AFC Championship Game: Indy @ New England
- Thread starter DJnVa
- Start date
- Status
ESPN, someone on right now about the 'ineligible play'
"This is Bill Belichick, if he has to, he will CHEAT."
"This is Bill Belichick, if he has to, he will CHEAT."
Why is this still an issue. The play was legal, and the NFL on review said it was legal. The players were announced as ineligible by the refs during the game as defined by rule. Since when is using a legal formation "cheating"?
brandonchristensen said:
Every other coach would be lauded for being inovative and thinking outside the box.
brandonchristensen said:
Many people hate the Patriots because they have been so successful (I guess they are sick of seeing them win and/or are jealous). These people will look for any reason, rational or not, to slam the Pats and what they have achieved. The goal isn't to be accurate, it's to be inflammatory and therefore cause irritation to the Pats' fanbase. If Pats fans are irritated, they have "won". The best thing to do is ignore them.
We saw the same thing with the Niners teams of the 80s and early 90s and the Cowboys of the early 90s (and probably other "dynasties").
I foresee Vereen walking over the the refs a half dozen times or so just to remind them, you know, that he's legal.tims4wins said:
P'tucket said:
I think he can take a lateral even if he's ineligible so if they totally ignore him watch him take a pass for an easy 15 yards.
I'm not sure this really goes here but I enjoyed this article in the build-up to this game, and point number 10 does in fact relate to the Pats-Colts AFC Championship.
http://itiswhatitis.weei.com/sports/newengland/football/patriots/2015/01/13/past-is-prologue-2014-patriots-following-same-script-as-2003-team/
http://itiswhatitis.weei.com/sports/newengland/football/patriots/2015/01/13/past-is-prologue-2014-patriots-following-same-script-as-2003-team/
Neat article, even though I think he's stretching the point a bit to make some of those comparisons.
One awesome fact about the 2003 Pats, from the end of the Texans game in Week 13 through the 4th quarter of the Super Bowl the Patriots did not trail for even a single second in any of their games. The streak was snapped with the long Delhomme to Muhammed TD that put the Panthers temporarily ahead before the Pats came back to win. That stretch went for almost 8 full games including playoff games, which is just amazing.
One awesome fact about the 2003 Pats, from the end of the Texans game in Week 13 through the 4th quarter of the Super Bowl the Patriots did not trail for even a single second in any of their games. The streak was snapped with the long Delhomme to Muhammed TD that put the Panthers temporarily ahead before the Pats came back to win. That stretch went for almost 8 full games including playoff games, which is just amazing.
Dollar said:
Actually, I believe on that play, Vereen is eligible and Hoomanawanui is ineligible. One of the cool things about the drive is that Vereen did the same thing where he ran back and threw his hands up every time he lined up on or near the line without regard to whether or not he was eligible, which was part of the deception.
If you have some time, check out a Ravens message board. There's some thought that the Pats had to resort to cheating (lots of Belicheat there) to pull out a win.
A few people push back, but one guy's reasoning is "we think they cheat, just like they think Flacco just throws up balls to Smith get DPI calls".
http://forum.russellstreetreport.com/forumdisplay.php?3-Ravens-24x7&s=2f6181812b3fc0aff476fa5d4b124fe5
A few people push back, but one guy's reasoning is "we think they cheat, just like they think Flacco just throws up balls to Smith get DPI calls".
http://forum.russellstreetreport.com/forumdisplay.php?3-Ravens-24x7&s=2f6181812b3fc0aff476fa5d4b124fe5
8slim said:
This is at least the second time you've equated running the ball with football from the dark ages. I just don't understand the aversion some posters on here have about the running game.You're not the only one, either. Since the Miami game, those in favor of a more balanced attack have been shouted down or marginalized by some sarcastic "Run the the ball! Amirite guyz?" posts that I just don't get. Balance is bad?
Once it was clear we were getting the Colts, I got excited because I thought there was no way the "throw-the-ball-fifty-times-a game!" crowd could justify not running the ball against a team we've previously dominated in the trenches. But, lo and behold, it's happening. I'm already seeing calls for more passing because, well "They THINK we're gonna run...so let's surprise them!" As Bruschi has been saying, let's not over-think this. If/when they prove they can stop the run (and yes I know the calculus changes with Stork out and Jones/Redding back)...then yes, change it up. [SIZE=13.63636302948px]Passing is sexy, but if the Pats somehow get beat throwing 50 fifty times, I'll be all kinds of pissed.[/SIZE]
TL;DR - handing the ball off 10-15 times a half against a team you can run against does not make you a member of the 1970's Big Ten. Actually, what it does is prevent you from morphing into the all-pass/no-run, post-Edgerrin/all Peyton Indianapolis Colts.
