Game Plan

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from PestZapper2. Show PestZapper2's posts

    Re: Game Plan

    In response to yakv's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    New England ran for 2,065 yards on 470 carries, (4.4 ypc) and scored 19 rushing TDs

    Seattle ran for 2,188 yards on 509 carries, (4.3 ypc) and scored 18 rushing TDs

    If you remove QB rush stats from the equation:

    NE ran for 2,047 yards on 438 carries (4.7 ypc) and scored 19 rushing TDs

    SEA ran for 1,649 yards on 413 carriees (4.0 ypc) and scored 17 rushing TDs

    So, which team has the better ground game? It seems obvious, right? Don't let your lyin' eyes deceive you. It's crystal clear that New England's running game is better.

    Brady passed for about 1,000 more yards (4,343 to 3,357), but Wilson had more pass TDs (26 to 25), fewer Ints (9 to 11), a higher completion pct. (63 to 60) and Wilson averaged 8.2 yds per attempt vs. 6.9 for Brady. His receivers aren't better than New England's either. 

    So, if you're preparing to face Denver's defense and you're coaching Seattle having watched how the Pats (and everybody else) played them, what is your game plan?

    Do you stop running altogether if Lynch gets stuffed for minimal gain in the first few carries? Do you go into the game, knowing how prolific Denver's passing attack is, thinking it makes any sense whatsoever to engage in a passing contest? Does that give you the best chance to win the game?

    You have an excellent defense, but do you want to let Manning and co. have more possessions, or would it make more sense to try and keep him off the field as much as possible?

    Do you emulate what the Patriots did last week, or do you look to what San Diego did in week 15 when they held the ball for 38 minutes?

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    can you compare the NE WR core to Seattle 

     

    are you serious ??

    the average for seattle YPC for most recievers was over 11 yards 

    Player Rec Yds Yds/Rec Long TD

    Golden Tate 64 898 14.0 80 5

    Doug Baldwin 50 778 15.6 52 5

    Jermaine Kearse 22 346 15.7 43 4

    Luke Willson 20 272 13.6 39 1

    Sidney Rice15 231 15.4 31 3

     

    even a concussed p. harvin is better than amendola the NE wr stats 

    if you take gronk and verren out 

    is thompkins or dobson better than Jermaine kearse heck no 

    take out edelman and you get a very medicore WR Core

    Player Rec Yds Yds/Rec Long TD

    Julian Edelman 105 1056 10.1 44 6

    Danny Amendola 54 633 11.7 57 2

    Shane Vereen 47 427 9.1 50 3

    Rob Gronkowski 39 592 15.2 50 4

    Aaron Dobson 37 519 14.0 81 4

    Kenbrell Thompkins 32 466 14.6 49 4

    [/QUOTE]


    Hilarious...

    You one of those who kept blaming Welkie for "the drop"? Were happy the Pats let Welkie go and picked up Amendola and "Zero-drop" Dobson?

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

    Re: Game Plan

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    New England ran for 2,065 yards on 470 carries, (4.4 ypc) and scored 19 rushing TDs

    Seattle ran for 2,188 yards on 509 carries, (4.3 ypc) and scored 18 rushing TDs

    If you remove QB rush stats from the equation:

    NE ran for 2,047 yards on 438 carries (4.7 ypc) and scored 19 rushing TDs

    SEA ran for 1,649 yards on 413 carriees (4.0 ypc) and scored 17 rushing TDs

    So, which team has the better ground game? It seems obvious, right? Don't let your lyin' eyes deceive you. It's crystal clear that New England's running game is better.

    Brady passed for about 1,000 more yards (4,343 to 3,357), but Wilson had more pass TDs (26 to 25), fewer Ints (9 to 11), a higher completion pct. (63 to 60) and Wilson averaged 8.2 yds per attempt vs. 6.9 for Brady. His receivers aren't better than New England's either. 

    So, if you're preparing to face Denver's defense and you're coaching Seattle having watched how the Pats (and everybody else) played them, what is your game plan?

