Is the elephant in the room . . .

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

    Re: Is the elephant in the room . . .

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    Same problems, different year.

     

    Anyone that thinks that game was close was watching through rose colored glasses. The 49ers kicked the Pats butts all over the field. The Pats did not beat themselves, the 49ers forced the mistakes with better play.

     [/QUOTE]

     

    This is very true.  The coaches film isn't available yet, but I just re-watched the condensed version of the game.  On offense, I see too issues:

    1. The O-line was not effective against the 49ers D line and LBs

    2. We don't really have enough receivers who can stretch the field or get open downfield

    In the second half, the 49ers really backed off on the rush, sending just three a lot.  At that point, we were able to come back with short, quick passes.  Lloyd also gave us some help on the outside and deep, but none of our other receivers was very effective outside the short part of the field.  Even when Brady had time, no one was open downfield.  The most effective plays were those where the 49ers sent four and Brady got the pass off fast to a short receiver.  If the rush was too fast though, Brady got sacked or the pass was off or to an unready receiver. 

    Really, this scares me, because as Low FB-IQ says it's the same problems we've seen against other good defensive fronts--the Giants in 2011, the Jets in 2010, and the Ravens in 2009.  

     

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

    Re: Is the elephant in the room . . .

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    . . . The offensive line? Yes, it's a good one and Scarnecchia does a great job developing players and coaching the unit.  But against the best defensive fronts it seems to look very pedestrian. Worse it forces the Pats into a one-dimensional offense. They can't run effectively and they can't throw deep. All they can do is rely on Brady's quick decision-making in the short passing game. Despite the low QB rating, I thought Brady was excellent last night. But when there's only one thing that works and it requires constant excellence from the QB and receivers, you run the risk of stalling out on key drives.

    I've always thought the offensive line looks better than it really is because of Brady's  quick and accurate decision-making. I wonder now if it's really a more of a weakness than we tend to think, which will continue to haunt this team against great fronts like the 49er's and the Giants'.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I strongly disagree with this.  The oline, in fact, is one of the main reasons the pats are so successful.  I don't buy that Brady gets rid of the ball quickly.  I just have never seen it unless it is a timing route.  NE's offense seems much more read and react which means routes take longer to develop. 

    Brady usually has as much time and as much distance between himself and defenders as any QB in the league.  Have Brady come to indy.  He'd give up football.

    [/QUOTE]

    UD, re-watch the film . . . the O-line wasn't winning their battles last night.  And Brady was throwing very quickly on most plays other than those when the 49ers rushed just three. 

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

    Re: Is the elephant in the room . . .

    In response to natesubs' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    exactly my point! every year i say we need to bolster the O-line!  we need a big center and another mauler of a guard! 

    [/QUOTE]

    I think you're right Nate . . . Scarnecchia does such a good job with average talent that we get complacent and forget how useful it is to have top-rate guys against the best defenders. 

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

    Re: Is the elephant in the room . . .

    In response to anonymis' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    . . . The offensive line? Yes, it's a good one and Scarnecchia does a great job developing players and coaching the unit.  But against the best defensive fronts it seems to look very pedestrian. Worse it forces the Pats into a one-dimensional offense. They can't run effectively and they can't throw deep. All they can do is rely on Brady's quick decision-making in the short passing game. Despite the low QB rating, I thought Brady was excellent last night. But when there's only one thing that works and it requires constant excellence from the QB and receivers, you run the risk of stalling out on key drives.

    I've always thought the offensive line looks better than it really is because of Brady's  quick and accurate decision-making. I wonder now if it's really a more of a weakness than we tend to think, which will continue to haunt this team against great fronts like the 49er's and the Giants'.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    IMO, what makes it "worse" is that Gronk is our best blocker - and he was out.  I'm not sure why McD did not use a different TE to help protect Brady. On top of that, you're referring to the #2 run d, the Patriots aren't the first team to have problems with their defense. They were able to get pressure on Brady using 3-4 players; so, they could cover our receivers.

    McD, if anyone, failed to have a backup plan - and incorporate plays that worked during the first half.  So, I wouldn't really consider it a white elephant in the room kind of a problem.

    [/QUOTE]

    Gronk's versatility really helps.  It's that combo of great blocking and great receiving skills.  I think that's the problem with the other TEs.  They are not as good at either and especially not as effective as receivers. 

    Gronk's value to this team gets more and more clear as we watch games when he's out (Super Bowl, Miami, 49ers).  

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

    Re: Is the elephant in the room . . .

    Getting Gronk back and playing at a high level is key to this postseason. better run blocking and he will beat man to man coverage with Brady.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Is the elephant in the room . . .

