The Patriots vs Jets POST Game Thread

shmessy said:

No. What you are ignoring is that the Jets were playing a different 10 in the box D on that last series.

During the game, they were often in 8 man coverage and just rushing 3. THAT is when the Patriots could have mixed in a few more effective yard-producing, clock-moving runs.

Click to expand...

Had to respond to this before exiting.
This is what makes it so hard to have a discussion on this board.
You and I both know that this is an exaggeration, and that you did not study the film and conclude that they have 8 in coverage and 3 rushing 'often' (I know that because it didn't happen) not to mention that pass D responsibilities are not indicative of run D responsibilities, and if you were going to play 8 in coverage you could play a lot of them close to the line to play the run.
Carry on.

shmessy said:

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.

Click to expand...

I need to re-watch the game, but my first view was that it was only the fact that they were so pass-heavy that made running at all productive and that Vereen and Gray just don't have the ability to run between the tackles against the Jets' front 7.

(That said, I should say that this way, to my eyes, by far Vereen's best game as a Pat. His pass catching was spectacular.)

shmessy said:

I agree with you that BB did not plan it to go the way it did. What I don't like is that BB didn't ADJUST to help his Defense after seeing what was happening.

Click to expand...

I'm one of the biggest proponents of getting the running game involved in the offense on this board. I also hold your opinion in high regard. But I'm afraid that I have to respectfully disagree in this instance.

Kontra has respectfully summed things up fairly well. If the Pats had gone run-heavy and lost against a team with a terrific run D and a lousy pass D, behind a crippled OL and having lost their best bell-cow back, everyone would be in an uproar.

The Jets had a game plan too, and it was a good one: run the ball against a defense missing their defensive signal caller, let Geno Smith use his legs, and don't ask him to do too much. The executed that game plan very well, to their credit, not turning the ball over once against a team tied for the league lead in turnovers. Give them credit for that.

The Pats never led by more than 8 points, so it's hard to see them converting to a rushing attack to chew up the clock. Sure, I would have loved to see something like the 2012 Miami game where we ran the ball down their throat in the 4th quarter, but I don't think that was likely to happen given our OL and their DL. The Jets didn't punt until 4 minutes left in the 3rd quarter, they didn't turn the ball over, the Pats had lousy field position (their best starting field position on their first 7 drives was their own 30), and they couldn't get enough separation or good enough field position to trust their running game to chew up the clock.

When exactly do you think that we should have used the running game to chew up the clock? Our defense couldn't get them off the field in the first half, and they scored 4 FGs, then chewed up 6 minutes of clock time to start the second half while scoring a TD to take a 19-17 lead. We moved the ball well enough to score a FG and retake the lead on our next drive (starting from our 29), then forced a punt and started from our own 13 with a 1 point lead. Is that where we should have protected the lead and conserved time by running the ball more? We went 3 and out on that drive with one run (a 6 yard carry by Vereen). The drive had 2 incompletions, one a drop by Gronk. The next drive also went 3 and out, with a drop by Edelman. The drops (by our 2 most reliable receivers) IMO were key - they weren't turnovers, but they might as well have been, killing drives and taking time off the clock. That wasn't scheme - that was poor execution.

The only time that I saw BB really in a position to trust the running game to take time of the clock, he did - during the last drive.

I think this close win was a combination of good game planning and execution by the Jets, poor defensive play in Mayo's absence, and poor execution by Brady's receivers. Better execution, and this game would not have been as close. I'm just not sure where the "adjustments" were to be made. Again, if the Pats had gone run-heavy and lost, they would have been justifiably lambasted for poor strategy.

mayoclinic said:

I'm one of the biggest proponents of getting the running game involved in the offense on this board. I also hold your opinion in high regard. But I'm afraid that I have to respectfully disagree in this instance.

Kontra has respectfully summed things up fairly well. If the Pats had gone run-heavy and lost against a team with a terrific run D and a lousy pass D, behind a crippled OL and having lost their best bell-cow back, everyone would be in an uproar.

The Jets had a game plan too, and it was a good one: run the ball against a defense missing their defensive signal caller, let Geno Smith use his legs, and don't ask him to do too much. The executed that game plan very well, to their credit, not turning the ball over once against a team tied for the league lead in turnovers. Give them credit for that.

The Pats never led by more than 8 points, so it's hard to see them converting to a rushing attack to chew up the clock. Sure, I would have loved to see something like the 2012 Miami game where we ran the ball down their throat in the 4th quarter, but I don't think that was likely to happen given our OL and their DL. The Jets didn't punt until 4 minutes left in the 3rd quarter, they didn't turn the ball over, the Pats had lousy field position (their best starting field position on their first 7 drives was their own 30), and they couldn't get enough separation or good enough field position to trust their running game to chew up the clock.

