The Patriots vs Jets POST Game Thread

1960Pats said:

The Pats nearly put up 30 against the Jets at Gillette? Wow! Break out the bubbly.

They also nearly lost.

Run the damn ball.

Click to expand...

Conventional Wisdom says "Run when you can; Pass when you must." Belichick says Conventional Wisdom be damned. I would rather Win ugly and unconventionally, than lose gracefully and conventionally.

The game plan worked. But it was closer than expected, because the Jets actually played a near perfect game. It still wasn't good enough.

1960Pats said:

The Pats nearly put up 30 against the Jets at Gillette? Wow! Break out the bubbly.

They also nearly lost.

Run the damn ball.

Click to expand...

They nearly lost because the defensive game plan was a candy ass, scared as hell game plan. Not because of the offensive play calling for any series except the last one (where they ran the ball three straight times and got stuffed). Seriously, are some of you on heavy narcotics? The strength of the Jets defense is their front seven against the run and their weakness is, by far, their back end. What in God's name would possess you to call for the team to put the ball in Jonas Gray's hands more than Tom Brady's hands? Because, if it's not drugs, then I don't know what it is.

AzPatsFan said:

Conventional Wisdom says "Run when you can; Pass when you must." Belichick says Conventional Wisdom be damned. I would rather Win ugly and unconventionally, than lose gracefully and conventionally.

The game plan worked. But it was closer than expected, because the Jets actually played a near perfect game. It still wasn't good enough.

Click to expand...

Here's the thing.
The Jets have a decent amount of talent, particularly in the trenches. They can compete with anyone straight up, but are very, very bad in the area of turnovers, both giving it away and not taking it away.
If they play turnover free ball, they will be competitive against any team, and win more than they lose.
Had they had their typical amount of turnovers, this game would not have been close. It was close because they did not turn the ball over, and they will play any team close when that happens.
They had Denver is essentially the exact same spot a week earlier.
With 6:09 left vs Denver they had the ball at their own 33, down 24-17.
With 7:43 left against us they had the ball at their 14, down 27-19.

Then they got it back vs Denver with 56 seconds and GeeNo threw a pick.
They got it back against us with 1:06 left against us and didn't, so it ended with a longshot FG being blocked.
It seems the difference between those 2 games is just what happened late, to a defense that played 41 minutes.

AzPatsFan said:

Conventional Wisdom says "Run when you can; Pass when you must." Belichick says Conventional Wisdom be damned. I would rather Win ugly and unconventionally, than lose gracefully and conventionally.

The game plan worked. But it was closer than expected, because the Jets actually played a near perfect game. It still wasn't good enough.

Click to expand...

If Chris Jones' hand was 3 inches to the left, they would have lost at home to a pathetic 1-5 team.

I'm sorry, but that game plan was horrible.

shmessy said:

If Chris Jones' hand was 3 inches to the left, they would have lost at home to a pathetic 1-5 team.

I'm sorry, but that game plan was horrible.

Click to expand...

I don't agree it was the game plan. If your O-line can't punch holes for a running back and if you can't stop the run, you will have problems. In the light of that, it was a welcome win, however edgy it was at the end

Time of possession can be misleading, since running plays obviously take longer than passing. A better stat is comparative number of snaps. In this case, the Pats were down 87-60. Bad enough, but not quite as huge.

shmessy said:

If Chris Jones' hand was 3 inches to the left, they would have lost at home to a pathetic 1-5 team.

I'm sorry, but that game plan was horrible.

Click to expand...

Because a 58 yd field goal is a gimme?

shmessy said:

If Chris Jones' hand was 3 inches to the left, they would have lost at home to a pathetic 1-5 team.

I'm sorry, but that game plan was horrible.

Click to expand...

That is one hell of a stretch.

KontradictioN said:

They nearly lost because the defensive game plan was a candy ass, scared as hell game plan. Not because of the offensive play calling for any series except the last one (where they ran the ball three straight times and got stuffed). Seriously, are some of you on heavy narcotics? The strength of the Jets defense is their front seven against the run and their weakness is, by far, their back end. What in God's name would possess you to call for the team to put the ball in Jonas Gray's hands more than Tom Brady's hands? Because, if it's not drugs, then I don't know what it is.

Click to expand...

Calm down with the personal insults.

Anyone who watched the game, saw that there was no front 7. They were playing eight in coverage most of the game.

Until the last almost kneel down [pats series, the Pats running game was averaging 5.17 ypa.

The Pats could have made it far easier on their depleted D (which was stopping just short of weaving white flags and burning S.O.S. into the turf) if they had not gone 37-15 pass to run ratio.

That is a valid point. You may disagree with it and so be it. No need to claim other people are on narcotics.

Mike the Brit said:

I don't agree it was the game plan. If your O-line can't punch holes for a running back and if you can't stop the run, you will have problems.

Click to expand...

