I don’t think that’s the case, though. Look at how successful a series of coaches - some good (Tony Dungy, John Fox), others maybe not as good (Jim Mora, Gary Kubiak) - had with Peyton Manning in the post-season. Manning is (was) as good as Brady at quarterback, but his teams managed just three Super Bowl appearances and just one win in seventeen seasons (counting this one, not counting 2011). Brady and Bellichick made six appearances and won four in fourteen seasons (again counting this one, not counting 2008).
Until this year, Manning’s teams were always built to win just one way - Manning’s passing game. Bellichick’s Patriots have won that way (see 2007), but they’ve also won with a stronger defense than offense (2003-2004) and with a strong running game (2004, 2006). Hell, Bellichick’s Patriots went 11-5 behind Matt Cassel in 2008. Cassel’s career record as a starter is 10-5 with Bellichick and 25-39 with any other coach. Of course Brady has been crucial to Bellichick’s success, but (IMHO) Bellichick’s been just as important to Brady’s.
It’s food for thought. Personally, I’d much rather have Brady than Manning in a playoff game, but I wish we could swap them to get a clearer picture. Let Manning start for the Pats in the playoffs, that’d be fun.
And we’ve seen some limited sample of Belichick’s record coaching without Brady ( he went 36-44 in Cleveland, and 5-13 in New England before Brady’s first start, but does that prove anything?), but we’ve never seen Tom Terrific play in the NFL without Belichick’s coaching. So who knows?
The Matt Cassell argument is a strong one in Belichick’s favor, IMO, so just for fun I ran the results of the Pats’ schedule, and the teams they faced that year had a combined record of 123-133 by my count. Not terrible, but not good. I think we can safely conclude that Belichick gave Cassell a better situation (and almost certainly better coaching) than he got later, but that’s not the same thing as comparing Belichick to a Lombardi or a Walsh.
I wonder what Belichick’s peers would say about this question?
Belichick was an accomplished defensive coordinator before (and after) foolishly taking his first head coaching gig with the Browns. I don’t think anyone could have made that franchise successful.
Can someone explain the ruling on the Steeler’s muffed punt that went in the endzone? Some people were saying they should’ve had it at the one or it was a safety. It was called a touchback.
The ruling was that the player did not recover the ball cleanly until part of his body was in the end zone. Had he recovered before he went into the end zone, he would have been down by contact at the one. The only way it would have been a safety is if he had recovered the ball in the field of play, the first Bronco didn’t touch him, and then the second Bronco still did touch him in the end zone.
A muffed punt simply makes the kicking team eligible to recover the ball, which they cannot do if a receiving team player does not touch it.
There are also some complicated rules involving “impetus” that could have come into play, but didn’t. If the ball had been “at or nearly at rest”, then a muff would have provided new impetus, and because it was provided by the receiving team, it would then be a safety. But because the muff was on a ball that was moving (on impetus provided by the kicking team), the momentum that sent it into the end zone was considered to have been provided by the kicking team: therefore touchback.
My beloved second son, “bleeds cyan and black” Panthers fan. Happier than a pig in shit at halftime. Came away from the end of the game fuming. I guess going into prevent/clock kill at halftime was probably a mistake. The Panthers’ tendency to try to nurse an early lead always puzzled me. It’s not a good strategy IMHO. The Cardinals are certainly able to blow that up, assuming the Panthers can get an early lead at all.
What happened to “Keep pounding”? WTF happened to Riverboat Ron? After the half, he was coaching like a scared old man. It was primarily the basic skill and tenacity of the Cats defense that won that game. (To my annoyance, since I’m a Seahawks fan and I was enjoying the second half mightily.)
At this point, the Patriots are the only extra-point-perfect team left playing and the only team in the playoffs that had no 6-point-only TDs (they never attempted any 2-pters all season). Therefore, they will go to the SB and lose by a missed extra point.
It was automatic. In the prior season, as I understand it, the 2-yard-line extra point was made at a rate exceeding 99.5%, which made it kind of a pointless exercise. This season, the extra point rate was under 95% – the most entertaining failed extra point was when the Saints blocked a Panthers’ kick, picked up the loose ball and ran it all the way back the other way for 2 points.
That is the reason: the game is supposed to be entertaining. Also, TV viewers are slightly less likely to go to the kitchen for another beer after a TD, so exposure to commercials should be a tad higher.
Chances of that are really unlikely. It’ll either be NE v CAR or NE v ARI. It’s hard to envision the Denver Mannings advancing after the way they played against the Stoolers.
Any scenario with Arizona fails to excite me. Not only is it a transient sports town, I cant see Carson Palmer winning a Super Bowl. I cant see Peyton, either but at least one last chance to ride out of the NFL in a blaze of glory would be a compelling storyline.