Is this a good or bad thing with BB and his approach to staffing?

  1. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Is this a good or bad thing with BB and his approach to staffing?

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

    In response to Ytsejamer1's comment:

     

    My other observation on the defensive coaching staff is when the Pats are getting gashed, it's BB to the rescue while McDaniels and Brady control the offense.  BB is down there instructing the players while the unibomber looks on holding his pencil and paper.

     



    I don't see that as a flaw. Crennell was an older, experienced Def Coordinator. Patricia is still absorbing and learning.

     

    If BB can quickly address something because he sees it very quickly, then why not have BB address the issue on the spot?

    You act like BB hands on teaching is a problem. I see it as a great benefit to have limited red tape or a possible miscommunication be eliminated.  Barring Crennell wanting to return here and Patricia moving on, this is not a big deal at all.

     




    And if BB said dog crap was chocolate ice cream you would ask for 3 scoops.

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

    Re: Is this a good or bad thing with BB and his approach to staffing?

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

     

    In response to Ytsejamer1's comment:

     

    My other observation on the defensive coaching staff is when the Pats are getting gashed, it's BB to the rescue while McDaniels and Brady control the offense.  BB is down there instructing the players while the unibomber looks on holding his pencil and paper.

     



    I don't see that as a flaw. Crennell was an older, experienced Def Coordinator. Patricia is still absorbing and learning.

     

    If BB can quickly address something because he sees it very quickly, then why not have BB address the issue on the spot?

    You act like BB hands on teaching is a problem. I see it as a great benefit to have limited red tape or a possible miscommunication be eliminated.  Barring Crennell wanting to return here and Patricia moving on, this is not a big deal at all.

     

     




    And if BB said dog crap was chocolate ice cream you would ask for 3 scoops.

     



    you are that way with brady

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Low-FB-IQ. Show Low-FB-IQ's posts

    Re: Is this a good or bad thing with BB and his approach to staffing?

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:

     

    In response to Ytsejamer1's comment:

     

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:

    In response to Ytsejamer1's comment:

    I don't mind the smaller staff thing...it makes some amount of sense.  The problem I have is with the jamokes BB did hire, coaching the defense (Pepper Johnson aside of course).  I'd like some better coaching on that side of the ball.


    I don't think we need to see another year of horrific pass defense to realize that Josh Boyer and Brian Fuentes are not doing the job back there....Boyer moreso than Fuentes as Feuntes was just hired last year.

    Wait, so what you are saying is Josh Boyer and Fuesntes are the problem because they are idiots and can't coach, yet when they move McCourtey to play safety because they don't have a player who can play a lick back there, and aquire an actual decent CB allowing the unit to perform well they don't get credit for making the change with McCourtey and telling BB they need someone better?

    ...or more simply if a player or team unit stinks it's bad coaching but if they get better players and the unit improves and performs much better the coaching still stinks and it's all the players? Right?



    I respectfully disagree...I don't think their players have progressed they way they probably should.  If the players come in do okay at first, then get worse year after year...I'm not going to lay all the blame on the players.  I think it's a shared  responsibility.  Some of it is BB making the final call on the picks, some of it is the coaching, and certainly, some of it is the players. 

    Here's my main argument and the basis of my opinion.  If Hank Poteat, Earthwind Moreland, Randall Gay, and Troy Brown can play DB at a championship level, I'm going to assume so should DMC and all those other second and third round picks they've had come in and eventually flame out.  The difference? I'd say it's the coaching.  You cannot tell me that Josh Boyer is a more competent secondary coach than Eric Mangini...sorry, I'm just not buying it.  If it's not Josh Boyer and other secondary coaches fault, then it's another level's fault...either way, it's on the defensive side of the ball.

     



     

    A couple of things.

    1) How many guys have gone elsewhere after failing here as a DB and had very productive careers elsewhere? Darius Butler maybe? He did not last but one year wiht the Panthers before being released. Seemed to do OK with Indy last year so we have to wait and see. Who else? Terrance Wheatley? Jonathan Wilhite? Brandon Meriweather? Mike Richardson? Those are the DB's drafted while he was DB's coach or one year earlier and are no longer here. Since 2008. It looks like chung will get added to that list at this point but Boyer was not the safeties coach this past season. I just do not see the proof anywhere.

    Did Dennard get worse as the season went along? Did Arrington get worse as the season progressed? (If anything, with Arrington, most seem to think he started the season poorly but got it turned around and played better as the season went on. Probably due to being more comfortable plaing in the slot as the nickel) Did Talib get worse from the time he arrived to the time he went out injured? Ras-I was hurt. Someone might try and argue McCourtey got worse at CB while under him but I would counter that argument by saying we had ZERO reliable safety play that contributed to that more than anything else. Which is why they took thier best CB at the time and made him a saftey.

