The Patriots vs Jets POST Game Thread

[Oswlek]

They did, right up until McDaniels caught that bug he always gets in Miami and had Brady throw it 55 times versus 20 runs to lose Home Field Advantage to the Broncos (a few days after the Broncos had briefly given it up to the Pats).

Upshot: AFCCG in 62 degree Denver instead of the 29 degrees Boston saw that day. Mannings rejoice.

BTW, that 55-20 P-R ratio happened in a game without Gronk, Thompkins or Dobson. Meanwhile, the RBs were all healthy and in their zone at that time last year.

Sounds reasonable, the problem is that the raw data doesn't remotely tell the story.

Drive one: Opens with a 5 yard pass setting up a reasonable 2nd and 5. Blount rushed for no gain forcing NE to pass on 3rd and five.

Drive two: Opens with a 6 yard pass, then a 1 yard rush on 2nd and 4. The team passed on 3rd and 3, incomplete.

Drive three: 34 yard pass, incomplete, 5 yard rush, 18 yard pass, Run for no gain, incomplete, penalty forcing a pass on 3rd and 20.

Drive four: 27 yard pass, 3 yard run, 13 yard pass, 2 yard run, 15 yard pass, run for no gain, two yard pass, sack.

The next time NE touched the ball with a reasonable chance, they trailed 20-3.

7 rushes for a total of 11 yards and only one successful play during the time that the game was close. Sure, they could have rushed a few more times on first down, but five first down passes netted four completions for an average of 14.4 yards. Four first down rushes, by comparison, yielded five total yards and two stuffs.

There is no reason whatsoever to believe that more running would have led to more success against Denver.

 

[mgteich]

Here's the stats I wanted refuted...Pats 27 Jets 25...Pats 5-2...Jets 1-6...refute THAT

OK, I get it. It never after how well we play or how prepared we are of a game or the next game. All that matter is that the FG was blocked. If this is the case, IMO, there is little reason to post on a message board. After all, the only subjects are to celebrate victories and to make fun of other teams who lost.

 

[Deus Irae]

I'm still waiting to see which early drives needed more running plays.

 

[Ring 6]

So you feel if the other team is in a pass defense we should run it and if they're in a run defense we should pass it? That would make us more predictable. I believe that we should run whatever plays we want and see if the other team can stop it, no matter what defense their in. I also believe that a balanced attack works best of all to make a passing attack most successful. That's what I've seen from the Pats.

Then we philosophically disagree. Calling plays is about matchups, tendencies, opponents scheme and tendencies, down and distance, strengths and weaknesses of your players and theirs, personnel groupings, and understanding what the defense is trying to do.
Its not as simple as 'they play pass you run'. First of all they don't tell you what they are playing. Secondly, all of the things above are considered, not just what you are guessing they are trying to do. (Its totally silly to think you can call a defense accurately presnap) Then you want to attack their weakness and use your strengths. You want to isolate favorable matchups. Thats just the beginning of what could be pages and pages of considerations.

I understand that the rule changes have altered things somewhat, so I'd say that it was around the mid 2000's when we changed to a more pass-happy offense. Ironically, that was the start of our horrid run against the Giants, a team that was much more successful as a pass defense than as a run defense, but we went pass-happy against them too and lost three straight games to them (SB's in 07 and 11 and regular season in 11). Apparently, BB was foolhardy to ignore the Giants defense.

Run percentage since BB arrived
2000 41
2001 47
2002 38
2003 45
2004 51
2005 43
2006 47
2007 43
2008 47
2009 43
2010 46
2011 40
2012 44
2013 42
2014 42

Average 43.9

I don't see much of a difference. Aside from 2 outliers which seem to be for obvious reasons, we seem to be in a range of 42% run to 47% run pretty consistently ever since BB arrived. The difference between 42 and 47 is about 3 plays a game which is probably explainable by more or less games with big leads when we run out the clock.

If we use 2005 as your 'mid 2000s' we ran 44.2% from 00-05 and have run 43.8% since, so there really is no point where the numbers indicate we became more 'pass happy'.

