Retribution? This year only? No one has made either of those arguments. This is about an organization that is spiraling downwards that is now facing a disciplinary issue on top of everything else. This 1991 Patsies shit. Or basically any year ever Jets shit. BB is the GOAT. But he hasn’t been a needle mover on the GM side for a while.
they’ve been bad 3/4 years bud, he hired 2 non offensive coaches to coach his 2nd year quarterback who was trending positively. Now they’re 2-7 and dysfunctional. Usually when youre In year 4 of a rebuild, and it’s going backwards; the coach is changed. Not really sure how that’s arguable
I'm not sure how it's year for of a rebuild when they made the playoffs a couple years ago and barely missed last year. This would seem to be the year where the rebuild starts fully because their strategy of retooling on the fly can remaining competitive does not appear to have worked.
they’ve been rebuilding since the day Brady was off the roster, making the playoffs one year doesn’t restart the clock. They will always be rebuilding until they find a quarterback that can lead them to super bowls.
Generally... yes they're pretty good for their roles, thought they aren't a great combination since neither blocks.
6. People are tired of watching a bad, boring football team led by a QB who has gotten worse every year that he's played in the NFL, and are questioning whether the leader/architect of said team is still up to the job at age 71
Mediocre in 2020 at 7-9 (#27 offense, but #7 defense) with a compromised Cam Newton at QB.
Hate to break it to you, but we are 2-8. Seems weird to summarize the last 4 years and not even say what our record is in that time. (27-33) Sure, I guess “three years of not terrible and one of terrible” is a way to look at it. But 27-33 is certainly another.
But two of them were just one game under .500 (7-9 is like one game under because if they had won one more game they'd be at .500 at 8-8). That's mediocre. Anything from 7-9 to 9-7 is mediocre. Unless you consider 8-8 ONLY to be mediocre.
Well sure, but suppose you went 10-7, 10-7, 10-7, and then 1-16. Your total W-L would be 31-37, which is pretty bad. Yet 3 of the 4 years would be solid. So I choose to look at it from a year-to-year basis, not an overall record basis because this one godawful season is really skewing the overall numbers.
I think that would tell a different story. In the end we all process these things differently or have our own takes, and the numbers can be rearranged to match our views. I personally think 25-25 plus one really bad year is a formulation that is susceptible to the “statistics as apologetics” point that has been made before about many posts by many people on BBTL (including me I am sure), but in the end I agree with slim that there are always ways to slice the loaf too thin and sometimes, to mix metaphors, we see the forest and sometimes the trees.
Yep, and we agree that taken as a whole, these last 4 seasons haven't been good - certainly not compared to the standard set the previous 19 years.
Other teams that fire their coaches, totally agree. I thought this system and organization was supposed to be better than other teams? Was that just a myth?
being under .500 is bad. Unless of course, your standards for the goat coach and organization have plummeted. Seems to be the case
Here's my scale:
Maybe not. But it needn’t be a protracted, acrimonious affair - the Saints and Broncos worked out the Payton trade just fine. So, I don’t see insisting on compensation as holding him ‘hostage’, and I doubt Bill feels that way, either, unless he makes an absurd demand of the acquiring team like three first round picks or something that is clearly designed to kill a trade. And once it gets out that Bill is potentially on the move, which will almost surely follow a meeting of the minds between RKK and Bill, it’s not really an option for RKK to threaten to keep Bill.
IMO, Pharaoh Brown has been their best tight end, because of his blocking, and it's not even close. When you have the problems the Pats have had on their offensive line, weak receivers on the outside who struggle to get open, you have to run a lot of 2 TE sets. If one or both of those tight ends can't block a shot from a 2 year old, it's not good. I think Henry is a good receiving threat, but that's only 30% of the job and it's not like he's got athletic ability to do much of anything besides catch the ball and fall down.
