Bill Belichick #7 on ESPN coaches all-time list

[BOTT]

Well I think he should be #5 maybe. Without Tom Brady New England wouldn't have a Super Bowl.

Fixed that

[Fx Stryker]

Fixed that

 

Bledsoe would have won in '01.

 

Belichick won his three Super Bowls without an elite QB. Brady wasn't "elite" until 2007.

[Jules]

Bledsoe would have won in '01.

 

Belichick won his three Super Bowls without an elite QB. Brady wasn't "elite" until 2007.

 

Why? Because of his regular season numbers going up with Moss and Welker in 2007?

 

Brady always did a lot with lesser WRs...Say what you want about that team but if they had better WRs in 2006 I don't think we ring that year.....

 

I also get confused still to this day over what the definition of an elite QB is. I really don't know why some get called it and some don't and when the label is supposedly fitting or who determines who is elite.

[Dustin]

Why? Because of his regular season numbers going up with Moss and Welker in 2007?

Brady always did a lot with lesser WRs...Say what you want about that team but if they had better WRs in 2006 I don't think we ring that year.....

I also get confused still to this day over what the definition of an elite QB is. I really don't know why some get called it and some don't and when the label is supposedly fitting or who determines who is elite.

What do you mean "a lot with lesser receivers" his numbers were consistently average until he got Moss.

[Jules]

What do you mean "a lot" his numbers were consistently average until he got Moss.

 

Wins.......

 

I suspect I am not as into the pure stats as some are. Wins/losses.......winning when it matters. It all means more to me as a whole then just pretty regular season numbers.....

 

JMO

[Dustin]

Wins.......

I suspect I am not as into the pure stats as some are. Wins/losses.......winning when it matters. It all means more to me as a whole then just pretty regular season numbers.....

JMO

Ok so you mean he has more team accomplishments? I guess I would agree.

[BOTT]

What do you mean "a lot with lesser receivers" his numbers were consistently average until he got Moss.

They were also changing over from a Charlie Weiss offense to Josh McDaniels

[Jules]

Ok so you mean he has more team accomplishments? I guess I would agree.

 

Fair enough.

 

But, if this is going to turn into team accomplishments vs. individual accomplishments for QBs debate 1 million I am going to bow out now. I am sick of those. It's not even a total individual accomplishment completely either in the regular season when the entire offense plays a part in it and those numbers.

[Dustin]

They were also changing over from a Charlie Weiss offense to Josh McDaniels

True.

[amfootball]

Why? Because of his regular season numbers going up with Moss and Welker in 2007?

 

Brady always did a lot with lesser WRs...Say what you want about that team but if they had better WRs in 2006 I don't think we ring that year.....

 

I also get confused still to this day over what the definition of an elite QB is. I really don't know why some get called it and some don't and when the label is supposedly fitting or who determines who is elite.

I agree Jules. I guess winning three SBs does not mean you are elite. Can't figure it out. Seems to be a prevalent thought up here for some reason.

 

I have posted this before but for all the talk about how Brady was carried by his defense only once in his five trips to the SB did his defense rank higher than his offense - 2003. Even in 2001 the year everyone likes to point to as the prime example of Brady just managing the game, he led the sixth ranked offense in points scored and led a bunch of 4th quarter comebacks including one in the playoffs and then again in the SB. If that is not elite, I don't know what is.

[amfootball]

Bledsoe would have won in '01.

 

Belichick won his three Super Bowls without an elite QB. Brady wasn't "elite" until 2007.

As someone who watched every single Bledsoe game and lived the drama of the Brady/Bledsoe debate, I can tell you with 100 percent certainty that Bledsoe would not have won the SB in 2001. Under Belichick, Bledsoe went 5-11 in 2000 and began 2001 at 0-2 before Brady stepped in. Bledsoe was not going to last past '01 with Belichick. Bill said as much in the Brady Six program. Brady was already the QB Bill wanted - a guy that could take what the defense gave him and not turn it over. Bledsoe was never that guy as evidenced by his careerr 77 QBR.

