Welcome to PatsFans.com

Are Receivers Getting Open ??

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by arrellbee, Sep 17, 2006.

  1. arrellbee

    arrellbee Rookie

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    Messages:
    1,094
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    There were some comments earlier concerning whether the Pats 'problems' with the passing attack was because the receivers were not getting open which was causing Brady to not be able to complete passes.

    It's actually probably difficult to draw a whole lot of conclusions from this game because the two halfs were so different.

    The second half surely was no problem. 7 of 11 for 160 yards including passes of 34 yards to Watson, 24 yards to Caldwell, and 23 yards to Graham. If they had this kind of production for both halfs in future games, that would be a pretty solid passing game and we wouldn't have any worries at all.

    The first half was a hodge-podge. Draw you own conclusions I guess.

    1-13:xx - Brady had 3.15 seconds before he passed incomplete to Caldwell and there was no pressure.
    1-12:59 - Brady had 2.5 seconds with no pressure and hit Watson who blew the catch
    1-12:55 - 3 step drop and quick out to Watson. No pressure
    1-10:47 - Brady had 3.0 seconds and got the TD to Brown. No pressure.
    1-3:02 - Triplett came free to Brady - incomplete pass. This was pretty ridiculous by the way. 2 TEs stayed in so there were 7 blockers on the line and Triplett came through basically untouched. The left DE was triple teamed and the right DT and right DE were both double teamed. Let's see - that's all 7 blockers used up on 3 DLmen. Ooops.
    1-2:54 - Brady had 3.0 seconds but then had his pass batted. TE and RB released so only 5 OL blocking. I would have to wonder if Brady read the coverage right. With the coverage, he had the RB wide open coming ouf of the backfield.
    2-9:13 - Brady had 2.7 seconds. Light blew his block on Sobel and Sobel batted Brady's screen pass.
    2-9:10 - Brady had 2.5 seconds. Light blew a cut block on Sobel so he was in on Brady. Only 5 OL blocking. Brady threw the ball into the ground.
    2-7:21 - Brady had 2.8 seconds. Ball tipped by Sobel AGAIN. Caldwell probably had good pattern on 10 yard out and very possibly could have made the catch.
    2-7:16 - Quick screen pass to Maroney - incomplete (almost a fumble)
    2-7:11 - Shotgun. Brady had 3.0 seconds and was flushed and then sacked. Only 5 OL blocking. 2 TEs and RB released. Poor team blocking by Neal and O'Callaghan.
    2-0:27 - Shotgun. Screen. Really outstanding play by Triplett to read the screen and drop back a little to tip the pass.

    I guess my take is mostly that you can't tell if the receivers were getting open because of the poor OL blocking and probably Brady not picking shorter outlets in response to the ability of the Buffalo D-line to get pressure on him. Other folks might have a different judgment.
  2. RPCity

    RPCity Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    170
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Good analysis. How does that compare to Pats1's breakdown?


    Can't wait for game 2 tomorrow.
  3. pats1

    pats1 Moderator PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Messages:
    13,261
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    Neither Box nor I did the first half.

    (And speaking of that, I need to finish up the last drive this morning...)
  4. 14thDragon

    14thDragon Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Messages:
    703
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Anyone else amused to no end by the irony of this?
  5. p8ryts

    p8ryts Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,203
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    First, Brady didn't throw that many times and the poster above had a good analysis. I'm certain some faulty routes were run just like the poor blocks and poor throws. Not a reason to panic.

    Second, do not pay any attention to NEM. If every play doesn't work, he has a better one. He knew better than Charlie and he knows better than Josh.

    Third, don't forget the other guys are playing against us and believe it or not they make a good play once in a while.
  6. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,625
    Likes Received:
    215
    Ratings:
    +508 / 13 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    There has to be some of that. Especially as, in the first half before some secondary guys got hurt for Buffalo, they have a good secondary and our WR were inexperienced with us (Caldwell) or slowing down (Brown). Once Jackson and Gabriel get back things should get better. Incrementally. It likely won't be immediate but over the course of the season it should get better - and our running game will make it a LOT easier for the WR to get open. Can you say "8 in the box" ? :D
  7. Kdo5

    Kdo5 Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    6,292
    Likes Received:
    9
    Ratings:
    +26 / 5 / -3

    Is this the blame the recievers thing again?

