ESPN: Charlie Weis accepts OC job with Chiefs

[mgteich]

I have been repeatedly amused at the success in Brady's agent convincing everyone that he took one for the team and gave the team a considerable discount.

Brady has been well-compensated.

The most important news of the offseason will be Brady's extension (or not). I am expecting that he will extend and his agent will again convince us all that he is giving us a huge discount to play for the patriots.

He did- See Cassell.

Actually, Brady's total dollars in the first 3 years of his most recent deal was more than Mannings.

BTW- You are completely high.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I have been repeatedly amused at the success in Brady's agent convincing everyone that he took one for the team and gave the team a considerable discount.

Brady has been well-compensated.

The most important news of the offseason will be Brady's extension (or not). I am expecting that he will extend and his agent will again convince us all that he is giving us a huge discount to play for the patriots.

No question Brady is getting franchise QB and any opinion otherwise is misinformed. He may structure things a little bit differently (like having the $25m bonus spread out over two years)than Manning but thats about it.

Just in reading Brady's statements a couple of months ago regarding the CBA and how the owners have made plenty of money, I can guarantee hes leaving nothing on the table this time around. Again, thats not to say that he won't make some concessions in contract structure, deferred payments, etc.

 

[JackBauer]

Got news for you. BB also wants to prove he can win without Tom

Brady. Tom will be traded to a West Coast team either this offseason

or next. No way the Patriots will pay Brady like Peyton Manning.

Sometimes I can't believe the crap people type on this forum.

Is there any way Ian can impose a basic aptitude test as a requirement for posting rights on this forum? I mean, good lord, how much worse can it get?

 

[JackBauer]

I have 50 years of watching them under my belt.

Um, I wouldn't brag about that if I were you. Only makes you look even more sad and pathetic.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I never said that either Charlie or Romeo is qualified to be a head coach.

I also never suggested that the patriots do not go outside to find coaches. That seems to be YOUR position. We went outside to find a top special teams coaches in 2009 and we went outside to get Pees as a linebacker coach.

I also have not questioned the general structure of our coaching or coaching promotions. However, I would note that we carry a couple of coaches fewer than most teams. We have only one coach doing double duty as QB coach and as OC.

To be clear, I'm fine with Pees, although I thought that we might have brought in better. In the end, he has done very well this year with realtively little talent. The limitations in schemes may have indeed have been a funtion of personnel.

My problem is with Bill Obrien. The reality is that Brady ended up training him as he did Josh. We just don't have an OC. We have an inexperienced quarterback coach making believe that he is an NFL OC. He was an assistant in 2007, a WR coach in 2008 and a QB coach in 2009. That is not much of a resume for an OC. And yes, it is similar to Josh's.

It is great that we have fine offensive personnel and fine position coaches and also have dante to help out in running the offense. In the end, Obrien hasn't had to do much. My gut feel says that a more experienced OC would have been better at adjusting at halftime and in adjusting to the other team's adjustments. My gut says that a more experienced OC might have been able to come up with the answer to some of the second half woes we've had this year. Apparently you disagree, but that's fine.

We have Bill Obrien as QB coach and as acting OC. He has been judged to be SO GREAT (and experienced) a coach that he can handle both positions. Forgive me if I think that we might possibly be better off with one more coach to fill one of the positions. I do well understand that bringing in a high profile coach might cause dissention and not allow Brady to run the offense. And in the end, I agree with you that a high-profile coach is not needed.

HOWEVER, Belichick has brought in experienced guys like Pees and Obrien (the ST coach). So why has it been so hard to find someone to help out at QB caoch or with play calling or with the offense in general? Does Dante really not need the help?

So now you think Dante is the defacto OC...LOL We won our first SB with no QB's coach although the OC and HC filled in. We brought in an outside QB coach a year later and he didn't fit on Charlie's watch. Then Josh got the gig, and kept it as OC. Charlie trained Josh, who came here as an assistent in 2002. Bill O'Brien has been a college OC with a 14 year resume and was brought in to learn this system under Josh in 07 and 08. As I recall NEM was convinced he was being brought in as the experienced the defacto OC even then...NEM never like Charlie who parlayed a decade as a NJ HS coach into the OC of the NYJ in just seven seasons as an assistant or position coach first with the Giants and then the JETS. Parcell's apparently agreed with him since he took away Charlie's playcalling duties. Belichick disagreed since he brought him to NE to be his OC.

