Bill Belichick: Greatest coach since Vince (1 Viewer)

[pigskin pimp]

Watching the MNF game, I knew Belichick was a great coach, but he takes it to a new level.

The Vikes come in with a stellar run defense. The Patriots lost their best WRs, have been running 2 TEs sets, trying to control the clock with their wins.

I'm looking forward to a grind it out, smash mouth game. Hoping the Vikes can stay close.

What does Belichick do? Runs a 4 and 5 set WR look all game. Which is fine, a good coach will not play to the other team's strengths. He has no name WRs, and let's Brady do his thing.

Pass, short left. Again. Again. Again. Don't want to defend it, I'll do it again. It was like watching a real life version of Madden video football. You want to keep putting your LB, EJ Henderson, on my WR? Bam! Pass short left. LBs can't cover WRs, even no namers like NE has.

What makes Bill even bettter than most NFL coaches is that he never decided to run the clock. Attack. Attack. Attack. Still don't want to play zone? Bam! Have that.

Most coaches would have came out with a huge lead at half and tried to wind the clock down and take the W. Not Bill. Kill. Kill. Kill.

As a Vikes backer, the only thing I took out of this game is a new found respect for Belichick and even a greater appreciation for what Brady can accomplish.

 

[pigskin pimp]

I also wanted to add that I am not trying to disrespect the Shulas, the Landrys, the Cowhers, the Walshes of the NFL.

But I do think that Belichick has accomplished much more with less talent. For goodness sakes, Brady was a no name 6th rounder backup from Michigan.

The guy cannot be 2nd guessed on his moves. Lawyer Milloy was an All Star at safety. Belichick replaced him no problem. Hell, Bill replaced the whole secondary with nary a glitch. Samuel is now a nobody who is the next up and comer.

Bill has the Midas touch.

I could keep coming up with more scenarios, but it might come off as too much man love for the guy.

Like I said earlier, I just never appreciated the coach until I saw his handiwork first hand on Monday night.

 

[The Man Who Met Andy Griffith]

But I do think that Belichick has accomplished much more with less talent. For goodness sakes, Brady was a no name 6th rounder backup from Michigan.

If you're going to make the argument that the Patriots have no talent, Brady probably isn't the best example. Did the 49'ers have no talent because Joe Montana was a late rounder?There is no question that between Belichick's coaching & Pioli's drafting, the Patriots have developed a lot of very solid players out of a pretty middling selection of draft picks.Anyway, Belichick is obviously a heckuva coach. Best ever? I don't know, ask me in 20 years.

 

[pigskin pimp]

But I do think that Belichick has accomplished much more with less talent. For goodness sakes, Brady was a no name 6th rounder backup from Michigan.

If you're going to make the argument that the Patriots have no talent, Brady probably isn't the best example. Did the 49'ers have no talent because Joe Montana was a late rounder?There is no question that between Belichick's coaching & Pioli's drafting, the Patriots have developed a lot of very solid players out of a pretty middling selection of draft picks.Anyway, Belichick is obviously a heckuva coach. Best ever? I don't know, ask me in 20 years.

Montana=3rd round, 82nd player draftedBrady=6th, 199th player draftedJust saying. I don't want to debate Joe vs. Tom, though

 

[pigskin pimp]

Seriously, you are up by 4 scores. Middle of the 4th, you're still going with 4 and 5 WR sets. Amazing.

Never since Vince Lombardi have I heard stories of this stature. College football, yes. The good ole boys league, no.

FWIW, did you see that stat line on Belichick. Lombardi 9-1 in the playoffs. Belichick 11-2.

 

[bjabrad]

HOF??? no doubt

one of the best all time??? are you crazy??? no you're not,,, he's that good

just to add,,, it's more than just his play calling/game plan because his ball control passing game that uses 7 WR/TE/RB's with nobody being the over paid star helps keep prices down and lets NE stay competitive without breaking the bank.

I also know that Tom Brady is a very good QB but I credit 90% of his success to Bill Belichik's offense and play calling. Just like any QB in this league, if you surround them with crap and give them crappy play calling they will look like???crap.

NE knows how to win the games that they have to win at home or on the road. I don't even consider forgetting about them as a playoff contender until they are mathmatically eliminated. They simply will not die and even when they do like they did last season I find it completely surprising and will be surprised again this year when and if they are eliminated from either playoff contention or lose in the playoffs.

Fantasy wise however, the only one I want on my team is Brady. RB's/WR's and TE's get the love spread out way too thin.

 

[Assani Fisher]

He also has a losing career record without Tom Brady. Not saying that hes not great, but lets give Brady his due as well.

 

[radballs]

Both Bs are overrated imo.

 

[thatguy]

Seriously, you are up by 4 scores. Middle of the 4th, you're still going with 4 and 5 WR sets. Amazing.

Never since Vince Lombardi have I heard stories of this stature. College football, yes. The good ole boys league, no.

FWIW, did you see that stat line on Belichick. Lombardi 9-1 in the playoffs. Belichick 11-2.

