Which New England/Boston Coach Leaves First?

[Prof. Clutch]

I chose Bill, only because I can imagine him getting frustrated with everything really suddenly and saying "you know what, that's it!"

[nickagneta]

2008 SB XLIII Pittsburgh won. This year Pittsburgh 6-6 with games against Cle, GB, Bal, and Mia.
2006 SB XLI Chicago lost. Next year Chicago 7-9.
2005 SB XL Pittsburgh won. Next year Pittsburgh 8-8.
2003 SB XXXLVIII Carolina lost. Next year 7-9
2002 SB XXXLVII Tampa Bay won. Next year 7-9. Year after that 5-11.
2002 SB XXXLVII Oakland lost. Next year 4-12. Year after that 5-11.
2001 SB XXXLVI St Louis lost. Next year 7-9.


I could really go on forever here.

[Chris]

Ok. So how much longer do you think this mediocrity can last?  We just saw a near rookie QB beat the Pats and the week before the Saints basically took their manhood, ****ed on it, picked it up, spit on it, turned around and said "I think this may be yours".

How long do you think Kraft will be ok with that and when do you suppose the winning will start again?

Ummm, they went undefeated two years ago, won 11 games last year with a QB who hadn't started since high school, and are on track for a home playoff game this year.  Not to mention, he has been training their new Offensive coordinator this season, because the last one was given a head coaching job, and their defense really does not have a lot of talent to work with (OK, you can blame BB the GM for that, but not the coach).

Sure, this team has been mediocre if your standards are winning the Superbowl every single year.  However, by realistic standards, this team has continued to be immensely successful. 

Well when you're some typical team out there competing for the Super Bowl every year probably isn't realistic.

But when your team has Brady, two pro bowl wide recievers, three OLs just a year and a half removed from the Pro Bowl, and a coach named Belichek competing for the Super bowl every year should probably be a realistic goal. Instead I'm just hoping we don't get beat by the Dolphins and Panthers of the league

I'm sorry but when they won 18 games in a row I wasn't thinking "This isn't realistic. They'll probably lose 6 games in a couple years with a lot of the same players and coaches"

And if this is the case you just are paying attention to what happens in the NFL on a year in year out basis for the last 30 years.

Losing in the Superbowl and then not even making the playoff the very next year is a very common trait. So is losing 6 or more times in a season 3-4 times a decade. The average career in the NFL is 3.5 years long. Teams going to the Superbowl and being downright bad three years after happens a lot!!! That it hasn't happened to this team is near miraculous.

And in your analogy. Belichick is closer to Sacramento than St. Louis and when he loses two whole games in a row, he travels all the way east to Rosemont, California. You know that little city about 5 miles east of Sacramento.

Ok maybe the geography stuff is somewhere inbetween.  But there's a lot of ways a coach can end up not a coach

But I do think it's fairly unusual for a team that wins a Super Bowl to be a bad or mediocre team in a year and a half with the same players and coaches.

But this team is not the '07 team.  Sure, many of the core guys (Brady, Moss, Welker, Wilfork, Mankins, Koppen, etc. ) remain but their has been a lot of turnover too.  Especially on the defensive side of things.  Seymour, Bruschi, Vrabel, Samuel, Hobbs, Harrison all gone.  McDaniels has been replaced at the offensive coordinator position with O'Brien.

This isn't the same team.  Lot of growing pains on the defensive side of things plus you have a quarterback who missed an entire season (save for 7.5 minutes or so) trying to bounce back and get in sync with the offense.  Add in the variables such as injuries and the '09 Patriots are a much different team than '07.

Exactly.  And I don't think the change from McDaniels to O'Brien can be understated.  To go from an OC who was coming into his own, and considered one of the best young coaches in the league to a guy with no experience trying to learn on the fly is HUGE.  

Basically, there is a list a mile long of why this team should not be a contender this year.  The writing on the wall was there when they traded Seymour before the season.  The problem is some people seem convinced that Brady and Belichick are miracle workers.

And of course given Belichick's track record, he has built up enough good will with the Kraft's to get the benefit of the doubt for a long time...and honestly, I think he has enough pull with them to choose when he leaves.

