Emperor Bill

[Rob0729]

When you score more points than the other team you win all of those.

Really? Didn't the Pats lose the Colts this year eventhough they outscored them because the Russian judge awarded them more style points? I guess I must be wrong.

I also guess obvious sarcasm is lost on this board.

 

[Rob0729]

Nevertheless, a one point win is as good as a 50 point one. We had two romps mid season this year. The stats look great. But my eyes tell me the offense that went into Baltimore was not going to cut it. Average stats? Just fine.

You mean the Baltimore game where the Ravens totally shutdown the Patriots' offense and only held them to 27 points (and 328 yards) in blizzard like winds? Tell me how an offense that scores 27 points isn't going to cut it. The game the Pats won eventhough the defense gave up 24 points? Why not bring up the Philly game too where they shut down the Pats offense and only held them to 410 yards and 24 points on offense? Until the Super Bowl, the way to shutdown the Patriots' offense was to make it a great offense rather than an elite, once in a generation offense.

You do realize that in 2003, the Pats had three games without an offensive TD (the first game vs. Buffalo, Cleveland, and the second game vs. Miami). They had six games where they scored 17 or less points (which at least used to be the magic number between wins and losses). That offense wasn't going to cut it without having the best defense in Patriots history to back it up. You take the 2003 offense and the 2007 defense and you put together an 8-8 team at best.

I thought Charlie Weis was a great OC when he was here, but his legend has been blown out of proportion . I also think McDaniels doesn't get enough credit. People point to the Ravens game as McDaniels got figured out and had no answer, but fail to realize that the Pats actually scored 3 TDs and a field goal and the wind was swirling pretty bad and Sammy Morris didn't play to help with the run game. No it wasn't the Redskins game type of clinic, but the offense still was pretty effective even if it was slowed down.

 

[Rob0729]

I doubt it.

Seriously, people write articles and i don't, so don't believe my feeling.

However, BB and Weis were contemporaries with tons of coaching experience. Weis had coached every skill position on offense and had been an offensive coordinator. BB coached defense, special teams every year he wasn't HC or co HC except one year, 1977 in Detroit.

So ESPN says, with no defensive coordinator, BB ran the defense and also told his life long offensive specialist how to run an offense and Weis merely carried out orders. I don't believe it.

Sorry, I don't write for ESPN, all I have is logic and my presumption.

Belichick has always preached to be a good coordinator and head coach you need to be versed on both sides of the ball. That is why most of his coaches spend time coaching on both sides. The guy has been a head coach for about 15 years now. You would think he has been in enough gameplanning meetings, strategy sessions, and meetings with Brady and other offensive players to be as well versed on the offense as any offensive coordinator who doesn't have a decade of experience. Belichick didn't let Weis or McDaniels to coach in a vacuum.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Really? Didn't the Pats lose the Colts this year eventhough they outscored them because the Russian judge awarded them more style points? I guess I must be wrong.

I also guess obvious sarcasm is lost on this board.

Obvious sarcasm yes. Where you failed is you used subtle sarcasm which forced people to think causing great physical and emotional distress - you are a cruel man and it is your civic duty to help offset the medical and counseling costs of the many members you maimed with your awful trick. :nono:

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I doubt it.

Seriously, people write articles and i don't, so don't believe my feeling.

However, BB and Weis were contemporaries with tons of coaching experience. Weis had coached every skill position on offense and had been an offensive coordinator. BB coached defense, special teams every year he wasn't HC or co HC except one year, 1977 in Detroit.

So ESPN says, with no defensive coordinator, BB ran the defense and also told his life long offensive specialist how to run an offense and Weis merely carried out orders. I don't believe it.

Sorry, I don't write for ESPN, all I have is logic and my presumption.