So he's amazing because he enjoys trying to run up the score? And in your first post you say he's amazing because he takes what the defense gives him?

Running up the score makes him an idiot - not only because it's classless but because it represents an unnecessary injury risk.

Taking what the defense gives you is common sense, and that's more Brady than it is Belichek. I suppose Tony Duny is one of the best coaches ever, too, since Peyton manning repeatedly threw to Reggie Wayne yesterday.

Bill is a good coach, yes. But some of your reasoning seems odd, to say the least. And why don't we see if Bill can do it for a bit longer before we start calling him the best ever. As someone above said, he hasn't done #### without Brady.

 

[Delusions Of Adequacy]

Well, no coach wins consistently in the NFL without an outstanding QB.

Lombardi didn't, Noll, Shula, Landry didn't. When Jimmy Johnson no longer had a great QB, he didn't win amymore. It just doesn't happen.

That said, once he got an outstanding QB, Bellichik has probably done more with less surrounding talent than any of the above. NO HOF rbs, wr's etc.

 

[Assani Fisher]

Gibbs is the only coach I can think of that has on many occassions taken a rather average QB and been very successful(and not just by playing D and running the ball...he has actually ran high powered offenses with these average QBs).

 

[thatguy]

In 7 seasons since Elway's retirement (not including this one), Mike Shannahan has led Denver to winning seasons in 5 and a sub .500 record in just one (the year after). He won at least 10 games in 4 of those 7 seasons, and is on pace to win at least 10 yet again this year. His record in that span is 72-47 (this does include his 5-2 record this season). He has made the playoffs in 4 of those 7 seasons, and is once again on pace to make the playoffs this season. He has made one AFC Championship game, and while he has yet to reach a Super Bowl without John Elway, he has started the likes of Bubby Brister, Brian Griese, Gus Frerotte, Steve Beuerlein, Danny Kanell, and now Jake Plummer as his QB, none of whom the majority consider anywhere near "outstanding". That's pretty consistent if you ask me. Just sayin'.

And please don't take this as to mean that I'm suggesting he's a better coach than Bill, or that I'm trying to turn this into a Bill/Shanny debate. I'm merely replying to the last dude's claim. You can view the numbers in whatever light you please.

 

[SSOG]

Both Bs are overrated imo.

Agreed. People say that Bellichick could win with anyone, but the fact remains that he DIDN'T win with anyone. I mean, it's not like he won 3 different SBs with 3 different starting QBs and 3 different starting RBs. It's not like he made superbowls with multiple franchises, or like he even turned multiple teams into contenders. Bellichick is really, really good, but I don't think he's even the best coach in the league right now. At this very moment in time, he would probably have to be considered the best, but I think when he retires and you compare his body of work to everyone else's, you'll see that there were at least 3 coaches in the league at this very moment who finish their careers with far more impressive resume's than Bellichick's.

Well, no coach wins consistently in the NFL without an outstanding QB.

Marty Schottenheimer down? Bill Cowher down? Pro-Football-Reference is down at the moment, but I'm pretty sure that Shanahan has a pretty impressive Elwayless winning percentage, too (and only one losing season in 7 years).Joe Gibbs down? Bill Parcells down? **** Vermeil down (before you call Warner an "outstanding QB", you might want to check out his recent history)?

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

So he's amazing because he enjoys trying to run up the score? And in your first post you say he's amazing because he takes what the defense gives him? Running up the score makes him an idiot - not only because it's classless but because it represents an unnecessary injury risk.

Two things:- it's not running up the score until there's a 40 burger on the board.- to state "because he enjoys trying to run up the score" is character assassination, plain and simple.Have a great day.

 

[thayman]

So he's amazing because he enjoys trying to run up the score? And in your first post you say he's amazing because he takes what the defense gives him? Running up the score makes him an idiot - not only because it's classless but because it represents an unnecessary injury risk.

Two things:- it's not running up the score until there's a 40 burger on the board.- to state "because he enjoys trying to run up the score" is character assassination, plain and simple.Have a great day.

One thing I like about BB is he is one of the few coaches that seem to be trying to win games, rather than play to not lose them.

 

[Godsbrother]

Belichick is a great coach, certainly a HOFer. Best ever? Who the heck knows.

 

[Whizzinator]

Bellichick is really, really good, but I don't think he's even the best coach in the league right now. At this very moment in time, he would probably have to be considered the best, but I think when he retires and you compare his body of work to everyone else's, you'll see that there were at least 3 coaches in the league at this very moment who finish their careers with far more impressive resume's than Bellichick's.

OK, name the coaches and state the case for them, then.We'll be waiting.

 

[Workhorse]

Bellichick is really, really good, but I don't think he's even the best coach in the league right now. At this very moment in time, he would probably have to be considered the best, but I think when he retires and you compare his body of work to everyone else's, you'll see that there were at least 3 coaches in the league at this very moment who finish their careers with far more impressive resume's than Bellichick's.

OK, name the coaches and state the case for them, then.We'll be waiting.

IF (and it's still a big if) the Pats win it all this year, you immediately have to put Belichick right near the top. 3 in 4 and 4 out of 6? That's just insane in today's NFL, let alone all time.

