PatsFans.com Menu
PatsFans.com - The Hub For New England Patriots Fans

Post Game Thread - Pats beat Vikings


Status
Not open for further replies.
....

I think I am concerned is D is playing well at home (Vikes, Chiefs, Texans, packers) but hasn't been able to do well against teams like titans on the road. If we can fix that, we'll have trouble in playoffs. Even if we get #1 seed, this concerns me about how deep we can go in playoffs.
if we get #1 seed first road game would be the Super Bowl. How much deeper in the playoffs are you hoping for if those concerns are allayed?
 
Yeah, I knew he saw the pressure. I just couldn't remember whether that forced a (clean) bad pass, or it was a bad pass aided by contact, so thanks for clearing it up.

Would you say that a sack would have been preferable there for the defense? Seems like a good case study for our other thread, since they didn't earn any points off the turnover.

Although, such a small sample size is nearly meaningless.
 
.....

Starting each season slow and finishing strong is surely better than starting each season slow and ending it slower, like it used to be with the Pats.
or worst of all, starting it strong and ending it in a train wreck. Washington is giving a good example of that. Woke up Thanksgiving Day leading their division. Now third in the division, riding a three game losing streak, with Sanchize as starter.
 
Ok...who’s complaining??? :rolleyes:
The offense left 10 points on the field. That won't cut it on the road.

The play from which Brady threw his INT should not have even been called, let alone attempted. Horrible "blocking" by Brown and/or Burkhead. They should've started their Clock-Killin' offense with The Experiment during that drive.

And Gronkowski should never, Ever, EVER have played in Barfalo. That was Bill doing a player a solid by allowing him on the field in front of his homeys. Big mistake, because it was there where he really hurt himself or exacerbated what he already had.
 
Would you say that a sack would have been preferable there for the defense? Seems like a good case study for our other thread, since they didn't earn any points off the turnover.

Although, such a small sample size is nearly meaningless.

Yes. Down two scores with less than 6 minutes to go and it having been a second down play, that's one where the interception is better for the defense, unless the sack is a sack-fumble-recovery.
 
Would you say that a sack would have been preferable there for the defense? Seems like a good case study for our other thread, since they didn't earn any points off the turnover.

Although, such a small sample size is nearly meaningless.

I'm probably misunderstanding the question, because as I'm understanding it my answer would be that outside of one very specific and rare situation--where you absolutely have to score in the next minute or so, or else you lose regardless and therefore field position doesn't matter at all--a sack is always much better than risking an interception.

But even beyond that near-universal statement, it's especially true in the specific situation that the Pats were in. They had the lead and the clock was their friend. In that situation most of all, it's basically impossible to come up with a scenario where risking an interception is at all worth it, since turnovers were far and away the Vikings' best chance to get back into the game. Even if Brady eats the sack there and eats another on third down for good measure, the Patriots' win probability is still overwhelmingly high. It would have been a little more defensible if it was on 3rd down and failing to complete the pass would have led directly to a punt, but even then eating the sack would have probably been better just to keep the clock running. And more importantly it was only 2nd down. Taking the sack instead runs the clock and gives you another chance to either convert or run the clock further. Consistently making the right call on plays like this is one of the reasons why Brady is the GOAT in the first place, he's usually much smarter about making the correct decision for the game situation.
 
Last edited:

Attachments

  • 20181204_214040.jpg
    20181204_214040.jpg
    826.8 KB · Views: 18
if we get #1 seed first road game would be the Super Bowl. How much deeper in the playoffs are you hoping for if those concerns are allayed?
If we get the #1 seed, we will get to superbowl. I am hopeful of that even with inconsistency on defense. I was just concerned about playing a road playoff game with this defense. I should have posted that clearly.

Also, if I am not mistaken, we haven't played a road playoff game in a very long time. That will be huge too as we haven't been playing well on the road this year.
 
Since 2005, the Patriots are 1-4 in road PO games after starting 2-0 under B & B.

Suffice it to say that securing HFA is crucial to our hope of going to SB 53.
 
Good stat Captain. I think this year more than in past years it has seemed that we are a different team when we are home as compared to when we are away. Our next two road games should be a good indication of where we stand going into the playoffs.

We have struggled on the road so far with our best game being in Chicago. I'm hoping this week and next week we don't see repeat performances like we saw in Tennessee, Detroit or Jacksonville.




Since 2005, the Patriots are 1-4 in road PO games after starting 2-0 under B & B.

Suffice it to say that securing HFA is crucial to our hope of going to SB 53.
 
Since 2005, the Patriots are 1-4 in road PO games after starting 2-0 under B & B.

Suffice it to say that securing HFA is crucial to our hope of going to SB 53.
Come on man. 3 of those losses are in Denver where we struggle and were pretty injured in 2013 and 2015.
 
Since 2005, the Patriots are 1-4 in road PO games after starting 2-0 under B & B.

Suffice it to say that securing HFA is crucial to our hope of going to SB 53.

It's not as simple as "Road games bad!"

  1. 2005: Officials blow call when Ben Watson forces a fumble on what was ruled a Brady pick-6, changing what should have been a 10-6 game to a 17-6 game, and altering the way the Patriots had to play in the 4th quarter.
  2. 2006: Patriots defense is hit with the flu, causing such things as Alexander being forced into defensive action. The officials also completely blew the key P.I. call of the game, basing it upon face guarding, which was no longer illegal.
  3. 2013 & 2015: Patriots hit with significant, game changing type injuries either before or during the games, and one still came down to a failed 2 point conversion.

Some of those games might have been won if they'd played at Gillette. But, even playing on the road, some of those games still could have been won, had injury/luck/officiating issues not been involved. And that's not even looking at the specific "where" of where the games were played.
 
Nice when that happens.. like a picture versus actual reality or the appreciation of finer details that are there if you look deeper.
Sturdy craftsmanship on that sliding glass door handle. She must have paid for the upgrade.
 
Our next two road games should be a good indication of where we stand going into the playoffs.
Absolutely, Ashley. We will have a much better read on this team after next Sunday’s game at Pittsburgh. If they play close to what we saw versus Minnesota, we can start to feel confident about beating high quality teams in the postseason in consecutive games.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


Wednesday Patriots Notebook 4/17: News and Notes
Tuesday Patriots Notebook 4/16: News and Notes
Monday Patriots Notebook 4/15: News and Notes
Patriots News 4-14, Mock Draft 3.0, Gilmore, Law Rally For Bill 
Potential Patriot: Boston Globe’s Price Talks to Georgia WR McConkey
Friday Patriots Notebook 4/12: News and Notes
Not a First Round Pick? Hoge Doubles Down on Maye
Thursday Patriots Notebook 4/11: News and Notes
MORSE: Patriots Mock Draft #5 and Thoughts About Dugger Signing
Matthew Slater Set For New Role With Patriots
Back
Top