2019 Game Ball Thread: Wk. 7 at Jets
- Thread starter SeoulSoxFan
- Start date
Doesn't that make sense though? If you determine there is an inefficiency, you need to play towards it more often to account for the "luck" not working in your favor on select plays. It signals profoud trust in either/both their analytics and decision making.
Even in my software / product development world I need to continually emphasize its more about the process/behaviors than the outcomes on any given in market test / release. If we have good and rigorous behavior we will be successful over the long hall. Too often you see folks celebrate "successes" that should be attributed to luck (bad process/behaviors), and comiserate in "failures" that should also be attributed to "luck" (or misfortune) even though they did everything correct. Determine the right behavior and continue to drive it until you determine another behavior applies.
Hey I worry about Brady just like I hoped Mo Rivera would become human. At some point it will happen. But, he looked really good last night. He was getting the ball out quick, and there were a few great catches Bolden, Meyers, Dorsett, but also some drops JE, Watson, Michel that could have had him bigger numbers. They also seem to have abandoned the stats padding goal line TD passes of years gone by, maybe its the oline, the bad pick TB threw earlier in the season.
I have no idea what the Jets OL is supposed to be but starting LT and C (the most important position in the Pats OL scheme) combined with both TEs would be pretty hard to beat in terms of “more injured” even if you’re counting quantity over quality. Pats OL is a mess and yet ...
Yeah, definitely, but you also have to be right and be flexible. I mean, there are times when the Patriots have tried a plan and have failed fairly dramatically. The Titans game last year is a good example. They just kept trying to jam the same round peg in the square hole and it wasn't working. The good news is that they aren't wrong that often. And, I think fairly importantly, they don't do it halfway. They don't say, "hmm, we'll try this maybe." They go for it. They remain flexible for sure. But you can't go into a game saying "let's play upwards of 20 snaps (or whatever it was) in a cover zero look" and not be all in. You have to use your practice days for it to the exclusion of other stuff.
We're fortunate because we have a coach that has so much security that he can be as unconventional as he wants -- and also that he has created an onto Cincinnati mentality so that if it doesn't work it doesn't fester, even when it happens in a Super Bowl! There aren't many other coaches with the freedom to go all in on something like this.
Cover zero is exceptionally risky. Anderson, Crowder and Thomas aren't Jerry Rice, but they are good receivers. Bell is practically a wide receiver if you line him up right. No matter how good your corners are, NFL receivers just need one step to beat you when you're on an island and blown cover zero means 70 yards right down the middle of the field. It's not for the Jason Garretts and Mike Vrabels of the world.
To reinforce your last paragraph, they ran a zero blitz on the game-losing TD to Plaxico Burress in the first Giants SB. (And famously, on the Gilmore INT to win the Rams SB). High-risk, high-reward.
My impression was that they ran the zero blitz early to put it in Darnold's head and then made it look they were going to run it a bunch more but ran other stuff instead (IIRC on the Simon strip-sack, they showed C0 to get the Jets to slide protection left and then ran an overload blitz right while dropping guys). I think part of it was knowing that Darnold would try to get rid of the ball quickly in the face of the blitz; he was only sacked once, after all. I recall them running it on 3rd-and-10 and Darnold throwing a quick hitch hot and they just made an easy tackle for a five-yard gain and a stop. I think generally they are happy to play off with C0 and take away the deep ball while trusting their ability to tackle. I think a lot of the danger with the zero blitz is not so much the deep ball as a WR breaking a tackle on a short completion and housing it with no safety. Michael Crabtree did that to beat the Pats back in 2012 or so.
Yeah, I think you're right that they showed it much more than they actually played it last night. I think couple times they looked they were playing it but the offensive line got confused and whiffed even though they only ended up rushing 4 or 5. The funny part about the Darnold quote was that I actually don't think the problem was that he was seeing ghosts as much as it was the opposite -- he wasn't seeing guys who were there.
Either way, this team just has the personnel to play this right now and force the defense to guess because you really do have to honor the fact that in a pinch they can still cover even with only four back. I thought last night they may have been tactically risking a few holding and PI penalties by putting their hands on receivers just to avoid the home run play when they had less safety support.
And the TV crew (at least it seemed that way to me) and all they need to do is explain what is happening or happened - not antiicpate anything!
I was positive this was going to be high-pitched “intercept it!” or channeling weird Uber-dork with “We’re champions! Ha ha! We’re champions!”
Seems like a Brady injury is a better chance than 30-1 seeing we have seen him out 1 time out of 20 years.