Belichick purposely allowed DEN to run on us Sunday night

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

I just reread that chapter and the context of letting Thomas run is clearly in reference to staying in nickel/dime, not literally giving him extra yards.

BB wasnt a fan of getting gashed on the ground, but it was a much better option than getting torched by the K-Gun.

let's also not overlook that the Giants held the ball for over 40 minutes. Their ball control offense was their best defense against the Bills that day.

Regards,
Chris


Posted from Patsfans.com App for Android

 

[Gumby]

Unless you don't consider "giving them a little more mileage than he usually did" as not equating to "wiggle room" then...NO--we're not in agreement at all.

sup, you on the losing end of this one. let it go.

First, 'giving them a little more mileage' was a QUOTE FROM HALBERSTAM and NOT from a player / BB. It was the AUTHOR's TRANSLATION of the strategy.

Second, it clearly (to me anyway) was referring to 'mileage' as in the overall-total game run yards and NOT NECESSARILY to 'more yards in an INDIVIDUAL run PLAY'.

They have the written quote on Patriots.com but edited it out of the audio clip:

"(On whether he expected the Broncos to run the ball as much as they did)"

“Definitely, man. Peyton [Manning is] a smart quarterback, man. We knew we were going to come out and show that two-high shell. He sees that two-high shell, he's going to run the ball. That was our plan, to get him to run it more than he throws it.”

Patriots Postgame Quotes - 11/24/2013

This quote (attributed to Talib by another poster-hanvent clicked article) again provides even more evidence that it was purely an attempt to DUPE BRONCOS into running more often BY SHOWING A SCHEME. This strategy also simultaneously tried to take away their most effective tool (aside: and boy is Pay-me a TOOL. ). But the quote gives no evidence that they DELIBERATELY PLAYED THE INDIVIDUAL RUN-PLAYS badly as a deception strategy.

I started out reading the thread fully willing to believe your theory (because it would be a really great-cool theory if true); but there is no evidence to back it up.

BB played a strategy that maximized the pass defense and minimized the run defense (daring him to run); but did NOT deliberately GIVE THEM BETTER runs.

We just have to face it; in a 2-4-5 Patriots dont have the horses up front (w/ Wilfork-Kelley & Soap all on sidelines) to have a mediocre run-D. Hopefully a healthy Soapoaga in playoffs will make that better - we will likely need the startegy again.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

sup, you on the losing end of this one. let it go.

First, 'giving them a little more mileage' was a QUOTE FROM HALBERSTAM and NOT from a player / BB. It was the AUTHOR's TRANSLATION of the strategy.

Second, it clearly (to me anyway) was referring to 'mileage' as in the overall-total game run yards and NOT NECESSARILY to 'more yards in an INDIVIDUAL run PLAY'.



This quote (attributed to Talib by another poster-hanvent clicked article) again provides even more evidence that it was purely an attempt to DUPE BRONCOS into running more often BY SHOWING A SCHEME. This strategy also simultaneously tried to take away their most effective tool (aside: and boy is Pay-me a TOOL. ). But the quote gives no evidence that they DELIBERATELY PLAYED THE INDIVIDUAL RUN-PLAYS badly as a deception strategy.

I started out reading the thread fully willing to believe your theory (because it would be a really great-cool theory if true); but there is no evidence to back it up.

BB played a strategy that maximized the pass defense and minimized the run defense (daring him to run); but did NOT deliberately GIVE THEM BETTER runs.

We just have to face it; in a 2-4-5 Patriots dont have the horses up front (w/ Wilfork-Kelley & Soap all on sidelines) to have a mediocre run-D. Hopefully a healthy Soapoaga in playoffs will make that better - we will likely need the startegy again.

Wait! When/how did Sopoaga get hurt (or am I reading your post wrong?)?? That's a new concern and one I hope that is not the case given the thinness of extra wide bodies at the DT spot. But Sopoaga isn't listed on this weeks injury report at all. And while BB did just promote a DT from the PS -- which obviously sometimes is done as a direct result of an injury -- I thought the new PS DT was promoted as a simple trade of players (adding the new extra wide body DT and letting Forston go).