    Do you stop running altogether if Lynch gets stuffed for minimal gain in the first few carries? Do you go into the game, knowing how prolific Denver's passing attack is, thinking it makes any sense whatsoever to engage in a passing contest? Does that give you the best chance to win the game?

    You have an excellent defense, but do you want to let Manning and co. have more possessions, or would it make more sense to try and keep him off the field as much as possible?

    Do you emulate what the Patriots did last week, or do you look to what San Diego did in week 15 when they held the ball for 38 minutes?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Controlling the ball for long stretches and keeping Manning off the field is great, but you need to get first downs to do that.  If your running game is getting you first downs, then sure, stick with it as long as your defense is also keeping Manning from scoring.  But if you run and don't get first downs or if your defense can't stop Manning from scoring and you end up well behind, then you'll be forced to pass.  You can't run for the sake of running if you're not getting first downs and keeping drives alive.  

     

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

    Re: Game Plan

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TFB12's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    This is how I envision the game playing out....

    The Seahawks Defense is going to be very tough for the Broncos , no doubt about it.  So tough that if Manning pulls off big points and passing stats to win the Super Bowl he will deserve some very high and well deserved praise, especially since the temperatures are expected to be very cold for the game.  But I don't see that happening, certainly not early on.  The Broncos will be playing catch up most of the game, especially the 2nd half.

    I don't really expect the Broncos to score more then 3 tds, 1 td and 2 fgs before halftime. 2 tds late in the 2nd half while playing from behind to try and mount a comeback, so it all comes down to the Seahawks offense and Russell Wilson.

    Russell Wilson is going to scramble around and keep plays and drives alive with his mobility, if nobody is open he will simply pull the ball down and run with it.  I see a big first half rushing with Russell Wilson, then in the second half the Broncos DBs will start to leave their receivers to early, anticipating Wilson running more, and Wilson will simply start hitting the receivers for big plays.  Lynch will be stuffed early on but used heavy in the 4th qtr when Denver's D is tired from chasing Russell Wilson. 

    Game plan for Seahawks.... extend the plays! with Russell Wilson scrambling and running with the ball.  I see a huge game for Russell Wilson, and he will be the game MVP.

    Seahawks 37, Denver 27.

    [/QUOTE]

    Thank you for at least answering the question. Not a bad scenario, I can see it playing out that way. I wonder if weather will be a factor?

    The real point is that I expect Seattle will continue to run Lynch even though he will probably get stuffed early on. That's pretty much what happened against SF and even against New Orleans. 

    I don't care if your defense is a combination of the '85 Bears and the '00 Ravens, you want to possess the ball and you don't want to get into a passing contest with the most prolific passing team of all time. Don't you want to keep them off the field? 

    You can only possess the ball for long periods if you get first downs.  If running isn't producing first downs, doing more of it won't allow you to keep Manning off the field. It just means you'll punt a lot.  Remember, the Broncos are going to pass regardless of whether you run or pass yourself.  So the only way you avoid a passing contest is by stopping Manning from passing successfully (i.e., by good defensive play).  If you aren't stopping Manning, you can choose not to pass yourself, but if you make that decision, you better be sure you can score as much with your run game as Manning can score with his passing game. 

    Remember as well that "keeping Manning off the field" by running long drives is great, but because possessions alternate in football, Manning is still going to get the same number of possessions you get (give or take one).   Mounting long drives by running doesn't give you any more possessions than the other team has.  All it does is mean fewer possessions for both teams.  But if Manning is scoring on his possessions and you're not, you're cooked no matter how long your possessions are and how s h o r t Manning's are.  Every one of your drives can be about 10 minutes and every one of Manning's can be about 2 minutes and you can dominate time of possession, but if Manning is scoring TDs on his drives and you're scoring FGs or punting, you're still going to lose. 

