The Patriots vs Jets POST Game Thread

[mayoclinic]

You act as if the Patriots could just walk out there and win 50-0 at will, if they cared.

Personally, I think we should always game plan to guarantee a 50-0 result. It's much easier on my coronaries than these 27-25 squeakers.

 

[Deus Irae]

Very cute. You put the last 3 kneel downs back in to get to that.

OK, let's take out the 17 yard run (which came in the middle of the game) and take out the 3 kneel downs.

11 for 45 for 4.1.

That necessitates 37-15 PtoR and keeping your obviously suffering D on the field for 40:54-19:06 TOP?

No.

As I've already demonstrated, your point is not a valid point. Go take a look at the Jets TOP for their first 5 drives (Hint: it's 28:05 just one drive into the second half).

 

[shmessy]

Are you saying a team game plans the result? They decided that they wanted to put together a game plan that would end up with a close game rather than blow them out?
Did the Jets gameplan a loss?
You act as if the Patriots could just walk out there and win 50-0 at will, if they cared.

That's silly. Absolutely not. No one can "gameplan" a result.

However, a game plan can most definitely influence a result.

That Pats D could not stop a cold on the ground. Everyone with eyes could see that on Thursday.

The Offense could have influenced the TOP and helped out a suffering D greatly. The run game was actually working before the 3 kneel downs to the tune of 5.17 yards per carry (4.1 to patronize Deus and taking out one 17 yard run).

The game did NOT have to be that close.

 

[shmessy]

If they ran more, they would have scored less.

Really?

Tell that to the Bengals (35-46 PtoR) and Bills (37-27 PtR) the 2 games previously.

Both games were Fortyburgers against better teams than the Jets. Obviously balancing the run to pass hasn't kept down the Patriots scoring ability.

We've all seen what happened when the Pats abandon the run against the Dolphins the last two times in a row.

It is what it is.

 

[Deus Irae]

Not a gimme.

It WAS a possibility. That should never have gotten to that stage at home against a 1-5 team.

Possibility is a whole different world.

So you're taking out snaps, considering 58 yard FG attempts gimmes and ignoring the TOP of the Jets first 5 drives, all in an attempt to defend an invalid claim.

 

[Deus Irae]

That's silly. Absolutely not. No one can "gameplan" a result.

However, a game plan can most definitely influence a result.

That Pats D could not stop a cold on the ground. Everyone with eyes could see that on Thursday.

The Offense could have influenced the TOP and helped out a suffering D greatly. The run game was actually working before the 3 kneel downs to the tune of 5.17 yards per carry (4.1 to patronize Deus and taking out one 17 yard run).

The game did NOT have to be that close.

Tell us where, in the first half, this big ignoring of the run game really skewed the TOP.

 

[Ring 6]

That's silly. Absolutely not. No one can "gameplan" a result.

I agree, which begs the question why would you ask if they gameplanned winning on a missed FG.

However, a game plan can most definitely influence a result.

That Pats D could not stop a cold on the ground. Everyone with eyes could see that on Thursday.

Actually they were not horrendous, they just weren't good enough. Horrendous is 25 carries for 220 yards.
They allowed 218 on 43, just about 5 a carry. Not pathetic, not good, but if they played better on 3rd down the amount of yardage would have been a lot less.

The Offense could have influenced the TOP and helped out a suffering D greatly. The run game was actually working before the 3 kneel downs to the tune of 5.17 yards per carry (4.1 to patronize Deus and taking out one 17 yard run).

The run game 'was working' only because it was used as a change of pace. You know that. You also have to stop calling 3 runs with winning the game on the line kneel downs.
The game plan put 27 points on the board in 10 drives. That is how they won. Not scoring and eating clock is simply not better than scoring quickly.

The game did NOT have to be that close.

they didn't have to win either.
You seem to think there is one team out there playing against its psyche.

 

[Ring 6]

Really?

Tell that to the Bengals (35-46 PtoR) and Bills (37-27 PtR) the 2 games previously.

Both games were Fortyburgers against better teams than the Jets. Obviously balancing the run to pass hasn't kept down the Patriots scoring ability.

