Game Day Thread Official Post Game Thread- Packers beat the Pats

[Tunescribe]

It probably didn’t come across the TV feed, but there was a pretty loud Zappe chant from Pats fans a few times today. I thought it was fun and silly at the same time.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

If Zappe were even REMOTELY close to nipping at Mac’s heels, they would have let him run a real offense with the game on the line. They didn’t.

Given that he's had only a tiny amount of time with the first team, there was essentially zero chance of that happening regardless.

 

[signbabybrady]

I like what I saw out Zappe and it would be interesting to see what he'd do if he had all the practice reps and a game plan. That said please give me Mac back this week please.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Okay first, old man language rant.

The constructions "should of," "would of," and "could of" do not mean anything.

The holy trinity of regret you are looking for is "should have (should've)," "would have (would've)," and "could have (could've)." For obvious reasons, when run together, it's easiest to drop the fricative "v," yielding "shoulda, woulda, coulda."

So to reemphasize: "Should have" (not "should of"). "Would have" (not "would of.") "Could have" (not "could of.")

That's just the warmup, because this "should of" business makes my eyeballs burn.

Here is why I have no respect for "shoulda, woulda, coulda." Very often, it consists of merely naming one of the holy trinity, and following it with whichever tactic was not chosen. It's what we call a counterfactual, which is unproveable without a Rick and Morty portal gun, and then you end up having to bury your family in the back yard.

By slavishly following the counterfactual method, single posters have sometimes, in a single thread, bemoaned (for example) multiple consecutive running plays, and running plays mixed in with pass plays -- just as a general respose to the same situation. We should always go for it if we punted. We should always have punted if we went for it. Whichever we called was "terrible playcalling." Whichever we "should of" called was better.

The key is, it's an ex post facto judgement.

I'm fine with "they ought to run it here" (for example.) At least you're not shooting fish in a barrel. But here's the thing. What you have to do when they do the opposite of what you spout and it succeeds, is shut up about the terrible playcalling. Better yet you should say something like "wow. Look at that. it really did work that time."

You'd see a really different complexion to these arguments.

I wish I knew the media landscape up there. Someone should study it for the word "playcalling." You could go through a list of logical fallacies and populate it with examples sprouting from that one silly fetish, the quest to prove bad playcalling.

And shut uppppppp already with naming the baddie of the week who is implicated in the quest. To read this forum there hasn't been a competent OC in New England since Charlie Weiss, if then, a competent DC since Crennel, if then, or a competent head coach ever (for some posters).

I mean, an occasional "come on coach, call a running play there!" is fine. What we have is at least a half dozen such outbursts a game, sometimes systematically, after the fact, advising boards of what the alternative play "should of" been. "Another run there! What terrible playcalling. Steve Belichick should be fired. They should of passed." Every important play.

We get it. Any given play that does not succeed you could have run a different play. Check. Thanks for the frickin news flash, consider that message delivered, along with "terrible playcalling" and the name of the person you believe responsible.

Okay, that's done. Stipulated for next week, if they did something and it didn't work, and something else has a non-zero chance of working, that one exists in a magical state of always better than the tactic that didn't work.

Okay. Now what else ya got?

 

[PatsFanInVa]

I like what I saw out Zappe and it would be interesting to see what he'd do if he had all the practice reps and a game plan. That said please give me Mac back this week please.

It was just joyous seeing a little bit of what Zappe is about (and also it was instructive seeing, in other ways, how far he has to go.) It was great to be in that game.

Other stuff:

- Officiating was generally bad but, on balance, not to our detriment. What proof do I have? Give me a second. See what I did there? They were just bad at their jobs, not anti-Pats or pro-Pack.

- I don't know who it would and would not work against, but this looked today like a scarily potent running attack. That said, last week we looked like we had a potent passing attack. This is not an anemic offense.

- It takes more than one look but I think Bailey Zappe will one day be someone's QB. Certainly I think, given that one look, that he can at least be a backup, but my gut says he'll start for somebody.

