Patsgofor4
Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2007
- Messages
- 5,399
- Reaction score
- 10,791
20 years later, remembering Bill Belichick’s grueling first season with Patriots
I originally typed "morons" instead of "crowd" but changed it, to appease the "that's uncalled for" snowflakes here. This is a great article by Howe, with honest insights from players, coaches and front office staff who don't have an ax to grind about Belichick and who recognize his brilliance, because they saw it firsthand. There is no doubt that Brady brought Belichick's program to a level that would not have been possible without him but the larger point remains....IT'S THE SYSTEM, STUPID(S).
I have read many times here that BB didn't start winning here until Brady took the field, using the team's 5-11 record during his first season as head coach as evidence that Brady was the real driving force behind the dynasty. That argument has been, and always will be, complete horsesh*t spewed by those whose every post is colored by an irrational distain for Belichick and/or the ridiculous notion that labeling the Belichick as the key to the dynasty is intended to belittle Brady and downplay his greatness (leading to the aggressive and largely unnecessary wagon circling around Tommy).
Here are a couple of very important realities about that 5-11 season (from the article):
Belichick had hurdles to overcome. He inherited a roster that was $10.5 million over the salary cap with just 42 players under contract. So they had to release some fan favorites, including tight end Ben Coates, and restructure other contracts to push cap hits into future seasons. The Patriots initially cut the roster to 39 players before the draft and free agency and then signed nearly 30 undrafted rookie free agents to fill out the roster on a budget. There was a firm plan in place to remain financially responsible for at least a couple years to eventually escape from their cap nightmare.
The Patriots lost their first four games and were 2-8 in mid-November. Combined with their 2-6 finish in 1999, they had won four times over a 16-game stretch. But in 2000, seven of their first eight losses were one-possession games. (Of their 11 losses in 2000, only two came against teams with losing records, so the Patriots also had a fierce schedule.)
They were largely irritated by the losing, but the team also recognized something bigger was at stake.
Finally, I love this:
The Patriots won three of their final six games. Even though they weren’t ever in the playoff race, they felt vindicated for all the work they invested in the turnaround. There was even a rallying call during a stretch when the Patriots only carried 51 players on the active roster, partly due to personnel decisions as well as salary cup struggles.
Pioli: There was a point in time, I remember Bill and I having a conversation, we felt there was something symbolic when we dropped down to 51 players. What Bill was telling the players was, “Listen, we want people who are going to be here to want to be here, and who want to do things to win the way we want to win. If those people don’t want to be here, that doesn’t mean they’re bad people or bad players. That’s just not what we’re looking for. That doesn’t mean that we’re right. It’s just the way we’re going to do it.” So when we had 51 players, people were like, “Why don’t they have 53 players on their roster?” Part of the narrative internally was we don’t know of 53 people right now who want to be Patriots.
That is some beautiful Gene Hackman "My team is on the court" sh*t right there.
Here endith the lesson.
I originally typed "morons" instead of "crowd" but changed it, to appease the "that's uncalled for" snowflakes here. This is a great article by Howe, with honest insights from players, coaches and front office staff who don't have an ax to grind about Belichick and who recognize his brilliance, because they saw it firsthand. There is no doubt that Brady brought Belichick's program to a level that would not have been possible without him but the larger point remains....IT'S THE SYSTEM, STUPID(S).
I have read many times here that BB didn't start winning here until Brady took the field, using the team's 5-11 record during his first season as head coach as evidence that Brady was the real driving force behind the dynasty. That argument has been, and always will be, complete horsesh*t spewed by those whose every post is colored by an irrational distain for Belichick and/or the ridiculous notion that labeling the Belichick as the key to the dynasty is intended to belittle Brady and downplay his greatness (leading to the aggressive and largely unnecessary wagon circling around Tommy).
Here are a couple of very important realities about that 5-11 season (from the article):
Belichick had hurdles to overcome. He inherited a roster that was $10.5 million over the salary cap with just 42 players under contract. So they had to release some fan favorites, including tight end Ben Coates, and restructure other contracts to push cap hits into future seasons. The Patriots initially cut the roster to 39 players before the draft and free agency and then signed nearly 30 undrafted rookie free agents to fill out the roster on a budget. There was a firm plan in place to remain financially responsible for at least a couple years to eventually escape from their cap nightmare.
The Patriots lost their first four games and were 2-8 in mid-November. Combined with their 2-6 finish in 1999, they had won four times over a 16-game stretch. But in 2000, seven of their first eight losses were one-possession games. (Of their 11 losses in 2000, only two came against teams with losing records, so the Patriots also had a fierce schedule.)
They were largely irritated by the losing, but the team also recognized something bigger was at stake.
Finally, I love this:
The Patriots won three of their final six games. Even though they weren’t ever in the playoff race, they felt vindicated for all the work they invested in the turnaround. There was even a rallying call during a stretch when the Patriots only carried 51 players on the active roster, partly due to personnel decisions as well as salary cup struggles.
Pioli: There was a point in time, I remember Bill and I having a conversation, we felt there was something symbolic when we dropped down to 51 players. What Bill was telling the players was, “Listen, we want people who are going to be here to want to be here, and who want to do things to win the way we want to win. If those people don’t want to be here, that doesn’t mean they’re bad people or bad players. That’s just not what we’re looking for. That doesn’t mean that we’re right. It’s just the way we’re going to do it.” So when we had 51 players, people were like, “Why don’t they have 53 players on their roster?” Part of the narrative internally was we don’t know of 53 people right now who want to be Patriots.
That is some beautiful Gene Hackman "My team is on the court" sh*t right there.
Here endith the lesson.
