Game Thoughts: The Pats got their tundras frozen in Green Bay edition

Here we go:

• One thing I got tired listening to last night is how the Pats have no pass rush and it is going to kill them in the playoffs. Do people already forget the last month where they successfully pressured Manning, Luck, Cutler, and Stafford? The pass rush is fine.

• That brings me to the my point of the Pats played contain with the Rodgers. The game plan was not to sell out the pass rush to Rodgers. Rodgers is arguably the most dangerous passer on the run. You need to keep them in the pocket. That is what the Pats did. Even when they took away outside rushing lanes from Rodgers, he still found ways to scramble outside.

• Although it didn't look like it, I thought the Pats' game plan was brilliant. The Pats for the most part took away Nelson, Cobb, and Lacy and told Rodgers to beat them with their 3rd and 4th options. Against any other QB, the Pats would have shut down the opposing offense. I don't know how you can kill the defense when they for the most part successfully shutdown two receivers who have over 900 yards and 10 TDs each and made them an after thought? There are only so many receivers you can shut down.

• On that point, Rodger won my vote for league MVP yesterday. What he did yesterday was nothing short of superhuman even if the Pats stopped him in the red zone. Do you think Manning could play as well if the opposing defense took away D. Thomas and Sanders? Luck if you took away Hilton and Wayne (or Allen)? Brady might have if you took away Gronk and LaFell (or Edelman), but he and Rodgers ends the list of QBs who could do that.

• The o-line had its worst game since week 4. They weren't as comically bad as they were the first month of the season, but not a heck of a lot better. Stork had his worst game as a pro and got manhandled a bit up the middle. If Brady wasn't so good at avoiding pressure yesterday, he would have been sacked five or six times.

• I have given McDaniels tons of credit for totally recreating this offense from week to week, but this game the game plan sucked and I didn't love the play calling either. I think they should have committed to the run and not just draws with Vereen. They should have used Blount from the beginning and hammered him through the line. Using Bolden was questionable at best.

• The officiating was awful. How they could use Ed Houchli's crew in the marquee game of the week is baffling? I am just guessing they wanted to use their best refs of the Thanksgiving games. I am still baffled how a crew that can't count to 11 could get such a game. Once again, PI and illegal contact was called inconsistently. Browner was called for ticky tack calls while a Packers' receiver literally threw a Pats' defender to the ground before catching the ball and got nothing. There was a crucial 3rd down where the Packers receiver looked to be down a good yard before the hash marks and the spot gave them a first down.

• Revis has been everything we could hope for. Yes, he gave up the Nelson TD because he got burnt (McCourty bit on the wrong route for the over the top help too). Otherwise, he totally shut down both Nelson and Cobb when they covered them. He needs a new deal now.

• I know people seem down on this team, but I still think they go 13-3 and get HFA and most likely go to the Super Bowl. Yesterday was a game where probably the two best teams in the league played and the Packers had the advantage of home field. I think the Pats could beat them on a neutral field. I don't get how people all the sudden think the rest of the Pats' schedule is undaunting. The Pats just finished the hardest stretch of their schedule. Although they are facing some good teams down the stretch, I don't think any of them are as good as Denver, Indy, or Green Bay.

Agree on all counts! They could have executed better here and there, and and the O-line really did seem overmatched, but overall, I thought they played a great team on their home field and lost by not a lot... anyone playing chicken little today isn't being reasonable.

This game is a classic case of lose the battle to win the war. BB knows he may very well see GB in the superbowl and didn't want to show too much like we did with the giants, not saying we threw the game but it felt like we were trying to sneak a win without pulling out all the stops. AND we almost did, this loss is very tolerable as I think we win out and still grab HFA

It's as if you watched this game from inside my head. This was exactly what I saw. We made so many threads prior to the game about what we had to do to win this game, and the funny thing was we basically accomplished those things and yet Rodgers beat us anyway. For the most part, we took away Lacy, Nelson and Cobb and contained Rodgers in the pocket and Green Bay still got the upper hand. I now know what it is like facing a Brady led offense or at least I suspect it feels very much like yesterday.