- Mac Jones is our best. Mac Jones will likely be "day to day" for a long time, if I remember owning fantasy football backs with high ankle sprains correctly. He might be able to get back faster than a RB, but no rush. Somebody post that meme with the guy with the steady girlfriend staring at the hot girl walking by. That's us with Mac and Zappe. If Mac needs another week, another two, whatever, field Zappe again. I am okay with that. Not to play more with the new toy, to make sure Mac is really ready.

- But in that process, hey, we all know if Bailey Zappe goes nuts, there is precedent for going with it. (That said, it's really unlikely he'll make a case THAT strong.)

 

[upstater1]

The obvious runs in OT were infuriating. You can't win when you only play to not lose.

They were running it down the Packers throats.

If they did anything other than run there, they're insane. We were jamming the ball down their throats. Only needed 10-15 yards.

Running there is NOT an example of playing not to lose. Especially with a 3rd string rookie who does not have command of the Patriots offense.

 

[gitgronked82]

It’s likely while getting the backup up to speed last week that the team did not have the resources to extensively prepare for Zappe to play nearly the entire game. He’s obviously raw, and on the road doesn’t help.

All that and we still had a chance to win. We just couldn’t stop the Packers rushing offense late in the game and that set up Rodgers for some easy big plays.

Yup, I’m on board with that. And we absolutely had a chance to win. Regardless of any defensive issues, we had 2nd and 5 on the 45 in OT needing a fg to win. Pick up a first down and we’re there. But that wasn’t because zappe had done anything that warrants a QB battle lol

 

[gitgronked82]

Given that he's had only a tiny amount of time with the first team, there was essentially zero chance of that happening regardless.

Yeah, I mean apparently he did split reps 50/50 this week, but right. There’s just no indication so far that he’s close to challenging for anything meaningful.

I will add they seemed to be allowing Hoyer to throw more.

 

[Foxypats]

will be very interesting to see what happens this week, Pats will need to sign someone if Hoyer is out for a few weeks

 

[NFLmac]

Okay first, old man language rant.

The constructions "should of," "would of," and "could of" do not mean anything.

The holy trinity of regret you are looking for is "should have (should've)," "would have (would've)," and "could have (could've)." For obvious reasons, when run together, it's easiest to drop the fricative "v," yielding "shoulda, woulda, coulda."

So to reemphasize: "Should have" (not "should of"). "Would have" (not "would of.") "Could have" (not "could of.")

That's just the warmup, because this "should of" business makes my eyeballs burn.

Here is why I have no respect for "shoulda, woulda, coulda." Very often, it consists of merely naming one of the holy trinity, and following it with whichever tactic was not chosen. It's what we call a counterfactual, which is unproveable without a Rick and Morty portal gun, and then you end up having to bury your family in the back yard.

By slavishly following the counterfactual method, single posters have sometimes, in a single thread, bemoaned (for example) multiple consecutive running plays, and running plays mixed in with pass plays -- just as a general respose to the same situation. We should always go for it if we punted. We should always have punted if we went for it. Whichever we called was "terrible playcalling." Whichever we "should of" called was better.

The key is, it's an ex post facto judgement.

I'm fine with "they ought to run it here" (for example.) At least you're not shooting fish in a barrel. But here's the thing. What you have to do when they do the opposite of what you spout and it succeeds, is shut up about the terrible playcalling. Better yet you should say something like "wow. Look at that. it really did work that time."

You'd see a really different complexion to these arguments.

I wish I knew the media landscape up there. Someone should study it for the word "playcalling." You could go through a list of logical fallacies and populate it with examples sprouting from that one silly fetish, the quest to prove bad playcalling.

And shut uppppppp already with naming the baddie of the week who is implicated in the quest. To read this forum there hasn't been a competent OC in New England since Charlie Weiss, if then, a competent DC since Crennel, if then, or a competent head coach ever (for some posters).

I mean, an occasional "come on coach, call a running play there!" is fine. What we have is at least a half dozen such outbursts a game, sometimes systematically, after the fact, advising boards of what the alternative play "should of" been. "Another run there! What terrible playcalling. Steve Belichick should be fired. They should of passed." Every important play.

We get it. Any given play that does not succeed you could have run a different play. Check. Thanks for the frickin news flash, consider that message delivered, along with "terrible playcalling" and the name of the person you believe responsible.

