Let's Put it to a Poll

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

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    In response to LazarusintheSanatorium's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Owner

    GM

    Headcoach

    Coaches

    Players

    Sht rolls down hill, great coaches and personel people find talent, not the other way around. A great talent can go to a bad organization and his career can end in a flash.  Randy Moss can play for the Raiders and do nothing, the following year go to the Pats and blow up.  A talent that needs to be nurtured can go to a great organization and they'll get the best out of them. 

    Everybody in the NFL is talented or else they wouldn't be there, over 1000 guys put their names into the draft every year, a small % make it.  The difference between winning and losing isn't a 10th off a forty time, winning a Super Bowl isn't easy despite BB and his amazing collection of coaches from 2000-2004 making it seem so.

    This isn't basketball where one player can alter everything about your team, this is football.  Great coaches can pull great performances out of marginal players, great talent with no direction is just that... a team with potential.

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm goin' with this ^. 

    Small example...Couple years back, I had Gabe Carimi as the OT that the Pats shoulda drafted as their #1 OT.  Some people had Nate Solder...still others had that Boston College OT that went to The Colts.  Carimi got drafted by the Bears...and this was for the '11-'12 year, the season when Chicago had ZERO starting caliber O-Linemen, the QB & Offense started the year on some sorta record sack pace.  I followed Carimi ALL through this (he was manning the right side)...even the graphs and sack counts and from where...and Carimi SOLIDIFIED that Right side on a hopeless Chicago O-Line...Sacks up middle, Sacks on weakside, etc..  He WAS their pathetic OLine...needless to say, several games in- He gets injured.  Chicago rushes him back after only a few weeks and the guy either got injured, or just gimped it the resta the way...His play the next year was NOT the same.

    Just small examples....and there's a million. 

    Starts with Owner & GM then Coach, then Coaching...then talent.  On up...QB and D leader on down.  Get the accolades and have the bigger power to make bigger team and game swinging changes, then ya have more Both positive AND negative...Accountability.

    Alot of teams do their best to simply FIELD blue-chippers who've slid in the draft and/or field a team with older veteran 10X All-Pros...the 1st being The Bengals, the 2nd exemplified by The Raiders.  These teams STILL 90% of the time svck.

    Good talent on a bad franchise?  ...You could easily have a mediocre talent in just 1-2 short years.

    ...2 thoughts:

    1.  We lost the SBs and recent playoffs...like winning them, On Coaching and their gameplans and singular game designs and lack of in-game adjustments.  Just the opposite when we won those SBs.

    2.  For many years...I was VERY sick of being 8-12 mil under the cap and NE being 1 WR, 1 CB, 1 Pass-rusher, or 1 RB...short of a SB and/or a further playoff birth <Reche Caldwell, Ellis Hobbs, TBC, Lawrence Maroney/Kevin Faulk>...shouldn't be your #1 guys=That's Owner stuff and FA stuff, when your depth at those very key standout threat spots is THAT bad.

    [/QUOTE]

     we haven't won a SB because of bad plays by all pros and injuries to HoF level players.and a few games to when the "team" and usually the Oline didn't play well. 

    whether or not we could have had one FA player to make a diffeence is 20 20 hind sight looking thru wishful thinking glasses.

    Some days you eat the bear and sometimes the bear eats you

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

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to neinmd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    First, you have to have a base of at least NFL-average talent. In this era of free agency, the talent spread has narrowed.

    Then, with the same level of talent, leadership plays a huge role. This is not just true of football. Creativity is probably the biggest attribute of effective leadership, followed by an ability to create a winning team culture, ability to evaluate/reward/position talent to enhance the overall team, tough-minded decisiveness, and empathy.

    There is a reason some coaches win a lot and others don't. Nick Saban wins a lot. Pete Carroll has won at both college and professional level. So has Jimmy Johnson. Bear Bryant routinely beat more talented teams. Ditto Red Auerbach. IMO, Bill Parcells was another such leader. Not every one of these guys had all the attributes of great leadership but they had enough of them to become consistent winners.

    So, of the two choices, I would pick coaching ahead of sheer talent. If I had the job of a GM of any professional sports team (possible exception of basketball), I would pick the coach first and worry about the players second. 

    [/QUOTE]


    How did the Pats D go from dominate to dreadful? 

