Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Belichick Vs. Brady?


Hov34

Brady or Belichick for 20 years in their prime?  

130 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Dr. Octopus said:

It's odd that people assume anyone that says Belichick is more responsible for this run of success in New England is accused of disparaging Brady when no one has done that. Everyone has basically said neither one would have accomplished as much without the other and Brady is surely the most accomplished QB of all time - and arguably the most skilled.

As I said earlier if Belichick had a QB the level of say Brian Hoyer or Ryan Tannehill for most of his time in New England he may not win a Super Bowl at all, but give him a good but not upper tier QB like Eli Manning, Phillip Rivers, Joe Flacco or Matt Ryan and I could see 2-4 Super Bowl wins for him. Give him and elite QB like Rodgers or Wilson and maybe he comes close to the 6 (but that's hard to say).

If Brady spent his career with Cincinnati, Cleveland, Washington or the NYJ he may not have won a Super Bowl at all. If he went to a good organization like NYG, GB or New Orleans I could see 2-3 Super Bowl wins for him. At an upper tier organization like Pittsburgh, Baltimore or Kansas City maybe he'd even get close to 6 (but that's hard to say as well).

I think the discussion has somewhat gone off the rails.

 

Agreed. 

And yeah, no one is disparaging Brady.  He is now universally seen as either the GOAT QB or in the conversation to be the GOAT QB (unless you have your head stuck somewhere). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bostonfred said:

I'm not sure if he would have "accomplished less" by your definition, because you seem to have a pretty specific definition of a quarterback's "accomplishments".

It's actually a pretty broad definition:

  • Winning, particularly in postseason, particularly championships; this is a shared accomplishment, but the QB is obviously instrumental
  • Statistics, both accumulated and rate statistics
  • Honors/awards
  • Signature accomplishments

I also recognize that context/situation matters when considering these things.

Brady rates highly in all of these categories, and I think Belichick contributed to that across the board.

3 hours ago, bostonfred said:

Yes, i agree that he would have accomplished less.... yes, I think he won more because he was with belichick, and i think he would have won less with another coach.

Excellent, we agree on this. :thumbup: 

So apparently the only thing we disagree on is your certainty that no other QB could have won the Pats' first 2 playoff games this year in place of Brady. It is apparent we will not come to agreement on that, so I will agree to disagree.

Edited by Just Win Baby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Just Win Baby said:

So apparently the only thing we disagree on is your certainty that no other QB could have won the Pats' first 2 playoff games this year in place of Brady. 

Nope.

I appreciate the spin,  but that's not what i said or what you said, and it's the main point of disagreement. 

On 2/6/2019 at 1:24 PM, bostonfred said:

But tell me which quarterbacks would have done that to the chiefs in kc in the playoffs.  Let's start with Andrew luck.  Would he have beaten the chiefs this year? 

 

 

On 2/6/2019 at 2:39 PM, Just Win Baby said:

I think Belichick would have won those two playoff games this year with this roster and this coaching staff with several other QBs in place of Brady, as I said. In no particular order, I think he would have done it with Brees, Rodgers (assuming healthy), Rivers, Mahomes, Luck, Ryan, and Wilson. Maybe others, but at least those guys.

You've repeatedly said other quarterbacks would have done the same thing. 

Including luck, who literally played the exact same team in the same stadium in the same playoffs one week prior, and didn't come close.  

That's giving zero credit to brady for actually doing it in a pressure situation.  And it's obviously not the first time he's done it. 

I have no problem saying other guys "could have" done it.  Peyton manning "could have" beaten belichick in the afc championship game, and after a couple failed attempts he did.  But it would be incorrect to say he "would have" won the 2001, 2003 and 2004 superbowls - a point you and several other people here used to make - because when he made the playoffs those years we know he didn't perform well.  Was it all coaching?  We'll never know, but it's hard to support "would have" with "but didn't".

If you don't see that then no wonder you think it's all belichick. In your world,  anyone "would have" done everything brady did, and there's nothing special about "actually did". 

Now if that's not a distinction that you actually intended to make, then we're a lot closer to agreeing than you realized, af you only need to apologize for riding me about my imprecise language. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bostonfred said:
2 hours ago, Just Win Baby said:

So apparently the only thing we disagree on is your certainty that no other QB could have won the Pats' first 2 playoff games this year in place of Brady. 

Nope.

I appreciate the spin,  but that's not what i said or what you said, and it's the main point of disagreement. 

On 2/6/2019 at 1:24 PM, bostonfred said:

But tell me which quarterbacks would have done that to the chiefs in kc in the playoffs.  Let's start with Andrew luck.  Would he have beaten the chiefs this year? 

 

 

On 2/6/2019 at 2:39 PM, Just Win Baby said:

I think Belichick would have won those two playoff games this year with this roster and this coaching staff with several other QBs in place of Brady, as I said. In no particular order, I think he would have done it with Brees, Rodgers (assuming healthy), Rivers, Mahomes, Luck, Ryan, and Wilson. Maybe others, but at least those guys.

You've repeatedly said other quarterbacks would have done the same thing. 

Are you really picking at semantics of could/would? :rolleyes:

I believe many other QBs *would* have done it with the Pats coaching staff and roster.

1 hour ago, bostonfred said:

Including luck, who literally played the exact same team in the same stadium in the same playoffs one week prior, and didn't come close.

Should I repeat my earlier response to this? The point discussed was whether or not another QB would have done it with the Pats roster and coaches. What Luck did with the Colts roster and coaches is clearly not the same thing. In fact, the whole point of my responses on this tangent has been that Belichick and his coaching staff would enable those other QBs - already all great QBs - to be even better, just as they have helped Brady to be better than he would have been otherwise.

1 hour ago, bostonfred said:

I have no problem saying other guys "could have" done it.  Peyton manning "could have" beaten belichick in the afc championship game, and after a couple failed attempts he did.  But it would be incorrect to say he "would have" won the 2001, 2003 and 2004 superbowls - a point you and several other people here used to make - because when he made the playoffs those years we know he didn't perform well.  Was it all coaching?  We'll never know, but it's hard to support "would have" with "but didn't".

You are mixing reality with hypothetical. You posed a hypothetical statement that drove this entire tangent. Comparing that to a real situation in which Peyton didn't beat the Pats in the playoffs is apples and oranges. There is no "but didn't" in the hypothetical, no matter how hard you try to make Luck's Colts-Chiefs game apply as such.

I also don't know what you mean by the bolded, but I assume it is yet another misrepresentation.

1 hour ago, bostonfred said:

In your world,  anyone "would have" done everything brady did, and there's nothing special about "actually did".

I never said that, and I have specifically opposed that multiple times in this thread. Stop misrepresenting my point of view.

It's like @Ghost Rider said earlier, you don't seem to be able to have an honest discussion about stuff that you yourself post about. You continually misrepresent other posters, ignore the inconvenient facts they post, and move goalposts.

1 hour ago, bostonfred said:

you only need to apologize for riding me about my imprecise language

:lmao: 

I suggest you hold your breath on that.

Edited by Just Win Baby
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bostonfred said:

 

Including luck, who literally played the exact same team in the same stadium in the same playoffs one week prior, and didn't come close.  

