Belichick on McCourty

[Box_O_Rocks]

Is there such a thing as "clinical pedagoguery?"

I thought you were traded to the Chippendales?

 

[Clonamery]

I thought you were traded to the Chippendales?

Pulled a hamstring.

 

[Ring 6]

Yes, it's "just you". Given your "I'll believe Belichick..." assertions, you should know better than to pretend your argument here is even remotely accurate.



There has never been a case where missing your pick by 1 or more has been a good thing, unless you're asserting that those "passes" a few years back were deliberate. Now, it might have worked out in the end, but that's a different issue.



No, there's not, unless it's a teaching moment. Given that this is a message board and not a BB seminar, we're not talking teaching moment. Therefore, you are assuming precisely what you claim you are not.



The answer, demonstrated myriad times throughout history, is "no" or, more accurately, "not always".



If the most successful mutual fund manager in the country decides to buy Enron, his investment is idiotic. It doesn't matter what his success level elsewhere has been. What's foolish is you not grasping the whole point of what "Objective" means, even as you defend being anything BUT objective. As I believe I've suggested to you before, you really need to look up the definition of the word.



No, it's absolutely irrelevant when you are trying to be objective. The whole crux of your problem in dealing with the non-homers is that your definition of objective is exactly the opposite of what objective actually means.



So?



History has gone against you the vast majority of the time.

You seem to think objective means ignorant.
And your final point couldnt be more wrong.

 

[Ring 6]

Thanks for making my point for me.



1.) I don't consider homer to be a bad thing per se, any more than I think being a doubter is a bad thing per se. I consider being too 'militant' of a homer a bad thing, just as I think being too much of a Chicken Little is a bad thing. There's a difference. A homer who's willing to listen to opposing viewpoints without falling back on "But BB says" type of arguments can be an excellent person to discuss things with. You used to fall into that category. Now... not so much.

2.) Last season was not good. The son of the owner understood that. When you're used to finishing 1st in a 1000 person field, finishing 10th is not "good". It's a disappointment. That's just the reality of competitive sports. It has nothing to do with "apparently unreasonable standards", and everything to do with a raised bar.



Actually, I never discount your analysis. You're a great source of information. You simply have placed yourself in a position where, for some unknown reason, you've been unable to admit the truth about last season even though the team itself has done so. Belichick's generally been excellent as the team's HC/GM/etc... He's not been perfect, by any stretch, and he was terrible last year.

One can point all of that out and not be "overly negative".



No.... it's a comment on how y'all act towards BB.

You have created a strawman identity for yourself on this board.
Regardless of whatever is written, you have reduced every disagreement with you to "In BB we Trust" and respond as if everyone who disagrees with you couldn't have a point because their only agenda is to ballwash BB.
Your argument has now become you must be right becuase BB isn't perfect while noone is saying he is.

 

[Deus Irae]

You seem to think objective means ignorant.
And your final point couldnt be more wrong.

No. I know quite well what objective means. The problem is that you don't seem to.

As for my 'final point', I'm not wrong.

Baseball
Football
Hockey
Basketball


Pick any of them and feel free to browse.

 

[Deus Irae]

You have created a strawman identity for yourself on this board.

No, I haven't.

Regardless of whatever is written, you have reduced every disagreement with you to "In BB we Trust" and respond as if everyone who disagrees with you couldn't have a point because their only agenda is to ballwash BB.
Your argument has now become you must be right becuase BB isn't perfect while noone is saying he is.

This is precisely the sort of nonsense I refer to when I'm talking about how skewed your perspective has become.

 

[Ring 6]

If the most successful mutual fund manager in the country decides to buy Enron, his investment is idiotic. It doesn't matter what his success level elsewhere has been.

Again with the strawman.
The point was not that there once may have been a case where someone who normally makes good decisions made a bad one.
The point is that THE DAY HE MADE IT, a novice cannot accurately judge it.
They can try, and they may be right, but only by dumb luck.

THAT is exactly my point.
You have less knowledge than Bill Belichick.
You have less facts about the decision than Bill Belichick.
If you did have the same amount of facts, your ability to make those decisions s not as good as Bill Belichick.
Therefore when you critique decisions, its simply a guess and by dumb luck sometimes you are right.
Which of those statements do you disagree with?

NOw, you will turn around and reduce this to my position is that BB is never wrong.
That is not correct. My position is that BB is smarter and has more information than you so will be right inordinately more than you would be.



I don't know why you find that difficult to understand.

 

[Ring 6]

No, I haven't.

Great comeback. Whats next "oh yeah"?

[/quote]This is precisely the sort of nonsense I refer to when I'm talking about how skewed your perspective has become.[/quote]

It is what you do. Its not about my perspective its about your demeanor and attitude.

 

[Ring 6]

No. I know quite well what objective means. The problem is that you don't seem to.

As for my 'final point', I'm not wrong.

Baseball
Football
Hockey
Basketball


Pick any of them and feel free to browse.

