Letter to Dan Synder: Patriots secret

[Taylor 36]

Absolutely. I mean you look at the SB teams that New England has had, I mean do you really think they had more talent than our current team?? Yeah they have Brady, but we have much better recievers, running backs, TE's, and our QB is not too shabby either. Also, our D is just as good if not better than their D was. Our O-Line is banged up, but when healthy, is just as good as theirs. So honestly, what made them super bowl champions and us a constant dissapointment? Looks more and more like the coaching to me....

Reallly??? Answer a question for me then, where has our Brady been the last four, five, ten years??? We haven't had one. We have a fresh, new QB who could turn out to be very Bradyesque, but it is way to soon to tell. And, if our players EXECUTED like the Pats players on every play, we would be SB contenders. However, I have yet to see what any of this has to do with coaching.

[PigSkins47]

How freakin' true.

90% of their success is based on one extremely lucky 6th round pick. Without him, they're average, at best.

I was watching ESPN after they destroyed the Cowboys, and had to laugh about how all "the leaders" on the Patriots have turned Moss from a bad boy into a good team player. EVERYONE's a team player when you've never lost a game or even played in a close one.

It'll be interesting to see how much TO and Moss are team players once their teams lose a couple games (that is, if the pats ever do lose more than 1 at a time...)

[Om]

And around and around it goes.

Originally posted 4/10/07:

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=195459

Ah yes. The amazing Bill Belichick.

The smarter-than-thou, more-organized-than-thou early 21st century visionary and master of the National Football League.

A.B., anyway.

Bill Belichick, Before Brady:

Won 41, Lost 55 (.427)

Playoff record, 1-1

Bill Belichick, After Brady:

Won 70, Lost 26 (.729)

Playoff record, 12-2 (3 championships)

I'm sure it's just coincidence though.

But wait! There's more!

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=200733

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=197377

[Eileenma]

As if Joe Gibbs doesn't know this, didn't do this during his first term, and hasn't been working toward that the last 4 years. One thing you left out is that Billicheat inherited an organization which Bill Parcells successfully built up, and Pete Carroll didn't decimate. Remember Joe Gibbs inherited an organization most influenced by the likes of Norv Turner and Steve Spurrier. That's a lot different.

I couldn't agree more Merlin. People seem to forget that Billicheat's first stint as a HC didn't go so well, I mean it is like night and day from when he was with Cleveland to now. If I recall, Cleveland was a mess when he took them over and couldn't do squat with them.

Hail Skins...............Eileen

[md20j]

I swear... I love all the arm-chair Head Coaches who are going to talk trash about OUR Hall of Famer, OUR Coach Joe. Listen to me man, I don't care if he goes 5-11 EVERY YEAR. He beats Dallas at home. I love it. He walks the sideline, and the camera goes on him, and I tell my 3 year old "That's Joe Gibbs!!!!" Saint Joe. And don't forget it, man. You want to be bandwagon and only support the team or the coach during the good times, go throw on a Dallas jersey. Best time to root for the team is when they're down.

And, just for the record, the Skins aren't down. For goodness sake, one loss (where the recievers couldn't catch a cold and we literally fumbled away the game winner) and it's "oh, well, those guys are dropping the ball and fumbling because Joe Gibbs isn't as smart as Bill Belichick".

Please, man. Come on.

[Merlin Emrys]

Looks much better.

I would love to get through a thread without seeing things like this.

Sorry about that. I let the dismissive, "Has absolutely nothing to do with it" comment get the best of me.

[Passizle]

I've always wondered what our team would be like with Belicheck coaching....

Its all chemistry. Bellichek and Brady. Neither would be successful without the other.

I have a feeling that if Bellichek coaches another team in his lifetime, he will not have the success he has enjoyed in NE. JMO

[Merlin Emrys]

I couldn't agree more Merlin. People seem to forget that Billicheat's first stint as a HC didn't go so well, I mean it is like night and day from when he was with Cleveland to now. If I recall, Cleveland was a mess when he took them over and couldn't do squat with them.

Hail Skins...............Eileen

Good point. I remember when the Patriots hired him, and I thought it was a stupid move. He'd already proven with Cleveland that he couldn't build a winning organization.

He's proven that dumb assumption wrong, and the Patriot's success is due to much more than just Tom Brady and Bill Belichick. He learned from that experience in Cleveland and HELPED build a championship franchise, the same way Gibbs did in the past, in the same manner he's trying again now. If you want proof, look at the priority Gibbs placed on finding a franchise QB. Its the the same way Belicheat developed Brady, just in an earlier stage. The 'Skins are on the right path, and it's no secret to Joe Gibbs how to follow that path. He blazed it long before Belichick was a head coach.