    [/QUOTE]

    Because BB's coaching got worse! LMAO

    Honestly, this place is sooooooooo stupid, it's amazing.

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

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    For the Pats it's talent because the coaching is fabulous and has been consistently fabulous ever since Bill Belichick arrived on scene. 

     

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

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll


    What I think fans don't realize or don't think to, is that Head Coaches come into a program and hire all their own people, or people recommended by their people, or people similiar to their people. They do that for a reason. I have been an executive chef of restaurants for the last 15 years of my life. When I have started a new endeavor,  the 1st thing I do is call "my guys" people who have worked for me, Sous Chefs, kitchen managers, front of house managers, key staff memebers and regular staff. I do this because despite being a part of a different organization,  in order to be successful I need people around me who know my system.  "You are only as good as the people around you" is a great quote to ponder for those of you in a position of leadership. 

    Well, BB has been more succesful then any coach or GM in the league for well over a decade, and when that happens his staff gets opportunities to move on and make their own way, and yes good leaders have succession plans, but it doesn't always work out as planned. There is a learning curve for new younger managers/coaches, and your business more often then not will suffer because of it. The Patriots have suffered on the biggest stage(post season) due to this imo.

    Simply saying...."we have BB we have great coaching" is not true. The NFL is LOADED with talent. There are hundreds of guys who could be super stars who never even get on the field due to how much talent exists. These are the best athletes from all over the country and sometimes the world. Coaching and GM's are the men responsible for getting that talent or sometimes that work ethic onto a field and bringing it out of them. 

    If talent was more Important then guys like Vince Lombardi, Tom Landry, Chuck noll, Paul Bear Bryant etc etc wouldn't be held in such regard.  These were leaders of men, and they were the difference between excellence and mediocrity, between winning and losing. And while we might not be privy to the names of their great assistants who helped them win championships,  we know as sure as sht they had them, just like BB did with his staff he single handedly brought into N.E in 2000.

    Coaching is more important then talent will ever be. Great coaching separates the men from the boys...literally. 

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

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    What I think fans don't realize or don't think to, is that Head Coaches come into a program and hire all their own people, or people recommended by their people, or people similiar to their people. They do that for a reason. I have been an executive chef of restaurants for the last 15 years of my life. When I have started a new endeavor,  the 1st thing I do is call "my guys" people who have worked for me, Sous Chefs, kitchen managers, front of house managers, key staff memebers and regular staff. I do this because despite being a part of a different organization,  in order to be successful I need people around me who know my system.  "You are only as good as the people around you" is a great quote to ponder for those of you in a position of leadership. 

    Well, BB has been more succesful then any coach or GM in the league for well over a decade, and when that happens his staff gets opportunities to move on and make their own way, and yes good leaders have succession plans, but it doesn't always work out as planned. There is a learning curve for new younger managers/coaches, and your business more often then not will suffer because of it. The Patriots have suffered on the biggest stage(post season) due to this imo.

    Simply saying...."we have BB we have great coaching" is not true. The NFL is LOADED with talent. There are hundreds of guys who could be super stars who never even get on the field due to how much talent exists. These are the best athletes from all over the country and sometimes the world. Coaching and GM's are the men responsible for getting that talent or sometimes that work ethic onto a field and bringing it out of them. 

    If talent was more Important then guys like Vince Lombardi, Tom Landry, Chuck noll, Paul Bear Bryant etc etc wouldn't be held in such regard.  These were leaders of men, and they were the difference between excellence and mediocrity, between winning and losing. And while we might not be privy to the names of their great assistants who helped them win championships,  we know as sure as sht they had them, just like BB did with his staff he single handedly brought into N.E in 2000.

    Coaching is more important then talent will ever be. Great coaching separates the men from the boys...literally. 

    [/QUOTE]


    you mean he brought in the Giants staff "single- handedly" ie: Parcells staff

     

    are you SURE you're not Rusty??

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:


    What I think fans don't realize or don't think to, is that Head Coaches come into a program and hire all their own people, or people recommended by their people, or people similiar to their people. They do that for a reason. I have been an executive chef of restaurants for the last 15 years of my life. When I have started a new endeavor,  the 1st thing I do is call "my guys" people who have worked for me, Sous Chefs, kitchen managers, front of house managers, key staff memebers and regular staff. I do this because despite being a part of a different organization,  in order to be successful I need people around me who know my system.  "You are only as good as the people around you" is a great quote to ponder for those of you in a position of leadership. 

