Belichick criticism mega-thread

[venecol]

Report: Russell Wilson thinks Pete Carroll and his sons answer to no one

Seahawks quarterback Russell Wilson hasn't only played for head coach Pete Carroll for his entire career.

profootballtalk.nbcsports.com

It looks like nepotism has reared it’s ugly head in Seattle as well. The NFL should institute the “Reid Rule”. No coach should be allowed to hire his kids, nieces or nephews, or children of a friend to their staff.

Imagine you’re Tom Brady or Russell Wilson and you’ve earned everything you’ve got in your career only to see your HC pass over more experience and capable coaches and hire their kids to important coaching jobs.

These are billion dollar businesses not mom and pop shops for goodness sake.

So I gather we won't be seeing you in the Little Steven forum then?

 

[Deus Irae]

Yea, despite that, pretty much everyone here (and elsewhere) decried his coaching for holding Tom back. Many flat out said he wasn't a good coach for whatever reason. I don't recall ever offering an opinion either way on BA's coaching.

Well, people were ignoring the need for time in a season with the death flu and its permutations. What's funny is that the Patriots had the Newton situation and were offering up every excuse known to man, and people here were apparently buying into that, but that same courtesy wasn't extended to other teams.

"Brady is washed up and Arians is a ****ty coach, but Cam just needs some time and BB's getting unfairly hosed by the loss of an offseason and practices".

 

[upstater1]

IMHO letting the GOAT QB and the GOAT TE go over money, while taking the most of any other HC/GM for yourself, is not even close to proper management.

I've seen examples given here as Bill's successful strategy of letting players go early, Seymour was one of those. The truth is that it took years to overcome his loss, even with Brady at the helm.

As Bill always tells us, it's a players game. Well, letting the best players walk for any reason has been a failure, not an example of success. This latest blunder epitomizes that failure to the highest degree.

We were talking about managing the roster over 20 years.

Not individual decisions.

Heck, I thought letting Deion Branch go was a bad decision. But every fan of every team will note the bad decisions and rarely remember the good ones. In Belichick's case, those good ones gave the team and fans a lot of winning years.

I think individual decisions can look bad, but all he has ever done is manage the roster. This is why I wrote, "Why is managing the roster a miscue"?

 

[RobertWeathers]

We were talking about managing the roster over 20 years.

Not individual decisions.

Heck, I thought letting Deion Branch go was a bad decision. But every fan of every team will note the bad decisions and rarely remember the good ones. In Belichick's case, those good ones gave the team and fans a lot of winning years.

I think individual decisions can look bad, but all he has ever done is manage the roster. This is why I wrote, "Why is managing the roster a miscue"?

That whole Deion Branch saga was tough on the stomach.

 

[mariomega]

We were talking about managing the roster over 20 years.

Not individual decisions.

Heck, I thought letting Deion Branch go was a bad decision. But every fan of every team will note the bad decisions and rarely remember the good ones. In Belichick's case, those good ones gave the team and fans a lot of winning years.

I think individual decisions can look bad, but all he has ever done is manage the roster. This is why I wrote, "Why is managing the roster a miscue"?

You are wrong, do you know why?

You can't treat Brady like everyone else. You just can't.
Brady deserved SPECIAL treatment, he is the GOAT and he delivered 6 SBs to this franchise. Six.

So, BB should've treated Brady differently, as he is a special case.

 

[upstater1]

You are wrong, do you know why?

You can't treat Brady like everyone else. You just can't.
Brady deserved SPECIAL treatment, he is the GOAT and he delivered 6 SBs to this franchise. Six.

So, BB should've treated Brady differently, as he is a special case.

Letting Brady go was a bad decision. So... not sure why you replied to my post in this way

 

[203Pat]

I always love the “you can’t count Cleveland” nonsense when talking about Bill. We’re just supposed to ignore a prior stint as a head coach?

 

[aluminum seats]

It's not that he's scored with a couple of minutes left ALL the time. It's that he's had the team in the lead with less than 5 minutes to go in all 3 SB losses.

2007 Giants got the ball back with 2:45 on the clock, and scored with 39 seconds left
2011 Giants got the ball back with 3:46 on the clock, and scored in about 2 and a half minutes (with 1:04 left)
Philly got the ball back with 9:22 on the clock, and chewed up 7 minutes while scoring the go ahead TD.

