The Patriots vs Jets POST Game Thread

1960Pats said:

I couldn't care less what our opponents stats are against other teams.

Click to expand...

Why? They're totally relevant. The Jets have fielded one of the better run defenses in the league since the beginning of 2013 and that has not changed this year. You may not care about their stats against other teams, but Belichick sure did.

What I like to see from the Pats is a balanced attack, no matter what defense the other team is in.

Click to expand...

I'll go ahead and continue to disagree. I'd like to see the Pats formulate a game plan that exploits and attacks their opponents' weaknesses while staying away from attacking their strengths. Again...

1. Jets have a very good run defense.
2. Jets have a terrible secondary.
3. Pats have Tom Brady.
4. Pats have Rob Gronkowski.
5. Pats were fielding a RB promoted from the practice squad.

...why in God's name would you want to run the ball more? Is it because you disagree with any one of the numbered above? If so, which do you disagree with and why? Otherwise, we can conclude that you know all that to be fact but are simply throwing out logic and instead choosing to ignore the obvious.

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.

Click to expand...

I'm fine with them having a balanced attack if the opponent calls for it. The Jets did not, and the result was a close win even though the game plan on defense was absolutely horrific.

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.

Click to expand...

I'm interested to see which of the five facts I've outlined are incorrect. Because you must believe at least one of them are if you wish to see the Pats take the ball out of Brady's hands and put it in Gray's.

Since the Pats have changed to the current pass-happy offense they haven't won much in the playoffs.

Click to expand...

The Patriots passed more than they ran in both Super Bowl XXXVIII and Super Bowl XXXIX and won. Smith rushed for 3.2 YPC in 2003 and the Pats converted 19 first downs passing the ball compared to 7 running the ball. In 2007, under the current "pass happy" format, multiple missed holding calls and a potential "in the grasp" missed call followed by a helmet catch cost the Pats the game they would have otherwise won.

AndyJohnson said:

Then we philosophically disagree. Calling plays is about matchups, tendencies, opponents scheme and tendencies, down and distance, strengths and weaknesses of your players and theirs, personnel groupings, and understanding what the defense is trying to do.
Its not as simple as 'they play pass you run'. First of all they don't tell you what they are playing. Secondly, all of the things above are considered, not just what you are guessing they are trying to do. (Its totally silly to think you can call a defense accurately presnap) Then you want to attack their weakness and use your strengths. You want to isolate favorable matchups. Thats just the beginning of what could be pages and pages of considerations.



Run percentage since BB arrived
2000 41
2001 47
2002 38
2003 45
2004 51
2005 43
2006 47
2007 43
2008 47
2009 43
2010 46
2011 40
2012 44
2013 42
2014 42

Average 43.9

I don't see much of a difference. Aside from 2 outliers which seem to be for obvious reasons, we seem to be in a range of 42% run to 47% run pretty consistently ever since BB arrived. The difference between 42 and 47 is about 3 plays a game which is probably explainable by more or less games with big leads when we run out the clock.

If we use 2005 as your 'mid 2000s' we ran 44.2% from 00-05 and have run 43.8% since, so there really is no point where the numbers indicate we became more 'pass happy'.

Click to expand...

Run percentage since BB arrived
Allow me to add the run % for only the losses in the regular season-playoffs
2000 41
2001 47 - 41 - sorry losing teams fans, no losses
2002 38 - 34
2003 45 - 41 - yup, again
2004 51 - 38 - and yet again
2005 43 - 33 - 37
2006 47 - 40 - 41
2007 43 - - 25 (are you kidding)
2008 47 - 38
2009 43 - 39 - 30
2010 46 - 35 - 41
2011 40 - 36 - 41
2012 44 - 38 - 34
2013 42 - 32 - 30
2014 42 - 30 so far

Average 43.9 - 37 - 35

Those numbers pretty much clinch it. When the Pats run more they lose less, or if they run less they lose more, whatever way anyone wants to put it.

In the 51 regular season losses from 2001 to now, the Pats ran the ball more only twice and were only even close in 6 more games. They were never close in any of the playoff losses.

And for all of the causation vs correlation crowd; In all the games lost in that time the Pats were winning or tied in half the games they lost and only trailed two games by a wide margin and a handful by a TD. Most times they were trailing it was within a FG.

