Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
wiscstlatlmia

Bill Belichick

Recommended Posts

Only one coach who started coaching since 1970 has more wins than Tony Dungy's 139.....Belichick has 211.

Didn't Marty Schottenheimer have an even 200 wins?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only one coach who started coaching since 1970 has more wins than Tony Dungy's 139.....Belichick has 211.

Didn't Marty Schottenheimer have an even 200 wins?

####, I missed him. I was looking at coaches with a better winning percentage (Belichick is .659 and Dungy is .668).

These are the other coaches who started since 1970, have 100+ wins, and a winning percentage of at least .600:

Shotty had 200 wins (.613), Gibbs had 154 wins (.621), Cowher had 149 wins (.623) and Seifert had 114 (.648).

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/coaches/

Edited by cstu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the end Belichick will never be considered one of the greatest coaches of all time

He already is considered to be one of the best all time. And justifiably so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the end Belichick will never be considered one of the greatest coaches of all time

He already is considered to be one of the best all time. And justifiably so.

True. Sorry, thanks for the correction. He absolutely is one of the best. Unfortunately the bush-league tactics probably keep him out of the the top 3 or 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the reality is belichick's provided the best football in the league ove rthe last decade.

you don't like belichick, you don't like football

I'll can see how that might be your reality.

That said I can assure you that the world is filled with people who like football very very much and despise Belichick.

In fact, many of those people are probably the ones who remind you that although you are right that he has been involved with some of the best football over the last decade, unfortunately in all that time ... he just couldn't win the big one.

think he's won maybe 5 big ones

fyi

stop trolling

In the last decade? Dude - when was the last time he actually won the big one? A decade ago? ... and for that matter - "5 big ones"? Are you adding in the years as an assistant coach? I guess I see where you are coming from now. C'mon. He is great in his own right. No need to pad the stats. It's just a shame that in the last 10 years he has not been a Super Bowl winning coach. King of the regular season? Absolutely. Best coach at the turn of the century? Definitely. No doubt. But in a league of "what have you done for me lately" he just hasn't done "it". It doesn't mean he hasn't been great. It just brings into question how great. And if we are discussing that question, I'm suggesting that his recent playoff record and the BS tactics that he uses when he does win compromises his greatness.

If that perspective ruins your day and makes me a troll then so be it. I'm out. Good luck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the reality is belichick's provided the best football in the league ove rthe last decade.

you don't like belichick, you don't like football

I'll can see how that might be your reality.

That said I can assure you that the world is filled with people who like football very very much and despise Belichick.

In fact, many of those people are probably the ones who remind you that although you are right that he has been involved with some of the best football over the last decade, unfortunately in all that time ... he just couldn't win the big one.

you mean more than the 3 rings?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the reality is belichick's provided the best football in the league ove rthe last decade.

you don't like belichick, you don't like football

I'll can see how that might be your reality.

That said I can assure you that the world is filled with people who like football very very much and despise Belichick.

In fact, many of those people are probably the ones who remind you that although you are right that he has been involved with some of the best football over the last decade, unfortunately in all that time ... he just couldn't win the big one.

you mean more than the 3 rings?

whoever won last year is the greatest of all time -- stop playing dumb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's amazing to think that if the Seahawks had scored and won that would have been the fifth of six Super Bowls under BB to be decided by 3 points.

This in a game that historically has had so many blowouts elsewhere.

And as it is the Pats won by 4. Four games decided by 3, the other two by 4. Is that consistency, chance, planning, coincidence, what?

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Belichick is a great coach. He pushed the rules and goes for any possible edge. And he gets it. He is easily the best coach of his generation. Not even close. Right in there with Lombardi, Knoll, and Walsh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's amazing to think that if the Seahawks had scored and won that would have been the fifth of six Super Bowls under BB to be decided by 3 points.

This in a game that historically has had so many blowouts elsewhere.

And as it is the Pats won by 4. Four games decided by 3, the other two by 4. Is that consistency, chance, planning, coincidence, what?

