Brady vs. Belichick (2 Viewers)

[Ghost Rider]

Tom Brady and Bill Belichick are obviously the two most important men when discussing the success of the Patriots of the last five plus years, but who deserves more credit?

I gotta go with Brady, by a very small margin. Belichick's Patriots were going nowhere until Brady started playing in 2001, and in two of the three Super Bowl's, Brady came through at the end after the defense had completely collapsed in the 4th quarter. That is how I see it.

 

[GregR_2]

Tom Brady and Bill Belichick are obviously the two most important men when discussing the success of the Patriots of the last five plus years, but who deserves more credit? I gotta go with Brady, by a very small margin. Belichick's Patriots were going nowhere until Brady started playing in 2001, and in two of the three Super Bowl's, Brady came through at the end after the defense had completely collapsed in the 4th quarter. That is how I see it.

For both the Pats and the Eagles, I'd say the scouting department and personnel decision maker get the most credit. Both teams have a very strict business mentality and let good players go because they won't pay them market value. That works only as long as you have a steady stream of drafted players coming in who can replace them and play at the same level. Until their contract runs out and they move on for greener pastures (pun intended).

 

[thesurfshop19]

Can you add a poll?

My vote is for Brady. I think he's the best QB I've seen in years, maybe since Troy Aikman and Steve Young, and maybe ever further back.

Belichick is a truly great coach -- one of the top 5 in the league -- though. Since his expertise is on defense, Brady arguably has more of a role in the offense's success (unlike the Shanahan-Elway dynamic, where Shanny was an offensive coach and Elway never won a single playoff game without Shanny on his sideline in some fashion).

 

[PatsWillWin]

Tom Brady and Bill Belichick are obviously the two most important men when discussing the success of the Patriots of the last five plus years, but who deserves more credit? I gotta go with Brady, by a very small margin. Belichick's Patriots were going nowhere until Brady started playing in 2001, and in two of the three Super Bowl's, Brady came through at the end after the defense had completely collapsed in the 4th quarter. That is how I see it.

For both the Pats and the Eagles, I'd say the scouting department and personnel decision maker get the most credit. Both teams have a very strict business mentality and let good players go because they won't pay them market value. That works only as long as you have a steady stream of drafted players coming in who can replace them and play at the same level. Until their contract runs out and they move on for greener pastures (pun intended).

Belichick is the personnel decision maker.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Can you add a poll?

I had it set up, but when I posted the thread, it wasn't there. *shrugs*

 

[BGP]

I think its more likely that Belichick if he did not have Brady, he would have found another capable QB to lead the Patriots. Without Belichick, I don't see Brady's Patriots accomplishing much. All of the drafts and personnel moves would have been different and probably nowhere near as good.

 

[Snotbubbles]

I say Belichick as well. For the most part, Brady in the playoffs is nothing more than a really good game manager. Apart from 1 or 2 games, he rarely ever had to do much to win the games because his defense was playing great.

 

[johnnycakes]

I believe there is a dynamic at work that makes the total greater than the sum of the parts. Kind of like Eddie Van Halen plus David Lee Roth is less than the group Van Halen. Or Keith Richards plus Mick Jagger and the others is less than the Rolling Stones. That said, I think neither one (Belichick or Brady) is easily replaceable. But I think the Patriots would have a better chance of obtaining a Brady-caliber quarterback than a Belichick-caliber coach if they had to replace either one.

 

[PlayaHata]

I believe there is a dynamic at work that makes the total greater than the sum of the parts. Kind of like Eddie Van Halen plus David Lee Roth is less than the group Van Halen. Or Keith Richards plus Mick Jagger and the others is less than the Rolling Stones. That said, I think neither one (Belichick or Brady) is easily replaceable. But I think the Patriots would have a better chance of obtaining a Brady-caliber quarterback than a Belichick-caliber coach if they had to replace either one.

 

[Bri]

BB put Brady in a position to win games and lead the team. Brady would be nothing if not for BB, so I vote BB

 

[PatsWillWin]

I also think it's Belichick. That's not taking anything away from what a tremendous player Brady is, but Belichick is the guy who built the entire structure for this team to succeed - the philosophy about signing players, he turned the personel and drafting departments around either directly or by bringing in the right people, and let's not forget the fact that it was NOT a popular decision at the time to bench Brady for Bledsoe when he, Bledsoe, got healthy. If another coach in there puts in the franchise QB, we might never even be discussing the name Tom Brady.

