Let's say BB stays on until he retires. What does that mean for the franchise?

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,475
Melrose, MA
I think the Bucs and Cowboys games were fortunate to be that close (less so the Bucs, to be fair).
The Pats had 3 offensive plays in the Cowboys game that pretty much turned out as badly as they possible could have for the Pays.

Touchdown to Meyers taken off the board because of a marginal (but legit) holding call. Strip sack on the following play. Later, tipped ball pick 6. I would imagine that the swings in win probability off of those 3 plays alone were substantial. I think that game was what it was - a close loss. The Patriots had some things go their way but also had things go against them.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,403
around the way
The Pats had 3 offensive plays in the Cowboys game that pretty much turned out as badly as they possible could have for the Pays.

Touchdown to Meyers taken off the board because of a marginal (but legit) holding call. Strip sack on the following play. Later, tipped ball pick 6. I would imagine that the swings in win probability off of those 3 plays alone were substantial. I think that game was what it was - a close loss. The Patriots had some things go their way but also had things go against them.
You're right. This is a .500 team with some bad ball luck. With some improvement at OL and QB (and ball luck regression), they could end with 8-9 wins. The bounces have not been on their side.
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
12,750
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
The Pats had 3 offensive plays in the Cowboys game that pretty much turned out as badly as they possible could have for the Pays.

Touchdown to Meyers taken off the board because of a marginal (but legit) holding call. Strip sack on the following play. Later, tipped ball pick 6. I would imagine that the swings in win probability off of those 3 plays alone were substantial. I think that game was what it was - a close loss. The Patriots had some things go their way but also had things go against them.
The pick 6 wasn't unlucky. It's not like the ball took a crazy bounce, those types of turnovers happen every week in the NFL. The Cowboys had 115 penalty yards, an endzone pick with the receiver wide open and a goal line fumble when they had gotten in the play before and the refs screwed up. They outgained the Patriots by 200 yards and ran 30 extra offensive plays. That game had no business being that close.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,475
Melrose, MA
The pick 6 wasn't unlucky. It's not like the ball took a crazy bounce, those types of turnovers happen every week in the NFL. The Cowboys had 115 penalty yards, an endzone pick with the receiver wide open and a goal line fumble when they had gotten in the play before and the refs screwed up. They outgained the Patriots by 200 yards and ran 30 extra offensive plays. That game had no business being that close.
It was unlucky, in the sense that it was a poorly executed play whose expected value was negative, but not pick-6 negative. The ball bounces a little bit differently off Bourne's hands and it would have been an incompletion - not because of better exeuctition but just by luck.

As to the yards, it is pretty obvious that allowing those yards was, in part, a strategic choice by the Pats defense. If you are going to say that once Mac let that ball go there was no reasonably likely outcome besides pick-6, if you are going to ding the Pats defense for all of the yards they allowed, then, for consistency, you need to credit the Pats defense for red zone stops, turning Dallas over on downs, etc.
 

simplyeric

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 14, 2006
14,037
Richmond, VA
Some good stuff in this thread.

I think I agree with all of this:


My fear (perhaps irrational) is always that the models simply become the new crutch to lean on, which is the very thing that was bad about coaches relying on "conventional wisdom" and being overly conservative in the first place. It's a bad process because coaches aren't really even making decisions there at all. They're letting someone else make the decision, so that they have convenient cover to hide behind should things turn rotten. What kind of leader is that? Probably a bad one. It's taking the easy way out.

The last thing I want to see is a bad process get a fresh coat of paint, and coaches start doing whatever the models say because they're incapable of thinking for themselves and making their own decisions. Models can give you data points to inform your decisions, but they're not decision makers. That's what the humans are for. Otherwise, you're just Michael Scott driving your car into a lake because the GPS told you to. Even the Ben Baldwins (4th down bot guy) of the world are aware of these limitations and acknowledge them, so that's not really a criticism of the models. It just is what it is.