Killer instinct and the ability to push the envelope to win. If Green Bay had that, they'd have been the team playing against the Pats. They'd have probably beaten them too. But they simply lacked the killer instinct. It was plain as day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Belichick is a great coach. He pushed the rules and goes for any possible edge. And he gets it. He is easily the best coach of his generation. Not even close. Right in there with Lombardi, Knoll, and Walsh.

Look at last year. Fox with Manning, 43-8 destruction. This year, Pats win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Belichick is a great coach. He pushed the rules and goes for any possible edge. And he gets it. He is easily the best coach of his generation. Not even close. Right in there with Lombardi, Knoll, and Walsh.

Yep. Imagine how many trophies the Packers could have won, either in the Favre / White era or the Rodgers era, with BB as the coach. Easily 3 titles in either era would have been a strong possibility.

Hell, how many would Peyton have won? Could he and BB have co-existed though?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DIdnt we talk about how they were all done last year for a while?

Even if they manage to win their terrible division, so what? The other teams in the playoffs would literally have to not show up for them to advance.

I love the NFL because of things like this. I'm not meaning to offend anyone, my main point is that just a month into the season this team was done and now look. It's amazing.

Edited by Bigboy10182000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DIdnt we talk about how they were all done last year for a while?

Even if they manage to win their terrible division, so what? The other teams in the playoffs would literally have to not show up for them to advance.

Thx For The Insight

Best Part Of That Post Was Scientist Liked it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the last decade? Dude - when was the last time he actually won the big one? A decade ago? ... and for that matter - "5 big ones"? Are you adding in the years as an assistant coach? I guess I see where you are coming from now. C'mon. He is great in his own right. No need to pad the stats. It's just a shame that in the last 10 years he has not been a Super Bowl winning coach. King of the regular season? Absolutely. Best coach at the turn of the century? Definitely. No doubt. But in a league of "what have you done for me lately" he just hasn't done "it". It doesn't mean he hasn't been great. It just brings into question how great. And if we are discussing that question, I'm suggesting that his recent playoff record and the BS tactics that he uses when he does win compromises his greatness.

If that perspective ruins your day and makes me a troll then so be it. I'm out. Good luck!

:popcorn:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Belichick is a great coach. He pushed the rules and goes for any possible edge. And he gets it. He is easily the best coach of his generation. Not even close. Right in there with Lombardi, Knoll, and Walsh.

Belichick's losing record without Brady puts him on a lower tier, IMO. I realize not everyone will agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Belichick is a great coach. He pushed the rules and goes for any possible edge. And he gets it. He is easily the best coach of his generation. Not even close. Right in there with Lombardi, Knoll, and Walsh.

Belichick's losing record without Brady puts him on a lower tier, IMO. I realize not everyone will agree.

why?

What's vince Lombardi's record without Bart Starr?

What's Bill Walsh's record without Joe Montana?

Chuck Noll without Terry Bradshaw?

Don Shula without Unitas/Griese/Morrall/Marino?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Belichick is a great coach. He pushed the rules and goes for any possible edge. And he gets it. He is easily the best coach of his generation. Not even close. Right in there with Lombardi, Knoll, and Walsh.

Belichick's losing record without Brady puts him on a lower tier, IMO. I realize not everyone will agree.

why?

What's vince Lombardi's record without Bart Starr?

What's Bill Walsh's record without Joe Montana?

Chuck Noll without Terry Bradshaw?

Don Shula without Unitas/Griese/Morrall/Marino?

Obviously a great QB can hide a coach's true talent level. Belichick was mediocre in Cleveland, his first season in NE was bad, they were 0-2 the next year, then Brady shows up and Belichick's terrific. George Seifert was great too, until he went to Carolina.

Edit: And Lombardi never had a losing season. Almost assuredly the best ever.

Edited by GoFishTN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Belichick is a great coach. He pushed the rules and goes for any possible edge. And he gets it. He is easily the best coach of his generation. Not even close. Right in there with Lombardi, Knoll, and Walsh.

Belichick's losing record without Brady puts him on a lower tier, IMO. I realize not everyone will agree.

why?

What's vince Lombardi's record without Bart Starr?

What's Bill Walsh's record without Joe Montana?