 

[rockbottom895]

In my opinion, this is clearly Bellichek. Although Brady is a spectacular NFL QB, Bill is the one that draws it all up. When Brady got hot, clearly the Pats had a huge advantage, but the strong point of this team has always been their defense. Bill gets his boys to buckle up and play hard hitting football. Bill is the real reason for the Pats excellence.

 

[Wingnut]

They are both pieces in the puzzle. Two of the most important pieces, but pieces nonetheless. I dont know if either of them deserve more credit than the other. Theres not another coach/QB combo in the league that are more in sync, on the same page, and understand each other like Brady/Belichick.

 

[radballs]

Vinatieri

 

[fred_1_15301]

Vinatieri

Guess we'll find out if the Colts win it all this year.....

 

[Ghost Rider]

I say Belichick as well. For the most part, Brady in the playoffs is nothing more than a really good game manager. Apart from 1 or 2 games, he rarely ever had to do much to win the games because his defense was playing great.

That is utter crap.Need I remind you of Super Bowl's 36 and 38? Or of his play at the end of the Snow Bowl vs. Oakland? Or his play in the title game vs. the Steelers two years ago?

 

[GregR_2]

I say Belichick as well. For the most part, Brady in the playoffs is nothing more than a really good game manager. Apart from 1 or 2 games, he rarely ever had to do much to win the games because his defense was playing great.

That is utter crap.Need I remind you of Super Bowl's 36 and 38? Or of his play at the end of the Snow Bowl vs. Oakland? Or his play in the title game vs. the Steelers two years ago?

Show the first 58 minutes of that Super Bowl to a person who knows anything about football but doesn't know the outcome, and they will correctly tell you how the defense carried the Patriots that whole day.

People need to learn to separate drama from a player's performance. Brady had an extremely mediocre day, with one drive of any substance that wasn't against a prevent defense and barely able to convert a third down. His defense shut down one of the best offenses in the history of the NFL, and accounted for as many points as did Brady from their 2 turnovers that they ran back for a TD and that basically put the Pats in FG range already.

Brady's a great QB, but can't people actually point to his good games as examples of what he's capable of and stop misrepresenting his performance as more than it was, just because it was dramatic?

 

[Ghost Rider]

I say Belichick as well. For the most part, Brady in the playoffs is nothing more than a really good game manager. Apart from 1 or 2 games, he rarely ever had to do much to win the games because his defense was playing great.

That is utter crap.Need I remind you of Super Bowl's 36 and 38? Or of his play at the end of the Snow Bowl vs. Oakland? Or his play in the title game vs. the Steelers two years ago?

Show the first 58 minutes of that Super Bowl to a person who knows anything about football but doesn't know the outcome, and they will correctly tell you how the defense carried the Patriots that whole day.

People need to learn to separate drama from a player's performance. Brady had an extremely mediocre day, with one drive of any substance that wasn't against a prevent defense and barely able to convert a third down. His defense shut down one of the best offenses in the history of the NFL, and accounted for as many points as did Brady from their 2 turnovers that they ran back for a TD and that basically put the Pats in FG range already.

Brady's a great QB, but can't people actually point to his good games as examples of what he's capable of and stop misrepresenting his performance as more than it was, just because it was dramatic?

I understand all of that, but Snotbubbles said Brady has rarely had to do much to help his team win games in the postseason because of the defense. I would say his last minute drive against the Rams was doing A LOT to help his team win the game. That was my point.Oh, and if you show those first 58 minutes to everyone, they would see how the Patriots defense worn down and finally collapsed in the 4th quarter. If Brady doesn't lead them on that drive or the Pats don't win the coin toss in overtime, does anyone doubt that the Rams would have went down the field and won the game on the first possession in overtime? Brady's game-winning drive prevented that from happening and got the Pats the win.

 

[Snotbubbles]

I understand all of that, but Snotbubbles said Brady has rarely had to do much to help his team win games in the postseason because of the defense. I would say his last minute drive against the Rams was doing A LOT to help his team win the game. That was my point.

You're proving my point for me. Brady had to perform in one drive in Superbowl 36. One. Brady's stats were 16-27-145. I don't have the play-by-play but here is the key plays on the last driveBrady 5-yard pass to Redmond New England 22Brady 8-yard pass to Redmond to New England 30Brady 11-yard pass to Redmond to New England 41Brady 23-yard pass to Brown to St Louis 36Brady 6-yard pass to Wiggins to St Louis 30So prior to the last drive Brady at best had 92 yards passing and 11 completions. I'd say that qualifies as rarely having to do much.Superbowl 38 was probably the one playoff game where Brady actually HAD TO perform for his team to win.