Apropos of nothing, I loved the Bills decision to go for it against the Titans on Monday night. Made all the sense in the world to me. You're on the damn three yard line and get four more downs (time permitting) if you can pick up a yard. Kicking a FG there would seem borderline criminal to me, yet I still saw headlines about McDermott's "controversial" decision to go for it. I don't really see what's controversial. I haven't even looked at what the models said, but that seems about as no-brainer as you can get, barring an extenuating circumstance like your QB just got injured and has to sit out the play, or whatever.
But the process of relying on the models is totally different than relying on ‘conventional wisdom’. There has to be some sort of process, and I think studies show that very often decision makers should rely on the models. They talk about it in sports, military, medical profession, business.
And relying on the models doesn’t eliminate the role of leaders.
The coaches still need to: game-plan, run practices, design plays, evaluate personnel, evaluate the performance of personnel in practices and games in response to the game plan and called plays and play design and down/distance etc.
there’s a ton of decisions being made, even if the HC ‘just goes with’ the analytics that say go for it on 4th down. What kind of play? What personnel? Do they try to play for an offsides, do they give the QB an option to audible out? Do they look at the D and call a timeout? What about eh opposing D?

So even just blindly following the model doesn’t mean there’s no decisions or no leadership.
Of course, on the other side the coaches have to a evaluate if the model does or doesn’t apply: how’s their D if they don’t make it, and what has the opposing O been doing? How much time is left? Are any of your key players hobbled? Etc.

So, while you’re right that the models are ‘just an additional data point’, they don’t constitute a bad process or mean there’s a lack of leadership. But if the model says ‘go for it’ it’s Kindof up to the coaches to establish a reason not to, rather than disregarding the models and then the coaches are trying to come up with a reason justify going for it.
I’d rather my decision makers start with the highest level of info (including the models) and work from there, rather than starting with lower levels of info.
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
12,750
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
It was unlucky, in the sense that it was a poorly executed play whose expected value was negative, but not pick-6 negative. The ball bounces a little bit differently off Bourne's hands and it would have been an incompletion - not because of better exeuctition but just by luck.

As to the yards, it is pretty obvious that allowing those yards was, in part, a strategic choice by the Pats defense. If you are going to say that once Mac let that ball go there was no reasonably likely outcome besides pick-6, if you are going to ding the Pats defense for all of the yards they allowed, then, for consistency, you need to credit the Pats defense for red zone stops, turning Dallas over on downs, etc.
I don't think giving up 600 yards and counting on two endzone turnovers is a recipe for success in the NFL. I think more often than not you're getting blown out when you force a single punt in a game. But maybe I'm just crazy.
 

SteveF

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
1,930
I don't think giving up 600 yards and counting on two endzone turnovers is a recipe for success in the NFL. I think more often than not you're getting blown out when you force a single punt in a game. But maybe I'm just crazy.
You are not crazy.
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
13,616
Springfield, VA
You're right. This is a .500 team with some bad ball luck. With some improvement at OL and QB (and ball luck regression), they could end with 8-9 wins. The bounces have not been on their side.
The Miami game week 1 was the real killer. Against a team that hasn't won a single a single game since then. If the Pats were sitting at 4-3 right now with two of three losses being two points vs a 5-1 Tampa and OT vs a 5-1 Dallas we'd be feeling much, much more optimistic.
 
So, while you’re right that the models are ‘just an additional data point’, they don’t constitute a bad process or mean there’s a lack of leadership. But if the model says ‘go for it’ it’s Kindof up to the coaches to establish a reason not to, rather than disregarding the models and then the coaches are trying to come up with a reason justify going for it.
I’d rather my decision makers start with the highest level of info (including the models) and work from there, rather than starting with lower levels of info.
Yes, this is where I am too. Furthermore you need to guard against accepting "oh but our guy was tired at the end of a grueling game" kind of reasons. Everyone is tired at the end of grueling games, and a properly built model will have factored that in, either explicitly or implicitly. The question needs to be "is he more tired than the average expected by the model (and how much does that affect his chances of executing)?" This is clearly not easy for a coach to do, but that's more reason not to accept it-didn't-feel-right reasoning from coaches who don't have a track record of systematically outperforming algorithms rather than less.

