The Game Ball Thread: Wk 5 vs Bengals

[Ed Hillel]

Easley also hurt his shoulder on the play where the clown crew decided to throw a beanbag as if it was an INT and then penalize Easley for blocking on a purported live ball.  He's hanging his shoulder on the next play, wouldnt surprise me if he misses time.

 
They called that a blindside block, AKA hitting someone like 30 yards behind the play. Easley was blocking a guy 3 yards away going for the tackle! So, it's like they didn't call him for hitting after the whistle, but made the worst blindside block call of all time.
 

I was screaming at them to challenge that spot. I know it was early but it looked obvious that he got it, and they needed that drive so badly to set the tone.

 
Me too, but I wasn't so upset when the Bengals decided to leave a giant gap on the DL on 4th and inches.

 

[Stitch01]

They probably didnt know it was 4th down either.

 

[DJnVa]

If anyone has the film on that play, I'd love to see it, because I thought it was very obvious.

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

Here's a photo set from twitter.
 
https://twitter.com/BenVolin/status/519129317792808960

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

Also this was Pereira's tweet regarding the Easley block and penalty. The game is even more dominant when you realize they got 3-4 automatic first downs after 3rd down on the drive where they scored.
 
https://twitter.com/MikePereira/status/518938046217977856

 

[SoxVindaloo]

Big Ups to the OL. The veteran G presence seemed to sort out much of the issues our Tackles have had also. I thought Connolly in particular was awesome at the 2nd level.
 
RBs--Vereen and Ridley ran with purpose. If Vereen keeps running like that it will only make his passing game contributions more lethal when he is the single back.
 
#12--Heart of a Lion. I don't think I have ever been so emotional during a regular season game. I need 2 hands to count how many die hard Pats fans I had to talk down off the ledge from Tuesday to Saturday. After Dilfer and McNabb's cheap shots all I would say is "Now they have made Tom mad. We all know how well that works out for us."

 

[Stitch01]

Not like Develin reached forward with the ball after he was down to get to that spot in the still either.  Spot was a full yard off at least.

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

Not like Develin reached forward with the ball after he was down to get to that spot in the still either.  Spot was a full yard off at least.

And he's not even vertical to the end zones as he's down. He's actually angle across the field somewhat, which means his knees are probably on or near the yellow line. 

 

[Myt1]

He doesn't. They deploy him.

They know the strengths and weaknesses of each guy and each gets individualized instructions based on their own unique skill set. And each gets different permissions from week to week.

My favorite example of this is when Moss was clearly given the green light to mouth off after the final regular season game of the 2007 season.

Even the apparent anomalies are a residual produced by design by the system.

Are you saying that Gronk's life is the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation inherent to the programming of the team?

 

[DJnVa]

Also this was Pereira's tweet regarding the Easley block and penalty. The game is even more dominant when you realize they got 3-4 automatic first downs after 3rd down on the drive where they scored.
 
https://twitter.com/MikePereira/status/518938046217977856

 
 
I agree that this was a bad call, but, playing devil's advocate (and we won, so who cares?) but why can't it be a personal foul? If you light up some guy after a play is over, isn't that exactly what a personal foul is?
 
Or is he simply saying they can't call it a "block in the back" or whatever because the play was dead?
 

 

[EdRalphRomero]

Are you saying that Gronk's life is the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation inherent to the programming of the team?

 
If Gronk is a movie from the work of the incomparable Mr. Reeves, I would go a bit further back:
 
"Everything is different, but the same... things are more moderner than before... bigger, and yet smaller... it's computers... New England Patriots Football rules."

 

[mauf]

Can we talk about how good Wilfork was? The running D wasn't great overall, but the big man was getting massive push all night, including against a number of double teams. Revis was awesome, and, beyond that, the coaching staff finally let him sit out on an island. Pretty much the entire offense was good, except Lafell, who gets a fail for quitting on a pattern, which was actually well thrown. If Dobson or Tyms can come in and improve upon that position, that would be great.
 
The only other down I'll point out is Nink. He's back to looking like the worst player on the field, which means he'll probably end the season with 10 sacks now. If he doesn't improve, I wonder if Easley starts taking some of his snaps.

I thought the run D looked great -- a lot of the Bengals' 79 rushing yards came after the game was decided; iirc, they got a big chunk on a single play late in the game. Also, I didn't follow sub packages, but I suspect the defensive play calling was a bit more pass-focused than if the Pats hadn't led by 2 TDs or more for the last three quarters.

