Game Thoughts: The Pats got their tundras frozen in Green Bay edition

[Galeb]

Since when do the Patriots fold in garbage time? We scored a TD on our last possession. Sorry, we can't throw out possessions just because we have a lead. If anything, it's clearly easier to play from ahead.

Two of the Pats 3 and outs were at the end of the 3rd and in the 4th quarters. That TD also should have been a FG. The Lions behavior at the end of that game isn't representative of normal NFL teams.

Garbage time changes the very nature of the game. In Garbage time, the offensive focus shifts from just scoring to running out the clock and protecting the ball first.

Why do you try so hard to eliminate context from numbers? Stats are meaningless without context.

 

[BradyManny]

Why do you try so hard to eliminate context from numbers? Stats are meaningless without context.

Which one of us is trying to eliminate context? You are saying the Pats didn't score enough yesterday and aren't letting me tell you how many times they possessed the ball.

As for the Detroit game - of the final four possessions, the only one where due to the amount of time left on the clock the game was actually out of reach was the one they scored on. You are severely exaggerating if you think the other three possessions were "garbage time" and that the Patriots approached them as such. One was in the third quarter, one was to start the fourth, and the third was with 11:25 left in the game. They were up 18, but I would not define any of those as garbage time.

 

[Rob0729]

For reference:

Offensive Possessions per game in the win streak:

vs Cin - 11
vs Buf - 13
vs NYJ - 10
vs Chi - 9
vs Den - 13
vs Ind - 10
vs Det - 12

I've been pointing out for a while now that lack of possessions in our big losses has been a common thread. I'm not sure why the concept hasn't been accepted.

I think the lack of possessions is a common thread for a lot of team's losses. I don't think lack of possessions cause losses, but symptom. The Pats had one less possession yesterday than they had vs, the Bears where they blew them out. Are you saying that one possession was the difference?

Besides, the Pats had 13 possessions vs. the Dolphins and 11 possessions vs, the Chiefs. So two of the three losses the Pats had this year the Pats had the same number of possessions that they had during the wining streak.

 

[Galeb]

Which one of us is trying to eliminate context? You are saying the Pats didn't score enough yesterday and aren't letting me tell you how many times they possessed the ball.

As for the Detroit game - of the final four possessions, the only one where due to the amount of time left on the clock the game was actually out of reach was the one they scored on. You are severely exaggerating if you think the other three possessions were "garbage time" and that the Patriots approached them as such. One was in the third quarter, one was to start the fourth, and the third was with 11:25 left in the game. They were up 18, but I would not define any of those as garbage time.

This is getting weird.

When have I denied the number of times the Pats possessed the ball? The Pats had 8 meaningful possessions. They scored TDs on 3 of them, and didn't run more than 5 plays of 4 of the 5 remaining possessions.

Garbage time started half way through the third quarter. Pats were up 3 scores and most of the Detroit players who weren't taking cheap shots were checked out.

It is your right to go on thinking the Pats O performed up to expectations against a mediocre D, but such a conclusion can only be drawn with a severe lack of context.

 

[nabwong]

This game is a classic case of lose the battle to win the war. BB knows he may very well see GB in the superbowl and didn't want to show too much like we did with the giants, not saying we threw the game but it felt like we were trying to sneak a win without pulling out all the stops. AND we almost did, this loss is very tolerable as I think we win out and still grab HFA

Except that we played twice against the Giants each of those Super Bowl seasons. I don't think BB has some super secret all encompassing plan for the entire season. I just think they made some bad choices in play calling. It happens. The other team also play to win. The packers just out executed and out coached us at critical points. They also out-refereed us.

 

[woolster22]

Those are my thoughts too. It's all well and good to say we need to stick with the run (a good running game is a huge boon to have), but when it's not working and Green Bay is moving the ball extremely well (albeit stalling in the red zone), you don't always have the luxury of being patient with the run.

Don't run draws with vereen or between the tackles with vereen. Simple really. personnel selection was miserable last night.

 

[Oswlek]

Which one of us is trying to eliminate context? You are saying the Pats didn't score enough yesterday and aren't letting me tell you how many times they possessed the ball.

As for the Detroit game - of the final four possessions, the only one where due to the amount of time left on the clock the game was actually out of reach was the one they scored on. You are severely exaggerating if you think the other three possessions were "garbage time" and that the Patriots approached them as such. One was in the third quarter, one was to start the fourth, and the third was with 11:25 left in the game. They were up 18, but I would not define any of those as garbage time.

