Where would you rank Belichick on the all time great coaches list? What he continues to do with the Patriots just becomes more and more impressive with each year that passes. His teams aren't necessarily great by any means (I think only one or two of the Patriots teams could have potentially have the great label next to their name) but he has had his team play at a championship level for almost twenty years now in an era where it is difficult to go more than two or three seasons playing at a championship level. And five Super Bowl appearances in six years might be even more impressive.
About the only knock you can have against Belichick these days is that he wouldn't be nearly as good without Brady. And while that may be true to a certain extent you could also say the same thing about pretty much every other great coach there has been in the league.
So where would you rank Belichick amongst all time great coaches as of early 2019?
Where would you rank Belichick amongst all time great coache
-
JuggernautJ
- Posts: 1385
- Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 7:14 pm
- Location: NinerLand, Ca.
Re: Where would you rank Belichick amongst all time great co
By whatever criteria you choose to use and with whomever else you choose to include Belichick belongs in the top tier of coaches in the history of professional football.
-
Rupert Patrick
- Posts: 1746
- Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 7:53 pm
- Location: Upstate SC
Re: Where would you rank Belichick amongst all time great co
He has to rank as one of the greatest, and he didn't play with the advantages that coaches like Noll and Lombardi and Brown had where once they acquired a guy, that guy belonged to them for the rest of the guy's playing career. Chuck Noll never had to worry about replacing guys on a calibre of an LC Greenwood and a Donnie Shell and a Rocky Bleier each off-season due to free agency and the salary cap. Brown and Walsh and Noll and Landry and Lombardi all had a ton of HOFers playing for them; Belichick has had Tom Brady, Ty Law, Richard Seymour, six seasons of Adam Vinatieri, a couple of hired guns who were there for a couple years chasing a Super Bowl ring like Randy Moss and Junior Seau, and Gronk. The fact that Belichick has been so successful despite the fact they are not much more talented than the rest of the league, Brady excepted, year after year, is nothing short of amazing. If Brady had Le'Veon Bell and Antonio Brown like Roethlisberger does, the Pats would probably score about 50 points a game.lastcat3 wrote:So where would you rank Belichick amongst all time great coaches as of early 2019?
"Every time you lose, you die a little bit. You die inside. Not all your organs, maybe just your liver." - George Allen
Re: Where would you rank Belichick amongst all time great co
Let's rephrase the question:
Who in the history of pro football is a greater coach than Bill Belichick? A coach's record is an easy thing to judge and it's the only thing that counts. So, who has a better record than Belichick? Certainly no one over an extended period comparable to the Patriots' 18 year run.
Who in the history of pro football is a greater coach than Bill Belichick? A coach's record is an easy thing to judge and it's the only thing that counts. So, who has a better record than Belichick? Certainly no one over an extended period comparable to the Patriots' 18 year run.
-
74_75_78_79_
- Posts: 2353
- Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:25 pm
Re: Where would you rank Belichick amongst all time great co
Comparing the all-time-greatest HCs is often times like apples and oranges albeit differing lengths of careers, what the game may have been like during one's time as compared to another's and so on. Placing Belichick ahead of, say, Lombardi isn't only tough because either you think Vince was better and/or because it seems...'sacrilege' to place anyone over 'St Vince', but simply because one career is simply far lengthy than the other.
