@stevek said:
Now we can all look forward to the Eagles winning the Super Bowl next season, and many other seasons, and then having a discussion around ten years from now about which dynasty was greater: Pederson/Foles or Belichick/Brady?
@Skin2 said:
Model is the reason Belichik was awful as the Browns coach?
Just two years prior to Belichik's arrival in Cleveland, Bud Carson took Cleveland to the Conference championship going 9-6.
The year prior to that Schottenheimer took them to the playoffs going 10-6.
They didn't seem to have a problem.
If Belichik was such a genius he would not have gone 36-44, and then gone 5-13 with New England before Brady was starter.
Surely a genius could have at least gotten to .500.
The year Brady got hurt and the Patriots went 10-5 without him, that 10-5 record would rank as the 14th best Belichik/Brady record in their tenure.
So in total, Belichik's coaching record without Brady in NE was 18-19 and no playoff appearances. In Cleveland it was 36-44 and no playoff appearances.
Brady's career QB record was 207-60.
Of those three records; 18-19, 36-44, and 207-60...which two are most similar and what do they have in common??
I've never stated that Brady wasn't a part of Belichick's success. Of course he was. The best general isn't going to win a battle without properly trained and motivated troops.
i'm just saying that I think that Belichick was much more instrumental in Brady's success, than Brady was in Belichick's success. I have formed that viewpoint from having watched a good number of press conferences and interviews with Belichick on Youtube. I've never heard such genius thoughts and ideas coming from any other football coach. Nobody even really close. That genius mentality certainly rubbed off on Brady and he absorbed it like a sponge.
It's actually debatable that a QB such as Marino or Elway may not have had the same success as a Brady under Belichick, because of reasons they likely weren't nearly as coachable as Brady. But perhaps a
QB who had more talent than Brady, but was just as coachable, would have had more success with Belichick than Brady. In any event we shall never know for sure.
Actually, we do know for sure. We got to see seven years of Belichik as a head coach without Tom Brady and Belichik failed....couldn't even get to .500 with Clev OR NE without Brady.
Brady makes several plays with his physical ability that has nothing to do with the coach. Brady also makes several decisions every play without any help from the head coach.
A coach can only do so much. A player HAS to do it..
Again, a genius would not be abysmal for seven years as a head coach before Brady with both Cle and NE. Sorry man....the evidence points completely away from what you are saying....
But blame Modell in Cleveland, lol....still didn't stop two coaches previous to Belichik from going to the playoffs, and one nearly to the SUper Bowl two years prior to Belichik. Can't have it both ways.
@stevek said:
Now we can all look forward to the Eagles winning the Super Bowl next season, and many other seasons, and then having a discussion around ten years from now about which dynasty was greater: Pederson/Wentz or Belichick/Brady?
In your wildest dreams Steve ! LOL ROTFLMAO...….10 years from now you will still be on 1 SB And Coach Bill gave you that one by not playing Butler.
@stevek said:
Now we can all look forward to the Eagles winning the Super Bowl next season, and many other seasons, and then having a discussion around ten years from now about which dynasty was greater: Pederson/Wentz or Belichick/Brady?
In your wildest dreams Steve ! LOL ROTFLMAO...….10 years from now you will still be on 1 SB And Coach Bill gave you that one by not playing Butler.
@stevek said:
Now we can all look forward to the Eagles winning the Super Bowl next season, and many other seasons, and then having a discussion around ten years from now about which dynasty was greater: Pederson/Wentz or Belichick/Brady?
In your wildest dreams Steve ! LOL ROTFLMAO...….10 years from now you will still be on 1 SB And Coach Bill gave you that one by not playing Butler.
if we gauge the Greatest Head Coaches by number of Wins or Championships, than Bill Belichick should be considered. I don't think that's a good yardstick, though. perhaps a better one is innovation which changed the game. by that standard I would have a different list:
Paul Brown --- film study, messenger guards.
Tom Landry --- multiple shifts and motion to confuse the defense.
Bill Walsh --- the so-called "West Coast" offense.
Sam Wyche --- no huddle, so innovative that the NFL changed the rules for a Super Bowl.
Bill Belichick --- perhaps the first and still the best to exploit the "Review" system when it started.
this isn't to take anything away from other highly successful HC's like Vince Lombardi, Chuck Noll and others, but they didn't fundamentally change the way the game is played. all the things I listed were first done by the HC that instituted them. the other Great HC's are there(to their own credit they are fabulous Coaches) primarily because they had the best group of players and the most talented players. they never re-invented the wheel.
a saying I like --- Luck is a word we use to describe what happens when preparation meets opportunity.
and Dimeman, the reason why the Egg came first is simple: Evolution. Chickens are Birds and Birds evolved from Dinosaurs. almost all Dinoasaurs/Reptiles lay Eggs, so there were Eggs for many millions of years before Birds evolved to lay them. additionally, Birds were around a long time before Chickens Evolved to lay an Egg.
I know you won't agree, but that's the scientific answer to the question. hopefully, you aren't one of those stubborn people that thinks the world is only 5,000 years old.
@Skin2 said:
Model is the reason Belichik was awful as the Browns coach?
Just two years prior to Belichik's arrival in Cleveland, Bud Carson took Cleveland to the Conference championship going 9-6.
The year prior to that Schottenheimer took them to the playoffs going 10-6.
They didn't seem to have a problem.
If Belichik was such a genius he would not have gone 36-44, and then gone 5-13 with New England before Brady was starter.
Surely a genius could have at least gotten to .500.
The year Brady got hurt and the Patriots went 10-5 without him, that 10-5 record would rank as the 14th best Belichik/Brady record in their tenure.
