Pretty clear

[Chapow]

How about you post a list of all the Head Coaches that were highly successful without a franchise QB?

I am also ready to move on from Pete at this point, but this narrative that Pete deserves absolutely zero credit for any success this team has seen since he's been here is absurd.

Well since u want it how about u do it. I posted how Bill did when Brady did not play due to injury and suspension. I believe it was 11-4. Neither of the QBs were franchise qbs either. Heck one is not even in the NFL anymore. U saw how good the rams were with Goff and he is not a franchise qb. I can go on, but since u want it you should get it.

As you already know, Belichick has a below .500 winning percentage as an NFL Head Coach without Brady, and I'm not sure that McVay qualifies as a highly successful Head Coach since he hasn't won a Super Bowl and the 1 time he made it to the Super Bowl his team scored a whopping 3 points.

But my point, that you are pretending to not get, is that Head Coaches in the NFL generally aren't very successful without a good/great QB, because QB is by far the most important position in football and it's nearly impossible to be consistently successful without a very good one.

So yeah, I agree that Carroll likely would have been a below .500 HC without Wilson. Just like how Belichick is a below .500 HC without Brady. It's not really a criticism, it's just how things generally work.

And what u aren't getting and I showed when bill did not have Brady for those 15 games he still found a way to go.11-4. Also Bill never said he just needs a qb to manage the game and not make mistakes. PC did. So when u say it back it up. PC can't. And he said it. Keep in mind he could have said if not for Wilson or another qb of his level. But he did not he said specifically Wilson. It's amazing the HC admits it but still you can't expect it. And again Goff us not a franchise QB and yet the rams were good with him.

Yes, I'm aware that Belichick and the Patriots went 11-5 (and missed the playoffs) in 2008 when Brady got hurt in the first game of the season and was then was out for the rest of the year. Despite that 1 season that he was able to do well without Brady, the indisputable fact is that he has a 63-75 record as an NFL Head Coach without Brady.

Bill Belichick with Tom Brady (regular season) 219-64 (.774)

Bill Belichick without Tom Brady (regular season) 63-75 (.457)

Bill Belichick with Tom Brady (playoffs) 30-11 (.732)

Bill Belichick without Tom Brady (playoffs) 1-1 (.500)

Also, I don't know what it is you think I can't "expect". I literally just said in my previous post that I agree that Carroll likely would have been a below .500 Head Coach without Wilson. You know, just like how Belichick is a below .500 Head Coach without Brady.

 

[John63]

Well since u want it how about u do it. I posted how Bill did when Brady did not play due to injury and suspension. I believe it was 11-4. Neither of the QBs were franchise qbs either. Heck one is not even in the NFL anymore. U saw how good the rams were with Goff and he is not a franchise qb. I can go on, but since u want it you should get it.

As you already know, Belichick has a below .500 winning percentage as an NFL Head Coach without Brady, and I'm not sure that McVay qualifies as a highly successful Head Coach since he hasn't won a Super Bowl and the 1 time he made it to the Super Bowl his team scored a whopping 3 points.

But my point, that you are pretending to not get, is that Head Coaches in the NFL generally aren't very successful without a good/great QB, because QB is by far the most important position in football and it's nearly impossible to be consistently successful without a very good one.

So yeah, I agree that Carroll likely would have been a below .500 HC without Wilson. Just like how Belichick is a below .500 HC without Brady. It's not really a criticism, it's just how things generally work.

And what u aren't getting and I showed when bill did not have Brady for those 15 games he still found a way to go.11-4. Also Bill never said he just needs a qb to manage the game and not make mistakes. PC did. So when u say it back it up. PC can't. And he said it. Keep in mind he could have said if not for Wilson or another qb of his level. But he did not he said specifically Wilson. It's amazing the HC admits it but still you can't expect it. And again Goff us not a franchise QB and yet the rams were good with him.

Yes, I'm aware that Belichick and the Patriots went 11-5 (and missed the playoffs) in 2008 when Brady got hurt in the first game of the season and was then was out for the rest of the year. Despite that 1 season that he was able to do well without Brady, the indisputable fact is that he has a 63-75 record as an NFL Head Coach without Brady.

Bill Belichick with Tom Brady (regular season) 219-64 (.774)

Bill Belichick without Tom Brady (regular season) 63-75 (.457)

Bill Belichick with Tom Brady (playoffs) 30-11 (.732)

Bill Belichick without Tom Brady (playoffs) 1-1 (.500)

Also, I don't know what it is you think I can't "expect". I literally just said in my previous post that I agree that Carroll likely would have been a below .500 Head Coach without Wilson. You know, just like how Belichick is a below .500 Head Coach without Brady.

No your trying hard to minimize what PC said by creating a false narrative that all HC would suck without a franchise qb. Problem is that is wrong. Some would but good coaches can adjust and win games. As Bill did when Brady went down. As the Rams did with Goff and many others.

 

[Chapow]

As you already know, Belichick has a below .500 winning percentage as an NFL Head Coach without Brady, and I'm not sure that McVay qualifies as a highly successful Head Coach since he hasn't won a Super Bowl and the 1 time he made it to the Super Bowl his team scored a whopping 3 points.

But my point, that you are pretending to not get, is that Head Coaches in the NFL generally aren't very successful without a good/great QB, because QB is by far the most important position in football and it's nearly impossible to be consistently successful without a very good one.

So yeah, I agree that Carroll likely would have been a below .500 HC without Wilson. Just like how Belichick is a below .500 HC without Brady. It's not really a criticism, it's just how things generally work.

And what u aren't getting and I showed when bill did not have Brady for those 15 games he still found a way to go.11-4. Also Bill never said he just needs a qb to manage the game and not make mistakes. PC did. So when u say it back it up. PC can't. And he said it. Keep in mind he could have said if not for Wilson or another qb of his level. But he did not he said specifically Wilson. It's amazing the HC admits it but still you can't expect it. And again Goff us not a franchise QB and yet the rams were good with him.

Yes, I'm aware that Belichick and the Patriots went 11-5 (and missed the playoffs) in 2008 when Brady got hurt in the first game of the season and was then was out for the rest of the year. Despite that 1 season that he was able to do well without Brady, the indisputable fact is that he has a 63-75 record as an NFL Head Coach without Brady.

Bill Belichick with Tom Brady (regular season) 219-64 (.774)

Bill Belichick without Tom Brady (regular season) 63-75 (.457)

Bill Belichick with Tom Brady (playoffs) 30-11 (.732)

Bill Belichick without Tom Brady (playoffs) 1-1 (.500)

Also, I don't know what it is you think I can't "expect". I literally just said in my previous post that I agree that Carroll likely would have been a below .500 Head Coach without Wilson. You know, just like how Belichick is a below .500 Head Coach without Brady.

No your trying hard to minimize what PC said by creating a false narrative that all HC would suck without a franchise qb. Problem is that is wrong. Some would but good coaches can adjust and win games. As Bill did when Brady went down. As the Rams did with Goff and many others.

Get over yourself. I'm not trying hard to do anything. I'm just posting my opinions on a football forum like everyone else here, and in my opinion it is very difficult for an NFL head coach to be consistently successful without a very good QB.

Do a Google search for something like "most successful nfl head coaches". You'll find tons of results ranking head coaches by all kinds of different metrics. Most wins, highest winning percentage, most playoff appearances, most playoff wins, highest playoff winning percentage, etc. Guess what you won't find on any of those lists? Coaches that never had good QB's. Guess what you'll find a ton of on those lists? Coaches that had very good to great QB's to work with.

You're the one that refuses to acknowledge the indisputable fact that Belichick has a losing record as an NFL head coach without Tom Brady. Which, honestly, is just bizarre at this point.

