They have the most wins in a decade without a year even being played? Holy shit.
Brady now has as many playoff wins as Elway and Manning combined. Or twice as much as Manning (since they both have 14)Brady going to his 13th Conference Championship Game, which is as many as 2nd place (Montana) and 3rd place (Elway) combined.
Tweeted by someone else: Brady has more playoff wins (28) than anyone else has total play off games (27, Manning).They have the most wins in a decade without a year even being played? Holy shit.
Brady now has as many playoff wins as Elway and Manning combined. Or twice as much as Manning (since they both have 14)
Brady now has more home playoff wins than any other quarterback has wins.Tweeted by someone else: Brady has more playoff wins (28) than anyone else has total play off games (27, Manning).
Wow. Look at how many more games the Patriots have played than anyone else in the League.
I hope I'm phrasing this correctly, but I think you'll get the point...the last time the Patriots played a game that didn't matter (i.e. where they had already been eliminated from the playoffs) was closer to Carl Yastrzemski's last appearance in a Red Sox uniform than it is to today.The last season the Patriots played a game that didn't matter, this was the Red Sox' starting rotation: Pedro Martinez, Jeff Fassero, Ramon Martinez, Rolando Arrojo, and Pete Schourek.
The last season the Patriots didn't play in an AFCCG, Daniel Nava was in left, Darnell McDonald was in center, and Marco Scutaro was at short.
Yeah.I hope I'm phrasing this correctly, but I think you'll get the point...the last time the Patriots played a game that didn't matter (i.e. where they had already been eliminated from the playoffs) was closer to Carl Yastrzemski's last appearance in a Red Sox uniform than it is to today.
The last time the Pats played a meaningless game, Bill Clinton was still President.I like this "last meaningful game" stuff
Patriots ended the 2000 season playing a meaningless game--12/24/00.
The day before the Celtics played and trotted out a starting lineup including Tony Battie and Milt Palacios, and Randy Brown and Adrian Griffin came off the bench.
I'm reminded of (I think) Bill James pontificating about what made Pedro great, thinking that he had a great fastball, a great change, a great curve, great control, great intelligence and attack plan, but lots of guys have one or more of those elements without ever approaching Pedro's mastery. He concluded it was the combination of all those elements was almost a force multiplier. How much greater was his change because he could also throw 95 on the black?All this makes me think:
What makes Belichick “great”?
I know this has been the subject of a few books. We’ve long heard about his defensive brilliance starting with the Giants and love of film study and preparation. These topics have all been chronicled numerous times.
But none of those elements explains *this* degree of sustained success. Let’s break it down.
The “defensive genius” mantra was supplanted over a decade ago when the rules of the game were fundamentally changed to favor the offense (specifically, Peyton Manning and fantasy). Candidly I don’t even remember what it was like to have an elite defensive Patriots team it’s been so long.
Nor should we probably chalk it up to “cap mastery.” Sure teams like the Steelers remind you what happens when so much of your team’s success is tied up in three superstars making (or deserving) enormous contracts. But there are countless “cap geniuses” out there – none of which have managed to build and implement a system that can succeed for a sustained period of time. The closest may be Polian and Dungy’s Colts team which in hindsight somewhat legendarily underperformed once the regular season concluded.
And, it’s hard to argue that all Belichick’s success is due to having one amazing quarterback who makes everyone around him better. Were that the case, Mike McCarthy would be celebrating his 5th or 6th consecutive championship game appearance and not carrying his own garbage to the curb after having failed to convince Christopher Johnson to give him another chance.
Lastly, we’ve heard bloviating about The Patriot Way and, more seriously, about the culture of preparation that the team employs. But this is an imitation league. The second someone succeeds with something new or different, somebody else figures out how to do it or defeat it. Preparation and team culture is exactly the sort of thing you’d expect Belichick’s coordinators to bring to other teams when hired, but not a single branch of the Belichick tree has had so much as a whiff of the success he’s had as a member of the Patriots organization.
So, how has Belichick been able to get this team to do it year after year? As the league has changed and other “genius” coaches come and go, what it is that Belichick does so much better than anyone else?
Jenkins has been great. But....paywall. :-/
I agree with your sense they go for coachable guys. For example, I remember seeing a video where one of the ADs at Michigan talked about how Brady was always in his office, picking his brain for insights on how to be a better player and person. Maybe the questions they ask potential draftees (e.g. at combines) weed out those who are less into the idea of being coached and improved upon.They eschew short-term fixes that screw them with the cap or deprive them of draft picks. They pursue players with versatility and coachability that lets them game plan even if many don't think they're all that "talented." They adjust strategy so they're always looking for undervalued assets even as what assets are undervalued changes.
