Atlanta's Defense

[Ring 6]

Patriots also ran 93 plays. Their previous high this season, IIRC, was 77. If they were gassed at 50-55 plays, they were near dead by the time the game was over.

BB specifically lauded the conditioning of the OL.

 

[patriot1136]

haha, "death by a million paper cuts". Love that

 

[RobertWeathers]

Could'nt agree more. Brees always played them by taking what they gave him. 3-5 yrd pass plays. Audible runs the middle if he saw a blitz around the end. Its one reason we became one of the best screening teams, because of Atlanta. You fake a few drop backs knowing Atlanta is rotating for bull rushes. Have the OL fall back pretending to block and then at the last second dump off to PT as the OL breaks and runs forward to block. A few of them and the Falcons DL is tired. But on years like last season our defense was never good enouph to get their offense off the field.
This is also one reason SP cut Jimmy Graham. He cant block a screen or protect on pass plays.
Looked like Brady and McD picked that up on this, maybe around the end of the 2nd quarter when they started short slant passes up the middle, but one got picked off. Though on the next drive the kept throwing behind the lines and short slants for the FG.
The Falcons defense is just not as well conditioned or tough as NE. And truthfuly Im not sure any defense can keep up the constant bull rushing and high octain attack scheme they try to do. Seems a simplitic plan of attack to us , and not smart against a player like Brady and his weapons that can take what you give them and tire them out.
But they do have about 6-8 good pass rushers though, and its a whirlwind not alot of QB's can keep their heads and intelligently seek quick strikes and manipulate.
Id say its more of a brutal, pass rushing, high energy defense made to intimidate and get quick 3 0r 7 and outs.
Brady just used their strengths against them and wore them down. When you do that, their simple scheme and zone play makes them a little below average D I think.
Storm passes and the roads open up.

Certainly didn't anticipate being down big but I saw the game playing out the same way as the SEA SB. Over time they just got gassed and TB was able to step up in the pocket the make them bleed.

Pointing out that Shanahan was the real loser, I kind of agree with also. His clock management, passing when he should be running, and offensive plan of attack was exactly like the 1st half. No adjustment at all?
You would think he was still playing the 1st quarter. And when MR could not wing it to JJ, hopper and the patriots defense just kept coming methodically. Shanahan should have adjusted to short pass and run plays with the lead at 28pts.
I really believe Shanahan intended to humiliate BB and the Patriots. Its the only thing that explains him not letting off the pedal. That was a huge mistake.

Agree completely. It was Mike Martz all over again. Shanny Jr. kept attacking but this is where Quinn should have stepped in and slowed the game down.

 

[RobertWeathers]

haha, "death by a million paper cuts". Love that

We've been seeing it for 16 years now

 

[IllegalContact]

Patriots also ran 93 plays. Their previous high this season, IIRC, was 77. If they were gassed at 50-55 plays, they were near dead by the time the game was over.

sure

their defense was getting tired at the end of the 1st half.......the pick 6 masked that fact, but starting with the INT drive, the pats drives the rest of the way were
12
10
3
13
12
5
8

the 3 and out was the defenses 1st time on the field after the half .... they got tired much quicker

the only thing you can say is that the early efficiency of the falcons offense hurt their defense big time

but their defense still sucks

 

[Kontradiction]

BB specifically lauded the conditioning of the OL.

I was listening to Ross Tucker yesterday morning on NFLN and he was talking about just how brutal the individual periods were with New England under Scar and said that his time with the Pats was, by far, the best shape he's ever been in.

 

[NYCPatsFan]

Andy, question for you:

In that 4Q, IF the Falcons had tried running always (thus not having the sack and assuming no holding call), and instead kicked the field goal to be up by two scores, do you think that their D would have been still been as ineffectual as they were during our last two TD drives (meaning the last one in regular session and the one in OT)?

Thanks,

 

[Angelpats]

Hey guys don't be like the mediots and make excuses for why we won. Atlanta has a good defense otherwise we would have scored more than 3 in the first half. What stats and all that crap doesn't account for is a team with heart and our QB. Some mediots say we can plug in Rodgers as our QB and we would have won more games and super bowls. No QB would have won this super bowl other than Brady. Atlantas defense wasn't aweful in the second half either, if you watched the game Brady pinpointed those balls to our receivers with defenders near them most the time. That's good defense but better offense. By saying their defense sucked diminishes what our team did. We earned that game.

