The Pats Should CONSIDER Replacing Matt Patricia

[DarrylStingley]

Re: That Pats Should Replace Matt Patricia

during his recent chat, Bruschi said that Patricia is doing a great job

I loved Bru the player but I don't find his analysis to be that spot on. Not saying he's wrong on Patricia. Just, in general, I don't see him as a great authority.

 

[BrickPat]

Re: That Pats Should Replace Matt Patricia

That's unfortunate you don't remember seeing him talking to all his defenses during games over they years with EVERY D coach...it's happened so many times...

You may be right...the fact that I don't remember doesn't make it a fact. Perhaps the TV just highlights it more nowadays. Having said that MP has it easy if BB is doing the bullwork. Is he truly the DC or a glorified clip board holder?

 

[The Boston Patriot]

Re: That Pats Should Replace Matt Patricia

I realize that replacing Matt Patricia isn't the hottest of topics, but here's why I think the Pats should do this:

1. Have you ever read or heard anyone say that Matt Patricia is a great coordinator? I assume the answer is no. There's no positive buzz about this guy. Brady can't say enough about Josh and yet defensive players never talk about Matt. Means something, I think.

2. As the season wore on, we saw more of BB than ever with the D during games. That shot of him coaching the D and just looking up at a Pats TD during the Texans game was cool, as it showed how focused Bill is, but it also was a commentary on Bill's level of involvement with the D, while a good thing in some respects, was more than we might have expected given that he's the HC.

3. Patricia is a younger guy who may not be able to challenge Bill.

4. Tom E Curran has alluded many times on the radio during WEEI interviews that Patricia is not a great communicator. Tom is loathe to criticize, probably partially for fear of losing access, so maybe this means something. I think Tom is a smart guy and knows his Pats stuff.

5. Romeo is available. Eric is available. Both would bring an element back to the team. I'd prefer Romeo. By a lot. But it's clear from hearing Eric on the radio that he knows his stuff and maybe he and Bill have buried the hatchet or will. Winning means more than keeping up a feud, even though Eric did a ridiculous thing.

6. While the D improved last year, it still had many flaws. All the 20 yard plays. All the yards. A fresh voice might help avoid some of those things.

So there you have it. My reasons for wanting Patricia out of his current position.

Thoughts?

The old adage "you can't make chicken salad out of chicken ****" should be your guide. With no cover guys after Talib went down we were toast. There is a reason that before Talib it was the same putrid defensive secondary and after he went down, it reverted to same. Attempting to compensate for a woeful secondary brings the rest of the team to it's knees trying to catch up. The only way to do that is through the air and the other team has only to defend the pass.

 

[borg]

Re: That Pats Should Replace Matt Patricia

And to this I respond: Any great offense has a flaw. This team's is getting mugged at the line and smashed in the mouth in the run. If receivers can't get open, timing is off, which in turn causes incompletions or for extra time for the rush to hit home.

The Rams looked unstoppable until they were stopped in the Super Bowl by the Pats, no?

At least the Rams scored 17....during a more defensive era. NE has averaged 13.5 points under Josh in the two games mentioned.....during the golden era of offense.
I'm just trying to identify a flaw in their formula and the 3rd down data screams they have no faith in their own line on critical downs and are willing to declare to defenses via the permanent shot gun formation that they concede the LOS, thus, a one dimensional look on 3rd down

 

[Aßßynormal]

Re: That Pats Should Replace Matt Patricia

Changing the Polian rule for the playoffs is maddening. We are built with smurfs to use this rule on offense. It makes me suspicious, normally I don't care for conspiracy theory.

I don't understand why it was changed.

 

[DarrylStingley]

Re: That Pats Should Replace Matt Patricia

Changing the Polian rule for the playoffs is maddening. We are built with smurfs to use this rule on offense. It makes me suspicious, normally I don't care for conspiracy theory.

I don't understand why it was changed.

Agreed. The rules should not change. The irony that the Pats were beaten while playing more like the Colts is pretty rough.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Re: That Pats Should Replace Matt Patricia

Patricia wasn't the problem. The problem was that, with Talib and Jones hurt, we had neither the pass rush nor the corner talent to stop their passing attack. The game didn't get out of hand until the Ravens figured this out, went almost exclusively with the shotgun, and put the ball in Flacco's hands. He was trying to coordinate a defense that was atrociously short on talent. There isn't a coach in the league who could have fixed that mess.