Okay, that's done. Stipulated for next week, if they did something and it didn't work, and something else has a non-zero chance of working, that one exists in a magical state of always better than the tactic that didn't work.

Okay. Now what else ya got?

LOL! Nice prose. I feel like you “could of”been a writer for the weekly clever script on TV following every episode of Young Sheldon!

 

[Joker]

LOL! Nice prose. I feel like you “could of”been a writer for the weekly clever script on TV following every episode of Young Sheldon!

he "shoulda" been an abortion but the doctor slapped his mother instead..

 

[patfanken]

Packers ... 443 yds
Patriots ... 271 yds

Yet somehow we were in it.

This is something that NEEDS to be discussed in depth.

How DO you go on the road and get to OT with a top 5 team in the AFC who has a very good defense and the almost GOAT as its QB, lose your starter in the last game and your back up QB in the first period, GET out gained by about a 170 yds, be missing your QB, top WR, your top CB, a starting DT. Just one negative after another and I'm sure others could add a few more.

But here's the thing. They WERE in this game for all 4 quarters and ahead briefly in the 4th. Here are my reasons for this head scratcher.

1. We WON the TO battle 2-1 including the pick 6.

2. We WON the coaching battle, both in preparation AND in mid game adjustments. I know we can all 2nd guess offensive plays and defensive personnel choices, BUT overall this was a thing of beauty. After seeing the Packers looked like they were prepared for the zone defense the Pats were hoping they could play. The Pats started to mix up more man, especially man under and a few well placed man with a single high safety.

I thought the defense played fairly well this game even though the they only had 1 sack and 3 QB hits vs 4 and 7 for the Packers in the game. They did enough to make rodgers uncomfortable at key points

There were a couple of things I wished they had done better.

Wish they had schemed their pass blocking for that wide rush that gave them a lot of trouble. On a replay of the play that knocked Hoyer out of the game the Pats had 2 OLmen (Brown and Andrews that didn't block anyone. The guy who made the hit was being blocked by a RB or TE, IIRC and had no chance against the one of their best rushers. The did somewhat better as the game went on, but Zappe felt it a lot.

Add me to the majority of you who felt the Pats should have gone for it in OT, BUT I really understand why Bill didn't. It's a LOT harder to go 70+ yds than it is to go 20. So unless the Pats were going to run the ball against a stacked D, It was just too hard to count on Zappe to find that 6 yds with a pass play. Maybe if it were 2 yds or less. But it's really easy AFTER THE FACT, to criticize the move and the media and the haters here just LOVE the easy way. You can be sure if Bill had decided to go for it and failed, they would have been all over him for the decision.

So WHY are we 1-3 because we had EIGHT TO's over the first 3 games and perhaps one too many in this game as well.

I think it was in 2018 the Pats were crushed early by KC by around 20, Bill mentioned after the Superbowl win that he KNEW early in the year that they had a chance because of how HARD they played in that 2nd half. Lets remember its not like they stormed back into the game. They still got crushed, but they played hard when they could have just have chucked the game.

There were a LOT of times in this game when the Pats could have chucked it in and instead they fought like hell and almost came away with the win. Now lets figure out a way to win a game against the Lions.

 

[Marko]

I don't remember which reporter it was during TC but they kept saying out of the three Mac, Hoyer and Zappe, Zappe looked the most comfortable running the offense. Let him have all the reps this week and let see what he can do next week. Hoyer is not

They were running it down the Packers throats.

If they did anything other than run there, they're insane. We were jamming the ball down their throats. Only needed 10-15 yards.

Running there is NOT an example of playing not to lose. Especially with a 3rd string rookie who does not have command of the Patriots offense.

You go with your best players, and that was the run. Zappe was ok under the circumstances but geez, anyone who felt comfortable when he passed is fooling themselves. To me it felt like he had 0 internal clock. I get it he was put in a terrible position, but you don’t count on him to win it.

 

[Joker]

This is something that NEEDS to be discussed in depth.

How DO you go on the road and get to OT with a top 5 team in the AFC who has a very good defense and the almost GOAT as its QB, lose your starter in the last game and your back up QB in the first period, GET out gained by about a 170 yds, be missing your QB, top WR, your top CB, a starting DT. Just one negative after another and I'm sure others could add a few more.

