Yesterday, I thought they were the better unit. The Jets went fumble, FG, punt, punt, punt on their final 5 drives in regulation. The D absolutely got gashed before halftime, but I still trusted them more to get a stop yesterday than I trusted the offense to string together a game winning drive in overtime.
The Game Goat Thread: Week 16 at the Jets
- Thread starter SeoulSoxFan
- Start date
Your point is that Marshall didn't commit a penalty but everyone in the game thread was whining about OPI on every Jets completed pass? I'm in agreement.
This is true, Harmon whining for a flag was just him trying to cover up for the fact he didn't make an adjustment on the ball like Marshall did.
If we have a rematch we better see Butler on Marshall. Ryan is not nearly physical enough. Ryan was serviceable against Decker in the first matchup and Butler held Marshall to one of his worst games of the season. A healthy McCourty will also go a long way towards solving some of the pass defense issues we saw.
The point is if that was Gronk and not Marshall OPI would have been called. That is why people are so upset about OPI this year.
A healthy safety tandem also greatly reduces the chances of Tavon Wilson seeing the field in a non-ST role. I thought Richards played ok all things considered and was concerned when he went out. And the Jets went right after his replacement and ultimately won the game because of it.
At the end of the day, you can put a healthy Edelman/Dola on the field and give us our starting safeties back and the Jets would still be a tough matchup for the Pats. Fitzpatrick has put up Brady numbers against our defense in both games. We're used to Jets QBs making critical mistakes and they really aren't anymore.
At the end of the day, you can put a healthy Edelman/Dola on the field and give us our starting safeties back and the Jets would still be a tough matchup for the Pats. Fitzpatrick has put up Brady numbers against our defense in both games. We're used to Jets QBs making critical mistakes and they really aren't anymore.
To be fair to Harmon, after watching the replay he said it wasn't interference, he needed to play it better.
Non-Butler corners remain very vulnerable to receivers, particularly taller receivers, in jump ball situations, they typically have coverage but aren't adjusting well to the ball mid-air.. The Giants had success attacking the Pats that way down the field earlier in the season and Ryan had the same problems he had with Marshall with Green-Beckham last week. Not sure how exactly the Pats counter that.
One way would be to put your best CB on their best WR. Part of me thinks they weren't treating yesterday as a must win and didn't want Marshall to get any ideas on how to beat Butler in coverage. Otherwise it really makes no sense to change what worked from earlier in the year.
It is odd that against TN Butler was primarily covering the immortal Harry Douglas while DGB was left to have a career day against Ryan. Perhaps the Pats see something during practice that isn't showing up on the field with Ryan/Butler? From what I can gather Ryan has been asked to cover the #1 WR quite a bit recently.
Decker is a similar matchup problem with the Jets anyways, but against the Giants they put Butler on Beckham and still had the same problems with the Giants scrubs against the other corners.
I haven't gotten to look at the all-22, but putting their top corner on the #2 WR and their second corner on the #1 WR with safety help has been a common strategy for the Pats for a long time, no?
I haven't gotten to look at the all-22, but putting their top corner on the #2 WR and their second corner on the #1 WR with safety help has been a common strategy for the Pats for a long time, no?
Using Gronk outside creates a mismatch issue because the opponent either has to put a LB/S out wide or the Pats get a matchup with a WR against a LB/S. They do this a fair amount. In a more conventional set, the Pats WRs would have had little chance of getting open against the Jets' CBs.
You are mis-remembering: they used Ryan primarily against Marshall and Butler primarily against Decker in the first matchup, too.
Seeing anti Belichick posts on here is still the funniest thing on this entire site and that is saying a lot about a site that as some pretty smart and funny guys dissecting the comic strip "For Better or for Worse"
No shame or real "goats" in this loss. Division games on the road are supposed to be hard. Hell, just yesterday the Steelers lost one to one of the worst teams in football starting a 4th string QB and the Seahawks lost one at home to an inferior team
As others have said, a lot of heart shown by a team starting backups all over the field that got thoroughly outplayed for almost the entire game. They had no business sending this to overtime, and if Nink looks up on the batted ball or the ticky tack Butler DPI isn't called they likely win in regulation.
Also, I like the notion that Belichick wanted the ball 2nd in OT to give the offense 4 downs if they needed a FG. The defense came up small in OT after coming up big in the 4th quarter, but bad things happen when both starting safeties are out and your slot CB goes down.