Should he be replaced? Who knows - it could happen. But last weekend's game wouldn't be the reason why, if he is.

 

[DarrylStingley]

Re: That Pats Should Replace Matt Patricia

Patricia wasn't the problem. The problem was that, with Talib and Jones hurt, we had neither the pass rush nor the corner talent to stop their passing attack. The game didn't get out of hand until the Ravens figured this out, went almost exclusively with the shotgun, and put the ball in Flacco's hands. He was trying to coordinate a defense that was atrociously short on talent. There isn't a coach in the league who could have fixed that mess.

My post/theory isn't just focused on the Baltimore game, though.

I agree that personnel is key.

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: That Pats Should Replace Matt Patricia

I realize that replacing Matt Patricia isn't the hottest of topics, but here's why I think the Pats should do this:

1. Have you ever read or heard anyone say that Matt Patricia is a great coordinator? I assume the answer is no. There's no positive buzz about this guy. Brady can't say enough about Josh and yet defensive players never talk about Matt. Means something, I think.

Please let me know how often defensive players have been interviewed and asked, specifically, about Patricia. One of the reasons that Brady was so effusive about McDaniels was all the controversy that McDaniels got himself into while in Denver.

2. As the season wore on, we saw more of BB than ever with the D during games. That shot of him coaching the D and just looking up at a Pats TD during the Texans game was cool, as it showed how focused Bill is, but it also was a commentary on Bill's level of involvement with the D, while a good thing in some respects, was more than we might have expected given that he's the HC.

The amount that BB was coaching up the D was normal. Something that should ring huge bells for you is that BB never took control of the defensive play-calling unlike when Mangini was the DC.

3. Patricia is a younger guy who may not be able to challenge Bill.

When would we ever know about this? You seem to be under the misguided impression that we hear about everything that goes on with the team. Particularly in game planning sessions.

4. Tom E Curran has alluded many times on the radio during WEEI interviews that Patricia is not a great communicator. Tom is loathe to criticize, probably partially for fear of losing access, so maybe this means something. I think Tom is a smart guy and knows his Pats stuff.

Where have you been? Curran has been on the outside looking in for several years now. He hasn't been a good beat reporter since he went to the national scene and flopped, returning with his tail between his legs.

5. Romeo is available. Eric is available. Both would bring an element back to the team. I'd prefer Romeo. By a lot. But it's clear from hearing Eric on the radio that he knows his stuff and maybe he and Bill have buried the hatchet or will. Winning means more than keeping up a feud, even though Eric did a ridiculous thing.

What, exactly, would Mangini or Crennel bring to the team. You said they'd bring an element. What element? And, considering it wasn't just BB that Mangini burned bridges with, but the entire organization (read Bob Kraft), it's unlikely that Mangini will work for the Pats again.

6. While the D improved last year, it still had many flaws. All the 20 yard plays. All the yards. A fresh voice might help avoid some of those things.

So there you have it. My reasons for wanting Patricia out of his current position.

Thoughts?

The D improved last year as the season progressed. You seem to be over-looking the fact that the Pats had 4 rookies starting on Defense at one point.

Yards allowed: 2012 - 4342 ; 2011 -4703
Avg. Yd. Per Passing Play: 2012 - 7.7 ; 2011 - 8.0
20+ Yd Passing plays : 2012 - 74; 2011 - 79
40+ Yd Passing Plays: 2012 - 8; 2011 - 9
TDs Allowed: 2012 - 37 ; 2011 - 39
Avg. Yd. Per Play: 2012 - 5.5 ; 2011 - 6.2

Yes, they gave up 1 more passing TD, but they also reduced the number of rushing TDs by 3.

Some people would rather just complain than look deeper and understand what's going on.

 

[Tunescribe]

Re: That Pats Should Replace Matt Patricia

Never a good sign when during the game the HC is off the sidelines and back on the bench coaching up the defense....we saw that on NUMEROUS occasions especially late in the season. NOT good!!

Why is this not good? He's always done that every season since he's been here, including the Crennel years. It's what BB does. His "specialty" always has been working with defense, especially linebackers.

Another ignorant thread that should be practice squad bound.

 

[DarrylStingley]

Re: That Pats Should Replace Matt Patricia

Please let me know how often defensive players have been interviewed and asked, specifically, about Patricia. One of the reasons that Brady was so effusive about McDaniels was all the controversy that McDaniels got himself into while in Denver.



