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

[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!!!

 

[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 Commanders. 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)

 

[Rogerthat12]

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.