Bill Belichick is a Facade. Not a good coach!

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

On 8/14/2023 at 7:29 PM, justforbeer said:

Nope, he was only good because he had the greatest QB ever.

 

IMO there’s a decent chance Brady wouldn’t have been drafted & wouldn’t have made an active roster barring some Warner-like circumstances elsewhere. Brady played with some of the best defenses & special teams of his time in NE.  
 

Same debate going on with Payton & Brees, Brees also looks better & better with every Payton failure. I think it’s possible the game has just passed these guys by & there’s no shame in that, it happened to the best of the best when they stayed around too long.

[seafoam1 1,879]

On 8/14/2023 at 8:29 PM, justforbeer said:

Just feel like Ranting as I heard it again today.

Bill is the greatest nfl coach ever.

Nope, he was only good because he had the greatest QB ever.

First 5 years with Cleveland…..1 winning season.  He was bad.

First year in NE, 5-11….No Brady.

Then Brady wins the SB 6 TIMES.  Leaves and NE has been a .500 team since. For 3 years!

Brady leaves and wins a SB with Tampa which confirms it all.

The Patriot way and Bill B is a Facade. End of rant!

Dan Marino was a pretty good QB and the coach never won a SB with him. 

Just because a coach doesn't win every year in his coaching career doesn't make him bad. It's just how the league works. 

[Ray_T 591]

On 8/16/2023 at 8:22 AM, TBayXXXVII said:

Yup.

But I will make the caveat that when people ask "Who was more responsible for the Patriots... Belichick or Brady", the answer is Brady.  Just like the answer was Jordan, Shaq, and Kobe.  That doesn't mean their coaches were overrated though, because the teams still won.  As you said, other coaches have good and great players and never win.

honestly, in any given year, there are probably 3 or 4 Great teams that dont win.

the talent will only take you so far.   You still need a mastermind that will put together a gameplan that will allow you to use your talent to the best of its ability.

so the fact that the Pats have won as many superbowls as they have is quite impressive.   Sure the team isnt playing well today but that team has been at the top of the league for the better part of the last 15 years prior.   you are bound to have a bad year or two.      Thats the way it goes.  Most teams have  a window of 3-4 years to win a superbowl once they assemble the talent.    They stayed on top for quite some time.   at the very least you gotta give Bill the credit for not mucking it up.  but in reality, Hes most definitely a HOF coach.    

once again I will point out that some of the comments are about Bill Belichick the GM and not Belichick the coach.  

[TBayXXXVII 2,117]

1 hour ago, Ray_T said:

honestly, in any given year, there are probably 3 or 4 Great teams that dont win.

the talent will only take you so far.   You still need a mastermind that will put together a gameplan that will allow you to use your talent to the best of its ability.

so the fact that the Pats have won as many superbowls as they have is quite impressive.   Sure the team isnt playing well today but that team has been at the top of the league for the better part of the last 15 years prior.   you are bound to have a bad year or two.      Thats the way it goes.  Most teams have  a window of 3-4 years to win a superbowl once they assemble the talent.    They stayed on top for quite some time.   at the very least you gotta give Bill the credit for not mucking it up.  but in reality, Hes most definitely a HOF coach.    

once again I will point out that some of the comments are about Bill Belichick the GM and not Belichick the coach.  

I don't disagree with your premise, I just think that we've seen 9+ seasons of Belichick without Brady and his post-season record in those 9 years (soon to be 10), is 1-2.  Assuming another losing season, he'll have had a losing season in 7 of those 10 seasons.  Generally, you can't win a Super Bowl without good coaching.  You can, however win a Super Bowl without a good QB... but, those 7 Patriots Super Bowls are more because of Brady than Belichick.  That said, I still think Belichick is a great coach.  I just think that in the 20 years without Brady, Belichick maxes out at 2 rings and Brady maxes out with at least that, if not more.  Heck, we saw him win a championship with mediocre to below average coaching in 2020.

