Discussion in 'NFL Football Forum' started by Coolade2, Nov 19, 2018.
Yeah, I think he went down right at kick off. I think it threw everyone off.
Same. The most arrogant comment ever. And guess what? You should be playing every damn team like it's your Super Bowl.
So you agree it's a good game plan then since most teams can't slow down Brady.
Unless the quarterback is totally incapable of consistently hitting throws from the pocket (ala Tebow and Mariota prior to meeting up with the Pats), it's a terrible defensive game plan. It's just a defensive game plan that's traditionally been bailed out by Brady. When Brady can't bail them out, the Pats lose and even get blown out some of the time.
What is this thing you speak of called, "pass rush?"
The game plan works because mobile QBs typically aren't good at sitting in the pocket and consistently hit those throws. The offense doing their job is typically needed for any win regardless of what the defensive game plan is. Brady makes whatever the plan is on defense easier most days.
Actually, most mobile quarterbacks in the NFL in 2018 can hit wide open receivers that find the holes in the zone if the DL is just staring at them for all intents and purposes. Hell, Bortles and Mariota were probably the two worst QBs they've faced this season in that regard and neither of them had any trouble moving the football. Mariota nearly made up half of his entire 2018 TD total against the Patriots in one game. That's how bad he had been. That's because the coaching staff was so terrified over the occasional scramble that they essentially gave them the free, easy 10-15 yard completions. I shouldn't need to tell you this. You should know, as a fan that has followed the game for as long as you have, that it's not a good thing to sit back and let any professional QB pick you apart.
The game plan is a terrible one. That's been evidenced time and time again when you examine those opponents' point totals, TOP, yards, etc. That Brady is usually good enough to bail it out doesn't mean that the game plan and the way they attack those QBs isn't a terrible one.
I think because of Brady they should be more aggressive on D. What I mean by that is blitz a little more from all angles. Their scheme is more appropriate with a lead later in the game.
They may give up some plays playing more aggressively, but it will also create more opportunities for turnovers. The more chances you give the Pats offense, the more difficult it becomes to beat them.
This. You could also reference the last meeting against the Seahawks. Wilson accepted he was going to run so he had all the time in the world to throw and picked the Pats apart.
Depends on who they are playing. You can't be more aggressive on D against many QBs in the NFL. But for QBs that are prone to mistakes when they're actually rushed, you should switch things up and come after them more often than you would a guy like Roethlisberger or Rodgers or Mahomes and force the issue.
The Pats D-line look like their doing the waltz with the O-lineman.
I don't know what the heck your spewing now. There is no defensive game plan that calls for them to leave anyone wide open.
They do emphasize containment over pass rush at times but your just making things up when you say they don't cover easy 10-15 yard completions.
Winning percentage speaks for itself who cares about yards and TOP.
I think what they've been doing has worked well.
I can tell you don't know what I'm talking about because you're inventing a straw man now. I never said they purposely leave anyone open. What I said is that they prefer to contain up front and play heavy zone concepts in the secondary to keep all eyes turned toward the QB in case he runs. No matter which zone concept you choose to run, be it Cover-3, Cover-4, etc., that coverage is going to leave holes that receivers can just sit in. Particularly receivers that play with a QB who relies on his mobility in any other game and are used to "sandlot" style football where they improvise and improvise often. So what you're doing is giving the QB more time in the pocket to find a receiver against a coverage that, by design, leaves open holes. You can choose to think that this is an excellent way to attack an offense if you wish. I can stop taking your opinion seriously.
As for the last sentence? Again, because Brady has traditionally been able to cover for the defensive game plan doesn't make that game plan any less horrific. Perhaps you should refresh your memory on how lopsided some of those scores have been, going back to Week 1 of 2017 as a reference point, when he isn't able to keep pace.
Oh, got it. I think we should try something different, like running past them and tackling the quarterback.
Interestingly enough the Colts haven't given up a sack since playing the Patriots on Thursday night on October 4th. That's pretty impressive considering what a she-it show their line has been the last 3-5 years.
I am not even remotely surprised. Tennessee isn't that good and it was a classic letdown game.
I am, however, dismayed. Why? Because as I said, Tennessee isn't all that good - but they still sure as hell kicked our asses.
Sorry, but it's just not physically - or mentally - possible. It just can't happen. The Titans, Jaguars, Jets and Bills are sure as heck going to be a lot more fired up to play the Patriots than the Patriots players are to play them.
Time the blitz to perfection so the o-line can't handle it.
I think you have selective memory. I promise you BB has a very good winning percentage vs mobile QBs.
Separate names with a comma.