Reality check: Belichick post-2004

[Carpentier]

The New England Patriots don't have godgiven right for the Superbowl but you can't expect to win it with 14 points. I've read somewhere (I think it was here) that we scored less in the last three years since Charlie Weis left than when he was OC. I'm hundred per cent certain we would have won with him. Sometimes I think you are not allowed to criticise the Patriots. Honestly its like a cult here.

 

[richpats]

All I get from your message is he isn't as good a coach because he's not winning titles ever 3 outta 4 years. If you wanna complain about the coaching, please tell me who you'd rather have? Your telling me from 01-04 there wasn't ONE game the Pats got out coached? The bottomline is BB is not gonna win it every damn year. But will he keep the Pats in it? Dude, I'm not trying to sugar coat anything, but the worst finish under BB since 01 has been 9-7, the absolute worst. From 03 the shortest a season has lasted was to the divisional round!

What makes a coach great isn't winning it all every year. What makes a coach great is that he has that trade mark power house team and consistancy. I think we're blessed to have a team thats at least in the hunt to the final 4 almost every damn year.

Some just crack me up. Not one person said ANYTHING but good things about BB. One play and poof, we start questioning the coach. I'll tell you right now, they weren't as outcoached as people think. When a line cannot block, what is the coach to do at that point? When a defense just does not have the speed to cover faster receivers, what does he do? When Brady and the Pats turn it over 5 maybe 6 times in Denver yet still remain close, is that Belichick's fault too?

Sorry bro, but your just looking like a spur of the moment guy. In the last 3 play off losses the team has looked a lot more pathetic then the coach has.

Jeez, why are people getting all jumpy about this thread? Here's what I stated, in summary:

1) The Pats have had a dropoff in the OC/DC position since 2004 (have they not?)
2) A staff that put together an undefeated team was outcoached in the SB (were they not?)
3) Belichick hasn't had the same effectiveness as he's had in the SB-winning years (how many SB's has he won the last 3 years?)
4) The coaching staff in the last 3 years has not performed to the level of the 2001-2004 staff in the playoffs (pretty obvious).
5) The coaching staff needs to improve its performance in the playoffs in order for NE to win another SB (duh).

And most people take that as an insult to Belichick and the whole coaching staff. Face facts people, we've been in position to compete for a SB 3 years in a row and haven't delivered. IMO that's not a few "off" years in a dynasty, that's a trend in the making. What makes it worse is that the team improves year-to-year but the collapses are more significant.

 

[MassPats38]

And a final note (and this time I mean it). I doubt many would praise the Patriots' performance in this Super Bowl. Your thread is discussing team trends, not the last game (you said in another thread people jumped down your throat if you criticized the coaching). Belichick's responses to losses tends to be "outplayed and outcoached", which is why I believe Moss used that phrase. I do not think Belichick would deny he was outcoached in this one game (which unfortunately was the Super Bowl).

Listening to the Giants' defensive coordinator on NFL Sirius, he used the final game of the season to test certain schemes while saving the balance of his schemes for a possible game in the Super Bowl. That was a good use of a game and provided the Giants a benefit in the long run. Belichick said they knew the Giants after the game and knew how to establish the game plan without much more research. If Sparano tested the line and found weakness and exploited them, that is good coaching. Sparano also said he would not run the same defenses twice because Brady was too smart and would burn them on repeats.

Belichick also Pointed out in Patriots All Access that you study the footage of teams and plan for what you expect to see. There is no way to prepare your team to defend every play an opponent may run. If the Giants used plays against their own tendencies and executed well, that is one way to take the Patriots off guard. I have no clue if such a strategy was actually employed by the Giants.

I still think the loss is primarily on Brady (reading defenses) and the offensive line (intensity, blocking technique and calling blocking schemes). It really matters little who is more at fault after a loss. As far as coaching and trends over the years, I think the Pats are in great shape. This is not a Billick situation where you win the big game and continue a downward trend over the next seven years (except for last year) and end up getting canned. The Pats will bounce back, and despite the loss I expect them to be everybody's choice for 2008.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Reality check: 30 teams don't make the Super Bowl. 28 don't make the conference championship.

Take a goddam valium and hope we continue to beat the odds. It does monumentally SUCK to beat the far longer ones of being 18-0, then choking in the big show. But I like our odds of getting back to it.

