Has Coach Bill The Mad (Genius) Jumped The Shark??

[PatsFan2]

One thing we can be confident about in this upcomig Draft is that BB won't be Trading out of the First Round with that penny wise and pound foolish approach. Just imagine if this Team had LB Clay Matthews and and WR:Greg Jennings. Ofcourse i really love the Chad Jackson pick at the time.:bricks: Time to get a Good young WR in here and a pass rushing LB...you hear that BB!

 

[Snake Eyes]

Since 2005, the Patriots have not been successful?

What's your definition of successful? Who is successful, who isn't?

How many conquests have the Romans racked up in the past 1500 years?

How many Roman Empires have there been since....the Roman Empire?

What offensive/defensive line in SB XLII caused Tyree to make the miracle catch and Samuel to drop his? On the Tyree catch, can you honestly say there was zero pressure on Manning?

What line issues caused Brady's ACL and two lost seasons?

Here's a challenge for you.

You have used military analogies in your post. I challenge you to get a copy of Manstein's memiors, "Lost Victories".

Study the analysis on Stalingrad and apply to Sunday's game.

If you do this, I believe Sunday's game would make sense.

The Roman empire ceased to exist because they went away from what caused them to be successful. With respect to empires there are common themes that come up over and over again, Hannibal's strategy at Cannae was very similar to what Mongols did later on. Common themes can be seen over and over again.

You bring up Tyree's miracle catch and ask what the line had to do with it, that shows me that you missed the entire point. People look at that catch as a pivotal point in the game, but if the O-line simply did their jobs instead of getting beat like rented mules then you'd see our offense score a lot more than 14pts, if we have a few more TDs that miracle catch becomes irrelevant.

How much pressure did we get on Eli during that game? He was passing from a very secure pocket, there's common theme here, the game is won at the lines and our's were weak that game.

The Giants dared us to run and we didnt because Maroney was ineffective, he was a very bad pick, if the Giants had to worry about a legit running threat that would have been a different game. A balance between run/pass, a common theme.

I've studied Stalingrad quite a bit, no one ever talks about the fact that the Germans could have easily taken the city if they attacked when it wasn't defended well, Hitler's constant indecision resulted in strategic blunders that cost them big time, Zhukov doesn't pull off any kind of encirclement at the end of Hitler doesnt screw up at the beginning. Another common there that I mentioned before, it starts at the top/front, a mistake there cause disproportionate impact,

 

[NEP4Life]

Great success isn’t arbitrary. It wasn’t arbitrary that the Roman Empire dominated for as long as it did

I'm sure you're familiar with the Roman defeat against the Germans at Teutoburg Forest.

The three destroyed legions?

Value.

 

[goheels22002]

Sorry Honks, Belichick is one of the great coaches of all time, but not the greatest, if you think that, then you are ignoring key facts or aren't knowledgeable enough in the history of football. But, you can't lose a Super Bowl where you are undefeated and an overwhelming favorite, especially when you are outcoached and be the greatest. Spygate, even though I believe was overplayed, was embarrassing to the team, to the fans, and has always left the door open for criticism. The whole 2007 season you had to hear Spygate, spygate, spygate, Bill was warned by Goodell and he ignored it. He's arrogant. That never goes away, it is brought up on every Belichick historic discussion. And also, his last 4 years of coaching have been just ok.

It's the same arrogance that leads him to draft Ras I Dowling over dissenting opinion, bring in Albert Haynesworth and to draft one linebacker in 6 years in the first round. Bill refuses to bring in an experienced DC, because he doesn't like the fact that someone else could get the credit.

An analogy I like to draw is Bill and Steve Jobs. Jobs was as good as it was in the technology world, his arrogance and blindness eventually forced him into being fired at Apple, the company HE created. He got his mojo back and became probably one of the great visionaries of the 20th and 21st centuries.

