Brady "Pleads the 5th" when asked if he feels appreciated.

[Kontradiction]

I'm not saying Butler was injured I'm saying had he been injured the game plan would have been the same. The point is players miss games all the time and schemes and plans get adjusted accordingly and players still are expected to execute regardless. Butler's absence does not let everyone else's mistakes get ignored or somehow blamed on Bill.

Again my problem is not that you say BB deserves blame it's that you seem to think he is the only one who does.

I'm not sure why you keep trying to raise Butler being injured as some sort of counterpoint. It's irrelevant. He wasn't injured. Those are two drastically different circumstances. In one, Butler CAN'T play. In the other, they simply decided that they WON'T play him.

There's always plenty of blame to be assigned in any loss. But, ultimately, the buck is going to stop somewhere. And, with that game, it was that highly questionable game plan on defense and deciding (choosing actually may be the correct word) to give multiple players assignments throughout the game that simply did not play to their strengths. It should come as no surprise, then, that those players gave up back-breaking plays throughout the game. That lays at the feet of the coaching staff on that side of the ball and, ultimately, BB.

 

[signbabybrady]

I'm not sure why you keep trying to raise Butler being injured as some sort of counterpoint. It's irrelevant. He wasn't injured. Those are two drastically different circumstances. In one, Butler CAN'T play. In the other, they simply decided that they WON'T play him.

The reason he could not play doesn't matter to this discussion. He wasn't playing end of discussion. So game plan changes were needed. Next man up needs to execute better.

Not to mention Butler was the reason Butler was benched.

 

[Kontradiction]

The reason he could not play doesn't matter to this discussion. He wasn't playing end of discussion. So game plan changes were needed. Next man up needs to execute better.

Not to mention Butler was the reason Butler was benched.

Sure it does. It’s the difference between can’t and won’t, which is significant to the discussion. It’s a borderline red herring. Furthermore, game plan changes could have been put in place without that many players doing jobs that were outside of responsibilities that played to their strengths. The third corner would have still been a definite weakness, but at least you’d have Chung doing what he’s good at, McCourty doing what he’s good at, and Richards off the field altogether. So I’ll boil it down to a simple question for you. Of course, I don’t expect a straight answer because you’ll box yourself in if you do, but I’ll ask it anyway. Which match-up in that game do you, either prior to the game or sitting here today, see as favorable for the Patriots on defense?

1. Chung covering Agholor.
2. Richards covering Ertz/Clement.
3. Rowe playing on the outside.

 

[PatriotsNumero1Fan]

People still defending the butler sit down are ridiculous. It's like bill can't do any wrong and he's a genius. I like bill as my coach but we always hear how he's a defensive genius etc. That tag's very overrated. We didn't see much blitzing etc. It was a slow painful death.

 

[Kontradiction]

People still defending the butler sit down are ridiculous. It's like bill can't do any wrong and he's a genius. I like bill as my coach but we always hear how he's a defensive genius etc. That tag's very overrated. We didn't see much blitzing etc. It was a slow painful death.

Even taking Butler out of the equation (you'll notice that I've rarely brought him up now in my criticism and, when I do, it's usually been in response to my opponent), the assignments that the game plan gave several players on defense were absolutely mind boggling. It was a terrible game plan. I really have no idea what they saw out of that alignment throughout the season (going back to KC tooling it in Week 1) that made them think, "Hmm, maybe THAT'S a good idea!"

 

[signbabybrady]

Sure it does. It’s the difference between can’t and won’t, which is significant to the discussion. It’s a borderline red herring. Furthermore, game plan changes could have been put in place without that many players doing jobs that were outside of responsibilities that played to their strengths. The third corner would have still been a definite weakness, but at least you’d have Chung doing what he’s good at, McCourty doing what he’s good at, and Richards off the field altogether. So I’ll boil it down to a simple question for you. Of course, I don’t expect a straight answer because you’ll box yourself in if you do, but I’ll ask it anyway. Which match-up in that game do you, either prior to the game or sitting here today, see as favorable for the Patriots on defense?

1. Chung covering Agholor.
2. Richards covering Ertz/Clement.
3. Rowe playing on the outside.

I expect better execution despite unfavorable matchups. Your not always going to be better than the guy you matchup against.
But to answer your question 2 out 3 of those matchups are matchups I feel our players are more than adequate enough to handle.
Chung covers slot guys plenty.
And Rowe held his own vs Julio the year before.

 

[chasa]

The reason he could not play doesn't matter to this discussion. He wasn't playing end of discussion. So game plan changes were needed. Next man up needs to execute better.

Not to mention Butler was the reason Butler was benched.

And BB is the reason the patriots lost the superbowl.

 

[PatriotsNumero1Fan]

I expect better execution despite unfavorable matchups. Your not always going to be better than the guy you matchup against.
But to answer your question 2 out 3 of those matchups are matchups I feel our players are more than adequate enough to handle.
Chung covers slot guys plenty.
And Rowe held his own vs Julio the year before.