If I wanted to pick a nit, it would be that the Bengals had a couple big passing plays up top, plus a couple others where receivers were open deep and Dalton missed them, all in game situations where the defensive strategy should have been skewed toward preventing the big play. All due credit to the Pats' pass rush, but a better QB might have kept Cincy in the game, though the fumbles would have been their undoing in any case.

 

[dcmissle]

As good as the o-line was -- playoff worthy -- the reffing was that bad.

They seemed consumed by not letting a game get out of hand that was not close to that stage. They were blinded by the spotlight and really deserve to be marked down for this effort and kept away from prime time games until their act improves.

 

[NortheasternPJ]

As good as the o-line was -- playoff worthy -- the reffing was that bad.

They seemed consumed by not letting a game get out of hand that was not close to that stage. They were blinded by the spotlight and really deserve to be marked down for this effort and kept away from prime time games until their act improves.

 
is there a "Pickin' the Boger - 2014 Refs Thread" yet? I'm on the road but there's at least 5-6 horrid calls last night. This isn't sour grapes since they won, but that was embarrassing. The NFL should be ashamed of themselves for that performance. There were a couple instances where they clearly didn't know the rules.

 

[Stitch01]

The missed/ticky tack holding calls are one thing, welcome to NFL 2014, but shit like the call on Easley and not spotting the ball right can't happen.  They should be docked big time on performance.
t

 

[NortheasternPJ]

I agree, I was lumping the NFL being embarrassed with the poor ref performance last night.
 
There's should be 2 threads - Shitty Officiating and the other Shitty Officiating: The NBA  NFL Officially a Joke.

 

[KingChre]

Regarding the botched abortion that was the refereeing last night, I was at the game (I'm a season ticket holder) and after the first penalty, someone sitting behind me made the claim that it was going to be a long night with Boger on the job. I generally ignore ref-bashing because I think its a fruitless endeavor, but boy was he right. There were so many calls that just didn't make any sense, continuing a league-wide trend this year that I really hope stops soon.

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

 
 
I agree that this was a bad call, but, playing devil's advocate (and we won, so who cares?) but why can't it be a personal foul? If you light up some guy after a play is over, isn't that exactly what a personal foul is?
 
Or is he simply saying they can't call it a "block in the back" or whatever because the play was dead?
 

It's a poorly worded tweet. Had they called it a block in the back they would have been picking up the flag with no penalty.
 
He's saying it was not a personal foul and at best might have been a block in the back. You cannot be penalized for a block in the back in that situation, but you can be penalized for a personal foul. 

 

[soxfan121]

He doesn't. They deploy him.

They know the strengths and weaknesses of each guy and each gets individualized instructions based on their own unique skill set. And each gets different permissions from week to week.

My favorite example of this is when Moss was clearly given the green light to mouth off after the final regular season game of the 2007 season.

Even the apparent anomalies are a residual produced by design by the system.

 
The organization of the operation is stunning at times. 

 

[MalzoneExpress]

Are you saying that Gronk's life is the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation inherent to the programming of the team?

 
 

 
If Gronk is a movie from the work of the incomparable Mr. Reeves, I would go a bit further back:
 
"Everything is different, but the same... things are more moderner than before... bigger, and yet smaller... it's computers... New England Patriots Football rules."

 
He's saying Gronk is the ONE.

 

[Ed Hillel]

It's a poorly worded tweet. Had they called it a block in the back they would have been picking up the flag with no penalty.
 
He's saying it was not a personal foul and at best might have been a block in the back. You cannot be penalized for a block in the back in that situation, but you can be penalized for a personal foul. 

Bogar called a "blindside block," which can only happen on a return. Even if there had been return, it's a godawful call, since a blindside block is hitting someone not in the play like with the controversy over Foles a few weeks back. Easley hit a guy trying to tackle McCourty a couple yards away. It could have been a late hit, but also a ridiculous call given that a ref threw a beanbag. A block in the back also legally can't be called there, since it wasn't actually a fumble. The only call they could have made, by rule, was a late hit after the play, but as I said, awful call if that was what he was trying to say. I think he just erroneously applied a penalty, though.

 

[gryoung]

As good as the o-line was -- playoff worthy -- the reffing was that bad.

They seemed consumed by not letting a game get out of hand that was not close to that stage. They were blinded by the spotlight and really deserve to be marked down for this effort and kept away from prime time games until their act improves.

 
Not picking on this particular post, but one of my pet peeves is folks referring to the officiating or officials as refs or referees.  "The referees were horrible..." .......'who are these refs?".
 
There's one "ref" ......the Referee ......there are lots of officials on the crew....some are called judges, some are called other names. A game is "officiated", not "ref'd".
 
