Sad to see BB's legacy ripped apart like this

[Ivan]

OK, let's settle things down. Again, I'm OK with people criticizing Belichick if they at least are constructive and offer up discussion points. It's the "Bill sucks", etc. that drives me crazy, so as long as we stay away from that - and as long as people are ready for the backlash - I can handle it.

I am guessing that is directed at me, the two quotes tipped me off. I’ll settle down,

I have no problem with criticizing Belichick, but I have a big problem with those talking about getting rid iof Belichick, and my opinion of them and the trolls isn’t going to change.

 

[Ivan]

I also understand what you're saying but obviously at this point of the year, "it is what it is". I'm guessing if things keep progressing the way they've been, they'll go there this offseason.

As for the coaching staff, if Josh doesn't bail - and Mac's addition may cause him to stick around - he's probably the guy. He may be more inclined to stay given that he's the guy putting in the work to develop him. Obviously, they'd pick right up where they left off offensively if that happened.

From there, leave Patricia in Caserio's role where he is now, and have Mayo be the guy on defense. The question I would have is whether or not Steve Belichick would stay on...not quite sure how/if that would work or not...I guess that depends on how Josh really feels about that, which obviously, we have no way of knowing. In theory, he could just essentially leave everything more or less the same if he's good with all of it.

It's all just speculation (and I'm probably wrong), but my feeling is they'd try and change as little as possible for the sake of making it a smooth transition.

I think Patricia has takennErnie Adam’s role, and Caserio’s role is now Zeigler.

 

[Ian]

I have no problem with criticizing Belichick, but I have a big problem with those talking about getting rid iof Belichick, and my opinion of them and the trolls isn’t going to change.

The problem with getting rid of Bill is the same argument people make about "get rid of this guy" without having a solution. Again, they're not getting blown out, they're losing close games by a few plays here or there so it's not from lack of effort. So I'm O.K. with people criticizing him, but at the same time, unless you have a solution, you sort of also have to "be careful what you wish for".

 

[venecol]

I don’t think 70 is the same barrier it was 10-20 years ago, Belichick won 3 Lombardi’s in his 60’s, so I believe he would be in high demand.

I don't know about that. It took 53 years to beat George Hala's record for oldest coach at 72+ years. Who beat it just last year? An interim coach, Romeo Cronnel at 73+ years. There's a reason coaches don't last much past 70 (there's only a handful).

Regardless, even if some team would want Bill, I can't see him upending his life, moving to a new City, and having to deal with trying to implement a system that took him 20 years to develop in a new team. He would somehow need to get these new players to "buy into" his ways. I can't see it happening at his age. Maybe if he was 65. No, Bill will retire a Patriot as he should. When? Who knows.

 

[Nehalem]

I'd like to know why people think Brady went to 9 Super Bowls and Rogers and Brees only went to 1 with their teams. Brady is not 9 times better than them.

I think it was because of Belichick's coaching, drafting, trades, free agent acquisitions, and salary cap management.

Because football is a game of inches.

Tom Brady probably isn't even 9x better than Hoyer.

Just look at this season. Patriots could easily be 5-1. Honestly swap in Brady for Mac and prime Gronk for Henry and Jonnu and they are probably 6-0.

 

[Ivan]

I don't know about that. It took 53 years to beat George Hala's record for oldest coach at 72+ years. Who beat it just last year? An interim coach, Romeo Cronnel at 73+ years. There's a reason coaches don't last much past 70 (there's only a handful).

Regardless, even if some team would want Bill, I can't see him upending his life, moving to a new City, and having to deal with trying to implement a system that took him 20 years to develop in a new team. He would somehow need to get these new players to "buy into" his ways. I can't see it happening at his age. Maybe if he was 65. No, Bill will retire a Patriot as he should. When? Who knows.

I don’t disagree with this, I don’t see Belichick starting over elsewhere either, but I definitely think many teams would want him.

 

[long distance]

Congrats to OP for creating such a successful troll thread. And to the board for trolling along 23 pages. Im sure its a riveting, enlightening read.

 

[The Boston Patriot]

This thread has to be one of the dumbest threads ever!

"What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this forum is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

 

[Hyped]

3 of those QB's went to superhowls with a different coach.

And 3 of those 3 played for BB and 2 of 3 went to Superbowls with BB too.

 

[Ivan]

The problem with getting rid of Bill is the same argument people make about "get rid of this guy" without having a solution. Again, they're not getting blown out, they're losing close games by a few plays here or there so it's not from lack of effort. So I'm O.K. with people criticizing him, but at the same time, unless you have a solution, you sort of also have to "be careful what you wish for".

