Brian Billick calls pats "pedestrian"

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Brian Billick calls pats

    Most QB-centric teams are pedestrian without their QB. If you take a QB that is amazing and add him to a great team, those are the teams that win multiple superbowls. 

    I think Billick is talking about the offense though. I can't say I agree with him, but it's his opinion. Scoring so many points so consistently is a product of having Brady, who is basically the most mistake free QB I've ever seen. Even when they can't move the ball very well, he lets the team sort of hang around and keep it close. He almost never has those games where he is forcing it. 

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheExaminer. Show TheExaminer's posts

    Re: Brian Billick calls pats

    Explains why he's not coaching worth a crap anymore.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Brian Billick calls pats

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to sam0377's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to mthurl's comment:

    It depends on what the guy is actually talking about...is he talking about the offense? Is he talking about the defense? Or is he talking about the team overrall?

    If he is talking about the offense then he is a moron. Welker, Gronk, and Hernandez are pretty special players. Ridley is not chopped liver and Woodhead and Vareen are pretty good third down backs. Our offensive line has a left tackle that may have as much talent as anyone in football.

    If he is factoring in the defense, then I do think they are average enough to perhaps bring the whole team down to a lower level, however I wouldn't call it a pedestrian level. If he is just talking about the talent of the defense alone, then I do think he and others that are not from the area would call it pedestrian. 

    Billick for the most part has been pretty pro Patriots from what I've seen unless we are playing the Ravens. The same can be said for when Aikman bashed our defense last year calling them the worst he's seen make the playoffs (Aikman has always been fair). I would NOT call this team pedestrian, but I would certainly call our defense that...or even worse. 




    By "pedestrian" I think he means without Brady they are an 8-8 team. That's not crazy talk. Ridley is an improvement over Benny but still is averaging only .4 yards over the norm. Good, but hardly *wow* material. Gronk and Wes are stars, but Billick might be thinking just how starry they would be with a Sanchez throwing to them for instance. And I doubt he is aware of Solder's potential. Of course, like everybody else except some kool-aide drinkers here, he sees the D as below average to just plain bad.

    Without Brady he simply sees them having the same talent a bunch of teams have. He's not far off the mark if off the mark at all.

     



    I do see it as a bias. See how Green bay faired against giants yesterday. How are they ranked so high and not pedestrian. We went toe to toe with this defence with giants who just spanked GB. Looking at last nights game SB defence was real work of whatever you want to call it on BBs part. 




    Without Rodgers the Pack is pretty pedestrian as well.

     

     



    And the Saints are probably bad without Brees. The same for a lot of teams out there. 

    I can think of a few like Chicago, San Fran, the Giants, the Texans to a degree, where I don't think a QB change would radically alter the outcome. But all those teams are just stocked with talent on offense and defense (especially) in a way that NE and GB and a few others are not. 

    Moral of the story is the oldest lesson in football:

    Winning is all about a QB/Oline, and more importantly a Defense. Everything else, IMO, is a hood ornament. 

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from coolade2. Show coolade2's posts

    Re: Brian Billick calls pats

    In response to agcsbill's comment:

    Why do people have issues with another's opinion they consider not in line with their own?  Not everyone will fawn over the Pats or Brady as one would see from the team's own fans.  Opinions are just that, opinions.  Read, shake your head and move on.•

    As for Billick.. he has always had a taint of anti-Pats bias.  You see this in many announcers or former football players/coaches who may have a bias towards any team.  They can't see the forest for the trees due to their myopic vision of that team or player.  What is most aggravating.. they can talk about a team being the "best" in one sentence then slam them in the next.  Just what is their opinion, anyway, if they go from one extreme to another all the time?  

    .

     •OR... Read, shake your head, start a thread, call him a dipsh!t, move on. 
    Not a huge difference...

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Philskiw1. Show Philskiw1's posts

    Re: Brian Billick calls pats

    Well Brian where do you rate youth teams O and D.    Ohhh I'm sorry I forgot you got fired.  

