Reality check: Belichick post-2004

[richpats]

richpats, it's one of the clear cut signs of delusion when you have to start quoting yourself in a thread you start because you're the only person who thinks your not an idiot.

In all three losses you cite, players failed to execute.

And why would a team fail to execute when they seemed to do so in previous years? Would it be insufficient preparation? Lack of focus? Think coaching has anything to do with it?

Count the number of Lombardi's this perpetually great team has taken home the last 3 years compared to the number you thought they should have had and get back to me.

 

[richpats]

We need to grow younger on defense and people like chad jackson etc need to start stepping up next season to prove their value.

Couldn't agree more - Ellis Hobbs is the prime example. When he stepped into the lineup to help our beleagured secondary in '05, he seemed destined to be a playmaker. After 3 years, I couldn't say for sure whether he's progressed like a 3rd-year corner should. Maybe he'll pull an Asante in year 4 and get a ton of picks, maybe not. As of now he's our #1 corner (shudder) and he will be thrown at OFTEN next year.

 

[patsfaninpa]

And why would a team fail to execute when they seemed to do so in previous years? Would it be insufficient preparation? Lack of focus? Think coaching has anything to do with it?

Count the number of Lombardi's this perpetually great team has taken home the last 3 years compared to the number you thought they should have had and get back to me.

We weren't a great team in 05 and 06. We were the 4th seed each year. How do you come up with great team? That 05 team got hit with too many injuries to contend. I thought last year's team over-achieved. Still not sure how we won at SD with Caldwell,Gaffney and T.Brown at wr. No doubt this was a crushing loss. But, let's not exaggerate other things to make your point.

 

[richpats]

We were the 4th seed each year. How do you come up with great team?

Were the 6-seed Steelers a "great" team? Were the 3-seed Colts a "great" team? Were the 5-seed Giants a "great" team? No, none of them, they just stepped up in the playoffs and got the job done. When the Pats were in a position to "step up" in their losses they folded.

 

[MassPats38]

I feel like I'm the only one that sees a need for improvement with this staff. It's time to stop looking back on the glory days when we never lost a playoff game and accept what has happened recently.

The "if" game can be played both ways - "if" our coaching decisions were a little better throughout the course of the game, would the Giants be in position to win the game in the final minutes?

I am not playing the 'if' game. If you claim to have found coaching shortfalls, I asked you specifically to point out how coaching would make a difference (and please do not point to the Super Bowl statistics as your case in point, ignoring the rest of this season). Bill Belichick's mantra of "just do your job" is as good a statement of coaching as you will find. You may see him on the sidelines discussing specific issues arising during the game, but there is no abracadabra play that a coach can call when the offensive line looks like a revolving door to defensive lineman.

Charlie Weis deferred to the offensive line coach, who has been with New England since Babe Parilli was playing (yes, that is an overstatement, but not much of one) and is regarded as one of the best in the game. Crennel has not exactly worked miracles with the Browns' defense (what did his defensive numbers look like this year?). The bulk of work done by coaches is done during the week, not on the field. The so-called halftime adjustments apparently involve little more than identifying deficiencies and possible solutions. You do not get 'win one for the Gipper' speeches by coaches firing players up before they return to the field. If players are flat or simply outmatched that day, Vince Lombardi himself will not will a team to win. I'm not sure where you see coaches weaving Merlin-like spells to slow the defensive rushers and give Brady time, but short of one replacing a flat o-line with all pros no play calling would have saved that game. It is a very complicated game and Belichick is typically regarded as the smartest in the game. If you believe he would let a coordinator run a game into the ground without using his veto, you are grossly mistaken.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Those teams each stepped up in the playoffs and got it done...ONCE.

What we are dealing with here is a classic disappointed bandwaggon frontrunner. You can't reason with these people. We were supposed to win them all once they jumped on board.

