This week's Dr Z comment on the pats

[SVN]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/dr_z/12/06/ranks.part1/index.html

Bill Belichick found himself with a team on the verge of getting dysfunctional after five turnovers against the Bears. He had the choice of whipping them or babying them, and he chose the whip. On Wednesday after the Bears game he sent his guys out in full pads. No visitors. Lockdown at four o'clock. No contact with attorneys. So what happened? They nearly lost to the worst team in football, the Lions. Three turnovers in the fourth quarter saved their butts, after they had committed the same number themselves. From my vast experience, when I see a good team on an extended blah streak at this stage of the season, it means one thing to me. It's tired.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/dr_z/12/06/ranks.part1/index.html

As long as we improve each week from here on out in those areas of offense which have been discussed a lot at this site, we will hopefully be able to prove Dr Z wrong.

 

[denverpatsfan]

Screw that old grouchy SOB. Isn't every team tired this time of the season? I think this was a predictable letdown game after a HUGE win against the Bears. Why do all the talking heads need to read more into it?

 

[RayClay]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/dr_z/12/06/ranks.part1/index.html

Glad to see he's watching the games.

We had a tired team last year, actually we're in much better shape with offensive depth.

I think there's something to "film on the field" theory, based on what I viewed.

Those balls were squirting out unaturally for both teams in both games.

A poster in another thread mentioned a film that needs to wear off on the surface and everyone knows we installed this and played on it weeks before we were supposed to.

Something about seasoning.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Before we go all pats fans on him, Dr Z may have a point.
Remember that both Brady and Seymour said that the Pats came out flat and without emotion. Why is that? I find that admission quite disturbing.

Maybe they are tired somehow.

Maybe it's a letdown after a big game. If the latter, then the 2006 team showed it's not ready for the playoffs because each big game is followed by a bigger game.

 

[borg]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/dr_z/12/06/ranks.part1/index.html

First... What exactly is Z's vast experience...watching games on his couch and having his Fire Box proof read is copy. Second... are the teams the Pats beat tired also...And wouldn't you think tired teams would be unable to pull off 4th quarter comebacks. The story line for the Lions game should be...Despite the Lions success passing verses the Pats depleted secondary, the Pats find the energy to overcome multiple miscues for the Victory.
Were the Ravens tired...Are the Colts tired?

 

[SVN]

i dont know much about dr z but i think he does have some exp watching football since 70's or something as far as i have read ..at least more than prisco etc...
secondly..i dont know his comments are -ve ...he actually says the pats are a good team here

"From my vast experience, when I see a good team on an extended blah streak at this stage of the season, it means one thing to me. It's tired."

We dont have to agree with him but he may have point. whether its tired mentally or physically who knows but we all talk about the past pats SB teams, they were damn sharp towards the end of the season.

 

[Rob0729]

I don't know about this team being tired. I think it was a team who looked past the opponent. This team was efficient as hell in the fourth quarter. Wouldn't a tired team get worse as the game went along?

I think it was a case of a team with an emotional letdown after a big game and probably looking past the competition a bit. Only time will tell who is right.

I love how the experts spin each win and loss. People warned all week about this being a trap game for the Pats. It looks like the Pats fell into that trap, but still won. Now there is so much more to why the Pats struggled.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

at the risk of getting slammed for agreeing with the often obnoxious Dr. Z, I have to admit that "tired" was my verdict as well on Sunday's performance (I called it "beat" in another post earlier in the week--not "beat" as in "lost the game" beat, but "beat" as in "drained and wiped out" beat).

We're at the point in the season where a team pretty much is what it's going to be and where the teams that are going to be playing at the end of January will rise to the top. It's the time when full pad practices in freezing weather and dressings down by the coach give way to indoor walk-throughs in sweats and quiet coaching on fundamentals (hold onto the ball, know how this group of officials is going to call the game, etc.). This team WAS tired last Sunday. It's time now to let it save all its energy for gameday.

Will this team get to Miami in February? I don't know, but you tell me which AFC team is so much better than the Patriots that we can say it will surely beat our guys in the Playoffs. The Colts? Their D and imbalance on Offense are finally catching up to them. The Bolts? Look me in the eye and tell me that you take Rivers over Brady when everything's on the line. Anyone else? I don't think so.

It's time for this team to do what it knows how to do in December. Focus. Expend just as much energy as necessary to get the job done every week. And, then, bring it home.

For the first time all year, I'm starting to get a really good feeling about this team. I'm starting to think that just maybe "Four in Six in 2006" is more than a slogan I dreamed up over a glass of wine in August.

 

[DarrylS]

Dr. Z is starting to sound a little Borgesesque... he has not had too many nice things to say about the Pats this season, wonder what he will do when they win the SB.

