Random Sunday morning thought

[IcyPatriot]

I think it was simply the injuries that hurt us down the stretch ... especially on the offensive side of the ball. We just did not have proper depth to replace both TE's being injured, Morris injury and the O-Line injuries.

If Faulk, Neal do not get injured in the SB we win. Faulk's injury was not so bad but Neal's was devastating. when he was injured earlier in the year we learned nothing from that? apparently we didn't because we had the same hacks backing him up on championship day.

We needed a RT last year and all we did was get O'Callahan in the 5th round. Bad enough Kaczur had yet to prove himself but we had a 5th round rookie backing him up.

Most of all ... the game day decision to not dress Spach?

Admit it ... how many here had a bad feeling on that one ... I sure did.
Would Spach have changed the game when Brady was getting killed? We'll never know but it would have been nice to have him.

Lastly ... something that to this day goes with very little mention. What about the meltdown by Dean Pees that kept Belichick occupied for most of the game. If Pee's had been preparred perhaps Belichick would have ben more in tune to the problems of the offense? Again, we will never know.

Perhaps we should not really be surprised that we have stumbled the last few years. We knew how great RAC and Weiss were ... we were just to enamored with Belichick to realize that RAC and Charlie deserved more credit than anyone had given them. No rings since they left is huge ... Parcells knows all about that also after he lost Belichick.

The OC and DC are huge ... we handed a great team to a rookie DC and a rookie OC in 2005 ... and we have paid the price. why did Belichick go the rookie route ... something tells me he is a victim of his own paranoia about leaked information and thus did not want to allow someone from the outside to get a look on the inside.

 

[PatsFan37]

One possible reason for the Pats "fading" down the stretch, if we can call it that (the Pats surged in '05 down the stretch, surged in '06, winning 3 straight by a margin of 104-51, and entered the playoffs undefeated in '07) is that our drafts have not produced an elite rookie crop since '05. ...etc...

Pony, it almost sounds logical. I go with bio-man that rookies play a role and generally are the ones that hit a wall and need to be coached through a big game so they don't get the deer-in-the-headlights effect.

If they had won that game, going 19-0, everyone would have said the reason they had a lousy rookie class is that no rookie could get on the roster of a team so good it went undefeated. (actually, I think it's partly that and partly that they traded out of the draft and partly that Moss and Welker are elements of the draft class).

If anything, I'd say the Patriots have a history of being energized not by rookies, but by FA's who came in to re-start their careers and go for a ring. Harrison, Vrabel, Seau, Moss, Welker. That's the kind of energy that carries a team through the playoffs.

They had it. They almost won. And if they did, we wouldn't be looking for reasons why they lost.

Sometimes, as Freud once said about cigars, a loss is just a loss.

 

[mgteich]

While I would agree with almost all of your comments, I don't think that you would be making them if we had won by three instead of losing by three.

Yesterday afternoon, I dug through the archives looking for an "old" game to watch. I chose the December 24, 2006 game in Jacksonville and took a good look at it.

In the game's intro, Gumbel and Dierdorf discussed how important the game was for both teams. The Jags were 8-6 and desperately needed a win to stay in playoff contention. The Patriots had yet to even clinch a playoff berth, and Gumbel mentioned how Belichick urged his players not to be overconfident and allow themselves to back into the playoffs.

The Pats, despite giving up that boneheaded Jones-Drew miracle TD run, were able to win, 24-21 to clinch the AFC East. Though they had destroyed the Texans the week before, they had been shutout in Miami before that, and barely beat the Lions prior to that. If they had won in Miami, they would have most likely leapfrogged the Colts for the 3rd seed, and probably have played the AFC Championship at home in January.

Yet, in Week 16, we knew none of that. In fact, that same week, Ron Dayne had thrashed through the Colts' defense to open up a 14-0 Texans lead. During halftime, Dan Marino used yet another example of the Colts' terrible run defense that year to support why "The Colts would not win the Super Bowl." Well, he was wrong.

During the regular season, the Colts were dead last in rushing defense. In fact, the 31st team, the Rams, had 40 less yards/game than the Colts' 173. They began the season with 110 yards to Tiki Barber, and ended it with 115 to Ronnie Brown.

