Maybe Bill Walsh is right: after 10 years there needs to be a change

[BSR]

Based on what exactly, you're assertion that it's so? Let me ask you then, at what point would you consider that a change is necessary: another 1 and done in the playoffs, not making the playoffs, 2 consecutive years of not making the playoffs, what's your tipping point?

I don't think its unreasonable to expect a team to occasionally not reach the playoffs. What about you?

 

[Snake Eyes]

Who has done better? If you cant find anyone who has done a better job it is moronic to think you will hire someone who will.

Shouldn't I take into account the players those coaches have, what coaches have won by themselves without any good players, or should I change my criteria when I judge coaches other than BB?

 

[Ring 6]

1) you can only blame the players and excuse the coach for so long,

Who is doing that?

2) BB has good players for a while and not won, and

He has won consistently ever since he has been here, in fact no one has won more.

3) the buck stops with him on this declining defense.

No, the buck stops with him on every related to the team.
Last years team was 14-2.
19 teams in the last 30 years have won 14 or more games. BB has coached 4 of them and was the DC on a 5th.

Go ahead and make your stupid remark about not winning the SB meaning the team sucked and continue to look like an idiot.

 

[Snake Eyes]

I don't think its unreasonable to expect a team to occasionally not reach the playoffs. What about you?

It really depends on what they're working with in terms of talent. Players are a resource, the job of the coach is to effectively use that resource.

 

[Ring 6]

Shouldn't I take into account the players those coaches have, what coaches have won by themselves without any good players, or should I change my criteria when I judge coaches other than BB?

You are the one trying to denigrate what he did by saying he had good players. Again, tell me about all the coaches who won without good players.
In other words, you are using a moronic reason to denigrate his success.

 

[Ring 6]

It really depends on what they're working with in terms of talent. Players are a resource, the job of the coach is to effectively use that resource.

So, the coach should deliever based on the talent given, and you feel BB is underdelivering, yet you say as GM he hasn't delievered talent? Which is it?

 

[Snake Eyes]

Who is doing that?



He has won consistently ever since he has been here, in fact no one has won more.



No, the buck stops with him on every related to the team.
Last years team was 14-2.
19 teams in the last 30 years have won 14 or more games. BB has coached 4 of them and was the DC on a 5th.

Go ahead and make your stupid remark about not winning the SB meaning the team sucked and continue to look like an idiot.

What has the team done in the POST-SEASON? You can go on about regular season success all you want but I'm not a Colts fan, I judge teams by what they do in the playoffs.

 

[BSR]

What has the team done in the POST-SEASON? You can go on about regular season success all you want but I'm not a Colts fan, I judge teams by what they do in the playoffs.

You must have been a pretty miserable Patriots fan prior to 2001.

 

[Snake Eyes]

You are the one trying to denigrate what he did by saying he had good players. Again, tell me about all the coaches who won without good players.
In other words, you are using a moronic reason to denigrate his success.

No, I'm saying that you cannot simply dismiss other coaches as being worse for not having the amount of wins he had without first taking into account what they have to work with. By your own standards you admit that a successful coach needs good players, so if a coach doesnt have many good players why would we automatically assume he's not a good coach?

 

[Snake Eyes]

So, the coach should deliever based on the talent given, and you feel BB is underdelivering, yet you say as GM he hasn't delievered talent? Which is it?

Why can't it be both? I've already said I want a different GM, with those duties seperate it's a lot easier to judge.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Why can't it be both? I've already said I want a different GM, with those duties seperate it's a lot easier to judge.

Failure possibly but not success. Pioli will tell you that a GM's job is to get the HC what he needs. Not all GM's ascribe to that theory, however. Many get what they want and expect a HC to make it work.

Bill has total and final football ops control here. That's been his situation here since 2000. He and Pioli (whom he first hired in Cleveland and trained as a scout and evaluator and cap manager and brought to the JETS with him when he rejoined Parcell's) had a unique relationship considering Bill was his mentor and his boss here yet he valued his input. Pioli claimed that if they didn't agree on a player they simply moved on. May have been the case with Ed Reed, since Scott was the more character-centric of the two. Bill regretted that decision. Pioli seems to be bending to Haley's wishes in KC even though he is Haley's boss in that situation. But he is also possibly regretting that.

Take away his Bill's control and you can see what kind of HC your new GM comes up with and whether or not they can even work together...based on this team's performance on the field. Because I guarantee you Bill won't remain here if he is stripped of his defacto GM duties. We have not employed a GM in over a decade, just a director in Caserio's case or in Pioli's case VP of player personnel who reports to Bill. You may want to try something different in order to test your assessment theories because the team hasn't won a playoff game in the last two seasons. Personally I'm not foolish enough to care to... And I'm relatively confident Bob Kraft isn't, either.

 

[Ring 6]

Why can't it be both? I've already said I want a different GM, with those duties seperate it's a lot easier to judge.

Thankfully the organization does not make stupid decisions in order to make it easy for you to judge.
You seem to ignore the level of success that has occured here.
Again, please list all the people who have done a better job.

 

[Snake Eyes]

Thankfully the organization does not make stupid decisions in order to make it easy for you to judge.
You seem to ignore the level of success that has occured here.
Again, please list all the people who have done a better job.

Ok, a model other than what is used now would be stupid since we don’t use that model. Nice job of assuming what you seek to prove. As far as what a coach has done, I’m far more concerned what they could do with TFB at the helm. IMO, having one of the best QBs EVER on the roster means you should be judged at a MUCH higher standard, and consistent meltdowns at critical times should cast doubt at some point.

