Who deserves more credit for the Patriots' success: Brady or Belichick?

[y*so*blu]

1 hour ago, BleedTheClock said:

? This thread gets posted every 6 months. And it’s a stupid argument anyways. They’re both elite and there no right answer to the question. 

QFT. It's a case of two guys who are very good at what they do working brilliantly together for almost 20 years, and that's all that really matters. Seeing one without the other won't settle anything.

I suggest one big Brady/Belichick thread in the Comparison section, set aside for the few members who still see any point to discussing it.

[Bolts223]

Belichick.

For one thing - Belichick is who drafted Brady and kept him as the 4th QB on the roster in 2000. (Something most HC's would not have done)

He also had the balls to keep him as starter over a long time franchise QB in Bledsoe which is also something not many Head Coaches would have done.

As good as Brady is he was ultimately one of 53 players on the Patriots roster each year. Belichick as the head coach and GM consistently put together and coached teams that were SB caliber year after year for almost two decades. 

Edited April 6, 2020 by Bolts223

[DannyB]

32 minutes ago, Elky said:

Why can't it equally be both? This is like asking what makes a cake taste better between the icing and the actual cake.

the actual cake but ok

[lancerman]

It’s both. You can’t have that success without an elite QB and an elite coach. 
 

Belichick can’t beat the Panthers, Seahawks or Falcons without Brady pulling off masterclass performances. Same with 2018 playing lights out to go toe to toe with Mahomes at Arrowhead. You could also argue there’s no QB that in year one could have taken control of a team like that and went against one of the greatest teams ever and pulled off that ice cold drive. 
 

Likewise Brady didn’t beat the Rams the second time without Belichick and despite his drive the first time his defense needed to hold them to something manageable. And while he played out of his mind vs Seattle and Atlanta, you needed a highly disciplined defense to keep them in the game at the end after having struggles and plays like Butler’s interception or Hightower’s strip sack. 
 

It’s both. 

[Phinsesq]

Not sold on Brady being the "goat" (but I get the argument) but I am sold on Bill Belichick being the "Goat" (Sorry Shula). Super Bowls are won by teams. Don't get me wrong, having a "Tom Brady" definitely helps but it comes down to the team and those are Superbowl teams that Belichick put together and coached up. I can see them winning just as many Super Bowls with an Aaron Rodgers, Peyton Manning etc etc. But I don't think they win that many with a different coach. All that said, aside from being a great QB, Brady deserves some credit in Belichik's success in playing below market value for years allowing the cap room for Belichik to put Super Bowl teams together. Whether those extra dollars made the difference between a Superbowl win or loss is unknown to me, but credit where credit is due.     

[Jeezla]

Bill. I doubt Brady could have pulled off all that cheating by himself.

[Kiwibrown]

1 hour ago, Bolts223 said:

Belichick.

For one thing - Belichick is who drafted Brady and kept him as the 4th QB on the roster in 2000. (Something most HC's would not have done)

He also had the balls to keep him as starter over a long time franchise QB in Bledsoe which is also something not many Head Coaches would have done.

As good as Brady is he was ultimately one of 53 players on the Patriots roster each year. Belichick as the head coach and GM consistently put together and coached teams that were SB caliber year after year for almost two decades. 

Should have stuck with Bledsoe, better arm.

[Bolts223]

 

27 minutes ago, Phinsesq said:

Not sold on Brady being the "goat" (but I get the argument) but I am sold on Bill Belichick being the "Goat" (Sorry Shula). Super Bowls are won by teams. Don't get me wrong, having a "Tom Brady" definitely helps but it comes down to the team and those are Superbowl teams that Belichick put together and coached up. I can see them winning just as many Super Bowls with an Aaron Rodgers, Peyton Manning etc etc. But I don't think they win that many with a different coach. All that said, aside from being a great QB, Brady deserves some credit in Belichik's success in playing below market value for years allowing the cap room for Belichik to put Super Bowl teams together. Whether those extra dollars made the difference between a Superbowl win or loss is unknown to me, but credit where credit is due.     

I think this is the most important point.

I tend to side on the "yes" side of the argument of whether or not Brady is the GOAT QB, but I don't think he's that much better than a Montana, PM, Rodgers, Unitas, etc. I think that a lot of the elite QB's of the last 20 years would have won a ton of Super Bowl's if they were on the Patriots.

