More struggle-some, Belichick w Browns or he thus far post-Brady?

[JohnTurney]

I have a book about the Browns** & in it Belichick is quoted as saying that in his final year in Cleveland, the furor over the move just destroyed the team. But in each of his seasons prior to 95 the team was showing improvement. I think he would have been a winner in Cleveland

I think today, Belichick ought to gracefully hang 'em up.

I think that's right, he was building a winner in Cleveland then rug was pulled out.

That said, evidence is mounting the Brady>Belichick debate.
Should be hang 'em up? Maybe. I honestly think he will
when he gets the win record---but the question is now
if he can get there.

If he does not get it turned around soon he's not going to get to Shula.

[Bryan]

Reading about Testeverdes' career is incredible.

The most incredible thing to me is how Testaverde remained in the NFL so long. He was terrible for several years, then progressed to being below average for the vast majority of his career. It was as if everyone in the NFL thought that since Testaverde "looked like" a good QB, then he must be a good QB. Same thing with Bledsoe. Teams kept giving Bledsoe opportunities to start, and he was never anything better than average, and was typically below average.

Testaverde + Bledsoe = 35 total seasons....10 above average, 25 below average

[Brian wolf]

Those injuries to both QBs, Testeverde in 1999 and Bledsoe in 2001, set their careers back, though they both bounced back briefly. I was hoping Vinny would play well for the Cowboys in 2004 but he was basically a statue like Bledsoe by then. I truly did not remember him backing up Brady in NE in 2006. Yes, he was below average but snake-bit by injuries as well. Needed a good supporting cast around him rather than elevating his teammate's play ...

[conace21]

Those injuries to both QBs, Testeverde in 1999 and Bledsoe in 2001, set their careers back, though they both bounced back briefly. I was hoping Vinny would play well for the Cowboys in 2004 but he was basically a statue like Bledsoe by then. I truly did not remember him backing up Brady in NE in 2006. Yes, he was below average but snake-bit by injuries as well. Needed a good supporting cast around him rather than elevating his teammate's play ...

I don't know how much the injury actually set Bledsoe's career back. He had been in a freefall ever since the midway point in the 1999 season. After 8 games in 1999, the Patriots were 6-2 (one loss had Adam Vinatieri missed a FG as time expired, and the other, Damon Huard threw a TD pass with 30 seconds left) and Bledsoe was arguably the 2nd best QB in the league, behind Kurt Warner. But in the 2nd half of 1999, the Patriots went 2-6, Bledsoe was sacked 33 times (holding the ball and taking sacks would be a staple of the 2000's Bledsoe), and threw 6 TD's vs 17 INT's. In 2000, Belichick helped Bledsoe cut down on the INT's, but Drew also continued to take sacks and struggled to put up points. In the first two games of 2001, Bledsoe continued to struggle, with sacks and puzzling decisions.

Bledsoe rejuvenated his career, seemingly, through the first 8 games of 2002 in Buffalo, but then slipped back into old habits.

[conace21]

I have a book about the Browns** & in it Belichick is quoted as saying that in his final year in Cleveland, the furor over the move just destroyed the team. But in each of his seasons prior to 95 the team was showing improvement. I think he would have been a winner in Cleveland

I think today, Belichick ought to gracefully hang 'em up.

I think that's right, he was building a winner in Cleveland then rug was pulled out.

That said, evidence is mounting the Brady>Belichick debate.
Should be hang 'em up? Maybe. I honestly think he will
when he gets the win record---but the question is now
if he can get there.

If he does not get it turned around soon he's not going to get to Shula.

I feel like the narrative of "Art Modell announced the move and tanked Belichick's winning season" is overblown. The Browns were considered the AFC's preseason Super Bowl favorites. They started out 3-1, including a win over the eventual #1 seed Kansas City. But then they lost three straight games. There was a close home loss on MNF to Buffalo, a blowout loss at Detroit (31-3 at the half), and a loss to the expansion Jaguars. Cleveland was 3-4, and the plans to move to Baltimore were underway, but they were not yet public. Belichick then benched Vinny Testaverde for rookie Eric Zeier. Zeier threw for 300 yards against a lousy Bengals defense, and led Cleveland to a win to bring them back up to .500. The news of the move to Baltimore was then announced, and the Browns did indeed collapse, losing 5 straight, and only one of those five games was close. Zeier quickly proved that he was outmatched and the team went back to Testaverde.

