That Time BB Was Wrong

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
13,215
Mansfield MA
I don't fault BB for not giving Brady the kind of contract he got from TB - I think that was the right decision.

I don't fault TB (too much) for going to TB and getting a market value contract*

* The only thing I do "fault" him for (at little bit), is putting any priority on getting a market value contract. Tom Brady, to a degree unlike any other football player ever, really doesn't need money. He could have played for Cam Newton money (just to take the absurd example) and it would not have made any material difference in his life.

There are a couple caveats to all this:

1) I don't know how Brady felt about playing for BB. If it really was a miserable experience for him, then I completely agree with his decision to leave.

2) Coming into the season, I would have thought that if Brady had signed on for "Cam Newton money" (again, just to take the extreme example), they would have had the salary cap flexibility to put a really good team around him. Obviously, they signed Cam Newton for "Cam Newton money" and the team around him stunk. So, that part is a bit of a mystery to me. So, Brady may have accurately predicted that no matter what he signed for with NE, they were not going to put a team around him as good as the team in TB. So, if the equation came down to 1) The best team I can have around me is in Tampa Bay, and 2) the team that is willing to pay me the most happens to be TB as well - it's a no brainer.
Is there an example of a player actually doing this, ever, in any sport? Brady took a contract, like many of those he took in New England, with lower overall hit than market and higher guarantees. He ranked 16th or 17th in AAV; the only non-rookie-contract starters with lower AAV were Alex Smith, Teddy Bridgewater, and Cam. He was never going to play for a million. He's part of a union. Jeez.
 

8slim

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
16,404
Unreal America
The idea that Brady did not have "playmakers" on offense is ridiculous--he's had an absolute array of high quality receivers and running backs throughout just about his entire, and of course he made them better. The last couple of seasons, sure, the writing was on the wall and he didn't have the inclination or time to go through a rebuild. And they still won the 6th Super Bowl.
Yep, just last season there was a moment when Brady had a receiving corps of AB, Edelman, Josh Gordon, Dorset and Hogan. If AB wasn't a degenerate jagoff, that would have been all the weapons Brady would have needed (along with White and Burkhead out of the backfield). They even traded away a 2nd rounder to get Sanu, which personally I thought was a great move at the time (and the kind of move a GM makes when he's trying to win now).

Even more importantly, Bill always tried to put a strong OL in front of Brady (including being one of the few franchises that employed a blocking FB that played a ton of snaps). That gets overlooked, IMHO. How many QBs have we seen get thumped because the team skimped on assembling a strong OL?
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
7,562
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
I don't fault BB for not giving Brady the kind of contract he got from TB - I think that was the right decision.

I don't fault TB (too much) for going to TB and getting a market value contract*

* The only thing I do "fault" him for (at little bit), is putting any priority on getting a market value contract. Tom Brady, to a degree unlike any other football player ever, really doesn't need money. He could have played for Cam Newton money (just to take the absurd example) and it would not have made any material difference in his life.

There are a couple caveats to all this:

1) I don't know how Brady felt about playing for BB. If it really was a miserable experience for him, then I completely agree with his decision to leave.

2) Coming into the season, I would have thought that if Brady had signed on for "Cam Newton money" (again, just to take the extreme example), they would have had the salary cap flexibility to put a really good team around him. Obviously, they signed Cam Newton for "Cam Newton money" and the team around him stunk. So, that part is a bit of a mystery to me. So, Brady may have accurately predicted that no matter what he signed for with NE, they were not going to put a team around him as good as the team in TB. So, if the equation came down to 1) The best team I can have around me is in Tampa Bay, and 2) the team that is willing to pay me the most happens to be TB as well - it's a no brainer.
Brady's contract with Tampa isn't anywhere near market value, though. 2/50 for top 5 QB play is peanuts.
 

Ale Xander

Lacks black ink
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
36,358
Man, that 3rd and 15 heave to Hill really saved Mahomes' bacon. 7 quarters of pretty horrible play in two Super Bowls, if he had back to back losses while playing poorly the narrative of his whole career would have changed.
Now THIS is hyperbole.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
11,803
Santa Monica, CA
Brady's contract with Tampa isn't anywhere near market value, though. 2/50 for top 5 QB play is peanuts.
He had the sixth highest cap number among QBs this year, unless I'm reading the list wrong. That seems like exactly market value, he was somewhere in the 6-10 range among NFL quarterbacks this year.
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
7,562
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
Now THIS is hyperbole.
Do you disagree? I mean, people shit on Lamar Jackson and mocked Peyton relentlessly for playoff failures. And fact is Mahomes only played one good quarter in two Super Bowl appearances (to his credit, that quarter was enough to come back from a ten point lead and win a title). I'm not saying I'd look at him any differently as a player nor that people should, but they would. You don't think sports talk radio/TV would beat this drum to death?
 

