"We just have to execute better next game" is probably the most quoted line from Leo players over the same time period.
But they are also fairly common refrains no matter where professional football is played.
If our Leos lose a football game or play poorly in a game, or a particular unit plays poorly in a game, you can be sure that the media hears, from the coaches that it was the players fault. You can also be sure that the players also hear, from the coaches, that it was their fault as as well.
Its never or rarely the 'coaches fault'. Their scheme is superior and if the players had only 'executed' it better they would have won the game or played well.
Players buy into this concept as well. First of all, they can't criticize their coaches anyway. But often, they have been brainwashed into belieiving its their fault only and therefore recite the same old line - "we just have to execute better next game.
Innovation, the scheme, the game plan, the play calling are rarely part of the equation. Football reporters rarely comment on it. Coaches don't touch it, unless its under the umbrella of "the players didn't 'execute' the game plan well enough'.
Football is about execution for sure. Players need to perform at a high level regarding the team's scheme, game plan, and play calls.
But questions about a team's innovation (or lack thereof), its scheme, game planning, or play calls rarely undergo much deep analysis (except on Lionbackers of course
)What if the players execute the team's scheme, game plan, and play calls at a high level and lose? Can't happen? Of course it can and often does.
Why does a game plan work against one team and not the next? Why does a game plan work against one team one week and not work against the same team the next week or next time? It's not always because the players execution levels were different from one game to the next.
Why does a play work so successfully against one team one week and is a disaster the next time those two teams play. Did the execution level suddenly drop off the face of the earth?
When your team has superior talent, you can often win, with the same scheme and same game plan week after week, with minor adjustments. But when you don't have superior talent, that often doesn't work.
Even during the long period of time when there were no salary caps, it was very difficult for pro football teams to have long periods of success. To stay on top, in the salary cap era, with the draft advantaging teams that have performed the most poorly the year before, its even more difficult to stay on top.
Most pro Head Coaches don't last very long. The reason is not only because the salary cap and the draft promote parity. It's not only because Head Coaches burn out. Its also because winning repeatedly is difficult because there is always a new Head Coach who brings in a 'system' or 'scheme' that is ahead of its time, as well as the quality of players to play in that scheme successfully. Therefore, its hard to keep winning. The pressure builds, the Head Coach is fired or retires, or goes back to coaching at the college level, or goes to another team in another city for a 'fresh start'.
There have been many outstanding pro coaches. In the NFL, the names of George Hallas, Vince Lombardi, Tom Landry, Chuck Noll, Don Shula, Bill Walsh, and Bill Belichick come to mind. In the CFL, Eagle Keys, Hugh Campbell, Don Matthews, Dave Ritchie, John Hufnagel, and Wally Buono top my list.
Most successful pro Head Coaches have a 'system' and a 'scheme' that played a very important role in their 'system' during their winning years. But if they remained Head Coaches, it wasn't too long before that 'system' and 'scheme' were no longer a winning formula. Pro football is evolution. 'Adapt or die'. 'Change or get eaten'. 'The 'smart survive' more than the strong survive. That has almost always been the case.
If a pro coach is given outstanding talent and he is a good leader who can get his players to achieve to perform consistenty at a high level, he can be reasonably successful for a long period of time. But over time, innovation will always win over 'execution' unless there is adaption.
Vince Lombardi "when the going gets tough, the tough get going' was never given the credit he deserved for having an innovative scheme during his period of success in Green Bay. His zone blocking scheme and complex passing game were ahead of their time.
The stoic Tom Landry created the umbrella flex defense, was the first to use computers to gain an edge in scouting, preparation and game planning, reintroduced the shotgun formation to pro football, and his offenses presented multiple formations that confused defenses.
Don Shula introduced the 3-4 defense but perhaps his best innovation was a philosophy that moved the NFL from a plug and play philosophy on offence. Shula built his offences with no particular offensive scheme but rather determined his scheme from his players talents.
Chuck Noll had an under-rated intellect that kept him ahead of the game to create his dynasty with the Steelers. Having worked under Gillman and Shula, he brought a lot of football knowledge to the Steelers. When the pro football world was switching to big, tall offensive linemen, Noll went to smaller, quicker guys, offensive linemen who could think on their feet and who could make a trap-block offense go. He wanted his linebackers quick, for pass coverage, which was not the norm. His tackle-pinch defense, which aligned the left tackle, in an almost sideways stance, angling in at the center, while the right tackle played the center straight up was the birth of the 'Steel Curtain'. The Steelers offence was considerd a 'bombs away' offence but it was really an innovative vertical passing offence for its time.