If the conventional wisdom is Sopoaga didn't have a lot of snaps because he was injured, the article I read earlier today from NESN doesn't say that is the case (didn't suggest it whatsoever). It says he played infrequently due simply to the game plan, a game plan that called for using Vellano/Jones to maximize the pass rush capability. Stating BB even doubled down on the game plan in the second half by removing both Hightower and Sopoaga (the better run stoppers) to emphasize the pass rush/pass defense even further. Given the Broncos clearly sliced and diced the Patriots run D in the first half (and I'd bet did so much less with Sopaga in the game - just a guess), at face value it would seem like BB was friggin smoking something at halftime. Basically, as Sup is suggesting (or I think is suggesting), looks like BB made a conscious decision to give up (or at least clearly risk giving up) more rush yards on each play (or he really was smoking something if he thought his changes would improve the rush D).

The Patriots went with 5 DB's the entire game, essentially, and right from the get go went mostly with the lesser run stopping DT combo (again assuming Sopoaga was not injured). Given that, I don't think much can be gleaned from this game about the Run D. Any NFL team that purposefully plays that kind of defensive personnel package is very likely going to be gashed from the opposition's ground game. Given that, given the emphasis against the Panthers was to stop the run and they did stop it well (except several frustrating Cam Newton scrambles), given that this new kid from the PS may hold some promise of being a hard to move extra wide body (that's my hope from doing some quick reading on him), I like my thoughts on the Patriots running D prospects a lot more than your prognosis (rose colored glasses is sometimes a necessity of fan-dom)

 

[Ring 6]

Unless you don't consider "giving them a little more mileage than he usually did" as not equating to "wiggle room" then...NO--we're not in agreement at all.

Did you not say the wiggle room comment was a quote and definitely not your version of what you thought you had read?
You seem unwilling to admit that.
Otherwise we will just have to disagree that bill belichick coached his defense to fail on purpose. You should just rewards either game and try to find examples of players who missed tackles in purpose. It would be easy to see if it ever happened.

 

[Ring 6]

They have the written quote on Patriots.com but edited it out of the audio clip:

"(On whether he expected the Broncos to run the ball as much as they did)"

“Definitely, man. Peyton [Manning is] a smart quarterback, man. We knew we were going to come out and show that two-high shell. He sees that two-high shell, he's going to run the ball. That was our plan, to get him to run it more than he throws it.”

Patriots Postgame Quotes - 11/24/2013


Here is an article on this subject:
How Bill Belichick made Peyton Manning beat Peyton Manning | nePatriotsLife.com - New England Patriots Fan Site, Blog, T-shirts

So this just says what we have all said that they wanted to take away the pass. Talib did NOT say they purposely gave them extra yardage.

 

[Ring 6]

Not to mention that the poster named Levictiore also claimed that Aqib Talib came out and admitted that this was certainly part of the gameplan...

Again, we don't know as to what extent this was used, but allowing them to run was certainly part of the entire gameplan, as many have already claimed to have figured out themselves.

My question was to whether or not anyone believed that the great game plan from SB 25 vs Jim Kelly and the high powered BUF offense was also taking place here on any level.

See the actual Talib quote.
Of course it was a similar game plan to that SB.
But in neither case did defenders allow the RB to gain more yards and purposely not tackle them.

 

[Gumby]

Wait! When/how did Sopoaga get hurt (or am I reading your post wrong?)?? That's a new concern and one I hope that is not the case given the thinness of extra wide bodies at the DT spot. But Sopoaga isn't listed on this weeks injury report at all. And while BB did just promote a DT from the PS -- which obviously sometimes is done as a direct result of an injury -- I thought the new PS DT was promoted as a simple trade of players (adding the new extra wide body DT and letting Forston go).

