Bill Belichick: Greatest coach since Vince (1 Viewer)

[thesurfshop19]

Both Belichick and Shannahan put their teams over the top, turning them around, as you say, would be arguable.

Some good points in there. I think I meant turning a good team into a great team. That seems harder to do, in the long run, in today's NFL. But maybe I'm wrong.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Both Belichick and Shannahan put their teams over the top, turning them around, as you say, would be arguable.

Some good points in there. I think I meant turning a good team into a great team. That seems harder to do, in the long run, in today's NFL. But maybe I'm wrong.

You are not. A lot of coaches can turn a bad team into a good team. It is much more difficult to take a team from good to great. Shanahan and Belichick have both done that.

 

[Whizzinator]

Benching Kosar was not a bad football move, though. It was a bad PR move, but football-wise Tomczak was a better QB at that point.

Sad but true.

 

[Hellfire Snail]

Is it possible that BB wouldn't have been as good a coach with all of Parcell's teams, but also that Parcells wouldn't be as dominant with the Patriots? Comparisons are very difficult to quantify. Different coaches excel at different things, and with different personel. I don't see how it is conceivably possible that any coach could do more with the Patriots than Belichik has, and what he has done is oversee one of the most dominant dynasties in the modern era. He might not have been a great coach at Cleveland, but he is now, and his run with New England is easily one of the most impressive ever, if not thee most.

 

[Workhorse]

I don't think you can ignore Belichick's failures in Cleveland when addressing his overall resume. However, he learned a lot from those failures and the changes he made in his own philosophy and style made him the great coach he is today.

Also, when comparing Parcells to Belichick, remember one important fact: The Giants Super Bowl win over the Bills was more a product of Belichick's defensive gameplan than anything else. There's a reason why that gameplan itself is an exhibit in the Hall of Fame....

 

[Ghost Rider]

Parcells has not won a playoff game in 8 years, so I think assuming he will win one in the next two years is dangerous.

As head coaches, their winning percentages are:

Parcells .570

Belichick .573

Despite 19 years as a head coach for Parcells vs. only 12 for Belichick, Belichick already has one more Super Bowl win, and just as many playoff victories (11-2 record for BB vs. 11-7 Parcells).

You can say Parcells has won with 4 different teams, but he had a .500 record with New England (and bailed on them immediately after their Super Bowl loss), and is barely above .500 with Dallas (with zero playoff wins).

 

[jafo]

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

I'm sorry but this makes you look foolish. A coach will do what it takes to win the game, and this was hardly about running up the score. It was about running off the clock, keeping the ball away from the Viking's offense, and giving his team some momentum to carry into next game.Why should the Patriot's try and rush to run the clock out against one of the best rushing defenses in the NFL? If you have a plan that is working, you stick with it. Had they elected to rush the ball and came up short drive after drive the outcome could have been much different. You just never know what will happen in 5 minutes of football.

 

[Bri]

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.

I remember the Giants doing very well against em'. IIRC no TDs and a bunch of Wilkins FGs. I remember because I couldn't get over how they just couldn't handle being muscled. Giants O stunk back then and they lost a close one but they had no business in shutting down the Rams

 

[Bri]

Parcells has not won a playoff game in 8 years, so I think assuming he will win one in the next two years is dangerous. As head coaches, their winning percentages arearcells .570Belichick .573Despite 19 years as a head coach for Parcells vs. only 12 for Belichick, Belichick already has one more Super Bowl win, and just as many playoff victories (11-2 record for BB vs. 11-7 Parcells). You can say Parcells has won with 4 different teams, but he had a .500 record with New England (and bailed on them immediately after their Super Bowl loss), and is barely above .500 with Dallas (with zero playoff wins).

I don't expect BB to lose 5 in a row but I don't expect the playoff dominance to continue either. BP took over some 1 win teams. That sure didn't help his record with those teams

 

[Marvin88]

Both Bs are overrated imo.

DITTO.

 

[Whizzinator]

I'm strugging to see how anything but completion percentage favors Kosar there, though. What was said at the time was that Kosar's arm was too weak to keep defenses honest and that hurt the running game as well. Tomczak threw for more yards, and IIRC the team produced more points in his games, because he was able to spread the defense.

Kosar is a guy who QB rating can unreaonably overrate because of a high completion percentage. And I think the fact that no one else had any interest in him is worth remembering as well. It's not that Tomczak was good (he never was)...it's that at the end Kosar was really, really bad.

 

[Ghost Rider]

First off when comparing playoff games and victories, one must understand that during the majority of Parcells coaching career, the playoffs itselt were far shorter in the number of playoff games. In 1990 (when Belichick 1st became HC) the playoffs were expanded.

Okay, but you still had to win 3 games to win a Super Bowl back then, right?

Just as when comparing winning percentages and records, we must factor in the fact that Parcells took over 3 of the worst teams in NFL history. The Jets were 1-15 when Parcells took over, the Patriots were 2-14 when Parcells took over and Dallas was 5-11 three consecutive years when Parcells took over.

Okay, but that is Parcells' fault for leaving these teams once he made them good, thus failing to pad his winning percentage in subsequent seasons.

And you are incorrect in your claim of Parcells not winning a playoff game in 8 years. Yes, Parcells has been to the playoffs once in three years with Dallas without a win. But in his two previous years with the Jets back in '99 & '98, he took the Jets to the AFC Championship game versus Denver, beating Jacksonville in the process. So Parcells has won a playoff game in his last 5 years of coaching.