Caspir

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
5,927
Now THIS is hyperbole.
Somebody posted the stats in this thread. He's played 8 quarters of Super Bowl football. In 7 of those quarters, he was Brian Hoyer (hyperbole). It is not hyperbole to say that his career narrative today would be the Peyton, "Can he win the big one?" stuff that comes with being a star that fails on the biggest stage before prevailing on it. If his last 3 years go AFCC loss to Brady, SB loss to 49ers, SB loss to Brady, he is waking up to some unfriendly headlines that would persist unless and until he did win.

Now, that didn't happen, and Mahomes is one of, if not the best young player in the game. It is interesting to think about how he'd be talked about going 0-2 and losing twice to Brady in 3 years in the post season. Some parallels to Manning, some obvious differences. I'm just glad Brady prevailed head to head to quiet the peanut gallery for a while.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
11,919
Do you disagree? I mean, people shit on Lamar Jackson and mocked Peyton relentlessly for playoff failures. And fact is Mahomes only played one good quarter in two Super Bowl appearances (to his credit, that quarter was enough to come back from a ten point lead and win a title). I'm not saying I'd look at him any different as a player nor that people should, but they would. You don't think sports talk radio/TV would beat this drum to death?
It wasn't even a quarter. It started when his team got the ball with about 9 minutes to go in the fourth quarter. And even more than that, it was 3rd and 15 from the KC 35, down 20-10, with 7:13 left on the clock, when Mahomes made that great play to Hill. So Mahomes really played basically one good half of a quarter.

Until that point, he had gone 19-33 (56.6%) for 181 yds (5.5 y/a), 0 td, 2 int
From that point on, he went 7-9 (77.8%) for 105 yards (11.7 y/a), 2 td, 0 int.

And of course, KC scored 21 straight over the last 6:13 to go from 20-10 down, to 31-20 up.
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
5,082
Is there an example of a player actually doing this, ever, in any sport?
As I said, he's in a particularly unique situation. Not many players are married to someone worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

His primary focus should have been (and I don't know that it wasn't), which opportunity would give him the best chance of personal success and personal happiness? Other players have to consider also maximizing their financial security. That truly should not be an issue for Brady due to his very unique situation. No player is going to say "I need to go play in this situation that is not ideal to me to support the union".
 

BusRaker

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 11, 2006
945
Brady is a union guy that understands taking less money is devaluing the contracts of others (well, not so much in NFL where almost every team nears the cap, but other sports). I'm sure he gets shit for it from the PA's

Recency bias is a curious animal in our social media age. Bill was well on his way to becoming a great and possibly legendary coach well before Tom Brady selected him with pick 199 of the draft, declared himself starter over a healed Drew Bledsoe, and led them to 3 defensely-led super bowl titles.

Brady will always be thankful to the NEP as they were the team that gave him a chance when possibly no other team would have. He was just tired of being in a 20 year relationship IMO. That's what makes him forever a Pat
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
7,562
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
As I said, he's in a particularly unique situation. Not many players are married to someone worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

His primary focus should have been (and I don't know that it wasn't), which opportunity would give him the best chance of personal success and personal happiness? Other players have to consider also maximizing their financial security. That truly should not be an issue for Brady due to his very unique situation. No player is going to say "I need to go play in this situation that is not ideal to me to support the union".
Players don't view their salary only through a financial lens, it's also about respect, appreciation and being valued. Anyone who played 10+ years at a high level in the NFL has set three generations of their families for life, no matter who they married. Doesn't mean they should be expected to leave tens of millions on the table.

Also, if anything this season showed he likely maximized personal success and happiness without getting paid Cam Newton money.
 

