To some in this community, it's out of line to question the performance of anyone within the Patriots organization, because Belichick knows better than we do, and by allowing those people to keep their job, he is tacitly endorsing each and every aspect of their performance on an ongoing basis. It's strange that these same posters are then 100% comfortable holding the players to an entirely different standard (AD was a starting linebacker here for 3 years; is anyone going to claim that he was without fault? Chris Hansen kept a starting job for the Pats for years despite being one of the worst punters in the NFL), but oh well.
Most posters don't suffer from this gross bias; it's just a couple of incredibly obstinate posters that are guilty of it, so I've pretty much written them off altogether. Regardless of what they claim, it's not character assassination to question the season-long performance of a playcaller, much like it isn't character assassination to question Mike Wright's ability to hold up against the run. It's a simple observation of aptitude, and even if we don't know the specific assignments on a play-to-play basis, trends still make themselves quite evident. And also contrary to their claims, Jay and I both welcome disagreement. Disagreement between objective and observant participants who are both open to the possibility of being wrong is how people learn. Dialectical reasoning is great for everyone involved, and once again, none of us ever claimed to be against it or above it.
To take MoLewis, for example: you are perfectly comfortable with your ability to divine the motivations of people like Belichick, Crennel, Weis, Seymour, Brady, Moss, etc. etc. You do it all the time, and I take it as an interesting read that may or may not be valid. It's based, naturally, in your preconceptions, which I take with a grain of salt (and I expect listeners of my podcast to do the same, because why wouldn't they?), but that said I simply take it for what it's worth, enjoy it for that, and move on. If listeners decide that I'm starting from a flawed premise and therefore intrinsically lack merit (as I've mostly decided is the case with your posts), then so be it. They're well within their right to do that, and I don't even blame them. It's totally fine.
As for Andy... well, let's just put it this way: I do not work for the Patriots, and never have. Jay does not work for the Patriots, and never has. Same for Stephen and Andrew, and all of the guests that we've had on the podcast. Despite Andy's assertions, at no point have any of us claimed otherwise.
The claim that I made that Andy is referencing is when he said that Jay has no idea how a professional organization would construct a gameplan, and I disagreed. He took that as a claim that Jay works for the Patriots, for whatever reason, in much the same way that he takes questioning playcalling as character assassination against Bill O'Brien. It's so far removed from the reality of the situation that I'm not even quite sure how to satisfactorily address him. He's asking me to recant statements that I never made, and when I say that I never made them he accuses me of being vague and elusive.
I'll tell you what, Andy: tell me what you want me to say, and if it gets you to finally shut up and stop derailing my threads, I'll say it. I don't know what you're looking for, and I sincerely don't care; I just want you to stop trying to ruin other people's attempts to create interesting content.