That's giving zero credit to brady for actually doing it in a pressure situation.  And it's obviously not the first time he's done it. 

 

The hypothetical everyone is trying to get you to understand is if you switched Brady and Luck in this years playoffs would the Colts have beat the Chiefs with Brady instead of Luck and/or would the Patriots have beaten the Chiefs with Luck instead of Brady.  It's impossible to answer with facts.  Its strictly based on opinion.

 

However using the fact that Brady and the Patriots beat the Chiefs and that Luck and the Colts did not beat the Chiefs is meaningless in this hypothetical debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Just Win Baby said:

Are you really picking at semantics of could/would? :rolleyes:

Do you really not see the difference?  This isn't just semantics.  It completely changes the meaning ot everything you've said.  

Would implies certainty. 

Could just means there's a non zero chance. 

When you say brady did win, but luck would have won, too, that's just ludicrous.  We have plenty of reason to suspect he wouldn't have - he didn't,  and he didn't come close.  13 points as opposed to 37 against the same defense, same stadium, one week apart. 

If you say "luck could have won", sure. I saw rex Grossman win a conference championship once, too. Hell, i saw trent dilfer, a guy who washed out of football and became a grocery clerk and drew bledsoes backup win superbowls in a span of 3 years.  Anything could happen.  That's not really groundbreaking. 

I'll ask you again, like you asked me earlier.  

Would Andrew luck have beaten the chiefs in the afc championship game this year if he played for belichick? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Gally said:

The hypothetical everyone is trying to get you to understand is if you switched Brady and Luck in this years playoffs would the Colts have beat the Chiefs with Brady instead of Luck and/or would the Patriots have beaten the Chiefs with Luck instead of Brady.  It's impossible to answer with facts.  Its strictly based on opinion.

 

However using the fact that Brady and the Patriots beat the Chiefs and that Luck and the Colts did not beat the Chiefs is meaningless in this hypothetical debate.

No. I think he could have, but i think it's highly unlikely.  And i have about zero respect for the opinion that he "would" have, because there's plenty of reason to suspect he "wouldn't" have, and exhibit A is that he didn't in nearly identical circumstances. I honestly can't believe there's a bunch of people who think that. 

Are you really saying that you are highly confident that luck would have won if he was playing for belichick after he crapped the bed the week before?  And not only do you not think you need to defend that beyond, well, belichick is awesome man, but you really feel like i'm wrong for bringing up what he actually did? 

Little kids literally  make stronger arguments than that for who would win between their favorite superheroes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, bostonfred said:

No. I think he could have, but i think it's highly unlikely.  And i have about zero respect for the opinion that he "would" have, because there's plenty of reason to suspect he "wouldn't" have, and exhibit A is that he didn't in nearly identical circumstances. I honestly can't believe there's a bunch of people who think that. 

Are you really saying that you are highly confident that luck would have won if he was playing for belichick after he crapped the bed the week before?  And not only do you not think you need to defend that beyond, well, belichick is awesome man, but you really feel like i'm wrong for bringing up what he actually did? 

Little kids literally  make stronger arguments than that for who would win between their favorite superheroes. 

The whole point of this conversation is hypothetical.  You cannot separate Brady and Belicheck.  They thrive because of each other.  

 

But if you are on the side that belichick is the genius then I can see where taking Luck and putting him on the Pats and thinking they still win makes sense.

 

I can also see if you think it's all Brady and BB had zero to do with it then there was no way Luck on the Pats would win. 

 

Personally I think Luck crapped the bed because their gameplan was crap and they executed like crap.  Luck had zero time to do anything  and was running for his life and i put that on the coaching staff.  They were not prepared for the game.  

 

Put Luck in the game plan that Brady executed and i do believe the Pats still win.  Maybe Luck doesn't throw a pick in the endzone and the Pats are up 21-0 at half and the Chiefs fold so the co.eback isn't necessary.  100% speculation on my part but it is not without merit.  Luck is a quality QB as he showed all year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Gally said:

The whole point of this conversation is hypothetical.  You cannot separate Brady and Belicheck.  They thrive because of each other.  

 

But if you are on the side that belichick is the genius then I can see where taking Luck and putting him on the Pats and thinking they still win makes sense.

 

I can also see if you think it's all Brady and BB had zero to do with it then there was no way Luck on the Pats would win. 

 

Personally I think Luck crapped the bed because their gameplan was crap and they executed like crap.  Luck had zero time to do anything  and was running for his life and i put that on the coaching staff.  They were not prepared for the game.  

 

Put Luck in the game plan that Brady executed and i do believe the Pats still win.  Maybe Luck doesn't throw a pick in the endzone and the Pats are up 21-0 at half and the Chiefs fold so the co.eback isn't necessary.  100% speculation on my part but it is not without merit.  Luck is a quality QB as he showed all year.

See this, right here, i don't agree with it, but at least you gave some explanation.  And that makes sense because you acknowledged that there was some burden of proof when you say you think it would happen.  And you acknowledge that it's 100 percent speculation.

That's the exact opposite of what happened earlier in the thread, when i explained why i thought what did happen was so impressive, and explained why i thought it was unlikely luck would have done the same. 

I appreciate you taking the time to respond. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, bostonfred said:

See this, right here, i don't agree with it, but at least you gave some explanation.  And that makes sense because you acknowledged that there was some burden of proof when you say you think it would happen.  And you acknowledge that it's 100 percent speculation.

That's the exact opposite of what happened earlier in the thread, when i explained why i thought what did happen was so impressive, and explained why i thought it was unlikely luck would have done the same. 

I appreciate you taking the time to respond. 

Whenever anybody tries to discuss Brady without Belichick and vice versa it is 100% speculation.  There are no facts that will be able to be used because they are inseparable.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Gally said:

Whenever anybody tries to discuss Brady without Belichick and vice versa it is 100% speculation.  There are no facts that will be able to be used because they are inseparable.  

Except for the fact that Belichick has had basically 7 seasons w/out Brady.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gally said:

Whenever anybody tries to discuss Brady without Belichick and vice versa it is 100% speculation.  There are no facts that will be able to be used because they are inseparable.  

We know that belichick has coached for the patriots without brady 4 times and is .500.

2000 5-11

2001 0-2 (brady went 11-3 the rest of the way then went on to win superbowl mvp)

2008 11-5 (missed playoffs) 

2016 3-1 (brady went 11-1 the rest of the way then went on to win superbowl mvp)

That's 19-19 with the patriots. We don't need to go back to Cleveland. 

We know Bledsoe was

58-55 before belichick

5-13 with belichick

35-35 after belichick

We know matt Cassel was 11-5 without belichick and 26-40 without him. He did have a 10-5 season two years after belichick, but he was mediocre. 

We know the Patriots were 8-8 under Pete Carroll in 1999, and they dropped to 5-11 in 2000 under belichick.  

We know the patriots scored

1999 299 points

2000 276 points

2001 371 points (20 in 2 games without brady, 351 in 14 games with him) 

And allowed

1999 284

2000 338

2001 272

We also know that the 2007 patriots scored 589 points, and the 2008 team scored 410. 

So we have a pretty good baseline of what belichick's teams look like with brady and without great qb play. 