If the conventional wisdom is Sopoaga didn't have a lot of snaps because he was injured, the article I read earlier today from NESN doesn't say that is the case (didn't suggest it whatsoever). It says he played infrequently due simply to the game plan, a game plan that called for using Vellano/Jones to maximize the pass rush capability. Stating BB even doubled down on the game plan in the second half by removing both Hightower and Sopoaga (the better run stoppers) to emphasize the pass rush/pass defense even further. Given the Broncos clearly sliced and diced the Patriots run D in the first half (and I'd bet did so much less with Sopaga in the game - just a guess), at face value it would seem like BB was friggin smoking something at halftime. Basically, as Sup is suggesting (or I think is suggesting), looks like BB made a conscious decision to give up (or at least clearly risk giving up) more rush yards on each play (or he really was smoking something if he thought his changes would improve the rush D).

The Patriots went with 5 DB's the entire game, essentially, and right from the get go went mostly with the lesser run stopping DT combo (again assuming Sopoaga was not injured). Given that, I don't think much can be gleaned from this game about the Run D. Any NFL team that purposefully plays that kind of defensive personnel package is very likely going to be gashed from the opposition's ground game. Given that, given the emphasis against the Panthers was to stop the run and they did stop it well (except several frustrating Cam Newton scrambles), given that this new kid from the PS may hold some promise of being a hard to move extra wide body (that's my hope from doing some quick reading on him), I like my thoughts on the Patriots running D prospects a lot more than your prognosis (rose colored glasses is sometimes a necessity of fan-dom)

sorry, didnt mean to imply I KNEW he (Soap) was hurt. Call it equal parts poor writing and reading. I thought I'd seen something earlier in the week that he didn t practice - and he certainly didn t play so.....

I like their prospects on run D more than I talked/denver game showed IF THEY ARE NOT PLAYING A 2-4-5. But realistically, if they need to go to that alignment again for a brees, rivers, rogers, or pay-me do you think they wont get run gashed?

 

[IcyPatriot]

Belichick has been doing this for years ... the intrigue is where he lulls them into a false sense of security ... usually on a 3rd down and shows them one look that they have seen all game and does something else. He gives - gives - gives and i would love to see the discussion of the 1,2 or 3 plays where he crosses them up to produce the punt.

That's the discussion I would love to see ...
I can generally see what he's doing but I would love to see a few well informed in this forum point out the plays where he chooses to use their comfort against them - that's the genius of Belichick.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

sorry, didnt mean to imply I KNEW he (Soap) was hurt. Call it equal parts poor writing and reading. I thought I'd seen something earlier in the week that he didn t practice - and he certainly didn t play so.....

I like their prospects on run D more than I talked/denver game showed IF THEY ARE NOT PLAYING A 2-4-5. But realistically, if they need to go to that alignment again for a brees, rivers, rogers, or pay-me do you think they wont get run gashed?

Fair points.
If BB is going to use his 'thinnest' (for lack of a better word) DTs then I think the defense is going to be gashed. This is what makes the Sopoaga injury status so salient to the question. If he played his limited snaps due to injury, I am more concerned about what happened. However, if he was healthy and BB simply wanted to maximize the pass defense (by using his thin DTs for maximum pass rush capability), I am less concerned because it was a conscious decision to put then defense in position to have the greatest likelihood to be gashed.

To me it makes little sense to use a 2-4-5 and go with the Vellano/Jones combo. Conventional wisdom says use your stoutest run stuffing DTs in that package (at least on first downs). Obviously BB is BB while I am Joe Q Nobody so my thinking on it matters zilch, and it appears that is what BB did on purpose. Yet moving forward I would prefer to see Sopoaga and maybe this new Kid (depending on if he can be a stout wide body) from the PS being the first down DTs in that package - with the rest of the package hopefully good enough to still make the opposition's passing difficult to be successful at. And if these DTs can keep first down to less than 3 then go with the Pass Defense package used against Denver. Otherwise I am going to friggin pop a blood vessel in my head watching the run D get gashed like they did

 

[Ring 6]

Fair points.
If BB is going to use his 'thinnest' (for lack of a better word) DTs then I think the defense is going to be gashed. This is what makes the Sopoaga injury status so salient to the question. If he played his limited snaps due to injury, I am more concerned about what happened. However, if he was healthy and BB simply wanted to maximize the pass defense (by using his thin DTs for maximum pass rush capability), I am less concerned because it was a conscious decision to put then defense in position to have the greatest likelihood to be gashed.

