In BB We Trust

[Patspsycho]

Read the post I waqs responding to:
I used 'micro-manager' in response to it being used by Maverick, hence 'not my word'. The purpose of that statement being that I didnt chose the word and bring it into the discussion, someone else did, and I would probably have used one that better described what i was saying, because micro-manager is a poor word that is misunderstood to begin with.

Then why did you use it in the first person, instead of simply quoting maverick if you did not like the term itself? You did use the phrase 'totally a micromanager' where you added an adverb to amplify the statement, and maverick did not do this. Your amplification of the statement is clearly an endorsment of it.

I don't think the case is that micro-manager is a poorly understood term. It is very clearly considered a derogatory term in our society.

I think that in this case, it is a poorly applied term.

And again I have to point out that while you may "game plan" for a 2 minute drill, insofar as you entrust the quarterback with it (because he does call the audibles) that is a fundamental contradiction to the base definition of "micro-management" because "micro-management" is the delegation of task but not authority.

In a two-minute drill, you clearly delegate authority to the quarterback. There is no other way to execute it, at least not in a way that I can see. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[SVN]

Re: Giving Bill Belichick Too Much Blame and/or Credit

See, almost all the posters here have absolute confidence in Belichick, including myself. It doesn't mean that it's taboo or inappropriate to point out clear problems with the team right now, which are often the direct responsibility of the coordinators.

You keep talking about how it's ultimately all about Belichick. The guy has NEVER fired a coordinator of his. He believes in coaching up his own assistants. The fact that he isn't publicly firing or criticizing his staff, doesn't mean that there isn't something wrong which is not his direct fault.

if the coords dont improve and keep calling the same crap you suggest and he still doesnt fire them or is not able to correc them then whose fault is it ? What is the difference between bill belichick and wade phillips then ?

 

[maverick4]

Re: Giving Bill Belichick Too Much Blame and/or Credit

if the coords dont improve and keep calling the same crap you suggest and he still doesnt fire them or is not able to correc them then whose fault is it ? What is the difference between bill belichick and wade phillips then ?

The difference is that Belichick is a genius, knows how to fix mistakes, and in the long run is better than pretty much everybody as a head coach. It doesn't mean he's behind every single call in a game, or a team's predictive tendencies.

Belichick isn't micro-managing more than any other coach. He is certainly detail oriented, however there is ZERO evidence to suggest he is micro-managing any more than Wade Phillips does. Wade Phillips simply comes to the wrong conclusion/solution much more often.

 

[SVN]

Re: Giving Bill Belichick Too Much Blame and/or Credit

This is very interesting. First of all it tells me you're too lazy to even read the first page of a thread.

Second, it's true I do give more CREDIT and blame to the coordinators or personnel staff who work for Belichick. I don't consider Belichick a superhuman, he's merely the best HC who delegates a lot.

It's funny how hypocritical you are. People like you love to give tons of credit to Weiss, McDaniels, Crennel, Pioli, and yet any time something goes wrong it's all Belichick's fault.

i think you havent read enough of my posts to see how much give bb credit for all. I adore the HC and cant read enough good stuff about him .iam not bashing him and i think the team is successfull only because of him and even less because of brady . just my opinion. You on the other hand keep criticizing the coords all the time without accepting the fact that BB is involved in what they do .When the team wins i credit BB as much or more than coords because its all him IMO.If they lose i have no issue questioning why they did something and putting in BB. Doesnt mean iam blaming him for every fault.
Whatever man, you win- iam lazy .hypocritical and all that.happy ?
McD sucks
O'briean sucks
Pees sucks
Poor BB cant control his wards now and has lost the ship. happy ??

 

[Rob0729]

Re: Giving Bill Belichick Too Much Blame and/or Credit

BTW, in the same vein of Belichick getting too much blame/credit, so do the coordinators. When a play doesn't work, many times people blame the coordinators eventhough it is a problem with the execution. If Brady throws the ball to a wide open receiver and it sails over his head, why is that O'Brien's fault (or McDaniels or Weis before him)? If a defender is in position to make a tackle and he takes a bad angle and bounces off the runner, how is that Pees' fault?

