This game is being seriously misanalyzed

[Fencer]

Here's what really happened.

1. The Patriots' offense had a much better night vs. the Eagles' defense than the Eagles' offense had vs. the Patriots' defense.

2. Special teams almost made up the difference.

Depending on how one counts, the Patriots' offense lost out on 2-4 possessions (Asante score, onside kick, missed FG after offensive PI, clock-centric playcalling at game's end). Yet they still scored 24 points and gave up no TOs, while receiving little in the way of field position gifts. (With one of the INTs being a score for the defense and another sealing the game, taken together TOs didn't do much for field position).

That's a much better result than scoring 28 points, giving up 7, and having two other TOs, on a full slate of possessions. In essence, there's nothing there in the way of a blueprint for slowing the Pats' offense, other than taking the ball out of their hands altogether by good plays (the onside kick) or bad (the INT for a TD).

But the ST disparity was huge. The successful onside kick and the missed FG turned a 10 or so point game into a 3-pointer.

The one phase of the game where the prevailing analysis is generally right is when the Pats were on defense. The rushers didn't get to Feeley and the DBs didn't get to his thrown balls (the INTs obviously excepted). The rush defense was pretty effective, but overall it was a mediocre showing.

 

[BadMoFo]

Here's what really happened.

1. The Patriots' offense had a much better night vs. the Eagles' defense than the Eagles' offense had vs. the Patriots' defense.

2. Special teams almost made up the difference.

Depending on how one counts, the Patriots' offense lost out on 2-4 possessions (Asante score, onside kick, missed FG after offensive PI, clock-centric playcalling at game's end). Yet they still scored 24 points and gave up no TOs, while receiving little in the way of field position gifts. (With one of the INTs being a score for the defense and another sealing the game, taken together TOs didn't do much for field position).

That's a much better result than scoring 28 points, giving up 7, and having two other TOs, on a full slate of possessions. In essence, there's nothing there in the way of a blueprint for slowing the Pats' offense, other than taking the ball out of their hands altogether by good plays (the onside kick) or bad (the INT for a TD).

But the ST disparity was huge. The successful onside kick and the missed FG turned a 10 or so point game into a 3-pointer.

The one phase of the game where the prevailing analysis is generally right is when the Pats were on defense. The rushers didn't get to Feeley and the DBs didn't get to his thrown balls (the INTs obviously excepted). The rush defense was pretty effective, but overall it was a mediocre showing.

Don't know how the onside kick plays a role in your analysis. The Eagles never scored on that play.

 

[Fencer]

Don't know how the onside kick plays a role in your analysis. The Eagles never scored on that play.

It still gave them two possessions in a row, without a Patriot possession inbetween.

If you're looking for a fallacy in my argument about possessions, there's one weak spot. If you don't have a possession, you also don't use any time, so ultimately there's more time in the game and more possessions for everybody. But while that may be a reason not to use the high end of my range (four possessions foregone), it's not a reason to dismiss my point altogether.

 

[BadMoFo]

The only thing I think turned this into a 3-point win was the blown PI call. I don't think we could have won by any more than 10 points yesterday.

While the onside kick was a gutsy call by the Eagles, all it really did was give them a little momentum. We got the ball back a minute and a half later at possibly the same position had they kicked off.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

They had nothing to lose, we had everything to lose, and they were 25 point 'dogs... in broad strokes, Reid approached it a lot like Belichick approached the 01 Rams Super Bowl, and almost got the same result out of it. That is , he said the only way we win this is take chances, play mistake-free [sic], and get the bounces. Well okay, AJ is no Tom Brady, and he opened the game with the pick 6... but they played a lot like we always have. He took away Moss, played havoc with those one or two tendencies he found on his tapes (i.e., the inside of the field,) and did a great job overall. Did we have a flat game? Yeah, but I have to say that Walrus guy in Philly coached a hell of a game, and AJ stepped up for those guys great.

Kudos again to Philly.

PFnV

 

[BadMoFo]

They had nothing to lose, we had everything to lose, and they were 25 point 'dogs... in broad strokes, Reid approached it a lot like Belichick approached the 01 Rams Super Bowl, and almost got the same result out of it. That is , he said the only way we win this is take chances, play mistake-free [sic], and get the bounces. Well okay, AJ is no Tom Brady, and he opened the game with the pick 6... but they played a lot like we always have. He took away Moss, played havoc with those one or two tendencies he found on his tapes (i.e., the inside of the field,) and did a great job overall. Did we have a flat game? Yeah, but I have to say that Walrus guy in Philly coached a hell of a game, and AJ stepped up for those guys great.