[Eja117]

Ok. So how much longer do you think this mediocrity can last?  We just saw a near rookie QB beat the Pats and the week before the Saints basically took their manhood, ****ed on it, picked it up, spit on it, turned around and said "I think this may be yours".

How long do you think Kraft will be ok with that and when do you suppose the winning will start again?

Ummm, they went undefeated two years ago, won 11 games last year with a QB who hadn't started since high school, and are on track for a home playoff game this year.  Not to mention, he has been training their new Offensive coordinator this season, because the last one was given a head coaching job, and their defense really does not have a lot of talent to work with (OK, you can blame BB the GM for that, but not the coach).

Sure, this team has been mediocre if your standards are winning the Superbowl every single year.  However, by realistic standards, this team has continued to be immensely successful. 

Well when you're some typical team out there competing for the Super Bowl every year probably isn't realistic.

But when your team has Brady, two pro bowl wide recievers, three OLs just a year and a half removed from the Pro Bowl, and a coach named Belichek competing for the Super bowl every year should probably be a realistic goal. Instead I'm just hoping we don't get beat by the Dolphins and Panthers of the league

I'm sorry but when they won 18 games in a row I wasn't thinking "This isn't realistic. They'll probably lose 6 games in a couple years with a lot of the same players and coaches"

that's such a spoiled NE patriots argument that i physically cringe.

It speaks of this gross sense of entitlement that patriot fans have, that we should win the superbowl every year regardless of what the rest of the league does. This is a team who has rebuilt it it's entire defense and is, most likely STILL going to win the AFC east.

I completely agree.

When Bill Simmons wrote again and again that we were going to win the Super Bowl and that he sounded like a Yankees fan I signed on 100%.

I am a spoiled NE fan and I am entitled. That's what being a fan is about....high expectations and hopes. The Pats aren't meeting it.

[Chris]

I chose Bill, only because I can imagine him getting frustrated with everything really suddenly and saying "you know what, that's it!"

I could see that too...but I don't think it happens until Brady is gone.  Which means he probably has at least another 4-5 years.  I think Francona could be forced to walk away any day now, because of his health, and I would not be the least bit surprised if this year or next year is Doc's last year.

[Eja117]

2008 SB XLIII Pittsburgh won. This year Pittsburgh 6-6 with games against Cle, GB, Bal, and Mia.
2006 SB XLI Chicago lost. Next year Chicago 7-9.
2005 SB XL Pittsburgh won. Next year Pittsburgh 8-8.
2003 SB XXXLVIII Carolina lost. Next year 7-9
2002 SB XXXLVII Tampa Bay won. Next year 7-9. Year after that 5-11.
2002 SB XXXLVII Oakland lost. Next year 4-12. Year after that 5-11.
2001 SB XXXLVI St Louis lost. Next year 7-9.


I could really go on forever here.

TP. In some of these cases the team was significantly different like when Kurt Warner got hurt. Some of them like Oakland did it with older guys that had clearly peaked unlike guys in their prime. Some of these teams aren't good comparisons even a little bit. Are you seriously comparing the 2006 Bears to the 2007 Pats?

And even though you are right do you think any of these teams should have just been ok with that? Do you think their coaches were out in Sacramento after that in terms of leaving the team?

[nickagneta]

2008 SB XLIII Pittsburgh won. This year Pittsburgh 6-6 with games against Cle, GB, Bal, and Mia.
2006 SB XLI Chicago lost. Next year Chicago 7-9.
2005 SB XL Pittsburgh won. Next year Pittsburgh 8-8.
2003 SB XXXLVIII Carolina lost. Next year 7-9
2002 SB XXXLVII Tampa Bay won. Next year 7-9. Year after that 5-11.
2002 SB XXXLVII Oakland lost. Next year 4-12. Year after that 5-11.
2001 SB XXXLVI St Louis lost. Next year 7-9.


I could really go on forever here.

TP. In some of these cases the team was significantly different like when Kurt Warner got hurt. Some of them like Oakland did it with older guys that had clearly peaked unlike guys in their prime. Some of these teams aren't good comparisons even a little bit. Are you seriously comparing the 2006 Bears to the 2007 Pats?

And even though you are right do you think any of these teams should have just been ok with that? Do you think their coaches were out in Sacramento after that in terms of leaving the team?