DourDoerr

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 15, 2004
2,365
Berkeley, CA
The issue between TB and BB was simply control. BB wanted control of the cap. He had many chances to lock up Brady through these next few years, but didn't want to give up his flexibility given Tom's age. By keeping Brady on short years, he'd retain the ability to make a switch to another quarterback without enormous cap consequences whenever he perceived Brady decline. TB wanted control through a financial commitment by Belichick which would tie Belichick's hands if he tried to cut Brady whenever Belichick perceived TB's decline. Brady had firsthand knowledge of BB's cold-blooded assessments and he had zero confidence that he was above the law.

If BB made a mistake, it was underestimating Brady's ability to maintain his skills for the foreseeable future. It's completely understandable. Brady is off the charts competitive who stands head, shoulders and torso above the rest of a league filled with the uber competitive but time is time. The funny thing is BB had a front row seat to Brady's drive and skill level. And he still made a traditional bet on Brady's skills' actuarial tables.

Brady knows Manning well and he might have taken his advice and/or simply witnessed his move to Denver. He saw that Manning had seized control of his career by handpicking Denver knowing they had a dominant D and some skill players on offense. I can't remember their cap situation, but I'd guess it was fine. Brady picked a similar situation in Tampa. The interesting thing will be in a year or two if Brady is still at this level but Tampa gets decimated by cap and defections. Does he then handpick another team? LeBron's career might be a signpost here. Once you leave home and find a new home, you no longer have deep roots and another move can be a lot easier.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
11,613
Belichick gets no asterisk from me. I already had him as one of the greatest and likely 1 but do rate Walsh and Gibbs very highly. I always come back to Gibbs winning with 3 different QBs and none of them great. Then everyone views his second rodeo as bad but I don’t. He stabilized that shithead owner’s team for a while and made the playoffs with mediocre to bad QB play.

Belichick’s record without Brady only hurts him within the discussion of the ultimate top tier.
First, I need to point out that Gibbs first title came in a strike shortened 9 game season. As we've seen this year with shortened seasons, that shit matters and need to be added for context. Seasons like that happen in a vacuum and really shouldnt be added to the cohort of other SuperBowls.

The "3 QBs" thing is cited alot for Gibbs, but we all know that QB play was much less important back then opposed to today. It's the equivalent of the Patriots having different RB's in the last several SuperBowls.

His first SB team was 5th in rushing attempts and had probably the best defense in the league. The '87 team also had a top 5 rushing offense and a top 10 defense. The '91 team had a good passing offense, but also lead the league in rushing attempts. They, again, probably had the best defense in the league. They're largely known as one of the most complete teams in NFL history.

The idea that Gibbs had 3 different QBs lends to the idea that he was the rock to lead them to SB wins with a lot of instability. But, despite the rotating QB, those teams were remarkably steady. He had the same owner and defensive coordinator. He had one of the most accomplished GMs in history (Bobby Beathard) or his protege (Charlie Casserly) for all 3 titles. While there was no official offensive coordinator for the first 2 SBs, the coach who provided him with a top 5 running game in the first 2 SB seasons (Don Breaux, running back coach) was the offensive coordinator for the 3rd.

HOF Darrell Green (CB), HOF Art Monk (WR), 4x pro bowler Charles Mann (DE), 4x pro bowler Joe Jacoby (LT), 1x Pro bowler Jeff Bostic (C), Raleigh Mackenzie (LG/RG), Don Warren (TE), Monte Coleman (OLB) were all starters that played for all THREE SuperBowl teams.

That's 8 of 22 starting offensive/defensive players (3 of 5 offensive lineman) that played on all 3 Redskin SB teams. That doesnt include the litany of players that played on 2 of the 3 teams.

Does that mean Gibbs was lucky? Of course not. I think he was a great coach. But the Redskins success during that stretch was the epitome of organizational success, something Patriots fans can understand well. They had a great owner, stability at the GM/executive level, assistant coaching consistency that wasnt poached like it is today, and a large group of successful players that stayed with the Redskins throughout their career. Gibbs is a huge part of that organizational success - maybe even the most important piece - but I dont consider the work he did as revolutionary or extraordinary. I view him as a great representative for organizational stability.

