All-22 Film Review Thread - SB51

[mosey threetupu]

Thanks Chris for finding this, it was good stuff. However, while I love the premis that the Pats WON the game, and Atlanta didn't necessarily lose it; I hated the premis that the Pats took advantage of the Falcon defense's "exhaustion" to win the game. But the rest of it was on point.

Why Ken? Didn't they wear them out? Serious question.

 

[mosey threetupu]

Great write up. Only think I disagree with is him saying White is a better runner than Lewis.

Debatable this year. Lewis was not close to his pre-injury form in either aspect.

 

[glm]

Debatable this year. Lewis was not close to his pre-injury form in either aspect.

Read:

I don't see it. Lewis had more attempts, rushing yards, and a higher yards/attempt in 7 games than white had in 16. I think bill put it in white because they were down big and white is a better receiver and pass protector than Lewis. I doubt Belichick was even thinking about the running game that much at that point.

 

[mosey threetupu]

Read:

Weren't their YPC almost identical? Lewis is still the better runner but I'm trying to remember one run he broke.

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

They did get back to the 25 but it was called back because of holding.

Thanks. This was what I was trying to convey. My grammar isn't always the best.

Regards,
Chris

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

The missed throw to a wide open Edelman ?

I was thinking more of the straight up the sideline lobs to Hogan, Mitchell and White. The miss to Edelman was more of a wheel route.

Regards,
Chris

 

[aluminum seats]

Even the NE OLmen were talking (after the game) about how the ATL defenders' "eyes were glazed over".

Yeah, they were worn out.

 

[bormio]

If your defense was gassed, I think you try and shorten the game and run the ball. Or perhaps they thought they needed more points and decided to keep throwing. It has been argued they could not run, but really they did not do it enough to know that.

 

[glm]

Weren't their YPC almost identical? Lewis is still the better runner but I'm trying to remember one run he broke.

Eh kinda Lewis had a 4.42 average and White a 4.26. And Lewis didn't break any big runs this year, his longest run was 15 yards.

 

[Tony2046]

If your defense was gassed, I think you try and shorten the game and run the ball. Or perhaps they thought they needed more points and decided to keep throwing. It has been argued they could not run, but really they did not do it enough to know that.

I think the article covers that a bit. It implies that the Pats were practically selling out to stop the run and playing a risky man D in the secondary. So maybe the Atlanta Offense was simply calling what the Pats D was giving them. Nevertheless you cannot give up being in field goal range although it took two great defensive plays to knock them out of range.

It was a hell of a game.

 

[patfanken]

Why Ken? Didn't they wear them out? Serious question.

It's not like having to play 96 odd plays on defense didn't have an effect. I'm sure it did. But the way it's being portrayed, I get the feeling that it is being made to seem that that was the ONLY reason the Pats moved the ball at the end of the game, and I feel that patently wasn't true. Atlanta was still coming hard at the end, and the Pats simply made plays at key times that they weren't making in the first half.

The game was more complex than simply a matter of the wearing out of the Atlanta defense. It's like the mediots don't think we can handle more more nuanced explaination. And its NEVER what one team does right. It always has to be what the 'other' team did wrong. God forbid we actually focus on the positives of the game.

If you review this game, what made it great beyond the drama was how well it was played on both sides. Even on the so called negative plays. Brady's pick was the result of Atlanta's fooling Brady that play. LGB's fumble was more a good play by them than a sloppy play buy Blunt. DA's TD was the result of a subtle adjustment to his position pre-snap. The RB missed Hightower's blitz mostly because of a line stunt that he was worried about coming up the middle. On Jones' super catch, the decision to throw that ball was much worse than any execution by the defense.

In the end what I was impressed with was how well executed the game was in general on BOTH sides. When you come down to it. Atlanta's being crucified for what amount to one bad call that resulted in a sack, and without that hold, might have never been mentioned. You don't think we can find some bad calls the Pats made?