That's all.  Now back to your regularly-scheduled show.

 

[dcmissle]

 
Not picking on this particular post, but one of my pet peeves is folks referring to the officiating or officials as refs or referees.  "The referees were horrible..." .......'who are these refs?".
 
There's one "ref" ......the Referee ......there are lots of officials on the crew....some are called judges, some are called other names. A game is "officiated", not "ref'd".
 
That's all.  Now back to your regularly-scheduled show.

 
With good reason ... as I used the word as a verb, and it's a perfectly acceptable verb.
 
So, English major and wordsmith extraordinaire, you came too soon ...

 

[Ralphwiggum]

 
Not picking on this particular post, but one of my pet peeves is folks referring to the officiating or officials as refs or referees.  "The referees were horrible..." .......'who are these refs?".
 
There's one "ref" ......the Referee ......there are lots of officials on the crew....some are called judges, some are called other names. A game is "officiated", not "ref'd".
 
That's all.  Now back to your regularly-scheduled show.

 
Seriously?  There is nothing wrong with referring to the people who are officiating the game as the "refs", particularly in an informal way.  Plus, while you are technically correct, all of the officials also meet the definition of "referee"
 

 
ref·er·ee

ˌrefəˈrē/

 

noun
noun: referee; plural noun: referees

1. 
   
   
   1.
   
   
   an official who watches a game or match closely to ensure that the rules are adhered to and (in some sports) to arbitrate on matters arising from the play.
   
   
   synonyms:
   
   umpire, judge, linesman; More
   
   
   informalref, ump
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   

 

[Super Nomario]

 
Seriously?  There is nothing wrong with referring to the people who are officiating the game as the "refs", particularly in an informal way.  Plus, while you are technically correct, all of the officials also meet the definition of "referee"
 

Would you find it OK to call a baseball umpire a referee? It would also fit the definition you posted.

 

[Ralphwiggum]

Would you find it OK to call a baseball umpire a referee? It would also fit the definition you posted.

 
You know I thought of that after I posted and of course the answer is no.  What is the difference?  I don't know.  I guess it is his pet peeve so I'll just drop it, but I don't think there is anything wrong with a fan in the heat of the moment saying "that ref sucks" as opposed to "that side judge sucks".

 

[Byrdbrain]

They probably didnt know it was 4th down either.

I think this is 100% correct, the Bengals were playing that as first and goal not 4th and inches.

 

[steveluck7]

I think this is 100% correct, the Bengals were playing that as first and goal not 4th and inches.

Maybe i'm giving the Patriots too much credit for communication and preparedness in that moment but i wondered if they were getting ready to challenge, saw the bengals formation and Brady said "i got this"

 

[( . ) ( . ) and (_!_)]

I don't think this is worthy of it's own thread and I don't really know where else to put it.
 
Does it frustrate anyone else that they rotated in O-linemen throughout the game but during the last series of the game but it was still Edelman and LaFell out there and not Dobson?
 
Devey got 4 snaps (was that due to injury?) and Cannon got full series at both Left and Right Tackle.  That suggests that they are still kind of tinkering with the O-line and might have wanted some tape on Cannon or just to get him some game reps.  But Dobson who between missing time in the preseason and being inactive has barely had any game speed reps couldn't get some time with the outcome of the game no longer in doubt? 
 
I get that snaps are likely earned and not given and maybe Cannon is forcing the issue through good play in games and at practice.  But didn't that feel like a missed opportunity?  I can understand LaFell being in front of Dobson on the depth chart, but Dobson has a much higher ceiling then LaFell and some game reps/time with Brady on the final drive might have been one piece of the puzzle to get him going.
 
Obviously in the big picture it's a good thing that this is one of my biggest complaints about the game, but I thought it was a missed chance. 

 

[mascho]

According to Reiss Dobson had 11 snaps last night. Six in the first half and five in the second, when he notched his one catch.

 

[Stitch01]

I don't think this is worthy of it's own thread and I don't really know where else to put it.
 
Does it frustrate anyone else that they rotated in O-linemen throughout the game but during the last series of the game but it was still Edelman and LaFell out there and not Dobson?
 
Devey got 4 snaps (was that due to injury?) and Cannon got full series at both Left and Right Tackle.  That suggests that they are still kind of tinkering with the O-line and might have wanted some tape on Cannon or just to get him some game reps.  But Dobson who between missing time in the preseason and being inactive has barely had any game speed reps couldn't get some time with the outcome of the game no longer in doubt? 
 
