Key to beating NE - "Be patient"

[richpats]

Patience is NOT how you beat the Patriots.

Seriously, after watching our close games, the only way I can imagine the Pats losing is the opponent has the ball on the closing minutes while trailing by one score, they tie or take the lead, and leave the Pats with little or no time to get a TD/FG. Pretty much the final minutes of the '06 AFC title game.

In 2007....
Indy was in position, turned the ball over.
Philly was in position, turned the ball over.
Baltimore was in position, stopped at the 1 (after they should have turned it over- Merriweather's drop).
Giants failed to get in position by not recovering onside kick.

 

[Watson's IQ]

This takes guts. Coaches are much more comfortable following a conventional gameplan to keep it close and hoping to get a few breaks (officials, lucky bounce, etc.) to get them the win.

This is what I was referring to as the biggest reason teams have had trouble. There is definitely a "keep it within a touchdown" mentality that pervades NFL coaching today. The only reason you punt in the fourth quarter in a situation where logic argues going for it is because you don't want to give the other team an easier chance to score. They're hoping for a turnover, etc, as you said, but the Patriots commit the fewest turnovers in the league, so it's not a strong bet.

The problem with this logic is that if the Patriots are on a roll offensively (and we can all tell the drives where Brady et al are in the zone) than it doesn't matter if they start from the 20 or the 40, they're going to score. Make them start from the 20 and they're just going to eat more clock.

If I was coaching against a team this good, every time I got in 4th and short in Pats territory all game, I would be going for it. As the game went on, I would become more and more aggressive with going for TDs, not FGs. 4th and goal at the one? Try for the TD.

Basically, I would acknowledge that trying to fight a field position battle with the Patriots and expecting three and outs is idiotic, and they're going to get their points no matter where they start from. With that in mind, I would come out with the pedal to the metal from opening kickoff and never take it off. So why don't coaches do this? Simple. They refuse to admit they're playing against an opponent so superior that they need an unconventional gameplan. Andy Reid did the best job of this, in my mind, with the surprise onside kick, etc. But as has been pointed out, all the teams which have come out aggressive against the Pats have reverted to the conventional once they think they have a shot to win, forsaking the strategy that got them there.

If the Giants want to win, they have to play with reckless abandon from start to finish, knowing that if they want to win, they have to accept the chance they might get blown out.

 

[Oswlek]

I disagree with the main idea of this thread almost entirely. I think the team that had the best mode of attacking NE was Philly, and they eschewed patience entirely.

I think that NE would beat nearly every team's "patient" game every single time, but it may take longer for them to take control. More aggressive tactics may set your team up to be blown out easier, but I think they also increase the odds of winning as well.

I personally hope that NY feels that they can go toe-to-toe with NE and manages the game the same way they have all year, because I think it lessens their chance at victory.

 

[Oswlek]

If the Giants want to win, they have to play with reckless abandon from start to finish, knowing that if they want to win, they have to accept the chance they might get blown out.

I totally agree.

 

[tailwind]

I totally agree.

Same here. But will the Giants have the chutzpah to come out on the biggest stage with the deep ball, going for it on 4th down (all game,) onside kicks, and some trick plays?

The only team that's really been balls-to-the-wall aggressive was the Eagles, and it almost worked for them. An opponent might last longer and "look better" playing vanilla, but that's playing into NE's hand and allowing them to play how they want and giving them ample time to adjust.

 

[richpats]

I totally agree.

The problem with the "reckless abandon" approach is that it's almost impossible to succeed on every risky call. A team may get a few big plays early on, but their are going to be mistakes too, and typically late in the game when it matters most.

EDIT: After mulling through the unthinkable Pats losses over the years, if they lose Sunday, it will be some totally unimaginable collapse, along the lines of 5 turnovers, blowing an 18-point lead....

 

[Oswlek]

The problem with the "reckless abandon" approach is that it's almost impossible to succeed on every risky call. A team may get a few big plays early on, but their are going to be mistakes too, and typically late in the game when it matters most.

And the problem with patience is that NE's offense rarely makes unforced errors and NE's defense can stop any one dimensional offense.

Your OP should say, "key to keeping the game close for as long as possible" because that is what patience does.

 

[richpats]

Your OP should say, "key to keeping the game close for as long as possible" because that is what patience does.

Yet, it could set a team up for the scenario in post #21 or as another poster put it, "game plan to have the ball last".

 

[tedylb]

Very interesting discussion with a lot of valid points.

But nobody has mentioned that in all of the Pats' close games, no opponent has been able to compete wth NE in the 4th quarter. I think this is largely because of Patriot depth, conditioning, adjustments and gameplanning. San Diego had the ball for 3 minutes in the fourth, not at all in the last 9 minutes. Behind by 11 to the Giants in the third, the Patriots scored 22 unanswered points. Dallas, Indianapolis, Philly, Baltimore and Jacksoville couldn't hold leads against us, and faded. In every close game both OUR OFFENSE AND DEFENSE DOMINATED THE LINE OF SCRIMMAGE WITH THE GAME ON THE LINE.

I think the Patriot braintrust saw our 15 point halftime lead dissolve against the Colts in last years' AFCG, and determined we would not be controlled at the end of the game this year. That's why we picked up Welker, Thomas, Kyle Brady, Moss, Morris and Spach. It's scary to think we're still dominating in crunch time without Colvin, Wright, Morris and Dave Thomas.

