Price: Patriots super shortcoming was easy to spot Sunday

[upstater1]

Pitta can also catch those balls, as can their other big TE.

My point is you need a team with depth, and for all the next man up mentality of this team it has none of it at crucial positions.

Pitta is a role player. The Patriots, in case you've forgotten, have Welker, Hernandez and Lloyd. They are at least as productive as the secondary guys on Baltimore. I'm making a point about players who cannot be stopped. With Gronk in there, Welker becomes such a player. Vice versa, Pitta becomes a nobody if the opposing defense can clamp down on him and Smith because Boldin is out.

I'll say it again: if you remove the best offensive threat from any team, they become much easier to defend. Sure, that goes without saying, but I think it makes such a difference that it hugely impacts the outcome of the game. Like I said, no Boldin--no Super Bowl ring.

 

[Rob0729]

This is the problem with far too many Patriot fans. You guys are bedazzled with these silly and irrelevant regular season stats.
WHO GIVES A CRAP that Brady and Co routinely whip up in a record setting way on bad defenses.
WHO CARES????
The bottomline is they stunk at home against the Ravens this year. 13 points and shutout in the 2nd half?? Are you kidding me?? Btw, Brady was even worse against the Ravens last year in a game the Patriots had no business winning, i.e, the Ravens blew it and big. The offense did nothing after the 1st 5 or 6 minutes of the 3rd qtr in last years SB. Awful against the Jets a couple of years ago. Brutal against the Ravens in that blowout Raven win. Impotent against the Giants in that 1st SB loss to NY.
When are some of you fans going to get it through your heads that this razzle dazzle Indy Colt offense means JACK CRAP in the playoffs??

So let's fix the problem by becoming more like the Colts. Let's spend big money on a deep threat WR so the Pats become even more reliant on the offense and take away money from the defense. Perfect solution.

You are basically saying the Pats are the Colts except they don't have a Reggie Wayne who can stretch the field. So the solution is to get the Reggie Wayne for this offense.

I agree that the Pats have had problems in the playoffs, but I disagree where the emphasis should be. The Pats need to improve their defense, not offense. What the Pats offense lacked two weeks ago was an end zone target to complete drives. Gronk replaced that. What they lacked on defense were DBs who could stop Boldin and Pitta. They have no one on IR to replace that.

The only way to stop this Patriots team from being the Colts is improving the defense, not the offense.

 

[DocHoliday]

So let's fix the problem by becoming more like the Colts. Let's spend big money on a deep threat WR so the Pats become even more reliant on the offense and take away money from the defense. Perfect solution.

You are basically saying the Pats are the Colts except they don't have a Reggie Wayne who can stretch the field. So the solution is to get the Reggie Wayne for this offense.

I agree that the Pats have had problems in the playoffs, but I disagree where the emphasis should be. The Pats need to improve their defense, not offense. What the Pats offense lacked two weeks ago was an end zone target to complete drives. Gronk replaced that. What they lacked on defense were DBs who could stop Boldin and Pitta. They have no one on IR to replace that.

The only way to stop this Patriots team from being the Colts is improving the defense, not the offense.

So if we had a top 1 defense (49ers) we'd beat the Ravens?

Aside from the fact that the best D in the league couldn't stop the Ravens, did you imagine us beating the Ravens 13-10 in the AFC title game?

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

This is interesting. When you look at the teams that have won the SB recently, or even gotten there, they do seem to have a common trend. Giants, Ravens, Packers, Steelers, Cardinals, Saints, Colts- all of them do rely a lot on the deep ball for big gains, and they have a lot of big, fast receivers that do a lot of damage on long passes even while covered.

I've always said that this offense is boom-or-bust and that's the reason the Patriots don't adopt it. It is riskier to throw the ball up for grabs, and that is why during the regular season these teams have a lot games where they struggle to put up points (when it isn't working.) However, when these teams are in sync- particularly the last three SB champions, the upside of this type of passing game trumps the upside of a shorter pass, YAC offense like the Patriots.

 

[Rob0729]

So if we had a top 1 defense (49ers) we'd beat the Ravens?

Aside from the fact that the best D in the league couldn't stop the Ravens, did you imagine us beating the Ravens 13-10 in the AFC title game?

With Brady and a healthy Gronk? Absolutely!

You do realize that that both the Colts and Broncos had deep threats and didn't beat the Ravens? The 49ers also lost with a deep threat? How would a deep threat be the missing piece.

Also, since Justin Smith got injured, the 49ers have not been the best defense in the league. They gave up 31 points to the Packers, 24 points to the Falcons, 34 points to the Pats, and 42 points to the Seahawks since Smith was injured in the Pats' game.

