Let's Put it to a Poll

  1. 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

    [/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]


    [/QUOTE]

    No doubt they have upgraded the secondary. i hope they address the trenches in the draft.

     

     
  2. 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]

     

    [/QUOTE]

    No doubt they have upgraded the secondary. i hope they address the trenches in the draft.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I think they will. Not sure whether they'll have enough picks to get quality players on both the O and D lines, but I think they'll at least address one side of the ball (I think defense more likely than offense, but it may just depend on who's available when they pick.)  I also want to see another OLB and either a TE or WR.  After that, I think there are more depth needs, at DE, RB, and TE/WR. A few months ago, I would have put safety high on the list of needs, but given all the other changes in the secondary, I have a feeling this is a position we'll address in the future unless some great candidate falls to us in the draft. 

    If I had just two players to get, I think I'd go for a DT and an OLB.  My third priority would probably be a TE or WR (wherever the talent is best when I draft).  I'd put interior OL as my fourth priority and DE as fifth.  

     

     
  3. 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]

     

    [/QUOTE]

    No doubt they have upgraded the secondary. i hope they address the trenches in the draft.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I think they will. Not sure whether they'll have enough picks to get quality players on both the O and D lines, but I think they'll at least address one side of the ball (I think defense more likely than offense, but it may just depend on who's available when they pick.)  I also want to see another OLB and either a TE or WR.  After that, I think there are more depth needs, at DE, RB, and TE/WR. A few months ago, I would have put safety high on the list of needs, but given all the other changes in the secondary, I have a feeling this is a position we'll address in the future unless some great candidate falls to us in the draft. 

    If I had just two players to get, I think I'd go for a DT and an OLB.  My third priority would probably be a TE or WR (wherever the talent is best when I draft).  I'd put interior OL as my fourth priority and DE as fifth.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    As far as DT is concerned they need to draft that position for immedite contribution and future contributions. OLB/DE...at linebacker cross the board they need to add depth and at DE they need to add a supplemental/rotational player if they feel Buchanan isn't the answer. I think they draft a TE in the first 3 rounds, most likely a combination (catch/block) not a Hernandez type. I think they can get a quality interior OL guy with one of their picks in round 4. 

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

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So, the Dr. Gill thread has gone off track.  I'll take partial responsibility for that.

    In some of the posts there has been back and forth disagreement as to which factor is more important:  Coaching or Talent.

    Some background from the other thread:

    TrueChamp has made a comment like this (this is verbatim, so I can't be accused of altering his post): "Coaching is the most important apsect of all organized sports."

    Wozzy added: "the loss of coaches overall has been the most major obstacle in the way of another Patriot Super Bowl victory."

    On the other hand, I've said: "The biggest obstacle in the way of the next championship has been insufficient talent on the field"

    So, here's the Poll (thanks BDC for taking away the Poll Feature):

    Which statement most accurately reflects your viewpoint?

    1.  Coaching is more important than Talent

        Let's call this the Bear Bryant theory, of whom Bum Phillips said "Bryant can take his'n and beat your'n, and then he can turn around and take your'n and beat his'n."

    2.  Talent is more important than Coaching

       Let's call this theory "It's the Jimmys and Joes, not the Xs and Os".

    You must choose options 1 or 2 for your vote to be tallied.

    [/QUOTE]

    i understand what you're trying to say here Cat, but I think you're overlooking something that TC and Wozzy aren't. EVERYBODY in the NFL is talented. Even the teams with losing records have lots of talent. That being the bottom line, coaching becomes more prevelant in being a successful team. 

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

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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.

    [/QUOTE]

    So does Belichick according to you... so only the teams that sporadically make the right choices occasionally win a Super Bowl but BB's sustained exceleence over a decade is pure luck. 

    Got it, that doesn't sound far fetched in the least...

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from patsbandwagonsince76. Show patsbandwagonsince76's posts

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    Biggest Factor:

    To get to the playoffs - coaching

    To win the SB - talent

    I vote talent if you mean by winning a championship, I vote coaching if you just mean playoffs / winning record on a consitent basis.

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

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    In response to mthurl's comment:

    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. 




    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]

    How do you think Belichick would do if he was made the head coach of the bengals but the entire front office and coaching staff remained the same? You think he would just whip that team into a Super Bowl championship? I don't. 

    Do you acknowledge the correlation between a good head coach and a good coaching/ front office staff? 