[justforbeer 39]

21 hours ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I don't disagree with your premise, I just think that we've seen 9+ seasons of Belichick without Brady and his post-season record in those 9 years (soon to be 10), is 1-2.  Assuming another losing season, he'll have had a losing season in 7 of those 10 seasons.  Generally, you can't win a Super Bowl without good coaching.  You can, however win a Super Bowl without a good QB... but, those 7 Patriots Super Bowls are more because of Brady than Belichick.  That said, I still think Belichick is a great coach.  I just think that in the 20 years without Brady, Belichick maxes out at 2 rings and Brady maxes out with at least that, if not more.  Heck, we saw him win a championship with mediocre to below average coaching in 2020.

Pats have 6, Brady has 7 SB rings.

You are right about how bad Belichick is without Brady.  It shows he would have won nothing without him.  In 10 seasons without, he sucks! Look how bad they are this year! We all just forgot how bad he was in Cleveland and how he ruins QB's.  The only truly successful QB is Brady.  Ask Kosar and Bledsoe what they think of BB.

Belichick has a great record and lots of rings, but he is not a good coach.  He was SOOOOO lucky to have Tom.  The facts are clear as day.

[seafoam1 1,879]

On 10/17/2023 at 11:30 AM, justforbeer said:

Losing season for the pats for sure……Coach fired?

Sure. They can hire Eberflus after the Bears launch him. 

[IGotWorms 3,315]

The game has passed him by. And it’s no surprise — NFL coaches never accomplish anything past 70.

If anybody disproves that rule, it’s going to be Pete Carroll.

Of course, it is possible that Belichick would never have been more than mediocre (possibly at best) without Brady. 2009 (the Matt Cassell year) possibly disproves that but really, we’ll likely never know

[seafoam1 1,879]

7 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

The game has passed him by. And it’s no surprise — NFL coaches never accomplish anything past 70.

If anybody disproves that rule, it’s going to be Pete Carroll.

Of course, it is possible that Belichick would never have been more than mediocre (possibly at best) without Brady. 2009 (the Matt Cassell year) possibly disproves that but really, we’ll likely never know

I guess Andy Reid has 5 more years until he sucks. 

[IGotWorms 3,315]

2 hours ago, seafoam1 said:

I guess Andy Reid has 5 more years until he sucks. 

Basically yes.

Ironically it was Belichick himself who once noted the age 70 dropoff and swore he wouldn’t be like Marv Levy 

[seafoam1 1,879]

Just now, IGotWorms said:

Basically yes.

Ironically it was Belichick himself who once noted the age 70 dropoff and swore he wouldn’t be like Marv Levy 

Now lets do president of the US. Biden anyone? 

[IGotWorms 3,315]

5 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

Now lets do president of the US. Biden anyone? 

Your butt buddy you’d die for and whose cack you suck on a daily basis is also well over 70, bub  

[seafoam1 1,879]

10 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Your butt buddy you’d die for and whose cack you suck on a daily basis is also well over 70, bub  

Biden is 80. And I don't like pedophiles like you do. Shower with your daughter lately, pedo boy? 

Let's not go down your gross hatred road. Clean it up dude. We can all move on to football. 

[IGotWorms 3,315]

2 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

Biden is 80. And I don't like pedophiles like you do. Shower with your daughter lately, pedo boy? 

You’re a disgusting freak

[seafoam1 1,879]

3 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

You’re a disgusting freak

Believe all women. Even Biden's daughter.

Belichick will kick ass. He has and will moving forward. All coaches and humans in general have down periods.

[justforbeer 39]

Gentleman,

less politics in anything is better.  Remember this!

 

if everyone would start to realize that politics is just today’s crack and you’re hooked. And the media is your pimp.

yes, once you realize, mind blown!

[IGotWorms 3,315]

3 hours ago, seafoam1 said:

Believe all women. Even Biden's daughter.

Belichick will kick ass. He has and will moving forward. All coaches and humans in general have down periods.

As a Patriots fan, I hope you are right.

But as a realist, I think it’s probably over for him. At least in New England.

Of course getting that sucky ass Mac jones out of there would help. They should tank for a top pick. But even then, this team has looked bad top to bottom. Offense, defense and special teams. 

[crackills 19]

thats dumb..

Nobody wins 6 superbowls by luck, just by having a great QB

Its just NFL was different back then... The way Bill won years ago is no longer feasible. NFL changed, O systems changed.