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Brian Billick calls pats

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to sam0377's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to mthurl's comment:

    It depends on what the guy is actually talking about...is he talking about the offense? Is he talking about the defense? Or is he talking about the team overrall?

    If he is talking about the offense then he is a moron. Welker, Gronk, and Hernandez are pretty special players. Ridley is not chopped liver and Woodhead and Vareen are pretty good third down backs. Our offensive line has a left tackle that may have as much talent as anyone in football.

    If he is factoring in the defense, then I do think they are average enough to perhaps bring the whole team down to a lower level, however I wouldn't call it a pedestrian level. If he is just talking about the talent of the defense alone, then I do think he and others that are not from the area would call it pedestrian. 

    Billick for the most part has been pretty pro Patriots from what I've seen unless we are playing the Ravens. The same can be said for when Aikman bashed our defense last year calling them the worst he's seen make the playoffs (Aikman has always been fair). I would NOT call this team pedestrian, but I would certainly call our defense that...or even worse. 




    By "pedestrian" I think he means without Brady they are an 8-8 team. That's not crazy talk. Ridley is an improvement over Benny but still is averaging only .4 yards over the norm. Good, but hardly *wow* material. Gronk and Wes are stars, but Billick might be thinking just how starry they would be with a Sanchez throwing to them for instance. And I doubt he is aware of Solder's potential. Of course, like everybody else except some kool-aide drinkers here, he sees the D as below average to just plain bad.

    Without Brady he simply sees them having the same talent a bunch of teams have. He's not far off the mark if off the mark at all.

     



    I do see it as a bias. See how Green bay faired against giants yesterday. How are they ranked so high and not pedestrian. We went toe to toe with this defence with giants who just spanked GB. Looking at last nights game SB defence was real work of whatever you want to call it on BBs part. 




    Without Rodgers the Pack is pretty pedestrian as well.

     

     



    And the Saints are probably bad without Brees. The same for a lot of teams out there. 

    I can think of a few like Chicago, San Fran, the Giants, the Texans to a degree, where I don't think a QB change would radically alter the outcome. But all those teams are just stocked with talent on offense and defense (especially) in a way that NE and GB and a few others are not. 

    Moral of the story is the oldest lesson in football:

    Winning is all about a QB/Oline, and more importantly a Defense. Everything else, IMO, is a hood ornament. 




    I have said for years that the elite QB and the tough D are the formula for an optimal chance to go all the way. An at least decent O-line is essential as well.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from coolade2. Show coolade2's posts

    Re: Brian Billick calls pats

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to mthurl's comment:

    It depends on what the guy is actually talking about...is he talking about the offense? Is he talking about the defense? Or is he talking about the team overrall?

    If he is talking about the offense then he is a moron. Welker, Gronk, and Hernandez are pretty special players. Ridley is not chopped liver and Woodhead and Vareen are pretty good third down backs. Our offensive line has a left tackle that may have as much talent as anyone in football.

    If he is factoring in the defense, then I do think they are average enough to perhaps bring the whole team down to a lower level, however I wouldn't call it a pedestrian level. If he is just talking about the talent of the defense alone, then I do think he and others that are not from the area would call it pedestrian. 

    Billick for the most part has been pretty pro Patriots from what I've seen unless we are playing the Ravens. The same can be said for when Aikman bashed our defense last year calling them the worst he's seen make the playoffs (Aikman has always been fair). I would NOT call this team pedestrian, but I would certainly call our defense that...or even worse. 




    By "pedestrian" I think he means without Brady they are an 8-8 team. That's not crazy talk. Ridley is an improvement over Benny but still is averaging only .4 yards over the norm. Good, but hardly *wow* material. Gronk and Wes are stars, but Billick might be thinking just how starry they would be with a Sanchez throwing to them for instance. And I doubt he is aware of Solder's potential. Of course, like everybody else except some kool-aide drinkers here, he sees the D as below average to just plain bad.

