What's new
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)

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.
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?
Good discussion...The regular season record speaks for itself with the rankings and the record. However, how did BB get the defense to do in those playoff games where the defense was ranked during the regular season as a bottom 8 defense?Last year, the bottom ranked defense only allowed 3 points in their win and 27 in their loss. Seems to me the defense locked up a win in the first game and needed the offense to bail them out from a bad performance in the 2nd and Brady could not. Brady played decent, but had 2 picks.In 2001, the bottom 8 defense didn't allow more than 17 points in any of the 3 games. The defense did a good job in every game and they won. Brady threw for 312 yards (on 52 throws) with no TD's and a pick in the win over Pitt, then threw for only 115 and 145 yards in their two other wins to get to the SB. Brady hardly was the reason they won. Point is that maybe during the regular season that defense wasn't very good, but BB had them ready for the playoffs; he is the master.
 
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.
This is why they say he is a better game time player than practice guy :yes:
 
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.
Brady had trouble just holding down his starting job in college.
Good point
stats from UM Brady

Henson

As I stated earlier Brady started every game 1998 and 1999 seasons . Michigan won 20 of 25 games when Brady started and he was all big ten in 98 & 99. Michigan shared the Big ten title in 98.

 
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.
No, it isn't. The Patriots won that game because of two special teams touchdowns.
:popcorn: 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.
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
Brady would be 1.1 for me in a new draft of players. Brady has consistently made the Patriots a Superbowl caliber offense with little but spare parts at WR, RB, and offensive linemen. We've seen how good David Patten, David Givens, Deion Branch, Jabar Gaffney, and Reche Caldwell were on other teams. Troy Brown is the only constant here, and he played more on defense and special teams than offense during Brady's best statistical seasons. In the three Superbowl seasons, the Patriots have had 10 different offensive line starters. One was an undrafted free agent, and four more were free agents who had been released by other teams. Right guard Stephen Neal was a pro wrestler before he came to the Patriots. He was then cut, signed with the Eagles, cut by them, and eventually signed back with the Patriots. Logan Mankins is the only first rounder ever on an offensive line protecting Tom Brady. He did not play on any of the first three Superbowl teams. Right tackle has been no better. Remember Greg Robinson-Randall, their starting right tackle in 2001? He then got traded for a fifth round pick, and never played again. Brandon Gorin was a 7th round pick of the Chargers, got cut before ever playing a down, and went on to start in the Superbowl. Tom Ashworth was an undrafted free agent of the 49ers. He was cut by San Francisco, signed by the Patriots, cut, then re-signed and anchored another Superbowl line. Ryan O'Callaghan, Wesley Britt and Nick Kaczur have all held that position since. None of these guys are world beaters. The left side of the line has been better over the years with Matt Light at left tackle. Unfortunately, Light got hurt for most of last season and was replaced by their backup right tackle. Brady went on to have his best statistical season ever. Antowain Smith was the starting running back in the 2001 Superbowl season. He had 1157 yards, the best output of his career, and more than his previous two years with Buffalo combined. In 2003, he was the starting running back and led the Patriots with 642 yards. They went to their second Superbowl. Some say that tight end was the key to the Patriots offenses. In 2001, only two tight ends caught passes for the Patriots - Rod Rutledge (5 rec, 32 yards) and Jermaine Wiggins (14 rec, 133 yards). In 2002, Daniel Graham and Christian Fauria combined for 403 yards. In 2003, they combined for 694 yards. In 2004, Graham, Fauria, Watson and Jed Weaver combined for 668 yards. By comparison, in 2004, Tony Gonzalez had 1258 yards on his own. I don't see how you could take anyone else #1. You could take Brady, spend your next 11 picks on defense, and still have a top offense each year.
 
]In 2001, the bottom 8 defense didn't allow more than 17 points in any of the 3 games. The defense did a good job in every game and they won. Brady threw for 312 yards (on 52 throws) with no TD's and a pick in the win over Pitt, then threw for only 115 and 145 yards in their two other wins to get to the SB. Brady hardly was the reason they won.
That's not true. Brady had 312 yards and a rushing TD against Oakland, not Pittsburgh, and that was in the snow. He had 115 yards in the win over Pitt, but only because he got knocked out in the second quarter. He was having a great game (12/18, 115) up to that point against the #1 defense in the NFL. In the Superbowl he came back early from an ankle injury and was still 16 of 27 for 145 yards and a TD against the #3 defense in the NFL. His performance in the 2001 playoffs is greatly underestimated.
 
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.
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?
Good discussion...The regular season record speaks for itself with the rankings and the record. However, how did BB get the defense to do in those playoff games where the defense was ranked during the regular season as a bottom 8 defense?Last year, the bottom ranked defense only allowed 3 points in their win and 27 in their loss. Seems to me the defense locked up a win in the first game and needed the offense to bail them out from a bad performance in the 2nd and Brady could not. Brady played decent, but had 2 picks.In 2001, the bottom 8 defense didn't allow more than 17 points in any of the 3 games. The defense did a good job in every game and they won. Brady threw for 312 yards (on 52 throws) with no TD's and a pick in the win over Pitt, then threw for only 115 and 145 yards in their two other wins to get to the SB. Brady hardly was the reason they won. Point is that maybe during the regular season that defense wasn't very good, but BB had them ready for the playoffs; he is the master.
I know I should not bother but...What happened in SB 38? Did the defense win that game too? FTR, Brady threw for 312 and ran for a td against OAK not Pitt. You declare that Brady was hardly the reason they won but mention everything about the 2001 season except Brady being the SB MVP?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top