Outwit? Out-hit?

[Fencer]

Whether it's the Rams Super Bowl, the Giants Super Bowls, or other big games, the Patriots have been involved in a variety of upsets, where the inferior team "on paper" wound up winning. Usually, we wind up saying that the loser seemed off-balance or dazed, from some combination of scheme and hard hitting.

Even the Bronco ball-washers would probably give the Patriots a puncher's chance -- as it were -- of beating up the Broncos on the lines of scrimmage. Other observers would say the chance is higher, although of course it's not a certainty. And with the refs blessedly pocketing their flags in January, that could extend downfield as well. Of course, it works two ways -- the Broncos didn't get to this game by being marshmallows either ...

So how about the outwit part? One approach to the defensive plan starts with man coverage, knowing that risks Broncos getting open deep and making Manning prove he can still make those throws. Tony Dungy forecasts the opposite, namely making Denver prove it can run. Either way, it's tempting to use the old anti-Patriot strategy of flooding the middle of the field, where Welker and TE Thomas might prefer to roam.

Looking at personnel doesn't resolve things crisply. Guys I'm fairly happy to see on the field on defense now are basically:

CBs Talib, Dennard, Ryan, Arrington (depending on his groin)
Ss McCourty, Gregory (sort of)
LBs Hightower, Collins, Fletcher (sort of)
DEs Cha. Jones, Ninkovich
DTs Siliga, Chr. Jones (sort of)

That's 13 guys. So they don't dictate scheme (at least until more injuries happen); rather, scheme preferences dictate which 11 of the 13 play.

As for offense -- clearly, on some or indeed most series, we want to try grind-it-out strategies. That doesn't mean we open that way, however. The most important times to be able to grind at later in the game when your defense needs a rest (and the opposing offense needs to be cooled off), and late in the game if you're fortunate enough to be protecting a lead. So it's tempting to try something quick-hitting early and see if it works -- e.g., a play-action bomb on the second first down of the first drive.

And that's about all I've got right now ...

 

[Ring 6]

Whether it's the Rams Super Bowl, the Giants Super Bowls, or other big games, the Patriots have been involved in a variety of upsets, where the inferior team "on paper" wound up winning. Usually, we wind up saying that the loser seemed off-balance or dazed, from some combination of scheme and hard hitting.

Even the Bronco ball-washers would probably give the Patriots a puncher's chance -- as it were -- of beating up the Broncos on the lines of scrimmage. Other observers would say the chance is higher, although of course it's not a certainty. And with the refs blessedly pocketing their flags in January, that could extend downfield as well. Of course, it works two ways -- the Broncos didn't get to this game by being marshmallows either ...

So how about the outwit part? One approach to the defensive plan starts with man coverage, knowing that risks Broncos getting open deep and making Manning prove he can still make those throws. Tony Dungy forecasts the opposite, namely making Denver prove it can run. Either way, it's tempting to use the old anti-Patriot strategy of flooding the middle of the field, where Welker and TE Thomas might prefer to roam.

Looking at personnel doesn't resolve things crisply. Guys I'm fairly happy to see on the field on defense now are basically:

CBs Talib, Dennard, Ryan, Arrington (depending on his groin)
Ss McCourty, Gregory (sort of)
LBs Hightower, Collins, Fletcher (sort of)
DEs Cha. Jones, Ninkovich
DTs Siliga, Chr. Jones (sort of)

That's 13 guys. So they don't dictate scheme (at least until more injuries happen); rather, scheme preferences dictate which 11 of the 13 play.

As for offense -- clearly, on some or indeed most series, we want to try grind-it-out strategies. That doesn't mean we open that way, however. The most important times to be able to grind at later in the game when your defense needs a rest (and the opposing offense needs to be cooled off), and late in the game if you're fortunate enough to be protecting a lead. So it's tempting to try something quick-hitting early and see if it works -- e.g., a play-action bomb on the second first down of the first drive.

And that's about all I've got right now ...

This is a playoff game between 2 excellent teams that have about the same amount of strengths and weaknesses.
Analysis is fun, but the game is going to be decided by a handful of plays.
Many would call that lucky bounces, or fluke plays, but I believe those plays are a function of preparation.

At the crucial junctures of the game each team will try to exploit a perceived advantage (strength vs weakness) and the other must be prepared for it. If the Patriots try to run over LG on a critical 3rd and 1 and the Broncos overcommit to that gap, preparation beats better talent. If Manning thinks he has a mismatch on Thomas on a key 3rd down conversion, and BB knows its coming and calls a disguised combo coverage that results in an Int, preparation beats talent.

I do not buy the believe that the Broncos are a more talented team. I do agree they have more of the type of talent that novice observers limit their opinion to, but football is much more than that.

