Quote:
Originally Posted by punch it in
I give coaches credit for winning. I dont care if we lose 100-99 or 100 - 0. I dont care if we got the best offense the best defense and the best hit dogs. Win and i will give him credit.
As for your question on the qb issue i answered you. Its not that black and white. Belechik just very recently won 11 games with gosh darn Matt Cassell. I dont give a flying crap if somehow that wasnt good enough to make the playoffs. And im just supposed to not consider 11 wins. It wasnt 2 wins with Cassell it was ELEVEN. On top of that they both architected or great teams around Montana and Brady. Shanny hasnt done that. He may have just drafted RG-3 - but RG-3 is not your typical rookie. He is playing like a seasoned veteran. We all agree on that. So Shanny is 3-5 with a stud qb. Do you not see the difference between that and the niners and pats? This is where we go into the give him two more years thing. Stay tuned.
Edit: as for Walsh first two seasons - before Montana - that team made the team that Shanny inherited look like a bikini clad super model on a hog farm.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
|
You want to know why he won 11 games without Brady? You do realize that team went 16-0 the year before and played in the Super Bowl. Did you expect that team drop off that much due to Brady alone? Nope. (also a clear sign that Manning was more important to his team than Brady)
Then explain to me Belichick's .450 winning percentage in Cleveland? Oh wait....YOU CANT.
You guys are a joke. You really are. You pumped up all these other coaches and yet these coaches have HoF QBs. You don't give Mike credit for shit, and when he does win, you turn around and say it's because of the QB.
Well guess ****ing what. Walsh, Belichick and ANY other coach out there winning super bowls and winning consistently has done so with a star at QB. SO either give Mike his due, or don't give anybody else theirs. If he's a bad coach, then so are the rest of the guys I've mentioned.