UP:
- Brady: Clutch on a day when everything around him was going wrong and he was throwing to 4th string WRs and RBs while being protected by 4th/5th string Tackles.
- Sheard: A genuine disruptive force. What a player.
- Key Martin: Looked pretty good on a tough day.
DOWN:
- Pass blocking/coaching: The Jets front is incredibly good and the Patriots have suffered an absurd number of injuries at this position, so it's probably unfair to be too critical, but I think it took them too long to move Stork to guard and put Andrews at center, and did I see Michael Williams trying to handle Wilkerson by himself?
- Run blocking: This team needs to be better in short yardage runs.
- Tavon Wilson: Could have used something from him on a day when the secondary was desperately thin. Not happy that he didn't see the field until Richards went down.
Also, I think the Super Bowl last year muted a lot of the critics, but if you go back a few years this board offered plenty of examples of fans who claimed to "like Belichick the coach but not Belichick the GM."
I remember the thread when Welker walked being a mess, and the threads when Mankins was traded and Revis left weren't great either.
As others have said, a lot of heart shown by a team starting backups all over the field that got thoroughly outplayed for almost the entire game. They had no business sending this to overtime, and if Nink looks up on the batted ball or the ticky tack Butler DPI isn't called they likely win in regulation.
Also, I like the notion that Belichick wanted the ball 2nd in OT to give the offense 4 downs if they needed a FG. The defense came up small in OT after coming up big in the 4th quarter, but bad things happen when both starting safeties are out and your slot CB goes down.
UP:
- Brady: Clutch on a day when everything around him was going wrong and he was throwing to 4th string WRs and RBs while being protected by 4th/5th string Tackles.
- Sheard: A genuine disruptive force. What a player.
- Key Martin: Looked pretty good on a tough day.
DOWN:
- Pass blocking/coaching: The Jets front is incredibly good and the Patriots have suffered an absurd number of injuries at this position, so it's probably unfair to be too critical, but I think it took them too long to move Stork to guard and put Andrews at center, and did I see Michael Williams trying to handle Wilkerson by himself?
- Run blocking: This team needs to be better in short yardage runs.
- Tavon Wilson: Could have used something from him on a day when the secondary was desperately thin. Not happy that he didn't see the field until Richards went down.
He's probably aware.
Also, I think the Super Bowl last year muted a lot of the critics, but if you go back a few years this board offered plenty of examples of fans who claimed to "like Belichick the coach but not Belichick the GM."
I remember the thread when Welker walked being a mess, and the threads when Mankins was traded and Revis left weren't great either.
Last edited:
My bad on Butler/Marshall matchup from the first game. You are correct Ryan/McCourty bracketed Marshall while Butler had single coverage on Decker.
Regarding using Gronk out wide, Gronk is a mismatch when he is in the game regardless of where he lines up. I'd much rather have Gronk matched up with a S/LB than Keyshawn Martin. You are going to be hard pressed to win many games when Martin leads your team in rec/targets.
Using Gronk as a sort of decoy to free up Martin is not an optimal strategy, as we saw yesterday.
Not just the Super Bowl - Belichick's draft record improved at high profile positions.
For many years Belichick's WR, pass rushing, and defensive back picks and UFAs were clunkers. Recently he can count Edelman, Gronk, Butler, McCourty as successes and he picked up some passable guys - Ryan, Arrington, Dennard, and maybe you count Chung. Plus he got Collins, Sheard, Jones, Easley as high profile pass-rushing defenders. Hard to say Belichick has lost his talent-evaluation fastball based on the past few years.
People will always complain about losing big name FAs like Welker and Revis but few can look back in hindsight and say Belichick was wrong. So I'm not sure present-sense reactions to those moves mean much about what people really think about Belichick the GM.
Belichick has excelled both at coaching and as a GM. Pretty amazing, actually.
I went into yesterday's game half expecting a loss so why did I want to put my fist through a wall after that game?
Missed opportunities. I understand the defenses of the strategies of end of first half and end of game turtling and kicking off in OT. Most of the defenses of those decisions make some sort of logical sense that I can more or less wrap my head around.
However the fact that each of the decisions was defensible doesn't make them the right decisions. They were the wrong decisions. Those three decisions were great opportunities to put a nail into the coffin of a hated and dangerous rival.
