OT:Belichick's 1990 superbowl gameplan

SVN · Feb 10, 2016

supafly · Feb 11, 2016

Yes, this is a great story, and I brought it up after one of the wins vs. DEN these past couple/few seasons.

By going into the game knowing that they would allow Thomas to rush for 100+ yards, they were able to keep it out of Kelly's hands. The book "Education of a Coach" mentions this story, as well.

That said, I also believe that this is somewhat overblown. The much more telling stats are:

1) Holding the Bills to 1-8 on third down attempts

2) Holding the ball for over 40 minutes on offense, and completely dominating the TOP

RobertWeathers · Feb 11, 2016

supafly said:
Yes, this is a great story, and I brought it up after one of the wins vs. DEN these past couple/few seasons.

By going into the game knowing that they would allow Thomas to rush for 100+ yards, they were able to keep it out of Kelly's hands. The book "Education of a Coach" mentions this story, as well.

That said, I also believe that this is somewhat overblown. The much more telling stats are:

1) Holding the Bills to 1-8 on third down attempts

2) Holding the ball for over 40 minutes on offense, and completely dominating the TOP

I agree. BB's gameplan was certainly forward-thinking but it's more of a validation of "complimentary football"

Of the 8 3rd downs they had, Kelly threw on 7 of them and was 0-7. Credit to BB flooding the field with LBs and DBs and locking down Reed, Thomas and Lofton. However, BUF still ran 55 plays, racked up 371 yards of offense and averaged a point a minute so it wasn't like they "stopped" them.

Giants offense went 9-16 on 3rd down, rushed 39 times and ran 71 plays in the 40+ minutes they had the ball. Craaazy.

One or two more stops by BUF or Reed pulls in 1 of the 0-3s he was on 3rd down and things could have been very different.

Also if Norwood doesn't push it we aren't talking about this either

denverpatsfan · Feb 11, 2016

Yes indeed. The missed field goal. If he makes it we are not discussing this here. Funny how that works out.

SHOWTIME15 · Feb 11, 2016

denverpatsfan said:
Yes indeed. The missed field goal. If he makes it we are not discussing this here. Funny how that works out.

his defense held that high powered bills offense to less than 20 points, missed field goal or not. it was a great defensive game plan.

Gronk · Feb 11, 2016

It's not like it was a chip shot FG. And that Bills team had scored 44 and 51 pt in their first two playoff games. If the game was any longer the Bills would win, but it held them at bay just long enough. But the Bills defense, talk about not being able to get off the field lol. Hostetler was pretty good as backups go but I can't imagine how frustrating that game must've been to watch as a Bills fan.

Actually...I probably can now.

PF_SU · Feb 11, 2016

TommyBrady12 said:
his defense held that high powered bills offense to less than 20 points, missed field goal or not. it was a great defensive game plan.

Yeah, Buffalo's offense came into the Super Bowl as hot as it gets. They put up 44 offensive points twice against the Dolphins (#4 scoring D) and Raiders (#7 scoring D) while putting up 493 and 502 yards against the two teams that allowed well under 300 yards in the regular season. Kelly had 339 yards passing against Miami and 300 against the Raiders.

tasmlab · Feb 11, 2016

I've only been watching football since the oughts, so it seems funny to read about how awesome the Bills are.

PF_SU · Feb 11, 2016

tasmlab said:
I've only been watching football since the oughts, so it seems funny to read about how awesome the Bills are.

It is quite astonishing to make four straight Super Bowls. Just as astonishing is it though to lose them all. In fairness it has to be said that they ran into some very good teams. Aside from these 1990 Giants (who started the season 10-0) the 91 Redskins and 92-93 Cowboys were legitimate juggernauts.

Gronk · Feb 11, 2016

PF_SU said:
It is quite astonishing to make four straight Super Bowls. Just as astonishing is it though to lose them all. In fairness it has to be said that they ran into some very good teams. Aside from these 1990 Giants (who started the season 10-0) the 91 Redskins and 92-93 Cowboys were legitimate juggernauts.

And if they'd gotten there a year earlier or later it would have been running into the buzzsaw of the '89 or '94 49ers. Just a bad time to be really good in the AFC.

PF_SU · Feb 11, 2016

Gronk said:
And if they'd gotten there a year earlier or later it would have been running into the buzzsaw of the '89 or '94 49ers. Just a bad time to be really good in the AFC.

The NFC's superiority in that era was astounding. Between the Raiders win in Super Bowl XVIII and the Broncos win in Super Bowl XXXII you had a streak of 13 consecutive NFC wins.

RobertWeathers · Feb 11, 2016

PF_SU said:
The NFC's superiority in that era was astounding. Between the Raiders win in Super Bowl XVIII and the Broncos win in Super Bowl XXXII you had a streak of 13 consecutive NFC wins.

