Everything I have read makes me think he gets what it takes to be a HC and is willing to work to get it.
IMO he will be a organization changing coach.
But It's a major risk to hire him, he is an unknown.
He has basically only work for one person/organization his whole career.
He checks a lot of boxes but the most difficult one to predict is how Â
an obsessive film guy, shows he puts in the work and knows that there isn't a one-size-fits-all system answer to every game. I also love that by some twisted Belichickian design he has had to like rework their defense on the fly due to the trading away of most of his best defenders almost every season he has been DC. I think he is has been uniquely prepared in contrast to some of the earlier coordinators who had largely static rosters.
an obsessive film guy, shows he puts in the work and knows that there isn't a one-size-fits-all system answer to every game. I also love that by some twisted Belichickian design he has had to like rework their defense on the fly due to the trading away of most of his best defenders almost every season he has been DC. I think he is has been uniquely prepared in contrast to some of the earlier coordinators who had largely static rosters.
Who is responsible for that, Patricia or Belichick? The Patriots are an institution , the lengthened shadow of one man, as Emerson said. The same things you are saying about Mr Wear Your Cap Backwards Like An Asshole was once said of Romeo Crennel .
Mara hiring this guy. For all I know he's incredibly smart and a good coach, but just don't see him commanding the room and leading a group of men. Especially with the way McAdoo flamed out, not sure they would take a chance on an oddball type guy.
very skeptical of BB assistants. Definitely don't want McDaniels. Â
First of all, it's Belichick's defense, secondly, the D sucks. Next to last in yards per play, 28th in total yards - why is he a serious candidate? At least McDaniels runs the offense, and it is one of the best in the league.
an obsessive film guy, shows he puts in the work and knows that there isn't a one-size-fits-all system answer to every game. I also love that by some twisted Belichickian design he has had to like rework their defense on the fly due to the trading away of most of his best defenders almost every season he has been DC. I think he is has been uniquely prepared in contrast to some of the earlier coordinators who had largely static rosters.
Who is responsible for that, Patricia or Belichick? The Patriots are an institution , the lengthened shadow of one man, as Emerson said. The same things you are saying about Mr Wear Your Cap Backwards Like An Asshole was once said of Romeo Crennel .
Belichick has been grooming Patricia for 14 years. Came up the same way Belichick did.
Very smart, hard working, inventive, and his players respect him.
RE: Again, I don't see the attraction with this guy. Â
First of all, it's Belichick's defense, secondly, the D sucks. Next to last in yards per play, 28th in total yards - why is he a serious candidate? At least McDaniels runs the offense, and it is one of the best in the league.
Belichick and Parcells both come from the school of the only defensive stat that matters is points allowed.
Patriots are 5th best.
And if you watch the Patriots one thing I admire about their defense, especially lately is how they improve throughout a season.
After the Texans game, I thought holy shit that defense is awful, they then lost their best player and defensive leader, and gradually no-names and bodies began to learn their assignments and the defense improved week by week.
Of course if you simply look at a stat sheet and say "they're whatever in yards allowed they suck" then you have your opinion.
but I doubt that's how successful decision makers would view things.
The legit question is how much "coaching up" or scheming is BB vs Patricia and none of us knows that.
But as I said yesterday in a post there was a couple year stretch maybe between before O'Brien that Belichick had no OC and he's had no DC at times.
I don't hear people claiming Belichick to be an offensive genius since he was de facto OC for years with a successful offense.
None of us knows is really the answer (about who has the influence on scheme and play call for either side of the ball).
They've been rolling along like clockwork for 15 years, despite many changes in the roster and the coaching staff. The only constants have been Belichick and Brady. What does that tell you about the importance of their assistant coaches?
RE: Again, I don't see the attraction with this guy. Â
First of all, it's Belichick's defense, secondly, the D sucks. Next to last in yards per play, 28th in total yards - why is he a serious candidate? At least McDaniels runs the offense, and it is one of the best in the league.
Well, one has Tom Brady. That's a big chip.
What does their defense have? They are very pedestrian.
They've been rolling along like clockwork for 15 years, despite many changes in the roster and the coaching staff. The only constants have been Belichick and Brady. What does that tell you about the importance of their assistant coaches?
The problem with this line of thinking is that it implies that Belicheck keeps guys around who aren't high performers. That seems really unlikely to me.
(IMO at least, maybe some of you are psychology experts or otherwise savants)
Belichick had to scribble on a napkin "I resign as HC from the NYJ" doesn't seem really commanding to me and if you listen to many of his early press conferences he doesn't exactly exude leadership.
When you talk about constants in New England, yes, Belichick and Brady are the stalwarts but Matt Patricia has been there since 2004.
The problem with this line of thinking is that it implies that Belicheck keeps guys around who aren't high performers. That seems really unlikely to me.
Well, think about it this way: the Patriots have gotten the most out of a lot of players who weren't really stars, guys who played better for NE than they did anywhere else. Belichick is a genius at maximizing what players can do and minimizing what they can't do. I suspect a similar dynamic is at play with his coaching staff. They're very good in the roles he puts them in.
