Per Iocum Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 I'd just like to know how a coach who can't win without an all-star QB should be considered a "great coach". He was a great coordinator and has had success with an all-star. He won three titles (not to mention the ones as a coordinator) which is enough to qualify. I am curious to see how he would do without Tom Brady, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord O' Bones Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 I am curious to see how he would do without Tom Brady, though. 6-10,7-9,7-9,11-5? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CelticBrennus Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 He was a great coordinator and has had success with an all-star. He won three titles (not to mention the ones as a coordinator) which is enough to qualify. I am curious to see how he would do without Tom Brady, though. Gee, and here I thought that the Cleveland years were enough to show he was a pretty good coach who could take a collapsing team with a aging QB, a hostile media and owner, and turn them into a legit contender with nary an all star on his team. This also doesnt mention that a large part of Brady's development is due to Belichick's teachings. They didnt have a QB coach in Brady's first year, so Belichick began teaching him how to break down defenses from a defensive POV. All you have done is compare Belichick's record with Dungy's. Belichick won 3 sb's with a great QB, and Dungy won 1 with a great QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 I am curious to see how he would do without Tom Brady, though. Why are you curious? You already seem pretty certain, based apparently on his stint with Cleveland that ended 12 years ago, that a man who has repeatedly built championship defenses is incapable of "winning" (however you define that word to include Dungy but exclude Belichick) without an all-star QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Per Iocum Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 Why are you curious? You already seem pretty certain, based apparently on his stint with Cleveland that ended 12 years ago, that a man who has repeatedly built championship defenses is incapable of "winning" (however you define that word to include Dungy but exclude Belichick) without an all-star QB. He's changed. He might do better now. Now. All I said was 1) Tony's time in Tampa proves he is a good coach. He succeeded without Manning who, I guess, runs the Colts 2) He won in Tampa without an all-star QB. 3) Bill has not won without an all-star QB. 4) Bill had a losing record with Cleveland 5) The Brown's, under Bill, never came close to the success Tampa had. 6) Bill is a good coach 7) Cleveland/Tampa is an interesting comparison. 8) The two situations were similar 9) The Buccaneers made good personnel decisions the Brown's did not. 10) Bill made personnel decisions in Cleveland. McKay was the G.M. in Tampa. 11) Bill was outperformed when comparing the first four years of Cleveland/Tampa. 12) Bill has had one winning season without Brady. 13) Bill is a great coordinator and head coach. 14) I'm curious to see how he would do without Brady. (If he could do better than he did in Cleveland). Is this really so unreasonable? Can you take issue with more than one or two of these? ETA: I prob. missed one or two but nothing major. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 The fans hated him since he dumped Bernie Kosar for Vinnie Testaverde. The fans hated him for that, and he didnt know how to deal with media and fans yet. Yet?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 6-10,7-9,7-9,11-5? How about without Brady OR testaverde? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 Now. All I said was (cut the mealy-mouthing) You said Bill Belichick cannot win without an all-star QB. That's the only assertion I took issue with. I don't care how much other qualifying bullshit you want to try and handwave that away with. It's pretty impressive how much crap you stuffed into that post without actually fessing up to the bludgeon-stupid assertion you made that actually started the argument. ETA: I prob. missed one or two but nothing major. You missed the one comment that I took issue with. You said Bill Belichick cannot win without an all-star QB. Do you want me to go Inigo Montoya and repeat that for you a few more times? I've helpfully bolded the most problematic word in your statement. How many times do you need to re-read that one simple statement before it sinks in that you said something stupid and indefensible and you got called for it? This shouldn't be that hard, but then again I am talking to a Cards fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CelticBrennus Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 PI is right, I mean its simply so clear now. A coach who takes a sinking, failing team, turns it into a playoff contender, and has 5 superbowl rings is merely riding on the coattails of a QB that he mentored and taught to play the NFL game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Per Iocum Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 Here's what I said: Are we going