Scholarship table
1. I never said it was guaranteed to succeed.2. You limited the scope to the top 3.
Honestly I would much rather be 7-7 at this point if I were a Bear fan. First, because winning is fun. Second, you may actually make the playoffs this year. But third and most importantly, it actually shows progress!
I think reasonable minds can disagree about the merit of the Bears' strategy. There are good arguments on both sides.
Belichick is the GOAT, but his decision to turn his offense over to Matt Patricia and Joe Judge is as inexplicable as it gets.
Belichick is 78-86 without Tom Brady under center.He's a damn good coach, but great players can make coaches appear better than they are.For an example see: McCarthy, MikeI am ready for the heat this take will bring.
Is Belichick the GOAT or is he a very good coach who was lucky to have the Goat on his team?What is his percentage making the Playoffs minus Brady? In fact, in a quite large sample size, I believe he is a sub-.500 coach without Tom. I’d take Parcells any day.
This is it. And I think speaks to a larger problem with BB and the Patriots. Their staff is ridiculously inbred. Any fired coach who used to be an assistant there is brought back into the fold. And two of his kids are defensive assistants!This just feels like its not ending well for him.
Also, Parcells as the GOAT? The same Parcells who basically alternated playoff contending years with sub .500 seasons? Great coach and football mind but wildly inconsistent.
Not quite accurate.He was below .500 3 times and in the Playoffs 9 times. The other times he was below .500 were in his 1st season on rebuilding teams. And every losing team that he took over was in the playoffs by his 2nd season.
Bill Walsh was 17-23-1 without Joe Montana under center.I imagine that if we dive in, we'd find that most coaches seen as great look a lot less great when forced to play below average quarterbacks.
One could argue Parcells won two super bowls because he had Belichick on staff
Parcells did win one of those with a backup QB who was mediocre at best.
They have a bottom three roster, I mean I’d like to be a millionaire too, but the reality is I’m not, and a bottom of the league roster isn’t going 7-7 at this point. They now have a young good QB, which is what they haven’t had. Drafting at 2 doesn’t guarantee anything, they have to still make good decisions in the draft and free agency. But I guess we agree to disagree on the value of picking at 2 instead of 6 or 7 or wherever, fair enough, I do respect your opinions on here.
The posts in this thread on October 24th are hilarious. Bears fans certainly weren’t explaining how much they wanted to lose games and how valuable their 4th place schedule and 2nd pick were going to be. Same with 9/11 posts. Very cold takes…that appear to have been not so cold.
You're trying too hard. The Bears beat the hell out of NE, in NE, on primetime TV. People rightly called that out and gave the Bears props for the performance.I assume you're talking about Dish saying the Bears were in the playoff race in the NFC. Which was true at the time. Though nobody thought then, or any time in the season, that they were a playoff team, even in a bad NFC.Bears fans can be exciting by a dominating performance and good play from their franchise QB, but also not give a damn about losses as they build for the future. Its not that complicated. I also can't fathom why you care so much. Is Jimmy Butler a Bears fan? That would explain your obsessive devotion.
JWags is of course right here, and what I said was true at the time. The Bears were 1 game out of the wild card, and held the tiebreaker over San Fran at the time I said “they were in the playoff hunt”. I mean, if at the time, almost halfway through the season, a team is a game out of the playoffs, I’d consider that “in the hunt”. And they did totally kick the Pats around the building that night. This doesn’t have to be so hard for some around here to comprehend.
It's the right take, so there should be little if any heat.Not only does Belichick have a losing record sans Brady ... but Brady promptly won the Super Bowl sans Belichick. TB didn't need BB, but BB has yet to prove he doesn't need TB.None of which means Belichick hasn't been one of the best coaches ever; it's all opinion anyway. I mean, those regarded as the most accomplished (a term I prefer to "best") coaches in history, regardless of sport, have always had lots of talent. Phil Jackson, Red Auerbach, Vince Lombardi, Chuck Noll, Bill Walsh, Toe Blake, Scotty Bowman, Casey Stengel, Joe McCarthy, etc etc etc ... tons of talent. There's little question that Belichick is the most accomplished NFL coach of the Super Bowl era. He's got the most Super Bowl victories -- that's the ultimate accomplishment in his sport. GOAT? That's a matter of opinion.
None of this should distract us from the Packers being trash, too.