     

     

     

     

     

     

    I really think McDaniels' ego took over and they thought they could hang with them. Suicide. No chance whatsoever of that happening. It wouldn't happen with Seattle's defense, what chance does it have with New England's? The Patriots running game is fine, as good as any in the NFL outside of maybe Minnesota. You don't give up on it because the big pantload Blount got stuffed a few times.

    I don't blame Brady for the playcalling (some of the execution maybe), I blame the coaches, including BB. 

    [/QUOTE]


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

    Re: Game Plan

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    The reason to bring up Seattle is just to point out that you don't go away from the running game if you don't have immediate success. Of course, you do what you need to on 3rd down. This is not about 3rd down.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I think the counterargument to this is they did what they needed to do on 3rd down and didn't convert early in the game.  Then the game got out of hand and they had no choice but to pass to try and catch up.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You know, that's a fair point. But I can't help but think of what Phil Simms said. He said that Brady told him before the game that they were excited about the weather because it meant they would be able to open up the playbook and use all the stuff they haven't been able to use because the weather in prior games was lousy. That just tells me the mentality going in was to get into a passing contest. 

    It tells me they were excited about having all options (run and pass) available to them.  While running is great if it works, having the pass as an option is good too.  I think all Brady meant is that the weather would give them options.  I don't think there's any reason to conclude they planned to abandon the run.  In fact, they tried to use it quite a bit, but just found themselves in situations where passing was dictated by down and distance. 

    I really think McDaniels had no intention of establishing the run.

    [/QUOTE]


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

    Re: Game Plan

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    New England ran for 2,065 yards on 470 carries, (4.4 ypc) and scored 19 rushing TDs

    Seattle ran for 2,188 yards on 509 carries, (4.3 ypc) and scored 18 rushing TDs

    If you remove QB rush stats from the equation:

    NE ran for 2,047 yards on 438 carries (4.7 ypc) and scored 19 rushing TDs

    SEA ran for 1,649 yards on 413 carriees (4.0 ypc) and scored 17 rushing TDs

    So, which team has the better ground game? It seems obvious, right? Don't let your lyin' eyes deceive you. It's crystal clear that New England's running game is better.

    Brady passed for about 1,000 more yards (4,343 to 3,357), but Wilson had more pass TDs (26 to 25), fewer Ints (9 to 11), a higher completion pct. (63 to 60) and Wilson averaged 8.2 yds per attempt vs. 6.9 for Brady. His receivers aren't better than New England's either. 

    So, if you're preparing to face Denver's defense and you're coaching Seattle having watched how the Pats (and everybody else) played them, what is your game plan?

    Do you stop running altogether if Lynch gets stuffed for minimal gain in the first few carries? Do you go into the game, knowing how prolific Denver's passing attack is, thinking it makes any sense whatsoever to engage in a passing contest? Does that give you the best chance to win the game?

    You have an excellent defense, but do you want to let Manning and co. have more possessions, or would it make more sense to try and keep him off the field as much as possible?

    Do you emulate what the Patriots did last week, or do you look to what San Diego did in week 15 when they held the ball for 38 minutes?

     



    Controlling the ball for long stretches and keeping Manning off the field is great, but you need to get first downs to do that.  If your running game is getting you first downs, then sure, stick with it as long as your defense is also keeping Manning from scoring.  But if you run and don't get first downs or if your defense can't stop Manning from scoring and you end up well behind, then you'll be forced to pass.  You can't run for the sake of running if you're not getting first downs and keeping drives alive.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    What if you went with say....a 2 to 1 pass to run 3 and out in back to back drives? You know, like we did to start the game....

    Did that move the chains or get 1st downs? Should have came out in Power I and ran twice, perhaps away from Terrence Knighton? Run on all 3 downs! Challenge them.

    Don't come out in a passing formation get 5 yards,  then bring out run formation, get stone walled running up the middle and then bring back the passing unit and throw to a defense just waiting for you?

    IsIt'stupid. We just ran all over team and it wasn't by pass pass run. We know we are not a 1 ypc rushing offense so dont f ing settle for it! Impose your will, play smash mouth, open things up for Brady.

