Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
wiscstlatlmia

Bill Belichick

Recommended Posts

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??
The Patriots offense runs a ton of varied formations and looks (unlike the Colts as a comparison who run out a very limited set of formations) so it's not like they line up in 4 wide the majority of the time, but they definitely use 4WR 1RB, 4WR 1TE and 5WR more than their other formations (and that's as in where the players are positioned, not their official designated position - Woodhead lines up as a WR in the spread quite often, as do Hernandez and Gronkowski).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.
:lmao:

I hate the Pats. Effing hate them. And BB is a genius.

Last night was like watching my friend listen to all of us talk crap about how we would take the big bully out. And he steps up and gets knocked out in the 1st RD.

Awful. But it was efficient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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. Edited by wiscstlatlmia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Pats are such an easy organization to win with then why didn't Bill Parcells win any superbowls with them? ...you are cherrypicking stats ...its looking kinda pathetic at this point...trust me im from new england and im a ramsfan...I had to grow up with the ignorant Pats fans(Its extremely annoying)...But, you cant take away from what the actual team has accomplished ... ARE YOU SERIOUSLY COMPARING BILL BELICHICK TO RAY RHOADES AND GARY KUBIAK? LISTEN TO WHAT YOUR ARE SAYING! stop being biased and ignorant...Its ok to argue Bill Walsh or someone like that but please...if your going to throw that other BS around...go post on espn forums or something...

Edited by wiscstlatlmia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I look at the best of the best in their respective fields, it seems they often share one quality: a lack of confidence, or a lack of projecting any sort of confidence at least. Sometimes, they border on the neurotic.

Belichick slumps his shoulders, mumbles at press conferences, wears sloppy clothes, complains after winning a super bowl. You'd think they were 0-12.

Warren Buffet doesn't inspire confidence with his demeanor. Frumpy old guy living in a modest house wearing a bad haircut. Yet he's one of the best investors. Many brilliant artists and musicians in history were depressed and lacked confidence, sometimes to the point of being suicidal.

Its like the people that project great confidence are compensating for lack of skill. Whenever I meet someone projecting a lot of confidence, I begin to wonder if they have any talent at all. Or it could be a lack of confidence keeps a person from becoming happy, content, and complacent, and pushes them to go a little bit further than everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I look at the best of the best in their respective fields, it seems they often share one quality: a lack of confidence, or a lack of projecting any sort of confidence at least. Sometimes, they border on the neurotic.Belichick slumps his shoulders, mumbles at press conferences, wears sloppy clothes, complains after winning a super bowl. You'd think they were 0-12.Warren Buffet doesn't inspire confidence with his demeanor. Frumpy old guy living in a modest house wearing a bad haircut. Yet he's one of the best investors. Many brilliant artists and musicians in history were depressed and lacked confidence, sometimes to the point of being suicidal. Its like the people that project great confidence are compensating for lack of skill. Whenever I meet someone projecting a lot of confidence, I begin to wonder if they have any talent at all. Or it could be a lack of confidence keeps a person from becoming happy, content, and complacent, and pushes them to go a little bit further than everyone else.

:moneybag:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last time I check he is STILL coaching. So the body of work is INCOMPLETE.

GREAT QB argument is week as with last nights win BB Brady tied Noll Bradshaw with 107 wins and trail Shula Moraino with 116 regular season games.

All GREAT coach's have a GREAT QB if only for that year. Also take a look at HoF on the teams that you named Packers, Steelers, Cowboys, Giants, 49ners, etc. How many? the Hall is littered with them. NE has most likely 1 - Brady and a coach.

Before you mention Moss, They played together for 2 years (2007 and 2009 as Brady lasted about 4 minutes to start the 2008 season) and 4 games this year. Magical 2007 for all but 37 seconds with a few records.

Coaching tree discussion is interesting but how many of those coachs you mention have gone onto win a super bowl Walsh - Holmberg. Who else, Hell BB is still coaching so let's see what if anything else HE does. Let's see when the body of work is complete then bring up the coaching tree after his coaching tree starts to shave...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like the Pats...but the guy is one of the best ever...if not the best.