I just calculated everything and I was surprised at how much it supported your contention.

From the Cincy game through Detroit, and removing all kneel drives as well as defensive/ST scores, the totals look like this:

76 Drives, 263 points, 209:22 TOP.

This breaks down to 3.5 points/drive and 2:45 TOP/drive. Against GB it was 2.6 points/drive and 2:52 TOP/drive. The points have a decent gap, but when you are dealing with such a small sample it is important to factor in the dropped TD and missed FG. Had NE scored a TD on the final drive, it would have been exactly the same points and even more TOP per drive.

I still can't help feeling like the offense was inefficient, but it's not as supported by the numbers as I expected.

 

[Sicilian]

Don't run draws with vereen or between the tackles with vereen. Simple really. personnel selection was miserable last night.

You can't pass every time you line up with Vereen in the back field, otherwise the D will just tee off on the pass. Gotta be willing to do everything to keep them honest.

 

[TriplecHamp]

Part of the problem with the bend but don't break defense is the pressure it puts on the offense to convert the drives they have into points. When it comes to the running game, its been clear with McD that we are a passing team and with TB12 idk if I'd change that. When you know you need to stay out of 3rd downs and stay ahead of the chains, running the ball is going to come second to throwing it with the team we have unless were running for 5 yards a pop.

That game reminded me too much of the Denver game in the way GB used the clock and forced the Patriots offense to play under pressure. Patriots offense under pressure means Brady slinging it around. The defense while i'll say was excellent in the redzone, was mediocre between the 20's. Yes the scheme was to contain rodgers with the rush lanes but anybody who's watched the packers play (or most teams for that matter) will tell you that allowing Rodgers to dance around in the pocket for 5+ seconds is a recipe for disaster. There is such thing as pressuring the QB and still keeping contain.

 

[primetime]

Don't run draws with vereen or between the tackles with vereen. Simple really. personnel selection was miserable last night.

Vereen is a pretty bad player. He's got speed in the open field but that's about it. Doesn't have sure hands, dances like Maroney when he gets the ball, isn't anything special as a blocker. Just goes to show how spoiled we were with Faulk and Woodhead all those years.

 

[Rob0729]

Vereen is a pretty bad player. He's got speed in the open field but that's about it. Doesn't have sure hands, dances like Maroney when he gets the ball, isn't anything special as a blocker. Just goes to show how spoiled we were with Faulk and Woodhead all those years.

Vereen is a pretty good player. He may not be the player we hoped he would be, but he has 749 all purpose yards and 4 TDs. That is solid #s for a change of pace/3rd down type of RB.

 

[PatCat]

Except that we played twice against the Giants each of those Super Bowl seasons. I don't think BB has some super secret all encompassing plan for the entire season. I just think they made some bad choices in play calling. It happens. The other team also play to win. The packers just out executed and out coached us at critical points. They also out-refereed us.

Respectable perspective!

 

[BradyManny]

This is getting weird.

When have I denied the number of times the Pats possessed the ball? The Pats had 8 meaningful possessions. They scored TDs on 3 of them, and didn't run more than 5 plays of 4 of the 5 possessions in which they did not score.

How many times should they have scored? What's your expectation of what is and what isn't good production per drive? 2.63 points per possession would put them in the top 2 or 3 teams every year - with a huge gap before the second tier of good offenses. It is elite.

For reference, the middle of the pack offense (Bears), scores 1.85 points per possession. That's 14 points in 8 possessions, that's two touchdowns. The Patriots scoring a third touchdown in those eight possessions is exactly the difference an average offense and an elite one.

Garbage time started half way through the third quarter. Pats were up 3 scores and half scores most of the Detroit players who weren't taking cheap shots were checked out.

The Patriots were not up by 3.5 scores until the Blount TD.

It is your right to go on thinking the Pats O performed up to expectations against a mediocre D, but such a conclusion can only be drawn with a severe lack of context.

The Patriots were one play away from performing beyond expectation. To kill on them for not making that one play seems kind of silly. This is a perfect example of "the other guy gets paid, too."

Yesterday was a great game, both teams played well on both sides. There are things the Patriots can tidy up and learn from, but to say the offense laid an egg or anything like that, I think that's really just not looking at the game in context at all. It was a short game, possessions didn't come cheap, and every mistake or big play was magnified because of it. They came up a play short.

