Bruce Allen, Scot McCloughlan, Jay Gruden, and all that stuff like that there

[PartyPosse]

3 minutes ago, dyst said:

It's one "preseason game", "half", "game"...I feel like that's the motto of the Redskins fan to cope with things. Oh and the term 'vanilla' is overused with this team so much. A coach that has a losing record with a bunch of new players shouldn't be vanilla.The night is still young, so things could change but week 1 preseason and your WASHINGTON REDSKINS are the only team who got crushed and couldn't score a TD. Yes, to me that is concerning. Preseason does not mean much, but for this team it should. Not the win or loss part of it, but they need to come out prepared. 

85% of the guys who played aren't starting for this team. The players didn't hurt the team so much as they hurt themselves. I don't know how prepared you can be considering your starters played a series and then everything else was mix and match with back-ups and long shots. I'd rather the team weed out those laxidasical players now than during the season.

 

do you think the pats defense really cares it gave up 34 to Jacksonville and Chad Henne?

[DC Lumber Co.]

5 hours ago, BurgundyBooger said:

 

No real leader worth his salt would come here, which is why we've been able to hire only burn-outs and clowns.

 

The amount of disrespect Jay gets from the fanbase is absurd to me. The only coach to have the balls to go against Snyder's wishes (RG3) and keep his job. And not only keep it, but go on to become the only coach to receive a contract extension for this franchise.

 

Since Jay's arrival we have stuck to a cohesive long term plan of roster building, drafting homegrown talent paired with low-risk, high-reward free agents. He is now without a doubt one of the best offensive minds in the NFL to boot. 

 

We don't have to overpay people to come here anymore. DC isn't the leagues go-to for their last big payday anymore. It blows me away to see players saying they chose the Redskins over money/other teams because they believe in what the Redskins are building now. The constant in all of this the past few years has been Jay, and I for one, don't take it for granted.

 

Jay is very much so a leader, and just because he isn't stoic and possesses a sense of humor unlike Belicheck doesn't make him any less of a leader. People act like we have to copy another team exactly in order to have any success when in reality Belicheck isn't half the elite talent evaluator people think, and wouldn't be regarded in nearly as high esteem if it weren't for Tom Brady. 

[DC Lumber Co.]

47 minutes ago, dyst said:

When? Like 18 years ago?

 

Yes. Is it not strange that it's about the length of time Tom Brady has been in the league?

 

Getting lucky with a handful of draft classes can change the perception of a team very quickly. Just ask Scot, with 2 out of the 3 teams he has built becoming contenders after 3 drafts and the verdict still being out on the Redskins depending on how we fare this year. The 49ers we're awful after the Steve Young era, and The Seahawks were even less respected. The Seahawks are still held in high regard but The 49ers also showcased the flip-side in how quickly a team can fall from grace.

 

The Patriots get a pass on so many whiffs and Tom Brady, much like A-rod, can make up for holes in a roster. I vividly remember how much everyone was drooling over how much smarter Belicheck and the Pats were than the rest of the league the year they had what seemed like every pick in the 2nd round. It was quickly forgotten that every single one of those 2nd rounders we're busts.

 

And let's face it, even Belicheck could have never expected Tom Bradys success. Only Mike Shanahan would be audacious enough to gloat about that sort of draft steal as if he knew it all along haha.

 

 

 

[Tsailand]

5 hours ago, I Love The Skins said:

Everyone said the same thing about the Patriots too not too long ago.

 

23 years ago, right before they switched owners.

 

Little known fact, in Kraft's six seasons without Belichick, they had four winning seasons where they made the playoffs, including two division wins and a Super Bowl appearance.  Which is more than Synder has done in 18 seasons.

 

The idea that the Skins are on the verge of magically flipping into a functional franchise is delusional.  Unless you're Snyder's oncologist and you know something we don't.

[tshile]

This is completely random not related to current conversation (even if it is):

 

If you had told me this time last year, that this time this year we'd be sitting around with

- McCloughan fired (especially the way he was)

- Allen in charge

- Doug Williams as a major figure head with some ambiguous role in personell

- cousins with no contract, franchised again, after a statistically good (and honestly, Eye test good for the most part) season

 

I would have slapped you in the face and told you go on somewhere else with your nonsense.

 

Yet here we are.

 

The joys of the redskins.

[DC Lumber Co.]