Bill Walsh introduced the West Coast offence to the NFL. Its was an innovative offensive system that still has influence today, although the pure West Coast offence is not utilized any more.
But there has been no pro football coach who has displayed the genius of Bill Behlichick, other than Paul Brown. I consider Belichick the most innovative and brilliant pro football coach ever.
In the CFL, Hugh Campbell created a dynasty in Edmonton. In his six years as head coach of the Eskimos, Campbell had a 70-21 (.755) regular-season record and six Grey Cup appearances, winning five championships in a row from 1978-82. His team was ahead of the curve on both offence and defence for a long period of time.
Don Matthews changed the way defenses played in the CFL. His defences were not only blitz heavy but very innovative. Matthews introduced the hybrid linebacker, the nickel back, zone blitzes and a variety of other defensive innovations.
Dave Ritchie introduced the 3-4 defense, in his stint in Winnipeg and the multi-formational defence, as well as personell packages while the DC with our Leos. He would pass rush 2 to 8 defenders and was the first to really use a lot of personnel packages on defence.
Wally Buono, as HC, introduced Hufnagel's spread offence in Calgary. His philosophy of giving second and third string quarterbacks lots of first team practice reps played an important role in the development of the many successful quarterbacks who played for him.
The CFL continues to be an innovative league in terms of defence - CFL defenses continue to evolve and change, with a variety of personell packages from press man/cover defenses, combinations of man/zone defenses, 3 man rushes with 9 in coverage, and complex blitz strategies.
However, the CFL has mainly been a spread offensive league now for close to 15 seasons. The only major offensive innovations have been Trestmann's marriage of the West Coast offence and the spread, Chapdelain's marriage of the pro offence and the spread, and Hufnagel's innovative blocking scheme for the Calgary run game. Dickenson has brought a lot of new wrinkles this season to the Calgary offence.
With so many good quarterbacks in the CFL, having arrived with a spread offence college background and also being developed in the spread offence system, quarterback passing has never been better.
But CFL quarterbacks continue to get injured at an alarming rate due to the weakness of the spread offence, with its pocket passing, five offensive lineman pass blocking strategy, combined with the number of passing attempts thrown per game.
Defensive game plans for some CFL teams can change dramatically from game to game. CFL offences generally use the same scheme game after game.
But sooner or later, a CFL coach will come in and change the way things have been done. Hufnagel introduced the spread offence in Calgary and they stayed ahead of the curve because of it for a long time. Trestmann's combination West Coast/Spread was very difficult to stop. Chapdelaine got ahead of the curve in 2011 and 2012 at times. Dickenson is introducing a lot of offensive personnel packages in Calgary this season with outstanding results.
One day a Bill Bhilichick style of coach will emerge in the CFL. Dickenson appears to be moving in that direction. When that happens, we'll see a different style of offence from one year to the next, just like Bhilichick has so successfully done in New England. We'll see a radically different offensive schemes from that team from one season to the next season. We'll see a radically different offensive game plan from one game to the next game - beholden to no primary offensive identity.
Innovation will trump 'execution' but both will be very evident. The CFL will be better for it. Games will be more interesting and intriguing. Evolution will happen. Its nature. Its pro football. And no one ever achieved true greatness by being a carbon copy.
We all marvel at how Belichick’s Patriots can dominate one week, say, by running it down a defence’s throat with a recently signed, tossed-around running back (see Jonas Gray and his 38 carries, 200 yards and four TDs in 2014 at Indianapolis) — then win by entirely different means a week later. Namely, by unleashing Brady and the aerial attack for 50, 60 pass attempts.
Whatever necessary, however necessary — beholden to no particular, primary offensive identity
They give you something different to prepare for than you’re ready for, so it takes you a quarter to try to analyze what they’re doing, no matter how familiar you are with them. And so they’ve got an advantage in that regard right off the bat.
Opposing defences never knew what we were going to get - “You have to prepare for a different facet of their offence than you’ve seen before".
Beyond schematic schizophrenia, perhaps the cornerstone of Belichick’s success is how his teams don’t lose before they win. The best coaches of yesteryear all knew this to be true.It's why the offense has changed and changed again during his time here, from the efficient, conservative approach in Tom Brady's early seasons to the give-it-to-Corey Dillon period to the explosive Randy Moss years to the Gronk/Aaron Hernandez two-tight-end approach to ... well, maybe back around again to the approach of a dozen years ago.Discipline and Daring: How Bill Belichick and the New England Patriots Keep Winning No Matter What
We shouldn’t be surprised the New England Patriots’ victory express has screamed along at high speed without Tom Brady.
