"A Contrarian View of Bill Belichick" (1 Viewer)

[pollardsvision]

It'll be interesting to see if the Pats start acquiring some tarnish when they fail to win it all again this year.

It'll be interesting to see if SD can break .500 this year.

What's that got to do with the Patriots?

"When" the Patriots fail to win it all again this year.

I'm not following you.

I think he's pointing out the different standard the Pats are judged by, which in today's NFL, is frankly amazing.If every other franchise were judged by the same standards as the Pats, they'd all be considered laughing stocks, except for maybe the Steelers.

 

[Gr00vus]

I think he's pointing out the different standard the Pats are judged by

That's the whole point of the article.

 

[dhockster]

My take on the article was not that the guy was really bashing Belichick or the Patriots but commenting that the

Media does not seem to think he/they can do anything wrong.

I have no idea how the Media in New England portrays Belichick, but based on ESPN's coverage of the Patriots since the draft, I would have to agree with him. It seems like everything New England does is prefaced by "the rich get richer" or "they have done it again". I think ESPN has lost some objectivity when it comes to covering the Patriots (I know that never happens at ESPN).

That being said, overall, I think the Patriots are a great franchise, who do more things right and less things wrong than other franchises.

 

[LongDuckDong]

Patriots fan.

I completely agree that the talking heads praise Patriot moves with fail because of the success of the franchise in the last 10 years and because it is the "in" thing to do. The draft and FA record in the last few years has not been exceptional.

I completely disagree with most of the "evidence" the author used to make his point. Plus the first sentence(s) were completely foolish and make him look petty.

Further, I don't think the article is about a contrarian view of Bill Belichick so much as an indictment of the media for refusing to call a spade a spade.

My guess is that after Tom Jackson, no one in the media wants to take BB on, but I am uncertain of that.

 

[pollardsvision]

I think he's pointing out the different standard the Pats are judged by

That's the whole point of the article.

It looked to me that, when even Patriot haters (which I assume you are) are judging the Pats by a different standard, it's not just the media blowing smoke. Even Pat-haters don't seem to be able to deny that they are an elite franchise.

 

[Gr00vus]

I think he's pointing out the different standard the Pats are judged by

That's the whole point of the article.

It looked to me that, when even Patriot haters (which I assume you are) are judging the Pats by a different standard, it's not just the media blowing smoke. Even Pat-haters don't seem to be able to deny that they are an elite franchise.

I don't hate the Pats (I hate the way many of their fans represent themselves), and respect the franchise and what they've accomplished the last 9 years. But I do think there is a certain amount of gold plating treatment they get that's above and beyond what's merited. I don't think their defense is good enough to win it all this year, so I, like the author, am seriously wondering how many more non-championship seasons it'll be before people will start taking a more serious look at the "they can do no wrong perception" that surrounds them. I'm not judging them by a different standard - there's only 1 standard and that's championship trophies. They haven't collected one in a while.

 

[Morton Muffley]

Although the media likes to tell you that Babe Ruth hit alot of home runs, what they leave out is that he also struck out 1330 times!!!! So why is it that no one wants to talk about the fact that Ruth struck out nearly TWICE as often as he hit homeruns. Over my lifetime I've seen hundreds of at bats from Ruth, but all the media ever shows are his homeruns. Someone need to report on this!

 

[dparker713]

The most interesting thing about this article is that it makes Sparano look a bit like a dolt. He's excited he doesn't have to face Seymour in '09? Fine. But everyone knew there was ZERO CHANCE of the Patriots giving Seymour a new contract. I have to assume Sparano knew this too... which tells me:

a) he manages year-to-year with no thought beyond the current season

or

b) he has no expectation to be coaching against the Patriots beyond this year

That's quite a leap you've taken there. Can't the guy just be happy?P.S. ALL coaches manage "from year to year." Every one of them will tell you the only game which matters is the next one.

I respectfully disagree. Belichick would not have made this trade (nor any of his forward-looking trades involving draft picks) if he was truly taking things one season at a time. But there aren't more than a very small handful of coaches (no more than a half-dozen, and that's probably being generous) who are secure enough in their positions to run their teams like that. And I've got to say that it's a pretty significant advantage.

Sparano is a HC, he is not a GM. Up till this year Belichick has been HC and co-GM. Now he's gotten rid of the co-. So, Sparano should be managing game-to-game, not even year-to-year, while Belichick needs to think long term as well as short term. Also, I think its a bit early to discount Pioli's part in the prior success of the Pats personnel moves. We'll get a better sense of each man's abilities in the next few years as they've now seperated.

 

[Matt Waldman]

I'm not a New England fan, but I'm not a hater, either. The one thing that strikes me about this article is his take on Brian Hoyer. Brian Hoyer does look like a promising young prospect and there were people besides me that saw that on film. So his "I only see water where others see wine" is a dead-on indictment of this writer's inability to understand the difference when it comes to player evaluation. Sure, New England has had some failures with draft picks, but this writer could have asked the guy who made the Hoyer-Brady comparison exactly what he saw.

As it is, this writer showed not only was he uneducated on the subject, but he also wasn't willing to learn. It's like being sent to write review of a symphony's performances of Mozart, didn't really recognize anything great about it and wrote a review that says, "the guy next to me marveled at the genius of the composition and the inspired performance, but I just didn't see it," without any further explanation.

On this piece at least from his analysis of Brian Hoyer. Considering he writes for Orlando, and last I heard they don't have a football team, I think his frame of reference on the game isn't all that great. Then again, maybe he was former beat writer somewhere else and I'm the uneducated one. Still, that snappy-sounding beginning makes him sound like a better writer than he is an analyst.

 

[Matt Waldman]

I will say his perspective of the media's treatment of the Patriots has some merit - I just don't think all the arguments he uses fly.

 

[Adebisi]

The most interesting thing about this article is that it makes Sparano look a bit like a dolt. He's excited he doesn't have to face Seymour in '09? Fine. But everyone knew there was ZERO CHANCE of the Patriots giving Seymour a new contract. I have to assume Sparano knew this too... which tells me:

a) he manages year-to-year with no thought beyond the current season

or

b) he has no expectation to be coaching against the Patriots beyond this year

That's quite a leap you've taken there. Can't the guy just be happy?P.S. ALL coaches manage "from year to year." Every one of them will tell you the only game which matters is the next one.

