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

Rob0729 said:

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.

Click to expand...

I have a hard time understanding how you view the Patriots game plan as brilliant? The top 2 WR were contained for the most part by our top 2 CBs. That is not a game plan that is putting are 2 best CB on their 2 best WR. I'm confused by you being impressed by this? Did you expect them to put there worst CB on the best WR? A brilliant game plan would have prevented the big plays that Nelson and Cobb both had that burned us, a brilliant game plan would have confused Rodgers, a brilliant game plan would have had us putting pressure on Rodgers consistently. This was not a brilliant game plan at all, I'm sorry but you are way off on this.

Haley said:

Yep. Brady needed to match Rodgers drive for drive, and simply did not. There were no turnovers, they both had the same number of possessions, but our offense just couldn't keep pace.

Click to expand...

I don't know. Given the totally uneven TOP visually it looked like the Packers were playing considerably better and yet if Gronk doesn't drop the pass there is a chance that we get out of there with a win. I think despite everything we were able to keep pace. The whole thing just exemplified to me once again how valuable it is if your defence can force FGs instead of TDs. It gives you quite a margin for error.

chasa said:

I think if we have malcom butler in instead of logan ryan we win.

Click to expand...

Or, you or I, instead of Ryan even. Ryan was embarrassed last night.

Bobs My Uncle said:

Or, you or I, instead of Ryan even. Ryan was embarrassed last night.

Click to expand...

Kyle Arrington was clearly limited yesterday. Otherwise he could have matched up on Cobb more, allowing a more physical CB to match up on Adams. Adams pushed Ryan around, but was allowed to get away with it.

Galeb said:

Yes, and in a vacuum, that would support your point. The reality is that stat includes the first 4 games where the Patriots O was horrendous. If you look at the points per drive for the last several games, it would be significantly higher even with those games containing a lot of garbage time. GB has a defense that sucks when it doesn't generate turnovers. Since there was no garbage time or turnovers, the O should have performed much better than they did against a mediocre D.

Click to expand...

GB's defense is 18th in points per drive, they are not terrible. Again, they are very comparable to several defenses that we've gone to championship games or beyond with. You cite GB as a turnover creating defense, yet we did not turn the ball over to them yesterday - why is that an indictment on Green Bay and not an appraisal of our offense?

Even if we dismiss the first four games of the season, the 2.63 points per drive the Pats scored yesterday would be good for 3rd best in the league, behind only the Pats themselves and the Packers. It would be more effective than the Denver Broncos.

And again, Ghost missed a FG that he almost never misses. If we put up 24, then we're 3 points per drive, which is best in the league. It's been since 2011 when a team averaged 3 PPG (GB).

Other than failing to convert at the end of the game there, I don't know how you fault the offense. I don't think you really fault the defense that much either, sure they shrunk the game, but the other guys get paid, too - and in this case, the other guy is the only QB I'd consider saying is better than ours.

Games against other championship caliber teams get decided by a play or two. We were one play away from winning, and we didn't make that play. That's all.

Brady6 said:

I have a hard time understanding how you view the Patriots game plan as brilliant? The top 2 WR were contained for the most part by our top 2 CBs. That is not a game plan that is putting are 2 best CB on their 2 best WR. I'm confused by you being impressed by this? Did you expect them to put there worst CB on the best WR? A brilliant game plan would have prevented the big plays that Nelson and Cobb both had that burned us, a brilliant game plan would have confused Rodgers, a brilliant game plan would have had us putting pressure on Rodgers consistently. This was not a brilliant game plan at all, I'm sorry but you are way off on this.

Click to expand...

They switched Revis and Browner off the two receivers. And they also had a lot of man/zone coverages mixes (Revis playing man while the rest playing zone). And they had different safety coverage help.

Nelson's TD (his only play of significance) was a blown coverage not a scheme problem. Cobb's production came from the Packers having to scheme on the fly to get him involved by giving him more of an H Back role. The Pats quickly adapted to it.

So if the Pats put consistent pressure like you want and Rodgers put up 35 plus points like he does against teams that put consistent pressure on him, you would consider it a brilliant strategy? You don't beat Rodgers by pressuring him. He is not a pocket passer.