Yep all those NFL teams were outstanding defensively and physically stout. People overlook the fact that the 80's 49ers were consistently a top 5 top 10 defense in that era even finishing #1 a couple of times.

PF_SU · Feb 11, 2016

robertweathers said:
Yep all those NFL teams were outstanding defensively and physically stout. People overlook the fact that the 80's 49ers were consistently a top 5 top 10 defense in that era even finishing #1 a couple of times.

Indeed, looking at some of the most dominant teams in that period:

1984 Niners - #2 scoring offense, #1 scoring defense, beat Marino's Dolphins 38-16
1985 Bears - #2 scoring offense, #1 scoring defense, beat the Patriots 46-10
1989 Niners - #1 scoring offense, #3 scoring defense, beat Elway's Broncos 55-10
1991 Redskins - #1 scoring offense, #2 scoring defense, beat the Bills 37-24
1992 Cowboys - #1 scoring offense, #5 scoring defense, beat the Bills 52-17
1996 Packers - #1 scoring offense, #1 scoring defense, beat the Patriots 35-21

Since 1996 I would say only one team has matched these teams in terms of dominance on both sides of the field:

2004 Patriots - #4 scoring offense, #2 scoring defense

The 2007 Patriots should've also been there, but damn those Giants.

billdog3484 · Feb 11, 2016

Relevant to our most recent loss, i think this paragraph is relevant, specifically what i underlined.

“I think the running game was the least of our concerns in that game,” Belichick said. “Thurman Thomas is a great back. We knew he was going to get some yards. But I didn't feel like we wanted to get into a game where they threw the ball 45 times. I knew if they had some success running the ball, they would stay with it. And I always felt when we needed to stop the run, we could stop it. And the more times they ran it, it was just one less time they could get it to Reed or get it to Lofton, or throw it to Thomas, who I thought was more dangerous as a receiver, because there's more space than there was when he was a runner.”

I've been pissed off since we lost to denver why we played soft on the first drive of the game...Maybe this sentence provides some insight as to why. maybe we wanted them to keep passing

Nonentity · Feb 11, 2016

Here's a thought. Should Josh McDaniels' gameplan from the 2014 SB be in the Hall of Fame?

We scored more points on Seattle than they'd been allowing all season, and drove for two TDs in the 4th quarter. And if Brady hadn't thrown those two INTs, we might have scored even more than we did.

SVN · Feb 11, 2016

I think the bigger point I got out this piece is that these defensive schemes from wade phillips and rex ryan etc which we get worried about when we lose and start killing josh etc, are nothing knew and BB of all people knows whats happening

RobertWeathers · Feb 11, 2016

billdog3484 said:
Relevant to our most recent loss, i think this paragraph is relevant, specifically what i underlined.

“I think the running game was the least of our concerns in that game,” Belichick said. “Thurman Thomas is a great back. We knew he was going to get some yards. But I didn't feel like we wanted to get into a game where they threw the ball 45 times. I knew if they had some success running the ball, they would stay with it. And I always felt when we needed to stop the run, we could stop it. And the more times they ran it, it was just one less time they could get it to Reed or get it to Lofton, or throw it to Thomas, who I thought was more dangerous as a receiver, because there's more space than there was when he was a runner.”

I've been pissed off since we lost to denver why we played soft on the first drive of the game...Maybe this sentence provides some insight as to why. maybe we wanted them to keep passing

Maybe. Why they left Collins on single coverage with Daniels and allowed him a free release up the seam is beyond me . He is not a blocking TE. They should have had Chung on him. That was bad.

PF_SU · Feb 11, 2016

robertweathers said:
They should have had Chung on him. That was bad.

For some reason Chung was on Vernon Davis, who has done absolutely nothing, on at least one of those plays.

RobertWeathers · Feb 11, 2016

PF_SU said:
For some reason Chung was on Vernon Davis, who has done absolutely nothing, on at least one of those plays.

YES!

Froob · Feb 11, 2016

Ah, back in the day when good coaching wasn't calling cheating.

OT:Belichick's 1990 superbowl gameplan

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

Eff you, Shula

Member of the Seattle 7 & Roadie for Metallica

PatsFans.com Supporter

No asterisks

2nd Team Getting Their First Start

2nd Team Getting Their First Start

Starting QB, won 20 SBs, number is retired

2nd Team Getting Their First Start

2nd Team Getting Their First Start

2nd Team Getting Their First Start

Member of the Seattle 7 & Roadie for Metallica

2nd Team Getting Their First Start

PatsFans.com Supporter

Third String But Playing on Special Teams

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

Member of the Seattle 7 & Roadie for Metallica

2nd Team Getting Their First Start

Member of the Seattle 7 & Roadie for Metallica

Independent Investigator & pliable af

Similar threads