Much has been made of the Falcons employing a different defensive strategy to stymie the Patriots for 2 1/2 quarters, but I just had the realization that maybe the Patriots did too. We're used to describing the Pats defensive strategy as "Band but don't break", but let's look at the Falcons drives during the game.
Drive Qtr Time LOS Plays Length Yds Result
1 1 13:37 ATL 8 4 3:09 32 Punt - Drive ended by Sack
2 1 05:08 ATL 12 5 3:32 24 Punt - Drive ended by Sack
3 2 14:08 ATL 29 5 1:53 71 Touchdown
4 2 10:37 ATL 38 5 1:49 62 Touchdown
5 2 00:02 0 0:02 0 End of Half
6 3 15:00 ATL 19 3 1:53 4 Punt - Drive ended by incomplete pass
7 3 12:45 ATL 15 8 4:14 85 Touchdown
8 3 02:06 NWE 41 3 2:15 -15 Punt Drive ended by Sack
9 4 09:44 ATL 27 3 1:20 -2 Fumble - Drive ended by Sack/Fumble
10 4 05:56 ATL 10 6 2:26 45 Punt - Drive ended by incomplete pass (Flowers sack to take out of FG range)
11 4 00:57 ATL 11 4 0:54 16 Punt - Drive ended by incomplete pass
10 real drives, five of them ended or compromised by a sack. Three of them end in touchdowns. Only one drive with more than six plays, and that only an 8 play drive. In contrast, the Patriots have SEVEN drives with 8 plays or more!
On the other hand, lots of bigger plays by the Falcons. Plays for 37, 19, 23, 24, 18, 19TD, 17, 35, 39, and 27. Those are bigger numbers than we're accustomed to seeing against the Pats.
So my question is: Was it by design that the Pats eschewed the "Keep everything in front of you", "Bend by don't break" defense this game in favor of a "Contest everything", "Boom or bust" gameplan? If any team had the weapons to take what a defense gives them and march down the field on a ten play drive, it's the Falcons. So did the Pats go the other way and give pass rushers more freedom and DBs the mandate to be aggressive knowing that it may lead to some big plays going the other way? Did they calculate that this would lead to a massive time of possession advantage? Or is this just the way it worked out unintentionally?
If this gameplan was designed to tip to time of possession and tire out the defense, then it's scary how much deeper Belichick thinks about the game than anyone else.
Drive Qtr Time LOS Plays Length Yds Result
1 1 13:37 ATL 8 4 3:09 32 Punt - Drive ended by Sack
2 1 05:08 ATL 12 5 3:32 24 Punt - Drive ended by Sack
3 2 14:08 ATL 29 5 1:53 71 Touchdown
4 2 10:37 ATL 38 5 1:49 62 Touchdown
5 2 00:02 0 0:02 0 End of Half
6 3 15:00 ATL 19 3 1:53 4 Punt - Drive ended by incomplete pass
7 3 12:45 ATL 15 8 4:14 85 Touchdown
8 3 02:06 NWE 41 3 2:15 -15 Punt Drive ended by Sack
9 4 09:44 ATL 27 3 1:20 -2 Fumble - Drive ended by Sack/Fumble
10 4 05:56 ATL 10 6 2:26 45 Punt - Drive ended by incomplete pass (Flowers sack to take out of FG range)
11 4 00:57 ATL 11 4 0:54 16 Punt - Drive ended by incomplete pass
10 real drives, five of them ended or compromised by a sack. Three of them end in touchdowns. Only one drive with more than six plays, and that only an 8 play drive. In contrast, the Patriots have SEVEN drives with 8 plays or more!
On the other hand, lots of bigger plays by the Falcons. Plays for 37, 19, 23, 24, 18, 19TD, 17, 35, 39, and 27. Those are bigger numbers than we're accustomed to seeing against the Pats.
So my question is: Was it by design that the Pats eschewed the "Keep everything in front of you", "Bend by don't break" defense this game in favor of a "Contest everything", "Boom or bust" gameplan? If any team had the weapons to take what a defense gives them and march down the field on a ten play drive, it's the Falcons. So did the Pats go the other way and give pass rushers more freedom and DBs the mandate to be aggressive knowing that it may lead to some big plays going the other way? Did they calculate that this would lead to a massive time of possession advantage? Or is this just the way it worked out unintentionally?
If this gameplan was designed to tip to time of possession and tire out the defense, then it's scary how much deeper Belichick thinks about the game than anyone else.