Pats @ Ravens all-22 rewatch thread

[BTTA]

I'd love to know how the coaching staff is responding to this. Is Ernie now assigned to study the Ravens for the rest of the season, so if/when a playoff rematch happens, he's got a list of ideas ready?

But the bigger issue is that there are a whole lot of games left to play, which means that both teams will be different next time because of injuries, and as someone pointed out, there will be at least 8 other coaching staffs who will be focused on stopping that offense before the Pats see it again. Somewhere in there is an answer.

Plus, the Pats front seven is undoubtedly pi$$ed off about this.

 

[PatsBoy12]

They’ll get ripped on the ground again in a second match-up. Maybe not AS bad, but still badly. Ravens’ personnel matches up favorably with the Pats personnel. They’d have to win that game on offense and just simply out score Baltimore.

I guess the question becomes could they do it?

 

[luuked]

I don’t think the Pats we’re out-schemed at all. I think it’s clear that they just got dominated in the trenches. That’s a personnel issue more than a scheme issue. I mean if you were even to sub in Vince in 2014 over Shelton, they would have had better results even though Vince was well past his prime at that point. He would have still eaten up two blockers and effectively closed two gaps.

Now that I finally found some time to listen/read to various opinions from experts..

It is somewhat funny but this is pretty much the exact opposite of what Chatham had to say after watching the A22.

From his POV this wasn't much about physicality but the team got pretty much completely out-schemed. Baited into being hesitant trying to read it, not having enough experience against this kind of offense and taking false steps to be out-leveraged combined with a way too passive overall approach if you wanna play a 3 men front.

Personally I think the truth is somewhere in between even though most probably closer to what Chatham is saying.

Either way.. I can only recommend his 1h+ podcast on the entire game... the ideal BYE comfort food.

Learning from loss in Baltimore — The Razor Show: A show about the New England Patriots — Overcast

 

[luuked]

I'd love to know how the coaching staff is responding to this. Is Ernie now assigned to study the Ravens for the rest of the season, so if/when a playoff rematch happens, he's got a list of ideas ready?

I doubt that they will spend any time at all on the Ravens. They will do their usual self scouting and be focused on improving themselves. They won't focus on the Ravens at all until we get to the postseason BYE week (if we get a BYE). Whats the point ?

You only have limited time to prepare yourself for the next opponent so why waste even a minute on someone you might not even see until next season ?

 

[luuked]

So if it was a scheme mismatch and not as much a personnel mismatch, why are people in this thread saying that they would be able to run over us again in a playoff rematch? If our personnel matches up ok, we have smart defensive coaches that could adjust the scheme.

Because that is often the take that requires least amount of actual understand and insight into everything. You see people getting blocked of a play ? Eh, the opponents were just "tougher" or "more physical".

Most people don't have the necessary experience and understanding to know the difference between physicality and scheme but it manifests in very similar ways (i.e. you see players consistently losing blocks or being moved).

How misdirection and deliberate movements set a team up for better leverage or simply makes people be out of position is something that requires watching plays again and again. That requires understanding, time and effort.

Just for the record I am not saying it is entirely wrong to say the Pats DL was man-handled at times. What I am saying is that it is easier to claim that because the outcome between out schemed and losing due to physicality looks pretty much similar.

 

[gitgronked82]

Because that is often the take that requires least amount of actual understand and insight into everything. You see people getting blocked of a play ? Eh, the opponents were just "tougher" or "more physical".

Most people don't have the necessary experience and understanding to know the difference between physicality and scheme but it manifests in very similar ways (i.e. you see players consistently losing blocks or being moved).

How misdirection and deliberate movements set a team up for better leverage or simply makes people be out of position is something that requires watching plays again and again. That requires understanding, time and effort.

Just for the record I am not saying it is entirely wrong to say the Pats OL was man-handled at times. What I am saying is that it is easier to claim that because the outcome between out schemed and losing due to physicality looks pretty much similar.

yeah, strongly agree. And I'm assuming you meant DL here. That's why I want to understand this scheme matchup more, but don't know much running game stuff.

 

[luuked]

yeah, strongly agree. And I'm assuming you meant DL here. That's why I want to understand this scheme matchup more, but don't know much running game stuff.

