Belichick to UNC | Page 32 | Syracusefan.com
.

Belichick to UNC

bnoro said:
The one who won when there were 10 teams in the league and most of the guys wouldn't be big enough to play linebacker in today's standards?

Yeah I don't think he was a better coach.
Expand...
Then again, you thought Collins should have been the starting qb for the Orange ahead of Angeli. And you didn't like Dart to the Giants. And he looks pretty good to me for a rookie. I'll take your opinion under advisement. And the size of the players then might be the least relevant issue I think I have ever heard. How fast did pitchers throw back in the day. I guess Mantle and Williams sucked. And Basketball players were smaller so they must have sucked. The football players were big during their time.
 
bnoro said:
The one who won when there were 10 teams in the league and most of the guys wouldn't be big enough to play linebacker in today's standards?

Yeah I don't think he was a better coach.
Expand...
So, if steroids were permitted we'd have monstrous players, but would that make the coaches better?
 
elimunelson said:
U are crazy to consider Reid better. W all due respect. Andy has caught lightening w mahomes as well.

To discount the impact bill had on the giants and the jets really is disingenuous as well.

It’s a simple exercise really: in the salary cap era where it’s actually hard to sustain greatness who did it best? And who got the buy in from the best ever to be the biggest whipping boy/discounted salary to keep it going

I suspect 99.9% of owners would select belichick. Not this Michael Jackson end of life freak version but the guy who did thriller
Expand...

The guy who did it best was the guy who had an elite QB taking a discount contract so he could have better players around him. Since that was entirely luck on BB’s part (not some grand strategy like you want to pretend…) - it has to be factored in when comparing his legacy to other coaches. It gets a lot less simple when you take off the Belichick-tinted glasses.

He’s in the argument for best head coach ever - but it’s not a stone cold lock for him. His Browns tenure, lack of any real success minus Brady (he made the playoffs a couple time, BFD…he was sub-.500 without Tom) are points against him. I’d probably go with Belichick myself, but Lombardi’s record was amazing and he had the good sense to die before he could do something stupid like taking the job at UNC.

I will agree that anyone putting Andy Reid up for consideration had better be an irrational Chiefs fan - because otherwise a psychiatric evaluation may be warranted. There’s not a chance in the world Reid is in the argument for best coach ever.
 
Cusefan95 said:
The guy who did it best was the guy who had an elite QB taking a discount contract so he could have better players around him. Since that was entirely luck on BB’s part (not some grand strategy like you want to pretend…) - it has to be factored in when comparing his legacy to other coaches. It gets a lot less simple when you take off the Belichick-tinted glasses.

He’s in the argument for best head coach ever - but it’s not a stone cold lock for him. His Browns tenure, lack of any real success minus Brady (he made the playoffs a couple time, BFD…he was sub-.500 without Tom) are points against him. I’d probably go with Belichick myself, but Lombardi’s record was amazing and he had the good sense to die before he could do something stupid like taking the job at UNC.

I will agree that anyone putting Andy Reid up for consideration had better be an irrational Chiefs fan - because otherwise a psychiatric evaluation may be warranted. There’s not a chance in the world Reid is in the argument for best coach ever.
Expand...

To be fair, Reid is 2nd all time in conference CGs. I think he has to be up there.

13 - Belichick
12 - Reid
10 - Landry
6 - Shula
5 - Seifert


BTW the correct answer to the GOAT is Jim Lee Howell. Just look at his coaching tree.
 
dasher said:
Then again, you thought Collins should have been the starting qb for the Orange ahead of Angeli. And you didn't like Dart to the Giants. And he looks pretty good to me for a rookie. I'll take your opinion under advisement. And the size of the players then might be the least relevant issue I think I have ever heard. How fast did pitchers throw back in the day. I guess Mantle and Williams sucked. And Basketball players were smaller so they must have sucked. The football players were big during their time.
Expand...
Never said Collins should be starting. Ever. But it's an easy straw man, I'll give you that. Dart has 3 starts and only (barely) cracked 200 yards in one of them, which they lost to the Saints.

Was it not easier to win championships when there were less teams, no parity, no free agency, and no salary cap? Belichick navigated the salary cap masterfully, found great value in undrafted players, and built incredible rosters with nobodies and cast offs.
 
bnoro said:
Deflategate wasn't real, Spygate was exaggerated by John Tomase, and this has nothing to do with his NFL career. Fraud lol.

Must be a sad Buffalo fan after Drake Maye ate your lunch last week.
Expand...
Deflategate was manufactured
 
oldpinepoint said:
I personally think Andy Reid is a better coach but everything is debatable. BB was horrible with the Browns and caught lightning in the bottle with Brady. Andy has been very successful with multiple teams
Expand...