Fact is that just about every team I listed went into the next season with just about the same team and coaching staff and stunk. Some of those teams kept their continuity and rebounded. Carolina, Pittsburgh, St. Louis all came back the following years after their down year and bounced back with a good year.

Should those teams been okay with a down year? Hell yes. It's common.

One scenario that is fairly common is a team finishes last in their division, gets a cream puff schedule, bounces back and has a huge year. What happens the next year? They now have one of the hardest schedules in the league and they aren't nearly as good. Happens all the time.

How many of those coaches got fired the year after having a bad year after leading their team to the Superbowl? I think the number is zero or close to zero. Why? Because continuity is the best way to lead a team back after a bad year that followed and outstanding year and owners know that.

[Eja117]

Ok. So how much longer do you think this mediocrity can last?  We just saw a near rookie QB beat the Pats and the week before the Saints basically took their manhood, ****ed on it, picked it up, spit on it, turned around and said "I think this may be yours".

How long do you think Kraft will be ok with that and when do you suppose the winning will start again?

Ummm, they went undefeated two years ago, won 11 games last year with a QB who hadn't started since high school, and are on track for a home playoff game this year.  Not to mention, he has been training their new Offensive coordinator this season, because the last one was given a head coaching job, and their defense really does not have a lot of talent to work with (OK, you can blame BB the GM for that, but not the coach).

Sure, this team has been mediocre if your standards are winning the Superbowl every single year.  However, by realistic standards, this team has continued to be immensely successful. 

Well when you're some typical team out there competing for the Super Bowl every year probably isn't realistic.

But when your team has Brady, two pro bowl wide recievers, three OLs just a year and a half removed from the Pro Bowl, and a coach named Belichek competing for the Super bowl every year should probably be a realistic goal. Instead I'm just hoping we don't get beat by the Dolphins and Panthers of the league

I'm sorry but when they won 18 games in a row I wasn't thinking "This isn't realistic. They'll probably lose 6 games in a couple years with a lot of the same players and coaches"

And if this is the case you just are paying attention to what happens in the NFL on a year in year out basis for the last 30 years.

Losing in the Superbowl and then not even making the playoff the very next year is a very common trait. So is losing 6 or more times in a season 3-4 times a decade. The average career in the NFL is 3.5 years long. Teams going to the Superbowl and being downright bad three years after happens a lot!!! That it hasn't happened to this team is near miraculous.

And in your analogy. Belichick is closer to Sacramento than St. Louis and when he loses two whole games in a row, he travels all the way east to Rosemont, California. You know that little city about 5 miles east of Sacramento.

Ok maybe the geography stuff is somewhere inbetween.  But there's a lot of ways a coach can end up not a coach

But I do think it's fairly unusual for a team that wins a Super Bowl to be a bad or mediocre team in a year and a half with the same players and coaches.

But this team is not the '07 team.  Sure, many of the core guys (Brady, Moss, Welker, Wilfork, Mankins, Koppen, etc. ) remain but their has been a lot of turnover too.  Especially on the defensive side of things.  Seymour, Bruschi, Vrabel, Samuel, Hobbs, Harrison all gone.  McDaniels has been replaced at the offensive coordinator position with O'Brien.

This isn't the same team.  Lot of growing pains on the defensive side of things plus you have a quarterback who missed an entire season (save for 7.5 minutes or so) trying to bounce back and get in sync with the offense.  Add in the variables such as injuries and the '09 Patriots are a much different team than '07.

I totally agree this is a different team. It's not good anymore. It doesn't do the things good teams do like not get slaughtered Klandathu style by the Saints, and not losing to inferior teams like the Dolphins.

Isn't the coach of a not good team closer to leaving that the coach of a good team?

The past is the past. You can't point to 2007 or anything BB did before 2008 as evidence of this team being good. The last time the Pats won a Super Bowl was the NFL stone age.

[crownsy]

Ok. So how much longer do you think this mediocrity can last?  We just saw a near rookie QB beat the Pats and the week before the Saints basically took their manhood, ****ed on it, picked it up, spit on it, turned around and said "I think this may be yours".

How long do you think Kraft will be ok with that and when do you suppose the winning will start again?