 

[johnnycakes]

I say Belichick as well. For the most part, Brady in the playoffs is nothing more than a really good game manager. Apart from 1 or 2 games, he rarely ever had to do much to win the games because his defense was playing great.

That is utter crap.Need I remind you of Super Bowl's 36 and 38? Or of his play at the end of the Snow Bowl vs. Oakland? Or his play in the title game vs. the Steelers two years ago?

Show the first 58 minutes of that Super Bowl to a person who knows anything about football but doesn't know the outcome, and they will correctly tell you how the defense carried the Patriots that whole day.

Yet Brady was MVP of that game. Quality>Quanitty.

 

[thesurfshop19]

Yet Brady was MVP of that game. Quality>Quanitty.

I have a huge man-crush on Brady , but Vinatieri should have won MVP that day.

 

[KCC]

The answer is Brady. I would refer those who think Belichick is a bigger reason for the Pats success to the Cleveland Browns performance when Belichick was the head coach there.

 

[Ghost Rider]

I understand all of that, but Snotbubbles said Brady has rarely had to do much to help his team win games in the postseason because of the defense. I would say his last minute drive against the Rams was doing A LOT to help his team win the game. That was my point.

You're proving my point for me. Brady had to perform in one drive in Superbowl 36. One. Brady's stats were 16-27-145. I don't have the play-by-play but here is the key plays on the last driveBrady 5-yard pass to Redmond New England 22Brady 8-yard pass to Redmond to New England 30Brady 11-yard pass to Redmond to New England 41Brady 23-yard pass to Brown to St Louis 36Brady 6-yard pass to Wiggins to St Louis 30So prior to the last drive Brady at best had 92 yards passing and 11 completions. I'd say that qualifies as rarely having to do much.

Yeah, a game-winning drive in the last minute of the Super Bowl is never a big deal.

The answer is Brady. I would refer those who think Belichick is a bigger reason for the Pats success to the Cleveland Browns performance when Belichick was the head coach there.

I never like this line of thinking. I think it is very likely that Belichick learned from his mistakes the first time, and that has resulted in him being a much better head coach the second time around.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Yeah, a game-winning drive in the last minute of the Super Bowl is never a big deal.

Never said it wasn't. Just said he rarely has to perform, not never, just rarely. The defense carried those Patriot Superbowl teams.

 

[Marc Levin]

Belichick by a large margin.

He's the one who comes up with those game plans and their success is scary good even though they have been a head coaching mill for years.

Brady doesn't teach the other 52 players the kind of discipline with which they play - that's all Belichick.

Not even close.

Brady is Belichick's most important tool in his toolbox, but I have the feeling that if Brady suffered a season ending injury, Belichick would get decent production out of Matt Cassel.

Don't get me wrong - I love the way Brady plays the game. And I love his leadership skills. Second to none - and he has amazing touch on his deep balls. Noone commands an offense in comeback efforts like he does, and noone has since the Marino/Elway/Montana heydays. But we are not talking about the importance of Manning versus Dungy - this is Bill Belichick, whose teams win games regardless of what Brady does.

And coming up big in big games is important. But Belichick ALWAYS seems to get his players to come up large whenever they need to (sorry Joe) step up - that's true of ALL the positions on the team.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Yeah, a game-winning drive in the last minute of the Super Bowl is never a big deal.

Never said it wasn't. Just said he rarely has to perform, not never, just rarely. The defense carried those Patriot Superbowl teams.

Not true. Aside from the fact that the offense and Tom Brady have repeatedly come up big in the post-season, the offense has also been very good in the regular season. In 2001, you could say that the defense carried the team. In 2003 and 2004, while the defense was excellent, the offense was as well - particularly in 2004, in which the Patriots were top 3 in points allowed, but also top 4 in points SCORED - for a period, the Patriots were dominant on both sides of the ball, and saying that the defense "carried" them, suggesting a weak offense, is simply innaccurate.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Yeah, a game-winning drive in the last minute of the Super Bowl is never a big deal.

Never said it wasn't. Just said he rarely has to perform, not never, just rarely. The defense carried those Patriot Superbowl teams.