I respectfully disagree. Belichick would not have made this trade (nor any of his forward-looking trades involving draft picks) if he was truly taking things one season at a time. But there aren't more than a very small handful of coaches (no more than a half-dozen, and that's probably being generous) who are secure enough in their positions to run their teams like that. And I've got to say that it's a pretty significant advantage.

Sparano is a HC, he is not a GM. Up till this year Belichick has been HC and co-GM. Now he's gotten rid of the co-. So, Sparano should be managing game-to-game, not even year-to-year, while Belichick needs to think long term as well as short term. Also, I think its a bit early to discount Pioli's part in the prior success of the Pats personnel moves. We'll get a better sense of each man's abilities in the next few years as they've now seperated.

You're absolutely right... I think things kind of got mixed up somewhere between discussing Sparano's take on the deal versus Belichick's short-term and long-term thinking in regards to the deal.Regarding Pioli, it doesn't matter what the Pats do going forward or what the Chiefs do going forward - either way, Pioli deserves a lot of credit for the Patriots' past success (and even some credit for their future success, since he obviously had a hand in drafting/signing/trading for many of the players still on the team).

 

[Possum]

what's so "contrarian" about it? This is a pretty popular viewpoint among most non-Patriots fans, and I don't think the media's quite as favorable to Belichick as this writer seems to feel.

guy sounds like he has a real ax to grind - not that great of a column IMO.

 

[-baller]

By Simon Clancy

-Orlando Sun-Sentinel Online

....And yet they continue to love [belichick].

......the Patriots (good).....

there aren't enough lols on the internet for this goof.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

Oh dear; Tony Sparano thinks New England made a mistake trading away Richard Seymour.

Time to fire Belichick I suppose...

 

[Caveman_Nick]

I'm not a Patriot hater, but I think you have to give a lot of credit for all of Belichick's accomplishments to Tom Brady. He is probably the best QB since Joe Montana.

Seriously. I mean what's Bill Belichick ever accomplished without Brady....except coach his team to an 11-5 record with a QB that hadn't started a regular season game since Highschool.I don't think it would be fair to grant too much credit to any part of the organization, but the simple truth is that there has been a long period of success and the way things are set up for the future there appears to be the ingredients in place for there to be many more years of success. I think you have to give the coach his fair share of that credit. He's put them in a position to win every year since they won their first SB, with their worst record being 9-7 (when Brady was still developing) and their second worst being 11-5 (without Brady).

 

[switz]

I think he's pointing out the different standard the Pats are judged by

That's the whole point of the article.

It looked to me that, when even Patriot haters (which I assume you are) are judging the Pats by a different standard, it's not just the media blowing smoke. Even Pat-haters don't seem to be able to deny that they are an elite franchise.

In this decade they have been THE standard for how a franchise should be run, no debate on that at all - their success merits that at this point in time. But to say they are an elite franchise? They are middle of the pack historically, actually 17th out of 32 franchises in win percentage over their history.

And regardless of their success, they get treated with kid gloves... compare the way the media treated Belichick in CLE to now... I think the writer had a point, presented it very eloquently, and the only people who could even get upset are overprotective overdefensive Pats fans. I can understand them being the way they are, after sucking for 40 years... but they have more reason to be modest than to gloat.

 

[switz]

I'm not a Patriot hater, but I think you have to give a lot of credit for all of Belichick's accomplishments to Tom Brady. He is probably the best QB since Joe Montana.

Seriously. I mean what's Bill Belichick ever accomplished without Brady....except coach his team to an 11-5 record with a QB that hadn't started a regular season game since Highschool.

On the contrary, I don't think Brady would be anything without Belichick.

 

[JamesTheScot]

The only poorly-written thing in the article was spelling aging wrong. Other than that, good article. I am not surprised some Patriots fans are missing the point of it, which was not to point out everything Belichick does wrong. It was to point out that everything he does is not right, and that he does make some mistakes. If just about any other team that is considered a real contender had made the Seymour trade, they would be vilified for hurting their SB chances. Belichick was praised for it.

With respect, I don't think Pat fans are missing the point. They're saying "So what?".The point of the article was to point out that "everything he does is not right" as you put it. Well no ####. Groundbreaking analysis there by the author, I tell ya."Best" does not and has never meant "Perfect". I don't know anyone who heralds BB as perfect, but he's lauded as one of the best. I'm guessing most of us know the difference.That's why it comes off as a shrill, whiney hit piece to this Browns fan. He took the time to remind everyone that BB isn't perfect. Gee, thanks for that. I had forgotten and needed that article to remind me of that.BB operates in a closed system, the NFL, where coaching comparisons are pretty easy to make. The fact that this article spends 100% of the time pointing out that BB isn't perfect in an attempt to prove that he isn't worthy of the praise he receives compared to other coaches while mysteriously omitting any comparative analysis of BB to other coaches, their drafts and their roster moves is very telling. The author ommited them maybe because they wouldn't have supported his position? Hmmm. Better to stay safe and just point out BB's misses instead of delving into how his comapre to everyone else's.It's no better than an argument than saying ___________________ doesn't deserve all the praise he gets for being a great QB because he lost some games and threw some interceptions during his career.It all comparative. Too bad the author didn't bother to do any comparing.

 

[NE_REVIVAL]

I'm not a Patriot hater, but I think you have to give a lot of credit for all of Belichick's accomplishments to Tom Brady. He is probably the best QB since Joe Montana.

Seriously. I mean what's Bill Belichick ever accomplished without Brady....except coach his team to an 11-5 record with a QB that hadn't started a regular season game since Highschool.

On the contrary, I don't think.

Fixed that for you

 

[Caveman_Nick]

I'm not a Patriot hater, but I think you have to give a lot of credit for all of Belichick's accomplishments to Tom Brady. He is probably the best QB since Joe Montana.

Seriously. I mean what's Bill Belichick ever accomplished without Brady....except coach his team to an 11-5 record with a QB that hadn't started a regular season game since Highschool.

On the contrary, I don't think Brady would be anything without Belichick.

I don't agree with that either. Tom Brady is a very hard working, very good field general. He could be the best leader in football amongst the players. I think this is best evidenced by his humility, deflection of credit, and constant focus on team.I am not among those that think Tom Brady is the best QB in football. From a talent and execution perspective I would give that to some guy that wears #11. I am not sure I would trade, though.

 

[Chaka]

I think it's a little from column a and a little bit from column b.

Sure the media loves to fawn all over the Pats, Brady & Belichick. Every decision on and off the field are considered flawless (even if they are later proven otherwise).

OTOH the media turned into a raving pack of jackals during spygate trying to do everything possible to tear the franchise, coach and QB down.

It is the nature of the beast, and the consumers, the two things we (media and consumers) love most are tearing down our idols and stories of redemption.

 

[switz]

I'm not a Patriot hater, but I think you have to give a lot of credit for all of Belichick's accomplishments to Tom Brady. He is probably the best QB since Joe Montana.

Seriously. I mean what's Bill Belichick ever accomplished without Brady....except coach his team to an 11-5 record with a QB that hadn't started a regular season game since Highschool.

On the contrary, I don't think.

Fixed that for you

Pretty pathetic... but I guess I should expect that from a Pats fan...

 

[Caveman_Nick]

I'm not a Patriot hater, but I think you have to give a lot of credit for all of Belichick's accomplishments to Tom Brady. He is probably the best QB since Joe Montana.

Seriously. I mean what's Bill Belichick ever accomplished without Brady....except coach his team to an 11-5 record with a QB that hadn't started a regular season game since Highschool.

On the contrary, I don't think.

Fixed that for you

Pretty pathetic... but I guess I should expect that from a Pats fan...

<_< Not all of us....

 

[pats3in4]

Looking at the draft picks in a vacuum alone, much like this article does, has brought tons of debate on Patsfans.com. Especially the post-SB39 drafts. Hardcore Pats fans know the draft picking hasn't been perfect by any stretch. The media does not speak for us.

The FA signings and trading of picks for vets has been a mixed bag as well. The author brings up Greg Lewis which is fine. Still, when BB hits it out of the park with Randy Moss and Wes Welker, it's kind of hard to ##### about the misses.

 

[Sabertooth]

They say "whilst" in Orlando, Florida?

Also "bunting" and "drost."

 

[JoeyJoeJoeJrShabadoo]

The only poorly-written thing in the article was spelling aging wrong. Other than that, good article. I am not surprised some Patriots fans are missing the point of it, which was not to point out everything Belichick does wrong. It was to point out that everything he does is not right, and that he does make some mistakes. If just about any other team that is considered a real contender had made the Seymour trade, they would be vilified for hurting their SB chances. Belichick was praised for it.

With respect, I don't think Pat fans are missing the point. They're saying "So what?".The point of the article was to point out that "everything he does is not right" as you put it. Well no ####. Groundbreaking analysis there by the author, I tell ya."Best" does not and has never meant "Perfect". I don't know anyone who heralds BB as perfect, but he's lauded as one of the best. I'm guessing most of us know the difference.That's why it comes off as a shrill, whiney hit piece to this Browns fan. He took the time to remind everyone that BB isn't perfect. Gee, thanks for that. I had forgotten and needed that article to remind me of that.BB operates in a closed system, the NFL, where coaching comparisons are pretty easy to make. The fact that this article spends 100% of the time pointing out that BB isn't perfect in an attempt to prove that he isn't worthy of the praise he receives compared to other coaches while mysteriously omitting any comparative analysis of BB to other coaches, their drafts and their roster moves is very telling. The author ommited them maybe because they wouldn't have supported his position? Hmmm. Better to stay safe and just point out BB's misses instead of delving into how his comapre to everyone else's.It's no better than an argument than saying ___________________ doesn't deserve all the praise he gets for being a great QB because he lost some games and threw some interceptions during his career.It all comparative. Too bad the author didn't bother to do any comparing.

 

[NE_REVIVAL]

I'm not a Patriot hater, but I think you have to give a lot of credit for all of Belichick's accomplishments to Tom Brady. He is probably the best QB since Joe Montana.

Seriously. I mean what's Bill Belichick ever accomplished without Brady....except coach his team to an 11-5 record with a QB that hadn't started a regular season game since Highschool.

On the contrary, I don't think.

Fixed that for you

Pretty pathetic... but I guess I should expect that from a Pats fan...

Your silly posts and constant peeing on Brady and the Pats is quite tiresome (we get it); I apologize if u r offended by the well earned, yet good natured ribbing you so rightly deserve.PS. we are still waiting for the answer to the question your repeated comments scream out for; explain in some rational form, exactly what the difference is between Indy's system and NE's system? Why is it that (according to you) virtually anyone can come in off the street and run NE's offense, but those same people couldn't possibly do likewise in Indy? Now, I know you don't have the answer, but I am hoping you will dig yourself a hole by making one ridiculous statement after another and then go away; you know, like you did last time

 

[Louisville Slugger]

By Simon Clancy

-Orlando Sun-Sentinel Online

Bill Belichick. Genius. Cheat. Hall of Famer in New England. Disaster in Cleveland. Media darling. Media nightmare. You'd think that given the two sided resume, Belichick would, whilst continuing to be rightfully revered for taking a New England Patriots team and winning three Superbowls with a 6th round QB, also be looked at with a modicum of disdain when it comes to his career. Given the fact that he was found guilty of stealing, fined half a million dollars and had a first round pick taken away, you'd think that someone in the media might just take a little shine from his halo. Hell, they might even enjoy it! After all, this is a mainstream media that Belichick despises and treats with utter indredulity.

And yet they continue to love him.

Evidence of this is rife in any transaction the Patriots seem to make. Only recently they jettisoned a QB they picked in the 3rd round a year ago, then cut a former starter in Andrew Walter, leaving free agent pick up Brian Hoyer, a pretty uninspiring rookie from Michigan State as the only back up to Tom Brady, himself fresh off a knee reconstruction and a sore shoulder. And yet, when Hoyer completed 18 of 25 against the Giants in the pre-season finale, it led one respected NFL watcher to say to me: "I don't want to say it was like watching a young Tom Brady, but it was like watching a young Tom Brady. Another masterstroke from Coach Belichick."

