Jump to content


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

SOSH

OK we're back on our main server.  It was taking a super long time to move *everything* back just to save a day's worth of messages.  I've been at this all day now and need to get back to my real job so.,... sorry.  Working on a better plan in case this happens again.  nip

Photo

Belichick


  • Please log in to reply
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

#101 MentalDisabldLst


  • Prefers spit over lube


  • 12808 posts

Posted 30 January 2012 - 06:53 PM

Also on ESPN today was a list of the Top 10 Belichickian Moves.

Their #4 (intentional safety at Denver) would have been #1 in my book... that was the moment I decided that I could never again question any decision Belichick made, because it was obvious he was leaps and bounds more clever than I am.

#102 abty

  • PipPip
  • 2149 posts

Posted 30 January 2012 - 07:02 PM

"Resigning as New York Jets head coach. Belichick's arrival in Foxborough was just as unconventional and controversial as the moves he's made since coming to New England. Tapped as Bill Parcells' replacement for Gang Green, Belichick shocked reporters when he resigned at his introductory news conference. Days later, after an attempt by Belichick to institute a temporary restraining order against the Jets and an intervention from then-NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue, Belichick was named head coach of the Patriots on Jan. 27, 2000"

God the Jets are so effing cursed. It's hilarious. Can you imagine how history changes if he stayed in NY?

#103 Royal Reader

  • 1178 posts

Posted 30 January 2012 - 07:22 PM

It's not a curse, it's Karma.

#104 Ed Hillel


  • Wants to be startin somethin


  • 38223 posts

Posted 30 January 2012 - 07:49 PM

I guess I can understand considering Baltimore had two timeouts (I just looked it up). I personally would have at a minimum ran a draw or something on 1st down but I more likely would have attacked through the air. It's certainly reasonable to sit on the ball there, but it really didn't seem right at the time. Also seemed un-Belichickian at the time.


The far bigger question is why Harbough sat on his timeouts. If the two plays take 5 seconds before the timeouts are used, the Pats will be snapping on 4th down with about 10-12 seconds left. Why not make them punt from their endzone and see what happens? If it's short you can even fair catch and free kick for a field goal. No idea what Baltimore was doing.

#105 Reverend


  • needs sharper knives


  • 19308 posts

Posted 30 January 2012 - 09:56 PM

Also on ESPN today was a list of the Top 10 Belichickian Moves.

Their #4 (intentional safety at Denver) would have been #1 in my book... that was the moment I decided that I could never again question any decision Belichick made, because it was obvious he was leaps and bounds more clever than I am.


I completely agree on the intentional safety--I suppose some memories get dulled with the passage of time while others become magnified, but if I recall correctly he blew the collective sports world's mind. Maybe because it worked (see: 4th down issue) but every non-Pats fan I knew gained even greater respect from the awesome of that move.

What's striking to me about that article is how, in regards perhaps to the memory stuff above, it actually understates the whole Belichick thing. Just a few examples that jumped right out at me:

#9 Only mentions the one going for it on 4th down episode that failed. Prior to that, though, he sparked much conversation about going for it on 4th down in situations where the vast majority of coaches would not. This also was related to an increased interest in quantitative analysis in football when people started looking at the expected points stuff and the economics papers on the issue; this was not an idiosyncracy but trendsetting.

#8 The discussion of the 4-3 versus the 3-4 doesn't really address the fact that he has switched his defensive strategy mid-season some years (including this year) (I can't imagine how frickin' hard that must be), much less that he often employs a hybrid system (see especially: elephant; McGinnis, Willie).

#7 At the time Brady took over, it was dogma that a starter does not lose his job on account of an injury. At the time, it was repeated about eleventy billion times. People don't eve say this anymore; they don't even think it because it's stupid and if you said so, people would roll their eyes and say, "Uh, yeah--Tom brady much?"

#6 Troy Brown's strip of Marlon McCree during his ill-conceived interception run back in that playoff game revealed that Brown had better situational understanding on defense than an actual, you know, starting safety coached by former NFL Coach of the Year Award winner Marty Schottenheimer.*

Also, as the frame of the article implies, some of the other stuff he does might have seemed weird once upon a time is something we've gotten used to.

I don't know if he's overrated or underrated and the debates on how people say a guy is overrated so much he becomes underrated, but I think it is telling that--and I do realize this is just a quick easy read piece--that there is a kind of complacent acceptance that Belichick is going to do things you never learned about. And the fact that he's been so successful implies that, at least prima facie, his ideas work.

When you actually stop noticing how radical a thing was, that suggests to you how far ahead of the curve a the thing is. I'm not saying he doesn't ever screw up and I get that some people can get frustrated with the In Belichick We Trust thing--wait, that sort of disappeared in the last few weeks. Huh... (Obvious troll is obvious. :c070: )



*FWIW, Marlon McCree, who defended his decision to run it back after the fact, is now an assistant defensive backs coach for Jacksonville (Submitted without comment.).

#106 Mystic Merlin


  • SoSH Member


  • 21048 posts

Posted 30 January 2012 - 10:36 PM

Remember in '09 when he went for a 4th and 2 inside the Pats 30 vs ATL?

The only other comparable example that comes to mind is Barry Switzer in 1995.

#107 axx

  • 4817 posts

Posted 30 January 2012 - 10:46 PM

Remember in '09 when he went for a 4th and 2 inside the Pats 30 vs ATL?


They went for it on 4th down a second time on that drive and picked it up as well.

#108 Super Nomario


  • SoSH Member


  • 6392 posts

Posted 30 January 2012 - 11:04 PM

(see especially: elephant; McGinnis, Willie).

This "see" construction made me think there was some sort of footnote or something that I could reference, but there isn't any. Furthermore, when I Google "McGinnis, Willie," it comes up with a defensive tackle from RI. I don't think he ever played for the Pats. Can you help me out here?

#109 Dogman2


  • Yukon Cornelius


  • 10566 posts

Posted 30 January 2012 - 11:14 PM

This "see" construction made me think there was some sort of footnote or something that I could reference, but there isn't any. Furthermore, when I Google "McGinnis, Willie," it comes up with a defensive tackle from RI. I don't think he ever played for the Pats. Can you help me out here?


http://en.wikipedia....Willie_McGinest

#110 Reverend


  • needs sharper knives


  • 19308 posts

Posted 30 January 2012 - 11:20 PM

This "see" construction made me think there was some sort of footnote or something that I could reference, but there isn't any. Furthermore, when I Google "McGinnis, Willie," it comes up with a defensive tackle from RI. I don't think he ever played for the Pats. Can you help me out here?

http://en.wikipedia....Willie_McGinest


Thanks for the assist Dog--it's not so much a typo thing as a, well, I read funny. Which is to say not so good sometimes.

#111 Freddy Linn


  • SoSH Member


  • 5908 posts

Posted 30 January 2012 - 11:30 PM

Remember in '09 when he went for a 4th and 2 inside the Pats 30 vs ATL?

The only other comparable example that comes to mind is Barry Switzer in 1995.


Mike Smith's inspiration. Except he forgot the context.

#112 FL4WL3SS


  • Mrs. Dennis Wideman


  • 5814 posts

Posted 31 January 2012 - 03:06 PM

That MacMullen piece maybe explains some of the personnell moves over the years. Not everyone can make it in the Patriots system.

#113 JMDurron

  • 4145 posts

Posted 31 January 2012 - 04:15 PM

That MacMullen piece maybe explains some of the personnell moves over the years. Not everyone can make it in the Patriots system.


More precisely, I wonder if Belichick's style makes it particularly difficult for players who have been "Stars", "Alpha Dogs", or whatever other term you prefer at the NFL level on other teams to adapt to the Patriots culture, not just the actual playbook. This might be particularly key with Wide Receivers, who have a collective reputation for being egomaniacs relative to players at other positions. Particularly if a player is already losing a step and near the end of a career (Galloway or Holt come to mind), the negative feedback might be too much to handle when it is matched with some degree of internal doubt. That is obviously more armchair (AKA worthless) psychology coming from me, but if Belichick is the King of Ego Busting, and the WR position is generally populated by the Kings of Ego Inflation, then it might make sense that it is uniquely difficult to get star-level WRs to play up to their abilities under Belichick. We may be reading system problems into situations that are actually cultural in their nature.

#114 Super Nomario


  • SoSH Member


  • 6392 posts

Posted 31 January 2012 - 05:09 PM

More precisely, I wonder if Belichick's style makes it particularly difficult for players who have been "Stars", "Alpha Dogs", or whatever other term you prefer at the NFL level on other teams to adapt to the Patriots culture, not just the actual playbook. This might be particularly key with Wide Receivers, who have a collective reputation for being egomaniacs relative to players at other positions. Particularly if a player is already losing a step and near the end of a career (Galloway or Holt come to mind), the negative feedback might be too much to handle when it is matched with some degree of internal doubt. That is obviously more armchair (AKA worthless) psychology coming from me, but if Belichick is the King of Ego Busting, and the WR position is generally populated by the Kings of Ego Inflation, then it might make sense that it is uniquely difficult to get star-level WRs to play up to their abilities under Belichick. We may be reading system problems into situations that are actually cultural in their nature.

It's not like Holt (0 catches after leaving NE) or Galloway (12 catches) excelled in some other system after leaving. Sometimes the answer is the simple one: these guys were just done.

#115 JMDurron

  • 4145 posts

Posted 31 January 2012 - 05:17 PM

It's not like Holt (0 catches after leaving NE) or Galloway (12 catches) excelled in some other system after leaving. Sometimes the answer is the simple one: these guys were just done.


Certainly, and those two guys probably aren't the best examples in terms of raw performance capability, but a potential negative mental spiral could manifest itself as abysmal on-field production. We tend to assume that the on-field production is almost always the result of issues related to executing the actual plays, but I'm wondering if the style mismatch, not the playbook complexity, might be the bigger issue. A player who is "done" is probably just "done", sure, but I wonder if that style might make it unqiuely more difficult to find players (especially veterans) to occupy that particular position. If the playbook might be making it more difficult for the young WRs, and the culture/style makes it more difficult for former star veterans, then there's a pretty small (and unknowable?) pool of players to pick from to fill that position. I just think we might be over-emphasizing the playbook factor, while underestimating the cultural aspect.

#116 Super Nomario


  • SoSH Member


  • 6392 posts

Posted 31 January 2012 - 05:21 PM

Certainly, and those two guys probably aren't the best examples in terms of raw performance capability, but a potential negative mental spiral could manifest itself as abysmal on-field production. We tend to assume that the on-field production is almost always the result of issues related to executing the actual plays, but I'm wondering if the style mismatch, not the playbook complexity, might be the bigger issue. A player who is "done" is probably just "done", sure, but I wonder if that style might make it unqiuely more difficult to find players (especially veterans) to occupy that particular position. If the playbook might be making it more difficult for the young WRs, and the culture/style makes it more difficult for former star veterans, then there's a pretty small (and unknowable?) pool of players to pick from to fill that position. I just think we might be over-emphasizing the playbook factor, while underestimating the cultural aspect.

I don't think the WRs who failed did so because of cultural or playbook issues; I think they failed because they weren't any good. There are still zero examples of players who were failures in the Pats' system / culture that went on to success elsewhere.

#117 soxfan121


  • minidope/racontuer


  • 12004 posts

Posted 31 January 2012 - 05:43 PM

As is often the case when I read about Belichick, this makes me think of his roots watching his dad coach at Annapolis. The whole routine has a kind of elite military unit vibe such that you: 1) train so hard such that when it comes time for the mission, the mission is actually easier than the training; 2) there is a Darwinian selection process such that your unit is comprised only of people who can deal with the training.


Willie McGinest said something related to this on NFL network today. The host asked about the "pressure and preparations" and Willie said that because every day was a "big day" and every practice was conducted at a high level that BB told them before the Super Bowls that they had practiced and played in tougher situations all year, so relax, have fun and do your job. BB's military mentality means he's looser now, before the real action, than at any point all season and the players pick up on this. The time for "drill" is over and you win or lose on how you perform, so being all nervous and "tough" usually backfires.

#118 Shelterdog


  • SoSH Member


  • 8597 posts

Posted 31 January 2012 - 05:52 PM

I don't think the WRs who failed did so because of cultural or playbook issues; I think they failed because they weren't any good. There are still zero examples of players who were failures in the Pats' system / culture that went on to success elsewhere.


We've also seen some hints that they may have been willing to simplify things for Gronk and Hernandez (they only gave them "one of three" playbooks as rookies, stuff like that). I suspect if someone was really, really talented at receiver-not just fast and strong but a good route runner, good at grabbing the ball in traffic, etc--but stupid at reading decenses they'd somehow find a way to get that guy some run.

#119 Reverend


  • needs sharper knives


  • 19308 posts

Posted 31 January 2012 - 07:10 PM

Certainly, and those two guys probably aren't the best examples in terms of raw performance capability, but a potential negative mental spiral could manifest itself as abysmal on-field production. We tend to assume that the on-field production is almost always the result of issues related to executing the actual plays, but I'm wondering if the style mismatch, not the playbook complexity, might be the bigger issue. A player who is "done" is probably just "done", sure, but I wonder if that style might make it unqiuely more difficult to find players (especially veterans) to occupy that particular position. If the playbook might be making it more difficult for the young WRs, and the culture/style makes it more difficult for former star veterans, then there's a pretty small (and unknowable?) pool of players to pick from to fill that position. I just think we might be over-emphasizing the playbook factor, while underestimating the cultural aspect.

I don't think the WRs who failed did so because of cultural or playbook issues; I think they failed because they weren't any good. There are still zero examples of players who were failures in the Pats' system / culture that went on to success elsewhere.



There's also a third possibility, though related to the "culture" idea, in the notion of being on the same page. Like, maybe different players see the field differently; then QBs who see it one way need WRs who see it that way, and QBs who see it another would need WRs who see it that way. Basically, once an approach is sufficiently complex, you need guys who grasp it in similar ways--guys who think alike.

This isn't exactly an apt illustration, but does anyone remember the 60 Minutes bit on the secret signals? (Link--I don't know how to embed this).

Lots has been made about brady "trusting" Branch more than others, but what seems to be getting lost in that insight is that he trusts Branch because he knows Branch is going to do what he wants him to do.

What Belichick I think does add here is that he's adept at not letting the perceived "objective" talents of players interfere with his evaluation of their fit with the rest of the team.

Willie McGinest said something related to this on NFL network today. The host asked about the "pressure and preparations" and Willie said that because every day was a "big day" and every practice was conducted at a high level that BB told them before the Super Bowls that they had practiced and played in tougher situations all year, so relax, have fun and do your job. BB's military mentality means he's looser now, before the real action, than at any point all season and the players pick up on this. The time for "drill" is over and you win or lose on how you perform, so being all nervous and "tough" usually backfires.


Thanks for mentioning this as I wouldn't have seen it otherwise and this is a great elaboration of that organizational approach to feed the nerd in me. I love it: If you're ready, and you're strong, you can only benefit from being loose too, and you get to be loose because you are ready and you are strong.

I'm going to miss this guy some day.

#120 Super Nomario


  • SoSH Member


  • 6392 posts

Posted 31 January 2012 - 07:15 PM

There's also a third possibility, though related to the "culture" idea, in the notion of being on the same page. Like, maybe different players see the field differently; then QBs who see it one way need WRs who see it that way, and QBs who see it another would need WRs who see it that way. Basically, once an approach is sufficiently complex, you need guys who grasp it in similar ways--guys who think alike.

This isn't exactly an apt illustration, but does anyone remember the 60 Minutes bit on the secret signals? (Link--I don't know how to embed this).

Lots has been made about brady "trusting" Branch more than others, but what seems to be getting lost in that insight is that he trusts Branch because he knows Branch is going to do what he wants him to do.

What Belichick I think does add here is that he's adept at not letting the perceived "objective" talents of players interfere with his evaluation of their fit with the rest of the team.

There might be something to this, but then wouldn't we expect a WR who wasn't on the same page with Brady / BOB / the Pats' system to succeed somewhere else? It hasn't happened yet.

#121 Reverend


  • needs sharper knives


  • 19308 posts

Posted 31 January 2012 - 07:53 PM

There might be something to this, but then wouldn't we expect a WR who wasn't on the same page with Brady / BOB / the Pats' system to succeed somewhere else? It hasn't happened yet.


I agree. if I were to research it, I'd want to see what teams the receivers have worked out with and stuff to get a sense of what the actual outcomes have been. Like, has nobody given them a hard look after the failed with the Patriots--a kind of corollary to Patriot Way guys being brought in by other teams to bring some kind of influx of good (which seems not really to work, but teams keep trying)--or have they gotten other shots and blown them.

As competitive as the league is, on the one hand, you expect people to try anything, but on the other, there is little tolerance for failure and I sometimes get the sense that a significant amount of players that might pan out in another situation don't get strong looks because they are perceived as risky if they haven't had much success in their initial attempt. This would be analogous to coaches being unwilling to go for it on 4th and short because of the risk of blame.

It's worth noting that Belichick is considered anomolous in both the 4th and short thing and finding guys in the scrap heap who can really play. But obviously, I'm more aware of Patriots scrap-heap reclamations as I follow them, though that definitely seems to be the shared perception around the league that Belichick is an anomoly here.

#122 Shelterdog


  • SoSH Member


  • 8597 posts

Posted 31 January 2012 - 09:26 PM

I agree. if I were to research it, I'd want to see what teams the receivers have worked out with and stuff to get a sense of what the actual outcomes have been. Like, has nobody given them a hard look after the failed with the Patriots--a kind of corollary to Patriot Way guys being brought in by other teams to bring some kind of influx of good (which seems not really to work, but teams keep trying)--or have they gotten other shots and blown them.

As competitive as the league is, on the one hand, you expect people to try anything, but on the other, there is little tolerance for failure and I sometimes get the sense that a significant amount of players that might pan out in another situation don't get strong looks because they are perceived as risky if they haven't had much success in their initial attempt. This would be analogous to coaches being unwilling to go for it on 4th and short because of the risk of blame.

It's worth noting that Belichick is considered anomolous in both the 4th and short thing and finding guys in the scrap heap who can really play. But obviously, I'm more aware of Patriots scrap-heap reclamations as I follow them, though that definitely seems to be the shared perception around the league that Belichick is an anomoly here.


Another issue with determining that the Pats' system isn't the reason wideouts fail from ex-pats' receivers performance is that the comparison of (say) Joey Galloway to post-Pats Joey Galloway isn't the right one--the correct comparison, which is impossible to make, is what would Joey Galloway have done in 2009 on another team v. what he did in New England. Everyone who leaves NE is one year old with one more failure on their belt and starting over, so there's already an uphill climb. It's particularly pronounced with younger players-you get a lot of rope on your own team if you're a high pick, but once you've been cut you're just another piece of meat.

#123 Middleburg

  • 3 posts

Posted 31 January 2012 - 11:40 PM

The bottom line on BB the GM and BB the coach is that he can break down the fine line. There is no gray area of dialect between the players and the coach. It was mentioned before, but BB's success as a GM isn't in the draft, it's in finding the players he can mold using his draft picks as a tool to get the players he sees fitting his system. That's where he makes his risks. For every Andre Carter, there's a Bethel Johnson. Who wouldn't love to have a healthy Andre going into this game right now? Brian Waters compared to Chad Jackson? I know you can't put the two of them together in relation to the years but the mold stands true. IF we win this one, we are going to be favored again, and put down again. I think BB understands how small the window is getting for TB, and would like to see him close it out as the best ever. I expect a lot of wheeling and dealing from BB the GM this offseason to make sure it gets done. And I will stand by him every step of the way. Five in 11 years. The only part of me as a Pats fan that's selfish is not wanting to see BB retire. We may be in Aurbauch territory, if he continues along the same path for the next 11 years. God, I love this team.

