Jump to content

Talk:Bill Belichick

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Smackalot (talk | contribs) at 00:45, 19 May 2008 (→south park). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

south park

Pats1 deleted my south park contribution as part of a larger edit on whether the investigation of spygate is ongoing even though the reference is independent of the truth of allegations (and they are true). The deletion was reverted and re-deleted it. I don't see any talk on this page about it so I'm going to assume I'm in the right here. South Park is an emmy-winning show with millions of viewers (3.1 million viewers per episode according to Fortune) and that's notable. A news feed search for south park and Belichick will show that all sorts of sports news has covered the South Park reference. There is no reason that the episode that devoted almost half of its time to lampooning Belichick should be left out of this article. mroconnell (talk) 07:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already included a mention in the media and entertainment section. I do agree it is worthy of inclusion here.►Chris NelsonHolla! 07:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think we should integrate those trivia bullets into the article, specifically as a response to spygate? Since wikipedia policy is generally to integrate trivia and bulleted lists into paragraph text, that is what I propose we do. This provides clear, contextual information on why the reference is important as opposed to just laundry listing it alongside some celebrity cameos.

mroconnell (talk) 07:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider it a trivia section despite that being the former name. It is all media/entertainment related and therefore worthy of its own section. It needs no alteration in my eyes.►Chris NelsonHolla! 07:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your comment on Pat's talkpage and I see your point. It definitely belongs in a trivia section on the Belichick page since the illegal sideline taping should be restricted to Belichick and the investigation. Media responses should be in the media section. I don't like that it's bullet points and wikipedia style guidelines differ with you on whether those need alterations, but at least you've convinced me that it belongs in a media/entertainment section. Thanks for clearing it up for me mroconnell (talk) 07:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I Also would have to agree. Without naming names, SOME editors aggressively protect their teams. Undoing edits while claiming original research and things of that nature. The NFL pages seem to be very POV sometimes (not as bad as the Supply Side Economics articles though) - don't let that discourage you from keeping the article accurate, and keep up the good work!!

-Smack

I am almost certain that Wikipedia policy is not totally against lists, and that it says some information is better presented as such. Given that all this stuff is loosely related by the fact it's entertainment related, but specifically it's about different things, I think a list works fine.►Chris NelsonHolla! 08:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2007-2008 Patriots - I heard that they had an undefesed season or something like that. Shouldn't this be added to Bellichek's bio? GO PATS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.192.112 (talk) 09:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I'm not a registered user, but someone needs to delete Jim Bates from the list of Bill Belichick's "coaching tree." Jim Bates is no longer the defensive coordinator for the Denver Broncos. And I'd say to change the entry to Bill Belicheat, but I guess that's less likely, eh?

Criticisms

The criticisms section is non-Wiki, as it has to do with conjecture and hearsay. Wikipedia is NOT A NEWS MEDIA SOURCE. It is an encyclopedia of facts (we can verify he won Super Bowl XXXVIII as the Patriots' coach in 2001, we can NOT verify with any certainty whether he has Aspergers', or whether he fosters egocentric showmanship, etc. It's NOT Wiki policy. An encyclopedic entry must have a neutral point of view. To report on a meeting in which he "appears" standoff-ish is not relevant to an encyclopedic article. Stop re-adding conjecture until we get a ruling. WStewart07 13:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Ted Johson story is neither conjecture nor hearsay - it is a major news story, and based on the recent rise of injuries and depression occurring later in life as a result of football-related injuries, it needs to be included.--Tjcthree 15:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about this quote from Ted Johnson recently? ""I don't want to place blame anywhere," Johnson said. "It probably could all go around, to a little bit of everybody. I can't sit here and honestly say that I think Bill Belichick knew what second-impact syndrome was, and if he put me in there that could potentially happen. I can't sit there and say that. I have to believe he didn't do what he did to intentionally try to hurt me physically." Link: http://www.boston.com/sports/articles/2007/02/10/johnson_backs_off_belichick/ Conjecture? Hearsay? WStewart07 02:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then shouldn't that quote be added to the article, instead of just not mentioning any part it? it's a major story, not something arbitrary like blowing off a post-game handshake.

