Bill Belichick: Greatest coach since Vince (1 Viewer)

[Whizzinator]

Are you so certain that Belichick is a better coach than Shanahan based entirely on that one win?

No. I'm pretty confident in it based on their overall records and watching their teams (and their personnel). But you dismissed the Super Bowls as totally irrelevant, and I just think the number of Super Bowls is, in fact, the single most important thing to look at.It's definitely not the only thing, though, that I agree with.To me, Belichick's post-Cleveland performance is superior to anything Shanahan has done when you consider the context and what he inherited and all. Belichick's Cleveland performance is, like Shanahan's Oakland experience, complicated to analyze. And for both guys, it's in the past and while it's part of their overall record, it doesn't describe as accurately what they are today as more recent information does.So to me the bottom line is that Belichick's 2001-2006 record, including competition and overall success, is the best run any coach has had in the Super Bowl era. For whatever reason Shanahan has done very well against Belichick; no one is arguing that Shanahan is not a top-tier coach as well. But the flip side of that is Belichick has also done better against the rest of the league, especially in the games which matter most. Playoff record, and Super Bowl wins, just count more in my book...that is the point of playing football in the NFL. You can argue Walsh and Noll, I think, and maybe Landry for stretches. But to me, that's the guy he is now and there's reason to think he'll continue that way thus he's ahead of the rest of the guys currently coaching. And quite possibly, the rest of the guys in the last 40 years.

 

[Bri]

And remind me what team gave Tom Brady his first playoff loss and Belichick's first playoff loss in New England...

We'll keep winning Supes, you hang your hat on that first playoff loss

 

[thatguy]

And remind me what team gave Tom Brady his first playoff loss and Belichick's first playoff loss in New England...

We'll keep winning Supes, you hang your hat on that first playoff loss

We? When did you become a member of the Patriots organization? Tom, is that you? Bill?I don't usually take shots, but quite frankly, you're an idiot.

 

[Ghost Rider]

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

You are cherry-picking again. I can do that, too. Shanny has a better record than Belichick since September 2005, so therefore, he is better.

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?

More than that, Merlin.

I just think the number of Super Bowls is, in fact, the single most important thing to look at.

Really? So, would you say that Barry Switzer is a better head coach than Jim Fox?

And remind me what team gave Tom Brady his first playoff loss and Belichick's first playoff loss in New England...

We'll keep winning Supes, you hang your hat on that first playoff loss

NE is only ahead of Denver by 1 in the Super Bowl ledger.

 

[Whizzinator]

Really? So, would you say that Barry Switzer is a better head coach than Jim Fox?

Nope. That's why I specifically noted that while winning Super Bowls is the single most important thing it is also definitely NOT the only thing.Reading is fundamental.

 

[thesurfshop19]

I still think this Belichick vs. Shanahan argument is extremely silly. They're the top defensive and offensive minds of their coaching generation, and are probably the top 2 coaches in the last 10 years in the NFL.

To argue that Shanahan is far superior to Belichick is silly because Belichick, plain and simple, has 1 more ring, and his 2001 Super Bowl champ (tuck rule and flukish non-offensive TDs all considered) was in my opinion the single greatest coaching job I've ever seen.

To argue that Belichick is far superior to Shanahan is silly because Shanahan has had sustained success (albeit on a smaller level) with non-elite QBs, and if the Broncos had won the Super Bowl last year the 3 Super Bowls -- the key criterion for Pats fans -- would be tied between the two and Shanahan would have won his 3rd with Plummer at QB.

Why are we arguing in circles about these guys? They're both amazing. Let's appreciate what we're seeing, no?

I think the point about Belichick being a great matchup coach is really interesting. Shanahan has never struck me as an "outsmart you by scheme" coach -- I feel he's more of an "outsmart you by timing and execution".

None of Shanahan's title teams (or any team I can recall) were as flexible as the 2004 Patriots. Then again, none of Belichick's title teams could dictate what they wanted to do to you like the 1998 Broncos.

 

[SSOG]

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

name one

Hmm... let's see... how about the 2001 New England Patriots? If the official never calls the Tuck Rule against Oakland, Belichick's 7-2 in the playoffs with New England, with two superbowl wins.Yes, the Tuck Rule was the correct call. I'm not disputing that. I'm just asking if it's so terribly unimagineable that a ref might not have called that? And if a ref *HADN'T* called that, Belichick would be 7-2 in the playoffs in New England with 2 superbowls (same exact record and result that Shanahan had in his first 6 years in Denver). Is Belichick a better coach than Shanahan solely because a league official was familiar with a very obscure rule? If the ref HADN'T been familiar with that obscure rule, and if New England *HAD* lost that game, and if Belichick and Shanahan currently stood tied in Superbowl wins (which is the only are where Belichick has any advantage at all over Shanahan, then there wouldn't even be a discussion right now- everyone would acknowledge without hesitation that Shanahan was a better coach than Belichick. So I suppose you can say that, if you're really hanging your hat on that 3 > 2 superbowl arguement, that Belichick is a better coach because an NFL official was familiar with the tuck rule, rather than because of anything that his teams have done on the field.

Edit: Even if you don't want to talk about the Tuck rule, what happens if Adam Vinatieri misses one of those kicks against Oakland? Would Shanahan be a better coach than Belichick because Vinatieri missed a kick? What if Oakland beat New England and then Pittsburgh went on to win the championship? That'd tie Cowher with Shanny and Belichick in the SB department and give him a more impressive playoff and regular season resume. Would that mean that Cowher would be the best coach in the league if Adam Vinatieri had a weaker leg?

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

10 years > 5 years. If you wanted a 5-year window, though, you should have let me know. Shanny from 1996 to 2001 (that same "5 year window, not counting the first season) had a .700 record. Granted, .747 is greater than .700, but how many potential HoFers has Belichick lost during his 5-year streak (compared to Zimmerman, Elway, Terrell Davis, Shannon Sharpe, and Steve Atwater for Shanahan)?

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

Two, actually, but he has more wins than any other franchise- and quite a few franchises have existed every year since 1996.

 

[Ghost Rider]

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

Two, actually, but he has more wins than any other franchise- and quite a few franchises have existed every year since 1996.

Actually, unless I am missing someone, there are five coaches who have been a head coach every year since 1996. ShanahanCowherFisherHolmgren (though with two different teams)Dungy (also with two different teams)

 

[Bri]

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

name one

Hmm... let's see... how about the 2001 New England Patriots? If the official never calls the Tuck Rule against Oakland, Belichick's 7-2 in the playoffs with New England, with two superbowl wins.

