Patricia & D play calling/scheme

[brdmaverick]

This might work statistically if you look at results over a number of games but since the playoffs are a one & done affair I think you need to go with what gives the team the most consistency instead of the biggest payoff.

Playoffs?!? You want to talk about Playoffs?!?

We weren't necessarily talking about the playoffs but I don't see why the same wouldn't apply. Take the 2013 championship game as an example, the Pats 'held' the record setting Bronco's offense to 26 points. Many here look back and consider that a moral victory. Anyone who watched the game though would tell you the defense got owned. The donkeys went on long drive after long drive which killed the clock and kept the ball away from Brady.

It is a double edged sword though. The whole reason we are even having this discussion is that the D cant' generate enough QB pressure without added help. If they could get pressure with 4 guys we wouldn't even be discussing this.

 

[Ring 6]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I know it's a different sport but I think the same message/logic applies but I view it similar to a hockey team having an All Star goalie (think Mary Brodeur or Patrick Roy in their prime). With an All Star goalie I would imagine the coach would be more likely to tell his defenders that they can afford to take a few more chances than they normally would because they have a goalie who can bail them out.

Again I see that as backwards.
If you have a great defense and not so great offense in football then you would be wise to be aggressive because you can create points out if a bad unit and rely on your defense to hold if they f it up.

In your example if your goalie is that good and you play it straight and conservative you win most of the time. If you are too aggressive you risk putting your goalie in bad situations often enough that he can't carry you.
In other words if you pkay conservative and your goalie is so good he isn't allowing more than a goal you only need to be aggressive enough to score 2. If you play like you have to score 5 then your goalie may face breakaways all night

 

[Ring 6]

Playoffs?!? You want to talk about Playoffs?!?

We weren't necessarily talking about the playoffs but I don't see why the same wouldn't apply. Take the 2013 championship game as an example, the Pats 'held' the record setting Bronco's offense to 26 points. Many here look back and consider that a moral victory. Anyone who watched the game though would tell you the defense got owned. The donkeys went on long drive after long drive which killed the clock and kept the ball away from Brady.

It is a double edged sword though. The whole reason we are even having this discussion is that the D cant' generate enough QB pressure without added help. If they could get pressure with 4 guys we wouldn't even be discussing this.

But no one gets enough pressure with 4. Pick the best pressure team out there and the end result isn't much if at all better than the pats.

I agree the patriot defense would be better if they got more one in one pressure on the QB but they have been as good as the teams who do get more because they are doing other things that keep points off the board. In the end whether one way or the other was better comes down to the scoreboard. (And of course as much as how much you allow is when you allow it, in the context of winning or losing but that would peel this onion 100 more levels)

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

It is a double edged sword though. The whole reason we are even having this discussion is that the D cant' generate enough QB pressure without added help. If they could get pressure with 4 guys we wouldn't even be discussing this.

This is the problem as I see it as well. A lot of sacks are generated without blitzing, and certainly a lot of pressures come with a four man rush and sometimes even a three man rush. Try as we may to blame schemes as not being aggressive enough, the core problem is that we just don't have dominating defensive linemen who consistently collapse the pocket. I believe that makes it even more risky to blitz because offensive linemen are more likely to contain a blitz when they aren't already overwhelmed with the defensive front. So, the Patriots have just accepted that they won't consistently generate a lot of pressure and instead attempt to account for the extra time the QB has to make decisions by playing more guys back in coverage and hoping that eventually something will happen up front to force a decision. Unfortunately, I don't think there's an easy fix to the problem of not having the personnel up front to get to the QB, especially our interior linemen. I would expect the Patriots to make this a big area of upgrade in the offseason.

 

[luuked]

Playoffs?!? You want to talk about Playoffs?!?

We weren't necessarily talking about the playoffs but I don't see why the same wouldn't apply. Take the 2013 championship game as an example, the Pats 'held' the record setting Bronco's offense to 26 points. Many here look back and consider that a moral victory. Anyone who watched the game though would tell you the defense got owned. The donkeys went on long drive after long drive which killed the clock and kept the ball away from Brady.

It is a double edged sword though. The whole reason we are even having this discussion is that the D cant' generate enough QB pressure without added help. If they could get pressure with 4 guys we wouldn't even be discussing this.

Yes of course I am talking about playoffs. We are the NE Patriots.. what else is there to talk about?


I dont understand any of what you wrote back in the context of my intial reply.

We had Slater run multiple routes as WR because we were so depleted on O. And the defensive plan seemed to work well until Talib got injured. Given the injury situation unless the Broncos would commit multiple turnovers there was no way to win that one.

Anyway, not sure how this is at all relevant in your consistency vs. "we should take more risks because of Brady" debate.

 

[aluminum seats]

You willing to give up big plays, if relative newcomers take chances? why?

Didn't get a response here, but I think it's the key question. You're not suggesting (I don't think) that the Pats NEVER send more than 4. So the question is, are they doing it enough?

 

[archstanton543]

Patricia D Play-Calling Scheme:

It's soft and yielding like his in-season midsection.

 

[deroc5050]

All I am gonna say is look at the Patriots Schedule and look at there over all defensive ranking. They look vulnerable to me and now Gronk is banged up..

 

[Ring 6]

All I am gonna say is look at the Patriots Schedule and look at there over all defensive ranking. They look vulnerable to me and now Gronk is banged up..

Ther defensive ranking is 3rd.
You are free to say that you think based in those games and who they played you predict they will play worse than other defenses that they have played better than at some point in the future.
But how they have played so far is good. There really isn't a debate.

 

[mosslost]

There is no 'better' between aggressive and conservative. There is just different. You sacrifice something for something else, that's football.