There is always going to be debate on this and its hard to compare at times.

Walsh, Belichick, Lombardi, Gibbs, Shula...all great great coaches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

ROFL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lombardi [/thread]

It is funny though how the only head coach to win 4 Super Bowls is only mentioned in passing on one post and that guy didn't even spell his name right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 the Pats are such an easy organization to win with then why didn't Bill Parcells win any superbowls with them? ...you are cherrypicking stats ...its looking kinda pathetic at this point...trust me im from new england and im a ramsfan...I had to grow up with the ignorant Pats fans(Its extremely annoying)...But, you cant take away from what the actual team has accomplished ... ARE YOU SERIOUSLY COMPARING BILL BELICHICK TO RAY RHOADES AND GARY KUBIAK? LISTEN TO WHAT YOUR ARE SAYING! stop being biased and ignorant...Its ok to argue Bill Walsh or someone like that but please...if your going to throw that other BS around...go post on espn forums or something...

Reading comprehension around here hits yet another new low.What part of

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.

do you not understand?Even though you understood the absurdity of pairing names like Rhodes, Tice and Kubiak with Belichick, you totally missed my point concerning Belichick's Cleveland years. I'll try it again. In five years in Cleveland, Bill Belichick was 36-44 in the regular season (1-1 in playoffs), which is a worse winning percentage than Rhodes and Kubiak in a similar stretch in their first coaching job. I don't know how you managed to misinterpret my post to mean I suggest Ray Rhodes or Gary Kubiak are the greatest coaches in NFL history(or that they will suddenly go on to win championships if they ever get another job) but that appears to be what you did. My point was that the "hands down greatest coach in NFL history" would likely not have had such a pedestrian and mediocre first five years that his career record TO THAT POINT was actually worse than Rhodes, Kubiak, et al. The fact that much has dramatically changed since then does not dismiss the reality that as of 2000, BB's head coaching career in terms of W/L record closely parallels Rhodes and Kubiak, among many others. I understand that being 21, you likely have no direct memory of Belichick's Cleveland days, but that's one of the reasons I brought it into the thread. You did say you wanted thoughts and opinions from other posters in your initial post, right?You are correct that the one constant in the coaching ranks in NE during their decade of success has been Belichick, but you are not correct when you suggest he is the only constant during that time. And if you had been more interested in reading my post than refuting it, you would have seen that I spelled that out the first time as well. Belichick was 5-13 in his first 18 games in NE, but he's been 131-41 since Brady's first start. I am not parsing history to say that the pre-Brady Belichick was not viewed as a genius head coach, and winning 42 of 100 games is a pretty good statistic in support of that fact. And just to make you happy, it is eminently obvious that Belichick has been an excellent coach for the past ten seasons. I'm sorry that you cannot appreciate my ability to remember his first six seasons, not just his past ten.My vote for greatest NFL coach of all time would be Vince Lombardi. He took a Green Bay team that had been 4-8, 3-9 and 1-10-1 in successive years, and with many of the same players, made the NFL championship game in just his second season. Green Bay then proceeded to win championships in 5 of 7 years. In the 11 years prior to his arrival, Green Bay failed to have even one winning season. In the nine years Lombardi coached Green Bay, they had a winning record every season. In the nine years prior to Lombardi, Green Bay averaged 3.5 wins per season. In the nine years of Lombardi, Green Bay averaged ten wins a season (not counting playoff wins).And just to prove it wasn't a one team thing, despite fighting cancer, he took the 1969 Redskins, a franchise who had not had a winning season since 1955, to a 7-5-2 season. Lombardi had a winning record in each of his 10 seasons as a head coach.The bottom line on Lombardi:Green Bay 1950-1958, 9 seasons prior to Lombardi: 32-74-2 (.306 winning percentage, 0 playoff appearances)Green Bay 1959-1967, 9 seasons with Lombardi: 89-29-4 (.746 regular season winning percentage, 9-1 in playoffs, 5 championships)Green Bay 1968-1976, 9 seasons after Lombardi: 54-67-5 (.448 regular season winning percentage, 0-1 in playoffs)I think that pretty much says it all. Edited by The Jerk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lombardi [/thread]

It is funny though how the only head coach to win 4 Super Bowls is only mentioned in passing on one post and that guy didn't even spell his name right.

