Can a QB be the greatest of all time?

[wizwor]

8 hours ago, BloodyChamp said:

Bill Belichik could win a SB with another quarterback...

 

No doubt, but I'm not sure he would have been able to put together the run they are on without Tom Terrific.  

[BloodyChamp]

10 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

We will never know the real answer but do you think Tom Brady could win a SB with Jim Caldwell or Gary Kubiak as Coach? Peyton did with Kubes and went to one with Caldwell and nearly went undefeated with Caldwell.

 

All that does is unintentionally verify that Bill is great lol if Tom can't do it without Bill, and Bill can do it without Tom...and I know he wasn't the coach but he was the DC on 2 other squads with 2 other quarterbacks who weren't exactly offense machine type teams. Maybe the Giants were for a minute there with Hoss but he kept getting hurt.

[footballhero1]

On 7/2/2017 at 7:39 AM, BloodyChamp said:

 

All that does is unintentionally verify that Bill is great lol if Tom can't do it without Bill, and Bill can do it without Tom...and I know he wasn't the coach but he was the DC on 2 other squads with 2 other quarterbacks who weren't exactly offense machine type teams. Maybe the Giants were for a minute there with Hoss but he kept getting hurt.

 

Here's the thing. We go down that rode then Dungy was a year away from winning a SB with another team. Gruden basically won a SB with a team that Dungy built and he very likely could have replicated the same success. Belichick never won as a coach and he only has one playoff win without Brady at the helm. 

 

The reality is we likely are past the point of finding out. Fact is he didn't win a Super Bowl with Cassel, or Bledsoe, or anybody in Cleveland. Brady is going to be 40 in exactly one month, assuming he doesn't retire in NE, if he doesn't win somewhere else, it's going to be attributed more to a 40 something QB losing a step. 

 

 

[horseshoecrabs]

That depends on the right qb  I would be interested if Tom Brady could win another with another team like

manning did!

[2006Coltsbestever]

3 hours ago, footballhero1 said:

 

Here's the thing. We go down that rode then Dungy was a year away from winning a SB with another team. Gruden basically won a SB with a team that Dungy built and he very likely could have replicated the same success. Belichick never won as a coach and he only has one playoff win without Brady at the helm. 

 

The reality is we likely are past the point of finding out. Fact is he didn't win a Super Bowl with Cassel, or Bledsoe, or anybody in Cleveland. Brady is going to be 40 in exactly one month, assuming he doesn't retire in NE, if he doesn't win somewhere else, it's going to be attributed more to a 40 something QB losing a step. 

 

 

No way any of it can be proven either way. All we can do is go by what Peyton and Tom have accomplished and judge on that. Both have terrific Stats so once Tom retires that will be a WASH. Tom has won 5 SB's to Peyton's 2 but if some people weigh League MVP's heavily which a lot do it is 5-2 Peyton. Some people judge SB wins as more of a team accomplishment and if they do that, then those people would say Peyton is better because of the MVP's. The people that think winning SB's is the main criteria for a QB then they are obviously going to say Tom. I will say this Marino never won 1 and is a lot better than a QB like Ben, Eli, or Plunkett and they all won 2 SB's. So where is the line drawn on these things?

[BloodyChamp]

5 hours ago, footballhero1 said:

 

Here's the thing. We go down that rode then Dungy was a year away from winning a SB with another team. Gruden basically won a SB with a team that Dungy built and he very likely could have replicated the same success. Belichick never won as a coach and he only has one playoff win without Brady at the helm. 

 

The reality is we likely are past the point of finding out. Fact is he didn't win a Super Bowl with Cassel, or Bledsoe, or anybody in Cleveland. Brady is going to be 40 in exactly one month, assuming he doesn't retire in NE, if he doesn't win somewhere else, it's going to be attributed more to a 40 something QB losing a step. 

 

 

 

Trying way, way, way, way to hard. 

