ourmanflint
Footballguy
Brady made this guy. Tell me what the hell he has done without Brady? Believe me this guy sinks like a stone.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
BB a genius? Sure as long as Brady is QB (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter ourmanflint
- Start date
PatrickT
Footballguy
Maybe, but I'll see what kind of adjustments come out of the bye week.
BeaverCleaver
Footballguy
One loss and here they come. I'm not even a Patriot fan but I'm sure this will bring out the tools.
He made Brady.
Clifton
Footballguy
Post of the Century
Grigs Allmoon
Footballguy
I still lean toward this, but this season WILL tell us.
Big Daddy Kane
Footballguy
Lovin' the loss! 
Karma is a biznatch. They got pummeled today by the worst team in football last year.
Karma is a biznatch. They got pummeled today by the worst team in football last year.
Justloveit
Footballguy
Can't you pretty much say this about any succesfull coach?
KellysHeroes
Footballguy
one team had a bad day, the other team had a very good day... this is why we love Football.
Wouldn't make too much of it yet.
Wouldn't make too much of it yet.
Moe Green
Footballguy
Hey, someone had to pull the lever.
Raider Nation
Devil's Advocate
I gave the pool a chance to vote on which of them is more important.
Brady won going away, though I disagreed with it at the time. Not sure how I feel now.
http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...t&p=7843171
Brady won going away, though I disagreed with it at the time. Not sure how I feel now.
http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...t&p=7843171
timschochet
Footballguy
phthalatemagic
Footballguy
During the cheating years. Doesn't count.
Rovers
Footballguy
I nominate this as the most foolish thread of the year. Loooong before Brady started to break NFL passing records the Pats were Super Bowl Champions. They won primarilly with defense. AND.... that defense was not always playing with a lead in the early championship days. Brady was a game manager, not the guy that won playoff games for the Pats. I'm a Jets fan, but this idea is the dooochiest one I've seen in a long time. BB loses ONE game to Miami, and he's another junk NFL coach?
-baller
Footballguy
yeah, miami had to handle the business that dallas couldn't.Lovin' the loss!
Karma is a biznatch. They got pummeled today by the worst team in football last year.
timschochet
Footballguy
It's whole absurd that I suspect this whole thread is one big attempt to fish....I nominate this as the most foolish thread of the year. Loooong before Brady started to break NFL passing records the Pats were Super Bowl Champions. They won primarilly with defense. AND.... that defense was not always playing with a lead in the early championship days. Brady was a game manager, not the guy that won playoff games for the Pats. I'm a Jets fan, but this idea is the dooochiest one I've seen in a long time. BB loses ONE game to Miami, and he's another junk NFL coach?
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
No. Bill Cowher got to multiple AFC title games with Kordell Stewart. Mike Shanahan got to an AFC title game with Jake Plummer. Tony Dungy got to an NFC title game with Shaun King. Belichick has a single playoff win and an under .500 record without Tom Brady. That is a fact.
Brady wouldnt have had a chance to win the game with the way the defense was playing today. Brady never was on a great winning team without a great defense. These defenses were at least partially orchestrated by BB. I think BB is certainly overated because brady helped make him better but Brady is WAY overrated because of the great defenses around him and BB. Truth is together they are a great team, seperate both are good but far from great.
Bills_Fan11
Footballguy
Thanks to a 2 yard forward "lateral" on a FG block return TD.kaa said:
BigRed
Footballguy
If this was said about Dungy/Manning you'd have a leg to stand on, as the Colts were already doing as well as they are now with Jim Mora as coach (the obvious in fact only exception being the SB but you could easily argue that could've and would've happened with Mora or any number of other coaches around).
Not BB and Brady though. As much as an ahole that BB is, give him credit, he's an excellent coach.
Not BB and Brady though. As much as an ahole that BB is, give him credit, he's an excellent coach.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
I am pretty sure that if Belichick retired tomorrow, when Brady came back next season, he would be great again.dawrecker said:
Really? Because Jim Mora has had so much playoff success in the past with his zero playoff wins? Meanwhile, before he came to Indy, Dungy got to an NFC title game with Shaun King as his QB.
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Gibbs won Super Bowls with Joe Thiesmann, Doug Williams, and Mark Rypien.I loved seeing the Pats get waxed, but the folks breaking out the shovels and preparing to bury them better hold on a bit. Belichick is a great motivator, and this will be something he can probably use.Ghost Rider said:
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
In all fairness, I am not breaking out a shovel and burying them by any means, nor I do agree 100% with the OP. However, you cannot ignore Belichick's lack of success and 42-58 record w/o Brady. Coaches like Dungy, Gibbs, Shanahan, Cowher, etc. have had success with multiple QBs. Belichick has not. So it won't surprise me at all if they struggle all season.
