Big Blue Interactive The Corner Forum  
Back to the Corner

Archived Thread

Is Tom The best of his time?

grizz299 : 4/8/2014 9:04 am
A quick poll would probably rate Bill B as the best of our times. But consider: Bill hasn't won in a decade and he's never won without the benefits of the pre-game-taping scandal.
And I for one, think the impact and the advantages of that scandal has been relentlessly de-emphasized because the NFL thought it tarnished their image.
Think of it, he's never won fair, he's never won without cheating.

TWO\; Bill has had several inherent advantages over TC. He's had the better QB, he didn't have to give up picks to get his qb, and his qb occuppies less cap than Eli. Those are significant advantages. Almost as much as taping an opponents secret run throughs.
Expand on the Cost paid for the QB's. We give up three picks, they get their qb with six round pick and keep five top picks. That's about nine players they get that we don't have and they surround a better QB and still we beat them. Then their guy takes up less cap so again right throgh their time they are able to surround Brady with better talent and still we beat them. And we not only beat them we go through the toughest roads to get there of any team since Bradshaw's Steelers go against Pastrioni Oiler's, Stabler's Raiders and Landry's Staubach's Cowboys.

Now add a weaker conference and a weaker division. Folks are going to argue that BB has won more games, sure he's got Buffalo , Miami and the JETS for six games a year. Then he's got the weaker conference too, then add i the better QB, he should have more wins.

I see Peyton with one ring,I see Rogers and Brees with one ring. They are better QB's than Eli and Eli has two rings or twice what they have. How can that be anything but the consequence of great coaching.?

When you look underneath the glitz of Bill, when you consider all the factors I think a real case can be made that TC is the best coach of his time.
With one caveat: you have to measure coaches as relative to their time. We are never going to see the kind of dominance that Lombardi achieved, there are many reasons for that not the least of which is the competitive nature of the modern game, the strength of schedule, the value of the draft, and the evolution of the sport that means that all the new things have been done and in a similiar manner the sypmphony orchestra reached it's peak with Beethovan and hasn't had dramatic improvements for 150 years.

Little noted but a great factor mitigating against long term dominance too is the injury bug. I can still name the 22 starters for the NYGteam of the fifties, the team that started the season finished the season and , in fact, lasted for a decade. Injuries are so high in the modern game that luck plays a huge factor and makes it darn near impossible to dominate like the old teams might have. And now the road to the playooffs is longer, that gives luck a bigger role too, one bounce, one super hot player, one call and more opportunities for those factors.

OK, you wanna disagree, you can't disagree by too much and the bottom line is this: We have been blessed. We have seen wildly exciting years, we have seen great triumphs in the most exciting superbowls of all time. There is no team that has had it as good as us, I wish the naysayers would put their shrill criticisms in context and understand how grand this trip has been and continues to be.
Pages: 1 2 <<Prev | Show All |
Go back and watch the Pink Panther movies,  
oldog : 4/8/2014 10:59 am : link
then replay SB 42 and 46. Who is Dreyfuss, who is Clouseau.
If I am a GM  
bc4life : 4/8/2014 10:59 am : link
and had to pick between the two - without hesitation its' BB. And, I've always been a supporter of TC.

The consistency - and his efforts this year may be his best coaching yet.
Little Bill  
Don in DC : 4/8/2014 11:17 am : link
The consistency with which that team reaches the playoffs and goes deep in them in unmatched.

The only other coaches ever who compare would be Walsh, Parcells and Lombardi... and I'm not sure about Parcells.
I agree BB is better  
chuckydee9 : 4/8/2014 11:19 am : link
but some of you sound like TC is not in his category. That is absolutely bs. First BB hasn't won a superbowl since he was caught cheating. Also he has had no success without Tom Brady.. I know he went 11-5 with cassell but he failed with the Browns and missed playoffs every year with the Patriots that Brady wasn't a starter for (thats 2 seasons).. On the other hand TC has never failed.. He was successful with the Jags, and NYG... There is something to be said about being successful every where you've gone..

