PFRA is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the history of professional football. Formed in 1979, PFRA members include many of the game's foremost historians and writers.
https://mail.profootballresearchers.org/forum/
https://mail.profootballresearchers.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5138
Of course, ESPN has never been big with acknowledging that pre=merger football existedBob Gill wrote:Maybe people have said the same thing about Lombardi and Starr, but it seems to me that most of the ESPN sort of people assume in that case that Lombardi deserves the lion's share of the credit and Starr was more or less along for the ride.
It isn't a problem at all. My exact point was that there's no way you can give either party full credit for N.E.'s run because they've been so mutually responsible for each other's success. As with the other two tandems you cite, B & B almost compose a single organism. I don't know how well one would have done without the other. Do you?rhickok1109 wrote:I'm not singling you out, but I am a bit bemused by those who hesitate about giving Belichick full credit because he's had Brady all those years (and those who do it the other way around because Brady has had Belichick all those years).
Do you have the same problem with Lombardi and Starr, for example? Or Payton and Brees?
Of course I don't KNOW. I also don't KNOW if Lombardi would have been successful without Starr, or vice versa. But I can make a pretty good guessCitizen wrote:It isn't a problem at all. My exact point was that there's no way you can give either party full credit for N.E.'s run because they've been so mutually responsible for each other's success. As with the other two tandems you cite, B & B almost compose a single organism. I don't know how well one would have done without the other. Do you?rhickok1109 wrote:I'm not singling you out, but I am a bit bemused by those who hesitate about giving Belichick full credit because he's had Brady all those years (and those who do it the other way around because Brady has had Belichick all those years).
Do you have the same problem with Lombardi and Starr, for example? Or Payton and Brees?
because it was a game plan to keep the k gun offense of the bills off the fieldsheajets wrote:I still don't get how Belichicks Super Bowl 25 gameplan is in the Hall of Fame. Yes the Giants won but the Bills never had any issues moving the ball in any which way they wanted to. They just had it for only 19 minutes.
What is so special about a gameplan that yielded 370+ total yards of offense in 19 minutes.
I know exactly what all of those coaches/managers accomplished and I don’t see why Belichick doesn’t already rank with them and I certainly don’t see why he likely never will.sheajets wrote:Pains me to say it but I can't really argue it if somebody wants to rank him as the greatest pro football coach of all time. I personally thought Walsh was better but a case can be made for Belichick too. He accomplished a lot as an assistant as well.
Though I wouldn't put him in the top 5 of greatest all time coaches (which I've seen some do) Scotty Bowman, Auerbach, Phil Jackson, McCarthy, Stengel, Toe Blake. He's not there and likely never will be.
So...he's getting credit for Ron Erhardt achievement?rewing84 wrote:because it was a game plan to keep the k gun offense of the bills off the fieldsheajets wrote:I still don't get how Belichicks Super Bowl 25 gameplan is in the Hall of Fame. Yes the Giants won but the Bills never had any issues moving the ball in any which way they wanted to. They just had it for only 19 minutes.
What is so special about a gameplan that yielded 370+ total yards of offense in 19 minutes.
I would nominate Ron Erhardt's 1980 Patriots gameplan against the Colts for the Hall of Fame. "Their going to Washington...their going to Washington...what the hell!!"sheajets wrote:So...he's getting credit for Ron Erhardt achievement?