Last edited by a moderator:
phthalatemagic
Footballguy
Not reallyFFCrazy said:
A very fair position, and something that will indeed tell us a lot about the relative value of the QB vs. coach up there.I am basing my hesitancy to write them off based on the fact that they had what seemed to be a BIG game against the Jets last week, suffered a let down, and just plain overlooking the Fins. And division games are always dicey - road, home, doesn't matter. Very interested to see what happens after the bye. If Belichick can't get them fired up and coached up in that period of time, then...
David Yudkin
Footballguy
For the most part I am going to stay out of this, but I would want to point out that BB was 36-44 with the Browns (not exactly the mecca of winning football) and 5-11 in his first year in New England. That's 41-55 right there.You can make the same argument with BB w/o Brady as with some other coaches. Chuck Noll was only 84-97 without Bradshaw.
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
You are forgetting the Patriots 0-2 start w/o Brady in '01, as well as their 1-1 record this year w/ him, too.
Make the same argument about coaches of his era. Most of the best coaches of the last 20 years have succeeded with multiple QBs...Dungy, Shanahan, Cowher, etc. Belichick has not. That is my point.
To make a direct comparison, everyone talks like Mike Shanahan has been nothing without John Elway, but since Elway's retirement, Shanny is 86-61 in the regular season, a 59% winning percentage(and it would be even higher if you factored in the games they won in '98 when Elway was hurt and Brister had to start), and made the AFC title game with Jake Plummer as his QB. More to the point, the Broncos went 33-15 from '03-'05, the three years where Plummer was the starter. How many coaches could get his team to win 69% of their games over a three-year span with Jake Plummer as his starting QB? Could Belichick do it?
Last edited by a moderator:
SeniorVBDStudent
Footballguy
As the tools will remind us, Belichick's TWO SUPERBOWL RINGS leading the Giants defense "don't count".
His turnaround of the cancerous Browns into a playoff team was a "bad job".
Clearly, the loss to the Dolphins confirms Belichick's complete dependence on Brady.
His turnaround of the cancerous Browns into a playoff team was a "bad job".
Clearly, the loss to the Dolphins confirms Belichick's complete dependence on Brady.
BigRed
Footballguy
We can go back and forth on this all day, but this is about BB so pass on the continued derail. Was just saying Colts were generally doing well under Mora ie it's not like Dungy did this amazing rebuilding project for the Colts, and that they would likely still be peforming similarly if someone else had come in to coach (Kotites of the world aside), arguably maybe doing even better in the playoffs.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
Take Elway off the Broncos or Manning off the Colts for all but the first quarter of the first game of the season and then you'd have a fair comparison.You are forgetting the Patriots 0-2 start w/o Brady in '01, as well as their 1-1 record this year w/ him, too.Make the same argument about coaches of his era. Most of the best coaches of the last 20 years have succeeded with multiple QBs...Dungy, Shanahan, Cowher, etc. Belichick has not. That is my point.To make a direct comparison, everyone talks like Mike Shanahan has been nothing without John Elway, but since Elway's retirement, Shanny is 86-61 in the regular season, a 59% winning percentage(and it would be even higher if you factored in the games they won in '98 when Elway was hurt and Brister had to start), and made the AFC title game with Jake Plummer as his QB. More to the point, the Broncos went 33-15 from '03-'05, the three years where Plummer was the starter. How many coaches could get his team to win 69% of their games over a three-year span with Jake Plummer as his starting QB? Could Belichick do it?
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
I don't know about the others, but I am talking about how well Belichick has done as a head coach. He was not the head coach in NY, just like Shanahan was not the head coach when he led the dominant 49ers offense in the early 90s, so I do not factor that in when talking about his successes and failures as a head coach. HTH.
They made the playoffs once in his five years there. In the five years prior to his arrival, they had made the playoffs four times.
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
The continued derail? You are the one who dogged Dungy, implying that Mora or any numbers of coaches could have done what Dungy has done in Indy.