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    . . . The offensive line? Yes, it's a good one and Scarnecchia does a great job developing players and coaching the unit.  But against the best defensive fronts it seems to look very pedestrian. Worse it forces the Pats into a one-dimensional offense. They can't run effectively and they can't throw deep. All they can do is rely on Brady's quick decision-making in the short passing game. Despite the low QB rating, I thought Brady was excellent last night. But when there's only one thing that works and it requires constant excellence from the QB and receivers, you run the risk of stalling out on key drives.

    I've always thought the offensive line looks better than it really is because of Brady's  quick and accurate decision-making. I wonder now if it's really a more of a weakness than we tend to think, which will continue to haunt this team against great fronts like the 49er's and the Giants'.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I strongly disagree with this.  The oline, in fact, is one of the main reasons the pats are so successful.  I don't buy that Brady gets rid of the ball quickly.  I just have never seen it unless it is a timing route.  NE's offense seems much more read and react which means routes take longer to develop. 

    Brady usually has as much time and as much distance between himself and defenders as any QB in the league.  Have Brady come to indy.  He'd give up football.

    [/QUOTE]

    UD, re-watch the film . . . the O-line wasn't winning their battles last night.  And Brady was throwing very quickly on most plays other than those when the 49ers rushed just three. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Prolate, I am not saying you are wrong specific to last night's game.  Your post was more general to "good fronts" than just last night's game.  historically Brady has had plenty of time to throw the ball over his career (imo), seemingly more than other QB's.  Pezz threw out some stats, but not from where they came.  I've seen other stats that suggest Brady has longer to throw. 

    But to discuss further, wouldn't you normally expect even a good Oline to "fail" more frequently against a good defensive front?  I would.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from laurienyc13. Show laurienyc13's posts

    Re: Is the elephant in the room . . .

    Thanks Rock skully for your insight! I agree with every word you said. I am trying to teach my son football and had a tough time explaining some of the calls. pissed me off!!!! 

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

    Re: Is the elephant in the room . . .

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    . . . The offensive line? Yes, it's a good one and Scarnecchia does a great job developing players and coaching the unit.  But against the best defensive fronts it seems to look very pedestrian. Worse it forces the Pats into a one-dimensional offense. They can't run effectively and they can't throw deep. All they can do is rely on Brady's quick decision-making in the short passing game. Despite the low QB rating, I thought Brady was excellent last night. But when there's only one thing that works and it requires constant excellence from the QB and receivers, you run the risk of stalling out on key drives.

    I've always thought the offensive line looks better than it really is because of Brady's  quick and accurate decision-making. I wonder now if it's really a more of a weakness than we tend to think, which will continue to haunt this team against great fronts like the 49er's and the Giants'.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I strongly disagree with this.  The oline, in fact, is one of the main reasons the pats are so successful.  I don't buy that Brady gets rid of the ball quickly.  I just have never seen it unless it is a timing route.  NE's offense seems much more read and react which means routes take longer to develop. 

    Brady usually has as much time and as much distance between himself and defenders as any QB in the league.  Have Brady come to indy.  He'd give up football.

    [/QUOTE]

    UD, re-watch the film . . . the O-line wasn't winning their battles last night.  And Brady was throwing very quickly on most plays other than those when the 49ers rushed just three. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Prolate, I am not saying you are wrong specific to last night's game.  Your post was more general to "good fronts" than just last night's game.  historically Brady has had plenty of time to throw the ball over his career (imo), seemingly more than other QB's.  Pezz threw out some stats, but not from where they came.  I've seen other stats that suggest Brady has longer to throw. 

    But to discuss further, wouldn't you normally expect even a good Oline to "fail" more frequently against a good defensive front?  I would.

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, of course any o-line (good or bad) is going to perform worse against a good defensive front than against a weak one.  But I've always had a sense that the Pats' O line generally performs well because of the scheme, good coaching of the unit collectively, and the QB.   What I'm not sure about is whether the line has the raw talent to win one-on-one battles against the best defenders.  

    It's also a line that tends to get injured and wear down every season.  We've had dinged up lines every postseason it seems.  That may be the problem as much as anything.  

     

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

    Re: Is the elephant in the room . . .

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Are you serious here? Brady threw 65 times and was barely touched after the first qtr.  I though the O Line actually dominated arguably the best front 7 in football from the 2nd qtr on.

    The bottom line is this:

    NE gave away drives to a very good team by turning it over. You turn it over, you lose. They lost because they were sloppier than SF.  The refs also helped SF by completely botching what would have been a momentum swinging play in Ginn's fumble.  I still cannot believe there isn't more of an uproar over that and the great Hightower strip on their RB earlier.  All of a sudden they can change the rules during games now?  It's ureal. I watch football all day on Sunday and don't see things remotely close to botched calls like that.  PI will always be questionable, but stuff like that is unacceptable. It had an effect.

    As for the D, it was actually very good in this game. Gore had 21 carries and 83 yards, total.  Take out a couple of plays they gave up over the top and they played pretty well.  I am still not impressed with Kapernick. He's nothing without great field position and a good run game to protect him.  They won't win the SB with that.