    It takes more then 1 man to lead professional sports organizations.  I have faith Bb has hired and developed some solid replacements for his long list of departed co workers but as I said there is definitely a learning curve and it will cause some player development problems and fundamental problems with the team, especially when expecting young players AND coaches to perform on the biggest stage(super bowls in front of millions). 

    In regard to QB play of course QB is the most important player on a team. Has Brady played at his dynasty era level in the biggest games since 2007? I think it is obviously no, but unlike crazy rusty I don't think it is Brady's fault. I think we have not done enough to help him win by taking pressure off of him, instead of placing more on him. If that makes sense.

    Having your older less mobile QB throw 300 times to a 100 rushes against the best front 7's in the league has not boded well for Brady and our 15.5 ppg offense in our last 6 playoff losses.....has it? 

     
  8. 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]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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.

    [/QUOTE]

    So does Belichick according to you... so only the teams that sporadically make the right choices occasionally win a Super Bowl but BB's sustained exceleence over a decade is pure luck. 

    Got it, that doesn't sound far fetched in the least...

    [/QUOTE]


    Of course Belichick makes poor choices. But I have only said he makes an average number of them as a GM. His only glaring luck was picking Brady in the 6th round.

     

     
  9. 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]

    In response to mthurl's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    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.

    [/QUOTE]

    How do you think Belichick would do if he was made the head coach of the bengals but the entire front office and coaching staff remained the same? You think he would just whip that team into a Super Bowl championship? I don't. 

    Do you acknowledge the correlation between a good head coach and a good coaching/ front office staff? 

    It takes more then 1 man to lead professional sports organizations.  I have faith Bb has hired and developed some solid replacements for his long list of departed co workers but as I said there is definitely a learning curve and it will cause some player development problems and fundamental problems with the team, especially when expecting young players AND coaches to perform on the biggest stage(super bowls in front of millions). 

    In regard to QB play of course QB is the most important player on a team. Has Brady played at his dynasty era level in the biggest games since 2007? I think it is obviously no, but unlike crazy rusty I don't think it is Brady's fault. I think we have not done enough to help him win by taking pressure off of him, instead of placing more on him. If that makes sense.

    Having your older less mobile QB throw 300 times to a 100 rushes against the best front 7's in the league has not boded well for Brady and our 15.5 ppg offense in our last 6 playoff losses.....has it? 

    [/QUOTE]


    Do I think Belichick would be able to turn the Bengals into Super Bowl contenders with their front office/slash GM? Yes I do. Their GM has brought in some serious talent for that team. Now if he had Brady with him, I'd take it a step further and say they would win a Super Bowl. I believe Belichick would coach the heck out of that defense, you'd see the Bengals not only beating up on teams, but confusing them. You don't see that their now - and they are talented - but Belichick would raise that a couple of notches. and I don't think you'd see Brady over throwing their 6'4" receivers who run 4.4's...like Dalton did this post season.

    Now if we are talking about just adding Belichick (without Brady), I still think they would be much better off. The defense would be better and the quaterback wouldn't be throwing the ball ten feet over their heads, because Belichick would see him doing that and change his resposibilities...he'd be dumping it off, he'd be throwing to the places he was confortable with, he'd be protected, his weakness's would be covered. Yeah he couldn't give you what Brady or an elite guy could, but he wouldn't be asked to win the game for you....more like manage it. We have seen Belichick do this with other QB's through his career - in the end they lost - but that further proves how important that franchise QB is.

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

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    In response to wonderdrums' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So, the Dr. Gill thread has gone off track.  I'll take partial responsibility for that.

    In some of the posts there has been back and forth disagreement as to which factor is more important:  Coaching or Talent.

    Some background from the other thread:

    TrueChamp has made a comment like this (this is verbatim, so I can't be accused of altering his post): "Coaching is the most important apsect of all organized sports."

    Wozzy added: "the loss of coaches overall has been the most major obstacle in the way of another Patriot Super Bowl victory."

    On the other hand, I've said: "The biggest obstacle in the way of the next championship has been insufficient talent on the field"

    So, here's the Poll (thanks BDC for taking away the Poll Feature):

    Which statement most accurately reflects your viewpoint?

    1.  Coaching is more important than Talent

        Let's call this the Bear Bryant theory, of whom Bum Phillips said "Bryant can take his'n and beat your'n, and then he can turn around and take your'n and beat his'n."

    2.  Talent is more important than Coaching

       Let's call this theory "It's the Jimmys and Joes, not the Xs and Os".

    You must choose options 1 or 2 for your vote to be tallied.