Rob0729 said:

They switched Revis and Browner off the two receivers. And they also had a lot of man/zone coverages mixes (Revis playing man while the rest playing zone). And they had different safety coverage help.

Nelson's TD (his only play of significance) was a blown coverage not a scheme problem. Cobb's production came from the Packers having to scheme on the fly to get him involved by giving him more of an H Back role. The Pats quickly adapted to it.

So if the Pats put consistent pressure like you want and Rodgers put up 35 plus points like he does against teams that put consistent pressure on him, you would consider it a brilliant strategy? You don't beat Rodgers by pressuring him. He is not a pocket passer.

Click to expand...

Rodgers would have put up 33 points if Adams didn't drop the sure touchdown pass and they didn't miss a 42 yard field goal. I don't have a problem with the game plan overall but it was not brilliant by any stretch of the imagination.

mayoclinic said:

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.

Click to expand...

Rodgers was the better QB yesterday, and I thought Brady played really quite well. Credit to Green Bay. We really made Rodgers work, and he still did us in. He can make more throws than anybody in the NFL. He's really a beast.

That said - if we face them again, I do feel good. You can take two plays - Nelson beating Revis & Gronk hauling in the TD catch (which, frankly, I thought was rather clear DPI that wasn't called b/c of the situation). If those plays go the other way, it's a different outcome.

People react to the outcome - but in a 60 minute game, it's really not fair to make judgement performance based on the final score alone. We know this better than anybody based on the 5 Brady Super Bowls. Evenly matched teams in 60 minutes, the outcome is bordering on random.

Rob0729 said:

They switched Revis and Browner off the two receivers. And they also had a lot of man/zone coverages mixes (Revis playing man while the rest playing zone). And they had different safety coverage help.

Nelson's TD (his only play of significance) was a blown coverage not a scheme problem. Cobb's production came from the Packers having to scheme on the fly to get him involved by giving him more of an H Back role. The Pats quickly adapted to it.

So if the Pats put consistent pressure like you want and Rodgers put up 35 plus points like he does against teams that put consistent pressure on him, you would consider it a brilliant strategy? You don't beat Rodgers by pressuring him. He is not a pocket passer.

Click to expand...

I agree with you Rob. If the offense gets into a groove and we score the typical 35+ points everyone would have talked about the brilliant gameplan. I seriously don't know what more you can do against GB given our roster. Yes, Ryan was exposed, taken out and played only 4 snaps afterwards.

But apart from that ? Does anyone really think we can put out a team that gives a QB like Rodgers no mismatches to use ?

Similarly, with our personell I don't see how we can put a lot more pressure on the QB without risking opening running lanes that might result in big plays exactly like the one for Adams in the first quarter (33yds).

What still frustrates me is that dam TD before half...they don't let that happen and man..i truly think we walk out with a win. But it is what it is and this team will be ready vs SD

Packers 0-4 in the RZ. Pretty dam good vs that team

BradyManny said:

GB's defense is 18th in points per drive, they are not terrible. Again, they are very comparable to several defenses that we've gone to championship games or beyond with. You cite GB as a turnover creating defense, yet we did not turn the ball over to them yesterday - why is that an indictment on Green Bay and not an appraisal of our offense?

Even if we dismiss the first four games of the season, the 2.63 points per drive the Pats scored yesterday would be good for 3rd best in the league, behind only the Pats themselves and the Packers. It would be more effective than the Denver Broncos.

And again, Ghost missed a FG that he almost never misses. If we put up 24, then we're 3 points per drive, which is best in the league. It's been since 2011 when a team averaged 3 PPG (GB).

Other than failing to convert at the end of the game there, I don't know how you fault the offense. I don't think you really fault the defense that much either, sure they shrunk the game, but the other guys get paid, too - and in this case, the other guy is the only QB I'd consider saying is better than ours.

Games against other championship caliber teams get decided by a play or two. We were one play away from winning, and we didn't make that play. That's all.

Click to expand...

First off, mediocre and terrible are two different things.