1 hour ago, dyst said:

It's one "preseason game", "half", "game"...I feel like that's the motto of the Redskins fan to cope with things. Oh and the term 'vanilla' is overused with this team so much. A coach that has a losing record with a bunch of new players shouldn't be vanilla.The night is still young, so things could change but week 1 preseason and your WASHINGTON REDSKINS are the only team who got crushed and couldn't score a TD. Yes, to me that is concerning. Preseason does not mean much, but for this team it should. Not the win or loss part of it, but they need to come out prepared. 

 

 

Vanilla schemes cited as the reason to not put much stock into preseason wins/losses is not unique to the Redskins fanbase though. It's a widely accepted reason league-wide.

 

And its exactly what a team with a ton of new players should be doing actually. The preseason isn't to showcase an offensive/defensive scheme's superiority over an opponent's. It's actually strategically foolish to do so even, as you are giving the league additional game film to prepare for you in the regular season.

 

The reason for the use of vanilla schemes is to put players in one-on-one matchups with the players across from them. It allows the team to honestly evaluate each play as plus/minus efforts for each individual player on film. For example: if a player gets a sack on a stunt with another defensive lineman, is it really showcasing the individual players talent or an artificially inflated statistic since the sack was moreso a product of the stunt within the play call that fooled the offensive lineman for a clean shot at the QB?

 

Another example: If in the regular season you keep getting killed by an opposing teams receiver, you typically try to scheme that player out of the game using bracket coverage and double teams because you are focused on winning the game. In preseason, with limited reps to go around it's more valuable to see each of the defensive backs on the roster in multiple assignments of zone and man coverage, one-on-one.

 

But please, do tell me about these other instances that "vanilla" is over used with this team other than in preseason? Because you're right, if we were describing our team, coaching, or scheme's as vanilla during the regular season I'd be concerned too. But I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

I feel sorry for people that don't enjoy or can't get into preseason games. I think the reason why is because people try and watch it as as a normal game, which leads to overreactions to the outcome. In reality it should be treated like scouting film on college players. I suggest you focus less on the scoreboard and record it so that you can replay each snap while focusing on a different player.

 

Lastly, Jay has posted back to back winning seasons. His win percentage is currently being skewed by the 4-12 record his first year which was a direct result of how terrible the talent he inherited was. Jay's win percentage with only 3 years on his resume is such a lame ass way to judge his skill or impact on this team.

[I Love The Skins]

3 hours ago, DC Lumber Co. said:

 

Yes. Is it not strange that it's about the length of time Tom Brady has been in the league?

 

 

 

 

 

Take Tom Brady off the team and that New England team goes back to being the dysfunctional and awful team they were before he got there. Bill Parcells changed to the culture when he arrived in 1993 believe but they were a mess for a couple of years after he left.

[goskins10]

15 hours ago, dyst said:

4 years into his head coaching career and we still see a team not prepared when they come out to play. His record is 21-26-1 and as a fan I don't see a great head coach. I see "a" head coach and at best "maybe" a good one but Jay Gruden needs to improve. Everyone needs to and he's no exception.

 

We need a leader on this team. We don't have a Brady, Manning or Ray Lewis on the field and on the sidelines we don't have a Belichick or Tomlin type of coach. Gruden seems like a nice guy and I'm sure the players like him but when you don't have elite talent, a 'cool' coach probably won't get it done. Not sure if he knows how to lead or instill confidence in his players. 

 

Please show me the coach without talent that wins SBs. Just one would do. Let me help you. You can't. Gruden is 17-14-1 the last two seasons. That first season was a left over **** show from MS and company. Does Jay own some of it? Sure. But let's be real here. He came into a total mess.

 

7 hours ago, dyst said:

It's one "preseason game", "half", "game"...I feel like that's the motto of the Redskins fan to cope with things. Oh and the term 'vanilla' is overused with this team so much. A coach that has a losing record with a bunch of new players shouldn't be vanilla.The night is still young, so things could change but week 1 preseason and your WASHINGTON REDSKINS are the only team who got crushed and couldn't score a TD. Yes, to me that is concerning. Preseason does not mean much, but for this team it should. Not the win or loss part of it, but they need to come out prepared. 

 

 Huh???  Ok, so it doesn't mean much, but for this team it should? Exactly how does that work? You had it right in the first part - preseason does not mean much.

 

And you can not like to hear it all you want about people making the factual statement that the team is vanilla and not game planning, but it is a total fact. And the Redskins were not the only ones.

