This is now: BB and the direction of the Patriots

[EvilEmpire]

A team can be really good for a season or two with superb players or excellent coaching. But a dynastic team that sustains excellence for a couple of decades requires both. And even then, given how competitive the NFL is, that success can be fragile.

A critical mass of few draft picks or FA signings not working out, coupled with bad injury luck and that's it.

I don't think BB has lost his touch, or rather, that we've seen enough to know that he has lost his touch. The margins for success are so small that periodic downturns are really hard to avoid.

 

[Super Nomario]

Another year of Nick Folk would have been fine. Wasted a draft pick.

Folk is old, didn't have a strong leg to begin with, and looked washed down the stretch last year. I would have been very surprised if they hadn't taken a K. And a K has more impact on wins / losses than the typical scrimmage player you're going to draft in that range.

 

[mcpickl]

IMHO this team competitive is 8-8. I mean a 9-7 would be amazing. Neither gets them sniffing the postseason.
I think 5-11/6-10 is more likely. And thats if Bill coaches his ass off and the players rally somewhat.

But I have to ask for those asking to "tank". What does that mean? Trying to lose every game from here on out? Thats not gonna happen because of Kraft/bb and that no team in history has given up after 4 games. Now if they got to 1-7 or 2-10 ok. But at 4 games no one is tanking.
Hell even detroit was still trying after 4 games when they sucked.
I think BB can be his normal Very good to GOAT Coach and this team wins 6 games.

At some point the team "is what it is" when everything (lackluster performance injuries etc etc) is taken into account. This is not a 2-3 win team. Its a 5/6/7 win team.

Wanting us to tank is silly at this point. Hoping we lose.....thats Different. But Hoping we lose, then being pissed that BB isnt getting wins is disingenuous too.

Now....BB the GM.....he sucks and has sucked for about 4 years. Not sure how we separate them. Also not sure you want that guy at the helm when we "Tank". But I MIGHT want him when we are picking 10th. Weird and contradictory....but true.

You don't think a 9-8 season would have them sniffing the playoffs?

If I had to bet on it now, I'd guess the 7th AFC seed will be the same 9-8 it was last season.

I haven't given up hope on them grabbing one of the wild card spots yet(though Gonzalez/Judon injuries sure hurt)

I think most of us looked at the schedule at the beginning of the season and thought 1-3 was a very likely outcome after 4 games.

If the Patriots can get back on track and beat the Saints and Raiders, I think there's a good chance the game against the Chargers in week 13 ends up deciding which team will make the playoffs.

Having two of teams that looked like playoff contenders in the offseason being hampered by QB injuries, the Jets more so than the Bengals(which could be temporary), leaves a playoff spot wide open in my opinion.

I don't think they're good enough to make noise in the playoffs, but I think they're on the level of the teams fighting for the wild card spots outside of whoever of Miami/Buffalo doesn't win the division.

Now if they don't get both the Saints/Raiders games, they could be looking 2-6 in the face and then the conversation would change a bit for me.

 

[BaseballJones]

A team can be really good for a season or two with superb players or excellent coaching. But a dynastic team that sustains excellence for a couple of decades requires both. And even then, given how competitive the NFL is, that success can be fragile.

A critical mass of few draft picks or FA signings not working out, coupled with bad injury luck and that's it.

I don't think BB has lost his touch, or rather, that we've seen enough to know that he has lost his touch. The margins for success are so small that periodic downturns are really hard to avoid.

Good post. I've posted before about some of the "dynasties" in the NFL in the salary cap era, and other than the Patriots (the old 49ers dynasty was before the cap era), EVERY other team has had significant downturns. Every one of them. It is just how the league is built.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

For sure. I’m just talking about the rebuild portion. Once you have the team in the situation it’s in, either let BB do the rebuild or someone else do the rebuild. I’m not sure that anyone else would be doing a better job with it than him. I’m not sure there WOULDN’T be someone who could do a better job. I’m just… not sure. Generally speaking I’m comfortable with BB at the helm.

