Welcome to PatsFans.com

Interesting Take on NE Defense vs. Jags from Curran

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by Flatout, Jan 13, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Flatout

    Flatout Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2007
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

  2. FrontSeven

    FrontSeven Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    1,464
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    I feel a bit uncomfortable with the notion that they held back defensive looks in a playoff game. I know that the vanilla argument may be true, but I just feel uncomfortable with the idea that it was missing by some sneakiness instead of some pragmatic reasons.

    Perhaps the age of the LBs and Colvin's injury has something to do with that, or perhaps they still miss Ty Law. I don't know. I just think that it's iffy to presume that they are holding something back that they didn't show in Indy or in a playoff game.
  3. Fencer

    Fencer Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2006
    Messages:
    7,659
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +32 / 0 / -13

    The Pats sure used a couple of trick plays on offense -- not just the fake direct snap, but also the fake Evans plunge that turned into a pitch.
  4. moosekill

    moosekill Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    872
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +25 / 1 / -2

    Feel uncomfortable all you want. They didn't blitz at all, until late in the game against the giants, they haven't shown anything at all special defensively, or offenisvely since the Pittsburgh game, the last game that mattered at all, and last night they played a very vanilla game. So for more than a month they haven't shown anything whatsoever to anyone who will be preparing for them. Seems pretty smart to me.
  5. Cannon Arm

    Cannon Arm Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    340
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    It wasn't that the Pats held back defensively, period. It was that they went into it thinking they could get away with it and that if things got out of hand, that they could go to that option. The game never dictated the need to get fancy on defense. Also, if you get fancy, you can give up big plays on gambling that way. Belichick thought the Pats D could just be patient and wait for mistakes by Garrard, just like with Eli Manning and other QBs we dealt with who almost did what they needed to do... almost. Belichick merely wanted to win the game. No blowout was necessary to him.
  6. arrellbee

    arrellbee Rookie

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    Messages:
    1,094
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    I don't know. There might be something to the idea of holding some defensive sets 'back' so as not to tip their hand for next week.

    I think I would be much more inclined to figure that the Patriots were simply employing a base defense that they figured would give them the best chance to limit the Jags. You have to admit that it worked pretty well. To limit the RB tandem to 66 yards total ? What would you do differently than that ??

    Perhaps if the Jags were having more success running the ball you would have seen some adjustments to more 'exotic' defensive sets ? Don't think Belichick is into the approach of looking forward to next weeks game -----

    Also perhaps it is pertinent to consider that 'fancier' defenses are also more subject to being exploited if the offensive play call happens to run at the weakness of such a defense. Dunno. Bend but not break seemed to work fairly well again. Let's see what next week brings. :)

    Edit: LoL. After this posted, read Cannon's post. Seems we have a similar thought - :)
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2008
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>