:lmao:

Pretty bad on my part. I was born in 78' so didnt get to see the Steeler Dynasty live but I consider myself a pretty good NFL history buff. All this time and I always thought the guys name had a K in it. Aw well, at least I did mention him and now I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 the Pats are such an easy organization to win with then why didn't Bill Parcells win any superbowls with them? ...you are cherrypicking stats ...its looking kinda pathetic at this point...trust me im from new england and im a ramsfan...I had to grow up with the ignorant Pats fans(Its extremely annoying)...But, you cant take away from what the actual team has accomplished ... ARE YOU SERIOUSLY COMPARING BILL BELICHICK TO RAY RHOADES AND GARY KUBIAK? LISTEN TO WHAT YOUR ARE SAYING! stop being biased and ignorant...Its ok to argue Bill Walsh or someone like that but please...if your going to throw that other BS around...go post on espn forums or something...

Reading comprehension around here hits yet another new low.What part of

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.

do you not understand?Even though you understood the absurdity of pairing names like Rhodes, Tice and Kubiak with Belichick, you totally missed my point concerning Belichick's Cleveland years. I'll try it again. In five years in Cleveland, Bill Belichick was 36-44 in the regular season (1-1 in playoffs), which is a worse winning percentage than Rhodes and Kubiak in a similar stretch in their first coaching job. I don't know how you managed to misinterpret my post to mean I suggest Ray Rhodes or Gary Kubiak are the greatest coaches in NFL history(or that they will suddenly go on to win championships if they ever get another job) but that appears to be what you did. My point was that the "hands down greatest coach in NFL history" would likely not have had such a pedestrian and mediocre first five years that his career record TO THAT POINT was actually worse than Rhodes, Kubiak, et al. The fact that much has dramatically changed since then does not dismiss the reality that as of 2000, BB's head coaching career in terms of W/L record closely parallels Rhodes and Kubiak, among many others. I understand that being 21, you likely have no direct memory of Belichick's Cleveland days, but that's one of the reasons I brought it into the thread. You did say you wanted thoughts and opinions from other posters in your initial post, right?You are correct that the one constant in the coaching ranks in NE during their decade of success has been Belichick, but you are not correct when you suggest he is the only constant during that time. And if you had been more interested in reading my post than refuting it, you would have seen that I spelled that out the first time as well. Belichick was 5-13 in his first 18 games in NE, but he's been 131-41 since Brady's first start. I am not parsing history to say that the pre-Brady Belichick was not viewed as a genius head coach, and winning 42 of 100 games is a pretty good statistic in support of that fact. And just to make you happy, it is eminently obvious that Belichick has been an excellent coach for the past ten seasons. I'm sorry that you cannot appreciate my ability to remember his first six seasons, not just his past ten.My vote for greatest NFL coach of all time would be Vince Lombardi. He took a Green Bay team that had been 4-8, 3-9 and 1-10-1 in successive years, and with many of the same players, made the NFL championship game in just his second season. Green Bay then proceeded to win championships in 5 of 7 years. In the 11 years prior to his arrival, Green Bay failed to have even one winning season. In the nine years Lombardi coached Green Bay, they had a winning record every season. In the nine years prior to Lombardi, Green Bay averaged 3.5 wins per season. In the nine years of Lombardi, Green Bay averaged ten wins a season (not counting playoff wins).And just to prove it wasn't a one team thing, despite fighting cancer, he took the 1969 Redskins, a franchise who had not had a winning season since 1955, to a 7-5-2 season. Lombardi had a winning record in each of his 10 seasons as a head coach.The bottom line on Lombardi:Green Bay 1950-1958, 9 seasons prior to Lombardi: 32-74-2 (.306 winning percentage, 0 playoff appearances)Green Bay 1959-1967, 9 seasons with Lombardi: 89-29-4 (.746 regular season winning percentage, 9-1 in playoffs, 5 championships)Green Bay 1968-1976, 9 seasons after Lombardi: 54-67-5 (.448 regular season winning percentage, 0-1 in playoffs)I think that pretty much says it all.
:goodposting: my bad man ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's the best of his generation, there is little to debate about that. Is he the best of all time? I feel like Don Shula, Vince Lombardi, Bill Walsh, many others were great in their own time as well. There are other great coaches in the Belichick era but certainly BB has gotten the best of it overall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lombardi [/thread]