 

[John63]

And what u aren't getting and I showed when bill did not have Brady for those 15 games he still found a way to go.11-4. Also Bill never said he just needs a qb to manage the game and not make mistakes. PC did. So when u say it back it up. PC can't. And he said it. Keep in mind he could have said if not for Wilson or another qb of his level. But he did not he said specifically Wilson. It's amazing the HC admits it but still you can't expect it. And again Goff us not a franchise QB and yet the rams were good with him.

Yes, I'm aware that Belichick and the Patriots went 11-5 (and missed the playoffs) in 2008 when Brady got hurt in the first game of the season and was then was out for the rest of the year. Despite that 1 season that he was able to do well without Brady, the indisputable fact is that he has a 63-75 record as an NFL Head Coach without Brady.

Bill Belichick with Tom Brady (regular season) 219-64 (.774)

Bill Belichick without Tom Brady (regular season) 63-75 (.457)

Bill Belichick with Tom Brady (playoffs) 30-11 (.732)

Bill Belichick without Tom Brady (playoffs) 1-1 (.500)

Also, I don't know what it is you think I can't "expect". I literally just said in my previous post that I agree that Carroll likely would have been a below .500 Head Coach without Wilson. You know, just like how Belichick is a below .500 Head Coach without Brady.

No your trying hard to minimize what PC said by creating a false narrative that all HC would suck without a franchise qb. Problem is that is wrong. Some would but good coaches can adjust and win games. As Bill did when Brady went down. As the Rams did with Goff and many others.

Get over yourself. I'm not trying hard to do anything. I'm just posting my opinions on a football forum like everyone else here, and in my opinion it is very difficult for an NFL head coach to be consistently successful without a very good QB.

Do a Google search for something like "most successful nfl head coaches". You'll find tons of results ranking head coaches by all kinds of different metrics. Most wins, highest winning percentage, most playoff appearances, most playoff wins, highest playoff winning percentage, etc. Guess what you won't find on any of those lists? Coaches that never had good QB's. Guess what you'll find a ton of on those lists? Coaches that had very good to great QB's to work with.

You're the one that refuses to acknowledge the indisputable fact that Belichick has a losing record as an NFL head coach without Tom Brady. Which, honestly, is just bizarre at this point.

And once again you miss the point while trying hard to pollute the thread. Fact PC said he would not be here without Wilson. Fact coaches have won without top QBs. Fact Bill was able to go 11-4 without Brady using their non franchise backup qbs. Fact PC has not. Thats it. Fyi I am not the one that brought belichick into this u were. That said and I will say this one more time. In Bradys tenure under Belichick he missed 15 games. They went 11-4. In Wilson's time under PC he has missed 2 games we are 0-2. Fact PC had a top defense and run game In 2010 and 2011 and was 7-9. He gets Wilson and he goes 11-5 and a 30 second defensive Break down of the SB. So one coach found a way to win when their starter went down and the other so far has not. 1 had a top run game and defense and had said that what he needed and guess what it did not work. Done over PC said so you want to argue argue with him. He knows Wilson is what kept him winning. This despite some of you saying it was PC.

 

[Chapow]

Yes, I'm aware that Belichick and the Patriots went 11-5 (and missed the playoffs) in 2008 when Brady got hurt in the first game of the season and was then was out for the rest of the year. Despite that 1 season that he was able to do well without Brady, the indisputable fact is that he has a 63-75 record as an NFL Head Coach without Brady.

Bill Belichick with Tom Brady (regular season) 219-64 (.774)

Bill Belichick without Tom Brady (regular season) 63-75 (.457)

Bill Belichick with Tom Brady (playoffs) 30-11 (.732)

Bill Belichick without Tom Brady (playoffs) 1-1 (.500)

Also, I don't know what it is you think I can't "expect". I literally just said in my previous post that I agree that Carroll likely would have been a below .500 Head Coach without Wilson. You know, just like how Belichick is a below .500 Head Coach without Brady.

No your trying hard to minimize what PC said by creating a false narrative that all HC would suck without a franchise qb. Problem is that is wrong. Some would but good coaches can adjust and win games. As Bill did when Brady went down. As the Rams did with Goff and many others.

