Idle thoughts - the 2 choices edition

[everlong]

Evidence; Brady had the fewest passing attempts for a half in his career. Neither Gronk nor Amendola had any targets - Clearly the prime objective was to run the clock, shorten the game, and get out of there as quickly as possible. When they finally started to open up in the 2nd half, they couldn't suddenly turn it back on. They had no rhythm at all. Usually a cure for that would be to run a hurry up offense, but that wasn't going to happen yesterday.

Which is why they should have sat Brady and Gronk and not opened them up to injury. Suh could have easily have ended their SB aspirations.

4. The defense wasn't a whole lot better. Of course that is hyperbole. The defense played well at times, in spurts, but there were too many 3rd and longs that were completed. Too often 2 really good plays were followed by a bad one. I guess the really observation was the defense didn't play badly, just very inconsistently.

The defense got hung out to dry for 70z+ plays because the offense couldn't sustain a drive.

6. Clearly none of the refs were watching the Dolphins run pick plays, because if they wanted to create examples of when a "pick" is illegal, they could have used at least 3 plays the Phins got away with. These weren't technical picks, these were NBA picks. Yet the only OPI of the game was against Martin, on a very artful flop by Grimes.

That and the no illegal contact on Gronk down the left sideline when clearly the DB jumped in front of him and impeded his progress pissed me off to no end.

8. But the refs weren't the reason the Pats lost. Bad play, bad coaching, bad preparation. It was a full on poor effort by everyone that week. And thus ends the game observations portion of this post.

This wishy-washy we'll kinda try to win was a disaster that would have been epic had Suh ended Brady's season.

2. I don't believe in "momentum" going into the playoffs. That 2010 team had plenty of "momentum". The Giants and Ravens had absolutely NO "momentum" going into their playoff runs to superbowls. Every football game is unique. Now I'm not saying that momentum doesn't play a factor in football, but it happens within each specific game.

Agreed. It's all media speak. What matters most is how teams play on Sunday but also how the matchups fall.

3. So in the end, if the Pats manage to get people back, and fix the OL, NONE of what happened in the last 6 weeks will matter a wit.

If they lose in the playoffs the OL is the mostly likely reason why and nothing else is a close second. Obviously turnovers are #1 for every team but as a team weakness.

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

For the offense, I am in the optimistic camp. While it is never a good thing to be getting the offense back in rhythm at this point in the year (severe understatement), our offense is as much mental as it is physical.

Which makes it seem like receivers either "get it" or they don't. The difference between when Woodhead/Welker showed up vs. the Ochocinco/Joey Galloway types.

Brady has a cast of all his types and I think they'll be on the same page quickly. And, if they can survive the divisional round, they'll be up to game speed.

 

[DSting]

Absolutely had to try to run. It was not a stacked box--most of our runs were against a nickel. If we're going anywhere in the playoffs we have to be able to run against a light box. What was more concerning was that we couldn't.

 

[aluminum seats]

While we can agree that Ryan has had a fine 2015 and has really only struggled the past few games, I don't believe the secondary, run defense, or overall points allowed are that much different than most other years.

In other words, what is it that has people talking about the best defense in the past 10 years? To me, they look like the typical Bill Belichick top 10 defense which has both pluses and minuses. The sacks are up, but the all-important turnovers are way down. The CBs outside of Butler are susceptible, as you mentioned with the lack of preseason depth. The rush defense is giving up 4.1 YPC, so it's not like they're any different from most seasons.

It seems as though we can expect our defense to try and hold the opposition to around 20-21-22 points, which is usually the normal range for most Patriot defenses of late. How is that "the best defense of the last 10 years?" Just curious as to what I'm overlooking, but I think we heard the same thing last season, and at least one other season recently (maybe 2012?)

Fair point. I think the improved perception has to do with the depth in the front 7, and the development into truly elite players in Collins and Hightower. Add in Butler and Ryan generally holding their own, it feels like a complete defense, when healthy.

On a couple of your other points. Turnovers I think are so much a matter of luck, it's hard to show any real causation as why they're high or low.

And people are sort of high on Jackson because of who he is. The simple fact that he looks like a professional encourages people--while we know Bolden's ceiling, the thought is that if Jackson just looks competent, then better things may come, if that makes sense. Not saying it's right or wrong, but I think that's the general perception.

 

[Sicilian]

Fair point. I think the improved perception has to do with the depth in the front 7, and the development into truly elite players in Collins and Hightower. Add in Butler and Ryan generally holding their own, it feels like a complete defense, when healthy.

