Next Week Let's Help Bellichick Get Closer To The Record!! | Page 4 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Next Week Let's Help Bellichick Get Closer To The Record!!

royalshank said:
Agreed. And there are some points in the prior post I don’t agree w - I’m not judging BB on the last 4 years. It’s every year pre and post Brady. And that’s a lot of years / games w excellent QBs - all had success in the NFL and took teams to titles and SBs. Just not w Belichik. Had he not found Brady we aren’t even having this debate IMO

Also, Shula had Marino 12-13 years not 17
Click to expand...
Sorry, right you are. But that happened because Huizenga basically forced Shula to retire at age 65 because he felt that Shula just didn't have it any more.
 
Keypusher said:
Sorry, right you are. But that happened because Huizenga basically forced Shula to retire at age 65 because he felt that Shula just didn't have it any more.
Click to expand...
And he didn’t. He was still a good game day coach but the game had passed him up in the same way I feel it’s passed BB - the way he’s constructed his offense over the past few years screams very 2010. He’s not embraced this fast break NFL. I think his time has come. If he wants to pass Shula and hang around I get it - but I don’t see this NE team competing any time soon
 
Keypusher said:
I really don't care for arguments like this, and I'll explain why. Don Shula coached for 33 years, and for almost all of those years his team was led by a Hall of Fame quarterback. But he managed just two titles in those 33 years, with basically the same roster in two consecutive seasons. He had Dan Marino 17 years and managed one conference title and one blowout Super Bowl loss. So he must be a pretty lousy coach, huh?

Less trollishly: Through the Woodstrock year (1982) Miami fans always felt like they had the best-coached team in football. The Dolphins never made mistakes, they never beat themselves, they always executed. But after that...for the rest of Shula's coaching career, they were exciting, and generally good, but rarely great, and they made mistakes and sometimes beat themselves. And their record reflects that. Similarly: Chuck Noll won four Super Bowls in six years with mostly the same roster. But after that, for the rest of his career, the Steelers were just OK. Vince Lombardi won five titles in seven years with a lot of the same stars. The Packers were clearly in decline his last year, and after he left they fell apart. We'll never know, but I think they would have fallen apart even if he had stayed.

From which I conclude it's really hard to really excel as a coach for a long time. Belichick is now 71, and maybe he's done. But you can't rate him on his performance over the past few years, any more than you can rate Shula on the '93-'95 seasons or George Halas on the late-60s/early 70s Bears.

The argument for Belichick's greatness is pretty simple: in a free agent era, with constant roster turnover, he excelled for 20 years straight. The Patriots were always good and usually great. Nine Super Bowls, six titles, seventeen playoff appearances. Yes, he always had the same quarterback, but otherwise he built multiple completely different but great teams over two full decades. Shula couldn't do that, Noll couldn't do that, and most coaches don't last long enough to even try. Landry did it, but not at the same level of success (two titles and lots of heartbreak). Andy Reid has been really good with two different teams but he still has just two titles, both with the same QB.

When the list of all-time greatest NFL coaches is drawn up, Bill Belichick is going to be on it.
Click to expand...
Don Shula went to Super Bowls with three different rosters. BB was a very good defensive mind at one time who rode the coattails of his one QB offensively. His record without his QB shows what his alternate universe would have been without the all time lucky pick in the 6th round. Shula would never have been that mediocre for such an extended period of time like BB has been.

You're right that BB will always be on the lists of top coaches (maybe unreasonably so), but he is not in a class with Shula, Lombardi, or Bill Walsh.
 
Austin Tatious said:
Don Shula went to Super Bowls with three different rosters. BB was a very good defensive mind at one time who rode the coattails of his one QB offensively. His record without his QB shows what his alternate universe would have been without the all time lucky pick in the 6th round. Shula would never have been that mediocre for such an extended period of time like BB has been.

