Edelman certainly looked gassed on the incompletion, like he couldn't close his hands fast enough on the ball thrown with a lot of zip.
That Jakob Johnson one is pretty remarkable.
I disagree with labeling McDaniels a GOAT though. The offense gained over 400 yards. The strategy changed in the second half obviously once Seattle had all those injuries. The final play call was debatable obviously but Seattle just beat the blocks on that play. I think SJH has become the nabob of negatively on this board.His 3rd down play calling was terrible tonight, and he spent most of the second half having Cam throw short. Once they allowed him to throw deep they did much better, but by that point it wasn’t enough. Josh has these games were he gets too cute and tonight was one of them. Last play call wasn’t great either but that was mostly Seattle winning the line battle.
He wasn’t the only goat but he was a big part of it.
helluva game though.
Are they wasting 10-15 seconds vs a spike though? 10-15 vs a timeout but play vs spike was probably a 4 or 5 second difference. In this case, considering the Pats nearly scored, I think a legitimate case can be made that running a play was a good decision.I agreed with not using a timeout, but as I've said a million times, when teams run up to the line, then get a play called in, it seems like 90% of the time, the next play is an incompletion (or something worse), so they waste 10-15 seconds to end up at 2nd and 10, which is exactly where they would be if they just spiked it. If they don't convert on 2nd down, 3rd down and 4th down, the clock is going to expire anyway, so that 1st down play is basically meaningless. Use it preserve clock.
Yes, it's absolutely 10-15 seconds between getting set, getting a play called, getting the snap off and then running the play. The play to Edelman on the sidelines was snapped with 36 seconds on the clock. Assuming 6 seconds for the play, and 10 seconds to get up and spike the ball, which is on the longer end on a 12 yard play like that, they are spiking the ball with about 20 seconds to go. IIRC, they were at the LOS at around 21-22 seconds when I started yelling and screaming.Are they wasting 10-15 seconds vs a spike though? 10-15 vs a timeout but play vs spike was probably a 4 or 5 second difference. In this case, considering the Pats nearly scored, I think a legitimate case can be made that running a play was a good decision.
If you watch the highlights of the game, they scored two TD's by running basically the same play on the goal line.I disagree with labeling McDaniels a GOAT though. The offense gained over 400 yards. The strategy changed in the second half obviously once Seattle had all those injuries. The final play call was debatable obviously but Seattle just beat the blocks on that play. I think SJH has become the nabob of negatively on this board.
The running game does need to improve over the next few weekw.
Yeah, I can't get on the Pats for running that final play on the goal line. Cam has scored like 80% of the time when running from the 1. If the Pats called a pass play there instead, and it didn't work, folks would be lining up to shoot McDaniels for not calling a play that has almost never been stopped in Cam's career, including yesterday. It would have been basically the same as Carroll calling a pass play from the 1 in the Super Bowl instead of handing it to Lynch.If you watch the highlights of the game, they scored two TD's by running basically the same play on the goal line.
Credit where credit is due, the Seahawks blew the play up, players make plays, that's what they do.
And again, as others have stated and Cam also admitted, he thinks if he kicked it outside once that one blocker got blown up, he scores.
Nobody is perfect, Cam owned it and he'll learn from it, he's been a great teammate so far and it looks like other players feel the same way.
He's got a lot of upside in this offense.
They weren't in place that fast. The play before ended at about 28 seconds. At 18 seconds the center bent down over the ball, the OL was pretty much set at 17 seconds, the WR were set at 14 seconds, and then they snapped at 13 seconds. You can argue that without the need to position the WR, they get in place with the OL at 17 seconds and they snap at 16, but that only saves 3 seconds (not counting that the spike itself takes a second or two).Yes, it's absolutely 10-15 seconds between getting set, getting a play called, getting the snap off and then running the play. The play to Edelman on the sidelines was snapped with 36 seconds on the clock. Assuming 6 seconds for the play, and 10 seconds to get up and spike the ball, which is on the longer end on a 12 yard play like that, they are spiking the ball with about 20 seconds to go. IIRC, they were at the LOS at around 21-22 seconds when I started yelling and screaming.
Even if I grant you all that, which I won't for other reasons in a minute, you aren't accounting for the time it took to run the play to the end zone. Edelman was tackled right around the 28-29 second mark. The video is here: View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JARfiJicZSgThey weren't in place that fast. The play before ended at about 28 seconds. At 18 seconds the center bent down over the ball, the OL was pretty much set at 17 seconds, the WR were set at 14 seconds, and then they snapped at 13 seconds. You can argue that without the need to position the WR, they get in place with the OL at 17 seconds and they snap at 16, but that only saves 3 seconds (not counting that the spike itself takes a second or two).
+1Last nights game was phenomenal. I thought NE would get pounded but they came within a yard of winning. Hard to get much closer than that. I’m not going to give out a goat for the week. The run defense struggled and the run offense did as well. But giving up 35 points to Wilson when he’s playing as well as he did isn’t disastrous. Two of his TD passes were just unfathomably great plays in excellent coverage that were inches away from not being completions at all. Sometimes great players just make great plays. And the D did score a TD themselves too.