On a couple of your other points. Turnovers I think are so much a matter of luck, it's hard to show any real causation as why they're high or low.

And people are sort of high on Jackson because of who he is. The simple fact that he looks like a professional encourages people--while we know Bolden's ceiling, the thought is that if Jackson just looks competent, then better things may come, if that makes sense. Not saying it's right or wrong, but I think that's the general perception.

Two things I think are contributing to the lack of turnovers:

1) We're tied for first in Forced Fumbles (22) and tied for 15th in recovering those fumbles (9). That's a weird aberration to me.

2) You get a lot more opportunities for interceptions when the other team has to play catchup and take more chances. This offense hasn't been lighting it up for a while now because of all the injuries, so games have been closer and QB's have been able to play a more balanced game. That's why we had 9 INT's through our first 8 games, and only 3 since. As the offense went, so went those stat padding turnovers.

One reason I'm more impressed with this defense over others in recent years is exactly because of that. This offense has been struggling for a while, and the defense is still putting up similar numbers and keeping us in games. They're stopping teams after ST turnovers, they're running out there consistently after 3 and outs and still putting up top ten numbers. Not to mention they've had their share of injuries as well, so the depth is holding up. I think there's a lot of reasons to be optimistic about this defense once (or if) the offense rounds back into a reasonable form.

 

[aluminum seats]

Two things I think are contributing to the lack of turnovers:

1) We're tied for first in Forced Fumbles (22) and tied for 15th in recovering those fumbles (9). That's a weird aberration to me.

2) You get a lot more opportunities for interceptions when the other team has to play catchup and take more chances. This offense hasn't been lighting it up for a while now because of all the injuries, so games have been closer and QB's have been able to play a more balanced game. That's why we had 9 INT's through our first 8 games, and only 3 since. As the offense went, so went those stat padding turnovers.

One reason I'm more impressed with this defense over others in recent years is exactly because of that. This offense has been struggling for a while, and the defense is still putting up similar numbers and keeping us in games. They're stopping teams after ST turnovers, they're running out there consistently after 3 and outs and still putting up top ten numbers. Not to mention they've had their share of injuries as well, so the depth is holding up. I think there's a lot of reasons to be optimistic about this defense once (or if) the offense rounds back into a reasonable form.

All good points. The fact that the defense is holding up as well as it has without a dominant (to put it mildly) offense lately is a big plus for sure.

 

[IllegalContact]

jackson will show his values if/when the pats have the lead

outside of the OL problems, it appeared that the goal of the game plan was to show nothing and it was successful

 

[Rob0729]

Well THAT was ugly. You have to go back to the 2014 KC game to find something THAT ugly, and for a lot of reasons the KC game was more enjoyable to watch. So here we are at the end of the season, with nothing to do for the next 2 weeks but to listen to the media pointing out what we already know, and having the pundits tell us of the impending demise of our proud franchise.

So we are left with two paths to take for the next 2 weeks. We can either give all the reasons why the losers of 4 of their last 6 games will be one and done in the playoffs. OR...we can pretend none of this is happening and it will all somehow right itself over the next 2 weeks, when missing players suddenly return to health.

First a few random observations about the game: (disclaimer- I've read nothing on the site since I shut off the TV when Tannyhill ran for the first down on 3rd and 13)

1. The OL really looks bad. I mean historically bad. So bad that it was impossible to focus on where the rush was coming from, since it seemed to be coming from everywhere. Hard to believe simply adding Volmer and Edelman, will make everything alright.

2. I liked what I saw from Stephen Jackson - there wasn't a single hole for him to run through, yet he ran hard, caught the ball well, and made progress from the Jets game.

3. I mentioned in the game thread that it was pretty clear from the game plan they ran in the first half, winning this game wasn't a huge priority. Evidence; Brady had the fewest passing attempts for a half in his career. Neither Gronk nor Amendola had any targets - Clearly the prime objective was to run the clock, shorten the game, and get out of there as quickly as possible. When they finally started to open up in the 2nd half, they couldn't suddenly turn it back on. They had no rhythm at all. Usually a cure for that would be to run a hurry up offense, but that wasn't going to happen yesterday.

4. The defense wasn't a whole lot better. Of course that is hyperbole. The defense played well at times, in spurts, but there were too many 3rd and longs that were completed. Too often 2 really good plays were followed by a bad one. I guess the really observation was the defense didn't play badly, just very inconsistently.

