Were NFL defenses catching up to the tricky 2007 Pats?

[eom]

when you say the o 'tanked' what do you mean?

are you referring to that single game where we got beat?

 

[Shockt327]

I still find it shocking how many people are misinterpreting this argument to make it more 'black and white' than it should be....

No one is saying the offense is a gimmick or that it will flop in 2009. Just that teams now know what not to do against NE. And like it or not, the Patriots benefited greatly from that in early 2007. Look, when teams break down film they figure out what works and what doesn't work - that was the main point of the article with Guinta. We saw teams playing too conservative, trying to limit the the deep pass. We saw teams get too aggressive with the blitz - only to get picked apart. Teams now know not to do that. Playing soft like the Jags did is certain doom. Going crazy with the blitz is like suicide. What teams learned is that you have to keep at least one safety deep, get physical with Moss, mostly rush 4, keep the blitzing to a minimum and make sure the flats are covered in case of the screen.

Not every team can execute this like the Giants did. Obviously. But even if lesser teams follow what the Giants did or some variation the results will at least be better than they would have otherwise been. It's a process of elimination.

 

[eom]

keep the blitzing to a minimum

ohhhhh.....that must be what they all learned from that philly film that everybody keeps going on about.

BLUEPRINT!!

 

[Shockt327]

ohhhhh.....that must be what they all learned from that philly film that everybody keeps going on about.

BLUEPRINT!!

This is pretty much all you have to add to the conversation. You aren't debating anyone on what they are actually saying. Rather, you are taking things to unnecessary extremes, and blowing things out of proportion. You are building a straw-man and tearing it down. This is a rhetorical tactic, attempting to inspire an emotional reaction - rather than an actual debate. Grow up. And yes, when a Giants assistant coach says that the gameplan was created by looking at what other teams did and seeing what strategies did/didn't work - then you are going have to come up with a much better rebuttal that "omg! BLUEPRINT? omg!"

 

[eom]

yeah, I already came up w/one --- it's hidden in the first post of this thread.

I also linked you to another one.

maybe you're just confusing me --- is the secret key to beating the pats lots of overload blitzing like philly, or not blitzing like philly?

 

[eom]

It wasn't as if the the line simply got run over, there's more to it than that. Before, teams were playing conservative in an attempt to merely limit the deep passes. Didn't work. Then teams were more successful at hindering the Patriots offense by using delay blitzes and zone blitzes. I believe the Eagles were the first team to try it extensively. The Ravens also had success with overloads. San Diego also used the zone blitz successfully.

Going crazy with the blitz is like suicide. What teams learned is that you have to keep at least one safety deep, get physical with Moss, mostly rush 4, keep the blitzing to a minimum

ok, you made me feel guilty about the strawman and all that, so I'll let you speak for yourself.

I've also noticed that you tend to keep harping on the final game of the year as supposed evidence of this 'trend'.
one game is your trend?

when you rush 4 and those 4 guys run over the opposing line like they're at a track meet a lot of 'schemes' will look successful.
those safeties could've been out getting a hotdog.

as you might have noticed, after a year of film study to further dissect us, we were back to scoring about 32 ppg w/cassel under center, starting a practice squad running back, which is almost identical to what they were scoring in the first 5 games of '07 while they were busy surprising the league w/this never before seen offense.

I'd like to get your take on that unoriginal thread I linked.

 

[Shockt327]

You do realize that on a zone blitz you are only sending a 4 man rush, right? You are dropping someone off the D-line into coverage, and sending a LB. And when the Ravens overloaded one side, they were still only sending 4 most of the time.

It's not like a regular blitz where where you are coming at the QB, but at the expense of the coverage - which didn't out well for the Giants in wk 17.

 

[Deus Irae]

I still find it shocking how many people are misinterpreting this argument to make it more 'black and white' than it should be....

No one is saying the offense is a gimmick or that it will flop in 2009. Just that teams now know what not to do against NE. And like it or not, the Patriots benefited greatly from that in early 2007. Look, when teams break down film they figure out what works and what doesn't work - that was the main point of the article with Guinta. We saw teams playing too conservative, trying to limit the the deep pass. We saw teams get too aggressive with the blitz - only to get picked apart. Teams now know not to do that. Playing soft like the Jags did is certain doom. Going crazy with the blitz is like suicide. What teams learned is that you have to keep at least one safety deep, get physical with Moss, mostly rush 4, keep the blitzing to a minimum and make sure the flats are covered in case of the screen.

Not every team can execute this like the Giants did. Obviously. But even if lesser teams follow what the Giants did or some variation the results will at least be better than they would have otherwise been. It's a process of elimination.

1 team beat the Patriots. To do it, it took terrible non-calls by officials, dropped interceptions by the Patriots DBs, Brady being hobbled from the previous game, Neal being lost to injury, Mankins playing the worst game of his NFL career, a fluke catch off of a player's helmet, and more.

That same Giants team that had figured it out so well had given up 30+ points in the previous encounter, when they had busted their ass trying to prevent 16-0 from happening.

The "blueprint" was an easy one: play the Patriots when they are hurt. Get ridiculously lucky. Have the officials err on your side. It's the same 'blueprint' the Colts had in the AFCCG the year before.

Ignoring the strength of opposing defenses and weather makes the "they caught up" argument look better, but it doesn't make it accurate.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Maybe the blueprint is to physically dominate at the line of scrimmage, which has pretty much been the standard blueprint for winning football games for well over 100 years. That's what happened in the games we looked even a little vulnerable and for sure what happened in the game that we lost. Nothing fancy that the Giants players or coaches figured out on film, just that many guys would win their battle, keep the chains from moving on D and keep the chains moving on O.

Maybe the perceived decline was playing more physical teams later in the year, or key guys getting physically worn down later in the year.