Yes, the Tuck Rule was the correct call. I'm not disputing that. I'm just asking if it's so terribly unimagineable that a ref might not have called that? And if a ref *HADN'T* called that, Belichick would be 7-2 in the playoffs in New England with 2 superbowls (same exact record and result that Shanahan had in his first 6 years in Denver). Is Belichick a better coach than Shanahan solely because a league official was familiar with a very obscure rule? If the ref HADN'T been familiar with that obscure rule, and if New England *HAD* lost that game, and if Belichick and Shanahan currently stood tied in Superbowl wins (which is the only are where Belichick has any advantage at all over Shanahan, then there wouldn't even be a discussion right now- everyone would acknowledge without hesitation that Shanahan was a better coach than Belichick. So I suppose you can say that, if you're really hanging your hat on that 3 > 2 superbowl arguement, that Belichick is a better coach because an NFL official was familiar with the tuck rule, rather than because of anything that his teams have done on the field.

Edit: Even if you don't want to talk about the Tuck rule, what happens if Adam Vinatieri misses one of those kicks against Oakland?

Cmon now, "what ifs"?

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

10 years > 5 years. If you wanted a 5-year window, though, you should have let me know. Shanny from 1996 to 2001 (that same "5 year window, not counting the first season) had a .700 record. Granted, .747 is greater than .700, but how many potential HoFers has Belichick lost during his 5-year streak (compared to Zimmerman, Elway, Terrell Davis, Shannon Sharpe, and Steve Atwater for Shanahan)?

Atwater's a HOFer?

Hmm I don't know, have to think on this.

I'd guess Bledsoe, Brady, Coates?, Harrison, Seau. Never know with Seymour. Dillon(up there but probably not, pretty sure his 1000 yard consecutive season streak was pretty sweet)

He's had two guys I loved to watch in Bruschi and Pepper that were very very good LBers. Better than most every Bronco LBers in that time IMO although they currently have a LB corps I like far better than most of their previous ones too so....

Just noticed the word "lost" I'll have to think on that.

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

Two, actually, but he has more wins than any other franchise- and quite a few franchises have existed every year since 1996.

lol so ya tried to throw a knuckleball in there

 

[Bri]

I can't fix the quotes, tried a few times, quitting on that

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

Sorry but you are wrong...and it's not even close.

Parcells 5 year run from 1986-1990 is the best run any coach has had in the Super Bowl era for the three criteria you list, which includes record, competition and success.

Parcells regular season record ('86-'90)

55-24

Belichick's regular season record ('01-'05)

58-22

Parcells playoff record ('86-'90)

7-1

Belichick's playoff record ('01-'05)

10-1

Here is the BIG difference.

Parcells division included the 1987 Super Bowl Champion Washington Redskins and Buddy Ryan's Philadelphia Eagles teams - who were very underrated. The Eagles had one of the best D-Lines in NFL history during this time. That's 4 games a season Parcells teams had to play these two teams.

Parcells teams also played the 1988-1989 Super Bowl Champions, Bill Walsh's San Francisco 49ers, in 4 of the 5 regular seasons from '86-'90.

Parcells Giants also played the 1990 AFC Super Bowl team Buffalo Bills in the 1990 regular season.

In the 1989 regular season, Parcells Giants played the 1989 AFC Super Bowl team Denver Broncos.

In both 1986-1987 Parcells Giants played the AFC Super Bowl team Denver Broncos both years during the regular season.

In the 1986 playoffs, Parcells Giants destroyed Bill Walsh's 49ers 49-3...next Parcells Giants destroyed Joe Gibbs Washington Redskins 17-0...and finally Parcells Giants destroyed Dan Reevers Denver Broncos 39-20.

In the 1990 playoffs, Parcells Giants destroyed Mike Ditka's Chicago Bears 31-3...following this up with defeating Walsh's 49ers again by a 15-13 score...and finally defeated Marv Levy's Buffalo Bills 20-19. In the Bills first of 4 consecutive Super Bowl appearances.

Parcells teams played the Super Bowl representative from both the NFC and AFC every year during the regular season from 1986-1990, except for 1988 when the Cincinatti Bengals escaped the Giants schedule.

Just to get to the Super Bowl, in the NFC playoffs, Parcells Giants had to defeat the the two teams (Wash-SF) that won the Super Bowl the next three years (1987-1989). And not only did Parcells Giants defeat these Super Bowl winners, his Giants completely shut them both down. Shutting out Joe Gibbs Washington team, and holding Bill Walsh and Joe Montana's 49ers teams to just 3 points.

Belichick's 5 year run NEVER had this type of success against this type of competition. NEVER...

You're saying the quality of competition was far superior in Parcell's curriculum vitae.I fear you do a great dis-service to the following groups

- The Greatest Show on Turf. Perhaps the most potent offensive threat the league has seen. The Pats had to survive a 14 point onslaught to pull out the SB win as 14 point dogs.

- The Pittsburg Steelers of this decade who of course won it all last year, multiple post-season losers to the Pats dynasty.

- The classic triplets in Indy of Manning, Harrison and Edge, a superb offensive trio, also multiple post-season losers to the dynasty. It's reasonable to assume this is group minus Edge is capable of winning multiple superbowls.

- The steroids-enhanced (sorry) Carolina Panthers, led by a great coach and phenomenal defense.

- The Philadelphia Eagles of this decade who've made 4 trips to NFC championship or higher. TO ALMOST got them there but Bruschi, Harrison and Seymour would have none of that.

Perhaps your premise is correct, but we will never be able to conclusively settle any arguments centered around which is more impressive, a dynasty from back in the day or a dynasty in today's free agency and parity driven league.

 

[Bri]

Really? So, would you say that Barry Switzer is a better head coach than Jim Fox?

Nope. That's why I specifically noted that while winning Super Bowls is the single most important thing it is also definitely NOT the only thing.Reading is fundamental.

who is Jim Fox? Jamie's dad?

 

[Bri]

More than that, Merlin.

 

[Whizzinator]

Parcells 5 year run from 1986-1990 is the best run any coach has had in the Super Bowl era for the three criteria you list, which includes record, competition and success.

Well, other than the fact that he didn't win as many titles. So, when you are behind in the most important category it's something you should be aware of, isn't it? Take a look at the other numbers, too...arguing that three regular season wins difference over five years is more meaningful than an extra Super Bowl (as you did) fails the straight-face test. Really, you should take a bit more time to consider this stuff before posting.There's certainly a case to be made that Parcells beat better teams, though some of that reflects what teams accomplished later on---something that we can't assess for Belichick's current run, obviously. That's on top of the fact that If Parcells were the coach you say, shouldn't he be over .500 and have a playoff win without Belichick running his defense? Of course, he doesn't have either of those things.So, you have an opinion..and one that again dismisses the single most important stat. And while you like to say 'it isn't even close' you don't seem to have enough of a grasp of the issues to really assess such things. Someone can certainly make the case for Parcells, or even for his five-year run, but it isn't all that convincing frankly. Or perhaps we just have a fundamental disagreeement---I think winning the Super Bowl matters a lot, and perhaps you don't think so?

 

[Bri]

Parcells 5 year run from 1986-1990 is the best run any coach has had in the Super Bowl era for the three criteria you list, which includes record, competition and success.