PJ, yes, he's been there since 2004, but he was a minor assistant or position coach for the first eight of those seasons. How much of a role he played in the 2004-2011 Patriots' success is debatable IMO.
and those two coordinators have a lot to do with it, but we don't know how they'll command a room or what type of manager they will be. Some guys are just not cut out to be a Head Coach. There's a lot more to it them just Xs and Os.
The problem with this line of thinking is that it implies that Belicheck keeps guys around who aren't high performers. That seems really unlikely to me.
Well, think about it this way: the Patriots have gotten the most out of a lot of players who weren't really stars, guys who played better for NE than they did anywhere else. Belichick is a genius at maximizing what players can do and minimizing what they can't do. I suspect a similar dynamic is at play with his coaching staff. They're very good in the roles he puts them in.
PJ, yes, he's been there since 2004, but he was a minor assistant or position coach for the first eight of those seasons. How much of a role he played in the 2004-2011 Patriots' success is debatable IMO.
I'm not saying he played a role in their success per se or how much or a role, but he was perhaps indoctrinated into it "the patriot way" and well versed in the methods and scheme and operations, etc.
I just find it very hard to believe that Belichick and only Belichick from the FO/Coaching tree can be successful anywhere.
Just because others haven't been successful elsewhere doesn't mean the next guy can't be. That's short sighted.
Now, I'm also not suggesting Patricia would be the best candidate, but I wouldn't eliminate him simply because other Patriots coordinators have failed.
People who say blindly and parrot-like "not interested in anyone from New England, that's all Belichick and Brady" sound foolish.
So far, they aren't favorable to ex-Patriots assistants. Maybe Patricia is the guy to change that perception, but I'm going to be skeptical of him until he proves otherwise.
So far, they aren't favorable to ex-Patriots assistants. Maybe Patricia is the guy to change that perception, but I'm going to be skeptical of him until he proves otherwise.
It's a risk, no doubt, which is why the decision is so critical.
You can't hire a college guy without risk, even someone like Saban. Can't hire a retread without risk and a stink of failure on him (even a guy like Gruden or Cowher).
can't hire an inexperienced coordinator without risk that he sucks as a head coach.
So you interview, do the most thorough job and trust your evaluators and decision makers.
From a Giants standpoint I'd look at for example who made the call on Coughlin vs who made the call on McAdoo.
If it was the same person, it just highlights even selecting a coach is a crapshoot.
Also, Belichick wouldn't be the first highly successful coach Â
to not have much of a coaching tree. Coughlin, of course, had mostly undistinguished coordinators. Don Shula's another one - coached in 5 Super Bowls, won 2 of them, yet the only head coaches I can think of who worked under him were Chuck Noll and Bill Arnsparger.
RE: Also, Belichick wouldn't be the first highly successful coach Â
to not have much of a coaching tree. Coughlin, of course, had mostly undistinguished coordinators. Don Shula's another one - coached in 5 Super Bowls, won 2 of them, yet the only head coaches I can think of who worked under him were Chuck Noll and Bill Arnsparger.
Chuck Noll has 4 SB wins. How many coaching trees have yielded 4 SB wins?
Parcells? Is he the only one with more b/c of Belichick, Coughlin and Payton?
Still, you'd think a guy who coached as long and as successfully as Shula would have more notable names who served as his assistants than one legend who was his DC for two seasons in Baltimore in the late '60s. It's a bit surprising.
I guess but coaching trees are kind of sketchy anyway Â
so many people move around early in their careers who is to say Belichick "belongs" to Parcells more than any of the three NFL stops he had before joining the Giants (which was under Ray Perkins).
Why aren't Belichick and Parcells on the Ray Perkins coaching tree?
Crennel was on those Ray Perkins staffs, why is Crennel on the Belichick tree and not Perkins?
Anyway, point is there is risk in any hire, I don't see how Matt Patricia is any more risky than Wilks or Gruden, or anyone else.
So much is made of the Walsh tree when many of the guys attributed to him never even coached for Walsh himself, but instead were assistants to Walsh's former assistants.
You can find Patricia interviews on the Patriots official Â
I want a defensive minded HC. We haven’t had one since Parcells. He doesn’t have HC experience, but he’s learned under Belichick and has coached both sides of the ball. Adam Schefter has said he’s smart enough to be a GM.
Co-HCs would do THAT!!!!!
He's kind of an egg-head, but he seems to be a great communicator.
Billichick is cut from the same mold - A real weirdo, but super-smart and a great on-the-fly innovator.
IMO he will be a organization changing coach.
But It's a major risk to hire him, he is an unknown.
He has basically only work for one person/organization his whole career.
Who is responsible for that, Patricia or Belichick? The Patriots are an institution , the lengthened shadow of one man, as Emerson said. The same things you are saying about Mr Wear Your Cap Backwards Like An Asshole was once said of Romeo Crennel .
Quote:
an obsessive film guy, shows he puts in the work and knows that there isn't a one-size-fits-all system answer to every game. I also love that by some twisted Belichickian design he has had to like rework their defense on the fly due to the trading away of most of his best defenders almost every season he has been DC. I think he is has been uniquely prepared in contrast to some of the earlier coordinators who had largely static rosters.
