wiscstlatlmia
Footballguy
Hate to break it to ya bud...but, Pioli... is gone,Weis... is gone,Crennel... is gone,Mcdaniels... is gone,Mangini... is gone and they are 10-2 ...with the youngest team in the NFL...and are last in the league in some very important categories. yet they still win. He went 11-5 without brady so im not sure you can say anything about him riding His HOF QB through everything. If your telling me his Rookie QB won that first super bowl(against a far superior team) then I guess we just have a difference in opinion. Im not saying Brady sucks or Pioli was a fraud...But saying those guys are the reasons for Bill's success is Ridiculous.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 **** 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.
Last edited by a moderator: