PostGame Denver/Patriots Thread

[condon84]

Yup. If Seymour was in there, I have a feeling a four man rush would have been much more effective than it was today. Let's not forget how badly Seymour abused Denver's O-Line last season.

Seymour's gone. And if we can't get pressure from our current four man rush, then our coaching staff needs to come up with a more creative way to apply pressure because Orton completely picked us apart.

Why I can't understand is that when I watch the Jets play, their defense doesn't really send more than 4 to 5 rushers for the most part. But the key for them is that they send those 4 to 5 rushers from different angles. Sometimes they overload blitz on one side, sometimes through the middle. It keeps the offense guessing and they're not losing cover guys to rush the passer.

 

[Kontradiction]

You guys are going to be very disappointed with the defense this year. The sixth rated defense that gave up 17 points should be good enough to win with Tom Brady running the offense.

If the defense needs to be much better in the future, then we can start focusing more resources toward the defense and less toward the offense, so that we will have a defense that allows fewer than 14 points a game so that our offense can be more secure.

BTW, how many defenses kept their opponents to few points than the patriots today? And BTW, how many defenses allowed less than 17 points per game last year.

I know that you guys would like to see lots of pressure, lots of blitzing, resulting in more sacks and more interceptions. Belichick has judged that this would also result in allowing more points, but obviously yards are more important to you guys. It is a matter pf defensive philosophy.

You can't seriously be happy with the way our defense played today. If Denver hadn't have shot themselves in the foot more than a few times, this game would not have been close. Orton was SURGICAL today and had his way with us up and down the field. He looked like a future Hall of Fame cadidate rather than someone who will be a trivia question in 20 years. How you can even remotely be happy with their play is beyond me.

 

[mgteich]

We should have had two touchdowns and the defense would not be an issue at all.

As I said, if you think 17 points is horrible, you are headed for much worse disappointments.

You can't seriously be happy with the way our defense played today. If Denver hadn't have shot themselves in the foot more than a few times, this game would not have been close. Orton was SURGICAL today and had his way with us up and down the field. He looked like a future Hall of Fame cadidate rather than someone who will be a trivia question in 20 years. How you can even remotely be happy with their play is beyond me.

 

[Kontradiction]

We should have had two touchdowns and the defense would not be an issue at all.

As I said, if you think 17 points is horrible, you are headed for much worse disappointments.

20 points. And no, I don't think that's horrible. I just refuse to have a "see no evil, hear no evil" type of attitute toward it. The Patriots got lucky a few times today and could have easily given up close to 30 points to Denver. If I need to boil it down to something simple for you, I will. Here's just one series: Overtime. Denver gets the ball and drives it, with EASE, into field goal range for the game winner.

Now, are you saying that we should blame Tom Brady and the offense for that? Oh, and one more thing... I can come up with many other instances where that happened. I just thought it would be easier for me to point out overtime since that's the drive that's freshest in our minds.

 

[Deus Irae]

You guys are going to be very disappointed with the defense this year. The sixth rated defense that gave up 17 points should be good enough to win with Tom Brady running the offense.

If the defense needs to be much better in the future, then we can start focusing more resources toward the defense and less toward the offense, so that we will have a defense that allows fewer than 14 points a game so that our offense can be more secure.

BTW, how many defenses kept their opponents to few points than the patriots today? And BTW, how many defenses allowed less than 17 points per game last year.

I know that you guys would like to see lots of pressure, lots of blitzing, resulting in more sacks and more interceptions. Belichick has judged that this would also result in allowing more points, but obviously yards are more important to you guys. It is a matter pf defensive philosophy.

Yeah, we can keep using this myth about the defense all season long. Of course, Denver's only scored 12, 27, 23 and 17 points in their wins prior to this, so that kills the argument since their offense has been generally ineffective, but make it anyway. Buffalo put up more points against New England than they put up against the Browns and every other team besides the Buccaneers, too, but we should ignore that one as well, as long as we're going to pretend that the defense is getting the job done.

