Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
johnpolitics

McDaniels screws Colts

49 posts in this topic

3 hours ago, Pickle20 said:

Belichick is 14-6 without Brady in NE.

If you throw out his 5-13 record before Bledsoe got knocked out.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Ravens2006 said:

If you throw out his 5-13 record before Bledsoe got knocked out.  

Eh, sure.

But it's obvious that he's a different coach now than he was before Brady, and that means with or without him, too.

 

Edited by Pickle20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/7/2018 at 7:09 PM, Manny said:

The Colts are better off without him. I would love to see my fellow-Terp Frank Reich get a shot.

good call on that ......

go terps......

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/8/2018 at 0:49 PM, Ravens2006 said:

If you throw out his 5-13 record before Bledsoe got knocked out.  

Brady was good at making steak out of hamburger, I would bet my house NE becomes a mediocre team without him

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bmore_ken said:

Brady was good at making steak out of hamburger, I would bet my house NE becomes a mediocre team without him

He's the goat and has been the constant on that team while the other players come and go .....

I would say that's a safe bet ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think Belichick's aura is so incredibly Brady-manufactured.  42-58 career in the NFL, 5-13 with the Patriots... his curmudgeon persona doesn't work for long if you're losing.  There were already rumors of his rear being on the hot seat at the time Bledsoe was sent to the locker room.  The Pats had just given him a big deal, barring injury, they were going to sink or swim with him.

11-5 with Matt Cassel?  Sure, like I said, Todd Haley went 10-6 with the same guy a couple years later.  And 11-5 or not, they missed the playoffs that year... the only time in 15 seasons the Pats haven't played a post-season game.  Coincidence?  Doubt it.  Billick went 10-6 one year with Wright and Boller, would folks argue that made him brilliant?  :)  No, they'll say he had a good defense and great running game.  Which I'd argue is the same as having a HoF QB who basically never gets hurt (cept for once) and doesn't seem to age.

3-1 last year when Brady was suspended?  Yep, but keep in mind ARI missed what has become a high percentage 45-ish yard FG in the final minute that would likely have won the game.  Would have been 2-2 without Brady in that case, and then 11-1 with him.  And Jimmy G hasn't lost a game in the NFC yet either, so maybe just maybe the guy has talent too.  Time will tell.

Don't think the guy's an idiot.  I think he's a great defensive scheme guy for the most part, who has been blessed with the greatest, most accurate QB of the last many decades... who makes everyone and everything around him look better because of what happens when the ball comes out of his right hand.  Without that, Bill's a great defensive mind with a personality that wears very thin on people very quickly... unless they're constantly winning.  But he can thank Tommy (and maybe some shredded videotape too) for the success that put him in the HoF zone to begin with.

 

Edited by Ravens2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look at any of the great coaches in NFL history, the one common thread is that virtually all had a great quarterback. Lombardi had Starr, Paul Brown had Otto Graham, Landry had Staubach, Walsh had Montana, Shula had Unitas and later Marino, and Noll had Bradshaw. I don't think the fact that each had a Hall-of-Famer under center diminishes what they accomplished.

True, Belichick had a losing record with Cleveland (then again, Casey Stengel had a losing record when the Yankees hired him as manager), but he was also dealing with Art Modell's ownership as well. This was a period when Art wasn't doing so well financially, and the product on the field suffered as a result. If anything, I'd say the Cleveland experience probably helped make Belichick into a great coach, but it simply wasn't going to happen in Cleveland. Serving under Bill Parcells for four years probably didn't hurt, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Belichick was 11-5 in Cleveland in 1994, and started 1995 3-1.  Midway through 1995 it got out that Modell was going abandon Cleveland and he was forced to announce the Browns were moving.  They went 1-6 after that and Belichick was fired as Modell wanted a complete restart.  It's hard to assess what he might have been if allowed to continue with the Browns, but they did enter the 1995 season as a team many thought could compete for a Super Bowl.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cprenegade said:

Belichick was 11-5 in Cleveland in 1994, and started 1995 3-1.  Midway through 1995 it got out that Modell was going abandon Cleveland and he was forced to announce the Browns were moving.  They went 1-6 after that and Belichick was fired as Modell wanted a complete restart.  It's hard to assess what he might have been if allowed to continue with the Browns, but they did enter the 1995 season as a team many thought could compete for a Super Bowl.  

That organization he stood up with ozzie as a member would go on to win the sb in 2000.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2018 at 5:13 PM, bmore_ken said:

Brady was good at making steak out of hamburger, I would bet my house NE becomes a mediocre team without him

You'll be homeless if Belichick is still the HC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 2:20 AM, mdrunning said:

If you look at any of the great coaches in NFL history, the one common thread is that virtually all had a great quarterback. Lombardi had Starr, Paul Brown had Otto Graham, Landry had Staubach, Walsh had Montana, Shula had Unitas and later Marino, and Noll had Bradshaw. I don't think the fact that each had a Hall-of-Famer under center diminishes what they accomplished.

