Mike McCarthy = Bill Belichick

[gtb1943]

4 wins better than Belichick's that season.

still a losing season right?

 

[gtb1943]

Only morons would skip 10 years of nothing wihtout Brady as if it didn't happen.

only an idiot would not look at Brady without a top team around him and not wonder why suddenly he is losing

 

[darthseinfeld]

The thread saying Witten should be our OC

 

[Flamma]

For all Cowboy fans wanting Bill for HC should be buyer beware! Bill had Tom Brady all those years and when Brady left he didn't do so well. Mike also had Rodgers..as soon as he left the same results as Belichick..These quarterbacks made the coaches look genius. Dak Prescott is not even in same league as those quarterbacks!

When a QB goes to 9 super bowls with one organization, there is a lot more going on there than just QB talent. If you switch Brady for Rodgers, I think Rodgers has similar success on those Patriot teams. Belichick had a lot to do with it. But you can't expect him to win with Mac Jones. No coach is winning with a garbage QB in today's NFL.

 

[John813]

Bill has coached 10 seasons without Tom Brady, six before Tom and four after Tom. Only two of those were winning seasons. His record those years was a below pedestrian 70-93 for a wonderful .429 winning percentage. His playoff record was 1-2. Not saying he isn't a great defensive mind nor that he is not better than McCarthy, but Tom covered a whole lot of his warts for 20 years and then went and won another Superbowl without him (making the playoffs all three years with Tampa while New England fell apart).

I think looking at the actual history and coaching statistics from an impartial point of view, you would have to say Bill would probably not sniff the hall of fame if Brady never saw a snap. Heck he may have been on his way to getting fired from New England (since they were 5-13 in his first 18 games as New England's head coach before Tom took over) and been stuck as a DC for awhile.

You want to talk about coattail riding for McCarthy with Rodgers, well it is on steroids for Belichick with Brady.

McCarthy with Rodgers: 106-44 .611
McCarthy without Rodgers: 66-43 .606 (including this season)

Belichick with Brady: 397-173 .696
Belichick without Brady: 70-93 .429

Cleveland was bad when he took over, 3-13. Gave up 462 points in 1990.
That was a record that was not surpassed in the 1990's by any other team
Their point differential was -234.

1991 they went 6-10. Points for 293, against 298
1992 they went 7-9 Points for 272, against 272
1993 they went 7-9 . Points for 304, against 307
1994 they went 11-5. Points for 340, against 204
1995 the team studdered to 5-11, but they were 4-4 until the owner announced they were moving to Baltimore.

It's not like he was handed the 1990's Buffalo Bills roster and ran it into the ground.

His time with the Pats is linked with Brady. 2008, the team went 10-5 with Matt Cassel.
Cleary, Brady is called the GOAT for a reason, but it's not like Bill B, who was also the defacto GM, tried his hardest to tank the team but was saved by Brady.

 

[irishline]

The loon’s are out, a coach who got his teams to 9 SBs is a bum. I can’t take much more

I don't think anyone is saying he is a bum (at least I am not), what I am trying to say is that he is not this football God that some people want to make him out to be. His record with and without Brady are literally night and day different. Does that mean that Tom wouldn't be good without Bill? Or that Belichick wouldn't be without Tom? Who knows. That is the beauty of the sport, it is literally the best team sport there is. What I am trying to say is, that anyone who thinks Bill would come here and things would be instantly be better should look at the entirety of his career. They both benefited from one another (and that is evident when you look at how it ended for both). Now the question is, does Dallas have a Tom Brady that can mutually benefit Bill if he comes here? You know the answer to that question.

I wouldn't mind if he came to Dallas, but if he had the same or any more of an impact than Parcells did 20 years ago, I would honestly be impressed.

 

[Cowboys5217]

Officially nominated for Most Inane Thread of the Year.

Don't jump in so fast. We have a thread wanting Jason Garrett back.

 

[irishline]

Cleveland was bad when he took over, 3-13. Gave up 462 points in 1990.
That was a record that was not surpassed in the 1990's by any other team
Their point differential was -234.

1991 they went 6-10. Points for 293, against 298
1992 they went 7-9 Points for 272, against 272
1993 they went 7-9 . Points for 304, against 307
1994 they went 11-5. Points for 340, against 204
1995 the team studdered to 5-11, but they were 4-4 until the owner announced they were moving to Baltimore.

It's not like he was handed the 1990's Buffalo Bills roster and ran it into the ground.

His time with the Pats is linked with Brady. 2008, the team went 10-5 with Matt Cassel.
Cleary, Brady is called the GOAT for a reason, but it's not like Bill B, who was also the defacto GM, tried his hardest to tank the team but was saved by Brady.

New England started out 5-13 under Bill (0-2 to start 2001), there were rumbling about firing him. If they hadn't lucked into Brady starting, who know what may have happened to Bill in 2001, its not like they drafted Tom in the 6th round with the knowledge that he would be who be became. There is also this 4 year decline from a 12-4 playoff team, one year removed from a Superbowl, to a 4-13 team that got him fired. As the coach and, more importantly, GM that is all on him. Why bring Patricia back (a lifetime defensive coach) and put him as the offensive play caller? If that isn't a Jones thing to do I don't know what is. All that being said, again, He is a great coach that is not in doubt.

I posted this before in this thread but will leave it here...

I don't think anyone is saying he is a bum (at least I am not), what I am trying to say is that he is not this football God that some people want to make him out to be. His record with and without Brady are literally night and day different. Does that mean that Tom wouldn't be good without Bill? Or that Belichick wouldn't be without Tom? Who knows. That is the beauty of the sport, it is literally the best team sport there is. What I am trying to say is, that anyone who thinks Bill would come here and things would be instantly be better should look at the entirety of his career. They both benefited from one another (and that is evident when you look at how it ended for both). Now the question is, does Dallas have a Tom Brady that can mutually benefit Bill if he comes here? You know the answer to that question.

I wouldn't mind if he came to Dallas, but if he had the same or any more of an impact than Parcells did 20 years ago, I would honestly be impressed.

 

[Streifenkarl]

Officially nominated for Most Inane Thread of the Year.

Won't stand a chance against the "this is going to be a dogfight" thread.