PatsCast Episode 20 (with Jay Shields, postgame analysis)

[Ring 6]

You guys are missing the point. We're returning a top five defense from last season and the Jets have the worst offense in the NFL.

Your fasciantion with me is creepy.
I see nothing has changed and accuracy is still irrelevant to you though.
Please live up to your word and ignore my posts.

 

[SuperPatsFan]

Is he a total fraud?

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Re: Coaching

A big reason not to hire well known coordinators is that most of the guys available want to get into head coaching as soon as possible. Most likely they are failed head coaches because who is dumping successful coordinators?

For better or for worse, BB values consistency and bringing in a guy on a resurgency tour isn't exactly the best way to cultivate that. I do wonder about RAC and Charlie. They seemed to be guys who would be content just to fill their old shoes but perhaps they wanted to rebuild somewhere else. We don't know for certain that NE didn't try to nab either of them. And lifers like Monte Kiffin and Scarnechia aren't looking for work all that often.

I agree and disagree with MoLewis. I spent much of last year pointing to 2002 as an example of how a BB/RAC/Charlie coached team could get outcoached repeatedly, then the team improves the DL and secondary and suddenly the coaches are geniuses against in 2003. The obvious issues with TE and WR personnel last year were also easy whipping boys.

But this year's offense suffers from no such problems. The receivers are better and deeper, the TEs are dramatically improved and the OL pass blocked wonderfully. Yet NE still couldn't mount anything in the 2nd half after moving at will in the first.

I'm ever the optimist, so I'm willing to give BoB a couple more weeks to get acclimated to his new toys. But the trend isn't exactly promising.

Re: Coaching

The only reason not to hire well known coaches is they became well known running another (theirs or someone elses) scheme and system. I don't know why people struggle so with the reality that we run Bill's system and scheme here (and it's longstanding success is the reason coaching and FO personnel get poached here - other people want the enitre system installed in their organization) and we don't have any desire to install someone elses...

Could Charlie and RAC have come back here and run Bill's system again? Yeah. There are likely two reasons that didn't happen. First off, they get more credit for bringing it into KC and making it work with an entirely new cast of characters than they do returning to coordinate it under Bill where while the talent has evolved in many instances it has been maintained in their absence to the tune of a still (within reason) enviable record. Secondly, they had hit their personal development ceiling here and their continued presence concerned Bill even at the time because he knew they yearned for more and people who do often lose focus and creativity under the weight of disappointment while they simultaneously cause you to lose the next generation of bright, young talent you are developing who has no where to go within the organization.

In KC Pioli could offer them something Bill could not. A challenge. And the chance to work with a young HC each of them was familiar with because he got his start in the system although his success was achieved elsewhere who could yet prove to be the weak link in the chain Pioli is looking to assemble thereby opening up the potential for one of them to yet step in as a HC...which was never going to happen here.

People here keep longing for Bill to bring in some failed name coordinator or HC to fix what ails this team. Isn't going to happen. He has brought outsiders in from time to time and they had little or no effect or effectiveness and left in short order. Pees was even a stretch but like Josh he arrived here via association with Saban who came up under Bill.

Charlie started out following a HS HC'ing stint as a personnel and then ST assistant under Bill with the Giants. RAC started out as a defensive assistant on the Giants under Bill after Parcells kinda hung him out to dry on his shortlived college staff at Texas and then rescued him once he committed to coaching for the Giants for real... All three worked for Parcells (although Belichick preceeded him by a couple of seasons with the Giants). Parcells only ever had any real use for one of them. He routinely berated Weis in staff meetings, and while he eventually promoted him to OC (though not here but after moving to the JETS) he stripped his playcalling duties more than once... He never gave RAC a shot at coordinating even when he lost Belichick as an option including when Parcells came here...RAC had to take the DC job in cleveland to get his shot, something he did shortly before Bill was promoted to and resigned as HC of the NYJ to come to NE. Bill held the job as his DC for a year so RAC could fill that role here. Belichick valued RAC and Charlie and saw something in them that Parcell's never did and rewarded it. Both achieved success working for him, both failed miserably in his absence. If they succeed again in another situation, even running essentially the same system and schemes that were run here, they at least succeed in that respect (winning apart from Bill) and having accomplished that they would again have value as potential HC's whether they choose to persue that job again or not.

What Bill has that is part and parcel of what Kraft bought into in the courage of his convictions where his system is concerned. That is what owners in NY, Cleveland, Atlanta, KC and Denver are attempting to buy into when they sign guys Bill instilled the system in like Pioli and Mangini and McDaniels and Dimetroff. It's not just on the field scheme, it's an organizational philosophy based on accountability and discipline and achieving long term sustianable goals.