5 Of course the key play was another "miracle" catch that suddenly went from a potential pick to a game winning catch in the blink of an eye. And I thought those only happened in Superbowls.

6. Clearly none of the refs were watching the Dolphins run pick plays, because if they wanted to create examples of when a "pick" is illegal, they could have used at least 3 plays the Phins got away with. These weren't technical picks, these were NBA picks. Yet the only OPI of the game was against Martin, on a very artful flop by Grimes.

7. Something was missing from today's game. TO's. For the last decade, even on some really bad defenses, you could always count on the Pats creating a few TO's every game. Well this season they haven't been happening, despite this being one of the better statistical defenses in a lot of years. For some reasons, we haven't been causing TO's with the same frequency as before. Any suggestions why?

8. But the refs weren't the reason the Pats lost. Bad play, bad coaching, bad preparation. It was a full on poor effort by everyone that week. And thus ends the game observations portion of this post.

What do we now do for the next few weeks. When in the last 15 years have the Pats lost 4 of 6 games in any stretch of a season? If this is what the rest of the league's fans have to deal with, I don't like it. It makes me feel so......ordinary.

1. In one sense, I like the situation. I fully expect most of the mediots to immediately write off the Pats playoff hopes. God knows they have enough evidence to make it look good. But that will make us something we haven't been in a LOOOOONGGGGG time - Underdogs. I used to LOVE being the underdog.

2. I don't believe in "momentum" going into the playoffs. That 2010 team had plenty of "momentum". The Giants and Ravens had absolutely NO "momentum" going into their playoff runs to superbowls. Every football game is unique. Now I'm not saying that momentum doesn't play a factor in football, but it happens within each specific game.

3. So in the end, if the Pats manage to get people back, and fix the OL, NONE of what happened in the last 6 weeks will matter a wit. If not they will have to grind through those wins like they did in the early days. and they will be tough to do. But if there is a staff and players who give us as fans reason to hope, it is this one. So I suggest we "ignore the noise" and if we have to complain, do it among ourselves. It could be worse you know. We could be Jet fans.

BTW- I have to admit, that I actually wanted them to win today. I had no fear of them, but I will worry about the Steelers more. Funny how the mediots had quickly made the Jets "the most dangerous team" prior to today's games. They'll have to do some serious spinning on that topic.

Disclaimer -2 Finished this a 4am - I guess this an insomnia edition - I'm too tired to review it, so I hope it turns out....not too bad. Goodnight....or rather good morning

Good stuff. A few things:

• I am mixed on Jackson. Liked that he ran hard and was hard to take down, but he seems really slow. If the Pats can open him holes, he can do real damage. But if they block like they did yesterday, he won't be like other receiver who can bounce off the pile and change direction and make huge gains out of nothing.
• Your point three is an example of why they should have pulled Brady, Gronk, and a few others. They put Brady in harms way unnecessarily and now he has a sprained ankle that might affect his play in the playoffs.
• I agree about momentum being overrated. As you pointed out, both the Giants in 2007 and Ravens in 2012 were expected to be one and done and then won the Super Bowl. But on the flip side, the Giants went into Green Bay who was he hottest team that year other than the Pats and beat them. It is about getting hot in the playoffs and not hot before the playoffs.

 

[The Brandon Five]

I think you're being a little harsh on Ryan and the secondary.

1. Re Ryan - It's only really the last two games where he looked weaker, games in which MCCourty's safety help was entirely missing for one game and probably limited in yesterday's. Ryan has done very well this year but he is what he is, a slot/borderline #2 CB that does need over the top help.

2. Beyond Ryan, we've got two Undrafted guys in Coleman and Leonard Johnson. I think we missed Coleman yesterday as Tannehill consistently challenged Johnson. Johnson has a bunch of heart but he is limited athletically and he's going to give up deep balls to NFL receivers. Coleman might not be the entire answer but I do think we've missed him a little these last few weeks. Tarell Brown was a big loss, and they never replaced his experience.

Ryan would have had a pick if they called the obvious OPI on the play.

 

[luuked]

Good stuff. A few things:

• Your point three is an example of why they should have pulled Brady, Gronk, and a few others. They put Brady in harms way unnecessarily and now he has a sprained ankle that might affect his play in the playoffs.

You keep spewing this ******** everywhere but cant once answer the question who you would play instead of Gronk and the few others when only 38 players were essentially ready to play.