Not even an effort to drive for a game winning FG? That's some serious horseshit right there.
Missed opportunities. I understand the defenses of the strategies of end of first half and end of game turtling and kicking off in OT. Most of the defenses of those decisions make some sort of logical sense that I can more or less wrap my head around.
However the fact that each of the decisions was defensible doesn't make them the right decisions. They were the wrong decisions. Those three decisions were great opportunities to put a nail into the coffin of a hated and dangerous rival.
Not even an effort to drive for a game winning FG? That's some serious horseshit right there.
No way. I can see not wanting to get Gronk or Brady hurt but that's plenty of time to try to get in position for a long FG to win the game. If you play OT and expect to win, those guys are going to have to play at least one long drive. What's the downside risk?
BB wanted to kick, yeah. Slater (may have*) messed up by saying they wanted to kick (in a certain direction) instead of choosing a side to defend, which would have allowed him to take the wind (what wind there was). By saying 'kick' he gave the choice of direction to the Jets.
*I say 'may have' because by choosing a side it would be giving the choice of kick/receive to the Jets, and they conceivably may have chosen to kick themselves. So BB may have decided that the benefit of side/wind wasn't worth the chance that the Jets themselves would choose to kick. That is, the riskier move (if his chief goal was kicking off) likely would have led to getting the wind *and* kicking off, but it had the downside risk of ending up receiving.
edit: I re-read Eddie Jurak's initial comment that I'd replied to and realized that he was contrasting taking the wind with the decision to kick the XP, so I misunderstood a bit. That said, we still don't really know if BB wanted the potential of kicking & the wind, or the certainty of choosing the kick, so the intent is still a bit muddy. But I'd guess he cared a lot more about kicking off than to which end.
Last edited:
A game losing strip sack or interception with minimal chance of going 40 yards in three plays.
Coaches are generally overconservative, but kneeling there seemed prudent.
That logic seems very iffy to me. Even with the corps of WR that were out there yesterday, I'll take my chances with Tom trying to get those yards. That would have been a great spot some Flacco style offense.
Oh well. Hopefully it all means nothing and we can wrap up HFA next week. I really just don't want to go to Mile High.
That logic seems very iffy to me. Even with the corps of WR that were out there yesterday, I'll take my chances with Tom trying to get those yards. That would have been a great spot some Flacco style offense.
Oh well. Hopefully it all means nothing and we can wrap up HFA next week. I really just don't want to go to Mile High.
There's a good chance Denver isn't going to be playing a game in Mile High, so wouldn't worry too much.
Oh well. Hopefully it all means nothing and we can wrap up HFA next week. I really just don't want to go to Mile High.
There's a good chance Denver isn't going to be playing a game in Mile High, so wouldn't worry too much.
A strip sack, interception or injury can happen on every offensive play. I do not understand the crippling concern for the worst case scenario outcome, especially at the end of the first half. The Pats gained 13 yards on the first play and were at the 30 yard line with multiple timeouts and around 1:53 left. They needed 30 to 35 yards for a FG attempt and they essentially ran out the clock. I think it is valid to be critical of the coaches for throwing away that opportunity to even attempt to score.
I get being conservative given the injury situation, but being overly afraid of a disaster has not been the way of this team in previous seasons. We all remember what Seattle did before the half at the SB with about 30 seconds on the clock. They were not paralyzed with the fear of a turnover or a bad result and were rewarded. The Pats will need to start assuming some risk here soon or this season will likely be ending in disappointment.
Weird, thought I had posted this already and it looked like it showed up twice, but now I don't see it. BB talked about kicking off.
http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-england-patriots
1) Slater did exactly what he was told to, they wanted to pick kick and not a side. The confusion was because Slater thought you could pick a side as well as kicking. BB told the ref he wanted to kick before the coin toss and said side was really no factor yesterday.
2) BB explained that he believed the team had a better chance at playing field position and kicking on a short field rather than going the length of a field for a TD after accounting the risk of a short drive resulting in the Jets getting good field position.
A strip sack, interception or injury can happen on every offensive play. I do not understand the crippling concern for the worst case scenario outcome, especially at the end of the first half. The Pats gained 13 yards on the first play and were at the 30 yard line with multiple timeouts and around 1:53 left. They needed 30 to 35 yards for a FG attempt and they essentially ran out the clock. I think it is valid to be critical of the coaches for throwing away that opportunity to even attempt to score.