 

[jays52]

Ha ha.
I'm not tense. I just think you should come clean. There is a perception on this board that you are some sort of Patriots insider. Brady FTW has pretty consistently dodged the issue as if to imply you are an insider and he doesnt want to blow your cover.
The problem with that is when you make claims like you did, speaking as if you are in the room with him, its wrong.
I have absolutely no problem with you giving your opinion, they are probably very intelligent. But why would you state your opinions as if they are coming from a personal knowledge of the inner workings of the coaching staff and an intimate knowledge of Bill OBriens psyche, personality, training, and intellect?

The first time I heard a podcast from you, I asked what your background was. BradyFTW responded with something like "Trust me, its vast" but you dont need to know, so like it or not. When I found a post of yours saying what your background was, and restated it, Brady FTW acted like I was being a dlck. Like it or not, you are being portrayed as an expert. The basis of your opinions is valid in assessing the content. You made many claims about OBrien that are very insightful if you are involved in observing him do his job, and total speculation if you are not. Is it too much to ask which it is? And if its speculation, I think you should limit your analysis to the field and not try to judge the guys intelligence, ability to grasp football, confidence, training, and what he needs to be sat down and told when you have no real knowledge of any of those issues. Is that unfair?

I think that is completely reasonable and fair, no question. I don't know Bill O'Brien from a hole in the wall, and have no knowledge on the inner workings of the Patriots whatsoever. If I did I sure as hell wouldn't be posting on the internet. I was simply calling things as I saw them, my speculative opinion. I like to think that I'm pretty knowledgable about the game, and have a handle on gameplanning, adjustments, personell strategy, and a lot of the finer points of the chess match that are often times missed. If the podcasts I do can offer some degree of insight to some people then that makes me happy. If it's not a good fit for others, then I understand that completely.

I said the things I did about O'Brien not as a character assasination, nor as a personal attack. When someone says "That linebacker is really hurting the team in the run game because he lacks the strength to disengage" it is regarded as a non-offensive statement. If I say "That coordinator is really hurting the team because he lacks the creativity to put his players in the best position possible" people get upset. I'm simply evaluating tallent just as you would a player. I know what creative gameplanning looks like, I understand cause and effect and the flow of a football game. What he displayed out there was quite clearly a lack of creativity and he got his butt whooped by Rex and their DC mentally.

When I say things like "The initial gameplan was great" and attribute it to Belichick, I am speaking in football generality. 99% of teams have the large picture gameplans drawn up by the headcoaches with specific coaching points included. It is on the OC/DC to draw up plays and handle the in-game adjustments. There is no way that BoB couldn't have known exactly how the Jets were going to counter the initial delegation; it's simple stuff, really. It is quite clear to me that when things got difficult he reverted to the line up and chuck predictible stuff. Sure, there were a lot of execution errors out there, specifically with Brady locking into Moss, but the one thing that the coaches can always control is putting their players into the best positions possible. He didn't do that. He hasn't done that for a long time. He doesn't understand how to counter a counter, and it is quite evident if you know how to watch a game for the coaching.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I guess you could summarize this thread by stating challenging the competence of HOF HC's and their staff based on assumptions that aren't grounded in fact constitutes fair game whereas challenging the competence of message board members who produce podcasts claiming expertise in the opinion of other message board posters who are unwilling to back up (or debunk) claims made if not by then at least about them is not fair game...

Amatuer attempts to break down broadcast game tape are problematic at best because they aren't coaches tapes and you don't see the whole field and you don't know the opponent unique assignments or calls or responsibilities within a scheme which can change from opponent to opponent based on strengths, weaknesses and injury or personnel availablity. Seeing coaches tape often changes analysts perceptions after the fact, and that is even absent specific knowledge of the call or adjustments. It's pretty easy to identify a missed block, not always clear what might have contributed to it (like the guy next to you failing to do what he was supposed to do...). You can't fully analyze any tape unless you know for a fact what each player was supposed to do in any given case. Then you can establish if they did or didn't do it and if that resulted in the play working or not working or if in fact the play call itself was in error.

We've all watched football for years. Some of us have played it at one level or another. A few have even coached it at one level or another. That may give some of us more insight on one level, but then again it may not or at least on other levels. No one on this board that I know of claims to have ever played for or coached within this system, although there are many who have who still can't analyze it on the whole effectively. Aside from Saban defensively it hasn't been run much in college. Complex offensive and defensive schemes can't be run much successully in college because of lack of talent and turnover at that level. Just ask Charlie.

 

[Deus Irae]

LG - this is a "problem area" you've been preaching that hasn't actually materialized on the field. If you want to give Dan poor grades for run blocking, so be it. But his pass blocking in both games has been a plus performance for any player.

Connolly gets help, and he struggled against the Jets. If you don't see that, there's really nothing more to say on this issue. I can tell you that one of the media analysts noted the guy's struggles, but I can't recall which one it was. If I remember, I'll post the link.

