Belichick, Brady and the New England Patriots

[Reaser]

what separates Brady IMO is his longevity. Graham played 10 seasons, Montana had 10 starting seasons with the Niners then tacked on two more with KC...Brady has had 16 very good-to-elite seasons with the Patriots.

This is another one of those statements that needs era-context applied.

Graham played when ... well just look at the famous picture of his face.

Montana played against defense's that destroyed QB's. I can't even even conjure up a hypothetical image of Brady being hit like Montana was, it's that different of a sport now.

Meanwhile Brady gets grazed and he can point back at the official and get a free 15 yards. He's played in this passing league with pads era the majority of his career and still missed essentially an entire season with injury. So what would have happened if he had to take hits from the '85 Bears, or Lawrence Taylor (or Jim Burt or Leonard Marshall, for obvious reason examples), or etc & etc ... Shoot, Joe Montana got hit harder in preseason games than I can remember Brady being hit at any time in his career.

Not to mention that despite all that, Graham and Montana were both playing at a high level when they retired.

Plus of course, if you're a good QB in this era then you're pretty much set to be good year after year. There isn't the punishment and defenses aren't allowed to play defense as they were (whether hitting the QB or covering receivers). QB's now can play longer -or hypothetically can, we'll see as it starts to play out- so that along with not having to face, for lack of a better description, "real" defenses plays a huge part in longevity and staying at a high level.

Doesn't make Brady better or worse, or prove or disprove your statement, it just needs context.

[Andy Piascik]

I think I said in an earlier post that Paul Brown was playing chess when the other coaches were playing checkers. But I'm not sure that it isn't the same with Belichick. It's just that it's not so obvious to people not in the room exactly what his chess game consists of. We know what Brown did - taxi squad, assistant coaches, substitutions, film study, discipline. I don't think we know what it is that Belichick is doing that has him find players, develop players, lose the players, and yet replace them with other players and still keep winning.


Getting back to the two coaches for a minute, I think there was one way in which Brown did some magic behind the curtain much as you accurately describe with Belichick and that was with the Browns defense. For twelve years from 1946 through 1957, Cleveland did things in terms of defensive stats that no team in history has come close to matching. First off, they led their league in fewest point allowed ten times – four in the AAFC and six of eight years in the NFL and they finished a very close second the other two years. Nobody comes close to touching that kind of dominance for that long a time. In addition, they led in numerous other defensive categories multiple times during that run like fewest rushing yards, fewest passing yards, fewest yards per rush, fewest yards per pass attempt, fewest total yards. I believe it was John Turney who once posted here some numbers for Cleveland’s defensive passer rating that were unbelievable they were so low. John, if that was you and you still have that data, would love to see it again.

During that time, Cleveland had two defenders, Willis and Ford, who were great. They also had HOFers Atkins for two years when he was good but nowhere near what he became, McCormack at MG for one year and Henry Jordan as a back-up DT in 1957. Other than that, they had a very good player in Gain who I’ve never heard seriously discussed as a HOFer and a bunch of other guys who were good – a Pro Bowl or two here, first team all-pro there – but mostly it was a pretty good bunch of guys that was always evolving – Yonakor leaves and the team doesn’t miss a beat, Thompson blows out his knee and the team keeps winning, Atkins’ spot is taken by the immortal Carlton Massey and the team wins a championship the following year. How? I really don’t know. If others have insights, would love to hear them.

A short while later, the Packers have their great dynastic run with a defense that includes six HOFers, not counting Tunnell. They don’t come anywhere near dominating the way Cleveland did. From 1960-67, I think they led in fewest points allowed twice. And not only did they have six (or seven) HOFers, they had LBs like Forester and Currie who were probably better than any Cleveland LB and DBs like Greminger and Jeter who were at least as good and maybe better than Lahr or any DB Cleveland had.

[Andy Piascik]

Sorry, in my most recent post, the first paragraph is a portion of Jeremy's post from Monday night and the following three paragraphs are mine.

[JohnTurney]

Yearly league D stats

[Jay Z]

If the great QBs of the past had the luxury of the offensive-friendly NFL, they too, would light up the scoreboard.

You make many good points. It's important to remember, however, today's quarterbacks are lighting up the stat sheet, not the scoreboard. At least not to a material degree greater than they did in the late 1940s.

