The Eagles have a great pass rush. They can do it with just 4 guys too. They also have a lot of quality depth to their pass rush and rotate a lot to keep guys fresh. That's my biggest concern on the offensive side of the ball. How do you all think this match-up plays out? I'm worried about our tackles in particular.
SBLII: Patriots vs. Eagles, the Build-Up
- Thread starter DJnVa
- Start date
- Status
Not sure why anyone would be concerned about Solder. He was as good as anyone the past 12+ weeks.
The OL just handled two of the best DL in the league back to back like the 2007 line in its prime. Anything can happen, and the Eagles have an excellent DL, but our OL has been fantastic lately.
The OL just handled two of the best DL in the league back to back like the 2007 line in its prime. Anything can happen, and the Eagles have an excellent DL, but our OL has been fantastic lately.
The best way to attack this is to go up tempo and run the ball and I’m sure the Patriots will be prepared to do both. When Gronk is healthy, and it looks like he is going to be, the Pats offense is about as well balanced as it gets. You have 3 RBs who can all run and catch, very good intermediate options in Gronk/Amendola/Hogan, 2 great blocking TEs, and the burners in Cooks/Dorsett. The Eagles are a very good defense but there will be chunk plays to be had, particularly against the back 7.
I’m sure the OL will give up some pressure but I’d be surprised if they got obliterated like they did in the 2 Giants SBs. By and large, they’ve been solid or better lately.
Philly can put four first round picks on the line. And they’re stronger on the interior than the exterior. If they get pressure up the middle Tom can’t step up in the pocket. I think your OGs are more important than your OTs thus game.
I’m sure the Pats will go up tempo to try to stop the Eagles from rotating. And that’ll probably work. I don’t think they’re going to be successful running the ball though.
I’m sure the Pats will go up tempo to try to stop the Eagles from rotating. And that’ll probably work. I don’t think they’re going to be successful running the ball though.
Here's a question for all of you . Why aren't you all more concerned about the Patriots defense in this game? No winning Super Bowl team has had a defense in the bottom 5 in rush YPC allowed (Pats are 31), in the bottom 10 in turnovers (Pats are 25), and bottom 15 in net passing yards per attempt (Pats are 20). Frankly, very few teams making the Super Bowl have had a defense that unremarkable. Statistically, this Pats defense looks most like the 2011 Patriots or the 2006 Colts (who were fortunate to face an inept, turnover-prone Rex Grossman offense).
Are you heartened by:
A. Patriots being a good defense in terms of point prevention (5th)
B. General improvement in play as the season has progressed (e.g., Gilmore, Harrison pickup, etc.)
C. Belichick facing an opponent for the first time this season, and his phenomenal halftime adjustments
D. Brady the GOAT outscoring the opponent
E. Something else?
Are you heartened by:
A. Patriots being a good defense in terms of point prevention (5th)
B. General improvement in play as the season has progressed (e.g., Gilmore, Harrison pickup, etc.)
C. Belichick facing an opponent for the first time this season, and his phenomenal halftime adjustments
D. Brady the GOAT outscoring the opponent
E. Something else?
Pats should run a healthy number of screens to counter their front four. In addition to screens, they need to set Mills up for a double move. He’s known to gamble.
I can’t speak for everyone but I am concerned about the defense although it has to be noted that they have played well since Week 5. Quite simply, this defense doesn’t force turnovers. I don’t know why that is but they just don’t despite the secondary having some good talent. My guess is that scheme has something to do with it.
I’m hoping that Harrison is able to generate more pressure but my fear in this game is that Foles has way too much time to throw and is able to spread the ball around to all the various options he has at his disposal - basically a repeat of last game except with a better QB and offensive talent. Even though the running defense isn’t very good, I’ll gladly let the Eagles run the ball with Blount/Ajayi over throwing it.
Yowtch, I get it, but that merited the full Danny Thomas spit take. At least the SB performance of Logan Mankins will not be an issue next Sunday.
It's the playoffs (the Super Bowl!!!!) and so I'm ALWAYS very concerned. But I'm voting all of the above. Plus the idea that if they can generate just ONE turnover, it increases their odds substantially because of their incredible record when they are + in the turnover margin category.
Well if Thuney goes down with a torn ACL on the first play, we might have issues.
