Bill Belichick on Execution versus Playcalling

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick on Execution versus Playcalling

    PatsEng, I don't think plays are unimportant, that game planning doesn't matter, or that play calling and adjustments to plays during the game are irrelevant.  I don't think Belichick thinks these things are unimportant either. 

    But I think you're missing the main point that Belichick is making.  And that's that by playoff time teams have pretty much developed into "who they are" and they really just need to come out and execute. Sure, they've got to get the basic game plan and play calling and adjustments right, but they're not going to change who they are to "trick" the opponent or play some kind of game that's radically different from what they've done all season.  

    We've got a bunch of posters on this board who either (1) don't think the Patriots did the right thing all season last year (i.e., the approach that got them to 13-3 in the regular season was all wrong) or (2) that come playoff time they needed to do change their approach (and focus on something they weren't really good at--power running) to win the Super Bowl.  Both of those ideas seem absurd to me.  What they needed to do mostly was execute well.  On offense, that meant blocking the Giants D line well (something they failed to do consistently enough).  On defense, it meant defending the pass effectively (something they clearly failed to do, given Eli's 75% completion percentage on a whopping 40 pass attempts). 

    Handing the ball to Benny a lot more, running a lot more screens and draws -- all of those things may have had little impacts on the game -- but mostly success or failure came down to execution. If that Pats had executed a bit better on the plays they did run, they easily could have won the game.  If they had called different plays and still executed poorly, they still would have lost.  

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriots. Show themightypatriots's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick on Execution versus Playcalling

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    Agree with Coolade and patseng.


    Having multiple wrong people agree doesn't make them right.  Z is better than a hundred Coolades/patsengs - wait they just get worse the more they multiply.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick on Execution versus Playcalling

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    PatsEng, I don't think plays are unimportant, that game planning doesn't matter, or that play calling and adjustments to plays during the game are irrelevant.  I don't think Belichick thinks these things are unimportant either. 

    But I think you're missing the main point that Belichick is making.  And that's that by playoff time teams have pretty much developed into "who they are" and they really just need to come out and execute. Sure, they've got to get the basic game plan and play calling and adjustments right, but they're not going to change who they are to "trick" the opponent or play some kind of game that's radically different from what they've done all season.  

    We've got a bunch of posters on this board who either (1) don't think the Patriots did the right thing all season last year (i.e., the approach that got them to 13-3 in the regular season was all wrong) or (2) that come playoff time they needed to do change their approach (and focus on something they weren't really good at--power running) to win the Super Bowl.  Both of those ideas seem absurd to me.  What they needed to do mostly was execute well.  On offense, that meant blocking the Giants D line well (something they failed to do consistently enough).  On defense, it meant defending the pass effectively (something they clearly failed to do, given Eli's 75% completion percentage on a whopping 40 pass attempts). 

    Handing the ball to Benny a lot more, running a lot more screens and draws -- all of those things may have had little impacts on the game -- but mostly success or failure came down to execution. If that Pats had executed a bit better on the plays they did run, they easily could have won the game.  If they had called different plays and still executed poorly, they still would have lost.  

     



    Pro play calling isn't the identity of the team. Play calling is situational within the game. I'm not saying they will change their philosphy completely but play calling is very important within the game itself. Z and Babe and Pezz don't seem to think play calling is important. Z thinks it's under 10% of the game, Babe under 5%, and Pezz didn't state his % but he basically follows Z and Babe.

    Just blanketing it saying different play calling wouldn't have mattered is false too. Yes they needed to execute better but there is another team on the field. You do have to make them not execute too. Part of that is deception in play calling. If they know you are going to throw all the time then they can play call to that end and their players has less to worry about and can execute better. There is a reason why play action works, because you force the other players not to execute plays with deception. But in order for that deception to work in the first place they have to believe the play. If this wasn't true no screen or play action would ever work. There are also times where it's not a matter of not executing but the other team was better setup to stop those plays. If you run a dive between the T's and the opponent has a goal line D setup it's not that you didn't execute if you get no gain it's the other team was better setup to prevent you for succeeding

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from coolade2. Show coolade2's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick on Execution versus Playcalling

    People have used the analogy of a "chess match" between OC and DC (of the other team).  This analogy is a good one since chess requires multiple move strategy, like play 1,2,3,4 and 5 get you to a place where you call 6,7 and 8 in the 4th qtr to get the check ...  And the final play 8,9 and 10 to check-mate and win the game. 

     These plays could be runs , screens, bombs, sweeps, reverses, whatever but your opponent is corresponding with formations /plays you expect and are game  planning ( designing plays) for.

    Another analogy that plays in is poker.  The strategy in poker is knowing your opponents psychology.  In O'Brien's case being green, he didn't know he was being played.  As the stakes go up in poker , weak or inexperienced players show their hand without knowing it.  O'Brien had no clue , his pass-happy "tell" had been established all year, smart teams (gints) read him like a book and teed off on Brady.  O'Brien was just pig headed enough to try and force his offense down the D throats , rather than use his brain to surgically maneuver the offense like a bill Walsh or a Charlie Weis...  Or  McDaniels... for that matter.  the examples are the plays that lost the game, 1st play safety and 4th qtr pick.