Which makes the current state of the WFT so tragic.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
11,803
Santa Monica, CA
Great post, KFP. Agree with all of it. Gibbs was a very good coach (so was Bill Parcells, with whom he traded division titles during those years), but he was no Belichick.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
19,749
The issue between TB and BB was simply control. BB wanted control of the cap. He had many chances to lock up Brady through these next few years, but didn't want to give up his flexibility given Tom's age. By keeping Brady on short years, he'd retain the ability to make a switch to another quarterback without enormous cap consequences whenever he perceived Brady decline. TB wanted control through a financial commitment by Belichick which would tie Belichick's hands if he tried to cut Brady whenever Belichick perceived TB's decline. Brady had firsthand knowledge of BB's cold-blooded assessments and he had zero confidence that he was above the law.

If BB made a mistake, it was underestimating Brady's ability to maintain his skills for the foreseeable future. It's completely understandable. Brady is off the charts competitive who stands head, shoulders and torso above the rest of a league filled with the uber competitive but time is time. The funny thing is BB had a front row seat to Brady's drive and skill level. And he still made a traditional bet on Brady's skills' actuarial tables.

Brady knows Manning well and he might have taken his advice and/or simply witnessed his move to Denver. He saw that Manning had seized control of his career by handpicking Denver knowing they had a dominant D and some skill players on offense. I can't remember their cap situation, but I'd guess it was fine. Brady picked a similar situation in Tampa. The interesting thing will be in a year or two if Brady is still at this level but Tampa gets decimated by cap and defections. Does he then handpick another team? LeBron's career might be a signpost here. Once you leave home and find a new home, you no longer have deep roots and another move can be a lot easier.
I agree with all this except the bolded...he signed him through age 42. That's not quite "traditional."
 

DourDoerr

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 15, 2004
2,365
Berkeley, CA
Good point, but he may have made that deal figuring he might have to eat a year or two by the end of it. He had to make some allowances for Brady’s incredible drive and execution. It seems pretty clear he didn’t think it was sustainable to continue offering multiple years,/high bonus after that deal.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
20,110
Great post, KFP. Agree with all of it. Gibbs was a very good coach (so was Bill Parcells, with whom he traded division titles during those years), but he was no Belichick.
KFP’s post was good but your “he was no Belichick” doesn’t follow. KFP said QB is the most important position now; ok, Belichick had the greatest QB ever for nearly all of his success.

Gibbs going to NASCAR and being successful and his retiring coinciding with the Skins starting a downward slides seems to make the argument that he was right place right time kind of weak.

Beichick is probably the best ever, but this stuff is not that obvious because there are so many variables.
 

DourDoerr

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 15, 2004
2,365
Berkeley, CA
First, I need to point out that Gibbs first title came in a strike shortened 9 game season. As we've seen this year with shortened seasons, that shit matters and need to be added for context. Seasons like that happen in a vacuum and really shouldnt be added to the cohort of other SuperBowls.

The "3 QBs" thing is cited alot for Gibbs, but we all know that QB play was much less important back then opposed to today. It's the equivalent of the Patriots having different RB's in the last several SuperBowls.

His first SB team was 5th in rushing attempts and had probably the best defense in the league. The '87 team also had a top 5 rushing offense and a top 10 defense. The '91 team had a good passing offense, but also lead the league in rushing attempts. They, again, probably had the best defense in the league. They're largely known as one of the most complete teams in NFL history.

The idea that Gibbs had 3 different QBs lends to the idea that he was the rock to lead them to SB wins with a lot of instability. But, despite the rotating QB, those teams were remarkably steady. He had the same owner and defensive coordinator. He had one of the most accomplished GMs in history (Bobby Beathard) or his protege (Charlie Casserly) for all 3 titles. While there was no official offensive coordinator for the first 2 SBs, the coach who provided him with a top 5 running game in the first 2 SB seasons (Don Breaux, running back coach) was the offensive coordinator for the 3rd.

HOF Darrell Green (CB), HOF Art Monk (WR), 4x pro bowler Charles Mann (DE), 4x pro bowler Joe Jacoby (LT), 1x Pro bowler Jeff Bostic (C), Raleigh Mackenzie (LG/RG), Don Warren (TE), Monte Coleman (OLB) were all starters that played for all THREE SuperBowl teams.

That's 8 of 22 starting offensive/defensive players (3 of 5 offensive lineman) that played on all 3 Redskin SB teams. That doesnt include the litany of players that played on 2 of the 3 teams.