    2) People assume Boyer was a nobody from nowhere but he came along from Dean Pees and Kent state where he worked with Pees. HE did not come to NE at the same time but I am sure it had a lot to do with Pees knowledge of and working experience with him prior.

    3) Of the DB's you did mention, did those players not get to play behind or with the likes of Seymour, McGinest, Vrabel, Colvin, Harrison, Law, Samuels, etc? You serious want to try and tell me that it was some sort of magic coaching job and those players you mentioned got crafted into amazing DB's? Honeslty that's your argument? Moreland for example had ZERO stats and never did anything before or after NE. It's easy to hide a turd when you are surrounded by stars. It's the same argument I make when people start going crazy over every player on a super college defensive unit. Some of those guys are always turds looking much better surround by a number of great players.

    4) What exactly was Manginis amazing credentials "before" becoming a BB decipal and learning under him, on the job?

     

    ... simply put your assertion is the players come in and do ok then progressively get worse and worse. Of the players that Boyer was given or worked with who of them has been good out of the gate and then gotten worse and worse? Then left NE after being discarded for performace reasons and NOT money and gone elsewhere under what I assume you would say is better coaching and magfically become a star?

     




    James Sanders.  Just saying.  I agree that normally once BB cuts you loose here, you'll be worse elsewhere. Possibly as good, but usually worse. Samuel, Law, Milloy, etc, all those guys never claim close to their peak years in NE.

     

     

     



    Its a lot of stuff to read so no worries but you missed the point. It was not players who just moved on. It was players who were failures, or considered failures here, under Josh Boyer, then went elsewhere and magically turned into a star or consistent started.

    Sanders was good and solid here and that ship just ran it's course and they "tried" to upgrade.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ytsejamer1. Show Ytsejamer1's posts

    Re: Is this a good or bad thing with BB and his approach to staffing?

    Russ...i like that BB is down there teaching.  It's what he's very good at and certainly good to see.  The issue I take with it is that his defensive coordinator is just standing there a little too often for my liking.  Again...this is just my opinion.  And I agree with you...the brain drain at all levels after the last SB really killed the momentum a bit.

    As for Mangini , he teethed in Cleveland, in NY, and in NE over a course of 15 years plus...Boyer came from the S.Dakota school of Mines and technology running a defense in the NAIA or something like that...and they were ranked like 80th of 90 something teams. :)  I'd feel better if he were getting coffee and taking notes for about ten years before given the reigns as a position coach.

    I'm not going to try and persuade how you're thinking...you bring up fine points.  I just disagree with that line of thought on it.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Low-FB-IQ. Show Low-FB-IQ's posts

    Re: Is this a good or bad thing with BB and his approach to staffing?

    In response to Ytsejamer1's comment:

    Russ...i like that BB is down there teaching.  It's what he's very good at and certainly good to see.  The issue I take with it is that his defensive coordinator is just standing there a little too often for my liking.  Again...this is just my opinion.  And I agree with you...the brain drain at all levels after the last SB really killed the momentum a bit.

    As for Mangini , he teethed in Cleveland, in NY, and in NE over a course of 15 years plus...Boyer came from the S.Dakota school of Mines and technology running a defense in the NAIA or something like that...and they were ranked like 80th of 90 something teams. :)  I'd feel better if he were getting coffee and taking notes for about ten years before given the reigns as a position coach.

    I'm not going to try and persuade how you're thinking...you bring up fine points.  I just disagree with that line of thought on it.



    I know you are not argueing or trying to convince me. I was simply trying to give you a more information as it appears based on what you've written that you are relying on uninformed wise cracks from the users here.

    Boyer did not just come from only that South Dakota School of Mines and Technology and then straight into the db coaching job with the Pats. He was only there for 1 season as the DC. It was the Head coaches first season as well. They were awful. They were awful the previous year and for the following years after Boyer left as well. Before that, Boyer was the DB coach for Bryant University and before that he worked on Dean Pees coaching staff at Kent state. Prior to that he got his start at another small school as an assistant.

    He also played Division III football as both a WR and DB.

    He followed Pees to the Patriots 2 years after Pees arrived in NE and worked as a coaching assistant for 2 years in BB's system prior to being promoted and named DB's coach in 2008.

    BB obviously feels very strongly about consistency with his systems which is why he either promotes from within usually or rehires those who are familair with his systems.

