Brady vs. Belichick (1 Viewer)

[Ghost Rider]

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.

@ at you using wikipedia to try and prove to us how great Brady isn't. 236 passing yards and 2 TD's is a modest day? Hmmm, let's see, averaged out to a full 16-game season, that would be 3,776 passing yards and 32 TD's, and against all playoff teams, too. I am thinking that is pretty darn good. As for SB36, I have already explained how Brady bailed them out. The defense had collapsed against the Rams in the 4th quarter. They were done. If they got the ball again, they likely would have scored and won, but Brady made that not possible, by leading them down the field for the win.

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.

How are you this clueless? They could have won with their backup QB? Yeah, because there would have been as many holes for the RB's to run through if a backup QB was playing, because teams would have respected the backup beating them in the passing game as much as Brady. If you do not think what Brady does in the passing game makes the running game that much better, then you need to wake up and get a clue. That Bettis fumble was on 4th down and he had already been stopped short of getting the first down, so whether it was a fumble or a turnover on downs, NE was getting that ball at that spot. And what happened on the next play? Oh yeah, Brady threw a long touchdown pass to give NE a 10-0 lead. But I guess that was luck or not really doing much, right? I could go on and on and on, but you just don't get it. I am actually starting to wonder how much football you really watch.

 

[MelvinTScupper]

Brady more and more everday. The Pats keep making personnel changes that put more and more of the onus on Brady's shoulders. You might be able to convince me that the first Super Bowl had nothing to do with Brady (Bledsoe wouldn't have won that game) but everything since has Brady's fingerprints all over it.

Coaching is hugely important, but the NFL is littered with great coaches who have fewer Super Bowls than Belichick --- the difference on offense was ALL Brady.

 

[KCC]

Brady more and more everday. The Pats keep making personnel changes that put more and more of the onus on Brady's shoulders. You might be able to convince me that the first Super Bowl had nothing to do with Brady (Bledsoe wouldn't have won that game) but everything since has Brady's fingerprints all over it.Coaching is hugely important, but the NFL is littered with great coaches who have fewer Super Bowls than Belichick --- the difference on offense was ALL Brady.

Very

 

[PatsWillWin]

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.

Reaaaal Americaaaaaaan Herrrrrrrroooooooo

Today We Salute YOU Mr. Bitter Eagles Fan Will Hate Brady for the Rest of His Life

Mr. Biiiiiiiitter Eagles Faaaaaaaaan Will Hate Brady for the Rest of His Liiiiiife

So because they were down by two scores inside the 10 with less than 3 minutes to go they should go SLOWER???

That's the point - McNabb couldn't run the offense without taking 40 seconds to make sure they were "on the same page." Brady can. That's what being a quarterback is about - running the offense and giving your team a chance to win - not sucking time off the clock to make sure everything is set as the clock on your season is quickly running out. It's nice that McNabb can put up 400 yard games and gawdy numbers - but, unlike you, I don't see huge numbers as what it means for a QB to "win a game" - I think it a quarterback's job is to EXECUTE when it counts - that's what Brady does. I'm sorry that you think football is about putting up huge stats, but it's not what wins Super Bowls - ask your boy McNabb and of course, Mr. Peyton Manning.

 

[Kit Fisto]

Brady is simply a really good game manager. He doesn't make the costly mistakes.

And that is exactly what makes him great. He doesn't need to throw for 400 yards and 4 TDs. All he needs to do is execute his coach's game plan. The NFL isn't fantasy. Gaudy stats don't necessarily win games.

 

[Snotbubbles]

And that is exactly what makes him great. He doesn't need to throw for 400 yards and 4 TDs. All he needs to do is execute his coach's game plan. The NFL isn't fantasy. Gaudy stats don't necessarily win games.

I'm not saying Brady isn't good. I'm saying the defense is what won them three Superbowls.

 

[Spartans Rule]

"Game manager". I hate this term. It's complete nonsense.

When a QB's team wins and he doesn't have gaudy stats, it's because he "managed the game" well. If a QB's team loses and he does have gaudy stats, he didn't "manage the game" well. Nevermind what the other 21 players on the field do. Quarterbacks have this mystical quality of "game management" whereby the success or failure of their team can always be traced back to them.

