Patricia & D play calling/scheme

I understand one of the hallmarks of a BB defense is to take away your strength, make you beat them with your weakness, don't give up the big play, make you march the field with sustained drives, hoping to capitalize on a mistake, while tightening up in the defense......while (hopefully) scoring TD's on offense, hoping to stick you in a hole, force you out of your game plan and into more mistakes


16 straight winning seasons......we know the drill.....9-2 this year.....it works


but it is maddening to watch Fitz stand back there with nothing but time, at times with just 2 pass rushers, and finding a spot in the zone......


to their credit, but Patricia & the D did go man and turn the pressure up at times, especially to close out the game......and they did shut down the Jets strength, the run game, to what, in the neighborhood of 60 yards?


do we think this is simply Patricia's adherence to the BB way, to a marrying of the offense/defense/ST all together on one big scheme, assuming the offense can score with "X" efficiency, and the defense just has to slow down the quick score, force long drives, tighten up the red zone, and force long drives for field goals?

or is the play calling as such because of our personnel?


it seems to me the Pats CAN generate pressure, we have seen it at times......and it seems these DB's can handle man (hell, they at times struggle in zone)......so is this just all about matching the defense up to the offensive game plan? personnel? or a mix of both?

yukon cornelius said:

I understand one of the hallmarks of a BB defense is to take away your strength, make you beat them with your weakness, don't give up the big play, make you march the field with sustained drives, hoping to capitalize on a mistake, while tightening up in the defense......while (hopefully) scoring TD's on offense, hoping to stick you in a hole, force you out of your game plan and into more mistakes


16 straight winning seasons......we know the drill.....9-2 this year.....it works


but it is maddening to watch Fitz stand back there with nothing but time, at times with just 2 pass rushers, and finding a spot in the zone......


to their credit, but Patricia & the D did go man and turn the pressure up at times, especially to close out the game......and they did shut down the Jets strength, the run game, to what, in the neighborhood of 60 yards?


do we think this is simply Patricia's adherence to the BB way, to a marrying of the offense/defense/ST all together on one big scheme, assuming the offense can score with "X" efficiency, and the defense just has to slow down the quick score, force long drives, tighten up the red zone, and force long drives for field goals?

or is the play calling as such because of our personnel?


it seems to me the Pats CAN generate pressure, we have seen it at times......and it seems these DB's can handle man (hell, they at times struggle in zone)......so is this just all about matching the defense up to the offensive game plan? personnel? or a mix of both?

Click to expand...

Like you said it works. It would be much more maddening to watch Forte gash us for 130 (instead of the 30 he got) and lose. It would be much more frustrating to blitz, and not get there, and have him throwing against 5 in the secondary instead of 8, wouldn't it?
Everyone loves to think how cool it would be if we blitzed and it worked, and how that would stop all those completions. The worst passing offense in the NFL completes 18 passes a game. The AVERAGE passing offense completes 23.5. Think about that. The average team completes 23.5 passes per game. How do you suppose you stop those from happening? Blitzes get picked up. BB uses blitzes as an element of surprise in order to make it more effective. You can't blitz all day long or you have 4-5 receivers running around a secondary with 5 people in it. That is a recipe for disaster.

This is going to trend the same as similar recent threads, with posters confusing a general philosophy with a specifically implemented game plan. That's a shame, because it's an interesting topic for discussion when people don't make that mistake.

I'll admit to be driven crazy at times by how the Pats play defense. That jello zone pass D makes me scream. Then I notice we made the necessary plays to win the game - and remind myself that's all that matters, or try to anyway.

But let's not forget that the vaunted Seattle D was a Brady goal line fumble away from matching the Pats in allowing 31pts.

And before anyone drops another our defense stinks bomb, notice what happened last night. The almighty, the incredible, the one-for-ages Denver D finished their game by allowing three straight scoring drives to the moderately inept KC offense. And they lost because of it. KC was down to the 16yd line so quick after the missed FG in OT they had to run 23 seconds off the clock before calling TO to ice the game.

Does anyone think really our D would have allowed KC to score 3 straight times to end the game? - no, I don't.

