Matt Chatham - Need to get Back to Basic Execution

[mihap]

The best of the analysts here (by far) picks apart the Patriot's sorry defensive performance - and concludes it's all about poor execution. Not scheme, not man vs. zone, not the amount of blitzing, not the lack of playmakers:

Chatham breaks that it is not scheme related but what he is saying here is scheme related:
0:34 His point is it should be zone not man.
0:59 again it should be zone not man
So i am confused is it scheme related or not?

 

[ViperGTS]

They played 8 games at 16.5 ppg before a bad game, and this means they aren't trying? My God the crap posted on this board is mind numbing.

Who did they play that had a decent QB? Who? Tanny dropped what, 30 on this D? The Houston and first Buffalo game throw a big wrench into those numbers. Cleveland. Joke. Steelers. No Big Ben. Joke.

It's a thing that builds as the season goes along. Disinterest in playing the right way as FA creeps closer. Kinda like war. When you know the end is coming, you don't want to take the same risks. Why die on the last day?

Kinda odd comparisons but the best I could come up with. Why will they give their all if they are that close to FA and a massive payday? Maybe if it's the Super Bowls they give it all...but I think anyone with a good set of eyes can see somethings is off.

 

[ViperGTS]

Chatam breaks that it is not scheme related but what he is saying here is scheme realted:
0:34 His point is it should be zone not man.
0:59 again it should be zone not man
So i am confused is it sheme realted or not?

I noticed that too. Half of what he said is right, the technique stuffs ways. He's flat wrong about the scheme.

 

[AQPE]

This piece by Volin adds another perspective. One issue he draws attention to is the number of different schemes they played - perhaps too many given the rookie Roberts (who made a number of mistakes) in the middle of the defense.

Complicated scheme — The Patriots’ defense seemed to have a lot going on Sunday night. They rushed from two to six defenders. They played Cover 2, Cover 3, Cover 4, and man-to-man. There was lots of presnap shifting and pointing and waving. On some snaps, it appeared as if some defenders were in man and others in zone.
​

Upon further review, give credit to Seattle - The Boston Globe

I stopped reading after I saw "Volin"

 

[Ring 6]

Who did they play that had a decent QB? Who? Tanny dropped what, 30 on this D? The Houston and first Buffalo game throw a big wrench into those numbers. Cleveland. Joke. Steelers. No Big Ben. Joke.

It's a thing that builds as the season goes along. Disinterest in playing the right way as FA creeps closer. Kinda like war. When you know the end is coming, you don't want to take the same risks. Why die on the last day?

Kinda odd comparisons but the best I could come up with. Why will they give their all if they are that close to FA and a massive payday? Maybe if it's the Super Bowls they give it all...but I think anyone with a good set of eyes can see somethings is off.

Tanneyhill put up points against a loose prevent that was protecting a huge lead. If you want to dismiss good results because you think the other teams sucked, that's up to you, but you will have to show me all those other teams that allow a lot more points who mysteriously only play HOF QBs.

I'm not even going to comment on the rest, because it is just something you made up that makes no sense.

 

[ViperGTS]

Tanneyhill put up points against a loose prevent that was protecting a huge lead. If you want to dismiss good results because you think the other teams sucked, that's up to you, but you will have to show me all those other teams that allow a lot more points who mysteriously only play HOF QBs.

I'm not even going to comment on the rest, because it is just something you made up that makes no sense.

Ever seem to think when you are one of the only ones to think a certain way, you just might quite possibly be wrong?

Just a heads up for future reference.

 

[Ring 6]

Ever seem to think when you are one of the only ones to think a certain way, you just might quite possibly be wrong?

Just a heads up for future reference.

Not sure what you mean there but I am sure I am not the only one who doesn't think the defensive players on the Patriots have quit and don't try.