[Coltscodeblue]

viriludant quote: Untrue. Belichick has said that after the Patriots started out 0-2 in '01, he was already close to sitting Bledsoe.

 

Of course he would say that, duh! BB arrogance wouldn't allow anybody to know the real truth and BB has to make himself look like a genius and of course you would believe that being a homer. ROTFlmao

 

I do think this will be T.Brady's last season, not defiantly, but he's done a lot as everybody knows and now he's a successful horse breeder now big race winner! Going to another SB is possible, but not sure he would like to be a QB to lose last three SB appearances if he gets hurt this year during the season he might just say I'm done and not try to come back and look like he is for the fans and just pass the reigns to the next man up, If Pats make it to SB and their fow would be Seattle or SF and I don't think T.Brady alone will be able to beat either one of those teams.....but all speculation on my part.

 

I know people will think he will do a B.Favre and keep going, but B.Favre was trying to get to another SB while T.Brady was there just a season ago and who knows if the fire is starting to dim. I think he will miss Wes even though Pats fans have thrown wes under the bus and now and the ones who loved wes now hate him and have shown it and now love D.Amendola before an official 1st game snap and if he'll last past that 1st snap.....

 

Going to be an interesting next few seasons.

 

Go Colts!!!!!

[Dustin]

I have posted this before but for all the talk about how Brady was carried by his defense only once in his five trips to the SB did his defense rank higher than his offense - 2003

 

Twice actually.

 

2003 and 2004.

 

2003- Offense: 12 Defense: 1

 

2004- Offense: 4 Defense: 2

[Fx Stryker]

As someone who watched every single Bledsoe game and lived the drama of the Brady/Bledsoe debate, I can tell you with 100 percent certainty that Bledsoe would not have won the SB in 2001. Under Belichick, Bledsoe went 5-11 in 2000 and began 2001 at 0-2 before Brady stepped in. Bledsoe was not going to last past '01 with Belichick. Bill said as much in the Brady Six program. Brady was already the QB Bill wanted - a guy that could take what the defense gave him and not turn it over. Bledsoe was never that guy as evidenced by his careerr 77 QBR.

 

Is Beldsoe not the QB who got the Patriots past the Steelers?

 

And I am almost 100% sure in each of the Patriots Super Bowls the offense had played bellowed season average while the defense played above season average.

 

So yes, I still say it's the defense that got them championships.

 

I highly doubt it's a coincidence each time the Patriots Dynasty defense was less than stellar the Patriots lost. In 2002, 2005, and 2006.

[-JJ-]

viriludant quote: Untrue. Belichick has said that after the Patriots started out 0-2 in '01, he was already close to sitting Bledsoe.

 

Of course he would say that, duh! BB arrogance wouldn't allow anybody to know the real truth and BB has to make himself look like a genius and of course you would believe that being a homer. ROTFlmao

NE had no running game that year (or later). BB wanted a short passing ball control game to make up for it. Before Bledsoe went down BB went to that plan. Unfortunately Drew could not throw the short passes. Brady had gone from 4th to 2nd and looked real good that year in preseason. Whether BB would have sat Drew is speculation (though he would have it Drew continued to get sacked).

What is clear is that Drew's contract was up at the end of the year and he was going to be done as a Patriot. With Brady at no. 2 it's clear he would have started the next year if he hadn't already been sent in with Drew being benched that year. The injury to Drew made it easier.

[Coltscodeblue]

I will always say it was just dumb luck, if everyone want to call BB a genius so be it, I don't see it till he's successful without T.Brady! No ifs ands or buts, that's what I want to see and until then he's just an average coach who got lucky.....

 

Just like I will admit the Colts got lucky with P.Manning, they could have went with the hyped strong arm guy R.Leaf, but their scouts might have seen R.Leaf go off and decided he was too hot headed, after seeing him go off on that reporter later with the Chargers, WOW!!!!!

 

Go Colts!!!!!

[amfootball]

Is Beldsoe not the QB who got the Patriots past the Steelers?

 

And I am almost 100% sure in each of the Patriots Super Bowls the offense had played bellowed season average while the defense played above season average.

 

So yes, I still say it's the defense that got them championships.