Rob0729 said:

I have given McDaniels tons of credit for totally recreating this offense from week to week, but this game the game plan sucked and I didn't love the play calling either. I think they should have committed to the run and not just draws with Vereen. They should have used Blount from the beginning and hammered him through the line. Using Bolden was questionable at best.

Click to expand...

I don't get this line of thinking. NE did try to establish the run early with minimal success. It wasn't until they started slinging it that they started moving the ball.

If I had a complaint, it is the absence of Jonas Gray. Blount is useful and he had some great runs in the second half, but the guy needs to build up a head of steam to display his full skill set. By contrast, Gray gets to top speed quicker and is much better at plowing through traffic at the line. I was calling for him the entire game and got exactly what I expected on his lone carry - a 4 yard gain that would have been a Blount 1-yard special - and then he goes right back to the bench.

I am certain that NE is more productive on offense in the first half if Gray is given some carries.

Rob0729 said:

• I have given McDaniels tons of credit for totally recreating this offense from week to week, but this game the game plan sucked and I didn't love the play calling either. I think they should have committed to the run and not just draws with Vereen. They should have used Blount from the beginning and hammered him through the line. Using Bolden was questionable at best.

Click to expand...

Rob - I agree with almost all of your post, but this one. I thought the offensive game plan was just fine - and frankly, was just a couple plays of good execution away from being a winning one. Had they executed on a couple third downs early - they left themselves with 4th & shorts on the first couple drives - it's a whole different ball game.

They have to be better on first down so that they can be better on third down. That was the big takeaway from me on offense yesterday. As for commitment to the run - I didn't see the Patriots consistently opening holes. Even some of Blount's good runs came when I think his patience and brute force paved the way more than the guys up front.

When we needed some yardage on 1st down in the red zone at the end of the game, we lost a yard. Reminded me a lot of BJGE's -2 yard run before the Welker play in SB46. Those kinds of plays might not get remembered, but they are the difference makers. 2nd & 6 makes life a lot easier than 2nd & 11.

BradyManny said:

Rob - I agree with almost all of your post, but this one. I thought the offensive game plan was just fine - and frankly, was just a couple plays of good execution away from being a winning one. Had they executed on a couple third downs early - they left themselves with 4th & shorts on the first couple drives - it's a whole different ball game.

They have to be better on first down so that they can be better on third down. That was the big takeaway from me on offense yesterday. As for commitment to the run - I didn't see the Patriots consistently opening holes. Even some of Blount's good runs came when I think his patience and brute force paved the way more than the guys up front.

When we needed some yardage on 1st down in the red zone at the end of the game, we lost a yard. Reminded me a lot of BJGE's -2 yard run before the Welker play in SB46. Those kinds of plays might not get remembered, but they are the difference makers. 2nd & 6 makes life a lot easier than 2nd & 11.

Click to expand...

Those are my thoughts too. It's all well and good to say we need to stick with the run (a good running game is a huge boon to have), but when it's not working and Green Bay is moving the ball extremely well (albeit stalling in the red zone), you don't always have the luxury of being patient with the run.

Sicilian said:

Those are my thoughts too. It's all well and good to say we need to stick with the run (a good running game is a huge boon to have), but when it's not working and Green Bay is moving the ball extremely well (albeit stalling in the red zone), you don't always have the luxury of being patient with the run.

Click to expand...

Plus I think people are selling short what we did offensively. As I said repeatedly in the post-game thread, per possession, we were just about as effective as we've been all year in terms of points, yards. We moved the ball, and we did it through the air - and at times, we had balance with Blount, too. I don't think our offense struggled aside from a few plays which were magnified but the shortened game.

We were one pass & catch away. Game reminded me of SB46 a tremendous amount. Obviously you never want to lose a game, and the experience would've been just as valuable if Gronk holds onto that TD, but I'm glad we got this loss out of the way now. It'll be valuable in January/February.

the loss bodes well for us. Had we won last night, they would likely have been on a 12 game winning streak to close out the season. Then they would need another 3 wins against good teams in the playoffs to win the super bowl. A 15 game winning streak is not impossible, but improbable. The offense needs to play crisper - brady struggled in the first half against detroit last weeK too. Now they can go back to the drawing board and hopefully go on a mini 7 game winning streak. As long as NE learned something from the packers like they did against the rams in the 2001 regular season, i'm fine with the loss last night.

