Jump to content

Why haven't more coaches tried to mimic Belichick's coaching philosophy?


Bolts223

Recommended Posts

I'd say a few things:

The NFL is a "what have you done for me lately" league. Very few coaches have the following to do this:

  • TIME
    • It takes YEARS and fans and ownership get impatient, especially if you're in "rebuild" mode
  • Absolute control as a GM:
    • Not many organizations do this for their coaches AND not many coaches are good at this
  • Existing talent:
    • As great of a coach as BB is, he still was only 5 years removed from taking over a team that went to the Super Bowl. Drew Bledsoe, Lawyer Milloy, Ben Coates, Willie McGinest, Terry Glenn, Ted Johnson, Ty Law, Adam Vinateri...all guys on that 2001 roster that were utilized.
  • A HOF QB:
    • Pretty much any all time great coach with the exception of Joe Gibbs is surrounded by a HOF QB, whether it's Montana, Brady, Starr, Staubach, Unitas, or even Griese
  • He's an X's and O's genius as well as a personnel master
    • Every player has a specific role that also fits within the scheme. Almost impossible to replicate

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He has a HOF QB and most likely the best QB to ever play football. That will cover up a lot of other issues that a team can have. I also think he's one of the best at getting the most of all of his players strengths and keeping scheme new and innovative. I don't think we would be having this conversation if Brady wasn't around though.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, mission27 said:

He's surrounded himself with so many talented people and created a culture where the only acceptable approach is to work harder and be smarter than every other team in the league.

To the point that both his coordinators are seemingly perpetual HC candidates. The fact that McDaniels / Patricia very likely turned down HC offers to stay in NE as a coordinator should speak volumes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- They don't want to work as hard

- They don't have the same history and breadth of knowledge that Belichick has in order to do it

- They don't have the same kind of control over the roster that Belichick has, which allows him to bring in players that fit with a coaching philosophy centered around hard work and versatility/flexibility and cut his losses with players that he mistakenly thought would fit that philosophy but don't

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MWil23 said:

I'd say a few things:

The NFL is a "what have you done for me lately" league. Very few coaches have the following to do this:

  • TIME
    • It takes YEARS and fans and ownership get impatient, especially if you're in "rebuild" mode
  • Absolute control as a GM:
    • Not many organizations do this for their coaches AND not many coaches are good at this
  • Existing talent:
    • As great of a coach as BB is, he still was only 5 years removed from taking over a team that went to the Super Bowl. Drew Bledsoe, Lawyer Milloy, Ben Coates, Willie McGinest, Terry Glenn, Ted Johnson, Ty Law, Adam Vinateri...all guys on that 2001 roster that were utilized.
  • A HOF QB:
    • Pretty much any all time great coach with the exception of Joe Gibbs is surrounded by a HOF QB, whether it's Montana, Brady, Starr, Staubach, Unitas, or even Griese
  • He's an X's and O's genius as well as a personnel master
    • Every player has a specific role that also fits within the scheme. Almost impossible to replicate

 

Coates was gone in 2001, Glenn was benched for the entire second half of the year and didn't get a Super Bowl ring, Bledsoe was obviously a backup, McGinest spent most of the year as a backup and part timer as well.

The 2001 Super Bowl team had Parcells guys but mostly guys who had been role players who flourished under Belichick (Bruschi, T.Brown). The big exceptions being Law, Milloy and Vinatieri. 

The existing Parcells talent on the roster was churned over heavily in Belichick's first 18 months. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, mcmurtry86 said:

Coates was gone in 2001

So he was. My mistake

Quote

Glenn was benched for the entire second half of the year and didn't get a Super Bowl ring

He was still on the roster in 2001.

Quote

Bledsoe was obviously a backup,

Not until he got hurt in the second half of the season.

Quote

McGinest spent most of the year as a backup and part timer as well.

Again, I said that he was on the roster and a definite contributor. He came in for Johnston/Vrabel in certain situations.

Quote

The 2001 Super Bowl team had Parcells guys but mostly guys who had been role players who flourished under Belichick (Bruschi, T.Brown). The big exceptions being Law, Milloy and Vinatieri. 

