Counting Chickens: Possible Patriots Play-Off Opponents

[ivanvamp]

Who would you rather face...
 
…in the divisional round:  Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, or Baltimore?
 
…in the AFC Championship game:  Denver, Indianapolis, Baltimore, or Pittsburgh?
 
…in the Super Bowl:  Green Bay or Seattle?
 
 
For me, the answers are:  Cincinnati, Indianapolis, and then Green Bay.  Cincy is a pretty easy choice, as is Indy.  But the Super Bowl matchup for me is incredibly difficult. 
 
Green Bay
- #2 points offense, #6 yardage offense
- #18 points defense, #23 yardage defense
- #1 turnover margin
- already beaten the Patriots this year; has probable league MVP
 
Seattle
- #11 points offense, #11 yardage offense
- #2 points defense, #1 yardage defense
- #6 turnover margin
- know how to win; defending SB champs
 
Would you rather face a great offense and mediocre defense like Green Bay, or a decent offense and dominating defense like Seattle?  I think either one would represent an extremely difficult challenge for New England, though I also believe the Patriots could beat either one.
 
I know, we are a long way from all this.  I hope the players aren't thinking this far down the road.  "We're on to the Jets" is what they should be thinking.  But for us fans, it's ok to talk about this.

 

[RIrooter09]

Cincy, Indy, Seattle.  Seattle's D is terrifying, but I'm not sure Wilson can outscore Brady and co.

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

Seattle is the only team that actually scares me as a potential opponent. Tons of talent and a terrible matchup for the Pats.

 
Seattle and Green Bay both scare me for different reasons. If the Patriots were to play either of those teams again this season, I would be petrified for a full 60 minutes.

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

Seattle is the only team that actually scares me as a potential opponent. Tons of talent and a terrible matchup for the Pats.

 
I don't think Seattle is actually that bad of a matchup for the Patriots.  They're a great team, don't get me wrong, but I'm not sure their strengths are particularly troublesome above and beyond their overall very high level of play.
 
On defense, I think we actually match up with them very well because they have no way of exploiting our biggest weakness, which is the slot corner.  We've been pretty stout against the run in the second half of the season and now that we've got Siliga back and can throw him and Vince out there as starting DTs, I'm not all that worried about getting manhandled up front.  People like to say that the Patriots struggle against mobile QBs but a lot of that is just memories from past years.  We've done a decent job containing guys like Rodgers and Geno this year because now we have the LBs that are necessary to do that.  We'd probably line up in our base defense against Seattle most downs, given their preference for two TE sets, and the trio of Collins-Hightower-Casillas is about as good as it gets in terms of spying and chasing down mobile QBs.  Revis takes away Doug Baldwin and Seattle doesn't have a ton of other options to hurt us in the passing game.
 
On offense, we'll obviously struggle because they're a fantastic defense but I don't think they're a particularly bad matchup for us.  The teams that have had the best success against them (DAL, SD) are teams with savvy QBs that can really spread the ball around to 4-5 targets in the  passing game, including the backs.  Where you're really hosed against Seattle is if you're a run first offense or one with only a limited number of weapons in the passing game.  I still wouldn't expect us to have a lot of success - they're just that good on defense - but we certainly could score just enough points to win a 20-17 or 17-13 type of game, which is what I would expect in that matchup in general.

 

[Super Nomario]

I don't think Seattle is actually that bad of a matchup for the Patriots.  They're a great team, don't get me wrong, but I'm not sure their strengths are particularly troublesome above and beyond their overall very high level of play.
 
On defense, I think we actually match up with them very well because they have no way of exploiting our biggest weakness, which is the slot corner.  We've been pretty stout against the run in the second half of the season and now that we've got Siliga back and can throw him and Vince out there as starting DTs, I'm not all that worried about getting manhandled up front.  People like to say that the Patriots struggle against mobile QBs but a lot of that is just memories from past years.  We've done a decent job containing guys like Rodgers and Geno this year because now we have the LBs that are necessary to do that.  We'd probably line up in our base defense against Seattle most downs, given their preference for two TE sets, and the trio of Collins-Hightower-Casillas is about as good as it gets in terms of spying and chasing down mobile QBs.  Revis takes away Doug Baldwin and Seattle doesn't have a ton of other options to hurt us in the passing game.

I agree they don't have great passing weapons, but I disagree about the Pats' biggest defensive weakness - it's the pass rush, and specifically a complete inability to generate push up the middle without blitzing. And against mobile QB, where they have to worry about contain, the pass rush has been putrid. Rodgers had all day to throw, and he still broke contain a few times. Geno killed them with his legs in the first meeting; yesterday they contained him, but at the cost of giving him a clean pocket almost every play. Struggling with mobile QBs is less about the plays they make with their legs and more about the way containing their running compromises the rest of the defense. When they played Wilson in 2012, they held him to 5 carries for 17 yards, but he threw for 293 yards and 3 TDs on just 27 attempts.
 

On offense, we'll obviously struggle because they're a fantastic defense but I don't think they're a particularly bad matchup for us.  The teams that have had the best success against them (DAL, SD) are teams with savvy QBs that can really spread the ball around to 4-5 targets in the  passing game, including the backs.  Where you're really hosed against Seattle is if you're a run first offense or one with only a limited number of weapons in the passing game.  I still wouldn't expect us to have a lot of success - they're just that good on defense - but we certainly could score just enough points to win a 20-17 or 17-13 type of game, which is what I would expect in that matchup in general.

