Why the Pats don't win big - my take

[friggs]

Maybe this deserves to be merged into another thread, it touches on topics I know I've read about in here recently. But I am too lazy to look for the right thread to reply to. So, I will leave that decision to our very capable Moderators.

Anyway, so far this season and in seasons past there has been a lot of hand wringing and upset fans/sportswriters/tv "experts" in regards to the offense and defense the Pats play. "Why do they let bad teams stay in games?" "Why don't they blow out people by 40 points like the Colts?" These comments and many like these have been uttered over the last 3 or 4 years.

I know that somewhere along the line points scored and allowed comes into the playoff seed tie breaking system. Plus, regularly beating teams by 45 points sure looks good on television. BB doesn't give a rat's a** about that. We all know how much time and effort he and the rest of the crew put into looking at film, seeing what teams and players do well and do poorly. If the game is in hand, far better to run the vanilla run, run, pass, punt sequence than to run some cool play that'll be good for 40 yards. Why? Because that play is not needed then. And if you do run it when it isn't needed, there is film of it. So next week, or in 4 weeks, or in the Superbowl, when we DO need that play the possibility exists that the other team has studied that play and come up with an effective way to defend it.

In a perfect world, I have no doubt that BB would want the Pats to go undefeated, winning every game 3-0 without ever showing anyone anything that they could use against us. Remember, every battle is won before it is fought, and you can't win a battle if you show up without ammo.

Games like the Bengals game...that was just a case of the Pats being so much better prepared mentally and physically that to not run up the score they would've had to turn the ball over on purpose, and that would just be stupid.

Anyway, that's my take on the Pats and how they run the O and the D. Questions? Comments? I've been a long time reader here, and a VERY infrequent poster, so try not to slam me too hard.

 

[patsox23]

good point. Interesting perspective and I'm sure you're right.

I might add that BB is focused on JUST WIN, and anything that gets in the way of that is pushed aside. Once a game is in hand, run, run, pass, punt (if necessary) is the shortest route to victory (generally speaking), and the least risky.

A big pass play down the field could give you another quick 6, but it's also more likely to require more time for patterns to develop, protection to hold up, etc... which increases the odds of a disaster - sack and fumble, an INT going the other way for a TD, that kind of thing - so to absolutely SEW UP a victory, it's best to play, for the most part, "within themselves," and make it a stone-cold lock win.

 

[maverick4]

I concur.

It's what all the greats do. They do just enough to win, save their energy and plays, and only use their top plays when they need to. That's how you stay on top for a long time.

You're not in the minority on this one.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I know that somewhere along the line points scored and allowed comes into the playoff seed tie breaking system. Plus, regularly beating teams by 45 points sure looks good on television. BB doesn't give a rat's a** about that. We all know how much time and effort he and the rest of the crew put into looking at film, seeing what teams and players do well and do poorly. If the game is in hand, far better to run the vanilla run, run, pass, punt sequence than to run some cool play that'll be good for 40 yards. Why? Because that play is not needed then. And if you do run it when it isn't needed, there is film of it. So next week, or in 4 weeks, or in the Superbowl, when we DO need that play the possibility exists that the other team has studied that play and come up with an effective way to defend it.

:agree:

In a perfect world, I have no doubt that BB would want the Pats to go undefeated, winning every game 3-0 without ever showing anyone anything that they could use against us. Remember, every battle is won before it is fought, and you can't win a battle if you show up without ammo.

One not-so-minor correction here, though: Belichick would want to win every game by a score of 7-0, not 3-0. Remember--a FG is a missed TD opportunity.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Belichick is all about efficiency and consistency and execution. He'd have no problem with scoring a ton of points as a result of converting every third down and scoring a TD on every trip into the red zone. But he believes you should almost be able to do that if your team executes consistently and having to resort to tactics like emptying out the playbook (for all to see) or resorting to high risk plays (when a team isn't executing consistently to begin with) is not a sound long term winning strategy. If you cannot score on a particular drive (possibly because the other team tends to show up at least once in a while in the NFL) than it is preferable to win the field position game and win to fight another series than to make a costly mistake born of impatience or frustration.