 

[Deus Irae]

This is interesting. When you look at the teams that have won the SB recently, or even gotten there, they do seem to have a common trend. Giants, Ravens, Packers, Steelers, Cardinals, Saints, Colts- all of them do rely a lot on the deep ball for big gains, and they have a lot of big, fast receivers that do a lot of damage on long passes even while covered...

Leaving out the Patriots skews the result...

 

[Rob0729]

This is interesting. When you look at the teams that have won the SB recently, or even gotten there, they do seem to have a common trend. Giants, Ravens, Packers, Steelers, Cardinals, Saints, Colts- all of them do rely a lot on the deep ball for big gains, and they have a lot of big, fast receivers that do a lot of damage on long passes even while covered.

I've always said that this offense is boom-or-bust and that's the reason the Patriots don't adopt it. It is riskier to throw the ball up for grabs, and that is why during the regular season these teams have a lot games where they struggle to put up points (when it isn't working.) However, when these teams are in sync- particularly the last three SB champions, the upside of this type of passing game trumps the upside of a shorter pass, YAC offense like the Patriots.

Saints rely on the deep ball? They are as much of a short to intermediate passing team as the Pats. In 2010, Brees completed 8 passes over 30 yards for the entire year. Brady completed 6 this year. The 2010 Saints were very similar to this year's Pats. They rely on a lot passes to their possession WRs, TE, and RBs.

Also, Manning was never a great deep ball passer. He also relied on a lot of short to intermediate passing. Even with Reggie Wayne, he only completed 13 passes over 30 yards in the 2006 season.

Also in 2008, Roethlisberger only completed 7 passes over 30 yards.

Also, when did the Cards win the Super Bowl?

 

[Deus Irae]

So if we had a top 1 defense (49ers) we'd beat the Ravens?

Aside from the fact that the best D in the league couldn't stop the Ravens, did you imagine us beating the Ravens 13-10 in the AFC title game?

Here's the problem with your line of argument:

You're working backwards from the end point to find the problem. That's fine. However, you're ignoring 99 issues and only focusing on 1. That's poor analysis.

The Patriots didn't lose because they didn't have a deep threat. The Patriots lost because:

Poor play calling, particularly on offense
#2 target missing
Multiple drops on big downs
Horrible timing on Solder's holding penalty
Less than standard QB play
CB1 lost early in game
Inability to get coverage upgrade to Spikes on field when needed
Poor clock management right before the half
Turnovers by the offense
Continued failure of the defense to produce turnovers in these tougher games
etc.....


It was a loss with many contributing factors. The absence of a true burner is well down the list, and this comes from someone who's been harping on the team's need for a WR3 since 2009, and a middle-deep receiver since Moss was traded in 2010.

 

[DocHoliday]

I think the poor playcalling thing can be attributed in part to personnel.

Getting the tough runs is something widely demanded around here, but with no legitimate fullback what's there to do?

Having Gronk/big WR backup when we go WR3 if Gronk is injured would allow more possibilities.

This is a little off topic, but I wonder if Tom is having some input - either for better or worse. You gotta think a guy like him wants the ball in his hands when they're down and the O is struggling.

 

[IllegalContact]

Poor play calling, particularly on offense
should have run the ball more

#2 target missing
they have plenty of #2 targets.....what they're missing is a #1 target

Multiple drops on big downs
to go along with multiple poor throws

Horrible timing on Solder's holding penalty
it happens

Less than standard QB play
only because they relied on him too much

CB1 lost early in game
it actually fell apart from the middle.......our safeties are horrible

Inability to get coverage upgrade to Spikes on field when needed
this is why I want Nico Johnson in rd2

Poor clock management right before the half
also poor drive management right after the half...this was much more damaging

Turnovers by the offense
side effect from becoming predictable

Continued failure of the defense to produce turnovers in these tougher games
etc...
defense did fine until the offense started turning the ball over

 

[DocHoliday]

With Brady and a healthy Gronk? Absolutely!

You do realize that that both the Colts and Broncos had deep threats and didn't beat the Ravens? The 49ers also lost with a deep threat? How would a deep threat be the missing piece.

Also, since Justin Smith got injured, the 49ers have not been the best defense in the league. They gave up 31 points to the Packers, 24 points to the Falcons, 34 points to the Pats, and 42 points to the Seahawks since Smith was injured in the Pats' game.

No, you gotta account for at least an injury or two every year. You can't keep hoping the team will be healthy after 16 weeks of grueling play.