Tate - I'll grant you that he hasn't proven much, but he seems to make plays whenever he gets the ball in his hands. Too soon to know whether he isn't targetted because he can't get open or because the team isn't utilizing him enough, but I'll give you this one.

5 catches
53 yards
10.6 YPC
20 yard long

I know you said you were giving me this one, but I looked up his numbers to make sure I wasn't out of line here. So far, he's an improvement over Aiken, but not all that much of one. He needs to step up his game significantly, because he needs to become a viable middle/deep threat. Take away that 20 yard catch and he's got 4 catches for 33 yards, which is just over an 8 ypc. That's just not going to cut it.

TE - Inexperience might be an issues, but Hernandez was probably the best receiving option on the field Sunday. And both Gronk/Alge are better blockers than anyone NE has lined up since 2007. No matter how you look at it, this group is a significant upgrade over the 2009 unit.

Hernandez also blew an easy block, which led to Welker getting dropped 2 yards behind the line on a pass.

Your expectations are amazingly high. Apparently only units like the 2009 Saints have enough talent to be successful in the 2nd halves of road games.

That argument eliminates the "adjustment" claim since it's only a claim regarding the road games, and it ignores the fact that I'm not one who's bagging on the team over one loss and saying that it can't win on the road. The team was 8-0 at home, and 2-6 on the road. There's a problem, alright, but it's not the failure of the coordinators to make adjustments after halftime.

 

[BradyManny]

No one on this board that I know of claims to have ever played for or coached within this system, although there are many who have who still can't analyze it on the whole effectively.

Again, I have no real disagreements. But to this specific point, both Troy Brown and Tedy Bruschi - who have played in this system - specifically called out the coaching staff's ability to counter the Jets adjustments. They also said the players did not execute well. I think they can be trusted, and if they have the ability to spread the blame, there is no reason why we can't accept that.

 

[Oswlek]

I guess you could summarize this thread by stating challenging the competence of HOF HC's and their staff based on assumptions that aren't grounded in fact constitutes fair game.

You just posted a long note about BB and how he cultivates coordinators. Why is it so outlandish to think that the guy BB hoped would take over wasn't quite ready and has needed seasoning? I'm not saying he is a waste. I'm not disagreeing with anyone that the offense was limited last year. I'm just making a mental note that it seems like a lot of the problem areas were improved but the issues have persisted. I'm patient enough to realize that it might not be a continuation of an old trend, but as a math/logic guy it is hard for me to just ignore the similarities between this year and last.

If the away issues continue, then it must be caused by something that was there for both seasons.

 

[Oswlek]

Connolly gets help, and he struggled against the Jets. If you don't see that, there's really nothing more to say on this issue. I can tell you that one of the media analysts noted the guy's struggles, but I can't recall which one it was. If I remember, I'll post the link.

5 catches
53 yards
10.6 YPC
20 yard long

I know you said you were giving me this one, but I looked up his numbers to make sure I wasn't out of line here. So far, he's an improvement over Aiken, but not all that much of one. He needs to step up his game significantly, because he needs to become a viable middle/deep threat. Take away that 20 yard catch and he's got 4 catches for 33 yards, which is just over an 8 ypc. That's just not going to cut it.

Hernandez also blew an easy block, which led to Welker getting dropped 2 yards behind the line on a pass.

That argument eliminates the "adjustment" claim since it's only a claim regarding the road games, and it ignores the fact that I'm not one who's bagging on the team over one loss and saying that it can't win on the road. The team was 8-0 at home, and 2-6 on the road. There's a problem, alright, but it's not the failure of the coordinators to make adjustments after halftime.

1. His biggest struggles were in the run game. My concerns have more to do with NE's approach to the passing game.

2. Removing one from a five catch sample isn't exactly fair. I'd imagine that you'd see a 2.5 ypc drop in every receiver in the league if you removed their best 20%. In any case, the numbers aren't exactly impressive as they stand so I'm not really contesting you here.

3. I saw that missed block. Not pretty, but that kind of stuff happens all the time even ignoring experience. It isn't like the guys they had last year were certain to get there. No matter how you slice it, the TEs are much improved.

4. Not at all. I'm perfectly willing to give execution its fair share of blame. I've said all along how I defended BoB last year due to the flawed roster. But poking holes in each player doesn't in any way change the fact that the offensive talent on this roster is equal to or better than all but a handful of teams. Those same holes can be poked into every other roster. But I don't see any of those other offenses falling apart in the 2nd half of road games.