[BAFGA]

Take away Brady and their an 8-8 team, if that. Don't downplay the importance of an elite QB. Look at Indianapolis this year. They lost how many guys? Why no mention of Dungees genius? His failures in Tampa still too fresh? They're still 5-0 like the PAts.

Yeah it's Belicheks genius:laugh: And Gibbs lack of balls.:laugh: His old balls won 3 championships while Belichek was coaching High School.

When did Brady actually understand how to play football? I mean, didn't he not play that much at michigan? He was overlooked by a bunch of scouts and was only selected in the 6th round, so is it him just grasping the game or are the Patriots scouts like geniuses?

[SonnyJ]

The Patriots Secret:

Shrewdly waiting until their SECOND pick of the sixth round of the 2000 draft and nabbing the Draft Sleeper of All-Time. Seriously, there has never been a luckier draft pick than Brady. If the Patriots had any inkling of how good he would be, then they're incredibly stupid for waiting so long to take him. The Redskins, looking for a developmental project at QB, took the immortal Todd Husak a few spots after Brady went off the board, though they had a higher grade on Brady.

To be honest, he may not have developed here just because of the timing - Norv was in his death throes and then came Marty and his barbaric offense the next season. Who knows? Maybe he and Spurrier would have been a match made in heaven - the Redskins may very well have developed into the NFC version of the Colts.

In any case, every single member of the Patriot's organization owes their livelihood and reputation to Brady. Belichick, Pioli, etc., they'll never leave, because they'll never be so lucky again. As soon as someone can reasonably explain how Belichick went from having a Norvalesque record as coach to his current status as "greatest coach ever", at PRECISELY the moment that Brady became his QB, then I'll believe that he's more than just another coach. I don't believe for one second that his coaching approach changed - he was always a great defensive coach, just not a terribly effective head coach.

At this point, I think his confidence in Brady is such that he feels liberated to do anything on offense or defense. Offensively, he knows Brady will probably make it happen. Defensively, if it doesn't work, Brady will bail him out. What a beautiful position to be in as a coach - how can you not succeed when you have almost the perfect player in the most vital position in team sports? I imagine Dungy has a similar confidence.

How can anyone underestimate the impact that QBs like Brady and Manning have? The OL doesn't have to be that great because they know where the pressure is coming and what the coverage is doing and thus where to go with the ball quickly - for as often as they throw, they rarely get sacked or even hit. They open up the running game - for instance, if the defense is exposing itself to a certain kind of run, they'll audible to that run. Of course, their ability to carve up a defense through the air opens up the running lanes in the first place. Precise, well-timed throws make the receivers look good, and also keep them out of harm's way. They help the defense through multiple factors - generating points that make the opposing O one-dimensional, controlling the ball and keeping their Ds off the field, and also not creating the careless turnover that puts their Ds in bad positions. Lastly, there is the supreme confidence with which they infuse their teams.

There is such a ripple effect that QBs of this stature have on their teams that it is inconceivable to deny their paramount importance to the success of the organization. I really like Campbell, but you put Brady or Manning on the Redskins (just that alone, nothing else) and I guarantee you they would be in the elite team status, as good as, if not better than, how the Colts or Patriots are considered today.

[SonnyJ]

When did Brady actually understand how to play football? I mean, didn't he not play that much at michigan? He was overlooked by a bunch of scouts and was only selected in the 6th round, so is it him just grasping the game or are the Patriots scouts like geniuses?

Brady was a two-year starter at Michigan. He didn't come out of nowhere.

Yes, I'm sure he got some good coaching from the Patriots, but nothing he couldn't have received at any number of other teams. He is not a system QB. He didn't get his uncanny accuracy, his poise and calm and confidence, his ability to slide around in the pocket, his ability to read defenses, his superb quick decision-making skills, and his remarkable durability from the Patriot coaches. I'm sure they instructed him in these areas, but all teams do and I seriously doubt they have the magic formula for turning every 6th round pick into a supreme QB.

Brady just has IT - that special combination of talent, instinct, ambition, desire, competitiveness, and passion for the game. I think he would have shined through in all but the most screwed-up or circumstances - even then, I think he would have eventually found a situation where he would succeed.

