Thursday Night

[JumboTron]

(09-23-2016, 12:45 AM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: I think it's hard to compare era's, as the game has changed a lot over the years. 

He's easily the best of this era though. 

With the advent of the salary cap and free agency it's much more difficult to win at such a high level in the NFL now as opposed to decades past.  Belichick is the best to have ever done it at the Pro level.

[JumboTron]

I mean, the name of the game in the NFL is parity. Yes, there are teams that are just always, for the most part going to be solid (Pit, Green Bay, etc..) but what Belichick is doing in NE goes against the very thing the league all but mandates.

In an era where the NFL wants to and has enacted hardened rules and regulations to make sure most of the 32 NFL clubs have a relative equal chance of high level success (Coaching incompetence, draft blunders and other variables aside for most clubs), Belichick has taken home 13 divisional titles, 6 AFC titles, and has won 4 Super Bowls in six trips.

[Nicomo Cosca]

(09-23-2016, 12:53 AM)JumboTron Wrote: With the advent of the salary cap and free agency it's much more difficult to win at such a high level in the NFL now as opposed to decades past.  Belichick is the best to have ever done it at the Pro level.

There's been coaches that revolutionized the game (Lombardi, Walsh, etc), but I'm not going to argue with someone that puts Belichick as the GOAT. 

Like I said, I just think the game is too different to compare, but that's just my opinion. 

[JumboTron]

(09-23-2016, 01:06 AM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: There's been coaches that revolutionized the game (Lombardi, Walsh, etc), but I'm not going to argue with someone that puts Belichick as the GOAT. 

Like I said, I just think the game is too different to compare, but that's just my opinion. 

I hear you.  Just ridiculous what he's been able to do for over a decade and a half.

[Nicomo Cosca]

To be fair, AFC East was a pretty bad division for a long time.

Do people think Belichick would have been as successful in say, the AFC North? Honest question.

[JumboTron]

(09-23-2016, 01:08 AM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: To be fair, AFC East was a pretty bad division for a long time.

Do people think Belichick would have been as successful in say, the AFC North? Honest question.

No, I don't think he'd be "13 division titles" successful, but I do believe he would have the division mostly on lock, with the other teams vying for the wildcard most years. And with that he would also own the AFC more times than not.  I also think the style of AFC North football (extremely physical, tough defense) is right in his wheelhouse and would be the best in the division at preparing and game-planning for such games year in and year out.

[Nicomo Cosca]

(09-23-2016, 01:27 AM)JumboTron Wrote: No, I don't think he'd be "13 division titles" successful, but I do believe he would have the division mostly on lock, with the other teams vying for the wildcard most years. And with that he would also own the AFC more times than not.  I also think the style of AFC North football (extremely physical, tough defense) is right in his wheelhouse and would be the best in the division at preparing and game-planning for such games year in and year out.

Yeah, fair enough. I do think Belichick would have won a SB(s) with some of our more talented teams over the years  (05, 13, 15).  But like you said,  13 titles in a division with three really good teams wouldn't be very likely. 

[Fan_in_Kettering]

(09-23-2016, 01:08 AM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: To be fair, AFC East was a pretty bad division for a long time.

Do people think Belichick would have been as successful in say, the AFC North? Honest question.

Bill Belichick was an epic failure as the coach of the Cleveland Browns.  But, in his defense, only Sam Rutigliano, Blanton Collier, and Paul Brown were successful in Cleveland.  With that being said, Belichick almost ended up in the AFC North.  Here's the result of some quick research I did:

In Belichick's last season in Cleveland the Browns finished 5–11, despite starting 3-1. In November of that year in the middle of the ongoing football season, Browns owner Art Modell had announced he would move his franchise to Baltimore after the season. After first being given assurances that he would coach the transplanted Baltimore Ravens, Belichick was instead fired on February 14, 1996, one week after the shift was officially announced.

[*jason*]

People that claim Brady is the product of a system are kinda funny. So they went 11-5 without him huh? Take a look at their schedule that season... It was the easiest in the NFL in 2008... And they didn't make the playoffs. They win super bowls with Brady. Just because a coaching staff is able to put a team in position to win when the star QB is out doesn't mean said QB is average.

[*SHRacerX*]

(09-22-2016, 11:49 PM)Sweetness Wrote: Or do they just do a really good job at coaching their QBs and putting them in a position to succeed? I'm sure Brady would still be great other places then New England.

Look at the seasons he didn't have Gronk and Edelman...Not so much great, but maybe good.  And that was late in his career.  Those early years for him, he was a game manager.  He evolved in to a great QB, but there is no way I would say he would dominate for other teams.  Pats might also be the only team the NFL likes more than putzburgh.

