2018 Belichick Quotathon

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
Link

After his Pro day and some 1-on-1 coaching from Belichick.

Bradley Chubb: honor to meet you sir.

Belichick: We’re picking 31st. No chance we see you.
 

brandonchristensen

mad photochops
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2012
23,202
BB discusses relationship with Brady and more:

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/patriots/2018/03/bill_belichick_discusses_relationship_with_tom_brady_excitement_about?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

“I’ve had direct conversations with Tom many times, obviously, through a long period of time,” Belichick said. “I’ll rely on those conversations that I’ve had with him directly rather than something else.

“Tom and I have always had a good line of communication. We’ve always been able to talk directly to each other. I don’t see that changing.”
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
21,001
Hingham, MA
When he was asked whether he’d spoken to Brady, Belichick said he’d addressed that topic on Sunday. The reporter said he wasn’t at that session.

Belichick replied, “It’s on every internet site you’d want to find. I’m sure we can pull it up for you.”
 

h8mfy

lurker
Jul 15, 2005
250
Bill Belichick will be discussing his true love, Lacrosse, on ESPNU tonight at 8:

Edit - due to some over-running games the first two scheduled airings didn’t get shown (and thus recorded) but I finally saw it and there was some really interesting stuff about his history with Lax, approach to big games, and tips he’s learned from other coaches. Plus a grumble about Nick Foles’ unexpected success. Worth the time for sure.

You can find it on ESPNs site
 
Last edited:

DrewDawg

Dorito Dink
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
34,138
I'm pretending his shake of the head at the end was when she asked if he wanted any dipping sauce.

Then again, if she had handed him some Polynesian Sauce I may have lost it.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
5,285
I know we've covered this with other people's comments but my God. Belichick and the Patriots win FAR FAR FAR FAR more than ANY other organization, year in and year out. They win more games. They win more division and conference titles. They win more Super Bowls. Than anyone. And it's not even close.

What it takes to do that is more work than anyone else is willing to put in. And that kind of extra work sucks. Does anyone think that running that damned hill is enjoyable? No. But when you're coming back from 28-3 down in the super bowl and the other team is sucking wind as you rip up and down the field, you can be damned sure they were grateful for that extra work on that hill.

If you want to have fun, there are lots of places to go. If you want to win, there are a few other places to go. If you want to consistently win more than anyone else in football, there's only one place to be and that's New England. If that's not what you value most, this place definitely is not for you.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
27,354
It’s been a 15 year, on again off again quest to demonstrate that “they hate their coach.”
 

InstaFace

MDLzera
Sep 27, 2016
7,607
I think Joan Jett sang about that, didn't she? They love their coach for hating on them? Something like that, anyway.
 

DrewDawg

Dorito Dink
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
34,138
I’m sure Marsh hated his time here. Because if any of his shit effort was captured on film I’m sure it was pointed out. Repeatedly.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
11,916
Mansfield MA

cornwalls@6

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
824
from the wilds of western ma
BB not answering questions today about the Butler benching is the least surprising news in the history of ever. And I think we should all know by now he gives exactly no shits about the reaction/fallout from said non answers.
 

gmogmo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
718
Hingham, Ma
upload_2018-7-25_10-46-7.png

The gold is when he does things like this...pretends Shaugnessy was asking if he'd do something different about training camp when he obviously means not playing Butler.
 

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
2,547
Shank asked him legit questions that should have been answered months ago.

And BB gave him nothing except the premise for his next column.
He's answered it. People just don't like the answer.

Does the team no good to start rehashing last year.

Love the line about doing training camp differently.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
12,678
Shank asked him legit questions that should have been answered months ago.

And BB gave him nothing except the premise for his next column.

He answered it..."I have always done what I think is best for the team." Presumably that includes the last Super Bowl. (Unless one thinks he made his self-described "football decision" despite thinking it would turn out worse for the team. In which case you should head over to Sons of Alex Jones). If Belichick had done a 5-hour presentation with game and practice film about why not Butler, the Shaughnessys of the world would tune out and say he was boring, and the ass-couch experts would continue to say he was wrong.
Two groups who don't matter -- the Shaughnessys and the ass-couch experts.

If Shaughnessy or anyone else wants to write a column that says, "'what's best for the team, you say,' well, then, ya fucked up, because that wasn't best," they should.
But they don't want to write that column. They only want to whine along with their tiny violins (volins?) about how meanie old coach won't answer their questions.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
15,784
where I was last at
He answered it..."I have always done what I think is best for the team." Presumably that includes the last Super Bowl. (Unless one thinks he made his self-described "football decision" despite thinking it would turn out worse for the team. In which case you should head over to Sons of Alex Jones). If Belichick had done a 5-hour presentation with game and practice film about why not Butler, the Shaughnessys of the world would tune out and say he was boring, and the ass-couch experts would continue to say he was wrong.
Two groups who don't matter -- the Shaughnessys and the ass-couch experts.

If Shaughnessy or anyone else wants to write a column that says, "'what's best for the team, you say,' well, then, ya fucked up, because that wasn't best," they should.
But they don't want to write that column. They only want to whine along with their tiny violins (volins?) about how meanie old coach won't answer their questions.
We're just going to disagree. If BB answered the question to the satisfaction of lets say 1/3 of the interested parties, the thread we had here, would not have raged for months, and it would not still be a hot topic for fans, Boston Sports radio, and columnists like Shank.


"Football decisons" or "Best for the team", begs the question, Why?

And thats the question, BB has not answered.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
12,678
We're just going to disagree. If BB answered the question to the satisfaction of lets say 1/3 of the interested parties, the thread we had here, would not have raged for months, and it would not still be a hot topic for fans, Boston Sports radio, and columnists like Shank.

"Football decisons" or "Best for the team", begs the question, Why?

And thats the question, BB has not answered.
Actually, that's not begging the question. What *is* begging the question is the continued demand for AN ANSWER, which begs the question (i.e., assumes that it is) of whether the "answer" is anything more than "that's what I thought was best for the team at the time."

What historically successful human gives one micro-shit about what threads, fans, hot topics, sports radio and columnists" think about strategy?

Maybe he could invite Tommy's friend Jim Gray over, and they can do a 12-hour Belichick Breakdown. They can call it "A Decision."

He doesn't and he hasn't.

And thats the point.

"Football decsions" is not an answer.
It apparently is to 66.7% of interested parties.
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
6,177
Maine
"Bill, You often say you make decisions based on the best interest of the team, What do you have to say about reports that indicate you turned down a better package to in the words of some "Put Jimmy in the best possible situation?" Wouldnt that be the very opposite of the best interest of the team?"

Now I doubt anyone has the balls to ask. And I am not sure I necessarily believe there was a better offer. And I assume he would 99.9% say "I will comment about players we have on the field today" Or "The deal we took at the time was in the best interest of the team:". But with the the reports out there it seems a fair question.

I think thats the biggest chink in the BB Press conference armor. IF there ends up being any proof (Browns go public I guess??? Or Jimmys Agent ends up confirming something) then the "Best interest of the Team" thing will be open season.

Of course its also his biggest shield. Lets say that the Browns, 9ers and JG Camp all "confirm" that the Browns offered more. Bill would still say "It was in the best interest of the team to trade him to the 49ers." But Bill Never has to expound on that, because it only has to make sense to him. Its us mere mortals that wonder "Yea but why was it in the best interest.".
Thats the Catch 22.
"I did X"
"But that makes no sense"
"You didnt know what I know, and it made sense to me"
"But I dont understand"
"But I do."
Seems simple but why dont the reporter pool ask "Why was X in the best interest of the Team?"
 

MalzoneExpress

Thanks, gramps.
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2005
861
Cambridge, MA
...
Seems simple but why dont the reporter pool ask "Why was X in the best interest of the Team?"
The answer is: "Because it gave us the best chance to win."
And the follow-up question would get a similarly vague response. Bill will not discuss his thinking because it will give the opponents insights he doesn't want them to have.
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
4,777
"Bill, You often say you make decisions based on the best interest of the team, What do you have to say about reports that indicate you turned down a better package to in the words of some "Put Jimmy in the best possible situation?" Wouldnt that be the very opposite of the best interest of the team?"

Now I doubt anyone has the balls to ask. And I am not sure I necessarily believe there was a better offer. And I assume he would 99.9% say "I will comment about players we have on the field today" Or "The deal we took at the time was in the best interest of the team:". But with the the reports out there it seems a fair question.

I think thats the biggest chink in the BB Press conference armor. IF there ends up being any proof (Browns go public I guess??? Or Jimmys Agent ends up confirming something) then the "Best interest of the Team" thing will be open season.

Of course its also his biggest shield. Lets say that the Browns, 9ers and JG Camp all "confirm" that the Browns offered more. Bill would still say "It was in the best interest of the team to trade him to the 49ers." But Bill Never has to expound on that, because it only has to make sense to him. Its us mere mortals that wonder "Yea but why was it in the best interest.".
Thats the Catch 22.
"I did X"
"But that makes no sense"
"You didnt know what I know, and it made sense to me"
"But I dont understand"
"But I do."
Seems simple but why dont the reporter pool ask "Why was X in the best interest of the Team?"
Even if the Browns did make a better offer (which is a big IF in my opinion) you would have to quantify that with further detail on when their offer was made. If it was made prior to the season, I think Belichick could very reasonably explain that it was in the best interests of the organization to go into the season with a trusted player in the backup QB spot.
 

