Is Bill Belichick Getting Off Easy?

[JoeSixPat]

If I had to pick one positional matchup to "blame" it would be the offensive line. But let's not start the "fire Dante Scarnecchia" thread just yet.

The OL let Brady down - and it was a big game - but it was only one game - and generally I think everyone will give them credit for having a great overall year (helped greatly by the benefit of a deep threat to take pressue off the line)

Did the OL suddently lose its talent down the stretch? Were there other factors we're not aware of? Injuries, illnesses?

We'll probably never know

 

[Bella*chick]

The Colts have had a "great team" under Dungy maybe once, in 2005. Media hype does not make a great team, like it did in '03 and '04.

THe Colts have had several teams that could have made a more spirited SB run than they did.

Media hype may not make a great team, but neither does your personal opinion make them NOT.

Oh, and the Pats in 2001....not really a GREAT team by their coach's own admission. But here YOU are *****ing and moaning that they "could have" lost that SB thanks to BB's coaching style. THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE EVEN BEEN THERE. His teams have been known for overachieving. The group last year that had a "historic collapse?" could have very easily been one and done in the playoffs, if they got there at all.

And the group this year went 18-1.

You are wrong. Simple as that.

 

[Ring 6]

The Colts have had a "great team" under Dungy maybe once, in 2005. Media hype does not make a great team, like it did in '03 and '04.

Let me get this straight. The Pats have always been great, and that makes BB a worse coach for having "only" won 3 SBs, but them always being great has nothing to do with him. But Dungy's teams were never great, so that makes him better?
You do realize that coaching has an awful lot to do with the quality of the team right?
You are posting as if the Coach takes over the Madden team and coaches it for that one game.

 

[richpats]

If you hold him to your standard of what you thought he was by his ungodly record in big games, then he proved human, and you should crucifiy him.

I just hold him to the standard of an NFL head coach when I look at our last 2 losses. The AFC title game last year- nobody has blown an 18-point lead in a championship game.

This year, with all of his emphasis on "60 minutes" and finishing games by scoring TD's while up 38-0, to see him lose the Super Bowl in the last minute is an unimaginable collapse.

 

[Bella*chick]

Let me get this straight. The Pats have always been great, and that makes BB a worse coach for having "only" won 3 SBs, but them always being great has nothing to do with him. But Dungy's teams were never great, so that makes him better?
You do realize that coaching has an awful lot to do with the quality of the team right?
You are posting as if the Coach takes over the Madden team and coaches it for that one game.

He is making no sense at all....perhaps we at Patsfans can ship in for an exorcism?

 

[richpats]

Let me get this straight. The Pats have always been great, and that makes BB a worse coach for having "only" won 3 SBs, but them always being great has nothing to do with him. But Dungy's teams were never great, so that makes him better?
You do realize that coaching has an awful lot to do with the quality of the team right?
You are posting as if the Coach takes over the Madden team and coaches it for that one game.

I think I'm dealing with the all-time "Putting words into somebody else's mouth" team.

 

[MassPats38]

richpats-

Are you still on this kick claiming anyone who critiques your opinion is a blind homer? You pick a handful of calls that are arguably bad in the Super Bowl and claim there are coaching issues.

Under your apparent reasoning, a coach that runs the table from a wild card position is a great coach (4-0 1.000). That same coach loses the next year in the wild card round (now 4-1 0.8000) and the year after that (now 4-2 0.6666), and never goes to the playoffs again for the next 10 years (still 4-2 0.666), and would be considered better than another coach who goes (12-8 0.600) despite the latter having 3 Super Bowl wins. That is flat out crazy talk.

It took the Pats roughly 18 years to get to a Super Bowl, 11 years to get there a second time, the 5 years for a third, after which the Pats returned 2 of the next three years. If you have any semblance of rational thought, you should reasonably conclude that it takes a great coach to even make it to the big game. If any other active coach can claim the same frequency of appearance in that game, by all means provide the hard facts. If not, please take a pill to cure whatever delusion drives you to the conclusion that any active coach is better suited to winning titles than Belichick when that same coach is incapable of winning the games prior to the title. That is a flatly ridiculous proposition.

It is not homerism to defend Belichick as head coach and his performance in games. In this salary cap era, he has a big hand in building the team and he trains the team. By all objective accounts (try any sports writer), he is the most successful coach in the salary cap era, bar none. Nobody here claims either Belichick or his staff is incapable of gaffes - which you appear to read into criticisms - the negative response to your posts is more attributable to your wild assumptions on the game of football and inability to subscribe to reasoning. While most would accept your opinion that the Pats have not been as successful over the last three seasons, few, other than the team itself, would say the Pats are not a successful organization. Every team sets the title as its goal, but only 1 team wins it. While it is disappointing, it is not homerism to say 18-1 and an AFC Championship does not indicate a declining franchise. That is crazy talk, period.