This could be a completely new issue that appears similar to last year's struggles. Time will tell. But I don't see why it is so wrong for fans to voice what both the Jets and formers Pats like Bru and Troy have. :confused2:

 

[Kontradiction]

Look, I listened to the podcast and while I agreed with some of it, I found a few things that I was able to disagree with. Personally, I think there are times when you can question the wisdom of the coordinators. Not using Gronkowski more as a pass catcher when he's such a match-up nightmare for the Jets (particularly their safeties) is one of them. However, to throw all of the blame for the loss on O'Brien just doesn't make sense to me when you look at the team and see all of the mistakes that were made that were clearly on the personnel. Brady making three horrible throws in particular either ended drives or significantly helped to end them in the second half. That is execution related and shouldn't be blamed on O'Brien. Neither, I think, should the switch to zone blocking. By the Jets own admission, they switched to a less aggressive system in the second half. Take that and compound it with the issues in our interior blocking (pointed out by both Rodak and various posters on this forum), which pretty much destroyed our running game in the first half, on top of the fact that our offensive line is best suited for zone blocking, and the switch doesn't look like such a horrible move after all. We had to shake things up or hang our hats on passing 50+ times in the game, which surely would have resulted in a loss worse than the 28-14 one we saw on Sunday.

Look, if we had called for the coordinators' heads every time a bad loss happened, Crennel and Weis would have been let go before the 2001 season. McDaniels would have been issued his walking papers after 2005. For anybody that honestly believes that the coordinators are chiefly to blame for Sunday's loss, I urge you to take a look back to last year. In 2009, there were a TON of people here who wanted to see Dean Pees gone. Those people blamed the defensive issues on him and not on the personnel. Fast forward to this season. Dean Pees is allowed to go. Now I ask you this: Did the defense on Sunday look any different than the one from 2009 did? Did the same issues in the defense not rear their ugly heads once again, even with (arguably) the best DC in the game in charge? I'll save you the time and answer for you: the defense from 2009 to 2010 looked exactly the same with an upgrade to the DC position. The reason for that is personnel and execution related. The same goes for the offense. If the execution doesn't improve, there's not much that O'Brien is going to be able to do to coach around it.

 

[BradyFTW!]

You just posted a long note about BB and how he cultivates coordinators. Why is it so outlandish to think that the guy BB hoped would take over wasn't quite ready and has needed seasoning? I'm not saying he is a waste. I'm not disagreeing with anyone that the offense was limited last year. I'm just making a mental note that it seems like a lot of the problem areas were improved but the issues have persisted. I'm patient enough to realize that it might not be a continuation of an old trend, but as a math/logic guy it is hard for me to just ignore the similarities between this year and last.

If the away issues continue, then it must be caused by something that was there for both seasons.

To some in this community, it's out of line to question the performance of anyone within the Patriots organization, because Belichick knows better than we do, and by allowing those people to keep their job, he is tacitly endorsing each and every aspect of their performance on an ongoing basis. It's strange that these same posters are then 100% comfortable holding the players to an entirely different standard (AD was a starting linebacker here for 3 years; is anyone going to claim that he was without fault? Chris Hansen kept a starting job for the Pats for years despite being one of the worst punters in the NFL), but oh well.

Most posters don't suffer from this gross bias; it's just a couple of incredibly obstinate posters that are guilty of it, so I've pretty much written them off altogether. Regardless of what they claim, it's not character assassination to question the season-long performance of a playcaller, much like it isn't character assassination to question Mike Wright's ability to hold up against the run. It's a simple observation of aptitude, and even if we don't know the specific assignments on a play-to-play basis, trends still make themselves quite evident. And also contrary to their claims, Jay and I both welcome disagreement. Disagreement between objective and observant participants who are both open to the possibility of being wrong is how people learn. Dialectical reasoning is great for everyone involved, and once again, none of us ever claimed to be against it or above it.

To take MoLewis, for example: you are perfectly comfortable with your ability to divine the motivations of people like Belichick, Crennel, Weis, Seymour, Brady, Moss, etc. etc. You do it all the time, and I take it as an interesting read that may or may not be valid. It's based, naturally, in your preconceptions, which I take with a grain of salt (and I expect listeners of my podcast to do the same, because why wouldn't they?), but that said I simply take it for what it's worth, enjoy it for that, and move on. If listeners decide that I'm starting from a flawed premise and therefore intrinsically lack merit (as I've mostly decided is the case with your posts), then so be it. They're well within their right to do that, and I don't even blame them. It's totally fine.

As for Andy... well, let's just put it this way: I do not work for the Patriots, and never have. Jay does not work for the Patriots, and never has. Same for Stephen and Andrew, and all of the guests that we've had on the podcast. Despite Andy's assertions, at no point have any of us claimed otherwise.

The claim that I made that Andy is referencing is when he said that Jay has no idea how a professional organization would construct a gameplan, and I disagreed. He took that as a claim that Jay works for the Patriots, for whatever reason, in much the same way that he takes questioning playcalling as character assassination against Bill O'Brien. It's so far removed from the reality of the situation that I'm not even quite sure how to satisfactorily address him. He's asking me to recant statements that I never made, and when I say that I never made them he accuses me of being vague and elusive.

I'll tell you what, Andy: tell me what you want me to say, and if it gets you to finally shut up and stop derailing my threads, I'll say it. I don't know what you're looking for, and I sincerely don't care; I just want you to stop trying to ruin other people's attempts to create interesting content.

