Idle thoughts - The Houston Match up. (Texan fans welcome)

Uncle Rico said:

I don't have a tape or all-22, but my memory is the Pats were basically going for the kill shot on those series, taking shots down field, and just not connecting. Basically gambling with a big lead, and the Stallworth TD was the payoff. (I'm sure someone here will correct me if my memory is wrong )

Click to expand...

Yeah I remember watching the game thinking Brady must have seen something on tape because he kept going deep for a while and then Stallworth connected and scored a TD...Must be a weakness Brady saw on tape

Fencer said:

Ken, you seem to be suggesting that BB will assign two different Pats to be the personal watchdogs for two different opposing players. Really? When has he done that before in the history of ever?

Great call on your part if he actually does it.

Click to expand...

I'm not exactly what you mean here, Fencer. Are you talking about match up on the OL vs Watt, or are you talking about the match ups on AJohnson, and Foster. In this case I'll assume the latter, and you can correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm not sure that BB will match up Talib (on Johnson) and Chung (on Foster) every play. In the past BB hasn't flopped his CB's much, but in the past we haven't played as much man coverages as we are now.

My thinking is that Arrington on Andre Johnson is a mismatch of epic proportions. Johnson on Dennard is a better match up due to Dennards physical play, but the height differential is more than scary. Talib is a perfect physical match up for Johnson, but I don't think he can stop him alone. Johnson is just too good. That's why I see him getting help over the top from Gregory so he can be even more aggressive underneath. If BB ascribes to his philosophy of making a concerted effort to shut down ONE aspect of a team's arsenal. Johnson would be the one on any passing downs

My feelings are the same with Chung and Foster, they are more of a hunch than the Johnson match up. I would not be happy to see Foster out in space against any LB. You should know that initially I had Mayo in that match up. But after watching Foster break literally every ankle in the Cinci LB corp when he got them in space, I opted for a DB to do the job, and Chung was the best suited for the job. Plus, as I mentioned in the original post, this assignment would limit the number of plays Chung would need to be covering receivers deep....which is an added plus.

In the end we shall see. I have no links to BB's mind, but its what I'd do.

Uncle Rico said:

I don't have a tape or all-22, but my memory is the Pats were basically going for the kill shot on those series, taking shots down field, and just not connecting. Basically gambling with a big lead, and the Stallworth TD was the payoff. (I'm sure someone here will correct me if my memory is wrong )

Click to expand...

I kinda remember that. And if this is the case, you can argue that the Texans did little to stop the Pats on those drives and it was poor execution on the plays or the Pats just not executing the best offense to keep drives alive to test the kill shot.

So again, you can argue just as easily that if the Pats executed better on those drives that it could have been a bigger blow out as you can argue that if the Texans executed better the game would have been closer.

After the 2010 playoff game for the Pats, I will never say never in terms of rematches against teams the Pats beat during the season. I would be surprised if that game is not the theme of preparation this week for the Texans (and the Pats). The Texans are different in many ways than the Jets, and the injury to Brian Cushing appeared to change the team's fortunes radically after that week 5 game despite the later wins. After watching most of the Texans game yesterday, it still looks like it is sleepwalking as neither it nor the Bengals really looked like the win was important. My concern, given the fact the Texans have a good amount of talent on both sides of the ball, is that it finds a way to wake up for this game.

The losses to the Cardinals and Seahawks illustrate how bad the Pats can play when it doesn't execute, and that version of the Pats can easily lose. The deficit to the Niners recently was no different, as the bad version of the Pats was on the field for almost 3 quarters. The Texans win shows how scary the Pats can be when the team does execute. I believe the Pats can beat any team in the NFL, anywhere, when it plays to its capabilities. When it does not play to that level, anything can happen.

Uncle Rico said:

I don't have a tape or all-22, but my memory is the Pats were basically going for the kill shot on those series, taking shots down field, and just not connecting. Basically gambling with a big lead, and the Stallworth TD was the payoff. (I'm sure someone here will correct me if my memory is wrong )

Click to expand...