 

[patchick]

You know, everybody seems to be jumping all over the columnist as if he totally dissed the Patriots, yet the article actually calls them the #3 team in the league right now behind San Diego and (barely) Indy. So he's not allowed to say the team looked tired last week?

 

[mcbee]

"In the Marines! Outstanding."

At first I thought the team needed to be punished. But maybe they really are tired.

Rest them this week. Walk throughs with shells and agility/stretching.

Then if they screw up, punishment.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

You know, everybody seems to be jumping all over the columnist as if he totally dissed the Patriots, yet the article actually calls them the #3 team in the league right now behind San Diego and (barely) Indy. So he's not allowed to say the team looked tired last week?

You are the voice of reason today.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/dr_z/12/06/ranks.part1/index.html

Don't read into any of these comments. If your going to read it, read for enjoyment only. Don't take it personal. I'm sure every fan of every team gets affended at what columninsts say. I used to be so concerned about what experts would say about the Pats, but not anymore because they hardly ever talk about the Pats. They can't make everyone happy. Let the players do the talking. I learned this a long time ago.

 

[JR4]

at the risk of getting slammed for agreeing with the often obnoxious Dr. Z, I have to admit that "tired" was my verdict as well on Sunday's performance (I called it "beat" in another post earlier in the week--not "beat" as in "lost the game" beat, but "beat" as in "drained and wiped out" beat).
......

For the first time all year, I'm starting to get a really good feeling about this team. I'm starting to think that just maybe "Four in Six in 2006" is more than a slogan I dreamed up over a glass of wine in August.

I agree with you that there was something wrong ... call it tired ....
.... call it out of sync .... whatever. Maybe losing Seau had a big effect
on the D. Maybe the Oline was just trying too hard and not letting the
game come to them. Maybe it was just some bad luck .... maybe the
refs were trying to keep it close game.
Whatever the reason .... they didn't look like a December PATs team.
Maybe they are tired. Coach worked them real hard when other teams
are letting up a little.
I think Belichick got the message though. Just in some of his comments
it didn't seem like his normal talk of how much they got to improve ...la di da ...
It was more praising them for the good things they did.

"I'm starting to get a really good feeling about this team."
I hope your feelings are justified.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

I agree with you that there was something wrong ... call it tired ....
.... call it out of sync .... whatever. Maybe losing Seau had a big effect
on the D. Maybe the Oline was just trying too hard and not letting the
game come to them. Maybe it was just some bad luck .... maybe the
refs were trying to keep it close game.
Whatever the reason .... they didn't look like a December PATs team.
Maybe they are tired. Coach worked them real hard when other teams
are letting up a little.
I think Belichick got the message though. Just in some of his comments
it didn't seem like his normal talk of how much they got to improve ...la di da ...
It was more praising them for the good things they did.

"I'm starting to get a really good feeling about this team."
I hope your feelings are justified.

I call it bringing your 'B' game against a team you assume you will beat.

IMO, that is something that Patriots teams never did in our other superbowl runs. I don't remember ever thinking in those years that the team looked 'tired' out there, they always looked hungry, even when they lost. Except a single Bills game to start 2003......

I think that it was a chance to showcase some improvements in our offense, but instead turned into a general comedy of errors, like a few other games we either won or lost this year.

I'm glad and happy and full of joy that we actually won, as always. It seems that this point can't be emphasized enough around here lately.

So when does the long anticipated 'improvement' happen? Hopefully this week because we have three very tough teams to face, regardless of their current records, and then a trap game to face that we can't really afford to lose either.

 

[PatsRI]

I had to laugh when I read this. First this is Miami vs Carolina Super Bowl Dr.Z. Second here is what was in Felger's Patriot Insider column today:

http://patriots.bostonherald.com/patriots/view.bg?articleid=170660

------ We all know the Patriots under Bill Belichick have won a boatload of games in November and December. We all know they’re a good fourth-quarter team, regardless of the time of year.
And when we try and explain that success, we always point to the same factors: They’re well-coached. Tough. Smart. Clutch. Good in situations. Tom Brady [stats] rocks. Etc.
But did you ever stop to think that maybe they are also just well-conditioned?
You know, in shape?
“Yeah, I think there’s something to that,†said defensive end Jarvis Green. “It’s Week 13 and you walk in there (to the weight room) and guys are still lifting heavy. It’s 100 percent workouts. Other teams lay off at this time of year, just try to maintain. We’re still trying to build. So when we’re out there on the field, we have our legs underneath us. You can see some other teams huffing and puffing sometimes.

