265 replies to this topic

[wiscstlatlmia]

I realize im only 21 and im probably biased to my generation...But this guy is unbelievable. Thoughts and opinions?

Edited by wiscstlatlmia, 06 December 2010 - 06:28 PM.

[Anarchy99]

In before all the cheating rules him out comments.

[VaTerp]

Certainly in the conversation but my vote (admittedly biased) goes to Joe Gibbs. At 21, you will only remember his 2nd stint which was a mixed bag. But I grew up on the Skins of the 80s and the great 1991 season.

Gibbs won over 62% of his games, a mark that would have been higher had he not come out of retirement after 12 years, and over 70% of his playoff games. He went to 4 Super Bowls in 10 seasons winning 3.

He is the ONLY coach in NFL history to win a Super Bowl with 3 different QBs, none of whom where HOF caliber. He is largely credited with inventing the single back offense and was one of the best ever at making in game adjustments. Even though many think of him as a smash mouth coach, he was a very creative offensive mind who was Don "Air" Coryell's offensive coordinator. He directed what was at the time the highest scoring offense in NFL history in 1983 (now 3rd all time) and called the plays for the first offense to ever have 3 different WRs go over 1,000 yards in the same season.

There are plenty of coaches worthy of this discussion but I don't think any of them have a better resume than Joe Gibbs.

[Breesisdaman]

Vince Lombardi
Lombardi's record in the post-season was 9–1, the only loss coming in the first of those games, the 1960 NFL Championship Game
/thread

Edited by bushisdaman, 06 December 2010 - 06:53 PM.

[ChromeWeasel]

I realize im only 21 and im probably biased to my generation...But this guy is unbelievable. Thoughts and opinions?

Best coach of your lifetime. That's good enough.

[Stillers Jr.]

It's either him or Rich Kotite.

[az_prof]

No.

[ponchsox]

Yes, especially in an era where players are bigger and faster.

[John Bender]

No question about it.

[Choke]

cheating rules him out

[eddiezz74]

It's either him or Rich Kotite.

I have to agree with Rich Kotite.

[moleculo]

why? Just because he has won a bunch of games?

IMO, to be considered GOAT as a coach, there has to be some level of innovation - a lasting mark on the game. I'm not sure what Belichick's innovations are.

[Choke]

why? Just because he has won a bunch of games?

IMO, to be considered GOAT as a coach, there has to be some level of innovation - a lasting mark on the game. I'm not sure what Belichick's innovations are.

[Heatman]

Bill Walsh

[pizzatyme]

Brad Childress

[Young 8]

I realize im only 21 and

/thread

[pizzatyme]

Lombardi/Walsh tie.

[[icon]]

He's in the discussion but not quite there yet.

Win another ring and maintain this win rate (70%) for a few more years and I don't see how he's not in there.

[Major]

He's probably better than Gary Kubiak

[DiStefano]

I think he's in the upper tier with Lombardi and Walsh. With the exception of Tom Brady, he pretty much has a bunch of no names, some of them which he traded for from other teams, and some who were ineffective on other teams, and he brings them in and turns them into championship caliber. If you want to eliminate him for cheating (like Pete Rose is kept out of the HOF for gambling), that's ok. But there is no doubt his accomplishments are indisputable (as Pete Rose's are).

[Adebisi]

[fsufan]

[jojoh07]

2nd at the moment behind Lombardi

[GoFishTN]

Losing record without Brady. No.

[ookook]

Josh McDaniels and IT'S NOT EVEN CLOSE!

[VaTerp]

I think he's in the upper tier with Lombardi and Walsh. With the exception of Tom Brady, he pretty much has a bunch of no names, some of them which he traded for from other teams, and some who were ineffective on other teams, and he brings them in and turns them into championship caliber. If you want to eliminate him for cheating (like Pete Rose is kept out of the HOF for gambling), that's ok. But there is no doubt his accomplishments are indisputable (as Pete Rose's are).

Apples to oranges. Rose violated rules on gambling as a manager. It had NOTHING to do with what he did as a player, which is what he should be in the HOF for. Belichick violated rules as a HC and in doing so could have gained an unfair competitive advantage. That's cheating. You can argue about how much of an advantage but if it didnt give him any advantage at all he wouldn't have done it. He's a pretty smart guy.

