Bill Belichick's new book.... Parcells diss

[NovaCowboy]

Got a copy of his new book "The education of a coach"

Its about all the people thats influenced him over his career. Alot of it talks about his father who is also a coach.

So far the only thing I've seen about Parcells is that he said they had contrasting styles and because of that Parcells didnt really influence his coaching career.

I dont particularly like Parcells myself, but here was an opportunity for him to pay homage to someone that gave him an opportunity to break into the pros if nothing else.

Ultimate diss.

[TheHustler]

eh. whatever. they do have different styles.......

[WV Cowboy]

When you think about what Belichek did to the Jets, this comes as no surprise.

[chinch]

there is no love lost between these two and obviously if you followed the Jets/Pats situation belechick holds resentment over Tuna.

i doubt this book would be written if he went to a bad team (ala Browns) and tried to rebuild that from the ground up.

[BrAinPaiNt]

I would have no problem with him saying they had contrasting styles.

But to say Bill had no influence on him is just silly.

Even if Bill jr decided to do MANY things directly opposite of the Tuna because of contrasting styles...that is still influencing.

[NovaCowboy]

Here is another quote on Parcells...

"I knew that I had more potential than I was allowed to exhibit"

[Ken]

I don't know....


Bill B. takes all of Parcells's assistants and prepares for games exactly like Parcells, yet he has no influence.

O.K.

[DBoys]

BP gift wrapped that NE team for Belichek we will see how he does now that the talent BP brought in is getting old.

[WV Cowboy]

I would have no problem with him saying they had contrasting styles.

But to say Bill had no influence on him is just silly.

Even if Bill jr decided to do MANY things directly opposite of the Tuna because of contrasting styles...that is still influencing.
True, I am losing respect for Bill jr piece by piece.

[yesfan]

I don't know....


Bill B. takes all of Parcells's assistants and prepares for games exactly like Parcells, yet he has no influence.

O.K.

Yeah and then takes over for the Patriots when Parcells leaves.

[fortdick]

Would anyone read Mike Tice's book?

[Cowchips]

When you think about what Belichek did to the Jets, this comes as no surprise.

Wasn't it Parcells that saved Billijerk from the trash heap after his disasterous stint as head coach of the Browns?

The message is, if you're looking for loyalty from Billijerk, forget it..Bill is for Bill.

[Mike 1967]

Here is another quote on Parcells...

"I knew that I had more potential than I was allowed to exhibit"


This an interesting tidbit considering the recent debate on the amount of "control" that Bill allows to his coordinators.

Wasn't Billichik Bills Defensive Coordinator ?

[Paniolo22]

Ask the media if Parcells had an influence :rolleyes: Not a bit of info comes out of NE.

[Mike 1967]

Over the last several years I was developing a strong opinion that Billichek may have had a lot to do with Big Bills past success.

But...I am now developing an even stronger belief that Billichek's past history with the Browns is more indicative of his coaching capabilities....and....that the recent run of success may have had a lot more to do with Weiss than with Billichek

(Side Note: Sorry if I am butchering the spelling of these names.)

[mr.jameswoods]

It's a book. He is allowed to be honest. He is not sitting in front of a press conference where he has to give you some p.c. rhetoric. That's how Bellichik feels and can you blame him? I worked for a boss who took credit for my work. Yes, I was grateful he hired me but I was the one doing the work while he took credit for it.

I don't blame Bellichik. Thus far, he owns more Superbowls than Parcells and he won with less talent than Parcells. The job Bellichik did last season was flat out impressive considering all the injuries they had at defensive back etc. Aside from our 10-6 season a couple of years ago, Parcells has not shown he can be dominat without Bellichik.

Parcells is a good coach but I don't there is any way he would have won 2 Superbowls without Bellichik. If he can take us to the promise land this year, I will retract my statement. But until then, I want to see it before I believe it.

[CACowboyfan]

Belichick repeatedly shows no class toward tuna. It ticks me off. Um, he should remember, tuna is the one who gave the guy a job when Belly was fired from the Browns. In fact, his lifeline in the NFL was solely by the good graces of Tuna. The fact that Belly is now winning and refuses to spread the love shows what a that guy is. No class.

[InmanRoshi]

Darren Woodson was on the The Ticket a while back talking about going to a Patriots practice during while he was covering the Superbowl for the NFL Network. He said it was exactly identical to Parcell's practices. The drills, the schedule, the repetitions, the techniques. And isn't it funny how all of the descendants of the Parcells tree have the same philosophy when it comes to media access to their staff and listing injuries. Bill Belichick is an unquestioned genius when it comes to schematics and X's/O's, but there is more to being a head coach than that.


Thus far, Belichick has basically won with the same collection of guys (many of whom were already familiar with the philosophies). The hardest thing to do in coaching is go to a new organization that is completely unfamiliar with your philosophies, the types of players you want, your techniques, your schemes and form it into your vision. Can you get the team into buy into what you're selling them when the players are looking at you skeptical that this new scheme you're installing is going to fit them, and your coaching staff is already looking around the league for their next job when you lose 2 games in a row. That's why Belichick was such a failure with the Browns. After that, maintaining the continuity and momentum isn't that difficult. When Belichick wins with a second generation of players at New England, then I'll give him his props as being one of the greats. But that's not even as difficult as building something from scratch.

[strongarmqb]

[QUOTE]BP gift wrapped that NE team for Belichek we will see how he does now that the talent BP brought in is getting old.

Two words.... Logan Mankins

[junk]

Does he talk about the love of his life......the gray hooded sweatshirt?

[InmanRoshi]

[QUOTE]BP gift wrapped that NE team for Belichek we will see how he does now that the talent BP brought in is getting old.

Two words.... Logan Mankins

Two more words .. Vince Wilfolk. My lord, for a guy that came into the league so ballyhooed, he sure does get thrown around like a rag doll.

[mr.jameswoods]

Thus far, Belichick has basically one with the same collection of guys. When Belichick wins with a second generation of players at New England, then I'll give him his props as being one of the greats. Right now he goes in the "very good" list.

Aside from Tom Landry, what coach has won with a different set of guys? Jimmy coudln't do it in Miami. George Seifert couldn't do it in Carolina. Bill Walsh flopped when he returned to Stanford.

Every great coach you hear about who has won multiple Superbowls has won with the same set of players whether you are talking about Bill Walsh, Jimmy Johnson, Vince Lombardi and Chuck Knoll. Even Parcells won his 2 Superbowls with essentially the same Giants roster.

Bill Parcells may have come close to winning with a different set of players but he always had Bill Bellichik at his side too.

If Parcells really wants to destroy this myth that he rode Bellichik's coat tails, then he needs to take this Dallas team to a Superbowl some time in the near future.

[wileedog]

It's a book. He is allowed to be honest. He is not sitting in front of a press conference where he has to give you some p.c. rhetoric. That's how Bellichik feels and can you blame him? I worked for a boss who took credit for my work. Yes, I was grateful he hired me but I was the one doing the work while he took credit for it.

Bellichick said ""I knew that I had more potential than I was allowed to exhibit"

That statement suggests Parcells took too much control over what was going on, not that Lil Bill did all the work and Big Bill took all the credit. If anything you could read from that statement that Bellichick is not the sole architect of Bill's Superbowls - mostly because Big Bill wouldn't let him be.

This all sounds to me like a guy trying to get out from under the shadow of "daddy".

[KingTuna]

Belichick is a Parcells DISCIPLE... For him to say the Tuna had no influence on him would be like someon saying "my blackened lungs had nothing to do with me smoking 4 packs a day for 25 years.."

What a joke...Parcells took him under his wing and taught him everything he knows...

He just does not want to give him the proper credit....

Belichick would be a NOBODY without Parcells....

:starspin

[Mike 1967]

Bellichick said ""I knew that I had more potential than I was allowed to exhibit"

That statement suggests Parcells took too much control over what was going on, not that Lil Bill did all the work and Big Bill took all the credit. If anything you could read from that statement that Bellichick is not the sole architect of Bill's Superbowls - mostly because Big Bill wouldn't let him be.

This all sounds to me like a guy trying to get out from under the shadow of "daddy".



:hammer:

[Alexander]

I dont particularly like Parcells myself, but here was an opportunity for him to pay homage to someone that gave him an opportunity to break into the pros if nothing else.

Ultimate diss.

Coach Parcells did not give him his first break into the pro ranks.

Ted Marchibroda did as a special teams assistant. Then he went to Detroit and Denver until he was hired by Wellington Mara.

[strongarmqb]

Two more words .. Vince Wilfolk. My lord, for a guy that came into the league so ballyhooed, he sure does get thrown around like a rag doll.


Man you said it! Im just not that impressed with his drafting ability. It will be interesting to see how this team looks next year when the slow decline could possibly turn into an avalanche.

[Alexander]

Darren Woodson was on the The Ticket a while back talking about going to a Patriots practice during while he was covering the Superbowl for the NFL Network. He said it was exactly identical to Parcell's practices. The drills, the schedule, the repetitions, the techniques. And isn't it funny how all of the descendants of the Parcells tree have the same philosophy when it comes to media access to their staff and listing injuries. Bill Belichick is an unquestioned genius when it comes to schematics and X's/O's, but there is more to being a head coach than that.

And Coach Parcells learned his techniques from people like Ray Perkins.

It is all relative and not mutually exclusive.

[Ken]

It's a book. He is allowed to be honest. He is not sitting in front of a press conference where he has to give you some p.c. rhetoric. That's how Bellichik feels and can you blame him? I worked for a boss who took credit for my work. Yes, I was grateful he hired me but I was the one doing the work while he took credit for it.

I don't blame Bellichik. Thus far, he owns more Superbowls than Parcells and he won with less talent than Parcells. The job Bellichik did last season was flat out impressive considering all the injuries they had at defensive back etc. Aside from our 10-6 season a couple of years ago, Parcells has not shown he can be dominat without Bellichik.

Parcells is a good coach but I don't there is any way he would have won 2 Superbowls without Bellichik. If he can take us to the promise land this year, I will retract my statement. But until then, I want to see it before I believe it.

Did your boss teach you how to get the most out of your skills? You may be talented at what you do, but structure and motivating others is a huge part of it.