Yep. It’s just interesting to me how many times people say that the Pats scored a touchdown with a couple of minutes left to take the lead in the 2011 game.

It’s probably because of what your citing here, because Brady has done it so many times we just sort of mentally assume that’s what happened.

 

[1960Pats]

The difference is in the last part of your post is the league is different now than it was in 2001. In fact, part of the reason the league changed the rules is because the Pats' defense consistently smacked around Manning's and other top QBs WRs.

Today, the NFL is about the QB. They have made the rules so that QBs are the focus of the team. Back in 2001, if a QB passed for 4,000 yards they were immediately in the discussion for MVP (only Warner and Manning made that mark that year). Now almost half the QBs in the league pass for 4,000 yards or more (12 QBs did it in 2020).

The fact that the QB is more important now than in 2001, which I agree with, is more of a reason to have kept Brady.

As for MVP discussions in 2001, they're meaningless because this is how it went..

 

[mariomega]

I always love the “you can’t count Cleveland” nonsense when talking about Bill. We’re just supposed to ignore a prior stint as a head coach?

As per his lovers, we MUST!

 

[1960Pats]

I always love the “you can’t count Cleveland” nonsense when talking about Bill. We’re just supposed to ignore a prior stint as a head coach?

But need to count the wins when Tuna Crap was in control.

 

[Calhoun44]

Bill is a great coach. Some of his defensive game plans are legendary. I'm not about trashing Bill, just shocked & disappointed he left the team in shambles regarding the QB position.

It was universally acknowledged that BA wasn't a good coach. Nobody here gave the Bucs a chance to win it all, mainly because of the "coaching." Yet, TFB overcame all of that and helped deliver a SB to Tampa despite BA's coaching style. So, we can see that Brady can be a winner despite lacking top notch coaching.

On the other hand we see guys like Andy Reid, who by all accounts is a great coach. Yet, he couldn't win it all until he found the "guy." So even good/great coaching needs great players to make things happen.

I think Tom could've won several SBs in NE with several coaches that didn't necessarily have to be great, like Payton, Carroll, Reid, Coughlin, even Gruden. TFB the GOAT would've made it happen, he's that unique of a player. Bill truly lucked out being able to keep such a generational talent as long as he was able to.

I don't know...(I guess nobody will ever know)...but, I think it is impossible to remove all the knowledge that BB imparted to Brady to become the player he is, and say that without BB, Brady could have won SB's just because he did this year after 20 years of working with the greatest football coach the NFL has ever seen. I think it is likely that he would, but there have been a lot of great QB's that didn't get the proper chance or situation to win a SB. There are way to many variables to building a team and developing players (especially QB's), that this is a very frivolous argument (and admittedly, kind of fun) to partake in.

 

[venecol]

I don't know...(I guess nobody will ever know)...but, I think it is impossible to remove all the knowledge that BB imparted to Brady to become the player he is, and say that without BB, Brady could have won SB's just because he did this year after 20 years of working with the greatest football coach the NFL has ever seen. I think it is likely that he would, but there have been a lot of great QB's that didn't get the proper chance or situation to win a SB. There are way to many variables to building a team and developing players (especially QB's), that this is a very frivolous argument (and admittedly, kind of fun) to partake in.

Yea sure. Question was what other coaches would've worked in NE. I expanded beyond the question but mentioned a few.

Isn't everything frivolous in an online football forum? Lol

 

[203Pat]

But need to count the wins when Tuna Crap was in control.

Lol it really is ridiculous. Sometimes I think team Bill is trolling but then I realize it’s just desperation.

 

[crawhammer]

You have a complete inability to comprehend how those two situations are drastically different when it's actually quite simple.

I'll let you take some time to think about it.

The undercurrent of all your posts is I think I'm smarter than you so therefore I must be right. That only works for you in your own mind. It's not convincing anyone else of anything, other than perhaps you sound like a douche.

That’s also, by the way, the least painful loss by far for the Pats to me. In fact if it wasn’t stupid Eli and the Giants, I really wouldn’t care at all. They weren’t that good, you can’t win them all, and they had a murderer on the team that I just as well not see old clips of him celebrating a Super Bowl.

