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!
Brady or Belichick : Who gets the credit? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter [icon]
- Start date
Bull Dozier
Footballguy
I gotta give the edge to Brady, only because Belichick had a chance before, and I don't recall Belichick being thought of this genius in the years between Cleveland and his shot in New England. If he was as highly regarded then, he would have had another chance. I give Brady more credit, only until I see Belichick suceed without Brady, and Brady not play this well without Belichick.
Good question icon.
Obviously, no way to really know but for me, it "feels" like about 55 Brady / 45 Belichick.
J
Obviously, no way to really know but for me, it "feels" like about 55 Brady / 45 Belichick.
J
cobalt_27
Footballguy
Must suck to be the rest of the team getting zero percent of the credit.Good question icon.Obviously, no way to really know but for me, it "feels" like about 55 Brady / 45 Belichick.
Dentist
***Official FBG Dentist***
Bellicheck 65%, Brady 35%
I think the average football donkey gives Brady the credit because they don't understand what level football game-planning takes.
I hated the 2001 Patriots.. I've never been more upset with their entire playoff run.. including the most depressing super bowl result in recent memory.
It took me until their 2004 win for me to respect them.
Now i'm convinced Bellicheck must really know something the rest of the league doesn't.. and i don't understand it. The game has passed me by.
I think the average football donkey gives Brady the credit because they don't understand what level football game-planning takes.
I hated the 2001 Patriots.. I've never been more upset with their entire playoff run.. including the most depressing super bowl result in recent memory.
It took me until their 2004 win for me to respect them.
Now i'm convinced Bellicheck must really know something the rest of the league doesn't.. and i don't understand it. The game has passed me by.
If you want to just look at the Patriots era, the biggest game they played without Brady was the 2001 AFC title game. Brady got hurt and Bledsoe had to play most of the game. And even without Tom Brady, the team managed to defeat that 13-3 Steeler team on the road.
So that's evidence that Belichick gets the credit.
So that's evidence that Belichick gets the credit.
Must suck to be the rest of the team getting zero percent of the credit.Good question icon.Obviously, no way to really know but for me, it "feels" like about 55 Brady / 45 Belichick.
ask icon. He asked how to split it between Belichick and Brady.J
cobalt_27
Footballguy
Yeah-yeah, sure. Ok. But, it's pretty obvious that the "team" as a whole doesn't get much love. It's always reduced to a discussion like this about whether Brady or BB is responsible for the Super Bowls.Frankly, I think the NE team talent has been far greater than people advertise. They always have great O-line, really versatile tight ends, their defense is solid--if not outstanding--and Belichick has really put together some solid game plans at key points in the season to maximize everything he has out on the field. Not to mention a HOF kicker who's as clutch as any who has ever been in the position to be clutch.I give it 75 to the rest of the team, 15 to BB and 10 to Brady if percentages are required.Must suck to be the rest of the team getting zero percent of the credit.Good question icon.Obviously, no way to really know but for me, it "feels" like about 55 Brady / 45 Belichick.J
ask icon. He asked how to split it between Belichick and Brady.J
Last edited by a moderator:
Liquid Tension
Footballguy
\I am in Cobalt's corner of thought process here. BB is worth 50% more than Brady. My breakdown of team success is the followingYeah-yeah, sure. Ok. But, it's pretty obvious that the "team" as a whole doesn't get much love. It's always reduced to a discussion like this about whether Brady or BB is responsible for the Super Bowls.Frankly, I think the NE team talent has been far greater than people advertise. They always have great O-line, really versatile tight ends, their defense is solid--if not outstanding--and Belichick has really put together some solid game plans at key points in the season to maximize everything he has out on the field. Not to mention a HOF kicker who's as clutch as any who has ever been in the position to be clutch.I give it 75 to the rest of the team, 15 to BB and 10 to Brady if percentages are required.Must suck to be the rest of the team getting zero percent of the credit.Good question icon.Obviously, no way to really know but for me, it "feels" like about 55 Brady / 45 Belichick.
efense worth 30%Special Teams worth 10%Offense worth 30%Coaching/ Management worth 30%Brady worth 40% of the offense or 12% of the outcome of the gameBB worth 60% of the coaching/management or 18% of the outcome Therefore to answer the original question: 66% BB and 33% BradyOne could not succeed without the other. On defense, obviously on defense BB means more, but on offense it's mostly Brady. Coaches can only coach so much, eventually it comes down to players executing properly on the field. Without Brady's coolness under pressure, the Patriots don't win (or maybe don't even make) Super Bowls 36 or 38.