Your main problem is you have an obvious premise -- that the Pats didn't win the last 3 super bowls, although they won 3 of the previous 4 prior super bowls -- followed by an utter lack of even a semblance of an argument.

What is your solution?

Fire Belichick? Seems like he's the same guy that won the damn super bowls you want to win so much.... Fire McDaniels? Huh. It doesn't seem like he's incapable of getting points on the board. Fire Pees? But wait, the D did not melt down in the Super Bowl, it was the O-line. That's it! Fire the O-line! But wait, they're chock fulla pro-bowlers... if you feel they shouldn't be pro-bowlers, as we've learned with our secondary, even "good" is better than "eh take a chance on some JAGS and see what works out." Wait, I know! You could fire the O-line coach! Yah. Watch how fast Scarnecchia is scarfed up by some other franchise.

Oh, I know, you didn't want them to be different people in those positions, you wanted them to be the same people but smarter. Like you. Because you saw many plays over the years you disagreed with. How unusual.

Has it occured to you they do this for a freaking living, rather than type about it on bulletin boards? Has it occured to you they've accomplished more success this decade than anyone in their profession?

I noticed the laughable advice about what the Colts, Steelers, and Giants did in their Super Bowl seasons... well, the Colts and Stillers were one and done. The Giants, we have no idea about right now... but there's no reason to believe they will become something special in a multiple-year timeline.

The Pats, by virtue of being a threat to win it all, year in and year out, are the only team in the league (maybe w/the exception of the Colts,) that can say that.

We laid an egg, dum-dum. It happens. One frustration of it is, this team from coaches and management through players, is the model everybody else is trying to match -- still. Does that make it hard to change? Yeah, in a way. But only because it ain't broke.

So thanks, but I'll pass on the available "fixes."

PFnV

PS, not to say we don't continue to build. But Chicken Little, as a head coach, has won exactly 0 Lombardi trophies.

 

[richpats]

The New England Patriots don't have godgiven right for the Superbowl but you can't expect to win it with 14 points. I've read somewhere (I think it was here) that we scored less in the last three years since Charlie Weis left than when he was OC. I'm hundred per cent certain we would have won with him. Sometimes I think you are not allowed to criticise the Patriots. Honestly its like a cult here.

A voice of reason, thank you. I try not to get into the "if Weis were here" thinking, but whether McDaniels attempted to counter the Giants' pass rush or not, it was still ineffective until those guys got tired.

 

[mgteich]

I can't find anything I disagree with in this post.

We don't seem to have top level coordinators. Belichick made that decision, and we all said "trust Bill" for the entire season. We did indeed question every offseason whether we needed someone more seasoned than Josh. However, when the season started, we just trusted Bill.

If everyone is satisfied with us now being like Kelly's Bills, that OK. They were a great team. Howeever, why is wrong to consider all the aspects of the game, including coaching, when considering whether it is reasonable to expect a better result in 2008 or 2009? Most argue that we have been the best team over the past three years. OK, is that enough?

Do you really feel great when we don't have a HC for the Super Bowl. Belichick became the DC for the game. Why was that necessary. Josh was left high and dry.

And if we had two DC's for the last drive, then how was Eli able to move 83 yards in a bit over 2 minutes?

And if passing on 4th and 13 in a close game is really better than kicking a 49 yard field goal in a dome, then we need a new kicker, or we need to question the decisions of the coach. This wasn't a 4th and 2 after all.

Jeez, why are people getting all jumpy about this thread? Here's what I stated, in summary:

1) The Pats have had a dropoff in the OC/DC position since 2004 (have they not?)
2) A staff that put together an undefeated team was outcoached in the SB (were they not?)
3) Belichick hasn't had the same effectiveness as he's had in the SB-winning years (how many SB's has he won the last 3 years?)
4) The coaching staff in the last 3 years has not performed to the level of the 2001-2004 staff in the playoffs (pretty obvious).
5) The coaching staff needs to improve its performance in the playoffs in order for NE to win another SB (duh).

And most people take that as an insult to Belichick and the whole coaching staff. Face facts people, we've been in position to compete for a SB 3 years in a row and haven't delivered. IMO that's not a few "off" years in a dynasty, that's a trend in the making. What makes it worse is that the team improves year-to-year but the collapses are more significant.

