Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo
* - - - - 1 votes

TMQ Thread


609 replies to this topic

#101 Dannyb413

  • 6 posts

Posted 12 January 2010 - 04:02 PM

I can vouch for this, I got to the stadium gates at 12:15 and didnít get into the game until the 10 minute mark in the first quarter. The game was essentially over before hundreds of us even got in.

#102 weeba

  • 1,519 posts

Posted 12 January 2010 - 04:21 PM

QUOTE (Shelterdog @ Jan 12 2010, 03:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The question isn't whether the Pats deserved to be booed. That's a completely subjective question and it depends entirely on what you think of the "ethics of booing."

The question is whether anyone has ever seen anything like this before. I have not that I can recall. Have you?

EDIT: DCMissle - what message do you think this sends the Krafts? If I'm Kraft the business man I'm thinking to myself that maybe I shouldn't care about wins or losses and should focus on having a flashy team and a more media friendly coach because I'm dealing with America's most childish and spoiled sports fans fans who, unlike fans in every other city in America, will turn on the team when its down 14-0 in the first quarter of a home playoff game.


It wasn't the fact that they were down 14-0. It was the fact of HOW they got down 14-0. They came out flat and looked like shit from the get go

#103 dcmissle


  • SoSH Member


  • 13,226 posts

Posted 12 January 2010 - 04:47 PM

QUOTE (Shelterdog @ Jan 12 2010, 03:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
EDIT: DCMissle - what message do you think this sends the Krafts? If I'm Kraft the business man I'm thinking to myself that maybe I shouldn't care about wins or losses and should focus on having a flashy team and a more media friendly coach because I'm dealing with America's most childish and spoiled sports fans fans who, unlike fans in every other city in America, will turn on the team when its down 14-0 in the first quarter of a home playoff game.


If I'm the Krafts, I'm thinking that all of the incredible rewards of the past decade -- including the financial ones -- are attributable first and foremost to having a top-notch operation. Putting aside the debate whether Boston is or is not a "football town", I'm thinking that those rewards could diminish substantially going forward if my operation ceases to be top notch. Then I'm thinking of these things in the larger context of our current recession and whether there is an economic "bubble" in professional sports.

I think this could be helpful because if nothing else Bob Kraft understands business. This may prompt him not to tinker in the football operations (thankfully, he's left this alone) but to pose some legitimate questions -- Do we need more help in there, coaching or the front office? Is there too much on your (BB's) plate? Can we afford, for example, to go to the mat with Vince this off-season as we have with others before him, running the risk of his sitting out if we franchise him, or should we try, instead, to get something worked out quickly, or go in another direction promptly if we can't?

In other words, it's time for Kraft as owner to look under the hood. I certainly would in the aftermath of this playoff game -- the obvious lack of enthusiasm before it, the reaction during it. You can tell the world to eff off , consequences be damned, when you've pulled down 3 Lombardis in 4 years. No GM/HC/master of everything should have that latitude in the present circumstances, IMO.

#104 Shelterdog


  • SoSH Member


  • 8,947 posts

Posted 12 January 2010 - 05:18 PM

QUOTE (dcmissle @ Jan 12 2010, 04:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
If I'm the Krafts, I'm thinking that all of the incredible rewards of the past decade -- including the financial ones -- are attributable first and foremost to having a top-notch operation. Putting aside the debate whether Boston is or is not a "football town", I'm thinking that those rewards could diminish substantially going forward if my operation ceases to be top notch. Then I'm thinking of these things in the larger context of our current recession and whether there is an economic "bubble" in professional sports.


This is all nice, but is there any reason to think that Kraft doesn't already take a look under the hood on a periodic basis?








#105 dcmissle


  • SoSH Member


  • 13,226 posts

Posted 12 January 2010 - 05:21 PM

QUOTE (Shelterdog @ Jan 12 2010, 05:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
This is all nice, but is there any reason to think that Kraft doesn't already take a look under the hood on a periodic basis?


I honestly don't know. I suspect BB gets more latitude than any executive who is not also an owner in the NFL.