BTW H2H shouldn't be the reason why one is better than the other..Its too small a sample size...
RE: I agree BB is better  
pjcas18 : 4/8/2014 11:25 am : link
In comment 11610840 chuckydee9 said:
Quote:
but some of you sound like TC is not in his category. That is absolutely bs. First BB hasn't won a superbowl since he was caught cheating. Also he has had no success without Tom Brady.. I know he went 11-5 with cassell but he failed with the Browns and missed playoffs every year with the Patriots that Brady wasn't a starter for (thats 2 seasons).. On the other hand TC has never failed.. He was successful with the Jags, and NYG... There is something to be said about being successful every where you've gone..

BTW H2H shouldn't be the reason why one is better than the other..Its too small a sample size...


Belichick won a Super bowl his second year in New England.

Bledsoe started 1 full season before Brady replaced him.,

Quote:
and missed playoffs every year with the Patriots that Brady wasn't a starter for (thats 2 seasons)


And since that year Bledsoe started, Belichick's teams have never won fewer than 9 games.

I think most agree Coughlin is a hall-of-fame coach, but Belichick is legendary.

It's not a knock on Coughlin in the least (IMO).
BB is  
chuckydee9 : 4/8/2014 11:41 am : link
he's 51-65 without Brady. Thats not a small sample size.. Every season with 9 wins in AFC east isn't all that impresive... Even the seasons TC missed the playoffs he had more than 9 wins quite a bit...

RE: BB is  
chuckydee9 : 4/8/2014 11:42 am : link
In comment 11610900 chuckydee9 said:
Quote:
he's 51-65 without Brady. Thats not a small sample size.. Every season with 9 wins in AFC east isn't all that impresive... Even the seasons TC missed the playoffs he had more than 9 wins quite a bit...


I meant 9 wins or more....
The AFC East is not a predominantly strong conference  
pjcas18 : 4/8/2014 11:45 am : link
but that argument is lazy. Because part of the reason the conference is so weak is because the other three teams have to play the Pats twice every year.

So it's a chicken or egg thing.

And do the groundwork, the NFC East over the same period is probably only marginally better as a conference than the AFC East, if it is even better.
RE: The AFC East is not a predominantly strong conference  
chuckydee9 : 4/8/2014 12:08 pm : link
In comment 11610909 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
but that argument is lazy. Because part of the reason the conference is so weak is because the other three teams have to play the Pats twice every year.

So it's a chicken or egg thing.

And do the groundwork, the NFC East over the same period is probably only marginally better as a conference than the AFC East, if it is even better.


You are right. NFCE is only marginally better but that still does leave the other points like his record from over a 100 games without Tom Brady being well below .500...Thats a huge sample size you cannot hide or have any valid point for...

In 7 seasons without Brady... BB has only made the playoffs once... Once..missing playoffs 4 out of the last 5 is still better than that.. Don't get me wrong BB is good... better than TC but its not like TC is tier 3 and BB is in a league with Lombardi...
RE: The AFC East is not a predominantly strong conference  
BrettNYG10 : 4/8/2014 12:27 pm : link
In comment 11610909 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
but that argument is lazy. Because part of the reason the conference is so weak is because the other three teams have to play the Pats twice every year.

So it's a chicken or egg thing.

And do the groundwork, the NFC East over the same period is probably only marginally better as a conference than the AFC East, if it is even better.


Also, from 2003-2012, the Pats had an 81.67% winning percentage against the division and 77% against the rest of the NFL. Ignoring the games against the Pats, the rest of the AFC East is close to .500. People making the SoS argument are ignoring facts.
"7 seasons without Brady"  
PaulBlakeTSU : 4/8/2014 12:27 pm : link
come on.

In 1991, in his first year of coaching after winning 2 SB rings as the great defensive coordinator of the Giants, he took over a 3-13 Browns team that has a point differential of -234.

1990 Browns: 3-13, -234
-------------------------
1991 Browns: 6-10, -5
1992 Browns: 7-9, -3
1993 Browns: 7-9, -3
1994 Browns: 11-5, +136
1995 Browns: 5-11, -67 (started 3-1, Modell announced in November that team was moving to Baltimore. Belichick fired after the season )
----------------------
1996 Browns: 2-14, -220
1997 Browns: 3-13 ,-258

Criticizing Belichick for only making the playoffs once during that five year stretch while trying to win for a pitiful franchise like Cleveland is asinine.

