Jump to content


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

Photo

Belichick


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
162 replies to this topic

Poll: Belichick (509 member(s) have cast votes)

Wouldn't trade him for anyone else?

  1. Correct (281 votes [78.49%])

    Percentage of vote: 78.49%

  2. True (77 votes [21.51%])

    Percentage of vote: 21.51%

As Patriots Overlord...

  1. He is still on top of his game (225 votes [62.85%])

    Percentage of vote: 62.85%

  2. He is losing a little on his fastball (74 votes [20.67%])

    Percentage of vote: 20.67%

  3. He is losing a lot on his fastball (7 votes [1.96%])

    Percentage of vote: 1.96%

  4. Belichick the GM is very much hurting Belichick the Coach (49 votes [13.69%])

    Percentage of vote: 13.69%

  5. Other (3 votes [0.84%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.84%

Belichick going forward?

  1. I have faith in his personnel decisions moving forward (250 votes [42.52%])

    Percentage of vote: 42.52%

  2. I do not have faith in his personnel decisions moving forward (27 votes [4.59%])

    Percentage of vote: 4.59%

  3. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (21 votes [3.57%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.57%

  4. Belichick's defense in 2012 will be much better (86 votes [14.63%])

    Percentage of vote: 14.63%

  5. Belichick's defense in 2012 will be a little better (194 votes [32.99%])

    Percentage of vote: 32.99%

  6. Belichick's defense in 2012 will still be the same/bad (10 votes [1.70%])

    Percentage of vote: 1.70%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 SoxScout


  • Maalox Territory


  • 30161 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 02:47 AM

First of all, we are talking about maybe the best coach in NFL history heading to another Super Bowl. Awesome.

That being said, I think this is the first year that I've felt Brady had overtaken Bill at the top of the importance totem pole.

A handful of good acquisitions, a few handfuls of bad. An ok defense, to a bend but dont break defense, to a bend and sometimes break defense that can't get off the field over the last 3 years.

He found a concoction that was good enough to shut down awfulness and hold their own against a mediocre offense. In two weeks it may be the toughest defensive game-plan/execution since the Rams in 2001.

We know his legacy, what are your thoughts on him as GM and coach this season and moving forward?

Edited by SoxScout, 23 January 2012 - 02:48 AM.


#2 Phragle


  • wild card bitches


  • 11242 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 03:28 AM

Before I answer the first question I need to know if we'd receive compensation.

#3 MarcSullivaFan

  • 1954 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 07:22 AM

Belichick has made some bad personnel decisions the past few years, but he's made some excellent ones too. If we're holding him fully responsible as the GM/coach, it's pretty hard to argue with the results the past two seasons. 29-6 and a conference championship over the past two seasons. Why would we want to let this guy go?

#4 Remagellan

  • 4186 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 07:35 AM

Belichick has made some bad personnel decisions the past few years, but he's made some excellent ones too. If we're holding him fully responsible as the GM/coach, it's pretty hard to argue with the results the past two seasons. 29-6 and a conference championship over the past two seasons. Why would we want to let this guy go?


Amen. It's like idiotic Eagles fans who want to get rid of Andy Reid, only worse since Belichick actually has won Super Bowls. That said, he has to stop trying to be the Dave Duncan of DBs and do a better job assembling a secondary, because even Duncan needed a few legitimate studs to win his championships.

#5 jacklamabe65


  • A New Frontier butt boy


  • 6017 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 07:41 AM

Before I answer the first question I need to know if we'd receive compensation.


Yes, if I give you a high 2 this year, you owe me your first next year.

#6 lexrageorge

  • 3048 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 09:29 AM

Belichick the Coach took a defense that truly has a bunch of castoffs, undrafted free agents, practice squad players, etc., and worked with them tirelessly over the season to produce 2 playoff wins, one against a gimmicky offense that gave the Steelers vaunted D fits, and another against an underrated offense that has some quality players at the skill positions and offensive line. He has spoken all season about how the group he has now executes the game plan and shows mental toughness. He knows they are not the most talented squad, but he does have them playing as a unit around Wilfork and Mayo. I certainly wouldn't say Belichick the Coach lost anything off his fastball. He obviously benefits from having Brady around, but the same argument could be made for Bill Walsh.

