Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from NickC1188. Show NickC1188's posts

    Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think

    Yes, they lost by 21 points.  Yes they gave up well over 300 yards to Brees and 8 plays of over 20 yards.

    But I have something shocking to share with you all:
    Take two blown assignments by the safety away and Brees doesn't even throw for 300 yards.

    (1) The Colston catch (67? yards).  Colston is split out far to the right with a receiver in the slot.  The receiver in the slot runs an out, and the safety bites.  Colston runs deep upfield and makes the catch.

    (2) The Henderson (75 yards).  The safety watches Brees' eyes instead of reading the receivers' routes.  Brees looks the safety over to the offensive left, where nobody was coming upfield.  The slot corner on the offensive right who was covering Henderson blitzes and the safety who was the only one deep (Cover 1) was on the wrong side of the field.  Henderson catches the ball in open field.

    Embarrassing?  Yes.  Correctable?  Absolutely.

    Don't jump off of the bridge or hang yourself off of the lighthouse in the North end zone just yet.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Philskiw. Show Philskiw's posts

    Re: Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think

    It was still pretty bad. Only a regular season game, maybe we'll finish 12-4 or 11-5 with one more loss. I bet theres at least 29 teams this year that would be happy to finish 11-5.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from patsfaninsatx. Show patsfaninsatx's posts

    Re: Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think

    In Response to Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think:
    [QUOTE]Yes, they lost by 21 points.  Yes they gave up well over 300 yards to Brees and 8 plays of over 20 yards. But I have something shocking to share with you all: Take two blown assignments by the safety away and Brees doesn't even throw for 300 yards. (1) The Colston catch (67? yards).  Colston is split out far to the right with a receiver in the slot.  The receiver in the slot runs an out, and the safety bites.  Colston runs deep upfield and makes the catch. (2) The Henderson (75 yards).  The safety watches Brees' eyes instead of reading the receivers' routes.  Brees looks the safety over to the offensive left, where nobody was coming upfield.  The slot corner on the offensive right who was covering Henderson blitzes and the safety who was the only one deep (Cover 1) was on the wrong side of the field.  Henderson catches the ball in open field. Embarrassing?  Yes.  Correctable?  Absolutely. Don't jump off of the bridge or hang yourself off of the lighthouse in the North end zone just yet.
    Posted by NickC1188[/QUOTE]

    I was trying to think of what that stat was....Im not absolutely sure, but was Merriweather who blew his assignments?
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriotz. Show themightypatriotz's posts

    Re: Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think

    Don't we usually play cover 2?  Looked like we only had one deep safety most of the night.  That seemed to be the biggest problem. 
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from prairiemike. Show prairiemike's posts

    Re: Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think

    This is the same point underdogg(g) made after the Pats jumped out big on the Colts (even though they eventually lost). Take away all the big plays and what do you have? A close game?

    Maybe.

    But I told him then and I'll tell you now, you can't simply erase the big-gainers and assume the Saints get nothing else. How many times did the Pats actually stop the Saints' offense? If Brees doesn't connect for those home-run plays, there's no reason to believe the Saints don't continue driving just the same. The game may, indeed, have been a little closer (and it might just as easily have not), but nothing I saw Monday night leads me to believe that we should be confident the Pats could win a rematch with that team.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from K-max. Show K-max's posts

    Re: Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think

    Maybe we were just playing vanilla in anticipation of a Super Bowl rematch. 
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from prairiemike. Show prairiemike's posts

    Re: Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think

    In Response to Re: Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think:
    [QUOTE]Maybe we were just playing vanilla in anticipation of a Super Bowl rematch. 
    Posted by K-max[/QUOTE]

    This is actually funny.

    That Guido troll who was all over the board last week actually suggested before the game that the Saints had been sandbagging all season (yes, that's right -- for 11 weeks) so that they would be able to hit the Pats with formations and variations the Pats had not seen on film.

    Of course, that guy also claimed to believe that the Saints have had a burgeoning hardcore following since the beginning of time (which I believe, for them, was around 1970), a claim I happen to know from personal experience to be patently false.

    Anyway, max, it's a fun way to think while we're all salivating over the more immediate prospect of disembowling Miami.

    Speaking of which, isn't it about time Joey Porter brought up Spygate (again)?
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdoggg. Show underdoggg's posts

    Re: Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think

    Hold your ground pmike. 

