Is Bill Belichick's career tied to Tom Brady?

I was sitting here thinking about the fact that New England has now traded away two upcoming draft picks. This is generally unusual as New England was the master of getting multiple picks per year by being shrewd on draft day.
So, I wonder, will Belichick retire from coaching when Brady retires? Does he see Brady as his only shot to win a championship, and this is the reason he is starting to trade away draft picks versus hoarding them?

 

I don't think it would be accurate to say that his career is all about Brady. One reason for this is because if he had REALLY known that Brady was probably the second greatest qb of all time then why would he have been sitting behind Bledsoe until Bledsoe got hurt? But, having said that, he knew talent when he saw it and he obviously made the right decision. Second of all, he has also had some great defenses that have won a lot of games for the pats when Brady wasn't at his sharpest. Third of all, he managed to win 11 games with Cassel when Brady went down in 08. He also seems to have a knack for taking players that other people think are done and revitalizing their careers. He also has a knack for letting people go as soon as he gets what he needs from them (again see Drew Bledsoe). I think saying that his career is all about Brady would be like saying that Walsh's was all about Montana. Regardless of how people feel about him on a personal level if you ever watch him in sort of non press conference settings when he's just simply talking about football the guy's knowledge is off the chart. It's like he's a walking football encyclopedia. He also done a pretty good job with the Giants d when they were good in the 80's. So I would say that his career isn't all about Brady but it certainly doesn't hurt to have a Brady on your team. Nor does it hurt to have a Starr, Staubach, Bradshaw, Montana, Elway, or Roethlisberger.

 

Okay, fair enough. I guess it really isn't appropriate to say that Brady made Belichick. But having a HOF caliber QB certainly doesn't hurt. I think back to Belichick's days in Cleveland, where the team wasn't very good. Who's fault was it? Front office? Ownership? I guess if you don't have the type of players you need, you can't accomplish your game plan.
I wonder how many great QBs made coaches, and vice versa (like did Favre make Holmgren, Aikman make Johnson).

 

Cleveland is a bit of a different situation. Cleveland was on the verge of becoming a good team, then they were told they were leaving town. That's when things went off the rails. It would be hard to manage, coach and play in that type of scenario. Belichek was doing good things in Cleveland the year before it was announced they were leaving.

Yes, having a HOF QB is of course helpful, but I can't help but wonder if Brady would have been HOF material on other teams

 

We saw Montana without Walsh and he was still great. I think Brady would still be great too. He's a fierce competitor and that's really what it's all about anyway.

 

I really think the thing that helped Aikman more than anything was the team around him. They also had some HOF guys on d as well.

 

It's a combination of things but a look at Belichick's record before Tom Brady is revealing even though it was mostly in Cleveland. It's a great partnership between coach, QB and organization. It takes all those things.

6-10
7-9
7-9
11-5
5-11
5-11

 

Matt Cassel proved this false. Tonight, Jimmy Garoppolo is further proving it.

 

I think Garropolo has looked REALLY solid tonight. If he plays good in these 4 games he will land somewhere.

 

It is not difficult to look good when...

A. You get time to throw most of the time.
B. Your first or second options are wide open.
C. Your receivers can catch everything.
D. Your receivers can run after the catch.

It's the system. 100%. And Brady's success has been based on that system. If Brady played anywhere else, he'd be a good, but not HOF QB.

 

Man I really thought AZ would have a pretty easy time tonight. No Gronk. No Brady. I figured AZ would just overpower them. I thought Blount's fumble would cost the pats but they got it done. AZ was picked by a lot of people to be a Super Bowl contender this year but if that's the case they'd better get it together on d. Missed tackles and open guys all night.

 

What's absurd is to think that the turnover in personnel, across every other position on the team (2001 to 2014) didn't matter at all, because Brady was the reason they won. That's insulting to every starter on the line and on defense..and especially the field goal kickers. IT'S THE SYSTEM. Period.

Take a look at Garoppolo's stat line. Unreal.

SYSTEM
SYSTEM
SYSTEM

And everything I have argued on these boards about Brady being the most overrated QB in NFL history is proven true.

 

Completely agree, anywhere outside of new england and shady brady is above average at best. Cassel also proved that.