Side note. On that sack by flowers and hold on long that pushed them out of FG range. Everyone saying they should have run twice in a row and kicked a FG because atlantas kicker is around 98% from that range. Yes it seems improbable but he would have missed it, because there was a 99.9% chance that we would lose in the 3rd down 28-3 but we beat those odds and won, so on that night 98% meant nothing.

 

[Ring 6]

Andy, question for you:

In that 4Q, IF the Falcons had tried running always (thus not having the sack and assuming no holding call), and instead kicked the field goal to be up by two scores, do you think that their D would have been still been as ineffectual as they were during our last two TD drives (meaning the last one in regular session and the one in OT)?

Thanks,

Huh?
I don't understand your question. Are you if they would have done better on plays that didn't happen than they did on the ones that they played in the game?

 

[Kontradiction]

Andy, question for you:

In that 4Q, IF the Falcons had tried running always (thus not having the sack and assuming no holding call), and instead kicked the field goal to be up by two scores, do you think that their D would have been still been as ineffectual as they were during our last two TD drives (meaning the last one in regular session and the one in OT)?

Thanks,

I think they still would have sucked regardless but that the Pats would have probably still run out of time. Remember, though, that their running game started getting stuffed once the Pats started scheming to take away the edges and force runs up the A-gap, where Mack was struggling mightily to run block. There is no guarantee that, 1) runs would have been successful, and 2) that something like a turnover wouldn't have happened.

 

[Ring 6]

I think they still would have sucked regardless but that the Pats would have probably still run out of time. Remember, though, that their running game started getting stuffed once the Pats started scheming to take away the edges and force runs up the A-gap, where Mack was struggling mightily to run block. There is no guarantee that, 1) runs would have been successful, and 2) that something like a turnover wouldn't have happened.

We scored to tie driving 91 yards in 10 plays and 2:33 using no timeouts. We took a full minute to run the last 2 plays, and left 57 seconds on the clock.
Had ATL kicked a FG, we would have used timeouts, and ended up with an onside kick with close to 2 minutes left.

 

[Kontradiction]

We scored to tie driving 91 yards in 10 plays and 2:33 using no timeouts. We took a full minute to run the last 2 plays, and left 57 seconds on the clock.
Had ATL kicked a FG, we would have used timeouts, and ended up with an onside kick with close to 2 minutes left.

Only they would have been down by two scores instead of one. Is it possible they could have done it? I suppose. But recovering an onside kick is not a high probability play in your favor. So, yeah, they probably would have ran out of time.

 

[Ring 6]

Only they would have been down by two scores instead of one. Is it possible they could have done it? I suppose. But recovering an onside kick is not a high probability play in your favor. So, yeah, they probably would have ran out of time.

I don't think there would have been enough time to score, kick deep and still get the ball back with time.
They would have had to have more than 2 minutes and all of the timeouts, so that drive would have had to be more frantic.

 

[NYCPatsFan]

I think they still would have sucked regardless but that the Pats would have probably still run out of time. Remember, though, that their running game started getting stuffed once the Pats started scheming to take away the edges and force runs up the A-gap, where Mack was struggling mightily to run block. There is no guarantee that, 1) runs would have been successful, and 2) that something like a turnover wouldn't have happened.

Yup, I agree Kontra; we might have run out of time in that scenario had they scored a FG.

I asked that question (to Andy) because, had their O made that play, they would have been up by 2 scores and given their D a much needed rest. That in turn could have helped them not be as gassed as they were, and probably allowed them to play a bit more tactfully.

They might suck, but are they as pathetic as Andy thinks? That's what I was hoping to get Andy to respond but I think we all know the answer.

Oh well, I am for one thrilled that they were pathetic in the last two drives when it mattered.

GO PATS!!

 

[Ring 6]

Yup, I agree Kontra; we might have run out of time in that scenario had they scored a FG.

I asked that question (to Andy) because, had their O made that play, they would have been up by 2 scores and given their D a much needed rest. That in turn could have helped them not be as gassed as they were, and probably allowed them to play a bit more tactfully.

