Curran: Brady's not quite dialed in yet

[JackBauer]

1.) Players are open

2.) Brady's missing the throws or deliberately targeting the matchup that was wanted in game planning, instead of hitting the open man, and the execution failed.


Pretty clear, really.

Not what I read from those quotes, but to each their own.

 

[Deus Irae]

"Definitely, I want to make those throws," Brady said of the two incompletions. "Anytime it doesn’t go where I want it to go, I’m evaluating why.

As Curran noted:

And when the protection is there and the receivers seems to be as well, you figure Tom Brady's going to put it on him. Sunday, he didn't. There was no shoulder, no ribs, no finger to blame. He just wasn't dialed in.

It's cut and dry. It's not as if this stuff is even slightly cryptic. I'll leave it at that.

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

Let's get reactionary and ask if Brady keeps playing liek this does he deserve to get into the Hall of Fame (and that is definitely a joke of a question)?

I realize people are thinking this is a continuation of last year and while there may be some truth to that, this team is still putting pieces into place with adding the tight ends back in, Faulk going out and developing wide receivers (other than Moss/Welker).

In an offense, with the options routes that the Patriots run, these things take some time to develop and it's only the 2nd game. Jets were amped up for this game based on the bad press they got in the first game (and being a deivisional game) and maybe some of ouryoung guns were believing the good press after we handed it to Cincy.

On paper, it looked like a game we could have expected to lose and still have a good season. I think expectations (fans) got too high after the first game. We still have tight ends to use and integrate into the offense and some things to figure out, but give it a chance before predicting the rest of the season will work out this way. aks Mark Sanchez, the Patriots can still go 15-1 for the season

 

[letekro]

On the one hand, he's played at a high level since shredding his knee. On the other hand, he has certainly not played at a 2007 level with any consistency since the injury. It's conceivable that the pre-injury form may never return. See Palmer, Carson.

 

[Fencer]

The first part of that article reminded me why I used to respect Tom Curran.

The rest of the article reminded me why I no longer do.

 

[emoney_33]

That should be the end of the playcalling and "adjustment" complaints, right there.

Why of course, 2 plays and and a quote about a hypothetical means the play calling was just PERFECT!

 

[BradyManny]

Indeed.....







Curran: Brady's not quite dialed in yet

That should be the end of the playcalling and "adjustment" complaints, right there.

Not to churn up the same debate, BUT...

Brady has never and would never blame playcalling for any failures.

Belichick said on EEI this past Monday he didn't think there was anything wrong with any of Brady's reads on Sunday.

So, you have someone from each side saying something else. Brady isn't going to blame the coaches, Belichick isn't going to say anything other than "we have to play better, we have to coach better". His admission that Brady's reads were accurate is actually more than he's even willing to say, and may have been spurred on by a desire to put to bed the "forcing the ball to Moss" issue.

Either way, this all, to me, just further lends credence to the notion that BOTH parties are to blame.

Also, I agree with the others above me that the final quote actually undermines your position on the coaching issue.

 

[D-Money]

With the contract that he got he will need to be dialed up more in the second half of games.

 

[Deus Irae]

Not to churn up the same debate, BUT...

Brady has never and would never blame playcalling for any failures.

Belichick said on EEI this past Monday he didn't think there was anything wrong with any of Brady's reads on Sunday.

So, you have someone from each side saying something else. Brady isn't going to blame the coaches, Belichick isn't going to say anything other than "we have to play better, we have to coach better". His admission that Brady's reads were accurate is actually more than he's even willing to say, and may have been spurred on by a desire to put to bed the "forcing the ball to Moss" issue.

Either way, this all, to me, just further lends credence to the notion that BOTH parties are to blame.

BB's comments back up Brady's. The reads were fine based upon pregame game planning designed to get theoretically advantageous matchups (something several of us were trying to get across to people in the other threads). The plays were fine. The throws were off. Noting the open options just shows that it was Brady choosing where to go with the ball. Whether the O.C. bashers insist otherwise or not, the "Playcalling! Adjustments!" argument has been discredited by Patriots players, Patriots coaches, Jets players, and media guys like Rodak and Curran.