There's certainly a case to be made that Parcells beat better teams, though some of that reflects what teams accomplished later on---something that we can't assess for Belichick's current run, obviously.

Actually this is incorrect as well. I showed what the teams accomplished in the given five year period ('86-'90). I didn't include the previous Super Bowl wins by San Francisco, Washington or Chicago. I did make the statement that the Giants played a Bills team in the first of four consecutive Super Bowls for Buffalo, but that was it. Everything I showed in comparison occured within that five year time frame ('86-'90) of Parcells Giants run.

my opinion is the 80s teams were some of the best ever and while the Rams were quite the scoring team, my opinion is the 80s teams were better. This would be an interesting poll. I do see you calculated the records and such and well...just opinion

 

[rabidfireweasel]

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. I believe Belichick was the assistant special teams coach with Denver back then.

What you believe is wrong. Belichick's dad, Steve, was a defensive coach and an advance scout at Navy for 33 years. Belichick was breaking down game film before he was a teen.

 

[Bri]

And remind me what team gave Tom Brady his first playoff loss and Belichick's first playoff loss in New England...

We'll keep winning Supes, you hang your hat on that first playoff loss

We? When did you become a member of the Patriots organization? Tom, is that you? Bill?I don't usually take shots, but quite frankly, you're an idiot.

 

[redman]

So to me the bottom line is that Belichick's 2001-2006 record, including competition and overall success, is the best run any coach has had in the Super Bowl era.

Sorry but you are wrong...and it's not even close. Parcells 5 year run from 1986-1990 is the best run any coach has had in the Super Bowl era for the three criteria you list, which includes record, competition and success.

Parcells regular season record ('86-'90)

55-24

Belichick's regular season record ('01-'05)

58-22

Parcells playoff record ('86-'90)

7-1

Belichick's playoff record ('01-'05)

10-1

Here is the BIG difference.

Parcells division included the 1987 Super Bowl Champion Washington Redskins and Buddy Ryan's Philadelphia Eagles teams - who were very underrated. The Eagles had one of the best D-Lines in NFL history during this time. That's 4 games a season Parcells teams had to play these two teams.

Parcells teams also played the 1988-1989 Super Bowl Champions, Bill Walsh's San Francisco 49ers, in 4 of the 5 regular seasons from '86-'90.

Parcells Giants also played the 1990 AFC Super Bowl team Buffalo Bills in the 1990 regular season.

In the 1989 regular season, Parcells Giants played the 1989 AFC Super Bowl team Denver Broncos.

In both 1986-1987 Parcells Giants played the AFC Super Bowl team Denver Broncos both years during the regular season.

In the 1986 playoffs, Parcells Giants destroyed Bill Walsh's 49ers 49-3...next Parcells Giants destroyed Joe Gibbs Washington Redskins 17-0...and finally Parcells Giants destroyed Dan Reeves and John Elway's Denver Broncos 39-20.

In the 1990 playoffs, Parcells Giants destroyed Mike Ditka's Chicago Bears 31-3...following this up with defeating Walsh's 49ers again by a 15-13 score...and finally defeated Marv Levy's Buffalo Bills 20-19. In the Bills first of 4 consecutive Super Bowl appearances.

Parcells teams played the Super Bowl representative from both the NFC and AFC every year during the regular season from 1986-1990, except for 1988 when the Cincinnati Bengals escaped the Giants schedule.

Just to get to the Super Bowl, in the NFC playoffs, Parcells Giants had to defeat the the two teams (Wash-SF) that won the Super Bowl the next three years (1987-1989). And not only did Parcells Giants defeat these Super Bowl winners, his Giants completely shut them both down. Shutting out Joe Gibbs Washington team, and holding Bill Walsh and Joe Montana's 49ers teams to just 3 points.

Belichick's 5 year run NEVER had this type of success against this type of competition. NEVER...

A couple more points to add.Bill Parcells Giants did this with two different QB's and two different RB's.

Parcells won a Super Bowl with Phil Simms and little Joe Morris...and Parcells won a Super Bowl with Jeff Hostetler and Otis (O.J.) Anderson.

Apologies for the mispelling of Dan Reeves and Cincinnati...as well as for the ommission of George Seifert in relation to the later 49ers teams. Also John Elway's name should be included with those Broncos teams, as Joe Montana's was with the 49ers teams. There, I think I've got it all covered now.

Nice breakdown. Pre-salary cap playoff wins (especially NFC playoff wins in the 1980's) are more impressive than post-salary cap playoff wins given the disparity in talent and the ability to build dynasties unhindered by free agency and the cap. Those elite teams (and in the 80's they were Parcells' Giants'; Gibbs' Redskins; Ditka's Bears; and Walsh's 49'ers) tended to consistently collide in the playoffs.

Post-salary cap regular season victories - and especially consistently good regular season records - are more impressive than the pre-salary cap equivalent because the teams are more evenly matched and the "any given Sunday" rule better applies.

 

[pizzatyme]

I'd rank Parcells #1

Belichick #2

Shanahan #3

 

[SSOG]

Hmm... let's see... how about the 2001 New England Patriots? If the official never calls the Tuck Rule against Oakland, Belichick's 7-2 in the playoffs with New England, with two superbowl wins.Yes, the Tuck Rule was the correct call. I'm not disputing that. I'm just asking if it's so terribly unimagineable that a ref might not have called that? And if a ref *HADN'T* called that, Belichick would be 7-2 in the playoffs in New England with 2 superbowls (same exact record and result that Shanahan had in his first 6 years in Denver). Is Belichick a better coach than Shanahan solely because a league official was familiar with a very obscure rule? If the ref HADN'T been familiar with that obscure rule, and if New England *HAD* lost that game, and if Belichick and Shanahan currently stood tied in Superbowl wins (which is the only are where Belichick has any advantage at all over Shanahan, then there wouldn't even be a discussion right now- everyone would acknowledge without hesitation that Shanahan was a better coach than Belichick. So I suppose you can say that, if you're really hanging your hat on that 3 > 2 superbowl arguement, that Belichick is a better coach because an NFL official was familiar with the tuck rule, rather than because of anything that his teams have done on the field.Edit: Even if you don't want to talk about the Tuck rule, what happens if Adam Vinatieri misses one of those kicks against Oakland?

Cmon now, "what ifs"?