I buy this. The last matchup (early in 2012) was a 24-23 loss in Seattle. Like in that meeting, I'd expect a lot of 4-5 wide, spread the field, quick throws to neutralize the pass rush. We could also see a lot of no-huddle, as Seattle likes to rotate DL and the Pats could catch them in alignments that are one-dimensional.

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

I agree they don't have great passing weapons, but I disagree about the Pats' biggest defensive weakness - it's the pass rush, and specifically a complete inability to generate push up the middle without blitzing. And against mobile QB, where they have to worry about contain, the pass rush has been putrid. Rodgers had all day to throw, and he still broke contain a few times. Geno killed them with his legs in the first meeting; yesterday they contained him, but at the cost of giving him a clean pocket almost every play. Struggling with mobile QBs is less about the plays they make with their legs and more about the way containing their running compromises the rest of the defense. When they played Wilson in 2012, they held him to 5 carries for 17 yards, but he threw for 293 yards and 3 TDs on just 27 attempts.

 
I agree with this but I think the issues can be overstated.  First, in that last h-2-h game, Seattle had far better receiving options (Tate, Rice, and Miller all gone from that team) and we had a far worse secondary.  Wilson mainly killed us by extending plays and then hitting bombs (passes of 46, 50, and 51 yards).  That's still a big threat but we're much better equipped to deal with it.
 
Further, a lot of the problems against Geno yesterday and against Rodgers were schematic.  Containing a running QB wasn't the only reason we struggled to get pressure.  We played a fair amount of the 5-2 alignment yesterday with the three 325 pounders together and having all three of those guys as part of your rush is never going to be a good thing.  The defense also seemed designed overall to stop the run and minimize variance, so there wasn't a lot of creative blitzing until it was really needed, and then it worked much better.  Against Green Bay, we very rarely sent more than four guys because they had so many threats in the receiving game.  Wilson is a a better runner than Rodgers but the matchups in the secondary are so much more favorable that we should be to send another LB up the gut much more often.

 

[Silverdude2167]

 
I agree with this but I think the issues can be overstated.  First, in that last h-2-h game, Seattle had far better receiving options (Tate, Rice, and Miller all gone from that team) and we had a far worse secondary.  Wilson mainly killed us by extending plays and then hitting bombs (passes of 46, 50, and 51 yards).  That's still a big threat but we're much better equipped to deal with it.

I know it is the last head to head meaning, but I don't think we can take much of anything from that game. One, SEA is much better now and two the Pats should have won that game easily. Welker dropped two balls in the endzone due to the rain, one being picked off. There was the only time I have ever seen Intentional Grounding called for throwing the ball out of the endzone that took 3 points off the board. I don't think we can take much of anything from that game.

 

[Stitch01]

I think the offensive gameplan will be pretty similar if and when that comes to pass.

 

[Super Nomario]

I agree with this but I think the issues can be overstated.  First, in that last h-2-h game, Seattle had far better receiving options (Tate, Rice, and Miller all gone from that team) and we had a far worse secondary.  Wilson mainly killed us by extending plays and then hitting bombs (passes of 46, 50, and 51 yards).  That's still a big threat but we're much better equipped to deal with it.

True that Seattle's receivers are worse, our secondary's much better (especially counting injuries - Nate Ebner and Tavon Wilson were deep safeties on the final TD pass). I think the risk of extending plays (or just staying in the pocket for five seconds as a sad pass rush fails to get home) for big gains is still very present, though.
 

Further, a lot of the problems against Geno yesterday and against Rodgers were schematic.  Containing a running QB wasn't the only reason we struggled to get pressure.  We played a fair amount of the 5-2 alignment yesterday with the three 325 pounders together and having all three of those guys as part of your rush is never going to be a good thing.  The defense also seemed designed overall to stop the run and minimize variance, so there wasn't a lot of creative blitzing until it was really needed, and then it worked much better.  Against Green Bay, we very rarely sent more than four guys because they had so many threats in the receiving game.  Wilson is a a better runner than Rodgers but the matchups in the secondary are so much more favorable that we should be to send another LB up the gut much more often.

You're probably right we can blitz more. But I think we would see a lot of the 5-2 fronts against Seattle - after all, they're #1 in rush yards and rush YPC by a country mile. Wilson's scrambling is a big part of that, but Lynch has 1246 yards, 12 TDs, and 4.7 YPC.

 

[alydar]

One thing to note about Seattle is that 4 of their last 5 games have been against division opponents. Those games are... weird. I have no evidence that they are more or less predictive than non-divisional games, but I'm certainly hoping that the most-recent Patriots in-division game has little predictive power of general performance going forward.

 

[Tony C]

 
…in the divisional round:  Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, or Baltimore?
 

 
Cincy: no fear -- scale of 1-10 a 1.
Balto: not really, but a little bit of historical fear -- call it a 2.
Pitts: a bit of fear -- they're improving. 3.5 on the 10 point scale of fear/respect.
 

 
…in the AFC Championship game:  Denver, Indianapolis, Baltimore, or Pittsburgh?
 

 
-Indy: I guess Luck and HIlton have to be respected, and on the Jets precedent destroying a team during the regular season doesn't mean the same in the playoffs. But...still: call it a 2 out of 10.
-Denver: 4. Have to respect Peyton 4 INT Manning, but the Pats are superior.
 

 
…in the Super Bowl:  Green Bay or Seattle?
 

 
Both scare the piss out of me. Definitely would take Green Bay over Seattle, though. Call Seattle a 9 out of 10 and Green Bay a 7. Green Bay has distinct holes to be exploited. Seattle, though? Don't know that we could pass on them nor run. And I can imagine Lynch running through holes and Wilson scrambling around quite a bit and making some plays.