Have the last few seasons changed your thinking on the Belichick-Brady debate?

[childofpudding]

39 minutes ago, C0LTSFAN4L1F3 said:

The first 3 Super Bowls came with dominating defenses.  From a strictly SB wins point of view, it is without a doubt the defense is more responsible especially since the in 16' they also were the #1 defense. (Obviously they don't win that SB without Brady's comeback, but still, the point still stands.) 

You were without a doubt lumping them together. I said nobody was disputing the offense's superiority, and your response was essentially: "Really? I thought people thought it was more about Belichick or 50/50." Immediately associating Belichick with the defense, being the unit that was recognized as the superior was the offense and you thought it was popular to think "otherwise" in that "it was about Belichick." 

He absolutely deserves credit as a great defensive coach. These defenses are inevitably going to be good almost irrespective of the talent level. It is extremely rare that you end up with a mediocre unit on defense for a Belichick team. Literally the only times they were outside the top 10 were in 11' and 05'. And even then, they weren't even bad, they were just mediocre. Then you have a slew of seasons where they are top 5 with some being the #1 scoring defense. quality defense, or more specifically overachieving defenses are a staple of the Patriots dynasty, and Belichick deserves credit for it. 

Meh. I already posted the numbers, and provided a comprehensive analysis for why looking at total points against in a vacuum is a mistake.

[C0LTSFAN4L1F3]

20 minutes ago, childofpudding said:

Meh. I already posted the numbers, and provided a comprehensive analysis for why looking at total points against in a vacuum is a mistake.

What you showed literally just corroborates what I'm saying. It shows that the defense across the period was good, but the offense was great. Like I said, I never, nor did anybody else, dispute that overall the offense has been the superior unit. But like I said, it is worth noting that their first 3 SB's came with dominating defenses and the 16' Superbowl came with the #1 scoring defense and #1 in D in pts/drive. 

[lancerman]

On 12/9/2018 at 8:34 PM, C0LTSFAN4L1F3 said:

They were the #1 scoring defense in 16'. I can't help but determine that "hasn't had a good defenses since 2004" is wildly inaccurate. 

And this entire forum every week in 2016 said “the Patriots never player any good QB’s and their DVOA was mediocre” nonstop all season. Then 3 quarters into the Super Bowl they were patting themselves on the back 

[lancerman]

Let’s put it this way, Belichick had one of the greatest teams ever still in tact. He had a schedule where he played two divisions where the best team of the eight of them was 9-7. His QB was actually a passable journeyman type who actually had good seasons after he left and is still in the league (aka Cassel wasn’t s bottom feeder).

They finished with a record of 11-5 which is below Brady’s career average (and this was a team whose absolute floor with Brady was 14-2) and missed the playoffs for the only time in the past 15 years. 

We could also talk about how Belichick coached 7 seasons without Brady and he only had two teams with a winning record and only one made the playoffs. We can talk about how Belichick’s best record without Brady is still below Brady’s career average. We can talk about how, without Brady, Belichick has one playoff win, while he holds the record for playoff wins, Super Bowl appearances, and Super Bowl wins with him. We can talk about how 2/3 of the time he missed the playoffs in NE were in seasons that didn’t feature Brady. 

We can talk about how even his best defensive teams still wouldn’t win Super Bowls without Brady (defense crapped the bed in the 2003 Super Bowl and they still needed Brady to drive them into field goal range in 01).

This is a QB driven league. We have a large sample size of BB without Brady. It’s mediocre at best

 

 

 

[Jlowe22]

1 hour ago, lancerman said:

Let’s put it this way, Belichick had one of the greatest teams ever still in tact. He had a schedule where he played two divisions where the best team of the eight of them was 9-7. His QB was actually a passable journeyman type who actually had good seasons after he left and is still in the league (aka Cassel wasn’t s bottom feeder).

They finished with a record of 11-5 which is below Brady’s career average (and this was a team whose absolute floor with Brady was 14-2) and missed the playoffs for the only time in the past 15 years. 

