The AFCCG Post Game Thread: at Denver

Jack Sox

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 27, 2005
3,375
He did say that the coach and the QB aren't essentially good enough to win a Super Bowl anymore. Based on what happened this season, I think that's a pretty ridiculous position to take.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
I think he's arguing they aren't good enough to win it with the current talent level outside the coach and QB.

My quibble is around saying they didn't have a chance to win this year. I think they did.
 

DegenerateSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 11, 2006
2,064
Flagstaff, AZ
I'm not all that upset about yesterday. My feeling all long was that they'd lost too many of their best players to injury, and that it was going to bite them at some point in the playoffs. House money, etc. Still, I have to keep thinking that just one of these years before Brady calls it quits - and it's not unreasonable to think he's got 2 or 3 more good ones left in him - they're going to make it through without losing so many of their best players. Put Gronk, Wilfork, Mayo, Vollmer, & Kelly on that field - and keep Talib on it, and I have to think that changes things significantly. All teams have injuries, but this year was just ridiculous. Aren't they due for a regression there (or an improvement if that's how you want to label it)? Just once before Brady hangs it up. Please. (Sigh).
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
RedOctober3829 said:
If you had anything less than a Brady or Manning at QB with the roster the way it fell this year, do you really think they would have even won the AFC East?  Brady's prowess and Belichick's roster management were the reason they stayed afloat this year. 
 
 
No.  And Jack Sox's second paragraph made my point, perhaps better than I did, as Stich quickly recognized.
 
This is not the time to criticize anyone but the much of media that continuously drums home the silly/lazy point that this is a QB's league and if you combine a great one with a HOF HC, you're basically good.
 
The least capable of the 4 QBs remaining advanced yesterday.  Defenses utterly dominated maybe the best playoff game played in years.
 
In a great season -- there is no other word for it -- Patsfans' expectations outstripped reality. 
 

brandonchristensen

Loves Aaron Judge
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2012
38,144
I'm disappointed in the offensive play calling. It felt eerily similar to the Chargers plays last week.

Predictable (always running on second), and some odd choices (3rd and short bombs).

When Brady stepped up in the 4th and was chucking it 5-10 yards he was the Vrady we all know and love.

And him juking the MLB was amazing and so very unlike the recent Brady.

I wish their play calling was more aggressive early on.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,185
BigSoxFan said:
Seemed to me that early on the Broncos were much more aggressive covering those short-to-intermediate routes. I didn't have an issue with the play calling, I think they just got beat. We needed the running game to rip off 5+ yard runs and they just weren't doing that. Later on, the Broncos were making sure there wouldn't be a repeat of the Ravens debacle so the shorter stuff was more available, at least to my untrained eye.
 
I thought the shorter stuff was there all game, but the Pats gameplan early on wasn't focused on that---they tried the run regularly in the first half, and they tried a couple deep shots.   It wasn't until their first possession of the third quarter that they really focused on the intermediate game, and it worked reasonably well (albeit against a defense playing softer against that stuff by design) the rest of the way.

I don't really have a problem with the overall concept of trying to establish the run and taking a couple deep shots early, but 1) it didn't work and 2) the specific playcalls for a number of runs and the deep balls weren't my favorite
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
BigSoxFan said:
Seemed to me that early on the Broncos were much more aggressive covering those short-to-intermediate routes. I didn't have an issue with the play calling, I think they just got beat. We needed the running game to rip off 5+ yard runs and they just weren't doing that. Later on, the Broncos were making sure there wouldn't be a repeat of the Ravens debacle so the shorter stuff was more available, at least to my untrained eye.
 
Yes.  I think the 4-yard catches they were getting early on 1st down were just fine.  The problem came when they were getting absolutely stuffed on 2nd down runs, which I had hoped would put them into very manageable 3rd-and-shorts.  They didn't covert, and the two three-and-outs out of the box set the tone for the day.
 
