Welcome to PatsFans.com

PRESEASON play in REGULAR season games gives NE advantage

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by StPatty, Dec 5, 2006.

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

    StPatty Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2006
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    ALRIGHT; you want positive morale I'll give you positive morale.

    I watch a lot of Patriots play as do most of you. Now, think about when it started to get "sloppy." Think about when the coaching started to seem sort of strange. It was after the Patriots started to really have a good handle on their division. So the point I want to start to get at here is that, as a team virtually certain to win their division, why not treat even regular season games similarly to preseason games?

    Remember how people kinda wondered why the Patriots didn't run very much against Indy? Do you consider it could be because it would give the Patriots a serious advantage next time they face Indianapolis? Now Belichick will be able to analyze what did and didn't work in the passing game. Indianapolis will have little experience handle the NE run game in the playoffs. Keep in mind that the pats aren't a flashy team, they play to win in the postseason. Compare that to the Colts, for example, whose president has a reputation for reciting obscure records his team has set (which no one else noticed or cares about). This is how the Patriots formulate their team and coaching style to win in big games. The Indianapolis game was a big game, but did we need to win? Heck no. Will we need to win next time? Yes.

    I missed the Chicago game, unfortunately, so I won't try to comment on that one. But this last game against the Lions also gave me a feeling that the coaching wasn't making winning their absolute top priority. Ben Watson didn't even seem to be in the game until the 2nd half, where it appeared the Patriots really started to try. I believe that if they'd wanted to destroy the Lions, they could have. They could have dominated them the whole game the way they did in the last 20 minutes. But as strange as it may seem, if you're guaranteed a comfy playoff spot, why not go with a gameplan that helps you work out the imperfections in the offense? Why not throw to Caldwell virtually the whole time? Why not try to make your offense work without much rushing? Then, if you're not winning at the beginning of the 4th quarter, tell Brady, "now the game is yours to win, do whatever it takes."

    I'm not trying to say there weren't times that the Pats didn't play well. Denver and NYJ ring a bell. But the team that played Denver isn't the same one we have now, so forget about that. NYJ was a bad game, period. But vs Indy, there is an advantage to intentionally not playing full strength. Against the Bears and Lions as well. I'm sure they would have liked to win, but only if they didn't need to use their whole bag of tricks to do it. I don't put it past Belichick to try to challenge his team to become better, even if it risks losing a game they don't need to win.

    There are many ways these regular season games have a preseason flavor to them if you ask me, but there's no way we'd ever know the whole story on that. Its all top secret.

    PLEASE COMMENT WHAT YOU THINK!!
  2. RayClay

    RayClay On the Roster

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    18,296
    Likes Received:
    232
    Ratings:
    +588 / 6 / -9

    #75 Jersey

    I think you have a point, but you are exaggerating it to the extent that it is somewhat obscured.

    BB tries to win every game. Let's make that clear at the outset.

    Does he use plays and players that aren't clicking yet so they will progress? Yes.

    Does he pull every trick in the book early in the season? No

    Does he not run the ball against Indy when he knows it will mean victory in favor of a risky passing game?:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

    Sorry, you've dropped off the logical cliff.

    All you need to do is look at the Indy-Denver game.

    Denver was running through them at will, yet could never stay ahead on the scoreboard. BB has been very successful with the Colts and part of that success is scoring a certain amount of points.

    That means passing and our passing game has been inconsistent.

    By the way, you won't see BB intentionally losing exhibition games he could win either, even though they are more for player evaluation
  3. PatsFanSince74

    PatsFanSince74 PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2005
    Messages:
    9,949
    Likes Received:
    47
    Ratings:
    +92 / 1 / -1

    the prior poster (RayClay) has it right. as long as an extra game of home field advantage or a bye is at stake (which might be the case right into week 17), there's no way BB isn't going b*!!s to the wall trying to win every game with every weapon at his disposal. there's no point in holding back if it could mean the difference between an extra game in Foxboro in January or a week off.
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2006
  4. StPatty

    StPatty Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2006
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I agree he wants to win every game. They all want to win and iron out the problems lately. But I felt like he was trying to find places in the Indy secondary that would be exploitable. Against the lions I felt like he was giving the ball to players that wouldn't have gotten it much in a postseason game, to see what they've got and excersize the offense. As you said this is risky, but I believe it needs to be done on this team this year. The risks went wrong that game. But my overall idea is that had it been a playoff game, their gameplan would have been very different.

    I was at the Denver game, and the way I saw it, the point at which that game went wrong was not in the play of the NE defense. They actually played rather well, even though Bell was running through them for awhile. It was the missed FG that should have been a gimme. It was also the complete lack of explosive offense, but they wouldn't have needed it if the FG hadn't failed. That was why they were down by two scores, not one, which made one of the NE corners try to pick off a pass instead of just keeping it from being caught later in the game, that was the huge gain that got the broncos a touchdown. It may not be memorable or shown on TV, but the CB was definitely trying for a pick there since they were down by 10. After that, even though the pats scored, they were out of it. Like I said they're a different team now, that clearly ought to beat the broncos if they face them despite the fact denver has been a thorn in their side so consistently.
  5. BrianPat

    BrianPat Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    Honestly, I think the thing that hurts the Pats more then anything else is turnovers !!! I know they have other issues, but turnovers have been a huge part of their struggles. If they could get through a game without turnovers, I think they'll look amazing on offense !!
    Bengals (1 Int)
    Vikings (1 Fumble Lost and 1 Int )

    Indy (4 Ints, 1 Fumble)
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2006
  6. richpats

    richpats Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2005
    Messages:
    3,499
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    I believe each week Belichick gameplans and prepares his team with the sole focus on WINNING. I've heard BB state that games are won or lost in the planning phase. I firmly believe the Pats came into each and every game this season with a good gameplan. However, the only way a team can be victorious is if the gameplan is executed well on the field. Of course, depending on the strength of the competition the margin of error in execution can be very small.
  7. tkayo

    tkayo Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2004
    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I think the turnover issue is due to playing against much faster and physical defenses than we're used to practicing with (LB's and DB's).
  8. chunkypony

    chunkypony Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2004
    Messages:
    1,113
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I think this is a lot of wishful thinking on the part of the original poster. I wish this was the case; that Belichick could just turn his coaching expertise on when he wants to, but I dont think that is logical.

