Bill Belichick vs. Bruce Arians - style contrast

[BlacknGold77]

Mental toughness starts at the top.

They should have fired their leadership right there in September 2016. They are doomed like the last years of Jeff Fisher.

.

yeah, you're right......

a coach that took over a team 1 month into the season because the head coach was diagnosed with Leukemia...a team that was 2-14 the previous season...and was able to rally the team together despite that massive distraction and get them to a 9-3 record, the playoffs and win coach of the year doesnt know how to handle adversity....uh huh.

and acutally read the quote, Arians isnt blaming the year on week 1. What's he's saying is the team wasn't as mentally tough as he thought. They were more like the bully that crumbles when you hit them in the mouth, more bark than bite. Which is something Bill has said about a couple of the teams he's had here too

 

[shmessy]

yeah, you're right......

a coach that took over a team 1 month into the season because the head coach was diagnosed with Leukemia...a team that was 2-14 the previous season...and was able to rally the team together despite that massive distraction and get them to a 9-3 record, the playoffs and win coach of the year doesnt know how to handle adversity....uh huh

He sure as hell forgot, didn't he?

Adversity is dealing with being a favorite and being knocked back.

Arians personally had no adversity that year. It was all ChuckStrong and hugs and tears that year. He was in a win-win situation. He was interim HC with nothing to lose. Now, mentally, he has the yips as a full responsibility HC.

.

 

[BlacknGold77]

He sure as hell forgot, didn't he?

Adversity is dealing with being a favorite and being knocked back.

Arians personally had no adversity that year. It was all ChuckStrong and hugs and tears that year. He was in a win-win situation. He was interim HC with nothing to lose. Now, mentally, he has the yips as a full responsibility HC.

.

No adversity? really?

you realize a team's head coach being diagnosed with cancer is the definition of a distraction and adversity, right?

Not to mention a team that:

- was 2-14 the year before
- was starting a rookie at QB
- just fired their coach in that offseason, effectively making Arians the 3rd coach in less than 6 months

Arians also overcame adversity in Arizona. the 3 years before he got there they were 5-11, 8-8, 5-11.

His 1st 3 years there they were 10-6. 11-5, 13-3. Last year was the exception at 7-8-1, not the rule

and let's not act like Bill hasnt lost teams here either (ummm, hello 2002 and 2009). You can lead a horse to water...as in doesnt matter how good a coach can handle adversity if the players cant.

 

[BobDigital]

People need to remember something. We can point out Carroll's and Arians' mistakes from our POV all we want but they are still 2 of the better coaches in the NFL and good head coaches in any era. BB is better but they are good coaches.

When you compare them to BB of course they will fall short. Compare them to the rest of the NFL and they are 2 of the top 31 other guys.

My top 5 HCs besides BB right now are.

#5 Bill O'Brien - just can't find a QB
#4 Bruce Arians
#3 Mike Zimmer - just can't find a QB. I think he is super underrated though.
#2 Pete Carroll
#1 John Harbaugh - Don't like him personally but a very good coach.

And IMO it is not the styles that make these guys worse than BB. It is creativity, game calling, situational awareness and knowledge and knowing when to take risk and when not too.

 

[shmessy]

No adversity? really?

you realize a team's head coach being diagnosed with cancer is the definition of a distraction and adversity, right?

Not to mention a team that:

- was 2-14 the year before
- was starting a rookie at QB
- just fired their coach in that offseason, effectively making Arians the 3rd coach in less than 6 months

Arians also overcame adversity in Arizona. the 3 years before he got there they were 5-11, 8-8, 5-11.

His 1st 3 years there they were 10-6. 11-5, 13-3. Last year was the exception at 7-8-1, not the rule

and let's not act like Bill hasnt lost teams here either (ummm, hello 2002 and 2009). You can lead a horse to water...as in doesnt matter how good a coach can handle adversity if the players cant.

Yes - once again - no PERSONAL adversity.

The ChuckStrong year - there were no expectations for HIM.

The Arizona years after they stunk the 3 years before - he had to look good in contrast.

Anyone can be a frontrunner. The true test of a HC is what he does after his own expectations/reputation have taken that first punch.

It's cool, you disagree with that take. No problem. I hear what you are saying and I can see the point. Personally, I think the true measure of a HC is what he does after his reputation has had a bloodied nose. What is his reaction then? What BB did at the beginnings on 5 previous years when he team reached the SB is the gold standard, to me. I find the excuses of most NFL coaches to be quite funny.


.

 

[Simpelton]

Not even Belichick is a perfect coach. Arians is clearly more good than bad, even if his sttyle plays against him in this case.

 

[Deus Irae]

I don't see that as equivalent. I see it as BB saying that BB the GM didn't pick the right 53+ and that BB the coach was unable to motivate his 53. More self-deprecating as he has the full responsibility.

Coach with team that he can't get to play to its appropriate level = Coach with team that he can't get to play to its appropriate level

 

[shmessy]

Coach with team that he can't get to play to its appropriate level = Coach with team that he can't get to play to its appropriate level

Definitely. BB felt he failed that season.

@PatsWickedPissah saw it exactly as BB said it.



.