Bill lost his mojo. He's been outcoached in his last 3 playoff games. That undisputed. From having no gameplan to counteract the Giants pass rush, to no game plan against the Jets, that somehow allowed Pat Chung to fake a punt. He had chances to get it back but failed this year.

If Bill wins it all in 2007, he cements himself on par with Walsh. But he lost. Just like Bird lost to Magic twice in the finals. That's why Magic goes a tick higher than Bird. Let's also not forget 2006 having no Wide outs for Brady.

Bill Walsh was the greatest coach ever. He was revolutionary, went 4-0 in Super Bowls.

Chuck Noll, 4 Super Bowls, secures him #2

Belichick goes into Shula, Landry, Parcells category.

Lombardi, Paul Brown are from another era so its hard to compare 1960 to 2004.

Bill's coaching arc, is getting very close to Shula. Once Marino finally started getting beat up and injured Miami began to fall apart.

Agreed on where to put Belichick among the luminaries of all time. The one guy I'd put in the Belichick-Shula-Parcells-Landry wing is Marv Levy, a fabulous football coach with four SB appearances - in a row!. Landry couldn't win the big one either early in his career. Bud Grant is lurking around there as well.

I also think that Belichick was at his best when he a strong offensive coordinator - Charlie Weiss - calling the plays and a strong defensive coordinator - Romeo Crennel - calling the defensive sets. Both were valued talent evaluators. Right now, I like O'Brien and Dante Scarnecchia on offense but don't know what help he has on defense.

 

[NEP4Life]

Bill Walsh was the greatest coach ever. He was revolutionary, went 4-0 in Super Bowls.

The NFL begs to differ. Walsh won Super Bowls XVI, XIX, and XXIII.

 

[Snake Eyes]

I'm sure you're familiar with the Roman defeat against the Germans at Teutoburg Forest.

The three destroyed legions?

Value.

Your reference to the non-pick of Connor Barwin is not appreciated...I still cry myself to sleep over that one

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

The Roman empire ceased to exist because they went away from what caused them to be successful. With respect to empires there are common themes that come up over and over again, Hannibal's strategy at Cannae was very similar to what Mongols did later on. Common themes can be seen over and over again.

You bring up Tyree's miracle catch and ask what the line had to do with it, that shows me that you missed the entire point. People look at that catch as a pivotal point in the game, but if the O-line simply did their jobs instead of getting beat like rented mules then you'd see our offense score a lot more than 14pts, if we have a few more TDs that miracle catch becomes irrelevant.

How much pressure did we get on Eli during that game? He was passing from a very secure pocket, there's common theme here, the game is won at the lines and our's were weak that game.

The Giants dared us to run and we didnt because Maroney was ineffective, he was a very bad pick, if the Giants had to worry about a legit running threat that would have been a different game. A balance between run/pass, a common theme.

I've studied Stalingrad quite a bit, no one ever talks about the fact that the Germans could have easily taken the city if they attacked when it wasn't defended well, Hitler's constant indecision resulted in strategic blunders that cost them big time, Zhukov doesn't pull off any kind of encirclement at the end of Hitler doesnt screw up at the beginning. Another common there that I mentioned before, it starts at the top/front, a mistake there cause disproportionate impact,

Ahhhhh, no

Actually not even close, not in the same time zone.

Hannibal's victory at Cannae was predicated on a double envelopment (a pincer movement) presented by the way legion formations fought and moved.

Mongol dominance was predicated on superior mobility and longer range fire power via their bow and arrow.

My friend, you are misguided by a fundamental misunderstanding of history.

Also, your analysis of Stalingrad is irrelavent.

The origional aim of the drive to the Volga was to cut the supply lines running to the Caucasus. In fixing this aim, a cardinal violation of warfare occurred.

The German forces were strung out on an over extended front that could not be held long term. Taking the city in July 1942, does not alter the ultimate mistake.