BradyManny said:

Plus I think people are selling short what we did offensively. As I said repeatedly in the post-game thread, per possession, we were just about as effective as we've been all year in terms of points, yards. We moved the ball, and we did it through the air - and at times, we had balance with Blount, too. I don't think our offense struggled aside from a few plays which were magnified but the shortened game.

We were one pass & catch away. Game reminded me of SB46 a tremendous amount. Obviously you never want to lose a game, and the experience would've been just as valuable if Gronk holds onto that TD, but I'm glad we got this loss out of the way now. It'll be valuable in January/February.

Click to expand...

The offense hasn't been nearly has productive as they have been in the last several games. They were also playing one of the weakest defenses they've played in a while...

It was a great game. Didn't like the play calling once they crossed the Packers side of field though. Blount was destroying them and instead they started throwing it. Plenty of time on the clock to make that drive work. Real head scratcher to me.

Still, one of those games where the score could of been worse in defeat or could of shifted to our side in victory. A lot of lament in the loss but a good effort overall.

Bill has all the game film he needs to come up with a even more brilliant game plan if the two teams meet again.

I feel really good about getting home field the rest of the way. Even if they have to go to Denver I feel pretty confident about beating them there as well after this contest.

I've definitely felt worse about other losses. This one, not so much.

PatCat said:

This game is a classic case of lose the battle to win the war. BB knows he may very well see GB in the superbowl and didn't want to show too much like we did with the giants, not saying we threw the game but it felt like we were trying to sneak a win without pulling out all the stops. AND we almost did, this loss is very tolerable as I think we win out and still grab HFA

Click to expand...

I did wonder a little bit about this, given some of the game planning question marks. I'm sure there will be a lot of different wrinkles if we happen to see them again.

I'm not so sure about the "Commitment to the running game" issue. Reiss was mentioning the same thing but if you look at their drives, they were most successful when they were balanced. I think they had every intention of running it a little more with Wright getting as many snaps as he did, but the score and opportunities did not present it.

I thought we might see a little more running in the 2nd half but the first play (Connelly holding) put them in a hole immediately and on their second drive, they were in 2nd and long right away. I think more than anything they wanted to stay away from 3rd and long with GB's pass rush just teeing off. Plus, they really didn't look like they were getting the push up front that was required unlike the Indi game.

On another note, it was interesting to see Rodgers gain more time by either dropping further back or stepping up into the pocket. This prevents the DB's from then "holding" the receivers legally since Rodgers is still in the pocket and is almost impossible for DB's to cover for that long.

Speaking of Rodgers, while he is likely to win MVP (which I don't think is a huge deal for him, unlike Manning), I don't think he's half the QB Brady is when in the pocket and facing pressure. Now I can't criticize him for using his athleticism, but if he ever has to play with lower body ailment, that offense will be 50% worse (see the Saints game). That or if he faces a team with 2 good inside pass rushers (Seattle).

Did you notice Belichick talking to McCarthy after the game? He doesn't usually take that much time, particularly after a loss but based on his body language, he seemed to be quite complimentary and respectful. I think the game plan on defense was for the most part executed well but the Packers were effective with 3rd and 4th options. More importantly, they weren't uncomfortable going to those options when I think other teams (Denver) have been and would be.
That being said, that was a heckuva comeback by the Chargers yesterday and this sets up for a HUGE game on Sunday. Had the Chargers lost, I think the Pats would have them right where they want them; demoralized and facing an uphill climb. Now, the Chargers will be flying. One good thing about playing in San Diego is that so many season ticket holders sell their seats to visiting team fans so there should be a good contingent of us there.