That's an interesting insight. I never thought of it that way. I keep thinking the Stallworth play had a lot of Hail Mary aspects to it. IIRC, he wasn't badly covered and needed to make a one handed catch to complete the play. Its not like he was wide open and the pass was perfect, like the Lloyd TD.

Plus Stallworth won't be walking through that door on Sunday. HIS moment of glory has come and gone. If the Pats want to go deep on the Texans this week, it will have to be on a Lloyd double move or play action.

I think the first game is lulling us into a false sense of security here. The final score really doesn't indicate some of the breaks we got along the way that changed the course of the game early on.

On the first Pats drive, Ridley's fumble near the goal line was fortunately recovered by us.

On the second Texans drive, they drove the ball from their own 20 to our 21 before McCourty made a big INT in the end-zone.

On the third Pats drive, it was extended by a pretty sketchy pass interference call.

The Texans aren't exactly an explosive offense, and playing from behind is more difficult for them. But we were pretty fortunate to get ahead so quickly. In a closer game, that offense will look a lot different.

On defense, the Texans got caught flat-footed to start the game, as we scored on our first 3 drives, but they settled down and forced 3-and-outs on 3 of 11 drives when Brady was in the game, 27%. And after the initial barrage of scoring, they actually forced 3-and-outs 3 of 8 drives, almost half the time. Small sample size, but for some perspective, the Pats offense led the league in fewest 3-and-outs this season (12%). The 27% would rank 29th in the league, just barely ahead of Oakland. While the high score hides a lot of it, this Texans defense is able to shut us down quickly at times.

I like our chances in this game, especially if weather is a factor, but I don't expect anywhere close to the blow-out that the first game was. Last time, Houston was treating it like the biggest game in franchise history and they were taught a few lessons about being a contender; I fully expect they have learned their lessons, and are eager to show it.

convertedpatsfan said:

I think the first game is lulling us into a false sense of security here. The final score really doesn't indicate some of the breaks we got along the way that changed the course of the game early on.

On the first Pats drive, Ridley's fumble near the goal line was fortunately recovered by us.

On the second Texans drive, they drove the ball from their own 20 to our 21 before McCourty made a big INT in the end-zone.

On the third Pats drive, it was extended by a pretty sketchy pass interference call.

The Texans aren't exactly an explosive offense, and playing from behind is more difficult for them. But we were pretty fortunate to get ahead so quickly. In a closer game, that offense will look a lot different.

On defense, the Texans got caught flat-footed to start the game, as we scored on our first 3 drives, but they settled down and forced 3-and-outs on 3 of 11 drives when Brady was in the game, 27%. And after the initial barrage of scoring, they actually forced 3-and-outs 3 of 8 drives, almost half the time. Small sample size, but for some perspective, the Pats offense led the league in fewest 3-and-outs this season (12%). The 27% would rank 29th in the league, just barely ahead of Oakland. While the high score hides a lot of it, this Texans defense is able to shut us down quickly at times.

I like our chances in this game, especially if weather is a factor, but I don't expect anywhere close to the blow-out that the first game was. Last time, Houston was treating it like the biggest game in franchise history and they were taught a few lessons about being a contender; I fully expect they have learned their lessons, and are eager to show it.

Click to expand...

Funny, I think it was bigger blowout than the score indicated.

The Pats all year has been a bend don't break offense and the Texans over the last 6 or so games have been a horrible red zone offense (including yesterday). So the McCourty INT was it a lucky break or par for the course for this defense and that offense.

I think people are over analyzing the first match up now. The Pats clearly outclassed the Texans at every aspect of the game. Yes, the Pats capitalized on some Texans' mistakes, but isn't that the signature of a Belichick run Patriots' team and what the Pats have been doing all year? In fact, isn't that the signature of any top team?

As for the 3 and outs, it was explained in other posts how McDaniels must have saw something and killed some drives by trying to force it deep which ended up paying off on the Stallworth TD. So did the Texans really stop the Pats or did the Pats stop the Pats by going away from what was working? Also, with a 21-0 lead in the first half is the offense slowing down a reflection of the opposing defense stopping the offense or the offense taking the pedal off the gas a little bit. The Pats did score another 21 points after they struggled a bit on offense.

convertedpatsfan said:

I think the first game is lulling us into a false sense of security here. The final score really doesn't indicate some of the breaks we got along the way that changed the course of the game early on.

