Anyone watch the ultimate super bowl team - Page 2 - New England Patriots Forums

jeffd · 01-27-2006, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEM

I disagree with the choice of Lombardi over Belichick. In Lombardi's day, he didnt have free agency to put up with, to mold in new players all the time. He didnt have to sit through 32 picks in each round of the draft before he got a new player, either.

Belichick had many more obstacles for him to get around to produce his winners... and he even came witin a game or two of doing it again this season....

Lombardi over Belichick? NO WAY/////////////////////////

Apples and oranges. Football was a different game back then. I absolutely agree that the game is more difficult to manage now (FA, salary cap, attitude of players, much deeper strategy), but Lombardi didn't have FA to build his team he relied on the draft, he didn't have 85 assistance and technology to help game plan. I'm not making an argument either I'm just saying they were both the best at what they did. What they did was different.

patriotsrule · 01-27-2006, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffd

Apples and oranges. Football was a different game back then. I absolutely agree that the game is more difficult to manage now (FA, salary cap, attitude of players, much deeper strategy), but Lombardi didn't have FA to build his team he relied on the draft, he didn't have 85 assistance and technology to help game plan. I'm not making an argument either I'm just saying they were both the best at what they did. What they did was different.

Belichick failed in Cleveland, was 5-11 his first year here, 0-2 the second year and then enter Tom Brady. Maybe Brady should be the coach. To say this coach or that coach had it easier is garbage. I could easily argue the NFL - with all its teams - is a much easier league today than it was back then. Have you ever seen the talent on the Cowboys team the Steelers beat twice in the Super Bowl? Those guys were pretty good too.

***PATSNUTme*** · 01-27-2006, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fanfrom1960

Vinatieri was the placekicker. Brady, Branch, Bruschi, Law and Belichick were "honorable mentions".

What, no Rodney, no Vrabes, no Willie as even honorable mention. All these guys had big SB games.

Did we just get "Belidised" or what?

***shmessy*** · 01-27-2006, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patriotsrule

Belichick failed in Cleveland, was 5-11 his first year here, 0-2 the second year and then enter Tom Brady. Maybe Brady should be the coach. To say this coach or that coach had it easier is garbage. I could easily argue the NFL - with all its teams - is a much easier league today than it was back then. Have you ever seen the talent on the Cowboys team the Steelers beat twice in the Super Bowl? Those guys were pretty good too.

You're missing the point of the specific TV program.

It is based on lifetime Super Bowl performance.

Regular season, pre-season, bedroom, etc. performance means didly in this case.

Fanfrom1960 · 01-27-2006, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shmessy

You're missing the point of the specific TV program.

It is based on lifetime Super Bowl performance.

Regular season, pre-season, bedroom, etc. performance means didly in this case.

Exactly. One of the writers Berman had there that covered all 39 SBs to date made a strong case for Timmy Smith to be one of the starting running backs because he set the rushing record for a single super bowl with 204 yards in SB22. Smith had a nothing career except for that game. I thought Marcus Allen should have been one of the RBs. They had Csonka, Harris and Riggins.