 

[Tunescribe]

Sometimes players don't execute. Sometimes the other team executes better. Sometimes the right scheme against an opponent isn't what you are best at. No question Seattles offensive style and makeup are the kind that the Patriots tend to have trouble against.
I'm not sure why the sky is falling, they aren't getting it done, mentality is dominating the board after one poor game. Prior to this game the Patriots were allowing 16.5 ppg, which would now lead the league.
If you think 16.5 ppg was terrible defense then every team in the NFL has a terrible defense, and I would rather have the terrible one that lets fewer points on the board.
Ultimately, what we have here is a coach who has seen things on the way to that 16.5 ppg that told him he can do better. This is why there is a revolving door at CB2 and CB3 and at LB2 and LB3, as well as across the DL. This is why Collins is gone.
Belichick knows how to win. Win games, win divisions, win playoff games, win Championships. What he is doing with the defense is his belief on what will help win a championship, and no doubt this is a work in progress that no doubt will be better when it has to be. One bump in the road bad game is not something to worry about and part of the reason BB wins like he does is that he is not afraid to make the moves that will get him where he needs to be, even if it is a step back at first.
I will guarantee that by January the reps at DL LB and CB will not be the same as they were vs Seattle. The defense will evolve over the season. Personally, I think the proof is resoundingly clear that if BB says this is what I need to do to get my D where it needs to be, he is right. Does anyone want to claim they can challenge his track record?

Aside from your mistaken suggestion that I think "the sky is falling," that's a pretty long-winded non-rebuttal to my post.

This defense was starting to slip prior to Seattle. I have no doubt at all that BB is doing what he believes is best with the players now at his disposal. I just hope he still has the horses to get it done.

 

[luuked]

Chatham breaks that it is not scheme related but what he is saying here is scheme related:
0:34 His point is it should be zone not man.
0:59 again it should be zone not man
So i am confused is it scheme related or not?

His point was that asking for more man coverage is not always the answer.

Also what you see on the video are the formations right around the time of snap. To judge why man/zone was played you'd have to take into account a couple of plays before + previous times in the game when the Seahawks put out the same personell and their tendencies. Additionally, the DC can't talk to their green dot players until the snap but only until 15 secs are on the play clock so if the opponent adjusts the formation that would alter what the better defensive scheme would be, then the green dot player needs to make that adjustment.

And other teams coordinators also get paid to use our tendencies against us and disguise plays.

 

[Ring 6]

Aside from your mistaken suggestion that I think "the sky is falling," that's a pretty long-winded non-rebuttal to my post.

This defense was starting to slip prior to Seattle. I have no doubt at all that BB is doing what he believes is best with the players now at his disposal. I just hope he still has the horses to get it done.

Not sure I was rebutting your post, as much as continuing the discussion.

BTW aside from the garbage time 8 vs Bufflo, the defense had allowed 17,16,17,13,16,0 in its last 6 games. That is not slipping. Any defense that does not allow more than 17 points is a very good one.

 

[SlowGettingUp]

So i am confused is it scheme related or not?

Fans see an opposing receiver sitting in the middle of a big green patch of turf with no defender in sight, and they assume it was zone (and probably it was, or it was a scramble). Those plays really stick out in peoples' minds and have everyone whining why we don't play more man. But there were plenty of examples of things going wrong when we played man too.

Now sure there will be examples when we would have been better off in man when playing zone, and vice versa. But that's not what everyone is complaining about - they are complaining mainly about the soft zones. Maybe the defense should have switched schemes in some of Chatham's examples - I don't know how much flexibility they (McCourty?) have to change things up.

 

[Deus Irae]

When you've got 4-3 personnel and you're playing a 3-4 (just for example), you've got a scheme/playcalling issue.
When you've got personnel that simply can't play defense (whether it's that day, or in general), you've got a talent/execution issue.

You'd have to be blind not to see that the Patriots defense on Sunday demonstrated both of those types of problems.