 

[Deus Irae]

1. His biggest struggles were in the run game. My concerns have more to do with NE's approach to the passing game.

He's worse against the pass than the run. That's why he's getting help.

2. Removing one from a five catch sample isn't exactly fair. I'd imagine that you'd see a 2.5 ypc drop in every receiver in the league if you removed their best 20%. In any case, the numbers aren't exactly impressive as they stand so I'm not really contesting you here.

You'd already 'given it' to me. I was just noting it after a double check. The Patriots really need more out of that WR3 spot. If they don't get it, teams will be able to keep rolling coverage over to Moss while doubling Welker.

3. I saw that missed block. Not pretty, but that kind of stuff happens all the time even ignoring experience. It isn't like the guys they had last year were certain to get there. No matter how you slice it, the TEs are much improved.

1.) It depends on how you're looking at it. Ben Watson would still be the best TE on the team as of this moment. After that, it would be the 3 guys from this year. The 'rankings' may well change during the course of the season, but that's how it is now.

2.) Talent is not everything. Experience matters a lot, and that missed block is an excellent example. And, no, that doesn't happen all the time with experienced tight ends.

4. Not at all. I'm perfectly willing to give execution its fair share of blame. I've said all along how I defended BoB last year due to the flawed roster. But poking holes in each player doesn't in any way change the fact that the offensive talent on this roster is equal to or better than all but a handful of teams. Those same holes can be poked into every other roster. But I don't see any of those other offenses falling apart in the 2nd half of road games.

Again, the fact that you have to point out that it's road games only should be sending warning flares up all over the place. In order for the "It's a trend" theorists to be accurate, they have to ignore 2006, they have to ignore the difference between home and away, and they have to ignore such obvious things as "eventually, you can shut down anyone if you send enough resources to do the job".

This could be a completely new issue that appears similar to last year's struggles. Time will tell. But I don't see why it is so wrong for fans to voice what both the Jets and formers Pats like Bru and Troy have. :confused2:

Bruschi told us that Guyton was starting caliber.

Troy told us that Brady would sign before preseason games and that Maroney would be cut.

Let's stop pretending that these guys know more about the 2010 Patriots than Brady, Belichick and Wilfork, who all actually played/coached the game against the Jets, and who all said that the problem was execution.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

You just posted a long note about BB and how he cultivates coordinators. Why is it so outlandish to think that the guy BB hoped would take over wasn't quite ready and has needed seasoning? I'm not saying he is a waste. I'm not disagreeing with anyone that the offense was limited last year. I'm just making a mental note that it seems like a lot of the problem areas were improved but the issues have persisted. I'm patient enough to realize that it might not be a continuation of an old trend, but as a math/logic guy it is hard for me to just ignore the similarities between this year and last.

If the away issues continue, then it must be caused by something that was there for both seasons.

Much as they love and respect Bill and apprecaite all he did for them, like most players Rodney and Tedy and Troy still bristle at the concept of scheme trumping talent, unless of course it's in losses... If scheme needs talent to win, ergo talent must be lacking scheme when it loses. They all resoundingly lambased Bill for 4th and 2, but they did so based on how that would have made them feel. Trouble is they weren't there and Bill realized that and he also realized that his best shot was with the offense and Brady. Just like Payton realized last February if he trusted his defense to stop Manning the game was probably over whereas if he was bold and managed to get his offense another possession he just might have a shot at winning.

You can know all about something and still not be capable of being objective in it's analysis. In 42 Bill put that team in position to win and put that defense with Tedy and Rodney and Samuel and Vrabel and Seymour, etc. in position to seal the deal on defense and they could not make a play in under 3 minutes for less than 80 yards. They were in position to throughout that drive and players simply failed to execute REPEATEDLY.

 

[emoney_33]

I guess you could summarize this thread by stating challenging the competence of HOF HC's and their staff based on assumptions that aren't grounded in fact constitutes fair game whereas challenging the competence of message board members who produce podcasts claiming expertise in the opinion of other message board posters who are unwilling to back up (or debunk) claims made if not by then at least about them is not fair game...

No no, challenging the competence, work ethic and desire of a HOF WR is the only thing that is fair game . Mo, if BB is a HOF HC and you trust his decision making, how do you vehemently defend and absolve BoB, a guy whom BB decided was not worthy of OC title after his first year trial.

Amatuer attempts to break down broadcast game tape are problematic at best because they aren't coaches tapes and you don't see the whole field and you don't know the opponent unique assignments or calls or responsibilities within a scheme which can change from opponent to opponent based on strengths, weaknesses and injury or personnel availablity. Seeing coaches tape often changes analysts perceptions after the fact, and that is even absent specific knowledge of the call or adjustments. It's pretty easy to identify a missed block, not always clear what might have contributed to it (like the guy next to you failing to do what he was supposed to do...). You can't fully analyze any tape unless you know for a fact what each player was supposed to do in any given case. Then you can establish if they did or didn't do it and if that resulted in the play working or not working or if in fact the play call itself was in error.