Okay, fine. We can leave this seasons' games out of the equation and knock Belichick's record w/o Brady back down to 41-57. Sound good?Take Elway off the Broncos or Manning off the Colts for all but the first quarter of the first game of the season and then you'd have a fair comparison.You are forgetting the Patriots 0-2 start w/o Brady in '01, as well as their 1-1 record this year w/ him, too.Make the same argument about coaches of his era. Most of the best coaches of the last 20 years have succeeded with multiple QBs...Dungy, Shanahan, Cowher, etc. Belichick has not. That is my point.To make a direct comparison, everyone talks like Mike Shanahan has been nothing without John Elway, but since Elway's retirement, Shanny is 86-61 in the regular season, a 59% winning percentage(and it would be even higher if you factored in the games they won in '98 when Elway was hurt and Brister had to start), and made the AFC title game with Jake Plummer as his QB. More to the point, the Broncos went 33-15 from '03-'05, the three years where Plummer was the starter. How many coaches could get his team to win 69% of their games over a three-year span with Jake Plummer as his starting QB? Could Belichick do it?
Bottom line is that over the long haul as a head coach, Belichick has not done well without Tom Brady. That is an undeniable fact.Bills_Fan11
Footballguy
Gotta love polarizing internet debates....He must suck or be a genius.
- It was harder to turn around a bad franchise in 1991 than it is today. He got the Browns to 11-5 and the 2nd round in his 4th season. His 5th and final season was a disaster due to circumstances beyond his control. Dungy getting his team 1 round farther by squeaking by a mediocre Washington team in the 2nd round proves he's a better coach? LOL
- Tom Brady was not Tom Brady in 2001. He was more like Matt Cassell against the Jets last week - throw some screens and watch your defense make stops in the redzone at an absurd rate. Great coaching job that year - but they did get every break in the book and was one of the luckiest champions in sports history.
He's a good coach, probably doesn't deserve the God treatment he's received. If you're just now realizing that QB is more important than coach, you're a little behind imo.
- It was harder to turn around a bad franchise in 1991 than it is today. He got the Browns to 11-5 and the 2nd round in his 4th season. His 5th and final season was a disaster due to circumstances beyond his control. Dungy getting his team 1 round farther by squeaking by a mediocre Washington team in the 2nd round proves he's a better coach? LOL
- Tom Brady was not Tom Brady in 2001. He was more like Matt Cassell against the Jets last week - throw some screens and watch your defense make stops in the redzone at an absurd rate. Great coaching job that year - but they did get every break in the book and was one of the luckiest champions in sports history.
He's a good coach, probably doesn't deserve the God treatment he's received. If you're just now realizing that QB is more important than coach, you're a little behind imo.
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
I never said he was either. I think he is a great coach, but he has been aided by having one of the best QBs of all-time at the helm of his team, and the fact remains that he has a subpar .500 record throughout his head coaching career without Tom Brady.
I also never said that this proved that Dungy was better. I said it demonstrated that Dungy has had more success than Belichick with multiple QBs, which is true. And like I said earlier, the five years in Cleveland prior to BB's arrival were far more successful than the five years when he was there.
It is way too early to say that if the '08 Matt Cassel will compare to the '01 Tom Brady.
Last edited by a moderator:
David Yudkin
Footballguy
My point was that cutting a HOF QB from a SB contending team the first game of the season will leave any team or any headcoach in a bind.My other point was that several other coaches (if we researched it) would have had a lot worse records without their HOF QBs on those great teams. Tom Landry was like .750 with Staubach and .550 without him.Shanahan was 8-12 with the Raiders in his first stint as a head coach. If he had stayed on there, we could be having the same discussion that he was so terrible before he hooked on with Denver as we are with Belichick in Cleveland. BUt in that case, the Raiders did way better after Shannahan left.Okay, fine. We can leave this seasons' games out of the equation and knock Belichick's record w/o Brady back down to 41-57. Sound good?
tombonneau
Footballguy
Just wanted to make sure my Ignore List was up-to-date, looks like it is. 
On a positive, those posters I can read on here were cogent, fairly unbiased, and mature. For those who sometimes get upset with the lack of quality in the SP, I highly recommend maintaining an active Ignore List. You won't be disappointed.
On a positive, those posters I can read on here were cogent, fairly unbiased, and mature. For those who sometimes get upset with the lack of quality in the SP, I highly recommend maintaining an active Ignore List. You won't be disappointed.
E-A-G-L-E-S
Footballguy
How much different was the 2001 Brady from the 2008 Matt Cassell. Both were just dinking and dunking, trying not to make a mistake. That was how the offense was run then and now. The Pats D got waxed yesterday
JamesTheScot
Footballguy
Maybe the secret to Dungy is Peyton Manning's preseason. The Colts are 1-2 this season without it. Break out the shovel for Dungy and the Colts.
