BB a genius? Sure as long as Brady is QB (1 Viewer)

[Stillers Jr.]

I think the main problem people forget when posting in threads like this is the following fact:

You will never, ever, ever change the other guys mind. Period.

This thread is a perfect example…

On one hand you have the staunch Pats and BB supporters. You could catch them cheating and have empirical evidence that they broke the rules of football and it specifically helped them achieve some of their lofty accomplishments…and the spin-machine will come out in full force.

You could throw stats at them all day long as to why BB has only won at the head coaching level b/c he drafted one of the greatest QB’s of our time and they will refute it until they are blue in the face…

Conversely, you have the anti-Pats / Anti-BB regime and they will never be swayed that the Pats gained absolutely no advantage from the misinterpretation of the rules and…that type of chicanery goes on, at some level, in every NFL organization; they just weren’t caught…

Or that BB did as best as anyone could, given the talent(less) situation in Cleveland and other places he has been, as good or better than any top coach in the history of the NFL including, but not limited to, Curley Lambeau himself…they’d rather have a hot poker jammed in their eye.

People spend hours trying to come up with that one magical “quote” or picture or stat-line that will make the other guy say…“You know what, I never looked at it that way and I gotta say you’re right!”

But you try and try and try…it’s an interesting experiment in human nature, if nothing else.

Does anyone else see this or am I just crazy?

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

You need the horses as a coach to be successful. In 8th grade football, I've coached an undefeated team and the next season coached a team that didn't win a game. I didn't go from being this great middle school football coach to being a guy who didn't know what he was doing.

What's hard to actually determine for a coach on just wins and losses especially over time because you forget things but coaches CAN do a good job in a given year without winning a SB or even finishing up at 8-8. Yes, Tom Brady would have been a good QB under any coach......but BB was going to be a good football coach wherever he went too. You put those two guys together and now you have something super special. I look at Bill Walsch and Joe Montana in the same light.

When I think of BB, I think of a guy who gets the most out of his players. I respect that and think he's an outstanding coach and NE is lucky to have him.

 

[Ghost Rider]

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.

What was the turnover in personnel from the '89 team that went to the playoffs and the '91 team that Belichick took over and went 6-10 with?

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?

Okay, that was one bad season. Shanny's record without Elway has been well-documented in this thread already. Just like the Patriots struggles this year shouldn't be held against Belichick too much because of Brady's injury, the Broncos '99 season shouldn't be held against Shanahan because of Elway's retirement and because they lost the NFL's best player at the time (Terrell Davis) for the season in week 4. Shanahan has more than proven that he can win in the NFL without a stud QB. Belichick has not. That is more of a praise towards Shanahan than a criticism towards Belichick.

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.

Bill Walsh was basically the creator of an offense that has been widely used since he brought it to the NFL, so I think it is fair to hold those two seasons against him too much.

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.

I would argue that Dungy got quite a lot out of those Bucs teams in the late 90s that weren't necessarily that talented. Yes, they were talented as heck on defense, but the offense was sorely lacking, yet they won pretty consistently under Dungy. Plus, Dungy gets major kudos for turning around a franchise that had been a total joke for pretty much its entire history before his arrival. You can call it selective records from selective coaches, but for the most part, I have basically stated the facts, which are that Belichick has a losing record w/o Tom Brady. Does that mean his record with him is irrelevant? Of course not. Not every coach is capable of getting the most out of a team loaded with talent. Belichick is a guy who will get the most out of talented team. Look no further than the '01 team. I still have no idea how that team beat the Rams, much less, won the Super Bowl.

When I think of BB, I think of a guy who gets the most out of his players.

I don't see how anyone could disagree with that. That is one of his best attributes as a coach.

 

[ourmanflint]

2 out of his last 3 have been blowouts.

I say they lose 4 out of their next 6...AT LEAST.

 

[Bri]

It seems to me like he lost two players, Moss and Brady. If the QB can't get the ball to Moss....

The Pats have alot of complimentary players that perform one role real well but not necessarily more than that one role. Without stars to compliment, they're so stuck. If Morris got hurt, do you think Faulk is going to get 100 yards on 20 carries? But he sure is a good 3rd down back.