On the first Pats drive, Ridley's fumble near the goal line was fortunately recovered by us.

On the second Texans drive, they drove the ball from their own 20 to our 21 before McCourty made a big INT in the end-zone.

On the third Pats drive, it was extended by a pretty sketchy pass interference call.

The Texans aren't exactly an explosive offense, and playing from behind is more difficult for them. But we were pretty fortunate to get ahead so quickly. In a closer game, that offense will look a lot different.

On defense, the Texans got caught flat-footed to start the game, as we scored on our first 3 drives, but they settled down and forced 3-and-outs on 3 of 11 drives when Brady was in the game, 27%. And after the initial barrage of scoring, they actually forced 3-and-outs 3 of 8 drives, almost half the time. Small sample size, but for some perspective, the Pats offense led the league in fewest 3-and-outs this season (12%). The 27% would rank 29th in the league, just barely ahead of Oakland. While the high score hides a lot of it, this Texans defense is able to shut us down quickly at times.

I like our chances in this game, especially if weather is a factor, but I don't expect anywhere close to the blow-out that the first game was. Last time, Houston was treating it like the biggest game in franchise history and they were taught a few lessons about being a contender; I fully expect they have learned their lessons, and are eager to show it.

Click to expand...

Kubiak will not deviate from their offsensive scheme: A big dose of Foster, with play-action Schaub.

If Patriots stuff Foster, like their 1st matchup, it's over. Look at the Texan losses, Foster gets neutralize, and the game falls on Schaub...

Wow! What a difference a month makes. The week after the Pats beat the Texans, the general sentiment on this board is that the Pats destroyed the Texans and it was proof the Pats are the best team in the league.

Now there is a strong sentiment that the Pats were lucky against Texans and the Texans shot themselves in the foot and if the the Texans executed better, they might have won.

I guess it is just nerves because I saw a lot of "I don't want to see the Ravens next week" this week even though the Ravens suck right now, but people wanted turn them into a "team that always plays the Pats tough" and Harbaugh will come up with something to confuse the Pats.

Rob0729 said:

First, with yesterday's game, the Texans have won 13 games, not 14.

Second, if the Texans executed better in the first game they might have lost by 14-21 points rather than 28. The Texans played their usual game plan. Their usual game plan turns to crap if teams can do the things I stated in my previous post and the Pats did all of them.

Click to expand...

Yes it was only 13 (as I typed later in my post) not 14.... my error but doesn't change that it is a lofty win total. It seems whatever the Texans do has a rather obvious and positive result most of the time (results that most teams wish they could replicate).

The Texans did not execute well and it was reflected in the score. If they would have executed better would they have won? No and I said about as much....but better execution could have made it competitive. For example, it was 21 to 0 at half time. The Patriots had 6 meaningful first half possessions. Three 3 and outs, one Patriot TD that was greatly aided by a PI call on a 3rd and 10 (that was poor execution by Texans), one TD by the Patriots where AH split out wide and, literally, had no Texan go over and line up to cover him (again, poor Texan execution).
The Texans offense had 5 meaningful possessions in the first half: a drive to the Patriot 21 end on a 2nd and 8 with a very poorly executed pass plus two drives end around the Patriot 35, both on 4th and 5 turnovers on downs.
If the Texans don't commit PI, don't throw an absurd Int and can complete just 1 of 2 passes for a measly 5 yards? Halftime likely goes from 21-0 to 14-6. That isn't rosy for the Texans but it remains a one score, competitive game at halftime.
Next Patriots TD approaching mid 3rd quarter (and the one that arguably puts the game on ice and sees the Texans start to pack it in) is a 65 yard TD to Stallworth. When you give up a 65 yard TD there is likely some level of poor execution on the defense side (see the Patriots v 9ers game for an example of that).