In 2001:The offense ranked 19th in total yards, and 6th in points scored. The defense ranked 24th in total yards, and 6th in points allowed. In 2003:The offense ranked 18th in total yards, and 12th in points scored. The defense ranked 7th in total yards, and 1st in points allowed. In 2004:The offense ranked 7th in total yards, and 4th in points scored. The defense ranked 9th in total yards, and tied for 2nd in points allowed. Make whatever you want out of those numbers. And for me, the fact remains that Brady bailed the defense out in the 4th quarter of two of their three Super Bowl wins.

 

[PMENFAN]

Neither. Brady couldn't beat out Brian Griese, though that experience may have made him work harder and is part of the cause of the end result we see today. BB never pushed Kosar or Vinny to the ability we see Brady at today. They are a team effort. I think Charlie Weis had a lot to do with it too, Bradys development. Thats said, Brady's got the natural intangibles that you can't teach. He's got field presence unlike any QB I've ever seen. That's what makes him the best QB playing, in my book. Manning is a better passer. Brady reads the field better. Brady feels the pressure better. Brady is just a better all around QB. There are more mobile QB's, but nobody who slides in the pocket better buying the space/time to get off the throw. That's not taught, that's felt. Couple that with what BB has taught him, and they're a great team. Couple that with Piolis/BB's scouting Dept and financial philosophy, and you have a situation where both look great.

To me it's a toss up. Both are great on their own, but neither reaches the heights they have unless fate puts them together. Fate? BB saw the intangibles in Brady and drafted him, and Matt Cassell.

 

[Urine_Idiot]

Belichick by a large margin.He's the one who comes up with those game plans and their success is scary good even though they have been a head coaching mill for years.Brady doesn't teach the other 52 players the kind of discipline with which they play - that's all Belichick.Not even close.Brady is Belichick's most important tool in his toolbox, but I have the feeling that if Brady suffered a season ending injury, Belichick would get decent production out of Matt Cassel.Don't get me wrong - I love the way Brady plays the game. And I love his leadership skills. Second to none - and he has amazing touch on his deep balls. Noone commands an offense in comeback efforts like he does, and noone has since the Marino/Elway/Montana heydays. But we are not talking about the importance of Manning versus Dungy - this is Bill Belichick, whose teams win games regardless of what Brady does.And coming up big in big games is important. But Belichick ALWAYS seems to get his players to come up large whenever they need to (sorry Joe) step up - that's true of ALL the positions on the team.

And Scott Pioli is

 

[PatsFanCT]

Which one deserves more credit for keeping your balance, your left foot or your right foot?

 

[Spartans Rule]

The answer is Brady. I would refer those who think Belichick is a bigger reason for the Pats success to the Cleveland Browns performance when Belichick was the head coach there.

You could point back to Tom Brady's lack of success at Michigan too. Neither is relevant.Both Belichick and Brady are much better at what they do now than they were in the 90s.

 

[GregR_2]

I say Belichick as well. For the most part, Brady in the playoffs is nothing more than a really good game manager. Apart from 1 or 2 games, he rarely ever had to do much to win the games because his defense was playing great.

That is utter crap.Need I remind you of Super Bowl's 36 and 38? Or of his play at the end of the Snow Bowl vs. Oakland? Or his play in the title game vs. the Steelers two years ago?

Show the first 58 minutes of that Super Bowl to a person who knows anything about football but doesn't know the outcome, and they will correctly tell you how the defense carried the Patriots that whole day.

Yet Brady was MVP of that game. Quality>Quanitty.

Yes, which says something about how meaningful an MVP award for a single game is. Why people treat it like it's something important I don't understand. "Seattle got a Super Bowl MVP!!!!" Big deal. SB MVP is little more than a game ball. It is 1/16 as impressive as week 1 player of the week.

 

[Pat Patriot]

Yet Brady was MVP of that game. Quality>Quanitty.

I have a huge man-crush on Brady , but Vinatieri should have won MVP that day.

Brady should not have been MVP that day but in no way was Vinatieri MVP either. Ty Law, Otis Smith or any number of defensive players could have been named MVP.Vinatieri hit a less than 50 yard FG in a dome. Not exactly earth shattering.If you want to say Vinatieri was the MVP of the Snow Bowl then I could agree with you. He hit a 45 yard FG on a grass surface in a snow storm. Pretty out of the ordinary.Brady and Jake Delhomee OWNED SB 38 and since Brady's team won, he got the MVP and deserved it.

 

[Pat Patriot]

I think Charlie Weis had a lot to do with it too, Bradys development. Thats said, Brady's got the natural intangibles that you can't teach. He's got field presence unlike any QB I've ever seen. That's what makes him the best QB playing, in my book. Manning is a better passer. Brady reads the field better. Brady feels the pressure better. Brady is just a better all around QB. There are more mobile QB's, but nobody who slides in the pocket better buying the space/time to get off the throw. That's not taught, that's felt.