For how much longer? Knowing nothing more than what you see in front of you.

 

[ZMart100]

Personally until he wants to quit or shows visible decline. I've seen plenty over his tenure to believe he's a great football mind. The team hasn't been great recently but you aren't getting anyone who knows football better to step into his shoes.

 

[BaseballJones]

For how much longer? Knowing nothing more than what you see in front of you.

I can’t quantify it but I’m willing to give him a longer leash than what many here are, apparently. I think he’s earned that AND I also can’t think of anyone better to replace him.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

Personally until he wants to quit or shows visible decline. I've seen plenty over his tenure to believe he's a great football mind. The team hasn't been great recently but you aren't getting anyone who knows football better to step into his shoes.

I can’t quantify it but I’m willing to give him a longer leash than what many here are, apparently. I think he’s earned that AND I also can’t think of anyone better to replace him.

If his contract was up following 2023, what term are you offering in an extension?

 

[ZMart100]

If his contract was up following 2023, what term are you offering in an extension?

I don't know that that's particularly interesting. Coaches don't count against the cap and can always be fired so whatever is profit maximizing.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

I don't know that that's particularly interesting. Coaches don't count against the cap and can always be fired so whatever is profit maximizing.

The point is, it's not clear how many years it will take to turn this team around or how many years BB has left. If he does not have enough time, he should be replaced sooner than later.

 

[ZMart100]

Fortunes change quickly in the NFL.

 

[BaseballJones]

If his contract was up following 2023, what term are you offering in an extension?

3 year deal worth XYZ dollars (no idea but it would be a lot). Given that I'd be Kraft in this situation and that money is virtually no object here, I'd be comfortable with a big 3 year contract knowing that I could fire him if I wanted to and as ZMart100 points out, it doesn't count against the cap.

The point is...3 years is what I'd give him to turn this around after this season. That would give him time to draft another QB if he felt like Mac wasn't the answer and it would give a few years to get that guy on board and up to speed. If by then it hasn't worked, and given that BB would be, what, 75 at that point, then I'd move on.

 

[BigSoxFan]

Fortunes change quickly in the NFL.

Usually due to a QB. BB needs to find his next good one quick.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

3 year deal worth XYZ dollars (no idea but it would be a lot). Given that I'd be Kraft in this situation and that money is virtually no object here, I'd be comfortable with a big 3 year contract knowing that I could fire him if I wanted to and as ZMart100 points out, it doesn't count against the cap.

The point is...3 years is what I'd give him to turn this around after this season. That would give him time to draft another QB if he felt like Mac wasn't the answer and it would give a few years to get that guy on board and up to speed. If by then it hasn't worked, and given that BB would be, what, 75 at that point, then I'd move on.

Well, that is specific and fair. I would agree that money is a non issue. My gut feeling is that Kraft would not tolerate 3 - 4 more years of a .500 or worse team.

 

[rodderick]

Yeah, I don't know if I want Bill picking the next guy at QB, to be honest. I think in this league you're at a disadvantage if you're trying to develop a young player at that position without a great offensive mind in place. Unless you believe Bill O'Brien to be that guy and have the confidence he'll stick around, if Mac turns out not to be good enough and the team is still treading water at best at the end of 2024, I want an offensive minded HC to pick his QB here.

 

[tims4wins]

Man that would amount to a 7 year rebuild. Not sure that would be acceptable in any other NFL city.

 

[BigJimEd]

Interesting question about O'Brien. There's an argument that he was a good hire last year with Mac at the helm. However, if the org decides Mac isn't the guy, they may want to move on from BOB as well.

 

[tims4wins]

Interesting question about O'Brien. There's an argument that he was a good hire last year with Mac at the helm. However, if the org decides Mac isn't the guy, they may want to move on from BOB as well.

I would agree with this. In any scenario he wasn’t likely to stay long anyway.

 

[Devizier]

I see the team as having a pretty simple problem. They have drafted poorly on offense and tried to make up for it with free agency. That’s the kind of approach that rarely works, and for good reason.

 

[lexrageorge]

Well, that is specific and fair. I would agree that money is a non issue. My gut feeling is that Kraft would not tolerate 3 - 4 more years of a .500 or worse team.

Moving on from Bill this offseason does not necessarily change the timeline for the rebuild. Either way, the new Bill would need to fix the issues at QB, OL, WR. Can happen quickly if the dominos fall right; or it can take a long time for even the best franchises: the vaunted Steelers haven't won a playoff game since 2016; the glorious Ravens have won all of 2 since their Super Bowl victory 11 years ago.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

Moving on from Bill this offseason does not necessarily change the timeline for the rebuild. Either way, the new Bill would need to fix the issues at QB, OL, WR. Can happen quickly if the dominos fall right; or it can take a long time for even the best franchises: the vaunted Steelers haven't won a playoff game since 2016; the glorious Ravens have won all of 2 since their Super Bowl victory 11 years ago.

I agree, but that is part of why I think moving on from ill sooner rather than later should be on the table. The longer it is going to take, for whatever reason, the more likely sticking with Bill now means changing horses mid race.

If the belief is that a rebuild will take one or two years, keeping Bill is almost a no-brainer.

If the belief is that a rebuild will take 5 years, the argument for letting him go after the season is very strong.

 

[MuppetAsteriskTalk]

I think I would move on after this year unless things drastically change during the course of the season. Even Bill himself knew years ago that coaching isn't something to do in your 70's, which I guess he's since changed his mind on.

 

[BaseballJones]

Man that would amount to a 7 year rebuild. Not sure that would be acceptable in any other NFL city.

Maybe true, but then again, no other NFL city has had a 20-year run of success like we have. Definitely a unique situation for sure.

Also...it's a 7-year rebuild no matter what. If the Pats stink next year and they move on from BB, the rebuild is still happening, just with a different HC and GM.

 

[EvilEmpire]

I think BB will retire sooner rather than later if what he is doing isn't working. See if things are trending up or down with the next QB.

I think he'll have an easier time getting the line problems sorted.

If BOB isn't the guy, McDaniels probably won't last too long in Vegas.

 

[tims4wins]

Call me crazy but I would welcome Josh back.

 

[BaseballJones]

Moving on from Bill this offseason does not necessarily change the timeline for the rebuild. Either way, the new Bill would need to fix the issues at QB, OL, WR. Can happen quickly if the dominos fall right; or it can take a long time for even the best franchises: the vaunted Steelers haven't won a playoff game since 2016; the glorious Ravens have won all of 2 since their Super Bowl victory 11 years ago.

Yep. And since Peyton left Indy after a phenomenal run (after 2010, when he got injured), they've won just four playoff games, haven't gotten to a SB, and in that time have had a tremendous QB in Andrew Luck (so it's not like they've been stuck at that position).

Since Peyton left Denver (after 2015), they haven't even been to the playoffs, and it's been 8 years.

Since Atlanta lost to NE in the Super Bowl after the 2016 season, they've won 1 playoff game, and this is now year 7.

Carolina went to the SB in the 2015 season and since then (this is now year 8), they've made the playoffs once and haven't won a playoff game.

 

[rodderick]

Yep. And since Peyton left Indy after a phenomenal run (after 2010, when he got injured), they've won just four playoff games, haven't gotten to a SB, and in that time have had a tremendous QB in Andrew Luck (so it's not like they've been stuck at that position).

Since Peyton left Denver (after 2015), they haven't even been to the playoffs, and it's been 8 years.

Since Atlanta lost to NE in the Super Bowl after the 2016 season, they've won 1 playoff game, and this is now year 7.

Carolina went to the SB in the 2015 season and since then (this is now year 8), they've made the playoffs once and haven't won a playoff game.

The Patriots have no playoff wins since 2018. Denver has had multiple regimes since their last playoff win, same with Atlanta, same with Carolina. A lot of coaches and GMs canned for not executing rebuilds in those places, and it's not like the Patriots' success is markedly more recent.