TommyBrady12 said:

the loss bodes well for us. Had we won last night, they would likely have been on a 12 game winning streak to close out the season. Then they would need another 3 wins against good teams in the playoffs to win the super bowl. A 15 game winning streak is not impossible, but improbable. The offense needs to play crisper - brady struggled in the first half against detroit last week. Now they can go back to the drawing board and hopedully go on a mini 7 game winning streak. As long as NE learned something from the packers like they did against the rams in the 2001 regular season, i'm fine with the loss last night

Click to expand...

I would have preferred a W, but I'm not that upset about this loss. Close game (which the Pats needed) on the road against a top team. Out of conference loss. I hate it when the Pats get too much media hype, and it usually doesn't bode well. Too many people were anointing the Pats, far too early. It's good for them to feel a little bit of bitterness after a 7-0 run, and to have a bit of pressure to win out to get the #1 seed. Hopefully this will motivate them to another 7-0 run to finish out the season.

Watching Rodgers yesterday is what it's like for fans of other teams to watch Brady. He found the mismatches quickly and delivered perfect passes. I was definitely disappointed with the loss, but this was one I had as a loss in my preseason prediction thread. Green Bay, with Rodgers firing on all cylinders, at Lambeau is no gimme.

I love the red zone defense, and I'm fine with the contain game. If we had spent the game sending extra pass rushers, it might have gotten more ugly. The defense didn't get torched because of a lack of a pass rush. It got torched by a QB who is one of the two best in the NFL, doing what he does. Rodgers Bradyed the Pats.

As for the running game, the only thing I didn't really like was trying to run Vereen through the tackles early on.

The D held the Packers to 26 points at home, no small feat, but the offense stalled at critical moments. The O-Line had a subpar game, and Brady did as well. He missed a couple key 3rd down throws.

That said, this loss doesn't hurt a ton. The Pats are still #1, still "control their own destiny", and I feel good about the outcome of a possible rematch in February.

TommyBrady12 said:

the loss bodes well for us. Had we won last night, they would likely have been on a 12 game winning streak to close out the season. Then they would need another 3 wins against good teams in the playoffs to win the super bowl. A 15 game winning streak is not impossible, but improbable. The offense needs to play crisper - brady struggled in the first half against detroit last weeK too. Now they can go back to the drawing board and hopefully go on a mini 7 game winning streak. As long as NE learned something from the packers like they did against the rams in the 2001 regular season, i'm fine with the loss last night.

Click to expand...

Were it a loss caused by the Pats making some bad drops or turnovers, I think the loss may bode well. I don't think losing in the trenches to a team like GB bodes well. Let's hope the OL can pull it together.

Haley said:

It's as if you watched this game from inside my head. This was exactly what I saw. We made so many threads prior to the game about what we had to do to win this game, and the funny thing was we basically accomplished those things and yet Rodgers beat us anyway. For the most part, we took away Lacy, Nelson and Cobb and contained Rodgers in the pocket and Green Bay still got the upper hand. I now know what it is like facing a Brady led offense or at least I suspect it feels very much like yesterday.

Click to expand...

For the most part (the Nelson TD catch being the notable exception), the Pats made GB beat them with their 3rd, 4th and 5th options. Those guys played well, so give them credit, but if not for Aaron Rodgers extending plays it wouldn't have been close. Rodgers was the difference in this game.

What I don't understand is with a chance to take the lead and force Greenbay to call time outs why were we in so much of a rush to score?? Thought that was horrible clock management by our Coaching staff. Also why was Gronk lining-up so much on the Outside he's a TE and not a WR...that negates his effectiveness Gronk ain't Jimmy Graham fast or quick.

Galeb said:

The offense hasn't been nearly has productive as they have been in the last several games. They were also playing one of the weakest defenses they've played in a while...

Click to expand...

Again - if you go on a per drive basis, they were just about as effective. Less than a tenth of a point per drive less, and they actually put up more yards per drive than they have on average.

As for GB's defense, they are not dissimilar to the Patriots defenses in recent years. Bend, don't break - cause TOs.

To the running replies, the Pats did not really line it up and run the ball. Most of the runs early were draws and they didn't commit with Blount early.

I think people overrate Jonas Gray for killing a really bad Colts' run defense. Blount is the best RB the Pats have, but the Pats lead with Vereen and Bolden.