Dan Snapp - Media Fixation on "Loyalty" by Belichick and the Patriots

[PatriotsDaily.com]

I sometimes wonder if I’m watching a different game than everybody else. When did football become about making sure everybody’s happy? Since when did approval ratings trump winning?

Loyal To The End?

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Absofreakin'lutely nailed it!!!

There is just no point in BB concerning himself about what nit wit fans or mediots think. He's where he is for a reason, and so are they. He's a brilliant teacher. They're the class dunces. Winning matters.

I happened to catch a bit of Felger yesterday and he actually admitted in an attempt to defend himself that it's boring and no fun for him to talk about the positives. If that's what BB's genius makes his job description he might as well sell insurance. If only his sucker audience could grasp that he would be... All any of these clowns are doing is appealing to the lowest common denominator in NE...the malcontent fellowship of the miserable.

 

[muzz]

He pretty much nailed it IMO.

I think the media around here is pretty pathetic for the most part.
Felger, Borges, are leading the pathetic train, and they have followers......

 

[Section103]

I love arguments and points backed up with facts. Dan nailed it!

I was listening to arguments on the radio the other day that as fans we should root for success right now and not worry about the team's finances later on. The team will always make money and they will always gouge it from the fans.

My counter to that is that I AM concerned about the team's finances long term. I don't ONLY want to win this year, I want to win every year. A single player is not a guarantee of a Super Bowl this year, nor are future draft picks a guarantee of a win in future years. However, if the team is financially responsible enough to put themselves in a position to afford good players every year, then that gives them the best chance to keep on winning.

The win now at all costs strategy does NOT work... just ask Dan Snyder.

 

[GullyFoyle]

He pretty much nailed it IMO.

I think the media around here is pretty pathetic for the most part.
Felger, Borges, are leading the pathetic train, and they have followers......

This is the only city where the media actively hates on successful teams

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I know why this guy is writing for the Patriots Daily and not a "big time newspaper;" he's way too smart and articulate to get hired by any of them and would pose too much of a threat to the likes of Ryan and Shaughnessy and others. Why, it's amazing that Reiss survived in that dead end of mediocrity, known as the Globe's Sports staff; then again, maybe he didn't or just couldn't take it anymore...

Has any player who ever underperformed a ridiculous Rookie or inflated Veteran contract ever gone to an NFL owner and said, "Gee, Bob/Jerry/Jeff, I really didn't live up to what you were expecting when you gave me all that money, so here's a few million back?"

And, to his point on the Celtics, just look at the Knicks (OK, they had a lot of other problems too) who suffered under the Salary Cap for years in part as a result of the enormous "Thanks for the Memories" contract to Patrick Ewing on the downside of his career. I don't know if, at the time, I would have liked trading Kevin or Robert towards the end of their careers, but it's an interesting thought, given the subsequent decline of the team.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

I love arguments and points backed up with facts. Dan nailed it!

I was listening to arguments on the radio the other day that as fans we should root for success right now and not worry about the team's finances later on. The team will always make money and they will always gouge it from the fans.

My counter to that is that I AM concerned about the team's finances long term. I don't ONLY want to win this year, I want to win every year. A single player is not a guarantee of a Super Bowl this year, nor are future draft picks a guarantee of a win in future years. However, if the team is financially responsible enough to put themselves in a position to afford good players every year, then that gives them the best chance to keep on winning.

The win now at all costs strategy does NOT work... just ask Dan Snyder.

What I find fascinating about these Einsteins is the complete disregard of the possibility that BB may have a gameplan that makes the d- line better or have no loss of effectiveness. We know BB likes to utilize other concepts. What's to say me may get the next evolution in defense:

"Big 3-4" Brace/Wilfork/Warren

"Big 4-3" Pryor/Brace/Wilfork/Warren

"Little Giant 4-3" Burress/Pyror/Green/Thomas

It's equally plausible that we could be witnessing the blending of 3-4 with the Giant 4 guys getting pressure concept.

When the league started going to 2 back tamdems, BB went to the 4-5 concept. Now the league is going to the 3 back concept.


Maybe that's why fans are now on the net and laughing at the dinosaur media.