And of course, game managers "don't make mistakes". Trent Dilfer "managed the game" so well that he threw 11 INTs in 225 pass attempts - a terrible rate by any standard. Dilfer made LOTS of mistakes. You know what he really did to make the Ravens win? He completed passes. He gave the Ravens enough threat of a vertical passing game to keep defenses from stacking the line. He threw the ball.

That's what quarterbacks do. They throw the ball. Last I checked, no one in the NFL was running the Wing-T. Even bad passing teams throw for about 150 yards per game. You can't tell me that all a QB has to do is "avoid mistakes".

Tom Brady isn't a "game manager". He's a passer. I've seen him make bonehead mistakes at key times - the INT return for TD by Champ Bailey last year, the pick in the end zone against Carolina in the Super Bowl. I've also seen him move the ball through the air time and time again to lead his team to victory. Aside from his rookie season, he hasn't thrown for less than 3600 yards in a season. But his best skill is "game management"? Nonsense. He's a passer.

 

[PatsWillWin]

And that is exactly what makes him great. He doesn't need to throw for 400 yards and 4 TDs. All he needs to do is execute his coach's game plan. The NFL isn't fantasy. Gaudy stats don't necessarily win games.

I'm not saying Brady isn't good. I'm saying the defense is what won them three Superbowls.

 

[GoFishTN]

Brady.Bellicheck has a losing career record without Brady.Bellicheck was 0-2 in 2001 when Brady took over.

If Wikipedia has its dates correct, Belichick is 41-57 without Brady, 64-21 with him (counting this season). I think this one is obvious.

 

[Road Warriors]

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 so much in the Carolina game... 32 - 29Brady's line there..Brady 48 32 354 3 1I'd say he may have carried that one.

 

[Dancing Bear]

I think we are making a mistake ignoring the fact that this is a team game with at least two facets to the game [Offense and Defense].

Brady is certainly valuable and a capable QB, and I would want him on my team for sure. But he does nothing to instill fear in the eyes of an opposing QB when the Patriots are on Defense.

This past Monday night shows us once again how clearly the coaching staff is the most important part of the team. Belichick coordinated the creation, teaching and the execution of their total game plan and that is the reason they won; it's the same for all of their previous Super Bowl successes.

It was brilliant, and it all starts with Belichick. They avoided the run game on Offense, and they confused a veteran, Super Bowl QB to no end.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Not so much in the Carolina game... 32 - 29Brady's line there..Brady 48 32 354 3 1I'd say he may have carried that one.

I already conceded that one. 1 out of 9 = rarely.

 

[Snotbubbles]

And of course, game managers "don't make mistakes". Trent Dilfer "managed the game" so well that he threw 11 INTs in 225 pass attempts - a terrible rate by any standard. Dilfer made LOTS of mistakes. You know what he really did to make the Ravens win? He completed passes. He gave the Ravens enough threat of a vertical passing game to keep defenses from stacking the line. He threw the ball.That's what quarterbacks do. They throw the ball. Last I checked, no one in the NFL was running the Wing-T. Even bad passing teams throw for about 150 yards per game. You can't tell me that all a QB has to do is "avoid mistakes".

I don't really want to get into a debate about Trent Dilfer other then to say you are 100% absolutely, positively wrong about him NOT being a "game manager." All those INTs he threw were in the regular season. Baltimore knew that their defense was good enough to win it so all they needed was a game manager, someone who didn't make mistakes. So what did they do? They limited the amount of passes Dilfer threw. They put him in a position to succeed. They didn't rely on him to win the games. Here is his playoffs in 2000:2000 den W,21-3 | 9 14 130 1 0 | 1 2 02000 ten W,24-10 | 5 16 117 0 0 | 4 1 02000 oak W,16-3 | 9 18 190 1 1 | 7 4 02000 nyg W,34-7 | 12 25 153 1 0 | 1 0 0They limited what he did to "avoid mistakes." By contrast that same year here were Jamal Lewis' playoff stats:2000 den W,21-3 | 30 110 2 | 1 15 02000 ten W,24-10 | 17 47 1 | 0 0 02000 oak W,16-3 | 29 79 0 | 3 21 02000 nyg W,34-7 | 27 102 1 | 1 4 0The Ravens took the ball out of Dilfer's hands and put it in someone Lewis' hands (and the D). They simply had him "manage" the game.