I get being conservative given the injury situation, but being overly afraid of a disaster has not been the way of this team in previous seasons. We all remember what Seattle did before the half at the SB with about 30 seconds on the clock. They were not paralyzed with the fear of a turnover or a bad result and were rewarded. The Pats will need to start assuming some risk here soon or this season will likely be ending in disappointment.
I was referring to the decision to kneel at the end of the game, not at the end of the half.
The end of the half is a real possession and it makes no sense to simply burn it, especially when behind by a score. They had timeouts and nearly two minutes, plenty of time to run 5 or 6 plays even with the first down run designed to make sure the Jets didn't get the ball back. They could basically run the entire offense to try and advance to at least field goal range.
The end of the game, with 25 seconds left and one timeout, are mostly limited to dropping back and throwing the ball downfield, which the Pats obviously felt they couldn't do yesterday based on the playcalling and which was going to be more difficult when the Jets didn't have to respect other options, or screen/draw plays that are highly unlikely to do anything to help score points.
http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-england-patriots
1) Slater did exactly what he was told to, they wanted to pick kick and not a side. The confusion was because Slater thought you could pick a side as well as kicking. BB told the ref he wanted to kick before the coin toss and said side was really no factor yesterday.
2) BB explained that he believed the team had a better chance at playing field position and kicking on a short field rather than going the length of a field for a TD after accounting the risk of a short drive resulting in the Jets getting good field position.
A strip sack, interception or injury can happen on every offensive play. I do not understand the crippling concern for the worst case scenario outcome, especially at the end of the first half. The Pats gained 13 yards on the first play and were at the 30 yard line with multiple timeouts and around 1:53 left. They needed 30 to 35 yards for a FG attempt and they essentially ran out the clock. I think it is valid to be critical of the coaches for throwing away that opportunity to even attempt to score.
I get being conservative given the injury situation, but being overly afraid of a disaster has not been the way of this team in previous seasons. We all remember what Seattle did before the half at the SB with about 30 seconds on the clock. They were not paralyzed with the fear of a turnover or a bad result and were rewarded. The Pats will need to start assuming some risk here soon or this season will likely be ending in disappointment.
I was referring to the decision to kneel at the end of the game, not at the end of the half.
The end of the half is a real possession and it makes no sense to simply burn it, especially when behind by a score. They had timeouts and nearly two minutes, plenty of time to run 5 or 6 plays even with the first down run designed to make sure the Jets didn't get the ball back. They could basically run the entire offense to try and advance to at least field goal range.
The end of the game, with 25 seconds left and one timeout, are mostly limited to dropping back and throwing the ball downfield, which the Pats obviously felt they couldn't do yesterday based on the playcalling and which was going to be more difficult when the Jets didn't have to respect other options, or screen/draw plays that are highly unlikely to do anything to help score points.
Last edited:
Belichick would've had to have given Slater a preferred goal to defend as a contingency for the Jets winning the toss. For some unknown reason Slater thought the Pats could also pick the direction, hence the confusion.
It's not Tom Brady I'd be worried about with 25 seconds left. Its the guys protecting him, and the guys who are trying to beat coverage to get those 20-25 yards. I don't totally disagree, and I wish they had run a low risk play, like a screen to White, just to see if they pick up 20ish yards and have a shot at the GW FG. But I didn't have an issue to take a knee there with the way the offense had been playing all afternoon.
On another note, every time teams make a decision that isn't conventional and it doesn't work out, some fans and media members rush to call the HC "arrogant" for not going with conventional wisdom. It's happened here, with the 4th and 2 play, whenever Belichick trades or cuts good players like Seymour or Mankins, on and on. What allows him to make choices like these is that he's never coaching for his job. Mostly b/c he wins a ton, but also because he has the backing of a supportive ownership group that has a long term view of things.
Coaches who play it conservatively get criticized too (obvious example of McCarthy from last year) but don't get called egotistic because they're following conventional wisdom, and don't see themselves as smarter than the collective game approaches that have been developed and implemented over time. For whatever reason, in the NFL when you go against that "wisdom", you often get labeled as arrogant, instead of innovative or different thinking. We see it with time and time again with Belichick, going all the way back to his decision to go with Brady over Bledsoe. It's hilarious to me that so many people think they have all the answers rather than the guys that are paid millions to make these decisions, and that they make them in the hopes of making themselves look like geniuses. It's an unbelievably lazy way to criticize a decision. Is Belichick a douche to the media after losses? Absolutely. And it's because they do things like call him arrogant after decisions like the one yesterday.