Likewise, on Sunday, a cardinal violation of football occurred. We had four turnovers and more importantly, two redzone turnovers that resulted in decisive points scored and not scored.

If you do dumb things you invite problems like last minute drives and armies getting surrounded.

Another reality of warfare (and football (and life)) that one should never expect that your competition will never have a say in the outcome.

SB XLII was a well played exciting game matching two excellent teams. The final decision came on a fluke play. Before that, we made plays, they made plays and two well played games occurred inside six weeks.

Neither game was marked by boneheaded four turnover effort.

 

[tobias funke]

I love every move he makes because i know he knows better than every fan on a message board...heck, even the worst coach in the NFL knows more about the game than any of us.

This is embarrassingly accurate.

 

[Off The Grid]

Indeed!!

The SECOND thing I'm gonna do, after I make my Billions and buy out the Kraft family ~ ALSO just discussed with Brother Mayo!! ~ is POUR money into the Scouting Department!!

This missed Opportunities ~ that a few bucks spent on that Department go a long way towards solving ~ probably cost FAR more, due to overpaying for Free Agents, than the cost of investing in the Scouts, themselves.

Finding the right players on the front end makes your job a lot easier than trying to coach up the wrong ones on the back end. Ultimately, all this stuff starts at the top, if you have a nutjob like Al Davis running the organization than the people on the bottom won’t be in a position to succeed, no matter how good they are, with the right people on top the people on the bottom have much more opportunity to succeed, look at the dramatic difference in the 49ers from the change of head coach. Having a good OC/DC will amplify the effectiveness of a good HC.

I think in order for BB to be great he needs certain people around him, there was a certain chemistry with BB/RAC/Weiss and how they then interacted with Vrabel, Bruschi, ect, that just worked, Mel Gibson and Danny Glover in the Lethal Weapon series, try to replace either of those guys with anyone else and it’s just not there. While it’s possible that BB would work brilliantly great with Spags as his DC it’s also possible that they just don’t mesh, personally and professionally, you just don’t know. Since the golden era things just haven’t been the same with the replacements, if you can’t develop that coaching talent in house then it makes sense to look outside. I’d try to poach best linebacker coaches from the Steelers, they seem to know what they’re doing in that department, WR coaches from the Packers, etc.

Genghis Khan wasn’t shy in the slightest about getting Chinese engineers to work for him, siege equipment tactics were not strong points of the Mongols so they brought in people from the outside who were expert in that, the Romans were never great archers so they hired Assyrian archers, who were the best, etc.

If I’m in charge of football operations I get the best coaches I can find, including position coaches, then I get the best trainers/therapists, the best scouts, etc.

I’d also be more aggressive with contracts, if I’m certain I want to keep a guy I resign him sooner rather than later.

Some people speculate that BB selected Brace as insurance/leverage in dealing with resigning Wilfork, if I know I want Wilfork long-term I wouldn’t wait till his contract is about to expire, I get that wrapped up beforehand, which insures better leverage for me and also doesn’t make me try force a fit with my drafting. Look at Green Bay, they extended Rodgers in the middle of the 08 season, when GB was losing a lot of games and Rodgers was heavily criticized even though the defense was non-existent, no matter, people always blame the QB and HC. So they locked up Rodgers and right now he’s relatively underpaid, he signed a 6yr $65 million deal.

I think the Patriots would be in a better situation right now if they resigned Welker before this season, after he had a down year (by his standards). Resigning him now is going to cost a whole lot more.

If one continuously stacks the deck in one’s favor, at the top, the things at the bottom matter a whole lot less and success will be VASTLY more likely to be sustained.

PREACH it, Brother Snake!! :rocker:

A LOT of great points, therein.

1 ~ Penny Foolish = Dollar Wise!! I actually already made that point, earlier, but your illustrations flesh out that wise philosophy considerably. Getting ahead of the curve usually reaps considerable BARGAINS, and yet has the additional benefit of easing the player's mind and making him feel respected and appreciated...As long as you're selective about which players get this treatment ~ Wilfork, Brady, and the like ~ it's a classical Win/Win!!

