Belichick purposely allowed DEN to run on us Sunday night

[RayClay]

He used the same gameplan against the Colts in the 2004 opener.

Edge James ran for over 200 yards if memory serves

That's right (don't remember the exact yards) , the difference being James was a better runner and we had the ability to stop the run straight up back then. We've been overplaying the run since Wilfork went out, so it was a choice of being equally susceptible to run and pass or making them beat us with the run.

 

[Gumby]

VERY INTERESTING POST. Kudos.


I think there is one way to confirm or deny the use of this as a deliberate (suck them in deception / feedback-loop) versus BB just sticking with his strategy to take away their most dangerous weapon (Pay-Me).

If someone breaks down the run avg from Denver from their own goal-line to midfield or Patriots-40 and then the run avg from midfield/Pats40 to the patriots goalline; that would tell you whether or not the Patriots were LETTING THEMSELVES get gashed deliberately OR whether they were just getting gashed AS PART OF THE OVERARCHING STRATEGY.

If BB gave the guys those instructions; they obviously wont keep doing it when they start getting close to point scoring range. IMO if the avg on the Donkey's end of the field is +1.5 or > than the avg on the short-end of the field; then your THEORY is VERY LIKELY TRUE.*

* and if so goes down as one of the best deception plans since 'Operation Overloard-The Man with No Name.'

NOTE: Of course those with more technical savvy (who like to break down film) could also look at how the Patriots front 7 took on the Donkey's blocking scheme on those same end of the field partitions. But that is much harder to do and subjective..... I'll accept the stat driven analysis as proof enough.

Well, sorry Sup. I got bored and #s dont bear you out.

For 49 total running plays by Broncos

From 0-50 yd line: 32 runs for 5.875 yd / play
( From 50-P40 yd line: 3 runs for 6.33)
From 50-PEZ yd line: 17 runs for 5.71 yd/play
(From P40-PEZ yd line: 14 runs for 5.57)

While they got a little better on Patriots end of the field; it was essentially the identical avg 5.88 vs 5.71 (even closer if you give Moreno credit for another 3-5 yds on the 2 yd TD run).

I though maybe it could be attributable to Pay-Me trying to take over the glory and switching plays to PASS-MODE once he started smelling paydirt; but they were relatively consistent 52% - 50% -58% run over pass in the 3 parts of the field I broke it into; if anything-- even MORE Run heavy on the Patriots end.


So, I guess it was just BB had a strategy and he stuck by it with a vengeance - but he did not appear to have a deliberate deception going on.

 

[SacPete1]

I think its more perspective.
He knew that scheme would be more vulnerable against the run but better protected against the pass.
I don't think he was expecting 280 yards of rushing yards nor would he say that's what he was purposely allowing. I think 150 yards and a tightening up inside the 10would have been more reasonable.

It will be interesting to see how they scheme in January against them. And to your point, I wouldn't be surprised to see the same scheme but ideally with more battles won along the line of scrimmage. I think a run of 5 yards is understandable but the 15-20 yards ones need to be limited.

 

[RIpats88]

The funny thing is the 3 times Peyton decided to pass on first down, one was an incompletion, another was an interception by Ryan and the third was an interception by talib that was called back for a Ricky tack PI call

I think bill was content with giving up 5-6 yards on the ground rather than let manning and those receivers to get going

When it mattered the defense put them in some tough 3rd downs and manning couldn't do anything with them in the 4thq and it

The donks only scored 7pts in the 2nd half and it...so what did all those running yards get them really?

 

[UK_Pat37]

Whilst he was geared up more to protect against the pass and daring them to run, he can't have been happy with the results at all.

Had we had Mayo, Wilfork and Kelly you would argue the results probably would have been a lo better. We allowed them to run...to an extent...and, in the same process, succeeded in our game plan which was to stop Manning. He was a non factor all game.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

It's sad but hightower has gotten so bad to the point here I hope he isn't in much any more. Runs around out there like a chicken with its head cut off.

