I will leave this to the more knowledgeable...

[Silver Blue&Red]

...Who is the better coach of their careers? Lombardi or BB? Is BB worthy of taking over "The trophy"? I would love it. Or is Willie Mac talking out is @55? Willie McGinest Makes Case To Rename Lombardi Trophy After Bill Belichick

 

[BelichickFan]

You should consider getting this book :

Bill Belichick vs. the NFL

It compares Bill, favorably, to a bunch of top coaches, Lombardi included.

 

[RobertWeathers]

...Who is the better coach of their careers? Lombardi or BB? Is BB worthy of taking over "The trophy"? I would love it. Or is Willie Mac talking out is @55? Willie McGinest Makes Case To Rename Lombardi Trophy After Bill Belichick

Take it for FWIW....

My dad is in his 70s and a die hard Giants fan (Ive tried.....he won't turn although hes disgusted with Mara). Lombardi was the OC for them in the 50s and when he left the NYG to go GB, he followed GB very closely.

He thinks they are dead even. He thinks BB would do well in the 60s and with some time to adapt, Lombardi would be a great coach in the 2000s. Different coaches entirely but both great evaluators of talent who got the most of out their players.

 

[BelichickFan]

The main thing with Lombardi is he was only HC at GB for 9 years. 10 total including Washington. Bill is in year #22. The numbers make a solid case for Lombardi. The longevity combined with free agency make a compelling case for Belichick. Could Lombardi have continued winning for more than twice as long as he did while having to cycle through players the way Belichick has to ?

 

[patfanken]

...Who is the better coach of their careers? Lombardi or BB? Is BB worthy of taking over "The trophy"? I would love it. Or is Willie Mac talking out is @55? Willie McGinest Makes Case To Rename Lombardi Trophy After Bill Belichick

As good as I think Lombardi was as a HC, I don't think he compares to what BB has managed to accomplish. The biggest reason being that the competition and difficulty to win championships is so much more difficult now than what it was back then. The best and simplest example is how many teams you have to go through in order to win a championship. To win a championship in 1958 you only had to beat 11 other teams. Now you have to beat 31. And that doesn't include all the cap and contract limitations. You only had 12 games to play, and at the most 2 playoff games, etc etc etc.

Than being said, I would always keep the championship trophy as the Lombardi. That is the its identity and has been for decades. I'm sure there has been more important and impactful members of the NHL than Lord Stanley, but NO ONE is looking to change the name of the cup to honor, say Gordie Howe, or Bobby Hull, or Bobby Orr, etc

I thank Willie for making the case, but it is NOT about who is the better HC. It's about tradition. It was already the Lombardi Trophy when BB was just a gofer in Baltimore at $25/week (plus room and board) in the early 70's.

 

[Patjew]

What BB deals with, vis a vis the salary cap, free agency, rules/emphasis changes, coach turnover etc, is far more complicated than anything Lombardi had to deal with.

If you're talking about on the field Xs and Os and motivating players, maybe it's a tie? But if you're talking about a coach as a CEO... It's not even close IMO.

 

[BelichickFan]

The other thing about the older day coaches is "anything goes" is over. Stuff like spygate and deflategate would be laughed at back then. Like when Paul Brown hooked up a communication device between him and his QB and didn't tell anyone. And the "scheduling" stories about George Halas in the book. Regarding that, to quote a line from the book : "And you thought Spygate and Deflategate were scandalous".

It's a lot harder to be "creative" these days.

 

[long distance]

...Who is the better coach of their careers? Lombardi or BB? Is BB worthy of taking over "The trophy"? I would love it. Or is Willie Mac talking out is @55? Willie McGinest Makes Case To Rename Lombardi Trophy After Bill Belichick

If people can “take over“ the trophy's name then the name of that trophy becomes worthless.
BB should get a new trophy/award named after - not necessarily by NFL*.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I'd have to dig into the rosters but at a glance I think from the time VL has his 1st winning season in 1960 to his last season w/ GB in 1967 he flipped over about 80% of his roster. It wasnt like the guy had the same players for 10years.

 

[Silver Blue&Red]

As good as I think Lombardi was as a HC, I don't think he compares to what BB has managed to accomplish. The biggest reason being that the competition and difficulty to win championships is so much more difficult now than what it was back then. The best and simplest example is how many teams you have to go through in order to win a championship. To win a championship in 1958 you only had to beat 11 other teams. Now you have to beat 31. And that doesn't include all the cap and contract limitations. You only had 12 games to play, and at the most 2 playoff games, etc etc etc.

Than being said, I would always keep the championship trophy as the Lombardi. That is the its identity and has been for decades. I'm sure there has been more important and impactful members of the NHL than Lord Stanley, but NO ONE is looking to change the name of the cup to honor, say Gordie Howe, or Bobby Hull, or Bobby Orr, etc

I thank Willie for making the case, but it is NOT about who is the better HC. It's about tradition. It was already the Lombardi Trophy when BB was just a gofer in Baltimore at $25/week (plus room and board) in the early 70's.

Thank you PF. I respect your opinions on things like this. Well taken. And I respect the nostalgia of the guys of yore, and believe me, there's nothing better than when football was a "contest" of who was better, other than who should be allowed to "catch up'. And I love the way BB has maintained a high level under these changes. It would be only fitting to see BB remembered for his contributions to the game. No one comes close, in recent history IMO. Let's hope

 

[RobertWeathers]

As good as I think Lombardi was as a HC, I don't think he compares to what BB has managed to accomplish. The biggest reason being that the competition and difficulty to win championships is so much more difficult now than what it was back then. The best and simplest example is how many teams you have to go through in order to win a championship. To win a championship in 1958 you only had to beat 11 other teams. Now you have to beat 31. And that doesn't include all the cap and contract limitations. You only had 12 games to play, and at the most 2 playoff games, etc etc etc.

