Bill Belichick: the man...the myth...the legend?

[SkinsFTW]

In reality, the Patriots' opponents in 2008 had a winning percentage of .590, the third highest in the league. Against that schedule they went 11-5 with a 6th round quarterback who hadn't started a football game since high school.

Don't forget that the team was 16-0 the year before and AVERAGED 37 points a game and won 12 of those games by double digits. When was the last time the Redskins scored 37 in a game? It's been 1/2 a decade since we did it ONCE, they averaged it for an entire season.

Then the next year they averaged 25 a game with the exact same roster minus Brady so it's not like Cassell duplicated Brady's success.

[ACW]

The problem with claiming that year's strength of schedule, is that it's based on the year before. The Patriots had the easiest schedule in 2008 only based on what their opponents did in 2007.

Exactly. This season we thought SF and CAR would be gimme games. :no:

[NewCliche21]

Not to bring our favorite team into the discussion again, but when was the last time the Redskins won 11 games in a season?

Doesn't really have anything at all to do with Belichick, though.

I think that stophovr is right: we're not talking about this without Brady.

The reason that Gibbs is so friggin' special is that he fully demonstrated that it was the COACH who won all of that. Three different quarterbacks and three different running backs. The New England Patriots are the perfect storm, but it's more Brady than anyone else.

[schmitty_199]

Did you forget the 16-0 regular season and making the Super Bowl with an 18-0 record only to lose off a dumbass lucky play with Eli running for his life, throwing up a duck and a WR thats not even in the league anymore catching it in tripple coverage on his helmet getting hit? One play from going 19-0 and having a perfect season in todays era of the NFL, which is almost impossible to do due to the level of competition at even the weakest teams.

Oh yeah, that happened way after Spy Gate, get over it.

Thats called karma.

And well written post to the OP, you bring up some interesting points. I think he's a pretty good coach, but not one of the top 5 all time as some people imply.

[mattsb84]

I'm currently reading War Room by Michael Holley. It's about Belichick, Pioli, Dmitroff and how the Pats operated with that group in tact. So far I'm enjoying it.

To those that think Belichick is an "average" coach, you're entitled to your opinion, but, I would strongly disagree with it.

[Hitman21ST]

I'm currently reading War Room by Michael Holley. It's about Belichick, Pioli, Dmitroff and how the Pats operated with that group in tact. So far I'm enjoying it.

To those that think Belichick is an "average" coach, you're entitled to your opinion, but, I would strongly disagree with it.

Not trying to sound snarky, but could you enlighten us? The general consensus is that Belichick (by himself) leaves something to be desired, in almost every aspect: personnel, coaching, etc. Pioli and Dmitroff were the personnel guys that drove that engine. When they left, the roster moves were less than astonishing.

[Enter Apotheosis]

He is hands-down the best coach in the game by any objective measure.

I feel like Mike McCarthy will be overtaking him sooner than later and Mike Tomlin presumably has a lot of time to catch up. I should also probably point out that whatever metrics you use to put Bill Belichick way up on the current or even all time list of great coaches would also put Mike Shanahan way up there. Just some food for thought, especially when people are trying so hard to figure out who is most important to winning.

The reason that Gibbs is so friggin' special is that he fully demonstrated that it was the COACH who won all of that. Three different quarterbacks and three different running backs. The New England Patriots are the perfect storm, but it's more Brady than anyone else.

With Gibbs the discussion is exactly the same except instead of QB you're talking about "does he do it without the Hogs?" and "does he do it without Bobby Beathard?".

[NewCliche21]

With Gibbs the discussion is exactly the same except instead of QB you're talking about "does he do it without the Hogs?" and "does he do it without Bobby Beathard?".

Nah, because I'm not talking about personnel at all; I'm talking about actual coaching ability. As we've seen in all of the QB threads, it's the continuity at quarterback that has the most impact on whether or not a team wins multiple Super Bowls under the same coach. Running back isn't far behind, but it could be argued that you don't have the running back doing well (save for Sanders and ilk) if you don't have a great offensive line. However, offensive line would still be far down the list. Remember, I'm just talking about the coaching here.

There simply aren't other coaches who have done the same thing. That goes to the coach.

[Enter Apotheosis]

Nah, because I'm not talking about personnel at all; I'm talking about actual coaching ability. As we've seen in all of the QB threads, it's the continuity at quarterback that has the most impact on whether or not a team wins multiple Super Bowls under the same coach. Running back isn't far behind, but it could be argued that you don't have the running back doing well (save for Sanders and ilk) if you don't have a great offensive line. However, offensive line would still be far down the list. Remember, I'm just talking about the coaching here.

There simply aren't other coaches who have done the same thing. That goes to the coach.

You're not talking about personnel at all... but your whole argument revolves around personnel. Color me confused.

What I'm saying here is that continuity as a whole is important and if you remove any piece of that continuity it is likely that you will get different results. QB continuity is a huge component of overall continuity but that doesn't mean that Gibbs is necessarily a superior coach just because he did without it. If you want to make an argument that Gibbs' abilities as a coach were borderline otherworldly you'd be much better off citing his second stint where he somehow created a passable team out of complete chaos.

[CrabR]

where would Bill Belichick have been without Tom Brady. Kinda like Shanahan without Elway. How much did spygate help him win.

I think a coach who inherited a losing team an and takes it to the Playoffs year in year out are the better coaches.

Tom Landry, Vince Lombardi, George Allen Joe Gibbs, Bill Parcells are way superior in my book

[NewCliche21]

You're not talking about personnel at all... but your whole argument revolves around personnel. Color me confused.

