In response to sporter81's comment:

I would agree. It is stupid to argue either of them without the other because essentially we will never know. Both are towards the end of their careers, so is there really enough time for one of them to prove how great they would be without the other?

I will say, I mention this from time to time when this discussion comes up, but for my money Joe Gibbs does not get enough love when the mention the all-time greastest coaches. Three Super Bowl Championships with three different QBs over a 10 year span.

There are only two other coaches who won Super Bowls with multiple starting QBs - Parcells (Simms and Hostetler) & George Seifert (Montana & Young). The list of QBs who won with different coaches is even shorter. Only two, Roethlisberger and Montana.

For the most part, great teams are defined by the coach/QB combo... 

Joe Gibbs was one of the best. He coached some great Redskins teams in a very tough division. The team that went 15-1 with Mark Rypen was one of the best teams that isn't talked about much.

In response to BabeParilli's comment:

Im saying that a team can't win on just a great quarterback alone. 

In response to sporter81's comment:

In response to wozzy's comment:

The real good ones are very hard to land. Teams pay them and have the rights to keep them even if they have to franchise them. But I agree living in NE is excellent, BB and Kraft are top quality - but some people like different things.

In response to sporter81's comment:

Well, no. They have to have a team around them. And a decent defense helps!

 

But any number of not so great coaches have won SBs. But a lot of SBs follow the quality QBs.

Most guys want to play for the Patriots. The NFL is different than say the NBA. I don't think too many players have the Celtics as their first choice. The NFL is more about a place to work than living and playing in a place to party. Football players work nearly non stop even though they don't play many games.

In response to BabeParilli's comment:

Like I said iMO it's both. Trent Dilfer wasn't the best quarterback when the Ravens won. No position is solely responsible for a team winning, they can contribute more than others but it takes an entire team, including the coach to win.

Well we've both stated our opinions on it. It's all good.

In response to sporter81's comment:

Dilfer is the exception, high quality QBs are the rule. A truly dominating defense can make up for a poor QB. I agree it does take more than a great QB. If it didn't, we would have two more Lombardis.

BB would have had a SB in Cleveland had that fiasco there never happened.  Had he went to the Ravens with the move he might still be there winning SB's..... with Tom Brady!

In response to TFB12's comment:

That's quite a reach. The Ravens had 4 pretty lean years after they canned him. It's not like he walked away leaving them with a championship team. And Grier started the ball rolling on Brady, not BB. And his reward was to get fired in favor of Pioli.

In response to BabeParilli's comment:

I totally disagree.  Had the Browns stayed in Cleveland they would have won a SB soon with BB and what he had going on there.  Had BB, team and staff stayed together for the move they would have had a SB sooner then 4 years and had more then 1.

In response to sporter81's comment:

The  greatest  tandem  ever ???  The PATS, with  BB's  pathetic  D, will  probably  not  win  a  Lombardy  in  Brady's  last  11  years, assuming  TB  has  3  more  years.

In response to JohnHannahrulz's comment:
[QUOTE]

L.A. ................Are the Raiders moving? Is Jacksonville? Kind of a moot point. How many good coaches have been absolutely crushed in the NFL? Robinson, Saban, Spurrier, Petrino. etc... Maintaining a ten year record of success in the NFL (not NCAA) is more difficult than beating Middle South Carolina State by 40 pts in the Skoal Bowl.

 

People seem to forget that the Pats D was very good 2001-2007. I don't buy that it was all Brady all the time that kept the Pats winning. It's football. Brady's last five years could be better than his first four years. Hate to overstate the obvious, but great teams win Super Bowls and great players contribute.

 

 

As  everyone  knows, BB  inherited  a  core  of  savvy  veterans  on  D.  This  was  a  significant  factor  in  the  early  years.  As  far  as  the '06  Defense, it  was  so  bad  it  gave  up  35  points  in  the  2nd  half  of  the  confernce  championship  game  against  the  Colts.  And  the  D  in  SB 42, lost  the  end  game  again  to  an  inexperienced  Eli.  /QUOTE]

In response to wozzy's comment:

You  say, " All  free  agents  consider  the  PATS  unless  there's  an  overwhelming  bias."  That's  probably  true,  but  it's  because  TB  has  established  a  winning  culture  in  New  England.  It's  not  b/c  of  BB.   As  a  GM, he's  been  an  abject  failure.  Name  a  good  free  agent  signing  on  D  in  the  past  8  years.  Also,  Belichik  has  been  a  head  coach  for  7  years  without  Brady.   His  record  in  those  7  years  is  47-55  with  0  SB  wins.  Seven  years  isn't  that  small  of  a  sample  size.    There  are  several  good  coaches,  who  in  tandem  with  a  decent  GM,  could  have  accomplished  more  with  the  PATS  from  2000  to  present.. 