    The 49ers forced 4 turnovers and their drives started on the NE 5, 34, 3 and 27. That was your ballgame right there. They also had a fake punt that landed them inside the NE 40 yard line. They also returned a kickoff to the NE 38.

    Good News:


    49ers were just 5-14 (36%) on 3rd down.

    The elephant in the room is awkward officiating that continues to haunt Goodell's league. Is it that difficult to not be a moron while officiating games?  It's creepy. It was creepy in Baltimore and it was creepy last night. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Clearly you are delusional...the defense played very good in this game?? You got to be kidding me. They let a rookie QB score 41 points on them...at home..in a very big game. If the defense plays like that in the playoffs it will be over. You can't discount balls over people's heads, it's part of the game and you can't let that happen. This was a major failure from the defensive side of things. There was no pass rush what so ever and it killed us - the dagger was the all out blitz in the fourth that didn't get there, leaving their QB to complete a routine pass in Arrington's direction for a touchdown. Game...set..match. Over.

    Listening to the big show today and not one of those homers thought this team played anything close to well on defense...because they didn't. These are guys that were going to be interviewing Wilfork in minutes...then Belichick.

    It was a team loss, but when your offense puts up 31 points against the best defense in the league.....trust me, your defense didn't play very well. 

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Is the elephant in the room . . .

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    . . . The offensive line? Yes, it's a good one and Scarnecchia does a great job developing players and coaching the unit.  But against the best defensive fronts it seems to look very pedestrian. Worse it forces the Pats into a one-dimensional offense. They can't run effectively and they can't throw deep. All they can do is rely on Brady's quick decision-making in the short passing game. Despite the low QB rating, I thought Brady was excellent last night. But when there's only one thing that works and it requires constant excellence from the QB and receivers, you run the risk of stalling out on key drives.

    I've always thought the offensive line looks better than it really is because of Brady's  quick and accurate decision-making. I wonder now if it's really a more of a weakness than we tend to think, which will continue to haunt this team against great fronts like the 49er's and the Giants'.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I strongly disagree with this.  The oline, in fact, is one of the main reasons the pats are so successful.  I don't buy that Brady gets rid of the ball quickly.  I just have never seen it unless it is a timing route.  NE's offense seems much more read and react which means routes take longer to develop. 

    Brady usually has as much time and as much distance between himself and defenders as any QB in the league.  Have Brady come to indy.  He'd give up football.

    [/QUOTE]

    UD, re-watch the film . . . the O-line wasn't winning their battles last night.  And Brady was throwing very quickly on most plays other than those when the 49ers rushed just three. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Prolate, I am not saying you are wrong specific to last night's game.  Your post was more general to "good fronts" than just last night's game.  historically Brady has had plenty of time to throw the ball over his career (imo), seemingly more than other QB's.  Pezz threw out some stats, but not from where they came.  I've seen other stats that suggest Brady has longer to throw. 

    But to discuss further, wouldn't you normally expect even a good Oline to "fail" more frequently against a good defensive front?  I would.

    [/QUOTE]


    Oh, doggy, did u think I just made them up?   (sorry not rusty)  PFF Premium Statistics is the source.

    Another interesting stat is that TB is nearly 20% more accurate when throwing in under 2.5 seconds as apposed to over 2.5.

    Another interesting stat is that Luck has the  3.39 sec to sack and TB has 3.26 sec to sack which indicates the clots O-line holds slightly longer.  Also Luck holds onto the ball the 3rd longest of QB at a rate of 59.3%  of throws held longer than 2.5 secs.  Only 40% of TB's are over 2.5.

    The quicker the QB gets rid of the ball, the easier it is for the O-line.  It does not mean the o-line is good, it just means their job is easier.

    The problem arises when the QB cannot get rid of the ball quickly because every one is covered while the D only sending 3 or 4, is breathing down his neck.

    In that case TB can't cover up any defeciencies, which is why the o-line fails.

    Luckily not all teams can do this but it seems more and more can as teams strive to achieve that elite front 4.  It helps to have a GRONK.

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

    Re: Is the elephant in the room . . .

    I think Brady gets rid of the ball quickly, by design.  The Pats are dink and dunk, nothing downfield or routes that take a while to develop. 

     

    I'd be curious to see where the Pats rank in Yards per Catch, minus the RAC.  I bet it's one of the lowest in the NFL.  

     

    It works ok, but if we had a deep threat WR, with the rest of this offense, we'd be unstoppable. 

     

     

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

    Re: Is the elephant in the room . . .

    you drunk ????   3 sacks in 10,000 PASSES !!!

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Is the elephant in the room . . .

    In response to auchhhhhhhhhhh's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    you drunk ????   3 sacks in 10,000 PASSES !!!

