Why did we even play our starters the last two games?

I'm completely sympathetic to those who have been making the argument that, if the Patriots Brain Trust had decided not to go all out to win the last two games and that the O Line they had could not protect Brady, then they just should have sat Brady and Gronk and a few other of the walking wounded.......BUT.......I do find myself wondering how many vitriolic threads would have been started attacking that strategy if the Pats had pursued it.

PatsFanSince74 said:

I'm completely sympathetic to those who have been making the argument that, if the Patriots Brain Trust had decided not to go all out to win the last two games and that the O Line they had could not protect Brady, then they just should have sat Brady and Gronk and a few other of the walking wounded.......BUT.......I do find myself wondering how many vitriolic threads would have been started attacking that strategy if the Pats had pursued it.

Click to expand...

I would have disagreed with that strategy but nowhere near as much as playing like you are afraid to have the football. My biggest concern is you just spent a month telling your offense you don't trust them to be a real offense, and now what do you do? BB has stripped his own team of confidence at its most critical time. Trying and failing is better than being told you aren't even good enough to try.

AndyJohnson said:

Did he tell you that? This is my problem with many fans, you rationalize that since we didn't win, it wasn't important. Why did Brady play? Why did McCourty play? Kline? Amendola?
BB tried to win the game. BB is smart enough to understand that HFA matters.
BB is smart enough to understand that having your team play like THAT heading into the playoffs is a disaster.

Click to expand...

Dont think it can be any more obvious than what we did in the last two games that he cared less about HFA than health. Watch the game tape, look at schemes and tell me how our coaching staff suddenly had no idea how to play our division rivals or deploy all the chesspieces we have on the DL.

HFA was so important that the only seam route reception Gronk had in the last two games came on a 4th down to tie the Jets game at the very end. If HFA was that magical unicorn then we would have moved Gronk more around and at the very least gotten 60-80 yds off play action against the Dolphins.

But instead we kept on playing vanilla on both sides of the field. Sorry but the tape tells the story of how important HFA is for BB very well.

luuked said:

Dont think it can be any more obvious than what we did in the last two games that he cared less about HFA than health. Watch the game tape, look at schemes and tell me how our coaching staff suddenly had no idea how to play our division rivals or deploy all the chesspieces we have on the DL.

Click to expand...

I 100% disagree. You are saying they tanked purposely on defense in order to be healthier? You will have to explain that one.
The White Flag offense has been in effect at increasing levels for a month. If all he cared about was health why was Brady and Gronk even playing?

HFA was so important that the only seam route reception Gronk had in the last two games came on a 4th down to tie the Jets game at the very end. If HFA was that magical unicorn then we would have moved Gronk more around and at the very least gotten 60-80 yds off play action against the Dolphins.

Click to expand...

So we tried to lose and decided the best thing for the team is to lose a game we can easily win and go to Denver with the SB on the line after they already beat us once? Wouldn't it be easier to beat Miami?
You realize we had basically one play of offense right?

But instead we kept on playing vanilla on both sides of the field. Sorry but the tape tells the story of how important HFA is for BB very well.

Click to expand...

BB is not an idiot. BB understands the value of HFA. Your argument that he tried to lose is mind boggling.

AndyJohnson said:

I 100% disagree. You are saying they tanked purposely on defense in order to be healthier? You will have to explain that one.
The White Flag offense has been in effect at increasing levels for a month. If all he cared about was health why was Brady and Gronk even playing?


So we tried to lose and decided the best thing for the team is to lose a game we can easily win and go to Denver with the SB on the line after they already beat us once? Wouldn't it be easier to beat Miami?
You realize we had basically one play of offense right?


BB is not an idiot. BB understands the value of HFA. Your argument that he tried to lose is mind boggling.

Click to expand...

Zero chance they "tried to lose". But pretty clearly what they did offensively yesterday wasn't a serious attempt to go all out and win the game. BB tried to win the game without bringing about additional risk. I mean, they barely even looked at Gronk all game long. No chance, if they played that game again as the AFCCG, they use the same game plan, even if the roster looked exactly the same. No chance at all.

Therefore, there's no chance the coaching staff thought this plan gave them the best chance to win. None. They probably thought they could pull it out doing what they did, while minimizing the risk of further injury, and they bet wrong. Once they realized it in the second half, they made some changes, but that didn't work out either.

There's nobody in his right mind that would argue that if that game yesterday was the AFCCG, that the Patriots would approach it the same way.

ivanvamp said:

Zero chance they "tried to lose". But pretty clearly what they did offensively yesterday wasn't a serious attempt to go all out and win the game. BB tried to win the game without bringing about additional risk. I mean, they barely even looked at Gronk all game long. No chance, if they played that game again as the AFCCG, they use the same game plan, even if the roster looked exactly the same. No chance at all.

Click to expand...

Gronk had 7 targets in 25 pass attempts. For the season he averaged 8 in about 39.
They used him just as much as normal. If they were trying to prevent injuries why have Brady out there?
Given what the offense has done in the last month what do you think would have worked better? I agree they didn't try to lose, that's my point. What they did yesterday was their best.

Therefore, there's no chance the coaching staff thought this plan gave them the best chance to win. None.

Click to expand...

It is consistent with what they have done for a month.

They probably thought they could pull it out doing what they did, while minimizing the risk of further injury, and they bet wrong. Once they realized it in the second half, they made some changes, but that didn't work out either.

Click to expand...

How were they 'limiting the risk of injury". That makes no sense. Failing means you don't get hurt?

There's nobody in his right mind that would argue that if that game yesterday was the AFCCG, that the Patriots would approach it the same way.

Click to expand...

