the first sign of the seahawkalypse

[Rob0729]

You put the ball in the air 58 times and bad things are going to happen. Sure, if each play is executed perfectly and the way they should be it will work but that doesn't always happen, no player is perfect.

Just because Brady was bad and the main person at fault doesn't mean the playcalling wasn't bad as well. 58 passes, that's never a good idea no matter who your QB is or what the matchup says.

I agree that they threw too much. But the running game was going nowhere except draws with Woodhead. They could have run a few more of those, but Ridley was not getting yards and Boldin was out.

Too bad Boldin went out early because he seemed better suited to attack the Seattle defense better than Ridley did.

 

[IllegalContact]

now this is some serious spin for the sake of brady's nutsack as well as mcdaniel's

the chance of something bad happening on the throw that brady made is huge

how many fumbles has brady had this year and why did you not consider this? or the potential for a sack? after all, it was pressure that made brady rifle it the way he did.

you are totally dismissing the real FACT that a passing play can go wrong so many more ways than a running play

but nice try

And the play they called would have given you a first down or at worst a FG. The chance of a tip pass INT on that play is probably the same odds of a RB fumbling and losing the ball in the same exact situation. The problem is that the minuscule percentage of a tip ball INT actually happened.

Here are the facts:

• Going into this game. Brady had one INT for the entire season. Ridley has two fumbles. To say that the odds are higher that Brady would have thrown an INT was that high is revisionist history.
• Brady to Welker was on fire up to that point in the game. He already had 6 catches for 96 yards and a TD.
• The Pats' running game was struggling all game.

People are using hindsight to judge the play. A short crossing pass to Welker is a high percentage play for this offense. Ninety-nine times out of hundred, the worst that would have happened is the Pats would have gotten an incompletion an either run on 4th down or kick the field goal. If Brady completed the pass to Welker, no one would have said that the Pats were lucky because going to Welker on third down is a risky play.

 

[makoute]

You put the ball in the air 58 times and bad things are going to happen. Sure, if each play is executed perfectly and the way they should be it will work but that doesn't always happen, no player is perfect.

Just because Brady was bad and the main person at fault doesn't mean the playcalling wasn't bad as well. 58 passes, that's never a good idea no matter who your QB is or what the matchup says.

Especially when you are in the lead for the whole second half, right until the end.

 

[upstater1]

I agree that they threw too much. But the running game was going nowhere except draws with Woodhead. They could have run a few more of those, but Ridley was not getting yards and Boldin was out.

Too bad Boldin went out early because he seemed better suited to attack the Seattle defense better than Ridley did.

I honestly don't understand what the problem is here.

Brady had plenty of time in the pocket, so despite passing more than he ever has, Seattle could not pressure him.

And, they were moving the ball a lot through the air.

When they failed well into Seahawks territory, it was for 3 reasons.

1. They ran the ball 3 times and were stuffed.
2. Brady threw an INT.
3. Bad playcalling and time management ran out the clock.

I wouldn't have wanted them to do anything differently the entire game other than use their brains at the end of the half (the mistake was made on the sidelines) and run the ball even if stuffed to assure 3 points when down at the 7.

The first is inexcusable. You could make a case for the second because we have the luxury of hindsight now, but if you're Belichick, you may go in for the kill there at the 2 yard line and put the game away, because a FG gets you to a 16 point lead, which--granted 2 conversions are difficult--still leaves Seattle with 2 scores to get in 15 minutes.

The mistakes were mental.

I was fine with playcalling (other than 3 straight runs up the middle by Ridley late in the 4th).

 

[Rob0729]

now this is some serious spin for the sake of brady's nutsack as well as mcdaniel's

the chance of something bad happening on the throw that brady made is huge

how many fumbles has brady had this year and why did you not consider this? or the potential for a sack? after all, it was pressure that made brady rifle it the way he did.

you are totally dismissing the real FACT that a passing play can go wrong so many more ways than a running play

but nice try

Yes, a short crossing route over the middle to Welker is always an INT waiting to happen. I don't know why they ever call that because nine times out of ten that is a pick six. That is why Brady has 20 INTs on the season already.

