Bill Barnwell with a great, in-depth analysis of Pats vs. Falcons

[BradyFTW!]

Barnwell's Super Bowl LI preview: Why I'm predicting a rout

I strongly encourage reading the whole thing--one of the few times that I'd argue ESPN has really earned its clicks--but for those who aren't inclined to, I'll skip to the end:

This game keeps coming back to that pass-rush problem for me. It's tough to believe the two most recent games we've seen, with the Falcons suddenly morphing into the '85 Bears of pass pressure, are more meaningful than the 16 other games we saw, where their pass rush was relatively tame. If they move Beasley over center and target Joe Thuney and David Andrews in pass protection or get an incredible game out of Deion Jones, maybe the pass rush shows up, but they haven't gotten much pressure with four men and are facing a quarterback who kills blitzes before they even get home.

Likewise, the Patriots take away the big plays the Falcons thrive upon on offense. The Falcons are excellent at using their offense on first down to set up manageable third downs, but the Patriots have a great run defense and should be able to hold up against Atlanta's secondary receivers in coverage. Atlanta is converting on an unreal 64 percent of its third downs this postseason, up from 42.1 percent in the regular season, but that's not really sustainable.

Don't get it twisted: The Falcons are a great team. It's not a fluke they made it here, and I think I probably would have picked them to beat just about any of the other teams from the AFC. The Patriots are just a nightmare matchup for what the Falcons do well. Unless they manage to hold onto the suffocating pass rush they've shown over the past two games, the Falcons seem likely to come up short.

Patriots 34, Falcons 17

 

[n6249c]

Definitely second the recommendation to read it through, thoroughly.

His analysis is very thorough and detailed. He gives Atlanta a lot of cred on all points, so much so that as I read it I was thinking he had it as a toss-up, until I got to that last line.

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

Still reading it, but nobody ever mentions the Patriots Center's tell while explaining the success of the Denver D in 2015.

 

[Nikolai]

Very good analysis. The YAC factor is going to be a big one, as is the Falcons' inability to stop the run.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Still don't see NE holding ATL to only 17 points.

 

[JarOfMayo51]

That's the crazy thing about the playoffs.. all a team needs to do is put 3-4 wins together in a row to be Champs.. which is tough to do, but flukey crap happens..

Like in 2006, the Colts defense was a total joke against the run.. it was embarrassing how poor that defense was, but suddenly in the playoffs they started shutting everyone down and also running the ball effectively themselves... its like they completely morphed into a different team for that playoff run, minus that game against the Pats that I don't ever like to talk about lol

The Falcons have been playing like a different team in their last 2 games... It's been atypical of how they've played the 16 games prior... but if they can continue this outlier style play for 1 more week then we'll have a problem..

I'd put my money on them not being able to sustain that insane 3rd down conversion percentage, and I trust that Scar is going to have this offensive line ready to play... He's certainly faced a lot worse.. remember the Panthers defensive line in 2003? That was LOADED with talent, highlighted by Julius Peppers at DE.. the Patriots had a lot of injuries and had guys playing all over the place.. and they managed to hold them off the entire game and not give up a single sack

As long as we don't put up one of those total clunker games that happens 2 times a year, I really like our chances.. but I don't think Ryan and that team are going to go quietly without a vicious fight

 

[ausbacker]

Still don't see NE holding ATL to only 17 points.

I never saw the Giants holding New England to 14 points but it happened.

 

[aluminum seats]

I like Barnwell and it's a good piece, but I'm superstitious enough to hate that a Pats rout prediction is out there.

 

[Mike the Brit]

I like Barnwell and it's a good piece, but I'm superstitious enough to hate that a Pats rout prediction is out there.

^^^

THIS

 

[FourierSeries]

Still don't see NE holding ATL to only 17 points.

If Mack's injury is as serious as this makes it sound, holding them to 17 isn't out of the question.

Pool practice report: Mack struggled with left fibula injury; Freeney DNP with calf injury | Atlanta Falcons blog: Atlanta football news

 

[WinstonSmith]

I like Barnwell and it's a good piece, but I'm superstitious enough to hate that a Pats rout prediction is out there.

Definitely a good read. So...you're superstitious you say; the Karma gods have decreed that unless you transfer 10k to my personal account by Saturday that the Patriots will lose on Sunday and Tom will contract some virulent form of VD from a Houston steakhouse bathroom stall.

 

[goheels22002]

Definitely a good read. So...you're superstitious you say; the Karma gods have decreed that unless you transfer 10k to my personal account by Saturday that the Patriots will lose on Sunday and Tom will contract some virulent form of VD from a Houston steakhouse bathroom stall.

Which steak house?

 

[Nikolai]

Which steak house?

The one with vegan steaks and avocado ice cream.

 

[oldrover]

I like Barnwell and it's a good piece, but I'm superstitious enough to hate that a Pats rout prediction is out there.

^^^

THIS

"Pats win in a blowout?!?! La la la la I can't hear you..."

 

[DaveEG]

We are debating this one on the Falcons boards today as well. The general take is that the article is very well thought out and spot on in the analysis. The only break between here and over there is if the conclusion he made naturally come from that analysis.