If the Giants, on their second try, can be the first team to reverse this trend, and control the final minutes, I can only tip my hat to them.

 

[Oswlek]

Yet, it could set a team up for the scenario in post #21 or as another poster put it, "game plan to have the ball last".

Other than the Ravens game - when the weather and NE playing in their 3rd straight night game were just as much of factors as Baltimore was - what game did patience give anyone even a final drive shot at NE?

Philly? Nope, they weren't patient at all.

The Jets? Nope. They brought out the option on offense, certainly not a "patient" technique to bring out an offense not used before or after.

NY? This is debatable but their key offensive plays were passing plays, several of them being long in nature. They were also down by 10 points with 4 minutes left.

SD? Sure. But then you just have to hope that Brady is sick because otherwise it wouldn't have been all that close. Even then, NE had a 9 p[oint lead for most of the 4th quarter.

Jax? This is probably the best example, because you have some successful plays offensively and NE made two mistakes that weren't ridiculous that stopped drives. But even then, Jax went with a more aggressive passing offense when they came in with a strong running game and took an early 4th down chance. And Jax wasn't within one score at the end.

Basically, what you are saying is, "be aggressive, but don't make any mistakes while you are doing it".

 

[Watson's IQ]

And the problem with patience is that NE's offense rarely makes unforced errors and NE's defense can stop any one dimensional offense.

Your OP should say, "key to keeping the game close for as long as possible" because that is what patience does.

You're spot on. As I mentioned and others have suggested as well, the Philly game was the example of how the Giants should be playing.

The Eagles were aggressive the entire game (which ended up being their undoing on the final pick, but that was just a dumb throw) and it almost paid off with a win. The Ravens were consistently aggressive to a much lesser extent.

The problem is that teams and coaches have too much pride to admit that they need to take those risks to win. That's why you see quotes like "if we play our game, we know we can beat them." Well, wrong. We've seen your game all year, and that game is not beating the Patriots, sorry. It takes a lot of guts to come out and play with unbridled aggression knowing that a blowout loss is at least as likely an outcome as coming up with an upset.

Of course, we think that the Giants would acknowledge this, but in their minds they really do have the talent to match up in a conventional game, which I think every rational observer realizes they don't. It's easy to say "they shouldn't want to just keep it close, they should try to win", but they really do believe when they say things like "we match up well with them, etc". It's a tall order to ask a team to swallow their pride and play like the underdogs they are. The Eagles were able to do it, and it almost paid off. If I'm Coughlin, that's my game plan.

 

[Oswlek]

You're spot on. As I mentioned and others have suggested as well, the Philly game was the example of how the Giants should be playing.

The Eagles were aggressive the entire game (which ended up being their undoing on the final pick, but that was just a dumb throw) and it almost paid off with a win. The Ravens were consistently aggressive to a much lesser extent.

The problem is that teams and coaches have too much pride to admit that they need to take those risks to win. That's why you see quotes like "if we play our game, we know we can beat them." Well, wrong. We've seen your game all year, and that game is not beating the Patriots, sorry. It takes a lot of guts to come out and play with unbridled aggression knowing that a blowout loss is at least as likely an outcome as coming up with an upset.

Of course, we think that the Giants would acknowledge this, but in their minds they really do have the talent to match up in a conventional game, which I think every rational observer realizes they don't. It's easy to say "they shouldn't want to just keep it close, they should try to win", but they really do believe when they say things like "we match up well with them, etc". It's a tall order to ask a team to swallow their pride and play like the underdogs they are. The Eagles were able to do it, and it almost paid off. If I'm Coughlin, that's my game plan.

I agree with your final point. The comments from the Giants indicate to me that they feel that they can just play their game and beat NE. I worry a lot less about this game if they take that approach because it increases the likelihood that NE's superior talent will eventually be the difference.

 

[richpats]

Basically, what you are saying is, "be aggressive, but don't make any mistakes while you are doing it".

Be "effective" no matter what, that's what it boils down to.

 

[Watson's IQ]

I agree with your final point. The comments from the Giants indicate to me that they feel that they can just play their game and beat NE. I worry a lot less about this game if they take that approach because it increases the likelihood that NE's superior talent will eventually be the difference.

Bingo. I'm far less concerned by hearing confidence/arrogance coming from the Giants than if I heard things like "We're underdogs? Hell yeah we should be underdogs, no one's beat them all year!" I'm not saying guys shouldn't be confident, but there's a certain degree of ego which hurts their cause immensely, and that of course starts with the coaches.

One criticism that I'd level at the Patriots defense is that you can move the chains on them. Call it bend-but-don't-break or whatever you want, but teams who play smart can build drives on them. That's why I was worried very early on in the Eagles game because they were not only moving the chains but seemed to be treating every set of downs as four down territory, and never really relented in that approach. The one thing that makes me nervous is seeing the Pats' D backpedaling, etc.

I find the chances that the Giants come out with a similar gameplan almost nonexistant, which is why my concern for the upset is extremely limited.

 

[Watson's IQ]

Be "effective" no matter what, that's what it boils down to.

Aggressive AND smart, as I said earlier. As I pointed out, two guys in the NFL do that consistently - Brady and Manning (and it's not this one.)

 

[richpats]

Seriously, after watching our close games, the only way I can imagine the Pats losing is the opponent has the ball on the closing minutes while trailing by one score, they tie or take the lead, and leave the Pats with little or no time to get a TD/FG.

I hate being right