 

[Banger]

Best coach I've ever seen that will adjust his game plan so dramatically week to week. All runs one week, the next week all passes, the next week a balanced attack. Yes, he has Brady but he still has great defenses year after year, good rb, no rb, good te's, no te's, good wr's, no wr's he just continues to win year after year. He's a great coach.

 

[bostonfred]

Both Bs are overrated imo.

Agreed. People say that Bellichick could win with anyone, but the fact remains that he DIDN'T win with anyone. I mean, it's not like he won 3 different SBs with 3 different starting QBs and 3 different starting RBs. It's not like he made superbowls with multiple franchises, or like he even turned multiple teams into contenders. Bellichick is really, really good, but I don't think he's even the best coach in the league right now. At this very moment in time, he would probably have to be considered the best, but I think when he retires and you compare his body of work to everyone else's, you'll see that there were at least 3 coaches in the league at this very moment who finish their careers with far more impressive resume's than Bellichick's.

Go ahead. Say Shanahan. We all know it's what you're thinking. It'll be a fun but short argument.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Both Bs are overrated imo.

Agreed. People say that Bellichick could win with anyone, but the fact remains that he DIDN'T win with anyone. I mean, it's not like he won 3 different SBs with 3 different starting QBs and 3 different starting RBs. It's not like he made superbowls with multiple franchises, or like he even turned multiple teams into contenders. Bellichick is really, really good, but I don't think he's even the best coach in the league right now. At this very moment in time, he would probably have to be considered the best, but I think when he retires and you compare his body of work to everyone else's, you'll see that there were at least 3 coaches in the league at this very moment who finish their careers with far more impressive resume's than Bellichick's.

Go ahead. Say Shanahan. We all know it's what you're thinking. It'll be a fun but short argument.

Let's hear it - let's hear Shanahan.

 

[Jagerbomber]

Both Bs are overrated imo.

Agreed. People say that Bellichick could win with anyone, but the fact remains that he DIDN'T win with anyone. I mean, it's not like he won 3 different SBs with 3 different starting QBs and 3 different starting RBs. It's not like he made superbowls with multiple franchises, or like he even turned multiple teams into contenders. Bellichick is really, really good, but I don't think he's even the best coach in the league right now. At this very moment in time, he would probably have to be considered the best, but I think when he retires and you compare his body of work to everyone else's, you'll see that there were at least 3 coaches in the league at this very moment who finish their careers with far more impressive resume's than Bellichick's.

Go ahead. Say Shanahan. We all know it's what you're thinking. It'll be a fun but short argument.

Let's hear it - let's hear Shanahan.

I'll say anybody arguing Skeletor over Bellichick has a prayer.I think Bellichick and Brady have been a great partnership and I'm of the opinion that Bellichick needs Brady more than Brady needs Bellichick. But that's just me.

At any rate, yes, I think he could conceivably go down as the best ever, at least where records are concerned. Now, if he could stop wearing those ripped sweatshirts on the sidelines...stop looking like a damn hobo Bill.

 

[code]

Bellichick is really, really good, but I don't think he's even the best coach in the league right now. At this very moment in time, he would probably have to be considered the best, but I think when he retires and you compare his body of work to everyone else's, you'll see that there were at least 3 coaches in the league at this very moment who finish their careers with far more impressive resume's than Bellichick's.

OK, name the coaches and state the case for them, then.We'll be waiting.

and

 

[Green Apple Splatter]

Seriously, you are up by 4 scores. Middle of the 4th, you're still going with 4 and 5 WR sets. Amazing.

Should Lomardi have quit running the ball when up by 4 scores, because his teams were so dominant running the ball? Would it have been fair if he had instructed Starr to start throwing it on every down?

 

[tombonneau]

As a Pats fan, I was a little concerned seeing them still in 4-5 wr sets in the 4th Q, but when the game was over I think I realized a bit why BB kept at it.

Did you see how giddy Brady was in his post-game? I believe BB was catering to his star player. Brady was unstoppable throwing the ball, and he simply wanted to keep feeding him plays to keep his momentum going.

Imagine if instead of letting Brady just keep throwing it, the Pats had tried to grind it out. They prob. wouldn't have had much success on the ground. Brady would barely have broken 300 yards, the score might have been 24-14, or 27-17 or something, and the outcome wouldn't have looked nearly as dominating on the scoreboard.

Instead, BB let Brady pour it on, which IMO is the perfect scenario for your QBs ego when you are heading into a Manning vs. Brady matchup after Manning has an All Pro day in Denver.

Great coaching IMO, and had very little to do with "running up the score." It was more about stepping on an opponents throat and building the confidence of your offense.

I gurantee you there is no one on that offense right now that feels Manning and the Colts will outscore them.

 

[redman]

Seriously, you are up by 4 scores. Middle of the 4th, you're still going with 4 and 5 WR sets. Amazing.Never since Vince Lombardi have I heard stories of this stature. College football, yes. The good ole boys league, no.FWIW, did you see that stat line on Belichick. Lombardi 9-1 in the playoffs. Belichick 11-2.