Depending on whether they win or lose Sunday against Rex Ryan’s visiting Buffalo Bills the Patriots will go 4-0 or 3-1 without their ageless, future Hall of Fame quarterback, whose Deflate-gate suspension ends Monday.
And the praise, indeed, goes to head coach Bill Belichick.
How does he do it? Year after year, roster overhaul after roster overhaul?
That’s worth exploring.
First, consider that entering Sunday the Patriots are 13-5 (.722) since 2001 in games Brady has not played, either due to injury (the last 15 games of 2008) or suspension (this season).
With Brady in that time, the Patriots are only a shade more successful: 172-51 in the regular season (.771), 194-60 overall (.764).
Bills GM Doug Whaley has said the axiom across the NFL is when your starting quarterback is out, you’re happy if you can win half your games with the backup quarterback.
As head coach 6 Super Bowl appearances (including four wins); record-tying 13 division titles; record-tying seven straight division titles (and counting); record-setting 23 playoff wins; and a .669 winning percentage entering 2016, second in NFL history only to George Halas.
Belichick doesn’t think that way.
That’s just one reason his Patriots have set a slew of NFL success records this century: six Super Bowl appearances (including four wins), a record-tying 13 division titles, a record-tying seven straight division titles (and counting), a record-setting 23 playoff wins and a .669 winning percentage, second in NFL history only to George Halas.
Even if what Belichick, his coaches and his players have done so far in 2016 does not rank among his highest achievements, the Patriots again have heads shaking across North America, with people asking, “How does he do it?”
If someone had told us before the season that Jimmy Garoppolo — Brady’s third-year backup with little previous game experience — would rank No. 2 in NFL pass efficiency through Week 3 (on 71% completions, four touchdowns, no interceptions and nearly 500 yards) and also lead the NFL in third-down pass efficiency (a nearly purrfect 153.7), we’d have been wide-eyed surprised.
If that same someone also would have told us the Pats would lose Garoppolo to a shoulder injury before halftime of Game 2, and that raw third-string rookie QB Jacoby Brissett would fill in so ably as to help the Patriots trounce previously unbeaten Houston 27-0 in Week 3, we’d have laughed it off as a joke. Yeah, sure.
But it’s all real.
Even if Ryan’s Bills somehow pull off the upset in Foxboro on Sunday, the Pats’ accomplishments without Brady in September at the very least offered more reminders he’s as good as any head coach in NFL history, period.
“I marvel at the guy,” Gil Brandt, a revered NFL observer since the 1960s and revolutionary talent evaluator for more than three decades with the Dallas Cowboys, said in a phone interview this week.
“Bill’s 64 years old. A lot of people when they’re 64 aren’t that aggressive. They’ll think, well, it worked in 2015 so it should be good enough in 2016. Not him.”
At age 64, Patriots head coach Bill Belichick keeps cranking out victories under circumstances that would cause other coaches to crumble.
We all marvel at how Belichick’s Patriots can dominate one week, say, by running it down a defence’s throat with a recently signed, tossed-around running back (see Jonas Gray and his 38 carries, 200 yards and four TDs in 2014 at Indianapolis) — then win by entirely different means a week later. Namely, by unleashing Brady and the aerial attack for 50, 60 pass attempts.
Whatever necessary, however necessary — beholden to no particular, primary offensive identity.
Bill Polian is the Hall of Fame architect of two dynasties — the Buffalo Bills in the early 1990s, and Indianapolis Colts from 1997 to 2009 behind Peyton Manning.
Polian’s Colts teams annually battled Belichick’s Patriots for AFC supremacy last decade. He and Colts head coaches, principally Tony Dungy and Jim Caldwell, came to understand Belichick’s winning methodology as well as any other NFL club.
In a phone interview on Friday, Polian shared some of those insights.
“The fact that year in and year out they do the best coaching job in the NFL is a fact,” Polian, now an ESPN analyst, said in summation. “They don’t beat themselves. They win very often on special teams. They give you something different to prepare for than you’re ready for, so it takes you a quarter to try to analyze what they’re doing, no matter how familiar you are with them. And so they’ve got an advantage in that regard right off the bat.
“All of those things are to his credit. And this is just a small snapshot.”