[SkinsFanAnt]

I know Gibbs gets a lot of heat but the days of conservative football are long gone. Its cutthroat and that's where I believe Gibbs has struggled. The Lions game, though, gave me hope. And even with the loss to GB, I really felt like the team played hard and that Gibbs was going for the juggular. I don't know what mismanagement he had at the end of the GB game, but I know from the forums that it at least was nothing like the Gnats game.

Anyways, I think you have to give most of the credit for the Skins mediocrity to Daniel Snyder. Since he took over the team we've lived through horrible after horrible decision (as well as some excellent ones but still...it has only been 2 times we have been remotely close to playing in a SB!). Gibbs has turned it around, yes, but I still wonder how far he can go in todays game....lets hope this year and next year he'll get it done! HTTR!

[nebster21]

this should be merged with conspiracy.

[abu69]

2 things have/do still separate us from the Patriots:

1.) Quarrterback play. We have JC now so the future looks bright, but you think the Patriots could've won 3 SBs in 4 years with Brunell?

2.) Consistent personnel decisions. It affects our depth mostly, a problem the Pats never have to deal with because they draft well and are smart in free agency (and seem to pull off incredible trades. Moss for a 4th rounder??? We got Lloyd for a 3rd and 4th!!!!) But Gibbs is a GENIUS and he has learned his lesson. This shouldn't be a problem again.

Other than that, no difference. We have the pieces in place to win it all. The failure to finish I see on the field is just growing pains as I see it, not coaching flubs.

[Merlin Emrys]

I know Gibbs gets a lot of heat but the days of conservative football are long gone.

Is that so? In 2001 the Baltimore Ravens won the Super Bowl playing "conservative" football. The Tampa Bay Bucs won in 2003 w/ a similar style. Two years ago, the Pittsburgh Steelers, with their offense led by two former Joe Gibbs players, also took home the Vince Lombardi Trophy. I don't think the evidence supports that claim.

Joe Gibbs style is best described as physical, smash mouth football. He does lean toward being safe and bugs us all with his constant state of fear, but to say "conservative" football is long gone, is a stretch.

The problem is perception, not reality. Many of us fans perceive that because this style isn't sexy, that it doesn't work. The reality is that it is not sexy, but as the Ravens, Bucs, and Steelers have recently affirmed, it can work.

[Brian62979]

We need to grow a pair and be agressive once in a while. They are way too conservative at times when they need to score. Plus they need to stop running those reverses... they never work!

[BigRay]

Do you think we have lost any games due to bad coaching? Either too conservative play, not ballsy enough, etc.?

But Gibbs has always played it close even in his hey day and he was very successful .

[zoony]

It's pretty easy to weed out the idiots whenever someone brings up the Pats dynasty, and claims that Bellicheck is responsible.

That's why I love these threads, they serve a purpose.

[pjfootballer]

The Patriots Secret:

Shrewdly waiting until their SECOND pick of the sixth round of the 2000 draft and nabbing the Draft Sleeper of All-Time. Seriously, there has never been a luckier draft pick than Brady. If the Patriots had any inkling of how good he would be, then they're incredibly stupid for waiting so long to take him. The Redskins, looking for a developmental project at QB, took the immortal Todd Husak a few spots after Brady went off the board, though they had a higher grade on Brady.

2 good things came out of that. Husak was selected AFTER Brady was taken and we didn't draft Brady and then release/trade him only to see another team pick him up and win 3 SB's.

[pjfootballer]

Is that so? In 2001 the Baltimore Ravens won the Super Bowl playing "conservative" football. The Tampa Bay Bucs won in 2003 w/ a similar style. Two years ago, the Pittsburgh Steelers, with their offense led by two former Joe Gibbs players, also took home the Vince Lombardi Trophy. I don't think the evidence supports that claim.

Joe Gibbs style is best described as physical, smash mouth football. He does lean toward being safe and bugs us all with his constant state of fear, but to say "conservative" football is long gone, is a stretch.

The problem is perception, not reality. Many of us fans perceive that because this style isn't sexy, that it doesn't work. The reality is that it is not sexy, but as the Ravens, Bucs, and Steelers have recently affirmed, it can work.

Only problem with that theory is each of those teams were a flash in the pan for 1 season and have not even smelled a conference title game since then.

TB and Baltimore consistantly field good teams with great defenses, but don't do much beyond that. Pittsburgh got hot on the road at the right time. 6th seeds aren't supposed to win, but they did.

New England, Indy, Cincy, Rams and have had perenial playoff teams (up until this year for some) and are always in the thick of it because the don't play conservative. I'm not wanting a pass happy offense like the Lions, Pack or Cards, but I think in today's NFL you have to have a 55-45 % pass to run ration to consistantly win. We're still trying the 60-40 run to pass. Doesn't work.

