Belichick the contrarian Moneyballer of the NFL

[BadMoFo]

Quite a bit.

1) 10 plus wins every season BB has been here.
2) 4 AFC titles
3) 3 of 4 superbowls
4) 8 AFC East champs
5) Winning 14 or more games, 4 times (no other coaches have this record)
6) .714 winning playoff %
7) .716 season win %
8) only active coach with 15 playoff wins.
9) I'm not going to mention he is only 1 of 3 coaches to have an undefeated season because that's moot.

Man the whole league is so terrible at evaluating players I wonder how any of them ever win the superbowl...as often as we have since Belichick became coach.

Is that the point he was making? I only care about Super Bowls, the other stuff doesn't mean quite as much to me as it does to others.

 

[Wolfpack]

You have a great point, it seems like there about 15 - 20 teams every year that have virtually no chance to win a Superbowl no matter how high they draft year after year, Raiders, Lions, 49ers, Bengals, Browns, Buffalo, etc, etc.

Until about 11 years ago, you could have put the Patriots on that list. It doesn't take much to go from chump to champ in the NFL.

 

[Patspsycho]

Is that the point he was making? I only care about Super Bowls, the other stuff doesn't mean quite as much to me as it does to others.

How old are you kid? You sure were not around in 1990, or the early 1990's for that matter.

 

[Observer]

How old are you kid? You sure were not around in 1990, or the early 1990's for that matter.

Should we really be using how terrible our performance was back then as a benchmark for how we should be doing now, especially since we have arguably the best player ever and equally arguably the best coach ever? We surely should set our bar a lot higher than the 90's or comparisons with craptastic teams.
I think the point he is trying to make is that we have been SOLID contenders, and even mostly favourites, for the past decade but not been able to overcome the final hurdle for some reason or another. We have been very consistent and all sane people agree that BB is in a class of his own but the question is how and when do we rise above being consistent contenders and become winners again? Has any strategy changed since 2004? Have we been simply unlucky? Have we just been unable to find players as good as the other champions in the meantime have? Is there just a natural long term cycle we just have to deal with? Does the cycle last 8 years? These are legitimate questions I think. Sorry I have not been following football for as long as you have so I have no historical perspective. But despite being a newcomer to this game I can see we have something special in BB and in Brady and think that they are head and shoulders above the rest of the pack. So naturally the expectations are high, and also the puzzlement at our underperformance (with respect to our own standards) in recent years.

 

[Brady_12]

... I only care about Super Bowls, the other stuff doesn't mean quite as much to me as it does to others.

Really? Get used to being disappointed, I guess.

Do you have ANY idea how LUCKY we are to have witnessed what we have for the last 10 years? As someone who lived and died with the 85-86 team
(I was 13 at the time) and so many other unforgettable teams, I am simply dumbfounded by this attitude.

 

[Wolfpack]

I gotta say that I agree with BadMoFo and I don't know why he's taking so much criticism. I'm not going into this season thinking "gee, wouldn't it be great if we made the playoffs!" Teams like Detroit, Houston or Cleveland would be ecstatic with a Wild Card birth. I think New England's sights are set a bit higher.

 

[Patspsycho]

Should we really be using how terrible our performance was back then as a benchmark for how we should be doing now, especially since we have arguably the best player ever and equally arguably the best coach ever? We surely should set our bar a lot higher than the 90's or comparisons with craptastic teams.
I think the point he is trying to make is that we have been SOLID contenders, and even mostly favourites, for the past decade but not been able to overcome the final hurdle for some reason or another. We have been very consistent and all sane people agree that BB is in a class of his own but the question is how and when do we rise above being consistent contenders and become winners again? Has any strategy changed since 2004? Have we been simply unlucky? Have we just been unable to find players as good as the other champions in the meantime have? Is there just a natural long term cycle we just have to deal with? Does the cycle last 8 years? These are legitimate questions I think. Sorry I have not been following football for as long as you have so I have no historical perspective. But despite being a newcomer to this game I can see we have something special in BB and in Brady and think that they are head and shoulders above the rest of the pack. So naturally the expectations are high, and also the puzzlement at our underperformance (with respect to our own standards) in recent years.

It is quite frankly, difficult to get to the superbowl, much less win it. A lot of players and coaches retire from the game without a ring.

