Of course, Belichick gave the offense 4 days to master a college-style scheme for Jacoby Brissett last year against the Texans.
I have come to believe that the difference between the Patriots and everybody else is not so much smarts or work ethic but discipline. They are committed to game planning at every level of the organization - scouting, player acquisition, cap allocation, training coaches, and coaching players.
The Steelers aren't stupid. Mike Tomlin and Keith Butler aren't stupid. They know Tom Brady carves up zone defenses. But they were playing two raw athlete rookies in the secondary (Artie Burns and Sean Davis) and a short-armed corner who can't press (Ross Cockrell). It's hard to game plan when you're relying on guys like that.
The Patriots commit to an ability to game-plan. They go for versatile players who can do many things over one-trick ponies who do one thing exceptionally well, they go for smart players who can pick up scheme, they go for tough players who can take tough coaching (a lot of teams give veterans Wednesdays off). Other teams may want to do what New England does, but then they really like this fast guy who can't pick up the playbook, or this big strong guy who doesn't study in the film room, and then they limit their options.
The Seahawks are fascinating because they have a similar organizational discipline but take a diametrically opposite approach - they say "we do what we do" so they can just grab crazy athletes and win on execution rather than game plan.
Put me on record as saying that ALL NFL coaches notice player injuries, and if/how to attack those injuries. The high school coaching staff I was on did the same damn thing, and not one of us would ever be in the same room as an NFL coach, nevermind actually be an NFL coach. It is silly to say that BB/Pats coaching staff is the only NFL staff that does this.
There are plenty of things that they do that put them above others, but that ain't one of them.
There are plenty of things that they do that put them above others, but that ain't one of them.
I think it would be interesting if they did these types of coaching breakdowns after every Super Bowl rather than just the two recent Patriots wins. That would provide better insight into what things all NFL teams do and what things the Patriots do particularly well. It would also shift the message from "here is why the Patriots are so much better than everyone else" (which as others have said is probably true in some cases but in other cases the show is highlighting things that 100% of NFL coaches would do) to "here is a look into the coaching that went into the most recent championship."
Of course, I have no idea if any other teams would be willing to provide the access to the various coaches that the Patriots do.
(It would also be interesting to get the opposing viewpoint - e.g., interviewing the Falcons coaches - but I can understand why a losing team would not want to do that.)
Of course, I have no idea if any other teams would be willing to provide the access to the various coaches that the Patriots do.
(It would also be interesting to get the opposing viewpoint - e.g., interviewing the Falcons coaches - but I can understand why a losing team would not want to do that.)
Pretty sure there was an NFL Films special on the Broncos, aside from the America's Game
Fair enough - probably just didn't focus on it since it wasn't Patriots related but I may check it out if still available somewhere.
Holy shit, this was very well done. It sucked whenever they went to the double box with a Giants Super Bowl game, but man... how lucky we've been as a fan base for the last 16 years. That was beautiful.
It's also amazing that the Tyree and Kearse catches both happened at pretty much the exact same point of the game.
Never underestimate the AFC North Manhood Syndrome. It's delusional but real. I've had a front-row seat for 21 years and counting. "We do what we do. We dictate. We dominate. We don't adjust. Other teams adjust to us."
It's a myth premised on the supposed moral superiority of rough-and-tough football. Everybody else is a pussy. Yes, the Steelers and Ravens loathe each other, but they also form a brotherhood. You'd think they are living breathing commercials for the USMC (but you'd be wrong because the Marines would be the first to tell you to adjust to the battlefield).
Why? Everybody needs an identity. This is ours. Run the ball and stop the run. Cold weather. Teams that mirror their towns. Mike Golic football.
Tomlin and Harbaugh have been around far too long to get sucked into this to any significant degree. You'd think. But you'd be wrong.
It's a myth premised on the supposed moral superiority of rough-and-tough football. Everybody else is a pussy. Yes, the Steelers and Ravens loathe each other, but they also form a brotherhood. You'd think they are living breathing commercials for the USMC (but you'd be wrong because the Marines would be the first to tell you to adjust to the battlefield).
Why? Everybody needs an identity. This is ours. Run the ball and stop the run. Cold weather. Teams that mirror their towns. Mike Golic football.
Tomlin and Harbaugh have been around far too long to get sucked into this to any significant degree. You'd think. But you'd be wrong.