Maybe had Vince coached Washington, say, all through the '70s or even longer that he may have tacked on some more of those very trophies named after him; but we'll simply never know. Maybe Walsh ends up winning SF even more hardware than Seifert did had he continued on as HC for another ten years; maybe not. Belichick has had a very lengthy run whereas neither Vince nor Walsh did. All one can say is that Vince won his 5th for GB (year nine) quicker than Belichick did for NE (year 17), Belichick winning his 3rd for NE quicker than Walsh did (in year ten) for SF. Walsh, unlike the other two, never won back-to-back but at least never lost a Super Bowl whereas Belichick has lost three, Vince losing in '60. Then again, it's harder to go unbeaten in eight and six tries respectively than just...three. In either event, comparing Lombardi and Walsh (ten seasons each) to each other is more feasible than comparing either to (24 seasons and counting) Belichick; and for that I (like most) give the nod to Vince over Walsh. -
Landry and Shula are two careers you can compare to one another with the former clocking in at 29 seasons, the latter at 33. Pretty even enough between the two end of day. Belichick is another five years from reaching the longevity of Tom, and within ten of surpassing Don, but a very lengthy career is a very lengthy career so you can compare him with the two hence noticeably place him ahead of both if only because he's won more Lombadis than both combined and, with this win over KC yesterday, is now two away from clinching as many SB berths as both combined as well. Yes, Landry with those 20-straight winning seasons (and almost as many CC-berths as Hoodie) and Shula with even more winning seasons to his credit than Landry (not having a losing one until his 14th season, his second - and last - not until 12 years after that), but the Lombardis clearly place him ahead of both for he himself has had quite the winning run (and CC-berths galore) himself since 2001.
Had Chuck Noll simply retired just after the '79 campaign, who knows how much even greater his legacy would be today. But unlike Vince and Walsh, he did coach on some (12 seasons) more after winning that 4th and final Ring hence suffering quite a share of mediocrity. Yes, Noll had the HOFers in the '70s but he didn't exactly have a Tom Brady at his disposal the following decade; or at least a still healthy and barely past his peak, if past at all, Terry playing on quite a few more years. That doesn't take away how remarkable Belichick has been this century (I can't deny he's surpassed Noll). His rotating a bunch of gritty, "nothing special" non-Pro Bowlers and keeping the Pats as competitve as they've been all this time in, yes, this here free-agency/salary cap era. Belichick, with me, gets even more credit than Brady (as 'Mt Rushmore'-QB he is) for this very ongoing run, but though I think he would have still had his moments (as Noll himself still did; see '84 and '89 for starters), it's very likely Belichick doesn't have it quite as easy had Cliff Stoudt, Mark Malone, Todd Blackledge, and/or Brister (as much as I liked him) been at his disposal instead these past 19 years. All teams that have an era of winning multiple championships needs a HOF quarterback for it to happen no matter how great a coach or organization; and Belichick not only had one all this time, but a 'Mt Rushmore' one.
If you feel that the Browns were the best in pro football '46-thru-'49 before entering the NFL, then it may be tough to place Belichick ahead of Paul Brown. Ten league championship game berths in a row, the first five of those wins, the next three losses (but two 11-1 campaigns in that stretch), then winning the next two to make it 7-out-of-10 (scary). A 5-7 'break' in '56, another LCG-berth the next year, one last playoff berth in '58 but at least winning seasons the rest of his time with Browns through '62. No playoff victories later on in Cincy (0-3), but given the three-headed AFC monster that was Mia/Pit/Oak - ain't no crime. Grooming Bill Walsh and his SBXXIII HC-opponent, Sam Wyche, during that time quite the extra feathers in his cap.
One HC who seems to get lost in the GOAT convo is Papa Bear himself! Forty seasons total! Only SIX of them losing ones! It took his 21st season to win his 5th title, 36th season to win his 6th and final one. But in those 40 seasons his win-%-age, for now, is better than Belichick's .682 to .680. Hoodie has one undefeated regular season; Papa Bear had two!
At the very, very least, Bill Belichick is a Top-3 of All-Time HC and I'll leave it at that. If you say he's #1, I won't get up on a soap-box.