Belichick the GM helped the Offensive Coach a great deal by drafting Mankins, Gronkowski, Hernandez, trading for Welker and Branch, picking up BJGE and Woodhead, etc. Belichick the GM has obviously been a lot less successful over the past few years on the defensive side with some notable draft busts and sputtering trades/FA signings. However, the GM also knew when to cut his losses at the right time (Bodden is exhibit A), and does deserve credit for picking up scrap heap guys whom he thinks will fit within the system.

Yes, Belichick the GM deserves criticism for having Moore and Arrington as his two starting CB's. But he also deserves credit for (a) getting those guys and (b) coaching them to perform above and beyond what any reasonable football pundit would normally expect.

What should change with regards to Belichick? Nothing.

#7 Shelterdog


  • SoSH Member


  • 8805 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 09:38 AM

Yes, Belichick the GM deserves criticism for having Moore and Arrington as his two starting CB's. But he also deserves credit for (a) getting those guys and (b) coaching them to perform above and beyond what any reasonable football pundit would normally expect.


This is where you're wrong. Belichick the GM deserves credit for fielding a quasi competent secondary despite the fact that Bodden, Barrett and Dowling got hurt, Chung was hurt a lot, DMC turned to crap, and BMW, Sanders and Wilhite are all close to playing themselves out of the league in contract years.

Most teams have a down year when a unit radically underperforms expectations. The Pats are making the superbowl despite a clusterfuck in the secondary because his options 7-10 were just good enough.

#8 TomRicardo


  • rusty cohlebone


  • 17989 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 10:00 AM

Why would Belichick get criticism for having Sterling Moore at CB? He picked the guy off the scrap heap in the middle of rash of injuries and the guy came up unbelievably huge in the second most important game of the year.

That is what you call a good move.

#9 bowiac


  • I've been living a lie.


  • 9568 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 10:03 AM

Bodden was coming off injury, and Dowling fell to the Patriots in the draft because he was such an injury risk. Belichick is also the one who acquired all these guys - it's somewhat on him when they don't play well.

#10 Shelterdog


  • SoSH Member


  • 8805 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 10:11 AM

Bodden was coming off injury, and Dowling fell to the Patriots in the draft because he was such an injury risk. Belichick is also the one who acquired all these guys - it's somewhat on him when they don't play well.


Although he did actually get hurt, the Dowling injury risk is grossly overplayed-he had missed seven games in five years of football. It's like a Mel Kiper line that everyone repeats without actually looking at the facts.

Anyhow, it's like constructing an investment portfolio. Every player has a range of posible outcomes and they struck out an awful lot on pretty heavy investments but the fact that they struck out and still fielded a team that made the super bowl reflects well on BB.

Edited by Shelterdog, 23 January 2012 - 10:12 AM.


#11 lexrageorge

  • 3048 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 10:20 AM

This is where you're wrong. Belichick the GM deserves credit for fielding a quasi competent secondary despite the fact that Bodden, Barrett and Dowling got hurt, Chung was hurt a lot, DMC turned to crap, and BMW, Sanders and Wilhite are all close to playing themselves out of the league in contract years.

Most teams have a down year when a unit radically underperforms expectations. The Pats are making the superbowl despite a clusterfuck in the secondary because his options 7-10 were just good enough.


I don't think my point came across as clear as it should have.

Belichick the GM signed Shawn Springs, Bodden and drafted Butler, Wheatley, and Wilhite, all of whom flamed out here one way or another. Those misses were costly. But I clearly stated that Belichick the GM deserves credit for picking up Arrington and Moore, and then coaching the hell out of them.

#12 TomRicardo


  • rusty cohlebone


  • 17989 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 10:21 AM

Bodden was coming off injury, and Dowling fell to the Patriots in the draft because he was such an injury risk. Belichick is also the one who acquired all these guys - it's somewhat on him when they don't play well.


Once againm Moore was a great pick up who played big in a big gamne. How is he a negative in Belichick's book?

#13 Mystic Merlin


  • SoSH Member


  • 21582 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 10:24 AM

I'll have more to say later, but I think it's important not to lose sight of the fact that BB has turned over about 80% of the roster since 2007-08, and has won 14 and 13 games the last two seasons. That's damn impressive; if he's losing his fastball, it isn't by much.

#14 loshjott

  • 3745 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 10:28 AM

This is where you're wrong. Belichick the GM deserves credit for fielding a quasi competent secondary despite the fact that Bodden, Barrett and Dowling got hurt, Chung was hurt a lot, DMC turned to crap, and BMW, Sanders and Wilhite are all close to playing themselves out of the league in contract years.

Most teams have a down year when a unit radically underperforms expectations. The Pats are making the superbowl despite a clusterfuck in the secondary because his options 7-10 were just good enough.


Just playing devil's advocate here, but why is the decline in play of DMC, BMW, Sanders and Wilhite not partly the fault of Belichick the coach?

#15 Gambler7

  • 3070 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 10:30 AM

Just playing devil's advocate here, but why is the decline in play of DMC, BMW, Sanders and Wilhite not partly the fault of Belichick the coach?

Minus McCourty, what have the others done since they left New England? That's a check in his favor, how many other guys have left here and become better? Can probably count them on one hand in the last ten years.

#16 lexrageorge

  • 3048 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 11:08 AM

Just playing devil's advocate here, but why is the decline in play of DMC, BMW, Sanders and Wilhite not partly the fault of Belichick the coach?


Sanders was a 4th round pick who was decent enough to be earn a starting safety job a few years ago, but like all players started to lose a step as he aged, even if he is only 28. That made him a lot less valuable. BMW was the guy who just never got better, never seemed to "get it". Some players are like that. Wilhite was a flat out draft bust. As noted, none have done anything since leaving here.

#17 Shelterdog


  • SoSH Member


  • 8805 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 11:14 AM

Sanders was a 4th round pick who was decent enough to be earn a starting safety job a few years ago, but like all players started to lose a step as he aged, even if he is only 28. That made him a lot less valuable. BMW was the guy who just never got better, never seemed to "get it". Some players are like that. Wilhite was a flat out draft bust. As noted, none have done anything since leaving here.

It's hard to call Wilhite a bust-he was a fourth round pick who did ok for a few years so that's not terrible production for a fourth round pick, but, like Sanders and BMW and Butler, wasn't as good this year as he was two years ago.

#18 bowiac


  • I've been living a lie.


  • 9568 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 12:28 PM

Although he did actually get hurt, the Dowling injury risk is grossly overplayed-he had missed seven games in five years of football. It's like a Mel Kiper line that everyone repeats without actually looking at the facts.

Anyhow, it's like constructing an investment portfolio. Every player has a range of posible outcomes and they struck out an awful lot on pretty heavy investments but the fact that they struck out and still fielded a team that made the super bowl reflects well on BB.

Sure. I think Belichick has been a fine GM. I give him a ton of credit for almost never missing with offensive line prospects and for identifying the offensive personnel needed to succeed in the NFL.

I just don't think he necessarily deserves a pass for striking out on a lot of high drafted defensive guys. Dowling was a guy who slipped because of injury concerns. Teams which had access to his medical information decided he wasn't worth a first round grade, in spite of generally being agreed to have first round talent. That's more indicative to me than the fact that he was healthy except for his senior year in college.

#19 Seels

  • 1493 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 12:36 PM

Something big is missing in the Bill the GM argument: the Pats have more cap space than any other AFC team. $25 mil (or whatever it is near that) is huge. It allows them to extend Welker, get some of these other UFAs signed up, and go after a big name free agent like Mario Williams or Calais Campbell.

#20 Shelterdog


  • SoSH Member


  • 8805 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 12:39 PM

Sure. I think Belichick has been a fine GM. I give him a ton of credit for almost never missing with offensive line prospects and for identifying the offensive personnel needed to succeed in the NFL.

I just don't think he necessarily deserves a pass for striking out on a lot of high drafted defensive guys. Dowling was a guy who slipped because of injury concerns. Teams which had access to his medical information decided he wasn't worth a first round grade, in spite of generally being agreed to have first round talent. That's more indicative to me than the fact that he was healthy except for his senior year in college.