 

[eom]

You do realize that on a zone blitz you are only sending a 4 man rush, right? You are dropping someone off the D-line into coverage, and sending a LB. And when the Ravens overloaded one side, they were still only sending 4 most of the time.

It's not like a regular blitz where where you are coming at the QB, but at the expense of the coverage - which didn't out well for the Giants in wk 17.

I'm just trying to figure what it was that philly was doing that gave the giants all this film to study.

how many guys were they sending, and who were they?

did you read unoriginal's thread yet?

 

[godef]

wtf are you talking about?

LMAO, are you for real? You did a decent in depth analysis but then crucified the first person who dared to differ with you. And you ask WTF I'm talking about?

 

[Shockt327]

maybe you're just confusing me --- is the secret key to beating the pats lots of overload blitzing like philly, or not blitzing like philly?

I seem to remember Philly doing a little bit of everything: straight up blitz; as in rushing more than 4, some zone blites, and overloads with more than 4. They seemed to really crowd the LOS and play aggressive. Some of it worked, some of it didn't. But it was all part of the process, as the article with the Giants DB coach points out.

Baltimore was the team that successfully used overloads as I recall. They occasionally sent more than 4. But mostly they were able to send just 4, by crowding one side of the line. One half of the line was overmatched, the other half was left blocking air. According to the Giants DB coach, that left a big impression on Spagnuolo.

 

[ausbacker]

1 team beat the Patriots. To do it, it took terrible non-calls by officials, dropped interceptions by the Patriots DBs, Brady being hobbled from the previous game, Neal being lost to injury, Mankins playing the worst game of his NFL career, a fluke catch off of a player's helmet, and more.

That same Giants team that had figured it out so well had given up 30+ points in the previous encounter, when they had busted their ass trying to prevent 16-0 from happening.

The "blueprint" was an easy one: play the Patriots when they are hurt. Get ridiculously lucky. Have the officials err on your side. It's the same 'blueprint' the Colts had in the AFCCG the year before.

Ignoring the strength of opposing defenses and weather makes the "they caught up" argument look better, but it doesn't make it accurate.

Deus, you've summarised my feelings of that game in one foul swoop.

 

[Shockt327]

I'm just trying to figure what it was that philly was doing that gave the giants all this film to study.

how many guys were they sending, and who were they?

did you read unoriginal's thread yet?

Did you read the article that I posted? That coach seems to focus way more on Baltimore and Cleveland than the Eagles; though he does indeed mention them.

BTW - 'Unoriginal thread,' huh?

 

[Satchboogie3]

WTF is the point of this thread?

 

[eom]

Did you read the article that I posted? That coach seems to focus way more on Baltimore and Cleveland than the Eagles; though he does indeed mention them.

BTW - 'Unoriginal thread,' huh?

I think you're missing the point there, dude.

you are the one who started this off by saying philly gave the nfl all this film on the pats, no doubt influenced by BSPN's omg blueprint!!!1
but just a few posts up you refer to aggressive blitzing and sending more than 4 as 'suicide'.

are you telling me the giants' superbowl defense was similar to what philly used?

what I am telling you is that philly didn't invent some special d to play the pats based on weeks of film study.
they play the d they like to play --- that's it.
baltimore's overload schemes?
that's what they do -- that's not weeks of film on the pats.

are you telling me the giants beat the pats in the superbowl because of all this overload blitzing?

what I am telling you is that the giants beat the pats at the LoS w/simple straight up man rushing from guys like justin tuck, who doesn't play in philly and baltimore.

where was all this film from philly and baltimore in week 14 when they smoked the steelers?
how about week 17 when they put up 38 on the clever giants?
how about a year later when they were ringing up 32 ppg w/cassel and the law firm?

one bad game at the end of the season is not a trend.

 

[eom]

WTF is the point of this thread?

made you look.

 

[Satchboogie3]

I think you're missing the point there, dude.

you are the one who started this off by saying philly gave the nfl all this film on the pats, no doubt influenced by BSPN's omg blueprint!!!1
but just a few posts up you refer to aggressive blitzing and sending more than 4 as 'suicide'.

are you telling me the giants' superbowl defense was similar to what philly used?

what I am telling you is that philly didn't invent some special d to play the pats based on weeks of film study.
they play the d they like to play --- that's it.
baltimore's overload schemes?
that's what they do -- that's not weeks of film on the pats.

are you telling me the giants beat the pats in the superbowl because of all this overload blitzing?

what I am telling you is that the giants beat the pats at the LoS w/simple straight up man rushing from guys like justin tuck, who doesn't play in philly and baltimore.

where was all this film from philly and baltimore in week 14 when they smoked the steelers?
how about week 17 when they put up 38 on the clever giants?
how about a year later when they were ringing up 32 ppg w/cassel and the law firm?

one bad game at the end of the season is not a trend.

This is why I asked what the point of the thread is. The facts in your first post, obviously, are wrong. The fact is, the Patriots couldn't put up the numbers at the end of the season that it did to start the season. That being said, It has to do with many many factors, and it is just the norm in football. We played some good teams late in the season, we played teams that were fired up to try to end our perfect season. We had a bad game or 2 and/or played a couple bad weather games.

But, again, so what? It's like that with just about every other team every year. I also think Brady's health had something to do with the Superbowl.

I still can't believe people are having this discussion. We had some tough games at the end of the year, we lost only one, unfortunately it was the big one. Move on.

The 09 offense has nothing to do with anything that happened in 07.

 

[eom]

The facts in your first post, obviously, are wrong.

which ones are wrong?

correct them, plz, and I'll go back and change them.

 

[efin98]

WTF is the point of this thread?

I am starting to ask myself the same question...the point has been made and counterpoints came in to refute it, the rest is just basic in fighting...