ESPN Magazine: Belichick's brand of coaching is nothing new

[patriotfan32]

Make sure to read entire article because the beginning of it is somewhat misleading.


http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=farrey_tom&id=3191859

 

[Touchback Jack]

Re: ESPN Magazine:Belichick's brand of coaching is nothing new

looks like something an ******* would write!

 

[FrontSeven]

Re: ESPN Magazine:Belichick's brand of coaching is nothing new

So bill is surly, and he's stone faced, and he calls arseholes, arseholes. This was written 15 years ago by a bunch of morons in Cleveland who didn't know what they had.

As the Chairman said to Sinead, "The bald chick, boo hoo, you had me and you lost me."

 

[NEPat]

Why was it a terrible article? It actually was a lot more balanced than I've seen in a lot of stories about Belichick.

 

[BradyisGod]

Re: ESPN Magazine:Belichick's brand of coaching is nothing new

Huh? I thought this was a fairly balanced article. At least the work he's done with Brown is finally getting some national attention.

 

[BradyisGod]

Why was it a terrible article? It actually was a lot more balanced than I've seen in a lot of stories about Belichick.

I have a strong feeling that there aren't many people on this board who can read.

 

[Gumby]

Re: ESPN Magazine:Belichick's brand of coaching is nothing new

At time this was an ok article

His use of the Johnson concussion situation with complete blame on BB for that is absurd and that situation was fully discussed here on website before. But he had to use that and blow it out of proportion to make his case that BB is a jerk.

I don't know; I don't think BB is a jerk. I don't think most KNOWLEDGEABLE pats fans think he is a jerk. He likes to jerk the media's and the NFL's chain because they are morons most of the time. Hell, if I could get away with it I would too - I share his opinion.

It has been well documented that BB is 'very animated' and gives long-winded answers to reporters WHO ASK INTELLIGENT QUESTIONS. If you get your turn at the mike and ask - what did you think when troy brown fumbled? or something equally inane ..... you get what you should expect from BB.

And I dont know what this thing about Dungy and religion is all about. I think that is a another big stereotype being put on Dungy. And then to compare the two false stereotypes and then say that BB can't even look Dungy in the eye. WHAT A LOAD OF HORSE HOCKEY.

anyway; BB is THE MAN and dufus reporters be damned.

 

[puffyme]

Re: ESPN Magazine:Belichick's brand of coaching is nothing new

So bill is surly, and he's stone faced, and he calls arseholes, arseholes. This was written 15 years ago by a bunch of morons in Cleveland who didn't know what they had.

As the Chairman said to Sinead, "The bald chick, boo hoo, you had me and you lost me."

I think you should read the whole article. Overall I think it was positive.

 

[Wildo7]

I have a strong feeling that there aren't many people on this board who can read.

They read the first paragraph, assumed (fairly) that it was just another stupid ESPN hit piece, and then posted here. I don't agree with the conclusions he comes to by using running up the score and spygate to show BB believes football to be an amoral domain. I also am not sure that someone who helps out in prisons, and gives money to the homeless could be a social Darwinist, or that sportsmanship is a product of muscular Christians and, in the world of football, BB is an atheist, but atleast the author doesn't appear to have a blatant agenda or simply posture about his personal disdain for BB. Oh, and he uses things called "facts" and methods such as "research." As far as ESPN and the media goes, this is a breath of journalistic fresh air, and we'd be better off with more writers who aren't actively trying to make everyone stupider.

 

[TripleOption]

One friend who will talk is the equally irascible Bob Knight. The Texas Tech coach is not surprised that Belichick, who turned down The Magazine's request for an interview, makes so little effort to share himself with the public.

"Well, why should he?" says Knight, who has known Belichick since Bill's father was a football scout at Navy and Knight was basketball coach at West Point. "He's not getting paid to work for the media."

And that is the real story. He could give a crap what the media does or says. and Pats fans agree. That is what makes the media so angry.

 

[patsox23]

Re: ESPN Magazine:Belichick's brand of coaching is nothing new

Wow. What a total PR!CK of an article. Talk about harsh and biased.

 

[RayClay]

Re: ESPN Magazine:Belichick's brand of coaching is nothing new

I think you should read the whole article. Overall I think it was positive.

It's a very long and detailed article. More like a college research paper.

Very much worth a read. It's a lot more than you usually get from a sportswriter.

 

[Wildo7]

Re: ESPN Magazine:Belichick's brand of coaching is nothing new

Wow. What a total PR!CK of an article. Talk about harsh and biased.

Seriously, can the OP put a note before the link saying "make sure to read the whole thing, the beginning isn't representative of where the author goes.

 

[Lampshade]

Pretty good. The two bits I didn't like were the use of "benched" for the Seymour story (a little too emotive, imo), and the suggestion of steering players towards certain agents (examples would have been nice).

 

[TripleOption]

Re: ESPN Magazine:Belichick's brand of coaching is nothing new

Wow. What a total PR!CK of an article. Talk about harsh and biased.

Not really. Read the whole thing. It's excellent.

 

[neuronet]

A self-indulgent piece with a tone I'd expect from a graduate student in comparative literature. It was like a hypothesis he had (the Dungy Belichick contrast) in search of confirming evidence. Not a balanced and objective look at the broad range of relevant facts, but a selective appropriation of subjective opinions woven with selected facts to build his cheesy psycho-babble analysis.

Intelligence is more than simply stringing together complicated arguments.

 

[Wildo7]

A self-indulgent piece with a tone I'd expect from a graduate student in comparative literature. It was like a hypothesis he had (the Dungy Belichick contrast) in search of confirming evidence. Not a balanced and objective look at the broad range of relevant facts, but a selective appropriation of subjective opinions woven with selected facts to build his cheesy psycho-babble analysis.

Intelligence is more than simply stringing together complicated arguments.

I don't think it's possible to portray a person (who gives hardly any interviews) without this. I also didn't see much psychobabble. I don't necessarily agree with his theory, but you go too far in lambasting him for an article that he clearly put thought, research and as much objectivity as we've seen into.

 

[PonyExpress]

The notion that Belichick is the personification of social darwinism is absurd. This guy just stole Easterbrook's good vs evil paradigm and snazzed it up with tenuous historical references from self-styled sports intellectuals.

 

[drakesta101]

The article was a rare respectable and inciteful piece of balanced sports journalism. Sure, in the beginning it sounds like it is going to rip Belichick. I plead with you to read the piece in it's entirety.

A large problem in the sports world is the fact that this team is on the brink of becoming an undefeated team, a feat that may never happen again, and unless your a Patriots fan, right now you probably hate them, and because of this it's likely that its not going to viewed as a full-on success story nationally because of polarizing figures like Belichick and his association with spygate. This article is an attempt at getting those that hate this franchise to try gain an understanding of how and why this coach operates as he does. And as it points out, sure theres his bad qualities, but there are reasons for this, and through the research of the roots of athletics of this great nation, he explains that his coaching style isn't so radical - it's been a style that has been there from the beginning/

 

[MrBigglesWorth]

I thought the article was good. Isn't America about winning and greed? Yet when you do it too much people get jealous.