Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

printable version

Extra Points

Articles from around the Web


blog advertising is good for you
Need Help with KUBIAK or Premium?


05 Feb 2010

Patriots to Go Without Coordinators in 2010

The Patriots today announced that they will not hire a defensive coordinator to replace the outgoing Dean Pees. Bill Belichick will be de facto coordinator. Of course, Bill Belichick is also the de facto offensive coordinator. The Patriots will be the first team since... well, since anybody can remember to have no official coordinators. Belichick can't possibly run things on both sides of the ball, so this probably turns QB coach Bill O'Brien into the new de facto OC, the same path Josh McDaniels traveled.

Some people may hold up this decision as an example of Belichick's colossal ego. "He thinks he can run the whole team without coordinators!" I don't think that's the case. The leading candidate to replace Pees was rumored to be LB coach Matt Patricia. However, a lot of observers felt that DL coach Pepper Johnson wanted the job as well. By going a year without a coordinator, Belichick can keep both Patricia and Johnson on staff, not offending one by promoting the other. Now, eventually, Belichick is probably going to have to make one of these guys the coordinator. But at least he gets another year to decide. The only question might be: Why not give Bill O'Brien the official promotion to OC, which wouldn't offend anyone?

Posted by: Aaron Schatz on 05 Feb 2010

59 comments, Last at 09 Feb 2010, 12:49pm by Still Alive

Comments

1
by fyo :: Fri, 02/05/2010 - 6:38pm

The only question might be: Why not give Bill O'Brien the official promotion to OC, which wouldn't offend anyone?

Bill Belichick's colossal ego?

2
by andrew :: Fri, 02/05/2010 - 6:56pm

Its not so unusual. The Lions have been going without a defense at all for years...

3
by MarkB (not verified) :: Fri, 02/05/2010 - 7:06pm

Other coaches act as their own coordinators on one side of the ball - you don't need a colossal ego for that. And O'Brien is the OC with training wheels.

Given the evidence, don't you think BB SHOULD have a colossal ego in any case? The requirement for fake humility is about as reasonable as the requirement for fake virginity. If she's smokin' hot, I don't expect her to tell me she's a virgin. It demeans her, and it insults me.

30
by Paul R :: Sat, 02/06/2010 - 10:31pm

Of the -approximately- 88.3 trillion posts on the internet, this is the only one to contain both the phrases "Bill Belichick" and "smokin' hot."

FO should have it framed.

59
by Still Alive (not verified) :: Tue, 02/09/2010 - 12:49pm

except it doesn't? What an odd comment...

4
by BroncosGuy (not verified) :: Fri, 02/05/2010 - 7:34pm

so this probably turns QB coach Bill O'Brien into the new de facto OC, the same path Josh McDaniels traveled.

In related news, Bill O'Brien's head has swelled to the size of an acromegalic turkey, and he's developed a unique plan eschewing actually scouting the draft in favor of wasting three first-round picks on various mediocrities. Also, Tom Brady and Randy Moss will soon be run out of Boston sporting tar and feathers.

Dang, I was making so much progress with the bitterness thing, but now its back. My apologies to the community, and I'm accepting donations to fund further psychotherapy.

5
by ammek :: Fri, 02/05/2010 - 7:40pm

Isn't Belichick the de facto GM, too?

BB needs to read some Shakespeare, or some big ol' history books. He'll find out what happens to great leaders who overstretch themselves, or surround themselves with youngsters who owe everything to the Master.

Superficially, there isn't much to like about this move.

14
by Bobman :: Sat, 02/06/2010 - 3:42am

While you have a point, I'll wait til he starts a land war in Asia before counting the Pats out entirely.

But viewed through my blue horseshoe glasses, this looks like promising news....

37
by RickD :: Sun, 02/07/2010 - 11:29am

They become the first coach in 20 years to win three Super Bowls?

40
by loneweasel (not verified) :: Sun, 02/07/2010 - 11:35am

*

46
by DavidL :: Sun, 02/07/2010 - 12:14pm

That's what made him a great leader. The overstretching happened since 2004-2005.

53
by PantsB (not verified) :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 12:37am

First head coach to lead his team to a 16-0 regular season and break most offensive records?

6
by starzero :: Fri, 02/05/2010 - 8:05pm

now, help me out here. people keep saying that manning runs the colts offense, with tom moore just giving him some ideas. if brady's really such a great qb, why can't he run the offense? why do they need an oc at all?

on a different note, people have said for years that belichick is a genius coach. he makes great in-game decisions, he has the guts to take the necessary risks, and he has the record to show for it. is it possible that really he's just crazy lucky? he's makes all sorts of gambles and almost all of them pay off? so many that when he loses one people jump all over it for the rest of the season. that seems farfetched, but he does make a lot of unconventional decisions. only after 4th-and-2 have people started questioning them.

