Just a thought...

[SamBam39]

there's a lot of chess involved between these two teams, and that's because there's so much at stake. Each knows the other is the only one who can really keep them from winning it all.

that said, I had the thought during the game, at least somewhat, that belichick is 'holding back' some stuff for the afc championship. I don't think he wants to show them all his best stuff now....

that has a little to do with why the pats could quickly come back near the end and win it, and why they struggled so much and for so long.
not saying the colts didn't play well - they definately did - and are much better than I thought - and brady even said they surprised the pats with some stuff they did - plus the headphones not working - plus the refs, but still - after all that, I still think BB didn't want to show all his cards and give the colts time to figure out answers to them, I think he'll hit them with his best shots in the playoffs.

it all goes back to his favorite book - the art of war!

 

[chunkypony]

I felt the same way when we went into Pittsburgh in 2004 and got slaughtered. And then in the playoffs (AFCCG, IIRC) and blew them out of their own house.

 

[Ring 6]

I think BB coached to win the game. I think that if he had a super-secret, use only when you need it play, he would have used it.
That said, I think there was also some 'testing' going on here.

Here is my opinion on this. BB put together the gameplan with some ideas about what would work best against the Colts. The gameplan he used may not necessarily have been what he would have if this were a playoff game, but rather he used schemes and concepts he felt comfortable with, but wanted to test. In other words, he played to win the game, but used it also as an opportunity to try some things that he had not used against the Colts, particularly defensively. We saw a scheme that he had never used before against Manning and the Colts, and IMO, it worked very, very well. After all, aside from a fluke TD at the end of the half, and the reality is unless they got 20-30 yards or more on that play the half was going to be over, we allowed 13 points to the Colts offense. 3 were set up by a very bad pi call (however that was on 1st down, so there is no certainty they wouldn't have still gotten the 3) and 7 came off a turnover and a drive starting on our 32.
We gave them things to take, and survived it very, very well.
I think the scheme we used yesterday will be PART OF the playoff gameplan, IF we meet again.
I also felt consistently throughout the game that what BB was doing was playing a scheme that clearly identified to the Colts what we were taking away at all cost, and what we were 'allowing' them to do. I felt this was a gameplan of baiting them early into how we wanted to defend them in the second half. However, we never made significant changes. I will point out however, that our defense played better and better thorughout the game. (Addai had 71 yards on his first 9 rushes and then 41 on his last 17)
Had we begun to struggle on D I think there were changes that BB anticipated making to take confuse the colts based on how we played them early. However, I didn't see us ever making those changes.
I expect that if we do meet them again, we will play a mix of what we played yesterday, and the unknown backup plan.
I think the 4-2 nickel with a 43 alignment and Harrison as an OLB, with an OLB at DE was a test. BB wanted to see if we could effectively defend them that way. I don't think he expected to stay in it all game, but the game played out so he could.
IMO, it simply added another layer of scheme that we can use against them in the future, and the best result happened, it worked, we won the game and never had to abandon it.

Offensively, I think the gameplan was similar to what we will see if we meet again, overall. I think the play calling was influenced by what happened early where they ran something like 20 of the first 23 plays. The score also dictated the play calling. Playing ahead we would have been more aggressive. In a close game we will be more conservative. But for a few miscues, we moved the ball very well. I dont remember a drive that we were stopped on other than by an Int (both times we were driving and had them on their heels) or a crippling penalty that put us in 2nd and 20+. (The one consistent conservative decision I saw us making yesterday was when we got in those long yardage situations. That is typical of this coaching staff, but more and more this year, we have just thrown it regardless of the distance to go. I think that was a gameplan issue, not risking turning the ball over and giving the chance of a big swing).

Overall, I do not buy that BB would hold back anything or do what doesnt give us the best chance to win in order to make them think we will do it again next time.
Ultimately if you do something other than what gives you the best chance to win, you will fail anyway, and all youve doenis show them what you WON'T do next time.

 

[SamBam39]

andy - good post and interesting points, however, there's one thing...

when I say BB held back, I'm not saying he would have let us lose and helb back some big secret. I just mean, like you were infering, that he wasn't going to show all his best cards and allow them to see all our best moves.

yes, he was testing stuff, and yes, game conditions dictated what next...
but, aside from not showing plan B, or not combining schemes etc. I also think there are other possbibilities - both offensively and defensively, things like disguises, or wrinkles in the execution, etc that maybe weren't game changers necassarily, but that might allow the pats to come at them in a different way next time. by the way, I'm sure the colts do the same.