When exactly do you think that we should have used the running game to chew up the clock? Our defense couldn't get them off the field in the first half, and they scored 4 FGs, then chewed up 6 minutes of clock time to start the second half while scoring a TD to take a 19-17 lead. We moved the ball well enough to score a FG and retake the lead on our next drive (starting from our 29), then forced a punt and started from our own 13 with a 1 point lead. Is that where we should have protected the lead and conserved time by running the ball more? We went 3 and out on that drive with one run (a 6 yard carry by Vereen). The drive had 2 incompletions, one a drop by Gronk. The next drive also went 3 and out, with a drop by Edelman. The drops (by our 2 most reliable receivers) IMO were key - they weren't turnovers, but they might as well have been, killing drives and taking time off the clock. That wasn't scheme - that was poor execution.

The only time that I saw BB really in a position to trust the running game to take time of the clock, he did - during the last drive.

I think this close win was a combination of good game planning and execution by the Jets, poor defensive play in Mayo's absence, and poor execution by Brady's receivers. Better execution, and this game would not have been as close. I'm just not sure where the "adjustments" were to be made. Again, if the Pats had gone run-heavy and lost, they would have been justifiably lambasted for poor strategy.

Click to expand...

Great and thoughtful post, Mayo.

One thing, however, and perhaps this is what may be causing some confusion. I never wrote that they should have gone "run-heavy", I just think a PtoR ratio of 37-15 and a TOP of 19:06-40:54 put our D in an unnecessarily more precarious position than it should have been in given the circumstances. No "run-heavy" but closer to a 31-21 PtoR would have been more unpredictable for the Jets D and could have used up more clock for our tired D.

Once again, the last series was against a 10 in the box D. BBs main goal there was to take time off the clock. I wouldn't use that series as the measuring stick for our running game. The Jets were not playing 10 in the box anytime else in that game. When you ask when the pats could have integrated in more running plays - - I would say the rest of the game - - where the PtoR was 37-12 and the Jets were playing to coverage.

shmessy said:

Great and thoughtful post, Mayo.

One thing, however, and perhaps this is what may be causing some confusion. I never wrote that they should have gone "run-heavy", I just think a PtoR ratio of 37-15 and a TOP of 19:06-40:54 put our D in an unnecessarily more precarious position than it should have been in given the circumstances. No "run-heavy" but closer to a 31-21 PtoR would have been more unpredictable for the Jets D and could have used up more clock for our tired D.

Once again, the last series was against a 10 in the box D. BBs main goal there was to take time off the clock. I wouldn't use that series as the measuring stick for our running game. The Jets were not playing 10 in the box anytime else in that game. When you ask when the pats could have integrated in more running plays - - I would say the rest of the game - - where the PtoR was 37-12 and the Jets were playing to coverage.

Click to expand...

I think everyone would have liked to decrease the TOP ratio somewhat, give our defense a rest, and give our offense more chances. I'm just not sure how to do that given that we couldn't get the Jets off the field for most of 3 quarters, and when we finally did, or offense went 3 and out twice due to drops.

mayoclinic said:

I think everyone would have liked to decrease the TOP ratio somewhat, give our defense a rest, and give our offense more chances. I'm just not sure how to do that given that we couldn't get the Jets off the field for most of 3 quarters, and when we finally did, or offense went 3 and out twice due to drops.

Click to expand...

Drops on passes that stopped the clock.

shmessy said:

Drops on passes that stopped the clock.

Click to expand...

Sure. But it's not poor scheming when you throw to an open reliable receiver and he drops the ball and stops the clock. It's poor execution. The throws were there, and they weren't hard catches.

shmessy said:

Drops on passes that stopped the clock.

Click to expand...

This is one thing that is misconstrued IMO. (Guess I just can't leave lol. But I'll start a different direction at least)
3 runs and a punt does not give the defense more rest than 3 incomplete passes and a punt.
Rest is measured in real time, not game clock time.

In other words, if I have a 12 play drive that takes up 7 minutes all on the ground vs a 12 play drive where the ball carrier goes out of bounds every play, and it takes a minute and a half off of the clock, the defense had the same amount of rest.
The only difference that taking time off the clock by running vs passing makes is the game ending early in the day.

AndyJohnson said:

This is one thing that is misconstrued IMO. (Guess I just can't leave lol. But I'll start a different direction at least)
3 runs and a punt does not give the defense more rest than 3 incomplete passes and a punt.
Rest is measured in real time, not game clock time.

In other words, if I have a 12 play drive that takes up 7 minutes all on the ground vs a 12 play drive where the ball carrier goes out of bounds every play, and it takes a minute and a half off of the clock, the defense had the same amount of rest.
The only difference that taking time off the clock by running vs passing makes is the game ending early in the day.