So in total, Belichik's coaching record without Brady in NE was 18-19 and no playoff appearances. In Cleveland it was 36-44 and no playoff appearances.
Brady's career QB record was 207-60.
Of those three records; 18-19, 36-44, and 207-60...which two are most similar and what do they have in common??
I've never stated that Brady wasn't a part of Belichick's success. Of course he was. The best general isn't going to win a battle without properly trained and motivated troops.
i'm just saying that I think that Belichick was much more instrumental in Brady's success, than Brady was in Belichick's success. I have formed that viewpoint from having watched a good number of press conferences and interviews with Belichick on Youtube. I've never heard such genius thoughts and ideas coming from any other football coach. Nobody even really close. That genius mentality certainly rubbed off on Brady and he absorbed it like a sponge.
It's actually debatable that a QB such as Marino or Elway may not have had the same success as a Brady under Belichick, because of reasons they likely weren't nearly as coachable as Brady. But perhaps a
QB who had more talent than Brady, but was just as coachable, would have had more success with Belichick than Brady. In any event we shall never know for sure.
Actually, we do know for sure. We got to see seven years of Belichik as a head coach without Tom Brady and Belichik failed....couldn't even get to .500 with Clev OR NE without Brady.
Brady makes several plays with his physical ability that has nothing to do with the coach. Brady also makes several decisions every play without any help from the head coach.
A coach can only do so much. A player HAS to do it..
Again, a genius would not be abysmal for seven years as a head coach before Brady with both Cle and NE. Sorry man....the evidence points completely away from what you are saying....
But blame Modell in Cleveland, lol....still didn't stop two coaches previous to Belichik from going to the playoffs, and one nearly to the SUper Bowl two years prior to Belichik. Can't have it both ways.
Yea, and Einstein was once a lowly patent office clerk, right?
If someone is knowledgeable about football, it's not hard to spot genius when ya see it, and Belichick beyond any reasonable doubt is precisely that.
My viewpoint on Belichick the genius was also formed because Tom Brady has previously stated a number of times what I've said regarding his relationship with Bill Belichick.
I'll take Brady's word for it that he couldn't have become a great QB without Bill Belichick, over your Wikipedia opinion any time.
@stevek said:
Now we can all look forward to the Eagles winning the Super Bowl next season, and many other seasons, and then having a discussion around ten years from now about which dynasty was greater: Pederson/Wentz or Belichick/Brady?
In your wildest dreams Steve ! LOL ROTFLMAO...….10 years from now you will still be on 1 SB And Coach Bill gave you that one by not playing Butler.
Better not make me mad Jon, or i'll start outbidding ya on those beautiful Washington quarters on Ebay just for spite.
@Skin2 said:
Model is the reason Belichik was awful as the Browns coach?
Just two years prior to Belichik's arrival in Cleveland, Bud Carson took Cleveland to the Conference championship going 9-6.
The year prior to that Schottenheimer took them to the playoffs going 10-6.
They didn't seem to have a problem.
If Belichik was such a genius he would not have gone 36-44, and then gone 5-13 with New England before Brady was starter.
Surely a genius could have at least gotten to .500.
The year Brady got hurt and the Patriots went 10-5 without him, that 10-5 record would rank as the 14th best Belichik/Brady record in their tenure.
So in total, Belichik's coaching record without Brady in NE was 18-19 and no playoff appearances. In Cleveland it was 36-44 and no playoff appearances.
Brady's career QB record was 207-60.
Of those three records; 18-19, 36-44, and 207-60...which two are most similar and what do they have in common??
I've never stated that Brady wasn't a part of Belichick's success. Of course he was. The best general isn't going to win a battle without properly trained and motivated troops.
i'm just saying that I think that Belichick was much more instrumental in Brady's success, than Brady was in Belichick's success. I have formed that viewpoint from having watched a good number of press conferences and interviews with Belichick on Youtube. I've never heard such genius thoughts and ideas coming from any other football coach. Nobody even really close. That genius mentality certainly rubbed off on Brady and he absorbed it like a sponge.
It's actually debatable that a QB such as Marino or Elway may not have had the same success as a Brady under Belichick, because of reasons they likely weren't nearly as coachable as Brady. But perhaps a
QB who had more talent than Brady, but was just as coachable, would have had more success with Belichick than Brady. In any event we shall never know for sure.
Actually, we do know for sure. We got to see seven years of Belichik as a head coach without Tom Brady and Belichik failed....couldn't even get to .500 with Clev OR NE without Brady.
Brady makes several plays with his physical ability that has nothing to do with the coach. Brady also makes several decisions every play without any help from the head coach.
A coach can only do so much. A player HAS to do it..
Again, a genius would not be abysmal for seven years as a head coach before Brady with both Cle and NE. Sorry man....the evidence points completely away from what you are saying....
But blame Modell in Cleveland, lol....still didn't stop two coaches previous to Belichik from going to the playoffs, and one nearly to the SUper Bowl two years prior to Belichik. Can't have it both ways.
Yea, and Einstein was once a lowly patent office clerk, right?
If someone is knowledgeable about football, it's not hard to spot genius when ya see it, and Belichick beyond any reasonable doubt is precisely that.
My viewpoint on Belichick the genius was also formed because Tom Brady has previously stated a number of times what I've said regarding his relationship with Bill Belichick.
I'll take Brady's word for it that he couldn't have become a great QB without Bill Belichick, over your Wikipedia opinion any time.
Question still stands:
Of those three records; 18-19, 36-44, and 207-60...which two are most similar and what do they have in common??
Genius would be a bit better than .500...especially since two years prior a different coach took that team one game away from the Super Bowl .
