Wisdom of Solomon: There’s no room to second-guess Belichick

[Deus Irae]

Well, here we have it. Part Two of Bill Belichick: A Football Life gives us the behind the scenes stuff on this:

During the week, Belichick seemed to be leaning toward keeping Welker inactive because he was worried about an injury.

“Maybe Welker, too,” Belichick said when listing players who would be inactive for the Texans game. “I don’t know how smart it’d be to put him in there to get lit up another eight or 10 times like he usually does.”

Belichick weighed holding Welker out before torn ACL | ProFootballTalk

So, as many of us were saying, there was plenty of room to second guess Belichick, and once again the vitriolic homers who like to pretend they know Belichick's every thought come off looking like fools.

 

[xmarkd400x]

Well, here we have it. Part Two of Bill Belichick: A Football Life gives us the behind the scenes stuff on this:



Belichick weighed holding Welker out before torn ACL | ProFootballTalk

So, as many of us were saying, there was plenty of room to second guess Belichick, and once again the vitriolic homers who like to pretend they know Belichick's every thought come off looking like fools.

Do you keep a list of year-old threads to comment on?

This is a poor example. BB thought about keeping Welker out because he didn't want him getting hit. Welker blew his ACL without ANY contact.

Car analogy: You debate taking your Miata (Welker is a Miata, as we all know) out in the snow because you don't want to get in an accident. Then your car gets stolen while you are getting groceries. Then somebody (cough) comes along and makes a tenuous connection between the two events.

 

[Mack Herron]

I still find myself agreeing with Dungy on the 4th and 2 call.

 

[RayClay]

Well, here we have it. Part Two of Bill Belichick: A Football Life gives us the behind the scenes stuff on this:



Belichick weighed holding Welker out before torn ACL | ProFootballTalk

So, as many of us were saying, there was plenty of room to second guess Belichick, and once again the vitriolic homers who like to pretend they know Belichick's every thought come off looking like fools.

He blew his knee out without contact, it could have happened at any time, the route didn't put him in jeopardy.

Are you supposed to sit down the whole team then come out flat like the Colts?

 

[Deus Irae]

Do you keep a list of year-old threads to comment on?.

No, but some 'discussions' stand out. A discussion about losing Welker in a meaningless game happened to be one of them. That's where the search function comes in.

This is a poor example. BB thought about keeping Welker out because he didn't want him getting hit. Welker blew his ACL without ANY contact.

Car analogy: You debate taking your Miata (Welker is a Miata, as we all know) out in the snow because you don't want to get in an accident. Then your car gets stolen while you are getting groceries. Then somebody (cough) comes along and makes a tenuous connection between the two events.

Nothing wrong with the example at all. Your analogy is lousy, though, given the posts in the thread.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Well, here we have it. Part Two of Bill Belichick: A Football Life gives us the behind the scenes stuff on this: Belichick weighed holding Welker out before torn ACL | ProFootballTalk So, as many of us were saying, there was plenty of room to second guess Belichick, and once again the vitriolic homers who like to pretend they know Belichick's every thought come off looking like fools.

There are plenty of folks on this message board who come off looking like fools. Generally due to the deadly combination of arrogance and ignorance.

I believe the discussion segment they showed began with Moss. And we already know how Bill felt about what happened when Moss and Welker were taken out of games...by opponents. Not much point then in playing Brady. We also know for a fact now what the underlying issue with this team was... Inconsistency, and Bill's inability to get that particular team to play 60 minutes the way he needed them to (particularly on the road)... So in the end apparently his thought process evolved to the point he was less concerned with injury in week 17 of that season than he was with whether this team had turned the corner or not. Because he knew if it hadn't injuries weren't going to be the reason they failed to advance through the playoffs. It would be because they couldn't win playing the path that awaited them, on the road and against the iron teams. That team lacked sufficient mental toughness from the get go. Brady and Welker preached hard it down the stretch to no avail.

I also think it was particularly insightful to get a chance to grasp the fact that he was going for it on 4th and 2 from 2nd down on (and had been preaching that since pre season) and his team seemed oblivious to that fact. Still they almost made it save a lousy spot... Lack of focus and awareness and inattention to significant details he provided them and inability to execute in game situations were the hallmarks of that team and that staff. Bill wasn't confused, but some of his staff and players apparently were.

