Curran:Patriots left peeved and proud after loss

[The Brandon Five]

That's because that Patriots shouldn't have won. They got outplayed in every facet of the game last night. They weren't embarrassed, and they held their own, but they got outplayed.

I figured the Pats had the edge in Special Teams before this game. It is disappointing that ST was a weak spot last night. Not sure what was going on with Ghost, but in addition to missing a FG at the worst possible time, his kickoffs were uncharacteristically shallow.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

Chargers are screwed next week. Patriots players seem to feel they really could of and should have won. Revis is ticked calling this the most upset he's been after a loss since HS. this team has heart and they got each other's back. I'm saying it now, SD is in for it next week.

Agree 100%. They are going to come out pissed and on fire. There isn't a doubt in my mind

 

[luuked]

The score differential was deflated by GB receivers dropping multiple easy touchdowns.

Multiple ? There was the one to Adams (?) at the end. I don't recall another dropped easy TD from the Packers.

 

[Galeb]

Multiple ? There was the one to Adams (?) at the end. I don't recall another dropped easy TD from the Packers.

I'm not sure who it was but I think it was Quarles. The ball hit him right in the hands.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Gronk's "drop" was a contested catch. Packers had a couple of guys drop would-be TDs that were uncontested passes that hit them in the hands. There were many times when Rodgers comfortably had more than 5 seconds to throw. Brady had no such luxury.

The number of TDs an opponent scores doesn't directly correlate with DL or OL play. Rewatch the game. The Pats were manhandled in the trenches.

You've made your view on what you saw quite clear and have done so several times. Others, including myself, saw something different. That's fair enough, and I doubt anyone is going to change their mind about what they saw, but you do seem to be in a minority...not that that in itself makes you wrong. So let's look at where we seem to agree.

Where we do agree is that the Packers were repeatedly able to pressure Brady, while Rodgers had time to eat a ham sandwich before throwing the ball.

My read on that is not that the Pats lost the battle in the trenches but that they made a major error in not establishing the running game from the beginning, which would have kept the pass rush honest and made the screens that they have used so well in the past more effective. The Packers ran well the first time they had the ball, but the Pats limited their success with the run after the first drive; but it was in the Pats' heads that they had to worry about the run. The time that Rodgers had in the pocket and, conversely, the time that Brady didn't have, was, to an important degree, a function of superior game-planning by the Packers' coaching staff in my view.

 

[Armen Da Pats Fan]

Agreed. Everything short was money. I was upset at the decision to throw long there, even though Gronk almost pulled it in. 4 down territory, just keep getting 3-5 a play as you had the whole drive.

I was thinking the same thing. Green Bay came in 30th against the run and we just didn't seem committed enough to it.

All in all, though, if we had to lose one of these second half games, I would preferred it be Green Bay because a) it is an NFC loss; b) it is a road game and I want them feeling confident at home, because it looks like that is where they will be playing their playoff games...

I predicted they would be 13-3 or 12-4 at the beginning of the season and they seem to be right on track...

Win these last four and they have accomplished two goals - AFC East and Home Field...

 

[Ivan]

The patriots got beat, period. They had a shot at the end but overall the packers, Rodgers in particular, were the better team and deserved the win. Much as i believe that Brady is the GOAT I also believe that Rodgers is the best QB in the game right now, and he showed why yesterday. Tough loss but one they can learn from, and I agree with poster who compared it to the St. Louis loss in 2001, except that this is a much better team than that one was. They need to run the table now to secure the home field for the play-offs, if they can do that they have a good shot at getting to Arizona, and if they play the Packers there it should be a great game.

 

[TomPatriot]

Totally agreed. The Pack was giving 5 free yards on every down and NE could have easily punched it in with 90 seconds or so left. (Maybe not "easily", but it was still functionally a lot easier) So why go for broke right there? Made no sense whatsoever. Nor did the FG try, which still would have required a 3 and out that was terribly unlikely, certainly less likely than a 4th and 18 conversion. And even if the 4th down was slightly less likely, the odds of winning are higher because you are in position to score a go-ahead TD whereas a stop on D still requires driving down the field with no TOs.

Really bizarre time management there.

It was a good call. The play was there. There was single coverage on Gronk, who has about 5 inches and 5o pounds on that corner. Timing between Gronk and Brady was a bit off and Clinton-Dix jammed 3 times and then covered well. The third jam might have been illegal contact but still good corner play.

They ran the prior two plays and no one else was open on that pass play.

 

[Galeb]

You've made your view on what you saw quite clear and have done so several times. Others, including myself, saw something different. That's fair enough, and I doubt anyone is going to change their mind about what they saw, but you do seem to be in a minority...not that that in itself makes you wrong. So let's look at where we seem to agree.