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
Just about every head coach, even the great ones, would see his team struggle after losing their star QB in week 1, yes, but that hasn't really been my point. My point has been that Belichick has proven to be an under .500 head coach w/o Brady; his record bares this out. And I have been saying this for a while, so please do not think I am someone who is piling on just because the Patriots lost that game yesterday. If you do a search, I started a thread a while back (maybe two years ago?) where I asked who was more valuable to the Patriots, Brady or Belichick, so this is not a new topic to me.My point was that cutting a HOF QB from a SB contending team the first game of the season will leave any team or any headcoach in a bind.My other point was that several other coaches (if we researched it) would have had a lot worse records without their HOF QBs on those great teams. Tom Landry was like .750 with Staubach and .550 without him.Shanahan was 8-12 with the Raiders in his first stint as a head coach. If he had stayed on there, we could be having the same discussion that he was so terrible before he hooked on with Denver as we are with Belichick in Cleveland. BUt in that case, the Raiders did way better after Shannahan left.Okay, fine. We can leave this seasons' games out of the equation and knock Belichick's record w/o Brady back down to 41-57. Sound good?Bottom line is that over the long haul as a head coach, Belichick has not done well without Tom Brady. That is an undeniable fact.
Factoring Shanny's Oakland record into his non-Elway years record, that would still put him at 94-73, which is a winning percentage of 56% over a span of 10 1/2 seasons. I think most fans would take a coach who gets his team an average of 10 wins a season, minus the years he had a HoF QB. 
Workhorse
Footballguy
I think it's the height of lunacy to make any conclusions like this based on one football game - The Dolphins treated that game like it was their Super Bowl. When was the last time you saw a head coach get a Gatorade bath in Week THREE?
Fact is, that it's been so long since the Patriots got blown out that this feels like a world-changer when it's just as likely an aberration. We'll see what happens after the bye week.
Fact is, that it's been so long since the Patriots got blown out that this feels like a world-changer when it's just as likely an aberration. We'll see what happens after the bye week.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
Sure, your stats are accurate. So what?I have indicated that BB did not have a great bunch of talent in Cleveland that led him to a losing record, even though he eventually got the Browns to the playoffs. You pointed out how much better the Browns were 5 years before he got there. But the year he got there they were 3-13 the season before, so not exactly the same rosy picture you are depicting. The team he took over was not even close to the one that had been winning sveral seasons earlier.The same thing with the Patriots. They had gone to the SB 4 or 5 years earlier. Belichick made wholesale changes that didn't work initially but proved to work very well after his first season. That coincided with Brady taking over at QB. And? How's Shanahan do with Elway retired and Davis hurt? 6-10. Does that make him a bad coach?We could come up with plenty of examples that good illustrate either side of this argument. Bill Walsh went 8-24 the two seasons before Joe Montana became an every week starter. So I guess would should say he was a poor coach and was nothing without Montana.Yes, your numbers are accurate. Belichick has not been as successful without Brady, but I would throw out most of those numbers as not being particularly relevant. Football is not about just one player, and while you have been throwing out selective records from selective coaches, I would bet those teams from top to bottom were more talented than the 90s era Browns, which is pretty much what you are basing most of your argument on.So yes, I agree with you that the Dungys and Shanahans of the worls had better teams to coach than Belichick had with the 90s Browns.Just about every head coach, even the great ones, would see his team struggle after losing their star QB in week 1, yes, but that hasn't really been my point. My point has been that Belichick has proven to be an under .500 head coach w/o Brady; his record bares this out. And I have been saying this for a while, so please do not think I am someone who is piling on just because the Patriots lost that game yesterday. If you do a search, I started a thread a while back (maybe two years ago?) where I asked who was more valuable to the Patriots, Brady or Belichick, so this is not a new topic to me.My point was that cutting a HOF QB from a SB contending team the first game of the season will leave any team or any headcoach in a bind.My other point was that several other coaches (if we researched it) would have had a lot worse records without their HOF QBs on those great teams. Tom Landry was like .750 with Staubach and .550 without him.Shanahan was 8-12 with the Raiders in his first stint as a head coach. If he had stayed on there, we could be having the same discussion that he was so terrible before he hooked on with Denver as we are with Belichick in Cleveland. BUt in that case, the Raiders did way better after Shannahan left.Okay, fine. We can leave this seasons' games out of the equation and knock Belichick's record w/o Brady back down to 41-57. Sound good?Factoring Shanny's Oakland record into his non-Elway years record, that would still put him at 94-73, which is a winning percentage of 56% over a span of 10 1/2 seasons. I think most fans would take a coach who gets his team an average of 10 wins a season, minus the years he had a HoF QB.
Similar threads