 

[patsfaninpa]

Were the 6-seed Steelers a "great" team? Were the 3-seed Colts a "great" team? Were the 5-seed Giants a "great" team? No, none of them, they just stepped up in the playoffs and got the job done. When the Pats were in a position to "step up" in their losses they folded.

So, according to Richpats. The Pats should win the Super Bowl every year. Other teams have won a championship each year. The more you try to argue your point. The more you sound like a clown.

 

[richpats]

What we are dealing with here is a classic disappointed bandwaggon frontrunner. You can't reason with these people. We were supposed to win them all once they jumped on board.

FU - I'm no bandwagon fan, I am finally taking off the "homer" glasses and looking at what has happened objectively. The results speak for themselves. Has any other team blown an 18-point lead in a championship game? Has any other team blown a perfect season by duplicating the same scenario (giving up a TD) the very next year?

Before I could rationalize the Denver and Indy losses to not having the best team, but this recent loss suggests something else entirely - we have not been a clutch team that has made the plays. Go ahead, argue that - tell me that the Pats were totally incapable of sacking Manning, not throwing a pick to Bailey or stopping Peyton Manning when he had a busted thumb.

So, according to Richpats. The Pats should win the Super Bowl every year. Other teams have won a championship each year. The more you try to argue your point. The more you sound like a clown.

Ah, name-calling is the sincerest form of flattery. The Pats didn't lose the last 3 playoff games because they had no business winning. Everybody knows this. In fact, they led through the first 28 minutes of each game. These games the team didn't have the intensity to match their opponents for 4 quarters, simple as that.

All I'm saying is, if the Pats managed to play a full-60 in any one of these games, they would either have a Lombardi or at least advanced one more round.

If you claim to have found coaching shortfalls, I asked you specifically to point out how coaching would make a difference (and please do not point to the Super Bowl statistics as your case in point, ignoring the rest of this season).

The decision to go for 4th-and-13 or calling 3 pass plays from the 6 was flat-out WRONG. No hindsight whatsoever, I thought that at the time. As a fan, I hoped that they would overcome in spite of these decisions, but it wasn't meant to be.

 

[MassPats38]

The decision to go for 4th-and-13 or calling 3 pass plays from the 6 was flat-out WRONG. No hindsight whatsoever, I thought that at the time. As a fan, I hoped that they would overcome in spite of these decisions, but it wasn't meant to be.

And given the jailbreak rush and low trajectory of a max range field goal (49 yards to kick, his longest is 52 yards), the kick gets blocked and run back for a touchdown. Best case, in a 7-3 game you are winning a battle of field position, and in missing you give the other team 7 yards and the ball closer to mid-field. The Giants did not capitalize on the next series, so many would say the call was not bad. It is a bad call if the kicker, who you may recall kicked the ball out of bounds after the touchdown, would have made the kick. But of course you are smarter than Belichick, ran these scenarios in your head and came up with more than "3 points good, 0 points bad. Me like 3 points. Losing by 3 points bad."

The fact is you are applying hindsight because if Brady makes that throw, you would obviously have to start a thread saying you were rock stupid for doubting the calls given all the similar successful fourth down calls ths season with 18 games of data. Again, if you are psychic and can disregard probabilities and capabilities of players and know definitively what plays work and don't work, contact the NFL as I am sure there is a job waiting for you as a coordinator or head coach. Otherwise, any garden variety fool can say after the fact is was a bad idea to call a particular play when it did not work.

 

[richpats]

And given the jailbreak rush and low trajectory of a max range field goal (49 yards to kick, his longest is 52 yards), the kick gets blocked and run back for a touchdown. Best case, in a 7-3 game you are winning a battle of field position, and in missing you give the other team 7 yards and the ball closer to mid-field. The Giants did not capitalize on the next series, so many would say the call was not bad. It is a bad call if the kicker, who you may recall kicked the ball out of bounds after the touchdown, would have made the kick. But of course you are smarter than Belichick, ran these scenarios in your head and came up with more than "3 points good, 0 points bad. Me like 3 points. Losing by 3 points bad."

