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

BradyManny said:

Maybe - a rewatch of this one would be helpful for sure. I thought outside of the trenches we were quite good. I can't fault the corners, or the skill players on offense (Gronk, LaFell, Edelperson, Blount all good), and I thought Brady played really well.

But it's not as if we were run over in the trenches, we just got beat a few times offensively - and didn't get consistent pressure, defensively. Again, I could chalk that up to GB making some good plays. Matthews is no slouch.

Having a healthy Chandler Jones might be the difference on one side of the trenches at least.

Click to expand...

I came away less impressed, though my biggest issues were schematic and not necessarily the players on the field.

Galeb said:

In a game where every drive counted, the Pats O performed lower than excepted against a mediocre defense.

Click to expand...

Yes, the Patriots had several unsuccessful drives - as they do every game. We just forget about them when they win. I've statistically shown you that they averaged out to be as successful in scoring points, gain more yards per drive, and had exactly the same amount of 3 & outs as they have all season.

Sure, they had three crummy drives in eight possessions. And those sucked, I grant you that. But go through their game logs on espn.com - it's not atypical. The Detroit game started off with -3 yards on two drives. The Jets win had 5 three and outs. We punted five times vs Denver and got picked once (there I'll concede some of those punts were garbage time). It is offset by the fact that they were productive in the Red Zone.

If Gronk makes that catch, how do you evaluate the Patriots offense yesterday? Just hypothetically, if he catches it, we go up - and then Packers come down and kick an FG to win, who is blamed for the loss? Offense? Defense?

As for how weak Green Bay is defensively and how great the D's we've been playing are have been - other than Buffalo and Detroit, they aren't that far off in the metrics I'm proposing we use. Green Bay averages 1.92 PPP, Denver is 1.91, Jets are 2.31, Indy is 1.85, Cincy is 1.84. They are all in the same ballpark. Buf & Det are 1.42 & 1.53 - much better. Green Bay's defense is terrible in yardage, average in points, and first in turnovers. We had more yards against them per drive than we've averaged, we averaged the same in points per drive, and we didn't have any turnovers.

I've had this debate in another thread today and don't want to rehash it again, but I 100% agree that we don't fault the D for allowing Rodgers only two TD's, neither in the red zone, and for holding the Pack to one FG in the second half.

I also agree that the Offensive play calling was mystifying. Where were Blount and Gray? I thought they'd each get 20 touches, instead the Pats only ran 18 times the whole game and the D was on the field for 36 minutes. If I were a completely besotted drinker of the Belichickian Kool Aid, I'd even think that he had held back the running game to disguise his intentions in a potential SB...but that would be really, really insane...wouldn't it?

Blount ran for 5.5 yards a carry on ten carries. McD wanted to run "hurry up" on 3rd and 2 on a frozen field. Not hard to see where the moron in the woodpile is hiding.

Oswlek said:

I suspect you will be surprised when NE offers Vereen a three year extension in the $7mm range.

Click to expand...

I really hope we don't. Vereen just isn't that good. Dances way to much behind the line. Tries to take too many plays outside away from defenders for a short gain instead of taking more yards inside. His hands are not very good. Sure. He is a nice missmatch player against linebackers on the quick flat route and the wheel sideline route. But that's about it. Not worth that much cap. Sucks that we let Woodhead go as he was a better player.

BradyManny said:

Yes, the Patriots had several unsuccessful drives - as they do every game. We just forget about them when they win. I've statistically shown you that they averaged out to be as successful in scoring points, gain more yards per drive, and had exactly the same amount of 3 & outs as they have all season.

Sure, they had three crummy drives in eight possessions. And those sucked, I grant you that. But go through their game logs on espn.com - it's not atypical. The Detroit game started off with -3 yards on two drives. The Jets win had 5 three and outs. We punted five times vs Denver and got picked once (there I'll concede some of those punts were garbage time). It is offset by the fact that they were productive in the Red Zone.

If Gronk makes that catch, how do you evaluate the Patriots offense yesterday? Just hypothetically, if he catches it, we go up - and then Packers come down and kick an FG to win, who is blamed for the loss? Offense? Defense?

