Belichick purposely allowed DEN to run on us Sunday night

[supafly]

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.

Excellent post. This is 100% exactly what I have been stating. The fact that they baited DEN into being able to have more success vs the run, and then choosing their spots to tighten up.

This was also the plan for SB 25 vs the Buffalo Bills and Jim Kelly, and that's why I included 3 or 4 separate quotes from the book, along with the article by Doug Kyed from earlier this week.

I think some (or "one," maybe two would be more appropriate) are taking that too far and claiming that I am claiming that Belichick layed down or something. That isn't the case and there's a big difference between baiting/conceding against the run in certain situations.

 

[Ring 6]

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."

Because you are taking a strategy that puts less emphasis on and devotes fewer resources to the run, and morphing it into a plan where BB told players who were in position to make a play to not do it. It simply didn't happen. Playing rhetorical games with the words won't change that.

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.

There is a tremendous difference.
Playing the LBs deeper and the safeties back and encouraging them to run is not the same as missing tackles on purpose.
The difference is game plan vs lunacy.
The other difference is your berated my comment that those words were your memory rather than a quote.
There is simply no way that Bill Belichick told his defense it was a good idea to miss a tackle and let a 3 yard run turn into 9. Just no way.
I agree he utilized a game plan that was a poor run stopping scheme. But to say he told the players to tank plays is just wrong.

And? How does that mean that Belichick didn't purposely tell them to let them run, as has been stated multiple times?

That has never been stated by anyone but you.

BB called defenses that were poorly set up to defend the run and overplayed the pass. The players told him they want to shut down Thomas. BB said they will win if they play a defense that makes Thomas job easier and Kellys harder. He simply did not tell them to not tackle.

Belichick's own words were "let them run."

I agree. He wanted them to run the ball. He did not say let them run past you with your thumb up your @ss. I really can't believe we are even having this conversation.

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.

My problem with your comments are that you implied with let them wiggle through' that the plan was to not make plays they could make.
I completely agree that he played a defense that encouraged them to run.
I am also 100% certain that the defenders did the very best job they could on each play, and any extra success was due to being undermanned as part of a bigger scheme goal, not giving up and allowing them to gain yards they were there to prevent.

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.

Reread the passages. They were a dominant run D that took special pride in shutting down RBs. Although the game has changed, in those years, it was the ultimate macho defensive player statement to say nobody runs on us.
Their objection was that they felt they could stifle Thomas and didn't understand why they would face a top back and change the scheme that had them stop every other one they had faced.
They had just allowed 11-39 and 16-27 in their 2 playoff games. It was their identity.

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.

Its not nitpicky at all when it changes the connotation from employing a scheme and strategy that places less emphasis on stopping the run, to telling players to not make plays they are in position to.
You seem to have been implying that in addition to scheme, he told them to tank.

If we agree that the scheme was to overcommit to the pass, and undercommit to the run, but when the ball was snapped every player did their best to stop the Bills, then we agree. If not, we simply never will, and should move on.

 

[Ring 6]

In the book by David Halberstam called "Education of a coach[/U]," 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. .

This is the part of your opinion that I have objected to.
Note that is says "allow him to wiggle free for an extra couple of yards".

Your misrepresentation of the comments changes it to PURPOSELY not making a tackle.
I thought I had given you many opportunities to reverse that and you appeared to argue that this was what you meant.
If it is not, then the issue is moot, however, these were your words and they clearly indicate a plan to tank on plays.

 

[supafly]

This is the part of your opinion that I have objected to.
Note that is says "allow him to wiggle free for an extra couple of yards".

Your misrepresentation of the comments changes it to PURPOSELY not making a tackle.
I thought I had given you many opportunities to reverse that and you appeared to argue that this was what you meant.
If it is not, then the issue is moot, however, these were your words and they clearly indicate a plan to tank on plays.

In the book itself, the premise is to allow them to run in order to do a few different things:

--keep the clock moving

--limit the passing from Kelly

--bait them into seeing success in the run, only to stiffen up at other points.