    [/QUOTE]


    How many hurries and hits?  9,960?

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

    Re: Is the elephant in the room . . .

    Brady was getting decked on nearly every play.  The guy is made of iron.

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

    Re: Is the elephant in the room . . .

    It's tough to rate it. 

    Without a healthy Gronkowski you always run that risk. 

    He is the running game and passing game in some ways.

    Really an exceptional talent, and even though they can still victimize some teams pretty efficiently without him, other times it's a different thing entirely. 

    You can take Hern out for a blocker, run 2TE with a scrub who can't catch or block as well as Gronk, or leave Hern in in 11 package. Any way you slice those options, it isn't going to be as effective against a defense like the 49ers. 

    That said ... mistakes, bad luck, poor execution ... those were the major difference. Take back 1 or two turnovers (Ridley's senseless fumble, the INT that bounced right into Smith's hands) and one or two of the huge blown coverages and it's a win. Shoot, take back any two of the terrible special teams plays and it's a win. 

    I like the Pats' chance down the road playing better, more error free, football WITH a healthy Gronkowski in there as the best combo TE I've ever seen play the game. 

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

    Re: Is the elephant in the room . . .

    The Patriots put up 31 points against the NFL's top rated defense..this along with 4 turnovers...the o line is not a problem.

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

    Re: Is the elephant in the room . . .

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    It's tough to rate it. 

    Without a healthy Gronkowski you always run that risk. 

    He is the running game and passing game in some ways.

    Really an exceptional talent, and even though they can still victimize some teams pretty efficiently without him, other times it's a different thing entirely. 

    You can take Hern out for a blocker, run 2TE with a scrub who can't catch or block as well as Gronk, or leave Hern in in 11 package. Any way you slice those options, it isn't going to be as effective against a defense like the 49ers. 

    That said ... mistakes, bad luck, poor execution ... those were the major difference. Take back 1 or two turnovers (Ridley's senseless fumble, the INT that bounced right into Smith's hands) and one or two of the huge blown coverages and it's a win. Shoot, take back any two of the terrible special teams plays and it's a win. 

    I like the Pats' chance down the road playing better, more error free, football WITH a healthy Gronkowski in there as the best combo TE I've ever seen play the game. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Pray for no more significant injuries....l

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Is the elephant in the room . . .

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    . . . The offensive line? Yes, it's a good one and Scarnecchia does a great job developing players and coaching the unit.  But against the best defensive fronts it seems to look very pedestrian. Worse it forces the Pats into a one-dimensional offense. They can't run effectively and they can't throw deep. All they can do is rely on Brady's quick decision-making in the short passing game. Despite the low QB rating, I thought Brady was excellent last night. But when there's only one thing that works and it requires constant excellence from the QB and receivers, you run the risk of stalling out on key drives.

    I've always thought the offensive line looks better than it really is because of Brady's  quick and accurate decision-making. I wonder now if it's really a more of a weakness than we tend to think, which will continue to haunt this team against great fronts like the 49er's and the Giants'.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I strongly disagree with this.  The oline, in fact, is one of the main reasons the pats are so successful.  I don't buy that Brady gets rid of the ball quickly.  I just have never seen it unless it is a timing route.  NE's offense seems much more read and react which means routes take longer to develop. 

    Brady usually has as much time and as much distance between himself and defenders as any QB in the league.  Have Brady come to indy.  He'd give up football.

    [/QUOTE]

    UD, re-watch the film . . . the O-line wasn't winning their battles last night.  And Brady was throwing very quickly on most plays other than those when the 49ers rushed just three. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Prolate, I am not saying you are wrong specific to last night's game.  Your post was more general to "good fronts" than just last night's game.  historically Brady has had plenty of time to throw the ball over his career (imo), seemingly more than other QB's.  Pezz threw out some stats, but not from where they came.  I've seen other stats that suggest Brady has longer to throw. 

    But to discuss further, wouldn't you normally expect even a good Oline to "fail" more frequently against a good defensive front?  I would.

    [/QUOTE]


    Oh, doggy, did u think I just made them up?   (sorry not rusty)  PFF Premium Statistics is the source.

    Another interesting stat is that TB is nearly 20% more accurate when throwing in under 2.5 seconds as apposed to over 2.5.

    Another interesting stat is that Luck has the  3.39 sec to sack and TB has 3.26 sec to sack which indicates the clots O-line holds slightly longer.  Also Luck holds onto the ball the 3rd longest of QB at a rate of 59.3%  of throws held longer than 2.5 secs.  Only 40% of TB's are over 2.5.

    The quicker the QB gets rid of the ball, the easier it is for the O-line.  It does not mean the o-line is good, it just means their job is easier.

    The problem arises when the QB cannot get rid of the ball quickly because every one is covered while the D only sending 3 or 4, is breathing down his neck.

    In that case TB can't cover up any defeciencies, which is why the o-line fails.