 

[RAWKY]

I also agree and would add this point BB's game management is all about "CONTROLING EXPOSURE TO RISK" ie: turn overs, penalties and mental mistakes on either side of the ball.

Whether it is offense or defense the primary focus is take the fewest risks possible while attacking your opponents greatest strengh on defense.

Thus if your opponent is going to defeat you he must do it with his weakest hand, thus your opponents RISK EXPOSURE increases expotentially.

In a full sixty minutes of football that increased RISK EXPOUSRE by your opponet will most of the time give our team what the press call LUCKY points and or deny the opponet what would normally be DUE points if RISK EXPOSURE were in fact equal for the teams.

Thus many of our opponets fans call the Pats THE LUCKIEST TEAM IN NFL HISTORY because they have no idea that BBs game management scheme is specifically designed to skew the X factor as far as possible in the Pats favor.

No it is not sexy, in fact it is more like siege warfare then blitzkrieg but it is effective and lets face it the GOAL IS TO WIN THE WAR not the PR accolades.

 

[friggs]

:agree:



One not-so-minor correction here, though: Belichick would want to win every game by a score of 7-0, not 3-0. Remember--a FG is a missed TD opportunity.

I stand corrected. Of course a TD is better than a FG. Don't know where my brain went on that one.

This is the first thread I've ever started, so I'm glad that so far the consensus is something other than "this guy is an Idiot".

 

[Fanfrom1960]

This is the first thread I've ever started, so I'm glad that so far the consensus is something other than "this guy is an Idiot".

Certainly not warranted, but I'm surprised that nobody else so far has said 'what's wrong with 28 - 6'? Also, the Cinci game was a blowout. Also also, as others have pointed out, not the Pats style even in the SB years.

 

[Bella*chick]

I was also a bit surprised that no one pointed out that two of our five wins so far have been pretty good, margin-wise. But I think the OP's point is absolutely correct anyway. This is our style. It isn't always pretty, but it more often than not gets the job done.

I think I'm going to forward these thoughts to my dad, who is a lifelong Pats fan, but seems a little confused recently about what he's seeing. Actually, wait a second, I think I know why he sits and complains when he is watching with me...because this is the first time I have ever had Sunday ticket and he's never actually SEEN them play all their games. He was in strict highlightville for the SB years.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

I was also a bit surprised that no one pointed out that two of our five wins so far have been pretty good, margin-wise. But I think the OP's point is absolutely correct anyway. This is our style. It isn't always pretty, but it more often than not gets the job done.

I think I'm going to forward these thoughts to my dad, who is a lifelong Pats fan, but seems a little confused recently about what he's seeing. Actually, wait a second, I think I know why he sits and complains when he is watching with me...because this is the first time I have ever had Sunday ticket and he's never actually SEEN them play all their games. He was in strict highlightville for the SB years.

**SIGH** It is SOOOOO hard training parents.

 

[friggs]

I think that the fact that the last two wins were by good margins reinforces my point. If you can beat a team by 20+ points by doing the same old same old, why bring out the razzle dazzle? If the same runs and passes that we've been using for 5 years, tweaked some to fit who is on the roster at the time will do the job there is no reason to use some flashy new scheme

Since my original post, I've been thinking more about what I said. Back when we won our first Super Bowl, the Rams were running up the score on just about everybody they played. Granted, they needed 40+ points to win a good portion of the time because their defense was bad, but it certainly gave BB a ton of film to watch, and to see what they liked to do. And because of that, we were able to counter what they wanted to do, and made them do what they were less comfortable doing.

Think back, how many times have we read about a Pats player talking about a pivotal point in a game, and they said basically "I knew in this situation this person tended to do this". That knowledge has lead to a sack, an interception, a TD because Brady knew with the corner blitz coming a certain WR would be open, etc. Again and again it is all coming down to the Pats being smarter and better prepared before anyone steps onto the field.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

This has already been treated in principal with Mo's take on minimizing risk. But to get down into the weeds a bit: what do we call Corey? Clock-killin. Why would any team want to kill the clock, if they could score a TD, leave the other team with seven minutes, probably get the ball back in 3 minutes, and score again, no worse for the experience? Because when the ball is in your hands, they can't score. No onside-kick-then-lightning-drive-victory, none of that. That's what ball control means. Don't turn it over, keep your drive alive, churn out the yards, and, in many instances, you just can't lose. That's what the Pats do when they are up a score. Often the other team has little or no time to counter, and just can not counter twice. Illustrations:

1) How many games can you remember when the Pats are up 1 score, execute a long drive for a second score, then win the game by 3 or 7, when the other team makes it back for one desperation drive? I think there have been a lot of them. You know, the "it wasn't as close as the score" games.

