PatsFanSince74

On "Below Average," let's look at his record in Cleveland.

His first season, he was 6--10 with a team that had gone 3--13 the year before. No dis on that.

In his second and third seasons (7--9 each) it became clear to him that Kosar wasn't going to get the job done, but he had to arm wrestle with everyone in sight over easing him out.

In his fourth season, after the QB situation was resolved and Testaverde was established over Center and with a D that gave up the fewest points in the entire NFL, he went 11--5, won a game in the Wild Card Round and lost to the Steelers in the Divisional round.

The fifth season was consumed with the move to Baltimore. Even then, though, he started out 4--4 before losing six in a row as the news broke in Cleveland, ending up 5--11.

Please tell me how building a team with the best performing defense in the league in four seasons, after starting from a 3--13 base, and taking them to the Playoffs the year before the Owner stiffed the city and brought its wrath down on everything associated with the organization, please tell me how that is "Below Average?"

He might have been inexperienced. There might be some things he would do over if he could, but "below average?" I don't think so.

__________________
It is what it is. It wasn't what it wasn't.

jaytyme

BINGO the relationship with Kraft has been the key. When they hooked up, both Kraft and BB had made had already made the mistakes within their respective positions that sabotage teams with talent

Skree

I Think that really sums it up. Success begins at the top. If the top guy doesn't really want to win, it isn't going to happen. Look at the success the Pats had soon after Kraft took over.

I work for a successful company and they are successful because of the CEO's vision. There is no other reason.

JoeSixPat

While having Brady sure doesn't hurt, you really have to give Belichick the full credit for the 2001 Super Bowl.

At that point Brady was not fully developed as a QB - indeed they kept him on a very short leash with what were mostly short passes - with only a few long ones thrown in just to keep defenses honest.

He deserves full credit for getting all-star performances out of middle class guys and some great strategic work to exploit the weaknesses of other teams while covering up the deficiencies of his own.

2003 & 2004 - obviously Brady was taking it to a new level and Dillon's running was a huge improvement as well - so I give the players more credit for those as I do this year... but there were quite a few injuries in those seasons that required him to again, cover up deficiencies - especially on Defense.

So 2001 encapsulates his genius best though there've still been elements of that in 2003 and 2004.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

FrontSeven

Short answer: Bill was never average. He might have had some average seasons, but if you interpret that as an average man, then you are confusing seasons and men.

Lombardi had some average seasons too.

Parcells too.

Joe Gibbs too.

What the hell is average about those guys?