 

[patsfan-1982]

Re: Giving Bill Belichick Too Much Blame and/or Credit

BB just maybe the gretest coach in the history of the NFL

yes he dose get to much blame for looses

and way to much credit for wins through the year's the pats have had some great player's that dont get a nuff credit


but its like that in the NFL its all ways on the QB and the coach

when they cut Lawyer Milloy they looked bad the first game or two but it worked out in the end they won the SB

they trade seymour 3 days befor the season and right now it dose not look like they have a harrison type guy to replace him like they did with Milloy but lets give the D a lil time to work things out

and no one has said it yet but i think a few guys are thinking it here we go again

is brady going through the bledsoe movement where he was one of the top 3 QB in the NFL had a injury to he's finger

came back and played a jets team with BB as the DC who put down the blueprint that turned bledsoe in to a average QB for the rest of his career

but lets wait and see i think at the end of the year they will be a top 5 team and BB will be coach of the year

 

[maverick4]

Re: Giving Bill Belichick Too Much Blame and/or Credit

When the team wins i credit BB as much or more than coords because its all him IMO.

I disagree and the rest of the NFL owners and GM's disagree with you as well, considering how much they hire ex Pats coaches or personnel people.

There is clearly value, production, leadership, and decision-making that the coordinators and personnel assistants are providing. They are making insightful decisions and doing a good job with their own judgment while working for the Pats, they not just being robots executing what Belichick has told them to do for every single situation. They are worthy of the credit and blame due to the success of their respective responsibilities.

The offensive explosion from 2005-2008 was McDaniels calling the plays (so was the predictability). The opportunistic defense from 2001-2004 was Crennel's.

The past two games fall mostly on O'Brien and Pees. Of course Belichick is the boss, but the coordinators are responsible for their units.

To use a business analogy since that was brought up, Jack Welch may be one of the best CEO's ever, but he appointed people to handle business units under him, some or many of which actually failed. It doesn't make Welch any less of a CEO, the blame and credit can be attributed to many of the assistants who worked under Welch while at GE.

 

[Ring 6]

Based on what evidence? He didn't do diddly to Mangini when the defense was being managed horribly in 2005. Please cite ONE INSTANCE of Belichick going to an assistant and being a micro-manager dictator to them, in his 9 years as head coach.

He does it every day. How could I possibly cite examples of the employer/employee relationship between BB and a coordinator, during their 18 hour workdays without being in the room. Thats a ludicrous standard.
What did he 'do to' Mangini? He managed him, do you expect that to happen in the media?

 

[maverick4]

You admitted you don't have any proof. Meanwhile, I posted proof that Belichick delegates and gives his coordinators space to craft their own style under Belichick's vision.

So, stop repeatedly claiming Belichick is a micro-manager dictator on top of every single play call that happens in every single game.

He's not.

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

While I think it's foolish to say BB has "lost it" or similar sentiments, let's also acknowledge that we've been blessed with watching over 100 games of the title winning/contending BB era (e.g. the Brady era) and have a large sample of games to see his coaching in action. By now, we should have a good take on what looks like his good coaching, his questionable coaching and even his bad coaching...

Sunday's game was not one of his better coaching jobs on the offensive side of the ball. We've seen better over the years.

Everyone has their good, mediocre and bad days...even BB. I have no problem with people calling into question his job this past Sunday. I do think that those people who extrapolate Sunday into something bigger (e.g. the Pats are doomed) need to step away from the keyboard, though, and take a deep breath and calm down.

Regards,
Chris

 

[mgteich]

I agree with most of what you say.

The open question is why don't we have a solid OC coaching the offense? Why do we look like we are playing for OC wannabe (wristbands for all, no-huddle and whiteboards to call in plays)? Why can we CHOOSE to degrade the value of the offensive talent that we have?

While I think it's foolish to say BB has "lost it" or similar sentiments, let's also acknowledge that we've been blessed with watching over 100 games of the title winning/contending BB era (e.g. the Brady era) and have a large sample of games to see his coaching in action. By now, we should have a good take on what looks like his good coaching, his questionable coaching and even his bad coaching...