Mistakes are made, even by Belichick in the Super Bowl, and games are lost, but with Belichick's present track record I suspect few of the other 31 teams would deny Belichick a job if he showed up at the door. As he runs the organization (including schemes and input on talent to run those schemes), I will defer to his judgment on who he brings in as staff. The Pats are built to last, and all any team can ask in the salary cap era is that it remains competitive for the title. If you cannot honestly say this team has been competitive since 2001, then you do indeed have issues.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

OK folks, the vast majority of fans are blind homers. Only richpats has seen reality. richpats vision is clear, we are blinded. Maybe richpats can be hired and we win the next 20 SB's.

Maybe richpats finds the cure for cancer, ends poverty, finds the Fountain of Youth, fixes the Big Dig, and gets me out of my parking ticket.

Maybe Superman wears richpants underwear.

OK it's a disaster, we went 18-0 and lost a heartbreaking SB on miracle plays. A SB against a tough opponent that we had the lead for most of the game.

2007 was a regress from last year where we lost in Indy. After a 21-3 lead, we lost a game, the 4th in 5 weeks on the road where the previous week the guys went to the west coast and beat the best team in football.

Well I see the light, guys let's move to and be enlightened at richpatsknowsall.com

 

[richpats]

You are wrong. Simple as that.

Just because I'm facing the truth doesn't mean I'm wrong. Belichick, a great coach, has squandered 2 games that are EPIC losses in NFL history. And the thing is, he IS great enough to get a 21-3 lead in Indy. He IS great enough to go 18-0. But what's the point if all the greatness is squandered?

 

[richpats]

If you cannot honestly say this team has been competitive since 2001, then you do indeed have issues.

Again, putting words in my mouth, taking my words and forming your own interpretations. I just wish someone else would step up and admit these were epic losses, because they were.

 

[richpats]

OK folks, the vast majority of fans are blind homers. Only richpats has seen reality. richpats vision is clear, we are blinded. Maybe richpats can be hired and we win the next 20 SB's.

Maybe richpats finds the cure for cancer, ends poverty, finds the Fountain of Youth, fixes the Big Dig, and gets me out of my parking ticket.

Maybe Superman wears richpants underwear.

OK it's a disaster, we went 18-0 and lost a heartbreaking SB on miracle plays. A SB against a tough opponent that we had the lead for most of the game.

2007 was a regress from last year where we lost in Indy. After a 21-3 lead, we lost a game, the 4th in 5 weeks on the road where the previous week the guys went to the west coast and beat the best team in football.

Well I see the light, guys let's move to and be enlightened at richpatsknowsall.com

Apparently to be a logical poster on this board, you have to resort to name-calling, mocking, etc. That's what I tried on the last post, just to fit in with you guys.

 

[Ring 6]

I think I'm dealing with the all-time "Putting words into somebody else's mouth" team.

Just a bit of advice. Whenever I think everyone is against me, I try to understand why. And usually I was wrong.
If you think people are putting words in your mouth when they restate what they think you said you probably are communicating poorly.

Your communication, particularly regarding Dungy is being perceived that Dungy has done a better job coaching the Colts than BB has coaching the Pats. If that is not what you are saying, you cannot blame how everyone reads your words, but instead should write them differently.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Apparently to be a logical poster on this board, you have to resort to name-calling, mocking, etc. That's what I tried on the last post, just to fit in with you guys.

You're not a logical poster, rich. You're a logical poseur. Logic does not undergird your posts, regret does. When called on it, you can not name a single specific that must be changed going forward.

So while you can describe with loving detail the various vague flaws, in hindsight, of an 18-1 football team, you can specify no corrective action.

The hallmark of a logical approach to a problem, would be to offer a solution.

The hallmark of an illogical approach to a problem, would be to repeat ad infinitum what the problem is, regardless of the fact that everybody else has identified the same problem: To wit, we're bummed we lost the super bowl.

You're adding nothing, other than pointing out interesting details of having lost the super bowl, and fine points of how unacceptable it is not to win every super bowl.

Okay, stipulated, regardless of how absurd it is on its face, from a purely mathmatical standpoint.

Regardless: You have been challenged repeatedly to explain what you would change to ensure that the negative outcome is not repeated.

You got nothing.

That tells me that you have no interest in a solution. You exhibit behavior consistent with a need to play the ignored prophet, coming here from the wilderness, bringing the pure light of reason to smash our delusions that we have a good coach, or a good team.

The trouble is, you're wrong. The Pats are a good team, do have a good coach, and did lose one closely fought game this season.

And it WAS the Super Bowl.

You really think we don't know that?

So tell us something we don't know. Oh that's right, you have nothing to add. Just new and interesting ways to say "we lost," a call to action to make sure we never lose again, and, of course, no content that could be used to advance the cause of said call.

Okay, I'm with you brother!!!!

Tell me what needs to be done, and BE SPECIFIC!

Tell me how Belichick needs to improve, how the team needs to approach such games, etc. Knock yourself out.

Just don't tell me things like "Belichick coached teams only win by a little bit in the super bowl so they should score more points," like you tried in the other thread.

We're football fans. We know a two possession lead is better than a one possession lead. I'm pretty sure Bill knows it too.