 

[Spartans Rule]

And of course, game managers "don't make mistakes". Trent Dilfer "managed the game" so well that he threw 11 INTs in 225 pass attempts - a terrible rate by any standard. Dilfer made LOTS of mistakes. You know what he really did to make the Ravens win? He completed passes. He gave the Ravens enough threat of a vertical passing game to keep defenses from stacking the line. He threw the ball.That's what quarterbacks do. They throw the ball. Last I checked, no one in the NFL was running the Wing-T. Even bad passing teams throw for about 150 yards per game. You can't tell me that all a QB has to do is "avoid mistakes".

I don't really want to get into a debate about Trent Dilfer other then to say you are 100% absolutely, positively wrong about him NOT being a "game manager." All those INTs he threw were in the regular season. Baltimore knew that their defense was good enough to win it so all they needed was a game manager, someone who didn't make mistakes. So what did they do? They limited the amount of passes Dilfer threw. They put him in a position to succeed. They didn't rely on him to win the games. Here is his playoffs in 2000:2000 den W,21-3 | 9 14 130 1 0 | 1 2 02000 ten W,24-10 | 5 16 117 0 0 | 4 1 02000 oak W,16-3 | 9 18 190 1 1 | 7 4 02000 nyg W,34-7 | 12 25 153 1 0 | 1 0 0They limited what he did to "avoid mistakes." By contrast that same year here were Jamal Lewis' playoff stats:2000 den W,21-3 | 30 110 2 | 1 15 02000 ten W,24-10 | 17 47 1 | 0 0 02000 oak W,16-3 | 29 79 0 | 3 21 02000 nyg W,34-7 | 27 102 1 | 1 4 0The Ravens took the ball out of Dilfer's hands and put it in someone Lewis' hands (and the D). They simply had him "manage" the game.

If the 2000 Baltimore Ravens wanted their quarterback to make as few mistakes as possible, they should have started Tony Banks over Trent Dilfer in the playoffs.Name | G | CMP ATT PCT YARD Y/A TD IN | RSH YARD TD |+----------------------+----+-------------------------------+-------------+| Tony Banks | 11 | 150 274 54.7 1578 5.8 8 8 | 19 57 0 || Trent Dilfer | 9 | 133 225 59.1 1502 6.7 12 11 | 20 75 0 Dilfer threw 3 more interceptions in 49 fewer pass attempts. He was far more mistake-prone than Banks.Dilfer also completed a much higher percentage of passes, had a much higher Y/A, and threw more TD passes.Banks made fewer mistakes, and yet it was Dilfer who led them to 7 straight wins to make the playoffs while getting picked off left and right.Great defensive teams actually need to worry LESS about mistakes. Mistakes don't automatically become points. If Peyton Manning throws an interception last Sunday in Denver in the fourth quarter, the Colts lose the game, period. They needed points out of just about every drive. If Dilfer throws one for the 2000 Ravens, big deal. The defense comes out, gets a three-and-out, and they get the ball back.Dilfer put up the same kind of numbers in Baltimore that he had been putting up for years in Tampa. He didn't "manage the game" any better in Baltimore than he did in Tampa. He was the same mediocre quarterback he always was. He was just on a great team that only needed a mediocre quarterback.Again, there's no such thing as a game manager. Every team, no matter how great their running game and defense, is going to find itself in a position where they need a 3rd-and-10 pass completed. I don't really give a #### if my QB can avoid a mistake on that play. I need him to complete the pass.

 

[Snotbubbles]

If the 2000 Baltimore Ravens wanted their quarterback to make as few mistakes as possible, they should have started Tony Banks over Trent Dilfer in the playoffs.

Name | G | CMP ATT PCT YARD Y/A TD IN | RSH YARD TD |

+----------------------+----+-------------------------------+-------------+

| Tony Banks | 11 | 150 274 54.7 1578 5.8 8 8 | 19 57 0 |

| Trent Dilfer | 9 | 133 225 59.1 1502 6.7 12 11 | 20 75 0

Dilfer threw 3 more interceptions in 49 fewer pass attempts. He was far more mistake-prone than Banks.