That said, I think he still belongs in the top teir for what he's accomplished. My top 2 teirs of coaches from the Super Bowl era would go something like this:

Lombardi, Walsh, Gibbs, Belichick

Noll, Shula, Landry, Parcells

Edited by VaTerp, 07 December 2010 - 08:11 AM.

[timschochet]

A few months back in the FFA I was trying to argue that Phil Jackson was a better alltime coach than Red Auerbach. One of the better arguments made against me was about coaching trees- Red had produced an number of excellent assistant coaches who became head coaches, while Phil really hasn't.

The assistant coaches that Belichick has produced are rather unremarkable, to say the least...

[thejag]

I think Belichick is the best all-time at getting the most out of his players, of 'putting his players in position to excel.'

[VaTerp]

I think Belichick is the best all-time at getting the most out of his players, of 'putting his players in position to excel.'

Sounds like a pretty fair argument to make.

[Pope Benedict XVI Fan]

why? Just because he has won a bunch of games?

IMO, to be considered GOAT as a coach, there has to be some level of innovation - a lasting mark on the game. I'm not sure what Belichick's innovations are.

Belichick has popularized the spread offence in the NFL. Before, teams would only occasionally come out with 4 WRs and almost never 5 WRs unless you were behind big and chasing the game. Also if you came out with 4 or 5 wide you were almost always going deep. Belichick started having the Pats use the 4 WR set as their base formation and run a lot of short slants, swing passes, WR screens etc. and also going 5 wide way, way more than any other team had previously, even in short yardage situations. Now every team in the NFL has an empty backfield 5 WR spread package and runs it in short yardage situations and in the red zone, which you never saw before, and several teams run a Pats-style spread as their base offense.

Of course a big reason the spread is successful in the modern NFL is because of the tightening up of defensive holding and pass interference calls on DBs against WRs, which was partly brought in because Belichick teams were so brutally physical and got away with a lot of holding receivers, hitting receivers before the ball arrived and so on because they knew the officials weren't going to call it.

I think that's one aspect that makes Belichick a great coach - his flexibility. He built his first Pats teams on brutal defense with Brady as a game manager, then when the rules were changed he completely shifted the philosophy and 2007 on the Pats have been all about offense with Brady airing it out. Most coaches have one way they think is the best way to win and stick to it but Belichick seems to me very pragmatic and adaptable.

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

I realize im only 21 and im probably biased to my generation...But this guy is unbelievable. Thoughts and opinions?

I appreciate you mentioning your age. What I've noticed over the years is Sportsfan always wants the guy of their era to be the best of all time. Whether it was Joe Montana, Tom Brady, or Peyton Manning to Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant. We as a sports society forget so easily all the great ones before us because we didn't really get to see them play.

What you're witnessing is the greatest coach in this era. Whether he is better than Vince Lombardi or Paul Brown, how can we really prove that.

If I had to say who is the greatest coach of all time I'd have to say Vince Lombardi.

[Stompin' Tom Connors]

why? Just because he has won a bunch of games?

IMO, to be considered GOAT as a coach, there has to be some level of innovation - a lasting mark on the game. I'm not sure what Belichick's innovations are.

Nice use of smilies.

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

why? Just because he has won a bunch of games?

IMO, to be considered GOAT as a coach, there has to be some level of innovation - a lasting mark on the game. I'm not sure what Belichick's innovations are.

Belichick's greatness seems to be to get players who are no name type players, or veteran players and have them excel in his system. He's done it year after year. It's actually quite amazing.

I don't even like the guy but how do you not just respect him. So he didn't invent the forward pass, big deal. He's probably done more with less than just about any coach in history, that why he's up close to the top of my list.

[Zal]

I would consider him one of the best if he didn't cheat the sport....

[adrenaline]

A few months back in the FFA I was trying to argue that Phil Jackson was a better alltime coach than Red Auerbach. One of the better arguments made against me was about coaching trees- Red had produced an number of excellent assistant coaches who became head coaches, while Phil really hasn't.

The assistant coaches that Belichick has produced are rather unremarkable, to say the least...

This is why Walsh came to my mind.

