I once heard it said of Bill Walsh that he could conquer Europe with an army from Sweden.

Him or Lombardi for me.

Say what you will about Tomlin, and I don't know that I'd say he's a GREAT coach.

I think he's a good one.

but you have to hand it to The Steelers as an organization. Since what, 1975 or something, there's few seasons in which they're not a play-off team or serious contender.

This post Raperberger stretch is their lowest in a very long time. It's a remarkably stable and successful organization.

If Andy can win one more, then he'll get my vote.

Until then he's #2 to Bill Walsh.

I also think that he has eeked out more wins than the roster last year and this year should produce.

This was a lot harder than I thought, but I'd have to say Walsh as well. If you're going overall (wins, impact, coaching tree), who's come from his tree? Best I can come up with is maybe Doug Pederson? But if Andy bags another Super Bowl win, I don't see how you could argue against him being the greatest.

Whatever the initial reason was, it wasn't just chance that the Tampa Bay team was loaded with young talent acquired because they hadn't won in a long time along with premier weapons such as Mike Evans and Chris Godwin.

The team was ready to go if you just add the QB.

I get Brady getting credit for winning there but he wasn't going to go to a team that wasn't already loaded.

It would be like if Mahomes was a FA next year and left to go to Atlanta with Pitts, Drake London, and Bijan and then won a SB.

Yes, it would be because Mahomes is great but also because he handpicked the situation.

Pederson and Harbaugh are from Andy's tree.

of course, Andy comes from Holmgren's tree, which is a branch of Walsh's tree.

Which is a branch of Paul Brown's tree, for cryin' out loud. LOL

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue.

Are you trying to argue that Brady, at 40 years old, should have gone to a shitty, talentless team if he wanted to prove something? I mean, that's a weird take. Why would he do that? He obviously wanted to win.

And NE was in decline-and every single reason for that lies at Bill Belichick's feet. All of it.

so if that's your argument for Belichick's greatness, I don't really get your logic.

sub .500 record over TEN YEARS without Tom Brady.

Brady goes and wins a SB with Arians.

But he ran the same offense. And had some players. so Brady went there.

By the way-

I was incorrect, Arians did not have a sub .500 career record, it's over .500

And the Tampa Bay D played over their heads the entire playoffs and carried Brady. Brees being absolutely done and Rodgers being playoff Rodgers helped. Remember, that team almost lost in the first round to the Heineke led Skins.

No, it is that dynasties are hard to sustain. Patriots grabbed their last one when Mahomes started first year and by that point Brady was going to jump into an ideal situation.

Belichick was left holding the bag.

As the total leader of the team much of that was his own creation but thinking Brady winning when he left and Belichick losing after proves much doesn't convince me.

All the final chapter of Belichick without Brady said was that Belichick never transitioned to another phase(why would he) and that his poor GM choices finally caught up to him.

You're conflating GM with coaching.

I am just judging the coaching.

Forgot all about Harbaugh. I just looked it up and Sean McDermott and Ron Rivera were from his coaching tree as well. Guess I'm wrong, he's got a pretty solid tree coming from him. I still stand by the fact that he needs at least 1 more ring.

Well, I'll tell you this-

Andy Reid has what, two losing seasons total? Took like 5 different QB's to the play-offs, including four straight NFC title games?

Most of that while being the GM, too.

And Belichick without Brady is ten seasons and a below .500 record.

So I don't think 'Belichick is the greatest' holds any water.

That's a nah from me, dawg.

The greatest coach ever can't have ten years worth of sub .500

No excuses. No way.

I think it's two.

Glad we got Big Red!