Where I see water, others see wine.

Take for example the trade of Richard Seymour. Always known as a slightly cantankerous character, the five time Pro Bowler went from being the leader of the Patriots defense, the heart and soul of the unit, an All Pro performer, coming off an 8 sack season, to being washed up, ageing, over the hill and finished in the time it took to announce his trade from the Patriots (good) to the Raiders (evil).

As one friend said to me, 'I have no doubt that if the Pats had acquired Seymour from the Raiders for a 2011 1st rd pick it would have been hailed as a master stroke by New England'.Of all the hyperbole that has surrounded the trade, you'd think the Patriots had shipped Rick Mirer to the Bears for a #1.

Tony Sparano's reaction - a little fist pump in case you missed it - was most telling. Which do you think coach Sparano is more bothered about? The Patriots picking up a 1st rounder in two drafts time or whether we have to game plan for a 5 time Pro Bowler at least twice this season? Especially on a defense that has lost Harrison, Seau, Bruschi, Vrabel and now big number 93. You think Sparano cares one iota about anything other than how the Seymour trade weakens a Patriot team that will now rely on two rookies to fill that hole?

Me neither.

And it's not just over the Seymour trade where the media wears its rose tinted glasses. Take the case of Alex Smith, the former Bucs tight end who was seen as another 'shrewd trade' by Belichick, who 'stole him' for a 5th rounder, only to cut him on September 5th, when he lost out to the former 1st rounder Ben Watson, who was almost cut himself. Remember Watson? He's the 4.4 running machine from Georgia who was going to revolutionise the tight end position in the NFL.

We're still waiting. Perhaps we should file him away in the drawer marked 'Laurence Maroney'.

And the lack of national press over the Patriots cutting of Greg Lewis was fascinating. Remember, this was a player who New England got for a 5th round pick from Philadelphia, and who, if you'd read a few media outlets at the time, would have thought this was something akin to the Herschel Walker trade. A player Belichick had coveted for years back to when Lewis was at Illinois and who would be guaranteed to catch 50 passes in that offense, who was another Wes Welker but with special teams talent. Cue media fanfare, bunting and numerous lists of Top 10 Great Trades That New England (good) Have Made And Others (evil) Haven't.

And yet where was the fanfare and the bunting when Lewis was cut at the end of training camp? Released, thrown away, unwanted after 3 pre-season grabs, beaten out by two free agent rookies. You missed it you say? No wonder. The mainstream sports media only likes good New England stories. You should know this by now.

It's not consigned to free agency or trades either. Look at the drafting of Jerod Mayo. A player who the Patriots picked 10th overall in 2008, but who some dared to call a reach at that point. Now, after 128 tackles and 16 starts, as well as the AP Defensive Player of the Year award, he's now yet another perspicacious New England selection. Why wouldn't he be?

And it's the drafting of players where things really do get interesting with regards Bill Belichick. If you're a fan of conformity, then might I suggest you look away now? If you like your Monday morning hyperbole and your 24 hour Sports News excess then this might not be the paragraph for you.

New England's draft history isn't nearly as glamourous as people have led you to believe.

There. I said it. I am the anti-ESPN. Yes, there's been some good picks along the way. Yes, there's been some great picks. But thre's been a lot of dross as well. Not everyone can hang their video camera around the neck of a 6th round quarterback that will be a first ballot Hall of Famer at some stage in the next decade. But as Scott Pioli rightfully said, if New England were so smart, why did they pass on Brady five times?

In that famous 2000 draft which delivered Tom Brady are the names of such NFL stalwarts as Adrian Klemm (R2), JR Redmond (R3) and Jeff Marriott (R5). The Patriots even had Dave Stachelski with his one career catch for five yards rated higher than Brady. 2004 was a washout save for Vince Wilfork, whilst they hit on Logan Mankins in 2005 but dealt Ellis Hobbs for a low round pick, have had inclement play from Nick Kaczur and James Sanders and struck it lucky with Matt Cassell, missing on the rest. 2006 should go down in the annals given the wasted picks on Maroney, Chad Jackson (R2), David Thomas (R3), Garrett Mills (R4), Ryan O'Callaghan, (R5), Jeremy Mincey (R6), Dan Stevenson (R6) and LeKevin Smith (R6).

If this had been a Miami Dolphin draft then Lord alone knows the field day that the press would have had. I doubt the front office would have ever worked again. And I don't just mean in football!

It's a little early to conclude on the 2007 draft, but Clint Oldenburg? THE Clint Oldenburg? Please.

Sure, Bill has earned his right to a few misses every once in a while. But over and over and over again? Do the Patriots get a pass because they wheel and deal for so many picks that it doesn't matter who they end up picking? Ever heard the term quality over quantity? Or do they get a free pass because people are scared to criticise, scared they'll miss out if Belichick ever does converse like a grown up with the media? Whichever it is, the rather two faced nature of reporting what happens in New England wouldn't wash if it concerned any other coach in football. Not Wade Phillips, not Mike Tomlin, not Ken Whisenhunt and not Tony Sparano.

That I find very distasteful.

Anyway, the Patriots are 1-0 and off to Miami in February for the Superbowl. How do I know? The media told me.

My take on the article. The man knows how to express a thought; that's for sure. However, it's difficult to pick apart a coach who has three rings. Also, I know it's only one game, but the Seymour trade is already looking better from Oakland's perspective. Hard to argue with that after the two Monday night games. The Pats got no pressure on Edwards the entire night until the very last possession, when the whole world KNEW Buffalo had to throw. Meanwhile, Seymour was a man possessed in Oakland. Snippet from a "NBC Bay-Area" article:

Seymour rang up two sacks, six tackles, and hurried Philip Rivers like an angry bartender at last call throughout the entire evening. The Oakland Tribune's Jerry McDonald decreed that Seymour is the "best Raiders defensive lineman since Howie Long." LaDainian Tomlinson had rung up the Raiders for 100 plus yards in nine of his previous outings against them, with an embarrassing 119.1 average against the Silver and Black. Last night, with Seymour in the Raiders' DL mix, Tomlinson had 56 yards and was rendered damaged goods in fantasy leagues nationwide.