MalzoneExpress

Thanks, gramps.
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2005
861
Cambridge, MA
Just played at some length on DC sports radio. Hosts greatly amused and gave Shank credit for being a bulldog and going about the question several ways.
There has been a lot of pro-Shank ball washing recently on local sports radio. It seems like they are all insufferable Shankophants.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
27,354
There has been a lot of pro-Shank ball washing recently on local sports radio. It seems like they are all insufferable Shankophants.
From the snippet I heard, which lasted 30 seconds, it was a completely legit effort by Shank — unlike so much of what he does.

And it was an understandable response by B.B., really the only response. If he had engaged on the substance of this, every answer would have spawned another half dozen questions. And this would have been a 3 or 4 day story rather than a one-day story.

They both get As in my book. Nice try, effective response.
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
6,177
Maine
The answer is: "Because it gave us the best chance to win."
And the follow-up question would get a similarly vague response. Bill will not discuss his thinking because it will give the opponents insights he doesn't want them to have.
Oh I agree Malzone. But that begs the question "why did you feel it gave the team the best chance to win?" That would be a fascinating answer. Because if we have learned anything its that His 50+ years of FB experience has given him a unique perspective.

I am not sayin BB is wrong for doing this. Or that JG was a bad trade. But his "Vagueness" and semantics are also why he gets questioned by some.
Does he care? Not a bit, unless maybe Bob is asking.

As an aside I do feel that he is smart enough to answer this without giving away state secrets. I also think it would add to many peoples enjoyment of the game/sport. I can also survive without knowing these particulars. So just because I think it could be a "good thing" in some instances doesnt mean i think he should have to do it. And I dont blame the Media for trying.
 

scottyno

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
4,748
Even if the Browns did make a better offer (which is a big IF in my opinion) you would have to quantify that with further detail on when their offer was made. If it was made prior to the season, I think Belichick could very reasonably explain that it was in the best interests of the organization to go into the season with a trusted player in the backup QB spot.
There's also no real way to prove they did make a better offer, because it all depends on how much value you put on having Hoyer as short term insurance vs random guy off the street that doesn't know the system if Brady has to miss a game or 2.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
12,678
Oh I agree Malzone. But that begs the question "why did you feel it gave the team the best chance to win?" That would be a fascinating answer. Because if we have learned anything its that His 50+ years of FB experience has given him a unique perspective.

I am not sayin BB is wrong for doing this. Or that JG was a bad trade. But his "Vagueness" and semantics are also why he gets questioned by some.
Does he care? Not a bit, unless maybe Bob is asking.


As an aside I do feel that he is smart enough to answer this without giving away state secrets. I also think it would add to many peoples enjoyment of the game/sport. I can also survive without knowing these particulars. So just because I think it could be a "good thing" in some instances doesnt mean i think he should have to do it. And I dont blame the Media for trying.

The meta-answer is "i answer these questions this way because I think its the best thing for the football team."

(But, yes, his actual strategic answers would probably be fascinating).
 

steveluck7

Member
SoSH Member
May 10, 2007
2,837
Burrillville, RI
There's also no real way to prove they did make a better offer, because it all depends on how much value you put on having Hoyer as short term insurance vs random guy off the street that doesn't know the system if Brady has to miss a game or 2.
They also had every reason to believe that the gap between the Cleveland’s second 1st round pick - the Houston pick - (trade happens before Watson was hurt) and San Francisco’s 2nd round pick was going to be <10 spots. No one could have predicted that Houston pick to be #4 overall
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,311
The exchange between Shank and Belichick was fascinating; BB certainly gave the talk radio hosts something to scream about all afternoon.

I think those that are criticizing Belichick for his response today need to remember that Belichick has never bad-mouthed an ex-player after they left. And there were some messy divorces over the years: Wes Welker, Randy Moss, Adalius Thomas, Lawyer Milloy, Richard Seymour. And Belichick has stayed on script every time with his "best interests of the football team" and "football decision" talk. Say what you want about Belichick and the Patriots being "no fun", but at least some players respect that fact, and it may be a small part of why players put up with the hill drills all these years.

Same goes with current players. Belichick will always praise players after a victory, even a sloppy victory, during his Belichick Breakdowns segment. But after a loss, it's always the same: "we need to play better in all aspects of the game: offense, defense, special teams. And coach better, too."