 

[Ring 6]

OK, I get it. It never after how well we play or how prepared we are of a game or the next game. All that matter is that the FG was blocked. If this is the case, IMO, there is little reason to post on a message board. After all, the only subjects are to celebrate victories and to make fun of other teams who lost.

Its more than 'the FG was blocked'. They won the freaking game. For some reason that is meaningless to a lot of people around here.
We have a number of people complaining about the game plan of a win. As if a different game plan may have produced a win and a half or something.

 

[1960Pats]

Then we philosophically disagree. Calling plays is about matchups, tendencies, opponents scheme and tendencies, down and distance, strengths and weaknesses of your players and theirs, personnel groupings, and understanding what the defense is trying to do.
Its not as simple as 'they play pass you run'. First of all they don't tell you what they are playing. Secondly, all of the things above are considered, not just what you are guessing they are trying to do. (Its totally silly to think you can call a defense accurately presnap) Then you want to attack their weakness and use your strengths. You want to isolate favorable matchups. Thats just the beginning of what could be pages and pages of considerations.



Run percentage since BB arrived
2000 41
2001 47
2002 38
2003 45
2004 51
2005 43
2006 47
2007 43
2008 47
2009 43
2010 46
2011 40
2012 44
2013 42
2014 42

Average 43.9

I don't see much of a difference. Aside from 2 outliers which seem to be for obvious reasons, we seem to be in a range of 42% run to 47% run pretty consistently ever since BB arrived. The difference between 42 and 47 is about 3 plays a game which is probably explainable by more or less games with big leads when we run out the clock.

If we use 2005 as your 'mid 2000s' we ran 44.2% from 00-05 and have run 43.8% since, so there really is no point where the numbers indicate we became more 'pass happy'.

Thank you for such a respectful response. I'd prefer to discuss things like this rationally than to be called names.

The only thing I can add is that the %'s you provided were higher in the three years we won the SB. It may not be a huge difference, but there is definitely one there.

 

[1960Pats]

Its more than 'the FG was blocked'. They won the freaking game. For some reason that is meaningless to a lot of people around here.
We have a number of people complaining about the game plan of a win. As if a different game plan may have produced a win and a half or something.

I'm one of those people, but for me it has nothing to do with beating the Jets. And I wouldn't call any win meaningless. All I'm saying is that IMHO there have been games lost because we've ignored the running game. That wasn't one of them but it was damn close.

Earlier I gave the example of the two losses in 2011 to the Giants (regular season and SB) but there have been others. Let me add that idiotic 4th and 2 game in Indy as another example. Not so much for the total number of runs in the game, but the fact that they ignored it on 3rd and 4th down at the end, and because of that we left slightly more than two minutes on the clock and no chance to get a replay on the 4th down play (they burned their last TO after the failed 3rd down pass).

Maybe some time I'll go analyze the numbers game by game and that might give a clearer picture. But until then, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[shmessy]

Sounds reasonable, the problem is that the raw data doesn't remotely tell the story.

Drive one: Opens with a 5 yard pass setting up a reasonable 2nd and 5. Blount rushed for no gain forcing NE to pass on 3rd and five.

Drive two: Opens with a 6 yard pass, then a 1 yard rush on 2nd and 4. The team passed on 3rd and 3, incomplete.

Drive three: 34 yard pass, incomplete, 5 yard rush, 18 yard pass, Run for no gain, incomplete, penalty forcing a pass on 3rd and 20.

Drive four: 27 yard pass, 3 yard run, 13 yard pass, 2 yard run, 15 yard pass, run for no gain, two yard pass, sack.

The next time NE touched the ball with a reasonable chance, they trailed 20-3.

7 rushes for a total of 11 yards and only one successful play during the time that the game was close. Sure, they could have rushed a few more times on first down, but five first down passes netted four completions for an average of 14.4 yards. Four first down rushes, by comparison, yielded five total yards and two stuffs.

There is no reason whatsoever to believe that more running would have led to more success against Denver.

I wasn't talking about the Denver game. I was talking about the Miami game that caused the AFCCG to be PLAYED in Denver in 62 degree weather.

Had it been played in Foxboro (and I looked up the weather on 1/19/2014) the game would have been played in 29 degree weather. Manning would have had a different challenge.