I don't know if any coach is good enough to consistently win in the nfl without a quarterback, and while the good quarterbacks don't make it to free agency, good coaches become available all the time, seek out the chance to work with great quarterbacks and they don't count against the salary cap. 

So if i could only have one, i'd take brady and try to find a coach, instead of taking belichick and looking for a quarterback.

Edited by bostonfred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bostonfred said:

When you say brady did win, but luck would have won, too, that's just ludicrous.  We have plenty of reason to suspect he wouldn't have - he didn't,  and he didn't come close.  13 points as opposed to 37 against the same defense, same stadium, one week apart. 

 

:wall: 

What Luck did on the Colts is irrelevant to the discussion. This has been stated repeatedly.

3 hours ago, bostonfred said:

Would Andrew luck have beaten the chiefs in the afc championship game this year if he played for belichick? 

Asked and answered multiple times. Yes.

3 hours ago, bostonfred said:

And i have about zero respect for the opinion that he "would" have... Little kids literally  make stronger arguments than that for who would win between their favorite superheroes. 

You know, we have had a lot of exchanges here over the years, but I have never taken you for the tool that these statements imply. Is that what you are going for here?

2 hours ago, bostonfred said:

See this, right here, i don't agree with it, but at least you gave some explanation

I gave an explanation earlier that you ignored. I pointed out that Brady threw an interception in the end zone, keeping NE points off the board, and another at the NE 23 yard line, setting up KC for a go ahead score with 7:55 remaining. I pointed out that Brady led the Pats to 17 points in 56 minutes. I pointed out that a different QB may have done better and thus may not have needed the late game heroics.

I didn't go on to analyze the Colts in depth because the point that Luck would be on the Patriots makes it obvious that everything would be different. Well, obvious to everyone reading this conversation except you, apparently. That means he would play with the Pats' OL, Pats receivers and running backs, Pats defense, Pats special teams, and Pats coaching. You seem unable to conceive the difference that represents on your own, so I'm glad @Gally could put it in "some explanation" that you understand.

2 hours ago, bostonfred said:

why i thought what did happen was so impressive, and explained why i thought it was unlikely luck would have done the same

You didn't say it was unlikely Luck would have done the same. You said "Belichick without brady would not have gotten there." Do I need to refer you to your earlier definition of 'would'? ("Would implies certainty")

Edited by Just Win Baby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, bostonfred said:

We also know that the 2007 patriots scored 589 points, and the 2008 team scored 410.

While that is what actually happened, that’s a completely different situation than asking how would New England have done with a different QB than Brady. Cassel hadn’t started a game in 8 years. So yes the offense went from highest scoring of all time to slightly higher than league average. But they still won 11 games. Unless in this hypothetical exercise you want to replace Brady with Cassel as the guy B.B. would have chosen to go to war with. Other teams, like IND, fell to pieces without Peyton. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Just Win Baby said:

.You didn't say it was unlikely Luck would have done the same. You said "Belichick without brady would not have gotten there." Do I need to refer you to your earlier definition of 'would'? ("Would implies certainty")

Correct, and that's why it carries the burden of proof. 

When i said "wouldn't have gotten there", i was obligated to provide evidence to support it.  So i addressed bradys successful ball control drives to keep kc off the field, his two minute drill to end the half, his two go ahead touchdowns in the final minutes of the 4th quarter and the 3 consecutive 3rd and 10s converted in overtime. Those are all impressive things but it's extraordinary to see all of them in one game let alone with a trip to the superbowl on the line.  

To me, that's all very strong evidence that another quarterback wouldn't have been able to do it.  You disagree.  That's completely normal. 

Then you made the case that many quarterbacks would have done the same thing.  That's a strong claim.  Your evidence was that, um, you think so. That's not really strong. 

Still, in made my argument against it. I compared them side by side, eliminating all the variables except the offense. I went position group by position group in the offense, pointing out that they both had good interior lines, both had a pass catching tight end and that ebron had outperformed gronk this year,  that they both had a small wr1 and that hilton had outperformed Edelman this year, that they both had a committee and that the colts backs played well but didn't get many attempts because the colts fell behind and luck, unlike brady, didn't successfully convert double digit third down completions. 

Your argument for luck winning that afccg appears to be "i told you what he actually did is irrelevant", and "yeah but the patriots players are better", and "yeah but brady threw two picks so it wasn't a perfect game".  I think i've addressed all of that repeatedly, but ive summarized in this post because you don't seem to actually have a response to it so much as you repeat your previous statements without backing them up in the slightest. 

Remember, when you say with certainty that the guy who led his team to 13 points would have led the patriots to 37 if he played with the patriots players and coaches,  you should be able to back that statement up in some way.  But as far as i can tell, your entire argument is that he would have done it if he played with the patriots players and coaches because he played with the patriots players and coaches. That's not actually evidence of the thing you said.  

But maybe i'm mischaracterizing your argument.  Let's use your own words from your very last post

"I didn't go on to analyze the Colts in depth because the point that Luck would be on the Patriots makes it obvious that everything would be different. Well, obvious to everyone reading this conversation except you, apparently. That means he would play with the Pats' OL, Pats receivers and running backs, Pats defense, Pats special teams, and Pats coaching. You seem unable to conceive the difference that represents on your own"

You've made a strong claim that a guy who didn't come close to doing a thing would do the thing if one thing changed, and your entire argument about that one thing is that you think so and it's obvious.  

It's not that you've failed to convince me with your evidence.  You've made claims without evidence and acted morally superior. 

I understand that this distinction will likely be lost on you like every previous point i've made, and that your response will be something personal like "You know, we have had a lot of exchanges here over the years, but I have never taken you for the tool that these statements show that you are", and that you'll find a way to convince yourself again that you were right instead of apologizing for your misunderstanding, but i appreciate you taking the time to summarize your argument clearly so there's no reason for me to think that the misunderstanding was on my part. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

While that is what actually happened, that’s a completely different situation than asking how would New England have done with a different QB than Brady. Cassel hadn’t started a game in 8 years. So yes the offense went from highest scoring of all time to slightly higher than league average. But they still won 11 games. Unless in this hypothetical exercise you want to replace Brady with Cassel as the guy B.B. would have chosen to go to war with. Other teams, like IND, fell to pieces without Peyton. 

Absolutely true.  I was presenting data that answered the three questions that were relevant to this conversation

- how did the patriots do before belichick arrived and after

- how did the patriots do when brady played vs with other quarterbacks in the same season and the seasons before and after *

- how did the other quarterbacks play before and after belichick

The meaning of that data is left to the reader, but i think that's the right paradigm to answer the belichick without brady question.  

The last two paragraphs are my summary of the subject, but i'd add this subjective opinion - i think we see that belichick turned over the players from carrol's team to his in 2000,  and that the influx of 2001 free agents helped the defense quite a bit, so even though the patriots started 0-2, they were probably a decent team without brady. But i also think brady's style not only contributed to their huge uptick in points, it helps the defense, because dinking and dunking helps the offense get first downs and helps the defense stay off the field.  That latter point is a big part of the reason i credit brady for only letting the chiefs get 3 first half possessions in the afccg, and Bledsoe was not that kind of passer. 

