The Goat Thread: Week 14 at Miami

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
I don't think the Steelers can change their defense. They play that soft zone and hope for pressure. When the pressure comes, the zone is fine. But if the blocking holds, Brady eats that zone for lunch. That's been pretty much the ways it has been for Brady's entire career. He's 10-2 vs. the Steelers (including three wins in the playoffs). The losses are the 2011 game, when the Steelers got through for three sacks, and way back in 2004, when Brady got sacked three times, threw two picks, and had Joey Porter in his face all day.
The Steelers ran a lot of man-to-man in the 2011 contest.

It is hard to tell -- do the Steelers not invest in cover cornerbacks because Pittsburgh is wedded to the zone? Or do they stick with the zone because they don't have any cover cornerbacks?
Probably both - it's a good marriage of resource allocation and scheme - but it's shifting. They used their first two picks on DBs in the 2016 draft (Artie Burns and Sean Davis) and signed Joe Haden this offseason. I have to think that was with an eye towards being able to cover more flexibly.
 

54thMA

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2012
10,154
Westwood MA
This.

Miami played basically their best game of the year, and the Pats their second-worst, and it was on the road in a traditionally tough place to play (for NE anyway), and at the end, it was a one-score game.
And to take this further, if Richards wraps up Cutler on that third down play like he should have, Miami settles for three there and when the Patriots had the ball on the one foot line at the end, it would have been 23-17 with a potential TD winning it despite the shitshow that came before it.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Yeah, I've been seeing this all over the board in the last couple of weeks. It seems that nobody understands that the Jags are out there. Everyone has been viewing the AFC as a two-horse race, and so the entire focus has been on Pittsburgh. But, the reality is that the Jags have one moderately difficult game left and if both the Patriots and Jags end up with four losses, the Jags get the tie breaker.

The difference between hosting a division game on the one hand, and having to beat the Chargers and then on the road in Jacksonville and Pittsburgh, on the other, is very very different. The Patriots needed to win last night to control their own destiny for the bye. Now, the Pittsburgh game is pretty close to a must win if the Patriots are to have the bye.

The fact that nobody on this board seems to ever think about the Jags doesn't mean the Jags aren't actually in a pretty good spot right now.
Aside from being the best team in the AFC by point differential, the Jaguars are the toughest matchup for the Patriots. As we saw last night, if the Pats lose in January, it will likely be because they get their asses kicked in the trenches on both sides of the hall. Pittsburgh doesn’t have the horses to do that. Jacksonville does.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,277
AZ
Right. The ideal situation for the Patriots would be to be to play the 4-5 game winner at home for the right to face the winner of a Jacksonville/Pittsburgh game played in PA. Make the Jags have to win two cold-weather road games in a row to get to the Super Bowl.

But standing in the way of that is having to win in Pittsburgh next week. To say that Sunday's game is a massive game for the AFC in 2017 is not really hyperbole. Hard to be too optimistic after last night, but hopefully Bill will get them ready and Gronk will be a difference maker.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
The game in Pittsburgh was going to be pivotal regardless. Last night’s loss simply forces the Pats to beat the Bills and Jets also; had they won last night, they could have been in a position to rest some guys Week 17.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts way less than 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
14,425
The O struggled, for sure. The D barely had a chance? I dunno. They could have played better. A large part of the reason they were dominated on TOP is because they couldn't get off the field when Miami had the ball. The Dolphins started the game with a six-minute FG drive and followed that up with a 4 1/2 minute FG drive.

I'm sure you know why I highlighted that the drives ended in field goals, so I won't even mention the fact that the Dolphins didn't score touchdowns...except that one time I just mentioned it.

The 6-minute drive sucked, but I think context matters. First, the Dolphins had a great first 20-25 plays lined up for the game, and they only got 6 points out of their best plays. Second, the 4 1/2 minute drive started at the Dolphins 44 because of a Patriots interception. It was great field position, and they still only conceded the FG. I think those two drives highlight both your point and my point, if thats possible...

My issue with people like you who love the defense so much you want to marry it is that you make excuses for them in games like last night when they don't dominate TOP, turn the ball over, etc., but don't recognize when those advantages cut the other way. Against the Chargers, for instance, they dominated TOP, never gave LA good field position, and held the game to few drives; are you downgrading that defensive performance? (FWIW, EPA actually ranks the defensive performance against the Chargers a little worse than last night's, so I'm not just making this up)
How dare you insult the great institute of marriage...