In his day you could win with a great D, good Running game and solid O line, clutch QB. That's not the recipe anymore. 

More likely scenario is that the NFL has passed Bill by and he refuses to adopt the new O minded thinking. That doesnt take away from what he accomplished up to this point. 

 

[TBayXXXVII 2,117]

18 minutes ago, crackills said:

Its just NFL was different back then... The way Bill won years ago is no longer feasible. NFL changed, O systems changed.

This argument doesn't fly.  The NFL changed their rules in 2007, the Patriots were 3-2 in Super Bowls from 2011 to 2019.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

47 minutes ago, crackills said:

thats dumb..

Nobody wins 6 superbowls by luck, just by having a great QB

Its just NFL was different back then... The way Bill won years ago is no longer feasible. NFL changed, O systems changed.

In his day you could win with a great D, good Running game and solid O line, clutch QB. That's not the recipe anymore. 

More likely scenario is that the NFL has passed Bill by and he refuses to adopt the new O minded thinking. That doesnt take away from what he accomplished up to this point. 

 

Very well said.

How he won in ‘01 - ‘04, that’s long since dead.

What’s pretty amazing is that he WAS able to completely readapt and win another three a decade later. Yes, with the GOAT, but still. That’s amazing.

Now he’s on the wrong side of 70 and it’s just over. Makes me sad but it was inevitable and really there’s no shame in it

[IGotWorms 3,315]

30 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

This argument doesn't fly.  The NFL changed their rules in 2007, the Patriots were 3-2 in Super Bowls from 2011 to 2019.

Right. He managed to adapt and have ANOTHER streak of amazing success. That’s why he’s an instant hall of famer, even considering that he had the GOAT at qb.

But the league has since changed again and this time he can’t keep up, yet alone is he anywhere near the forefront as he has been in the past. That’s when you know it’s time to hang em up

[Hardcore troubadour 12,653]

Brady fit the game manager role for the first three Super Bowls. They won running the ball, defense and outstanding special teams and the most clutch FG kicker ever. It’s like some of you didn’t watch those years. It wasn’t Brady that shut down the Rams. 

[justforbeer 39]

Brady was on the field, not BB. 

HE RODE BRADYS COATTAILS!

 

The defining point is that he sucked before Brady for Years!! Do your research! It’s clear as day. 

[easilyscan 559]

On 10/20/2023 at 12:38 PM, crackills said:

thats dumb..

Nobody wins 6 superbowls by luck, just by having a great QB

Its just NFL was different back then... The way Bill won years ago is no longer feasible. NFL changed, O systems changed.

In his day you could win with a great D, good Running game and solid O line, clutch QB. That's not the recipe anymore. 

More likely scenario is that the NFL has passed Bill by and he refuses to adopt the new O minded thinking. That doesnt take away from what he accomplished up to this point. 

 

A+

[Hardcore troubadour 12,653]

4 hours ago, justforbeer said:

Brady was on the field, not BB. 

HE RODE BRADYS COATTAILS!

 

The defining point is that he sucked before Brady for Years!! Do your research! It’s clear as day. 

Brady played defense? What position ? 

[justforbeer 39]

8 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Brady played defense? What position ? 

That is irrelevant.  
What position did BB play? 
 

bottom line is this.  When Brady is not around, BB is garbage.

[RoadLizard 73]

On 8/14/2023 at 8:29 PM, justforbeer said:

Just feel like Ranting as I heard it again today.

Bill is the greatest nfl coach ever.

Nope, he was only good because he had the greatest QB ever.

First 5 years with Cleveland…..1 winning season.  He was bad.

First year in NE, 5-11….No Brady.

Then Brady wins the SB 6 TIMES.  Leaves and NE has been a .500 team since. For 3 years!

Brady leaves and wins a SB with Tampa which confirms it all.

The Patriot way and Bill B is a Facade. End of rant!