Tom is a team player, I would expect nothing less from him than to give credit elsewhere. However, the FACTS speak volumes.
The Einstein analogy is stupid, because Belichik was not a lowly low level Pop Warner coach...HE WAS AN NFL HEAD COACH FOR SIX years, or 117 games, to show his genius. AND HE FAILED.
18-19, 36-44, and 207-60 show a lot more than anyone's opinion.
@stevek said:
Now we can all look forward to the Eagles winning the Super Bowl next season, and many other seasons, and then having a discussion around ten years from now about which dynasty was greater: Pederson/Wentz or Belichick/Brady?
In your wildest dreams Steve ! LOL ROTFLMAO...….10 years from now you will still be on 1 SB And Coach Bill gave you that one by not playing Butler.
Better not make me mad Jon, or i'll start outbidding ya on those beautiful Washington quarters on Ebay just for spite.
@stevek said:
Now we can all look forward to the Eagles winning the Super Bowl next season, and many other seasons, and then having a discussion around ten years from now about which dynasty was greater: Pederson/Wentz or Belichick/Brady?
In your wildest dreams Steve ! LOL ROTFLMAO...….10 years from now you will still be on 1 SB And Coach Bill gave you that one by not playing Butler.
Better not make me mad Jon, or i'll start outbidding ya on those beautiful Washington quarters on Ebay just for spite.
I just like messing with ya Steve.
That's half the fun of Sports Talk...and i'm not even sure what the other half is?
@Skin2 said:
Model is the reason Belichik was awful as the Browns coach?
Just two years prior to Belichik's arrival in Cleveland, Bud Carson took Cleveland to the Conference championship going 9-6.
The year prior to that Schottenheimer took them to the playoffs going 10-6.
They didn't seem to have a problem.
If Belichik was such a genius he would not have gone 36-44, and then gone 5-13 with New England before Brady was starter.
Surely a genius could have at least gotten to .500.
The year Brady got hurt and the Patriots went 10-5 without him, that 10-5 record would rank as the 14th best Belichik/Brady record in their tenure.
So in total, Belichik's coaching record without Brady in NE was 18-19 and no playoff appearances. In Cleveland it was 36-44 and no playoff appearances.
Brady's career QB record was 207-60.
Of those three records; 18-19, 36-44, and 207-60...which two are most similar and what do they have in common??
I've never stated that Brady wasn't a part of Belichick's success. Of course he was. The best general isn't going to win a battle without properly trained and motivated troops.
i'm just saying that I think that Belichick was much more instrumental in Brady's success, than Brady was in Belichick's success. I have formed that viewpoint from having watched a good number of press conferences and interviews with Belichick on Youtube. I've never heard such genius thoughts and ideas coming from any other football coach. Nobody even really close. That genius mentality certainly rubbed off on Brady and he absorbed it like a sponge.
It's actually debatable that a QB such as Marino or Elway may not have had the same success as a Brady under Belichick, because of reasons they likely weren't nearly as coachable as Brady. But perhaps a
QB who had more talent than Brady, but was just as coachable, would have had more success with Belichick than Brady. In any event we shall never know for sure.
Actually, we do know for sure. We got to see seven years of Belichik as a head coach without Tom Brady and Belichik failed....couldn't even get to .500 with Clev OR NE without Brady.
Brady makes several plays with his physical ability that has nothing to do with the coach. Brady also makes several decisions every play without any help from the head coach.
A coach can only do so much. A player HAS to do it..
Again, a genius would not be abysmal for seven years as a head coach before Brady with both Cle and NE. Sorry man....the evidence points completely away from what you are saying....
But blame Modell in Cleveland, lol....still didn't stop two coaches previous to Belichik from going to the playoffs, and one nearly to the SUper Bowl two years prior to Belichik. Can't have it both ways.
Yea, and Einstein was once a lowly patent office clerk, right?
If someone is knowledgeable about football, it's not hard to spot genius when ya see it, and Belichick beyond any reasonable doubt is precisely that.
My viewpoint on Belichick the genius was also formed because Tom Brady has previously stated a number of times what I've said regarding his relationship with Bill Belichick.
I'll take Brady's word for it that he couldn't have become a great QB without Bill Belichick, over your Wikipedia opinion any time.
Question still stands:
Of those three records; 18-19, 36-44, and 207-60...which two are most similar and what do they have in common??
Genius would be a bit better than .500...especially since two years prior a different coach took that team one game away from the Super Bowl .
Tom is a team player, I would expect nothing less from him than to give credit elsewhere. However, the FACTS speak volumes.
The Einstein analogy is stupid, because Belichik was not a lowly low level Pop Warner coach...HE WAS AN NFL HEAD COACH FOR SIX years, or 117 games, to show his genius. AND HE FAILED.
18-19, 36-44, and 207-60 show a lot more than anyone's opinion.
Yea, and Edison failed at thousands of attempts before he invented the light bulb. He was such a miserable failure.
Tom Brady for his great success in football, gave the credit to Belichick because it's the obvious truth. Anyone who watches the videos of Brady saying that, knows that he is being completely sincere. I believe him.
If you think that Tom Brady is being disingenuous about Bill Belichick, well then that's your prerogative.
Of those three records; 18-19, 36-44, and 207-60...which two are most similar and what do they have in common??
please explain where you are getting the 18-19 record. to my knowledge Coach Belichick was HC for Cleveland(36-44) and currently with New England.
when Belichick came to Cleveland for his first job as HC I don't think he was well received by the fans and media, something he struggled with. he was a work-aholic and pretty much lived at the training facility. my feeling is that he met that resistance as a challenge and worked hard to prove his coaching ability and coaching philosophy were legitimate. my recollection is that he was criticized mostly because he had no experience as a player.
the media in Cleveland can be very negative and often hurtful for the Coaches, they make it harder to succeed here than it should be.
my take on Bill Belichick is that he is smart and understood his shortcomings when he served as HC for the Browns. he did what was prudent --- swallowed his pride and went to his mentor for help. he doubled down and learned how to deale with the media better as well as learning more about Coaching from Bill Parcells.