#106 CarboCopy


  • Wordy McNoprofit


  • 5,363 posts

Posted 12 January 2010 - 06:35 PM

QUOTE (dwightinright @ Jan 12 2010, 03:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
WRONG!!! The covered well on the opening kickoff.

Technically, though, there's no snap on a kickoff.

#107 Mr Weebles


  • swabbie bastard


  • 15,603 posts

Posted 12 January 2010 - 07:30 PM

QUOTE (NoXInNixon @ Jan 12 2010, 01:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Just my opinion, but booing your own team, ever, is dumb. You want the team to win, right? It's one thing for a fan base to express disappointment in a bad play. But that's "Awwwwwwww!" or silence. A home crowd should help the home team play better. When David Ortiz kept coming to plate when he was completely lost last year, the fans encouraged him. They wanted him to do better, and booing him was just going to discourage him more.

The only time I'd boo is if I thought my team wasn't even trying. Colts fans were right to boo against the Jets. If you hold the opinion that Randy Moss doesn't care and isn't trying, fine, then boo him. But not the entire team.


Congratulations! I've been a member of SoSH for over 10 years and this is the dumbest post I've ever read.

Did you watch the game? They stunk up the joint from the get-go.

I dropped $380 for two tickets and by the time my girlfriend got to our seats after stopping at the ladies room and grabbing a couple of beers, they were down two fucking touchdowns. And they didn't get any better after that.

The game was a shitshow of mammoth proportions and the booing was well-deserved.




#108 There is no Rev


  • through the velvety hallway


  • 24,164 posts

Posted 12 January 2010 - 08:09 PM

QUOTE (Mr Weebles @ Jan 12 2010, 07:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Congratulations! I've been a member of SoSH for over 10 years and this is the dumbest post I've ever read.

Did you watch the game? They stunk up the joint from the get-go.

I dropped $380 for two tickets and by the time my girlfriend got to our seats after stopping at the ladies room and grabbing a couple of beers, they were down two fucking touchdowns. And they didn't get any better after that.

The game was a shitshow of mammoth proportions and the booing was well-deserved.

You have a girlfriend?

Do you love her? Are you going to get married?

Edited by Reverend, 12 January 2010 - 08:10 PM.


#109 Mr Weebles


  • swabbie bastard


  • 15,603 posts

Posted 12 January 2010 - 08:27 PM

QUOTE (Reverend @ Jan 12 2010, 08:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You have a girlfriend?

Do you love her? Are you going to get married?


Not after that fucking game.



#110 JMDurron

  • 4,399 posts

Posted 13 January 2010 - 02:26 PM

QUOTE (Reverend @ Jan 12 2010, 07:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You have a girlfriend?

Do you love her? Are you going to get married?


Nice XKCD reference. laugh.gif

#111 Bellhorn


  • Lumiere


  • 2,018 posts

Posted 13 January 2010 - 05:15 PM

I think the "spoiled fans" charge gets thrown around far too much. Here's a kind of stupid analogy: if your neighbor occasionally mows your lawn for you as an act of generosity, then

a) you're spoiled if you get mad if he doesn't mow your lawn on some particular week (people who are pissed whenever the team doesn't end up winning the super bowl)

b) you're not spoiled if you get mad when he uses the lawnmower to run over your dog (people who booed at this year's playoff game)

c) you're not spoiled if you feel disappointed when he brings the lawnmower to your house, and instead of mowing the lawn, takes a dump all over it and then leaves (people who took longer than 15 minutes to shrug off Super Bowl XLII)

#112 Rick Burlesons Yam Bag


  • Internet Cowboy


  • 16,455 posts

Posted 13 January 2010 - 10:32 PM

Speaking as an expert in booing.......

I think there were two things that were a little striking about the Patriot booing on Sunday:

a) Fans were booing during plays. Not as they happened, but as the team was coming to the line, which was a little striking. Usually fans boo the moment the play ends or as the team is walking off the field during the game. It seemed a little harsh. It didn't happen constantly, but it happened maybe 4-5 times.

b) Fans were booing as the team walked off the field at the end of the game. That was a shame because you figure that most of the folks who stayed would be the hardcore fans. Ultimately the Pats won their division, Tom Brady was comeback player of the year, they have been wildly successful and the end of their season gets booed. The usual protocol is to either leave in silence or applaud the team when their season ends (I know this all too well......). The booing came off a touch harsh.