Yes, it is homer spin to say that a short pass over the middle to Welker is a high percentage play. The next time Brady throws a pass to Welker in that pattern and Welker actually catches and it isn't an INT, it may be the first.

I am wrong with Brady being an INT machine this year, McDaniels should have known with that play the best outcome would have been Thomas dropping a tipped ball INT and the most likely scenario was a tipped ball INT since Brady gets so many of them.

I love how you say that the chances of something going terribly wrong on a short crossing pass from Brady to Welker is huge, but you accuse me of "some serious spin".

Well, in part you are right, when you throw a pass to a receiver who is three yards beyond the line of scrimmage hard and high, yes there is a high percentage of bad things happening. But that is on the thrower, not the play caller.

 

[upstater1]

The Seahawks have been shutting down the run all game. The Pats got 3.3 YPC. The Seahawks have the 4th best run defense in terms of yards allowed and second best in yards per attempt. Not only do they have a great run defense, but they have one of the best run defenses in the league.

So I don't get how people saying that the Pats going with what was working all game up to that point (Brady to Welker) is a bad call and going with what the Pats were struggling against was the right call. In this game, the Pats couldn't run the ball.

Also, that play with 6 second left in the half was Belichick's call to run a play (not McDaniels) and people choose to ignore that if Brady actually threw the ball near an actual receiver, the Pats still would have had enough time to kick the field goal. That was another execution issue more than play calling. Brady could have thrown to Gronk who was wide open, but threw to no one and got the intentional grounding (although that might have been Branch's fault for not running the right route).

I don't agree with the latter half of that.

First, the Patriots called their last time out there. You can bet it wasn't Brady's call. They could have kicked a FG.

Second, if Brady threw to the sidelines on that play, time would have run out if the ball were not caught.

The intentional grounding was practically irrelevant since he was almost sacked which would have ended play regardless.

 

[Rob0729]

I honestly don't understand what the problem is here.

Brady had plenty of time in the pocket, so despite passing more than he ever has, Seattle could not pressure him.

And, they were moving the ball a lot through the air.

When they failed well into Seahawks territory, it was for 3 reasons.

1. They ran the ball 3 times and were stuffed.
2. Brady threw an INT.
3. Bad playcalling and time management ran out the clock.

I wouldn't have wanted them to do anything differently the entire game other than use their brains at the end of the half (the mistake was made on the sidelines) and run the ball even if stuffed to assure 3 points when down at the 7.

The first is inexcusable. You could make a case for the second because we have the luxury of hindsight now, but if you're Belichick, you may go in for the kill there at the 2 yard line and put the game away, because a FG gets you to a 16 point lead, which--granted 2 conversions are difficult--still leaves Seattle with 2 scores to get in 15 minutes.

The mistakes were mental.

I was fine with playcalling (other than 3 straight runs up the middle by Ridley late in the 4th).

I think the pass rush of the Seahawks was still too strong at the end of the game. Running a bit more might have tired them out. Overall I am not upset with the play calling, but I would have liked to see them run it a bit more.

 

[IllegalContact]

its not high percentage with the throw brady made

the passing game is responsible for more turnovers that the running game

Yes, a short crossing route over the middle to Welker is always an INT waiting to happen. I don't know why they ever call that because nine times out of ten that is a pick six. That is why Brady has 20 INTs on the season already.

Yes, it is homer spin to say that a short pass over the middle to Welker is a high percentage play. The next time Brady throws a pass to Welker in that pattern and Welker actually catches and it isn't an INT, it may be the first.

I am wrong with Brady being an INT machine this year, McDaniels should have known with that play the best outcome would have been Thomas dropping a tipped ball INT and the most likely scenario was a tipped ball INT since Brady gets so many of them.

