|
Post by millar70 on Jan 4, 2021 20:54:52 GMT
There’s nothing new about Analytics (one word), champ. Belichick has been using it for years. If you’re trying to suggest that your argument is the next evolutionary step in the evaluation of coaching talent, rendering previous expert views obsolete ... well ... excuse me while I bust a gut laughing. That’s what’s so funny! You think comparing wins/loses with and without Tom Brady is a comprehensive evaluation of the coaches abilities. That’s the sort of simple argument you hear drunks at a bar make. One does not need a counter argument in order to recognize a crock. 'Analytics, champ' is two words. Hope that helps. That aside, eight seasons worth of evidence without Tom Brady is more than enough. How many seasons do you need? Beyond that, I've mentioned poor coaching in seasons where the team actually had success. (i.e., bringing the worst statistical defense in the Super Bowl era to Super Bowl 46, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.) Oh, and no I wasn't suggesting my analysis is the next step, simply pointing out that leaning on prevailing wisdom as an argument is hollow. Science works the same way. Everyone thinks they understand how something works, until they try looking at it a new way. New wisdom replaces the old. Thanks to analytics, sports works the same way. Whether you agree with the old school or the new, at some point all the 'experts' agreed on information that was flat out wrong. You don't need a counter argument because you never had one. Nobody does. It doesn't exist. Throw out the Brady years and Belichick is a sub .500 coach. He's even missed the playoffs with Brady, and Brady's offense took them to the Super Bowl in a season where the defense literally did nothing. I'm happy to point out more examples of terrible coaching to you. But to keep this argument going, you'll have to do what no one else has done: provide an example of sustained success by Bill Belichick as a head coach without Tom Brady. Eight seasons without Brady, six of them with a losing record, one playoff appearance. Like I said, he isn't the first or the last guy to be completely overrated. I just find it comical that nobody can provide an example of his great head coaching ability that doesn't involve Brady. And by the way, insisting coaching isn't about wins and losses is one of the dumbest fucking arguments I've ever read. If a team had six of eight losing seasons and lost every game by a FG as time expired, I'm pretty sure that coach isn't going to the hall of fame. Please come up with an actual argument next time, champ/ace/sport/cupcake. And learn how to count. Not sure if you realize this, and not really trying to start anything up here btw, but your 2nd paragraph about science and prevailing wisdom is an excellent example of why the human race continues to fuck up itself. Centuries of prevailing wisdom should always take a backseat to whatever it is that the newest science says. And wars continue, and famine continues, and diseases continue, and all of the same stupid crap that humans do to themselves and each other continues..... Ignoring science and new ideas is stupid, but so is ignoring the wisdom gained from experience. Balance is the key.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jan 4, 2021 21:26:20 GMT
'Analytics, champ' is two words. Hope that helps. That aside, eight seasons worth of evidence without Tom Brady is more than enough. How many seasons do you need? Beyond that, I've mentioned poor coaching in seasons where the team actually had success. (i.e., bringing the worst statistical defense in the Super Bowl era to Super Bowl 46, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.) Oh, and no I wasn't suggesting my analysis is the next step, simply pointing out that leaning on prevailing wisdom as an argument is hollow. Science works the same way. Everyone thinks they understand how something works, until they try looking at it a new way. New wisdom replaces the old. Thanks to analytics, sports works the same way. Whether you agree with the old school or the new, at some point all the 'experts' agreed on information that was flat out wrong. You don't need a counter argument because you never had one. Nobody does. It doesn't exist. Throw out the Brady years and Belichick is a sub .500 coach. He's even missed the playoffs with Brady, and Brady's offense took them to the Super Bowl in a season where the defense literally did nothing. I'm happy to point out more examples of terrible coaching to you. But to keep this argument going, you'll have to do what no one else has done: provide an example of sustained success by Bill Belichick as a head coach without Tom Brady. Eight seasons without Brady, six of them with a losing record, one playoff appearance. Like I said, he isn't the first or the last guy to be completely overrated. I just find it comical that nobody can provide an example of his great head coaching ability that doesn't involve Brady. And by the way, insisting coaching isn't about wins and losses is one of the dumbest fucking arguments I've ever read. If a team had six of eight losing seasons and lost every game by a FG as time expired, I'm pretty sure that coach isn't going to the hall of fame. Please come up with an actual argument next time, champ/ace/sport/cupcake. And learn how to count. Not sure if you realize this, and not really trying to start anything up here btw, but your 2nd paragraph about science and prevailing wisdom is an excellent example of why the human race continues to fuck up itself. Centuries of prevailing wisdom should always take a backseat to whatever it is that the newest science says. And wars continue, and famine continues, and diseases continue, and all of the same stupid crap that humans do to themselves and each other continues..... Ignoring science and new ideas is stupid, but so is ignoring the wisdom gained from experience. Balance is the key. I think science is like faith: It's all about what you do with it. Ignoring science or spirituality would be to cut out a part of your humanity. Both can lead us astray or open new pathways to enlightenment.