/rant over
Erik Hanson's Hook said:
Of course, I'm being hyperbolic.
I love a good run game. Watching Gray and the OL annihilate the Colts during that regular season game was breathtaking.
But some seem to suggest that we should keep pounding away at the run game series after series, *even if the Colts shut it down*. I guess the assumption is that *eventually* it'll work. That seems like old timey football thinking to me.
The pass can set up the run just as well as the run can set up the pass. And honestly, just move the ball, who the hell cares how you do it.
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
Remagellan said:
P'tucket said:
Maybe our thread should be titled "AFC Championship game, Indy vs New England: Barely Legal"
MentalDisabldLst said:
Makes sense. The Indy vs Denver game was "Indy vs Denver: That Doesn't Look Like 18"
So another take this FWIW... Football outsiders called hat Pats Ravens game correctly. Heir breakdown before the game was actually quite prescient and if I weren't on the mobile I'd link it. Let's face it, games are inherently random but we build narratives around them anyway because human beings can't function otherwise. Yes, not truly everything is random though. We knew going in that the Ravens had a good front seven and our O-Line could struggle. That happened. But tipped passes, guys playing out of their minds, an off day for a coach, those things are random and play a huge outcome in determining an outcomes results.
Most FO expected lines.outcomes are between (and this is just from memory this year) 0 to 5 points. If a team is expected to win by more than that it's a good indication that they are clearly a better team. Simple and makes sense. Without giving away anything I can't let's leave it at I'm not remotely scared of the Colts this Sunday no matter how you slice the data or weigh the data in the later season. Now -7.5 is a bitch of a line and I'm not saying to pull the trigger there but... Winning by 7 or more (which makes the .5 a pain) is a reasonable outcome. Frankly I think this turns into a route.
Most FO expected lines.outcomes are between (and this is just from memory this year) 0 to 5 points. If a team is expected to win by more than that it's a good indication that they are clearly a better team. Simple and makes sense. Without giving away anything I can't let's leave it at I'm not remotely scared of the Colts this Sunday no matter how you slice the data or weigh the data in the later season. Now -7.5 is a bitch of a line and I'm not saying to pull the trigger there but... Winning by 7 or more (which makes the .5 a pain) is a reasonable outcome. Frankly I think this turns into a route.
Its not about being sexy. The facts are that passing the ball gains more yards a play than running the ball on average. Generally gaining more yards is a good thing, so there needs to be a pretty sound reason to go to a run heavy attack.
Now, that doesn't mean balance is bad or running the ball is useless or that the Pats should always chuck it 50 times a game or there won't be games where running is a great strategy. Balance is obviously good. Sometimes you can win throwing the ball 50 plus times like the Pats did Saturday, and its great that they are one of the teams that has the capability to do that if the situation is right, but obviously you dont want to have a situation where you literally dont hand the ball off in the second half. Not going to win that way very often. If teams know you are always throwing, then passing gaining more than running on average isn't really applicable. On third and short and on two point conversions, teams probably throw the ball too much in general based on how often runs or passes convert. Plus you may have a situation like the Pats have had recently with the Colts where they flat out can't stop the run, in those games throwing all around the yard is pretty dumb.
The post 8slim was responding to suggested running the ball even if the Colts shut it down, and giving it more than a few drives if its not working. That's silly IMO. The Pats are only going to get 8 to 12 possessions, pounding away and running the ball if its not working is silly. I think running 10-15 times a half is a pretty solid game plan heading in, but running for the sake of running regardless of gameflow is a silly suggestion that does reek of the 1970s and doesnt make a lot of sense.
Now, that doesn't mean balance is bad or running the ball is useless or that the Pats should always chuck it 50 times a game or there won't be games where running is a great strategy. Balance is obviously good. Sometimes you can win throwing the ball 50 plus times like the Pats did Saturday, and its great that they are one of the teams that has the capability to do that if the situation is right, but obviously you dont want to have a situation where you literally dont hand the ball off in the second half. Not going to win that way very often. If teams know you are always throwing, then passing gaining more than running on average isn't really applicable. On third and short and on two point conversions, teams probably throw the ball too much in general based on how often runs or passes convert. Plus you may have a situation like the Pats have had recently with the Colts where they flat out can't stop the run, in those games throwing all around the yard is pretty dumb.