I guess that is why between then and now he has seriously retooled the team and churned his roster and even staff to the point it includes so few starter holdovers from the 2009 unit. Bill prepares players and coaches better than anyone in the business. Whether or not they capitalize on that is essentially on them. He told them from the outset that mistakes would kill the season for all of them. They did. That's football in a nutshell. He is so focused on situational football and preparation he never fields a team that cannot win if the players and coaches simply do their job - even in the face of adversity.

Bill doesn't always make the best choices or decisions in hindsight. But then, who among us (not to mention among his actual peers) does. Signs veterans who can't get or stay on the field or grasp/adapt to the scheme, signs measurables talent that lacks capacity or discipline to function at the necessary level in this system. Drafts guys who intrigue him based on team specific scouting as opposed to drafting guru hype. Although he always cautions that you never know what you have in a player until you see him in your system.

Would not trade him for any coach in the history of the game. If trusting him to make the best informed choice in the interest of this team at any juncture makes be a vitriolic homer, so be it. Better than being a contrarian critic own whose own arrogance and overbearing ego apparently dictates he repeatedly call that coach out for his seemingly stupid and idiotic mistakes. In my book being that guy would make me the real board ignoramus... Kind of like NEM used to be, only absent the humor...

And that car analogy was spot on... Welker didn't get banged up in Texas or take that one more hit that might tip the balance. His leg gave out in the absence of contact. Could have happened any time before or after getting out of the shower...

 

[ausbacker]

I still find myself agreeing with Dungy on the 4th and 2 call.

I don't. The Patriots converted the 4th and 2. It was a bad spot by the lineman.

 

[MassPats38]

Well, here we have it. Part Two of Bill Belichick: A Football Life gives us the behind the scenes stuff on this:

So, as many of us were saying, there was plenty of room to second guess Belichick, and once again the vitriolic homers who like to pretend they know Belichick's every thought come off looking like fools.

I'm not sure what aspect of this thread you are calling out in your post. This does not confirm Belichick was wrong to play Welker given the nature of Welker's injury, and frankly it should be obvious to anyone with a brain that Belichick debates most decisions, whether those debates are internal or external with staff (ie., even Belichick questions his final decisions).

If you are simply pointing out it is okay to debate coaching decisions, then that is a reasonable proposition. If it is a green light on the contrarian conclusory statements that Belichick was absolutely wrong in this case, which also appear in this thread with full hindsight on a negative outcome, you may also acknowledge that those posts are no more intelligent or insightful after a negative outcome than are the posts endorsing Belichick's final answer as definitively and unquestionably correct.

 

[Patjew]

I remember that time I was wrong. It was weird.

 

[Deus Irae]

I remember that time I was wrong. It was weird.

You weren't wrong, PJ. You just weren't 100% right.

 

[Patjew]

You weren't wrong, PJ. You just weren't 100% right.

aargh, I'm wrong again!

 

[aluminum seats]

I don't think I commented when this thread first came along, but it's pretty hard to argue that there wasn't ample room to second-guess Belichick here. It doesn't matter HOW Welker got injured, the fact was Belichick was debating holding him out so he wouldn't get hurt.

Harrison shouldn't have played that last game against the Titans either. Grrrrr......

 

[Deus Irae]

I don't think I commented when this thread first came along, but it's pretty hard to argue that there wasn't ample room to second-guess Belichick here. It doesn't matter HOW Welker got injured, the fact was Belichick was debating holding him out so he wouldn't get hurt.

Harrison shouldn't have played that last game against the Titans either. Grrrrr......

You were actually one of the most active posters on this thread in its first run. You should go back and re-read it. I think you'll find it interesting to revisit.

 

[aluminum seats]

You were actually one of the most active posters on this thread in its first run. You should go back and re-read it. I think you'll find it interesting to revisit.

uh-oh....assume that means I was saying Belichick likes his guys to play regardless, play 60 minutes, etc. Hmmm.

Perhaps I've grown wiser over the years. (Although not remembering threads is a little scary.)

