Is Bill Belichick Getting Off Easy?

[PatsFanInVa]

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.


.

Okay, so now you've got a prescription for what ails Belichick:

"Be more skillful when it's really important," or alternately,

"Be more victorious."

Yeah, get over it indeed.

 

[Ring 6]

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.

Buddy, it is the way you are saying it.

There is no need to use Dungy as a comparison, showing what he has done if you are not implying he is better.
To now say he squandered fewer opportunites???????????
How can that be. He squandered 5 of 6.

As far as some of your other comments, I find it ridiculous to make comments like 'other people cant deal with the truth' or other people are acting a certain way because 'they are having trouble dealing with the loss'. Its a lame way to discuss. Sort of of course I'm right and anyone who disagrees with me must have an emotional condition. I'm going to back out of this if you keep that up because it isn't a real discussion.

Personally, I think you need to take a step back and look at the big picture.
Over the last 7 years, the Patriots have won more games than any team has ever won in a 7 year stretch.
They won more playoff games than any team has ever won in a 7 year stretch.
They won as many Conf Championships as any team has ever won in a 7 year stretch.
They won the 2nd most SBs as any team has ever won in any 7 year stretch, behind the 70s Steelers.

Every great team ever failed more often than the Pats (with the exception of the 70s Steelers regarding Championships).
What you are trying to say is that Belichicks failures (every team, every coach fails more often than they succeed in terms of Championships) although they are fewer are somehow worse. To buy your theory, and use your Dungy comparison, you would criticize Belichick less if he own 1 SB, and never came very close in the other 6 years. Thats silly.

Its great to have a standard that we should be perfect. That every time the bell rings, we answer, and are never disappointed in the result. Its also entirely unrealistic.

To use your analogy, consider a marathon race, or actually 7 marathon races. With 32 runners. Runner BB wins 3 of them. Gets edged out at the finish line in a 4th, and in the last 1/4 mile in another. What is wrong with him? He cant finish, because runner TD was in it until the last mile a bunch of times and faded, but ONE TIME he won. In those 7 races runner BB won 3 of them, was real close twice, in the race another time, and back in the back the 7th. 4 other runners won it one time.
We are now going to analyze runner BB by saying he wastes the opportunities because 2 other times he came close to winning and didnt, and congratulate runner TD who won once and faded the other 6 times, because at least he didn't get close and not win. Silly.

 

[sieglo]

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.


.

100% of the empirical evidence suggests that your theories are false.

 

[Poker]

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.


.

Rich, you're giving a performance review of the Pats coaches--trying to judge their skill--fine, and your are entitled to your opinion. It just looks like you are taking those two devastating circumstances in isolation and retrospectively examining them with perfect hindsight. Couldn't you just as easily say that a coaching staff who lacked enough skill that they found themselves 10 points down to the Colts, trailing Baltimore, down to Philly, down 12 to the Giants in week 17,etc, and then exhibited enough skill to emerge victorious must have some skills which you need to credit?

 

[Ring 6]

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.


.

Well, those aren't THEORIES, they are judgments and opinions.
How about:

You have the skill to win 3 SBs in 7 years.
You have the skill to win more game and playoff games in 7 years than anyone else ever has.
You have the skill in a 4th year to be ahead 18 points on the road in the AFCC game.
You have the skill in the 5th year to go to the SB 18-0.
You lack the skill to win that 4th one.
You lack the skill to win that 5th one.

Add up all the skills possessed and lacking, and what do you get. AN ALLTIME GREAT COACH who is not perfect.
Whats the problem?

 

[MassPats38]

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.


.

Restating my last post as you ignored that part of the response, so there is no such thing as "on any given Sunday" in your opinion? Players do not get sick or injured, players do not come out flat, and opposing players may not display greater intensity in a game given it is their first time there? Have you ever actually played football at any level?