There's a reason BB keeps saying points are all that matter. Just ask the flashy sack and smash gang from Denver, uh, the gang that had no answer for Alex Smith.

Deus Irae said:

This is going to trend the same as similar recent threads, with posters confusing a general philosophy with a specifically implemented game plan. That's a shame, because it's an interesting topic for discussion when people don't make that mistake.

Click to expand...

They are very interrelated. The philosophy you believe has a tremendous impact on how you game plan. Norv Turner isn't going to turn into Chip Kelly for a game on a whim, or vice versa.

Brady'sButtBoy said:

I'll admit to be driven crazy at times by how the Pats play defense. That jello zone pass D makes me scream. Then I notice we made the necessary plays to win the game - and remind myself that's all that matters, or try to anyway.

But let's not forget that the vaunted Seattle D was a Brady goal line fumble away from matching the Pats in allowing 31pts.

And before anyone drops another our defense stinks bomb, notice what happened last night. The almighty, the incredible, the one-for-ages Denver D finished their game by allowing three straight scoring drives to the moderately inept KC offense. And they lost because of it. KC was down to the 16yd line so quick after the missed FG in OT they had to run 23 seconds off the clock before calling TO to ice the game.

Does anyone think really our D would have allowed KC to score 3 straight times to end the game? - no, I don't.

There's a reason BB keeps saying points are all that matter. Just ask the flashy sack and smash gang from Denver, uh, the gang that had no answer for Alex Smith.

Click to expand...

There is no 'better' between aggressive and conservative. There is just different. You sacrifice something for something else, that's football.

AndyJohnson said:

They are very interrelated. The philosophy you believe has a tremendous impact on how you game plan. Norv Turner isn't going to turn into Chip Kelly for a game on a whim, or vice versa.

Click to expand...

You have consistently been one who can't tell the two apart, so your post here is not a surprise. However, I'm not going to watch this thread end up like the others, so I'm just putting it on ignore, and the field is all yours.

Deus Irae said:

You have consistently been one who can't tell the two apart, so your post here is not a surprise. However, I'm not going to watch this thread end up like the others, so I'm just putting it on ignore, and the field is all yours.

Click to expand...

And I will counter that you have consistently been the one who cannot tell them apart, so this would explain why we disagree.

AndyJohnson said:

There is no 'better' between aggressive and conservative. There is just different. You sacrifice something for something else, that's football.

Click to expand...

True, but in a weird way I also think your offense should 'to a degree' play a role in how you play defense.

After all, we have one of the best offenses in the league. Other teams WANT their offenses to go on long drives to keep Brady off the field and limit their possessions. I'd prefer to play aggressive....hopefully force a sack or turnover. Even if we give up the big play, I still like Brady's chances in a shootout.

Brady'sButtBoy said:

I'll admit to be driven crazy at times by how the Pats play defense. That jello zone pass D makes me scream. Then I notice we made the necessary plays to win the game - and remind myself that's all that matters, or try to anyway.

But let's not forget that the vaunted Seattle D was a Brady goal line fumble away from matching the Pats in allowing 31pts.

And before anyone drops another our defense stinks bomb, notice what happened last night. The almighty, the incredible, the one-for-ages Denver D finished their game by allowing three straight scoring drives to the moderately inept KC offense. And they lost because of it. KC was down to the 16yd line so quick after the missed FG in OT they had to run 23 seconds off the clock before calling TO to ice the game.

Does anyone think really our D would have allowed KC to score 3 straight times to end the game? - no, I don't.

There's a reason BB keeps saying points are all that matter. Just ask the flashy sack and smash gang from Denver, uh, the gang that had no answer for Alex Smith.

Click to expand...

Absolutely something to be said for winning games.

Having said that, I think it would be smart for this defense to at times ratchet up the pressure and blitz more. When and how much? Hey, we've got a rocket scientist or whatever as defensive coordinator, ask him. I can't do everything.

Can't stand it, huh? The Pats defense doesmn't gamble, but they take calculated risks once they have a defense that works together like a machine. They're obviously working on parts now. Keeping the scores low, letting the offense stay in the game.