Explaining the reasons behind a benching, no matter the reasons, will make the player look bad in some way or other. So, Belichick has decided to simply give no info other than "football decision". It's not what we want to hear, it's not what Felger & Mazz want to hear, but none of that matters one iota. Benching is bad enough for a player; no need to rub salt in his wounds. Even something as "he was sick all week and struggled in practice as a result" can be perceived as slighting the player in some way, and BB wants to go nowhere near that. No distractions is a mantra at Patriot Place.

Privately, in practice, it's a different story based on what we heard.

I guess it's possible for Belichick to go up there and admit that he made a decision, but that it didn't work out, and he takes the blame for it. But such an approach will still lead to the "why did you make that decision" question that he does not want to answer. To give a reason why, while I was listening to the radio today, Zolak was comparing the Butler benching to "4th-and-2". It's been shown time and time again that statistically, going for it in that situation was absolutely the right thing to do, as it would give the Pats the best chance to win that game. But, no matter what, people like Zolak, who presumably should know better, still get it wrong. Bottom line is that there is nothing for BB to gain by discussing individual coaching decisions with the media.

And the fact that people still think Belichick gave away JG out of spite should tell us all we need to know about the intelligence of most self-proclaimed sports pundits.
 

RGREELEY33

Potty Mouth
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Nov 28, 2005
3,735
Orange County, CA
The exchange between Shank and Belichick was fascinating; BB certainly gave the talk radio hosts something to scream about all afternoon.

I think those that are criticizing Belichick for his response today need to remember that Belichick has never bad-mouthed an ex-player after they left. And there were some messy divorces over the years: Wes Welker, Randy Moss, Adalius Thomas, Lawyer Milloy, Richard Seymour. And Belichick has stayed on script every time with his "best interests of the football team" and "football decision" talk. Say what you want about Belichick and the Patriots being "no fun", but at least some players respect that fact, and it may be a small part of why players put up with the hill drills all these years.

Same goes with current players. Belichick will always praise players after a victory, even a sloppy victory, during his Belichick Breakdowns segment. But after a loss, it's always the same: "we need to play better in all aspects of the game: offense, defense, special teams. And coach better, too."

Explaining the reasons behind a benching, no matter the reasons, will make the player look bad in some way or other. So, Belichick has decided to simply give no info other than "football decision". It's not what we want to hear, it's not what Felger & Mazz want to hear, but none of that matters one iota. Benching is bad enough for a player; no need to rub salt in his wounds. Even something as "he was sick all week and struggled in practice as a result" can be perceived as slighting the player in some way, and BB wants to go nowhere near that. No distractions is a mantra at Patriot Place.

Privately, in practice, it's a different story based on what we heard.

I guess it's possible for Belichick to go up there and admit that he made a decision, but that it didn't work out, and he takes the blame for it. But such an approach will still lead to the "why did you make that decision" question that he does not want to answer. To give a reason why, while I was listening to the radio today, Zolak was comparing the Butler benching to "4th-and-2". It's been shown time and time again that statistically, going for it in that situation was absolutely the right thing to do, as it would give the Pats the best chance to win that game. But, no matter what, people like Zolak, who presumably should know better, still get it wrong. Bottom line is that there is nothing for BB to gain by discussing individual coaching decisions with the media.

And the fact that people still think Belichick gave away JG out of spite should tell us all we need to know about the intelligence of most self-proclaimed sports pundits.
This exactly.

Even if BB was going to go against everything he has been doing for 18 years and talk about something like this, the answer to the question is “I benched a player because we thought someone else would do better.” Right or wrong, he would have to lambaste the player to “prove” his point — and he would never do that.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
He answered it..."I have always done what I think is best for the team." Presumably that includes the last Super Bowl. (Unless one thinks he made his self-described "football decision" despite thinking it would turn out worse for the team. In which case you should head over to Sons of Alex Jones). If Belichick had done a 5-hour presentation with game and practice film about why not Butler, the Shaughnessys of the world would tune out and say he was boring, and the ass-couch experts would continue to say he was wrong.
Two groups who don't matter -- the Shaughnessys and the ass-couch experts.

If Shaughnessy or anyone else wants to write a column that says, "'what's best for the team, you say,' well, then, ya fucked up, because that wasn't best," they should.
But they don't want to write that column. They only want to whine along with their tiny violins (volins?) about how meanie old coach won't answer their questions.
Hat tip to @Kenny F'ing Powers for this one:

 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
The meta-answer is "i answer these questions this way because I think its the best thing for the football team."

(But, yes, his actual strategic answers would probably be fascinating).
It might also be, "He was being an asshole and I didn't know why," and he's actually protecting the guy.

As in, I agree with you that it's weird that people suddenly think it's weird that Belichick is doing what he has always done.

Edit: What @lexrageorge said.