Maybe had Vince coached Washington, say, all through the '70s or even longer that he may have tacked on some more of those very trophies named after him; but we'll simply never know. Maybe Walsh ends up winning SF even more hardware than Seifert did had he continued on as HC for another ten years; maybe not. Belichick has had a very lengthy run whereas neither Vince nor Walsh did. All one can say is that Vince won his 5th for GB (year nine) quicker than Belichick did for NE (year 17), Belichick winning his 3rd for NE quicker than Walsh did (in year ten) for SF. Walsh, unlike the other two, never won back-to-back but at least never lost a Super Bowl whereas Belichick has lost three, Vince losing in '60. Then again, it's harder to go unbeaten in eight and six tries respectively than just...three. In either event, comparing Lombardi and Walsh (ten seasons each) to each other is more feasible than comparing either to (24 seasons and counting) Belichick; and for that I (like most) give the nod to Vince over Walsh. -
Landry and Shula are two careers you can compare to one another with the former clocking in at 29 seasons, the latter at 33. Pretty even enough between the two end of day. Belichick is another five years from reaching the longevity of Tom, and within ten of surpassing Don, but a very lengthy career is a very lengthy career so you can compare him with the two hence noticeably place him ahead of both if only because he's won more Lombadis than both combined and, with this win over KC yesterday, is now two away from clinching as many SB berths as both combined as well. Yes, Landry with those 20-straight winning seasons (and almost as many CC-berths as Hoodie) and Shula with even more winning seasons to his credit than Landry (not having a losing one until his 14th season, his second - and last - not until 12 years after that), but the Lombardis clearly place him ahead of both for he himself has had quite the winning run (and CC-berths galore) himself since 2001.
Had Chuck Noll simply retired just after the '79 campaign, who knows how much even greater his legacy would be today. But unlike Vince and Walsh, he did coach on some (12 seasons) more after winning that 4th and final Ring hence suffering quite a share of mediocrity. Yes, Noll had the HOFers in the '70s but he didn't exactly have a Tom Brady at his disposal the following decade; or at least a still healthy and barely past his peak, if past at all, Terry playing on quite a few more years. That doesn't take away how remarkable Belichick has been this century (I can't deny he's surpassed Noll). His rotating a bunch of gritty, "nothing special" non-Pro Bowlers and keeping the Pats as competitve as they've been all this time in, yes, this here free-agency/salary cap era. Belichick, with me, gets even more credit than Brady (as 'Mt Rushmore'-QB he is) for this very ongoing run, but though I think he would have still had his moments (as Noll himself still did; see '84 and '89 for starters), it's very likely Belichick doesn't have it quite as easy had Cliff Stoudt, Mark Malone, Todd Blackledge, and/or Brister (as much as I liked him) been at his disposal instead these past 19 years. All teams that have an era of winning multiple championships needs a HOF quarterback for it to happen no matter how great a coach or organization; and Belichick not only had one all this time, but a 'Mt Rushmore' one.
If you feel that the Browns were the best in pro football '46-thru-'49 before entering the NFL, then it may be tough to place Belichick ahead of Paul Brown. Ten league championship game berths in a row, the first five of those wins, the next three losses (but two 11-1 campaigns in that stretch), then winning the next two to make it 7-out-of-10 (scary). A 5-7 'break' in '56, another LCG-berth the next year, one last playoff berth in '58 but at least winning seasons the rest of his time with Browns through '62. No playoff victories later on in Cincy (0-3), but given the three-headed AFC monster that was Mia/Pit/Oak - ain't no crime. Grooming Bill Walsh and his SBXXIII HC-opponent, Sam Wyche, during that time quite the extra feathers in his cap.
One HC who seems to get lost in the GOAT convo is Papa Bear himself! Forty seasons total! Only SIX of them losing ones! It took his 21st season to win his 5th title, 36th season to win his 6th and final one. But in those 40 seasons his win-%-age, for now, is better than Belichick's .682 to .680. Hoodie has one undefeated regular season; Papa Bear had two!
At the very, very least, Bill Belichick is a Top-3 of All-Time HC and I'll leave it at that. If you say he's #1, I won't get up on a soap-box.
Re: Where would you rank Belichick amongst all time great co
I agree that a comparison is apples to oranges, there's just too many differences in different eras of pro football for me to conclusively say Lombardi was greater than Belichick or Belichick is greater than Lombardi.
I prefer sort of a stream of consciousness about what I appreciate most about each coach, then try to sort out in my mind which one I appreciate the most. So for instance, here is what immediately comes to mind:
Lombardi -- took a group of players who had been terrible and brought them collectively to a consistently effective level of play that had a mystique, an aura. The anecdote about how after the 1960 loss to Philly, Lombardi said to the team that the tragedy was not that they lost, but that they did not believe they were good enough to win inspired his team, especially Starr. I've used that sentiment to fuel me before some of my competitive road races, and it has propelled me to the medal podium multiple times. Believe you are good enough to win. Believe you can beat anyone -- ANYONE!! That's Vince running right next to me, and those trying to catch me feel him there too.
