PDA

View Full Version : Belichick to Minnesota Vikings?



COJOMAY
07-05-2007, 04:30 PM
This blurb from Profootballtalk.com
The source who thinks that Belichick craves an NFC Super Bowl win thinks that Washington, Dallas, Carolina, and Tampa are the potential destinations.
We'll also throw the Vikings into the mix, since owner Zygi Wilf is a life-long Giants fan who once waited outside of a bathroom to get Lawrence Taylor's autograph.
(We hope L.T. washed his hands before he grabbed the pen.)
Wilf is wise enough to heed the quiet criticism of current coach Brad Childress, even if the rest of the front office is doing their best to prop up the field boss for fear of being run out the door if a guy like Belichick were to come to town.

cajunvike
07-05-2007, 04:35 PM
That would kill TWO birds with one stone...sink the Putzies and raise up the Vikes!

But at what price???
No thanks!

NodakPaul
07-05-2007, 04:38 PM
Hmmm.
I vote no.
Not that I think that Belichick is a bad head coach, but because I think Coach Childress is a good one and I like the direction he is taking the Vikings.

Billy Boy
07-05-2007, 04:42 PM
LOL an NFC Superbowl win.
Hell, why not one in each division?

Prophet
07-05-2007, 04:44 PM
I heard Al Gore was in the running to coach the Vikings.
Not sure if it's true though.

Billy Boy
07-05-2007, 04:48 PM
This makes me think even more that PFT is just a gossip website.


I wonder if they would buy stuff scrounged out of Belichick's trash.

BloodyHorns82
07-05-2007, 04:52 PM
Doesn't Chilly have big man love for Belichick's coaching theory and style?

NodakPaul
07-05-2007, 04:57 PM
"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


Doesn't Chilly have big man love for Belichick's coaching theory and style?



Well, the man is coaching a modern dynasty.
I think Coach Childress has respect for Belichick after he was able to expose our Achilles Heel last year.

vikingivan
07-05-2007, 05:35 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


Hmmm.
I vote no.
Not that I think that Belichick is a bad head coach, but because I think Coach Childress is a good one and I like the direction he is taking the Vikings.

Paul must be using some of that hemp the farmers in North Dakota are growing.
When you come back down Paul rethink your answer.
There is not
logical reason to keep Childress if Belichick wanted to come to Minnesota.
It is never going to happen, but we can all dream.

NodakPaul
07-05-2007, 06:01 PM
"vikingivan" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


Hmmm.
I vote no.
Not that I think that Belichick is a bad head coach, but because I think Coach Childress is a good one and I like the direction he is taking the Vikings.

Paul must be using some of that hemp the farmers in North Dakota are growing.
When you come back down Paul rethink your answer.
There is not
logical reason to keep Childress if Belichick wanted to come to Minnesota.
It is never going to happen, but we can all dream.


Nope, not smoking anything today.
I think Coach Childress has every possibility of being as good of a coach as Bellichick.
You don't dump a good coach just because someone who might be better comes along.


And don't take this as an opportunity to start Childress bashing. "We went from 9-7 to 6-10 - all is lost!"
The fact is that Childress is already showing signs of learning a great deal form his rookie year - May turn over play calling, learning to communicate with the players, etc.
This year will be more telling of Childress's coaching ability than last.
BTW, the Pats were 8-8 the year before Belichick took over.
He went 5-11 with them in his first year...

Overlord
07-05-2007, 06:12 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"vikingivan" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


Hmmm.
I vote no.
Not that I think that Belichick is a bad head coach, but because I think Coach Childress is a good one and I like the direction he is taking the Vikings.

Paul must be using some of that hemp the farmers in North Dakota are growing.
When you come back down Paul rethink your answer.
There is not
logical reason to keep Childress if Belichick wanted to come to Minnesota.
It is never going to happen, but we can all dream.


Nope, not smoking anything today.
I think Coach Childress has every possibility of being as good of a coach as Bellichick.
You don't dump a good coach just because someone who might be better comes along.


And don't take this as an opportunity to start Childress bashing. "We went from 9-7 to 6-10 - all is lost!"
The fact is that Childress is already showing signs of learning a great deal form his rookie year - May turn over play calling, learning to communicate with the players, etc.
This year will be more telling of Childress's coaching ability than last.
BTW, the Pats were 8-8 the year before Belichick took over.
He went 5-11 with them in his first year...


I also think there's something to be said for continuity.
But I think Belichick is a great coach and that's more important than continuity and possibly even your cofidence in your existing coach.
Even if he's no better as an actual coach, he's more respected and would have an easier time getting good free agents to come here.
Could he help get a stadium too?

Doesn't matter.
Anybody think Wilf would offer anywhere close to as much as Jones or Snyder?

baumy300
07-05-2007, 06:13 PM
"Prophet" wrote:


I heard Al Gore was in the running to coach the Vikings.
Not sure if it's true though.

He can't. His son just got arrested for drugs.

BadlandsVikings
07-05-2007, 06:16 PM
If he came here he couldn't dress like a homeless person.

baumy300
07-05-2007, 06:18 PM
"BadlandsViking" wrote:


If he came here he couldn't dress like a homeless person.

If he comes here and wins a Super Bowl, I wouldn't care if he dressed like Mylo Hatzenbuhler...

vikingivan
07-05-2007, 06:18 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"vikingivan" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


Hmmm.
I vote no.
Not that I think that Belichick is a bad head coach, but because I think Coach Childress is a good one and I like the direction he is taking the Vikings.

Paul must be using some of that hemp the farmers in North Dakota are growing.
When you come back down Paul rethink your answer.
There is not
logical reason to keep Childress if Belichick wanted to come to Minnesota.
It is never going to happen, but we can all dream.


Nope, not smoking anything today.
I think Coach Childress has every possibility of being as good of a coach as Bellichick.
You don't dump a good coach just because someone who might be better comes along.


And don't take this as an opportunity to start Childress bashing. "We went from 9-7 to 6-10 - all is lost!"
The fact is that Childress is already showing signs of learning a great deal form his rookie year - May turn over play calling, learning to communicate with the players, etc.
This year will be more telling of Childress's coaching ability than last.
BTW, the Pats were 8-8 the year before Belichick took over.
He went 5-11 with them in his first year...


I won't start Childress bashing.
But, I would take a great coach over any unproven coach that might be good someday.
That is like saying Tom Brady is great, but I would take Brady Quinn over him because he might be great someday.

BadlandsVikings
07-05-2007, 06:35 PM
"baumy300" wrote:


"BadlandsViking" wrote:


If he came here he couldn't dress like a homeless person.

If he comes here and wins a Super Bowl, I wouldn't care if he dressed like Mylo Hatzenbuhler...


::)

michaelmazid
07-05-2007, 07:05 PM
I give me left nut to have him here in minny but I know that aint ever happening so I guess my left nut is safe for now.

tb04512
07-05-2007, 07:21 PM
wow that would be sweet, but seriously he's not leaving NE..

MetalMike-LoudVike
07-05-2007, 08:20 PM
well IF Belicheck wanted to come to Minnesota. I would be the happiest Head-Banger on the planet,to celebrate I would have a one man mosh pit. now honeslty I dont think anyone would oppose if Belichick coached here I wouldnt care if wore a hefty garbage bag for his torso, a dunce cap for his head, Kleenex boxes for shoes and the bottom half of barrrel to cover his hind end if he puts the Vikes on the Plateau that we all feel the vikes should have a super bowl win I dont see too many Viking fans opposing the idea.

but it is a damn fine What if.

sleepagent
07-05-2007, 08:30 PM
Another story where none exists!

Zeus
07-06-2007, 09:06 AM
"Prophet" wrote:


I heard Al Gore was in the running to coach the Vikings.
Not sure if it's true though.


He invented pants, after all, why couldn't he coach the Vikes?

=Z=

MaxVike
07-06-2007, 10:12 AM
Who cares?
This is the longest of longshots and doesn't deserve anymore discussion given that Training Camps are starting.
Besides, he would probably be here as long as he was "coach" of the Jets.

tastywaves
07-06-2007, 11:18 AM
He'd be a fool to leave NE and NE would be a fool to let him go. The dude has it working in NE, they won't mess with it.

Marrdro
07-06-2007, 11:27 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"vikingivan" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


Hmmm.
I vote no.
Not that I think that Belichick is a bad head coach, but because I think Coach Childress is a good one and I like the direction he is taking the Vikings.

Paul must be using some of that hemp the farmers in North Dakota are growing.
When you come back down Paul rethink your answer.
There is not
logical reason to keep Childress if Belichick wanted to come to Minnesota.
It is never going to happen, but we can all dream.


Nope, not smoking anything today.
I think Coach Childress has every possibility of being as good of a coach as Bellichick.
You don't dump a good coach just because someone who might be better comes along.


And don't take this as an opportunity to start Childress bashing. "We went from 9-7 to 6-10 - all is lost!"
The fact is that Childress is already showing signs of learning a great deal form his rookie year - May turn over play calling, learning to communicate with the players, etc.
This year will be more telling of Childress's coaching ability than last.
BTW, the Pats were 8-8 the year before Belichick took over.
He went 5-11 with them in his first year...