The offense has been struggling, but it's been able to hold onto the ball long enough to mask the defensive problems, even though it's struggled finishing drives. If you think this defense is a top defense right now, there are lots of people looking to sell bridges.

 

[letekro]

You can't seriously be happy with the way our defense played today. If Denver hadn't have shot themselves in the foot more than a few times, this game would not have been close. Orton was SURGICAL today and had his way with us up and down the field. He looked like a future Hall of Fame cadidate rather than someone who will be a trivia question in 20 years. How you can even remotely be happy with their play is beyond me.

But, seriously, what would you have done differently?? And don't say "blitz". Their game today was all short passes, mostly simple out patterns, many off of 3 and 5 step drops - the blitz would've been unhelpful on these plays which killed us. Our coverage was tight as well, we had a number of break ups and were always right there to make sure there was no YAC. Some days you have to say, hey, they had a good game plan and they executed it well.

If our offense can put a single point up in the 2nd half we win the game and everyone's praising the D.

 

[eagle eye]

20 points. And no, I don't think that's horrible. I just refuse to have a "see no evil, hear no evil" type of attitute toward it. The Patriots got lucky a few times today and could have easily given up close to 30 points to Denver. If I need to boil it down to something simple for you, I will. Here's just one series: Overtime. Denver gets the ball and drives it, with EASE, into field goal range for the game winner.

Now, are you saying that we should blame Tom Brady and the offense for that? Oh, and one more thing... I can come up with many other instances where that happened. I just thought it would be easier for me to point out overtime since that's the drive that's freshest in our minds.

17 points in regular time is what they gave up. Our offense had to beat 17 points to win the game but they failed.
Look back at 07, we regularly gave up 14+ points, we gave up 17 or more on 7 occasions and we went 16-0.

I'm not saying that our D is the best in the world by any means but this loss falls squarely on the shoulders of our offense and specifically on the play calling. As I just said in another post, this shotgun formation with one back is just ridiculous. You have to show a defence that there is a real likleyhood of you gaining the yards on the ground and get them to stack the line a bit if you are going to throw. Leaving the ball in the hands of Kevin Faulk to make 3 yards without a lead blocker, or Tom Brady when the whole world and its mother knows that its likely he is going to look for a short pass is just ludicrous.

 

[Kontradiction]

But, seriously, what would you have done differently?? And don't say "blitz". Their game today was all short passes, mostly simple out patterns, many off of 3 and 5 step drops - the blitz would've been unhelpful on these plays which killed us. Our coverage was tight as well, we had a number of break ups and were always right there to make sure there was no YAC. Some days you have to say, hey, they had a good game plan and they executed it well.

If our offense can put a single point up in the 2nd half we win the game and everyone's praising the D.

Yeah, I would blitz. I would bring more than a four man rush. In case you didn't notice, that four man rush wasn't penetrating the Denver O-Line. When we did bring the heat, we hit Orton and sacked him to send the game into overtime. Suddenly, we're in overtime and it's right back the same four man fat boy rush that did absolutely nothing in the entire game. Please remind us all what happened after that.

On top of that, I would have played a LOT more bump and run and been more physical with the Denver WRs than we were today. Instead, we decided to sit back and give a ten yard cushion to a QB that had no chance of beating us deep.

 

[Kontradiction]

17 points in regular time is what they gave up. Our offense had to beat 17 points to win the game but they failed.
Look back at 07, we regularly gave up 14+ points, we gave up 17 or more on 7 occasions and we went 16-0.

I'm not saying that our D is the best in the world by any means but this loss falls squarely on the shoulders of our offense and specifically on the play calling. As I just said in another post, this shotgun formation with one back is just ridiculous. You have to show a defence that there is a real likleyhood of you gaining the yards on the ground and get them to stack the line a bit if you are going to throw. Leaving the ball in the hands of Kevin Faulk to make 3 yards without a lead blocker, or Tom Brady when the whole world and its mother knows that its likely he is going to look for a short pass is just ludicrous.

There is plenty of blame to go around. However, again, the defense could have easily yielded 30 points today. I can't remember the last time I saw an opponent drive down the field against our defense with that much ease.

 

[condon84]

But, seriously, what would you have done differently?? And don't say "blitz". Their game today was all short passes, mostly simple out patterns, many off of 3 and 5 step drops - the blitz would've been unhelpful on these plays which killed us. Our coverage was tight as well, we had a number of break ups and were always right there to make sure there was no YAC. Some days you have to say, hey, they had a good game plan and they executed it well.

If our offense can put a single point up in the 2nd half we win the game and everyone's praising the D.

The quick passes were dictated by the huge cushions our DBs were giving them. It was pitch and catch all game long. There were some instances where we played tighter coverage and were generally successful. We blitzed a couple of times too and were successful in sacking (once) or causing an incomplete. But for the most part, we played soft zone and the Broncos took advantage of that.

 

[Deus Irae]

Yeah, I would blitz. I would bring more than a four man rush. In case you didn't notice, that four man rush wasn't penetrating the Denver O-Line. When we did bring the heat, we hit Orton and sacked him to send the game into overtime. Suddenly, we're in overtime and it's right back the same four man fat boy rush that did absolutely nothing in the entire game. Please remind us all what happened after that.

On top of that, I would have played a LOT more bump and run and been more physical with the Denver WRs than we were today. Instead, we decided to sit back and give a ten yard cushion to a QB that had no chance of beating us deep.

The problem with this team blitzing is that the defensive backs can't cover good receivers 1-on-1. This team is keeping safeties over the corners. If you blitz, you take away that protection, and that's just asking for trouble.

There is nobody on the defensive line that forces a double team on passing downs, and, for the most part, the line can't get anything resembling pressure without the blitz. There's no linebacker who's truly impressive in coverage. There's no cornerback who can be depended on against opposing teams' #1 wideouts, and the safeties are good, but they're not good enough to pick up all that slack.

Brady being Brady would be covering for these problems while experience and coaching tried to fix them over the course of the season, but Brady's not being Brady, and he's actually compounding the problems in some of these games.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

But, seriously, what would you have done differently?? And don't say "blitz". Their game today was all short passes, mostly simple out patterns, many off of 3 and 5 step drops - the blitz would've been unhelpful on these plays which killed us. Our coverage was tight as well, we had a number of break ups and were always right there to make sure there was no YAC. Some days you have to say, hey, they had a good game plan and they executed it well.

If our offense can put a single point up in the 2nd half we win the game and everyone's praising the D.

The coverage wasn't really very tight. A couple of people have mentioned the soft zone that was employed.

Eddie Royal had a big day. Seemed he was often single-covered without help, so the DB had to give some cushion. He had 10 catches for 90 yards this game (compared to 8 catches for 58 yards in the previous 4 games).

I understand wanting to keep the play in front of you and not let Marshall make big plays, but he ended up with 2 TDs anyways, so why not be more aggressive and play tighter coverage?

 

[condon84]

The problem with this team blitzing is that the defensive backs can't cover good receivers 1-on-1. This team is keeping safeties over the corners. If you blitz, you take away that protection, and that's just asking for trouble.

There is nobody on the defensive line that forces a double team on passing downs, and, for the most part, the line can't get anything resembling pressure without the blitz. There's no linebacker who's truly impressive in coverage. There's no cornerback who can be depended on against opposing teams' #1 wideouts, and the safeties are good, but they're not good enough to pick up all that slack.

Brady being Brady would be covering for these problems while experience and coaching tried to fix them over the course of the season, but Brady's not being Brady, and he's actually compounding the problems in some of these games.

We blitzed the Ravens heavily last week and relied on our DBs to cover one on one and we were successful for the most part. Granted, the Broncos have better receivers, but that would have been negated by the pressure Orton would have been facing. The few times we did blitz today, it was positive for us. We prevented them from scoring in regulation by suddenly becoming aggressive.

Our DBs are better than your making it sound. Majority of Denver's completed passes came because of the soft zone. The times we did play tight, we had some success.