One of the things I'd really like to see and haven't yet is an analysis of the actual results now that teams are more likely to go for it on 4th down. For years the analytics folks have said teams should go for it. Now they are going for it, at least some of the time. Is it working? Are they getting the results the analytics told us they would be? This seems like a critical question to me. If a model says go for it 70% of the time and teams which used to go for it 2% of the time are now going for it 20% of the time we should expect them to be seeing a corresponding benefit. If they are, that suggests that heading quite rapidly towards 70% is a good strategy. If they're seeing no benefit that suggests the analytics were wrong and the football guys were right. If they're seeing some of the benefit that should help the analytics people figure out what they were missing, while still indicating that playing more aggressively would help. (The latter seems the most likely to me)

If anyone has seen any kind of analysis on this over the last year or two please point me to it.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,475
Melrose, MA
His fastball might not be what it once was, but he has a 12-6 curve, a Pedroesque change, and a killer slider.
 

simplyeric

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 14, 2006
14,037
Richmond, VA
Good velocity, good location, good pitch selection, doesn’t tip his pitches…
I think he’s doing great. Does he get the Cy Young this year?
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,085
We’re seeing the real value of a reset year. Coming away from the 2021 draft with Mac, Barmore, and Stevenson is already having a huge impact on the trajectory of this team in a post-Brady world. God bless SF for choosing Lance.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
We’re seeing the real value of a reset year. Coming away from the 2021 draft with Mac, Barmore, and Stevenson is already having a huge impact on the trajectory of this team in a post-Brady world. God bless SF for choosing Lance.
I've made this point numerous times, but it's worth repeating. You look at the 20 year dynasty, and there wasn't a single down year in the bunch. Not one. Every other team that's been really good during these 20 years has had one or two (at least) years where they were bad, and got to draft much higher up each round. New England never ever got that. Moreover, the Pats had two first rounders and a fourth rounder stolen from them by the NFL.

Well, the 2020 Pats weren't good and that was the chance to draft high. What did they do? Oh they only snagged what looks like a franchise QB, a franchise DT, and an outstanding RB, and that's not even considering what the other guys in the draft might contribute. This is year 1 after all.

Every other team got at least one or two reset years. New England never ever had it until now. This makes it even more impressive what they did all that time.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,558
Here
Really? That’s an interesting narrative - is this based on rumor mill, journalism, or some combination of both? Genuine question, I’m not in that loop, at all.
It’s because it’s better than admitting you’re wrong. Or something.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,085
I've made this point numerous times, but it's worth repeating. You look at the 20 year dynasty, and there wasn't a single down year in the bunch. Not one. Every other team that's been really good during these 20 years has had one or two (at least) years where they were bad, and got to draft much higher up each round. New England never ever got that. Moreover, the Pats had two first rounders and a fourth rounder stolen from them by the NFL.

Well, the 2020 Pats weren't good and that was the chance to draft high. What did they do? Oh they only snagged what looks like a franchise QB, a franchise DT, and an outstanding RB, and that's not even considering what the other guys in the draft might contribute. This is year 1 after all.

Every other team got at least one or two reset years. New England never ever had it until now. This makes it even more impressive what they did all that time.
Yup. Has potential to be similar to the early 2000s Steelers who needed a QB successor to Kordell and found Big Ben. Obviously don’t expect Mac to come anywhere close to Ben’s career but finding a competent successor shouldn’t be this easy.
 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
19,271
Really? That’s an interesting narrative - is this based on rumor mill, journalism, or some combination of both? Genuine question, I’m not in that loop, at all.
Hot take preservation. Any reporter who knows anything says they heard no indication of it from what I heard.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,345
Philadelphia
I don't really like the nepotism angle but it seems very possible to me that Stephen Belichick is actually a pretty smart football coach (look at the genes as well as the upbringing), that he's doing a good job, and that BB is secretly having a blast working alongside his son to coach a successful defense, particularly given how important his own relationship with his dad was to him and how central football was to that relationship.

My other theory is that Stephen would get a lot more respect from the media and public if he didn't make such unfortunate hairstyle choices.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,403
around the way
I've made this point numerous times, but it's worth repeating. You look at the 20 year dynasty, and there wasn't a single down year in the bunch. Not one. Every other team that's been really good during these 20 years has had one or two (at least) years where they were bad, and got to draft much higher up each round. New England never ever got that. Moreover, the Pats had two first rounders and a fourth rounder stolen from them by the NFL.

Well, the 2020 Pats weren't good and that was the chance to draft high. What did they do? Oh they only snagged what looks like a franchise QB, a franchise DT, and an outstanding RB, and that's not even considering what the other guys in the draft might contribute. This is year 1 after all.