    I frankly have absolutely no idea how good or bad Josh Boyer is as a coach/teacher. I simply don't think it's as clear cut or simple as most would have you believe that the guy has no experience. BB got to be around the guy for two full seasons before promoting him to DB's coach. So Boyer got to be around not only BB but also Mangini who was the DC at the time and Pees who was the LB's coach & then DC as well.

    I am just not ready to say Boyer is an idiot when there were three other guys who most consider competent to call him out and influence the fireing of him along the way, but did not.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from 42AND46. Show 42AND46's posts

    Re: Is this a good or bad thing with BB and his approach to staffing?

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

    In response to 42AND46's comment:

     

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

     

    In response to JRABBB's comment:

     

    BB The so called genuis hasn't won anything in what is it now 10 years?!

    maybe it's time to bring in a few more coaches or maybe a few more cameramen to illegally film,cheat,other teams.

    The "genuis"hasn't won anything since those cold dark days of the pats organization.

     

    Just saying.

     




     

    Anyone trying to demean BB's incredible NFL resume based on the witch hunt known as Spygate is a moron. And Leon, we know you are.  BB wasn't doing anything different than any other NFL coach at the time. This is a well known fact based on corroboration from former NFL coaches that include Parcells, to Bud Grant, Chuck Knox, Jimmy Johnson, etc. 

    Goodell listened to GMs, oweres or coaches when he was brought in, those jealous people wanting to get by NE though the rule could be seen differently, knew BB liked to cross the Ts and dot the Is as much as any coch in the league, and thought by changing how the rule as applied, it might take a bullett out of BB's chamber.  In fact, the theory that Goodell felt NE was so good, so efficient as an organization and felt punishing them was a good way to level the playing field and make the league stronger, makes a TON of sense.  He wins on both counts. NE becomes a villain organization and more teams become better along the way. The Cardinals and Saints end up in Super Bowls. Hmm.

    Clearly, many coaches, didn't see that they were in violation as long as the scouting technology (video or audio) wasn't used in the game THAT DAY. That's the key to all of Spygate.

    Period.

    Miami used audio in 2006, no penalty.

    The Jets filmed NE in 2006, no penalty.  Why didn't the media make a fuss over that?  The Miami story was actually reported one week after the game that December. I remember it clearly.  John Clayton actually reported it.  No response from the league other than "what Miami did with audio is perfectly legal".

    Hmm. Is that because Miami sucked and NE lost? Isn't that interesting because by rule that's technology used for future scouting.  Hmm.

    Hmm, seemed like the rule wasn't being addressed any differently based on these facts.  To pretend that any scouting is the basis of a player or team's success is preposterous anyway. if you believe that, you're not only a moron but you clearly never played sports. If someone filmed my tendencies in a certain situation as a baseball player and studied that, it's not an advantage. I know my weaknesses. They do too. It's up to me to win the mental battle.  Period.

    The fact Brady and the Pats didn't know Jason Taylor and Miami knew all of Brady's audibles because NE didn't change them from the week before, is Brady and the Pats fault. 

    Even 3 YEARS after Spygate and the witch hunt, Bill Cowher, one of the most overrated coaches in NFL history (4 home AFC title losses, only 1 SB title under suspicion in 2005) said this:

     

    12.3.2010:

     

     

    Bill Cowher:  "You know, let me just say this:  To answer your question, no, I don’t think so (it was not an advantage just for NE). I just know as a head coach, you are always looking for a competitive edge. We had people out there trying to look at signals. We had guys go to games. They would tape the signal caller and also write it down. They would take it back and match up the signals with the game film and certain defenses with certain plays that were being called, particularly the defenses being called, to see if we could come up with some kind of an alert for a signal.  So, what they did with videotaping the signal caller, people do it with the people in the stands!! 

    These people sitting there in the stands, looking at the signal, writing it down and matching up the 1st and 10 signal. Ok? Then you go back again and the 2nd and 10 and here’s the signal. You do that for a whole game.

    You then go back and match up the defenses with the signal.  And you can come up with what the signal was.

    So, you don;’t need a video tape with what they were talking about doing. And people were doing it. WE were doing that.  Everybody does that. You’re TRYING to gain a  competitive edge. There is nothing wrong with that.

    That’s why baseball players go through the mirage of signals. They’ve got all these different codes. That’s part of the competitive spirit of the game. I think it’s totally overblown.  I think if  you get caught (signals compromised), then do what we did and go to wristbands, you are worried about it.  We started putting defenses on wristbands. Then you find a way to not get caught (signals compromised).  When your good at something and people try steal from ya, I think it’s flattering."