RE:  
chuckydee9 : 4/8/2014 12:36 pm : link
In comment 11610988 PaulBlakeTSU said:
Quote:
come on.

In 1991, in his first year of coaching after winning 2 SB rings as the great defensive coordinator of the Giants, he took over a 3-13 Browns team that has a point differential of -234.

1990 Browns: 3-13, -234
-------------------------
1991 Browns: 6-10, -5
1992 Browns: 7-9, -3
1993 Browns: 7-9, -3
1994 Browns: 11-5, +136
1995 Browns: 5-11, -67 (started 3-1, Modell announced in November that team was moving to Baltimore. Belichick fired after the season )
----------------------
1996 Browns: 2-14, -220
1997 Browns: 3-13 ,-258

Criticizing Belichick for only making the playoffs once during that five year stretch while trying to win for a pitiful franchise like Cleveland is asinine.


TC has a much better resume with the Jags than BB does with Browns... BTW that Browns franchise that you talk about won 2 superbowls since BB left... Don't mistake that browns franchise with the current browns franchise.
No.  
RDJR : 4/8/2014 12:42 pm : link
It is a yes or no question.
Four Rings Joe Boston Chapter  
RetroJint : 4/8/2014 12:43 pm : link
is the best coach of this era, following the departure of Parcells. Coughlin has it over him Mano y Mano . The only loss was most likely the most glorious defeat in history since the 300 Spartans. Where Belichick has it on the Giants is his work as Executive VP GM , where he clearly outclasses Reese. Bill Belichick is one of the seminal figures of his time. As a coach, Coughlin is better & in that teeny weeny heart of hearts of his, in a moment of absolute candor, I think Belichick would admit it. At least I hope so.
If the only criteria  
Jerry in DC : 4/8/2014 12:52 pm : link
is "Super Bowls since 2007" then yes. If any other criteria is used, then no.
I don't need Coach Coughlin to be the best of all times  
gidiefor : 4/8/2014 1:00 pm : link
he's been good enough to be pretty damned good - and the Giants have given me 2 Superbowl thrills in the past 7 years - which considering 1990-2007 there were none is pretty terrific.

I am greediefor more - but when you compare that to everything else

: )
An interesting  
pjcas18 : 4/8/2014 1:02 pm : link
but probably impossible way to look at this is through the lens of non-Giants and non-Pats fans.

TC is very good.  
Randy in CT : 4/8/2014 1:03 pm : link
Being best doesn't matter. Close this thread.
He is the Secretariat of Coaches  
Headhunter : 4/8/2014 1:09 pm : link
over 65
RE:  
chuckydee9 : 4/8/2014 1:18 pm : link
In comment 11610988 PaulBlakeTSU said:
Quote:
come on.

In 1991, in his first year of coaching after winning 2 SB rings as the great defensive coordinator of the Giants, he took over a 3-13 Browns team that has a point differential of -234.

1990 Browns: 3-13, -234
-------------------------
1991 Browns: 6-10, -5
1992 Browns: 7-9, -3
1993 Browns: 7-9, -3
1994 Browns: 11-5, +136
1995 Browns: 5-11, -67 (started 3-1, Modell announced in November that team was moving to Baltimore. Belichick fired after the season )
----------------------
1996 Browns: 2-14, -220
1997 Browns: 3-13 ,-258

Criticizing Belichick for only making the playoffs once during that five year stretch while trying to win for a pitiful franchise like Cleveland is asinine.


Also nice of you to look at only single year prior to BB this was the Browns Franchise for a few years prior to BB. I won't it Pitiful...
1990 NFL Cleveland Browns 3 13 -234
1989 NFL Cleveland Browns* 9 6 80
1988 NFL Cleveland Browns* 10 6 16
1987 NFL Cleveland Browns* 10 5 151
1986 NFL Cleveland Browns* 12 4 81
1985 NFL Cleveland Browns* 8 8 -7


IF we are only looking at 1 year prior to BB then the year prior to TC the giants were also pitiful @ 4-12 and 31st worst points differential in the NFL (-144)...