Polian said while it’s true Belichick’s offences — no matter who’s at quarterback — can swing wildly from week to week along the run-pass spectrum, to think that’s the only way Pats coaches throw strategic curveballs is to not understand, and not appreciate, the complexity of how they scheme.
“We felt this way in Indianapolis, and Tony (Dungy) is quoted in USA Today as saying it: We always felt we never knew what we were going to get,” Polian said. “You have to prepare for a different facet of their offence than you’ve seen before. Now, when you play against them a lot — as the Bills do, and as we did, because we played them every year — you get to understand what their systems on both side of the ball were all about.
“So you know you’re going to get some portion of it, tailored to that particular week, to the particular personnel that they have, and to the particular personnel that you have. But you don’t know what you’re going to get.”
It might appear that Ryan and his Bills defensive coaches this week are in an especial bind. Sure, it’s great — as Ryan has said all week — that anything is better than having to face Brady at quarterback.
And the fact Belichick has kept it quiet whether Garoppolo is healed enough from his AC joint shoulder sprain to play, or even start, further adds to the mystery, because the Patriots offence morphed into something entirely unfamiliar last week against the Texans, with dual-threat, green-as-unripe-pumpkins Brissett at the helm.
But this week really is no different than any other when you’re facing Belichick’s Patriots, Polian insisted.
“The conventional wisdom of — ‘Oh, it’s difficult because the Bills don’t know what quarterback they’re going to get’ — well, no. It’s difficult ANY time against them.
“And your coaches upstairs have the toughest job of all, because they have to figure out within a couple of series what it is that the Patriots are doing — what facet of the offence, or defence, they’re using.”
As an example, Polian cited that game two years ago when the Patriots ran roughshod at Indianapolis.
“After the first three series, you get the idea that, hey, they’re running it. And they’re not going to stop until we stop them. And the Colts didn’t. They didn’t adjust, and they didn’t stop them. So they got stomped.
“You have to be prepared to adjust, and I presume Rex is, because he’s played them quite a bit.”
Beyond schematic schizophrenia, perhaps the cornerstone of Belichick’s success is how his teams don’t lose before they win. The best coaches of yesteryear all knew this to be true, and Belichick has embraced it as much as any of the legends in all those football books his coaching dad famously collected.
“The thing I think that everybody misses in the media is that Belichick’s teams do not beat themselves,” Polian said. “It is rare when you see them beat themselves. Rare. It’s no coincidence at all.
“They don’t commit a lot of penalties, or turnovers. Their technique, particularly in the defensive backfield, is exquisite. They don’t make mental errors. And when you make errors they take advantage of them, immediately, particularly when Brady is playing.”
How does a coach get his players to reach such levels of reliable precision?
“They practise situations, I’m sure, better than anybody else does,” Polian said. “If you make mental mistakes, you’re not there. You’re let go. And everybody knows it. There is no margin for error in New England for players who do not have a high football IQ. They simply don’t last.
“If you look at some of the players they’ve let go over time, people go, ‘Oh, gee, he was a pretty good player.’ Well no, he wasn’t, because he didn’t fit their system. He probably made too many mental errors. They do not make mental errors. They simply don’t. That’s to his credit, and the credit of his coaching staff.
“Look, they’ve been doing it a long time, they’ve got their system honed to a T. And they know how to select personnel for their particular system.”
On the latter personnel point, Brandt said: “He knows how to go out and plug very specific holes.”
Special teams form another foundational wall of Belichick’s success.
“They find ways to win on special teams and rarely ever make a mistake on special teams,” Polian said. “They have the best-coached special teams, week in and week out, of anybody in the National Football League. They flip field position with their return game, too. They have three capable returners on their squad. That’s not by accident.”
Belichick’s sometimes outside-the-box strategic decisions also serve him well, and sometimes help win games. Brandt cited a few examples of this, including the following gem.
“Once he had the ball fourth down, with a small lead, with seven seconds left,” said Brandt, now an NFL Media columnist, SiriusXM NFL Radio host and still, at age 83, the most connected man in the pre-draft talent-ID process. “Belichick didn’t want to punt. So he tells his quarterback to throw it as high as he can, out of bounds. He does, it lands out of bounds and the clock runs out.
“He knows the rules. He knows football.”
jokryk@postmedia.comLessons From Chuck Noll and Bill Walsh: Why Bill Belichick Won't Allow the Game to Pass Him By
There's no denying it, so I won't even try: Time is passing fast on Bill Belichick's career. It blows my mind that he's been coaching in the NFL since 1975 -- he may be rumpled, but he does not look old enough to have endured this for four decades.