#124 Super Nomario


  • SoSH Member


  • 6392 posts

Posted 01 February 2012 - 01:38 AM

Another issue with determining that the Pats' system isn't the reason wideouts fail from ex-pats' receivers performance is that the comparison of (say) Joey Galloway to post-Pats Joey Galloway isn't the right one--the correct comparison, which is impossible to make, is what would Joey Galloway have done in 2009 on another team v. what he did in New England. Everyone who leaves NE is one year old with one more failure on their belt and starting over, so there's already an uphill climb. It's particularly pronounced with younger players-you get a lot of rope on your own team if you're a high pick, but once you've been cut you're just another piece of meat.

Taking this logic to its absurd conclusion, we can never know if any player is truly good or not. Maybe Ryan Leaf would have been a star if drafted by the right team; maybe Brady would have gotten cut before his rookie season. There's some truth to the idea that the system a player gets drafted into is a factor in his career performance, but at the same time if Chad Jackson was the next Jerry Rice you'd think some team would have figured that out by now.

I don't think the Patriots' record of failure with WR prospects is unusual, frankly. Even the Pittsburghs of the world have their Limas Sweeds. It's a fairly bust-heavy position in a fairly crap-shooty process. And the Pats haven't used a first-rounder on a receiver under BB. If Chad Jackson or Taylor Price was really an elite talent, wouldn't he have been a first-rounder? These guys went second-round and third-round because they had warts. All these guys (Johnson, Jackson, Tate, Price) got / have gotten chances elsewhere, and while those new teams didn't make the same investment the Pats did, they clearly weren't enamored with what they saw.

#125 ivanvamp


  • one campus at a time..


  • 3706 posts

Posted 01 February 2012 - 09:53 AM

Interesting article today in the Herald on BB and his assistant coaches: http://bostonherald....istant_coaches/

Funny (but truly sophomoric) thing about that article is this: I have a few Safari tabs open, and the one for that article is of such a width that the header reads: "Bill Belichick grooms his own ass..."

It's kind of like when the Red Sox used to use the off-set centerfield camera (instead of the straight-on one), and Ortiz would get up to bat with the Giant Glass sign showing up behind him....with that view you would always see Ortiz in his crouch with the words, "GIANT ASS" behind him, because he would block the GL.

Ok......is the Super Bowl here yet?

#126 weeba

  • 1287 posts

Posted 01 February 2012 - 03:09 PM

Fun article on Deadspin just now:

http://deadspin.com/...-bill-belichick

#127 MentalDisabldLst


  • Prefers spit over lube


  • 12808 posts

Posted 01 February 2012 - 06:11 PM

That article is awesome, Weeba.

His robotic press-conference answers lack the punchiness, the anger or bluster, of other coaches' performances, but he seems to display a kind of impish delight in their uselessness. To reply seriously to unserious questions would only reward stupidity, and there's a kind of Belichick twinkle at the insipid moments, where he looks amazed to still be asked questions that either can't be answered without betraying game strategy or shouldn't be answered because, seriously, goddamn.


Amen.

#128 tims4wins


  • PN23's replacement


  • 6332 posts

Posted 02 February 2012 - 10:06 AM

Pats simulate halftime break

I <3 Belichick

#129 Bucknahs Bum Ankle


  • SoSH Member


  • 8488 posts

Posted 02 February 2012 - 10:20 AM

It's almost unfathomable that has supposedly never been done before. I mean Belichick is a genious and all, but simulating the extended SB halftime break in practice leading up to the SB seems like a pretty obvious thing to do.

#130 loshjott

  • 3698 posts

Posted 02 February 2012 - 10:26 AM

That was my thought also. It's not exactly as earth shattering as inventing the forward pass or anything.

#131 Smiling Joe Hesketh


  • now batting steve sal hiney. the leftfielder, hiney


  • 24798 posts

Posted 02 February 2012 - 10:27 AM

It's almost unfathomable that has supposedly never been done before. I mean Belichick is a genious and all, but simulating the extended SB halftime break in practice leading up to the SB seems like a pretty obvious thing to do.


Of maybe it's been done before but the sports media wasn't so witless back then and actually figured it was so obvious there was no need to even mention it.

#132 Al Zarilla


  • SoSH Member


  • 18692 posts

Posted 02 February 2012 - 10:29 AM

It's almost unfathomable that has supposedly never been done before. I mean Belichick is a genious and all, but simulating the extended SB halftime break in practice leading up to the SB seems like a pretty obvious thing to do.