Every other team got at least one or two reset years. New England never ever had it until now. This makes it even more impressive what they did all that time.
Just to reinforce your point, a reminder that the Pats "down year" was the 15th pick. Our first sub-.500 season since the Clinton administration, and it was 7-9. And we used this bridge year to restock the kids and bring in legit vets under the cap. Life is good here, despite what the talking (shit)heads say.
 

FL4WL3SS

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
14,913
Andy Brickley's potty mouth
I don't really like the nepotism angle but it seems very possible to me that Stephen Belichick is actually a pretty smart football coach (look at the genes as well as the upbringing), that he's doing a good job, and that BB is secretly having a blast working alongside his son to coach a successful defense, particularly given how important his own relationship with his dad was to him and how central football was to that relationship.

My other theory is that Stephen would get a lot more respect from the media and public if he didn't make such unfortunate hairstyle choices.
It's so juvenile to continue to be so concerned with someone's looks. Like, who fucking cares.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,204
The existence of this thread and the question behind it makes perfect sense given the context of the start of the season and the fact that we are nearer to the end of the BB era than the start of it.

However, given his track record in New England, I want to believe that Belichick will step aside when he is no longer capable of doing his job. Everything this person does is in the service of winning football games including making difficult personnel decisions. The human ego can rationalize anything but it would be surprising of BB (or those around him) aren't being held to the same standards that appear to apply to the rest of the organization.
 

54thMA

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2012
10,154
Westwood MA
I've made this point numerous times, but it's worth repeating. You look at the 20 year dynasty, and there wasn't a single down year in the bunch. Not one. Every other team that's been really good during these 20 years has had one or two (at least) years where they were bad, and got to draft much higher up each round. New England never ever got that. Moreover, the Pats had two first rounders and a fourth rounder stolen from them by the NFL.

Well, the 2020 Pats weren't good and that was the chance to draft high. What did they do? Oh they only snagged what looks like a franchise QB, a franchise DT, and an outstanding RB, and that's not even considering what the other guys in the draft might contribute. This is year 1 after all.

Every other team got at least one or two reset years. New England never ever had it until now. This makes it even more impressive what they did all that time.
This franchise does not rebuild or reset; they reload.

It's incredible what they have been able to do for going on 21 years.

What a joy and a treat it is to be fan of this team/organization, they are the model NFL franchise all the rest of them wish/hope they can be.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,096
I've made this point numerous times, but it's worth repeating. You look at the 20 year dynasty, and there wasn't a single down year in the bunch. Not one. Every other team that's been really good during these 20 years has had one or two (at least) years where they were bad, and got to draft much higher up each round. New England never ever got that. Moreover, the Pats had two first rounders and a fourth rounder stolen from them by the NFL.

Well, the 2020 Pats weren't good and that was the chance to draft high. What did they do? Oh they only snagged what looks like a franchise QB, a franchise DT, and an outstanding RB, and that's not even considering what the other guys in the draft might contribute. This is year 1 after all.

Every other team got at least one or two reset years. New England never ever had it until now. This makes it even more impressive what they did all that time.
Thought I would take a deeper dive into the details:

The following franchises won at least one Super Bowl since Belichick became HC of the NEP:

Ravens (2 wins, 2 appearances): 8 playoff DNQ's, 3 seasons of 6 or fewer wins
Tampa (2 wins, 2 appearances): 15 playoff DNQ's, 9 seasons of 6 or fewer wins
Pittsburgh (2 wins in 3 appearances): 7 playoff DNQ's, 1 season of 6 or fewer wins
Colts (1 win in 2 appearances): 6 playoff DNQ's, 3 seasons of 6 or fewer wins
Giants (2 wins in 3 appearances): 13 playoff DNQ's, 8 seasons of 6 or fewer wins
Saints (1 win in 1 appearance): 11 playoff DNQ's, 1 season of 6 or fewer wins
Packers (1 win in 1 appearance): 6 playoff DNQ's, 3 seasons of 6 or fewer wins
Seahawks (1 win in 2 appearances): 7 playoff DNQ's, 3 seasons of 6 or fewer wins
Broncos (1 win in 2 appearances): 12 playoff DNQ's, 4 seasons of 6 or fewer wins
Eagles (1 win in 2 appearances): 8 playoff DNQ's, 3 seasons of 6 or fewer wins
Chiefs (1 win in 2 appearances): 11 playoff DNQ's, 5 seasons of 6 or fewer wins

These teams represent the elite of the league. In comparison, the Pats have had 3 playoff DNQ's during that period, half of the most successful teams in the above list, and 1 season of 5 wins (Belichick's first).