As I think back, and this is just off the top of my head, I cannot remember many playoff games (Bmore 09 and 12 are probably exceptions) where we did not go out and execute some part of the game plan better than anyone expected. Something is going to happen Sunday that isn't part of the consensus script. My feeling is that it is going to be Tom Brady ripping that porous pass defense to shreds, and stepping on their throat after the D gets stops. I could easily see this being one of those games where we string 6-7 scoring drives together in a row.
People are talking about what happens if we have to come from behind, but perhaps the question should be what happens if Denver is behind. I can see Manning pressing, forcing passes, and throwing picks.
If winning or losing under pressure is in Tom Bradys hands, I love our chances. If winning or losing under pressure is in Peyton Mannings, I like our chances too.

 

[Fencer]

If winning or losing under pressure is in Tom Bradys hands, I love our chances. If winning or losing under pressure is in Peyton Mannings, I like our chances too.

LOL. Well said.

As for the rest, you seem to be saying Outwit is more important than Out-hit, or at least more variable. I'm not sure I agree; making a tough play -- which is tough because the other team also executed well -- through skill and/or luck is often an even bigger factor. (The most obvious example -- actually making the catch, e.g. Asante Samuel vs. David Tyree.)

 

[Ring 6]

LOL. Well said.

As for the rest, you seem to be saying Outwit is more important than Out-hit, or at least more variable. I'm not sure I agree; making a tough play -- which is tough because the other team also executed well -- through skill and/or luck is often an even bigger factor. (The most obvious example -- actually making the catch, e.g. Asante Samuel vs. David Tyree.)

I'm not sure thats what I'm saying necessarily, but I know that everyone has their idea of things that have to happen and often they don't and you win any way. I get a kick out of the analysts who give numerous reasons a team will win and then say 28-27. As if there is any way to analyze which way a critical play will happen to go in a close game.


That is why I say preparation is key. Everyone has talent. Putting that talent in the right spot to succeed is key.
Of course, we could also sit here after most games and say it was all about turnovers and if the turnover differential changed the result would have.

 

[DocHoliday]

This is a playoff game between 2 excellent teams that have about the same amount of strengths and weaknesses.
Analysis is fun, but the game is going to be decided by a handful of plays.
Many would call that lucky bounces, or fluke plays, but I believe those plays are a function of preparation.

At the crucial junctures of the game each team will try to exploit a perceived advantage (strength vs weakness) and the other must be prepared for it. If the Patriots try to run over LG on a critical 3rd and 1 and the Broncos overcommit to that gap, preparation beats better talent. If Manning thinks he has a mismatch on Thomas on a key 3rd down conversion, and BB knows its coming and calls a disguised combo coverage that results in an Int, preparation beats talent.

I do not buy the believe that the Broncos are a more talented team. I do agree they have more of the type of talent that novice observers limit their opinion to, but football is much more than that.

As I think back, and this is just off the top of my head, I cannot remember many playoff games (Bmore 09 and 12 are probably exceptions) where we did not go out and execute some part of the game plan better than anyone expected. Something is going to happen Sunday that isn't part of the consensus script. My feeling is that it is going to be Tom Brady ripping that porous pass defense to shreds, and stepping on their throat after the D gets stops. I could easily see this being one of those games where we string 6-7 scoring drives together in a row.
People are talking about what happens if we have to come from behind, but perhaps the question should be what happens if Denver is behind. I can see Manning pressing, forcing passes, and throwing picks.
If winning or losing under pressure is in Tom Bradys hands, I love our chances. If winning or losing under pressure is in Peyton Mannings, I like our chances too.

Definitely very tempting to call the Patriots the less talented team, but if you tally it up:

QB: Wash
TE: Denver
WR: Denver
FB/RB: Patriots
OL: Wash. In Pass Protection, Denver Wins. In Run Blocking, Patriots win.

DL: Patriots. Some of you may not agree, but Shaun Phillips is the only guy they have who is any good.
LB: Patriots.
DB: Patriots

ST: Patriots

I don't think TE and WR make up for everything else.

 

[BelizePats]

This is a playoff game between 2 excellent teams that have about the same amount of strengths and weaknesses.
Analysis is fun, but the game is going to be decided by a handful of plays.
Many would call that lucky bounces, or fluke plays, but I believe those plays are a function of preparation.

At the crucial junctures of the game each team will try to exploit a perceived advantage (strength vs weakness) and the other must be prepared for it. If the Patriots try to run over LG on a critical 3rd and 1 and the Broncos overcommit to that gap, preparation beats better talent. If Manning thinks he has a mismatch on Thomas on a key 3rd down conversion, and BB knows its coming and calls a disguised combo coverage that results in an Int, preparation beats talent.

I do not buy the believe that the Broncos are a more talented team. I do agree they have more of the type of talent that novice observers limit their opinion to, but football is much more than that.