It's funny, I recently went back through some old clips to jog my memory about what I thought of the Belichick hiring in January 2000. Abbreviated version: I dug it, for the discipline and defensive prowess, but I was bummed about giving up the first-round draft pick as compensation to the Jets.
Seems I had my heart set on the Patriots getting a certain running back out of Alabama in the draft that year. Shaun Alexander did have an impressive run in the NFL -- a lot of them, actually, many coming in his ridiculous 1,880-yard, 27-touchdown season in 2005. He's also been out of the league for six seasons now.
Yeah, I think the deal worked out OK for the folks in Foxborough. Belichick has been here awhile, and thank goodness for that. Imagine how history might be different had he decided to remain the HC of the NYJ for more than one day.
I bring this up not to marvel at Belichick's accomplishments, which, in case you are interested, include five Super Bowl trips, three Super Bowl victories (all five games could have gone either way), eight AFC title game appearances (including the last three), 11 playoff appearances, 11 straight 10-win seasons and 13 straight winning seasons.
I bring this up because, during the Patriots' relative struggles this season -- they're 3-2 and tied for first place in the division with Sunday's opponent, the Buffalo Bills -- I have occasionally heard the downright stupidest suggestion anyone who follows this coach and this franchise with any continuity and clarity could possibly make.
Maybe the game is passing Belichick by.
I know, I probably shouldn't even waste bandwidth addressing this pea-brained suggestion, which I've heard in various places (particularly in advance of the shellacking of the Bengals), including in my Friday chat a few weeks ago. But it is such a silly notion, especially five games into a new season, that debunking it is as irresistible as it is easy.
You'd think anyone who follows this team and this man, anyone who has awareness of Belichick's ingrained lifelong passion for football, one his own father still carried with him right up until his death at age 86, would recognize that the complexities of the game will never elude him.
You'd think it would be easy to recognize how steep and prolonged the fall would have to be just for Belichick to land on mediocrity.
You'd think.
Belichick's deep reservoir of knowledge regarding the sport's past and present leads to him seeking further information and intelligence, leads to him still trying to innovate and learn from the innovators. The intellectual curiosity never wanes.
It's why he spent significant time with Chip Kelly at Oregon a couple of years ago. It's why, soon thereafter, you saw the Patriots accelerate the pace and tempo of their offense in a similar way.
It's why he solved and dismantled The Pistol offense after getting burned once by Ronnie Brown and the Dolphins.
It's why he gives genuine consideration to square-wheeled players with an unusual array of skills -- Matthew Slater, Stephen Neal, Tim Tebow, Nate Ebner, and on and on.
It's why the offense has changed and changed again during his time here, from the efficient, conservative approach in Tom Brady's early seasons to the give-it-to-Corey Dillon period to the explosive Randy Moss years to the Gronk/Aaron Hernandez two-tight-end approach to ... well, maybe back around again to the approach of a dozen years ago.
The root of the suggestion comes from two places. Let's start with the less dubious of the duo: history, or perceived history. We've all heard the stats detailing how even the most accomplished coaches struggle as they become men of a certain age. So-and-so and so-and-so had a .421 winning percentage after the age of 62 or whatnot.
That was certainly true of Tom Landry and Don Shula, two stubborn and inflexible men who did not adept their ways as the game shifted around them. They also failed in another crucial area -- surrounding and supplanting the talent on their roster with even more talent. Getting Dan Marino a legit workhorse running back at some point in his career also might have helped Shula win another Super Bowl beyond 1973.
And remember: in their day, pre-free-agency, it was so much easier to maintain success. Good players remained with the team that drafted them until the team that drafted them no longer wanted them.
What Belichick has achieved in the free-agency and salary-cap era, the sustained genuine annual contention, does not get enough recognition. This was supposed to be impossible. The Patriots of this era are the only team, in fact, for which it has been possible.
The name that was cited to me in terms of the game passing by a brilliant coach is Chuck Noll. It's actually a fascinating comparison, but not for the reason you think. This comes from "The Ones Who Hit Hardest,'' Chad Millman and Shawn Coyne's insightful book on the '70s Steelers and what the team meant to the city.