Incorrect.  Brady rode the coat tails of Bills insane defenses/scheming early on.  Brady was a Trent Dilfer 2.0 for the first half of his career.  The data says so.  Dink-dunk passing and very mundane stats(along with amazingly incredible luck/other stuff).  Any reasonably competent QB would have won a lot of games/titles with those early 2000's Patriots teams.  The ENTIRE Patriots team has gotten worse.  You think Brady would be winning with the current NE roster?  C'mon.  They'd still be 2-5, maybe 3-4 at best.  They would NOT be contenders whatsoever. 

Sure, Bill seems to have lost a step per se.  He cant draft, evaluate talent properly, wont sign quality free agents to help the offense and feels outdated.  That being said, adding Brady to this current Pats team does nothing to make them much better.  7-8 teams in the AFC would still be tangibly better.  More facts.

[seafoam1 1,879]

I guess head coaches have to win the superbowl once every 2 or 3 years throughout their whole career to be considered good coaches. 

And no good coaches can have good QBs on their team.

[Ray_T 591]

3 hours ago, RoadLizard said:

Sure, Bill seems to have lost a step per se.  He cant draft, evaluate talent properly, wont sign quality free agents to help the offense and feels outdated.  That being said, adding Brady to this current Pats team does nothing to make them much better.  7-8 teams in the AFC would still be tangibly better.  More facts.

ok now we are getting into a different issue.   the issue is how is he as a coach.

how he drafts would reflect on how he is as a GM.   it has little to do with how he is as a coach.   Naturally there is a bit of crossover but in general the talent he brings in is a reflection of how he is as a GM.

how the team performs relative to the talent on the field reflects how he is as a coach.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,653]

10 hours ago, justforbeer said:

That is irrelevant.  
What position did BB play? 
 

bottom line is this.  When Brady is not around, BB is garbage.

Won 11 games in 2008 when Brady was out for the season in game one. Not garbage. 

[seafoam1 1,879]

I don't get the attacking of belichick. All he did was turn garbage players into winning players and turn great playing headcases into championships. 

[Ray_T 591]

2 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Won 11 games in 2008 when Brady was out for the season in game one. Not garbage. 

its a silly argument anyways.

first couple superbowls were because of the top end Defense.    Certainly Brady helped, but at the time he was not considered to be the main reason for those wins at the time.

Brady was likely the main figure in the later superbowl wins.  I agree.

but once again.... the value of a coach is in how the team performs relative to their talent level.    as they won 6 superbowls, the achieved (or overachieved)   you cannot say they underachieved and as a result, you have to conclude he was a good coach in his day.

dont get me wrong.... I am not a Belicheck fan.   hes an arrogant who I hate.  but hes earned the right to be arrogant and I have accepted this.

as another poster mentioned.... the game has changed some.   while the team hasnt performed, is it because of coaching?  or a sub par QB?   you can only do so much with the talent you have.

[League Champion 1,593]

We have to ask right? He's been a horrible head coach ever since Brady left and his drafts have been God awful. He can't develop a QB (Jones has regressed)

[justforbeer 39]

Oh my…..

look, as a head coach for the Cleveland Browns from 91 to 95 which was five seasons. This was his record. 36-44. Trash!
Don’t tell me he didn’t suck as a coach during that five-years.   That was his first five years coaching.

add in his first year in New England without Brady, he was 5- 11.

so, he was 41-55 for the first six years as a coach.  Without Tom Brady! 
these last 3 1/2 years, he is sub500 again. No Tom Brady.

How is that good? He is not a good coach.
 

also, the first year Tom Brady was the quarterback and they won the Super Bowl. They were the number 6 scoring offense in the league. They were also the number 6 defense. The following year, the number 10 scoring offense and the number 17 scoring defense.

Don’t tell me they won because of defense. They were led by the best quarterback, which was what made the difference. You can’t argue with the fact that Tom Brady was by far the greatest quarterback ever to play this game, and to think that anybody didn’t benefit from his success, you’re crazy. Especially the coach.

The fact is any coach would have won, it didn’t matter who the coach was. In fact, if Bledsoe didn’t get hurt, Brady may never have gotten his chance because Belichick cannot evaluate quarterbacks. 

