Nice Game Green Bay, But..

KontradictioN said:

No. Belichick did. The defensive game plan was a dud. You're not going to win many games when you only force your opponent into one punt. Bend but don't break doesn't work, especially not against elite quarterbacks.

Click to expand...

Come on! I thought the game plan was pretty good. If someone told you before the game that the Pats would take out Cobb and Nelson most of the game, forced the Packers to kick field goals all game, and held them to 26 points; you would have thought the Pats would have won by at least two TDs. I think the Pats lost this game on offense, not defense.

Rob0729 said:

Come on! I thought the game plan was pretty good. If someone told you before the game that the Pats would take out Cobb and Nelson most of the game, forced the Packers to kick field goals all game, and held them to 26 points; you would have thought the Pats would have won by at least two TDs. I think the Pats lost this game on offense, not defense.

Click to expand...

Agreed. We held a team who averaged 43.8 to 26 @ home. I'll take that. Gronk reels in that TD I think it gets interesting.

Rob0729 said:

Come on! I thought the game plan was pretty good. If someone told you before the game that the Pats would take out Cobb and Nelson most of the game, forced the Packers to kick field goals all game, and held them to 26 points; you would have thought the Pats would have won by at least two TDs. I think the Pats lost this game on offense, not defense.

Click to expand...

Would they have also showed me the time of possession, total yardage, and punt stats? Again, the defense could not stop the Packers on their side of the field often enough to win. Go ready @BradyManny's posts in the postgame thread. The Pats met their posts per possession average for the season and would have surpassed it if not for Gronk's drop or Gost's miss. The defense sucked today and the only reason it wasn't worse was because of Revis.

KontradictioN said:

Would they have also showed me the time of possession, total yardage, and punt stats? Again, the defense could not stop the Packers on their side of the field often enough to win. Go ready @BradyManny's posts in the postgame thread. The Pats met their posts per possession average for the season and would have surpassed it if not for Gronk's drop or Gost's miss. The defense sucked today and the only reason it wasn't worse was because of Revis.

Click to expand...

Time of possession had a lot to do with the Pats' offense, not the defense. The Pats had 5 drives where they held the ball for 2:11 or less on each drive. They were four punts and one TD. That was huge in the time of possession.

The defense didn't play perfect, but they were playing one of the best offenses in the league. The Packers at home may be the best offense in the league.

The defense didn't suck today. It wasn't great, but they made a lot of stops when they had to against a great offense.

The defense played just like last years AFCCG to a T. They made the game winnable with points, but it meant Brady had to go to a super natural level. Just think, if 2 of the drives they stop GB out of field goal range, or stop the Nelson td the pats win. The defense just gave up to many big plays for the pats offense to overcome. They played almost well enough to win, but not enough to guarantee a win

Rob0729 said:

Time of possession had a lot to do with the Pats' offense, not the defense. The Pats had 5 drives where they held the ball for 2:11 or less on each drive. They were four punts and one TD. That was huge in the time of possession.

The defense didn't play perfect, but they were playing one of the best offenses in the league. The Packers at home may be the best offense in the league.

The defense didn't suck today. It wasn't great, but they made a lot of stops when they had to against a great offense.

Click to expand...

I just have to disagree. The defense played ok, but not allowing the offense to see the field often and surrendering huge long drives killed the offenses chance at rhythm

Rob0729 said:

Time of possession had a lot to do with the Pats' offense, not the defense. The Pats had 5 drives where they held the ball for 2:11 or less on each drive. They were four punts and one TD. That was huge in the time of possession.

Click to expand...

One punt. One. The entire game. The saving grace for the defense was that the long drives were ending in field goals instead of TD's. But that is the reason for the lopsided T.O.P.

The defense didn't play perfect, but they were playing one of the best offenses in the league. The Packers at home may be the best offense in the league.

Click to expand...

This means what to me? The Pats have the best secondary in the league. They still got torched and were still the reason they lost today. You're basically trying to excuse them here.

The defense didn't suck today. It wasn't great, but they made a lot of stops when they had to against a great offense.

