When the Las Vegas Raiders hired former Seattle Seahawks head coach Pete Carroll, they made two huge statements. First, they know they need to change their culture. Second, they know Bill Belichick would be a terrible hire.
There had been a lot of speculation that former Patriots head coach and six-time Super Bowl champion would return to the NFL this season. He had a year off to recharge the batteries and made it clear that he was interested in returning to the league. As it turned out, he got no serious offers and accepted the head coaching position at the University of North Carolina on December 11th.
What I find so interesting here is that a lot of the discourse has been that many teams viewed Belichick as too old to coach. When the Las Vegas Raiders hired 73-year-old Pete Carroll, that put that theory to rest; at least it did for the Raiders. With Tom Brady as a minority owner of the team, you'd think he'd have some interest in bringing his former coach aboard. Seems that wasn't the case.
The Raiders hiring Pete Carroll instead of Bill Belichick shows how fraudulent the Hoodie is
Harsh words, I know. Full disclosure: I've been a fan of the Miami Dolphins since I moved to Miami in 1969. Yeah, I know I'm old, thanks. So of course, I don't have much love for Belichick. But I should have respect for him, right? I mean, he did win six championships. Clearly, he's the greatest coach of all time.
Except that the record is a complete fraud. Well, maybe not complete, but what did he do without Hall of Fame quarterback Tom Brady on the field? Most of you know this, but for those new to the party, the Hoodie was a pretty lousy coach. Yeah, he won six titles. The funny thing, though, is that TB12 won seven. So who really deserves the credit?
Let's compare the records of both men. Brady won six titles with Belichick as his coach in 20 seasons. He won his seventh in three seasons with the Buccaneers. His record with the Patriots was 219-64, a winning percentage of .774. Yes, that's ridiculously good. With the Buccaneers, he posted a 32-18 record, good for a won-loss percentage of .640. Not in the stratosphere, but still pretty damn good. He wasn't great in his final season, but he was also 43 years old.
Now it's time to take a deeper look at the record of the Hoodie. With Brady, he obviously had the same record as Tom Terrific, 219-64. Just a reminder - the cheating SOB was fined $500K for the Spygate fiasco but wasn't suspended. Belichick's record with the Patriots without the 15-time Pro Bowler was a bit less impressive. Maybe he just needed more cameras.
A closer look at Belichick's record
Belichick joined the Pats in 2000, the same year they drafted Brady. TB12 got zero starts and threw all of three passes. The certified genius head coach went 5-11. Brady got 14 starts in 2001 and went 11-3. New England lost both games without Brady. The star QB missed virtually all of 2008 with an injury. The Pats went 11-5 without him, which looks good until you realize they were 16-0 in 2007. Eli Manning and the Giants put an end to that nonsense.
Brady missed four games in 2016, going 11-1 in his 12 starts. The Hoodie went 3-1 without him, which is good, but not as good as 11-1. By the way, Tom's one loss that year was to the Seahawks. That's right, enjoy that taste, Tommy Boy.
Anyway, after Brady left for Tampa Bay in 2020, the Patriots immediately dropped to 7-9. Brady didn't do much - just went 11-5 and won the Super Bowl. Beli bounced back in 2021 with a 10-7 season. He followed that up with an 8-9 campaign, then dropped off the face of the Earth with a 4-13 record in 2023.
Before Billy the Stiff joined New England, he coached the Cleveland Browns for five seasons. He guided them to a stellar 36-44 record. But he did manage one winning season in 1994, going 11-5. He pulled off the cool trick of reversing his record in 1995, leading the team to a 5-11 season. Belichick's record in New England without Tom Brady is 48-57.
You might dismiss his dismal record with the Browns as a lack of team talent or adjusting to the league, but he was a certified genius in New England, right? Overall, Belichick sans Brady went 84-101, a sad .454 winning percentage.
Let's dive into Pete Carroll's record
Now let's look at the guy the 12s have a bit more respect for, Pete Carroll. Yes, Pete also reaped the benefits of fielding a future Hall of Fame quarterback in Russell Wilson. But Carroll has a significantly better record than Belichick without the support of a great QB. Let's set the stage. Wilson's record with the Seahawks was 104-53-1, a .661 winning percentage. Not at Brady's level to be sure, but on average, that puts you in the playoffs every year.
