New England Patriots thread (MOD WARNING - #4503)

Adamcp898

kryogen wrote: »

Under the new rules deferring is fine, as long as your D is able to make a stop of course and keep the team to a field goal at worst, you have faith your D can do this I don't mind a deferral. You will know exactly what you need to do with the ball in your hand then. Under the old rules you take the ball every time, but the new rules do give a little more food for thought and when the weather was the way it was last night I wasn't surprised at all at a deferral, not sure how many were?

But by the exact same argument, is it not an advantage for your defence to know exactly what they have to do?

As in if you've more faith in them then take the ball and try and score with the knowledge that your defence can get it done if they know what they're up against.

It's one where everyone has their opinion on it because it's one of those calls where you look like a genius if it comes off but if it ended the way the Broncos Steelers game did then you'd just look a bit silly for deferring.

kryogen

Adamcp898 wrote: »

But by the exact same argument, is it not an advantage for your defence to know exactly what they have to do?

As in if you've more faith in them then take the ball and try and score with the knowledge that your defence can get it done if they know what they're up against.

It's one where everyone has their opinion on it because it's one of those calls where you look like a genius if it comes off but if it ended the way the Broncos Steelers game did then you'd just look a bit silly for deferring.

Not really, the D need to stop the opposition, regardless. They know what they are trying to do every down. Stop the opposition moving the ball

Where as if the offence need to get a TD as opposed to just getting into FG range (or vice versa) that makes a difference imo. The game plan becomes different, the play calling will be different

I agree though its one where everyone will have an opinion and I wouldn't try to talk anyone out of theirs.

Son Of A Vidic

Adamcp898 wrote: »

But by the exact same argument, is it not an advantage for your defence to know exactly what they have to do?

As in if you've more faith in them then take the ball and try and score with the knowledge that your defence can get it done if they know what they're up against.

So we decide to take the ball and then the Broncos would have taken the goal with the wind at their backs. According to the coin toss rules, you choose one or the other. So taking the initial possession was neither a wise nor a realistic option in those conditions last night. Bill knows his weather and he made similar clever play calls in the game against the Saints this year.

Showing faith in the defense was not an issue. We already limited the Broncos to just 7 points on their 6 drives in the second half. They'd nothing to prove to Bill. The key to Bill was taking the wind advantage and using it wisely.

Adamcp898

kryogen wrote: »

Not really, the D need to stop the opposition, regardless. They know what they are trying to do every down. Stop the opposition moving the ball

Where as if the offence need to get a TD as opposed to just getting into FG range (or vice versa) that makes a difference imo. The game plan becomes different, the play calling will be different

I agree though its one where everyone will have an opinion and I wouldn't try to talk anyone out of theirs.

But I'm just making the same point about situational football for the defence that you were trying to with the offence

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

So we decide to take the ball and then the Broncos would have taken the goal with the wind at their backs. According to the coin toss rules, you choose one or the other. So taking the initial possession was neither a wise nor a realistic option in those conditions last night. Bill knows his weather and he made similar clever play calls in the game against the Saints this year.

Showing faith in the defense was not an issue. We already limited the Broncos to just 7 points on their 6 drives in the second half. They'd nothing to prove to Bill. The key to Bill was taking the wind advantage and using it wisely.

I'm merely playing devils advocate and putting up the other side of this argument, bad weather or not, depending on how the Broncos scored had they it had the potential to look very silly. As much as the D stopped them in the second half, they still had shown they were more than capable of running down our throats in the first half. But anyways the defence having nothing to prove would precisely be my point in that scenario.

Son Of A Vidic

Adamcp898 wrote: »

I'm merely playing devils advocate and putting up the other side of this argument

Playing devils advocate against whom? Bill Belichick?

Adamcp898 wrote: »

bad weather or not, depending on how the Broncos scored had they it had the potential to look very silly.