You go girl (I mean guy)
;D

I'm with (suprise suprise) NP on this one.


Lets pretend (as this is a fantasy post anyway) that he hasn't been coaching the Pats to a modern age dynasty and we don't know how good a coach he is/will be........

He's a scheme oriented, his way or the highway, hard nosed head coach who doesn't mind shit canning non performers no matter how "Proven" or "Loved they are by the fans.
Even to the point of shitcanning the starting QB for a relative knowbody drafted in the later rounds.
He predominantly believes in building a team through the draft (with the exception of all the FA's they signed this year). etc etc etc........

Sound like someone we know?

I would even go so far to say that most of you would hate Belichick just as much if he would have started as our head coach last year with the same players as B-chill had.
Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong......

Billy Boy
07-06-2007, 11:29 AM
http://www.divorcegossip.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/bill.jpg

Who's gonna photoshop Belichick into a Vikings hoody?

Billy Boy
07-06-2007, 11:42 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


Lets pretend (as this is a fantasy post anyway) that he hasn't been coaching the Pats to a modern age dynasty and we don't know how good a coach he is/will be........

He's a scheme oriented, his way or the highway, hard nosed head coach who doesn't mind shit canning non performers no matter how "Proven" or "Loved they are by the fans.
Even to the point of shitcanning the starting QB for a relative knowbody drafted in the later rounds.

He predominantly believes in building a team through the draft (with the exception of all the FA's they signed this year). etc etc etc........

Sound like someone we know?

I would even go so far to say that most of you would hate Belichick just as much if he would have started as our head coach last year with the same players as B-chill had.
Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong......





You guys are completely right, along with Overlord's comments about this team needing continuity.
But in the end its Belichick, and if he needs a NFC Superbowl, it would be best if it were with the Vikings.

2beersTommy
07-06-2007, 11:56 AM
Did this blurp happen to start from the ball or water boy?

Purple Floyd
07-06-2007, 09:33 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"vikingivan" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


Hmmm.
I vote no.
Not that I think that Belichick is a bad head coach, but because I think Coach Childress is a good one and I like the direction he is taking the Vikings.

Paul must be using some of that hemp the farmers in North Dakota are growing.
When you come back down Paul rethink your answer.
There is not
logical reason to keep Childress if Belichick wanted to come to Minnesota.
It is never going to happen, but we can all dream.


Nope, not smoking anything today.
I think Coach Childress has every possibility of being as good of a coach as Bellichick.
You don't dump a good coach just because someone who might be better comes along.


And don't take this as an opportunity to start Childress bashing. "We went from 9-7 to 6-10 - all is lost!"
The fact is that Childress is already showing signs of learning a great deal form his rookie year - May turn over play calling, learning to communicate with the players, etc.
This year will be more telling of Childress's coaching ability than last.
BTW, the Pats were 8-8 the year before Belichick took over.
He went 5-11 with them in his first year...

You go girl (I mean guy)
;D

I'm with (suprise suprise) NP on this one.


Lets pretend (as this is a fantasy post anyway) that he hasn't been coaching the Pats to a modern age dynasty and we don't know how good a coach he is/will be........

He's a scheme oriented, his way or the highway, hard nosed head coach who doesn't mind pooh canning non performers no matter how "Proven" or "Loved they are by the fans.
Even to the point of shitcanning the starting QB for a relative knowbody drafted in the later rounds.
He predominantly believes in building a team through the draft (with the exception of all the FA's they signed this year). etc etc etc........

Sound like someone we know?

I would even go so far to say that most of you would hate Belichick just as much if he would have started as our head coach last year with the same players as B-chill had.
Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong......





I hope you don't get too far into convincing yourself that Childress might be the next Belechik.

You might want to consider a few things.

First off, before anybody brings into this the fact he had a crappy team with the browns- The browns have sucked with every head coach and look like they will continue to do so at least into the near future.

Now, back to why the comparison is lame.

1) BB had a solid resume of success as an assistant before he got a head coaching job. As a DC he was instrumental in producing a high quality defense for every team he and Parcells were on. When Parcells had BB as an assistant, he had a great amount of success and without him Parcells led teams have always come up short. He is a defensive genius and you only need to look at the game we played against NE last year to see the difference in coaching ability.

Childress on the other hand came from Philly where the head coach never gave him a chance to even call plays, an act he quickly gave to BC's replacement this year in his first year on the team. When BC faced other rookie coaches this year he was routinely outcoached by the other rookie coach. The only other rookie coach he was able to beat was Detroit and they were as bad as it gets.

2) You say BB builds through the draft, which he certainly does, but he also goes out and gets top notch veteran free agents when he needs them and they do the discipline and enforcement on the team so he doesn't have to.

BC has not shown the same go for the throat attitude towards established veterans. He did get hutch, which was very BB like and that was an impressive move, but then they have let the biggest free agents since then have since relied on drafting what they have determined to be hidden gems who have potential but have yet to prove themselves. While the team and many here said Stallworth, thomas and Moss were either too much trouble or too expensive, BB brought them in and will find a way to make them work.

3) BB may have sh!tcanned his veteran QB in favor of a rookie, but he also knew the rookie could play and put him in a system that he could flourish in and they went and won the superbowl that year after a shaky start. The Vikings got off to a good start and then fell apart so BC pulled the vet and inserted a rookie he had not prepared for properly yet and the team went on a downhill slide.


Building a successful organization is alot like making soup. You can have two people starting out with the same list of ingredients, but the way they put them together and the amounts they use of each impacts how the final product turns out. I hope that our coach becomes one of the elite coaches in the NFL before his term here is finished, but he still has a long way to go and a lot to prove before we start putting him on the stage with the Elite coaches in the league. ;)

NodakPaul
07-06-2007, 10:14 PM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


I hope you don't get too far into convincing yourself that Childress might be the next Belechik.

You might want to consider a few things.

First off, before anybody brings into this the fact he had a crappy team with the browns- The browns have sucked with every head coach and look like they will continue to do so at least into the near future.

Now, back to why the comparison is lame.

1) BB had a solid resume of success as an assistant before he got a head coaching job. As a DC he was instrumental in producing a high quality defense for every team he and Parcells were on. When Parcells had BB as an assistant, he had a great amount of success and without him Parcells led teams have always come up short. He is a defensive genius and you only need to look at the game we played against NE last year to see the difference in coaching ability.

Childress on the other hand came from Philly where the head coach never gave him a chance to even call plays, an act he quickly gave to BC's replacement this year in his first year on the team. When BC faced other rookie coaches this year he was routinely outcoached by the other rookie coach. The only other rookie coach he was able to beat was Detroit and they were as bad as it gets.


So you're saying that Childress didn't have a solid resume as an assistant?
The Eagles didn't have any success with him as the O coordinator?
Geez, and here I thought they were in a superbowl.
Huh, I must have been wrong.
BTW, Childress and Belichick had the exact same record in superbowls as assistant coaches, 0-1.

Both coaches have a noticeable flaw on their resume.
Belichick has his stint with the Browns, and Childress never called plays as an OC.
But you are quick to excuse Belichick, while at the same time try to claim that Childress was "outcoached" by every other rookie coach.
Let's be a little consistent.

"UffDaVikes" wrote:


2) You say BB builds through the draft, which he certainly does, but he also goes out and gets top notch veteran free agents when he needs them and they do the discipline and enforcement on the team so he doesn't have to.

BC has not shown the same go for the throat attitude towards established veterans. He did get hutch, which was very BB like and that was an impressive move, but then they have let the biggest free agents since then have since relied on drafting what they have determined to be hidden gems who have potential but have yet to prove themselves. While the team and many here said Stallworth, thomas and Moss were either too much trouble or too expensive, BB brought them in and will find a way to make them work.

WTF?
OK, last year Childress signs several big name free agents and has a great draft.
This year we had a great draft, but there wasn't pooh out there for FA.
You are right when you said that Stallworth, Thomas, and Moss were either too much trouble or too expensive.
They will likely fit in better with the NE team, which is more mature, than they would with the Vikes, who are still young and building.
Childress has, so far, approached his two offseasons in a VERY Belichick manner, so your argument here is off base.

"UffDaVikes" wrote:


3) BB may have sh!tcanned his veteran QB in favor of a rookie, but he also knew the rookie could play and put him in a system that he could flourish in and they went and won the superbowl that year after a shaky start. The Vikings got off to a good start and then fell apart so BC pulled the vet and inserted a rookie he had not prepared for properly yet and the team went on a downhill slide.

Um, keep in mind that Belichick didn't win the superbowl his first year.
Belichick went 5-11 his first year.
However, I do agree that Childress put TJ in too early.

"UffDaVikes" wrote:


Building a successful organization is alot like making soup. You can have two people starting out with the same list of ingredients, but the way they put them together and the amounts they use of each impacts how the final product turns out. I hope that our coach becomes one of the elite coaches in the NFL before his term here is finished, but he still has a long way to go and a lot to prove before we start putting him on the stage with the Elite coaches in the league. ;)


Really, nobody is putting him on the stage with any of the Elite coaches.
What I and some of the other posters are trying to say is that we would not just give up on Childress and shitcan him just because another coach with a better record comes along.