49ers (2 appearances): 15 playoff DNQ's, 10 seasons of 6 or fewer wins
Rams (2 appearances): 14 playoff DNQ's, 7 seasons of 6 or fewer wins
Falcons (1 appearance): 13 playoff DNQ's, 6 seasons of 6 or fewer wins
Panthers (2 appearances): 14 playoff DNQ's, 6 seasons of 6 or fewer wins
Cardinals (1 appearance): 17 playoff DNQ's, 10 seasons of 6 or fewer wins
Bears (1 appearance): 15 playoff DNQ's, 10 seasons of 6 or fewer wins
Raiders (1 appearance): 17 playoff DNQ's, 7 seasons of 6 or fewer wins
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
You are what your record says you are. So the Pats are a 6-4 team. It's interesting to look back on the early part of the season, though, and see what was there. The Pats, as we know, lost close games to Miami, Tampa, and Dallas. They got beat badly by New Orleans, and they won a close one against Houston while pummeling the Jets. The last four games, of course, have all been decisive, clear cut, no doubter, wins, three of which were against quality opponents.

So of those first six games:

- One decisive win vs the Jets. That would have been a win, period, end of story.
- One close win vs the Texans. Tough game that the Pats were fortunate to pull out. A big play in that game was a special teams snafu by Houston.
- One blowout loss vs the Saints. They were thoroughly outplayed by New Orleans in that game, at one point down 21-3. Definitely a loss no matter how you look at it.
- One close loss vs the Cowboys. Took overtime and some sketchy decision making by the Pats. Plus a dropped pass in OT that could have won the Pats the game. I'll still put this in the definite L category because they were outgunned 567-335. Dallas whipped NE that day and the Pats would have pulled out a kind of miraculous win to overcome that. Still...it's a game they *could* have won with just one play.
- One close loss vs the Bucs. We know this game well. They played a terrific game, held Tampa down, and if not for a batted down pass late in the game that set up a long Folk FG try that *just barely* missed, the Pats probably win that game. Let's put that in the *could have* won category.
- One close loss vs the Dolphins. They SHOULD have won that game, period. They outgunned Miami 393-259. They dominated them. A Harris fumble inside the 10 yard line at the end was the difference, though the Pats could have won it a bunch of other ways too.

So the Pats are 6-4 but how do we look at those early games? Sifting through the losses and close wins, you could have, early on, looked at those losses as signs of a losing team. Losing teams find or invent ways to lose, and that's what the Pats were doing at 2-4. Giving away games they were dominating with bad turnovers. Lots of bad penalties. Missed FGs and questionable decisions. Penalties that undermined scoring chances. The works, right? That's what losing teams do, and that's what the Patriots did.

But another way to look at it was this: The Pats were, at a time when they were integrating all kinds of new players including a brand new rookie QB who actually didn't get tons of first team reps even during training camp (remember, Cam got most of those until he got cut at the end), playing all these teams close, and easily *could* have (not SHOULD have, but could have) won 2-3 of those games. Even if we say ok, they could have/should have lost the Texans game, this team could easily, without much imagination at all, be sitting at 8-2 right now.

They're not, and those games obviously went how they did, not how they could have gone. The point isn't to say they actually should be 8-2. It's a question of how good is this team REALLY. It appears that they weren't a loser team finding ways to lose. It appears that they were a good team that just needed a few weeks to find its footing. And we can say with some (not total, but some) degree of confidence that they are actually "better" than their record indicates. I mean, 6-4 right now has them tied for the 5th best record in the AFC, and tied for the 10th best record in the NFL. But they are #6 in the NFL in points scored, #2 in points allowed, #3 in point differential, #4 in SRS (from pro-football-reference), and #5 in total DVOA.

That tells me that through ten games, they're a top 5 team in the league, even though their record says they're somewhere in the 10-12 range.