    Without Brady he simply sees them having the same talent a bunch of teams have. He's not far off the mark if off the mark at all.

     




    Where do you get 8-8 and who is the QB ?  For this team to go 8-8 you would need someone worse than Cassel, right.  Someone pathetically bad.  This is a stupid hypothetical... Without Brady... ?  AS IF YOU KNOW...?  

    Some of these statements are just dumb.  Gronk and Wes  not stars if sanchee was QB...? Really ...? Or is that another emission from your back side? 

    Something factual in your post would help... D is above average in points allowed., mayo leads league in tackles.  Turnover differential, point differential.  All because of Brady...  ?  Ridley 7th in yards, ahead of gore, j.charles, and r.rice.

    not intelligent, man.  Pick up the material a bit.  It sounds old. 

     

     

     

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from sporter81. Show sporter81's posts

    Re: Brian Billick calls pats

    That's just dumb. Brady makes them Super Bowl favorites but if they had a good quarterback they would at least be a contender. If they had a guy like Sanchez then no. The Patriots also have a hall of fame coach, maybe the best ever and a handful of pro bowlers. To each his own but IMO, Pedestrian? Uuh no....

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccnsd. Show ccnsd's posts

    Re: Brian Billick calls pats

    Personally I almost never get offended by analysts talk (they are not insulting me anyways, I'm not good enough to play for a pedestrian college team let alone an NFL team). It seems that without knowing what Billick's definition of pedestrian is this is all about nothing. I've watched Cassel play a lot the last two years. The Pats would be dreadful right now if he was starting.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from sporter81. Show sporter81's posts

    Re: Brian Billick calls pats

    Yeah, I'd hate to see them with Cassel back there now.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccnsd. Show ccnsd's posts

    Re: Brian Billick calls pats

    In response to Neal Page's comment:

    In response to ccnsd's comment:

    Personally I almost never get offended by analysts talk (they are not insulting me anyways, I'm not good enough to play for a pedestrian college team let alone an NFL team). It seems that without knowing what Billick's definition of pedestrian is this is all about nothing. I've watched Cassel play a lot the last two years. The Pats would be dreadful right now if he was starting.




    Actually, they wouldn't.  NE has a healthy and very good O Line.  KC does not.   Also, NE's D leads the league in takeaways which means his talented and very much, underachieving D in KC, doesn't give their offense extra drives.

    Cassel isn't their problem. Their O Line can't pass protect whatsoever and changing OC's every year wouldn't help any QB.



    You my friend have not been watching Cassel lately. The 2008 Cassel is long gone. Even when he made the pro bowl in 2010 they babied him with dinks and dunks and a great running attack. He was seriously overrated that year, though he was not bad. He almost single handedly makes everyone around him worse. His benching was legit, trust me. I think i've seen him at least 5 times this year (I live in AFC west country) and he looks worse every time I see him. He seems to have lost whatever confidence he once had.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Brian Billick calls pats

    In response to coolade2's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to mthurl's comment:

    It depends on what the guy is actually talking about...is he talking about the offense? Is he talking about the defense? Or is he talking about the team overrall?

    If he is talking about the offense then he is a moron. Welker, Gronk, and Hernandez are pretty special players. Ridley is not chopped liver and Woodhead and Vareen are pretty good third down backs. Our offensive line has a left tackle that may have as much talent as anyone in football.

    If he is factoring in the defense, then I do think they are average enough to perhaps bring the whole team down to a lower level, however I wouldn't call it a pedestrian level. If he is just talking about the talent of the defense alone, then I do think he and others that are not from the area would call it pedestrian. 

    Billick for the most part has been pretty pro Patriots from what I've seen unless we are playing the Ravens. The same can be said for when Aikman bashed our defense last year calling them the worst he's seen make the playoffs (Aikman has always been fair). I would NOT call this team pedestrian, but I would certainly call our defense that...or even worse. 