In response to TFB12's comment:

As  Babe  stated, your  post  is  quite  a  stretch.  BB  was  such  a  hot  commodity  in  1995, he  was  canned  in  Cleveland  and  didn't  land  a  HC  position  until  5  years  later.  His  7  year  record  as  HC  without  TB  is  47-55  with  0  SB  wins.   And  no  one  should  get  a  whole  lot  of  credit  for  drafting  # 12  with  the  199  pick.  I  think  the  primary  factors  in  the  PATS  3  SB  wins  are :  1)  TB's  brilliance ; 2) Belichick  inheriting  a  core  of  playmakers  on  D ; 3)  Vinitieri's  magical  kicks ; 4)  good  fortune  ( ie.  tuck  rule ).  Since  '05, BB  lost  that  core  of  playmakers  on  D  and  had  to  rely  on  his  own  inept  GM  acumen.  The  PATS  let  AV  walk    and  good  fortune  went  somewhere  else.  Only  TB's  brilliance  remains.  I  said  brilliance, not  perfection.  # 12  is  allowed  to  have  an  occasional  off  game.  And  consider  this :  The  PATS  most  likely  will  not  win  another  Lombardy  in  TB's  last  11  years  ( assuming  he  has  3  more  years )  thanks  to  Belichik's  inabilty  to  field  a  respectable  D.

In response to FrnkBnhm's comment:

I agree. I think Belichick is a great coach. I will also so say being a great coach isn't good enough in this league without having a great QB - there are too many great coaches around and great players, you need something more. A QB is it. To Bill's credit he knew what he had and made Brady into a very special player and took advantage of his talent.

Man o man - to this day I can't understand the point of this argument.  That said, some facts (real facts; not opinions labeled facts but aren't):

In 2008 Pats were:

11-5 overall

4-2 in the division

This with a back up quarterback who isn't making anyone forget Len Dawson in Kansas City these days.

Now, it is a given, not an opinion, but a given, that winning a game in the NFL is a week by week proposition regardless of the teams records.  It is also a given, not an opinion, but a given that having a winning record within the division is an accomplishment, regardless of the perceived strength of the division.  There were 3 teams in the AFC with a better record than the Pats in 2008.  The other two teams with 11-5 records made the playoffs.  The Pats missed because of a tiebreaker.

Is Brady a great quarterback?  Without question.  Is BB a great coach?  Without question.

Why perpetuate this closed loop argument?  It is unwinnable regardless of which side one takes.

In response to ATJ's comment:

Hello ATJ and good morning. Enjoyed your post.

Because I read into it that you lean toward Belichick.

Here is what I did to it: All I did was to change all YOUR positives in BOLD to MY negatives in BOLD and read it again. What that did was change the opinion from Belichick to Brady.

Your killer statement was the Len Dawson one. That was the tipoff!

Here it is:

Man o man - to this day I can't understand the point of this argument.  That said, some facts (real facts; not opinions labeled facts but aren't):

In 2008 Pats were:

11-5 overall

4-2 in the division

This with a back up quarterback who MADE EVERYONE forget Len Dawson in Kansas City these days.

Now, it is a given, not an opinion, but a given, that LOSING a game in the NFL is a week by week proposition regardless of the teams records.  It is also a given, not an opinion, but a given that having a LOSING record within the division IS'NT an accomplishment, regardless of the perceived strength of the division.  There were 3 teams in the AFC with a LESSER record than the Pats in 2008.  The other two teams with 11-5 records DIDNOT make the
playoffs.  The Pats ADVANCED because of a tiebreaker.

Is Brady a great quarterback?  Without question.  Is BB a great coach?  Without question.
Why perpetuate this closed loop argument?  It is unwinnable regardless of which side one takes.

------

You see ATJ what changing semantics does, a gross giveaway. Or am I perpetuating? :-))))

Fun huh? Have a good Gameday.

 

Morning to you palookaski.  Not entirely sure of your point. Matt Cassell has never really done much in Kansas City for one thing.  For another, you didn't simply make semantic distinctions; you changed facts.  That is not a distinction; it's a major change. 

If your point is that I think the Pats will continue to succeed under Belichick after Brady retires than you are correct.  Beyond that I'm hoping that BB comes up with a good game plan and that Brady and the rest of the guys execute it.

And, oh yeah, this board is a barrel of laughs at times.  Others perhaps less so.

Enjoy the game.

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

In response to TFB12's comment:

That's nice to say, but what shred of evidence do you have to back up that whimsical notion?

As I have noted, the Browns upon becoming the Ravens didn't have a winning season for 4 years. That's an eternity in NFL terms since BB was the rudder for that franchise.

This post has been removed.