Felger: 2016 Patriots not an "all-time Pats team", just winning during a "bad year for league"

[Kontradiction]

Thanks for letting me know what he said. I'll go back to enjoying the Super Bowl now.

 

[Deus Irae]

If Bill Belichick retired, name the current head coaches you would want to replace him (or at least which coach you would consider a decent hire).

Harbaugh
Payton
O'Brien
McCarthy
Arians*
Zimmer/Reid**


* If he promised to lighten up on the deep passing
** If Arians wouldn't lighten up on the deep passing

 

[Rob0729]

The same can be said for last season, but that didn't diminish a thing to me. There's 30 other teams still wishing they were in Houston.

I'm not taking away from the Pats if they win. Every team is a product of their times. Just because this team may not be as good as say the 2003 team when the defense could actually play and players could hit more than once a week in practice, doesn't mean it isn't one of the best (or after next Sunday, the best) team in the League and there is no asterisk on a Lombardi trophy.

 

[Rob0729]

Harbaugh
Payton
O'Brien
McCarthy
Arians*
Zimmer/Reid**


* If he promised to lighten up on the deep passing
** If Arians wouldn't lighten up on the deep passing

Unless Brady can play at a high level until he is 50, most Pats fans would put a gun to their heads if the Patriots got stuck with McCarthy or Reid. I will argue that McCarthy is holding the Packers back with his total inflexibility and with his basic and inflexible offense. I bet Rodgers would have at least one more Lombardi with a better coach. I guarantee you that most Packers fans would happily trade McCarthy for a bag of footballs.

And we saw Andy Reid last year in the playoffs that he is a bozo too. I loved how against the Patriots in the playoffs, down by two scores late in the fourth decided the best option was to kill the clock with slow it down offense. They were down by 10 points with 6:29 left in the game and instead of running a hurry up offense, he ran a slow methodical drive that ate up over 5 minutes on the clock. Reid has no situational awareness and seems to be stuck in the 90s with his offensive philosophy.

As for Arians, he looks to be an one season wonder. If we are going to give him credit for one season, why not add Ron Rivera to the list? I may be overstating it since he has had three of four winning seasons, but he is still a bit of an unproven. His team was an odds on favorite for the Super Bowl and he had a losing season this year.

As for O'Brien, he gets an incomplete. He is held back by the QB position, but he is benefitted by being in the easiest division in football.

Of the coaches you listed, only Harbaugh and Payton are proven good coaches.

 

[Deus Irae]

Unless Brady can play at a high level until he is 50, most Pats fans would put a gun to their heads if the Patriots got stuck with McCarthy or Reid. I will argue that McCarthy is holding the Packers back with his total inflexibility and with his basic and inflexible offense. I bet Rodgers would have at least one more Lombardi with a better coach. I guarantee you that most Packers fans would happily trade McCarthy for a bag of footballs.

And we saw Andy Reid last year in the playoffs that he is a bozo too. I loved how against the Patriots in the playoffs, down by two scores late in the fourth decided the best option was to kill the clock with slow it down offense. They were down by 10 points with 6:29 left in the game and instead of running a hurry up offense, he ran a slow methodical drive that ate up over 5 minutes on the clock. Reid has no situational awareness and seems to be stuck in the 90s with his offensive philosophy.

As for Arians, he looks to be an one season wonder. If we are going to give him credit for one season, why not add Ron Rivera to the list?

As for O'Brien, he gets an incomplete. He is held back by the QB position, but he is benefitted by being in the easiest division in football.

Of the coaches you listed, only Harbaugh and Payton are proven good coaches.

Your post is a pretty good example of why these sorts of conversations are usually a waste of time. People are just too set in their presuppositions. Just some obvious examples:

Arians is a two time winner of NFL coach of the year. Calling him a one season wonder is asinine.
Reid is the man who took the Eagles to 4 straight NFCCGs and a Super Bowl. He's also the man who's turned the Chiefs into a legitimate playoff threat.
I have some issues with McCarthy, but let's not kid ourselves here. Rodgers holds Rodgers back. He's so busy counting the number of defenders on the field that he doesn't bother actually diagnosing opponent defenses.

Your post's words:

or at least which coach you would consider a decent hire

are met by every coach I listed.

 

[Rob0729]

Your post is a pretty good example of why these sorts of conversations are usually a waste of time. People are just too set in their presuppositions. Just some obvious examples:

Arians is a two time winner of NFL coach of the year. Calling him a one season wonder is asinine.
Reid is the man who took the Eagles to 4 straight NFCCGs and a Super Bowl. He's also the man who's turned the Chiefs into a legitimate playoff threat.
I have some issues with McCarthy, but let's not kid ourselves here. Rodgers holds Rodgers back. He's so busy counting the number of defenders on the field that he doesn't bother actually diagnosing opponent defenses.