    Taking this psychology further, O'Brien's ego plays in also, since reading his press and "his" stats , he clearly felt his stature grow and believed in his own fraudulent ability without having the background to carry it out in a big game.  this sadly played out with failure in the biggest game of his life.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick on Execution versus Playcalling

    Oh Pro I forget:

    2011 season - 58% pass 42% run

    Den playoff - 53% pass 47% run 

    Balt playoff - 54% pass 46% run - it was balanced play calling throughout game

    SB - 68% pass 32% run 


    So actually the SB is where they changed up what got them there to begin with

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick on Execution versus Playcalling

    Eng, look at the situational playcalling in the Super Bowl.  A lot of the pass heavy drives were at the end of the first half (drive that resulted in a TD) and the last drive of the game which started with less than a minute left.  Both of those were drives where scoring fast was important.  This creates more passing because the situation demands it (and it would have been stupid to run a lot in those situations).  

     

    If you think playcalling is really the issue you've got to look at the whole game play-by-play and tell us which plays were the wrong ones (i.e., one's that didn't fail because of execution and also failed because they were strategically wrong).  I've done a bit of that watching film and honestly, I don't think playcalling was a problem.  I think execution was. 

     

     

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick on Execution versus Playcalling

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    If play calling is so minor and execution is a vastly greater portion then why so many plays to begin with? Think about it, if Light has to practice and remember 50 plays ever game is he going to be as effective as if he only had 5 plays to practice or remember? Wouldn't his execution be much better on those 5 plays if he got 10x as many practice snaps then spreading it out over 50? Why not have 3 passing plays and 2 runs if it's only a matter of execution? If you had only one task to do everyday I'm sure you could master it to the point you could do it blind but if I gave you 50 every week then you won't master every 50.

    Z - why are you being so obtuse. Isn't an audible a play calling adjustment at the line depending on what Brady sees? Why even have minor adjustments to plays (ie left vs right dives, motion, etc) if it's a matter of executing the plays instead of the play calling? There is zero reason for a play to have multiple situational variations because situational play calling is still play calling, even if it's something as minor as putting a WR in motion to let Brady see if it's man or zone coverage.

    This is what I don't understand, there is a reason play books are so massive, esp compared to playbooks in the 50's and 60's. There is no reason to give multiple looks for the same play with the same package group if in the end it boils down to just execution. There is a good reason every one of those plays is in the play book and why there are so many.

    yes once the ball is snapped it's up to the players to execute the play that's called but they can't execute if the wrong play is called from the beginning. The players need to do their jobs and execute to be successful, the coaches have to do their jobs and put the players in the right positions in order to execute. What is so crazy about that? If either fails then the team won't win. I've seen the most talented teams lose because of bad coaching decisions and I've seen the best coaches not succeed because the players couldn't execute their plans.

    BTW you have to take what BB says with a gain of salt. He's a true professional. He takes the blame when something goes wrong (we've heard he say that they lost because of bad play calling in the past) and gives credit when something goes right. He's also someone who never gives a complete answer or comepletely tells you what he's thinking, using the media for his own reasons. It's not the first time he's used the media to light a fire under his players butts before




    Agree. This is why when I hear respected ex players/ex coaches/ex General managers like Ryan, Kirwan and Madden say this offense is better then it has been the past 5 years due to a new found commitment to the running game under McD I get excited.

    Guys that are paid a lot of money to have objective opinions recognize N.E was a 1 dimensional offense for too long and it's not anymore. They say Brady will have a field day in this post season because and I quote, "Defense's won't know what's coming". This offense is built to kill you either way, and if teams continue to rush 4 and drop 7 like the Gints/Ravens/Jets did in our last 3 playoff losses then this team will absolutely MAUL them with a power running game until they adjust.

    I respect Z, Pro and Pezz. I just value the opinions of paid pro's who have been there and done that. The next time we lose a game and I hear Bill Belichick say, "well we lost because the players didn't execute our supreme game plan" then I will agree that play calling and situational football doesn't matter. Until then I think it is the dumbest premise I have read on any thread on this board in a long long time.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from 42AND46. Show 42AND46's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick on Execution versus Playcalling

    In response to IrishMob7's comment:

    In response to shenanigan's comment:

    In response to IrishMob7's comment:

    In response to shenanigan's comment:

    With all due respect to BB, my lucky jersey has a little more to do with winning than any "execution."  




    I thought the same thing with my then-new Moss jersey, until Super Bowl 42 :(

    I need to go back to wearing my Bruschi jersey; the Pats were 3-0 when I wore that one, although it's a tad small on me now.  I'll take one for the team this Super Bowl, though.



    So it's your fault!



    I will concede, yes, it was my fault.  However, I will avenge our two heartbreaking losses by throwing on the Bruschi jersey this February!  Victory shall be ours!



    maybe time to put down the twinkies and have a salad  :  )

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from palookaski. Show palookaski's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick on Execution versus Playcalling

    Good reading thread.

    The insertion of Talib and Dennard with DMac in the middle has improved the D considerably.

    Is this improvement because of Execution only. Natural talent is a big reason for better execution. I don't think it's about anything else other than of better talent executing by position. Coaching helps in the sense they know where to line up when they see certain formations. huh?