There's no question Dowling was an injury risk of some sort, the only question is how much. His medical files and x-rays are a black box so it's hard to read into them (the pats must have thought they were decent; it's unknown what other teams thought).

Anyhow, I'm not giving him a pass. BB has been an ok drafter from to 2008 to the present-probably somewhat above average on offense, somewhat below average on defense, better in late rounds than early rounds. If he'd knocked it out of the park in 2009 and 2010 we'd have a dominant team right now; he didn't. But the point is most teams that have injuries and draft busts in one position group have a hard time overcoming it and BB is so good with the other avenues for personnel acquisition that he was able to overcome some bad luck and mistakes.

#21 Quiddity

  • 63 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 06:50 PM

There's no question Dowling was an injury risk of some sort, the only question is how much. His medical files and x-rays are a black box so it's hard to read into them (the pats must have thought they were decent; it's unknown what other teams thought).

Anyhow, I'm not giving him a pass. BB has been an ok drafter from to 2008 to the present-probably somewhat above average on offense, somewhat below average on defense, better in late rounds than early rounds. If he'd knocked it out of the park in 2009 and 2010 we'd have a dominant team right now; he didn't. But the point is most teams that have injuries and draft busts in one position group have a hard time overcoming it and BB is so good with the other avenues for personnel acquisition that he was able to overcome some bad luck and mistakes.


Well, drafting the best tight end tandem in the league, including someone who had the best single year for a tight end in the history of the league is pretty damn close to "knocking it out of the park" if you ask me. :P

As for "dominant team", well last I checked this team went 13-3, is on a 10 game winning streak and is going to the Super Bowl. If thats not enough, than what is?

#22 PaulinMyrBch


  • Don't touch his dog food


  • 5110 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 07:39 PM

Here's the only stat you'll ever need.

Indy loses Manning in the offseason. They have the entire training camp to groom the #1 QB, he gets the starter snaps, they go 2-14.

Pats lose Brady in first half of season opening game. He got the starter snaps in training camp. #2 got #2 snaps in training camp, we insert #2 and go 11-5.

#23 SWHB

  • 148 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 07:58 PM

Well, drafting the best tight end tandem in the league, including someone who had the best single year for a tight end in the history of the league is pretty damn close to "knocking it out of the park" if you ask me. :P

As for "dominant team", well last I checked this team went 13-3, is on a 10 game winning streak and is going to the Super Bowl. If thats not enough, than what is?

Indeed. Perhaps also of note, Gronkowski was one of Belichick's "injury risk" picks - Gronkowski missed his entire Junior year. If Belichick loses points for the Dowling, etc. picks then he also deserves lots of credit for the Gronkowski pick.

#24 neil

  • 677 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 08:14 PM

Indeed. Perhaps also of note, Gronkowski was one of Belichick's "injury risk" picks - Gronkowski missed his entire Junior year. If Belichick loses points for the Dowling, etc. picks then he also deserves lots of credit for the Gronkowski pick.

Came here to post this. The Dowling injury stuff is very annoying. Furthermore, Dowling got put on IR for a hip injury. In college it was ankle and knee injuries.

#25 There is no Rev


  • through the velvety hallway


  • 23559 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 09:09 PM

Some people see the glass as half full. Other people think that fluoride is a government plot to introduce mind control elements into our systems and turn us into communists.

The question is not Belichick or not Belichick. Rather, it is Belichick versus the coach who would replace him.

I can't think of anyone I would prefer. I don't know if he has lost a step or if he just got luckier early on and less lucky more recently. But with any coach, you take the person, warts and all. Might it make sense if he delegated certain responsibilities more? Perhaps.

But if there is, in fact, anyone I would be willing to swap for Belichick, along with the associated methods and ways of doing business, I surely do not know who that person is.

#26 Darnell's Son

  • 4356 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 09:59 PM

This is a big picture thread. So, that means picking individual nits is not the point. The last two seasons the Patriots have gone 27-5 in the regular season, and 2-1 in the playoffs. That adds up to 29-6 in two years. Those are bottom line results that are unmatched. His biggest detractors point to the draft, but those detractors have had the same refrain for years, "Everyone says he's brilliant, but look at his drafts, compared to the Colts and Steelers." Look at those two teams now, and going forward. One is in absolute disarray, and the other has almost no young talent on their strongest side of the football. He had a few bad years, in both coaching and GMing, but let's face it, Belichick is back to his Superbowl years in both aspects of his job. The guy lost speed on his fastball, but developed a sick splitter and a pretty good changeup. I never want him to retire, and to me, he is the smartest guy in the room.