Belichick - Takes so many seemingly undersized skill players and utilizes them perfectly over and over again to devastate, and I think demoralize opponents (they must be thinking how can these tiny guys Troy Brown, Wes Welker, Danny Woodhead, Julian Edelman be KILLING us?). "The Patriot Way" is what seems to drive them. Of course Brady is the key, but even had a winning season with Matt Cassel. Had some bizarre luck (or maybe there's another word for it) with the Tuck, Deflategate, Spygate, the Malcolm Butler play, the always mediocre AFC East rivals who can't find a good coach or QB for 20 years. Those factors and the lack of a sustained great rival or foil if you will, takes a little luster from his legacy but I am in awe of how great a team he has put together with no high draft picks for two decades.
Shula - Took five offensive linemen who had been discarded by other teams and made them into a technically perfect unit that I think was the most effective line ever. No-names were the most under-rated defense in history, probably because the Steel Curtain immediately got everyone's attention right after them. The WFL defections should have absolutely sunk his team, but he got a strong 10-4 record out of them in '75 in one the great single-season coaching jobs ever, and kept rebuilding playoff contenders over and over for another 20 years. Did get outcoached in multiple big games however.
Noll - took over basically an expansion team with hardly any quality players, then drafted players from places no one was scouting ("Who's Joe Greene?") over and over and got the very most out of them. Won with the running game and then with the passing game. Overwhelmed incredible rivals (Oakland, Cincinnati, Houston, Miami, Minnesota, Dallas) laden with top-tier Hall of Famers and coaches.
Walsh - took a team with basically nothing and bare of draft picks from the OJ trade, to go from 2-14 to Super Bowl winners in three years, led by a ridiculously young corps of defensive backs, a supposedly over the hill MLB (Reynolds), a malcontent pass rusher (Dean), a third-round, chicken-legged QB, a WR who caught hardly any passes in college (Clark) and another WR who was a college QB (Solomon). Then overcame a failed high-publicity experiment (Nehemiah), took on a reputed fumbler (Tyler) as his marquee back, and lots of drug rumors (substantiated or otherwise) throughout the team to build maybe the best team ever in '84, finishing in what to me was the most impressive Super Bowl performance ever considering what they did to Shula and Marino's passing game that no one else had done that year. Incredibly enough, the rise of Rice in the late 80s is almost an afterthought to me compared to what Walsh did in the early and mid-80s.
Parcells - Had a persona that made you think, holy crap, this guy is a human steamroller. None of his teams had overwhelming talent, especially in the defensive secondary and WRs, but they seemed like they had a sense of every player thinking they had to be the one to turn the game, because there is no one big gun that would do it. Using a 5-7 running back (Morris) as his workhorse seemed like a stupid idea, but boy it worked well. Drove Simms to be better than anyone thought he could be. Kept LT under some sense of control (debatable I suppose) so he could survive the week to detonate on Sundays. Took on teams in an NFC in the 1980s that was just loaded with big, mean, fast athletes all throughout his schedule.
Gibbs - Had faith in Doug Williams when there really didn't seem to be any reason. Williams had a historically bad post-season statistical record, so why would you think he could lead a playoff-ready team to the next level, all the while enduring the pressure of representing his race against the prejudice and racism prevalent in that era? You got to be kidding me. So then Doug shows the world the greatest quarter of football ever, and Gibbs looks like a genius. Timmy Smith was another great decision. Before then, Gibbs found Joe Jacoby, Darrell Green, Dexter Manley, Charles Mann, and Gary Clark when none of them had shown obvious signs of great careers ahead. Alvin Garrett too, he dominated the '82 post-season out of nowhere. Gibbs just had a great knack for evaluating players. The three Super Bowls with three different QBs and three different main RBs is something truly remarkable.