Again, wasn't the whole point that having Belichick would make it so you wouldn't become "one of those teams" that flails around trying to rebuild? Why are the Atlanta Falcons now the standard he should be compared to?

 

[johnmd20]

The Patriots have no playoff wins since 2018. Denver has had multiple regimes since their last playoff win, same with Atlanta, same with Carolina. A lot of coaches and GMs canned for not executing rebuilds in those places, and it's not like the Patriots' success is markedly more recent.

Again, wasn't the whole point that having Belichick would make it so you wouldn't become "one of those teams" that flails around trying to rebuild? Why are the Atlanta Falcons now the standard he should be compared to?

It's actually crazy to think the last Pats playoff win was the SB against the Rams. That feels like 5000 years ago.

 

[lexrageorge]

The Patriots have no playoff wins since 2018. Denver has had multiple regimes since their last playoff win, same with Atlanta, same with Carolina. A lot of coaches and GMs canned for not executing rebuilds in those places, and it's not like the Patriots' success is markedly more recent.

Again, wasn't the whole point that having Belichick would make it so you wouldn't become "one of those teams" that flails around trying to rebuild? Why are the Atlanta Falcons now the standard he should be compared to?

So what standard should be used? Chiefs and 49’ers were bad for numerous seasons before their recent run. Pats fans have been unusually lucky in that the team never went through the same down period that literally 31 other teams go through. Don’t know why people keep looking for logical inconsistencies where they don’t exist.

 

[Petagine in a Bottle]

I think the point is that when teams aren’t particularly successful over a period of ~5 years and aren’t looking like they are headed in the right direction, changes are usually made at the GM and or HC position.

 

[tims4wins]

I think the point is that when teams aren’t particularly successful over a period of ~5 years and aren’t looking like they are headed in the right direction, changes are usually made at the GM and or HC position.

Or even 4 years.

I said it upthread, but in an alternate universe where BB retires the day the TB12 signs with the Bucs, and then 2020-2023 play out exactly as they have... is the new HC and/or GM still employed today? Is the franchise better in any way or closer to a championship than it was on that day in March 2020?

 

[rodderick]

So what standard should be used? Chiefs and 49’ers were bad for numerous seasons before their recent run. Pats fans have been unusually lucky in that the team never went through the same down period that literally 31 other teams go through. Don’t know why people keep looking for logical inconsistencies where they don’t exist.

I think if we're using the standard of teams like the Falcons and Panthers you're operating under the assumption that Bill isn't any more likely to put you back on the tracks in the short term than any other GM and HC and then you give him the exact same amount of rope guys in his position got in those places. You can't say "well, the Broncos and Falcons haven't been good in seven years" and then give Bill seven years.

 

[rodderick]

Or even 4 years.

I said it upthread, but in an alternate universe where BB retires the day the TB12 signs with the Bucs, and then 2020-2023 play out exactly as they have... is the new HC and/or GM still employed today? Is the franchise better in any way or closer to a championship than it was on that day in March 2020?

You can just use Pete Carroll's stint in New England as a barometer with the same owner. Winning record, division win, playoff win, two playoff appearances, canned after year 3.

 

[lexrageorge]

I think if we're using the standard of teams like the Falcons and Panthers you're operating under the assumption that Bill isn't any more likely to put you back on the tracks in the short term than any other GM and HC and then you give him the exact same amount of rope guys in his position got in those places. You can't say "well, the Broncos and Falcons haven't been good in seven years" and then give Bill seven years.

Only if you don't think track record matters. Or if the immediate season is all that matters.

 

[tims4wins]

Only if you don't think track record matters. Or if the immediate season is all that matters.

Track record matters.

Immediate season, not so much. But how are they going to be any better next year?

 

[rodderick]

Only if you don't think track record matters. Or if the immediate season is all that matters.

The immediate season is all that matters? This is year 4.