Chuck Noll without Terry Bradshaw?

Don Shula without Unitas/Griese/Morrall/Marino?

Obviously a great QB can hide a coaches true talent level. Belichick was mediocre in Cleveland, his first season in NE was bad, they were 0-2 the next year, then Brady shows up and Belichick's terrific. George Seifert was great too, until he went to Carolina.

Edit: And Lombardi never had a losing season. Almost assuredly the best ever.

I'm not sure Belichick was bad in Cle. He took over a 3-13 team and got them to 11-5 with a playoff win. The next year, the team started out 3-1 and slumped to 4-5 when modell announced the move. The team fell apart, losing 6 of their next 7 games...Belichick was gone after that.

I can't speak for his first year in NE, but IMO you have to give a coach a mulligan on their first year so they can get their system in place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, if taking the worst team in the league from 3 wins to 11 wins and the playoffs is 'mediocre' there are a lot of absolute #### coaches in this business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, if taking the worst team in the league from 3 wins to 11 wins and the playoffs is 'mediocre' there are a lot of absolute #### coaches in this business.

technically speaking, the worst team in the league that year was the Patriots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, if taking the worst team in the league from 3 wins to 11 wins and the playoffs is 'mediocre' there are a lot of absolute #### coaches in this business.

I consider 36-44 mediocre, yes. Playoff season notwithstanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, if taking the worst team in the league from 3 wins to 11 wins and the playoffs is 'mediocre' there are a lot of absolute #### coaches in this business.

I consider 36-44 mediocre, yes. Playoff season notwithstanding.

if only lombardi had taken over that 3 win team they would've reeled off 3 superbowls :rolleyes:

Edited by 12punch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, if taking the worst team in the league from 3 wins to 11 wins and the playoffs is 'mediocre' there are a lot of absolute #### coaches in this business.

I consider 36-44 mediocre, yes. Playoff season notwithstanding.

if only lombardi had taken over that 3 win team they would've reeled off 3 superbowls :rolleyes:

technically, the pack were 1-10-1 before Lombardi, far and away the worst team in the league. worst offense and worst defense.

and, they won two championships within lombardi's first 4 years, so...

Edited by moleculo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, if taking the worst team in the league from 3 wins to 11 wins and the playoffs is 'mediocre' there are a lot of absolute #### coaches in this business.

I consider 36-44 mediocre, yes. Playoff season notwithstanding.

if only lombardi had taken over that 3 win team they would've reeled off 3 superbowls :rolleyes:

technically, the pack were 1-10-1 before Lombardi, far and away the worst team in the league. worst offense and worst defense.

and, they won two championships within lombardi's first 4 years, so...

14 teams in the league back then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, if taking the worst team in the league from 3 wins to 11 wins and the playoffs is 'mediocre' there are a lot of absolute #### coaches in this business.

I consider 36-44 mediocre, yes. Playoff season notwithstanding.

if only lombardi had taken over that 3 win team they would've reeled off 3 superbowls :rolleyes:

technically, the pack were 1-10-1 before Lombardi, far and away the worst team in the league. worst offense and worst defense.

and, they won two championships within lombardi's first 4 years, so...

and they had a half dozen hall of fame players on that team including bart starr at qb

belichick inherited the bad news bears and bernie kosar, who he cut, so.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, if taking the worst team in the league from 3 wins to 11 wins and the playoffs is 'mediocre' there are a lot of absolute #### coaches in this business.

I consider 36-44 mediocre, yes. Playoff season notwithstanding.

if only lombardi had taken over that 3 win team they would've reeled off 3 superbowls :rolleyes:

technically, the pack were 1-10-1 before Lombardi, far and away the worst team in the league. worst offense and worst defense.

and, they won two championships within lombardi's first 4 years, so...

14 teams in the league back then.

well ####, with that few teams everyone should be winning championships every year then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, if taking the worst team in the league from 3 wins to 11 wins and the playoffs is 'mediocre' there are a lot of absolute #### coaches in this business.