@keets said:
if we gauge the Greatest Head Coaches by number of Wins or Championships, than Bill Belichick should be considered. I don't think that's a good yardstick, though. perhaps a better one is innovation which changed the game. by that standard I would have a different list:
Paul Brown --- film study, messenger guards.
Tom Landry --- multiple shifts and motion to confuse the defense.
Bill Walsh --- the so-called "West Coast" offense.
Sam Wyche --- no huddle, so innovative that the NFL changed the rules for a Super Bowl.
Bill Belichick --- perhaps the first and still the best to exploit the "Review" system when it started.
this isn't to take anything away from other highly successful HC's like Vince Lombardi, Chuck Noll and others, but they didn't fundamentally change the way the game is played. all the things I listed were first done by the HC that instituted them. the other Great HC's are there(to their own credit they are fabulous Coaches) primarily because they had the best group of players and the most talented players. they never re-invented the wheel.
a saying I like --- Luck is a word we use to describe what happens when preparation meets opportunity.
and Dimeman, the reason why the Egg came first is simple: Evolution. Chickens are Birds and Birds evolved from Dinosaurs. almost all Dinoasaurs/Reptiles lay Eggs, so there were Eggs for many millions of years before Birds evolved to lay them. additionally, Birds were around a long time before Chickens Evolved to lay an Egg.
I know you won't agree, but that's the scientific answer to the question. hopefully, you aren't one of those stubborn people that thinks the world is only 5,000 years old.
<<< and Dimeman, the reason why the Egg came first is simple: Evolution. Chickens are Birds and Birds evolved from Dinosaurs. almost all Dinoasaurs/Reptiles lay Eggs, so there were Eggs for many millions of years before Birds evolved to lay them. additionally, Birds were around a long time before Chickens Evolved to lay an Egg. >>>
You are exactly right. The egg came first.
To expound on it a bit, it took two animals who were technically non-chickens, to mate and then the female laid the egg in which the shift in the DNA occurred, as always happens either slightly or abruptly in every successful reproduction between two animals. That particular DNA shift resulted in a chicken being born. The other "birds" liked what they saw and wanted to mate with that new bird chicken, hence more chickens were born, and that new animal became a successful species.
Now some of you on here who can't ever get a girlfriend, at the next office party you can display your new found knowledge on this subject, impress the girls with your intelligence, and they'll be swarming all over you.
@keets said:
if we gauge the Greatest Head Coaches by number of Wins or Championships, than Bill Belichick should be considered. I don't think that's a good yardstick, though. perhaps a better one is innovation which changed the game. by that standard I would have a different list:
Paul Brown --- film study, messenger guards.
Tom Landry --- multiple shifts and motion to confuse the defense.
Bill Walsh --- the so-called "West Coast" offense.
Sam Wyche --- no huddle, so innovative that the NFL changed the rules for a Super Bowl.
Bill Belichick --- perhaps the first and still the best to exploit the "Review" system when it started.
this isn't to take anything away from other highly successful HC's like Vince Lombardi, Chuck Noll and others, but they didn't fundamentally change the way the game is played. all the things I listed were first done by the HC that instituted them. the other Great HC's are there(to their own credit they are fabulous Coaches) primarily because they had the best group of players and the most talented players. they never re-invented the wheel.
a saying I like --- Luck is a word we use to describe what happens when preparation meets opportunity.
and Dimeman, the reason why the Egg came first is simple: Evolution. Chickens are Birds and Birds evolved from Dinosaurs. almost all Dinoasaurs/Reptiles lay Eggs, so there were Eggs for many millions of years before Birds evolved to lay them. additionally, Birds were around a long time before Chickens Evolved to lay an Egg.
I know you won't agree, but that's the scientific answer to the question. hopefully, you aren't one of those stubborn people that thinks the world is only 5,000 years old.
<<< and Dimeman, the reason why the Egg came first is simple: Evolution. Chickens are Birds and Birds evolved from Dinosaurs. almost all Dinoasaurs/Reptiles lay Eggs, so there were Eggs for many millions of years before Birds evolved to lay them. additionally, Birds were around a long time before Chickens Evolved to lay an Egg. >>>
You are exactly right. The egg came first.
To expound on it a bit, it took two animals who were technically non-chickens, to mate and then the female laid the egg in which the shift in the DNA occurred, as always happens either slightly or abruptly in every successful reproduction between two animals. That particular DNA shift resulted in a chicken being born. The other "birds" liked what they saw and wanted to mate with that new bird chicken, hence more chickens were born, and that new animal became a successful species.
Now some of you on here who can't ever get a girlfriend, at the next office party you can display your new found knowledge on this subject, impress the girls with your intelligence, and they'll be swarming all over you.
I believe in Creation so we will never agree on the Chicken or the Egg controversy. I won't try to covert you if you don't try to convert me.
Now some of you on here who can't ever get a girlfriend, at the next office party you can display your new found knowledge on this subject, impress the girls with your intelligence, and they'll be swarming all over you.
i can see it now. dime is at a party and the strawberry daiquiris are flowing. he approaches some hottie and starts talking about the chicken & the egg. then it segues into tony romo vs quincy carter. next thing you know, she's working him over.