Ummm, they went undefeated two years ago, won 11 games last year with a QB who hadn't started since high school, and are on track for a home playoff game this year.  Not to mention, he has been training their new Offensive coordinator this season, because the last one was given a head coaching job, and their defense really does not have a lot of talent to work with (OK, you can blame BB the GM for that, but not the coach).

Sure, this team has been mediocre if your standards are winning the Superbowl every single year.  However, by realistic standards, this team has continued to be immensely successful. 

Well when you're some typical team out there competing for the Super Bowl every year probably isn't realistic.

But when your team has Brady, two pro bowl wide recievers, three OLs just a year and a half removed from the Pro Bowl, and a coach named Belichek competing for the Super bowl every year should probably be a realistic goal. Instead I'm just hoping we don't get beat by the Dolphins and Panthers of the league

I'm sorry but when they won 18 games in a row I wasn't thinking "This isn't realistic. They'll probably lose 6 games in a couple years with a lot of the same players and coaches"

And if this is the case you just are paying attention to what happens in the NFL on a year in year out basis for the last 30 years.

Losing in the Superbowl and then not even making the playoff the very next year is a very common trait. So is losing 6 or more times in a season 3-4 times a decade. The average career in the NFL is 3.5 years long. Teams going to the Superbowl and being downright bad three years after happens a lot!!! That it hasn't happened to this team is near miraculous.

And in your analogy. Belichick is closer to Sacramento than St. Louis and when he loses two whole games in a row, he travels all the way east to Rosemont, California. You know that little city about 5 miles east of Sacramento.

Ok maybe the geography stuff is somewhere inbetween.  But there's a lot of ways a coach can end up not a coach

But I do think it's fairly unusual for a team that wins a Super Bowl to be a bad or mediocre team in a year and a half with the same players and coaches.

But this team is not the '07 team.  Sure, many of the core guys (Brady, Moss, Welker, Wilfork, Mankins, Koppen, etc. ) remain but their has been a lot of turnover too.  Especially on the defensive side of things.  Seymour, Bruschi, Vrabel, Samuel, Hobbs, Harrison all gone.  McDaniels has been replaced at the offensive coordinator position with O'Brien.

This isn't the same team.  Lot of growing pains on the defensive side of things plus you have a quarterback who missed an entire season (save for 7.5 minutes or so) trying to bounce back and get in sync with the offense.  Add in the variables such as injuries and the '09 Patriots are a much different team than '07.

I totally agree this is a different team. It's not good anymore. It doesn't do the things good teams do like not get slaughtered Klandathu style by the Saints, and not losing to inferior teams like the Dolphins.

Isn't the coach of a not good team closer to leaving that the coach of a good team?

The past is the past. You can't point to 2007 or anything BB did before 2008 as evidence of this team being good. The last time the Pats won a Super Bowl was the NFL stone age.

yet you point to the fact that they were unbelievably good in 2007 as evidence that they should be held to a higher standard than other teams such as nick listed because of the excellence of those teams and the similarity of the offensive personal.

Interesting double standard you've got going there to dismiss don and nick's arguments, must be nice .

[Eja117]

Ok. So how much longer do you think this mediocrity can last?  We just saw a near rookie QB beat the Pats and the week before the Saints basically took their manhood, ****ed on it, picked it up, spit on it, turned around and said "I think this may be yours".

How long do you think Kraft will be ok with that and when do you suppose the winning will start again?

Ummm, they went undefeated two years ago, won 11 games last year with a QB who hadn't started since high school, and are on track for a home playoff game this year.  Not to mention, he has been training their new Offensive coordinator this season, because the last one was given a head coaching job, and their defense really does not have a lot of talent to work with (OK, you can blame BB the GM for that, but not the coach).

Sure, this team has been mediocre if your standards are winning the Superbowl every single year.  However, by realistic standards, this team has continued to be immensely successful. 

Well when you're some typical team out there competing for the Super Bowl every year probably isn't realistic.

But when your team has Brady, two pro bowl wide recievers, three OLs just a year and a half removed from the Pro Bowl, and a coach named Belichek competing for the Super bowl every year should probably be a realistic goal. Instead I'm just hoping we don't get beat by the Dolphins and Panthers of the league

I'm sorry but when they won 18 games in a row I wasn't thinking "This isn't realistic. They'll probably lose 6 games in a couple years with a lot of the same players and coaches"

And if this is the case you just are paying attention to what happens in the NFL on a year in year out basis for the last 30 years.