~This is something that we as Wiki-people must understand. Just because something makes news as a story, doesn't mean that it's encyclopedic. The Ted Johnson piece is "He Said" vs "He Said," and unverifiable. It made news because it was alleged. However, it was a weak allegation with no proof. If you were to have your own Wiki article entry, and I added that it is alleged you vandalized the Belichick entry (I'm not saying you are), does that make the allegation factual, or worthy of note on your Wiki? Libel is a very serious trap to dodge, Fuzzy Zoeller's recent lawsuit against Wikipedia and the anonymous user who vandalized his entry only demonstrates that danger. WStewart07 23:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's amazing how anything that can be construed as negative has been removed from this page ... the criticisms of his post game behavior, his involvement in a messy divorce case and even the Ted Johnson story which as pointed out above may have been ignorance on his part, not malice. All those things are well documented in the mainstream press and were cited for this page ... yet all were removed under the 'nothing negative can be posted here' rules. I am a Pat's fan and love what Belichick has done for the team, but there should be some balance here, Belichick is a human being and as such has faults as well as admirable qualities. Check the Wikipedia bios of any other person in the news and you will find the good and bad. For instance, check Tony La Russa's page. Tony LaRussda's page has a section about his recent DWI. If that page was maintained as this one is, it would not be allowed. I think this page has been taken over by Belicheck fans who will not tolerate anything negative ... thats my two cents. (65.213.77.129 20:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

-NEW- That's the problem. Anything negative which can be considered unfounded is against Wiki policy. It's also illegal and prosecutable (Fuzzy Zoeller anyone). Belichick certainly has an individual personality and is not without faults; I agree. The problem is verifiability. As an entry in an encyclopedia, it is better to focus on Bill Belichick's career statistics from a quantitative standpoint. Criticisms on his attitude are opinion. Everyone can have an opinion on something, whether founded or not. But let me make this clear. While Belichick's personality and attitude are debatable, whether his coaching style has led to serious injury is unverifiable, I am NOT against keeping verifiable criticisms off the board. The recent issue regarding spying on defensive signals can surely be added, not because we know for sure whether Belichick was aware of it or not (I'm sure he was) but because the league will make a ruling affecting his team for it (loss of draft picks). WStewart07 14:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belicheck's tenure in Cleveland was a disaster and not just because of the ownership and the move. Belicheck's initial personnel decisions were to bring many washed up NY Giant player he could sign, such as RB Joe Morris, rather than rely on young productive players such as Leroy Hoard and later, Keenan McArdell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanksummers (talk • contribs) 04:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am attempting to include a "controversy" section that somebody doesn't like and is deleting. I have confined this section to citing verifiable sources that simply bring forth criticisms of Belichick. He is a controversial figure...there is no denying that. I am simply summarizing the incidents that allegedly constitute this controversy. This is not me opining, it is simply a necessary part of an article on Bill Belichick, because for better or for worse, he has been at the center of some controversies. If we include the positive we should include the negative-it's just part of being thorough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Judicator700 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would just say that it was disgraceful to the New England Patriots for Bill Belichick to walk off of the field before the game had ended and that he should have been proud of his team for what they did accomplish, Belichick had nothing to be ashamed of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.209.194 (talk) 04:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, Wikipedia is designed to bring information to the general public. Whether that means informing people of the causes of heart disease or informing them of facts that happened during a large sporting event. Saying his walking off of the field should not be posted here because of its negativeness or because nobody knew what his intensions were is similar to saying that the interceptions that occurred in-game should not be posted because it can count as negative toward the athletes career. Anything negative is naturally over exaggerated, and for someone moderately famous, that condition only worsens. That is the only reason that people are quoting this section as biased. Snugg (talk) 06:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a 'criticism' section doesn't need to be in the article itself. 'Negative' information that is verifiable seems to have been written in pretty well, and are reflective of things which he actually did, which can be verified as fact (spygate, leaving the field early, divorce). At the same time, OPINIONS about his attitude might be better off being noted here on the talk page. As it stands right now, the article seems to be pretty balanced. Smackalot (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rumors?

The text below entered the article on April 4. I've searched for confirmation of association between Belichick and Asperger's. Additionally, even if it exists, it is framed as speculation, which does not merit inclusion. I think rumor should only be included in articles where the rumor itself is central to the topic.

"Known for being one of the most reserved coaches in NFL history, especially to the press, his focus on the game of football have begun rumors that Belichick may have Asperger's Syndrome." Tobycat 04:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfounded Criticisms

In my view, it appears as though some of the criticisms levied against Bill Belichick border on the unnecessary, and unfounded. Also, I contend that these criticisms could contain potentially libelous information. For instance, LaDanian Tomlinson's recent criticism was merely speculative, and probably not legitimate, as he made those comments visually upset after losing. Nor does he have any experience under Belichick to make that claim. Before his claim, there was no history or pattern of behavior in which the Patriots were criticized for being without class, and nor was there ever an accusation that such behavior stems from a team mentality Belichick cultivated. I move that the Tomlinson critique should be removed. WStewart07 18:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Belichick's noted behavior after the AFC Championship game somewhat reinforces Tomlinson's claims. UNSIGNED!!