But here's the thing. They WERE in this game for all 4 quarters and ahead briefly in the 4th. Here are my reasons for this head scratcher.

1. We WON the TO battle 2-1 including the pick 6.

2. We WON the coaching battle, both in preparation AND in mid game adjustments. I know we can all 2nd guess offensive plays and defensive personnel choices, BUT overall this was a thing of beauty. After seeing the Packers looked like they were prepared for the zone defense the Pats were hoping they could play. The Pats started to mix up more man, especially man under and a few well placed man with a single high safety.

I thought the defense played fairly well this game even though the they only had 1 sack and 3 QB hits vs 4 and 7 for the Packers in the game. They did enough to make rodgers uncomfortable at key points

There were a couple of things I wished they had done better.

Wish they had schemed their pass blocking for that wide rush that gave them a lot of trouble. On a replay of the play that knocked Hoyer out of the game the Pats had 2 OLmen (Brown and Andrews that didn't block anyone. The guy who made the hit was being blocked by a RB or TE, IIRC and had no chance against the one of their best rushers. The did somewhat better as the game went on, but Zappe felt it a lot.

Add me to the majority of you who felt the Pats should have gone for it in OT, BUT I really understand why Bill didn't. It's a LOT harder to go 70+ yds than it is to go 20. So unless the Pats were going to run the ball against a stacked D, It was just too hard to count on Zappe to find that 6 yds with a pass play. Maybe if it were 2 yds or less. But it's really easy AFTER THE FACT, to criticize the move and the media and the haters here just LOVE the easy way. You can be sure if Bill had decided to go for it and failed, they would have been all over him for the decision.

So WHY are we 1-3 because we had EIGHT TO's over the first 3 games and perhaps one too many in this game as well.

I think it was in 2018 the Pats were crushed early by KC by around 20, Bill mentioned after the Superbowl win that he KNEW early in the year that they had a chance because of how HARD they played in that 2nd half. Lets remember its not like they stormed back into the game. They still got crushed, but they played hard when they could have just have chucked the game.

There were a LOT of times in this game when the Pats could have chucked it in and instead they fought like hell and almost came away with the win. Now lets figure out a way to win a game against the Lions.

Rogers overthrew TWO wide open streaking WR's that would have been EASY 80 yard TD's. Rogers was 3 for 6 half way through the first half. What does this tell you, Ken? Tells me this game was a typical letdown by a far superior offensive team, the sort of game we've seen over the years played by OUR Patriots.

 

[Marko]

I don't remember which reporter it was during TC but they kept saying out of the three Mac, Hoyer and Zappe, Zappe looked the most comfortable running the offense. Let him have all the reps this week and let see what he can do next week. Hoyer is not

That’s a little ridiculous on a few levels.

The pats moved the ball great last week. Most yards per play in the NFL. The turnovers killed them, but not the ability to move the ball.

Zappe was asked to do extremely little. Hand it off, take advantage of wide open receivers on PA. We tried a few traditional passes and I think he was actually extremely uncomposed. Frantic internal clock. Look at how many successful plays we had on passes that weren’t under center PA.
And by the way, one completion in OT on third wins the game there. Haven’t seen the film, so maybe that was on the receivers.

If Zappe were even REMOTELY close to nipping at Mac’s heels, they would have let him run a real offense with the game on the line. They didn’t.

Exactly what I saw. All props to the kid for having a lot of guts, but don’t get the hype.

 

[SVN]

 

[WhatJustHappened]

They missed a lot yesterday.

 

[SVN]

What if Zappe throws an int on that second down play?

That's why you can't make that call with a kid that has never played before.

Then it would be "how can you let a 3rd string QB throw after having run for 5 yards on 1st down and run game is working"

 

[SVN]

The worst thing that can happen, he throws an int and there's the game, he fumbles, there's the game.

like before the half where he fumbled .We got lucky with the jack jones pick.

 

[Guts]

This is something that NEEDS to be discussed in depth.

How DO you go on the road and get to OT with a top 5 team in the AFC who has a very good defense and the almost GOAT as its QB

You lost me here.

Rodgers is no where near the GOAT category