McDaniels Gameplan flawed

[Deus Irae]

We are all entitled to our own opinion. So, in my opinion, our team needs to move beyond the thought -- we are the best and can do as we choose. But, in order to continue to do so, we need to mix it up. And yes, I do consider us to be the best in the NFL right now.

I did not like the offensive calls last night -- except during the 4th quarter. Simple, you take away the long ball, we screen and run. Then when they cover, you hit them with the long ball. Simple football.

But to continue to say, stop us if you can. Guess what, they did for the most part and we were lucky to come out with a win.

We are flat out good, but not good enough to show ourselves and expect to beat everyone.

Please explain how they stopped the Patriots "for the most part"

 

[bakes781]

I was looking for them in the 1st, but NE did plenty well without them. But the point was that a screen is not a run.

It's effectiveness is just the same though. Having nobody in the backfield makes it easy for the front 7 to come full boar at Brady & the CBs can jam the WRs because the safeties are playing deep knowing there's no threat of a run.

I'm not saying the Patriots offense failed. They managed to make plays thanks largley to Brady. I'm simply saying a balanced attack would've been the wiser choice against Philly IMO.

 

[Real World]

I'm not a big fan of McDaniels' play calling, and never really have been. He's been. All you need to do is look back to last year's game at home versus Indy to understand why. Anyhow, I was trying to figure out why we weren't screening the Eagles to death. They blitz like crazy, and were playing that cover 2 with the safety 20 yards downfield. They didn't do it enough IMO. they ran some quick screens, but should have done more from the outset. The offense really wasn't the issue yesterday though, it was the defense, and it's inability to pressure Feeley.

 

[DaBruinz]

The Eagles mostly blitz up the middle. How do you run up the gut when there are tons of people there?

If they are mostly blitzing up the middle, then you run outside with tosses or sweep or throw screen passes.

Why is it that people only look at HALF the potential solution that is offered when they put up a rebuttal.

 

[sieglo]

Given BB's habit of acquiring underrated players that totally burn us, do you think we'll be bringing Feeley on board as a backup QB in '08 or '09? Stranger things have happened.

 

[bakes781]

The offense really wasn't the issue yesterday though, it was the defense, and it's inability to pressure Feeley.

I thought the defense played up to it's potential. Meaning they aren't as good as in year's past IMO. The tackling has been pour at times & there were some key injuries last night. Their objective was to stop Westbrook & for the most part they did. Feeley just played the game of his life.

 

[DaBruinz]

For crying out loud, are you sure that you're the real DaBruinz? They scored on every drive in the first half and got 17 of a possible 21 points. If anything, the 'adjustments' weakened their output, as the offense was LESS successful after your vaunted adjustments were made. Seriously, is this someone else hijacking DaBruinz's screen name for a joke?

WOW. All I can say is wow. You really are that clueless. Tell me something, nitwit, when did the OPI on Moss occur? In the 3rd quarter when they were lined up in a 4 wide set.

When did the play where Sheppard clearly held Moss occur? In the 3rd quarter.

As I've said and you don't seem to comprehend, just because they "scored on every drive in the 1st quarter" doesn't mean what they did was GOOD. And it sure as hell doesn't mean they couldn't have done better. But, you keep right on thinking what they did was perfect and that they couldn't have done better. Oh, and that the game plan was great..

I seriously think you've decided to hit the meth or something because of how you're talking out your rear-end.

 

[Deus Irae]

You're right, Philadelphia did do a lot more blitzing than Washington. But the fact remains that the Pats made their offense one dimensional pass only. An effective running game traditionally works well against the blitz. Let the overeager Eagles defenders run past the play, and hit them up the gut with the run. Screen passes would also have been useful to counter the blitz. Neither of those things happened with any frequency on Sunday.

The Patriots offense in the first half was very good. But it wilted in the second half. This I believe is due to an incomplete, and perhaps as OP suggested, flawed offensive gameplan. Perhaps McDaniels next gameplan should incorporate more of what has worked in the past, utilizing some successful elements from the Washington or Buffalo gameplan for instance.

The Eagles mostly blitz up the middle. How do you run up the gut when there are tons of people there?

If they are mostly blitzing up the middle, then you run outside with tosses or sweep or throw screen passes.

Why is it that people only look at HALF the potential solution that is offered when they put up a rebuttal.

Next time, read the both the response AND the post being responded to. It'll stop you from looking silly.

 

[Deus Irae]

WOW. All I can say is wow. You really are that clueless. Tell me something, nitwit, when did the OPI on Moss occur? In the 3rd quarter when they were lined up in a 4 wide set.

