Where would you rank Belichick amongst all time great coache

[Bob Gill]

... in 1970 there were 26 teams, and in 2018 there are 32 teams, a 24 percent increase. Doesn't it stand to reason that it would be 24 percent more difficult for a player today to make the HOF today as opposed to a player from 1970?

Actually, going from 24 to 32 represents a 33 percent increase, not 24 percent. (An increase of 8, and 8 is 33 percent of 24, the original number.) So if your theory is right, it's just that much tougher to get into the hall.

[Bob Gill]

Bob I know your football knowledge far exceeds mine ...

Oh, I wouldn't agree with that either. I assume you know more about this kind of stuff than I do, but for what it's worth, I do think of Landry as more of an innovator. That's all.

[Bryan]

Oh, I wouldn't agree with that either. I assume you know more about this kind of stuff than I do, but for what it's worth, I do think of Landry as more of an innovator. That's all.

I think Landry is unique in that he was influential on both sides of the ball. Even the greatest coaches usually focused on either offense or defense. Some random thoughts:

*I don't consider Parcells to be among the greatest coaches.

*I would put Belichick maybe at #1 over Paul Brown, at worst #3 behind Brown & Lombardi. I think Belichick is unquestionably the best coach of his era, which you can't really say about any other coach other than perhaps Brown & Lombardi. I always thought Gibbs was better than Walsh...achieved the same with less talent and multiple schemes.

*I don't really care about Coaching Tree, or lack thereof. The concept itself is subjective...I recently saw an article that put Sean McVay on the Bill Walsh Coaching Tree...that is some Adam & Eve lineage. Coaches who have staffs with high turnover have a distinct advantage over coaches with stable staffs

*Chuck Noll is an interesting case. He took over the worst franchise in NFL history in 1969 and made it the best franchise of the 70's. Possibly the greatest achievement of any NFL coach in history. I don't think you can compare him to Belichick and say Noll had a shorter run of success and at the same time say that Noll operated in a time when controlling player movement was much easier...to me, those are divergent thoughts. Noll would be expected to have a shorter run of success than Belichick, because he can't replace his players as easily as Belichick.

[74_75_78_79_]

A name that none of us has mentioned yet...Curly Lambeau. Like Halas, he still (for right now at least) has something Belichick doesn’t and that’s six NFL championships. Only HC along with Vince to win three NFL titles in a row. He did have himself an undefeated season - albeit one tie - in ’29. He didn’t suffer his first losing season until ’33 and wouldn’t suffer another until ’48 & ’49 (his last two with GB), ’50 & ’51 with the Cards, and ’52 with Redskins before going 6-5-1 the following year FWIW being he got fired right after the season.

The game perhaps passed him by by then as his contemporary, Papa Bear, still kept the Bears very competitive in the ’50s and won himself a title in ’63 - decades after he started, the game having changed so much since. Of course the game would change even more so from there, but I have no reason to think Halas wouldn't have been able to field competitive teams in any era. Just the same, Lambeau should still be mentioned in this thread.

[Eagles One]

Lombardi, Brown, Halas, Noll, Gibbs, Walsh, Belichick, Landry, Shula and Ewbank.

I'm a Steeler fan, cannot put Noll ahead of Belichick, what makes him better? Lower winning percentage, Shorter period of sustained excellence, operated in an environment when controlling player turnover was much easier, will by a great margin likely have fewer core individual players make the HOF (Brady, Law (boy I hope he gets in), Moss (not core), Seau (not core), Seymour (borderline). I don't know.

Noll built a longtime futile Steelers franchise into one of the greatest dynasties in NFL history, in arguably the most competitive decade in the league's history. I have too give him his due and respect.

[TanksAndSpartans]

A name that none of us has mentioned yet...Curly Lambeau. Like Halas, he still (for right now at least) has something Belichick doesn’t and that’s six NFL championships. Only HC along with Vince to win three NFL titles in a row.