To me it makes little sense to use a 2-4-5 and go with the Vellano/Jones combo. Conventional wisdom says use your stoutest run stuffing DTs in that package (at least on first downs). Obviously BB is BB while I am Joe Q Nobody so my thinking on it matters zilch, and it appears that is what BB did on purpose. Yet moving forward I would prefer to see Sopoaga and maybe this new Kid (depending on if he can be a stout wide body) from the PS being the first down DTs in that package - with the rest of the package hopefully good enough to still make the opposition's passing difficult to be successful at. And if these DTs can keep first down to less than 3 then go with the Pass Defense package used against Denver. Otherwise I am going to friggin pop a blood vessel in my head watching the run D get gashed like they did

Lets say we were facing a great running team that had a questionable pass offense. We played 8 to 9 in the box, and left all pass defenders on an island. Further we played 2 gap and did not blitz, making it even tougher on the DBs. If a bad QB put up his best day of his career, we stuffed the run, and they actually stopped running, and we win, are you concerned about the pass D? Of course not because the correct game plan was one that made the DBs job as difficult as possible. To complete the thought, we would not come out of that D because if we did, they will run, and have a better chance.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

Lets say we were facing a great running team that had a questionable pass offense. We played 8 to 9 in the box, and left all pass defenders on an island. Further we played 2 gap and did not blitz, making it even tougher on the DBs. If a bad QB put up his best day of his career, we stuffed the run, and they actually stopped running, and we win, are you concerned about the pass D? Of course not because the correct game plan was one that made the DBs job as difficult as possible. To complete the thought, we would not come out of that D because if we did, they will run, and have a better chance.

I agree with what you say AJ. BB thought enticing this pass potent offense into continually running was the best move. So, ultimately, if the scheme works/results in victory then who cares if they were running successfully all day and night. However, up and until the success was a success, watching those continuous successful run after run (especially the first half+) was a difficult pill to keep swallowing (so to speak). My TV remote control may never be the same.

What I am getting at with Sopoaga/AWB(Additional Wide Body) versus Vellano/Jones is: was going with the lighter combo for better pass rush capability the optimal way? I think a 2-4-5 with Sopoaga would still have made Denver run and run and run. And while it would have enticed them a bit less, I think that same defensive package (using Sopoaga, 5 DBs, Passing LBs) still was enough to make Manning's night of passing a frustrating one. Fyi, that's just me doing some bulletin board thinking out loud, it is not complaining whatsoever about the results of that insane but genius scheme used by BB.

 

[Ring 6]

I agree with what you say AJ. BB thought enticing this pass potent offense into continually running was the best move. So, ultimately, if the scheme works/results in victory then who cares if they were running successfully all day and night. However, up and until the success was a success, watching those continuous successful run after run (especially the first half+) was a difficult pill to keep swallowing (so to speak). My TV remote control may never be the same.

What I am getting at with Sopoaga/AWB(Additional Wide Body) versus Vellano/Jones is: was going with the lighter combo for better pass rush capability the optimal way? I think a 2-4-5 with Sopoaga would still have made Denver run and run and run. And while it would have enticed them a bit less, I think that same defensive package (using Sopoaga, 5 DBs, Passing LBs) still was enough to make Manning's night of passing a frustrating one. Fyi, that's just me doing some bulletin board thinking out loud, it is not complaining whatsoever about the results of that insane but genius scheme used by BB.