Seymour's first sack came late in the first quarter as he was being double-mugged by two Charger offensive linemen. All you could see was Seymour's fist emerging from the scrum and dragging Rivers to the dirt. Again, with just one hand while being double-covered. But it wasn't just the sacks that made Seymour such a special addition to the Raiders, It's that he could line up at a number of positions to leave Norv Turner more confused than he was when he coached the Raiders. Seymour bum-rushed the Chargers backfield when lined up at defensive end, right tackle, and even as a three-point stance linebacker.

The Seymour trade was a joke from Oakland's point of view. They gave away what could be a high first round pick for a 30 year old guy who has no interest in staying in Oakland. Despite what the Raiders are saying Seymour does not want to be there. That is why they had to send the five day letter to him.Don't let anyone fool you. Seymour is still talented and Belichick has made some personnel mistakes over the years (he is only human) but why would Oakland trade a #1 pick for him at this point in their development? The deal makes zero sense to me.

Maybe Seymour helps get the Raiders to six wins this season, but more importantly that first round choice could help the Patriots to a Superbowl anytime from 2011 to 2025.

In the long run Belichick and the Patriots made the Raiders look silly on this deal.

 

[Darth Cheney]

It's been five years since they won anything...... Shouldn't we be talking about the Steelers?

 

[Gr00vus]

The Seymour trade was a joke from Oakland's point of view. They gave away what could be a high first round pick for a 30 year old guy who has no interest in staying in Oakland. Despite what the Raiders are saying Seymour does not want to be there. That is why they had to send the five day letter to him.

Don't let anyone fool you. Seymour is still talented and Belichick has made some personnel mistakes over the years (he is only human) but why would Oakland trade a #1 pick for him at this point in their development? The deal makes zero sense to me.

Maybe Seymour helps get the Raiders to six wins this season, but more importantly that first round choice could help the Patriots to a Superbowl anytime from 2011 to 2025.

In the long run Belichick and the Patriots made the Raiders look silly on this deal.

So who won next week's games mr. time machine?

 

[Spartans Rule]

I'm not a New England fan, but I'm not a hater, either. The one thing that strikes me about this article is his take on Brian Hoyer. Brian Hoyer does look like a promising young prospect and there were people besides me that saw that on film. So his "I only see water where others see wine" is a dead-on indictment of this writer's inability to understand the difference when it comes to player evaluation. Sure, New England has had some failures with draft picks, but this writer could have asked the guy who made the Hoyer-Brady comparison exactly what he saw.

After watching Brian Hoyer's career at Michigan State, it absolutely blows my mind that he made an NFL team, much less could be compared to Tom Brady.

 

[switz]

Pretty pathetic... but I guess I should expect that from a Pats fan...

Your silly posts and constant peeing on Brady and the Pats is quite tiresome (we get it); I apologize if u r offended by the well earned, yet good natured ribbing you so rightly deserve.

Get a little bit thicker skin.... I posted like twice in this whole thread, get over yourself

PS. we are still waiting for the answer to the question your repeated comments scream out for; explain in some rational form, exactly what the difference is between Indy's system and NE's system? Why is it that (according to you) virtually anyone can come in off the street and run NE's offense, but those same people couldn't possibly do likewise in Indy? Now, I know you don't have the answer, but I am hoping you will dig yourself a hole by making one ridiculous statement after another and then go away; you know, like you did last time

Bump whatever htread you're referring to... I didn't go away form anything. I have a life, and if it wasn't on the first page, I probably missed your silly reply. And if it was on the front page, your silly reply was probably that... too silly to respond to.I'll give you tihs... when Manning has missed time during the regular season, how has his backup played. And when Brady has missed time during the regular season, how has his backup played.

Last I checked, Cassel was able to parlay his performance in the NE system into a pretty big FA deal. Manning's backups have never done anything.

 

[Chaka]

The Seymour trade was a joke from Oakland's point of view. They gave away what could be a high first round pick for a 30 year old guy who has no interest in staying in Oakland. Despite what the Raiders are saying Seymour does not want to be there. That is why they had to send the five day letter to him.Don't let anyone fool you. Seymour is still talented and Belichick has made some personnel mistakes over the years (he is only human) but why would Oakland trade a #1 pick for him at this point in their development? The deal makes zero sense to me.Maybe Seymour helps get the Raiders to six wins this season, but more importantly that first round choice could help the Patriots to a Superbowl anytime from 2011 to 2025.In the long run Belichick and the Patriots made the Raiders look silly on this deal.

This is a clear demonstration of the bias that favors the Patriots. How can you possibly declare this trade a win or a loss for either side? The answer is you cannot, and as it stands right now it looks like the Raiders are going to make out just fine in this transaction.Players say lots of things that they never follow through with. We'll see how long Seymour stays with the Raiders but you cannot say it is a one and done. As far as first round picks go, considering that typically 1/2 of first round picks never come close to living up to their contracts and a much smaller percentage actually exceed their contracts it seems like it is not such a bad deal to get a guaranteed commodity like Seymour who instantly makes your defense significantly better.If Seymour plays three seasons for Oakland at or near his current level of play then there is no way you can say the Patriots clearly won this transaction. And if that first round player busts, which is just as possible as him succeeding then how will this trade be viewed?

 

[renesauz]

Well written article with a bunch of good points...but also very misleading in areas. If you're going to rip on the Pats for poor drafting and some wasted FA moves, you have to give them credit for great FA and draft steals.

I do think Belichek gets the benefit of the doubt much too quickly...but he's kind of earned at least some of that with three rings.

IN the end....sounds more like a jealous fan then a responsible journalist, no matter how well written it is.

 

[Louisville Slugger]

The Seymour trade was a joke from Oakland's point of view. They gave away what could be a high first round pick for a 30 year old guy who has no interest in staying in Oakland. Despite what the Raiders are saying Seymour does not want to be there. That is why they had to send the five day letter to him.Don't let anyone fool you. Seymour is still talented and Belichick has made some personnel mistakes over the years (he is only human) but why would Oakland trade a #1 pick for him at this point in their development? The deal makes zero sense to me.Maybe Seymour helps get the Raiders to six wins this season, but more importantly that first round choice could help the Patriots to a Superbowl anytime from 2011 to 2025.In the long run Belichick and the Patriots made the Raiders look silly on this deal.