It is funny though how the only head coach to win 4 Super Bowls is only mentioned in passing on one post and that guy didn't even spell his name right.

:tfp:

Pretty bad on my part. I was born in 78' so didnt get to see the Steeler Dynasty live but I consider myself a pretty good NFL history buff. All this time and I always thought the guys name had a K in it. Aw well, at least I did mention him and now I know.

It is a common mistake, no big deal. I don't think Noll was the greatest coach ever but he certainly deserves to be in the discussion, which he never is. Took a team that had been losers for almost 40 years and created a winning tradition that continues today.

Noll was a great coach and an even better teacher. As great as he was he can't touch Lombardi though. There is a reason the name of the championship trophy is named after him.

Edited by Godsbrother

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wiscstlatlmia

Another thought to add to this thread -- all due respect to BB, but...

the greatest coach in NFL history probably shouldn't lose three straight playoff games, particularly when two were at home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not saying I think he is the best of all time, however, here is an old post that may be worth considering:

IMO coaches considered for the HOF should be given credit for their assistant coaching, where applicable. For example, Belicheck not only has won 3 Super Bowls and a 4th AFC championship as a head coach, but also:1. He won 2 Super Bowls as the Giants defensive coordinator (where he also coached their linebackers, one of the best linebacking corps of all time).2. He won an AFC championship as the Pats defensive coordinator.3. He was assistant head coach of the Jets when they posted their franchise best record and reached the AFC championship game.Certainly, he was a key contributor to those teams. It could be reasonably argued they would not have accomplished those things without Belicheck.

Edited by Just Win Baby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lombardi [/thread]It is funny though how the only head coach to win 4 Super Bowls is only mentioned in passing on one post and that guy didn't even spell his name right.

Another feather in Lombardi's cap was that he never had a losing season ever. He was a brilliant motivator as well as game planner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its difficult to rank Belichick because of the era we live in. Free agency tears so many teams apart. That's something Lombardi, Shula, Walsh, etc. never had to deal with. What is clear is that no head coach has been more successful in the free agency era than Bill Belichick. No other coach has 3 rings. No other coach has 4 super bowl appearances. In the free agency era, the only head coach with more than one ring is Mike Shanahan. One head coach has 3 super bowl appearances - Mike Holmgren - and there's a small group of head coaches with two appearances.

Edited by Fensalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RE: OP..... NO, not even in the Top 20.

Who are the 20 you would so easily place ahead of him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

What he did w/ Gronk & Hernandez was plenty of innovative. Not sure if that will be lasting, but is a testament to Belichick being a step ahead of the league.Greatest coach since Walsh for sure, beyond that is still debatable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RE: OP..... NO, not even in the Top 20.

strange strange time to bump this lol ... are you being serious or are you trolling? Edited by wiscstlatlmia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

I am so sick of the cheating BS. i'll give you arrogant... yes no question but he didn't do anything any other team hasn't done in the past, he just did from the sidelines instead of up in the both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

