Carroll second to Belichick?

[Sgt. Largent]

Again, simulating your opponent, which may have been innovative, has nothing to do with the scheme being run so has no factor in what I'm talking about. And again, being a great X's and O's guy (aka schemer) does not require innovation and does not make a coach innovative. Its like when you hear people say how revolutionary Jimmy Graham or Shannon Sharpe were as TEs. Sure they are very good at what they do and that may make them HOFers (obviously not in Graham's case yet), but that doesn't make them revolutionary, as far as I know Kellen Winslow did that.

The definition of innovative is doing something that no one else has done before, and Belichick did that with bringing in players for the specific purpose of mimicking his opponents strengths. That's all I'm saying.

Pete has also been innovative with the way he changed how to motivate the modern day player. Just as impressive, but this list boils down to SB rings, and like I said hard to argue with Belichick #1.

 

[Hamhawk]

Pete is getting up there in age, but his energy level is like someone in their 20"s,... sure hope he can keep it up for many more years

 

[Meeker]

Again, simulating your opponent, which may have been innovative, has nothing to do with the scheme being run so has no factor in what I'm talking about. And again, being a great X's and O's guy (aka schemer) does not require innovation and does not make a coach innovative. Its like when you hear people say how revolutionary Jimmy Graham or Shannon Sharpe were as TEs. Sure they are very good at what they do and that may make them HOFers (obviously not in Graham's case yet), but that doesn't make them revolutionary, as far as I know Kellen Winslow did that.

The definition of innovative is doing something that no one else has done before, and Belichick did that with bringing in players for the specific purpose of mimicking his opponents strengths. That's all I'm saying.

I was only ever arguing this:

One former GM who listed Carroll as a 2 said he did not think Carroll was quite innovative enough from a scheme standpoint to rank near the very top. However, another voter said he had read Carroll's book multiple times, trying to glean whatever he could.

I wonder how the same GM ranked Belichick. Its not as if his schemes are innovative.

 

[HansGruber]

Oh, is that why the NFL fined them and took away a draft pick? Wow. You sure got me. (However, Goodell destroyed the tapes, because there are no vacated wins in the NFL. I understand the reason, even if I don't agree with it.) As for how that would benefit a team, that's such a ludicrous statement. I mean, it's not like teams have ever installed a different part of the playbook or trick plays in practice.

There are excuses, and then there are facts. I don't even know why it would be whining, seeing as Seattle didn't play them. Furthemore, you're obviously offended because you want to put Billy above coaches like Walsh or Lombardi, so you need to handwave the punishment away because it severely undermines your argument. Too bad, it happened. Mangini, who worked for Belicheck, was the one who called him out for it. I imagine he had something like inside knowledge. After all, it's not like the Patriots have failed to win a championship after the spy scandal or anything - lending zero credence to the accusations, right?

Look, Belicheck is still a very good coach, and I've said such. However, I doubt without the spying, he lands in the top 10 coaches all time.

And just for the hell of it, even though you've already been thoroughly whupped here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Natio ... ontroversy

Yeah, just like the accusations of holding. Not.

Every coach, including Bill Parcells, that has been asked about it laughed it off as absurd. That's why I think it's overstated.

But yeah, some guy with zero NFL experience in any capacity is a much better source of subjective data than a handful of HoF head coaches, including active opponents of the "cheater."

And yeah, mangini had no ulterior motive. I mean, he had just left the team for a division rival, what possible reasons could he ever have to exaggerate a potentially harmful claim against his old employer who is now his biggest obstacle to career success?

And maybe you could answer my question. What advantage would be gained by taping? I've heard that question asked by multiple coaches, including Parcells and Holmgren, both of whom would suffer no love lost by dissing Belichick, and yet no answer has ever been given by any of you coaching experts. I'd love to hear it.

As Holmgren stated in an interview on the subject, all coaches have access to every single play the opponent team has ever run, from multiple views, including full view of the audibles and signals used by the sidelines. But yeah, what you see in a practice, where coaches specifically run generic formations and hide details about the actual game plan, is probably a lot more useful than actual game film against live opponents. SURE. Of course. Totally legit claim.

Further, I have no reason to take a heavily subjective stance. I'm no Patriots fan. Why would I care? I just think it's pathetic, embarrassing, and childish to call winners "cheats". It embarrasses me to hear that nonsense from a 12. We're supposed to be knowledgeable fans and for the most part, we are. But that cheater stuff is just crap. #12 is better than that.

 

[Escamillo]

While I think that the Pats have been an overrated team over the past 10 years due to feasting on a god awful AFC East that's perennially terrible, it's hard to argue with 3 SB rings.

But no rings for NE since spygate. :twisted:

 

[zhawk]

While I think that the Pats have been an overrated team over the past 10 years due to feasting on a god awful AFC East that's perennially terrible, it's hard to argue with 3 SB rings.

But no rings for NE since spygate. :twisted:

Bingo! :49ersmall: