The "Belichick as GM" debate

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,014
Oregon
At his point, maybe we should start a new thread for the 53-man roster discussion
 

Darnell's Son

He's a machine.
Moderator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
9,532
Providence, RI
soxfan121 said:
 
You're the kid who peed his pants waiting for permission to go to the potty, aren't you?
 
Dopes and Geeks aren't the only people who can take responsibility for starting a new thread. In fact, if you build it (i.e. start the thread) and then PM a Dope or Geek with a request to fold in related posts, they usually get it done really quickly. 
I haven't peed my pants for three days, so I'm proud.
 
I was just kidding about the splitting crap out. I know it gets done quickly because I've done it before.
 
I kind of want new banners though. If there's not one by Sunday morning, the pitchforks are coming out.
 

Silverdude2167

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 9, 2006
4,681
Amstredam
rodderick said:
 
I agree that it's way too soon to evaluate Elway, but signing Manning at the very least took skills as a negotiator. And you could also reduce Belichick as a GM to "Step 1: draft top 5 GOAT QB in the 6th round. All skill. Step 2: profit". That's not entirely fair.
Come on Elway has been at it for what, 4 years at most?
 
You can legitimately limit Elway's success to signing Manning, not taking into account what he has done for this season (since it could be great but we don't know).
 
BB has built teams that have flourished for over a decade, even moving from a strong defensive team with a game manager to building the best offense in the history of the league. Part of that is having a coach who can adapt, but the GM is shopping and even as rules were implemented basically to hurt his team he worked to take advantage of them.
 

SeoulSoxFan

I Want to Hit the World with Rocket Punch
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
22,089
A Scud Away from Hell
Darnell's Son said:
Maybe if the guy running this corner of SoSH could split it out we would all win. Whoever that guy is, he's probably just sitting on his hands waiting for Skrub to fix it.
lol I am actually at the vet and would rather not try to split out a dozen posts on my smartphone. My hands are toasty from waiting for the doc though. On the other hand, Skrub is a great mod and I'm sure he will chime in whenever he feels appropriate.
 

SeoulSoxFan

I Want to Hit the World with Rocket Punch
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
22,089
A Scud Away from Hell
soxfan121 said:
 
You're the kid who peed his pants waiting for permission to go to the potty, aren't you?
 
Dopes and Geeks aren't the only people who can take responsibility for starting a new thread. In fact, if you build it (i.e. start the thread) and then PM a Dope or Geek with a request to fold in related posts, they usually get it done really quickly. 
Appreciate the reminder SF121.
 

Silverdude2167

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 9, 2006
4,681
Amstredam
rodderick said:
People, I'm not saying Belichick is a bad GM, all I'm saying is that when you extol his virtues and reduce other GMs' careers to luck or pulling off no brainer moves, it's pretty unfair. Yeah, no shit, Belichick did a lot more as a GM to bring the Pats to 3 titles and a decade+ of contention than merely drafting Brady. 
The only GM that has been "reduced" is Elway and I said Ozzie is great but overrated in my eyes since his teams don't preform(10+ wins) consistently.
 

bradmahn

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
591
soxfan121 said:
 
Anthony Pleasant, Bobby Hamilton, Richard Seymour, Mike Vrabel, Otis Smith and Ty Poole beg to differ. 
 
I take it the original "Step 2" was posted with tongue firmly in cheek 'cause I'm getting a lot of dissonance between this post and the one preceding it.
 

mabrowndog

Ask me about total zone...or paint
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
39,676
Falmouth, MA
The 53-man roster thread has veered off into this topic, so I'm starting a new thread to discuss it.
 
Names such as Ozzie Newsome & John Elway being offered as valid comps. Others in the thread laughed those names away dismissively.
 
So over the last 15 years, who's been better in the NFL than that loathsome scowling grumbling spygating Bon Jovi-loving curmudgeonly a-hole when it comes to evaluating, drafting, trading and otherwise assembling the talent required to put a winning football team on the field? How does he rank in other GM capacities such as finances, negotiation and salary cap management (or any other facets)? What do other GMs do successfully that he does not?
 
Does Belichick have constraints or advantages in New England that other GMs don't have with their respective clubs? Is working for the Krafts a pro or a con compared to other ownerships, and how does that affect your evaluations?
 
If you're not a fan of Belichick's work as GM of the Pats, what specifically has he done wrong and who would you rather see in his place?
 
Please think before you post, and omit coaching acumen from the equation since that only clouds the debate. Besides, BB's awesomeness in that capacity is 100% indisputable (at least in this thread ;) )
 
On second thought, regarding coaching, the delineation of responsibilities is pretty clear for everyone except BB. So let's go ahead and discuss/debate what is and isn't attributable to being a coach vs being a GM.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
I think to seriously study this question you need to develop a framework for evaluating GMs. At a high level, what are the responsibilities of the job? What are characteristics of an effective GM? What are characteristics of an ineffective GM?
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,345
Philadelphia
Super Nomario said:
I think to seriously study this question you need to develop a framework for evaluating GMs. At a high level, what are the responsibilities of the job? What are characteristics of an effective GM? What are characteristics of an ineffective GM?
 
Definitely.  You also need to grapple with the fact that one of the biggest - if not the single biggest - responsibilities of the GM is to hire a good head coach and manage that relationship well, which obviously isn't a factor in this case.  Having BB the coach on the sidelines every Sunday - and not having to worry about firing him, or whether they're on the same page - is a big advantage for BB the GM.
 

Darnell's Son

He's a machine.
Moderator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
9,532
Providence, RI
Super Nomario said:
I think to seriously study this question you need to develop a framework for evaluating GMs. At a high level, what are the responsibilities of the job? What are characteristics of an effective GM? What are characteristics of an ineffective GM?
I think all signings, resignings, trades, and drafts count. Cutting fringe guys is more a responsibility of the coach. So when Vrabel got cut by the Steelers, that would go against Cowher, not the Pittsburgh GM. However, the signing of Vrabel does go to BB the GM. An effective GM allocates the cap space and draft resources effectively to give his coaching staff a leg up on his competitors.
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
The GM's job is to construct the best team, year-in and year-out, from the head coach to the last guy on the roster.  And who has done a better job than Belichick, year-in and year-out?  The results kind of speak for themselves.  
 
The Patriots have produced more winning seasons, more Super Bowl titles, more Conference Championships, and have a higher winning percentage than anyone during the BB era.  
 
They've consistently been one of the best drafting teams in the league by almost any measure of importance.  They've developed superstars and they've developed an incredibly deep roster.  They are one of the premier franchises in all of professional sports.  
 
He hasn't been perfect.  There is always room for criticism.  Nobody gets every decision right.  But it's difficult to make the case that anyone has done it better over a longer period of time than BB the GM.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
These things are difficult to evaluate in football IMO.  If Im building a team from scratch, give me the Pats braintrust (especially if it comes with a HOF QB).  Even if I had BB the coach and could choose a different GM, Id probably keep BB the GM.  If already had another coach in place, Id lean towards taking Ozzie (as long as I didn't have to take Average Joe and his megacontract with me).  If I wanted to pick a talented murderer in the draft, flip a coin between the two. 
 
They're both very capable and your franchise is in good hands if you have one of them making personnel decisions. 
 

coremiller

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
5,846
Newsome, Colbert, Thompson, Schneider, and Baalke are the other obvious contenders.  Jerry Reese is in the next tier, but his teams haven't been quite as consistently excellent.
 
Schneider and Baalke have both been fantastic so far but don't have the longevity yet, and Thompson is only halfway there.  The longevity is crucial though because one of the hardest GM skills is managing generational transitions properly and turning over the roster, figuring out which vets to keep/extend and which to cut, and continually bringing in younger/cheaper guys to replace them.  Thompson earns points for dumping Brett Favre for Rodgers at the right time.
 
Belichick's big advantage over Newsome and Colbert is consistency, he's never had a down season.  Belichick's drafting is probably not quite as good as Newsome's (at least, Newsome has hit on more "stars"), but Belichick has managed the cap and generational transitions better.  Colbert has really struggled with this the last few years.
 
It helps a lot though to have a HoF QB willing to take a below-market contract.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Darnell said:
I think all signings, resignings, trades, and drafts count. Cutting fringe guys is more a responsibility of the coach. So when Vrabel got cut by the Steelers, that would go against Cowher, not the Pittsburgh GM. However, the signing of Vrabel does go to BB the GM. An effective GM allocates the cap space and draft resources effectively to give his coaching staff a leg up on his competitors.
The GM has the final call in all personnel decisions......why would Cowher be responsible for cutting Vrabel? It's crucial for HC and GM to be on seams page and a HC opinion certainly weighs heavily on the decision but that is 100% the GM's final decision.

Bill plays chess while everyone else plays checkers. I don't know how prevalent this is around the league but I'm sure we didn't sign two of the Dolphins final cuts this week based on their potential long-term contribution to the team. Always getting an edge. Always.
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
5,590
02130
ivanvamp said:
The Patriots have produced more winning seasons, more Super Bowl titles, more Conference Championships, and have a higher winning percentage than anyone during the BB era.  
 
 
This.
 
I'll add that the perhaps most impressive bit is that they have never had a "re-set" year. Every other team has had at least one year where they were poor for whatever reason. Sometimes bad luck, sometimes bad drafting, sometimes injuries, usually a combination. This kind of year not only allows you to get higher draft picks the following year, but also allows you to re-evaluate and re-work your roster without the pressure of trying to make the playoffs. You can give players who maybe aren't ready more reps to help their development. You can cut an older player who may only have a year left because you don't need his contributions so much. You can sign more castoffs from other teams who may be able to contribute because your roster isn't so deep. And so on. As we know, 2008 would have been a perfect year for this as no one expected them to do much without Brady, but they still won 11 games and I don't think they made many moves to sacrifice the present for the following year (at least no more than usual).
 
Obviously we know the Colts' story. Most of the teams (maybe all?) that are good now have had multiple years in which to rebuild and are now built with those players who they not only drafted during the lean years but also discovered during that time with less pressure. I mean, Newsome had a nice run, but he had a core of two HoFers and the team looks mediocre now. Maybe he will be able to rebuild it and I wouldn't be surprised if he did. But it's a lot easier to do so when you have a year or two "off."
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
41,946
If we're talking about BB's as GM, I'm not sure how you can really discuss it thoroughly without at least mentioning Scott Pioli.  I mean, it's clear BB held the final word on player personnel decisions, but Pioli did basically hold the title as GM for all of the Pats Super Bowl victories and by every account, was a huge contributor in bringing the players to New England during that time, including identification of talent. I'd also argue that Jonathan Kraft deserves a ton of credit on the same front, because from what I know, he's actually the guy that places a dollar value on the guys they sign.  He's much, much more involved with the player/personnel decisions than anyone gives him credit for.
 
None of this should be viewed as a slight on BB as the GM.  IMO, it's a silly argument to even have because the record speaks for itself, and every GM in the league has guys that contribute and give opinions, insight and research that helps the GM make the final decision, but I just thought those two guys at least bear mentioning at this point in a thread that's almost 70 posts deep.
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
Toe Nash said:
This.
 
I'll add that the perhaps most impressive bit is that they have never had a "re-set" year. Every other team has had at least one year where they were poor for whatever reason. Sometimes bad luck, sometimes bad drafting, sometimes injuries, usually a combination. This kind of year not only allows you to get higher draft picks the following year, but also allows you to re-evaluate and re-work your roster without the pressure of trying to make the playoffs. You can give players who maybe aren't ready more reps to help their development. You can cut an older player who may only have a year left because you don't need his contributions so much. You can sign more castoffs from other teams who may be able to contribute because your roster isn't so deep. And so on. As we know, 2008 would have been a perfect year for this as no one expected them to do much without Brady, but they still won 11 games and I don't think they made many moves to sacrifice the present for the following year (at least no more than usual).
 
Obviously we know the Colts' story. Most of the teams (maybe all?) that are good now have had multiple years in which to rebuild and are now built with those players who they not only drafted during the lean years but also discovered during that time with less pressure. I mean, Newsome had a nice run, but he had a core of two HoFers and the team looks mediocre now. Maybe he will be able to rebuild it and I wouldn't be surprised if he did. But it's a lot easier to do so when you have a year or two "off."
 
