condon84

We played not to lose the game tonight and I think that's the reason why we ended up losing.

I thought this game was a good opportunity to give Cassel a chance to throw the ball because the Colts were down to their 3rd and 4th CB starting the game. We had Moss who we all knew would receive deep help, Welker who cannot be covered 1 on 1 so I figured McDaniels could exploit the matchup between Gaffney and essentially their 5th CB. Instead, we chose to pound the ball against the smaller, quicker Indy defense. I had no problem with this especially since we were having good success running in-between the tackles. We were running successfully out of the "I" formation effectively taking out Gaffney. Indy's LBs were reacting aggressively when we ran and when the safety's weren't playing deep, they too were super aggressive because of the success we were having. Because of the success we were having running up the gut, there were a couple of times that the Colts were riped for a play-action for big gains. Not essentially to Moss, but maybe streak Thomas or Watson down the middle. It was there for us. Indy's LBs were coming up to fill whenever we ran. We should have been more aggressive in this regard. What was McDaniels scared off?

Another issue I had was when we moved in the Red zone or close to it. Again, it would have been ideal to use play-action, but instead we went with the screen a couple of times that led to big losses and we ended up settling for FGs. My issue is that when you are in the Red zone, the defenders are closer to the line of scrimmage, and with Indy's defenders as fast and as aggressive as they are, screens would have to be perfect to be successful. Even then, chances are, because of Indy's speed and condensed space, it would only net a couple of yards. Meanwhile, a play-action would have taken advantage of Indy's speed and aggressiveness in reacting to the run and open someone up. The first two times we got into the Red zone, we ran screens as the 1st down play. Both of them lost yards and we ended up second and long. And from then, our playcalling really got conservative and we settled for FGs. Why not attack the defense and try to score a TD? We're not going to beat good teams if we settle for FGs.

Another gaff was BBs challenge. The risk/reward was high/low. If we won the challenge, we get 5 yards. We lose the challenge, we lose one of our challenges and a TO. It was a weird challenge because it was not conclusive even after the replay. I think BB outsmarted himself in this instance.

An even bigger gaff by BB was the TO he called on that 4th and 1. That was the first time I've seen BB hurt his team with indecision. We've been running on them all day so I had no issue going for the 4th and 1. I don't know if we got it when we ran it, but it looked like we did. That to me was the right call. Go try to win the game. I mean, we went for all those 4th and 1 last year right? I hate criticizing BB cause I think he's the best HC New England sports has had since we had Auerbach, but that was a pretty dumb sequence. Sending his offense out there only to call and waste your last time out in such a tight game. Very odd to see BB indesisive and make dumb moves.

Lastly, that Thomas penalty was atrocious. WTF was he thinking?

Back to our offense. I thought after our first drive in the second half, we finally started to open up our offense and we moved down the field pretty quickly. Why we didn't go to that type of offense sooner? Seems really odd to watch our offense this year. No really ebb & flow to what we do.

Anyways, our players played their butts off. Props to them. Our pass rush was none existent from the DL, but their job tonight was containing the run and they did that extremely well. On third and long situations, Vrabel is now a non-factor as a rusher. AD is a better rusher, but we used him for pass coverage. We need to get better and a more consistant production from whoever is rushing form the edges. Woods has not showed up. But I don't know if he's been given any significant PT at all.

As for our young players, I thought Wheatley played well before he got hurt. Merriweather was asked to play deep help so he couldn't be more of a factor. He did blast a couple of recievers. Mayo I thought played his best game. He was lost on a couple of pass coverages in the first half, but improved on it in the second half. His overall run defense was great. Guyton was also pretty impressive. This kid is the other future ILB in our defense. Whenever he is on the field, good things happen.

We are 5-3 and have 3 division games coming up. I feel good about our chances, but tonight was pretty disappointing.

nashvillepatsfan

BB made the same call in the SB, and nobody questioned him. Mainly because it worked.

How do we know that Thomas heard the whistle? just sayin

condon84

Even if Thomas didn't hear the whistle, seeing the Colts defenders stop playing should have told him to slow down. I mean, that wasn't even close. If his hit was closer to the end of the play, I would have given him the benefit of the doubt, but it wasn't. He was looking for a cheap shot at a guy not looking his way who was just standing up. I'm sure he'll learn his lesson, but you can really say that that was the biggest play of the game. We were in FG range and that would have been 3rd and inches.

Bonzo

Right. If you think you are owed yardage, then fight for it. I'm okay with the challenge. (And I furthermore suspect that given the weirdness of the situation, he fully expected to win.)

chris_in_sunnyvale

I skimmed this post and liked what I saw. The Pats' gameplan was clearly to play keepaway from Manning, control the clock as much as possible and win a game played close to the vest. It almost worked, but the reason it failed is inherent in the strategy: Mistakes will loom large. Execution mistakes like Gaffney dropping the lone deep shot TD are killers. Boneheaded mistakes like Thomas' personal foul are killers.

In a ball-control game like last night, on the road where the defense was doing just enough to keep the game within striking distance (especially on Indy's ground game...kudos to the Pats for that), the offense needed to be perfect. Close wasn't going to be good enough and proved not to be.

Regards,
Chris

Rob0729

The Patriots CLEARLY played to win last night. Would have it been better to get into a shootout with the Colts?

I am starting to believe people would have been far happier if the Pats lost 40-27 with Cassel being sacked six times and picked 3 times. The Pats would have had no chance of winning, but at least they didn't "play not to lose".

chris_in_sunnyvale

No. The redzone offense was Herm-like. They took no deep shots just to keep the defense honest. They used little play action when it looked like the Colts were ripe for biting on it. Of course you don't want to get into a shootout with the Colts, but you can't go completely the other way. Banking on repeated 15-play drives is nice if you can pull it off, but expecting to pull it off on the road against a team like Indy was wishful thinking.

Regards,
Chris

oldskool138

It mainly worked because there were actually 12 men on the field.

__________________
You can't be two feet tall and expect to take over the world...unless you're Doug Flutie. -MST3K
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"You're all a bunch yahoos, hero worshipers and gutless suck-ups." - Tony Massarotti

BlitzFritz

I had the same feeling as the OP
PS I had the same feeling as the SB v the Giants

not just conservative O but ULTRA conservative

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"If you counted out the Patriots, you just don't get it." Adam Schein, September 2008

“We are building a big, strong, fast, smart, tough and disciplined football team that. consistently competes for championships.” Guess who.

Deus Irae

You people really need to get a grasp on strategy and tactics. Last season in the second half, teams played the Patriots the same way that the Patriots played the Colts last night. People were talking about how the Patriots didn't play as well in the second half of the year, when what had really happened was that teams had changed the way they approached the explosive firepower Brady and company had.

Analysts like to talk about teams who can't "trade score for score" with their opponents. Well, that was what was in place last night. The Cassel-led Patriots are not currently equipped to trade score for score with the Manning-led Colts. Therefore, you change the game to one were you limit the number of possessions. That's not playing not to lose, it's playing the only way you can realistically expect to win.

__________________
When it comes to the Koolaid, take sips not chugs.

There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.