 

[Gumby]

The funny thing is the 3 times Peyton decided to pass on first down, one was an incompletion, another was an interception by Ryan and the third was an interception by talib that was called back for a Ricky tack PI call

I think bill was content with giving up 5-6 yards on the ground rather than let manning and those receivers to get going

When it mattered the defense put them in some tough 3rd downs and manning couldn't do anything with them in the 4thq and it

The donks only scored 7pts in the 2nd half and it...so what did all those running yards get them really?

BINGO.

when you put in a "0" for each of the pass plays that are INCOMPLETE or INT and give him -pass yards for passing down holding penalties or Sacks; his passing YARDS PER PLAY average for the WHOLE GAME WAS.....

.
.
. ready for it:.....
.
.
, 2.88 YDs per Play.

That is even without giving a negative value for the INT, just 0. Compare that with the 6 yd per play Moreno was getting. Granted the pass plays used less clock; but it was a whole lot more short series every time P.M. put up 2/3 passes as oppposed to down-series when they went 2/3 runs.

 

[patsfanincleveland]

Agreed. The point was making the run Denver's most attractive option by targeting personnel packages to limit their passing attack. The Broncos still scored enough points to win while amassing more than 400 yards offense, so I wouldn't give the Pats defense too much credit. Brady and the wind were the difference makers.

Hard to believe but you nailed the exact opposite of what happened and the correct conclusions to draw.

400 yards over almost 5 quarters....for the supposed most prolific offense in the entire history of everything means squat. The Broncos had exactly two real scoring drives the entire game.

Brady was part of the fumble parade. Overcoming the condition you help create doesn't allow for full credit. That's the only reason this game wasn't a real beat down.

A less than stellar performance by the defense would never have allowed a comeback....the combination of getting turnovers and stops had to be essentially perfect.

 

[Froob]

Having a hard time wrapping my head around giving a runner extra yardage. It's not better to try to stop them as short as possible everytime?

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

IIRC we loaded the field with DB's in SB36 and Martz actually helped us further by refusing to run the ball.

 

[Kontradiction]

Having a hard time wrapping my head around giving a runner extra yardage. It's not better to try to stop them as short as possible everytime?

He employed the same gameplan he used against Buffalo in the Super Bowl and the same gameplan teams used against us time and again when Welker was here. The defense stayed in mostly nickel, left six in the box, dared the opposing offense to run, played mostly man to man, and flooded the middle of the field. The result was Manning having his worst game of the season. I said before the game the team should play mostly zone in this one. Good thing the team didn't listen to me because I was horribly wrong.

 

[Ring 6]

It should be noted that in reviewing the game film, the Patriots refused to change their approach to try and combat the run. On 90/90 plays including overtime, Belichick chose to continue to stay in a nickle defense, at one time even substituting Hightower out for Dane Fletcher making our run defense even worse. As we know, this is not the first time that we've seen this.

In the book by David Halberstam called "Education of a coach," the topic is brought up regarding Belichick's defensive gameplan in SB 25 vs the Buffalo Bills and RB Thurman Thomas. As we all know, that NYG team had a great defensive line that prided themselves in stopping the run, and they reportedly wanted no part of Belichick's gameplan to allow Thurman Thomas to run. He literally had to talk them into it.

As they prepared for their final gameplan meeting, Belichick reiterated his plan to allow Thomas to run for over 100+ yards, telling players like Carl Banks, Lawrence Taylor etc to allow him to wiggle free for an extra couple of yards from time to time; noting that it would help to limit the throws from Jim Kelly and the high powered BUF offense. At one point the defensive players openly complained and moaned about this questionable gameplan, and Belichick asked them "who here wants to win the MVP?" As several hands shot up, he gave them a serious look and stated "then let Thomas run."

The result spoke for itself as Thomas ran for 135 yards, but the heavily favored and high powered Bills lost the game on a 46 yard FG attempt.

Does anyone feel that the same exact thing happened on Sunday night? In other words, judging by the fact that we stayed in nickle on 90/90 plays, we didn't attempt to try and do anything at all about the fact that they were gouging us vs the run. I honestly believe that we'd have attempted to combat this if it weren't part of the gameplan, and we weren't up against Peyton Manning and a very high powered offense.

