Brady is washed up

[Ghost12]

If Brady was in NE, they would still be struggling somewhat. They would probably have a better record, but still not be one of the top teams.

This is true, but it is because NE literally has the worst receivers in the League. It is not, as so many erroneously said last year, because Brady is washed up.

 

[Pape]

I think this pretty much ends the "was it Brady or Belechek" debate.

You think its over? Its barely just begun.

Besides, there is no one to one comparison between the two. One is a player, one is a coach/gm.... completely two different sets of circumstances to evaluate here...

 

[atlantacowboy]

You think its over? Its barely just begun.

Besides, there is no one to one comparison between the two. One is a player, one is a coach/gm.... completely two different sets of circumstances to evaluate here...

This is actually the best year to evaluate who deserves the lions share of credit for the Patriot dynasty. If Brady can elevate a perennially mediocre team to a super bowl contender while Belechek is struggling, i'd say that speaks volumes about Brady.

 

[DoctorChicken]

Unlike others here I don’t think Belichick has lost it. He’s adjusting to not having the GOAT QB anymore. He went 11-5 without Brady a few years ago anyway when Brady got hurt.

Tom is the GOAT, but he’s not solely responsible for winning 6 damn Super Bowls. Bill is obviously one of the best coaches ever.

 

[Pape]

This is actually the best year to evaluate who deserves the lions share of credit for the Patriot dynasty. If Brady can elevate a perennially mediocre team to a super bowl contender while Belechek is struggling, i'd say that speaks volumes about Brady.

Its not the same thing Atlanta...

Brady was able to get together with players in the off season... much was made about him getting together for throwing sessions, meeting the the tampa OC... And Brady going to a perennial mediocre team, who was chock full of offensive weapons

and in New England, all otas were cancelled etc, camp was restricted, teams and players locked out of facilities, players opting out of contracts because of covid, ad nauseum...

and this is the level playing field you want to use to determine who is more responsible for the dynasty?

The argument has just begun... the answer is not going to be determined in 8 games, or 16 games... Gotta let it all play out... then you will have your answer

(answer to the question: its both of them)

 

[atlantacowboy]

Its not the same thing Atlanta...

Brady was able to get together with players in the off season... much was made about him getting together for throwing sessions, meeting the the tampa OC... And Brady going to a perennial mediocre team, who was chock full of offensive weapons

and in New England, all otas were cancelled etc, camp was restricted, teams and players locked out of facilities, players opting out of contracts because of covid, ad nauseum...

and this is the level playing field you want to use to determine who is more responsible for the dynasty?

The argument has just begun... the answer is not going to be determined in 8 games, or 16 games... Gotta let it all play out... then you will have your answer

(answer to the question: its both of them)

In regard to Tampa, a lot of teams in this league have offensive weapons but without that intangible leadership on the field, it amounts to nothing. Brady was the engine of the NE machine and we can now see the reality of life without Brady in the huddle or on the sideline. Brady has the effect of making those players around him better. Thats what we saw in NE with what would be a scrub bunch of WRs and Rbs, and thats now what we are seeing in Tampa as that team comes together and improves every week.

Tampa didn't have otas either. There camps were restricted too which should have caused them more problem given Brady had no familiarity with that team or offensive system.

I agree the conclusion I have drawn thus far can change as the evidence on the field changes. But all arrows are pointing to Brady at this point.

 

[Ghost12]

Unlike others here I don’t think Belichick has lost it. He’s adjusting to not having the GOAT QB anymore. He went 11-5 without Brady a few years ago anyway when Brady got hurt.

Tom is the GOAT, but he’s not solely responsible for winning 6 damn Super Bowls. Bill is obviously one of the best coaches ever.

I believe Belichick is a great coach. When he had the tools, he had tremendous success.

But if you take away Tom Brady, what’s left over in his head coaching career is very unimpressive. He is something like 8 games under .500 and has 1 single playoff win in about 7 years.

 

[Kevinicus]

Well I'd say today pretty much wraps up the "Brady v. Belichick" debate....

I don't think it does.
I mean, that specific debate assumes one or the other wasn't that good.
Brady has a wealth of talent around him on offense, and a good defense. He, and that team should be good.
Belichick has been hit hard with injuries and opt outs. Some struggle is expected. NE has struggled in the past with Brady for stints as well and then gone on huge runs. We'll see.

 

[Ghost12]

I don't think it does.
I mean, that specific debate assumes one or the other wasn't that good.
Brady has a wealth of talent around him on offense, and a good defense. He, and that team should be good.
Belichick has been hit hard with injuries and opt outs. Some struggle is expected. NE has struggled in the past with Brady for stints as well and then gone on huge runs. We'll see.

They never struggled like this. They never lost 3 in a row under Brady. They were never 2 games below .500 under Brady except for the 0-2 he inherited way back in ‘01.

 

[Kevinicus]

They never struggled like this. They never lost 3 in a row under Brady. They were never 2 games below .500 under Brady except for the 0-2 he inherited way back in ‘01.

They lost 4 in a row in 2002. They were 2-4 to finish up 2019.

They've never had this many of their key players out.