I just did this exercise because how they've played has me rethinking what we were seeing those first handful of games of the season.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
Thought I would take a deeper dive into the details:

The following franchises won at least one Super Bowl since Belichick became HC of the NEP:

Ravens (2 wins, 2 appearances): 8 playoff DNQ's, 3 seasons of 6 or fewer wins
Tampa (2 wins, 2 appearances): 15 playoff DNQ's, 9 seasons of 6 or fewer wins
Pittsburgh (2 wins in 3 appearances): 7 playoff DNQ's, 1 season of 6 or fewer wins
Colts (1 win in 2 appearances): 6 playoff DNQ's, 3 seasons of 6 or fewer wins
Giants (2 wins in 3 appearances): 13 playoff DNQ's, 8 seasons of 6 or fewer wins
Saints (1 win in 1 appearance): 11 playoff DNQ's, 1 season of 6 or fewer wins
Packers (1 win in 1 appearance): 6 playoff DNQ's, 3 seasons of 6 or fewer wins
Seahawks (1 win in 2 appearances): 7 playoff DNQ's, 3 seasons of 6 or fewer wins
Broncos (1 win in 2 appearances): 12 playoff DNQ's, 4 seasons of 6 or fewer wins
Eagles (1 win in 2 appearances): 8 playoff DNQ's, 3 seasons of 6 or fewer wins
Chiefs (1 win in 2 appearances): 11 playoff DNQ's, 5 seasons of 6 or fewer wins

These teams represent the elite of the league. In comparison, the Pats have had 3 playoff DNQ's during that period, half of the most successful teams in the above list, and 1 season of 5 wins (Belichick's first).

49ers (2 appearances): 15 playoff DNQ's, 10 seasons of 6 or fewer wins
Rams (2 appearances): 14 playoff DNQ's, 7 seasons of 6 or fewer wins
Falcons (1 appearance): 13 playoff DNQ's, 6 seasons of 6 or fewer wins
Panthers (2 appearances): 14 playoff DNQ's, 6 seasons of 6 or fewer wins
Cardinals (1 appearance): 17 playoff DNQ's, 10 seasons of 6 or fewer wins
Bears (1 appearance): 15 playoff DNQ's, 10 seasons of 6 or fewer wins
Raiders (1 appearance): 17 playoff DNQ's, 7 seasons of 6 or fewer wins
This is amazing. Thanks for this work. Great post and very interesting. Amazing what the Pats have done, isn't it?
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,014
Oregon
Where are we on Neopotism Steve?
This interesting because of something I read this morning from Pelissero on NFL.com about the next group of head coach candidates:

Patriots ILB coach Jerod Mayo, 35: Still in just his third year in coaching, Mayo already has been on the radar for a couple of years as a legitimate candidate. The Eagles interviewed him for their head-coaching job in January and came away impressed with his rare leadership traits. Before going into coaching, Mayo played eight seasons for Bill Belichick in New England, running the defense and relaying the signals for most of that time, including as a rookie to the veteran likes of Mike Vrabel, Tedy Bruschi and Vince Wilfork. He now serves as the de facto coordinator of the NFL's No. 2-ranked scoring defense. His pedigree and makeup are intriguing.

https://www.nfl.com/news/nathaniel-hackett-byron-leftwich-patrick-graham-among-young-nfl-coaches-to-watch
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,345
Philadelphia
That's the first I've heard that Mayo is the DC. Always assumed it was Nepotism Steve.
They don't have a formal DC but Steve is frequently shown on the sideline wearing a headset intently starting at the field and mumbling into his mic when the Patriots' defense is on the field, so if he isn't the de facto DC they are going to great length to give off that false impression. Maybe Goodell needs to investigate!
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,047
306, row 14
After Flores left, there was initial confusing/intrigue over who was calling the defense, Steve or Jerod. As time wore on over the past season and a half or so, ithe consensus was that Steve was calling plays and thus the defacto DC. In recent weeks, Bedard seems to be pushing the narrative that Bill took the defense over after the Dallas game. Not sure if it's sourced anywhere or just a press box observation. He's mentioned it on F&M, but I don't subscribe to his site so I don't know if he's written anything that contains more detail. For what it's worth, my arm chair analysis is that Bedard is full of shit. I feel like Bill has always been a defensive coach at heart and has always been more involved on the defensive side of the ball than on offense, even with established DC's like Crennel, Patricia and Flores.