 

[Bri]

I would argue that Dungy got quite a lot out of those Bucs teams in the late 90s that weren't necessarily that talented. Yes, they were talented as heck on defense, but the offense was sorely lacking, yet they won pretty consistently under Dungy. Plus, Dungy gets major kudos for turning around a franchise that had been a total joke for pretty much its entire history before his arrival.

Dungy has been fortunate with his staff in Indy, esp Marty Moore who used to coach Dungy at one time. It would have been interesting to see how he did without Marinelli, Herm, and Lovie. BB's without Romeo, Mangini, Weis, Carolina's OC? that QB coach that passed away. I'm not saying one way or the other Dungy vs BB, just think it would have been interesting to see.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

It seems to me like he lost two players, Moss and Brady. If the QB can't get the ball to Moss....The Pats have alot of complimentary players that perform one role real well but not necessarily more than that one role. Without stars to compliment, they're so stuck. If Morris got hurt, do you think Faulk is going to get 100 yards on 20 carries? But he sure is a good 3rd down back.

 

[delusional]

Actually Bledsoe getting hurt made Brady. Pats cheating helped make Brady. BB is just an arogant ###

 

[bryan215]

the majority of fans who still rag on the Pats, BB, and such are just typical whiny fans. The ones that try to argue that they aren't any good are just sad pathetic losers who probably hate their own team/coach/etc for being so crappy.

BB isn't god, nor the greatest coach of all time. He's probably one of or the best coach in the league right now.

The 2008 Pats defense isn't any good due to age and loss of quality players. Their secondary is lousy.

They don't have the best QB in the league running their offense, their o-line is weaker than past years, and their best offensive player requires a good QB to perform well consistently.

Cassel is not very good and probably won't last the season.

Yet the fact they lost games to Miami and San Diego is a huge shocker and shows how bad a coach BB truly is?

Washington and Dallas have both lost 2 games...maybe they should get rid of their coaches too.

 

[Assani Fisher]

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.

The Pats' SB teams have ranked 24th, 7th, and 9th in yards allowed. They have indeed been better in points allowed but thats partly due to the fact that their offense gives them such good field position that they can give up yards without necessarily giving up points.

 

[Assani Fisher]

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.

You may be correct solely based upon the stats. However,Randy Moss

Wes Welker

Jabar Gaffney

vs

Troy Brown

David Patten

No other WR even caught 15 passes, so I don't know who else to name!

Thats why Brady's stats weren't great.

Do you think Brady suddenly improved a ton last year? I don't. I think he was as good as he was the year before or the year before that, which is to say one of the best QBs of all time. His stats simply had to do with his weapons and the system.

 

[Assani Fisher]

I think the main problem people forget when posting in threads like this is the following fact:

You will never, ever, ever change the other guys mind. Period.

This thread is a perfect example…

On one hand you have the staunch Pats and BB supporters. You could catch them cheating and have empirical evidence that they broke the rules of football and it specifically helped them achieve some of their lofty accomplishments…and the spin-machine will come out in full force.

You could throw stats at them all day long as to why BB has only won at the head coaching level b/c he drafted one of the greatest QB’s of our time and they will refute it until they are blue in the face…

Conversely, you have the anti-Pats / Anti-BB regime and they will never be swayed that the Pats gained absolutely no advantage from the misinterpretation of the rules and…that type of chicanery goes on, at some level, in every NFL organization; they just weren’t caught…

Or that BB did as best as anyone could, given the talent(less) situation in Cleveland and other places he has been, as good or better than any top coach in the history of the NFL including, but not limited to, Curley Lambeau himself…they’d rather have a hot poker jammed in their eye.

People spend hours trying to come up with that one magical “quote” or picture or stat-line that will make the other guy say…“You know what, I never looked at it that way and I gotta say you’re right!”

But you try and try and try…it’s an interesting experiment in human nature, if nothing else.

Does anyone else see this or am I just crazy?

This is a great point. The guys who I respect on this board are those who have demonstrated an open mind and a willingness to change their opinions on things. Most people don't do this though. most people are more concerned with winning the argument, and they skew the stats to try to prove their point.

 

[PMENFAN]

I give him a pass. Take an offense built to run on Brady and give Cassel the keys? the kid has had 3 games. He doesn't look as good as Brady did at this point, but few ever have.