    Well, BB has been more succesful then any coach or GM in the league for well over a decade, and when that happens his staff gets opportunities to move on and make their own way, and yes good leaders have succession plans, but it doesn't always work out as planned. There is a learning curve for new younger managers/coaches, and your business more often then not will suffer because of it. The Patriots have suffered on the biggest stage(post season) due to this imo.

    Simply saying...."we have BB we have great coaching" is not true. The NFL is LOADED with talent. There are hundreds of guys who could be super stars who never even get on the field due to how much talent exists. These are the best athletes from all over the country and sometimes the world. Coaching and GM's are the men responsible for getting that talent or sometimes that work ethic onto a field and bringing it out of them. 

    If talent was more Important then guys like Vince Lombardi, Tom Landry, Chuck noll, Paul Bear Bryant etc etc wouldn't be held in such regard.  These were leaders of men, and they were the difference between excellence and mediocrity, between winning and losing. And while we might not be privy to the names of their great assistants who helped them win championships,  we know as sure as sht they had them, just like BB did with his staff he single handedly brought into N.E in 2000.

    Coaching is more important then talent will ever be. Great coaching separates the men from the boys...literally. 




    Well then, those coaches better start working on their RB's and O-line so that they can run more and actually win SBs, again.  Who needs Cory Dillion, when we have Bolden and BJGE and Fumbles MC Gillicutty and Wendell, right?

    You do know that NFL parity is designed to even the score by giving those fantastic coaches less talent, right?

    Guess if they really want parity, they should limit coaches terms.  Make them change teams every 4 years.  That ought to do it.  Surely a coach like bb could make a team like Cleveland relevant in that time.  OH wait....never mind

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

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    Assistant coaches also help choose who will be drafted and signed via free agency, it's up to the assistants to tell their boss what they need to do their job well, so the loss of assistants over time will also have an adverse effect on drafting and filtering information upwards, even in game time situations.  

    Negative Nancy posters will be the first to say BB is a bad talent evaluator but won't blink an eye at the fact he has the youngest assistants in the league because his veteran guys have been poached long ago.

    No team in the league has been poached of talent more than the Patriots, all types of talent... coaching in football is everything, you can't have talent without the ability to spot it and draw that talent out.  

    The notion that a substandard coach/GM can win a ring even with talent is ludicrous, otherwise how come the Bengals/Jaguars/Browns picking at the top of the draft annually never win and their most talented players ultimately come to the Patriots or another winner in the hopes of winning a ring after their huge contracts end?

    This thread is silly...

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

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:


    What I think fans don't realize or don't think to, is that Head Coaches come into a program and hire all their own people, or people recommended by their people, or people similiar to their people. They do that for a reason. I have been an executive chef of restaurants for the last 15 years of my life. When I have started a new endeavor,  the 1st thing I do is call "my guys" people who have worked for me, Sous Chefs, kitchen managers, front of house managers, key staff memebers and regular staff. I do this because despite being a part of a different organization,  in order to be successful I need people around me who know my system.  "You are only as good as the people around you" is a great quote to ponder for those of you in a position of leadership. 

    Well, BB has been more succesful then any coach or GM in the league for well over a decade, and when that happens his staff gets opportunities to move on and make their own way, and yes good leaders have succession plans, but it doesn't always work out as planned. There is a learning curve for new younger managers/coaches, and your business more often then not will suffer because of it. The Patriots have suffered on the biggest stage(post season) due to this imo.

    Simply saying...."we have BB we have great coaching" is not true. The NFL is LOADED with talent. There are hundreds of guys who could be super stars who never even get on the field due to how much talent exists. These are the best athletes from all over the country and sometimes the world. Coaching and GM's are the men responsible for getting that talent or sometimes that work ethic onto a field and bringing it out of them. 

    If talent was more Important then guys like Vince Lombardi, Tom Landry, Chuck noll, Paul Bear Bryant etc etc wouldn't be held in such regard.  These were leaders of men, and they were the difference between excellence and mediocrity, between winning and losing. And while we might not be privy to the names of their great assistants who helped them win championships,  we know as sure as sht they had them, just like BB did with his staff he single handedly brought into N.E in 2000.

    Coaching is more important then talent will ever be. Great coaching separates the men from the boys...literally. 