Get over yourself. I'm not trying hard to do anything. I'm just posting my opinions on a football forum like everyone else here, and in my opinion it is very difficult for an NFL head coach to be consistently successful without a very good QB.

Do a Google search for something like "most successful nfl head coaches". You'll find tons of results ranking head coaches by all kinds of different metrics. Most wins, highest winning percentage, most playoff appearances, most playoff wins, highest playoff winning percentage, etc. Guess what you won't find on any of those lists? Coaches that never had good QB's. Guess what you'll find a ton of on those lists? Coaches that had very good to great QB's to work with.

You're the one that refuses to acknowledge the indisputable fact that Belichick has a losing record as an NFL head coach without Tom Brady. Which, honestly, is just bizarre at this point.

And once again you miss the point while trying hard to pollute the thread. Fact PC said he would not be here without Wilson. Fact coaches have won without top QBs. Fact Bill was able to go 11-4 without Brady using their non franchise backup qbs. Fact PC has not. Thats it. Fyi I am not the one that brought belichick into this u were. That said and I will say this one more time. In Bradys tenure under Belichick he missed 15 games. They went 11-4. In Wilson's time under PC he has missed 2 games we are 0-2. Fact PC had a top defense and run game In 2010 and 2011 and was 7-9. He gets Wilson and he goes 11-5 and a 30 second defensive Break down of the SB. So one coach found a way to win when their starter went down and the other so far has not. 1 had a top run game and defense and had said that what he needed and guess what it did not work. Done over PC said so you want to argue argue with him. He knows Wilson is what kept him winning. This despite some of you saying it was PC.

You are straight up full of shit. I was not the one that brought Belichick into this.

This is my first post in this thread and your response to it,

Carrol likely would have been a .500 or below coach without Wilson.

Without Scott AND Wilson, he probably would have washed out of the NFL.

He better send Wilson flowers every week, because of Wilson - people think he was a good coach.

Now we see Seattle without Wilson playing the Pete Carrol way.

It is garbage.

How about you post a list of all the Head Coaches that were highly successful without a franchise QB?

I am also ready to move on from Pete at this point, but this narrative that Pete deserves absolutely zero credit for any success this team has seen since he's been here is absurd.

Well since u want it how about u do it. I posted how Bill did when Brady did not play due to injury and suspension. I believe it was 11-4. Neither of the QBs were franchise qbs either. Heck one is not even in the NFL anymore. U saw how good the rams were with Goff and he is not a franchise qb. I can go on, but since u want it you should get it.

Yeah, that's right. That was you that brought up Belichick, not me.

You're also full of shit about 2010 and 2011. We did not have a top run game or defense either of those years.

In 2010 we had the 31st ranked rushing offense in the NFL and the 27th ranked defense.

In 2011 we had the 21st ranked rushing offense in the NFL and the 9th ranked defense.

You sure get a lot of "facts" wrong for someone that is so arrogant. It's no wonder you're so disliked by so many here. Trying to have a discussion with you is basically insufferable.

 

[themunn]

Carrol likely would have been a .500 or below coach without Wilson.

Without Scott AND Wilson, he probably would have washed out of the NFL.

He better send Wilson flowers every week, because of Wilson - people think he was a good coach.

Now we see Seattle without Wilson playing the Pete Carrol way.

It is garbage.

Fyi in the NFL as a HC without Wilson, PC is sub 500.

FYI in the NFL without Carroll as head coach, Seattle is sub.500

 

[NCJag79]

Small sample size, and the game has evolved over the past 20 years....but Carroll was 33-31 as a head coach between the Jets (1 season) and Patriots (3 seasons) before coming back to the NFL. He had a .563 winning percentage, a division title, and 2 playoff appearances with New England in 3 years. Drew Bledsoe was the QB, and was only a Pro Bowler (if that means anything) in 1997.

Carrol likely would have been a .500 or below coach without Wilson.