What is wrong with giving the 'phins and Chargers their due. They played great. Rivers hit some great passes. The 'phins busted out an offense that nobody had seen against the Pats, and they couldn't stop it. What do you know, but nobody is having much success against it. No team in the history of the league plays without missing a beat when a player teh caliber of Brady goes down. That's not on the coach, but reality.

BB's got five rings, another gut wrenching loss in the AFC Championship, and yet another in the SB. Tell me another coach who has been in six SB's, and a best half of Peyton Manning career away from a 7th, in the modern NFL.

He's not Fred Rogers in personality, but he has a history of puttin ghis teams in position to win. Is it he or brady? Does it matter? Like so many great things a convergence of several factors has to happen. Warner/Martz. Great together, not so great apart.

The Pats have one more loss at this point than I felt they'd have with Brady as the starter. At the end of the season, they'll be right there in the mix. Can they win the SB? I would never bet against a BB team getting stronger as the season wears on. But for coaches/GM's? I'd take nobody over BB.

 

[Godsbrother]

Where the Patriots and BB really blew it was not having a quality backup to Brady.

Coming into the season the Pats were the overwhelming favorite to make it to the AFC Championship game if not the Super Bowl. They have roughly the same team as the 18-1 team last season and had the easiest schedule this year.

You have a team like that and you back it up with Matt Cassel? Are you kidding me? The Patriots are one othe best run organizations in the NFL but that was just plain stupid or arrogant, probably both.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

Where the Patriots and BB really blew it was not having a quality backup to Brady. Coming into the season the Pats were the overwhelming favorite to make it to the AFC Championship game if not the Super Bowl. They have roughly the same team as the 18-1 team last season and had the easiest schedule this year. You have a team like that and you back it up with Matt Cassel? Are you kidding me? The Patriots are one othe best run organizations in the NFL but that was just plain stupid or arrogant, probably both.

You may be right. Another explanation is that they chose consciously to be leveraged at quarterback, and will simply use this year to harvest revenue with their mature product line, and wait for Brady to come back next year. It's not inconceivable to me that Kraft and BB wouldn't have had such an agreement prior to the Brady injury.ETA: some additional thoughts on being leveraged...Entering the year, the Pats were leveraged with1. transition year in the secondary2. transition year with linebackers3. lingering oline health issues4. an MVP QB to cover up these issuesIn a scenario where Brady gets injured, would the Pats be able to grab a waiver wire QB and still overcome issues 1-3? Was this discussed in the BB/Kraft/Pioli braintrust? I would almost assume so.Regardless of your answer to that question, whatever happens, it will be difficult to interpret 2008 results to answer the OP's question, because of the other issues affecting the Pats this year.But that certainly won't stop any of us from answering the question definitively, thanks to the power of opinion...

 

[Lehigh98]

Don't know if he's a genius or not but for some reason it sure is fun watching him squirm on the sidelines this season.

 

[pizzatyme]

Don't know if he's a genius or not but for some reason it sure is fun watching him squirm on the sidelines this season.

Amen to that! Funny how his philosophy has changed this year now that the circumstances have changed.I cannot wait to watch the next opponent try to run it up their ### es.

 

[thehornet]

Don't know if he's a genius or not but for some reason it sure is fun watching him squirm on the sidelines this season.

Amen to that! Funny how his philosophy has changed this year now that the circumstances have changed.I cannot wait to watch the next opponent try to run it up their ### es.

the fact that the Pats got crushed by Miami and Chargers doesn't mean BB is a bad coach or that he isnt one of the best we have ever seen. It means that the pats were completely overmatched and outplayed. Cassel is so bad it makes me sick to my stomach.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Brady in the 6th was the luckiest pick of all time.

How come the genius couldnt stop the bomb to vjax and floyd all game?

He's riding Brady's coattails into the HOF

 

[((Morpheus))]

Brady in the 6th was the luckiest pick of all time.

How come the genius couldnt stop the bomb to vjax and floyd all game?

He's riding Brady's coattails into the HOF

because hobbs and o'neal are pathetic?

 

[Sheriff66]

Brady in the 6th was the luckiest pick of all time.How come the genius couldnt stop the bomb to vjax and floyd all game?He's riding Brady's coattails into the HOF

Ya, what he said.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

Don't know if he's a genius or not but for some reason it sure is fun watching him squirm on the sidelines this season.