There's no 'or not' about it. The weather played a very, very significant role in last nights game and Bill got it spot on. Did you see the Saints game? Bill brilliantly used weather conditions that day as well

“When the clock was running there, we wanted to try to give ourselves a chance,” Belichick said. “Of course in a close game like that, the game was tied at the time, you hate to waste timeouts because they can be valuable at the end, as we’ve seen many times this year, but I felt like it was worth it to be able to have a better opportunity on the kick. Not saying that Steve couldn’t have made it going the other way, I just think it would have been a harder kick based on the conditions that were out there yesterday.”

All three of Gostkowski’s kickoffs in the third quarter were touchbacks, while the Dolphins’ kickoff into the wind in the third quarter only reached the 10-yard line. The Patriots also had two punts with the wind in the third quarter and averaged 50.5 yards on them, while the Dolphins’ two punts into the wind in the third quarter averaged 39.5 yards. The wind was a significant advantage, and Belichick was wise to keep the wind at his back as long as he could.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/10/28/belichick-credits-parcells-after-using-the-wind-to-patriots-advantage/

Adamcp898 wrote: »

As much as the D stopped them in the second half, they still had shown they were more than capable of running down our throats in the first half.

What relevance did the first half have in the second half? Did you watch the second half? Our defense limited them to only 7 points scored. I can't see any rationale in saying oh but they did this in the first half. We shut them down in the second half. Thus rendering what happened in the first half totally irrelevant. Of course not forgetting that the best part of their offense was actually our incompetence in that half.

Adamcp898 wrote: »

But anyways the defence having nothing to prove would precisely be my point in that scenario.

Glad then it wasn't you that decided the call or we would have thrown away a fantastic comeback.

Adamcp898

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Playing devils advocate against whom? Bill Belichick?




There's no 'or not' about it. The weather played a very, very significant role in last nights game and Bill got it spot on. Did you see the Saints game? Bill brilliantly used weather conditions that day as well



http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/10/28/belichick-credits-parcells-after-using-the-wind-to-patriots-advantage/




What relevance did the first half have in the second half? Did you watch the second half? Our defense limited them to only 7 points scored. I can't see any rationale in saying oh but they did this in the first half. We shut them down in the second half. Thus rendering what happened in the first half totally irrelevant. Of course not forgetting that the best part of their offense was actually our incompetence in that half.



Glad then it wasn't you that decided the call or we would have thrown away a fantastic comeback.

If you just looked up what the phrase ''Devil's advocate'' meant you could've saved yourself a hell of a lot of time there buddy :rolleyes:

Son Of A Vidic

Adamcp898 wrote: »

If you just looked up what the phrase ''Devil's advocate'' meant you could've saved yourself a hell of a lot of time there buddy :rolleyes:

I love the pathetic use of the childish rolls eyes emoticon there. Very juvenile.

So for the purpose of debate, you claim that you decided to play Devils Advocate. So you took up a position you didn't not necessarily agree with ya?

So you got it, I clearly outlined the rationale Bill subsequently gave for his decision and linked you to relevant info re:same

I also gave you some precedence for his decision (see Saints game) which illustrated that Bill has cleverly used weather conditions in the past to our advantage.

In fact if you read my last link, you would see that Bill discussed the used of wind when he worked under Parcells back in 1986.

I mean what more did you want?

Adamcp898

Got what?

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Glad then it wasn't you that decided the call or we would have thrown away a fantastic comeback.

That comment would suggest that you clearly didn't realise just what it is to play Devil's advocate.

Juvenile indeed.

Son Of A Vidic

Adamcp898 wrote: »

That comment would suggest that you clearly didn't realise just what it is to play Devil's advocate.

Have you even the cop on to even realise, that I responded to you based on you deciding to second guess Bill decisions? Wasn't that what your 'advocate' role wanted? You took up a conflicting view and I responded to this accordingly.


And this comment....

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Glad then it wasn't you that decided the call or we would have thrown away a fantastic comeback.

was based on this......

Adamcp898 wrote: »

As much as the D stopped them in the second half, they still had shown they were more than capable of running down our throats in the first half. But anyways the defence having nothing to prove would precisely be my point in that scenario.

I mean seriously wtf? What relevance did a first half threat have, a threat which we subsequently nullified in the second half. How could that have possibly influenced Bills decision? If you're going to take on a conflicting viewpoint at least make some sense.