Our 1991-92 Redskins was the best example of a balanced machine. We could run, we could pass, we could play smashmouth, we could play arial assault. We could play grind it out and we could play highest score wins. A very underrated team in the eyes of the NFL historians of SB champions.

[Merlin Emrys]

Only problem with that theory is each of those teams were a flash in the pan for 1 season and have not even smelled a conference title game since then.

TB and Baltimore consistantly field good teams with great defenses, but don't do much beyond that. Pittsburgh got hot on the road at the right time. 6th seeds aren't supposed to win, but they did.

New England, Indy, Cincy, Rams and have had perenial playoff teams (up until this year for some) and are always in the thick of it because the don't play conservative. I'm not wanting a pass happy offense like the Lions, Pack or Cards, but I think in today's NFL you have to have a 55-45 % pass to run ration to consistantly win. We're still trying the 60-40 run to pass. Doesn't work.

Our 1991-92 Redskins was the best example of a balanced machine. We could run, we could pass, we could play smashmouth, we could play arial assault. We could play grind it out and we could play highest score wins. A very underrated team in the eyes of the NFL historians of SB champions.

The statement was that "conservative" football is long gone. When team's win a Super Bowl relying on defense and smash mouth football or the west coast offense in 3 of the last 7 Super Bowls, it's not a "theory." That's called a fact. BTW, a theory represents a body of factual evidence, not an opinion.

The Ravens and Steelers are constantly held up as model NFL franchises committed to excellence. Did you even bother to look up any information about the Steelers before posting that dumb comment? The Steelers played in the AFC Championship game in 2001, 2002, 2004, and 2005. That's hardly a "flash." Not making the playoffs last year was the flash.

The Ratbirds haven't been to a championship game, but they have been to the playoffs 3 times since 2001. Its more relevant what the Bucs did prior to their Super Bowl, than following. Gruden just stepped into a winning Franchise and won b/c he stuck with what worked. In that time the Bucs were in the Playoffs in 97, 99, 00, 01, and 02. They played in the NFC Championship game in 99.

Since when have the Bengals been a consistent playoff team? They made the playoffs for the first time since 1990 in 2005, at which time they lost the AFC wild card game at home.

The other 3 teams have been consistent playoff teams. There's no arguing that the Pat's style worked for them, but have they always been a gunslinging team?

The Colts, however, went to the playoffs in 99, 00, 02, 03, 04, and 05. Their playoff record during that time was 2-6. They played in exactly one AFC Championship game, less than both the Bucs and Steelers, and the same as the Ravens. So, how does that support the notion that heir high powered offense consistenly produces better results? It might be more accurate to say that their Super Bowl win last year was a "flash."

By my count, since 20000 two "gunslinging" teams have won Superbowls - Rams and Colts, one team in the middle (the Pats b/c before this year they were balanced) has won 3, and 3 mostly "smash mouth" teams have won 3.

I really fail to see how fineese football in this day and age is so much more superior to a physical, wear you down philosophy. I also don't see many facts to support your argument. Its just another example of perception prevailing over reality.

[zCommander]

Absolutely. I mean you look at the SB teams that New England has had, I mean do you really think they had more talent than our current team?? Yeah they have Brady, but we have much better recievers, running backs, TE's, and our QB is not too shabby either. Also, our D is just as good if not better than their D was. Our O-Line is banged up, but when healthy, is just as good as theirs. So honestly, what made them super bowl champions and us a constant dissapointment? Looks more and more like the coaching to me....

I just love how people just fall asleep for the last few years. When we had an offense we had MB. When we finally have the right QB the offense is falling faster then flies and not to mention the WR dropping balls like hot cakes.

We have had two loses that we shouldn't have due to dropped passes and some miscues. We would now be 5-0 and being compared to Patriot and the Colts.

WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!

HTTR!!!

[Seabee1973]

I've always wondered what our team would be like with Belicheck coaching....

not very good with out a gm

[Merlin Emrys]

I'm not letting this one die yet. A few posters made some dumb comments in this thread and haven't shown up since.

[Enzo]

What it takes to beat teams like the Patriots & Colts is a good time consuming running game on offense. A team that goes down the feel with 3, 4, & 5 yd runs with the occasional pass play & big running play are the best teams because they keep the other teams offense off the feel & in the process keep their defense fresh. BTW the 1982 style of offense would work in todays NFL but you do need the right type of personel & a healthy offensive line.

Vince Lombardi is the greatest coach ever with Gibbs a very close second.