I consider 36-44 mediocre, yes. Playoff season notwithstanding.

if only lombardi had taken over that 3 win team they would've reeled off 3 superbowls :rolleyes:

technically, the pack were 1-10-1 before Lombardi, far and away the worst team in the league. worst offense and worst defense.

and, they won two championships within lombardi's first 4 years, so...

14 teams in the league back then.

well ####, with that few teams everyone should be winning championships every year then.

This is why old hockey fans loved the NHL pre-1967.

Edited by Leroy Hoard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, if taking the worst team in the league from 3 wins to 11 wins and the playoffs is 'mediocre' there are a lot of absolute #### coaches in this business.

I consider 36-44 mediocre, yes. Playoff season notwithstanding.

if only lombardi had taken over that 3 win team they would've reeled off 3 superbowls :rolleyes:

technically, the pack were 1-10-1 before Lombardi, far and away the worst team in the league. worst offense and worst defense.

and, they won two championships within lombardi's first 4 years, so...

and they had a half dozen hall of fame players on that team including bart starr at qb

belichick inherited the bad news bears and bernie kosar, who he cut, so.....

Would those guys have been HoF players if not for Lombardi?

by 1958,

Starr was a 3rd year player with a career record of 3-15-1, and td/int ratio of 13/25.

Hornung was a 2nd year player with 129 career rushing attempts (he had 152, 160, and 127 in Lombardi's first three seasons).

Jim Ringo and Bobby Dillon were their only pro-bowlers.

Nitschke was a rookie.

I mean, sure they became HoF players and went on to win championships, but it's not like you could tell that by looking at a 1-10-1 team at the time.

Hell, the 1958 Packer team had a -189 scoring differential... double the next worst team. Not what one would expect from a team full of HoFers.

Edited by moleculo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Belichick is a great coach. He pushed the rules and goes for any possible edge. And he gets it. He is easily the best coach of his generation. Not even close. Right in there with Lombardi, Knoll, and Walsh.

Belichick's losing record without Brady puts him on a lower tier, IMO. I realize not everyone will agree.

why?

What's vince Lombardi's record without Bart Starr?

What's Bill Walsh's record without Joe Montana?

Chuck Noll without Terry Bradshaw?

Don Shula without Unitas/Griese/Morrall/Marino?

Obviously a great QB can hide a coaches true talent level. Belichick was mediocre in Cleveland, his first season in NE was bad, they were 0-2 the next year, then Brady shows up and Belichick's terrific. George Seifert was great too, until he went to Carolina.

Edit: And Lombardi never had a losing season. Almost assuredly the best ever.

I'm not sure Belichick was bad in Cle. He took over a 3-13 team and got them to 11-5 with a playoff win. The next year, the team started out 3-1 and slumped to 4-5 when modell announced the move. The team fell apart, losing 6 of their next 7 games...Belichick was gone after that.

I can't speak for his first year in NE, but IMO you have to give a coach a mulligan on their first year so they can get their system in place.

The sequence of events that led to Bledsoe going down and Brady coming in was pretty remarkable. As I recall it Bledsoe had a broken sternum and internal bleeding and went to the hospital, he was out. And Brady was drafted by Belichick the year before.

Before Brady, the only QB that BB picked before the 12th round was Eric Zeier in the 3rd in 1995.

But anyway, Cleveland had Bill Belichick, a playoff team..... and then they were gone. Horrible.

Oddly enough Cleveland picked the QB just before Brady, they took Spergon Wynn at pick 183, 16 ahead of Brady (who was a BigX guy no less).

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Belichick is a great coach. He pushed the rules and goes for any possible edge. And he gets it. He is easily the best coach of his generation. Not even close. Right in there with Lombardi, Knoll, and Walsh.

Belichick's losing record without Brady puts him on a lower tier, IMO. I realize not everyone will agree.

why?

What's vince Lombardi's record without Bart Starr?

What's Bill Walsh's record without Joe Montana?

Chuck Noll without Terry Bradshaw?

Don Shula without Unitas/Griese/Morrall/Marino?

Obviously a great QB can hide a coaches true talent level. Belichick was mediocre in Cleveland, his first season in NE was bad, they were 0-2 the next year, then Brady shows up and Belichick's terrific. George Seifert was great too, until he went to Carolina.