I see a lot of very good things with Childress.
I see a system being developed and put into place.
I see players being brought in that fit that system.
Instead of just planning for next year, Childress is planning for the next decade, and I like that.

I have enormous respect for Belichick, and I don't know if Childress will be the next Belichick or not.
But if I was Zygi and Belichick came to me looking for a job tomorrow, I would not sell out Childress.
I choose to stay the path that Childress has begun to blaze.
Just my $0.2 pesos.

Marrdro
07-07-2007, 06:37 AM
I hope you don't get too far into convincing yourself that Childress might be the next Belechik.

Uffda, you missed my point.
I am not professing that he is the next BB but rather that alot of the things we have watched the Chiller do over his short tenure are pretty close to what BB has done.


If we had a time machine and we could put a young BB in as our head coach last year he would have probably had the same approach resulting in probably the same record/end result or pretty close to it and a bunch of naysayer Bchill haters would be bitching at him as well.

I for one think that he is the right guy at the right time for this organization.
Together with the new owner(s), the front office guys and the new coaches brought in to work with this team we will start to see that plan come together this year.

Will it be 100% what we want and without hard times, NOPE, but I believe we will be very proud of this team this year and will be able to hold our head high (I always do) when I talk about my team to other fans.


Really, nobody is putting him on the stage with any of the Elite coaches.
What I and some of the other posters are trying to say is that we would not just give up on Childress and shitcan him just because another coach with a better record comes along.

I see a lot of very good things with Childress.
I see a system being developed and put into place.
I see players being brought in that fit that system.
Instead of just planning for next year, Childress is planning for the next decade, and I like that.

I have enormous respect for Belichick, and I don't know if Childress will be the next Belichick or not.
But if I was Zygi and Belichick came to me looking for a job tomorrow, I would not sell out Childress.
I choose to stay the path that Childress has begun to blaze.
Just my $0.2 pesos.

You must be my brother from another mother.
Great reply.
;D

bigbadragz
07-07-2007, 06:52 AM
god, i wish i wrote for these magazines.
when there's nothing to write about just throw a theory up outta nowhere that makes little to no sense, but verify it by talking about an owner waiting outside a bathroom for an autograph from a coke head.
can someone explain to me how that connects to belicheck being the head coach of the vikings.

NodakPaul
07-07-2007, 07:53 AM
"bigbadragz" wrote:


god, i wish i wrote for these magazines.
when there's nothing to write about just throw a theory up outta nowhere that makes little to no sense, but verify it by talking about an owner waiting outside a bathroom for an autograph from a coke head.
can someone explain to me how that connects to belicheck being the head coach of the vikings.


LOL.
Yeah, you're right.
There is absolutely no substance to this theory, so all of our discussions are moot anyway.
Just another victim of a offseason boredom.

sleepagent
07-07-2007, 08:59 AM
"bigbadragz" wrote:


god, i wish i wrote for these magazines.
when there's nothing to write about just throw a theory up outta nowhere that makes little to no sense, but verify it by talking about an owner waiting outside a bathroom for an autograph from a coke head.
can someone explain to me how that connects to belicheck being the head coach of the vikings.


I agree . . . let's talk about Brady Quinn then . . . http://www.purplepride.org/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=88888912&?topic=33987.msg600143;topicseen#new

bigbadragz
07-07-2007, 12:41 PM
"sleepagent" wrote:


"bigbadragz" wrote:


god, i wish i wrote for these magazines.
when there's nothing to write about just throw a theory up outta nowhere that makes little to no sense, but verify it by talking about an owner waiting outside a bathroom for an autograph from a coke head.
can someone explain to me how that connects to belicheck being the head coach of the vikings.


I agree . . . let's talk about Brady Quinn then . . . http://www.purplepride.org/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=88888912&?topic=33987.msg600143;topicseen#new

haha

mountainviking
07-07-2007, 01:03 PM
I just don't see him ending up here...more money elsewhere and I get the feeling that Wilf wants to give Brad a legit chance, as in a few years to turn it around.
Wherever beli signs, its going to be for MAJOR BIG BUCKS!!!

I'm chiming in on Chilly's side for now, so far, I like where he's going with this team! I love the old school run first, eat the clock and play good defense philosophy!!!
Most of our games were close last year...well within reach with just a few less penalties.
We're cutting the big mouth me first gimme gimmes and replacing them with hard working, blue collar, get er done types.
When FA was good (last year) we signed a bunch of great players...this year, the crop wasn't as good so we didn't do as much...which should, hopefully, lead to some supplemental picks for us.

But if we don't see some improvement in coaching/play calling...some better game time adjustments, and some more wins, I might consider bringing Beli on board.

singersp
07-07-2007, 02:03 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:



If we had a time machine and we could put a young BB in as our head coach last year he would have probably had the same approach resulting in probably the same record/end result or pretty close to it and a bunch of naysayer Bchill haters would be bitching at him as well.



As a matter of fact, in BB 1st season as HC, he went 6-10. Followed by 2 years of 7-9 before going 11-5 in his 4th year.

NodakPaul
07-07-2007, 02:46 PM
"singersp" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:



If we had a time machine and we could put a young BB in as our head coach last year he would have probably had the same approach resulting in probably the same record/end result or pretty close to it and a bunch of naysayer Bchill haters would be bitching at him as well.



As a matter of fact, in BB 1st season as HC, he went 6-10. Followed by 2 years of 7-9 before going 11-5 in his 4th year.


Yup, in fact, Belichick has losing records in five of his first six years as a HC.
He may be the "genius" now, but they hated him in Cleveland, and weren't real fond of him his first year in NE either.

Belichick's record as a head coach:

19916-10Cleveland
19927-9Cleveland
19937-9Cleveland
199411-5Cleveland
19955-11Cleveland

20005-11New England
200111-5New England
20029-7New England
200314-2New England
200414-2New England
200510-6New England
200612-4New England

Vikes_King
07-08-2007, 01:33 AM
"Prophet" wrote:


I heard Al Gore was in the running to coach the Vikings.
Not sure if it's true though.


lol, that is probably one of the ONLY things that would make me stop being a vikings fan, and thats saying something

NDVikingFan66
07-08-2007, 01:44 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:



If we had a time machine and we could put a young BB in as our head coach last year he would have probably had the same approach resulting in probably the same record/end result or pretty close to it and a bunch of naysayer Bchill haters would be bitching at him as well.



As a matter of fact, in BB 1st season as HC, he went 6-10. Followed by 2 years of 7-9 before going 11-5 in his 4th year.


Yup, in fact, Belichick has losing records in five of his first six years as a HC.
He may be the "genius" now, but they hated him in Cleveland, and weren't real fond of him his first year in NE either.

Belichick's record as a head coach:

19916-10Cleveland
19927-9Cleveland
19937-9Cleveland
199411-5Cleveland
19955-11Cleveland

20005-11New England
200111-5New England
20029-7New England
200314-2New England
200414-2New England
200510-6New England
200612-4New England



I am to lazy to look....what did Bellichek do during the gap?
Wasn't he with the Jets?

PurpleHornsOfDestruction
07-08-2007, 02:10 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:



If we had a time machine and we could put a young BB in as our head coach last year he would have probably had the same approach resulting in probably the same record/end result or pretty close to it and a bunch of naysayer Bchill haters would be bitching at him as well.



As a matter of fact, in BB 1st season as HC, he went 6-10. Followed by 2 years of 7-9 before going 11-5 in his 4th year.


Yup, in fact, Belichick has losing records in five of his first six years as a HC.
He may be the "genius" now, but they hated him in Cleveland, and weren't real fond of him his first year in NE either.

Belichick's record as a head coach:

19916-10Cleveland
19927-9Cleveland
19937-9Cleveland
199411-5Cleveland
19955-11Cleveland

20005-11New England
200111-5New England
20029-7New England
200314-2New England
200414-2New England
200510-6New England
200612-4New England



Yeah but come on. 4 of those were with the Cleveland Browns. And they're hopeless.
I like bElichic. He has a system I love. He's like that coach from the basketball movie Hoosers. He was bad his first year with a team so wut he does is he gets guys who have more potential then they do ability. Because when u get guys lik Alan Branch or so who think themselves as STARS they don't try as hard. so u get guys who work there but off and Belichik is the guy in control. Thats why Brady is so great for him. He's Belichiks pawn and robot quarterback. hes an outstanding robot quarterback but to compare him to Peyton Manning who chooses out of 3 plays every down and does stuff like send the punt team off the field even though Dungy sent them on is comparing oranges to apples. Dungy doesnt have control over Peyton but it still works because Peyton makes it. Belichek controls his team and starts them bad but thats why after his first season he didnt have one losing season. He got his team and once u have his team he can bring in stars who will know what it takes to be a contributer on that team and his players will police that team. Because on that team no one is indispensible and he makes sure they know that. Thats why theres only 9 or so players from the 02 season remaining. Thats why they can bring in Stalloworth and Moss. Moss patted Wes Walker on the back in trainin camp for making a catch for pity's sake. That shows u wut the players can tame and police stars. Thats why theyre great.
Im telling u Hoosers. he is like that coach

PurpleHornsOfDestruction
07-08-2007, 02:17 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:



If we had a time machine and we could put a young BB in as our head coach last year he would have probably had the same approach resulting in probably the same record/end result or pretty close to it and a bunch of naysayer Bchill haters would be bitching at him as well.