Well, that is semantics, but sure, if you want to look at it that way, that is fine. If he fails to win a playoff game or even make the playoffs this season in Dallas, I do not know how you can call his tenure there a success. Sure, they were 5-11 before he got there, but they were the worst coached team in the league for years, so there are a lot of coaches that likely could have turned them around, and probably some who would have at least got them further in January than Parcells has so far. Notice that Parcells' success has decreased at each stop:NYG: 2 Super Bowl winsNE: 1 Super Bowl appearanceNJY: I conference title game appearanceDallas: 1 playoff appearance and zero wins

Parcells has not won a playoff game in 8 years, so I think assuming he will win one in the next two years is dangerous. As head coaches, their winning percentages arearcells .570Belichick .573Despite 19 years as a head coach for Parcells vs. only 12 for Belichick, Belichick already has one more Super Bowl win, and just as many playoff victories (11-2 record for BB vs. 11-7 Parcells). You can say Parcells has won with 4 different teams, but he had a .500 record with New England (and bailed on them immediately after their Super Bowl loss), and is barely above .500 with Dallas (with zero playoff wins).

I don't expect BB to lose 5 in a row but I don't expect the playoff dominance to continue either. BP took over some 1 win teams. That sure didn't help his record with those teams

I agree. And I wasn't saying in absolute terms that Belichick is better because of the better winning percentage. I was just pointing out that, despite his 4 losing seasons in 5 years in Cleveland, Belichich still has a comparable winning percentage to Parcells.

 

[Ghost Rider]

And you are incorrect in your claim of Parcells not winning a playoff game in 8 years. Yes, Parcells has been to the playoffs once in three years with Dallas without a win. But in his two previous years with the Jets back in '99 & '98, he took the Jets to the AFC Championship game versus Denver, beating Jacksonville in the process. So Parcells has won a playoff game in his last 5 years of coaching.

Well, that is semantics, but sure, if you want to look at it that way, that is fine.

Please explain to me how it is semantics when you are falsely claiming Parcells hasn't won a playoff game in his last 8 years of coaching, when the fact is that Parcells won a playoff game in his 5th previous year coaching with the Jets? It's not semantics at all, you are wrong, period.

I said he has not won a playoff game in 8 years, which is correct. You said he has not won a playoff games in his last 5 years of coaching, which is also correct.

We were both right.

Now if I had said Parcells has not won a playoff game in his last 8 years of coaching, then I would have been wrong, but I did not say that. See? Semantics.

 

[Chase Stuart]

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.

You can't ignore that Dungy has a team that is virtually 100% in tact last year (assuming that's true, which of course it isn't), but you shouldn't penalize him either. Let's pretend that last year's Colts were actually the 15th most talented team in the league, but because of how great a coach Dungy is, he got the Colts to start off 7-0. Once again, the Colts are the 15th most talented team in the league, but because of how great a coach Dungy is, the Colts are again 7-0.Would you really want to say Dungy isn't that good just because his team has the same record as last year and he's got the same team? If you think Dungy's been a great coach for a long time -- and I do -- then you really want to ignore previous years when analyzing his team. Also, Dungy's teams have improved every single year in Indianapolis, which is pretty impressive.

Do I think Payton's 5-2 start is more impressive than Dungy's 7-0 start? It's hard to say, but I'd be inclined to say no. Payton's got more talent on defense, and lots of talent on offense. Let's not forget that there are five legitimate studs on that New Orleans' offense. And put it this way -- I don't believe Payton would have a better record with the Colts than Dungy has.

I'm a Cowher fan, and I don't buy the "failing to recognize and work around Ben's problems." I think Cowher knows more about Ben's health, and has better insight into Ben's ability, than you or I do. But yes, his team is 2-5 and one of the most talented in the league, so it's pretty clear that he hasn't done a good job: and I think he'd be the first to tell you that.

What has Dungy done? He saw his team lose a Pro Bowl player who had 360 carries last year, and his team is still undefeated. Yes, Tom Moore does the X's and O's on offense, but the main job of a coach isn't to call the plays or game plan. That's what coordinators do. But what Dungy has done a good job of is keeping his team's emotions in check, avoiding any controversies, and has a team that's undefeated despite not being terribly talented. Stokley's been hurt most of the year and James is gone. The defense isn't all that good. But he's a manager, and he's gotten his team to come out and play hard every week. His personality is a terrific fit for a professional team like the Colts, and I don't think another coach would do a better job of running Indianapolis. Dungy's record there is pretty flawless, and the Colts have now won their last 28 meaningful regular season games: seven straight this year, thirteen in a row last year to clinch the #1 seed, and eight straight at the end of 2004 to clinch the #3 seed. Twenty-eight in a row is pretty good.

 

[BGP]

As I've said before on this board, I think anything less than 6 super bowl titles this decade is a disappointment for the Patriots. He's got 5 years to win 3 more.

 

[Ghost Rider]

That's not semantics, that is you being completely misleading because you dislike Parcells. You cannot win a regular season game, much less a playoff game, if you are not coaching in the league.You might as well have said Parcells didn't win a regular season in the years 2000, 2001 and 2002. That makes about as much sense as what you stated

I don't not like Parcells. In fact, I always like when he is in the game, as the NFL is always more interesting, and his press conferences often make me laugh. I just think he is a bit overrated by some, so it might seem that I dislike him since I am often on the dissenting side of arguments/discussions involving him. And I do think that Belichick is a better head coach, especially right now, so naturally, I am going to be on the Belichick side of any BB vs. BP discussion.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I also don't understand why people don't give Parcells more credit for hiring Belichick as his assistant. Whether he helped make Belichick into BELICHICK or he simply noticed the talent, no one else did.

If I was the HC of an NFL team, my most important job would be to hire great assistants. Just like no individual player wins a game, no individual coach wins a game. You have to hire a great staff, and Parcells did an excellent job hiring an incredible staff. He had Weis and Belichick on his team at one time, which is nearly as good as it gets unless you've got Landry and Lombardi under you.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Despite 19 years as a head coach for Parcells vs. only 12 for Belichick, Belichick already has one more Super Bowl win, and just as many playoff victories (11-2 record for BB vs. 11-7 Parcells).

One last point I would like to make on the playoff records comparison. I believe everyone in here would agree that Bill Parcells Giants teams had a far tougher road to hoe in playing Bill Walsh's 49ers, Joe Gibbs Redskins and Mike Ditka's Bears in his NFC playoff matchups. Parcells had to defeat three Hall Of Fame Head Coaches on teams loaded with HOF players during his days with the Giants in the playoffs.