You see the front-runners all the time,†added Green. “But it only matters what happens in the end. Sometimes just being conditioned is more important.â€
The numbers certainly point to a trend. The Patriots are 35-6 (.854) in post-Thanksgiving games since 2001, including playoffs. No one in the league is even close to that mark (Pittsburgh is second at 30-11, .732). The Pats are also 24-4 in games decided by less than a touchdown since 2001. They’ve won their last eight overtime contests.
In no way are we suggesting that strength training is solely responsible for that success. Other teams train, too. We’re just saying it’s a forgotten element, and there have been many games in the past (see Super Bowls XXXVIII and XXXIX) where conditioning had a bigger impact than fans realize. On Sunday against Detroit, the Pats outscored the Lions 15-0 over the final 13 minutes. Call it a coincidence if you like.

It’s what Belichick envisioned when he arrived in New England in 2000 and changed the culture throughout the organization. One of his first reclamation projects was the strength and conditioning program, which had listed badly under former coach Pete Carroll. In the early years, Belichick basically demanded full attendance in the offseason (something that has now been relaxed considerably for key veterans) and tightened up the testing across the board. He instituted a pre-training camp conditioning run that is considered one of the toughest in the league and annually weeds out the ill-prepared.
Most importantly, as one of his first official acts as coach in February 2000, Belichick hired Mike Woicik as his strength and conditioning coach. The Westwood High and Boston College alum was one of the first trainers in the country to develop a year-round workout program geared exclusively for football teams, an accomplishment that landed Woicik the strength job in Dallas under Jimmy Johnson in the 1990s. After a stop in New Orleans, Woicik then joined Belichick in New England.
In short order, a Patriots team that always seemed to get worse as the season progressed under Carroll (11-9 post-Thanksgiving record), started getting better as the weather turned cold under Belichick. Soon, Woicik had added three Patriots Super Bowl rings to the three he earned in Dallas. His six rings are more than any other player or coach in NFL history.
According to the players, one of the things Woicik likes to do is continue to build strength through the season. As Green noted, sometimes the inclination is to simply “manage†through the latter part of the season. But in New England, the players are still maxing out.


Players who come to the Pats from different programs notice the difference.
“There’s a lot more conditioning. A lot,†said receiver Reche Caldwell [stats], who spent his first four years in San Diego. “You lift here more, compete here more. Even in practice. In San Diego you run a route in practice and they just let you catch the ball. Here you have to go make a play. It’s a lot different.â€
Woicik is known as a task-master, but the truth is that Belichick and personnel director Scott Pioli bring in so few loafers that Woicik rarely has to employ the hard-sell.

“He’s tough, but I don’t really think he has it too hard because so many guys here are willing and able. I don’t see a lot of guys fightng him,†said defensive lineman Mike Wright. --------------------------

 

[Fogbuster]

At this time of year everybody's tired, everybody's banged up, everybody's looking for their second wind.

The question comes down to: who wants it the most? A number of teams are on the rise -- including Baltimore and, obviously, San Diego -- and Indy's still trying to prove they can do it. And don't forget Parcell's Cowpokes. The Pats have been there three times in five years but others are hungry for it, too. They's all like to think that this year is "their" year. Well, that's why they play the games.

So, do the Pats want it more than the others??? Sometimes seems obviously they do; but other times, ... not.

Who's going to show up the rest of the way? Which Patriots will be there from now on, the winners or ... someone else? That's what I'm wondering. Do they have it in them to make it happen or not?

 

[emoney_33]

Tired doesn't have to be a permanent thing either... The bears game was extremely physical, and after an extremely physical game and then a perceived non-threat of an opponent, I wouldn't doubt if they were both mentally and physically tired for the lions game. I don't expect it to continue the rest of the season though.

 

[Mainefan]

I don't think the Patriots are any more tired than any other team. I think what happened with the Lions was mental, not physical. Despite BB's attempt to sell the Lions as a future Superbowl team, the Patriots knew exactly who they were playing.

I also have some bones to pick with people who talk about a turnover epidemic. If you look at the turnovers individually, you'll see that each of them has a very different cause, and they are by no means all the result of poor or sloppy play.

I especially refer to the Brady interceptions. More than half were tipped. When that happens, it's usually not the quarterback's fault, or not his sole fault. The receiver must share some of the blame and we can't overlook the role of just plain luck, good and bad.

In fact, I think that a quarterback's interception statistics can be very misleading. It's time, I think, for tips to be separated from pure interceptions. I'd like to see this changed in official NFL record keeping.

One more point: It's always a problem when a very good team plays a very bad team--a problem, that is, for the good team. Thus, we have "trap games." Usually, the Patriots find a way to push these into the win column, and if you look around the league, you'll find that many other good teams don't do as well--the Indianapolis-Tennessee game is a perfect example.