Offensively they couldn’t run but I thought Cam was awesome last night. And that gives me hope that if they fall behind, he has the ability to make a comeback. There’s almost nobody that expected a Pats win in Seattle last night. But they stood toe to toe with them and that’s encouraging. And they did so with one or their primary weapons suddenly and tragically unavailable, and had to rework things on the fly.
The Pats served notice last night that they’re going to be a handful for any opponent this season. As far as losses go, this was as good as it gets.
If Cam was rushing them for the spike, they could have gotten set several seconds faster. But if you're running a play, you want to make sure everyone knows what they're doing, so it's worth taking a couple of extra seconds to be certain there are no foul ups. They definitely could have spiked the ball and had 15 seconds left on the clock. Not even a question.They weren't in place that fast. The play before ended at about 28 seconds. At 18 seconds the center bent down over the ball, the OL was pretty much set at 17 seconds, the WR were set at 14 seconds, and then they snapped at 13 seconds. You can argue that without the need to position the WR, they get in place with the OL at 17 seconds and they snap at 16, but that only saves 3 seconds (not counting that the spike itself takes a second or two).
Yup.+1
That game was a treat. No goats.
Interestingly, after this weekend 50% of the above guys drafted after Harry are now on the shelf with serious injuries. In that regard Harry was a trend setter.But Harry went 32nd and Deebo when 36th, AJ Brown went 52st, Mecole Hardman went 56th, Parris Campbell went 59th, DK Metcalf went 64th, and Diontae Johnson went 66th.
We got dominated in the run game on both sides for sure. Pass protection was damn good for the NE side, and we got at least inconsistent pressure on Wilson, better than they got on us.Sony had 7 carries for 19 yards, which is terrible, but Burkhead had 6 carries for 2 yards, so I'm not sure more of him is the answer, at least in the run game. The OL got worked last night. Honestly the Pats got dominated at both lines of scrimmage, all game long.
The problem with Wilson is that he's so elusive, that even sometimes when you get pressure on him, he escapes and picks up big yards. In the first half the Pats started out playing zone, and Collinsworth pointed out that the Patriots are a great M2M secondary. The next Sea possession, NE went man, and on the very first pass play, they got excellent pressure, but Wilson escaped and had a big gain on the ground because it's much easier to scramble against a secondary playing man rather than zone.We got dominated in the run game on both sides for sure. Pass protection was damn good for the NE side, and we got at least inconsistent pressure on Wilson, better than they got on us.
Yeah, on a list that undoubtedly includes Neal, Vollmer, etc, that's high praise.That Jakob Johnson one is pretty remarkable.
The list must include Ebner also. As I recall he had only ever played one season of organized football as a senior in college (The OSU?). From there to Pro Bowl alternate and long career is a pretty impressive trajectory.Yeah, on a list that undoubtedly includes Neal, Vollmer, etc, that's high praise.
Sure, they certainly were.Ebner and Vollmer were drafted players. Apples and hand grenades.
Possibly Edelman as well, considering the conversion to WR and the fact that it was a multi-year process before he turned into an elite slot receiver.Yeah, on a list that undoubtedly includes Neal, Vollmer, etc, that's high praise.
My point is if you draft a guy there is something you see that is worth investing value in, more so than a UDFA. Vollmer was a second round pick. Steve Neal didn’t even play college football. Jon Jones played at Auburn. Andrews at Georgia. Law firm at Ole Miss. All starters on SEC teams! I just dont see how you can compare the two. Even Edelman, he played QB in college. They aren’t not great stories, but guys like Steve Neal and Jakob Johnnson are IMO on a completely different level.Sure, they certainly were.
I must be missing something, though. Jakob Johnson was signed as an UDFA through the International Player Pathway. Patriots developed all three from their first day as an NFL player (i.e., not a NFL free agent signed away from another team).
That's what I thought BB was doing at the time. They had the defense on its heels. Dont give Carroll -- a great defensive coach -- time to regather things. It's not all that different from the SB. BB didn't call timeout on defense because he didn't think Seattle was quite together, and he didn't want to give them a chance to get there.Re spiking the ball vs. running a play, I always thought that there's a real potential advantage to running a play while the D is struggling to get it together as well. There seems to be a much higher chance they'll blow a coverage in that situation than when they've got time to get set. It didn't play out that way in this instance, but that's got to be part of the calculus.
Post game, Newton mentioned that he missed taking the play outside when it got blown up in the middle. Not so much a wrinkle, but an available in-play option . Ultimately, that's the advantage of option plays. The QB gets to make the last call after seeing what the defense is doing. (Not blaming Newton. Wagner made a great play that gave Newton a split-second to adjust.) Just as you're right about McD installing new wrinkles out of the same set-up, I also think Newton will get sharper.Re: last play: the Pats have been great at beating you by adding wrinkles to plays they've shown, and the TD to Johnson was an example. The D is going to adjust when they see a play they've seen on tape or in-game, and the wrinkles = already adjusting to your expected adjustments. They went back to the well on the last play, but it was just straight up, no wrinkles, right? Wagner adjusted, went backside, as Matt Chatham pointed out. Ran out of wrinkles I guess. I have a feeling they'll be installing more.