--
hail damage

7
by Teff Torbes (not verified) :: Fri, 02/05/2010 - 8:46pm

Look at 3rd down/4th down conversion rates for the Pats over any period of time in recent memory.

They're good, but nothing special.

If they were significantly luckier than other teams, it'd show in the numbers. Even when the offense wasn't good, they put themselves in winnable situations, one way or another.

And some more food for thought:

If they make a game breaking play in a close game, consider looking back and seeing where they could have made a stop, or made a 1st down on an attempt where they failed. Usually, you'll find something. Vinatieri missed a pair of FGs against the Panthers. The whole team collapsed against the Colts in '06.

They've had their fair share of luck, both good and bad. The 2001 team got more than their fair share... but the '05 and '08 teams (And the end of the '07 super bowl, too), not so much! Any team that makes it to and win the superbowl needs a bit of luck at some point in their path, if you look at games like weighted coin flips.

15
by Jerry :: Sat, 02/06/2010 - 5:09am

Is this about Coach Will Welichick in the book "Football Colors"?

More seriously, there's always some luck involved. Belichick got much more out of a sixth-round QB than anyone would expect. But an extended run of success like the Pats have had makes it extremely unlikely that there's not skill involved as well.

25
by Richard :: Sat, 02/06/2010 - 6:36pm

It's hard to completely discount the cheating.

38
by RickD :: Sun, 02/07/2010 - 11:33am

Only if you think that the Pats were alone in what they did, or that they really gained a huge advantage from what they did.

What did they do? Videotape the other sideline. This didn't reveal any information that they couldn't have gotten legally from a guy with binoculars.

It's not like they were sneaking around the practice facilities. What they did (videotape a game from the stands) was something any fan could do any day.

I still don't understand why people get mental about this.

48
by Johnny Socko (not verified) :: Sun, 02/07/2010 - 4:37pm

Brian Billick thinks they were along in doing this. See the extra point titled "NRR Interview with Brian Billick".

49
by Eddo :: Sun, 02/07/2010 - 5:32pm

*alone*

("along" implies the opposite of what Billick thinks, which is that the Patriots committed a extreme act of cheating)

50
by Johnny Socko (not verified) :: Sun, 02/07/2010 - 6:31pm

Yep. It should also be *NPR*. Sigh, its sad I need an editor for a two sentence reply.

8
by towishimp (not verified) :: Fri, 02/05/2010 - 8:53pm

@3: He has reason to be confident, yes, but I think this is the act of someone with a problematicly large ego.

Andy Reid is a solid offensive mind, but he still has an Offensive Coordinator. Dungy in Tampa was a defensive head coach, but still had a Defensive Coordinator. This wouldn't be news if it wasn't out of the ordinary.

Maybe the Pats' staff gets along well enough and are a good enough team to make this work. But otherwise it seems to me that the Head Coach will be the ultimate authority for too many things. Can he really be primarily responsible for talent evaluation, running the offense, running the defense, and managing games, all at once? I know he's a good coach, but that's a lot for one man.

Maybe it's just a scheme to save money in the bad economy?

9
by DrewTS (not verified) :: Fri, 02/05/2010 - 9:07pm

"By going a year without a coordinator, Belichick can keep both Patricia and Johnson on staff, not offending one by promoting the other."

I'm not sure how that works. If you want a promotion, and you think you deserve it, and you don't get it... you're not going to be happy. If you get passed over in favor of leaving the position vacant, I'm not sure how that can be taken as anything other than your boss having a lack of confidence in you. I'm not saying one guy or the other deserved it, but I can't imagine this leaves them anything other than annoyed.

10
by Kibbles :: Fri, 02/05/2010 - 10:09pm

Annoyed, maybe... but the fact that the position is still vacant means they still have a chance to earn that promotion. If the other guy was promoted, then they would no longer have a chance to earn the promotion.

I know I've put up with annoyances when I felt that there was an opportunity for advancement.

17
by DrewTS (not verified) :: Sat, 02/06/2010 - 10:43am

Yes, they still have a chance to earn the promotion, but my bet is that they both feel like they already have earned the promotion, and that they're now being jerked around. Thus, you end up with 2 half-pissed-off guys, instead of one happy guy and one all-pissed-off guy. I'm not sure if that's a net gain or not, but it's certainly not a great outcome.