    So what you're saying is in your kitchen the talent matters, but on the football field only the head chef matters. 

     

    "It's been a privilege and a great opportunity to coach the players that won those games," Belichick said in his post-game press conference, “I didn't make a block, didn't make a tackle, throw a pass, kick a ball. The players win them, but it's an honor to coach the group of players that really go out there to make the plays and win those games. That's the way it was [tonight against the Jets].”

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

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So what you're saying is in your kitchen the talent matters, but on the football field only the head chef matters.  

    "It's been a privilege and a great opportunity to coach the players that won those games," Belichick said in his post-game press conference, “I didn't make a block, didn't make a tackle, throw a pass, kick a ball. The players win them, but it's an honor to coach the group of players that really go out there to make the plays and win those games. That's the way it was [tonight against the Jets].”

    [/QUOTE]

    There are numerous coaches on the Patriots, this isn't what he was saying at all.

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

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    Winning one SB is 1. luck, 2. health and 3. peaking at the right time. To the extent coaching caused that, sure it's important.

    But sustained excellence, like Green Bay under Lombardi, Walsh's Niners, the Steelers in the 70s and the Pats now is about organization, from the top down, and having a system and players that fit that system. It's not about collecting talent. The Eagles tried that. Remember the Dream Team? How'd that work out? 

    You need players that buy in and execute what the coaches want them to. Whether they're among the best players in the league at their position means a lot less than whether they know what the coaches want them to do and they're willing to do it. Sometimes that means putting personal goals aside, not everybody is willing to do that. 

    Continuity among assistants is helpful too, but the system is bigger than any individual. All you need to look at to see that is George Seifert and Barry Switzer.  They were smart enough to keep the system going long enough to win, but not smart enough or dominant enough to sustain it. 

    Lombardi, Walsh, Noll, Parcells, Shula, Belichick, alpha males. Driven, domineering and smart. 

    And one other thing, you better have a guy under center who knows what to do and doesn't fall apart under pressure.  You can have talent, system, coaching, but if your QB is a bum, you won't win.

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

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Winning one SB is 1. luck, 2. health and 3. peaking at the right time. To the extent coaching caused that, sure it's important.

    But sustained excellence, like Green Bay under Lombardi, Walsh's Niners, the Steelers in the 70s and the Pats now is about organization, from the top down, and having a system and players that fit that system. It's not about collecting talent. The Eagles tried that. Remember the Dream Team? How'd that work out? 

    You need players that buy in and execute what the coaches want them to. Whether they're among the best players in the league at their position means a lot less than whether they know what the coaches want them to do and they're willing to do it. Sometimes that means putting personal goals aside, not everybody is willing to do that. 

    Continuity among assistants is helpful too, but the system is bigger than any individual. All you need to look at to see that is George Seifert and Barry Switzer.  They were smart enough to keep the system going long enough to win, but not smart enough or dominant enough to sustain it. 

    Lombardi, Walsh, Noll, Parcells, Shula, Belichick, alpha males. Driven, domineering and smart. 

    And one other thing, you better have a guy under center who knows what to do and doesn't fall apart under pressure.  You can have talent, system, coaching, but if your QB is a bum, you won't win.

    [/QUOTE]

    Agreed, great post.

    I sometimes wonder about 2008, what if Brady had been done from that moment on (scary thought) and we had to go with Cassel.  Matty's life and career would look completely different.  

    Would he have been as dominant a passer as Brady, no but he would have been a game manager, got some first downs with his feet and we would still be winning now.  

    Good coaching, good GM'ing, it starts there...

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

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     how come the Bengals/Jaguars/Browns picking at the top of the draft annually never win

    [/QUOTE]

    Because they make poor choices.

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

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    In response to portfolio1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    It is hard to find a team without a good coach that has won it all.

    It is hard to find a team without good talent that has won it all.

    Saying you need both is not necessarily a dodge.

    In fact I offer you this: that in the current NFL what you need most is to be HEALTHY once you make the playoffs.

    Personally I put coach ahead of talent but you cant win it all without good coaching and you cant win it all without good talent. But what you MUST have IF you get into the playoffs is a HEALTHIER team than your oppenents. If that aspect is essentially equal then it becomes a matter of matchups and whether a coach can overcome some inherent mismatches - or use them to their fullest - to win. So that again is some of both. Can a coaching staff game plan to or away from mismatches. ANd is the talent in some particular aspect all but unaccountable by the opponent.