We've all seen what happened when the Pats abandon the run against the Dolphins the last two times in a row.

It is what it is.

We weren't playing the Bengals or Bills last Thursday.
Again, you seem to think there is one team out there playing against a computer.

 

[Ring 6]

Personally, I think we should always game plan to guarantee a 50-0 result. It's much easier on my coronaries than these 27-25 squeakers.

Perhaps BB can hire Shmessy.

 

[shmessy]

Just pointing out, you said they would have lost if Jones didn't block it, which IS calling it a gimme.

You're right.

I should rephrase that to "could have lost".

It shouldn't have come down to that.

 

[shmessy]

No, it's not.

I see you're in your usual form.

 

[shmessy]

And "outside" of one 17 yard run, the Patriots ran for 46 yards on 14 carries, or 3.3 yards per attempt.

And outside of the 3 kneel downs with 10 in the box, it was 11 for 45 for a 4.1 average.

 

[Deus Irae]

I see you're in your usual form.

And the irony of your post is that....

so are you.

 

[shmessy]

8 of which was on a WR run, so the 'punching holes for RBs' was one really nice job, and 13 others that netted 38 yards. Less than 3 yards a pop.

You, too, are counting the three clock running gimmes at the end with 10 in the box.

 

[shmessy]

Perhaps BB can hire Shmessy.

He can't afford me.

 

[mayoclinic]

Perhaps BB can hire Shmessy.

Far from me to bash Shmessy (there are plenty of others willing to do that). But from my simplistic perspective:

1. You put together a game plan that you think will bring you out on top with your available personnel vs. their available personnel.

2. You adjust the game plan during the game based on how things are playing out, and changes to available personnel (injuries).

3. You make end-of half/end-of-game adjustments to try and come out with the desired outcome, if the game is close.

In this case, BB chose to chew up some clock time and put it in the hands of his defense, and it worked (barely). There's lots of times he's taken a different approach with a game coming down to the wire.

 

[Deus Irae]

And outside of the 3 kneel downs with 10 in the box, it was 11 for 45 for a 4.1 average.

Since you refuse to see the obvious, let's break this down. Do you have an issue with the Patriots opening drive?

 

[shmessy]

Far from me to bash Shmessy. But from my simplistic perspective:

1. You put together a game plan that you think will bring you out on top with your available personnel vs. their available personnel.

2. You adjust the game plan during the game based on how things are playing out, and changes to available personnel (injuries).

3. You make end-of half/end-of-game adjustments to try and come out with the desired outcome, if the game is close.

In this case, BB chose to chew up some clock time and put it in the hands of his defense, and it worked (barely). There's lots of times he's taken a different approach with a game coming down to the wire.

I'm only confused by your statement "In this case, BB chose to chew up some clock time and put it in the hands of his defense". I was talking about he whole game - - not just the last drive.

He chose NOT to chew up some clock during the game until the very last "drive".

And a 1-5 team playing on the road and averaging 16 points per game scored 25.

 

[Ring 6]

Far from me to bash Shmessy. But from my simplistic perspective:

1. You put together a game plan that you think will bring you out on top with your available personnel vs. their available personnel.

2. You adjust the game plan during the game based on how things are playing out, and changes to available personnel (injuries).

3. You make end-of half/end-of-game adjustments to try and come out with the desired outcome, if the game is close.

In this case, BB chose to chew up some clock time and put it in the hands of his defense, and it worked (barely). There's lots of times he's taken a different approach with a game coming down to the wire.

I agreed with running the ball on the last drive. If we threw and it was incomplete they end up with 1:55 instead of 1:15. They had 1 TO and we got the ball at 2:30-some. You HAVE TO make them use the TO and the 2 minute warning, so running on the first 2 plays is a no brainer. On 3rd and long, it comes down to using up 40 seconds. 1:15 and no Timeouts has to be about 25% as likely to score as 1:55 with no timeouts.

On the other hand I don't understand why we didn't protect the sidelines better on that last drive.

 

[Ring 6]

You, too, are counting the three clock running gimmes at the end with 10 in the box.

Of course I am. We were running the ball to win the game.
You want to count the runs only against a D that is suprised by the run. They all count.