This is how the best organizations do it mg, they train and promote from within. Some guys they start out of college, others they recruit based on their college or apparently even HS track record. Mostly they look for guys willing to work their butts off and their way up for peanuts while learning the ropes because that's the way it's always been done in this league. The team that can't do it poach those who can. And the beat goes on.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I have been repeatedly amused at the success in Brady's agent convincing everyone that he took one for the team and gave the team a considerable discount.

Brady has been well-compensated.

The most important news of the offseason will be Brady's extension (or not). I am expecting that he will extend and his agent will again convince us all that he is giving us a huge discount to play for the patriots.

You might try adding up what Manning and Brady have each netted over the last 5 seasons before you make a bigger fool of yourself than usual... Both deals are entering their final seasons. Brady is set to net $60M over 6 seasons, Manning $98M over 7 if extension aren't done this season. That's AAV of $10M for Brady vs. $14M for Manning. Manning's 2010 salary will be $15.8M absent an extension. Brady's will be $6.5M. Brady's cap hit will be down a little from the $14M it was this season. As will Mannings, to $19M rather than the $21M it balooned to this season...When deal play out to their end, it becomes simple division and not agent semantics.

 

[RobertWeathers]

You might try adding up what Manning and Brady have each netted over the last 5 seasons before you make a bigger fool of yourself than usual... Both deals are entering their final seasons. Brady is set to net $60M over 6 seasons, Manning $98M over 7 if extension aren't done this season. That's AAV of $10M for Brady vs. $14M for Manning. Manning's 2010 salary will be $15.8M absent an extension. Brady's will be $6.5M. Brady's cap hit will be down a little from the $14M it was this season. As will Mannings, to $19M rather than the $21M it balooned to this season...When deal play out to their end, it becomes simple division and not agent semantics.

You are spot on, Mo but according to this excerpt in scout.com, Brady wanted the cash early in the deal and guaranteed and the Pats didn't want the long-term risk and the bonus spread out, which was my main point.

Brady took home a mere $14.5 million up front and will be paid a $12 million option bonus in 2006. Along with his base salary, Brady will earn more than $30 million in his first two seasons and about $40 million in his first three, which is reportedly more than Manning's contract called for in years one through three despite the exorbitant $34 million signing bonus the Colts paid their quarterback.

Scout.com: Brady's Contract Sets The Right Tone

 

[MoLewisrocks]

You are spot on, Mo but according to this excerpt in scout.com, Brady wanted the cash early in the deal and guaranteed and the Pats didn't want the long-term risk and the bonus spread out, which was my main point.

Brady took home a mere $14.5 million up front and will be paid a $12 million option bonus in 2006. Along with his base salary, Brady will earn more than $30 million in his first two seasons and about $40 million in his first three, which is reportedly more than Manning's contract called for in years one through three despite the exorbitant $34 million signing bonus the Colts paid their quarterback.

Scout.com: Brady's Contract Sets The Right Tone

They were mistaken though because Manning's deal called for roster bonuses of $9-10M to kick in beginning in year 3 of his deal. Caused Polian quite a headache too since he was told he could not prorate the first one as planned because of the expiring CBA. Which is why everyone probably ended up signing off on a bad extension just so he could. Manning took home over $45M in his first 3 seasons. I believe he'd netted $56M within 4, it took Tommy until this season to net almost $54M

 

[RayClay]

I was referring to your claim about what the Patriots offense was doing. It's been demonstrated on numerous occasions that the team wasn't able to even get the short game and screen passing going because the line play was so poor.

Demonstrated on numerous occasions? They replayed the game just for your post? What was demonstrated was the Giants decided to rush all out, and the Patriots didn't adjust.

They mostly went with the long to Moss short to welker, like they have much of this year. They gave up on the run and didn't establish much else, nor try to. You realize that slow developing pass patterns are the hardest on the line. They really didn't try hard to establish anything else, so your assertion that they "demonstrated" something is absurd.