NE_REVIVAL
Footballguy
They could not do it without each other (or sum1 similar) and I am tempted to say 50-50, but BB not only controls the entire organization and brings in other vital players and coachs, he has also spent a LOT of time 1 on 1 with Brady and his tremendous influence on him can not be overstated.
Impossible to quantify but if forced I would have to say something along the lines of BB 60% and Brady 40%.
Impossible to quantify but if forced I would have to say something along the lines of BB 60% and Brady 40%.
Last edited by a moderator:
boubucarow
Footballguy
Doesn't Pioli deserve to be mentioned on the same level as Brady and Belichick?
Sheriff66
Footballguy
You calling me a donkey ?
Brady goes out and executes in the toughest situations, nerves of steel. A great QB can make any gameplan look good, you think BB wins like this with Bledsoe at the helm ??? 
Phlash
Footballguy
ABSOLUTELYPioli is the reason that team has good young talent on it every single year. Just look at the WR decisions hes made! He drafted Deion Branch and David Givens, kept Troy Brown in '03 when everyone was calling for him to be cut, signed cast-offs like David Patten, Reche Caldwell, and Jabar Gaffney because he "saw" something in them. Sure, he's made some mediocre decisions with WRs (Doug Gabriel for a 5th comes to mind) but at the time it seemed smart, and heck, Gabriel actually HELPED us in a few games.Pioli is HUGE to this organization. Its great that he's staying for at least another year too.<-- Pats homer
HellToupee
Footballguy
Food for thought....prior to the Brady era, Belichick's career regular season record with the Browns and Patriots is just 41-55
GregR_2
Footballguy
I think Belichick is great at game planning and deciding where to spend their dollars on players, but I don't have any doubts that Brady is more key to the Pats success.
The Pats get by with weaker O-line and WRs than any other team because of Brady's ability to beat or elude the pass rush, and to find guys who are open. You can't do that with any team. I think Manning could get by with weak WRs, but he wouldn't do nearly as well with a weak O-line. Took me awhile to realize the Pat's O-line isn't as good as I'd first thought, but I've finally come to that conclusion.
I'd say it's at least 60/40 Brady.
The Pats get by with weaker O-line and WRs than any other team because of Brady's ability to beat or elude the pass rush, and to find guys who are open. You can't do that with any team. I think Manning could get by with weak WRs, but he wouldn't do nearly as well with a weak O-line. Took me awhile to realize the Pat's O-line isn't as good as I'd first thought, but I've finally come to that conclusion.
I'd say it's at least 60/40 Brady.
HellToupee
Footballguy
H.K.
Footballguy
players > coaches.Prime example: Romo drops a snap and this board is filled with people saying the game has passed by Parcells because the Cowboys lost. 
The relationship between coaches and players must be symbiotic...however, the key to good coaching is changing your scheme to fit yout talent, or supplying your scheme with the talent it requires. The common denominator: talent.
PatsWillWin
Footballguy
Even I'M getting sick of the NE talk around here.
![[icon]](/data/avatars/m/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
[icon]
Insoxicated
To those attacking the exclusion of other team members....
Trust me.. I'm aware the MAJORITY of the credit goes to the team as a whole. I just see the intense man-love for all things brady/belichick and thought I'd throw this out there.
OF THE CREDIT EARNED BY THE TWO... who deserves most/more? Another way to look at it is how much of it is preparation and how much is execution.
I also realize this is one of a million pats threads but I hadn't seen a discussion quite on this angle yet... wanted to bounce it off you guys.
Trust me.. I'm aware the MAJORITY of the credit goes to the team as a whole. I just see the intense man-love for all things brady/belichick and thought I'd throw this out there.
OF THE CREDIT EARNED BY THE TWO... who deserves most/more? Another way to look at it is how much of it is preparation and how much is execution.
I also realize this is one of a million pats threads but I hadn't seen a discussion quite on this angle yet... wanted to bounce it off you guys.
Last edited by a moderator:
Spartans Rule
Footballguy
Brady had trouble just holding down his starting job in college.
H.K.
Footballguy
In all fairness, the talent of the Big 11 is far superior to the NFL
Last edited by a moderator:
mcjc4
Footballguy
Somewhere Yogi Bera is glowing with pride.
Pat Patriot
Footballguy
I'd say you are the norm for most non-Pats fan. 2004 was the best Pats team and likely the only one that is respected by the masses.