Bellichik knows x's and o's. No doubt. He also copies a lot from the way Parcells coaches. How can you spend that much time with someone and not be influenced?

Why is it that Bill Walsh gets credited for developing his coaching tree and Parcells gets bashed? I just don't get it.


I think you are a little harsh on Parcells. He's taken over three completely downtrodden franchises and rejuvenated them. I mean, NE and NY were the worst franchises I have ever seen. Especially the Jets. They couldn't win anything. If Vinny doesn't tear his achillies, I wouldn't doubt that they would have won a super bowl.

Look where he has the Cowboys right now. They are light years better than they were when they took over.

I just can't say that Parcells is not a great coach.

[RoyWilliams]

Bill Belichick left the Jets because his contract promised him total control over personnel when he became head coach. Parcells threw him a curve ball when he stepped down as head coach and then announced he would stay as general manager overseeing personnel and Belichick bolted no longer willing to work under Parcells.

In a review of the new David Halberstam book on Belichick, Providence Journal writer Bill Reynolds describes a situation in the book where Belichick was with Parcells in New York. It was during a game. After a heated exchange over the open coaches microphones, Parcells said to Belichick, "Yeah, you're a genius, everyone knows it, a ......... genius, but that's why you failed as a head coach--that's why you'll never be a head coach. Some genius."

Who wouldn't want to work for a guy like that?

[mr.jameswoods]

I also want to add that Bellichek's first year with the Patriots led to a 5-11 season. So if the system was perfectly set up for him, why did he fail so miserably that first year?

I can explain why the Patriots had much more success the next season. It's simple; Bellichek opened up more to his players and they finally bought into his system. Bellichek never demonstrated any emotion at all in Cleveland and his first year with the Patriots. Even his notorious cockiness that he demonstrates now was absent back then. Back then he was a quiet hermit who stuck to himself.

In 2001, he finally showed some emotion by predicting they would win and by standing by his players. It created instant chemistry on that team and they bonded.

The evidence speaks for itself. The patriots started the 2001 season 0-2. By mid-season, they were 4-4, which is hardly indicative of a team that is going to win the Superbowl. They lost only one more game the rest of the season. So it was obvious, something caused a spark mid-season and that was Bellichek when he went off on that rant to the media. That caused his team to finally start buying into his blue-collar "the world is against us" attitude.

If Bellichek had not started showing some emotion and opening up to his players, they would have continued down the Cleveland Brown path.

[Mike 1967]

And Coach Parcells learned his techniques from people like Ray Perkins.

It is all relative and not mutually exclusive.

True.

But the catalyst behind these comments is directly tied to the book.

If Belichek has failed to give any credit to Parcells...when there are similiarities that are obvious to even the most casual fan....then it is Billicheks silence that is convicting him. He is not being convicted by the degree to which each past experience has individually formed the end product that he is today.

[DBoys]

Two more words .. Vince Wilfolk. My lord, for a guy that came into the league so ballyhooed, he sure does get thrown around like a rag doll.


Man you said it! Im just not that impressed with his drafting ability. It will be interesting to see how this team looks next year when the slow decline could possibly turn into an avalanche.

:hammer:

[Mike 1967]

I also want to add that Bellichek's first year with the Patriots led to a 5-11 season. So if the system was perfectly set up for him, why did he fail so miserably that first year?

I can explain why the Patriots had much more success the next season. It's simple; Bellichek opened up more to his players and they finally bought into his system. Bellichek never demonstrated any emotion at all, even his notorious cockiness that he demonstrates now. Back then he was a quiet hermit who stuck to himself.

In 2001, he finally showed some emotion by predicting they would win and by standing by his players. It created instant chemistry on that team and they bonded.

The evidence speaks for itself. The patriots started the 2001 season 0-2. By mid-season, they were 4-4, which is hardly indicative of a team that is going to win the Superbowl. They lost only one more game the rest of the season. So it was obvious, something caused a spark mid-season and that was Bellichek when he went off on that rant to the media. That caused his team to finally start buying into his blue-collar "the world is against us" attitude.

If Bellichek had not started showing some emotion and opening up to his players, they would have continued down the Cleveland Brown path.

But lets get to the core question/issue that began this thread.

Primarily the book.

If Bellichek has failed to give any credit to Parcells.....then that silence speaks volumes.

Unless you are going to try and argue that Bill contributed no major ingredients to the coaching systems/philosophy's that Billichek employs today.

[mr.jameswoods]

True.

But the catalyst behind these comments is directly tied to the book.

If Belichek has failed to give any credit to Parcells...when there are similiarities that are obvious to even the most casual fan....then it is Billicheks silence that is convicting him. He is not being convicted by the degree to which each past experience has individually formed the end product that he is today.

Why do we assume Parcells never learned anything from Bellichek? If you had a genius at DC, you would obviously take a thing or two away from having worked with him.

[Alexander]

True.

But the catalyst behind these comments is directly tied to the book.

If Belichek has failed to give any credit to Parcells...when there are similiarities that are obvious to even the most casual fan....then it is Billicheks silence that is convicting him. He is not being convicted by the degree to which each past experience has individually formed the end product that he is today.

Put yourself in Belichick's shoes.

You toiled for years. Your boss taught you a good deal about how to be a head coach. However, your hard work was never recognized. But the boss got the credit. Then you strike out on your own and accomplish things at a level and even above what your boss did.

It appears everyone wants Belichick to bow to Coach Parcells' genius, just like it is a given that he taught him everything he knows, which is making a statement knowing half the story.

I don't question another man's motives where and when to give credit, particularly where the waters are as muddied as these.

[DBoys]

Bill Belichick left the Jets because his contract promised him total control over personnel when he became head coach. Parcells threw him a curve ball when he stepped down as head coach and then announced he would stay as general manager overseeing personnel and Belichick bolted no longer willing to work under Parcells.

In a review of the new David Halberstam book on Belichick, Providence Journal writer Bill Reynolds describes a situation in the book where Belichick was with Parcells in New York. It was during a game. After a heated exchange over the open coaches microphones, Parcells said to Belichick, "Yeah, you're a genius, everyone knows it, a ......... genius, but that's why you failed as a head coach--that's why you'll never be a head coach. Some genius."

Who wouldn't want to work for a guy like that?

Important to get both sides of the story though what did Belichek say to get that kind of emotion from BP?

[ravidubey]

Belichek has done a great job with New England, but a lot of what he's learned came from the Tuna. If things were so bad with Bill, why would he go back to Bill in New England after failing in Cleveland and then follow him yet again to New York?

This is just Belichek's ego flashing-- nothing to get crazy about. What coach didn't/doesn't have an ego? You have to in order to exert your personality on the game.

[mr.jameswoods]

But lets get to the core question/issue that began this thread.

Primarily the book.

If Bellichek has failed to give any credit to Parcells.....then that silence speaks volumes.

Unless you are going to try and argue that Bill contributed no major ingredients to the coaching systems/philosophy's that Billichek employs today.

Why does that speak volumes? That's just your interpretation. Sure, I see where you are coming from. You could see it as him being jealous or envious of Parcells and deliberately fails to give him any credit to spite him.

Or maybe, Bellichik is just being honest and doesn't feel indebted to providing Parcells credit simply because he was his boss for several years.

When the Patriots played us in 2003, Bellichek just put on a clinic and exposed Parcells. And that was during Parcell's 10-6 season. I didn't get any indication that Parcells taugh Bellichek a thing or two. Those schemes didn't look like anything Parcells was implementing with Dallas at the time.

[Yakuza Rich]

So far the only thing I've seen about Parcells is that he said they had contrasting styles and because of that Parcells didnt really influence his coaching career.

Strange....if you look at so many things the Pats and the Cowboys do now, it's eerily similar to the point that when one guy does something, the other tends to follow suit.

Rich.............

[Mike 1967]

Put yourself in Belichick's shoes.

You toiled for years. Your boss taught you a good deal about how to be a head coach. However, your hard work was never recognized. But the boss got the credit. Then you strike out on your own and accomplish things at a level and even above what your boss did.

It appears everyone wants Belichick to bow to Coach Parcells' genius, just like it is a given that he taught him everything he knows, which is making a statement knowing half the story.

I don't question another man's motives where and when to give credit, particularly where the waters are as muddied as these.

I hear what you are saying....but....lets be completely honest here.

If you really want the respect you are looking for.....then you need to give your target audience a little more credit than that.

To completely leave out any mention of Bills contributions is so obvious ! And it begs the question as too why it was left out.

If Billichek wants respect, then he should have man'd up to the table and laid it out like it is. Giving a measure of credit to Bill would not have undermined the legacy he has been creating for himself. But he has done completely the opposite by leaving out any positive reference to what will be a HOF coach.

[mr.jameswoods]

Belichek has done a great job with New England, but a lot of what he's learned came from the Tuna. If things were so bad with Bill, why would he go back to Bill in New England after failing in Cleveland and then follow him yet again to New York?

This is just Belichek's ego flashing-- nothing to get crazy about. What coach didn't/doesn't have an ego? You have to in order to exert your personality on the game.

I agree with this post. Of course Parcells taught him a thing or two. At the same time, Bellichek taught Parcells a thing or two as well. So we can't pretend that Parcells taught Bellichek everything simply because he was his boss. We all know assistants who are better than their head coaches. For years, everyone said Andy Reid was a better coach than Mike Holmgren. Look what Reid has done in Philly and look what Holmgren has done in Seattle. No one would argue Holmgren is a better coach than Reid. Even Brett Favre stated that Andy Reid was the genius behind the Packers' offense. Everyone knew Marvin Lewis was the brains behind that Ravens Superbowl despite Billick being the head coach. What did the great Mike Ditka accomplish without Buddy Ryan? George Seifert didn't look impressive without Mike Shanahan as his oc.

[Yakuza Rich]

When the Patriots played us in 2003, Bellichek just put on a clinic and exposed Parcells. And that was during Parcell's 10-6 season. I didn't get any indication that Parcells taugh Bellichek a thing or two. Those schemes didn't look like anything Parcells was implementing with Dallas at the time.

Dallas lost that game 16-0 at New England. New England had twice the talent and was in their FOURTH year with the same coaching staff.