I agree that there's likely a small gap between NFL coaching staffs, and DYJ and DYJ2 exaggerate that gap to create compelling TV. But it's interesting to compare the coaching staff to the staff of the Rams on Season 2 of "All or Nothing" on Amazon Prime. Yes, the Rams had a notoriously bad staff, and we are at the mercy of the editors, but it seemed like the only response the Rams staff had to adversity was to yell louder.
I still cannot believe the Falcons passed the ball on second down after the Jones catch.
Unbelievable.
Unbelievable.
Even on 3rd down. A 50 yarder for a top 5 FG kicker to all but ice the SB.
Shame.
I get the third down, which is not to say I agree with it. But the second down...Yikes. You have a 40 yard field goal---safe handoff play, safe handoff play, kick the near-certain clincher.
Or just call a deep drop pass to show Mike Martz how ballsy your passing game is.
Your call
Or just call a deep drop pass to show Mike Martz how ballsy your passing game is.
Your call
Patricia and indirectly BB said on "Do your Job" it is all percentages, Patricia even said, "I have been totally wrong too, but this time I was right."
I will give Atlanta benifit of the doubt, that they knew the game was in doubt and worried about there ability to run, and especially that they were unable to stop the Pats. SO the decision to pass had a lot to do with what the Pats were doing right.
I will give Atlanta benifit of the doubt, that they knew the game was in doubt and worried about there ability to run, and especially that they were unable to stop the Pats. SO the decision to pass had a lot to do with what the Pats were doing right.
A third down run for minimal gain followed by a FG miss gives Brady the ball in terrific field position.
Yes, a made FG there ends it most likely.
Yes, a made FG there ends it most likely.
I should have expanded my thoughts in my post. People say it was incredibly stupid for the Seahawks to pass, yet you can see Browner and Butler anticipating the pass. The Falcons were incredibly stupid to pass, yet the Patriots fully anticipated the pass and sold out on the pass.
Either those teams aren't that stupid, or the Pats are pretty smart. Or something. But it's not as simple as the Hawks and Falcons are dumb.
Either those teams aren't that stupid, or the Pats are pretty smart. Or something. But it's not as simple as the Hawks and Falcons are dumb.
The FS1 thing last night (Katie Nolan) was great. Had writers with their original game stories telling about how those changed as the games went on. Reairing tomorrow nite.
The way I look at it is that the Falcons got in that position through the air. They got the ball with six minutes left and a four-point lead and threw on first down - and picked up 39 yards. Then they threw on second down at midfield and hit Julio for 27 yards. Probably at that point, they should have stepped back and decided to play it safe, but they got themselves in that position by being aggressive and decided to continue in that vein. How many times have we seen a team turtle up with a lead and blow the game that way?
Also, the Patriots did a really effective job shutting down the run in the second half: -3, 5, 0, 9, -3, -1 (and a holding penalty), 8, 1, 2, -1. There were still four minutes left and NE had all three timeouts, so the clock wasn't as much of a factor as one would think. I can see why they felt passing was their best option to score more points.
Not really, though, in that game situation---not gaining anything in two runs was not a bad outcome for them. By far the best way to deal with Pats offense running rampant was to get the FG and go up 2 scores, not try to score a TD yourself. There's vastly more value in the first three incremental points than the next four.
In retrospect it was the wrong play obviously, but I can understand Atlanta's thinking. Atlanta had to believe the Pats were playing the run, so a first down on the pass maybe ends the game. It was a chance to be the "gutsy" coach and make an unorthodox play. Atl went with a highly unexpected play and the Pats were still ready.
My point this is more of an incredible, well thought out decision by the Pats to actually be ready for the completely unorthodox decision to throw. It is far more of a great play by the Pats than dumb move by the Falcons. Just my opinion.
Forty something yard field goals get missed. If you have a mismatch and a great play, a first down dramatically increases win percentage. Closer field goal, make Pats use time outs or clock. Touchdown dramatically adds to win percentage. Sack doesn't even take you out of FG range so the risk is even manageable on second and two. Plus you get a third down play. Sack holding? Yeah, that's bad. But it's not high on your list of things that might happen. The sit on it twice option is most obvious in hindsight without knowing what they thought they saw, how they handicapped their odds of converting, etc.