2) Conversely, how many games can you remember when the Pats are up by a score or two, then do a last-minute collapse (say, like the Cards did against the Bears?) Maybe it's my rose colored glasses, but I can't remember the last time the Pats did that.

Anyway, to sum up, here's why the Pats don't win big: They grind down the clock, rather than add another score. That's pretty much saying the same thing as has been said here already, but I figured I'd break it down because some people may be even dumber than me.

PFnV

 

[Bella*chick]

This has already been treated in principal with Mo's take on minimizing risk. But to get down into the weeds a bit: what do we call Corey? Clock-killin. Why would any team want to kill the clock, if they could score a TD, leave the other team with seven minutes, probably get the ball back in 3 minutes, and score again, no worse for the experience? Because when the ball is in your hands, they can't score. No onside-kick-then-lightning-drive-victory, none of that. That's what ball control means. Don't turn it over, keep your drive alive, churn out the yards, and, in many instances, you just can't lose. That's what the Pats do when they are up a score. Often the other team has little or no time to counter, and just can not counter twice. Illustrations:

1) How many games can you remember when the Pats are up 1 score, execute a long drive for a second score, then win the game by 3 or 7, when the other team makes it back for one desperation drive? I think there have been a lot of them. You know, the "it wasn't as close as the score" games.

2) Conversely, how many games can you remember when the Pats are up by a score or two, then do a last-minute collapse (say, like the Cards did against the Bears?) Maybe it's my rose colored glasses, but I can't remember the last time the Pats did that.

Anyway, to sum up, here's why the Pats don't win big: They grind down the clock, rather than add another score. That's pretty much saying the same thing as has been said here already, but I figured I'd break it down because some people may be even dumber than me.

PFnV

Yes, and one of the finest examples of the clock-killin' mentality in action was the 2004 Pats playoff game against Indy. Especially the near perfect second half. The Colts offense was simply unable to do anything that day,in large part because they were never on the field. That remains one of my favorite games of all time.

 

[Oswlek]

I believe that every coach goes into every glame to win, and to score as many points that they can , until the game is in hand, as the thread initiator said.....because most NFL coaches understand that in today's NFL, things can change very quickly, and things DO turn around quickly....

Things happen that can't be predicted...(remember the Cardinal/Bears game) and there are games EVERY weekend where one team has had a reasonable lead only to see it disappear in the third, or fourth, quarter and then, lose the game.

I amnot saying that you have tyo score a touchdown every time you have the ball, and I doubt BB thinks that either...but contrary to what some of you are suggesting, I believe he realizes that you do need to score at every opportunity that you can while the game's outcome is still in question.

To suggest that he enters games just trying to, barely, win, is ludicrous.

He is far to smart of a coach and there is no doubt in my mid that he realizes that in the NFL, no lead is safe until the final gun, or at least the waning moments and you can control the clock, and the ball.

And yes, the Pats dont fold too often, or even RARELY, but you can never say never in the NFL, and I am sure BB realizes that. I am sure, IMO, that there have been many times that he would have preferred to have a wider margin of victory, especially going into the final quarter. And, I am sure the defense would like it too.

It would give him time to evaluate other players, situations, etc.....

This is correct, but it is absolutely correct that coaches will ammend a game plan or drop a few plays from the playbook if they feel that they are going to have the game in hand. It isn't about actively not trying to score, it's about how many bullets in your six shot you plan on using.

BTW, NEM, please stop saying that your criticisms are in any way shape or form comparable to BB's postgame comments. Of course he is going to be critical! He is the coach! Plus, I don't think that there is a fan out there that thinks that NE has played a perfect game this year. So obviously there is going to be something that can be improved.