That, I think is the crux.

#113 TheoShmeo


  • made johnny damon think long and hard


  • 8,425 posts

Posted 13 January 2010 - 10:48 PM

QUOTE (Rick Burlesons Yam Bag @ Jan 13 2010, 10:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
a) Fans were booing during plays. Not as they happened, but as the team was coming to the line, which was a little striking. Usually fans boo the moment the play ends or as the team is walking off the field during the game. It seemed a little harsh. It didn't happen constantly, but it happened maybe 4-5 times.

I was there and didn't hear this happen once.

#114 PedroKsBambino


  • SoSH Member


  • 14,625 posts

Posted 13 January 2010 - 10:49 PM

QUOTE (TheoShmeo @ Jan 13 2010, 10:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I was there and didn't hear this happen once.


I watched on TV and didn't hear it once, either.

#115 Mystic Merlin


  • SoSH Member


  • 22,435 posts

Posted 13 January 2010 - 10:50 PM

I was there as well - the boos started cascading mid-second quarter once it became apparent they weren't coming back. I did not, however, hear any boos during actual plays.

#116 PedroKsBambino


  • SoSH Member


  • 14,625 posts

Posted 13 January 2010 - 10:58 PM

Now, to be clear, there was plenty of booing....and it started early enough in the game that I thought it was pretty embarrassing. No evidence on TV it occurred during plays though...maybe Yammer listened on the radio?

#117 Jody Reeds Well

  • 1,068 posts

Posted 13 January 2010 - 11:37 PM

QUOTE (Rick Burlesons Yam Bag @ Jan 13 2010, 10:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
a) Fans were booing during plays. Not as they happened, but as the team was coming to the line, which was a little striking. Usually fans boo the moment the play ends or as the team is walking off the field during the game. It seemed a little harsh. It didn't happen constantly, but it happened maybe 4-5 times.


The only time that I remember the crowd booing as the team came to the line was when they punted on a 4th and 2 when already down by a bunch.

Also FWIW, I stayed until the end and there was a very large group of fans that were gathered around the gate as the Patriots were leaving the field. Plenty of cheering was going on there and players were giving handshakes and the like.

#118 Rick Burlesons Yam Bag


  • Internet Cowboy


  • 16,455 posts

Posted 14 January 2010 - 09:29 AM

OK, it definitely didn't happen. And no one is talking about it. I love how the usual suspects jump.

Edited by Rick Burlesons Yam Bag, 14 January 2010 - 09:29 AM.


#119 Vinho Tinto

  • 3,745 posts

Posted 14 January 2010 - 11:16 AM

QUOTE (Jody Reeds Well @ Jan 13 2010, 11:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The only time that I remember the crowd booing as the team came to the line was when they punted on a 4th and 2 when already down by a bunch.


That wasn't the only booing, but that's the first time I remember it happening.

I missed the first two Ravens touchdowns due to being stuck at Foxboro airline security. I'm not sure if there was any during that early cluster.

#120 Smiling Joe Hesketh


  • now batting steve sal hiney. the leftfielder, hiney


  • 25,842 posts

Posted 14 January 2010 - 11:18 AM

QUOTE (Vinho Tinto @ Jan 14 2010, 11:16 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
That wasn't the only booing, but that's the first time I remember it happening.

I missed the first two Ravens touchdowns due to being stuck at Foxboro airline security. I'm not sure if there was any during that early cluster.

The security lines at Gillette have gotten much, much worse than I remember. Even for the Jax game I attended. Took us 45 mins to get through the line and that was with getting there early. When we got to our seats on the 300 level we looked down and saw an amazing mass of people at both security gates in our view.

#121 weeba

  • 1,519 posts

Posted 14 January 2010 - 11:48 AM

QUOTE (Vinho Tinto @ Jan 14 2010, 11:16 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
That wasn't the only booing, but that's the first time I remember it happening.

