The Patriots vs Packers POST Game Thread

[DaBruinz]

Seattle has humiliated Rodgers the last 3 years with physical secondary play and blitzing/pass rushing.

Maybe it is a sound strategy, but BB's contain D vs mobile QBs could cost us a SB. We're most likely facing either Rodgers or Wilson in the SB. The contain defense let Geno Smith march up and down the field on us.

Yet it's worked against the likes of Drew Brees, Philip Rivers, Michael Vick and Ben Roethlingsberger. I mentioned it already, but despite only using a 3 or 4 man rush, the Pats still put a lot of pressure on Rodgers. The bigger issue was when they lost contain of Rodgers.. They didn't have the speed to catch him..

Saying the defense played good was like saying the defense played good in last year's AFCCG. Almost 500 yards of offense was given up.

I felt like a good amount of this loss, like the Miami game, was on the coaching. Why the heck is Logan Ryan playing CB3 in man for us? He got torched by a 2nd round rookie while Butler played pretty well vs Sanders in his only meaningful game this year.

You feel the loss is on coaching and blame the staff for putting Ryan on Adams.. a 2nd round WR isn't anything to sneeze at.. BTW, Dennard didn't do much better covering Adams..

BB had the horses in the secondary to play more aggressive. This contain D just really gets on my nerves.

While the "contain" D get's on your nerves, it does work when the Players execute.. The problem was that the players didn't execute early on.. You do have to give credit where credit is do, though, and acknowledge that it's some feat to keep the Packers from scoring in the Red Zone on 5 different occasions.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

The block in the back pissed me off a lot. It was completely obvious and happening right next to the ball. For all the block in the back calls that we give up it is very frustrating to see refs miss the ones on our players.

The lack of consistency is really one of the biggest issues I have with the refs in the last few years.

I've yet to go back and re-watch this, but it's worth noting that some blocks to the back are legal (Ebner had a legal one on Amendola's 80-yard KR); IIRC, the rule is that if the blocker is between the runner and the player being blocked, it's legal.

 

[DaBruinz]

I've yet to go back and re-watch this, but it's worth noting that some blocks to the back are legal (Ebner had a legal one on Amendola's 80-yard KR); IIRC, the rule is that if the blocker is between the runner and the player being blocked, it's legal.

Except that wasn't the case here.. The case here is that Slater had beaten his blocker was getting ready for the tackle and got wiped out from behind.. He was clearly livid after the play when he saw there was no flag.

 

[The Brandon Five]

The block in the back pissed me off a lot. It was completely obvious and happening right next to the ball. For all the block in the back calls that we give up it is very frustrating to see refs miss the ones on our players.

The lack of consistency is really one of the biggest issues I have with the refs in the last few years.

Ayers got pushed from behind to the ground multiple times. One time was almost an outright tackle.

 

[patsinthesnow]

Yet it's worked against the likes of Drew Brees, Philip Rivers, Michael Vick and Ben Roethlingsberger. I mentioned it already, but despite only using a 3 or 4 man rush, the Pats still put a lot of pressure on Rodgers. The bigger issue was when they lost contain of Rodgers.. They didn't have the speed to catch him..



You feel the loss is on coaching and blame the staff for putting Ryan on Adams.. a 2nd round WR isn't anything to sneeze at.. BTW, Dennard didn't do much better covering Adams..



While the "contain" D get's on your nerves, it does work when the Players execute.. The problem was that the players didn't execute early on.. You do have to give credit where credit is do, though, and acknowledge that it's some feat to keep the Packers from scoring in the Red Zone on 5 different occasions.

Rodgers is a stud. I definitely give him credit. He was on a tear.

http://www.nfl.com/player/davanteadams/2543495/profile

Ryan let Adams have a career day. I still feel the game is different if Butler or Dennard are on him the whole game.

Isn't this the third time this year Ryan has been benched mid game? I'm surprised he gets all these second chances while Dennard and Butler didn't.

 

[SVN]

From bruschi chat today

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/boston/chat/_/id/51402

Jason (Boston)


Hi Tedy, defensively (from a scheme point of view) what could the Pats have done differently/better to get to Aaron Rodgers yesterday? It appeared to me that Rodgers had all day to throw the ball.

Tedy
(11:26 AM)


Jason, that was one of the obvious problems -- the time Aaron Rodgers had. I know some people might say, "How can you give Rodgers 12 seconds to throw the ball?" That's what they were saying on TV. There will probably be clocks on SportsCenter this week, timing the rush, but I thought the combination of how they attacked Rodgers was brilliant. Matt Patricia used four-man rushes, three-man rushes and different types of three-man rushes. One example (second quarter, 6:36) came when they started out with a four-man rush look, but on the snap on the ball, both edge rushers (Rob Ninkovich, Akeen Ayers) look to reroute the receivers or help on the slants. So essentially that turns into a two-man rush. But then Dont'a Hightower, from his inside LB position, power rushes up the middle to beat the confused interior of the offensive line, as the defensive tackles that are left use an outside rush to solidify contain. I've played in this defense for a while and I don't remember that type of three-man rush. This has Patricia written all over it. This creativity fires me up. So you got the slant taken care of, you have extra help in coverage, and you have unexpected pressure by the three-man rush. This is good stuff!

