Comments on: Bill Belichick Has Now Won 2 Out of Every 3 Games He’s Coached

By: someguy

someguy — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 17:50:00 +0000

Shula averaging about +3.35 point differential per game with Marino vs Walsh averaging +8.78 point differential per game with Montana, and Belichick averaging +9.29 point differential per game with Brady hurts the perception of Shula. Particularly since that time was a 13 year long extended and final look football fans had of him. His career was like a comedian’s set with all their worst jokes at the end, leaving you somewhat disappointed, even if the set as a whole was extremely funny. His is also hurt by not being identified with much innovation or specific mastery beyond all his wins and longevity. Halas was the original, Brown was the innovator of a lot of modern coaching, Landry had the 4-3, Lombardi had the power sweep, Walsh had the west-coast offense, Belichick has the adaptability to make use of undervalued schemes and players in a salary cap league.

By: Robert

Robert — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 10:00:00 +0000

I agree recency plays a big hand. But looking back, as someone else in this thread mentioned Shula had much bigger competition in terms of premier coaches. In the late 60s obviously there was Lombardi. In the 70s there was Noll, Madden, and Landry as HOF coaches. Think about the 80s, there was Walsh, Parcells, and Gibbs. While there were good coaches in Belichick’s time, overall it seems the next best coaches after Belichick are a clear step down. Yes, Dungy made the HOF and there are good arguments for his inclusion, but notably his playoff record is a losing one. Belichick has an exemplary playoff record and relative to his contemporaries, he stands out much more . Is this because Belichick is just so good, or because Belichick is good and the rest of coaches are not good enough. I don’t know.