Now some of you on here who can't ever get a girlfriend, at the next office party you can display your new found knowledge on this subject, impress the girls with your intelligence, and they'll be swarming all over you.
i can see it now. dime is at a party and the strawberry daiquiris are flowing. he approaches some hottie and starts talking about the chicken & the egg. then it segues into tony romo vs quincy carter. next thing you know, she's working him over.
What kind of "working him over" are you talking about?!
@keets said: Of those three records; 18-19, 36-44, and 207-60...which two are most similar and what do they have in common??
please explain where you are getting the 18-19 record. to my knowledge Coach Belichick was HC for Cleveland(36-44) and currently with New England.
when Belichick came to Cleveland for his first job as HC I don't think he was well received by the fans and media, something he struggled with. he was a work-aholic and pretty much lived at the training facility. my feeling is that he met that resistance as a challenge and worked hard to prove his coaching ability and coaching philosophy were legitimate. my recollection is that he was criticized mostly because he had no experience as a player.
the media in Cleveland can be very negative and often hurtful for the Coaches, they make it harder to succeed here than it should be.
my take on Bill Belichick is that he is smart and understood his shortcomings when he served as HC for the Browns. he did what was prudent --- swallowed his pride and went to his mentor for help. he doubled down and learned how to deale with the media better as well as learning more about Coaching from Bill Parcells.
it paid off and we are witness to that.
Belichik was 5-13 as New Englands head coach before Brady became the starter. They were 5-11 the first year year, and then the next season started 0-2...then Brady took over and the rest is history. They had Bledsoe as their QB, not too bad at all, and they were bad. Some coincidence that the moment Brady took over that they started wining and continuing to win.
Add that to the fact that Belichik was awful as a head coach with the Browns going 36-44...you have enough evidence to show that Belichik was an ordinary HEad Coach without Tom Brady.
As for the dumb Thomas Edison comparison, I guess the missing component in ALL of Belichik's many failures as Had Coach, was Tom Brady, lol.
Brady makes the plays. Coaches can only do so much. IN Belichik's case, he could not do much at all before Brady.
And I don't think Brady is being isincere with his remarks about Belichik's. It is a team game and he knows that everyone helps, even the practice squad....but those comments do nothing to refute the above facts.
You guys are all wrong. It requires both . The truth is bill wasn't great without Brady but having Brady allowed him the space to get better at coaching. Having an owner that doesn't flip everything on its head every other year is huge. Bill having one job all these years and a solid program equals momentum . This is a wagon now that is rolling downhill at 90 miles an hour with no brakes. It can hit bumps along the way but its not stopping. You can now swap out individual pieces and keep rolling. Bledsoe was good enough to win a ring too , he was just too early in the program. In 96 we had the coach and QB but the ownership was still in its infancy. Plus the packers were solid that year. In 96 the Pats were the LA rams of 2018.
Pittsburgh tries to do the same they built a wagon for cowher and this current idiot but the two coaches were too dumb and even still they managed to win 2 rings. Ben is good enough to win more than 2 rings .
It is ruinous to keep changing coaches every few years . Look at Cincinnati they tried to stay the course but the coach they picked was a shade too dumb also. Even though he is ginger , Dalton is good enough in a solid program to win a ring or two.
What was the record of New England QB's that played behind Brady and started when he was injured or suspended? Seems that the team did exceptionally well in Tom's absence.
@keets said: Of those three records; 18-19, 36-44, and 207-60...which two are most similar and what do they have in common??
please explain where you are getting the 18-19 record. to my knowledge Coach Belichick was HC for Cleveland(36-44) and currently with New England.
when Belichick came to Cleveland for his first job as HC I don't think he was well received by the fans and media, something he struggled with. he was a work-aholic and pretty much lived at the training facility. my feeling is that he met that resistance as a challenge and worked hard to prove his coaching ability and coaching philosophy were legitimate. my recollection is that he was criticized mostly because he had no experience as a player.
the media in Cleveland can be very negative and often hurtful for the Coaches, they make it harder to succeed here than it should be.
my take on Bill Belichick is that he is smart and understood his shortcomings when he served as HC for the Browns. he did what was prudent --- swallowed his pride and went to his mentor for help. he doubled down and learned how to deale with the media better as well as learning more about Coaching from Bill Parcells.
it paid off and we are witness to that.
Belichik was 5-13 as New Englands head coach before Brady became the starter. They were 5-11 the first year year, and then the next season started 0-2...then Brady took over and the rest is history. They had Bledsoe as their QB, not too bad at all, and they were bad. Some coincidence that the moment Brady took over that they started wining and continuing to win.
Add that to the fact that Belichik was awful as a head coach with the Browns going 36-44...you have enough evidence to show that Belichik was an ordinary HEad Coach without Tom Brady.
As for the dumb Thomas Edison comparison, I guess the missing component in ALL of Belichik's many failures as Had Coach, was Tom Brady, lol.
Brady makes the plays. Coaches can only do so much. IN Belichik's case, he could not do much at all before Brady.
And I don't think Brady is being isincere with his remarks about Belichik's. It is a team game and he knows that everyone helps, even the practice squad....but those comments do nothing to refute the above facts.
We get your point...Edison was dumb before he invented the light bulb, Einstein was dumb before he came up with E=MC2, and Belichick was dumb before he met Tom Brady. 🤣 🤣 🤣
@Coinstartled said:
What was the record of New England QB's that played behind Brady and started when he was injured or suspended? Seems that the team did exceptionally well in Tom's absence.
@Coinstartled said:
What was the record of New England QB's that played behind Brady and started when he was injured or suspended? Seems that the team did exceptionally well in Tom's absence.
@Coinstartled said:
What was the record of New England QB's that played behind Brady and started when he was injured or suspended? Seems that the team did exceptionally well in Tom's absence.