Edit: And, some of you are actually saying Dowling was a bad pick? He's a god damned rookie CB who didn't do anything on a team that's in the Superbowl. 1 IR year and he's a bad pick? Jesus Belichickin' Christ!

Edited by Darnell's Son, 23 January 2012 - 10:06 PM.


#27 MarcSullivaFan

  • 1954 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 10:26 PM

I agree with pretty much everything you've written--except that the Steelers lack young talent on D. Lamar Woodley, Lawrence Timmons, Jason Worilds, Ziggy Hood, and Cam Heyward are all good and young.

#28 Shelterdog


  • SoSH Member


  • 8805 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 10:29 PM

This is a big picture thread. So, that means picking individual nits is not the point. The last two seasons the Patriots have gone 27-5 in the regular season, and 2-1 in the playoffs. That adds up to 29-6 in two years. Those are bottom line results that are unmatched. His biggest detractors point to the draft, but those detractors have had the same refrain for years, "Everyone says he's brilliant, but look at his drafts, compared to the Colts and Steelers." Look at those two teams now, and going forward. One is in absolute disarray, and the other has almost no young talent on their strongest side of the football. He had a few bad years, in both coaching and GMing, but let's face it, Belichick is back to his Superbowl years in both aspects of his job. The guy lost speed on his fastball, but developed a sick splitter and a pretty good changeup. I never want him to retire, and to me, he is the smartest guy in the room.

Edit: And, some of you are actually saying Dowling was a bad pick? He's a god damned rookie CB who didn't do anything on a team that's in the Superbowl. 1 IR year and he's a bad pick? Jesus Belichickin' Christ!


It's simpler than that. You get players five ways: draft, trade, waivers, sign veteran free agents, and signing rookie free agents. The Pats have been off the charts good in getting rookie free agents, veteran free agents, and with waiver pick ups, and they're ok on trades and the draft , so that gets you were you need to go just as nicely as being a great drafting team. Jermaine Cunningham might be a bit of a dissapointment but if you get 10 sacks from a low cost veteran (and the Pats got 10 each from Carer and Anderson, and another 6.5 from Ninkovich), does a poor second year from a second round pick actually hurt you on the team?

There are also a lot of teams that don't cut mediocre high draft picks or ailing big name players for whatever the reasons. If he kept Butler or Bodden and played those guys fewer people would criticize BB GM but would the team be better?

Edited by Shelterdog, 23 January 2012 - 10:41 PM.


#29 Darnell's Son

  • 4356 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 10:41 PM

It's simpler than that. You get players five ways: draft, trade, waivers, sign veteran free agents, and signing rookie free agents. The Pats have been off the charts good in getting rookie free agents, veteran free agents, and with waiver pick ups, and they're ok on trades and the draft , so that gets you were you need to go just as nicely as being a great drafting team. Jermaine Cunningham might be a bit of a dissapointment but if you get 10 sacks from a low cost veteran, does it hurt you on the team?

There are also a lot of teams that don't cut mediocre high draft picks for whatever the reasons. If he kept Butler or Bodden and played those guys fewer people would criticize the team but would it be better?


Totally agree. I had already written a lot, so I didn't want to make a 1200 word post about it. People focus on the draft because we get 3 months before it with no football, and then 4 months after to further analyze the draft without any real football evidence. The non draftees are considered "luck" as are the scrap heap picks ups, and they are, but draft picks are even a more luck driven commodity. That's the point of acquiring as many picks as possible. Low risk, low reward, and hope you hit a home run every year or two.

#30 Toe Nash

  • 3077 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 11:24 PM

Here's the only stat you'll ever need.

Indy loses Manning in the offseason. They have the entire training camp to groom the #1 QB, he gets the starter snaps, they go 2-14.