If you want to get into the guy that really exposed that 2003 team, it was Monte Kiffin followed by Norv Turner. Belichick really didn't do anything except for have a far better team.

Rich.......

[Texas33]

Browns fans are still wondering why he became a *genius* in New England and not Cleveland.....

[Alexander]

I hear what you are saying....but....lets be completely honest here.

If you really want the respect you are looking for.....then you need to give your target audience a little more credit than that.

Who is Belichick marketing this book to? Dallas fans? New York fans? New England fans?

Let's be even more honest here. If Coach Parcells were not the coach of the Dallas Cowboys none, and I mean, none, of the emotional outpouring that is in this thread would be here. Nobody would care. But since it is a perceived snub to our coach, let the fur fly.

If Billichek wants respect, then he should have man'd up to the table and laid it out like it is. Giving a measure of credit to Bill would not have undermined the legacy he has been creating for himself. But he has done completely the opposite by leaving out any positive reference to what will be a HOF coach.

I completely disagree. If his motive is to distance himself, then I don't blame him a bit. There are very few times that he is mentioned in conversation in conjunction with Coach Parcells. And if it is so blatantly obvious, wouldn't it be complete overkill for him to ramble on and on about what an influence Parcells was? There is no reason to submerge himself more in the shadows that he has most assuredly tried to emerge from.

Nobody said he had to be classy. He is trying to sell a book.

[burmafrd]

We were exposed as a weak team by both tampa and NE- and TAMPA was first. So who exposed us? BB did nothing but copy what Tampa did. And one can also make the point that Charlie and Romeo had a lot to do with it. Is it any coincidence that thet Pats have looked so weak this year? Sure they have had some injuries, but does that explain it?

[Mike 1967]

Why does that speak volumes? That's just your interpretation. Sure, I see where you are coming from. You could see it as him being jealous or envious of Parcells and deliberately fails to give him any credit to spite him.

Or maybe, Bellichik is just being honest and doesn't feel indebted to providing Parcells credit simply because he was his boss for several years.

When the Patriots played us in 2003, Bellichek just put on a clinic and exposed Parcells. And that was during Parcell's 10-6 season. I didn't get any indication that Parcells taugh Bellichek a thing or two. Those schemes didn't look like anything Parcells was implementing with Dallas at the time.

Parcells is a HOF coach. And to claim that you learned nothing of value from a HOF coach speaks volumes. Some things are not difficult to interpret.

I beg to differ with you on the "clinic" that Bellichek "exposed" Parcells with.

I would not call 12-0 a clinic.

Especially in light of the fact of the talent levels between those two rosters. Following that game I was suprised that we were actually in that game. In my opinion it showed exactly the opposite picture that you are trying to paint

[AtlCB]

Parcells has not shown he can be dominat without Bellichik.
You could say the same thing about Belichick without Charlie Weiss and Romeo Crennel. Let's face it - the Patriots aren't exactly burning up the league this year. They are 4-3 and only have a 1 game lead in one of the league's worst divisions. You might as well put them at 4-4, since they play the Colts this week. The Patriots have not looked like a superbowl team at all this season. They were trounced by San Diego and looked bad in losses to Denver and Carolina. Their only quality win came against Pittsburgh (I do not consider a win over the Vick-less Falcons a quality win). They have only one win by 7 points or more and have three losses by 7 points or more.

[Mike 1967]

Dallas lost that game 16-0 at New England. New England had twice the talent and was in their FOURTH year with the same coaching staff.

If you want to get into the guy that really exposed that 2003 team, it was Monte Kiffin followed by Norv Turner. Belichick really didn't do anything except for have a far better team.

Rich.......

Exactly ... I just read your reply after posting mine.

My translation and perception following that game was exactly the same.


And regardless......even if Billichek had schooled Bill....it does not answer the question at hand.

Why would Billichek not give one iota of credit to Bill ? Am I expected to believe that Billichek learned ZERO from Bill ?

[Alexander]

So far the only thing I've seen about Parcells is that he said they had contrasting styles and because of that Parcells didnt really influence his coaching career.

So is the rest of the book completely devoid of any of the credit that he owes Coach Parcells or have you not finished it yet?

[Qwickdraw]

Would anyone read Mike Tice's book?
Yes because I'll bet it has nude centerfolds in it and a coupon for free beer in the back.

[Alexander]

Would anyone read Mike Tice's book?

They publish books written in fingerpaint?

[davidyee]

...route is to keep your opinions to yourself. The league, the coaches, the staff and the fans are a fairly closed community. It's best not to expose yourself.

[NovaCowboy]

So is the rest of the book completely devoid of any of the credit that he owes Coach Parcells or have you not finished it yet?\

Havent finished it yet but just glancing through the final chapters they are mainly dedicated to players who he's been associated with.

[Zman5]

I would have no problem with him saying they had contrasting styles.

But to say Bill had no influence on him is just silly.

Even if Bill jr decided to do MANY things directly opposite of the Tuna because of contrasting styles...that is still influencing.
:hammer:

[Yakuza Rich]

We were exposed as a weak team by both tampa and NE- and TAMPA was first. So who exposed us? BB did nothing but copy what Tampa did.

Here's what happened.

In the first game of the year against Atlanta, Wade Phillips put 8 in the box and blitzed Quincy Carter heavily. Everybody thought Phillips was a genius for doing so, but in reality Carter played decent that game and beat the Falcons from time to time with the deep ball. The team just had a lot of mental errors that hamstringed them in the game.

Other teams followed suit and failed miserably. Mainly because Carter was very good against the blitz since he threw a great deep ball, there was speed at WR (Glenn, Galloway, and Bryant) and Hambrick was superb against picking up the blitz.

Dallas was 5-1 going into the Tampa Bay game. Kiffin devised a game plan where they would sit their LB's deep for most of the game and make Dallas beat them with the running game and the short passes. As we know, Hambrick stunk and Carter was lousy with the short stuff. It also didn't help that we didn't have a possession WR either.

After that, Dallas went 5-5 the rest of the year.

Against Miami Norv Turner showed that you can have to pound the ball up the middle and throw the ball deep since the Dallas CB's (Mario Edwards and Newman the rookie) had problems with the deep ball.

What's so odd is that the New England game was pretty close for the most part and didn't get out of reach until midway through the 4th quarter. New England got a big score off of a questionable pass interference call on Newman, but other than that didn't move the ball very well.

Despite Belichick and staff being in their 4th year with the Pats versus Parcells being in the 1st year with the Cowboys and with 1/2 the talent, Dallas was able to keep it close for the most part.


Rich......

[NovaCowboy]

He does talk about Troy Aikman a bit and about his quest to find a game manager in that mold. Believes Brady is every bit as good.

[Alexander]

What's so odd is that the New England game was pretty close for the most part and didn't get out of reach until midway through the 4th quarter. New England got a big score off of a questionable pass interference call on Newman, but other than that didn't move the ball very well.

Despite Belichick and staff being in their 4th year with the Pats versus Parcells being in the 1st year with the Cowboys and with 1/2 the talent, Dallas was able to keep it close for the most part......

And we had a great chance to win because we played conservatively. Our problem was that Hambrick got stuffed on the 4th down and Carter threw costly interceptions.

[ddh33]

I think Belichick is a great coach. But given the choice, I'd take Parcells every time.

[Yakuza Rich]

And we had a great chance to win because we played conservatively. Our problem was that Hambrick got stuffed on the 4th down and Carter threw costly interceptions.

One INT wasn't Carter's fault as it hit Witten in the hands and popped out into Ty Law. The other INT came when Carter had to force the issue and the game was pretty much out of reach at that point. Carter played excellent in the first half. Dat Nguyen was phenomenal the entire game.


Rich.......

[Alexander]

I think Belichick is a great coach. But given the choice, I'd take Parcells every time.

To me, they are different animals.

If I want a master psychologist and team builder to resurrect my franchise, I take Coach Parcells.

If I want a coach who can help me win one game with average talent, I would have to take Belichick.

Belichick is not much in terms of personnel acquisition and team building. But give him the types of players he wants, he can compose a strategy to win a football game that few can match.

Coach Parcells is much simpler, deliberate and succinct in his approach. And far slower to adapt to adversity.

[Mike 1967]

And we had a great chance to win because we played conservatively. Our problem was that Hambrick got stuffed on the 4th down and Carter threw costly interceptions.

And one lucky deep pass :bang2:

[Rockytop6]

Since Belichick states that he wasn't allowed much control or wasn't able to do what he wanted to do when he was on Parcell's staff, that kind of puts to rest the argument that Parcells owes his past success to Belicheck.

[DLCassidy]

BP gift wrapped that NE team for Belichek we will see how he does now that the talent BP brought in is getting old.

Um...no..not really. Pete Carroll was the HC in NE for three years before BB took over. The talent level in NE had gradually eroded after BP left and Bobby Grier took over the drafts. There were some significant holdovers but NE had like 12 new starters in 2001 (including Tom Brady after 2 games). As an aside, part of Bledsoe's problem after BP left was they let the OL go south. BB had 3 new starters on the OL in 2001. Since then BB has turned over almost the entire roster again. I think Tedy Bruschi and Willie McGinest are the only remaining players from when BP was there. The 2004 NE SB team is almost all BB's guys. So BB deserves big time props for what he's accomplished.

As to the original point of the thread, I think BB not giving proper credit to BP shows 2 things very clearly: 1) He hates Parcells 2) He has an even more massive ego than anyone thought because the only way pretending BP had no influence makes sense is if BB wants to minimize BP's work and maximize his own. BB can talk about Paul Brown and he can talk about his dad but as far as learning the ins and outs of how a HC should operate he watched BP up close and personal for over a decade, so it's preposterous to think that BP was not the single biggest influence on his career as a HC. He sure as heck wasn't just some guy with "different philosophies".

[Mike 1967]

Since Belichick states that he wasn't allowed much control or wasn't able to do what he wanted to do when he was on Parcell's staff, that kind of puts to rest the argument that Parcells owes his past success to Belicheck.

Good Point !

[InmanRoshi]

Aside from Tom Landry, what coach has won with a different set of guys? Jimmy coudln't do it in Miami. George Seifert couldn't do it in Carolina. Bill Walsh flopped when he returned to Stanford.