Your post's words:



are met by every coach I listed.

I already revised my statement on Arians. I will completely concede him.

And for Reid, who cares what he did over a decade ago. Didn't we see with three time Super Bowl winning, Hall of Fame Head Coach, Joe Gibbs, that the game can pass by a head coach over time (use Mike Shannahan if you like for an example). He runs a team like it is 2004 still. I would rather have Tomlin than him.

Rodgers can be his own worse enemy at times. but not as much as McCarthy is. The guy doesn't believe in pre-snap motion. He believes in lining up and just snapping the ball. I guarantee if you go back and look at game film for the Packers, you can count on one hand the plays he uses pre-snap motion in each game. That is an arcane philosophy.

And only a Patriots hater or a contrarian would consider McCarthy or Reid a decent hire for the Pats as a head coach. I think both 98.5 and WEEI would explode from overload of angry callers if either were ever hired by the Pats as head coach.

 

[yukon cornelius]

Harbaugh
Payton
O'Brien
McCarthy
Arians*
Zimmer/Reid**


* If he promised to lighten up on the deep passing
** If Arians wouldn't lighten up on the deep passing

mcdaniels (i honestly think this is the plan)

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Welp, looks like that'll be the new talking point for the next two weeks. Once Felger says it other guys start adding on as well.

He says this team doesn't have a single impressive win this season, that the only good team they played (Seahawks) beat them and that every other team sucks (including the Steelers and soon to be the Falcons)

Says this is not even one of the greatest Patriots team of all-time and they just happened to be the best out of a "pile of crap" in the NFL this year, going an entire 19 game schedule without actually having an impressive win. Went a good 2 hours on this one talking point.

Sorry, but I don't know which is more appalling...Felger's viewpoint or the fact that anyone listened as he "went a good 2 hours."

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I think the most important words in the thread title are "pats team just winning."
The rest, I choose to ignore...maybe we all should.

 

[Rob0729]

mcdaniels (i honestly think this is the plan)

He's not a current head coach. I am talking about the bad coaching in the league right now.

 

[SacPete1]

Personally, I'm more impressed when a team shows it can handle pressure and adversity during a game than an easy blowout. Blowouts don't prepare you for a future tough slugfest.

I found the Baltimore and Houston games to be "impressive games". They had complete control and alot of teams' wheels would have fallen off after those turnovers but this team showed its resiliency and confidence and won both games easily in the end.

We'll see alot of talk about the Patriots' easy road to the Super Bowl but this is as tough and as unselfish a Patriots team that I've seen which in my view makes it as "impressive" as any.

 

[XLIX]

Statistic are irrelevant to the quality of play because if every team is bad.

Dallas' was in an offensive challenged division and played an offensively challenged schedule.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand now you're doing what all the Patriots haters are doing. "The Patriots/Cowboys defense isn't really that good!! They just have good stats because their opponents sucked!!"

Their best defense was their slow methodical offense. That is why the other teams didn't score much. The Cowboys' offense would give opposing offenses less possessions. Again, this is why the eyeball test is important. You are using a failed stat test.

They also had the #5 offense in points scored. Nothing "slow and methodical" about that. Their opponents had just as many chances to score as they did (give or take a single possession per game).

Like I said... your "eyeball test" fails in the face of facts and stats. With Dallas, all you can remember is 34-31. You didn't even realize they were #5 both in offense and defense points scored.

I have been watching football for decades.

This proves my point. You just idealize "the good old days" because when people like you think about "the good old days" you think about the great teams like Pittsburgh, Dallas and San Francisco. Well the "good old days" also had their share of Clevelands, Tampa Bays and Detroits.

Sorry, but the eyeball test is important to judging the quality of the league especially if there are no or only one or two dominant teams.

Sorry, but the "eyeball test" is epic fail because you are going to remember Dallas-SF in the NFCCG 100 times more than the 3-13 Bengals beating the 2-14 Oilers.

The "good old days" had some pretty bad teams playing bad football too. You just don't remember those games.