I get that, and it makes sense. The question is whether Sopoaga is an upgrade or not in addition to whether he was healthy. Finally, was the decision based on getting better pass rushers on the field. Its not like they ran 80 times and threw 10. Even daring them to run they threw 38 times to 48 runs, so stopping the pass was still the priority.

I was more speaking to what appeared to be your concern that we would have this problem going forward. I have no worries because this was a Manning scheme, and we won't be defending the run out of that disadvantage in other games.

 

[supafly]

This quote (attributed to Talib by another poster-hanvent clicked article) again provides even more evidence that it was purely an attempt to DUPE BRONCOS into running more often BY SHOWING A SCHEME. This strategy also simultaneously tried to take away their most effective tool (aside: and boy is Pay-me a TOOL. ). But the quote gives no evidence that they DELIBERATELY PLAYED THE INDIVIDUAL RUN-PLAYS badly as a deception strategy.

First of all, I appreciate your analysis for 1st vs 2nd half runs, and you are really one of the only posters who provided that kind of insight. I would like to see more red zone efficiency though, since my proposal/question of how relevant this was to the SB 25 gameplan in terms of baiting. I am not suggesting that Bill Belichick purposely told his players to "lay down" if that is what you're thinking--so telling me to "give it up" isn't really a good way to put it. I'm not over here wearing a tin foil hat. I am questioning how much of a comparison we can have to the SB 25 gameplan. In that case, the NYG run defense was great. In our case, we kind of suck to put it mildly, so the answer is that Belichick likely wouldn't have to literally instruct anyone to do anything; but judging by his moves it would certainly seem reasonable to wonder how much Manning, Del Rio and the Denver offense was baited.

The only time I brought up "more mileage" or allowing them more "wiggle room" (my words--since Andy seems to have a problem with 'more mileage' vs 'wiggle room' so much) was when I proposed the question as to whether or not he told them to let up a bit but to rise up when it mattered, as in the red zone etc. My question regarding the gameplan was how similar it was to the SB 25 gameplan, and since David Halberstam is a one of America's greatest authors and a very well known historian--I hardly think that he just "made up" this theory as you seem to suggest by stating that it was "his words" and not Belichick's.

I wouldn't go questioning the author of the book that I quoted though, and I think you are leery of whether or not to believe him. David Halbertstam wasn't the kind of normal mediot hack who would just write down a bunch of nonsense, he wasn't even really anything close to being a sports journalist. He obviously had some strong sources regarding the events that unfolded, and while you may not believe him (and I respect that), I am going to choose to believe what he stated happened...actually happened.

The truth of the matter is that yes, we took away the pass first; but in order to properly do so, we also have to concede to the run. I personally believe that some "baiting" took place, as our run defense certainly looked better as we took advantage of a 34-7 run in the second half and more importantly, we limited their success on our side of the field many, many times just in OT alone.

 

[supafly]

@ AndyJohnson--

One would think that when Manning was facing the wind in 3/5 quarters, they'd have shored up the run game a bit to try and limit them more. Instead he continued to bait them into having success in the run game, which seems to me to be the exact same as the SB 25 gameplan. You are acting like I have some crazy conspiracy theory that he told everyone to lay down. I didn't say that, I said that he baited them, and even underlined and highlighted the word "baited" multiple times.

My question was if he told them to allow them some success in the run game, while shutting it down when it mattered; much like the exact gameplan of SB 25.

Put it this way, why would the defensive players like Pepper Johnson, LT, Carl Banks etc have been so taken back if his gameplan in SB 25 was "just to shut down the pass" as you're suggesting? Why would they have openly opposed him to that?

The answer is that they wouldn't have, and in order to shut down the pass as you keep saying, he HAD to concede to the run game. The translation of that is that "Belichick allowed them to run." The literal translation and meaning would be coach Bill Belichick's specific words to "let them run," which was what the NYG defensive line/front seven had such a problem with in the first place.