Yet you can determine a HOF WR's effort level and assignment based on the TV feed... Not to mention, why do you frequent a message board if you believe that NOTHING can be analyzed properly so we shouldn't even bother.

We've all watched football for years. Some of us have played it at one level or another. A few have even coached it at one level or another. That may give some of us more insight on one level, but then again it may not or at least on other levels. No one on this board that I know of claims to have ever played for or coached within this system, although there are many who have who still can't analyze it on the whole effectively. Aside from Saban defensively it hasn't been run much in college. Complex offensive and defensive schemes can't be run much successully in college because of lack of talent and turnover at that level. Just ask Charlie.

So your entire premise is that if you aren't in the NFL you shouldn't talk about the NFL? I don't get it, what should we do on this messageboard then? Talk about the greenness of the grass?

 

[BradyFTW!]

Look, I listened to the podcast and while I agreed with some of it, I found a few things that I was able to disagree with. Personally, I think there are times when you can question the wisdom of the coordinators. Not using Gronkowski more as a pass catcher when he's such a match-up nightmare for the Jets (particularly their safeties) is one of them. However, to throw all of the blame for the loss on O'Brien just doesn't make sense to me when you look at the team and see all of the mistakes that were made that were clearly on the personnel. Brady making three horrible throws in particular either ended drives or significantly helped to end them in the second half. That is execution related and shouldn't be blamed on O'Brien. Neither, I think, should the switch to zone blocking. By the Jets own admission, they switched to a less aggressive system in the second half. Take that and compound it with the issues in our interior blocking (pointed out by both Rodak and various posters on this forum), which pretty much destroyed our running game in the first half, on top of the fact that our offensive line is best suited for zone blocking, and the switch doesn't look like such a horrible move after all. We had to shake things up or hang our hats on passing 50+ times in the game, which surely would have resulted in a loss worse than the 28-14 one we saw on Sunday.

Look, if we had called for the coordinators' heads every time a bad loss happened, Crennel and Weis would have been let go before the 2001 season. McDaniels would have been issued his walking papers after 2005. For anybody that honestly believes that the coordinators are chiefly to blame for Sunday's loss, I urge you to take a look back to last year. In 2009, there were a TON of people here who wanted to see Dean Pees gone. Those people blamed the defensive issues on him and not on the personnel. Fast forward to this season. Dean Pees is allowed to go. Now I ask you this: Did the defense on Sunday look any different than the one from 2009 did? Did the same issues in the defense not rear their ugly heads once again, even with (arguably) the best DC in the game in charge? I'll save you the time and answer for you: the defense from 2009 to 2010 looked exactly the same with an upgrade to the DC position. The reason for that is personnel and execution related. The same goes for the offense. If the execution doesn't improve, there's not much that O'Brien is going to be able to do to coach around it.

I think that's a fair and well-reasoned analysis, and since there seems to be a persistent perception that we're placing this loss 100% on O'Brien, then I'm going to chalk that up to poor editing on my part and apologize for it. The intent here was not to say that this loss was 100% on the coaches, and we should have led with more clarification to this effect, considering that after briefly mentioning it we then proceeded to basically call out BoB for 45 minutes. The execution was pretty bad; of course we agree with that. The players had plenty of their own failings that contributed to this loss. The difference, of course, is that whereas Brady made mistakes, I'm not worried about his ability to execute because he's proven, many times over, that he can. The most concise way that we don't regard the offensive personnel's ability to execute as a primary concern. The roster is stacked with players who have a proven ability to perform at an extremely high level.

When they consistently fail to perform in key situations, one has to begin questioning why. If the players are continually failing to perform the tasks that have been assigned to them, then they're either a) not talented enough to play in the NFL, or b) are not being properly utilized. My argument, and the argument that we made in this podcast, was simply that B is the strongest contributing factor, and the one that's most sobering re: the season-long prospects of this team. We welcome disagreement. But characterizing us as calling for the coordinators' head after one loss isn't exactly fair, either. If you go back to our offseason podcasts with Jay, these same questions came up then. The whole reason why I'm finally subscribing to them now, rather than a year ago, is because I wasn't willing to make knee-jerk reactions, and I wanted to see what he could do with a full offseason at his disposal. So far, the results aren't promising.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Much as they love and respect Bill and apprecaite all he did for them, like most players Rodney and Tedy and Troy still bristle at the concept of scheme trumping talent, unless of course it's in losses... If scheme needs talent to win, ergo talent must be lacking scheme when it loses. They all resoundingly lambased Bill for 4th and 2, but they did so based on how that would have made them feel. Trouble is they weren't there and Bill realized that and he also realized that his best shot was with the offense and Brady. Just like Payton realized last February if he trusted his defense to stop Manning the game was probably over whereas if he was bold and managed to get his offense another possession he just might have a shot at winning.