True, Belichick had a losing record with Cleveland (then again, Casey Stengel had a losing record when the Yankees hired him as manager), but he was also dealing with Art Modell's ownership as well. This was a period when Art wasn't doing so well financially, and the product on the field suffered as a result. If anything, I'd say the Cleveland experience probably helped make Belichick into a great coach, but it simply wasn't going to happen in Cleveland. Serving under Bill Parcells for four years probably didn't hurt, either.

Belicheck also had a losing record with the Patriots before Brady started. I think Brady made Belicheck. Now that Belicheck is a legend, it's much easier to get the players to buy in to whatever you want them to do.

I look at it like all the defensive coordinators we had from 2000-2010 or so. Were they all great coordinators? I doubt it but they sure looked the part. Why? Because of the great players on defense. I'm not sure Marvin Lewis is as great a coordinator as we all make him out to be. Look at all the players he had to work with...Siragusa, Ray, Rod Woodson, Chris Mccalister, Jamie Sharper, Michael Mccrary, Boulware etc. yet we think Lewis is one of the best defensive minds in the league. A great player or players will make a coach great. Now look at Parcells. That is a great coach in my opinion. He has taken every team he ever coached to the playoffs within 2 years. He made Testaverde into a great QB with the Jets. He could turn any team into contenders.

I will admit though that probably 85% of football fans will think I am wrong about Belicheck. I am probably wrong about him but my hatred towards that organization won't let me say otherwise

Edited by RavingManiac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Belichick was in NE one year before Brady became starter. It's not like BB was there for 5 years and they sucked and suddenly got good when Brady came along.

BB is from the Parcells tree...he would have been fine without Brady. Not as great as he has been, no doubt, but a good coach with a SB ring or two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pickle20 said:

Belichick was in NE one year before Brady became starter. It's not like BB was there for 5 years and they sucked and suddenly got good when Brady came along.

BB is from the Parcells tree...he would have been fine without Brady. Not as great as he has been, no doubt, but a good coach with a SB ring or two.

The facts are Belicheck was a below .500 coach with the browns and a below .500 coach with the patriots (one year). Belicheck became a great coach the same day Brady started his first game. If Brady did not come along, I wonder if the patriots would have won the Super Bowl that year. I wonder if the patriots would have won any without Brady. On the flip side, I wonder if the Patriots would have won some Super Bowls if Belicheck was not there and Brady was there. It’s all fantasy but just something to think about

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BB is a great coach, but the long reign of terror certainly has a lot to do with having one of the best QBs ever.  Phil Jackson was a great coach, but it certainly didn't hurt that he had Jordan or Kobe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 8:11 AM, ivanbalt said:

BB is a great coach, but the long reign of terror certainly has a lot to do with having one of the best QBs ever.  Phil Jackson was a great coach, but it certainly didn't hurt that he had Jordan or Kobe.

Can a coach be great without great players?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 9:37 AM, Pickle20 said:

Belichick is 14-6 without Brady in NE.

 

That simply is not true. He was 5-11 his first season there without Brady. Belicheck became great the instant Brady started playing.

Edited by RavingManiac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 1:37 AM, Ravens2006 said:

I just think Belichick's aura is so incredibly Brady-manufactured.  42-58 career in the NFL, 5-13 with the Patriots... his curmudgeon persona doesn't work for long if you're losing.  There were already rumors of his rear being on the hot seat at the time Bledsoe was sent to the locker room.  The Pats had just given him a big deal, barring injury, they were going to sink or swim with him.

11-5 with Matt Cassel?  Sure, like I said, Todd Haley went 10-6 with the same guy a couple years later.  And 11-5 or not, they missed the playoffs that year... the only time in 15 seasons the Pats haven't played a post-season game.  Coincidence?  Doubt it.  Billick went 10-6 one year with Wright and Boller, would folks argue that made him brilliant?  :)  No, they'll say he had a good defense and great running game.  Which I'd argue is the same as having a HoF QB who basically never gets hurt (cept for once) and doesn't seem to age.

3-1 last year when Brady was suspended?  Yep, but keep in mind ARI missed what has become a high percentage 45-ish yard FG in the final minute that would likely have won the game.  Would have been 2-2 without Brady in that case, and then 11-1 with him.  And Jimmy G hasn't lost a game in the NFC yet either, so maybe just maybe the guy has talent too.  Time will tell.

Don't think the guy's an idiot.  I think he's a great defensive scheme guy for the most part, who has been blessed with the greatest, most accurate QB of the last many decades... who makes everyone and everything around him look better because of what happens when the ball comes out of his right hand.  Without that, Bill's a great defensive mind with a personality that wears very thin on people very quickly... unless they're constantly winning.  But he can thank Tommy (and maybe some shredded videotape too) for the success that put him in the HoF zone to begin with.

 

This is exactly the way I feel 100%. There is not a whole lot of people who think the same way we do though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The two constants in New England for nearly two decades have been Brady and Belichick. Whether it's a symbiotic relationship or a chicken-or-the-egg question, the fact is the accomplishments of one in no way diminishes what the other has concurrently achieved.