I don't know that practices try to emulate the 3 1/2 hour game span though. i.e., it's not as though they're running offense vs. defense for the whole time like a real game. Further, I doubt practices match the grueling physical aspect of the game. Rather, they're doing some of this and some of that. Still, not doubting the football genius that coaches the team.

#133 EddieYost


  • has a special friend in GHoff


  • 3958 posts

Posted 02 February 2012 - 11:10 AM

Pats simulate halftime break

I <3 Belichick


Part of me winces when I see Ridley talking so much. I mean, I guess this isn't a big secret, but still why is a rookie telling the media stuff like "I am going to play" and "we did X at practice"?

#134 JimBoSox9


  • will you be my friend?


  • 11628 posts

Posted 02 February 2012 - 11:13 AM

Belichick was brilliant at his press conference this morning.

Reporter: "This week you've been relaxed, humorous, more expansive with answers..."

BB: "What, that's different from usual?"

(paraphrase)

#135 loshjott

  • 3698 posts

Posted 03 February 2012 - 09:35 AM

OK, this is funny.

Spoiler: I'm glad they didn't highlight the red hoodie.

#136 Bucknahs Bum Ankle


  • SoSH Member


  • 8488 posts

Posted 03 February 2012 - 09:44 AM

That was really well done.

Here, Patriots quarterback Tom Brady—who knows a thing or two about fashion—looks on in admiration at his coach’s seemingly effortless style. This photograph was taken as the Patriots prepared for a crucial late-season game against Green Bay in 2010. Notice how Belichick has tailored his outfit to the affair: The black undershirt and matching headband bring a touch of elegance befitting an evening engagement, yet the rolled-up sleeves signal that this is a man at work. Is Belichick intimidated by his opponent? The insouciantly uneven drawstrings of his signature gray hooded sweatshirt suggest not. The Patriots would go on to win, 31-27.


Edited by Bucknahs Bum Ankle, 03 February 2012 - 09:46 AM.


#137 triniSox

  • 1079 posts

Posted 03 February 2012 - 03:59 PM

Decent read about someone in Belichick's inner circle: http://www.nytimes.c...ner-circle.html

Nice gem buried in it:

The Belichick crew once took part in a weight-loss competition, with official weigh-ins and hefty penalties, and Belichick would hide slices of pizza in everyone else’s desks.


BB you sly bastard

#138 Icculus

  • 150 posts

Posted 03 February 2012 - 04:25 PM

Yahoo also has a piece on Ernie Adams. I think a lot of it that relates directly to the Pats was covered in Patriot Reign but there are some parts that focus more on him and other things he's done besides football.

#139 MentalDisabldLst


  • Prefers spit over lube


  • 12808 posts

Posted 03 February 2012 - 04:37 PM

Belichick's consigliere is named Berj Najarian? Might be the 2nd most powerful Armenian in massachusetts, after DotB of course.

#140 JimBoSox9


  • will you be my friend?


  • 11628 posts

Posted 04 February 2012 - 09:10 AM

Bledsoe's story about sending Najarian roses on Secretary Day was outstanding. I love that man like it's 1996.

#141 Al Zarilla


  • SoSH Member


  • 18692 posts

Posted 04 February 2012 - 10:23 AM

Belichick's consigliere is named Berj Najarian? Might be the 2nd most powerful Armenian in massachusetts, after DotB of course.

From the article, sounds like Berj is more "in lieu of Bill Belichick going to charm school" than a consigliere. I mean, would they send him cross country to put a horse's head in bed with a movie producer?

#142 kenneycb


  • Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play


  • 6880 posts

Posted 04 February 2012 - 10:26 AM

From the article, sounds like Berj is more "in lieu of Bill Belichick going to charm school" than a consigliere. I mean, would they send him cross country to put a horse's head in bed with a movie producer?

Maybe not cross country but I wouldn't be surprised if he took a few visits to a certain small town in Connecticut for the same purpose...

Edited by kenneycb, 04 February 2012 - 10:27 AM.


