Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?

  1. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?

    In Response to Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?:
    In Response to Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach? : Those defenses were flawed at certain spots - all defenses are, but the one we have now can be picked to pieces. We got a nice break when we had to face the Broncos and Ravens...then you can add in the fact that we got two good run defenders back (Spikes and Chung). But I don't think you should confuse this for a defense that could stop an offense that had a good QB or some weapons, because they weren't able to do that one single time this season. They couldn't do it last season either, or the one before - something has got to change. I think they tried to change things this year and injuries killed us (Pryor, Wright, Carter, Haynesworth taking a big dump, Bodden, etc.). In the end they tightened things up enough to be presentable (I had no doubt Belichick would get them to that point), but being presentable is much different than being Super Bowl worthy.
    Posted by mthurl


    There have been 15 "game winning drives" in SB history. The Pats' D is responsible for allowing two of them.

    Frankly, it was my nightmare that they would do exactly what they did. During the game thread I said, just give me some clutch D at the endgame. Nope.

    Of course the O was handicapped with the Gronk injury so I wasn't expecting their best day as soon as it was obvious Gronk was not going to be Gronk. You can't take away the guy who scored nearly a third of their TDs and expect to have a big day. I was just hoping to have a chance to win at the end. We did. If Wes catches the ball we probably win. If the D gets a clutch stop we win. Oh well. It is what it is.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Faucetman. Show Faucetman's posts

    Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?

    YES.  5 SBs in 11 years, are you kidding?

    Some of his personnel moves I question.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?

    imo only one coach gets it (the goal) done each season - the sb champ coach. therefore, bb got in done in 2001, 2003, 2004 seasons. he hasn't in the last 7 years. 

    whether he's a great coach, that's different question. 
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from sporter81. Show sporter81's posts

    Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?

    In Response to Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?:
    In Response to Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach? : There have been 15 "game winning drives" in SB history. The Pats' D is responsible for allowing two of them. Frankly, it was my nightmare that they would do exactly what they did. During the game thread I said, just give me some clutch D at the endgame. Nope. Of course the O was handicapped with the Gronk injury so I wasn't expecting their best day as soon as it was obvious Gronk was not going to be Gronk. You can't take away the guy who scored nearly a third of their TDs and expect to have a big day. I was just hoping to have a chance to win at the end. We did. If Wes catches the ball we probably win. If the D gets a clutch stop we win. Oh well. It is what it is.
    Posted by BabeParilli

    There have been two super bowls in the last 37 years in which a teams defense has given up less than 20 points and lost. Guess who they were? The defense was not the problem in either SB loss to the Giants, or at least the main reason that they lost. Admit it, the offense stunk in both games. 
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?

    In Response to Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?:
    imo only one coach gets it (the goal) done each season - the sb champ coach. therefore, bb got in done in 2001, 2003, 2004 seasons. he hasn't in the last 7 years.  whether he's a great coach, that's different question. 
    Posted by seattlepat70


    Remember this, it will serve you well.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxfan94. Show redsoxfan94's posts

    Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?

    In Response to Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?:
    In Response to Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach? : There have been two super bowls in the last 37 years in which a teams defense has given up less than 20 points and lost. Guess who they were? The defense was not the problem in either SB loss to the Giants, or at least the main reason that they lost. Admit it, the offense stunk in both games. 
    Posted by sporter81


    TB is awesome, one of the best of all time....but enough of the excuses for the offense, they stunk....whether it was game planning or execution, or both.....either way they flat out stunk and thats why they lost....giants had a good game plan and the pats offense really had no answer in the 2nd half....25 minutes of game time without scoring is a huge drought for any team
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?

    In Response to Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?:
    In Response to Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach? : Remember this, it will serve you well.
    Posted by pezz4pats


    oh thank you for the advice. note in your right-hand-side diagram that the path may actually be not as clear and straight, yet the end point as indicated by the arrowhead looks the same as the one on the left. 
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from sporter81. Show sporter81's posts

    Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?

    In Response to Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?:
    In Response to Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach? : TB is awesome, one of the best of all time....but enough of the excuses for the offense, they stunk....whether it was game planning or execution, or both.....either way they flat out stunk and thats why they lost....giants had a good game plan and the pats offense really had no answer in the 2nd half....25 minutes of game time without scoring is a huge drought for any team
    Posted by redsoxfan94



    Agree, with all of that and your right, 25 minutes without a point wont cut it. As I said earlier, they lost it in all three phases of the game but the offense, which is the strength of this team stunk, enough to cost them the game. I've seen lots of comments about Brady having some bad games, which is true, but nobody saying that he is a lousy QB. That would be absurd. 
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?