Dilfer also completed a much higher percentage of passes, had a much higher Y/A, and threw more TD passes.

Banks made fewer mistakes, and yet it was Dilfer who led them to 7 straight wins to make the playoffs while getting picked off left and right.

Great defensive teams actually need to worry LESS about mistakes. Mistakes don't automatically become points. If Peyton Manning throws an interception last Sunday in Denver in the fourth quarter, the Colts lose the game, period. They needed points out of just about every drive. If Dilfer throws one for the 2000 Ravens, big deal. The defense comes out, gets a three-and-out, and they get the ball back.

Dilfer put up the same kind of numbers in Baltimore that he had been putting up for years in Tampa. He didn't "manage the game" any better in Baltimore than he did in Tampa. He was the same mediocre quarterback he always was. He was just on a great team that only needed a mediocre quarterback.

Again, there's no such thing as a game manager. Every team, no matter how great their running game and defense, is going to find itself in a position where they need a 3rd-and-10 pass completed. I don't really give a #### if my QB can avoid a mistake on that play. I need him to complete the pass

Obviously you're ignoring everything I posted. The Ravens turned Dilfer into a "game manager" during the 2000 playoff. Prior to that, they were winning IN SPITE OF him. So your insistence on giving regular season numbers is meaningless.

 

[Spartans Rule]

If the 2000 Baltimore Ravens wanted their quarterback to make as few mistakes as possible, they should have started Tony Banks over Trent Dilfer in the playoffs.

Name | G | CMP ATT PCT YARD Y/A TD IN | RSH YARD TD |

+----------------------+----+-------------------------------+-------------+

| Tony Banks | 11 | 150 274 54.7 1578 5.8 8 8 | 19 57 0 |

| Trent Dilfer | 9 | 133 225 59.1 1502 6.7 12 11 | 20 75 0

Dilfer threw 3 more interceptions in 49 fewer pass attempts. He was far more mistake-prone than Banks.

Dilfer also completed a much higher percentage of passes, had a much higher Y/A, and threw more TD passes.

Banks made fewer mistakes, and yet it was Dilfer who led them to 7 straight wins to make the playoffs while getting picked off left and right.

Great defensive teams actually need to worry LESS about mistakes. Mistakes don't automatically become points. If Peyton Manning throws an interception last Sunday in Denver in the fourth quarter, the Colts lose the game, period. They needed points out of just about every drive. If Dilfer throws one for the 2000 Ravens, big deal. The defense comes out, gets a three-and-out, and they get the ball back.

Dilfer put up the same kind of numbers in Baltimore that he had been putting up for years in Tampa. He didn't "manage the game" any better in Baltimore than he did in Tampa. He was the same mediocre quarterback he always was. He was just on a great team that only needed a mediocre quarterback.

Again, there's no such thing as a game manager. Every team, no matter how great their running game and defense, is going to find itself in a position where they need a 3rd-and-10 pass completed. I don't really give a #### if my QB can avoid a mistake on that play. I need him to complete the pass

Obviously you're ignoring everything I posted. The Ravens turned Dilfer into a "game manager" during the 2000 playoff. Prior to that, they were winning IN SPITE OF him. So your insistence on giving regular season numbers is meaningless.

The regular season numbers aren't meaningless at all when talking about Dilfer. If they won in spite of him in the regular season, why couldn't they win in spite of Tony Banks, who made less mistakes? Fact is, that big increase in completion % and Y/A they got by replacing Banks with Dilfer is why they got to the playoffs in the first place. He was a much better passer and that's a big part of the game.As for the playoffs... how do you turn someone in to a "game manager"? Tell them not to throw interceptions? Trent Dilfer has no special ability in the area of avoiding interceptions. He's proven that time and time again throughout his career. When the Ravens coaching staff called fewer pass plays to try and keep Dilfer from throwing the ball away, that was them managing the game, not Dilfer.

Again, there is no such thing as a game manager. The coaches make decisions on how often to pass the football. The quarterback passes the football. If he passes it less, and the team wins because that works, he doesn't deserve more credit for that.