Belichick has managed to keep winning despite constant NFL rule changes, salary caps, free agency, etc. With everything the league has done to ensure constant parity, the Patriots have remained contenders. Behind every Hall of Fame quarterback is a great coach, but behind every great coach is a Hall of Fame quarterback. Rarely does one exist without the other.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't know how to explain Belicheck being a below.500 coach until Brady came along. All of the sudden, like magic, Belicheck became a great coach the instant Brady started playing. I just think you could have replaced Belicheck with Billick and Billick would have became one of the best coaches of all time or replaced him with just about any coach in the league and they would have been a great coach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, RavingManiac said:

I just don't know how to explain Belicheck being a below.500 coach until Brady came along. All of the sudden, like magic, Belicheck became a great coach the instant Brady started playing. I just think you could have replaced Belicheck with Billick and Billick would have became one of the best coaches of all time or replaced him with just about any coach in the league and they would have been a great coach.

You act like no coach in the history of the league ever started out in less than spectacular fashion. Bill Walsh went 2-14 and 6-10 in his first two seasons with San Francisco. Midway through the second season, he replaced Steve DeBerg with a fellow named Joe Montana. I guess anyone could have gone on to win four Super Bowls if they'd just put Montana into the Niners' starting lineup? Baloney. 

Chuck Noll went 1-13 his first season in Pittsburgh, while Tom Landry didn't win a game his first season in Dallas. Yet, between them they have six Super Bowl wins.

Brady or no Brady, what the Patriots have done under Belichick just isn't supposed to happen in the parity-happy NFL. They've had to manage salary caps, free agency, constant rule changes, loss of draft picks, yet they've been contenders for close to two decades. They adapt with the times, they've won with the likes of Randy Moss at receiver and they've won with smurfs at that position. They've been a run-heavy team and a pass-heavy team, oftentimes within the same season. They play to an opponent's weaknesses and exploit them while rarely playing to their own strengths. They'll run the same play from ten different formations, and they find players who fit their philosophy, rather than the other way around. 

Most important, they manage the salary cap so as to keep enough talent around Brady. And Brady is that rare bird who makes the most of the people around him. 

Like a manager with a great pitching staff, an NFL coach certainly benefits from a great quarterback. But who's to say that Brady also hasn't benefited from playing under Belichick just like Montana benefited from playing under Walsh? 

You just don't like Belichick and you're letting it cloud your judgment. Like him or no, you have to give the devil his due.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mdrunning said:

You act like no coach in the history of the league ever started out in less than spectacular fashion. Bill Walsh went 2-14 and 6-10 in his first two seasons with San Francisco. Midway through the second season, he replaced Steve DeBerg with a fellow named Joe Montana. I guess anyone could have gone on to win four Super Bowls if they'd just put Montana into the Niners' starting lineup? Baloney. 

Chuck Noll went 1-13 his first season in Pittsburgh, while Tom Landry didn't win a game his first season in Dallas. Yet, between them they have six Super Bowl wins.

Brady or no Brady, what the Patriots have done under Belichick just isn't supposed to happen in the parity-happy NFL. They've had to manage salary caps, free agency, constant rule changes, loss of draft picks, yet they've been contenders for close to two decades. They adapt with the times, they've won with the likes of Randy Moss at receiver and they've won with smurfs at that position. They've been a run-heavy team and a pass-heavy team, oftentimes within the same season. They play to an opponent's weaknesses and exploit them while rarely playing to their own strengths. They'll run the same play from ten different formations, and they find players who fit their philosophy, rather than the other way around. 

Most important, they manage the salary cap so as to keep enough talent around Brady. And Brady is that rare bird who makes the most of the people around him. 

Like a manager with a great pitching staff, an NFL coach certainly benefits from a great quarterback. But who's to say that Brady also hasn't benefited from playing under Belichick just like Montana benefited from playing under Walsh? 

You just don't like Belichick and you're letting it cloud your judgment. Like him or no, you have to give the devil his due.

 

I don't think you realize it but your point about Bill Walsh just proves my point, not yours.

The reason, in my opinion, they get by with "smurfs" is because of Brady. We all can agree he can make poor receivers look good. Also, Brady doesn't get paid what he is worth which makes it easier to manage the salary cap. I think Flacco makes about 6 or 7 million dollars more than Brady (just a guess).

With all that said, I don't like Belicheck and my judgement is probably clouded but my argument is valid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, RavingManiac said:

I don't think you realize it but your point about Bill Walsh just proves my point, not yours.

The reason, in my opinion, they get by with "smurfs" is because of Brady. We all can agree he can make poor receivers look good. Also, Brady doesn't get paid what he is worth which makes it easier to manage the salary cap. I think Flacco makes about 6 or 7 million dollars more than Brady (just a guess).

With all that said, I don't like Belicheck and my judgement is probably clouded but my argument is valid.

The preperation of bb is legendary .....

They don't win that superb bowl against Seattle unless they practiced for that goal line play .....

How many coaches would anticipate a team running that dumb a play with lynch in the backfield in the goal line .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0