Also, it's wild to me that Jerod Mayo is only 35 years old. I would've guessed 45 with a gun to my head.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,345
Philadelphia
And here's Devin McCourty talking about the Browns game and giving credit to Steve Belichick for his play calling. This conspiracy really runs deep if Mayo is secretly directing the defense and McCourty is in on the ruse.

“I thought we did a good job of kind of figuring out some of the things they were doing against us. The empty, spread game, kind of attacking the middle of the field then going hurry up, trying to get us in certain things. I thought once we got a good idea of that, Steve knowing what he wanted to call, us knowing our calls. Once we get a lead, those guys can go eat, they do a great job. When you can be out there with a four men rush, and play different coverages, and get pressure with four it makes it very tough on the offense.”
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,236
Also, it's wild to me that Jerod Mayo is only 35 years old. I would've guessed 45 with a gun to my head.
Obviously its because even the stars retire younger than in other sports, but "old" retired football players are always much younger than I realize. Like Sam Huff. He played in the 1956 OT game. I was surprised that he was only 87 when he died last week.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
Patriots in 2021:

- Four losses, by 1, 15, 2, and 6 points (in OT) - average of 6.0
- Six wins, by 19, 3, 41, 3, 18, and 38 - average of 20.3

- They're 2-2 in games decided by three points or fewer.
- They're 2-1 in games decided by 14-20 points.
- They're 0-3 in games where they score fewer than 20 points.
- They're 6-1 in games where they score 20 or more points.
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
41,946
This interesting because of something I read this morning from Pelissero on NFL.com about the next group of head coach candidates:

Patriots ILB coach Jerod Mayo, 35: Still in just his third year in coaching, Mayo already has been on the radar for a couple of years as a legitimate candidate. The Eagles interviewed him for their head-coaching job in January and came away impressed with his rare leadership traits. Before going into coaching, Mayo played eight seasons for Bill Belichick in New England, running the defense and relaying the signals for most of that time, including as a rookie to the veteran likes of Mike Vrabel, Tedy Bruschi and Vince Wilfork. He now serves as the de facto coordinator of the NFL's No. 2-ranked scoring defense. His pedigree and makeup are intriguing.

https://www.nfl.com/news/nathaniel-hackett-byron-leftwich-patrick-graham-among-young-nfl-coaches-to-watch
I think I've told this story before. I had a chance, via a charity auction to spend hours in the stadium with Matthew Slater, and a couple other players. The culmination was a movie night on the field jumbotron, with about 30 friends (including kids). We got to see the entire locker room, including the weight room.

On the wall of the weight room, they have a bunch of "awards" on a wall. Things like highest bench press, etc. But they also had their "offseason player of the year" stuff. That wall and every award could have been renamed the Jerod Mayo Wall of Fame, because the guy seemingly won every offseason conditioning award, and everything else on top of it. One of the players said Bill handpicked those awards himself every year. My only thought when looking at the wall was "Wow, Bill fucking loves Jerod Mayo." When Mayo was brought back to be on the coaching staff, it was the least surprising move he's ever made, IMO.

Mayo will be an NFL head coach before he's 40. Mark it down.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
You are what your record says you are. So the Pats are a 6-4 team. It's interesting to look back on the early part of the season, though, and see what was there. The Pats, as we know, lost close games to Miami, Tampa, and Dallas. They got beat badly by New Orleans, and they won a close one against Houston while pummeling the Jets. The last four games, of course, have all been decisive, clear cut, no doubter, wins, three of which were against quality opponents.

So of those first six games:

- One decisive win vs the Jets. That would have been a win, period, end of story.
- One close win vs the Texans. Tough game that the Pats were fortunate to pull out. A big play in that game was a special teams snafu by Houston.
- One blowout loss vs the Saints. They were thoroughly outplayed by New Orleans in that game, at one point down 21-3. Definitely a loss no matter how you look at it.
- One close loss vs the Cowboys. Took overtime and some sketchy decision making by the Pats. Plus a dropped pass in OT that could have won the Pats the game. I'll still put this in the definite L category because they were outgunned 567-335. Dallas whipped NE that day and the Pats would have pulled out a kind of miraculous win to overcome that. Still...it's a game they *could* have won with just one play.
- One close loss vs the Bucs. We know this game well. They played a terrific game, held Tampa down, and if not for a batted down pass late in the game that set up a long Folk FG try that *just barely* missed, the Pats probably win that game. Let's put that in the *could have* won category.
- One close loss vs the Dolphins. They SHOULD have won that game, period. They outgunned Miami 393-259. They dominated them. A Harris fumble inside the 10 yard line at the end was the difference, though the Pats could have won it a bunch of other ways too.