 

[condon84]

Does anyone still really reads those guys? I'd rather go to this forum or some other forum and read stuff from other posters because they're usually more amusing and entertaining.

(By "those guys" I meant Shaughnessy, Borges, etc.)

 

[mayoclinic]

What I find fascinating about these Einsteins is the complete disregard of the possibility that BB may have a gameplan that makes the d- line better or have no loss of effectiveness. We know BB likes to utilize other concepts. What's to say me may get the next evolution in defense:

"Big 3-4" Brace/Wilfork/Warren

"Big 4-3" Pryor/Brace/Wilfork/Warren

"Little Giant 4-3" Burress/Pyror/Green/Thomas

It's equally plausible that we could be witnessing the blending of 3-4 with the Giant 4 guys getting pressure concept.

When the league started going to 2 back tamdems, BB went to the 4-5 concept. Now the league is going to the 3 back concept.


Maybe that's why fans are now on the net and laughing at the dinosaur media.

I've been touting this for a while now. I think the defensive personnel give us tremendous flexibility. Consider some other options:

- Thomas/Wilfork/Brace/Burgess (or Warren instead of Brace)
- 5-2 with Thomas-Warren-Wilfork-Brace-Burgess up front and Mayo-Guyton at LB

We may lose something without Seymour, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's less than most people expect. Balance that with the long term benefits of the deal and I'm quite happy.

The mediots love to hate on the Pats. We should be grateful that we have one of the best-run franchises in sports, instead of whining and moaning with every move. BB's main responsibility is to the Kraft's to run a successful franchise, not to cater to a bunch of spoiled rich players.

 

[RobertWeathers]

What I find fascinating about these Einsteins is the complete disregard of the possibility that BB may have a gameplan that makes the d- line better or have no loss of effectiveness. We know BB likes to utilize other concepts. What's to say me may get the next evolution in defense:

"Big 3-4" Brace/Wilfork/Warren

"Big 4-3" Pryor/Brace/Wilfork/Warren

"Little Giant 4-3" Burress/Pyror/Green/Thomas

It's equally plausible that we could be witnessing the blending of 3-4 with the Giant 4 guys getting pressure concept.

When the league started going to 2 back tamdems, BB went to the 4-5 concept. Now the league is going to the 3 back concept.


Maybe that's why fans are now on the net and laughing at the dinosaur media.

You are spot on in your D-line combinations. IMO this is exactly what BB and Pees will do.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I love arguments and points backed up with facts. Dan nailed it!

I was listening to arguments on the radio the other day that as fans we should root for success right now and not worry about the team's finances later on. The team will always make money and they will always gouge it from the fans.

My counter to that is that I AM concerned about the team's finances long term. I don't ONLY want to win this year, I want to win every year. A single player is not a guarantee of a Super Bowl this year, nor are future draft picks a guarantee of a win in future years. However, if the team is financially responsible enough to put themselves in a position to afford good players every year, then that gives them the best chance to keep on winning.

The win now at all costs strategy does NOT work... just ask Dan Snyder.

Good points all.

I think it's interesting how the Krafts word their objective for the team as they go into each season; the objective is to be "competitive for a championship" each year. That's different than saying they have to "win a chamipionship" each year to be successful.

The Krafts understand that there are far too many variables that can work for and against winning an SB (things like Tuck Calls that go your way and Roughing the Passer Calls that go against you; like season ending injuries to your QB in the First Quarter of the First Game and magic helmet catches) to write a year off as a failure if that doesn't occur.

Going into a year with the goal of being competitive throughout the regular season for the Playoffs and then making the Playoffs is a lot different than saying we have to win the SB to be successful. It takes a long term view and, IMHO, will continue to bring more than their share of Lombardi's to the Krafts' trophy case in Foxboro.

Remember this; in the 43 year history of the Super Bowl, of 32 Franchises, only two (the Cowboys and Steelers) have gone to the big game more often than the Patriots and only three (Steelers, Cowboys and Niners) have more trophies. The Krafts' strategy has put the Pats among the elite of the NFL and I think it will keep them there for a long, long time, whether or not they win an SB every year.