Yeah, we're playing "what ifs". It's a perfectly valid point.Obviously, whether or not Vinatieri makes a kick doesn't change in the slightest how good of a coach Bill Belichick is. Not one little bit. I would imagine that we can both agree that Bill Belichick would be exactly the same coach whether Vinatieri missed or made the Tuck Bowl kick.If you agree to that, you've just agreed that superbowl wins can be fluky and a single superbowl shouldn't be the deciding factor as to which coach is better. I mean, you think that Belichick is better because he had more superbowls than Shanny, and you think that even if Vinatieri had missed that kick, Belichick would still be just as good, but if Vinatieri had missed that kick then Belichick would no longer have more superbowl titles than Shanahan.Superbowl wins are fluky things. A lot of things have to go right for them to happen. Even Green Bay, who finished 1996 #1 in points scored and points allowed, has the monkey on its back that it never had to face Dallas (their own personal nemesis) in the playoffs. If Green Bay faces Dallas, and Dallas gets a win, does that make Holmgren less of a coach or Favre less of a QB? If "the catch" bounces off of Dwight Clark's fingertips, is Joe Montana less of a QB, or Bill Walsh less of a coach? If "The Drive" went 72 yards instead of 98 yards, is Elway less of a QB?

my opinion is the 80s teams were some of the best ever and while the Rams were quite the scoring team, my opinion is the 80s teams were better. This would be an interesting poll. I do see you calculated the records and such and well...just opinion

I can agree with that. The cream of the crop in the '80s was just brutal. Same thing with the Dolphins/Steelers/Raiders of the '70s, and the Browns/Packers/Cowboys/etc of the pre-modern NFL. I think it's possible for an elite team or two to achieve that same level of dominance under the salary cap, but I don't think you'll ever see 5 teams *THAT* good in a single season again.

I'd rank Parcells #1Belichick #2Shanahan #3

I don't think there's anything wrong with your list, but why did you leave off Gibbs and Cowher? Do you think they're worse than those 3, or was it just because the conversation wasn't centering around them at the moment?

 

[pizzatyme]

Hmm... let's see... how about the 2001 New England Patriots? If the official never calls the Tuck Rule against Oakland, Belichick's 7-2 in the playoffs with New England, with two superbowl wins.Yes, the Tuck Rule was the correct call. I'm not disputing that. I'm just asking if it's so terribly unimagineable that a ref might not have called that? And if a ref *HADN'T* called that, Belichick would be 7-2 in the playoffs in New England with 2 superbowls (same exact record and result that Shanahan had in his first 6 years in Denver). Is Belichick a better coach than Shanahan solely because a league official was familiar with a very obscure rule? If the ref HADN'T been familiar with that obscure rule, and if New England *HAD* lost that game, and if Belichick and Shanahan currently stood tied in Superbowl wins (which is the only are where Belichick has any advantage at all over Shanahan, then there wouldn't even be a discussion right now- everyone would acknowledge without hesitation that Shanahan was a better coach than Belichick. So I suppose you can say that, if you're really hanging your hat on that 3 > 2 superbowl arguement, that Belichick is a better coach because an NFL official was familiar with the tuck rule, rather than because of anything that his teams have done on the field.Edit: Even if you don't want to talk about the Tuck rule, what happens if Adam Vinatieri misses one of those kicks against Oakland?

Cmon now, "what ifs"?

Yeah, we're playing "what ifs". It's a perfectly valid point.Obviously, whether or not Vinatieri makes a kick doesn't change in the slightest how good of a coach Bill Belichick is. Not one little bit. I would imagine that we can both agree that Bill Belichick would be exactly the same coach whether Vinatieri missed or made the Tuck Bowl kick.If you agree to that, you've just agreed that superbowl wins can be fluky and a single superbowl shouldn't be the deciding factor as to which coach is better. I mean, you think that Belichick is better because he had more superbowls than Shanny, and you think that even if Vinatieri had missed that kick, Belichick would still be just as good, but if Vinatieri had missed that kick then Belichick would no longer have more superbowl titles than Shanahan.Superbowl wins are fluky things. A lot of things have to go right for them to happen. Even Green Bay, who finished 1996 #1 in points scored and points allowed, has the monkey on its back that it never had to face Dallas (their own personal nemesis) in the playoffs. If Green Bay faces Dallas, and Dallas gets a win, does that make Holmgren less of a coach or Favre less of a QB? If "the catch" bounces off of Dwight Clark's fingertips, is Joe Montana less of a QB, or Bill Walsh less of a coach? If "The Drive" went 72 yards instead of 98 yards, is Elway less of a QB?

my opinion is the 80s teams were some of the best ever and while the Rams were quite the scoring team, my opinion is the 80s teams were better. This would be an interesting poll. I do see you calculated the records and such and well...just opinion

I can agree with that. The cream of the crop in the '80s was just brutal. Same thing with the Dolphins/Steelers/Raiders of the '70s, and the Browns/Packers/Cowboys/etc of the pre-modern NFL. I think it's possible for an elite team or two to achieve that same level of dominance under the salary cap, but I don't think you'll ever see 5 teams *THAT* good in a single season again.

I'd rank Parcells #1Belichick #2Shanahan #3

I don't think there's anything wrong with your list, but why did you leave off Gibbs and Cowher? Do you think they're worse than those 3, or was it just because the conversation wasn't centering around them at the moment?

No, I'd put Gibbs #4 and Cowher doesn't make the top 10(yet) in my book.

 

[DerangedGridironGeek]

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.

SSOG, Bottom line they are both GREAT coaches. I was trying to counter your point that it cant be argued. Anything can be argued and we could go back and forth and spin the numbers all day long. BB has been THE best coach in the last 5 years and Shanny has been a slightly better coach over their careers when focusing solely on the numbers. Who knows what the next 5 years will bring, but if I had just bought an NFL team and needed to pick a coach, based on the entire picture and what I've seen in my 15 years of following the NFL, BB would be MY 1st choice and Shanny would be a CLOSE 2nd. Both have made significant impacts and changed the NFL landscape, but what BB is doing RIGHT NOW in recent history is revolutionary and very significant. To undermine that with a few choice numbers or what-if scenarios is narrow-minded and short-sighted. IMO, when we look back 10 years from now....the choice between the two won't be as close.

All the Patriot haters on this board can spin a few numbers to discount his achievements and help make their point....but my eyes, brain, and a little common sense tell me that BB is the better coach....and there arent enough numbers in the world to spin that arguement around in my mind.

 

[Whizzinator]

Actually maybe you should take more time to read the entire post. Quoting the entire post would likely help the process as well. As I never argued anything close to what you are claiming here.I will repost my OP once again. Please read it carefully this time before coming back at me with some off the wall accusation about the premise of my statements.

I read it carefully the first time, and accurately stated what it implied as well. If you disagree, specifically state what you think I got wrong...something you notably didn't do here. It's very weak to claim someone has misstated something and then run away...that is disingenuous as is your post.Speaking of reading, if you read my posts you'd be clear on the difference between the number of Super Bowl wins being 'important' and being 'the only criteria' Your post on Noll seems to lack understanding of that distinction.

Actually this is incorrect as well. I showed what the teams accomplished in the given five year period ('86-'90). I didn't include the previous Super Bowl wins by San Francisco, Washington or Chicago. I did make the statement that the Giants played a Bills team in the first of four consecutive Super Bowls for Buffalo, but that was it. Everything I showed in comparison occured within that five year time frame ('86-'90) of Parcells Giants run.