I love how you say that the chances of something going terribly wrong on a short crossing pass from Brady to Welker is huge, but you accuse me of "some serious spin".

Well, in part you are right, when you throw a pass to a receiver who is three yards beyond the line of scrimmage hard and high, yes there is a high percentage of bad things happening. But that is on the thrower, not the play caller.

 

[Shed83]

its not high percentage with the throw brady made

the passing game is responsible for more turnovers that the running game

That is exactly what Robo is saying !!!

It was the throw that was the problem not the playcall!

I thought that McDaniels called a good game apart from the Ridley runs in the 4th!

 

[Rob0729]

its not high percentage with the throw brady made

the passing game is responsible for more turnovers that the running game

Again, that is on Brady, not McDaniels. Brady threw a bad pass, but that says nothing about the play calling.

The Pats have turned over the ball on offense going into this game four times all season. One on a Ridley fumble. One on a Brady pick. One on a Gronk reception long after he caught the ball. One on a Welker reception long after he caught the ball.

Before this game, Brady has passed 185 times while the Pats rushed 191 times. That means the Pats turned over the ball 1.6% of Brady's passes and .5% of the running plays. To say that a passing play by Brady is a significantly higher percentage chance of being a turnover is just not correct. It is a little more than a 1% chance.

 

[upstater1]

its not high percentage with the throw brady made

the passing game is responsible for more turnovers that the running game

Not until yesterday it wasn't.

Patriots went 172 passing plays (not running + passing) without an interception.

The best you can say is, in hindsight, I wish Brady didn't throw an interception!!

 

[IllegalContact]

Not until yesterday it wasn't.

Patriots went 172 passing plays (not running + passing) without an interception.

The best you can say is, in hindsight, I wish Brady didn't throw an interception!!

but he did have a couple of fumbles.....do those count?

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

I agree that they threw too much. But the running game was going nowhere except draws with Woodhead. They could have run a few more of those, but Ridley was not getting yards and Boldin was out.

Too bad Boldin went out early because he seemed better suited to attack the Seattle defense better than Ridley did.

True, Bolden was having success on the ground alot and his injury hurt. I still think they could have shown more effort to run when they did pull off a few good ones or at least line up with a back behind Brady and do some playaction. Plus it's hard to build a rhythm on the ground if you don't even try.

 

[Rob0729]

but he did have a couple of fumbles.....do those count?

He had one fumble which was recovered by the Pats. But if you are counting fumbles and fumbles not lost. Ridley has fumbled twice.

Again, going into yesterday, the Pats had four turnovers on 376 offensive plays this season. That means they had a turnover on 1.06% of the offensive plays this year. That is an insignificant percentage to say that a passing play is a far great risk of turnover than a running play.

 

[FCB02062]

McDaniels/Belichick lead the league in trying to prove they're the smartest kids in the room...

 

[captain stone]

I agree that the play-call/execution on 3rd/1 in the 4th quarter was doubly-botched;
I also agree that Brady should've thrown the ball quicker when there was only 6 seconds
left in the half (Gronk was more open on the corner route than Hernandez was during
the same route that resulted in a TD);
But what really pissed me off was the inexcusable waste of 13 seconds after Welker
gained a 1st/goal with 33 seconds remaining. For some amateurish, invalid reason,
a timeout wasn't called until there were 19 seconds remaining. If the 3 Stooges - Bill,
Skippy & the QB/Model - actually knew what they were doing, they would've had a
1st/goal at the 8, 33 seconds & one timeout to do whatever they wanted, including
at least one run if they so chose.

 

[IllegalContact]

He had one fumble which was recovered by the Pats. But if you are counting fumbles and fumbles not lost. Ridley has fumbled twice.