 

So many of you are giving so much credit to BB because of the record he had when Tom Brady was the quarterback.  I’m telling you, he was just lucky.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

41 minutes ago, justforbeer said:

Oh my…..

look, as a head coach for the Cleveland Browns from 91 to 95 which was five seasons. This was his record. 36-44. Trash!
Don’t tell me he didn’t suck as a coach during that five-years.   That was his first five years coaching.

add in his first year in New England without Brady, he was 5- 11.

so, he was 41-55 for the first six years as a coach.  Without Tom Brady! 
these last 3 1/2 years, he is sub500 again. No Tom Brady.

How is that good? He is not a good coach.
 

also, the first year Tom Brady was the quarterback and they won the Super Bowl. They were the number 6 scoring offense in the league. They were also the number 6 defense. The following year, the number 10 scoring offense and the number 17 scoring defense.

Don’t tell me they won because of defense. They were led by the best quarterback, which was what made the difference. You can’t argue with the fact that Tom Brady was by far the greatest quarterback ever to play this game, and to think that anybody didn’t benefit from his success, you’re crazy. Especially the coach.

The fact is any coach would have won, it didn’t matter who the coach was. In fact, if Bledsoe didn’t get hurt, Brady may never have gotten his chance because Belichick cannot evaluate quarterbacks. 

 

So many of you are giving so much credit to BB because of the record he had when Tom Brady was the quarterback.  I’m telling you, he was just lucky.

Wrong, ‘01-‘04 was dominated by defense, the running game, and diamond in the rough players that Belichick found and revived. Brady was important for gotta-have-it clutch plays, but he was not the primary engine of those teams.

2014-2018 was mostly Brady, yes. But you must be too young to remember the earlier years.

[RoadLizard 73]

15 hours ago, justforbeer said:

Oh my…..

look, as a head coach for the Cleveland Browns from 91 to 95 which was five seasons. This was his record. 36-44. Trash!
Don’t tell me he didn’t suck as a coach during that five-years.   That was his first five years coaching.

add in his first year in New England without Brady, he was 5- 11.

so, he was 41-55 for the first six years as a coach.  Without Tom Brady! 
these last 3 1/2 years, he is sub500 again. No Tom Brady.

How is that good? He is not a good coach.
 

also, the first year Tom Brady was the quarterback and they won the Super Bowl. They were the number 6 scoring offense in the league. They were also the number 6 defense. The following year, the number 10 scoring offense and the number 17 scoring defense.

Don’t tell me they won because of defense. They were led by the best quarterback, which was what made the difference. You can’t argue with the fact that Tom Brady was by far the greatest quarterback ever to play this game, and to think that anybody didn’t benefit from his success, you’re crazy. Especially the coach.

The fact is any coach would have won, it didn’t matter who the coach was. In fact, if Bledsoe didn’t get hurt, Brady may never have gotten his chance because Belichick cannot evaluate quarterbacks. 

 

So many of you are giving so much credit to BB because of the record he had when Tom Brady was the quarterback.  I’m telling you, he was just lucky.

Nah, Brady was a game manager for most of the early success. It was defense, cheating and various things like Tuck rules that paved the way.  Oh and Belichicks coaching.  But you do you. LOL. Mahomes is already a better "pure" QB.  

[TBayXXXVII 2,117]

4 hours ago, RoadLizard said:

Nah, Brady was a game manager for most of the early success. It was defense, cheating and various things like Tuck rules that paved the way.  Oh and Belichicks coaching.  But you do you. LOL. Mahomes is already a better "pure" QB.  

That's a very short-sighted statement if you're trying to compare Tom Brady in Year 7 to Pat Mahomes in Year 7.

[seafoam1 1,879]

Brady by a mile over Mahomes. 

[IGotWorms 3,315]

Mahomes is pretty focking good. Gotta let his career play out more before we can say for sure

[LaChup 154]

You guys clearly have no clue and I would love to play in your leagues. If you want to know why the Patriots dominated for so many years, one must look past Brady or Belicheck. The obvious catalyst to the Patriot's success is no other than Matt Cassel.

"Despite the loss of Brady, Belichick coached the Patriots, with backup quarterback Matt Cassel under center, to a respectable 11–5 record."

[Hardcore troubadour 12,653]

A terrible division didn’t hurt.