Adamcp898

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Glad then it wasn't you that decided the call or we would have thrown away a fantastic comeback.

That was nothing but a pathetic retort aimed at discrediting the poster and not the post.....

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

When I see someone repeating my previous comment, I must admit it does lead me to question the maturity of such a respondent.

...just like that is too.

bruschi

Corvus, I think you may be taking it a bit more to heart than is necessary. Adamcp is just giving the alternate viewpoint, that it could have went flat into Bills face had it gone wrong, and the potential was there for major embarressment. It was a calculated risk, but I dont think its that outrageous for people to give the other alternative that could have resulted from it. Its the reason why Bill is where he is and we are only writing on a message board, he took the gamble and it paid off.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/24280407/some-patriots-players-shocked-belichick-kicked-off-in-overtime

is an article saying just the same. Bills record and standing as a coach pretty much gives him free reign to make these decisions without worrying about the consequences. Had someone else been in charge they would have taken the safer percentages option of taking the ball first.

BKWDR

Personally after watching the whole game back (even though i knew the result) i was fairly a bit 'oh jesus' when they didn't elect to receive the ball. Yes the weather was the factor for the decision, had the Broncos rushed like their lives depended on it and scored the TD, there would've been a sour taste all round on the Pats side.

Worth noting though as well , the players not really sure or looking around when they won the coin toss! So it definitely, in my mind, wasn't an outright decision that was made prior to the coin toss. But like you say, its why Bill is Bill!

Ps. Please lads, don't make me have to turn off email alerts over another spat!!! THINK OF THE CHILDREN

Jolly Red Giant

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

What relevance did the first half have in the second half? Did you watch the second half? Our defense limited them to only 7 points scored. I can't see any rationale in saying oh but they did this in the first half. We shut them down in the second half. Thus rendering what happened in the first half totally irrelevant. Of course not forgetting that the best part of their offense was actually our incompetence in that half.

Cold weather games can have big swings in momentum - and in my opinion the major difference in the second half was not on the Broncos O / Pats D side of the ball but on the Pats O / Broncos D side of the ball.

In the first half the Broncos took advantage of errors by the Pats - in the second half it was the opposite - as exemplified by the hash Welker made of the punt in OT.

In my opinion a key incident was the decision by DRC to try an catch the hail mary at the end of the first half injuring his shoulder in the process. For the second half the Broncos were playing without their shut down corner and with three back-ups in the secondary including an aging slow strong safety playing at free safety. Brady took advantage of the depleted secondary and the Broncos didn't/couldn't adjust. Despite the comeback - the Broncos still had opportunities to win.

Fair play to the Pats for pulling out the win - but from a Broncos perspective it was definitely a case of the Broncos snatching defeat from the jaws of victory than anything else.

j8wk2feszrnpao

BKWDR wrote: »

Worth noting though as well , the players not really sure or looking around when they won the coin toss! So it definitely, in my mind, wasn't an outright decision that was made prior to the coin toss. But like you say, its why Bill is Bill!

I listen to Niko on WEEI, and he confirmed that Bill told them that we weren't deferring but that we were taking the wind.
I really think that had them confused

Another day it doesn't work, but as you said it why Bill is Bill

j8wk2feszrnpao

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Brady took advantage of the depleted secondary and the Broncos didn't/couldn't adjust.

The Broncos took advantage of the Pats missing Wilfork/Kelly and ran right through us.

It's very possible that both teams will meet again (at Mile High) and it should be another great game.

BKWDR

The game in December is going to be COOOLLLLDDDDDD - Must remember to pack extra thermals and the hip flask!

Johnny_Fontane

the way the patriots adjusted to conditions was impressive. With the superbowl in NY this year, it might be handy to be used to them......

j8wk2feszrnpao

It's hard not to expect a win against a team that lost at home to the Jags last week, but it could be a tough game against Houston next Sunday.
While their record is poor, they've lost their last 5 games by less than a score.
Their defense is still very strong and will pose a challenge to us.

Hazys

BKWDR wrote: »

The game in December is going to be COOOLLLLDDDDDD - Must remember to pack extra thermals and the hip flask!