Exceptionally well? No playoffs the year Brady tore his knee up. They won a couple of games with Garoppolo and Brissett but Brady was only out 4 games from that witch-hunt so not sure where you are coming up with “Exceptionally well”
Cassell steps in and goes 10-5. Remarkable performance for a team with the GOAT QB on the sideline. As a contrast, think Indianapolis Colts with Peyton Manning out.
@Coinstartled said:
Cassell steps in and goes 10-5. Remarkable performance for a team with the GOAT QB on the sideline. As a contrast, think Indianapolis Colts with Peyton Manning out.
Right but they actually had one of the better offenses put together at that time. That team was a holdover from going 16-0 the season before
refresh our memory , did they win the superbowl with cassell?
Well no. Cassell was no better than a journeyman quarterback. The brilliant Belichick system permitted him to step in and have a career season. Also allowed him to sign a contact with too many zeroes that set him for life.
refresh our memory , did they win the superbowl with cassell?
Well no. Cassell was no better than a journeyman quarterback. The brilliant Belichick system permitted him to step in and have a career season. Also allowed him to sign a contact with too many zeroes that set him for life.
You need all three to build a dynasty. QB gets hurt you put in a scrub and can finish above 500 but not win. If you had a slightly better scrub like say , Aron rogers , they would have won probably. Bill would then trade rogers after the win .
I believe in Creation so we will never agree on the Chicken or the Egg controversy. I won't try to covert you if you don't try to convert me
I believe in Creation, too, but I get confused as to what that has to do with any notion of Evolution. the fascinating thing for me is that if you read "Science" with an open mind it tends to explain why God has to exist and why things are as old as Scientific Examination explains them to be. the 5,000 year Universe is ridiculous.
@keets said: I believe in Creation so we will never agree on the Chicken or the Egg controversy. I won't try to covert you if you don't try to convert me
I believe in Creation, too, but I get confused as to what that has to do with any notion of Evolution. the fascinating thing for me is that if you read "Science" with an open mind it tends to explain why God has to exist and why things are as old as Scientific Examination explains them to be. the 5,000 year Universe is ridiculous.
I agree. But God created the Chicken and the chicken laid eggs.
@keets said: I believe in Creation so we will never agree on the Chicken or the Egg controversy. I won't try to covert you if you don't try to convert me
I believe in Creation, too, but I get confused as to what that has to do with any notion of Evolution. the fascinating thing for me is that if you read "Science" with an open mind it tends to explain why God has to exist and why things are as old as Scientific Examination explains them to be. the 5,000 year Universe is ridiculous.
I agree. But God created the Chicken and the chicken laid eggs.
@keets said: I believe in Creation so we will never agree on the Chicken or the Egg controversy. I won't try to covert you if you don't try to convert me
I believe in Creation, too, but I get confused as to what that has to do with any notion of Evolution. the fascinating thing for me is that if you read "Science" with an open mind it tends to explain why God has to exist and why things are as old as Scientific Examination explains them to be. the 5,000 year Universe is ridiculous.
I agree. But God created the Chicken and the chicken laid eggs.
So then who made the fossil record?
I don't know enough about that stuff to even talk with you on it.
@keets said: I believe in Creation so we will never agree on the Chicken or the Egg controversy. I won't try to covert you if you don't try to convert me
I believe in Creation, too, but I get confused as to what that has to do with any notion of Evolution. the fascinating thing for me is that if you read "Science" with an open mind it tends to explain why God has to exist and why things are as old as Scientific Examination explains them to be. the 5,000 year Universe is ridiculous.
What has always puzzled me about creationists, and no disrespect intended at all, but seeing how human beings have manipulated wolves over the past 10,000 years into all sorts of shapes and sizes to make them into our doggy pets, it's quite easy to see evolution in action.
Creationists may say that is true about dogs which it obviously is...but they'll say a dog is still a dog, no matter what it looks like. That is true as well. However at some point in time it's quite logical to see how we will manipulate the dogs so much that a separate species will be created which cannot breed successfully with other dogs. A period of 10,000 years is not a very long period of time when it comes to evolution of an animal. It's no stretch of the imagination to envision 10 or 20 or whatever thousands of years from now that we will have created dozens of new species of dogs.
Charles Darwin, another stone cold genius whose theory of evolution is now widely known to be incontrovertible fact.
@keets said: I believe in Creation so we will never agree on the Chicken or the Egg controversy. I won't try to covert you if you don't try to convert me
I believe in Creation, too, but I get confused as to what that has to do with any notion of Evolution. the fascinating thing for me is that if you read "Science" with an open mind it tends to explain why God has to exist and why things are as old as Scientific Examination explains them to be. the 5,000 year Universe is ridiculous.
I agree. But God created the Chicken and the chicken laid eggs.
So then who made the fossil record?
I don't know enough about that stuff to even talk with you on it.
No problem at all Jon. I respect your point of view, and this will be my final post on the subject.
Back to sports talk for me...as I hopefully watch the Phillies and Eagles evolve into perennial championship teams.
@keets said: I believe in Creation so we will never agree on the Chicken or the Egg controversy. I won't try to covert you if you don't try to convert me
I believe in Creation, too, but I get confused as to what that has to do with any notion of Evolution. the fascinating thing for me is that if you read "Science" with an open mind it tends to explain why God has to exist and why things are as old as Scientific Examination explains them to be. the 5,000 year Universe is ridiculous.
I agree. But God created the Chicken and the chicken laid eggs.
