Belichick criticism mega-thread

[gobesmug]

You said "it wasn't a flaw for Belichick to bench Butler" but then speculated that "he would have played like a man possessed" had he been given the chance. If the the latter would have been true then the decision was definitely flawed. You're trying to say Belichick is "brilliant" no matter what when in reality you're arguing Belichick made an arbitrary decision, stubbornly stuck with it, and it cost the team a Super Bowl.

I said the initial decision to bench Butler wasn't a flaw. As in benching him for a qtr or perhaps the first half. Butler made a selfish decision, we will never know what exactly, disciplinary actions were warranted.

His flaw was not allowing Butler to play after his point had been made. Butler clearly looked liked he learned his lesson and should have been let in the game.

I'm certainly not saying Bill is brilliant no matter what. He was a schmuck for not letting Butler in the game and a bigger schmuck for not giving Brady the contract he wanted.

 

[venecol]

In between those the Sb winning QBs were Montana, plummet, McMahon, Hostetler so the idea you needed a hof qb to win in thise days is based upon bill Walsh coaching Montana into a HOF QB and otherwise a great QB wasn’t necessary.

So you think Belichick can win a SB with Mariota?

 

[Ring 6]

So you think Belichick can win a SB with Mariota?

I don’t know.

 

[venecol]

I said the initial decision to bench Butler wasn't a flaw. As in benching him for a qtr or perhaps the first half. Butler made a selfish decision, we will never know what exactly, disciplinary actions were warranted.

His flaw was not allowing Butler to play after his point had been made. Butler clearly looked liked he learned his lesson and should have been let in the game.

Not sure why people keep on saying this when Belichick has repeatedly said the benching was a football decision, not a disciplinary one. Was Belichick lying?

 

[RobertWeathers]

Not like Walsh did. That’s why he had 3 different ones.

I'm done with this circular argument.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Gibbs win Supebowls with Thiesmann, Doug Williams, and Mark Rypien as his starting QB.

and he has a great NASCAR team

He was just as good as a NASCAR owner as a SB coach.

 

[Rob0729]

If you actually believe that, and I seriously doubt that you do, then you’ve clearly forgotten Vinatieri’s comments in 2001 “America’s Game.”

You clearly didn't read what I wrote. I am saying from the guy I was responded to perspective and not what happened.

 

[Rob0729]

I would hope so.... Delhomme is the worst QB the Pats have faced in a Super Bowl, even worse than Foles.

Could be mistaken but wasn't it Wilson that got smoked by Mushin Muhammad?

Delhomme wasn't a good QB at all, but Stephen Davis was the real deal and so were Muhammed and Smith. They held Davis to 49 yards rushing. Muhammed did have one great play (85 yard TD reception) and was fairly quiet the rest of the game (3 catches for 55 yards).

 

[gobesmug]

Not sure why people keep on saying this when Belichick has repeatedly said the benching was a football decision, not a disciplinary one. Was Belichick lying?

Absolutely. Bill doesn't share with the media. When is he ever forthright and honest with the media?

If it was a "football decision" then he must have had dementia because that defense sucked and needed help. Clearly it was a discipline move, otherwise why would Butler be crying on the sidelines instead of being pissed that he wasn't given a chance to play?

 

[Kontradiction]

You clearly didn't read what I wrote. I am saying from the guy I was responded to perspective and not what happened.

Uh huh...

And I agree without the Mo Lewis hit, the Pats don't go to the Super Bowl. But that has more to do with getting Bledsoe out of the line up and less to do with Brady than you are willing to admit.

The underlined isn’t even remotely close to correct.

 

[amfootball]

In between those the Sb winning QBs were Montana, plummet, McMahon, Hostetler so the idea you needed a hof qb to win in thise days is based upon bill Walsh coaching Montana into a HOF QB and otherwise a great QB wasn’t necessary.

Sure but Gibbs won with 3 different non-HoF QBs and you can make the case that 2 of them (Williams and Rypien) were career flame outs other than the one year they won the bowl with Gibbs.

 

[Ring 6]

I'm done with this circular argument.

It’s not circular at all, but agree it’s time to move on.

 

[Rob0729]

Uh huh...

And I agree without the Mo Lewis hit, the Pats don't go to the Super Bowl. But that has more to do with getting Bledsoe out of the line up and less to do with Brady than you are willing to admit.

The underlined isn’t even remotely close to correct.

Psst! You missed the part "than you are willing to admit." That means that Bledsoe being pulled out of the line up helped the team more than the poster is admitting. Not that pulling Bledsoe from the line up meant more than putting in Brady.

But thanks for playing. But yes, if you take my post totally out of context, I admit what you are claiming I said but clearly didn't is not true.

 

[Ring 6]

Sure but Gibbs won with 3 different non-HoF QBs and you can make the case that 2 of them (Williams and Rypien) were career flame outs other than the one year they won the bowl with Gibbs.