    By "pedestrian" I think he means without Brady they are an 8-8 team. That's not crazy talk. Ridley is an improvement over Benny but still is averaging only .4 yards over the norm. Good, but hardly *wow* material. Gronk and Wes are stars, but Billick might be thinking just how starry they would be with a Sanchez throwing to them for instance. And I doubt he is aware of Solder's potential. Of course, like everybody else except some kool-aide drinkers here, he sees the D as below average to just plain bad.

    Without Brady he simply sees them having the same talent a bunch of teams have. He's not far off the mark if off the mark at all.

     




    Where do you get 8-8 and who is the QB ?  For this team to go 8-8 you would need someone worse than Cassel, right.  Someone pathetically bad.  This is a stupid hypothetical... Without Brady... ?  AS IF YOU KNOW...?  

    Some of these statements are just dumb.  Gronk and Wes  not stars if sanchee was QB...? Really ...? Or is that another emission from your back side? 

    Something factual in your post would help... D is above average in points allowed., mayo leads league in tackles.  Turnover differential, point differential.  All because of Brady...  ?  Ridley 7th in yards, ahead of gore, j.charles, and r.rice.

    not intelligent, man.  Pick up the material a bit.  It sounds old. 

     

     

     

     



    I love the personal attacks. Weren't you one of those complaining about that?


    They didn't even make the playoffs with Cassel with one of the easiest schedules in memory. Anybody who knows the game, knows that.

     

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Brian Billick calls pats

    In response to ccnsd's comment:

    In response to Neal Page's comment:

    In response to ccnsd's comment:

    Personally I almost never get offended by analysts talk (they are not insulting me anyways, I'm not good enough to play for a pedestrian college team let alone an NFL team). It seems that without knowing what Billick's definition of pedestrian is this is all about nothing. I've watched Cassel play a lot the last two years. The Pats would be dreadful right now if he was starting.




    Actually, they wouldn't.  NE has a healthy and very good O Line.  KC does not.   Also, NE's D leads the league in takeaways which means his talented and very much, underachieving D in KC, doesn't give their offense extra drives.

    Cassel isn't their problem. Their O Line can't pass protect whatsoever and changing OC's every year wouldn't help any QB.



    You my friend have not been watching Cassel lately. The 2008 Cassel is long gone. Even when he made the pro bowl in 2010 they babied him with dinks and dunks and a great running attack. He was seriously overrated that year, though he was not bad. He almost single handedly makes everyone around him worse. His benching was legit, trust me. I think i've seen him at least 5 times this year (I live in AFC west country) and he looks worse every time I see him. He seems to have lost whatever confidence he once had.




    Cassel was never good. In 2008 and 2010 he has the easiest of schedules. It was child's play to predict his demise once the schedule reverted to normal.

    But someone like Rusty tries to cover their error by claiming it's the O-line. Same excuse he uses for Benny's failure that he was also told about beforehand.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Brian Billick calls pats

    In response to Neal Page's comment:

    In response to ccnsd's comment:

    Personally I almost never get offended by analysts talk (they are not insulting me anyways, I'm not good enough to play for a pedestrian college team let alone an NFL team). It seems that without knowing what Billick's definition of pedestrian is this is all about nothing. I've watched Cassel play a lot the last two years. The Pats would be dreadful right now if he was starting.




    Actually, they wouldn't.  NE has a healthy and very good O Line.  KC does not.   Also, NE's D leads the league in takeaways which means his talented and very much, underachieving D in KC, doesn't give their offense extra drives.

    Cassel isn't their problem. Their O Line can't pass protect whatsoever and changing OC's every year wouldn't help any QB.




    Funny how when I tell you somebody isn't nearly as good as you say they are and am proven right, you cry about the O-line.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from coolade2. Show coolade2's posts

    Re: Brian Billick calls pats

    Nothing personal... Just object to the content of the post...  Saying what you wrote is dumb doesn't make you dumb necessarily.