At any rate. It was a great game, that ended in a very satisfying manner. It was a game the Pats won despite playing rather poorly in the first half, but they WON it. Atlanta didn't lose it. To portray it like that is to demean Atlanta's great effort and the Pats outstanding acheivement. JMHO

 

[mosey threetupu]

It's not like having to play 96 odd plays on defense didn't have an effect. I'm sure it did. But the way it's being portrayed, I get the feeling that it is being made to seem that that was the ONLY reason the Pats moved the ball at the end of the game, and I feel that patently wasn't true. Atlanta was still coming hard at the end, and the Pats simply made plays at key times that they weren't making in the first half.

The game was more complex than simply a matter of the wearing out of the Atlanta defense. It's like the mediots don't think we can handle more more nuanced explaination. And its NEVER what one team does right. It always has to be what the 'other' team did wrong. God forbid we actually focus on the positives of the game.

If you review this game, what made it great beyond the drama was how well it was played on both sides. Even on the so called negative plays. Brady's pick was the result of Atlanta's fooling Brady that play. LGB's fumble was more a good play by them than a sloppy play buy Blunt. DA's TD was the result of a subtle adjustment to his position pre-snap. The RB missed Hightower's blitz mostly because of a line stunt that he was worried about coming up the middle. On Jones' super catch, the decision to throw that ball was much worse than any execution by the defense.

In the end what I was impressed with was how well executed the game was in general on BOTH sides. When you come down to it. Atlanta's being crucified for what amount to one bad call that resulted in a sack, and without that hold, might have never been mentioned. You don't think we can find some bad calls the Pats made?

At any rate. It was a great game, that ended in a very satisfying manner. It was a game the Pats won despite playing rather poorly in the first half, but they WON it. Atlanta didn't lose it. To portray it like that is to demean Atlanta's great effort and the Pats outstanding acheivement. JMHO

Makes sense. For the most part the only sports media I get outside of games is the weei ap so I hadn't heard that storyline pushed to that degree.

 

[PatsFan37]

Good write-up, great find. Minor quibble that the author writes "Mitchell would also be a big factor in the second half. He’s the only true outside receiver the Patriots had with Michael Floyd inactive." I thought Hogan plays outside enough and runs fast enough that although he's used in multiple positions, when he plays outside he has all attributes of a 'true outside receiver.'

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

I had started a thread with collected Super Bowl breakdowns here, so I cross posted this link over there.

Willie McGinest's brief breakdown video goes over the Hightower strip sack well. DeVonte Freeman had a lot to look at in that play. Ninkovich loops inside and Chung was inside of Hightower, who was aligned way out in space. Freeman may just have been unsure of who to block because of the scheme.

The endzone angle of the Flowers sack in the clip above is amazing. The entire Pats front played Atlanta like a fiddle...

- Mack was expecting to lock up with Branch, but gets sideswiped by Flowers instead.

- The right guard was ready to help on Flowers, but sees Branch loop behind Trey so he engages with Branch instead in case the right tackle is engaged with Sheard.

- The right tackle sees Sheard cover Freeman on a flare (first option on the play, designed to beat Sheard's blitz in case he pulled another Hightower-like wide rush), so he helps on Branch.

- The left tackle engages Brown. Hooper picked up Hightower's blitz very well.

- The left guard initially tried to help Mack with Flowers, but he was on the wrong side of the play, so he assisted with the block on Brown instead.

When it was all said and done, the Pats created a Flowers-on-Mack one-on-one situation which started off with Mack behind the eight ball when Flowers came from his right side unexpectedly. Mack lost his leverage. The Branch stunt and Sheard's possible rush occupied the right side of the line, giving Flowers the chance he needed. It looked like Ryan wasn't expecting Sheard to be on Freeman like glue, and was taken down before he figured out what he wanted to do on the play.

Such a great play of four rushers being too much for six blockers.

Regards,
Chris