Bill and Charlie were never contemporaries. Bill came into the NFL at 23. By 27 he was beginning 12 years with the Giants, two of which preceeded Parcells who had risen up the college ranks. Who when he came to NY in 81 to install the 3-4 he learned in NE, didn't have much initial success. Although he was elevated to HC the following season when Ray Perkins retired, and nearly fired after his first disastrous season. The Giants didn't start to gel on defense until he promoted a young position coach to DC. A year later they won the first or two Superbowls. Charlie, didn't sign on until 1990, as a personnel assistant...fresh out of coaching a NJ HS team. Over the next several seasons in NY and NE Charlie learned that Ernhart-Perkins offense as a position coach. In 1997 he became the OC of the NYJ and ran it for the first time. It was a contentious run and Parcells didn't think much of his playcalling ability. Bill had befriended him when as a position coach Tuna routinely made light of his attempts to have input. They forged a friendship in the mid 90's based on that. Contemporaries, not even close. Even RAC was never a contemporary. He followed Parcells to NY from Texas and was pigeonholed as a ST coach for several seasons. He didn't even coach a defensive positon until 1990, and he remained coaching that positon until he left for Cleveland in 2000 because he knew he was behind both BB and Al Groh in Parcells estimation... RAC was never better than second runner up for the DC position on a Parcells HC'd team even when BB wasn't available...

Charlie and RAC were guys he worked with, and often supervised or mentored, probably as he did with Pioli and Mangini and so many others slipped a C-note every now and then to help them remain in the game as they rose up the ranks in an organization where he was already having game plans enshrined in Canton. He trusted them to install and run the offensive and defensive systems they were taught in NY, NE, and NY. The same ones he was taught and ran including as the assistant HC of the NYJ for 20 years. And as much as each aspired to be a HC in this league, both will tell you in their most honest moments that they owe any shot they got at advancing towards that goal to BB for seeing more potential in them than Parcells ever did, and essentially taking them along for what turned out, in no small part due to potential misfortune averted because of BB and **** Rehbein's intuition, to be one auspicious ride.

FYI the only offensive TD scored by NE in SB XXXVI was on a play called on the fly by...BB. He made a route adjustment they had not practiced based on the coverage he was observing against Patten (in between coaching up that defense on in cuts) and told Charlie Weis to run the play again with an adjustment. The final drive to achieve FG range was run out of no huddle with no TO. It wasn't Charlie's genius that scripted that drive, either. It was the intangibles inherent in the young QB with the two headed QB's coach, one of whom had been teaching him how to read and dissect defenses from a genius level DC's POV.

 

[RayClay]

You mean the Baltimore game where the Ravens totally shutdown the Patriots' offense and only held them to 27 points (and 328 yards) in blizzard like winds?

Of course not.

In our championship seasons we often looked bad against a team during the season, made adjustments and beat that team when it counted. I made an obvious reference to our ability to adjust in a post season game where we started badly and you referred to a regular season game for no apparent reason. Shows where your head is at.

 

[RayClay]

Bill and Charlie were never contemporaries. Bill came into the NFL at 23. By 27 he was beginning 12 years with the Giants, two of which preceeded Parcells who had risen up the college ranks. Who when he came to NY in 81 to install the 3-4 he learned in NE, didn't have much initial success. Although he was elevated to HC the following season when Ray Perkins retired, and nearly fired after his first disastrous season. The Giants didn't start to gel on defense until he promoted a young position coach to DC. A year later they won the first or two Superbowls. Charlie, didn't sign on until 1990, as a personnel assistant...fresh out of coaching a NJ HS team. Over the next several seasons in NY and NE Charlie learned that Ernhart-Perkins offense as a position coach. In 1997 he became the OC of the NYJ and ran it for the first time. It was a contentious run and Parcells didn't think much of his playcalling ability. Bill had befriended him when as a position coach Tuna routinely made light of his attempts to have input. They forged a friendship in the mid 90's based on that. Contemporaries, not even close. Even RAC was never a contemporary. He followed Parcells to NY from Texas and was pigeonholed as a ST coach for several seasons. He didn't even coach a defensive positon until 1990, and he remained coaching that positon until he left for Cleveland in 2000 because he knew he was behind both BB and Al Groh in Parcells estimation... RAC was never better than second runner up for the DC position on a Parcells HC'd team even when BB wasn't available...

