The Real Reasons We Lost

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

    Re: The Real Reasons We Lost

    I haven't seen the game on film at all--so it's possible that Brady had some targets he missed.  From what I could see in the stands, though, receivers looked very well covered.  I saw a few instances where a RB (either Woodhead or BJGE) was open early in the play, but by the time Brady got to his checkdowns they were covered.  Brady did seem frustrated at times during the game, but honestly, I think that came from so many of his options being closed to him.  The sensible thing to do would have been to have taken some of the pressure off Brady and tried something a bit different by running the ball. I think the Pats (O'Brien, maybe even BB) get sucked into thinking they can win every game on Brady's arm.  All season, I've gotten nervous when they go to the shotgun spread offense. Too often the offense stalls.  Early in the season they were doing that a lot. Late in the season they got away from that, using more tight formations with BJGE in the backfield, and the offense was fabulous.  For some reason they went back to the old spread/shotgun formations in this game and the offense looked bad again.   The Pats need to mix it up a bit.  They have a great short passing game, but if that's all they rely on, a good defense can key on it and shut them down.  
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rockdog1293000. Show Rockdog1293000's posts

    Re: The Real Reasons We Lost

    Maybe there's something to these high profile and pass reliant O's getting shut down by physical D's. I'm talking about the Rams in '01, the Pats in '07, Raiders in '02, and Pats this year. Maybe relying on the QB too much is not a winning formula to win in the playoffs?

    That said, the pats showed a pretty balanced team all year so it's curious that they would suddenly through a dud of a gameplan out there. Also, they did run the ball a ton (even when they should've been passing if you can read BB's lips in the 4th quarter). You could argue they should've went up tempo earlier to combat the jets trying to shorten the game.

    Either way this loss is awful, and a ton of blame lies at TB's feet for not performing and the coaching staff for being unprepared for a zone D. Just awful. they deserve to be home.

    In Response to Re: The Real Reasons We Lost:
    [QUOTE]I haven't seen the game on film at all--so it's possible that Brady had some targets he missed.  From what I could see in the stands, though, receivers looked very well covered.  I saw a few instances where a RB (either Woodhead or BJGE) was open early in the play, but by the time Brady got to his checkdowns they were covered.  Brady did seem frustrated at times during the game, but honestly, I think that came from so many of his options being closed to him.  The sensible thing to do would have been to have taken some of the pressure off Brady and tried something a bit different by running the ball. I think the Pats (O'Brien, maybe even BB) get sucked into thinking they can win every game on Brady's arm.  All season, I've gotten nervous when they go to the shotgun spread offense. Too often the offense stalls.  Early in the season they were doing that a lot. Late in the season they got away from that, using more tight formations with BJGE in the backfield, and the offense was fabulous.  For some reason they went back to the old spread/shotgun formations in this game and the offense looked bad again.   The Pats need to mix it up a bit.  They have a great short passing game, but if that's all they rely on, a good defense can key on it and shut them down.  
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Dessalines. Show Dessalines's posts

    Re: The Real Reasons We Lost

    In Response to The Real Reasons We Lost:
    [QUOTE]Lots of silly stuff on the threads today about BB and Brady being washed up.  I was at the game and in my opinion there are three reasons the Pats lost: 1. The Jets LBs and DBs played great in pass coverage.  It wasn't Brady's fault yesterday.  There was no one open.  The Jets get credit for that.  And our receivers have to get some blame too. 2. We relied far too much on the shotgun and spread formations early in the game.  It was clear we wanted to pass.  The Jets defenders were ready for it.  And from the spread formations we had few alternatives except to pass.  We should have gone to a BJGE-heavy formation earlier--running the ball more, using play action more, and generally trying to keep the Jets defenders guessing whether we'd run or pass.  As it was, they were able to drop very quickly and confidently into coverage because it was way too obvious we were passing.  We were able to move the ball in the fourth quarter with Brady under center, but by then it was too late and the long drive ate time we didn't have.  I'm not sure going to a no huddle, hurry up offense would have worked in the fourth quarter.  The Jets were just too good in pass coverage last night.  3. Overall our D played well, I thought, but they were on the field too long and began to tire in the second half.  The real problem, though, was a few breakdowns in pass coverage.  In a close game, those can kill us.  Butler continues to be ineffective and the safeties weren't always in good position.  We need to address that.  A better pass rush (there was absolutely no pressure) would also help, of course, but ending the coverage breakdowns would have been enough last night.  One other point: we still lack a serious deep threat.  Our short/intermediate passing game is very good, but there's not a deep game to really stretch the field.  If we don't run the ball, we become very one-dimensional, attacking the field purely with short passes.  That's what happened last night on offense--if you defended short passes well, you could completely shut down our offense.  That's exactly what the Jets did. And this not only hurt our offense--it hurt our defense as well, because it forced them to spend way too much time on the field and therefore gave the Jets way too many chances to find a coverage breakdown in our defensive backfield.
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]


    I agree with this analysis 100% but I am not sure that lack of a deep threat was that much of a contributing factor though it would be nice to have that.  However, isn't that what Tate and Price are supposed to provide eventually?

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share