The only coaches that has a history of building teams from scratch is Parcells and Bilichick. Parcells does it with different teams while Bilichick somehow stays successful regardless of who he has. Every year, something happens or a player leaves NE, and you say to yourself, 'they are screwed now'. Every year they still are in the thick of it. Look at Cassell and Brady. These guys had no record of success. Cassell hadn't even started a game since highschool, and they went 11-5.
Billichick actually inherited alot and I think billichick has done a great job don't get me wrong. but one of the reasons that that new england has remained successful is a core group has remained with him, particularly on his defense and of course brady. secondly, um if by history you mean last ten years? Ever heard of guys named bill walsh, or jimmy johnson. even a guy like holmgren, or what about Vermeil who built a champion and then another really good KC team.
yeah, I still disagree with billichick, he has had the same nucleus. I think vermeil and holmgren hold up to parcells, and if championships aren't a requirement, jeff fisher has done well with two different eras with the titans, although they choked saturday.
I bet he's just taking this year off to spend more time with his family, who reside in Tampa. He'll be coaching the Bucs in 2010.
Did you not see the entire ****ing 2008 season? Just in case you missed all 16 games, they played those games with Cassel.
Good for the Texans because they dont have to worry about getting out coached twice a year. Bad for the NFL because they are losing a heck of a coach but an even better person
That's exactly what I meant. I did forget Vermeil though. Holmgren didn't really light it up in his first years in Seattle and Jimmy Johnson stunk it up in Miami. There aren't very many coaches that have proven that they bring winning with them. There are only a handful, so I think the criticism against Dungy having great teams to coach is misguided. If we were to use that standard, there would be only be a handful of coaches that people would consider being good. OT: What's crazy is how many coaches in the league are somehow connected to Walsh and Parcells.
and they didn't make the playoffs ( I know they went 11-5), but I still think as good as billichick has been, he gets too much credit A) He isn't the personnel guy which is really what you need. as we see in Dallas, you can't even just go out and spend money on a bunch of names, peronnel in the NFL is probably more important than even baseball and basketball although its important in all sports. B) Billichick actually had a stop in another spot where he probably didn't get the personnel support he has in NE, and he was turrble and hurbble as barkley would say
Totally disagree, when Phil Jackson can help turnaround a franchise, like the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, without having the greatest players ever on his roster. Then, maybe, but Dungy has done very well with his teams. He made the Bucs a very competitive, consistent playoff team from a franchise that had only made the playoffs. He took the Bucs to more playoff appearance in his 5 seasons alone than in Tampa's previous 20 years. Later, he came in built a decent defense (often times ranked in top 10, surprisingly) for a great offensive team that never had one. Also, Dungy built this (slightly underrated) defense to fit the personality of the offense and did with draft picks and lowly FAs. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/clt/
No Jimmy Johnson or Joe Gibbs. Even, Bill Walsh, George Allen, Vince Lombardi, and to a smaller extent Dan Reeves and Marty Schottenheimer. Belichick has only built one great set of teams in NWE, he has yet to prove he could do it with another franchise. Being somewhat of disappointmnet in Cleveland.
A. I'm not going to even argue with you about this since personnel is probably the least important compare to the NBA and MLB. Doc Rivers isn't a coaching genius and in baseball its all about the money. B. Bilichick took the Browns to a 11-5 record and the playoffs in his third season, so he wasn't that horrible. Again I'm not trying to argue with you on points. I'm just saying that there are only a handful of coaches that have proven to bring winning with them no matter where they are. In the last 20 years, I can only point to Parcell, Vermeil, Marty Schottenheimer, Dan Reeves and Bilichick(which we have shown is debateable). Holmgren sucked for a long time in Seattle. He did not make the playoffs until his fifth year there, and didn't win a playoff game until his seventh. Holmgren success came and went with the health of Shaun Alexander.
I think bellichick, has proven to be a great coach, he constantly loses coordinators, but they fail in other team (Charlie Weiss and Romeo Crennel) and now Denver hired Josh McDaniels Tony Dung is a great person, I wish him good luck
that's ridiculous, first of all what I mean is that you have to build teams through the draft and scouting and not being able to go and sign big names, exactly the opposite of what boston did. so you would be completely backwards on that, ask the texans bellichick had one winning year out of five there if you want to give belichick credit for one good cleveland year, you have to give holmgren alot more credit for what he did in Seattle. And secondly, Seattle was a loser franchise, like the Bucs. you're all over the board, you don't want to give dungy or holmgren credit, who did it with two different teams, but you want to give bellichick credit for one good Cleveland season and his time with the Pats. You're right, you're not arguing on points, you're being completely random.