Not denying that. I merely pointed out that he did have some major existing talent that he also found ways to utilize. I'd say 3 Pro Bowlers that he inherited is quite the amount of talent, especially considering the kick in the snow Adam V. made in the "Tuck Rule" game.

Quote

The existing Parcells talent on the roster was churned over heavily in Belichick's 18 months. 

Yes and No. It was in certain positions/starters, but a lot of those Parcells guys were still key contributors. It's not like BB inherited the 1-15 Cowboys like Jimmie Johnson or the 2015 Browns here. That's all I'm saying. He didn't inherit a "mess", even if he is the greatest coach of all time. He was still set up pretty well going into his job in New England.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Bolts223 said:

For example everyone copied the west coast offense from Walsh.

It's really hard to even put into words how good of a football coach Bill Belichick is. I don't really think you can make a case for someone like Vince Lombardi anymore as the GOAT coach, Belichick is just so clearly heads and shoulders than any head coach at the NFL level. 

Anyways, it seems like there is really no coach like him either. The premise of Belichick's coaching philosophy is to make some use out of every single roster spot. Every person on that roster has an attribute that can contribute to a very specific situation that may come up in a certain situation. (IE Do your job) It's part of how well he coaches situational football. Yet, you don't see very many coaches with this type of philosophy, it hasn't really revolutionized NFL coaching like the west coast offense has.

I guess my question is, why is this? Shouldn't other coaches be trying to emulate what Belichick and the Patriots have done, being that they have been the golden standard in the NFL for 16 years now?

You mean the philosophy of "use players to their strengths and de-emphasize their weaknesses while always innovating"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

So he was. My mistake

He was still on the roster in 2001.

Not until he got hurt in the second half of the season.

Again, I said that he was on the roster and a definite contributor. He came in for Johnston/Vrabel in certain situations.

Not denying that. I merely pointed out that he did have some major existing talent that he also found ways to utilize. I'd say 3 Pro Bowlers that he inherited is quite the amount of talent, especially considering the kick in the snow Adam V. made in the "Tuck Rule" game.

Yes and No. It was in certain positions/starters, but a lot of those Parcells guys were still key contributors. It's not like BB inherited the 1-15 Cowboys like Jimmie Johnson or the 2015 Browns here. That's all I'm saying. He didn't inherit a "mess", even if he is the greatest coach of all time. He was still set up pretty well going into his job in New England.

Bledsoe wasn't the QB until "the 2nd half of the season"

He went down midway through the 2nd game of the year.

Terry Glenn did nothing to contribute to the team's success and him being a malcontent possibly made him a net negative

I get the point you're trying to make - the roster wasn't a total dumpster fire when Belichick took over but you're ignoring all the history and context and just looking at the names on the roster. Either you're too young to remember or not familiar enough with the Pats history to see how bad the 2000 roster was. The one which Belichick struggled to win 5 games with. You neglect the complete lack of talent at skill positions other than Glenn. You forget the team had wasted three straight drafts under Pete Carroll and Bobby Grier and has almost no young depth on the roster. You ignore that many of the familiar names Belichick inherited were thought to be busts, mediocre or washing out of the league.

Totally ignored that many Pats fans were screaming for Belichick to be fired because of the team's lackluster play and thin-at-best roster.

Ty Law is hall of very good, for sure, as is Milloy (more debatable). But two elite DB's isn't the strongest foundation to a Super Bowl roster. Belichick and Pioli added or developed almost all of the starters and key role players from the waiver wire or Parcells era backups. Even Vinatieri was shaky early on in Belichick's tenure.

If the roster were as good or as useful as you imply, the Pats would have won more than 5 games in 2000. Especially if we're assuming Belichick is a great coach. 

The 2001 Patriots team was a master stroke of coaching and personnel decisions. It had very little to do with the talent on the roster the day Belichick took over. Sure, they had more pieces than the 2017 Jets but after Parcells left, the team declined 4 straight years for a reason. The talent just wasn't there and the talented guys just didn't care (or were declining)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, mcmurtry86 said:

Bledsoe wasn't the QB until "the 2nd half of the season"

That was supposed to say 2nd game instead of second half. My mistake.

12 minutes ago, mcmurtry86 said:

He went down midway through the 2nd game of the year.