2 ~ The VERY smartest leaders OUTSOURCE!! Genghis Khan EMPOWERED and ENGAGED all conquered enemies...He offered them PARTNERSHIP and fulfillment of their skills. The man was absolutely BRILLIANT. Yes, I AM slightly CAFFEINATED!!

 

[Snake Eyes]

Ahhhhh, no

Actually not even close, not in the same time zone.

Hannibal's victory at Cannae was predicated on a double envelopment (a pincer movement) presented by the way legion formations fought and moved.

Mongol dominance was predicated on superior mobility and longer range fire power via their bow and arrow.

My friend, you are misguided by a fundamental misunderstanding of history.

Also, your analysis of Stalingrad is irrelavent.

The origional aim of the drive to the Volga was to cut the supply lines running to the Caucasus. In fixing this aim, a cardinal violation of warfare occurred.

The German forces were strung out on an over extended front that could not be held long term. Taking the city in July 1942, does not alter the ultimate mistake.

Likewise, on Sunday, a cardinal violation of football occurred. We had four turnovers and more importantly, two redzone turnovers that resulted in decisive points scored and not scored.

If you do dumb things you invite problems like last minute drives and armies getting surrounded.

Another reality of warfare (and football (and life)) that one should never expect that your competition will never have a say in the outcome.

SB XLII was a well played exciting game matching two excellent teams. The final decision came on a fluke play. Before that, we made plays, they made plays and two well played games occurred inside six weeks.

Neither game was marked by boneheaded four turnover effort.

We feel the Barwin non-pick with the same amount of rage and sorrow as the Romans did the moss of those legions, it's practically the same thing

The similarity between Cannae and Mongol tactics is the flexibility and yeilding involved which allowed the encirclement, Hannibal led with his center and allowed it to get pushed back, he allowed the Romans to encircle themselves with his line, the Mongols practiced tactical yeilding all the time, you could even argue that the 'beend but dont break' defense is an application of that idea, assuming you actually stop the enemy.

My analysis of Stalingrad isn't irrelevant, there are several key points in that which could easily be applied:
1) attack when the enemy is weak -> they should have resigned Welker last offseason when the price would have been low, they're going to have to pay alot more now. I wouldnt have waited so long to sign Mankins, waiting is what led to the Jahri Evans getting his monster deal with caused the debacle with Mankins. This can also be applied to running an offense, it's called "taking what the defense gives you". Common themes.

2) Hitler erred by not making up his mind, a mistake he would repeat throughout the war, if he wanted to take Stalingrad he could have easily done so earlier, if he wanted to ignore it and make a drive to the Caucus region he should have done that. In the words of the immortal Mr. Miyagi "Karate do, guess so, squish, just like grape".

3) By just looking at what happened on a Sunday you're ignoring a ton of things which go into success and failure, things which begin at the top. We've had a history of melting down on defense at critical for years, why is that? If it's coaching then what is being done that's different from what's previously done? Is it scheme, if so how is the current scheme different? What about personnel, what changes have been made in the way personnel are evaluated and selected? Dunlap, Wallace, Veldheer, Mangold, Barwin, the list goes on and on.

 

[Snake Eyes]

PREACH it, Brother Snake!!

2 ~ The VERY smartest leaders OUTSOURCE!! Genghis Khan EMPOWERED and ENGAGED all conquered enemies...He offered them PARTNERSHIP and fulfillment of their skills. The man was absolutely BRILLIANT. Yes, I AM slightly CAFFEINATED!!

Alexander the Great did the same thing, he conquered the Persian nobility by ordering that they still be treated like royalty even though he was the BMIC, giving them nothing to gain by opposing him yet everything to lose, and he even went out of his way to conquer an area sought by a king which he conquered, giving that kingdom to his former enemy, who then became a loyal subject to Alexander.