Now, there is something in the article that could be food for thought, but it's not about the game time playcalling adjustments or any of that stuff. It's about the possible change in Brady's read strategy. If Brady's got open receivers and he's ignoring that because he's still looking to throw the ball based upon a matchup, we've got a situation where "My favorite receiver is the open receiver" is no longer the mantra:

"Because we talked two hours before the game that this is where we want to throw."

That's something worth having reporters follow up on, IMO.



P.S. I'm not sure how noting that more admissions of execution failures by Brady further weaken the cause of the O.C. bashers is in any way derailing the thread.

 

[JackBauer]

It's cut and dry. It's not as if this stuff is even slightly cryptic. I'll leave it at that.

It isn't, though, and that's the rub. While it certainly helps your case that execution, and lack thereof, was a serious issue, it does not in any way preclude or invalidate the issues people have raised with respect to coaching decisions, game preparation, playcalling, and adjustments.

Further, it's curious you would cite statements by Jets players in your defense. After all, didn't they come out and basically say their counters beat our adjustments?

 

[BradyManny]

"Because we talked two hours before the game that this is where we want to throw."

That's something worth having reporters follow up on, IMO.

I don't think either of us really want to get into this debate, as your first post had the intention of settling this debate by posting what you thought were quotes that supported your opinion.

I'm not interpreting this the same way as you are clearly. All I'll say is if we take what Brady said (that, for instance, the throw to Moss was something that was gameplanned two hours ahead of the game), it would - to me - suggest that the coaching staff did NOT make the adjustments in-game that would have led them to be more prepared and know that not only was the throw to Moss the wrong read, but that Tate (not Welker, as cited in the article) would potentially be wide open. Again, to my untrained eyes - but had the Patriots adjusted to the Jets strategy of dropping more in coverage and not applying pressure, they would not have tried a quick strike play isolating Moss on what they and Brady - perhaps wrongly - perceived to be a 1 on 1 matchup.

I also think Curran & Felger have both butchered their description of that play as they harp on it. The truth is, Tate wasn't open until after the ball was thrown, and its hard to tell from the TV copy where that safety help was. Sure, its there when the ball gets to Moss, but we don't know what the coverage was.

 

[emoney_33]

BB's comments back up Brady's. The reads were fine based upon pregame game planning designed to get theoretically advantageous matchups (something several of us were trying to get across to people in the other threads). The plays were fine. The throws were off. Noting the open options just shows that it was Brady choosing where to go with the ball. Whether the O.C. bashers insist otherwise or not, the "Playcalling! Adjustments!" argument has been discredited by Patriots players, Patriots coaches, Jets players, and media guys like Rodak and Curran.

Nope you are completely wrong and still can't understand that playcalling and execution are not mutually exclusive. But you never will because you are never wrong.

Now, there is something in the article that could be food for thought, but it's not about the game time playcalling adjustments or any of that stuff, as Brady himself points out. It's about the possible change in Brady's read strategy. If Brady's got open receivers and he's ignoring that because he's still looking to throw the ball based upon a matchup, we've got a situation where "My favorite receiver is the open receiver" is no longer the mantra:

So if he's coached to throw to a certain player in a certain situation, it's his fault for doing that.

"Because we talked two hours before the game that this is where we want to throw."

That's something worth having reporters follow up on, IMO.

It was a HYPOTHETICAL.

"' So then if you get the matchup, throw it, and it's not complete, the coach may say"

And btw, it still points to O'Brien, who would be the part of the "we" that Brady is referring to.




Oh well, this is the start. This is where Boston begins to tear down its hero. Brady enjoy the ride...

 

[BradyManny]

Oh well, this is the start. This is where Boston begins to tear down its hero. Brady enjoy the ride...

I wouldn't go that far. At the end of the day, Deus is 100% right that Brady made a poor throw. Poor decision? We don't know, doesn't sound like it per Belichick. But did O'Brien make a poor playcall given the Jets defensive changes once Revis left? That's the part I would question that Deus does not want to see questioned, and I don't agree that question should be off-limits simply b/c Brady made a bad throw.