I too was impressed by this, but I think there are other examples of this sort of thing out there. Walsh put both of his offensive tackles on one side (right side IIRC) of his line to overload that side in the first Super Bowl against the Bengals in the early 1980's, which is a pretty amazing gamble to take with the continuity of your offensive line in the biggest game of the year. Gibbs was known for calling running play after running play - usually either 50 Gut or the Counter Trey/Gap plays - when he saw a smaller defense unable to handle the large linemen he had. Super Bowl XXII against the Broncos comes to mind. There was also this quote from the Redskins' long-time center, Jeff Bostic, in the 1980's, about a game against the Cowboys where they ran 50-gut nine times in a row with John Riggins: "After three or four, in the huddle I said to Russ [Grimm], 'Play along with me,' " Bostic said. "I got to the line, and I said to Randy White, 'Our coaching staff loves you. We're going to run it over you again.' Then on the next play Russ told him. Randy wasn't very happy, but after three or four times, he didn't say a word."Now, that being said, I've just compared Belichick to two Hall of Famers, so I'm certainly not slighting him. Belichick prepares with the best of them, but the key here is that when he makes his decisions he is decisive. When he commits to something it's all the way. That's a mark of one of the great ones.

 

[redman]

Bellichick is really, really good, but I don't think he's even the best coach in the league right now. At this very moment in time, he would probably have to be considered the best, but I think when he retires and you compare his body of work to everyone else's, you'll see that there were at least 3 coaches in the league at this very moment who finish their careers with far more impressive resume's than Bellichick's.

OK, name the coaches and state the case for them, then.We'll be waiting.

and

I have a tremendous amount of respect for a number of coaches in the league today, but there is nobody as innovative and ballsy as Belichick is. You can literally see any conceivable offensive and defensive scheme against you week to week. There is not another team in the league that can claim that.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Seriously, you are up by 4 scores. Middle of the 4th, you're still going with 4 and 5 WR sets. Amazing.Never since Vince Lombardi have I heard stories of this stature. College football, yes. The good ole boys league, no.FWIW, did you see that stat line on Belichick. Lombardi 9-1 in the playoffs. Belichick 11-2.

You say that like it's a good thing. Going with 4 and 5 WR sets up by 4 scores in the middle of the 4th isn't a good thing.Of course, it's ironic that you choose Belichick as your example. More than any other coach (think Shanahan this year, Cowher in years past), Belichick has played by the "win by as few as possible" theory. He gets very conservative late in games, and he doesn't try to win by 30. He tries to win by 3, and not to reveal much the next week.Belichick was the best coach in the league for the past five years. It remains to be seen who is the best coach this year, although Dungy and Lovie Smith are certainly leading that charge. Shanahan and Belichick are right there as well, and I'm also impressed with what new guys like Mangini and Payton have done. Credit also to Fox and Coughlin for saving their seasons from the brink of disaster.

 

[redman]

Belichick was the best coach in the league for the past five years. It remains to be seen who is the best coach this year, although Dungy and Lovie Smith are certainly leading that charge. Shanahan and Belichick are right there as well, and I'm also impressed with what new guys like Mangini and Payton have done. Credit also to Fox and Coughlin for saving their seasons from the brink of disaster.

Dungy, and Coughlin need to show me something in the post-season at this point of their careers to be called anything other than "good NFL coaches." They shouldn't be part of a discussion about great or Super Bowl winning coaches. Lovie Smith, Mangini, Payton, and the other younger coaches have impressed me too - this is probably the best showing by rookie head coaches through the first half of any season I can think of - but they will need to establish a record over years to be legitimately mentioned in a discussion like this.

 

[tombonneau]

Belichick was the best coach in the league for the past five years. It remains to be seen who is the best coach this year, although Dungy and Lovie Smith are certainly leading that charge.

I don't know how much of that Bears record is attributable to Lovie. When you need to PR and your D to make two amazing plays to beat the Cards, you aren't out-coaching that many people.Obviously the Bears are great, playing great D, but could anyone cite an example of Lovie's great coaching? I'm not being sarcastic, I haven't watched too many Bears games all that closely, so I'm not sure if he is making some great in-game adjustments or innovative play calling. It seems to me that they are simply winning with a dominating D, which is part coaching, part personnel.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Belichick was the best coach in the league for the past five years. It remains to be seen who is the best coach this year, although Dungy and Lovie Smith are certainly leading that charge. Shanahan and Belichick are right there as well, and I'm also impressed with what new guys like Mangini and Payton have done. Credit also to Fox and Coughlin for saving their seasons from the brink of disaster.

Dungy, and Coughlin need to show me something in the post-season at this point of their careers to be called anything other than "good NFL coaches." They shouldn't be part of a discussion about great or Super Bowl winning coaches. Lovie Smith, Mangini, Payton, and the other younger coaches have impressed me too - this is probably the best showing by rookie head coaches through the first half of any season I can think of - but they will need to establish a record over years to be legitimately mentioned in a discussion like this.

