Originally Posted by MahomesMagic (Post 17290085)

There are two QB types.

The robot and the playmaker.

Both types can win Super Bowls.

Mahomes is an elite playmaker, Brady was the elite robot.

Andy Reid's genius is allowing his elite playmaker to accentuate his strengths.

Mahomes could be successful in any system but it would look different. Under a Shanahan, Mahomes would probably have fewer yards but insane completion percentage.

As a fan of watching greatness, I prefer a coach who lets Mahomes do more of the stuff that makes him unique.

Originally Posted by MahomesMagic (Post 17290060)

He never would have wanted Patrick.

The reason why Shanahan doesn't have a great QB is because HE wants to be the star and wants his QB to be a robot.

Like Matt Ryan or Kirk Cousins or Jimmy G or Brock Purdy.

Originally Posted by Chris Meck (Post 17290090)

But instead he chose Mac Jones and took a guard in the first round.

I actually like Minshew. There's something about that guy.

But yeah, clearly Belichick the GM is a failure.

If his ego demanded that role, doesn't that count against him, too?

I think so.

Can he field an even mediocre offense at all without Tom Brady?

TEN YEARS of evidence say no.

Can't be the greatest if you're THAT one sided.

And a cheater. LOL

Originally Posted by Gary Cooper (Post 17290038)

The same people saying Belichick is overrated probably say Brady is overrated too.

I agree that Belichick's coaching tree sucks, but doesn't that mean others can't take the credit for his success? He won 6 SBs despite surrounding himself with people who aren't future head coach material. Also, if you think Brady is responsible for those SBs rather than Belichick, you're basically saying Brady is the undisputed GOAT with an overrated coach and positional coaches who didn't turn out as smart as everyone thought.

Brady/Belichick were both great for each other. That's how I see it. Both a little overrated (hence my opening line) but the perfect fit together.

I have no problem BTW with those picking Walsh. A great choice. Offensive innovator. Best coaching tree in history.

Andy Reid has success in two places, but his playoff record wasn't good until Mahomes landed in his lap. They're a perfect fit for one another also. Before Mahomes, Reid was considered a Marty Schottenheimer type who can't win the big one.

Originally Posted by Chris Meck (Post 17289984)

Sure, but I discount the pre merger era for reasons stated in the OP.

I think if we're going to do that, it'd be tough to argue against Brown or Lombardi, but everything is SO different post merger I don't think you can argue apples to apples.

Originally Posted by Chris Meck (Post 17290026)

10 seasons without Brady, and a sub .500 record, no play-off games, nothing. This is NOT a small sample size. And he went all of 10-6 with Cassel. So did Todd Haley.

Parcells won with Simms (game manager) and Hostetler (back-up game manager).

Andy's really been MORE successful with LESS at QB prior to Mahomes than just about anybody, but no SB wins.

Joe Gibbs wins the more with less award.

Belichick is an overrated cheating loser.

Tom Brady was the Patriot Way. Everything else is a failure.

Bill Walsh, 3-0 and walked away, Siefert gets two more, his head coaching tree includes Holmgren, Shanahan additionally (3 more SB wins) and Holmgren's tree includes Andy (2) and Gruden.

Nope. **** Belichick.

Originally Posted by MahomesMagic (Post 17290085)

There are two QB types.

The robot and the playmaker.

Both types can win Super Bowls.

Mahomes is an elite playmaker, Brady was the elite robot.

Andy Reid's genius is allowing his elite playmaker to accentuate his strengths.

Mahomes could be successful in any system but it would look different. Under a Shanahan, Mahomes would probably have fewer yards but insane completion percentage.

As a fan of watching greatness, I prefer a coach who lets Mahomes do more of the stuff that makes him unique.

Originally Posted by MarkDavis'Haircut (Post 17290099)

Then the headline should say greatest postmerger HC.

And by the way, Lombardi shouldn't qualify under your criteria.

Originally Posted by MahomesMagic (Post 17290094)

Belichick has always been a shit college scout.

He just wears too many hats. If he gave up coaching and running the rest of the team he would probably be a good scout too.

His pro personnel hat was always good because he already watched a zillion hours of film on all NFL players so he knew who would fit and who would not.

Originally Posted by tredadda (Post 17290106)

What category does Montana fall under?

Originally Posted by Chris Meck (Post 17290105)

You know, it's interesting-

or maybe it's not, and I'm just that kind of nerd.

But even to this day, there are two offensive systems really, in the NFL. There's the 'West Coast' offense, and the 'Erhardt-Perkins'. Both basically come from Paul Brown.

When Walsh goes to San Fran, you also have Don Coryell in San Diego with those Fouts teams.

This is why people called it the 'West Coast Offense'. It wasn't just Walsh, it was both he and Coryell. If Coryell had ever had an even mediocre defense, they probably would've won a few SB's too.

But Coryell's offense is a little different, different terminology, different themes. This is the Erhardt-Perkins offense that Brady ran his whole career in NE and TB. More downfield, less horizontal.

However, when Walsh's WCO goes to Green Bay and Favre appears, it goes more downfield, too.

When Shanahan gets his shot (and his kid), they focus more on the running scheme, with play-action downfield passing.

So Tom Brady basically ran Dan Fouts' offense. So did Roethlisberger, and I think Aikman, and Warner, and Trent Green, and so on.

And Montana, Young, Ken Anderson, Esiason, Favre, Aaron Rodgers, and Mahomes all run variations of the same offense.

*I may have certain small details wrong, but this is essentially correct, and you probably don't care enough to have read this far.

Originally Posted by GloucesterChief (Post 17289978)

Paul Brown has a case. National championships at the high school and college level, three NFL titles, and his coaching tree includes Noll, Shula, and Walsh.

Originally Posted by Chris Meck (Post 17290105)

You know, it's interesting-

or maybe it's not, and I'm just that kind of nerd.

But even to this day, there are two offensive systems really, in the NFL. There's the 'West Coast' offense, and the 'Erhardt-Perkins'. Both basically come from Paul Brown.

When Walsh goes to San Fran, you also have Don Coryell in San Diego with those Fouts teams.

This is why people called it the 'West Coast Offense'. It wasn't just Walsh, it was both he and Coryell. If Coryell had ever had an even mediocre defense, they probably would've won a few SB's too.

But Coryell's offense is a little different, different terminology, different themes. This is the Erhardt-Perkins offense that Brady ran his whole career in NE and TB. More downfield, less horizontal.

However, when Walsh's WCO goes to Green Bay and Favre appears, it goes more downfield, too.

When Shanahan gets his shot (and his kid), they focus more on the running scheme, with play-action downfield passing.

So Tom Brady basically ran Dan Fouts' offense. So did Roethlisberger, and I think Aikman, and Warner, and Trent Green, and so on.

And Montana, Young, Ken Anderson, Esiason, Favre, Aaron Rodgers, and Mahomes all run variations of the same offense.

*I may have certain small details wrong, but this is essentially correct, and you probably don't care enough to have read this far.

Originally Posted by tredadda (Post 17290113)

If we are talking impact on the game it has to be Paul Brown. Just shocked Parells isn’t getting more love.