Sunday's game was not one of his better coaching jobs on the offensive side of the ball. We've seen better over the years.

Everyone has their good, mediocre and bad days...even BB. I have no problem with people calling into question his job this past Sunday. I do think that those people who extrapolate Sunday into something bigger (e.g. the Pats are doomed) need to step away from the keyboard, though, and take a deep breath and calm down.

Regards,
Chris

 

[Ring 6]

Then why did you use it in the first person, instead of simply quoting maverick if you did not like the term itself? You did use the phrase 'totally a micromanager' where you added an adverb to amplify the statement, and maverick did not do this. Your amplification of the statement is clearly an endorsment of it.

I don't think the case is that micro-manager is a poorly understood term. It is very clearly considered a derogatory term in our society.

I think that in this case, it is a poorly applied term.

And again I have to point out that while you may "game plan" for a 2 minute drill, insofar as you entrust the quarterback with it (because he does call the audibles) that is a fundamental contradiction to the base definition of "micro-management" because "micro-management" is the delegation of task but not authority.

In a two-minute drill, you clearly delegate authority to the quarterback. There is no other way to execute it, at least not in a way that I can see. Please correct me if I am wrong.

We are discussung 2 different things. You are using the textbook definition of a micro-managing which was not the one I had in mind.
What I meant was that BB manages that everything is done to his standards. That the decisions, philosphies, schemes, gameplans etc are what BB wants, and that where there is a difference of philosophy the coordinator adapts to BB not the other way around.
That phrase was only one portion of my point. My point is that what the coordinators do is subject to the training, inspection, monitoring and correction of BB, and the team follows the philiosophy of BB.

The reason micro-manager is a misunderstood term is that strong effective, involved management that monitors the work being done, and directs it to be done the proper way is considered micro-management by those who fail to do their job properly and are subject to frequent correction. I misused the term in this way, as well.

 

[Ring 6]

You admitted you don't have any proof. Meanwhile, I posted proof that Belichick delegates and gives his coordinators space to craft their own style under Belichick's vision.

So, stop repeatedly claiming Belichick is a micro-manager dictator on top of every single play call that happens in every single game.

He's not.

Are you winning the argument that you are having with yourself?

I'd rather have the apology you owe me than to have you keep making things up and attributing them to me and telling me that what you are pretending I said is wrong.
By the way, you gave no evidence, you posted something about how BB wanted to find out more about his players home life.

Lets just leave it at this:
I say that Bill Belichick does his job in a way that he takes accountability for everything he is responsible for (ie everything about the Patriots) that he trains and monitors his employees and expects them to do their job the way that he has instructed them to, and when they do not, he gets involved, corrects, gives feedback, retrains. That the product that you see on the field indicates how Bill Belichick wants his football team to play football.
You say that the coordinators are making all of the decisions.

Can we be done now?

 

[Ring 6]

I agree with most of what you say.

The open question is why don't we have a solid OC coaching the offense? Why do we look like we are playing for OC wannabe (wristbands for all, no-huddle and whiteboards to call in plays)? Why can we CHOOSE to degrade the value of the offensive talent that we have?

What would you consider a solid OC? We have a system that works. It worked before McDaniel and it needs to work after McDaniel. Just like when Weis left, BB has chosen to keep the system the same, and give on the job training of new responsibilities to one of his coaches, ie, promote from within. He clearly believes that it is better to promote someone who knows the system and teach them their new duties than to bring in someone who has performed the duties elsewhere and teach them our way of doing it, and making them learn our entire system, or than to bring in a 'solid OC' who will bring an entirely different system.

I agree. You appear not to. But in either case it isnt a matter of refusing to bring in a 'solid OC' its a case of BB feeling an in house candidate is more 'solid' than bringing in an outsider.

What is your problem with the signalling system? You seem overly upset with that. I dont get the big deal.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say we are CHOOSING to degrade the value of our offensive talent. Are you saying we arent trying?

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I agree with most of what you say.

The open question is why don't we have a solid OC coaching the offense? Why do we look like we are playing for OC wannabe (wristbands for all, no-huddle and whiteboards to call in plays)? Why can we CHOOSE to degrade the value of the offensive talent that we have?