    Do humans need foor and water more than oxygen? Well, we will die faster without oxygen. But with food and water we will still die even if days later. Sometimes the question is not really key. If I am right about health that implies that a deeper team has a good chance of will beating a team built on a small core if that small core is not altogether healthy.

    AM I making sense?

    [/QUOTE]

    Does Barry Switzer count as one of of those coaches who won a SB, but may have questionable coaching skills?

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

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Winning one SB is 1. luck, 2. health and 3. peaking at the right time. To the extent coaching caused that, sure it's important.

    But sustained excellence, like Green Bay under Lombardi, Walsh's Niners, the Steelers in the 70s and the Pats now is about organization, from the top down, and having a system and players that fit that system. It's not about collecting talent. The Eagles tried that. Remember the Dream Team? How'd that work out? 

    You need players that buy in and execute what the coaches want them to. Whether they're among the best players in the league at their position means a lot less than whether they know what the coaches want them to do and they're willing to do it. Sometimes that means putting personal goals aside, not everybody is willing to do that. 

    Continuity among assistants is helpful too, but the system is bigger than any individual. All you need to look at to see that is George Seifert and Barry Switzer.  They were smart enough to keep the system going long enough to win, but not smart enough or dominant enough to sustain it. 

    Lombardi, Walsh, Noll, Parcells, Shula, Belichick, alpha males. Driven, domineering and smart. 

    And one other thing, you better have a guy under center who knows what to do and doesn't fall apart under pressure.  You can have talent, system, coaching, but if your QB is a bum, you won't win.

    [/QUOTE]


    About as accurate a description of the formula for sustained excellence as you'll find.

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

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    Maybe the poll question should be:

    Who thinks coaching has been a bigger reason for the Patriots' playoff losses than the players' abilities and performance?

    Or put another way, is the main problem Bill Belichick or Sterling Moore?

     

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

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    Well...for me...Pete Carroll is proof enough that it comes down to talent....put me down as option # 2.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from ghostofjri37. Show ghostofjri37's posts

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Maybe the poll question should be:

    Who thinks coaching has been a bigger reason for the Patriots' playoff losses than the players' abilities and performance?

    Or put another way, is the main problem Bill Belichick or Sterling Moore?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't know... in 2004 they won the SB with an UDFA Randall Gay and a rookie 4th rounder starting at corner with Eartwind Mooreland Hank Poteat as a major contributors in the secondary.

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

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Maybe the poll question should be:

    Who thinks coaching has been a bigger reason for the Patriots' playoff losses than the players' abilities and performance?

    Or put another way, is the main problem Bill Belichick or Sterling Moore?

     



    I don't know... in 2004 they won the SB with an UDFA Randall Gay and a rookie 4th rounder starting at corner with Eartwind Mooreland Hank Poteat as a major contributors in the secondary.

    [/QUOTE]

    Guess I'd take Gay, Samuel, Wilson, and Harrison over McCourty, Arrington, Ideghibo, and Chung.  Front seven was way better in 2004 too. (Earthwind, by the way, was inactive for the Super Bowl.  They were pretty thin on back-ups that game--I think just Poteat and Dexter Reid.)

    But the bigger point is that making it all the way to the Super Bowl regardless of players just confirms how good the coaching is.  Not winning it all is, in my opinion, more an indictment of the players than the coaches.  But we've got a bunch of posters who seem to think the loss of Charlie Weis is something Bill Belichick can't recover from . . . ten years later. 

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from ghostofjri37. Show ghostofjri37's posts

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Maybe the poll question should be:

    Who thinks coaching has been a bigger reason for the Patriots' playoff losses than the players' abilities and performance?

    Or put another way, is the main problem Bill Belichick or Sterling Moore?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't know... in 2004 they won the SB with an UDFA Randall Gay and a rookie 4th rounder starting at corner with Eartwind Mooreland Hank Poteat as a major contributors in the secondary.

    [/QUOTE]

    Guess I'd take Gay, Samuel, Wilson, and Harrison over McCourty, Arrington, Ideghibo, and Chung.  Front seven was way better in 2004 too. (Earthwind, by the way, was inactive for the Super Bowl.  They were pretty thin on back-ups that game--I think just Poteat and Dexter Reid.)