I guess my point is, if I was one of these guys, right about now, I'd be questioning whether there really was an "opportunity for advancement" here, or if I'm just being strung along.

12
by B :: Fri, 02/05/2010 - 11:32pm

It's better than the Mad Men approach where you tell both guys they have the job, then let them each control half the defense.

20
by Noah of Arkadia :: Sat, 02/06/2010 - 11:35am

It's like losing your starting job to hole-in-the-zone.

What I'd find really annoying is if I had to do coordinator duties but not get paid or recognized for it. The alternative is that Belichick will in fact be both coordinators, which seems pretty foolhardy no matter how you look at it.

I already said before that one day the loss in the SB against the Giants would be recognized as the beginning of the end for the Pats/Belichick dynasty, so all on cue as far as I'm concerned.

23
by MarkB (not verified) :: Sat, 02/06/2010 - 6:18pm

So the Patriots win every game during the regular season, often by outrageous margins, get to the Super Bowl, and lose on a crazy play at the very end, and on that evidence you saw the beginning of the end? Really? I suppose in that moment, as the football balanced on the side of the receiver's head, you saw Tom Brady getting knocked out for the season in the first game of the next season too. That's some crystal ball you've got there.

35
by DrewTS (not verified) :: Sun, 02/07/2010 - 9:26am

Well, technically, he said he said it "before", not "at the time". I actually had the exact same thought the other day as I was reading Bill Simmons' column, and he mentioned something about the Patriots salad days coming to a close. If that is in fact the case, I suspect that Tyree's catch will be remembered as the moment it all turned. Not saying that's necessarily true, but it does provide a convenient single moment in time for the story-driven sports culture.

39
by RickD :: Sun, 02/07/2010 - 11:33am

I'm guessing Belichick knows Johnson and Patricia better than you do.

11
by MJK :: Fri, 02/05/2010 - 10:29pm

This is interesting, especially because some of the coaching staff in New England (Belichick included) have commented in interviews that part of the Pats problems this year stemmed from the fact that the "Old Guard" of coaches that came up with Belichick are now gone, and none of the new guys promoted from within had enough guts to challenge him if they disagreed with him. This lead essentially to a "groupthink" phenomenon where, when Belichick made a mistake (and he admits to making some), no one called him on it or pointed it out till too late.

Belichick said he was going to try to rectify that and cultivate a culture where his subordinates would be brave enough to gainsay him. However, this seems like a step in the opposite direction. It implies that he doesn't have enough confidence in any of his subordinates to put them in a clearly defined position where they have the official job duty of pointing out his mistakes.

13
by Rick A. (not verified) :: Sat, 02/06/2010 - 3:02am

Belichick is headed for a mental breakdown next year. I'm calling it.

56
by BrewCrew (not verified) :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 10:44am

Even as a Patriots fan I think I'd really enjoy the spectacle. Nothing personal against him. Honestly, he's been living and breathing football as a head coach for a decade now, and he gets as much or more scrutiny than any other person in the league. He's gotta give sometime

16
by OmrothLOL (not verified) :: Sat, 02/06/2010 - 6:39am

And here's *another* XP post I assumed was a link to The Onion.

19
by Theo :: Sat, 02/06/2010 - 11:01am

I really thought that too.

18
by t.d. :: Sat, 02/06/2010 - 10:55am

Hubris has worked out pretty well for Bellicheck so far, so why not?

21
by Purds :: Sat, 02/06/2010 - 1:26pm

I thought I read somewhere on the Globe or Herald site that this was being seen as a way for Kraft to save money as well. Seems really weird to me, as though NO ONE outside the Pats organization would be worthy of bringing in, if the two internal guys aren't good enough to earn it yet? Of course, as a Colts fan with a long-term agenda of hating the praise heaped on BB, I vote that it's an ego move.

(More honestly, I don't see why it's not an ego thing. Aaron says he doesn't think that's the case, but his reasoning is that BB is able, then, to postpone the decision for a year. Postponing for a year isn't leadership. BB has postponed so many things at this point, I'm not sure what he's doing. He's go t about 40 draft picks this year, but had no pass rush this season. A couple of years ago, before Moss and Welker, he postponed getting WR's a year too late, and they lost to Indy in the AFCC. If I were a Pats fan, I'd want a little more immediacy from BB)

57
by MCS :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 11:39am

I thought the business model in the NFL was for the organization to pay the Head Coach and the Head coach paid the assistants. If true, the lack of coordinators does not save the organization any money. It does however, save Belichick some money. Perhaps to build a retirement home?