 

[yukon cornelius]

He's not a current head coach. I am talking about the bad coaching in the league right now.

gotcha

i read/misread 'current coach'



i think a guy like dan quinn appeals to me more than many of the retreads - i like andy reid but he always seems to hiccup; harbaugh is a harbaugh.....jack del rio?

after payton/reid/harbaugh it gets pretty thin

at least those 3 have had a fair history of keeping franchises in the upper echelon of teams

 

[Deus Irae]

mcdaniels (i honestly think this is the plan)

I hear you, but Rob's criteria only allowed for current league HCs to be considered. I deliberately left out some other coaches (i.e. Carroll), but it's pretty obvious that there are decent coaches out there.

 

[Rob0729]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand now you're doing what all the Patriots haters are doing. "The Patriots defense isn't really that good!! They just have good stats because their opponents sucked!!"

They also had the #5 offense in points scored. Nothing "slow and methodical" about that. Their opponents had just as many chances to score as they did (give or take a single possession per game).

Like I said... your "eyeball test" fails in the face of facts and stats. With Dallas, all you can remember is 34-31. You didn't even realize they were #5 both in offense and defense points scored.

This proves my point. You just idealize "the good old days" because when people like you think about "the good old days" you think about the great teams like Pittsburgh, Dallas and San Francisco. Well the "good old days" also had their share of Clevelands, Tampa Bays and Detroits.
Sorry, but the "eyeball test" is epic fail because you are going to remember Dallas-SF in the NFCCG 100 times more than the 3-13 Bengals beating the 2-14 Oilers.

The "good old days" had some pretty bad teams playing bad football too. You just don't remember those games.[/QUOTE]

Ummm..... I didn't even factor the Cowboys loss to Green Bay to the equation. Rodgers was on fire at that point. I watched many of their games and their defense was not nearly as good as their stats suggest. Granted one of the games was when Roethlisberger torched them for 30 points. But the list of QBs they faced were almost as bad as the ones the Pats faced. They even faced Rodgers during his slump.

And the Pats' defense isn't as good as their #1 overall scoring defense says. You do have to factor the opponents into the equation. Right now they might be the best defense in the league, but they did benefit from easy competition during the season. If they faced better QBs (especially early in the season), they likely wouldn't be the #1 scoring defense. Doesn't mean they are bad, but they are not as good as that stat suggests.

Yeah, I am an old timer and longing for the glory days all the way back to 2014 when football used to be much better. You might be too young to remember back to those days, but trust me you would be shocked to realize how much better football was way back two years ago. Maybe the NFL Network and NFL Films will do a retrospective of the 2014. Be forewarned, I am not sure if all the games back then was filmed in color yet.

 

[Deus Irae]

I already revised my statement on Arians. I will completely concede him.

And for Reid, who cares what he did over a decade ago. Didn't we see with three time Super Bowl winning, Hall of Fame Head Coach, Joe Gibbs, that the game can pass by a head coach over time (use Mike Shannahan if you like for an example). He runs a team like it is 2004 still. I would rather have Tomlin than him.

Rodgers can be his own worse enemy at times. but not as much as McCarthy is. The guy doesn't believe in pre-snap motion. He believes in lining up and just snapping the ball. I guarantee if you go back and look at game film for the Packers, you can count on one hand the plays he uses pre-snap motion in each game. That is an arcane philosophy.

And only a Patriots hater or a contrarian would consider McCarthy or Reid a decent hire for the Pats as a head coach. I think both 98.5 and WEEI would explode from overload of angry callers if either were ever hired by the Pats as head coach.

This post reinforces my noting the uselessness of these discussions. I'm not a fan of McCarthy, but only someone invested in an answer, rather than in real discussion, would argue against Reid or McCarthy as decent hires. McCarthy has shown he can win a SB with an elite QB, which the Patriots have, and Reid has shown that he can put a consistent playoff team on the field, and give them at least a chance at winning it all. Arguing against them as great coaches is one thing, but arguing against them as decent hires is crazy talk.

 

[XLIX]

Ummm..... I didn't even factor the Cowboys loss to Green Bay to the equation.

No, you just keep going on about "the eyeball test" and how Dallas' defense was horrible. Don't tell us that the GB-Dal didn't factor into your "eyeball test" and I would bet you had no idea the Cowboys were #5 in points allowed.

Rodgers was on fire at that point. I watched many of their games and their defense was not nearly as good as their stats suggest.

Yeah, the Patriots haters are saying the same thing about our defense.

Yeah, I am an old timer and longing for the glory days all the way back to 2014 when football used to be much better. You might be too young to remember back to those days, but trust me you would be shocked to realize how much better football was way back two years ago. Maybe the NFL Network and NFL Films will do a retrospective of the 2014. Be forewarned, I am not sure if all the games back then was filmed in color yet.