 

I highly doubt it's a coincidence each time the Patriots Dynasty defense was less than stellar the Patriots lost. In 2002, 2005, and 2006.

I am not sure how either point proves Bledsoe would have won the SB. When the Pats were 5-5, Brady did not lose another game which secured not only the playoffs but the second seed and a bye. Bledsoe did come in the Steeler game and led one scoring drive while the special teams scored two TDS (punt return by Brown and blocked FG returned for a TD). I think all you need to know is that Belichick started Brady in that Super Bowl on a badly sprained ankle over a healthy Bledsoe which was obviously the right move given the Pats beat the Rams.

 

In terms of the offense in the SBs, they did not underperform. They averaged in the 20's I believe for the 2001 season and scored 20 against the Rams. In SB 38 against the Panthers, it was Brady and the O that carried the day as the D surrended 29 points to the Panthers which was well above their season average. In the Eagles SB the O scored 24 which was right around their average. So, you would be wrong on this point.

 

Like I said, Bledsoe was 5-13 under Belichick. He could not run the short passing game needed in lieu of a running game and no deep field threat. If things continued the way they were going and there is no reason to believe it would have changed then Bledsoe would have been benched in favor of Brady. The Lewis hit just sped things up ...

[amfootball]

I will always say it was just dumb luck, if everyone want to call BB a genius so be it, I don't see it till he's successful without T.Brady! No ifs ands or buts, that's what I want to see and until then he's just an average coach who got lucky.....

 

Just like I will admit the Colts got lucky with P.Manning, they could have went with the hyped strong arm guy R.Leaf, but their scouts might have seen R.Leaf go off and decided he was too hot headed, after seeing him go off on that reporter later with the Chargers, WOW!!!!!

 

Go Colts!!!!!

I think you would agree that every single coach on the ESPN list had a great QB or more than one great QB like Don Shula. The two go together. I think what separates Bill is that he not only drafted Brady which I will admit was good fortune but he had the foresight to start him over the pro bowler and franchise QB Bledsoe. He has to be given credit for that.

 

The Colts had the first overall pick int he draft and got Manning. A no brainer if you ask me. The Pats had three QBs on their roster and still selected Brady because their scouts saw something special in him. Then when he outperformed both the third and second string QBs in the 2001 training camp, Belichick moved him to back up. It is pretty amazing to think a sixth rounder who was suppposed to hold a clip board his entire career is in the discussion of g.o.a.t. That is the part that you have to give Belichick credit for as he has been the HC for all of Brady's career and has been instrumental in Brady's career success.

[Yehoodi]

What do you mean "a lot with lesser receivers" his numbers were consistently average until he got Moss.

 

for what it is worth, Brady lead the league in TDs in 2002 and passing yards in 2005 . . .

 

I don't have my numbers handy at the moment but from 2001-2005 he was collectively high on the list in most categories, and near the very top against non dome/good weather QBs . . . If I remember he was top 5 overall in many categories . . . so he was not chump change . . . solid QB that did what he had to do to win . . . was on a team that played on a muddy field at times . . .

 

plus he was right shoulder probably most of the time . . . can u imagine if he was 100% healthy during those years . . . just saying . . .

[Yehoodi]

Is Beldsoe not the QB who got the Patriots past the Steelers?

 

And I am almost 100% sure in each of the Patriots Super Bowls the offense had played bellowed season average while the defense played above season average.

 

So yes, I still say it's the defense that got them championships.

 

I highly doubt it's a coincidence each time the Patriots Dynasty defense was less than stellar the Patriots lost. In 2002, 2005, and 2006.

 

for what it is worth the Pats D gave up 29 points (31 had Fox just kicked extra points) which is the third highest points among SB losers (SB 13 and SB 47 being the other two) . . . so if the offense does not score 32 points (interesting 31 without a two point conversion) we don't win SB 39 . . . the O put up 27 points in 2006 AFCCG . . .  