 

[Deus Irae]

It isn't, though, and that's the rub. While it certainly helps your case that execution, and lack thereof, was a serious issue, it does not in any way preclude or invalidate the issues people have raised with respect to coaching decisions, game preparation, playcalling, and adjustments.

Further, it's curious you would cite statements by Jets players in your defense. After all, didn't they come out and basically say their counters beat our adjustments?

The complaints by the coordinator bashers were varied.

1.) NO adjustments - Jets comments proved that wrong, on both sides of the ball.

2.) BAD adjustments - Wilfork's comments explained that the problems were in execution on the defensive side. Brady's comments, among others, point out that it was execution on the offensive side.

That's why I posted them together on another thread, while also noting that the game film and post game analysis backed that up.

And, yes, it is cut and dry. The refusal to accept the reality that it was player execution, and not bad in-game coaching, that led to the loss doesn't change that reality.

 

[BradyManny]

2.) BAD adjustments - Wilfork's comments explained that the problems were in execution on the defensive side. Brady's comments, among others, point out that it was execution on the offensive side.

If we're going to take their comments at face value, don't you have to take Belichick's comments that they have to "coach better" at face value, as well?

The reality is, on this squad, no one is going to throw anyone else under the bus, coach, player, staff member, whoever.

 

[upstater1]

I don't think Brady is baffled at all.

I think he made 3 bad throws (Gronk, Crumpler, 2nd INT to Moss) but I think the decisions are right and proper.

 

[Deus Irae]

That's the part I would question that Deus does not want to see questioned, and I don't agree that question should be off-limits simply b/c Brady made a bad throw.

That's an inaccurate assessment of my position. I've asked the same question many times in various forms:

If you were game planning against the Jets after having seen them play week one and having film on previous years, and you could get a one-on-one matchup of Moss against Cromartie, would you have considered that a winning play and a good call?

If your answer to that is "Yes", you've got no legitimate beef with the playcalling. Also, since that decision was made, according to Brady in this article, hours before the game even began, it's not about bad in-game adjustments. You could argue that it was a bad idea to target Cromartie, but that wasn't decided upon in-game.

So then if you get the matchup, throw it, and it's not complete, the coach may say, 'Why didn't we throw the other side?' And you'll say, 'Because we talked two hours before the game that this is where we want to throw.' "

 

[JackBauer]

And, yes, it is cut and dry. The refusal to accept the reality that it was player execution, and not bad in-game coaching, that led to the loss doesn't change that reality.

There's also the much more logical conclusion that it was a combination of the two, and that can be seen from something as self-evident as the general offensive gameplan. I'd say the coaching is definitely something that can be cited as a proximate cause in the loss, and nothing you've said or cited has discredited that assertion. Keller's comments corroborate the notion that we were, once again, thoroughly outcoached particularly in the second half.

But anyway, I can see where this is going and sadly I have neither the time nor inclination to see it through to its conclusion.

 

[alphilip77]

I sincerely hope that Brady just drops this "planning to throw here" crap. It's one thing to continuously do it if it worked the first time. But to do it with as little success as we had Sunday is like jamming a round peg into a square hole repeatedly. Bottom line: If it doesn't work the first time, go to the open receivers and come back to the matchup next quarter.

 

[Deus Irae]

If we're going to take their comments at face value, don't you have to take Belichick's comments that they have to "coach better" at face value, as well?

The reality is, on this squad, no one is going to throw anyone else under the bus, coach, player, staff member, whoever.

Seemingly after every loss, BB says that the players have to play better and the coaches have to coach better. That's a mantra, not an explanation. I've stated repeatedly that no coaching job is perfect, as well. There's just an enormous difference between "not perfect" and "the reason the team lost" or even "a major part of why the team lost". The first is accurate when assessing the coaching in the Jets game. The second and third are not.

If people want to see coaching costing the team a game, we've got a great example of that in the Colts game last season.