But before the move was announced, Cleveland was a .500 football team with a rookie QB. Could they have finished strong if the move hadn't been announced? Sure, anything is possible. Pittsburgh began the year 3-4 and rallied to finish 11-5 and they went to the Super Bowl. But I think the whole narrative has been altered due to revisionist history. I don't think Eric Zeier was going to lead Cleveland to the playoffs, and Testaverde was angry, believing he had been made the scapegoat.

[JameisBrownston]

It's to the point now where I'm streaming the Raiders D/ST against the Patriots, you guys. I think that's the final curtain for Bill's ability to build an offense.

[JohnTurney]

But I think the whole narrative has been altered due to revisionist history.

Again, reasonable people can disagree. I remember it going down pretty much as advertised. People can draw their own conclusions as to whether they think Belicichik is good/great coach but as far as Cleveland 1995, IMO there is no doubt the announcement killed the team.

People can make an argument that maybe they were not going to do well in POs that year and maybe they were not going
to challenge for SB in 96-97 based on talent level of QB and all the things we like to speculate on.

But the announcement preceded the collapse in the '95. I get it, they didn't come out of the gate on fire in 95, but no way do they blow up
if it does not happen. Would they be 9-7? 11-5 like the year before? I don't know for sure, but my opinion is somewhere in there -- they were a team that were better than the sum of the parts in my opinion.

Guys that most fans didn't think were all that good were in fact, pretty good especially on the lines and in secondary.

Sometimes, and I don't mean you ... I mean media and fans over the years liked to connect the Brady/Belichick thing to Cleveland.

Pro BB people would point to Cassell and the anti-BB folks would say "It's Brady" and point to Cleveland - i.e. "What has BB done w/o Brady?"

All were fair questions. But I never saw the Cleveland era as any kind of failure. It was going to be a long-term thing there.

Now, with Brady gone for a decent amount of time there is mounting evidence in the BB/TB debate. To me, now is a more fair apples-to-apples
comparison. back then it wasn't. All they had was a short time without Brady. Now, much more of a timeline to make a case.

Either way, though, however people come down it's a fascinating discussion.

[Reaser]

I feel like the narrative of "Art Modell announced the move and tanked Belichick's winning season" is overblown.

It is overblown but not necessarily in that way. It's more the projecting out, where people start to phrase it as an absolute. As if it was a guarantee that the Browns were going to be a dynasty post-'95 or even from that '95 season on. Always ignores -starting in their own division!- that the Steelers were pretty good (no kidding, went to SB in that '95 season) through '97, the Jaguars started making noise year 2 through the rest of the 90s, the Titans eventually were there by the end the 90s. "Cleveland would have" goes too far, like they were a lock to win their 4th or 5th SB in a row in '99. Meanwhile, Titans and Jags were in the division, and the AFCCG. Not to mention the rest of the AFC during the '95-on 90s. That had those Broncos teams, which the narratives just look past because "if the Browns didn't move ..." This is where it gets overblown.

A lot of it is sort of what Turney alluded to, pro/anti-Belichick for many on how they project that out.

As opposed to a more reasonable, yes, the announcement 100% derailed the season. That is indisputable, but from what kind of season? We don't know but it's fair enough to say it could have been a playoff season. From there, while it had the sense they were building something, to act like it was a guaranteed dynasty, short or long term, is greatly inflating what the Browns were up to the point of the relocation announcement and much more a fantasy "what-if" than the absolute/guarantee it's frequently presented as by those who buy into "what Cleveland was building." Particularly around when the Cleveland '95 "A Football Life" episode came out. Was funny to see the same media who a few years earlier wrote about Belichick's "failure(s) in Cleveland were where he made the mistakes he learned from to build the Patriots" to five years later Cleveland '95 comes out and narrative changes to, "clearly good times were ahead" & "would have won at least one Super Bowl and probably multiple."