Without Scott AND Wilson, he probably would have washed out of the NFL.

He better send Wilson flowers every week, because of Wilson - people think he was a good coach.

Now we see Seattle without Wilson playing the Pete Carrol way.

It is garbage.

How about you post a list of all the Head Coaches that were highly successful without a franchise QB?

I am also ready to move on from Pete at this point, but this narrative that Pete deserves absolutely zero credit for any success this team has seen since he's been here is absurd.

Well since u want it how about u do it. I posted how Bill did when Brady did not play due to injury and suspension. I believe it was 11-4. Neither of the QBs were franchise qbs either. Heck one is not even in the NFL anymore. U saw how good the rams were with Goff and he is not a franchise qb. I can go on, but since u want it you should get it.

As you already know, Belichick has a below .500 winning percentage as an NFL Head Coach without Brady, and I'm not sure that McVay qualifies as a highly successful Head Coach since he hasn't won a Super Bowl and the 1 time he made it to the Super Bowl his team scored a whopping 3 points.

But my point, that you are pretending to not get, is that Head Coaches in the NFL generally aren't very successful without a good/great QB, because QB is by far the most important position in football and it's nearly impossible to be consistently successful without a very good one.

So yeah, I agree that Carroll likely would have been a below .500 HC without Wilson. Just like how Belichick is a below .500 HC without Brady. It's not really a criticism, it's just how things generally work.

 

[NCJag79]

You mentioned 'metrics', and by any metric...the ONLY coach I could ever find that had moderate/continued success in the NFL with no 'franchise' QB to speak of was Brian Billick in Baltimore. What he DID have was a generational defense built to win a LOT of 14-7 games. In 9 years, he went 80-64 (.556 win percentage), went 5-3 in the playoffs, had a Super Bowl win, 4 playoff appearances, 5 winning seasons, and an 8-8 season. Who did the Ravens trot out at QB?

Vinny Testeverde (29 starts), Jim Harbaugh (12 starts), Tony Banks (18 starts), Elvis Grbac (14 starts), Anthony Wright (14 starts), Jeff Blake (10 starts), Kyle Boller (42 starts), and Steve McNair (22 starts). This isn't counting Eric Zeier, Stoney Case, Scott Mitchell, Trent Dilfer (SUPER BOWL BABY!!), Randall Cunningham, Chris Redman, and Troy Smith who all started more than one game as well. 15 QBs started a game for Billick in 9 years. That's insane. But he still managed to hold it together and helm them to a winning record, SB title, and respectability.

Carrol likely would have been a .500 or below coach without Wilson.

Without Scott AND Wilson, he probably would have washed out of the NFL.

He better send Wilson flowers every week, because of Wilson - people think he was a good coach.

Now we see Seattle without Wilson playing the Pete Carrol way.

It is garbage.

How about you post a list of all the Head Coaches that were highly successful without a franchise QB?

I am also ready to move on from Pete at this point, but this narrative that Pete deserves absolutely zero credit for any success this team has seen since he's been here is absurd.

Well since u want it how about u do it. I posted how Bill did when Brady did not play due to injury and suspension. I believe it was 11-4. Neither of the QBs were franchise qbs either. Heck one is not even in the NFL anymore. U saw how good the rams were with Goff and he is not a franchise qb. I can go on, but since u want it you should get it.

As you already know, Belichick has a below .500 winning percentage as an NFL Head Coach without Brady, and I'm not sure that McVay qualifies as a highly successful Head Coach since he hasn't won a Super Bowl and the 1 time he made it to the Super Bowl his team scored a whopping 3 points.

But my point, that you are pretending to not get, is that Head Coaches in the NFL generally aren't very successful without a good/great QB, because QB is by far the most important position in football and it's nearly impossible to be consistently successful without a very good one.

So yeah, I agree that Carroll likely would have been a below .500 HC without Wilson. Just like how Belichick is a below .500 HC without Brady. It's not really a criticism, it's just how things generally work.