Similarly, in 2007 the team was the best they'd had, so it's no surprise they did well without brady.  And while i agree with you that cassell deserves credit for doing that when he hadnt started in years,  the patriots set multiple records the year they completely turned over they'r receivers.  Yes, they were good players, but there was no breaking in period in 2007 either.  

What i do think we saw is that once the team was really belichick's team, they were just generally better.  5-13 without brady before 2007, 14-6 after.  It could also be that belichick just doesn't work well with the upfield passing game unless it's absurdly good like 2007, because he's more concerned with ball security and field position than splashy plays.  There's more than a few variables. 

* For completeness i probably should have included the 2009 season, but that gets into a discussion of whether brady was playing like brady because was still recovering from the acl, and to be honest i've had enough of being insulted in this thread.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, sn0mm1s said:

Except for the fact that Belichick has had basically 7 seasons w/out Brady.

 

2 hours ago, bostonfred said:

We know that belichick has coached for the patriots without brady 4 times and is .500.

2000 5-11

2001 0-2 (brady went 11-3 the rest of the way then went on to win superbowl mvp)

2008 11-5 (missed playoffs) 

2016 3-1 (brady went 11-1 the rest of the way then went on to win superbowl mvp)

That's 19-19 with the patriots. We don't need to go back to Cleveland. 

We know Bledsoe was

58-55 before belichick

5-13 with belichick

35-35 after belichick

We know matt Cassel was 11-5 without belichick and 26-40 without him. He did have a 10-5 season two years after belichick, but he was mediocre. 

We know the Patriots were 8-8 under Pete Carroll in 1999, and they dropped to 5-11 in 2000 under belichick.  

We know the patriots scored

1999 299 points

2000 276 points

2001 371 points (20 in 2 games without brady, 351 in 14 games with him) 

And allowed

1999 284

2000 338

2001 272

We also know that the 2007 patriots scored 589 points, and the 2008 team scored 410. 

So we have a pretty good baseline of what belichick's teams look like with brady and without great qb play. 

I don't know if any coach is good enough to consistently win in the nfl without a quarterback, and while the good quarterbacks don't make it to free agency, good coaches become available all the time, seek out the chance to work with great quarterbacks and they don't count against the salary cap. 

So if i could only have one, i'd take brady and try to find a coach, instead of taking belichick and looking for a quarterback.

People learn and get better....at least good coaches do.  BB prior to Brady arriving learned how to build a winner.  Learned how to build a team on the field. 

 

Brady without BB was a semi struggling college QB that didn't do enough to be a top prospect for the NFL.  He was a late 6th round pick.  I would posit that Brady learned some things in that process and got better.  That's what good coahes/players do.

 

As others pointed out Brady was not putting up huge numbers and leading the Pats to wins.  He didn't make mistakes and allowed BB game plan and defense to excel.  Yes that is valuable but he wasn't the qb he is today.

 

The fact both of you keep alluding to BB being terrible prior to Brady without giving credit to BB improving his coaching ability is a bit comical when you don't concede that Brady did the same thing.  

 

Maybe it was actually BB that taught Brady how to be a leader and designed a team to help Brady get to his potential.  As I have said many times, TB and BB are forever linked and you cannot separate them completely.  Which came first the chicken or the egg?  Both of their top notch legacies began when they got together.  They cannot be separated.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Gally said:

The fact both of you keep alluding to BB being terrible prior to Brady without giving credit to BB improving his coaching ability is a bit comical when you don't concede that Brady did the same thing.  

Yeah i was alluding to that in the post right above yours, but i agree. 

1 hour ago, bostonfred said:

What i do think we saw is that once the team was really belichick's team, they were just generally better.  5-13 without brady before 2007, 14-6 after.  It could also be that belichick just doesn't work well with the upfield passing game unless it's absurdly good like 2007, because he's more concerned with ball security and field position than splashy plays.  There's more than a few variables. 

And i completely agree that they're forever entwined, and better together, and all of that. That's why it's an interesting conversation.  

I think the thing for me is that Reid made Alex Smith look like the first overall pick in the nfl draft. He made mahomes look like he was worth two first round picks.  He made mcnabb look pretty great too. Coughlin won two superbowls with eli. Imagine what he could have done with brady.  Cowher made kordell Stewart look so good he literally kissed him.  Tomlin has gotten great play from Roethlisberger.  

There's a long list of coaches that have succeeded when they had top notch qbs to work with, but the list of coaches with sustained success without a good qb is almost non existent. And while a great coach might be good at developing qbs and identifying the guy they want to work with, they still have to get the draft picks to get him because those guys don't become free agents.  

But an elite quarterback working with a bad coach will get another chance next year to get a better coach. There's no draft or salary cap for coaches, and the teams with good quarterbacks are the most attractive for free agent coaches.  

If you get belichick for 20 years you might spend 15 of them looking for a qb that's better than Bledsoe or Cassel. That might sound like a stretch, but they drafted Jimmy g in 2014, bb's 15th year with the team, and he didn't look great right away. 

But if you get brady, and you sign adam gase thinking he's going to be a great head coach, you can just get another guy the next year.  

Both of them have helped the other.  There's games like the ravens and Falcons games in 2016 or the chiefs this year where brady played out of his mind.  There's other games that belichick deserves full credit for, like the 4 interceptions of manning and the superbowl this year.  And there's a lot of games where they both deserve credit, like that seahawks game.  

But if I can only have one, having the goat qb with a very good coach would be better than having the best coach in history with a mediocre qb, and it's the difficulty of getting a truly great quarterback and the relative ease of signing a good coach once you've got a qb that decides it for me because they're both clearly great. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Anarchy99 said:

While that is what actually happened, that’s a completely different situation than asking how would New England have done with a different QB than Brady. Cassel hadn’t started a game in 8 years. So yes the offense went from highest scoring of all time to slightly higher than league average. But they still won 11 games. Unless in this hypothetical exercise you want to replace Brady with Cassel as the guy B.B. would have chosen to go to war with. Other teams, like IND, fell to pieces without Peyton. 

I'm not saying Matt Cassell was a great QB.  But he did start 81 games in his career.  And would have been one of the best backups in the NFL any year he was on a roster (or a lower end starter).  Curtis Painter was not an NFL level player.  There's a reason that after the Colts locked up the #1 pick that season they finally put in Dan Orlovsky (also worse than Cassell but at least an NFL level player) and went 2-3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bostonfred said:

Yeah i was alluding to that in the post right above yours, but i agree. 

And i completely agree that they're forever entwined, and better together, and all of that. That's why it's an interesting conversation.  

I think the thing for me is that Reid made Alex Smith look like the first overall pick in the nfl draft. He made mahomes look like he was worth two first round picks.  He made mcnabb look pretty great too. Coughlin won two superbowls with eli. Imagine what he could have done with brady.  Cowher made kordell Stewart look so good he literally kissed him.  Tomlin has gotten great play from Roethlisberger.  

There's a long list of coaches that have succeeded when they had top notch qbs to work with, but the list of coaches with sustained success without a good qb is almost non existent. And while a great coach might be good at developing qbs and identifying the guy they want to work with, they still have to get the draft picks to get him because those guys don't become free agents.  