What game you going to?

TO.

Hazys wrote: »

What game you going to?

Browns game if I remember correctly.

BKWDR there is a chance I will be at that game so let us know where you are going to be sitting etc etc or doing before hand. As I only moved over and can't work right away. I have been turning down tickets left right and centre and its so painful to do. Hoping to make the December games though.

Oh and as Hazys said earlier its fooking cold here right now. Standing outside in non winter clothes is not a good idea. Standing outside in winter clothes is not a good idea also. Wrap up with a million layers especially at game if you are up high. Our seats are nosebleeds and trust me when I say its fooking cold as fook up there.

BKWDR

TO. wrote: »

Browns game if I remember correctly.

BKWDR there is a chance I will be at that game so let us know where you are going to be sitting etc etc or doing before hand. As I only moved over and can't work right away. I have been turning down tickets left right and centre and its so painful to do. Hoping to make the December games though.

Oh and as Hazys said earlier its fooking cold here right now. Standing outside in non winter clothes is not a good idea. Standing outside in winter clothes is not a good idea also. Wrap up with a million layers especially at game if you are up high. Our seats are nosebleeds and trust me when I say its fooking cold as fook up there.

Yeah Browns game in couple weeks!

Class yeah, defo will let you know. Big gang of us for the tailgate and then its a friend who landed the tickets so i dont have the specifics on seats yet. I have a feeling they will be high alright! Got a text off my friend in Boston and she says its snowing there now today!

TO.

BKWDR wrote: »

Yeah Browns game in couple weeks!

Class yeah, defo will let you know. Big gang of us for the tailgate and then its a friend who landed the tickets so i dont have the specifics on seats yet. I have a feeling they will be high alright! Got a text off my friend in Boston and she says its snowing there now today!

Where in MA is he/she? Im south of Boston in Easton and no snow here yet and will be heading to Foxboro in a bit to the Bro in laws place and no snow there yet either.

BKWDR

TO. wrote: »

Where in MA is he? Im south of Boston in Easton and no snow here yet and will be heading to Foxboro in a bit to the Bro in laws place and no snow there yet either.

She's in Allston and said the first of the snow arrived last nigth!

TO.

BKWDR wrote: »

She's in Allston and said the first of the snow arrived last nigth!

Snow hasnt reached south or southwest yet and I think there is more rain than actual snow due over the next few days. But you could be looking at snow for Dec 8th

Edit: Just turned on the weather channel. What they got in Boston is not proper snow its barely half an inch

kryogen

So, does everybody still remember the time we turned around a 24 point deficit against one of the most high powered offences in the NFL???

TO.

kryogen wrote: »

So, does everybody still remember the time we turned around a 24 point deficit against one of the most high powered offences in the NFL???

I think you are smoking crack...... Just saying.

JaMarcus Hustle

I lolled

BKWDR

TO. wrote: »

Snow hasnt reached south or southwest yet and I think there is more rain than actual snow due over the next few days. But you could be looking at snow for Dec 8th

Edit: Just turned on the weather channel. What they got in Boston is not proper snow its barely half an inch

Haha yeah they get proper -cant-move-your-car- snow in fairness...but snow in Irish terms!

Will bring the woolies for Dec!

j8wk2feszrnpao

kryogen wrote: »

So, does everybody still remember the time we turned around a 24 point deficit against one of the most high powered offences in the NFL???

Denver and Seattle have been the two most impressive teams that I've seen this season (I love having Game Pass).
I think they are both very good teams.
That both have already suffered defeats, just reminds me of how special it was to go 16 games undefeated.
The '07 season ended badly with the SB defeat, but in time that season will be fondly remembered by Pats fans.

Hazys

BB such a boss...naming audibles after his cougar GF

In fact, “Cougar! Cougar! Linda!” was the play he (Tom Brady) called right before throwing a touchdown strike to Rob Gronkowski

http://bostonherald.com/inside_track/the_inside_track/2013/11/making_a_play_for_bill_belichick_s_gal



For a 50yr old...she'd defly get it