Charlie and RAC were guys he worked with, and often supervised or mentored, probably as he did with Pioli and Mangini and so many others slipped a C-note every now and then to help them remain in the game as they rose up the ranks in an organization where he was already having game plans enshrined in Canton. He trusted them to install and run the offensive and defensive systems they were taught in NY, NE, and NY. The same ones he was taught and ran including as the assistant HC of the NYJ for 20 years. And as much as each aspired to be a HC in this league, both will tell you in their most honest moments that they owe any shot they got at advancing towards that goal to BB for seeing more potential in them than Parcells ever did, and essentially taking them along for what turned out, in no small part due to potential misfortune averted because of BB and **** Rehbein's intuition, to be one auspicious ride.

FYI the only offensive TD scored by NE in SB XXXVI was on a play called on the fly by...BB. He made a route adjustment they had not practiced based on the coverage he was observing against Patten (in between coaching up that defense on in cuts) and told Charlie Weis to run the play again with an adjustment. The final drive to achieve FG range was run out of no huddle with no TO. It wasn't Charlie's genius that scripted that drive, either. It was the intangibles inherent in the young QB with the two headed QB's coach, one of whom had been teaching him how to read and dissect defenses from a genius level DC's POV.

I didn't say they were clones, I said they were contemporaries. The word's in the dictionary. Belichick had more experience, but Weis had a good amount also. They were both assistants or coordinators at the same time, working under different head coaches. Weis did not learn his trade working under head coach Belichick.

Weis had more experience as an offensive assistant and he was an offensive coordinator.

 

[p8ryts]

Sit down, relax, see what happens. It's not even the end of febuary yet.

a voice of reason

 

[Ring 6]

Dan Reeves was an offensive coordinator for Landry. I'm not sure if there were others, but when you have coaching talent like him and Mike Ditka John Mackovic Gene Stallings and Raymond Berry, I think you've got some NFL offensive minds to tap.

You going to put O'Brien in that group? I don't think so.

Yeah, it's not what their title is, it's what their talent is.

If they're just parrots, where's the creativity coming from?

You seriously cannot be saying that because 50 years later you found a coaching staff that developed into a lot of head coaches that means our guys who have not yet will not, can you?
In Reeves first year as OC no one saw any more in him than they do in Obrien. In fact both were carrying out instruction, not creating philosophy.

 

[Ring 6]

I didn't say they were clones, I said they were contemporaries. The word's in the dictionary. Belichick had more experience, but Weis had a good amount also. They were both assistants or coordinators at the same time, working under different head coaches. Weis did not learn his trade working under head coach Belichick.

Weis had more experience as an offensive assistant and he was an offensive coordinator.

There just simply is no question, other than in your opinion, that Weis took orders from Belichick, and that Belichick designed the philosophy and structure of the offense. Weis did design some plays, (BB needed to approve them) played a large role in game planning (again subject to BBs approval) and called the game(on a short leash).

The is one fact that is incontriverible that your opinion cannot be correct.
In 2001 Tom Brady explained that every day before practice he had a one hour meeting to go over last weeks game, this weeks game plan, his decision making, and general how to play QB. That meeting was not with Charlie Weis it was with Bill Belichick.
Coordinators in our system are like "Assistant Managers". They are delegated responsibilities but expected to do them in the sam manner the manager who delegated them would. They are monitored and supervised. They gain more autonomy as the LEARN the way the manager wants things done and can be trust to do them the way the manager wants.

 

[RayClay]

There just simply is no question, other than in your opinion, that Weis took orders from Belichick, and that Belichick designed the philosophy and structure of the offense. Weis did design some plays, (BB needed to approve them) played a large role in game planning (again subject to BBs approval) and called the game(on a short leash).