I'm very concerned about the defense. They are the weak link on the team. I guess I am more concerned about the pressure to Brady because the Pats need their offense to be competitive to be in this game and when the O-line gives up a lot of pressure when four guys rush bad things tend to happen. That's not true of just Brady either. It's not some secret blueprint. I feel comfortably uncomfortable if that makes sense with the defense because I know they are the weak link going into the game. I figure the Eagles are going to be able to generate points on offense - I am more or less resigned to that. Maybe that's being overly-pessimistic. What I am not sure of is how the Pats offense is going to perform. I like the skilled position player match-ups but it comes down to the trenches again.
This would almost certainly be the worst Patriots defense to a win a Super Bowl, and probably on the short list of worst defenses to win a Super Bowl, period. On the other hand, Nick Foles would be one of the least-accomplished quarterbacks to win a Super Bowl. So who the hell knows.
Foles strength is getting the ball out quick with those RPOs and screens. This is not someone who can beat you with his legs or improvise on the run like Wilson or Rodgers. Pederson has really dumbed down the offense with these quick passes where Foles only has to make one read. For this reason, it might be a mistake to blitz as much as they did in the second half vs Jacksonville. Play it conservative.
I’ve seen every Eagle game this season and I don’t think Pederson has dumbed down the offense at all.
I don’t know about more, but they’re still throwing deep. Foles had four 35+ yard passes last weekend. I think they closed the playbook up a little vs Oak and obviously vs Dallas, but it’s the same offense otherwise to my eye.
How do you know if the Pats defensive improvement since week 5 is due to improvement or due to weaker competition?
First four games were against KC, New Orleans, Houston (with Watson), and Carolina. They gave up an average of 34 or so points per game.
Their next 12 games had six games vs the bad offenses of the AFC East, two vs bad offenses (Oak & Den), two vs avg offenses (Atl & Tampa, and two vs good offenses (Pitt & Chargers).
So is the Pats defense actually better or did they just have their toughest matchups early?
Fletcher Cox is PFF's second highest rated pass rusher.
However the Eagles are weak at left tackle (Vaitai) and they only rank average at left guard with Wisniewski.
Edit: While I'm at it might as well add that the Eagles have the #1 offensive line according to PFF too.
However the Eagles are weak at left tackle (Vaitai) and they only rank average at left guard with Wisniewski.
Last edited:
Big picture — I’m not sure how much it matters, and I don’t think many Pats fans have blinders on.
Anything can happen, of course. That caveat out of the way, for the Pats to win this game has to resemble Pats-Atl, Pats-Sea or, somewhere in between, GB-Pitts seven years ago. High 20s, mid 30s maybe. If this is a NYG style game played in the teens to low 20s, good night.
This defense needs to be respectable, netting a key stop here and there. It is unrealistic to expect more.
Anything can happen, of course. That caveat out of the way, for the Pats to win this game has to resemble Pats-Atl, Pats-Sea or, somewhere in between, GB-Pitts seven years ago. High 20s, mid 30s maybe. If this is a NYG style game played in the teens to low 20s, good night.
This defense needs to be respectable, netting a key stop here and there. It is unrealistic to expect more.
Has to be some of both but they have looked a lot better, especially Gilmore. The September games featured multiple blown coverages that you don’t normally see from a Patriots defense and the addition of Harrison gives them a potential impact guy at a position where they really needed it. End of the day, this just isn’t a very impressive unit but I think they are capable of playing a solid game.
The 2011 defense that was much maligned actually played pretty well in the Super Bowl. It was the offense that didn’t get the job done, which was obviously largely because Gronk was playing at like 40%.
I fully expect the Eagles to score at least 21-24 points in this one. The question will be if the Patriots can get into the high 20s/low 30s, which is where they normally are when they’re playing well. Clearly, that won’t be easy against the Eagles defense and the way they’ve played of late.
If he played with one all year, sure, good comp. Mankins didn’t get hurt in the SB. It’s not like Neal or Koppen played well that game either. They got manhandled and the coaching adjusted too late. Is this really a point of contention?
Well, DVOA had them as the dead last defense through the first four games. The most recent weighted DVOA results I can find (which according to Schatz do NOT include games 1-5, and only slightly weight weeks 6-11) had them as 17th. Couple that with the fact that they are close to the best scoring defense since week 5, and I think the idea that the defense has actually improved seems on pretty solid ground.