Kudos again to Philly.

PFnV

I know people want to say that the middle of the secondary is our weakness, and it may be the weakest part of our game, but I'd stop short of calling it a liability. It was bad yesterday, but I think a lot of that had to do with us not getting to the QB. We technically got to AJ once and that was a fluke sack. If teams are going to protect the QB the way we normally do, of course receivers are going to get open.

Hobbs has had a bad year in the secondary, but I think Samuel and Sanders are playing really good this year. Randall Gay has had his ups and downs, as has Harrison.

 

[DarrylS]

I know people want to say that the middle of the secondary is our weakness, and it may be the weakest part of our game, but I'd stop short of calling it a liability. It was bad yesterday, but I think a lot of that had to do with us not getting to the QB. We technically got to AJ once and that was a fluke sack. If teams are going to protect the QB the way we normally do, of course receivers are going to get open.

Hobbs has had a bad year in the secondary, but I think Samuel and Sanders are playing really good this year. Randall Gay has had his ups and downs, as has Harrison.

Harrison looked like he was a step behind all night, did not look as dominant as he usually does..

 

[BadMoFo]

Harrison looked like he was a step behind all night, did not look as dominant as he usually does..

I agree. I think he played good against the run, but he was a little slow against the pass. I blame most of LJ Smith's production on him, plus he was seriously out of position on one deep pass.

 

[Fencer]

Actually, I should revise my comments on the offense a little.

In the second half the offense produced a TD, a FG miss, three failed drives (2 on punts, one on downs), and a kneel. And the FG miss was on a drive that only got extended by a penalty when they were already in punt formation.

That's NOT a highly successful half.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Don't know how the onside kick plays a role in your analysis. The Eagles never scored on that play.

but it kept tb off the field.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Here's what really happened.

1. The Patriots' offense had a much better night vs. the Eagles' defense than the Eagles' offense had vs. the Patriots' defense.

2. Special teams almost made up the difference.

Depending on how one counts, the Patriots' offense lost out on 2-4 possessions (Asante score, onside kick, missed FG after offensive PI, clock-centric playcalling at game's end). Yet they still scored 24 points and gave up no TOs, while receiving little in the way of field position gifts. (With one of the INTs being a score for the defense and another sealing the game, taken together TOs didn't do much for field position).

That's a much better result than scoring 28 points, giving up 7, and having two other TOs, on a full slate of possessions. In essence, there's nothing there in the way of a blueprint for slowing the Pats' offense, other than taking the ball out of their hands altogether by good plays (the onside kick) or bad (the INT for a TD).

But the ST disparity was huge. The successful onside kick and the missed FG turned a 10 or so point game into a 3-pointer.

The one phase of the game where the prevailing analysis is generally right is when the Pats were on defense. The rushers didn't get to Feeley and the DBs didn't get to his thrown balls (the INTs obviously excepted). The rush defense was pretty effective, but overall it was a mediocre showing.

good analysis and i agree. the eagles played a great game.

you overlook, tho, the pats' failure to pressure feeley which exposed the downfield coverage too much. also, tb was throwing off his heels as the pocket collapsed in front of him too often. the iggles were definitely doing something up front on d that put our guys off their game--Light had two false starts.

 

[BelichickFan]

The thing with our defense, at times, was our defense, but at least half those plays were just great execution by the Eagles. Feeley hitting the pass exactly where he needed, sometimes while being hit, great catches too. We need to play better defense but in the first half especially the Eagles offense was damn near perfect in some tough situations.

 

[Stop Being A Jerk]

I look at the game like this:

It's hard to imagine a team making more plays than the Eagles did. In the game thread a lot of people were on Gay because people made catches while he was defending them, but I don't see it that way. It's not like he had bad position or something, but the Eagles WRs (and Feeley) just kept making great play after great play. It seemed like every single time they needed a play, they made it. How many great throws and great catches -- on the same play! -- can one team make? Apparently a dozen or so.

Yes, sometimes their receivers were ridiculously open to such a degree that I found it hard to believe. But I'd say a majority of the plays against the defense were earned by the Eagles and I really can't imagine a team playing better in that area. In other words, the defense didn't play so poorly that they made the Eagles look like the Colts; rather, the Eagles played so well that they looked like the Colts.