There might be some common themes among these great leaders, who would have guessed?

 

[Off The Grid]

Great success isn’t arbitrary.

It wasn’t arbitrary that the Roman Empire dominated for as long as it did, as did the Mongol Empire, there were reasons for their success and also for their failure, and what makes these kinds of discussions interesting is sifting through a bunch of data in order to find common themes that produce success and failure. Is consistent failure any more arbitrary than consistent success?

Grid is outspoken in his belief, which I share, that the game is won and lost at the line, which it is. The ability of the line has a disproportionate impact on the game relative to other positions (QB is an exception IMO), give an ok QB enough time and he’ll probably look very good, make sure Dan Marino doesn’t have enough time in the SB against the 49ers and suddenly he doesn’t look like Dan Marino anymore. At what points where the lines neglected? What about coaching? Personell?

Long story short, while there might not be an exact formula for success there is at least a blueprint, so long as the blueprint is strong an arbitrary (event) can lead to a lost battle but not a war.

Exactly!! :rocker:

It's crazy to suggest that the Patriot's success was a sequence of random events ~ that it was "arbitrary."

Anybody who's been along for this Great Ride ought to know THAT.

SURE, we might've missed one or two Championships, if some random bad luck had befallen us.

On the other hand, a LOT of random bad luck DID befall us, otherwise we might've won SIX Super Bowls ~ perhaps seven or EIGHT if Brady didn't get hurt!!

So PLEASE don't try to suggest, Brother Pitt, that our historic wins were arbitrary.

As Dreamer Tatum once eloquently put it: "What could have happened...DID."

 

[mcsully]

Its not one thing that is hurting this team. Its multiple things..

BB- still a top coach

BB - the GM, has been bad.. actually awful!


Pats motto for years.. Our 1-53 will beat yours.. Can't say that now.. Poor drafting and the loss of Coaches has killed this team.

Mistakes have been made but can be addressed. We still have a good ownership and a top coach.

 

[Off The Grid]

The problem we have here is there are gaggles of posters hell bent on being mad about something.

Add that to a montrous resistence to what is happening and.......it's patsfans.com.

No doubt that most on patsfans.com would be absolutely shocked to learn that playing with fire means you will sometimes get burned.

Your generalizations may very well be correct...

But as you may've noticed: None of that nonsense is going on in THIS thread, which has ~ so far ~ been blessed with rich, deep insight from several posters.

Only you, yourself, are attacking others ~ you're already making snide generalizations about the Site ~ and I beg you to take a deep breath and reconsider.

 

[Dutchmaster617]

Is it Bill's fault that Brady is throwing so many picks?

Just kidding, only a fool would start a 6th round QB for 10 years.

 

[Off The Grid]

Aren't you the same clown who predicted that this defense would be better than the 2003 defense by the end of the year?

Some predictions like that should be kept in your head and not posted here

Chumps like yourself should really refrain from calling others "clown".

There isn't a greater braying jack@$$ on this entire Site than you, my friend.

What's sad is that you don't seem to know it.

***

As for my prediction, it won't be the FIRST one I got wrong...nor the LAST.

Of course, I wasn't expecting Coach Bill The Mad to deliberately GUT the crew, EITHER.

 

[Off The Grid]

The Roman empire ceased to exist because they went away from what caused them to be successful. With respect to empires there are common themes that come up over and over again, Hannibal's strategy at Cannae was very similar to what Mongols did later on. Common themes can be seen over and over again.

You bring up Tyree's miracle catch and ask what the line had to do with it, that shows me that you missed the entire point.

People look at that catch as a pivotal point in the game, but if the O-line simply did their jobs instead of getting beat like rented mules then you'd see our offense score a lot more than 14pts, if we have a few more TDs that miracle catch becomes irrelevant.

Precisely.

The point was pretty clear, I think.