to argue this? Sure, Manning is the reason for a lot of the success but he’s an excellent coach. Don’t forget all the success with Tampa Bay. He can win without an all-star quarterback. Unlike, say, Bill Belichick. What I meant is that he has not won without an all-star not that can’t win without one. I can see how this might be unclear (though I felt from my posts that it was obvious). This shouldn't be that hard, but then again I am talking to a Cards fan. touche Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 What I meant is that he has not won without an all-star not that can’t win without one. I can see how this might be unclear (though I felt from my posts that it was obvious). You said Dungy can win without an all-star, unlike Belichick. Yes, that's so clear. All your ensuing posts were what I like to call mealy-mouthing, attempting to back off the initial stupid statement without actually repudiating it and acknowledging the error you made. The time to clarify the statement you re-quoted, and said, "oh, I didn't mean to say he can't win!" would have been the first time I threw it back in your face. Now that you have acknowledged that it is possible that Bill Belichick may some day "win" without an all-star QB, I'll set forth to scrubbing your shitty arguments from my brain cells. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Per Iocum Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 You said Dungy can win without an all-star, unlike Belichick. Yes, that's so clear. It was clear to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CelticBrennus Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 Shouldnt you also point out that Belichick won immediately and repeatedly with an all star QB, whereas it took Dungy years and years to do so, and has only done it once? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Bandito Posted December 14, 2007 Author Share Posted December 14, 2007 I remember the days when Brady was a "Lucky, system QB". And without Charlie Weiss he would be nothing. Now he grew from birth into Joe Montana? I think assistant coaches don't get enough credit on both teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazzlebane Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 I remember the days when Brady was a "Lucky, system QB". And without Charlie Weiss he would be nothing. Now he grew from birth into Joe Montana? I think assistant coaches don't get enough credit on both teams. Ironic, since Montana was derided for being a lucky, system QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stego Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 Jauron ahead of Holmgren? Por que? Holmgren is a very good QB's coach. He ought to have stayed as such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stego Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 Are we going to argue this? Sure, Manning is the reason for a lot of the success but he’s an excellent coach. Don’t forget all the success with Tampa Bay. He can win without an all-star quarterback. Unlike, say, Bill Belichick. Uhh, no. Dungy was famous for losing every big game he came across in Tampa Bay. And in case you don't understand what I'm talking about, as it appears you do not, Dungy has called the punting team onto he field and Manning has proceeded to tell them to get back on the sideline..... called a play....and run it. As such, Peyton Manning is the head coach of the Colts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stego Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 I agree, he made poor personnel decisions and the Buccaneers did not. HAHAHAHAHAHA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stego Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 I remember the days when Brady was a "Lucky, system QB". And without Charlie Weiss he would be nothing. Now he grew from birth into Joe Montana? I think assistant coaches don't get enough credit on both teams. Exactly. It was: Brady has a weak arm and only succeeds because of coaching. Now it's: Belichick is a decent coach, but never could have won without Brady. People are so blindingly stupid. Tampa Bay got beat year after year in big games, then Dungy leaves, then Tampa Bay wins the Super Bowl. And Tony Dungy had a better man to lean on in Tampa, as well: Monte Kiffin. (One of the best coaches in the NFL.) Dungy is lovable because of his many failings, and people don't like Caesar. Belichick is too superior to everyone else to be loved. Jealousy is rabid and rampant. There has never been a better coach in the history of football, and there has never been a better team than this years Patriots. People loathe that. What a jerk! He cheated on his wife! His son smoked weed!!!1 HE WAS MEAN TO A REPORTER AND A GUY WHO COMPARED HIM TO BARRY BONDS!!1111 Yet Lovable Christian Dad (trademark) is the one who wasn't there for his kids. (But we forgive him and love him because he's not better than we are.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stego Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 Ahh, yet more proof that I am right about Mario Williams. 3 1/2 sacks. Where you at Bronn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.