Who is responsible for that, Patricia or Belichick? The Patriots are an institution , the lengthened shadow of one man, as Emerson said. The same things you are saying about Mr Wear Your Cap Backwards Like An Asshole was once said of Romeo Crennel .
Belichick has been grooming Patricia for 14 years. Came up the same way Belichick did.
Very smart, hard working, inventive, and his players respect him.
Belichick and Parcells both come from the school of the only defensive stat that matters is points allowed.
Patriots are 5th best.
And if you watch the Patriots one thing I admire about their defense, especially lately is how they improve throughout a season.
After the Texans game, I thought holy shit that defense is awful, they then lost their best player and defensive leader, and gradually no-names and bodies began to learn their assignments and the defense improved week by week.
Of course if you simply look at a stat sheet and say "they're whatever in yards allowed they suck" then you have your opinion.
but I doubt that's how successful decision makers would view things.
The legit question is how much "coaching up" or scheming is BB vs Patricia and none of us knows that.
But as I said yesterday in a post there was a couple year stretch maybe between before O'Brien that Belichick had no OC and he's had no DC at times.
I don't hear people claiming Belichick to be an offensive genius since he was de facto OC for years with a successful offense.
None of us knows is really the answer (about who has the influence on scheme and play call for either side of the ball).
even if it is just because we don't know what we're getting with him, while we know exactly what we are getting with McDaniels.
Well, one has Tom Brady. That's a big chip.
What does their defense have? They are very pedestrian.
How is he with the media? Would he be at least decent with the media?
Last thing I want is the so called smartest guy in the room with no personality skills.
The problem with this line of thinking is that it implies that Belicheck keeps guys around who aren't high performers. That seems really unlikely to me.
Belichick had to scribble on a napkin "I resign as HC from the NYJ" doesn't seem really commanding to me and if you listen to many of his early press conferences he doesn't exactly exude leadership.
When you talk about constants in New England, yes, Belichick and Brady are the stalwarts but Matt Patricia has been there since 2004.
He's been to 5 Super Bowls with them.
How is he with the media? Would he be at least decent with the media?
Last thing I want is the so called smartest guy in the room with no personality skills.
The Pats don't allow their assistant coaches to talk to the media. So we really don't know.
Well, think about it this way: the Patriots have gotten the most out of a lot of players who weren't really stars, guys who played better for NE than they did anywhere else. Belichick is a genius at maximizing what players can do and minimizing what they can't do. I suspect a similar dynamic is at play with his coaching staff. They're very good in the roles he puts them in.
PJ, yes, he's been there since 2004, but he was a minor assistant or position coach for the first eight of those seasons. How much of a role he played in the 2004-2011 Patriots' success is debatable IMO.
Really, though, there's no way of knowing what kind of coach he might be unless somebody here is sitting in on the interview.
Is it? How do we know?
Quote:
The problem with this line of thinking is that it implies that Belicheck keeps guys around who aren't high performers. That seems really unlikely to me.
Well, think about it this way: the Patriots have gotten the most out of a lot of players who weren't really stars, guys who played better for NE than they did anywhere else. Belichick is a genius at maximizing what players can do and minimizing what they can't do. I suspect a similar dynamic is at play with his coaching staff. They're very good in the roles he puts them in.
PJ, yes, he's been there since 2004, but he was a minor assistant or position coach for the first eight of those seasons. How much of a role he played in the 2004-2011 Patriots' success is debatable IMO.
I'm not saying he played a role in their success per se or how much or a role, but he was perhaps indoctrinated into it "the patriot way" and well versed in the methods and scheme and operations, etc.
I just find it very hard to believe that Belichick and only Belichick from the FO/Coaching tree can be successful anywhere.
Just because others haven't been successful elsewhere doesn't mean the next guy can't be. That's short sighted.
Now, I'm also not suggesting Patricia would be the best candidate, but I wouldn't eliminate him simply because other Patriots coordinators have failed.
People who say blindly and parrot-like "not interested in anyone from New England, that's all Belichick and Brady" sound foolish.
It's a risk, no doubt, which is why the decision is so critical.
You can't hire a college guy without risk, even someone like Saban. Can't hire a retread without risk and a stink of failure on him (even a guy like Gruden or Cowher).
can't hire an inexperienced coordinator without risk that he sucks as a head coach.
So you interview, do the most thorough job and trust your evaluators and decision makers.
From a Giants standpoint I'd look at for example who made the call on Coughlin vs who made the call on McAdoo.
If it was the same person, it just highlights even selecting a coach is a crapshoot.
Chuck Noll has 4 SB wins. How many coaching trees have yielded 4 SB wins?
Parcells? Is he the only one with more b/c of Belichick, Coughlin and Payton?
Noll is a pretty big name.
Why aren't Belichick and Parcells on the Ray Perkins coaching tree?
Crennel was on those Ray Perkins staffs, why is Crennel on the Belichick tree and not Perkins?
Anyway, point is there is risk in any hire, I don't see how Matt Patricia is any more risky than Wilks or Gruden, or anyone else.