 

[richpats]

We laid an egg, dum-dum. It happens. One frustration of it is, this team from coaches and management through players, is the model everybody else is trying to match -- still. Does that make it hard to change? Yeah, in a way. But only because it ain't broke.

I think people like you are still in denial about what actually happened Sunday, and what has happened the last few years. The hyper-sensitivity over this thread is amazing. I stated that the coaching staff needs to improve its performance over the last 3 playoffs and that's blasphemy? I never said anything about firing anyone - that's your hyper-sensitive reaction to it all. You know, it is OK to raise a concern and not have the solution already mapped out.

 

[JoeSixPat]

This SB loss exposes an obvious decline in the quality of our coaching staff since Weis/Crennel departed. Of course, there is some dropoff expected because those guys were great coordinators - but if an undefeated team can be outcoached in a SB, that worries me for future seasons, most of which NE won't have the best team out there.

Our coaching staff has been outcoached in our last 3 playoff losses. Belichick has not had the same effectiveness that he had in our 3 SB runs.

In the playoffs from 2005-2007, he defeated the following coaches: Del Rio (twice), Mangini, Schottenheimer and Norv Turner - none of these coaches has even taken a team to a Super Bowl. Fitting that his losses were to Shanahan, Dungy and Coughlin - all coaches who have taken their teams to a SB.

Compare that to his run from 2001-2004: he defeated SEVEN different coaches that have taken a team to a SB - Dungy (twice), Cowher (twice), Gruden, Martz, Fisher, Fox and Reid.

Just think about all the close games NE had this year - they were against coaches that had taken a team to a SB, even coaches with average/mediocre teams (Philly, Baltimore). Belichick pulled these out in the end but he was outcoached or evenly matched for a majority of the game.
And when he was matched up against one of those coaches again, he ultimately failed.

I think this puts 2001-2004 and 2005-present in perspective - the Patriots were a different team with Weis/Crennel and the current version is going through a series of disappointing losses, not unlike the Colts of a few years back. I don't feel that simply having Belichick will guarantee another SB title, we need improvement from our coordinators.

So let's take this "close game" thing a bit further.

The Giants beat the Patriots.

The Redskins beat the Giants.

Tampa Bay beat the Redskins.

The 49ers beat Tampa Bay.

Baltimore beat the 49ers.

And the Miami Dolphins beat Baltimore.

OH MY GOD - BELICHICK'S PATRIOTS ARE WORSE THAN THE MIAMI DOLPHINS!!!!!

 

[richpats]

I guarantee you weren't doing that Sunday night, were you?

EDIT: After seeing the 6-degrees of separation, I'm convinced some people are VERY much in denial.

 

[Steamer86]

I actually think we may have over-achieved this year. Our D was not dominant and I don't think we can blame the coaches. Our personnel is average on D and we went undefeated and were one lucky play from winning SB. Our OL was never great, besides Mankins. Maroney got better late, but still far from a great RB (although Faulk is the MAN as a 3rd down back). Our QB and our WR were awesome. We definitely over-achieved last year - with Caldwell as our number one receiver, we came a play or two away from the SB. Belichick did not have a stellar SB, but overall - I just don't think we can say the coaches haven't gotten it done. We shouldn't think we are supposed to win the SB every year (although that would be great) and if we don't - it does not mean our coaches are slipping. If we get a holding call on the miracle play, we are the Champs. If we don't get the Tuck call, we don't win the first one.......

 

[Pats726]

I think people like you are still in denial about what

Pretrty quick to judge others...NOT a good quality...don't talk about OTHERS being hyper sensitive when you are quick to judge...I wonder if you would have said teh SAME if they had won?? doesn't hold water...I am sure they will make coaching changes..they move on as playesr do..one game DOES NOT make a season..

 

[PatsFanInVa]

I think people like you are still in denial about what actually happened Sunday, and what has happened the last few years. The hyper-sensitivity over this thread is amazing. I stated that the coaching staff needs to improve its performance over the last 3 playoffs and that's blasphemy? I never said anything about firing anyone - that's your hyper-sensitive reaction to it all. You know, it is OK to raise a concern and not have the solution already mapped out.