As for how weak Green Bay is defensively and how great the D's we've been playing are have been - other than Buffalo and Detroit, they aren't that far off in the metrics I'm proposing we use. Green Bay averages 1.92 PPP, Denver is 1.91, Jets are 2.31, Indy is 1.85, Cincy is 1.84. They are all in the same ballpark. Buf & Det are 1.42 & 1.53 - much better. Green Bay's defense is terrible in yardage, average in points, and first in turnovers. We had more yards against them per drive than we've averaged, we averaged the same in points per drive, and we didn't have any turnovers.

Click to expand...

You've tried putting words in my mouth and have posted blatant inaccuracies throughout this debate. 3 crumby drives? Try four drives of 5 or less plays, which I have already cited... as I have also cited that the GB D turnover rate is dramatically inflated by their competition. They've already played Jay Cutler twice!

The Pats were not winning that game even with a Gronk TD. The Packers O was eating Pats D for lunch and would have easily scored a FG with over three minutes left.

I'm not blaming just the O. Both the O and the D played their C game at best. I simply cited why the points per drive statistic is flawed and that looking at statistics without context is a fools errand. I gave a clear reason on why I thought the Pats O should have had a significantly higher points per drive against a mediocre defense. I have done this without putting words in your mouth or posting inaccuracies. I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

PatsFanSince74 said:

If I were a completely besotted drinker of the Belichickian Kool Aid, I'd even think that he had held back the running game to disguise his intentions in a potential SB...but that would be really, really insane...wouldn't it?

Click to expand...

I felt the same. Very bad offensive game plan. Hard to believe it came out from BB/McD.

Galeb said:

You've tried putting words in my mouth and have posted blatant inaccuracies throughout this debate. Try four drives of 5 or less plays, which I have already cited...

Click to expand...

Look, if we define a successful drive as based purely as a binary operation scoring or non-scoring, you are going to feed into my argument where ultimately all that matters is points per drive. So I wouldn't go there. Their first drive they got 20 yards, a first down, and flipped field position. No, not a success, but it's not a 3 & out. If you want to call it crummy, that's fine by me, but we have to call comparable drives in other games crappy too.

And, again, if you took the time to look through other game logs, I think you would be surprised to see how not ridiculous it is for the Pats to have several stalled drives in a game. Most games they get the opportunity to make up for it.

as I have also cited that the GB D turnover rate is dramatically inflated by their competition. They've already played Jay Cutler twice!

Click to expand...

How much did those two games inflate their stats? Going into yesterday, they had 23 TOs in 11 games. They had 5 TOs in two games vs the Bears. They had 18 games in 9 other games. That's still 2 TOs a game, which is still quite good.

The Packers O was eating Pats D for lunch

Click to expand...

So the Packers score 26 points and ate our D for lunch? The Pats score 21 and had a C game? And we're a missed FG or a missed Gronk catch away from 24 or 28.

I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

Click to expand...

I think we are going to have to simply agree to disagree.

BradyManny said:

Look, if we define a successful drive as based purely as a binary operation scoring or non-scoring, you are going to feed into my argument where ultimately all that matters is points per drive. So I wouldn't go there. Their first drive they got 20 yards, a first down, and flipped field position. No, not a success, but it's not a 3 & out. If you want to call it crummy, that's fine by me, but we have to call comparable drives in other games crappy too.

And, again, if you took the time to look through other game logs, I think you would be surprised to see how not ridiculous it is for the Pats to have several stalled drives in a game. Most games they get the opportunity to make up for it.



How much did those two games inflate their stats? Going into yesterday, they had 23 TOs in 11 games. They had 5 TOs in two games vs the Bears. They had 18 games in 9 other games. That's still 2 TOs a game, which is still quite good.



So the Packers score 26 points and ate our D for lunch? The Pats score 21 and had a C game?



I think we are going to have to simply agree to disagree.

Click to expand...

Packers didn't play against a mediocre defense. They also missed a chip shot field goal and dropped a couple of easy touchdowns. They also had 478 yards of offense, dominated TOP and converted 10/17 3rd downs. As I've said a few times today, the Packers B game beat the Pats C game.

Nikolai said:

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.

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.

Click to expand...

Good post - I thought this game was a bit reminiscent of the November 30th, 2009 loss in New Orleans. Brees and co. looked pretty much unstoppable then, and made a terrific run to the Superbowl. Lots of differences with that game too, don't get me wrong, I'm mostly referring to the "big late season road game matchup of where the other team's future HOF QB played extremely well."