There are as many ways to run an offense as Carter has liver pills, all of them putting less pressure on th line than the game plan they stuck with.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I first started posting here when Brady's deal was being discussed. I recall many here wanting Brady to take whatever the team was offering and be glad he was even getting extended early on the heels of his 3rd SB in 4 years. Kraft had stated on national television that HE wanted to get a deal done to extend Tom who was then signed for 2 more seasons at pennies on the dollar in his second incremental deal that extended him after he won his first SB while earning $385K in the second year of his three year 6th round rookie deal...He also stated that if he wanted Manning money it would probably not happen...

They quickly settled on the total value of the deal at 6/60. A little trouble arose when the team thought he'd be fine with splitting his bonus money, and not into two (signing and option bonuses) but into 4, which was unheard of... Tom's camp dropped a dime on Tom E Curren and he did a piece on the simmering discord. The matter was quickly settled (after the team claimed it was all a misunderstanding...) within weeks of that piece. I recall being furious with them at the time for f'ing with a guy who was beyond being fair with them in light of the deal Manning had inked the year before. The Patriots model called for the QB to not count for more than 10-12% of cap on average, and Tom was allowing them the to experience the full benefit of their philosophy.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Demonstrated on numerous occasions? They replayed the game just for your post? What was demonstrated was the Giants decided to rush all out, and the Patriots didn't adjust.

They mostly went with the long to Moss short to welker, like they have much of this year. They gave up on the run and didn't establish much else, nor try to. You realize that slow developing pass patterns are the hardest on the line. They really didn't try hard to establish anything else, so your assertion that they "demonstrated" something is absurd.

There are as many ways to run an offense as Carter has liver pills, all of them putting less pressure on th line than the game plan they stuck with.

There best runblocking guard went out after the first series, as usual, and they were down to Maroney and some PS'er at RB to start that game. Maroney was also taking over return duties for a hobbled CB so the game plan was certainly not predicated on running the ball. It wasn't how they beat the Giants 4 weeks earlier, either. The problem with your alternate theories is they tried them too although heartbroken fans could never acknowledge it, and they didn't work either because the Giants front 4 and lb's were prepared to stop the screen and eliminate YAC and meet the RB behind the LOS on a couple of occasions. Mankins had his worst game as a pro. Koppen was a doormat. I've never understood what fans wanted them to do differently on that last drive. With less than a minute and no time outs they didn't need a FG to win. They needed that just to tie. Had Moss caught the pass down the sideline they might have had a shot. It was the only real shot Brady had after being sacked on the first play of that drive. The defense didn't defend a 4 point lead with 3 minutes to go and the OL was just DONE. It had nothing to do with playcalling and everything to do with failure to execute and win the battle at the LOS on both sides of the ball. I guess that's on coaching too but only to the extent they didn't realize they were fielding a team unprepared to execute.

 

[Deus Irae]

Demonstrated on numerous occasions? They replayed the game just for your post? What was demonstrated was the Giants decided to rush all out, and the Patriots didn't adjust.

They mostly went with the long to Moss short to welker, like they have much of this year. They gave up on the run and didn't establish much else, nor try to. You realize that slow developing pass patterns are the hardest on the line. They really didn't try hard to establish anything else, so your assertion that they "demonstrated" something is absurd.

There are as many ways to run an offense as Carter has liver pills, all of them putting less pressure on th line than the game plan they stuck with.

As a refresher to you, you might want to start here:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/77375-offensive-pass-protection-breakdown-excellent-read.html

Unoriginal's breakdown pretty much shows it all.

As noted in the thread, I don't know why New England eschewed the slant pass that season and in the Super Bowl, but the problem in the game was terrible offensive line play, not play calling. I'll always consider the lack of the slant pass to be the major failure of that game plan, but it's only one issue, and my beef about it could probably be explained away if McDaniels/Belichick ever waxed eloquent on the subject. Your complaint about the routes being used is simply not the overwhelming truth you seem to think it is.

 

[mgteich]

I agree that the defensive line of the giants bested by far the offensive line of the patriots. It doesn't follow that we lost the game because of "terrible" offensive line play.

It seems that given the schemes of the two line caoches, the giants won the battle on the line again and again. Perhaps their line was simply better than ours; perhaps thay played great and we played average.