When did the play where Sheppard clearly held Moss occur? In the 3rd quarter.

As I've said and you don't seem to comprehend, just because they "scored on every drive in the 1st quarter" doesn't mean what they did was GOOD. And it sure as hell doesn't mean they couldn't have done better. But, you keep right on thinking what they did was perfect and that they couldn't have done better. Oh, and that the game plan was great..

I seriously think you've decided to hit the meth or something because of how you're talking out your rear-end.

Let's look at facts here, because you clearly don't grasp them at the moment.

Fact 1: New England scored 17 out of 21 possible offensive points in the first half, scoring on all 3 drives.

Fact 2: You're pissing and moaning about a bad gameplan and pointing to the first half.

Now, the simple truth is that your argument is destroyed by the facts. Your OPINION is something you are free to hold as you will. However, the FACTS remain the FACTS. And, the facts are clear: your argument is nonsensical in context because the offensive gameplan succeeded brilliantly in the first half. In FACT, it was in the second half, where they made the adjustments you're griping about, that the offense was less effective because the execution failed.

Now, you can keep being moronic with the insults to try to cover your mistakes, or you can just realize that you've been wrong and either apologize or just stop posting and digging the hole deeper. The choice is yours.

 

[DaBruinz]

The team put up plenty of points and would have put up more if not for botched execution and a bad penalty call. I never said the offense was "fantastic" (which was what someone asserted on a different thread), I have said it was fine. However, the problems on offense were execution, not game plan. And, for the record, a VANILLA game plan, as you call it, does not equal a BAD game plan.

A vanilla game plan that doesn't exploit the oppositions flaws IS a bad game. And its not working too well if your QB is getting creamed. Because that means the defense hasn't changed what its doing.. If it hasn't changed, then they aren't afraid to give up the points.

You got this wrong, admit it. Either way, it was an execution question and not a game plan problem anyway. Moss ran the route poorly and got messed up while trying to adjust. It happens.

Moss, one of the best route runners in the league ran the route poorly? Hmm.. It couldn't have been BRADY throwing to the wrong shoulder?
BTW, SFBs, I never said that play wasn't a question of execution. But you keep on thinking you're helping yourself by saying so.

Wow, now you're just being ridiculous. You're pissing about a game plan that produced 17 out of a possible 21 points in the first half, I noted that the likely reason it ONLY produced 17 was the Eagles pulling off the onsides kick. Had the Patriots recovered that kick, the game plan you're bemoaning may well have ended the game by halftime. As for the sacks and your crying about the blitzing, the Patriots scored a TD, kicked a field goal and were forced to punt on the 3 possessions involving a sack. Again, the game plan was fine.

*ROFLMAO* I'm being ridiculous? Your the one talking out your arse, bringing up issues that have no bearing on the discussion and not even replying to what was said. That seems to be the major problem with you. You either have a reading comprehension problem or you can't be bothered to actually read what was posted. Either way, the issue is with you and not everyone else.

You're being ridiculous. Even with the limited number of drives last night, the Patriots would have scored 38 points has the official not blown that pass interference call, and 31 of the points would have been by the offense. Now, I don't know when you started getting the notion that a 31 point performance was bad, but you're now starting to sound exactly like the people you normally blast for spouting such nonsense. That alone should have made you re-think your position.

The problem with you is that you insist on make absurd extrapolations. But that seems to be par for the course with you.

Unlike YOU, I felt that the offensive game plan could have been better in this ONE case. Nothing you have said has supported the idea that the game plan was great and that the Pats didn't need to change things.

Let me throw this at you. One of the reasons why the offense in the 2nd half seemed to be having issues (many of which came on the 4 wide sets and NOT on screens) was that they attempted to force the plays. Such as when Brady threw behind the player.. That happened on at least 2 occasions. Follow me on this and maybe it will make a modicum of sense to you.

The Pats offense was predictable. They ran the same routes out of the same set. So the defense knows what is coming. They can defend against it more easily because the CBs will be able to cover better and buy the time for the D-line to get in and sack or pressure Brady into a bad throw. it also forces the receivers to have to run their routes perfectly because, if they don't then the corners job is that much easier.

No, your argument was simply crap. It's really no more complicated than that, as I've shown with the breakdown. The game plan exploited the Eagles' penchant for blitzing and resulted in a 31-28 victory despite a very poor defensive showing. As for the last 3 lines of your post above, they weren't a part of McDaniels' game plan. When you accuse others of putting in "un-needed and honestly, worthless" stuff, you should probably not be doing exactly that just one paragraph later. It makes you look silly.