By the way, if anonymous people are so ardent towards reporting the critiques levied against Belichick, will anyone report the latest news in which LaDanian Tomlinson admitted he erred in calling out Belichick for Hobbs' celebration after the game? Anyone? I am going to do us all a favor and eliminate the section. NOWHERE, and I mean, NOWHERE, in any other coach's Wikipedia article does there exist a section DEDICATED to criticisms. I am letting my statement stand along with the below statement for a week, then removing the Criticisms section altogether. It is probably maintained by some envious rabid anti-fan anyway. WStewart07 05:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further, why do we even need a section on criticisms? I trust that similar sections are being written for ever NFL head coach? This should be a biography, not an anti-Belichick column or blog. Quoting barbs from Kornheiser and Tomlinson adds nothing to the biography. All of this nonsense should be removed unless every coach's bio is made to conform. 64.146.116.58

When one individual/columnist/reporter makes a criticism, then yes it probably doesn't merit adding to this site. However in regards to Belichick's behaviors: shoving the photographer, snubbing other coaches / players post game when he loses, and said criticism is made in all the local papers (Boston Herald, Patriot Ledger, Boston Globe) as well as in national media (ESPN and other syndicated columnists) then IMHO, it merits posting here. The fact that he is named in a pending divorce case is fact, not supposition. There are many wikipedia pages with paragraphs such as 'critics of this individual note this and that ...' Noting that an individual has been criticized by others does not imply that the writer or the site agrees with the criticism, but merely notes that it has been done.

Belicic

I'm certain that his family's original Croatian name has some sort of mark over the Cs. This Google search sure makes it look like it's Beličič, so I'm going to go ahead and change it. (UPDATE: I actually missed the distinction in his father's name, but apparently with three Is it's most often Biličić. ARRRRGH! My guess would be that latter one, since it appears to be a much more common Croatian surname. But I'm going to leave in my first edit for the moment.) Cheers, PhilipR 00:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Croatia; I'll go with that unless someone can correct me definitively. - PhilipR 18:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

čić is at the end. If it is čič it is Slovenian as they don't have ć. Just is it: Biličić or Beličić according to here [Allthings BELICHICK ] it is Bilicic which in Croatian is Biličić. 124.189.85.146 (talk) 07:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

contract extension

"It said that Belichick got a contract extension in January 2006 but just recently they're saying that his contract expires this year, and that's when i saw that they extended it here. I noticed there was no source and i googled it, and I even checked the New England homepage and they don't have anything about it there. On the NE Patriots homepage it has articles dating back from the last decade so I'm sure it's not because the article was old. I'm pretty sure it's because it never happend. He never got a contract extension."

I don't know who wrote the above, but two things should be said:

  • The Krafts have stated that they will not discuss the details of Belichick's contract with the media.
  • Dan Pires (a Patriots beat reporter) and Len Pasquarelli of ESPN have reported that Belichick is under contract for 2007. Samer 06:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Poon

where he played center/tight end, alongside men such as his best friend, Alan Poon.

This statement was added, but there is no reason given for mentioning him. The fact that he is Belichick's friend is not, in and of itself, enough to justify including that information. [By comparison, Ernie Adams, another friend from Belichick's student days, is not yet mentioned, even though Adams currently works with Belichick.] Samer 07:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Got a Source?

Continuing the controversy over his after-game demeanor, on January 21, 2007, after losing the AFC Championship Game in Indianapolis to the Colts, Belichick seemingly snubbed exchanging post-game remarks with Peyton Manning, who simply patted him on his chest and moved on. Additionally, in a postgame interview with Solomon Wilcots from CBS, as well as at the post-game press conference, Belichick was noticeably terse and short with his answers. This no doubt only adds to the growing opinion that Belichick is ungracious, both in victory and defeat.10stone5 16:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I simply don't see the point of this paragraph, in addition to this material not being sourced - 10stone5
  • Source has been added
  • The source here is still not relevant. The youtube video doesn't actually verify anything contained in that paragraph. This paragraph still is an unsubstantiated opinion. - 10stone5
  • I still haven't seen any improvement in sourcing. The youtube reference is just an opinion, not a validated reference. Without this type of referral, I can't see the relevance in this paragraph - so I am removing this paragraph. - 10stone5

