|
I think there's a middle ground between "Belichick is God" (chowda mult) and "Belichick isn't even the best coach in the game right now" (Brock).
It's pretty clear that Belichick is one of the best coaches in NFL history. He's won two SBs as a defensive coordinator (with one of those game plans going to Canton). He's won three SBs as a head coach and been to a 4th, and was one ref's non-call on "in the grasp" away from going 19-0. He's made chicken salad with chicken shit (using castaway DBs a lot of the time, and using Matt Cassel to go 11-5).
Yes, he is lucky to have had Brady: but it's not like Brady was a seasoned starter when Belichick came to town. They picked him, they groomed him, they kept him as a 4th QB, they elevated him to backup, and post-2001 we now know that they were contemplating pulling Bledsoe for Brady even before Mo Lewis made the decision moot. And the other greats had theirs too. Lombardi had Bart Starr. Noll had Terry Bradshaw. Bill Walsh had Joe Montana. Shula is the only exception, who actually won SBs without a stud QB (but with a very strong team otherwise); the one time Shula DID have a stud QB (Marino) he dominated the AFCE for years and did make one SB, although he lost it.
Much like, when you discuss the greatest NFL QBs, you include Brady and those names above, you include Belichick and those names above when you discuss greatest NFL HCs. "Greatest ever"? I'll get back to you on that in 20 years. Right now, he's one of the greatest, and certainly in the salary-cap era he's proven the ability to keep the ship afloat and competitive. But as we've seen by many of his draft and FA failures he's not infallible. As I said elsewhere, if the man was a little better at drafting and signing he might have more SB rings by now. And he's made some strange decisions which have also cost him (e.g. letting Branch go but not replacing the productivity; dumping about 35 defensive backs this year and now paying the price for it).
Someone mentioned running backs. IMO, when it comes to running backs, the Pats have never really failed because they've never really tried. They've always concentrated on a pass-blocking O-line and throwing the ball--which makes sense, when you have a Tom Brady. Even tonight, despite KC's run defense woes, I bet you don't see a lot of running. And why would they, really? They pass so well. I think they CAN run, if they put their mind to it more often, but they don't. And, granted, sometimes that bites them in the ass; the running game, like a muscle in the body, atrophies if not exercised, and it cost them in the Giants SB. Which is why I'd like to see a bit more running from them, because they'll need it more as the weather turns cold. We know BJGE can at least get the job done, and we've seen flashes from Ridley, so I'm hoping the Pats jump out to a ridiculous halftime lead (I'd like, say, 31-3) so they can spend the rest of the night exercising the run and letting Brady drink Gatorade.
|