BB, however, knows exactly what they were trying to do on a micro and macro level. He knows what weaknesses they were trying to exploit and he knows what weaknesses they were trying to cover up. You? Not so much. Which is the same as me, but I'm not trying to put myself on that level.

 

[Fanfrom1960]

Yes, and one of the finest examples of the clock-killin' mentality in action was the 2004 Pats playoff game against Indy. Especially the near perfect second half. The Colts offense was simply unable to do anything that day,in large part because they were never on the field. That remains one of my favorite games of all time.

I agree, and in the other playoff game that year, 41 - 27 over Pittsburgh, the Patriots kiiiind of let Pittsburgh back in, even though they built up a much bigger first half lead, with the bomb to Branch, etc.,than they did in the Colts game. Even though I never felt the Pittsburgh game was in a whole lot of doubt, I felt the Colts were under the thumb the whole game. Think we'll ever have two bigger wins over two bigger rivals?

 

[Oswlek]

I agree, and in the other playoff game that year, 41 - 27 over Pittsburgh, the Patriots kiiiind of let Pittsburgh back in, even though they built up a much bigger first half lead, with the bomb to Branch, etc.,than they did in the Colts game. Even though I never felt the Pittsburgh game was in a whole lot of doubt, I felt the Colts were under the thumb the whole game. Think we'll ever have two bigger wins over two bigger rivals?

Excluding 2001, which had everything you could ever ask for in a playoff run, 2004 was my favorite ever, of any sport. To take down the high flying Colts and then dominate Pitt, with their arrogant, belligerent fans and players, was near tear-inducing.

 

[Bella*chick]

Excluding 2001, which had everything you could ever ask for in a playoff run, 2004 was my favorite ever, of any sport. To take down the high flying Colts and then dominate Pitt, with their arrogant, belligerent fans and players, was near tear-inducing.

Yeah, 2001 was a kind of "can you believe this?" magic, but 2004 was just dominance. And very fitting, as Pitt and the Colts were both the bigger stories that year and we took them both down in ways that left very little open to question.

I mean, with the Colts we shut down the "high-powered" offense in a way that seemed impossible (to the media, anyway). Then we turn around and go to Pitt with their grinding play and great defense and put up a bunch of points on them. Just an incredible playoff run that year.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

I agree, and in the other playoff game that year, 41 - 27 over Pittsburgh, the Patriots kiiiind of let Pittsburgh back in, even though they built up a much bigger first half lead, with the bomb to Branch, etc.,than they did in the Colts game. Even though I never felt the Pittsburgh game was in a whole lot of doubt, I felt the Colts were under the thumb the whole game. Think we'll ever have two bigger wins over two bigger rivals?

Ooooh I think I could imagine back to back wins against Denver for the AFC Championship, and Chicago in the Super Bowl

PFnV

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I see, because he is the coach he can be critical and no one esle can. Quite frankly, his comments DO echo mine, quite a bit. He is happy with the wins, I am happy with the wins.

He says they can do better, and that they are working on making correction, I have said the same, many times. What's the difference.
oaust him being the caoch, and me NOT being the caoch is no reason we cant have the same thoughts. In fact, I have been studying the game of football longer than him, but that really doesnt mean anything because I wasnt in the same poisition that he was in, size wise too, to play or become a coach.

That, in iteself, doesnt preclude me, or anyone else, from having similar thoughts and understanding of the game.

In fact, I am sure that there are many other people in this forum that have as much knowledge as BB, but due to circumstances in their likvles, they are where they are, and he is where he is.

Dear god, he's regressed to the I coulda been BB if I just caught a break delusion. Just when I though his new meds were beginning to kick in. Must need a dosing adjustment.

 

[AzPatsFan]

First of all, so far this season, this Patriots edition is winning by an average margin of 9.3 points per game. The only team in the Belichick era to do better was the awesome 2004 SB club that set the 21 straight victory record. And that team 's winning average was only 10 points a gameless than half a point more per game.

The Pats have left plenty of points off the scoreboard. In four games they passed on a an easy final score to take a victory knee. BB remebers the Pisarchik run into the line instead of taking a knee. That cost the Giants of Eagles a victory, when they bypassed a knee, fumbled, and it was returned for a TD as the clock ticked to zero.

Winniing by two scores on average, is not close.