I think BB really buys into the whole art of war thing and doesn't ever want to show his hand ahead of time. I think some of the things the pats looked weak at this time may look more shored up the next time, although, after having lost to the colts the past few years, and how good they looked last night, I'm not as confident with this stuff against them as I am against toher teams.

 

[LoveDemPats]

I think BB coached to win the game. I think that if he had a super-secret, use only when you need it play, he would have used it.
That said, I think there was also some 'testing' going on here.

Here is my opinion on this. BB put together the gameplan with some ideas about what would work best against the Colts. The gameplan he used may not necessarily have been what he would have if this were a playoff game, but rather he used schemes and concepts he felt comfortable with, but wanted to test. In other words, he played to win the game, but used it also as an opportunity to try some things that he had not used against the Colts, particularly defensively. We saw a scheme that he had never used before against Manning and the Colts, and IMO, it worked very, very well. After all, aside from a fluke TD at the end of the half, and the reality is unless they got 20-30 yards or more on that play the half was going to be over, we allowed 13 points to the Colts offense. 3 were set up by a very bad pi call (however that was on 1st down, so there is no certainty they wouldn't have still gotten the 3) and 7 came off a turnover and a drive starting on our 32.
We gave them things to take, and survived it very, very well.
I think the scheme we used yesterday will be PART OF the playoff gameplan, IF we meet again.
I also felt consistently throughout the game that what BB was doing was playing a scheme that clearly identified to the Colts what we were taking away at all cost, and what we were 'allowing' them to do. I felt this was a gameplan of baiting them early into how we wanted to defend them in the second half. However, we never made significant changes. I will point out however, that our defense played better and better thorughout the game. (Addai had 71 yards on his first 9 rushes and then 41 on his last 17)
Had we begun to struggle on D I think there were changes that BB anticipated making to take confuse the colts based on how we played them early. However, I didn't see us ever making those changes.
I expect that if we do meet them again, we will play a mix of what we played yesterday, and the unknown backup plan.
I think the 4-2 nickel with a 43 alignment and Harrison as an OLB, with an OLB at DE was a test. BB wanted to see if we could effectively defend them that way. I don't think he expected to stay in it all game, but the game played out so he could.
IMO, it simply added another layer of scheme that we can use against them in the future, and the best result happened, it worked, we won the game and never had to abandon it.

Offensively, I think the gameplan was similar to what we will see if we meet again, overall. I think the play calling was influenced by what happened early where they ran something like 20 of the first 23 plays. The score also dictated the play calling. Playing ahead we would have been more aggressive. In a close game we will be more conservative. But for a few miscues, we moved the ball very well. I dont remember a drive that we were stopped on other than by an Int (both times we were driving and had them on their heels) or a crippling penalty that put us in 2nd and 20+. (The one consistent conservative decision I saw us making yesterday was when we got in those long yardage situations. That is typical of this coaching staff, but more and more this year, we have just thrown it regardless of the distance to go. I think that was a gameplan issue, not risking turning the ball over and giving the chance of a big swing).

Overall, I do not buy that BB would hold back anything or do what doesnt give us the best chance to win in order to make them think we will do it again next time.
Ultimately if you do something other than what gives you the best chance to win, you will fail anyway, and all youve doenis show them what you WON'T do next time.

Cool analysis!

You didn't really say what the did specifically. Do you know? Is it too complex? I agree that it worked. Manning was certainly frustrated again. The media says it was due to not having Marvin. But, lets face it, we have seen him that way when he has had Harrison.

I felt that they were going to let Addai get some yards. Kinda like when BB said that if "Thurmon Thomas gets 100 we win" kinda thing.

Maybe you could help me a little here. Lets take a play and maybe you could analize it using what you think the pats were doing? If you can't, its cool man. I just figured it would possibly be the best way to explain what they did.

I was a little worried that Manning was going to keep making that 11 yard play, just across the first down marker, on the left side. He got one to Clark I think and one to Wayne. Could you disect either of those plays?

I hope that you are right about BB having such luck with his initial plan that he did not have to scrap it. That would be a great thing.

 

[MrBigglesWorth]

It seems like the last 3-4 times the Pats have played the Colts they have had a fixation of trying to establish the run and impose their will on the Colts. We need to shake this opinion that the Colts are light and they can be run on.

The Pats need to give brady time like they did at the end of the game and leave a tight end in and/or a back and let brady pick apart the defense.

 

[Pats_AZ]

Do any of you all feel that we ran the ball a little too much, especially in the first half?