Dentist
***Official FBG Dentist***
Fair enough.But Cleveland was a tough job for a first time head coach a team he took over that Schoteenheimer had left in shambles... and its pretty unfair to count his first season in overhauling a team.Interesting you didn't mention the massive success he had as a D Coordinator.Mike Shannahan also had a tough first stint coaching... he's still a success.The guy took over his 2nd job with the Pats.. overhauled the team.. and in my opinion was still overhauling into 2003.. it's just that in the meantime he went on a massive luck run and captured the 2001 superbowl in the luckiest luck run ever. The poker equivalent of getting all-in at the final table 4 times with a lower pair vs. a higher pair and hitting your set every time.I am simply shocked and amazed that despite what most people would call a pretty pathetic collection of talent, they could advance to another super bowl.. and I hope they do.. mainly because I hate Manning, then I hope they face the Saints in the Super Bowl and get laughed off the stage 69-0.If they face Chicago.. hopefully i'll be drunk at halftime... and I won't watch or read any sports related media for 2-3 weeks.. because whatever the result, i'll hate it.
Rovers
Footballguy
This thread is a CLASSIC example of the old "Qb's get too much blame and too much credit" mantra. Brady IS very good... a HoF QB. BUT, to say he's 50% of NE's success is beyond ridiculous. If the QB was all that, then both Miami under Marino and Manning for Indy would have some rings. They are also HoF QB's. Football is a team game. Unless the Brady lovers think Brady is MUCH better than those two..... those that give him 50% look pretty silly to me. NO QB has ever been 50% for any team in the history of the NFL, period. Not one.
HellToupee
Footballguy
Funny thing though Michigan won 20 of 25 games when Brady started and he was all big ten in 98&99
GregR_2
Footballguy
You seem to be taking it differently than me. I don't think anyone in here thinks Brady and Belichick are the sole reasons for the Pats success, and I don't assume that the numbers people are giving indicate that.When I say 60% goes to Brady and 40% to BB, I mean for whatever amount goes to Brady and BB combined, 60% of it is Brady. Obviously there is a big portion that is the talent of the players on defense, the talent of the RBs (even if Dillon is getting broken down now, in their last SB run he was far from it).
HellToupee
Footballguy
read post #24 to fully understand what this thread is aboot. http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...t&p=6229282
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
bostonfred
Footballguy
One of which was a Troy Brown punt return for a TD. The other was a blocked field goal that Troy Brown recovered and lateraled. Brown also had 8 catches for 121 yards in that game - out of 217 passing yards by Brady/Bledsoe combined. He followed up with 6 catches for 89 yards in that Superbowl, including a 23 yard reception to cross midfield during the game-winning field goal drive at the end of the game. This after recording 101 catches in the regular season that year, and leading the league in punt return average.You could make a very good argument that Troy Brown was the Patriots MVP in 2001.
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
Considering that the Patriots' success the last half dozen years has been almost directly correlated to their defensive play (highly ranked defense each of their Super Bowl years, lowly ranked defense during the years they didn't win it) with much less correlation to the play of Brady (they didn't win it in Brady's best year) I don't see how this is even a question.
Of course people love to latch on and ignore this. Not to say that he hasn't been a huge part of their success, but this team very, very, VERY clearly has risen and fallen on the legs of its defense and Belichick has way, way more of a hand in that than Brady does.
Of course people love to latch on and ignore this. Not to say that he hasn't been a huge part of their success, but this team very, very, VERY clearly has risen and fallen on the legs of its defense and Belichick has way, way more of a hand in that than Brady does.
bostonfred
Footballguy
That's a really good point. Brady led the league in TDs in 2001 when their defense was 21st in the league (31st against the run). He led them to a division leading record but lost on a tiebreaker. Last year they had the 26th defense in the league (31st against the pass). Brady led the league in yards and had the best statistical year of his career, but the Patriots only went 10-6 and lost in the second round of the playoffs. Then again, in 2001, the Patriots were 24th in the league defensively, and the Patriots won a Superbowl. The other two Superbowl years, he had a top eight defense (like this year). So it's been feast (top 8) or famine (bottom 8) defensively for the Patriots during the last six years. So do you give Belichick more credit because (so far) they're 40-8 in the regular season, 8-0 in the postseason, and have two Superbowls when they have a top 8 defense? Or is it more impressive for Brady that the Patriots are 4-1 in the playoffs, 30-16 in the regular season, and have a Superbowl win even when they have had a bottom 8 defense?
some of those Ds were "bend but don't break" IMO. Any idea where they were ranked scoring wise? points allowed?