The amount that BB was coaching up the D was normal. Something that should ring huge bells for you is that BB never took control of the defensive play-calling unlike when Mangini was the DC.



When would we ever know about this? You seem to be under the misguided impression that we hear about everything that goes on with the team. Particularly in game planning sessions.



Where have you been? Curran has been on the outside looking in for several years now. He hasn't been a good beat reporter since he went to the national scene and flopped, returning with his tail between his legs.



What, exactly, would Mangini or Crennel bring to the team. You said they'd bring an element. What element? And, considering it wasn't just BB that Mangini burned bridges with, but the entire organization (read Bob Kraft), it's unlikely that Mangini will work for the Pats again.



The D improved last year as the season progressed. You seem to be over-looking the fact that the Pats had 4 rookies starting on Defense at one point.

Yards allowed: 2012 - 4342 ; 2011 -4703
Avg. Yd. Per Passing Play: 2012 - 7.7 ; 2011 - 8.0
20+ Yd Passing plays : 2012 - 74; 2011 - 79
40+ Yd Passing Plays: 2012 - 8; 2011 - 9
TDs Allowed: 2012 - 37 ; 2011 - 39
Avg. Yd. Per Play: 2012 - 5.5 ; 2011 - 6.2

Yes, they gave up 1 more passing TD, but they also reduced the number of rushing TDs by 3.

Some people would rather just complain than look deeper and understand what's going on.

Your post is unnecessarily harsh and I think you're wrong on a number of points.

1. I have not heard people complain about Patricia, true. But it's telling that we've never once heard a player praise Patricia. Over the course of two seasons, you'd think that at least one defensive player, if not more, would have done so. Conclusive? No. But indicative? Yes, I think.

2. The amount of time that BB was involved with the D was, in my view, unusual. I don't recall Bill spending that amount of time during games with the D during the SB years. Sure, there were times he was there. "In Cuts! In Cuts! That's the game!" Who could forget that awesome quote during the first Rams game in 2001? I just think he spent more time this year and I don't recall seeing him over there so consistently while the Pats were on offense.

3. Several members of the Boston media have noted over time that Bill no longer has older guys on the staff who are in a position to challenge hm as much. They've noted that guys like Rome and Charlie were older and had been colleagues with Bill earlier. That's where I'm getting it. It makes some sense to me.

4. Your comments re Curran are way off. He is around the team all the time. Whether he has a TV show on Comcast or writes for a newspaper is of no moment. The fact is that he's in press conferences and I regularly hear him asking questions of Bill in that context. I regularly see him interviewing players on Comcast. He's in the Pats media world.

5. Romeo was with the Pats when they won 3 SBs. He, as contrasted with Patricia, was constantly praised by the players as being a key guy in the Pats success. Guys referred to both his tactical skills and his almost fatherly style personality and coaching. Romeo's element is pretty clear to see. I agree that Mangini is a tougher sell. He sounds very smart and insightful to me on radio interviews. But I have much less confidence that Mangini adds a missing element.

6. True that the D improved and was young. But I am not arguing that the D is terrible or that Patricia is hopeless. I just wonder if the D can be better and Bill can be freed up if we have Romeo (or Mangini or someone else better than Patricia).

Last, the purpose is more about discussing it. Maybe the Pats are better off with staying with Matt and continuity is really important. I tend to think not...

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: That Pats Should Replace Matt Patricia

I realize that replacing Matt Patricia isn't the hottest of topics, but here's why I think the Pats should do this:

1. Have you ever read or heard anyone say that Matt Patricia is a great coordinator? I assume the answer is no. There's no positive buzz about this guy. Brady can't say enough about Josh and yet defensive players never talk about Matt. Means something, I think.

2. As the season wore on, we saw more of BB than ever with the D during games. That shot of him coaching the D and just looking up at a Pats TD during the Texans game was cool, as it showed how focused Bill is, but it also was a commentary on Bill's level of involvement with the D, while a good thing in some respects, was more than we might have expected given that he's the HC.

3. Patricia is a younger guy who may not be able to challenge Bill.

4. Tom E Curran has alluded many times on the radio during WEEI interviews that Patricia is not a great communicator. Tom is loathe to criticize, probably partially for fear of losing access, so maybe this means something. I think Tom is a smart guy and knows his Pats stuff.