You can know all about something and still not be capable of being objective in it's analysis. In 42 Bill put that team in position to win and put that defense with Tedy and Rodney and Samuel and Vrabel and Seymour, etc. in position to seal the deal on defense and they could not make a play in under 3 minutes for less than 80 yards. They were in position to throughout that drive and players simply failed to execute REPEATEDLY.

So you're perfectly able to discern the motivations and aptitude of Harrison, Bruschi, Brown, and Belichick based on... well, nothing, really, but attempts to do even half as much for Bill O'Brien based on actual playcalling are totally out of line? I'm not sure what cognitive bias it is that you're suffering from, but the hypocrisy of your arguments is pretty remarkable.

 

[Deus Irae]

I think that's a fair and well-reasoned analysis, and since there seems to be a persistent perception that we're placing this loss 100% on O'Brien, then I'm going to chalk that up to poor editing on my part and apologize for it. The intent here was not to say that this loss was 100% on the coaches, and we should have led with more clarification to this effect, considering that after briefly mentioning it we then proceeded to basically call out BoB for 45 minutes. The execution was pretty bad; of course we agree with that. The players had plenty of their own failings that contributed to this loss. The difference, of course, is that whereas Brady made mistakes, I'm not worried about his ability to execute because he's proven, many times over, that he can. The most concise way that we don't regard the offensive personnel's ability to execute as a primary concern. The roster is stacked with players who have a proven ability to perform at an extremely high level.

When they consistently fail to perform in key situations, one has to begin questioning why. If the players are continually failing to perform the tasks that have been assigned to them, then they're either a) not talented enough to play in the NFL, or b) are not being properly utilized. My argument, and the argument that we made in this podcast, was simply that B is the strongest contributing factor, and the one that's most sobering re: the season-long prospects of this team. We welcome disagreement. But characterizing us as calling for the coordinators' head after one loss isn't exactly fair, either. If you go back to our offseason podcasts with Jay, these same questions came up then. The whole reason why I'm finally subscribing to them now, rather than a year ago, is because I wasn't willing to make knee-jerk reactions, and I wanted to see what he could do with a full offseason at his disposal. So far, the results aren't promising.

1.) The playcalling was fine. It's been shown many times, from many angles. Nonetheless, the arguments are still going, on multiple threads. In order to blame the playcalling, the complainers have to ignore or dismiss Brady, Wilfork, Belichick, Rodak, the game footage and the play-by-play.

2.) Some of us have noted the talent/experience issue. It's largely been ignored and/or derided, particularly with regards to the offense.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

No no, challenging the competence, work ethic and desire of a HOF WR is the only thing that is fair game . Mo, if BB is a HOF HC and you trust his decision making, how do you vehemently defend and absolve BoB, a guy whom BB decided was not worthy of OC title after his first year trial.



Yet you can determine a HOF WR's effort level and assignment based on the TV feed... Not to mention, why do you frequent a message board if you believe that NOTHING can be analyzed properly so we shouldn't even bother.



So your entire premise is that if you aren't in the NFL you shouldn't talk about the NFL? I don't get it, what should we do on this messageboard then? Talk about the greenness of the grass?

Bill's review of game tape may come to a different conclusion than I do about who was at fault in Moss' 20% completion performance Sunday. What I'm basing my opinion on is what Bill said Monday after dissecting that tape (Brady was making his reads and his decisions were not fixation they were the result of normal progression), what Moss said immediately post game (one long miss/INT was a miscommunication (which means either he or Brady didn't undstand what was supposed to happen) and the other was just a great play by the defender - he didn't mention the bobble but that wasn't really open to interpretation since the ball landed in his mitts and had he not bobbled it it would have resulted in another TD). If a WR is in position to make a play on the ball, he's expected to catch it or make damn sure no one else does. Moss was one on one on those plays and he got beat... They were not poor throws, whether they were poor decisions is increasingly debatable. Again, you need the coaches tape and a firm understanding of the play call, which none of us has, to determine if that was precisely the case.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

To some in this community, it's out of line to question the performance of anyone within the Patriots organization, because Belichick knows better than we do, and by allowing those people to keep their job, he is tacitly endorsing each and every aspect of their performance on an ongoing basis. It's strange that these same posters are then 100% comfortable holding the players to an entirely different standard (AD was a starting linebacker here for 3 years; is anyone going to claim that he was without fault? Chris Hansen kept a starting job for the Pats for years despite being one of the worst punters in the NFL), but oh well.