They where mismatches all over the field and the weak defensive game plan was suicide.

 

[Kontradiction]

I expect better execution despite unfavorable matchups. Your not always going to be better than the guy you matchup against.
But to answer your question 2 out 3 of those matchups are matchups I feel our players are more than adequate enough to handle.
Chung covers slot guys plenty.
And Rowe held his own vs Julio the year before.

The bolded is incorrect. He's never shown to be able to hold up consistently in coverage against a wideout. Let alone a wideout as fast as Agholor. That's why Chung found himself in Philly before the Patriots, as BB even admitted, figured out how to better use him: against TEs. This was a mismatch from the jump, and the Eagles looked there often late in the game.

Rowe also spent more time as a nickel corner this year. The Eagles said themselves that, when they saw him in for Butler early in the game, they went after him immediately. To his credit, he DID improve throughout the game, but the damage was already done early. Also, on the 24 yarder to Agholor (again, with Chung in coverage), one can VERY EASILY make the case that someone with Rowe's length could have prevented that pitch and catch.

As for Richards? I mean, do I have to say anything? This does nothing to mention the curious choice to, at times, play McCourty close to the LoS and have Bademosi even on the field at all. So you can expect better execution, but when you're not putting key players in the position to execute doing what they and you know them to do best, that expectation is one of folly.

 

[signbabybrady]

The bolded is incorrect. He's never shown to be able to hold up consistently in coverage against a wideout. Let alone a wideout as fast as Agholor. That's why Chung found himself in Philly before the Patriots, as BB even admitted, figured out how to better use him: against TEs. This was a mismatch from the jump, and the Eagles looked there often late in the game.

Rowe also spent more time as a nickel corner this year. The Eagles said themselves that, when they saw him in for Butler early in the game, they went after him immediately. To his credit, he DID improve throughout the game, but the damage was already done early. Also, on the 24 yarder to Agholor (again, with Chung in coverage), one can VERY EASILY make the case that someone with Rowe's length could have prevented that pitch and catch.

If he did better throughout the rest of the game why is it on Bill that he sucked in the first quarter.

Bills mistakes with Chung the first time around were more about asking him to play the deep thirds especially out of single high safety packages. Here is a nice article from Chung's second stint about his versatility including slot corner. The article references him shutting down TY in the slot. TY is better than Agholar.

What makes S Patrick Chung so good?

 

[signbabybrady]

Patriots Roster Battles: Who Plays Slot Cornerback For New England In 2017?

A more recent article referencing chung's solid play in the slot.


Why Patrick Chung’s versatility has been invaluable to Patriots this season - The Boston Globe
And here's one from the week before the SB. This one is not the best for my case as it's about him likely matching up vs Ertz. But it again references Chungs abilities in the slot.

Chung's comments on playing the different roles asked of him suggest he wouldn't blame the coaches. “It just comes back to hard work,” Chung said earlier this week. “If someone puts something on your plate and tells you, ‘Hey, you need to do this, we think you can do it,’ you’ve got to take that as a compliment and just work hard and do whatever you have to do to keep that respect and trust. That’s what I’m trying to do.”

 

[Kdo5]

If he did better throughout the rest of the game why is it on Bill that he sucked in the first quarter.

Bills mistakes with Chung the first time around were more about asking him to play the deep thirds especially out of single high safety packages. Here is a nice article from Chung's second stint about his versatility including slot corner. The article references him shutting down TY in the slot. TY is better than Agholar.

What makes S Patrick Chung so good?

Chung is best covering TE's. This has been well known since he returned to New England. Belichick and the defensive coaches took him out of the spot where he performs his best. That's a mistake.

 

[Kontradiction]

If he did better throughout the rest of the game why is it on Bill that he sucked in the first quarter.

Bills mistakes with Chung the first time around were more about asking him to play the deep thirds especially out of single high safety packages. Here is a nice article from Chung's second stint about his versatility including slot corner. The article references him shutting down TY in the slot. TY is better than Agholar.

What makes S Patrick Chung so good?

It's on Bill that he was playing outside as opposed to in the nickel role where he could have given Agholor more problems than Chung or anyone else did. That's schematic. Nice article, though. From that article...

On top of his roles as a linebacker against the run, and as a slot corner against wide receivers, Chung still had to perform in his standard strong safety role against opposing tight ends. NESN's Doug Kyed tracked Chung over 2015 and discovered that opposing quarterbacks had a passer rating of 29.4 when throwing to tight ends covered by Chung. Teams would have been better off throwing footballs directly into the dirt than throwing it at Chung.

and

Chung spent 37% of his time as a linebacker, 33% of his time as a slot corner, and 30% of his time as a strong safety (or as an outside cornerback, but that was usually when tight ends were flexed out wide, so that's still the strong safety role).