I agree with the bolded. I'll also add that I don't believe Belichick cares what the media, fans and analysts have to say about his decisions.
It's not so much decoy, it's making the defense choose where to deploy their best pass defenders. The Jets could have decided to put a LB on the outside against Gronk, in which case he becomes a desirable target. Most of the time, they left a CB on him, which creates mismatch issues elsewhere. This is a fundamental component of what the Patriots do every week - they move their passing targets around to get different looks and different matchups.
The other advantage to Gronk on the outside in particular is that they are more likely to get a one-on-one matchup. It's a lot easier to bracket Gronk in the middle of the field.
More here: http://insidethepylon.com/film-study/film-study-nfl/offense-film-study-nfl/2015/12/25/how-the-patriots-exploit-matchups/
Re: Belichick and arrogance
Bill Belichick gets paid millions per year for being the best in the world, and maybe in history, at his job. Tens of millions of people in the US would like his job and his salary, and they can't get it because he is better than them at the job.
And we are happy he's coaching the Pats because he could go to any other team and get paid millions because he is the best in world at a difficult job. (I certainly couldn't do his job well). And he gets paid far more than me, you and every member of the media.
Of course he is arrogant. You don't get a job like that without being arrogant. We want the Pats coach to be arrogant and smarter than everyone else.
Do people expect Belichick to be some sniveling loser who is afraid to do what he thinks is right, or will apologize to the media when his decisions don't work out?
Personally, at a salary of $5M per year running a business worth $1B+, I hope the Pats find someone who is really good at their job and I expect that person to be somewhat arrogant.
Edit: The best of the best managers are good at hiding their arrogance, but don't be fooled-- they know they are good and it sometimes comes out in stressful situations. Belichick could probably do a better job hiding his arrogance with the media but that doesn't mean he'd think less of his own decision making.
Bill Belichick gets paid millions per year for being the best in the world, and maybe in history, at his job. Tens of millions of people in the US would like his job and his salary, and they can't get it because he is better than them at the job.
And we are happy he's coaching the Pats because he could go to any other team and get paid millions because he is the best in world at a difficult job. (I certainly couldn't do his job well). And he gets paid far more than me, you and every member of the media.
Of course he is arrogant. You don't get a job like that without being arrogant. We want the Pats coach to be arrogant and smarter than everyone else.
Do people expect Belichick to be some sniveling loser who is afraid to do what he thinks is right, or will apologize to the media when his decisions don't work out?
Personally, at a salary of $5M per year running a business worth $1B+, I hope the Pats find someone who is really good at their job and I expect that person to be somewhat arrogant.
Edit: The best of the best managers are good at hiding their arrogance, but don't be fooled-- they know they are good and it sometimes comes out in stressful situations. Belichick could probably do a better job hiding his arrogance with the media but that doesn't mean he'd think less of his own decision making.
If only Bowles was that stupid. The CB they left on Gronk for the most part was Revis which means the other "mismatch" created was Keyshawn Martin who turned 7 catches into 68 yards. Gronk had 86 yards on just 4 catches. The only mismatches they were creating were for themselves. In a game where they scored exactly one offensive TD (after Gronk converted a key 4th down reception on a seam route) I think it is more than fair to question why Gronk was not more involved in the passing game. When you are down your two best WR why not scheme to get the best TE in the NFL the ball more instead of using him to free up a jag?
Gronk gets doubled when the Pats are fully healthy, what do you think happens when they are missing their next three best-receiving options?
Thanks for sharing that. It's very useful.
I can't seem to convince my father that "it was stupid; I'd rather be in control" isn't a proper argument.
NESN mustn't be under Belichick's thumb. Wiggy and Chatham this morning both said they thought it was the wrong decision. "You're making a choice that might result in your team never touching the ball" was one of their quotes. But, BB never takes the safe route (who can blame a coach for taking the ball?). There was also some banter about BB taking a bullet for Slater. But the way Slater said it, mentioning kicking off and end to defend, I don't think he meant to say "we'll receive".