I missed the first two Ravens touchdowns due to being stuck at Foxboro airline security. I'm not sure if there was any during that early cluster.


This is an indication of how bad the game was, and how deserving the booing was. Pats were down 14-0 before you even found your seat

#122 Mystic Merlin


  • SoSH Member


  • 22,435 posts

Posted 14 January 2010 - 12:23 PM

QUOTE (Rick Burlesons Yam Bag @ Jan 14 2010, 09:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
OK, it definitely didn't happen. And no one is talking about it. I love how the usual suspects jump.


Heh, take it easy.

I personally couldn't care less whether it's true or not; I'm just reporting what I heard/saw. I could easily be wrong - it was cold, I had a few in me, etc.

#123 Shelterdog


  • SoSH Member


  • 8,947 posts

Posted 14 January 2010 - 12:26 PM

QUOTE (Mystic Merlin @ Jan 14 2010, 12:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Heh, take it easy.

I personally couldn't care less whether it's true or not; I'm just reporting what I heard/saw. I could easily be wrong - it was cold, I had a few in me, etc.


Maybe it was just how the game was miked, but there was steady booing from the Brady strip sack on, booing that took place during many plays, after the game, and after almost every negative play for the Pats.

#124 dcmissle


  • SoSH Member


  • 13,226 posts

Posted 14 January 2010 - 01:22 PM

This wasn't a run-of-the-mill bad playoff loss but a stinker for the ages. It married the sloppiness of their 2005 playoff loss to the Broncos (in Denver, btw) to something I don't recall seeing under Belichick -- a one-armed opponent running through the defense like Panzers through Poland. Many fingers were required to count the occasions when Rice and McGahee were met at or behind the line, only to squirm or bully their way to positive yardage. The unmistakeable message was that the Pats were ill prepared or, more likely, have grown soft. The only thing standing in the way of an historic beatdown was Harbaugh's terror over Flacco letting the Pats back into the game.

$380 for this? The most I'll grant is that the booing was premature. I probably wouldn't have booed but that's not the point.

#125 GreenMonster49

  • 188 posts

Posted 14 January 2010 - 04:33 PM

QUOTE (Jody Reeds Well @ Jan 13 2010, 11:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The only time that I remember the crowd booing as the team came to the line was when they punted on a 4th and 2 when already down by a bunch.


Given that this is the TMQ thread, if that's the booing that GE is remembering, he is a master of irony.


#126 TheoShmeo


  • made johnny damon think long and hard


  • 8,425 posts

Posted 14 January 2010 - 06:01 PM

QUOTE (Shelterdog @ Jan 14 2010, 12:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Maybe it was just how the game was miked, but there was steady booing from the Brady strip sack on, booing that took place during many plays, after the game, and after almost every negative play for the Pats.

I left after the missed FG at the end so I can't speak to that time. Prior to that time, I heard booing after certain plays (a Watson drop stands out, in particular). And it was indeed pretty loud. But I didn't hear it as persistent or something that happened during plays.

All that said, this is a tempest in a teapot. The Pats played like shit and fans who wanted to boo had reason to do so.


#127 ColoradoJack

  • 403 posts

Posted 14 January 2010 - 07:50 PM

QUOTE (TheoShmeo @ Jan 14 2010, 04:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
All that said, this is a tempest in a teapot. The Pats played like shit and fans who wanted to boo had reason to do so.

Absolutely. I was booing at my television set. If I had paid $400 to go I probably would have gotten arrested.

#128 PedroKsBambino


  • SoSH Member


  • 14,625 posts

Posted 15 January 2010 - 12:12 AM

BTW, people saying that we should get the facts right on when things occurred does not constitute a defense of the team's performance. The Pats were absolutely atrocious; there's just no getting around that.

Personally, I can't envision booing my team in a playoff game...even with an effort like that one. But I certainly understand why people did.

#129 Bellhorn


  • Lumiere


  • 2,018 posts

Posted 17 January 2010 - 03:09 PM

I was also quite surprised to see TMQ offer any kind of endorsement for the "sustain the game" idea as a factor for in-game strategy. It's basically a worthless argument, and if it were not, it would invalidate a lot of what he says about fourth-down decisions in general.