Addressing your last post, is it beyond possibility in Indy, on a fast track with younger players, that the secondary wore down in the second half after playing a good first half (including an interception touchdown)? Is it possible the flu that hit the team the prior week left them with less gas in the tank than would be expected and the players simply ran out of gas? If that possibility is there, then what could Belichick, short of having magical healing powers, have done to stop Indianapolis? If you have no answer as far as a remedy for the problem, there is no coaching failure in that game.

As far as the Giants game, is it possible that the defensive line simply played with greater intensity than the Patriots offensive line, which suffered a unique failure in that game? Is it possible that a number of defensive backs dropped game changing interceptions? Is it possible that the Giants receivers benefitted from a few bad non-calls, as noted by the play by play commentary? If you accept that possibility and understand that nothing offensive will fly, run or pass, with unchecked rushing of the quarterback by two or more defensive lineman with hits or sacks in half the offensive plays called, how could coaching have righted that ship? If you have no answer, again, it is not necessarily a coaching problem.

You may be surprised that the fact the Pats have not won the Lombardi the last three years is not a mystery to the fans here. The bottom line for most fans is failing on the major playoff game stage is a measure of success for any NFL team. The true measure of failure for any team is could a team make it to the playoffs and be competitive. That takes coaching (look at all the talent on the Bengals, Chargers and Cardinals if you disagree and explain why they never make it there - talented players do not make a team successful without coaching), and the Patriots, despite losing two big games, are always a team to be feared in the playoffs. Simply going Super Bowl win, Super Bowl win, Divisional Loss, AFC Championship loss, and Super Bowl loss does not require the conclusion that something is missing. You can read those same data points as success followed by failure followed by recovery as the Pats have been increasingly successful in the playoffs over the past three years.

 

[richpats]

To use your analogy, consider a marathon race, or actually 7 marathon races. With 32 runners. Runner BB wins 3 of them. Gets edged out at the finish line in a 4th, and in the last 1/4 mile in another. What is wrong with him? He cant finish, because runner TD was in it until the last mile a bunch of times and faded, but ONE TIME he won. In those 7 races runner BB won 3 of them, was real close twice, in the race another time, and back in the back the 7th. 4 other runners won it one time.
We are now going to analyze runner BB by saying he wastes the opportunities because 2 other times he came close to winning and didnt, and congratulate runner TD who won once and faded the other 6 times, because at least he didn't get close and not win. Silly.

Runner TD would be known as a runner of inferior quality to runner BB that managed to win a race that BB should never have lost.

But you do ignore the OBVIOUS timeline of the results, as everybody else seems to. If runner BB won 3 of the first 4, then loses 3 in a row (while losing the last 2 in historic fashion), then maybe some delusional soul out there would question whether he had what it takes to win another, whether his best days were behind him, etc. Not so far-fetched when we're talking runners instead of our football coach, huh?

 

[richpats]

You can read those same data points as success followed by failure followed by recovery as the Pats have been increasingly successful in the playoffs over the past three years.

They have had better teams year-to-year, so they have advanced one round further each year.

They have had better teams year-to-year, yet they have squandered better opportunities each year.

It's mind-boggling, that's what it is.

 

[Ring 6]

Ok, let's look at Dungy's playoff history with the Colts:

2002 - 5 seed, lost to a better team on the road
2003 - 3 seed, lost in AFC championship to SB champ on the road
2004 - 3 seed, lost in AFC divisional to SB champ on the road
2005 - 1 seed, lost to SB champ at home
2006 - 3 seed, won SB by winning 4, including overcoming the biggest deficit in championship game history
2007 - 2 seed, lost AFC divisonal at home

Maybe in 2005 he squandered a good opportunity, that's about it, but his team clearly wasn't in control of that game either. So even if you count that one, that's still less than Belichick's 2.

Lets compare that to BB.