[aaron11]

On 6/28/2017 at 1:30 PM, Jared Cisneros said:

The hypocritical thing about this topic (I know it's directed at the Peyton Vs Brady debate here) is that if Brady had all Manning's accomplishments, and Manning had all Brady's accomplishments, everyone here would be saying that Manning is the greatest QB of all time because he won 5 SBs. The only reason about half the people here are saying Manning is the GOAT at QB is because he's the greatest QB we'll ever have and we love him, and we are trying to find excuses still that he is better than Brady. It's obvious he isn't. If you could trade Manning's successes with Brady's and put them on the Colts, you would in an instant, and if you say otherwise, you are lying. Say what you want about Belichick coaching Brady, but you take the hand you are given.

its a team game though

 

terry bradshaw also won a bunch of rings, but hes not in the discussion.  marino won no rings, but he does belong

[footballhero1]

On 7/3/2017 at 6:30 PM, BloodyChamp said:

 

Trying way, way, way, way to hard. 

Well the problem is you made a weak point that holds up to know scrutiny and relies on a massive guess of what would happen if a different situation occurred. You said Belichick would win a SB with another QB. He's had multiple other QB's. He has one playoff win with all of them combined and 25 with Brady. So in 7 years with everyone else he has 1, and in 16 years with Brady he has 25. The math's not hard on that one. You're making an assumption that has no real meat to back it up and acting like it's a point that should be seriously considered. 

[footballhero1]

On 7/3/2017 at 7:21 PM, aaron11 said:

its a team game though

 

terry bradshaw also won a bunch of rings, but hes not in the discussion.  marino won no rings, but he does belong

Terry Bradshaw in the grand scheme of things is underrated because his first two SB runs were mostly on his defense. But the other thing is that Bradshaw had substandard stats compared to some of his most notable peers. 

 

Bradshaw: 70.9 passer rating. 212TD-210INT (aka barely over .500)

Tarkenton: 80.4 passer rating. 342TD-266INT 

Staubach: 88.3 passer rating. 153TD-109INT

 

If you didn't count rings, Bradshaw isn't a HOF QB.  Brady on the other hand would be because he's top 4 of all time in most bulk stats and could possibly challenge for the top spot in a couple years and is top 3 in efficiency stats. 

 

Marino rewrote the record book when he played and was a clear cut above everyone else who ever played before him from a pure skill level. And a lot of people put Elway ahead of him even though Elway wasn't even the best player on his team when he won his two rings and his stats are way behind Marino's

[BloodyChamp]

You're not telling me that, you're telling yourself. 

[GoPats]

On 6/29/2017 at 1:27 PM, NannyMcafee said:

 

I wonder if it's just me getting older, or if the excitement that the game once held is actually winding down...? Things just don't seem like they used to, even before Peyton left the game. 

Ill always watch the Colts, I can't stop myself, but I'd be lying if I said I was as excited every Sunday as I always used to be. 

 

No I don't think it's just you... I think the way the game has evolved, the demand for elite players at the QB position has gone up, while the supply has remained the same. So you have a lot of mediocre to sub-mediocre QBs out there these days. In some rare cases, teams can still win with marginal QB play, but that's more of the exception than the rule. 

 

 

[GoPats]

On 6/30/2017 at 1:17 PM, coltsfeva said:

A couple of points, if I may: If we determine GOAT by championships alone, you would have to consider Otto Graham (7) and Bart Starr (5) in the conversation. 

The old saying "Defense wins championships" is true Brady never won a SB with defenses that ranked lower than 8th.

Joe Montana NEVER lost a SB nor did he throw an int in a SB.

Even though Tom did his part, two of those five rings were gifts by opposing coaches, when they should have run the ball and collected their hardware.

Brady has had the fortune of playing with an exceptional coach, his whole career.

 Peyton won 93 games in his career, when his defenses ranked below 16th, Brady only 20 or so.