|
|
|
Post by Mulder and Scully on Jan 5, 2021 0:03:42 GMT
Pretty much just how Michael Jordan made Scottie Pippen Actually, it's the other way around.
|
|
|
Post by Rissa on Jan 5, 2021 1:14:37 GMT
Bellycheck needs to retire soon. If he continues to put up sub .500 records without Brady, more people than Rey will begin to question his responsibility for a 20 year dynasty. They already are. Right now it's only the hot take guys like Cowherd and Bayless, because they don't care what people think. Belichick won't be the first or last guy to be completely overrated by the public at large, but eventually people will look back and wonder why the GOAT coached eight seasons without Brady as his starter, six of them were losing seasons and only one playoff appearance. You can be the greatest coach ever, but if you don’t have talented enough players who can execute what you teach them, then it means nothing. That’s for any sport too, not just football.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 5, 2021 19:35:56 GMT
There’s nothing new about Analytics (one word), champ. Belichick has been using it for years. If you’re trying to suggest that your argument is the next evolutionary step in the evaluation of coaching talent, rendering previous expert views obsolete ... well ... excuse me while I bust a gut laughing. That’s what’s so funny! You think comparing wins/loses with and without Tom Brady is a comprehensive evaluation of the coaches abilities. That’s the sort of simple argument you hear drunks at a bar make. One does not need a counter argument in order to recognize a crock. Everyone thinks they understand how something works, until they try looking at it a new way. New wisdom replaces the old. Thanks to analytics, sports works the same way. Whether you agree with the old school or the new, at some point all the 'experts' agreed on information that was flat out wrong. You don't need a counter argument because you never had one. Nobody does. It doesn't exist. For someone who frequently whines about “context”, you certainly seem willing to abandon it when it suits you. Bill Belichicks career in “context”. Cleveland. Not a great record. Why? Simple – He had yet to develop into the first round hall of fame coach most experts now consider him to be. That transition didn’t occur until he came to New England, got total control of the team and finally had the opportunity to implement his own system, 100%. So, we can toss the Cleveland numbers. Contextually, they do not apply. No one is claiming that Belichick was operating at a first round hall of fame coach level in Cleveland, so adding those numbers to the tally is something a drunk might do to win a bar argument. 2020 Not a great record. Why? A scrub QB who could barely complete a pass, and most of the teams talent sat out the season. Even a first round hall of fame coach needs some talent on the field to win a game. 2020 was just too much of a outlier to form any sort of reasonable judgement. In statistics, you toss the outliers unless you are deceptively trying to skew the results. So, what do we have left? 10-5 with Matt Cassel and 3-1 with Garopollo and Brissett. Three not awful QBs who don’t artificially influence the evaluation of a coach due to their own suckiness. 13-6 68% win percentage with a fully functional team and an average-ish QB. The equivalent of a 11-5 season. The puts him in the realm of the greats. Approx 77% win percentage with Tom Brady ... so, Brady tacks on another 10%, which sounds about right. Informed NFL experts, employing analytics (one word) know which facts and figures are relevant and which are not. Drunk fans, apparently employing something called “analytics champ”, just throw everything in the blender, and churn out your sort of nonsence.