I am so sick of the cheating BS. i'll give you arrogant... yes no question but he didn't do anything any other team hasn't done in the past, he just did from the sidelines instead of up in the both.
"At least we can all agree its worse than hurting people for money" -haters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.
LOL, how the hell more "cheating" could he have done? He was caught 7 minutes into the first game of the season... then went 16-0. Every Super Bowl he won, videotaping from the sideline was allowed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.
LOL, how the hell more "cheating" could he have done? He was caught 7 minutes into the first game of the season... then went 16-0. Every Super Bowl he won, videotaping from the sideline was allowed.
This is a point that haters will defend to the death is not true. Just a heads up, ive already tried. Edited by Run It Up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.
LOL, how the hell more "cheating" could he have done? He was caught 7 minutes into the first game of the season... then went 16-0. Every Super Bowl he won, videotaping from the sideline was allowed.

Voice 'o Reason. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

What he did w/ Gronk & Hernandez was plenty of innovative. Not sure if that will be lasting, but is a testament to Belichick being a step ahead of the league.Greatest coach since Walsh for sure, beyond that is still debatable.
Jets fan who hates the Pats...but have to say, he is the best I have seen, and I am 38. As far as legacy, how about a dynasty in the salary cap era. We may easily go another 20-30 years before a team puts a string together like these guys have over the past decade, under the current rules. As far as the Lombardi stuff goes, I don't think anyone who posts on this board can make a judgement based on "what he saw". Unless you are 70 years old, you really don't know what it was like to both see it and live it. Add to that the fact that guys would drop out of the league because they got a job offer to sell insurance (not the fall back we see today), you really can't compare the two eras...and I have not even gotten into the fact that Lombardi had to run the gamut through 14-16 teams and not 32...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he is good but he is not vince and thats a fact jack so rebump this thread when he wins five championships in sven years or invents the power sweep or wins the ice bowl or breaks down the racial barrier in the nfl because players were not black or white but just packers green brohans its one thing to have a good team its another to change the world against the grain in a time when going against the grain was not acceptable but he was just that good no one would stop the pope whihc was his nickname around town and parts various and sundry and hey stat junkies over .700 win percentage regular season and .900 post season so say whatever you want it wont ever be repeated hes the king so now blame whatever like free agency or bigger faster stronger bla bla bla might as well go sing oom bop no one cares about that either so remember swc told you so and go tell your momma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he is good but he is not vince and thats a fact jack so rebump this thread when he wins five championships in sven years or invents the power sweep or wins the ice bowl or breaks down the racial barrier in the nfl because players were not black or white but just packers green brohans its one thing to have a good team its another to change the world against the grain in a time when going against the grain was not acceptable but he was just that good no one would stop the pope whihc was his nickname around town and parts various and sundry and hey stat junkies over .700 win percentage regular season and .900 post season so say whatever you want it wont ever be repeated hes the king so now blame whatever like free agency or bigger faster stronger bla bla bla might as well go sing oom bop no one cares about that either so remember swc told you so and go tell your momma

:goodposting:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QB is the most important position on the field, by far. In my opinion, to be an all-time great coach, you have to show you can be a consistent winner with multiple QBs.

For all we know, Belichick might just be the luckiest SOB in the history of football, taking a job just as the team drafted Brady in the sixth round and then having Drew Bledsoe get injured at the right time.

Belichick has only two winning seasons, one playoff appearance, and one playoff win in six seasons without Brady at the helm (five in CLE, one with Cassel replacing Brady). Career record sans Brady is under .500.

Compare that to Joe Gibbs, who has the same number of Super Bowl rings as Belichick but did it with three different quarterbacks, one of whom started the season as a backup. No contest.

Edited by TobiasFunke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QB is the most important position on the field, by far. In my opinion, to be an all-time great coach, you have to show you can be a consistent winner with multiple QBs.

For all we know, Belichick might just be the luckiest SOB in the history of football, taking a job just as the team drafted Brady in the sixth round and then having Drew Bledsoe get injured at the right time.