Agreed.  When you consider where the Patriots' draft slot is year-in and year-out, you appreciate the job he's done drafting more and more.  It's incredible.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
Deathofthebambino said:
If we're talking about BB's as GM, I'm not sure how you can really discuss it thoroughly without at least mentioning Scott Pioli.
 
Yeah, Scott Pioli is an entirely different conversation, given the atrocious drafts after 2005 until his departure and the greatly improved performance under Nick Caserio. 
 
This current group has not as much success with mid-level FA for whatever reason but apart from very early in the the BB era (the fabled class of 2001), I'm not sure they've ever been great under BB at FA.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,185
Deathofthebambino said:
If we're talking about BB's as GM, I'm not sure how you can really discuss it thoroughly without at least mentioning Scott Pioli.  I mean, it's clear BB held the final word on player personnel decisions, but Pioli did basically hold the title as GM for all of the Pats Super Bowl victories and by every account, was a huge contributor in bringing the players to New England during that time, including identification of talent. I'd also argue that Jonathan Kraft deserves a ton of credit on the same front, because from what I know, he's actually the guy that places a dollar value on the guys they sign.  He's much, much more involved with the player/personnel decisions than anyone gives him credit for.
 
None of this should be viewed as a slight on BB as the GM.  IMO, it's a silly argument to even have because the record speaks for itself, and every GM in the league has guys that contribute and give opinions, insight and research that helps the GM make the final decision, but I just thought those two guys at least bear mentioning at this point in a thread that's almost 70 posts deep.
 
Fully agree they are part of the discussion; I have to admit I have shockingly little idea how Jonathan Kraft is engaged, too.
 
As to Pioli, a couple factors that I think influence perception (acknowledging that it's really hard to disaggregate the many contributing factors in the NFL)....
 
1) The late Pioli-era drafts were pretty widely panned, impacting some people's assessment of his true value there; the case can be made the drafts got better after he left (I think there's a case that Dimitroff was actually the key guy early on draft-wise, for example)
2) His KC tenure is viewed as unsuccessful by many (note that the team he left in place seems to be vastly better than he got credit for at time of his departure; the odd stories about his secrecy there also color things a little)
3) A set of people always believed that BB was the guy driving things even when Pioli was in place
 
How one thinks about each of those is a useful discussion...because I agree with your fundamental point that BB is not a guy alone in the front office at any point in time
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Toe Nash said:
This.
 
I'll add that the perhaps most impressive bit is that they have never had a "re-set" year. Every other team has had at least one year where they were poor for whatever reason. Sometimes bad luck, sometimes bad drafting, sometimes injuries, usually a combination. This kind of year not only allows you to get higher draft picks the following year, but also allows you to re-evaluate and re-work your roster without the pressure of trying to make the playoffs. You can give players who maybe aren't ready more reps to help their development. You can cut an older player who may only have a year left because you don't need his contributions so much. You can sign more castoffs from other teams who may be able to contribute because your roster isn't so deep. And so on. As we know, 2008 would have been a perfect year for this as no one expected them to do much without Brady, but they still won 11 games and I don't think they made many moves to sacrifice the present for the following year (at least no more than usual).
 
Obviously we know the Colts' story. Most of the teams (maybe all?) that are good now have had multiple years in which to rebuild and are now built with those players who they not only drafted during the lean years but also discovered during that time with less pressure. I mean, Newsome had a nice run, but he had a core of two HoFers and the team looks mediocre now. Maybe he will be able to rebuild it and I wouldn't be surprised if he did. But it's a lot easier to do so when you have a year or two "off."
I think this lack of the need for a re-set year speaks to two things:
  1. BB's emphasis on legitimate deep-depth, on constructing a roster that stresses positional flexibility, on recognizing the importance of players 45-65 on the depth chart (including both the PS and the shadow roster). It has meant that even when they have suffered terrible injuries to starters, whether that be Brady or Mayo or Wilfork, etc, they have still managed to keep on winning.
  2. The simple fact of #12.  No other GM in this conversation has been blessed with a 15 year run of a Top-10 of all time QB.  It's the single most important position in football, and arguably the single most important position in all of team sports (hockey goalie being the only other one in the discussion, IMO).  BB had to make it work for one year with Cassel, but let's see what we think of both BB the coach, and more saliently to this discussion, BB the GM, when he is having to make the decisions as to how to make do with finding a QB.  I'm not saying he can't do it, but until he does, it will be hard to parse out the primacy of Brady's role in this organization's 15-year run of consistent success.
  3.  
 