So whats the excuse for those 7 bad seasons? Also there are 2 seasons with the Patriots included in those 7... Again I am not saying BB is bad but he isn't much better than TC...
Best test for coaching,  
oldog : 4/8/2014 1:39 pm : link
is to compare first half of the season, to the second. TC has a lot of 6-2 starts, then struggles. But, in the 2007, 2011, and again last year, he was legendary. This coming year is a special challenge, head office is all in to win. He has a coachable, perhaps HOF, QB, and the raw material to form a team. If he can bring home one more Eli SB, then yes, better than Parcells, better than BB, one for the ages.
"Comparisons are odious."  
Blackbeard : 4/8/2014 2:11 pm : link
Too many situational differences.
Be happy with TC as our coach, as you would be with a good and loyal spouse who isn't Miss America or Superman.
chuckydee  
PaulBlakeTSU : 4/8/2014 2:14 pm : link
I only looked at the one year prior because that was all that was necessary. THe Browns were the second worst team in all of football that season, with the second worst point differential in the league. Only the 1-15 Patriots with a -265 point differential had a worse season. That's the team Belichick took over, not the strong Browns team that had a nice run beforehand.

You can twist it however you want but the idea that Coughlin is a better coach than Belichick is rooted in nothing more than embarrassing homer behavior that objective Giants fans hope fans of other teams don't see so as to tie us to such ridiculous comments.
BB is better and I've said this multiple times  
chuckydee9 : 4/8/2014 2:53 pm : link
but the idea that most fans think that he is the second coming of Lombardi and there is no way TC should even be mentioned in the same tier as BB is BS...ALL of BB's success is tied to Tom Brady... He hasn't even looked average without Brady... His record from 7+ seasons prove my point.. If TC had Peyton for 10+ years this won't even be a legit question to ask and they'd be naming tropies after TC... I am not looking at it homeristically but rather looking at the entire history of both HC and not just the last 5 or so years..




Coughlin..  
rocco8112 : 4/8/2014 3:00 pm : link
...is a fantastic coach. In '07 the Giants ran off 11 consecutive road wins to capture it all. That is something about that run that gets talked about very little. It is a great team and coaching accomplishment.

Coughlin's resume speaks for itself and I do disagree with those who think it is laughable to compare him to Belichick.

Also, I disagree with the idea that the fact that Coughlin has Eli instead of some other QB supports his claim as the best coach. As if TC just carried Eli and coached this excellent Giants era of football despite Eli. If you asked Coughlin I would bet that he knows he is very lucky to have Eli as his QB and that there would have been no super bowls without him.

That said, if TC is at the helm for one more super bowl run, he most certainly is the best coach of this era.
RE: Coughlin..  
chuckydee9 : 4/8/2014 3:11 pm : link
In comment 11611316 rocco8112 said:
Quote:
...is a fantastic coach. In '07 the Giants ran off 11 consecutive road wins to capture it all. That is something about that run that gets talked about very little. It is a great team and coaching accomplishment.

Coughlin's resume speaks for itself and I do disagree with those who think it is laughable to compare him to Belichick.

Also, I disagree with the idea that the fact that Coughlin has Eli instead of some other QB supports his claim as the best coach. As if TC just carried Eli and coached this excellent Giants era of football despite Eli. If you asked Coughlin I would bet that he knows he is very lucky to have Eli as his QB and that there would have been no super bowls without him.

That said, if TC is at the helm for one more super bowl run, he most certainly is the best coach of this era.


I don't mean to degrade Eli either... he is great but the difference between Eli and TB is slightly more than BB and TC... I'll still take Eli and our 2 SB runs over anything TB has done...since 2005... Just can't stand it when Media and most fans chose to forget that BB only has little more success than TC and that could be attributed to the fact that he has TB and TC had to work with Brunell..
TC, has done a fine job with the Giants...  
Doomster : 4/8/2014 3:18 pm : link
But one of the best of all time?

87-73? Only two seasons out of ten, where he won a playoff game?

Missing the playoffs 4 of the last 5 seasons?

There is a lack of consistency in his Giant teams....