#143 Marbleheader


  • SoSH Member


  • 6791 posts

Posted 06 February 2012 - 08:57 AM

I guess Bill deserves some credit for a decent defensive game. However, I am very disappointed in how his team played--yet again--when it mattered most. There was nothing during that game that I saw as brilliant strategy. Both teams were sloppy yesterday, but the Patriots were the worse of the two. The 12 men on the field negating a fumble recovery was about as embarrasing as it gets. Bill is a very good coach still, but the notion that he's playing chess and everyone else is playing checkers is no longer true. He's fallen back to the pack.

#144 dcmissle


  • SoSH Member


  • 11178 posts

Posted 06 February 2012 - 09:31 AM

I guess Bill deserves some credit for a decent defensive game. However, I am very disappointed in how his team played--yet again--when it mattered most. There was nothing during that game that I saw as brilliant strategy. Both teams were sloppy yesterday, but the Patriots were the worse of the two. The 12 men on the field negating a fumble recovery was about as embarrasing as it gets. Bill is a very good coach still, but the notion that he's playing chess and everyone else is playing checkers is no longer true. He's fallen back to the pack.


If you're saying Coughlin is at least as good a game coach as BB, I have no quibble with that.

But all a HC can do is come up with and call a game plan that gives his team a good chance of winning. Any of us would have signed up a thousand times for the Giants' point total.

If under the buck-stops-here principle, you want to assign him blame for the 12th man on the field that led to the Giants' TD, I guess that's fair. But BB can't catch passes for Welker or throw them for Brady. He also can't not throw them for Brady, who repeated his mistake in the Ravens' game with the bomb to an injured Gronk.

As I said before the game, I would like to have seen Ridley on the field. Three yards into the middle of the giants' line didn't do much for me. But if Ridley had put the ball on the ground, there would be calls for BB's head, and I'm not prepared to second guess a decision made by someone who had tons of more information than I did.

#145 Rooster Crows

  • 985 posts

Posted 06 February 2012 - 11:36 AM

Shouldn't they have let NYG get the last touchdown sooner, though, so they would have more than 57 seconds to get back down the field for a TD?

#146 soxhop411


  • SoSH Member


  • 7685 posts

Posted 06 February 2012 - 11:42 AM

Shouldn't they have let NYG get the last touchdown sooner, though, so they would have more than 57 seconds to get back down the field for a TD?


wasn't he trying to kneel on the one yard line, but fell into the end zone for a TD? So i don't think they were trying to score on that play

#147 BigSoxFan


  • SoSH Member


  • 10165 posts

Posted 06 February 2012 - 11:42 AM

Shouldn't they have let NYG get the last touchdown sooner, though, so they would have more than 57 seconds to get back down the field for a TD?


Well, ideally they would have stopped the Giants and forced them to make a pressure kick from the 20-30 yard line.

#148 Bucknahs Bum Ankle


  • SoSH Member


  • 8488 posts

Posted 06 February 2012 - 11:45 AM

If they try to let them score earlier, it becomes a lot more obvious to the Giants to sit down at the 1 yard line and kill the clock. As it was, Bradshaw figured it out just a fraction of a second too late. I think BB played that one exactly right.

Edited by Bucknahs Bum Ankle, 06 February 2012 - 11:50 AM.


#149 Ed Hillel


  • Wants to be startin somethin


  • 38223 posts

Posted 06 February 2012 - 11:47 AM

Last night was really all about the players, other than maybe letting the Giants score one play too late.

I thought Brady and Belichick played their parts well. Sometimes you just make a couple mistakes, catch some bad luck and a hot team, and lose. That's really how I look at it.

#150 bowiac


  • I've been living a lie.


  • 8757 posts

Posted 06 February 2012 - 11:47 AM

I hate to say that Bill Simmons has a good idea, but it's really true - every team needs to employ a 15 year old who has played a ton of Madden to handle some basic clock management issues. They should have let them score earlier. They should have also run the 2nd to last drive at a faster pace to give them more time to answer in case the Giants went down the field as they did. There wasn't much chance that they would be able to burn the entire clock and not score a TD, so the difference between giving Eli the ball back with 3 minutes and 5 minutes wasn't particularly significant in changing the Giants odds of scoring.

Oh well.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users