So yes, while Chung HAS covered wideouts previously, that's not what the team typically uses him as. As was noted above, he spends more than double his time either in the box or flexed out against TEs. Covering shiftier slot receivers, like Agholor, is simply not what he does best (which is something you typically want to have him doing in a game like the Super Bowl). He typically plays closer to the line of scrimmage as a specialist against the TE. That's also what he does especially well, as your article even points out. Rowe was used throughout 2017 as a nickel corner as well. As I mentioned before, the Eagles even specifically said that they saw Rowe and went after him right away playing CB2. The results were disastrous early on.

But, that being stated, nobody has been able to bring themselves to actually support the game plan in this thread. You included. That should really tell you all that you need to know. I've been given that the execution should have been better, but the plays cited have been mistakes that every team makes in every game. The game plan, if the goal is to limit mistakes, is the real issue here. You can't have multiple guys playing roles on defense that don't play to their strengths and instead highlight their weaknesses. Especially when you're paying as much man coverage as the Patriots did. That falls to the coaches on that side of the ball and, ultimately, BB. So yeah, BB is to blame.

 

[Kontradiction]

Chung is best covering TE's. This has been well known since he returned to New England. Belichick and the defensive coaches took him out of the spot where he performs his best. That's a mistake.

He knows that. He also knows that, given the choice, he would choose to have Chung covering Ertz over Richards covering Ertz every single time. I'm actually confident in saying 100% of the forum would prefer Chung in that situation over Richards. But nope. That wasn't the game plan.

 

[signbabybrady]

He knows that. He also knows that, given the choice, he would choose to have Chung covering Ertz over Richards covering Ertz every single time. I'm actually confident in saying 100% of the forum would prefer Chung in that situation over Richards. But nope. That wasn't the game plan.

Kontra you said I was wrong for insisting Chung has covered the slot plenty I offered plenty of evidence to show he actually does it very well.

I agree he's even better with TEs but matchups dictated otherwise. The conundrum was not where to play Chung as the coaches feel confident with him in either role. The cunundrum was who would be better Bademosi in the slot or Richards on the TE. They actually tried both in the game and neither could execute.

 

[Nunchucks]

Kontra you said I was wrong for insisting Chung has covered the slot plenty I offered plenty of evidence to show he actually does it very well.

I agree he's even better with TEs but matchups dictated otherwise. The conundrum was not where to play Chung as the coaches feel confident with him in either role. The cunundrum was who would be better Bademosi in the slot or Richards on the TE. They actually tried both in the game and neither could execute.

I would say that Chung has been adequate while covering the slot receiver, but really, you don't want to see that happen.

 

[signbabybrady]

I would say that Chung has been adequate while covering the slot receiver, but really, you don't want to see that happen.

Stats show he's been way more than adequate. One of my links said QBs had a 72 rating throwing against him for an entire season.

 

[Kontradiction]

Kontra you said I was wrong for insisting Chung has covered the slot plenty I offered plenty of evidence to show he actually does it very well.

I agree he's even better with TEs but matchups dictated otherwise. The conundrum was not where to play Chung as the coaches feel confident with him in either role. The cunundrum was who would be better Bademosi in the slot or Richards on the TE. They actually tried both in the game and neither could execute.

Matchups didn't dictate otherwise. The game plan did. That's the problem. Your last sentence also highlights what a spectacular failure the game plan was. They tried both... and both failed. Why? Because Richards can't cover (or do anything, for that matter) well and Bademosi is best used on ST and is currently off the team because he brought little value to the defensive side of the ball that warranted bringing him back.

Now we've admitted in the thread that the game plan was, indeed, a problem and that several players were tasked with assignments that didn't play to their strengths. That brings me back to my original point - the game was lost before kickoff due to the game plan.

 

[signbabybrady]

Matchups didn't dictate otherwise. The game plan did. That's the problem. Your last sentence also highlights what a spectacular failure the game plan was. They tried both... and both failed. Why? Because Richards can't cover (or do anything, for that matter) well and Bademosi is best used on ST and is currently off the team because he brought little value to the defensive side of the ball that warranted bringing him back.

Now we've admitted in the thread that the game plan was, indeed, a problem and that several players were tasked with assignments that didn't play to their strengths. That brings me back to my original point - the game was lost before kickoff due to the game plan.

You seem to think the game plan is absent any consideration to matchups.

The game was lost before kickoff yet we had the ball with a chance to win seems like it was more than winnable after kick off.

 

[Kontradiction]

You seem to think the game plan is absent any consideration to matchups.

No, I don’t. The defense matched up with teams like Philly throughout the season and the results yielded were better than what they put up in the Super Bowl. The key was that they were able to use a game plan in those games that they chose not to use in the Super Bowl. With the #2 corner sitting on the sidelines, they were forced to match up certain positions in roles that played away from their strengths. The result was that 600 yards of total offense and 33 points on top of the greatest game by a quarterback in history were not enough.

The game was lost before kickoff yet we had the ball with a chance to win seems like it was more than winnable after kick off.

But the game was still lost. And it wasn’t lost because of the offense. It was lost because of the defense and the game plan they CHOSE to go with.