But I don't think it's really even debatable that Belichick isn't the great head coach of all time. Plenty of coaches have had elite QB play for a sustained period of time and none of them have even come close to the level of success Belichick and the Patriots have achieved. And the Patriots are doing it in an era which the rules are literally designed to prevent dynasties from happening.

Edited April 6, 2020 by Bolts223

[TecmoSuperJoe]

48 minutes ago, Bolts223 said:

 

I think this is the most important point.

I tend to side on the "yes" side of the argument of whether or not Brady is the GOAT QB, but I don't think he's that much better than a Montana, PM, Rodgers, Unitas, etc. I think that a lot of the elite QB's of the last 20 years would have won a ton of Super Bowl's if they were on the Patriots.

But I don't think it's really even debatable that Belichick isn't the great head coach of all time. Plenty of coaches have had elite QB play for a sustained period of time and none of them have even come close to the level of success Belichick and the Patriots have achieved. And the Patriots are doing it in an era which the rules are literally designed to prevent dynasties from happening.

Gibbs got 3 rings with 3 non HOF QBs. Pretty impressive. 

[Bolts223]

2 minutes ago, PapaShogun said:

Gibbs got 3 rings with 3 non HOF QBs. Pretty impressive. 

Yes but it was pre-Salary cap and FA.

The fact that the Patriots have been able to dominate this much for this long is absolutely unbelievable considering the year to year turnover in players and coaches.

I take nothing away from Gibbs but I still think what Belichick has managed to do with the Pats is far more impressive.

Edited April 6, 2020 by Bolts223

[EvilenFroggen]

For the first time ever we’ll get a chance to find out...and immediately ruin it by overreacting to every little detail completely out of context. 
 

(Stidham bobbles a snap)

The public: Hooded fraud. 

Edited April 6, 2020 by DaveDX

[TecmoSuperJoe]

4 hours ago, Bolts223 said:

Yes but it was pre-Salary cap and FA.

The fact that the Patriots have been able to dominate this much for this long is absolutely unbelievable considering the year to year turnover in players and coaches.

I take nothing away from Gibbs but I still think what Belichick has managed to do with the Pats is far more impressive.

True, but all teams did have the same advantage of building up a squad for sustained success. Like the Giants, Cowboys, 49ers, and Bears. Redskins didn't have to deal with a salary cap, but they still had to deal with stacked squads in their way to a Super Bowl. I think I'd take Tom Brady in my pocket in a salary cap era, compared to finding someone like him in a non-salary cap era. 

I guess despite the hardware for Bill, it's not that clear, cut, and dry to me. I know for a lot of people it is though. 

Edited April 7, 2020 by PapaShogun

[Bolts223]

11 minutes ago, PapaShogun said:

True, but all teams did have the same advantage of building up a squad for sustained success. Like the Giants, Cowboys, 49ers, and Bears. Redskins didn't have to deal with a salary cap, but they still had to deal with stacked squads in their way to a Super Bowl. I think I'd take Tom Brady in my pocket in a salary cap era, compared to finding someone like him in a non-salary cap era. 

I guess despite the hardware for Bill, it's not that clear, cut, and dry to me. I know for a lot of people it is though. 

I understand that, but it's still easier to sustain success once you acquire a strong core of players - therefore making the possibility of winning multiple Super Bowl's in a few years a lot more likely.

And it's not like the Pats didn't have to deal with any tough teams in their conference during the last 20 years. The Steelers/Ravens/PM Colts/PM Broncos/Mahomes & Reid Chiefs have all been extremely good teams that the Pats have had to deal with at one point or another .

[Blackstar12]

Belichick slightly Brady is the GOAT QB but he’s still one out of 53 players on a roster. I don’t care how great you are if the roster isn’t balanced overall you aren’t going to have much success. That’s where belichick gets the nod over Brady.

Edited April 8, 2020 by Blackstar12

[TecmoSuperJoe]

20 minutes ago, Bolts223 said:

I understand that, but it's still easier to sustain success once you acquire a strong core of players - therefore making the possibility of winning multiple Super Bowl's in a few years a lot more likely.

And it's not like the Pats didn't have to deal with any tough teams in their conference during the last 20 years. The Steelers/Ravens/PM Colts/PM Broncos/Mahomes & Reid Chiefs have all been extremely good teams that the Pats have had to deal with at one point or another .

True, but playing in a pathetic division and acquiring homefield advantage almost every year partly because of that is a huge bonus that no other team in the league has had the last 20 years. Maybe ever in that span. They did have to deal with tough teams at times yes, but usually at their place. 

Edited April 7, 2020 by PapaShogun