MainerInExile

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2003
4,825
Bay Area
Saints Rest said:
BB had to make it work for one year with Cassel, but let's see what we think of both BB the coach, and more saliently to this discussion, BB the GM, when he is having to make the decisions as to how to make do with finding a QB.
 
 
Two QBs that BB brought in to the league, besides Brady, are starting QBs.  That's a point for BB the GM.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
Saints Rest said:
 
The simple fact of #12.  No other GM in this conversation has been blessed with a 15 year run of a Top-10 of all time QB.  It's the single most important position in football, and arguably the single most important position in all of team sports (hockey goalie being the only other one in the discussion, IMO).  BB had to make it work for one year with Cassel, but let's see what we think of both BB the coach, and more saliently to this discussion, BB the GM, when he is having to make the decisions as to how to make do with finding a QB.  I'm not saying he can't do it, but until he does, it will be hard to parse out the primacy of Brady's role in this organization's 15-year run of consistent success.
 
I think this is totally fair. Having to draft a QB sucks. From 2000-2013 only the Saints and Patriots didn't drafted a QB in the first two rounds. That's a significant advantage in the draft and in the offseason, to have the most important position on the team basically nailed down. That let the Pats use resources on higher percentage positions.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Super Nomario said:
 
I think this is totally fair. Having to draft a QB sucks. From 2000-2013 only the Saints and Patriots didn't drafted a QB in the first two rounds. That's a significant advantage in the draft and in the offseason, to have the most important position on the team basically nailed down. That let the Pats use resources on higher percentage positions.
Wow, that's an amazing stat.  But I bet there's also a non-qualitative fact of the fact that many FA's are likely more interested in signing with a team that has not only quality but continuity at QB, whether that means Brady, Manning, Brees, Rodgers, etc.  Does Randy Moss agree to the trade and pay cut in 2007 if Matt Cassel was the QB?  I'm not saying that TB denigrates everything that BB has done as GM (just as it shouldn't zero out his work as a coach) but TB has to be a factor in both discussions, and one that we won't be able to tease out until after he retires (assuming BB continues on post-Brady -- as many have opined on this board elsewhere about BB wanting to prove his abilities sans Brady).
 

theapportioner

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 9, 2006
5,069
I think an interesting thought experiment would be as follows: instead of Brady, what would have happened if the Patriots had a league average quarterback at the position in the last 15 years, all else being equal? I agree that the luxury of having Brady completely skews how Belichick is viewed. Obviously Belichick should get credit for recognizing and cultivating Brady's talent, but he also did hit the lottery jackpot. But how good would he have been, sans Brady? Although completely speculative, I think that this scenario would provide a clearer assessment of Belichick's abilities as GM and as coach.
 
One way of assessing Belichick the GM is by looking at his overall career, the success of which is undisputed. Another is by looking at how he handles things at the margins -- how good has he been with making each individual choice, knowing that alternative players are available on the draft and in free agency, and needing to balance it all in the setting of a salary cap. I don't know if this metric exists, but an interesting one would be, what is a GM's "draft deficit" for every given draft.
 
It would work something like this: Best player available - actual player picked = player deficit (the unit would be something akin to WAR, maybe).
Draft deficit = summation of player deficits per draft, normalized by number of picks and pick position.
Deficit could increase as players have longer careers. e.g. the deficit could be better, or worse, from 2010 to 2011 to 2012.
 
Compare an individual GM's draft deficit to the mean. Above the mean, GM is successful. Below, unsuccessful.
 

jsinger121

@jsinger121
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
17,676
theapportioner said:
I think an interesting thought experiment would be as follows: instead of Brady,
 
One way of assessing Belichick the GM is by looking at his overall career, the success of which is undisputed. Another is by looking at how he handles things at the margins -- how good has he been with making each individual choice, knowing that alternative players are available on the draft and in free agency, and needing to balance it all in the setting of a salary cap. I don't know if this metric exists, but an interesting one would be, what is a GM's "draft deficit" for every given draft.
 