    Otherwise, the so-called freebie PI's that the colts have benefitted from don't matter.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from NickC1188. Show NickC1188's posts

    Re: Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think

    In Response to Re: Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think:
    [QUOTE]This is the same point underdogg(g) made after the Pats jumped out big on the Colts (even though they eventually lost). Take away all the big plays and what do you have? A close game? Maybe. But I told him then and I'll tell you now, you can't simply erase the big-gainers and assume the Saints get nothing else. How many times did the Pats actually stop the Saints' offense? If Brees doesn't connect for those home-run plays, there's no reason to believe the Saints don't continue driving just the same. The game may, indeed, have been a little closer (and it might just as easily have not), but nothing I saw Monday night leads me to believe that we should be confident the Pats could win a rematch with that team.
    Posted by prairiemike[/QUOTE]

    I tend to think that giving up big plays is much more back-breaking to morale than giving up a drive in a close game.

    A 7-point lead is manageable, but when they basically gave up three or four plays that accounted for half of the Saints' yards, it becomes insurmountable.

    For me, it sounds like the real crux of the issue was maturity.  Young players were getting frustrated and letting that frustration carry over into the next play.  It was bad because they didn't know how to handle the pressure and it got worse because they're young and inexperienced.

    Once they become comfortable with playing in a pressure environment and prove to themselves that they can execute in pressure situations, they'll be just fine.  Kevin Garnett, Peyton Manning, Alex Rodriguez, and the entire Red Sox organization overcame the inability to perform in the clutch just through experience in being there.  This Patriots defense will be no different.

    And while both teams were obviously trying to win, I know for a fact that all of the real life coaches for whom I've ever played liked to save a few pages in the playbook that we had practiced all year for the big time (keep a few extra bullets handy for a rainy day).  
    ->in that same sense, I think that's why both teams held out a couple of key players.  For the Saints, it was Jabari Greer and Reggie Bush.  For the Pats, it was not rushing back Vollmer and giving Edelman more time to heal.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from jimijazz. Show jimijazz's posts

    Re: Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think

    Don't kid yourself, go back and watch the game. 

    The LB's were thoroughly confused the whole game.  If you take away the home runs the Saints would have won with doubles and singles.  They could have used four minute drives instead of 45 second drives and still scored 45 points.

    It is correctable? Sure.  But the Pats need to play their A game to even stay with the Saints and they need to be nearly perfect to beat them.  It's very close to where the Pats were vis-a-vis the Rams in 2001, except the Pats offense and defense has exchanged places.

    All this means is they need to keep working hard, finish the season strong, and take their best swings in the playoffs.  In 2006 they were up and down during the regular seasaon and then played terrific ball for 11 straight quarters in the playoffs.  It could happen again but they need to gain a significant amount of maturity soon.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think

    NO, the Patriots are terrible

    Tom Brady is past his prime, since he married gisselle he has gone soft

    BB is arrogant and the game has passed him by

    Randy Moss has lost a step

    Aside from Wilfork there is no talent on the defense

    Aside from Vollmer the offensive line needs to go


     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Casportsfan. Show Casportsfan's posts

    Re: Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think

    Take away two Vinatierri field goals and the Pats have 1 superbowl.  Take away a Bradshaw to Swan TD against the Cowboys and the Steelers win 5 SB's instead of 6 now.  Take away . . . ., etc. etc. etc.  What a rediculous argument.

    OK, no Brees to Henderson and the Saints score in 5 plays instead of 1.  This sort of logic applies in a close game where the defense by and large holds the other team down, and then gives up one game breaking play on a reverse or long run, NOT IN A GAME THAT THE OTHER TEAM RACKS UP 500 YDS.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from NickC1188. Show NickC1188's posts

    Re: Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think

    In Response to Re: Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think:
    [QUOTE]Take away two Vinatierri field goals and the Pats have 1 superbowl.  Take away a Bradshaw to Swan TD against the Cowboys and the Steelers win 5 SB's instead of 6 now.  Take away . . . ., etc. etc. etc.  What a rediculous argument. OK, no Brees to Henderson and the Saints score in 5 plays instead of 1.  This sort of logic applies in a close game where the defense by and large holds the other team down, and then gives up one game breaking play on a reverse or long run, NOT IN A GAME THAT THE OTHER TEAM RACKS UP 500 YDS.
    Posted by Casportsfan[/QUOTE]

    I tend to go with this theory:

    His article points out that the big play sets up the smaller plays and that winning teams NEED the big play in order to succeed.  It's much more difficult to execute 5-10 plays successfully than it is to get huge chunks of yardage all at once.

    That's the whole concept behind Six Sigma (business operations).  Minimize the number of variables and you minimize the number of mistakes.  When it only takes one play to score, you can't make many mistakes.  The Patriots gave up a couple big plays and allowed the Saints to score without having to execute too much.

    Brees is indeed human.  The Patriots just made a couple of mistakes that cost them big.