Again, would the Texans have won if they executed? It still is not likely but a one score game at halftime is a vastly different game than 21 to 0 at halftime. But remember this is Foxboro in December where the odds say there is little chance anyone wins. Where every gameplan fails at a, what is it, 95% clip?
But if you think a 13 win team needs to do it differently to win versus doing what has got them 13 wins (except executing it well)? I guess we should hope they don't change.....should make the chances of a Patriot victory very high....

I don't think we'll see much change in scheme from Houston. They bring at least 5 more than half the time (probably 75%) from a base defense with cover 0 or 1 and sometimes 2. They challenge you to throw it over the top and we saw some success with that last time but its generally not a high percentage success. Even if you can beat them deep, Wade feels pretty confident that his rush will get to the QB before he can deliver an accurate ball.
I actually think empty back sets can be very effective as its effectively a cover 0 or 1 and if Brady sees the defense pre-snap, he's usually very effective. Houston pretty much expects to beat you with execution and believes their rush with man underneath will win most battles.
On offense, they don't want to be in 3rd and long (who does I know) but they aren't comfortable in that. It will be Foster and the 2TE's with play-action. Again, there isn't much scheme variation there, just execution. Hightower will be key as I'm sure Houston will try to match up Daniels and Graham against him more so than Mayo. If their TE's are successful, we may see T. White.
I'll think we'll see a closer game. Who converts drives to TD's and of course turnovers will determine the winner.

TheBostonStraggler said:

Yes it was only 13 (as I typed later in my post) not 14.... my error but doesn't change that it is a lofty win total. It seems whatever the Texans do has a rather obvious and positive result most of the time (results that most teams wish they could replicate).

The Texans did not execute well and it was reflected in the score. If they would have executed better would they have won? No and I said about as much....but better execution could have made it competitive. For example, it was 21 to 0 at half time. The Patriots had 6 meaningful first half possessions. Three 3 and outs, one Patriot TD that was greatly aided by a PI call on a 3rd and 10 (that was poor execution by Texans), one TD by the Patriots where AH split out wide and, literally, had no Texan go over and line up to cover him (again, poor Texan execution).
The Texans offense had 5 meaningful possessions in the first half: a drive to the Patriot 21 end on a 2nd and 8 with a very poorly executed pass plus two drives end around the Patriot 35, both on 4th and 5 turnovers on downs.
If the Texans don't commit PI, don't throw an absurd Int and can complete just 1 of 2 passes for a measly 5 yards? Halftime likely goes from 21-0 to 14-6. That isn't rosy for the Texans but it remains a one score, competitive game at halftime.
Next Patriots TD approaching mid 3rd quarter (and the one that arguably puts the game on ice and sees the Texans start to pack it in) is a 65 yard TD to Stallworth. When you give up a 65 yard TD there is likely some level of poor execution on the defense side (see the Patriots v 9ers game for an example of that).

Again, would the Texans have won if they executed? It still is not likely but a one score game at halftime is a vastly different game than 21 to 0 at halftime. But remember this is Foxboro in December where the odds say there is little chance anyone wins. Where every gameplan fails at a, what is it, 95% clip?
But if you think a 13 win team needs to do it differently to win versus doing what has got them 13 wins (except executing it well)? I guess we should hope they don't change.....should make the chances of a Patriot victory very high....

Click to expand...

Is it poor execution or the Pats with a better game plan. Many deep PI calls are called because the defender is beat and the best thing to do is commit PI and hope it isn't call. Can't remember the play exactly. So I can't say if it is the case.

As for Hernandez being uncovered, do you think it was McDaniels and Brady seeing something and exploiting it?

Also, people put too much stock in those three and outs. If this was a closer game, maybe the Pats call different plays and move down the field with no problem.

You want to talk about poor execution. On one of the three and outs, Hernandez was called on offensive PI on 2nd and 7 which he didn't need to do and would have set up a makeable 3rd and 2 rather than 3rd and 16.

On the next drive (another three and out), the drive was killed because the Pats went for a kill shot with a deep pass to Hernandez (which if I remember he should have caught) on a 3rd and 3 play. If the Pats called a safer play, they would likely have converted the third down and kept the drive alive.

The next drive after that, the Pats did convert one third down but didn't convert the next because another blown deep pass to Hernandez.