22
by greybeard :: Sat, 02/06/2010 - 5:32pm

Here is my conspiracy theory:
Bellichick plans to retire after 2010 season. But before retiring he wants to show the world he is the best coach ever, by winning a super bowl as a head coach, offensive and defensive coordinator, and GM.

24
by MarkB (not verified) :: Sat, 02/06/2010 - 6:27pm

BB's system is to bring people up through the ranks. He lost Weiss and Crennell, who were closer to co-workers. Then he lost Mangina and McDaniels. Is it surprising that the cupboard is a little thin? When you bring in experienced co-ordinators, they want to use their own systems, not plug and chug and get no credit. Belichick already has systems in place, so he goes with the New Guy on offence, and takes over defense to try to straighten shit out on that side of the ball.

As a Patriots fan who remembers Babe Parelli, I can say with no hesitation In Bill I Trust. Even when the team reached the Super Bowl in the past, no one took them seriously around the country. Three Super Bowl wins later, he can do no wrong. My fan success bank is full to the top for the rest of my life.

26
by Purds :: Sat, 02/06/2010 - 7:29pm

"he can do no wrong"

There's your mistake. For how long is he untouchable, and for how bad a mistake will you forgive him? I'm not saying he's done anything egregious recently, but that unadulterated faith can be a problem. For example, Yankee fans were ticked when Joe Torre, he of 4 WS wins in 5 years, and 12 straight playoff appearances, was let go. Yet, can you really argue that the Yankees didn't do the right thing when they moved on to Joe Girardi? Sure, they missed the playoffs in 2008, but then won the WS in 2009, and I am not sure Torre's style of hanging on to veterans would have brought that title. They won without clinging to the past (like Bernie Williams). Yeah, you can say NY brought in a bunch of high-priced free agents in 2009, but didn't they do that every year?

I guess I am saying that at some point, every franchise, every business, every team, needs a fresh voice, a fresh look. NE at some point will need that, but with your statement, it looks like it will be much too late by the time NE fans get to that point.

27
by Purds :: Sat, 02/06/2010 - 7:35pm

In addition, has BB's defensive scheme been so great lately that he should shun an outsider? FO has his defense DVOA as:

2009: #17
2008: #21
2007: #12
2006: #7
2005: #27 (really?)

Before that, the defense was pretty consistently hot, I agree, but is BB's system as shown above, averaging a ranking of #17, really so good that he shouldn't go outside, especially if he's going to run the offense as well?

41
by RickD :: Sun, 02/07/2010 - 11:37am

The drop-off in the Pats' defense from 2004 to present is largely due to the personnel involved. It's not like Belichick has suddenly become a different coach.

I think there is plenty of room to criticize Belichick the GM. But Belichick the coach should bring in a defensive coordinator because he's not good enough? It's a comical assertion.

58
by MCS :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 11:42am

Perhaps he should make gameplan adjustments to fit the personnel he has? A coach's responsibility is to put his players in a position to succeed. It appears the Patriot defensive players haven't been there for some time.

The concept certainly isn't comical.

34
by ammek :: Sun, 02/07/2010 - 8:54am

Everyone's system is "to bring people up through the ranks" — this is not a testament to the unique genius of Bill Belichick. (And it's a load of crap — didn't Belichick hire Dom Capers in 2008?) In any case, it requires two things:

1) An ability to find, attract, and keep for as long as possible the best young coaching talent, so that when a vacancy arises, you can fill it from within. I am not sure the season sans coordinator is evidence of this.

2) The ability to be flexible, so that if you suddenly lose (or fire) your coordinators, you can replace them with the best individual available. This may be an outsider.

As it stands, BB's answers to 'who is the best offensive coordinator available' and 'who is the best defensive coordinator available' are apparently the same: myself. Even Parcells' all-consuming ego never went that far.

42
by RickD :: Sun, 02/07/2010 - 11:40am

Enough with the insults. Get your facts straight. Belichick doesn't call the offensive plays. It doesn't mean he has a "massive ego". In 2005 the Pats didn't have an offensive coordinator. They just let Josh McDaniels call the plays.

Were you calling Belichick an egomaniac then?

It really seems like people go out of their way to insult Belichick or to call him an egomaniac. Why is he an egomaniac? Because he does things his own way??

That alone does not make an egomaniac.

28
by Samson151 (not verified) :: Sat, 02/06/2010 - 8:37pm

Does this mean the players will be uncoordinated?