 

It's the first pre-season game and you are ready to question the coaches leadership? So many new moving parts. It takes a little time to gel to get to know each other. A new DC, many new faces on D and O. If they still look like **** to start the season, OK then the criticism is justified. But let's not jump off any bridges over one preseason game.

 

There is a reason they call it "preseason!"

[goskins10]

13 hours ago, BurgundyBooger said:

 

No real leader worth his salt would come here, which is why we've been able to hire only burn-outs and clowns.

 

So are Tomsula and Callahan burnouts or clowns? Last I saw they were two of the most highly respected position coaches who both have head coaching experience - you know leaders. Matt Cavanagh is also very well respected in the league. Jay is gaining respect. He is 17-13-1 in the last to seasons. The team just had 2 previous position coaches get HCing jobs. But I guess they are only leaders now, not when they were here.

 

I love the total over-reaction to a single preseason game. The world is crumbling and no one can save us.

 

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

10 hours ago, DC Lumber Co. said:

 

Yes. Is it not strange that it's about the length of time Tom Brady has been in the league?

 

Getting lucky with a handful of draft classes can change the perception of a team very quickly. Just ask Scot, with 2 out of the 3 teams he has built becoming contenders after 3 drafts and the verdict still being out on the Redskins depending on how we fare this year. The 49ers we're awful after the Steve Young era, and The Seahawks were even less respected. The Seahawks are still held in high regard but The 49ers also showcased the flip-side in how quickly a team can fall from grace.

 

The Patriots get a pass on so many whiffs and Tom Brady, much like A-rod, can make up for holes in a roster. I vividly remember how much everyone was drooling over how much smarter Belicheck and the Pats were than the rest of the league the year they had what seemed like every pick in the 2nd round. It was quickly forgotten that every single one of those 2nd rounders we're busts.

 

And let's face it, even Belicheck could have never expected Tom Bradys success. Only Mike Shanahan would be audacious enough to gloat about that sort of draft steal as if he knew it all along haha.

 

 

 

 

Good post. I think BB is .500 with Tom Brady out of the lineup. Sure they get short term production from time to time with other QBs, and BB is certainly a brilliant coach. But lets see how many rings he wins once Tom Brady finally retires. 

[skinsmania123]

So I kept thinking to myself since when is the preseason in the NFL an indicator for future success no matter how good or how bad a team performs.  

 

This article sums it up fairly well IMO - https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/sports/football/are-nfl-preseason-games-meaningless-spoiler-yes.html

 

I have never been concerned about the preseason.  We had guys who are starters sitting on the bench - essentially the whole receiving corp with the exception of Pryor and people are flipping because he did not catch the one pass that was thrown to him.  And we did not see enough to determine anything.

 

And during the season I will take an ugly win over a  courageous loss any day.  

 

 

[dyst]

5 hours ago, goskins10 said:

 

Please show me the coach without talent that wins SBs. Just one would do. Let me help you. You can't. Gruden is 17-14-1 the last two seasons. That first season was a left over **** show from MS and company. Does Jay own some of it? Sure. But let's be real here. He came into a total mess.

 

I don't need him to win the Super Bowl right now. What I need him to do is get the guys ready to play. Either we still have subpar talent or the coaching staff doesn't do a good job of coaching up the players often enough. Either is not a good look. Preseason or not, for a team that is still building, it's not a good look to come out flat, weak and unprepared.

5 hours ago, goskins10 said:

Huh???  Ok, so it doesn't mean much, but for this team it should? Exactly how does that work? You had it right in the first part - preseason does not mean much.

It's actually really simple. The team doesn't have to win in preseason, since the win/loss ratio in preseason doesn't have an affect on the regular season but for a team that is still building they need to look competent out there. If you want to excuse the starters, that's fine, but the 2nd string and 3rd string also looked lost and confused. If you want to then suggest it was because the Ravens were game planning, then I don't know what to tell you. Game planning has nothing to do with guys getting pushed back and missing simple blocks.

 

5 hours ago, goskins10 said:

And you can not like to hear it all you want about people making the factual statement that the team is vanilla and not game planning, but it is a total fact. And the Redskins were not the only ones.

Were the Redskins vanilla against the Panthers last year also? How about the Giants at the end of the season? This lackadaisical play happens more often than I'd like. Preseason or playoffs on the line. Way to often to my liking. Some people are okay with it. Me personally, I'm not.