I'm not attempting to state that the main game plan was not to take away the pass, I think everyone is in agreement with that. I am stating that in order to do that he had to concede vs the run, which is exactly what he did. The difference in this case is that our defensive line/front seven sucked so badly vs the run that he knew that he didn't even have to suggest something like this to them, as the 1986 NYG run defense was much, much better (obviously), and that is likely why he had to instruct them to do so.

In that aspect, I would lean towards going with your thoughts more than whether there was an exact replica of the SB 25 gameplan, so we're in agreement there aside from the fact that I personally believe that Belichick may have baited DEN more than you do. Where we don't seem to be in agreement is that the SB 25 gameplan didn't take place, as I personally believe that it did--but respect the fact that you may feel differently.

 

[supafly]

Wait! When/how did Sopoaga get hurt?

Neither Sopoaga nor Hightower were injured in the game.

The fact is that those who are stating that they stopped the pass are obviously correct, but when you take away 2 of your already weakened front six (since they were in nickle on 90/90 plays) vs the run away, you're obviously continuing to bait them with success in the run game. Any idiot would know better than to think that Belichick would really feel that basically FOUR players (including Vellano and Chris Jones, who got pushed around at will) would be good enough to combat DEN's success vs the run.

If the wind was anywhere as strong as it seemed, and it was obviously strong enough to give them the ball first in OT--then that would mean that Manning was throwing into an extremely strong win in 3/5 quarters. By flooding the middle of the field as they did against a tremendously strong wind, one would think that common sense would dictate that he'd have at least made a minor adjustment from time to time (at least with Manning into the wind) to try and stop the run more.

What I viewed it as was a complete bait job, tightening up when it mattered--which is exactly the same as what he did in SB 25; if of course, you believe one of the greatest American NON-sports writing authors of our generation in David Halberstam. I personally do not believe that Halberstam would make something like that up directly out of the blue.

My opinion is that is was a bait job to allow them success vs the run (which obviously also coincides with those who stated that the gameplan was to take away the pass--although I also believe that one was done to allow success for the other), and for them to tighten up when it mattered. If this seems like a crazy theory, then so be it. I've never once stated or insinuated in any thread or post that I am definitely right, as I am way more humble and logical to know much better. I am just stating my opinion, and explaining why I proposed the question to begin with.

Reporting America at War . The Reporters . David Halberstam | PBS

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

I get that, and it makes sense. The question is whether Sopoaga is an upgrade or not in addition to whether he was healthy. Finally, was the decision based on getting better pass rushers on the field. Its not like they ran 80 times and threw 10. Even daring them to run they threw 38 times to 48 runs, so stopping the pass was still the priority.

I was more speaking to what appeared to be your concern that we would have this problem going forward. I have no worries because this was a Manning scheme, and we won't be defending the run out of that disadvantage in other games.

True enough. Denver's run-pass ration wasn't lopsided. My suspicion of Sopoaga being an upgrade, though, was based on first downs/specific situations (a point I may not have been clear on). That he would have been an upgrade in making, as the main example, Denver's second downs less friendly (they were pretty friendly to Denver most of the night). It would be interesting to see the first half stats on Sopoaga. When he did play what was Denver's rushing success versus when he wasn't playing? Those stats certainly could submarine my whole argument if his presence did little to change the yards per carry. But if his presence did equate to less YPC and he was healthy throughout the game (my hunch is he was healthy), I think my suspicion gains a modicum of traction.
But I don't want to get into the position of seeming as if I am stating my suspicions with great belief and zealously defending it. I admit I am making assumptions to come to an argument that is tenuous to begin with.