No u know what If Belichik had the same record and he was in now I wouldnt be calling fo rhis head and you know hy. he's got 3 more rings then Childress and 3 more rings then any Viking who got it while coaching in Minne. Also the Pats did bad there first year with Belichik and so i wouldnt be too worried about it. Obviously worried but not too worried.His system worked in NE so i would count on it working in Minnesota

Marrdro
07-08-2007, 06:18 AM
"PurpleHornsOfDestruction" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:



If we had a time machine and we could put a young BB in as our head coach last year he would have probably had the same approach resulting in probably the same record/end result or pretty close to it and a bunch of naysayer Bchill haters would be bitching at him as well.



No u know what If Belichik had the same record and he was in now I wouldnt be calling fo rhis head and you know hy. he's got 3 more rings then Childress and 3 more rings then any Viking who got it while coaching in Minne. Also the Pats did bad there first year with Belichik and so i wouldnt be too worried about it. Obviously worried but not too worried.His system worked in NE so i would count on it working in Minnesota

Your not playing the game right.
In this world of fantasy he hasn't won all of the SB's.
Go back and re-read the thread again so you understand the game.
;D

bigbadragz
07-08-2007, 02:14 PM
well belicheck also had a bit more of a pedigree getting hired than childress did.
he was the architect of many a great defenses with the giants, new england, and the jets.
childress wasn't even calling the shots in philly before he left.
but everybody's different.
some have to cut their teeth like belicheck before they are good heads coaches, some have immecdiate success, and others like norv turner and wannstedt just are not cut out to be head guys.
with all the cooridnators their are now, head coaching might be totally over-rated and gets too much credit for the success of a team.
i dont know if i really buy that but it's interesting outlook,

NodakPaul
07-08-2007, 02:41 PM
"PurpleHornsOfDestruction" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:



If we had a time machine and we could put a young BB in as our head coach last year he would have probably had the same approach resulting in probably the same record/end result or pretty close to it and a bunch of naysayer Bchill haters would be bitching at him as well.



As a matter of fact, in BB 1st season as HC, he went 6-10. Followed by 2 years of 7-9 before going 11-5 in his 4th year.


Yup, in fact, Belichick has losing records in five of his first six years as a HC.
He may be the "genius" now, but they hated him in Cleveland, and weren't real fond of him his first year in NE either.

Belichick's record as a head coach:

19916-10Cleveland
19927-9Cleveland
19937-9Cleveland
199411-5Cleveland
19955-11Cleveland

20005-11New England
200111-5New England
20029-7New England
200314-2New England
200414-2New England
200510-6New England
200612-4New England



Yeah but come on. 4 of those were with the Cleveland Browns. And they're hopeless.
I like bElichic. He has a system I love. He's like that coach from the basketball movie Hoosers. He was bad his first year with a team so wut he does is he gets guys who have more potential then they do ability. Because when u get guys lik Alan Branch or so who think themselves as STARS they don't try as hard. so u get guys who work there but off and Belichik is the guy in control. Thats why Brady is so great for him. He's Belichiks pawn and robot quarterback. hes an outstanding robot quarterback but to compare him to Peyton Manning who chooses out of 3 plays every down and does stuff like send the punt team off the field even though Dungy sent them on is comparing oranges to apples. Dungy doesnt have control over Peyton but it still works because Peyton makes it. Belichek controls his team and starts them bad but thats why after his first season he didnt have one losing season. He got his team and once u have his team he can bring in stars who will know what it takes to be a contributer on that team and his players will police that team. Because on that team no one is indispensible and he makes sure they know that. Thats why theres only 9 or so players from the 02 season remaining. Thats why they can bring in Stalloworth and Moss. Moss patted Wes Walker on the back in trainin camp for making a catch for pity's sake. That shows u wut the players can tame and police stars. Thats why theyre great.
Im telling u Hoosers. he is like that coach


I agree with everything you just said about Belichick.
However, I also see all of that in Childress.
That is one of the reasons I like him.

Ragz - No, Childress didn't call the plays as the OC in Philly.
::)
Seriously, that horse is dead. ;D
But he did design the plays, work with the O during practices, and put together the playbook.
The only thing he didn't do was call the plays.
I think he had a pretty good pedigree before coming to MN...

bigbadragz
07-08-2007, 03:29 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"PurpleHornsOfDestruction" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:



If we had a time machine and we could put a young BB in as our head coach last year he would have probably had the same approach resulting in probably the same record/end result or pretty close to it and a bunch of naysayer Bchill haters would be bitching at him as well.



As a matter of fact, in BB 1st season as HC, he went 6-10. Followed by 2 years of 7-9 before going 11-5 in his 4th year.


Yup, in fact, Belichick has losing records in five of his first six years as a HC.
He may be the "genius" now, but they hated him in Cleveland, and weren't real fond of him his first year in NE either.

Belichick's record as a head coach:

19916-10Cleveland
19927-9Cleveland
19937-9Cleveland
199411-5Cleveland
19955-11Cleveland

20005-11New England
200111-5New England
20029-7New England
200314-2New England
200414-2New England
200510-6New England
200612-4New England



Yeah but come on. 4 of those were with the Cleveland Browns. And they're hopeless.
I like bElichic. He has a system I love. He's like that coach from the basketball movie Hoosers. He was bad his first year with a team so wut he does is he gets guys who have more potential then they do ability. Because when u get guys lik Alan Branch or so who think themselves as STARS they don't try as hard. so u get guys who work there but off and Belichik is the guy in control. Thats why Brady is so great for him. He's Belichiks pawn and robot quarterback. hes an outstanding robot quarterback but to compare him to Peyton Manning who chooses out of 3 plays every down and does stuff like send the punt team off the field even though Dungy sent them on is comparing oranges to apples. Dungy doesnt have control over Peyton but it still works because Peyton makes it. Belichek controls his team and starts them bad but thats why after his first season he didnt have one losing season. He got his team and once u have his team he can bring in stars who will know what it takes to be a contributer on that team and his players will police that team. Because on that team no one is indispensible and he makes sure they know that. Thats why theres only 9 or so players from the 02 season remaining. Thats why they can bring in Stalloworth and Moss. Moss patted Wes Walker on the back in trainin camp for making a catch for pity's sake. That shows u wut the players can tame and police stars. Thats why theyre great.
Im telling u Hoosers. he is like that coach


I agree with everything you just said about Belichick.
However, I also see all of that in Childress.
That is one of the reasons I like him.

Ragz - No, Childress didn't call the plays as the OC in Philly.
::)
Seriously, that horse is dead. ;D
But he did design the plays, work with the O during practices, and put together the playbook.
The only thing he didn't do was call the plays.
I think he had a pretty good pedigree before coming to MN...

the point was he did not carry the pedigree belicheck did, and there's no arguing that.
even with his first hire with the browns.
he'd been in the league longer and was part of 2 super bowl champions which neither childress could claim, which is probably what lead him to getting rehired after having no success in cleveland.

singersp
09-14-2007, 08:37 AM
What say ye Belichick crotch sniffers now?
;)

Prophet
09-14-2007, 08:41 AM
The disgrace is defending someone after they are proven guilty.
There are still Falcons' fans defending Ron Mexico.

singersp
09-14-2007, 08:42 AM
"Prophet" wrote:


The disgrace is defending someone after they are proven guilty.
There are still Falcons' fans defending Ron Mexico.


Ron or Ookie?

V-Unit
09-14-2007, 09:41 AM
"singersp" wrote:


What say ye Belichick crotch sniffers now?
;)


I don't agree with Belicheck's cheating, or the way he treated Childress, but if you think this one issue takes anything away from his 3 rings, you are kidding yourself.

The Vikings have had 3 scandals and no rings in the past 5 years. The Patriots have had one scandal and 3 rings.

C Mac D
09-14-2007, 09:55 AM
"V" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


What say ye Belichick crotch sniffers now?
;)


I don't agree with Belicheck's cheating, or the way he treated Childress, but if you think this one issue takes anything away from his 3 rings, you are kidding yourself.

The Vikings have had 3 scandals and no rings in the past 5 years. The Patriots have had one scandal and 3 rings.


This absolutely tarnishes their rings, sorry to tell ya.

(by the way, they've been caught cheating twice this year alone.. ;))

They were suspected of cheating last year against green bay and against the Steelers two years ago in the AFC Championship game

Rodney Harrison got caught with HGH and others on the team are probably using it as well. (I reference the announcers on Sunday's Jets-Pats game commenting that the players on the Pats looked "phyically bigger" than the Jets players)

If they are brazen enough to cheat in front of a stadium full of people, what could be going on behind closed doors?

The fact is, we don't know how long this has been going on but it definitely tarnishes their Super Bowl wins and explains how a team can win 3 Super Bowls in 4 years during the time of Free Agency.