 

[Snake Eyes]

Its more than 'the FG was blocked'. They won the freaking game. For some reason that is meaningless to a lot of people around here.
We have a number of people complaining about the game plan of a win. As if a different game plan may have produced a win and a half or something.

No, it's that sometimes one can win in spite of themselves. They routinely dropped 5 into coverage when the Jets were strongest running the ball, they also stupidly ran 3 obvious running plays and gave them ball back to the Jets with time to score.

 

[AzPatsFan]

Of course not a gimme.

But why put a game like that even in question at home against a 1-5 team?

Would you say that getting to that last play was part of a game plan?

Of course it wasn't part of the gameplan. Bill expected to get at least one turnover from the error prone Jesters. He expected to get a stop or 2 from the D. It seemed every time they did stop the Jets, the yellow rags rescued the Jets.

The Jets played a near perfect game and only scored 25.

If the Pats played a perfect game what would they score? 65? 70?

 

[AzPatsFan]

I agree with you that BB did not plan it to go the way it did. What I don't like is that BB didn't ADJUST to help his Defense after seeing what was happening.

Adjust with what? Adjust with who? For this game there was nobody available.

 

[Joker]

OK, I get it. It never after how well we play or how prepared we are of a game or the next game. All that matter is that the FG was blocked. If this is the case, IMO, there is little reason to post on a message board. After all, the only subjects are to celebrate victories and to make fun of other teams who lost.

"It never after how well we play?"...WTF does that even mean? in any event, nice straw house, Ray Bolger.MY point was that, as every stat in the game was being refuted negatively, the Patriots did in fact WIN the game and THOSE STATS, the win and the score are just as important. Nowhere did I mention YOU have to do ANYTHING. Post all the post game slams and ripping tear aparts you want. I'll keep going to games and returning afterwards to read your rocking chair/living room edicts and further derisive opinions about the team we supposedly share as a rooting interest, no matter whether "it never after how we well we play" or not.

 

[supafly]

I am committed to not letting discussion turn negative and *****y. It seemed we were reaching the point where the comments that were evolving would be taken that way.

As you are one of the leaders/veterans on this forum, way to set an example for others to follow.

Personally, I think it's contagious either way (*****y or respectful), and if I'm onto anything we can all help to steer things in a better direction that focuses mainly on nothing but football talk and respectful debating.

 

[AzPatsFan]

I need to re-watch the game, but my first view was that it was only the fact that they were so pass-heavy that made running at all productive and that Vereen and Gray just don't have the ability to run between the tackles against the Jets' front 7.

(That said, I should say that this way, to my eyes, by far Vereen's best game as a Pat. His pass catching was spectacular.)

I would also tip my hat to a superb job of Coaching. Bill always tries to stop or limit what the other guy does best. He didn't have the horses to stop them at the line of scrimmage or at the LBs, this game. He could and did stop them from major gains into the secondary though, by playing 5 or more DBs. What is so difficult to comprehend? "Defense in Depth" is an old military principle I was taught as a young officer.

Rex never adapted, and never schemed or designed runs to spring Ivory free in the third line of defense, the secondary. He was content to get his 5-8 yards, and no more, and do it again, until the multi-play drive petered out to a long FG attempt.

BB used his good Offense to outscore them. He did; and the Jesters lost.

 

[AzPatsFan]

1) I am committed to not letting discussion turn negative and *****y. It seemed we were reaching the point where the comments that were evolving would be taken that way.

2) I disagree. I think a 12 series game instead of an 8 series game favors the Patriots, as they are the better team. Shortening the game increases the likelihood of an upset because it gives the underdog a better chance to have fluky plays decide the game.
Mostly though I am disagreeing with the idea that time of possession itself dictates wearing down a defense and that a passing offense exposes its defense to less rest. In fact an offense that doesn't make first downs exposes the defense and one that does, regardless of how, helps the defense.
That is one of my disagreements with your take here. The offense would not have helped the defense any more by running and taking up more clock than by passing, other than we all would have gone home a couple of minutes earlier.
Given that earlier you called for 5 (I think) more runs during the game, that is 2 less stoppages between plays, so we are talking maybe 40 seconds difference, hardly something that would cause the DC to want to punch the OC in the face.