    Those mistakes are very easily correctable.  That is all.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsLifer. Show PatsLifer's posts

    Re: Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think

    It was as bad as we think. You are just mentioning the defensive woes. 

    What about offense?...Brady threw no TD's and had 2 picks. The O-line was in trouble all night, they blanketed Moss and Welker, and our TE's were absent as usual. 

    We got issues on both sides of the ball. 
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think

    This team is terrible, they'll probably only win 11 or 12 games.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from patriots44. Show patriots44's posts

    Re: Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think

    In Response to Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think:
    [QUOTE]Yes, they lost by 21 points.  Yes they gave up well over 300 yards to Brees and 8 plays of over 20 yards. But I have something shocking to share with you all: Take two blown assignments by the safety away and Brees doesn't even throw for 300 yards. (1) The Colston catch (67? yards).  Colston is split out far to the right with a receiver in the slot.  The receiver in the slot runs an out, and the safety bites.  Colston runs deep upfield and makes the catch. (2) The Henderson (75 yards).  The safety watches Brees' eyes instead of reading the receivers' routes.  Brees looks the safety over to the offensive left, where nobody was coming upfield.  The slot corner on the offensive right who was covering Henderson blitzes and the safety who was the only one deep (Cover 1) was on the wrong side of the field.  Henderson catches the ball in open field. Embarrassing?  Yes.  Correctable?  Absolutely. Don't jump off of the bridge or hang yourself off of the lighthouse in the North end zone just yet.
    Posted by NickC1188[/QUOTE]Your Right don't Jump. But we have had two games to prove who the Pats are this year 0-2. Who have the Pats beat this year NO-ONE
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think

    Here is the combined record of all the teams the Patriots played on the road when they played them (not the London game).

    25-0

    Thier record now

    34-10  a .77 win% 

    Either way you look at it that is a tough road schedule.  I don't have the time or means to research but I wouldn't be surprised if that is the toughest road schedule any team has ever faced in the NFL.  I'm not making excuses just perspective this team will probably still make the playoffs.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from boomerst3. Show boomerst3's posts

    Re: Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think

    The Pats are not as good as they used to be,  As Pats fans, we can keep making excuses for their poor play.  They are just not as good, period. They haven't won in over 5 years, and they got exposed Monday night in all areas.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think

    In Response to Re: Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think:
    [QUOTE]The Pats are not as good as they used to be,  As Pats fans, we can keep making excuses for their poor play.  They are just not as good, period. They haven't won in over 5 years, and they got exposed Monday night in all areas.
    Posted by boomerst3[/QUOTE]
    Somebody please explain to this guy why he is dumb.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Patsboy81. Show Patsboy81's posts

    Re: Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think

    ALL OF YALL ARE WRONG ONLY 1 APPLE THAT MESSES UP THE ALL AND THAT APPLE IS JOHNATHAN WILHITE AND THIS IS WHY:
    INDY GAME:
    1. GUARDING REGGIE WAYNE AND WAYNE SCORE 2 TDS ON HIM
    NO GAME:
    1. GIVES UP THE DEEP BALL
    2. DONT MAKE THE EFFORT TO TACKLE
    3. SLIP ON COVERAGE THAT GAVE COLSTON THAT 68 YRD RUN THAT PUT THEM IN THE RED ZONE

    IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN HIM AND ALSO WHEN WE PUT BUTLER IN AT THE BEGINNING OF THE 4TH DID WERE ANY DEEP PASSES CAUGHT? EXACTLY NONE. BODDEN HAS BEEN DOING AND GREATB JOB AND IS STILL IMPROVING BUT WILHITE HAS TO GO. HOW ABOUT TRADING OR PICKING UP AN FREE AGENT. LOOK AT MCKENZIE THE SAINTS PICKED HIM UP LAST WEEK AND HE DID A GOOD JOB. BUT IM ALSO HAPPY TO HEAR THAT SPRINGS IS BACK SO THAT GIVES ME MORE CONFIDENCE. HAVING THE STARTERS: 1. BODDEN 2. SPRINGS. 3. BUTLER SOUNDS GOOD AND SAFE DOESNT IT! 
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from MaritimePatsFan. Show MaritimePatsFan's posts