    I guess it doesn't matter, you have just closed your eyes to this subject. 

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from the-redsox-rule. Show the-redsox-rule's posts

    Re: Game Plan

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Don't come on here and cite factual evidence....it has no place on this forum, our run game sucks, and Denver stopped Blount on his 1st 2 carries for 0 yards so we did what we do in big playoff games...put it all om Brady!

    Denver held all running backs to 1 ypc this year so we had to pass it was obvious after 2 carries. Ridley fumbled a few months ago so he sucks, Vareen has zero big play ability so he should never get any touches????!!!!!????!!!! Passing with a decimated receiving core was the only option???!!!!,??.?!


    How about this one muzz..,.

    In our last 6 playoff losses in a row. We have thrown 285 times, 17 sacks, 3 qb fumbles lost, 7 interceptions to 9 total passing tds. We have ran with our power running game 66 times in those games, and 47 scat back runs out of spread formations.even in 2007 we were top 10 in rushing, only 2009 was our run game very poor after maroney proved his shoulder injury was the end of his career. 

    In 6 playoff losses 285 passes to 113 runs. This has been the leading cause of Brady's tough performances in those games. 285 to 66 power runs = open book offense and against 6 great pass rushing teams???? The offensive philosophy changed after 2007, it has left Brady as a sitting duck imo. Brady doesn't just all of a sudden suck in big games, he is throwing at defenses knowing full well what he will do.

    [/QUOTE]
    nice stat there champ. it also allows the defense some rest as opposed to all of the twenty second three and outs that the offense throws at them. and people wonder why the d struggles at times..smh

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

    Re: Game Plan

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    New England ran for 2,065 yards on 470 carries, (4.4 ypc) and scored 19 rushing TDs

    Seattle ran for 2,188 yards on 509 carries, (4.3 ypc) and scored 18 rushing TDs

    If you remove QB rush stats from the equation:

    NE ran for 2,047 yards on 438 carries (4.7 ypc) and scored 19 rushing TDs

    SEA ran for 1,649 yards on 413 carriees (4.0 ypc) and scored 17 rushing TDs

    So, which team has the better ground game? It seems obvious, right? Don't let your lyin' eyes deceive you. It's crystal clear that New England's running game is better.

    Brady passed for about 1,000 more yards (4,343 to 3,357), but Wilson had more pass TDs (26 to 25), fewer Ints (9 to 11), a higher completion pct. (63 to 60) and Wilson averaged 8.2 yds per attempt vs. 6.9 for Brady. His receivers aren't better than New England's either. 

    So, if you're preparing to face Denver's defense and you're coaching Seattle having watched how the Pats (and everybody else) played them, what is your game plan?

    Do you stop running altogether if Lynch gets stuffed for minimal gain in the first few carries? Do you go into the game, knowing how prolific Denver's passing attack is, thinking it makes any sense whatsoever to engage in a passing contest? Does that give you the best chance to win the game?

    You have an excellent defense, but do you want to let Manning and co. have more possessions, or would it make more sense to try and keep him off the field as much as possible?

    Do you emulate what the Patriots did last week, or do you look to what San Diego did in week 15 when they held the ball for 38 minutes?

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Controlling the ball for long stretches and keeping Manning off the field is great, but you need to get first downs to do that.  If your running game is getting you first downs, then sure, stick with it as long as your defense is also keeping Manning from scoring.  But if you run and don't get first downs or if your defense can't stop Manning from scoring and you end up well behind, then you'll be forced to pass.  You can't run for the sake of running if you're not getting first downs and keeping drives alive.  

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    What if you went with say....a 2 to 1 pass to run 3 and out in back to back drives? You know, like we did to start the game....

    The first down passes got 5 and 6 yards respectively, so those were both productive first down plays.  The problem on those two three-and-outs was that that the second-down runs that followed the passes got 0 and 1 yard, respectively.  Sure they could have tried running on third and five and third and three, but that's hardly the magic bullet you seem to think it is.  A run on third and five is not a high-percentage play.  It's a bit higher percentage on third and three, but it's not guaranteed by any means. 