#130 Smiling Joe Hesketh


  • now batting steve sal hiney. the leftfielder, hiney


  • 25,842 posts

Posted 19 January 2010 - 03:19 PM

QUOTE
Six seasons ago, the Chargers went 12-4, won a bye, then lost at home in the divisional round to the Jets. Marty Schottenheimer was fired in the aftermath. This season they went 13-3, won a bye, then lost at home in the divisional round to the Jets. The aftermath is a contract extension for Turner.


Marty was fired after losing in the first round, alright...after the 2006 season, when the 14-2 Chargers lost to the Patriots at home 24-21.

Idiot.

#131 weeba

  • 1,519 posts

Posted 21 April 2010 - 12:40 PM

It's that time of year again:

http://sports.espn.g...mp;sportCat=nfl

and its TMQ's mock draft!

QUOTE
22. New England Patriots. Tiger Woods, cheater. In the two years since the Patriots swore off cheating, the team's fortunes have faltered. It's harder to win when playing fair, eh, Bill? Addition of Woods revives the old spirit.


#132 John Marzano Olympic Hero


  • has fancy plans, and pants to match


  • 15,345 posts

Posted 21 April 2010 - 02:10 PM

Hey! A Tiger Woods joke and a Spy Gate joke!

That's gold!

#133 Burt Reynoldz

  • 1,859 posts

Posted 21 April 2010 - 02:31 PM

This column is bad. Like, embarrassingly bad.

So...because Tim Tebow won lots of games and scored lots of touchdowns in college, he's a good bet for the NFL? Does TMQ not understand things like "supporting cast?" And he compares him favorably to Vince Young, noting that VY is 26-13 in the NFL? Really?

Also, this line:

QUOTE
Linemen are more likely to succeed than quarterbacks, because they're not under the microscope.


So the barometer for success/failure is the amount of scrutiny a player undergoes? Or is it more that we're more likely to notice failed QBs because they get more scrutiny? The two concepts are not the same.

I hate this idiot.

#134 Mystic Merlin


  • SoSH Member


  • 22,435 posts

Posted 21 April 2010 - 02:36 PM

Hey, look...Easterbrook is really fucking smart, so he cannot be criticized unless you can flash some credentials. I mean, he writes really long columns!

/Yammer

#135 lexrageorge

  • 3,205 posts

Posted 22 April 2010 - 08:05 AM

QUOTE (Burt Reynoldz @ Apr 21 2010, 03:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
This column is bad. Like, embarrassingly bad.

So...because Tim Tebow won lots of games and scored lots of touchdowns in college, he's a good bet for the NFL? Does TMQ not understand things like "supporting cast?" And he compares him favorably to Vince Young, noting that VY is 26-13 in the NFL? Really?

Also, this line:



So the barometer for success/failure is the amount of scrutiny a player undergoes? Or is it more that we're more likely to notice failed QBs because they get more scrutiny? The two concepts are not the same.

I hate this idiot.


Well, there was a whole thread on Tim Tebow not long ago, and TMQ is hardly alone in thinking that Tebow could become a good NFL QB.

#136 Burt Reynoldz

  • 1,859 posts

Posted 22 April 2010 - 08:34 AM

QUOTE (lexrageorge @ Apr 22 2010, 09:05 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Well, there was a whole thread on Tim Tebow not long ago, and TMQ is hardly alone in thinking that Tebow could become a good NFL QB.



And that's fine - I actually think that Tebow is getting underrated in draft circles as well. However, my issue is with Easterbrook's reasoning behind it - basically, that Tebow won lots of games and scored lots of touchdowns in college. During Tebow's time at Florida, he had arguably the best supporting cast of any college player during that time span. How many touchdowns do you think Clausen might have scored with that offensive line and those receivers?

It's the methodology used to reach the conclusion, not the conclusion itself, that irritates me. It reminds me of people who use things like "runs" and "RBI" to evaluate baseball players.