No, Deus, you didn't show ANYTHING and your breakdown was crap because it wasn't a breakdown at all. It was a simple synopsis of what occured.

The game plan DIDN'T exploit the Eagles penchant for blitzing. Otherwise Brady wouldn't have been sacked 3 times and hit numerous others. Had the game plan fully exploited the Eagles penchant for blitzing, they would have been back on their heels going into the 2nd half with the Pats having a comfortable lead. Instead, the Pats made it easier for the Eagles to play defense and kept the Pats from dominating this game like they have in other weeks.

 

[pats-blue]

WOW. All I can say is wow. You really are that clueless. Tell me something, nitwit, when did the OPI on Moss occur? In the 3rd quarter when they were lined up in a 4 wide set.

When did the play where Sheppard clearly held Moss occur? In the 3rd quarter.

As I've said and you don't seem to comprehend, just because they "scored on every drive in the 1st quarter" doesn't mean what they did was GOOD. And it sure as hell doesn't mean they couldn't have done better. But, you keep right on thinking what they did was perfect and that they couldn't have done better. Oh, and that the game plan was great..

I seriously think you've decided to hit the meth or something because of how you're talking out your rear-end.

Actually how exactly do you do "better" than what the Pats did? They scored on every possession they had. They left a TOTAL of 4 points that they could have done "better". Now the drive that they kicked the field goal on in the first half when they drove down to the 8 yard line was fine up to the last series of plays from the 8. If you have critisim of those three plays that left the FOUR POINTS on the table then maybe you have a point about the first half.

I am shocked by how your posts are coming out as you usually are the one that calls people on thier BS many times....though I would have to agree with DI here this is unlike you. The O got a 17 of a possible 21 points in the first half drives yet you were calling for the adjustments that the Pats made in the second half to happen "earlier" in the first half. The fact is the Pats O was 4 for 4 scoring 17 of a possible 21 points in the first half. After they made the adjustments you feel they should have made earlier by your post you made and are defending with such vigor they were 1 for 5 scoring a possible 7 out of a possible 35 points. How did the adjustments to what you say they should have done earlier "better"? (I discarded the kneel down obviously ad do believe the BS Moss interference call should NOT be held against this discussion but that still makes the Pats 2 for 5 in the 2nd half with 14 out of a possible 35 points.

Not sure why all the vitrol Dabruinz.....DI has a point and ALL the facts are on his side right now...take a step back and a couple of breaths.

 

[DaBruinz]

Let's look at facts here, because you clearly don't grasp them at the moment.

Fact 1: New England scored 17 out of 21 possible offensive points in the first half, scoring on all 3 drives.

Fact 2: You're pissing and moaning about a bad gameplan and pointing to the first half.

Now, the simple truth is that your argument is destroyed by the facts. Your OPINION is something you are free to hold as you will. However, the FACTS remain the FACTS. And, the facts are clear: your argument is nonsensical in context because the offensive gameplan succeeded brilliantly in the first half. In FACT, it was in the second half, where they made the adjustments you're griping about, that the offense was less effective because the execution failed.

Now, you can keep being moronic with the insults to try to cover your mistakes, or you can just realize that you've been wrong and either apologize or just stop posting and digging the hole deeper. The choice is yours.

I'm pointing to the entire game as a WHOLE. YOU are the one pointing to the 1st half and claiming the game plan was great.

If you bothered to look at the 2nd half again, which you haven't, you'd see that the execution issues came MORE on the smae 4 WR sets than on other plays.. And you'd also realize that running the same few plays over and over again actually helps the defense and hampers the offense.

Which is another reason WHY the game plan wasn't great.

 

[Deus Irae]

A vanilla game plan that doesn't exploit the oppositions flaws IS a bad game. And its not working too well if your QB is getting creamed. Because that means the defense hasn't changed what its doing.. If it hasn't changed, then they aren't afraid to give up the points.



Moss, one of the best route runners in the league ran the route poorly? Hmm.. It couldn't have been BRADY throwing to the wrong shoulder?
BTW, SFBs, I never said that play wasn't a question of execution. But you keep on thinking you're helping yourself by saying so.



*ROFLMAO* I'm being ridiculous? Your the one talking out your arse, bringing up issues that have no bearing on the discussion and not even replying to what was said. That seems to be the major problem with you. You either have a reading comprehension problem or you can't be bothered to actually read what was posted. Either way, the issue is with you and not everyone else.