But an elite quarterback working with a bad coach will get another chance next year to get a better coach. There's no draft or salary cap for coaches, and the teams with good quarterbacks are the most attractive for free agent coaches.  

If you get belichick for 20 years you might spend 15 of them looking for a qb that's better than Bledsoe or Cassel. That might sound like a stretch, but they drafted Jimmy g in 2014, bb's 15th year with the team, and he didn't look great right away. 

But if you get brady, and you sign adam gase thinking he's going to be a great head coach, you can just get another guy the next year.  

Both of them have helped the other.  There's games like the ravens and Falcons games in 2016 or the chiefs this year where brady played out of his mind.  There's other games that belichick deserves full credit for, like the 4 interceptions of manning and the superbowl this year.  And there's a lot of games where they both deserve credit, like that seahawks game.  

But if I can only have one, having the goat qb with a very good coach would be better than having the best coach in history with a mediocre qb, and it's the difficulty of getting a truly great quarterback and the relative ease of signing a good coach once you've got a qb that decides it for me because they're both clearly great. 

Agree and I'll take it even further and argue that Belichick would not still be the Pats head coach if they had never drafted Brady, unless they somehow lucked into another HOF QB. He would not have drafted Brees in 2001. Maybe he lasts until 2004 and lands Manning, Rivers, or Big Ben. Or somehow makes it to 2005 for a shot at Rodgers. If not, he probably would have been let go after a few seasons of missing the playoffs in a perpetually weak AFC East. As you mentioned, the list of coaches with long term success without a good QB is almost zero. You can do it for a season or so with a Cassel or some other journeyman, but the music ends at some point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Gally said:

The fact both of you keep alluding to BB being terrible prior to Brady without giving credit to BB improving his coaching ability is a bit comical when you don't concede that Brady did the same thing.  

Maybe it was actually BB that taught Brady how to be a leader and designed a team to help Brady get to his potential.  As I have said many times, TB and BB are forever linked and you cannot separate them completely.  Which came first the chicken or the egg?  Both of their top notch legacies began when they got together.  They cannot be separated.

When has Brady been terrible? Again, BB's last 18 games for the Pats, prior to Brady, he was 5-13. His next 17 games with Brady that season he went 14-3. Now, *maybe* BB imparted some great coaching and mentoring to Brady in the week between Bledsoe getting hurt and TB's first start (while neglecting Bledsoe entirely the prior year or so) *and* his years of perfecting and improving his coaching literally clicked with everyone coincidentally the same game that Brady got his first start. However, the simpler explanation is that Brady is just *really* good.

I agree that they have both benefited from one another and really can't be separated...but c'mon which came first chicken or egg? Well, it started the minute TB stepped on the football field and not one second before so I would think the answer would be clear.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, sn0mm1s said:

When has Brady been terrible? Again, BB's last 18 games for the Pats, prior to Brady, he was 5-13. His next 17 games with Brady that season he went 14-3. Now, *maybe* BB imparted some great coaching and mentoring to Brady in the week between Bledsoe getting hurt and TB's first start (while neglecting Bledsoe entirely the prior year or so) *and* his years of perfecting and improving his coaching literally clicked with everyone coincidentally the same game that Brady got his first start. However, the simpler explanation is that Brady is just *really* good.

I agree that they have both benefited from one another and really can't be separated...but c'mon which came first chicken or egg? Well, it started the minute TB stepped on the football field and not one second before so I would think the answer would be clear.  

How about before he got to the Patriots and BB?  He was a 6th round pick.  That doesn't scream stud to me.  Then he played within the gameplan designed by BB.  Was TB better than a late in career Bledsoe......maybe or maybe being a rookie he just did what he was told and didn't take chances and let the gameplan and defense do their thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, bostonfred said:

Correct, and that's why it carries the burden of proof. 

When i said "wouldn't have gotten there", i was obligated to provide evidence to support it.

LOL at using terms like proof and evidence when discussing a hypothetical situation that cannot be proven.

14 hours ago, bostonfred said:

I compared them side by side, eliminating all the variables except the offense

You did not eliminate all variables except the offense. You did not eliminate coaching, which is the most significant reason for anyone to believe that a QB like Luck would perform better on the Pats than on the Colts and is the point of this entire tangent.

I also mentioned several other QBs. Let's eliminate Luck from the conversation since you refuse to concede that his Colts game has no bearing on the hypothetical. What is the basis for your belief that none of the others would have done it?

You tied your entire "evidence" for Luck to his previous game against the Chiefs. Well, Rivers led the Chargers to a win at KC just a month earlier, and led 2 TD drives late in the 4th quarter to do it. If he was on the Pats, he would have been behind a much stronger pass blocking unit than he has played behind within the past decade, which would help him a lot since, like Brady, he is not very mobile and plays much better from a strong pocket. And he would have Belichick instead of Lynn and McDaniels instead of Whisenhunt. No contest there.

Similar deal for Wilson, who also led his team to a win over KC late in the season and led 2 4th quarter TD drives to do it. Again, on the Pats he would play behind a much stronger pass blocking unit and with better coaches.

I included Rodgers if healthy. We have seen Rodgers play the QB position better than anyone else ever has from a pure combination of QB skill, IQ, and athleticism. His 2011 season is still arguably the best regular season any QB has ever played, and he has led the Packers on a 4-0 championship run, which is something Brady never did. Everything Rodgers has accomplished in his career has been under McCarthy. Belichick would be a huge upgrade as his head coach, and the Pats offensive unit other than QB was better this year than the Packers. He would thrive in this hypothetical scenario with those upgrades.

Brees was the MVP runner up and would have faced the Pats in the Super Bowl if not for the worst non-call in NFL history. Like Brady, he is one of the best QBs in NFL history, and he has led his team to a Super Bowl win and thus can perform under playoff pressure. In this hypothetical scenario, he would play for a coaching staff that doesn't do stupid stuff like pull him for a gimmick QB several times per game.

Mahomes was MVP and played very well in the postseason. Reid is a good coach, but look at his track record in the postseason over the past decade. It was the Chiefs defense that let him down in that Pats playoff game, and he didn't get to touch the ball in OT. Obviously, he would have won that game if on the Pats, because he wouldn't have then been on the Chiefs. Plus, he would have been on the team that won the OT coin toss! (See how silly this "evidence" game is?)

All of them would have won both games in this hypothetical scenario.

I didn't even mention Roethlisberger, who has won plenty of big games in his career. Belichick and his coaching staff are much better than Pittsburgh's IMO, but I'm also not certain how much of Roethlisberger's negative plays come from playing outside the plan, so I'm less certain that the improved coaching would matter as much with him.

14 hours ago, bostonfred said:

I understand that this distinction will likely be lost on you like every previous point i've made, and that your response will be something personal like "You know, we have had a lot of exchanges here over the years, but I have never taken you for the tool that these statements show that you are", and that you'll find a way to convince yourself again that you were right instead of apologizing for your misunderstanding, but i appreciate you taking the time to summarize your argument clearly so there's no reason for me to think that the misunderstanding was on my part. 