 

[Deus Irae]

We blitzed the Ravens heavily last week and relied on our DBs to cover one on one and we were successful for the most part. Granted, the Broncos have better receivers, but that would have been negated by the pressure Orton would have been facing. The few times we did blitz today, it was positive for us. We prevented them from scoring in regulation by suddenly becoming aggressive.

Our DBs are better than your making it sound. Majority of Denver's completed passes came because of the soft zone. The times we did play tight, we had some success.

Actually, when they went with single coverage, Mason killed them. That's why they changed that up after the Ravens marched right down the field on them at the beginning of the game. If it was Hobbs instead of Bodden the past two weeks, and every play was identical, people would be calling for Hobbs' head. Because it's a new player that people were pimping all offseason, Bodden's getting a free pass.

 

[condon84]

Actually, when they went with single coverage, Mason killed them. That's why they changed that up after the Ravens marched right down the field on them at the beginning of the game.

From what I saw, what changed was that we started blitzing and pressured Flacco after that successful drive.

 

[Deus Irae]

From what I saw, what changed was that we started blitzing and pressured Flacco after that successful drive.

Belichick pointed out the coverage change on The Big Show, the Monday after the game.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Actually, when they went with single coverage, Mason killed them. That's why they changed that up after the Ravens marched right down the field on them at the beginning of the game. If it was Hobbs instead of Bodden the past two weeks, and every play was identical, people would be calling for Hobbs' head. Because it's a new player that people were pimping all offseason, Bodden's getting a free pass.

Pretty much, and we were able to do that because the Ravens didn't have a credible threat at WR2. Against teams with 2 good receivers and a receiving TE threat (like the Broncos), we're going to be spread too thin to do what we did to Derrick Mason. We don't have anyone who can cover a true #1 WR 1-on-1 (which is fine, IMO- not many CBs can do that), so we have to be a little more conservative in coverage. Makes it all the more important that we be able to bring pressure without blitzing: when we do, we'll be fine, and when we can't we'll be in trouble.

 

[Fencer]

I think he did. Several of the completions were picked up off the ground and he had some horrible misses. If you want me to say he was average instead of sucked I guess I could but I think the best I can say with a straight face is below average.

Well, if some of those INT chances had been snagged, I might agree with you. But none of them looked like easy INTs/drops, and so he only gave up one turnover all game, while putting up good production numbers.

Tough grading to call that below average.

 

[Fencer]

I see a lot of people dishing the D. They gave up 17 points in regular time, thats a win for the D.

The problem is the Offense, no score in the second half. The playcalling is horrendous.

Brady's diagnosis is evidently that the D is excused for softening because the offense didn't stay on the field long enough to let them rest ...

 

[The_Riddler]

How bad is Pierre Woods......

I counted 3 plays (the ones that I focused on him), where he dropped back into the wrong coverage and lost the TE on big plays, he was lost. Not only was he lost, his number was never called during the game. He was absolutely invisible..........

You know, in a cost cutting move BB basically gives away Mike Vrabel, he passes on either trading up for a Brian Cushing (which would have been a small cost and the kid is having a great year) or even just sitting tight even after the 1st trade down, and Clay Matthews falls into his lap at #26. No, the master-mind BB trades down into Round 2 (Passes for the 2nd damn time on Rey Maualuga and deals down again) and we walk away with an inactive Ron Brace and Patrick Chung who can't seem to find his way onto the field as Rey Maualuga/Cushing and Matthews are all staring for their respective teams and in Maualuga's case, flat out dominating with Matthews and Cushing well on their way to great careers.

No BB settles for Pierre Stiff Woods to start at OLB. We could have very, very easily come out of this draft with a a 3-4 LB group of the following:

(Clay Matthews, Rey Maualuga, Jerod Mayo, AD) how would that group of 4 have worked out for you BB ? I went ballistic on draft day and still feel that way today. Time to evaluate BB and these damn draft and FA moves and call it like it is without the freaking koolaid..............