 

further had Woodson gotten to Brady a 0.3 seconds later (and did not hit his helmet) its a fumble and they are one and done, had Tenn's bennet held onto the ball late in that game its first and ten in the red zone only down by 3 points . . . they are one and done again . .  . had the O not score 32 points in SB 39 we don't win. . . the championship D has zero rings between 2001-2004 . . . 

 

likewise had Tyree not caught that ball, we catch one of three possible picks or Eli does not fall on his own fumble, we very likely win, had the D stopped the two mannings in their final drives in AFFCG '06, SB 42, SB46 we win . . . had troy brown not run an in route when he supposed to run an out route in the 06 game we win and maybe the SB too . . . had welker held onto the ball and so on . . .

 

with the exception of 2004 where we were not going to be denied IMO (and where the O helped secure the SB) . . . we were one play away from SB/one and done or another win/loss combo in the years 2001, 2003, 2006, 2007 and 2011 . . .  yes the D was strong in 01, 03 and 06 . . . but a bounce here or there can change the image of the 01-11 team . . . so it is not as clear cut as some think . . .

 

regardless the team was strong enough from 2001 to 2011 to be one play away from a win in 5 of those year and not surprisingly about half those time we won . . . and whether the credit goes to the D in 01 and 03 or the O in 07 and 11 has as much to do with luck as it does the intrinsic value of each side of the ball, IMO  . . .

 

my two cents . . .

 

Edit: yes Bledsoe did help on the field in that game and off the field on others . . . but he was prone to getting locked in at times while on the field and yes he could have won a SB as some point during the 01-04 years, but what helped a great deal was TB keeping his TOs down during those years . . I think the lowest INT % of a QB in the playoffs since bart starr, so that helped the cause '01-'04 . . .not sure if Bledsoe might of been able to do that in those 9 PO games .

[Dustin]

for what it is worth, Brady lead the league in TDs in 2002 and passing yards in 2005 . . .

 

I don't have my numbers handy at the moment but from 2001-2005 he was collectively high on the list in most categories, and near the very top against non dome/good weather QBs . . . If I remember he was top 5 overall in many categories . . . so he was not chump change . . . solid QB that did what he had to do to win . . . was on a team that played on a muddy field at times . . .

 

plus he was right shoulder probably most of the time . . . can u imagine if he was 100% healthy during those years . . . just saying . . .

 

2001: 15th in YPA, 13th in TD percentage, 4th in completion percentage

 

2002: 21st in YPA, 8th in TD percentage, 10th in completion percentage

 

2003: 11th in YPA, 11th in TD percentage, 13th in completion percentage

 

2004:10th in YPA, 6th in TD percentage, 17th in completion percentage

 

2005: 4th in YPA, 7th in TD percentage, 8th in completion percentage.

 

So from 2001-2005 he averaged around 12th in YPA, 9th in TD percentage, and 10th in completion percentage.

 

So slightly above average.

[Yehoodi]

I will always say it was just dumb luck, if everyone want to call BB a genius so be it, I don't see it till he's successful without T.Brady! No ifs ands or buts, that's what I want to see and until then he's just an average coach who got lucky.....

 

Just like I will admit the Colts got lucky with P.Manning, they could have went with the hyped strong arm guy R.Leaf, but their scouts might have seen R.Leaf go off and decided he was too hot headed, after seeing him go off on that reporter later with the Chargers, WOW!!!!!

 

Go Colts!!!!!

 

I hear ya . . . but every great QB has a great head coach and vice versa . . . I think Brady has a lost to do with the wins but BB too . . . and also, when I look at the great coaches since the Merger, they all have had great QB during their great runs . . .so for me it balances it out among the coaches . . . my two cents . . .

[BOTT]

I think you would agree that every single coach on the ESPN list had a great QB or more than one great QB like Don Shula. The two go together. I think what separates Bill is that he not only drafted Brady which I will admit was good fortune but he had the foresight to start him over the pro bowler and franchise QB Bledsoe. He has to be given credit for that.

 

The Colts had the first overall pick int he draft and got Manning. A no brainer if you ask me. The Pats had three QBs on their roster and still selected Brady because their scouts saw something special in him. Then when he outperformed both the third and second string QBs in the 2001 training camp, Belichick moved him to back up. It is pretty amazing to think a sixth rounder who was suppposed to hold a clip board his entire career is in the discussion of g.o.a.t. That is the part that you have to give Belichick credit for as he has been the HC for all of Brady's career and has been instrumental in Brady's career success.