The 16-20-64 TD-FG-no score split on opening drives seemed a little off to me, but the TD percentage checks out with the data compiled by this guy:
The 20% FG frequency seems really odd to me (vice 10% in the graph above). I also suspect that a lot of coaches are incorrectly trying FGs to open overtime (punting deep is better than long FG attempts on long 4th downs, and going for it is of course better on 4th-and-short and close to the goal).
Do you think they weren't trying to scheme the ball to Gronk? The Jets play defense, too, and it's pretty easy to play defense when there's only one player you have to worry about. It's not like the Pats lined up Gronk wide on every play; they mixed things up. Nothing worked very well, because the 9 players on offense other than Brady and Gronk are pretty lousy right now.
Yep. And he should be able find a solid OT at the end of round one in April. Oh, wait...(blood pressure rising again)
This is a cool plot.The 16-20-64 TD-FG-no score split on opening drives seemed a little off to me, but the TD percentage checks out with the data compiled by this guy:
The 20% FG frequency seems really odd to me (vice 10% in the graph above). I also suspect that a lot of coaches are incorrectly trying FGs to open overtime (punting deep is better than long FG attempts on long 4th downs, and going for it is of course better on 4th-and-short and close to the goal).
Any idea why a TD is more likely than a FG at long distances? I'd expect the opposite, but based on quick consideration I suppose it could be because the rare long/chunk plays tend to result in TDs not FGs.
The big deviations at very short distances are interesting to quantify.
Reiss made a good point this morning: in the Denver game, the Pats won the toss, received, went 3 and out, and gave the ball back to Denver at their own 43. Three plays later the game was over. No one criticized BB because it was the "conventional" choice.
There are many, many successful people who your this description. Some hide their arrogance some don't. Think of Donald Trump. Some of these successful and arrogant people make 10 or 20 times what an NFL coach makes. Some make much less but are still at the top of their profession.
The problem with arrogance isn't that it is a character flaw and makes people uncomfortable. The problem is when it biases decision-making. A gambler who sees a 50-50 bet but thinks they know what will happen. Or an investor who assumes a 10% return when everyone else sees 7%. These are people whose jobs depend on making probability-based decisions and their approach can certainly be skewed by a track record of success and/or an unfounded belief in their own ability to see the future.
I'm not saying this is Belichick. But I do think this is what worries people (at least this is what I think of) when they talk about the potential downside of arrogance. Whether Belichick presents himself as a confident winner or a sniveling loser is not really that interesting.
Agreed. When people call a coach like Belichick arrogant in these kind of situations, the insinuation is that he thought too highly of his own decision-making and ignored reality/history/tradition/whatever and decided that he needed to prove he was the smartest guy in the room...or something like that. He may be "arrogant" b/c he's the sense that he's the best coach in the league and knows it, but he's not arrogant in that he makes decisions that are meant to prove how smart he is, instead of making ones that are in the best interest of the team.
Has anyone else noticed the way Brady talked about the INT in the post-game press conference and the EEI interview? He keeps referring to it as a "bad play" and not really taking responsibility. Feels like he's implying Gronk botched the route.
I think you raise a fair point, that there is a potential real downside to arrogance, but of course there could be a real downside to a lack of confidence, too. Mistaking the 7% return for 10% is bad, but so is mistaking it for 4%.
From the outside looking in, we might (might; a coach obviously has more info than we do) be able to judge whether a coach incorrectly estimated the probability, but we can't know why he did it. Maybe it was too much confidence, or too little, or maybe he thought the opponent would behave a certain way or didn't, or maybe he just didn't have much in the way of options. Ascribing a bad or sub-optimal decision to arrogance is the lowest and worst kind of sports analysis. Sports are full of highly, highly, trained, talented, and motivated professionals competing as hard as they can and looking for every edge they can. One of them has to win and one of them has to lose, and it's stupid and frankly insulting that people are so quick to see the outcomes as reflections of the characters of the individuals, positive or negative. Once a coach like Belichick gets saddled with the "arrogant" label, literally any decision he makes can be seen through that lens, whether or not it makes any sense.
I haven't heard Brady talk about the play, but from watching it, it looked like he expected Gronk to run a curl or sit down his route and Gronk ran a Go/Post.
The announcer kept saying Brady rushed the throw, but it looked like he got all the way through his motion and was able to step into the pass. So I would guess someone misread the coverage (probably Gronk).