Amen to that! Funny how his philosophy has changed this year now that the circumstances have changed.I cannot wait to watch the next opponent try to run it up their ### es.

Which philosophy?

 

[Bills_Fan11]

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.

You may be correct solely based upon the stats. However,Randy Moss

Wes Welker

Jabar Gaffney

vs

Troy Brown

David Patten

No other WR even caught 15 passes, so I don't know who else to name!

Thats why Brady's stats weren't great.

Do you think Brady suddenly improved a ton last year? I don't. I think he was as good as he was the year before or the year before that, which is to say one of the best QBs of all time. His stats simply had to do with his weapons and the system.

I think he improved in 2002 when he led the league in TD's, and again in 2003 when he engineered a good pass-heavy offense with those same mediocre WR's and Antoine Smith who was one of the worst starting RB's in the league. I still think '01 was one of the biggest flukes in the history of sports. This is based on a garbage call that gave them the division and a bye, another vs. Oakland, and yet another vs. Pittsburgh when they forward lateraled a kick block return by 2 yards.

Brady led 2 TD's that postseason. The defense/special teams scored 3.

 

[Tau837]

IMO this season doesn't change the fact that Belicheck is at least one of the best coaches of his generation. Sure, he has benefited from having Brady, but IMO you can't downgrade his performance for that, just as you can't downgrade a player's performance because he had great players around him. You can't evaluate players and coaches based on hypotheticals... only on what they actually accomplish.

Belicheck did a better job in Cleveland than he is generally given credit for IMO. And while Brady is great, Belicheck helped Brady to grow into the QB he is today... he deserves credit for that. Also, even if Belicheck has often had one of the best teams, there are a lot of coaches out there who haven't won when they had great teams. He did, and that alone seperates him from most other coaches. Belicheck was also extremely successful as an assistant coach at all levels (position coach, defensive coordinator, and assistant head coach).

New England is in about as difficult a position as there is. They have a team that has created great expectations for itself, and entered this season with some issues (just as all teams, even the contenders, have issues), and then lost its best player and leader in the first game. The same thing would likely be happening to the other contenders if any of their QBs (Peyton, Eli, McNabb, Romo, Campbell, Rivers, Roethlisberger, etc.) went down for the season in game 1.

I am not a Pats fan (far from it), but what is happening now to the Pats should not change anyone's opinion of everything Belicheck has accomplished as a coach. And I think it's a bit early to be counting them out, anyway.

 

[Obie Wan]

Where the Patriots and BB really blew it was not having a quality backup to Brady. Coming into the season the Pats were the overwhelming favorite to make it to the AFC Championship game if not the Super Bowl. They have roughly the same team as the 18-1 team last season and had the easiest schedule this year. You have a team like that and you back it up with Matt Cassel? Are you kidding me? The Patriots are one othe best run organizations in the NFL but that was just plain stupid or arrogant, probably both.

You may be right. Another explanation is that they chose consciously to be leveraged at quarterback, and will simply use this year to harvest revenue with their mature product line, and wait for Brady to come back next year. It's not inconceivable to me that Kraft and BB wouldn't have had such an agreement prior to the Brady injury.ETA: some additional thoughts on being leveraged...Entering the year, the Pats were leveraged with1. transition year in the secondary2. transition year with linebackers3. lingering oline health issues4. an MVP QB to cover up these issuesIn a scenario where Brady gets injured, would the Pats be able to grab a waiver wire QB and still overcome issues 1-3? Was this discussed in the BB/Kraft/Pioli braintrust? I would almost assume so.Regardless of your answer to that question, whatever happens, it will be difficult to interpret 2008 results to answer the OP's question, because of the other issues affecting the Pats this year.But that certainly won't stop any of us from answering the question definitively, thanks to the power of opinion...

The Pats have been riding the huge advantage of cheating on both sides of the ball that they forgot how close how teams are in the NFL on a even playing field.Losing Brady cost the Pats the ability to maximize those stolen signals.