Belichick has only two winning seasons, one playoff appearance, and one playoff win in six seasons without Brady at the helm (five in CLE, one with Cassel replacing Brady). Career record sans Brady is under .500.

Compare that to Joe Gibbs, who has the same number of Super Bowl rings as Belichick but did it with three different quarterbacks, one of whom started the season as a backup. No contest.

Not the same thing, but his impressive record as an assistant coach had nothing to do with Brady and occurred with multiple franchises with many different QBs. IMO that mitigates your point a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QB is the most important position on the field, by far. In my opinion, to be an all-time great coach, you have to show you can be a consistent winner with multiple QBs.

For all we know, Belichick might just be the luckiest SOB in the history of football, taking a job just as the team drafted Brady in the sixth round and then having Drew Bledsoe get injured at the right time.

Belichick has only two winning seasons, one playoff appearance, and one playoff win in six seasons without Brady at the helm (five in CLE, one with Cassel replacing Brady). Career record sans Brady is under .500.

Compare that to Joe Gibbs, who has the same number of Super Bowl rings as Belichick but did it with three different quarterbacks, one of whom started the season as a backup. No contest.

Not the same thing, but his impressive record as an assistant coach had nothing to do with Brady and occurred with multiple franchises with many different QBs. IMO that mitigates your point a bit.
Yes, but that hinders efforts to fish for hiliarious Pats fans ;) (I've actually praised the guy a lot in other places)

Seriously though, adding assistant coach/coordinator accomplishments to the discussion of "greatest coach" really changes to terms of debate. It's a subjective discussion to begin with, but that really takes it in a different direction. Are Marvin Lewis and Josh McDaniels actually among the league's best coaches in recent years because their failings as head coaches are mitigated by their years heading up incredible units in Baltimore and New England?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

What he did w/ Gronk & Hernandez was plenty of innovative. Not sure if that will be lasting, but is a testament to Belichick being a step ahead of the league.Greatest coach since Walsh for sure, beyond that is still debatable.
Jets fan who hates the Pats...but have to say, he is the best I have seen, and I am 38. As far as legacy, how about a dynasty in the salary cap era. We may easily go another 20-30 years before a team puts a string together like these guys have over the past decade, under the current rules. As far as the Lombardi stuff goes, I don't think anyone who posts on this board can make a judgement based on "what he saw". Unless you are 70 years old, you really don't know what it was like to both see it and live it. Add to that the fact that guys would drop out of the league because they got a job offer to sell insurance (not the fall back we see today), you really can't compare the two eras...and I have not even gotten into the fact that Lombardi had to run the gamut through 14-16 teams and not 32...
:goodposting: This makes sense. Truth be told, Belichick is really is a master at finding gemsafter roster cut down day, he has confidence in castoff players that know the game of footballand that fit the Patriots system. I find it difficult to compare coaches from vastly different eras. Lombardi was an absolute perfectionist and total legend. I will always bow to the Vince alter.But what Belichick has done in this era of free agency and "pay me" prima donnas, simplycannot be ignored. I believe his legend will only grow 20-30 years down the road, because I don'tthink we will ever again see sustained success of which we have seen for the past dozen years in New England.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QB is the most important position on the field, by far. In my opinion, to be an all-time great coach, you have to show you can be a consistent winner with multiple QBs.

For all we know, Belichick might just be the luckiest SOB in the history of football, taking a job just as the team drafted Brady in the sixth round and then having Drew Bledsoe get injured at the right time.

Belichick has only two winning seasons, one playoff appearance, and one playoff win in six seasons without Brady at the helm (five in CLE, one with Cassel replacing Brady). Career record sans Brady is under .500.

Compare that to Joe Gibbs, who has the same number of Super Bowl rings as Belichick but did it with three different quarterbacks, one of whom started the season as a backup. No contest.