Does that mean Gibbs was lucky? Of course not. I think he was a great coach. But the Redskins success during that stretch was the epitome of organizational success, something Patriots fans can understand well. They had a great owner, stability at the GM/executive level, assistant coaching consistency that wasnt poached like it is today, and a large group of successful players that stayed with the Redskins throughout their career. Gibbs is a huge part of that organizational success - maybe even the most important piece - but I dont consider the work he did as revolutionary or extraordinary. I view him as a great representative for organizational stability.

Which makes the current state of the WFT so tragic.
Added to this is the stability of life in the NFL pre-cap. It‘s the single biggest obstacle to modern day dynasties.
 

loshjott

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2004
11,225
Silver Spring, MD
Added to this is the stability of life in the NFL pre-cap. It‘s the single biggest obstacle to modern day dynasties.
There's a story of Gibbs talking to owner Jack Kent Cooke and (successfully) pleading with him to bring back Gerald Riggs in 1991 for $1M just to be a short yardage/goal line RB. It was Riggs' final season and he scored 11 regular season TDs plus 6 in the postseason on only 89 total carries through 19 games. Postseason: 6 TDs on 11 carries!
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
Jul 18, 2005
27,809
Alexandria, VA
There's a story of Gibbs talking to owner Jack Kent Cooke and (successfully) pleading with him to bring back Gerald Riggs in 1991 for $1M just to be a short yardage/goal line RB. It was Riggs' final season and he scored 11 regular season TDs plus 6 in the postseason on only 89 total carries through 19 games. Postseason: 6 TDs on 11 carries!
I always thought it was a little bit of a bummer that Gibbs missed the prime Stephen Davis years. Portis was a better running back, but Davis seemed like a fit for Gibbs’ style.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
11,803
Santa Monica, CA
KFP’s post was good but your “he was no Belichick” doesn’t follow. KFP said QB is the most important position now; ok, Belichick had the greatest QB ever for nearly all of his success.

Gibbs going to NASCAR and being successful and his retiring coinciding with the Skins starting a downward slides seems to make the argument that he was right place right time kind of weak.

Beichick is probably the best ever, but this stuff is not that obvious because there are so many variables.
Re-read the post, I guess?

Also, Belichick is not probably the best ever. He is the best ever. It's not even close.

edit: but Joe Gibbs was definitely the best ever at winning in strike-shortened years. 2 of his 3 championships happened after strikes.
 
Last edited:

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
20,110
Re-read the post, I guess?

Also, Belichick is not probably the best ever. He is the best ever. It's not even close.
By the metric of he is one of the best ever and he coaches your favorite team, I agree.

I like Belichick, I think he is great. Saying it is so obvious that he is the best when he is under .500 without Brady is homerism. He is one of the best and probably the best but the comparisons are tougher than you are stating. It not like baseball where we have thousand of observations over a hitters career.

On your edit: Leading a team in strike years seems more impressive, not less.
 

DavidTai

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
731
Herndon, VA
I like Belichick, I think he is great. Saying it is so obvious that he is the best when he is under .500 without Brady is homerism. He is one of the best and probably the best but the comparisons are tougher than you are stating. It not like baseball where we have thousand of observations over a hitters career.
On the other hand, he rebuilt Cleveland into a playoff team, which accounts for a lot of those 'under .500' stats, and then it fell apart when Modell announced the Cleveland to Baltimore move.

And -that- Baltimore Ravens team went on to, well, a really, really good run based off Belichick's construction as well as his chosen GM, Ozzie Newsome.

I'd argue that you should give him credit for building the foundation for -two- really good franchise runs.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
20,110
On the other hand, he rebuilt Cleveland into a playoff team, which accounts for a lot of those 'under .500' stats, and then it fell apart when Modell announced the Cleveland to Baltimore move.

And -that- Baltimore Ravens team went on to, well, a really, really good run based off Belichick's construction as well as his chosen GM, Ozzie Newsome.

I'd argue that you should give him credit for building the foundation for -two- really good franchise runs.
I do. Cleveland 95 is one of my favorite sports documentaries.

edit: larger point is what is the analysis for judging this. How many rings would Belichick have if he didn’t have the greatest football player ever for 20 years? Is it still 6? Seems unlikely.

Is Phil Jackson undeniably the greatest basketball coach ever because he has the most rings. Maybe, but I don’t think it’s obvious.

Saying the Pats were the best organization over a 25 year period is undeniable. How you disentangle and give credit for that success is harder.
 