Nobody "never misses" fieldgoals in the cold from 47 out. That said, Ghost doesn't miss those often.

Four of the Patriots drives that ended in punts were 5 plays or less.

GB has played a bunch of teams that turn the ball over a lot. NE isn't one of them.

Stats can be used to aid in analysis, but they require proper context to give them meaning. The Patriots offense under-performed against a mediocre defense yesterday.

Defense held them to 26 but in reality Rodger and Adams were very close to hooking up for 2-3 more touchdowns. Time for Ryan to "ice up son." Give Malcolm Butler a chance if there's a next time.

Brady_to_Moss said:

Packers 0-4 in the RZ. Pretty dam good vs that team

Click to expand...

It was absolutely phenomenal. I mean McCourty plays that end of the half TD better and the Pats give up 1 TD to the Packers at Lambeau. Ya Ya people can cite 3rd downs, number of yards and TOP but BB clearly had a game plan and while it didn't workout given that the offense came up short at the end. You have to feel somewhat ok about. Best QB in the game, at home, playing good could only muster 2 TDs on you and 1 of them was a result of a blown play that McCourty makes 9/10 times and the other was you beat Pat Chung in coverage.

Galeb said:

Besides a couple of bad plays, the secondary played very well when you consider how long Rodgers had to throw.

Click to expand...

I agree. There were quite a few plays were Rodgers had all day but there was No one open downfield because of how good the coverage was.

We're one more pass rusher(next to a healthy chandler jones) to being a dominate defense.

A man named Brady said:

I agree. There were quite a few plays were Rodgers had all day but there was No one open downfield because of how good the coverage was.

We're one more pass rusher(next to a healthy chandler jones) to being a dominate defense.

Click to expand...

I think I would rather have run stuffing DT who could consistently collapse the pocket next to Jones. After watching this last game, I'm not sure if Vince Wilfork can consistently do that anymore. Ayers, HT, and Collins are pretty good at rushing the passer. Ninko doesn't suck either.

It wasn't the officiating or the game plan or even the bad 1st quarter that cost the Pats the game. They didn't execute in the red zone on the last drive and then couldn't get a 3 and out when the Packers got the ball back. With all that we could complain about - and there's a pretty fair amount - they were still in a position to win at the end on the road in the Green Bay cold against one of the 2-3 best teams in the NFL.

Galeb said:

First off, mediocre and terrible are two different things.

Nobody "never misses" fieldgoals in the cold from 47 out. That said, Ghost doesn't miss those often.

Four of the Patriots drives that ended in punts were 5 plays or less.

Click to expand...

For context, the Patriots had 12 drives against the Lions: they had five punts, including four 3 & outs, and one interception. They failed on 50% of their drives. And 33% of their drives were 3 & outs.

It's not dissimilar.

Yes - the Lions defense is much better, but we were playing at home, versus playing in Lambeau, where the Packers defense is undefeated and giving up 17 PPG going into yesterday.

BradyManny said:

For context, the Patriots had 12 drives against the Lions: they had five punts, including four 3 & outs, and one interception. They failed on 50% of their drives. And 33% of their drives were 3 & outs.

It's not dissimilar.

Yes - the Lions defense is much better, but we were playing at home, versus playing in Lambeau, where the Packers defense is undefeated and giving up 17 PPG going into yesterday.

Click to expand...

There was significant garbage time in the Detroit game. Don't try to use stats just to prove your argument. Instead, use stats to test and refine it.

For reference:

Offensive Possessions per game in the win streak:

vs Cin - 11
vs Buf - 13
vs NYJ - 10
vs Chi - 9
vs Den - 13
vs Ind - 10
vs Det - 12

I've been pointing out for a while now that lack of possessions in our big losses has been a common thread. I'm not sure why the concept hasn't been accepted.

Galeb said:

There was significant garbage time in the Detroit game. Don't try to use stats just to prove your argument. Instead, use stats to test and refine it.

Click to expand...

Since when do the Patriots fold in garbage time? We scored a TD on our last possession. We can't throw out possessions just because we have a lead. If anything, it's clearly easier to play from ahead.