 

5 hours ago, goskins10 said:

It's the first pre-season game and you are ready to question the coaches leadership? So many new moving parts. It takes a little time to gel to get to know each other. A new DC, many new faces on D and O. If they still look like **** to start the season, OK then the criticism is justified. But let's not jump off any bridges over one preseason game.

99 yards passing, 39 yards rushing, 3 sacks given, 1 INT, 3 fumbles (none lost fortunately), 8 first downs, and only 3 points. Preseason or not, new guys or not, vanilla or not. They should have played better than that. It almost looked like they didn't care to perform, couldn't perform or got outperformed. I don't like any of those.

 

Week 2 is next, lets hope we see a professional football team out there.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

That's fine for preseason game 1. But when game 2-3 rolls around we need to take it seriously. Some established teams and rosters don't need preseason to get ready for the regular season. We do. 

 

If we're going to screw around all preseason and then get blown out week 1 or take multiple weeks to get firing, that falls completely on Jay  

 

Many of us saw it coming last year and the first week didn't make me feel better about it not happening again 

[Jumbo]

 

 

 

 

[lavar1156]

I wonder if the Charlottsville protests will make the Redskins rethink the idea of putting their new stadium in Virginia.

[goskins10]

1 hour ago, dyst said:

 

I don't need him to win the Super Bowl right now. What I need him to do is get the guys ready to play. Either we still have subpar talent or the coaching staff doesn't do a good job of coaching up the players often enough. Either is not a good look. Preseason or not, for a team that is still building, it's not a good look to come out flat, weak and unprepared.

It's actually really simple. The team doesn't have to win in preseason, since the win/loss ratio in preseason doesn't have an affect on the regular season but for a team that is still building they need to look competent out there. If you want to excuse the starters, that's fine, but the 2nd string and 3rd string also looked lost and confused. If you want to then suggest it was because the Ravens were game planning, then I don't know what to tell you. Game planning has nothing to do with guys getting pushed back and missing simple blocks.

 

Were the Redskins vanilla against the Panthers last year also? How about the Giants at the end of the season? This lackadaisical play happens more often than I'd like. Preseason or playoffs on the line. Way to often to my liking. Some people are okay with it. Me personally, I'm not.

 

99 yards passing, 39 yards rushing, 3 sacks given, 1 INT, 3 fumbles (none lost fortunately), 8 first downs, and only 3 points. Preseason or not, new guys or not, vanilla or not. They should have played better than that. It almost looked like they didn't care to perform, couldn't perform or got outperformed. I don't like any of those.

 

Week 2 is next, lets hope we see a professional football team out there.

 

Would I prefer them to have stormed down and scored a TD first drive? Of course. But it's game one of the preseason. With all the new parts it's going to take time. Guys are going to look out of place early. If this is still like this into gm 3 and then the start of the season OK.

 

And of course we have to get the "but what about Carolina and the Giants last year" fall back when nothing else makes sense. Sorry, but that's more on the players. I have yet to see a coach make a tackle, catch a ball, or throw a pass. If as a player you can't get ready for a game that can put you in the playoffs that on you. Do they get all the blame? No. But to me it's most of it. And they got rid of several players from last years team. Further, the average turnover for NFL teams is about 30% - heard that on NFL.com but did not verify, so if it's wrong, sorry. It's still a big number even if it's not 30%.

 

Having said that, to say they didn't care to perform is just ridiculous. Many of the players that actually played are fighting for their NFL lives. If anything, they might have been trying too hard. Also, we have no idea what the coaches were trying to accomplish and what individual assignments were. Yes, no TDs and a fairly inefficient offense is not worth praising. But this offense has a history of playing well in the season. I was more interested in the D. And for the most part the 1s and 2s looked better than they have. But honestly the defense is always going to be ahead of the offense early on. Both teams struggled offensively for the most part. 

 

I am as big a stats person as you will find, but preseason game 1? I could care less. Again, if this continues throughout the preseason and into the early season, OK let's get worried.

 

But again, it's game 1!  

[Darrell Green Fan]

6 hours ago, skinsmania123 said:

So I kept thinking to myself since when is the preseason in the NFL an indicator for future success no matter how good or how bad a team performs.  

 

This article sums it up fairly well IMO - https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/sports/football/are-nfl-preseason-games-meaningless-spoiler-yes.html

 

I have never been concerned about the preseason.  We had guys who are starters sitting on the bench - essentially the whole receiving corp with the exception of Pryor and people are flipping because he did not catch the one pass that was thrown to him.  And we did not see enough to determine anything.