It would work something like this: Best player available - actual player picked = player deficit (the unit would be something akin to WAR, maybe).
Draft deficit = summation of player deficits per draft, normalized by number of picks and pick position.
Deficit could increase as players have longer careers. e.g. the deficit could be better, or worse, from 2010 to 2011 to 2012.
 
Compare an individual GM's draft deficit to the mean. Above the mean, GM is successful. Below, unsuccessful.
 
See 2008 with Matt Cassel leading the team to an 11-5 record.
 

theapportioner

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 9, 2006
5,069
jsinger121 said:
See 2008 with Matt Cassel leading the team to an 11-5 record.
 
Okay, question answered!
 
But anyway, trying to think things out a bit more quantitatively, I'm going to try to work this out a bit, using baseball as an example:
 
For example, take the 2009 MLB draft. Steven Strasburg was selected #1, Dustin Ackley #2, Mike Trout #25. Assume that Trout has been the best player in the draft by WAR since then. The “draft deficit” for the Nationals GM for selecting Strasburg over Trout, over the time interval beginning on draft day and ending today is as follows: Strasburg aggregate WAR - Trout aggregate WAR =  14.5 - 28.9 = -14.4. The draft deficit for the Mariners GM selecting Ackley over Trout is as follows: 6.3 - 28.9 = -22.6.
 
For each GM, calculate the draft deficit for each player selected, subtracted from the best available player at that draft position. Add these numbers up.
 
Can we do something like this for football? I know there are some "aggregate value" metrics for football, but are they any good?
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,558
Here
I say this every time this argument is brought up, but Bill Belichick is probably the only coach in the entire league who would have left Brady in charge of the team in 2001 when Bledsoe, who had just signed the biggest contract in NFL history, returned. He gets points for that.
 

Silverdude2167

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 9, 2006
4,681
Amstredam
Ed Hillel said:
I say this every time this argument is brought up, but Bill Belichick is probably the only coach in the entire league who would have left Brady in charge of the team in 2001 when Bledsoe, who had just signed the biggest contract in NFL history, returned. He gets points for that.
Great point. To go a step further he carried 4 qb's in 2000 because he thought Brady could be something special.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
Ed Hillel said:
I say this every time this argument is brought up, but Bill Belichick is probably the only coach in the entire league who would have left Brady in charge of the team in 2001 when Bledsoe, who had just signed the biggest contract in NFL history, returned. He gets ))for that.
I think he also has to get a ton of credit for developing Brady and other QBs. Brady improved an incredible amount in his first six or seven years in the league and he's not the only BB QB to wildly outstrip his draft status: There are only 7 starting QBs (6 if you exclude Anderson) not picked in the first third rounds and three are Brady Hoyer and Cassell.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
Shelterdog said:
I think he also has to get a ton of credit for developing Brady and other QBs. Brady improved an incredible amount in his first six or seven years in the league and he's not the only BB QB to wildly outstrip his draft status: There are only 7 starting QBs (6 if you exclude Anderson) not picked in the first third rounds and three are Brady Hoyer and Cassell.
 
There is a real possibility that at some point this season Brady's last three backups (Cassel, Hoyer and Mallet) are starters in the NFL. That would give Bill the GM (at least partial) credit for 4 QBs out of the 32 starters. 
 
And based on what we saw in preseason, JG could be #5 someday. 
 
He might not be great at picking CBs but the man clearly knows how to identify talent at the game's most important position. 
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,719
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Belichick has twice inherited entreched starting QBs who were considered untouchable icons ( Kosar, Bledsoe), has twice controversially replaced them with QBs of his own choosing (Testaverde, Brady), and has both times beenproven right in his choices over the fullness of time. I'm sure the Kosar/Testaverde switch he made allowed him to have the fullness of his convictions when he decided to stay with Brady once Bledsoe was healthy again.