 

Actually though when Cassel played for them during that season they ran quite a different and watered down scheme as opposed to when Brady played. There was a stat once showing how much they went downfield with Brady vs with Cassel and it was extremely lopsided. What they done to win with Cassel was to play to his strengths. They didn't throw the whole playbook at him like they do at Brady. The thing that makes Brady great is the fact that he is a team player and will do whatever it takes to win. One week he might come out and throw for 400yds and a few tds and then the next week he will just turn around and hand it off the whole game. He also has more ice water in his veins than maybe any qb ever. He sliced up the Seahawks the year after they destroyed Manning. There was some injuries on that d for sure but he still put up over 20 straight on them and Manning only managed a touchdown. I'd say to call Brady the most overrated ever is a huge stretch.

 

Got to give BB the credit he's due. He seems to make the changes necessary to win games.

He doesn't care if they throw every down and blitz every down with no safety help. Whatever it takes to win is what his guys are going to do and be capable of doing or they're gone. It's that simple!

Yes, they had the taping scandal, but all that's nothing if you don't know how to use it to your advantage. His "Genius" is that everything he picked up from all that film study is still in his head and he can still use most of it because other teams refuse to change things up when they play him!

Once you show that man something he'll remember that crap and use it against you. Constantly pushing what he can do. That declaring eligible thing against the Ravens for example. He didn't invent that! He took it from something other coaches were doing in HS and College. Also, he didn't give anyone a full game of it. Just a few plays here and there when your team is already confused and reeling to drive the knife deeper.

The man is good. I hate to say it, but he is.

 

1. I don't think anyone would make the argument that Cassel or Garoppolo are of Brady's quality. But the comparison is apples/oranges, because neither of them had nearly the experience that Brady did/does.
2. Brady doesn't slice up that Seahawks D if they're healthy. Manning faced a HEALTHY D with a different set of ten players and a different coaching staff. You think Manning might have been better with the Pats' personnel and half the Seahawk D playing or out with injuries?
3. Watch a Brady "highlights" video some time, and notice the following: 1. How much time he has in the pocket; 2. The wide open receivers he's throwing to.

Overrated does not equal "not great." It simply means that a system that takes a scrub like Cassel and makes him really good (he had a better passer rating than Brady did in his first year) can take a really good QB and make him a legend.

Put Brees, Rodgers, or Peyton on that team, and they have 6-7 rings.

 

He does have a really quick release though.

 

Brady is far from a scrub and at this point would be a stud on any team. The only question is how good would he have been if he had started on another team. That we'll never know. What I do know is that Belichek wasn't made by Brady. It's not hard to see. He's a guy that gets the most out of his players and when he doesn't, he trades or cuts them. Just look at Matt Cassel. The guy was barely an NFL QB after he left. He had one good year in KC (under Haley of all people) and then his career all but ended. Belichek sure made him a ton of money though.

Many people on here have stated over the past 3-4 years that we are rebuilding/retooling so we shouldn't expect playoff appearances/wins as an elite QB alone isn't enough. If that's true, how is it that NE is a SB contender every single year? I think that without Brady, Belichek would have found another way to make NE a contender most years. He did with Cassel and just beat a SB contender with 2 of his best offensive stars missing.

 

When the Pats won their first Super Bowl, defense and special teams scored more TDs in that post-season than Brady threw.

Chew on that.

To say that Brady made Belichick is a gross mischaracterization, IMHO.

 

Yet when they needed 50 yards with 1:30 and no timeouts it wasn't the defense or special teams they called on.

 

In a tie game. There was no pressure on young Tom to go out and win the game on that drive. And, besides, he didn't score those points: Vinatieri kicked the game-winner. If the QB gets the credit for the DRIVE that gets a team into FG position, then why wasn't Jim Kelly the MVP of SB XXV?

 

I never said he's not a great QB. In fact, I did say it in the posts above. "Overrated" doesn't mean "not good." Overrated means he is rated higher than he is. Brady is a top 20 QB in NFL history. But I refuse to put him in top 5. And he has become regarded as GOAT, which I find absurd.

But for the record: Tom Brady doesn't block, doesn't run, doesn't run pass routes, doesn't catch. And he doesn't kick or play defense. Quarterbacks do not win titles; teams do. When measuring a QB's play, you have to look at the execution of the other 10 players on the field--and the defense's ability to create turnovers. And the Pats' execution over the years, no matter the personnel, is about coaching. It is NOT about Tom Brady. And Cassel's and Garoppolo's performances certainly suggest that when you have ten guys executing, the QB isn't nearly as important. Even mediocre QBs can look like pro bowlers. (And, in fact, with the Pats, they have).