BTW, I did miss your point (I do have a Thanksgiving hangover that won't subside). Hey, I'm glad to hear it/hear others with an optimistic view of the Run D. Just not sure if I see it right now but I'm more than happy to be wrong about it. As of right now when I see Jones/Vellano starting at DT I get a bit pessimistic about our SB run odds (and I say that with all due respect to these two unheralded but solid guys who have given 1000% to do the best they can). If I am an OC, I am attacking that all day and night with my run game -- with that having too much likelihood of resulting in good yards, very manageable third downs, keeping our D on the filed/O off the field. And since I believe the Patriots otherwise will be hitting January, assuming health, with peak solidness in most areas (Run Game, Pass Game, Pass D, P, PR, K), our chances remain dicey unless the Run D proves its reliability. I don't think we get that reliability with Jones/Vellano. I think it has to be Sopoaga and even this new PS wide body providing that difficult to move middle of the D line resulting in the rest of the Run D some space to make plays. I'm not expecting them at all to be the second coming of Wilfork and Kelly but I am modestly optimistic they can be decent one trick ponies (simply difficult to move). And I think that one trick will be enough to stymie opposition offenses at a sufficient rate.

 

[Ring 6]

@ AndyJohnson--

One would think that when Manning was facing the wind in 3/5 quarters, they'd have shored up the run game a bit to try and limit them more. Instead he continued to bait them into having success in the run game, which seems to me to be the exact same as the SB 25 gameplan. You are acting like I have some crazy conspiracy theory that he told everyone to lay down. I didn't say that, I said that he baited them, and even underlined and highlighted the word "baited" multiple times.

My question was if he told them to allow them some success in the run game, while shutting it down when it mattered; much like the exact gameplan of SB 25.

Put it this way, why would the defensive players like Pepper Johnson, LT, Carl Banks etc have been so taken back if his gameplan in SB 25 was "just to shut down the pass" as you're suggesting? Why would they have openly opposed him to that?

The answer is that they wouldn't have, and in order to shut down the pass as you keep saying, he HAD to concede to the run game. The translation of that is that "Belichick allowed them to run." The literal translation and meaning would be coach Bill Belichick's specific words to "let them run," which was what the NYG defensive line/front seven had such a problem with in the first place.

I'm not attempting to state that the main game plan was not to take away the pass, I think everyone is in agreement with that. I am stating that in order to do that he had to concede vs the run, which is exactly what he did. The difference in this case is that our defensive line/front seven sucked so badly vs the run that he knew that he didn't even have to suggest something like this to them, as the 1986 NYG run defense was much, much better (obviously), and that is likely why he had to instruct them to do so.

In that aspect, I would lean towards going with your thoughts more than whether there was an exact replica of the SB 25 gameplan, so we're in agreement there aside from the fact that I personally believe that Belichick may have baited DEN more than you do. Where we don't seem to be in agreement is that the SB 25 gameplan didn't take place, as I personally believe that it did--but respect the fact that you may feel differently.

Where we disagree is that you are saying they purposely didn't tackle and let them get extra yards. You have still not admitted that what you portrayed as a quote was not and it was your memory. You were aghast that I suggested that yet won't admit it was your own embellishment disguised as a quote.
As to the players objecting you really need to read it again and understand it. They took extreme pride in shutting down the run. No one ran on them. In fact I believe no RB gained 100 on them all year. Their defense was built on the concept that no one will run on them.

 

[Ring 6]

True enough. Denver's run-pass ration wasn't lopsided. My suspicion of Sopoaga being an upgrade, though, was based on first downs/specific situations (a point I may not have been clear on). That he would have been an upgrade in making, as the main example, Denver's second downs less friendly (they were pretty friendly to Denver most of the night). It would be interesting to see the first half stats on Sopoaga. When he did play what was Denver's rushing success versus when he wasn't playing? Those stats certainly could submarine my whole argument if his presence did little to change the yards per carry. But if his presence did equate to less YPC and he was healthy throughout the game (my hunch is he was healthy), I think my suspicion gains a modicum of traction.
But I don't want to get into the position of seeming as if I am stating my suspicions with great belief and zealously defending it. I admit I am making assumptions to come to an argument that is tenuous to begin with.