Tom Brady will always be considered one of the greatest QBs of all time, on that we can agree. But this topic really is subjective, based on talent around him, Coaching, eras and competition, I don't think you can say OBJECTIVELY his is better than those who went before him. If all things were equatable ( coached by Belicheck, in this era, with those defenses and special teams), I don't think he is better than Starr, Graham, Montana, Marino, Elway, Unitas or Manning. He ranks amoung them but he has had advantages that many of them have not  had.

 

Some good points, but I'll offer my two cents... 

 

- I have a hard time reaching across eras with guys like Otto Graham and Bart Starr. In some ways those guys had more challenges than today's QBs. But in other ways, it was easier. Graham played in a 12-team league. The competition was not as good and players are obviously better all-around athletes today. I also haven't seen enough of guys like Graham and Starr, with my own eyes, to put them in their historic place. 

 

- Brady's had the benefit of playing on some well-rounded teams, yes. Usually the Patriots' defense and special teams are anywhere from solid to very good in any given year. On the flip side of that though, he's never consistently had a bevy of weapons at his disposal on offense. And his willingness to take less money than he deserves has also allowed the Patriots to remain competitive. 

 

- I really hate the "Joe Montana was 4-0 in Super Bowls!" argument. Brady has lost 9 playoff games out of 34 played. Montana lost 7 out of 23 played. So somehow, despite the fact that their teams were eliminated in the playoffs a roughly equal number of times, Brady's supposed to be penalized for making it further than Montana did? That doesn't make any sense at all. It also ignores the fact that Montana had four one-and-dones in his career (2 for Brady) and was 0-3 in the playoffs from '85-'87 (right in his prime) and was pretty dismal in all of those games (52.3% completion rate, just over 500 yards in all, zero TDs and  INTs). Plus you penalize Brady for having good defenses and "loaded" teams but that doesn't apply to Montana? As far as just players go, Brady's the only constant for all seven Super Bowl appearances and all five wins. Seems to me it's a great accomplishment to do that in the Free Agency era, as opposed to the roster stability that those 49ers teams enjoyed. 

 

- I agree that it is a very subjective question and process. I'm not ONLY considering titles here though. Brady's numbers alone are very solid. He's no lower than fourth in most major career stats categories, and he's still going. And I don't really see how anyone could argue that his career isn't the most accomplished/decorated of any player, ever. Even just his career winning percentage is insane. The object of the game is to win. No one's ever done that better than Tom Brady, IMO. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[footballhero1]

4 hours ago, BloodyChamp said:

You're not telling me that, you're telling yourself. 

Whatever you want to tell yourself. At least I provided context as opposed to making a silly blanket statement that had no basis in fact.

 

Edit: I take that back you made one dumb statement with no basis in fact then made two statements devoid of any value to the discussion because you never had anything of value to begin with. Congratulations you wasted everyone's time.

 

[GoPats]

 

There's no "formula" for determining a QB's place in history. Legacies are all different and they're all unique. No one who's spent any time watching the game will tell you that Marino isn't among the all-time greats just because he didn't win a Super Bowl. It's a combination of things, and in some cases some of those things are weighted more heavily than in others. 

 

 

[Myles]

2 minutes ago, GoPats said:

 

There's no "formula" for determining a QB's place in history. Legacies are all different and they're all unique. No one who's spent any time watching the game will tell you that Marino isn't among the all-time greats just because he didn't win a Super Bowl. It's a combination of things, and in some cases some of those things are weighted more heavily than in others. 

 

 

Yep.   Kind of stupid to argue about, but I guess it'll still happen. 

[BloodyChamp]

 

3 hours ago, footballhero1 said:

Whatever you want to tell yourself. At least I provided context as opposed to making a silly blanket statement that had no basis in fact.

 

Edit: I take that back you made one dumb statement with no basis in fact then made two statements devoid of any value to the discussion because you never had anything of value to begin with. Congratulations you wasted everyone's time.