The is one fact that is incontriverible that your opinion cannot be correct.
In 2001 Tom Brady explained that every day before practice he had a one hour meeting to go over last weeks game, this weeks game plan, his decision making, and general how to play QB. That meeting was not with Charlie Weis it was with Bill Belichick.
Coordinators in our system are like "Assistant Managers". They are delegated responsibilities but expected to do them in the sam manner the manager who delegated them would. They are monitored and supervised. They gain more autonomy as the LEARN the way the manager wants things done and can be trust to do them the way the manager wants.

Of course. Belichick was the head coach. They developed in the same or similar systems so they likely saw eye to eye on philosophy. BB hired Weis because he thought he would be a good offensive coordinator. Is someone saying Weis defied BB and ran whatever plays he felt like? Of course not. BB was the head coach.

Now Weis had been an offensive coordinator and offensive assistant in the NFL for a while which means to me he added some ideas that were not just carbon copies of Belichick ideas. Again, that's part of the package that made him attractive. Ideas, used in similar systems by someone he trusts.

What new ideas tested in the NFL would a college intern bring? Not denigrating anyone who worked their way up, but how else could you put it?

 

[Rob0729]

Of course not.

In our championship seasons we often looked bad against a team during the season, made adjustments and beat that team when it counted. I made an obvious reference to our ability to adjust in a post season game where we started badly and you referred to a regular season game for no apparent reason. Shows where your head is at.

Well, I was talking about McDaniels. McDaniels never coached against Baltimore in the playoffs. I am not talking about O'Brien. So you changed the subject then. I was talking about McDaniels and you brought up Baltimore. The obvious conclusion is to think that Ravens game where it was hyped that the Pats offense was exposed because that was the biggest game against the Ravens that McDaniels coached.

As for this past playoff game against the Ravens, you can argue the Pats did make the adjustments but they were too late since the Pats did make at least an attempt to make it look like they might come back in the second half. The Pats' problem in that game is they came out flat and by the time they got their footing it was too late.

 

[Rob0729]

As for Weis, you are mistaken about the 2003 season. That offense was average at best and needed the defense to bail them out a lot that season. Let's go week to week:

Week 1 - Pats didn't score at all
Week 2 - After scoring 17 points in the first half, the offense scored only 7 in the second half (plus a Bruschi Int for a TD). In the second half, the Pats went 3 and out 4 times. Two other drives they were only able to convert one first down.
Week 3 - The only score in the fourth quarter was an Asante Samuel INT TD return and the Pats went three and out 5 out of 9 possssions in second half plus turned the ball over another time. They scored on two of the drives.
Week 6 - The Pats had three possessions in the fourth and never crossed mid field once.
Week 8 - Didn't have a TD all game. Punted on two of four possessions in the second half.
Week 11 - Only scored 3 points in the second half. Went 3 and out 3 times in the second half. Only got one first down on another. And kicked a field goal on the last.
Week 12 - The first two drives in the second half ended in downs and an INT
Week 13 - After dominating the Colts through the first drive of the third quarter (28 points plus a kick return for a TD), the Pats' offense was shut down and only scored a gain on a drive that started on the Colts' 31 (Bethel Johnson had a 69 yard kick off return).
Week 14 - The Pats offense only scored 3 points all game (first quarter) while the defense scored 8 points (Bruschi INT for TD and Jarvis Green safety).
Week 16 - 14 points in the first half, 7 points in the second half (and that was the first drive of the second half). So after the first drive of the second half, the Pats' offense was shut down.

In the first playoff game against Tennesse, the Pats scored 14 points in the first half and only three in the second half (a last second field goal). Weis' adjustments were mediocre in that game.

In the Conference title game, the Pats scored 13 points in the first half and only 9 in the second half. Went three and out twice and turned over the ball once in six possessions in the second half.

In the Super Bowl, the first possession of the second half was a three and out, the second didn't get past the Pats 31, and the Pats had a turnover in the fourth.