The problem with you is that you insist on make absurd extrapolations. But that seems to be par for the course with you.

Unlike YOU, I felt that the offensive game plan could have been better in this ONE case. Nothing you have said has supported the idea that the game plan was great and that the Pats didn't need to change things.

Let me throw this at you. One of the reasons why the offense in the 2nd half seemed to be having issues (many of which came on the 4 wide sets and NOT on screens) was that they attempted to force the plays. Such as when Brady threw behind the player.. That happened on at least 2 occasions. Follow me on this and maybe it will make a modicum of sense to you.

The Pats offense was predictable. They ran the same routes out of the same set. So the defense knows what is coming. They can defend against it more easily because the CBs will be able to cover better and buy the time for the D-line to get in and sack or pressure Brady into a bad throw. it also forces the receivers to have to run their routes perfectly because, if they don't then the corners job is that much easier.



No, Deus, you didn't show ANYTHING and your breakdown was crap because it wasn't a breakdown at all. It was a simple synopsis of what occured.

The game plan DIDN'T exploit the Eagles penchant for blitzing. Otherwise Brady wouldn't have been sacked 3 times and hit numerous others. Had the game plan fully exploited the Eagles penchant for blitzing, they would have been back on their heels going into the 2nd half with the Pats having a comfortable lead. Instead, the Pats made it easier for the Eagles to play defense and kept the Pats from dominating this game like they have in other weeks.

This drivel is pathetic. You're usually a much better and smarter poster than this. You should be ashamed of yourself. If you are going to blame Kaszur's whiff on game plan, for example, you're not worth talking to about this. I hope you wake up to the reality and get yourself together. This is the weakest group of posts I've ever seen from you. Get well soon.

 

[DaBruinz]

Actually how exactly do you do "better" than what the Pats did? They scored on every possession they had. They left a TOTAL of 4 points that they could have done "better". Now the drive that they kicked the field goal on in the first half when they drove down to the 8 yard line was fine up to the last series of plays from the 8. If you have critisim of those three plays that left the FOUR POINTS on the table then maybe you have a point about the first half.

I am shocked by how your posts are coming out as you usually are the one that calls people on thier BS many times....though I would have to agree with DI here this is unlike you. The O got a 17 of a possible 21 points in the first half drives yet you were calling for the adjustments that the Pats made in the second half to happen "earlier" in the first half. The fact is the Pats O was 4 for 4 scoring 17 of a possible 21 points in the first half. After they made the adjustments you feel they should have made earlier by your post you made and are defending with such vigor they were 1 for 5 scoring a possible 7 out of a possible 35 points. How did the adjustments to what you say they should have done earlier "better"? (I discarded the kneel down obviously ad do believe the BS Moss interference call should NOT be held against this discussion but that still makes the Pats 2 for 5 in the 2nd half with 14 out of a possible 35 points.

Not sure why all the vitrol Dabruinz.....DI has a point and ALL the facts are on his side right now...take a step back and a couple of breaths.

DI = Game plan was AWESOME. nothing wrong with it just because they scored on their 1st 4 possessions.

DB = Game plan was mediocre and helped the Eagles defense play better throughout the game.

Better check reality there guys.

While DI has SOME facts on his side, he and you chose to ignore the fact that by running continuously the same 4 WR spreads, it hurt the Pats throughout the game.

The two of you need to realize that I am NOT saying that the Game Plan was Worthless or terrible and that I am NOT pulling a NEM when it comes to McDaniels.

What I am saying is that the Game Plan's lack of versatility hurt the Pats in the long run of the game. And, the Eagles playing BETTER in the 2nd half against the 4 WR sets was proof of that.

Yes, the Moss OPI was BS. I never said it wasn't.
Yes, I have mentioned about Sheppard's blatant holds on Moss.

The Pats could have added a couple of more plays to the game plan throughout and it would have been a much better plan and made it harder for the Eagles to defend against it throughout the game. It would have forced them to back off the blitzing and opened up more holes and taken some pressure off Brady. You take the pressure off Brady and that offense scores on every possession through-out the game.

Also, it could have opened up the running game some to help set up the Play-action even better. Something that Brady is very good at.

 

[DaBruinz]

This drivel is pathetic. You're usually a much better and smarter poster than this. You should be ashamed of yourself. If you are going to blame Kaszur's whiff on game plan, for example, you're not worth talking to about this. I hope you wake up to the reality and get yourself together. This is the weakest group of posts I've ever seen from you. Get well soon.