 

And during the season I will take an ugly win over a  courageous loss any day.  

 

 

 

While I agree with all of this the pass protection and poor run blocking from the staring OL has to be concerning.  As was the lack of pass pressure or the ability to stop the run consistently from the starting defense. 

[Darrell Green Fan]

18 hours ago, lavar1156 said:

I wonder if the Charlottsville protests will make the Redskins rethink the idea of putting their new stadium in Virginia.

 

Why?

[sebestian]

On 8/12/2017 at 8:57 AM, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

Good post. I think BB is .500 with Tom Brady out of the lineup. Sure they get short term production from time to time with other QBs, and BB is certainly a brilliant coach. But lets see how many rings he wins once Tom Brady finally retires. 

 

Totally agree. That's why Gibbs is the best ever. 3 SB with 3 different QB none of which will even sniff the hall of fame. 

 

Case closed.

 

Furthermore BB will retire from coaching when Tom does. JMO, however that is what I believe. 

 

Great post. 

[TSO]

On 8/12/2017 at 10:09 AM, lavar1156 said:

I wonder if the Charlottsville protests will make the Redskins rethink the idea of putting their new stadium in Virginia.

 

I know you related this to the new stadium, but no politics in The Stadium Forum. Thanks.  

[BurgundyBooger]

On 8/11/2017 at 9:51 PM, DC Lumber Co. said:

 

The amount of disrespect Jay gets from the fanbase is absurd to me. The only coach to have the balls to go against Snyder's wishes (RG3) and keep his job. And not only keep it, but go on to become the only coach to receive a contract extension for this franchise.

 

I'm rooting for Jay.

 

Perhaps I was harsh shoehorning him in to those categories, but it was meant as a slight to the front office's hiring impediments more so than a slight against him.

 

He wasn't my first pick when they looked for Shanahan's successor and I'm still on the fence about him as a head coach but he's doing as much as any normal human being can in this situation and he has my full support for that.

[Diehard Otis]

On 8/11/2017 at 9:51 PM, DC Lumber Co. said:

 

The amount of disrespect Jay gets from the fanbase is absurd to me. The only coach to have the balls to go against Snyder's wishes (RG3) and keep his job. And not only keep it, but go on to become the only coach to receive a contract extension for this franchise.

 

Since Jay's arrival we have stuck to a cohesive long term plan of roster building, drafting homegrown talent paired with low-risk, high-reward free agents. He is now without a doubt one of the best offensive minds in the NFL to boot. 

 

We don't have to overpay people to come here anymore. DC isn't the leagues go-to for their last big payday anymore. It blows me away to see players saying they chose the Redskins over money/other teams because they believe in what the Redskins are building now. The constant in all of this the past few years has been Jay, and I for one, don't take it for granted.

 

Jay is very much so a leader, and just because he isn't stoic and possesses a sense of humor unlike Belicheck doesn't make him any less of a leader. People act like we have to copy another team exactly in order to have any success when in reality Belicheck isn't half the elite talent evaluator people think, and wouldn't be regarded in nearly as high esteem if it weren't for Tom Brady. 

Great post @DC Lumber Co..  I also have come around on Gruden & now am a solid supporter of his Program.  As I see it, Jay (and by extension, Snyder & co.) will never get the props he deserves until The Team takes off in The Standings.  But we have seen a sea change in how Ashburn operates since his tenure began.  And while Gruden isn't necessarily the common denominator in all of the changes, his time here does represent a new way in which Washington goes about its business.  

 

That's positive!

-------------------------------------------------------------

On 8/11/2017 at 10:05 PM, DC Lumber Co. said:

Yes. Is it not strange that it's about the length of time Tom Brady has been in the league?

 

Getting lucky with a handful of draft classes can change the perception of a team very quickly. Just ask Scot, with 2 out of the 3 teams he has built becoming contenders after 3 drafts and the verdict still being out on the Redskins depending on how we fare this year. The 49ers we're awful after the Steve Young era, and The Seahawks were even less respected. The Seahawks are still held in high regard but The 49ers also showcased the flip-side in how quickly a team can fall from grace.

 

The Patriots get a pass on so many whiffs and Tom Brady, much like A-rod, can make up for holes in a roster. I vividly remember how much everyone was drooling over how much smarter Belicheck and the Pats were than the rest of the league the year they had what seemed like every pick in the 2nd round. It was quickly forgotten that every single one of those 2nd rounders we're busts.