Yep. Fixed the typo. Thanks !

 

[Kontradiction]

Now that I finally found some time to listen/read to various opinions from experts..

It is somewhat funny but this is pretty much the exact opposite of what Chatham had to say after watching the A22.

From his POV this wasn't much about physicality but the team got pretty much completely out-schemed. Baited into being hesitant trying to read it, not having enough experience against this kind of offense and taking false steps to be out-leveraged combined with a way too passive overall approach if you wanna play a 3 men front.

Personally I think the truth is somewhere in between even though most probably closer to what Chatham is saying.

Either way.. I can only recommend his 1h+ podcast on the entire game... the ideal BYE comfort food.

Learning from loss in Baltimore — The Razor Show: A show about the New England Patriots — Overcast

Not sure how I missed this before. Chatham conveniently forgets that the personnel has a lot to do with the way the schemes are executed. Up front, BB prefers guys that he can scheme to either one or two-gap, depending on the situation and/or opponent. He doesn’t have a DT that he can consistently do that with. Hence, the personnel being a problem. Match-ups are important in football. The Ravens, and how they’re built on offense, are one of the few offenses that match up exceptionally well with this defense. That said, I did note that the Pats had more success when throwing amoeba fronts at the Ravens so I had already walked back the fact that it was 100% purely on personnel after further review.

 

[Redman443]

To put it simple, Lamar spanked BB's defense . It was totally unlike what we have seen from this defense all year. Should have held them to a FG on the first drive but committed a uncharacteristic penalty to allow them to score. Even after getting punched in the mouth, we still had a chance to get back in the game until Edelmans uncharacteristic mistake. Alot of sloppy play here on both sides of the ball. Their offensive line straight up dominated the defensive front and as a result, they had a good game on the ground and Lamar made the throws he was asked to make. Ravens D was very aggressive and kept sending the house at times. Tom is usually stellar against the blitz but Marshall Newhouse is a trainwreck. Its going to get better once Wynn comes back. I hope he can stay healthy. The bright spot on defense is that Lamar didnt really get to extend plays that much when he dropped back to pass and it wasnt open, he couldnt scramble as much but in the end it didnt matter because the defensive front got whipped by the Raven O line.

 

[PScottman]

That makes it hard to directly hit the QB. If a way could be established that would get someone in the backfield close to the mesh point I wouldn't give a **** if the RB got the ball, I'd just keep hitting the QB until he dropped.

It would be a penetrating 1 gap style and would leave some big holes so you couldn't call it a lot, but you could use it as part of a suite of plays. That said, to me it's the second part of that equation - taking away the TEs - that isn't talked about.

As the Pats began to better contain the run and get the Ravens into 3d and 5 and 6 lengths, they were then giving up pretty easy completions to the TEs. I get that respecting the run was the factor, but at the same time that Ravens offense attacked BOTH weak points of the Pats - run defense AND LB coverage.

It's just a bad matchup for this team which is built more to stop the KCs of the world who while can run, kill you with passing.

 

[PP2]

To put it simple, Lamar spanked BB's defense . It was totally unlike what we have seen from this defense all year. Should have held them to a FG on the first drive but committed a uncharacteristic penalty to allow them to score. Even after getting punched in the mouth, we still had a chance to get back in the game until Edelmans uncharacteristic mistake. Alot of sloppy play here on both sides of the ball. Their offensive line straight up dominated the defensive front and as a result, they had a good game on the ground and Lamar made the throws he was asked to make. Ravens D was very aggressive and kept sending the house at times. Tom is usually stellar against the blitz but Marshall Newhouse is a trainwreck. Its going to get better once Wynn comes back. I hope he can stay healthy. The bright spot on defense is that Lamar didnt really get to extend plays that much when he dropped back to pass and it wasnt open, he couldnt scramble as much but in the end it didnt matter because the defensive front got whipped by the Raven O line.

Hot takes go in the other thread.

 

[captain stone]

"Hot takes" (in your opinion) can go wherever a poster wants them to go...it's up to the moderators to regulate the content therein.