I get that snaps are likely earned and not given and maybe Cannon is forcing the issue through good play in games and at practice.  But didn't that feel like a missed opportunity?  I can understand LaFell being in front of Dobson on the depth chart, but Dobson has a much higher ceiling then LaFell and some game reps/time with Brady on the final drive might have been one piece of the puzzle to get him going.
 
Obviously in the big picture it's a good thing that this is one of my biggest complaints about the game, but I thought it was a missed chance. 

I believe Devey's snaps came in the first quarter as a sixth lineman.

 

[normstalls]

I think this is 100% correct, the Bengals were playing that as first and goal not 4th and inches.

Sorry if this was covered, I looked and didn't see it, any guesses why Pats didn't challenge the spot on that play?
I thought it was potentially a big play at the time and it was a fairly obvious, egregiously wrong call.
 
edit - Just saw steveluck7's theory...if true, I like it.  Hard to know for sure I guess??

 

[Turrable]

 
Not picking on this particular post, but one of my pet peeves is folks referring to the officiating or officials as refs or referees.  "The referees were horrible..." .......'who are these refs?".
 
There's one "ref" ......the Referee ......there are lots of officials on the crew....some are called judges, some are called other names. A game is "officiated", not "ref'd".
 
That's all.  Now back to your regularly-scheduled show.

 
This can't seriously actually bother you

 

[dynomite]

I used to love seeing who people would put in the 3 Up/3 Down threads. I'm late to the party, but if I had to list them mine would be:

3 UP:

- O-Line: More than any other single factor I think as this unit goes, so go the Patriots this season, and they followed one of their worst games in recent memory with one of their best.

- Brady: A highlight-reel, vintage game from one of the greatest QBs ever. He was feeling it last night.

- Coaching Staff: From the offensive game plan to the defensive alignments (adjusting to the loss of Hightower) they played to the team's strengths and thoroughly outclassed a very strong AFC opponent in a vital game.

Bonus!
- Revis: Dude can play. See Bruschi's comments on the Q&A on ESPN Boston today.
- Devlin: a really fun player who did a little bit of everything last night.
- The Gillette crowd. It sounded LOUD on TV, which it almost never does. From the first drive to chanting Brady's name to the ovation for Devon Still, the crowd was a force.

3 DOWN:

- Logan Ryan: C'mon man. Only on the field for 4 snaps, maybe it is too much to ask him to defend AJ Green in space. But c'mon, at least compete for the ball kid.

- The Officiating Crew: In a league that -- to be frank -- has too many rules and too many complicated penalties -- this crew seemed overwhelmed by the atmosphere and unsure of itself, waiting too long to throw flags (the intentional grounding), missing spots, and in particular the entire chain of events on the non-fumble/Easley block (throwing the beanbag, calling the wrong penalty, etc.).

- Traditional media: From ESPN ("They're just not good anymore!") to our local folks at the Globe (running poorly sourced unconfirmed reports) they did not exactly cover themselves in glory this week.

Edit: bolded.

 

[Myt1]

He's saying Gronk is the ONE.

Be excellent to each other and party on, dudes.

The game ball goes to Belichick for his post game press conference.

"With all due respect. I mean really."

 

[Stitch01]

Reiss pointed out that Chandler Jones switched sides on the FG protection unit, possibly to protect his shoulder.  Sort of interesting that Jones saw his PT reduced drastically on defense but still was on the FG protection unit.

 

[Darnell's Son]

Reiss pointed out that Chandler Jones switched sides on the FG protection unit, possibly to protect his shoulder.  Sort of interesting that Jones saw his PT reduced drastically on defense but still was on the FG protection unit.

All three phases are equally important, and his impact is real on that unit.

 

[Stitch01]

BB believes special teams have value, but there's no way that he believes ST units are equally important.  FO puts the ratio at about offense 4/defense 3/special teams 1, which seems right.

 

[Darnell's Son]

BB believes special teams have value, but there's no way that he believes ST units are equally important.  FO puts the ratio at about offense 4/defense 3/special teams 1, which seems right.

You're right, I shouldn't haven't said equally.

 

[Stitch01]

Mostly just found it interesting because I'm not entirely sure that Jones playing time decrease was all injury related.  He has been real up and down against the run this year and was terrible against KC on Monday, it wouldn't surprise me if BB and company were trying to find a more stout unit against the run against a team like the Bengals.

 

[Darnell's Son]

It's interesting and makes sense if they can use Easley as a DE on running/early downs and bring Chandler in(moving Easley inside) during passing situations to keep him fresh. Maybe always have Chandler come in the game no the matter down and distance when the opposing team has really good field position or it's the end of a half.
 