 

And let's face it, even Belicheck could have never expected Tom Bradys success. Only Mike Shanahan would be audacious enough to gloat about that sort of draft steal as if he knew it all along haha.

This brings up an interesting conversation I had with some buddies at work yesterday.  I am thoroughly convinced that Belichick is NOT an all-time great coach: he's a Good Coach that benefits from having a looooong run with a once-in-a-generation talent at Quarterback.  

 

AND New England has benefited from playing in an historically weak AFC East also.  That matters, because if the Patriots can pencil themselves in as Division Champs every year, which gives them an edge over their Conference Rivals (since they get that Home Playoff Game) AND an easier path to The Super Bowl.  Yes they still have to Win it, but the road to that game is much smoother.  It matters.

On 8/11/2017 at 11:55 PM, Tsailand said:

23 years ago, right before they switched owners.

 

Little known fact, in Kraft's six seasons without Belichick, they had four winning seasons where they made the playoffs, including two division wins and a Super Bowl appearance.  Which is more than Synder has done in 18 seasons.

 

The idea that the Skins are on the verge of magically flipping into a functional franchise is delusional.  Unless you're Snyder's oncologist and you know something we don't.

How did this happen?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_England_Patriots_head_coaches

It happened because Robert Kraft hired Bill Parcells to build a moribund cellar-dwelling Franchise from the ground up.  And Parcells did so, to the point of getting the Pats to The Super Bowl - where they lost to the eventual Champion Packers.  So the team was already built.  That's when the reins were handed to Pete Carroll.

 

Carroll Won the Division once, but underwhelmed & was fired after 3 Seasons (I think).  

 

Enter Belichick.  He already had a Hall of Fame Tailback (Curtis Martin), a Franchise Quarterback (Drew Bledsoe), a Veteran Defense, and a hidden jewel holding a clipboard (you know who).  WoW!  

 

After flaming out in Cleveland, that was the hand he was dealt in Foxboro.  AND he was given the Headset while Gillette Stadium was under construction. Can you say straight flush?

 

Yes, he can Coach.  But this all-time great stuff has to stop!  Just like Phil Jackson, this guy benefited from all-time great talent.

[Diehard Otis]

Okay, so I can't let this go without putting things into their proper context.  Bill Bilichick is widely considered the Greatest Coach of this generation. [Sigh] Fine.  But to place him in the same company as the Legendary Coaches of The Game is preposterous!

 

Yes, Winning is critically important.  We know this.  But otherwise, what constitutes a Legendary Coach (besides Winning)?

 

I would contend that a Legendary Coach accomplishes 3 things besides Winning Football Games:

 

1) They build something from nothing.  Most Coaches at The NFL level can Win with talent.  John Harbaugh comes to mind off the top of my head.  But a truly talented Coach can build a Powerhouse from ashes.  And all of the truly Legendary ones have done so.  How can you tell?  Because when they were hired, the Franchise in question was a longtime doormat (let's say 5 or more years of cellar dwelling).  So the cupboard was bare when they arrived.

 

2) They establish a long-term contender.  Once the foundation is built, they contend for all of the marbles perennially.  Aside from the occasional "down year", this type of Coach's teams are always Conference and/or Super Bowl Contenders.  Pretty obvious stuff.

 

3) They contribute to the game - Innovation.  Aside from Winning, I believe that this is an all-time Coach's most indelible trademark.  The Giants of the game have changed the game in some innovative way (such that those innovations are taken for granted today).  That's what helps a guy stand apart from his peers in my book.

 

So who fits this criteria?

 

Paul Brown 

George Halas

Vince Lombardi

Tom Landry

Chuck Noll

Don Shula

Bill Walsh

Joe Gibbs

 

Yes, there are other Great Coaches in NFL History.  But in my opinion, these men I have named specifically stand above the rest.  And Bill Belichick is better than NONE of them.

[Taylor 36]

21 minutes ago, Diehard Otis said:

This brings up an interesting conversation I had with some buddies at work yesterday.  I am thoroughly convinced that Belichick is NOT an all-time great coach: he's a Good Coach that benefits from having a looooong run with a once-in-a-generation talent at Quarterback.  

 

AND New England has benefited from playing in an historically weak AFC East also.  That matters, because if the Patriots can pencil themselves in as Division Champs every year, that gives them an edge over their Conference Rivals (since they get that Home Playoff Game) AND an easier path to The Super Bowl.  Yes they still have to Win it, but the road to that game is much smoother.  It matters.