    Luckily not all teams can do this but it seems more and more can as teams strive to achieve that elite front 4.  It helps to have a GRONK.

    [/QUOTE]

    Not at all Pezz, you just didn't say where they came from. 

    As for the stats -

    1.  the stats I've seen are older.  Couldn't find any for this year and I am not really sure they really tell how long a QB holds the ball or whether or not the QB is pressured.  For example, the seconds to sack can be misleading, particularly in Luck and Brady's case.  Luck has had to move alot this year due to poor protection.  Still the d is frequently able to chase him down.  On the ohter hand, Brady barely moves except for small slides.  When he gets sacked is because of a true breakdown which is rare.

    2. further the stat says nothing about the long times holding the ball when a sack doesn't occur.  As I watched, I thought Brady had a ton of time to throw the ball last night with the exception of the last two series.  most of his throws, however, were quick throws - probably under 10 yds. 

    3.  As for your comment about accuracy on quick throws, seems to me that has to do more with quick short throws vs. longer throws.  Not interesting at all, imo.  Its what I would expect.

    Regardless, it has been my observation that Brady typically has more time to throw without pressure than the colts qb's or most qbs I've watched.   

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Is the elephant in the room . . .

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    . . . The offensive line? Yes, it's a good one and Scarnecchia does a great job developing players and coaching the unit.  But against the best defensive fronts it seems to look very pedestrian. Worse it forces the Pats into a one-dimensional offense. They can't run effectively and they can't throw deep. All they can do is rely on Brady's quick decision-making in the short passing game. Despite the low QB rating, I thought Brady was excellent last night. But when there's only one thing that works and it requires constant excellence from the QB and receivers, you run the risk of stalling out on key drives.

    I've always thought the offensive line looks better than it really is because of Brady's  quick and accurate decision-making. I wonder now if it's really a more of a weakness than we tend to think, which will continue to haunt this team against great fronts like the 49er's and the Giants'.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I strongly disagree with this.  The oline, in fact, is one of the main reasons the pats are so successful.  I don't buy that Brady gets rid of the ball quickly.  I just have never seen it unless it is a timing route.  NE's offense seems much more read and react which means routes take longer to develop. 

    Brady usually has as much time and as much distance between himself and defenders as any QB in the league.  Have Brady come to indy.  He'd give up football.

    [/QUOTE]

    UD, re-watch the film . . . the O-line wasn't winning their battles last night.  And Brady was throwing very quickly on most plays other than those when the 49ers rushed just three. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Prolate, I am not saying you are wrong specific to last night's game.  Your post was more general to "good fronts" than just last night's game.  historically Brady has had plenty of time to throw the ball over his career (imo), seemingly more than other QB's.  Pezz threw out some stats, but not from where they came.  I've seen other stats that suggest Brady has longer to throw. 

    But to discuss further, wouldn't you normally expect even a good Oline to "fail" more frequently against a good defensive front?  I would.

    [/QUOTE]


    Oh, doggy, did u think I just made them up?   (sorry not rusty)  PFF Premium Statistics is the source.

    Another interesting stat is that TB is nearly 20% more accurate when throwing in under 2.5 seconds as apposed to over 2.5.

    Another interesting stat is that Luck has the  3.39 sec to sack and TB has 3.26 sec to sack which indicates the clots O-line holds slightly longer.  Also Luck holds onto the ball the 3rd longest of QB at a rate of 59.3%  of throws held longer than 2.5 secs.  Only 40% of TB's are over 2.5.

    The quicker the QB gets rid of the ball, the easier it is for the O-line.  It does not mean the o-line is good, it just means their job is easier.

    The problem arises when the QB cannot get rid of the ball quickly because every one is covered while the D only sending 3 or 4, is breathing down his neck.

    In that case TB can't cover up any defeciencies, which is why the o-line fails.

    Luckily not all teams can do this but it seems more and more can as teams strive to achieve that elite front 4.  It helps to have a GRONK.

    [/QUOTE]

    Not at all Pezz, you just didn't say where they came from. 

    As for the stats -

    1.  the stats I've seen are older.  Couldn't find any for this year and I am not really sure they really tell how long a QB holds the ball or whether or not the QB is pressured.  For example, the seconds to sack can be misleading, particularly in Luck and Brady's case.  Luck has had to move alot this year due to poor protection.  Still the d is frequently able to chase him down.  On the ohter hand, Brady barely moves except for small slides.  When he gets sacked is because of a true breakdown which is rare.

    2. further the stat says nothing about the long times holding the ball when a sack doesn't occur.  As I watched, I thought Brady had a ton of time to throw the ball last night with the exception of the last two series.  most of his throws, however, were quick throws - probably under 10 yds. 

    3.  As for your comment about accuracy on quick throws, seems to me that has to do more with quick short throws vs. longer throws.  Not interesting at all, imo.  Its what I would expect.