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick on Execution versus Playcalling

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    Eng, look at the situational playcalling in the Super Bowl.  A lot of the pass heavy drives were at the end of the first half (drive that resulted in a TD) and the last drive of the game which started with less than a minute left.  Both of those were drives where scoring fast was important.  This creates more passing because the situation demands it (and it would have been stupid to run a lot in those situations).  

     

    If you think playcalling is really the issue you've got to look at the whole game play-by-play and tell us which plays were the wrong ones (i.e., one's that didn't fail because of execution and also failed because they were strategically wrong).  I've done a bit of that watching film and honestly, I don't think playcalling was a problem.  I think execution was. 


    You can point this out 100000000 times to people and they won't listen. Play calling is situational. Those two drives, where time was short, and they were trailing *absolutely* make the playcalling ratio. 


    Less the two "half ending" drives at a deficit, which combined to contribute a 19-4 pass/run ratio, New England's ratios change dramatically. 

    15 runs

    22 passes

    How this evades the imagination of folks out there is beyond me. 

    Compare that to the Eagles' Superbowl. The final three drives with their *power* or *ground and pound* offense amounted to 4 passes and 9 runs. But of course, they were milking a 10 point lead in the 4th quarter. 

    Those drives ended in TWO CONSECUTIVE three and outs trying to run clock, of course. People would be *HOWLING* if those happened now. 

    Outside of those three drives, New England ran the ball just 19 times and passed it 28 times. 

    That is 28 passes to 18 runs. 

    OK, so goose-gander. NE had another hurry up drive at that half. They passed 6 times and ran once and scored a TD on a pass to Givens.

    The final tally of "non-situational-strategic" playcalling is 22 passes to 17 runs. Roughly the exact same amount of passing/running as the 46th Superbowl, but still fairly even at:

    22-15

    22-17

    Virtually identical. But if we look at efficiencies, the difference is just stark!

    NE had five three and outs and two five and outs in the Eagles Superbowl. And that gem of a drive where they fumbled the ball on the Eagles' 14 yard line. 8 failed drives. 6 really, that are tantamount to a turnover as 3 and outs or an actual turnover. 

    12 drives discounting the kneeling drive at the end. They scored on four of them. 

    Meanwhile, the Pats in Superbowl scored 3 out of 8 times. 

    Eagles - 33% scoring/  50% drive fail rate / 2:25 min per drive

    Giants - 37% scoring/  50% drive fail rate / 2:32 min per drive

    So let's start to sum this up. 

    If the absolute, non-situational running and passing is nearly the same (it almost always is). 

    If the scoring / drive efficiencies are almost the same (actually slightly favoring the 2011 Pats).

    If the TOP metrics per drive are almost identical (actually slightly favoring the 2011 Pats). 

    But the outcome is different. How is it different?

    The NE defense in the Eagles' Superbowl forced three turnovers, two four and outs, and four three and outs!!  

    Wait let me add some more exclamation points to re-emphasize that ... 

    Three turnovers, two four and outs, and four three and outs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    And don't blame it on REST, or a TIRED DEFENSE. The 2011 Pats chewed up MORE CLOCK PER DRIVE!!!!!!

    The defensive efficiencies are astounding!

    Eagles -- 60% drive fail rate / 25% scoring rate / 2:21 TOP per drive

    Giants -- 0% (0 efffffing percent!!) drive fail rate / 50% scoring rate / 4:07 TOP per drive

    FAIL. 

    The IRONY is that the 2011 defense, which was an abject failure even if NE's offense didn't play up to its lofty standards without Gronkowski, wouldn't have had to be that good even. 

    Even collecting one turnover (perhaps the one negated by sloppy execution on a 12 man penalty) would have swung the entire game. Even if that were a 4 and out or five and out. H's Bells, man, that alone would have been at *least* and 11 point swing ... negating an eventual Giants' TD and replacing it with a chipshot FG. Voila. 

    Scoreboard: NE 20, NYG 15. 

    Forget about earning NE another 4 drives (so maybe they could fritter them away like they did against the Eagles). 

    This isn't, again and finally, about blaming one loss on one side of the ball or another. It's about spotting a trend.

    NE doesn't have as good a defense as they did in the early part of the decade. 

    NE now, tends to lose low scoring games. 

    NE now, is a LESS complete team, and THUS not as good a team as those Patriots. 

    Is the offense better? Of COURSE. But not so much better that it can make up for a defense that is so much worse. 

    Don't look at it as an isolated game. Don't think, NE loses the last game of the season. Ne loses to playoff teams. 

    Look at it in combination with the other losses NE has taken over the LARGE sample of three-four seasons. 

    NE loses low scoring games. They haven't had a defense that is reliable enough to hang in those. 

    Running, playcalling, etcetera, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. Let's just end this conversation, because it completely avoids the topic .....

    Unless you are positing that the two brilliant 3 and out running drives in the waning minutes of the Eagles' SB were the "winning formula" you MUST accept this.

    Now, I will conclude by saying what I said (and was unfortunately correct about) the last two postseasons.