Edit: And Lombardi never had a losing season. Almost assuredly the best ever.

I'm not sure Belichick was bad in Cle. He took over a 3-13 team and got them to 11-5 with a playoff win. The next year, the team started out 3-1 and slumped to 4-5 when modell announced the move. The team fell apart, losing 6 of their next 7 games...Belichick was gone after that.

I can't speak for his first year in NE, but IMO you have to give a coach a mulligan on their first year so they can get their system in place.

The sequence of events that led to Bledsoe going down and Brady coming in was pretty remarkable. As I recall it Bledsoe had a broken sternum and internal bleeding and went to the hospital, he was out. And Brady was drafted by Belichick.

Before Brady, the only QB that BB picked before the 12th round was Eric Zeier in the 3rd in 1995.

yeah, I remember there being a lot of debate WRT Brady vs Bledsoe - should a player lose his starting job due to injury and all of that. To Belichicks credit, he stuck with Brady even after Bledsoe was healthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Belichick is a great coach. He pushed the rules and goes for any possible edge. And he gets it. He is easily the best coach of his generation. Not even close. Right in there with Lombardi, Knoll, and Walsh.

Belichick's losing record without Brady puts him on a lower tier, IMO. I realize not everyone will agree.

why?

What's vince Lombardi's record without Bart Starr?

What's Bill Walsh's record without Joe Montana?

Chuck Noll without Terry Bradshaw?

Don Shula without Unitas/Griese/Morrall/Marino?

Obviously a great QB can hide a coach's true talent level. Belichick was mediocre in Cleveland, his first season in NE was bad, they were 0-2 the next year, then Brady shows up and Belichick's terrific. George Seifert was great too, until he went to Carolina.

Edit: And Lombardi never had a losing season. Almost assuredly the best ever.

Just a couple of facts for people to digest when debating about the greatest coach ever:

Joe Walsh always had Joe Montana on his teams. In his first two seasons Walsh went 8-24 primarily using Steve DeBerg as his QB.

Vince Lombardi had Bart Starr for every season in Green Bay and Sonny Jurgensen the one year he coached in Washington.

Neither Walsh nor Lombardi coached a team without a HOF QB on it. Belichick is the only one of the three to coach a team without a HOF QB.

So using the bolded logic above one could say that Walsh was a horrible coach his first two seasons in SF and then he figured out that he had some guy named Montana on his team and he became a great coach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Belichick is a great coach. He pushed the rules and goes for any possible edge. And he gets it. He is easily the best coach of his generation. Not even close. Right in there with Lombardi, Knoll, and Walsh.

Belichick's losing record without Brady puts him on a lower tier, IMO. I realize not everyone will agree.

why?

What's vince Lombardi's record without Bart Starr?

What's Bill Walsh's record without Joe Montana?

Chuck Noll without Terry Bradshaw?

Don Shula without Unitas/Griese/Morrall/Marino?

Obviously a great QB can hide a coaches true talent level. Belichick was mediocre in Cleveland, his first season in NE was bad, they were 0-2 the next year, then Brady shows up and Belichick's terrific. George Seifert was great too, until he went to Carolina.

Edit: And Lombardi never had a losing season. Almost assuredly the best ever.

I'm not sure Belichick was bad in Cle. He took over a 3-13 team and got them to 11-5 with a playoff win. The next year, the team started out 3-1 and slumped to 4-5 when modell announced the move. The team fell apart, losing 6 of their next 7 games...Belichick was gone after that.

I can't speak for his first year in NE, but IMO you have to give a coach a mulligan on their first year so they can get their system in place.

The sequence of events that led to Bledsoe going down and Brady coming in was pretty remarkable. As I recall it Bledsoe had a broken sternum and internal bleeding and went to the hospital, he was out. And Brady was drafted by Belichick.

Before Brady, the only QB that BB picked before the 12th round was Eric Zeier in the 3rd in 1995.

yeah, I remember there being a lot of debate WRT Brady vs Bledsoe - should a player lose his starting job due to injury and all of that. To Belichicks credit, he stuck with Brady even after Bledsoe was healthy.