Last edited:

Bergs

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2005
14,664
Saying the Pats were the best organization over a 25 year period is undeniable. How you disentangle and give credit for that success is harder.
Yet this is the exact problem you also have when assessing this question for every other coach in history. The amount of squinting and obfuscation needed to contend BB is hit harder by such an exercise than other "best ever" contenders is epic. Walsh is hit because of Montana and no hard cap. Gibbs is hit by strikes, a great organization around him, and no hard cap. Lombardi is hit by every player being a HOF'er and no hard cap. Knoll is hit by having HOFers all over (and no hard cap). Schula managed to luck his way into 16-0 against the softest schedule of all time and follow that up by parlaying 17 years of one of the best QB ever into one SB loss and jack shit else. etc etc etc.

BB was the coaching mastermind behind 2 NYG SB wins.
BB started turning around the Browns as HC (as partly evidenced by BAL's quick ascention) and got fucked.
BB (along with Parcels) took a moribund franchise and had it in the SB in 2 years.
Fast forward 20 years.

I mean...it's cute to play devil's advocate and all, but do you really think there's a logical case to be made against him being the best coach in NFL history?
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
20,110
I mean...it's cute to play devil's advocate and all, but do you really think there's a logical case to be made against him being the best coach in NFL history?
Is Phil Jackson clearly the best coach in NBA history?
 

DavidTai

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
731
Herndon, VA
The foundation that Belichick started in Cleveland that went on to become the Ravens won two Super Bowls. I'd wager this shows that Belichick as a team builder would have had won at least one without Brady ( I mean, they won a super bowl with Trent Dilfer and JOe Flacco, for chrissakes.)

Also, you probably -should- also give credit to Belichick for keeping a sixth round QB on the team and carrying FOUR quarterbacks because he realized he had something there in Brady. Especially since Brady didn't become -BRADY- till 2007. He was, mostly, a play-action game-manager type QB up till they took the shackles off in 2007.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
20,110
The foundation that Belichick started in Cleveland that went on to become the Ravens won two Super Bowls. I'd wager this shows that Belichick as a team builder would have had won at least one without Brady ( I mean, they won a super bowl with Trent Dilfer and JOe Flacco, for chrissakes.)
Ravens wins in 4 years post BB: 4,6,6,8.
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
7,562
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
The foundation that Belichick started in Cleveland that went on to become the Ravens won two Super Bowls. I'd wager this shows that Belichick as a team builder would have had won at least one without Brady ( I mean, they won a super bowl with Trent Dilfer and JOe Flacco, for chrissakes.)

Also, you probably -should- also give credit to Belichick for keeping a sixth round QB on the team and carrying FOUR quarterbacks because he realized he had something there in Brady. Especially since Brady didn't become -BRADY- till 2007. He was, mostly, a play-action game-manager type QB up till they took the shackles off in 2007.
The only shackles that went off in '07 were actually providing him with weapons in the passing game. He was a top 5 QB by DYAR in 2004, 2005 and 2006 playing with much worse pass catchers than the guys who were leading the league. From '01-'06 the Patriots offense ranked better than the defense by DVOA in every year aside from '03.

I mean, he led the league in TDs in '02 and got MVP votes in '03. He wasn't Alex Smith.
 

Ralphwiggum

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
6,973
Needham, MA
BB is the GOAT in my view and I can buy giving him some credit for establishing a nice foundation in Cleveland that eventually won in 2000 (mainly hiring Ozzie) but it’s a massive stretch to credit him with anything related to the 2012 Ravens, again unless all you mean Is he hired Ozzie. That’s 17 years after he was fired from the Browns.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
20,110
I'll take this to mean your answer to my question is "no."
My arguments have already been made, asking me if I have any “logical” ones is shitposting; I’m not a punk or a b, so what do you expect me to say to you?
 

DavidTai

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
731
Herndon, VA
The only shackles that went off in '07 were actually providing him with weapons in the passing game. He was a top 5 QB by DYAR in 2004, 2005 and 2006 playing with much worse pass catchers than the guys who were leading the league. From '01-'06 the Patriots offense ranked better than the defense by DVOA in every year aside from '03.