Prophet
09-14-2007, 09:57 AM
"C" wrote:


"V" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


What say ye Belichick crotch sniffers now?
;)


I don't agree with Belicheck's cheating, or the way he treated Childress, but if you think this one issue takes anything away from his 3 rings, you are kidding yourself.

The Vikings have had 3 scandals and no rings in the past 5 years. The Patriots have had one scandal and 3 rings.


This absolutely tarnishes their rings, sorry to tell ya.

(by the way, they've been caught cheating twice this year alone.. ;))

They were suspected of cheating last year against green bay and against the Steelers two years ago in the AFC Championship game

Rodney Harrison got caught with HGH and others on the team are probably using it as well. (I reference the announcers on Sunday's Jets-Pats game commenting that the players on the Pats looked "phyically bigger" than the Jets players)

If they are brazen enough to cheat in front of a stadium full of people, what could be going on behind closed doors?

The fact is, we don't know how long this has been going on but it definitely tarnishes their Super Bowl wins and explains how a team can win 3 Super Bowls in 4 years during the time of Free Agency.


The Patriots' 'dynasty' will forever have an asterisk next to it due to this scandal.

C Mac D
09-14-2007, 09:59 AM
"Prophet" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"V" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


What say ye Belichick crotch sniffers now?
;)


I don't agree with Belicheck's cheating, or the way he treated Childress, but if you think this one issue takes anything away from his 3 rings, you are kidding yourself.

The Vikings have had 3 scandals and no rings in the past 5 years. The Patriots have had one scandal and 3 rings.


This absolutely tarnishes their rings, sorry to tell ya.

(by the way, they've been caught cheating twice this year alone.. ;))

They were suspected of cheating last year against green bay and against the Steelers two years ago in the AFC Championship game

Rodney Harrison got caught with HGH and others on the team are probably using it as well. (I reference the announcers on Sunday's Jets-Pats game commenting that the players on the Pats looked "phyically bigger" than the Jets players)

If they are brazen enough to cheat in front of a stadium full of people, what could be going on behind closed doors?

The fact is, we don't know how long this has been going on but it definitely tarnishes their Super Bowl wins and explains how a team can win 3 Super Bowls in 4 years during the time of Free Agency.


The Patriots' 'dynasty' will forever have an asterisk next to it due to this scandal.



Well said.

cajunvike
09-14-2007, 10:10 AM
Fuck Belichick, fuck Kraft, fuck the Putzies...and most of all, fuck the arrogant jerkwad fans that support the Putzies and made excuses for them all week long!

That being said, I wouldn't take Belichick as a coach...yeah, he's successful...but he's let that success get to his head...and he thinks that he's above the law.
I don't want MY team associated with any of that...just like I wouldn't take back Pep or Moss for the same reason (subordination of authority).

Marrdro
09-14-2007, 10:14 AM
"cajunvike" wrote:


floop Belichick, floop Kraft, floop the Putzies...and most of all, floop the arrogant jerkwad fans that support the Putzies and made excuses for them all week long!

That being said, I wouldn't take Belichick as a coach...yeah, he's successful...but he's let that success get to his head...and he thinks that he's above the law.
I don't want MY team associated with any of that...just like I wouldn't take back Pep or Moss for the same reason (subordination of authority).

You know, I really hate it the way you hide your feelings about the Pats.

Why don't you come right out and give us your opinion vice beating around the bush by friend.
;D

(Standby for the "He said Bush" jokes)

C Mac D
09-14-2007, 10:25 AM
I'd take Moss back in a heartbeat.

Prophet
09-14-2007, 10:26 AM
"C" wrote:


I'd take Moss back in a heartbeat.


I think this was suppose to be in the random numbers thread.

cajunvike
09-14-2007, 10:31 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"cajunvike" wrote:


floop Belichick, floop Kraft, floop the Putzies...and most of all, floop the arrogant jerkwad fans that support the Putzies and made excuses for them all week long!

That being said, I wouldn't take Belichick as a coach...yeah, he's successful...but he's let that success get to his head...and he thinks that he's above the law.
I don't want MY team associated with any of that...just like I wouldn't take back Pep or Moss for the same reason (subordination of authority).

You know, I really hate it the way you hide your feelings about the Pats.

Why don't you come right out and give us your opinion vice beating around the bush by friend.

;D

(Standby for the "He said Bush" jokes)


Versus a "Miami Vice" joke?

C Mac D
09-14-2007, 10:32 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"cajunvike" wrote:


floop Belichick, floop Kraft, floop the Putzies...and most of all, floop the arrogant jerkwad fans that support the Putzies and made excuses for them all week long!

That being said, I wouldn't take Belichick as a coach...yeah, he's successful...but he's let that success get to his head...and he thinks that he's above the law.
I don't want MY team associated with any of that...just like I wouldn't take back Pep or Moss for the same reason (subordination of authority).

You know, I really hate it the way you hide your feelings about the Pats.

Why don't you come right out and give us your opinion vice beating around the bush by friend.
;D

(Standby for the "He said Bush" jokes)


Hence, I would take Moss back in a heartbeat.

cajunvike
09-14-2007, 10:34 AM
"C" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"cajunvike" wrote:


floop Belichick, floop Kraft, floop the Putzies...and most of all, floop the arrogant jerkwad fans that support the Putzies and made excuses for them all week long!

That being said, I wouldn't take Belichick as a coach...yeah, he's successful...but he's let that success get to his head...and he thinks that he's above the law.
I don't want MY team associated with any of that...just like I wouldn't take back Pep or Moss for the same reason (subordination of authority).

You know, I really hate it the way you hide your feelings about the Pats.

Why don't you come right out and give us your opinion vice beating around the bush by friend.

;D

(Standby for the "He said Bush" jokes)


Hence, I would take Moss back in a heartbeat.


Good angle, C!
But I would love it even MORE if Moss went back to the Raidahs...then Pep would do good again...and the whole world would see that Moss made Pep and not vice versa.
LOL

BloodyHorns82
09-14-2007, 10:35 AM
"V" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


What say ye Belichick crotch sniffers now?
;)


I don't agree with Belicheck's cheating, or the way he treated Childress, but if you think this one issue takes anything away from his 3 rings, you are kidding yourself.

The Vikings have had 3 scandals and no rings in the past 5 years. The Patriots have had one scandal and 3 rings.


Sorry but I couldn't disagree more.
The Patriots TWO scandals involved cheating at the game which directly affected their outcomes.

If anything the Vikings "scandals" hurt their on field play.

They cheated at the game, how does that not tarnish their rings?
???

C Mac D
09-14-2007, 10:42 AM
"cajunvike" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"cajunvike" wrote:


floop Belichick, floop Kraft, floop the Putzies...and most of all, floop the arrogant jerkwad fans that support the Putzies and made excuses for them all week long!

That being said, I wouldn't take Belichick as a coach...yeah, he's successful...but he's let that success get to his head...and he thinks that he's above the law.
I don't want MY team associated with any of that...just like I wouldn't take back Pep or Moss for the same reason (subordination of authority).

You know, I really hate it the way you hide your feelings about the Pats.

Why don't you come right out and give us your opinion vice beating around the bush by friend.
;D

(Standby for the "He said Bush" jokes)


Hence, I would take Moss back in a heartbeat.


Good angle, C!
But I would love it even MORE if Moss went back to the Raidahs...then Pep would do good again...and the whole world would see that Moss made Pep and not vice versa.
LOL


It's hilarious because its true
:D

NodakPaul
09-14-2007, 10:47 AM
"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"V" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


What say ye Belichick crotch sniffers now?
;)


I don't agree with Belicheck's cheating, or the way he treated Childress, but if you think this one issue takes anything away from his 3 rings, you are kidding yourself.

The Vikings have had 3 scandals and no rings in the past 5 years. The Patriots have had one scandal and 3 rings.


Sorry but I couldn't disagree more.
The Patriots TWO scandals involved cheating at the game which directly affected their outcomes.

If anything the Vikings "scandals" hurt their on field play.

They cheated at the game, how does that not tarnish their rings?
???


I was going to say the exact same thing.
None of teh Vikings "scandals" had anything to do with cheating at the game.
The Patriots three rings will (and should) always be viewed with suspicion now.


Belicheat and Brandy need to have an in credible year to put this behind them.
If they make the playoffs, they can say that the cheating never really made a difference.
If they don't make the playoffs, their stock will drop even more because it will look like the only way they can win is by cheating.

Zeus
09-14-2007, 10:53 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"V" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


What say ye Belichick crotch sniffers now?
;)


I don't agree with Belicheck's cheating, or the way he treated Childress, but if you think this one issue takes anything away from his 3 rings, you are kidding yourself.

The Vikings have had 3 scandals and no rings in the past 5 years. The Patriots have had one scandal and 3 rings.


Sorry but I couldn't disagree more.
The Patriots TWO scandals involved cheating at the game which directly affected their outcomes.

If anything the Vikings "scandals" hurt their on field play.

They cheated at the game, how does that not tarnish their rings?
???


I was going to say the exact same thing.
None of teh Vikings "scandals" had anything to do with cheating at the game.
The Patriots three rings will (and should) always be viewed with suspicion now.


