the talent...is dependent on adjutant circumstances like surrounding cast and coach.   They may be successful at winning games due to their talent, but consistently getting to the playoffs and winning needs that coach and supporting cast as well.  Tom Brady won a SB with TB but it was largely the TB defense that carried the day and Tom benefited from the offensive mind of Bruce Arians.