Chatham's breakdown of NE/GB game

[Oswlek]

We were disjointed on offense, they were focused. Excellent piece, I'll go back and read more thoroughly later. I really wish he'd take a bigger role in pre season broadcasts.

They used to have a great group on Sunday mornings with Chris Price, Tom Curran and Chatham, but for some reason they decided we were more interested in hearing Greg ****erson and Steve DeOssie.

The people in charge of these decisions must have rocks in their heads. I can't think of any other explanation.

 

[luuked]

I think Chatham is the best there is at breaking down the truth about each game. He has forgotten more about football than I will ever know. Having said that, I think the notion that the Pats were "a play or two away" against the Packers is simply not true. We talk about Gronk's catch (a very difficult one at best) and the missed field goal or one or two other plays but we never mention the two Packer drops in the end zone or their missed field goal. In addition to racking up 480 yards of total offense the Packers left 7-10 points on the field with their own easily correctable mistakes. Forget about their other misses; if Adams catches that routine slant and Crosby hits his field goal it's 33 points allowed, nearly 500 yards against and no one is claiming satisfaction at our defensive effort.

Looking back at the games that we have struggled on defense, I think there is a pattern. They have come against qbs that can run. When we utilize a "contained rush" we don't fare particularly well. Against Miami, the Jets (where Geno Smith looked like a star), and the Packers (hell even Oakland) in games when we have employed a less aggressive approach at "getting after the qb", our defense has struggled as long as the qb doesn't make stupid mistakes and turn the ball over. Chatham makes it sound like defensively the game went according to plan aside from a play or two but I disagree. Forget about TOP or total yards, does anyone think that Rogers won't replay the game tape, be disappointed in his own efficiency and do a better job scoring the next time he sees the same strategy? I don't think that, against a top notch offense, any defense can allow the opposing qb to sit back in the pocket unthreatened for the length of time Rogers was afforded and not get picked apart. Let's stop blaming the fourth-string cornerback when he's playing the best qb in football and we're giving him all day to throw the ball. We either need to keep the ball out of Rogers' hands better (better offensive efficiency adds to the "pressure" we apply) or we need to keep him in the pocket but create more pressure or he'll murder us again.

A side note: I must say, I also never realized what a fine coach Mike McCarthy is. That was a hell of a game plan and the first time in a long time I felt like we didn't have a decided coaching advantage.

I understand your point but playing the "what if" game goes both ways. The mistake Devin made on the TD before HT is for me the equivalent of a dropped slant for a WR. In that it rarely happens. Similarly, the Packers have a score less if the Ayers sack is not negated by a ridiculous hands to the face penalty. Guess what, I found my own 6-10 point swing. Without even mentioning the Gronk drop and the missed FG.

Not all of Rodgers troubles in the RZ are due to dropped passes. We had excellent coverage on most of those plays and this deserves the same recognition.

 

[BTTA]

I hope Jones comes back soon and is able to play at 100%. Having said that, if you are in fact at the Mayo Clinic I"m sure you know how tricky hip injuries can be. I don't know what his diagnosis is (labral tear?) but he may not be 100% again this year. As for Easley, I loved the pick and expect him to be a fine player eventually. But we are waiting for him to be a difference maker this year? Any suggestion so far that that might happen? If that's what we're waiting for I'm not overly optimistic about our ability to pressure the qb at all rushing just four.

I think both guys could make a difference come playoff time. That's nearly two months away.
And as a side note, while Mayo may indeed know something, it should be noted that the vast majority of people working at the Mayo Clinic haven't a clue about hip injuries.

 

[mayoclinic]

I think both guys could make a difference come playoff time. That's nearly two months away.

I think Easley's been progressing fine, given that he missed most training camp and all of the preseason games, has been coming off an ACL, and has been dinged up. He has showed versatility, and the ability to play with discipline within the structure of BB's system, including setting the edge effectively (to which Chatham refers). That's much more important to BB than just being an interior pass rusher. I think he'll be fine if he can consistently get on the field.

And as a side note, while Mayo may indeed know something, it should be noted that the vast majority of people working at the Mayo Clinic haven't a clue about hip injuries.

I do not work at the Mayo Clinic, though I've worked at comparable caliber institutions. I'm an anesthesiologist with a trauma background, but I'm not an orthopedic surgeon, and no one can really tell anything without the necessary medical information. I've given a few thoughts on some of the possibilties previously, but it's just speculation without adequate information (and even then it's still a question mark to a large extent, which is probably why Jones' status has been such an unknown):

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...eason-in-jeopardy.1112967/page-7#post-3960649 (post #133)

 

[Ring 6]

Yes. Even on 3 and 2, the absolute worst thing you can do is get beat over the top for a TD bomb. You can't sell out to stop the first down only to give up a cheap 7 pt deep ball. Especially against a QB like Rodgers whose specialty is extending the play.

If you approach pass defense as 'get back and don't ever risk getting beat deep' then you will just allow them to walk right down the field. You have to be aggressive and take chances at times.