Every great coach you hear about who has won multiple Superbowls has won with the same set of players whether you are talking about Bill Walsh, Jimmy Johnson, Vince Lombardi and Chuck Knoll. Even Parcells won his 2 Superbowls with essentially the same Giants roster.

Bill Parcells may have come close to winning with a different set of players but he always had Bill Bellichik at his side too.

If Parcells really wants to destroy this myth that he rode Bellichik's coat tails, then he needs to take this Dallas team to a Superbowl some time in the near future.


Tom Landry won with several different generations of coaches and players. As did Don Shula. You're right, that number is very few .. which is the way it should be. The term "great" shouldn't be handed out freely.

New England was a great situation for Belichick to succeed in. He already had a core of veterans who knew his philosophies that could lead the lockerroom. He also had a core set of battle tested assistant coaches in his philosophy. That's what seperated the situation from Cleveland. Not "opening up emotionally". If Belichick had to come into a new organization with players and a coaching staff completely unfamiliar with what he wanted, he would suffer the same fate as he had in Cleveland. Teaching 10-12 new rookies and free agents the system every year is incomparable to coming into a new organization and getting 80 skeptical players on the same page. That's why numerous coaches have won multiple Superbowls with essentialy the same team, but no one has won Superbowls with two different organizations. Its what makes Parcells so remarkable that he's even come close.

[dboyz]

Interesting discussion I'd like to weigh in on.

I think Parcells is a guy who is quite volatile and I can believe that he would have said something like was quoted in the Halberstam book about Bellichik never coaching again. However, I don't think he would really mean it, and I would bet he probably apologized or cleared it up later.

In fact, we know that Parcells thought enough of him to make sure he got to be the Jets coach after Parcells was done. Parcells may say things in the heat of the moment, but he is usually pretty diplomatic when asked to go on the record and actually pretty generous with his compliments of other coaches, etc. I think he has said good things about Bellichik in the past, in terms of his ability to strategize and he gave Bellichik that bear hug after the New England game in 2003 I believe.

I get the impression that Bellichik, while not volatile and wouldn't say the stupid things that Parcells says is not very generous or diplomatic in giving credit to others. Its evident that Parcells has had a profound impact on Bellichik's coaching.

[dogunwo]

Why does that speak volumes? That's just your interpretation. Sure, I see where you are coming from. You could see it as him being jealous or envious of Parcells and deliberately fails to give him any credit to spite him.

Or maybe, Bellichik is just being honest and doesn't feel indebted to providing Parcells credit simply because he was his boss for several years.

When the Patriots played us in 2003, Bellichek just put on a clinic and exposed Parcells. And that was during Parcell's 10-6 season. I didn't get any indication that Parcells taugh Bellichek a thing or two. Those schemes didn't look like anything Parcells was implementing with Dallas at the time.
You seem to forget that was a SB Patriots team vs a team coming off a 5-11 season. Dallas played well above their level that season. It was hardly a clinic by the way, the score was 12-0, and the Pats didnt put the game away until late.

[Alexander]

I would like to add that Bill Belichick is gay.


Oops. Wrong thread.

[Yakuza Rich]

Um...no..not really. Pete Carroll was the HC in NE for three years before BB took over. The talent level in NE had gradually eroded after BP left and Bobby Grier took over the drafts. There were some significant holdovers but NE had like 12 new starters in 2001".

Here’s a list of guys that Parcells brought into New England or helped bring into New England that Belichick got to have under his current reign as head coach:

1. Drew Bledsoe
2. Troy Brown
3. Adam Vinatieri
4. Ty Law
5. Otis Smith
6. Lawyer Milloy
7. Ted Johnson
8. Tedy Bruschi
9. Willie McGinest
10. Roman Phifer

So let’s see. Parcells gave him a top flight CB, SS, pass rushing OLB, ILB, and a possible HOF kicker.

Then there’s Brown (top receiver in team history), Johnson (great against the run), Phifer, and Smith who were all significant contributors.

And don’t forget about Bledsoe. Without him, the Pats never beat the Steelers in the ’01 playoff game (Brady went down with an injury in the 1st quarter). Furthermore, they were able to trade him away for draft picks to the Bills.

The big thing is that Belichick was able to take over the Pats and go into his favorite defensive scheme (the 3-4) without missing a beat since he had players that were built for the 3-4 and had played it under Parcells. That’s a far cry from Parcells taking over the Cowboys with diminutive defensive players not suited for the 3-4.

If anything, this list shows just how great of a job Charlie Weiss did in New England. He controlled the offensive side of things and practically helped develop a team with a poor offense to a team with one of the best offenses in the league. Including a future HOF Quarterback that was a 6th round pick.

Rich……………

[Alexander]

That's why numerous coaches have won multiple Superbowls with essentialy the same team, but no one has won Superbowls with two different organizations. Its what makes Parcells so remarkable that he's even come close.

Coach Parcells was also a pioneer. He was the first true "free agent" coach in a era where free agency came to be.

In the 1970s and into the 1980s a coach, if they were any good, stayed with their organization forever. Lombardi, Landry, Shula and Noll and were all examples of this. Now you have perhaps one in the league who has stayed with their club for a decade (Bill Cowher).

Bill Parcells left the Giants, went back, left New England, went back, left the Jets, went back.

Had Lombardi, Landry, Shula or Noll done the same are you implying they would be any less remarkable?

That does not make Coach Parcells any more accomplished than any of the other legends just because he decided to do it in more places.

[Givincer]

You toiled for years. Your boss taught you a good deal about how to be a head coach. However, your hard work was never recognized. But the boss got the credit. Then you strike out on your own and accomplish things at a level and even above what your boss did.



I don't think you can say that Bellichick has surpassed Parcells. Parcells won 2 titles with the Giants then went on to rebuild two franchises and is currently working on his third. Bellichick has won 3 titles , yes more than Parcells, but he hasn't accomplished as much entirely. Think about where the Patriots and the Jets were before Parcells got there and also think about where the Cowboys were when he got here. Now think about where the Patriots were when Bellichick came there they weren't in awful shape in fact many of the players that are major contributors to the 3 superbowl runs were drafted by Parcells...

[Alexander]

I don't think you can say that Bellichick has surpassed Parcells. Parcells won 2 titles with the Giants then went on to rebuild two franchises and is currently working on his third. Bellichick has won 3 titles , yes more than Parcells, but he hasn't accomplished as much entirely. Think about where the Patriots and the Jets were before Parcells got there and also think about where the Cowboys were when he got here. Now think about where the Patriots were when Bellichick came there they weren't in awful shape in fact many of the players that are major contributors to the 3 superbowl runs were drafted by Parcells...

If you look at it title for title, Belichick has surpassed Parcells. He has coached a dynasty that has one three crowns, like it or not.

If Belichick went to another franchise and repeated his success, then you would have an even comparison.

Two different things.

[Rack Bauer]

Got a copy of his new book "The education of a coach"

Its about all the people thats influenced him over his career. Alot of it talks about his father who is also a coach.

So far the only thing I've seen about Parcells is that he said they had contrasting styles and because of that Parcells didnt really influence his coaching career.

I dont particularly like Parcells myself, but here was an opportunity for him to pay homage to someone that gave him an opportunity to break into the pros if nothing else.

Ultimate diss.


Parcells got Beli*rick his Cleveland job, and then took him back after he FAILED.

Then he got him ANOTHER job (Jets) and Beli*rick stabbed him in the back and went to NE instead.

Parcells pretty much MADE Beli*rick and he's never given him credit.

What a piss-poor, sorry excuse for a human being.

[Givincer]

That does not make Coach Parcells any more accomplished than any of the other legends just because he decided to do it in more places.

No the decision of his to do it in more than one place does not make his career any more remarkable than any of the other great coaches. What makes his career more remarkable than many other coaches is the fact that he's had success where ever he's gone. And as of right now it looks like he's about to turn a 4th franchise around nobody in history has turned 3 around let alone 4. You cannot say Landry Lombardi Bellichick Noll Shula Walsh would have succeeded had they gone to another franchise because they haven't done it. Parcells has and is the only one that has done that - it is far more impressive to turn 4 franchises around (assuming he turns the Cowboys completely around) than it is to stay with one franchise for x number of years and win x number of superbowls, in my logical eyes anyways...

[adbutcher]

Parcells got Beli*rick his Cleveland job, and then took him back after he FAILED.

Then he got him ANOTHER job (Jets) and Beli*rick stabbed him in the back and went to NE instead.

Parcells pretty much MADE Beli*rick and he's never given him credit.

What a piss-poor, sorry excuse for a human being.
:hammer:

[mr.jameswoods]

I don't think you can say that Bellichick has surpassed Parcells. Parcells won 2 titles with the Giants then went on to rebuild two franchises and is currently working on his third. Bellichick has won 3 titles , yes more than Parcells, but he hasn't accomplished as much entirely. Think about where the Patriots and the Jets were before Parcells got there and also think about where the Cowboys were when he got here. Now think about where the Patriots were when Bellichick came there they weren't in awful shape in fact many of the players that are major contributors to the 3 superbowl runs were drafted by Parcells...

But did Parcells rebuild the Patriots and Jets by himself or was Bellichek at his side the entire time?

Bellichek finished 5-11 in his first year with the Patriots so how much talent did they have? And the following year, (the year they won their 1st SB) they were 4-4 at midseason? So how loaded with talent was that team. I thought the Rams team they defeated in the Superbowl was much more talented as was the Raiders team they defeated in the playoffs that year. Also, they didn't win the following year. They finished 9-7 despite not losing any major players. If they were so loaded with talent, why didn' they win the following year in 2002?

The term talent is meaningless. If a team that is thought to lack talent in the preseason wins the Superbowl that year, players who were previously thought of as lacking talent will suddenly be called talented. The Patriots were not thought to have a lot of talent after 2001. It wasn't until after their second Superbowl that Tom Brady finally started getting accolades for being a talented QB. I don't think Parcells could have taken those teams to a Superbowl without Bellichek. However, I would have loved to see what Bellichek could do with our talent on this team. It could be scary.

[Givincer]

If you look at it title for title, Belichick has surpassed Parcells. He has coached a dynasty that has one three crowns, like it or not.