Pats lose Brady in first half of season opening game. He got the starter snaps in training camp. #2 got #2 snaps in training camp, we insert #2 and go 11-5.

Similar to this example this year, we lose our starting center who's one of the best in the league in the first game for the season. The backup comes in and performs nearly at the starter's level. That backup misses three games and the #3C performs even better for those three (PHI, IND, WAS). (Not to mention replacing Neal with Waters)

The Jets lose Mangold for two games and their offensive line looks awful. Similar with the Steelers and Pouncey. Maybe Koppen's not at their level but it's still impressive how well the line performed with almost any of its members healthy.

#31 Alternate34

  • 2461 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 11:42 PM

Shouldn't the question be whether Belichick should be our Godking? Perhaps he would a harsh and unloving man deity, but as his subjects and creations, we would probably win. Seriously, I don't know how making the Super Bowl and producing two very good performances out of the defenders he has doesn't qualify him for football demigod status. This defense was atrocious during the season. It is a case where points allowed overstates their value a bit because the offense was so awesome. In the playoffs, the defense combined with the offense to destroy the Broncos and then saved the offenses ass during a subpar performance.

#32 Kenny F'ing Powers


  • posts 18% useful shit


  • 5485 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 11:50 PM

The question is not Belichick or not Belichick. Rather, it is Belichick versus the coach who would replace him.


Hmmm...

I pick "not Belichick."

#33 simplyeric


  • Professional Writer


  • 3547 posts

Posted 24 January 2012 - 12:36 AM

Hmmm...

I pick "not Belichick."


+1

#34 SemperFidelisSox


  • suzyn


  • 10483 posts

Posted 24 January 2012 - 01:14 AM

I'll give BB credit for recongizing the direction the league was going in, and constructing a video game-type offense thats needed to contend week in and week out in today's NFL.

That being said, he has created a one dimensional football team that is completely reliant on its passing game to win. A strategy that can win you a lot of regular season games in the modern NFL, and even a few playoff games if things break right with the schedule and opponent (see: 2012), but it doesn't win championships.

#35 Super Nomario


  • SoSH Member


  • 7414 posts

Posted 24 January 2012 - 01:30 AM

I'll give BB credit for recongizing the direction the league was going in, and constructing a video game-type offense thats needed to contend week in and week out in today's NFL.

That being said, he has created a one dimensional football team that is completely reliant on its passing game to win. A strategy that can win you a lot of regular season games in the modern NFL, and even a few playoff games if things break right with the schedule and opponent (see: 2012), but it doesn't win championships.

So it's impossible for the Patriots to win the Super Bowl? Thanks for letting me know; I won't bother watching the game then.

Wait, the Giants allowed the sixth-most yards in the league? Shit, who's going to win if it's not either of the teams playing in the game?

#36 Mystic Merlin


  • SoSH Member


  • 21582 posts

Posted 24 January 2012 - 01:31 AM

Special teams apparently is not a dimension.

Someone tell Baltimore and San Fran.

#37 Mugthis

  • 804 posts

Posted 24 January 2012 - 01:35 AM

That's kind of a crazy authoritative statement to make. 2009 Saints? 2009 Colts? 2007 Pats (surely they weren't fundamentally incapable of winning the SB)? 2006 Colts? 1999-01 Rams? Etc

#38 PaulinMyrBch


  • Don't touch his dog food


  • 5110 posts

Posted 24 January 2012 - 06:56 AM

I'll give BB credit for recongizing the direction the league was going in, and constructing a video game-type offense thats needed to contend week in and week out in today's NFL.

That being said, he has created a one dimensional football team that is completely reliant on its passing game to win. A strategy that can win you a lot of regular season games in the modern NFL, and even a few playoff games if things break right with the schedule and opponent (see: 2012), but it doesn't win championships.


(See: 2010 Green Bay Packers)

Edited by PaulinMyrBch, 24 January 2012 - 06:56 AM.


#39 Toe Nash

  • 3077 posts

Posted 24 January 2012 - 07:05 AM

I'll give BB credit for recongizing the direction the league was going in, and constructing a video game-type offense thats needed to contend week in and week out in today's NFL.