EDIT: Looks like I was wrong, my opinion didn't change....a lot of posts not to remember, but I'm glad I've been relatively consistent. (Also right. Very much right.)

 

[Deus Irae]

uh-oh....assume that means I was saying Belichick likes his guys to play regardless, play 60 minutes, etc. Hmmm.

Perhaps I've grown wiser over the years. (Although not remembering threads is a little scary.)

EDIT: Looks like I was wrong, my opinion didn't change....a lot of posts not to remember, but I'm glad I've been relatively consistent. (Also right. Very much right.)

Actually, you were talking about your transition in how you viewed this. here's your first post on it:

My thinking has changed on resting guys. For the longest time, I was in the Parcells/Belichick camp of playing (almost) every game to win. Even as late as 2007--I forget the specifics, but essentially every team going into the playoffs that played hard the last game did well, and the teams mailing it in faltered. (Giants beating Tampa illustrated the point.)

But I have become SO SICK of football players getting hurt. It's beginning to cast a pall over the game. I still think the Colts are full of it--history is worth trying for. But yeah, I woulda sat Welker on Sunday. No matter what anybody says, he wasn't going to tear up his knee Sunday if he watched the game from home.

 

[Jackson 2]

I still find myself agreeing with Dungy on the 4th and 2 call.

Except, I will believe to my grave, as I did at the time it happened, that Faulk made that first down.

 

[TheComeback]

Belichick played the starters because that team needed to prove it could win in a pressure situation, i.e., a road game. I don't and didn't disagree with the decision now or then.

I'm sure he'd like to have the decision to start Welker back because of the ACL tear, and because Welker is one of the "good soldiers" who probably didn't need to be out there, but I'm not going to say he was "wrong" for doing what he did. It really was a freak injury, one that could happen in practice or a game.

The Patriots had no business winning a postseason game the way they played in 2009. They needed the work against the Texans, and they ended up choking in the 4th quarter, which was a preview of what would happen in the playoffs that year (as in, choking under pressure). Saw it coming the whole way, and evidently so did Belichick, which is why the starters were out there in Houston. We had a chance to do something in the playoffs, but the character of that team was to not capitalize on such chances.

I haven't seen the doc yet, but I'm about to turn on the DVR now. Looking forward to it... sort of.

It's not about momentum, it's about getting another road win against a solid, desperate dome team with a great offense. That's something we haven't done all year, and we'll have to do it if we want to get far in the playoffs. We should be using the game as preparation, not as a "bye" week.

The Patriots have all sorts of problems on all sides of the ball. One good game against the Jags doesn't prove that we've resolved those issues. We need to continue making progress.

 

[Deus Irae]

Belichick played the starters because that team needed to prove it could win in a pressure situation, i.e., a road game. I don't and didn't disagree with the decision now or then.

I'm sure he'd like to have the decision to start Welker back because of the ACL tear, and because Welker is one of the "good soldiers" who probably didn't need to be out there, but I'm not going to say he was "wrong" for doing what he did. It really was a freak injury, one that could happen in practice or a game.

As I said at the time, the Patriots had no business winning a postseason game the way they played in 2009. They needed the work against the Texans, and they ended up choking in the 4th quarter, which was a preview of what would happen in the playoffs that year. Saw it coming the whole way, and evidently so did Belichick, which is why the starters were out there in Houston.

I haven't seen the doc yet, but I'm about to turn on the DVR now. Looking forward to it... sort of.

He didn't "play the starters". He played some of the starters. He sat some out.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

He didn't "play the starters". He played some of the starters. He sat some out.

Actually he played the vast majority of the starters except in a handful of cases where he likely had good reason to take another approach. That is usually referred to as playing the starters. The only debatable starters on offense he sat were Maroney and Faulk (a third down back) I would assume because he wanted Taylor (who would have replaced Maroney had he not been injured all season) and whomever might replace Faulk to get the benefit of those snaps. He used Hoyer situationally to get him replacement reps. He likely sat a couple of guys on defense he either thought needed the rest or who were dinged (Bodden, Warren, Wilfork). One of the problems with sitting the starters is you can never sit them all with a 45 man game day roster... He was probably pleased with the way they played once faced with the adversity of Welker going down, as likely was the team...until they started making mistakes that just killed them...