1960Pats said:

Run percentage since BB arrived
Allow me to add the run % for only the losses in the regular season-playoffs
2000 41
2001 47 - 41 - sorry losing teams fans, no losses
2002 38 - 34
2003 45 - 41 - yup, again
2004 51 - 38 - and yet again
2005 43 - 33 - 37
2006 47 - 40 - 41
2007 43 - - 25 (are you kidding)
2008 47 - 38
2009 43 - 39 - 30
2010 46 - 35 - 41
2011 40 - 36 - 41
2012 44 - 38 - 34
2013 42 - 32 - 30
2014 42 - 30 so far

Average 43.9 - 37 - 35

Those numbers pretty much clinch it. When the Pats run more they lose less, or if they run less they lose more, whatever way anyone wants to put it.

In the 51 regular season losses from 2001 to now, the Pats ran the ball more only twice and were only even close in 6 more games. They were never close in any of the playoff losses.

And for all of the causation vs correlation crowd; In all the games lost in that time the Pats were winning or tied in half the games they lost and only trailed two games by a wide margin and a handful by a TD. Most times they were trailing it was within a FG.

Click to expand...

Now you are bastardizing the discussion.
It has been proven time and again that the reality is that winning causes running, not that running causes winning.
Every team runs more when they are ahead and throw more when they are behind.

The point of this exercise was to address your claim that the Patriots 'became pass happy' which is why they haven't won a SB, and that simply is not the case.

And let's not forget that the NFL had been consistently alerting the rules to make them more passing friendly.

1960Pats said:

Run percentage since BB arrived
Allow me to add the run % for only the losses in the regular season-playoffs
2000 41
2001 47 - 41 - sorry losing teams fans, no losses
2002 38 - 34
2003 45 - 41 - yup, again
2004 51 - 38 - and yet again
2005 43 - 33 - 37
2006 47 - 40 - 41
2007 43 - - 25 (are you kidding)
2008 47 - 38
2009 43 - 39 - 30
2010 46 - 35 - 41
2011 40 - 36 - 41
2012 44 - 38 - 34
2013 42 - 32 - 30
2014 42 - 30 so far

Average 43.9 - 37 - 35

Those numbers pretty much clinch it. When the Pats run more they lose less, or if they run less they lose more, whatever way anyone wants to put it.

In the 51 regular season losses from 2001 to now, the Pats ran the ball more only twice and were only even close in 6 more games. They were never close in any of the playoff losses.

And for all of the causation vs correlation crowd; In all the games lost in that time the Pats were winning or tied in half the games they lost and only trailed two games by a wide margin and a handful by a TD. Most times they were trailing it was within a FG.

Click to expand...

You are aware that teams pass more when they are behind and run more when they are ahead, yes?

1960Pats said:

...And for all of the causation vs correlation crowd; In all the games lost in that time the Pats were winning or tied in half the games they lost and only trailed two games by a wide margin and a handful by a TD. Most times they were trailing it was within a FG.

Click to expand...

Thank you for demonstrating that correlation is not causation, and destroying your own argument in the process.

AndyJohnson said:

Those decisions resulted in a win. I am firmly of the viewpoint that the coaches of this team without question have more information about the opponent, their own players, the matchups, etc to make that decision better than I do, and if we had the same amount of data, they would also be better equipped to make the right decision with it.
So, I get that a bunch of people like to Monday morning QB and say their way is better, but when they win the game, there is not a single thing they could have done differently that would have produced a better result. Their job is to win the game, not to win it in any specific way, and their job is that the multiitude of interrelated decisions that they make add up to a win. No more, no less.

You can feel free to think that you know better. It is in fact true that with less knowledge and data, you could still guess your way to a better decision sometimes (broken clock is right twice a day) but even if you made 100% correct decisions on everything related to this game, we still can only win once.

As far as running the ball at the end, if they threw an incomplete pass, they would have lost the game. It was absolutely the right decision, and of course, it worked.

Click to expand...

I absolutely concur with everything you say.

But while I understand you, You give no credence for an EMERGENCY gameplan that can only be used once in a Blue Moon,due to the injuries. I maintain, and the evidence indicates, that BB broke all the rules, and did something unique, because he had no choice except to accept defeat otherwise.

He won, but that does not mean that unique plan would always work.

As it depends on a dope continuing to do dopey things. Last season, Peyton had run up a 24 point lead with his usual awesome offense. Only to be sucked in to the inviting idea of running the ball down Bellichick's throat, without endangering himself of anyone criticizing him for a game turning INT,and ending the Foxboro jinx.

Dopey Rex didn't understand that if the Pats D held them to a steady diet of controlled 3-7 yard gains, would limit his error prone team from scoring lots of points, as they messed up, committed their usual turnover(s), or were occasionally stopped by the Pats D. None of which occured, making it closer than expected.

