aluminum seats
Pro Bowl Player
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2006
- Messages
- 10,453
- Reaction score
- 11,337
I think that the problem is in assuming there is one answer.
First, I think you have to limit second half 'losses' to actual games that are lost. Its irrelevant that the Bengals scored more points than the Pats last week when the primary job was to preserve the win, not add to the lead. A strategy that protects the lead, even if allowing more 2nd half points than it scores, is still sound.
Also what happened last year and what happened, will happen or is happening this year are not the same thing.
Yes, the Patriots have all too often had games that were close at the half, that they lost with poor play in the 2nd half. 5 times since last year.
The biggest mistake that could be made would be to assume there is one answer for all of those games spread so far apart, with different players, different dynamics, and different opponents.
I am sure that there were times that the other team did a better job adjusting their game plan than we did.
Logically, you would expect that to happen half the time. Since we are ignoring the games that we had no second half problems, I dont know that
I could call losing the 'adjustment battle' 5 times in 18 games bad coaching, if in fact that were the sole cause.
I mean the standard cannot be that our coaching staff outcoaches every team, every game, every half, or we are being foolish.
I am sure that an analysis would show that some of those games inviolved poor decision making by the coaching staff, others would sbow poor execution of good decisions, and some would show both.
IMO, if the discussion is about this weeks game, you can certainly find ingenius ideas in hindsight that got missed and you can certainly find poor exection.
I think in this case though it is clear that plays were there to be made that werent. and the larger issue was execution.
Look at it this way, from the offensive side.
If before the game we said that we would come out and attack the Jets D successfully enough that they will abandon theiir blitzing identity, flood the middle of the field, sit back in coverage and need to leave Moss in single coverage with no help, and no Revis, and all we have to do is execute the plays that will exploit that D, anyone who says that would be a bad plan is lying.
That is what happened, we got those plays, we didnt make them. Not only didnt we make the plays that exploited that D we turned them into turnovers. That aint scheme, adjustment or play call, thats failing to make the play we wanted to have them give us.
Well, I absolutely agree that there's not just one answer, but a combination of factors.
But I think one of the benefits of going back 19 games is that the particulars of any given game don't matter so much. That's a fairly sizeable sample to draw from.