If Belichick went to another franchise and repeated his success, then you would have an even comparison.

Two different things.

You are comparing their legacies not just superbowl titles

Bellichick has failed with the Browns succeeded with the Patriots and won 3 superbowl titles.

Parcells has succeeded with the Giants and won 2 superbowl titles. Succeeded with the Patriots winning an AFC title(taking the franchise from nothing into something). Succeeded with the Jets getting them to an AFC title game (taking the franchise from nothing into something). And is currently working on the Cowboys who were in absolute horrible shape when he got here and as of right now they are considered one of the best teams in the NFC.

If you go by this logic of superbowl titles being the way to measure coaches against eachother then Bellichick is a "better coach" than Tom Landry. I would have to say that is a false statement and I think many football fans would agree. You have to take the entire coaching legacy into consideration (all of their accomplishments) not just superbowl titles.

[mr.jameswoods]

You are comparing their legacies not just superbowl titles

Bellichick has failed with the Browns succeeded with the Patriots and won 3 superbowl titles.

Parcells has succeeded with the Giants and won 2 superbowl titles. Succeeded with the Patriots winning an AFC title(taking the franchise from nothing into something). Succeeded with the Jets getting them to an AFC title game (taking the franchise from nothing into something). And is currently working on the Cowboys who were in absolute horrible shape when he got here and as of right now they are considered one of the best teams in the NFC.

If you go by this logic of superbowl titles being the way to measure coaches against eachother then Bellichick is a "better coach" than Tom Landry. I would have to say that is a false statement and I think many football fans would agree. You have to take the entire coaching legacy into consideration (all of their accomplishments) not just superbowl titles.

Fair enough but which franchise did Parcells rebuild by himself without Bellichek at his disposal. At the end of last season, his record with the Cowboys was below .500. This year remains to be seen although it looks promising.

The true litmus test for Parcells is his tenure with the Cowboys. He has no Bellichek this time. Can he win without Bellichek? We won't know the answer to that question until he leaves the organization.

[RCowboyFan]

Is not written by him. I am not sure why the obvious is not pointed out. Its by the author David Halberstam.

So I see bunch of people going back and forth about BB dissing BP etc., but I am not sure if this the book that Bill Belichek distanced himself from it or another book, where he basically was apparently dissing BP about talking to other teams while or during the week of NE playing in SB, in BP era.

Just wanted to pointed that out, since seems like that thread will be a long one :D I guess Mods if you want to merge it into that one, feel free.

[Mike 1967]

Does Billichek talk about any religious views in the book ?

[NovaCowboy]

Is not written by him. I am not sure why the obvious is not pointed out. Its by the author David Halberstam.

So I see bunch of people going back and forth about BB dissing BP etc., but I am not sure if this the book that Bill Belichek distanced himself from it or another book, where he basically was apparently dissing BP about talking to other teams while or during the week of NE playing in SB, in BP era.

Just wanted to pointed that out, since seems like that thread will be a long one :D I guess Mods if you want to merge it into that one, feel free.

Its written in the preface that its a cooperative work between Belichick and Halberstam.

It was originally supposed to be an autobiography but Belichick didnt want to toot his own horn so they decided to write on how a coach evolves.

[Rack Bauer]

I also want to add that Bellichek's first year with the Patriots led to a 5-11 season. So if the system was perfectly set up for him, why did he fail so miserably that first year?

I can explain why the Patriots had much more success the next season. It's simple; Bellichek opened up more to his players and they finally bought into his system. Bellichek never demonstrated any emotion at all in Cleveland and his first year with the Patriots. Even his notorious cockiness that he demonstrates now was absent back then. Back then he was a quiet hermit who stuck to himself.

In 2001, he finally showed some emotion by predicting they would win and by standing by his players. It created instant chemistry on that team and they bonded.

The evidence speaks for itself. The patriots started the 2001 season 0-2. By mid-season, they were 4-4, which is hardly indicative of a team that is going to win the Superbowl. They lost only one more game the rest of the season. So it was obvious, something caused a spark mid-season and that was Bellichek when he went off on that rant to the media. That caused his team to finally start buying into his blue-collar "the world is against us" attitude.

If Bellichek had not started showing some emotion and opening up to his players, they would have continued down the Cleveland Brown path.


That "Spark" would be Tom Brady, not Bill Beli*rick.

[Alexander]

Is not written by him. I am not sure why the obvious is not pointed out. Its by the author David Halberstam.

:eek:

You mean Bill Belichick has been judged and executed by the Cowboy fan nation and he might not have actually disrespected Bill Parcells?

I mean he already is a piss-poor, sorry excuse for a human being.:rolleyes:

[Givincer]

But did Parcells rebuild the Patriots and Jets by himself or was Bellichek at his side the entire time?

Bellichek finished 5-11 in his first year with the Patriots so how much talent did they have? And the following year, (the year they won their 1st SB) they were 4-4 at midseason? So how loaded with talent was that team. I thought the Rams team they defeated in the Superbowl was much more talented as was the Raiders team they defeated in the playoffs that year. Also, they didn't win the following year. They finished 9-7 despite not losing any major players. If they were so loaded with talent, why didn' they win the following year in 2002?

Youre going to argue that the Patriots franchise was in dire straits being a 5-11 team when Bellichick arrived them then surely you have to mention that they were 10-6 9-7 and 8-8 under Pete Caroll's reign after Parcells left them with an 11-5 loss in the superbowl. So in 4 years Parcells took a team that was a combined 9-39 in the prior 3 seasons to his arrival to the superbowl. As opposed to Bellichick who in 2 years took a team who was 27-21 in the prior 3 years to his arrival to the superbowl and won it

And as for your question about Parcells success depending on Bellichick
I think you're seeing the answer to your first question by the way Parcells is dealing with the Cowboys... Do you personally like the direction the Cowboys organization is headed in?

Secondly, could the Patriots under the great Bill Bellichick have won the 2001 superbowl without Drew Bledsoe (his victory in the AFC championship game in 2001), Willie McGinist, Tedy Bruschi, Ty Law, Ted Johnson and Lawyer Milloy?

[mr.jameswoods]

Parcells got Beli*rick his Cleveland job, and then took him back after he FAILED.

Then he got him ANOTHER job (Jets) and Beli*rick stabbed him in the back and went to NE instead.

Parcells pretty much MADE Beli*rick and he's never given him credit.

What a piss-poor, sorry excuse for a human being.

What about Parcells having telephone discussions about another job on the eve of the Superbowl? Do you call that a classy move? He left the Patriots because Bob Kraft made him draft Terry Glenn. Is that what you call classy or selfish? On the eve of their Superbowl, he is more focused about getting a new job as opposed to focusing on his existing team.

Parcells wasn't taking pity on Bellichek. He was desperate to get him. Parcells was so desperate to acquire Bellichek that he hired him as his "Defensive Backs" coach wink wink...at the last minute. Everyone knows Bellichek was the true defensive coordinator and that he would have been made the Defensive Coordinator if Al Groh had not already been hired for the position. Gee, it sounds a lot like Sean Payton and Maurice Carthon! Hell, Parcells would have hired Bellichek as his kicking coach if he had to create a spot for him just to get him on his coaching staff.

[Givincer]

Fair enough but which franchise did Parcells rebuild by himself without Bellichek at his disposal. At the end of last season, his record with the Cowboys was below .500. This year remains to be seen although it looks promising.

The true litmus test for Parcells is his tenure with the Cowboys. He has no Bellichek this time. Can he win without Bellichek? We won't know the answer to that question until he leaves the organization.

Actually Parcells record was .500 at the end of last season. We'll see how this Parcells reign in Dallas ends up. But I have a question for you do you like the direction the Cowboys organization is headed in with the draft they just had and the FA's they brought in over the off season?

[NovaCowboy]

I just noticed.... Belichick's name is spelled about 400 different ways in this thread.

:lmao:

[mr.jameswoods]

Youre going to argue that the Patriots franchise was in dire straits being a 5-11 team when Bellichick arrived them then surely you have to mention that they were 10-6 9-7 and 8-8 under Pete Caroll's reign after Parcells left them with an 11-5 loss in the superbowl. So in 4 years Parcells took a team that was a combined 9-39 in the prior 3 seasons to his arrival to the superbowl. As opposed to Bellichick who in 2 years took a team who was 27-21 in the prior 3 years to his arrival to the superbowl and won it

Obviously Parcells inherited a much worse franchise. But to suggest that Bellichik walked into this plethora of talent is also ridiculous. I just fail to see how a team that is so loaded with talent finished 5-11 and starts the next season 1-3 (4-4 by midseason) to suddenly win the Superbowl. Are you suggesting the Patriots were as talented as the Cowboys or previous dynasties simply because they won 3 Superbowls?

And as for your question about Parcells success depending on Bellichick I think you're seeing the answer to your first question by the way Parcells is dealing with the Cowboys... Do you personally like the direction the Cowboys organization is headed in?

We have 8 more games left. I'm not going to make any judgement (good or bad) until the end of the season. To be honest with you, I think our record is a little inflated because the NFC is really weak this year so yes, we have that going for us. I like many of Parcells moves he has made particularly on his drafting of players.

Secondly, could the Patriots under the great Bill Bellichick have won the 2001 superbowl without Drew Bledsoe (his victory in the AFC championship game in 2001), Willie McGinist, Tedy Bruschi, Ty Law, Ted Johnson and Lawyer Milloy?

He didn't win it with those players in 2000 or 2002 for that matter. I will tell you this. I don't Parcells would have won any of his Superbowls without Bellichek. I don't think Parcells could have stopped the Colts without 4 of their starters missing in their defensive backfield.

[LaTunaNostra]

I just noticed.... Belichick's name is spelled about 400 different ways in this thread.

:lmao:
That's another reason why "Mumbles" is apropos.

There is a pretty good interview with Halberstam at patsfan.com.

The renowned author sounds as indignant about Tuna's sarcasm as he once was over Dean Rusk's arrogance.

http://www.patsfans.com/molori/display_story.php?story_id=2849

[MarionBarberThe4th]

BP gift wrapped that NE team for Belichek we will see how he does now that the talent BP brought in is getting old.