It's harder for the us, naturally because most teams get up to play against us. Both the Saints and the Packers have said in the respective years that they won, that they got confidence that they "could do anything" after they beat the Patriots.

 

[Wolfpack]

It is quite frankly, difficult to get to the superbowl, much less win it. A lot of players and coaches retire from the game without a ring.

It's harder for the us, naturally because most teams get up to play against us. Both the Saints and the Packers have said in the respective years that they won, that they got confidence that they "could do anything" after they beat the Patriots.

I find it pretty hard to believe that the Packers said that, especially since they didn't beat the Patriots.

 

[eom]

It is quite frankly, difficult to get to the superbowl, much less win it. A lot of players and coaches retire from the game without a ring.

It's harder for the us, naturally because most teams get up to play against us. Both the Saints and the Packers have said in the respective years that they won, that they got confidence that they "could do anything" after they beat the Patriots.

ummmmmm.....if GB told you that then they were bs'ing you --- they didn't beat the pats.

 

[Patspsycho]

I find it pretty hard to believe that the Packers said that, especially since they didn't beat the Patriots.

They actually said something along the lines of "We nearly beat them with a back-up QB. If we can do that, we can do anything." I can't remember who said it or I'd google it up.

 

[Patspsycho]

ummmmmm.....if GB told you that then they were bs'ing you --- they didn't beat the pats.

I meant, nearly beat.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

I gotta say that I agree with BadMoFo and I don't know why he's taking so much criticism. I'm not going into this season thinking "gee, wouldn't it be great if we made the playoffs!" Teams like Detroit, Houston or Cleveland would be ecstatic with a Wild Card birth. I think New England's sights are set a bit higher.

I remember screaming at the TV over the Ben Dreith 'roughing the passer' call that gave Oakland a second chance to win the game and knocked NE out of the playoffs - crap happens. Look at how sick Raider fans still are over the Tuck Rule - and that was interpreted correctly!

Just think of the phantom face-guarding penalty the League apologized to Hobbs about after the 2006 AFCC game loss. "It" happens. It's like failing to call down by contact in SB42 on the fumble recovery, you never know when a bad bounce, injury, or call goes against you and there's a momentum swing. So no, I do not consider a season a failure if my Pats don't win the Super Bowl, I'm any number of emotions depending on how it ended, but that's another thing.

Having endured 1-15 teams, I appreciate a team which contends for the post-season every year. It's like a working furnace in winter, the first time you don't have one changes your perceptions. If my team has a winning season (9-7), I'm grateful, it's like a wood stove to heat your home which requires stoking every four hours, it beats the freezing 1-15 alternative. My team is a nice economical system that keeps the house warm whether I'm home or not. A contender for Division Champion every year. I love it when I have radiant heating and can walk across the floor barefoot and warm, but if all I've got is a wood stove, I'll thank God and set the alarm for four hours.

I want NE to win both of the Jest Super Bowl games this season so Rex can watch the playoffs at home. I want to see confetti falling on celebrating NE players at Lucas Oil Dome too, but I won't consider it a losing season if it's not one - perspective.

 

[condon84]

Really? Get used to being disappointed, I guess.

Do you have ANY idea how LUCKY we are to have witnessed what we have for the last 10 years? As someone who lived and died with the 85-86 team
(I was 13 at the time) and so many other unforgettable teams, I am simply dumbfounded by this attitude.

I've been through long droughts without Boston teams competing for championships. I've seen a lot of teams from other cities win multiple championships and have come to appreciate when teams go on runs because of the sheer luck of acquiring all the necessary components to win. You saw that with Jackson and Jordan. Bird/McHale/Parrish. Magic/Kareen/Worthy and Riley. Montana and Walsh. Aikman/Irvin/Emmitt and Jimmy. You knew these guys were championship material. We now have that in Brady and Belichick. Once one of these guys are done, who knows how long it will take again for us to win. The time to win is now. Surround this guys with the right personnel and win now. It's okay to expect to win championships, cause after this run is over, it might be a looooong time.

 

[Sfpat]

It's okay to expect to win championships, cause after this run is over, it might be a looooong time.

Actually, with this draft, I expect the "run" to continue for a long time. Extended championship "runs" always require a franchise QB, and Mallet just might be that next guy to replace TB (I don't expect Mallet to be traded unless he flops). In addition, we should now have a dominant OL for the next 10 years.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

I find it pretty hard to believe that the Packers said that, especially since they didn't beat the Patriots.