What I'm not sure about was Brady's play. You can't see downfield so who knows what he was seeing. But in this game it certainly seemed like he was trying to make stuff happen, rather than taking what was there. Of course maybe that's what he had to do; that's what most people will say. After all, he's Tom Brady. But I find it hard to believe that a banged up Eagles secondary was taking stuff away to a degree that only the Colts have thus far matched. If they were, Brady and the receivers can look forward for the rest of the season to much better teams copying the Eagles and taking stuff away to a greater degree than the Eagles could possibly manage. Because those are the two options.

Lastly, this defense can't tackle. This has been going on for so long now that there's no sense denying it or saying Bill'll get it fixed in practice. If it was fixable it'd be fixed by now.

 

[tedylb]

The Patriots played their worst game. and the Eagles their best. Many deficiencies will be addressed by the coaching staff this week, including getting outcoached Sunday night. Still, there were many positives, which include:

1. No turnovers, while getting three key picks.
2. The Eagles scored 7 points in the second half and were shut out in the fourth.
3. Welker and Gaffney came through when needed.
4. Hobbs continues to excel on kickoff returns.
5 As always, Brady finds a way in crunch time.
6. Westbrook was held to less than 85 total yards.

Lots of work to do, but nobody else is 11-0. Can the Ravens match up? Don't bet on it.

 

[vyrago]

They had nothing to lose, we had everything to lose, and they were 25 point 'dogs

PFnV

Weren't the Eagles playing for their playoff lives? Hadn't the Pats sewn up the AFC East before they even stepped on the field last night?

I guess our definitions of "nothing" and "everything" differ.

 

[upstater1]

YPA

Yards per attempt.

This was the biggest difference in the game IMO.

It was drastically lower than in any other game this year.

The Patriots would have gotten more times to handle the ball on offense if they were getting chunks of yardage the way they had been in other games. This was a dink and dunk game for Brady. But it didn't have to be. Stick Maroney back there and playfake, and you'll have all the time you need to throw long.

 

[mosi]

This game reminded me a lot of a game in 1991 between the Houston Oilers and the Eagles. The Oilers had the run and shoot and the Eagles came in with a back-up QB and no shot to win. At that time, the Astro-dome was called the "house of pain" by the Oiler fans. That day, the Eagles came in and just punished the Oilers and won the game.

This game reminded me a lot of that game. You could see the fear in the eyes of some of the Pats receivers, not wanting to get hit.

I think we all thought that the Pats would blow this team out. I even told my neighbor that I think the Pats may put up 60+ points.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

The Iggles scored 4 TDs on drives of more than 68 yards.

They were cruising toward a 5th, when Felly made a horrible pass.

Any analysis that ends with a suggestion that our defense was much better than theirs is just not one I'm going to buy.

Special teams mattered, but the reason we won and they didn't was the reason that probably 60 percent or more of games in the NFL are won or lost: Turnovers.

One fumble or pick and we probably lose.

 

[Metaphors]

YPA

Yards per attempt.

This was the biggest difference in the game IMO.

It was drastically lower than in any other game this year.

The Patriots would have gotten more times to handle the ball on offense if they were getting chunks of yardage the way they had been in other games. This was a dink and dunk game for Brady. But it didn't have to be. Stick Maroney back there and playfake, and you'll have all the time you need to throw long.

7 possessions (trying to score)
5 times in the red zone (once to the PHI 33)
3 TDs (should have been 4 on Moss bogus PI call)
1 FG (got to 1st and goal at the 8)

Not sure what else you want in a gameplan. The only issue I had was the passing formations on the FG drive. You are at the 8 yard line and should be able to run it in from there.

The point that people aren't considering is the Pats dictated the flow of the game. You think the Eagles' best-case scenario was to throw 42 times? That put the fate of the Eagles on Feeley's shoulders, not Westbrook's legs. Credit Feeley for playing well, but he needed to avoid turnovers. Instead, he had 2 killers and that proved to be the difference.

The NFL is a league designed around scoring points. You can't stop everyone. The great teams can dictate what the other offense will do and won't do. You have to score at least 35 points to beat the Pats. Except for the Colts at full strength, nobody can do that with their existing offensive scheme. You have to throw more than you want to...you have to throw downfield more than you want to.

You might catch lightning in a bottle for a while, but it is hard to do it for a full 60 minutes against a good defense.

 

[shakadave]

1. No turnovers, while getting three key picks.

The importance of our not turning the ball over can not be overstated. One or two turnovers by our offense and we just lost. Whenever they tackled Faulk or anyone else I was holding my breath for no fumbles, and they came through every time.