Jump to content

NFL Offseason: Trail of Tears or My Cousin Kirky


Manhole Eunuchsbane

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, sperry said:

Gotta love the brotherhood of the yellow jacket helping each other out. Thank God they've never let Terrell Owens sully the hallowed grounds of Canton, Ohio. Speaking of which, I love that the Pro Football Hall of Fame is in the biggest shithole of a city they could find in America. Real estate in East Saint Louis must have been too expensive.

I didn't know it was in Flint?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, sperry said:

I love seeing future hall of famers emulate other all-time greats: http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/18915609/all-charges-dismissed-defensive-back-darrelle-revis

 

Darrelle Revis charges dismissed after he blames his felony on a childhood friend. Somewhere, Ray Lewis is nodding in approval.

This report seems to be what they story has been for the most part around here. Some details of why Revis was out on a Sunday night at 2:30 have changed from what first came out, but otherwise it's been the same. Sure, it could all be a lie, but being from Aliquippa I have no problem believing that that guy would knock out two people who were following Revis around for way less than what they were doing anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel Snyder is out to prove he's the original thin-skinned Washington bossman. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/03/15/criticism-from-ricky-jean-francois-may-have-contributed-to-his-release/

Quote

 

Washington abruptly dumped veteran defensive lineman Ricky Jean-Francois on Wednesday. The move immediately triggered suspicion that Jean-Francois has paid the price for being candid about his recent criticisms of the team.

Per a source with knowledge of the situation, Jean-Francois was surprised by the move. Indeed, he started every game for Washington last year, and he performed well.

“It seems like we’re getting back to the norm, we’re getting back to the dysfunctional, we’re getting back to the drama,” Jean-Francois said last Thursday, before the team fired G.N. Scout McCloughan. “It just feels like at no given time we’ve never had that period where we were just comfortable with everything and everything was just running smooth. . . . Everything is changed and it’s like, why? We let go of DeSean Jackson, one of the most explosive receivers in the NFL. We let go of Pierre Garςon — only had one drop last year. You let Chris Baker go, Chris Baker was one great pass rusher for us. . . .

“At the end of the day, it’s business. But it’s not the business that you want to see each and every other day at work when everything is going hectic and you just don’t know what’s going on, who’s making calls. Who’s what. It’s like as soon as you open the front of the newspaper you just see drama. And it feels like just at no given point we haven’t had that grace period that’s just, ‘All right, let’s not have drama. Let’s everything be happy, joyful. Let’s say we’re gonna may a run for the playoffs, Super Bowl, whatever. But it’s seems like that’s not the case, or it’s not the case at this moment.”

Jean-Francois also complained about the failure of the team to give quarterback Kirk Cousins a long-term deal, pointing to his success over the last two years and the team’s failure to reward him. Likewise, Jean-Francois expressed support for McCloughan.

“OK, I don’t understand why a guy like this didn’t go to the Combine,” Jean-Francois said. “This guy should have been there. This guy’s not making those free-agent moves. He’s not making those decisions that you know Scot McCloughan is known for making. All I gotta say at the end of the day is check his resume because he has some Super Bowl rings.”

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Westerosi Coast Gangster said:

I think you have to factor in Coach B. There is a reason why back up NE qbs who got a chance have looked great until they are on a different team. He may be a defensive minded coach, but his gameplans and adjustments are second to none. If you switch Brady and Manning I highly doubt Tom has the success he has had in NE. i think he would still be a hall of famer, but not arguably the GOAT.

My two comparisons were Montana and Marino, they were coached by who...Bill Walsh and Don Shula, two guys also regarded as two of the best coaches of all time. If you count Belichick as part of Brady success then you also have to say it's a wash because of the other two coaches.

Remember one thing, Belichick had little success(one winning season out of 6) as a head coach before Brady came along, winning around 43% of his games compared to roughly 76% with Brady. So one could argue that Brady helped make Belichick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dbunting said:

My two comparisons were Montana and Marino, they were coached by who...Bill Walsh and Don Shula, two guys also regarded as two of the best coaches of all time. If you count Belichick as part of Brady success then you also have to say it's a wash because of the other two coaches.