This made me think of someone else who wasn't mentioned yet - Guy Chamberlin. He won 5 titles in 6 years, 4 as coach. He needs to be on the 3 in a row list. He then went to a different team and won one in his second year. And something he did that most of these other coaches didn't - make an impact on the field.

[ChrisBabcock]

A name that none of us has mentioned yet...Curly Lambeau. Like Halas, he still (for right now at least) has something Belichick doesn’t and that’s six NFL championships. Only HC along with Vince to win three NFL titles in a row.

This made me think of someone else who wasn't mentioned yet - Guy Chamberlin. He won 5 titles in 6 years, 4 as coach. He needs to be on the 3 in a row list. He then went to a different team and won one in his second year. And something he did that most of these other coaches didn't - make an impact on the field.

He also had a better career coaching winning percentage than John Madden.

[NWebster]

Lombardi, Brown, Halas, Noll, Gibbs, Walsh, Belichick, Landry, Shula and Ewbank.

I'm a Steeler fan, cannot put Noll ahead of Belichick, what makes him better? Lower winning percentage, Shorter period of sustained excellence, operated in an environment when controlling player turnover was much easier, will by a great margin likely have fewer core individual players make the HOF (Brady, Law (boy I hope he gets in), Moss (not core), Seau (not core), Seymour (borderline). I don't know.

Noll built a longtime futile Steelers franchise into one of the greatest dynasties in NFL history, in arguably the most competitive decade in the league's history. I have too give him his due and respect.

Please don't get me wrong, he's certainly top-8, maybe top-5, but I think Belichick is on another level.

[Rupert Patrick]

Lombardi, Brown, Halas, Noll, Gibbs, Walsh, Belichick, Landry, Shula and Ewbank.

I'm a Steeler fan, cannot put Noll ahead of Belichick, what makes him better? Lower winning percentage, Shorter period of sustained excellence, operated in an environment when controlling player turnover was much easier, will by a great margin likely have fewer core individual players make the HOF (Brady, Law (boy I hope he gets in), Moss (not core), Seau (not core), Seymour (borderline). I don't know.

Noll built a longtime futile Steelers franchise into one of the greatest dynasties in NFL history, in arguably the most competitive decade in the league's history. I have too give him his due and respect.

The 70's weren't a competitive decade if you were the Giants or Saints or Packers. Going into each season in the 1970-77 era, you could pretty much write off 16 of the league's 26 or 28 teams of having less than a five percent chance of even making the postseason. By 1978-79, this began to change a little as the new scheduling formula worked in favor of the weaker teams to a degree. Think about it, how many real surprise teams did we see during the 70-77 era? Cincinnati in 1970, St. Louis in 1974, Baltimore in 1975, and I'll give you New England in 1976. I think the 1970 Dolphins were a team people should have seen coming together over the previous couple seasons, same with the 1972 Steelers, and despite what everybody else will say, the 1977 Broncos were not a Cinderella team that came out of nowhere as the 1976 Broncos were already the 10th or so best team in the league, and the only pieces they were missing were a quality QB and the right head coach, and they got both of them in the offseason.

[BD Sullivan]

The 70's weren't a competitive decade if you were the Giants or Saints or Packers. Going into each season in the 1970-77 era, you could pretty much write off 16 of the league's 26 or 28 teams of having less than a five percent chance of even making the postseason. By 1978-79, this began to change a little as the new scheduling formula worked in favor of the weaker teams to a degree. Think about it, how many real surprise teams did we see during the 70-77 era? Cincinnati in 1970, St. Louis in 1974, Baltimore in 1975, and I'll give you New England in 1976. I think the 1970 Dolphins were a team people should have seen coming together over the previous couple seasons, same with the 1972 Steelers, and despite what everybody else will say, the 1977 Broncos were not a Cinderella team that came out of nowhere as the 1976 Broncos were already the 10th or so best team in the league, and the only pieces they were missing were a quality QB and the right head coach, and they got both of them in the offseason.

Some other surprise teams:

1970 49ers
1972 Packers