Click to expand...

Those "stops" coming after long, time consuming drives in which the Packers kicked a field goal then sent out a defense with fresh legs (compared to our's).

Yeh but when your near the 10 with 3:30 left and TD potentially wins it you don't throw three times. I'm not in agrement the offensive game plan was their best by any measure.

man to man killed us.

In some games the performance we had on offense would've been good enough, but today that was not the case. It was a relatively good performance on offense, by no means horrible considering where we were playing, but we've seen much better from them this year. Had we played our absolute best football, I believe we would've pulled this one off.

If we play them again(after what i saw today i really don't want to) we should just do like we did at indy,run the ball all over them.

This game pretty much came down to that last drive of the 1st half IMO. That one really hurt, considering Pats were going to get the ball back at the start of the half, down by only 2.

Other than that, TOP. Defense (especially along the line) seemed really gassed at the end. The combination of the return of Cameron Fleming and playing at home (or at least on a neutral field) should give the running game a shot the arm.

Otherwise, we were competitive. At Lambeau. We'll be okay.

It has been almost impossible to win @ Lambeau this year, so maybe we could say it was pretty amazing how close we were to winning that game.

Bonzo said:

This game pretty much came down to that last drive of the 1st half IMO. That one really hurt, considering Pats were going to get the ball back at the start of the half, down by only 2.

Other than that, TOP. Defense (especially along the line) seemed really gassed at the end. The combination of the return of Cameron Fleming and playing at home (or at least on a neutral field) should give the running game a shot the arm.

Otherwise, we were competitive. At Lambeau. We'll be okay.

Click to expand...

I agree. While losing by 5 sucks because it means that it wouldn't have taken much for the Pats to come out on top, I look at it this way: I'd rather see the Pats lose this game and win the rematch than vice versa.

Archeryaddict12 said:

The defense played just like last years AFCCG to a T. They made the game winnable with points, but it meant Brady had to go to a super natural level. Just think, if 2 of the drives they stop GB out of field goal range, or stop the Nelson td the pats win. The defense just gave up to many big plays for the pats offense to overcome. They played almost well enough to win, but not enough to guarantee a win

Click to expand...

Holding GB to 3 points in the second half is pretty good. Basically, the one somewhat flukey long TD before the half was the difference. I think they play 10 times, that play doesn't happen more than once or twice.

rochrist said:

Holding GB to 3 points in the second half is pretty good. Basically, the one somewhat flukey long TD before the half was the difference. I think they play 10 times, that play doesn't happen more than once or twice.

Click to expand...

They definitely played well in enough to win today, but didn't make the 1-2 plays needed to win. But the Nelson td really did it in for them. That gave the packers huge momentum

Not so sure we'll be facing them. Green Bay is great but they've only beaten Minny with a wide out at qb in the past 3 years. Best 2 teams almost never play each other with the exception of last year and the Saints-Colts sb over the past like 20 years or so.

Archeryaddict12 said:

They definitely played well in enough to win today, but didn't make the 1-2 plays needed to win. But the Nelson td really did it in for them. That gave the packers huge momentum

Click to expand...

Not to be facetious, but normally huge momentum != 3 second-half points.

How is this that same Chiefs team from Monday Night? ****ers couldn't put together one more good game.

Morons,

I read how the TOP is proof the Defense sucked. Do any of you morons think an offense going 3 and out might affect that? Yeah, it sucked but not for the reason you idiots think. It gave up big plays. PERIOD. Take away the big plays and you take away the TDs. A defense that holds a team to only FG does not suck. A defense that allows a few TDs sprinkled in with the FGs sucks

Rob0729 said:

Come on! I thought the game plan was pretty good. If someone told you before the game that the Pats would take out Cobb and Nelson most of the game, forced the Packers to kick field goals all game, and held them to 26 points; you would have thought the Pats would have won by at least two TDs. I think the Pats lost this game on offense, not defense.

Click to expand...

I agree, the O-line was a problem. Brady was pressured every play. Heck, some running plays had Blount breaking tackles in the backfield then running for ten yards.