The post 8slim was responding to suggested running the ball even if the Colts shut it down, and giving it more than a few drives if its not working. That's silly IMO. The Pats are only going to get 8 to 12 possessions, pounding away and running the ball if its not working is silly. I think running 10-15 times a half is a pretty solid game plan heading in, but running for the sake of running regardless of gameflow is a silly suggestion that does reek of the 1970s and doesnt make a lot of sense.
I think the Pats have shown willingness and adaptability to go with what works (esp. this year), why would anyone think they'd suddenly not do it?
Bravo.singaporesoxfan said:
Stitch01 said:
Honestly, you don't need to go back to the 1970s; just harken back to the pre-Polian competition committee days.
The 2001 Patriots passed and ran roughly the same amount (482 PA, 473 RA). The next season, they want balls to the wall with the short passing attack, which resulted in a major (and unsuccessful) shift in the offense (605 PA, 395 RA). The season following, the Patriots win the Superbowl again with a more balanced offense (537 PA, 473 RA). This is despite that rushing attack was pretty bad by that point, with their 3.4 Y/A ranking 30th in the NFL. Only Jacksonville and Tennessee were worse. Enter Corey Dillon, and now you have a run-focused attack (485 PA, 524 RA).
That was the last season before the Polian competition committee rule changes. Dillon was hurt for parts of 2005 and 2006, and the Patriots looked behind the curve on league offenses. Enter Moss and Welker, the rest is history.
Sort of IMO. They struggled against the run, but Im not sure when we sat before the game and talked about the OL struggling we were thinking of a game where Brady threw for a billion yards and put up 35 points unaided by turnovers or big special teams plays while getting sacked twice and not being forced into any mistakes by the pass rushSMU_Sox said:
Sort of curious about your thought process around the FO data here. I have the FO premium subscription too and, ignoring the fact that FO has been lighting money on fire against the spread for two years, I dont get why you'd not be remotely scared of the Colts if you were concerned about the Ravens game just using FO predictions. Without giving anything away, I can't remember exactly what the projected Pats-Ravens spread was last week, but I know what it was within a point. If you take the projection as a vig-free money line they give the Colts a 2%-5% less chance of beating the Pats than they gave the Ravens and their expected outcome was only 1.5-2.5 points different than it was for this week's game. They definitely think we're more likely to beat the Colts, but its pretty marginal and they certainly don't forsee a rout as the most likely outcome.
I don't have a Premium subscription and don't follow their betting tips, but how do they square having the Ravens and Colts separated by almost 20 points of weighted DVOA with giving the Colts only a 2-5% less chance of beating the Patriots? Intuitively that just doesn't really compute to me.Stitch01 said:
I think people are suggesting that the Patriots run against the Colts simply because it was so effective against them earlier in the year. Jonas Gray ran for 200 yards and four touchdowns against this team. Keep running the ball until they prove they can stop it.
I dont totally understand what you are trying to say here (I dont think the problem with the 2002 team was that they didnt run the ball enough as much as it was that the personnel sucked and they played from behind more than the '01/'03/'04 teams) but do agree that passing is better post 2004. Based on the history of the poster 8slim is responding to, I dont think he's looking for a 50-50 split Sunday.Devizier said:
They give a predicted outcome based partly on DVOA but also other factors such as homefield, injuries, etc. Its a bit black box-y so its hard to analyze other than whether it works or not, and it hasnt worked over the last two seasons after having a pretty good track record prior to that. I just took their prediction for each game and translated it into a vig-free money line, the percentage came out very close because their predictions for each game were pretty close to each other.Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:
Fwiw, the Patriots scored more points and had a higher offensive DVOA in 2002 than in either 2001 or 2003.Devizier said:
The main issue that year was that the defense completely fell apart.
Yeah they ran a lot in 01 to protect Brady; they ran a lot in 04 because they were almost always ahead.
I hope they run it more times than they throw it on Sunday - chances are that means they are up a couple scores and are running out the clock. But I think there is very little chance of them having more runs than passes in the first half, and it will probably look more like a 2:1 ratio.
I hope they run it more times than they throw it on Sunday - chances are that means they are up a couple scores and are running out the clock. But I think there is very little chance of them having more runs than passes in the first half, and it will probably look more like a 2:1 ratio.
Stitch01 said:
Just pointing out that you don't need a long memory to recall the days when the NFL ran the ball a lot more.