I mean, he led the league in TDs in '02 and got MVP votes in '03. He wasn't Alex Smith.
True enough. I remember him leading the league in TD passes one year. It really did feel like, though, that they were counting on Brady and building off the play-action before they converted to what basically was the run-and-shoot and riding his skills for it was worth in 2007.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
20,110
True enough. I remember him leading the league in TD passes one year. It really did feel like, though, that they were counting on Brady and building off the play-action before they converted to what basically was the run-and-shoot and riding his skills for it was worth in 2007.
I think 04 changed illegal contact rule. Trying to remember exactly when Polian cried.
 

DavidTai

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
731
Herndon, VA
BB is the GOAT in my view and I can buy giving him some credit for establishing a nice foundation in Cleveland that eventually won in 2000 (mainly hiring Ozzie) but it’s a massive stretch to credit him with anything related to the 2012 Ravens, again unless all you mean Is he hired Ozzie. That’s 17 years after he was fired from the Browns.
Yeah, I wasn't giving him credit for 2012, just saying that I think Ozzie continued on from what Belichick's foundation was. Do think, however, Belichick would have won at least one early on.
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
7,562
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
True enough. I remember him leading the league in TD passes one year. It really did feel like, though, that they were counting on Brady and building off the play-action before they converted to what basically was the run-and-shoot and riding his skills for it was worth in 2007.
The system changed in 2007, sure. But I feel like Brady was pretty good from the jump and then became a great QB at around '04. From them on he was capable of playing any type of offense they wanted to run.
 

DavidTai

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
731
Herndon, VA
The system changed in 2007, sure. But I feel like Brady was pretty good from the jump and then became a great QB at around '04. From them on he was capable of playing any type of offense they wanted to run.
Hm. I remember they rode Clock Killing Dillon in 2004, then 2005 was basically the last year they had Givens and Branch, then 2006 was Gaffney and Caldwell and Maroney...

Dear god, I really can't remember what kind of offense they did with 2006. What was it, the Bug-Eyed Monster?
 

Bergs

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2005
14,664
My arguments have already been made, asking me if I have any “logical” ones is shitposting; I’m not a punk or a b, so what do you expect me to say to you?
And "Is Phil Jackson clearly the best coach in NBA history?" in response to my larger point about eras and other coaches also having success due to great players isn't shitposting?

Glad you're not a "punk or a b", but your "arguments" aren't, really. At least not in any compelling or even-handed manner. You are introducing bananas to one side of what is already a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison. You are applying an arbitrary weight against BB (a valid one to some extent to be sure) but failing to apply that same type of weighting to literally every other coach considered a "great." At the same time, you are failing to weight BB positively for doing what he has done in the salary cap era, with commensurate down-weighting of pre-salary cap "greats".

There will always be massive amounts of biases in a discussion like this, but you are apparently only applying adjustments in one direction.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
11,919
In 2002, they started the season with Brady doing this:

vs Pit: 29-43 (67.4%), 294 yds, 3 td, 0 int (W, 30-14)
at NYJ: 25-35 (71.4%), 269 yds, 2 td, 1 int (W, 44-7)
vs KC: 39-54 (72.2%), 410 yds, 4 td, 1 int (W, 41-38)
at SD: 36-53 (67.9%), 353 yds, 2 td, 2 int (L, 21-14)
TOT: 129-185 (69.7%), 1,326 yds, 11 td, 4 int (3-1 record)
AVG: 32-46, 332 yds, 3 td, 1 int

They totally opened up the offense for Brady early on in his second year as a starter. Averaging 46 pass attempts per game during the first quarter of the season. He already could run everything. Obviously the rest of the season didn't go as well, but they let him rip right from the jump in 2002.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
20,110
And "Is Phil Jackson clearly the best coach in NBA history?" in response to my larger point about eras and other coaches also having success due to great players isn't shitposting?

Glad you're not a "punk or a b", but your "arguments" aren't, really. At least not in any compelling or even-handed manner. You are introducing bananas to one side of what is already a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison. You are applying an arbitrary weight against BB (a valid one to some extent to be sure) but failing to apply that same type of weighting to literally every other coach considered a "great." At the same time, you are failing to weight BB positively for doing what he has done in the salary cap era, with commensurate down-weighting of pre-salary cap "greats".