Good points. You gotta give Belichick some props for his competition, too, though. Twice, he has defeated a Bill Cowher(who will likely go down as one of the best coaches of this generation)-coached team on the road in the AFC title game. And masterminding the win over the Rams in Super Bowl 36 was arguably the greatest single playoff game coaching performance of the last half a century.

 

[Boston]

*I believe he's the best coach of the salary cap era. It's a much different world than what Lombardi, Shula, Noll and Landry had to deal with. The Pats have had a ton of turnover between their three titles while most of the other dynasties rolled out pretty much the same core of veteran players.

*BB has had a hand in the three best coaching performances I have ever seen:

-The Pats defeat of the Rams in the Super Bowl.

-The Pats beating up the Colts in the playoffs without Seymour and their two starting CBs.

-He was the DC who along with the Tuna staged the upset against the Bills.

In all three instances a superior gameplan went along way towards the victory.

*The Pats were in horrific shape prior to BB taking over. It was a sinking ship. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't follow them. They were a mess with the cap after overpaying stiffs like Lane and Rucci, had a core group of players who became lazy and had an overrated franchise QB with too much managerial input. The inmates were running the asylum and he had to change the whole culture of the franchise.

On paper BB still has a long career ahead of him. Where he falls on the all time list is still to be determined. Yet, I don't think there's a doubt he's on the road to Canton and has a chance to be ranked right up there with the truly greats when it's all said and done.

 

[Whizzinator]

The weaker Browns running game that season was more a product of poor decisions by Belichick, such as having Tommy "Touchdown" Vardell as his second leading ball carrier, giving Vardell 2/3 of the carries that starting RB Kevin Mack had.

Sure, but that doesn't change the point made about the QB situation, either. My recollection is that both the actual offensive production and running game improved under Tomczak, which was Belichick's point in making the swap.I don't think you can toss out the overall lack of success Belichick had in Cleveland. At the same time, his overall winning percentage is still higher than Parcells is. Was NE when Belichick took over comparable to the situations Parcells took over? Maybe, maybe not.While Parcells certainly should get credity for hiring and retaining Belichick, it's also worth asking whether Parcells benefitted greatly from Belichick along the way, just as it's fair to ask how much Belichick benefitted from having Tom Brady, or Shanny from Elway, or whatever other combo. The one thing about Parcells/BB is we have a together/apart/together/apart continuum to look at it shows a pretty consistent result.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Belichick has faced some very good coaching staffs on his way, but combined coaching staff and players, it just doesn't compare to those 49ers, Redskins and Bears coached teams Parcells defeated.

That argument can definitely be made, but like has been said, this is a different era. Teams are not stacked like they were back then, and the salary cap has made it more difficult for franchises to sustain success over a span of many consecutive years. The fact that Belichick has kept the Patriots at a high level for this many years now is extremely impressive.

As for the Rams game, I just don't see it. Tony Dungy's Bucaneers had much success against those Rams teams (who I personally believe were very overrated). Even Jeff Fisher's Titans came a yard away from defeating those Rams in the Super Bowl.

Actually, that yard would have only tied the game (assuming they don't miss the XP). And, yes, the Bucs had a lot of success against the Rams, too, but never on the stage of the Super Bowl. And the '01 Rams were a much better team than the '99 Rams (the offense was more potent, the defense was better, and they faced a much more difficult schedule), and that was the team the Patriots beat in the Super Bowl. And as well as Dungy and the Bucs did against the Rams in the '99 NFC title game, they did lose that game. Also, the Pats defense was statistically below average the year they beat the Rams. The Bucs had a stacked defense.

 

[redman]

Benching Kosar was not a bad football move, though. It was a bad PR move, but football-wise Tomczak was a better QB at that point.Sad but true.

Unfortunately the statistics do not support your argument. Here are the stats from the 1992 season when Belichick benched Kosar for Tomzcak.Mike Tomzcak120 211 56.9 1693 8.0 7 7Bernie Kosar103 155 66.5 1160 7.5 8 7Attempts, completions, completion percentage, yards, YPA, TD's, Int's.

Kosar was refusing to run the offense that Belichik was calling. He was literally drawing plays in the dirt, and the final straw was when he managed to have a good game doing it and bragged about it to the media - Belichick benched him after that. The reason I point to how bad the ownership was was that they were totally inept at that point in replenishing their talent. Belichick was not in total control there - he was only the head coach. Check out who they drafted during his tenure:

1995 1 1 30 30 Craig Powell LB Ohio State   2 3 20 84 Eric Zeier QB Georgia   3 3 30 94 Mike Frederick DE Virginia   4 5 2 136 Tau Pupua DT Weber State   5 5 13 147 Mike Miller WR Notre Dame   6 7 23 231 A.C. Tellison WR Miami (FL) 1994 1 1 9 9 Antonio Langham DB Alabama   2 1 29 29 Derrick Alexander WR Michigan   3 3 10 75 Romeo Bandison DT Oregon   4 5 10 141 Isaac Booth DB California   5 6 10 171 Robert Strait RB Baylor   6 7 9 203 Andre Hewitt T Clemson 1993 1 1 14 14 Steve Everitt C Michigan   2 2 13 42 Dan Footman DE Florida State   3 3 27 83 Mike Caldwell LB Middle Tennessee State   4 5 12 124 Herman Arvie T Grambling   5 6 13 153 Rich McKenzie LB Penn State   6 7 12 180 Travis Hill LB Nebraska 1992 1 1 9 9 Tommy Vardell RB Stanford   2 2 24 52 Patrick Rowe WR San Diego State   3 3 9 65 Bill Johnson DT Michigan State   4 3 22 78 Gerald Dixon LB South Carolina   5 6 3 143 Rico Smith WR Colorado   6 6 23 163 George Williams DT Notre Dame   7 7 9 177 Selwyn Jones DB Colorado State   8 9 9 233 Tim Hill DB Kansas   9 10 8 260 Marcus Lowe DT Baylor   10 11 9 289 Augustin Olobia WR Washington State   11 12 8 316 Keithen McCant QB Nebraska   12 12 21 329 Tim Simpson C Illinois 1991 1 1 2 2 Eric Turner DB UCLA   2 2 2 29 Ed King G Auburn   3 3 2 57 James Jones DT Northern Iowa   4 4 2 85 Pio Sagapulutele DT San Diego State   5 6 2 141 Michael Jackson WR Southern Mississippi   6 8 2 197 Frank Conover DT Syracuse   7 9 2 225 Raymond Irvin DB Central Florida   8 9 16 239 Shawn Wiggins WR Wyoming   9 10 2 252 Brian Greenfield P Pittsburgh   10 11 2 280 Todd Jones G Henderson State   11 12 2 308 Elijah Austin DT North Carolina State

