The Bill megathread (HC at UNC, girlfriend, etc.)

[signbabybrady]

Math is math. But it is dumb to think that BB is NOT the same sub .500 Head Coach now as he was before Brady.

Can't subtract these.

 

[h0c2000]

Bill Belichick and Jordon Hudson Enjoy Romantic Dinner on Nantucket Getaway

Bill Belichick and Jordon Hudson are taking a much-needed break from the start to the legendary NFL coach's middling University of North Carolina tenure ... flying up for some R&R in Nantucket.

www.tmz.com

 

[sb1]

I feel the same. Was drinking too much coolaid when we were winning and impulsively defended Belichick. Now that he's gone, it's easier to step away and think "hmm maybe some people who didn't like dealing with him had a point".

I was the same. Was even mad at Brady at first for leaving and defended Bill at first during 2020 but I smartened up. The coach was a problem.

I remember Linda complaining on social media that people were giving Brady who just won a Super Bowl in Tampa more credit for the dynasty than BB and clapping back at fans who called him out. That didn’t come from her. No way. That was her speaking on his behalf. Said a lot about how thin skinned this guy is despite the charade he puts on.

 

[sb1]

Bill Belichick and Jordon Hudson Enjoy Romantic Dinner on Nantucket Getaway

Bill Belichick and Jordon Hudson are taking a much-needed break from the start to the legendary NFL coach's middling University of North Carolina tenure ... flying up for some R&R in Nantucket.

www.tmz.com

Middling is putting it nicely. It’s been as spectacular a failure as it gets so far and the school is not impressed.

Neither are the HOF voters.

 

[sb1]

My edit: Lombardi is nothing without a Hall of Fame QB.

That’s not exactly true either. We don’t know how Lombardi is as a head coach without a HOF QB because his time in the league was cut short and he never got the chance to coach in that scenario.

 

[lancerman]

NFL championships aren't the same. They compare more to conference championships because of the size of the league.

And no Lombardi was never %20

You're wrong.

When Lombardi won his final championship (Super Bowl 2) there were 35 games that decided the champion of the NFL. Prior to 33 there was no championship game. The team with the best record just got called the champion.

Lombardi won 5 titles as HC of the Packers. He also lost one championship game. That brings his total to 6. You also were clearly counting Belichick time as the defensive coordinator of the Giants and those Super Bowls to bump up his numbers. While between 1954 and 1958, Vince Lombardi happened to be the offensive coordinator of..... the New York Giants. During that time they went to two NFL championship games and went 1-1.

So his 6 on the Packers and his 2 on the Giants means Lombardi was coaching in the final game of the season 8 times.

8 out of the 35 championship deciding games. Some quick math and we got...... 22%.

Belichick's highest total was after Super Bowl 53. He went to 9 Super Bowls as a Patriot and 2 as the DC of the Giants. That brings his total to 11. 11 out of 53 is 20%.

So Lombardi's highest percentage of representation in the game that decided the champion was slightly higher.

To your other point, the AFL was only active for 10 years and that includes the Super Bowl years. For the majority of time the NFL was the premier league and was largely always considered the premier league until SB 3 cast some doubt.

If you are going to complain about league size, Lombardi also had to get to all those games when only 4 teams made the playoffs. Belichick got to get to those games when 12 teams made the NFL playoffs

The biggest difference between Lombardi and Belichick is that Lombardi had a shorter career in both his run on the Giants and his HC stint.

 

[sb1]

Had BB decided to pass on Tom Brady in 2000, how long does he coach the Pats for?

I think he would get to 2002 and that’s probably it.

 

[signbabybrady]

You're wrong.

When Lombardi won his final championship (Super Bowl 2) there were 35 games that decided the champion of the NFL. Prior to 33 there was no championship game. The team with the best record just got called the champion.

Lombardi won 5 titles as HC of the Packers. He also lost one championship game. That brings his total to 6. You also were clearly counting Belichick time as the defensive coordinator of the Giants and those Super Bowls to bump up his numbers. While between 1954 and 1958, Vince Lombardi happened to be the offensive coordinator of..... the New York Giants. During that time they went to two NFL championship games and went 1-1.

So his 6 on the Packers and his 2 on the Giants means Lombardi was coaching in the final game of the season 8 times.

8 out of the 35 championship deciding games. Some quick math and we got...... 22%.

Belichick's highest total was after Super Bowl 53. He went to 9 Super Bowls as a Patriot and 2 as the DC of the Giants. That brings his total to 11. 11 out of 53 is 20%.

So Lombardi's highest percentage of representation in the game that decided the champion was slightly higher.

To your other point, the AFL was only active for 10 years and that includes the Super Bowl years. For the majority of time the NFL was the premier league and was largely always considered the premier league until SB 3 cast some doubt.

If you are going to complain about league size, Lombardi also had to get to all those games when only 4 teams made the playoffs. Belichick got to get to those games when 12 teams made the NFL playoffs

The biggest difference between Lombardi and Belichick is that Lombardi had a shorter career in both his run on the Giants and his HC stint.

You lost count with Bill. There's so many it's tough.

And your just making my point there's a reason for the modern era distinction. Belichick is the GOAT deal with it.

 

[signbabybrady]

I think he would get to 2002 and that’s probably it.

We already knew you hated the early dynasty defense. You've made that perfectly clear.

 

[lancerman]

You lost count with Bill. There's so many it's tough.

And your just making my point there's a reason for the modern era distinction. Belichick is the GOAT deal with it.

You're right it's 12 out of 53 because he held a clipboard in 1996. So he's tied with Lombardi.