 

[HomerJHawk]

It takes a team firing on all cylinders to sustain a good run. When one of those cylinders ain't firing, you replace it.

 

[John63]

No your trying hard to minimize what PC said by creating a false narrative that all HC would suck without a franchise qb. Problem is that is wrong. Some would but good coaches can adjust and win games. As Bill did when Brady went down. As the Rams did with Goff and many others.

Get over yourself. I'm not trying hard to do anything. I'm just posting my opinions on a football forum like everyone else here, and in my opinion it is very difficult for an NFL head coach to be consistently successful without a very good QB.

Do a Google search for something like "most successful nfl head coaches". You'll find tons of results ranking head coaches by all kinds of different metrics. Most wins, highest winning percentage, most playoff appearances, most playoff wins, highest playoff winning percentage, etc. Guess what you won't find on any of those lists? Coaches that never had good QB's. Guess what you'll find a ton of on those lists? Coaches that had very good to great QB's to work with.

You're the one that refuses to acknowledge the indisputable fact that Belichick has a losing record as an NFL head coach without Tom Brady. Which, honestly, is just bizarre at this point.

And once again you miss the point while trying hard to pollute the thread. Fact PC said he would not be here without Wilson. Fact coaches have won without top QBs. Fact Bill was able to go 11-4 without Brady using their non franchise backup qbs. Fact PC has not. Thats it. Fyi I am not the one that brought belichick into this u were. That said and I will say this one more time. In Bradys tenure under Belichick he missed 15 games. They went 11-4. In Wilson's time under PC he has missed 2 games we are 0-2. Fact PC had a top defense and run game In 2010 and 2011 and was 7-9. He gets Wilson and he goes 11-5 and a 30 second defensive Break down of the SB. So one coach found a way to win when their starter went down and the other so far has not. 1 had a top run game and defense and had said that what he needed and guess what it did not work. Done over PC said so you want to argue argue with him. He knows Wilson is what kept him winning. This despite some of you saying it was PC.

You are straight up full of $h!t. I was not the one that brought Belichick into this.

This is my first post in this thread and your response to it,

Carrol likely would have been a .500 or below coach without Wilson.

Without Scott AND Wilson, he probably would have washed out of the NFL.

He better send Wilson flowers every week, because of Wilson - people think he was a good coach.

Now we see Seattle without Wilson playing the Pete Carrol way.

It is garbage.

How about you post a list of all the Head Coaches that were highly successful without a franchise QB?

I am also ready to move on from Pete at this point, but this narrative that Pete deserves absolutely zero credit for any success this team has seen since he's been here is absurd.

Well since u want it how about u do it. I posted how Bill did when Brady did not play due to injury and suspension. I believe it was 11-4. Neither of the QBs were franchise qbs either. Heck one is not even in the NFL anymore. U saw how good the rams were with Goff and he is not a franchise qb. I can go on, but since u want it you should get it.

Yeah, that's right. That was you that brought up Belichick, not me.

You're also full of $h!t about 2010 and 2011. We did not have a top run game or defense either of those years.

In 2010 we had the 31st ranked rushing offense in the NFL and the 27th ranked defense.

In 2011 we had the 21st ranked rushing offense in the NFL and the 9th ranked defense.

You sure get a lot of "facts" wrong for someone that is so arrogant. It's no wonder you're so disliked by so many here. Trying to have a discussion with you is basically insufferable.

Yeah when in doubt call names and say facts are wrong but it's okay that's why they created the foe button. good bye

 

[John63]

Carrol likely would have been a .500 or below coach without Wilson.

Without Scott AND Wilson, he probably would have washed out of the NFL.

He better send Wilson flowers every week, because of Wilson - people think he was a good coach.

Now we see Seattle without Wilson playing the Pete Carrol way.

It is garbage.

Fyi in the NFL as a HC without Wilson, PC is sub 500.

FYI in the NFL without Carroll as head coach, Seattle is sub.500

okay so what that means as PC said is without Wilson he would not still be here. thanks