Click to expand...

1) No need to leave, we're jes talkin' football.

2) Less game clock time, less time for the D to stay out there for more series. Let's face it, the Jets were putrid in the Red Zone. The only way for them to win would be to Field Goal the Pats to death. Ergo, the more series they could get in, the better. I think the Pats O was aiding them to that goal - - especially on the 4 three and outs.

shmessy said:

1) No need to leave, we're jes talkin' football.

2) Less game clock time, less time for the D to stay out there for more series. Let's face it, the Jets were putrid in the Red Zone. The only way for them to win would be to Field goal the Pats to death. Ergo, the more series they could get in, the better. I think the Pats O was aiding them to that goal - - especially on the four three and outs.

Click to expand...

Three and outs always hurt, whether you're running or passing. One of them to some extent a tradeoff to run off clock time (the last one). And the Jets did score 2 2nd half TDs, so they weren't completely limited to FGs.

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...

I couldn't care less what our opponents stats are against other teams. What I like to see from the Pats is a balanced attack, no matter what defense the other team is in. If the other team knows that Brady is going to be dropping back to pass most of the time, then the Pats are being too predictable, and those are the times when they struggle. When they run the ball more, successful or not, they win more and the passing attack works even better.

The idea is to have the other team actually believe that we might hand the ball off to Jonas Gray instead of them knowing that Brady is dropping back to pass every down. The idea that you and some others don't understand that concept, one so basic to football, leads me to believe that you might not be on drugs or drunk, or even that it's the fantasy affect, but something has you thinking backwards.

Since the Pats have changed to the current pass-happy offense they haven't won much in the playoffs. When they had a more balanced attack they were much more successful. It's a good idea that Belichick didn't feel the same way as the pass-happys and the pass the ball all the time in our dynasty years, instead of handing off to Corey Dillon and Antowain Smith.

shmessy said:

1) No need to leave, we're jes talkin' football.

2) Less game clock time, less time for the D to stay out there for more series. Let's face it, the Jets were putrid in the Red Zone. The only way for them to win would be to Field goal the Pats to death. Ergo, the more series they could get in, the better. I think the Pats O was aiding them to that goal - - especially on the four three and outs.

Click to expand...

1) I am committed to not letting discussion turn negative and *****y. It seemed we were reaching the point where the comments that were evolving would be taken that way.

2) I disagree. I think a 12 series game instead of an 8 series game favors the Patriots, as they are the better team. Shortening the game increases the likelihood of an upset because it gives the underdog a better chance to have fluky plays decide the game.
Mostly though I am disagreeing with the idea that time of possession itself dictates wearing down a defense and that a passing offense exposes its defense to less rest. In fact an offense that doesn't make first downs exposes the defense and one that does, regardless of how, helps the defense.
That is one of my disagreements with your take here. The offense would not have helped the defense any more by running and taking up more clock than by passing, other than we all would have gone home a couple of minutes earlier.
Given that earlier you called for 5 (I think) more runs during the game, that is 2 less stoppages between plays, so we are talking maybe 40 seconds difference, hardly something that would cause the DC to want to punch the OC in the face.

1960Pats said:

I couldn't care less what our opponents stats are against other teams. What I like to see from the Pats is a balanced attack, no matter what defense the other team is in. If the other team knows that Brady is going to be dropping back to pass most of the time, then the Pats are being too predictable, and those are the times when they struggle. When they run the ball more, successful or not, they win more and the passing attack works even better.

The idea is to have the other team actually believe that we might hand the ball off to Jonas Gray instead of them knowing that Brady is dropping back to pass every down. The idea that you and some others don't understand that concept, one so basic to football, leads me to believe that you might not be on drugs or drunk, or even that it's the fantasy affect, but something has you thinking backwards.

Since the Pats have changed to the current pass-happy offense they haven't won much in the playoffs. When they had a more balanced attack they were much more successful. It's a good idea that Belichick didn't feel the same way as the pass-happys and the pass the ball all the time in our dynasty years, instead of handing off to Corey Dillon and Antowain Smith.

Click to expand...

I think it would be foolhardy to ignore what defense you are playing against.

Out of curiosity when are you drawing the line that we 'became pass happy' and stopped winning playoff games?

1960Pats said:

I couldn't care less what our opponents stats are against other teams. What I like to see from the Pats is a balanced attack, no matter what defense the other team is in. If the other team knows that Brady is going to be dropping back to pass most of the time, then the Pats are being too predictable, and those are the times when they struggle. When they run the ball more, successful or not, they win more and the passing attack works even better.

The idea is to have the other team actually believe that we might hand the ball off to Jonas Gray instead of them knowing that Brady is dropping back to pass every down. The idea that you and some others don't understand that concept, one so basic to football, leads me to believe that you might not be on drugs or drunk, or even that it's the fantasy affect, but something has you thinking backwards.