Gronk and Hernandez were a force at TE that season. The offense needed it because they were typically undermanned at WR. Brady had a tremendous season, he set a career best with 8.6 Y/A and 5235 Yds. The offense was championship-caliber that season, the defense not so much, which was a reoccurring theme of Patriots teams post-2006. They were riding a 7-game winning streak heading into the '13 postseason. Brady blew-up Denver in the divisional with 6 TD's but they were lucky to get past Baltimore in the AFCCG. Had Gronk been healthy they would have won that Super Bowl. The Welker drop was a killer, gave NYG a chance they should not have had, and they took advantage of a bad Patriots defense.

Iirc, Brandon Browner put Butler in position to make that play in SB 49. I don’t know why Butler played only one play in SB 52, but your comparison between what the coaches did in SB 49 and 52 seems to be a comparison of two very different situations with some information missing.

I wasn't making a comparison, I was pointing out the hypocrisy of another poster's comment. I don't have to make any comparisons to know that Belichick cost the Patriots SB 52 with one decision that effected the entire game.

First, Mark Rypien was a slob. That was my point. Do you even know what you are arguing. You questioned if a team could win multiple Super Bowls with JUST A GAME MANAGER. I pointed out that Joe Gibbs won two Super Bowls in a short period of time with two of the worst QB in NFL history to win Super Bowl. But hey, thanks for conceding that point and admitting you were wrong. Now who is failing?

Still you. You're answering your own question that you're making up on the fly. I asked for any other quarterback in the history of the league who was a game manager yet won multiple Super Bowls. Rypien won 1 Super Bowl which is less than 2 Super Bowls. Rypien doesn't count. I would say try again but you'll only dig a bigger hole for yourself.

Second, Brett Favre is in the Hall of Fame. Now he is just a scrub? Brett Favre was a great QB in the early 2000s. He was a gunslinger which caused a lot turnovers.

Brett Favre is in the hall of Fame but what's your point? And yes, he had a lot of turnovers, including many more than Brady between 2001 and 2003, when Brady was winning Super Bowls. The questions is simple... who was a better quarterback from 2001 to 2003? The answer is Brady.

Third, Rich Gannon may have lost the Snow Bowl, but he lost because of bad rule that turned a Brady strip sack into an incompleted forward pass.

What the hell are you talking about? Read what you said... it makes no sense at all. The tuck rule game happened the season before Gannon threw 5 picks in a Super Bowl. Obviously.

Fourth, Manning was the league MVP 2003. He had similar passing numbers to Brady in 2002 although a much higher completion percentage and more yards (one less TD and 4 more INTs). If you are going to tout Brady elite for 2002 for his total TDs and passing yards, then so is Manning.

What's your point? Are you saying Manning was a better quarterback than Brady 2001-2003? Manning was only good in the third season of the three and that last season ended with an embarrassing loss to Brady in the AFCCG. Brady won 2 Super Bowls. Manning sucked, sucked, and embarrassed him. Now, I'll ask you again... who was better 2001-2003?

Fifth, Warner was the best QB in football in 2001. I forget he dropped off after that. I will give you that.

You seem to be forgetting a lot but I guess it's an excuse.

The contract was automatically voided at the end of the year. Brady wanted it that way. I should have explained that better.

Brady didn't want to be franchised because he was done getting jerked around by Belichick. Brady wanted to end his career in New England but Belichick was only willing to go year by year. Brady always did his best to do right by the organization so the team could be in the best position possible to succeed. Belichick repaid him with rigidness, insulting contracts, and a deteriorating supporting cast. Now The Brady Dynasty continues elsewhere while the cold reality of life without Brady washes over New England. By the time Brady retires we'll be talking about first ballot hall of fame head coach Bruce Arians.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

Where is your FACT?

This is the same ring6 moron who was insinuating within 1 hour of Butler's benching that Butler was definitely high on drugs. A total crazy poster made even worse with the definitive belief backed by zero information

 

[Tony2046]

Was it Brady or getting Bledsoe out of there. Stop it. Brady as a 22 year old back up coming in to the game after the starter was injured didn't turn the Pats' defense into the best defense in the league going down the stretch. This is getting ridiculous. Hell, Brady as a 32 year old season veteran isn't going to make a bad defense become the best defense in the NFL because he is a great leader. Neither it a 42 year old Brady. It is all platitudes.

I wholeheartedly disagree with this take. You can turn the legion of Boom into the legion of Gloom simply by putting them up against a QB who can sustain drives and wears them down.

