The Goat Thread: Wk 1 vs The Chiefs

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,094
The KC D-Line was really tight with no gaps. Brady usually likes to go in low on sneaks, but he needs some kind of opening to choose and go through. With a back, you either hope your line can push back their line a couple feet or your back can go over the top. When I saw the KC line, both times, I thought no QB sneak, packed in too tight. Of course, why doesn't everybody line up like that against the Pats on 3rd and 4th and very short with Brady's 90 something % success in QB sneaks?
Definitely surprising that more teams haven't done that. Of course, we still decided to try to ram Gillislee through, which failed miserably. Will be interesting to see what the team does in short yardage situations going forward. Gronk is too risky because refs basically let people hang all over him and he doesn't appear healthy enough to make any quick cuts. Edelman really was the perfect WR for these situations.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
After The Scottish Game, the word was that you beat the Pats with pressure up the middle. However, a combination of the Pats' dealing with that plus the fact that most teams couldn't recreate the Giants DL talent meant that not many teams could do that.

Then Sexy Rexy showed some success with the flooding the middle approach. One of the Pat's bread and butter plays has been the 5-8 yard pass to someone, most typically Edelman, crossing the middle. I didn't see a single version of that play all night.

Many people are talking about the overturned TD catch as being the possible source of a Gronk injury, but I thought that there was an incomplete pass earlier, where a Chiefs defender caught him pretty good directly in the back. Gronk's body seemed to get jarred on that in an odd way, almost looked a bit like whiplash. I wonder if the injury report will list him as Questionable (Neck).

AS for the 4th and 1 failures, it seemed like years ago, a common technique in those sorts of plays, was to come out in one formation, such as a heavy, power lineup, and then split everyone out wide, meaning the Heavy D lineup would suddenly be stuck trying to cover TE's and RBs in the flat. And which sometimes led to opening up the A-gaps for a Brady sneak. There was no attempt at deception here.

I read a headline recently along the lines of "Which should worry the Pats more: offense or defense?" To me, this is easy: Defense, as i think the offense woes are easily correctable from coaching/scheming/play-calling, while the defense issues are primarily about personnel.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
Just watching the highlights of the two TDs, Berry wasn't covering him - it was CB Sean Smith I think (#21) on one and #27 on the other
27 was Tyvon Branch; maybe Berry had to play more FS paired with Branch?

I forgot that Berry didn't play in the 2014 meeting; that was the year he missed with lymphoma.
 

MissingMySox

New Member
Dec 11, 2014
1
Something I have always wondered is if the Patriots play their offense vanilla when facing a team they will possibly see in the post season.

Obviously some of the offensive problems would be rust, injuries and what not.

But something like not using the rb stable while your wr options are either green or limited. Is that because they thought it wouldn't work or is that because they are keeping a little something back for later?

Would they be willing to risk a loss when they have some idea that short of catastrophe they will be making the playoffs and possibly facing the Chiefs again?
 

RG33

Certain Class of Poster
SoSH Member
Nov 28, 2005
7,199
CA
I have now attended two games in my own Season Tickets seats -- the Pats-Colts AFC Championship in 2013 and this game. I will eschew from attending going forward. . . . .
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Something I have always wondered is if the Patriots play their offense vanilla when facing a team they will possibly see in the post season.

Obviously some of the offensive problems would be rust, injuries and what not.

But something like not using the rb stable while your wr options are either green or limited. Is that because they thought it wouldn't work or is that because they are keeping a little something back for later?

Would they be willing to risk a loss when they have some idea that short of catastrophe they will be making the playoffs and possibly facing the Chiefs again?
No, and certainly not to begin a season. Defenses had the edge yesterday, which makes our atrocious defensive performance last Thursday a bit more stinky.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
The KC D-Line was really tight with no gaps. Brady usually likes to go in low on sneaks, but he needs some kind of opening to choose and go through. With a back, you either hope your line can push back their line a couple feet or your back can go over the top. When I saw the KC line, both times, I thought no QB sneak, packed in too tight. Of course, why doesn't everybody line up like that against the Pats on 3rd and 4th and very short with Brady's 90 something % success in QB sneaks?
So the counter is 2 in backfield--fake dive, toss outside.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
I know that Tom Brady and Josh McDaniels are both brilliant football minds, so this does not make sense to me. Maybe one of the footballologists here can explain. Why would a bad defensive look for a QB sneak be a good look for a HB dive into the same spot?

View attachment 17332
I just watched these and neither of the fourth down runs was right up the middle. On the first run, Develin ran between Solder (playing TE) and Dwayne Allen while Gillislee went between Cannon and Solder. The second run was an inside zone look where Gillislee tried to hit the hole between Solder (again playing TE) and Gronkowski (the middle of three TEs). Those runs were targeting totally different gaps than a QB sneak would have been. Obviously, the gaps they did attack ended up being well-defended, too, but they were different than a sneak (and from each other, for that matter).
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,099
Something I have always wondered is if the Patriots play their offense vanilla when facing a team they will possibly see in the post season.