    [/QUOTE]

    In that SB Jake Delhomme threw for 323, 3 TD's, 0 picks and put up 29 points.  In 46 against Eli Manning the group you referenced gave up 296, 1 TD and 21 points.

    You can have all the talent in the world but if you don't have a solid plan on game day that talent can end up being wasted.

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

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Maybe the poll question should be:

    Who thinks coaching has been a bigger reason for the Patriots' playoff losses than the players' abilities and performance?

    Or put another way, is the main problem Bill Belichick or Sterling Moore?

     



    I don't know... in 2004 they won the SB with an UDFA Randall Gay and a rookie 4th rounder starting at corner with Eartwind Mooreland Hank Poteat as a major contributors in the secondary.

    [/QUOTE]

    Guess I'd take Gay, Samuel, Wilson, and Harrison over McCourty, Arrington, Ideghibo, and Chung.  Front seven was way better in 2004 too. (Earthwind, by the way, was inactive for the Super Bowl.  They were pretty thin on back-ups that game--I think just Poteat and Dexter Reid.)

    [/QUOTE]

    In that SB Jake Delhomme threw for 323, 3 TD's, 0 picks and put up 29 points.  In 46 against Eli Manning the group you referenced gave up 296, 1 TD and 21 points.

    You can have all the talent in the world but if you don't have a solid plan on game day that talent can end up being wasted.

    [/QUOTE]

    In the 2003 SB (against Carolina and Delhomme), the defense did struggle in the fourth quarter (gave up three 80+ yard TD drives then).  But for most of the game they were dominant.  The character of the two games was so different because the Giants' offense was able to control the ball for long stretches (limiting total "real" drives to 8), while Carolina had 10 drives of less than two minutes in 12 total "real" drives.  Their two longest drives were 2:29 for a punt and 3:15 for a punt. The Pats forced six three and outs.  In my opinion, the 2003 and 2004 defenses were vastly superior regardless of points given up in those games.  The 2011 defense simply could not get the Giants off the field, which allowed the Giants to control the pace of the game completely. 

     

    (By real drives I mean drives that weren't end-of-half kneel downs.)

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

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    What I think fans don't realize or don't think to, is that Head Coaches come into a program and hire all their own people, or people recommended by their people, or people similiar to their people. They do that for a reason. I have been an executive chef of restaurants for the last 15 years of my life. When I have started a new endeavor,  the 1st thing I do is call "my guys" people who have worked for me, Sous Chefs, kitchen managers, front of house managers, key staff memebers and regular staff. I do this because despite being a part of a different organization,  in order to be successful I need people around me who know my system.  "You are only as good as the people around you" is a great quote to ponder for those of you in a position of leadership. 

    Well, BB has been more succesful then any coach or GM in the league for well over a decade, and when that happens his staff gets opportunities to move on and make their own way, and yes good leaders have succession plans, but it doesn't always work out as planned. There is a learning curve for new younger managers/coaches, and your business more often then not will suffer because of it. The Patriots have suffered on the biggest stage(post season) due to this imo.

    Simply saying...."we have BB we have great coaching" is not true. The NFL is LOADED with talent. There are hundreds of guys who could be super stars who never even get on the field due to how much talent exists. These are the best athletes from all over the country and sometimes the world. Coaching and GM's are the men responsible for getting that talent or sometimes that work ethic onto a field and bringing it out of them. 

    If talent was more Important then guys like Vince Lombardi, Tom Landry, Chuck noll, Paul Bear Bryant etc etc wouldn't be held in such regard.  These were leaders of men, and they were the difference between excellence and mediocrity, between winning and losing. And while we might not be privy to the names of their great assistants who helped them win championships,  we know as sure as sht they had them, just like BB did with his staff he single handedly brought into N.E in 2000.

    Coaching is more important then talent will ever be. Great coaching separates the men from the boys...literally. 

    [/QUOTE]


    I agree with some of this - I think it's the coaching that separates these teams...this talent that is league wide. People run around here all day long saying BB is the greatest GM of all time, well guess what? There is talent everywhere in this league - just like you said - the thing that separates that talent (raises the level) is the coaching. Look at the Bengals, they are pretty loaded with talent...put Belichick there and they are in the Super Bowl. You can say the same for the Texans over the last few years, but yet they have won nothing and their coach got fired.