In the playoffs, something changed. Some say it was Booger McFarland finally turning it on. Others credit Bob Sanders. No matter what, the Colts held Larry Johnson to 32 yards. Jamal Lewis to 53 yards. Corey Dillon to 48 yards. Thomas Jones had 112 in the Super Bowl, but even that was less than 65% of the Colts' season average (The Bears had 111 net rushing, too). The Colts went 12-4, had a horrendous rushing defense, but turned things around when it really mattered.

Or, let's go back one more season - another year in which the Pats fell short in the playoffs. The 2005 Pittsburgh Steelers. A #6 seed. Losers to the Patriots, Jaguars, Ravens, Colts, and Bengals. However, 4 of those 5 teams ended up in the playoffs. And of those teams, all (perhaps not the Jaguars) were considered to be better teams than the Steelers. The Steelers finished the season with four straight wins, including a 41-0 thumping of the Browns. Nobody here wanted to play them. The Pats threw their final game of the season in order to achieve that, too. Then, the Steelers went on to knock off the high-flying Bengals, the media darlings, the Broncos, and the Seahawks. Champions of the National Football League. There's only one.

How about the 2007 New York Giants? Losses to Dallas and Green Bay to open the season. Another loss to the Cowboys. A 24-point loss to the Vikings in late November. A loss to the Redskins. A loss to the Patriots. In this case, you have a 10-6 team who again only lost to one non-playoff team. They go into the playoffs and shock the world, beating the Buccaneers, Cowboys, Packers, and as we know, the Patriots. The 2007 season is over. The 16-0 Patriots will never be champions. The Giants will always remember this season.

Belichick preaches better performance down the stretch. Did anyone think the post-Thanksgiving (or post-bye) Patriots were as good as their out-the-gate version? They lost Morris and Colvin, sure. You throw in Faulk and Seau and you're in good shape. That wasn't the problem. Even Vrabel said the 2007 Patriots didn't follow the classical model of improving late in the season. They didn't improve. They were still winning football games, but just coasting to the finish. Don't believe me? Let's chart the season:

Weeks 1-11, NYJ to BUF
Offensive rushing yards: 131.8
Offensive passing yards: 295.0
Offensive 3rd down conversion rate: 50.7
Offensive interceptions: .4
Offensive sacks: 1.0
Defensive rushing yards: 89.3
Defensive passing yards: 181.3
Defensive 3rd down conversion rate: 29.8
Defensive interceptions: 1.3
Defensive sacks: 2.9
Scoring margin: 25.4

Now, notice how all numbers are across the board (except defensive sacks) worse later on, some more than others:

Weeks 12-17, PHI to NYG
Offensive rushing yards: 88.5
Offensive passing yards: 280.2
Offensive 3rd down conversion rate: 41.2
Offensive interceptions: .7
Offensive sacks: 1.8
Defensive rushing yards: 113.2
Defensive passing yards: 204.7
Defensive 3rd down conversion rate: 38.2
Defensive interceptions: .8
Defensive sacks: 3.0
Scoring margin: 10.2

And it's tough to make an argument for the second half schedule being harder, considering the end of season winning percentages for the 12-17 games were .400, and the 1-11 games a .510.

Or how about the playoffs? Some of these numbers are worse too:

Weeks 19-21, JAC to NYG
Offensive rushing yards: 113.0
Offensive passing yards: 228.3
Offensive 3rd down conversion rate: 54.3
Offensive interceptions: 1.0
Offensive sacks: 2.7
Defensive rushing yards: 91.7
Defensive passing yards: 241.3
Defensive 3rd down conversion rate: 38.3
Defensive interceptions: 1.3
Defensive sacks: 1.7
Scoring margin: 5.7

Certainly not the Belichick way. Notice how the offensive sacks increase throughout the season, and how the rushing numbers decrease. I think we all saw this. The offensive line did get worse as the year went on. Or how about the defensive passing yards? That secondary, as we remember, was making A.J. Feeley, Kyle Boller, and Eli Manning look like Hall of Famers. This is also made evident in the spike of the defensive 3rd down conversion rate. They couldn't get off the field.