#137 Mueller's Twin Grannies

  • 222 posts

Posted 22 April 2010 - 09:43 AM

He DOES know that the Patriots commenced to go 15-0 in the remainder of the regular season after being scolded for SpyGate and nearly made the playoffs without Tom Brady the following season...right? Man, there's having a gripe with a guy and then there's being purposefully obtuse. You'd think ESPN would say...oh...wait...right...never mind.

#138 weeba

  • 1,519 posts

Posted 31 August 2010 - 11:58 AM

Quick bump on this. TMQ has started writing again for the season:

http://sports.espn.g...ck&sportCat=nfl
http://sports.espn.g...ck&sportCat=nfl
http://sports.espn.g...ck&sportCat=nfl

From the AFC preview:

New England Patriots: By trading away veterans (Richard Seymour, Deion Branch) and endlessly trading down, New England attained a phenomenal 15 choices in the first three rounds of the past three drafts -- yet which of those guys can you name? The guys Bill Belichick chose with his extra selections so far have been injured or duds: Terrence Wheatley, Shawn Crable, Kevin O'Connell, Brandon Tate, Ron Brace, Tyrone McKenzie, Darius Butler, Pat Chung. Last season, the Flying Elvii had a severe lack of impact players, and no one from all those extra second- and third-round choices is threatening to become an impact player.

The Patriots are one of the league's oldest teams; Logan Mankins (assuming he reports) and Laurence Maroney might be the only offensive starters under age 30. Perhaps Belichick's strategy of endlessly trading down for extra picks reflects his awareness of a need to remake the Patriots roster: Belichick has banked extra first- and second-round choices in 2011, too. But if instead he had traded up for someone explosive -- C.J. Spiller, Dez Bryant -- New England's prospects might be brighter.

Last season, the Patriots had no offensive coordinator, with Belichick covering that post; this season, they also will have no defensive coordinator. It's Belichick, Belichick and more Belichick -- no coordinators. Is this an ego-trip thing -- he wants to prove he can do something no major football coach has even attempted since, say, Leo Meyer? TMQ has been complaining for years that NFL clubs are overstaffed at coach, since it's hard to believe a head coach needs 19 more coaches, which is how many Mike Shanahan has at Washington, including a safeties coach, a tight ends coach and an assistant coach for the special-teams coach. Belichick is veering to the other extreme.

Tom Brady got annoyed at the team in the offseason, and he lost his special parking space as a result. Meanwhile, the Patriots once again are gambling on Brady's health. Can you name the Patriots' backup quarterback? Neither can I.



#139 URI


  • stands for life, liberty and the uturian way of life


  • 10,251 posts

Posted 31 August 2010 - 12:02 PM

Brian Hoyer.

Easterbrook certainly lost his fastball just through attrition a few years ago, but now it seems like half of what he posts is contradictory of other stuff he writes about. If the Pats went 13-3 last year, and the whole Brady thing played out the same way, he'd be lauding how the Patriots find diamonds-in-the-rough at the QB position (Brady, Hoyer, Cassel) while some teams overspend for measurables over performance (Russell).

#140 Smiling Joe Hesketh


  • now batting steve sal hiney. the leftfielder, hiney


  • 25,842 posts

Posted 31 August 2010 - 12:07 PM

As always, there's quite a bit either wrong or incomplete with Easterbrook.

A bit early for him to be labeling Chung and Butler "injured or duds," isn't it? I'll concede on the others he's listed however.

Wed Welker is presumably an offensive starter. He is 29. Vollmer is going to be a starter as well; he is 26. If the Pats start in a 3 WR set Edelman will be a starter, he is 26.

Tom Brady hasn't had the treasured parking spot for several years now. TMQ's statement that he lost it this year as part of his contract issue is demonstratively false. A story that ran in the Globe July 25, 2008 states:

Tom Brady is parking his car elsewhere this season.

The iconic quarterback wasn't around Gillette Stadium as much during his downtime, so his preferred parking place, the one he's earned since his first offseason, now contains somebody else's car.

"I gave it up. I didn't compete for it," said Brady. "I'm sure if I would have competed I would have won, but I chose not to compete."

Brady, who turns 31 in August, may have ceded his coveted parking spot, awarded to those with the top attendance in the offseason program, but his passion for football is anything but vacant. That was apparent as he spoke yesterday following the Patriots' first official practice of training camp.