 

[tmajr3]

I think Chatham is the best there is at breaking down the truth about each game. He has forgotten more about football than I will ever know. Having said that, I think the notion that the Pats were "a play or two away" against the Packers is simply not true. We talk about Gronk's catch (a very difficult one at best) and the missed field goal or one or two other plays but we never mention the two Packer drops in the end zone or their missed field goal. In addition to racking up 480 yards of total offense the Packers left 7-10 points on the field with their own easily correctable mistakes. Forget about their other misses; if Adams catches that routine slant and Crosby hits his field goal it's 33 points allowed, nearly 500 yards against and no one is claiming satisfaction at our defensive effort.

Looking back at the games that we have struggled on defense, I think there is a pattern. They have come against qbs that can run. When we utilize a "contained rush" we don't fare particularly well. Against Miami, the Jets (where Geno Smith looked like a star), and the Packers (hell even Oakland) in games when we have employed a less aggressive approach at "getting after the qb", our defense has struggled as long as the qb doesn't make stupid mistakes and turn the ball over. Chatham makes it sound like defensively the game went according to plan aside from a play or two but I disagree. Forget about TOP or total yards, does anyone think that Rogers won't replay the game tape, be disappointed in his own efficiency and do a better job scoring the next time he sees the same strategy? I don't think that, against a top notch offense, any defense can allow the opposing qb to sit back in the pocket unthreatened for the length of time Rogers was afforded and not get picked apart. Let's stop blaming the fourth-string cornerback when he's playing the best qb in football and we're giving him all day to throw the ball. We either need to keep the ball out of Rogers' hands better (better offensive efficiency adds to the "pressure" we apply) or we need to keep him in the pocket but create more pressure or he'll murder us again.

A side note: I must say, I also never realized what a fine coach Mike McCarthy is. That was a hell of a game plan and the first time in a long time I felt like we didn't have a decided coaching advantage.

I agree in the sense that I think you want them to be more aggressive. More turnovers!

 

[mgteich]

DEFENSE
The patriots have the best starting set of five defensive backs in the NFL This grip should be sufficient to beat anyone. However our depth was not enough against Rodgers. When Arrington went down, Ryan was simply not up to the task. There are very. very few teams with an offense and quarterback good enough to take advantage of Ryan or Dennard as our #5 defensive back on the field. Rodgers and the packers did exactly that.

Alos, it should be mentioned that the packers were almost never stopped. They punted ONCE in the game.

The defense was also heroic in the bend and don't break approach (except on the one unmentionable play). The defense kept the packers to their lowest score at home all year.

OFFENSE
The two best offenses in football went into a shoot-em-up game. Both had OK defenses. The patriots were unable to score more than 21 points. The patriots had the ball with enough time to score on the last drive and could not score. It is what it is.

 

[mgteich]

If you approach pass defense as 'get back and don't ever risk getting beat deep' then you will just allow them to walk right down the field. You have to be aggressive and take chances at times.

I agree with your comments.

However, I would note that the defense miraculously made the bend and don't break strategy work (0 for 4 in red zone). They failed in the play at the end of the half. In all their failures, the defense gave the ball to the offense with lots of time left near the end of the game.

 

[Ring 6]

I agree with your comments.

However, I would note that the defense miraculously made the bend and don't break strategy work (0 for 4 in red zone). They failed in the play at the end of the half. In all their failures, the defense gave the ball to the offense with lots of time left near the end of the game.

The TD before halftime was a back breaker. But we had the best corner in the NFL in man coverage, who up to that point had allowed something like 2 catches in 23 targets for 22 yards in the last 2 and 1/2 games.
I know we like to do paralysis by analysis around here but sometimes shlt happens.

 

[mayoclinic]

I know we like to do paralysis by analysis around here but sometimes shlt happens.

I agree. Though down 2 with 23 seconds left in the half and GB at the Pats' 45, and getting the ball to start the 2nd half, the one thing you don't want to do is give up the big play. A FG is one thing. What happened was, as you note, a back breaker. Hindsight is 20-20 and I don't want to over-analyze, but the Pats could probably have done more to make sure that what happened didn't.

 

[Ring 6]

Really, we got destroyed in the first quarter, then made adjustments and played well, just not well enough to overcome the first quarter.
There were 5 drives in the first quarter, 3 by GB 2 by NE.

NE
4 plays 20 yards punt
3 plays 9 yards punt

GB
9/58 FG
11/66 FG
5/83 TD

Time of possession was about 11:30 to 3:30

After that:
NE 48 plays 283 yards 21 points
GB 51 plays 263 yards 13 points

Its football, you have to play 60 minutes.
Looks like a bad gameplan, but some pretty good adjustments to me.

 

[Ring 6]

I agree. Though down 2 with 23 seconds left in the half and GB at the Pats' 45, and getting the ball to start the 2nd half, the one thing you don't want to do is give up the big play. A FG is one thing. What happened was, as you note, a back breaker. Hindsight is 20-20 and I don't want to over-analyze, but the Pats could probably have done more to make sure that what happened didn't.

Playing to avoid the big play doesn't stop a 2 yard slant taken to the house.