2002 - 5 seed, lost to a better team on the road
=2005 lost in 2nd round on the road
2003 - 3 seed, lost in AFC championship to SB champ on the road
=2006 lost in AFCC to SB winner on the road
2004 - 3 seed, lost in AFC divisional to SB champ on the road
=2007 lost SB
2005 - 1 seed, lost to SB champ at home
=2004 Won SB
2006 - 3 seed, won SB by winning 4, including overcoming the biggest deficit in championship game history
=2003 won SB beating more 10 win teams than any team in NFL history
2007 - 2 seed, lost AFC divisonal at home
=2001 won SB

You seem to think that winning 2 more SBs, and getting FARTHER before being knocked out is SQUANDERING OPPORTUNITIES.
I always thought creating more opportunites and finalizing some of them is far, far better than not even creating them to begin with.
Are you really saying losing a conf champ game or SB is a worse coaching job than being bounced in the first round?

 

[richpats]

Couldn't you just as easily say that a coaching staff who lacked enough skill that they found themselves 10 points down to the Colts, trailing Baltimore, down to Philly, down 12 to the Giants in week 17,etc, and then exhibited enough skill to emerge victorious must have some skills which you need to credit?

I could and I will. When the ultimate success of the season was not on the line, they certainly came through. When it was on the line, they folded.

 

[MassPats38]

They have had better teams year-to-year, so they have advanced one round further each year.

They have had better teams year-to-year, yet they have squandered better opportunities each year.

It's mind-boggling, that's what it is.

This is at the root of everybody's issue with your posts, so answer the questions as to your theories that you just stated. Either you are trying to get your post number up or you cherry pick statements for anything you think you can provide a response. That implies you question the soundness of your own argument.

And I quote from my response:

"Addressing your last post, is it beyond possibility in Indy, on a fast track with younger players, that the secondary wore down in the second half after playing a good first half (including an interception touchdown)? Is it possible the flu that hit the team the prior week left them with less gas in the tank than would be expected and the players simply ran out of gas? If that possibility is there, then what could Belichick, short of having magical healing powers, have done to stop Indianapolis? If you have no answer as far as a remedy for the problem, there is no coaching failure in that game.

As far as the Giants game, is it possible that the defensive line simply played with greater intensity than the Patriots offensive line, which suffered a unique failure in that game? Is it possible that a number of defensive backs dropped game changing interceptions? Is it possible that the Giants receivers benefitted from a few bad non-calls, as noted by the play by play commentary? If you accept that possibility and understand that nothing offensive will fly, run or pass, with unchecked rushing of the quarterback by two or more defensive lineman with hits or sacks in half the offensive plays called, how could coaching have righted that ship? If you have no answer, again, it is not necessarily a coaching problem."

 

[Ring 6]

Runner TD would be known as a runner of inferior quality to runner BB that managed to win a race that BB should never have lost.

But you do ignore the OBVIOUS timeline of the results, as everybody else seems to. If runner BB won 3 of the first 4, then loses 3 in a row (while losing the last 2 in historic fashion), then maybe some delusional soul out there would question whether he had what it takes to win another, whether his best days were behind him, etc. Not so far-fetched when we're talking runners instead of our football coach, huh?

OK, so now your opinion is BB used to be great but has lost it?
Why dont you discuss that then, instead of glorifying a guy who won once and making a ridiculous comparison to an all-time great?

What is it that BB has lost?
What are reasonable expectation?
What is wrong with BB that caused him to be undefeated for a full regualr season, through the AFC playoffs, and ahead in the SB with 2:30 left, but HE FAILED to stop the final drive?
What drastic improvement must he make to turn such a horrible coaching job into something that tells us he hasn't lost all of his ability?

Really, at this point you are sounding like a spoiled little kid who has no appreciation for what this team has done.
Yes, I would love to have won SB XLI and XLII and have had a perfect season. But there needs to be a reasonbleness of expectations. Its unreasonable to expect to win every big game, as if the other 31 teams are just the tackling dummies put up for slaughter. Other teams can win games too.
If you are going to knock BB for his job in coaching this team you need to provide others who have done a better job.
Otherwise, its taking tremendous success, raising expectations to more than anyone has ever achieved, then whining that it isn't good enough.

 

[Poker]

Runner TD would be known as a runner of inferior quality to runner BB that managed to win a race that BB should never have lost.