 

[Snake Eyes]

Failure possibly but not success. Pioli will tell you that a GM's job is to get the HC what he needs. Not all GM's ascribe to that theory, however. Many get what they want and expect a HC to make it work.

Bill has total and final football ops control here. That's been his situation here since 2000. He and Pioli (whom he first hired in Cleveland and trained as a scout and evaluator and cap manager and brought to the JETS with him when he rejoined Parcell's) had a unique relationship considering Bill was his mentor and his boss here yet he valued his input. Pioli claimed that if they didn't agree on a player they simply moved on. May have been the case with Ed Reed, since Scott was the more character-centric of the two. Bill regretted that decision. Pioli seems to be bending to Haley's wishes in KC even though he is Haley's boss in that situation. But he is also possibly regretting that.

Take away his Bill's control and you can see what kind of HC your new GM comes up with and whether or not they can even work together...based on this team's performance on the field. Because I guarantee you Bill won't remain here if he is stripped of his defacto GM duties. We have not employed a GM in over a decade, just a director in Caserio's case or in Pioli's case VP of player personnel who reports to Bill. You may want to try something different in order to test your assessment theories because the team hasn't won a playoff game in the last two seasons. Personally I'm not foolish enough to care to... And I'm relatively confident Bob Kraft isn't, either.

Yes, a good GM gets the coach what he needs though it's very possible that what a coach needs and what they think they need are 2 different things.

Regarding what you and Kraft might do, it all comes down to a tipping point, you and him might not have reached yours yet but it does exist, what's yours?

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

Since you invoked Belichik it's also fair to say that if someone asked him weekly about getting rid of Brady he would look at them as if they were ******ed and treat them as ignorant, so don't be upset when many here do the same to the morons who actually entertain such an ignorant idea as getting rid of Belichik.

The patriots are the most successful team in football and getting rid of those responsible for that success is truly moronic.

I think Belichick thinks about all positions pretty much nonstop, including the quarterback position. If he believed he had a better option, he'd do it. At least I hope he would.

But I take your main point -- that it's equally not close right now to be seriously asking the question. That said, there are starting to be some signs that maybe it is a question worth asking, just as there eventually will be with Brady. I'm just saying that if a serious poster with serious ideas wants to post a defense of the notion that Belichick is doing more harm than good, I'm willing to listen. I doubt I'd agree. But I'd certainly be disinclined to shout the idea down out of hand without at least hearing it out.

Belichick is rightly famous for making one of the most controversial and gutsy calls in football history at the quarterback position in New England. Some day -- and hopefully it's a day that's long into the future -- Bob Kraft may similarly have to make the same kind of decision with Bill Belichick.

 

[Ring 6]

What has the team done in the POST-SEASON? You can go on about regular season success all you want but I'm not a Colts fan, I judge teams by what they do in the playoffs.

What do you think that makes you a tough guy?
You judge a team by everything they do.
Belichick has won 14 playoff games in his tenure here, and 3 Championships.
If to put blinders on then the Saints and Packers are the only 2 teams that have accomplished anything in the last 2 years and everyone else is a failure.
If your standard is no SBs in 3 years is grounds for firing you won't have many coaches to pick from. Or are you calling 2007 an abject failure too?

 

[Ring 6]

Ok, a model other than what is used now would be stupid since we don’t use that model.

That does not even resemble anything I have said.
A random change from the most successful organiozation of the last decade to something you refuse to even describe is a step in the wrong direction.

Nice job of assuming what you seek to prove. As far as what a coach has done, I’m far more concerned what they could do with TFB at the helm.

Again, tell me who.

IMO, having one of the best QBs EVER on the roster means you should be judged at a MUCH higher standard, and consistent meltdowns at critical times should cast doubt at some point.

What standard is higher than during the time Brady has been here this has been the most successful franchise in the NFL?
What standard is higher than the most wins and best winning percentage EVER between HC and QB.

What coach in our lifetimes has accomplished more with any QB?

If your standard is he has the best QB then your standard should be he must accomplish more with that QB than any coach has with any other. AND HE HAS.

 

[Ring 6]

No, I'm saying that you cannot simply dismiss other coaches as being worse for not having the amount of wins he had without first taking into account what they have to work with. By your own standards you admit that a successful coach needs good players, so if a coach doesnt have many good players why would we automatically assume he's not a good coach?

So you want to downgrade what he has done as a coach, because as a GM he has given himself too much talent?

Feel free to, instead of talking in circles, give us that list of all the coaches you would rather have.
Don't let your rhetoric write checks your balls (or lack thereof) cant cash.

 

[Ivan]

Have you ever heard of the term “strawman argument”? Because that what you and all the others who have posted this kind of argument are making, that since we want a change you impose that we want the worse change possible, therefore the desire for change is stupid.

Did the Jets get better when they brought in Rexy? You’re damn right they did. Have the 49ers been better since they got Harbough? Absolutely.

Changes do not automatically mean a change for the worse.

You invoked recent playoff success, not me, I just used your line of reasoning to demonstrate how foolish it was. The patriots are the best franchise in football under Belichik and those crapping on him for going19-4 with a playoff loss while rebuilding his defense are so frigging far out in left field with their "arguments" that they really don't even deserve a response

 

[dalero]

I can't fathom what this fan base would be like if we were rooting for 3/4's of the other teams in the NFL.

Insufferable.

About 3/4 less what it is now.