You just said there's no excuses for rookies, that if they're on the field they have to play well. That's about as untrue and unfair of a statement that you can make about football. 99+% of rookies HAVE to develop, which means taking their lumps and making mistakes along the way, a few years worth for many. It's a part of football. I'm not sure how you're even arguing against this.
If you're on an NFL field you have to perform, end of story. And half the players I mentioned aren't rookies.
... and why are you comparing a 6th rounder's worth to a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd rounder's? He's a 6th rounder. Do you not understand that? When you get all dressed up and head to Applesbees do you throw your plate at the waiter b/c the $12 NY strip doesn't taste like Ruth Chris's? <that's a steakhouse by the way>
So why is he on the field? If you're on an NFL field you have to perform no matter where you were drafted. No excuses.
Soooo what happens in between going from college junior or senior to seasoned NFL vets? Where does that development occur? You gonna keep 'em on the sideline for 3 or 4 years until they're as little of a liability as possible or are you gonna give them some early snaps to speed up their curve? Serpico's team: 99% of his rookies would hit their contract year w/o ever playing a down. "Do we re-sign them, do we not re-sign them?" "I don't know." "How much do we pay them?" "I don't know that either; they never saw the field."
No but most teams don't keep a GM employed that has put a losing product on the field for 4 straight years.
That's bull**** and demonstrably not true. Its clear reality is more of a "nice place to visit but don't want to live there" kind of thing for you.
"my views"? They're not my views. They're simple realities of the NFL. You don't judge players on their rookie year. Period. Do you go around arguing college freshman should be playing as well and consistent as their starting senior counterparts?
How is it not true? What other team has allowed an individual that has put together 4 straight losing seasons continue with his job? Matt Millen? Who else?
So then why are you complaining about all these other guys? We found our QB, so the rest should be history right?
I don't like Ruth Chris either but I figured most people should know it. The Palm in Vegas? I always thought Houston's had the most underrated filet for the money around. Hard to beat a thick, aged, prime filet over wood fire grill for under 40 bucks and w/o having to pay for your side item ala carte.
Nope, no more than you know all our young players are busts this early in their careers. See how that works?.... or would you like to be a hypocrite?
I give Philbin a pass because the roster is so weak. Wake, Pouncey, Burnett, Dansby and Jones are probable starters on most other teams. Everyone else, not so much. Maybe Misi, I'm not sure.
Bollocks. Everything you said up until that was accurate. BB is better than Lombardi, Shula, Walsh, Noll, and Madden. K. At least those new laws up in WA are being put to good use!
I'm sure the majority of posters on here can't stand Belichick on Sundays when we play New England. But damnit, he can coach a good football team. It's sickening to see that time prosper year after year. Hate the man, but I respect him. Would kill to have him on our side.
175-97 career record with a 64.3 win% 17-7 post season record 3 Super Bowl wins in 5 appearances In New England alone: 139-53 record (72.4%) and a 16-6 (72.7%) in the post season. Looks pretty damn good to me.
No one said that he's a bad coach, but he's not the best of all time, either. He's borderline top 5, but when one of the men ahead of him is, debatably, the most important sports figure in Miami history, it's inexcusable to make statements like that.
BS. Theres such a thing as roles on a team. Some players just arent starters and being thrust in to that role a rookie when youre also adopting to different schemes and speed of the game changes can not only contribute to making a player look bad it can cripple their confidence and hamper their development. Those are the last two things you want. You want your players thinking theyre unstoppable, not worrying about what if's. So would Brady be a career loser without Belicheck? I mean after all he couldnt hold a job as Michigan QB or beat out Drew Bledsoe. He needed Bledsoe to get hurt to become a starter.
That can be said for nearly every NFL team. Most teams have players who wouldn't start for every team, or else most of their defense would be headed to Hawaii. Not sure why you're omitting Starks & Soliai..... and SS would start for a lot of teams. Ditto for Misi.
Shula had as good a QB as Belichick, so why only 1 SB appearance with him, and why only 2 SB appearances <no wins> over his final 20+ years?
Shula did the same thing. His 38 year old backup Qb led them on into the playoffs and a good portion of an undefeated season.
We have to see how Belichicken does once Brady retires. We already know that Shula did excellent in 4 decades with more than just one Qb. Bellycheck has a great chance to end up the best but he has a ways to go.
The only downside I foresee is retaining Sherman and Ireland. Unless Philbin has lots of input for FA and the draft.
But it wasn't when Sparano was here? He got fired because we were loaded with talent and he was unable to make it happen. We have almost exactly the same rooster, with exceptions that coach made (Vonte, Marshall) That's what most were screaming they wanted. So we either have **** talent or we don't??
Shula went to superbowl with woodley/strock!!! He took us to playoffs with dan marino, a good oline, a couple of very good receivers and....nothing else... (when the League was not as passhappy as now) He went undefeated , goes to 3 straight superbowl, won 2... He won consistently through 3 decades!! different rules between the 70s and the 80s and the 90s? who cares, Shula was always a winning coach (How many losing season he had? 2? in how many decades of coachin?!) He went to SuperBowl in 3 different decades.... I don't remember being outcoached, even when he was freaking old... I think it is just that he couldn't draft (really, looking back to some drafts between 80s&90s...sad), but as a coach I think he is the best or at least top3... I think BB is the best in the modern era, because the new challenges of free agency etc, but being honest, we don't know if he could win consistently without Brady (not just one year with Moss&Walker helping to cover Cassell's limits), I am not saying he couldn't...just we don't know... Sometime I think Shula is underrated, I don't know how is it possible with all the records he got. As a sunday coach I don't know how many could just compare to him. As a GM...different story sorry for the OT
