Predict the Patriots' future post-Tom Brady

[TXsteeler]

1 hour ago, Hunter2_1 said:

What do I mean. Hmmm....

1. He shows no signs of that sort of thing. He subs Brady off when the game is well beyond reach, for the likes of Hoyer. He experiments with his running game when we've already secured HFA (sometimes even when he haven't - see the loss in Miami in 2015). So, yes, he cares more about the Patriots than his legacy here.

2. I'm not even sure he'd be the one to sign the next coach, would he. It's up to Mr Kraft to have final say

3. His legacy is already cemented, no matter what.

 

It's a stupid thought.

1. Has nothing to do with the patriots. Protecting Brady from injuries helps him. Working with the running game helps him.

2. Of course he has nothing to do with signing the next head coach. my original point is that BB probably does not care what happens to the Pats when he leaves.

3. Yes his legacy is cemented, but if another guy comes in and wins 3 more superbowls in 10 years, then people will question just how much of an impact BB had, but if the Pats are the browns in 10 years, he will look even better than he does now. This is just a fact of how people look at things, you can not deny it.

[lancerman]

51 minutes ago, TXsteeler said:

1. Has nothing to do with the patriots. Protecting Brady from injuries helps him. Working with the running game helps him.

2. Of course he has nothing to do with signing the next head coach. my original point is that BB probably does not care what happens to the Pats when he leaves.

3. Yes his legacy is cemented, but if another guy comes in and wins 3 more superbowls in 10 years, then people will question just how much of an impact BB had, but if the Pats are the browns in 10 years, he will look even better than he does now. This is just a fact of how people look at things, you can not deny it.

The thing is it's not a fact of how Belichick prioritizes that. And quite frankly, the perception (often misguided) of fans and onlookers has never actually concerned him before. So I don't know why that would change now. 

Also that's speculation. We don't know how people will look at it. Nobody thinks any less of Walsh because the Seifert spent the next six years winning two Super Bowls and went to 5 NFCCG's. In fact, a lot of people credit that to the foundation Walsh built. So that is a debateable point at best that the next guy having success could diminish Belichick's legacy. Nor did Young diminish Montana's.

The reality is we have no clue what his priorities are. Maybe he stops being a coach and sticks strictly to the front office for a few years. Maybe he leaves cold turkey. Maybe him and Kraft have a succession strategy worked out. 

 

[Hunter2_1]

There's no way he'd deliberately manufacture a poor coach coming in just to inflate his already inflated legacy. This is playground stuff.

[LD696]

1 hour ago, Hunter2_1 said:

There's no way he'd deliberately manufacture a poor coach coming in just to inflate his already inflated legacy. This is playground stuff.

To be fair, I don't think anyone insinuated he'd deliberately manufacture such a situation. He just wouldn't care.

[Hunter2_1]

2 hours ago, LD696 said:

To be fair, I don't think anyone insinuated he'd deliberately manufacture such a situation. He just wouldn't care.

That's how I interpreted this;

"He may want to inflate his legacy by letting the pats flop and become terrible after he's gone."

[TecmoSuperJoe]

Bert Jones.

[lancerman]

1 hour ago, tonyto36 said:

Belichick has always said the right thing, but legacy and records and historical context IMO have always meant something to him.

And FTR, I'm not sure it's as much as what Walsh built or as much as the owners check book built.  Overrated dynasty.

There's really nothing to base that off of. History has meant something to him, but I don't think Belichick has some illusion that he needs to make sure he's the only successful Patriots coach ever so that people can't diminish his legacy. That's venturing in on Skip Bayless level speculation. For the Steelers the coach after Chuck Noll went to two Super Bowls and got one title. For the Cowboys, the coach after Tom Landry actually won as many Super Bowls as him and the foundation set up there helped them win another after he left. For Walsh his immediate successor won two Super Bowls and went to 5 out of 6 AFC titles (and regardless of what you think, Walsh's and the offensive system he built gets lionized in NFL history more than the owner, also the 49'ers are a similar situation to the Pats where the Dynasty coalesced around a relatively new owner and then the HC/QB pairing). 

So even if I'm generous and grant that Belichick cares a whole lot, we are still operating under a presumption of a standard that hasn't applied to other great coaches. Then you have to take it a step further and go to level that Belichick actively hopes the next guy fails completely so that he can look better. It's a reach, built on another reach, built off a standard that hasn't existed for anybody, built on a presumption of Belichick's mentality without much evidence to back it up. And I'm not saying this to imply that Belichick is a lock to lead a gradual transition from him so that the team is as successful as it can be for the 10-15 years after him. But I'm saying we don't know what the exit plan for Belichick is. For all we know Belichick might coach until he can't do it anymore. For all we know him and Kraft have an exit strategy mapped out already. For all we know he couldn't quit without warning after next season. 

[swede700]

On 12/15/2017 at 4:30 PM, everlong said:

Hell no. Pat the Patriot is the symbol of failure; we didn't start winning until Flying Elvis.

Well, not really, considering the original Flying Elvis was created in 1979.  

http://www.espn.com/espn/page2/story/_/id/6810815/uni-watch-traces-lineage-patriots-flying-elvis-logo