This (Weiss) is a very big factor...And to those discounting Brady here and saying it's all Belichick. Don't fool yourself into believing that Belichick could just plug in any QB (Cassell) to run Charlie Weiss offense. Brady's years under Charlie Weiss is invaluable. New England's defense today is not so good as to be able to overcome the loss of Tom Brady. I haven't seen enough Super Bowl winners who can overcome the QB position. Parcells old Giants team (1990) and the Ravens with Trent Dilfer are the only two that come to mind right now. That Brady kid has ice water running through his veins...

Charlie Weiss is a pompous ###. I think Brady had more to do with Weiss' success than any great schemes he was running. Weiss is very overrated by everyone, especially himself.

 

[Borat]

Yet Brady was MVP of that game. Quality>Quanitty.

I have a huge man-crush on Brady , but Vinatieri should have won MVP that day.

I have never seen you post before and can say without a doubt that you know absolutely nothing about football. Brady should not have been MVP that day but in no way was Vinatieri MVP either. Ty Law, Otis Smith or any number of defensive players could have been named MVP.Vinatieri hit a less than 50 yard FG in a dome. Not exactly earth shattering.

If you want to say Vinatieri was the MVP of the Snow Bowl then I could agree with you. He hit a 45 yard FG on a grass surface in a snow storm. Pretty out of the ordinary.

Brady and Jake Delhomee OWNED SB 38 and since Brady's team won, he got the MVP and deserved it.

I was going to say that Ty Law should have won MVP that day, but you're right - there were a number of defensive guys who could've (and, in my opinion, should have) won it.

 

[Bri]

The way I see it, this is an impressive resume'

well it is what it is

 

[Borat]

I think Charlie Weis had a lot to do with it too, Bradys development. Thats said, Brady's got the natural intangibles that you can't teach. He's got field presence unlike any QB I've ever seen. That's what makes him the best QB playing, in my book. Manning is a better passer. Brady reads the field better. Brady feels the pressure better. Brady is just a better all around QB. There are more mobile QB's, but nobody who slides in the pocket better buying the space/time to get off the throw. That's not taught, that's felt.

This (Weiss) is a very big factor...And to those discounting Brady here and saying it's all Belichick. Don't fool yourself into believing that Belichick could just plug in any QB (Cassell) to run Charlie Weiss offense. Brady's years under Charlie Weiss is invaluable. New England's defense today is not so good as to be able to overcome the loss of Tom Brady. I haven't seen enough Super Bowl winners who can overcome the QB position. Parcells old Giants team (1990) and the Ravens with Trent Dilfer are the only two that come to mind right now. That Brady kid has ice water running through his veins...

Charlie Weiss is a pompous ###. I think Brady had more to do with Weiss' success than any great schemes he was running. Weiss is very overrated by everyone, especially himself.

Let's look at the offensive players Charlie Weiss helped develop and his coaching progression. 1991-1992 - NY Giants RB Coach Developed Rodney Hampton into a Pro Bowl player1993-94 New England TE CoachDeveloped Ben Coates into a Pro Bowl TE1995 New England RB CoachDeveloped rookie RB Curtis Martin into a Pro Bowl RB (1,400 yards rush)1996 New England WR CoachDeveloped rookie WR Terry Glenn (1,000+ yards rec)1997-98 NY Jets WR Coach/Offensive Coordinator (Held both positions)Developed Keyshawn Johnson into a Pro Bowl WRIn his 2nd year as OC the Jets were ranked 4th in the NFL on total offense2000-2004 New England OCHelped develop Tom Brady into Pro Bowl QB 2001The way I see it, this is an impressive resume'

I don't think that listing the players he's coached who have gone to the Pro Bowl is necessarily the best measure of an offensive coordinator.Plus Hampton, Glenn, and Johnson were all 1st round picks, and Martin continued to produce well after he was separated from Weiss (as has Brady to this point), so I'm not sure how much credit you can really give Weiss for "developing" these players who obviously were very talented to begin with.

 

[LGOA]

I understand all of that, but Snotbubbles said Brady has rarely had to do much to help his team win games in the postseason because of the defense. I would say his last minute drive against the Rams was doing A LOT to help his team win the game. That was my point.