The concern I'd have is that this isn't likely to work 2x this year, and if we meet them in the playoffs, we'll have to hope that our offense can match them blow for blow against that high powered attack of weapons.

The bottom line is that we once again are witnessing a very, very good span of coaching from arguably the greatest coach to ever exist. As stated in my signature on the weekend prior to week #1, this has the potential to be his greatest coaching season ever when we consider everything that happened in the off-season, and that was before the injuries, controversial calls, etc.

I think you are missing the point. We didn't allow them to run, we took away the pass. They ran well because we committed extra assets to the pass. We were in a 2-4 and one of the 6 in the box was often covering the slot.

If we do the same thing in the playoffs and Manning doesn't play into it he will pass more. Against that scheme he passed 38 times (including 2 sacks) and netted 132 yards. Of course it will work again. 31 came on one screeen pass, so otherwise he dropped back 37 times and netted 101 yards.

The key to the defense wasn't where we accepted a weakness, but what we took away. When you take short passes away from a QB who can't get the ball down the field, you hope he throws.

The turnovers really overshadowed how dominant the defense was in this game.
The first 17 points were a D TD, a 8 yard drive, and a FG after taking over at the 44 on a fumble.

Without the turnovers they score 14, and the only way they score those was getting 31 yards on a 3rd and 25 screen pass, and then getting 3 critical and questionable flags on the other TD drive.

 

[patchick]

Bend don't break. Nothing new...

I think playing 100% of the game in nickel goes a little beyond the standard "bend don't break." At the very least you'd have to call it "BBDB: Extreme Edition."

I also appreciate that a coach who's renowned for halftime adjustments chose to stick with the exact defensive gameplan that yielded a 24-0 halftime deficit, recognizing that the plan was fundamentally sound.

 

[Ring 6]

Having a hard time wrapping my head around giving a runner extra yardage. It's not better to try to stop them as short as possible everytime?

Its not giving them extra yardage, its devising a game plan that takes away the pass and does the best it can against the run.
We played a 2-4 nickel all day with double high safeties. Most of the time one of the 6 in the box was covering the slot receiver.
We didn't 'allow them to run' we chose a scheme that is weak vs the run, but took away the pass.

 

[patsfanincleveland]

I think you are missing the point. We didn't allow them to run, we took away the pass. They ran well because we committed extra assets to the pass. We were in a 2-4 and one of the 6 in the box was often covering the slot.

If we do the same thing in the playoffs and Manning doesn't play into it he will pass more. Against that scheme he passed 38 times (including 2 sacks) and netted 132 yards. Of course it will work again. 31 came on one screeen pass, so otherwise he dropped back 37 times and netted 101 yards.

The key to the defense wasn't where we accepted a weakness, but what we took away. When you take short passes away from a QB who can't get the ball down the field, you hope he throws.

The turnovers really overshadowed how dominant the defense was in this game.
The first 17 points were a D TD, a 8 yard drive, and a FG after taking over at the 44 on a fumble.

Without the turnovers they score 14, and the only way they score those was getting 31 yards on a 3rd and 25 screen pass, and then getting 3 critical and questionable flags on the other TD drive.

Andy

This should earn "Post of the Year" accolades. It's a true post of genius.

It will be extremely interesting to see how KC analyzes this information and see what they do on Sunday.

 

[signbabybrady]

Your honor I would like to submit into evidence Isaac Sopoga. It should be noted he did not play a snap the entire second half. Your getting torched on the ground and don't play the only pure NT you have seems pretty intentional to me.

Reiss made note to monitor him for injury because of the zero second half snaps but I didn't see him go down nor have we heard anything about him being injured so seemingly it was part of BBs scheme to dare them to run.

 

[Ring 6]

Whilst he was geared up more to protect against the pass and daring them to run, he can't have been happy with the results at all.