Landry - The Dirty Dozen of '75 was the quickest, strongest "rebuild on the fly" job ever. Made every other team in the league ashamed of their drafting. Always had what looked like the most athletic team in the league, and took on the pressure of just about always being favored with consistent performance to merit that favored status. Took on strong NFC East rivals for decades. I don't know if he was involved in the trades to get the draft picks for Too Tall, Randy White and Dorsett, but it seemed like in the 70s the Cowboys and Rams were the only competitive teams to aggressively trade up for draft picks as a way to make their already great teams even greater, and it certainly worked out well. I'm not sure how much credit his players gave him for their success, seems like quite a few were pretty lukewarm about his influence. Could be they didn't quite appreciate him as much as maybe they should.
So how do I sort out all of that? Obviously each coach would make a great choice on any list you want to make. If I was asked pick one coach to start a team or take over a terrible team, I would pick Bill Walsh, because I think he could communicate with, educate, and inspire the widest range of types of personalities, could out-strategize and out-prepare his opponents, and make the best in-game decisions as the action turned. The same could be said for all the others on the list too, but my feeling about Walsh is just a little bit stronger than the rest.
I prefer sort of a stream of consciousness about what I appreciate most about each coach, then try to sort out in my mind which one I appreciate the most. So for instance, here is what immediately comes to mind:
Lombardi -- took a group of players who had been terrible and brought them collectively to a consistently effective level of play that had a mystique, an aura. The anecdote about how after the 1960 loss to Philly, Lombardi said to the team that the tragedy was not that they lost, but that they did not believe they were good enough to win inspired his team, especially Starr. I've used that sentiment to fuel me before some of my competitive road races, and it has propelled me to the medal podium multiple times. Believe you are good enough to win. Believe you can beat anyone -- ANYONE!! That's Vince running right next to me, and those trying to catch me feel him there too.
Belichick - Takes so many seemingly undersized skill players and utilizes them perfectly over and over again to devastate, and I think demoralize opponents (they must be thinking how can these tiny guys Troy Brown, Wes Welker, Danny Woodhead, Julian Edelman be KILLING us?). "The Patriot Way" is what seems to drive them. Of course Brady is the key, but even had a winning season with Matt Cassel. Had some bizarre luck (or maybe there's another word for it) with the Tuck, Deflategate, Spygate, the Malcolm Butler play, the always mediocre AFC East rivals who can't find a good coach or QB for 20 years. Those factors and the lack of a sustained great rival or foil if you will, takes a little luster from his legacy but I am in awe of how great a team he has put together with no high draft picks for two decades.
Shula - Took five offensive linemen who had been discarded by other teams and made them into a technically perfect unit that I think was the most effective line ever. No-names were the most under-rated defense in history, probably because the Steel Curtain immediately got everyone's attention right after them. The WFL defections should have absolutely sunk his team, but he got a strong 10-4 record out of them in '75 in one the great single-season coaching jobs ever, and kept rebuilding playoff contenders over and over for another 20 years. Did get outcoached in multiple big games however.
Noll - took over basically an expansion team with hardly any quality players, then drafted players from places no one was scouting ("Who's Joe Greene?") over and over and got the very most out of them. Won with the running game and then with the passing game. Overwhelmed incredible rivals (Oakland, Cincinnati, Houston, Miami, Minnesota, Dallas) laden with top-tier Hall of Famers and coaches.
Walsh - took a team with basically nothing and bare of draft picks from the OJ trade, to go from 2-14 to Super Bowl winners in three years, led by a ridiculously young corps of defensive backs, a supposedly over the hill MLB (Reynolds), a malcontent pass rusher (Dean), a third-round, chicken-legged QB, a WR who caught hardly any passes in college (Clark) and another WR who was a college QB (Solomon). Then overcame a failed high-publicity experiment (Nehemiah), took on a reputed fumbler (Tyler) as his marquee back, and lots of drug rumors (substantiated or otherwise) throughout the team to build maybe the best team ever in '84, finishing in what to me was the most impressive Super Bowl performance ever considering what they did to Shula and Marino's passing game that no one else had done that year. Incredibly enough, the rise of Rice in the late 80s is almost an afterthought to me compared to what Walsh did in the early and mid-80s.