By who?
Not by me.
I'm not going to make an unsupported trace through 5 years of history and condemn those efforts - that's specious and silly.

I'm kinda of the opinion that the Patriots might have done this TO get caught - so they can get radio transmitters into the helmets of defensive players next year.
The money is a joke to them and they've got 2 first-rounders next year, so losing one ain't all that tough.

=Z=

cajunvike
09-14-2007, 10:56 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"V" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


What say ye Belichick crotch sniffers now?
;)


I don't agree with Belicheck's cheating, or the way he treated Childress, but if you think this one issue takes anything away from his 3 rings, you are kidding yourself.

The Vikings have had 3 scandals and no rings in the past 5 years. The Patriots have had one scandal and 3 rings.


Sorry but I couldn't disagree more.
The Patriots TWO scandals involved cheating at the game which directly affected their outcomes.

If anything the Vikings "scandals" hurt their on field play.

They cheated at the game, how does that not tarnish their rings?
???


I was going to say the exact same thing.
None of teh Vikings "scandals" had anything to do with cheating at the game.
The Patriots three rings will (and should) always be viewed with suspicion now.


By who?
Not by me.
I'm not going to make an unsupported trace through 5 years of history and condemn those efforts - that's specious and silly.

I'm kinda of the opinion that the Patriots might have done this TO get caught - so they can get radio transmitters into the helmets of defensive players next year.
The money is a joke to them and they've got 2 first-rounders next year, so losing one ain't all that tough.

=Z=


I would agree with your first premise...but the second...you have GOT to be kidding!
Either that OR you are a closet Putzie fan...come to think of it, what state did you go to undergrad in?
LOL

C Mac D
09-14-2007, 10:59 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"V" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


What say ye Belichick crotch sniffers now?
;)


I don't agree with Belicheck's cheating, or the way he treated Childress, but if you think this one issue takes anything away from his 3 rings, you are kidding yourself.

The Vikings have had 3 scandals and no rings in the past 5 years. The Patriots have had one scandal and 3 rings.


Sorry but I couldn't disagree more.
The Patriots TWO scandals involved cheating at the game which directly affected their outcomes.

If anything the Vikings "scandals" hurt their on field play.

They cheated at the game, how does that not tarnish their rings?
???


I was going to say the exact same thing.
None of teh Vikings "scandals" had anything to do with cheating at the game.
The Patriots three rings will (and should) always be viewed with suspicion now.


By who?
Not by me.
I'm not going to make an unsupported trace through 5 years of history and condemn those efforts - that's specious and silly.

I'm kinda of the opinion that the Patriots might have done this TO get caught - so they can get radio transmitters into the helmets of defensive players next year.
The money is a joke to them and they've got 2 first-rounders next year, so losing one ain't all that tough.

=Z=


Thats a good point, I completely forgot about that. It's like a slap on the wrist.

I think it's personal opinion on whether or not you think it tarnishes the rings. I agree, it's over the past 5 years, what can really be done about it now? (unless they go through the Pats head offices and clean-out video libraries of cheating) But who cares, it's the worst NFL cheating scandal of this decade and it's done with now.

Public opinion will have the final say.

oh, and I hate Patriot fans.

Zeus
09-14-2007, 11:14 AM
"cajunvike" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


By who?
Not by me.
I'm not going to make an unsupported trace through 5 years of history and condemn those efforts - that's specious and silly.

I'm kinda of the opinion that the Patriots might have done this TO get caught - so they can get radio transmitters into the helmets of defensive players next year.
The money is a joke to them and they've got 2 first-rounders next year, so losing one ain't all that tough.


I would agree with your first premise...but the second...you have GOT to be kidding!
Either that OR you are a closet Putzie fan...come to think of it, what state did you go to undergrad in?
LOL


I'd be very interested to see how the Patriots have voted on the issue of transmitters for defensive players over the past couple years.

=Z=

cajunvike
09-14-2007, 11:16 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


"cajunvike" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


By who?
Not by me.
I'm not going to make an unsupported trace through 5 years of history and condemn those efforts - that's specious and silly.

I'm kinda of the opinion that the Patriots might have done this TO get caught - so they can get radio transmitters into the helmets of defensive players next year.
The money is a joke to them and they've got 2 first-rounders next year, so losing one ain't all that tough.


I would agree with your first premise...but the second...you have GOT to be kidding!
Either that OR you are a closet Putzie fan...come to think of it, what state did you go to undergrad in?
LOL


I'd be very interested to see how the Patriots have voted on the issue of transmitters for defensive players over the past couple years.

=Z=


Yeah...that would be interesting.
BUT with Kraft's power on the Competition Committee, you would think that he could push something like that through if he really put his mind to it.

Zeus
09-14-2007, 11:20 AM
"cajunvike" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"cajunvike" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


By who?
Not by me.
I'm not going to make an unsupported trace through 5 years of history and condemn those efforts - that's specious and silly.

I'm kinda of the opinion that the Patriots might have done this TO get caught - so they can get radio transmitters into the helmets of defensive players next year.
The money is a joke to them and they've got 2 first-rounders next year, so losing one ain't all that tough.


I would agree with your first premise...but the second...you have GOT to be kidding!
Either that OR you are a closet Putzie fan...come to think of it, what state did you go to undergrad in?
LOL


I'd be very interested to see how the Patriots have voted on the issue of transmitters for defensive players over the past couple years.


Yeah...that would be interesting.
BUT with Kraft's power on the Competition Committee, you would think that he could push something like that through if he really put his mind to it.


Each team has one vote.
With that many egos, I think we've seen how hard it can be to push things through.
Why not grease the wheels (with a penalty that, honestly, does NOTHIGN to that Patriots or Kraft or Belichek) with some controversy to get the votes your way?

=Z=

Purple Floyd
09-14-2007, 11:36 AM
In the end you have to wonder,with how often the coaches either do or should change their signals why this is that relevant and if they were caught last year,why was nothing done then and have they been under surveillance since then to see how long this has been happening? If the same guy has been doing it that long, there should be plenty of evidence in the video captured by NFL films that would show him in the act similar to a modern version of Where's Waldo. They should also be able to look back and see if other teams are using the same tactics or different ones. In fact, they could end much of that sort of activity by hiring one of the security companies that work for the casino industry to supervise the conduct of the NFL teams. They could mount cameras to watch everybody on the sidelines and keep them honest. They certainly do a good job at the casinos.

Think about this: Maybe last year when they played the colts in the playoffs, the colts used one set of signals in the first half and then completely reversed them in the second half,thereby causing the pats to have the wrong defense on the field and allowing them to come back and win. That type of cheating can hurt you as much as help you if the other team has the right safeguards in place.

Is there no way a team could have somebody with a camera phone taking pix and sending them up to the coaching booth or even just watching and texting them to the coaching staff? There are probably mant forms of the same thing happening in the league.

One way or the other my guess is the pats will keep a low profile on this for a while.

NodakPaul
09-14-2007, 11:41 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


"cajunvike" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


By who?
Not by me.
I'm not going to make an unsupported trace through 5 years of history and condemn those efforts - that's specious and silly.

I'm kinda of the opinion that the Patriots might have done this TO get caught - so they can get radio transmitters into the helmets of defensive players next year.
The money is a joke to them and they've got 2 first-rounders next year, so losing one ain't all that tough.


I would agree with your first premise...but the second...you have GOT to be kidding!
Either that OR you are a closet Putzie fan...come to think of it, what state did you go to undergrad in?
LOL


I'd be very interested to see how the Patriots have voted on the issue of transmitters for defensive players over the past couple years.

=Z=


Considering how successful the Pats have been with their picks, yes, penalizing draft picks is a pretty big deal IMHO.
Plus, I think there are better ways of getting things pushed through than publicly embarrassing your coach and franchise.
Hopefully the end result of this will be defensive transmitters, but I doubt this whole cheating incident was hatched as a means to that end.

As far as the tarnish on their record, do I think they cheated in their superbowls? I don't know.
The risk is pretty high, but it is rather obvious that they have been doing this for some time now, including the AFC Championship game, so why not?
It isn't a huge stretch.
I won't go out on a limb and say for sure that they did, but to refuse to view their rings with some suspicion is blind.

jmcdon00
09-14-2007, 12:41 PM
When the Timberwolves got caught cheating a few years ago they lost like 4 years first round picks. I think the punishment was very light, it sends the message that sometimes it is ok to cheat, as long as you can win.

RK.
09-14-2007, 01:17 PM
I would be curious to know when the video tape rule was passed by the nfl.
There was a letter sent out last year reminding teams it was against the rules to do that.
It would seem to me that anyone with a camera phone could shoot the sidelines these days.
Is it any different than having lip readers watching the coach with binoculars and calling in the plays?

Purple Floyd
09-14-2007, 01:47 PM
"RK." wrote:


I would be curious to know when the video tape rule was passed by the nfl.
There was a letter sent out last year reminding teams it was against the rules to do that.
It would seem to me that anyone with a camera phone could shoot the sidelines these days.
Is it any different than having lip readers watching the coach with binoculars and calling in the plays?



exactly

V-Unit
09-14-2007, 02:24 PM
I am quite pissed off at the lack of punishment. You at least have to suspend him one game. I guess Marr is right, winning solves EVERYTHING.