So then who made the fossil record?
you see that bum in the superbowl? Can't believe he is still kicking around the league
Comments
Fixed it for ya 😉😂🍻
Actually, we do know for sure. We got to see seven years of Belichik as a head coach without Tom Brady and Belichik failed....couldn't even get to .500 with Clev OR NE without Brady.
Brady makes several plays with his physical ability that has nothing to do with the coach. Brady also makes several decisions every play without any help from the head coach.
A coach can only do so much. A player HAS to do it..
Again, a genius would not be abysmal for seven years as a head coach before Brady with both Cle and NE. Sorry man....the evidence points completely away from what you are saying....
But blame Modell in Cleveland, lol....still didn't stop two coaches previous to Belichik from going to the playoffs, and one nearly to the SUper Bowl two years prior to Belichik. Can't have it both ways.
Question still stands:
Of those three records; 18-19, 36-44, and 207-60...which two are most similar and what do they have in common??
In your wildest dreams Steve ! LOL ROTFLMAO...….10 years from now you will still be on 1 SB
And Coach Bill gave you that one by not playing Butler.
that explains his love for Billachyk
if we gauge the Greatest Head Coaches by number of Wins or Championships, than Bill Belichick should be considered. I don't think that's a good yardstick, though. perhaps a better one is innovation which changed the game. by that standard I would have a different list:
Paul Brown --- film study, messenger guards.
Tom Landry --- multiple shifts and motion to confuse the defense.
Bill Walsh --- the so-called "West Coast" offense.
Sam Wyche --- no huddle, so innovative that the NFL changed the rules for a Super Bowl.
Bill Belichick --- perhaps the first and still the best to exploit the "Review" system when it started.
this isn't to take anything away from other highly successful HC's like Vince Lombardi, Chuck Noll and others, but they didn't fundamentally change the way the game is played. all the things I listed were first done by the HC that instituted them. the other Great HC's are there(to their own credit they are fabulous Coaches) primarily because they had the best group of players and the most talented players. they never re-invented the wheel.
a saying I like --- Luck is a word we use to describe what happens when preparation meets opportunity.
and Dimeman, the reason why the Egg came first is simple: Evolution. Chickens are Birds and Birds evolved from Dinosaurs. almost all Dinoasaurs/Reptiles lay Eggs, so there were Eggs for many millions of years before Birds evolved to lay them. additionally, Birds were around a long time before Chickens Evolved to lay an Egg.
I know you won't agree, but that's the scientific answer to the question. hopefully, you aren't one of those stubborn people that thinks the world is only 5,000 years old.
Yea, and Einstein was once a lowly patent office clerk, right?
If someone is knowledgeable about football, it's not hard to spot genius when ya see it, and Belichick beyond any reasonable doubt is precisely that.
My viewpoint on Belichick the genius was also formed because Tom Brady has previously stated a number of times what I've said regarding his relationship with Bill Belichick.
I'll take Brady's word for it that he couldn't have become a great QB without Bill Belichick, over your Wikipedia opinion any time.
Better not make me mad Jon, or i'll start outbidding ya on those beautiful Washington quarters on Ebay just for spite.
Question still stands:
Of those three records; 18-19, 36-44, and 207-60...which two are most similar and what do they have in common??
Genius would be a bit better than .500...especially since two years prior a different coach took that team one game away from the Super Bowl
.
Tom is a team player, I would expect nothing less from him than to give credit elsewhere. However, the FACTS speak volumes.
The Einstein analogy is stupid, because Belichik was not a lowly low level Pop Warner coach...HE WAS AN NFL HEAD COACH FOR SIX years, or 117 games, to show his genius. AND HE FAILED.
18-19, 36-44, and 207-60 show a lot more than anyone's opinion.
I just like messing with ya Steve.
That's half the fun of Sports Talk...and i'm not even sure what the other half is?
Yea, and Edison failed at thousands of attempts before he invented the light bulb. He was such a miserable failure.
Tom Brady for his great success in football, gave the credit to Belichick because it's the obvious truth. Anyone who watches the videos of Brady saying that, knows that he is being completely sincere. I believe him.
If you think that Tom Brady is being disingenuous about Bill Belichick, well then that's your prerogative.
Of those three records; 18-19, 36-44, and 207-60...which two are most similar and what do they have in common??
please explain where you are getting the 18-19 record. to my knowledge Coach Belichick was HC for Cleveland(36-44) and currently with New England.
when Belichick came to Cleveland for his first job as HC I don't think he was well received by the fans and media, something he struggled with. he was a work-aholic and pretty much lived at the training facility. my feeling is that he met that resistance as a challenge and worked hard to prove his coaching ability and coaching philosophy were legitimate. my recollection is that he was criticized mostly because he had no experience as a player.
the media in Cleveland can be very negative and often hurtful for the Coaches, they make it harder to succeed here than it should be.
my take on Bill Belichick is that he is smart and understood his shortcomings when he served as HC for the Browns. he did what was prudent --- swallowed his pride and went to his mentor for help. he doubled down and learned how to deale with the media better as well as learning more about Coaching from Bill Parcells.
it paid off and we are witness to that.
<<< and Dimeman, the reason why the Egg came first is simple: Evolution. Chickens are Birds and Birds evolved from Dinosaurs. almost all Dinoasaurs/Reptiles lay Eggs, so there were Eggs for many millions of years before Birds evolved to lay them. additionally, Birds were around a long time before Chickens Evolved to lay an Egg. >>>
You are exactly right. The egg came first.
To expound on it a bit, it took two animals who were technically non-chickens, to mate and then the female laid the egg in which the shift in the DNA occurred, as always happens either slightly or abruptly in every successful reproduction between two animals. That particular DNA shift resulted in a chicken being born. The other "birds" liked what they saw and wanted to mate with that new bird chicken, hence more chickens were born, and that new animal became a successful species.