The drive after that, it was a 5 play drive with a 63 yard TD pass to Stallworth on a third down pass.

See a pattern here? The Pats were trying something and it finally paid off. Obviously, they felt the Texans were vulnerable on third downs for the deep pass and it took three attempts for them to exploit it. I don't know if I give the Texans credit for that. I think the Brady to Hernandez disconnection deep had more to do with it. My guess is if Gronk was playing, at least one of those three and outs would have been a long drive (possible with a TD at the end) because Gronk is a much better deep threat than Hernandez is.

People are really recreating history here and looking at the stats sheet to create things that weren't there. Yes, the Texans could win on next Sunday, but the last game was a total beat down by the Pats and it wasn't because of poor execution of the Texans.

Rob0729 said:

Wow! What a difference a month makes. The week after the Pats beat the Texans, the general sentiment on this board is that the Pats destroyed the Texans and it was proof the Pats are the best team in the league.

Now there is a strong sentiment that the Pats were lucky against Texans and the Texans shot themselves in the foot and if the the Texans executed better, they might have won.

I guess it is just nerves because I saw a lot of "I don't want to see the Ravens next week" this week even though the Ravens suck right now, but people wanted turn them into a "team that always plays the Pats tough" and Harbaugh will come up with something to confuse the Pats.

Click to expand...

I assume that is in part directed at me? You make a colossal leap in your conclusion. The Patriots won....they did what they needed to do. Just because one points out the Texans made some obvious errors of execution that expedited the win does not equate to believing the Patriots got lucky.

This isn't about nerves for me. I think it likely the Patriots will win. I believe this Patriot offense playing in Foxboro would be very tough for anyone to beat. My argument is about what a 13 win team should do to win: Go with what has got them there, make sure to execute as well as possible, keep it close, see what happens......or do something they don't normally do, try to execute the different thing well, see what happens. IMHO going with what you don't normally do is too risky and something a 9-7 also ran does because they deep down know they have no chance otherwise.

goheels22002 said:

Foster also caught 8 passes. He has to be beat up after 40 touches.

Click to expand...

Nice game but very hard to duplicate the following week, plus he has all the pressure on him in big games. He is facing being the next AP to find out that he can't win games all by himself.

Rob0729 said:

Funny, I think it was bigger blowout than the score indicated.

The Pats all year has been a bend don't break offense and the Texans over the last 6 or so games have been a horrible red zone offense (including yesterday). So the McCourty INT was it a lucky break or par for the course for this defense and that offense.

I think people are over analyzing the first match up now. The Pats clearly outclassed the Texans at every aspect of the game. Yes, the Pats capitalized on some Texans' mistakes, but isn't that the signature of a Belichick run Patriots' team and what the Pats have been doing all year? In fact, isn't that the signature of any top team?

As for the 3 and outs, it was explained in other posts how McDaniels must have saw something and killed some drives by trying to force it deep which ended up paying off on the Stallworth TD. So did the Texans really stop the Pats or did the Pats stop the Pats by going away from what was working? Also, with a 21-0 lead in the first half is the offense slowing down a reflection of the opposing defense stopping the offense or the offense taking the pedal off the gas a little bit. The Pats did score another 21 points after they struggled a bit on offense.

Click to expand...

The Texans have definitely declined over the second half of the season. A lot of people point to the Pats game as the beginning of that decline since they lost big, then proceeded to lose 3 of 4 games, but I think it started even after their bye week. They won an ugly game against Chicago 13-6 where weather was a factor, then on a short week needed a huge comeback to squeak by a terrible Jacksonville team and an even shorter week to come back on the Lions.

Weather, schedule, whatever, they weren't playing well coming into the Patriots game anyways. So I certainly don't think the Texans are anywhere near as dominant as they were in the first half.

Having said that much, a few plays can make a huge difference. Look at the San Fran game the week after. Everything that could go wrong did go wrong and we easily could have been blown out, down 31-3. The only reason we weren't is that we didn't quit early, unlike Kubiak, who waved the white flag.