 

 

Really there's no basis in going 11-5 with Matt Cassell? Or winning a playoff game in Cleveland? Or winning 2 rings as a DC with Hoss and Simms at QB? That's what happened btw. Yes I know that's the same as "You said Belichick would win a SB with another QB. He's had multiple other QB's. He has one playoff win with all of them combined and 25 with Brady. So in 7 years with everyone else he has 1, and in 16 years with Brady he has 25. The math's not hard on that one".  But that's why you worded it that way and tried to make it into a math problem though isn't it. 

[footballhero1]

2 hours ago, BloodyChamp said:

 

 

Really there's no basis in going 11-5 with Matt Cassell? Or winning a playoff game in Cleveland? Or winning 2 rings as a DC with Hoss and Simms at QB? That's what happened btw. Yes I know that's the same as "You said Belichick would win a SB with another QB. He's had multiple other QB's. He has one playoff win with all of them combined and 25 with Brady. So in 7 years with everyone else he has 1, and in 16 years with Brady he has 25. The math's not hard on that one".  But that's why you worded it that way and tried to make it into a math problem though isn't it. 

No. No basis at all if you put any intelligent thought into it, whatsoever. 

 

He went 16-0 with Brady with virtually the same team the year before. He had basically the successor to a top 5 all time NFL team where the only significant difference was the QB. They lost 5 more games. This was a QB that was capable of winning 10 wins on a much lesser Chiefs team. So no doesn't hold up. Especially when you consider the schedule was so weak from the two divisions they played that the Dolphins went from almost win less to the AFC East champions. What do you honestly think their record is with Brady that year? You think it's even close to 11-5? 

 

He was the DC on those teams. Not the head coach. His defense also had the GOAT defensive player of all time. He also had a HOF coach actually, you know, coaching those teams. You really think that means something? If you believe that, then you must believe Wade Phillips can win a SB with any QB because Peyton Manning was statistically a bottom tier QB that year. 

 

He won a single playoff game in 5 years with Cleveland. He won 25 with Brady. In his first 5 years with Brady he won 10. Oh by the way, that Cleveland team essentially is the same team as the Ravens, not the current Browns. They weren't the absolute mess they became after the revival. That team basically won a SB 5 years later. Without Belichick. With a defense better than any defense Belichick ever coached, btw. 

 

In 7 seasons without Brady he has 1 playoff win to show for it. That's all that needs to be said for a silly "he could win a SB without Brady argument". 

[BloodyChamp]

Yeah it's all a huge coincidence that they went 11-5 without him (which isn't bad btw and what about last season? 3-1?), won in NY without him, and while I'll admit this last bit is a stretch the truth is Bill had Cleveland on the upswing. They'd won a playoff game and were 4-4 before Art Modell dropped the bomb. 

 

But I'll dumb it down for you. You'll still deny it but...naw. If Tom Brady went down in week 17 and they played the Colts in the playoffs the following week, every Colts fan in the world would be just as nervous about the game. And that would be the case if the Pats were going to the playoff at 16-0 or 9-7.

[GoPats]

13 hours ago, BloodyChamp said:

Yeah it's all a huge coincidence that they went 11-5 without him (which isn't bad btw and what about last season? 3-1?), won in NY without him, and while I'll admit this last bit is a stretch the truth is Bill had Cleveland on the upswing. They'd won a playoff game and were 4-4 before Art Modell dropped the bomb. 

 

But I'll dumb it down for you. You'll still deny it but...naw. If Tom Brady went down in week 17 and they played the Colts in the playoffs the following week, every Colts fan in the world would be just as nervous about the game. And that would be the case if the Pats were going to the playoff at 16-0 or 9-7.

 

So does it make any sense, given your take on the situation, that BB has consistently said "there's no quarterback I'd rather have" than Brady, and last year referred to him as the GOAT? If his own coach feels that way, and you're giving all the credit to the coach... 

 

 

[Gramz]

This discussion will go on into infinity.  

 

I've said it before, and I'll say it again,   I feel very fortunate to have witnessed, and watched  a few of the greatest ever.    