I'm not saying the best coach of the last five years, or the best coach of the next five years. In that case, I'd agree with you. I'm just saying the best coach of 2006. (Just like LJ was the best RB in 2005, even if he had no track record prior and if he blew out his knee this year.)

 

[redman]

Belichick was the best coach in the league for the past five years. It remains to be seen who is the best coach this year, although Dungy and Lovie Smith are certainly leading that charge. Shanahan and Belichick are right there as well, and I'm also impressed with what new guys like Mangini and Payton have done. Credit also to Fox and Coughlin for saving their seasons from the brink of disaster.

Dungy, and Coughlin need to show me something in the post-season at this point of their careers to be called anything other than "good NFL coaches." They shouldn't be part of a discussion about great or Super Bowl winning coaches. Lovie Smith, Mangini, Payton, and the other younger coaches have impressed me too - this is probably the best showing by rookie head coaches through the first half of any season I can think of - but they will need to establish a record over years to be legitimately mentioned in a discussion like this.

I'm not saying the best coach of the last five years, or the best coach of the next five years. In that case, I'd agree with you. I'm just saying the best coach of 2006. (Just like LJ was the best RB in 2005, even if he had no track record prior and if he blew out his knee this year.)

Under that criteria, I'd give far more credit to Coughlin than Dungy. Coughlin had to turn around a stumbling team and he's propelled them to the top of their division. What adversity has Dungy faced? To me, Dungy is still a defensive-oriented head coach who is with a team that is by far best known for its offense, and is the beneficiary of being the head coach with arguably the best QB of his generation (who BTW calls his own plays). Peyton Manning is playing at an all-time great level right now. His mastery of the game and his ability to improvise is simply phenomenal. If you're going to give Dungy credit for that, the credit would be for having the wisdom to stay out of his way. And BTW, what improvement have the Colts demonstrated this year from last year? While they started 7-0 both times, they were playing better defense last year. I would give Lovie Smith more credit than Dungy because his team has shown marked improvement on offense over last year.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Belichick was the best coach in the league for the past five years. It remains to be seen who is the best coach this year, although Dungy and Lovie Smith are certainly leading that charge. Shanahan and Belichick are right there as well, and I'm also impressed with what new guys like Mangini and Payton have done. Credit also to Fox and Coughlin for saving their seasons from the brink of disaster.

Dungy, and Coughlin need to show me something in the post-season at this point of their careers to be called anything other than "good NFL coaches." They shouldn't be part of a discussion about great or Super Bowl winning coaches. Lovie Smith, Mangini, Payton, and the other younger coaches have impressed me too - this is probably the best showing by rookie head coaches through the first half of any season I can think of - but they will need to establish a record over years to be legitimately mentioned in a discussion like this.

I'm not saying the best coach of the last five years, or the best coach of the next five years. In that case, I'd agree with you. I'm just saying the best coach of 2006. (Just like LJ was the best RB in 2005, even if he had no track record prior and if he blew out his knee this year.)

Under that criteria, I'd give far more credit to Coughlin than Dungy. Coughlin had to turn around a stumbling team and he's propelled them to the top of their division. What adversity has Dungy faced? To me, Dungy is still a defensive-oriented head coach who is with a team that is by far best known for its offense, and is the beneficiary of playing for arguably the best QB of his generation (who BTW calls his own plays). Peyton Manning is playing at an all-time great level right now. His mastery of the game and his ability to improvise is simply phenomenal. If you're going to give Dungy credit for that, the credit would be for having the wisdome to stay out of his way. And BTW, what improvement have the Colts demonstrated this year from last year? While they started 7-0 both times, they were playing better defense last year. I would give Lovie Smith more credit than Dungy because his team has shown marked improvement on offense over last year.

Improvement is irrelevant -- would you say Manning's not a good QB because he's not doing as well as he did in 2004?Dungy coached both years, so it makes no sense to say "Dungy was an incredible coach in 2005, and the Colts rocked in 2005" and then to say "Dungy's not that good because the Colts aren't playing as well as they did last year."Dungy took his team into Denver and just won. His Colts are undefeated, despite a bad defense and question marks about the running game. You can't say that any other coach would have led the Colts to a better record. Undefeated coaches will always rank at the top of my list.I think the Bears are more talented than the Colts, QB position excluded. When you factor that in, they're pretty close. I'd have a hard time deciding between Dungy and Smith for COY right now, but I'm very impressed with what both have done. I'd probably side with Dungy just because of that Arizona flop, where the Bears came out llike the game was already handed to them.(And once again, the Bears improvement is irrelevant because Smith coached them last year, too. We're not talking about the most improved coach, but simply the best one.)

 

[Chase Stuart]

I think the Bears are more talented than the Colts, QB position excluded.

WR position down? Harrison & Wayne versus Muhammad and Berrian...there are other positions as well, but this one comes to mind quickly.

I'm talking about the other 50 players. Yes, the Colts have better WRs. I think the Bears probably have the edge at DL and LB.