 

[Oswlek]

Vereen is a pretty bad player. He's got speed in the open field but that's about it. Doesn't have sure hands, dances like Maroney when he gets the ball, isn't anything special as a blocker. Just goes to show how spoiled we were with Faulk and Woodhead all those years.

I suspect you will be surprised when NE offers Vereen a three year extension in the $7mm range.

 

[BradyManny]

I still can't help feeling like the offense was inefficient, but it's not as supported by the numbers as I expected.

To me it comes down to the fact that the shortness of the game makes their dud drives more costly. I don't think they had more failed drives on average yesterday (in fact, their drive success rate [non 3 & out drives]) was 75%, which is exactly what it was for the year).

Ultimately, I do fault the offense for not scoring on the final drive - it was in a position where at least a field goal should have been a sure thing and they came away with 0 (also a hit on special teams).

I just think we have to accept yesterday might be one of those games where both units did enough to win on most days, and we still lost - because the other guys were pretty damn good.

Now, immediately after the game, I thought the defense was on the field too much - but realizing we were a Gronk catch away from a W, and knowing they kept Rodgers out the end zone in the redone, I don't fault the D either.

 

[Oswlek]

I just think we have to accept yesterday might be one of those games where both units did enough to win on most days, and we still lost - because the other guys were pretty damn good

I still can't come to that conclusion. I might change my mind with another viewing, but I came away thinking that NE's mistakes accounted for a substantial amount of GB's successes.

This wasn't a case of two good teams and one had to lose, this was a C+ game from the Patriots. At best. And that includes a 1.5 grade bump after running the offensive numbers.

 

[BradyManny]

I still can't come to that conclusion. I might change my mind with another viewing, but I came away thinking that NE's mistakes accounted for a substantial amount of GB's successes.

This wasn't a case of two good teams and one had to lose, this was a C+ game from the Patriots. At best. And that includes a 1.5 grade bump after running the offensive numbers.

Maybe - a rewatch of this one would be helpful for sure. I thought outside of the trenches we were quite good. I can't fault the corners, or the skill players on offense (Gronk, LaFell, Edelperson, Blount all good), and I thought Brady played really well.

But it's not as if we were run over in the trenches, we just got beat a few times offensively - and didn't get consistent pressure, defensively. Again, I could chalk that up to GB making some good plays. Matthews is no slouch.

Having a healthy Chandler Jones might be the difference on one side of the trenches at least.

 

[Galeb]

What's that mean without context? What production were you expecting? How many times should they have scored? What's your concept of what is and what isn't good production per drive? 2.63 points per possession would put them in the top 2 or 3 teams every year - with a huge gap before the second tier of good offenses. It is elite.

For reference, the middle of the pack offense (Bears), scores 1.85 points per possession. That's 14 points in 8 possessions, that's two touchdowns. The Patriots scoring a third touchdown in those eight possessions is exactly the difference an average offense and an elite one.



The Patriots were not up by 3.5 scores until the Blount TD.



The Patriots were one play away from performing beyond expectation. To kill on them for not making that one play seems kind of silly. This is a perfect example of "the other guy gets paid, too."

Yesterday was a great game, both teams played well on both sides. There are things the Patriots can tidy up and learn from, but to say the offense laid an egg or anything like that, I think that's really just not looking at the game in context at all. It was a short game, possessions didn't come cheap, and every mistake or big play was magnified because of it. They came up a play short.

For reference, glm, I would expect a somewhat better points per drive than the Pats have averaged in the last several games, in which they were going against better defenses. As I have already pointed out, the first four games and a lot of garbage time in the last several has deflated the Pats points/drive. In a game where every drive counted, the Pats O performed lower than excepted against a mediocre defense.

Would you like me to repost the NE vs GB yards, 3rd down conversions, and TOP stats? Perhaps it would help if I pointed out the four drives of 5 plays or less that resulted in punts again? Your insistence on removing context completely undermines the value of your statistics.

 

[RecoveringCowboy]

I think there is a pretty good chance of a rematch in February.

 

[JayNM]

I'd like to share the only thing that hasn't left my mind yet. Why the hell didn't we go for the 4-1 there at the second half. Our personnel was better. And was hard to slow Rodgers down before the RZ anyway. Oh well, hopefully everyone get better from this.

Great game overall, It could really have gone either way. Very, very close. If we do meet again, i'm confident in a W