    END THREAD

     

     




    methinks you doth protesteth too much...eth

     

    seriously queenie drop ur conspiracy bs about how all the other "jealous" gms had the rules changed to stop the pats from winning-u sound like a bigger idiot than u usually do

    seeing how all those jealous gms changed the rules and went on a witch hunt to stop the packers in the 60's and the 70's steelers and the 80's 9ers and the early 90's cowboys

    cant wait to hear this spin

     



    You just proved my point. Historically, teams lobby the commissioner to alter or pay more attention to rules.

     

    The 1978 Chuck Rule was basically targeting the Steelers. The attention Polian wanted with this in 2003, came as a direct result of NE's defense against the Colts in the playoffs.

    The Steelers were pretty crappy in the 1980s, huh? Yep, they were. 1978 Chuck Rule certainly hurt how they wanted to play.

    It was widely reported that BB is so known for his due dilligence in scouting and really with everything, teams knew that and thought his scouting efficiency with how they prepared for teams in the future, MIGHT be that extra someone like BB didn't need. Hence, the lobbying of Goodell in 2006.  You act as if people didn't know how brilliant BB was as a coach.   Anything a great coach might be able to use as a benefit even with video scouting is something a jealous GM like a Bill Polian doesn't want moving forward. 

    We KNOW for a fact that Holmgren and Polian while on the comp committee lobbied for the Chuck Rule to be fully enforced after 2003 when they used footage of their own teams losing in the 2003 playoffs. Polian didn't sit on that comp committee for so long for his health. After losing 4 straight SBs with Buffalo, he was on a mission to gain any edge possible. Yep.  If he had to choke a few people, root for injuries, slamming the table with his fist, he was going to do it. These are facts.   He choked a Meadowlands official in an elevator and cheered for the Colts to break Flutie's leg in the press box.  Classy.

    In 2006, Goodell releases a note about the rule itself, where Tagliabue never addressed any infractions of any kind prior to 2006 as commissioner. Hmm. Seems a bit, doesn't it?  A reminder about how Goodell sees the rule out of the woodowork as a new commissioner? Why? What's changed? The rule was always there to defend against any video scouting being used in the game THAT DAY. All 32 teams signed on off on future video scouting, coaches waved at each other's cameras and generally, no one saw much benefit from it anyway.

    If you read the rule, the word "a" and "the" actually point to the idea that the rule was there just for that; the defend against any technology capturing something to be used THAT DAY in THAT GAME.    How is it possible for teams to employ a vide coordinator, watching them film what they film, but soemhow no one knowing it existed? It's not possible, dummy. Everyone knew it was going on.

    My above interview with Cowher proves every team did it if they saw fit. What more do you want?

    That's why when the witch hunt started, the original claim was that NE raced into the locker room at halftime to use the first half footage to get the signals for the second half. Obviously, it's a comically preposterous claim because a half time is like 12 minutes long. The imagery of what that would entail is hilarious. BB and his coaches swoop into a private room to see the Def Coordinator's signals? LOL!

    For morons to claim or believe that is hilarious, but that claim proves the Jets knew they needed to show it was about using the footage IN THE GAME, hence why they wanted to get Estrella as he was walking into the tunnel.

    Bottom line is all those claims were untrue and it never added up.  NE never used the tapes in the game that day. All the old tapes were edited down, which further corroborates this.

    Goodell's job is to grow the league. Tagliabue waas too old, was asked to resign, so he did. Goodell came in and looked for ways to spruce up the league. One way, was to weaken a dominant team like NE.   The claims by NY, going public before Goodell could even investigate, was a perfect way to corner Goodell.

    His worst nightmare is for another dynasty to unfold in the NFL. 

    Owned.



    ur Goodell rant is same old same old as expected

    u don't need to defend pats re: spying to me b/c i never bought it or mention it-i am talking ur usual conspiracy nonsense about "everyone" banding together to stop he mighty pats we are all so "jealous" of ie: goodell, the media, the other 31 gms, the networks, santa claus...when will u give it up already? it's embarrassing

    as for the 80's steelers it's called getting old and having hall of fame players retire/get released

    happens in all sports throughout history-Father Time wins eventually...has zero to do with any silly rule change in 1978...when btw the steelers had about 2 more yrs of greatness left for their aging core

    UN-OWNED

     

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

    Re: Is this a good or bad thing with BB and his approach to staffing?

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:

     

    BB's reasons make absolute perfect sense to me as a coach.

