I agree with nick. The legacy of both is secure. Both would have won without the other, but neither would have won as much.
Well said, lads!
Luckily we don’t have to ponder hypotheticals. Tom already did win and now Bill has the next 5-7 years to do the same. Luckily for Belichick, he seems to have his QB of the future with Mac, and now we get to see what he’s able to do in the post Brady era. Hopefully he gets one more, but I’m not super confident in that given he has a losing record as a head coach without TB12. If Bill wins one without Brady, he is hands down the greatest coach of all time. If not, I believe his legacy will be tarnished.
A guy with 8 Super Bowl rings, 17 division titles and the third most wins in NFL history will have a tarnished record if he doesn't win another Super Bowl? Do you even read the stuff you type before posting it.
I get it. You're a TB guy and have little love for Belichick. Because of their public personas, Tom is an easy guy to like and Bill isn't. I get that. But thinking Bill has a tarnished legacy because he doesn't win another title before retiring is a bit disrespectful to what he has accomplished.
What matters is that he has 6 rings as a head coach and every one of them was with Brady, who is the best QB to ever play the game. It’s not about just getting another ring. The narrative for a long time was that Tom’s a system QB that couldn’t win without Bill. Obviously that all changed last season. If Belichick isn’t able to win at least one SB without Brady, his legacy will be effected. The new narrative will be that Bill can’t win without Tom.
Yeah, ummm...no. That won't be the narrative, except for some very few.
I think it will be for quite a few. For Bill’s career, he has a losing record without Brady: 61-73.
Nobody really cares. Is Auerbach's legacy damaged because he couldn't win before Russell?
Red coached for 11 years before Bill and had 1 losing record and made the Finals. Before he took over for Boston, Boston had 4 losing seasons in its entire 4 year history. They didn't have another one until after Russell retired. Red wasn't exactly what you would call a loser before Russell (and he stopped coaching during Bill's career so who knows if he would have gotten the 2 (or more) that Tommy got).
Are you intentionally trying to obfuscate my point?
Pretty bad comparison. As head coach, Bill has made the playoffs just one time without Brady in 30 years and he has a losing record. How can that be ignored?
This ignores the context. Most of those losses came with the Browns (before they became the Ravens), 36–44 if that matters. The Browns were aging and needed to be torn down and then there was the train wreck that was the move to Baltimore. It also ignores that Brady developed into the GOAT under BB's tutelage. BB gets some credit for that.
Both of their legacies are secure. It isn't an either or situation.
Additionally TB was able to cherry pick his landing spot and Tampa had a perfect situation for him with great receivers and a good D. If he had been traded to another team or chosen poorly the question would be is/was TB a system QB.
He was on the Browns for 5 seasons and the only winning season was year 4. It wasn't like he took over a trainwreck, was awful for a season or two and then moved on.
If you look at the 5 years prior the Browns were a team on decline and finished 3-13 the year before BB showed up. They were a bad team and the move to Baltimore was absolutely a train wreck. If anything BB had that team overachieve.
1990 3-13-0 4th -- AFC Central -- Bud Carson, Jim Shofner
1989 9-6-1 1st -- AFC Central 1-1 - Lost Conference Championship Bud Carson
1988 10-6-0 T2nd -- AFC Central 0-1 - Lost Wild Card Playoffs Marty Schottenheimer
1987 10-5-0 1st -- AFC Central 1-1 - Lost Conference Championship Marty Schottenheimer
1986 12-4-0 1st -- AFC Central 1-1 - Lost Conference Championship Marty Schottenheimer
1985 8-8-0 1st -- AFC Central 0-1 - Lost Divisional Playoffs Marty Schottenheimer
No I was saying he was there for 5 years. That is plenty of time to establish your system and your players. If he was for there for 2 seasons, that would be different, but 5 years is plenty of time. And it isn't like he turned the team around by stacking it with talent. The Ravens were a bad team for the first 4 years after Bill as well. The 91-95 drafts were horrid. There wasn't a single player drafted during Bill's 5 years that was even on the 2000 Ravens Superbowl team and only 7 were still in the league (and 3 retired that season). Bill's time in Cleveland was an abject failure by basically every measure. There was very little winning on the field and horrible drafting. And Bill was making the personnel decisions his last 4 years there (Ernie Accorsi was there in 91 but after that Bill basically filled the role of GM). He was so bad at it, that the team made him bring Ozzie Newsome on as Director of Player Personnel for the 95 season. Newsome of course would go on to be one of the greatest GM's in the sports history and it started with his 1st two draft picks who would both end up in the top 5 of their positions all time i.e. Jonathan Ogdon and Rey Lewis.
Bill was horrid in Cleveland and he has been horrid in New England outside of the Brady years. Bill should get immense credit for finding and drafting Brady, but without him getting lucky in the 6th round, his stint in New England wasn't going to last very long because he didn't exactly tear up the drafting there either (certainly better than Cleveland, but not exactly pulling great talents in the first couple of rounds consistently).
That is why I do think he needs to find some level of success post-Brady to truly cement his legacy. He can't end up with a bunch more seasons like last year, especially as Brady keeps right on winning in his mid-40's, or people absolutely will start to question just how good a coach he is.
Poll