See above.

12 minutes ago, mcmurtry86 said:

Terry Glenn did nothing to contribute to the team's success and him being a malcontent possibly made him a net negative

I believe you

12 minutes ago, mcmurtry86 said:

I get the point you're trying to make - the roster wasn't a total dumpster fire when Belichick took over

That's exactly the point I'm trying to make.

12 minutes ago, mcmurtry86 said:

but you're ignoring all the history and context and just looking at the names on the roster.

Not at all, considering Ty Law and Lawyer Milloy were Pro Bowlers, and Adam Vinateri is an all timer.

12 minutes ago, mcmurtry86 said:

Either you're too young to remember

LOL. I was in high school

12 minutes ago, mcmurtry86 said:

or not familiar enough with the Pats history to see how bad the 2000 roster was.

You can't have it both ways here. Terry Glenn was a PRO BOWL alternate in 2000 even though he was benched for being a malcontent after 4 games in 2001. Lawyer Milloy was also a Pro Bowler.

12 minutes ago, mcmurtry86 said:

The one which Belichick struggled to win 5 games with. You neglect the complete lack of talent at skill positions other than Glenn. You forget the team had wasted three straight drafts under Pete Carroll and Bobby Grier and has almost no young depth on the roster. You ignore that many of the familiar names Belichick inherited were thought to be busts, mediocre or washing out of the league.

As a Browns fan, I can assure you this isn't true. All I am saying above is that there WAS some baseline talent. Drew Bledsoe had been to 3 Pro Bowls before BB got there, Ty Law 1, Terry Glenn 1 and another as an alternate in 2000, Tedy Bruschi was there in the late 1990s, as was Ted Johnson and Adam Vinateri.

12 minutes ago, mcmurtry86 said:

Totally ignored that many Pats fans were screaming for Belichick to be fired because of the team's lackluster play and thin-at-best roster.

Not ignoring that. I understand.

12 minutes ago, mcmurtry86 said:

Ty Law is hall of very good, for sure, as is Milloy (more debatable). But two elite DB's isn't the strongest foundation to a Super Bowl roster. Belichick and Pioli added or developed almost all of the starters and key role players from the waiver wire or Parcells era backups. Even Vinatieri was shaky early on in Belichick's tenure.

Most teams would kill for 2 Pro Bowl defensive secondary players (in their primes) and a Pro Bowl veteran QB.

12 minutes ago, mcmurtry86 said:

If the roster were as good or as useful as you imply, the Pats would have won more than 5 games in 2000. Especially if we're assuming Belichick is a great coach. 

Funny, the Chiefs had 7 Pro Bowlers a few years ago and won 4 games. That's not at all what I'm saying.

12 minutes ago, mcmurtry86 said:

The 2001 Patriots team was a master stroke of coaching and personnel decisions.

Agreed. As well as perfect timing (Bledsoe going down in the second game while they still had hope, the Tuck rule, etc.)

12 minutes ago, mcmurtry86 said:

It had very little to do with the talent on the roster the day Belichick took over.

They had 2 Pro Bowlers in the secondary and 2 starting LBs who were good with Carroll. He took it to the next level with drafting guys like Seymour, Brady, and a lot of good OL guys while incorporating role players and getting rid of malcontents.

12 minutes ago, mcmurtry86 said:

Sure, they had more pieces than the 2017 Jets but after Parcells left, the team declined 4 straight years for a reason. The talent just wasn't there and the talented guys just didn't care (or were declining)

Bledsoe clearly declined, but Bruschi and Johnson didn't, neither did Adam V, neither did Ty Law, and Milloy still had multiple Pro Bowls after BB took over, even if they did upgrade with Rodney Harrison. BB had a baseline of elite talent in certain places (secondary), with GOOD talent in others (linebackers) and then built off of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bottom line: it's one thing to observe Bill Belichick's intensive preparation, his intelligent schemes and adjustments, his ability to scout the right players and get the most out of them, his historically great quarterback, and the mutual faith, discipline, standards, and trust he enjoys from the entire Patriots organization. It's quite another to emulate all of those advantages. Just because you can watch a master at work and understand what he did and how he did it after the fact, does not mean you can become one yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...