The fact is you are applying hindsight because if Brady makes that throw, you would obviously have to start a thread saying you were rock stupid for doubting the calls given all the similar successful fourth down calls ths season with 18 games of data. Again, if you are psychic and can disregard probabilities and capabilities of players and know definitively what plays work and don't work, contact the NFL as I am sure there is a job waiting for you as a coordinator or head coach. Otherwise, any garden variety fool can say after the fact is was a bad idea to call a particular play when it did not work.

MassPats 38, I've questioned Belichick on a ton of calls over the years, and sometimes those calls do end up being wrong. Don't confuse that with an attempt to enter the coaching fraternity. It's my opinion, you don't have to agree with it, but your sarcasm comes off as immature.

 

[Rob0729]

We have the best offense in NFL history this year and people are still complaining that McDaniels isn't nearly as good as Weis. We had less offensive talent in 2006 than we had any year under Weis other than 2000 and 2001, but the Pats offense was better than the Pats' offense in 2002 and in particular 2003.

As far as I am concerned, McDaniels is a big part of why the Pats were so incredible on offense this year. I think he was a big part of why the offense was above average last year when they had below average talent at virtually every position except for most of the o-line and Brady. I think McDaniels is way underrated by a lot of the fans.

I think the defense has suffered from a talent drain. Rodney Harrison, Tedy Bruschi, Roman Phifer, and Willie McGinest were big parts of our Super Bowl runs in 2003 and 2004. Phifer retired, Willie was cut, Rodney was injured in 2005 and 2006 and has lost a step, and Bruschi had a stroke and has never been the same.

I liked what Pees did the first two years as DC. He overcame a lot of issues in particular with the holes inside on his LB corp and some holes in the secondary. I think this year he regressed a bit. That is why Belichick appeared to play a bigger role in the defense on gameday.

I still don't understand why people are still complaining about this team. We were one play on that final drive by the Giants away from this being the best Patriots team ever and possibly the best NFL team ever.

 

[richpats]

I still don't understand why people are still complaining about this team. We were one play on that final drive by the Giants away from this being the best Patriots team ever and possibly the best NFL team ever.

I don't see it as "complaining", I just see room for improvement. If the Steelers, Colts and Giants had stuck with their same old ways during their SB years they would most certainly have not won a SB. But the silver lining is that experiencing tough losses makes you learn and helps you grow, so hopefully the staff will do just that next season, even if we aren't the best team out there.

 

[Rob0729]

That was the point of the thread guys- I'm not calling for Belichick's or McDaniel's or Pees' head, I'm trying to recognize what some people would like to ignore. Yeah, we have the best coach in the league and have won more playoff games in the last 3 years, but what's to show for it? 3 disappointing losses.

Those losses had some unfortunate events but our coaching put the team in that position - come on, 6 points through 3 quarters in Denver? Giving up 4 TD's in one half? 7 points through 3 quarters in a SB? Giving up backbreaking scores in the closing minutes? Couldn't we have done a little better?

The last few years we've seen teams that historically struggled in the playoffs finally get the job done, and went on a 4-game playoff run to do it. And the sad part is that none of those teams won a playoff game in the other 2 years, they simply caught fire at the right time.

I just don't want to be back here next year hearing "we've gone 7-4 in the playoffs the last 4 years" and "we'll be in the hunt for years" - I don't want to see this team turn into the Yankees.

We were outcoached this year because the o-line fell apart. I don't know if Weis would have came up with an answer for our turnstyle offensive line in the Super Bowl either. It is hard to gameplan when it seems that when Brady was standing in the shotgun that the Giants defenders got to Brady faster than even the ball did when it was snapped. The coaching staff did make some really bad decisions in that game, but I don't think any OC could have overcome how bad our o-line played until the Giants got tired out.