It might be a bit of revisionist history but there has been rumblings through the years by people well connected to the team that Belichick was close to making the move to Brady even if Bledsoe didn't get hurt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Belichick is a great coach. He pushed the rules and goes for any possible edge. And he gets it. He is easily the best coach of his generation. Not even close. Right in there with Lombardi, Knoll, and Walsh.

Belichick's losing record without Brady puts him on a lower tier, IMO. I realize not everyone will agree.

Not for me. That's just focusing on the negative, which I try to avoid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Belichick sucks. He was a loser without Brady.

Also, Brady sucks. He never accomplished anything without Belichick telling him to dink and dunk.

Suckiest bunch of sucks to ever go 4 for 6 in Superbowls

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Belichick is a great coach. He pushed the rules and goes for any possible edge. And he gets it. He is easily the best coach of his generation. Not even close. Right in there with Lombardi, Knoll, and Walsh.

Belichick's losing record without Brady puts him on a lower tier, IMO. I realize not everyone will agree.

Its a reasonable point of view until you disect the history in cleveland. He was close to turning the jaguars into the steelers and then modell moved them to baltimore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's amazing to think that if the Seahawks had scored and won that would have been the fifth of six Super Bowls under BB to be decided by 3 points.

This in a game that historically has had so many blowouts elsewhere.

And as it is the Pats won by 4. Four games decided by 3, the other two by 4. Is that consistency, chance, planning, coincidence, what?

They obviously don't plan to keep it close. In eight games against playoff teams this year they had an average margin of victory of over 15. But they definitely play more aggressively at key b points in the game. Like breaking out the eligible/ineligible receiver and Edelman/amendola trick play in the Ravens game, or virtually abandoning blount in the fourth quarter of the superbowl.

The pats play bend but don't break defense, try to force mistakes, and play low turnover, high percentage plays on offense. In the long run they know brady is much better at that than your guy so they force you to blink first because it's hard to beat them at their own game in 60 minutes. But once you succeed, they can open things up with the best of them.

Almost exactly the same philosophy that Seattle has. They're just more run oriented because they have such a physical back to wear you down. But when they want to turn it on, Russell Wilson is deadly.

That's what made it such an interesting superbowl. Both teams played their game and played it well, and it literally came down to one yard. Can't get any closer than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Belichick sucks. He was a loser without Brady.

Also, Brady sucks. He never accomplished anything without Belichick telling him to dink and dunk.

Suckiest bunch of sucks to ever go 4 for 6 in Superbowls

This guy gets it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Belichick sucks. He was a loser without Brady.

Also, Brady sucks. He never accomplished anything without Belichick telling him to dink and dunk.

Suckiest bunch of sucks to ever go 4 for 6 in Superbowls

It must be exhausting worrying about what everyone else thinks of your team instead of just enjoying your team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Belichick sucks. He was a loser without Brady.

Also, Brady sucks. He never accomplished anything without Belichick telling him to dink and dunk.

Suckiest bunch of sucks to ever go 4 for 6 in Superbowls

It must be exhausting worrying about what everyone else thinks of your team instead of just enjoying your team.

I'm just trying to share the joy :lovernotafighter:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Belichick sucks. He was a loser without Brady.

Also, Brady sucks. He never accomplished anything without Belichick telling him to dink and dunk.

Suckiest bunch of sucks to ever go 4 for 6 in Superbowls

It must be exhausting worrying about what everyone else thinks of your team instead of just enjoying your team.

I'd imagine it's not as exhausting worrying about what everyone thinks about our team when you're not enjoying your team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At first I was like, "What are they doing, the HAVE to take a timeout!!" Now I see it was another instance of belichick's brilliance and stones. Let the clock run, put pressure on the Seahawks to act, 26 seconds (when they ran the ill fated play) is not a lot of time if Lynch gets stuffed. They had a time out but wanted to save it, Carrolls play does make some sense, of course hoping for a TD or incomplete. But on the back end, Belichick had Butler (and Browner) coached for THE VERY PLAY THEY RAN. I think it was Ty Law that said it, Carroll was playing accelerated checkers, Belichick was playing chess. Game set match. Best stuff you'll ever see, what a VICTORY.