    For the New England Patriots to win three games against high quality opponents in the playoffs either their offense is going to need to be perfect, scoring at least 24, but in reality 30+, in three straight games against three teams that have good-great defenses ....

    OR....

    Their defense is going to have to actually contribute to some wins for them. 

    That means nearly 100% execution by the offense ... or just getting their D to kick down in one game when they need it. 

    You can't win by showing up with a defense that essentially has to play prevent from snap one, and curls up in the fetal position waving a white flag hoping its offense will drop 24+ points on defenses like NY or Baltmore, or SF, or Houston, or Seattle. Some weeks they might be able to do it, others they won't. 

    And running the football 3-4 more times in a game isn't going to do SQUAT to fix that. 

    Execution by the defense will, and yes, execution by the offense will. 

     

     

     

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick on Execution versus Playcalling

    Of course BB the GM is failing the coach. 

    WTHHHH.

    Discounting 2012, because that draft's story isn't written yet.

    Not ONE of the five cornerbacks drafted in the first three rounds in the last five years is actually playing corner for the New England Patriots. Only one of them is on the roster and that is as a safety.

    Neither of the Safeties drafted in the first two rounds are starting at safety for the New England Patriots. Only one is one the roster, and he is being used as a running down sub for a walk on from another team's special teams unit. 

    Do you HONESTLY think in all candor, that if you had a frank conversation with Bill Belichik, he would say this is acceptable on any level? 

    Any level?

    You don't think this guy, who went out and made a last minute trade deadline deal for a guy with court trouble hanging over his head and getting shipped out of a loser franchise to play corner doesn't realize what is wrong with his defense?!?!?!

    And you don't see (like the 10 or so writers who noticed) the absolute see change this guy Talib made in the scoring metrics for the defense the instant he showed up?

    You can call whatever plays you want, but you need players that can actually, well, play. 

    That isn't, btw, trashing BB the GM. He has hit some crazy home runs on offense. Quality tackles, quality RBs and simply world class tight ends. 

    But come on .... he has been terrible drafting defensive backs. Just terrible. 

    BB the GM has most certainly gotten some rotten groceries for BB the HC. 

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick on Execution versus Playcalling

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    Eng, look at the situational playcalling in the Super Bowl.  A lot of the pass heavy drives were at the end of the first half (drive that resulted in a TD) and the last drive of the game which started with less than a minute left.  Both of those were drives where scoring fast was important.  This creates more passing because the situation demands it (and it would have been stupid to run a lot in those situations).  

     

    If you think playcalling is really the issue you've got to look at the whole game play-by-play and tell us which plays were the wrong ones (i.e., one's that didn't fail because of execution and also failed because they were strategically wrong).  I've done a bit of that watching film and honestly, I don't think playcalling was a problem.  I think execution was. 


    You can point this out 100000000 times to people and they won't listen. Play calling is situational. Those two drives, where time was short, and they were trailing *absolutely* make the playcalling ratio. 


    Less the two "half ending" drives at a deficit, which combined to contribute a 19-4 pass/run ratio, New England's ratios change dramatically. 

    15 runs

    22 passes

    How this evades the imagination of folks out there is beyond me. 

    Compare that to the Eagles' Superbowl. The final three drives with their *power* or *ground and pound* offense amounted to 4 passes and 9 runs. But of course, they were milking a 10 point lead in the 4th quarter. 

    Those drives ended in TWO CONSECUTIVE three and outs trying to run clock, of course. People would be *HOWLING* if those happened now. 

    Outside of those three drives, New England ran the ball just 19 times and passed it 28 times. 

    That is 28 passes to 18 runs. 

    OK, so goose-gander. NE had another hurry up drive at that half. They passed 6 times and ran once and scored a TD on a pass to Givens.

    The final tally of "non-situational-strategic" playcalling is 22 passes to 17 runs. Roughly the exact same amount of passing/running as the 46th Superbowl, but still fairly even at:

    22-15

    22-17

    Virtually identical. But if we look at efficiencies, the difference is just stark!

    NE had five three and outs and two five and outs in the Eagles Superbowl. And that gem of a drive where they fumbled the ball on the Eagles' 14 yard line. 8 failed drives. 6 really, that are tantamount to a turnover as 3 and outs or an actual turnover. 

    12 drives discounting the kneeling drive at the end. They scored on four of them. 

    Meanwhile, the Pats in Superbowl scored 3 out of 8 times. 

    Eagles - 33% scoring/  50% drive fail rate / 2:25 min per drive

    Giants - 37% scoring/  50% drive fail rate / 2:32 min per drive

    So let's start to sum this up. 

    If the absolute, non-situational running and passing is nearly the same (it almost always is). 

    If the scoring / drive efficiencies are almost the same (actually slightly favoring the 2011 Pats).

    If the TOP metrics per drive are almost identical (actually slightly favoring the 2011 Pats). 

    But the outcome is different. How is it different?

    The NE defense in the Eagles' Superbowl forced three turnovers, two four and outs, and four three and outs!!  

    Wait let me add some more exclamation points to re-emphasize that ... 

    Three turnovers, two four and outs, and four three and outs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    And don't blame it on REST, or a TIRED DEFENSE. The 2011 Pats chewed up MORE CLOCK PER DRIVE!!!!!!