36
by DrewTS (not verified) :: Sun, 02/07/2010 - 9:31am

+1

29
by clark :: Sat, 02/06/2010 - 9:18pm

I believe the last coach who didn't have coordinators was Tom Landry, and it got ugly at the end.

31
by Herm? (not verified) :: Sat, 02/06/2010 - 11:24pm

yeah, another thread of calling Belichick an egomaniac. I didn't read through the thread, but did it get to the part where no Patriots fan calls Belichick a genius, but people who hate him say it sarcastically so they can tear him down?
Or did anyone reference the Globe or Herald, where both have absolutely no clue regarding the motive behind this?

Why the heck would a team with hundreds of millions of dollars try to save less than 1% of their revenue through this move?
But for the record, it IS nerveracking that the coaching staff is generally young/new/unproven. But Pees had to go. O'Brien is on a short leash - the no 3rd receiver and no carry the load runningback excuse won't last much longer.

32
by Purds :: Sun, 02/07/2010 - 1:48am

Okay, Herm?, as you clearly DID read the posts but then tried to act so wise in your snarky first response, then YOU tell us why the Pats will have no coordinators next year. You have all the answers, so share your brilliance with us simpletons, assuming that we're worthy of your largess.

33
by Purds :: Sun, 02/07/2010 - 1:51am

Oh, and to the "yeah, another thread of calling Belichick an egomaniac" comment.

Maybe there are so many threads like this because BB just might be an egomaniac.

Wait, I didn't say that, I didn't insult the great BB who can do no wrong, ever. I am sorry. I will go watch NESN for 12 straight hours chanting "In Bill We Trust" over and over and over until I have been purged of my sin.

43
by RickD :: Sun, 02/07/2010 - 11:42am

"Maybe there are so many threads like this because BB just might be an egomaniac".

Or maybe the same idiots say the same thing time and time again, without feeling any need to base their arguments in logic or evidence.

45
by loneweasel (not verified) :: Sun, 02/07/2010 - 11:49am

Or maybe Boston fans wouldn't be so slavish and fulsome if they had been following football before 2001 and remembered that Belichick had a previous life in Cleveland. The Browns tenure is all the evidence one should need on his egomania.

54
by tuluse :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 3:40am

Being an egomaniac and a great coach are not mutually exclusive.

In fact it may be a good trait if you can control it.

44
by RickD :: Sun, 02/07/2010 - 11:43am

.

47
by David A. (not verified) :: Sun, 02/07/2010 - 12:48pm

I take a different angle on this than most of the people commenting above. In the most positive light possible, BB's pattern of having no OC is a way to deflect criticism and adhere to process only. Put it this way: when he went for it on 4th down from his own 28, BB was the one who was criticized, but only because no one was the OC, and BB doesn't care for what the press thinks, anyway. In some ways, not naming who's responsible for what allows the team to do what's correct and right without coming under the outside pressures that influence other teams. He could simply be extending that to the defense.

52
by greybeard :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 12:02am

4th down decisions are always made by the head coach and never by the coordinator. I never heard a coordinator was criticized for going on the forth because it never is their decision. The coordinator can plead his case but the decision and responsibility is always the head coach's.

51
by Alexander :: Sun, 02/07/2010 - 7:09pm

People who don't think is a bad idea only have to look at what happened to Denver when Shanahan had too much power. The Pats haven't been bringing in the consistent personnel particularly on defense to keep up their elite status, as of recently.

Most people on this site recognize the pats are an offense first team now, but when your defense is this underfunded you get problems, like 08 Denver. More importantly scheme on defense is something that needs to be much more fluid than scheme on offense, you really need to use scheme to defend your weaknesses. The Pats have too many weaknesses atm for scheme to make much a difference.

55
by ammek :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 7:48am

The Pats haven't been bringing in the consistent personnel particularly on defense to keep up their elite status, as of recently.

I hear this a lot, and am not sure it's valid. The Pats have only had one disastrous draft since they became an elite team — 2006. Even then, Laurence Maroney is OK. The last defensive player the Pats whiffed on in the first three rounds was probably Marquis Hill, back in 2004. And during that time they've drafted Wilfork, Meriweather and Mayo.

Of course, Adalius Thomas hasn't been a rousing success. But the small decline in defensive performance happened because the linebackers and primary defensive backs on the Superbowl teams were all about the same age, and had to be replaced over a very short period. This has happened to other great defenses whose stars played their peak years together (see: Steelers in about 1981-83, Bears in about 1990-93).

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
To skip this, please log in.