I forgot how good you are at framing anyone who argues against you as someone who just doesn't understand your obviously superior arguments, and framing any response to your toolish and condescending comments as a personal attack on you. At least you're consistent.

Edited by Just Win Baby
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Humor me with some projected outcomes with the hypothetical I posted a page or so ago. My scenario for NE was . . .

Bledsoe never got hurt and starts through 2003, Romo starts from 2004 through 2014, Garoppolo starts from 2015-2018.

For Brady, assume he got drafted by the Redskins instead in 2000 and has stayed there ever since. Both teams have the same players, coaches, owners, players they signed or drafted, bad contracts, stupid decisions, etc. How many titles might NE have won? How many titles might WAS have won?

Edited by Anarchy99
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other hypothetical which has not been brought up is what could have happened with BB coaching a different team and TB staying on NE. How different would things have turned out if Bill coached the Steelers, Chargers, Saints, Seahawks, etc.? To me, that's another interesting discussion, more so than if BB coached the Lions or if Brady ended up on the Browns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Anarchy99 said:

Humor me with some projected outcomes with the hypothetical I posted a page or so ago. My scenario for NE was . . .

Bledoe never got hurt and starts through 2003, Romo starts from 2004 through 2014, Garoppolo starts from 2015-2018.

For Brady, assume he got drafted by the Redskins instead in 2000 and has stayed there ever since. Both teams have the same players, coaches, owners, players they signed or drafted, bad contracts, stupid decisions, etc. How many titles might NE have won? How many titles might WAS have won?

A significant reason i'd pick brady over belichick is the difficulty in finding a franchise quarterback, and the ease of attracting quality coaches once you have a stud qb. Handing belichick a franchise quarterback every year takes that out of the equation. 

But Romo in his prime was one of the best in the nfl, and i think they'd have won at least one, probably two.  Maybe another with jimmy G.  I didn't see anything with Bledsoe that suggests they were going to win one soon. So i'd say two. 

I think brady's best chances would have been the 4 year stretch with Gibbs, Portis and Santana Moss and Arrington on defense.

But i also don't think Washington goes 129-174-1 with brady, which means they don't struggle to sign free agents. Your hypothetical gives the patriots the benefit of all the guys who signed there for a chance to win, and brady gets one of the worst rosters in the league. I have no idea what that would have looked like, but i think we'd all agree he doesn't win 6 if everything else stays the same.

But let's say the vikings, or bears, or seahawks, or chiefs, or Broncos.  I think he'd have a better chance to get two or more rings than belichick with Romo.  I'll hold my tongue on what i think he'd have done in indy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/7/2019 at 9:53 AM, Ghost Rider said:

Patriots fans are an interesting bunch when it comes to Belichick.  Many of them will defend him like crazy, until anyone suggests that he is as or more important than Brady, and then they have no problem picking nits with him and/or throwing him under the bus (see above where NE_REVIVAL actually said that Belichick did a horrific job at at some point as head coach in the last 18 years).  I get that it is more fun to root for the player than the coach, so there will always be more loyalty to the player, but it sure is fascinating to see some Patriots fan turn on their own simply because they cannot handle everyone not genuflecting to Tom Brady.  

.....

Really GR?

All I have written on this subject and how impossible it is to split the credit between either BB or TB and you parse through all of that and call call me out for the above? Pointing out obvious facts like BB sometimes makes mistakes does not mean I think, or ever even claimed TB deserves more credit than BB (u know this) and pretty unfair to lump me in with those who do. 

For those of us who have actually watched virtually every game NE has played during this era (IE, unlike people like u) we understand that BB is human like every other hc and sometimes he makes bad (horrific, terrible, stupid etc) coaching decisions. We do not have to go very far back (how about 2 months ago) to find one such instance and it likely cost NE home field advantage throughout the playoffs.  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2018/12/10/what-was-bill-belichick-thinking-final-play-miami-miracle-even-his-ex-players-dont-know/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.637afeac7e42

"Sometimes, a genius can outthink himself. That’s the view of some of Bill Belichick’s former players after the New England Patriots coach came up with the wrong strategy the team’s 34-33 “Miracle in Miami” loss Sunday. “Coach Belichick outsmarted himself having Rob Gronkowski on the field for a 70-yard Hail Mary and keeping his best defensive player on the sidelines, Devin McCourty,” NBC’s Rodney Harrison said on “Football Night in America.”

Dolphins quarterback Ryan Tannehill acknowledged that a Hail Mary was an unlikely option after he was sidelined for six games earlier this season with an injury to his throwing shoulder. It was, an unnamed Dolphins player told the Miami Herald, a “bad, bad, bad” coaching decision."

I believe my comment is demonstrably true, do you really disagree?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, NE_REVIVAL said:

 We do not have to go very far back (how about 2 months ago) to find one such instance and it likely cost NE home field advantage throughout the playoffs.  

 

 

Wow, that ended up costing him huh?

Edited by Leroy Hoard
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, NE_REVIVAL said:

Really GR?

All I have written on this subject and how impossible it is to split the credit between either BB or TB and you parse through all of that and call call me out for the above? Pointing out obvious facts like BB sometimes makes mistakes does not mean I think, or ever even claimed TB deserves more credit than BB (u know this) and pretty unfair to lump me in with those who do. 

For those of us who have actually watched virtually every game NE has played during this era (IE, unlike people like u) we understand that BB is human like every other hc and sometimes he makes bad (horrific, terrible, stupid etc) coaching decisions. We do not have to go very far back (how about 2 months ago) to find one such instance and it likely cost NE home field advantage throughout the playoffs.  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2018/12/10/what-was-bill-belichick-thinking-final-play-miami-miracle-even-his-ex-players-dont-know/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.637afeac7e42

"Sometimes, a genius can outthink himself. That’s the view of some of Bill Belichick’s former players after the New England Patriots coach came up with the wrong strategy the team’s 34-33 “Miracle in Miami” loss Sunday. “Coach Belichick outsmarted himself having Rob Gronkowski on the field for a 70-yard Hail Mary and keeping his best defensive player on the sidelines, Devin McCourty,” NBC’s Rodney Harrison said on “Football Night in America.”

Dolphins quarterback Ryan Tannehill acknowledged that a Hail Mary was an unlikely option after he was sidelined for six games earlier this season with an injury to his throwing shoulder. It was, an unnamed Dolphins player told the Miami Herald, a “bad, bad, bad” coaching decision."

I believe my comment is demonstrably true, do you really disagree?

 

 

No, but if we can look at any play from any game, then every single player and coach in NFL history has been horrific at one point or another, but using that word like you did the other day in the context you did served no purpose whatsoever. 

I could say, "Tom Brady was horrific for long stretches of the Super Bowl," but that would serve no purpose as well.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ghost Rider said:

No, but if we can look at any play from any game, then every single player and coach in NFL history has been horrific at one point or another, but using that word like you did the other day in the context you did served no purpose whatsoever. 

I could say, "Tom Brady was horrific for long stretches of the Super Bowl," but that would serve no purpose as well.  

??

I thought I was letting you off pretty easy but ok.