And, your Snyder point is right on; he's too busy trying to "win Super Bowls" when he'd be better off focusing on building a consistent team and not on paying for the biggest stars. Jerry Jones has begun to fall into the same trap.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Does anyone still really reads those guys? I'd rather go to this forum or some other forum and read stuff from other posters because they're usually more amusing and entertaining.

(By "those guys" I meant Shaughnessy, Borges, etc.)

that's a very good point. i learn a lot more out here than i do at the Globe or Horrald (which latter i now boycott on line and at the newsstand). In fact, i have tended to go to the Globe primarily to see what Reiss has to say; now, i might not be going there so often, especially if they start to charge for their "wisdom."

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Excellent article. Thanks for posting it.

Obviously written with a viewpoint that's Pats positive but it's not homeristic since the writer uses facts to support his view. CHB is such a Patriots downer. Far better that a wise Celtics GM had traded the Bid Three than the years in the wilderness that followed.

 

[makoute]

The only problem is when some of you guys rip players like Deion Branch and Samuels for holding out for more money.

 

[mayoclinic]

The only problem is when some of you guys rip players like Deion Branch and Samuels for holding out for more money.

What's the problem there?

I have no problem with Samuel, who chose to become a FA and then refused to sign the franchise tender until negotiating an agreement with the Pats not to tag him again so that he could go out and get a big long-term contract. That's within his rights, and he always honored his contract.

Branch is a different matter. He refused to report when under contract in order to force a new deal. I have no sympathy for players who sign lucrative deals (even a 2nd round draft pick's rookie deal is lucrative by general standards) and then try to hold out for more.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

The only problem is when some of you guys rip players like Deion Branch and Samuels for holding out for more money.

Why not? My loyalty is the laundry. That said, Seymour and Samuel worked out something so they never missed a game - I can live with that level of holdout when they use that option to address their financial grievance. Branch is another story. When a player holds out into the season he's stepping on "my" laundry, up until that point he's taking care of business - he just better come ready to play.

 

[Synovia]

The only problem is when some of you guys rip players like Deion Branch and Samuels for holding out for more money.

No, the problem is when people think we're 'ragging on someone' when we think the team shouldn't give them huge money.


Deion Branch was good receiver, but not worth $8M/yr. Asante is a good corner, but he freelances too much, and gives up on coverages occasionally. Again, very good, but not something the Patriots felt was worth giving $70M to.

Thats not ragging on a player.

 

[mgteich]

Unfortunately, one of the tools that players have at their disposal is holding out their services for a few weeks. There does reach a point where they need to show up or be put on reserve. The players don't have many tools. That is one.

As far as being under contract, the team has a right to cut a player at any time. A player has a right to hold out at any time. A player's right is limited to a few games unless he wants to retire. A team's right is unlimited.

What's the problem there?

I have no problem with Samuel, who chose to become a FA and then refused to sign the franchise tender until negotiating an agreement with the Pats not to tag him again so that he could go out and get a big long-term contract. That's within his rights, and he always honored his contract.

Branch is a different matter. He refused to report when under contract in order to force a new deal. I have no sympathy for players who sign lucrative deals (even a 2nd round draft pick's rookie deal is lucrative by general standards) and then try to hold out for more.

 

[Synovia]

As far as being under contract, the team has a right to cut a player at any time. A player has a right to hold out at any time. A player's right is limited to a few games unless he wants to retire. A team's right is unlimited.

And all of that is clearly stated in their contracts. They sign the contract knowing that.

 

[mayoclinic]

Unfortunately, one of the tools that players have at their disposal is holding out their services for a few weeks. There does reach a point where they need to show up or be put on reserve. The players don't have many tools. That is one.

As far as being under contract, the team has a right to cut a player at any time. A player has a right to hold out at any time. A player's right is limited to a few games unless he wants to retire. A team's right is unlimited.

Understood. I don't dispute Branch's right to hold out, but I have no sympathy for him. That's my right. I don't despise Samuel or Branch for wanting more than the Pats were willing to pay. To their credit, they found a patsy willing to shell out. I just don't respect holding out when you're under a relatively lucrative contract. But I recognize it as a right under the CBA.