[delusional]

cheating rules him out

[rabidfireweasel]

A few months back in the FFA I was trying to argue that Phil Jackson was a better alltime coach than Red Auerbach. One of the better arguments made against me was about coaching trees- Red had produced an number of excellent assistant coaches who became head coaches, while Phil really hasn't.

The assistant coaches that Belichick has produced are rather unremarkable, to say the least...

This is why Walsh came to my mind.

Here is where I disagree. Bill Walsh ran a system. His best disciples followed that system, followed his lead, and were able to have success. Belichick doesn't have a system, he has a basic premise- smart, flexible players - he then uses their flexibility to create mismatches. He identifies those mismatches. He has had power offenses and spread offenses. He has had defenses with excellent linebackers, and poor linebackers. Other coaches in his tree fail because they try to act like him, but they simply aren't as smart as him. With Belichick, while it easy in hindsight to explain what he did, it is very difficult to predict what he will do. Few people had this New England team winning 10 games this year, and many had them out of the playoffs, behind the Jets and Miami.

[Kool-Aid Larry]

why? Just because he has won a bunch of games?

IMO, to be considered GOAT as a coach, there has to be some level of innovation - a lasting mark on the game. I'm not sure what Belichick's innovations are.

Belichick has popularized the spread offence in the NFL. Before, teams would only occasionally come out with 4 WRs and almost never 5 WRs unless you were behind big and chasing the game. Also if you came out with 4 or 5 wide you were almost always going deep. Belichick started having the Pats use the 4 WR set as their base formation and run a lot of short slants, swing passes, WR screens etc. and also going 5 wide way, way more than any other team had previously, even in short yardage situations. Now every team in the NFL has an empty backfield 5 WR spread package and runs it in short yardage situations and in the red zone, which you never saw before, and several teams run a Pats-style spread as their base offense.

what??

[Jercules]

The more you think about it, the more murky it gets.

People are criticized for ignoring eras they didn't witness, but you can flip it around and ask how anybody can sit and say Lombardi was the best when they have nothing more than stats and cliche to go on. Pro football was much more quaint back then, they were just barely removed from the times when teams would win because they wore cleats, etc. (I know that's a bit of an overstatement, but there's no question it wasn't what it is now).

The person who mentioned Gibbs illustrated that. In the 80's he was the king. When he came back, he was blown away. The game is like a science now.

Belichick is criticized for not producing a coaching tree. If Romeo Crennel had set the world on fire in Cleveland, would he or BB suddenly get credit for all those great Pats D's in the early 2000's? You can't even name NE assistants these days because BB likes to get young guys who are "clean slates" and receptive to his ideas, and won't butt heads with him (NE has the top scoring offense in football and they don't even have an offensive coordinator!) The moment assistants leave Belichick, they fail, the very latest being McDaniels. It's proof of Belichick's greatness, not the opposite.

To follow that, how many SBs has Parcells won without BB? How many has BB won without Parcells? But Parcells is so great because he produced this amazing coaching tree? Weird logic there.

BB is a CEO, he runs the whole organization. He's the reason they nail many of their DPs, he's the reason they always have a ton of them, he's the reason they don't overpay for people (which is huge, because that's a challenge unique to him. None of those other great coaches ever had to deal with the salary cap). His teams run completely different schemes based on who they're playing. I could go on.

You could say that the "greatest ever" argument itself is dumb, which is fair, but I don't see how you say anybody is better than Bill Belichick.

[Dizzy]

I realize im only 21 and im probably biased to my generation...But this guy is unbelievable. Thoughts and opinions?

Well I'm a little more than twice your age and I would second your thoughts.

Game preparation and defensively taking away that "one thing" that opponents do well are his specialties.

Certainly gets the most out of his roster too. Having versatility throughout an NFL roster is probably pretty common. but being able to extract those talents and win ball games with them... rare.

And having Tom Brady doesn't hurt either!

[Jercules]

And Tom Brady is a great QB, but make no mistake, he is a product of Belichick, not the other way around (and Brady would be the first person to admit that). How many coaches would have stuck with him back when he was a decent game manager and Drew Bledsoe was in his prime?

[grateful zed]

landry

[Kool-Aid Larry]

in belichick's first season as a rookie HC in CLE he only won 6 games.
part of his unpopular tenure there included unloading their fan favorite franchise QB.
his first year with the pats he only won 5 games.
today's goat can be tomorrow's GOAT.


just sayin'............