    In Response to Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?:
    In Response to Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach? : TB is awesome, one of the best of all time....but enough of the excuses for the offense, they stunk....whether it was game planning or execution, or both.....either way they flat out stunk and thats why they lost....giants had a good game plan and the pats offense really had no answer in the 2nd half....25 minutes of game time without scoring is a huge drought for any team
    Posted by redsoxfan94



    Do you give one iota of a break to the O for having their #1 weapon hobbled?
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxfan94. Show redsoxfan94's posts

    Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?

    In Response to Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?:
    In Response to Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach? : Do you give one iota of a break to the O for having their #1 weapon hobbled?
    Posted by BabeParilli


    yes, but even without gronk, they still had enough weapons to score more than 17 points.....i know gronk would have helped the offense out alot if healthy, but you also have to realize that TWO giants tight ends were injured during the game and werent able to return, but they were still able to go down the field for the game winning td.....and yes, obviously jake ballard and travis beckum arent anywhere near the players that rob gronkowski is, but the patriots had two weeks to game plan for that game with gronk at 50%.....the giants didnt know their two tight ends would get injured, but they adjusted and moved on.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?

    In Response to Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?:
    In Response to Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach? : Do you give one iota of a break to the O for having their #1 weapon hobbled?
    Posted by BabeParilli


    isn't that a proof point for how one-dimensional this offense has become? 
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?

    In Response to Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?:
    In Response to Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach? : isn't that a proof point for how one-dimensional this offense has become? 
    Posted by seattlepat70


    I think it's a proof point about the lack of talent at most skill positions on the O.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?

    In Response to Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?:
    In Response to Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach? : I think it's a proof point about the lack of talent at most skill positions on the O.
    Posted by BabeParilli


    i do not buy the notion that this o has less talent all around than the 2001 and 2003 teams. 

    in 2001, they won with their "#1 receiver", glenn, on the bench. tb's biggest receiving weapons were brown (my favorite player, but not because of his natural talent), patten and wiggins (at te).

    in 2003, they had brown, patten, givens, branch and graham. how is that better than having welker, hern, branch, ocho? 

    i believe the difference is that back then, they worked hard at getting everyone well integrated into the schemes. 






     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?

    In Response to Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?:
    In Response to Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach? : i do not buy the notion that this o has less talent all around than the 2001 and 2003 teams.  in 2001, they won with their "#1 receiver", glenn, on the bench. tb's biggest receiving weapons were brown (my favorite player, but not because of his natural talent), patten and wiggins (at te). in 2003, they had brown, patten, givens, branch and graham. how is that better than having welker, hern, branch, ocho?  i believe the difference is that back then, they worked hard at getting everyone well integrated into the schemes. 
    Posted by seattlepat70

    The 2001 team didn't not have a great offense, but Smith had a good year running the ball, the backs (Smith, Faulk, Edwards, Redmond) contributed heavily in the passing game (about 100 catches out of the backfield), Brown was just as effective as Welker (more than 100 catches for over 1,000 yards), and Patten provided a decent deep threat.  The real difference between the 2001 team and the 2011 team, though, was defense.  That defense gave up only 17 points per game in the regular season, and just 15.7 in the postseason. While the offense came through with a nice drive to win the game in the Super Bowl in 2011, it was primarily the defense that beat the Rams.  The offense scored just 10 points.  

    The 2003 team was much better than the 2001 team. Not only did it have an even better defense, its offense had much more diversity.  A decent running game (Smith was declining, but Faulk was very productive running that year), a good passing game out of the backfield (Faulk was big here too), and a diverse group of receivers. In 2003, they had six guys with more than 25 catches and more than 250 yards: Branch, Faulk, Brown, Graham, Givens, and Fauria. In 2011, they had only four: Welker, Gronk, Hernandez, and Branch.  Right there you see the difference in diversity.  It may be that the four guys in 2011 are individually better than the six guys in 2003, but the six together allowed you attack more of the field in more diverse ways.  That was probably a bigger advantage than having three great players who all attack the shorter, middle part of the field on most plays.  

