Bedard on Pats DB Coaching

[IllegalContact]

I have absolutely no idea what this means.

Not surprised

 

[SVN]

Reiss chat today

Petyr Baelish (King's Landing)


Hi Mike, what do you think about some recent commentary on Josh Boyer? Not too keep bringing up old storylines, but basically some are saying that the coaching is a detriment not a benefit, and secondary guys the Pats draft have bad mechanics/tendencies. Do you buy it? Can the same be said for WRs and Chad O'Shea by the same logic? Thanks,

Mike
(12:47 PM)


I look at it differently, Petyr. But I'll start with this: I'm not a coach, nor am I a scout, so my opinion when it comes to fundamentals and techniques should be placed into that context. What stands out to me, in this situation, is the reactive nature of much of the commentary that follows a game. After a loss, it trends negative. After a win, it trends positive. So, if the Patriots pulled out that game against Green Bay, are we even talking about Boyer? I don't think so. I think all of us, including myself, fall into this trap from time to time when the commentary is swayed by the end result. Look, the week before, Logan Ryan had an INT and Darrelle Revis was calling this the best secondary he's ever played on. So which one is it? I'm not saying Bill Belichick has all the answers, but in this case, I do mostly defer to him: If he feels the CBs are being coached up well -- and let's not forget he himself is a big part of coaching them with his hands-on technique -- I tend to agree. This isn't to slam any other reporters or sports media entertainers out there. It's just my honest opinion.

 

[NYCPatsFan]

I have seen quite a few Packers games this year and can attest that the Patriots defended the Packers passing offense better than any opponent the past eleven weeks... by far.

The game-plan seemingly called for the elimination of Nelson and Cobb, with the onus on the Packers offense finding success within tight margins by targeting the lower tiered options in the passing game.

Because of Rodgers mobility (and his unrivaled precision throwing on the run), the pass rush looked nonexistent, but actually was quite effective by design because the front seven had to stay disciplined and maintain gap responsibility. If they constantly rushed upfield jailbreak style, Rodgers would have picked them apart with ease like he had been doing at home the previous several weeks.

Incidentally, one of the things I wanted to see more was for the edge rushers to set the edge to keep Rodgers in the pocket while providing pass rush up the middle via Hightower or Collins on delayed blitz. Thought I saw that they had some success doing this a couple of times.

This defensive game plan has worked wonderfully during the seven game winning streak against high powered passing offenses. Unfortunately, the Packers made quite a few of the subtle adjustments in-game that win close match-ups (such as getting needed production from players further down the depth chart), and to their credit that was how it played out at Lambeau.

I am curious to see why Bedard pins this on the defensive back coaching after one close loss. Is it because the Packers 3-4-5 receivers had success attacking 3-4-5 defensive backs of the Patriots, who happen to be home-grown players like Ryan, Dennard, Chung, etc.? However, if coaching were solely to blame, then wouldn't Revis and Browner also suffer as well?

Are you referring to the Packers when they play @ home?

I ask because didn't the Lions and Seahawks restrict the Packers to 7 and 16 pts respectively? That is however when the Packers were on the road. (And I know that their Seahawks game was week one, whereas you are talking about the past 11 weeks - which technically will exclude the week one game if you don't count the bye week in between )

In any case, I am curious what you think were the reasons for the Lions and Seahawks to contain them. Can you give your thoughts when you get a chance please?

I am curious because I have a very strong feeling that we might end up meeting them again this season. .

Thanks!

 

[Oswlek]

In any case, I am curious what you think were the reasons for the Lions and Seahawks to contain them. Can you give your thoughts when you get a chance please?

It's very similar to why KC and Oakland were able to keep NE into the teens. GB was out of synch at the time and couldn't keep Rodgers upright. I'll be surprised if Detroit holds GB under 30 in a few weeks, but if Seattle's recent uptick is for real, they might be able to keep GB in the 20s. Maybe even the high teens again if that rematch is miraculously in Seattle.

 

[sevengables_2207]

Are you referring to the Packers when they play @ home?

I ask because didn't the Lions and Seahawks restrict the Packers to 7 and 16 pts respectively? That is however when the Packers were on the road. (And I know that their Seahawks game was week one, whereas you are talking about the past 11 weeks - which technically will exclude the week one game if you don't count the bye week in between )

In any case, I am curious what you think were the reasons for the Lions and Seahawks to contain them. Can you give your thoughts when you get a chance please?

I am curious because I have a very strong feeling that we might end up meeting them again this season. .

Thanks!

In the games the Packers lost to the Seahawks and the Lions, both instances saw the defenses of each team generate pressure without blitzing too often, as well as being pretty successful at keeping Rodgers in the pocket.

Unlike the Patriots this past Sunday, both teams were able to use the running game (more so the Seahawks than the Lions) to bleed the clock and keep the Packers offense off the field.

I would not say that this is the only way or, the blueprint, per say, since not too long ago the Packers were hammered down in New Orleans by the Saints, who seemingly scored at will via the air and ground. I think, also, the Saints pass rush was uncharacteristically very effective at getting consistent pressure on Rodgers.