    Plus talking from ones backside is a euphemism for saying something without basis.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Brian Billick calls pats

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to sam0377's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to mthurl's comment:

    It depends on what the guy is actually talking about...is he talking about the offense? Is he talking about the defense? Or is he talking about the team overrall?

    If he is talking about the offense then he is a moron. Welker, Gronk, and Hernandez are pretty special players. Ridley is not chopped liver and Woodhead and Vareen are pretty good third down backs. Our offensive line has a left tackle that may have as much talent as anyone in football.

    If he is factoring in the defense, then I do think they are average enough to perhaps bring the whole team down to a lower level, however I wouldn't call it a pedestrian level. If he is just talking about the talent of the defense alone, then I do think he and others that are not from the area would call it pedestrian. 

    Billick for the most part has been pretty pro Patriots from what I've seen unless we are playing the Ravens. The same can be said for when Aikman bashed our defense last year calling them the worst he's seen make the playoffs (Aikman has always been fair). I would NOT call this team pedestrian, but I would certainly call our defense that...or even worse. 




    By "pedestrian" I think he means without Brady they are an 8-8 team. That's not crazy talk. Ridley is an improvement over Benny but still is averaging only .4 yards over the norm. Good, but hardly *wow* material. Gronk and Wes are stars, but Billick might be thinking just how starry they would be with a Sanchez throwing to them for instance. And I doubt he is aware of Solder's potential. Of course, like everybody else except some kool-aide drinkers here, he sees the D as below average to just plain bad.

    Without Brady he simply sees them having the same talent a bunch of teams have. He's not far off the mark if off the mark at all.

     



    I do see it as a bias. See how Green bay faired against giants yesterday. How are they ranked so high and not pedestrian. We went toe to toe with this defence with giants who just spanked GB. Looking at last nights game SB defence was real work of whatever you want to call it on BBs part. 




    Without Rodgers the Pack is pretty pedestrian as well.

     

     



    And the Saints are probably bad without Brees. The same for a lot of teams out there. 

    I can think of a few like Chicago, San Fran, the Giants, the Texans to a degree, where I don't think a QB change would radically alter the outcome. But all those teams are just stocked with talent on offense and defense (especially) in a way that NE and GB and a few others are not. 

    Moral of the story is the oldest lesson in football:

    Winning is all about a QB/Oline, and more importantly a Defense. Everything else, IMO, is a hood ornament. 




    I have said for years that the elite QB and the tough D are the formula for an optimal chance to go all the way. An at least decent O-line is essential as well.



    It's kind of a cliche, it's been said a bunch of times by a ton of people. There are tons of ways to win in the NFL. So many strategies to use. But those are the two things (along with a great coach) that the great teams share in common most often.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Brian Billick calls pats

    I consider Cassel league average. He has some holes in his game that make him flawed, mostly, he can't get the ball out in time. I think Brady took something like 15 sacks behind NE's line the year before he took something over 40. He still holds it too long in KC. 

    He can  be very effective when he is given tons of time. But he is really terrible under pressure. So that makes him average.

    Against this schedule (not the cupcake one from 2008) NE would be 8-8-ish, with Cassel, IMO. 

    I can think of 8 or more QBs I would prefer Cassel too. 

    I think Brady gets this team about 5 wins per season above the average QB. 

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccnsd. Show ccnsd's posts

    Re: Brian Billick calls pats

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    I consider Cassel league average. He has some holes in his game that make him flawed, mostly, he can't get the ball out in time. I think Brady took something like 15 sacks behind NE's line the year before he took something over 40. He still holds it too long in KC. 

    He can  be very effective when he is given tons of time. But he is really terrible under pressure. So that makes him average.

    Against this schedule (not the cupcake one from 2008) NE would be 8-8-ish, with Cassel, IMO. 

    I can think of 8 or more QBs I would prefer Cassel too. 