    I think when you look at the 2011 offense, what you see is an offense that could explode on teams when Gronk, Hernandez, Welker, and (to a lesser degree) Branch dominated in the middle of the field.  When, however, a defense was successful at shutting one or two of these guys down, the offense just stalled because of lack of alternative options.  In 2003, you could go to the running game with either Smith or Faulk, you could involve Givens along the perimeter and deeper, Branch was hugely dangerous over the intermediate middle of the field, Brown was nearly as good a short possession receiver as Welker and in some ways more versatile deep.  Graham and Fauria may not have been Gronk and Hernandez, but they still allowed good production from the TE position.  

    Some people argue that it's not the talent in 2011--it's the play calling. We could use guys like Benny and Woodhead and Ridley and Ocho and Edelmen more.  But honestly, none of those guys seems very good to me (Ridley possibly excepted if he can hold on to the ball).  Given the make-up of the team, I think the offense is pretty much stuck running nearly all the plays through Gronk, Welker, Hernandez, and Branch . . . all short field receivers.  They're great short field receivers which is why--most of the time--the offense is great.  But when they get shut down, the offense is just bad.  And there's really nowhere else to go. That's a talent problem.  Add a good running back (who can catch as well as run) and a decent deep/perimeter threat or two and it's solved. 

    But even more important--if you want to win championships--fix the defense. And that's talent too. 



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

    Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?

    The wide receivers on the 2001 SB team were Troy Brown, David Patten and the immortal Fred Coleman.  Jermaine Wiggins was the tight end.   Antowan Smith was the lead back.

    Brady is a far better QB in 2012.  In terms of other skill positions,  I'd give the nod to Antowan Smith over BJGE (not sure I would over Ridley, but the kid never got a chance); Even with Gronk out, the 2012 team was loaded at the O skill positions in comparison to the 2001 team, which featured a waiver wire offense.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?

    In Response to Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?:
    The wide receivers on the 2001 SB team were Troy Brown, David Patten and the immortal Fred Coleman.  Jermaine Wiggins was the tight end.   Antowan Smith was the lead back. Brady is a far better QB in 2012.  In terms of other skill positions,  I'd give the nod to Antowan Smith over BJGE (not sure I would over Ridley, but the kid never got a chance); Even with Gronk out, the 2012 team was loaded at the O skill positions in comparison to the 2001 team, which featured a waiver wire offense.
    Posted by Norger



    You leave out Faulk, who was a huge part of that 2001 offense both running and receiving.  Fans tend to look individual-by-individual, but football is a team sport and--maybe even more significant--a sport where the combinations of individuals are just as important as the individuals by themselves.  The problem with the 2011 team is that the individuals are good, but the combinations aren't always the best.  Still, I agree the 2011 offense is "better" than the 2001.  Unfortunately, it's "betterness" isn't enough to compensate for a defense that's much worse. 


     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?

    In Response to Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?:
    In Response to Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach? : Antowain Smith couldn't catch or catch well.  BJGE />A. Smith.  Brady is better as a QB physically, but not mentally. Give me 2001 Brady in this year's SB and we win the thing.
    Posted by RustyGriswold


    In 2001, Smith had 19 receptions for 192 yards and one TD. That would make him the fifth leading receiver on the 2011 team, right behind Branch and ahead of (in order) Woodhead, Ocho, and Green-Ellis.  Maybe that's not huge production, but it shows some of the issues with this year's team.  
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?

    In Response to Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?:
    In Response to Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach? :  
    Posted by prolate0spheroid


    The 2001 team didn't not have a great offense, but Smith had a good year running the ball, the backs (Smith, Faulk, Edwards, Redmond) contributed heavily in the passing game (about 100 catches out of the backfield), Brown was just as effective as Welker (more than 100 catches for over 1,000 yards), and Patten provided a decent deep threat.  

    babe said that the sb winning nwe teams had more talent all around. the point i was making was that the 2011 team had far more talent all around, allowing for a more diverse offense. sorry but i think you're blowing something if you even think the talent level all around is even comparable between 2001 and 2011. the reason for the more diverse offense is team mentality. they were much more of a blue collar, patient, willing to grind it out offense, that got things done by getting everyone involved.

    The real difference between the 2001 team and the 2011 team, though, was defense.  That defense gave up only 17 points per game in the regular season, and just 15.7 in the postseason. While the offense came through with a nice drive to win the game in the Super Bowl in 2011, it was primarily the defense that beat the Rams.  The offense scored just 10 points.   

    i'll give you this. but still the d kept nyg's score at a level that statistically speaking should have been won. over the last 20 years, the team that scored 21 pts has a record of 2-4. the problem this year was lack of diversity that 17 pts won only once (against nwe who score 14). in some ways, this is a similar argument that you make when you compare below brown's 1,000 yard season with welker. 