If your contention is that the overall quality of NFL play is significantly worse today versus 2 years ago (based solely on your own silly little "eyeball test") then that comment is too ridiculous to address.

 

[Grogan14]

Welp, looks like that'll be the new talking point for the next two weeks. Once Felger says it other guys start adding on as well.

He says this team doesn't have a single impressive win this season, that the only good team they played (Seahawks) beat them and that every other team sucks (including the Steelers and soon to be the Falcons)

Says this is not even one of the greatest Patriots team of all-time and they just happened to be the best out of a "pile of crap" in the NFL this year, going an entire 19 game schedule without actually having an impressive win. Went a good 2 hours on this one talking point.

Felger is just so desperate for attention...this is how he tries to keep his job. He simply states things he knows will get the fanbase pissed off. That is the only way he can keep his name out there and his job.
I doubt he believes this.
No one said this team is an all time great team....but still they were 14-2 and cruised into Super Bowl.
You do not necessarily measure a team's greatness by how many great teams they played and beat during the regular season.
They beat who they needed to.
Ultimately if they beat the falcons in the SB team then they will be judged as a great team 17-2
Felger is really a pitiful excuse for a journalist....

 

[JarOfMayo51]

Is Felger secretly related to Goodell? Why does this guy rip the Pats constantly? Is he like this on all Boston teams? Must be trying to get ratings...

He rips them because it riles up all the mouth breathers and makes him money.

Unfortunately it's working, which makes him respect the fanbase even less and go to more extremes with his opinion.

The way you stop slimey slugs like Felger is to STOP TUNING INTO HIS STATION, STOP WATCHING HIM ON TV! It's been over 2 years since I've ever tuned him on the radio.. other than the 2 seconds it takes my car radio to auto scan past the channel, I have not listened to either of those 2 idiots for even 1 second

 

[GodBrady]

So in other words, all you have is eye test where you're going to see what you want to see and ignore the stuff that doesn't fit your pre-conceived notions.

This year, there were two teams with a cumulative DVOA > 20%:
Patriots - 25.3%
Cowboys - 21%

Last year there were 7 teams over 20% (2016 Pats would've ranked 4th, if we could hypothetically insert them into that year and not disrupt DVOA data*).
In 2014 there were 5 teams (2016 Pats would've ranked 3rd).
In 2013 there were 3 teams. (2016 Pats would've ranked 3rd).
In 2012 there were 6 teams (2016 Pats would've ranked 6th).

So, yes, there is actually a lot of merit to the idea that the Pats are the best team in a relatively weak year. There simply weren't many dominant teams. Your dismissal of the idea with the flippant "lol eye test, ure ignorant" responses is really off-putting and totally unnecessary. [*again, this is a hypothetical exercise for the sake of comparison, I realize the implications of what I'm saying, so just run with it.]

I don't think DVOA is perfect, but it is quite objective, and does a good job of factoring in things like strength of schedule, etc. The whole point of it is to be a more sophisticated barometer than W-L, and see how far above/behind league average a team is.

The Patriots finished #1 in points allowed, but they just didn't feel like a wrecking crew defense. I mean, to put that another way... the 2007 Patriots finished with the #1 overall offense, and I don't think any Patriots fan will ever forget that team/season/offense. I don't think many of us are going to be reflecting back 25 years from now gushing about the 2016 defense. DVOA backs this up, too: they were 11th in weighted defensive DVOA.
- the 2015 Broncos felt like a dominant defense (they had a -22.1% in adj. defensive DVOA, #1 in the NFL).
- the 2013 Seahawks felt like a dominant defense (-30% adj. defensive DVOA, #1 in the NFL).
- the 2007 Patriots felt like a dominant offense (40.1% DVOA, #1 in the NFL).
- there are lots of places where DVOA corroborates the eye test (these results are not contrived either, I thought of the most dominant offenses/defenses in recent memory, and these are the ones that came to mind)

I do agree that people romanticize the past, and even if there were juggernaut teams like the 80's 49ers/Giants/Bears, there were still awful teams out that stinking up the league. However, we do live in the age of parity, and so it's not unreasonable to believe that parity happened to hamper the number of dominant teams in the league this year, and there is credence to the idea that it's what we witnessed in 2016.

And this is just calling a spade a spade. I am not trying to diminish our accomplishments in any way. If I win I don't think our Super Bowl is tainted or something. I also agree that the original article posted is mostly clickbait rubbish. But simply put, by both objective measurements (DVOA) and the eye test, there weren't many juggernaut teams this season.