    The defensive efficiencies are astounding!

    Eagles -- 60% drive fail rate / 25% scoring rate / 2:21 TOP per drive

    Giants -- 0% (0 efffffing percent!!) drive fail rate / 50% scoring rate / 4:07 TOP per drive

    FAIL. 

    The IRONY is that the 2011 defense, which was an abject failure even if NE's offense didn't play up to its lofty standards without Gronkowski, wouldn't have had to be that good even. 

    Even collecting one turnover (perhaps the one negated by sloppy execution on a 12 man penalty) would have swung the entire game. Even if that were a 4 and out or five and out. H's Bells, man, that alone would have been at *least* and 11 point swing ... negating an eventual Giants' TD and replacing it with a chipshot FG. Voila. 

    Scoreboard: NE 20, NYG 15. 

    Forget about earning NE another 4 drives (so maybe they could fritter them away like they did against the Eagles). 

    This isn't, again and finally, about blaming one loss on one side of the ball or another. It's about spotting a trend.

    NE doesn't have as good a defense as they did in the early part of the decade. 

    NE now, tends to lose low scoring games. 

    NE now, is a LESS complete team, and THUS not as good a team as those Patriots. 

    Is the offense better? Of COURSE. But not so much better that it can make up for a defense that is so much worse. 

    Don't look at it as an isolated game. Don't think, NE loses the last game of the season. Ne loses to playoff teams. 

    Look at it in combination with the other losses NE has taken over the LARGE sample of three-four seasons. 

    NE loses low scoring games. They haven't had a defense that is reliable enough to hang in those. 

    Running, playcalling, etcetera, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. Let's just end this conversation, because it completely avoids the topic .....

    Unless you are positing that the two brilliant 3 and out running drives in the waning minutes of the Eagles' SB were the "winning formula" you MUST accept this.

    Now, I will conclude by saying what I said (and was unfortunately correct about) the last two postseasons.

    For the New England Patriots to win three games against high quality opponents in the playoffs either their offense is going to need to be perfect, scoring at least 24, but in reality 30+, in three straight games against three teams that have good-great defenses ....

    OR....

    Their defense is going to have to actually contribute to some wins for them. 

    That means nearly 100% execution by the offense ... or just getting their D to kick down in one game when they need it. 

    You can't win by showing up with a defense that essentially has to play prevent from snap one, and curls up in the fetal position waving a white flag hoping its offense will drop 24+ points on defenses like NY or Baltmore, or SF, or Houston, or Seattle. Some weeks they might be able to do it, others they won't. 

    And running the football 3-4 more times in a game isn't going to do SQUAT to fix that. 

    Execution by the defense will, and yes, execution by the offense will. 

     




    This is about as good a post as anybody will ever see on this board.

    But I'm afraid it won't even scratch the surface in abating the mind numb football knowledge which the several troglodytes who espouse simplistic cliches as the remedy for poor quality performers on the defensive side of the ball proclaim ad nauseam.

    I'm just praying that Talib, McCourty at S, Dennard and the two rookies up front have turned this D into a major league operation.

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick on Execution versus Playcalling

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    Of course BB the GM is failing the coach. 

    WTHHHH.

    Discounting 2012, because that draft's story isn't written yet.

    Not ONE of the five cornerbacks drafted in the first three rounds in the last five years is actually playing corner for the New England Patriots. Only one of them is on the roster and that is as a safety.

    Neither of the Safeties drafted in the first two rounds are starting at safety for the New England Patriots. Only one is one the roster, and he is being used as a running down sub for a walk on from another team's special teams unit. 

    Do you HONESTLY think in all candor, that if you had a frank conversation with Bill Belichik, he would say this is acceptable on any level? 

    Any level?

    You don't think this guy, who went out and made a last minute trade deadline deal for a guy with court trouble hanging over his head and getting shipped out of a loser franchise to play corner doesn't realize what is wrong with his defense?!?!?!

    And you don't see (like the 10 or so writers who noticed) the absolute see change this guy Talib made in the scoring metrics for the defense the instant he showed up?

    You can call whatever plays you want, but you need players that can actually, well, play. 

    That isn't, btw, trashing BB the GM. He has hit some crazy home runs on offense. Quality tackles, quality RBs and simply world class tight ends. 

    But come on .... he has been terrible drafting defensive backs. Just terrible. 

    BB the GM has most certainly gotten some rotten groceries for BB the HC. 




    BB went nuts on D since that SB loss. And rightly so. His previous huge expenditires over many years repeatedly busted badly and he desperately scrambled to fix the mickey mouse club D. He knows the window is very close to being shut.

    I've said right along BB is not some genius team builder. And I was right. Competent?; yes. Far better than the rest?; hell no.

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick on Execution versus Playcalling

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

     

    I respect Z, Pro and Pezz. I just value the opinions of paid pro's who have been there and done that. The next time we lose a game and I hear Bill Belichick say, "well we lost because the players didn't execute our supreme game plan" then I will agree that play calling and situational football doesn't matter. Until then I think it is the dumbest premise I have read on any thread on this board in a long long time.