This is wrong on two levels. First, you posted this:

SF (2 Super Bowl Wins), Washington (1 Super Bowl Win), Buffalo (4 consecutive Super Bowls), Denver (3 Super Bowls in 4 years) versus St Louis (1 Super Bowl Win, 2 SB appearances), Pittsburgh (1 Super Bowl Win), Philadelphia (1 Super Bowl) and Carolina (1 Super Bowl)

Obviously, that reflects accomplishments outside of 1986-1990 just as I stated. You simply are mistaken about what you wrote. Trying to say "I didn't use things outside of that period, except the things that were" as you do is ridiculous. My initial comment was accurate, your rebuttal was inaccurate if not also nonsensical.But you also missed the larger point. Citing the teams and coaches you do being defeated only has relevance if someone considers what those teams did in other years, e.g. when they actually won something. The reps of guys like Gibbs, Ryan, etc aren't actually a function of losing to the Giants---they are a function of succeeding at different times in their careers. Thus, we have to use a broader timeframe to evaluate the teams Belichick has beaten, too.And I think you are confusing two different things here as well when you talk about how great these other teams are. Pre-cap teams simply had more talent than post-cap rule teams....few would argue this. But this is true of all of the best teams in either era, and thus when discussing the quality of coaching (not would team 1 from 1980s beat team 2 from 2000) having less talent cuts in the other direction.Part of why Belichick is so highly regarded today is that he wins with fewer top-tier guys than most other coaches who have had multiple super bowl wins. That means his Pats teams would likely have lost to other 'great' teams....and it also means that he, as a coach, is likely more impressive

Two can play this silly game. Belichick has a losing career record (under .500) without Romeo Crennel running his defense, as well a .500 playoff record without Crennel.

Actually, the 'silly game' is picking people who we can't claim objectively were the cause of the success such as you do.If Crennell (or Weis) has a long run of success in the NFL and wins Super Bowls on their own, and Belichick drops off and fails to succeed without them, then indeed we can argue that they were the true genius. But those things haven't happened.By contrast, with Belichick and Parcells we have a very clear set of accomplishments with and without to compare. Belichick's success without Parcells is about the same (or better) than Parcells accomplishements with Belichick. So Belichick doesn't need Parcells.But Parcells is a sub-500 coach without a single playoff win without Belichick.So while there's a lot of variables there and in and of itself that doesn't mean everything, it does greatly distinguish the point I made from the point you made about Crennel

 

[Marvin88]

Bill Belichick: Greatest coach since Vince.

Would that be Sgt. Vince Carter or Vince McMahon?

 

[Whizzinator]

First off, this was in response to another poster. Secondly, all accomplishments listed are included from the years '86-'90. SF has two Super Bowls wins '88-'89. Washington has one Super Bowl win '87. Denver played in 3 Super Bowls '86-'87 and '89. The Bills were already addressed above.

You mean, other than the part where you were wrong and I said you were wrong, where were you wrong? I think you'd be better off just admitting "ok, you are right...I did use some stuff outside of that period and I was mistaken to suggest otherwise"I await your comment on my larger point on comparing eras as well, if you are able to formulate something on it.

You are also incorrect in claiming Parcells is a sub .500 coach without Belichick. You really need to get your facts straight before stepping into the ring with me.

Look up the numbers---I am not wrong on that at all. You seem unaware that Parcells coached without Belichick before the last three years as well. Having facts such as these straight is what distinguishes me from you, it appears, thus your post is quite ironic. You should probably stick to a ring you can compete in, this appears not to be it.

 

[Whizzinator]

Like I said, knowing the facts is kind of important.

Parcells record in New England before Belichick returned:

1993 5-11

1994 10-6

1995 6-10

Total in NE: 21-27

Overall total without Belichick: 58-61. That's below .500

You lose.

 

[Bri]

Hmm... let's see... how about the 2001 New England Patriots? If the official never calls the Tuck Rule against Oakland, Belichick's 7-2 in the playoffs with New England, with two superbowl wins.Yes, the Tuck Rule was the correct call. I'm not disputing that. I'm just asking if it's so terribly unimagineable that a ref might not have called that? And if a ref *HADN'T* called that, Belichick would be 7-2 in the playoffs in New England with 2 superbowls (same exact record and result that Shanahan had in his first 6 years in Denver). Is Belichick a better coach than Shanahan solely because a league official was familiar with a very obscure rule? If the ref HADN'T been familiar with that obscure rule, and if New England *HAD* lost that game, and if Belichick and Shanahan currently stood tied in Superbowl wins (which is the only are where Belichick has any advantage at all over Shanahan, then there wouldn't even be a discussion right now- everyone would acknowledge without hesitation that Shanahan was a better coach than Belichick. So I suppose you can say that, if you're really hanging your hat on that 3 > 2 superbowl arguement, that Belichick is a better coach because an NFL official was familiar with the tuck rule, rather than because of anything that his teams have done on the field.Edit: Even if you don't want to talk about the Tuck rule, what happens if Adam Vinatieri misses one of those kicks against Oakland?

Cmon now, "what ifs"?

Yeah, we're playing "what ifs". It's a perfectly valid point.Obviously, whether or not Vinatieri makes a kick doesn't change in the slightest how good of a coach Bill Belichick is. Not one little bit. I would imagine that we can both agree that Bill Belichick would be exactly the same coach whether Vinatieri missed or made the Tuck Bowl kick.If you agree to that, you've just agreed that superbowl wins can be fluky and a single superbowl shouldn't be the deciding factor as to which coach is better. I mean, you think that Belichick is better because he had more superbowls than Shanny, and you think that even if Vinatieri had missed that kick, Belichick would still be just as good, but if Vinatieri had missed that kick then Belichick would no longer have more superbowl titles than Shanahan.Superbowl wins are fluky things. A lot of things have to go right for them to happen. Even Green Bay, who finished 1996 #1 in points scored and points allowed, has the monkey on its back that it never had to face Dallas (their own personal nemesis) in the playoffs. If Green Bay faces Dallas, and Dallas gets a win, does that make Holmgren less of a coach or Favre less of a QB? If "the catch" bounces off of Dwight Clark's fingertips, is Joe Montana less of a QB, or Bill Walsh less of a coach? If "The Drive" went 72 yards instead of 98 yards, is Elway less of a QB?

