- Joined
- Jul 11, 2005
- Messages
- 15,532
- Reaction score
- 27,570
Disclaimer: I've had trouble with my internet connection so I haven't had a chance to read much of the commentary thus far, so as usual pardon me for any redundancy, but there is a lot to get off my chest
I'm sure like much of the rest of you, McCourty's interception brought more of a sense of relief than the eruption of joy. I felt like I had gone over to the dark side where winning is no longer enough, and if you don't win with dominance you must be doing something very wrong. Still,. I have to admit that as the players walked off the field it didn't seem like much of a win to me. Does that make me a bad person?
I preface my next comment by pointing out that most of the time it is I who is badgering posters for complaining about coaching decisions. I'm the one pointing out that we don't know 5% of the football the pros do, and don't have any of the info that is being factored into the decision that was made, like injuries, match ups, and tendencies, etc. That being said, I have to tell you folks that there were 2 coaches decisions that I simply can't defend no matter how hard I try.
1.After Josh made a great call and rushed Ridley up the middle giving the Pats a first and 10 on the Bills 2 yd line with about 2:40 left, he, for some unfathomable reason, rushed to the LOS and tried to quick snap the Bills and ended up with a 2 yd loss when the Pats OL was blasted off the LOS.
There was no reason NOT to spend the entire 40 seconds getting in the right personnel for a true GL offense, and run the ball 4 plays, either into the endzone or to end the game. The worst case scenario of kneeling down 4 times would have been to give the ball back to Bills with about a minute left on their 5 yd line and no TO's. At best the 5th best rushing team in the league could have managed to gain 2 yds in 4 attempts against one of the worst rush defenses in the league.
Instead we ran a hastily thought out play for a loss that took up no time, and then ran 2 more passes that looked hardly worthy of the most efficient offensive team in the league (never once looking at Gronk btw) and ended up leaving the Bills 2 full minutes, 2 TO, plus the 2 minute warning to move the ball 80 yds for the winning TO. It was Seattle all over again. Frankly I was stunned and at a complete loss for an explanation.
2. The second one came on the ensuing drive. Now I'm sure many questioned Patricia's decision NOT to put any pressure of Fitzpatrick on that final drive. I did too. It should have seemed obvious to anyone who watched the game that anytime Fitzpatrick had time to throw the ball (and that was a lot of the time) he was on fire. Extremely accurate. But that isn't what I'm going to complain about. That's one of those calls I leave to the professionals, even when I disagree.
No what I found totally explainable was the decision to rush only 3 guys and then use one your 3 best rushers to cover one of the fastest and most elusive RBs in the league, who is also likely to be one of the primary targets of the QB. If you are going to rush just 3. why wasn't a DB covering Spiller, and NOT a defensive freakin' END! I can understand the logic of going to max coverage, but its not Max coverage when you have have Ninko covering DJ Spiller. So it ends up with no rush PLUS a wide open receiver who is likely to be one of the first looks in your so called max coverage That my friends would be a poor design for a HS coach, let alone and NFL DC
OK, I need to get that off my chest, here are the some other miscellaneous comments from the game
I'm sure like much of the rest of you, McCourty's interception brought more of a sense of relief than the eruption of joy. I felt like I had gone over to the dark side where winning is no longer enough, and if you don't win with dominance you must be doing something very wrong. Still,. I have to admit that as the players walked off the field it didn't seem like much of a win to me. Does that make me a bad person?
I preface my next comment by pointing out that most of the time it is I who is badgering posters for complaining about coaching decisions. I'm the one pointing out that we don't know 5% of the football the pros do, and don't have any of the info that is being factored into the decision that was made, like injuries, match ups, and tendencies, etc. That being said, I have to tell you folks that there were 2 coaches decisions that I simply can't defend no matter how hard I try.
1.After Josh made a great call and rushed Ridley up the middle giving the Pats a first and 10 on the Bills 2 yd line with about 2:40 left, he, for some unfathomable reason, rushed to the LOS and tried to quick snap the Bills and ended up with a 2 yd loss when the Pats OL was blasted off the LOS.
There was no reason NOT to spend the entire 40 seconds getting in the right personnel for a true GL offense, and run the ball 4 plays, either into the endzone or to end the game. The worst case scenario of kneeling down 4 times would have been to give the ball back to Bills with about a minute left on their 5 yd line and no TO's. At best the 5th best rushing team in the league could have managed to gain 2 yds in 4 attempts against one of the worst rush defenses in the league.
Instead we ran a hastily thought out play for a loss that took up no time, and then ran 2 more passes that looked hardly worthy of the most efficient offensive team in the league (never once looking at Gronk btw) and ended up leaving the Bills 2 full minutes, 2 TO, plus the 2 minute warning to move the ball 80 yds for the winning TO. It was Seattle all over again. Frankly I was stunned and at a complete loss for an explanation.
2. The second one came on the ensuing drive. Now I'm sure many questioned Patricia's decision NOT to put any pressure of Fitzpatrick on that final drive. I did too. It should have seemed obvious to anyone who watched the game that anytime Fitzpatrick had time to throw the ball (and that was a lot of the time) he was on fire. Extremely accurate. But that isn't what I'm going to complain about. That's one of those calls I leave to the professionals, even when I disagree.
No what I found totally explainable was the decision to rush only 3 guys and then use one your 3 best rushers to cover one of the fastest and most elusive RBs in the league, who is also likely to be one of the primary targets of the QB. If you are going to rush just 3. why wasn't a DB covering Spiller, and NOT a defensive freakin' END! I can understand the logic of going to max coverage, but its not Max coverage when you have have Ninko covering DJ Spiller. So it ends up with no rush PLUS a wide open receiver who is likely to be one of the first looks in your so called max coverage That my friends would be a poor design for a HS coach, let alone and NFL DC
OK, I need to get that off my chest, here are the some other miscellaneous comments from the game