Agree completely. Two of their losses came to two of the highest powered offenses in the league, and another was the first game for a rookie QB, and they were in all three to the end. I also agree with your analogy back to 2000 and 2001, although they won’t be winning a SB this season. 2000 was about clearing out the dead money and dead weight, and 2001 was the first steps in building a championship contender for years to come. Had Belichick been viewing this season as a championship run he would have found a decent veteran QB in free agency, and he would have kept Gilmore, instead he started the rookie and traded Gilmore. This is a longer term approach, and I agree with it completely. Find out who the winners and leaders are, then put together another strong off-season, after which I think the time for evaluating how they are doing will be at hand. That doesn’t mean next year will be SB or busy, but the playoffs are a reasonable expectation

 

[SHOWTIME15]

The problem with getting rid of Bill is the same argument people make about "get rid of this guy" without having a solution. Again, they're not getting blown out, they're losing close games by a few plays here or there so it's not from lack of effort. So I'm O.K. with people criticizing him, but at the same time, unless you have a solution, you sort of also have to "be careful what you wish for".

I’m not sure there are too many people who would say we should get rid of BIll. If we get rid of him, who is going to replace him? It would probably be a major downgrade. However, I do think Bill needs to sharpen his drafting and decision making on the field.

 

[Deus Irae]

Bills legacy is already written. Greatest coach of all time. Period. SIX SB championships and 9 trips to the SB as Patriot’s head coach.

No, Bill's legacy is not already written. It's still in the process of being written.

 

[Deus Irae]

Congrats to OP for creating such a successful troll thread. And to the board for trolling along 23 pages. Im sure its a riveting, enlightening read.

This thread has to be one of the dumbest threads ever!

"What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this forum is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

Blind homerism is not the answer.

 

[Ian]

Blind homerism is not the answer.

Looking at both sides constructively is always a good way to go. It's just a matter of not going too far one way that would be the thing we want to avoid since it's obviously more difficult at that point to have a real discussion. I think, at least so far, this thread has done a reasonably good job of that.

 

[Pats1971]

And 3 of those 3 played for BB and 2 of 3 went to Superbowls with BB too.

and only one of them won.

 

[TheRainMaker]

I prefer Bill when he had experienced Coaches along side him that could challenge him rather than his “yes” men he’s created since Weiss/Crennel/Sealy and others have departed.

Bill won 3 titles out of his first 5 years with these guys. Since they left, Bill development his “yes” men and it took 10 years to win another Super Bowl. That is far too long given they still had many pieces from their initial title run and a GOAT QB. From there they won 3 titles of 5 years thanks Tom never aging in football years.

 

[Deus Irae]

I prefer Bill when he had experienced Coaches along side him that could challenge him rather than his “yes” men he’s created since Weiss/Crennel/Sealy and others have departed.

Bill won 3 titles out of his first 5 years with these guys. Since they left, Bill development his “yes” men and it took 10 years to win another Super Bowl. That is far too long given they still had many pieces from their initial title run and a GOAT QB. From there they won 3 titles of 5 years thanks Tom never aging in football years.

I don't think the coaching was the problem. 16-0 still happened, as did 2 SB trips.

The rules changed. Teams finally began doing a better job of adapting to free agency rules, and Belichick didn't have a pair of teams with players he knew as well as the Giants/Jets guys who became available. Injuries impacted multiple SBs and SB runs.

Look at the personnel dropoff, especially on the defensive side. That's where the change hit hardest.

 

[TheRainMaker]

I don't think the coaching was the problem. 16-0 still happened, as did 2 SB trips.

McDaniels admitted on an ESPN special with Spagnolo present that he got out coached and had no answer to Spags game plan in SB42.

 

[sb1]

McDaniels admitted on an ESPN special with Spagnolo present that he got out coached and had no answer to Spags game plan in SB42.

And Spags admitted he got that game plan from Romeo Crennel's defense against us in the Browns game that year. Of all people.

The Browns didn't have the players to run it properly but the Giants did...

 

[Deus Irae]

McDaniels admitted on an ESPN special with Spagnolo present that he got out coached and had no answer to Spags game plan in SB42.

SB42 was all about injuries, freak plays, and terrible officiating. Spagnolo didn't coach Brady into a sprained ankle. Spagnolo didn't coach Stephen Neal into a game ending injury. Spagnolo didn't coach the TEs into injury-based uselessness.

And Spagnolo sure as hell didn't coach the officials into letting all manner of penalties go on the Tyree catch, or Tyree into managing to "catch" a ball with his helmet, or Asante into missing an INT, or Hobbs into having a lower body injury and BB calling for an all out blitz which left Hobbs 1-on-1 with the comparatively healthy, and much taller, Plaxico Burress.

And, even with all that, the Patriots were Brady throwing a deep ball just 6 inches less deep from pulling out the win.