    I think Brady gets this team about 5 wins per season above the average QB. 




    Brady has averaged something close to 13 wins a year (in 2001 he did not start the season so I do not know if he should only get credit for 11 wins that year, also if Brady was QB in 2008 they most likely win more than 11). Do you believe an average QB is worth 8 wins a year (seems way to high) or an average QB on the Pats roster is worth 7 1/2 to 8 wins a year? The current Cassel is not the Cassel of 2008. The AFC west is a fairly easy division most years and he still struggles. He does not even scramble that well anymore. He is a turnover machine.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Brian Billick calls pats

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    I consider Cassel league average. He has some holes in his game that make him flawed, mostly, he can't get the ball out in time. I think Brady took something like 15 sacks behind NE's line the year before he took something over 40. He still holds it too long in KC. 

    He can  be very effective when he is given tons of time. But he is really terrible under pressure. So that makes him average.

    Against this schedule (not the cupcake one from 2008) NE would be 8-8-ish, with Cassel, IMO. 

    I can think of 8 or more QBs I would prefer Cassel too. 

    I think Brady gets this team about 5 wins per season above the average QB. 




    Yeah. Even against the 2008 schedule Cassel managed nearly one less TD per game that season than Brady has since 2009. Even if the Cassel quality was above average, the production was "pedestrian" compared to Brady's "phenomenal" (1.31 to 2.15)

    Of course some forget that Cassel was the recipient of a huge amount of yac that year as well.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Paul_K. Show Paul_K's posts

    Re: Brian Billick calls pats

    In response to dapats1281's comment:

    Well,

    On his last power rankings, he had the Pats at number 6...soon to be 5 after GB lost...so he still considers then one of the very best teams in the league.

    This week I can say that there's only one really good team in the NFL. 

     

    1    ne    15.2    (last wk. 1)

     

     

    9    bal    10.1    (last wk. 10)

     

    Odd historical note, New England has not lost a game in the second half of the regular season since 2009.

    In 9 years with the Baltimore Ravens, Billick won his divisional championship twice.  That's possibly why he's a TV analyst today.  Next Sunday I expect Bill Belichick to win his tenth divisional championship cap and t-shirt out of the past 12 years, with the other two years being close losses on tiebreakers.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Brian Billick calls pats

    In response to ccnsd's comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    I consider Cassel league average. He has some holes in his game that make him flawed, mostly, he can't get the ball out in time. I think Brady took something like 15 sacks behind NE's line the year before he took something over 40. He still holds it too long in KC. 

    He can  be very effective when he is given tons of time. But he is really terrible under pressure. So that makes him average.

    Against this schedule (not the cupcake one from 2008) NE would be 8-8-ish, with Cassel, IMO. 

    I can think of 8 or more QBs I would prefer Cassel too. 

    I think Brady gets this team about 5 wins per season above the average QB. 




    Brady has averaged something close to 13 wins a year (in 2001 he did not start the season so I do not know if he should only get credit for 11 wins that year, also if Brady was QB in 2008 they most likely win more than 11). Do you believe an average QB is worth 8 wins a year (seems way to high) or an average QB on the Pats roster is worth 7 1/2 to 8 wins a year? The current Cassel is not the Cassel of 2008. The AFC west is a fairly easy division most years and he still struggles. He does not even scramble that well anymore. He is a turnover machine.



    I'm thinking more like, value over replacement. 

    I can't go by averages, just a guess based on similar teams. Cassel inherited a 16-0 team that played a wicked tough schedule, then played the easiest schedule I've seen in decades to 11-5. My feeling is that, considering the Cassel-led Pats didn't win a single game against an opponent with a winning record, a harder schedule would have ended something like 9-7 or maybe 10-6. 

    I put Brady at 5-6 wins over Cassel as a replacement. 

    But yeah, I suppose if Brady averages 13, and an average QB gets 8 wins, then his win VOA is like 5. 

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share