Frank Deford insults Bill Belichick

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/frank_deford/09/24/belichick/index.html

I have always enjoyed reading Frank Deford articles. They were intelligent, well written and unique. However, I find this one to be remarkably unfounded. His basic argument: Bill Belichick is a bad coach who is merely a "button pusher" for great players like Tom Brady. He rides the coattails of his players. Deford's reasoning? The Patriots missed the playoffs in 2002 when Brady "struggled" (with 28 TDs, 14 INTs and a 85.7 passer rating, by the way) that season. The rest of his argument? While fairly difficult to discern, it seems is because the Pats lost to the Dolphins last week and sit at a piss poor 2-1 record after their bye week and that Charlie Weis has been a "flop of a head coach" at Notre Dame (after 25-15 record in 3+ seasons) without Brady to push buttons for.

No mention of Belichick's 36-44 record as head coach of the Cleveland Browns head coach (leading up to their move to Baltimore), which would have been his best argument piece and made completely toppling his belief easy enough.

For every Charlie Weis "failure" without Brady, their is a Romeo Crennel failure as a head coach without Belichik really coaching the defense. Crennel was the defensive coordinator for some Patriots defensive that lacked marquee names but always found a way to be stingy and dominant, at times when the Patriots offense was much more conservative and the team relied on stingy defenses for their success. Crennel rode on the coattails of Belichick's defensive mind to a head coaching position in Cleveland.

The Patriots, but namely Belichick, have made a living feasting off of other teams' defensive castoffs (Rodney Harrison and Roman Phifer come to mind) and turning them into low risk, high reward guys that came up in big spots time and again. Belichick has turned scrap heap pickings into a solid defense throughout his time with New England. Not only that, he has been able to draft Pro Bowl talent on the defensive side such as Richard Seymour, Vince Wilfork, Jered Mayo and Ty Warren. It has been his schemes that have made overachievers like Mike Vrabel and Tedy Bruschi into stars. He has made decisions when to pay a guy (Seymour) and when he was a product of the system as much as of their own talent (Lawyer Milloy, Ty Law and Asante Samuel).

He has long been noted for his schemes by many in the game, much more knowledgable than myself, perhaps most known for his derailing of the St Louis Rams' offense in the 2001 Super Bowl. He has made great players look awful, Peyton Manning most notably in a couple of AFC Championship games and he clearly has the respect and heads of his players (evident by Wes Welker's interview here: http://sports.espn.go.com/espnradio/player?context=audio&id=3596502.

This is a weak argument that is simply not true. He mentions two basketball coaches (Auerbach and Jackson) who did have Hall of Fame players for them, but in a sport when 1 player can lead a team, very different from football. He mentions Joe Torre and the Yankees, who's success came when they relied on home grown talent and lost their swagger when they started heavily spending in the free agent market and their payroll skyrocketed over $200 million. Torre's Dodgers now are sitting at 8th in payroll at over $118, far from frugal. Maybe it is time for Deford to retire.