I work with stats, so I let a little of that wander into my though process. His main point seemed to be that the Falcons are going to experience a regression to the mean in terms of the QB pressure percentages. Assuming the Falcons game stats are exhibiting normal process variation, it would be hard to argue with his conclusion. To have a 3rd straight data point 50% above the mean would be...unlikely. Therefore, they won't get any pressure on Brady and the Patriots will score at will.

On the QB Pressure % point, if you want to believe that, go ahead, the logic is sound. My problem is with the assumption that the Falcons QB Pressure % change in the post season is due to normal process variation. It could well be that the change is associated with an actual change to the Falcons defensive process. If that is the case, it could lead to a sustainable shift in the process mean. His article actually does reference at least one process change. The Falcons are blitzing more often. He goes on to say that while that is a fools game vs. Brady, they really have no choice but to continue with that. In other words, maintain the process change that began two games ago. On one hand he is saying that the process should regress to the mean (implying the mean of the 16 game regular season process). On the other hand, he's saying they will keep using the new process. In my opinion, that is where his conclusion breaks from his solid analysis. He sited a process change and then said he expected the mean to continue as if the process had not changed.

The truth is, none of us really know if the blitz percent is predictive of a higher QB pressure % or not. They are correlated, but their isn't nearly enough data to say their is a causal relationship. Ultimately I believe that his analysis is sound, but his conclusion is suspect. We will all find out together on Sunday.

 

[stcjones]

Whoooooo!!! I hope this man is rigghhhttt!!!!!

QUOTE="BradyFTW!, post: 4942276, member: 10804"]Barnwell's Super Bowl LI preview: Why I'm predicting a rout

I strongly encourage reading the whole thing--one of the few times that I'd argue ESPN has really earned its clicks--but for those who aren't inclined to, I'll skip to the end:


[/QUOTE]

 

[convertedpatsfan]

We are debating this one on the Falcons boards today as well. The general take is that the article is very well thought out and spot on in the analysis. The only break between here and over there is if the conclusion he made naturally come from that analysis.

I work with stats, so I let a little of that wander into my though process. His main point seemed to be that the Falcons are going to experience a regression to the mean in terms of the QB pressure percentages. Assuming the Falcons game stats are exhibiting normal process variation, it would be hard to argue with his conclusion. To have a 3rd straight data point 50% above the mean would be...unlikely. Therefore, they won't get any pressure on Brady and the Patriots will score at will.

On the QB Pressure % point, if you want to believe that, go ahead, the logic is sound. My problem is with the assumption that the Falcons QB Pressure % change in the post season is due to normal process variation. It could well be that the change is associated with an actual change to the Falcons defensive process. If that is the case, it could lead to a sustainable shift in the process mean. His article actually does reference at least one process change. The Falcons are blitzing more often. He goes on to say that while that is a fools game vs. Brady, they really have no choice but to continue with that. In other words, maintain the process change that began two games ago. On one hand he is saying that the process should regress to the mean (implying the mean of the 16 game regular season process). On the other hand, he's saying they will keep using the new process. In my opinion, that is where his conclusion breaks from his solid analysis. He sited a process change and then said he expected the mean to continue as if the process had not changed.

The truth is, none of us really know if the blitz percent is predictive of a higher QB pressure % or not. They are correlated, but their isn't nearly enough data to say their is a causal relationship. Ultimately I believe that his analysis is sound, but his conclusion is suspect. We will all find out together on Sunday.

I wonder if it has anything to do with the OLs they were facing. Seattle had one of the worst OLs in the league, and the Patriots didn't really challenge it, choosing to try and contain Russell Wilson. I think Atlanta realized they could get there with their speed, and chose to attack, and was very effective at it.

Barnwell mentions they were getting lots of pressure on Rodgers, but doesn't mention LT Bakhtiari's tender ankle, or the Packers losing 3 starters on the OL during the game. That's not the entire reason, as I think there are lots of numbers out there showing the general improvement of the young Falcons D after their bye week. I think it's a little from column A, a little from column B.

So I don't know if it's about process change or opponent weakness. I'm not even sure they planned it. For all we know, the game plan was to blitz a bit early, then they realized, "Holy ****, they can't block this," then just went with it. But I think this Falcons D is continuing to grow and mature, and it's hard to really tell what we will see on Sunday. But the future looks really bright in Atlanta.

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

I think it's important to note that Barnwell isn't a Pats fan. For example, he thinks the Pats benefitted greatly when Bell went down in the AFCCG, almost sounding like a Steelers excuse maker. He calls it like he sees it.

His analysis on Beasley's 15 sacks was interesting.

Regards,
Chris

 

[Ethanga62890]

Even on our board this was considered a good article even though most disagree with the score prediction

 

[QuantumMechanic]

I think it's important to note that Barnwell isn't a Pats fan. For example, he thinks the Pats benefitted greatly when Bell went down in the AFCCG, almost sounding like a Steelers excuse maker. He calls it like he sees it.

His analysis on Beasley's 15 sacks was interesting.

Regards,
Chris

I believe he's a Giants fan.