Not sure Joe Gibbs or Bill Parcells ever had a great QB. The fact that Gibbs won two of his three Super Bowls with mediocre quarterbacks is impressive.

[amfootball]

Not sure Joe Gibbs or Bill Parcells ever had a great QB. The fact that Gibbs won two of his three Super Bowls with mediocre quarterbacks is impressive.

Sure, there are abberations but for the type of sustained success year after year that Belichick has had for 13+ years it takes a special QB that is good more than just one year or a couple of years. To win 10 games in 10 seasons straight, 13 wins in four different seasons, 16 games in one season, 21 consecutive games, and three bowls in four years takes a special combo of HC and QB. That was my point.

 

And Gibbs and Parcells never won a QB in the FA/Cap era ...

[BOTT]

I think you would agree that every single coach on the ESPN list had a great QB or more than one great QB like Don Shula. The two go together. I think what separates Bill is that he not only drafted Brady which I will admit was good fortune but he had the foresight to start him over the pro bowler and franchise QB Bledsoe. He has to be given credit for that.

 

The Colts had the first overall pick int he draft and got Manning. A no brainer if you ask me. The Pats had three QBs on their roster and still selected Brady because their scouts saw something special in him. Then when he outperformed both the third and second string QBs in the 2001 training camp, Belichick moved him to back up. It is pretty amazing to think a sixth rounder who was suppposed to hold a clip board his entire career is in the discussion of g.o.a.t. That is the part that you have to give Belichick credit for as he has been the HC for all of Brady's career and has been instrumental in Brady's career success.

Sure, there are abberations but for the type of sustained success year after year that Belichick has had for 13+ years it takes a special QB that is good more than just one year or a couple of years. To win 10 games in 10 seasons straight, 13 wins in four different seasons, 16 games in one season, 21 consecutive games, and three bowls in four years takes a special combo of HC and QB. That was my point.

 

And Gibbs and Parcells never won a QB in the FA/Cap era ...

I thought it was pretty clear one of your points was "every single coach on the list has had a great QB or more" .

[amfootball]

I thought it was pretty clear one of your points was "every single coach on the list has had a great QB or more" .

Certainly the majority. Gibbs like I said is probably the biggest abberation winning three bowls with different QBs. Parcells had Simms for both of his with Hostetler stepping in when Simms got hurt to win the second one. It happens but it is rare and neither of them have had the type of sustained success year after year that Belichick has had. And again, I give even more consideration to Belichick because he has done it in the FA/Cap era.

[BigMac]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/page/greatestcoach7/greatest-coaches-nfl-history-bill-belichick

 

I was really enjoying ESPNs all time greatest NFL coaches with the exception of Dungy being on it but I can get over that. The fact that they put Bill B. at #7 is ridiculous. So much so that they almost apologize in their write-up for it. Apparently they are holding his two SB losses to the Giants against him.

 

There is no way there are SIX coaches better than him. I mean that is pretty much evident just from reading this one graph from them on his historic achievements: 

 

"Belichick was the first coach to win at least 10 games in 10 consecutive seasons and the first to win three Super Bowls in a four-year span (2001, 2003 and 2004 seasons). He also coached the Patriots to the NFL's first 16-0 regular season in 2007 (although they lost the Super Bowl to the New York Giants). That 2007 team set a league record by averaging 36.8 points per game. The 2011 Patriots were Belichick's fifth Super Bowl team (and second to lose to the Giants)."

 

He is top 3 at worst. The only coaches honestly I can see putting ahead of him are Chuck Knoll given the four rings and possibly Vince Lombardi. But as I have said before, to have the type of success in the cap/FA era that he has had is what separates him. His only constant has been Brady these past 13 years. Every other player position as well as his assistant and position coaches have changed over multiple times. This is just some vendetta on ESPNs half. Not surprising I suppose but every disappointing.