There was nothing wrong with my comment in the context it was given, the problem is the dishonest context less way you edited and presented it. I made a 680+ word reply (following up my previous 500+ word post) to another poster where we were having a good back n forth on the merits of crediting one over the other. His position favoring BB, mine favoring neither but taking the TB side for the purposes of that particular discussion. I have repeated again and again in that very same post and others that imho it is impossible to accurately credit one over the other. 

You want to talk about context?

You didn't even quote the sentence I wrote and stripped away all context seemingly because you wanted to take a shot at me and unfairly imply something about my thoughts on the matter. Here is the comment (in proper context) you called me out on.

I don’t split BB the def guru HC and BB the GM, they are a package deal but imho he has clearly been both brilliant and horrific at each at times over the last 18 yrs. Ruthless cap management which has led to sustained success, but clearly at short term costs. All and all he has been far better in aggregate than any of his peers and is the greatest of all time.

There is nothing wrong with the context or accuracy of my statement, but there is a lot wrong with the way you edited and presented it. I do not appreciate it and know u r better than that. 

Edited by NE_REVIVAL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Gally said:

How about before he got to the Patriots and BB?  He was a 6th round pick.  That doesn't scream stud to me.  Then he played within the gameplan designed by BB.  Was TB better than a late in career Bledsoe......maybe or maybe being a rookie he just did what he was told and didn't take chances and let the gameplan and defense do their thing.

C'mon - Montana wasn't a 1st round pick either, or Brees, or Warner... you can't say a player is/isn't a stud based on where they were drafted. "Late career" Bledsoe was 29, a #1 pick in the draft, and outplayed by Brady. Maybe, just maybe, scouts got Brady wrong. It seems far more likely than any of your suggested scenario/analysis. Similarly, it seems far more likely that Brady turned BB's head coaching career around then BB making Brady a HOFer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, NE_REVIVAL said:

??

I thought I was letting you off pretty easy but ok.

There was nothing wrong with my comment in the context it was given, the problem is the dishonest context less way you edited and presented it. I made a 680+ word reply (following up my previous 500+ word post) to another poster where we were having a good back n forth on the merits of crediting one over the other. His position favoring BB, mine favoring neither but taking the TB side for the purposes of that particular discussion. I have repeated again and again in that very same post and others that imho it is impossible to accurately credit one over the other. 

You want to talk about context?

You didn't even quote the sentence I wrote and stripped away all context seemingly because you wanted to take a shot at me and unfairly imply something about my thoughts on the matter. Here is the comment (in proper context) you called me out on.

I don’t split BB the def guru HC and BB the GM, they are a package deal but imho he has clearly been both brilliant and horrific at each at times over the last 18 yrs. Ruthless cap management which has led to sustained success, but clearly at short term costs. All and all he has been far better in aggregate than any of his peers and is the greatest of all time.

There is nothing wrong with the context or accuracy of my statement, but there is a lot wrong with the way you edited and presented it. I do not appreciate it and know u r better than that. 

It was a good example of what I was talking about in that particular post, about how Patriots fan love to pick nits with Belichick once the TB vs Hoodie convo kicks in, and you have to admit that that is what you did there.  If I, or someone else, had said, "Tom Brady has been clearly both brilliant and horrific at times over the last 18 years," a call-out would have happened, and a justified one at that, since it would be ludicrous to say Tom Brady has been horrific, just like it is ludicrous to say Belichick has been, unless, again, you want to pick out a game there or a play call there, in which case I reiterate that every coach and player in NFL history has been horrific at one point or another using the standard you just established. 

Edited by Ghost Rider
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ghost Rider said:

It was a good example of what I was talking about in that particular post, about how Patriots fan love to pick nits with Belichick once the TB vs Hoodie convo kicks in, and you have to admit that that is what you did there.  If I, or someone else, had said, "Tom Brady has been clearly both brilliant and horrific at times over the last 18 years," a call-out would have happened, and a justified one at that, since it would be ludicrous to say Tom Brady has been horrific, just like it is ludicrous to say Belichick has been, unless, again, you want to pick out a game there or a play call there, in which case I reiterate that every coach and player in NFL history has been horrific at one point or another using the standard you just established. 

If you or someone else had said TB has been both brilliant and horrific at times over his career in similar context where I said it I would agree with you; how can you not, it is true. Yes, you could say it about virtually any player or coach, but so what? I called BB brilliant in the very same sentence and the greatest hc of all time at the end of the paragraph! Yet you nit pick one word (out of 1k+) and call me out without even directly quoting me (no context). Call me out anytime but please be a bit more fair about it. Lets move on....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, NE_REVIVAL said:

If you or someone else had said TB has been both brilliant and horrific at times over his career in similar context where I said it I would agree with you; how can you not, it is true. Yes, you could say it about virtually any player or coach, but so what? I called BB brilliant in the very same sentence and the greatest hc of all time at the end of the paragraph! Yet you nit pick one word (out of 1k+) and call me out without even directly quoting me (no context). Call me out anytime but please be a bit more fair about it. Lets move on....

 

I'm all for that. It's all good. :hifive:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for Bledsoe, I was never a huge fan but prior to him getting hurt in NE, he had to adjust to playing for 4 offensive coordinators over a 5 year stretch. That never seems to work out well for the quarterback (just ask Ryan Tannehill). He may not have been great, but he probably would have been better if he got to stick to one scheme / system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, sn0mm1s said:

C'mon - Montana wasn't a 1st round pick either, or Brees, or Warner... you can't say a player is/isn't a stud based on where they were drafted. "Late career" Bledsoe was 29, a #1 pick in the draft, and outplayed by Brady. Maybe, just maybe, scouts got Brady wrong. It seems far more likely than any of your suggested scenario/analysis. Similarly, it seems far more likely that Brady turned BB's head coaching career around then BB making Brady a HOFer.

I am not talking about Montana.  I am saying before Brady was coached by BB he wasn't the QB he became and I believe BB had a part in that development.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for other coaches from the somewhat recent era with at least 100 wins . . .

Bill Belichick, 261-123, .680, 9 SB, 6 titles

Marty Schottenheimer 200-126-1, .613, 0 SB, 0 titles
Andy Reid, 195-124-1, .611, 1 SB, 0 titles
Dan Reeves, 190-165-2, .535, 4 SB, 0 titles
Jeff Fisher, 173-165-1, .512, 1 SB, 0 titles
Bill Parcells, 172-130-1, .569, 3 SB, 2 titles
Tom Coughlin, 170-150, .531, 2 SB, 2 titles
Mike Shanahan, 170-138, .552, 2 SB, 2 titles
Mike Holmgren, 161-111, .592, 3 SB, 1 title
Joe Gibbs, 154-94, .621, 4 SB, 3 titles
Bill Cower, 149-90-1, .623, 2 SB, 1 title
Tony Dungy,  139-69, .668, 1 SB, 1 title
John Fox, 133-123, .520, 2 SB, 0 titles
Marvin Lewis, 131-122-3, .518, 0 SB, 0 titles
Mike McCarthy, 125-77-2, .618, 1 SB, 1 title
Jim Mora, 125-106, .541, 0 SB, 0 titles
Mike Tomlin, 125-66-1, .654, 2 SB, 1 title
Pete Carroll, 122-85-1, .589, 2 SB, 1 title
Dick Vermeil, 120-109, .524, 2 SB, 1 title
Sean Payton, 118-74, .615, 1 SB, 1 title
George Seifert, 116-62, .648, 2 SB, 2 titles
Norv Turner, 114-122-1, .483, 0 SB, 0 titles
Dennis Green, 113-94, .546, 0 SB, 0 titles
John Harbaugh, 104-72, .591, 1 SB, 1 title

That's all the coaches that have coached at some point in the 2000's with at least 100 wins. So from those, who else would people pick for the Top 5 coaches from the past 20 or so years?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

As for other coaches from the somewhat recent era with at least 100 wins . . .