    Did that move the chains or get 1st downs? Should have came out in Power I and ran twice, perhaps away from Terrence Knighton? Run on all 3 downs! Challenge them.

    Here's our blockers "challenging" the Denver defensive front in the third quarter.  This is the problem.  They blocked better against teams like Buffalo.  

     

     

    Don't come out in a passing formation get 5 yards,  then bring out run formation, get stone walled running up the middle and then bring back the passing unit and throw to a defense just waiting for you?

    IsIt'stupid. We just ran all over team and it wasn't by pass pass run. We know we are not a 1 ypc rushing offense so dont f ing settle for it! Impose your will, play smash mouth, open things up for Brady.

    I guess it doesn't matter, you have just closed your eyes to this subject. 

    [/QUOTE]


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

    Re: Game Plan

    Loling at this whole thread. 

    OK, run some more. 

    Exactly like I said, Denver handled New England's rushing a lot better than the 28th ranked rush defense and the 30th ranked rush defense. 

    That's the thing about football ... it doesn't happen on a chat forum where people who've never played, never coached it, and won't take the time to even really look at plays sit behind keyboards talking in abstract platitudes about "this doing that" or "such a thing helping another." 

    Here are the facts: deal with them. 

    1.) Denver wasn't allowing New England squat on the ground. Now go cry about it if you have to, but stop (for the love of god) pretending that a few more handoffs would have skyrocketted New England's rushing offense to something better than a 2.3 ypc for Ridley and Blount. Denver was not going to let them run, and they could not have done anything to run better. Hence, running wasn't working. 

    2.) They passed pretty well. Again, facts, cry about it you have to. First half (minus the three bomb passes at the end of the half with 20 sec left) they passed it 13 times and ran it 9 times. They scored three points. 

    In the second half, they passed 22 times and ran it only five times, minus Brady's TD and first down plunge. They scored two TDs. They had 11:56 in time of possession on three drives, two of which were hurry up drives. That is half their total time of possession. That is right, an all out pass fiesta for three drives produced more TOP than five drives of fruitless balance. Why is that? The absolute common sense that TOP is related to preventing the other team from getting first downs (which they were horrible at) and getting first downs (which "balance" at the cost of throwing every other down right down the tubes) cost. 

    If anything, McDaniel's attempts to get Ridley or Blount going cost New England a whole lost half, when after the second drive it was obvious Denver wasn't giving it up, and had New England beat inside, and had LBers and Safeties in place to cover the second level and hit the holes (the few times there were holes). Just look at Prolate's image. He could probably have pulled another six or seven just like it from the gamne (hint: 2/3 of their runs were for 3 or less yards a full third for a yard of less). 

    Want a recipe for changning the plays in that particular game?

    Pass more. They should have opened up and not given the ball once to Blount. 1 ypc? A 1 yard per carry? Really. You want more of that? 

    Once New England adjusted the game plan, they moved the ball. You can usually count on them to make adjustments and they are smart enough to know what works.

    It COULD have been a contest if they had a defense that could get Denver off the field once, just once maybe, after the first drive. 

    If New England had just kicked that one FG, and just stopped Denver once from getting a single FG, they would have had ample time (yes time) and a workable score to take the lead with one more drive. 

    Handing the ball one mor time to Ridley or Blount, when Denver was not letting them get a single scrap of yardage, would have had zero effect. 

    Want to complain about coaching?

    Start with Bill's ego, going for it on 4th down instead of kicking a 45 yarder (in Denver of all places) and Bill's failure to field a defense (yet again) that can make a team punt or collect a turnover in a big game. 

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Schumpeters-Ghost. Show Schumpeters-Ghost's posts

    Re: Game Plan

    Seattle is going to play defense, run the ball and win the turnover battle. 

    That is their gameplan. 

    They have the defense to stick with that plan.