Gronk needs a backup. That's really all there is to it. Everyone else on the team besides Brady can be replaced at least somewhat except Gronk.

Since Gronk is a once in a generation player, it makes more sense to get someone who's big/strong in 3WR. Which is why everyone is clamoring for Boldin now.

 

[Rob0729]

I think the poor playcalling thing can be attributed in part to personnel.

Getting the tough runs is something widely demanded around here, but with no legitimate fullback what's there to do?

Having Gronk/big WR backup when we go WR3 if Gronk is injured would allow more possibilities.

This is a little off topic, but I wonder if Tom is having some input - either for better or worse. You gotta think a guy like him wants the ball in his hands when they're down and the O is struggling.

Other than a handful of teams, who have legitimate FBs anymore? It is near extinct position. What the Pats were lacking was a blocking TE. Hernandez and Hoomanawanui were horrible run blockers in the AFCCG. The Pats may have missed Gronk more in that area than as a receiver. I wonder why Fells wasn't active since he is a good run blocker.

 

[Deus Irae]

Poor play calling, particularly on offense
should have run the ball more

Far too simplistic an answer, and not the problem, as I've already demonstrated on another thread

#2 target missing
they have plenty of #2 targets.....what they're missing is a #1 target

Welker is this team's #1 target, and Gronk is the #2 target overall while also being the #1 red zone target. Gronk was the one who was missing. Not surprisingly, the offense was able to move the ball up and down the field but struggled finishing drives.

Multiple drops on big downs
to go along with multiple poor throws

As noted by my comment about the substandard QB play

Horrible timing on Solder's holding penalty
it happens

Yes, bad penalties happen. That doesn't mean they aren't important, which was my point.

Less than standard QB play
only because they relied on him too much

He was substandard, regardless of how much they rely on him. How much of that was the absence of Gronk and how much was the Ravens, how much was other factors is something the team has to figure out this offseason.

CB1 lost early in game
it actually fell apart from the middle.......our safeties are horrible

It fell apart from the CBs and the coverage on Pitta. Your comment on the safeties is misleading at best, and really off at worst. McCourty is not an awful safety.

Inability to get coverage upgrade to Spikes on field when needed
this is why I want Nico Johnson in rd2

Are you high? If they spend a second round pick on a linebacker, Kraft needs to fire every single person in the front office.

Poor clock management right before the half
also poor drive management right after the half...this was much more damaging

Note the "etc..." at the end of my list. I was giving examples, not offering a full and complete breakdown of the entire game.

Turnovers by the offense
side effect from becoming predictable

Nonsense. Of course, given that you're complaining about the Patriots not running the ball, it should be noted that the fumble, on a running play, was the biggest turnover of the game.

Continued failure of the defense to produce turnovers in these tougher games
etc...
defense did fine until the offense started turning the ball over

My note was about it producing turnovers. It produced 0. That's not "fine" in any sense of the word.

 

[Rob0729]

No, you gotta account for at least an injury or two every year. You can't keep hoping the team will be healthy after 16 weeks of grueling play.

Gronk needs a backup. That's really all there is to it. Everyone else on the team besides Brady can be replaced at least somewhat except Gronk.

Since Gronk is a once in a generation player, it makes more sense to get someone who's big/strong in 3WR. Which is why everyone is clamoring for Boldin now.

The Pats have Ballard. He is going to be better back up than they can get anywhere else.

Also, every team when they lose their best players are hurt like the Pats' were with Gronk. If Boldin went down at some point in the playoffs, do you think the Ravens would have won the Super Bowl yesterday?

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

No, you gotta account for at least an injury or two every year. You can't keep hoping the team will be healthy after 16 weeks of grueling play.

Gronk needs a backup. That's really all there is to it. Everyone else on the team besides Brady can be replaced at least somewhat except Gronk.

Since Gronk is a once in a generation player, it makes more sense to get someone who's big/strong in 3WR. Which is why everyone is clamoring for Boldin now.

So we'd be fine if Wilfork went down then

 

[Deus Irae]

No, you gotta account for at least an injury or two every year. You can't keep hoping the team will be healthy after 16 weeks of grueling play.

Gronk needs a backup. That's really all there is to it. Everyone else on the team besides Brady can be replaced at least somewhat except Gronk.

Since Gronk is a once in a generation player, it makes more sense to get someone who's big/strong in 3WR. Which is why everyone is clamoring for Boldin now.

Other teams have gone in healthy. Why must the Patriots be an exception?

2007
2009
2011
2012

In the last 5 postseason runs, only 2010 was the "full" cast without an elite level player missing or significantly hobbled, and that was a team that both brainlocked in the playoff game and ditched its only real middle-deep receiving threat in the regular season, which allowed the Jets to play the defense they did.