What part of this impresses you?

 

[Workhorse]

I also don't understand why people don't give Parcells more credit for hiring Belichick as his assistant. Whether he helped make Belichick into BELICHICK or he simply noticed the talent, no one else did. If I was the HC of an NFL team, my most important job would be to hire great assistants. Just like no individual player wins a game, no individual coach wins a game. You have to hire a great staff, and Parcells did an excellent job hiring an incredible staff. He had Weis and Belichick on his team at one time, which is nearly as good as it gets unless you've got Landry and Lombardi under you.

I would agree with this to a point. But the Pats current success is even more impressive after losing guys like Mangini, Weis and Crennel. I don't think any team has had quite the same "brain drain" in such a short period of time in the coaching staff as the Pats and still been a Super Bowl contender. In fact, when you consider the combination of player and assistant turnover that the Patriots have had in the past 3 years, the fact that we're still talking about them as a surefire playoff team is pretty amazing.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Greatest of all Time. Right Now.J

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.

 

[Morton Muffley]

What makes me laugh is that a few weeks ago people were talking about this as the end of the Patriots dynasty. Regardless of whether they win the SB this year or not, one needs to recognize that they have:

- a QB in his prime

- a rookie RB who looks to me like a young Fred Taylor (hopefully without the injury issues)

- a young and productive OL

- a young and productive DL

- serviceable WRs (which is all they've ever had, needed or wanted)

- two first round draft picks next year

- an excess of salary cap space they appear to be manipulating for next year

- one of the best head coaches in the league

I'm not saying they will, but would it surprise anyone if they won 2 out of the next 4 SBs?

 

[Sinrman]

Belicheck is definitely HoF material. Will go down as one of the best coaches ever. THE best? Nah, but definitely up there in the top 10 easily..

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Will go down as one of the best coaches ever. THE best? Nah, but definitely up there in the top 10 easily.

It's tough to compare him to guys like Lombardi because the game is so different now. The league is entirely different.But Belichick is the best coach in the modern era. Not just because he's won Super Bowls (some of those took a fair amount of luck along the way), but because he consistently makes good coaching decisions. He goes for it on fourth down when it's appropriate. His schemes on both offense and defense cover up any weak areas in his own personnel while ruthlessly exploiting any weak areas in his opponents' personnel.

 

[Bri]

I also don't understand why people don't give Parcells more credit for hiring Belichick as his assistant. Whether he helped make Belichick into BELICHICK or he simply noticed the talent, no one else did. If I was the HC of an NFL team, my most important job would be to hire great assistants. Just like no individual player wins a game, no individual coach wins a game. You have to hire a great staff, and Parcells did an excellent job hiring an incredible staff. He had Weis and Belichick on his team at one time, which is nearly as good as it gets unless you've got Landry and Lombardi under you.

Not to mention Tom Coughlin, Romeo Crennel, Mike Nolan, Sean Payton, Eric Mangini and Al Groh. Parcells coaching tree has produced 6 current NFL head coaches. That's impressive.

I'm not sure these are correctFirst, I'm thinking BB was hired by Ray Perkins or George Young not BP and was a LB coach before BP was head coach. Then again I wonder if Groh was. Can anyone clarify?Nolan a BP assistant? huh? I don't recall when Mangini worked for BP.I hate the BP didn't win without BB discussions. Aside from the fact that it's obvious, no one ever states that he lost an awesome D cooridinator. BTW Parcells had the top D one year in Dallas. Also BB was in a hailstorm in Cleveland. It's hard to judge that mess, think about it for sec:the team left town. It's hardly a typical scenario. Kosar, his time was done. You didn't see him throw for 4k yards for some other team, he was done. IMO BB made the right call. Maybe the GM goofed in not getting a better QB or being ready for Kosar's downfall but nothing about the rest of Kosar's career suggests BB made the wrong decision.One thing that's fun to point out is to list the QBs that played for these guys. If you don't throw a bone Parcells way for coaching Quincy Carter, Chad Hutchinson, old Testaverde, and Bledsoe while BB coaches Brady well then you're just not being fair. There's such a contrast there.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Would you really want to say Dungy isn't that good just because his team has the same record as last year and he's got the same team? If you think Dungy's been a great coach for a long time -- and I do -- then you really want to ignore previous years when analyzing his team. Also, Dungy's teams have improved every single year in Indianapolis, which is pretty impressive.

In the regular season, yes, but in the playoffs, they have regressed. '03 = 2 playoff wins

'04 = 1 playoff win

'05 = 0 playoff wins

I hate to say it, because Dungy is a good guy and I like him, but he is showing the same traits in Indy that he did in TB. He is a very good coach and capable of making a team a playoff team every year, but he cannot seem to get them over the top.

Do I think Payton's 5-2 start is more impressive than Dungy's 7-0 start? It's hard to say, but I'd be inclined to say no. Payton's got more talent on defense, and lots of talent on offense. Let's not forget that there are five legitimate studs on that New Orleans' offense.

