Can only mean one thing. We're trading up. LOLLink
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.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/surprisingly-bill-belichick-interested-winning-players-funtime-191532187.html“We feel what’s important for us is to win,” he said. “That’s what we’re trying to do.”
Donta piles on —BB, when asked about Marsh's "no fun" comments:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/surprisingly-bill-belichick-interested-winning-players-funtime-191532187.html
“Sure, they win a lot... but do they REALLY enjoy it?”It’s been a 15 year, on again off again quest to demonstrate that “they hate their coach.”
McCourty has a second career waiting. Surgery.“Sure, they win a lot... but do they REALLY enjoy it?”
Nobody’s arguing it’s for everyone, yeah?
Wow.McCourty has a second career waiting. Surgery.
http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/23661417/new-england-patriots-say-losing-no-fun-rather-team
This has more of a Brady-centric vibe than a Belichick one, but there are a lot of Belichick crapping on Tom stories in it: https://www.si.com/mmqb/2017/01/18/nfl-tom-brady-bill-belichick-new-england-patriotsI feel like that story was told somewhere before, that Brady got mocked about wounded ducks and such that game. It wasn't in the good ol' "this is where Ihedigbo gets beat" story, must have been one of the others talking about his weekly roasts.
He's answered it. People just don't like the answer.Shank asked him legit questions that should have been answered months ago.
And BB gave him nothing except the premise for his next column.
Shank asked him legit questions that should have been answered months ago.
And BB gave him nothing except the premise for his next column.
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.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.
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."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.
It apparently is to 66.7% of interested parties.He doesn't and he hasn't.
And thats the point.
"Football decsions" is not an answer.
The answer is: "Because it gave us the best chance to win."...
Seems simple but why dont the reporter pool ask "Why was X in the best interest of the Team?"
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.Shank tried (and failed) to get something out of BB re: Butler
http://www.espn.com/core/video/iframe?id=24189661&endcard=false
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."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?"
There has been a lot of pro-Shank ball washing recently on local sports radio. It seems like they are all insufferable Shankophants.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.
From the snippet I heard, which lasted 30 seconds, it was a completely legit effort by Shank — unlike so much of what he does.There has been a lot of pro-Shank ball washing recently on local sports radio. It seems like they are all insufferable Shankophants.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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 overallThere'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.
This exactly.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.
Hat tip to @Kenny F'ing Powers for this one: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.
It might also be, "He was being an asshole and I didn't know why," and he's actually protecting the guy.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).