Bill is a loser as a HC without Brady on the team. 11 years prove it. Deal with it.

 

[signbabybrady]

You're right it's 12 out of 53 because he held a clipboard in 1996. So he's tied with Lombardi.

Bill is a loser as a HC without Brady on the team. 11 years prove it. Deal with it.

 

[lancerman]

We already knew you hated the early dynasty defense. You've made that perfectly clear.

They were a good defense, but they crapped the bed in some of the worst moments. The best defense of the early dynasty was 03. It was the one time you could really say it was far more important than the offense. And then in the Super Bowl the offense needed to bail them out while they gave the game away.

They were very good defenses. But they weren't even some of the best of that era. There's a reason why the 00 Ravens and 02 Bucs defenses are remembered as all time defenses and why you never see any of the Pats defenses ranked as one of the greatest ever. They were good, but the teams were more balanced.

Of the 6 titles the team won, only 03 and 16 were seasons where they were ranked first in ppg for defense. In 03 they collapsed in the biggest game of the year and in 16 the offense was just as important and the defense ranked very low in many other stats besides points that year.

 

[lancerman]

He must have taken that picture before him and Walsh sabotaged the team before the Super Bowl where they got their ass chewed out.

 

[signbabybrady]

They were a good defense, but they crapped the bed in some of the worst moments. The best defense of the early dynasty was 03. It was the one time you could really say it was far more important than the offense. And then in the Super Bowl the offense needed to bail them out while they gave the game away.

They were very good defenses. But they weren't even some of the best of that era. There's a reason why the 00 Ravens and 02 Bucs defenses are remembered as all time defenses and why you never see any of the Pats defenses ranked as one of the greatest ever. They were good, but the teams were more balanced.

Of the 6 titles the team won, only 03 and 16 were seasons where they were ranked first in ppg for defense. In 03 they collapsed in the biggest game of the year and in 16 the offense was just as important and the defense ranked very low in many other stats besides points that year.

 

[lancerman]

Notice how when you are wrong you always put some clip up that has nothing to do with the discussion or what people are saying. I brought up the 03 Super Bowl. So you brought up the Colts game. That's cool. Guess what, Manning let every defense he played in the playoffs back then look like that. It also doesn't refute what I said. Biggest moment, they came up short and needed the offense to bail them out multiple times. If they played the way they did against the Colts in the Super Bow, they'd be regarded as one of the all time great defenses and some more of those guys would be HOF'ers.

 

[sb1]

.426 post Brady. The cult has no answer for this other than pretending Bill wasn’t the GM and didn’t really build the team. Lmao

 

[sb1]

Now the cult is posting photos of the 1996 Patriots like their hoodied hero had anything to do with coaching them to the Super Bowl or putting that team together at all. Lmao

 

[TheRainMaker]

You apparently have a very low opinion of the early dynasty defense.

You do realize they had a last place schedule and played 10 games to teams that were below .500 in 2001 right? The teams that were at least .500 and above, the Pats were 2-4. Of those 6 games, 4 of them were divisional opponents with mediocre offenses. They were 0-2 outside of the division. Bledsoe was already 0-1 against a team that ended up in last place (Bengals). You really think Bledsoe would've led them to an 11-5 record like Brady did? Bledsoe/Huard/Bishop couldn't do any worse than 9-7 or they possibly lose the tie breaker to Seattle.

In 2002 when they had a 1st place schedule, they barely went 9-7 with that defense being absolute trash. You want to know why they didn't make the playoffs? It was because 81% of their schedule they faced teams that were .500 and above going 6-7.

It was in 2003 when the defense become dominant and there was no defense in the BB era that came close to it.

HC's can't survive without good QB play as Bill found out with Bledsoe early on and when he drafted Mac Jones. So let's try this again. If BB hadn't drafted Tom Brady, how long does he coach for?

 

[sb1]

You do realize they had a last place schedule and played 10 games to teams that were below .500 in 2001 right? The teams that were at least .500 and above, the Pats were 2-4. Of those 6 games, 4 of them were divisional opponents with mediocre offenses. They were 0-2 outside of the division. Bledsoe was already 0-1 against a team that ended up in last place (Bengals). You really think Bledsoe would've led them to an 11-5 record like Brady did? Bledsoe/Huard/Bishop couldn't do any worse than 9-7 or they possibly lose the tie breaker to Seattle.

In 2002 when they had a 1st place schedule, they barely went 9-7 with that defense being absolute trash. You want to know why they didn't make the playoffs? It was because 81% of their schedule they faced teams that were .500 and above going 6-7.

It was in 2003 when the defense become dominant and there was no defense in the BB era that came close to it.

HC's can't survive without good QB play as Bill found out with Bledsoe early on and when he drafted Mac Jones. So let's try this again. If BB hadn't drafted Tom Brady, how long does he coach for?

That 01 defense is remembered highly because they made big plays in one game which was of course the Super Bowl. They had some great players drafted by Parcells. But they were bottom third of the league in yards allowed and vs the pass. The idea they were this amazing defense is overstated. In 03- yes absolutely hands down the best of the BB era.

 

[signbabybrady]

Notice how when you are wrong you always put some clip up that has nothing to do with the discussion or what people are saying. I brought up the 03 Super Bowl. So you brought up the Colts game. That's cool. Guess what, Manning let every defense he played in the playoffs back then look like that. It also doesn't refute what I said. Biggest moment, they came up short and needed the offense to bail them out multiple times. If they played the way they did against the Colts in the Super Bow, they'd be regarded as one of the all time great defenses and some more of those guys would be HOF'ers.

Hater