 

[redman]

Improvement is irrelevant -- would you say Manning's not a good QB because he's not doing as well as he did in 2004?Dungy coached both years, so it makes no sense to say "Dungy was an incredible coach in 2005, and the Colts rocked in 2005" and then to say "Dungy's not that good because the Colts aren't playing as well as they did last year."Dungy took his team into Denver and just won. His Colts are undefeated, despite a bad defense and question marks about the running game. You can't say that any other coach would have led the Colts to a better record. Undefeated coaches will always rank at the top of my list.I think the Bears are more talented than the Colts, QB position excluded. When you factor that in, they're pretty close. I'd have a hard time deciding between Dungy and Smith for COY right now, but I'm very impressed with what both have done. I'd probably side with Dungy just because of that Arizona flop, where the Bears came out llike the game was already handed to them.(And once again, the Bears improvement is irrelevant because Smith coached them last year, too. We're not talking about the most improved coach, but simply the best one.)

It seems like an exercise in futility to ignore what a coach has to work with when evaluating his performance. Otherwise, the discussion about coaching greatness would begin and end with a glance at the standings. Also, it makes no sense for people to go bash a team like the Redskins for signing FA's and hurting their continuity every year but to then ignore a team's progression or regression from year to year as a reflection of what the coach is accomplishing. Football as much as any sport is about building and continuity. You can't seamlessly plug in an offensive guard into your lineup the way you can a 2nd baseman. Dungy has a team that is virtually 100% intact from last year - how can I simply ignore that? I think Sean Payton with his 5-2 record in New Orleans has been far more impressive than Dungy and his 7-0 record. Do you disagree? Likewise, I think Cowher has done a poor job this year (especially in failing to recognize and work around Ben's problems) given the talent on his team and that the 2-5 record his team has is far more open to criticism than is Kubiak's 2-5 record in Houston. I'm not saying Dungy sucks, but please identify for me exactly what he has contributed to his team's 7-0 start that any other above-average coach would not have contributed. As you yourself said, his team's defense is poor this year. Dungy's a defensive coach and has no role in the offense which is that team's backbone.

 

[LongDuckDong]

The problem with this type of analysis of course is that there is no way to objectively quantify contribution - that is to say take Tom Brady or Bill Belichick or Peyton Manning or whatever, take them out of their team and system, and grade everyone on the same scale. Baseball tries to do it with some success but of course the games are different.

Was talking yesterday with someone and raised the point that the Patriots won the 2001 Super Bowl having scored a grand total of 3 offensive touchdowns in the playoffs - one in each game. They also scored 3 D/ST TD in that playoffs. This required significantly different gameplanning than say the 2003 or 2004 Super Bowls with a more stable offense putting up more points, though with similarly strong defenses.

Rather than make the focus on different teams, different eras, different whatever, all I would say is that if the outcome of one game was life or death for me, based on the gameplay of the 2000's and not some other era, Bill Belichick would coach for me. The record of gameplanning, preparation, and total dismantling of opponent gameplanning and will is unparalleled in this decade, and in my opinion as a strategist he has to rank as amongst the elite best. Doesn't mean as an overall coach he's the best - there have been better motivators, etc... most likely, but purely strategically he has to be 1A, B, C whatever with the greatest for the defensive job he's done in an era of inflated offensive play, particularly passing.

Alternatively, I'd struggle with the Brady vs Manning decision because to be honest, I can't separate the two of them from their coaches and their weapons. They are both accurate, make good decisions, and even though Manning has had some clunkers in the playoffs, he hasn't had Brady's defense behind him to get bailed out either.

If it weren't BB, it would be Shanny, and I think the last two years with a flawed offensive team, we're seeing a brilliant coaching job out of him as well, better than the SB teams in my opinion, and I believe of the coaches in the NFL right now, he's one of a select few that history will remember as great.

 

[thesurfshop19]

In this thread last year I asked why Belichick is perceived to be one of the all-time greats and the Belichick-Shanahan matchup is such a mismatch.

After some good discussion and homer comments on both sides, I think the answer is that Belichick has "his Elway" right now in Brady, while Shanahan is still looking for his.

They both have incredible resumes. They both have success winning titles in other organizations. They both have turned teams around. They're both incredible gameday playcallers. They're both creative team builders.

In short, they're both great. Homerism aside, can't we just leave it at that?

 

[redman]

In this thread last year I asked why Belichick is perceived to be one of the all-time greats and the Belichick-Shanahan matchup is such a mismatch.

After some good discussion and homer comments on both sides, I think the answer is that Belichick has "his Elway" right now in Brady, while Shanahan is still looking for his.

They both have incredible resumes. They both have success winning titles in other organizations. They both have turned teams around. They're both incredible gameday playcallers. They're both creative team builders.

In short, they're both great. Homerism aside, can't we just leave it at that?

I don't disagree. It's impossible to ignore the quality of a coach's players when evaluating a coach's performance. That's what I was saying above.

 

[Whizzinator]

Belichick's losing record as head coach of Cleveland keeps him below Parcells. Parcells has had success everywhere he went, Belichick hasn't, that's the big difference between the two.