That being said, he has created a one dimensional football team that is completely reliant on its passing game to win. A strategy that can win you a lot of regular season games in the modern NFL, and even a few playoff games if things break right with the schedule and opponent (see: 2012), but it doesn't win championships.

What's different about the Super Bowl than the AFC Championship? They use the same rules last I checked. Last Sunday the offense had a poor day / the Ravens stopped them to some extent and the DEFENSE made some crucial plays to win.

Oh right, this is an asinine statement. Nevermind. This is like what Bill Simmons or CHB would write after the game to explain away a tough loss. But before the game, with zero analysis added, it's just stupid.

I can see a difference between playoff football and regular season football, though it's likely overstated. But there's not much if anything different about the Super Bowl than the rest of the playoffs.

#40 MainerInExile

  • 4390 posts

Posted 26 January 2012 - 01:38 PM

I've been reading War Room, and that and this thread have made me think about Belichick. BB started here in 2000, won his first Super Bowl in 2001. The Pats play in their 5th Super Bowl under BB in a little more than a week. 5th.

Dimitroff started in Atlanta in 2008. Where are they?
Pioli started in KC in 2009. KC is playing golf now.
Weis and Crennel left for head coaching gigs. How'd that work out?
McDaniels and Mangini left. McDaniels is back and Mangini is surprisingly good on TV.

Look, it's clear. BB is the genius. All his guys leave, the roster turns over, he has "terrible" drafts, but here they are. Super Bowl #5 since 2000.

It's all about results, and I'll take these results.

#41 bakahump

  • 4780 posts

Posted 26 January 2012 - 03:53 PM

Look, it's clear. BB is the genius. All his guys leave, the roster turns over, he has "terrible" drafts, but here they are. Super Bowl #5 since 2000.


You could argue sixth appearance with 5 wins... And that including a year out of Bradys, Moss and Welkers prime.

I know you could argue lots of things....

But that Colts game where the Colts came back from 21 down.

So in another universe we hold on to win and we play the bears in the SB. The Bears....

We have alot of debate about luck....but if Tyree doesnt make the LUCKIEST play in the history of the NFL we win that one too.

Forget about making 6 ....we very easily could be writing about playing for our 6th superbowl win. Can you imagine.

Sure this is where we look each in the eyes and say "but you cant replay history...we lost both those games".

True....but imagine how MANY things would need to change for the Steelers or Colts (the other 2 "dominate" teams of the decade) let alone the Jaguars or Browns to win 6. Now compare that to how many things we would have needed to fallen 1 inch that way...or have just a tad more "fortune".

If you make your own luck in the NFL...then BB had made a mother loving shit ton. And only needed about 3 more ounces of it to have 5 SB rings and while now playing for a sixth.

#42 Bergs

  • 3118 posts

Posted 26 January 2012 - 03:57 PM

Something else to keep in mind is that we have 2 1st round draft picks (admittedly, late round 1, but still...) and we're in better salary cap position heading into next year than anyone else in the division. I don't think anyone in the league touches BB in regards to looking at the long-term big picture of the program while still fielding a competitive-to-elite squad every season.

http://espn.go.com/b...east-salary-cap

#43 Lose Remerswaal


  • Leaves after the 8th inning


  • 22468 posts

Posted 26 January 2012 - 03:57 PM

You could argue sixth appearance with 5 wins... And that including a year out of Bradys, Moss and Welkers prime.

I know you could argue lots of things....

But that Colts game where the Colts came back from 21 down.

So in another universe we hold on to win and we play the bears in the SB. The Bears....

We have alot of debate about luck....but if Tyree doesnt make the LUCKIEST play in the history of the NFL we win that one too.

Forget about making 6 ....we very easily could be writing about playing for our 6th superbowl win. Can you imagine.

Sure this is where we look each in the eyes and say "but you cant replay history...we lost both those games".

True....but imagine how MANY things would need to change for the Steelers or Colts (the other 2 "dominate" teams of the decade) let alone the Jaguars or Browns to win 6. Now compare that to how many things we would have needed to fallen 1 inch that way...or have just a tad more "fortune".

If you make your own luck in the NFL...then BB had made a mother loving shit ton. And only needed about 3 more ounces of it to have 5 SB rings and while now playing for a sixth.


Stiffy?

