Curran's Great Debate - Belichick or Brady?

Who deserves more credit for the Patriots? two-decade run of success?

  • Total voters
    25
  • Poll closed .

Share this page

Bill went 11-5 with Cassell, he would have found a QB who was serviceable - Jimmy G? - and had success, but it would be 4-5 sb appearances, not 9
 
Its Brady. The offense runs through Brady, and regardless of the coordinator, it has been a machine since he took over. There have been plenty of years that Brady carried the team that had some absolutely atrocious defenses. He has come through big, in the almost all of the big moments, and has bailed out the bend but dont break defense on a fairly consistent basis. Also, his leadership has set the tone for the team for almost 20 years.

Belichick is the master at mixing and matching players who fit his style and are football-first guys. He is obviously a genius when it comes to pure football knowledge and the preparation of his team for any and all situations. Best ever. But he has not been as consistent at his job as Brady. Personnel decisions at times have been questionable, as well as defensive style, mostly aggressiveness, have been extremely frustrating.

It goes without saying that the combination of the two is what has created the ridiculous success of the franchise, and as a fan, I couldnt be happier to have them both. But when I think about what the franchise would be without one or the other it comes down to Brady's leadership, intelligence at his position, and overall qb ability that sets the franchise apart from the rest of the league.
 
rivshark86 said:
Brady. I don’t think Bill would have won the first one without Brady. If Bledsoe goes down and Brady’s not there, that playoff run does not happen. Then Bill is saddled with an aging QB with a big contract and a fan base who would always side with the QB. I really don’t think he’d have made it more than a few years as HC. Brady gave him the ability to think long term and implement his 5 year plan. Brady gave him the cushion to experiment and be wrong. Without Brady Bill can’t be Bill. If Brady came in without Bill I think he definitely gets one or two provided he had a competent coach.
Click to expand...

Thats a good point right there ... a decent amount of those teams from 2005 - 2013ish would not have been playoff teams without Brady. The one year he didnt play, they werent a playoff team.
 
Trick question. It's a 1+1 = 6 (and counting) equation. The synergy of the 2 of them together is what makes them great. And who cares which individual is greater or deserves more credit? I don't.

But to play along, and since football is a team sport, and the entire cast is important, it has to be Bill.
 
patfan64 said:
Until and unless BB finds another QB willing to play for less, I'm afraid that we are seeing a run that will never be duplicated.
Click to expand...

Even IF BB finds another world class QB willing to play for less? it'll take another 20 years to duplicate this one. That makes BB 87 years old. That's some stamina! Think how far he will have outpaced every known coaching record ever dreamed of. He couldn't see any former coach in his rear-view mirror.

Cheers, :toast:
 
grog said:
Trick question. It's a 1+1 = 6 (and counting) equation. The synergy of the 2 of them together is what makes them great. And who cares which individual is greater or deserves more credit? I don't.

But to play along, and since football is a team sport, and the entire cast is important, it has to be Bill.
Click to expand...

This is really what it comes down to. Sometimes, forces just bring the perfect combo together, Brady/BB, Walsh/Montana, Lombardi/Starr, John/Paul/George/Ringo. Apart, they're still damned good (except Ringo), but together they're historic.
 
bideau said:
This is really what it comes down to. Sometimes, forces just bring the perfect combo together, Brady/BB, Walsh/Montana, Lombardi/Starr, John/Paul/George/Ringo. Apart, they're still damned good (except Ringo), but together they're historic.
Click to expand...
Strummer and Jones, Johnny and Sid


Crosby, nash - Stills and Young - but even better as the 4
 
They have each taken turns in my opinion. Belichick was the mastermind of the first three titles, Brady took over and won the next two and Belichick had his finger prints all over this most recent one.

I don't think the Pats are close to what they are today without both of them. Considering Brady arguably never would have gotten a chance to play if not for Belichick, it's hard to vote against him, but I voted for Brady.

(The real answer is probably Kraft would was smart enough to hire Belichick and, despite the team's success, stayed out of the way unlike Jerrah in Dallas)
 
Clearly, without Tom Brady, over the past 20 years, Pats would not have won 6 of 9 trips to the Super Bowl. BB did put the vast majority of those team's support players to win some of them. However and again, without Tom Brady's passing accuracy, developed knowledge of reading defenses, leadership, etc., 6 of 9 would never have been accomplished. Over the past 20 years,

BB has made MANY drafting player and SB coaching errors that could have both lend themselves to even more SB wins. In 2007 SB, having Ellis Hobbs cover Plexico Buress, to catch the game winning TD pass, instead of Randy Moss on the sideline was the biggest SB coaching error of all time, imo, and there are others. :stirpot:
 
foobahl said:
The D carried TFB early on. BB stuck with Brady anyway. That is a very important point. Ask Trent Dilfer.
Click to expand...

Stop it. Stop mentioning Dilfer in any Brady context. :suicide:

Please.
 
Just illustrating a point. BB stuck with TFB when he did not have to. BB saw the potential and the D holding down the fort for a couple of years (winning SBs), gave BB the time to nurture TFB. Brady is the goat. BB is the goat. If I had to pick one from 2001 on I am not sure I can.
 
foobahl said:
The D carried TFB early on. BB stuck with Brady anyway. That is a very important point. Ask Trent Dilfer.
Click to expand...

Huh? When did they carry him again? When they gave up 29 points to Carolina or in 2002 when they were 27th in the league in defense? Passing was different back then. Brady lead the afc in td's with 28. Nobody was carried.

---------- Post added at 09:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:04 PM ----------
foobahl said:
Just illustrating a point. BB stuck with TFB when he did not have to. BB saw the potential and the D holding down the fort for a couple of years (winning SBs), gave BB the time to nurture TFB. Brady is the goat. BB is the goat. If I had to pick one from 2001 on I am not sure I can.
Click to expand...

So you think the D carried Brady in the 03 superbowl? lol The entire way the offense moved the ball changed when Brady became QB. Did you really use dilfer?

---------- Post added at 09:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:05 PM ----------
EasyBigFella said:
They have each taken turns in my opinion. Belichick was the mastermind of the first three titles, Brady took over and won the next two and Belichick had his finger prints all over this most recent one.

I don't think the Pats are close to what they are today without both of them. Considering Brady arguably never would have gotten a chance to play if not for Belichick, it's hard to vote against him, but I voted for Brady.

(The real answer is probably Kraft would was smart enough to hire Belichick and, despite the team's success, stayed out of the way unlike Jerrah in Dallas)
Click to expand...

Agree with this, but I am not sure I would call the 2003 superbowl a defensive masterpiece. I mean they couldn't stop Jake Delhomme.
 
mikiemo83 said:
Bill went 11-5 with Cassell, he would have found a QB who was serviceable - Jimmy G? - and had success, but it would be 4-5 sb appearances, not 9
Click to expand...

Bill went 11-5 after going 16-0 and didn't make the playoffs with a .386 schedule. I mean Cassel took the freaking chiefs to the playoffs. Jimmy G didn't come along till later and so far cannot stay healthy in limited action. That's the thing. You have to find an elite QB who very seldom gets hurt, takes less money and is willing to let some stats go for the good of the team. Yeah good luck with that.

---------- Post added at 09:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:09 PM ----------
chevss454 said:
Not odd at all since I was pointing out the scope of what BB does to make the team able to do its job well.
Click to expand...

So do all coaches. I mean that's what a coach does, but as I said, it does not matter what you do as a coach if the players do not execute. I will never forget as the saints were running a train on us and Bill said, I just cannot get them to do what I want them to. Execution makes good coaching great and bad coaching get by. Bad execution does not help anything
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top