It bears repeating that keeping Brady as the starter in November 2001 caused an absolute sports firestorm in New England, which cumulated in Ron Borges' infamous hit piece he ran on Nov.22, 2001. It's well worth looking up today.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
Belichick has twice inherited entreched starting QBs who were considered untouchable icons ( Kosar, Bledsoe), has twice controversially replaced them with QBs of his own choosing (Testaverde, Brady), and has both times beenproven right in his choices over the fullness of time. I'm sure the Kosar/Testaverde switch he made allowed him to have the fullness of his convictions when he decided to stay with Brady once Bledsoe was healthy again.

It bears repeating that keeping Brady as the starter in November 2001 caused an absolute sports firestorm in New England, which cumulated in Ron Borges' infamous hit piece he ran on Nov.22, 2001. It's well worth looking up today.
It did. I don't think people recall how big a deal it was in Cleveland when he unseated Kosar. He was a brand new HC, vilified for it but knew he was right and didn't care.

We'll probably never know how short the fuse was on Bledsoe when he got blasted and the problem resolved itself.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
IIRC Borges kept going hard to the paint for Bledsoe over Brady until Super Bowl win number two. Sports Final every week would have Borges with DeOssie or Fred Smerlas or someone and Borges would start talking about how Brady threw the ball sideways pretty well that week. Just a total clown
 

redsahx

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 26, 2007
1,455
LF Pavillion
 
He might not be great at picking CBs but the man clearly knows how to identify talent at the game's most important position.
Are we talking just drafting CBs or including CBs he acquired as well?
Even here the results are a bit more mixed than many people seem to acknowledge. As far as the busts go, yes Wheatley was absolutely one. The problem with Ras-I Dowling appeared to be more health than ability (though in fairness to the critics that was a pretty obvious concern to begin with). Darius Butler seemed to just have a really short leash with Bill for some reason, and actually has stuck in the league with the Colts.

On the flip side he drafted Samuel. Hobbs was solid. Randall Gay (UDFA) was a good contributor as well. McCourty was great that first year but obviously is better suited to safety, Dennard and Logan Ryan are both solid intriguing young players.

For other acquisitions, there is the question of how much credit to give him for trading a 4th round pick to get Talib. Bodden also turned out to be a pretty good signing his first year here, then injuries derailed him after his extension. I'm not sure how to rate the Revis pickup given how obvious his talent was, but I guess there is something to be said for BB deciding to commit that salary to address the position. We'll see how Browner pans out.

It definitely seems like the Wheatley/Butler/Dowling 2nd round picks drive the narrative, but his overall record at the position isn't that bad considering those marks against him.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,054
Hingham, MA
He also picked up Terrell Buckley and Tyrone Poole among others. Poole in particular was fantastic in the 2003 season.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
redsahx said:
 

Are we talking just drafting CBs or including CBs he acquired as well?
Even here the results are a bit more mixed than many people seem to acknowledge. As far as the busts go, yes Wheatley was absolutely one. The problem with Ras-I Dowling appeared to be more health than ability (though in fairness to the critics that was a pretty obvious concern to begin with). Darius Butler seemed to just have a really short leash with Bill for some reason, and actually has stuck in the league with the Colts.

On the flip side he drafted Samuel. Hobbs was solid. Randall Gay (UDFA) was a good contributor as well. McCourty was great that first year but obviously is better suited to safety, Dennard and Logan Ryan are both solid intriguing young players.

For other acquisitions, there is the question of how much credit to give him for trading a 4th round pick to get Talib. Bodden also turned out to be a pretty good signing his first year here, then injuries derailed him after his extension. I'm not sure how to rate the Revis pickup given how obvious his talent was, but I guess there is something to be said for BB deciding to commit that salary to address the position. We'll see how Browner pans out.

It definitely seems like the Wheatley/Butler/Dowling 2nd round picks drive the narrative, but his overall record at the position isn't that bad considering those marks against him.
The real root of the problem is that people radically overestimate his good draft picks should be. Roughly half of second round picks so going 0 for 3 on recent second round corners is bad but not shockingly bad-particularly since it's a cherry picked example of what he's done worst.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,054
Hingham, MA
Well we can cross Ozzie off the list. Of course he was below BB for me before, but now he may be off the entire list of 32 NFL GMs - permanently.