Belichick took over for Bud Carson not Schottenheimer.The team suffered from quite a few problems when Belichick was hired. One, Browns GM Ernie Accorsi had failed to address the offensive line in the draft, and it finally caught up with the offense. Two, the big issue at the time to Modell when he hired Carson was that Marty had wanted too much power and so it was better to hire someone who was in no way seeking power. What he got in Carson was a guy that went well beyond that - The players had tuned out Carson by his second season. Its not accurate to say that Marty left the team in shambles for Belichick to fix.It was a horrible decision to push Schottenheimer out the door. Sure, in hindsight, Marty has lacked playoff success. But you didn't know that in 1988. But Art has pretty much sucked as an owner. He fired Paul Brown AND Bill Belichick and pushed Schottenheimer out before he could even get started. Modell lucked into more talented coaching than most franchises dream of,threw it all away, and THEN won a super bowl with Billick?
Last edited by a moderator:
GRIDIRON ASSASSIN
Footballguy
Brady or Belichick?
I'd go with Vinatieri.
I'd go with Vinatieri.
How does that refute the notion that this game is evidence that Belichick is more important than Brady? Belichick was still in place in this game. Brady was not. They won.
One of the questions to ponder is imagine how a guy like Peyton Manning might improve on the mental aspect of his game if he was tutored for years by the disciplined, football-saavy Belichick.
As for Brady, he is the only QB in the NFL that never has to play against a Belichick defense.
As for Brady, he is the only QB in the NFL that never has to play against a Belichick defense.
NE_REVIVAL
Footballguy
IMHO, BB would have helped Manning become a better tactician and a better overall qb and would have significantly increased his chances of winning a SB(s).However, Mannings stats would have suffered greatly because of the change in philosophy and style and there is zero chance he would have enjoyed the benefit of having a top notch WR core togethor for so long like he has in Indy. The focus of the team would not be Manning and the offense, the focus would be the defense, special teams AND Manning and the offense. To those who attribute most of the Patriots success to their defense I have to concede thatt the defense has obviously played a huge role in their success and it is why I give BB significantly more credit than Brady. However, I don't remember too many (if any) SB winners who didn't have a good defense. It wasn't NE's defense that beat Carolina in the SB, it was Tom Brady and the offense.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sweeper
Footballguy
I think that this has the potential to go down as a truly great tandem comperable to the great qb/wr combos. There is no reason that this can't go down as the Belichick/Brady era.
On that note, who is gets more credit for a qb/wr td record? Harrison or Manning? Rice or Young?
On that note, who is gets more credit for a qb/wr td record? Harrison or Manning? Rice or Young?
Liquid Tension
Footballguy
QB's get way too much credit and way too much blame for wins and losses. If Venitieri kicked like Vanderjacht, the Brady mystique would be much less even though he performed exactly the same way. If Troy Brown doesn't cause a fumble people would focus on the terrible game Brady had (EA NFL Matchup showed what a poor game Brady had if you don't take my word) and when they needed him most he threw a pick. Of course, Brady's team gave him another chance and he, the OL and Faulk came through so everyone forgets that if Brady were average throughout the game the Pats would have been well ahead because of all the SD mistakes.So we now hear how Brady and Manning have LED their teams to the conference game, even though they were both poor last week. Let's face it, their team bailed them out last week.These guys are without a doubt in the elite QB's of the game right now, but neither will be successful if the team around them does not perform. Please read my sig.You calling me a donkey ?Brady goes out and executes in the toughest situations, nerves of steel. A great QB can make any gameplan look good, you think BB wins like this with Bledsoe at the helm ???
Liquid Tension
Footballguy
Wow, I disagree GregR. The NE OL is very solid. Brady gets very good protection compared to other QB's. They also run block pretty well. The line is COACHED great. As for receivers, these guys have not been great for other teams, but they have not dropped any passes in the postseason. They have played real well. yes, Brady deserves some credit, but compare them to what SD receivers did and you can't really blame or give credit to anyone but the receivers themselves.Back to the OL, look at how awesome they were against the Jets constant blitzing. Brady had ALL day even with a 6 man blitz/rush. Against SD the OL withstood the blitz very well, but in the times they didn't Brady was awful. Point being, that when QB's are given time they are good and even the great ones when under pressure are not good. Like every position you still have QB's that are better than others, but if Brady were playing behind the NY Giants OL he would not look too good.
Liquid Tension
Footballguy
Good point
Liquid Tension
Footballguy
And what about Venitieri for other games? That kind of proves that other players (Not just Brady) are critical to the success of the team and BB and Pioli have a ton to say about that. If I am starting my team for all available coaches/players/GM's, my first choice is BB and Brady would not be in my top 5. I conclude BB is more valuable
