Where would you rank Belichick amongst all time great coache

[sluggermatt15]

Let's also remember Belichick and New England play in arguably the WORST division in the NFL since realignment in 2002. The AFC East has sent the fewest wild card teams to the postseason. They basically have made the playoffs by default every year except 2008 when Brady was hurt. If New England played in the AFC North instead of the Browns, I doubt they have this long playoff streak nor their history of a first-round bye.

Since 2002, the AFC East has only sent 6 wild card teams to the playoffs. The AFC North has sent 11 wild card teams to the playoffs, including two teams in the same postseason twice in 2011 and 2014. The AFC East has never sent two wild card teams to the playoffs.

So, it's not like the Patriots haven't benefited from a weak divisional schedule in his "era".

[lastcat3]

Let's also remember Belichick and New England play in arguably the WORST division in the NFL since realignment in 2002. The AFC East has sent the fewest wild card teams to the postseason. They basically have made the playoffs by default every year except 2008 when Brady was hurt. If New England played in the AFC North instead of the Browns, I doubt they have this long playoff streak nor their history of a first-round bye.

Since 2002, the AFC East has only sent 6 wild card teams to the playoffs. The AFC North has sent 11 wild card teams to the playoffs, including two teams in the same postseason twice in 2011 and 2014. The AFC East has never sent two wild card teams to the playoffs.

So, it's not like the Patriots haven't benefited from a weak divisional schedule in his "era".

They probably wouldn't have the sheer amount of 13-3 or 14-2 seasons that they do now but in the end I don't think it really would have changed the end results that much. I think they still would have gone 11-5 or 12-4 in most years and won that division more times than not as well. And having Tom Brady in the playoffs still would have led them to probably the same amount of Super Bowl appearances that they have now. Also remember that just like a tougher division may have put an extra loss or two on the Patriots record New England at the same time would have likely placed an extra loss or two on those teams in that tougher division.


Even though they have played in an easy division, more times than not, the years in which they did make the Super Bowl they have still been the best team in the AFC

[sluggermatt15]

I don't know that I buy all of your argument. Tom Brady is just 4-4 in true road playoff games. He has never played as a wild card team, thus never on the road in wild card weekend or divisional round weekend. I would not be sold on him winning 3 road playoff games and winning the SB in the same postseason.

[lastcat3]

I don't know that I buy all of your argument. Tom Brady is just 4-4 in true road playoff games. He has never played as a wild card team, thus never on the road in wild card weekend or divisional round weekend. I would not be sold on him winning 3 road playoff games and winning the SB in the same postseason.

The fact that three of those road losses came against Peyton Manning lead teams plays a big part in having four losses.

If you really feel that their division plays a big part in how many Super Bowls they get to you should bring up AFC teams that you think were better than the Patriots in the years in which the Patriots went to the Super Bowl.


I honestly don't think the Patriots would have that many more road playoff games even if they played in a tougher division. Because while they may not be getting 14-2 records like they are now those tougher teams they are going up against likely wouldn't be getting 12-4 records either because they would have to be going up against the Patriots in their division.

[rhickok1109]

Since 2003, the Patriots are 149-45-0 against non-division opponents, for a 76.8 winning percentage. That's way ahead of the second team, the Steelers, who are 108-68 for 61.4. They're the only teams that have won more than 60% of the games outside their division.

[JohnH19]

Great post, Ralph! It amazes me to no end how the Patriots’ doubters never give up searching for something to diminish their incredible run.

[lastcat3]

Great post, Ralph! It amazes me to no end how the Patriots’ doubters never give up searching for something to diminish their incredible run.

Never underestimate the drive that people that don't like something have to find holes in the thing that they don't like. For instance the Star Wars franchise has made over 4 billion dollars in theaters since December 2015 yet those that didn't like Episode VIII has spent the past year painting a picture about how Star Wars is dying.

[Citizen]

My one sticking point about Belichick’s amazing run in New England is that it’s hard to determine where his contribution to their success leaves off and where Brady’s begins. They were both essentially flops until fate put them together. I don’t know who has helped whom the most.

A factor that shouldn't be overlooked is that Belichick has been able to rely on one quarterback and three placekickers over a 17-year period, not counting the Cassel year. That’s phenomenal, and it underscores the need for stability at those positions. Compare them to say, the Vikings, who have had 17 starting quarterbacks and nine kickers during that same stretch of time.

Given, I’m as tired as most non-Pats fans are of them monopolizing the AFC, but you can’t argue with the bottom line. He and his staff have shown a phenomenal knack for picking up unheralded players and getting the most out of them.

And yes, Belichick has benefited from being in a poor division and from a good bit of chicanery. But luck and bending the rules are ingredients to success at every level of every business. Like it or not, it’s a fact.

He might not be a pioneer, but for sustained, uninterrupted excellence (nine trips to the Super Bowl in 18 years), Belichick IMO stands only behind Paul Brown (11 trips to the title game in 18 years, counting their AAFC days).

[rhickok1109]

My one sticking point about Belichick’s amazing run in New England is that it’s hard to determine where his contribution to their success leaves off and where Brady’s begins. They were both essentially flops until fate put them together. I don’t know who has helped whom the most.

A factor that shouldn't be overlooked is that Belichick has been able to rely on one quarterback and three placekickers over a 17-year period, not counting the Cassel year. That’s phenomenal, and it underscores the need for stability at those positions. Compare them to say, the Vikings, who have had 17 starting quarterbacks and nine kickers during that same stretch of time.

Given, I’m as tired as most non-Pats fans are of them monopolizing the AFC, but you can’t argue with the bottom line. He and his staff have shown a phenomenal knack for picking up unheralded players and getting the most out of them.

And yes, Belichick has benefited from being in a poor division and from a good bit of chicanery. But luck and bending the rules are ingredients to success at every level of every business. Like it or not, it’s a fact.

He might not be a pioneer, but for sustained, uninterrupted excellence (nine trips to the Super Bowl in 18 years), Belichick IMO stands only behind Paul Brown (11 trips to the title game in 18 years, counting their AAFC days).

I'm not singling you out, but I am a bit bemused by those who hesitate about giving Belichick full credit because he's had Brady all those years (and those who do it the other way around because Brady has had Belichick all those years).

Do you have the same problem with Lombardi and Starr, for example? Or Payton and Brees?

[Bob Gill]

I'm not singling you out, but I am a bit bemused by those who hesitate about giving Belichick full credit because he's had Brady all those years (and those who do it the other way around because Brady has had Belichick all those years).

Do you have the same problem with Lombardi and Starr, for example? Or Payton and Brees?

I've only heard this issue raised with one other coach/quarterback combination: Walsh and Montana.

Maybe people have said the same thing about Lombardi and Starr, but it seems to me that most of the ESPN sort of people assume in that case that Lombardi deserves the lion's share of the credit and Starr was more or less along for the ride. Not saying I agree with that point of view, but I think you can see the proof of its popularity in the way Starr's name is never mentioned among the very top ranks of quarterbacks, despite all the people who insist that the only thing that matters for QBs is "how many rings did he win?"