Edited by Lose Remerswaal, 26 January 2012 - 03:57 PM.


#44 soxfan121


  • minidope/racontuer


  • 15092 posts

Posted 26 January 2012 - 04:06 PM

Look, it's clear. BB is the genius. All his guys leave, the roster turns over, he has "terrible" drafts, but here they are. Super Bowl #5 since 2000.

It's all about results, and I'll take these results.


You know when Belichick got a lifetime pass from me? 2008. That team went 11-5 with an aging, declining defense and a backup QB.

14-2 last year, in a "rebuilding" year.

13-3 and another Super Bowl appearance this year.

The fans of most other teams wish their GM was as bad as Belichick. At worst, he's an average GM. And it's possible he's the greatest coach of all time. Combined...he's making a run at Paul Brown.

#45 maufman


  • SoSH Member


  • 12244 posts

Posted 26 January 2012 - 04:08 PM

BB is in a class by himself. The Steelers' organizational approach is on par with the Patriots', but no one person deserves as much credit for Pittsburgh's success as BB does for New England's.

In recent years, as Tom Brady's salary has caught up with his ability, BB the GM has had to prioritize. His strategy has been to invest in protection and a few weapons for his Hall of Fame quarterback, counting on BB the coach to assemble an acceptable defense on the cheap. I think that has been a shrewd GM decision, and the coaching on the defensive side has been quite good, considering the limited assets on hand.

#46 Shelterdog


  • SoSH Member


  • 8805 posts

Posted 26 January 2012 - 04:10 PM

Look, it's clear. BB is the genius. All his guys leave, the roster turns over, he has "terrible" drafts, but here they are. Super Bowl #5 since 2000.


The "terrible" drafts aren't that bad either. There are bad years but it's hard to find a team that's done much better over the past decade (and it's particularly hard if you count undrafted rookie free agents as draft picks, which they essentially are).

#47 MannysDestination


  • is not a republican


  • 11062 posts

Posted 26 January 2012 - 04:12 PM

Some people see the glass as half full. Other people think that fluoride is a government plot to introduce mind control elements into our systems and turn us into communists.


These are not mutually exclusive worldviews.

...oh god, you drink the tap water.

#48 loshjott

  • 3745 posts

Posted 26 January 2012 - 04:26 PM

BB is in a class by himself. The Steelers' organizational approach is on par with the Patriots', but no one person deserves as much credit for Pittsburgh's success as BB does for New England's.

In recent years, as Tom Brady's salary has caught up with his ability, BB the GM has had to prioritize. His strategy has been to invest in protection and a few weapons for his Hall of Fame quarterback, counting on BB the coach to assemble an acceptable defense on the cheap. I think that has been a shrewd GM decision, and the coaching on the defensive side has been quite good, considering the limited assets on hand.


The Steelers organizational approach has stood the test of time. 3 head coaches over something like 50+ years - each with multiple Super Bowl appearances and at least one win.

I hope Kraft is studying their approach when it's time for him to: A) hire a new head coach and B) retire from active ownership and implement a succession plan.

#49 Mystic Merlin


  • SoSH Member


  • 21582 posts

Posted 26 January 2012 - 04:31 PM

I hope Kraft is studying their approach when it's time for him to: A) hire a new head coach and B) retire from active ownership and implement a succession plan.


Kraft has repeatedly said he wants to emulate the Steelers/Giants, in terms of keeping the team in the family and maintaining a time-tested organizational structure. Jonathan Kraft will eventually take over, and I suspect he has been doing a lot more and recent years, and especially in recent months.

I'm very comfortable with the franchise going 5-10+ years forward. They get it.

#50 Salva135


  • Cassandra


  • 1143 posts

Posted 26 January 2012 - 04:34 PM

Kraft has repeatedly said he wants to emulate the Steelers/Giants, in terms of keeping the team in the family and maintaining a time-tested organizational structure. Jonathan Kraft will eventually take over, and I suspect he has been doing a lot more and recent years, and especially in recent months.

I'm very comfortable with the franchise going 5-10+ years forward. They get it.



Belichick takes over as President and Josh McD takes over as HC?

Edited by Salva135, 26 January 2012 - 04:35 PM.