Had we had Mayo, Wilfork and Kelly you would argue the results probably would have been a lo better. We allowed them to run...to an extent...and, in the same process, succeeded in our game plan which was to stop Manning. He was a non factor all game.

We played 6 in the box and often had one of them covering the slot receiver. Based on that 6 ypc may have been a great effort by the 5/6 guys playing the run.

 

[Ring 6]

Your honor I would like to submit into evidence Isaac Sopoga. It should be noted he did not play a snap the entire second half. Your getting torched on the ground and don't play the only pure NT you have seems pretty intentional to me.

Reiss made note to monitor him for injury because of the zero second half snaps but I didn't see him go down nor have we heard anything about him being injured so seemingly it was part of BBs scheme to dare them to run.

The decision to run is not going to be based on whether you play a UDFA or a guy the Eagles dumped at DT.
Sopoaga didn't play much because he cant rush the passer and we sold out to stop the pass. Same reason Collins and Fletcher played so much. They are better pass defenders. BB didn't tell them to not play the run, they just aren't that good at it, and he valued their pass D more than their run D.

 

[Hammer of Thor]

The decision to run is not going to be based on whether you play a UDFA or a guy the Eagles dumped at DT.
Sopoaga didn't play much because he cant rush the passer and we sold out to stop the pass. Same reason Collins and Fletcher played so much. They are better pass defenders. BB didn't tell them to not play the run, they just aren't that good at it, and he valued their pass D more than their run D.

Agreed -- in fact, you could say that BB's halftime adjustment was to double-down on the original game plan. Out goes Sopoaga, in comes Vellano and Jones on all downs. Hightower plays the Tamme TD pass as best as he possibly could given his abilities, and it wasn't good enough (reminded me of Mayo with the Giants 1st TD in Superbowl 46), so out he goes and in comes Fletcher. He wanted that pass defense to be as perfect as possible.

 

[unoriginal]

A lot of the yardage was a result of Vellano and Chris Jones getting shoved around laterally by double-teams inside. They aren't Pat and Kevin Williams and nobody should ask them to be, and them being in there all game, in a nickel, was BB inviting the Broncos to run the ball.

But there was a lot of yardage given up that was the result of the linebackers, particularly to my eye Hightower and Fletcher, not fitting into the open gaps. There was one in particular by Fletcher in the second half where the clear/cloudy couldn't have been clearer (or in this case cloudier) and yet Fletcher stepped right up into the trash while Moreno ran through a huge hole to his right. Hightower has certainly had his share of those head-scratchers as well. Only Spikes (and Mayo) seem to be mostly correct when it comes to hole-plugging. Suffice to say I don't think misread gaps were part of the brilliant defensive game plan.

Now a lot of that could be that the gaps up front were moving around a lot as Vellano and Jones were being escorted out of the tackle box on quite a few plays and Fletcher in particular isn't used to dealing with that sort of flux, but still.

What likely WAS a part of the defensive game plan was this: negative yardage plays. Who gives a **** if Knowshon gets either five, six, eight, or thirteen yards on a first down run? Anything like that practically guarantees the Broncos are going to move the chains, and if you stop them behind the stick all you're doing is giving the Broncos more plays, tiring out your defense, and taking possessions away from your offense. If half the time Moreno extends a six yard gain into a twelve yard gain more power to him. Eighteen and twenty-five yard gains, not so good, and that's the linebackers evaporating into the wrong gap.

BUT if you can at some point in the drive on first down get a stuff or a negative yardage run play from one of your penetrating linemen - penetration being something everyone except Vellano seems to excel at - now you've got a chance to stop Denver. Add in an incompletion or sack on second down and you have a pretty decent shot at getting off the field on third down against Peyton Manning in the wind, so long as your pass defenders don't horsecollar a receiver on a crossing route, and the box players remember what screens are.

That to my mind was the game plan. Not so much "bend but don't break" but "don't break and don't get into a ground war in Asia."

Just about every time the Patriots forced a punt, there was either a sack or a no/negative yardage run play on first or second down. The Pats were routinely getting off the field on 3rd and long.