You're proving my point for me. Brady had to perform in one drive in Superbowl 36. One. Brady's stats were 16-27-145. I don't have the play-by-play but here is the key plays on the last driveBrady 5-yard pass to Redmond New England 22Brady 8-yard pass to Redmond to New England 30Brady 11-yard pass to Redmond to New England 41Brady 23-yard pass to Brown to St Louis 36Brady 6-yard pass to Wiggins to St Louis 30So prior to the last drive Brady at best had 92 yards passing and 11 completions. I'd say that qualifies as rarely having to do much.Superbowl 38 was probably the one playoff game where Brady actually HAD TO perform for his team to win.

Speaking of where are they....whatever happened to J.R. Redmond?

 

[Borat]

I understand all of that, but Snotbubbles said Brady has rarely had to do much to help his team win games in the postseason because of the defense. I would say his last minute drive against the Rams was doing A LOT to help his team win the game. That was my point.

You're proving my point for me. Brady had to perform in one drive in Superbowl 36. One. Brady's stats were 16-27-145. I don't have the play-by-play but here is the key plays on the last driveBrady 5-yard pass to Redmond New England 22Brady 8-yard pass to Redmond to New England 30Brady 11-yard pass to Redmond to New England 41Brady 23-yard pass to Brown to St Louis 36Brady 6-yard pass to Wiggins to St Louis 30So prior to the last drive Brady at best had 92 yards passing and 11 completions. I'd say that qualifies as rarely having to do much.Superbowl 38 was probably the one playoff game where Brady actually HAD TO perform for his team to win.

Speaking of where are they....whatever happened to J.R. Redmond?

He faded away after a couple years in Oakland. Hasn't played since '04.

 

[Bri]

Speaking of where are they....whatever happened to J.R. Redmond?

he hangs with Hart Lee Dykes

 

[thesurfshop19]

I have never seen you post before and can say without a doubt that you know absolutely nothing about football. Brady should not have been MVP that day but in no way was Vinatieri MVP either. Ty Law, Otis Smith or any number of defensive players could have been named MVP.Vinatieri hit a less than 50 yard FG in a dome. Not exactly earth shattering.If you want to say Vinatieri was the MVP of the Snow Bowl then I could agree with you. He hit a 45 yard FG on a grass surface in a snow storm. Pretty out of the ordinary.Brady and Jake Delhomee OWNED SB 38 and since Brady's team won, he got the MVP and deserved it.

I think you can make a great case for Law or Smith as well. I personally gave Vinatieri some residual credit for the title run for the Snow Bowl kicks, and thought that would be a nice capper on his legendary postseason. Not exactly how it always works, I know.Based on that game alone, I agree that someone on the defense probably deserved it -- Law in particular was the player who, during the game, I was saying should get it. The personal attacks were certainly warranted, though. Always good for a fun debate, and exactly why these boards are so great. Keep it up, champ.

 

[Dancing Bear]

For me it goes to Belichick.

Brady has had nothing to do with the dazed and confused look on Peyton Manning's face when he plays the Patriots in the playoffs. That's Belichick and his ability to formulate a Defensive game plan and make it happen no matter who is out there.

 

[Borat]

For you to argue that Weiss had little to do with these players development...and to imply that it is just a coincidence that all of these players had their best seasons under Weiss, as their position coach and/or coordinator is rather comical. Much in the same way as claiming that because several of these players were first round picks, that they were basically locks to succeed in the NFL, with or without the proper coaching up. As many first round picks fail...the success rate is not as high as you would imply here.

Wow, total straw man argument on your part.I did not argue that Weiss had little to do with their development, nor did I imply that 1st round picks were locks to succeed in the NFL. I stated that I don't believe you can necessarily gauge an offensive coordinator's effectiveness simply by giving us a list of players who have made the Pro Bowl under him.I pointed out that Keyshawn, Hampton, and Glenn were 1st round picks and that Martin has been effective with and without Weiss to show you that Weiss wasn't exactly working with a bunch of slouches - he obviously had some talented players to work with.How you get that I implied that Weiss had little to do with their development, or that 1st round picks are locks to succeed in the NFL, I have no idea.

 

[Assani Fisher]

Brady.

Bellicheck has a losing career record without Brady.

Bellicheck was 0-2 in 2001 when Brady took over.