This is a clear demonstration of the bias that favors the Patriots. How can you possibly declare this trade a win or a loss for either side? The answer is you cannot, and as it stands right now it looks like the Raiders are going to make out just fine in this transaction.Players say lots of things that they never follow through with. We'll see how long Seymour stays with the Raiders but you cannot say it is a one and done. As far as first round picks go, considering that typically 1/2 of first round picks never come close to living up to their contracts and a much smaller percentage actually exceed their contracts it seems like it is not such a bad deal to get a guaranteed commodity like Seymour who instantly makes your defense significantly better.If Seymour plays three seasons for Oakland at or near his current level of play then there is no way you can say the Patriots clearly won this transaction. And if that first round player busts, which is just as possible as him succeeding then how will this trade be viewed?

How does this deal help the Raiders get closer to a championship? This is a dumb trade on their part it's not even an argument. They could have made this trade with any team in the NFL and I would be saying the same thing.

 

[Gr00vus]

How does this deal help the Raiders get closer to a championship? This is a dumb trade on their part it's not even an argument. They could have made this trade with any team in the NFL and I would be saying the same thing.

They're not trying to win a championship. They're just trying to get back to non-laughingstock of the NFL. This trade has done plenty to accomplish that.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

It is an interesting article. Some good points there, honestly. None that could refute a reply of "scoreboard," but interesting information while most of the league tries to catch up to the Patriots.

(Not anything resembling a Pats fan, but really: Biting a dynasty's ankles just seems silly.)

 

[Chaka]

The Seymour trade was a joke from Oakland's point of view. They gave away what could be a high first round pick for a 30 year old guy who has no interest in staying in Oakland. Despite what the Raiders are saying Seymour does not want to be there. That is why they had to send the five day letter to him.Don't let anyone fool you. Seymour is still talented and Belichick has made some personnel mistakes over the years (he is only human) but why would Oakland trade a #1 pick for him at this point in their development? The deal makes zero sense to me.Maybe Seymour helps get the Raiders to six wins this season, but more importantly that first round choice could help the Patriots to a Superbowl anytime from 2011 to 2025.In the long run Belichick and the Patriots made the Raiders look silly on this deal.

This is a clear demonstration of the bias that favors the Patriots. How can you possibly declare this trade a win or a loss for either side? The answer is you cannot, and as it stands right now it looks like the Raiders are going to make out just fine in this transaction.Players say lots of things that they never follow through with. We'll see how long Seymour stays with the Raiders but you cannot say it is a one and done. As far as first round picks go, considering that typically 1/2 of first round picks never come close to living up to their contracts and a much smaller percentage actually exceed their contracts it seems like it is not such a bad deal to get a guaranteed commodity like Seymour who instantly makes your defense significantly better.If Seymour plays three seasons for Oakland at or near his current level of play then there is no way you can say the Patriots clearly won this transaction. And if that first round player busts, which is just as possible as him succeeding then how will this trade be viewed?

How does this deal help the Raiders get closer to a championship? This is a dumb trade on their part it's not even an argument. They could have made this trade with any team in the NFL and I would be saying the same thing.

It is absolutely a debatable point and I am surprised by your myopic view.If trades are all about trying to win championships how does this trade help the Patriots win a championship? It doesn't in 2009 and it doesn't in 2010 and it might never help them but I can tell you to an absolute certainty that they are a lesser team in 2009 after the trade then they were before it. So if the Patriots have actually hurt their chances to win a championship for the next two seasons, which they unquestionably did (unless you think their defense is somehow better without Seymour) before they even exercise this draft pick and likely for a third season as the rookie gets up to speed then didn't they make a mistake making this deal.All I am saying is don't judge this trade in absolutes three years before the Patriots even exercise the draft pick. It will be 5-6 years before we know who made out better.

 

[Chaka]

How does this deal help the Raiders get closer to a championship? This is a dumb trade on their part it's not even an argument. They could have made this trade with any team in the NFL and I would be saying the same thing.

They're not trying to win a championship. They're just trying to get back to non-laughingstock of the NFL. This trade has done plenty to accomplish that.

Of course they are trying to win a championship, all teams are. It is not very realistic that the Raiders will contend for a title in 2009 but they are still trying to.If Seymour helps them win a few more games this year and helps improve the Raiders defense over the next few years both with his play on the field and by helping teach them how to prepare like champions then he could easily help propel them into playoff and/or championship contention over the next few seasons.

 

[Gr00vus]

How does this deal help the Raiders get closer to a championship? This is a dumb trade on their part it's not even an argument. They could have made this trade with any team in the NFL and I would be saying the same thing.

They're not trying to win a championship. They're just trying to get back to non-laughingstock of the NFL. This trade has done plenty to accomplish that.

Of course they are trying to win a championship, all teams are. It is not very realistic that the Raiders will contend for a title in 2009 but they are still trying to.If Seymour helps them win a few more games this year and helps improve the Raiders defense over the next few years both with his play on the field and by helping teach them how to prepare like champions then he could easily help propel them into playoff and/or championship contention over the next few seasons.

Yes everyone's trying to win a championship Chaka. It's a question of the timetable. The Raiders need to get back to .500 as a baby step. I doubt Seymour will be on the roster the next time the Raiders win a superbowl, I'm thinking plenty in the organization realize that as well (not counting Al) and view this deal as an intermediate step to get the team back to respectability.

 

[dparker713]

It is an interesting article. Some good points there, honestly. None that could refute a reply of "scoreboard," but interesting information while most of the league tries to catch up to the Patriots. (Not anything resembling a Pats fan, but really: Biting a dynasty's ankles just seems silly.)

The article is more an indictment of the media than it is the Patriots.How exactly are the Patriots either a dynasty or ahead of the entire league? They havent won a championship since 2004, and they're hardly consensus best team in the league or even their conference.

 

[Chaka]

How does this deal help the Raiders get closer to a championship? This is a dumb trade on their part it's not even an argument. They could have made this trade with any team in the NFL and I would be saying the same thing.

They're not trying to win a championship. They're just trying to get back to non-laughingstock of the NFL. This trade has done plenty to accomplish that.