This is primarily due to the vast reduction in turnovers in the NFL. Fewer short fields.

[JohnH19]

We all... well, most of us...know that you can't compare Baugh to Graham to Unitas to Montana to Brady. They all played under too many different circumstances. The only top of the heap guy you can compare Tom to is Peyton and I now feel that No. 12 has broken what I have long felt was a tie.

Regarding Belichick; this 16 year run that his team is on is a throwback to my youth watching the Cowboys, Raiders, Vikings, Steelers, Dolphins and Rams contend for the title each and every year for what seemed like an eternity. Again, I'm not going to compare Bill to the greats of other eras and say he's now the GOAT but he is certainly the best of this era and he deserves to be mentioned with Halas, Brown and Lombardi as one of the very best of all time.

[conace21]

I despise Brady and the Patriots but I have to grudgingly give them respect. Brady has made my Mt. Rushmore of QB's. I refuse to call him the unquestioned GOAT, despite what Ty Dunne says.
The thing that jumps out for me about Brady's longevity is his maintaining his hunger and drive, at least according to media reports. Joe Montana wrote in his autobiography that in 1994, football began to feel like a job. He loved Sundays, but dreaded going to meetings and practice. Brady still thrives on that.
No quarterback has been so great for so long. But again, perspective. I read that Brady's life revolves around making him the best player he can be. (Bed at 830, no alcohol or red meats, a strict diet of organic vegetables prepared by a professional nutritionist/chef.) But he has access to advances in science and nutrition that Sam, Otto, Johnny and even Joe did not. It's tough to devote your entire life to football when you have to manage a cattle ranch in Texas, or play in the NBA, in the offseason.

It's fair to say that Brady does not evoke memories of Johnny U, hanging tough in the pocket. He's more likely to go down before the defender gets there, or throw it into the ground to avoid the sack and the hit.

One of the things I've read about Johnny U is how he could manage the game. If the Colts had to come back, he would call the next two plays in the huddle. If they had a lead, he would milk the clock. Why does it seem like Brady and Belichick are the only ones who can do these things?
In a Bills game last year, a defender wrapped up the Bills receiver after a reception, and began celebrating. I immediately thought "Run up to the line and run the next play. Catch this hotdog off guard." Of course, they didn't. But I seem to recall Brady doing that at least once.
In the second half of the Super Bowl, I noticed Matt Ryan repeatedly calling to hike the ball with ten, twelve, even 18 seconds left on the play clock. I thought "What the hell is he doing?" Atlanta may well have been able to run out the clock, even with the stupid play calls...or at least force New England to actually use their timeouts. I can't believe they only used one.

OK, rant over.

[Bryan]

This is another one of those statements that needs era-context applied.

Graham played when ... well just look at the famous picture of his face.

Montana played against defense's that destroyed QB's. I can't even even conjure up a hypothetical image of Brady being hit like Montana was, it's that different of a sport now.

Meanwhile Brady gets grazed and he can point back at the official and get a free 15 yards. He's played in this passing league with pads era the majority of his career and still missed essentially an entire season with injury. So what would have happened if he had to take hits from the '85 Bears, or Lawrence Taylor (or Jim Burt or Leonard Marshall, for obvious reason examples), or etc & etc ... Shoot, Joe Montana got hit harder in preseason games than I can remember Brady being hit at any time in his career.

Not to mention that despite all that, Graham and Montana were both playing at a high level when they retired.

Plus of course, if you're a good QB in this era then you're pretty much set to be good year after year. There isn't the punishment and defenses aren't allowed to play defense as they were (whether hitting the QB or covering receivers). QB's now can play longer -or hypothetically can, we'll see as it starts to play out- so that along with not having to face, for lack of a better description, "real" defenses plays a huge part in longevity and staying at a high level.

Doesn't make Brady better or worse, or prove or disprove your statement, it just needs context.

Yes, I think any "greatest of all-time" discussion already contains "era-context". Tom Brady played in a different era than Joe Montana, who himself played in a different era than Otto Graham. I agree that Brady played in a QB friendly era which has helped him play at a high level. But by the same token, Otto Graham benefited from having an O-line coached by Weeb Ewbank that utilized Paul Brown's innovative pass protection schemes. Joe Montana benefited from playing in Bill Walsh's innovative offense that had the QB releasing the ball quickly instead of always throwing downfield on 2nd and 3rd down. One thing that was always held against Otto Graham (especially when compared to Bobby Layne) was that Otto didn't call his own plays...an aspect of QB play that was thought to be incredibly important for that time.