Yes, you can still win that way sometimes, but it makes things a hell of a lot more difficult.

 

[DocHoliday]

So we'd be fine if Wilfork went down then

Sorry, I meant the offense. The defense needs another heavy DT to backup Wilfork and lessen his minutes too.

Other teams have gone in healthy. Why must the Patriots be an exception?

2007
2009
2011
2012

In the last 5 postseason runs, only 2010 was the "full" cast without an elite level player missing or significantly hobbled, and that was a team that both brainlocked in the playoff game and ditched its only real middle-deep receiving threat in the regular season, which allowed the Jets to play the defense they did.

Yes, you can still win that way sometimes, but it makes things a hell of a lot more difficult.

I've been struggling with why the Pats often seem so injured in the postseason recently and the only answer that I could come up with was that this team has such a dependence on certain players to execute its schemes it amplifies the importance of those players in our eyes.

That is, it's not that the Patriots are any more injured, it's just that our injuries hurt more because we have too hard of a time getting backups that aren't huge drop offs.

The analogy that comes to mind are the Packers. Take this year's Packers and injure two of their starting WRs. They'd be in far better shape than if the Patriots lost two of their starting WRs (Lloyd and Welker).

I don't follow any other teams as closely as the Patriots obviously, but to me it seems like other teams have a bunch of good players with a couple standouts as starters where we have excellent starters and backups barely fit to carry their jockstrap. The third string guys can't even play, and only get on the field in STs.

It just seems rare for this team to see good production from its second string players, enough, for example, for them to even threaten the starting job. When they do, it's in situations where the entire position is so inept there's hardly a change at all (think Love/Deaderick).

I say this pretty often, but we waste too many spots on special teams only guys.

 

[moejr]

WE can play woulda shoulda coulda all day long and get nowhere. The D is first priority right now. Need another solid CB. WE picked up a couple CFL guys that at least one has the potential to be an impact player. Maybe thru a later round of the draft we can pick up a 6'3+ WR that can be molded into a solid player.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

In 11 postseason games, not one team won its game while losing the turnover battle.

In the 4 divisional games, the two championship games and the Super Bowl, only one winning team didn't also win the turnover battle (Seahawks), and that game was decided by a field goal with 13 seconds left in the game.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems that the take from this year's playoffs was the same as it is from every year's playoffs. Teams tend to win more when they:

• are healthier
• play/coach smarter
• don't have bad calls go against them
• don't lose the turnover battle
• Have a healthy receiving target who is "open" even when he is "covered"- that he, he will regularly win the battle for a ball that is up for grabs
• Have a safety who can win some of those jump ball battles with the opponent's "open, even when covered" guy

When you're talking about the best teams in football matching up in a single elimation tournament, the keys are almost always the same.

excellent post-

I made two additions with regard to a Gronk-like or Bolden-like target and a safety to negate some of that.

 

[Deus Irae]

I've been struggling with why the Pats often seem so injured in the postseason recently and the only answer that I could come up with was that this team has such a dependence on certain players to execute its schemes it amplifies the importance of those players in our eyes.

That is, it's not that the Patriots are any more injured, it's just that our injuries hurt more because we have too hard of a time getting backups that aren't huge drop offs.

The analogy that comes to mind are the Packers. Take this year's Packers and injure two of their starting WRs. They'd be in far better shape than if the Patriots lost two of their starting WRs (Lloyd and Welker).

I don't hate where you're going with this notion. It's an interesting idea to look at. The problem I see with your theory is threefold:

1.) It presupposes equality of the player lost

By the above, I mean that Gronk is far more of a talent than is Jordy Nelson. Look at the specifics of the Patriots injuries. Brady/Welker/Gronk/Gronk

Hobble Rodgers in 2010 the same way that Brady was hobbled in 2007, and Roethlisberger has another Lombardi.

2.) It ignores the ability of the Patriots to survive the loss of other players

By the above, I mean that the team has great depth at many positions, and has often survived it in the past. However, on a 53 man roster, you're going to have some players who are simply irreplaceable in the sense that you're not going to be able to account for their loss with just a small dropoff, simply because of the combination of their excellence and the vagaries of roster management. In New England, there are probably 4-5 of those guys right now.

Brady
Welker
Gronk
Wilfork
probably Mayo

3.) IR and missed games history has shown player loss to injury is usually high in New England, and often affects depth as much as, or more than, front line talent. Dane Fletcher might have been able to replace Spikes on some of those passing downs, for example.