So let's not overrated the adjustments of Weis. In 2003, the best adjstment he had in a lot of games was an opportunistic defense that could score. The legend of Charlie Weis is far better than the actual production of the real Charlie Weis. In 2002 and 2003, there were far more people who wanted this guy run out on a rail than were calling him a genius. He became a genius in 2004 when he got an elite RB.
I look at both the regular season and post season. But post season adjustments weren't there either.

 

[RayClay]

Well, I was talking about McDaniels. McDaniels never coached against Baltimore in the playoffs. I am not talking about O'Brien. So you changed the subject then.

You responded to this post, so i guess we just forget whatever you thought I said.

Nevertheless, a one point win is as good as a 50 point one. We had two romps mid season this year. The stats look great. But my eyes tell me the offense that went into Baltimore was not going to cut it. Average stats? Just fine.

 

[Rob0729]

You responded to this post, so i guess we just forget whatever you thought I said.

My bad. I guess I need to read closer before I respond.

As for the team that lost to Baltimore. I doubt we will see that one. It isn't like the Pats are going to stand pat this offseason. Belichick taking more control of the defense may mean that we might see the pre-Pees defense come back. The one with a lot of presnap confusion, delayed rushes and blitzes, and more pressure on the QB. I mean the rumor in 2005, Belichick took over the play calling for Mangini and the defense went from passive to very agressive.

 

[Ring 6]

Of course. Belichick was the head coach. They developed in the same or similar systems so they likely saw eye to eye on philosophy. BB hired Weis because he thought he would be a good offensive coordinator. Is someone saying Weis defied BB and ran whatever plays he felt like? Of course not. BB was the head coach.

Now Weis had been an offensive coordinator and offensive assistant in the NFL for a while which means to me he added some ideas that were not just carbon copies of Belichick ideas. Again, that's part of the package that made him attractive. Ideas, used in similar systems by someone he trusts.

What new ideas tested in the NFL would a college intern bring? Not denigrating anyone who worked their way up, but how else could you put it?

OK, well your post implied to me that you thought Weis put together the offense and BB gave him some sort of Carte Blanche.
As far as your other point, I think what we are discussing fits my Assistant Manager analogy. Your carry out duties as my AM and if you have a brain you are going to have ideas on ways to improve how we do things. Some will be correct, some will not. All will require me to decide if I want them implemented. I don't know who the college intern you are talking about is, but IMO, intelligence is the primary factor here, not experience. Experience helps you fly without a net, but does not mean you are more creative. And thats really what BB wants in a coordinator, IMO, creativity to come up with ideas, challenge his thinking, and make his self-analyze. After all NFL coaching is about doing something that outthinks the opponent. If your own staff is trying to be that devils advocate one step ahead, it keeps your thinkiing fresh. I just don't think an older, less open-minded assistant is the best route for accomplishing that.
We do not need to immigrate philosophy and new scheme. We need to perfect the philosophy and scheme in place. Frankly, I think the success we have had is indicative of just that, because we have seen a 5 year slow but sure degradationof talent that was unavoidable from 2004 forward.
I'm having a hard time deciding whether the success we have had since is because of philosophy scheme, or because BB did an unbelievable job of masking the degradation in talent by stengthing important areas to hide the weaknesses in less important ones.
Nonetheless, given the 2004 roster, the cap status of the team, and the flat out inability under a capped system to keep the overall talent level anywhere near what it was, the overall perfomrance of the Pats over the past 5 season is a stark overachievement from what was likely, expected or realistically possible. No one wants to believe though. Its easier to feel an entitlement to Championships and get on to bashing whatever you feel like.