    Regardless, it has been my observation that Brady typically has more time to throw without pressure than the colts qb's or most qbs I've watched.   

    [/QUOTE]


    The stats are calculated as followed and are updated 36 hours after the completion of the last game weekly;

    The best place to start is which quarterback has the longest time to throw. Now to explain what ‘time to throw’ is, we record the time from when the ball is snapped to the point where the quarterback has either thrown a pass or can no longer throw a pass (has been sacked or has scrambled past the line of scrimmage). While logic would say that Michael Vick would be the one holding onto the ball the longest, it’s actually rookie Russell Wilson who leads the way in this regard with Vick second (though the difference is negligible). Meanwhile, nobody takes less time to throw than Tom Brady who has a marginally lower mark than Matt Hasselbeck.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Is the elephant in the room . . .


    Oh, doggy, did u think I just made them up?   (sorry not rusty)  PFF Premium Statistics is the source.

    Another interesting stat is that TB is nearly 20% more accurate when throwing in under 2.5 seconds as apposed to over 2.5.

    Another interesting stat is that Luck has the  3.39 sec to sack and TB has 3.26 sec to sack which indicates the clots O-line holds slightly longer.  Also Luck holds onto the ball the 3rd longest of QB at a rate of 59.3%  of throws held longer than 2.5 secs.  Only 40% of TB's are over 2.5.

    The quicker the QB gets rid of the ball, the easier it is for the O-line.  It does not mean the o-line is good, it just means their job is easier.

    The problem arises when the QB cannot get rid of the ball quickly because every one is covered while the D only sending 3 or 4, is breathing down his neck.

    In that case TB can't cover up any defeciencies, which is why the o-line fails.

    Luckily not all teams can do this but it seems more and more can as teams strive to achieve that elite front 4.  It helps to have a GRONK.

    [/QUOTE]

    Not at all Pezz, you just didn't say where they came from. 

    As for the stats -

    1.  the stats I've seen are older.  Couldn't find any for this year and I am not really sure they really tell how long a QB holds the ball or whether or not the QB is pressured.  For example, the seconds to sack can be misleading, particularly in Luck and Brady's case.  Luck has had to move alot this year due to poor protection.  Still the d is frequently able to chase him down.  On the ohter hand, Brady barely moves except for small slides.  When he gets sacked is because of a true breakdown which is rare.

    2. further the stat says nothing about the long times holding the ball when a sack doesn't occur.  As I watched, I thought Brady had a ton of time to throw the ball last night with the exception of the last two series.  most of his throws, however, were quick throws - probably under 10 yds. 

    3.  As for your comment about accuracy on quick throws, seems to me that has to do more with quick short throws vs. longer throws.  Not interesting at all, imo.  Its what I would expect.

    Regardless, it has been my observation that Brady typically has more time to throw without pressure than the colts qb's or most qbs I've watched.   

    [/QUOTE]


    The stats are calculated as followed and are updated 36 hours after the completion of the last game weekly;

    The best place to start is which quarterback has the longest time to throw. Now to explain what ‘time to throw’ is, we record the time from when the ball is snapped to the point where the quarterback has either thrown a pass or can no longer throw a pass (has been sacked or has scrambled past the line of scrimmage). While logic would say that Michael Vick would be the one holding onto the ball the longest, it’s actually rookie Russell Wilson who leads the way in this regard with Vick second (though the difference is negligible). Meanwhile, nobody takes less time to throw than Tom Brady who has a marginally lower mark than Matt Hasselbeck.

    [/QUOTE]

    http://www.aolnews.com/2010/11/11/o-line-em-up-which-qbs-are-holding-the-ball-too-long/

    https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2012/11/07/signature-stat-snapshot-time-to-throw/

     

    The second link, I believe, is the one you cite.  The second table more closely aligns to my thinking.  Brady has time to throw. 

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Is the elephant in the room . . .

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Are you serious here? Brady threw 65 times and was barely touched after the first qtr.  I though the O Line actually dominated arguably the best front 7 in football from the 2nd qtr on.

    The bottom line is this:

    NE gave away drives to a very good team by turning it over. You turn it over, you lose. They lost because they were sloppier than SF.  The refs also helped SF by completely botching what would have been a momentum swinging play in Ginn's fumble.  I still cannot believe there isn't more of an uproar over that and the great Hightower strip on their RB earlier.  All of a sudden they can change the rules during games now?  It's ureal. I watch football all day on Sunday and don't see things remotely close to botched calls like that.  PI will always be questionable, but stuff like that is unacceptable. It had an effect.

    As for the D, it was actually very good in this game. Gore had 21 carries and 83 yards, total.  Take out a couple of plays they gave up over the top and they played pretty well.  I am still not impressed with Kapernick. He's nothing without great field position and a good run game to protect him.  They won't win the SB with that.