BTW, I did miss your point (I do have a Thanksgiving hangover that won't subside). Hey, I'm glad to hear it/hear others with an optimistic view of the Run D. Just not sure if I see it right now but I'm more than happy to be wrong about it. As of right now when I see Jones/Vellano starting at DT I get a bit pessimistic about our SB run odds (and I say that with all due respect to these two unheralded but solid guys who have given 1000% to do the best they can). If I am an OC, I am attacking that all day and night with my run game -- with that having too much likelihood of resulting in good yards, very manageable third downs, keeping our D on the filed/O off the field. And since I believe the Patriots otherwise will be hitting January, assuming health, with peak solidness in most areas (Run Game, Pass Game, Pass D, P, PR, K), our chances remain dicey unless the Run D proves its reliability. I don't think we get that reliability with Jones/Vellano. I think it has to be Sopoaga and even this new PS wide body providing that difficult to move middle of the D line resulting in the rest of the Run D some space to make plays. I'm not expecting them at all to be the second coming of Wilfork and Kelly but I am modestly optimistic they can be decent one trick ponies (simply difficult to move). And I think that one trick will be enough to stymie opposition offenses at a sufficient rate.

Not sure I'm optimistic about the run D. I'm just dismissing this game because we played a scheme specific only to that opponent.

 

[PYPER]

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.

This has been our strategy against Manning for years. The idea is that the passing game is more dangerous b/c it can gain large chunks of yardage at once. BB's philosophy is that if an opposing offense is going to score, he wants them to do it with long drives. The more plays an offense has to run, the more likely they will make a mistake along the way. Penalties and turnovers are far more damaging to teams that need to run the ball to move the chains. A holding call, for instance, is far more likely to be a drive killer. The more 3rd downs they face, the more likely they'll get stopped.

The key to make this work is that he must have a defense that can pick its spots to stop the run. In other words, if you have an advantage where you can dominate the opposing teams running game and do so early, this will only force the team to abandon the running game and thereby marginalizing your advantage.

On the other hand, if you steer them down the path of falsely believing they have an advantage in the running game, you can effectively lure them into a trap where you're able to pick your spots to stop them. Its a game of cat and mouse and the number one reason why yardage statistics have never and will never accurately assess a Belichick defense.

I also disagree that this approach can't work a 2nd time. The approach is geared towards taking away what the opposing offense does best. Its only used against pass happy teams. Force teams that have marginal running games to use those running games to win. Its unnatural for them. It also helps to keep the opposing QB out a rhythm. The strategy changes, obviously, when you play a run-oriented offense.

 

[supafly]

Where we disagree is that you are saying they purposely didn't tackle and let them get extra yards.

I'm talking about SB 25, not Sunday night. I don't understand how complicated this can be when a book is written about the inner workings of the team and they talk at length, even quoting Belichick as saying "let them run."

The words, "more mileage" are used. I said "wiggle room." Let's stop pretending like there's an enormous difference. The point stands. You may not choose to believe it, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't discussed in the book.

As to the players objecting you really need to read it again and understand it. They took extreme pride in shutting down the run. No one ran on them. In fact I believe no RB gained 100 on them all year. Their defense was built on the concept that no one will run on them.

And? How does that mean that Belichick didn't purposely tell them to let them run, as has been stated multiple times? Belichick's own words were "let them run." It was a bait job, so that BUF would pass less and have more success in the running game--particularly early on and holes are there. If you deem that as my stating that Belichick told them to lay down or something, then fine...but that's not what I was necessarily saying at all. There is a difference.

If the players were so opposed to it being nothing more than stopping the pass, why would it have been that big of a deal. The bottom line is that Belichick told his players to concede to the run, which was a tactic meant to eat time off the clock, try and almost force BUF to run more, and more importantly--keep the ball out of Jim Kelly's hands. I'm really not seeing what the big debate is, aside from you being upset that I said the term "wiggle room" and the exact quote was "more mileage." To me that is being extremely nit-picky, but you have been known to do that from time to time.