Bryan wrote:74_75_78_79_ wrote:Technically I agree with that. But Tuna DID immediately change the culture upon he arriving in NE (not just the unis). Yes, just two of four winning seasons, but 'Year 4' was a Super Bowl berth. Yes, Jacksonville did help but taking a bad team to a SB in 'Year 4' is taking a bad team to a SB in 'Year 4'. Even with Carroll's squad collapsing at the end of '99 which led to his dismissal, the culture was already completely turned around from earlier in the decade. They were still no longer those Pats of old.
Parcells was a better HC than Dick MacPherson....I'll give him that. Raymond Berry had a nice run as the Pats HC prior to MacPherson, and his tenure saw a surprise SB appearance as well. I would be surprised to see articles which thought Belichick was inheriting a Super Bowl-ready team with the Patriots in 2000. My recollection is that no one considered the Patriots to be an established winning franchise and no one thought Parcells (much less Pete Carroll) "set the table" for Belichick to simply step in and start winning. Which made their whole 2001 championship that much more remarkable. The Patriots had never really even come close to winning a title prior to Belichick (3 title appearances in 40+ years, 132-41 point differential), Belichick's HC record at that point was 41-55, and no one had heard of Tom Brady.
74_75_78_79_ wrote:But I just can't help but see Tuna - and, yes, Carroll a bit too - as being the 'set-up' man for it all. And WAY more than that in that he did...lead them to a Super Bowl! 'Set-up' men usually don't even make the playoffs at all yet alone make a title game.
The set up man "for it all"? I'm not really seeing much connection between the 1996 Pats and the 2001 Pats, much less the 1996 Pats and the 2018 Pats. After the Pats won the 2001 Super Bowl, did anyone think "well, its no big deal, because Belichick just won with Parcells' players"? Is kind of a nebulous concept anyway....George Wilson bitched about Don Shula getting credit in 1972 ("Joe Doakes could have won with those players"), but as ludicrous/petty was Wilson was being, he at least had a point since the core of the 72 Dolphin roster had been coached by Wilson. And upon further review, Wilson was Shula's HC when Shula was a DC in Detroit. So have we gotten this narrative wrong the whole time? Don Shula wasn't that good of a coach, the real coach of the year in 1972 should have been George Wilson?
74_75_78_79_ wrote:its safe enough to assume that Belichick learned SO MUCH from Tuna that Tuna should get a nice enough slice of credit for the whole Pats' 21st Century run (just like Paul Brown taking some credit for the '70s Steelers & '80s Forty Niners; and Gillman as well for the former, etc).
I've never heard of Paul Brown taking some credit for the 70's Steelers. Did Paul Brown actually say that? I guess the irony of your comment is that Chuck Noll broke into the coaching ranks under....Sid Gillman. So I guess Sid Gillman should take some credit for those 70's Steelers as well. Poor Chuck Noll...all he did was take the worst franchise in pro football history and make them arguably the best team ever with a total overhaul of the roster and staff.
No, Paul Brown never said publicly that he gets credit for the Steelers' (or SF) Dynasty; not that I know of, at least. I overstated things. Of course it was Chuck Noll's Dynasty. I do, after all, have him at #5 all-time just outside 'Rushmore' - and maybe I should place him higher. But simply that he came up through Brown and Gillman - and I also should have certainly mentioned Shula as well - those mentors, sure enough, each taught Chuck something that he took with him to the 'Burgh which he used to contruct what he ended up constructing. This even if most of the ingredients were his very own.
Still his Dynasty just the same. And the same with this 21st Century being Belichick's in NE. Hoodie
is in my 'Rushmore' (either at #2 or #3) with Tuna in at either #7 or #8 (all of this JMHO, of course). Had Belichick took over NE instead in '93, I think the same such result these past 30 years and just maybe winning his first of many SBs even earlier - perhaps '96 itself. But Parcells was the one who got it started instead, two-of-four losing seasons or not. Like the term, "scene of the crime", in his case he was at the "scene of the Dynasty to come". And more than just "at" the scene. He flipped that culture around. And I also have had these players in mind...
7DnBrnc53 wrote:
The 96 and 2001 teams had Troy Brown, Terry Glenn (for a few games), McGinest, Ted Johnson, Vinatieri, Ty Law, Otis Smith, Tedy Bruschi, Lawyer Milloy, and Bledsoe (the guy that Brady replaced five years later).
Carroll still kept things relevant-enough with those two playoff berths and the 6-2 start in '99. Hoodie then came in, did a one-step-back-many-more-forward his first year onboard, and then all was History 2001-and-beyond. And even if the ingredients may or may not have been mostly Belichick's very own, sure enough he took some things he learned in all his years under Parcells as well; as the case with all HC's now taking over their own team(s).
