Rockroi Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 I take it back - this was funnier. But... I'm the one who was sad for bringing up IBM? Really? And how do you find archived threads? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime L Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Does Belichick actually stay on beyond Brady? I think so. I think he's like Brady in that he loves the competition, the running tactical circles around other coaches, so much so that he doesn't quit until he loses his own fastball. Plus, even if he doesn't admit it, I could see it being extra satisfying to continue winning Superbowls without his hall of fame QB. No coach has done that. Another one of those Grantland articles that mirrors what we've been talking about here: http://grantland.com/the-triangle/lucky-and-good-how-tom-brady-became-the-greatest/ Actually lists the various lucky/unlucky breaks Brady's gotten that could all have changed the narrative significantly (they have mostly been lucky). Yeah just highlights the razor thin margin on which legacies are made. 6 Superbowls + 2 AFC Championship games, and something like 10 total playoff games they won or lost based on the result of a single play. In some parallel dimension Brady has 0 Superbowls. All those razor-thin wins become losses. Vinatieri turns out to be Vanderjagt. Seahawks run the ball on 2nd down from the 1. In another he has 7 Superbowls (both the Giants Superbowls reverse as those two incredible catches are never made and Reche Caldwell catches the damn ball in the 2006 AFC Championship game.) To have 4 Superbowl rings seems just. I mostly agree with this with the caveat being that casting aside Brady would be a much larger gamble than anything Belichick has done before. There is discussion here of what Brady would have been if not for Belichick. I think it is also interesting to ask the reverse: what would happen to Belichick if not for Brady? If you look at his pre-Brady record as a head coach, it's not very inspiring: a grand total of 1 winning season record out of 6 and even for that one he lost in the Divisional Game. Of those 6 seasons, only 1 was with the Patriots and that one went 5-11. The next year, Brady starts playing and suddenly the Patriots have 4 Superb Owl wins in 6 appearances, 15 winning seasons in a row, etc. etc. Granted, Brady wasn't quite as crucial to New England as Manning was to Indianapolis: when he was injured in 2008, they still did reasonably well, but it was a far cry from the previous year. I think that without Brady, New England would still be more likely than not to make the playoffs, but I don't see them beating teams like this year's Baltimore or Seattle.Yeah I'd argue like 75% of coach firings are because they don't have a QB. It's nearly impossible to overcome. Really only Marvin Lewis has and there are extenuating circumstances there. And the flipside is inept coaches like Mike Smith and Mike McCarthy get an extremely long leash because they're lucky enough to have one. This incarnation of Belichick would be the ultimate test of this however. I have to think he's grown immeasurably as a coach since his Cleveland days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperry Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 I mostly agree with this with the caveat being that casting aside Brady would be a much larger gamble than anything Belichick has done before. There is discussion here of what Brady would have been if not for Belichick. I think it is also interesting to ask the reverse: what would happen to Belichick if not for Brady? If you look at his pre-Brady record as a head coach, it's not very inspiring: a grand total of 1 winning season record out of 6 and even for that one he lost in the Divisional Game. Of those 6 seasons, only 1 was with the Patriots and that one went 5-11. The next year, Brady starts playing and suddenly the Patriots have 4 Superb Owl wins in 6 appearances, 15 winning seasons in a row, etc. etc. Granted, Brady wasn't quite as crucial to New England as Manning was to Indianapolis: when he was injured in 2008, they still did reasonably well, but it was a far cry from the previous year. I think that without Brady, New England would still be more likely than not to make the playoffs, but I don't see them beating teams like this year's Baltimore or Seattle. Pats could have possibly won their earlier super bowls with Bledsoe at the helm (Prime Bledsoe ~ first couple year's Brady), but there's no long he has the sustained success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Plus, even if he doesn't admit it, I could see it being extra satisfying to continue winning Superbowls without his hall of fame QB. No coach has done that. Yeah I'd argue like 75% of coach firings are because they don't have a QB. It's nearly impossible to overcome. Really only Marvin Lewis has and there are extenuating circumstances there.Yeah, no other coach has ever won Super Bowls without a Hall of Fame quarterback, right? As far as I know, it can't be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime L Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Yeah, no other coach has ever won Super Bowls without a Hall of Fame quarterback, right? As far as I know, it can't be done. I see the Gibbs reference and I like it. What I mean is no coach has ever won Superbowls with a Hall of Fame QB and continued winning them after he retired. Thinking Shanahan, Noll, Lombardi, Landry... Ok, I guess Seifert but c'mon... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 ....Nope. I still have nothing to say. I have blocked all memories of there having been an NFL season and am currently getting heavily invested in the NBA Western Conference playoff race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 But... I'm the one who was sad for bringing up IBM? Really? Well, yeah. Me remembering a joke from 8 years ago and bringing it up in the context of your malapropisms is not really comparable to the first thing after a historic win being 'in your FACE' to some random dude on the interwebs. Or at least I don't think it is. Another way to say it is this: you making a spelling mistake is directly relatable to you making other similar mistakes before. The Patriots winning the superbowl is not directly related to something someone said on a thread on the internet. And how do you find archived threads? In this case, I'm awesome at knowing what to search for. I searched for "Westeros Belichick Pumpkin" - it's the first result. Yeah, I remembered the pumpkin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Well, yeah. Me remembering a joke from 8 years ago and bringing it up in the context of your malapropisms is not really comparable to the first thing after a historic win being 'in your FACE' to some random dude on the interwebs. Come on Kal. You and Rock are not "some random dude on the interwebs" to each other. You guys are two or three more football seasons from a hatefuck. Because you remembered the pumpkin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Ok, I guess Seifert but c'mon... Young is an HOFer, so that doesn't