upstater1
PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2005
- Messages
- 30,279
- Reaction score
- 22,533
I'd argue that losing Belichick in 1997 was a bigger loss than losing Parcells.The Patriots were in the Super Bowl in 1997 against the Packers and could have won that game. The Tuna jumped ship. They were competitive under Pete Carroll but underperformed. Belichick arrived in 2000 and went 5-11 before the dynasty began. The Patriots were essentially a competitor for the whole thing until the 2020 season when the wheels started falling off.
The 2023 team is a disaster, except for the silver lining of tons of cap space in 2024 and several rounds of the highest picks since Drew Bledsoe went #1 (who was the QB of the 1996 SB team.) This thing can turn around quickly, especially with the Bills sinking to a .500 team (they blew a 10-point halftime lead in Philadelphia this afternoon.)
There's an outstanding defensive core coming back in 2024, and with the right QB and a couple of starting offensive linemen, this team can be a quick turnaround. If I were Robert Kraft, I'd keep Belichick as coach and do a major overhaul of the front office.
Remember, we went 6-10 with Parcells the year before. Then he added Belichick and the team's fortunes turned around quickly. They both went to the Jets and their fortunes turned around quickly. Even when Parcells had his ONLY good season in New England before hiring Belichick, he went to the playoffs and lost TO Belichick.
This is why I really wonder about Belichick critics who only started watching in the 2000s. If they didn't see all of this going on prior to that, or even the late 80s when the Giants held the K-Gun offense to barely anything (not to mention Montana), they missed out on some incredible coaching. You don't go from losing constantly to winning on the biggest stage overnight unless you have good coaching.