However, what's most noticeable is the scoring margin, especially in terms of the quality of opponents. Something wasn't right after the Eagles and Ravens came that close to beating the Patriots. Something wasn't right after a blocked punt was the difference against Mangini's Jets. The elements can certainly be blamed, sure. I personally think it was complacency. Arrogance. Belichick tried hard to keep that out of his team's mind. Did it work? All I know is that, even after wins down the stretch, I walked away from games with an uneasy sense that not finishing strong would come back to hurt them. The Patriots' playoff wins were unspectacular and featured such things as Dennis Northcutt dropping an easy touchdown and Tom Brady throwing two easy interceptions to the Chargers. Something didn't seem right. Perhaps fittingly, it all came crashing down two weeks later. Nothing can change what happened that night. All the Patriots can do is try to not make the same mistakes twice. Welcome to 2008.

 

[Joker]

ancient freakin' history....2008 is here already....will someone please step up and remove the dead freakin' horse so the glass is half empty crowd can move on?....good gawd this is tiresome

 

[pats1]

While I would agree with almost all of your comments, I don't think that you would be making them if we had won by three instead of losing by three.

Yeah, I probably wouldn't. But I think the sentiment that they barely escaped the unthinkable would still be present.

ancient freakin' history....2008 is here already....will someone please step up and remove the dead freakin' horse so the glass is half empty crowd can move on?....good gawd this is tiresome

When the glass is empty, it's half-empty in my eyes. When it's half empty, it's full. When it's full, it's spewing.

I'm the opposite of the "half-empty" crowd, believe me.

 

[captain stone]

ancient freakin' history....2008 is here already....will someone please step up and remove the dead freakin' horse so the glass is half empty crowd can move on?....good gawd this is tiresome

Then read another thread, please, if this one offends you so.

 

[NormZauchin]

One possible reason for the Pats "fading" down the stretch, if we can call it that (the Pats surged in '05 down the stretch, surged in '06, winning 3 straight by a margin of 104-51, and entered the playoffs undefeated in '07) is that our drafts have not produced an elite rookie crop since '05. The emergence of a talented rookie crop adds energy to a team down the stretch, young energy that older teams lack. A great draft is like fuel for the whole franchise. The Pats had Seymour and Light in '01; Samuel, Wilson, B. Johnson, Koppen, in '03; the awesome '03 rookies spilled over into '04 and were joined by Wilfork; The season didn't really turn around in '05 until the defense solidified, with Hobbs taking over as a starter maybe the biggest change IMO. In '06, Maroney was injured down the stretch and IMO the Pats wrongly moved away from D.Thomas and back to Watson when the latter returned from injury for the playoffs in '06, despite Thomas' break out performances vs. Houston and Jax. Thomas' absence from the game plan hurt the receiving corps in the '06 playoffs. Last season only Meriweather was a minor contributor. The draft is the life blood of the franchise.

As an example, the Giants had a fantastic '07 class that energized the franchise as Ross, Boss, Smith, Bradshaw etc. emerged down the stretch. In '06 the Colts became great down the stetch on the strength of Addai's fresh legs and Antoine Bethea becoming an impact starter. In '05 Heath Miller was a key cog in the Pitt passing game, catching a huge TD vs Indy. Also Bryant McFadden the cb was in man coverage on Reggie Wayne, breaking up that last second bomb to the end zone with a spectacular play. Our rookies have not contributed like that in the latter stages of the past 2 seasons, the vets have become exhausted under the pressure and scrutiny of being the world's most famous team, and IMO that is why the team has lost steam down the stretch. Another minor factor is that our offense has been consistently outcoached in big games since Charlie left. In Denver, Indy and NYG games, the offense has failed in key moments and the coaching is responsible for much of that. The awful 12 men in the huddle vs Indy, the inability to adjust a game plan vs the NYG, the susceptibility to the blitz vs Denver.