But you do ignore the OBVIOUS timeline of the results, as everybody else seems to. If runner BB won 3 of the first 4, then loses 3 in a row (while losing the last 2 in historic fashion), then maybe some delusional soul out there would question whether he had what it takes to win another, whether his best days were behind him, etc. Not so far-fetched when we're talking runners instead of our football coach, huh?

I really liked Andy's analogy. I immediately thought of a parallel in another sport--Golf. Tiger Woods in (I think) 2005 or 2006, and even early 2007, looked exactly like this, the same pattern. Won a bunch of tournaments against the field, dominant in 2000, 2001 like the Pats in 2003-4, many by the golf equivalent of a FG, or 1-2 shots. Then there were some tournaments where he finished one shot back of far lesser players in majors--hearbreakers like the Pats the last couple of years. But he comes back and wins a lot, even winning the last major of 2007.

Rich, can you see the analogy of the Pats/BB to someone like Tiger Woods? That is what all these other posters are trying to say. Tiger gets 4 cracks at a major every year, the Pats and other NFL teams get only 1/year, so it takes longer for the skilled teams to "catch up" to their true performance level. It's like you looked at Tiger's first two majors in a year where he finished 2nd by a stroke and 3rd by two stokes, after a string of previous victories, and conclude he is on the way down and should be more harshly judged.

To me, the Pats are the Tiger Woods of football. Killer skill, always improving, feared every time out, and in spite of that, not able to win every single time out. You have to judge a team or a player over a longer period of time.

 

[richpats]

Really, at this point you are sounding like a spoiled little kid who has no appreciation for what this team has done.

If you think I sound "spoiled", why don't you take a look at the New York Yankees. Joe Torre won 4-of-5 titles, but lost in the playoffs SEVEN years running. The front office wanted him out because there is no point when you keep going back to the playoffs and LOSING. At some point somebody had to say "the past is the past, and the trend is not our friend". And right now, the trend is not in the Patriots' favor.

 

[Maroney's Dreads]

Really, at this point you are sounding like a spoiled little kid who has no appreciation for what this team has done.
Yes, I would love to have won SB XLI and XLII and have had a perfect season. But there needs to be a reasonbleness of expectations. Its unreasonable to expect to win every big game, as if the other 31 teams are just the tackling dummies put up for slaughter. Other teams can win games too.
If you are going to knock BB for his job in coaching this team you need to provide others who have done a better job.
Otherwise, its taking tremendous success, raising expectations to more than anyone has ever achieved, then whining that it isn't good enough.

I'm not trying to call anyone a bandwagon fan on here, but people need to think back to the 90s and what this team was. Then think about what has happened since Bill has come here.

Even when Brady started playing, he wasn't that good. The one strength Brady had in 2001-2002 was that he didn't throw picks and he let his defense win the games (though thinking back to Antoine Smith as our RB, its amazing Brady played well enough to get us that SB). Since then under BB, Brady has become the greatest QB in the NFL (or at least tied with Manning) and one of the greatest QBs of all time. He put more talent on this team than any other team in NFL history. Teams aren't supposed to have an offense of Ben Watson, Randy Moss, Wes Welker, Dante Stallworth, and Tom Brady (along with an amazing O-line) and still have one of the best defenses in the NFL.

What I saw in the Suberbowl was not a team that lacked the talent of the Giants, but a team that was physically and mentally broken. Considering all the things that went on this season, the fact that BB got this team to play like it did was absolutely amazing. It just died a two minutes and 30 seconds early

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Rich, your most recent post asks how to explain the trend line from 01-07, other than various vague assessment of declining efficacy.

Here are some points in your favor:

- I think it is undeniable that the 2007 team had better talent than the 2001 or 2003 teams, and it is ALMOST undeniable that it had better talent than the 2004 team.

- Your point is that in 2001-2004 we won 3 superbowls, while in 2005-2007 we won zero.

- You seem to also put a lot of emphasis on the idea that we have lost "The Big Game" twice in a row now.

Here is my response to the timeline argument:

- In the years from 2005-2007, taking only super bowl/playoff outcomes into account, we can rank our outcomes as:
- tied for 5th
- tied for 3rd
- 2nd

- Taking Super Bowl wins as the only criterion, there are 3 teams that outperformed us in those years. None of them has multiple SB victories.