Really? We all know that there are only 12 teams that have a legit chance of getting to the SB. The other 19 suck.

Than being said, I would always keep the championship trophy as the Lombardi. That is the its identity and has been for decades. I'm sure there has been more important and impactful members of the NHL than Lord Stanley, but NO ONE is looking to change the name of the cup to honor, say Gordie Howe, or Bobby Hull, or Bobby Orr, etc

I thank Willie for making the case, but it is NOT about who is the better HC. It's about tradition. It was already the Lombardi Trophy when BB was just a gofer in Baltimore at $25/week (plus room and board) in the early 70's.

Agree 100%

 

[RobertWeathers]

If people can “take over“ the trophy's name then the name of that trophy becomes worthless.
BB should get a new trophy/award named after - not necessarily by NFL*.

"The Bill Belichick Coaches Award"

 

[Patjew]

I'd have to dig into the rosters but at a glance I think from the time VL has his 1st winning season in 1960 to his last season w/ GB in 1967 he flipped over about 80% of his roster. It wasnt like the guy had the same players for 10years.

Of course, careers weren't that long back then. But he didn't have to deal with free agency or a salary cap or prima donna players then either.

 

[RobertWeathers]

The other thing about the older day coaches is "anything goes" is over. Stuff like spygate and deflategate would be laughed at back then. Like when Paul Brown hooked up a communication device between him and his QB and didn't tell anyone. And the "scheduling" stories about George Halas in the book. Regarding that, to quote a line from the book : "And you thought Spygate and Deflategate were scandalous".

It's a lot harder to be "creative" these days.

Hell, Wellington Mara used to sit in the stands with his old fashion 8mm camera and sometimes tape the game ON THE SIDELINE, get it developed ASAP then give it to DC Tom Landry and OC Vince Lombardi at 1/2 time.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Of course, careers weren't that long back then. But he didn't have to deal with free agency or a salary cap or prima donna players then either.

They aren't long now.

 

[Patjew]

They aren't long now.

Shrinkage.

 

[Silver Blue&Red]

Shrinkage.

"It shrinks?"

 

[patfanken]

Really? We all know that there are only 12 teams that have a legit chance of getting to the SB. The other 19 suck.

How does that change? Back in 1958 there were probably on 4 or 5 teams with legit chances of winning then too. Also those 19 teams that suck, they all have a lot of very good football players on them, that aren't available to BB, and just about all of those teams have at one time or another beaten a BB team.

What makes winning a championship these days so damned hard is that you are in a one and done format, and on "any given Sunday" even the teams that "suck" can beat you. So when you are in a playoff system where you have to win at LEAST 3 games against 3 very good teams, it doesn't take much to watch it go off the rails. One call, or lack thereof. (what if holding had been called on the helmet catch? There were at least 3 obvious ones) One lucky bounce. (what if the Pats had recovered just ONE of 3 fumbles the Giants had in '11). And of course being the team that's the "healthiest" relatively. (That would include several recent years) The breaks seemed to fall all in our favor in 2001, and in some other years, not so much.

BB said it right. You have to build a teams to be able to make the playoffs. Once you are there, AND get the breaks, you have a shot at the title. Healthy teams, hot teams are not always the "best" teams. That is why winning championship in the NFL is SOOOOOOO tenuous, (and why we are so spoiled l )

 

[RobertWeathers]

How does that change? Back in 1958 there were probably on 4 or 5 teams with legit chances of winning then too. Also those 19 teams that suck, they all have a lot of very good football players on them, that aren't available to BB, and just about all of those teams have at one time or another beaten a BB team.

We all know just because a team has good football players on them, it doesn't mean they are good. As you know, teams had less player movement to deal with and because you know football, you would agree that players stuck around and there were less teams, the caliber of competition was better back then.

IMO back then, you needed to play your absolute best in order to win. Hell in 1963 GB went 11-2-1 and didnt make the playoffs.

My position is that the quality of football is worse now than it was 20-40-50 years ago.

What makes winning a championship these days is that you are in a one and done format, and on "any given Sunday" even the teams that "suck" can beat you. So when you are in a playoff system where you have to win at LEAST 3 games against 3 very good teams, it doesn't take much to watch it go off the rails. One call, or lack thereof. (what if holding had been called on the helmet catch? There were at least 3 obvious ones) One lucky bounce. (what if the Pats had recovered just ONE of 3 fumbles the Giants had in '11). And of course being the team that's the "healthiest" relatively. (That would include several recent years) The breaks seemed to fall all in our favor in 2001, and in some other years, not so much.

BB said it right. You have to build a teams to be able to make the playoffs. Once you are there, AND get the breaks, you have a shot at the title. Healthy teams, hot teams are not always the "best" teams. That is why winning championship in the NFL is SOOOOOOO tenuous, (and why we are so spoiled l )

I agree with what you have said

 

[convertedpatsfan]

If people can “take over“ the trophy's name then the name of that trophy becomes worthless.
BB should get a new trophy/award named after - not necessarily by NFL*.

The Bill Belichick Award, honouring the coach who goes above and beyond to help the media...no, wait...

And the trophy was something else before being the Lombardi. Heck, Lombardi never won a Lombardi. But they honoured his death with the name, so I think it should remain. It wasn't just about talent, but a way to honour a legend who had passed.

How about the coach of the winning Super Bowl team gets the Bill Belichick Trophy?