I didn't say that. Did I?
I don't need to. I know he's a good coach.
Belechick arrived and they are good enought to make the Super Bowl. He leaves and they are average again.
that completely ignores the tremendous job of rebuilding that team with a rookie qb. The pats in the early 90s were like the lions of this season. Terrible. 1-15 to 10-6 in two years with a rookie quarterback is pretty good. When belichick showed up that was a developed team years into the program. And the reality is, in 96 had denver not been upset and I am not sure they get to the superbowl, I was at the denver-pats game in 96 the broncos and elway destroyed them.
He learned a lot from hsi dad according to Roger Staubach who has known him since his days at the Naval academy when Bill was just a boy.
he learned alot from ted marchibroda also as he always talks about, but the structure and detail he uses is almost the identical blueprint of how parcells runs the operation. Now belichick is a master tactician. No doubt about it.
But that isn't in the parameters of the discussion. The claim is that without Romeo and Weis Little Bill is just as unsuccessful as Big Bill is without Little Bill.
Simply not true.
The common component there is Tom Brady. Not parcells or belichick. Its Brady which is the x factor. With bledsoe in there is nothing that indicates they go to the superbowl.
You can if you feel the need to. Again, not the parameters.
If Tom failed in the final seconds against the Giants, probably another flight home with the pilots and an e-mailed resignation. It is just as honest to speculate that as if he had Brady.
I can't agree. He is average. The results simply don't lie. I don't call the white suits unless you tell me you'd take Parcells over Belichick.
Its too hard to answer, they the same guy. Belichick and parcells are two of the best ever, its like asking if you would take knoll or landry. I would just flip a coin and hope I get brady along for the ride.
At one time I would have. I honestly would have. Never again. I don't think the guy has the backbone to stick it out. He was great in the 80's with the Giants and Belichick as his DC. He gets credit for rebuilding teams but even there with the Patriots the ONLY post season success he ever had was with Little Bill back as the DC.
Parcells and BB worked hand in hand running that defense. This is what I dont get about the revisionist history. Parcells was the lb coach and defensive coordinator, little bill was the special teams coach lb assistant. Parcells got the HC job and still was involved with the defense, belichick wasnt formally the coordinator until 85, but they both were running the defense all those years. They were actually both hired by the giants the same year 79. Belichick as an assitant and special teams coach and parcells as linebacker coach. Parcells wife refused to leave denver where their children were in school and parcells had to go back to denver, that was his missing year in coaching. He was then rehired as defensive coordinator in 81. Why its so difficult to understand that parcells is very much responsible for belichicks learning about defense and the game I will never understand.
and riddle me this, Howcome parcells gets the blame in Dallas for the defense struggling but belichick gets the credit in NY and New England in the years they won? Howcome parcells didnt get the credit for working with the defense also, he got all the blame in Dallas? Doesnt make any sense. Parcells and belichick always worked hand in hand. Linebackers were parcells specialty. Dont think for a second he didnt teach the special teams coach and former lions tight end coach a thing or two about coaching linebackers.
and your assertion that he failed in new england until belichick got there is so off its laughable. He took that team to 10-6 in two years. With a rookie quarterback and young players all over the field. He assembled a new staff he wasnt used to. He took the leagues worst team to the playoffs in two years and increased the win total by 8 games. 2-14 to 10-6 in two years, in a division with the powerhouse bills and a rookie quarterback. that is tremendous success. If winning or going to the superbowl is the only measure of success then there arent many good coaches.
It was the parcells influence and philosophy that turned the giants, patriots, jets and cowboys into winners. Its that same philosophy that belichick uses. again, dont think for a second that belichick a tight end/special teams coach didnt learn about linebackers from parcells, its lunacy.
To me, he's a lot more hype than substance despite being a great coach. I take Belichick over him any day of the week and twice on game, especially if it's the post season.
People say stuff like this all the time. "Shanahan hasn't won anything without Elway" Gee, what did Landry win without Staubach?