As a refresher to you, you might want to start here:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/77375-offensive-pass-protection-breakdown-excellent-read.html

Unoriginal's breakdown pretty much shows it all.

As noted in the thread, I don't know why New England eschewed the slant pass that season and in the Super Bowl, but the problem in the game was terrible offensive line play, not play calling. I'll always consider the lack of the slant pass to be the major failure of that game plan, but it's only one issue, and my beef about it could probably be explained away if McDaniels/Belichick ever waxed eloquent on the subject. Your complaint about the routes being used is simply not the overwhelming truth you seem to think it is.

 

[Deus Irae]

I agree that the defensive line of the giants bested by far the offensive line of the patriots. It doesn't follow that we lost the game because of "terrible" offensive line play.

It seems that given the schemes of the two line caoches, the giants won the battle on the line again and again. Perhaps their line was simply better than ours; perhaps thay played great and we played average.

Had the Patriots O-line even played "average", New England would have won the game.

 

[RayClay]

As a refresher to you, you might want to start here:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/77375-offensive-pass-protection-breakdown-excellent-read.html

Unoriginal's breakdown pretty much shows it all.

As noted in the thread, I don't know why New England eschewed the slant pass that season and in the Super Bowl, but the problem in the game was terrible offensive line play, not play calling. I'll always consider the lack of the slant pass to be the major failure of that game plan, but it's only one issue, and my beef about it could probably be explained away if McDaniels/Belichick ever waxed eloquent on the subject. Your complaint about the routes being used is simply not the overwhelming truth you seem to think it is.

Look i love unoriginals OLine breakdowns. That tells you where it broke down, it doesn't tell you why it broke down.

I'll try this one more time, then give up.

They say any given Sunday a team could win. That means one team could win one out of ten times because their strengths match up with the weaknesses in the other team and the other teams game plan.

Given that the Patriots were undefeated, I'll assume you'll agree with me they could have beaten the Giants somehow, not including saying Tyree's catch was lucky.

Maybe control the ball more, or spread the defense with creative pass patterns other than Welker and Moss. they could have run the ball, a play that guarantees the QB won't be sacked. Use Faulk, pass to Maroney etc. etc. there's a million plays and adjustments possible.

If you divert the river, you don't need to know where the leaks in the dyke are.

Of course we could have replaced our offensive line at half time, which is all I'm seeing as a possible adjustment.

Actually, the Kansan City Chief line of five years ago is the only one I would have trusted to run protect flawlessly for long routes and a great line going ball out. Since we're adjusting by replacing lines, I guess a time machine isn't out of the question either.

 

[RayClay]

Had the Patriots O-line even played "average", New England would have won the game.

So that would be your adjustment at half time, tell them to play average?

 

[RobertWeathers]

Use Faulk, .

Faulk was hurt too (3rd qtr). Came back, but he was pretty much useless.

 

[mgteich]

Now we are coming to a critical problem in that SB: the lack of healthy running backs. Consider the [potyential difference in the flow of that game if we had 5 healthy running backs, as we will have this Sunday,

 

[Patjew]

There are as many ways to run an offense as Carter has liver pills, all of them putting less pressure on th line than the game plan they stuck with.

Is that a real expression? I've never heard that one.

 

[Deus Irae]

So that would be your adjustment at half time, tell them to play average?

If your offensive line is in a state of complete failure, you're not winning the football game against a decent opponent without a hell of a lot of luck. It's that simple.

The tight ends were injured/useless. Neal was injured. Hochstein wasn't 100%, and he wasn't good enough to start on that line to begin with. Mankins played the worst game of his career. Brady was trying to play on a bad ankle and couldn't maneuver in the pocket at anything nearing his usual aplomb and success. Screen passes weren't working because the Giants were up in press coverages. After the first drive of the game (4 carries, 15 yards and a touchdown), the running game (i.e. Maroney) was only able to generate 21 yards on 10 carries).

Maroney's next runs:

1
-2
0
-3
7
-2
0
9
2
9

If that's the state of your running game, you can't run the damned ball.

So...

No running game
No short passing game
No deep passing game

Unless someone was going to pull a Billy Cole, that offense wasn't going to get much going until the Giants wore down.