There are? Who? Bush is not a stud yet. Lots of WR's have had good stretches, so no way is Colston a stud yet, either.

What has Dungy done? He saw his team lose a Pro Bowl player who had 360 carries last year, and his team is still undefeated. Yes, Tom Moore does the X's and O's on offense, but the main job of a coach isn't to call the plays or game plan. That's what coordinators do. But what Dungy has done a good job of is keeping his team's emotions in check, avoiding any controversies, and has a team that's undefeated despite not being terribly talented. Stokley's been hurt most of the year and James is gone. The defense isn't all that good. But he's a manager, and he's gotten his team to come out and play hard every week. His personality is a terrific fit for a professional team like the Colts, and I don't think another coach would do a better job of running Indianapolis. Dungy's record there is pretty flawless, and the Colts have now won their last 28 meaningful regular season games: seven straight this year, thirteen in a row last year to clinch the #1 seed, and eight straight at the end of 2004 to clinch the #3 seed. Twenty-eight in a row is pretty good.

Yes, and because of all of that, he is an excellent regular season coach, but is he a good playoff coach? The jury is still out on that one.

 

[johnnycakes]

Not just because he's won Super Bowls (some of those took a fair amount of luck along the way),

"Someone receives a promotion, gets an important assignment, makes a major discovery, or moves into the president's office. He's lucky, an envious person remarks. He gets the breaks; they're always in his favor. In reality, luck or the breaks of life had little or nothing to do with it. So-called luck usually is found at the exact point where preparation meets opportunity. For a time, an individual may get ahead by pull, but eventually someone with push will displace him. Success is not due to a fortuitous concourse of stars at our birth, but to a steady trail of sparks from the grindstone of hard work each day."

 

[thesurfshop19]

Not just because he's won Super Bowls (some of those took a fair amount of luck along the way),

"Someone receives a promotion, gets an important assignment, makes a major discovery, or moves into the president's office. He's lucky, an envious person remarks. He gets the breaks; they're always in his favor. In reality, luck or the breaks of life had little or nothing to do with it. So-called luck usually is found at the exact point where preparation meets opportunity. For a time, an individual may get ahead by pull, but eventually someone with push will displace him. Success is not due to a fortuitous concourse of stars at our birth, but to a steady trail of sparks from the grindstone of hard work each day."

Except when it's the Broncos getting the breaks in the playoffs, right? (JUST KIDDING, Pats fans!!)

 

[redman]

Belichick was the special teams coach with the Giants, Parcells promoted him to the defensive side of the ball. Belichick was a career special teams coach until Parcells brought him over to the defensive side. I believe little Bill started out with Denver, back in the late seventies if I remember correctly. Other than with Parcells, I believe the extent of his defensive background consisted of watching Joe Collier direct the Broncos defense back then.Al Groh's first ever coaching stint was with Army as the defensive coach for Parcells back in 1968. Groh's third college coaching stint in 1978 was as Parcells

True as far as it goes, but BB was always defensively oriented, it's just that his first opportunity to really coach a defensive unit came under Parcells. Remember that he was only in his early 30's when Parcells took over for Perkins in New York. It's pretty amazing when you stop and think that in the late 70's, when he first became special teams coach for the Giants, he was only around 25-26 years old and was younger than many guys he was coaching.

 

[Bri]

Parcells stayed on to GM the Jets that year as a favor to owner Woody Johnson

yeah that year always escapes my mindBTW gotta love BP putting a word in about Bradway huh? He used to be a scout with the Giants

 

[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.

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

Read the descriptions again. Did it sound like one of those descriptions was Mike Shanahan? The three coaches in question were Parcells, Gibbs, and Cowher- who I think, when they retire for good, will all have a more impressive resume than Bellichick.Since you did bring it up, though... you're absolutely right, Shanahan's resume blows Belichick's out of the water. Shanny has a higher winning% with Elway than BB has with Brady, Shanny has a higher winning% WITHOUT Elway than BB has without Brady. Unless NE wins the SB this year, Shanny averaged a SB every two years with Elway, just like Belichick averaged a SB ever 2 years with Brady. Belichick has 5 losing seasons in 11 full years, Shanahan has 2 losing seasons in 12 full years. Belichick has 5 double-digit win seasons in 11 years, Shanahan has 7 double-digit win seasons in 12 years. Belichick has 5 playoff appearances in 11 years, Shanahan has 7 playoff appearances in 12 years. Shanny has a career winning percentage of 62.5%, including playoffs. Belichick has a career winning percentage of 59.2%, including playoffs. Shanahan is 5-2 head-to-head against Belichick (and didn't have Elway for any of those games), and one of those losses came on a miracle comeback with Danny Kanell at QB. Shanahan's career resume basically beats out Belichick's in every way possible, outside of playoff winning percentage- and when there's really only one peg for you to hang your hat on, you don't have much of an arguement.You're right. That arguement was both fun *AND* short. Anyone with half a brain can clearly see that Shanahan's career resume to this point is far more impressive than Belichick's. Seriously, I would like to see in what world anyone could come up with a rational and reasonable arguement that Belichick's career resume was more impressive than Shanahan's.

 

[BGP]

To be fair about Belichick's run in Cleveland, it did take him 4 years to turn the club around, and he made some mistakes along the way. But by 1994, he had gotten it done. The Browns in 1994 allowed the fewest points in the NFL. They opened strong in 1995 as well at 3-1. But it was shortly thereafter that the club announced the move to Baltimore and the team pretty much just quit.

 

[Native]

He and Bill Walsh are the two names that stick out in mind over the last 25 years that stand head and shoulders above the other coaches. Bellicheck does a better job preparing for games than any coach Ive ever seen. In fact, I think he deserves much more credit than Brady for the Patriots success' over the years.

 

[Workhorse]

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.