[Fan_in_Kettering]

I read the greatest lines from a sportswriter this morning:

"Bill Belichick is a grand master at chess while other coaches are trying to figure out how to play checkers."

"Bill Belichick is the Urban Meyer of professional football."

[bengals73]

(09-23-2016, 12:18 AM)Fan_in_Kettering Wrote: Don't do that!  Cincinnati is one offensive coordinator away from being that good.  It's true...

I was kidding around .. If I haven't changed after 30+ years  I never will.  heh heh

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(09-23-2016, 12:06 AM)Fan_in_Kettering Wrote: How long do you think it would take for Paul Alexander to ruin New England's offensive line?

15 minutes.....and you're right, guys like Scarnecchia are the true stars of the C.O.O.L. clinic, not hanger on turds like Piano Man, despite what others would have us to believe.

[yellowxdiscipline]

Any coach on New England's payroll > Marvin Lewis

[Nicomo Cosca]

(09-23-2016, 10:35 AM)yellowxdiscipline Wrote: Any coach on New England's payroll > Marvin Lewis

None of his assistants have had much success as HC's. At least not in the NFL (Saban is on that list). 

http://www.boston.com/sports/extra-points/2015/01/03/bill_belichicks_coaching_tree_has_branches_both_fu

[OrlandoBengal]

(09-23-2016, 12:53 AM)JumboTron Wrote: With the advent of the salary cap and free agency it's much more difficult to win at such a high level in the NFL now as opposed to decades past.  Belichick is the best to have ever done it at the Pro level.

Exactly.  In the past, players were basically indentured servants who had to take what you gave them.  Now, they have the ability to leave. Belichick is a football genius, plain and simple.  He knows who to draft, who to bring in, when to let guys go.  I cannot stand the Patriots, but it is impossible not to have a healthy dose of admiration for the entire organization.  All they do is win.

How bad must it suck to be a Cleveland fan?  Knowing that you had Bill, and Ozzie, and Saban all on the same staff.  Think about the level of success that team could have achieved if they would have built a new stadium and Modell kept the team there.  Instead Bill went to New England and became the best ever, Ozzie went to Baltimore and won two Super Bowls, and Saban ends up as a National Championship machine.  Then they build a new stadium, but still end up with a POS team year after year.

[OrlandoBengal]

(09-23-2016, 07:32 AM)Fan_in_Kettering Wrote: Bill Belichick was an epic failure as the coach of the Cleveland Browns.  But, in his defense, only Sam Rutigliano, Blanton Collier, and Paul Brown were successful in Cleveland.  With that being said, Belichick almost ended up in the AFC North.  Here's the result of some quick research I did:

In Belichick's last season in Cleveland the Browns finished 5–11, despite starting 3-1. In November of that year in the middle of the ongoing football season, Browns owner Art Modell had announced he would move his franchise to Baltimore after the season. After first being given assurances that he would coach the transplanted Baltimore Ravens, Belichick was instead fired on February 14, 1996, one week after the shift was officially announced.

He won a playoff game the year before, which I believe was his third year as the Head Coach.  As Bengals fans, we need to be very careful about calling that an "epic failure" as Marvin is well into his second decade and still has not done it.

[Hammerstripes]

(09-22-2016, 11:18 PM)Atomic Orange Wrote: Brady is a product of the system.

There is some merit to this.

While Brady is pretty damn good, look at how the team has done when he has been out.  Matt Cassell went 11-5 with them.

Now don't get me wrong, I'd take Brady in a heartbeat, but there is definitely some "system" to his success. 

[3wt]

(09-22-2016, 10:54 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: The Patriots line on most running plays fires out of their stance going forward. They sustain blocks well downfield until the whistle blows.

The Bengals line on most running plays almost stand straight up out of their stance at the snap, and sorta try and catch the D-line. In many instances they do not maintain the block and play thru the whistle.

You can see we lose the leverage battle on many plays.

I have heard this a lot, though I have not seen enough film of either team to see if it is true.  And I'm not really knowledgeable about what does/ does not work in terms of O-Line technique and scheme.

We have a number of members of the board who played college ball - including a number who played O-Line.

I'd be interested in knowing their thoughts on this - whether one scheme is better than the other, whether Alexander's is an unusual system and whether each system suits a particular style of player.

The only value I could see in having lineman stand up vs. fire out of their stance would be that it would be less of a tell that we are running or passing.  But there are so many other tells that that would seem to be a weak concept.

Particularly for a player like Hill it would seem to make more sense to fire out to establish momentum for the running back to take advantage of.

Thoughts?

[Pat5775]

Uh... Guys? The patriots cheat. It's been proven several times and I have a feeling it's only the tip of the iceberg. God only knows what they haven't been caught doing. They aren't exactly a team I would hold to high standards