PATRIOTS NEWS Belichick criticism mega-thread

[Tony2046]

No, he said it after he got to Tennesse and I’m not going to waste my time going looking for it. You can believe whatever you want.

I saw that article too a while back.

 

[Tony2046]

So basically the blame for the poor drafts is with BB. That's what is getting confirmed by the insiders.

Also I find it remarkable he keeps trying to stack the secondary to help our secondary coach look good............ which happens to be his son. How many 2nd round picks have we wasted on CBs/Safeties in the 2nd round that were a reach and unnecessary.

Wow. "Nepotism killed the Patriot's chance of winning another super bowl although they've won more than most".

Great take.

 

[Biffins]

Wow. "Nepotism killed the Patriot's chance of winning another super bowl although they've won more than most".

Great take.

More like the success bred hubris, and the hubris bred nepotism.

 

[Rob0729]

Impressive to get all your Greatest Misses in one post like this. Thanks for this gem though: To say Belichick has sucked without Brady is a very superficial analysis only looking at the wins and losses.

Yeah, I get it. You worship at the cult of Brady. Yes, Belichick would have been been Rich Kotite 2.0 without Brady. Brady is swell. Belichick icky. I get it.

Belichick was a great coach this year. And guess what? He had a losing record. You can say Belichick the GM was a failure. But Belichick the coach took at team with probably 3-5 win talent to 7 wins. That was my point. The Pats won games with a QB who couldn’t complete simple passes and no one to catch the ball if he could. Belichick did one hell of a job coaching up this team this year.

So endeth the lesson.

 

[Rob0729]

But it does exist. Your answer was every bit as superficial as the post you were calling superficial.

And we all get it. It has to be superficial, because it can't hold up to scrutiny. But, still...

Prove me wrong. Show me how the 2000 Pats were a good team and how Belichick didn’t completely retool the 2001 team and the only difference in 2001 was Brady who wasn’t a game manager that season. I would love to see you twist yourself into knots trying to disprove that reality.

Come on big boy. You highlighted that sentence specifically in my post. Show me how the reality that we have known for the last two decades that Belichick turned around a bad team into a Super Bowl winner in one year by totally retooling it and the Pats' early 2000s philosophy of winning on defense and the offense just being efficient never really exist and Belichick was always just the product of Brady.

 

[PatsWSB47]

This is so misleading. Belichick didn't have the best career in Cleveland, but he did turn around a bad team into an 11-5 playoff team only to have the owner totally sandbag him the following year by announcing the team was being moved out of Cleveland to Baltimore. I don't think Belichick was a great coach then, but he wasn't nearly as bad as his detractors made it,

When he came to the Patriots, he inherited a bad team that didn't fit his system and turned it around into a Super Bowl champion the second year. Sure Brady was the QB most of the season that year, but he was mostly a game manager and the Pats won on defense. They won the Super Bowl, not because the 13 points they got on offense, but because they shut down the greatest show on turf.

And Belichick was 11-5 with Matt Cassell as QB when Brady went down.

With the Patriots, Belichick has only coached three seasons without Brady. Two of those years were rebuilding years. One they went 11-5 and only missed the playoffs because of a fluke.

To say Belichick has sucked without Brady is a very superficial analysis only looking at the wins and losses. And even looking at TDs doesn't make sense since six of the eight years that Belichick coached without Brady were before the NFL offensive explosion where defenses could actually play defense.

Every fan base in the NFL has used that tired old Matt Cassell schtick as proof that Brady was just a product of the system and therefore by definition that it was coaching that made the Patriots a dynasty. Very few have said Belichick sucked without Brady but just imagine a Matt Cassell here for 20 years. The AFC east would be completely different and there would have been a Colts dynasty a few more Lombardi's in Pittsburg and maybe a Falcons one year wonder and another Eagles.

 

[Rob0729]

Rob, after firing off his 6,857th consecutive post referencing the 2008 Patriots.

I'll tell you what. I make a bet with you. You find ten times I mentioned the 2008 season outside of this thread in the last two years and I will leave the board forever. If you can't, you leave. Wanna bet? Hell, I bet you can't find five. I bring up the 2008 season all that much. I bring up the 2006 far more and that I am giving Brady credit for.

Wanna bet?

 

[Rob0729]

Every fan base in the NFL has used that tired old Matt Cassell schtick as proof that Brady was just a product of the system and therefore by definition that it was coaching that made the Patriots a dynasty. Very few have said Belichick sucked without Brady but just imagine a Matt Cassell here for 20 years. The AFC east would be completely different and there would have been a Colts dynasty a few more Lombardi's in Pittsburg and maybe a Falcons one year wonder and another Eagles.

I don't think Belichick could have won consistently year in and year out with Cassel. The 2008 team was really talented. If Cassell was QB in 2006, my guess is not only do the Pats not get to the AFCCG but I doubt they even have a winning record.