They might suck, but are they as pathetic as Andy thinks? That's what I was hoping to get Andy to respond but I think we all know the answer.

Oh well, I am for one thrilled that they were pathetic in the last two drives when it mattered.

GO PATS!!

Not sure they would have gotten more rest if the drive ended in a FG instead of a punt.

I didn't say they were pathetic, I said they played bad.
They did.

I have never, ever believed in making excuses for results. They own what they did on the field and a hypothetical wondering about how they would have played on plays that never happened is of no interest to me.

 

[deroc5050]

You know...they have to play the entire game, right?

They were good in the first half. Yay. Let's get them a participation trophy. "Best First Half Super Bowl Defense 2016".

Their defense was an embarrassment the entire second half. An embarrassment. You play two halves (and in this case overtime) and get judged on the overall body of work.

Again, under no circumstances does any defense deserve the adjective "average" let alone "good", when these are the final 5 Patriots drives. 5 drives. In a row. At the end of the game when it matters the most. Look at it again:

13 Plays, 75 yds, TD
12 Plays, 72 yds, FG
5 plays, 25 yds, TD
10 plays, 91 yds, TD
8 Plays, 75 yds, TD

That's 48 plays, 338 yards. 4 touchdowns, a field goal, and two 2-point conversions in roughly a quarter-and-a-half. This is nearly the total Atlanta put up in offense for the entire game.

If you consider that "good", you must have loved the Patriots 2010 defense.

Again I have watched the game 3x Atlanta's defense was good up until 9 minutes to go in the 4th quarter.

 

[Ring 6]

Again I have watched the game 3x Atlanta's defense was good up until 9 minutes to go in the 4th quarter.

The game is 60 minutes plus OT.

In 60 minutes plus OT was the Atlanta defense cumulatively good or bad?

 

[deroc5050]

Just because the Patriots came back on O does not mean Atlanta sucked on D.

With that being said, those drives stats say far more about the tenacity of New England's offense than anything else. I re-watched the game last night on NFLN (and I'm looking at it now on youtube, too). Those first three scoring drives were like pulling teeth. New England was still trying to find out how to attack; and specifically in relation to what Atlanta was showing and understanding how they would react. It was pretty damn hard, too. It's like they'd take one step forward...only to run into a brick wall when doing it again. Just trying to figure out how Atlanta would react was tough. Really wasn't until the last two drives that McDaniels and Brady really picked up on ATL's tendencies and then you saw the Patriots get into a steady rhythm and take control of the game.

I'll really try my hardest to point to what I'm seeing with video later on...

But I'm looking at the drive to make it 28-9, and you could really tell McDaniel's was trying hard to figure out how clear out the underneath coverage to attack them with the in-route and the shallow cross on those first two plays. The first play to Lewis failed, so McD threw in a nice wrinkle on the next play with the in-route to a flexed-out White, and Atlanta's D quickly adjusted with their safeties tightly packed in the defensive formation on the next play. Same drive, McDaniel's was also attacking outside the numbers with the out-route (Amendola). But one play would work and then other would fail because Atlanta responded by showing zone and tee'd off on Amendola on the next play. Atlanta really kept adjusting in small ways; like they were one-step-ahead. Those first three scores were just a total pain. Really.

Thank you thats all I am trying to say. For some of the fortune tellers saying that Atlantas D sucked watch the game again. New England drove down early in the 4th quarter down 28-9.. and got sacked twice in the red zone and had to kick a FG. Everything had to go right for New England on those last 2 drives including a lucky catch that could have been intercepted.

 

[deroc5050]

The game is 60 minutes plus OT.

In 60 minutes plus OT was the Atlanta defense cumulatively good or bad?

Well Atlantas D was good enough for 50 minutes.. there offense blew the game for them. Most defenses get tired in the 4th quarter.

 

[Ring 6]

Thank you thats all I am trying to say. For some of the fortune tellers saying that Atlantas D sucked watch the game again. New England drove down early in the 4th quarter down 28-9.. and got sacked twice in the red zone and had to kick a FG. Everything had to go right for New England on those last 2 drives including a lucky catch that could have been intercepted.

Its very interesting that a guy who was ripping the Patriots defense all season because of the eye test, is trying to argue that allowing 34 points and blowing a big lead is good defense because they made some plays at some point in the game.