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

    Re: Game Plan

    In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Seattle is going to play defense, run the ball and win the turnover battle. 

    That is their gameplan. 

    They have the defense to stick with that plan.

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, they actuall scored less per drive than New England. It took them 11 full drives to score 26. NEw England scored 16 on 7 drives, and that counts throwing away an extra point and FG chance. 

    Seattle runs it because they don't pass well. Their game plan is letting Wilson make a play from time to time once coverage breaks down. 

    But they have an elite defense that put that game away with back, to back, to back turnovers. And it got itself off the field, nabbing them a cool five more chances on offense over the course of the game. 

    Of COURSE their offense is going to score more points. 11 drives is nearly double the chances to score than 7. 

    It's simple math, not rocket science. 

    Seattle would be the perfect team if they could pass more efficiently. They would be running the score up on their opponents. But, wisely, they've invested their resources in creating a defense that takes on all comers. 

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

    Re: Game Plan

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

     

     /QUOTE]


    You pick a single play that didn't work and say we can't run the ball?  I go back to the San Diego game, that's how you beat Denver. They ran all over them, but they didn't run into the teeth of the line with a useless "power back." You try that a few times, it doesn't work and you give up on the run?

    Glad Josh wasn't in charge of D-Day. "Yeah, you know that beach landing thing isn't going so well, let's scrap the whole thing. We'll drop a few bombs, that should be good."

    Now, if you were the 2007 Patriots, then by all means, go four or five wide and attack. But this team isn't built to do that. At least not good enougfh to keep up with that opponent in perfect weather. They were capable of pulling off the San Diego game plan (at least on offense), but they weren't capable of beating Denver doing it the way they did. In my opinion.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from ghostofjri37. Show ghostofjri37's posts

    Re: Game Plan

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Want to complain about coaching?

     

    Start with Bill's ego, going for it on 4th down instead of kicking a 45 yarder (in Denver of all places) and Bill's failure to field a defense (yet again) that can make a team punt or collect a turnover in a big game. 

    [/QUOTE]


     I would agree that there were many things to complain about regarding coaching from game planing to lack of in game adjustments. IMHO it was one of the few decisions i didn't have a issue with as far as needing a momentum surge... I did have an issue at how they attacked the situation. if you knew you were going to go for it I would have run vereen out of the shotgun on 3rd down and if shor t run again on 4th. Denver was sitting back on both plays expecting pass. 

    Just a bad job of coaching from preparation to situational play calling.

    W T F you can't use the words s hot  or s hort

     

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

    Re: Game Plan

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    Loling at this whole thread. 

    OK, run some more. 

    Exactly like I said, Denver handled New England's rushing a lot better than the 28th ranked rush defense and the 30th ranked rush defense. 

    That's the thing about football ... it doesn't happen on a chat forum where people who've never played, never coached it, and won't take the time to even really look at plays sit behind keyboards talking in abstract platitudes about "this doing that" or "such a thing helping another." 

    Here are the facts: deal with them. 

    1.) Denver wasn't allowing New England squat on the ground. Now go cry about it if you have to, but stop (for the love of god) pretending that a few more handoffs would have skyrocketted New England's rushing offense to something better than a 2.3 ypc for Ridley and Blount. Denver was not going to let them run, and they could not have done anything to run better. Hence, running wasn't working. 

    2.) They passed pretty well. Again, facts, cry about it you have to. First half (minus the three bomb passes at the end of the half with 20 sec left) they passed it 13 times and ran it 9 times. They scored three points. 

    In the second half, they passed 22 times and ran it only five times, minus Brady's TD and first down plunge. They scored two TDs. They had 11:56 in time of possession on three drives, two of which were hurry up drives. That is half their total time of possession. That is right, an all out pass fiesta for three drives produced more TOP than five drives of fruitless balance. Why is that? The absolute common sense that TOP is related to preventing the other team from getting first downs (which they were horrible at) and getting first downs (which "balance" at the cost of throwing every other down right down the tubes) cost. 