Remember one thing, Belichick had little success(one winning season out of 6) as a head coach before Brady came along, winning around 43% of his games compared to roughly 76% with Brady. So one could argue that Brady helped make Belichick.

He went to two super bowls as DC for the Giants, and his record in Cleveland is misleading.  The Browns were an early favorite to go to the super bowl in his last year, having won the wild card [incidentally, the last playoff game the Browns have won] the previous year, until the POS Art Modell announced he was moving the team. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, King Ned Stark said:

 

3 hours ago, dbunting said:

My two comparisons were Montana and Marino, they were coached by who...Bill Walsh and Don Shula, two guys also regarded as two of the best coaches of all time. If you count Belichick as part of Brady success then you also have to say it's a wash because of the other two coaches.

Remember one thing, Belichick had little success(one winning season out of 6) as a head coach before Brady came along, winning around 43% of his games compared to roughly 76% with Brady. So one could argue that Brady helped make Belichick.

Belichick was in a bad situation in Clevland, they were about to move cities. he built that roster from nothing to making them legitimate, and took them to the playoffs. Remember Brady in college? He got benched for Drew Henson. When Brady missed a full season the pats went 11-5 with Matt Cassel. This year without Brady for 4 games they went 3-1. I think Belichik would be successful wherever he went. He is 2 plays from being 6-0 in the superbowl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Westerosi Coast Gangster said:

 

Belichick was in a bad situation in Clevland, they were about to move cities. he built that roster from nothing to making them legitimate, and took them to the playoffs. Remember Brady in college? He got benched for Drew Henson. When Brady missed a full season the pats went 11-5 with Matt Cassel. This year without Brady for 4 games they went 3-1. I think Belichik would be successful wherever he went. He is 2 plays from being 6-0 in the superbowl.

He's also two plays from being 3-4 in the Super Bowl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sperry said:

He's also two plays from being 3-4 in the Super Bowl.

Really the Pats are 4-2 in very close Super Bowls.  The only one of their seven appearances that wasn't particularly in doubt was the Eagles game, which wasn't as close as the 24-21 final score indicated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Westerosi Coast Gangster said:

 

Belichick was in a bad situation in Clevland, they were about to move cities. he built that roster from nothing to making them legitimate, and took them to the playoffs. Remember Brady in college? He got benched for Drew Henson. When Brady missed a full season the pats went 11-5 with Matt Cassel. This year without Brady for 4 games they went 3-1. I think Belichik would be successful wherever he went. He is 2 plays from being 6-0 in the superbowl.

I always wonder how differently things would have turned out for all involved if not for that stunning championship run in 2001.

The Pats had been 5-11 in the year before the Bledsoe injury and started 0-2 that year. Belichick wasn't a highly regarded coach at all. People had panned Kraft's decision to hire him.

Winning brought Belichick respect and allowed him to consolidate control over personnel matters. It bought him more credibility within the organization and with his players. A Super Bowl winning coach can be arrogant and dismissive, but a coach with two straight losing seasons, maybe not. Does a coach with a mediocre record get players to buy in to pop quizzes about other teams? Does that coach get deferential treatment from the local press?

Maybe in some alternative universe where the Pats didn't keep a rookie Brady as their 4th QB in 2000, Belichick is that talented coordinator who couldn't hack running his own team, and Brady washed out after never getting a good shot or proper development, and maybe the Rams, Colts, and Steelers have a few more titles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

He went to two super bowls as DC for the Giants, and his record in Cleveland is misleading.  The Browns were an early favorite to go to the super bowl in his last year, having won the wild card [incidentally, the last playoff game the Browns have won] the previous year, until the POS Art Modell announced he was moving the team. 

"The record is misleading" is, well, misleading.  

I always agree with what Bill Parcells said when he was head coach of the Pats and was asked (paraphrasing) "The Pats are 2-4 but could easily be 4-2" and his response was: "You are what your record says you are."  Look at Cleveland under Beliehick: 36 - 44.  He had ONE winning season 11-5 and four losing ones.  The Browns had ONE season under Belichick where they got a lot of attention (1994) and they were 1-1 in the playoffs (ironically, defeating Parcell's Patriots).  The problem was that Belichick was still a young coach and he made mistakes.  