    Champ, no one is claiming that an improved running game isn't extremely valuable.  Our argument is and always has been that the reason the Pats didn't emphasize the run last year was because they weren't really built to be a "smashmouth" power running team.  Given the unreliability of their defense, there also were strategic issues with pursuing a power running approach (which tends to be a low scoring one designed more to control the ball, increase drive length, and reduce the number of drives than pile up points). The combination of an unreliable defense, a mediocre running game, and a great QB and good short-field receivers dictated an offensive strategy that relied heavily on things that you and Wozzy don't like: short passes, spread formations, shotgun, the hurry-up, and other strategies that emphasized quickness over power.  You guys seem to think the Pats should have played like the 49ers. Yeah, I like the 49ers too.  But that team was (and still is) built very differently than the Pats and we couldn't play their game any more than they could play ours. 

    I don't even know what to say about you thinking that Bill Belichick's statement that execution is more important in the playoffs than X's and O's is "the dumbest premise I have read on any thread on this board in a long long time."  Personally, I don't think Belichick is dumb at all, but it's clear that a lot of posters on this board are fully convinced they'd coach and/or run the team better than he does. 

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriots. Show themightypatriots's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick on Execution versus Playcalling

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    You can point this out 100000000 times to people and they won't listen. Play calling is situational. Those two drives, where time was short, and they were trailing *absolutely* make the playcalling ratio. 


    Less the two "half ending" drives at a deficit, which combined to contribute a 19-4 pass/run ratio, New England's ratios change dramatically. 

    15 runs

    22 passes

    How this evades the imagination of folks out there is beyond me. 

    Compare that to the Eagles' Superbowl. The final three drives with their *power* or *ground and pound* offense amounted to 4 passes and 9 runs. But of course, they were milking a 10 point lead in the 4th quarter. 

    Those drives ended in TWO CONSECUTIVE three and outs trying to run clock, of course. People would be *HOWLING* if those happened now. 

    Outside of those three drives, New England ran the ball just 19 times and passed it 28 times. 

    That is 28 passes to 18 runs. 

    OK, so goose-gander. NE had another hurry up drive at that half. They passed 6 times and ran once and scored a TD on a pass to Givens.

    The final tally of "non-situational-strategic" playcalling is 22 passes to 17 runs. Roughly the exact same amount of passing/running as the 46th Superbowl, but still fairly even at:

    22-15

    22-17

    Virtually identical. But if we look at efficiencies, the difference is just stark!

    NE had five three and outs and two five and outs in the Eagles Superbowl. And that gem of a drive where they fumbled the ball on the Eagles' 14 yard line. 8 failed drives. 6 really, that are tantamount to a turnover as 3 and outs or an actual turnover. 

    12 drives discounting the kneeling drive at the end. They scored on four of them. 

    Meanwhile, the Pats in Superbowl scored 3 out of 8 times. 

    Eagles - 33% scoring/  50% drive fail rate / 2:25 min per drive

    Giants - 37% scoring/  50% drive fail rate / 2:32 min per drive

    So let's start to sum this up. 

    If the absolute, non-situational running and passing is nearly the same (it almost always is). 

    If the scoring / drive efficiencies are almost the same (actually slightly favoring the 2011 Pats).

    If the TOP metrics per drive are almost identical (actually slightly favoring the 2011 Pats). 

    But the outcome is different. How is it different?

    The NE defense in the Eagles' Superbowl forced three turnovers, two four and outs, and four three and outs!!  

    Wait let me add some more exclamation points to re-emphasize that ... 

    Three turnovers, two four and outs, and four three and outs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    And don't blame it on REST, or a TIRED DEFENSE. The 2011 Pats chewed up MORE CLOCK PER DRIVE!!!!!!

    The defensive efficiencies are astounding!

    Eagles -- 60% drive fail rate / 25% scoring rate / 2:21 TOP per drive

    Giants -- 0% (0 efffffing percent!!) drive fail rate / 50% scoring rate / 4:07 TOP per drive

    FAIL. 

    The IRONY is that the 2011 defense, which was an abject failure even if NE's offense didn't play up to its lofty standards without Gronkowski, wouldn't have had to be that good even. 

    Even collecting one turnover (perhaps the one negated by sloppy execution on a 12 man penalty) would have swung the entire game. Even if that were a 4 and out or five and out. H's Bells, man, that alone would have been at *least* and 11 point swing ... negating an eventual Giants' TD and replacing it with a chipshot FG. Voila. 

    Scoreboard: NE 20, NYG 15. 

    Forget about earning NE another 4 drives (so maybe they could fritter them away like they did against the Eagles). 

    This isn't, again and finally, about blaming one loss on one side of the ball or another. It's about spotting a trend.

    NE doesn't have as good a defense as they did in the early part of the decade. 

    NE now, tends to lose low scoring games. 

    NE now, is a LESS complete team, and THUS not as good a team as those Patriots. 

    Is the offense better? Of COURSE. But not so much better that it can make up for a defense that is so much worse. 

    Don't look at it as an isolated game. Don't think, NE loses the last game of the season. Ne loses to playoff teams. 

    Look at it in combination with the other losses NE has taken over the LARGE sample of three-four seasons. 

    NE loses low scoring games. They haven't had a defense that is reliable enough to hang in those. 