 

[Wheelssps]

Thanks, Ken. That helps me understand. The depth of the mesh point creates the difference as you point out. When I was playing end the mesh was usually about 5ft in front of me and I was taught to just kill the QB and let the LB's behind me clean up the RB if the handoff happened after I got there. Partly by being so committed to the QB and not caring about the RB, it allowed me to play fast and I arrived to blow up the handoff several times, too.

Based on that mesh point you reference, though, I would have been spun around with my jock around my ankles and wrapped over my head trying to tackle Jackson as he away from me with that much space for him to work.

As a question, then, it seems like we were 2-gapping a lot and that caused a lot of problems with not respecting assisgnments and getting burned peaking. Some other instances were successful reach blocks across Shelton's face that were a combo of good blocks by the Ravens and Shelton having a tough game to not allow that to happen.

In a rematch the Pats might employ a similar scheme with better focus and execution, or they could try a different approach.

What would happen if they tried a 6-1 type look they used against the Rams in last years SB? It seemed like filling gaps instead of trying to 2-gap them had advantages against the Rams running game and blew up a lot of the guard motion the Rams tried. What would happen if they used that against the Ravens? Is the danger that with that many people near the LOS if they find a crease they're gone? Or would that appraoch help with occupying gaps and not letting the Ravens blocking make the Pats play on their heels?

Also a thanks to @KontradictioN and @BaconGrundleCandy for their responses, too. Love this thread. Helps me understand some off the differences between simple HS football and how complicated the pro game can get.

After watching this option attack, it gave me a better appreciation of how skillfully this offense was crafted for the NFL game.

I've always thought the easiest way to kill this concept was to cut off the head (QB) and make it too dangerous to run. Back in the day, the QB/RB mesh was made along the LOS, whether it was a veer/wishbone or wingT option. In those formations the QB WAS a legitimate target, and an easy one at that.

The option I saw on Sunday made is MUCH more difficult to attack the QB because he's initiating the mesh 5-7 yds BEHIND the LOS. That makes it hard to directly hit the QB. If a way could be established that would get someone in the backfield close to the mesh point I wouldn't give a **** if the RB got the ball, I'd just keep hitting the QB until he dropped.

I will be interested to see, if there is a rematch, if Bill and company come up with a way to get some quick up field pressure by a DB or LB to create that kind of pressure. I'm sure there are other creative defensive minds on the the other 8 opponents the Raven will play who will present different challenges to this offense that can be used down the road. I won't be missing any Ravens games that get broadcast locally.

New concepts like the Ravens showed are often very effective.....for a while. The question will be how quickly the code can be deciphered. It took almost a full season before McVay's scheme was successfully decoded. The Bear's 4-6 D of the mid 80's got 2 seasons of dominance before it was decrypted and lost it's edge (as did the Bears).

Interesting enough both the Bears and Ravens concepts were very player specific. When Buddy Ryan sought to transfer his 4-6 D to Eagles when he got the HCing job, it didn't work out nearly as well because he didn't have the same talent he had with the Bears, and Ryan was soon gone. This Raven offense was built around Jackson's unique talents. And the Ravens FO should get kudos for taking this leap of faith and going all in, including having a back up who can do similar things if Jackson did get hurt.

I find it all very fascinating. I makes me really want to play the Ravens again. I have a white board I use to remind me of appointments and stuff. It might get a different use, while I mull this over trying to think of ways to get to the QB faster.

 

[PP2]

This, I think, gets to the crux of the matter:

 

[PP2]

Thanks, Ken. That helps me understand. The depth of the mesh point creates the difference as you point out. When I was playing end the mesh was usually about 5ft in front of me and I was taught to just kill the QB and let the LB's behind me clean up the RB if the handoff happened after I got there. Partly by being so committed to the QB and not caring about the RB, it allowed me to play fast and I arrived to blow up the handoff several times, too.

Based on that mesh point you reference, though, I would have been spun around with my jock around my ankles and wrapped over my head trying to tackle Jackson as he away from me with that much space for him to work.

As a question, then, it seems like we were 2-gapping a lot and that caused a lot of problems with not respecting assisgnments and getting burned peaking. Some other instances were successful reach blocks across Shelton's face that were a combo of good blocks by the Ravens and Shelton having a tough game to not allow that to happen.