Never won one since video incident: check

Win the SB with fat hard footballs: check

Parade tomorrow boys and girls, stay off the snow banks, LOL. CHAMPS BABY!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Belichick sucks. He was a loser without Brady.

Also, Brady sucks. He never accomplished anything without Belichick telling him to dink and dunk.

Suckiest bunch of sucks to ever go 4 for 6 in Superbowls

It must be exhausting worrying about what everyone else thinks of your team instead of just enjoying your team.

I'd imagine it's not as exhausting worrying about what everyone thinks about our team when you're not enjoying your team.

I'd imagine enjoying your team is not totally satisfying when you realize that fans of every other fanbase know there will be an asterisk forever attached to the Patriots of this era, which is why it must get exhausting wondering what everyone else thinks of your team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Belichick sucks. He was a loser without Brady.

Also, Brady sucks. He never accomplished anything without Belichick telling him to dink and dunk.

Suckiest bunch of sucks to ever go 4 for 6 in Superbowls

It must be exhausting worrying about what everyone else thinks of your team instead of just enjoying your team.

I'd imagine it's not as exhausting worrying about what everyone thinks about our team when you're not enjoying your team.

I'd imagine enjoying your team is not totally satisfying when you realize that fans of every other fanbase know there will be an asterisk forever attached to the Patriots of this era, which is why it must get exhausting wondering what everyone else thinks of your team.

I don't know about that. The media, at least, has pretty much forgotten about the spying. They'll forget about the deflated balls in time, as well. I think this is in part because it is difficult to quantify how much of an impact those scandals actually had on their victories. It isn't like steroids in baseball where you could see a statistical explosion. Yes, the Pats had a drought where they didn't win a SB...but their winning percentage increased. Even without the Super Bowls the last ten or so years, they've been the most winning team if I'm not mistaken.The asterisk will remain, but for the most part only in the eyes of fans. I will agree though, that Pats fans are ultra sensitive as a result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Belichick sucks. He was a loser without Brady.

Also, Brady sucks. He never accomplished anything without Belichick telling him to dink and dunk.

Suckiest bunch of sucks to ever go 4 for 6 in Superbowls

It must be exhausting worrying about what everyone else thinks of your team instead of just enjoying your team.

I'd imagine it's not as exhausting worrying about what everyone thinks about our team when you're not enjoying your team.

I'd imagine enjoying your team is not totally satisfying when you realize that fans of every other fanbase know there will be an asterisk forever attached to the Patriots of this era, which is why it must get exhausting wondering what everyone else thinks of your team.

you can only imagine it because Tom brady tucked a ball up Uranus 13 years ago and gruden pulled it back out the following year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Belichick sucks. He was a loser without Brady.

Also, Brady sucks. He never accomplished anything without Belichick telling him to dink and dunk.

Suckiest bunch of sucks to ever go 4 for 6 in Superbowls

It must be exhausting worrying about what everyone else thinks of your team instead of just enjoying your team.

I'd imagine it's not as exhausting worrying about what everyone thinks about our team when you're not enjoying your team.

I'd imagine enjoying your team is not totally satisfying when you realize that fans of every other fanbase know there will be an asterisk forever attached to the Patriots of this era, which is why it must get exhausting wondering what everyone else thinks of your team.

I have to admit that opposing fans constantly accusing the Pats of cheating DOES bother me, for no sensible reason. It doesn't diminish my enjoyment of watching the Pats, but I do have a kneejerk urge to try to prove the salty haterz wrong. :shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Belichick sucks. He was a loser without Brady.

Also, Brady sucks. He never accomplished anything without Belichick telling him to dink and dunk.

Suckiest bunch of sucks to ever go 4 for 6 in Superbowls

It must be exhausting worrying about what everyone else thinks of your team instead of just enjoying your team.

probably not as exhausting as posting about them all day every day

dude, just be honest with yourself and hop on the bandwagon --- you can talk pats and get attention from your fellow pats fans around the clock

we even have entire messageboards dedicated to nothing but the pats!

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.