There are also other things that they did to help this cause, such as:

--kicking the ball away when the refs set it up at the LOS

--staying down when injured or tired


It would seem that my interpretation of the above underlined along with the specific quotes seemed to suggest that in order to "bait them," they had to let up a bit. However you wish to interpret that is up to you. I personally believe that they may have allowed them to "have some extra mileage" on certain runs, yes--especially when you take the context of all of the other methods into play. That doesn't necessarily mean that I think they "tanked it" as you say.

I understand that the theory is a bit strange to accept, but from all accounts there was enough of a question to warrant seeing others' opinions on it. I would certainly admit that I by no means think that I am 100% correct or that there isn't any grey area of interpretation into it, and I do respect your thoughts in disagreeing.

They main grey area that would be open to interpretation would be how much you thought "allowing them to run," or "baiting them," would be "tanking it." I'm suggesting the first 2, but I wouldn't go as far as the 3rd. That may not make much sense to you, so I can respect that.

 

[Ring 6]

In the book itself, the premise is to allow them to run in order to do a few different things:

--keep the clock moving

--limit the passing from Kelly

--bait them into seeing success in the run, only to stiffen up at other points.

There are also other things that they did to help this cause, such as:

--kicking the ball away when the refs set it up at the LOS

--staying down when injured or tired


It would seem that my interpretation of the above underlined along with the specific quotes seemed to suggest that in order to "bait them," they had to let up a bit. However you wish to interpret that is up to you. I personally believe that they may have allowed them to "have some extra mileage" on certain runs, yes--especially when you take the context of all of the other methods into play. That doesn't necessarily mean that I think they "tanked it" as you say.

I understand that the theory is a bit strange to accept, but from all accounts there was enough of a question to warrant seeing others' opinions on it. I would certainly admit that I by no means think that I am 100% correct or that there isn't any grey area of interpretation into it, and I do respect your thoughts in disagreeing.

They main grey area that would be open to interpretation would be how much you thought "allowing them to run," or "baiting them," would be "tanking it." I'm suggesting the first 2, but I wouldn't go as far as the 3rd. That may not make much sense to you, so I can respect that.

IMO, you have to stretch beyond reason to conclude that the players on defense passed up making plays they could make.
From a football perspective it is ridiculous. No coach would ever do that with the exception of conceeding a TD late to get the ball back.
From a technical perspective, i again think you took poetic license with 'bait them into having success' but do not have my copy of the book handy.
This is my chief complaint here is that not only are you taking Halbestroms words and treating them as quotes you are altering them and changing the connotation. You have said you don't why substituting some words for others matters, but of course it does when you are trying to use those words as the basis of your argument.

Again, perhaps we have beat this horse to death.

 

[supafly]

IMO, you have to stretch beyond reason to conclude that the players on defense passed up making plays they could make.
From a football perspective it is ridiculous. No coach would ever do that with the exception of conceeding a TD late to get the ball back.
From a technical perspective, i again think you took poetic license with 'bait them into having success' but do not have my copy of the book handy.
This is my chief complaint here is that not only are you taking Halbestroms words and treating them as quotes you are altering them and changing the connotation. You have said you don't why substituting some words for others matters, but of course it does when you are trying to use those words as the basis of your argument.

Again, perhaps we have beat this horse to death.

I would agree with you that the general thought is borderline ridiculous, but there has been debate before regarding setting up playoff seedings, etc--so I thought it was worth pondering. I may have looked a bit more deeply into it than was considered reasonable, but I still think that there is a grey area between allowing them to have success by baiting them (now, the word "Bait" is definitely 100% a Halberstam quote) and "tanking it" as you say.

I agree that we've probably explored all angles, and just so you know--I'd probably bet more money on you being right than myself; I just also at the same time still feel that there is some grey area, which is just my personal opinion.

Good debating with you, if you decide you want to see other quotes from Halberstam for the hell of it, I am certain that I sat there with the book and typed them out completely correct earlier in the thread. The only mistake that I made was stating "wiggle room" when it was indeed "more mileage." That is something I will be more mindful of in the future.