 

[Snotbubbles]

In 2001:The offense ranked 19th in total yards, and 6th in points scored. The defense ranked 24th in total yards, and 6th in points allowed. In 2003:The offense ranked 18th in total yards, and 12th in points scored. The defense ranked 7th in total yards, and 1st in points allowed. In 2004:The offense ranked 7th in total yards, and 4th in points scored. The defense ranked 9th in total yards, and tied for 2nd in points allowed. Make whatever you want out of those numbers. And for me, the fact remains that Brady bailed the defense out in the 4th quarter of two of their three Super Bowl wins.

That's one way to look at it. Another would be that if Brady wasn't so below average the first three quarters of Superbowl 36, the Patriots could have knelt the final minutes aways instead of needing to go 50+ yards for their field goal kicker to bail them out. The St. Louis Rams average 31.4 in the 2001 regular season. They were averaging 37 points in the playoffs. The New England defense held them to 17. Not sure how Brady bailed them out.Superbowl 38 I agree, Brady played well. But the two games prior to that the defense won it for them. Here goes the write-up on wikipedia for the Colts game: "New England's defense dominated the Colts, only allowing 14 points, intercepting 4 passes from Manning (3 of them by Ty Law), and forcing a safety. Although New England's offense fared no better and only scored one touchdown, Vinatieri's 5 field goals made up for the difference as the Patriots won, 24-14, to advance to their second Super Bowl appearance in 3 seasons."In the 2004 playoffs again, the defense dismantled the Colts holding them to 3 points. The Pittsburgh game Brady didn't do anything special, the running game had a nice day and the defense scored a TD. In Superbowl 39, once again, the defense forced 4 turnovers while Brady had a modest 236 yards passing and 2 TDs.So you have a drive in 2001, a game in 2003 and a few good moments in 2004. I think that is the definition of rarely needing to do anything to win.

 

[PatsWillWin]

In 2001:

The offense ranked 19th in total yards, and 6th in points scored.

The defense ranked 24th in total yards, and 6th in points allowed.

In 2003:

The offense ranked 18th in total yards, and 12th in points scored.

The defense ranked 7th in total yards, and 1st in points allowed.

In 2004:

The offense ranked 7th in total yards, and 4th in points scored.

The defense ranked 9th in total yards, and tied for 2nd in points allowed.

Make whatever you want out of those numbers.

And for me, the fact remains that Brady bailed the defense out in the 4th quarter of two of their three Super Bowl wins.

That's one way to look at it. Another would be that if Brady wasn't so below average the first three quarters of Superbowl 36, the Patriots could have knelt the final minutes aways instead of needing to go 50+ yards for their field goal kicker to bail them out. The St. Louis Rams average 31.4 in the 2001 regular season. They were averaging 37 points in the playoffs. The New England defense held them to 17. Not sure how Brady bailed them out.Superbowl 38 I agree, Brady played well. But the two games prior to that the defense won it for them. Here goes the write-up on wikipedia for the Colts game: "New England's defense dominated the Colts, only allowing 14 points, intercepting 4 passes from Manning (3 of them by Ty Law), and forcing a safety. Although New England's offense fared no better and only scored one touchdown, Vinatieri's 5 field goals made up for the difference as the Patriots won, 24-14, to advance to their second Super Bowl appearance in 3 seasons."

In the 2004 playoffs again, the defense dismantled the Colts holding them to 3 points. The Pittsburgh game Brady didn't do anything special, the running game had a nice day and the defense scored a TD. In Superbowl 39, once again, the defense forced 4 turnovers while Brady had a modest 236 yards passing and 2 TDs.

So you have a drive in 2001, a game in 2003 and a few good moments in 2004. I think that is the definition of rarely needing to do anything to win.

2003Divisional 21/41 (51.2%), 201 yards, 1 TD, 0 INT (this was an extremely extremely cold game - i remember the ball looked like a chunk of ice. not the most prolific offensive day from either him or McNair)

Conference 22/37 (59.4%), 237 yards, 1 TD, 0 INT

Super Bowl 32/48, 354 yards 3 TD, 1 INT

2004

Divisional 18/27 (66.7%), 144 yards, 1 TD, 0 INT, 1 rushing TD

Conference 14/21 (66.7%), 207 yards, 2 TD, 0 INT

Super Bowl 23/33 (69.7%), 236 yards, 2 TD, 0 INT

Average completion over 60% - 9 TDs, 2 INTs. How can you say this was a guy carried by his defense? He didn't have a single stinker and had almost entirely very solid playoff games. A "game" in 2003? lol. He had a huge game in the SUPER BOWL. Seriously you just sound like a Brady hater sitting here reaching.

 

[ooofffaaa]

I'd say neither could have won without the other.

Without Brady do the Patriots win any Super Bowls?