He is a fine coach....2 SB wins is not a lock for the HOF.....If he wins another, yes....he has a chance for the HOF, if his Giant teams can put up some good numbers the next few years....
Coughlin is better  
PaulN : 4/8/2014 3:20 pm : link
Then Belichick only on BBI from those who are just going to ignore every possible measuring tool and just say, he cheated so Tom is better. OK then.
A joke  
PaulN : 4/8/2014 3:23 pm : link
To even compare them. Plus all the sure shot hall of fame talk about Tom is ridiculous, he is borderline hall of fame, not sure shot. Add the anti New York sentiment and he may not get in, and if he does it may not be in a very long time.
re: nothing without Brady argument  
bc4life : 4/8/2014 3:31 pm : link
what highly successful coach in the modern era has not had a franchise qb?
re: can't win without cheating  
bc4life : 4/8/2014 3:33 pm : link
both of Giants SB wins could have gone the other way - very close games. that's two more near misses at the Lombardi trophy on top of all the playoff appearances.
I remember when the Pats played the Jets  
Eddie From Toronto : 4/8/2014 3:42 pm : link
in week 2 on thursday night

and since 01 the Jets were a game below .500 at the time

the Dolphins and Bills were just a flat out joke. But be nice to have a terrible division for a solid 15 years
RE: re: nothing without Brady argument  
chuckydee9 : 4/8/2014 4:05 pm : link
In comment 11611390 bc4life said:
Quote:
what highly successful coach in the modern era has not had a franchise qb?


If we are limiting our to only the modern era then its tough but there is a difference between Franchise QB and TB... One is Flacco the other is all time great... but coaches such as Harbaugh brothers, Caroll and Tomlin have won with much lesser QB's than BB... But the main point is that when BB was provided franchise QBs like Vinny and Bledsoe (both had success even after BB coached them) he failed (made the playoffs 1 of 7 seasons)... he needed an all time great QB to succeed... There is a big enough sample to prove this...

Regular Season
BB's record - 1961030 (.656)
TC's record - 1581300 (.549)

The difference can easily be explained by the fact that TC had to play with franchise QB vs one of the All time great...
If you don't think TB will help you win a measely 10% more games than Brunell... well then I don't know what to say...

Post Season record
BB - 199 (.679)
TC - 127 (.632)

Slight difference between the 2.. but when you factor in the fact that the way BB was caught cheating.. really helps win games in the playoffs.. the difference isn't big at all... Hence BB is slightly better but not too much...

Honestly the argument can be made either way  
Great White Ghost : 4/8/2014 6:04 pm : link
They are different types of coaches.

As far as football genius goes, I'd say bellichik, but as far as who is a better coach, you can look at TC's body of work, starting a franchise, running it drafting, being GM basically and taking it as a new team to the playoffs.That's no small feat and something bellichik never did.TC seemsm to be able to impose order, and actually lead and coach better than just about anyone. Organizationally he simply has no peers in the NFL.Football smarts Bellichik beats him.If anything i give TC a slight edge in being able to motivate players to perform overall.on game day I think bill is a bit stronger, except when character enters into the occassion, and then again, TC has an edge there.There is a reason the better coach with the better QB lost twice head to head for all the marbles.

I think Bill is better at football, and TC is better at life.
It's great that Coughlin is considered in the same discussion  
Ira : 4/8/2014 6:57 pm : link
as Little Bill, a distinction that TC deserves and it's great that both came from the same Hall of Fame head coach.
I always have a hard time...  
JB in NJ : 4/8/2014 8:31 pm : link
figuring out a true grade for TC. I suppose you can say "2 titles in 5 seasons is 2 titles in 5 seasons" and be done with it. But there have just been so many crappy performances between and around the two titles. It's really odd. Certainly unique in NFL history.
I agree  
Phil in LA : 4/8/2014 8:34 pm : link
I think he's a Hall of Famer, but the regular season inconsistency has been hard to reconcile with great coaching.
I'll tell you this:  
Big Blue '56 : 4/8/2014 8:40 pm : link
No way we lose those 3 replacement games during the '87 strike if TC was at the helm. He'd have them working really hard and would not have tanked it as Parcells did(he admitted he didn't give a damn)..Might have made the playoffs..Will never forget Tuna for doing that
And yes, I get that the Tuna was disgusted,  
Big Blue '56 : 4/8/2014 8:42 pm : link
but his job was to COACH what he had to the best of his ability and he failed to do that. Shame on him
Belichick is the best of the time  
LauderdaleMatty : 4/8/2014 9:29 pm : link
Innovator like no other. He changes his team to fit the talent around him. Equally involved in both sides of the ball. TC isn't temoty as well versed in defense as Bill B is on O.