 

[mayoclinic]

Playing to avoid the big play doesn't stop a 2 yard slant taken to the house.

It was 3rd and 2 at the Pats' 45 with 23 second left. Revis was playing man coverage on Nelson but never really bumped him. Nelson made his cut 8 yards downfield. Not sure how that's a "2 yard slant".

There's 23 second left, and they have at least 10-15 yards to go for a FG attempt in the cold, maybe more, with 1 timeout remaining. They had time for probably 2 more plays to go 15-20 yards. If you play that one as 3rd and 15 instead of 3rd and 2, you don't cover it the same, even with Revis.

 

[Ring 6]

It was 3rd and 2 at the Pats' 45 with 23 second left. Revis was playing man coverage on Nelson but never really bumped him. Nelson made his cut 8 yards downfield. Not sure how that's a "2 yard slant".

There's 23 second left, and they have at least 10-15 yards to go for a FG attempt in the cold, maybe more, with 1 timeout remaining. They had time for probably 2 more plays to go 15-20 yards. If you play that one as 3rd and 15 instead of 3rd and 2, you don't cover it the same, even with Revis.

I forget how many timeouts they had left but I think they had at least 1.
So if you treat it like 3rd and 15 and give them 10-12 yards you just put them in FG range. I think part of the goal of that play has to include not doing that.
I'm not saying you are wrong, just that there are many options of how to defend that situation.

 

[mayoclinic]

I forget how many timeouts they had left but I think they had at least 1.
So if you treat it like 3rd and 15 and give them 10-12 yards you just put them in FG range. I think part of the goal of that play has to include not doing that.
I'm not saying you are wrong, just that there are many options of how to defend that situation.

There was 1 TO left for GB - they used they're 2nd TO just before the play. On the play before, on 2nd and 2 Rodgers threw an incomplete short pass to Nelson on the right with Revis playing man on him. They obviously decided to attack Revis playing to defend the 1st down, and did it well.

I'm not trying to second-guess too much. It was Revis, after all. But I'd sure like to be able to draw it up differently in retrospect.

 

[Ring 6]

There was 1 TO left for GB - they used they're 2nd TO just before the play. On the play before, on 2nd and 2 Rodgers threw an incomplete short pass to Nelson on the right with Revis playing man on him. They obviously decided to attack Revis playing to defend the 1st down, and did it well.

I'm not trying to second-guess too much. It was Revis, after all. But I'd sure like to be able to draw it up differently in retrospect.

Thats kind of my point though. Its always easy in retrospect, and I get frustrated when, in retrospect, people act like there was only one consideration, the one that didn't work. Not that this is your MO at all.

In other words if we played off, and they completed a 12 yard pass then kicked a FG other posters would be complaining that we played soft on 3rd down and handed them 3 points.

 

[BradyManny]

He has showed versatility, and the ability to play with discipline within the structure of BB's system, including setting the edge effectively (to which Chatham refers). That's much more important to BB than just being an interior pass rusher. I think he'll be fine if he can consistently get on the field.

To my eyes, Easley has been good on the edge, which was somewhat a surprise given he was thrust to that role purely out of necessity. But while I agree Belichick is worried about more than turning him into an interior rusher, we'd love to get production in that role from just about anybody on the team - and Easley seemed like a top potential source. However, to this point, he has not shown signs of being able to push the pocket. Granted, he's young & been battling injuries, so it's not a real surprise.

 

[Mack Herron]

There is no defensive call designed to allow a guy to run 45 yards across the field (or whatever it was) for a TD. Just a really poor play by McCourty at a big time in a big game.

 

[Ring 6]

To my eyes, Easley has been good on the edge, which was somewhat a surprise given he was thrust to that role purely out of necessity. But while I agree Belichick is worried about more than turning him into an interior rusher, we'd love to get production in that role from just about anybody on the team - and Easley seemed like a top potential source. However, to this point, he has not shown signs of being able to push the pocket. Granted, he's young & been battling injuries, so it's not a real surprise.

Can you expand on the bolded?
The only time I can recall him playing on the edge was the first game Chandler Jones missed, and to my memory he did a decent job vs the run but did not do much in the passing game. Otherwise I have seen him only used inside, getting most of his snaps over the nose in 3 man line sub packages, some at DT in 4 man line and a couple lined up at 34 DE.

 

[BradyManny]

Can you expand on the bolded?
The only time I can recall him playing on the edge was the first game Chandler Jones missed, and to my memory he did a decent job vs the run but did not do much in the passing game. Otherwise I have seen him only used inside, getting most of his snaps over the nose in 3 man line sub packages, some at DT in 4 man line and a couple lined up at 34 DE.

Yeah, I am referring to strictly the game(s) where he replaced Chandler, and I thought he fared well against the run. Perhaps I am mistaken and it's just the one game.

Yes - it's certainly a small sample size and he's mostly been used as you mention, but I was surprised the game he stepped in and held his own in the run game out there.

UPDATE: So I've gone through Reiss snap counts, and Easley has only played DE twice - against Cincy & Chicago. And vs. Cincy he got banged up for the 2nd half.