As a lifelong Browns fan, you couldn't be more incorrect by your "horrible" remark. Belichick took over a putrid Browns team in '91, after they went 3-13. By Belichick's 2nd season, he had the Browns at 7-7 before losing their last two games to the Houston Oilers and Steelers to finish at 7-9. Both the Oilers and Steelers were playoff teams that year, with the Steelers holding down the #1 seed.

In Belichick's 3rd season, the Browns were at 5-2, before the Kosar controversy contributed to a mid-season losing streak. The Browns lost its last game of the season against the Steelers, again, a playoff team. The Browns finished again at 7-9. Division foes Houston and Pittsburgh were strong playoff teams in these years.

In Belichick's 4th season, the Browns made the playoffs at 11-5 and won a playoff game...ultimately, losing to the dreaded Steelers.

In Belichick's 5th season, the Browns started 3-1 before all of the rumors began swirling about Modell moving the team to Baltimore. With all of the immense distraction and disarray in Cleveland, Lombardi himself would've failed that year too.

Many of the Cleveland media folks believed that had the Browns not of had the ground shattering events which took place in '95, Belichick had the Browns in a good place and good direction. Ozzie Newsome came on board for personnel decisions, etc. and many in Cleveland and its media believed that Belichick laid the groundwork and was a bit part of the ensuing success that the Raven's achieved in the years ahead.
 
bnoro said:
Never said Collins should be starting. Ever. But it's an easy straw man, I'll give you that. Dart has 3 starts and only (barely) cracked 200 yards in one of them, which they lost to the Saints.

Was it not easier to win championships when there were less teams, no parity, no free agency, and no salary cap? Belichick navigated the salary cap masterfully, found great value in undrafted players, and built incredible rosters with nobodies and cast offs.
Expand...
Pretty sure you did want Collins but whatever. And it was much easier to coach when there was no free agency and no cap. No doubt about that. But that doesn't mean someone wasn't a better coach than someone coaching today. Just that they have a harder job today. I don't remember any other top coaches sitting a important player in a championship game for some questionable reason either. I don't know if you have watched Dart, but one, his team, my team, won 2 of those games, And with the giants, that is saying something. If you don't think he has looked damn good, another thing we will have to disagree about. That doesn't mean he won't have learning curves up ahead. He will. Just like every rookie qb in that league does. But for the first time in a long time, I can look forward to watching Giant games. I still have a hard time understanding your point about players being smaller back in the day. I guess all the players from yesteryear were all second rate in your book.
 
Last edited:
orangecuse said:
As a lifelong Browns fan, you couldn't be more incorrect by your "horrible" remark. Belichick took over a putrid Browns team in '91, after they went 3-13. By Belichick's 2nd season, he had the Browns at 7-7 before losing their last two games to the Houston Oilers and Steelers to finish at 7-9. Both the Oilers and Steelers were playoff teams that year, with the Steelers holding down the #1 seed.

In Belichick's 3rd season, the Browns were at 5-2, before the Kosar controversy contributed to a mid-season losing streak. The Browns lost its last game of the season against the Steelers, again, a playoff team. The Browns finished again at 7-9. Division foes Houston and Pittsburgh were strong playoff teams in these years.

In Belichick's 4th season, the Browns made the playoffs at 11-5 and won a playoff game...ultimately, losing to the dreaded Steelers.

In Belichick's 5th season, the Browns started 3-1 before all of the rumors began swirling about Modell moving the team to Baltimore. With all of the immense distraction and disarray in Cleveland, Lombardi himself would've failed that year too.

Many of the Cleveland media folks believed that had the Browns not of had the ground shattering events which took place in '95, Belichick had the Browns in a good place and good direction. Ozzie Newsome came on board for personnel decisions, etc. and many in Cleveland and its media believed that Belichick laid the groundwork and was a bit part of the ensuing success that the Raven's achieved in the years ahead.
Expand...
6-10, 7-9, 7-9, 11-5 , 5-11 36-44 As BB himself would say, it is what it is.
 
“I am the deflator” is just how dudes talk when they are trying to lose weight! It’s a classic expression non-New Englanders would never understand. He was just trying to cut down on his clam chowdah consumption!
 
oldpinepoint said:
I personally think Andy Reid is a better coach but everything is debatable. BB was horrible with the Browns and caught lightning in the bottle with Brady. Andy has been very successful with multiple teams
Expand...
Agree. I definitely side with Reid because he was successful with multiple teams, eras, and QBs unlike BB. Belichick has ONE playoff win without Brady. Reid, without Mahomes, has won 11 playoff games, 4 conference titles, and a Super Bowl appearance.
 