And no Chandler is not an option because he has had a knee injury that kept him on the verge of being active for over 3 weeks now.

So come on.. tell us.. who would you play instead of DMac? Richards is not a valid answer because he was on a limited snap count as well. How about Chungs replacement? Or Collins? If we are at it maybe we should also not risk Sheard or Brown.

There was no way to sit starters for the whole damn game except maybe Brady. But please give us your amazing plan and maybe CC it to Belichick so next time he knows the apparently obvious alternative that he couldnt see.

 

[VrabelJr]

Regarding turnovers: We have the #1, #2 and #3 players in forced fumbles (Collins, Jones and Sheard). But fumbles need to be recovered. I would say our interceptions this year are down but not by much.

I think we've been on the bad side of variance when it comes to turnovers and big plays. Let's hope things normalize (in a good way) in the playoffs.

 

[Rob0729]

You keep spewing this ******** everywhere but cant once answer the question who you would play instead of Gronk and the few others when only 38 players were essentially ready to play.

And no Chandler is not an option because he has had a knee injury that kept him on the verge of being active for over 3 weeks now.

So come on.. tell us.. who would you play instead of DMac? Richards is not a valid answer because he was on a limited snap count as well. How about Chungs replacement? Or Collins? If we are at it maybe we should also not risk Sheard or Brown.

There was no way to sit starters for the whole damn game except maybe Brady. But please give us your amazing plan and maybe CC it to Belichick so next time he knows the apparently obvious alternative that he couldnt see.

Who would I play? Does it matter? You take out Brady, Gronk, etc and you are conceding the game. Give the back ups reps.

And here is question. If Brady broke his leg instead of a sprain, who do think should start in two weeks? The Pats were lucky yesterday that Brady came out of the game with only a sprain and bruised ribs.

And I thought you were done arguing this.

 

[Ross12]

Seems to me like they ran a lot of different stuff than they normally would, perhaps for experience and to simply make the other team prepare for it all. I think Josh and Bill have confidence that Brady can run the quick passing hurry-up offense with "his guys" at any time with little practice. It's the "other stuff" that needs repetitions. Maybe they figured they would run all of that while trying to keep their guys healthy, knowing they had high seeding locked up.

 

[borg]

And another point....the Winter Classic at Gillette did the Patriots no favors...except Krafty's pocket book. Lots of away games to close the season, more travel, less time to heal/practice plus distractions. Not to make excuses but it was different this year and NE had a lousy December/January.
BB would never offer an excuse but I bet he secretly wished for a typical end of schedule

 

[SVN]

patriots - 5 reasons why Patriots should be concerned going into postseason - WEEI | Ryan Hannable

 

[SVN]

One thing to hang the hat on- this team look equally bad on offense in the preseason ,oline included but got it together when the season started. So we have to hope BB and co are just playing like the Spurs, mixing managing players until it actually counts.

 

[SVN]

Felger on conservative Pats: Who ARE these guys??

 

[Patriot Missile]

Really surprised anyone is discouraged by the defense. Sure it could of been better on 3rd down but it wasn't terrible by any means. Gave up 20 points with the offense continually giving away field position.

All this with Hightower and Jones missing. There absences alone were probably a 10 point swing.

No doubt Edelman and Vollmer will make this offense better. How much better is the question? One thing I will say is having Edelman back will open things up for James White which in turn may open up lanes for Gronkowski.

Definitely confident for a shot at the Super Bowl, after that I'm not so sure.

 

[The Brandon Five]

Really surprised anyone is discouraged by the defense. Sure it could of been better on 3rd down but it wasn't terrible by any means. Gave up 20 points with the offense continually giving away field position.

All this with Hightower and Jones missing. There absences alone were probably a 10 point swing.

No doubt Edelman and Vollmer will make this offense better. How much better is the question? One thing I will say is having Edelman back will open things up for James White which in turn may open up lanes for Gronkowski.

Definitely confident for a shot at the Super Bowl, after that I'm not so sure.

I think they were hurt more by having a hobbled McCourty. He got beat on the same play twice for TDs.

 

[Patriot Missile]

I think they were hurt more by having a hobbled McCourty. He got beat on the same play twice for TDs.

Hightower is a game changer in the middle. Only a few players in the NFL blow up the gap like he can. Chandler Jones has to be accounted for sometimes with chips from the rb. No pressure and you put secondaries out to dry. More so for the hobbled ones.