How did this happen?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_England_Patriots_head_coaches

It happened because Robert Kraft hired Bill Parcells to build a moribund cellar-dwelling Franchise from the ground up.  And Parcells did so, to the point of getting the Pats to The Super Bowl - where they lost to the eventual Champion Packers.  So the team was already built.  That's when the reins were handed to Pete Carroll.

 

Carroll Won the Division once, but underwhelmed & was fired after 3 Seasons (I think).  

 

Enter Belichick.  He already had a Hall of Fame Tailback (Curtis Martin), a Franchise Quarterback (Drew Bledsoe), a Veteran Defense, and a hidden jewel holding a clipboard (you know who).  WoW!  

 

After flaming out in Cleveland, that was the hand he was dealt in Foxboro.  AND he was given the Headset while Gillette Stadium was under construction. Can you say straight flush?

 

Yes, he can Coach.  But this all-time great stuff has to stop!  Just like Phil Jackson, this guy benefited from all-time great talent.

 

 

You are inaccurate in your assessment of Belichick.  

 

First, Belickick did not flame out in Cleveland.  Did you read the article you linked, because it actually says the opposite. It makes the case that had he not been stupidly fired by Modell, the Ravens would have had possibly five SB championships. He actually built that team up to be a contender.  When he arrived the team was abysmal, just as they are today.  They were 3 - 13 the year before Bill got there, and went 7-9 his second and third year, and 11-5 his fourth year, a playoff year.  You'd have to go back to 1986 to find a Browns team with as good or better a record.  The following year, Modell announced during the season that he was moving the team at season's end and the team shut down and went 5-11.  That's when Bill was stupidly fired.

 

Parcells gets a lot of credit for a guy that never won anything without Belichick on his staff and has only two SB rings to Belichick's seven. Anyone who would take the Tuna o er Bill is either just a huge Pats/Belichick hater or doesn't know the history of these two men as coaches.  Parcells expected Belichick to take over the Jets for him when he quit, yet again, on a team, but Belichick was smart enough to see that the Jets were just another Browns and instead went to the Pats who did not have Brady holding the clipboard when he got there as you stated above.  Sure they had Bledsoe, but he underperformed most of his career.

 

Since becoming the starter, Brady has missed 19 games.  Belichick's record in those 19 games is 13-6.  That includes going 11- 4 in 15 games that Brady was out from game one after tearing his ACL, yet, even at 11-5 for the season, the Pats missed the playoffs.  Not sure that shows a weak AFC or even AFCE when an 11-5 team doesn't make the playoffs.  Yet, Brady has never won a game without Belichick. Brady is great, probably the GOAT, but Bill has built stellar defenses as a position coach/coordinator, and turn **** into caviar in both of his head coaching stints.  He deserves a lot more credit than you are giving him in your post.

[Diehard Otis]

11 minutes ago, Taylor 36 said:

You are inaccurate in your assessment of Belichick.  

 

First, Belickick did not flame out in Cleveland.  Did you read the article you linked, because it actually says the opposite. It makes the case that had he not been stupidly fired by Modell, the Ravens would have had possibly five SB championships. He actually built that team up to be a contender.  When he arrived the team was abysmal, just as they are today.  They were 3 - 13 the year before Bill got there, and went 7-9 his second and third year, and 11-5 his fourth year, a playoff year.  You'd have to go back to 1986 to find a Browns team with as good or better a record.  The following year, Modell announced during the season that he was moving the team at season's end and the team shut down and went 5-11.  That's when Bill was stupidly fired.

 

Parcells gets a lot of credit for a guy that never won anything without Belichick on his staff and has only two SB rings to Belichick's seven. Anyone who would take the Tuna o er Bill is either just a huge Pats/Belichick hater or doesn't know the history of these two men as coaches.  Parcells expected Belichick to take over the Jets for him when he quit, yet again, on a team, but Belichick was smart enough to see that the Jets were just another Browns and instead went to the Pats who did not have Brady holding the clipboard when he got there as you stated above.  Sure they had Bledsoe, but he underperformed most of his career.

 

Since becoming the starter, Brady has missed 19 games.  Belichick's record in those 19 games is 13-6.  That includes going 11- 4 in 15 games that Brady was out from game one after tearing his ACL, yet, even at 11-5 for the season, the Pats missed the playoffs.  Not sure that shows a weak AFC or even AFCE when an 11-5 team doesn't make the playoffs.  Yet, Brady has never won a game without Belichick. Brady is great, probably the GOAT, but Bill has built stellar defenses as a position coach/coordinator, and turn **** into caviar in both of his head coaching stints.  He deserves a lot more credit than you are giving him in your post.