As for the AFC Championships last year, I didn't feel we were outcoached. We just ran out of gas and had no healthy or experienced bodies that could cover Dallas Clark in the second half. I credit the Colts for finding a weakness that the Pats couldn't possibly scheme for and exploited it. I also blame poor execution and mental errors by the players. I felt the gameplan on both sides of the ball going into the game were perfect. The coaching staff made some mistakes, but it seemed more like execution on the field.

As for the Denver loss, that one was nearly 100% execution issues. It was 5 turnovers that cost the Pats that game. All five were not coaching mistakes. We had two special teams fumbles. Brady should have never thrown that ball that was intercepted by Champ Bailey.

 

[richpats]

.... I credit the Colts for finding a weakness that the Pats couldn't possibly scheme for and exploited it.
.....
Brady should have never thrown that ball that was intercepted by Champ Bailey.

I think that first line falls into the category of "outcoaching".

The Champ pick actually was an in-game adjustment by the Broncos. They recognized that Branch and Brown were criss-crossing so instead of Bailey following Branch inside, he stayed out to cover Brown and the rest is history.

 

[Rob0729]

I think that first line falls into the category of "outcoaching".

The Champ pick actually was an in-game adjustment by the Broncos. They recognized that Branch and Brown were criss-crossing so instead of Bailey following Branch inside, he stayed out to cover Brown and the rest is history.

It only falls into the category of being outcoached if the Pats didn't lose safeties during the game and didn't have such thin depth at ILB that they had to start Eric Alexander at ILB.

Even in the Carolina Super Bowl, Crennel had no answer for the Panthers' offense when Wilson and Harrison went out. The only reason we won that game was because of the offense. If that game went into overtime, I don't know if the Pats would have won.

Champ's pick was in the Broncos' red zone on a play that Brady should have either taken the sack or tried to throw the ball out of bounds. Brady made a bad decision and tried to force the ball into a tight spot while he was being chased backwards. That pick was 100% Brady's fault.

 

[MassPats38]

MassPats 38, I've questioned Belichick on a ton of calls over the years, and sometimes those calls do end up being wrong. Don't confuse that with an attempt to enter the coaching fraternity. It's my opinion, you don't have to agree with it, but your sarcasm comes off as immature.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but you seem to be respondng to answers by repeating your argument, which is well understood. Your premise seems to be the fact the Pats have not won the Super Bowl the last 3 years equates to being outcoached. You point out that plays didn't work and you disagreed with the calls at the time.

The point of my last post is that the game is not nearly as simple as you seem to perceive it to be. If anything is known of Belichick, it is that he is a logical mind that weighs probabilities and outcomes before making decisions. He hires people who do the same. If you believe that the knowledge of football in your head is not laughably inferior in comparison to his, and he chooses his staff and therefore evaluates the knowledge of his coaches, then you are delusional. Some of your calls on plays are based on a naive view of the game and a lack of knowledge of individual players and abilities (the coaches have the inside dirt on all their players and do not publish what they do not have to publish, meaning you lack a complete picture of why calls are made and therefore think your calls are right based on an incomplete picture). As such, the fact they do not make a particular call does not equate to bad coaching.

If you have been a fan longer than 2001 as you state you did not just jump on the bandwagon, you probably remember Parcells. I do not recall him winning the big game with the Pats but few would call him or his staff inferior. This team hit a high note in 2004 and has gradually cycled back to the final game with substantial aging and turnover. They lost, which makes them the second best team in the NFL of 32 teams. Poor coaching simply does not compute given that result.

I will leave you with this thought: no team in the NFL has won every year and no dynasty has been flawless in the post-season. Knoll, Walsh, Lombardi, etc. and their staffs do not become inferior because of an off year or several off years. The question is can a team weather injuries, personnel changes, schedule requirements, and all the other considerations including mistakes in a season and still remain competitive. I contend the Pats have dones so and have never had their heads handed to them on the scoreboard.