I remember a lot of Pats fans used to practically make fun of Bill Cowher and the Steelers aggressive, hard hitting, blitzing Defense that would lose to the "Bend Don't Break" cerebral Patriot approach back in the day.

 

[mosslost]

All I am gonna say is look at the Patriots Schedule and look at there over all defensive ranking. They look vulnerable to me and now Gronk is banged up..

hmm their defense ranks high.. and what about their schedule worries you?

 

[brdmaverick]

Yes of course I am talking about playoffs. We are the NE Patriots.. what else is there to talk about?

c'mon man, threw in some old Mora for some laughs

Anyway, not sure how this is at all relevant in your consistency vs. "we should take more risks because of Brady" debate.

To point out the very thing that I worry about........other teams driving on us all day long. Sure, we might hold 'em to a field goal, but Brady is not on the field and can't do his thing (or get in a rhythm).[/QUOTE]

 

[brdmaverick]

But no one gets enough pressure with 4. Pick the best pressure team out there and the end result isn't much if at all better than the pats.

Most times that we get eliminated in the playoffs it's because a team generates enough pressure with 4.

 

[deroc5050]

Ther defensive ranking is 3rd.
You are free to say that you think based in those games and who they played you predict they will play worse than other defenses that they have played better than at some point in the future.
But how they have played so far is good. There really isn't a debate.

hmm their defense ranks high.. and what about their schedule worries you?

Where are you reading that their defensive rating is 3rd?

What is there most impressive win this year?

 

[luuked]

c'mon man, threw in some old Mora for some laughs

Sorry about it then, I took it at face value.

I know we should respect all opponents and I am the first who will preach how close the gap between teams in this league is but can't deal with people who at this juncture of the season still don't have the confidence to talk about playoffs. Mea culpa..

To point out the very thing that I worry about........other teams driving on us all day long. Sure, we might hold 'em to a field goal, but Brady is not on the field and can't do his thing (or get in a rhythm).

I totally understand your point about time of possession and how you'd prefer if our D would go big and fail often but at least doesnt waste much TOP doing that. In light of how well they are clamping down when we get towards the endzone I just don't agree with that.

I much rather give the offense more margin for error because you can easily screw up an entire possession with an offensive holding penalty and fall behind pretty quickly if you try to be a big play defense. Also, the more plays the opponent has to go through in a drive the more chances there are for them to screw up. Obviously, I prefer quick 3 & outs like everyone else but over a full game and given enough attempts every team reverts back towards their seasonal average in terms of efficiency and that's something you can plan for / scheme around.

 

[Ring 6]

Most times that we get eliminated in the playoffs it's because a team generates enough pressure with 4.

Not really.

 

[brdmaverick]

Not really.

I guess you have washed the games against the Giants and last year's game agains the Broncos from your memory.

 

[brdmaverick]

I totally understand your point about time of possession and how you'd prefer if our D would go big and fail often but at least doesnt waste much TOP doing that. In light of how well they are clamping down when we get towards the endzone I just don't agree with that.

I much rather give the offense more margin for error because you can easily screw up an entire possession with an offensive holding penalty and fall behind pretty quickly if you try to be a big play defense. Also, the more plays the opponent has to go through in a drive the more chances there are for them to screw up. Obviously, I prefer quick 3 & outs like everyone else but over a full game and given enough attempts every team reverts back towards their seasonal average in terms of efficiency and that's something you can plan for / scheme around.

It's all good. Different mind sets but each with merit contributing to a fun philosolphical discussion between fans. I'm calling it a day though. Enjoy the rest of your night.

 

[JarOfMayo51]

Like you said it works. It would be much more maddening to watch Forte gash us for 130 (instead of the 30 he got) and lose. It would be much more frustrating to blitz, and not get there, and have him throwing against 5 in the secondary instead of 8, wouldn't it?
Everyone loves to think how cool it would be if we blitzed and it worked, and how that would stop all those completions. The worst passing offense in the NFL completes 18 passes a game. The AVERAGE passing offense completes 23.5. Think about that. The average team completes 23.5 passes per game. How do you suppose you stop those from happening? Blitzes get picked up. BB uses blitzes as an element of surprise in order to make it more effective. You can't blitz all day long or you have 4-5 receivers running around a secondary with 5 people in it. That is a recipe for disaster.

This is basically it.. when you're a blitz heavy team like the Bills, you're relying on a few high level man coverage guys and just praying you make it to the QB. Whenever a guy is blitzing, that means he's not covering a WR/TE/RB and if the QB can identify that quickly, they will gash you all day long

Remember a couple years ago when the Bills blitzed Brady on like 90% of their defensive plays (forgot percentage exactly, but Brady had mentioned it in his post game conference and the stats reflected it as well), it was something absurd, and Brady I don't think got sacked a single time that game.. He just recognized the blitz, tossed the ball to that area of the field that was absent X number of defenders and got huge yardage

As funny as this may sound, people should play Madden on the All-Pro or All-Madden difficulty and try blitzing every single down... its just a game, but the strategy, etc gets pretty deep these days in that game (deeper than I can even handle, and when I was younger I was a Madden master) and its obviously not real football, but it actually helps you understand the offensive and defensive concepts a lot better.. On the high difficulty settings, it will give you a nice virtual simulation on what happens when you blitz every play lol

 

[PP2]

I guess you have washed the games against the Giants and last year's game agains the Broncos from your memory.

To be fair, Stork's head-bobbing was a huge advantage for Denver. It allowed Von Miller to time his burst so he was already halfway to Brady before anyone even got out of their stances. Game-changer right there. In retrospect, I'm surprised we only lost by 2, considering the number of times Brady was hit/sacked.