If you are a football fan you know how the argument goes. Who was more responsible for the Patriots dynasty, Tom Brady or Bill Belichick? “Who’s better than whom” arguments are part of the fun of sports. You know how they go. In Indy, Peyton is better than Tom, while we correctly say, sorry, it’s Tom. But the truth is I’ve yet to see anyone frame the “Brady or Belichick” debate correctly. Many already say it’s Brady because he won the SB in Year 1 away. But there is more to this than just a one-year hot take.
Here’s how I frame the debate.
It’s Always the Player: That’s the way the adage correctly goes because coaches can only do so much, even in football, where they have the biggest impact. Here are three notable examples.
Paul Brown and Otto Graham This coach-QB duo went to 10 straight title games between 1946 and 1955 with the Cleveland Browns (winning seven times). But after Otto retired in 1955 the innovative Brown never even went to a title game again before retiring in 1975.
George Seifert He had the best winning percentage in NFL history after succeeding Bill Walsh while winning two SB’s in San Francisco with Joe Montana and Steve Young. But after leaving them behind he was 16-32 in Carolina before being fired.
2011 Colts When Indy lost Peyton Manning for the entire 2011 season after neck surgery they lost their first 14 games of the year and finished 2-14.
But when the same thing happened to the Pats when Brady went down in the first quarter of Game 1 in 2008, they still won 11 games because they had Coach B wearing the headset instead of Jim Caldwell. Point goes to Coach B.
Which raises the point I dislike about this debate. It’s how disrespectful it is to all the guys Brady won his rings with because it makes it seem like he won them on his own. While he was the catalyst, if there are no blockers, there’s no Brady. No receivers, no Brady. No defense, especially for the SB wins in 2001, 2003, 2004, no Brady. No Adam V., noooooo Brady legend.
That means it was a collaboration between a coach and QB who clearly helped each other turn out better than they likely would have been alone. Here are three examples for each.
What Brady Did For Coach B:(1) incredible clutch play, (2) extreme durability that let Coach B have his starter in every game but 2008 and the bogus four-game 2016 suspension, and (3) TB regularly took below-market contracts to allow GM Belichick to have more money to spend on the entire roster.
What Coach B Did for Brady: (1) He kept Brady as his fourth QB when he saw something special in the not-NFL-ready TB; that hasn’t been done before or since. If he cut him who knows what would have happened — taxi squad, NFL Europe or pickup by another team not coached by Belichick, (2) The short drop and accurate, quick-release pass system played to his strengths and cut down on the big hits people like Manning regularly absorbed, and (3) Superior strategic thinking, game planning and ability to adapt for in-game adjustments made Brady better.
Finally, it’s not a 20-year argument. The dynasty should really be broken into at least two parts with each having a different impact in each one:
2001-2006: Brady did not become a dominant passing force until 2007. The first three SB wins were built around exceptional defense while the O was built on the power running of Antowain Smith. Plus Brady had little to do with the two biggest non-SB playoff wins, when D intercepted Manning four times (three by Ty Law) as Adam V kicked five FG’s in the 24-14 win in ’03 over Indy and the D held Manning down in the 20-3 win the next year. So the D and Coach B earned the largest share of the credit for the first three titles.
2007–2019: The O took the lead for good in ’07 after BB realized they were going to have to outscore the Colts to beat them going forward. So in came Wes Welker and Randy Moss and away the O went to a record-breaking season. Gronk, Aaron Hernandez and Julian Edelman arrived soon after, as the offense led the way to SB-winning seasons in ’14, ’16 and ’18. So Brady was the leader of the last three.
The final part of the debate is that it was decided in one year, which is bogus because:
Last year wasn’t apples and apples: The national media make it seem like TB transformed a 2-14 team into a Super Bowl winner. He did not. The Bucs were a 7-9 team that had just thrown for 5,000 yards with a QB who threw 30 interceptions, four being pick-sixes in the final five minutes of losses that provided the margin of victory. Brady wouldn’t do that if he played lefty. Take just those four plays away and they’re 11-5, which is what they were with Brady. So he really was the final piece for a team ready to win. Meanwhile the Patriots lost their best player with no cap room to replace him. So who would you expect to be better in that year?
Which brings us to the present, where the Pats sit atop AFC East at 8-4 with the heir apparent at QB having a better first season than Brady did in 2001. Plus with Big Mac on a rookie contract the coach/GM has about $20 million more to spend for five years than he’d have with Brady at QB. So it’s now a fair fight, where the final verdict can’t really be rendered until both are retired.
Though given Brady’s amazing longevity that’s probably 10 or 20 years off.