Let me be clear about my position on the defense. I don't love the defense. I don't even like the defense. I think it lacks across all three levels. The line can't pressure or clog lanes consistently. The linebackers are slow both physically and diagnosing plays. Their corners seem to have reverted to the Patriots of 5 years ago where they can't make plays nor are they willing to turn their heads to even try. It feels like nearly every player on the defense has regressed.

With all that said, the defense is good enough, in conjunction with a top 3 offense, to win a Superbowl. They've adopted enough of BB's key mantras - keep your man in front of you, don't give up the big play, make solid tackles, do your job, trust the man next to you - since the beginning of the season, that they have the ability to perform at a league average level throughout the course of a game.

Can they be exploited? Yes. They are low on talent across the board. But history has shown us time and again that this type of defense is not the reason the Patriots will bow out of the playoffs. If the Patriots get bounced in the playoffs, it'll be because a team gets pressure with a 4 man rush and can clog the short passing lanes on Brady.

TL;DR, I don't think the Patriots defense needs to do more than what traditional BB defenses do, especially this year where there are no juggernaut offenses. Force teams to convert a lot of 3rd downs, make them execute, and don't give up the big play. Because I have low expectations of what they need to do, I don't hate them despite how frustrating they are to watch.
 
Last edited:

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
The 6-minute drive sucked, but I think context matters. First, the Dolphins had a great first 20-25 plays lined up for the game, and they only got 6 points out of their best plays. Second, the 4 1/2 minute drive started at the Dolphins 44 because of a Patriots interception. It was great field position, and they still only conceded the FG. I think those two drives highlight both your point and my point, if thats possible...
Sure, those drives weren't defensive disasters, but they were a major factor in the TOP disparity.

Let me be clear about my position on the defense. I don't love the defense. I don't even like the defense. I think it lacks across all three levels. The line can't pressure or clog lanes consistently. The linebackers are slow both physically and diagnosing plays. Their corners seem to have reverted to the Patriots of 5 years ago where they can't make plays nor are they willing to turn their heads to even try. It feels like nearly every player on the defense has regressed.

With all that said, the defense is good enough, in conjunction with a top 3 offense, to win a Superbowl. They've adopted enough of BB's key mantras - keep your man in front of you, don't give up the big play, make solid tackles, do your job, trust the man next to you - since the beginning of the season, that they have the ability to perform at a league average level throughout the course of a game.

TL;DR, I don't think the Patriots defense needs to do more than what traditional BB defenses do, especially this year where there are no juggernaut offenses. Force teams to convert a lot of 3rd downs, make them execute, and don't give up the big play. Because I have low expectations of what they need to do, I don't hate them despite how frustrating they are to watch.
I agree with all this. We are not that far apart.

Can they be exploited? Yes. They are low on talent across the board. But history has shown us time and again that this type of defense is not the reason the Patriots will bow out of the playoffs. If the Patriots get bounced in the playoffs, it'll be because a team gets pressure with a 4 man rush and can clog the short passing lanes on Brady.
I don't agree here. I think when you see the Patriots lose, yes, you see the rush getting to Brady and receivers failing to get open, but you also often see a defense that doesn't generate turnovers, that can't get off the field, and that sets up terrible field position for the offense. The 2011 Super Bowl is a prime example; the final score of 21-17 looks like the D played pretty well, but every Giants drive (except one end-of-half kneeldown) went for at least 7 plays, the offense had horrible field position all night (three drives starting inside the 10, one of which led to a safety, no drive starting better than their own 29), the offense only had 8 drives to try to put up points, and zero turnovers. 2013 against Denver was even more extreme; that was one of the sorrier defensive efforts of Belichick's tenure (the Broncos scored on 6/8 possessions and one other was end of game).

Again, I don't think we're too far apart here: basically we're both saying that the offense can't have an off day because the defense can't win a game if that happens.
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
8,878
Dallas
I am trying to assess the defense and there is a lot of talk about their mediocrity. Was wondering if any of you wanted to do a deep dive.
So, KFP, what individual members of the defense are above average starters?

Or, if that’s not a good way of getting to the answer, then what positions are we weak at and how would you go about fixing the defense? Next year even when healthy it seems like they could upgrade the front seven and hopefully a pass rush. It’s too bad that Rivers got hurt and lost a year for development.

In general I think most members of the secondary have looked good in the past 8 weeks. I don’t know how to evaluate the front seven well aside from liking Van Noy, Flowers, and Wise. I’m not sure if I am describing this right but I’ve seen a lot of poor play at the ends of the line and also more often than previous seasons big holes up the middle. I think then the biggest holes on the D are LB/DE. I don’t know as much of the rest of you so I’ll hang up and listen.