I find it odd how talking heads have somehow normalized the idea that this owner gets to trade this coach. Teams get compensation when coaches quit/retire with term left on their deal, and then take a job elsewhere. Owners don't get to decide where coaches work and they don't get draft picks back for coaches they want to fire. It's certainly conceivable that there will be a negotiated parting so Bill leaves some money in New England or Kraft gets some sort of pick, but the latter would be fairly unusual. Gruden comes to mind but every comparison to Sean Payton conveniently leaves out the part where he retired in the middle of his contract. For Kraft to get compensation, it has to be Bill who wants out, not Kraft who wants him out.
that’s fine; but in reality, if we were to look at a no name team that missed the playoffs 3/4 years; 3 years being under .500. We’d say they suck
Then there's a lot of suck to go around in the NFL:
25 examples of why some posters (raises hand) suggest we should be careful what we ask for, as we may just get it.
yeas, when you’re under .500 for a stretch of years…you suck during those years. Not really sure what the argument is
you already have that, why hang onto something that you know isn’t going to succeed?
I heard this clip. Could be good info, but when he disclaims it in the next breath (‘I’m not a reporter, ‘who knows the likelihood,’ ‘the location is kinda determined’) it is hard to know what to make of it.
This has been discussed to death on sports radio locally around how it's a mutual parting of ways after this season and or a trade to Washington. I don't know if it's true, but I'm guessing Orlovsky is just parroting reports he's heard on a national stage.
I think the word "know" is doing a ton of work here, isn't it?
we know based on his history of coaching teams without Brady, and that is 82-98. We know he’s been unsuccessful with every qb but 1. We know he took a first round pick and helped ruin him. We know that this most current rebuild has gone backwards, the team is imploding; and the style of the team is not of the modern game.
Maybe others are proposing the same thing but the Commanders angle is being pushed hard by Pardon My Take, mostly as a way to troll their Pats fan/producer. I haven't seen it elsewhere (nationally)but I live out of market.
what’s irrelevant about it? Shows that building a team and structuring a roster his way, worked with a legendary quarterback and nobody else. In 2023/2024, will they have a legendary quarterback? If so, we can talk.
If you're read my posts around here, you'd know you're preaching to the choir with respect to that stuff that isn't bolded.
unfortunately facts do show that he’s been a failure as a coach without Brady. You can call it whatever you want, it’s just facts. Belichick coached great defenses throughout the years, so have a ton of others who didn’t have the luxury of falling back on elite offensive efficiency at the same time. You can give random samples all you want, Brady was an elite quarterback from 2002 on.He walked onto a team in 2001 that was a dumpster fire, and they coincidentally won 11 of 14 to end the regular season. Did he dominate? Nope, was he efficient and clutch when needed? Yep.
Just to be clear. If this is your theory:
You can just stay in the argument and realize that BB hasn’t accomplished anything at a HC without Brady starting at QB. The second you prove me wrong, I will not use that as a reason that I’d move on in 2024. Until then, argument is completely valid
Only someone this obtuse could make me wish that Tom Brady didn't win a SB with Tampa Bay, so I'd never have to fucking listen to this nonsense argument one more time.
“I wish something that proved me wrong would not have happened” is definitely an argument to fall back on!
If you want BB gone, I understand. Hiring Patricia and Judge to keep developing a second-year QB was the team management equivalent of criminal negligence. As @Deathofthebambino has tirelessly pointed out, he seems largely incapable of evaluating offensive skill positions like WR and, more recently, TE's. He had no Plan B for when Gronk retired--a retirement that surprised no one--and had no effective Plan B for the Mac Jones dissolution we've all witnessed in real time. Moreover, there's been a considerable talent drain from the coaching and scouting ranks over the last 5-6 years that has yet to be fixed. So there are plenty of good arguments to substantiate why it's best for the Krafts to move on.
From 2001 to 2004 the only year in which the Patriots defense ranked higher than their offense by DVOA was 2003. They went from 25th in offensive EPA/Play since the start of 2000 up until Week 2 of 2001 to 6th from Brady's first start up until the Super Bowl.
yes I’d say by 2002, when he led the league in TDs and in 2003 when he was runner up MVP of the league, he was elite. Not sure what your argument here is. You can chalk up BBs career numbers with/without Brady as me being ignorant or just a massive coincidence. I will not, as the sample is enormous, and that plays a huge role in why I wouldn’t bringa legendary coach back in 2024