[Yehoodi]

18 hours ago, BloodyChamp said:

 

 

Really there's no basis in going 11-5 with Matt Cassell? Or winning a playoff game in Cleveland? Or winning 2 rings as a DC with Hoss and Simms at QB? That's what happened btw. Yes I know that's the same as "You said Belichick would win a SB with another QB. He's had multiple other QB's. He has one playoff win with all of them combined and 25 with Brady. So in 7 years with everyone else he has 1, and in 16 years with Brady he has 25. The math's not hard on that one".  But that's why you worded it that way and tried to make it into a math problem though isn't it. 

 

To be honest one has to look at the whole package and also individual years/games to qualify them before one can make an educated evaluation on the matter.

 

First off, while with the Pats BB has a winning percentage essentially 0.500 without Brady and the 4 QBs that he coached outside of Brady.  BB is on the other hand 0.750 winning percentage with Brady.  So that is a big jump.  

 

Second, it is true some of those games came from the 5-12 start with Bledsoe from 2000-2001, but when Brady was put in at QB of that team it went on to win 3 SBs in 4 years.   Yes they were 3-1 this year but that first game was a win in which AZ missed a FG at the end to loose the game (some folks like to qualify the Pats two recent SBs wins as mistakes by the competition, just saying) and the loss this year was the first time we have been shut out at home since 1993.

 

Third, regarding 2008, yes we did go 11-5, but so didn't the perennial 0.500 Miami Fins with essentially the same schedule, and they took the division.   So in another words,  BB and his non Brady QB did nothing more than a perennial 0.500 Fins team.  Most of the years Brady helps the pats win the division and are typically clear of the 2nd place finisher by 2-4 games.   So again we just need to qualify things. 

 

It is tough to separate QB and coach, but we must remember that when we do look at great coaches and QBs there is always a great counterpart to the coach or QB. 

 

In the end, i will look at the entire body of work as a whole, with and without the other party, and I see a significant increase in the regular season winning percentage, and many deep runs in the playoffs, when BB is working with Tom Brady.

 

They both will go into the history of the NFL as among the best at their positions.        

[BloodyChamp]

You conveniently left Bill Parcels out of the whole Phins thing so there would be no dots to connect back towards coaching. Yeah yeah wasn't the coach but you can still connect some dots there. If you couldn't have at all, you wouldn't have put it that way similar to what I said about the other post. Take Bill Parcels out of the room and the Dolphins probably go 1-15 again. Same goes for Bill Belichik and the Pats. You also left out doing more than the Jets who were SB picks that year as late as week 14 or so before Favre got hurt. 

[BloodyChamp]

1 hour ago, GoPats said:

 

So does it make any sense, given your take on the situation, that BB has consistently said "there's no quarterback I'd rather have" than Brady, and last year referred to him as the GOAT? If his own coach feels that way, and you're giving all the credit to the coach... 

 

 

 

A GOAT coach consistently saying things that will keep his team together and playing hard. Shocking. Besides he's also called a certain Colt the GOAT before to.

[footballhero1]

30 minutes ago, BloodyChamp said:

You conveniently left Bill Parcels out of the whole Phins thing so there would be no dots to connect back towards coaching. Yeah yeah wasn't the coach but you can still connect some dots there. If you couldn't have at all, you wouldn't have put it that way similar to what I said about the other post. Take Bill Parcels out of the room and the Dolphins probably go 1-15 again. Same goes for Bill Belichik and the Pats. You also left out doing more than the Jets who were SB picks that year as late as week 14 or so before Favre got hurt. 

What the....

 

The irony of Parcels being the head coach of the team that you are giving BB credit for winning two Super Bowls with as a DC is not lost.

 

either way that was a paper thin schedule in 2008 that the Patriots should have come close to running the table on with Brady

[Yehoodi]

39 minutes ago, BloodyChamp said:

You conveniently left Bill Parcels out of the whole Phins thing so there would be no dots to connect back towards coaching. Yeah yeah wasn't the coach but you can still connect some dots there. If you couldn't have at all, you wouldn't have put it that way similar to what I said about the other post. Take Bill Parcels out of the room and the Dolphins probably go 1-15 again. Same goes for Bill Belichik and the Pats. You also left out doing more than the Jets who were SB picks that year as late as week 14 or so before Favre got hurt. 