A cursory bit of research would reveal that Matt Patricia is the de facto defensive coordinator this year, while QB coach Bill O'Brien will be calling the plays and act as the de facto offensive coordinator. To imply that BB has done away with coordinators in favor of calling everything himself as some sort of ego-trip is asinine.

#141 Mystic Merlin


  • SoSH Member


  • 22,435 posts

Posted 07 September 2010 - 12:37 PM

Turning off the spycameras turned this team human.
The New England Pats.






Forecast finish: 9-7






Please, God, make it stop.



#142 weeba

  • 1,519 posts

Posted 07 September 2010 - 12:55 PM

http://sports.espn.g...ck&sportCat=nfl

I was going to add this one:

Keep an eye on LaDainian Tomlinson, who has passed such tailback greats as Jim Brown and Thurman Thomas in career rushing yards and has a realistic shot at passing Tony Dorsett and Eric Dickerson this season. For his part, Fred Taylor -- many fans don't even know which team he plays for! -- has a shot at passing Thomas and Franco Harris.



#143 DegenerateSoxFan

  • 743 posts

Posted 09 September 2010 - 02:34 PM

The douchebaggery continues, this time in haiku form...

Same old ax

Turning off the spy
cameras turned this team human.
The New England Pats.
Forecast finish: 9-7


Edit: sorry, someone beat me to it.

Edited by DegenerateSoxFan, 09 September 2010 - 02:35 PM.


#144 Rick Burlesons Yam Bag


  • Internet Cowboy


  • 16,455 posts

Posted 09 September 2010 - 03:43 PM

A cursory bit of research would reveal that Matt Patricia is the de facto defensive coordinator this year, while QB coach Bill O'Brien will be calling the plays and act as the de facto offensive coordinator. To imply that BB has done away with coordinators in favor of calling everything himself as some sort of ego-trip is asinine.


Umm.....OK. But why hasn't he named them as coordinators? Usually the de facto defensive coordinator holds the title "Defensive Coordinator." Similarly, the guy who calls plays is the "Offensive Coordinator."


It's a really interesting, kind of weird move and it is worth putting under some scrutiny.

Edited by Rick Burlesons Yam Bag, 09 September 2010 - 03:45 PM.


#145 Shelterdog


  • SoSH Member


  • 8,947 posts

Posted 09 September 2010 - 03:51 PM

Umm.....OK. But why hasn't he named them as coordinators? Usually the de facto defensive coordinator holds the title "Defensive Coordinator." Similarly, the guy who calls plays is the "Offensive Coordinator."


It's a really interesting, kind of weird move and it is worth putting under some scrutiny.



My guess, and it's only a guess, is that he has a series of benchmarks you have to meet in order to be named coordinator--along the lines of "I don't care what other teams do, I won't name you a coordinator until I've seen you put together 15 good offensive game plans and call all the plays without my assistance for 15 games." In other words, it's a quirky management tool to motivate his staff. He did the same thing with McDaniels and maybe with Mangini.

#146 Smiling Joe Hesketh


  • now batting steve sal hiney. the leftfielder, hiney


  • 25,842 posts

Posted 09 September 2010 - 06:06 PM

Umm.....OK. But why hasn't he named them as coordinators? Usually the de facto defensive coordinator holds the title "Defensive Coordinator." Similarly, the guy who calls plays is the "Offensive Coordinator."


It's a really interesting, kind of weird move and it is worth putting under some scrutiny.

It's not weird at all. Titles or no titles, those are the guys that will be calling the plays. TMQ is intimating that BB will be calling them on both sides of the ball as some sort of ego power trip. This is completely incorrect.

Remember, Belichick did the very same thing with McDaniels in '06, having him call all the plays while still just titled QB coach. The next year McDaniels was named OC. There's no scrutiny required because there's already precedent. Again, cursory research on the part of TMQ would have told him this as well.

#147 Rick Burlesons Yam Bag


  • Internet Cowboy


  • 16,455 posts

Posted 09 September 2010 - 09:28 PM

It's not weird at all. Titles or no titles, those are the guys that will be calling the plays. TMQ is intimating that BB will be calling them on both sides of the ball as some sort of ego power trip. This is completely incorrect.

