AndyJohnson

So now its the Jets game and Sundays game and that is what teams consistently do? 2 games, and 2 games that were even using the same game plan are your proof that their is a blueprint? Nice work.

DocHoliday

We beat them when they don't have the personnel to run it. Not everyone can do it. Jets could in 10, Ravens can, Giants can, etc.

Note that I *specifically* said we are vulnerable without Gronk, which is why we put up 30 on the Ravens earlier.

The 49ers stopped being able to contain the offense without Smith.., until they reestablished their pass rush against tired tackles.

We put up all the yards but couldnt get into the red zone, when nickel D becomes more effective against the pass with less field space. This is common sense.

This D stalls without the physical downfield receiver and/or running ability, which losing Gronk provides.

The nickel D stops the run and stops the pass without Gronk.

__________________

DocHoliday

Giants 2011 weren't beating us with their nickel and daring us to run?

__________________

AndyJohnson

But none of those teams used the same game plan. And we lost each of those games for different reasons.
You have decided what you think the problem is and then taken each loss and pretended it fit that reason. You are simply, flat out wrong.

It is ridiculous to say we cannot beat a scheme, but thats only if we don't have Gronk. Besdies, we have Gronk so we should be all set.

No, no, no. You can't weasel out of this with excuses why they didn't stop the offense, because you said they did. Would have is BS.




No it isn't because we are an excellent red zone team.
This wasn't scheme, it wasn't really even defense. It was our offense moving up and down the field and killing drives on unforced errors. And errors that they normally do not make.

.
It isn't as good without its best players, but it is still very good. You are unhappy with the result, and trying to grasp some intrinsic reason that isnt there. Really, we just didn't make plays that were there to be made, that we normally make. That really is just a fact, and if you watch the game with an open mind it is obvious.

We ran for over 100 yards, We were getting 5,6,7 yards a pop on first down for a big part of the game. We didn't break any long runs, so the ypc wasn't outstanding, but we ran well enough. We had 428 yards of offense. That is not stopping the run and stopping the pass.
You really should watch the game again.

Deus Irae

You're absolutely right that the ability of teams to compact their defense is a major part of this (and part of that happening in this last game falls on gameplan), but the Patriots could have won the game just by converting on their early drives. My point is that it's not just about physical teams, or just about limiting the middle or stopping the run. It's also about turnovers and Patriots miscues. All the depth in the world wasn't going to keep that tipped pass from being picked, and having another RB behind Ridley wasn't going to help Ridley avoid that knockout blow. It also wasn't a lack of depth that had things like Solder committing a stupid holding penalty, or that have had the starting WRs and TE dropping passes in the past two losses. The screw up before the half wasn't because of great Ravens play, either.

What I'm saying is that it's not been just one thing that's been the issue. It's been a combination of things. They need to limit the problems, as well as to add to the solutions.

__________________
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
- Marcus Aurelius

AndyJohnson

The Giants did not play the scheme the Jets did in 2010. Thats what you said, and it is wrong.

DocHoliday

Taking away the short passing game and stopping run with nickel is their overall end goal, and I consider that their scheme.

I'd be impressed if you remembered enough to say how exactly they managed to use their personal to do this, but the end goal for all teams that face this offense is the same.

Few teams have the personnel to do so, and even fewer can do it with Gronk playing (I'd say zero).

__________________

AndyJohnson

Wait. We play 2TE with Hernandez, 2 WR and 1 RB as our base, and often goshotgun and spread it. We are a passing team.
Every team plays base nickel vs us. Every team tries to take away the pass, and since the focus of our routes and throws is heavy on the short pass, every team tries to take that away.
By your argument every team plays the same scheme against us.

I have lost track of what your point is.

It sounds like your point is that if we face a team with good players on defense we aren't as effective as if we face one with bad. Is that what I wasted all this time to find out?

DocHoliday

That losing Gronk makes this offense too susceptible to the teams we will face in the playoffs, and for all our next man to mentality we are too dependent on one man (Brady obviously moreso, but that's inevitable)

We cannot adapt without him and this had cost us two postseasons.

And yes, the blueprint to beat the Patriots without Gronk is out there, and everyone tries it, few succeed. Without an elite defense, you must patch this hole to get a Lombardi.

__________________

ATippett56

2012 New England Patriots tight ends:

Gronkowski - placed on IR
Hernandez
Fells
Hoomanawanui
Shiancoe - placed on retroactive IR and subsequently cut
Winslow, Jr - signed for one or two weeks and subsequently cut

2012 New England Patriots wide receivers:

Welker
Lloyd
Edelman - placed on IR
Branch
Stallworth - placed on IR
Salas - traded future late round draft pick (2015?) and subsequently cut
Aiken

__________________
The End of the Chad Ochostinko Era!