Again, going into yesterday, the Pats had four turnovers on 376 offensive plays this season. That means they had a turnover on 1.06% of the offensive plays this year. That is an insignificant percentage to say that a passing play is a far great risk of turnover than a running play.

well you're right that he hasn't lost any this year......but welker and gronk have each lost one

since 2001, the pats have been intercepted 136 times and fumbled 105 times considering brady lost 34 fumbles and cassel 4, the numbers then say the passing game turned the ball over 174 times and the running game 67 times...if you count the number of times pass targets have fumbled the ball away after the catch, the number will be even worse

so I wouldn't say when it comes to turnovers that the passing game is a safer approach. like I said, there are many more ways the passing game can get screwed up than the running game can

we won't even bother to get into the comparison of yards lost on sacks versus yards lost on running plays.

regardless of what you say, the passing game proposes much more risk than the running game

 

[Rob0729]

well you're right that he hasn't lost any this year......but welker and gronk have each lost one

since 2001, the pats have been intercepted 136 times and fumbled 105 times considering brady lost 34 fumbles and cassel 4, the numbers then say the passing game turned the ball over 174 times and the running game 67 times...if you count the number of times pass targets have fumbled the ball away after the catch, the number will be even worse

so I wouldn't say when it comes to turnovers that the passing game is a safer approach. like I said, there are many more ways the passing game can get screwed up than the running game can

we won't even bother to get into the comparison of yards lost on sacks versus yards lost on running plays.

regardless of what you say, the passing game proposes much more risk than the running game

Yes, there is an 1% higher chance of turning over the ball based on this year stats.

Seriously, the Pats should become the jets and run 30 times a game and pass 18 times because the Pats risk turning over the ball if Brady keeps throwing 30-40 times a game. Why would Belichick and McDaniels be so reckless risking so many turnovers with Brady when they should be running the ball 90% of the time?

Seriously, do you realize how silly your argument is considering the Pats before this game had turned over the ball four times in five games going into the game? Do you think the odds of turning over the ball was ever really a major factor or should have been a major factor in determining the call since the Pats don't turn over the ball that much? It's not like Brady had seven picks and Welker had five fumbles going into this game.

Turning over the ball was a minuscule factor in a high percentage short pass over the middle. Brady throws a similar pass to Welker probably 60-70 times a season and probably hasn't been picked off one or two times throwing it. I can't remember the last time he was picked off throwing a three yard crossing pattern to Welker.

Again, the odds of Brady throwing a pick in that situation was probably something like a million to one. They were just unfortunate to have that one happen on that play. It was a safe play that Brady screwed up royally. It would be no different than Brady screwing up the hand off on a running play.

 

[IllegalContact]

LOL at your logic. lets pick a smaller data set....how the int vs fumble stat go week 6?

every year there are more turnovers due to the passing game than the running game....but lets ignore that and go with 6 games this year....because you say so

you are right....the pats are so much better off throwing the ball rather than running it on 3rd and 1. what was I thinking

Yes, there is an 1% higher chance of turning over the ball based on this year stats.

Seriously, the Pats should become the jets and run 30 times a game and pass 18 times because the Pats risk turning over the ball if Brady keeps throwing 30-40 times a game. Why would Belichick and McDaniels be so reckless risking so many turnovers with Brady when they should be running the ball 90% of the time?

Seriously, do you realize how silly your argument is considering the Pats before this game had turned over the ball four times in five games going into the game? Do you think the odds of turning over the ball was ever really a major factor or should have been a major factor in determining the call since the Pats don't turn over the ball that much? It's not like Brady had seven picks and Welker had five fumbles going into this game.

Turning over the ball was a minuscule factor in a high percentage short pass over the middle. Brady throws a similar pass to Welker probably 60-70 times a season and probably hasn't been picked off one or two times throwing it. I can't remember the last time he was picked off throwing a three yard crossing pattern to Welker.

Again, the odds of Brady throwing a pick in that situation was probably something like a million to one. They were just unfortunate to have that one happen on that play. It was a safe play that Brady screwed up royally.

 

[FredFromDartmouth]

The first sign was when Brady was knocked senseless...it was down hill after...

But get used to; injuring Brady (and Welker) is in the game plan for most teams...