    [/QUOTE]

    i understand what you're trying to say here Cat, but I think you're overlooking something that TC and Wozzy aren't. EVERYBODY in the NFL is talented. Even the teams with losing records have lots of talent. That being the bottom line, coaching becomes more prevelant in being a successful team. 

    [/QUOTE]

    LOL.....except some teams are less talented than others...

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

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Of course Belichick makes poor choices. But I have only said he makes an average number of them as a GM. His only glaring luck was picking Brady in the 6th round.

    [/QUOTE]

    Choosing a player out of the thousand + who enter their names in the NFL draft isn't luck, them staying healthy is luck, the actual pick is a calculated move.

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

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    depends on the disparity between the two things in the poll and also between the two teams in question, at those two things.

     

     

     
  13. 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]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Of course Belichick makes poor choices. But I have only said he makes an average number of them as a GM. His only glaring luck was picking Brady in the 6th round.

    [/QUOTE]

    Choosing a player out of the thousand + who enter their names in the NFL draft isn't luck, them staying healthy is luck, the actual pick is a calculated move.

    [/QUOTE]


    Are you saying luck plays no role in the draft?

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

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Are you saying luck plays no role in the draft?

    [/QUOTE]

    Luck plays a huge part in what happens after the draft, but production + measurable's can't be faked.

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

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So, the Dr. Gill thread has gone off track.  I'll take partial responsibility for that.

    In some of the posts there has been back and forth disagreement as to which factor is more important:  Coaching or Talent.

    Some background from the other thread:

    TrueChamp has made a comment like this (this is verbatim, so I can't be accused of altering his post): "Coaching is the most important apsect of all organized sports."

    Wozzy added: "the loss of coaches overall has been the most major obstacle in the way of another Patriot Super Bowl victory."

    On the other hand, I've said: "The biggest obstacle in the way of the next championship has been insufficient talent on the field"

    So, here's the Poll (thanks BDC for taking away the Poll Feature):

    Which statement most accurately reflects your viewpoint?

    1.  Coaching is more important than Talent

        Let's call this the Bear Bryant theory, of whom Bum Phillips said "Bryant can take his'n and beat your'n, and then he can turn around and take your'n and beat his'n."

    2.  Talent is more important than Coaching

       Let's call this theory "It's the Jimmys and Joes, not the Xs and Os".

    You must choose options 1 or 2 for your vote to be tallied.

    [/QUOTE]


    u notice I was the only one who actually answered ur question Cat...

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

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    In response to patsbandwagonsince76's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Biggest Factor:

    To get to the playoffs - coaching

    To win the SB - talent

    I vote talent if you mean by winning a championship, I vote coaching if you just mean playoffs / winning record on a consitent basis.

    [/QUOTE]

    Shhhhh...  you're being blinded by the commercials in the superbowl.  shhhhh.  May be- even the half-time show- too...shhhhhhhh.  The Superbowl winner is PURE talent....shhhhhhh.  Some- times  some guys- Just look the awesomest on February 2nd-4th...some times, even 2 weeks before that.

    Remember when the black girl's left blouse unhinged...?  How bout the time when the white guy was like, "Off the mcdonalds logo...and these other things...And-  IN,"?

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

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    Talent hands down-put the BEST coaches in any sport on really bad teams with no talent and they would stink it up--can't win without the horses--just check out the winners in every sport and look at the talent level? Jordan-Rodman-Pippen, on and on in EVERY sport!  Coaches count but ONLY if they have the talent.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Im the REAL KING. Show Im the REAL KING's posts

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    Wow, 3 pages of thoughts, opinions, rants and raves, but not one of you has it right!!

    It really doesn't matter the intelligence of the Head Coach or his staff!

    It doesn't matter the talent or lack of on each team

    It doesn't matter the courage of the center, or arm of the quaterback!

    WHat matters is the meeting at the begining of the season behind closed doors with the 32 team owners. It is there that the ground work of the new season begins and they pick who will win the Super Bowl.

    Yes, thats right, the NFL is the very same "Sports Entertainment Business" that conducts itself like every other "Man Rigged" "Fixed" Entertainment Company!

    The WWE, Professional Boxing, Basketball, Baseball, Cricket, Jai Alai, Womens Jello Wrastlin................Sorry boys and girls, but spoiled Billionaires are not going to chance failures, and they protect their brand behind closed doors.

    Oh I know, the next responses are going to be, "You're Nutz, you can't fix Pro Football"!