The most well-documented was the way he treated defensive stand outs.  With the Giants, Belichick knew what he had in Lawrence Taylor.  Taylor could basically do everything.  But LT also loved to party; loved going all night and into the morning doing, basically, whatever he wanted.  And that would include staying out Saturday night deep into Sunday morning and stumbling into the locker room for a 1pm game.  And LT could do it.  Belichick learned that players like LT could party hard and still play hard. 

So when he came to Cleveland, Belichick took the same approach- guys were free to do what they wanted to do when they wanted to do.  And it was, predictably, a fucking disaster because, well, most players are not LT!  This lead to problems.  He did get the team to work really well in 94 after he settled the whole Bernie Kosar problem (cutting him), but then the team moved.  I think, AT BEST, Belichick's record is "underwhelming;" as stated several times, its basically Rex Ryan's record.  

Belichcik has made it to the playoffs ONCE in SEVEN SEASONS (CLE: 1991-1995; NE 2000, 2008) without Brady as his QB.  To me, that means something.  

I also think that Belichick's standing in the NFL NOW blurs the proper view of his Cleveland tenure THEN; in many ways Belichick 1991-1995 was similar to Pete Carroll 1997-1999: young guy, over his head, unimpressive results with a talented team).  But because Belichick is impressive now, I think we have a tendency to overrate what he did in CLE, which was in effect "not much."  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He went 11/5 in 1994, 2 playoff games, 1 win.  There is no reason not to think that he had turned the corner there.  They fell apart the next year because Modell announced he was moving the team. 

It would also not be inaccurate to say that the Baltimore Ravens are the house that Bill built, since the baseline staff and the philosophy was BB's. 

That isn't to say that he was great in Cleveland or that he didn't make mistakes, but this idea that his time in Cleveland was all suck and no sense of the light at the end of the tunnel, to me, is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, sperry said:

He's also two plays from being 3-4 in the Super Bowl.

This is exactly my point again, returning to Parcell's line: You are what your record says you are.  While the Pats could be 3-4 in Super Bowls, they are not; they are 5-2 and there are a lot of factors that go into that.  Case-in-point, one of those "wins-turned-into-a-loss" I am assuming would be the 14 Sueprbowl.  Pats were battling with Seattle and then Kearse makes a horseshoe-up-the-ass catch.  The ball bounced lucky for him and Seattle.  How does That "lucky" play make Seattle any more deserving of winning or for calling that game a "loss" for the Pats?  It doesn't.  Only the final score matters.

But by your logic, I could make a fantastic argument that the Pats are two plays from being 7-0 in Superbowls (Helmet Catch in '07; Welker's drop in '11).  

But it really doesn't matter to me; there fact that we are talking about one QB making it to Seven God-Darn Superbowls is astounding.  3-4 and 5-2 are dramatically different results, but in many ways its just a reaffirmation of how cosmically incredible the Pats have been since 2001 and how fortunate I am to be watching them and rooting for them.  

Basically, once the argument starts with "In their Seven Superbowls, Brady and Belichick should have ..."  the speaker is implicitly admitting that Brady is the greatest QB of all time and Belichick is the greatest coach of all time.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It really is bizarre how things turn out.  I think Belichick is the greatest coach/gm of all time, but if he doesn't bumble into Tom Brady he likely would have been out on the street by 2003 and most fans today wouldn't even remember who he is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Pats didn't keep a rookie Brady as their 4th QB in 2000, Belichick is that talented coordinator who couldn't hack running his own team, and Brady washed out after never getting a good shot or proper development, and maybe the Rams, Colts, and Steelers have a few more titles.

Back to the Future II must have SUCKED for us... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rockroi said:

This is exactly my point again, returning to Parcell's line: You are what your record says you are.  While the Pats could be 3-4 in Super Bowls, they are not; they are 5-2 and there are a lot of factors that go into that.  Case-in-point, one of those "wins-turned-into-a-loss" I am assuming would be the 14 Sueprbowl.  Pats were battling with Seattle and then Kearse makes a horseshoe-up-the-ass catch.  The ball bounced lucky for him and Seattle.  How does That "lucky" play make Seattle any more deserving of winning or for calling that game a "loss" for the Pats?  It doesn't.  Only the final score matters.

