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

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

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

    In response to bredbru's comment:

     

    In response to 42AND46's comment:

     

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

     

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

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

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

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

     




    to put this simpler control freaks don't play well with others

     

     




     

    and insucurity is one of the many thigns at the core, when you have "control freaks"

     

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

    maybe so, but clearly this is not happeing positionally, game plan-wise (esp on offense), nor game management wise. better coached teams / better defenses are out coaching the pats

     



    So any game the team loses is always because the caoch was out coached?

    ...and for the record there are times I am fuming at situational decisions BB has made, to do or not do something. Size of coaching staff is not so important imo. Bigger staff does not guarantee better results. If it did, and BB has the smallest coaching staff then why do the Patriots have the best overall winning record in x number of years?

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

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

    In response to Ytsejamer1's comment:

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


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



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

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

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

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

    I reject the assertion that 'coaching' and the quality of coaching decisions are 'the problem.'  I agree with Low-FB-IQ that there are times when some of the coaching decisions are open to criticism but those occasions are rare in my judgement.  

    I would assert that the team is as competitive as it is, year in and year out, is a function of the following:

    1) Managing the salary cap such that there is positional depth largely across the board;

    2) Highly effective team building (note that I said 'highly effective' not perfect);

    3) High quality coaching;

    4) High caliber of play at key positions (not just the quarterback).

    Anyone can point to deficiencies in certains aspects in any of the 4 above but, by and large, the team has been successful because of the foregoing.

    And, please, unless anyone posting on this forum has an in-depth knowledge of the dynamics of how the Patriots coaching staff functions on a day-in, day-out basis assertions of dysfunctionality are nothing more than idle speculation.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from IrishMob7. Show IrishMob7's posts

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

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to digger0862's comment:

     

    In response to ATJ's comment:

     

    Insecure? Paranoid? Interesting characterizations neither of which apply in my opinion.  Regardless I don't really care.  There's no one I'd rather have running the Pats football operation.

     




    Consider the source.

     

     




    I always do. Observations from those incapable of objectivity regarding their sacred cows are always best taken with a grain of salt.

     



    Oh, the irony.

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

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

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

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

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

     

    Just saying.

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

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

    In response to IrishMob7's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to digger0862's comment:

     

    In response to ATJ's comment:

     

    Insecure? Paranoid? Interesting characterizations neither of which apply in my opinion.  Regardless I don't really care.  There's no one I'd rather have running the Pats football operation.

     




    Consider the source.

     

     




    I always do. Observations from those incapable of objectivity regarding their sacred cows are always best taken with a grain of salt.

     

     



    Oh, the irony.

     




    Actually, no. But then, you would be incapable of seeing that.

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

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

    In response to JRABBB's comment:

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

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

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

     

    Just saying.




    I think you have to admit the GM hasn't given the coaching staff all that much to work with even if their lack of credentials in general has been an issue as well.

     

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

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

    babe- What kind of response is that to Spygate?

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

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

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

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

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

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

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

     

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

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

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

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

     




    So, you prefer robotic yes men just like BB?

     

     



    I prefer guys who operate and function as a coaching unit with one consistent and clear message, yes.

     

    That does not preclude me from meeting with them and having open dialog and self assesment about our team as it is currently performing and making tweaks. I am not close minded nor do I think BB is.

    However, do I ever just have an assistant that I just say ok here you have this responsibility deal with it and do whatever you want with it? No, I do not.

    Unlike some big conglomerate where you might be a SVP of something and have no idea about some other positions job and responsibilities, in sports you typically do understand it all if you are at the head coaching level.

    You are ultimately responsible and the buck stops with you so if it is going to go bad or you are going to take the fall for something then you want it to be a true refelction of what you are trying to accomplish. If BB got fired and in large part it was because his defense stunk, for example, I am sure he would be able to deal with that more if it was his system and philosophy more than if he left it up to someone else and he got fired because the team had a bad defense. If you end up on the outs then you want to go out on your own failures and not someone else's.

    I don't think you are ever hiring drones, idiots, or robots. Those types of people will very rarely have all the attributes I listed previously.

    Most of the poeple he has had have gone on to equal or bigger opportunities. So whether fail or success, others have thought highly of them as well. Weis, Crennel, Groh, McDaniels, O'Brien, Pees, Capers, etc. Are those all your robotic yes men you are referring to?