Carroll's record without Wilson isn't the best, but far better than Belichick's without his star. Carroll went 7-9 in his first two seasons, then rode the Legion of Boom and Wilson's arm to 10 playoff appearances and a Super Bowl title. DangeRuss missed three games in 2021; the Hawks went 1-2 in those contests.
For the record, Seattle was only 6-8 with Mr. Unlimited that year. After Wilson's departure in 2022, Carroll led the Seahawks to back-to-back 9-8 campaigns. As we all know, that wasn't exactly good enough, so Pete became a "consultant" for Seattle.
So without Wilson, Carroll led the Seahawks to a 33-36 record. A .478 winning percentage isn't great, but it's better than the guy getting accolades as the greatest coach in league history. In his first two seasons, he coaxed a 7-9 season out of the 35-year-old Matt Hasselbeck, then repeated that record with Tarvaris Jackson under center. Hasselbeck stayed in the league for five years after that, but only one as a starter. Jackson, of course, was the Seahawks' backup for the last three years of his career.
Before getting the gig with the Seahawks, Carroll coached the Jets for one season and went 6-10. After two years in the purgatory of San Francisco as their defensive coordinator, he rejoined the ranks of the head coaches in New England in 1997. He led the Pats to 10-6, 9-7, then 8-8 records. I can see why they let him go after 1999. I just think it's hilarious that the genius Belichick took Carroll's squad and dropped to 5-11. The Pats defense was ranked seventh under Pete in 1999. Billy, the defensive mastermind, saw the defense drop to 20th in the league. Just sayin'.
Anyway, Pete Carroll was 33-31 combined in New York and New England. So his overall record without Wilson is 66-67, a .496 winning percentage. That's right, he was one win shy of a .500 coaching career without his HOF quarterback. Belichick would have needed 17 more wins to get to that level.
Speaking of the devil in a hoodie, he didn't get around to signing his contract with the Tar Heels until January 23rd. I don't know about you, but it seems someone who takes 44 days to legally bind themselves to employment isn't all that dedicated to the new job. The revelation that Belichick has a $10 million buyout that drops to just $1 million after June 1st doesn't exactly instill confidence, either.
Why Tom Brady passed on Belichick and hired Carroll instead
Which brings me back, finally, to Tom Brady. Supposedly, Brady reached out to his former coach to gauge his interest in the Raiders job. Multiple reports also state the conversation wasn't about Belichick's potential interest in the job, but his opinion of other candidates. Literally, dozens of sources reported that Belichick was indeed interested in returning to the league.
The fact that he waited so long to sign his contract at Chapel Hill certainly lends some credence to those stories. Reportedly, he only wanted the best possible situation. I mean, that makes sense; why take a job with a bad team when you could land a gig with a better one? Except for that little issue that good teams aren't generally looking for new coaches.
Belichick needs 14 wins to pass Don Shula for the record for most wins, including playoffs. If we're talking about regular season wins, he'll need 27. I think of those extra playoff wins as the TB12 effect. Anyway, the Hoodie's apologists claim that he didn't want the Raiders' job anyway, as it would take too long to get the record. One writer claims that it was nonsensical to pass on Belichick and hire Carroll instead.
As he wrote in the article, clearly it wasn't because he's too old. Carroll is six months older. It isn't because teams want offensive gurus, either. Mike Vrabel and Aaron Glenn were hired this year, along with Carroll. It sure as hell isn't the money or the contract length. Carroll got a three-year deal with a fourth-year option.
And three years, even with a bad team, is certainly long enough to win 14 games. The idea that Belichick didn't want to coach that long is laughable. He signed a five-year deal with North Carolina.
No, I'd say the Raiders passed on the chance to hire the "genius" because their new minority owner knows him better than anyone else. Brady knows the Raiders need to build a positive culture. And if that's the kind of leadership you're looking for, you sure as hell aren't hiring the Hoodie.