    Something else that has quietly been left out of this thread is the play of the quarterback. A great quarterback I think has the greatest impact of all, it's pretty hard to screw it up when you have that piece in place. And I'll use the Bengals and Texans as examples...both teams have talent up and down their rosters (maybe not great coaching, but talent), yet they both lack that elite QB and it killed them.

    I watched the bengals last year in the playoffs lose because of their quarterback - the kid was throwing the ball 10 feet above his receivers heads. And we have seen first hand how Schaub blew games for the Texans....when they played us Schaub missed guys standing five yards wide open in front of him...he couldn't even complete those simple throws. It didn't matter that JJ Watt needed to be triple teamed or that Foster was gaining yards, or that A. Johnson was getting behind our secondary...not when your QB can't complete simple passes. You won't win.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from digger0862. Show digger0862's posts

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    Since their last championship the Patriots have the most playoff wins (9) tied with Baltimore, Pittsburg and Seattle. They also have the most losses (8) because they make the playoffs every season. Every team loses playoff games. Not every team wins playoff games. The win total is impressive, indicative of a team that does things right.

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

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    In response to mthurl's comment:

    I



    I agree with some of this - I think it's the coaching that separates these teams...this talent that is league wide. People run around here all day long saying BB is the greatest GM of all time, well guess what? There is talent everywhere in this league - just like you said - the thing that separates that talent (raises the level) is the coaching. Look at the Bengals, they are pretty loaded with talent...put Belichick there and they are in the Super Bowl. You can say the same for the Texans over the last few years, but yet they have won nothing and their coach got fired.

    Something else that has quietly been left out of this thread is the play of the quarterback. A great quarterback I think has the greatest impact of all, it's pretty hard to screw it up when you have that piece in place. And I'll use the Bengals and Texans as examples...both teams have talent up and down their rosters (maybe not great coaching, but talent), yet they both lack that elite QB and it killed them.

    I watched the bengals last year in the playoffs lose because of their quarterback - the kid was throwing the ball 10 feet above his receivers heads. And we have seen first hand how Schaub blew games for the Texans....when they played us Schaub missed guys standing five yards wide open in front of him...he couldn't even complete those simple throws. It didn't matter that JJ Watt needed to be triple teamed or that Foster was gaining yards, or that A. Johnson was getting behind our secondary...not when your QB can't complete simple passes. You won't win.

    [/QUOTE]

    My main point is that the coaching has been pretty consistently good since Belichick has been here.  I just don't buy the idea that losing Charlie Weis and Romeo Crennel after 2004 was a fatal blow to the Patriots that they still haven't recovered from.  The team has played far too well since 2004 for that to make any sense at all.

    A lot of fans hate Bill O'Brien.  Personally, I think O'Brien did some brilliant things with the offense.  Remember, the two TE offense that everyone loves happened under O'Brien.  So did the exceptional hurry up approach, which resulted in one of the top-scoring offenses ever.  Is McDaniels really a terrible offensive coordinator?  Was 2007 an offensive disaster?  Or 2012?  Even last year, the Pats (despite a rag-tag receiving corp) ended up near the top in scoring. The fact is the results, game after game, have been great on offense.  A few posters look at the playoff losses and say the offensive coaching is bad.  But I don't believe that bad coaching would produce the kind of scoring and wins we've seen, game after game, through a 16 game season and through most of the playoffs.  Far more credible to me is what I actually see in the games: that the offense has been hurt by injuries to key players and lack of depth and diversity of talent--and that the defense hasn't been strong enough to bail the offense out. It's a talent issue, pure and simple.  The coaches know what they are doing, but unfortunately they haven't always had the horses to ride through to victory. 

     

     

     

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from ghostofjri37. Show ghostofjri37's posts

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Maybe the poll question should be:

    Who thinks coaching has been a bigger reason for the Patriots' playoff losses than the players' abilities and performance?

    Or put another way, is the main problem Bill Belichick or Sterling Moore?

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't know... in 2004 they won the SB with an UDFA Randall Gay and a rookie 4th rounder starting at corner with Eartwind Mooreland Hank Poteat as a major contributors in the secondary.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Guess I'd take Gay, Samuel, Wilson, and Harrison over McCourty, Arrington, Ideghibo, and Chung.  Front seven was way better in 2004 too. (Earthwind, by the way, was inactive for the Super Bowl.  They were pretty thin on back-ups that game--I think just Poteat and Dexter Reid.)