We could also talk about how Belichick coached 7 seasons without Brady and he only had two teams with a winning record and only one made the playoffs. We can talk about how Belichick’s best record without Brady is still below Brady’s career average. We can talk about how, without Brady, Belichick has one playoff win, while he holds the record for playoff wins, Super Bowl appearances, and Super Bowl wins with him. We can talk about how 2/3 of the time he missed the playoffs in NE were in seasons that didn’t feature Brady. 

We can talk about how even his best defensive teams still wouldn’t win Super Bowls without Brady (defense crapped the bed in the 2003 Super Bowl and they still needed Brady to drive them into field goal range in 01).

This is a QB driven league. We have a large sample size of BB without Brady. It’s mediocre at best

 

 

 

11-5 missed the playoffs, but that’s still a good record.  Brady makes it better, but it takes a pretty solid team to go 11-5.

Im not arguing BB is more important than Brady, I actually think in most cases the coach benefits more from the QB than vice versa.

[childofpudding]

8 hours ago, C0LTSFAN4L1F3 said:

What you showed literally just corroborates what I'm saying. It shows that the defense across the period was good, but the offense was great. Like I said, I never, nor did anybody else, dispute that overall the offense has been the superior unit. But like I said, it is worth noting that their first 3 SB's came with dominating defenses and the 16' Superbowl came with the #1 scoring defense and #1 in D in pts/drive. 

Those are good points. I dont think a "bend but dont break defense" is a dominant defense, so I disagree on 2001 and 2004. IMO a dominant defense would be top 5 in yards allowed and points allowed per drive, teams like the 00 Ravens, 03 Patriots, 08 Steelers, 13 Seahawks and 15 Broncos. I probably would include 16 Patriots, though. They were just outside that criteria and really underrated. This board **** on that defense constantly, with a lot of them saying I was crazy to say it actually performed well in the SB.

As to your latter point, I think that is a commentary on SB winners more than anything. Generally a team needs a very good defense to win. I just looked at the last five SBs, and all five winners were top 5 in points allowed per drive. There are also years when the offense carries a team into the playoffs, but then the defense plays beyond its ranking in the postseason, eg. 06 Colts.

Back to the point of the OP, I agree with most posters ITT who put it at 50/50 in terms of credit. There is a reason the team won 5 SBs and made it to half of them in  the 16 years when Brady has started (that latter stat is just crazy). It's because they have had arguably the GOAT coach and GOAT QB. #blessed

[lancerman]

1 hour ago, Jlowe22 said:

11-5 missed the playoffs, but that’s still a good record.  Brady makes it better, but it takes a pretty solid team to go 11-5.

Im not arguing BB is more important than Brady, I actually think in most cases the coach benefits more from the QB than vice versa.

Belichick coached the best team of  a generation to 11-5 with a journeyman level QB. That offense was record shattering and historic with Brady. And he did it with a cupcake schedule. 

It’s not something that really makes s great case for him. One year they needed a miracle to not have a perfect season. The next they couldn’t make the playoffs 

[Apparition]

7 hours ago, Jlowe22 said:

11-5 missed the playoffs, but that’s still a good record.  Brady makes it better, but it takes a pretty solid team to go 11-5.

Im not arguing BB is more important than Brady, I actually think in most cases the coach benefits more from the QB than vice versa.

context

11-5 is a good record but it's also a full 5 games off the pace of the previous year's team with virtually the same core of talent (minus Asante Samuel). Not to mention the league's 4th easiest schedule.

[Jlowe22]

1 hour ago, Starless said:

context

11-5 is a good record but it's also a full 5 games off the pace of the previous year's team with virtually the same core of talent (minus Asante Samuel). Not to mention the league's 4th easiest schedule.

I understand that. With Brady the team is much better, that’s not in question.

[C0LTSFAN4L1F3]

12 hours ago, childofpudding said:

As to your latter point, I think that is a commentary on SB winners more than anything. Generally a team needs a very good defense to win. I just looked at the last five SBs, and all five winners were top 5 in points allowed per drive.

I mean, yeah. Great defensive play, whether it be overachieving or playing at the same level you were in the regular season is almost a prerequisite to winning a Superbowl. The fact that the Patriots met that criteria several times and it obviously helped them win these Super Bowls, speaks to Belichick's defensive mind and his importance in all of this. 