Losing in the Superbowl and then not even making the playoff the very next year is a very common trait. So is losing 6 or more times in a season 3-4 times a decade. The average career in the NFL is 3.5 years long. Teams going to the Superbowl and being downright bad three years after happens a lot!!! That it hasn't happened to this team is near miraculous.

And in your analogy. Belichick is closer to Sacramento than St. Louis and when he loses two whole games in a row, he travels all the way east to Rosemont, California. You know that little city about 5 miles east of Sacramento.

Ok maybe the geography stuff is somewhere inbetween.  But there's a lot of ways a coach can end up not a coach

But I do think it's fairly unusual for a team that wins a Super Bowl to be a bad or mediocre team in a year and a half with the same players and coaches.

But this team is not the '07 team.  Sure, many of the core guys (Brady, Moss, Welker, Wilfork, Mankins, Koppen, etc. ) remain but their has been a lot of turnover too.  Especially on the defensive side of things.  Seymour, Bruschi, Vrabel, Samuel, Hobbs, Harrison all gone.  McDaniels has been replaced at the offensive coordinator position with O'Brien.

This isn't the same team.  Lot of growing pains on the defensive side of things plus you have a quarterback who missed an entire season (save for 7.5 minutes or so) trying to bounce back and get in sync with the offense.  Add in the variables such as injuries and the '09 Patriots are a much different team than '07.

I totally agree this is a different team. It's not good anymore. It doesn't do the things good teams do like not get slaughtered Klandathu style by the Saints, and not losing to inferior teams like the Dolphins.

Isn't the coach of a not good team closer to leaving that the coach of a good team?

The past is the past. You can't point to 2007 or anything BB did before 2008 as evidence of this team being good. The last time the Pats won a Super Bowl was the NFL stone age.

yet you point to the fact that they were unbelievably good in 2007 as evidence that they should be held to a higher standard than other teams such as nick listed because of the excellence of those teams and the similarity of the offensive personal.

Interesting double standard you've got going there to dismiss don and nick's arguments, must be nice .

Oh yes. Absolutely. hypocrisy is a good thing and greed is great. bad team that should be held to the highest standards. Totally

[Eja117]

Ok. So how much longer do you think this mediocrity can last?  We just saw a near rookie QB beat the Pats and the week before the Saints basically took their manhood, ****ed on it, picked it up, spit on it, turned around and said "I think this may be yours".

How long do you think Kraft will be ok with that and when do you suppose the winning will start again?

Ummm, they went undefeated two years ago, won 11 games last year with a QB who hadn't started since high school, and are on track for a home playoff game this year.  Not to mention, he has been training their new Offensive coordinator this season, because the last one was given a head coaching job, and their defense really does not have a lot of talent to work with (OK, you can blame BB the GM for that, but not the coach).

Sure, this team has been mediocre if your standards are winning the Superbowl every single year.  However, by realistic standards, this team has continued to be immensely successful. 

Well when you're some typical team out there competing for the Super Bowl every year probably isn't realistic.

But when your team has Brady, two pro bowl wide recievers, three OLs just a year and a half removed from the Pro Bowl, and a coach named Belichek competing for the Super bowl every year should probably be a realistic goal. Instead I'm just hoping we don't get beat by the Dolphins and Panthers of the league

I'm sorry but when they won 18 games in a row I wasn't thinking "This isn't realistic. They'll probably lose 6 games in a couple years with a lot of the same players and coaches"

And if this is the case you just are paying attention to what happens in the NFL on a year in year out basis for the last 30 years.

Losing in the Superbowl and then not even making the playoff the very next year is a very common trait. So is losing 6 or more times in a season 3-4 times a decade. The average career in the NFL is 3.5 years long. Teams going to the Superbowl and being downright bad three years after happens a lot!!! That it hasn't happened to this team is near miraculous.

And in your analogy. Belichick is closer to Sacramento than St. Louis and when he loses two whole games in a row, he travels all the way east to Rosemont, California. You know that little city about 5 miles east of Sacramento.

Ok maybe the geography stuff is somewhere inbetween.  But there's a lot of ways a coach can end up not a coach

But I do think it's fairly unusual for a team that wins a Super Bowl to be a bad or mediocre team in a year and a half with the same players and coaches.

