FOX is talking about Belichek being the best in history

[Wazmankg]

To far ahead to quite.

Your mistake is thinking anyone in the past is better than anyone at an equal plane for their own era is the same.

Alexander the Great was a hell of a field commander, but I would take Patton over him ten times over.

It's the nature of advancement.


Again unless you are somehow trying to argue each individuals IQ.

That's a ridiculous way to compare them though. Using your argument the guy teaching Physics 400 at the local college is a greater physicist than Newton because he knows more about physics.

 

[NEPatsfan]

I'm sure Lombardi would have adjusted to the modern era.

Not likely, he wouldn't be equiped for it. He came up during a different time.

 

[GNG]

He didn't do anything in Green Bay the 2 years before Lombardi took over either. Starr was the first of the great game manager QBs. He never threw for 2500 yards. He was good but the notion that Lombardi couldn't have won with someone else is false imo.

I believe Lombardi would have won with someone else but Starr was the perfect QB to run that offense. He could read defenses better than any other QB of his era and although he didn't possess a great throwing arm he was deadly accurate with his passes.

 

[NEPatsfan]

My point is, it was a level playing field back then because everyone could do the same thing. Everyone had to play by the same rules so your argument holds no water.

And yes... You are probably the most biased poster on these boards.

So the fact that all teams could hoard somehow negates that the teams with the best overall lineup didn't have an advantage because of the other teams ability to hoard a weaker lineup? Huh?

How am I biased? I just simply look at the reality of it all.

Lombardi was one of if not the greatest of his time. And BB is one of if not the greatest of his time.

What gives BB the edge is birth date. Swap their birth dates and I would say the same thing.

It's not that complicated to follow.

 

[Scooby-Doo]

The debate isn't that Lombardi wasn't the best of his era, it is that he would not have been able to keep his team intact for a lengthy run which is what the modern coaches have to deal with.

I get that, but every coach/team dealt with the same set of circumstances. Regardless, I think BB is one of the all time greats. I just laugh ant NEpatsfan because, well... It's fun.

 

[Rex Racer]

I haven't looked, what was the typical number of passing yards thrown for the top tier QB's of that time during a season?

In 1965 4 guys threw for more than 2,500 yards. In 66 it was 7 guys. 1967, even with lower numbers he was still top 10.

 

[NEPatsfan]

I get that, but every coach/team dealt with the same set of circumstances. Regardless, I think BB is one of the all time greats. I just laugh ant NEpatsfan because, well... It's fun.

And you laughter is based on nothing.

 

[Rex Racer]

I get that, but every coach/team dealt with the same set of circumstances. Regardless, I think BB is one of the all time greats. I just laugh ant NEpatsfan because, well... It's fun.

OK

 

[NEPatsfan]

In 1965 4 guys threw for more than 2,500 yards. In 66 it was 7 guys. 1967, even with lower numbers he was still top 10.

Thanks for the research info.

 

[Scooby-Doo]

So the fact that all teams could hoard somehow negates that the teams with the best overall lineup didn't have an advantage because of the other teams ability to hoard a weaker lineup? Huh?

How am I biased? I just simply look at the reality of it all.

Lombardi was one of if not the greatest of his time. And BB is one of if not the greatest of his time.

What gives BB the edge is birth date. Swap their birth dates and I would say the same thing.

It's not that complicated to follow.

Of course you're not biased.

 

[GNG]

Not likely, he wouldn't be equiped for it. He came up during a different time.

Using your argument it would also be difficult for a current head coach to be successful in that era.

 

[NEPatsfan]

Of course you're not biased.

So what in my comments do you see as the bias?

 

[GNG]

That's a ridiculous way to compare them though. Using your argument the guy teaching Physics 400 at the local college is a greater physicist than Newton because he knows more about physics.

 

[NEPatsfan]

Using your argument it would also be difficult for a current head coach to be successful in that era.

I don't think so, since todays coach would be coming from all the strategy advancements that have occurred.

 

[GNG]

So what in my comments do you see as the bias?

Comedy Gold !!

 

[NEPatsfan]

That's a ridiculous way to compare them though. Using your argument the guy teaching Physics 400 at the local college is a greater physicist than Newton because he knows more about physics.

A greater physicist? Yes. A greater mind? Maybe, maybe not.

You cleary failed comprehension of the comment.

 

[NEPatsfan]

Comedy Gold !!

You couldn't list an example either huh?

 

[GNG]

I don't think so, since todays coach would be coming from all the strategy advancements that have occurred.

Nonsense.

 

[NEPatsfan]

Nonsense.

So todays teams/schemes aren't more advanced than those of days past?

 

[Wazmankg]

Lets go over this one more time. I'll type slowly so that even a fucktarded shitstain like you can follow along.

Ready?

You sure you're ready?

Vince Lombardi won zero championships without Bart Starr at QB.

First thing you should do is dispute that point if you can and then build your argument off of that.

Go.

He took over a team, that was absolute horseshit with Starr at QB for 2 years, and they immediately started winning. Then when he stepped down the Pack had its 1st losing season since.... you guessed it, the year before Lombardi took over. But it was all Starr. Makes complete sense.