The Pats suffered a tremendous number of injuries in 2003 and 2004. In fact, I think those teams are 1-2 among Superbowl winners for the number of starter games lost in the regular season. During the regular season, these injuries made winning more difficult, but it gave the second stringers some real game experience and resulted in an effective rest period for those starters who came back in time for the playoffs or the Superbowl. (I think Seymour was one.) This year, the team experienced considerably fewer injuries and more of the starters played a complete, or nearly complete, 16 game season. It may account for the lack of intensity in the Superbowl.

 

[PatsFan37]

The Pats suffered a tremendous number of injuries in 2003 and 2004. In fact, I think those teams are 1-2 among Superbowl winners for the number of starter games lost in the regular season. During the regular season, these injuries made winning more difficult, but it gave the second stringers some real game experience and resulted in an effective rest period for those starters who came back in time for the playoffs or the Superbowl. (I think Seymour was one.) This year, the team experienced considerably fewer injuries and more of the starters played a complete, or nearly complete, 16 game season. It may account for the lack of intensity in the Superbowl.

That's a good point.

One thing I wondered about this year was how the injury report was played. We know it's not accurate. Some years, they seem to pad it, everyone with a hangnail is questionable, which personally I think is a smokescreen for the 50% who they know will not suit up. The next week, everyone is magically healthy.

Warning, warning, controversial statement: I wonder sometimes if Belichick started guys he might have kept out in other years because he felt more pressure to win every game. OTOH, they put away the Jags pretty handily in the playoffs.

We may blame the OL, we may blame the play calling, but it seems to me that the Giants peaked for the SB and the Patriots did not. That IS coaching. How much did spygate and the undefeated regular season have to do with that?

And yes, if Asante caught that ball or the line sacked Manning ... we wouldn't be talking about it. I know, I made that point earlier, too.

 

[richpats]

We lost because our 2-minute defense was bad last year. It is designed to prevent big-play TD's, thus allowing a team to march down little-by-little and get into the red zone - where they capitalize on our other glaring weakness.

 

[vapatsfan]

IMHO, we lost because of a thousand little things, little things we usually take care of, but didn't in game #19. All those little things that helped us squeak out games the 2nd half of the season, finally caught up yo us in game #19. Too bad game #19 was the friggin' Super Bowl!

 

[richpats]

Another thing, we seemed to pull out games in which we were trailing, mainly because our opponents couldn't put us away. The SB was different because that was the first time ALL SEASON that a team made a 4th-quarter comeback on the Pats (in fact, the Giants made TWO).

 

[BradyManny]

While I would agree with almost all of your comments, I don't think that you would be making them if we had won by three instead of losing by three.

Of course not, but it is what it is. The fact that we lost by 3 instead of winning by 4 does not mean this team was any better or worse than it was. But that just proves the point, the Giants were - on paper - a considerably less talented team. The 2007/8 Patriots were not the perfect team, they were not the Best Team Ever. They didn't earn it. Hopefully, this year, they come back and improve just enough defensively to earn that title, whether it comes with 19-0 or not.

 

[pats1]

Here's something else I was pondering today:

One big aspect of film preparation for a game is self-scouting. For those of you who watched 3GTG III, you might remember the scene in then-coaching assistant Matt Patricia's (and Cory Undlin's, although he was breaking down other teams' tape) office. Matt was breaking down the game from the week before, the December 2004 Jets/Patriots game, but self-scouting from a Jets perspective to make sure the Pats weren't leaving any stone unturned.

I'd imagine the Pats had a difficult time of doing that this season. For the second halves, and sometimes second quarters, of a good number of their games, it was pure garbage time. The Pats were running through the motions, and the opposition was wishing they could just move on to the next week. They weren't challenged. Minimal pressure situations were presented. You need these elements to effectively self-scout.

My main point of emphasis here is the Super Bowl. An offensive line that had a relatively strong year had tons of problems. Obviously, a lot of this can be credited to the Giants' defensive line. But you'd have to think that if there were more situations during the season where the coaching staff could really get a good grasp on what they needed to do to continually improve the offensive line, some of those uncharacteristic breakdowns wouldn't have occurred.