Ah, Mike, but the OL DID punch holes for the RB's..

Outside of the last 3 offensive plays "kneel down take seconds off the clock with 10 Jets in the box", the Pats had averaged 5.17 yards per carry.

So your "if" rings hollow there for the first part of that sentence.

There was no need to go 37-15 PtoR and put a suffering D through a 40:54-19:06 TOP torture.

A better team - - oh, I dunno, even mediocre one like the Miami Dolphins the LAST 2 TIMES the Pats faced them when McDaniels pulled the same crap - - would produce a loss.

shmessy said:

...That is a valid point...

Click to expand...

No, it's not.

shmessy said:

Ah, Mike, but they DID.

Outside of the last 3 offensive plays "kneel down take seconds off the clock with 10 Jets in the box", the Pats had averaged 5.17 yards per carry.

So your "if" rings hollow there.

There was no need to put a suffering D through a 40:54-19:06 TOP torture.

A better team - - oh, I dunno, even mediocre like the Miami Dolphins the LAST 2 TIMES the Pats faced them - - would produce a loss.

Click to expand...

And "outside" of one 17 yard run, the Patriots ran for 46 yards on 14 carries, or 3.3 yards per attempt.

shmessy said:

Calm down with the personal insults.

Anyone who watched the game, saw that there was no front 7. They were playing eight in coverage most of the game.

Until the last almost kneel down [pats series, the Pats running game was averaging 5.17 ypa.

The Pats could have made it far easier on their depleted D (which was stopping just short of weaving white flags and burning S.O.S. into the turf) if they had not gone 37-15 pass to run ratio.

That is a valid point. You may disagree with it and so be it. No need to claim other people are on narcotics.

Click to expand...

If they ran more, they would have scored less.
The point of a drive is to score points. Unless it is late int he game and killing the clock ensures a win, an offense simply cannot sacrifice scoring points in order to run more due to time of possession.
Scoring a TD puts your your defense back on the field with a 7 point greater lead. They can allow a TD and get you right back to where you were. A time consuming, non-scoring drive puts you in worse shape, 100% of time (with the exception as noted of clock killing time).

rochrist said:

Because a 58 yd field goal is a gimme?

Click to expand...

Of course not a gimme.

But why put a game like that even in question at home against a 1-5 team?

Would you say that getting to that last play was part of a game plan?

Deus Irae said:

And "outside" of one 17 yard run, the Patriots ran for 46 yards on 14 carries, or 3.3 yards per attempt.

Click to expand...

8 of which was on a WR run, so the 'punching holes for RBs' was one really nice job, and 13 others that netted 38 yards. Less than 3 yards a pop.

shmessy said:

If Chris Jones' hand was 3 inches to the left, they would have lost at home to a pathetic 1-5 team.

I'm sorry, but that game plan was horrible.

Click to expand...

shmessy said:

Of course not a gimme.

But why put a game like that even in question at home against a 1-5 team?

Would you say that getting to that last play was part of a game plan?

Click to expand...

You're sure they'd have lost. How does that not make the 58 yarder a "gimme"?

shmessy said:

Of course not a gimme.

But why put a game like that even in question at home against a 1-5 team?

Would you say that getting to that last play was part of a game plan?

Click to expand...

Are you saying a team game plans the result? They decided that they wanted to put together a game plan that would end up with a close game rather than blow them out?
Did the Jets gameplan a loss?
You act as if the Patriots could just walk out there and win 50-0 at will, if they cared.

Deus Irae said:

And "outside" of one 17 yard run, the Patriots ran for 46 yards on 14 carries, or 3.3 yards per attempt.

Click to expand...

Very cute. You put the last 3 kneel downs back in to get to that.

OK, let's take out the 17 yard run (which came in the middle of the game) and take out the 3 kneel downs.

11 for 45 for 4.1.

That necessitates 37-15 PtoR and keeping your obviously suffering D on the field for 40:54-19:06 TOP?

No.

Deus Irae said:

You're sure they'd have lost. How does that not make the 58 yarder a "gimme"?

Click to expand...

Not a gimme.

It WAS a possibility. That should never have gotten to that stage at home against a 1-5 team.

shmessy said:

Very cute. You put the last 3 kneel downs back in to get to that.

OK, let's take out the 17 yard run (which came in the middle of the game) and take out the 3 kneel downs.

11 for 45 for 4.1.

That necessitates 37-15 PtoR and keeping your obviously suffering D on the field for 40:54-19:06 TOP?

No.

Click to expand...

Kneel downs? Are you kidding me? They are the best representation of what they did when they tried to run the ball in running situations.
They were not kneel downs they were running plays that failed.

shmessy said:

Not a gimme.

It WAS a possibility. That should never have gotten to that stage at home against a 1-5 team.

Click to expand...

Just pointing out, you said they would have lost if Jones didn't block it, which IS calling it a gimme.