Of course they are trying to win a championship, all teams are. It is not very realistic that the Raiders will contend for a title in 2009 but they are still trying to.If Seymour helps them win a few more games this year and helps improve the Raiders defense over the next few years both with his play on the field and by helping teach them how to prepare like champions then he could easily help propel them into playoff and/or championship contention over the next few seasons.

Yes everyone's trying to win a championship Chaka. It's a question of the timetable. The Raiders need to get back to .500 as a baby step. I doubt Seymour will be on the roster the next time the Raiders win a superbowl, I'm thinking plenty in the organization realize that as well (not counting Al) and view this deal as an intermediate step to get the team back to respectability.

While I never appreciate the eyeroll I understand it completely in this instance.But I completely disagree with your timetable. The NFL moves much faster than it ever has in the past, while it is unlikely that the Raiders suddenly "figure it out" and turn the franchise around it is still completely possible that it happens. And nowadays all it takes is one offseason to turn a doormat into a contender. I AM NOT SAYING IT WILL HAPPEN but this is exactly the type of move that could pay dividends easily during Seymour's tenure with the team.

 

[JoeyJoeJoeJrShabadoo]

It is an interesting article. Some good points there, honestly. None that could refute a reply of "scoreboard," but interesting information while most of the league tries to catch up to the Patriots. (Not anything resembling a Pats fan, but really: Biting a dynasty's ankles just seems silly.)

The article is more an indictment of the media than it is the Patriots.How exactly are the Patriots either a dynasty or ahead of the entire league? They havent won a championship since 2004, and they're hardly consensus best team in the league or even their conference.

2010 Super Bowl XLIV Odds to Win (courtesy of thespread.com)NFL TEAM FUTURE ODDS TO WIN SUPER BOWL XLIVArizona Cardinals 26/1Atlanta Falcons 25/1Baltimore Ravens 22/1Buffalo Bills 50/1Carolina Panthers 22/1Chicago Bears 15/1Cincinnati Bengals 60/1Cleveland Browns 80/1Dallas Cowboys 15/1Denver Broncos 60/1Detroit Lions 125/1Green Bay Packers 20/1Houston Texans 35/1Indianapolis Colts 12/1Jacksonville Jaguars 40/1Kansas City Chiefs 65/1Miami Dolphins 40/1Minnesota Vikings 12/1New England Patriots 7/2New Orleans Saints 20/1New York Giants 12/1New York Jets 40/1Oakland Raiders 90/1Philadelphia Eagles 10/1Pittsburgh Steelers 19/2San Diego Chargers 9/1San Francisco 49ers 50/1Seattle Seahawks 40/1St.Louis Rams 100/1Tampa Bay Buccaneers 70/1Tennessee Titans 20/1Washington Redskins 35/1Odds as of: 9/7/09Just throwing this out there, for what it's worth.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

It is an interesting article. Some good points there, honestly. None that could refute a reply of "scoreboard," but interesting information while most of the league tries to catch up to the Patriots. (Not anything resembling a Pats fan, but really: Biting a dynasty's ankles just seems silly.)

The article is more an indictment of the media than it is the Patriots.How exactly are the Patriots either a dynasty or ahead of the entire league? They havent won a championship since 2004, and they're hardly consensus best team in the league or even their conference.

Fair point about the media, although readers use that data to justify attacking New England. But I don't even remember the last time they lost a regular-season game. Until someone figures out how to beat them during the season, I'll say the league is still trying to catch up to them.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

It is an interesting article. Some good points there, honestly. None that could refute a reply of "scoreboard," but interesting information while most of the league tries to catch up to the Patriots. (Not anything resembling a Pats fan, but really: Biting a dynasty's ankles just seems silly.)

The article is more an indictment of the media than it is the Patriots.How exactly are the Patriots either a dynasty or ahead of the entire league? They havent won a championship since 2004, and they're hardly consensus best team in the league or even their conference.

2010 Super Bowl XLIV Odds to Win (courtesy of thespread.com)NFL TEAM FUTURE ODDS TO WIN SUPER BOWL XLIVIndianapolis Colts 12/1New England Patriots 7/2New York Giants 12/1Pittsburgh Steelers 19/2San Diego Chargers 9/1Odds as of: 9/7/09Just throwing this out there, for what it's worth.

dparker, say hello to consensus.

 

[Bills_Fan11]

My take on the article was not that the guy was really bashing Belichick or the Patriots but commenting that theMedia does not seem to think he/they can do anything wrong.I have no idea how the Media in New England portrays Belichick, but based on ESPN's coverage of the Patriots since the draft, I would have to agree with him. It seems like everything New England does is prefaced by "the rich get richer" or "they have done it again". I think ESPN has lost some objectivity when it comes to covering the Patriots (I know that never happens at ESPN).

Yah it seems that several have glossed over that point. Agree with the author on 2 points. One, Seymour trade definitely would've been evaluated differently if the teams were reversed. Two, the importance of lucking into Brady can't be emphasized enough. That people actually believe he was going to start if Bledsoe hadn't gotten hurt sort of proves the point he's making. What do you expect the coach to say after Brady won 2 more SB's and Bledsoe's career went down the toilet: "We were committed to Drew the whole way and never thought there was a chance in hell this 6th rounder would be a star"?Otherwise I mean, whatever. He's the best coach in the league. I don't care that he cut guys he traded for - better to admit your mistake than hang on to someone because you traded for him. I don't remember anyone particularly caring about Greg Lewis being traded. Plus if you want to pick on how lame espn is you can write a column every day for a year and not run out of topics.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

My take on the article was not that the guy was really bashing Belichick or the Patriots but commenting that the

Media does not seem to think he/they can do anything wrong.

I have no idea how the Media in New England portrays Belichick, but based on ESPN's coverage of the Patriots since the draft, I would have to agree with him. It seems like everything New England does is prefaced by "the rich get richer" or "they have done it again". I think ESPN has lost some objectivity when it comes to covering the Patriots (I know that never happens at ESPN).