In a rematch the Pats might employ a similar scheme with better focus and execution, or they could try a different approach.

What would happen if they tried a 6-1 type look they used against the Rams in last years SB? It seemed like filling gaps instead of trying to 2-gap them had advantages against the Rams running game and blew up a lot of the guard motion the Rams tried. What would happen if they used that against the Ravens? Is the danger that with that many people near the LOS if they find a crease they're gone? Or would that appraoch help with occupying gaps and not letting the Ravens blocking make the Pats play on their heels?

Also a thanks to @KontradictioN and @BaconGrundleCandy for their responses, too. Love this thread. Helps me understand some off the differences between simple HS football and how complicated the pro game can get.

Speaking of the mesh, we're going to see it again in the next game. Eagles killed us with the mesh concept in the SB. You can bet we'll see more of it.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

Regarding scheme vs physicality... Not mutually exclusive. Just bc you're running "zone" as opposed to iso/power, w/e. When a team is able to run 10, 12, 15 different types runs & have success, that's both scheme & being bullied.


From Word of Muth: Fun Night in Baltimore @slam posted.

"They out-schemed New England at times and then they just straight up blocked them when they had to as well".

The hesitation, getting caught w uneven #'s to defend a certain side, losing on the same play out of different formation, bad matchups in the field as a result of it, LBs crashing the same gap, that's scheme. We definitely lost the battle there but Balt had success just running power as well. This is what counted the other day - OZ, IZ, ZR, Power, Duo, trip O, QB power, QB OZ, QB sweep. Pretty sure I missed a sweep or 2 & either split or another outside zone.

Regardless they hit us up for at least 4 per clip running these.
ZR 11/54 2TDs
Power 7/31
OZ 2/57
Scramble 2/13
IZ 2/8
Trip O 2/19

Some takeaways...
1st down/early lead will always be big w a team like Balt & QB like Jackson. Winning on 1st, not getting in a hole sounds capt obvious, it is, but consider the conclusion to that argument.
You have a multidimensional, big play waiting to happen offense dictating personnel/play on both sides at times & controlling the clock. From behind.

Chargers played small in the while using some tite last year in their 2nd meeting. They basically replaced their LB Corp on the field w DBs, 3S who were a lot quicker & physical enough in the run game.
A decisive, multiple, power running game can do a ton of damage to that front as we saw when we played them (LAC). Obviously Balt has a nice set of TEs not including Ricard who played very well too.
Now one of Bill's rules is "don't go weak here to be strong there". Bill won't sacrifice in one group to have a strong position group somewhere else. Bill loves balance but I wouldn't be shocked to see him tinker w this & possibly find a nice mix to plug in.

We actually did try our big nickel after we abandoned our base about 5 plays in. Looked like we used big nickel as well as 4 LBs. I can't imagine we see much more of that. Their some of our best players/athletes but just too slow for a consistent package. I wouldn't be shocked if we used a mix trying to help our DL.
Bottom line they absolutely have to play better. No fix in terms of personnel, it'll come through improved play & scheme.
Not picking on Mike, he can write or say w/e he wants but his description/points here are off.

Wide/Stretch Zone.
Shelton HAS to engage that C but more importantly, has to get aggressive going vertical. It's why I brought up the idea of moving him off that spot bc he's doa too quick head up like that. He can't allow that C who makes a key block to just get free w no contact. I get what he's saying by "flowing" but I can't help & think Shelton gets a talking to after that. HT just falls for a sweet lil set up by Ingram. The issues w Shelton go back forever. I mentioned it in this thread I believe but have been bringing it up since last year against Houston. He has big trouble getting reached & w zone. It's just as plain as day. Idk again it's why I brought up a possible move down the los?


It definitely looked like we were trying to help the DL at times. Biggest factor I saw was sending our LBs pre/post, into the los to avoid our DL from getting doubled & not letting them create a wall or huge lanes. It helped but was stealing from Peter to pay Paul when Balt adjusted either through the air (LB on TE/RB or ground when they'd purposely hit the edges.

Ravens definitely came to play chess but have np going toe to toe either.

Very curious to see how we adjust in the short term-future w the same personnel.