Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Blinded by the Lombardis: Patriots Forum' started by jmcc5400, Feb 5, 2017.
Which would be why the great majority of fans take the owner’s side in virtually every player-owner dispute?
People make their choices. Ain’t begrudging nobody that, yeah?
Other than Lane Johnson, you mean?
People, not DrewDog. As in the people that assume they know more about what it’s like to play for the Patriots more than the guy who plays in the NFL and has presumably spoken to his two teammates that played for them.
This probably isn’t the best example but it happens enough around this issue. The Landon Collins comment earlier this year is probably a better example.
On Mike and Wingo, they seemed to agree that all Patriots players, except Brady, are miserable. They mentioned that "former players" have said they were miserable. They didn't identify these former players, but they spoke as if Pat player misery was common knowledge.
This would be like a person from Apple saying everyone at Microsoft is miserable. How the fuck does he know? He doesn't play for the Pats.
I can totally imagine that if you feel stifled, not free to speak your mind, and have to do everything the "Patriots Way", whatever that is, that it might not be the most fun environment. Moreover, that damned hill and the meticulous way they make you prepare - combined with no grace given for things like showing up late for practice in a snowstorm - could make playing for BB quite a grind.
But my god the payoff has to be off the charts - If, as they all say is the case, that winning is the goal, NOBODY wins more than Belichick and the Patriots. Nobody. It's not even remotely close. You play for the Patriots and you KNOW you're gonna win a lot of football games and year in, year out, have the best chance at winning a championship.
If being free on the mic is your thing, then playing for the Patriots isn't likely your preferred spot. But if winning is your thing, there's simply no better place to be than New England.
There are tons of ex Pats players all over the local and national media and none of them have ever said anything about being miserable, and all seem to proud of their time with the team. I'm sure there have been more than a handful of players over the years who hated the experience, but it's ridiculous to say they all hate it. I have no doubt it is demanding and different from most other teams, it's a stretch to go from there to every player except for Brady is miserable.
Wasn't there something in DYJ II about the players getting excited about running hills late in the season? If the defense makes one goddamn stop a week ago the stories that are being written are completely different.
If they were all that miserable, why do some free agents stay? Why do any come? Why do some come back (Chung, Blount)? Mike and Wingo being the source of anything is laughable.
Reggie Wayne didn't have any fun as a Pat.
Then again, maybe BB prefers players who would rather "be miserable and win multiple Super Bowls".
Hate to say his, but the thread title only woks when the Pats win.
If winning were easy, everyone would be doing it. People laugh it off, but "any given Sunday" is a thing for a reason - it is hard to win in the NFL. And to win consistently is harder yet. There are other teams that win, there are other methods and ways to win. It would be silly to say that the Patriots way of winning doesn't work, but it does involve hard work and painstaking attention to detail. To some players, that might be no fun, to others hard work in the pursuit of success is fine. BB seems to filter for the talented players that are willing to work and sacrifice in an effort to win, as long as he can find sufficient numbers of them at the same time, he'll continue to be successful - and others on the outside will continue to find things to critique.
People are calling this game the worst of BBs career - and he came perhaps one or two third down plays/stops from winning it. I think I like his approach.
Is winning the Goal though?
I mean yea...and no. Maybe the Goal but cant be the expectation.
At some point "this being a business" you really end up caring about Money (IE you and yours)..........then everything else to varying degrees. Maybe winning is a distant second. Maybe keeping your health. Maybe being able to be the Black Unicorn persona is second on your list of important things. Once you attain winning everything else might be gravy.
I think guys have to realize "hey the other team gets payed to play too, so we cant win every game/year". (I mean not even the Pats pull that off LOL). So the disappointment with losing has to be less then say HS or College when your Alabama playing Vandy and you simply KNOW your supposed to win. The Pros may be closer to being Vandy and knowing you shouldn't win.
So winning the SB once is "attaining something you probably shouldn't". Once done maybe you resign yourself to the fact that all you can really hope for is to enjoy your time. You certainly shouldn't count on winning (or being in a position to win) every year.
Unless your the Pats. That may be the thing that makes them most unique. Like the 50s yankees or 60 Celts. Losing simply shouldnt happen and is not expected in any situation or tolerated. That may be the biggest grind teams like that really face. I can certainly see winning a SB or 2, Making alot of money, attaining some statistical and reputational success, and saying now I will be happy just enjoying the ride.
Being uber hyper maniacally competitive can be draining. And may be one reason why so few teams repeat.
Combined Super Bowl Rings on that show = 0
I wouldn't worry to much about the garbage that comes from any Golic when it comes to the Pats. Jealousy is a very ugly thing.
The Pats don't let the defensive secondary pass around a bag of cheeseburgers on the field during practice, so, yeah, the Pats are less fun.
Talk about a “hot” take. He didn’t even link to it on his own Twitter page though, which tells you he knows what’s coming.
It's like they are trying to wish it into existence.
Eventually they will get it right. Just need to keep in the game.
You have to have your head in a fucking sand dune to think we’re not in the twilight. The calendar alone dictates this. Pierce is a very sensible guy, and with JG’s departure no QB of the future is on the roster, it is a timely piece. JFC.
If they draft another JG and McD sticks around as BB's successor who knows.
Of course they are. Every reporter, or anyone in the media who's a friend of any reporters who have ever schleped their way to Foxboro on a Wednesday morning to ask Belichick a question and been treated like something he scraped off the bottom of his shoe have been waiting for the day that this team sucks and they can knock him down a peg. As a Patriots fan I could give a shit less how he treats the media, but media people sure do.
IF ... and that would be another, successor but separate dynasty if a dynasty at all ...
This is why all the Gronk stuff, if there is anything to it, is very unfortunate. They really have to draft a QB this year if there is one they like. They have 7 picks, I think, counting the compensatory, and the cap space is limited. And they have more than a few needs.
Brady is coming off an MVP caliber season and there is a draft coming up in April. There doesn't need to be a successor on the roster in Feb. Also, no one has any idea how long BB plans to continue to coach, so I'd say it's premature.
He treats reporters exactly how they should be treated - you ask a nonsense question, you get snark. You ask a real question, you get a real answer.
Either this year or next year, probably.
Also I don't think people really think the 1994 Niners with Seifert and Young were part of a separate dynasty by YMMV
Not disagreeing with you. I'd probably have as much contempt for their nonsense and agenda driven bullshit myself. I'm just saying that other media people see him as being a dick unnecessarily to them and their friends, and it comes out in their coverage. And if they ever have a truly bad season under Belichick, watch out, they'll all look to get their shots it.
This is mostly true, but not 100%. He shits on Mike Reiss for poor questions all the time but Reiss doesn't bitch and moan about it
He might be one of the few guys with thick skin. I gotta think there's more than a few guys that drive home muttering to themselves that he's a asshole and can't wait to knock him down a peg. Or go to the bar with the other media guys later and rip him for being an asshole to them. Especially the ones that made the 4 hour round trip from Bristol, CT.
Of course. There is zero doubt. Zero.
I mean, no shit? I will be dead within 70 years, too. And Apple and Amazon won't dominate their markets forever, either.
I like Pierce, but I don't see why he bothered to write this article. Who thinks there's another 15 years of unprecedented success to come?
I have no problem whatsoever with how Bill treats the media. To the contrary, it and their reaction to the same amuses me to no end. And I believe that less is almost always more and that it’s better to not risk giving opponents information that could be useful in some way.
But it’s not at all fair to say that Bill answers good questions if you ask them. Sure, he is particularly disdainful of poorly conceived questions. But if I had a dollar for each really good question that he dodged or treated as poorly asked....
PS: Pierce added absolutely nothing to the discussion. Every bit of what he wrote was already known and has been discussed numerous times already. He does turn a phrase well but there was no new substance or perspective there.
That article is rich, creamy nonsense. Belichick and Scar are back, McDaniels declined an NFL head coach job to come back, Brady and Gronk are as close to 100% as they get, with the reigning MVP, they just came off an AFC title... and the "clock is ticking down"?
Pierce leads with: "there is at least one more Super Bowl appearance in this crew, perhaps even two". Then jumps to say, all is not well in Foxborough because "Stories began to emerge that all was not well between Belichick and the Kraft family, and between Brady and his departed backup, Jimmy Garoppolo", and the whole TB12 / Guerrero thing is "shady", therefore there was "the unmistakable sound of a window closing".
He then spends 500 words saying Belichick is still amazing without Brady because Cassell in 2008 (true but a red herring), offers that the manner in which they won the AFCCG this year "was much closer than it should’ve been" (has he no appreciation for drama, or respect for opponents?), and that Belichick is rumored by friends to be retiring in 2-3 years. Goes on and on about "they got less than full value for Garoppolo" and that Alex Guerrero is a sign of the apocalypse, and then says that because Belichick benched Malcolm Butler for the SB and didn't explain why, "the ineffable twilight of the dynasty deepened."
Finally he wades into the notion of "Pats fans suck / are entitled", that we're paranoid due to Deflategate (fair), and that local sports radio is a bunch of haters who are turning on the team (showing he must have never listened to it the previous decades... and wait, didn't he just slam Patriots fans himself?). And concludes by saying that the Pats are nevertheless favorites to win the SB next year, and that for the rest of the NFL nation, they "can’t wait for the worst to come. They will probably get to drink their fill of schadenfreude. But not yet."
He zigged and zagged between an argument that the Pats are done, and that the Pats are still invincible, so many times I have whiplash. Fucking great, Pierce. Why did you just waste my time?
One thing is for sure: if/when the dynasty ends, the rest of the NFL and fans of other teams will be happy and revel in it. Briefly. But then they will all miss having such a super-villain.
Is there ever with Pierce? He was this way way back when when he still wrote for the Herald.
Let the guy be a little optimistic on an off season hump day!
There is room for people who can judiciously synthesize lots of other information and tell us a broader narrative. That role has value, and amid the daily grind of (say) a baseball season, it's worth having a Bob Ryan or Joe Posnanski who can give the larger picture, the "story" version, that separates following sports from following random number generators.
However, some of them who try it, and who are good writers, are also intellectual charlatans - Malcolm Gladwell comes to mind as the patron saint of the category. Pierce isn't trying to sell books here, but he does seem to have stepped into waters that he lacks the background to synthesize in a manner that adds value.
They could pull off another Niners situation for a while. Obviously at SOME point it will ALL come crashing back to at least mediocrity, if not worse. But they could be good for a long while. The Steelers have been pretty damn good for a while with multiple QBs (O'Donnell, Kordell, Ben) and coaches
It’s actually a serious point. There are probably people in their senior year in college who think this is normal, or at least replicable.
Put simply, it’s a three-legged stool. An enlightened owner. A GOAT QB. A GOAT HC/GM.
Take away one, and we’re not talking about what we’re talking about.
An enlightened owner is necessary but far from sufficient. At most he gets you what the Rooneys have provided for close to 50 years — which is very damn good but not this.
You can put odds on replacing a GOAT QB with another, and a GOAT HC/GM with another.
Which is what is necessary in a League mercilessly committed to parity. And this is conjunctive — “and” not “or.”
EDIT. And although Pierce is far from an asshole — much less a BOSTON media asshole, its own species, especially behind the microphone — I agree the article is fluff. Pierce did not do the subject justice. Most of what he points to are symptoms, not causes. Given the time, many of us could have done a much better job.
OTOH, Bill could have been the nicest and most cordial interview subject over the past 18 years. Such behavior would earn him jack from guys like Shank and Borges and others the minute he makes a football decision that doesn't work out on the field for whatever reason, or if the team should endure a 4 game losing streak and miss the playoffs as a result. The media would still be all over him and still looking for signs of discord between Belichick and Brady, Belichick and Kraft, Belichick and Jastremski, etc.
Bill likely knows this. So he's decided he's got nothing to lose by calling out reporters for asking dumb questions that he has no intention of answering.
Dude, I hate to break this to you, but you only have two minutes to live.
But you can reset the clock by taking a breath.
Volin has explicitly stated that Belichick has joked with him about questions he asked the next day.
As great as the Patriots have been over the last 18 year....
Can someone tell me what have the Bills, Jets and Dolphins done right over that time?
What is the ratio of Pats dominance to xXxX incompetence?
Actually both the Jets and the Dolphins have played the Pats tough at times during the Brady/BB era. It's the Bills who haven't at all.
Going into the 2017-18 season, the Pats' winning % within the division was .776 from 2001-2016. But outside the division it was ... .759.
Against teams that finished above .500, the Pats have a .610 %, highest in the league. Next is Pitt at .528.
Against playoff teams, the Pats % is .... .622.No other team has a winning record against teams that made the playoffs (Pitt and GB are at .483).
So the Pats aren't benefitting from a weak division. The Pats are beating the shit out of everyone.
I mean just look at their playoff win %. By definition those are good teams and they are still winning close to 75%
I think a great story would be to talk about the Patriots right now (whatever the author thinks about their timeline), and the equivalent years (a couple of years before the fall) of the Packers of 65? 66?, Steelers of 78? 49ers of 95 or 96?etc.
It *is* inevitable. But just repeating that its inevitable over and over again is boring and provides only incite, but no insight.
Especially to your point about 20 years olds who know nothing else. A little history might be interesting.
Well I can tell you a bit about the Niners.
They won it all in 1994. They went 13-3 that year with a +209 point differential.
In 1995 they went 11-5, +199, lost divisional
In 1996 they went 12-4, +141, lost divisional, Seifert fired
In 1997 they went 13-3, +110, lost NFCCG, Mooch first year
In 1998 they went 12-4, +151, lost divisional
Then in 1999 they were 2-1 when Young got hurt and never played again.
They never played for a title after 1994 more due to the circumstances of a ridiculously good NFC (1995 Cowboys, 1996-1997 Pack) than due to the dynasty just fading out / ending.
I can read their records too. That doesn't tell me anything. Maybe, with the benefit of hindsight, there were signs in 96. Was the defense getting old? Was the drafting shitty? Just like maybe there are signs today with the Patriots that can put the current team future in some historical context. Maybe there weren't and we can learn nothing and people can just argue about whether the end is nigh, or the end is truly nigh.