 

[Snotbubbles]

2003Divisional 21/41 (51.2%), 201 yards, 1 TD, 0 INT (this was an extremely extremely cold game - i remember the ball looked like a chunk of ice. not the most prolific offensive day from either him or McNair)Conference 22/37 (59.4%), 237 yards, 1 TD, 0 INTSuper Bowl 32/48, 354 yards 3 TD, 1 INT2004Divisional 18/27 (66.7%), 144 yards, 1 TD, 0 INT, 1 rushing TDConference 14/21 (66.7%), 207 yards, 2 TD, 0 INTSuper Bowl 23/33 (69.7%), 236 yards, 2 TD, 0 INTAverage completion over 60% - 9 TDs, 2 INTs. How can you say this was a guy carried by his defense? He didn't have a single stinker and had almost entirely very solid playoff games. A "game" in 2003? lol. He had a huge game in the SUPER BOWL. Seriously you just sound like a Brady hater sitting here reaching.

I already acknowledged that he had a good game in Superbowl 38. That's the one game he played in that he actually had to do something to bail the defense out and win it for his team. The fact that it was the Superbowl, does that make it more impressive? Not really. Desmond Howard, Mark Rypien, Doug Williams, Dexter Jackson all had good Superbowls, it's one game. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut ever so often.Honestly, I can't point to another playoff game in 2001, 2003 or 2004 where Brady was from start to finish to do anything other than not turn the ball over.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Honestly, I can't point to another playoff game in 2001, 2003 or 2004 where Brady was from start to finish to do anything other than not turn the ball over.

What is your definition of "doing anything"? I assume you caught the Eagles/Pats Super Bowl? 236 yards and 2 TDs? Does he have to throw for 300 for him to qualify in your mind as having "done" something? Seriously - the Pats put up 85 points in 3 games and you think that Brady just "protected the ball", like any QB could've been in there. Oh and this is good too:

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut ever so often.

It's called clutch, it's called pressure, and it goes beyond him putting up huge fantasy games.

A good example of un-clutch would be a QB in the SB down by two scores with less than 3 minutes to play electing to not go into a hurry up and walking to the line like he's AHEAD in the game. Sound familiar?

 

[Snotbubbles]

What is your definition of "doing anything"? I assume you caught the Eagles/Pats Super Bowl? 236 yards and 2 TDs? Does he have to throw for 300 for him to qualify in your mind as having "done" something? Seriously - the Pats put up 85 points in 3 games and you think that Brady just "protected the ball", like any QB could've been in there.

I did catch that game. Brady wasn't the reason the Pats won that. The defense was. 3 INTS and 1 Fumble recovery. 1 INT inside the Pats 20. Another occured on the Pats 24 yard line. And the fumble recovery occured on the Pats 38 yard line. The NE offense put up 78 points (the D scored 7), but how much of that was Brady. The game vs. Indy they held the Colts to 3 points. Corey Dillon rushed for 144 yards (the team for 220 yards). They coulda won that game with their backup QB. On one of the field goal drives they got into scoring position on a Corey Dillon 42 yard run, on the Brady 1 yard TD drive they got there on a Dillon 27 yard run. On the other TD scoring drive they got there with 11 rushing attempts and 4 passes.Then in PIT they picked Big Ben three times. 1 for a TD. They also had an INT that put them on the PIT 48 and three running plays put them in FG range. The last INT was at the the NE 45 yard line, one 16 yard pass by Brady and the rest were runs for the TD. The D also recovered a Bettis Fumble when PIT was at the NE 39 yard line. Brady is simply a really good game manager. He doesn't make the costly mistakes. Like I said before, Superbowl 38 was the one game he really was great. Other than that?

It's called clutch, it's called pressure, and it goes beyond him putting up huge fantasy games. A good example of un-clutch would be a QB in the SB down by two scores with less than 3 minutes to play electing to not go into a hurry up and walking to the line like he's AHEAD in the game. Sound familiar?

It was better that they didn't, if you knew anything about football you'd realize if they don't get the first score it's irrelevant how fast they can run a play. It was more important to make sure that everyone was on the same page. How did that drive end? Oh yeah...with a TD. The real mistake was trying an onside kick when they had 2 TOs left. They should have kicked away. Instead they ended up getting the ball on the 4 yard line and needing to go 60-65 yards in :48 instead of maybe getting it on the 30-40 yard line and only needing to go 25-30 yards. Andy Reid later said it was a mistake on his part to do that.