 

I haven't read the article but he is not top three. Lombardi is number one, Noll should be ahead of him, Bill Walsh, Tom Landy (he created the shotgun, the middle linebacker and the pass catching tight end), I would also rank Shula ahead of him at the very least...

That doesn't count coaches from the past like Halas and others.

[crazycolt1]

Belichick is the greatest coach of All-Time.....If we had him with Manning all those years we would have won 4 or 5 Super Bowls...

Are counting his record away from New England? 

[BOTT]

Certainly the majority. Gibbs like I said is probably the biggest abberation winning three bowls with different QBs. Parcells had Simms for both of his with Hostetler stepping in when Simms got hurt to win the second one. It happens but it is rare and neither of them have had the type of sustained success year after year that Belichick has had. And again, I give even more consideration to Belichick because he has done it in the FA/Cap era.

I really have no idea who is better between the three, but I don't think you can give BB the edge because he played in the salary cap era. There are some disadvantages no doubt, but then again you don't have to play against some of the enormously talented teams like they did in the past.

[jshipp23]

Certainly the majority. Gibbs like I said is probably the biggest abberation winning three bowls with different QBs. Parcells had Simms for both of his with Hostetler stepping in when Simms got hurt to win the second one. It happens but it is rare and neither of them have had the type of sustained success year after year that Belichick has had. And again, I give even more consideration to Belichick because he has done it in the FA/Cap era.

Parcells had the most devastating defensive player in NFL history, and Gibbs had a great defense and one of the greatest O-Lines in history, all-time great receiver-Art Monk, All-Time great CB- Darrell Green....

[amfootball]

I really have no idea who is better between the three, but I don't think you can give BB the edge because he played in the salary cap era. There are some disadvantages no doubt, but then again you don't have to play against some of the enormously talented teams like they did in the past.

Splitting hairs in some regards but Belichicks run has been more impressive in terms of regular season and post-season wins and championships. While it is true you don't have the powerhouse teams there are also no roll over games either against the small market clubs. The niners could pretty much sleep walk to 10 wins every year given how awful the teams were in the NFC outside of the big market clubs. In the cap/era there are no gimmie wins which is why more than half the playoff teams change every year ...

[BOTT]

Splitting hairs in some regards but Belichicks run has been more impressive in terms of regular season and post-season wins and championships. While it is true you don't have the powerhouse teams there are also no roll over games either against the small market clubs. The niners could pretty much sleep walk to 10 wins every year given how awful the teams were in the NFC outside of the big market clubs. In the cap/era there are no gimmie wins which is why more than half the playoff teams change every year ...

.

Of course it's been more impressive. Now replace Tom Brady with Doug Williams, Mark Rypien, Jeff Hostetler, or Vinny Testaverde. Again, that doesn't necessarily make then better than BB.....it's just impossible to judge.

[amfootball]

.

Of course it's been more impressive. Now replace Tom Brady with Doug Williams, Mark Rypien, Jeff Hostetler, or Vinny Testaverde. Again, that doesn't necessarily make then better than BB.....it's just impossible to judge.

I don't have the time or energy to do this but if you take the entire roster of those Redskins teams and compare with the Pats team of the '00s, the Skins will have the Pats beat at the majority of spots. There is a reason why Gibbs won with those Qbs - he had powerhouse teams pre-cap/FA. Belichick's 2001 team was comprised of a ton of low market FAs. Doubt Rypien or Williams would have won anything with that cast. So it goes both ways...

[Deathiltis]

Lol

[BOTT]

I don't have the time or energy to do this but if you take the entire roster of those Redskins teams and compare with the Pats team of the '00s, the Skins will have the Pats beat at the majority of spots. There is a reason why Gibbs won with those Qbs - he had powerhouse teams pre-cap/FA. Belichick's 2001 team was comprised of a ton of low market FAs. Doubt Rypien or Williams would have won anything with that cast. So it goes both ways...

I remember those redskins teams well..and other than the wide receivers I don't think that is true at all.

[-JJ-]

I remember those redskins teams well..and other than the wide receivers I don't think that is true at all.