 

[treat88]

IMO this season doesn't change the fact that Belicheck is at least one of the best coaches of his generation. Sure, he has benefited from having Brady, but IMO you can't downgrade his performance for that, just as you can't downgrade a player's performance because he had great players around him. You can't evaluate players and coaches based on hypotheticals... only on what they actually accomplish.Belicheck did a better job in Cleveland than he is generally given credit for IMO. And while Brady is great, Belicheck helped Brady to grow into the QB he is today... he deserves credit for that. Also, even if Belicheck has often had one of the best teams, there are a lot of coaches out there who haven't won when they had great teams. He did, and that alone seperates him from most other coaches. Belicheck was also extremely successful as an assistant coach at all levels (position coach, defensive coordinator, and assistant head coach).New England is in about as difficult a position as there is. They have a team that has created great expectations for itself, and entered this season with some issues (just as all teams, even the contenders, have issues), and then lost its best player and leader in the first game. The same thing would likely be happening to the other contenders if any of their QBs (Peyton, Eli, McNabb, Romo, Campbell, Rivers, Roethlisberger, etc.) went down for the season in game 1.I am not a Pats fan (far from it), but what is happening now to the Pats should not change anyone's opinion of everything Belicheck has accomplished as a coach. And I think it's a bit early to be counting them out, anyway.

I hate to say it, but .It's all about winning SB's and he's done that just about as well as any other coach currently in or worthy of the HOF.That said, I do love to see the pain in his face as his team gets dominated.

 

[H.K.]

IMO this season doesn't change the fact that Belicheck is at least one of the best coaches of his generation. Sure, he has benefited from having Brady, but IMO you can't downgrade his performance for that, just as you can't downgrade a player's performance because he had great players around him. You can't evaluate players and coaches based on hypotheticals... only on what they actually accomplish.Belicheck did a better job in Cleveland than he is generally given credit for IMO. And while Brady is great, Belicheck helped Brady to grow into the QB he is today... he deserves credit for that. Also, even if Belicheck has often had one of the best teams, there are a lot of coaches out there who haven't won when they had great teams. He did, and that alone seperates him from most other coaches. Belicheck was also extremely successful as an assistant coach at all levels (position coach, defensive coordinator, and assistant head coach).New England is in about as difficult a position as there is. They have a team that has created great expectations for itself, and entered this season with some issues (just as all teams, even the contenders, have issues), and then lost its best player and leader in the first game. The same thing would likely be happening to the other contenders if any of their QBs (Peyton, Eli, McNabb, Romo, Campbell, Rivers, Roethlisberger, etc.) went down for the season in game 1.I am not a Pats fan (far from it), but what is happening now to the Pats should not change anyone's opinion of everything Belicheck has accomplished as a coach. And I think it's a bit early to be counting them out, anyway.

Nine YearsWinning Percentage over .700Four Super BowlsThree RingsThe Patriots have been the class of the league since he got there. The guy can coach. They aren't dominant without Brady. Not exactly shocking.Even with Brady, the Pats weren't going to shred the league forever. Father time is the only guy who goes undefeated.

 

[Bri]

funny how it was BP can't win without BB, then it was people wonderring if BB can win without Romeo and Weis, and now it's BB can't win without Brady. Never understood why BB always gets the "can't win without" comparisons.

 

[meanjoegreen]

The Patriots have been the class of the league since he got there. The guy can coach.

I wouldn't associate the word class and BB in the same sentence. The Patriots however have been very good since he has been the coach.

 

[tomarken]

Not that Brady needed any help, but in an ironic way his season-ending injury may support his already solid case to be a future HOFer. It is clear now, in a way that was not obvious prior to this season, that Brady made that team great, and not the other way around.

 

[GregR_2]

I think BB is one of the best coaches in the NFL at game scheming a defense for a single game. He showed that long before Brady emerged. I also think they let their defense get too old. Before Brady went out the defense was already being regarded as a question mark for legitimate reasons.

BB deserves a fair amount of credit for the first Super Bowl season. Brady and the offense often played well enough to not lose. Even according to Weis, the defense beat the Rams, the offense just didn't lose the game. The years after that, I think Brady tended to carry the team, and yes, BB got a lot of acclaim for accomplishments probably that should be laid more at Brady's feet.

But, many of those defensive players back when they were good have either been released because the Pats wouldn't pay them, or they've gotten older and aren't at their peak anymore. Brady and the offense's improvement each year has helped cover that up, but now it's becoming a lot more obvious the D isn't what it was, with or without BB coaching them.