It is an interesting theory, Az, but it goes off the rails here:

because he had no choice except to accept defeat otherwise.

Even if I grant you that Bill would intentionally allow a run first, poor passing team to play into their strength and his weakness... how do you go from there to "no other possible alternative would have led to a win"? That is a completely baseless assertion.

Isn't it far more likely that a tired, short handed team forced to scramble for replacements on a short week just played a bad game? Why does there need to be more than that? Even if NE did play an unusual amount of nickle based on NY's game plan, why isn't the fact that NE's secondary was significantly healthier than it's front seven a sufficient explanation?

Oswlek said:

It is an interesting theory, Az, but it goes off the rails here:

because he had no choice except to accept defeat otherwise.

Even if I grant you that Bill would intentionally allow a run first, poor passing team to play into their strength and his weakness... how do you go from there to "no other possible alternative would have led to a win"? That is a completely baseless assertion.


Isn't it far more likely that a tired, short handed team forced to scramble for replacements on a short week just played a bad game? Why does there need to be more than that? Even if NE did play an unusual amount of nickle based on NY's game plan, why isn't the fact that NE's secondary was significantly healthier than it's front seven a sufficient explanation?

Click to expand...

I don't think so, but what you and I think doesn't matter. I'm not suggesting a weird game plan. I'm only observing what actually happened.

It is what BB thought, and then WHAT BB DID.

AzPatsFan said:

I don't think so, but what you and I think doesn't matter. I'm not suggesting a weird game plan. I'm only observing what actually happened.

It is what BB thought, and then WHAT BB DID.

Click to expand...

Yes, but the problem is that there is still no reason to conclude Bill wanted NY to run at will. All the explanations I mentioned in the earlier post remain more likely.

Oswlek said:

Yes, but the problem is that there is still no reason to conclude Bill wanted NY to run at will. All the explanations I mentioned in the earlier post remain more likely.

Click to expand...

He didn't want them to run at will. That's why he installed that candy ass gameplan on defense. Zone... lots of zone to keep all eyes turned toward the ball carrier while also making them have to methodically drive and convert first downs to get into the red zone. So he pretty much did everything possible to try to limit the run and the Jets still ran all over us. The ironic thing is that, when we started to get aggressive midway through the third and part of the fourth is when the defense started to stone them. We still had difficulty stopping the run, but they couldn't get anything going consistently through the air.

Oswlek said:

Isn't it far more likely that a tired, short handed team forced to scramble for replacements on a short week just played a bad game? Why does there need to be more than that? Even if NE did play an unusual amount of nickle based on NY's game plan, why isn't the fact that NE's secondary was significantly healthier than it's front seven a sufficient explanation?

Click to expand...

Nice...Occam's Razor

KontradictioN said:

He didn't want them to run at will. That's why he installed that candy ass gameplan on defense. Zone... lots of zone to keep all eyes turned toward the ball carrier while also making them have to methodically drive and convert first downs to get into the red zone. So he pretty much did everything possible to try to limit the run and the Jets still ran all over us. The ironic thing is that, when we started to get aggressive midway through the third and part of the fourth is when the defense started to stone them. We still had difficulty stopping the run, but they couldn't get anything going consistently through the air.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I suspect laying back and letting Geno Smith vacation in the pocket won't be a big part of their game plan next time around. He's horrible under pressure... any pressure. The guy stammered himself into a sack with a 10 yard run right there for the taking. The times he had success running were when he had plenty of time, just no one to throw it to.

Oswlek said:

Yeah, I suspect laying back and letting Geno Smith vacation in the pocket won't be a big part of their game plan next time around. He's horrible under pressure... any pressure. The guy stammered himself into a sack with a 10 yard run right there for the taking. The times he had success running were when he had plenty of time, just no one to throw it to.

Click to expand...

Yep. I wanted them to employ mostly tight, press man to man coverage on the outside, move Chung into the box to assist with the run, and blitz Geno plenty to force him into quick decisions. That would have been turnover city, IMO. Instead, they had to hold on. Oh well, it was a win and we got the hell out of there alive. I just hope they learn from the mistakes they made in this game when the team goes to New Jersey.

Oswlek said:

Yes, but the problem is that there is still no reason to conclude Bill wanted NY to run at will. All the explanations I mentioned in the earlier post remain more likely.

Click to expand...

Belichick DID NOT let NY "run at will". He DID play a Defense, of sorts, that his available players could manage to do successfully.