 

[cstjohn17]

I thought it was a great game and even though the Patriots were out played (IMO) it was still close and they had a shot in the end.

BB always talks about the players making plays, in a close contest like this Green Bay did more.

There were several closely contested 3rd down plays but the obvious difference in the game was Nelson's TD at the end of the half. A stop there and the Patriots win the game.

The game itself was at a playoff level where it is not the best team that wins but the team that plays the best. Better to lose a close one now than in January. I still like what I see from this team and have high expectations. As a fan of football, this was as good as it gets.

 

[Belichick8384]

The Patriots' defense did decently actually, particularly in the 2nd half. I think as good as Rodgers is, the secondary did pretty well. Their O line was like a wall, too.
The Packers' defense did better than the Patriots' and that's saying something.

I'm glad they worked on their penalty problem, they committed a couple but so did Green Bay. I don't really remember any significant penalties in the 2nd half. They really did well to improve on that.

I think this was the one game they could lose in the last part of the season. They have what it takes to beat the rest of the 5 opponents, imo. They can use the last 5 games to sharpen their gameplan for playoff time. And who knows how far they'll go this year!

 

[SVN]

As Reiss outlined, not enough commitment to own running game plus good tackling by packers , we didnt have many snaps on offense. Not a recipe for success.

 

[Bledsoe_Fan]

After the initial sadness of losing the game, I really don't feel as terrible about this loss as I did. We held Rodgers to 26 in his own home and had our offense scored one more touchdown or had the refs not botched a few calls, we would have had the W. Overall not a horrible game by any means. We showed we can play with the best in the NFC in their house and keep it a game until the end.

 

[Deus Irae]

After the initial sadness of losing the game, I really don't feel as terrible about this loss as I did. We held Rodgers to 26 in his own home and had our offense scored one more touchdown or had the refs not botched a few calls, we would have had the W. Overall not a horrible game by any means. We showed we can play with the best in the NFC in their house and keep it a game until the end.

They held Rodgers to 26 because a Packers receiver dropped an easy TD.

 

[Bledsoe_Fan]

It's not like our receivers didn't drop plenty of passes too though. That's just the nature of the game bro, people don't catch the ball 100% of the time. Even Gronk.

 

[Deus Irae]

It's not like our receivers didn't drop plenty of passes too though. That's just the nature of the game bro, people don't catch the ball 100% of the time. Even Gronk.

If you're going to break down the game with things like "If Gronk had caught the ball" or "The officials...", you need to get it all out there.

Green Bay puts up 30+ if an easy TD pass is caught.

 

[Bledsoe_Fan]

Well we can debate all day about the coulda/shoulda/woulda's but that wasn't my point at all. What happened happened, and we lost by 5 against the Pack at their field. That's that.

 

[Deus Irae]

Well we can debate all day about the coulda/shoulda/woulda's but that wasn't my point at all. What happened happened, and we lost by 5 against the Pack at their field. That's that.

And it could have been 9+ if that ball had been caught. Again, if we're going to woulda/coulda, let's include it all. It's not as if losing by 5 is an accomplishment, in the first place.

 

[Ring 6]

I never said it was any kind of accomplishment, and I never brought up "what if gronk caught the ball" I said no one catches the ball 100% of the time and thats part of the game. ************. I simply said that it wasn't a blowout like alot of you downers are making it sound like the end of the world.

Your post was fine. Don't be discouraged by someone twisting into something else in order to be able to troll you.

 

[Bledsoe_Fan]

Deus as long as I have been reading this forum which has been alot longer than I have posted, every single post you make disagrees with everything and everyone else's opinion. Do you simply enjoy being the devils advocate? Because if that's the case that's totally fine, but don't take what people say out of context.

 

[Deus Irae]

I never said it was any kind of accomplishment, and I never brought up "what if gronk caught the ball" I said no one catches the ball 100% of the time and thats part of the game. ************. I simply said that it wasn't a blowout like alot of you downers are making it sound like the end of the world.

1. Where are all these downers, as opposed to people just trying to rationally analyze the game, and why can't people point out the obvious about a game where the Patriots were dominated and almost won where they had no business even being close? You want to look at "What if?", ok. What if Green Bay hadn't choked in the red zone the way they did?
   
2. You posted "had our offense scored one more touchdown". The Gronk TD is where that would have been.

 

[Deus Irae]

Deus as long as I have been reading this forum which has been alot longer than I have posted, every single post you make disagrees with everything and everyone else's opinion. Do you simply enjoy being the devils advocate? Because if that's the case that's totally fine, but don't take what people say out of context.

Well, that's a load of nonsense right there.

As for devil's advocate, please. And I didn't take anything you said out of context.

 

[DaBruinz]

If you're going to break down the game with things like "If Gronk had caught the ball" or "The officials...", you need to get it all out there.

Green Bay puts up 30+ if an easy TD pass is caught.

If you want to get it ALL out there, then how about the fact that the Packers wouldn't have been up 30+ points because their 2 TDs should have been called back due to illegal hands to the face by the O-linemen..