 

[Borat]

Then what exactly are you disagreeing with on my post with regards to Weiss and his success? Are you saying that despite virtually all of these players having their best years under Weiss, that Weiss is a non factor in this? Or are you saying Weiss is an ineffective offensive coordinator? What were you disagreeing with that I stated? Once again my response was to the poster claiming Weiss is "overrated". Obviously you must agree with the post of Weiss being overrated or you would not have been condensending towards my post showing how Weiss is far from overrated.

All I said was that I didn't think that you could measure an offensive coordinator's effectiveness accurately just by naming his players who have gone to the Pro Bowl.I didn't offer an opinion either way on whether or not I thought Weiss was overrated.

 

[Borat]

And that is exactly what makes him great. He doesn't need to throw for 400 yards and 4 TDs. All he needs to do is execute his coach's game plan. The NFL isn't fantasy. Gaudy stats don't necessarily win games.

I'm not saying Brady isn't good. I'm saying the defense is what won them three Superbowls.

I wouldn't expect you, as an Eagles fan, to follow and watch the Patriots on a weekly basis.That being said, it shows that you don't follow and watch the Patriots on a weekly basis, if that is your opinion.The defense obviously has been a major reason for New England's recent run of success. But if you don't acknowledge that Brady has been just as big a reason, well... I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Assani Fisher]

I can't believe that people are calling Brady a game manager. This is a guy that led the league in TD passes in just his 2nd year as a starter. This is a guy who has never had any good WRs whatsoever.

The only reason he doens't put up huge numbers is due to the system. This past monday they opened it up and let him throw a lot...look how well he did.

 

[brobe4]

If you are building a football team you always hire coach first ?????? why is this enough said.

 

[Spartans Rule]

I can't believe that people are calling Brady a game manager. This is a guy that led the league in TD passes in just his 2nd year as a starter. This is a guy who has never had any good WRs whatsoever. The only reason he doens't put up huge numbers is due to the system. This past monday they opened it up and let him throw a lot...look how well he did.

I agree. And actually, he DOES put up huge numbers. Four straight seasons of 3600+ yards is pretty impressive.Even if you're going to focus solely on stats, Tom Brady is an elite NFL QB.

 

[PatsWillWin]

I can't believe that people are calling Brady a game manager. This is a guy that led the league in TD passes in just his 2nd year as a starter. This is a guy who has never had any good WRs whatsoever.

The only reason he doens't put up huge numbers is due to the system. This past monday they opened it up and let him throw a lot...look how well he did.

I agree. And actually, he DOES put up huge numbers. Four straight seasons of 3600+ yards is pretty impressive.Even if you're going to focus solely on stats, Tom Brady is an elite NFL QB.

No, those stats are put up by his defense.

 

[radballs]

Brady in Oakland, Tenn, etc. is what I'd like to see. Brady has shown me to be calm, cool, collective, and somewhat clutch. He hasn't shown me that he's a difference maker like top notch QBs do.

 

[Marc Levin]

Coaching is hugely important, but the NFL is littered with great coaches who have fewer Super Bowls than Belichick --- the difference on offense was ALL Brady.

It's littered with WAY WAY WAY more great (and clutch) QBs with fewer SB wins than both.Bad argument The TEAM was successful b/c of Belichik, but you all are right - Belichick is not the one out there on Sunday.Belichick built the team, the staff, installed the discipline, installed the game plan, installed the defensive schemes, blah, blah,, blahBut - you have a point that Brady's last minute drives in a few high proifile games make him more critical to the other 52 players' success. Brady did his JOB without screwing it up. It is his JOB to get the team downfield for a FG and not make mistakes. In fact, for Brady, it is the minimal part of his job.Belichick's defense will keep you in the game until the end, it will help minimize your turnovers, and Belichick will surround you with players on offense who have a team first attitude - your job is to not screw up in the last two minutes of big games. No TOs, drive 40 or 50 yards in 2 minutes, let the most clutch kicker in the game then go do his job. That's all Brady was responsible to do - he's Aikman with better stats and MOntana-like charisma in the playoffs, but he's one guy. Belichick's team. Belichick overcame turnovers in personnel after every Super Bowl and put th eplayers around Brady to help him succeed.This should not even be a discussion - Brady is tremendous, and he's clutch, and he's the one on the field, and he was very important to the Pats' success - but he is a FRACTION of how important Belichick has been.If I had to put a number on it, I'd go:40% of the reason for the Pats success on Belichick.15% to Brady15% to be dividied equally among the individual players on defense10% to Vini10% to the talent on the OL10% to the other players on the team (including S.B. MVP Deon Branch)