Didn't they get the great look to Edelman right after that decision? It kind of did work, they just didn't connect on the pass - by inches.That's what I thought BB was doing at the time. They had the defense on its heels. Dont give Carroll -- a great defensive coach -- time to regather things. It's not all that different from the SB. BB didn't call timeout on defense because he didn't think Seattle was quite together, and he didn't want to give them a chance to get there.
The underlying premise is that "my guys know what to do."
91 is beating that block on his own, if that block had been held the play might have succeeded anyway, although Johnson got blown up.If Wagner hadn't blown through the line (Andrews missed block?), Mason probably could have blocked the DL (91), giving Newton a pretty clear waltz. I can see why Cam didn't bounce outside on this read...
View attachment 34363
Great screenshot. They had the play and got blown up and out executed. Hard to criticize the play call or Cam not bouncing as you said.If Wagner hadn't blown through the line (Andrews missed block?), Mason probably could have blocked the DL (91), giving Newton a pretty clear waltz. I can see why Cam didn't bounce outside on this read...
View attachment 34363
Good point. Going back to the Falcons Super Bowl, my recollection is that there was a lot of talk at the time about how impressive that the Pats had multiple goal-line plays to go to -- and they needed all of them, between some short-yardage TD's, plus the 2-point conversions.Re: last play: the Pats have been great at beating you by adding wrinkles to plays they've shown, and the TD to Johnson was an example. The D is going to adjust when they see a play they've seen on tape or in-game, and the wrinkles = already adjusting to your expected adjustments. They went back to the well on the last play, but it was just straight up, no wrinkles, right? Wagner adjusted, went backside, as Matt Chatham pointed out. Ran out of wrinkles I guess. I have a feeling they'll be installing more.
Those guys wear varsity jackets, tooGreat screenshot. They had the play and got blown up and out executed. Hard to criticize the play call or Cam not bouncing as you said.
Good point. Going back to the Falcons Super Bowl, my recollection is that there was a lot of talk at the time about how impressive that the Pats had multiple goal-line plays to go to -- and they needed all of them, between some short-yardage TD's, plus the 2-point conversions.
I don't know if he was out for one play, but if he was, I'm pretty sure he wasn't too effective after that, seeing as he blew out his ACL and is done for the season:Irvin was out for about one play.
Yeah going low as a lineman to facilitate second level pressure and disrupt the blocking scheme works, but it means you're selling out to stop something specific. If its a play action or a bootleg or something, you've let yourself quite vulnerable on containment. If that's a pop pass and all those guys are diving and crashing the holes, it's hard to defend with a quick change of direction. Can't really hate the play call though from NE or SEA, it's Cam and he's faced these fronts and converted many times in his career.From a technique standpoint, what happened on that last play? Did Seattle just guess the right side and send more men over? It looked like their guys all went low and washed out our guys - is that something you can only do if you more or less know what’s coming?
The play was probably designed only as a run for Newton -- somewhere. Izzo would have to see that the rest of the line was caving in order to leak out. I'm not even sure he was in a position to know what was happening off to his right. Maybe a better/more experienced TE pulls that off. OTOH--I expect that in future games there will be an identical look where the TE does block and release in the hope that the defender just rushes in or gets caught in nowhere land.Is there a specific reason why Izzo couldn’t block and release? Would doing so be too risky in case Cam chose to run instead of pass?
Ah, thanks. Figured there was a reason.They would need a different play to give Cam an option. It was a designed run. The blocking scheme had linemen working to the LBs so any pass would be flagged for ineligible receiver down field.
I'm not the best offensive mind, I only played DT and OG through HS, but really depends what theIs there a specific reason why Izzo couldn’t block and release? Would doing so be too risky in case Cam chose to run instead of pass?
Excellent analysis. Mistakes I used to make in HS that I noticed too.Let's look at a couple of plays on the run game that kind of serve as a microcosm to me for the day. Both are in the first quarter. 2nd and 5 with 2:15 to go in the first. Sony runs right guard:
View attachment 34369
The problem here is Eluemunor has to block Wright and he just doesn't get there. Had he been able to seal off Wright Sony gets 10+ yards. Instead? Gain of 1.
The very next play: Burkhead runs left guard and the center and the entire left side of the line as well as Izzo lose their run blocks.
View attachment 34370
Wynn is hitting too high on his double team. You need to go for the hips/thighs there to move the guy. Instead he doesn't get any push, Thuney gets tossed aside, Wynn has to now get to the hole to block Adams (33) as well as his original target, 90, and this is what happens (Izzo also loses):
View attachment 34371
We can complain about the backs all we want but if this is the blocking? Good luck. Took a big step back run blocking this week.
View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KmzLAR5DK2oFrom a technique standpoint, what happened on that last play? Did Seattle just guess the right side and send more men over? It looked like their guys all went low and washed out our guys - is that something you can only do if you more or less know what’s coming?