Thinking back, the difference that I'm happiest about between the 09 Patriots who lost to NO and this team is that this year's secondary is competitive & good, compared to that one which was scary bad. Hopefully that bodes well for these Patriots to come out much differently than 09.

ForThoseAboutToRock said:

Good post - I thought this game was a bit reminiscent of the November 30th, 2009 loss in New Orleans. Brees and co. looked pretty much unstoppable then, and made a terrific run to the Superbowl. Lots of differences with that game too, don't get me wrong, I'm mostly referring to the "big late season road game matchup of where the other team's future HOF QB played extremely well."

Thinking back, the difference that I'm happiest about between the 09 Patriots who lost to NO and this team is that this year's secondary is competitive & good, compared to that one which was scary bad. Hopefully that bodes well for these Patriots to come out much differently than 09.

Click to expand...

It makes me think of the 2011 Pitt loss where the Patriots allowed Pitt to waltz up and down the field, but miraculously had the ball with a chance to tie at the end. Bill was equally complimentary of his team's resolve after each game.

In general, pats go in with a mentality vs teams which are high scoring or teams which they think they have to match points with an intention of fast starting and scoring. The first drive was indicative of that with the hurry on short yardage. The illegal shift on 3rd and short didnt help.
The penalties will doom us in big games if we dont clean it up. Some of it were bogus e.g browner but we have to clean this up.
Browner is going to have a hard time every game because refs are purposefully targeting him.

Biggest problem I saw in this game was coaching on the offense side. Not enough of the run game. We should have kept pounding it. Mark my words if we get to the SB the O will crap themselves just like the last 2 SB's. I have no faith in McD when it comes to the playoffs.

Not much time to post as I am at the airport, about ready to travel halfway around the world but I think this was a well played game. Nothing really to be disappointed with- not even the TD the team gave up right before the half. They went right at McCourty with a skinny post, knowing Browner doesn't do a good job of stretching horizontally. First time anyone ever attacked McCourty directly. That was a shrewd move by McCarthy. Also doing a wheel route to Cobb out of the backfield knowing Ninko is on him- many other examples of Chess moves that I don't remember, other than they came out in 01 and showed us a variety of formations, bunches. Moving Cobb to the backfield- that is vintage BB versatility.

I actually would rather we lost the game- the little things we just didn't do; they will be much better remembered. I think it's simply a case of we came, we saw, and we blinked. This was a very well played game- so good that the DVOA of BOTH teams dropped 1%.

Odds are high on a rematch in the SB if all goes well. The only thing that worries me is the Packers did a much better job with their #3-5 receivers than we did with ours. They came in fully expecting Jordy and whasisname.. Cobb? to be shut down and had no problem with that. That is something we will see again.

Would love a link to AWTE's breakdown or similar, to all the chess moves each side made. It was a great back and forth-

PP2 said:

This was a very well played game- so good that the DVOA of BOTH teams dropped 1%

Click to expand...

Would you mind sharing how you know this? To my knowledge, DVOA isn't updated until tomorrow. Can't, in fact, since not every team has played so opponent adjustments can't be made.

PP2 said:

That was a shrewd move by McCarthy. Also doing a wheel route to Cobb out of the backfield knowing Ninko is on him- many other examples of Chess moves that I don't remember, other than they came out in 01 and showed us a variety of formations, bunches. Moving Cobb to the backfield- that is vintage BB versatility.

Click to expand...

This is precisely why I was so disappointed. When I can tell purely based on formation what GB is trying to do and how blatant the mismatch is, surely Bill can. Clearly there was something that could have been done to ensure Nink wasn't trying to spring down the field in single coverage on Cobb.

luuked said:

I didn't understand why we suddenly had Bolden on the field. I am not complaining but his use was a bit out of nowhere.

Click to expand...

Three likely scenarios: the first, and most likely, he had the best and most consistent week of practice. Especially with Vareen limited in all last week's practices.

Second, and less likely, no film for Green Bay to key on as to tendencies - will they run or pass with Bolden in there?

Third, they've (the coaching staff) has always liked Bolden's blitz pick up. With the Caper's film showing the propensity to blitz, they thought he was best choice to negate especially with Fleming shelved.