I don't think they're great, but I definitely think they are good enough given what the offense can be. The keys in my mind are a) does the OL hold up?, and b) how does Foles play? I'm not sure of the answer to either of those questions.
Yup. People always focus on the helmet catch, understandably, but just as the Rams adjusted too late in “01, the Pats did in “07. Unpatriotlike.
Neal didn’t play well, sure, but he didn’t play poorly, ether, because he went down on the Pats’ first drive (I think first play?) of Superbowl 42 with a torn ACL. So that probably hurt them the rest of the game. Mankins’ torn ACL was 2011.
The line didn’t play well in that one game, regardless, but comparing any line’s play to the 2007’s in general should obviously be taken as a huge compliment. That group was amazing. This OL has held up quite well two weeks in a row against two of the best DL in football. I have confidence they can be at least competitive, and I don’t think Philly’s secondary, while solid, is anything special. I don’t think they have a good matchup for Cooks, in particular.
Last edited:
You’re right about Mankins, I mixed that up. I’m not sure where you’re getting that Neal tore an ACL during 42. I can’t find snap counts but his Wiki only lists a shoulder injury. Regardless, the line player like shit that game. I’m not sure how this is up for debate. TB was under pressure the entire game.
Regarding the offensive line, did anyone else think Mason had a really poor game against the Jaguars? There were a number of negative plays where he was involved if I remember correctly, something which seemed totally uncharacteristic as he was probably the best lineman over the course of the season.
Let's hope it was an outlier and he can be back to his usual dominant self in the Super Bowl.
Let's hope it was an outlier and he can be back to his usual dominant self in the Super Bowl.
This defense has clearly improved. As others have noted guys were running free due to multiple blown coverages earlier in the season. They are closer to middle of the pack than the bottom of the league. Plus the talent difference between this year and say 2011 is vast. It’s simply not comparable, especially in the secondary. I think the Eagles will score some points, but I think this will be a huge red zone game. If the Pats D can force FGs they will win. If they give up 3 TDs or more it will be really hard.
Last edited:
Man, I guess I’m too close to this on the Philly side to be objective, because I think you are giving them too much credit here.
I know that Foles is a very good backup and he had the game of his life in the NFC Championship. That said, he’s untested under this kind of pressure and I don’t see 21-24 points as a reasonable expectation for the Eagles.
I see this game being a mid-high teens battle, with the winner scoring late to put it away. 21-17 or 24-17 Pats feels about right to me.
I always thought that Brady’s leg/ankle was way worse then they let on and the Giants’ rush capitalized on his inability to step up in the pocket.
Injured Gronk is probably enough to get him a pass, but SB 46 is really overlooked as being one of Brady’s worst crunch time performances. In the 2nd half, started 4 for 4 with a TD on the opening drive and went 7 for 18 the rest of the way with the terrible Blackburn INT.
People also forget he had 16 consecutive completions in that game. He was on fire, then it all fell apart.
Yup. That stretch from late 2nd to early 3rd was as good as it gets. Just goes to show how a play or two can completely change the narrative surrounding a game. If Welker catches the ball, chances are the Pats win and that game looks completely different for Brady. Of course, the Welker drop happened with like 4 mins to go and they still could have been held to a FG attempt so still no guarantees they win.
That force to Gronk was similar to the forced INT to Slater in the AFCCG that could have been costly.
No, he's right, Neal got injured very early in SB 42 and was replaced by Hochstein, a big downgrade.
That throw to Slater might be the second worst throw of Brady's career, considering the circumstances. I'll always consider this one the worst:
The D was awful in the Super Bowl, continually putting the offense in horrible field position, failing to get off the field, not turning over the Giants, and ultimately giving up the game-winning score. The Giants did all their damage in only 8 drives (excluding one kneeldown), consuming 37 minutes of clock in those drives. The final score disguises the kind of game it was. This has happened in some of the other playoff losses, notably the '13-14 AFCCG against Denver. That's one of the nightmare scenarios for Sunday - a game where the O has a couple poor drives early in the D cannot get off the field, putting them in a hole and shortening the game. This also kind of happened last week, with the Jags putting up 14 points in really only four first-half drives, though the D stiffened late and the O was able to catch up.
I probably have as dim a view of the defense as you do, but I think you're underselling the possibility that Foles lays an egg. It was just two weeks ago that he put only 15 points against an Atlanta D that really isn't any better than the Patriots (16th in points per drive and 26th in yards per drive, 27th in turning the ball over), and even that was abetted by one of the most comical dropped interceptions in recent memory. Since the beginning of the '14 season his ANY/A is in the low 5s. He was great last week and maybe he'll be great Sunday, but it's not likely.