So I guess in summary, I think he's a good defensive coach but he still needs the personnel, and the Pats are falling behind the curve on that now. Brady has probably been the biggest single factor in their success overall, but the defense and BB did have a bigger contribution earlier in Brady's career.

 

[KellysHeroes]

a good coach can't cover up a bad QB... Cassels is terrible. Plus, theres no run game back there to help out and the defense is to old for all the playing time thier seeing. That team was built for Tom Brady to run... if there was one guy that they couldn't be replaced, it was him.

NE will finish 8 - 8, but I don't see them getting in the playoffs this yr.

 

[TLEF316]

Where the Patriots and BB really blew it was not having a quality backup to Brady. Coming into the season the Pats were the overwhelming favorite to make it to the AFC Championship game if not the Super Bowl. They have roughly the same team as the 18-1 team last season and had the easiest schedule this year. You have a team like that and you back it up with Matt Cassel? Are you kidding me? The Patriots are one othe best run organizations in the NFL but that was just plain stupid or arrogant, probably both.

You may be right. Another explanation is that they chose consciously to be leveraged at quarterback, and will simply use this year to harvest revenue with their mature product line, and wait for Brady to come back next year. It's not inconceivable to me that Kraft and BB wouldn't have had such an agreement prior to the Brady injury.ETA: some additional thoughts on being leveraged...Entering the year, the Pats were leveraged with1. transition year in the secondary2. transition year with linebackers3. lingering oline health issues4. an MVP QB to cover up these issuesIn a scenario where Brady gets injured, would the Pats be able to grab a waiver wire QB and still overcome issues 1-3? Was this discussed in the BB/Kraft/Pioli braintrust? I would almost assume so.Regardless of your answer to that question, whatever happens, it will be difficult to interpret 2008 results to answer the OP's question, because of the other issues affecting the Pats this year.But that certainly won't stop any of us from answering the question definitively, thanks to the power of opinion...

I'm sorry, but i dont buy this. I'm a bit out of it right now, but are you saying that the Pats CHOSE not to find a decent backup for Brady because they knew they might lose anyway due to other issues? There is no way i buy that. A team that considers itself a title contender (which im sure the pats did going into this year) does not consciously leave a weakness on their team for any reason. Backup QB was/is a weakness and the Pats didnt solve it. This is an indictment of the Pats front office and coaching staff, not another reason to proclaim out smart they are.IMO, Cassell is the backup for at least one of the following reasons...1) They thought Brady would never get hurt2) They thought Cassel was good enough in the unlikely even that TB DID go down3) They thought neither A or B mattered because the rest of the team was just so good.I KNOW that pats FANS felt this way (all you have to do is read the various Brady threads after week 1 to tell you that) so it wouldnt surprise me if the front office felt the same way. To me, that comes off as arrogance, not some sort of new age forward thinking to leverage a sub-par year. That's just silly.

 

[BigTuna]

Yeah without Brady, he's just another cheater. Just goes to show you, what goes around comes around.

All I know is whenever I see him lose, makes me want to do the pickle dance.

 

[Godsbrother]

Not that Brady needed any help, but in an ironic way his season-ending injury may support his already solid case to be a future HOFer. It is clear now, in a way that was not obvious prior to this season, that Brady made that team great, and not the other way around.

I'm not not saying Brady isn't great because he is but if you put any "good" NFL QB on this team (Mannings/Favre/Roethlisberger/Romo/McNabb etc.) they are going to be a very good. The team is bigger than just one player but if you take any team with a Pro Bowl QB and replace him with a bum the whole team is going to suffer.The Pats were crazy not to have a competent backup on a Super Bowl contending team. They were tempting fate last season and it bit them in the butt in week 1. My question to NE homers: any chance BB pulls the plug on Cassel and goes with O'Connell or Gutierrez?