    First of all, how can our team be expected to get into a groove when they are constantly playing vanilla, treating the game as preseason, etc? I think getting the offense into a rhythm and getting the ever changing defense on the same page is more important than keeping the other teams, such as Indy, off-balance.

    Second of all, the turnovers, as mentioned above, cannot be simply "turned on or off" each game. Turnovers are one of the main factors of us playing sloppy these past two or so weeks. I understand where the original poster was trying to go, it just seems illogical to me at this point in the season.
  9. psychoPat

    psychoPat Role Player PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2006
    Messages:
    1,776
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    RayClay, i agree, seems to come closer to the truth. The initial post is overstated.
    But St.Patty used exaggeration in a good way to bring our attention to a fascinating aspect
    of Coach Belichick.

    While richpats is correct ... and BB never doesn't try to win ...
    ask yourself, Win What?
    Win this present one-game-at-a-time?
    Or win the Lombardi Trophy?

    Where he grew up, at the Naval Academy, strategy means much more than Xs and Os.
    That's why we find Sun Tzu in his library.
    He thinks far ahead. And he thinks devious ... deception ... and misdirection.

    Provided you're not sacrificing your reasonable chance to win this game now,
    it makes perfect longe-range sense
    to game plan with FUTURE GAMES in mind.

    Isn't this exactly the kind of thing that elevates the very best?
  10. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    No I just can't get on board with the original post. This is an idea I've seen elsewhere, but it just doesn't make sense. Why'd they go to the pass against Indy? Well, for one thing, Bob Sanders was walking into the box pretty much every down pre-snap, and was making play after play. Why no Ben Watson in the Detroit game? Well, he's had trouble all year getting open consistantly, especially against a jam. Caldwell was the open guy early, thus, he's the one that got the ball. Its not like the Pats have the east wrapped up already, I mean, if they had lost against Detroit from supposedly not wanting to show too much, the Jets would be exactly ONE game back in the division with 4 easy games coming up. No way they risk losing the AFC east to try to keep their upcoming game plans secret from the rest of the league!
  11. patpatriot

    patpatriot Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Messages:
    807
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    The reason they didn't run better or more often in the Indy game was that the Colts loaded up the box and dared Brady to beat them with his "hand-me-down" receivers. At that point in the season, the Pats weren't capable of making the Colts pay. No more "Conspiracy" analysis please. "It is what it is" as a wise man once said.


    BTW

    In a rematch with the Colts, expect a different result.
  12. MrBigglesWorth

    MrBigglesWorth Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,338
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0


    One thing I wonder is why they don't put Watson in motion more to keep jams off of him and to create havoc in matchups.

    As for the Indy game and Bob Sanders I read one post that Maroney or someone on offense was giving away a "tell". And why didn't they jam the indy receivers on occssion. It worked for Dallas granted they have different personnel and the Pats style is to sit back and keep everything underneath.
  13. SVN

    SVN Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    22,554
    Likes Received:
    28
    Ratings:
    +46 / 0 / -0

    detriot had a 8 pt lead with about 7-8 mins to play. if martz had not just abandoned the run our window wouldve been tighter to come back....we were close to losing this game ..you really think belichick would do anything which can get so hairy towards the end....? if your logic IS correct then i think BB is arrogant and idiotic which i can safely say he is not..

    sometimes we have to accept that we are not playing good instead of just trying to have +ve conspiracy theories just because pats cannot bad for some reason? What about the colts lost to the titans. ? what if i say that dungy is hiding all the blitzes and some hidden run defense scheme which he doesnt want to expose now since everyone thinks their run D is bad.....will you believe that ?
    BB deserves a lot of credit for the pats for all these years but lets not give him too much credit that he compromises a game victory for playing 'preseason' in the regular season.
  14. patpatriot

    patpatriot Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Messages:
    807
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    There is a thread on the Colts message board proposing just such a conspiracy...it's contagious!
  15. SVN

    SVN Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    22,554
    Likes Received:
    28
    Ratings:
    +46 / 0 / -0

    my bad i forgot to post that link...i read it there too first :)

    bottom line ...no one is hiding anything...we are what we are
  16. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    I agree, seems like a good idea to me.

    [/QUOTE]As for the Indy game and Bob Sanders I read one post that Maroney or someone on offense was giving away a "tell". And why didn't they jam the indy receivers on occssion. It worked for Dallas granted they have different personnel and the Pats style is to sit back and keep everything underneath.[/QUOTE]

    They usually play waaaay off the receivers since frankly they'd get burned more often than not trying bump and run, and since the Colts don't adjust to them playing off. How many times in the Indy game this year could Peyton have checked to a quick slant or a curl and picked up an easy 5-10 yards, a la Brady, but didn't (granted the offense didn't have much trouble even though they didn't adjust, but if they're not going to take advantage it makes sense to play off and give your CBs a better chance at covering Harrison/Wayne). I do like the idea of getting physical with them though, since the Pats had success in the past with that. Of course the way the refs called that game Asante Samuel may have been tarred and feathered for bumping Marvin Harrison.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>