 

[RayClay]

As for Weis, you are mistaken about the 2003 season. That offense was average at best and needed the defense to bail them out a lot that season. Let's go week to week:

Week 1 - Pats didn't score at all
Week 2 - After scoring 17 points in the first half, the offense scored only 7 in the second half (plus a Bruschi Int for a TD). In the second half, the Pats went 3 and out 4 times. Two other drives they were only able to convert one first down.
Week 3 - The only score in the fourth quarter was an Asante Samuel INT TD return and the Pats went three and out 5 out of 9 possssions in second half plus turned the ball over another time. They scored on two of the drives.
Week 6 - The Pats had three possessions in the fourth and never crossed mid field once.
Week 8 - Didn't have a TD all game. Punted on two of four possessions in the second half.
Week 11 - Only scored 3 points in the second half. Went 3 and out 3 times in the second half. Only got one first down on another. And kicked a field goal on the last.
Week 12 - The first two drives in the second half ended in downs and an INT
Week 13 - After dominating the Colts through the first drive of the third quarter (28 points plus a kick return for a TD), the Pats' offense was shut down and only scored a gain on a drive that started on the Colts' 31 (Bethel Johnson had a 69 yard kick off return).
Week 14 - The Pats offense only scored 3 points all game (first quarter) while the defense scored 8 points (Bruschi INT for TD and Jarvis Green safety).
Week 16 - 14 points in the first half, 7 points in the second half (and that was the first drive of the second half). So after the first drive of the second half, the Pats' offense was shut down.

In the first playoff game against Tennesse, the Pats scored 14 points in the first half and only three in the second half (a last second field goal). Weis' adjustments were mediocre in that game.

In the Conference title game, the Pats scored 13 points in the first half and only 9 in the second half. Went three and out twice and turned over the ball once in six possessions in the second half.

In the Super Bowl, the first possession of the second half was a three and out, the second didn't get past the Pats 31, and the Pats had a turnover in the fourth.

So let's not overrated the adjustments of Weis. In 2003, the best adjstment he had in a lot of games was an opportunistic defense that could score. The legend of Charlie Weis is far better than the actual production of the real Charlie Weis. In 2002 and 2003, there were far more people who wanted this guy run out on a rail than were calling him a genius. He became a genius in 2004 when he got an elite RB.
I look at both the regular season and post season. But post season adjustments weren't there either.

Did we do better in the second half of seasons and games than in the first? I think so. It used to be gospel around here about never losing the second time you played someone and always making the better second half adjustments.

Y'all can do whatever revisionist history you want, that's how i remember it.

 

[Ring 6]

Did we do better in the second half of seasons and games than in the first? I think so. It used to be gospel around here about never losing the second time you played someone and always making the better second half adjustments.

Y'all can do whatever revisionist history you want, that's how i remember it.

I think to say 'we used to believe' and that it is not correct any more is a dangerous argument. We used to think we couldn't blow a second half lead, hello 2006. We used to think we would outprepare anoyne for a SB, hello 2007, etc, etc.
But given that assumption, why would that prove it is due to coaching?
I think quite the contrary. I think the one constant is that the philosophy, culture and thought process of the coaching staff is unchanged. The TALENT on the field changed.
If teams ADAPT TO US, and we counter it and have talent, it looks like we made good adjustments. If teams pick on our weaknesses, what adjustments we make dont matter if they continue to do so.
Over the past 5 years the amount and severities of weaknesses and liabilites that an opponent can take advantage of on this team has consistently increased. You can't make half time adjustments to give the players more talent.

 

[Rob0729]

Did we do better in the second half of seasons and games than in the first? I think so. It used to be gospel around here about never losing the second time you played someone and always making the better second half adjustments.

Y'all can do whatever revisionist history you want, that's how i remember it.

And we played better in the second half of the seasons in 2008, 2005, and 2006 too. Again, if it wasn't for three bad mistakes on defense in the last drive by the Giants in the Super Bowl, the Pats would have had a perfect season. Belichick hit gold with McDaniels. Why can't he do it again.

Besides, I don't know if the offense improved as the year went along in 2003. I think the defense did and carried the offense.

I agree that O'Brien was less than spectacular as a rookie signal caller. One thing that was encouraging was that the play calling was getting better towards the end of the season. He is no Weis or McDaniels, but he is still learning. He could be worlds better this upcoming year.

If Pees was the problem on defense, the Pats may not need a top flight offense to win games. The Pats won a Super Bowl with a mediocre to average offense in 2003. If the Pats can turnaround their defense, they may not need a whole heck of a lot more in 2010.