What I'm saying here is that continuity as a whole is important and if you remove any piece of that continuity it is likely that you will get different results. QB continuity is a huge component of overall continuity but that doesn't mean that Gibbs is necessarily a superior coach just because he did without it. If you want to make an argument that Gibbs' abilities as a coach were borderline otherworldly you'd be much better off citing his second stint where he somehow created a passable team out of complete chaos.

It's not that hard to understand, really.

You look at other teams who have had dynasties, and they've had continuity at the quarterback position, and most at the running back position as well. Gibbs did not.

Belichick won three Super Bowls with a Hall of Fame quarterback. Gibbs did not.

Quarterback is, by parsecs, the most important position on the field. Offensive line is not.

We have had very good offensive lines. We have not had a franchise quarterback since Sonny.

I don't see what you don't see.

---------- Post added November-12th-2011 at 06:53 AM ----------

where would Bill Belichick have been without Tom Brady. Kinda like Shanahan without Elway. How much did spygate help him win.

I think a coach who inherited a losing team an and takes it to the Playoffs year in year out are the better coaches.

Tom Landry, Vince Lombardi, George Allen Joe Gibbs, Bill Parcells are way superior in my book

We've seen how he would be without Brady because he was a head coach before he got Brady. It wasn't pretty.

[pjfootballer]

With Gibbs the discussion is exactly the same except instead of QB you're talking about "does he do it without the Hogs?" and "does he do it without Bobby Beathard?".

The Hogs actual starting 5 was different in each SB win. Only Bostic, Jacoby and Grimm were in all 3.

From LT to RT:

SB 17- Jacoby, Grimm, Bostic, Dean, Starke

SB 22- Jacoby, McKenzie, Bostic, Theilmann, May

SB 26- Lachey, McKenzie, Bostic, Schlareth, Jacoby

Only Jacoby and Bostic started all 3 SBs. Moot point on the Hogs comparison.

[Pedro]

Lets also not forget that the Pats went 11-5 in 2008 without Brady.

Competent QB, weak division, good team around competent QB = 11-5.

Since then his personnel moves have destroyed the good team bit. Sans Brady they're nearly as bad as the Colts, and that's only 'cos Belicheck hasn't had time. Yet.

[hail2skins]

Here's a question: which current coaches would you rank above Belicheck?

[Laxpunk2006]

The problem with claiming that year's strength of schedule, is that it's based on the year before. The Patriots had the easiest schedule in 2008 only based on what their opponents did in 2007.

In reality, the Patriots' opponents in 2008 had a winning percentage of .590, the third highest in the league. Against that schedule they went 11-5 with a 6th round quarterback who hadn't started a football game since high school.

Let's look at who they beat and their record.

Week 1: KC, 2-14

Week 2: NYJ, 9-7

Week 5: SF, 7-9

Week 7: DEN, 8-8

Week 8: STL, 2-14

Week 10: BUF, 7-9

Week 12: MIA, 11-5

Week 14: SEA, 4-12

Week 15: OAK, 5-11

Week 16: ARI, 9-7

Week 17: BUF, 7-9

The total record of the team's they beat: 71-105. 40%

So there you have it. New England beat 2 winning teams. They feated on the NFCW and what was a pretty poor AFCE. Even their AFCW games were on the easy side. Their losses came against MIA, SD, IND, NYJ, and PITT. In other words they lost to every good team they played. Don't get me wrong, I don't expect any coach to take a backup QB to the SB but this myth that NE didn't skip a beat without Brady is just that, a myth. With a stronger schedule NE more than likely struggles to hit 8-8.

[hail2skins]

The total record of the team's they beat: 71-105. 40%

So there you have it. New England beat 2 winning teams.

The Pats beat 2 winning teams during their 2001 Super Bowl run, and the total record of the teams they beat was 66-110.

Overall, under Brady (2001-2010), the teams the Pats have beat have had a winning percentage of around .460. But you can only play the teams you have in front of you.

[Hitman21ST]

Here's a question: which current coaches would you rank above Belicheck?

Coughlin, McCarthy, Schwartz, Kubiak, Lewis, Tomlin, Payton, possibly one of the Harbaughs

[Destino]

Coughlin, McCarthy, Schwartz, Kubiak, Lewis, Tomlin, Payton, possibly one of the Harbaughs

Kubiak?

He's had one winning season as a head coach and it was 9-7 in 2009. Other than that he's had two 8-8 and 6-10 seasons.

[scruffylookin]

Those who try and denigrate and/or trivialize what Belicheck has done remind me of those who did the very same thing to Gibbs and the Skins way back when. Remember the "two Super Bowls don't count because of strikes" argument?

[JoeSkins]

Coughlin, McCarthy, Schwartz, Kubiak, Lewis, Tomlin, Payton, possibly one of the Harbaughs

Kubiak is a really tough sell for me.

That said, I've felt that the Patriots' Super Bowl victories were tainted and feel less than authentic/legitimate. That, combined with the low margins of victory for the games, make me question BB's greatness. That said, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to beat the Rams or Jets even with a month of practice footage in advance!

---------- Post added November-13th-2011 at 07:30 PM ----------

Those who try and denigrate and/or trivialize what Belicheck has done remind me of those who did the very same thing to Gibbs and the Skins way back when. Remember the "two Super Bowls don't count because of strikes" argument?

I see your point, but the appropriate answer to that was always "Gibbs took what he had and beat what other coaches had." Belichick took things he wasn't supposed to have and won.