     




    Seems you and BB are both of the micromanagement school. Some ascribe to that. Others hire talented people and let them work their magic, intervening only when the results are not suitable. Micromanagement usually is the result of a personality disorder rather than a tried and true results oriented approach. Of course if one is surrounded by incompetence one has to micromanage, but then the choices they made to fill the positions needs to be questioned.

     

    If I were your boss and you were a micro manager, I would fire you.

     

    I'm a bit incredulous at some of the names you have brandished to make your point here. Capers for instance was simply a consultant in real terms and allowed little or no real impact on the team. So he bolted to GB and got a real job.

     

     

     



    I figured you would go the micromanagement route and I can see how you could go there. However I view micro-mangment as hovering and being involved in every second. I have assistant coaches i feel are competent, buy into what I am trying to accomplish, and who I trust to work within the confines of that structure. Then they are left to their own.

     

    I have no idea exactly how BB is as a coach but I suspect its at least somewhat similar from a casual observation.

    I think your sentence that I highlighted is exactly what I prefer to think my coaching style is. The only qualification is I set clearly defined guidlines for how i want that magic worked within a given set of game conditions(That's the philospohy, you have to have one). There is a large fenced in area, if you will, but the fence can be hopped from time to time within reason.

    I was not really using the list to bolster any point just asking a question as I do not know who he must hire to meet your approval. Those are all name type guys who have had success in specific roles and I never really thought about it before this conversation. It seemed to be that he has hired some acceptable guys that not only he but others in the NFL seem to agree are knowledgable was my only point. I am not sure how else to look at it.

    As far as Capers he was a DB coach wasn't he? Don't recall specifically and titles are not always exactly representative or responsibilties and I am not there. However he thought highly enough of BB to accept the position and BB was open and thought highly enough to offer the job. No way around either of those facts. If Capers was not going to get the DC job or not I have no idea. If he was going to get the job but had to run a system he was not comfortable with and had an opportunity with another team that had a philosophy more inline with his own its just a normal decision for him. Is it not?

     




    Capers was DBs coach and a "special assistant". This, a guy who was a former HC and DC. By any measure he was not going to stick around in that role for long. Of course he left and went on to win a ring as DC of the Pack. (Not to mention Pees being let go only to go win a ring with the Ravens.) Meanwhile, we have another BB "on the job training" guy at DC.

     

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

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

    And I'd be very interested in the number of Pats fans on this forum who bemoaned the departure of Dean Pees from the Patriots coaching staff.  Seems to me there weren't a whole bunch of folks queuing up to throw themselves on a funeral pyre when he left.

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

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

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    And I'd be very interested in the number of Pats fans on this forum who bemoaned the departure of Dean Pees from the Patriots coaching staff.  Seems to me there weren't a whole bunch of folks queuing up to throw themselves on a funeral pyre when he left.



    I believe I was the only one who defended him. I can't be certain if others did or not but I do remember most everyone complaining about him for more than just 1 year prior to his and the Patriots separation.

    People always do that here. Revisionist history to their comments.

    WHen i defended him I never said he was great either, only simply that I did not think you could blame him while pining for the likes of Romeo or someone else. The defense gave up fewer points per game on avg over his tenure with Pats than either Romeo or Mangini. ...and he did that with inferrior talent on defense and during the rules changes that favored the offense.

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

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

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

    In response to ATJ's comment:

     

    And I'd be very interested in the number of Pats fans on this forum who bemoaned the departure of Dean Pees from the Patriots coaching staff.  Seems to me there weren't a whole bunch of folks queuing up to throw themselves on a funeral pyre when he left.

     



    I believe I was the only one who defended him. I can't be certain if others did or not but I do remember most everyone complaining about him for more than just 1 year prior to his and the Patriots separation.

     

    People always do that here. Revisionist history to their comments.

    WHen i defended him I never said he was great either, only simply that I did not think you could blame him while pining for the likes of Romeo or someone else. The defense gave up fewer points per game on avg over his tenure with Pats than either Romeo or Mangini. ...and he did that with inferrior talent on defense and during the rules changes that favored the offense.



    Indeed, the hindsight on this forum is of unparalleled keenness.  To be honest, I was never a huge fan of Pees but apparently he is not chopped liver. 