But by your logic, I could make a fantastic argument that the Pats are two plays from being 7-0 in Superbowls (Helmet Catch in '07; Welker's drop in '11).  

But it really doesn't matter to me; there fact that we are talking about one QB making it to Seven God-Darn Superbowls is astounding.  3-4 and 5-2 are dramatically different results, but in many ways its just a reaffirmation of how cosmically incredible the Pats have been since 2001 and how fortunate I am to be watching them and rooting for them.  

Basically, once the argument starts with "In their Seven Superbowls, Brady and Belichick should have ..."  the speaker is implicitly admitting that Brady is the greatest QB of all time and Belichick is the greatest coach of all time.  

 

I was going to say you should read the thread and figure out what I was actually saying, but then I realized that every post you make is just an excuse to verbally masturbate about your Patriots fandom and not to actually engage in conversation.  So, carry on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Rockroi said:

This is exactly my point again, returning to Parcell's line: You are what your record says you are.  While the Pats could be 3-4 in Super Bowls, they are not; they are 5-2 and there are a lot of factors that go into that.  Case-in-point, one of those "wins-turned-into-a-loss" I am assuming would be the 14 Sueprbowl.  Pats were battling with Seattle and then Kearse makes a horseshoe-up-the-ass catch.  The ball bounced lucky for him and Seattle.  How does That "lucky" play make Seattle any more deserving of winning or for calling that game a "loss" for the Pats?  It doesn't.  Only the final score matters.

But by your logic, I could make a fantastic argument that the Pats are two plays from being 7-0 in Superbowls (Helmet Catch in '07; Welker's drop in '11).  

But it really doesn't matter to me; there fact that we are talking about one QB making it to Seven God-Darn Superbowls is astounding.  3-4 and 5-2 are dramatically different results, but in many ways its just a reaffirmation of how cosmically incredible the Pats have been since 2001 and how fortunate I am to be watching them and rooting for them.  

Basically, once the argument starts with "In their Seven Superbowls, Brady and Belichick should have ..."  the speaker is implicitly admitting that Brady is the greatest QB of all time and Belichick is the greatest coach of all time.  

Have to agree, as much as it pains me. This last Superb Owl was among the greatest playoff comebacks in NFL history, and arguably the greatest Supeb Owl ever. I'd like to cast shade on that win, but I cannot. You have to take your hat off to this team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i was listening to the radio the other day and there was a discussion on if Belichik could build a winner in any sport, most people, including Mike Francesa, said that he could. his personnel acumen is amazing, really. he drafts well, gets the most out of those players before he has to pay them big money and moves on. im a giants fan, but i have to give him his due. he gets players that fit his scheme and makes it work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Westerosi Coast Gangster said:

i was listening to the radio the other day and there was a discussion on if Belichik could build a winner in any sport, most people, including Mike Francesa, said that he could. his personnel acumen is amazing, really. he drafts well, gets the most out of those players before he has to pay them big money and moves on. im a giants fan, but i have to give him his due. he gets players that fit his scheme and makes it work.

I have no idea if he could because Belichick is so immersed in football all the time that that could be all he knows.  But, yeah, he has such an eye for talent; for coach-ability; for what matters in particular match ups etc.  But he also knows he is on solid footing BECAUSE he knows so much about football.  If you put him in a baseball dugout, Belichcik could never say to himself, "Hey, I know this game" the way he does in football, so if he ever had to make a decision he could never fall-back on "No, I know this game as well as you can know it..."  

In fact, Belichcik spoke about this a few years back when asked if he could do another job in sports that was not football related and the discussion got turned to baseball.  (this is a paraphrase of what was said)

"I have no idea how anybody can be a third-base coach," Belichick said.  "I mean, you have one decision to make- whether or not to send a guy home on a ball hit to the outfield - and there are just so many factors to consider that are just so variable  - arm strength, accuracy of the throw, speed of the runner, - and you have to do it all in a split-second.  How can you make that decisioon and do it right so quickly?  I doulc never do that.

"Now, first-base coach; I could do that job.  Guy gets a hit you stand there and say 'Good hit, way to hit the ball' or 'way to take that walk; nice job.' Now that's a job I could do."  

Then again, most coaches in most sports are terrible, so Belichik would likely go above 500 lifetime in any sport.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...