As I think back, and this is just off the top of my head, I cannot remember many playoff games (Bmore 09 and 12 are probably exceptions) where we did not go out and execute some part of the game plan better than anyone expected. Something is going to happen Sunday that isn't part of the consensus script. My feeling is that it is going to be Tom Brady ripping that porous pass defense to shreds, and stepping on their throat after the D gets stops. I could easily see this being one of those games where we string 6-7 scoring drives together in a row.
People are talking about what happens if we have to come from behind, but perhaps the question should be what happens if Denver is behind. I can see Manning pressing, forcing passes, and throwing picks.
If winning or losing under pressure is in Tom Bradys hands, I love our chances. If winning or losing under pressure is in Peyton Mannings, I like our chances too.

This is a pretty damn good post!

 

[patfanken]

To win these kinds of close games between good teams at this time of year 3 things have to happen

1. As the OP suggests, the most important aspect is being able to "out hit" the opponent. Out hit is essentially a euphemism for winning at the LOS. If your OL and DL are winning the physical battle, usually you are well on your way to victory

2. To "out wit' your opponent is basically being the team who can come in with a solid game plan both offensively, and execute it better than the other team. It's being the team that recognizes when adjustments need to be made, diagnoses the solutions, and implements them more quickly and efficiently than the other tea,.

Both teams are well coached by competent staffs. Both teams will show some wrinkle the other team has never seen before, on both offense and defense. Who reacts better to these things will have a leg up

3. AND you got to have some luck. The Giants fumbled 4 times in the 2011 superbowl and never turned the ball over. statistically that's luck. Good calls, and timely non-calls in your favor obviously help. That's luck. because you can't prepare for them. And the team that makes the one or two "big plays" during the game is to, a lesser degree, igood luck. ie the miracle catch in tight coverage. the helmet on the ball that creates a fumble. The toe touch that is on the white line vs the one that an inch before it. All to a certain degree need a little bit of luck.

BOTTOM LINE - In a game that's going to be this close, you got to get a bit of all 3. But lets be clear. If #2 and 3 is going to come into play, you NEED to win #1. If you are getting out hit, then most of the time the other 2 won't matter.

We can assume that the coaching on both sides is going to be excellent. We can HOPE that the calls and big plays will at least even out. However, I remember it being reported after the loss in last year's AFCCG, that BB wasn't happy with the 2012 team's toughness and physicality. So perhaps the biggest factor we have going in our favor THIS year, is that toughness and physicality ISN'T a problem for the 2013 version of the NE Patriots.

 

[Ring 6]

To win these kinds of close games between good teams at this time of year 3 things have to happen

1. As the OP suggests, the most important aspect is being able to "out hit" the opponent. Out hit is essentially a euphemism for winning at the LOS. If your OL and DL are winning the physical battle, usually you are well on your way to victory

2. To "out wit' your opponent is basically being the team who can come in with a solid game plan both offensively, and execute it better than the other team. It's being the team that recognizes when adjustments need to be made, diagnoses the solutions, and implements them more quickly and efficiently than the other tea,.

Both teams are well coached by competent staffs. Both teams will show some wrinkle the other team has never seen before, on both offense and defense. Who reacts better to these things will have a leg up

3. AND you got to have some luck. The Giants fumbled 4 times in the 2011 superbowl and never turned the ball over. statistically that's luck. Good calls, and timely non-calls in your favor obviously help. That's luck. because you can't prepare for them. And the team that makes the one or two "big plays" during the game is to, a lesser degree, igood luck. ie the miracle catch in tight coverage. the helmet on the ball that creates a fumble. The toe touch that is on the white line vs the one that an inch before it. All to a certain degree need a little bit of luck.

BOTTOM LINE - In a game that's going to be this close, you got to get a bit of all 3. But lets be clear. If #2 and 3 is going to come into play, you NEED to win #1. If you are getting out hit, then most of the time the other 2 won't matter.

We can assume that the coaching on both sides is going to be excellent. We can HOPE that the calls and big plays will at least even out. However, I remember it being reported after the loss in last year's AFCCG, that BB wasn't happy with the 2012 team's toughness and physicality. So perhaps the biggest factor we have going in our favor THIS year, is that toughness and physicality ISN'T a problem for the 2013 version of the NE Patriots.

I just dont think its that black and white.
You say to win 3 things must happen.
1) Outhit. This certainly provides and advantage, but finese teams have won big games too.
2) Outwit. Again, a big plus, but the margin of wit can be very narrow, and good execution vs bad execution can certainly lead to a loss by the team with a better game plan.
3) Luck. I totally disagree that you must have luck to win. Many teams have overcome bad luck to win games, many games have been played where 'luck is even'.

I get your post and its basic premise, but I just disagree that there are any absolutes.

 

[Ring 6]

Definitely very tempting to call the Patriots the less talented team, but if you tally it up:

QB: Wash
TE: Denver
WR: Denver
FB/RB: Patriots
OL: Wash. In Pass Protection, Denver Wins. In Run Blocking, Patriots win.

DL: Patriots. Some of you may not agree, but Shaun Phillips is the only guy they have who is any good.
LB: Patriots.
DB: Patriots

ST: Patriots

I don't think TE and WR make up for everything else.

But unfortunately a majority of fans almost exclusively limit 'talent' to the man holding the football at that moment.