En garde.

 

First off, I did in fact read the link that I posted.  I chose that link to provide the opposite take on the popularly held view (which is mine).  And in it, you will find that the author does acknowledge several factors, and I quote:

Quote

What if Belichick, wound tighter than a hair braid, had been media friendly? Or if season ticket sales hadn't decreased in four of his five years there? Or if news hadn't leaked during the middle of the '95 season that Modell had negotiated a secret deal to move the team to Baltimore in 1996?

 

These were defining moments in Belichick's coaching career. Defining in Cleveland, where he was 37-45 with one playoff win (over, ta-da, the Patriots). Defining in New England, where he is 105-39 with 14 playoff victories.

...

Belichick made mistakes in Cleveland, enough to alienate veteran players, the Browns' hyper-loyal fans, the media and ownership. But was it ignorance or arrogance? Inexperience or impatience? Was he simply too smart for his own good?

These passages (from the article I linked) do not suggest a successful tenure.  Again, the analysis is in the eye of the beholder.

 

Also, while Parcells did not Win a Super Bowl without Belichick (as you mention) he did take New England there, after inheriting a bottom feeder of a team.  He build those Pats from scratch.  That is noteworthy and laudable (and for The Record, I have never been a Parcells fan).  His Patriots simply lost to a superior team.  I find no shame in that at all.  Further, he took the New York Jets to the AFC Championship - as far as that Franchise has gone since Broadway Joe.  Not too shabby either.  In my estimation, that's plenty of evidence to suggest that Parcells did fine in his career without Belichick.

 

And I looked it up: Brady & Belichick showed up in New England during the same Offseason.  I was wrong about that.  I admit my error.  But for anyone to suggest that Belichick knew what he was getting in Brady defies reason.  Can we agree that the 6th Rounder was the steal of the Draft?  Sure, but it wasn't due to any prescience on the Patriots' part - that's for sure.  They were fortunate.

 

As for Belichick's record without Brady, it is pretty good.  I, for one, consider that an indictment of the awful AFC East (and yes, I do consider that Matt Cassel year quite a feat - I'll give you that).  For instance, my view of a quality Division is to consider how many teams qualify for The Playoffs from that same Division.  And to a lesser extent, looking at how many teams finish above .500 gives one a true barometer of the strength of any Division.

 

So what do the Standings tell us?  While I couldn't find the data I was looking for, here's a listing of Division Champs since B&B's time in New England (per Vegas Insider)

Quote

So they've dominated their Division.  Well, that's not news.  

 

But this is - here is a quote from the Boston.com article that I had linked to earlier titled The Terrible AFC East Has Been the Fuel Feeding the Patriots Prowess:

 

Quote

Since the Brady-Belichick Era began in New England in 2001, the Buffalo Bills are a pathetic 83-130, never having a better record than the 9-7 mark they achieved in 2004, good for third place in the division.

Meanwhile, the two teams that have managed to sneak in titles under the Patriots reign haven’t been too successful from an overall standpoint either. The Dolphins are all of 98-115 over the same timeframe, and the Jets are 105-108, the most successful of the bunch with six playoff appearances. At least the Jets have been to the AFC title game, which they lost to the Steelers in the 2010 season. New York is 7-7 in the playoffs over that timeframe, while the Dolphins are 0-2. Their last postseason win came in 2000, a wild card win over then-AFC rivals Indianapolis Colts.

...

The Patriots have indeed found that key with a 63-18 record within the AFC East since the start of the 2001 season. The Jets are 39-41 over that same period; the Dolphins, 34-48, the Bills, 27-54.

But how much of New England’s success can be attributed to the fact that the Patriots are one of the NFL’s premier franchises, and how much is the simple fact that the AFC East has been a long-running punch line? In short, if the Patriots of the Brady-Belichick era were in any other division, would history look at their greatness so favorably?

This is indeed an interesting article, because this isn't a dude at The Sporting News, or Pro Football Focus with an issue with the team.  What is most interesting to me about this article (circa 2014) is that it's published by Boston.com!  

 

So maybe there is some lingering question among the faithful regarding their good fortune.  And that's my primary point too.

 

Yes they Win.  Yes they are a Dynasty.  But there have been an awful lot of favorable breaks for those guys.  That cannot be discounted.