That's funny, and it's not an uncommon feat. Since 2012 (the 2011 playoffs), 17 teams have pulled that off. BAL/DAL/GB/HOU*2/KC/LAR/NE/PIT*2/SEA*4/SF*2. Unsurprisingly, 100 yard receivers have been more common than 100 yard rushers.Per The Athletic, yesterday was the first time in Pats postseason history to have a 100 rusher and receiver in the same game. That’s bonkers.
Wait, are you really reading my post as me saying "So what's so great about Belichick anyway?" That is precisely not what I meant. I was just saying that a lot of the typical reasons we hear why he's great seem ... well, wrong, outdated or simplistic. I agree with almost all of the points you raise -- and the Bill James/force multiplier point @Super Nomario makes as well.
As to the Belichick question, I completely dispute that his ability to get the best out of a roster that includes zero early-first-rounder likely-stars (that he didn't trade for) is diminished or "supplanted" in any way. It's a lot easier to see with a Brad Stevens, in a league with many fewer players who have longer careers, but Belichick's ability to spot things that a player can do well, which make him undervalued in the Patriots' scheme, is something that can't be taught. Carroll approaches that skill, which we've seen most clearly this year after the Legion of Boom turnover, but nobody has made better roster chicken salad out of chicken shit than Bill Belichick.
Similarly, team culture is set by the person at the top, and reflects their personality, their level of focus, their authenticity in whatever goals or priorities they claim to have. Everything from Belichick's favored conversation topics to sartorial style screams that he really does care about one thing only. His assistants leaving for head coaching jobs may bring with them the memory of how things worked, but it's quite another to make their organizations reflect that culture when they themselves lack the same credibility Belichick does. It would be inauthentic for them to replicate everything about that style, so what they're able to do usually ends up falling short of that level of focus (or, it must be said, organizational control over personnel).
Likewise, don't underrate his ability to (for example) get Dante Scarnecchia tempted out of retirement, keep Josh McDaniels in the fold (and welcome him back to it after Denver / St Louis), etc. Or his enthusiasm to get in and coach technique fundamentals with every position group (nevermind having the right knowledge to do so), for like 40 weeks of the year, year after year. Or to keep Brady motivated but also convinced that Foxboro is where he needs to be, this year and every year (and to take less - and to get all his other stars to take less than they deserve). You think, say, Jeff Fisher gave that many fucks, or inspired that loyalty, by the time he lost his edge? I'd argue they're correlated.
There's so much that that post just yadda-yaddas over, too many assertions to take issue with for one post. Suffice to say, that's 500 words of trying to sell Belichick short in a dozen different ways and your essay (it's not really a "question") is unpersuasive to me.
It's a closed environment, though - no one can have a "start up" football team that disrupts from out of nowhere with a fundamentally different approach like a Facebook, Amazon, or Google. There are also a bunch of artificial constraints (number of roster spots, salary cap, number of draft picks, etc.) that you don't run into in the business world.Wait, are you really reading my post as me saying "So what's so great about Belichick anyway?" That is precisely not what I meant. I was just saying that a lot of the typical reasons we hear why he's great seem ... well, wrong, outdated or simplistic. I agree with almost all of the points you raise -- and the Bill James/force multiplier point @Super Nomario makes as well.
But even if you agree w all the stuff ... tempting Scharnecchia out of retirement, keeping Brady comfortable taking less ... it still seems hard to believe that he's been able to do this for 18 years. Nobody is able to succeed in business or sports for this kind of time -- and those who have (such as maybe a Warren Buffett) almost seem to benefit mightily from market share and aggregate wealth. Which is to say, they are wealthy and successful enough to make mistakes that others follow and then don't really seem like mistakes or at least not big mistakes. Sports are not so forgiving.
21 more games left in the decade.Considering they have 15-17 games left in the decade, that’s insane.
If they get 12 more through next year, they’ll finish the decade with an average of almost 14 wins per year.
That’s not getting broken under the current 16 game schedule and playoff format.
This must be post season and regular season? Colts actually had more wins 00-09 than the pats did if you remove the playoffs.That might be my favorite stat yet. I don't know what I like more, that they broke their own record or the that there is still another year left in the decade.
Yeah, me too. If that's the case the 2001-2010 Pats get 135 wins, and the 2011-2018 Pats would be at 113 with 2+ seasons to go. Unless Brady falls off the cliff next year, we likely end up in the same place.Here's hoping!!!
Though I always thought decades should start with the xxx1 year and end on the xxX0 year...