Last edited:
Nicknack said:
Agree. I definitely side with Reid because he was successful with multiple teams, eras, and QBs unlike BB. Belichick has ONE playoff appearance and ZERO playoff wins without Brady. Reid, without Mahomes, has won 11 playoff games, 4 conference titles, and a Super Bowl appearance.
Expand...
Well, I saw BB win a playoff game against the Pats without Brady so that isn't true.
 
dasher said:
6-10, 7-9, 7-9, 11-5 , 5-11 36-44 As BB himself would say, it is what it is.
Expand...

Sure, from the simplistic viewpoint taken. However, simply looking at the numbers in the manner in which you chose (in a vacuum type) I don't think 36-44 is "horrible" as the comment in which I replied to was. Coaches weren't fired as quickly and routinely as they are nowadays, there was far more patience, etc. It, just as the college one, is a much different landscape today.
 
dasher said:
Pretty sure you did want Collins but whatever. And it was much easier to coach when there was no free agency and no cap. No doubt about that. But that doesn't mean someone wasn't a better coach than someone coaching today. Just that they have a harder job today. I don't remember any other top coaches sitting a important player in a championship game for some questionable reason either. I don't know if you have watched Dart, but one, his team, my team, won 2 of those games, And with the giants, that is saying something. If you don't think he has looked damn good, another thing we will have to disagree about. That doesn't mean he won't have learning curves up ahead. He will. Just like every rookie qb in that league does. But for the first time in a long time, I can look forward to watching Giant games. I still have a hard time understanding your point about players being smaller back in the day. I guess all the players from yesteryear were all second rate in your book.
Expand...

I guess it's time to reevaluate Jim Brown's standing.
 
orangecuse said:
Sure, from the simplistic viewpoint taken. However, simply looking at the numbers in the manner in which you chose (in a vacuum type) I don't think 36-44 is "horrible" as the comment in which I replied to was. Coaches weren't fired as quickly and routinely as they are nowadays, there was far more patience, etc. It, just as the college one, is a much different landscape today.
Expand...
Your record is the most important thing when talking about a coach. So it is 100% not a simplistic view. It is what gets you either fired or rehired. I didn't say it was horrible. I didn't say you said it was horrible. I will just say it isn't a good record. In Brady's last year with the Pats, I think they were 12-4. In the next 4 years without Brady, 3 of them losing years, BB was 29-38. I don't think that is a coincidence. Oh. and Brady went to TB where they were 7-9 the year before. They won the Super Bowl the next year. It isn't a negative to say that with the greatest QB of our time, he had a fantastic run. Nor is it incorrect to say that without that great qb, he wasn't very successful.
 
Last edited:
John Madden has the greatest winning % in the SB era.

George Allen is 3rd, and he did it with multiple teams. He was a bride's maid so often. Even in the USFL.
 
dasher said:
Your record is the most important thing when talking about a coach. So it is 100% not a simplistic view. It is what gets you either fired or rehired. I didn't say it was horrible. I didn't say you said it was horrible. I will just say it isn't a good record.
Expand...

I didn't say you said it was horrible. Again, I was replying to that poster's remark that Belichick's record was "horrible" in Cleveland. Obviously, sub .500 isn't 'good' as .500 is average.

Undoubtedly, one's record is as important as any criteria. Belichick's tenure in Cleveland was his first gig as a head coach in the NFL. If one chooses to ignore all of the noise and circumstances that played a signifcant part in Belichick's overall record there, so be it. Again, IMO, it's a very simplistic view taking that particular/sole approach, especially from a comprehensive standpoint.
 
Last edited:
orangecuse said:
I didn't say you said it was horrible. Again, I was replying to that poster's remark that Belichick's record was "horrible" in Cleveland. Obviously, sub .500 isn't 'good' as .500 is average.

Undoubtedly, one's record is as important as any criteria. Belichick's tenure in Cleveland was his first gig as a head coach in the NFL. If one chooses to ignore all of the noise and circumstances that played a signifcant part in Belichick's overall record there, so be it. Again, IMO, it's a very simplistic view taking that particular approach, especially from a comprehensive standpoint.
Expand...
IMO, and I was just talking to a friend about this very subject, your record in never a simplistic view of a coaches record. It is on what basis they are either rehired or fired. Full stop.
 
dasher said:
IMO, and I was just talking to a friend about this very subject, your record in never a simplistic view of a coaches record. It is on what basis they are either rehired or fired. Full stop.
Expand...



Full stop. 😉
 

Forum statistics

Threads
174,576
Messages
5,169,716
Members
6,140
Latest member
Scooter#23

Online statistics

Members online
161
Guests online
2,100
Total visitors
2,261
Totals may include hidden visitors.


...
Top Bottom