Edited by Kool-Aid Larry, 06 December 2010 - 11:15 PM.

[basher]

Certainly in the conversation but my vote (admittedly biased) goes to Joe Gibbs. At 21, you will only remember his 2nd stint which was a mixed bag. But I grew up on the Skins of the 80s and the great 1991 season.

Gibbs won over 62% of his games, a mark that would have been higher had he not come out of retirement after 12 years, and over 70% of his playoff games. He went to 4 Super Bowls in 10 seasons winning 3.

He is the ONLY coach in NFL history to win a Super Bowl with 3 different QBs, none of whom where HOF caliber. He is largely credited with inventing the single back offense and was one of the best ever at making in game adjustments. Even though many think of him as a smash mouth coach, he was a very creative offensive mind who was Don "Air" Coryell's offensive coordinator. He directed what was at the time the highest scoring offense in NFL history in 1983 (now 3rd all time) and called the plays for the first offense to ever have 3 different WRs go over 1,000 yards in the same season.

There are plenty of coaches worthy of this discussion but I don't think any of them have a better resume than Joe Gibbs.

Joe Gibbs second run really hurts him IMO. He she little ability to adapt to the modern game and really showed that he was stuck in the era he had already coached. He was the best during that era but I think was BB has changed in the coaching game is that coaches and teams are best when malleable (fit your system to the players you currently have available on the field and not vice versa.) Don't force square pegs into round holes when you can just change your board to fit your pegs.

If BB isn't the best coach ever, he definitely is in the top 5.

Edited by basher, 06 December 2010 - 11:21 PM.

[az_prof]

I would consider him one of the best if he didn't cheat the sport....

That taint will never leave him. The problem with a cheater is that you assume he cheated far more times than he was caught. My assumption is that his success was predicated on cheating and nothing he can do will ever change that. That's the problem with cheating. Sorry.

[The Jerk]

If Belichick's coaching career only included New England, and specifically with Brady as QB, it would be harder to argue against him as the greatest ever NFL coach. But those 82 games in Cleveland actually happened, and the Browns were 37-45 (including 1-1 in playoffs) in those games from 1991-1995.

It simply must be recognized that BB was 42-58 until the famous Bledsoe injury, and since then he has a record of 131-41 (since Brady's first start). It's not just coincidental that he's had Brady as his starting QB for all but 15 of those highly successful 172 games. Of course, he deserves a lot of credit for developing Brady and being the architect of championship defenses, too. It's not his fault that he has a HoF QB at his disposal, but it can't just be ignored either.

In addition, the Patriots have had a widely respected overall organization. If you're not sure how much that helps, just look at how Scott Pioli has rapidly improved the Chiefs. You think it might have helped Belichick having Pioli heavily involved in personnel matters in New England?

So it's not crazy to make a decent case opposing the "greatest coach ever" title when considering how successful Belichick was in Cleveland and without Brady (and Pioli and the rest of the NE organization). No one was calling him the genius he is widely recognized as today when he was not retained as coach when the Browns moved to Baltimore and became the Ravens. Really, it wasn't even newsworthy that Belichick was no longer the head coach. It was just another NFL head coaching change.

Consider if Bill Cowher came out of retirement and then spent five seasons with Carolina or Dallas and averaged 7-9 records for six seasons. While not trying to compare him to Belichick directly, would a 42-54 record for another organization cause a reassessment of just how much credit to give Cowher for his 15 seasons in Pittsburgh? I think it's already fair to credit the surrounding cast, from ownership to the personnel directors and even Dick LeBeau, for portions of Bill Cowher's success in Pittsburgh. I would think that Cowher failing to win elsewhere would shift even more credit away from Cowher and to other elements in the Pittsburgh organization. Perhaps most important is to note that for all of Cowher's success in the first decade of his career, he couldn't win a championship. And surely it was not just coincidence that once he finally had a franchise QB, he won a SB in that QB's second season.

Edited by The Jerk, 06 December 2010 - 11:28 PM.

[albuddah]

I would consider him one of the best if he didn't cheat the sport....