    It is not always easy to find coaches to work under you who will follow direction exactly how you want things done, including not only the philosophy and techniques but even the language you want used in the teachings.

    Your coaching staff needs to be organized, productive, effiecient, visually detail oriented to break down mechanics and technique into smaller parts, as well as clear communicators.

    Personally I don't think having a predefined number of bodies has anything to do with it.

     




     

    There's something to be said for continuity in a staff but so too is an assistant coach/scout  whose abilities reflect a independent but trusted eye for NFL talent as a failsafe against cronyism.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Low-FB-IQ. Show Low-FB-IQ's posts

    Re: Is this a good or bad thing with BB and his approach to staffing?

    In response to moskk's comment:

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:

     

    BB's reasons make absolute perfect sense to me as a coach.

    It is not always easy to find coaches to work under you who will follow direction exactly how you want things done, including not only the philosophy and techniques but even the language you want used in the teachings.

    Your coaching staff needs to be organized, productive, effiecient, visually detail oriented to break down mechanics and technique into smaller parts, as well as clear communicators.

    Personally I don't think having a predefined number of bodies has anything to do with it.

     




     

    There's something to be said for continuity in a staff but so too is an assistant coach/scout  whose abilities reflect a independent but trusted eye for NFL talent as a failsafe against cronyism.



    I would certainly agree. I think everyone here loves to purely speculate however.

    Before I ask the following qeustions, you seem to be mixing two different things here if I understand you correct. Are we just speaking coahing still or are you blending in his GM duties and scouting for the draft. I was speaking coaching staff. You do not coach/teach talent.

     

    Do you know that his assistants are not allowed to ask questions or bring ideas or other options to the table for discussion?

    Do we all not know that the Patriots as well as all the other NFL teams self scout as they go along during the season?

    Have you never seen the Patriots tinker with their personnel alignments, etc during the course of a season? Do we know who the originator of those changes always are? I do not know if they are always BB's ideas alone. 

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

    Re: Is this a good or bad thing with BB and his approach to staffing?

    In response to redsoxfan94's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

     

    In response to Ytsejamer1's comment:

     

    My other observation on the defensive coaching staff is when the Pats are getting gashed, it's BB to the rescue while McDaniels and Brady control the offense.  BB is down there instructing the players while the unibomber looks on holding his pencil and paper.

     



    I don't see that as a flaw. Crennell was an older, experienced Def Coordinator. Patricia is still absorbing and learning.

     

    If BB can quickly address something because he sees it very quickly, then why not have BB address the issue on the spot?

    You act like BB hands on teaching is a problem. I see it as a great benefit to have limited red tape or a possible miscommunication be eliminated.  Barring Crennell wanting to return here and Patricia moving on, this is not a big deal at all.

     

     




    And if BB said dog crap was chocolate ice cream you would ask for 3 scoops.

     

     



    you are that way with brady

     




    Not in the least.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Is this a good or bad thing with BB and his approach to staffing?

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

     I've also disagree with other things like some scheme moves and other things. 

     

     



    Poor composition here junior. Redundant.

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

    Re: Is this a good or bad thing with BB and his approach to staffing?

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

     

    In response to Ytsejamer1's comment:

     

    My other observation on the defensive coaching staff is when the Pats are getting gashed, it's BB to the rescue while McDaniels and Brady control the offense.  BB is down there instructing the players while the unibomber looks on holding his pencil and paper.

     



    I don't see that as a flaw. Crennell was an older, experienced Def Coordinator. Patricia is still absorbing and learning.

     

    If BB can quickly address something because he sees it very quickly, then why not have BB address the issue on the spot?

    You act like BB hands on teaching is a problem. I see it as a great benefit to have limited red tape or a possible miscommunication be eliminated.  Barring Crennell wanting to return here and Patricia moving on, this is not a big deal at all.

     

     




    And if BB said dog crap was chocolate ice cream you would ask for 3 scoops.

     

     




    False. I've criticized/disagreed with BB before.  Do I need to remind you about the Mankins thing and me thinking it was a mistake?  I've also disagree with other things like some scheme moves and other things. 

     

    If anyone would like a doggie dung cone with extra dung, it's you, served by Tom Brady in a pink tutu.

     

     




    True. You don't even have balls enough to man up and say you disagree with BB's use of the passing game. Instead you make up some cockamamie lie that Brady is somehow an out of control employee that BB is helpless to stop from ruining his team because BB is to "busy" to find a minute to tell Brady/McD "stop passing so much". LMAO@U, dumbkoff.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share