The Patriots went with a pass-heavy attack in 2002 by design; Antowain Smith was still healthy and they went to him a lot the next season. They looked great in their first three games, but went into that brutal slide in San Diego. By Y/A their running attack was below average, but they were about as good in 2001 and they were even worse in 2003 (edit).
Devizier said:
Chicken or egg though? Particularly 2002 and 2003, where you'd naturally assume their running numbers would be up with so many late leads in '03 vs '02. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that it's also possible that they ran more because they were winning.
I never trust those "Teams are 47-2 when they run the ball over 40 times in a game" type of stats because it's impossible to separate out how/when/why most of those runs happened. I'd love to see a 1st half run/pass breakdown, for example, but I don't know that such a thing exists.
No we didn't and that's the point. Not a single media member ever slammed the 49ers of the 80's. Walsh was a genius and Joe Cool was the best. That was the party line, despite the fact the 49ers totally gamed the salary rules; which is fine for them but nobody called them on it until much later and they barely raised an eyebrow over it. The media loved those 90's Cowboys teams, totally turned a blind eye to the White House and all the shenanigans so long as Jimmy and Irvin gave them colorful quotes. The bottom line is those teams (mostly head coaches) made it easy for the media and filled a lot of notebooks; it's a quid pro quo situation. BB doesn't do that and never will so the media has hated the Pats for it ever since.Ferm Sheller said:
Well, to be fair BB is kind of a dick to the media. I love the guy, and I take a perverse joy in his unwillingness to suffer fools gladly, but the reality is that it won't make you many friends.
Kenny F'ing Powers said:
You left out the critical fact: Harbaugh will be assisting Pagano in developing a game plan...one that's certain to include 15-yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalties and gopher ball interceptions as he advises how to outwit the over-matched Belichick.
What I said! But don't abandon the run if it doesn't work on the first or second drive.pappymojo said:
The only way Indy can win this game is through turnovers and if Luck gets hot.
Running the ball, controlling the clock , shortening the game, minimizes the chance that these things occur.
Shortening the game and minimizing possessions when you are a much better team than the opponent is pretty terrible strategy going into the game.
Abandoning the run, as in never running, would probably be silly so early but if they come out six linemen and run on the first drive and it doesnt work then do the same thing on the second drive and it doesnt work...well, then doing the same thing on the third drive when you have Tom Brady at quarterback with healthy pass catchers would be pretty stupid.
Abandoning the run, as in never running, would probably be silly so early but if they come out six linemen and run on the first drive and it doesnt work then do the same thing on the second drive and it doesnt work...well, then doing the same thing on the third drive when you have Tom Brady at quarterback with healthy pass catchers would be pretty stupid.
Limiting the number of possessions would actually increase the likelihood of chance playing a role. The offense should just go with what's working. I have a feeling that will be pretty much anything, fortunately. Assuming the drives aren't hugely time-consuming on either end, the Pats should be able to top what they put up last week.
I think he left out the part about getting ahead first. Everybody (eventually) tries to shorten the game once they're leading. It makes sense to hold the ball for a while if you can run on a team - once they're behind, they want as many chances as they can get, and you don't.Stitch01 said:
I clarified, but he didn't say that. He wants to keep running and shorten the game even if the run isnt working, which means its unlikely the Pats are ahead.Kevin Youkulele said:
Remember, the original post suggested running it and going run heavy until they prove they can stop it, and not just for a few drives. Running the ball for 3 or 4 drives regardless of results seems way too conservative to me given the Pats personnel.
OK. I agree that continuing to go run heavy if it hasn't worked for 2 drives is not smart.Stitch01 said:
Reggie and I just have different philosophies about how this Patriot offense should work (check out the Dolphins game thread and evaluations of the third quarter playcalling when the Pats were up 21-13 for an example. I didn't think they needed to be run heavy and work to control the clock at that point in the game, Reggie thought they needed to be ground and pound)
That's fine but I very much disagree that his approach is the right one heading into this game.
That's fine but I very much disagree that his approach is the right one heading into this game.
Reggie's Racquet said:
Yeah, like others I heartily disagree with this.
Abandoning the run completely, like they did in the 2nd half against Baltimore, would of course be overkill. But if we were to use the run primarily on the first couple of drives and have nothing to show for it it would be silly to keep running and running when you have Brady, Gronk, Edelman, LaFell, and Vereen at your disposal.
Shortening the game when you have a distinct offensive advantage is crazy. You do the opposite, maximize possessions and play fast. That way a turnover or freak play has less impact.