    Yeah, well you keep believing that, and Santa Clause will be back this season with the Eater Bunny!............ Enjoy the show, but remember, it's all about the Green! Cry

     

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

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    Or

    Potato

    Potahto

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

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    It seems like we've evolved to three options for what's more important:

    1. Head coach
    2. Entire coaching staff (and maybe entire front office)
    3. Talent

    Wozzy and True Champ have been arguing for option two for a while, because they think the Pats' talent is great and the head coach is great, so the playoff losses must be the "fault" of the offensive coordinator (in particular) or maybe other assistant coaches. 

    I guess for the Pats, I see the coaching and front office as pretty consistently good, even with the turnover in assistants.  So if the point is to identify the cause of the recent playoff losses, I'd squarely put the fault on talent (and execution).  I don't think we'd have the consistent regular season success we've had if the coaching staff was inferior.  And I think we have had obvious gaps in talent (exacerbated by injury) every season, so why try to look any further for a reason for the losses? I actually think that rather than being a weakness, the coaches are so good that we've won despite the obvious holes in talent (secondary, receivers, lines, etc).  The talent issues, though, have been significant enough that even great coaching can't always overcome them against the best playoff competition.  The coaching on the Pats is fine (and arguably the best in the league).  But players still have to win their individual battles and if they can't do that, the coaches can't help.

     

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

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll


    Is  it unreasonable to think turning over an entire coaching staff could hurt your team?

    Anybody?

    Can a lack of talent seriously even be considered?  

    Legitimately?

    Could we be 1 key play away from winning 3 more Super bowls but not be considered  good enough? By who? Fans here?

    If the difference between 3 more super bowl championships is asante dropping an interception,  or nink jumping off sides at the most crucial moment, or Welker holding onto a high throw by Tom, or that ref remebering that face guarding wasn't actually an NFL rule against Hobbs in the 2006 afc game  then we have 6 championships in 13 years! Wow!

    If we were talented enough to get 6 shots and be 1 play away in each of those games in 13 years then we are absolutely talented enough!

    I'm not saying that it is all the OC's fault even though I think the position has been lacking in the creativity department in big games for too long, and I'm not blaming it all on the offense or all on the defense.

    It was a team loss, but 1 thing I am saying is that we were clearly, obviously and unquestionably  a "talented" football team for the majority of the last 13 years....talented enough to be 1 play away from 6 Super Bowls in just over a decade.

    Amazing.

     

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

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So, the Dr. Gill thread has gone off track.  I'll take partial responsibility for that.

    In some of the posts there has been back and forth disagreement as to which factor is more important:  Coaching or Talent.

    Some background from the other thread:

    TrueChamp has made a comment like this (this is verbatim, so I can't be accused of altering his post): "Coaching is the most important apsect of all organized sports."

    Wozzy added: "the loss of coaches overall has been the most major obstacle in the way of another Patriot Super Bowl victory."

    On the other hand, I've said: "The biggest obstacle in the way of the next championship has been insufficient talent on the field"

    So, here's the Poll (thanks BDC for taking away the Poll Feature):

    Which statement most accurately reflects your viewpoint?

    1.  Coaching is more important than Talent

        Let's call this the Bear Bryant theory, of whom Bum Phillips said "Bryant can take his'n and beat your'n, and then he can turn around and take your'n and beat his'n."

    2.  Talent is more important than Coaching

       Let's call this theory "It's the Jimmys and Joes, not the Xs and Os".

    You must choose options 1 or 2 for your vote to be tallied.

    [/QUOTE]

    Coaching is not that important when you have superior Talent. Talent is not that important when you have Superior Coaching. It IS important however to have an Equal amount of BOTH when in the postseason and you are facing the BEST teams from each conference.

    So in short, BB the coach is good enough to win, but BB the GM has done a poor job of filling holes in free agency which is left our team devoid of superior talent when it counts in the postseason due to lack of depth in key areas and over reliance on ONE Great Player in Tom Brady. Need more talent to offset Brady and less plug n play role players.

     
  23. 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:

     


    Is  it unreasonable to think turning over an entire coaching staff could hurt your team?

    Anybody?

    Can a lack of talent seriously even be considered?  

    Legitimately?

    Could we be 1 key play away from winning 3 more Super bowls but not be considered  good enough? By who? Fans here?

    If the difference between 3 more super bowl championships is asante dropping an interception,  or nink jumping off sides at the most crucial moment, or Welker holding onto a high throw by Tom, or that ref remebering that face guarding wasn't actually an NFL rule against Hobbs in the 2006 afc game  then we have 6 championships in 13 years! Wow!

    If we were talented enough to get 6 shots and be 1 play away in each of those games in 13 years then we are absolutely talented enough!