 

[GenoT]

This is true, but it is because NE literally has the worst receivers in the League. It is not, as so many erroneously said last year, because Brady is washed up.

Not to mention, with basically the same corps of receivers in 2019 (Edelman and a cast of mediocrity), Brady led NE to a 12-4 record.

 

[Ghost12]

They lost 4 in a row in 2002. They were 2-4 to finish up 2019.

OK my bad on the consecutive losses thing, but I guess it still stands they were never 2 games under .500 since the team Brady inherited.

They've never had this many of their key players out.

Excuses, excuses, excuses.

Bill Belichick is something like 10 games under .500 with all of 1 playoff win without Brady.

 

[chagus]

I watched the highlights of Buc v Raiders and yeah... Brady can still sling the heck outta the ball.

 

[Kevinicus]

OK my bad on the consecutive losses thing, but I guess it still stands they were never 2 games under .500 since the team Brady inherited.

Excuses, excuses, excuses.

Bill Belichick is something like 10 games under .500 with all of 1 playoff win without Brady.

If you go with Cleveland where he had a rebuild and moving team.

Fact is, the Patriots, with Brady finished 2019 with the same record they started 2020...2-4. That's without opt outs and decimated OL in 2019 (and their starting QB out against the reigning SB champs).

 

[Ghost12]

If you go with Cleveland where he had a rebuild and moving team.

Excuses, excuses, excuses.... he was there 5 years. You don’t get to blame a “rebuild” for 5 mediocre seasons.

Fact is, the Patriots, with Brady finished 2019 with the same record they started 2020...2-4. That's without opt outs and decimated OL in 2019 (and their starting QB out against the reigning SB champs).

Lol..!! That’s some mighty fine cherry picking to take a team that was 12-4 and isolate their final 6 games. Tell me, which of those 6 games did they lose 33-6..?

I checked the stats and unless my math is mistaken (which it certainly may be) Belichick is currently 11 games under .500 for his career in games not started by Tom Brady, with 1 playoff win. By tonight that number will be either 10 or 12.

 

[mattjames2010]

BB is still a fantastic coach, but draft misses has really hurt him. And in the league today, you need a capable QB. Newton sucks, honestly, he was only ever "pretty good" and his MVP season was a load of BS.

Patriots should be giving away some picks for Hurts. It seems BB wants a QB like that.

 

[Kevinicus]

Excuses, excuses, excuses.... he was there 5 years. You don’t get to blame a “rebuild” for 5 mediocre seasons.

Lol..!! That’s some mighty fine cherry picking to take a team that was 12-4 and isolate their final 6 games. Tell me, which of those 6 games did they lose 33-6..?

I checked the stats and unless my math is mistaken (which it certainly may be) Belichick is currently 11 games under .500 for his career in games not started by Tom Brady, with 1 playoff win. By tonight that number will be either 10 or 12.

Wait...a rebuild from garbage to a playoff team (in the 90's) doesn't need excuses.

It's cherry picking to compare the last 6 games to the most recent 6 games before that? Come on man. You're not interested in making a genuine argument here.

 

[Ghost12]

Wait...a rebuild from garbage to a playoff team (in the 90's) doesn't need excuses.

Those Browns were in the Conference Championship game 3 of the 5 years prior to Belichick's arrival. So it wasn't quite the tremendous rebuild you are trying to make it sound like. Plus he was there 5 years. If you want to give him some leeway in year 1, fine... but you can't just throw away 5 full years as if they never happened.

To quote you: Come on, man. You're not even interested in making a genuine argument here.

It's cherry picking to compare the last 6 games to the most recent 6 games before that? Come on man. You're not interested in making a genuine argument here.

Yes, it is cherry picking to isolate 6 games from a 16 game season. Hell, you may as well say they were 0-1 in their last game last year.

FACT: They were 12-4 last year, then lost in the playoffs. They are 2-4 this year (as I write this since the Buffalo game is not over). 12-4 is better than 2-4.

 

[nightrain]

Brady is an enigma.

 

[Kevinicus]

Those Browns were in the Conference Championship game 3 of the 5 years prior to Belichick's arrival. So it wasn't quite the tremendous rebuild you are trying to make it sound like. Plus he was there 5 years. If you want to give him some leeway in year 1, fine... but you can't just throw away 5 full years as if they never happened.

To quote you: Come on, man. You're not even interested in making a genuine argument here.
Yes, it is cherry picking to isolate 6 games from a 16 game season. Hell, you may as well say they were 0-1 in their last game last year.

FACT: They were 12-4 last year, then lost in the playoffs. They are 2-4 this year (as I write this since the Buffalo game is not over). 12-4 is better than 2-4.

It's The. most. Recent. Thus, the most apt comparison. It's 6 games because that is how many the Pats had played this year. It is the epitome of NOT cherry picking. It is the closest to apples to apples you're going to get.

What Cleveland was several (up to 5) years before Belichick is not relevant. What they were when he took over is what matters. And you are acting luke they sucked for 5 years.

They were a terrible team when he got them (and going the wrong direction), he worked them up from there to a good team...and then the owner pulled the rug out from under the city. It's not that complicated.

And it was the 90's. Teams didn't make huge dramatic shifts from 3-13 to 12-4 back then. Things took time.