Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Here's a fairly brief, but interesting interview with Belichick about some odds and ends from the past. His comments on the Giants' 1987 Scab team are pretty funny.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/rambli ... -belichick

I'd always wonder what would happen with Belichick had he not had Brady fall into his lap. We knew what he was before Brady, which was a great coordinator with a mixed bag coaching record, though some very tough circumstances (1995 Browns relocation fiasco) though he had won a playoff game at that point too.

N.E. had already made the commitment to Bledsoe contract wise though I think Belichick was already souring on him in 2001. You have to believe they still end up with some level of success though it's hard to guess how much.

fwiw he doesn't give Gibbs much credit there. He definitely hates Gibbs for some reason and I'm not sure why. I recall in 2007 he ran up the score on Gibbs (52-7) and I remember our local sports talk guy Mike Francesa was angry saying that Belichick didn't need to do that but still held a grudge from something that happened in the 80's. Francesa can be a blowhard but in this case he was likely right since he was close to Parcells who probably leaked to him what happened.

I enjoyed reading it earlier.

- Still not sure why websites/bloggers/media still point out now, and the last few years that if you ask Belichick a legitimate football question he'll give a legitimate response. Fans, some of us here, etc., had been pointing that out for many years but people still think it's a new thing or not widely known.

- Also have known for many years that he'll respond to legitimate football questions/discussion (especially with regards to the history of the sport) via e-mail. It seems the FO commentators are going a bit over-the-top in their praise of the interview and it being a "good get".

That said, I like listening to and/or reading Belichick's thoughts and they were good questions. Too bad it wasn't in a forum where he could expand on some of it -- especially the players during the strike, for the humor.

sheajets wrote:I'd always wonder what would happen with Belichick had he not had Brady fall into his lap. We knew what he was before Brady, which was a great coordinator with a mixed bag coaching record, though some very tough circumstances (1995 Browns relocation fiasco) though he had won a playoff game at that point too.

I've pointed out before that Belichick's Cleveland teams had a reputation of fading in the second half of the season. Taking away the extraordinary circumstances of '95, here are the comparisons for the first eight games and the last from 91-94:

First 8 games: 19-13
Last 8 games: 12-20

In his first year, the Browns blew a huge lead at home to the Eagles and his absurd decision to cut Kosar--with Testaverde not available for an extended period because of injury--left the team with Todd Philcox at quarterback. That turned a 5-3 team that was tied for first into a team that lost five of the next six and finished five games out of first and three games out of a wild card spot.

In that 1994 season, they did beat Dallas on the road late in the season, though the Boys already had their division locked up. That win came one week after the Browns were upset at home by the Giants.

sheajets wrote:I'd always wonder what would happen with Belichick had he not had Brady fall into his lap.

He went 11-5 with a QB who threw a total of 33 passes in college. and 39 passes in three years in the NFL. In sixteen seasons, his worst year was 9-7. Fourteen playoff appearances, seven Super Bowl appearances. Compare that to the Bill Walsh-Joe Montana teams. Or Shula-Marino, or Ewbank-Unitas, Lombardi-Starr, any other coach-QB combo. Only Paul Brown-Otto Graham did better.

Interesting stuff...thanks for posting.

BD Sullivan wrote:In his first year, the Browns blew a huge lead at home to the Eagles and his absurd decision to cut Kosar--with Testaverde not available for an extended period because of injury--left the team with Todd Philcox at quarterback. That turned a 5-3 team that was tied for first into a team that lost five of the next six and finished five games out of first and three games out of a wild card spot.

Yeah, Belichick had some personal vendetta against Kosar...maybe it was a 'power struggle' or something along those lines. The Todd Philcox Era can be placed directly on Belichick's shoulders, making his interview comment of "The backup QB is one play away from having the biggest responsibility of the team on his shoulders. I learned that when I was 8 years old watching Navy play" all the more ironic.

Here's an article after Pats won their 4th Ring, comparing him to Gibbs and Walsh...

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/02/bill-be ... uper-bowls

74_75_78_79_ wrote:Here's an article after Pats won their 4th Ring, comparing him to Gibbs and Walsh...

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/02/bill-be ... uper-bowls

I think the big difference between Belichick and Gibbs, Walsh, and any other highly successful coach who comes to mind is that Belichick isn't committed to a single offensive or defensive system. He's probably identified primarily with the 3-4, yet the Patriots have had seasons where they used the 4-3 more often, mainly because it was a better fit for their personnel. At times, the New England has seemed to be very much WCO-based. But, when Randy Moss joined the team, the pass offense changed entirely, from stretching the field horizontally to stretching it vertically.

And he probably does more adjusting of schemes from week to week, in response to the opponent, than any other coach.

To put it briefly, I think Belichick is extremely pragmatic. If he thought the most effective way to win a game was to use Pop Warner's Stanford double wing or Rockne's Notre Dame shift or the 6-2-2-1 defense, he'd do it in a heartbeat.

BTW, the article linked gives Walsh far too much credit for the WCO, as many sources do. It's based on the offense Paul Brown often used beginning in 1946, with two wide receivers and two slotbacks.

Jeremy Crowhurst wrote:

sheajets wrote:I'd always wonder what would happen with Belichick had he not had Brady fall into his lap.

He went 11-5 with a QB who threw a total of 33 passes in college. and 39 passes in three years in the NFL. In sixteen seasons, his worst year was 9-7. Fourteen playoff appearances, seven Super Bowl appearances. Compare that to the Bill Walsh-Joe Montana teams. Or Shula-Marino, or Ewbank-Unitas, Lombardi-Starr, any other coach-QB combo. Only Paul Brown-Otto Graham did better.

Good point. Brady benefited more from falling into Bill's lap than the other way around.

Now, I wasn't one of the ones who dumped on him after the KC loss like some people did (saying that he is washed-up). However, I didn't praise him and call him the GOAT like a lot of people have done (when they win the SB). Those SB wins could have gone the other way. Heck, they probably shouldn't have been in many of those SB's. Tom has gotten a ton of breaks in his playoff career (McCree and Lee Evans among them).