sanvara

Actually it makes complete sense. You want to limit the number of possessions a great offense has in a game because it means they have fewer chances to score points. This helps keeps the game lower-scoring and closer. Fewer points scored means a big defensive or special teams play or two by the other team could win a game.

AndyJohnson

I have never understood the idea that a gameplan should revolve around keeping the other offense off the field, and limiting their possessions, or shortening the game. I imagine the philosophy is that if you have fewer possessions you have a better chance of getting an impact from one stop, but on the other more possessions give you more opportunities for flukes. In the end, a strategy that says shorten the game is one that says, we aren't good enough, so even if you have success, you will lose in the 4th quarter. To me, the most overriding objective for the coach of a large underdog is to get his team to believe it WILL win. You don't do that by telling your team we have to shorten the game.
Should you be aggressive or passive against a team like the Pats? IMO, for the above reasons you should be aggressive. Give your players a chance to make plays, and a chance to believe they can, rather than 'limiting the opponent'.
As far as your gameplan ideas, I think the worst thing a team can do is reinvent itself for an opponent. The common babble such as 'you can't cover everyone' is also defeatist, and is really wrong. Every defensive call is designed to cover the entire field (in one way or another, i.e. when you blitz you expect your rushers to cover the deep part of the field by not allowing enough time) so to say 'we must double so and so' or 'we have to play 9 men in the box' is saying WE ARENT GOOD ENOUGH TO EXECUTE OUR DEFENSE.
What a team facing a juggernaut like the Pats has to do, IMO, is play their game. It ultimately comes down to your players being good enough to execute your system, which is the system you have decided is best for those players. If they are not good enough you don't win no matter what you do.

The reality of the gameplanning aspect is this:
-You analyze and decipher what this opponent does. The Chargers have seen the things the Pats do from other opponents all year long. (Just in different proportions and to different levels of success) If they are playing the Chiefs, and know the Chiefs are going to go no huddle 5 WR shot gun, their defensive call should be EXACTLY THE SAME AGAINST THE PATRIOTS. The difference is that they need to execute it better against the Pats. If they cannot, using a different scheme, that by definition is not what they feel they do best will not work either.
-The same thing goes on offense. The reason teams run or throw more against specific opponents, is what the opponent does. When ANY team does that, they will make the same decision. If you play against the most heavy blitzing team in the NFL, you do not change what you do, you do what you do when ANYONE blitzes, you are just doing more often against that team.

The Chargers are built as a defense that believes its front 7 can stop the run. That believes its OLBs must generate their pass rush, and that believes in being passive in coverage, allowing either the rush to blow up the play, or the DBs to keep plays in front of them.

Sure they will blitz, its what they do. They won't send 8 rushers and cover with 3, and they wont overwhelming play bump and run, because its not what they do best, although they may do a lot more of it, because our offense may dictate that the situations they like to do it in come up more often.
Offensively, they are going to be what they are. A balanced offense that believes in establishing the run, getting the ball to LT in space in the passing game, and setting up play action.

For the Chargers to win, it is very simple. They have to do what they do, but do it better than they ever have before. They will not win with gameplan, unless you consider their basic philosophy to be the reason they would win. They would win by running the plays and defenses they have run all year, but in order to win, they must do it at a much higher level, because the players on the other side of the field are much better than both them, and the players they have faced.

Personally, I give the Chargers little chance for 3 reasons.
1) The Patriots are a clearly better team. On the majority of the plays in this game, the Patriots players will outplay the Charger players.
2) Regardless of the ups and downs, flukes, bounces, great or horrible plays, the Pats could play poorly and the Chargers play their best, and it will still be a 60 minute game. While it is becoming widely accepted that the Pats may be the best team ever, IMO, it is indisputable that they are the best team ever in making plays when the game is on the line.
3) Regardless of whatever is going through the heads of the 53 players on both sides right now, tomorrow morning or in th early part of the game, when the game is on the line, the Patriots will be as or more confident than any team who has ever stepped on a field that they will win the game, and the Chargers will have doubt. You can forget the loudmouth posturing (which by the way is the absolute sign of a lack of confidence. Anyone who is constantly looking for excuses, explanations, criticism of the opponent when they lose is doing it to hide their own insecurity) the in-game dancing, etc. When there are 4 minutes left in the game and the score is tied, every player on the Patriots is certain they will win, and the Chargers hope they can.

All of this has nothing to do with any SD injuries. There is a strong correlation over the year, in fact in all sports, that teams with highly publicized 'stars' actually play better when they are out with injury. There have been MANY teams in all sports college and pro that have been 'pretty good' with a star or 2 and the year after they leave the team is more successful. I'm not sure I understand the reason why, but I think it has something to do with (in the NFL) that you win when everyone does their job, and when you have one or 2 guys that get all of the credit, the other players tend to look to them to carry them through. When they aren't there every player becomes more accountable to doing their own job.