Where we do agree is that the Packers were repeatedly able to pressure Brady, while Rodgers had time to eat a ham sandwich before throwing the ball.

My read on that is not that the Pats lost the battle in the trenches but that they made a major error in not establishing the running game from the beginning, which would have kept the pass rush honest and made the screens that they have used so well in the past more effective. The Packers ran well the first time they had the ball, but the Pats limited their success with the run after the first drive; but it was in the Pats' heads that they had to worry about the run. The time that Rodgers had in the pocket and, conversely, the time that Brady didn't have, was, to an important degree, a function of superior game-planning by the Packers' coaching staff in my view.

If Unoriginal (I think that is his name) posted a breakdown that conflicts with my viewpoint, I would take another, hard look at my conclusions. Would love to hear him chime in.

I'm not sure I am in the minority. I've gotten a number of "agrees" in this thread and others when I mentioned that the Pats lost in trenches. Although there were some who have posted about the Pats bad line play in other threads, none have yet posted here.

I agree that game planning had a significant effect on the play of the two lines. That said, the players still have to execute. Brady moved well and got of the ball very quickly and was still consistently pressured. The DL got pushed around, but the Pats LBs were excellent in stopping the run.

 

[makoute]

I'm not sure who it was but I think it was Quarles. The ball hit him right in the hands.

Adams dropped one, and couldn't stay inbounds in the first half for another one.

 

[Galeb]

Adams dropped one, and couldn't stay inbounds in the first half for another one.

Like Gronk's "drop", I wouldn't call the one where Adams was out of bounds easy.

 

[FourierSeries]

Pats don't lose a game from here on out. Book it.

 

[mosi]

Bill Belichick doesn't strike me as a coach who believes in close enough being good enough.

I would agree and either do people like Tom Brady or Vincent Lamar Wilfork.

 

[fnordcircle]

You're playing a team that is terrible against the run AND scores the most points in the league. Which means that they're often up big on other teams which forces those teams to abandon the run. Which, to me, means they're quite possibly worse against the run that the stats indicate.

And then we went in and went pass heavy. I really feel like if we had committed to the run more we would have won that game going away.

 

[Raymond]

I know I'm going to take a lot of grief for this, but is Brady capable of winning big games anymore. Two Super Bowls where he did not play well. AFCCG in Denver last year over throwing wide open receivers. If I had to go into a big game I would take AR over Brady.

If you don't know, the Indy game was a bigger game.

 

[The Brandon Five]

I was thinking the same thing. Green Bay came in 30th against the run and we just didn't seem committed enough to it.

You're playing a team that is terrible against the run AND scores the most points in the league. Which means that they're often up big on other teams which forces those teams to abandon the run. Which, to me, means they're quite possibly worse against the run that the stats indicate.

And then we went in and went pass heavy. I really feel like if we had committed to the run more we would have won that game going away.

For the life of me I can't understand why the starting RB's were Vereen and Bolden. If they wanted to run inside the tackles why wasn't Blount in there earlier?

 

[borg]

I'd be ticked off that the Pats defensive scheme gave up almost 300 yds passing in the 1st half. Call it unprepared, outmanned, or out schemed....regardless....they were toyed with. I think I just saw Logan Ryan chasing a taxi...5 yards behind

 

[luuked]

Adams dropped one, and couldn't stay inbounds in the first half for another one.

Honestly I think that the throw out of bounds doesn't fit the dropped / easy T narrative. I am not sure if it was still Ryan at that point that was covering him but whoever the CB was he forced him to run a route that could never resulted in an inbound catch. At least not on that throw.

 

[Ring 6]

I was thinking the same thing. Green Bay came in 30th against the run and we just didn't seem committed enough to it.

All in all, though, if we had to lose one of these second half games, I would preferred it be Green Bay because a) it is an NFC loss; b) it is a road game and I want them feeling confident at home, because it looks like that is where they will be playing their playoff games...

I predicted they would be 13-3 or 12-4 at the beginning of the season and they seem to be right on track...

Win these last four and they have accomplished two goals - AFC East and Home Field...

Which are the only 2 that matter.
Any regular season that results in HFA throughout is a perfect regular season, i.e. it is impossible to accomplish more. (Obviously the health going into the postseason matters but thats not a measurable thing)

 

[Ring 6]

I'd be ticked off that the Pats defensive scheme gave up almost 300 yds passing in the 1st half. Call it unprepared, outmanned, or out schemed....regardless....they were toyed with. I think I just saw Logan Ryan chasing a taxi...5 yards behind

The offense contributed to that too.