    Its ridiculous because some people dont have the balls and cant admit Brady played terrible. Light was to blame, Brady was to blame for much of the offenses troubles. I dont know whether the recievers were open or not but Bradys passes were constantly deflected. Dont draw any conclusions about the recievers not doing their jobs.
  8. p8ryts

    p8ryts Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,203
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    Sorry, NEM, didn't mean to be personal, just an observation. I don't recall you ever giving Charlie any credit at all, when I thought he was a real good game planner and in game manager. I think I remember one time you grudingly admitted some competence by him. Game planning requires execution and the game plan doesn't work unless the O line does there part and in the first half last week they didn't do that. Schobel is good but he was all pro against Matt Light. I don't expect that to happen this week.
  9. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,625
    Likes Received:
    215
    Ratings:
    +508 / 13 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    Instead of your one dimensional look at playcalling, how about if you present an analysis of how Buffalo's defense reacts to play action, how the new DC's defenses have done so in the past, etc, etc. It's WAY too easy to say "play action". Ernie Adams will have presented McDaniels and Belichick with a lot more data than you have access to prior to their game plan development.

    Really, it's not as obvious as you think.
  10. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,625
    Likes Received:
    215
    Ratings:
    +508 / 13 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    Says you. I firmly believe Charlie would have been offered an NFL HC position and was a better HC prospect than Romeo. But he'd already accepted the Notre Dame job so we'll never know.
  11. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,625
    Likes Received:
    215
    Ratings:
    +508 / 13 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    Dude, I know what play action is. And I have no idea how Buffalo's defense would have reacted to it - neither do you - but I bet McDaniels and Belichick do. Or maybe Belichick just forgot to try it :rolleyes:
  12. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,625
    Likes Received:
    215
    Ratings:
    +508 / 13 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    He took the Notre Dame job with several games left in the regular season. No teams were allowed to offer him a job or request an interview at that time.
  13. emoney_33

    emoney_33 Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2005
    Messages:
    5,194
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    Hey NEM, is this how the entire season is gonna go? Anytime we don't playaction or any time the offense struggles a little, you are going to say how easy it would have been to just fix everything with play action calls? I mean you have said it over and over and over and over again, all over the place, ever since the game. You still need the o-line to do its job for play action to work, if there's a defender in Brady's face right when he turns after the fake it's not going to work
  14. arrellbee

    arrellbee Rookie

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    Messages:
    1,094
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    NEM

    I don't disagree with you about play action. I might not be so adamant about it because I think it depends on the type of pass play. On shotgun or short drops and quick passes, it obviously doesn't apply. If the OL is able to get Brady adequate time, the play action takes a fraction away from his first look at the field so it might not be desirable if you don't have to do it. Also, you tell me, but doesn't play action require a different initial action on the part of the OL as opposed to a straight pass rush ? My impression is that play-action blocking might actually give the QB less time if the DL is primarily in pass rush on the play. My impression is that play action is most effective on relatively quick passes to TEs, RBs, or WR slants across the middle where you are trying to get the LBs to commit forward to the run and open up more of a zone in the middle and the QB doesn't need a whole lot of time anyway before he gets rid of the ball..

    In the Buffalo game, there wasn't actually much of an application for play-action:
    The first four passing downs, Brady didn't get any pressure anyway.
    The 5th down was the ridiculous play with both TEs kept in so they had 7 OL blockers and still let Triplett through.
    The 6th passing down, Brady had 3.0 seconds and no pressure but had the ball batted. Maybe ? a play action might have altered the DL positions and made the tipped ball less likely ?? ??
    The next 3 passing downs right DE Schobel destroyed Light. I really doubt that his rush as DE would have been affected much by play action .....
    The next 3 plays were shotgun and/or screen so play action wouldn't be applicable.

    With 7 for 11 and 160 yards, you can't criticize the second half either. Maybe try another game.

    So I guess my bottom line is, although I too think that play action is a valuable weapon, I don't think you can use this game an example of poor play calling.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>