count either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Eh. Maybe I come off that way, but usually it's not that big a deal to me. Rockroi is just another guy on the forums. He's someone I remember - like CB, or Stego, or Mya, or you - but it's not a lot more than that to me. Actually, strike that - I've met Mya and Stego in person; they're a bit of a step down. I know that a few years ago I definitely would have been first to tell the naysayers who had given me shit 'in your face' and that would have been the awesome part of a win. Not my team winning, or my team doing well, or whatever - but being able to tell other people off. I recognize now that that wasn't super healthy and went to some fairly bad places. Nowadays I have a lot more joy in my team winning, and much less in the other team losing. If that makes sense. For me, if Chicago had just won the superbowl on an incredible, crazy end play like that, I don't think my first thought would have been 'hah, suck on that Stego' or whatever. I can say that with some amount of confidence because, well, that wasn't my instinct when Oregon beat Florida State - and Florida State fans that I had to deal with were far, far worse than anything I have ever had to deal with from Rockroi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockroi Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Come on Kal. You and Rock are not "some random dude on the interwebs" to each other. You guys are two or three more football seasons from a hatefuck. Because you remembered the pumpkin. Exactly. When I remind kal of something he said 10 days ago, that's me being an unhinged lunatic who has problems; kal reminds me of something I said ... seven years ago, nope; perfectly normal. Come on! You can't see that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 You guys are two or three more football seasons from a hatefuck. Because you remembered the pumpkin. Now I have the mental picture of a distraught Rob Ryan and some armored videogame knight plowing each other's back 40. Thanks Dante. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 It was mostly the context, Rockroi. You reminding me of something isn't weird at all (or at least I don't think it is). What was weird was having your first substantive post being solely to take a shot at me after the superbowl win. That's weird to me. It wouldn't have been odd if you brought it up later in your epic post, and while I still disagree with it (given the news feed and the Seahawks' behavior at the end of the game it looks a lot more like the Seahawks are the most hated) I'd have understood it. But bringing that up first? Just seemed odd to me. I mean, that was quite possibly the most incredible ending of any superbowl ever. It produced a greatest of all time quarterback (which as Bronn pointed out is odd, given that he wasn't even on the field at the time), a greatest of all time coach, a game that will live forever in the psyche of the other fanbase and one of the most amazing comebacks ever. All of that's really exciting! But instead of bringing any of that up in the short time you have - you take a shot at me? Seemed kind of sad to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockroi Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Look, you were the one who wrote, what, several posts on what I was writing then compared IBM to Microsoft and said how THAT was sad. And that's fine. I then waited and turned it around (in the extremely limited time I had after the game- game ended around 1030PM, I drove two people home, got on here, didn't have time to write much, then got called to court on an Emergency Restraining Order s VERY limited time to write anything), and without an adequate response, you decided, "Look, let me paint Rock as sad, strange and unhinged jerk/loser. And hope that flies. I then wrote a much more expansive post which reflected more of my thoughts. I don't write one or two line things; I like taking my time and expanding on thoughts and ideas. But in terms of that IBM post, its only funny if I do it relatively contemporaneously with the win. But again, I'm the "sad" one because I didn't dig up a post from 6 years ago showing how you once said something strange or weird. Again, I don't get that. I think you just are trying to find a way to paint me in a negative light while trying to stay aloof from it all. Its disingenuous. And because I am arguing about this, that does make me "sad" because I AM very happy about the Pats win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trickster Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Come on Kal. You and Rock are not "some random dude on the interwebs" to each other. You guys are two or three more football seasons from a hatefuck. Because you remembered the pumpkin. Bring back the like button!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Now I have the mental picture of a distraught Rob Ryan and some armored videogame knight plowing each other's back 40. Thanks Dante. Try subbing in Vince Wilfork and Jay Cutler, like I do. Might make it a little better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime L Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 I think Dante had it right. All the fighting between Kal and Rock just makes the make-up sex that much better. Young is an HOFer, so that doesn't count either. True. Though say under Belichick, Garoppolo (or whomever, hopefully someone with an easier to spell name) grew into a Hall of Famer. Isn't that more impressive of Belichick even with the level of difficulty of winning a Superbowl with a journeyman? Or do they look at it like we look at Young blossoming into Hall of Fame irrespective of anything Seifert did. The difference is probably that Seifert didn't build the system, he was just seen as a caretaker of it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trickster Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Did I ever tell you people how much enjoyment you bring to my life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Try subbing in Vince Wilfork and Jay Cutler, like I do. Might make it a little better. That didn't help. It's funnier, but it didn't help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 True. Though say under Belichick, Garoppolo (or whomever, hopefully someone with an easier to spell name) grew into a Hall of Famer. Isn't that more impressive of Belichick even with the level of difficulty of winning a Superbowl with a journeyman? Or do they look at it like we look at Young blossoming into Hall of Fame irrespective of anything Seifert did. The difference is probably that Seifert didn't build the system, he was just seen as a caretaker of it... Oh, Young had already been mostly developed and showed his skills under Walsh. Looking at his stats, he already had meaningful game action and 3 starts in Walsh's last couple of years (87 and 89) coaching the team. Siefert really was a caretaker then. Mike Holmgren was already installed as QB coach (there was no OC under Walsh) by 1986, and he got OC when Siefert took over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.