    The 49ers forced 4 turnovers and their drives started on the NE 5, 34, 3 and 27. That was your ballgame right there. They also had a fake punt that landed them inside the NE 40 yard line. They also returned a kickoff to the NE 38.

    Good News:


    49ers were just 5-14 (36%) on 3rd down.

    The elephant in the room is awkward officiating that continues to haunt Goodell's league. Is it that difficult to not be a moron while officiating games?  It's creepy. It was creepy in Baltimore and it was creepy last night. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Clearly you are delusional...the defense played very good in this game?? You got to be kidding me. They let a rookie QB score 41 points on them...at home..in a very big game. If the defense plays like that in the playoffs it will be over. You can't discount balls over people's heads, it's part of the game and you can't let that happen. This was a major failure from the defensive side of things. There was no pass rush what so ever and it killed us - the dagger was the all out blitz in the fourth that didn't get there, leaving their QB to complete a routine pass in Arrington's direction for a touchdown. Game...set..match. Over.

    Listening to the big show today and not one of those homers thought this team played anything close to well on defense...because they didn't. These are guys that were going to be interviewing Wilfork in minutes...then Belichick.

    It was a team loss, but when your offense puts up 31 points against the best defense in the league.....trust me, your defense didn't play very well. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Umm, NE had FIVE turnovers in the first half, yet you think that doesn't have anything to do with the 41 points? Brady almost 3 a third pick to Whitner at one point as well.

    Just how dumb are you?  My god. 

    When your offense spots the other team 31 points because their drives started no worse than NE's 27 yard line in the first half with NE's D on the field at an alarming rate over and over and over, trust everyone else with a brain, the offense played only 30 minutes off football, AT BEST.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Why do you keep telling the same lie, over and over.  IT was 4 turn overs.  Produce the stats that say 5 or S T F U.  Also the Pats D let up most of the points in the second half where TO's were NOT a factor.  They were also on the field much, much less in the second half where NE's O controlled the ball for the most part.  The exact TOP for the game was only a 26 second difference.  So stop AGAIN with the lies.  The killers were the 4 TD's they gave up  which were all on completions of over 27 except one with only one being in the RZ.

    Too bad the D could only convert one of the Niners 6 fumbles and only come up with one pick.  EH?  If you're too dumb to figure it out 7>4. and the niners had 3 x's the fumbles, so I guess their O played worse or the Pat's D did.   Which is it?  Not hard to figure that one out

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Is the elephant in the room . . .

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Oh, doggy, did u think I just made them up?   (sorry not rusty)  PFF Premium Statistics is the source.

    Another interesting stat is that TB is nearly 20% more accurate when throwing in under 2.5 seconds as apposed to over 2.5.

    Another interesting stat is that Luck has the  3.39 sec to sack and TB has 3.26 sec to sack which indicates the clots O-line holds slightly longer.  Also Luck holds onto the ball the 3rd longest of QB at a rate of 59.3%  of throws held longer than 2.5 secs.  Only 40% of TB's are over 2.5.

    The quicker the QB gets rid of the ball, the easier it is for the O-line.  It does not mean the o-line is good, it just means their job is easier.

    The problem arises when the QB cannot get rid of the ball quickly because every one is covered while the D only sending 3 or 4, is breathing down his neck.

    In that case TB can't cover up any defeciencies, which is why the o-line fails.

    Luckily not all teams can do this but it seems more and more can as teams strive to achieve that elite front 4.  It helps to have a GRONK.

    [/QUOTE]

    Not at all Pezz, you just didn't say where they came from. 

    As for the stats -

    1.  the stats I've seen are older.  Couldn't find any for this year and I am not really sure they really tell how long a QB holds the ball or whether or not the QB is pressured.  For example, the seconds to sack can be misleading, particularly in Luck and Brady's case.  Luck has had to move alot this year due to poor protection.  Still the d is frequently able to chase him down.  On the ohter hand, Brady barely moves except for small slides.  When he gets sacked is because of a true breakdown which is rare.

    2. further the stat says nothing about the long times holding the ball when a sack doesn't occur.  As I watched, I thought Brady had a ton of time to throw the ball last night with the exception of the last two series.  most of his throws, however, were quick throws - probably under 10 yds. 

    3.  As for your comment about accuracy on quick throws, seems to me that has to do more with quick short throws vs. longer throws.  Not interesting at all, imo.  Its what I would expect.

    Regardless, it has been my observation that Brady typically has more time to throw without pressure than the colts qb's or most qbs I've watched.   