Interesting. I'm not one to like "what ifs" usually but this is interesting. Is Vinatieri's kick(the one you're referring to) same year or different than Tuck? if 2 years then yeah I guess it would matter as that would take away 2 Supes. Green Bay-I suppose I'd say it's not their job/ability/within their power to decide playoff matchups and 96 makes me wanna ask when the Cowboys dynasty started to fade. I do remember some 80s teams seeming to "have it easy" in the NFC while others had as tough a road as can be. I guess that'd be similar in not choosing who ya play. FWIW I don't think anyone was standing in Reggie's or Brett's way that year. As much as "destiny" exists in football, Reggie and Brett winning one seems like a foregone conclusion.The Catch well...to be honest I've often wonderred why Joe hit Clark as he seemed coverred. I give him a boatload of credit for throwing it where only Clark could catch it at quite possibly the most difficult time for a QB to make a throw. The Drive I think is thought of by Denver fans much like fans of Joe(while plenty) think of The Catch as Dwight Clark. Sorta weird to take a zillion drives and catches and widdle that down to 1....anyhow, I don't think it would have hurt Elway or Montana to not have won those Supes. Jim Kelly's in the hall right? Supe wise, wouldn't Elway's record have been similar to Kelly's? Throw in Marino not getting a ring and I just think that those guys were great and were getting in regardless.Walsh-I don't think the Catch affects him. As we've seen, his O has transcended(think right word there) the game. Everyone seems to use it or have used it. Your boy's offensive system is surely a byproduct of everything he learned under Walsh among other things. Now Kubiak's taken some of that to the Texans and did Heimerdinger(Jets) use some of Shanny's O? There's a sorta family tree going on and we're just talking offensive philosophy. IIRC 3 of the 90s Supe winners were former Walsh assistants plus Denny Green. Green's offenses have been incredible at times. While I don't see the Joe Montana Roger Craig Rice type offense in the current teams, I don't think it's a mistake or aberration that some of the best Os came from another great O. So, for me, Walsh was a lock either way.Back to BB-I'm not understanding where you're going with this here although I've got an 18 month old getting most of my attention so maybe that's why.For you as I know you're itching to-BB vs ShannyRB wise-I'd say Shanny gets the edge but BB really has done a noteworthy job with his RBs so it's not that big an edge. Antowain Smith and Pass and Evans last year and for a time just Faulk....geesh he's turned coal into diamonds himself too.DL-Shanny's horrible at this IMO. I also think he feels so and that's why Denver has had so many different DL over his career. DBs-Champ makes Shanny's world easy. I think Atwater and Lynch did too. Aside from them, he's unimpressive to me. BB has found a way to make dozens of street free agent types playable CBs. I realize with Harrison and Law I'm probably being hypocritical here but something about BB and DBs makes me think he's got a good sense of the pulse of his team while Shanny just plugs guys in and leaves em alone. LBs-Like RBs but opposite, I think you'd expect me to say BB has a clear edge. I would for all but recent memory. Shanny's current LBers are fierce and he's buying a lot of credit with me with them. If not for them this would be a blowout. I can't name one LBer from a Denver Supe team and I pride myself in knowing a lot of players so I figure if they were decent I'd know. Maybe just a brainfart thoughOL- Shanny edge here with his system and all. BB's no slouch as he's had tons of productive players and seems on some sorta sick rotation plan with them. A guy like Andruzzi most teams would have paid thru the nose to keep. Not the Pats, that always bugged me. However, to lose some good guys and still produce BB deserves a bunch of credit. Seems to me Shanny was lucky enough to have some guys for a longer period. For example Nalen and the plastic man seemed to play for him forever. In a way, I think Shanny's had it easier due to that continuity.WRs-Quite candidly neither has impressed me. I know you'll be shocked but the Pats WRs just get plugged into a system and we've never paid for a top WR and likely never will. McCaffrey's a nice story but so is ST Troy Brown. Maybe not maybe so HOFers Rod and Easy Ed make me wonder how difficult was it to coach them? I sorta give Shanny a mulligan with them. I think they both stink at developping WRs but I might be wrong. Initially, I feel like I can think of a zillion guys with potential that never did squat but the more I think about that, that's probably normal for NFL teams. Not really sure here, have to think on it.QB- Edge to BB, clear edge IMO. Very tough choice going with the "nobody" Tom Brady and he's developped into the perfect sorta prototype QB. I've read how Shanny wanted Bledsoe, Plummer, and some others over the years. Well he got Plummer. Aside from last years terrific INT production (outside of 1 or 2 games)being about as perfect as a QB can be, what's he done. Part of me has been waiting for Shanny to get a QB take him under his wing and make him the next great QB. Instead, BBs got that guy in Brady. I would never have predicted I'd feel this way in the past. ALso BB's Kosar decision was again a tough one but the right one as he did squat after that. However, IIRC, he was part of the Eric Zeier debacle so a little egg on his face for that. I don't give Shanny any credit for inheritting HOFer Elway. IMO he was great long before Shanny came to town.TEs- I don't think BB coached Coates outside of when he was old and "done". Again a sorta mulligan for Sharpe for Shanny. IMO Shanny's made the wrong decision at TE alot. I see Desmond Clark doing well and that other former TE(who had his moments) got cut after beefing up to play T. There's a pretty big list of former Denver TEs to do well elsewhere isn't there? I seem to remember that in FF. Well all that makes me give him credit for developping and recognizing their initial talent but take alot of that away as he was overconfident in that ability. They have "nothing" at TE now and I think he pushed the envelope. Similarly I think he pushed the envelope with the RBs and think Denver would be quite different with Mike Anderson still around. He didn't get superstar $, they should have paid him. Mike Bell could have developped under him for a year or so and Dayne was laughable. The former Pats pick bust is further proof there's something about Shanny's ego here that really bugs me.Unit wise:Offensively-Shanny Defensively-BBSpecial Teams-BB but close 90 page post, have at it SSOG

 

[Whizzinator]

Congratulations.

The facts are what they are. The only question is whether someone like yourself will consult them before pontificating or not.

 

[SSOG]

SSOG, Bottom line they are both GREAT coaches. I was trying to counter your point that it cant be argued. Anything can be argued and we could go back and forth and spin the numbers all day long. BB has been THE best coach in the last 5 years and Shanny has been a slightly better coach over their careers when focusing solely on the numbers. Who knows what the next 5 years will bring, but if I had just bought an NFL team and needed to pick a coach, based on the entire picture and what I've seen in my 15 years of following the NFL, BB would be MY 1st choice and Shanny would be a CLOSE 2nd. Both have made significant impacts and changed the NFL landscape, but what BB is doing RIGHT NOW in recent history is revolutionary and very significant. To undermine that with a few choice numbers or what-if scenarios is narrow-minded and short-sighted. IMO, when we look back 10 years from now....the choice between the two won't be as close.All the Patriot haters on this board can spin a few numbers to discount his achievements and help make their point....but my eyes, brain, and a little common sense tell me that BB is the better coach....and there arent enough numbers in the world to spin that arguement around in my mind.

I agree that if you had to pick a coach tomorrow out of anyone in the NFL, you'd have to pick Belichick, since he's the one that's hottest. I'm just arguing that coaches go hot and cold, but by the time everyone is retired or dead, when we look back on this era, I don't think everyone would say "Wow, during the 2006 season, Bill Belichick was the best coach in the entire NFL". Not that he won't have the best coaching season (that's all yet to be seen), but simply that, of the 31 other guys prowling the sidelines right now, history is going to regard at least one of them as a better coach.Any "best coach" question is going to return very different results depending on what timeframe you frame it with. Who's been the best coach so far this season? Probably Sean Peyton. Who's been the best coach over the past two years? Most certainly Lovie Smith. Who's been the best coach over a 3-year span? I'd have to go with Cowher, despite his struggles this year, for 15-1 and that whole 6th-seed-to-champion thing, despite breaking in a brand new QB on the fly. Over the last 4 years? Belichick, no question. Over the last 10 years? Shanahan, in my mind. That's why I instituted the "Career Resume" requirement, just because it gives us something substantial and easily defined to compare, rather than leaving us with a shifting timetable that we can bend to fit whatever stats or arguement we want to make. I do agree, though- if I'm hiring a coach today, I'm looking at the past 5 years and hiring Belichick.