There will always be massive amounts of biases in a discussion like this, but you are apparently only applying adjustments in one direction.
No I’m not, you seem to think I am saying Bill Belichick is not a great coach. I am not doing that. I say he is in my top 3 and probably my 1 but that it is not an easy call for me.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
11,919
Legit candidates for GOAT coach:

Belichick - Coached in an era where it is virtually impossible to sustain success - the only one on this list to coach in this era. Everyone else coached when team building was much more sustainable. 2nd most victories ever. 6 SB rings as HC, 2 more as assistant. Most playoff wins of all time. Very few HOF players. But had the GOAT at QB. Also, like it or not, was involved in a scandal.

Lombardi - Legend. 5x NFL champ (including 2 SB titles). Also coached teams that were loaded with hall of famers.

Brown - 3x NFL champ, 4x AAFC champ. Belichick credits Brown as being the greatest, most innovative coach in NFL history.

Walsh - 3x SB champ. Had the second GOAT QB, and a bunch of other HOF players.

Gibbs - 3x SB champ, won with three different QBs. But two of those years were in strike-shortened seasons.

Noll - 4x SB champ, but had an insanely loaded HOF roster. Also had major steroid issues.

Shula - 2x SB champ, most wins all-time.

I think that's basically it. For me, it's Belichick at the clear #1, and then you argue about the rest. But BB is a big step over everyone else. But I can see arguments that resonate with people for other guys.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
11,613
At the same time, you are failing to weight BB positively for doing what he has done in the salary cap era, with commensurate down-weighting of pre-salary cap "greats".

There will always be massive amounts of biases in a discussion like this, but you are apparently only applying adjustments in one direction.
What part of the salary cap success should be attribute to BB the coach, and what part to the GM? If we're literally just focusing on his successes as a coach, getting attribution for success during the salary cap era doesnt feel fair.

Which is why this exercise is dumb. Because, while we could sit and argue about the greatest coach of all time, what BB did was significantly, significantly larger and more difficult. He may have not been the best drafter, pursuer of free agent talent, or trader. But, regardless of his warts, he is the biggest reason the Patriots went on the most historic run in any major sport. He drafted Brady. He traded key cogs. He built the game plans. He worked the salary cap. He did it. Fucking all of it.

Was he the greatest coach of all time? I dunno. I think so, but I'm biased. But he is, inarguably, the most successful leader in NFL history (non-player division). He built it, he oversaw it short, medium, and long term. And he was in the weeds every single day to make it successful. Every day. For over 20 fucking years. In regards to winning, nobody has ever, or probably will ever, do more for a single organization than Belichick.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
20,110
Legit candidates for GOAT coach:

Belichick - Coached in an era where it is virtually impossible to sustain success - the only one on this list to coach in this era. Everyone else coached when team building was much more sustainable. 2nd most victories ever. 6 SB rings as HC, 2 more as assistant. Most playoff wins of all time. Very few HOF players. But had the GOAT at QB. Also, like it or not, was involved in a scandal.

Lombardi - Legend. 5x NFL champ (including 2 SB titles). Also coached teams that were loaded with hall of famers.

Brown - 3x NFL champ, 4x AAFC champ. Belichick credits Brown as being the greatest, most innovative coach in NFL history.

Walsh - 3x SB champ. Had the second GOAT QB, and a bunch of other HOF players.

Gibbs - 3x SB champ, won with three different QBs. But two of those years were in strike-shortened seasons.

Noll - 4x SB champ, but had an insanely loaded HOF roster. Also had major steroid issues.

I think that's basically it. For me, it's Belichick at the clear #1, and then you argue about the rest. But BB is a big step over everyone else. But I can see arguments that resonate with people for other guys.
We are both probably underrating Shula. I’m doing it mostly cause I dont like him.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
20,110
Was he the greatest coach of all time? I dunno. I think so, but I'm biased. But he is, inarguably, the most successful leader in NFL history (non-player division). He built it, he oversaw it short, medium, and long term. And he was in the weeds every single day to make it successful. Every day. For over 20 fucking years. In regards to winning, nobody has ever, or probably will ever, do more for a single organization than Belichick.
Probably right. I’ve read about the Manchester United bro, Sir Alex Ferguson, but don’t really know that sport well enough to comment.
 

Bergs

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2005
14,664
We are both probably underrating Shula. I’m doing it mostly cause I dont like him.
On this we can agree. But also, how many rings would a BB have had with 17 years of Dan Marino? I'm taking the over on 0.5