Most posters don't suffer from this gross bias; it's just a couple of incredibly obstinate posters that are guilty of it, so I've pretty much written them off altogether. Regardless of what they claim, it's not character assassination to question the season-long performance of a playcaller, much like it isn't character assassination to question Mike Wright's ability to hold up against the run. It's a simple observation of aptitude, and even if we don't know the specific assignments on a play-to-play basis, trends still make themselves quite evident. And also contrary to their claims, Jay and I both welcome disagreement. Disagreement between objective and observant participants who are both open to the possibility of being wrong is how people learn. Dialectical reasoning is great for everyone involved, and once again, none of us ever claimed to be against it or above it.

To take MoLewis, for example: you are perfectly comfortable with your ability to divine the motivations of people like Belichick, Crennel, Weis, Seymour, Brady, Moss, etc. etc. You do it all the time, and I take it as an interesting read that may or may not be valid. It's based, naturally, in your preconceptions, which I take with a grain of salt (and I expect listeners of my podcast to do the same, because why wouldn't they?), but that said I simply take it for what it's worth, enjoy it for that, and move on. If listeners decide that I'm starting from a flawed premise and therefore intrinsically lack merit (as I've mostly decided is the case with your posts), then so be it. They're well within their right to do that, and I don't even blame them. It's totally fine.

As for Andy... well, let's just put it this way: I do not work for the Patriots, and never have. Jay does not work for the Patriots, and never has. Same for Stephen and Andrew, and all of the guests that we've had on the podcast. Despite Andy's assertions, at no point have any of us claimed otherwise.

The claim that I made that Andy is referencing is when he said that Jay has no idea how a professional organization would construct a gameplan, and I disagreed. He took that as a claim that Jay works for the Patriots, for whatever reason, in much the same way that he takes questioning playcalling as character assassination against Bill O'Brien. It's so far removed from the reality of the situation that I'm not even quite sure how to satisfactorily address him. He's asking me to recant statements that I never made, and when I say that I never made them he accuses me of being vague and elusive.

I'll tell you what, Andy: tell me what you want me to say, and if it gets you to finally shut up and stop derailing my threads, I'll say it. I don't know what you're looking for, and I sincerely don't care; I just want you to stop trying to ruin other people's attempts to create interesting content.

The difference between you and some of your podcast mates and me is I've spent my fandom here trying to understand how and why they do what they do as opposed to telling everyone what they are doing wrong and why and what they should to to fix it. I'm a humble observer, not a wannabe critic. I've questioned what they do many times, their approach isn't always one I'd be first to select. But i have found more often than not there is a reason they do what they do how they do it, and a method even in their at times apparent madness. And at the end of the day even when they frustrate the bejesus out of me I have the sense to remind myself that collectively they (and in particular Bill) have forgotten more about the business and scheme of running a wildly successful NFL franchise on and off the field than anyone on this message board, including myself, or any mediot even if he played or coached the game will ever know.

 

[Oswlek]

He's worse against the pass than the run. That's why he's getting help.

You'd already 'given it' to me. I was just noting it after a double check. The Patriots really need more out of that WR3 spot. If they don't get it, teams will be able to keep rolling coverage over to Moss while doubling Welker.

1.) It depends on how you're looking at it. Ben Watson would still be the best TE on the team as of this moment. After that, it would be the 3 guys from this year. The 'rankings' may well change during the course of the season, but that's how it is now.

2.) Talent is not everything. Experience matters a lot, and that missed block is an excellent example. And, no, that doesn't happen all the time with experienced tight ends.

Again, the fact that you have to point out that it's road games only should be sending warning flares up all over the place. In order for the "It's a trend" theorists to be accurate, they have to ignore 2006, they have to ignore the difference between home and away, and they have to ignore such obvious things as "eventually, you can shut down anyone if you send enough resources to do the job".

Bruschi told us that Guyton was starting caliber.

Troy told us that Brady would sign before preseason games and that Maroney would be cut.

Let's stop pretending that these guys know more about the 2010 Patriots than Brady, Belichick and Wilfork, who all actually played/coached the game against the Jets, and who all said that the problem was execution.

1) That doesn't jibe with what my eyes have seen. And even so, I'd have to see how he was helped because it still doesn't change my issues with the routes being run. We'll just have to disagree on this one.

2) Re: TEs. Ben Watson would not be the best TE on the team right now. I've seen him miss that same block (or others, like blown whams) every game he's ever played in, despite plenty of experience. We can always find a play or two that someone screwed up.

3) The road/home has already been addressed, somewhat. It is easily to both communicate and audible at home. On top of that, it is more likely that execution will make up for playcalling issues at home than on the road. Even "bad" playcalls can have success. I can't see any reason why 2006 has any impact whatsoever when that was OC'd by someone completely different. 2009 to present is all the relevent data.

4) I've disagree with Bruschi and Brown plenty, so I understand your point here. What do you say about the Jet players? You'd think they would be more than happy to say they out-toughed 'em or they out-physicaled 'em or they simply outplayed 'em. But they said they outsmarted them.