PFnV

 

[Ring 6]

I just hold him to the standard of an NFL head coach when I look at our last 2 losses. The AFC title game last year- nobody has blown an 18-point lead in a championship game.

This year, with all of his emphasis on "60 minutes" and finishing games by scoring TD's while up 38-0, to see him lose the Super Bowl in the last minute is an unimaginable collapse.

Well, the standard of an NFL HC is 1 wins the SB and 31 dont.
30 other HCs did not win the SB, did not get there. None of them won as many games either.
To say that getting there and losing is a bad job is curious to me. I think if we had gonme 11-5 and lost in the 2nd round on the road, you wouldnt be quesitoning Belichick, or at least not to this degree.
You are coming across as if the Patriots have an inalienable right to win every big game, and every SB, and when they don't BB screwed up.
It just doesn't work that way. Find anyone to compare him to. Lets use your example of Dungy.
Dungy failed to get to a SB 5 of 6 years. BB got there 4 of 7 and won 3 of 4.
You are acting as if it is better to get knocked out early 5 out of 6 times and chalk it up to your team wasnt good, than to get to the SB 4 times and only win 3.
You just arent making sense.


Did the last 2 seasons end horribly. Of course they did.
Last year we lost on the road to the eventula SB Champions. It was a very close game that could have gone either way between 2 equal teams. Not winning that type of game every time is not a crime. Our players didnt make plays when it counted the most.
This year, that last line rings true again. The players didn't make plays. That happens. A coach is not going to be a magical talisman that creates players making plays every time. Almost every time is an indication of a great coach, and that is the story with BB>

 

[MassPats38]

Again, putting words in my mouth, taking my words and forming your own interpretations. I just wish someone else would step up and admit these were epic losses, because they were.

Nobody doubts that the Indy game and Giants game are epic losses and I don't see a thread saying they are not huge losses. From where are you drawing these conclusions, the lack of "kill me now" threads on the Super Bowl loss? I believe I have seen the occasional thread.

As for my interpretations, count how many times you have used the term "homer" in reference to the inability to take your criticism on Belichick or other coaches. It is a nice term, but I suspect others, even the fans of other teams here, might object to the term as it implies your insight is correct and beyond contestation. Quite frankly, there are legions on this forum, in this thread and others, who think you miss the mark. You can have your opinion, but I ask you to refrain from the "homer" defense when you receive vociferous objections to your opinion. Disagreement is not homerism.

Under your apparent theory, if a team makes it to the Super Bowl, it should win it if coached properly. Such a statement disregards player injuries, ablities and personality, environment, luck and the same factors on the other team. Under the same reasoning, the "any given Sunday" rule is absurd and all variables can be governed by a coach to an absolute certainty. If such is true, I suggest you read a few books written by good head coaches and reassess your thinking. Any sophisticated fan knows the coaches do not move players on the field like pawns, and sometimes even the best head coaches lose because of these variables.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

By the way, about the Cassandra complex you seem to exhibit?

Cassandra was a prophetess who knew what was going to happen, but couldn't get listened to.

That's different from knowing what already happened because you watched the game, and not being listened to, 'cuz we all watched it too.

Now come up with something predictive, and you might get a little more credence.

They laughed at Copernicus. They laughed at Galileo.

They also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

Before you play the ignored prophet, it's really important to know which you are.

PFnV

 

[richpats]

Just a bit of advice. Whenever I think everyone is against me, I try to understand why. And usually I was wrong.
If you think people are putting words in your mouth when they restate what they think you said you probably are communicating poorly.

Your communication, particularly regarding Dungy is being perceived that Dungy has done a better job coaching the Colts than BB has coaching the Pats. If that is not what you are saying, you cannot blame how everyone reads your words, but instead should write them differently.

The problem is, I state facts and people interpret them differently. Now, about Dungy doing a better job, I NEVER SAID ANYTHING LIKE THAT. I meant he has squandered fewer golden opportunities than Belichick. And it's true. It's painful to think that, knowing that Belichick is BETTER than Dungy but that's the reality.

Even in another thread, if I suggest that the coordinators need to improve, people take that to mean that I want new coordinators. I simply think that I'm dealing with some people, that, in the wake of a devastating loss, just can't deal with some questioning attitude at this point.

 

[richpats]

Before you play the ignored prophet, it's really important to know which you are.

PFnV

"Freshman Psych rears it's ugly head"

I'll direct you to my other post:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/showpost.php?p=793864&postcount=103

Get over it - I'm a fan, I pull hard for this team and I can question it if I damn well please.

 

[richpats]

Under your apparent theory, if a team makes it to the Super Bowl, it should win it if coached properly.

I'll give you my 2 theories:

If you have enough coaching skill to go up 18 in the first half of a championship game, then you should have enough skill to come out of the game victorious.

If you have enough coaching skill to go 18-0 heading into a Super Bowl, you should have enough skill to come out of the game victorious.


.

 

[Alex24]

Bill Belichick is one of the greatest coaches ever and right now he is by far the best coach in the nfl,so expect more super bowl championships in the future.