Something like 8 first round picks form BP still starting from NE, thats insane.

[Alexander]

I just noticed.... Belichick's name is spelled about 400 different ways in this thread.

:lmao:

I have to admit I have a difficult time overcoming my mental block on the correct spelling.:confused:

[Mike 1967]

I just noticed.... Belichick's name is spelled about 400 different ways in this thread.

:lmao:

Yep....and all by me. :D

[mr.jameswoods]

Actually Parcells record was .500 at the end of last season. We'll see how this Parcells reign in Dallas ends up. But I have a question for you do you like the direction the Cowboys organization is headed in with the draft they just had and the FA's they brought in over the off season?

If you accounted for our loss in the playoffs, it's below .500 but I won't argue that because that is rather nitpicky and I'm fine with saying .500.

Yes and no. I like the young talent Parcells has infused on the defense. I don't like how Parcells has failed to develop a young QB on our team and resorted to older veterans like Bledsoe, Glenn and Keyshawn. They are playing well this season so I'm not going to criticize them but in regards to our future, we really don't have people in the waiting.

Again, I'm not going to play genie because I have no idea what will happen this season. That's what makes this season exciting. I think the momentum is on our side so I'm hoping we can go far this season. And if we should, Parcells would have silenced a lot of his critics.

[Alexander]

That's another reason why "Mumbles" is apropos.

There is a pretty good interview with Halberstam at patsfan.com.

The renowned author sounds as indignant about Tuna's sarcasm as he once was over Dean Rusk's arrogance.

http://www.patsfans.com/molori/display_story.php?story_id=2849

Good read. Thank you.

They just sold themselves a book.

[mr.jameswoods]

That "Spark" would be Tom Brady, not Bill Beli*rick.

During their 4-4 midseason record in 2001, Tom Brady started 7 of those 8 games

[Rack Bauer]

Why does that speak volumes? That's just your interpretation. Sure, I see where you are coming from. You could see it as him being jealous or envious of Parcells and deliberately fails to give him any credit to spite him.

Or maybe, Bellichik is just being honest and doesn't feel indebted to providing Parcells credit simply because he was his boss for several years.

When the Patriots played us in 2003, Bellichek just put on a clinic and exposed Parcells. And that was during Parcell's 10-6 season. I didn't get any indication that Parcells taugh Bellichek a thing or two. Those schemes didn't look like anything Parcells was implementing with Dallas at the time.


Are you freakin' kidding me??!?!

You think that maybe, JUST MAYBE, the TALENT on the teams' roster MIGHT have had SOMETHING to do with the outcome of that game?

Freakin' amazing how ignorant people are sometimes.

[wileedog]

I don't like how Parcells has failed to develop a young QB on our team and resorted to older veterans like Bledsoe, Glenn and Keyshawn. They are playing well this season so I'm not going to criticize them but in regards to our future, we really don't have people in the waiting.

QB I might give you, although I think there is a philosophical question on how to build a team that underlies it.

However how many other teams have good, young WRs ready to go just waiting for the guys in front of them to retire? Plus I think you're discounting Crayton, who has all the makings of a fine replacement for Keyshawn. Having a 23 year old All Pro TE all takes a lot of pressure having young core of WRs on hand too.

[mr.jameswoods]

Are you freakin' kidding me??!?!

You think that maybe, JUST MAYBE, the TALENT on the teams' roster MIGHT have had SOMETHING to do with the outcome of that game?

Freakin' amazing how ignorant people are sometimes.


We were SHUT OUT. And you act like we lacked talent. We were 10-6 that year so you can't use that weak excuse.

Seriously, some people will make excuses to no end just to support their opinion. Face it, Parcells was owned by Bellichek. If you were around the forum back then, you would remember that even the staunchest Parcell advocated admitted he was outcoached.

[mr.jameswoods]

QB I might give you, although I think there is a philosophical question on how to build a team that underlies it.

However how many other teams have good, young WRs ready to go just waiting for the guys in front of them to retire? Plus I think you're discounting Crayton, who has all the makings of a fine replacement for Keyshawn. Having a 23 year old All Pro TE all takes a lot of pressure having young core of WRs on hand too.

Not to mention Julius Jones and our bevy of talented RB's. So I'm not going to be an extremist and blast Parcells entirely in this area. I understand Parcells philosophy. He isn't getting younger and he wants to win now. So he can't wait and babysit a young QB and allow him to develop. But I don't know if that is necessarily what is best for the franchise. Parcells is taking a big gamble. He is essentially betting we will win this year or next year, because after that, it could get ugly. I don't think Crayton is a replacement for Keyshawn, no offense to him. Crayton is a solid player but he doesn't look like a #1 receiver to me.

[Ken]

He didn't win it with those players in 2000 or 2002 for that matter. I will tell you this. I don't Parcells would have won any of his Superbowls without Bellichek. I don't think Parcells could have stopped the Colts without 4 of their starters missing in their defensive backfield.
I would put getting the Cowboys into the Playoffs his first season, after 3 consecutive 5-11 seasons, QC at Qb, TH at HB, and having the #1 defense in the league....on par with what "Bellichek" did to the Colts.

That's just me though.

[Rack Bauer]

We were SHUT OUT. And you act like we lacked talent. We were 10-6 that year so you can't use that weak excuse.

Seriously, some people will make excuses to no end just to support their opinion. Face it, Parcells was owned by Bellichek. If you were around the forum back then, you would remember that even the staunchest Parcell advocated admitted he was outcoached.


You're in deep denial if you think we had anywher NEAR the talent on that 2003 team that the patriots had on their 2003 team. Serious denial.

How many of those players are still starting for the Cowboys?

QB? Nope.

RB? Nope.

FB? Nope.

WR? One of them.

TE? Campbell was the starter then.

Center? Nope.

RG? Nope.

RT? Nope.


RCB? Nope.

FS? Nope.

GLover and Ellis are the only remaining DL starters.

Nguyen is the only remaining starter at LB.


If our team was so "Talented" why did we do so much to CHANGE that roster?


During their 4-4 midseason record in 2001, Tom Brady started 7 of those 8 games


Tom Brady started 14 games in 2001. They were 0-2 before Brady took over. And, I believe, 11-3 after he took over. It's obvious Brady was their "Spark".

[AtlCB]

We were SHUT OUT. And you act like we lacked talent. We were 10-6 that year so you can't use that weak excuse.

Seriously, some people will make excuses to no end just to support their opinion. Face it, Parcells was owned by Bellichek. If you were around the forum back then, you would remember that even the staunchest Parcell advocated admitted he was outcoached.Really???? Why is it that most of that "great talent" that we had unable to make an NFL roster right now (including the quarterback and running back)?

[Ken]

We were SHUT OUT. And you act like we lacked talent. We were 10-6 that year so you can't use that weak excuse.

Seriously, some people will make excuses to no end just to support their opinion. Face it, Parcells was owned by Bellichek. If you were around the forum back then, you would remember that even the staunchest Parcell advocated admitted he was outcoached.
10-6 with QC(OUT OF THE LEAGUE) and Troy Hambrick(OUT OF THE LEAGUE) starting.


I would like to see a rematch this year. I venture to say it would be a little different outcome this time.

[AtlCB]

Obviously Parcells inherited a much worse franchise. But to suggest that Bellichik walked into this plethora of talent is also ridiculous. I just fail to see how a team that is so loaded with talent finished 5-11 and starts the next season 1-3 (4-4 by midseason) to suddenly win the Superbowl. Are you suggesting the Patriots were as talented as the Cowboys or previous dynasties simply because they won 3 Superbowls?



We have 8 more games left. I'm not going to make any judgement (good or bad) until the end of the season. To be honest with you, I think our record is a little inflated because the NFC is really weak this year so yes, we have that going for us. I like many of Parcells moves he has made particularly on his drafting of players.



He didn't win it with those players in 2000 or 2002 for that matter. I will tell you this. I don't Parcells would have won any of his Superbowls without Bellichek. I don't think Parcells could have stopped the Colts without 4 of their starters missing in their defensive backfield.This year is the strongest that the NFC has been in years and the strongest that the NFC East has been since the early 90's. Every team in the NFC East is over .500, and the NFC teams actually have a winning record against the AFC teams in interconference play. I honestly would like to know how you think that the schedule that we played this season is weaker than the schedule that we played last year.

[BigDFan5]

When the Patriots played us in 2003, Bellichek just put on a clinic and exposed Parcells. .



LMAO yes those 4 FGs put on us by a team on their way to Super Bowl #2 in 3 years was sure exposing.

Only twice in 16 games did NE score less points

[Maikeru-sama]

This a pretty interesting Thread.

I am pretty surprised someone would say Bill Belechick schooled Tuna in 2003. I think one question can be asked to change anyone's perception that Bill Belechick pulled one over on Parcells.

How many players in our backfield in 2003 is on an NFL Roster at the moment?

And this was just 2 full seasons ago, so we are not talking about an entire generation here...

- Mike G.

[Mike 1967]

We were SHUT OUT. And you act like we lacked talent. We were 10-6 that year so you can't use that weak excuse.

Seriously, some people will make excuses to no end just to support their opinion. Face it, Parcells was owned by Bellichek. If you were around the forum back then, you would remember that even the staunchest Parcell advocated admitted he was outcoached.


Shutting out a team with Quincy Carter and Troy Hambrick in the backfield is quite an accomplishment.

Keep serving up those softballs.

I am getting older and slower...and thus need the extra batting practice :D

[Mike 1967]

Not to mention Julius Jones and our bevy of talented RB's. So I'm not going to be an extremist and blast Parcells entirely in this area. I understand Parcells philosophy. He isn't getting younger and he wants to win now. So he can't wait and babysit a young QB and allow him to develop. But I don't know if that is necessarily what is best for the franchise. Parcells is taking a big gamble. He is essentially betting we will win this year or next year, because after that, it could get ugly. I don't think Crayton is a replacement for Keyshawn, no offense to him. Crayton is a solid player but he doesn't look like a #1 receiver to me.

I would have agreed with your post at the beginning of the season....but after watching the first 8 games .... I now totally disagree.

Bledsoe is showing no signs of slowing down that I can see.

