Giants coaches reveal how they beat the Pats - Page 2 - New England Patriots Forums

***reflexblue*** · 02-13-2008, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tobias funke

Because sometimes there is no "magic plan" that suddenly makes your players play better than their players?

I mean I hate to use the same platitudes that come from the team, but everyone in the NFL gets paid to do their job.

Furthermore, you're taking something away from the Patriots by pretending that what they did this season was 'easy' for them. Like all they need is for a coach to call a certain play and they will just happen to win every game of the season. It doesn't work that way. Players gotta play if they want to win.

There are many ways to defeat what these teams did to the Pats. Gee Funk how about a moving pocket for one Brady was moving well enough to do that one simple manuver. Or instead of constantly looking for the long ball (which the Giants gave up in week 17,but came up with a PLAN to stop the Pats) If the Giants scouted themselves and knew the Pats were possibly going to go after NY secondary.How about the dink and dunk, the 1 step drop, the hurry up offense. The Pats should have realized the same thing and planned for it. We have the better personel, but failed to compensate for what the Giants did.
The bottom line is we were out coached.

tobias funke · 02-13-2008, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reflexblue

how about a moving pocket for one Brady was moving well enough to do that one simple manuver.

Did you watch the Super Bowl? Really?

Quote:

The Pats should have realized the same thing and planned for it. We have the better personel, but failed to compensate for what the Giants did.

The bottom line is we were out coached.

The Pats tried everything they had the personnel for, to combat the speed rush. It didn't work until the Giants personnel got tired in the 4th quarter, at which point it worked like it normally did.....

I agree that the Patriots were slightly out-coached, but they have been out-coached in games before (in this season) that they have won. They were out-played much more than they were out-coached.

If the Giants never finished their final drive, nobody would be talking about the Pats being out-coached. They would be talking about Brady's clutch drive and the Giants trying valiantly but being outplayed in the end. There are literally inches in between these two realities.

The fact of the matter is, the Giants are a great team that matched up well with our Patriots, and they made a few more plays in 60 minutes than we did. Suggesting that the Patriots "lost" the game or "gave it away" is the mindset of a homer.

stinkypete · 02-13-2008, 11:57 AM

Once again, Brady struggles against a 2-deep defense. IMO, it's 2-deep coverage moreso than the pressure that makes up Brady's true weakness.

upstater1 · 02-13-2008, 12:08 PM

How do you know the Patriots didn't self-scout?

I read that they did.

I want to know definitively where are you getting your information?

As for the McDaniels comment, I think it's obvious that we miss Charlie Weis. He was a master at making defenses guess.

tobias funke · 02-13-2008, 12:10 PM

Also, as far as the lack of self-scouting myth:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bertil

One of their strengths over the BB era has been self-scouting. That has been lacking since Charlie and Romeo left.

This is what Bill Belichick had to say after the Cleveland game that is being referred to:

Quote:

"After looking at the game this morning, I think it was pretty obvious that what we saw yesterday was validated on the film. We certainly had a lot of problems with some of the things the Browns did schematically, and I thought they did a good job game-planning wise. They created several problems for us. They have a lot of good players. They created some matchups that we had trouble with. Fortunately, we were able to make enough plays. The turnovers were a big part of it, to be able to come out with more points than they did. I thought that was a big drive that we had in the fourth quarter. They had a lot of time of possession in the [third] quarter and we were able to try to regain control of the game from a score standpoint. From a competitive standpoint, without the turnovers, it was obviously very competitive, with both sides making their share of plays, and I guess you could say both sides giving them up. Fortunately, we were able to have those turnovers, and not give the ball away, which I think was ultimately the difference in the game.

I mean seriously, do people really believe the coaching staff doesn't recognize what's going on in these games? That sounds like an accurate summation to me, long before the Giants "figured it out". What the Giants "figured out" is that having Osi Umenora, Michael Strahan, and Justin Tuck on your team ******* rocks.

As far as Brady "suffering" under the Cover Two, he did as well or better than every other QB he faced this season, so I would take a "struggling" Brady over any other guy at this point.

Marshy · 02-13-2008, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BradyManny2344

Holy crap, the Giants reviewed video tape and came to a conclusion about what kind of plays we would run and how to defend it. CHEATERS!!! Call Specter!!

Please shut up, for the love of god.

***The Dog*** · 02-13-2008, 12:22 PM

They got their players to play better than the patriot players. There was no secret formula. The giants played well and the pats simply didn't make some of the plays that they normally do. I feel a huge turning point was when the giants stopped the pats after giving them a 1st down after the 12 men on field penalty. The pats always take advantage of those breaks and didn't right there.

***reflexblue*** · 02-13-2008, 12:39 PM

What ever you say Funk, what ever you say.

JoeSixPat · 02-13-2008, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tobias funke

This takes too much credit away from the Giants, which is not appropriate in this circumstance.

The goal of a coach is to try to put the players in the best position to succeed. After that, it's up to the players to make the plays to win. Belichick has said this many times, and he says it for a reason.

The Patriots coaching staff really did (for the most part) put their players in the best position to succeed. So did the Giants, and so did the Browns.

After that, it came down to who made the individual plays: who blocked the best on the line, who ran the best routes, and who came down with the ball.

Yeah, the Patriots made some coaching errors, but I bet if you investigate the game closely, you can see some errors the Giants' coaches made as well. Nobody was perfect that day.

The Browns didn't have the personnel to make the plays that day, or if they did, they just didn't make them. The Giants had the personnel (at least a better front 7) to make those kinds of plays. Not many teams do, which further accentuates the Giants' accomplishments.

Well said.

All the teams we played watched the same video and likely saw the same "lessons". Executing the gameplan is a different matter.

I know there are plenty of trolls who make Giants fans look bad - and I'm no fan of the Mannings either.

But if one team other than the Patriots had to win the Super Bowl I'm glad it was the Giants, though I'm somewhat biased as Parcells led Giants football kept me entertained for many years when the Patriots sucked.

PatsFanSince74 · 02-13-2008, 01:19 PM

that's very interesting. also, i'm surprised that the Giants revealed so much of their thinking process.

and,. BTW, i guess romeo was a pretty good defensive coordinator