Now some of you on here who can't ever get a girlfriend, at the next office party you can display your new found knowledge on this subject, impress the girls with your intelligence, and they'll be swarming all over you.
yeah, like that will ever happen.
I keep trying to tell them, that at the office party, trying to impress the ladies by showing them some baseball cards, usually isn't going to work.
I believe in Creation so we will never agree on the Chicken or the Egg controversy. I won't try to covert you if you don't try to convert me.
i can see it now. dime is at a party and the strawberry daiquiris are flowing. he approaches some hottie and starts talking about the chicken & the egg. then it segues into tony romo vs quincy carter. next thing you know, she's working him over.
What kind of "working him over" are you talking about?!
Belichik was 5-13 as New Englands head coach before Brady became the starter. They were 5-11 the first year year, and then the next season started 0-2...then Brady took over and the rest is history. They had Bledsoe as their QB, not too bad at all, and they were bad. Some coincidence that the moment Brady took over that they started wining and continuing to win.
Add that to the fact that Belichik was awful as a head coach with the Browns going 36-44...you have enough evidence to show that Belichik was an ordinary HEad Coach without Tom Brady.
As for the dumb Thomas Edison comparison, I guess the missing component in ALL of Belichik's many failures as Had Coach, was Tom Brady, lol.
Brady makes the plays. Coaches can only do so much. IN Belichik's case, he could not do much at all before Brady.
And I don't think Brady is being isincere with his remarks about Belichik's. It is a team game and he knows that everyone helps, even the practice squad....but those comments do nothing to refute the above facts.
You guys are all wrong. It requires both . The truth is bill wasn't great without Brady but having Brady allowed him the space to get better at coaching. Having an owner that doesn't flip everything on its head every other year is huge. Bill having one job all these years and a solid program equals momentum . This is a wagon now that is rolling downhill at 90 miles an hour with no brakes. It can hit bumps along the way but its not stopping. You can now swap out individual pieces and keep rolling. Bledsoe was good enough to win a ring too , he was just too early in the program. In 96 we had the coach and QB but the ownership was still in its infancy. Plus the packers were solid that year. In 96 the Pats were the LA rams of 2018.
Pittsburgh tries to do the same they built a wagon for cowher and this current idiot but the two coaches were too dumb and even still they managed to win 2 rings. Ben is good enough to win more than 2 rings .
It is ruinous to keep changing coaches every few years . Look at Cincinnati they tried to stay the course but the coach they picked was a shade too dumb also. Even though he is ginger , Dalton is good enough in a solid program to win a ring or two.
What was the record of New England QB's that played behind Brady and started when he was injured or suspended? Seems that the team did exceptionally well in Tom's absence.
We get your point...Edison was dumb before he invented the light bulb, Einstein was dumb before he came up with E=MC2, and Belichick was dumb before he met Tom Brady. 🤣 🤣 🤣
how do you figure?
Exceptionally well? No playoffs the year Brady tore his knee up. They won a couple of games with Garoppolo and Brissett but Brady was only out 4 games from that witch-hunt so not sure where you are coming up with “Exceptionally well”
Cassell steps in and goes 10-5. Remarkable performance for a team with the GOAT QB on the sideline. As a contrast, think Indianapolis Colts with Peyton Manning out.
Right but they actually had one of the better offenses put together at that time. That team was a holdover from going 16-0 the season before
Exactly
refresh our memory , did they win the superbowl with cassell?
Well no. Cassell was no better than a journeyman quarterback. The brilliant Belichick system permitted him to step in and have a career season. Also allowed him to sign a contact with too many zeroes that set him for life.
You need all three to build a dynasty. QB gets hurt you put in a scrub and can finish above 500 but not win. If you had a slightly better scrub like say , Aron rogers , they would have won probably. Bill would then trade rogers after the win .
Correct.
My new dimeman brand spellsheck app drops redundant letters . Aaron Rodgers is now Aron Rogers , silent letters waste my precious typing time
Dismeman certainly has a way with words!
I believe in Creation so we will never agree on the Chicken or the Egg controversy. I won't try to covert you if you don't try to convert me
I believe in Creation, too, but I get confused as to what that has to do with any notion of Evolution. the fascinating thing for me is that if you read "Science" with an open mind it tends to explain why God has to exist and why things are as old as Scientific Examination explains them to be. the 5,000 year Universe is ridiculous.
I agree. But God created the Chicken and the chicken laid eggs.
So then who made the fossil record?
I don't know enough about that stuff to even talk with you on it.
What has always puzzled me about creationists, and no disrespect intended at all, but seeing how human beings have manipulated wolves over the past 10,000 years into all sorts of shapes and sizes to make them into our doggy pets, it's quite easy to see evolution in action.
Creationists may say that is true about dogs which it obviously is...but they'll say a dog is still a dog, no matter what it looks like. That is true as well. However at some point in time it's quite logical to see how we will manipulate the dogs so much that a separate species will be created which cannot breed successfully with other dogs. A period of 10,000 years is not a very long period of time when it comes to evolution of an animal. It's no stretch of the imagination to envision 10 or 20 or whatever thousands of years from now that we will have created dozens of new species of dogs.
Charles Darwin, another stone cold genius whose theory of evolution is now widely known to be incontrovertible fact.
No problem at all Jon. I respect your point of view, and this will be my final post on the subject.
Back to sports talk for me...as I hopefully watch the Phillies and Eagles evolve into perennial championship teams.
This thread has certainly evolved.
It was created , then , it evolved . Both theories must be true.
you see that bum in the superbowl? Can't believe he is still kicking around the league