The hogs and Riggins weren't a powerhouse? Doug Williams was pretty good some days...others not so much:)

[BOTT]

The hogs and Riggins weren't a powerhouse? Doug Williams was pretty good some days...others not so much:)

I didn't say they weren't a powerhouse....I just don't think they beat those patriot teams at a majority of spots. Their defense could be pretty poor at times.

[southwest1]

It's no secret how much I respect & revere Bill Belichick. FX is exactly right #7 is way off. At least put the grey hoodie within the top 5.

 

I know I say this a lot, but to understand the genius of Bill Belichick, you have to take a hard look at the Cleveland Brown years and what Bill learned from failure. A failure not of his own making but ownership shortcomings Art Modell & a fickle fan base that never really gave Bill a fair shot to implement his scouting strategies that are 2nd nature today. Bill didn't shrivel up & die like a delicate flower in the desert. He learned that the media is usually consumed with trivial things that distract a team's focus & like Tedy Bruschi said in the video Bill told a player why doing a technique a certain way was so important.  You aren't just doing something to go through the motions. If you beat your man across from you correctly through proper technique, it becomes automatic, builds confidence, & it helps you realize that you are 1 small piece of the puzzle to win a championship collectively not individually. 

 

Loss and failure build character & it forces a person to confront their biggest demons & inner weaknesses head on without flinching. Bill's years in Cleveland made him more a NE success than his NY days as the Giants DC ever did. The 2 SB's under Bill Parcels put him on the NFL coaching map yes, but Cleveland & the lessons he took away from it made the Grey Hoodie the astute football guru the man he is today. SW1 sincerely believes that down to his core no exaggeration. 

[amfootball]

I remember those redskins teams well..and other than the wide receivers I don't think that is true at all.

They were stacked at all positions:

RB: Riggins, Byner, Timmy Smith

Defense: Darell Green, Charles Mann, Dexter Manley, Wilbur Marshall, Monte Coleman

Offensive lineman: the hogs - Jeff Bostic, Russ Grimm, Mark May, Joe Jacoby

Special teams: Brian Mitchell, Mark Moseley

And at receiver as you note (Monk, Gary Clark, Sanders, etc).

 

But here is the rub - Gibbs got to keep all those players Riggins, Monk, Green, Grimm because there was no FA/Cap. Imagine if Brady never lost Branch, Givens, Moss, Ty Law, Samuels, etc. That is the difference. Belichick has had to reconstruct winning teams pretty much every three years. That is why I give him the nod over Gibbs and Parcells both of whom did not fair well when they coached in the cap/FA compared to their coaching days pre-FA/Cap.

[amfootball]

It's no secret how much I respect & revere Bill Belichick. FX is exactly right #7 is way off. At least put the grey hoodie within the top 5.

 

I know I say this a lot, but to understand the genius of Bill Belichick, you have to take a hard look at the Cleveland Brown years and what Bill learned from failure. A failure not of his own making but ownership shortcomings Art Modell & a fickle fan base that never really gave Bill a fair shot to implement his scouting strategies that are 2nd nature today. Bill didn't shrivel up & die like a delicate flower in the desert. He learned that the media is usually consumed with trivial things that distract a team's focus & like Tedy Bruschi said in the video Bill told a player why doing a technique a certain way was so important.  You aren't just doing something to go through the motions. If you beat your man across from you correctly through proper technique, it becomes automatic, builds confidence, & it helps you realize that you are 1 small piece of the puzzle to win a championship collectively not individually. 

 

Loss and failure build character & it forces a person to confront their biggest demons & inner weaknesses head on without flinching. Bill's years in Cleveland made him more a NE success than his NY days as the Giants DC ever did. The 2 SB's under Bill Parcels put him on the NFL coaching map yes, but Cleveland & the lessons he took away from it made the Grey Hoodie the astute football guru the man he is today. SW1 sincerely believes that down to his core no exaggeration. 

Great points as usual southwest. Belichick rarely gets enough credit for being the great teacher of the game that he is. Coaching when you break it down comes down to teaching. Who cares if you have a great football mind but can't tell a player how to improve himself?