Consequently, a rested Defense can perform at a much higher level if their offense is sustaining drives and giving them time to rest or make adjustments.

 

[aluminum seats]

I wholeheartedly disagree with this take. You can turn the legion of Boom into the legion of Gloom simply by putting them up against a QB who can sustain drives and wears them down.

Consequently, a rested Defense can perform at a much higher level if their offense is sustaining drives and giving them time to rest or make adjustments.

Agreed, it’s a complementary game for sure. I do take @Rob0729‘s point that the quarterback is not necessarily going to transform a defense…there isn’t anything Brady could’ve done with the defense in that horrendous Philly Super Bowl, for example… But the quarterback’s play (and I would even say Brady’s demeanor) can definitely influence an entire organization.

 

[Rob0729]

The undercurrent of all your posts is I think I'm smarter than you so therefore I must be right. That only works for you in your own mind. It's not convincing anyone else of anything, other than perhaps you sound like a douche.


Gronk and Hernandez were a force at TE that season. The offense needed it because they were typically undermanned at WR. Brady had a tremendous season, he set a career best with 8.6 Y/A and 5235 Yds. The offense was championship-caliber that season, the defense not so much, which was a reoccurring theme of Patriots teams post-2006. They were riding a 7-game winning streak heading into the '13 postseason. Brady blew-up Denver in the divisional with 6 TD's but they were lucky to get past Baltimore in the AFCCG. Had Gronk been healthy they would have won that Super Bowl. The Welker drop was a killer, gave NYG a chance they should not have had, and they took advantage of a bad Patriots defense.


I wasn't making a comparison, I was pointing out the hypocrisy of another poster's comment. I don't have to make any comparisons to know that Belichick cost the Patriots SB 52 with one decision that effected the entire game.


Still you. You're answering your own question that you're making up on the fly. I asked for any other quarterback in the history of the league who was a game manager yet won multiple Super Bowls. Rypien won 1 Super Bowl which is less than 2 Super Bowls. Rypien doesn't count. I would say try again but you'll only dig a bigger hole for yourself.


Brett Favre is in the hall of Fame but what's your point? And yes, he had a lot of turnovers, including many more than Brady between 2001 and 2003, when Brady was winning Super Bowls. The questions is simple... who was a better quarterback from 2001 to 2003? The answer is Brady.


What the hell are you talking about? Read what you said... it makes no sense at all. The tuck rule game happened the season before Gannon threw 5 picks in a Super Bowl. Obviously.


What's your point? Are you saying Manning was a better quarterback than Brady 2001-2003? Manning was only good in the third season of the three and that last season ended with an embarrassing loss to Brady in the AFCCG. Brady won 2 Super Bowls. Manning sucked, sucked, and embarrassed him. Now, I'll ask you again... who was better 2001-2003?


You seem to be forgetting a lot but I guess it's an excuse.


Brady didn't want to be franchised because he was done getting jerked around by Belichick. Brady wanted to end his career in New England but Belichick was only willing to go year by year. Brady always did his best to do right by the organization so the team could be in the best position possible to succeed. Belichick repaid him with rigidness, insulting contracts, and a deteriorating supporting cast. Now The Brady Dynasty continues elsewhere while the cold reality of life without Brady washes over New England. By the time Brady retires we'll be talking about first ballot hall of fame head coach Bruce Arians.

I pointed out how the Redskins won two Super Bowls in a short period of time with two scrub game managers. That is harder to do than win two Super Bowls with the same game manager. I called you on your assertion and now you want to move the goal post.

Farve was a better QB. And Favre is a gun slinger. He threw a lot of interceptions throughout his career. But he was still an elite QB. And 2001-2003 was a relatively low period for his interceptions. Favre lead the league in TD passes in 2003.

And to say Manning was only good in one season those years is BS. In 2001, he was second in passing yards, 5th in TDs, and 6th in completion percentage (all significantly higher than Brady). In 2003, he was first passing yards and completion percentage and second in TDs.

And you have no idea why Brady put the no franchise tag clause. You are speculating.

And Bruce Arians is not going first ballot Hall of Famer. Stop with that silliness.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

By the time Brady retires we'll be talking about first ballot hall of fame head coach Bruce Arians.

The Brady cult keeps getting more and more embarrassing each day...