- Most importantly: the 2001-2004 run included a lot of what we've gotten used to calling "the old Tom Brady magic," and the like. You've made the point yourself that these were close super bowls.

- Demystified, we were always in position to make spectacular game-changing plays. We made them.

- Per the above, in 2001-2004, when they talked about the Pats being "lucky," we pointed out that the Pats were always in a position to win games, a product of the coaching and culture of those teams.

- The 2007 super bowl was also a close super bowl.

- in 2007, the Pats were also in a position to win the game.

- It came down to a few big plays in the earlier super bowls. It came down to a few big plays in 2007.

- In earlier super bowls, we made the plays. In 2007, we did not.

- To correct this state of affairs, as you have pointed out, it is optimal to have big leads.

- In reality, the Pats have seldom had big leads in the Super Bowl.

- In reality, the Pats had a huge halftime lead in the AFCCG, to no avail.

- In reality, the opposing team, in each instance, also wants very much to win the game.

Conclusion: Players made the plays in 2001-2004. Players did not make them in 2006 and 2007 -- in different settings (i.e., we had no business performing to the level we did in 06; we had no business losing in 07).

We were in a position to win the game in 2001-2004. We were also in a position to win the games in 2006 and 2007.

Addendum: a theory must be upheld through experimentation. A theory posits an underlying understanding of the nature of the relationship among variables, testable in repeatable experimentation. As football is not a lab science, this nomenclature, obviously, can't be very strict. But the idea of a theory implies predictive value.

That is to say, once again, you have nothing here of value, if you can not come up with prescriptions for future games/seasons.

I do not think you can, because you are dressing up some lamentable if obvious observations. You are not positing relationships among the variables that can be digested into prescriptions for action.

PFnV

 

[MassPats38]

Hello - the Yankees are not restrained by salary cap considerations and buy a team of all-stars. All NFL teams have identical spending limits under a salary cap. That analogy is not even close to appropriate.

 

[richpats]

To me, the Pats are the Tiger Woods of football. Killer skill, always improving, feared every time out, and in spite of that, not able to win every single time out. You have to judge a team or a player over a longer period of time.

That's for historians. I'm thinking about the 2008 Patriots, and I am concerned that even if we have another great team, will the coaching staff let us down once again?

 

[Maroney's Dreads]

To me, the Pats are the Tiger Woods of football. Killer skill, always improving, feared every time out, and in spite of that, not able to win every single time out. You have to judge a team or a player over a longer period of time.

Maybe this is just the Pats bias in me, but if you gave this team a 7 games series against the Giants, does anyone doubt we would have won? I'm not trying to make excuses. Hell, you could give a baseball team the best talent ever and if you only made it a 20 game season, they would likely lose a couple, and maybe even lose a tough one in the championship game.

My point? This isn't an excuse for why they lost. But even the best team can lose everyonce in a while. But if you continually put the best team on the field like the Pats have done, there will be a tough loss to the Giants in the SB and a tough loss to the Colts in AFCCG, but over the long run, they will win superbowls and have great seasons. Which is what the Patriots have done.

It's tough losing, but I think it's pretty clear this team still has the best chance of winning the SB next year, and BB has a lot to do with that

 

[richpats]

That is to say, once again, you have nothing here of value, if you can not come up with prescriptions for future games/seasons.

And really, you use a lot of words to say a lot of nothing. You act as if I can actually make a decision that will change the fate of the Patriots. I AM A FAN. Nothing I recommend is going to do anything for them, and neither will anything that you recommend. You need to get over that fans aren't equipped with solutions, and even if they did they would have no effect in the grand scheme of things.

If someone were to ask you to come up with a better exit strategy for Iraq, would it really be worth the time? All you can do is vote for someone who has a strategy that best resembles what you would hope, and as football fans we don't even have that power.

As I said before, I'm a fan, and if I want to express concerns about the team, I will do it. So get over it.