His arm is as strong as ever...and when you couple his style of game with his strength and size....I would not be surprised to see him play at a high level for another 5 years. And you cannot say that about a lot of current starting QB's...young and old.
.

[BigDFan5]

We were SHUT OUT. And you act like we lacked talent. We were 10-6 that year so you can't use that weak excuse.

Seriously, some people will make excuses to no end just to support their opinion. Face it, Parcells was owned by Bellichek. If you were around the forum back then, you would remember that even the staunchest Parcell advocated admitted he was outcoached.




Are you trying to say our team didn't lack talent in 2003?? Oh my.

Lets go over some starters

QB Quincy
RB Hambrick
WR Galloway and Glenn

Now thats an offense to fear LMAO

[NovaCowboy]

That's another reason why "Mumbles" is apropos.

There is a pretty good interview with Halberstam at patsfan.com.

The renowned author sounds as indignant about Tuna's sarcasm as he once was over Dean Rusk's arrogance.

http://www.patsfans.com/molori/display_story.php?story_id=2849



JM:: What was the worst moment of the Parcells/Belichick relationship?

DH:: When they both moved to the Jets, that’s when it tore apart. Parcells had a wicked tongue and he used it against Belichick and his star players. When Bill worked under Parcells with the Giants, he did not like the way Parcells had different rules for the indiscretions of Lawrence Taylor. In the book, I write about a terrible moment when they were with the Jets. Belichick called a blitz and Parcells opposed the call. They went with the blitz and it worked. Parcells was furious and over the open microphones in the middle of the game, he shouted at Belichick, “Yeah, you’re a genius, everyone knows it, a goddam genius, but that’s why you failed as a head coach - That’s why you’ll never be a head coach…some genius.” Everyone who heard it was shocked at the cruelty of Parcells’ comments.

WOW!! Now thats hardcore!

[BigDFan5]

Shutting out a team with Quincy Carter and Troy Hambrick in the backfield is quite an accomplishment.

Keep serving up those softballs.

I am getting older and slower...and thus need the extra batting practice :D

This is getting laughable

He is acting like we were a juggernaught that season

We were shut out by Tampa and NE

Held to 10 or less by the Bills, Eagles, Saints

[Alexander]

JM:: What was the worst moment of the Parcells/Belichick relationship?

DH:: When they both moved to the Jets, that’s when it tore apart. Parcells had a wicked tongue and he used it against Belichick and his star players. When Bill worked under Parcells with the Giants, he did not like the way Parcells had different rules for the indiscretions of Lawrence Taylor. In the book, I write about a terrible moment when they were with the Jets. Belichick called a blitz and Parcells opposed the call. They went with the blitz and it worked. Parcells was furious and over the open microphones in the middle of the game, he shouted at Belichick, “Yeah, you’re a genius, everyone knows it, a goddam genius, but that’s why you failed as a head coach - That’s why you’ll never be a head coach…some genius.” Everyone who heard it was shocked at the cruelty of Parcells’ comments.

WOW!! Now thats hardcore!

At least he did not get the Coach Parcells judo chop.

[Mike 1967]

He is acting like we were a juggernaught that season


I admit it is sad...but...

His perspective has simply been victimized by to many 5-11 seasons.

[wileedog]

I don't think Crayton is a replacement for Keyshawn, no offense to him. Crayton is a solid player but he doesn't look like a #1 receiver to me.

Keyshawn doesn't look like a #1 to me either.

But he's a great #2, a solid possession guy who thrives over the middle and moves the chains.

And that description seems to fit Crayton so far to a T.

[MiStar]

Let's look at how Parcell's defense has been without Belichick. In three years with Zimmer, He's had the top defense in the league, and it's looking like this year's version will finish in the top 5, sans Belichick.

[Givincer]

At least he did not get the Coach Parcells judo chop.

lmao!!!

[DWAREZ]

It's a book. He is allowed to be honest. He is not sitting in front of a press conference where he has to give you some p.c. rhetoric. That's how Bellichik feels and can you blame him? I worked for a boss who took credit for my work. Yes, I was grateful he hired me but I was the one doing the work while he took credit for it.

I don't blame Bellichik. Thus far, he owns more Superbowls than Parcells and he won with less talent than Parcells. The job Bellichik did last season was flat out impressive considering all the injuries they had at defensive back etc. Aside from our 10-6 season a couple of years ago, Parcells has not shown he can be dominat without Bellichik.

Parcells is a good coach but I don't there is any way he would have won 2 Superbowls without Bellichik. If he can take us to the promise land this year, I will retract my statement. But until then, I want to see it before I believe it.

This is coming from the same guy that argued the Jets valued Quincy Carter and that Quincy did not have a drug problem!! ;)

Now, Belli also must only be as successful as Weis and Crennel because thus far he has not shown the ability to win a champoinship without them.
The logic can be applied both ways, if you do your homework you will learn that Bill Parcells was the defensive coordinator of the Giants and was excellent thus considered for the head coaching position.

He moved them to the 3-4 and and positioned LT to be the freak. Any good head coach is considered as much by aquiring and positioning good coaches. The credit goes to the head coach because he selects them and plays positionally to their respective strenths for the team. Parcells kept Belli, Crennel and personally added Weis to his credit.

Belli failed miserably in CLEV and it is no fluke he went after all of Bill Parcells staff when he went to NE. Parcells drafted the core players that Belli was able to use as leaders for his champoinship run. Belli is a solid coach, but certainly he learned from Parcells even if there was stylistic differences. To me this is an ego issue as most can clearly see to be the case.

Bill Parcells is building a championship team again here in Dallas so stop being a hater and get on board because your perspective is simplistic and can be argued otherwise when the same logic is applied to Belli as well. There is more than just sound coaching that goes into the equation, Bill could have easily won the 2 Bowls without Belli and hopefully will win one here in Dallas as such.

[Mike 1967]

This is coming from the same guy that argued the Jets valued Quincy Carter and that Quincy did not have a drug problem!! ;)

Now, Belli also must only be as successful as Weis and Crennel because thus far he has not shown the ability to win a champoinship without them.
The logic can be applied both ways, if you do your homework you will learn that Bill Parcells was the defensive coordinator of the Giants and was excellent thus considered for the head coaching position.

He moved them to the 3-4 and and positioned LT to be the freak. Any good head coach is considered as much by aquiring and positioning good coaches. The credit goes to the head coach because he selects them and plays positionally to their respective strenths for the team. Parcells kept Belli, Crennel and personally added Weis to his credit.

Belli failed miserably in CLEV and it is no fluke he went after all of Bill Parcells staff when he went to NE. Parcells drafted the core players that Belli was able to use as leaders for his champoinship run. Belli is a solid coach, but certainly he learned from Parcells even if there was stylistic differences. To me this is an ego issue as most can clearly see to be the case.

Bill Parcells is building a championship team again here in Dallas so stop being a hater and get on board because your perspective is simplistic and can be argued otherwise when the same logic is applied to Belli as well. There is more than just sound coaching that goes into the equation, Bill could have easily won the 2 Bowls without Belli and hopefully will win one here in Dallas as such.

excellent post !!!!!!!!!!!

[SultanOfSix]

Someone stole Bellicheck's mind when he co-wrote the book and said that Parcells didn't influence him. That, or he was on crack because it's such a ludicrous view, it borders on logical absurdity.

[Dallas31]

Now, Belli also must only be as successful as Weis and Crennel because thus far he has not shown the ability to win a champoinship without them.
The logic can be applied both ways, if you do your homework you will learn that Bill Parcells was the defensive coordinator of the Giants and was excellent thus considered for the head coaching position.

He moved them to the 3-4 and and positioned LT to be the freak. Any good head coach is considered as much by aquiring and positioning good coaches. The credit goes to the head coach because he selects them and plays positionally to their respective strenths for the team. Parcells kept Belli, Crennel and personally added Weis to his credit.

Belli failed miserably in CLEV and it is no fluke he went after all of Bill Parcells staff when he went to NE. Parcells drafted the core players that Belli was able to use as leaders for his champoinship run. Belli is a solid coach, but certainly he learned from Parcells even if there was stylistic differences. To me this is an ego issue as most can clearly see to be the case.

Bill Parcells is building a championship team again here in Dallas so stop being a hater and get on board because your perspective is simplistic and can be argued otherwise when the same logic is applied to Belli as well. There is more than just sound coaching that goes into the equation, Bill could have easily won the 2 Bowls without Belli and hopefully will win one here in Dallas as such.



I agree...great post!!!

:cool:

[rags747]

Everyone get a grip. Parcells got Beli the job in Cleveland and then when he fell on his face Parcells got him a $1M a yr job as def coord of the Jets. 1M per yr in those days was unheard of, it was basically twice what the highest coord was paid at the time.

Parcells may be a SOB but look at the love his former players have for him...Beli simply has no personality at all. I'll take Parcells any day. Lets see where Beli goes from here, it will be interesting.

Keep your fingers crossed for the ultimate matchup...Pats vs the Boys in this years SB, the teacher vs the student!

[Wolverine]

Good points in here how Belichek lucked out in taking over a Pat team that Parcells built for him.

All I hope for is a Patriots Cowboys Super Bowl with BP coaching the Boys and BB the Pats.

I would love to see us totally wipe out the Pats. It would be great if we were leading 35-13 with 1 minute left to go in the Super Bowl and Parcells has Bledsoe run the 2 minute hurry up offense for another TD just to humiliate Belichek


I just hope the 2 can meet in the Super Bowl and Parcells shows everyone who really is da man!

[mr.jameswoods]

I don't think most of you believe half of what you are saying. If the tables were turned and Bellichek was our coach, none of you would argue that Parcells was a better coach. I feel a lot of this is Cowboys partisanship and looking out for the head coach. That's fine and it should be expected considering this is a Cowboys messageboard. But this thread sounds a little too homerish to me.

I mean it's pretty clear that Bellichek is the better coach. It's funny how most are saying that New England was so talented when Bellichek took over it when the exact opposite was said at the time of his arrival in New England. No one in the media wrote the Patriots were destined to win the Superbowl in 2001. And when they won, no one argued that team was loaded with talent. Nearly every writer said the team executed well despite lacking a lot of talent.

