Tom Brady's success does not diminish Bill Belichick's greatness

With Bill Belichick's NFL future in doubt, the media are speculating on why a head coach as accomplished as he is getting passed over for jobs. While some mention Belichick's age (71) as a factor, others are highlighting his record without Tom Brady as his starter (83-104), especially in recent years, to argue against hiring a coach often regarded as the greatest of all time. That narrative isn't fair.

Belichick owns six Super Bowl titles and nine appearances as a head coach. He's only 15 wins away from breaking Don Shula's all-time wins record (347, counting playoffs). Those are facts no one can deny, but many believe that's largely thanks to Brady, who's widely regarded as the best quarterback of all time and perhaps the best NFL player ever.

Without Brady, Belichick has a losing record. But that fact does not tell the whole story and is starting to paint a false narrative about Belichick's legacy. 

First, the Patriots are not the only team Belichick has coached. Before New England, he spent five seasons as the head coach of the Cleveland Browns (1991-1995). During his time in Cleveland, Belichick led the Browns to a 36-44 mark. 

However, the overall record doesn't reflect how bad the Browns were before he became their head coach. He took over a franchise that went 3-13 the season before his arrival and had lost most of the talent that achieved success throughout the 1980s. 

Three years after Cleveland hired him, Belichick had the Browns back in the postseason, earning his first career playoff win over the Patriots.

In 2000, Belichick took over in New England. As a heavy underdog against "The Greatest Show on Turf" Rams team led by Hall of Famers Kurt Warner and Marshall Faulk, the Patriots won Super Bowl XXXVI. Brady would ascend as the starting quarterback that season, taking over for an injured Drew Bledsoe. 

From that point on, the duo would embark on a 20-year journey as the most successful head coach and quarterback pair in history (six Super Bowl titles). 

If you want to award Brady more credit for the dynasty, fine. With Tampa Bay, he won a Super Bowl on his own without Belichick, but acting like having Brady diminishes Belichick altogether is just taking things too far. 

Brady eventually became a three-time MVP and built an unmatched résumé, but he didn't win his first MVP until 2007 — the first season he was named a first-team All-Pro. He didn't even earn a second-team honor until 2005. None of that argues Brady was not good early on. He certainly was. He was simply among the best quarterbacks in the game, not the very best, during the first three titles. 

Brady has credited Belichick in interviews for teaching him how to prepare. Belichick also won 11 games in 2008 with Brady injured and Matt Cassel as his starting quarterback. Discounting Belichick makes it seem like the entire two-decade-long run was all about Brady.

San Francisco's Bill Walsh never won a Super Bowl without Joe Montana. Pittsburgh's Chuck Noll won all four of his with Terry Bradshaw and other Hall of Famers across the board. Great players can help a coach win. A great coach can help players win. 

When the greatest coach was paired with the greatest quarterback, their team won more often than any other team ever has. It makes sense, but they both deserve credit.