That taint will never leave him. The problem with a cheater is that you assume he cheated far more times than he was caught. My assumption is that his success was predicated on cheating and nothing he can do will ever change that. That's the problem with cheating. Sorry.

and how about that 16-0 season?

[albuddah]

If Belichick's coaching career only included New England, and specifically with Brady as QB, it would be harder to argue against him as the greatest ever NFL coach. But those 82 games in Cleveland actually happened, and the Browns were 37-45 (including 1-1 in playoffs) in those games from 1991-1995.

It simply must be recognized that BB was 42-58 until the famous Bledsoe injury, and since then he has a record of 131-41 (since Brady's first start). It's not just coincidental that he's had Brady as his starting QB for all but 15 of those highly successful 172 games. Of course, he deserves a lot of credit for developing Brady and being the architect of championship defenses, too. It's not his fault that he has a HoF QB at his disposal, but it can't just be ignored either.

In addition, the Patriots have had a widely respected overall organization. If you're not sure how much that helps, just look at how Scott Pioli has rapidly improved the Chiefs. You think it might have helped Belichick having Pioli heavily involved in personnel matters in New England?

So it's not crazy to make a decent case opposing the "greatest coach ever" title when considering how successful Belichick was in Cleveland and without Brady (and Pioli and the rest of the NE organization). No one was calling him the genius he is widely recognized as today when he was not retained as coach when the Browns moved to Baltimore and became the Ravens. Really, it wasn't even newsworthy that Belichick was no longer the head coach. It was just another NFL head coaching change.

Consider if Bill Cowher came out of retirement and then spent five seasons with Carolina or Dallas and averaged 7-9 records for six seasons. While not trying to compare him to Belichick directly, would a 42-54 record for another organization cause a reassessment of just how much credit to give Cowher for his 15 seasons in Pittsburgh? I think it's already fair to credit the surrounding cast, from ownership to the personnel directors and even Dick LeBeau, for portions of Bill Cowher's success in Pittsburgh. I would think that Cowher failing to win elsewhere would shift even more credit away from Cowher and to other elements in the Pittsburgh organization.

not a genius before new england? isnt this the same guy that has a gameplan in the HOF?

[The Jerk]

not a genius before new england? isnt this the same guy that has a gameplan in the HOF?

I'm going to guess that game plan isn't the one from the Browns 29-9 loss in the 1994 AFC Divisional playoffs. January 7, 1995

Did you even bother to read the whole post?
Do you want to consider anyone's opinion other than your own?
Do you believe 37-45 over five years is genius HEAD coaching? If so, then why are Mike Tice, Ray Rhodes, and Gary Kubiak (among MANY others) not considered geniuses? Tice was 32-33 as a head coach. Rhodes was 37-42-1. Kubiak is 36-40 right now. All three of those comparable time-frame records exceed Belichick's winning percentage in his Cleveland years.

Look for yourself. Many coaches have been 8 games under .500 thru 5 seasons

The biggest story when Belichick was hired by New England wasn't that they snagged this sure-fire can't miss genius head coach. Not even close. The most noteworthy part of the Belichick hire was the bizarre scenario in which he had been the head coach of the Jets for 26 hours before resigning. It was roughly three weeks later when he was hired by New England. Seriously, most coaches don't file antitrust suits against the team that just hired them a few days ago (and also the NFL).

Belichick resigns from Jets
NYT: NE hires Belichick

Edited by The Jerk, 06 December 2010 - 11:58 PM.

[Pope Benedict XVI Fan]

not a genius before new england? isnt this the same guy that has a gameplan in the HOF?

I'm going to guess that game plan isn't the one from the Browns 29-9 loss in the 1994 AFC Divisional playoffs. January 7, 1995

Did you even bother to read the whole post?
Do you want to consider anyone's opinion other than your own?
Do you believe 37-45 over five years is genius HEAD coaching? If so, then why are Mike Tice, Ray Rhodes, and Gary Kubiak (among MANY others) not considered geniuses? Tice was 32-33 as a head coach. Rhodes was 37-42-1. Kubiak is 36-40 right now. All three of those comparable time-frame records exceed Belichick's winning percentage in his Cleveland years.

If Gary Kubiak gets fired this offseason and then goes on to take Carolina to 4 Super Bowls I'll happily call him a genius.