    Running, playcalling, etcetera, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. Let's just end this conversation, because it completely avoids the topic .....

    Unless you are positing that the two brilliant 3 and out running drives in the waning minutes of the Eagles' SB were the "winning formula" you MUST accept this.

    Now, I will conclude by saying what I said (and was unfortunately correct about) the last two postseasons.

    For the New England Patriots to win three games against high quality opponents in the playoffs either their offense is going to need to be perfect, scoring at least 24, but in reality 30+, in three straight games against three teams that have good-great defenses ....

    OR....

    Their defense is going to have to actually contribute to some wins for them. 

    That means nearly 100% execution by the offense ... or just getting their D to kick down in one game when they need it. 

    You can't win by showing up with a defense that essentially has to play prevent from snap one, and curls up in the fetal position waving a white flag hoping its offense will drop 24+ points on defenses like NY or Baltmore, or SF, or Houston, or Seattle. Some weeks they might be able to do it, others they won't. 

    And running the football 3-4 more times in a game isn't going to do SQUAT to fix that. 

    Execution by the defense will, and yes, execution by the offense will. 

     


    Best post ever.  Anyone who still blames the offense is just a Brady hating Steelers fan trolling the board.  

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick on Execution versus Playcalling

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

     

    I respect Z, Pro and Pezz. I just value the opinions of paid pro's who have been there and done that. The next time we lose a game and I hear Bill Belichick say, "well we lost because the players didn't execute our supreme game plan" then I will agree that play calling and situational football doesn't matter. Until then I think it is the dumbest premise I have read on any thread on this board in a long long time.



    Champ, no one is claiming that an improved running game isn't extremely valuable.  Our argument is and always has been that the reason the Pats didn't emphasize the run last year was because they weren't really built to be a "smashmouth" power running team.  Given the unreliability of their defense, there also were strategic issues with pursuing a power running approach (which tends to be a low scoring one designed more to control the ball, increase drive length, and reduce the number of drives than pile up points). The combination of an unreliable defense, a mediocre running game, and a great QB and good short-field receivers dictated an offensive strategy that relied heavily on things that you and Wozzy don't like: short passes, spread formations, shotgun, the hurry-up, and other strategies that emphasized quickness over power.  You guys seem to think the Pats should have played like the 49ers. Yeah, I like the 49ers too.  But that team was (and still is) built very differently than the Pats and we couldn't play their game any more than they could play ours. 

    I don't even know what to say about you thinking that Bill Belichick's statement that execution is more important in the playoffs than X's and O's is "the dumbest premise I have read on any thread on this board in a long long time."  Personally, I don't think Belichick is dumb at all, but it's clear that a lot of posters on this board are fully convinced they'd coach and/or run the team better than he does. 




    You say they were not built to run the ball, but facts stand in your way. 2 pro-bowl guards(guards typically pave the way for a power run game) the same RB core we had this year just swap out Bolden and BJGE(same type player who hit the hole hard and fall forward) Stevan Ridley and a 2 TE offense. We had all the tools, but we didn't use them.

    As you lose your grasp of the argument and get backed into a corner you look desperate in your attempts to paint us as "BB haters". BB is a defensive coach, and a brilliant GM who has built the model for American sports organizations. Only a guy with an agenda could ever try and look negatively on what BB the GM has built here in N.E. I will go on questioning why our offense was a soft , finesse, and 1 dimesnional one under BillObrien, while you go on slamming the defense that Bill Belichick coaches and the team that BB the GM has built.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick on Execution versus Playcalling

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    You say they were not built to run the ball, but facts stand in your way. 2 pro-bowl guards(guards typically pave the way for a power run game) the same RB core we had this year just swap out Bolden and BJGE(same type player who hit the hole hard and fall forward) Stevan Ridley and a 2 TE offense. We had all the tools, but we didn't use them.

    As you lose your grasp of the argument and get backed into a corner you look desperate in your attempts to paint us as "BB haters". BB is a defensive coach, and a brilliant GM who has built the model for American sports organizations. Only a guy with an agenda could ever try and look negatively on what BB the GM has built here in N.E. I will go on questioning why our offense was a soft , finesse, and 1 dimesnional one under BillObrien, while you go on slamming the defense that Bill Belichick coaches and the team that BB the GM has built.



    You and I have a vastly different assessment of BJGE.  Ridley did run well last year when he was in, but for whatever reason the coaches weren't confident to rely on him.  I trust the coaches on that. (I found it funny when after Ridley's fumbles in the SF game Wozzy was actually calling for him to be benched--this after criticizing the coaches for doing exactly that in the Super Bowl after a similar flurry of fumbles.)

    As far as the line, I'm not as sold on them as a run blocking unit as you are.  I don't know if you watched the Bill Belichick: A Football Life special, but I remember him distinctly saying "this team just can't run the ball" and that was with basically the same O line as they had last year.

    You're free to claim what you want, but the facts are the offense was a top offense last year and the defense a bottom one.  You and your buddies can try to spin it any way you want, but thems the facts . . .