    [/QUOTE]


    The stats are calculated as followed and are updated 36 hours after the completion of the last game weekly;

    The best place to start is which quarterback has the longest time to throw. Now to explain what ‘time to throw’ is, we record the time from when the ball is snapped to the point where the quarterback has either thrown a pass or can no longer throw a pass (has been sacked or has scrambled past the line of scrimmage). While logic would say that Michael Vick would be the one holding onto the ball the longest, it’s actually rookie Russell Wilson who leads the way in this regard with Vick second (though the difference is negligible). Meanwhile, nobody takes less time to throw than Tom Brady who has a marginally lower mark than Matt Hasselbeck.

    [/QUOTE]

    http://www.aolnews.com/2010/11/11/o-line-em-up-which-qbs-are-holding-the-ball-too-long/

    https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2012/11/07/signature-stat-snapshot-time-to-throw/

     

    The second link, I believe, is the one you cite.  The second table more closely aligns to my thinking.  Brady has time to throw. 

    [/QUOTE]


    He is ranked 16th with time to throw , middle of the pack, but Luck has more, so your premise that TB would quit FB if he had that O-line, doesn't hold water.  In fact with the quickest throw of all NFL qb's, he would make that Colt's line appear better.

    Also TB is 5th in throws over 20, so there not all dink and dunk.  His accuracy does suffer though which is to be expected as all QB's do, but he's still getting them out faster than any one.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from bredbru. Show bredbru's posts

    Re: Is the elephant in the room . . .

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    . . . The offensive line? Yes, it's a good one and Scarnecchia does a great job developing players and coaching the unit.  But against the best defensive fronts it seems to look very pedestrian. Worse it forces the Pats into a one-dimensional offense. They can't run effectively and they can't throw deep. All they can do is rely on Brady's quick decision-making in the short passing game. Despite the low QB rating, I thought Brady was excellent last night. But when there's only one thing that works and it requires constant excellence from the QB and receivers, you run the risk of stalling out on key drives.

    I've always thought the offensive line looks better than it really is because of Brady's  quick and accurate decision-making. I wonder now if it's really a more of a weakness than we tend to think, which will continue to haunt this team against great fronts like the 49er's and the Giants'.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    "They can't run effectively and they can't throw deep. All they can do is rely on Brady's quick decision-making in the short passing game."

    pro, you absolutely right, its a limiting factor of the offense. i have been saying this all year and writing about getting o line help in the draft  a better line (and an outside wr who can separate) would allow this offense to produce to its max ..... and be too much for any defense

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from bredbru. Show bredbru's posts

    Re: Is the elephant in the room . . .

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    . . . The offensive line? Yes, it's a good one and Scarnecchia does a great job developing players and coaching the unit.  But against the best defensive fronts it seems to look very pedestrian. Worse it forces the Pats into a one-dimensional offense. They can't run effectively and they can't throw deep. All they can do is rely on Brady's quick decision-making in the short passing game. Despite the low QB rating, I thought Brady was excellent last night. But when there's only one thing that works and it requires constant excellence from the QB and receivers, you run the risk of stalling out on key drives.

    I've always thought the offensive line looks better than it really is because of Brady's  quick and accurate decision-making. I wonder now if it's really a more of a weakness than we tend to think, which will continue to haunt this team against great fronts like the 49er's and the Giants'.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Same problems, different year.

     

    Anyone that thinks that game was close was watching through rose colored glasses. The 49ers kicked the Pats butts all over the field. The Pats did not beat themselves, the 49ers forced the mistakes with better play.

     

    The only reason the Pats came back is because Harbaugh was channeling his inner Belichick and sitting on the big lead and being conservative and trying to work clock. Trying to make the Pats go the length of the field and not give up quick strikes. (Not unlike other years of Belichick/Pats vs Manning) It's always dangerous to give Brady or Manning breathing room, or most good QB's for that matter. The moment the 49er D needed to switch back to attack mode and rise up they dropped Brady for two quick sacks like it was childs play.

     

    Brady and the O can thank Harbaugh and his philosophy change during the game for their ability to accomplish much of anything. Three years in a row now Brady and that "prolific" offense has been stymied by a big physical athletic healthy defense. Zero run game when needed. Not impressed.

     

    Defense was not much better. Although they were put in many horrible positions because of Brady/the offenses turnovers they still had communication troubles in the back end a few times leading to big plays. As well as missed big plays given up. The score should not have even been close. How many missed snaps exchanges did Kap have? Missed field goal? Over throw to wide open Vernon Davis in the end zone? The D had zero answers for stopping Gore straight up the gut over guard when 49ers ran it out of the pistol formation. Etc.

     

    Pats got a beat down and wasn't their night from the start. Closeness of the score was not indicative of the game.

    [/QUOTE]

    "Brady and the O can thank Harbaugh and his philosophy change during the game for their ability to accomplish much of anything. Three years in a row now Brady and that "prolific" offense has been stymied by a big physical athletic healthy defense. Zero run game when needed. Not impressed."

    low, stating this on bc has gotten me crucified by casual football fans who attack anyone who says anythign other than we will go 16 adn 0 and win teh sb.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share