Also, track record has never mattered a lick for players in this franchise, track record didn't even matter when it came to the decision to give Tom Brady an extension at very reasonable money. If all that matters with players is a calculus of future projected performance, I don't see why the same standard shouldn't apply to Bill. How did it go again? "Better a year early than a year late", right?

 

[lexrageorge]

Track record matters.

Immediate season, not so much. But how are they going to be any better next year?

How is any team going to be better next year? New QB? Draft rich in WR's? Lots of cap money to spend on OL? Key players on defense expected to be fully recovered for next season?

Teams surprise all the time in the NFL. There will be at least 2 playoff teams by the end of this season that few predicted. Literally happens every year.

 

[EvilEmpire]

I said it upthread, but in an alternate universe where BB retires the day the TB12 signs with the Bucs, and then 2020-2023 play out exactly as they have... is the new HC and/or GM still employed today? Is the franchise better in any way or closer to a championship than it was on that day in March 2020?

BB has aptly demonstrated over the years that he can do the job at a high level. If anyone deserves a a large window to demonstrate that they aren't up to the task, it's him.

I think he'll retire before Kraft ever considers firing him. And deservedly so.

 

[BaseballJones]

The Patriots have no playoff wins since 2018. Denver has had multiple regimes since their last playoff win, same with Atlanta, same with Carolina. A lot of coaches and GMs canned for not executing rebuilds in those places, and it's not like the Patriots' success is markedly more recent.

Again, wasn't the whole point that having Belichick would make it so you wouldn't become "one of those teams" that flails around trying to rebuild? Why are the Atlanta Falcons now the standard he should be compared to?

Me pointing out that rebuilding is hard and so many other teams that have had success somewhat recently have had a very hard time rebuilding, doesn't mean it's the "standard" I'm comparing the Pats to. I'm just pointing out reality.

 

[BaseballJones]

You can just use Pete Carroll's stint in New England as a barometer with the same owner. Winning record, division win, playoff win, two playoff appearances, canned after year 3.

Sure.

But when you have a guy at the helm that's had the kind of success BB has, you rightly give him a little more leeway than Pete Carroll had in his first stint with NE.

Or to put it in your terms.... Pete Carroll's first stint with the Patriots is now the standard we are using to measure BB against?

 

[slamminsammya]

The immediate season is all that matters? This is year 4.

Also, track record has never mattered a lick for players in this franchise, track record didn't even matter when it came to the decision to give Tom Brady an extension at very reasonable money. If all that matters with players is a calculus of future projected performance, I don't see why the same standard shouldn't apply to Bill. How did it go again? "Better a year early than a year late", right?

the "year early versus year late" thing is totally a function of the salary cap. I don't think that logic applies to coaches.

 

[tims4wins]

the "year early versus year late" thing is totally a function of the salary cap. I don't think that logic applies to coaches.

I completely disagree with this. It has nothing to do with cap and everything to do with performance.

 

[slamminsammya]

I completely disagree with this. It has nothing to do with cap and everything to do with performance.

my understanding of the saying is, assuming some symmetry between the lost performance of cutting someone one year too early and the overpaying of performance a year too late, you'd rather the former because it's easier to reallocate the cap resources you save by not signing someone than it is to deal with cutting a guy on a supposedly big contract, since this was usually in the context of guys coming to free agency where there's normally a big signing bonus over many years.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

I can’t quantify it but I’m willing to give him a longer leash than what many here are, apparently. I think he’s earned that AND I also can’t think of anyone better to replace him.

I see different variations on the idea that “he has earned it,” and it occurs to me it could mean a few different things.

One thing it could mean is that even if the club has done it’s due diligence and considers all the factors relevant, it should not get rid of him against his wishes because of what he has meant for the club historically. If that is what people are meaning to express, I disagree. It is no way to run a club and he doesn’t need charity.

If instead it means the club should not move on, even when it thinks it should, because Bill has been so good that the club needs to consider its analysis may be faulty, then that’s ok. Bill has earned the right for people to give him the benefit of the doubt and to appreciate that he might be smarter than the people making the decisions. It’s just one more thing to consider.