 

[richpats]

If you have been a fan longer than 2001 as you state you did not just jump on the bandwagon, you probably remember Parcells. I do not recall him winning the big game with the Pats but few would call him or his staff inferior. This team hit a high note in 2004 and has gradually cycled back to the final game with substantial aging and turnover. They lost, which makes them the second best team in the NFL of 32 teams. Poor coaching simply does not compute given that result.

Parcells' performance in the playoffs was appropriate for the teams he had. He never had a team that won more than 11 games. They hung tough with Green Bay, who was a 14-point favorite IIRC.

I believe this team hit a HIGHER note in 2007 and didn't finish the deal.

As for being "2nd best" - think back to the other SB losers in the past few years - Seattle, Chicago, Philadelphia, Carolina - their PEAK was losing the Super Bowl. I don't want this current staff's peak to be losing a Super Bowl.

I will leave you with this thought: no team in the NFL has won every year and no dynasty has been flawless in the post-season. Knoll, Walsh, Lombardi, etc. and their staffs do not become inferior because of an off year or several off years. The question is can a team weather injuries, personnel changes, schedule requirements, and all the other considerations including mistakes in a season and still remain competitive. I contend the Pats have dones so and have never had their heads handed to them on the scoreboard.

2007 was anything but an "off" year for the Pats. But you have to consider that no (maybe 1) head coach has won a SB with different offensive and defensive coordinators.

 

[TripleOption]

In the playoffs from 2005-2007, he defeated the following coaches: Del Rio (twice), Mangini, Schottenheimer and Norv Turner - none of these coaches has even taken a team to a Super Bowl. Fitting that his losses were to Shanahan, Dungy and Coughlin - all coaches who have taken their teams to a SB.

When did Coughlin take his team to a Super Bowl (prior to SB42)?


If you're referring to him as an assistant with Parcells, then you have to factor in Norv, he was the OC for the Cowboys SB teams.

And even worse, when you bring up Dungy...the one time he did beat Belichick in the Playoffs, it was BEFORE Dungy had won a Super Bowl.

You want to bring up a 3 year sample immediately following his last SB win and extrapolate that to BB being ineffective? I think your logic is a mess.

 

[TripleOption]

Champ's pick was in the Broncos' red zone on a play that Brady should have either taken the sack or tried to throw the ball out of bounds. Brady made a bad decision and tried to force the ball into a tight spot while he was being chased backwards. That pick was 100% Brady's fault.

It's called a "Banjo" adjustment, Champ made it before the play to avoid the "rub". Brady counted on the rub as he had been getting it all game. QB's make those kinds of mistakes. In the Quick game (3 step) you have to react more than think. He was going to that spot with the ball, period. It wasn't a bad read, he didn't have time to go to his next read. 1,2,3 steps, it's out.

 

[BionicPatriot]

All I get from your message is he isn't as good a coach because he's not winning titles ever 3 outta 4 years. If you wanna complain about the coaching, please tell me who you'd rather have? Your telling me from 01-04 there wasn't ONE game the Pats got out coached? The bottomline is BB is not gonna win it every damn year. But will he keep the Pats in it? Dude, I'm not trying to sugar coat anything, but the worst finish under BB since 01 has been 9-7, the absolute worst. From 03 the shortest a season has lasted was to the divisional round!

What makes a coach great isn't winning it all every year. What makes a coach great is that he has that trade mark power house team and consistancy. I think we're blessed to have a team thats at least in the hunt to the final 4 almost every damn year.

Some just crack me up. Not one person said ANYTHING but good things about BB. One play and poof, we start questioning the coach. I'll tell you right now, they weren't as outcoached as people think. When a line cannot block, what is the coach to do at that point? When a defense just does not have the speed to cover faster receivers, what does he do? When Brady and the Pats turn it over 5 maybe 6 times in Denver yet still remain close, is that Belichick's fault too?

Sorry bro, but your just looking like a spur of the moment guy. In the last 3 play off losses the team has looked a lot more pathetic then the coach has.