TC is a great coach and HOF worthy but it's reaching saying he's better than Bill B who found a way to win 11 games w Cassel.





RE: An interesting  
NINEster : 4/8/2014 10:34 pm : link
In comment 11611045 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
but probably impossible way to look at this is through the lens of non-Giants and non-Pats fans.


Belichick's body of work over the long haul is better (W/L, consistent playoff visits, more SB appearances). That is balanced out with two super bowl losses head to head with Coughlin.

Coughlin's peak performances are pretty impressive. When he gets a team to play for him, they can be pretty tough. And his game planning can also be top notch in big moments.

I think the 2011 playoff run was pretty powerful. The team just a month or so earlier could not have been expected to do what they did. The defensive game plan versus SF was the key to winning that game.

Winning Super Bowl 42 is an achievement that cannot be taken lightly, even if there's debate as to whether the Patriots were a slightly overrated 18-0.

If there was a knock for BB that 2007 season, it was for trying to win week 17 against the Giants. The obsession/arrogance for a perfect season IMO cost him the super bowl. It opened up confidence in the Giants and gave them extra game plan film. Perhaps it was a longshot that the two teams would meet, but there's something else that was wrong with that philosophy:

Football teams win/lose a lot on emotional peaks/valleys, as much as they do Xs and Os and talent. I recall reading Bill Walsh mentioning how hard it is to sustain winning more than 4-5 games in a row just due to this alone. If the Patriots took a dive in that final game (like normal teams do) and finish 15-1, the team would have been more relaxed and finished off the final 3 games with Ws.

Still think BB is a little better. I think most people were picking the Giants to win SB46 a lot more easily than they did. He still knows how to get a lot out of his players, and molds his team around them. The Patriots were very much in that game, and could have won it.

Belichick's job as a DC with the Giants was maybe as important as the talent the team had when it came to slowing down the 49ers and Bills in the SB.


...  
SanFranGiantsFan : 4/9/2014 6:48 am : link
Coughlin's a HOFer in my opinion, but Belichick is probably the second best coach of all time after Lombardi. What he's done in New England is amazing. And for those who say he didn't accomplish anything without Brady, check out the '08 Pats who went 11-5 with the immortal Matt Cassel.

That said, I think he needs to win another Super Bowl post Spygate to shut a lot of people up.
the story is still being written  
aquidneck : 4/9/2014 7:15 am : link
One more Super Bowl victory for Coughlin and history remembers him as best coach if his era...or at least on par with anyone.

If the teams's rebuild crashes, they finish 3-13 and Coughlin is relieved prior to the end of the season, he still might make HOF, but chances are pretty dicey.
He's definitely in the top ten  
WideRight : 4/9/2014 12:48 pm : link
There are so many things that go into being a great coach that aren't reflected in SB wins. Some are better than TC that have no SB wins. Andy Reid comes to mind (its OK now, he's not in the division). The intangibles help TC because he is a great guy, but organizations are better served by focusing on great great players with a good coach anyway.
Haven't read the thread  
Mike in Long Beach : 4/9/2014 1:51 pm : link
But I'm assuming most posters (hopefully) let the OP know that in no planet in the universe is there even a hint of an argument of Coughlin over Belichick.

And I love Coughlin and think he's on his way to Canton.
RE: ...  
chuckydee9 : 4/9/2014 2:43 pm : link
In comment 11612146 SanFranGiantsFan said:
Quote:
Coughlin's a HOFer in my opinion, but Belichick is probably the second best coach of all time after Lombardi. What he's done in New England is amazing. And for those who say he didn't accomplish anything without Brady, check out the '08 Pats who went 11-5 with the immortal Matt Cassel.

That said, I think he needs to win another Super Bowl post Spygate to shut a lot of people up.