5. Romeo is available. Eric is available. Both would bring an element back to the team. I'd prefer Romeo. By a lot. But it's clear from hearing Eric on the radio that he knows his stuff and maybe he and Bill have buried the hatchet or will. Winning means more than keeping up a feud, even though Eric did a ridiculous thing.

6. While the D improved last year, it still had many flaws. All the 20 yard plays. All the yards. A fresh voice might help avoid some of those things.

So there you have it. My reasons for wanting Patricia out of his current position.

Thoughts?

Probably your worst post in several months

 

[DarrylStingley]

Re: That Pats Should Replace Matt Patricia

Why is this not good? He's always done that every season since he's been here, including the Crennel years. It's what BB does. His "specialty" always has been working with defense, especially linebackers.

Another ignorant thread that should be practice squad bound.

I don't understand that comment. That you don't agree with a theory doesn't make it ignorant. In the end, I could be wrong, but with Romeo Crennel out of a job, I hope Bill is at least considering bringing back someone who could make a difference.

From my perspective, there are lots of reasons why the Pats have not won a SB since 2004.

Luck, injuries, personnel and improved competition are all on the list. So are other items.

But one thing we know that changed is coaching. Our team lost two experienced, respected coordinators.

How is it foolish to discuss whether the team would be improved by bringing back one of them?

Even if you say "no, I'd rather stay with Matt," I think it's worth considering a guy like Crennel all things considered.

And yeah, I know, Romeo may want to retire or may not even want to work again with Bill....

 

[DarrylStingley]

Re: That Pats Should Replace Matt Patricia

Probably your worst post in several months

One thing is clear. My theory isn't getting much traction here. And that's fine, I don't have to be right. I'm often wrong. This could very well be one of those times. I don't think I am but maybe I'm wrong about that too!

But just saying that isn't a good post either. A good post takes apart a theory or at least points out some of the flaws. You seem to think that a strong statement speaks for itself. It doesn't.

 

[DocHoliday]

As OC, Josh has led the NE offense to two of the highest scoring regular seasons in NFL history. Then, 14 pts vs Giants in '07('08 in reality) SB and 13 points vs Baltimore last week. Quite a conundrum.

A common theme with Josh as OC in these two games is his reluctance to keep Brady under center on 3rd down. Verses the NYG in '07, Brady was in shot gun 13/15 3rd downs. Verses Baltimore, Brady was in shot gun 14/15 3rd downs.

Combining both games, the 3 non shotgun snaps total were hand offs, therefore, we can determine that McDaniels called ZERO play action plays on 3rd down in these two playoff games. Verses Baltimore, NE remained permanently in 3rd shot gun for the final 55 minutes. Verses the GMen, for the final 45 minutes.

Is this the norm for passing teams, a 90% shot gun rate on 3rd down and a 0% play action rate? According to Felger and his panel yesterday, Baltimore lived in the nickel last week yet NE refused to challenge this 4 man front with Brady under center runs.

The eye test showed me both NYG and Balt controlled the LOS and NE chose to avoid direct contact with their D lines.

This quick analysis is just food for thought....but....one has to wonder why NE has scored so few points when opposing teams with stout lines. We are talking the NE Patriots, one of the greatest air shows in NFL history. Offense like Baltimore feed off of play action which, when successful, open up the center of the field by freezing the LBs. Either McDaniels just doesn't believe in it, or he accepts that NE just doesn't have the O line to win the hard yards so he can't sell it. Or it's a Brady thing.

Two big games, two clear examples of NE predictability, two of their lowest scoring games in recent years, two losses. We can argue deep receiver, etc etc....but maybe NE needs to start in the trenches with a little tendency self evaluation sprinkled in.

Sorry to go off the reservation from the OP.

When you are getting only 3.5 yards a carry against the Ravens against their NICKEL D why would Josh call a run play?

The O-line gave up the most pressures it had given since the 49ers game. They practically had to go shotgun.

 

[Kontradiction]

Re: That Pats Should Replace Matt Patricia

Right down the toilet this thread should go. For one, the defense has improved every season Patricia has been here. For anther, Patricia is running Belichick's schemes. For another, the team made a move for a top five cornerback this year, letting everyone know where Belichick thought the problems lied. For another, I remember when everyone wanted Dean Pees gone because he was supposed to be "the problem". He sure kicked our asses last weekend, didn't he? Flush this turd into the Practice Squad forum, where it should have been posted anyway.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: That Pats Should Replace Matt Patricia

One thing is clear. My theory isn't getting much traction here. And that's fine, I don't have to be right. I'm often wrong. This could very well be one of those times. I don't think I am but maybe I'm wrong about that too!