In the regular season game the Pats threw 30 times and ran 44. In the first half, though, it was 20 passes and 22 runs. Much more balanced (actually pretty damn run-heavy by Pats standards). The Pats ran the ball on 13 of their last 16 plays in the game. So then, when they had a 2+ score lead in the 4th quarter, was when they "shortened the game".
Replicating that 2nd half in the first half this week as some seem to be suggesting (22 runs, 10 passes) would seem crazy.
I think the bolded point is almost academic. Not that I disagree with it at all.8slim said:
But one thing about BB and Josh that is entirely predictable is that if the running game is not working, they will not stick with it. At most, they will sprinkle a few runs in here and there to keep the defense honest. But they almost never, or really never, stubbornly stay with the running game as a primary weapon if it is not working well. That unwillingness to continue to ground and pound when the running game is ineffective is a hallmark of their approach and that isn't going to change because the opponent is Indy or it's the AFC Championship Game.
Some things. I did some digging around too. Enjoy? Probably not but it's more food for thought.
1) Let's remember that everything I said (and most other people who are in the weeds with this issue) about FO was/is with a huge grain of "take this FWIW". I can't stress that enough.They have been AWFUL ATS this year and last. Although last year at least their top 5 picks ATS most weeks did ok. If you count the 3 pushes they had last year their top five picks ATS went 46-36-3 for 54.1%. Take out the pushes and you're at 56.1%. That's not amazing but it's not shabby. Not so this year. 38-41-1 through week 16. Could be random. It's a black box but we do know they don't use the same elements in DVOA for predictions. I can't find a link for that because they've mentioned it in the premium content before as a NB. It's a different formula and it adds things like weather too.
2) I'm saying I think it will be a blowout. Not them. That's just my take. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I love the matchup.
3) Through week 16 teams favored to win by between a FG and a TD won 60% of the time this year and 64% last year. Once you get to above a TD that team won 78% of the time through week 16 of 2014 and 90% of the time in 2013. Typically it's closer to mid 80's to 90's and not a lousy 78%. I can't say how much the Pats are favored by until after the game but the expected outcome last week was NE -3.5 (or near there). I also can't easily tell you their record by teams only favored by say -3.5 vs -6.5. quick edit: that's something you can estimate but I wish I could check it SSS issues aside.
1) Let's remember that everything I said (and most other people who are in the weeds with this issue) about FO was/is with a huge grain of "take this FWIW". I can't stress that enough.They have been AWFUL ATS this year and last. Although last year at least their top 5 picks ATS most weeks did ok. If you count the 3 pushes they had last year their top five picks ATS went 46-36-3 for 54.1%. Take out the pushes and you're at 56.1%. That's not amazing but it's not shabby. Not so this year. 38-41-1 through week 16. Could be random. It's a black box but we do know they don't use the same elements in DVOA for predictions. I can't find a link for that because they've mentioned it in the premium content before as a NB. It's a different formula and it adds things like weather too.
2) I'm saying I think it will be a blowout. Not them. That's just my take. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I love the matchup.
3) Through week 16 teams favored to win by between a FG and a TD won 60% of the time this year and 64% last year. Once you get to above a TD that team won 78% of the time through week 16 of 2014 and 90% of the time in 2013. Typically it's closer to mid 80's to 90's and not a lousy 78%. I can't say how much the Pats are favored by until after the game but the expected outcome last week was NE -3.5 (or near there). I also can't easily tell you their record by teams only favored by say -3.5 vs -6.5. quick edit: that's something you can estimate but I wish I could check it SSS issues aside.
Thats all cool, and its certainly not a crazy opinion to think this is going to be a blowout or an easier game than last week (Id concur), I just didnt understand using the FO prediction for this week after they nailed this week's game as support for that hypothesis. They're more confident in the Pats this week, but not by very much, and they forsee a closer game than most of this board from what I can tell.SMU_Sox said:
I have theories/thoughts on your FO data and how you are cutting it, but probably best for another thread.
Eh... If it came across that way that's my bad. I don't think one game means much. I mean it's a sample size of one. I did like their write up before the game. That's very much scouting and not just blah blah blah numbers.
My use of their data this year was beyond brutal. I definitely ate my share of humble pie. Part of it was a time crunch. I apologize for the failure there. It's simply inexcusable.
My use of their data this year was beyond brutal. I definitely ate my share of humble pie. Part of it was a time crunch. I apologize for the failure there. It's simply inexcusable.
- Status