Parcells - Had a persona that made you think, holy crap, this guy is a human steamroller. None of his teams had overwhelming talent, especially in the defensive secondary and WRs, but they seemed like they had a sense of every player thinking they had to be the one to turn the game, because there is no one big gun that would do it. Using a 5-7 running back (Morris) as his workhorse seemed like a stupid idea, but boy it worked well. Drove Simms to be better than anyone thought he could be. Kept LT under some sense of control (debatable I suppose) so he could survive the week to detonate on Sundays. Took on teams in an NFC in the 1980s that was just loaded with big, mean, fast athletes all throughout his schedule.
Gibbs - Had faith in Doug Williams when there really didn't seem to be any reason. Williams had a historically bad post-season statistical record, so why would you think he could lead a playoff-ready team to the next level, all the while enduring the pressure of representing his race against the prejudice and racism prevalent in that era? You got to be kidding me. So then Doug shows the world the greatest quarter of football ever, and Gibbs looks like a genius. Timmy Smith was another great decision. Before then, Gibbs found Joe Jacoby, Darrell Green, Dexter Manley, Charles Mann, and Gary Clark when none of them had shown obvious signs of great careers ahead. Alvin Garrett too, he dominated the '82 post-season out of nowhere. Gibbs just had a great knack for evaluating players. The three Super Bowls with three different QBs and three different main RBs is something truly remarkable.
Landry - The Dirty Dozen of '75 was the quickest, strongest "rebuild on the fly" job ever. Made every other team in the league ashamed of their drafting. Always had what looked like the most athletic team in the league, and took on the pressure of just about always being favored with consistent performance to merit that favored status. Took on strong NFC East rivals for decades. I don't know if he was involved in the trades to get the draft picks for Too Tall, Randy White and Dorsett, but it seemed like in the 70s the Cowboys and Rams were the only competitive teams to aggressively trade up for draft picks as a way to make their already great teams even greater, and it certainly worked out well. I'm not sure how much credit his players gave him for their success, seems like quite a few were pretty lukewarm about his influence. Could be they didn't quite appreciate him as much as maybe they should.
So how do I sort out all of that? Obviously each coach would make a great choice on any list you want to make. If I was asked pick one coach to start a team or take over a terrible team, I would pick Bill Walsh, because I think he could communicate with, educate, and inspire the widest range of types of personalities, could out-strategize and out-prepare his opponents, and make the best in-game decisions as the action turned. The same could be said for all the others on the list too, but my feeling about Walsh is just a little bit stronger than the rest.
-
JohnTurney
- Posts: 2236
- Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2014 1:28 pm
Re: Where would you rank Belichick amongst all time great co
I have no doubt that Belichick one of the greatest if not the greatest head coach of all-time. Bar none. Landry, Noll, Shula, Lombardi etc.etc.etc would not have been able to go on a sustained run like he has. Although I guess you could say Landry had a prolonged run of good teams from 1965 to 1984 but when it comes to wins in the playoffs and Super Bowls he doesn't come close to Belichick.
I just wish Brady would retire to see if Belichick could sustain the run without him or would he turn into a Paul Brown without Otto Graham.
I just wish Brady would retire to see if Belichick could sustain the run without him or would he turn into a Paul Brown without Otto Graham.
Re: Where would you rank Belichick amongst all time great co
1st or 2nd or 3rd
Re: Where would you rank Belichick amongst all time great co
I have a feeling that when Brady retires Belichick is going to retire as well.JKelly wrote:I have no doubt that Belichick one of the greatest if not the greatest head coach of all-time. Bar none. Landry, Noll, Shula, Lombardi etc.etc.etc would not have been able to go on a sustained run like he has. Although I guess you could say Landry had a prolonged run of good teams from 1965 to 1984 but when it comes to wins in the playoffs and Super Bowls he doesn't come close to Belichick.
I just wish Brady would retire to see if Belichick could sustain the run without him or would he turn into a Paul Brown without Otto Graham.