My thought is when we are discussing greatest of all time, at what point do we simply reward performance/production? I can say that Alan Page played DT in an era that featured small, trap-blocking OGs who couldn't even extend their arms on pass plays, and that Page would be immediately ground to dust by the 330 lb. OGs in today's game...but does that make Page a 'worse' DT? Does that negate his highly-productive 16 year career? Its like people admit that Tom Brady has been great for a long time, but the caveat is that guys like Baugh, Graham, Montana could have done the same thing had they played in Brady's era. I'd rather recognize the guy who actually 'did it' than list some other guys who 'could have done it'.

[jeckle_and_heckle]

One of the things I've read about Johnny U is how he could manage the game. If the Colts had to come back, he would call the next two plays in the huddle. If they had a lead, he would milk the clock. Why does it seem like Brady and Belichick are the only ones who can do these things?
In a Bills game last year, a defender wrapped up the Bills receiver immediately after he caught it and was showing off. I immediately thought "Run up to the line and run the next play. Catch this hotdog off guard." Off course, they didn't. But I seem to recall Brady doing that at least once.
In the second half of the Super Bowl, I noticed Matt Ryan repeatedly calling to hike the ball with ten, twelve, even 18 seconds left on the play clock. I thought "What the hell is he doing?" Atlanta may well have been able to run out the clock, even with the stupid play calls...or at least force New England to actually use their timeouts. I can't believe they only used one.

OK, rant over.

Here here. The Falcons blew it. If they don't score a single point after going up 28-3 (which they didn't), even mediocre play calling or clock management would've won that game. I'll go as far to say that if the second they went up 28-3 you were to put Belichick in charge of Atlanta's players and Quinn in charge of New England's players (including, obviously, Brady), Belichick would've won that game.

Put another way, is there ANY CHANCE Belichick doesn't come away with at least a field goal attempt late in the 4Q had he been down on the 20 or 25 like Atlanta was? It was truly an exhibition of Bad Coaching 101 on the part of Atlanta.

But, alas, thoughts like these get in the way of the national storyline, a delicacy served up by pundits and historians when the main meal doesn't satisfy.

[Reaser]

Yes, I think any "greatest of all-time" discussion already contains "era-context".

You would think so but obviously that isn't the case. Tons of people treat across-era comparisons as if all things are equal.

I agree that Brady played in a QB friendly era which has helped him play at a high level.

Otto Graham benefited from having an O-line coached by Weeb Ewbank that utilized Paul Brown's innovative pass protection schemes.

Joe Montana benefited from playing in Bill Walsh's innovative offense that had the QB releasing the ball quickly instead of always throwing downfield on 2nd and 3rd down.

Really, you can only compare a player in his era. When you go across era you can only compare the things that are available to be compared across eras.

Coaching, team, teammates, system. Which all 3 benefit from, allows the comparison because those things being part of their individual success aren't predicated on era/playing rules differences between the 3. We can say "all 3 benefit from the situation they ended up in" and it's applicable.

But 'accomplishments' that are directly related to era, anywhere from partially to solely, as comparisons are invalid. The obvious being statistical comparisons, but that includes longevity comparisons (explained in previous post), in my opinion.

My thought is when we are discussing greatest of all time, at what point do we simply reward performance/production

Always, with context. We first should be rewarding against it's own era. Then if one wants to compare across eras you can't just say "Drew Brees threw for over 5,000 yards again so he's better than previous era QB's X, Y and Z!" If we compare Brees statistical 'accomplishment' that's directly tied to the era he plays in to someone who played in the 1970's, it's not a valid comparison.

I'd rather recognize the guy who actually 'did it' than list some other guys who 'could have done it'.

Agree, 100%. I've even said the same on these forums, multiple times. There's a difference from a statement and a comparison. "Tom Brady played at a high level for all these years." Fair. "Tom Brady played at a high level all these years and previous era QB only played x amount of years." Now it's a comparison that needs context, especially because it can't be treated as an across-the-board, all things are equal comparison.

When comparing across era if it's an accomplishment in-part or solely due to their era - something not afforded to the compared against player in another era - then the comparison has a flaw.