When you don't have the horses or opportunity to burn clock by running, the height of brilliance is to induce and to let the other guy do it for you. Provided of course, he is dumb enough to oblige.

BB didn't really believe he could stop the Jets from successfully running the ball through through injured middle DL and then through the 2 LB setup, and he was correct.

But he did have a way of preventing as much additional damage as possible By inserting extra DBs to chase down the RB, and Control the yardage gained beyond the LBs, essentially holding the longest run below 10 yards.

How much time did Rex burn for BB, only to score FGs? At least 28 clock minutes in the first half alone, consumed in fairly harmless limited runs up the middle. If the Jets FG kicker wasn't able to convert 2 long mid-40yard FGs, it would have been better still.

Putting extra DBs into the game to tackle the RB controls the damage that their interior runs can do.

 

[AzPatsFan]

Its more than 'the FG was blocked'. They won the freaking game. For some reason that is meaningless to a lot of people around here.
We have a number of people complaining about the game plan of a win. As if a different game plan may have produced a win and a half or something.

"You Play to Win the Game !!!!"
"Style Points don't count."
"Statistics are for Losers."
"I'd rather Win ugly!"

 

[shmessy]

Adjust with what? Adjust with who? For this game there was nobody available.

Adjust on the OFFENSE. Work some more runs in instead of 37-12 before the last series.

Keep our DEPLETED D away from having 11 series against it.

Does anyone else want to see Matt Forte on the field for 41 minutes against our no Mayo/no Chandler D this week?

Last year Nink and Chandler played 90% of snaps and wore down by the end of December.

This year, we already see what has happened to Chandler Jones.

BB should stop being KC Jones 1987 and stop overworking some of these key players.

 

[Ring 6]

When you don't have the horses or opportunity to burn clock by running, the height of brilliance is to induce and to let the other guy do it for you. Provided of course, he is dumb enough to oblige.

BB didn't really believe he could stop the Jets from successfully running the ball through through injured middle DL and then through the 2 LB setup, and he was correct.

But he did have a way of preventing as much additional damage as possible By inserting extra DBs to chase down the RB, and Control the yardage gained beyond the LBs, essentially holding the longest run below 10 yards.

How much time did Rex burn for BB, only to score FGs? At least 28 clock minutes in the first half alone, consumed in fairly harmless limited runs up the middle. If the Jets FG kicker wasn't able to convert 2 long mid-40yard FGs, it would have been better still.

Putting extra DBs into the game to tackle the RB controls the damage that their interior runs can do.

All I can say is that I disagree with every word of your post, and your entire opinion, and respectfully, I will leave it at that.

 

[Ring 6]

As you are one of the leaders/veterans on this forum, way to set an example for others to follow.

Personally, I think it's contagious either way (*****y or respectful), and if I'm onto anything we can all help to steer things in a better direction that focuses mainly on nothing but football talk and respectful debating.

Pretty much every time this board evolves into childish arguing, insults, condescension, passive aggressive comments, and people trying to 'win arguments' both people feel it is the other ones fault that it turned into that. I've decided I'd rather just walk away (from the discussion if possible and ultimately from the board if not)

 

[Ring 6]

No, it's that sometimes one can win in spite of themselves. They routinely dropped 5 into coverage when the Jets were strongest running the ball, they also stupidly ran 3 obvious running plays and gave them ball back to the Jets with time to score.

Those decisions resulted in a win. I am firmly of the viewpoint that the coaches of this team without question have more information about the opponent, their own players, the matchups, etc to make that decision better than I do, and if we had the same amount of data, they would also be better equipped to make the right decision with it.
So, I get that a bunch of people like to Monday morning QB and say their way is better, but when they win the game, there is not a single thing they could have done differently that would have produced a better result. Their job is to win the game, not to win it in any specific way, and their job is that the multiitude of interrelated decisions that they make add up to a win. No more, no less.

You can feel free to think that you know better. It is in fact true that with less knowledge and data, you could still guess your way to a better decision sometimes (broken clock is right twice a day) but even if you made 100% correct decisions on everything related to this game, we still can only win once.

As far as running the ball at the end, if they threw an incomplete pass, they would have lost the game. It was absolutely the right decision, and of course, it worked.