Take a look at Belichick's record without Parcells and compare it to Parcells' record without Belichick, though.While there's no way to know, the case that Belichick significantly made Parcells is a lot stronger than the reverse. Parcells is a sub-.500 coach with zero playoff wins without Belichick on his staff; Belichick has won three Super Bowls and has, what, a 10-2 playoff record without Parcells. No way to know for sure, but it's getting awful tough to look at the data and support the case you are trying to make, I think.

 

[thesurfshop19]

Belichick's losing record as head coach of Cleveland keeps him below Parcells. Parcells has had success everywhere he went, Belichick hasn't, that's the big difference between the two.

Take a look at Belichick's record without Parcells and compare it to Parcells' record without Belichick, though.While there's no way to know, the case that Belichick significantly made Parcells is a lot stronger than the reverse. Parcells is a sub-.500 coach with zero playoff wins without Belichick on his staff; Belichick has won three Super Bowls and has, what, a 10-2 playoff record without Parcells. No way to know for sure, but it's getting awful tough to look at the data and support the case you are trying to make, I think.

Teacher-student comparisons are always hard to make. I'm not saying it's the case, but what if hypothetically Parcells taught Belichick everything he knew, and combined with what Belichick already knew it made him a better coach? Then without being with Parcells, Belichick wouldn't have been as good.Again, all hypotheticals, but just adds yet another dimension to this already tricky problem.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Well what about 2001?

Given that Brady, in his first season as a starting QB, was much better than anyone could've hoped - but he was not out there carrying games on his back like he does now. For the first half of that season, tehy were very much being careful with him. He had the poise, the cool under pressure, the great check-down ability, but he was not the pro that everyone saw last night.

The Patriots were also starting Antowoin Smith - they had a receiving group that looks TODAY'S receivers look like Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne. They had a journeyman offensive line, they had a defense with no superstarts. When you win games like that, it's because of teamwork, game-planning, and coaching up players who can accel playing in their particular roles. After an unlikely regular season and playoff run, the Patriots top it off by stuffing and beating the Greatest Show on Turf in a dome as 17 point underdogs to win the Super Bowl.

No doubt Brady was great in that game, engineering that last minute drive - but surely you cannot sit there and tell me that in 2001 the Patriots were so overflowing with talent that Belichick just kinda sat back and wached his team of superstarts dominate the most prolific offense in the NFL.

It was a team of journeyman and good, but not great players, lead by a 2001 Brady that, while incredible given his lack of experience, was still a far cry from the 2006 Brady.

Thoughts?

 

[redman]

Belichick's losing record as head coach of Cleveland keeps him below Parcells. Parcells has had success everywhere he went, Belichick hasn't, that's the big difference between the two.

This can easily be overstated. While Belichick has admitted to errors there as part of his learning curve, he was working with one of the worst ownership and front-office teams in the NFL under Modell, et al, and even worse was doing so at a time when they were embroiled in the dispute with Cleveland over a new stadium that would ultimately lead to the team's departure. Recall that the year before the disaster in 1995 when the team announced its move to Baltimore in mid-season, he got a very mediocre Browns team to an 11-5 record and a playoff appearance, and they even won their first playoff game.

 

[Donnybrook]

HOF??? no doubt

one of the best all time??? are you crazy??? no you're not,,, he's that good

just to add,,, it's more than just his play calling/game plan because his ball control passing game that uses 7 WR/TE/RB's with nobody being the over paid star helps keep prices down and lets NE stay competitive without breaking the bank.

I also know that Tom Brady is a very good QB but I credit 90% of his success to Bill Belichik's offense and play calling. Just like any QB in this league, if you surround them with crap and give them crappy play calling they will look like???crap.

NE knows how to win the games that they have to win at home or on the road. I don't even consider forgetting about them as a playoff contender until they are mathmatically eliminated. They simply will not die and even when they do like they did last season I find it completely surprising and will be surprised again this year when and if they are eliminated from either playoff contention or lose in the playoffs.

Fantasy wise however, the only one I want on my team is Brady. RB's/WR's and TE's get the love spread out way too thin.

Wow, I think the total opposite. I credit the majority of Belichick's success in the offense to Tom Brady. In one thing to devise a great game plan and quite another to have a QB go out and execute that game plan. On the defense side of the ball is where Belichick shows his true greatness.

 

[Pedro Cerrano Fan]

Wow - I can't believe someone is actually defending using 5 WR sets late in the fourth.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Belichick was the best coach in the league for the past five years. It remains to be seen who is the best coach this year, although Dungy and Lovie Smith are certainly leading that charge.

I don't know how much of that Bears record is attributable to Lovie. When you need to PR and your D to make two amazing plays to beat the Cards, you aren't out-coaching that many people.

Get real. Even the best teams of all time had a couple of games where they did not look that great. The Arizona game is the only game this season where the Bears haven't looked good.

Belichick's losing record as head coach of Cleveland keeps him below Parcells. Parcells has had success everywhere he went, Belichick hasn't, that's the big difference between the two.