Not the same thing, but his impressive record as an assistant coach had nothing to do with Brady and occurred with multiple franchises with many different QBs. IMO that mitigates your point a bit.
Yes, but that hinders efforts to fish for hiliarious Pats fans ;) (I've actually praised the guy a lot in other places)

Seriously though, adding assistant coach/coordinator accomplishments to the discussion of "greatest coach" really changes to terms of debate. It's a subjective discussion to begin with, but that really takes it in a different direction. Are Marvin Lewis and Josh McDaniels actually among the league's best coaches in recent years because their failings as head coaches are mitigated by their years heading up incredible units in Baltimore and New England?

IMO greatest coach is generally about being the greatest head coach, since being a head coach is the pinnacle of coaching. But IMO when debating between great coaches, a truly compelling assistant coaching record can be worth considering. So to me it is a positive for Belichick.

Lewis and McDaniels are not in the great coach discussions to begin with, so there is no reason to consider their assistant coaching accomplishments. And those accomplishments don't come close to Belichick's anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QB is the most important position on the field, by far. In my opinion, to be an all-time great coach, you have to show you can be a consistent winner with multiple QBs.

For all we know, Belichick might just be the luckiest SOB in the history of football, taking a job just as the team drafted Brady in the sixth round and then having Drew Bledsoe get injured at the right time.

Belichick has only two winning seasons, one playoff appearance, and one playoff win in six seasons without Brady at the helm (five in CLE, one with Cassel replacing Brady). Career record sans Brady is under .500.

Compare that to Joe Gibbs, who has the same number of Super Bowl rings as Belichick but did it with three different quarterbacks, one of whom started the season as a backup. No contest.

Not the same thing, but his impressive record as an assistant coach had nothing to do with Brady and occurred with multiple franchises with many different QBs. IMO that mitigates your point a bit.
Yes, but that hinders efforts to fish for hiliarious Pats fans ;) (I've actually praised the guy a lot in other places)

Seriously though, adding assistant coach/coordinator accomplishments to the discussion of "greatest coach" really changes to terms of debate. It's a subjective discussion to begin with, but that really takes it in a different direction. Are Marvin Lewis and Josh McDaniels actually among the league's best coaches in recent years because their failings as head coaches are mitigated by their years heading up incredible units in Baltimore and New England?

IMO greatest coach is generally about being the greatest head coach, since being a head coach is the pinnacle of coaching. But IMO when debating between great coaches, a truly compelling assistant coaching record can be worth considering. So to me it is a positive for Belichick.

Lewis and McDaniels are not in the great coach discussions to begin with, so there is no reason to consider their assistant coaching accomplishments. And those accomplishments don't come close to Belichick's anyway.

I see what you're saying. Makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i love the chumpies on here who say well back in lombardis day there were less teams or guys would go and do other stuff like that somehow lessens the popes accomplishments truth is it makes them even more impressive less teams equals more talent on each team equals harder to beat teams and if you say that somehow getting to beat up on a punch of nincompantywastes like a blaine crappy pants gabbert led jacksonville squad makes a modern era coach better you are crazy nuts in the head and now guys want to stay in the league for money and fame reasons so its easier to make the them toe the line than in lombardis era where guys could and would just leave and go be a meat cutter at the local general store across from the post trust me on that one brohans so to summarize billecheck is a good coach no doubt but vince has the best line and best accomplishments and until someone tops it all the rest is just revisionist excuse making and no matter how long you argue it you still dont have the one thing that counts and that is the ringzos and the statzos my fellow brohanzos take that to the canton bank and go tell your momma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i love the chumpies on here who say well back in lombardis day there were less teams or guys would go and do other stuff like that somehow lessens the popes accomplishments truth is it makes them even more impressive less teams equals more talent on each team equals harder to beat teams and if you say that somehow getting to beat up on a punch of nincompantywastes like a blaine crappy pants gabbert led jacksonville squad makes a modern era coach better you are crazy nuts in the head and now guys want to stay in the league for money and fame reasons so its easier to make the them toe the line than in lombardis era where guys could and would just leave and go be a meat cutter at the local general store across from the post trust me on that one brohans so to summarize billecheck is a good coach no doubt but vince has the best line and best accomplishments and until someone tops it all the rest is just revisionist excuse making and no matter how long you argue it you still dont have the one thing that counts and that is the ringzos and the statzos my fellow brohanzos take that to the canton bank and go tell your momma