And not degrading Brady. He is the greatest of all time. The way I look at the Belichick/Brady relationship over the dyantasy is they both needed each other. I see the first dynasty period being more Belichick than Brady where the Pats won mostly on defense with the offense just being asked to be efficient. I see the second dynasty as being more Brady than Belichick where Brady carried the offense and the team many years. But a lot of that has to do with the change in the league where the league put more importance on the QB and allowed Brady to show how great he truly is.

Around 2004-2006, Brady really became the GOAT was able to elevate a lot of mediocre talent to greatness. The 2006 team was not really good enough to be one play away from going to the Super Bowl and probably winning. But Brady carried an offense where his #1 WR was a #3 WR talent. But in 2001 and 2003, they got to the Super Bowl on defense. 2004 was a balance of both offense and defense.

 

[PatsWSB47]

I don't think Belichick could have won consistently year in and year out with Cassel. The 2008 team was really talented. If Cassell was QB in 2006, my guess is not only do the Pats not get to the AFCCG but I doubt they even have a winning record.

And not degrading Brady. He is the greatest of all time. The way I look at the Belichick/Brady relationship over the dyantasy is they both needed each other. I see the first dynasty period being more Belichick than Brady where the Pats won mostly on defense with the offense just being asked to be efficient. I see the second dynasty as being more Brady than Belichick where Brady carried the offense and the team many years. But a lot of that has to do with the change in the league where the league put more importance on the QB and allowed Brady to show how great he truly is.

Around 2004-2006, Brady really became the GOAT was able to elevate a lot of mediocre talent to greatness. The 2006 team was not really good enough to be one play away from going to the Super Bowl and probably winning. But Brady carried an offense where his #1 WR was a #3 WR talent. But in 2001 and 2003, they got to the Super Bowl on defense. 2004 was a balance of both offense and defense.

Absolutely. They managed Brady in his early years but what I noticed even then was his clutch execution whenever it was called upon. He was elite in that regard. I vividly remember saying to myself " Bledsoe doesn't do that." He had the skill even then to have been unleashed a bit more. With their defense I guess the risk-reward wasnt worth exploring. If it ain't broke dont fix it sort of thing.

 

[Rob0729]

Absolutely. They managed Brady in his early years but what I noticed even then was his clutch execution whenever it was called upon. He was elite in that regard. I vividly remember saying to myself " Bledsoe doesn't do that." He had the skill even then to have been unleashed a bit more. With their defense I guess the risk-reward wasnt worth exploring. If it ain't broke dont fix it sort of thing.

The thing is a lot of people want to rewrite history and pretend Brady was elite from day one. He showed flashes here and there, but the Pats won early on the defense. You can argue that Brady elite and Belichick never let him show it. No way to prove it, but you can make the argument. I don't think it is true. I think Brady had to work his ass off over several years to become elite. A lot of the tools were there, but I think he had to retool his body and hone in his skills. He didn't come into the league as a finished product like say Manning was.

As for Bledsoe, I think if he played only in the 80s and 90s, people might be talking about him as a Hall of Famer. Unfortunately for him, the game changed and his style of play of five to seven step drops and waiting for plays to develop a little more became antiquated as defenses got faster. I have never seen a talented QB less suited to do what the Pats were trying to do on offense. I agree though even early on Brady did some things that Bledsoe couldn't even imagine doing.

It's funny early in his career, Brady had to put up with a large portion of NFL fans and the media labeling him a product of Belichick. Now Belichick is getting the same treatment. In both cases, a lot of the arguments were not backed up with facts.

 

[Tony2046]

More like the success bred hubris, and the hubris bred nepotism.

More like the success bred a spoiled entitled fan base and that fan base, full of sniveling twits, are throwing a tantrum.

 

[203Pat]

This is so misleading. Belichick didn't have the best career in Cleveland, but he did turn around a bad team into an 11-5 playoff team only to have the owner totally sandbag him the following year by announcing the team was being moved out of Cleveland to Baltimore. I don't think Belichick was a great coach then, but he wasn't nearly as bad as his detractors made it,

When he came to the Patriots, he inherited a bad team that didn't fit his system and turned it around into a Super Bowl champion the second year. Sure Brady was the QB most of the season that year, but he was mostly a game manager and the Pats won on defense. They won the Super Bowl, not because the 13 points they got on offense, but because they shut down the greatest show on turf.

And Belichick was 11-5 with Matt Cassell as QB when Brady went down.

With the Patriots, Belichick has only coached three seasons without Brady. Two of those years were rebuilding years. One they went 11-5 and only missed the playoffs because of a fluke.

To say Belichick has sucked without Brady is a very superficial analysis only looking at the wins and losses. And even looking at TDs doesn't make sense since six of the eight years that Belichick coached without Brady were before the NFL offensive explosion where defenses could actually play defense.

It is amazing to me that things have come full circle. Arguments that were made by other fanbases that Brady was a system argument are now being argued by Patriots fans on a Patriots message board. That is a 5 game drop off from one year to the next. That is huge. They also didn't beat any of the good teams they played that year.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I'll tell you what. I make a bet with you. You find ten times I mentioned the 2008 season outside of this thread in the last two years and I will leave the board forever. If you can't, you leave. Wanna bet? Hell, I bet you can't find five. I bring up the 2008 season all that much. I bring up the 2006 far more and that I am giving Brady credit for.