BB has shown over the last month + that he considers his offense a liability. Why would he do anything different? You are back to arguing he knew he could win but chose not to try. It can't be to 'limit injuries' because Brady and Gronk would have sat.

That is a very good question and I would like to hear an honest answer from BB on how he constructed the last two game plans. Yesterday, they run the ball on almost every play in the first half and then attempt to throw the long ball in the 2nd half. If you don't have confidence in your o-line, I have no idea why you would make them block any longer than they have to. Now, Brady has a bum ankle and ribs two weeks before our biggest game of the season. I am puzzled to say the least.

IMO they played some vanilla offense, got reps and experience, without exposing themselves to further injury. They didn't win, but no one is too badly hurt. Brady should be okay. No one else is really hurt. They still have the bye and have two weeks to rest up. Works for me.

The issue with pulling guys is that you need other guys to replace the guys you pulled. Outside of Brady, they were pretty barebones in the replacements category. I like the kid, but what's worth more right now - giving LaFell and Martin reps, or sitting them and playing Harper all game? Who are we replacing the linemen with? There are like maybe two total backups on the whole line that are healthy. They played the important guys to get the reps and the experience, partly because they sorta had to, without putting them in position to get hurt.

Not sure, but they shouldn't have. I said last week that I reversed course on my stance that the starters needed to play and we needed to get the 1 seed, and I did so with good reason. For one, they clearly weren't playing to win so much as playing to avoid injury. Brady should have sat. So should Gronk, Amendola, and some guys on the defensive side of the ball. The good news is that Vollmer will be back in two weeks and Brady has the same amount of time to rest his ankle. I'd like to see Vollmer at RT, Stork at guard, and Andrews back at center. Those moves plus the return of Edelman should put the offense back on track.

AndyJohnson said:

Gronk had 7 targets in 25 pass attempts. For the season he averaged 8 in about 39.

Click to expand...

You watched the game, right? In the first half, all they did was run the ball again and again and again and again and again. Brady threw 5 times. The lowest number in his career. Gronk played, but only blocked. It was in the second half, when they realized that they kinda needed to, you know, throw, to win the game, that they tried to get Gronk involved in the passing game.

You cannot seriously be arguing that this game plan was "normal". Like, at all.

AndyJohnson said:

They used him just as much as normal. If they were trying to prevent injuries why have Brady out there?
Given what the offense has done in the last month what do you think would have worked better? I agree they didn't try to lose, that's my point. What they did yesterday was their best.

Click to expand...

No it wasn't. Not at all. There is ZERO chance, Andy, that if this was the AFCCG, they would have run 21 times vs. 5 passes in the first half of that game. Zero. Chance.

AndyJohnson said:

It is consistent with what they have done for a month.

Click to expand...

Tell me another game in the BB/TB era - EVER - where they ran 21 times compared to 5 passes in the first half. Or even came close to that ratio.

AndyJohnson said:

How were they 'limiting the risk of injury". That makes no sense. Failing means you don't get hurt?

Click to expand...

Not running Gronk down the seams so he gets his knees taken out is trying to limit the risk of injury. Not having Brady drop back 40 times is limiting the risk of injury. Not running Amendola, already hobbling, on crossing patterns is limiting the risk of injury. The safest way to go about it was to run, run, run, run, run. They hoped that would still be enough to win. Only when they realized that it wasn't did they try to throw more. This is so painfully obvious I can't believe you are arguing otherwise.

AndyJohnson said:

BB has shown over the last month + that he considers his offense a liability. Why would he do anything different? You are back to arguing he knew he could win but chose not to try. It can't be to 'limit injuries' because Brady and Gronk would have sat.

Click to expand...

I never, ever, ever said they "chose not to try". You must have me confused with someone else. They had two objectives: (1) Win. And (2) limit the risk of injury. If they simply played backups and sat Brady, Gronk, etc., they knew they couldn't win. So those guys had to play. But they thought an ultra conservative game plan would probably still be enough to win, and at the same time it would minimize the risk of injury *while still hoping to win*. He tried the ultra conservative route and it didn't work. So he tried to open it up more in the second half, but it wasn't enough.

ivanvamp said:

Zero chance they "tried to lose". But pretty clearly what they did offensively yesterday wasn't a serious attempt to go all out and win the game. BB tried to win the game without bringing about additional risk. I mean, they barely even looked at Gronk all game long. No chance, if they played that game again as the AFCCG, they use the same game plan, even if the roster looked exactly the same. No chance at all.

Therefore, there's no chance the coaching staff thought this plan gave them the best chance to win. None. They probably thought they could pull it out doing what they did, while minimizing the risk of further injury, and they bet wrong. Once they realized it in the second half, they made some changes, but that didn't work out either.

There's nobody in his right mind that would argue that if that game yesterday was the AFCCG, that the Patriots would approach it the same way.

Click to expand...

that's the best post I've read on yesterday's game. thanks.

I wrote this in another post, but I'm writing this here too:

Garoppolo should have started in Miami. Perhaps his mobility would've opened other passing lanes
due to the Miami defense's scrambling in coverage & pursuit…or perhaps it wouldn't have, but it almost
certainly would not have been any worse than what happened to the Patsies' offense in general, and to Brady in particular.
No Vollmer (and already with no Solder) should have equalled no Brady.

This December collapse cost the Patriots a Super Bowl appearance, more than anything else.

As I said in other threads, the dropkick against the Eagles, kicking off in overtime against the Jets, the WORST CALLED GAME of the BB era against the Dolphins with the ****ing #1 seed on on the line, were ultimately what cost us a chance at #5.

I'm still in shock this team decided to play with a pre-season game plan/mentality when the #1 seed was right there.