 

[GroveDiesel]

I think BB is one of the best coaches in the NFL at game scheming a defense for a single game. He showed that long before Brady emerged. I also think they let their defense get too old. Before Brady went out the defense was already being regarded as a question mark for legitimate reasons.BB deserves a fair amount of credit for the first Super Bowl season. Brady and the offense often played well enough to not lose. Even according to Weis, the defense beat the Rams, the offense just didn't lose the game. The years after that, I think Brady tended to carry the team, and yes, BB got a lot of acclaim for accomplishments probably that should be laid more at Brady's feet.But, many of those defensive players back when they were good have either been released because the Pats wouldn't pay them, or they've gotten older and aren't at their peak anymore. Brady and the offense's improvement each year has helped cover that up, but now it's becoming a lot more obvious the D isn't what it was, with or without BB coaching them.So I guess in summary, I think he's a good defensive coach but he still needs the personnel, and the Pats are falling behind the curve on that now. Brady has probably been the biggest single factor in their success overall, but the defense and BB did have a bigger contribution earlier in Brady's career.

The Pats were praised early in their run for doing such a great job of bringing in older defensive players that everyone else believed were washed up and rejuvenating them. They've continued to try and do that but have a lot more failures than successes lately. They're also having problems in the secondary. Losing Samuel may have been a bigger issue than they would have liked to believe.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

Where the Patriots and BB really blew it was not having a quality backup to Brady. Coming into the season the Pats were the overwhelming favorite to make it to the AFC Championship game if not the Super Bowl. They have roughly the same team as the 18-1 team last season and had the easiest schedule this year. You have a team like that and you back it up with Matt Cassel? Are you kidding me? The Patriots are one othe best run organizations in the NFL but that was just plain stupid or arrogant, probably both.

You may be right. Another explanation is that they chose consciously to be leveraged at quarterback, and will simply use this year to harvest revenue with their mature product line, and wait for Brady to come back next year. It's not inconceivable to me that Kraft and BB wouldn't have had such an agreement prior to the Brady injury.ETA: some additional thoughts on being leveraged...Entering the year, the Pats were leveraged with1. transition year in the secondary2. transition year with linebackers3. lingering oline health issues4. an MVP QB to cover up these issuesIn a scenario where Brady gets injured, would the Pats be able to grab a waiver wire QB and still overcome issues 1-3? Was this discussed in the BB/Kraft/Pioli braintrust? I would almost assume so.Regardless of your answer to that question, whatever happens, it will be difficult to interpret 2008 results to answer the OP's question, because of the other issues affecting the Pats this year.But that certainly won't stop any of us from answering the question definitively, thanks to the power of opinion...

I'm sorry, but i dont buy this. I'm a bit out of it right now, but are you saying that the Pats CHOSE not to find a decent backup for Brady because they knew they might lose anyway due to other issues? There is no way i buy that. A team that considers itself a title contender (which im sure the pats did going into this year) does not consciously leave a weakness on their team for any reason. Backup QB was/is a weakness and the Pats didnt solve it. This is an indictment of the Pats front office and coaching staff, not another reason to proclaim out smart they are.IMO, Cassell is the backup for at least one of the following reasons...1) They thought Brady would never get hurt2) They thought Cassel was good enough in the unlikely even that TB DID go down3) They thought neither A or B mattered because the rest of the team was just so good.I KNOW that pats FANS felt this way (all you have to do is read the various Brady threads after week 1 to tell you that) so it wouldnt surprise me if the front office felt the same way. To me, that comes off as arrogance, not some sort of new age forward thinking to leverage a sub-par year. That's just silly.

So because the fans are arrogant the personnel decisions of BB and Scott Pioli are arrogant and ill-advised?History plays against your argument.

 

[Jake22]

Belichick beat a 13-3 Steelers team in the 2001 AFC title game in Pittsburgh with Drew Bledsoe.

Thanks to a 2 yard forward "lateral" on a FG block return TD.

Not only that, but Bledsoe didn't even start that game, Brady did...if Bledsoe has to think about starting that game all week long he probably chokes it away and we wouldn't even be talking about BB right now...

 

[PatrickT]

I'm not bringing this back for any crow eating purposes (cause Lord knows if I started doing that, I'd have to start eating my own), but I do think it should be noted that, despite all the injuries, the Pats are very much in the thick of the AFC East with a QB who hasn't started a game since high school. Yes, they've had one of the easiest schedules, but you can only win the ones you play.

Most of you know I have no dog in this hunt, I just think it's pretty impressive so far.

 

[Das Boot]

BB doesn't seem to be disdaining Field Goals so much this year.

In fact, I think it's safe to say Bill has learned to embrace the FG and now eschews running up the score with TDs this year.