So the Pats are 6-4 but how do we look at those early games? Sifting through the losses and close wins, you could have, early on, looked at those losses as signs of a losing team. Losing teams find or invent ways to lose, and that's what the Pats were doing at 2-4. Giving away games they were dominating with bad turnovers. Lots of bad penalties. Missed FGs and questionable decisions. Penalties that undermined scoring chances. The works, right? That's what losing teams do, and that's what the Patriots did.

But another way to look at it was this: The Pats were, at a time when they were integrating all kinds of new players including a brand new rookie QB who actually didn't get tons of first team reps even during training camp (remember, Cam got most of those until he got cut at the end), playing all these teams close, and easily *could* have (not SHOULD have, but could have) won 2-3 of those games. Even if we say ok, they could have/should have lost the Texans game, this team could easily, without much imagination at all, be sitting at 8-2 right now.

They're not, and those games obviously went how they did, not how they could have gone. The point isn't to say they actually should be 8-2. It's a question of how good is this team REALLY. It appears that they weren't a loser team finding ways to lose. It appears that they were a good team that just needed a few weeks to find its footing. And we can say with some (not total, but some) degree of confidence that they are actually "better" than their record indicates. I mean, 6-4 right now has them tied for the 5th best record in the AFC, and tied for the 10th best record in the NFL. But they are #6 in the NFL in points scored, #2 in points allowed, #3 in point differential, #4 in SRS (from pro-football-reference), and #5 in total DVOA.

That tells me that through ten games, they're a top 5 team in the league, even though their record says they're somewhere in the 10-12 range.

I just did this exercise because how they've played has me rethinking what we were seeing those first handful of games of the season.
I read an article recently (on Boston.com) that opined that the birth of the Pats run was actually on the final play of the '93 season:
It’s been almost 28 years since the most consequential moment in Patriots history that nobody talks about.

That season finale in 1993, when Drew Bledsoe found Michael Timpson for the game-winning touchdown against the Miami Dolphins in overtime, was more than an ornamental gewgaw of a 5-11 season. You could argue that, while not the birth of a dynasty, that Sunday afternoon gave us the nascence of the New England Patriots franchise as currently constituted.
That got me thinking about if there was a key play to this season. For me, it was in the Dallas game, the long Jones to Bourne TD pass immediately after the pick-6. The pick-6 made me think this would be a rebuilding season. But the TD on the very next series, going again right at Diggs, told me that this kid, Jones, had some major stones and that he could indeed be the real deal. It took a few more games for us to see that translate into ongoing success not he field, but in my mind, the story of his career, and also of this season, starts with that pair of plays.
 

Was (Not Wasdin)

family crest has godzilla
SoSH Member
Jul 26, 2007
3,721
The Short Bus
This interesting because of something I read this morning from Pelissero on NFL.com about the next group of head coach candidates:

Patriots ILB coach Jerod Mayo, 35: Still in just his third year in coaching, Mayo already has been on the radar for a couple of years as a legitimate candidate. The Eagles interviewed him for their head-coaching job in January and came away impressed with his rare leadership traits. Before going into coaching, Mayo played eight seasons for Bill Belichick in New England, running the defense and relaying the signals for most of that time, including as a rookie to the veteran likes of Mike Vrabel, Tedy Bruschi and Vince Wilfork. He now serves as the de facto coordinator of the NFL's No. 2-ranked scoring defense. His pedigree and makeup are intriguing.

https://www.nfl.com/news/nathaniel-hackett-byron-leftwich-patrick-graham-among-young-nfl-coaches-to-watch
Back in 2015, after the Pats destroyed the Colts in the AFC CG, BB was on one of the local radio shows. All he wanted to talk about was Mayo. What a leader of the defense he was even though he was out with an injury, hadn't missed a practice once he came back from the surgery, was in every meeting, was coaching up guys on the sideline, etc. I've never heard him talk about a player like that, especially someone who was injured and not playing. I figured that was it for Mayo but he came back the next season.