Yah it seems that several have glossed over that point. Agree with the author on 2 points. One, Seymour trade definitely would've been evaluated differently if the teams were reversed. Two, the importance of lucking into Brady can't be emphasized enough. That people actually believe he was going to start if Bledsoe hadn't gotten hurt sort of proves the point he's making. What do you expect the coach to say after Brady won 2 more SB's and Bledsoe's career went down the toilet: "We were committed to Drew the whole way and never thought there was a chance in hell this 6th rounder would be a star"?

Otherwise I mean, whatever. He's the best coach in the league. I don't care that he cut guys he traded for - better to admit your mistake than hang on to someone because you traded for him. I don't remember anyone particularly caring about Greg Lewis being traded. Plus if you want to pick on how lame espn is you can write a column every day for a year and not run out of topics.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

Phil Jackson, NBA head coach, is a man to watch when he talks to the media. He shows every single time that he knows exactly how to manipulate and massage the media to his advantage. No one attacks Phil Jackson in the press. Very few go after Bill Parcells. The reason is both men are true pimps. They know how to recognize a whore ( sports journalists) and convince them it's not horse trading at work but something else. If I could make one criticism of Angry Bill regarding how he deals with the press, it's not that he's a bad person or a bad personnel guy or unlikeable or any of that, it's that he doesn't know how to treat a whore like a whore. You don't tell a whore she's a whore to get her to do your bidding, you convince her she will always need you and your approval first and foremost and she will naturally do your bidding for you. Something to consider when the press sends a LA Lakers player a message from Jackson through his text book machinations. And can you blame Belichick, has there ever been a profession that has taken such a general repuation hit so hard so fast in the last 20 years as journalism, including sports journalist. There are journalist out there now who make some porn stars look downright angelic. Here's a Tweet for some those jocksniffers - Bring back guys like Glenn Dickey and Ray Ratto, real sports journalists, and retire your keyboards. Angry Bill is a winner, he's just no pimp. That's why so many of the media hate him. Gekko

Might be the best post I've ever read at FBGs.Only thing I'd add is that BB isn't ignorant to this fact, and reasons that if he wins, he doesnt have to bother with the whores.And the funny thing is, the whores still love him. His pimp hand is strong.

 

[Chaka]

Just throwing this out there, for what it's worth.

Less than the paper it's written on.

 

[Chaka]

1) If you win a lot, you will be given the benefit of the doubt. In any sport. It's a byproduct of winning and success. This is no different if someone here won the lottery and netted 250 million bucks one fine morning. Suddenly your jokes are funnier to people. To hot women, you will look taller, better looking, more refined. Suddenly everyone remembers your birthday and favorite kind of pie, which they bring for you on your doorstep when they drop in. People are nicer to you. More people smile at you. Angry Bill is a NFL head coach, he is ALSO A CELEBRITY. Some aspects of the love/hate dynamic of simply being a celebrity are in play here, regardless of his actual coaching. That he happens to be a coach allows a very rare scenario for most celebrities, a hard point measure of success and failure. ( Try to explain John Travolta's career to someone. Then make him a NFL head coach, then see the difference) As a celebrity, people love you on the way up and tear you apart on the way down. People don't hate The Bachelor on ABC. He's still accessible. He falls into the fairy tale fantasy people have. But lots of people hate Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise, they aren't seen as attainable, even real, they form an archetype. It's why those tabloid rags OUTSELL nearly any other kind of magazine in the US, people want to see that these people that have it all, that have made it, can be broken. 2) Sports journalists are human ( i.e. they are just as prone to be fans/non fans and just as prone to basically have many be, IMHO, a bunch of jock sniffers who probably never played the game) They are no less subject to the love/hate dynamic with celebrities, more so, many are on the cusp of celebrity status themselves but most don't quite get there. It's basically like being a cop, your power derives from the same society that you hold in contempt over time. I don't know Angry Bill, I never shared a cup of coffee with the man. But the reality is our society will value him more for winning and his career status than they will on his status as a good person or not. And who knows if he's a good person or not, I'm not him. I don't sit in his living room every night watching his behavior. There are plenty of crazy women in the world, most guys only realize the hot ones, because who cares about the ugly crazy ones? Just like most men value looks over actually being a decent person, most of society will value Angry Bill's won/loss record more than his standing as a human being. Has there EVER BEEN A NFL COACH WHO LEFT COMPLETELY ON HIS OWN TERMS? Landry? Shula? Noll? Maybe Bill Walsh would qualify. Maybe Gibbs the first time. It's very very very rare. If the point is saying Angry Bill is actually someone who deserves to get it worse, why bother saying it? The career track of a NFL head coach usually ends badly for them. For 99 percent of them. 3) Who is to say the mass media leaves all of the views of their individual journalists for their personal discretion for publication. Guess what? Everyone has a boss. ( Well, not me) What you see in print is just as much about politicss and horse trading and agendas as any other profession. Or did you think when the ARod case came to light, that ARod and his people didn't talk to ESPN about the kind of spin they wanted to refute SI and SI reporter Selena Roberts? The truth doesn't matter. THE TRUTH DOESN'T MATTER, IT'S A GAME OF PERCEPTION. Or did the author not consider that taking an anti Angry Bill stance could serve as a marketing angle for his own article? Phil Jackson, NBA head coach, is a man to watch when he talks to the media. He shows every single time that he knows exactly how to manipulate and massage the media to his advantage. No one attacks Phil Jackson in the press. Very few go after Bill Parcells. The reason is both men are true pimps. They know how to recognize a whore ( sports journalists) and convince them it's not horse trading at work but something else. If I could make one criticism of Angry Bill regarding how he deals with the press, it's not that he's a bad person or a bad personnel guy or unlikeable or any of that, it's that he doesn't know how to treat a whore like a whore. You don't tell a whore she's a whore to get her to do your bidding, you convince her she will always need you and your approval first and foremost and she will naturally do your bidding for you. Something to consider when the press sends a LA Lakers player a message from Jackson through his text book machinations. And can you blame Belichick, has there ever been a profession that has taken such a general repuation hit so hard so fast in the last 20 years as journalism, including sports journalist. There are journalist out there now who make some porn stars look downright angelic. Here's a Tweet for some those jocksniffers - Bring back guys like Glenn Dickey and Ray Ratto, real sports journalists, and retire your keyboards. Angry Bill is a winner, he's just no pimp. That's why so many of the media hate him. Gekko

I hate the Bachelor.