 

[SSOG]

RB wise-I'd say Shanny gets the edge but BB really has done a noteworthy job with his RBs so it's not that big an edge. Antowain Smith and Pass and Evans last year and for a time just Faulk....geesh he's turned coal into diamonds himself too.

Denver's ranks rushing the ball under Shanny: 3rd (this year, per game), 2nd, 4th, 2nd, 5th, 10th, 2nd, 12th, 2nd, 4th, 1st, 5thNew England's ranks rushing the ball under BB: 8th (this year, per game), 24th, 7th, 27th, 28th, 13th, 26th.Come on, let's not get silly now. Belichick's two best rushing seasons (counting this year) would have both been Shanahan's third-worst season, ahead of only the two years where Terrell Davis's injuries sunk Denver's running game (all the way to 12th in the league). New England drafted the guy that Shanahan said would be the best RB in the entire NFL, and he's averaging a yard less per carry than Denver's undrafted rookie free agent. Not even close.Also, I'll say right now that I think a position-by-position comparison is a little silly here. Shanny and Belichick aren't position coaches. I bet they really do very little hands-on developing players. Really, this is more a comment on their staffs. Doesn't mean I won't play this game with you, though.

DL-Shanny's horrible at this IMO. I also think he feels so and that's why Denver has had so many different DL over his career.

I actually don't think Shanny's bad at the DL at all. He took on all the Browns when no one else wanted them, and that worked out great. He turned Bertrand Berry into an all-pro, and turned 4th rounder Reggie Hayward into a stud. Trevor Pryce for a long time was one of the top 3 DLs in all of football (sort of a "Richard Seymour before there was a Richard Seymour", in terms of his ability to play every spot. Belichick gets the edge, just for developing Seymour and Wilfork, but I think they're pretty comparable here.

DBs-Champ makes Shanny's world easy. I think Atwater and Lynch did too. Aside from them, he's unimpressive to me. BB has found a way to make dozens of street free agent types playable CBs. I realize with Harrison and Law I'm probably being hypocritical here but something about BB and DBs makes me think he's got a good sense of the pulse of his team while Shanny just plugs guys in and leaves em alone.

I agree that New England's DBs have developed a lot better than Denver's, although I think Kenoy Kennedy has become a very solid safety (a lot better than when he came to Denver and was just a hitter), and I think Darrent Williams and Domanique Foxworth are both really good CBs who'd be getting a lot more pub if they weren't playing with Champ Bailey.

LBs-Like RBs but opposite, I think you'd expect me to say BB has a clear edge. I would for all but recent memory. Shanny's current LBers are fierce and he's buying a lot of credit with me with them. If not for them this would be a blowout. I can't name one LBer from a Denver Supe team and I pride myself in knowing a lot of players so I figure if they were decent I'd know. Maybe just a brainfart though

Probably a brainfart. LB and RB are the two positions where Shanahan has a ridiculous golden touch. I forget who the LBs were back in 1995, but in the 1996 season Shanahan brought in Romanowski (who never made a pro bowl anywhere but Denver) and drafted John Mobley (who was an All-Pro in 1997) in the first round. Then, in the first round of the 1999 NFL draft, Denver brought in Al Wilson. In the 2nd round (iirc) of the 2000 Draft, they brought in Ian Gold. In the first round of the 2004 NFL Draft, they brought in D.J. Williams. That sort of record is pretty much impossible to top, even for someone with as good of a reclamation record as Belichick. Belichick has turned scrap-heap LBs into very good players, but Vrabel, Colvin, and even Bruschi have never been All-Pro types (although Bruschi came close).

OL- Shanny edge here with his system and all. BB's no slouch as he's had tons of productive players and seems on some sorta sick rotation plan with them. A guy like Andruzzi most teams would have paid thru the nose to keep. Not the Pats, that always bugged me. However, to lose some good guys and still produce BB deserves a bunch of credit. Seems to me Shanny was lucky enough to have some guys for a longer period. For example Nalen and the plastic man seemed to play for him forever. In a way, I think Shanny's had it easier due to that continuity.

It wasn't luck. Shanahan brought Nalen in, and the reason Denver has so much continuity on the O-Line is because Denver devotes a larger percentage of its salary cap to the line than any other team in the league.

WRs-Quite candidly neither has impressed me. I know you'll be shocked but the Pats WRs just get plugged into a system and we've never paid for a top WR and likely never will. McCaffrey's a nice story but so is ST Troy Brown. Maybe not maybe so HOFers Rod and Easy Ed make me wonder how difficult was it to coach them? I sorta give Shanny a mulligan with them. I think they both stink at developping WRs but I might be wrong. Initially, I feel like I can think of a zillion guys with potential that never did squat but the more I think about that, that's probably normal for NFL teams. Not really sure here, have to think on it.

I call it a wash. Maybe I'm just a jaded Denver fan, but while Smith, McCaffrey, and Walker have all been very nice finds, and Lelie wasn't as bad as he's made out to be on these boards, all I remember is the parade of failures at WR3. Denver's best WRs have been much better than NE's, and Denver's worse WRs have been much worse. Call it a tie.

QB- Edge to BB, clear edge IMO. Very tough choice going with the "nobody" Tom Brady and he's developped into the perfect sorta prototype QB. I've read how Shanny wanted Bledsoe, Plummer, and some others over the years. Well he got Plummer. Aside from last years terrific INT production (outside of 1 or 2 games)being about as perfect as a QB can be, what's he done. Part of me has been waiting for Shanny to get a QB take him under his wing and make him the next great QB. Instead, BBs got that guy in Brady. I would never have predicted I'd feel this way in the past. ALso BB's Kosar decision was again a tough one but the right one as he did squat after that. However, IIRC, he was part of the Eric Zeier debacle so a little egg on his face for that. I don't give Shanny any credit for inheritting HOFer Elway. IMO he was great long before Shanny came to town.

Elway was *NOT* great long before Shanny came to town. Shanahan got his NFL start as the QB coach for the Denver Broncos. He was the guy that developed John Elway. Every single one of John Elway's best seasons came with Shanahan in town. All 5 times Elway made the superbowl, Shanahan was his QB Coach or Offensive Coordinator.Belichick gets full credit for Brady, but Shanny gets full credit for Elway (who I think was easily a better QB than Brady- Brady's one of the top-3 QBs in the league, but Elway's one of the top-3 QBs of all time). I still give Belichick the edge because of the Brian Griese era, and because Belichick deserves credit for going with Brady over Bledsoe.