Since the Pats have changed to the current pass-happy offense they haven't won much in the playoffs. When they had a more balanced attack they were much more successful. It's a good idea that Belichick didn't feel the same way as the pass-happys and the pass the ball all the time in our dynasty years, instead of handing off to Corey Dillon and Antowain Smith.

Click to expand...

I completely agree with this in general. In the Jets game, with Ridley out, Gray brand new off the PS, and a crippled OL, against one of the best run defenses in the NFL, I could see where it would be difficult to achieve this.

AndyJohnson said:

I think it would be foolhardy to ignore what defense you are playing against.

Out of curiosity when are you drawing the line that we 'became pass happy' and stopped winning playoff games?

Click to expand...

Yeah, I was wondering that myself.

Didn't NE, under Josh's orchestration, morph into a dominant running team just last year? How much further did that running game take them in the playoffs than year's past? And didn't that change (as well as 2008 when Brady got hurt) demonstrate that McDaniels is perfectly willing to adapt?

Oswlek said:

Yeah, I was wondering that myself.

Didn't NE, under Josh's orchestration, morph into a dominant running team just last year? How much further did that running game take them in the playoffs than year's past? And didn't that change (as well as 2008 when Brady got hurt) demonstrate that McDaniels is perfectly willing to adapt?

Click to expand...

They did, right up until McDaniels caught that bug he always gets in Miami and had Brady throw it 55 times versus 20 runs to lose Home Field Advantage to the Broncos (a few days after the Broncos had briefly given it up to the Pats).

Upshot: AFCCG in 62 degree Denver instead of the 29 degrees Boston saw that day. Mannings rejoice.

BTW, that 55-20 P-R ratio happened in a game without Gronk, Thompkins or Dobson. Meanwhile, the RBs were all healthy and in their zone at that time last year.

Oswlek said:

Yeah, I was wondering that myself.

Didn't NE, under Josh's orchestration, morph into a dominant running team just last year? How much further did that running game take them in the playoffs than year's past? And didn't that change (as well as 2008 when Brady got hurt) demonstrate that McDaniels is perfectly willing to adapt?

Click to expand...

If you take a step back and recognize that you have Tom Brady at QB you realize we should be a pass first offense. When you further realize that he avoids sacks (by getting rid of the ball, not running) and Ints as well any QB who has ever lived, you realize that the passing game is more productive, yet more risky, so having the least risky QB in history means you throw.
This system has won more often (by a good margin) than any QB ever has. Sure its easy to pick out the least frequent losing QB ever and blame the losses on the exact reasons he is the winningest QB ever, but in fact it is kind of silly.

The mythical tombstone of Patriot Nation should read "If it wasn't perfect I called it crap"

AndyJohnson said:

I think it would be foolhardy to ignore what defense you are playing against.

Out of curiosity when are you drawing the line that we 'became pass happy' and stopped winning playoff games?

Click to expand...

So you feel if the other team is in a pass defense we should run it and if they're in a run defense we should pass it? That would make us more predictable. I believe that we should run whatever plays we want and see if the other team can stop it, no matter what defense their in. I also believe that a balanced attack works best of all to make a passing attack most successful. That's what I've seen from the Pats.

I understand that the rule changes have altered things somewhat, so I'd say that it was around the mid 2000's when we changed to a more pass-happy offense. Ironically, that was the start of our horrid run against the Giants, a team that was much more successful as a pass defense than as a run defense, but we went pass-happy against them too and lost three straight games to them (SB's in 07 and 11 and regular season in 11). Apparently, BB was foolhardy to ignore the Giants defense.

shmessy said:

They did, right up until McDaniels caught that bug he always gets in Miami and had Brady throw it 55 times versus 20 runs to lose Home Field Advantage to the Broncos (a few days after the Broncos had briefly given it up to the Pats).

Upshot: AFCCG in 62 degree Denver instead of the 29 degrees Boston saw that day. Mannings rejoice.

BTW, that 55-20 P-R ratio happened in a game without Gronk, Thompkins or Dobson. Meanwhile, the RBs were all healthy and in their zone at that time last year.

Click to expand...

The worst of all was in the SB vs the Giants in 2011. They were a putrid team against the run.

mayoclinic said:

I think everyone would have liked to decrease the TOP ratio somewhat, give our defense a rest, and give our offense more chances. I'm just not sure how to do that given that we couldn't get the Jets off the field for most of 3 quarters, and when we finally did, or offense went 3 and out twice due to drops.

Click to expand...

The New England Patriots defense can give itself a rest by getting off the field on third down, let alone stopping the run.

http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/opponent-third-down-conversion-pct