Though they didn't beat the Patriots, the Packers did gain confidence from playing so close without Rodgers.

Green Bay Packers news | Green Bay Packers find swagger after close loss to Patriots | Green Bay Press Gazette

It Is What It Is » Packers say their season started to turn around with loss to the Patriots

I think people forget just how close Super Bowl champ GB was to missing the playoffs entirely. This talk about championship windows and eras misses the fact that any team that makes the playoffs can get hot at the right time and win.

The post-Brady era might not be a dominant one, but so long as we can get into the playoffs, we'll have a chance. History has shown us that.

 

[Sfpat]

Though they didn't beat the Patriots, the Packers did gain confidence from playing so close without Rodgers.

Green Bay Packers news | Green Bay Packers find swagger after close loss to Patriots | Green Bay Press Gazette

It Is What It Is » Packers say their season started to turn around with loss to the Patriots

I think people forget just how close Super Bowl champ GB was to missing the playoffs entirely. This talk about championship windows and eras misses the fact that any team that makes the playoffs can get hot at the right time and win.

The post-Brady era might not be a dominant one, but so long as we can get into the playoffs, we'll have a chance. History has shown us that.

The Giants said the same thing after their close loss in 2007.

 

[Observer]

Actually, with this draft, I expect the "run" to continue for a long time. Extended championship "runs" always require a franchise QB, and Mallet just might be that next guy to replace TB (I don't expect Mallet to be traded unless he flops). In addition, we should now have a dominant OL for the next 10 years.

Huh? When did the O-line go from turnstile Light, holdout Mankins, made of glass Neal and liability Koppen to being dominant for 10 years? Unless Vollmer alone is enough for an O-line.

Solder may get us closer but as is repeatedly said in this forum, the draft is a crapshoot so who knows? Cannon is even more unknown... I would be happy to see a good o-line just this next year, thank you very much.

 

[plk]

1. The league consistently overvalues 1st rounders, especially high ones.

People who question this statement, might look at this article. I believe you can find the original article through Google.

A 50% Chance You'll Squander Millions - WSJ.com

 

[Sfpat]

Huh? When did the O-line go from turnstile Light, holdout Mankins, made of glass Neal and liability Koppen to being dominant for 10 years? Unless Vollmer alone is enough for an O-line.

Solder may get us closer but as is repeatedly said in this forum, the draft is a crapshoot so who knows? Cannon is even more unknown... I would be happy to see a good o-line just this next year, thank you very much.

Well, I guess if you can't project potential, then there is nothing more to say. I fully understand that nothing is guaranteed (other than death and taxes) but one would have to think that Vollmer, Solder and Cannon will form the foundation for a strong OL for the future. Young, big, strong, athletic and with one of the best OL coaches to learn from. The future line looks a lot more promising than it did just three days ago.

But I guess you're right. Hey what do I know

 

[convertedpatsfan]

The Giants said the same thing after their close loss in 2007.

I have no recollection of the 2007 season...

Is that the point he was making? I only care about Super Bowls, the other stuff doesn't mean quite as much to me as it does to others.

I gotta say that I agree with BadMoFo and I don't know why he's taking so much criticism. I'm not going into this season thinking "gee, wouldn't it be great if we made the playoffs!" Teams like Detroit, Houston or Cleveland would be ecstatic with a Wild Card birth. I think New England's sights are set a bit higher.

I think it's a testament to the brilliant run this franchise has had that you both could have such ridiculous expectations.

Green Bay is known as TitleTown. They won the first two Super Bowls. But they didn't win another for almost 30 years, and then went 14 more before winning again.

The Steelers won 4 Super Bowls in 6 years, then went over 25 years before winning another. They currently have the most Super Bowls in the league with 6 in 44 years.

The Cowboys won a few Super Bowls in the 70s, then waited 15 years before getting another and starting a dynasty. Since their last Super Bowl in 1995, they've only won 2 play-off games.

The 49ers have won 5 championships, the last in 1994, and have only made the playoffs 6 times in the 16 years since that time.

So the fact that you two honestly believe every year is Super Bowl or bust seems pretty crazy. To have this long of a window for championships is a testament to an amazing job by the FO.