There are several references now. And how is the youtube reference an opinion? You see him look at Manning and brush past him - that's on the screen. I understand being fair, but it's clearly visible. - tjcthree

It's your opinion that he appears ungracious in the youtube video. There are no guidelines for proper "gracious" behavior. WStewart07 20:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coaching Tree

Al Groh was a position coach under Belichick in Cleveland, so he is part of both Parcel's and Belichick's trees

Belichick doesn't consider himself part of Parcel's tree, and considers his father to be his greatest mentor

The WhiteKongMan WhiteKongMan 02:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belichick doesn't consider himself part of Parcells' coaching tree, but he was Parcells' assistant coach/defensive coordinator for almost 15 seasons....sorry, that counts as being in Parcells' coaching tree. 21:21, 07 August 2007


Wasn't John Madden younger than Belichick, when it came to couching. Therefore I believe the youngest coach of Browns may suffice but not of any team

Error

The main article recap at right says that he was Head Coach of the Patriots from 91-95 when it was the Browns.--12.28.101.34 (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the team name goes to the coaching position underneath. Pats1 T/C 17:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see it now. It doesn't seem like this is the standard way it is done on other articles (Romeo Crennel, Brian Billick, Tony Dungy, Mike Shanahan). Looks like the other way is clean and easy to follow. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 02:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This way isn't much different. It consolidates the the way the others are done, so all the tiles the coach had with one team are in one section of sorts. Pats1 T/C 02:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This way is sloppy. Either list organizations with respective dates (eg: New England: 91-95,20-p), or dates with respective organizations (91-95: New England, 20-p: New England). The list lacks consistency, especially when he jumps from pats to jets and back to pats. Either list by dates, or by organizations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.219.72 (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, I thought it was saying he coached the Patriots '91 to '95. The team name is tabbed the same as the position next to the year, seems to indicate the team name is also listed under the same year.--155.33.65.131 (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree that this format is confusing. I've modified it to match the examples Mufka gave above. If someone really believes the old format was better, I guess they can change it back, but this seems to be more consistent with the other coaches' articles.Zerempil (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that... I agree that it's better this way. Merveilleux (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Season close

Specifically for BSD987 - Just so that we can have a "meeting of the minds" here, the Pats have already, as of this evening, attained the "perfect season" that they were shooting for. Their win against the NY Giants closes the regular season for this team at 16 and 0. The playoffs are considered "post-season". Also, the "two other teams" entry that you made has no source. This is contrary to what is being reported by SI, the NFL, and CNN. If you are referencing PRE-Superbowl era records, then there is only ONE other team that has had undefeated seasons, and that's the Chicago Bears, in 1934 and 1942. (I looked. [1]) Edit Centric (talk) 07:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 1948 Cleveland Browns of the then All-America Football Conference went 14-0 in the regular season, and defeated the Buffalo Bills in the AAFC Championship game to cap a season record of 15-0. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.71.17 (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um if i may say so, Belichick and his new god damn red sweatshirt screwed us over. nuff said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.62.232 (talk) 03:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spygate

In the section about illegal sideline videotaping, information about Spygate is deliberately being withheld. Namely, the investigation by Senator Specter. It should at least be reported, as it is not opinion, but simply a factual series of events. Withholding information compromises an article's neutrality as much as including information does, and so this section shall be flagged until the issue is resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Judicator700 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Jets' Bill Belichick, filling in for Bill Parcells, engineers a brilliant game plan and pilots the AFC to a 23-10 victory. Belichick, wearing a floral, Hawaiian-style hoodie at the postgame news conference, denies any knowledge of a report by the Honolulu Herald that his staff secretly filmed closed NFC practices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.13.10.26 (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the Specter information has been added. I think the tag should be removed now - the article seems balanced as a whole, and the spygate incident seems pretty inclusive, not to mention there is an entire article devoted especially to Spygate. Thoughts? Smackalot (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the spygate scandal is noteworthy and deserves a mention in the top paragraph. If anyone disagrees please discuss here.Helixweb (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Easily. I will definitely support this.►Chris NelsonHolla! 22:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide

Unconfirmed reports that he's dead, seems suicide 4.157.92.10 (talk) 04:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hey, isn't bill belichick's playoff record now 15-4; someone can change that right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.33.80 (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bill_Belichick&oldid=213367271"