Why does that make him a better coach than a guy who took a and developed him
Into a hall of famed? Coaching isn’t calling plays, it’s employing a system and teaching players to thrive in it.
Walsh wasn’t named the coach of a team with a HoF QB. He took over the worst team in the league and drafted a qb in the 3rd round and taught him how to play QB in the nfl.
Turning players into stars is a quality of a good coach not a reason to downgrade his success.

 

[PatsWSB47]

Psst! You missed the part "than you are willing to admit." That means that Bledsoe being pulled out of the line up helped the team more than the poster is admitting. Not that pulling Bledsoe from the line up meant more than putting in Brady.

But thanks for playing. But yes, if you take my post totally out of context, I admit what you are claiming I said but clearly didn't is not true.

Why do you need to get someone to admit that getting Bledsoe out of there was THE MAIN reason the Pats win the Superbowl? Post after post after post you desperately have to diminish Brady's elite value from day one. Obviously Brady doesn't come in until Bledsoe comes out. It's like" no no lets not talk about Brady, let's avoid that and focus on anything else."

 

[Kontradiction]

Psst! You missed the part "than you are willing to admit." That means that Bledsoe being pulled out of the line up helped the team more than the poster is admitting. Not that pulling Bledsoe from the line up meant more than putting in Brady.

But thanks for playing. But yes, if you take my post totally out of context, I admit what you are claiming I said but clearly didn't is not true.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Bledsoe getting injured meant Brady coming in. Brady coming in is what put that team over the top. Bledsoe could have come out of the line up for Huard and it wouldn’t have meant a damn thing. Brady completely transformed that team and, even if he wasn’t a top quarterback at the time like he would be years later, he still had leadership intangibles that were very clearly documented and cited during docs about that season. So yeah, if you want to sound like you’re drunk or just your standard run-of-the-mill homer who is still clearly struggling with the grieving process, you can compare Bledsoe leaving the line up with Brady being inserted. The reality is that they run hand in hand and Brady was CLEARLY the most important piece to the puzzle for that 2001 team. Otherwise, that defense doesn’t even sniff the playoffs... much less a title. Sleep it off, Rob.

 

[gobesmug]

Psst! You missed the part "than you are willing to admit." That means that Bledsoe being pulled out of the line up helped the team more than the poster is admitting. Not that pulling Bledsoe from the line up meant more than putting in Brady.

But thanks for playing. But yes, if you take my post totally out of context, I admit what you are claiming I said but clearly didn't is not true.

I'm not sure why you keep defending this. It's clear that from 2001 Bill was not winning without Brady and Vice Versa that Brady wasn't winning without Bill.

Bill is a genius coach but he needed a QB that could be elite but wasn't a premadonna. Bill did not have the clout at that time to deal with a Peyton Manning.

Brady was the perfect QB for Bill and Bill the perfect Coach for Brady in his early career. They were the perfect storm that came close to winning 9 Superbowls in 20 years and a perfect regular season.

1 dropped int, 1 game sealing catch, and 1 strip sack away from being 9-0 in the Superbowl. That's crazy.

 

[Calhoun44]

It was a tire fire. And stop moving the goalposts.

We have a different definition of tire fire. So, I guess we will disagree. I always see the positives in my sports teams, it's never been enjoyable for me to tear into my teams' players. I enjoy sports by always hoping my team will prevail and will improve, that's one of the reasons why I don't gamble.

What do you mean by moving the goalposts in this context?

 

[203Pat]

If we let Brady go with a plan in place I would still hate it but I could deal with it. Instead we let Brady go with absolutely zero plan in place. Bill was seemingly ready to go into the season with a guy who couldn't get a single start over one of the worst football players I have ever seen and another guy who was so bad in his one start he became inactive all season. We ended up with a bad team that wasn't quite terrible enough to end up in position to get a top QB in the draft. We seem to have no plan at QB for the second offseason in a row.

 

[Rob0729]

Why do you need to get someone to admit that getting Bledsoe out of there was THE MAIN reason the Pats win the Superbowl? Post after post after post you desperately have to diminish Brady's elite value from day one. Obviously Brady doesn't come in until Bledsoe comes out. It's like" no no lets not talk about Brady, let's avoid that and focus on anything else."

Why are you asking me a question about something I never said?

I am saying Bledsoe leaving the starting line up played a bigger role than the poster was acknowledging. I never said it was the biggest reason. I think Belichick and the defense was the biggest reason in 2001. But to say that Bledsoe wasn't struggling with the Patriots' offense and having a competent QB who could run the Pats' offense was going to make a big difference whether it was a good QB like Brady or an average QB.

And Brady wasn't elite from day one. That is Brady homerism. The Pats struggled the first four games Brady played going 2-2.