Here is BB's record over 6 complete seasons without Brady

CLE 1991 6 10 0 0.375 3rd in AFC Central
CLE 1992 7 9 0 0.438 3rd in AFC Central
CLE 1993 7 9 0 0.438 3rd in AFC Central
CLE 1994 11 5 0 0.688 2nd in AFC Central
CLE 1995 5 11 0 0.313 4th in AFC Central
NE 2000 5 11 0 0.313 4th in AFC East


Don't blame this on the crap franchise that was the Browns... That franchise had been .500 or better 5 out of 6 years prior to BB... And since BB left them, that franchise has won 2 superbowls and has reached conf finals multiple times... BB's record without Brady is horrendous and its not like it was a short period of time while he was rebuilding a team... it was over a long period of time with decent/ franchise QBs... This idea that BB is miles ahead of TC is not valid..
RE: RE: ...  
LauderdaleMatty : 4/9/2014 2:49 pm : link
In comment 11612916 chuckydee9 said:
Quote:
In comment 11612146 SanFranGiantsFan said:


Quote:


Coughlin's a HOFer in my opinion, but Belichick is probably the second best coach of all time after Lombardi. What he's done in New England is amazing. And for those who say he didn't accomplish anything without Brady, check out the '08 Pats who went 11-5 with the immortal Matt Cassel.

That said, I think he needs to win another Super Bowl post Spygate to shut a lot of people up.



Here is BB's record over 6 complete seasons without Brady

CLE 1991 6 10 0 0.375 3rd in AFC Central
CLE 1992 7 9 0 0.438 3rd in AFC Central
CLE 1993 7 9 0 0.438 3rd in AFC Central
CLE 1994 11 5 0 0.688 2nd in AFC Central
CLE 1995 5 11 0 0.313 4th in AFC Central
NE 2000 5 11 0 0.313 4th in AFC East


Don't blame this on the crap franchise that was the Browns... That franchise had been .500 or better 5 out of 6 years prior to BB... And since BB left them, that franchise has won 2 superbowls and has reached conf finals multiple times... BB's record without Brady is horrendous and its not like it was a short period of time while he was rebuilding a team... it was over a long period of time with decent/ franchise QBs... This idea that BB is miles ahead of TC is not valid..


Yeah its not valid if you want to be a blind homer.

Unlike TC Belichick isn't afraid to change his philosophy due to roster situations. On offense or defense. And to ignore Belichicks success as a DC would also be hugely disingenuous.

Coughlin is a HOF coach but pretending he's on the level of Bill B in the X's and O's category is silly.

TC had to be forced to fire Gilbride and doesn't go near the D compared to how involved Belichick is in his O. . Bill B is the man in NE. How many defensive coaches have transitoned over and put their fingerprints all over the whole team? How many offensive guys.




RE: ...  
chuckydee9 : 4/9/2014 2:54 pm : link
In comment 11612146 SanFranGiantsFan said:
Quote:
Coughlin's a HOFer in my opinion, but Belichick is probably the second best coach of all time after Lombardi. What he's done in New England is amazing. And for those who say he didn't accomplish anything without Brady, check out the '08 Pats who went 11-5 with the immortal Matt Cassel.

That said, I think he needs to win another Super Bowl post Spygate to shut a lot of people up.


BTW that 11-5 season with Cassell... Patriots schedule was the 3rd easiest in their entire history... according to pro football reference..Also that team was loaded with talent everywhere... remember that team was 18-0 the year before....kind a puts a damper on the 11-5 with cassell...
Look  
PaulBlakeTSU : 4/9/2014 2:55 pm : link
at the record and point differential of the Browns team the year before Belichick took over, and then look at the seame for the year after he left. Referring to the Browns' prior success as "five out of six years" is deceitful when that sixth year was the most recent year and the status of the team that Belichick inherited.
RE: Look  
chuckydee9 : 4/9/2014 4:22 pm : link
In comment 11612963 PaulBlakeTSU said:
Quote:
at the record and point differential of the Browns team the year before Belichick took over, and then look at the seame for the year after he left. Referring to the Browns' prior success as "five out of six years" is deceitful when that sixth year was the most recent year and the status of the team that Belichick inherited.


Well TC also took over a team that was 4-12 with 8 game losing streak and the second worst point differential the year before he got there.... so in similar situation TC was able to suceede while the great Belichick sucked it up... I won't regard the fact that just few years before TC got here the team was in the SB...

Pages: 1 2 <<Prev | Show All |
Back to the Corner