Edit: to add a "the"

 

[Norm Siebern]

Collectively the game ball goes to the O-line. Only one sack allowed, one other hit, and the running game notched over 200 yards. If they get line play like that consistently throughout the season, a lot of people in the media will have to eat a lot of crow in February. Not that I expect any mea culpas from the fourth estate, mind you.

All this against a very good defense. I hope this aggressive line play will continue. Run, run, run.

 

[Ed Hillel]

It's interesting and makes sense if they can use Easley as a DE on running/early downs and bring Chandler in(moving Easley inside) during passing situations to keep him fresh. Maybe always have Chandler come in the game no the matter down and distance when the opposing team has really good field position or it's the end of a half.
 
Edit: to add a "the"

On Passing downs, I'd much rather keep Easley at DE and bring Jones in to replace Nink. Doesn't have to be the right end, just anything to keep me from having to watch Nink get stonewalled 30 times a game.

 

[crystalline]

Towards "You're never as good as you look when you win":
I thought the OL looked much better but I don't think its suddenly become an elite unit. The offense worked in many more runs and playaction and Brady made a bunch of quick passes. Both of those tend to make pass protection look good. That's much better than against the Chiefs when Brady was taking hard blindside hits and getting blasted by rushers coming in unimpeded by blockers. However I think the o line is going to look good when the running game is on and might look pretty poor at other times.

Since I am already the negative Nellie here: I really want to see Brady stop leading his long throws so much. Every single long throw is overthrown. Especially on 2nd and long in your own territory, toss it up a little shorter and make the receiver fight for it Flacco-to-Boldin style. If it ends up as an interception its not much worse than a punt. I get the desire to avoid costly turnovers but the threshold is pushed way too far toward avoiding type II errors for me. I want some hits and not a million false alarms with zero misses.

 

[Stitch01]

Think your second paragraph is very well said.

 

[GeorgeCostanza]

Add me to the list of those who subscribe to the theory that Brady knows his deep ball isn't great so he would rather miss long than miss short/get picked.

 

[Super Nomario]

BB believes special teams have value, but there's no way that he believes ST units are equally important.  FO puts the ratio at about offense 4/defense 3/special teams 1, which seems right.

Do you have a source for this? I'd be interested in reading it. I'm a little skeptical of FO's statistical work generally.
 
In terms of weighting these factors generally, it's important to distinguish between weighting special teams as a whole and weighting an individual special teams play versus an individual offense / defense play. Collectively special teams are less important because there are only 30%-50% as many special teams plays as offense / defense. But that's different than saying it's more important for Chandler Jones to be in a 1st-and-10 play at the 40 yard line than for him to be on the FG block unit.

 

[Stitch01]

Had wrote a longer post that got erased accidentally, so will just say to your first point, its in their book intro every year. I don't have the original research handy (sorry), and I wouldn't bet my life 4-3-1 is the exact right ratio, but Im willing to be its pretty close.
Second, yes I thought of that, the right way to think of it is incremental value over the backup player on the unit.  Just thought it was interesting enough to mention because it might portend a bit of a role change, at least as long as Jones is banged up.

 

[mauf]

Since I am already the negative Nellie here: I really want to see Brady stop leading his long throws so much. Every single long throw is overthrown. Especially on 2nd and long in your own territory, toss it up a little shorter and make the receiver fight for it Flacco-to-Boldin style. If it ends up as an interception its not much worse than a punt. I get the desire to avoid costly turnovers but the threshold is pushed way too far toward avoiding type II errors for me. I want some hits and not a million false alarms with zero misses.

The reason Brady doesn't do this is because he doesn't have any WRs like Boldin (or Torrey Smith). I think he's right to throw the deep ball just often enough to keep the defense honest, and to err on the side of not turning the ball over on those deep throws.

 

[crystalline]

The reason Brady doesn't do this is because he doesn't have any WRs like Boldin (or Torrey Smith). I think he's right to throw the deep ball just often enough to keep the defense honest, and to err on the side of not turning the ball over on those deep throws.

In all circumstances? I might buy that the odds say always to avoid the interception, but I'd like to see some deeper discussion.

There was a series Sunday where the Pats had second and long after a penalty on first down. They were around their 30. Brady went deep to Edelman down the right sideline and Edelman had a step on the CB. The ball went 5 yards out of his reach. They failed to convert on third and long and punted. When it's 2nd or 3rd and long, that reduces the cost of an interception dramatically since you're likely punting anyway. (My memory might be off on details.)

I realize there is a risk of a long interception return but that was a play I wanted to see Brady throw shorter and Edelman fight for the ball, even if he is on the shrimpy side.