 

14 hours ago, lancerman said:

And this entire forum every week in 2016 said “the Patriots never player any good QB’s and their DVOA was mediocre” nonstop all season. Then 3 quarters into the Super Bowl they were patting themselves on the back 

I don't really care what people were saying on this board at the time. They were #1 in points/drive and #1 in PPG. 

[SkippyX]

I don't see it as an either/or thing.

Brady is the GoaT. 

• If you still need to have Brady explained to you then I won't be the one to do it at this point.

Belichick is also the GoaT

For starters, I give you the 1980's Giants and 49ers:

• Montana beat the Giants in the playoffs in 1984 in a 21-10 game.
• The next year Parcells turned his D over to Belichick.
  • Montana went 0-3 in the playoffs vs the Belichick Giants D scoring 3, 3, and 13 points and getting badly injured twice. ('85, '86, and '90)
    • That's the guy who was the GoaT before Brady.
      • Belichick owned him.

The 1990 Bills offense was going to revolutionize football. They were 7 point favorites over the Giants.

• Belichick had his D nail Andre Reed every time he looked at the ball and shut them down in the Super Bowl.
  • They put the game plan in the Hall of Fame.

 

The Greatest Show on Turf averaged 34.4 ppg in the 2001 regular season and 37 points in their first 2 playoff games. They were 14 point favorites.

• Belichick's D held them to a net 10 points (17 - the Ty Law pick 6)

 

Pete Carroll was a clown who thought he could outsmart Belichick

• He called a 3 WR set out of a goal line offense to really mess with BB's head.
  • The Patriots calmly called for a 3 wide out goal line D package because they practice it.
  • His coaches were begging for Belichick to call a timeout there to save clock but he could sense the panic in Carroll and he let him fail.

 

One of the reasons that Atlanta could not go up 10 on a FG after the Julio catch was because they got called for holding.

• On the play before, the OT ripped Long to the ground so Long, Patricia, and BB made sure that the ref knew about it and that he rushed the same exact way on the next play.
  • They forced that holding call by playing smart, well-coached football.

 

Guys like John Harbaugh cry to the refs about BB pushing the envelope on the rules during games. (like the tackle eligible stuff in the 2014 playoffs

• Then they review the film and the rules and wind up trying the same thing the next year.

[C0LTSFAN4L1F3]

27 minutes ago, SkippyX said:

• If you still need to have Brady explained to you then I won't be the one to do it at this point

Or people could simply think otherwise and it isn't a matter of somebody needing to explain it to them. It isn't an undeniable fact, ya know. 

[SkippyX]

34 minutes ago, C0LTSFAN4L1F3 said:

Or people could simply think otherwise and it isn't a matter of somebody needing to explain it to them. It isn't an undeniable fact, ya know. 

He was the GoaT before he threw for 971 yards in the last 2 Super Bowls.

Any counter argument takes a gigantic dose of 'poor baby didn't have a good defense' or some other loser garbage.

Get back to me if Mahomes has another 12 years like this one and wins 5 Super Bowls.

 

[evilpimp972]

On 11/12/2018 at 5:59 AM, childofpudding said:

Meh. I already posted the numbers, and provided a comprehensive analysis for why looking at total points against in a vacuum is a mistake.

Elite offense don't win superbowl though, look at last year.

This was the first time Belichick failed as a coach IMO.

The two superbowls vs the Giants, it was Brady who failed. 

It goes both way but both are contributing to wins. It's QB driven league, but the best QBs aren't winning every superbowl

[The Hitch]

Brady changed my mind a bit in how well he's played into his late thirties and forties. It's been incredible.

 

But on the other hand we also did see that when they played 4 games without Brady in 2016 and still won 3 of them, despite the c qb starting two games. 

 

What's funny is that the Brady argument has for twenty years been almost entirely based on wins>>> everything and qb = whole team.

Brady has been the favourite of all those that subscribe to the hero myth of one hero always being fully responsible for something happening. 

Hence all the focus on 200 wins and 5 sb wins, with very little credit ever given to the idea that some of the other 20 players also contributed to those wins and not just the qb.

 

And now that (well especially last season) the defense has broken at times, all of a sudden the people that most strongly seem to believe that the qb deserves all of the credit for results, regardless of what anyone else does, are starting to realise that there are other players on a team as well.