    [/QUOTE]

    In that SB Jake Delhomme threw for 323, 3 TD's, 0 picks and put up 29 points.  In 46 against Eli Manning the group you referenced gave up 296, 1 TD and 21 points.

    You can have all the talent in the world but if you don't have a solid plan on game day that talent can end up being wasted.

    [/QUOTE]

    In the 2003 SB (against Carolina and Delhomme), the defense did struggle in the fourth quarter (gave up three 80+ yard TD drives then).  But for most of the game they were dominant.  The character of the two games was so different because the Giants' offense was able to control the ball for long stretches (limiting total "real" drives to 8), while Carolina had 10 drives of less than two minutes in 12 total "real" drives.  Their two longest drives were 2:29 for a punt and 3:15 for a punt. The Pats forced six three and outs.  In my opinion, the 2003 and 2004 defenses were vastly superior regardless of points given up in those games.  The 2011 defense simply could not get the Giants off the field, which allowed the Giants to control the pace of the game completely. 

     

    (By real drives I mean drives that weren't end-of-half kneel downs.)

    [/QUOTE]

    I am in no way defending the Pat's inability to get off the field in 46. Your point was you would have rather have had the 2004 secondary. That being the case wouldn't you say it was a tremendous coaching job to get the 2011 to a 13-3 record and SB 46 based on less talent than the 2004 team? 

    For me you need the perfect mix of talent and coaching...  IMHO In the NFL coaching is more important than it is in any other major sport.

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

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Maybe the poll question should be:

    Who thinks coaching has been a bigger reason for the Patriots' playoff losses than the players' abilities and performance?

    Or put another way, is the main problem Bill Belichick or Sterling Moore?

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't know... in 2004 they won the SB with an UDFA Randall Gay and a rookie 4th rounder starting at corner with Eartwind Mooreland Hank Poteat as a major contributors in the secondary.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Guess I'd take Gay, Samuel, Wilson, and Harrison over McCourty, Arrington, Ideghibo, and Chung.  Front seven was way better in 2004 too. (Earthwind, by the way, was inactive for the Super Bowl.  They were pretty thin on back-ups that game--I think just Poteat and Dexter Reid.)

    [/QUOTE]

    In that SB Jake Delhomme threw for 323, 3 TD's, 0 picks and put up 29 points.  In 46 against Eli Manning the group you referenced gave up 296, 1 TD and 21 points.

    You can have all the talent in the world but if you don't have a solid plan on game day that talent can end up being wasted.

    [/QUOTE]

    In the 2003 SB (against Carolina and Delhomme), the defense did struggle in the fourth quarter (gave up three 80+ yard TD drives then).  But for most of the game they were dominant.  The character of the two games was so different because the Giants' offense was able to control the ball for long stretches (limiting total "real" drives to 8), while Carolina had 10 drives of less than two minutes in 12 total "real" drives.  Their two longest drives were 2:29 for a punt and 3:15 for a punt. The Pats forced six three and outs.  In my opinion, the 2003 and 2004 defenses were vastly superior regardless of points given up in those games.  The 2011 defense simply could not get the Giants off the field, which allowed the Giants to control the pace of the game completely. 

     

    (By real drives I mean drives that weren't end-of-half kneel downs.)

    [/QUOTE]

    I am in no way defending the Pat's inability to get off the field in 46. Your point was you would have rather have had the 2004 secondary. That being the case wouldn't you say it was a tremendous coaching job to get the 2011 to a 13-3 record and SB 46 based on less talent than the 2004 team? 

    Yes.  That's kind of my point.  I think the coaching is fabulous.  I simply don't buy this theory that the coaching has been a problem in the playoffs recently.  I don't think the 2011 team was really a playoff team based on talent level.  I've said that many times.  I think they got where they got because of great, great coaching (and some luck).  Give the 2011 coaches a defense as talented as those of 2004 and 2003 and I am absolutely convinced we would have won the Super Bowl, even if the offense made the mistakes it did. 

    For me you need the perfect mix of talent and coaching...  IMHO In the NFL coaching is more important than it is in any other major sport.

    I agree with this too.  But, again, I don't think coaching is a problem for the Pats.  I think they just need a bit more talent to get over the hump.  Let's hope they're there this year. So far, I like the way the offseason is going.   

    [/QUOTE]


     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share