The same old argument: people hate Belichick because he wins. This is what you're implying by associating his record with animosity towards him. I understand why you make this argument; it's all you have. You can't defend Belichick's Spygate cheating, his surly and unprofessional behavior during pressers and post-game handshakes, his forcing Ted Johnson onto the practice field before he had medical clearance, his attempted waiver-wire collusion with the Vikings (which was called out by Minnesota's HC), his affair with a married woman who works in the Giants front office (discovered when her husband reported to the FBI about envelopes full of cash from Belichick being delivered to her), let's see... am I missing anything? Probably, but you get the idea.

The sad part is that I actually believe you occasionally have an interesting point to make. But then you refuse to admit what the rest of the world knows: however good he may be as a coach, Belichick is a pretty lousy human being. So you set up Straw Man arguments (everybody hates Belichick because he's good) and avoid the point. This is exactly what they did over at Pats Pulpit with Rodney Harrison; they claimed he is a good guy who is only hated because he is a good player. Seriously, you seem like a reasonably intelligent person -- don't you realize how pathetic these arguments sound? Why are Pats fans almost pathologically unable to say ANYTHING bad about their team, even when the evidence is right in front of their faces? Denial, denial, denial, and nothing to back it up.

Oh well, I realize Pats fans probably aren't going to change. But think about this: you've said you enjoy the intelligent back and forth on this site over the blind, kool-aid-drinking homerism at Pats Pulpit. But arguments that imply that people hate Belichick simply because he's good add nothing to that back and forth, make you look foolish, and undermine the few rational comments you do make.