 

[RayClay]

OK, well your post implied to me that you thought Weis put together the offense and BB gave him some sort of Carte Blanche.
As far as your other point, I think what we are discussing fits my Assistant Manager analogy. Your carry out duties as my AM and if you have a brain you are going to have ideas on ways to improve how we do things. Some will be correct, some will not. All will require me to decide if I want them implemented. I don't know who the college intern you are talking about is, but IMO, intelligence is the primary factor here, not experience. Experience helps you fly without a net, but does not mean you are more creative. And thats really what BB wants in a coordinator, IMO, creativity to come up with ideas, challenge his thinking, and make his self-analyze. After all NFL coaching is about doing something that outthinks the opponent. If your own staff is trying to be that devils advocate one step ahead, it keeps your thinkiing fresh. I just don't think an older, less open-minded assistant is the best route for accomplishing that.
We do not need to immigrate philosophy and new scheme. We need to perfect the philosophy and scheme in place. Frankly, I think the success we have had is indicative of just that, because we have seen a 5 year slow but sure degradationof talent that was unavoidable from 2004 forward.
I'm having a hard time deciding whether the success we have had since is because of philosophy scheme, or because BB did an unbelievable job of masking the degradation in talent by stengthing important areas to hide the weaknesses in less important ones.
Nonetheless, given the 2004 roster, the cap status of the team, and the flat out inability under a capped system to keep the overall talent level anywhere near what it was, the overall perfomrance of the Pats over the past 5 season is a stark overachievement from what was likely, expected or realistically possible. No one wants to believe though. Its easier to feel an entitlement to Championships and get on to bashing whatever you feel like.

BB is a very controlling person. He'll never have the type of delegation Parcells did, it's not in his personality. Both RAC and Weis had the unique attribute of being outsiders that were insiders, but you are correct. However, having his trust allowed them to add to the team rather than being appendages of Belichick (my presumption here).

You are very right, and i mention it often, that we are fortunate to have a coach/exec who puts the future of the team first and always fields a competitive team. To me, this is the major factor in success. If you bet the house on a season, then collapse for two or three, your chances are slim, because stuff happens.

I'm a little concerned because i basically agree with everything you posted. Why am I basing BB? I'm not. Red Auerbach had faults. **** Williams had one year. I tried to make a subtle point, and i get "what's your point"? so I exaggerate.

Bottom line is, Belichick is a detail guy, he's a worker. He doesn't leave things to others. Sometimes a fresh perspective from someone you trust is what you need and he is not one that likes to delegate. BB alluded to this in his day after season presser.

That's why I think the Corwin Brown signing could be significant. It might be that, given his personality, a known player and coach who's also been elsewhere could be effective.

It's management style. Hate to bring up Parcells, but it's instructive I think. BB and Parcells personalities are opposites, detail guy big picture guy. BB has modeled Parcells at various times, he is his biggest mentor, like it or not. Problem is, what works for Parcells personality is usually terrible for BB's, since they are opposites.

Belichick admitted in Cleveland he was trying to be tough guy Parecell's. doesn't mean he isn't tough, just means sarcastic wise cracking abuse of the press ain't him (I could be mis characterizing, but BB historians know he said he made a mistake trying to be Parecells in Cleveland).

Years later, having coaching retirements and defections, he goes to the Parcells model of grooming talented young coaches. Difference is, Parcells taunts his coaches, and is all too happy to delegate work to talented younger coaches. coaches get a "I'll show him attitude" and excel.

I think we have a lot of hard working coaches who feel that doing what BB wants is what brings home the bacon. I doubt they see any reason to prove anything or come up with different ideas, no one out works BB, no one is smarter.

I'm sure people will nitpick this and ignore the point (BB had jobs before Parcells!), that's fine i won't respond unless you want to take time to get the point and disagree.

Like I said, BB referred to this phenomenon (organizational go along group think) and I think Corwin Brown is a good step.