Wanna bet?

The reason Team Bill is so over-the-top obnoxious is an uncanny ability to take themselves so very, very seriously.

 

[sb1]

Matt Cassell was our QB and the defense honestly was not very good in 2008. Much worse than 2007 IMO.

Bill did a great job in 2008 under the circumstances. But if Bill really is GOAT coach then that's exactly what I would have expected anyway.

 

[203Pat]

Prove me wrong. Show me how the 2000 Pats were a good team and how Belichick didn’t completely retool the 2001 team and the only difference in 2001 was Brady who wasn’t a game manager that season. I would love to see you twist yourself into knots trying to disprove that reality.

Come on big boy. You highlighted that sentence specifically in my post. Show me how the reality that we have known for the last two decades that Belichick turned around a bad team into a Super Bowl winner in one year by totally retooling it and the Pats' early 2000s philosophy of winning on defense and the offense just being efficient never really exist and Belichick was always just the product of Brady.

Bill inherited a mess in 2000 but it isn't as bad as it has been made out to be and certainly a better roster than the one he constructed for 2020. He inherited a franchise QB, Kevin Faulk, Troy Brown, Damien Woody, Teddy Bruschi, Ted Johnson, Willie McGinest, Ty Law, Lawyer Milloy, Adam Vinatieri, and a few solid role players in Patrick Pass, Bobby Hamilton, and Tebucky Jones. Those are some major pieces to the early super bowl runs.

 

[sb1]

Bill inherited a mess in 2000 but it isn't as bad as it has been made out to be and certainly a better roster than the one he constructed for 2020. He inherited a franchise QB, Kevin Faulk, Troy Brown, Damien Woody, Teddy Bruschi, Ted Johnson, Willie McGinest, Ty Law, Lawyer Milloy, Adam Vinatieri, and a few solid role players in Patrick Pass, Bobby Hamilton, and Tebucky Jones. Those are some major pieces to the early super bowl runs.

Yup.

I wish we had a foundation like that right now.

 

[Rob0729]

The reason Team Bill is so over-the-top obnoxious is an uncanny ability to take themselves so very, very seriously.

It isn't that I take myself too seriously. You two stalker boys just aren't worth my time time joking around with. All you do is neg posts all the time, why should I even joke around with you?

You know what you did that was funny? I thought it was hilarious that you accidentally liked one of my posts and then had to go back later and unlike it. Did you like it before you realized I posted and have to go back?

 

[sb1]

The thing is a lot of people want to rewrite history and pretend Brady was elite from day one. He showed flashes here and there, but the Pats won early on the defense. You can argue that Brady elite and Belichick never let him show it. No way to prove it, but you can make the argument.

I think a lot of people confuse saying Brady was elite from day 1 with Brady was GOAT from day one. Obviously he was not the latter yet but he was elite. He had the reins on him yes but there was no question he stood out from the pack from day 1. It was night and day having him in there, just like it would be with any elite QB. The Pats were a much better team with Brady. Brady made his teammates better from the start. I call that an elite QB.

 

[Rob0729]

Bill inherited a mess in 2000 but it isn't as bad as it has been made out to be and certainly a better roster than the one he constructed for 2020. He inherited a franchise QB, Kevin Faulk, Troy Brown, Damien Woody, Teddy Bruschi, Ted Johnson, Willie McGinest, Ty Law, Lawyer Milloy, Adam Vinatieri, and a few solid role players in Patrick Pass, Bobby Hamilton, and Tebucky Jones. Those are some major pieces to the early super bowl runs.

You are overstating what he had and what he added.

First, Troy Brown was a back up until Belichick came in 2000.

And Kevin Faulk wasn't Kevin Faulk yet. He was a great returner, but he didn't do much on offense.

And Ty Law couldn't play zone when Belichick first got here and he had to re-learn the position.

And many people were talking about cutting Willie McGinest and keeping Chris Slade. McGinest was declining back in 1999 and 2000 and Belichick helped to give him new life. A lot of it was because he had I think back issues, but Belichick put him in a position to revive his career because he was moved to OLB and didn't have to put his hand in the dirt before every snap.

Vinatieri sucked in 1999 and 2000 and rebounded in 2001 (actually not even until the playoffs). He only completed about 78% of his field goals in 1999 and 81% in 2000. The Pats lost several games on missed kicks by Adam by Adam in 1999 and 2000.

And Belichick added a lot of solid players who only lasted a year as far as production, but they were major contributors in 2001 like Bryan Cox who's hard hitting style helped change the attitude of the defense.

Seriously, why are people interested in rewriting history to diminish what Belichick did.

 

[Nehalem]

So basically the blame for the poor drafts is with BB. That's what is getting confirmed by the insiders.

Also I find it remarkable he keeps trying to stack the secondary to help our secondary coach look good............ which happens to be his son. How many 2nd round picks have we wasted on CBs/Safeties in the 2nd round that were a reach and unnecessary.

I am pretty sure BB was wasting 2nd round picks on CBs/Safeties well before his son was the secondary coach