i agree with your quotes, but if the Pats score 28-31 , which is close to a guarentee, its basically means, the chargers need 5 TD's.
how do they get those 5td's?
1. Shorten the field, which means, WHEN the Pats punt, make it only 60 yards to paydirt.
2. can't run the ball often, will eat up TOO much clock for the chargers. Chargers want to score quick. ( some may say, well then you give the Pats more opportunties. - this is true, but you have to try to assume your D scheme may work )
3. Volek will have to throw 30+ to score 35 points.... if he throws 20, even if he goings 16 for 20. thats what 220 yards with 2 tds. NOT ENOUGH
I have never understood the idea that a gameplan should revolve around keeping the other offense off the field, and limiting their possessions, or shortening the game. I imagine the philosophy is that if you have fewer possessions you have a better chance of getting an impact from one stop, but on the other more possessions give you more opportunities for flukes. In the end, a strategy that says shorten the game is one that says, we aren't good enough, so even if you have success, you will lose in the 4th quarter. To me, the most overriding objective for the coach of a large underdog is to get his team to believe it WILL win. You don't do that by telling your team we have to shorten the game.
Should you be aggressive or passive against a team like the Pats? IMO, for the above reasons you should be aggressive. Give your players a chance to make plays, and a chance to believe they can, rather than 'limiting the opponent'.
As far as your gameplan ideas, I think the worst thing a team can do is reinvent itself for an opponent. The common babble such as 'you can't cover everyone' is also defeatist, and is really wrong. Every defensive call is designed to cover the entire field (in one way or another, i.e. when you blitz you expect your rushers to cover the deep part of the field by not allowing enough time) so to say 'we must double so and so' or 'we have to play 9 men in the box' is saying WE ARENT GOOD ENOUGH TO EXECUTE OUR DEFENSE.
What a team facing a juggernaut like the Pats has to do, IMO, is play their game. It ultimately comes down to your players being good enough to execute your system, which is the system you have decided is best for those players. If they are not good enough you don't win no matter what you do.
The reality of the gameplanning aspect is this:
-You analyze and decipher what this opponent does. The Chargers have seen the things the Pats do from other opponents all year long. (Just in different proportions and to different levels of success) If they are playing the Chiefs, and know the Chiefs are going to go no huddle 5 WR shot gun, their defensive call should be EXACTLY THE SAME AGAINST THE PATRIOTS. The difference is that they need to execute it better against the Pats. If they cannot, using a different scheme, that by definition is not what they feel they do best will not work either.
-The same thing goes on offense. The reason teams run or throw more against specific opponents, is what the opponent does. When ANY team does that, they will make the same decision. If you play against the most heavy blitzing team in the NFL, you do not change what you do, you do what you do when ANYONE blitzes, you are just doing more often against that team.
The Chargers are built as a defense that believes its front 7 can stop the run. That believes its OLBs must generate their pass rush, and that believes in being passive in coverage, allowing either the rush to blow up the play, or the DBs to keep plays in front of them.
Sure they will blitz, its what they do. They won't send 8 rushers and cover with 3, and they wont overwhelming play bump and run, because its not what they do best, although they may do a lot more of it, because our offense may dictate that the situations they like to do it in come up more often.
Offensively, they are going to be what they are. A balanced offense that believes in establishing the run, getting the ball to LT in space in the passing game, and setting up play action.
For the Chargers to win, it is very simple. They have to do what they do, but do it better than they ever have before. They will not win with gameplan, unless you consider their basic philosophy to be the reason they would win. They would win by running the plays and defenses they have run all year, but in order to win, they must do it at a much higher level, because the players on the other side of the field are much better than both them, and the players they have faced.
Personally, I give the Chargers little chance for 3 reasons.
1) The Patriots are a clearly better team. On the majority of the plays in this game, the Patriots players will outplay the Charger players.
2) Regardless of the ups and downs, flukes, bounces, great or horrible plays, the Pats could play poorly and the Chargers play their best, and it will still be a 60 minute game. While it is becoming widely accepted that the Pats may be the best team ever, IMO, it is indisputable that they are the best team ever in making plays when the game is on the line.
3) Regardless of whatever is going through the heads of the 53 players on both sides right now, tomorrow morning or in th early part of the game, when the game is on the line, the Patriots will be as or more confident than any team who has ever stepped on a field that they will win the game, and the Chargers will have doubt. You can forget the loudmouth posturing (which by the way is the absolute sign of a lack of confidence. Anyone who is constantly looking for excuses, explanations, criticism of the opponent when they lose is doing it to hide their own insecurity) the in-game dancing, etc. When there are 4 minutes left in the game and the score is tied, every player on the Patriots is certain they will win, and the Chargers hope they can.
All of this has nothing to do with any SD injuries. There is a strong correlation over the year, in fact in all sports, that teams with highly publicized 'stars' actually play better when they are out with injury. There have been MANY teams in all sports college and pro that have been 'pretty good' with a star or 2 and the year after they leave the team is more successful. I'm not sure I understand the reason why, but I think it has something to do with (in the NFL) that you win when everyone does their job, and when you have one or 2 guys that get all of the credit, the other players tend to look to them to carry them through. When they aren't there every player becomes more accountable to doing their own job.