But just saying that isn't a good post either. A good post takes apart a theory or at least points out some of the flaws. You seem to think that a strong statement speaks for itself. It doesn't.

You're wrong here, too, Darryl. A strong statement often speaks for itself. In this case, it had the backing of others that had already dealt with many of the arguments you made, so I was trying to avoid piling on. However, I'll offer one example:

Let me just point out one of the ways your post was really poor....

Patricia is a younger guy who may not be able to challenge Bill

Now, this is a lousy argument on multiple levels. First is that age has little or nothing to do with the ability/willingness to challenge another: that's about personality. There are teens who'll challenge anyone, and there are senior citizens who go out of their way to avoid any and all conflict.

Second is that Belichick was 28 when he became the D.C. of the Giants, and he was doing that under Parcells who, by all accounts, was a bigger bastard and bullying hardass than Belichick is. As a matter of fact, another quality NFL defensive guy, Mike Nolan, also became a Giants D.C. at age 28, under Dan Reeves.

 

[DarrylStingley]

Re: That Pats Should Replace Matt Patricia

You're wrong here, too, Darryl. A strong statement often speaks for itself. In this case, it had the backing of others who've already dealt with many of the arguments you made, so I was trying to avoid piling on. However, I'll offer one example:

Let me just point out one of the ways your post was really poor....



Now, this is a lousy argument on multiple levels. First is that age has little or nothing to do with the ability/willingness to challenge another: that's about personality. There are teens who'll challenge anyone, and there are senior citizens who go out of their way to avoid any and all conflict.

Second is that Belichick was 28 when he became the D.C. of the Giants, and he was doing that under Parcells, who was a bigger bastard and bullying hardass than Belichick is. As a Matter of fact, another quality NFL defensive guy, Mike Nolan, also became a Giants D.C. at age 28, under Dan Reeves.

Fair point re age.

My point was less about age per se than having experienced guys RELATIVE TO BB who can call BS on him or challenge him. This is something I've heard from Curran and other guys on WEEI and 98.5 over the season.

(I run and listen to podcasts regularly so my mind gets infected with Bedard, Curran, Reiss and Mort throughout the season).

So yeah, true, BB was a great young coach and there have been many of them. But how many of them had to deal with a legend like Bill as the HC?

It could be that a more experienced hand like Romeo could challenge him and make him think, based on his age, accomplishments and experience, more than Patricia.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: That Pats Should Replace Matt Patricia

Fair point re age.

My point was less about age per se than having experienced guys RELATIVE TO BB who can call BS on him or challenge him. This is something I've heard from Curran and other guys on WEEI and 98.5 over the season.

(I run and listen to podcasts regularly so my mind gets infected with Bedard, Curran, Reiss and Mort throughout the season).

So yeah, true, BB was a great young coach and there have been many of them. But how many of them had to deal with a legend like Bill as the HC?

It could be that a more experienced hand like Romeo could challenge him and make him think, based on his age, accomplishments and experience, more than Patricia.

It [highlight]could be[/highlight] that Matt Patricia is a hard case and scares the living **** out of BB. We don't know the inner dynamics, and we certainly don't know that Crennel challenging BB would be of any use at this point.

Your argument here is nothing but guesswork, and it certainly doesn't merit a "replace Patricia" post. It's like most of your arguments:

The "buzz" argument
The Curran argument
The "many flaws" argument
The "BB intereference" argument

Those are all really lousy arguments. They're horrible either because they are near-total speculations (Buzz/Curran) or because they ignore what's pretty much always true (many flaws/BB interference). The only argument you made that didn't suck was that Crennel is available. However, having other options isn't a reason why the Patriots should replace Patricia. There are always other options available.

Matt Patricia has been the D.C. for just one year. If BB doesn't think things are working out, for whatever reason, he should move on. Outside of that, you've offered nothing that shows Patricia to be an issue.

 

[Brady2Moss]

Re: That Pats Should Replace Matt Patricia

Probably your worst post in several months

Just a thing I've noticed in seeing some of your posts, most are spent stating how posters do not think or how posts are "garbage" very rarely do you offer anything but mockery.