 

[Marc Levin]

Oh yeah - one more thing - Brady didn't friggin AUDIBALIZE those drives. There was Belichick's plays screaming in his ears.

 

[Marc Levin]

And that is exactly what makes him great. He doesn't need to throw for 400 yards and 4 TDs. All he needs to do is execute his coach's game plan. The NFL isn't fantasy. Gaudy stats don't necessarily win games.

I'm not saying Brady isn't good. I'm saying the defense is what won them three Superbowls.

equal combo of defense, Brady, and Vini.Belichick had less to do with the actual Super Bowl wins than the players onthe field - the coach is pretty much done with his job for the year the minute he takes the field on Super Bowl Sunday - from that point on, the only people that matter are on the field.On Super Bowl Monday, however, it is the coach's job to build a dynasty. The QB is off throwing passes in Honolulu when the coach's job starts back up again.And THAT is exactly why Belichick is the clear answer to the OP's question.

 

[nerangers]

Brady vs. Belichick, Who deserves more credit for the success of the Patriots?

Glad it says who deserves more credit, because both deserve the credit.

I think Belichick for making the big decision right in the beginning by not benching Brady when Bledsoe could play again. Some coaches go with the mentality that "Veteran's do not lose their jobs due to Injury". Brady was the hot hand, and Belichick stayed with him, and the rest is history. Also, keeping Brady a starter, and trading away Bledsoe for that matter, was another big decision. Oh and don't think this was an easy decision from a Fans perspective...Bledsoe was a fan favorite, and I remember many people talking about how it should be Bledsoe back in the mix and not Brady.

 

[NEUPJ]

I really dont think you can give one more credit than the other. Belichick needed someone as good as Brady to run his offense. The Weis offense wasn't exactly a picnic to run. As been echoed in this thread, the job of the QB is to win the game not put up stats. Brady has put up the stats when he's needed to, like the Carolina game. They're not going to just throw the ball all day long because they can. There's a gameplan in place for every game. If one thinks Brady is simply a game manager that doesn't make mistakes did you even watch the game last week? He made the Minn secondary look like a HS football team.

Brady has been in the top 10 in attempts, yards and td's every year he's been in the league (except the 2001 season where he didn't play the first 2 games).

Also, keeping Brady a starter, and trading away Bledsoe for that matter, was another big decision. Oh and don't think this was an easy decision from a Fans perspective...Bledsoe was a fan favorite, and I remember many people talking about how it should be Bledsoe back in the mix and not Brady.

I think this is one of the big misconceptions about the entire situation. From everything I've read this wasn't any sort of decision for Belichick. He wasn't happy when they signed Bledsoe to that giant contract to start with. Bledsoe had no work ethic. He would leave the day the season ended, fly back up to Montana then show up only when he had to. (Disclaimer: Im a huge Bledsoe fan and hated to see him go.) You may want to pick up Patriot Reign by Michael Holley sometime, great book on the workings of the Pats. Now some fodder for some Eagles fans.

Tom Brady the "Game-Manager" in the Super Bowl against Carolina:

Pats 32-29: 32/48 354 3 TD, 1 INT

Donnie "The Playmaker" Mcnabb a week before:

Philly Loses 14-3: 10/22 100 Yards 0 TD, 3 INT

McNabb has played 12 playoff games to Brady's 11.

Brady 225/367 2493 Yards, 15 TD, 5 INT, 50 yards rushing 2 td's.

McNabb 249/419 2630 Yards, 18 TD 12 INT, 350 yards rushing 3 td's.

Edit:

Meant to add, nice article by Michael Smith here on Peyton vs Brady: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/stor...mp;lid=tab1pos1