Obviously some of the offensive problems would be rust, injuries and what not.

But something like not using the rb stable while your wr options are either green or limited. Is that because they thought it wouldn't work or is that because they are keeping a little something back for later?

Would they be willing to risk a loss when they have some idea that short of catastrophe they will be making the playoffs and possibly facing the Chiefs again?
I don't believe it was part of their game plan. Breaking down their early drives in the first half:

Drive #1: 4 runs (plus 1 run negated by offsetting penalties), and 6 passes. Of the 6 passes, the targets were Allen (inc), Burkhead (comp), Cooks (comp), Amendola (comp), Cooks (inc), and Gronk (inc). Result was a TD.

Drive #2: 3 runs, 5 passes: 3 intended for Gronk (0-3), 1 for Amendola, 1 for James White (both complete). Drive resulted in the turnover on downs after Gronk's catch was reversed upon replay.

Drive #3: 5 runs, 3 passes (completions to Amendola and Cooks, incomplete to Burkhead). FG

Drive #4: 8 runs, 4 passes (completions to 'Dola and Gronk, incomplete to Burkhead, and 1 attempt to Cooks that resulted in defensive holding penalty). TD.

By this point, the Pats were actually running the ball quite well, especially on that 4th drive, and were up 17-7. Catches were made by Amendola, Gronk, Cooks, White, and Burkhead. At the time, it appeared the Pats had established a pretty good run-pass balance, which should have opened up a lot of space in the passing game. Of the pass attempts, you had 8 to the WR's (6 completed plus 1 penalty), 6 to the tight ends (1 completion), and 4 to the RB's (2 completions). Aside from the tight end situation, the game plan seemed to be working.

Drive #5: 1 run, 2 incomplete passes (Hogan and Cooks), 3-and-out. Still, Pats still have 17-14 lead entering locker room.

Drive #6 (ignoring the kneel down at the end of the half): 2 ineffectual runs, 3 passes (completion to Amendola, incomplete to Allen and Hogan). OK, starting to get concerned, but 2 stalled drives in a row is not yet the end of the world.

Drive #7: Pats trailing 21-17. 2 runs, 3 passes, which result in 1 completion (Amendola) and 2 defensive penalties on Mitchell (Gronk and Cooks). Results in a TD, and officially Brady is 1-1 on the drive. OK, maybe things are looking up.

Drive #8: The punt coverage unit had done the Pats no favors here, as the Chiefs were allowed to punt 3 times and essentially take the best one. Drive starts off nice with 1 big completion to Cooks, and after 2 decent pick ups by James White on the ground, the drive falters with some horrible play calling (2 ineffectual runs) and an illegal forward pass by Brady (to White). FG. But at least the Pats are up by 6.

Drive #9: The start of the downfall. 4 straight passes (completions to White and Amendola, miss on Cooks attempt, and a short completion to White again), followed by a 2nd failed 4th-and-1 running attempt.

Drive #10: Here is where the bottom falls out. After 2 Burkhead runs, the drive ends in 3 straight incompletions (Hogan, Gronk, and Cooks).

Drive #11: Down by 8 with 5 minutes to go, Brady is forced to throw. 1 sack, and 2 incomplete attempts to the WR's (Dorsett and Cooks).

Drive #12: After 2 sacks, the incompletion to James White is basically a formality.

I don't agree with the play calling as the game went on, but sometimes the games get away from even the best coaching staffs. The Pats scored on 5 of the first 8 drives, and 1 of those misses was a failed 4th-and-1 pickup. My best guess is that between Gronk's struggles, Brady being off (he did miss some open targets, which Collinsworth mentioned on the telecast), and some early (fleeting) success in the running game, McDaniels was a bit slow to adjust the play calling in the 2nd half.

To answer your question in the final sentence, the answer is a resounding "no".
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,283
AZ
I have now attended two games in my own Season Tickets seats -- the Pats-Colts AFC Championship in 2013 and this game. I will eschew from attending going forward. . . . .
Me and DDB Jr. have been to about 9 or 10 games at the Razor and have only seen them lose twice. Both times were the only times we were in the 300s level. Against the Ravens in the AFCCG and last week. Both were 15 point losses after not putting things away in the first half. So, I need to pony up for better seats from now on.

Anyway, this is probably common knowledge around here, but Ernie and some of the other coaches watch the game from a booth at the very top of the stadium. There is no high tech way up there so they trudge up and down the stairs between sections. Here's Ernie.

 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
7,522
Maine
Well the Pats are the only team that can really afford to change the field turf every time they lose a home game.