 

Bill Parcels?  he was the VP.  And was the VP for the Phins from 2008 to 2010.  And yes after 2008, the Phins went back to their 500-nish, in the following two seasons with Parcels at VP going 7-9 in each year.   Surely Parcels did help to some degree, I will not argue, but at the same time the Phins came back to their norm in 2009 and 2010.

 

Yes the Jets were solid under Farve, but faltered late in the season.

[Yehoodi]

43 minutes ago, BloodyChamp said:

 

A GOAT coach consistently saying things that will keep his team together and playing hard. Shocking. Besides he's also called a certain Colt the GOAT before to.

 

You may want to check the bold.  BB has said at times that Manning is the toughest QB he has to coached against, while at the same time telling folks he would rather have no one other than Brady as his QB.

 

He has throw praises to Bert Jones saying he is basically the best pure passer he has seen.

 

In fact, I think only recently has BB spoke out regarding any GOAT talk.   He always has been reserve about this, likely do to the fact that he does not like distractions and would not want to have to defend himself in a GOAT debate.  

[GoPats]

49 minutes ago, BloodyChamp said:

 

A GOAT coach consistently saying things that will keep his team together and playing hard. Shocking. Besides he's also called a certain Colt the GOAT before to.

 

No he didn't.

 

I'm not sure if you just actually believe some of the things you post, or if you really think we're all that dumb. But you consistently make statements like this that have no basis in fact. 

 

BB said Manning was the toughest QB he's had to prepare against. Which obviously does not include his own QB. 

 

Is that your thing? Do you just make things up to support your narratives? 

 

 

[Gramz]

 

I post this in "jest"  of course,

I used to get so wrapped up, and emotionally involved in these types of discussions.     It's funny how when  you walk away from it for awhile, you realize how   you can get.  

I was guilty of   more than a few times.

 

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

11 minutes ago, Gramz said:

Cute cat

[BloodyChamp]

Peyton also said Bill was going to go down as the greatest coach of all time. Bill Parcels was an advisor from 2009-2010. It's not like the Dolphins were 1-15 those years. They just missed some breaks. And 1 more thing...ya'll mad.

[Yehoodi]

1 hour ago, Gramz said:

 

I post this in "jest"  of course,

I used to get so wrapped up, and emotionally involved in these types of discussions.     It's funny how when  you walk away from it for awhile, you realize how   you can get.  

I was guilty of   more than a few times.

 

 

 

Fan is short for fanatic . . . fans will have these discussions all the time, I guess its just human nature.  .   It is all in good fun for the most part to pick up these conversations, sometimes new folks show up and/or look at things from a different angle.  

 

But there are will be some who will discuss the same topics as it can be fun for some.  Kind of like two old folks back in the day playing checkers at the general store arguing Joe DiMaggio or Ted Williams.

 

The internet just condenses the nation. 

 

As for the OP's point, I am glad that folks are looking at coaching as a factor as many do not give credit to teammates and coaches.  One still needs talent, but one really needs coaching and teammates to help put up the resume to be deemed among the best in their sport.   

[Gramz]

24 minutes ago, Yehoodi said:

 

Fan is short for fanatic . . . fans will have these discussions all the time, I guess its just human nature.  .   It is all in good fun for the most part to pick up these conversations, sometimes new folks show up and/or look at things from a different angle.   

 

As for the OP's point, I am glad that folks are looking at coaching as a factor as many do not give credit to teammates and coaches.  One still needs talent, but one really needs coaching and teammates to help put up the resume to be deemed among the best in their sport.   

Well of course Coaching plays into it, as do other teammates.  Remember.....  One can't both throw and catch the ball at the same time.  Someone famous once said that after a certain Super Bowl game  

 

It's all good.  We've had some great QB's to watch over the past decades that have really made the games fun and exciting to watch.   We all have our favorites, and those who have made us love the game.   