You're right that BB will always be on the lists of top coaches (maybe unreasonably so), but he is not in a class with Shula, Lombardi, or Bill Walsh.
Click to expand...
This is how I view it as well. Plus, he didn’t cheat like BB either
 
Austin Tatious said:
Don Shula went to Super Bowls with three different rosters. BB was a very good defensive mind at one time who rode the coattails of his one QB offensively. His record without his QB shows what his alternate universe would have been without the all time lucky pick in the 6th round. Shula would never have been that mediocre for such an extended period of time like BB has been.

You're right that BB will always be on the lists of top coaches (maybe unreasonably so), but he is not in a class with Shula, Lombardi, or Bill Walsh.
Click to expand...
Bill Belichick won Super Bowls with four or five different rosters.
 
JamesWsenior said:
By rosters you mean Qbs?
Click to expand...
There seems to be an opinion lurking on this thread that QB is the only position on the roster that matters. Since Don Shula, a great coach, had Dan Marino, a all-time great quarterback, on his roster for 13 years, and Johnny Unitas, another all-time great quarterback, on his roster for 7 years, and won 0 titles over those combined periods, we know that is not the case.
 
PCmor said:
Of course, he supposedly had his elite QB to replace Brady a couple of times and Newton and Jones haven't worked out. As good as Williams looks, there's no guarantee he'd be the one to immediately click with Belichick and make NE a force again, at least no immediately.
Click to expand...
Williams didn't look that good against Notre Dame
 
Keypusher said:
There seems to be an opinion lurking on this thread that QB is the only position on the roster that matters. Since Don Shula, a great coach, had Dan Marino, a all-time great quarterback, on his roster for 13 years, and Johnny Unitas, another all-time great quarterback, on his roster for 7 years, and won 0 titles over those combined periods, we know that is not the case.
Click to expand...
Don't leave out David Woodley!
 
Keypusher said:
Bill Belichick won Super Bowls with four or five different rosters.
Click to expand...
With one QB, the most important position on the field. Shula literally took three different generations of teams to Super Bowls and was not reliant on a single quarterback or player. He adapted to his rosters and won different ways. BB unfortunately has a lot of data without 12 out there for him, and its a large enough sample size to draw conclusions. I don't want to take his good defensive mind away from him. He was that. As were a number of other guys.
 
Keypusher said:
There seems to be an opinion lurking on this thread that QB is the only position on the roster that matters. Since Don Shula, a great coach, had Dan Marino, a all-time great quarterback, on his roster for 13 years, and Johnny Unitas, another all-time great quarterback, on his roster for 7 years, and won 0 titles over those combined periods, we know that is not the case.
Click to expand...
BB has had many years (and many QB's) to prove that he can without 12. He is a sub .500 coach without 12. He has been befuddled without Brady and Shula was never befuddled. Shula had an exceptional record with backup quarterbacks because he knew how to win. As Bum Phillips said, “He can take his'n and beat your'n and take your'n and beat his'n.” No one would ever say that about BB.
 
Austin Tatious said:
With one QB, the most important position on the field. Shula literally took three different generations of teams to Super Bowls and was not reliant on a single quarterback or player. He adapted to his rosters and won different ways. BB unfortunately has a lot of data without 12 out there for him, and its a large enough sample size to draw conclusions. I don't want to take his good defensive mind away from him. He was that. As were a number of other guys.
Click to expand...
Shula took a team to the Super Bowl for the first time in 1969* (and lost). He took a team to the Super Bowl for the last time in 1985 (and lost). Sixteen years. He was 2-6 in title games over 33 years.

Belichick took a team to the Super Bowl for the first time in 2002 (and won). Belichick took a team to the Super Bowl for the last time in 2019 (and won). Seventeen years. He was 6-3 in title games over 29 years.

Explain to me how Belichick's failure to win a Super Bowl with Kosar, Testaverde, and Mac Jones disqualifies him from greatness, but Shula's failure to win a Super Bowl with Dan Marino or Johnny Unitas doesn't disqualify him from greatness?

*Slightly misleading, since Shula took a team to the NFL championship in 1964, before there was a Super Bowl (and lost).

**Edited to correct a fact error.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom