I’d explore how close he really was to starting Brady over Bledsoe at end of training camp.
Brady vs Manning: who’s better
Brady vs Manning: who’s better
It did and it sucked. Probably recency bias but I’m over the “OMG Tyree” stuff. The Giants gave us a run in week 17 and the front d line was really good. Still sucks to not go undefeated, but a three peat has never happened and would have been a great capstone.Uh, '07 broke up something of consequence, too, and the Giants were a 10-6 5 seed.
I missed this, could you expand?His thoughts on the unannounced rule changes put into place right before the second Eagles Super Bowl that caused him to use two challenges he might have otherwise saved, if he was aware and still thought he had a shot at getting either call overturned.
His thoughts on the unannounced rule changes put into place right before the second Eagles Super Bowl that caused him to use two challenges he might have otherwise saved, if he was aware and still thought he had a shot at getting either call overturned.
Are you referring to the Clement and Ertz TDs? Because BB didn't have to challenge either. I've somewhat wiped that game from my memory, did BB challenge other plays in that game?I missed this, could you expand?
I missed this, could you expand?
Covered here.Are you referring to the Clement and Ertz TDs? Because BB didn't have to challenge either. I've somewhat wiped that game from my memory, did BB challenge other plays in that game?
Ok - but your post was 100% wrong. BB didn’t “waste” any challenges because the plays were automatically reviewed because they were TDs. Were the calls wrong? Probably. Did BB waste challenges and therefore timeouts? NO.
Watson was suspended the first 4 games, it was a roster manipulation. You don't need to waste your question there.Was uncertainty around Gronk the main or only reason why he did not upgrade the TE position before last season? Going into the season with the TEs he had, and then cutting Watson before bringing him back, was odd. So the thinking process around that would be appreciated.
And then an honest response to why he did not draft a WR this year would be interesting, too.
They cut him after that. Watson was suspended four games, they kept a roster exemption for the fifth game, then they cut him for Week 6. Then they brought him back for Week 7 and he was basically the starter the rest of the year and Izzo, who had been the starter up until that point, did not play another offensive snap.Watson was suspended the first 4 games, it was a roster manipulation. You don't need to waste your question there.
I stand corrected, I had the order of things mixed up with Watson. No disagreement on how the TE position was handled. I do disagree on WR, for a glimmer at least it looked like they were stocked pretty decently there, then Gordon flamed out and the AB fiasco, etc.They cut him after that. Watson was suspended four games, they kept a roster exemption for the fifth game, then they cut him for Week 6. Then they brought him back for Week 7 and he was basically the starter the rest of the year and Izzo, who had been the starter up until that point, did not play another offensive snap.
I think @Shaky Walton has a totally valid question here. From the outside looking in, it looks like they totally mismanaged TE last year. Since we know Belichick isn't dumb, it would be interesting to understand what he thought was going to happen (did they think Izzo would be good?). And WR was nearly as bad of a mess, with seemingly every move backfiring and making things worse.
I would say it goes beyond being a risk. Risks can sometimes pay off. From the outside looking in, I can't understand how they thought there was even a chance at success there. At least with WR, there were upside flyers like Demaryius Thomas and Kenny Britt the year before, etc. where maybe they could be healthy and recapture some former glory. TE was just a disaster, and they didn't even try to de-emphasize the position by going with more zero TE sets or anything.Anyways, my guess is that once Cook picked NO over NE in free agency — and perhaps because of lingering possibility Gronk could return - BB looked around at the remaining options and cast his lot with LaCosse and Izzo. I’m sure he knew it was a risk (no teams have strengths everywhere), but, no two ways about it, it failed spectacularly. Stepping back, I think the TE shitshow was the product of several years of failure to procure any semblance of depth at the position. Dwayne Allen sucked HARD, and Izzo and LaCosse somehow managed to be worse, and Watson was simply decrepit by 2019.
I could see Bill having essentially backed himself in a corner by 2019 at the position, basically.
Gordon wasn't even reinstated until halfway through the preseason. And at the point where you're counting on him, you're already in trouble. The AB fiasco was a direct consequence of WR being a mess basically since they traded Cooks away. (A move I agreed with, but they also failed to replace him).I stand corrected, I had the order of things mixed up with Watson. No disagreement on how the TE position was handled. I do disagree on WR, for a glimmer at least it looked like they were stocked pretty decently there, then Gordon flamed out and the AB fiasco, etc.
Jeez. He was released after the suspension. And then they brought him back. And if you don't think the TE was a massive WTF last season, I don't know why. A team that had the benefit of one of the best TEs in NFL history the year before and that had used the TE prominently in its offense for years in 2019 featured Izzo, LaCosse and Ben Watson at times. I get that they probably thought Gronk would return but I still would love to know exactly what Bill was thinking around all of it.Watson was suspended the first 4 games, it was a roster manipulation. You don't need to waste your question there.
Cook had verbally agreed to join the Saints a couple days before Gronkowski announced his retirement. The Patriots had to scramble and came in at the last minute(Cook hadn't put pen to paper yet) to try to sign him after Gronk retired, but Cook elected to keep his word with the Saints. Gronk strung out the Pats and cost them a chance to adequately replace him in free agency.I think Bill’s honest replies to many of the personnel questions being posed won’t be as interesting as folks think.
Anyways, my guess is that once Cook picked NO over NE in free agency — and perhaps because of lingering possibility Gronk could return - BB looked around at the remaining options and cast his lot with LaCosse and Izzo. I’m sure he knew it was a risk (no teams have strengths everywhere), but, no two ways about it, it failed spectacularly. Stepping back, I think the TE shitshow was the product of several years of failure to procure any semblance of depth at the position. Dwayne Allen sucked HARD, and Izzo and LaCosse somehow managed to be worse, and Watson was simply decrepit by 2019.
I could see Bill having essentially backed himself in a corner by 2019 at the position, basically.
I think this excuse is incredibly lame. Gronk was about to turn 30, had hinted at retirement before, and had a laundry list of previous injuries that at least mandated improving the depth at TE. Reportedly Belichick had tried to trade Gronk the offseason before. It's unlike Belichick to put all his eggs in one basket and it certainly burned him here.Cook had verbally agreed to join the Saints a couple days before Gronkowski announced his retirement. The Patriots had to scramble and came in at the last minute(Cook hadn't put pen to paper yet) to try to sign him after Gronk retired, but Cook elected to keep his word with the Saints. Gronk strung out the Pats and cost them a chance to adequately replace him in free agency.
Both your point and mine can be true. Belichick for whatever reason did not do a great job developing a TE prospect behind Gronkowski and Gronkowski mulling retirement also prohibited the Patriots from going out and signing or trading for a veteran replacement. They had a $10 million cap hit tied into Gronkowski and were not going to add a 2nd expensive TE like Cook without the cap space freed up by a Gronk retirement so they had to wait on his decision. He's the best ever to play the position so Belichick had no leverage here. Any team in this position would have given him the time he needed. The free agent class of TEs that year stunk beyond Jared Cook, so the odds of getting a good replacement for him were slim anyways(Tyler Eifert, Jesse James, Nick Boyle, and Austin Sefarian-Jenkins who they brought in for about 5 minutes were other options). But, if Gronk had given the team an earlier decision it would have afforded them more time to go after Cook.I think this excuse is incredibly lame. Gronk was about to turn 30, had hinted at retirement before, and had a laundry list of previous injuries that at least mandated improving the depth at TE. Reportedly Belichick had tried to trade Gronk the offseason before. It's unlike Belichick to put all his eggs in one basket and it certainly burned him here.
Agreed re: 2006 but 2013 was just bad luck. You did have Lloyd and Welker leaving, but Hernandez getting arrested was unexpected and happened too late to reinforce things. Gronk was hurt to start the year, came back, then got hurt again. Amendola and Vereen both got hurt Week 1 and missed several weeks. Even without Hernandez the offense was pretty good when they were only down one receiver, but they were down two or three guys too often.The TE position this past year reminds me of the WRs in 2006. In one off season they lost Givens and Branch, for different reasons, and came back with the likes of Reeche Caldwell. They lost to the Colts for a variety of reasons but one of the main ones was the substandard receiving corps. There were another couple of seasons along those lines regarding the WRs in the 2012-2013.
I buy that.You are correct in saying that Belichick did a poor job of drafting and developing TEs in the last few years. Gronk had been breaking down and he should have been ready to replace him with a younger player. However, there was a viable replacement for his receiving abilities in Cook and waiting on Gronk cost them a chance at him.
Develin would have helped the run game (which was also bad, even the first two weeks when Develin played), but he's a zero in the passing game, which was the biggest problem they had all year.I think the other part of the 2019 TE calculus is Develin, who they used in some ways they would otherwise use a TE. His loss exacerbated the lack of a quality TE, and conversely a healthy Develin would I think have had even a bigger role and changed the level of need they had---perhaps bringing the reality of the players they had at TE much closer to the need.
Actually they went after Cook before Gronk retired. One of the reasons Cook chose NO is because Gronk was still in NE.They had a $10 million cap hit tied into Gronkowski and were not going to add a 2nd expensive TE like Cook without the cap space freed up by a Gronk retirement
Cook verbally agreed to sign with the Saints about a week before Gronkowski retired on March 24th, but he did not actually sign with NO until March 26th. The Pats went after him after he had already verbally agreed, but he wouldn't reconsider.Actually they went after Cook before Gronk retired. One of the reasons Cook chose NO is because Gronk was still in NE.
After Gronk's announcement, they tried to Cook to change his mind to no avail.
All correct but the Patriots went after him before Gronk's announcement as well but Cook didn't want to play second fiddle.Cook verbally agreed to sign with the Saints about a week before Gronkowski retired on March 24th, but he did not actually sign with NO until March 26th. The Pats went after him after he had already verbally agreed, but he wouldn't reconsider.
As it relates to Jared Cook, he elected to sign with the New Orleans Saints, despite a strong push by the Patriots. Part of the reason Cook was said to have chosen the Saints over the Patriots was due to a more clear avenue for top billing atop the tight end depth chart. With the Patriots, that wasn't a certainty with Gronkowski still technically in the fold at that time.
Certainly Develin has not shown himself to be a great receiver, though he has played some role over time catching passes. In my mind there's three ways that comes together as part of a puzzle (as I said previously, he certainly was not a full answer).Develin would have helped the run game (which was also bad, even the first two weeks when Develin played), but he's a zero in the passing game, which was the biggest problem they had all year.
#2 is true but any time you line up a player outside who doesn't normally line up outside, you get a man/zone indicator. So Develin isn't really unique in this regard.Certainly Develin has not shown himself to be a great receiver, though he has played some role over time catching passes. In my mind there's three ways that comes together as part of a puzzle (as I said previously, he certainly was not a full answer).
1. As you note, he helps with blocking
2. He can (and has) moved around the formation to help surface defensive keys, a role Gronk also played
3. He was able to catch a pass and would have, even given he's no James White, likely been better at it than who they ran out there while also providing a run/pass scheme option better than their one-dimensional TEs
Certainly wouldn't eliminate the need for a better TE, but also amplifies the impact of the lack of one
since i have 2 more qSomeone had a great comment about Belichick on truth serum in the other thread and it got me thinking.
The situation: You are in possession of a unique piece of Lacrosse memorabilia which Bill Belichick covets. In exchange, you have demanded not money but rather that he answer 5 questions fully and honestly with elaboration, regardless of what they are, including follow-up / clarification questions on each subject. He has agreed, subject to an NDA.
What do you ask him?
I'm still debating my list, but I think the Jimmy trade is on there. Trades he most regrets, or near-misses on the draft, might be as well. Opponents or coaches he had a special trick to bamboozle. Maybe his honest and unvarnished thoughts on Bill Parcells, especially in light of the shenanigans of trying to force Belichick to stay and coach the Jets.
that was the head ref fauit for not called eil in the grasp on that 3rd downUh, '07 broke up something of consequence, too, and the Giants were a 10-6 5 seed.
Patricia gets a bad rap because of how 2017 ended, but the D was quite good 2014-2016, not a whole lot different than it was in 2018 (where winning the SB with a great defensive performance had made people forget how up-and-down that unit was all year).Other questions I would like to ask BB:
Why is the defense so much better without Patricia? Obviously, the play of the secondary has improved. Jones and Jackson are great UFAs. Did you get sick of giving up yardage and playing tough in the red zone? Do you think this blitzing style will eventually be neutralized by offenses?
Why do you not use the hurry-up offense as much as you did in the early 2010s?
Isn't that a question for Josh McD who took over the offense in 2012 after three years of the Bill's (Belichick and O'Brien)?Why do you not use the hurry-up offense as much as you did in the early 2010s?
2012 was peak no-huddle. They have only used it intermittently since.Isn't that a question for Josh McD who took over the offense in 2012 after three years of the Bill's (Belichick and O'Brien)?
I'd ask something similar to this as well. I'm sure that Bill does prioritize having a pass rush but it does seem that he does not prioritize it as much as some other coaches. I think listening to Bill explain his calculus on why he thinks his approach is more conducive to winning games vs someone like a Jim Schwartz whose whole defense seems based on putting speed rushers in a wide 9 and going after the QB would be a fascinating thing. I can imagine some next level football commentary coming out that'd either blow my mind or be some nuanced and technical that it'd melt my brain3) It seems like your philosophy of investing heavily in the front 7 and in particular the DTs and has shifted to investing more in the secondary and scheming up pressure through a multitude of stunts, exotic blitzes, not traditional edge rushers winning 1v1. Why is that the case - is it based on your resources, draft slots, costs, a way to save money and have similar production, a reason I am not thinking of, and/or a combination of a lot of these? To add more context to that, Mike Lombardi mentioned that if you had early picks you build a defense through elite IDLs. Early in your tenure when you picked earlier in the first round you picked Richard Seymour and Ty Warren. Since Malcom Brown you haven't selected any DTs but Vincent Valentine in the top 3 rounds. To continue that theme you only drafted one edge in the top 50, Chandler Jones, HT @Super Nomario who is on his way to the HOF... Warren and Seymour were both pro-bowl caliber types with Seymour also on the way to being a HOFer.