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

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

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

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

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

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

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

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

     

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

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

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

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

     




    So, you prefer robotic yes men just like BB?

     

     



    I prefer guys who operate and function as a coaching unit with one consistent and clear message, yes.

     

    That does not preclude me from meeting with them and having open dialog and self assesment about our team as it is currently performing and making tweaks. I am not close minded nor do I think BB is.

    However, do I ever just have an assistant that I just say ok here you have this responsibility deal with it and do whatever you want with it? No, I do not.

    Unlike some big conglomerate where you might be a SVP of something and have no idea about some other positions job and responsibilities, in sports you typically do understand it all if you are at the head coaching level.

    You are ultimately responsible and the buck stops with you so if it is going to go bad or you are going to take the fall for something then you want it to be a true refelction of what you are trying to accomplish. If BB got fired and in large part it was because his defense stunk, for example, I am sure he would be able to deal with that more if it was his system and philosophy more than if he left it up to someone else and he got fired because the team had a bad defense. If you end up on the outs then you want to go out on your own failures and not someone else's.

    I don't think you are ever hiring drones, idiots, or robots. Those types of people will very rarely have all the attributes I listed previously.

    Most of the poeple he has had have gone on to equal or bigger opportunities. So whether fail or success, others have thought highly of them as well. Weis, Crennel, Groh, McDaniels, O'Brien, Pees, Capers, etc. Are those all your robotic yes men you are referring to?

     




    Seems you and BB are both of the micromanagement school. Some ascribe to that. Others hire talented people and let them work their magic, intervening only when the results are not suitable. Micromanagement usually is the result of a personality disorder rather than a tried and true results oriented approach. Of course if one is surrounded by incompetence one has to micromanage, but then the choices they made to fill the positions needs to be questioned.

     

    If I were your boss and you were a micro manager, I would fire you.

     

    I'm a bit incredulous at some of the names you have brandished to make your point here. Capers for instance was simply a consultant in real terms and allowed little or no real impact on the team. So he bolted to GB and got a real job.

     

     

     



    I figured you would go the micromanagement route and I can see how you could go there. However I view micro-mangment as hovering and being involved in every second. I have assistant coaches i feel are competent, buy into what I am trying to accomplish, and who I trust to work within the confines of that structure. Then they are left to their own.

     

    I have no idea exactly how BB is as a coach but I suspect its at least somewhat similar from a casual observation.

    I think your sentence that I highlighted is exactly what I prefer to think my coaching style is. The only qualification is I set clearly defined guidlines for how i want that magic worked within a given set of game conditions(That's the philospohy, you have to have one). There is a large fenced in area, if you will, but the fence can be hopped from time to time within reason.

    I was not really using the list to bolster any point just asking a question as I do not know who he must hire to meet your approval. Those are all name type guys who have had success in specific roles and I never really thought about it before this conversation. It seemed to be that he has hired some acceptable guys that not only he but others in the NFL seem to agree are knowledgable was my only point. I am not sure how else to look at it.

    As far as Capers he was a DB coach wasn't he? Don't recall specifically and titles are not always exactly representative or responsibilties and I am not there. However he thought highly enough of BB to accept the position and BB was open and thought highly enough to offer the job. No way around either of those facts. If Capers was not going to get the DC job or not I have no idea. If he was going to get the job but had to run a system he was not comfortable with and had an opportunity with another team that had a philosophy more inline with his own its just a normal decision for him. Is it not?

     

     




    Capers was DBs coach and a "special assistant". This, a guy who was a former HC and DC. By any measure he was not going to stick around in that role for long. Of course he left and went on to win a ring as DC of the Pack. (Not to mention Pees being let go only to go win a ring with the Ravens.) Meanwhile, we have anotherBB "on the job training" guy at DC.

     

     



    Those are true facts for sure. Isn't BB really always going to be the defacto DC no matter who is here?

    Here are some other facts, just for example. We as fans always focus so heavily on our own team and their weaknesses or organizational/coaching mistakes that we do not look outward to see how good we have it.

    Capers is 49-81 as a Head Coach (with due respect to capers his and BB's first gigs had eerily similar tenures then BB ofcourse feel into good fortune of ending up with Brady under center in his 2nd gig)

    Capers defense gave up 51 points in the 2009 post season loss to the cards. The offense scored 45 for the Pack. I do not think that has happen to the Pats D in the post season.