And lets' be honest, when the Patriots won in 2001, it wasn't as if they just rolled over everyone like they did the last 2 seasons. They were 4-4 by midseason with Tom Brady having already played in 7 games. That team bonded when Bellichek started showing some fire and emotion for the first time; the players fed into that and finally looked up to their head coach for the first time. Football is a game of emotion and momentum. That's why even we can accomplish amazing things this season if our chemistry and momentum remain high. The Patriots were thought to be so talented they were 14 point underdogs to the Rams in the Superbowl.


To me this is not an issue of being loyal but "keeping it real". I mean cmon guys. It would be one thing if Parcells made a Superbowl appearance without Bellichek at his side, but every franchise he turned around, Bill B. was his right hand man. So I don't see how you can give Parcells full credit for turning around the Patriots and the Jets when Bellichek was on his staff?

[Alexander]

I don't think most of you believe half of what you are saying. If the tables were turned and Bellichek was our coach, none of you would argue that Parcells was a better coach. I feel a lot of this is Cowboys partisanship and looking out for the head coach. That's fine and it should be expected considering this is a Cowboys messageboard. But this thread sounds a little too homerish to me.

I mean it's pretty clear that Bellichek is the better coach. It's funny how most are saying that New England was so talented when Bellichek took over it when the exact opposite was said at the time of his arrival in New England. No one in the media wrote the Patriots were destined to win the Superbowl in 2001. And when they won, no one argued that team was loaded with talent. Nearly every writer said the team executed well despite lacking a lot of talent.

And lets' be honest, when the Patriots won in 2001, it wasn't as if they just rolled over everyone like they did the last 2 seasons. They were 4-4 by midseason with Tom Brady having already played in 7 games. That team bonded when Bellichek started showing some fire and emotion for the first time; the players fed into that and finally looked up to their head coach for the first time. Football is a game of emotion and momentum. That's why even we can accomplish amazing things this season if our chemistry and momentum remain high. The Patriots were thought to be so talented they were 14 point underdogs to the Rams in the Superbowl.


To me this is not an issue of being loyal but "keeping it real". I mean cmon guys. It would be one thing if Parcells made a Superbowl appearance without Bellichek at his side, but every franchise he turned around, Bill B. was his right hand man. So I don't see how you can give Parcells full credit for turning around the Patriots and the Jets when Bellichek was on his staff?

It is partisanship.

I said it earlier today when this thread was buzzing. If Coach Parcells were not our coach, nobody would care.

[NorthTexan95]

I mean it's pretty clear that Bellichek is the better coach.

No, it's not clear. I believe both coaches are good ones. I believe both are probably headed to the Hall of Fame. Though if you consider their complete body of work as head coaches then Parcells is clearly the more accomplished coach.

Bellichek has had one bad run as head coach of the Browns and one great run as head coach of the Patriots. That alone will probably get him into the Hall of Fame. Parcells, though, had one great run with the Giants, two good runs with the Patriots and Jets, and seems to be in the process of having at least a good run with the Cowboys.

Comparing Bellichek and Parcells at this point the scales weigh heavily in the favor of Parcells. Give Bellichek 20 more years and he may surpass Parcells (or maybe not). The only way one can judge Belichek right now as being better is by simply counting Super Bowl victories (which would make Bellichek the second best coach in history behind Noll) but that would be a rather poor measuring stick.

It would be one thing if Parcells made a Superbowl appearance without Bellichek at his side, but every franchise he turned around, Bill B. was his right hand man. So I don't see how you can give Parcells full credit for turning around the Patriots and the Jets when Bellichek was on his staff?

As someone mention earlier, every argument you make against Parcells can also be made against Bellichek. You can't give Bellichek full credit for New England's success when he hasn't won a thing without Crennel and Weiss. This is really a poor and useless arguement to use either way.

[deerssur]

Would anyone read Mike Tice's book?
if there were pictures and a play by play of the boat incident, hell yeah.

[SuspectCorner]

I don't blame Bellichik. Thus far, he owns more Superbowls than Parcells and he won with less talent than Parcells. The job Bellichik did last season was flat out impressive considering all the injuries they had at defensive back etc. Aside from our 10-6 season a couple of years ago, Parcells has not shown he can be dominat without Bellichik.


God how i get sick of hearing how "parcells hasn't shown he can win without Belichik"... you'd almost think "Smiley" Bellichik invented coaching. sure Bellichik won 3 in 4 years in a league more watered-down than when Dallas turned the same trick.

Parcells won championships when legit long-term powers still existed... the 49ers, the Bears, the Raid-uhs, the Redskins. teams that would have thrashed the current crop of "contenders" the league fields.

sure "Smiley" won with inferior talent to Parcells'... contenders are systematically dismantled by raiding also-rans on an annual basis in the current age. but to intimate Bellichik did it with a team bereft of talent is sheer foolishness. yeah the Pats had "holes". but to anybody paying attention - they had fewer of them than the rest of the league.

for my money - the only area where Bellichik trumps Parcells in terms of talent - is the one for being an A**hole.

Parcells gives props all the way up his coaching tree. Smiley lacks that kinda class. i look forward to the Patriots further implosion with great relish. it couldn't happen to a nicer one-man-band.

[Givincer]

I don't think most of you believe half of what you are saying. If the tables were turned and Bellichek was our coach, none of you would argue that Parcells was a better coach. I feel a lot of this is Cowboys partisanship and looking out for the head coach. That's fine and it should be expected considering this is a Cowboys messageboard. But this thread sounds a little too homerish to me.

I mean it's pretty clear that Bellichek is the better coach. It's funny how most are saying that New England was so talented when Bellichek took over it when the exact opposite was said at the time of his arrival in New England. No one in the media wrote the Patriots were destined to win the Superbowl in 2001. And when they won, no one argued that team was loaded with talent. Nearly every writer said the team executed well despite lacking a lot of talent.

And lets' be honest, when the Patriots won in 2001, it wasn't as if they just rolled over everyone like they did the last 2 seasons. They were 4-4 by midseason with Tom Brady having already played in 7 games. That team bonded when Bellichek started showing some fire and emotion for the first time; the players fed into that and finally looked up to their head coach for the first time. Football is a game of emotion and momentum. That's why even we can accomplish amazing things this season if our chemistry and momentum remain high. The Patriots were thought to be so talented they were 14 point underdogs to the Rams in the Superbowl.


To me this is not an issue of being loyal but "keeping it real". I mean cmon guys. It would be one thing if Parcells made a Superbowl appearance without Bellichek at his side, but every franchise he turned around, Bill B. was his right hand man. So I don't see how you can give Parcells full credit for turning around the Patriots and the Jets when Bellichek was on his staff?

If you are going to make that assertion then wait until his time as a Cowboy is done to make this comparison. If you think Bellichick was the reason for all his success than this Cowboy experiment is perfect to find out whether or not he was. Right now it looks like Bellichick had very little to do with his success looking at what he's done to the Cowboys in just 2.5yrs.

Also I could make the same assertion about Bellichick not being able to win without Weis and Crennel - he's not winning a superbowl without them there is no way he could they were the reason for all his success.... (I don't believe that as I don't believe Bellichick was the reason for all Parcells success)

[DWAREZ]

I don't think most of you believe half of what you are saying. If the tables were turned and Bellichek was our coach, none of you would argue that Parcells was a better coach. I feel a lot of this is Cowboys partisanship and looking out for the head coach. That's fine and it should be expected considering this is a Cowboys messageboard. But this thread sounds a little too homerish to me.

I mean it's pretty clear that Bellichek is the better coach. It's funny how most are saying that New England was so talented when Bellichek took over it when the exact opposite was said at the time of his arrival in New England. No one in the media wrote the Patriots were destined to win the Superbowl in 2001. And when they won, no one argued that team was loaded with talent. Nearly every writer said the team executed well despite lacking a lot of talent.

And lets' be honest, when the Patriots won in 2001, it wasn't as if they just rolled over everyone like they did the last 2 seasons. They were 4-4 by midseason with Tom Brady having already played in 7 games. That team bonded when Bellichek started showing some fire and emotion for the first time; the players fed into that and finally looked up to their head coach for the first time. Football is a game of emotion and momentum. That's why even we can accomplish amazing things this season if our chemistry and momentum remain high. The Patriots were thought to be so talented they were 14 point underdogs to the Rams in the Superbowl.


To me this is not an issue of being loyal but "keeping it real". I mean cmon guys. It would be one thing if Parcells made a Superbowl appearance without Bellichek at his side, but every franchise he turned around, Bill B. was his right hand man. So I don't see how you can give Parcells full credit for turning around the Patriots and the Jets when Bellichek was on his staff?

Again, then you cannot give Belli full credit without Bill P former seasoned coaches in Crennel and Weis. I do not think most people thought NE was loaded with talent when he arrived in 2001 but he did have a solid core that needed to be added to accordingly. Plus, he employed coaches from the success of the Giants, NE and Jets teams Parcells coached.

Homerish is often a problematic perspective but so is failing to acknowledge the obvious insofar as to give credit where credit is due. It is OK to be critical but being uncritical is also problematic which you do in this context. If Bill Parcells success was parasitic upon Belli's skills then it could also be argued that Belli's success is parasitic upon Crennel and Weis' skills. This can be supported by Belli's failure in CLEV which was roughly a 5 year body of work.

You continue to ingnore that Bill P was the architect of the Giants 3-4 defense and it is quite obvious he was involved throughout Belli's tenure.
Bill was promoted to Head Coach for his defensive expertise and assisted Lawrence to become the freak. Belli contributed to be sure and Parcells was wise to keep him on staff and use his skills for the team. But that too is to his credit as head coach. You obviously have a axe to grind with Parcells, which is fine but your reasoning in this context is simplistic and fails to account for the genisis and intricacies of the head coach and his working relationship with his staff with respect to the trajectory of success.

You cannot have it both ways, if Parcells needed Belli, then up to this point at least, Belli needed Crennel and Weis, a point that will be realized later this season to be sure. The Pats still have a good nucleus and basic structure in place which will keep them in the hunt but they will not be winning any SB this season. Be fair and honest, good coaches need good staff to be great that applies to Bill Parcells AND Bill B. Bill is attempting to do this in Dallas with new coaches as Belli is now in NE, only time will tell.:)