    Re: Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think

    In Response to Re: Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think:
    [QUOTE]ALL OF YALL ARE WRONG ONLY 1 APPLE THAT MESSES UP THE ALL AND THAT APPLE IS JOHNATHAN WILHITE AND THIS IS WHY: INDY GAME: 1. GUARDING REGGIE WAYNE AND WAYNE SCORE 2 TDS ON HIM NO GAME: 1. GIVES UP THE DEEP BALL 2. DONT MAKE THE EFFORT TO TACKLE 3. SLIP ON COVERAGE THAT GAVE COLSTON THAT 68 YRD RUN THAT PUT THEM IN THE RED ZONE IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN HIM AND ALSO WHEN WE PUT BUTLER IN AT THE BEGINNING OF THE 4TH DID WERE ANY DEEP PASSES CAUGHT? EXACTLY NONE. BODDEN HAS BEEN DOING AND GREATB JOB AND IS STILL IMPROVING BUT WILHITE HAS TO GO. HOW ABOUT TRADING OR PICKING UP AN FREE AGENT. LOOK AT MCKENZIE THE SAINTS PICKED HIM UP LAST WEEK AND HE DID A GOOD JOB. BUT IM ALSO HAPPY TO HEAR THAT SPRINGS IS BACK SO THAT GIVES ME MORE CONFIDENCE. HAVING THE STARTERS: 1. BODDEN 2. SPRINGS. 3. BUTLER SOUNDS GOOD AND SAFE DOESNT IT! 
    Posted by Patsboy81[/QUOTE]

    Shenanigan, only if you explain why this guy is dumb.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Patsboy81. Show Patsboy81's posts

    Re: Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think

    ALL OF YALL ARE WRONG ONLY 1 APPLE THAT MESSES UP THE ALL AND THAT APPLE IS JOHNATHAN WILHITE AND THIS IS WHY:
    INDY GAME:
    1. GUARDING REGGIE WAYNE AND WAYNE SCORE 2 TDS ON HIM
    NO GAME:
    1. GIVES UP THE DEEP BALL
    2. DONT MAKE THE EFFORT TO TACKLE
    3. SLIP ON COVERAGE THAT GAVE COLSTON THAT 68 YRD RUN THAT PUT THEM IN THE RED ZONE

    IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN HIM AND ALSO WHEN WE PUT BUTLER IN AT THE BEGINNING OF THE 4TH DID WERE ANY DEEP PASSES CAUGHT? EXACTLY NONE. BODDEN HAS BEEN DOING AND GREATB JOB AND IS STILL IMPROVING BUT WILHITE HAS TO GO. HOW ABOUT TRADING OR PICKING UP AN FREE AGENT. LOOK AT MCKENZIE THE SAINTS PICKED HIM UP LAST WEEK AND HE DID A GOOD JOB. BUT IM ALSO HAPPY TO HEAR THAT SPRINGS IS BACK SO THAT GIVES ME MORE CONFIDENCE. HAVING THE STARTERS: 1. BODDEN 2. SPRINGS. 3. BUTLER SOUNDS GOOD AND SAFE DOESNT IT!  WE HAVE TO GET YOUNGER AT CORNER SPOTS
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Patsboy81. Show Patsboy81's posts

    Re: Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think

    In Response to Re: Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think : Shenanigan, only if you explain why this guy is dumb.
    Posted by MaritimePatsFan[/QUOTE]
    Why who is dumb?
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think

    In Response to Re: Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think:
    [QUOTE]Don't we usually play cover 2?  Looked like we only had one deep safety most of the night.  That seemed to be the biggest problem. 
    Posted by themightypatriotz[/QUOTE]


    NE was actually in Cover Three for most of the night, with man under assignments. Some cover-4 as well. They were trying hard to not get beat deep. The problem was that without someone to contest their WR's at the line, they were making quick breaks, and the DBs got caught peaking five or six times, which is why thery were one step behind most of the night.

    I don't think it was smart.

    I would have gone with man cover two BIG dime. Keeping Meriweather, McGowan and Chung in the game at one time.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriotz. Show themightypatriotz's posts

    Re: Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think

    In Response to Re: Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think : NE was actually in Cover Three for most of the night, with man under assignments. Some cover-4 as well. They were trying hard to not get beat deep. The problem was that without someone to contest their WR's at the line, they were making quick breaks, and the DBs got caught peaking five or six times, which is why thery were one step behind most of the night. I don't think it was smart. I would have gone with man cover two BIG dime. Keeping Meriweather, McGowan and Chung in the game at one time.
    Posted by zbellino[/QUOTE]

    Zed, forgive my ignorance, but according to Madden, Cover 3 involves both corners and one safety playing deep, whereas Cover 2 involves 2 safeties playing deep - wouldn't it have been better to have 2 safeties play deep most of the night - usually it was just Merriweather back there.  So if the corners played man and the 2 safeties played deep, would that have been the same as "man cover 2"?  And if dime - 3 cornerbacks and 3 safeties - could we have stopped the run?
     

Share