Read the descriptions again. Did it sound like one of those descriptions was Mike Shanahan? The three coaches in question were Parcells, Gibbs, and Cowher- who I think, when they retire for good, will all have a more impressive resume than Bellichick.Since you did bring it up, though... you're absolutely right, Shanahan's resume blows Belichick's out of the water. Shanny has a higher winning% with Elway than BB has with Brady, Shanny has a higher winning% WITHOUT Elway than BB has without Brady. Unless NE wins the SB this year, Shanny averaged a SB every two years with Elway, just like Belichick averaged a SB ever 2 years with Brady. Belichick has 5 losing seasons in 11 full years, Shanahan has 2 losing seasons in 12 full years. Belichick has 5 double-digit win seasons in 11 years, Shanahan has 7 double-digit win seasons in 12 years. Belichick has 5 playoff appearances in 11 years, Shanahan has 7 playoff appearances in 12 years. Shanny has a career winning percentage of 62.5%, including playoffs. Belichick has a career winning percentage of 59.2%, including playoffs. Shanahan is 5-2 head-to-head against Belichick (and didn't have Elway for any of those games), and one of those losses came on a miracle comeback with Danny Kanell at QB. Shanahan's career resume basically beats out Belichick's in every way possible, outside of playoff winning percentage- and when there's really only one peg for you to hang your hat on, you don't have much of an arguement.You're right. That arguement was both fun *AND* short. Anyone with half a brain can clearly see that Shanahan's career resume to this point is far more impressive than Belichick's. Seriously, I would like to see in what world anyone could come up with a rational and reasonable arguement that Belichick's career resume was more impressive than Shanahan's.

While I think that Shanahan often gets overlooked in these types of discussions, your argument kind of falls apart when you consider that Shanahan's failed stint with the Raiders lasted less than a season and a half. Belichick's failure in Cleveland was longer since he had a longer leash. Does that mean that Shanahan was a "better bad coach" than Belichick in his first coaching stint? That situation kind of throws off some of the numbers like career winning percentage and losing seasons that you cite.

 

[Whizzinator]

Shanahan's career resume basically beats out Belichick's in every way possible, outside of playoff winning percentage- and when there's really only one peg for you to hang your hat on, you don't have much of an arguement.

Well, until they change the goal of the season from winning the Super Bowl to something else, Belichick will have the single most important peg to hang his hat on. So there's that.How's that list coming of the three active coaches who have better careers than Belichick, by the way. You argue Shanahan, which other two are you going to claim you were referring to?

 

[PatsWillWin]

We know we're getting in depth when we get to the "Average Super Bowls Per Year With John Elway" stat.

 

[DerangedGridironGeek]

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.

Read the descriptions again. Did it sound like one of those descriptions was Mike Shanahan? The three coaches in question were Parcells, Gibbs, and Cowher- who I think, when they retire for good, will all have a more impressive resume than Bellichick.Since you did bring it up, though... you're absolutely right, Shanahan's resume blows Belichick's out of the water. Shanny has a higher winning% with Elway than BB has with Brady, Shanny has a higher winning% WITHOUT Elway than BB has without Brady. Unless NE wins the SB this year, Shanny averaged a SB every two years with Elway, just like Belichick averaged a SB ever 2 years with Brady. Belichick has 5 losing seasons in 11 full years, Shanahan has 2 losing seasons in 12 full years. Belichick has 5 double-digit win seasons in 11 years, Shanahan has 7 double-digit win seasons in 12 years. Belichick has 5 playoff appearances in 11 years, Shanahan has 7 playoff appearances in 12 years. Shanny has a career winning percentage of 62.5%, including playoffs. Belichick has a career winning percentage of 59.2%, including playoffs. Shanahan is 5-2 head-to-head against Belichick (and didn't have Elway for any of those games), and one of those losses came on a miracle comeback with Danny Kanell at QB. Shanahan's career resume basically beats out Belichick's in every way possible, outside of playoff winning percentage- and when there's really only one peg for you to hang your hat on, you don't have much of an arguement.

You're right. That arguement was both fun *AND* short. Anyone with half a brain can clearly see that Shanahan's career resume to this point is far more impressive than Belichick's. Seriously, I would like to see in what world anyone could come up with a rational and reasonable arguement that Belichick's career resume was more impressive than Shanahan's.

While I think that Shanahan often gets overlooked in these types of discussions, your argument kind of falls apart when you consider that Shanahan's failed stint with the Raiders lasted less than a season and a half. Belichick's failure in Cleveland was longer since he had a longer leash. Does that mean that Shanahan was a "better bad coach" than Belichick in his first coaching stint? That situation kind of throws off some of the numbers like career winning percentage and losing seasons that you cite.

I agree. Quite frankly his entire arguement is flawed and . Who really cares who the better "Bad" coach is? And for every guy that comes on here and claims that BB only succeeds because of Brady, I can find another that thinks its other way around. To make claims that this coach only won because he's on this team or had this guy is discounting a head coach's impact on the gameplan and his team. Any QB is as good as his coach's gameplan and every coach is as good as his team's execution of that gameplan. To make a claim that BB and Brady are overrated has to be the most absurd and irrational statement ever posted on this board. Both BB and Shanny have winning % around 60%. Yes, Shanny's is slightly better. To hang his hat on that one number and claim nobody can argue that BB is a better coach is ignorant. Belichick's accomplishments have placed him among the NFL's elite coaches. Only one coach (Pittsburgh's Chuck Noll, 4) has won more Super Bowls than Belichick, and his three Super Bowl titles tie Washington's Joe Gibbs and San Francisco's Bill Walsh for second place on the NFL's all-time list. Including regular season and playoff games, Belichick enters 2006 as the winningest head coach in the NFL over the last five seasons and is also the Patriots' all-time leader in victories (73) and winning percentage (.682). Since 2001, Belichick has directed the Patriots to a 68-23 (.747) record, including a 10-1 postseason mark. Belichick owns a career playoff record of 11-2, a mark that ranks second in NFL history behind only the legendary Vince Lombardi (9-1). From 2003-04, Belichick directed the Patriots through the most prosperous two-year period for any team in NFL history, netting back-to-back Super Bowl victories and consecutive 17-2 campaigns. The team's 34 victories in 2003-04 mark the highest two-year win total in the NFL's 86-year history. Now in his 32nd season, he has more years of NFL experience than any of the other 31 head coaches. He won his first two Super Bowls as the defensive coordinator for the New York Giants in 1986 and 1990. George Seifert is the only other man to have won multiple Super Bowls both as a head coach and as an assistant coach.