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriots. Show themightypatriots's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick on Execution versus Playcalling

    In response to zbellino's comment:

     You can point this out 100000000 times to people and they won't listen. Play calling is situational. Those two drives, where time was short, and they were trailing *absolutely* make the playcalling ratio. 


    Less the two "half ending" drives at a deficit, which combined to contribute a 19-4 pass/run ratio, New England's ratios change dramatically. 

    15 runs

    22 passes

    How this evades the imagination of folks out there is beyond me. 

    Compare that to the Eagles' Superbowl. The final three drives with their *power* or *ground and pound* offense amounted to 4 passes and 9 runs. But of course, they were milking a 10 point lead in the 4th quarter. 

    Those drives ended in TWO CONSECUTIVE three and outs trying to run clock, of course. People would be *HOWLING* if those happened now. 

    Outside of those three drives, New England ran the ball just 19 times and passed it 28 times. 

    That is 28 passes to 18 runs. 

    OK, so goose-gander. NE had another hurry up drive at that half. They passed 6 times and ran once and scored a TD on a pass to Givens.

    The final tally of "non-situational-strategic" playcalling is 22 passes to 17 runs. Roughly the exact same amount of passing/running as the 46th Superbowl, but still fairly even at:

    22-15

    22-17

    Virtually identical. But if we look at efficiencies, the difference is just stark!

    NE had five three and outs and two five and outs in the Eagles Superbowl. And that gem of a drive where they fumbled the ball on the Eagles' 14 yard line. 8 failed drives. 6 really, that are tantamount to a turnover as 3 and outs or an actual turnover. 

    12 drives discounting the kneeling drive at the end. They scored on four of them. 

    Meanwhile, the Pats in Superbowl scored 3 out of 8 times. 

    Eagles - 33% scoring/  50% drive fail rate / 2:25 min per drive

    Giants - 37% scoring/  50% drive fail rate / 2:32 min per drive

    So let's start to sum this up. 

    If the absolute, non-situational running and passing is nearly the same (it almost always is). 

    If the scoring / drive efficiencies are almost the same (actually slightly favoring the 2011 Pats).

    If the TOP metrics per drive are almost identical (actually slightly favoring the 2011 Pats). 

    But the outcome is different. How is it different?

    The NE defense in the Eagles' Superbowl forced three turnovers, two four and outs, and four three and outs!!  

    Wait let me add some more exclamation points to re-emphasize that ... 

    Three turnovers, two four and outs, and four three and outs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    And don't blame it on REST, or a TIRED DEFENSE. The 2011 Pats chewed up MORE CLOCK PER DRIVE!!!!!!

    The defensive efficiencies are astounding!

    Eagles -- 60% drive fail rate / 25% scoring rate / 2:21 TOP per drive

    Giants -- 0% (0 efffffing percent!!) drive fail rate / 50% scoring rate / 4:07 TOP per drive

    FAIL. 

    The IRONY is that the 2011 defense, which was an abject failure even if NE's offense didn't play up to its lofty standards without Gronkowski, wouldn't have had to be that good even. 

    Even collecting one turnover (perhaps the one negated by sloppy execution on a 12 man penalty) would have swung the entire game. Even if that were a 4 and out or five and out. H's Bells, man, that alone would have been at *least* and 11 point swing ... negating an eventual Giants' TD and replacing it with a chipshot FG. Voila. 

    Scoreboard: NE 20, NYG 15. 

    Forget about earning NE another 4 drives (so maybe they could fritter them away like they did against the Eagles). 

    This isn't, again and finally, about blaming one loss on one side of the ball or another. It's about spotting a trend.

    NE doesn't have as good a defense as they did in the early part of the decade. 

    NE now, tends to lose low scoring games. 

    NE now, is a LESS complete team, and THUS not as good a team as those Patriots. 

    Is the offense better? Of COURSE. But not so much better that it can make up for a defense that is so much worse. 

    Don't look at it as an isolated game. Don't think, NE loses the last game of the season. Ne loses to playoff teams. 

    Look at it in combination with the other losses NE has taken over the LARGE sample of three-four seasons. 

    NE loses low scoring games. They haven't had a defense that is reliable enough to hang in those. 

    Running, playcalling, etcetera, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. Let's just end this conversation, because it completely avoids the topic .....

    Unless you are positing that the two brilliant 3 and out running drives in the waning minutes of the Eagles' SB were the "winning formula" you MUST accept this.

    Now, I will conclude by saying what I said (and was unfortunately correct about) the last two postseasons.

    For the New England Patriots to win three games against high quality opponents in the playoffs either their offense is going to need to be perfect, scoring at least 24, but in reality 30+, in three straight games against three teams that have good-great defenses ....

    OR....

    Their defense is going to have to actually contribute to some wins for them. 

    That means nearly 100% execution by the offense ... or just getting their D to kick down in one game when they need it. 

    You can't win by showing up with a defense that essentially has to play prevent from snap one, and curls up in the fetal position waving a white flag hoping its offense will drop 24+ points on defenses like NY or Baltmore, or SF, or Houston, or Seattle. Some weeks they might be able to do it, others they won't. 

    And running the football 3-4 more times in a game isn't going to do SQUAT to fix that. 

    Execution by the defense will, and yes, execution by the offense will. 

     

     

    crickets ...

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share