 

[Off The Grid]

The NFL begs to differ. Walsh won Super Bowls XVI, XIX, and XXIII.

Yeah, Darolyn's a bit...OFF, shall we say??

 

[Off The Grid]

We feel the Barwin non-pick with the same amount of rage and sorrow as the Romans did the moss of those legions, it's practically the same thing

The similarity between Cannae and Mongol tactics is the flexibility and yeilding involved which allowed the encirclement, Hannibal led with his center and allowed it to get pushed back, he allowed the Romans to encircle themselves with his line, the Mongols practiced tactical yeilding all the time, you could even argue that the 'beend but dont break' defense is an application of that idea, assuming you actually stop the enemy.

My analysis of Stalingrad isn't irrelevant, there are several key points in that which could easily be applied:
1) attack when the enemy is weak -> they should have resigned Welker last offseason when the price would have been low, they're going to have to pay alot more now. I wouldnt have waited so long to sign Mankins, waiting is what led to the Jahri Evans getting his monster deal with caused the debacle with Mankins. This can also be applied to running an offense, it's called "taking what the defense gives you". Common themes.

2) Hitler erred by not making up his mind, a mistake he would repeat throughout the war, if he wanted to take Stalingrad he could have easily done so earlier, if he wanted to ignore it and make a drive to the Caucus region he should have done that. In the words of the immortal Mr. Miyagi "Karate do, guess so, squish, just like grape".

3) By just looking at what happened on a Sunday you're ignoring a ton of things which go into success and failure, things which begin at the top. We've had a history of melting down on defense at critical for years, why is that? If it's coaching then what is being done that's different from what's previously done? Is it scheme, if so how is the current scheme different? What about personnel, what changes have been made in the way personnel are evaluated and selected? Dunlap, Wallace, Veldheer, Mangold, Barwin, the list goes on and on.

Exquisite!!

One of your FINEST works, Brother Snake!! :rocker:

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

3) By just looking at what happened on a Sunday you're ignoring a ton of things which go into success and failure, things which begin at the top. We've had a history of melting down on defense at critical for years, why is that? If it's coaching then what is being done that's different from what's previously done? Is it scheme, if so how is the current scheme different? What about personnel, what changes have been made in the way personnel are evaluated and selected? Dunlap, Wallace, Veldheer, Mangold, Barwin, the list goes on and on.[/QUOTE]

My friend, it's time to start actually watching football.

Was the Sunday 'meltdown" disappointing?

Yup

Where your problem lies is a lack of understanding of that dynamic.

Sunday night, the Stealers lost because they gave up a 2 minute/92 yard drive to Joe Flacco and lost 23-20. This was only needed because the the "vaunted", "elite" Ravens defense pukued up 2 4th quarter TD's that were continually extended by 3rd and long passes by R'berger.

So based on this I guess this means the Steeler defense sucks. Afterall, they gave up a longer game winning drive to an inferior offense...that was only needed because the other "elite" defense melted down against another inferior offense.

What's up with the Connor Barwin obsession? Doesn't he play for Houston? If he's so great, why didn't he prevent the the abject defensive "meltdown" of the Houston defense against New Orleans and Oakland?

The lesson here is having Connor Barwin on the roster means a 100% greater probability of a 4th quarter meltdown.

I agree surrendering this type of TD sucks.

Your problem is you don't comprehend that this type of activity occurrs on a regular basis in the NFL.

Case in point:

The 2011 Jets defense is considered not as good as the 2010 defense that's.....not as good as the 2009 version.

Go back and study the 2009 9-7 Jets season.

Five (5) games lost because that "elite" defense puked five (5) 4th quarter leads.

The only logical conclusion I see is you believe units and personnel are elite by their overriding propensity to puke up 4th quarter leads and lose games.

I prefer the sucky defenses you make 4th quarter lead surrenders rare and far between.

Maybe you and Off the Grid can shed some light on why no Welker extension cost us the game Sunday.