 

  

[Yehoodi]

6 minutes ago, Gramz said:

Well of course Coaching plays into it, as do other teammates.  Remember.....  One can't both throw and catch the ball at the same time.  Someone famous once said that after a certain Super Bowl game  

 

It's all good.  We've had some great QB's to watch over the past decades that have really made the games fun and exciting to watch.   We all have our favorites, and those who have made us love the game.   

 

  

 

Yes we have been blessed to have two great teams and great QBs for a decade and a half, which is a really long time even by today's standards.  And the beauty of seeing them square off against one another each getting the other here and there.

 

haha, yes Giselle quote :-). 

 

As a follow up to that, one of my favorite things about BB is that he always puts things into perspective.  When Deion Branch came back to the Pats for a second stint back in 2010 a reporter asked how he liked Deion's play (in a game in which he had some catches).   BB said (something along the lines of): " well you need to have a good play call, the WR, QB, and OLine recognize the defense, the QB and WR to know the routes and change if necessary, the Oline to block, WR to run the correct route, QB to recognize it, QB to throw the ball and accurately, and the WR to catch the ball"  

 

Just a great way of saying each part is just a part and needs others to help.  Surely, the better players will increase changes, but they still need help from mates. 

[Yehoodi]

On 6/28/2017 at 11:48 AM, NannyMcafee said:

If his head coach is also considered the greatest of all time? Does it not take away from an individuals performance when your coach is a master mind and is considered the GOAT?

 

I think that it is important to realize that a coach (and mates) help individual players create a resume.  And I agree that one gets into a chicken and the egg argument as to who is responsible when you have two of the all time greats on the same team. 

 

And it certainly helps if one can see one of them work outside the other, and preferably both.  Although even then one will have to look at the other teams.  For instance, one can say BB did not do well with Cleveland, but one needs to remember where Cleveland was when BB came along and understand it takes time to covert teams and cultures.  And one needs to compare BB resume to Cleveland when he was not with the team. 

 

I do think each is a factor/qualifier on the other's resume, but I would not make it a per se dispositive on either resume, but a factor to consider.   Indeed, when we look at some of the GOATs candidates across the sports one will more often than not have one at both the player and coach position on the team. 

 

As a side note, one reason why I chose my avatar as having both BB and TB is that I feel that both are a success to the pats. 

[GoPats]

 

A good coach puts players in position to succeed. 

 

A good player executes that coach's plan effectively.

 

It takes both to win. 

 

 

 

[chad72]

Belichick is a rare coach, and Brady is a rare QB, just like Peyton. It is a shame there are no more Peyton-Brady rivalry games. We all have our favorites. It is understandable, on a Colts forum, that Peyton is held up as high as Brady but outside this forum and in many objective eyes, Brady has distanced himself from Peyton after this recent SB, including mine. Once Peyton's neck stuff happened, we knew Brady would outlast him, longevity wise.

 

Belichick has been a big reason why the team's competence has been relevant in the salary cap era while Brady's early 3 SBs helped him with NFL pundit equity, fan equity and enough house money that he could afford to wait to lay the cherries on top later when he truly became an elite QB well after his early 3 SB years, IMO. Aaron Rodgers, pair him up with Belichick, Rodgers' teams' Ds will not be doling out 30 points a game, I can bet on that. Guys like Rodgers, that don't turn the ball over much, fit right with what Belichick wants in a QB, the ability to make plays AND not turn the ball over much. 

 

Belichick, whether to embrace Randy Moss when pass friendly rules were established, or abandon Randy Moss and go back to his short passing game and TEs when the league caught on, needed a QB who could implement every plan he could conceive and it would be irrational to say that Brady was not a big reason the Patriots could come up with any offensive plan to attack a D any way any given week. Thus, in several ways, Belichick hurt and helped Brady's cause, depending on whether you give credit to the schemer or the executor. It truly does take two hands to clap with the Patriots with Belichick and Brady being those two hands.