[Noll] always had a plan, an if-then strategy tucked in his back pocket for easy reference. His ideas were never fanciful, never full of dreamy prose; no one would ever make one great and glorious leap to the moon listening to him talk. But they'd know the first step they'd need to take, and the next and the next, until suddenly they were floating among the stars. He could make the most complicated journey seem as simple as a walk to the store, if you followed his rules. And the first lesson was always the same: work hard, work right.
Joe Greene, the Hall of Fame defensive lineman and anchor of the Steeler dynasty, elaborates further in another chapter:
"What made him special was that he was so consistent in terms of his focus and in terms of what was viable and real as far as achieving our ultimate goal of winning the Super Bowl. He was not deterred by anything not . going in our direction. And he didn't jump around from one idea to the next, jumping all over us one day and then the next day telling us everything was great."
Sound like anyone you know? Noll's even-keel -- though he could rage when the moment demanded it, sure -- is something he learned from Paul Brown, who also happens to be a coaching idol of Belichick's.
And by the way, it's a matter of debate whether the game ever actually passed Noll by. The Steelers did regress to mediocrity in his later years, with the departure of Greene and Jack Lambert and Jack Ham and Terry Bradshaw and Lynn Swann and ... well, all of their many great stars leaving enormous unfilled voids on the depth chart. Even the best coaches have got to have the right players, though I'd argue that Belichick had done more with less -- a brilliant co-pilot at quarterback and a revolving cast otherwise -- than any coach in history.
The Steelers' talent-level shriveled in the '80s, which is why Noll won just 10 games once in his final dozen seasons. Still, his greatest coaching job may have come not during one of their four Super Bowl-winning seasons, but in 1989, when he took a team that lost its first two games by a 92-10 score to the second round of the playoffs. It was the first time since 1972 that he won a Coach of the Year award. He retired two seasons later, the progress of the game never having surpassed his wisdom.
The other reason to suggest that the game is passing Belichick by is more suspect -- it's because so many in the media among us want it to be the case that there's a practical race to declare that Belichick has lost his touch. You know the story -- he's often uncooperative and dismissive regarding even the most fundamental of queries, and that leads to resentment that is both understandable and woefully unprofessional.
It's human nature to prefer someone more accommodating and accessible, and thus when there's even a hint at a downturn, there is a barely contained hope that he's finally getting some comeuppance. It's transparent and petty, but it's real.
There's also an odd side-effect to this: Because Belichick doesn't explain himself and help the media and fans grasp the details and nuances of his tactics, it leaves everyone to make semi-educated assumptions that eventually become self-misconstrued as indisputable truths. We all have our theories on why Logan Mankins was traded, for example. None of us really know.
His closed circle allows the cockamamie theories to flourish outside of it, and that's why we savor every morsel of insight we can find. Hell, we're still frequently citing the behind-the-scenes goodies in the "Bill Belichick: A Football Life" documentary as if it all were fresh and new. And that was filmed five seasons ago.
I have never read a better description of how Bill Belichick views the media than this:
Every year you’re going to have a calculated approach taken by a couple writers, especially when you’re doing well, to take the team apart. And they delight in it. They like to see you squirm, they like to see all of us squirm. If they could feel they affected us and we didn’t do well, they have won the war. It’s that simple. I guess we’re fortunate we don’t have more of them. If were in New York City or some place it would be eight or 10 of them doing this.
But every year, the same guy locally, there’s a couple of them, will do anything they can to disrupt us. They can make it black and white, defense versus offense, coaches versus players, owners versus coach. They’ll do it every conceivable way, and they’ll get a formula and a plan and methodically work on it. And they work on it. They really calculate it. These guys are not simple-minded people. They’re very bright guys. Just find a way to deal with this stuff, because it will happen. We’ll have two or three things come up, we don’t even know what they are yet, but he’ll come up with something to try to break us. And nobody’s going to break us. Nobody’s going to take us apart.
Of course there's a catch here, and I'm not referring to the one famously made by Dwight Clark. I'm talking about Dwight Clark's coach. These are not Bill Belichick's words. They are Bill Walsh's, as detailed in a tremendous piece on the legendary Niners coach written by Greg Bedard on theMMQB.com last year.
It should be noted that Walsh retired from coaching the 49ers at age 57, after winning his third Super Bowl in 1988. An innovator until the end -- his writings on coaching are practical scripture in the profession -- he regretted walking away almost immediately after he made the decision, feeling as though he left at least one Super Bowl on the table.
The game never passed by Bill Walsh. He passed by the game.
Forget the noise, and recognize the reality: Bill Belichick, connoisseur and creator of NFL history, isn't about to let either to happen to him.