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Jan 5, 2021 19:50:52 GMT
Vince Lombardi never won anything without Bart Starr. He also took over a Green Bay team that already had much of the talent that would win them titles. Starr, Paul Horning, Jim Taylor, Boyd Dowler, Forrest Gregg, Jim Ringo, Ray Nitschke, Henry Jordan. Would he have turned around a moribund Redskins franchise, who knows? He did break a 14 year losing streak in his one season.
Bill Belichick looked up to Paul Brown. I think if you look at Brown's record as a high school coach, college coach and coach of the Cleveland Browns, it's impressive, and he won many titles with Otto Graham at QB. But for some, he did some of his most innovative work with the Cincinnati Bengals when QB Greg Cook went down and he had to restructure the offense around QB Virgil Carter's supposed limitations. Brown's assistant Bill Walsh took ideas they worked on together with him to build a west coast offense. So, perhaps the record wasn't so great in Cincinnati overall, yet Brown continued to push the envelope and innovate while building a new franchise that's been to 2 Super Bowls since.
![](https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-you-can-learn-a-line-from-a-win-and-a-book-from-a-defeat-paul-brown-54-33-84.jpg)
If you look at Brown's coaching tree on wikipedia, it says "a larger and more extended version of Paul Brown's coaching tree, which could sometimes be called a forest, can be found here". I think his influence on the game was as important as his overall record and achievements. I always heard this about Vince Lombardi too. I'm interested to see how Belichick does in the next couple of seasons rebuilding, if he stays in New England.
|
|
|
Post by millar70 on Jan 5, 2021 20:12:47 GMT
Vince Lombardi never won anything without Bart Starr. He also took over a Green Bay team that already had much of the talent that would win them titles. Starr, Paul Horning, Jim Taylor, Boyd Dowler, Forrest Gregg, Jim Ringo, Ray Nitschke, Henry Jordan. Would he have turned around a moribund Redskins franchise, who knows? He did break a 14 year losing streak in his one season.
Bill Belichick looked up to Paul Brown. I think if you look at Brown's record as a high school coach, college coach and coach of the Cleveland Browns, it's impressive, and he won many titles with Otto Graham at QB. But for some, he did some of his most innovative work with the Cincinnati Bengals when QB Greg Cook went down and he had to restructure the offense around QB Virgil Carter's supposed limitations. Brown's assistant Bill Walsh took ideas they worked on together with him to build a west coast offense. So, perhaps the record wasn't so great in Cincinnati overall, yet Brown continued to push the envelope and innovate while building a new franchise that's been to 2 Super Bowls since.
![](https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-you-can-learn-a-line-from-a-win-and-a-book-from-a-defeat-paul-brown-54-33-84.jpg)
If you look at Brown's coaching tree on wikipedia, it says "a larger and more extended version of Paul Brown's coaching tree, which could sometimes be called a forest, can be found here". I think his influence on the game was as important as his overall record and achievements. I always heard this about Vince Lombardi too. I'm interested to see how Belichick does in the next couple of seasons rebuilding, if he stays in New England.
Excellent post, featuring two meaningful quotes from two coaching legends.