The fact that you can list 4 sports doesnt make you correct by any measure.
Teams win much more often due to lack of weakness than due to strengths.
But I wouldn't expect you to agree becuase it wasn't your opinion.
If you don't say it first, you say its wrong. Feel free to browse that one.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Pulled a hamstring.

Those failed physicals are a beach.

 

[Deus Irae]

Again with the strawman.
The point was not that there once may have been a case where someone who normally makes good decisions made a bad one.
The point is that THE DAY HE MADE IT, a novice cannot accurately judge it.
They can try, and they may be right, but only by dumb luck.

I'm sorry, but that's a load of crap.

THAT is exactly my point.
You have less knowledge than Bill Belichick.
You have less facts about the decision than Bill Belichick.
If you did have the same amount of facts, your ability to make those decisions s not as good as Bill Belichick.
Therefore when you critique decisions, its simply a guess and by dumb luck sometimes you are right.
Which of those statements do you disagree with?

The first "you have...." is absolutely accurate if you are referring to football only.

The bolded portions are both wrong and ridiculous leaps of poor logic.

The italics portion was the wrong word, as "fewer" rather than "less" would have been the appropriate choice.

NOw, you will turn around and reduce this to my position is that BB is never wrong.
That is not correct. My position is that BB is smarter and has more information than you so will be right inordinately more than you would be.



I don't know why you find that difficult to understand.

1.) I have no doubt that he's more 'football smart' than I am.

2.) That doesn't mean that he's above criticism, and it doesn't mean that you should be living life in his pocket and falling back on "BB, therefore correct". Despite your protestations to the contrary, that's precisely what you're doing.

 

[emoney_33]

Andy, unfortunately Deus is winning.

You have all the facts and logic on your side, but Deus is the only one who's achieving his goal. He wants to argue, that's his #1 goal. It's futile to try to convince him of anything with rationality or proper logic. I think it might be time to simply avoid him and his bait.

 

[Deus Irae]

Great comeback. Whats next "oh yeah"?

Your comment was stupid. What more would you have me say about it?

It is what you do. Its not about my perspective its about your demeanor and attitude.

Coming from you, I appreciate the irony.

 

[Deus Irae]

The fact that you can list 4 sports doesnt make you correct by any measure.

I chose the 4 "biggest" sports in the country. You've made yet another stupid argument, and I've given you 4 major sports for you to use in proving your point.

Teams win much more often due to lack of weakness than due to strengths.
But I wouldn't expect you to agree becuase it wasn't your opinion.
If you don't say it first, you say its wrong. Feel free to browse that one.

Again, I gave you the 4 'big' sports leagues in the country. Feel free to browse them to support your argument.

 

[Ring 6]

I'm sorry, but that's a load of crap.



The first "you have...." is absolutely accurate if you are referring to football only.

The bolded portions are both wrong and ridiculous leaps of poor logic.

The italics portion was the wrong word, as "fewer" rather than "less" would have been the appropriate choice.



1.) I have no doubt that he's more 'football smart' than I am.

2.) That doesn't mean that he's above criticism, and it doesn't mean that you should be living life in his pocket and falling back on "BB, therefore correct". Despite your protestations to the contrary, that's precisely what you're doing.

I have never drawn the conclusion that because BB made the decision it must be right. You have, however, put those words in my mouth 1000 times.
I have said that to say that a pick BB made the day he made is a bad one is ignorant. I have said that in time, it is more likely that BB will have made a good decision than a bad one.
I have never said that because BB made the decision it is correct.
I have used his track record as a reason to stop the incessant whining and judgment that is made before the decision has had any opportunity to be proven right or wrong.
Read the board.
BB is being accused of being stupid, ignorant, lazy, not caring, inept, etc, etc. My 'defense' of BB has consistently been that you cannot predict the result of his decisions better than he can.
You, however, have decided to take every modicum of faith anyone shows in the man who built the dynasty into a bully pulpit in your attack on homerism.

Oh, and it isnt a 'load of crap' to show you that someone with a history of good decisions is less likely to make bad ones, and that your example was phony, and your correctness limited to creating a ficticous situation.

 

[supafly]

Mark it down, Patriot nation will rue the fact that BB passed on Thomas and Bryant, both of those studs are going to be game breakers, either one would have stepped right in and made instant impacts and in true BB fashion, he passed.

BB drafted Terrence Wheatley in Round 2, he already has 3 decent to good CB's in (Bodden, Butler and Wilhite) who are young (Butler/Wilhite) with higher upside to get even better. I envisioned Bodden and Butler locking down the starting outside slots with Wilhite moving inside to the slot. So we basically drafted a guy with the 27th pick to challenge for time at nickel or dime and gun on ST. Why ? With so many needs, MORE glaring needs at other spots, Why ?

BB invested a 2nd rounder in Wheatley, I know he's been hurt, but he is still young and if he's healthy, there's your dime CB. Can someone explain why this pick was made given the other higher priority needs.

First round talent is drafted with the expectations to start unless you are drafted by a Final 4 roster, then you are drafted for depth. We aren't near that Final 4 roster.