Belichick had just as much success in Cleveland as Parcells has had in Dallas, both having had one playoff appearance. Parcells has a winning record in Dallas, while Belichick did not in Cleveland, but Belichick won a playoff game in Cleveland, while Parcells has not in Dallas. I guess it all depends on what your definition of success is.

Parcells has turned a 1-15 Jets team into a Championship contender...turned a 2-14 Patriots team into a Championship contender. And turned a 4 win Giants team (2 of the previous 3 years) into a 2 time NFL Championship team.

Let the record show that one of those 4-win seasons for the Giants was the strike season. They were 4-5 that year before Parcells took over the following year.

 

[redman]

HOF??? no doubt

one of the best all time??? are you crazy??? no you're not,,, he's that good

just to add,,, it's more than just his play calling/game plan because his ball control passing game that uses 7 WR/TE/RB's with nobody being the over paid star helps keep prices down and lets NE stay competitive without breaking the bank.

I also know that Tom Brady is a very good QB but I credit 90% of his success to Bill Belichik's offense and play calling. Just like any QB in this league, if you surround them with crap and give them crappy play calling they will look like???crap.

NE knows how to win the games that they have to win at home or on the road. I don't even consider forgetting about them as a playoff contender until they are mathmatically eliminated. They simply will not die and even when they do like they did last season I find it completely surprising and will be surprised again this year when and if they are eliminated from either playoff contention or lose in the playoffs.

Fantasy wise however, the only one I want on my team is Brady. RB's/WR's and TE's get the love spread out way too thin.

Wow, I think the total opposite. I credit the majority of Belichick's success in the offense to Tom Brady. In one thing to devise a great game plan and quite another to have a QB go out and execute that game plan. On the defense side of the ball is where Belichick shows his true greatness.

I totally agree. Give Belichick credit, though, for having the guts at the beginning of this run to identify and choose a totally unproven 2nd year player drafted in the 6th round over the Pats franchise cornerstone and best all-time QB at that time.

 

[thesurfshop19]

Well what about 2001?Thoughts?

I think people, rightfully, give Belichick all the credit in the world for 2001. That was a truly amazing run, perhaps one of the greatest I've ever seen from a true underdog.That said, his team's talent in 2003 and 2004 were the tops in the league. Yes, they had to start a lot of different players (what's the deal with that, anyway? Are the Patriots' trainers the worst in league history or something?) but the teams were built with depth and role players in mind given a select few superstars.Finally ... knowing in 2001 what we know now about Brady, it's not that hard for me to believe that if Brady needed to engineer 30 points in a game in that season, he would have been up to the task.

 

[johnnycakes]

Thoughts?

I remember the Patriots being two-touchdown underdogs in that Super Bowl, too... going up against a Rams offense that just wouldn't stop putting points on the board all season long. And even having to give 14+ points, there were an awful lot of people running around saying betting the Rams was easy money. Just goes to show that even back then, people really weren't sold on the whole team concept. The team seemed to get a lot more attention, though, with tough defensive play in the secondary; Belichick got attention because his plan brought the Rams juggernaut to its knees, Brady got attention because Madden was babbling about how the Pats should have played for OT on the last drive, and Vinateri solidified his status as an ice kicker with his game-winning FG.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Well what about 2001?Thoughts?

I think people, rightfully, give Belichick all the credit in the world for 2001. That was a truly amazing run, perhaps one of the greatest I've ever seen from a true underdog.That said, his team's talent in 2003 and 2004 were the tops in the league. Yes, they had to start a lot of different players (what's the deal with that, anyway? Are the Patriots' trainers the worst in league history or something?) but the teams were built with depth and role players in mind given a select few superstars.Finally ... knowing in 2001 what we know now about Brady, it's not that hard for me to believe that if Brady needed to engineer 30 points in a game in that season, he would have been up to the task.

Brady might've been able to, sure, but that's overlooking the fact that Belichick held that Rams offense to 17 points in a dome in the Super Bowl - that should not be overlooked at all.And yes, the talent in 2003 and 2004 was tops, but <insert generic comment about team's looking good on paper but not winning>. But that's why I wanted to look at 2001 as an independent example for a momenet.Also, let's not forget that, while Pioli is obviously a huge part of the personel decisions, Belichick is also the one at the top responsible for BUILDING the 2003 and 2004 teams as well - his philosophy of not overpaying for superstar players, etc. is a big reason of why they're able to consistently compete year in/year out. Obviously that's going off the trail a bit about discussing him as a coach, but still worth mentioning, I think.

 

[thesurfshop19]

Brady might've been able to, sure, but that's overlooking the fact that Belichick held that Rams offense to 17 points in a dome in the Super Bowl - that should not be overlooked at all.

Has anyone in the history of football fans forgotten that Belichick's D shut down the Rams that day? The Rams of that era were notorious for being shut down against good defenses. Belichick did the most public, and high-stakes, job, but Dungy actually defended the Rams the best in 1999.

Belichick's also a great personnel man, but again, everyone knows this.

You're saying not to overlook a coach that 90% of football fans and media will tell you is by far the best coach in the NFL. I don't think you need to worry about that -- Belichick is great, and everyone knows that.