Hmm..There you go again. Making BS assumptions about what is being said. If anyone should be ashamed it you. You've consistently jumped to conclusions about what was said. And that has been your problem throughout this thread.

What I mentioned was the number of sacks, hurries and pressures that were put on Brady. And yes, I can blame that on the gameplan because the Pats didn't do enough to neutralize the Philly blitzes. Both with protection and with plays to force Philly to NOT blitz.

Maybe you should look at the WHOLE picture instead of just taking a myopic view on the entire thing.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Is this like one of those romantic comedies where the protagonists argue like mad at 1st and then have sex?

 

[pats-blue]

DI = Game plan was AWESOME. nothing wrong with it just because they scored on their 1st 4 possessions.

DB = Game plan was mediocre and helped the Eagles defense play better throughout the game.

Better check reality there guys.

While DI has SOME facts on his side, he and you chose to ignore the fact that by running continuously the same 4 WR spreads, it hurt the Pats throughout the game.

The two of you need to realize that I am NOT saying that the Game Plan was Worthless or terrible and that I am NOT pulling a NEM when it comes to McDaniels.

What I am saying is that the Game Plan's lack of versatility hurt the Pats in the long run of the game. And, the Eagles playing BETTER in the 2nd half against the 4 WR sets was proof of that.

Yes, the Moss OPI was BS. I never said it wasn't.
Yes, I have mentioned about Sheppard's blatant holds on Moss.

The Pats could have added a couple of more plays to the game plan throughout and it would have been a much better plan and made it harder for the Eagles to defend against it throughout the game. It would have forced them to back off the blitzing and opened up more holes and taken some pressure off Brady. You take the pressure off Brady and that offense scores on every possession through-out the game.

Also, it could have opened up the running game some to help set up the Play-action even better. Something that Brady is very good at.

Well Dabruinz you did mention that you felt the Pats made adjustments in the second half that you though SHOULD have been made in the first half or "earlier" so you opened yourself up to a comparison of "facts or stats" comparing the 1st and 2nd halfs then.

If the O scores on every possession in the first half...going back in time and relieving presure on Brady inthe first half will not help Brady in the second half...IF you don't do something directly to relieve the pressure inthe seond half. If they had run more screens in the 1st half how would that have relieved pressure on Brady in the second half where they DID run screens? (bunch of drops last night on those which is an execution problem)

I'm tired but IMO you needed to back off the vitrol a little in this thread because it isn't like you are on a different page or claiming to be...but for what ever reason you are defending your position LIKE the Pats were crap last night and all the facts are on your side. Read your posts. Your posting like you are spanking a troll on another thread and I think that is what DI is saying about your posts...and is what I AM saying.

I didn't think the game plan was that good or that bad looking at RESULTS and also taking into account execution problems (several plays where the receivers dropped balls right in thier hands that change a drive...and Lights penalties...WTF is up with those? )

BUT....personally I thought the Pats did not have any "FIRE" in them last night and that had nothing to do with the game plan. Philly had A LOT more intensity last night IMO.

As far as the total game plan.....it worked and with the limited info we get from TV I am going to defer on the "overall" good or bad up to BB who had much more info than me and could even have a reason for it later on down the road for all I know. I have to pay for Sunday Ticket and he gets paid millions and gets all his Pats gear for free....

Just saying chill out a bit..IMO your not that far apart IMO....I don't always agree with you but you do bring good stuff to the table usually I just think you need to rethink your posts...not your position.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

Ya know, fans of most teams only call their coaches game plans flawed when the team LOSES!!!!

We won, the plan wasn't too flawed.

 

[pats-blue]

Ya know, fans of most teams only call their coaches game plans flawed when the team LOSES!!!!

We won, the plan wasn't too flawed.

Thats pretty much how I look at it the day after game day. During the game I may ***** about a play call that doesn't work due to my truely unique gift of being able to have perfect 20/20 hindsight to point out that the play that didn't work.......didn't work....

There used to be someone on this board that knew EVERYTHING in 20/20 hindsight but they are no longer allowed here and they had a space time continuum problem that was not treated with proper medication. Myself I am good with my 20/20 hindsight because it only works when I sit in my Monday Morning QB chair.....:bricks:

 

[JoeSixPat]

I'd be happy to put this one on the shoulders of McDaniels - but it's tough to blame anyone on the sideline when guys on the O Line aren't blocking their men.

There's nothing wrong with giving the Eagles D Line the credit they're due for having a good gameplan, the personnel to implement it, and credit to the guys who executed the way they intended.

Overall both the Eagles O-Line and D-Line outplayed us... and that goes beyond playcalling.