Remember, Belichick did the very same thing with McDaniels in '06, having him call all the plays while still just titled QB coach. The next year McDaniels was named OC. There's no scrutiny required because there's already precedent. Again, cursory research on the part of TMQ would have told him this as well.


I think you are trying to gloss over something that is bona fide odd. Belichick is taking two pretty unproven folks (I hate saying that about a Brown guy like O'Brien, who does have an OK college resume) who don't come in with a lot of credibility and he is not giving them the job title. Are players listening to them? Last year one of Patricia's own guys (AT) was torpedoing the locker room by all reports.

Is an NFL player going to listen to a former standout from RPI who has been nothing more than an LB coach when he doesn't even have the coordinator title AND Pepper Johnson - the guy commonly thought to be the heir apparent and popular with players - is still around??

A skeptic could look at this move as being a way of cutting Patricia and O'Brien off at the knees. I think TMQ is kind of calling a spade a spade here and you want to view the glass as being half full.

#148 Mystic Merlin


  • SoSH Member


  • 22,435 posts

Posted 09 September 2010 - 09:37 PM

So you think Belichick is on a self-destructive power trip?

I don't see any evidence that this was an issue last season, and I still await something beyond 'it's interesting!' It's tough to argue with the conclusions when they're not really spelled out.

#149 Rick Burlesons Yam Bag


  • Internet Cowboy


  • 16,455 posts

Posted 09 September 2010 - 11:25 PM

So you think Belichick is on a self-destructive power trip?

I don't see any evidence that this was an issue last season, and I still await something beyond 'it's interesting!' It's tough to argue with the conclusions when they're not really spelled out.



Really? The conclusions are pretty clear I would argue. The Pats are risking effective coaching through this move.

#150 Mystic Merlin


  • SoSH Member


  • 22,435 posts

Posted 09 September 2010 - 11:52 PM

Really? The conclusions are pretty clear I would argue. The Pats are risking effective coaching through this move.



Why? Because there's no publicly apparent hierarchy? The players know who they answer to and who calls plays. If you're arguing that the coaches suck, that's one thing; but you're arguing that the mere lack of a formal title affects their ability to coach. Are you suggesting that players are not listening to O'Brien and Patricia? You seem to think these guys lack the experience and chops to coach NFL players, so I'm not sure how naming them as coordinators would affect that evaluation. Are Darius Butler and Pat Chung going to wake up tomorrow to the newly minted Matt Patricia - who, by your implication, isn't likely to command the respect of NFL players readily - and decide he's a smart guy who should be humored? Bullshit. They're given a LOT of responsibility by Belichick, and the players see that. Whether they listen to them or not has nothing to do with their title - since their positions are clear in practice - and everything to do with their personal perception of the coach's knowledge and effectiveness.

And don't use Thomas as a representative example of anything. He didn't act out because of Matt Patricia or his lack of control; he acted out because he was pissed off at Belichick. His 'torpedoing' of the locker room was in no way related to a lack of respect for the defensive staff; it was all directed at Belichick. What was Patricia going to do; would Romeo Crennel have found a way of dissuading Thomas from stamping his feet? I doubt it. This is shitty analysis, and you know it.

Anyway: are you arguing that Belichick is deliberately assembling a shitty staff - granting you this arguable premise - to serve his own vanity or out of some ignorant faith in his own abilities?

EDIT - Yammer, after reading your posts again, it's pretty clear to me that you're critical of Belichick's staff decisions generally and are using TMQ's haphazard criteria to express it. Just come out and say that you think Pepper Johnson should be the DC or that O'Brien and Patricia have meager resumes. There's no earthly way you really believe the controlling factor in the players' opinions is the title on these guys' doors. They fulfill the same duties as other coordinators, which gives them de facto authority. Honestly, if players are consciously ignoring them or distrusting their judgement, it's not going to be fixed by naming them Supreme Overlord of DCs.

Edited by Mystic Merlin, 10 September 2010 - 12:00 AM.




Reply to this topic



  


1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users