|
|
|
Post by NJtoTX on Jan 5, 2021 20:16:49 GMT
Brady knew that GM Bill had screwed that team. He was not getting into the playoffs with that team this year or any time soon. He's got a ton of talent now.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jan 5, 2021 21:24:21 GMT
Everyone thinks they understand how something works, until they try looking at it a new way. New wisdom replaces the old. Thanks to analytics, sports works the same way. Whether you agree with the old school or the new, at some point all the 'experts' agreed on information that was flat out wrong. You don't need a counter argument because you never had one. Nobody does. It doesn't exist. For someone who frequently whines about “context”, you certainly seem willing to abandon it when it suits you. Bill Belichicks career in “context”. Cleveland. Not a great record. Why? Simple – He had yet to develop into the first round hall of fame coach most experts now consider him to be. That transition didn’t occur until he came to New England, got total control of the team and finally had the opportunity to implement his own system, 100%. So, we can toss the Cleveland numbers. Contextually, they do not apply. No one is claiming that Belichick was operating at a first round hall of fame coach level in Cleveland, so adding those numbers to the tally is something a drunk might do to win a bar argument. 2020 Not a great record. Why? A scrub QB who could barely complete a pass, and most of the teams talent sat out the season. Even a first round hall of fame coach needs some talent on the field to win a game. 2020 was just too much of a outlier to form any sort of reasonable judgement. In statistics, you toss the outliers unless you are deceptively trying to skew the results. So, what do we have left? 10-5 with Matt Cassel and 3-1 with Garopollo and Brissett. Three not awful QBs who don’t artificially influence the evaluation of a coach due to their own suckiness. 13-6 68% win percentage with a fully functional team and an average-ish QB. The equivalent of a 11-5 season. The puts him in the realm of the greats. Approx 77% win percentage with Tom Brady ... so, Brady tacks on another 10%, which sounds about right. Informed NFL experts, employing analytics (one word) know which facts and figures are relevant and which are not. Drunk fans, apparently employing something called “analytics champ”, just throw everything in the blender, and churn out your sort of nonsence. Hilarious. "Throw out the Cleveland numbers, they don't count." You want context, you got it. The Patriots went to the playoffs three out of four previous years under Parcells and Pete Carroll, including a Super Bowl run. Much of the core of that team was intact when Belichick took over, and he went 5-11 in his first season in New England. He started off the next season 0-2, enter Brady, they go 11-3 down the stretch in the regular season and end up winning the Super Bowl. They miss the playoffs the next season, with a healthy Brady. (There's your outlier, by the way.) They win the division five straight seasons. Brady gets hurt in 08, they miss the playoffs. 11-5 with Cassell after going 16-0 the previous year. If ever there was a team primed to make a run with a backup, that was it. Hell, Brady took over as a backup and won 6 more games than the previous QB (and Bledsoe went on to have an all-pro year in 2002 with Buffalo, so it isn't like he was washed up in 2000) and made the playoffs. Cassel was a three year backup taking over a championship caliber team, and he lost five more games and they missed the playoffs. What happened? Cassel had decent numbers in 2008, and he made the pro bowl in KC later in his career, he wasn't a total bum. Why couldn't Belichick lead a team than went 18-1 the previous season to the playoffs with a backup QB, when he did so with a backup in 2001? Maybe because the backup in 2001 was Tom Brady? The team then wins another 11 division titles, and the moment Brady steps away, they miss the playoffs! Sure, this roster (that Belichick assembled) sucks. So how come Brady got them to the playoffs last year with a 12-4 record? The same shitty offensive weapons were a top ten scoring offense last year. Covid opt outs? How many pro bowls has Patrick Chung been to? They made the Super Bowl in 2017 when Hightower played a total of five games, and Edelman missed the entire season with a blown ACL. Could there be more important supporting cast members? (The answer would be Gronk, who only played 8 games in 2016 and missed the entire playoffs, yet the Patriots staged the greatest comeback in Super Bowl history without him. Over the years, the team has dealt with devastating injuries, free agency losses on either side of the ball, assistant coaching turnover (both the OC and DC after the 2004 season, still made the playoffs the next year), terrible drafts, you name it. They always made the playoffs when Brady was here. The two times they didn't since 2002: When Brady was missing. Go figure. How did they get to Super Bowl 46 with the worst statistical defense