The better team doesn't always win, and big plays can change momentum pretty quickly. We were fortunate to get them all bunched up at the beginning like that; the tone of the game would have been significantly different otherwise. The score forced the Texans' hand and they had to abandon the run game earlier than they would have liked. A few plays difference may make for a much more competitive game.

zipster9 said:

Kubiak will not deviate from their offsensive scheme: A big dose of Foster, with play-action Schaub.

If Patriots stuff Foster, like their 1st matchup, it's over. Look at the Texan losses, Foster gets neutralize, and the game falls on Schaub...

Click to expand...

I agree, the best thing to do is let the game fall to Schaub.

Kubiak did deviate from the offensive scheme due to the score. They ran the ball 27 times vs. 36 passes, 42% run overall, and 36% in the first half before they gave up. That's not a common thing for them, as they ran 55% of the time during the regular season. Foster rushed 12 times in the first half, 3 in the second.

Rob0729 said:

Is it poor execution or the Pats with a better game plan. Many deep PI calls are called because the defender is beat and the best thing to do is commit PI and hope it isn't call. Can't remember the play exactly. So I can't say if it is the case.

As for Hernandez being uncovered, do you think it was McDaniels and Brady seeing something and exploiting it?

Also, people put too much stock in those three and outs. If this was a closer game, maybe the Pats call different plays and move down the field with no problem.

You want to talk about poor execution. On one of the three and outs, Hernandez was called on offensive PI on 2nd and 7 which he didn't need to do and would have set up a makeable 3rd and 2 rather than 3rd and 16.

On the next drive (another three and out), the drive was killed because the Pats went for a kill shot with a deep pass to Hernandez (which if I remember he should have caught) on a 3rd and 3 play. If the Pats called a safer play, they would likely have converted the third down and kept the drive alive.

The next drive after that, the Pats did convert one third down but didn't convert the next because another blown deep pass to Hernandez.

The drive after that, it was a 5 play drive with a 63 yard TD pass to Stallworth on a third down pass.

See a pattern here? The Pats were trying something and it finally paid off. Obviously, they felt the Texans were vulnerable on third downs for the deep pass and it took three attempts for them to exploit it. I don't know if I give the Texans credit for that. I think the Brady to Hernandez disconnection deep had more to do with it. My guess is if Gronk was playing, at least one of those three and outs would have been a long drive (possible with a TD at the end) because Gronk is a much better deep threat than Hernandez is.

People are really recreating history here and looking at the stats sheet to create things that weren't there. Yes, the Texans could win on next Sunday, but the last game was a total beat down by the Pats and it wasn't because of poor execution of the Texans.

Click to expand...

- I never suggested everything hinged on one thing. Patriot execution, game planning obviously aided in their win. This does not nullify that their victory was helped along by some Texan miscues.

- It was a very borderline PI call. Arguably should not have been called IMHO. Some agreed, some disagreed after the game.

- The uncovered AH play was likely aided by the potency of the Patriot offense and hurry up ability, however, he split far right (almost to the sideline) and, literally, no defender went to that side of the field. Even the Jets know to send a cover man over to line up on a receiver that far from the line.

- That is EXACTLY the point. IF it was a closer game then what plays are run, how the game transpires changes. It is no knock on the Patriots to say a few plays changed the complexion by halftime. Same thing with the Patriots versus 9ers. Just a few plays different and the complexion of that game changes at halftime.

- Yes I see a pattern. If the Patriots execute some other plays better they could have won by more. Not sure how that makes your point? As the point you made is execution of X plays could change the game....

- You say "people recreating"? Ok, so if I say people just blindly assume team A was unbeatable and team B couldn't beat it's way out of a wet paper bag just by looking at the final score, is that as applicable to the point of discussion?? The argument is, if the Texans executed better on a handful plays with their gameplan, would it have been competitive? If you see that as recreating the game? Ok..... I disagree.

TheBostonStraggler said:

I assume that is in part directed at me? You make a colossal leap in your conclusion. The Patriots won....they did what they needed to do. Just because one points out the Texans made some obvious errors of execution that expedited the win does not equate to believing the Patriots got lucky.

