Talk:Bill Belichick: Difference between revisions

	Bill Belichick was a Sports and recreation good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 13, 2015 Good article nominee Not listed

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Sports and Games This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the sports and games work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Tennessee Low‑importance Bill Belichick is within the scope of WikiProject Tennessee, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Tennessee and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member. [Project Articles] • [Project Page] • [Project Talk] • [Assessment] • [Template Usage]TennesseeWikipedia:WikiProject TennesseeTemplate:WikiProject TennesseeTennessee Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. National Football League: Jets / Patriots Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Football League, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the NFL on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Football LeagueWikipedia:WikiProject National Football LeagueTemplate:WikiProject National Football LeagueNational Football League Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Jets task force. This article is supported by the Patriots task force. Indianapolis Colts (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indianapolis Colts, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Indianapolis ColtsWikipedia:WikiProject Indianapolis ColtsTemplate:WikiProject Indianapolis ColtsIndianapolis Colts United States: Massachusetts / Boston / Cape Cod and the Islands Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts - Boston (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts - Cape Cod and the Islands (assessed as Mid-importance). College football Bottom‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football Bottom This article has been rated as Bottom-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bill Belicheck should be mentioned as the original member of the Original GangSTARS of the Patriots along with mini Original gangSTAR's Brady and Moss. Tiny Original GangSTAR Welker may warrant mentioning too... Pure Dope Bangers!!!

Pats1 deleted my south park contribution as part of a larger edit on whether the investigation of spygate is ongoing even though the reference is independent of the truth of allegations (and they are true). The deletion was reverted and re-deleted it. I don't see any talk on this page about it so I'm going to assume I'm in the right here. South Park is an emmy-winning show with millions of viewers (3.1 million viewers per episode according to Fortune) and that's notable. A news feed search for south park and Belichick will show that all sorts of sports news has covered the South Park reference. There is no reason that the episode that devoted almost half of its time to lampooning Belichick should be left out of this article. mroconnell (talk) 07:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already included a mention in the media and entertainment section. I do agree it is worthy of inclusion here.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 07:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think we should integrate those trivia bullets into the article, specifically as a response to spygate? Since wikipedia policy is generally to integrate trivia and bulleted lists into paragraph text, that is what I propose we do. This provides clear, contextual information on why the reference is important as opposed to just laundry listing it alongside some celebrity cameos.

mroconnell (talk) 07:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider it a trivia section despite that being the former name. It is all media/entertainment related and therefore worthy of its own section. It needs no alteration in my eyes.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 07:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comment on Pat's talkpage and I see your point. It definitely belongs in a trivia section on the Belichick page since the illegal sideline taping should be restricted to Belichick and the investigation. Media responses should be in the media section. I don't like that it's bullet points and wikipedia style guidelines differ with you on whether those need alterations, but at least you've convinced me that it belongs in a media/entertainment section. Thanks for clearing it up for me mroconnell (talk) 07:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Also would have to agree. Without naming names, SOME editors aggressively protect their teams. Undoing edits while claiming original research and things of that nature. The NFL pages seem to be very POV sometimes (not as bad as the Supply Side Economics articles though) - don't let that discourage you from keeping the article accurate, and keep up the good work!!

-Smack —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smackalot (talk • contribs) 00:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am almost certain that Wikipedia policy is not totally against lists, and that it says some information is better presented as such. Given that all this stuff is loosely related by the fact it's entertainment related, but specifically it's about different things, I think a list works fine.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 08:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2007-2008 Patriots - I heard that they had an undefesed season or something like that. Shouldn't this be added to Bellichek's bio? GO PATS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.192.112 (talk) 09:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a registered user, but someone needs to delete Jim Bates from the list of Bill Belichick's "coaching tree." Jim Bates is no longer the defensive coordinator for the Denver Broncos. And I'd say to change the entry to Bill Belicheat, but I guess that's less likely, eh?

The criticisms section is non-Wiki, as it has to do with conjecture and hearsay. Wikipedia is NOT A NEWS MEDIA SOURCE. It is an encyclopedia of facts (we can verify he won Super Bowl XXXVIII as the Patriots' coach in 2001, we can NOT verify with any certainty whether he has Aspergers', or whether he fosters egocentric showmanship, etc. It's NOT Wiki policy. An encyclopedic entry must have a neutral point of view. To report on a meeting in which he "appears" standoff-ish is not relevant to an encyclopedic article. Stop re-adding conjecture until we get a ruling. WStewart07 13:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Ted Johson story is neither conjecture nor hearsay - it is a major news story, and based on the recent rise of injuries and depression occurring later in life as a result of football-related injuries, it needs to be included.--Tjcthree 15:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about this quote from Ted Johnson recently? ""I don't want to place blame anywhere," Johnson said. "It probably could all go around, to a little bit of everybody. I can't sit here and honestly say that I think Bill Belichick knew what second-impact syndrome was, and if he put me in there that could potentially happen. I can't sit there and say that. I have to believe he didn't do what he did to intentionally try to hurt me physically." Link: http://www.boston.com/sports/articles/2007/02/10/johnson_backs_off_belichick/ Conjecture? Hearsay? WStewart07 02:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then shouldn't that quote be added to the article, instead of just not mentioning any part it? it's a major story, not something arbitrary like blowing off a post-game handshake.

~This is something that we as Wiki-people must understand. Just because something makes news as a story, doesn't mean that it's encyclopedic. The Ted Johnson piece is "He Said" vs "He Said," and unverifiable. It made news because it was alleged. However, it was a weak allegation with no proof. If you were to have your own Wiki article entry, and I added that it is alleged you vandalized the Belichick entry (I'm not saying you are), does that make the allegation factual, or worthy of note on your Wiki? Libel is a very serious trap to dodge, Fuzzy Zoeller's recent lawsuit against Wikipedia and the anonymous user who vandalized his entry only demonstrates that danger. WStewart07 23:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's amazing how anything that can be construed as negative has been removed from this page ... the criticisms of his post game behavior, his involvement in a messy divorce case and even the Ted Johnson story which as pointed out above may have been ignorance on his part, not malice. All those things are well documented in the mainstream press and were cited for this page ... yet all were removed under the 'nothing negative can be posted here' rules. I am a Pat's fan and love what Belichick has done for the team, but there should be some balance here, Belichick is a human being and as such has faults as well as admirable qualities. Check the Wikipedia bios of any other person in the news and you will find the good and bad. For instance, check Tony La Russa's page. Tony LaRussda's page has a section about his recent DWI. If that page was maintained as this one is, it would not be allowed. I think this page has been taken over by Belicheck fans who will not tolerate anything negative ... thats my two cents. (65.213.77.129 20:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

-NEW- That's the problem. Anything negative which can be considered unfounded is against Wiki policy. It's also illegal and prosecutable (Fuzzy Zoeller anyone). Belichick certainly has an individual personality and is not without faults; I agree. The problem is verifiability. As an entry in an encyclopedia, it is better to focus on Bill Belichick's career statistics from a quantitative standpoint. Criticisms on his attitude are opinion. Everyone can have an opinion on something, whether founded or not. But let me make this clear. While Belichick's personality and attitude are debatable, whether his coaching style has led to serious injury is unverifiable, I am NOT against keeping verifiable criticisms off the board. The recent issue regarding spying on defensive signals can surely be added, not because we know for sure whether Belichick was aware of it or not (I'm sure he was) but because the league will make a ruling affecting his team for it (loss of draft picks). WStewart07 14:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belicheck's tenure in Cleveland was a disaster and not just because of the ownership and the move. Belicheck's initial personnel decisions were to bring many washed up NY Giant player he could sign, such as RB Joe Morris, rather than rely on young productive players such as Leroy Hoard and later, Keenan McArdell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanksummers (talk • contribs) 04:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am attempting to include a "controversy" section that somebody doesn't like and is deleting. I have confined this section to citing verifiable sources that simply bring forth criticisms of Belichick. He is a controversial figure...there is no denying that. I am simply summarizing the incidents that allegedly constitute this controversy. This is not me opining, it is simply a necessary part of an article on Bill Belichick, because for better or for worse, he has been at the center of some controversies. If we include the positive we should include the negative-it's just part of being thorough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Judicator700 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would just say that it was disgraceful to the New England Patriots for Bill Belichick to walk off of the field before the game had ended and that he should have been proud of his team for what they did accomplish, Belichick had nothing to be ashamed of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.209.194 (talk) 04:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, Wikipedia is designed to bring information to the general public. Whether that means informing people of the causes of heart disease or informing them of facts that happened during a large sporting event. Saying his walking off of the field should not be posted here because of its negativeness or because nobody knew what his intensions were is similar to saying that the interceptions that occurred in-game should not be posted because it can count as negative toward the athletes career. Anything negative is naturally over exaggerated, and for someone moderately famous, that condition only worsens. That is the only reason that people are quoting this section as biased. Snugg (talk) 06:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a 'criticism' section doesn't need to be in the article itself. 'Negative' information that is verifiable seems to have been written in pretty well, and are reflective of things which he actually did, which can be verified as fact (spygate, leaving the field early, divorce). At the same time, OPINIONS about his attitude might be better off being noted here on the talk page. As it stands right now, the article seems to be pretty balanced. Smackalot (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The text below entered the article on April 4. I've searched for confirmation of association between Belichick and Asperger's. Additionally, even if it exists, it is framed as speculation, which does not merit inclusion. I think rumor should only be included in articles where the rumor itself is central to the topic.

"Known for being one of the most reserved coaches in NFL history, especially to the press, his focus on the game of football have begun rumors that Belichick may have Asperger's Syndrome." Tobycat 04:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: I gained consensus with the editor who originally inserted this text to delete it.Tobycat 18:31, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, it appears as though some of the criticisms levied against Bill Belichick border on the unnecessary, and unfounded. Also, I contend that these criticisms could contain potentially libelous information. For instance, LaDanian Tomlinson's recent criticism was merely speculative, and probably not legitimate, as he made those comments visually upset after losing. Nor does he have any experience under Belichick to make that claim. Before his claim, there was no history or pattern of behavior in which the Patriots were criticized for being without class, and nor was there ever an accusation that such behavior stems from a team mentality Belichick cultivated. I move that the Tomlinson critique should be removed. WStewart07 18:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Belichick's noted behavior after the AFC Championship game somewhat reinforces Tomlinson's claims. UNSIGNED!!

By the way, if anonymous people are so ardent towards reporting the critiques levied against Belichick, will anyone report the latest news in which LaDanian Tomlinson admitted he erred in calling out Belichick for Hobbs' celebration after the game? Anyone? I am going to do us all a favor and eliminate the section. NOWHERE, and I mean, NOWHERE, in any other coach's Wikipedia article does there exist a section DEDICATED to criticisms. I am letting my statement stand along with the below statement for a week, then removing the Criticisms section altogether. It is probably maintained by some envious rabid anti-fan anyway. WStewart07 05:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further, why do we even need a section on criticisms? I trust that similar sections are being written for ever NFL head coach? This should be a biography, not an anti-Belichick column or blog. Quoting barbs from Kornheiser and Tomlinson adds nothing to the biography. All of this nonsense should be removed unless every coach's bio is made to conform. 64.146.116.58

When one individual/columnist/reporter makes a criticism, then yes it probably doesn't merit adding to this site. However in regards to Belichick's behaviors: shoving the photographer, snubbing other coaches / players post game when he loses, and said criticism is made in all the local papers (Boston Herald, Patriot Ledger, Boston Globe) as well as in national media (ESPN and other syndicated columnists) then IMHO, it merits posting here. The fact that he is named in a pending divorce case is fact, not supposition. There are many wikipedia pages with paragraphs such as 'critics of this individual note this and that ...' Noting that an individual has been criticized by others does not imply that the writer or the site agrees with the criticism, but merely notes that it has been done.

I'm certain that his family's original Croatian name has some sort of mark over the Cs. This Google search sure makes it look like it's Beličič, so I'm going to go ahead and change it. (UPDATE: I actually missed the distinction in his father's name, but apparently with three Is it's most often Biličić. ARRRRGH! My guess would be that latter one, since it appears to be a much more common Croatian surname. But I'm going to leave in my first edit for the moment.) Cheers, PhilipR 00:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Croatia; I'll go with that unless someone can correct me definitively. - PhilipR 18:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

čić is at the end. If it is čič it is Slovenian as they don't have ć. Just is it: Biličić or Beličić according to here [Allthings BELICHICK ] it is Bilicic which in Croatian is Biličić. 124.189.85.146 (talk) 07:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"It said that Belichick got a contract extension in January 2006 but just recently they're saying that his contract expires this year, and that's when i saw that they extended it here. I noticed there was no source and i googled it, and I even checked the New England homepage and they don't have anything about it there. On the NE Patriots homepage it has articles dating back from the last decade so I'm sure it's not because the article was old. I'm pretty sure it's because it never happend. He never got a contract extension."

I don't know who wrote the above, but two things should be said:

• The Krafts have stated that they will not discuss the details of Belichick's contract with the media.
• Dan Pires (a Patriots beat reporter) and Len Pasquarelli of ESPN have reported that Belichick is under contract for 2007. Samer 06:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

where he played center/tight end, alongside men such as his best friend, Alan Poon.

This statement was added, but there is no reason given for mentioning him. The fact that he is Belichick's friend is not, in and of itself, enough to justify including that information. [By comparison, Ernie Adams, another friend from Belichick's student days, is not yet mentioned, even though Adams currently works with Belichick.] Samer 07:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing the controversy over his after-game demeanor, on January 21, 2007, after losing the AFC Championship Game in Indianapolis to the Colts, Belichick seemingly snubbed exchanging post-game remarks with Peyton Manning, who simply patted him on his chest and moved on. Additionally, in a postgame interview with Solomon Wilcots from CBS, as well as at the post-game press conference, Belichick was noticeably terse and short with his answers. This no doubt only adds to the growing opinion that Belichick is ungracious, both in victory and defeat.10stone5 16:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I simply don't see the point of this paragraph, in addition to this material not being sourced - 10stone5

• Source has been added

• The source here is still not relevant. The youtube video doesn't actually verify anything contained in that paragraph. This paragraph still is an unsubstantiated opinion. - 10stone5

• I still haven't seen any improvement in sourcing. The youtube reference is just an opinion, not a validated reference. Without this type of referral, I can't see the relevance in this paragraph - so I am removing this paragraph. - 10stone5

There are several references now. And how is the youtube reference an opinion? You see him look at Manning and brush past him - that's on the screen. I understand being fair, but it's clearly visible. - tjcthree

It's your opinion that he appears ungracious in the youtube video. There are no guidelines for proper "gracious" behavior. WStewart07 20:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Al Groh was a position coach under Belichick in Cleveland, so he is part of both Parcel's and Belichick's trees

Belichick doesn't consider himself part of Parcel's tree, and considers his father to be his greatest mentor

The WhiteKongMan WhiteKongMan 02:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belichick doesn't consider himself part of Parcells' coaching tree, but he was Parcells' assistant coach/defensive coordinator for almost 15 seasons....sorry, that counts as being in Parcells' coaching tree. 21:21, 07 August 2007

Wasn't John Madden younger than Belichick, when it came to couching. Therefore I believe the youngest coach of Browns may suffice but not of any team

Jim Schwartz is now the head coach of the Detroit Lions and should be reflected in entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewind (talk • contribs) 20:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed a mention of Mike Vrabel from the coaching tree. Coaching trees only contain people that coached above or under other coaches, and not former players of a coach. Vrabel only played under Belichick. Shrekles (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The main article recap at right says that he was Head Coach of the Patriots from 91-95 when it was the Browns.--12.28.101.34 (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the team name goes to the coaching position underneath. Pats1 ^T/C 17:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see it now. It doesn't seem like this is the standard way it is done on other articles (Romeo Crennel, Brian Billick, Tony Dungy, Mike Shanahan). Looks like the other way is clean and easy to follow. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 02:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This way isn't much different. It consolidates the the way the others are done, so all the tiles the coach had with one team are in one section of sorts. Pats1 ^T/C 02:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This way is sloppy. Either list organizations with respective dates (eg: New England: 91-95,20-p), or dates with respective organizations (91-95: New England, 20-p: New England). The list lacks consistency, especially when he jumps from pats to jets and back to pats. Either list by dates, or by organizations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.219.72 (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, I thought it was saying he coached the Patriots '91 to '95. The team name is tabbed the same as the position next to the year, seems to indicate the team name is also listed under the same year.--155.33.65.131 (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree that this format is confusing. I've modified it to match the examples Mufka gave above. If someone really believes the old format was better, I guess they can change it back, but this seems to be more consistent with the other coaches' articles.Zerempil (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that... I agree that it's better this way. Merveilleux (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically for BSD987 - Just so that we can have a "meeting of the minds" here, the Pats have already, as of this evening, attained the "perfect season" that they were shooting for. Their win against the NY Giants closes the regular season for this team at 16 and 0. The playoffs are considered "post-season". Also, the "two other teams" entry that you made has no source. This is contrary to what is being reported by SI, the NFL, and CNN. If you are referencing PRE-Superbowl era records, then there is only ONE other team that has had undefeated seasons, and that's the Chicago Bears, in 1934 and 1942. (I looked. [1]) Edit Centric (talk) 07:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 1948 Cleveland Browns of the then All-America Football Conference went 14-0 in the regular season, and defeated the Buffalo Bills in the AAFC Championship game to cap a season record of 15-0. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.71.17 (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um if i may say so, Belichick and his new god damn red sweatshirt screwed us over. nuff said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.62.232 (talk) 03:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the section about illegal sideline videotaping, information about Spygate is deliberately being withheld. Namely, the investigation by Senator Specter. It should at least be reported, as it is not opinion, but simply a factual series of events. Withholding information compromises an article's neutrality as much as including information does, and so this section shall be flagged until the issue is resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Judicator700 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Jets' Bill Belichick, filling in for Bill Parcells, engineers a brilliant game plan and pilots the AFC to a 23-10 victory. Belichick, wearing a floral, Hawaiian-style hoodie at the postgame news conference, denies any knowledge of a report by the Honolulu Herald that his staff secretly filmed closed NFC practices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.13.10.26 (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the Specter information has been added. I think the tag should be removed now - the article seems balanced as a whole, and the spygate incident seems pretty inclusive, not to mention there is an entire article devoted especially to Spygate. Thoughts? Smackalot (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the spygate scandal is noteworthy and deserves a mention in the top paragraph. If anyone disagrees please discuss here.Helixweb (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Easily. I will definitely support this.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 22:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hey, isn't bill belichick's playoff record now 15-4; someone can change that right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.33.80 (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Belichick article should include some mention of his iconic grey hoodie. It is very well known throughout New England, and I think I even read that the Patriots Proshop sells more Belichick hoodies than Tom Brady Jerseys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.162.107.21 (talk) 04:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As of this date, 'hoodie' is not found in the article. -- AstroU (talk) 06:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Here are some good sources that can be used for someone to work his hoodie into his article.

- https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1668165-cutting-off-the-sleeves-the-history-of-bill-belichick-and-his-hoodie - https://sports.yahoo.com/news/bill-belichick-s-stiff-arm-of-nfl-s-camouflage-campaign-an-unlikely-coincidence-013058598.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paco2718 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

just a small error i saw. the oilers-bills game is referenced as 35-3 at halftime. it was 28-3 at half with houston scoring early in the third quarter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.248.6.64 (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al Groh should be listed as an assistant coach of Belichick's who became a head coach in the NFL. Groh spent a year coaching the Jets in 2000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.156.136.6 (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under this heading the writing is rambling and nonsensical. For starters, there is no division between seasons. There's just a sentence such as, "The Patriots again went 14-2." It sounds like somebody started out wanting to document each season in detail but got tired of doing so shortly after Super Bowl with the Rams. Jaylectricity (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, if I get bored maybe I'll insert phrases such as, "In the 2002 season," and so on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaylectricity (talk • contribs) 01:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence in this section incorrectly states "On January 22nd, 2012 the Patriots won the AFC Championship game when career Baltimore Ravens kicker, Billy Cundiff missed a routine 32-yard field goal attempt, sending New England to their fifth Super Bowl under Belichick.". That statement is not factually correct. Yes, the kicker missed the routine field goal but it would have only tied the game to sent it into overtime with no guarantee for either team. The Patriots were ahead and the only way that Baltimore could won the game outright was to score a touchdown and Baltimore's Flaco failed to achieve that. So, the Patriots won outright and didn't win just because the opponent failed to score. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbroer (talk • contribs) 01:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the time or energy to fix it - but the dates are all messed up. The dates in the article saying when he was the head coach of cleveland do not agree with the stuff on the right. What gives? 24.29.19.67 (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's your monitor, most likely. Do the bottom years line up with the bottom title? Pats1 ^T/C 16:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — DeeJayK (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same problem here, the dates and coaching positions don't line up. I edited it to fix it (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Belichick&oldid=619208923), but someone else reverted it because after my edit, apparently the dates and coaching positions didn't line up for them. I'm guessing the problem may be that the text aligns differently for different browsers, maybe even different OS'es? I'm using Firefox 31 on Linux Mint 17 Xfce, and in the current article (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Belichick&oldid=619331917) the dates do not line up correctly for me. N3bulous (talk) 02:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Above there appeared to be consensus that it should be mentioned in the lead but now it doesn't appear there? Enigma^msg 05:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't. -- AstroU (talk) 06:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC) -- (It's mentioned lower in the article.)[reply]

This is a late reply, but you can't just ignore a consensus because you don't like the result. Prinsgezinde (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was in 2008 (when spygate was in the news). The complaint was five years later. The response was another two years later yet. This current update to the section is a full decade after the original discussion. I think you'd need to start a new discussion. My guess at this time is you wouldn't get consensus that spygate defines Belichick's career & life enough to merit a spot in the lede. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is he a "Croatian American" as the article claims? His father was born in the U.S. He was born in the U.S. Isn't it a bit disingenuous to say that he is Croatian American? How about just "he has Croatian ancestry"? Otherwise it makes it sound like he emigrated from Croatia himself.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.174.64 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 7 September 2013‎

No one reads these things. I'm changing it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.174.64 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 7 September 2013‎

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This coach is frequently referred to as Belicheat for his 2007 convicted scandal and later scandals. Belicheat (talk) 01:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Belicheat: As stated in the template, you need to suggest a complete and specific change. What reliable sources do you have for that, and what exactly do you want the addition to say?331dot (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  05:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calidum added a lede rewrite tag a few weeks ago. What needs to be rewritten about the lede? It's not the best lede I've ever seen, but far from the worst. It seems to do a reasonable job of highlighting the most important things from the article. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 16:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it. The tag clearly requests the placer to start a discussion on the talk page to express their concerns. Since that wasn't done, and since we cannot read minds, there is no way to know how to make fixes he is requesting. If anyone has fixes they need, they can either do it themselves or tell us here on the talk page. --Jayron32 18:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bill Belichick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120324190324/http://www.hometownannapolis.com/news/spo/2008/02/03-33/Annapolis-XOXO-Bill-Belichick.html?ne=1 to http://www.hometownannapolis.com/news/spo/2008/02/03-33/Annapolis-XOXO-Bill-Belichick.html?ne=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Archived link works, original link is probably permanently dead. How do we replace the original link with just the archive version? Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bill Belichick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090104212114/http://falcon.heraldinteractive.com:80/track/inside_track/view.bg?articleid=1071126&format=&page=3&listingType=trak to http://falcon.heraldinteractive.com/track/inside_track/view.bg?articleid=1071126&format=&page=3&listingType=trak#articleFull

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Failed. The wayback machine does not have a copy of the article, the Boston Herald replaced it with a notice that articles are taken down within 7 days. Anyone know how to find a good copy? I'll revert the change back to the dead link. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bill Belichick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120323203559/http://www.andover.edu/Alumni/HallofHonor/Pages/PastRecipients.aspx to http://www.andover.edu/Alumni/HallofHonor/Pages/PastRecipients.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070602084910/http://www.patriots.com/team/index.cfm?ac=coachbio&bio=506 to http://www.patriots.com/team/index.cfm?ac=coachbio&bio=506
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120929012115/http://sports.yahoo.com:80/news/belichick-fined-50k-shanahan-25k-174534755--nfl.html to https://sports.yahoo.com/news/belichick-fined-50k-shanahan-25k-174534755--nfl.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ohiostatebuckeyes.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=89292&SPID=10649&ATCLID=204972981&DB_OEM_ID=17300

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There has recently been some vandalism by 50.133.146.198 that need to be reviewed. I undid them, but my revert was inserted into the queue also. The vandalism appears to be mixing up numbers, no sources or cites were provided. 50.133.146.198 has been warned.L3X1 (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers changed look to reflect the latest victory by the Patriots. I backed out your reversion, the result looks correct to me - is there anything specific you think is wrong? Tarl N. (discuss) 22:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just the fact that the integers remained, but were swapped around. If they are indeed correct, thank you, and sorry. :) L3X1 (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that kind of statement is subjective, sort of like asking what the greatest band is ever, but there are several articles citing Bill as possibly the most successful coach of all time in the NFL. Is there a way we can add this sort of statement to the lead?

                   "making Belichick arguably the most successful coach of all time". 

We might be able to add that line after the part where it says his Super Bowl appearances. Zdawg1029 (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If we want to say that he is the most successful, it should be done in a way that doesn't seem like it's our opinion; "many sportswriters/coaches/commentators/whoever consider him the most successful coach of all time" or something like that. 331dot (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There has been some back-and-forth on the coaching tree section. The way it is right now is indeed undue, takes far too much room in the article. But the relationships between coaches, showing influence of one coach over another, I believe is relevant. Possibly this section could be re-arranged to be an actual tree (for example, something like Julio-Claudian family tree might be worthwhile). Tarl N. (discuss) 19:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that as an improvement over the way it is currently. I don't think that the information should be removed outright, mainly for a couple reasons; his relationships and the people he has influenced are notable and it helps people find associated articles. I don't feel any of the policies/guidelines cited by the person seeking the change are applicable here. 331dot (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I agree with @Sabbatino: that something needs to be done here. Possibly one way to deal with that is to move that information to a separate article with only a brief summary here. But it needs to be discussed. It appears similar information was present in other head coach articles and was removed there too, and there is an allusion that a discussion took place elsewhere we haven't seen. Let's get a pointer to that discussion. Tarl N. (discuss) 20:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I said to discuss it at WT:NFL as nobody will see it here. I also gave my reasons for the deletion and I don't think it's relevant as it takes too much space and is just a trivial list, which has no sources or any other encyclopedic value. We don't need such lists as it isn't a statistical database. All that information in prose would be perfect, but not this current nonsense. So far this is the only article where someone objected to such removal. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I wouldn't mind a separate article either, I simply think the information should not just be wiped out. In my initial revert I had asked if a consensus had been established elsewhere in my edit summary; if there is, I would be interested in seeing it. 331dot (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The people Belichick(and every head coach) has mentored/influenced is not a collection of statistics or cruft. It goes to his role in the league and sport. It shouldn't just be wiped out, even if it is conveyed differently. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw, and have objected, to the similar removal at Sean Payton. There is certainly no consensus for removing entirely this relevant, significant information from coaching articles, nor should there be. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing relevant or significant about these lists apart from being useless trivia. – Sabbatino (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't useless trivia that coaches have had influence on the league through personnel that they have worked with and mentored that have gone on to bigger or just different things. 331dot (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sabbatino:I said to discuss it at WT:NFL as nobody will see it here.. For the record, this is the first I've seen mention of WT:NFL as the venue for this. I don't see a discussion there about removing such material. You had indicated you were responding to a complaint, I can't find it there. Can you point to the complaint you were responding to and the discussion in question? Tarl N. (discuss) 02:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should really read before making up stuff, which I didn't say. Matters like this are ALWAYS discussed at WT:NFL. Moreover, I didn't say anything about any discussion there. You do know what and advice is? I'm not surprised since you have ZERO messages at the project and don't know how it works. – Sabbatino (talk) 06:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you think I'm making up. You commented that you had said to discuss this at WT:NFL, and I commented that I hadn't seen where you said that. I then went there, and didn't find anything about this subject. Earlier you had said: I'm not the one objecting to it, implying that your removal of content was the result of a complaint elsewhere. I'm simply trying to find out where the discussions you are referring to took place, so I can understand what went on. Tarl N. (discuss) 06:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But you did made up or most likely you read it in the wrong way and you assume that I said what I didn't. Look at article's history and you'll see this advice. I already notified the WP:NFL of this discussion. Hopefully someone from there will come here. – Sabbatino (talk) 06:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to WP:AGF, but your hostility is making that difficult. *WHAT* do think I made up? As best I can tell, my quotes from you are precise cut-and-pastes. Regardless, can you please answer the question of where the discussions in question took place, so we can figure out what you are talking about? Tarl N. (discuss) 07:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. I'm not hostile. 2. I didn't say there was a discussion. It's you who made that up. 3. I specifically stated a few times (or advised) that these discussions are usually made at WikiProject National Football League. My wording was clear – "And discuss on the project's talk page since you don't agree with this". So I don't really understand why you make up stuff? – Sabbatino (talk) 09:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sabbatino: O.k. - I think I'm better understanding events. In reply to my comment WP:BRD. You were bold and deleted, were reverted, now let's discuss. Discussion occurs before bold edit is taken., you re-reverted, replying I'm not the one objecting to it. I understood that to mean your actions were the result of a complaint, and as a result, in some way WP:BRD didn't apply. If there had not been a discussion, I'm at a loss for what "I'm not the one objecting" referred to. Later, in this discussion, you said I said to discuss it at WT:NFL , which I understood to mean you had written somewhere to discuss it at WT:NFL, so I brought to your attention that we hadn't seen it, so presumably you were mixing up where you had said that earlier. If you hadn't written that somewhere, I'm at a loss to what "I said" is supposed to mean. As for the discussion on the work genealogy, I'll discuss that on WT:NFL later today, now that a conversation has started there. Tarl N. (discuss) 11:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. I'm not the one objecting to it – you were objecting to my edit. I could not possibly object to myself, can I? 2. I said to discuss it at WT:NFL – it's clear what I wanted to say with this, which meant that NFL-related discussions are started at WP:NFL and not on one individual's article since this affects more articles. But enough of off topic and just admit that you completely misunderstood. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion affects more than just this article, so it should really be taking place at WT:NFL. However, since Sabbatino's request to take the discussion there has been ignored, I will contribute here instead. I think the section about Belichick's coaching tree is excessive; a long list of coaches/assistant coaches/executives who happen to have worked with/under Belichick has no encyclopaedic value unless someone can provide a source that Belichick had a considerable influence on their career during time together. – PeeJay 10:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PeeJay2K3: No one has ignored anything; the onus is on the person making the change to defend it and find the appropriate venue to do so. Googling "Bill Belichick influence" brings up many results, at least some of which discuss his influence on personnel and the sport. Listing the people he has hired or permitted to remain(he has the powers of general manager) shows this influence. Having his professional associations also makes it easy to find associated articles. 331dot (talk) 11:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean. There's no evidence that Belichick's coaching/management style has had any impact on the way most of the people mentioned in that sprawling list conduct their coaching/management - at least, no evidence included in this article. At the minute, this is just a list of people who have worked with him - not encyclopaedic at all. – PeeJay 12:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your views- though different people hold value in different things. I would just like to see some accommodation made, even if that means conveying this information differently as someone suggested above. Thanks 331dot (talk) 12:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conveying the info differently is definitely the way forward; however, I think a full list of every coach/executive who has worked under Belichick and went on to work elsewhere in football is overkill and tantamount to listcruft. Unless you can demonstrate that Belichick's methods were either adopted or explicitly ignored by those coaches/execs, what's the point in mentioning them, other than to say "these guys also worked with him"? – PeeJay 12:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I'm sure the info exists to go in depth on each of these guys; however, including that info in this article would put undue weight on Belichick's coaching tree with respect to his overall biography; hence, I would suggest that it would be entirely possible to do a proper Coaching tree of Bill Belichick article. – PeeJay 12:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I"ve responded at WT:NFL now that a discussion is under way there. Tarl N. (discuss) 12:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bill Belichick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110925061717/http://www.patriots.com/team/coaches/bill-belichick/5c49726a-15ad-4e5a-9246-a30417694eb0 to http://www.patriots.com/team/coaches/bill-belichick/5c49726a-15ad-4e5a-9246-a30417694eb0
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://sports.yahoo.com/news/belichick-fined-50k-shanahan-25k-174534755--nfl.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121021091850/http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/09/16/%E2%80%9Ca-football-life-bill-belichick%E2%80%9D-most-watched-documentary-ever-on-nfl-network/103978/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/09/16/%E2%80%9Ca-football-life-bill-belichick%E2%80%9D-most-watched-documentary-ever-on-nfl-network/103978/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We've had a couple of edit changing the text to say that Belichick now ranks 3rd in all-time wins. I suspect it's accurate, since 237 regular season through 2016 plus 26 post-season plus 8 so far this season adds up to 271, one more than Landry. But I haven't seen a cite for that. Anyone got an article stating the change in rankings? Tarl N. (discuss) 05:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Found a cite. I'll fix the article with the reference. Tarl N. (discuss) 18:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But 237 + 10 (up to this week) stills puts him fourth in REGULAR SEASON wins. 90.201.81.116 (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Under coaching records on the sidebar Belichick is mentioned as: "Most NFL championships: 6 (tied)"

However he outright owns the NFL championships record, as the tied 6 is with Paul Brown who has 3 AAFC titles and 3 NFL titles. The closest to Bill's 6 NFL titles is therefore Lombardi who has 5 NFL titles (including 2 Super Bowls pre-merger) and George Halas who has 5 titles (all pre-AFL) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HitchikersPie (talk • contribs) 12:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend adding Belichick's history as head coach of the Jets in 1997 and 2000 into the infobox. This history is notable. It resulted in the Jets giving up four draft picks in 1997, and then the Patriots giving up five draft picks in 2000. This history is often as being significant in understanding Belichick's history. Davidwbaker (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidwbaker:, infoboxes are not comprehensive and do not have to contain every part of a career. The article text covers the period well. It's confusing to squeeze into the infobox and he never actually performed any coaching activities as the Jet's head coach. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that infoboxes are not meant to be a complete list, just a summary. He did not perform any actions as Jets head coach on either occasion, and what his Jets HC status did lead to is best summarized in the article. I'm also fairly sure Belichick doesn't put Jets head coach on his resume. 331dot (talk) 03:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conciseness of infobox was my reason for reverting the change; that information belongs in the body of the article, not in the infoboxes. Tarl N. (discuss) 04:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See above Antidoaks (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the recent addition of Lambeau and Halas's names to the lead section, it seems a level of unecessary detail to add to the lead. The lead is supposed to be a summary, and not exhaustive of every trivial detail. The lead section, and especially the lead paragraph, isn't needed to cover this amount of detail. The information is already covered in the body of the article and as such, doesn't need to be in the lead. Mentioning his general place in the pantheon of winning coaches, in a general sense, is all that is needed for the lead. The lead doesn't need to reproduce the full text of every record and accomplishment he has had. --Jayron32 19:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I second these comments. 331dot (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense to me, especially since the immediately preceding sentence in the lead contains the basic information "winning a record six Super Bowls." Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’d like to know why a quote from a three year old source when Bill had only 4 titles is better than a more recent one when he has six. Belichick was said to be one of only five head coaches with four or more titles back when he only had four because that was his place in history. Now he’s only one of three coaches with six titles which seems a lot more relevant and updated. I understand why they both shouldn’t be on there but I think the more recent quote is more accurate. The Patriots shouldn’t be considered one of six teams with four or more Super Bowl wins when they’re tied for first. Bmorrow151 (talk) 05:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The point Jayron32 is making is that the names of other coaches do not need to be in the lead; only a general statement needs to be there, with the specifics in the article itself(citations do not need to be in the lead either). 331dot (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That’s fine if you want me to take the names out. It’s just whenever me and my friends see a statement like one of two or one of three we always wonder who the other person is and I don’t see how a quick mention for convenience is an issue. But I’ll just state Belichick is one of three head coaches that have won six NFL titles and take out the other outdated statement. Bmorrow151 (talk) 07:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s just I’ve had numerous articles where I’ve had to comb the internet to find out who a person is tied with. I just like articles that make things more convenient for the reader and doesn’t make them search through everything to find it since many readers only read the lead. Bmorrow151 (talk) 07:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but if every reader puts the information they want to find easily in the lead, the lead ceases to be a lead and just duplicates the article. Wikipedia wants readers to be able to find information, but it still wants to be an encyclopedia with articles structured appropriately. 331dot (talk) 07:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then are we in agreement that I can update the quote to show Bills recent accomplishments? I can phrase it that Belichick is one of only three head coaches who have won six NFL titles or Belichick is tied with two other head coaches for the most titles in NFL history with six. We can also just not have either in the lead since it’s already stated he has the most Super Bowls. I just don’t see the need for a quote that was made three years ago when he had two less titles. Bmorrow151 (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article states it is 5, but it is six. Rick Forzano is absent, but he was the coach of the Lions in 1976 before resigning after starting the season 1-3. Tommy Hudspeth took over for Forzano. See here for more info.108.21.182.146 (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the coaches listed in the article, there are three more coaches that should be added: 1) Rod Dowhower was the Browns QB coach in 1994 under Belichick and then became the Vanderbilt Commodores head coach from 1995-1996. Two, Woody Widenhofer was the Browns LB coach in 1993-1994 under Belichick, and was later the Vanderbilt Commodores head coach from 1997-2001. Third, Rick Venturi, was a defensive coach under Belichick in 1994-1995 and was the interim HC for the New Orleans Saints in 1996 (8 games). All, should be added to Belichick's coaching tree (certainly Dowhower and Widenhofer, and I would add Venturi, too).108.21.182.146 (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Jim Bates was a defensive coach under Belichick on the Browns from 1991-1993 (DL coach) and also 1995 (DB coach), and was later an interim head coach for the Miami Dolphins in 2004 (7 games). He should also be added.108.21.182.146 (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change the playoff record in the profile box to 31-12 69.125.96.254 (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Updated playoff-record per PFR.Tarl N. (discuss) 20:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Five assistant coaches under Belichick have become NCAA head coaches:

• Nick Saban- Michigan State (1995-1999), LSU (2000-2004), Alabama (2007-present)
• Pat Hill- Fresno State (1997-2011)
• Kirk Ferentz- Iowa (1999-present)
• Charlie Weis- Notre Dame (2005-2009), Kansas (2012-2014)
• Bill O'Brien- Penn State (2012-2013) Shayter82 (talk) 21:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

there’s a line in the section about his first season with the patriots that says “To date, this is his only losing season with the Patriots”. someone oughta update that now that the Pats lost their 9th game in 2020. Sebnewell88 (talk) 14:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sebnewell88 I will remove the line; you are welcome to make edits yourself, if you wish. 331dot (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Update 2020 record to 7-9 50.105.81.191 (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: The source is still at 6-9. TimSmit (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New England Patriots (1996)

After his dismissal by the Cleveland Browns,

should be his dismissal by Baltimore or Art Modell. He was fired after Baltimore was created — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.21.183 (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under coaching records on the sidebar Belichick is mentioned as: "Most NFL championships: 6 (tied)"

However he outright owns the NFL championships record, as the tied 6 is with Paul Brown who has 3 AAFC titles and 3 NFL titles. The closest to Bill's 6 NFL titles is therefore Lombardi who has 5 NFL titles (including 2 Super Bowls pre-merger) and George Halas who has 5 titles (all pre-AFL).

Therefore it should read: "Most NFL Championships: 6"

With the '(tied)' removed HitchikersPie (talk) 12:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Sounds reasonable. Sam Sailor 16:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Bill Belichick was not fired by the Browns he was fired after the team moved in 1995 to Baltimore. Art Modell was no longer the owner of the Cleveland Browns he was in Baltimore as Ravens owner when Belichick was fired. 71.29.168.144 (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 01:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Under Belichick’s coaching career, I’m looking at the sub-subsection titled, “Starting Brady over Bledsoe, ‘Patriot Way’, first three Super Bowl wins: 2001-2004.”

But two of those three topics are never mentioned at all in the content that follows. There’s no mention of the “Patriot Way” (whatever that is). And the discussion of the Patriots’ 2001 season goes by so quickly that we’re already at the Tuck Rule game (January 2002) by the end of the first sentence. There is no mention of Drew Bledsoe, his Week 2 injury, or his being replaced by Brady. At least non in this section. (This “sub-sub-section”, technically.)

Sounds like a bit of false advertising to me. The title of that mini-section is being a bit of a snake oil salesman, since it promised three topics but only delivered one of them.

Anyway, someone needs to either shorten the title of this sub-subsection (it could just be “First three Super Bowl wins: 2001-04”) or add the promised topics to the content of said sub-subsection.

If we’re doing the latter, then we need to see discussion of Drew Bledsoe’s injury, the ensuing quarterback controversy, and the so-called “Patriot Way”. If it’s in the title, then it needs to be in the content too.

Thegoldenconciseencyclopediaofmammals (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If Bill Belichick isn't the actual general manager, de jure and all, should "de facto general manager" be included in the article? Big boi00 (talk) 12:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it adds to his legacy having 8 rings, but generally people don't think of defensive coordinator rings when thinking of nfl coaches. Is it really worthy mentioning on intro page paragraph that he has 8? Maybe just stick wirh saying 6? Thoughts anybody? 2600:1702:5D4B:6800:F732:A83:EEF3:1829 (talk) 05:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple media outlets reporting.

[2] [3]

Should be inserted FergusArgyll (talk) 12:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see someone did already. I added the sources. Should prob add more sources in a day or two after the press conference FergusArgyll (talk) 12:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

to fix grammar and spelling Eman69998 (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eman69998: Please be more specific about the request you're making. What is the grammar and spelling that you believe is an issue? Hey man im josh (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Changing the Presidential Medal of Freedom section spelling of Bellichik to Belichick near the end of the section. 2603:7080:AD00:4F8E:8C2D:A357:C817:FA52 (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 02:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In an ironic full circle twist, Belichick lost the head coaching job of the newly formed Baltimore Ravens to Ted Marchibroda, the coach Bill first worked for in his initial foray into the NFL. 72.81.254.61 (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting factoid if we can get a source. Would any other editors oppose this being in the article? Red Director (talk) 14:48, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]