in the Super Bowl era? It sure as shit wasn't Belichick's coaching, he's a defensive guy and they provided literally nothing. It didn't matter because they had Brady. They went 3-1 in 2016 without Brady, culminating in a 16-0 home loss to Buffalo (as the team had to keep cycling through QBs as they got injured. Toughness, another underrated aspect of Brady's game. The only games he ever missed were the blown knee in 2008 and the bullshit Deflategate suspension.) Guess how the rematch went? 41-25 Patriots. I wonder how that happened? I wonder what would've happened if the Patriots had to go the rest of the year with dinged up benchwarmers? Looking at how things turned out this year, I'm guessing not very good. Why are you pretending 2000 never happened? Or that it wasn't a fully functional team with a (much better than average) QB? I mean, besides the obvious, that it ruins your argument? Or more likely that you didn't start watching the team until 2001. When did the greatness begin? Throw out Cleveland and Belichick still has a losing record without Brady. The team still made the Super Bowl in 2012 with the worst statistical defense in the Super Bowl era. Belichick has still missed the playoffs every year he hasn't had Brady in New England, and once when he did. When does the greatness begin? Couldn't agree more. In five seasons in Cleveland, four of them were losing seasons. Guess we can toss the outlier where he made the playoffs. We probably should, since he immediately went back to losing the next season. Three seasons now in New England without Tom Brady, three times missing the playoffs, twice with a losing record. Which is the outlier? Why can't he win without Brady? Before the dynasty (2000), in the middle of the dynasty (2008), at the end of the dynasty (2020), he misses the playoffs without Tom Brady. Can you explain that? I'm more than happy to provide context for your bullshit argument. Let me know what else you want to learn today. Edit: Oh and dude, you really need to let the analytice thing go. "Analytics, champ," with a comma, is indeed two words. You look more desperate and more foolish each time you bring it up. Sport.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 7, 2021 14:51:01 GMT
So, this is what it’s like being on the losing end of an argument.
Ok, Ace, Champ, Cupcake. I concede.
All ball-busting aside, you’ve made some valid points.
My previous thinking that credit for the Patriots success was a 60/40 split between Brady and Belichick must be amended.
I’m starting to warm up to the idea that Brady should get the lion’s share of the credit, and Belichick has sometimes hurt the team as much as he helped it.
Certainly, letting Brady walk and/or driving him away, with no fall back plan, was a really bad move.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jan 7, 2021 15:23:07 GMT
So, this is what it’s like being on the losing end of an argument. Ok, Ace, Champ, Cupcake. I concede. All ball-busting aside, you’ve made some valid points. My previous thinking that credit for the Patriots success was a 60/40 split between Brady and Belichick must be amended. I’m starting to warm up to the idea that Brady should get the lion’s share of the credit, and Belichick has sometimes hurt the team as much as he helped it. Certainly, letting Brady walk and/or driving him away, with no fall back plan, was a really bad move. We can agree to disagree, I have with pretty much everyone else on this board. I don't expect to convert you or anything, I'm just a guy with an opinion. I haven't started an online petition to discredit Belichick, I didn't even start this thread. Bill Belichick is widely considered to be one of, if not THE greatest football coach ever. I'm not going to boo the guy at his HOF ceremony. It's just my opinion that when you review the results, you have to ask questions.
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Jan 11, 2021 6:46:32 GMT
Agreed. Kraft is already probably advising against it.
|
|
|
Post by stickman38 on Jan 11, 2021 14:58:10 GMT
Not much else to say in this thread. Looks like it's been exhausted. But I will say this, Bill is a great coach but greatness fades away with time. His biggest shining moments were winning multiple Superbowls with Tommy Brady. If you're judging by number of SB wins, and I know a lot of you do, then he is the greatest coach of all time. If not, then you know the answer....
Personally, I think any player in the NFL would be thrilled to play for him. And that says a lot.
|
|
|
Post by hehatesshe on Jan 11, 2021 15:17:43 GMT
Not much else to say in this thread. Looks like it's been exhausted. But I will say this, Bill is a great coach but greatness fades away with time. His biggest shining moments were winning multiple Superbowls with Tommy Brady. If you're judging by number of SB wins, and I know a lot of you do, then he is the greatest coach of all time. If not, then you know the answer.... Personally, I think any player in the NFL would be thrilled to play for him. And that says a lot. Except Rob Gronkowski.
|
|