    If anything, McDaniel's attempts to get Ridley or Blount going cost New England a whole lost half, when after the second drive it was obvious Denver wasn't giving it up, and had New England beat inside, and had LBers and Safeties in place to cover the second level and hit the holes (the few times there were holes). Just look at Prolate's image. He could probably have pulled another six or seven just like it from the gamne (hint: 2/3 of their runs were for 3 or less yards a full third for a yard of less). 

    Want a recipe for changning the plays in that particular game?

    Pass more. They should have opened up and not given the ball once to Blount. 1 ypc? A 1 yard per carry? Really. You want more of that? 

    Once New England adjusted the game plan, they moved the ball. You can usually count on them to make adjustments and they are smart enough to know what works.

    It COULD have been a contest if they had a defense that could get Denver off the field once, just once maybe, after the first drive. 

    If New England had just kicked that one FG, and just stopped Denver once from getting a single FG, they would have had ample time (yes time) and a workable score to take the lead with one more drive. 

    Handing the ball one mor time to Ridley or Blount, when Denver was not letting them get a single scrap of yardage, would have had zero effect. 

    Want to complain about coaching?

    Start with Bill's ego, going for it on 4th down instead of kicking a 45 yarder (in Denver of all places) and Bill's failure to field a defense (yet again) that can make a team punt or collect a turnover in a big game. 




    WOW amazing post. You pretty much put everything in one post that I have wanted to say but you said it better than I probably could have. Nice job.

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

    Re: Game Plan

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    Want to complain about coaching?

    Start with Bill's ego, going for it on 4th down instead of kicking a 45 yarder (in Denver of all places)



    When this decision was made we were losing by 17 and the defense hadn't demonstrated they could stop Denver.  How can you say that was a bad decision at the time?

     
  15. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Game Plan

    If Denver couldn't put up 27 against the Pats' D, they're not going to put up 27 against Seattle.

    It's the best defense in the game against the best offense.  

    Seattle by 10, 31-21.  Denver is in this via smoke and mirrors on their defensive side.  

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

    Re: Game Plan

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

     

     /QUOTE]


    You pick a single play that didn't work and say we can't run the ball?  I go back to the San Diego game, that's how you beat Denver. They ran all over them, but they didn't run into the teeth of the line with a useless "power back." You try that a few times, it doesn't work and you give up on the run?

    Glad Josh wasn't in charge of D-Day. "Yeah, you know that beach landing thing isn't going so well, let's scrap the whole thing. We'll drop a few bombs, that should be good."

    Now, if you were the 2007 Patriots, then by all means, go four or five wide and attack. But this team isn't built to do that. At least not good enougfh to keep up with that opponent in perfect weather. They were capable of pulling off the San Diego game plan (at least on offense), but they weren't capable of beating Denver doing it the way they did. In my opinion.

    [/QUOTE]

    How many of those s h ort yardage gains do you want to look at?  I'm about to board a plane, but when I get back I'll be glad to show more.  Fact is, they tried to run in the first half and didn't have great success.  Runs that don't work force you into passing situations.  Then when you get several scores behind in the second half, time ticking away forces you to pass.

    I said before the game that rattling Manning was the whole key to the game.  They didn't do that and they lost.  No surprise.  If the Broncos offense was clicking, our own offense wasn't likely good enough to keep up, run or pass. 

     

    As far as the San Diego game, their defense held the Broncos to 5 drives of 4 plays or less ending in four punts and 1 interception.  The net yards on those s h ort drives were -1, -4, 4, 14, and 15.  Time per drive was 1:07, 1:56, 0:55, 1:14, and 0:43.  Effective defense made running more feasible as a strategy.

     

     

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

    Re: Game Plan

    As the drive chart shows, San Diego's defense kept the broncos' drives s hort.  Their offense meanwhile did a nice job running out of the much maligned shotgun and making third down completions.  Holding denver to 10 points over three quarters was huge.

     

      

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share