Bill Belichick, 261-123, .680, 9 SB, 6 titles

Marty Schottenheimer 200-126-1, .613, 0 SB, 0 titles
Andy Reid, 195-124-1, .611, 1 SB, 0 titles
Dan Reeves, 190-165-2, .535, 4 SB, 0 titles
Jeff Fisher, 173-165-1, .512, 1 SB, 0 titles
Bill Parcells, 172-130-1, .569, 3 SB, 2 titles
Tom Coughlin, 170-150, .531, 2 SB, 2 titles
Mike Shanahan, 170-138, .552, 2 SB, 2 titles
Mike Holmgren, 161-111, .592, 3 SB, 1 title
Joe Gibbs, 154-94, .621, 4 SB, 3 titles
Bill Cower, 149-90-1, .623, 2 SB, 1 title
Tony Dungy,  139-69, .668, 1 SB, 1 title
John Fox, 133-123, .520, 2 SB, 0 titles
Marvin Lewis, 131-122-3, .518, 0 SB, 0 titles
Mike McCarthy, 125-77-2, .618, 1 SB, 1 title
Jim Mora, 125-106, .541, 0 SB, 0 titles
Mike Tomlin, 125-66-1, .654, 2 SB, 1 title
Pete Carroll, 122-85-1, .589, 2 SB, 1 title
Dick Vermeil, 120-109, .524, 2 SB, 1 title
Sean Payton, 118-74, .615, 1 SB, 1 title
George Seifert, 116-62, .648, 2 SB, 2 titles
Norv Turner, 114-122-1, .483, 0 SB, 0 titles
Dennis Green, 113-94, .546, 0 SB, 0 titles
John Harbaugh, 104-72, .591, 1 SB, 1 title

That's all the coaches that have coached at some point in the 2000's with at least 100 wins. So from those, who else would people pick for the Top 5 coaches from the past 20 or so years?

Gibbs, Parcells, Shanahan, and Holmgren in that order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/9/2019 at 10:36 AM, Just Win Baby said:

Thanks for confirming what I posted about you for all to see. :thumbup: 

Actually, I'll side with Boston Fred here as all the hypothetical arguments are pointless.  Brady got it done again and again.   As good a coach as BB is - the players have to perform on the field and winning in the NFL is no easy feat.

Would somebody else have succeeded in all the pressure moments we've seen over the years?  Maybe?   A couple guys could; the majority probably couldn't... How much more can you say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, DropKick said:

Actually, I'll side with Boston Fred here as all the hypothetical arguments are pointless.  Brady got it done again and again.   As good a coach as BB is - the players have to perform on the field and winning in the NFL is no easy feat.

Would somebody else have succeeded in all the pressure moments we've seen over the years?  Maybe?   A couple guys could; the majority probably couldn't... How much more can you say?

@bostonfred is the one who made the original hypothetical statement that drove that whole tangent of discussion. And that hypothetical situation was not about Brady “getting it done again and again” or “succeeding in all the pressure moments”, so your comment isn’t on point.

However, I appreciate that you said a couple guys could have done it. That’s more than bf said. 

Finally, the post you quoted wasn’t really about the tangent of discussion, it was about how bf interacts with other posters who disagree with him, especially about the Patriots, and even more especially about Brady. 

Edited by Just Win Baby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Just Win Baby said:

@bostonfred is the one who made the original hypothetical statement that drove that whole tangent of discussion. And that hypothetical situation was not about Brady “getting it done again and again” or “succeeding in all the pressure moments”, so your comment isn’t on point.

However, I appreciate that you said a couple guys could have done it. That’s more than bf said. 

Finally, the post you quoted wasn’t really about the tangent of discussion, it was about how bf interacts with other posters who disagree with him, especially about the Patriots, and even more especially about Brady. 

There you go again, with the difference between could and would. 

I said repeatedly that other guys could have won those games, but i take issue with your unsupported statements that several guys would have, including a guy who actually didn't under remarkably similar circumstances. 

It's pretty clear what your opinion is. You don't think there's anything special about doing really good things in pressure situations, so in your mind, there's lots of quarterbacks who could do the same thing.  That might be an over simplification, but that's what it boils down to.  

The whole point of sports is to see a bunch of guys who could win compete to answer the question of who actually would win.  There's a multi billion dollar industry devoted to answering the difference between could and would. 

I'm sure you still think you're right, in large part because in your mind you still think i've said things like "nobody else could have done that". It's why i stopped engaging with you on this until you decided to @ me. It's ok. You're probably good at other things. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, bostonfred said:

It's pretty clear what your opinion is. You don't think there's anything special about doing really good things in pressure situations, so in your mind, there's lots of quarterbacks who could do the same thing.  That might be an over simplification, but that's what it boils down to.  

False. I think it is special, but I think more than one guy can do really good things in pressure situations, given the best coaching in the NFL.

It's pretty clear that, despite being the best coach in NFL history, you don't think Belichick would coach another great QB to the same two playoff wins the Pats had this year to get to the Super Bowl. I'm pretty sure you are on an island on that one.

5 hours ago, bostonfred said:

It's why i stopped engaging with you on this

You stopped engaging because you lost the debate despite writing 1000 words about Andrew Luck that you think constitutes "proof" of a hypothetical situation.

5 hours ago, bostonfred said:

I'm sure you still think you're right

Correct. :thumbup: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Just Win Baby said:

despite writing 1000 words about Andrew Luck that you think constitutes "proof" of a hypothetical situation.

Again, there's no burden of proof for me to prove your claim.  You claimed another qb would have done it.  When pressed you specifically said luck would. 

That's an ideal test case for your claim.  The teams allowed the exact same number of points, they both have strong interior o lines, small wr1, weaker secondary receivers, and strong tight ends.

So the question is why would coaching alone have changed it so luck scored 37 points instead of 13?

And your answer was 

On 2/9/2019 at 10:15 AM, Just Win Baby said:

You did not eliminate all variables except the offense. You did not eliminate coaching, which is the most significant reason for anyone to believe that a QB like Luck would perform better on the Pats than on the Colts and is the point of this entire tangent.

I also mentioned several other QBs. Let's eliminate Luck from the conversation since you refuse to concede that his Colts game has no bearing on the hypothetical. 

That's it.  Your entire oafish argument boils down to coaching would have changed it because coaching would have changed it, so let's change the subject.  

Lol at saying i stopped engaging because i lost the debate. You said coaching would have changed everything, i gave you a nearly perfect example to prove your claim, and you still don't even understand what the argument was about.

This wasn't your victory, it was your concession speech. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...