This comes up often in basketball (but without 45 seconds between each play to make it sound like rocket science it gets overlooked) and you may even rely on your point guard to make this decision. If an easy hoop in transition is available take it, be up five with 40 left rather kill clock and be up 3 with 20 left. Old school coaches would only take the breakaway, and if the other team hits a three to send it to OT or you miss FTS after they tie it with a 3 and lose, everybody absolves the coach. But what if in transition your best guy gets a 15 foot open look that is an 80% make? What if you are not very good at scoring in the half court, what if the other team is great of the o boards or has lots of 3 shooters? Many situations you take the risk of not just shooting the easy 15 footer, but simply attacking no matter what.
I probably wouldnt call a slow developing pass play there, but the OL execution (and to a lesser extent Ryan not getting rid of the ball although it would have been tough with the pressure coming two places very quickly) was a much bigger culprit than the play calls.
Now, why the Falcons were snapping the ball with 10-15 seconds left during the 4th quarter....no clue.
Now, why the Falcons were snapping the ball with 10-15 seconds left during the 4th quarter....no clue.
For me it is the same a predetermining that my chance of winning is only one way, defend a 3pt lead in hoops, or make field goal. ATL has to conclude a missed field goal is almost certainly a tie game with TB12 rolling and their D gassed.
A lot of this is just how much better the Pats were at that time of the game.
A lot of this is just how much better the Pats were at that time of the game.
That's what I came here to mention, you beat me to it (Bill saying he felt they had control of the game, though not the score). I think he said it at halftime after they looked at time of possession and other stuff besides just the score. I've heard him say this on places like the Jimmy Fallon show in New York, and in a couple of other scenarios. I think he really meant it. I mean, he obviously really meant it. Quinn, on the other hand, was riding high with the cheerleading type antics while his team was piling it up, but he he was like a guy folding up his tent in a rainstorm when it really started to go bad for his team. I'd rather the more even tempered coach, or, reason #1,000 I wouldn't trade him for anyone.
One of his comments post game said all you need to know about Quinn; when asked about what happened in the 4th quarter, his response was something to the effect of "I'm not sure, it was all a blur".............imagine Belichick ever saying something like that. Nope, never.
I was not a big critic of the Seahawks pass because I think there's good football logic to passing once there. But I don't agree wtih the above, at least as to the specific play called (which was my point).
What data are you looking at when you say a first down dramatically increases win percentage there? My assumption (and I thought I saw data post-SB on this, but cannot now find it) was that win expectancy is in the very high 90s if you just kicked the FG on second down, and if that's true the small risks of turnover/negative plays likely are not worth the small incremental benefit of a first down. Of course, the first down if you get it almost surely ends the game---but the risk something bad happens before you do are not clearly worth it given alternatives there. It's a math problem and someone may well have done the math, so I'll defer to whoever that might be!
Part of the risk of passing is they were missing a lineman and their passing down back, weren't they? I get passing the ball to get down the field, of course, that is all about keeping the ball from the Pats. I just suspect the pendulum swings back the other way once you are in field goal range and you are trading a very high probability two score lead that late for some risk of the extra time off the clock
The standard ESPN win probability chart had Atl 97.5% before the sack, 95.1% after, and 96.5% when the Pats took over after the punt. Theyd have been north of 99% if they kicked a FG and north of 99% if they made a 1st down. Scoring a TD has very limited incremental value over making a first down (especially because a TD on the pass play leaves the Pats with 3 TOs needing two possessions. Pats are close to dead either way, but down 15 with 3 TOs and 3:50 to go is probably better than being down 11 with 2:30-3:00 to go and no timeouts) Theyd have been somewhere in the high 80s if they ran twice and missed a FG and somewhere in the low 80s if they had turned the ball over on the play Ryan was sacked on.
Those WP numbers arent gospel or anything. Given the Pats offense was going to go vs. a worn out Falcons defense Id say the swing from taking a sack is understated by win probability.
I would say this.
1) given the thing that hurts the Falcons win probability at that stage of the game is some sort of turnover, passing is sub optimal. Even given the "disaster" sequence that occurred and made the Pats like 5 or 6 more times likely to win the game than if the Falcons ran for no gain twice, Atl was still a giant favorite to win the game after punting. Ryan gets stripped sack or picked off on a short to medium throw and the Pats have the ball with time for two real possessions (which matters more down 8). So it seems like running the ball twice (and forcing two TO's, and TO's matter more down 8) is going to be the prudent thing to do.