AndyJohnson

That may be a good strategy to not get blown out, but it isn't a strategy to win.
If you are a running team that is built around long time consuming drives, and eating the clock, and playing good D, then its a strategy to win. If that is not what you are, you are saying I'm going to do what I don't do well in order to hope that the offense I cannot stop will be on the field less. Problem is they will still be on the field, and you cant stop them.
Designing an offensive gameplan with the other teams offense as the focal point is a recipe for failure.

sanvara

Of course you are not going to change what you do best just to try and keep the other team off the field. That wouldn't make sense.

Deus Irae

1.) Blitzing Brady has been done all season, to no real effect. In fact, it's made his life easier. Furthermore, with a healthy Ben Watson, becomes a more risky proposition. However, since teams have seen the Jacksonville defense fail miserably, San Diego will probably be blitzing the moment they get off the bus in the hopes that they can break down the offensive line. It's a question of slow death with certainty of defeat vs. fast death with a chance of making a big play.

2.) This has been the strategy of teams since the Eagles and Ravens games, and it's helped keep the Patriots scoring numbers down. It's probably the best defense you can use against New England. This tactic has cost the people who've taken New England and the points a great deal of money down the stretch. However, if the officials don't call it, New England will start putting receivers in motion to eliminate the contact on the line.

3.) Let Volek start, please.... New England lets lesser quarterbacks try to beat them, and none of them have been able to. From Boller to Garrard, they eventually crack and toss a game changing or game sealing pick.

4.) They will need to pass to LdT to keep the outside linebackers honest, but it's Sproles on a quick toss that may actually pose the most danger of a huge gain. Either way, they'll need a big day out of the running game, since Gates is likely to be hobbled and New England can shut down a 2 wide receiver team.

__________________
"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

shakadave

Spacecrime, you are absolutely right, of course, but I once tried making this point a year ago --- in the context of limiting the Colts' number of possessions --- and not many people seemed able to understand it.

__________________
Please, God, don't let us ever suck as bad as the 2011 Cowboys did in the Jets opener.
* * * * *
"I got a little shine on and showed you guys a little taste of my speed."

----Vince Wilfork, Jan. 7, 2007

chrisfx811

Limiting the number of possessions seems to make perfect sense to me, as it places greater emphasis on things that any team can do well at.
a. Creating turnovers, SD's forte.
In an 8-10 possession per team game, 1 or 2 turnovers is even bigger than normal.
b. Special teams, again an SD strong suit.
Field position is a great equalizer, and if Cromartie, Sproles, etc can give SD short fields to work with on 3 or 4 occasions (almost half of a low possession game) then the upset becomes even more possible.
Not to mention the SD punter was booming kicks in the Colys game, and imho, was a big reason why SD was able to hold on. Granted, in freezing weather the kick won't go as far.

AndyJohnson

None of those things have to do with limiting the number of possessions.
a) If you create turnovers, you increase the number of possessions
b) Field possession is about STOPPING the other team, not keeping them off the field with your offense.
Punting of course also has nothing to do with keeping your offense on the field and limiting possessions.

Bottom line:
An offense has 3 jobs
1) Score points
2) Dont turn the ball over
3) If you cannot do one, and avoid 2, at least have a decent drive to not back your defense up

HOW you do those things, whether its with long drives, short drives, running, passing, gadget plays, faked punts, etc, etc have nothing to do with winning or losing. IF you do those 3 has everything to do with winning and losing.

Terry Glenn is a cowgirl

The only way that the Chargers win, is if they knock Brady out with consecutive hard hitting late penalties and don't care about getting the penalties.

That or do the same thing with all of the Pats recievers.

Just my opinion.

That or somehow hypnotize Brady... NLP or something similar.

chrisfx811

What I said was, if you have a game of fewer possessions then those things I mentioned will have a greater influence. I never said those things limited the number of possessions.

However:
a. Turnovers halt a team's possession unexpectedly, getting your team the ball sooner, and they also can have a great effect on field position.

b. Field position can also be aided by the offense, if you're able to avoid 3 & outs, and at least mount drives that get close to midfield, giving your punter a chance to pin a team deep.
(Luckily, the Pats led the league, by a wide margin, in scoring drives over 80-yards)

BB & Brady are unlike many teams except for maybe the Colts, in that they don't get too conservative when backed up, as I think not only are they confident, but they realize how important it is not to go 3 & out when pinned inside your 20.

Basically, considering what the Chargers are facing, imho, the best they can hope for is an 8 or 9 possession game in which they generate 2-3 turnovers, get stellar special teams play, and get at least 10-14 points as a result of those things.