Brady vs. Belichick. Who deserves more credit article.
February 12th, 2017 at 10:30 AM ^
February 12th, 2017 at 10:59 AM ^
February 12th, 2017 at 8:35 PM ^
gotta beat Urbs first
February 12th, 2017 at 10:32 AM ^
February 12th, 2017 at 10:34 AM ^
February 12th, 2017 at 10:38 AM ^
February 12th, 2017 at 10:43 AM ^
February 12th, 2017 at 10:43 AM ^
February 12th, 2017 at 11:00 AM ^
These articles are stupid...they both build off each other and win. period. No need for these absolutely idiotic mental excercises
February 12th, 2017 at 11:01 AM ^
February 12th, 2017 at 12:43 PM ^
Fake news.
February 12th, 2017 at 11:14 AM ^
Ten Bill Belichicks on the sideline ain't brining the Patriots back from 25 points down late in the 3rd quarter in the Super Bowl to win it in overtime.
Nobody can hit a moving 3-inch window of separation in 1.5 seconds like Tom Brady. That's what it took to win that game with New England's fairly marginal receivers.
When Tom Brady retires . . . Bill Belichick should retire too if he's smart.
He'll never see another Super Bowl or even another AFC Championship game once Brady is gone.
February 12th, 2017 at 11:46 AM ^
February 12th, 2017 at 1:01 PM ^
I don't disagree with that, but over the course of a season and especially at Playoff time, Brady is the difference maker.
It's a QB-driven league, and Brady is the best.
Yes I am biased, but still. An airline pilot will always tell you it's faster to go from NY to LA by plane than it is by bus. Of course he's biased. But he's also right.
Putting my bias aside, I truly don't think that Belichick and the Patriots even make it to the Super Bowl, much less win it, without Tom Brady.
February 12th, 2017 at 11:27 AM ^
When it comes to Brady he may be the GOAT but that team could win without him.
February 12th, 2017 at 11:39 AM ^
February 12th, 2017 at 1:30 PM ^
With two different quarterbacks playing.
And don't forget 2008, when NE went 11-5 with Brady playing less than a half the entire year.
February 12th, 2017 at 3:55 PM ^
They will win when he retires if belichek is still coaching, but not likely to win any more super bowls. Bill makes the Pats solid winners, Tom completes the team to the status of Dynasty.
February 12th, 2017 at 11:51 AM ^
Win what? 9-10 games? You are probably right. But they aren't a super bowl team.
I also think part of the reason they play well when Brady is hurt/suspended is that they know they're just holding down the ship till Tom is back. I feel like that really alleviates the pressure on a lot of guys and allows them to play a bit looser.
February 12th, 2017 at 12:29 PM ^
February 12th, 2017 at 12:07 PM ^
The day Bledsoe got hurt and Brady was put on the field.
What a coincidence.
February 12th, 2017 at 12:48 PM ^
They complement one another as a coach/field general combination. It is reasonable to assume that neither would be as successful at winning it all without the other.
February 12th, 2017 at 1:48 PM ^
People by now, actually about 10 years ago, it works because they are the perfect match in doing whatever they can do to win. Their mind set in that regard has never been matched for such an extended period. Yes, they have went on nice streaks without Tom, but how many of those streaks include a playoff win?
Their offense has changed so many parts overy the years, people want to give Tom credit - which he should get to a degree - but its the HC who authors both the offense and defense that will guarantee the greatest chance to win. They are the greatest coach/qb tandem of all time and that is the reason it has worked, still works and will work until Tom's shoulder says no mas. People have always spoken about his lack of speed without realizing his footwork has made that a totally moot point.
February 12th, 2017 at 2:03 PM ^
both Brady and Belichick probably are laughing at the question. It's like, you find a collaborator who's really great at what they do and you're really great at what you do, you have enormous success together and it's generally acknowledged you compliment each other.
There's no problem, there's no questions there unless you're insecure. Lincoln didn't win the Civil War on his own. Does he win it without Grant and Sherman? Maybe not. Does Grant win it and go on to become President if he isn't given the shot by Lincoln? Nope. Nobody is on an island, nobody works entirely outside their circumstances. It's life and if you end up on the positive side of it, you take it and run with it.
February 12th, 2017 at 2:50 PM ^
February 12th, 2017 at 9:17 PM ^
February 12th, 2017 at 9:19 PM ^
Brady makes the plays offensively.
Belichick assembles the defenses that always seem to be at the top of the NFL and keep them in games just long enough for Brady magic to win.
Their legacies will always be entertwined. One is the coach and one is the quarterback.
February 12th, 2017 at 10:12 PM ^
Not sure how one can argue Brady makes Belichick... He coached the team to 11-5 with Matt Cassel and went 3-1 (easily) with 2 first-time starters.
Brady is the obvious GOAT, but who knows what he is without Belichick; we know what Belichick is without Brady.
February 13th, 2017 at 8:01 AM ^
Both could make the playoffs without the other
Brady could probably win the division if you put him on Buffalo or Miami
Bellichech could possibly win it with Garappolo
But I don't think either wins the SB
February 12th, 2017 at 11:02 PM ^
They worked amazingly well together, and separately neither of them had the kind of success they'd had as a team.
That is all
February 13th, 2017 at 5:06 AM ^
but the ending "That is all" probably should have been the only line in your post.
If you don't believe Sir Paul was aware of how to financially magnify the profit in the music industry, you haven't been paying attention well since 1971. That was when I ordered my first Wings tape while in Vietnam, and the man hasn't quit printing millions since. Now John, as I agree, may have been the most important piece in the makeup of the Beatles, he certainly didn't touch the success that Paul did. It could have been by choice, and that we just will never know. However, it isn't even colse and no matter your definition of success, Paul is.