    2010 they did win the super bowl as you mentioned. The D gave up 25 points. Oh wait that is still more points given up than either of the Pats D's that, by your estimation, lost the last two superbowls for us. But at least the Pack offense put up 31 points. The Pats haven't been able to mange more than 17 in either of their last two super bowl appearances.

    2011, the pack D gave up 37 points in the postseason loss to the giants. Don't think the Pats D has given up that many to the Giants offense in the post season losses.

    2012 the pack D gave up 45 points. More than the Pats gave up to the 49ers in the regular season. The pack D only had to contend with 1 INT from the QB and 1 lost fumble in the game. The Pats D had to contend with 2 QB INT's and 2 lost fumbles in the game.

    I always have this running joke when my grand kids ask me who is going to win a game. Doesn't matter the sport or teams involved. I simply say the team with the most points.

    3 out of the last 4 years, the time Capers has been with the Pack as DC, The Pats D has given up fewer points per game than the Packers D.

    3 out of the 4 years the Patriots D has given up fewer points in their post season losses than the Pack D. The year the Pack won the superbowl their D gave up 3 fewer points in their win than the Pats D gave up in their loss to the jets.

    I certainly am not going to try and say to you that BB is infallible. He just always gets my benefit of the doubt because of his long standing consistent track record of results, for the most part. It is difficult to dispute it, comparitively speaking to the rest of the league.

    People get too worked up about the "name" of the coach. Coaching is just teaching. Are the guys he has working with him good teachers? I have no idea.

    ...by the way I always thought you had more issues with BB the GM than BB the coach?

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

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

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

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

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

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

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

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

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

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

     

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

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

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

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

     




    So, you prefer robotic yes men just like BB?

     

     



    I prefer guys who operate and function as a coaching unit with one consistent and clear message, yes.

     

    That does not preclude me from meeting with them and having open dialog and self assesment about our team as it is currently performing and making tweaks. I am not close minded nor do I think BB is.

    However, do I ever just have an assistant that I just say ok here you have this responsibility deal with it and do whatever you want with it? No, I do not.

    Unlike some big conglomerate where you might be a SVP of something and have no idea about some other positions job and responsibilities, in sports you typically do understand it all if you are at the head coaching level.

    You are ultimately responsible and the buck stops with you so if it is going to go bad or you are going to take the fall for something then you want it to be a true refelction of what you are trying to accomplish. If BB got fired and in large part it was because his defense stunk, for example, I am sure he would be able to deal with that more if it was his system and philosophy more than if he left it up to someone else and he got fired because the team had a bad defense. If you end up on the outs then you want to go out on your own failures and not someone else's.

    I don't think you are ever hiring drones, idiots, or robots. Those types of people will very rarely have all the attributes I listed previously.

    Most of the poeple he has had have gone on to equal or bigger opportunities. So whether fail or success, others have thought highly of them as well. Weis, Crennel, Groh, McDaniels, O'Brien, Pees, Capers, etc. Are those all your robotic yes men you are referring to?

     




    Seems you and BB are both of the micromanagement school. Some ascribe to that. Others hire talented people and let them work their magic, intervening only when the results are not suitable. Micromanagement usually is the result of a personality disorder rather than a tried and true results oriented approach. Of course if one is surrounded by incompetence one has to micromanage, but then the choices they made to fill the positions needs to be questioned.

     

    If I were your boss and you were a micro manager, I would fire you.

     

    I'm a bit incredulous at some of the names you have brandished to make your point here. Capers for instance was simply a consultant in real terms and allowed little or no real impact on the team. So he bolted to GB and got a real job.

     

     

     



    I figured you would go the micromanagement route and I can see how you could go there. However I view micro-mangment as hovering and being involved in every second. I have assistant coaches i feel are competent, buy into what I am trying to accomplish, and who I trust to work within the confines of that structure. Then they are left to their own.

     

    I have no idea exactly how BB is as a coach but I suspect its at least somewhat similar from a casual observation.

    I think your sentence that I highlighted is exactly what I prefer to think my coaching style is. The only qualification is I set clearly defined guidlines for how i want that magic worked within a given set of game conditions(That's the philospohy, you have to have one). There is a large fenced in area, if you will, but the fence can be hopped from time to time within reason.