BTW, BB and Brady aren't done...but who knows...maybe Jay Cutler will be the next Brady.

 

[redman]

To be fair about Belichick's run in Cleveland, it did take him 4 years to turn the club around, and he made some mistakes along the way. But by 1994, he had gotten it done. The Browns in 1994 allowed the fewest points in the NFL. They opened strong in 1995 as well at 3-1. But it was shortly thereafter that the club announced the move to Baltimore and the team pretty much just quit.

It's a myth that his Cleveland tenure was a "failure". The truth is it was "incomplete" given the team's turmoil right at the time he was beginning to see the fruits of his labors.

 

[SSOG]

Shanahan's career resume basically beats out Belichick's in every way possible, outside of playoff winning percentage- and when there's really only one peg for you to hang your hat on, you don't have much of an arguement.

Well, until they change the goal of the season from winning the Super Bowl to something else, Belichick will have the single most important peg to hang his hat on. So there's that.How's that list coming of the three active coaches who have better careers than Belichick, by the way. You argue Shanahan, which other two are you going to claim you were referring to?

Winning superbowls is nice, but it's a mostly fluky stat. Unless, of course, you honestly believe that Barry Switzer is a better coach than Tony Dungy.As for the list of three active coaches who have better careers than Bellichick... did you not read my post? You know the part where I said that Gibbs, Parcells, and Cowher will go down as having better careers than Belichick? Those three coaches I listed as having better careers than Belichick are the three coaches who have better careers than Belichick.

While I think that Shanahan often gets overlooked in these types of discussions, your argument kind of falls apart when you consider that Shanahan's failed stint with the Raiders lasted less than a season and a half. Belichick's failure in Cleveland was longer since he had a longer leash. Does that mean that Shanahan was a "better bad coach" than Belichick in his first coaching stint? That situation kind of throws off some of the numbers like career winning percentage and losing seasons that you cite.

Why does it fall apart? I'm curious. Are you saying that Belichick is a horrible coach incapable of turning a franchise around, so he shouldn't be penalized for his failed stint in Cleveland? Is it so hard to believe that Shanahan might have turned the Raiders around if given enough time? Heck, Art Shell guided the Raiders to a 12-4 record the very next year. Isn't Shanahan at least as good of a coach as Art Shell? Couldn't Shanahan have possibly done the same?Even if you want to cherrypick the stats and pretend Belichick never coached in Cleveland (hint: he did, actually, coach in Cleveland), Belichick coming into this season had a 65.6% winning% in New England, and Shanahan had a 64.7% winning% in Denver. Not exactly night and day, now is it? If you give bonus points for dealing with roster turnover and sustaining excellence for long periods of time, then I don't think it's a stretch at all to say that Shanahan's 64.7% winning clip in Denver alone is more impressive than Belichick's 65.6% winning% in New England. Especially when you consider that the only coaches who had more wins in their first 10 seasons with a team than Shanahan are Gibbs, Shula, and Madden.

I agree. Quite frankly his entire arguement is flawed and . Who really cares who the better "Bad" coach is?

What do you mean? Do you honestly mean to suggest that nobody cares whether their coach has two losing seasons in 12 years or five losing seasons in 11 years? *I* care how many losing seasons my head coach has! I would be willing to bet dollars to dimes that everyone else on the board does, too.

Both BB and Shanny have winning % around 60%. Yes, Shanny's is slightly better. To hang his hat on that one number and claim nobody can argue that BB is a better coach is ignorant. Belichick's accomplishments have placed him among the NFL's elite coaches.

I used far more than one number. I also never disputed that Belichick wasn't an "elite" coach, simply that he wasn't the MOST "elite" coach.

Only one coach (Pittsburgh's Chuck Noll, 4) has won more Super Bowls than Belichick, and his three Super Bowl titles tie Washington's Joe Gibbs and San Francisco's Bill Walsh for second place on the NFL's all-time list. Including regular season and playoff games, Belichick enters 2006 as the winningest head coach in the NFL over the last five seasons and is also the Patriots' all-time leader in victories (73) and winning percentage (.682).

Fun stats! Shanahan is the Broncos' all-time leader in victories (122)- and remember, the Broncos have had better coaches than the Patriots, so that's a stronger claim. Shanahan is also the Broncos leader in winning percentage (again, there have been better Denver coaches, including potential HoFer Dan Reeves, so that's a stronger claim), and since he joined Denver in 1995, he's the winningest coach, too (being the winningest coach since 1995 is more impressive than being the winningest coach since 2000).

Since 2001, Belichick has directed the Patriots to a 68-23 (.747) record, including a 10-1 postseason mark.

Since 1996 (since, for some reason, we're allowed to throw out a coach's first year on the job), Shanahan has directed the Broncos to a 113-59 (.659) record, including the most wins in the entire NFL during that span.

Belichick owns a career playoff record of 11-2, a mark that ranks second in NFL history behind only the legendary Vince Lombardi (9-1). From 2003-04, Belichick directed the Patriots through the most prosperous two-year period for any team in NFL history, netting back-to-back Super Bowl victories and consecutive 17-2 campaigns. The team's 34 victories in 2003-04 mark the highest two-year win total in the NFL's 86-year history.

From 1996-1998, Shanahan directed the Patriots through the most prosperous *THREE-YEAR* period for any team in NFL history (just FYI, but 3 is greater than 2), netting back-to-back Super Bowl victories. The team's 46 victories in 1996-1998 mark the highest three-year win total in the NFL's 86-year history.