In the TB/BB era, the Pats have played in 7 Super Bowls (so far). I think you can say that they played against top-echelon (call it top 10ish) QBs in six of them, with the one exception being the game against the Panthers. Until this year.
That said, their road to the Super Bowl over all 8 years has shown a larger percentage of lower tier QBs, but it’s been a rare case where said lower tier QB has put up a stinker.
Brockstar last year; Tebow in 2011.
Maybe Mariota this year.
Oddly, there have been more stinkers put up by top-tier QBs than bottom.
I’d love to see that reversed finally.
EDIT to add Tebow
That said, their road to the Super Bowl over all 8 years has shown a larger percentage of lower tier QBs, but it’s been a rare case where said lower tier QB has put up a stinker.
Brockstar last year; Tebow in 2011.
Maybe Mariota this year.
Oddly, there have been more stinkers put up by top-tier QBs than bottom.
I’d love to see that reversed finally.
EDIT to add Tebow
Last edited:
They were the worst defense in NFL history through the first four games. It was THAT bad.
So that ends up skewing the entire season stats. Clearly they've been one of the better defenses in the league since then.
When you play against a top-tier QB, you take away their strength, and game plan for that QB. If you're winning that game, almost by definition (particularly with the take-away-the-strength mantra of BB) it means that the excellent QB will have a sub-par game.
When you play against a lower-tier QB, you take away whatever else is it they do and dare that mediocre QB to beat you in the pocket, through the air. Focus on stopping the run (a team with a mediocre QB almost certainly has relied on the run), and contain (if the guy is a scrambler). Thing is, if the QB is mediocre-to-good-ish, he'll get his (especially with the Pat's philosophy of bend, give up lots of plays but avoid the big bombs, make them make a lot of plays, a lot of passes, and stand at the red zone), and so it won't be a stinker. (if the QB is bad-to-Tebow, well....).
So, the situation you describe isn't that odd.
edit: They will look to make Foles beat them through the air, unless/until Foles shows that he can do it consistently. Not once, but over and over. If Foles comes out and looks like peak-Manning (Peyton) and the score a TD on their first drive, don't look for the philosophy to change, unless he's been on fire well into the 2nd quarter.
I see the score being in the 27-24 or 24-21 Pats range. I can definitely see Philly putting up those points, especially if they get a turnover and great field position.
Context matters though. The game vs Atlanta was played in very bad conditions for a passing game. It was very, very windy and around 30 degrees if I recall correctly. Foles has always done poorly in cold weather games. And they lost the turnover battle 2-0 (neither of which were on Foles), including one lost fumble on Atlanta's 30ish yard line.
Foles is not some Greek God that's gonna shoot lazer bolts out of his eyes on Sunday, but I think he's closer to the Foles vs Minnesota than Foles vs Atlanta.
I may be, and Foles underperforming certainly is one of the factors that could steer this game in an unexpected direction. Seems like Average Reds is thinking along the same lines as you.
That’s one of the reasons (Gronkowski being the other) that I really value this extra week. Want Foles in particular to have plenty of time to mull over the magnitude of this game, in a really new environment for the Eagles.
When all is said and done, I suspect the Eagles’ coaches will be extra careful about exposing him — though that may create some tension, for once, with Pederson’s very aggressive approach.
In the 3rd qtr in SB46 after completing (IIRC 13 in a row-but whatever) on a follow through Brady's right hand came crashng down on a lineman's helmet (Tuck? I don't remember). He was not the same after that.
We could see some of the single high safety 20-25 yards back to take away the deep ball from Foles. Funnel everything short and make them go 10-12 play drives.
OK, fair enough.
Statistically, his Atlanta performance is far more typical of his career than the Minnesota one, in which he basically was a Greek God that shot laser bolts out of his eyes (or his right arm, at least).
That 7 for 18 wasn't all on Brady. In addition the Welker (non-)play, he went 2 of 7 on the final desperation drive, which featured at least one drop, a spike, and a failed hail mary at the end.
For all his other faults, I remember Hernandez dropping a perfect throw on a crossing pattern the very first play of that drive. Looked like it could have gone at least 15 yds, if memory serves.
- Status