    I was not really using the list to bolster any point just asking a question as I do not know who he must hire to meet your approval. Those are all name type guys who have had success in specific roles and I never really thought about it before this conversation. It seemed to be that he has hired some acceptable guys that not only he but others in the NFL seem to agree are knowledgable was my only point. I am not sure how else to look at it.

    As far as Capers he was a DB coach wasn't he? Don't recall specifically and titles are not always exactly representative or responsibilties and I am not there. However he thought highly enough of BB to accept the position and BB was open and thought highly enough to offer the job. No way around either of those facts. If Capers was not going to get the DC job or not I have no idea. If he was going to get the job but had to run a system he was not comfortable with and had an opportunity with another team that had a philosophy more inline with his own its just a normal decision for him. Is it not?

     

     




    Capers was DBs coach and a "special assistant". This, a guy who was a former HC and DC. By any measure he was not going to stick around in that role for long. Of course he left and went on to win a ring as DC of the Pack. (Not to mention Pees being let go only to go win a ring with the Ravens.) Meanwhile, we have anotherBB "on the job training" guy at DC.

     

     

     



    Those are true facts for sure. Isn't BB really always going to be the defacto DC no matter who is here?

     

    Here are some other facts, just for example. We as fans always focus so heavily on our own team and their weaknesses or organizational/coaching mistakes that we do not look outward to see how good we have it.

    Capers is 49-81 as a Head Coach (with due respect to capers his and BB's first gigs had eerily similar tenures then BB ofcourse feel into good fortune of ending up with Brady under center in his 2nd gig)

    Capers defense gave up 51 points in the 2009 post season loss to the cards. The offense scored 45 for the Pack. I do not think that has happen to the Pats D in the post season.

    2010 they did win the super bowl as you mentioned. The D gave up 25 points. Oh wait that is still more points given up than either of the Pats D's that, by your estimation, lost the last two superbowls for us. But at least the Pack offense put up 31 points. The Pats haven't been able to mange more than 17 in either of their last two super bowl appearances.

    2011, the pack D gave up 37 points in the postseason loss to the giants. Don't think the Pats D has given up that many to the Giants offense in the post season losses.

    2012 the pack D gave up 45 points. More than the Pats gave up to the 49ers in the regular season. The pack D only had to contend with 1 INT from the QB and 1 lost fumble in the game. The Pats D had to contend with 2 QB INT's and 2 lost fumbles in the game.

    I always have this running joke when my grand kids ask me who is going to win a game. Doesn't matter the sport or teams involved. I simply say the team with the most points.

    3 out of the last 4 years, the time Capers has been with the Pack as DC, The Pats D has given up fewer points per game than the Packers D.

    3 out of the 4 years the Patriots D has given up fewer points in their post season losses than the Pack D. The year the Pack won the superbowl their D gave up 3 fewer points in their win than the Pats D gave up in their loss to the jets.

    I certainly am not going to try and say to you that BB is infallible. He just always gets my benefit of the doubt because of his long standing consistent track record of results, for the most part. It is difficult to dispute it, comparitively speaking to the rest of the league.

    People get too worked up about the "name" of the coach. Coaching is just teaching. Are the guys he has working with him good teachers? I have no idea.

    ...by the way I always thought you had more issues with BB the GM than BB the coach?




    I don't have much in the way of issues regarding BB the coach. But it is obvious he has evolved into a guy that prefers the on the job training coaches to the more experienced. Generally, that isn't a recipe for success. But if the GM gave these nobody coaches better material to work with, they might be more highly regarded.

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

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

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

     

    I'd care if the Pats were missing the playoffs 


    You will be caring then..... soon enough.

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

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

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

    In response to JRABBB's comment:

     

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

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

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

     

    Just saying.

     




     

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

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

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

    Period.

    Miami used audio in 2006, no penalty.

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

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

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

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

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

     

    12.3.2010:

     

     

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

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

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

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

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


    END THREAD

     




    methinks you doth protesteth too much...eth

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

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

    cant wait to hear this spin

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

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

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

    In response to Ytsejamer1's comment:

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


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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

     
  22. This post has been removed.

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

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

    In response to Ytsejamer1's comment:

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

    In response to Ytsejamer1's comment:

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


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

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

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



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

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



    A couple of things.

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share