TEs- I don't think BB coached Coates outside of when he was old and "done". Again a sorta mulligan for Sharpe for Shanny. IMO Shanny's made the wrong decision at TE alot. I see Desmond Clark doing well and that other former TE(who had his moments) got cut after beefing up to play T. There's a pretty big list of former Denver TEs to do well elsewhere isn't there? I seem to remember that in FF. Well all that makes me give him credit for developping and recognizing their initial talent but take alot of that away as he was overconfident in that ability. They have "nothing" at TE now and I think he pushed the envelope. Similarly I think he pushed the envelope with the RBs and think Denver would be quite different with Mike Anderson still around. He didn't get superstar $, they should have paid him. Mike Bell could have developped under him for a year or so and Dayne was laughable. The former Pats pick bust is further proof there's something about Shanny's ego here that really bugs me.

Outside of this season, Shanny's TEs have always produced more than Belichicks.As for your little mini-rant on Denver TEs leaving Denver and becoming successful elsewhere... since Shanahan came to town, the only TEs to get cut from Denver and land somewhere else are Byron Chamberlain, Dwayne Carswell, and Billy Miller. In terms of fantasy points, Chamberlain finished 7th, 25th, 81st, and then Out of Football in the 3 years after he left Denver. He had a good season, but Denver clearly did the right thing in not re-upping with him. Putzier's currently got 4 grabs for Houston, and wasn't even activated in the last two weeks because he got beaten out by the immortal Owen Daniels. Again, it's looking like maybe he wasn't all that he'd cracked up to be. And as for Desmond Clark... sure, he's having a good season this year, but in the 5 seasons since he was cut by Denver, this is the first time he's ranked higher than 16th. I think Denver made the right decision there, too. I liken it to New England letting Givens walk- sure, NE's passing game misses him, but that doesn't mean he is suddenly worth the $20 million or whatever Tennessee threw his way.

Unit wise:Offensively-Shanny Defensively-BBSpecial Teams-BB but close 90 page post, have at it SSOG

I've got Shanny getting the edge on RBs, LBs, OL, TEs, and Belichick getting the edge on DL, DBs, and QBs. Not that any of this means anything, since neither was a positions coach, but I never mind getting into a good arguement, even when I think it's totally pointless.

 

[Bri]

Thanks for the entertainment/reply.

didn't know Shanny was a QB coach when Elway was there.

What's the quick timeline?

Denver, San Fran, Raiders, Denver?

 

[thesurfshop19]

Thanks for the entertainment/reply.didn't know Shanny was a QB coach when Elway was there.What's the quick timeline?Denver, San Fran, Raiders, Denver?

Denver, Oakland, Denver, San Francisco, DenverShanahan was OC for the Broncos the first 2 years they made the Super Bowl with Elway (1986, 1987). He left to become HC of the Raiders in 1988, and the Broncos missed the playoffs. 4 games into the 1989 season Shanahan was fired from Oakland (as an aside, Davis stipulated that Shanahan would get his contract buyout only if he didn't go back to Denver) and immediately went back to Denver as a "position coach" -- and the Broncos immediately made another Super Bowl.In 1992, Shanahan signed on with the 49ers and led them to the greatest offense, at that point, in history. The Niners were 1st in the league in points scored and yardage gained for 3 straight seasons -- only the 1999-2001 Rams have done that before or since. Shanahan got Steve Young over the hump.Then he returned to Denver as head coach in 1995. In each of his first 4 years there, the Broncos broke their single-season points scored record -- lending credence to the notion that Dan Reeves potentially hamstrung Shanny's gameplans back in the day. Elway, at the time, was getting criticism since he never won a playoff game without Shanahan on his sideline (and he never did, in his career).From 1996 to 1998, the Broncos had the best 3-year record in league history and won their 2 titles with one of the greatest balanced offenses I can remember.

 

[Bri]

thanks

 

[nerangers]

Thouight I would look up the HOF coaches to see if Bill is in the same class:

George Allen 1966-1977

Paul Brown 1946-1962

Guy Chamberlin # 1922-1927

Jimmy Conzelman # 1921-30, 1940-42, 1946-48

Weeb Ewbank 1954-1973

Ray Flaherty # 1936-1949

Joe Gibbs 1981-1992

Sid Gillman 1955-1969, 1971-1974

Bud Grant 1967-1983, 1985

George Halas # 1920-29, 1933-42, 1946-67

Earl (Curly) Lambeau # 1919-1953

Tom Landry 1960-1988

Marv Levy 1978-1982, 1986-1997

Vince Lombardi 1959-1967, 1969

John Madden 1969-1978

Earle (Greasy) Neale 1941-1950

Chuck Noll 1969-1991

Steve Owen # 1930-1953

Don Shula 1963-1995

Hank Stram 1960-1974, 1976-1977

Bill Walsh 1979-1988

I could see both Bill's going this group.

 

[SSOG]

Thanks for the entertainment/reply.

Not a problem. Sometimes it's fun to argue over something entirely meaningless and pointless with the full knowledge that neither side is really right, and that neither side will change the other's mind. I don't honestly believe that Shanahan is a better coach than Belichick, just like I don't honestly believe that Belichick is a better coach than Shanahan. If I was starting up an expansion team, I would sign either of them to a 10-year contract tomorrow. Just in case you thought that I honestly believed that there was really a point to this arguement. Anyway, now that we're perfectly clear that this arguement serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever, I should also point out that Shanahan has done everything he's done with complete control over personnel, while Belichick has always had Pioli by his side in New England. Also, only one Denver assistant has been hired to become a head coach elsewhere (Kubiak), and only one other is even a potential candidate (Heimerdinger), compared to now 3 coaches from the Belichick staff (although, in BB's defense, one of those did only go to the college ranks). So Shanahan's clearly done more with less help around him.

Thouight I would look up the HOF coaches to see if Bill is in the same class:George Allen 1966-1977Paul Brown 1946-1962Guy Chamberlin # 1922-1927Jimmy Conzelman # 1921-30, 1940-42, 1946-48Weeb Ewbank 1954-1973Ray Flaherty # 1936-1949Joe Gibbs 1981-1992Sid Gillman 1955-1969, 1971-1974Bud Grant 1967-1983, 1985George Halas # 1920-29, 1933-42, 1946-67Earl (Curly) Lambeau # 1919-1953Tom Landry 1960-1988Marv Levy 1978-1982, 1986-1997Vince Lombardi 1959-1967, 1969John Madden 1969-1978Earle (Greasy) Neale 1941-1950Chuck Noll 1969-1991Steve Owen # 1930-1953Don Shula 1963-1995Hank Stram 1960-1974, 1976-1977Bill Walsh 1979-1988I could see both Bill's going this group.

Agreed. I think that Parcells, Belichick, and Shanahan should all be locks for the HoF.