    I'm not saying that it is all the OC's fault even though I think the position has been lacking in the creativity department in big games for too long, and I'm not blaming it all on the offense or all on the defense.

    It was a team loss, but 1 thing I am saying is that we were clearly, obviously and unquestionably  a "talented" football team for the majority of the last 13 years....talented enough to be 1 play away from 6 Super Bowls in just over a decade.

    Amazing.

     

     



    and if mike martz didn't sleep until the 4th quarter, jon kasey didn't kick the ball out of bounds and the Tuck "rule" didn't happen you may have ZERO championships in 13 years!

     

    and if a rookie held onto the winning TD like he should have and a proven kicker doesn't miss a semi-chip shot FG u don't get to SB 46a

    these things work both ways Champ

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from agill1970. Show agill1970's posts

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    A good head coach is more than just someone who can write some X's and O's on a board.  He brings out the best in the people around him, and gets people to play above their level.  He can sizeup the opposition and put together a great game plan to beat them.  He can be a leader, and bring out leadership abilities in others.  He can make great adjustments to lineups and gameplans on the fly.  He can stop problems in their tracks and proactively work to see that they don't crop up.  He can command both love and respect from those around him.  And that's just for starters.

    Elite talent is an extremely important quality as well, but I think history has shown that more often than not, a great coach has taken an averge team to final victory more often than a great player with just an average coach.  That might not be the case in highshool or lower, but certainly college or higher.  I hate to choose though, because more often than not the team that has both wins. 

     

     
  25. 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:

     


    Is  it unreasonable to think turning over an entire coaching staff could hurt your team?

    Sure it could. But have the Pats ever turned over their whole coaching staff at once? The head coach has been a fixture: they have more stability than any team in the league at the most important leadership position. Losing Weis and Crennel after 2004 certainly was a challenge, but that was a decade ago.  If the Pats still haven't recovered from that there's a big problem in Foxboro.  Turnover is common among assistants.  Have the Pats really had much more than any other team?  Heck, Matt Patricia's been around since 2004 and McDaniels since 2001, other than a three year hiatus which should only have diversified his skills and experience.  I don't think your argument holds up under scrutiny, particularly when you look at the Patriots' general high level of success over the past decade.  If the leadership were a problem, is it possible they'd be so consistently successful--not just in win-loss, but in things like scheme evolution, points scored, and other things that reflect coaching creativity and innovation? Sorry, but if you believe coaching is critically important to success--and both you and I agree on that--then your argument that the Pats have deficient leadership is simply not credible.  They wouldn't have had the level of success they've had with poor leadership.

    Anybody?

    Can a lack of talent seriously even be considered?  

    Legitimately?

    Yes.  In fact I'd argue that it's the great coaching that has led to success despite fairly obvious talent issues.  Just watch the secondary play in the 2011 Super Bowl.  Are guys like Molden and Moore -- both of whom were playing a lot -- even in the league anymore?  Also, teams that win consistently as the Pats do are at a huge disadvantage acquiring talent.  The draft system is designed to pull their talent level down.  Even if the Pats are doing a great job acquiring players, the system is specifically constructed to limit winning teams' ability to bring in the best talent and to create parity among teams.  Is it credible to believe the Pats have somehow completely avoided the intended impacts of the draft system?

    Could we be 1 key play away from winning 3 more Super bowls but not be considered  good enough? By who? Fans here?

    If the difference between 3 more super bowl championships is asante dropping an interception,  or nink jumping off sides at the most crucial moment, or Welker holding onto a high throw by Tom, or that ref remebering that face guarding wasn't actually an NFL rule against Hobbs in the 2006 afc game  then we have 6 championships in 13 years! Wow!

    Those who know football know that the outcome of a game is determined by more than one fluke play.  If the game comes down to one play, it's all the things you did or didn't do before that play that created the situation in which one play could be fatal. Belichick would never blame the loss on just one play and neither should knowledgeable fans.. 

    If we were talented enough to get 6 shots and be 1 play away in each of those games in 13 years then we are absolutely talented enough!

    I'm not saying that it is all the OC's fault even though I think the position has been lacking in the creativity department in big games for too long, and I'm not blaming it all on the offense or all on the defense.

    It was a team loss, but 1 thing I am saying is that we were clearly, obviously and unquestionably  a "talented" football team for the majority of the last 13 years....talented enough to be 1 play away from 6 Super Bowls in just over a decade.

    Talented, but not without weaknesses in talent that could be exploited, even given superior and highly creative coaching.

     

    Amazing.

     

     




     

     

Share