But this team is not the '07 team.  Sure, many of the core guys (Brady, Moss, Welker, Wilfork, Mankins, Koppen, etc. ) remain but their has been a lot of turnover too.  Especially on the defensive side of things.  Seymour, Bruschi, Vrabel, Samuel, Hobbs, Harrison all gone.  McDaniels has been replaced at the offensive coordinator position with O'Brien.

This isn't the same team.  Lot of growing pains on the defensive side of things plus you have a quarterback who missed an entire season (save for 7.5 minutes or so) trying to bounce back and get in sync with the offense.  Add in the variables such as injuries and the '09 Patriots are a much different team than '07.

I totally agree this is a different team. It's not good anymore. It doesn't do the things good teams do like not get slaughtered Klandathu style by the Saints, and not losing to inferior teams like the Dolphins.

Isn't the coach of a not good team closer to leaving that the coach of a good team?

The past is the past. You can't point to 2007 or anything BB did before 2008 as evidence of this team being good. The last time the Pats won a Super Bowl was the NFL stone age.

yet you point to the fact that they were unbelievably good in 2007 as evidence that they should be held to a higher standard than other teams such as nick listed because of the excellence of those teams and the similarity of the offensive personal.

Interesting double standard you've got going there to dismiss don and nick's arguments, must be nice .

crownsy TP for figuring it out.

[Fafnir]

One scenario that is fairly common is a team finishes last in their division, gets a cream puff schedule, bounces back and has a huge year. What happens the next year? They now have one of the hardest schedules in the league and they aren't nearly as good. Happens all the time.

That just isn't true, where you finish in your division only effects two of your opponents. The other 14 are fixed!

Now you can argue that being a high profile team leads to a tougher schedule to cram in more national games, but I'd have to see evidence of that as well.

[Fafnir]

I think when a team goes to the Superbowl it is usually performing above the norm for the team as a whole. What I mean by that is that they avoid key injuries, win a few close games, and probably have a few career years.

Its hard to have statistical outlier seasons two years in a row.

That's without considering how a little success can change a team's culture and work ethic in the offseason, or how a good year can cause player turnover in key areas. Losing your best two special team players can hurt just as much as a starting WR or LB.

[nickagneta]

One scenario that is fairly common is a team finishes last in their division, gets a cream puff schedule, bounces back and has a huge year. What happens the next year? They now have one of the hardest schedules in the league and they aren't nearly as good. Happens all the time.

That just isn't true, where you finish in your division only effects two of your opponents. The other 14 are fixed!

Now you can argue that being a high profile team leads to a tougher schedule to cram in more national games, but I'd have to see evidence of that as well.

So you don't think that playing Oakland and Cleveland rather than Pittsburgh and San Diego can be the difference in a tough schedule and a cream puff schedule?

You don't think that if you're in the NFC that the difference between having to play Detroit and Tampa Bay rather than New Orleans and Minnesota doesn't change your schedule from being tough to easy?

I think that makes a huge difference when 12.5% of you schedule just went from almost impossible to win game to almost impossible to lose games. It could be the difference between a mediocre 9-7 missing the playoffs year and and 11-5 first round bye playoff year.

[Eja117]

One scenario that is fairly common is a team finishes last in their division, gets a cream puff schedule, bounces back and has a huge year. What happens the next year? They now have one of the hardest schedules in the league and they aren't nearly as good. Happens all the time.

That just isn't true, where you finish in your division only effects two of your opponents. The other 14 are fixed!

Now you can argue that being a high profile team leads to a tougher schedule to cram in more national games, but I'd have to see evidence of that as well.

So you don't think that playing Oakland and Cleveland rather than Pittsburgh and San Diego can be the difference in a tough schedule and a cream puff schedule?

You don't think that if you're in the NFC that the difference between having to play Detroit and Tampa Bay rather than New Orleans and Minnesota doesn't change your schedule from being tough to easy?

I think that makes a huge difference when 12.5% of you schedule just went from almost impossible to win game to almost impossible to lose games. It could be the difference between a mediocre 9-7 missing the playoffs year and and 11-5 first round bye playoff year.

I think I agree with nick on this one. If the Pats played NFL teams in their division instead of the Big East their record would be worse