    The 2003 team was much better than the 2001 team. Not only did it have an even better defense, its offense had much more diversity.  A decent running game (Smith was declining, but Faulk was very productive running that year), a good passing game out of the backfield (Faulk was big here too), and a diverse group of receivers. In 2003, they had six guys with more than 25 catches and more than 250 yards: Branch, Faulk, Brown, Graham, Givens, and Fauria. In 2011, they had only four: Welker, Gronk, Hernandez, and Branch.  Right there you see the difference in diversity.  It may be that the four guys in 2011 are individually better than the six guys in 2003, but the six together allowed you attack more of the field in more diverse ways.  That was probably a bigger advantage than having three great players who all attack the shorter, middle part of the field on most plays.   I think when you look at the 2011 offense, what you see is an offense that could explode on teams when Gronk, Hernandez, Welker, and (to a lesser degree) Branch dominated in the middle of the field.  When, however, a defense was successful at shutting one or two of these guys down, the offense just stalled because of lack of alternative options.  In 2003, you could go to the running game with either Smith or Faulk, you could involve Givens along the perimeter and deeper, Branch was hugely dangerous over the intermediate middle of the field, Brown was nearly as good a short possession receiver as Welker and in some ways more versatile deep.  Graham and Fauria may not have been Gronk and Hernandez, but they still allowed good production from the TE position.   

    brown was the #1 receiver in that team. I love the guy (his jersey is the only one i have), but he would have had a hard time keeping a #3 spot in other teams. the only reason he emerged as the #1 was terry glenn being in bb's doghouse. take away his one 1,000 yard season and his best seasons are comparable to welker's worst seasons. i followed branch throughout his stay here in seattle. he did nothing. givens and graham did nothing in other teams after leaving at ages when they were supposed to have peaked. 

    Some people argue that it's not the talent in 2011--it's the play calling. We could use guys like Benny and Woodhead and Ridley and Ocho and Edelmen more.  But honestly, none of those guys seems very good to me (Ridley possibly excepted if he can hold on to the ball).  

    exactly key to the point. none of the guys who contributed tremendously in those SBs turned out to be not talented enough to make it after leaving nwe. together however, they scored when they needed to, because they had diversity and unpredictability, and it was not because of having talent.

    Given the make-up of the team, I think the offense is pretty much stuck running nearly all the plays through Gronk, Welker, Hernandez, and Branch . . . all short field receivers.  ...

    i think the big difference is that the team is becoming too much of a perfectionist and pretty on o, versus back then, they were focused on being consistently effective

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?

    SeattlePat with another great breakdown.

    @Prolate, I don't think you realize how much you are actually proving our point in what you are saying. The 2001-2003 offense had every reason to be one dimensional. They had below average runningbacks, with short receivers with no big play potential(other then Patten that guy was under rated) yet they committed to an offense that worked, balance and smash mouth.

    Now our offense is more talented then ever(2nd to 07....maybe) with the best o-line I have seen on this Patriot team in the last decade, yet we are a one trick pony?

    I do not want to see us "become a running team" not with our QB! I want to see us help Brady by using more then one dimension of the offense. We put too much pressure on him, yes our defense is not as good as it used to be, even more of a reason to be diverse on offense.

    The fact of the matter is that 17 points should not be good enough to win a SB but it would have been if our offense could have just used some clock in the 2nd half.

    2011 talent is superior to 2001-2004 talent,

    2001-2004 coaching staff is superior to 2005-2011 coaching staff
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?

    In Response to Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?:
    SeattlePat with another great breakdown. @Prolate, I don't think you realize how much you are actually proving our point in what you are saying. The 2001-2003 offense had every reason to be one dimensional. They had below average runningbacks, with short receivers with no big play potential(other then Patten that guy was under rated) yet they committed to an offense that worked, balance and smash mouth. Now our offense is more talented then ever(2nd to 07....maybe) with the best o-line I have seen on this Patriot team in the last decade, yet we are a one trick pony? I do not want to see us "become a running team" not with our QB! I want to see us help Brady by using more then one dimension of the offense. We put too much pressure on him, yes our defense is not as good as it used to be, even more of a reason to be diverse on offense. The fact of the matter is that 17 points should not be good enough to win a SB but it would have been if our offense could have just used some clock in the 2nd half. 2011 talent is superior to 2001-2004 talent, 2001-2004 coaching staff is superior to 2005-2011 coaching staff
    Posted by TrueChamp

    thanks, tc.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share