I really don't understand the need for a camera to do this. Why not just have your'e backup LB, who probably plays ST only, watch the DC with a notepad for the entire first half?

Only a handful of teams could get away with this, the Patriots are one of them. Ideally, Belicheck would be fired because of this, and the Vikings would give him a shot at redemption if Chili doesn't cut it this year.

baumy300
09-14-2007, 02:47 PM
I'm pleased with the Chiller at the moment, but I wouldn't mind seeing Belicheat in purple either.

BloodyHorns82
09-14-2007, 02:50 PM
"baumy300" wrote:


I'm pleased with the Chiller at the moment, but I wouldn't mind seeing Belicheat in purple either.


I thought the same thing until now.
I can't even stand to look at the guy.
Besides the fact he is a cheater, there is something else about him that just makes my skin crawl.
Maybe it's his sleeveless sweatshirts...I can't quite put my finger on it.

cajunvike
09-14-2007, 03:18 PM
"V" wrote:


I am quite pissed off at the lack of punishment. You at least have to suspend him one game. I guess Marr is right, winning solves EVERYTHING.

I really don't understand the need for a camera to do this. Why not just have your'e backup LB, who probably plays ST only, watch the DC with a notepad for the entire first half?

Only a handful of teams could get away with this, the Patriots are one of them. Ideally, Belicheck would be fired because of this, and the Vikings would give him a shot at redemption if Chili doesn't cut it this year.


IF Winning solves everything, then it stands to reason that making them FORFEIT a WIN would be the PERFECT antidote!

They used the videocamera because they were being ARROGANT...a natural trait up in Bahston!

RK.
09-14-2007, 03:28 PM
"V" wrote:


I am quite pissed off at the lack of punishment. You at least have to suspend him one game. I guess Marr is right, winning solves EVERYTHING.

I really don't understand the need for a camera to do this. Why not just have your'e backup LB, who probably plays ST only, watch the DC with a notepad for the entire first half?

Only a handful of teams could get away with this, the Patriots are one of them. Ideally, Belicheck would be fired because of this, and the Vikings would give him a shot at redemption if Chili doesn't cut it this year.

He isn't getting away with anything.
The rules state clearly that the punishment for this infractrion is loss of a draft pick and a fine.
Nothing about suspension AFAIK.
And the Patsies are not going to fire him for this.
This may have been the owners idea as well.
Who knows?

NodakPaul
09-14-2007, 03:32 PM
"RK." wrote:


"V" wrote:


I am quite pissed off at the lack of punishment. You at least have to suspend him one game. I guess Marr is right, winning solves EVERYTHING.

I really don't understand the need for a camera to do this. Why not just have your'e backup LB, who probably plays ST only, watch the DC with a notepad for the entire first half?

Only a handful of teams could get away with this, the Patriots are one of them. Ideally, Belicheck would be fired because of this, and the Vikings would give him a shot at redemption if Chili doesn't cut it this year.

He isn't getting away with anything.
The rules state clearly that the punishment for this infractrion is loss of a draft pick and a fine. Nothing about suspension AFAIK.
And the Patsies are not going to fire him for this.
This may have been the owners idea as well.
Who knows?



People who are getting swept up in all of this need to remember that.
A suspension was always possible because Goodell has a pretty wide berth with discipline, but the fact remains that Bilicheat and the Pats got exactly what was stated when the letter was sent out last year.

NodakPaul
09-14-2007, 03:57 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


I'm kinda of the opinion that the Patriots might have done this TO get caught - so they can get radio transmitters into the helmets of defensive players next year.
The money is a joke to them and they've got 2 first-rounders next year, so losing one ain't all that tough.

=Z=


So much for that theory...
http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d80251c8b&template=with-video&confirm=true

And now that the league has determined that the Patriots violated the rules, some around the league are recalling events from last spring’s owners meetings, when teams voted on whether to put electronic communication devices in the helmets of defensive captains.

Under the plan that would eliminate the need for hand signals, coaches could electronically call in defensive signals to their captains. However, the plan was voted down 22-10, falling two votes short of the 24 needed to adopt the measure.

One of the 10 “no” votes came from the Patriots.

Purple Floyd
09-14-2007, 07:00 PM
People are getting their panties way to much in a bunch over this. I understand it is against the rules and they will pay their price, but it isn't like coaches haven't tried to do this sort of thing in the past and others probably have their own ways of doing it with other methods.

If the opponents want to make filming their calls pointless, they just need to change them up every game or half just like a 3rd bas coach has to do in baseball. If it looks like the defense knows your calls, then change them and see if anything changes. If no then you probably just suck.If yes then you can more than likely catch them off guard when you change things up and they will pay.

cajunvike
09-14-2007, 07:09 PM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


People are getting their panties way to much in a bunch over this. I understand it is against the rules and they will pay their price, but it isn't like coaches haven't tried to do this sort of thing in the past and others probably have their own ways of doing it with other methods.

If the opponents want to make filming their calls pointless, they just need to change them up every game or half just like a 3rd bas coach has to do in baseball. If it looks like the defense knows your calls, then change them and see if anything changes. If no then you probably just suck.If yes then you can more than likely catch them off guard when you change things up and they will pay.




So why did we have to get beat up in the press for so long for "The Love Boat" thing?
That did absolutely NOTHING to change the competitive balance of any game!

The ISSUE is Belichick's BLATANT disregard for NFL RULES...if you don't punish that, then the integrity of the game itself suffers!

singersp
09-14-2007, 08:37 PM
"V" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


What say ye Belichick crotch sniffers now?
;)


I don't agree with Belicheck's cheating, or the way he treated Childress, but if you think this one issue takes anything away from his 3 rings, you are kidding yourself.

The Vikings have had 3 scandals and no rings in the past 5 years. The Patriots have had one scandal and 3 rings.


The question is, did cheating help them get those rings?
;)
It's apparrent they have been doing this for a long time now & the only reason they have been doing it is to help them win football games.

What did you think he was doing with the video of the hand signals? Teaching the hearing impaired sign language?

Their 3 rings will always be in question by many teams & fans throughout the league. As it should be.

Purple Floyd
09-14-2007, 08:43 PM
"cajunvike" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


People are getting their panties way to much in a bunch over this. I understand it is against the rules and they will pay their price, but it isn't like coaches haven't tried to do this sort of thing in the past and others probably have their own ways of doing it with other methods.

If the opponents want to make filming their calls pointless, they just need to change them up every game or half just like a 3rd bas coach has to do in baseball. If it looks like the defense knows your calls, then change them and see if anything changes. If no then you probably just suck.If yes then you can more than likely catch them off guard when you change things up and they will pay.




So why did we have to get beat up in the press for so long for "The Love Boat" thing?
That did absolutely NOTHING to change the competitive balance of any game!

The ISSUE is Belichick's BLATANT disregard for NFL RULES...if you don't punish that, then the integrity of the game itself suffers!


Because apparently some people like to get their panties in a bunch over trivial things. Keep yours loose ;D

singersp
09-14-2007, 08:55 PM
"Zeus" wrote:



By who?
Not by me.
I'm not going to make an unsupported trace through 5 years of history and condemn those efforts - that's specious and silly.

I'm kinda of the opinion that the Patriots might have done this TO get caught - so they can get radio transmitters into the helmets of defensive players next year.
The money is a joke to them and they've got 2 first-rounders next year, so losing one ain't all that tough.

=Z=


Wow! That is really reaching Zeus.

They've cheated all this time, trying to get caught, just to get a trasmitter rule passed? LMAO!

The biggest flaw in that theory is they had no idea what the punishment would be beforehand. Was trading for extra picks in next years draft, in case they'd lose some, also part of that master plan?

Sure, it seems light in retrospect now that the punishment has been dealt, but they had no way of knowing how severe the punishment would be.

Goodell could have very easily & should have suspended Belichek for a minimum of 5 games, if not the whole year & fined him $100,000 or more, which would have been more fitting.

To severe you say? I think absolutely not. That is the exact punishment they gave coach Wade Wilson of the Cowboys for admitting he took HGH performance enhancing drugs.

There is no way in hell you'll ever convince me that a coach taking HGH would ever help his teams chances of winning games.

Belichek's video taping did just that. Their should be an outcry from team owners stating that the punishment was to lean.

vikes09
09-14-2007, 09:01 PM
"cajunvike" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


People are getting their panties way to much in a bunch over this. I understand it is against the rules and they will pay their price, but it isn't like coaches haven't tried to do this sort of thing in the past and others probably have their own ways of doing it with other methods.

If the opponents want to make filming their calls pointless, they just need to change them up every game or half just like a 3rd bas coach has to do in baseball. If it looks like the defense knows your calls, then change them and see if anything changes. If no then you probably just suck.If yes then you can more than likely catch them off guard when you change things up and they will pay.






So why did we have to get beat up in the press for so long for "The Love Boat" thing?
That did absolutely NOTHING to change the competitive balance of any game!