Now in his 32nd season, he has more years of NFL experience than any of the other 31 head coaches. He won his first two Super Bowls as the defensive coordinator for the New York Giants in 1986 and 1990. George Seifert is the only other man to have won multiple Super Bowls both as a head coach and as an assistant coach.

Mike Shanahan directed the offense of the San Fran 49ers, who won the superbowl in 1994 after finishing first in the NFL in both points and yards for an unprecedented THREE STRAIGHT SEASONS under Shanahan's stewardship. He has coached in 6 superbowls as a QB coach, Offensive Coordinator, or Head Coach. His hiring as the offensive coordinator of the Florida Gators also coincided with Florida posting the biggest single-season turnaround in college football history.Still waiting to see evidence of how Belichick is a better coach than Shanahan. Even if you throw out his Cleveland tenure (which seems to be MANDATORY in order to even make an arguement), their resumes are pretty darn similar. But you *CAN'T* throw out his Cleveland tenure- we're talking about career resumes, and unless I'm missing something, that Cleveland stint is definitely a part of his resume.

If you could completely ignore Cleveland, then yeah, Belichick has had as good of a career as Shanahan (not better, but definitely as good). If you factor in Cleveland, it's not even close- Shanahan wins in a landslide.

 

[Whizzinator]

Winning superbowls is nice, but it's a mostly fluky stat. Unless, of course, you honestly believe that Barry Switzer is a better coach than Tony Dungy.

Switzer's situation was a unique one; if anything, that shows that winning once might be flukey in some situations. And that's certainly a principle I'd agree with. It certainly does not say that winning three times is.I was waiting for you to support your claim on the other coaches; while I think ignoring the entire point of the NFL (winning the Super Bowl) as you do is silly, you did at least explain your view of Shanahan. Not on the other guys, though.Also, since you think winning a Super Bowl is flukey, you can't use that accomplishment in your description of the other guys. It's a silly position to take,but you've staked it out you thus are stuck being consistent with it on the other coaches, too. By your standard, where we exclude 'flukey' Super Bowl wins I wonder if Dungy is better than Shanahan, too.

 

[KID]

IMHO the sign of a great coach is a guy that can coach either team in a match up and come up with a "W". BB has that gift. He dissects weaknesses and sets up a game plan to exploit them. He drills in his players the game plan and they have to execute. Best since Lombardi take it to the bank. What should be discussed is will he be the Lombardi for the next generation.

Just for the record, I don't like him or his teams but he is a great coach and deserves his due.

 

[SSOG]

Winning superbowls is nice, but it's a mostly fluky stat. Unless, of course, you honestly believe that Barry Switzer is a better coach than Tony Dungy.

Switzer's situation was a unique one; if anything, that shows that winning once might be flukey in some situations. And that's certainly a principle I'd agree with. It certainly does not say that winning three times is.I was waiting for you to support your claim on the other coaches; while I think ignoring the entire point of the NFL (winning the Super Bowl) as you do is silly, you did at least explain your view of Shanahan. Not on the other guys, though.Also, since you think winning a Super Bowl is flukey, you can't use that accomplishment in your description of the other guys. It's a silly position to take,but you've staked it out you thus are stuck being consistent with it on the other coaches, too. By your standard, where we exclude 'flukey' Super Bowl wins I wonder if Dungy is better than Shanahan, too.

I absolutely agree that Belichick's three wins aren't a fluke. I'm just saying that a single SB win can be a little bit fluky, and a single SB win is all that separates Shanahan from Belichick. Are you so certain that Belichick is a better coach than Shanahan based entirely on that one win? If Shanahan wins another superbowl this season, he'll still be the exact same coach next year as he was this year, but he'll have three wins, too... so would that mean that Shanahan became a better coach than Bellichick without improving as a coach in the slightest?I'm not saying that we have to exclude all superbowl wins, I'm just saying that they're a flimsy peg to hang your hat on. Basically, by judging Belichick based on the superbowls, you're judging his career based on 3 games that were each won by a field goal. If one of those kicks misses, and Belichick had a 2-1 record in the big game, would that suddenly make him a worse coach? And if so, then Belichick was never that great of a coach to begin with, he just had a really good kicker.

 

[SSOG]

IMHO the sign of a great coach is a guy that can coach either team in a match up and come up with a "W". BB has that gift. He dissects weaknesses and sets up a game plan to exploit them. He drills in his players the game plan and they have to execute. Best since Lombardi take it to the bank. What should be discussed is will he be the Lombardi for the next generation. Just for the record, I don't like him or his teams but he is a great coach and deserves his due.

If he's the best since Lombardi at that, explain his 2-5 career record against Shanahan.Edit: I don't think that Shanahan's the best since Lombardi at exploiting matchups, either, I just think he's demonstrated that he's at least as good as Belichick is.

 

[Bri]

If he's the best since Lombardi at that, explain his 2-5 career record against Shanahan.

Because Denver hasn't matterred since TD was around

Edit: I don't think that Shanahan's the best since Lombardi at exploiting matchups, either, I just think he's demonstrated that he's at least as good as Belichick is.

 

[Bri]

I'm just saying that a single SB win can be a little bit fluky.

name one

 

[Ghost Rider]

If he's the best since Lombardi at that, explain his 2-5 career record against Shanahan.

Because Denver hasn't matterred since TD was around

Edit: I don't think that Shanahan's the best since Lombardi at exploiting matchups, either, I just think he's demonstrated that he's at least as good as Belichick is.

Yeah, Denver didn't matter at all last year when they went 13-3 and hosted the AFC title game. And remind me what team gave Tom Brady his first playoff loss and Belichick's first playoff loss in New England...

 

[Bri]

Since 2001, Belichick has directed the Patriots to a 68-23 (.747) record, including a 10-1 postseason mark.

Since 1996 (since, for some reason, we're allowed to throw out a coach's first year on the job), Shanahan has directed the Broncos to a 113-59 (.659) record,

.747>.659

including the most wins in the entire NFL during that span.

What? More than how many other coaches that have coached every year since 96? 1?