Put another way, Bill has earned the right for people making the decisions and fans who like to message board about it to consider that he has been the best coach ever. No less. But also no more. I disagree with the idea that he has earned the right to go out on his own terms.

Probably academic in the real world, where I imagine that he and the Krafts will probably agree when the time is right. But in terms of message boarding, I think these are two different things.

 

[EvilEmpire]

If instead it means the club should not move on, even when it thinks it should, because Bill has been so good that the club needs to consider its analysis may be faulty, then that’s ok. Bill has earned the right for people to give him the benefit of the doubt and to appreciate that he might be smarter than the people making the decisions. It’s just one more thing to consider.

I think it is difficult to assess BB's tenure in New England and not come to this conclusion. His level of success has been unprecedented.

Just because he's the GOAT doesn't mean he can't make mistakes, and he's made his share of them, mostly on the personnel side. Assessing how well players will develop and grow has wide variance and can disrupt the best made plans. But as a complete coaching/GM package, yeah, he's had enough sustained success that I think you give him extra latitude to see if his GM and coaching processes can still work.

 

[Super Nomario]

I think if we're using the standard of teams like the Falcons and Panthers you're operating under the assumption that Bill isn't any more likely to put you back on the tracks in the short term than any other GM and HC and then you give him the exact same amount of rope guys in his position got in those places. You can't say "well, the Broncos and Falcons haven't been good in seven years" and then give Bill seven years.

Good teams / franchises have not great stretches, too. After winning the 2017 Super Bowl, the Eagles went 31-33-1 over the next four years (they did make the playoffs three times because the NFC / NFC East stinks). Shanahan / Lynch went 29-35 in their first four seasons (they did make a Super Bowl). After winning the 2012 Super Bowl, the Ravens went 40-40 over the next five years with just one playoff appearance.

I think the answer's somewhere in the middle: this is a stretch that might get a GM / HC fired, but it's also not a stretch that definitely gets a HC / GM fired.

 

[rodderick]

the "year early versus year late" thing is totally a function of the salary cap. I don't think that logic applies to coaches.

It's a function of the player's production being reflected by his salary, not just cap space. Belichick is the highest paid HC in football, is he performing to that standard? Or does ruthlessness in personnel moves only apply to players?

 

[rodderick]

Good teams / franchises have not great stretches, too. After winning the 2017 Super Bowl, the Eagles went 31-33-1 over the next four years (they did make the playoffs three times because the NFC / NFC East stinks). Shanahan / Lynch went 29-35 in their first four seasons (they did make a Super Bowl). After winning the 2012 Super Bowl, the Ravens went 40-40 over the next five years with just one playoff appearance.

I think the answer's somewhere in the middle: this is a stretch that might get a GM / HC fired, but it's also not a stretch that definitely gets a HC / GM fired.

Yup. And Doug Pederson coming off the first Super Bowl win in franchise history was... fired as a result.

 

[Super Nomario]

Yup. And Doug Pederson coming off the first Super Bowl win in franchise history was... fired as a result.

Pederson was, Howie kept his job though.

 

[Cellar-Door]

I think looking to other teams is pointless.
No team is the Patriots and no coach is BB.

Most teams are quick to fire coaches but those teams...
1. Don't have coaches with the success BB has had
2. Usually switch coaches but keep GMs (at least for a while) because COach/GM combos are rare.
3. Have little history of recent sustained success, so they are firing one mid coach for a shot at something better.

If Pat Mahomes gets a career ending injury tomorrow... how many years of around 500 do you think Andy Reid gets... he's the closest comp in the league for BB... I bet 7-9, 10-7, 8-9 without a QB and his seat isn't even a little warm. Bill needs to be signifincatly worse than 500 this year and at least 1, but probably 2 more to be worried.

being around 500 and making the playoffs 1 out of 3 years.... that's how most of the non-elite QB teams live.