 

[Ring 6]

When you've got 4-3 personnel and you're playing a 3-4 (just for example), you've got a scheme/playcalling issue.
When you've got personnel that simply can't play defense (whether it's that day, or in general), you've got a talent/execution issue.

You'd have to be blind not to see that the Patriots defense on Sunday demonstrated both of those types of problems.

What do you consider the specific scheme problems in that game? I take your explanation here to mean it is at least in part poor utilization of personnel, but I'm assuming.

 

[Tunescribe]

Not sure I was rebutting your post, as much as continuing the discussion.

BTW aside from the garbage time 8 vs Bufflo, the defense had allowed 17,16,17,13,16,0 in its last 6 games. That is not slipping. Any defense that does not allow more than 17 points is a very good one.

They didn't play well vs. Buffalo including garbage time and showed vulnerability against a Pittsburgh team led by a reserve QB. I agree it's too early to push the panic button, but this defense has a lot of shoring up to do before the playoffs. I'm concerned mostly about the overall quality of players on that side of the ball. There has been a lot of attrition forced by BB.

 

[Ring 6]

They didn't play well vs. Buffalo including garbage time and showed vulnerability against a Pittsburgh team led by a reserve QB. I agree it's too early to push the panic button, but this defense has a lot of shoring up to do before the playoffs. I'm concerned mostly about the overall quality of players on that side of the ball. There has been a lot of attrition forced by BB.

They allowed 17 points to Buffalo outside of garbage time. The starting QB was 19-38-183. Please explain how 50% complete and less than 10 yards per COMPLETION and 4.8 per attempt is a defense not playing well?
Pittsburgh scored 16 points. And that includes 2 drives that started in NE territory. Were do I find 'showed vulnerability' on the scoreboard?
I get that you wish they allowed 16 points a different way, but allowing 16 points is good defense.

Of course whatever is happening the goal is to improve, but the alarmist attitude around here after 1 bad game and the desire to dismiss good games is annoying.

 

[Deus Irae]

What do you consider the specific scheme problems in that game? I take your explanation here to mean it is at least in part poor utilization of personnel, but I'm assuming.

Personnel issues were a part of it. Just for an example: having a rookie run stuffer in on obvious passing downs is coaching error, regardless of what the player does on a given play.

 

[Ring 6]

Personnel issues were a part of it. Just for an example: having a rookie run stuffer in on obvious passing downs is coaching error, regardless of what the player does on a given play.

I would agree that they need to do more of the NASCAR type packages in those situations. Daring a run on 3rd and 15 is not bad a thing even if you surrender a few.
What else did you see as scheme error?

 

[luuked]

Personnel issues were a part of it. Just for an example: having a rookie run stuffer in on obvious passing downs is coaching error, regardless of what the player does on a given play.

Your assumption being that the coaching staff sees Roberts as a run stuffer and not someone with the potential to be a three down player.

 

[Deus Irae]

I would agree that they need to do more of the NASCAR type packages in those situations. Daring a run on 3rd and 15 is not bad a thing even if you surrender a few.
What else did you see as scheme error?

No offense, Andy, but I'm not going to list every single example. That becomes worse than useless, as you end up with this sort of post in response:

Your assumption being that the coaching staff sees Roberts as a run stuffer and not someone with the potential to be a three down player.

If the coaching staff sees a run stuffing LB as a 3 down player, that's still a coaching problem, not an execution problem. It's actually much more of a concern if the coaches think a part time player is a full time player than it is if the coaches just have a bad game of calls/substitutions.

 

[Ring 6]

No offense, Andy, but I'm not going to list every single example. That becomes worse than useless, as you end up with this sort of post in response:



If the coaching staff sees a run stuffing LB as a 3 down player, that's still a coaching problem, not an execution problem. It's actually much more of a concern if the coaches think a part time player is a full time player than it is if the coaches just have a bad game of calls/substitutions.

That's fine, just trying to get your opinions, up to you how to post.