The ISSUE is Belichick's BLATANT disregard for NFL RULES...if you don't punish that, then the integrity of the game itself suffers!


i think for the commish, it's not a matter of "IF bilicheat should be punished", but "how badly should he be punished".

You can't disregard the Pat's flagrant disregard for NFL rules, and i hope that it doesn't happen.

And looking back, this seems to taint everything the Pats have done in their "dynasty", and that includes an amazingly
long streak of wins, AND 3 SUPER BOWLS! the most hallowed game to me, the Vikings,
the NFL, etc, and it now has the label of "tainted".

Purple Floyd
09-14-2007, 09:04 PM
"singersp" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:



By who?
Not by me.
I'm not going to make an unsupported trace through 5 years of history and condemn those efforts - that's specious and silly.

I'm kinda of the opinion that the Patriots might have done this TO get caught - so they can get radio transmitters into the helmets of defensive players next year.
The money is a joke to them and they've got 2 first-rounders next year, so losing one ain't all that tough.

=Z=


Wow! That is really reaching Zeus.

They've cheated all this time, trying to get caught, just to get a trasmitter rule passed? LMAO!

The biggest flaw in that theory is they had no idea what the punishment would be beforehand. Was trading for extra picks in next years draft, in case they'd lose some, also part of that master plan?

Sure, it seems light in retrospect now that the punishment has been dealt, but they had no way of knowing how severe the punishment would be.

Goodell could have very easily & should have suspended Belichek for a minimum of 5 games, if not the whole year & fined him $100,000 or more, which would have been more fitting.

To severe you say? I think absolutely not. That is the exact punishment they gave coach Wade Wilson of the Cowboys for admitting he took HGH performance enhancing drugs.

There is no way in hell you'll ever convince me that a coach taking HGH would ever help his teams chances of winning games.

Belichek's video taping did just that. Their should be an outcry from team owners stating that the punishment was to lean.


If they had been cheating for an extended amount of time, don't you think that it would have come out by now? Do you think that Romeo in Cleveland would let it happen when he faced the Pats knowing it was something that they had always done? How about Mangina? Do you think that he would wait until the 4th time he faced the Pats to finally put a stop to it? There is NO WAY that either of those coaches would not rat the Pats out when they became competitors. That says nothing about all of the players who have come and gone, some not so willingly. It would be impossible for Belichek to pull off some long term cheating scheme that really amounted to anything and not have others on his coaching staff know it was happening.

vikes09
09-14-2007, 10:27 PM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:



By who?
Not by me.
I'm not going to make an unsupported trace through 5 years of history and condemn those efforts - that's specious and silly.

I'm kinda of the opinion that the Patriots might have done this TO get caught - so they can get radio transmitters into the helmets of defensive players next year.
The money is a joke to them and they've got 2 first-rounders next year, so losing one ain't all that tough.

=Z=


Wow! That is really reaching Zeus.

They've cheated all this time, trying to get caught, just to get a trasmitter rule passed? LMAO!

The biggest flaw in that theory is they had no idea what the punishment would be beforehand. Was trading for extra picks in next years draft, in case they'd lose some, also part of that master plan?

Sure, it seems light in retrospect now that the punishment has been dealt, but they had no way of knowing how severe the punishment would be.

Goodell could have very easily & should have suspended Belichek for a minimum of 5 games, if not the whole year & fined him $100,000 or more, which would have been more fitting.

To severe you say? I think absolutely not. That is the exact punishment they gave coach Wade Wilson of the Cowboys for admitting he took HGH performance enhancing drugs.

There is no way in hell you'll ever convince me that a coach taking HGH would ever help his teams chances of winning games.

Belichek's video taping did just that. Their should be an outcry from team owners stating that the punishment was to lean.


If they had been cheating for an extended amount of time, don't you think that it would have come out by now? Do you think that Romeo in Cleveland would let it happen when he faced the Pats knowing it was something that they had always done? How about Mangina? Do you think that he would wait until the 4th time he faced the Pats to finally put a stop to it? There is NO WAY that either of those coaches would not rat the Pats out when they became competitors. That says nothing about all of the players who have come and gone, some not so willingly. It would be impossible for Belichek to pull off some long term cheating scheme that really amounted to anything and not have others on his coaching staff know it was happening.


i believe that it HAS come out, but the Packers were beaten badly enough to were they didn't press the issue.

bigbadragz
09-14-2007, 11:08 PM
i dont think that the stealing of the signals is the big deal as much as belicheck outrightly defying godell and continuing to do so.
They go busted for it before and were warned, and week one of the next season he's at it again.
it's sending a message that you don't mess with godell and a punishment like this is gonna prevent teams from even attempting this.

as for the actually stealing, it can help but it's not going to be the difference in a game like the jet game.
and unless they are sending cameramen to any other teams games that they dont play twice a year, i dont think it matters.
the 2nd jet game they might have been able to use that info to their advantage but with the amount of information you have digest, and speed, missed assignments, and so on it can only do so much.
the browns could have all of the steelers signals and they still would get stomped.

singersp
09-14-2007, 11:13 PM
"bigbadragz" wrote:



as for the actually stealing, it can help but it's not going to be the difference in a game like the jet game.




Then why would they do it at such a risk?
;)

bigbadragz
09-14-2007, 11:32 PM
"singersp" wrote:


"bigbadragz" wrote:



as for the actually stealing, it can help but it's not going to be the difference in a game like the jet game.




Then why would they do it at such a risk?
;)

to possibly use that info in the 2nd jet game they play. this is nothing new, coaches dont walk around with play sheets over their mouth for nothing.
what surprises me is the audacity belicheck has to do it again after being warned.
as if godell was joking.


by the way singer, i dont know what else to do but just in case no one else has mentioned it, which i doubt, the viking game is on at 4pm E 3pm C, if you wanna let webby know so viking fans dont go watching the game too early.
it's posted as a 12 oclock game at the top of the main page.

ForceOfNorse
09-15-2007, 03:10 AM
I agree with NODAKPAUL, there IVAN.
I can see the progress and the difference.
I guess you can't.
I for one, am damn tired of the scandals that have taken so much away from MY beloved Purple & Gold!!!!!

Belichick is only proving that day by day, that he is not only a JERK,
but a THIEF, and a LIAR!!!!!!

His "interpretation", MY A_S_S!!!!!!!!



Bottom line is we don't need, or want somebody like that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

singersp
09-15-2007, 10:25 AM
"bigbadragz" wrote:



by the way singer, i dont know what else to do but just in case no one else has mentioned it, which i doubt, the viking game is on at 4pm E 3pm C, if you wanna let webby know so viking fans dont go watching the game too early.
it's posted as a 12 oclock game at the top of the main page.



I signaled it to him. Don't know if he caught the signal, but I'm sure Belichek did.

NordicNed
09-15-2007, 10:30 AM
I don't see us needing or wanting Belichick at this time.


I say we stay with Chiliy and keep the good progress up.....


Chiliy is proving himself to be a much better coach than alot of people gave him credit for.


I've always said, Chiliy has come with a very solid resume, and it anyone can turn us into a winning club again, and grow into being a very good Head Coach himself at the same time.
The Chiliy Mister Can.....
;)

RK.
09-15-2007, 11:05 AM
"NordicNed" wrote:




I don't see us needing or wanting Belichick at this time.



I say we stay with Chiliy and keep the good progress up.....



Chiliy is proving himself to be a much better coach than alot of people gave him credit for.



I've always said, Chiliy has come with a very solid resume, and it anyone can turn us into a winning club again, and grow into being a very good Head Coach himself at the same time.

The Chiliy Mister Can.....
;)

When Childress became the head coach he was considered to be the #1 candidate in the NFL for a head coaching job.
People seem to forget that.

bigbadragz
09-18-2007, 11:29 PM
"singersp" wrote:


"bigbadragz" wrote:



by the way singer, i dont know what else to do but just in case no one else has mentioned it, which i doubt, the viking game is on at 4pm E 3pm C, if you wanna let webby know so viking fans dont go watching the game too early.
it's posted as a 12 oclock game at the top of the main page.



I signaled it to him. Don't know if he caught the signal, but I'm sure Belichek did.

ha ha ha ha

PurpleHornsOfDestruction
09-20-2007, 12:31 AM
"NordicNed" wrote:



I don't see us needing or wanting Belichick at this time.


I say we stay with Chiliy and keep the good progress up.....


Chiliy is proving himself to be a much better coach than alot of people gave him credit for.


I've always said, Chiliy has come with a very solid resume, and it anyone can turn us into a winning club again, and grow into being a very good Head Coach himself at the same time.
The Chiliy Mister Can.....
;)


Wow man. Thats some serious Chilly shades. He hasnt really proved much to me man. What has he proved. He proved that hes a bad play caller, a bad communicater with the players, that he can take a promising 9-7 playoff worthy team to a 6-10 bottom of the barrel team. The he traded up into the 2nd round for a expected 2nd day quarterback who he developed in one year to throw 4 interceptions against one of the worst defenses in the league. I havent seen him proving himself to be a much better coach then people gave him credit for. We may not need Belichick but in my opinion we need someone especially if we go 5-11 or somewhere around that.