You want Van Noy, McLellin and Rowe to start gambling and giving up big plays? Why?

aluminum seats said:

Absolutely something to be said for winning games.

Having said that, I think it would be smart for this defense to at times ratchet up the pressure and blitz more. When and how much? Hey, we've got a rocket scientist or whatever as defensive coordinator, ask him. I can't do everything.

Click to expand...

5 sacks beginning of San Fran game. You willing to give up big plays, if relative newcomers take chances? why?

brdmaverick said:

True, but in a weird way I also think your offense should 'to a degree' play a role in how you play defense.

After all, we have one of the best offenses in the league. Other teams WANT their offenses to go on long drives to keep Brady off the field and limit their possessions. I'd prefer to play aggressive....hopefully force a sack or turnover. Even if we give up the big play, I still like Brady's chances in a shootout.

Click to expand...

I see it the other way around.
A conservative game favors the better team. If you play aggressive you give yourself the chance of screwing up allowing big plays and flipping the script to lose to a worse team.

RayClay said:

5 sacks beginning of San Fran game. You willing to give up big plays, if relative newcomers take chances? why?

Click to expand...

The average NFL offense completes 23.5 passes per game. Do you want them completed against 7 in coverage or 5?

I think the key phrase here is "calculated risk". I think my frustration doesn't come from a lack of blitzing, or even a desernable pass rush. I am one of those that thinks this defense, while certainly not "dominating" is a lot better than its perceived, especially by the media. And it's BECAUSE I think this defense is very competitent that I'd like to see some players take more "calculated risks" to make big plays.

The play I have used this week a few times already in other threads is the long crossing route the Jets successfully completed in their last possession of the 2nd half. (and fast forward if you read it already). Basically the Jets cleared out the middle of the field and I felt that Harmon was too conservative in his coverage of the deep middle. He didn't trust what he'd practiced, seen on film, and saw with his eyes as this play developed. So rather than jump the route or blow up the receiver, he played it safe, and didn't react until the ball was out of the QB's hands and arrived just in time to assist on the tackle.

So I don't want to see the Pats suddenly go away from their primary defensive philosophy, or get away from their game plan for the week. I just want them to play more confidently. To take the calculated risk from time to time. To be more like the player BB and Brady discuss in that clip where they talk about Ed Reed. Now Reed was a HOF player, but he played very "instinctively". Which is another term for someone who believes what they have seen on film and the practice field, and internalized it, so when they see it happening they attack it, rather than playing safe.

Another good example of this was the Butler pick in the superbowl. He went for it, when he could have merely broken up the pass to be safe.

RayClay said:

You willing to give up big plays, if relative newcomers take chances? why?

Click to expand...

The Pats do sometimes rush more than 4 you know.

AndyJohnson said:

The average NFL offense completes 23.5 passes per game. Do you want them completed against 7 in coverage or 5?

Click to expand...

I don't understand your question.

RayClay said:

I don't understand your question.

Click to expand...

If you blitz and it is picked up you have sacrificed a player who could be in coverage.
The worst defensive call that exists is a blitz that doesn't get there.

AndyJohnson said:

I see it the other way around.
A conservative game favors the better team. If you play aggressive you give yourself the chance of screwing up allowing big plays and flipping the script to lose to a worse team.

Click to expand...

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I know it's a different sport but I think the same message/logic applies but I view it similar to a hockey team having an All Star goalie (think Mary Brodeur or Patrick Roy in their prime). With an All Star goalie I would imagine the coach would be more likely to tell his defenders that they can afford to take a few more chances than they normally would because they have a goalie who can bail them out.

brdmaverick said:

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I know it's a different sport but I think the same message/logic applies but I view it similar to a hockey team having an All Star goalie (think Mary Brodeur or Patrick Roy in their prime). With an All Star goalie I would imagine the coach would be more likely to tell his defenders that they can afford to take a few more chances than they normally would because they have a goalie who can bail them out.

Click to expand...

This might work statistically if you look at results over a number of games but since the playoffs are a one & done affair I think you need to go with what gives the team the most consistency instead of the biggest payoff.