Who says we don't? OC's aren't born, mg, they are developed somewhere. Bill prefers to develop his here for the most part. Charlie had some experience, not successful if you ask Parcells... Something in his mentality appealed to Bill and he brought him onboard here. Josh started out on Saban's college staff and something Saban said likely appealed to Bill and was born out or he would not have fast tracked him and alienated some other staffers who soon departed as a result.

It's the same approach here across the board. That's the system. Sometimes he taps outside talent but usually that's a short term fix or experiment. Hufnagle, Capers, Reese. They are resources or helpful bridges, nothing more or less.

Those who continue to long for name brand retread coordinators are as likely to get them as they are to get the retread veteran jag QB whose skill set is a misfit for the system.

Sunday was a pretty unique situation. On the road following Rex's call to arms with unfamiliar faces galore and Brady running a silent count, no huddle offense with a replacement UDFA QB as his go to slot receiver.

 

[Pats726]

The offense would be better off with a better OC, and certainly one that doesn't use the same no-huddle formation for the entire game, using wristbands for everyone and whiteboards for communication.

We'll know a lot more about this season's patriots by the time the bye comes around.

I am not sure that would be the case...as other have commented on how others have developed over time...I did not like the system they used..and we'll see if it is used again...it didn't SEEM to be work..but that was from one who was not directly involved.

 

[Patspsycho]

We are discussung 2 different things. You are using the textbook definition of a micro-managing which was not the one I had in mind.
What I meant was that BB manages that everything is done to his standards. That the decisions, philosphies, schemes, gameplans etc are what BB wants, and that where there is a difference of philosophy the coordinator adapts to BB not the other way around.
That phrase was only one portion of my point. My point is that what the coordinators do is subject to the training, inspection, monitoring and correction of BB, and the team follows the philiosophy of BB.

The reason micro-manager is a misunderstood term is that strong effective, involved management that monitors the work being done, and directs it to be done the proper way is considered micro-management by those who fail to do their job properly and are subject to frequent correction. I misused the term in this way, as well.

Regardless of the exact definition of the term "micro-manager" you did use it in a seemingly derogatory context where you implied that everything you read about BB suggested that he was a: "control freak, totally a micro-manager..."

I think what we are trying to establish here is whether he is a micro-manager in the general sense of the word, and I do not believe that he is, at this point in his career.

Also you have not disproven my notion that the two minute drill counters the concept of BB being a micro-manager, since I argued that it proves beyond a doubt that Brady has the reins 100% of the time at certain points in the game.

Until I am led otherwise to consider so, I am of the point of view that BB is not a micro-manager in the general sense, or in clinical definition of the word.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Having strict standards that everyone must adhere to is not micro-managing. A micro-manager is someone who usurps the authority of underlings to manage the individual steps for accomplishing a goal. It demonstrates a lack of trust in your coworkers and/or a failure to understand organizational efficiency. It's a distinctly negative character trait, and the suggestion that Belichick has it runs counter to everything that I've ever read about the guy.

He is detailed and exhaustive in his analysis and research, yes, but that has little to nothing to do with micromanaging.

 

[Patspsycho]

Having strict standards that everyone must adhere to is not micro-managing. A micro-manager is someone who usurps the authority of underlings to manage the individual steps for accomplishing a goal. It demonstrates a lack of trust in your coworkers and/or a failure to understand organizational efficiency. It's a distinctly negative character trait, and the suggestion that Belichick has it runs counter to everything that I've ever read about the guy.

He is detailed and exhaustive in his analysis and research, yes, but that has little to nothing to do with micromanaging.

I think this says it best.

 

[Wolfpack]

i'm not panicking but I never believed in the "In BB we trust" nonsense. He's a human like everyone else and makes mistakes. Sometimes he makes great moves, other times he doesn't. Would I take him over any coach? Absolutely. However, he should be criticized at times too.

+1

I like Bill Belichick. I really do. There isn't a coach in the league I'd rather have. But it's pretty amazing how much smarter of a head coach he got on that day Mo Lewis knocked Drew Bledsoe into next week.