 

[patfanken]

and let's not act like Bill hasnt lost teams here either (ummm, hello 2002 and 2009). You can lead a horse to water...as in doesnt matter how good a coach can handle adversity if the players cant.

Most of your points come across as legitimate points of view and we thank you for them for adding to the discourse. However this last one makes you sound like some obscessed Pat's hater who doesn't care about the facts. Because the fact is that in those 2 years the Pats went 9-7 and 11-5, neither were exactly "losing seasons". You'd be better off using the 2000 season (the only losing season the Pats have had in the last 17 years) or you could go back to the Cleveland game.

Now to get back on to the point, I'm sure we are making too much of what Arians said. I'm also sure if Arians had the chance, he would have rephrased the comments about the affects of the first game last year so it wouldn't be taken like it has been. But the fact is that that the statement, as he said it, reflects badly on him, justified or not.

BTW- the other thing that should be mentioned is that adding to the impact of that game one loss is not only did they play the game without their QB, they also played it without their game changing TE (Gronk) their starting LT (Solder) and starting LB, (Hightower). Also they playing a Cardinal team that was considered a top contender for the NFC title, AT home, ON opening night, when they were pretty much perfectly healthy. And they lost a very close game they could have won.

 

[BlacknGold77]

Most of your points come across as legitimate points of view and we thank you for them for adding to the discourse. However this last one makes you sound like some obscessed Pat's hater who doesn't care about the facts. Because the fact is that in those 2 years the Pats went 9-7 and 11-5, neither were exactly "losing seasons". You'd be better off using the 2000 season (the only losing season the Pats have had in the last 17 years) or you could go back to the Cleveland game.

Now to get back on to the point, I'm sure we are making too much of what Arians said. I'm also sure if Arians had the chance, he would have rephrased the comments about the affects of the first game last year so it wouldn't be taken like it has been. But the fact is that that the statement, as he said it, reflects badly on him, justified or not.

BTW- the other thing that should be mentioned is that adding to the impact of that game one loss is not only did they play the game without their QB, they also played it without their game changing TE (Gronk) their starting LT (Solder) and starting LB, (Hightower). Also they playing a Cardinal team that was considered a top contender for the NFC title, AT home, ON opening night, when they were pretty much perfectly healthy. And they lost a very close game they could have won.

they had a winning record because the team was too talented, however in both of those years they fell on their faces in the playoffs (and in 02 didnt make it).

It's not being a hater, it's simply the standard they've set here to where making the playoffs and losing in the 1st round is a failure.

and Belichick himself has even said that 09 team was a lost cause and he lost the locker room.

again, yeah they tarnish the bill is god motif, but facts are facts

 

[FCB02062]

Bruce Arians was born in NJ, went to school in PA and college at VaTech...why the **** does he talk like he's a jazz musician from New Orleans? Go **** yourself Bruce, we see right through your bullschitt....

 

[patfanken]

they had a winning record because the team was too talented, however in both of those years they fell on their faces in the playoffs (and in 02 didnt make it).

It's not being a hater, it's simply the standard they've set here to where making the playoffs and losing in the 1st round is a failure.

and Belichick himself has even said that 09 team was a lost cause and he lost the locker room.

again, yeah they tarnish the bill is god motif, but facts are facts

Tarnish is way to harsh to describe BB's job in 2002, 2008 and 9. Actually it shows just how good he is.

In 2001 that team was year 2 of a total rebuilding project. It was a .500 team that caught lighning in a bottle and road it to a Superbowl win about 2 years too early. The Giants and Ravens were two other teams that recently it the same lighning.

IMHO the 2002 team was actually better talent wise, but didn't catch that lightning and made some personell mistakes (Steve Martin). They were what they were, a boarderline playoff team, who was adding talent and depth. 2007 was a apex of that first rebuilding plan.

Not making the playoffs with 11 wins in 2008 was a statisical alnomoly, but it was doubtful they would have gone far in the playoffs that year anyway, Even though they DID have a lot of talent that year, the team was aging and in decline. In some respects it was one of BB's best coaching jobs since he still won 11 games with a QB who didn't score a TD even in preseason, and hadn't started a football game since HS.

The 2009 team was the end of the first rebuild and prompted the a virtual complete tear down of the team. It was well documented in that documentary about BB that year.....and again, IMHO shows just how good BB is at building teams. He knew when it was time to blow it up (relatively).

The 2010 team was loading with new talent and scorched the regular season, but failed to show the mental toughness to win in the playoffs. (ergo the 2nd most painful loss in the BB era....for fans)

They their 2o11 superbowl appearance was probably a year too early for that team. That was the year they had an historically bad defense. One that required Edelman to play CB. The Giants had the better overall team that year, but probably would have won the game with a healthy Gronk and a little bit of luck (4 giant fumbles and zero recoveries)

The rest you pretty much know. Over the past few years BB has slowly improved the defense, while the offense virtually remained at the same high level. I think that despite MASSIVE injuries in 2015 this would have been an attempt at a threepeat.

BB's greatness is part being able to correct his mistakes and create an enviroment where players like Ninko, Edelman and Cannon get better over time. Where in most years the sum of the team is better than its individual parts.