I think I like this Shtick. Keep up the good work brothah!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i love the chumpies on here who say well back in lombardis day there were less teams or guys would go and do other stuff like that somehow lessens the popes accomplishments truth is it makes them even more impressive less teams equals more talent on each team equals harder to beat teams and if you say that somehow getting to beat up on a punch of nincompantywastes like a blaine crappy pants gabbert led jacksonville squad makes a modern era coach better you are crazy nuts in the head and now guys want to stay in the league for money and fame reasons so its easier to make the them toe the line than in lombardis era where guys could and would just leave and go be a meat cutter at the local general store across from the post trust me on that one brohans so to summarize billecheck is a good coach no doubt but vince has the best line and best accomplishments and until someone tops it all the rest is just revisionist excuse making and no matter how long you argue it you still dont have the one thing that counts and that is the ringzos and the statzos my fellow brohanzos take that to the canton bank and go tell your momma

I think I like this Shtick. Keep up the good work brothahbrohans and you can take that to the bank and tell your momma!

fixed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about "best" coach, but he's definitely the classiest.

Patriots coach Bill Belichick never looks happy when he wins. He’s definitely not happy when he loses.

And CBS analyst Shannon Sharpe has had enough. Sharpe ripped Belichick for declining to submit to an interview with Steve Tasker of CBS after Sunday’s 28-13 loss to the Ravens.

“There’s something to be said about being gracious in defeat,” Sharpe said. “We’ve seen the New England Patriots five times in the last 12 years be victorious. And we’ve seen the opposing coaches that lost come out and talk to our Steve Tasker. Coach Cowher did it when [the Steelers] lost to them. We saw this last week [when the Patriots beat the Texans].

“Bill Belichick makes it real easy for you to root against the Patriots. You can’t be a poor sport all the time. You’re not gonna win all the time. And he does this every time he loses. It is unacceptable.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think He's got to be close to #1. Spygate and him not being very charismatic probably cause some to hold in lower regard. I really like his work but I'm probably biased being a Giants fan and his having a connection to the Giants. I'd love it if he left the Pats when Brady retires and took over the Giants when Coughlin retires, gets fired or dies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about "best" coach, but he's definitely the classiest.

Patriots coach Bill Belichick never looks happy when he wins. He’s definitely not happy when he loses.

And CBS analyst Shannon Sharpe has had enough. Sharpe ripped Belichick for declining to submit to an interview with Steve Tasker of CBS after Sunday’s 28-13 loss to the Ravens.

“There’s something to be said about being gracious in defeat,” Sharpe said. “We’ve seen the New England Patriots five times in the last 12 years be victorious. And we’ve seen the opposing coaches that lost come out and talk to our Steve Tasker. Coach Cowher did it when [the Steelers] lost to them. We saw this last week [when the Patriots beat the Texans].

“Bill Belichick makes it real easy for you to root against the Patriots. You can’t be a poor sport all the time. You’re not gonna win all the time. And he does this every time he loses. It is unacceptable.”

No point in coming out and congratulating the other team especially when you blame your own team and yourself for losing. Not everyone has this attitude but BB does, and IMO its the right attitude. IMO he should just not do it ever, including wins. He doesn't owe anything to the other franchises, maybe the Browns or Giants. Coach to win, be gracious by not saying anything at all, non-existent problem solved. Edited by Run It Up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He coached a really bad game yesterday as he morphed into a very conservative coach. They have always gone for it on 4th down when they are too far out to kick a FG yet multiple times yesterday he played a field position game. Add to that the awful clock management at the half and it all points to him getting his hat handed to him. Everyone talks about Brady getting up there in age but the same holds true for Bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.