2) That sequence gets a little overrated in terms of importance. NE winning the coin toss in overtime was probably more meaningful in terms of "increasing chances of winning the game" than Atlanta's decision to pass the ball instead of running the ball there.
3) Falcons decision to pass would have made more sense with the Pats down 7 than down 8.
4) The criticism of the Seahawks decision to pass (probably amplified by Collinsworth heat of the moment reaction) was almost certainly overblown. The criticism of the Falcons passing is deserved but maybe a touch overstated.
5) In both cases, the Pats perfect execution was more important than the plays called IMHO
Those WP numbers arent gospel or anything. Given the Pats offense was going to go vs. a worn out Falcons defense Id say the swing from taking a sack is understated by win probability.
I would say this.
1) given the thing that hurts the Falcons win probability at that stage of the game is some sort of turnover, passing is sub optimal. Even given the "disaster" sequence that occurred and made the Pats like 5 or 6 more times likely to win the game than if the Falcons ran for no gain twice, Atl was still a giant favorite to win the game after punting. Ryan gets stripped sack or picked off on a short to medium throw and the Pats have the ball with time for two real possessions (which matters more down 8). So it seems like running the ball twice (and forcing two TO's, and TO's matter more down 8) is going to be the prudent thing to do.
2) That sequence gets a little overrated in terms of importance. NE winning the coin toss in overtime was probably more meaningful in terms of "increasing chances of winning the game" than Atlanta's decision to pass the ball instead of running the ball there.
3) Falcons decision to pass would have made more sense with the Pats down 7 than down 8.
4) The criticism of the Seahawks decision to pass (probably amplified by Collinsworth heat of the moment reaction) was almost certainly overblown. The criticism of the Falcons passing is deserved but maybe a touch overstated.
5) In both cases, the Pats perfect execution was more important than the plays called IMHO
Yea, so far the other America's Game ones were far superior
Sent from my XT1650 using SoSH mobile app
Sent from my XT1650 using SoSH mobile app
One ref to the other "Hey, this could get interesting"......you bet your ass it could.
Love Hightower, he's my favorite Patriot; "see ball, get ball."
Love Hightower, he's my favorite Patriot; "see ball, get ball."
Brady Top 10 is total celebrating what is. I think the best thing about it is in a show about a 16 year NFL career, with highlights spanning the duration of that time and a few lowlights mixed in for good measure, #1 is ... Brady's most recent game.
I caught the back half ... it was Brady-Brady-Brady, of course. It also was Edelman-Edelman.
Saw the Brady Top 10. My take home: What the fuck is C. Thomas Howell doing in this and my God he looks awful.
I texted a friend during it asking what dungeon they dragged him out of and why. He responded that he was having a mild comeback, had a show on USA, etc until realizing he was talking about Timothy Hutton and he had them mixed up. Odd inclusion.
OK I gotta say it, that was by far the weakest America's Game (Pats version). Haven't seen all of the others, but it kinda sucked.
The stuff with Edelman's children's book, was that real?
Love Jules but we've heard from him enough at this point.
Edit: I have all 5 Pats America's Games on the DVR, and I honestly don't know if I'm going to keep this one. And I fucking love this stuff. Very disappointed.
The stuff with Edelman's children's book, was that real?
Love Jules but we've heard from him enough at this point.
Edit: I have all 5 Pats America's Games on the DVR, and I honestly don't know if I'm going to keep this one. And I fucking love this stuff. Very disappointed.
I hear you ... tho I think there is only so many times you can extoll the "Patriot Way" once you're on the fifth round. Whether it was the book or the Bill impersonation, they def. did more goofy stuff w Jules than they had in any of the previous ones I remember. I think they were just trying for something different this time around.
That said, I did love the Hightower stuff -- "my mom is my sword." And: even if the latter was the right move, this made me slightly wistful that we're not gonna get any Jules or Blount in 2017.
That said, I did love the Hightower stuff -- "my mom is my sword." And: even if the latter was the right move, this made me slightly wistful that we're not gonna get any Jules or Blount in 2017.