Dez Bryant was our answer to Brandon Marshall and Santonio Holmes, and BB looked the other way. Watch what Bryant does in this league and from this point on, we can hammer BB for his idiocy.

As I stated in another thread, it was a common believe between draft experts that the CB spot took a dramatic dip after the first 5 CB's taken. The overall depth at the DE/OLB position, and the WR position is dramatically better, at least that was the general thinking. We have plenty of picks left to make a couple of DE/OLB selections, IMO before the end of rd #4 at 113. We also have plenty of picks to make a WR selection, as Taylor Price from Ohio U, and Emannuel from SMU are pretty much locks to still be there in rd #3. They may even go with Arrelious Benn in rd #2--who knows?

The thinking that the CB position was 'set' is a ridiculous stretch. Besides Bodden, we have zero known solid players. Butler is the next best thing, but is extremely raw, as was shown very much throughout the year. Opposing teams threw at Butler every 7 plays he was on the field, and a lot of the times with success. He obviously needs another yr or two to become a better player, something I expect him to do. In the meantime, if Bodden were to get hurt we'd have been totally screwed. Having Wilhite in there doesn't make me too optimistic, although maybe he needs more time to grow too. Springs was quite inconsistent and had a hard time seeing the field for 1/2 the year--he may not even be here come game 1.

In a pass happy league where you need 5-6 DB's in many sub packages, McCourty not only improved a weaker position, he made it younger and faster for the future too.

There will still be plenty of time to address the other areas of need, chill out. But if you do not think CB was still an area of need, you should watch many of the games from last yr again.

 

[Ring 6]

I chose the 4 "biggest" sports in the country. You've made yet another stupid argument, and I've given you 4 major sports for you to use in proving your point.



Again, I gave you the 4 'big' sports leagues in the country. Feel free to browse them to support your argument.

Explain to me how listing 4 sports counters my argument that teams win with lack of weakness more than with strengths.
You say that is wrong, then make an argument. By the way, its not.

 

[Ring 6]

Your comment was stupid. What more would you have me say about it?



Coming from you, I appreciate the irony.

No, my comment was that you have created a strawman identity, by proclaiming that everyone who disagrees with you fits into your predetermined definition of not having an opinion and only being a shill for BB, when that is not what they are saying.
Your answer of "Thats not true" does nothing to respond to the point.
So what more would I want you to say? Umm, perhaps respond to it.
Do you not reconginze that you spend all of your time on this board arguing that everyone who doesnt agree with you is a homer?
Do you really think that their is one shared mind out there?
You do realize that you dismiss every argument as homerism right?
Feel free to show me any thread in the last few months where someone disagreed with you and you didn't call them a homer. I'm sure they are the exception (if they even exist) and not the rule.

 

[Deus Irae]

I have never drawn the conclusion that because BB made the decision it must be right. You have, however, put those words in my mouth 1000 times.

Because that's what you're saying. You can dress it up any way you want. That's still what you're saying. You know it. I know it.

I have said that to say that a pick BB made the day he made is a bad one is ignorant.

That's an obviously foolish thing to say.

I have said that in time, it is more likely that BB will have made a good decision than a bad one.

That's irrelevant. For anyone at the NFL level, this is likely to be true. That includes Matt Millen, whom you chose to disparage. On the other hand, if you're referring to the draft, a recent study noted that the Patriots have the lowest percentage of their own draft picks (from 2005-2008, I believe, or something like that) on the team. So, one could say that BB is the person most likely to have NOT made a good decision when it comes to the draft. That's not my take, but it's at least as valid as your comment.

I have never said that because BB made the decision it is correct.

Sure you have. That's precisely what you're saying. You're just using different words to say the same thing.

I have used his track record as a reason to stop the incessant whining and judgment that is made before the decision has had any opportunity to be proven right or wrong.

Nonsense. You've used this as a reason to stifle any opposition to your position, which is that BB is the end all and be all. Why the hell are you on a message board if you can't handle the team being questioned?

Read the board.

I do, as you well know.

BB is being accused of being stupid, ignorant, lazy, not caring, inept, etc, etc. My 'defense' of BB has consistently been that you cannot predict the result of his decisions better than he can.

Your 'defense' has consisted of a lot more than that, as you well know.

You, however, have decided to take every modicum of faith anyone shows in the man who built the dynasty into a bully pulpit in your attack on homerism.

To use your own words.... Read the board.

Oh, and it isnt a 'load of crap' to show you that someone with a history of good decisions is less likely to make bad ones, and that your example was phony, and your correctness limited to creating a ficticous situation.

1.) My correctness was not limited. I chose an obvious situation outside the specifics we were discussing.

2.) My example was not phony, as millions of people could tell you.

3.) Pretty much everything you've posted on this topic has been a load of crap. Making that claim about 'same day' is certainly no exception to that.


Again, please feel free not to post replies to my posts. I would prefer it if you didn't.

 

[Deus Irae]

Explain to me how listing 4 sports counters my argument that teams win with lack of weakness more than with strengths.
You say that is wrong, then make an argument. By the way, its not.

You made the original assertion.