Okay, so I was wrong in guessing that you were attempting to suggest a course of action.

Rather, you are venting, your main point being that we lost. You have also astutely pointed out that we lost last year and the year before.

That is evidently the extent of your contribution. Well said.

PFnV

 

[richpats]

I wonder if you would have said teh SAME if they had won?? doesn't hold water...

Uh, yeah it does. The whole basis of the thread is to point out that we have NOT gotten it done with these coordinators. You're right, if they had won it would have been a silly thread

 

[Pats726]

Uh, yeah it does. The whole basis of the thread is to point out that we have NOT gotten it done with these coordinators. You're right, if they had won it would have been a silly thread

you are discounting 18 wins..and what the coaches did during those wins was not good?? Get a grip...please...

 

[richpats]

Okay, so I was wrong in guessing that you were attempting to suggest a course of action.

Rather, you are venting, your main point being that we lost. You have also astutely pointed out that we lost last year and the year before.

That is evidently the extent of your contribution. Well said.

PFnV

Yeah, I'm not trying to solve world hunger in a thread. I'm trying to point out what has happened with these coordinators compared to what happened with different coordinators. And IMO, us losing 3 consecutive years in the playoffs is a cause for concern. I'm glad we won 3 already and I'm glad we make the playoffs every year, but I'm not content with just "competing" and "losing".

 

[richpats]

you are discounting 18 wins..and what the coaches did during those wins was not good?? Get a grip...please...

"It" meaning a SB win. I'm glad that we have a team that can win the first 18, but I'm concerned when that team loses the 19th.

Funny how "citing room for improvement" is translated by some to mean "our coordinators are not good".

 

[Pats726]

"It" meaning a SB win. I'm glad that we have a team that can win the first 18, but I'm concerned when that team loses the 19th.

Funny how "citing room for improvement" is translated by some to mean "our coordinators are not good".

I think the whole POINT of your thread has been that these COs are NOT good...not like Crennel and Weiss...YES??? If that is NOT what you are saying..why all the comparisons? Look at the experience that those two had compared with those of today. Gee could have fooled me with what you were saying....Discount the 18 wins...and the coaching what a great perspective...makes sense...LOL...

 

[richpats]

I think the whole POINT of your thread has been that these COs are NOT good...not like Crennel and Weiss...YES??? If that is NOT what you are saying..why all the comparisons? Look at the experience that those two had compared with those of today. ..

They are not AS good as Crennel/Weis and I've shown that with the comparisons and you seem to be supporting my conclusion too.

I think some may have gotten the impression that I'm saying our coordinators suck or we'll never win another SB with these guys - that's NOT what I'm saying. I'm actually making a point about where these guys have gotten us and how it's been a departure from Crennel/Weis.

Maybe I just freaked people out when I said that we've been ousted in the playoffs 3 years RUNNING.

 

[PATRIOT64]

All I get from your message is he isn't as good a coach because he's not winning titles ever 3 outta 4 years. If you wanna complain about the coaching, please tell me who you'd rather have? Your telling me from 01-04 there wasn't ONE game the Pats got out coached? The bottomline is BB is not gonna win it every damn year. But will he keep the Pats in it? Dude, I'm not trying to sugar coat anything, but the worst finish under BB since 01 has been 9-7, the absolute worst. From 03 the shortest a season has lasted was to the divisional round!

What makes a coach great isn't winning it all every year. What makes a coach great is that he has that trade mark power house team and consistancy. I think we're blessed to have a team thats at least in the hunt to the final 4 almost every damn year.

Some just crack me up. Not one person said ANYTHING but good things about BB. One play and poof, we start questioning the coach. I'll tell you right now, they weren't as outcoached as people think. When a line cannot block, what is the coach to do at that point? When a defense just does not have the speed to cover faster receivers, what does he do? When Brady and the Pats turn it over 5 maybe 6 times in Denver yet still remain close, is that Belichick's fault too?

Sorry bro, but your just looking like a spur of the moment guy. In the last 3 play off losses the team has looked a lot more pathetic then the coach has.

Best view of this team in all of this thread - Great post and 100% accurate

 

[mgteich]

OK, who here believes that Josh and Pees are BETTER coodinators that Charlie and Crennell? Or perhaps even BETTER coodinators in the playoffs?