This isn't about nerves for me. I think it likely the Patriots will win. I believe this Patriot offense playing in Foxboro would be very tough for anyone to beat. My argument is about what a 13 win team should do to win: Go with what has got them there, make sure to execute as well as possible, keep it close, see what happens......or do something they don't normally do, try to execute the different thing well, see what happens. IMHO going with what you don't normally do is too risky and something a 9-7 also ran does because they deep down know they have no chance otherwise.

Click to expand...

It wasn't directed at anyone in particular and it was a bit of hyperbole.

I still think people are trying to find things to make the Texans a tougher opponent than they were last time. That is just my opinion. No one was talking like this right after the game.

Win or lose, if you look at all the 2nd time around playoff games the Pats play there is one constant, the 2nd game is most always markedly different. All the way back to the Dynasty playoff games vs Pit and Indy through the Ravens and Jets and Giants games, the re-match had few of the characteristics of the 1st contest, with the Giants SB games being the closest in flavor to their 1st meeting. Should be interesting.

Except at QB (Yes I know that's a huge "except" ) a case can be made that Houston has more physical talent than the Pats. They have an elite OL, that is probably healthier than ours. They certainly have a more dynamic DL and LBs with Watt, Reed, Mercilus, etc, so to think that if the Texans execute better than the Pats they can win the game isn't an absurd concept.

Every game has several key plays that can turn a game and momentum. The Strangler just pointed out several that MIGHT have changed things for the Texans, and at least made the game more competitive. But you can do this for EVERY game of football.

In my first start as Sophomore in College, we were playing Harvard in Harvard Stadium. (very exciting) I was a 205lb DE and had made both tackles in Harvard's opening drive leading up to a 3rd and 4. They ran a draw the next play and I had the RB dead to rights in the backfield, and I simply missed the tackle and they got the first down. Now this was Tufts vs Harvard back when Harvard still played an occasional Division one team, and we lost 48-0, and had to have a GL stand to keep it under 50. HOWEVER to THIS day, when I think on that game, I can't help but wonder, how it all could have been different...IF I had only made that damned tackle. While I know it defies common sense, you can't help but think it.

The point being AGAIN, that when you watch the film the next day, there are literally dozens of plays each game that have huge impacts on what happened that game, both in the long and short term. Such that even in a 48-0 loss, after you look at the film and do your "would haves, could haves, and should haves, you leave that room thinking that if you only executed better you could have won that ball game.

Believe me, if presented correctly, when the Texans first reviewed that film, rather than thinking they just got crushed by the Pats, they left that room feeling, that if they got a few more calls, if the ball bounced their way, and if they executed better on just about a half dozen plays they could have won that game. That's just the beauty of the game. There is an old football adage (which is the only kind I know ) that states that EVERY game will turn on about 6 plays. What makes the game so compelling is that you don't know when those plays will occur until AFTER the game.

Rob0729 said:

Funny, I think it was bigger blowout than the score indicated.

The Pats all year has been a bend don't break offense and the Texans over the last 6 or so games have been a horrible red zone offense (including yesterday). So the McCourty INT was it a lucky break or par for the course for this defense and that offense.

I think people are over analyzing the first match up now. The Pats clearly outclassed the Texans at every aspect of the game. Yes, the Pats capitalized on some Texans' mistakes, but isn't that the signature of a Belichick run Patriots' team and what the Pats have been doing all year? In fact, isn't that the signature of any top team?

As for the 3 and outs, it was explained in other posts how McDaniels must have saw something and killed some drives by trying to force it deep which ended up paying off on the Stallworth TD. So did the Texans really stop the Pats or did the Pats stop the Pats by going away from what was working? Also, with a 21-0 lead in the first half is the offense slowing down a reflection of the opposing defense stopping the offense or the offense taking the pedal off the gas a little bit. The Pats did score another 21 points after they struggled a bit on offense.

Click to expand...

Brady did say after the game that they were taking the deep shots because thats what they were giving them. Had nothing to do with JMcD going away from what was working to try something else especially for 4 drives that too in the 2nd drive. I know you think texans are easily beatable but lets give some credit when their defense did play well. Not everything is just pats playing well vs pats stopping themselves.