He controlled the damage of the Jets runs, Belichick had his available Team successfully limit the damage of the Jets running game that his remaining healthy players couldn't successfully stop, at the First and Second level.

He had his players perform a version of Bend Don't Break. What was weird was he DID this at the the Third level of the Defense, by playing Nickle and sometimes Dime, Defense the whole game. The proof it worked, was the Jets never busted a "Long" (> 10 yards), run for a score.

Many posters here seem to think I was proposing a weird Defense. Such is not the case.

I know, and BB knows, he would prefer to have a balanced attack. BB knows, and I know, that he would like to shut down the opponents run, while running more himself.

I only REPORT what BB DID last Thursday, and provide the confirming evidence. It was buttressed by the film analysis by a media analyst, of the veracity of my observations, elsewhere on these pages.

BB opened with, and stayed with, pass defenses of 5, & 6 DBs the entire game. Despite the 'apparent' success of the Jet running game, which is otherwise inexplicable.

He limited the damage that his healthy & available players couldn't stop.

AzPatsFan said:

I only REPORT what BB DID last Thursday, and provide the confirming evidence. It was buttressed by the film analysis by a media analyst, of the veracity of my observations.

Click to expand...

The problem is that what you claim as reporting is not, in fact, reporting. It's your spin on a bad defensive game plan.

OR, to put it basically the same way Bedard does:

When Belichick faces mobile QBs, he plays a lot of zone, because he doesn't want the QB getting runs for big gains.

In this case, he did that same thing, despite playing against the worst QB in the NFL, and he allowed a QB who can't handle pressure or throw accurately to look like a Pro Bowler, compared to how he usually plays.

Oswlek said:

Yeah, I suspect laying back and letting Geno Smith vacation in the pocket won't be a big part of their game plan next time around. He's horrible under pressure... any pressure. The guy stammered himself into a sack with a 10 yard run right there for the taking. The times he had success running were when he had plenty of time, just no one to throw it to.

Click to expand...

It helps when your defenders aren't falling on their face because they are once again wearing the wrong kicks.

Az, NE was in a heavy defense ~40% of the time, which is pretty standard. A significant portion of NY's success - as evidenced by game film - was poor run fits and nothing more. Holding NY to no long runs is an effect of playing a lot of zone defense to prevent Geno's scrambling.

Thus far, I still see no reason to assume anything more than what I already purported.

Oswlek said:

Az, NE was in a heavy defense ~40% of the time, which is pretty standard. A significant portion of NY's success - as evidenced by game film - was poor run fits and nothing more. Holding NY to no long runs is an effect of playing a lot of zone defense to prevent Geno's scrambling.

Thus far, I still see no reason to assume anything more than what I already purported.

Click to expand...

My eye balls saw 5 DBs or more all the time. It was confirmed by a film analyst.

I don't see how 5 DBs were there to prevent the very occasional
GeNO scramble, on the only occasional passing attempt, when the interior Jets run was constantly, and successfully occurring, most of the time. It was an incidental benefit at most.

The evidence of the number of snaps, indicates confirming evidence for my observation; and calls into question your assertion of a predominance of "heavy" play formations.

AzPatsFan said:

My eye balls saw 5 DBs or more all the time. It was confirmed by a film analyst.

I don't see how 5 DBs were there to prevent the very occasional
GeNO scramble, on the only occasional passing attempt, when the interior Jets run was constantly, and successfully occurring, most of the time. It was an incidental benefit at most.

The evidence of the number of snaps, indicates confirming evidence for my observation; and calls into question your assertion of a predominance of "heavy" play formations.

Click to expand...

I thought they looked small as well, but Reiss' snap count confirms a heavy 3-4 with 4DBs no less than 30% of the time. A subsequent post in Reiss' blog had this to say:

1. The Patriots matched the Jets’ 2-WR/2-TE/1-RB package that included Jeff Cumberland and Jace Amaro with a three-safety package of Devin McCourty, Patrick Chung and Tavon Wilson. That’s sometimes referred to as the “Big Nickel.” When the Jets went with 1-WR/2-TE/1-FB/1-RB, the Patriots countered in their 5-2 heavier look with three down linemen (Vince Wilfork, Casey Walker, Chris Jones). Chung, in particular, was strong in run support throughout as he often came down as a seventh (in nickel) or eighth (in base) defender in the box. He finished with eight tackles, third on the club.

It was how NE chose to match up against NY's personnel, and NY was smart enough to keep running against it. No conspiracy theory needed.

Sorry, Az, there simply is no reason to believe your theory behind NE's defensive approach.