 

[-baller]

I think 41-7 was about as big a differential as any they had last year, and not a single tear was shed --- not that I saw, anyway.

probably a lot of private weeping w/their webcams off.

as far as the op goes, I'm not going to label anybody a genius, but I wouldn't trade him for any coach at any level of football.

considering they lost their mvp qb, couple starting o-linemen, had some secondary injuries, and were starting a ps rb, I'm not complaining about where they're at, right now.

meanwhile, good luck recovering from that long snapper situation, pittsburgh.....

edit: plus, he's a supercool dude.

 

[Jercules]

You think the Tom Brady that was drafted in Rd. 6, the guy who couldn't even start in college, becomes the Tom Brady of today without first class coaching?

We're not talking about Tony Dungy or Mike Shanahan, both coaches who inherited great QBs and managed to add a little extra to turn them into champions (especially in the case of Dungy). Brady was nothing when he came into the league, and was still little more than pedestrian even after beating the Rams. He worked hard, he showed great intangibles, and ultimately we can all agree he should've been drafted earlier - but you can't say anything about Brady's likely career trajectory if he's not a Bill Belichick Patriot from the get-go.

Plus, this is the salary cap era. Never before has it been so difficult for a football organization to achieve any sustainable success, and yet the Pats have had enough to include them in any "dynasty" conversation, specifically because they've found ways to win without relying on star players. All in all, BB is easily the best coach in the game today and, if you agree with the argument that winning today is tougher than ever, BB is also the greatest coach of all time.

 

[kaa]

Belichick's defensive gameplan from the Giants-Bills super bowl was placed in the HOF long before Tom Brady was drafted.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

Cassel appears to be getting better.

The Colts game coming up will be very revealing, as they one elite passing team the pats faced this year (chargers) absolutely smoked them.

I am enjoying this season far more than I thought I would based on how Cassel was playing 3 weeks ago.

 

[-baller]

Cassel appears to be getting better.The Colts game coming up will be very revealing, as they one elite passing team the pats faced this year (chargers) absolutely smoked them.

let's not get carried away --- that game wasn't all that lopsided, but they definitely can't let manning beat them deep like that.

 

[Raider Nation]

 

[thehornet]

Brady in the 6th was the luckiest pick of all time.How come the genius couldnt stop the bomb to vjax and floyd all game?He's riding Brady's coattails into the HOF

You're just a hater. And completely wrong. 6-3.how the Chargers doing?

 

[Tau837]

IMO this season doesn't change the fact that Belicheck is at least one of the best coaches of his generation. Sure, he has benefited from having Brady, but IMO you can't downgrade his performance for that, just as you can't downgrade a player's performance because he had great players around him. You can't evaluate players and coaches based on hypotheticals... only on what they actually accomplish.Belicheck did a better job in Cleveland than he is generally given credit for IMO. And while Brady is great, Belicheck helped Brady to grow into the QB he is today... he deserves credit for that. Also, even if Belicheck has often had one of the best teams, there are a lot of coaches out there who haven't won when they had great teams. He did, and that alone seperates him from most other coaches. Belicheck was also extremely successful as an assistant coach at all levels (position coach, defensive coordinator, and assistant head coach).New England is in about as difficult a position as there is. They have a team that has created great expectations for itself, and entered this season with some issues (just as all teams, even the contenders, have issues), and then lost its best player and leader in the first game. The same thing would likely be happening to the other contenders if any of their QBs (Peyton, Eli, McNabb, Romo, Campbell, Rivers, Roethlisberger, etc.) went down for the season in game 1.I am not a Pats fan (far from it), but what is happening now to the Pats should not change anyone's opinion of everything Belicheck has accomplished as a coach. And I think it's a bit early to be counting them out, anyway.

If I do say so myself.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Brady in the 6th was the luckiest pick of all time.How come the genius couldnt stop the bomb to vjax and floyd all game?He's riding Brady's coattails into the HOF

You're just a hater. And completely wrong. 6-3.how the Chargers doing?

LOLHe's no Norv Turner

 

[Rovers]

Brady made this guy. Tell me what the hell he has done without Brady? Believe me this guy sinks like a stone.

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?

My opinion is unchanged... BB is one of the best coaches of his era... I can't stand him, but he has my respect as a coach, with or without Brady. Last time I checked... the Pats were still in first place without Brady.