They were beaten soundly on both sides of the LOS.  When that happens, you typically lose.  I suspect it will be vastly different for the Broncos in two weeks.
 

brandonchristensen

Loves Aaron Judge
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2012
38,144
dcmissle said:
 
Yes.  I think the 4-yard catches they were getting early on 1st down were just fine.  The problem came when they were getting absolutely stuffed on 2nd down runs, which I had hoped would put them into very manageable 3rd-and-shorts.  They didn't covert, and the two three-and-outs out of the box set the tone for the day.
 
They were beaten soundly on both sides of the LOS.  When that happens, you typically lose.  I suspect it will be vastly different for the Broncos in two weeks.
God I hope so. I hate the thought of Peyton becoming a new post season god at almost 40. If Brady's recent SB losses prove that he doesn't have it anymore, I would hope a SB loss for Peyton proves the same thing.

"But he still beat Brady" I'm sure they will say.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
24,829
Unreal America
I'm disappointed in the offensive play calling. It felt eerily similar to the Chargers plays last week.

Predictable (always running on second), and some odd choices (3rd and short bombs).

When Brady stepped up in the 4th and was chucking it 5-10 yards he was the Vrady we all know and love.

And him juking the MLB was amazing and so very unlike the recent Brady.

I wish their play calling was more aggressive early on.


Well, is it any surprise that the Pats started moving the ball better once the Broncos went up 3 scores and started playing a looser D to prevent quick strikes and run clock?

I generally hate when people criticize play calling. It's mostly about a team executing, OC's tend to know what they're doing as much as fans think they're big dummy heads. The Pats execution sucked for most of the day.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
PedroKsBambino said:
 
I thought the shorter stuff was there all game, but the Pats gameplan early on wasn't focused on that---they tried the run regularly in the first half, and they tried a couple deep shots.   It wasn't until their first possession of the third quarter that they really focused on the intermediate game, and it worked reasonably well (albeit against a defense playing softer against that stuff by design) the rest of the way.
I don't really have a problem with the overall concept of trying to establish the run and taking a couple deep shots early, but 1) it didn't work and 2) the specific playcalls for a number of runs and the deep balls weren't my favorite
They mostly did pass short early. In the first three quarters they only had 5 deep passing attempts, compared to 17 short attempts (there were also 2 sacks; who knows whether those were short or long passing attempts). They had 13 rushing attempts, so they ran about half as much as they threw. The problem is they basically sucked at everything they did. They couldn't run, they couldn't hit on long passes, and the short passing was inefficient, too.
 
EDIT: if we look at just the first half, it was 4 deep passing attempts, 11 short attempts, 1 sack, 8 runs.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
One coaching question / criticism I have: after Talib went out and it became obvious Dennard couldn't handle Demaryius Thomas, I would have considered moving McCourty to CB and inserting Harmon. McCourty's a better physical match for Thomas, and while it would have weakened the back end Denver wasn't throwing deep too much anyway. Dennard was basically non-competitive trying to cover Thomas (PFF had him 5 of 7 for 90 yards and a TD).
 

brandonchristensen

Loves Aaron Judge
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2012
38,144
8slim said:
Well, is it any surprise that the Pats started moving the ball better once the Broncos went up 3 scores and started playing a looser D to prevent quick strikes and run clock?

I generally hate when people criticize play calling. It's mostly about a team executing, OC's tend to know what they're doing as much as fans think they're big dummy heads. The Pats execution sucked for most of the day.
It's possible that they only moved with a softer D, but the play calling was wildly different.

Tom would hand off with 8 stacked in the box routinely. From the LOS it looked like a low percentage play and they tried to force it in.

They just looked lethargic until the fourth.
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
Whenever they lose, we all wonder if the fault lies primarily with the defense or the offense.  This game is tough to say.  On the one hand, it seems obvious that the offense really let the team down.  16 points, just 64 rushing yards, 320 total yards. Those numbers are far off their seasonal averages of 27.8 points (-11.8 in this game) and 384.5 yards (-64.5 yards in this game).
 
And it seems, from the game score, that the Pats' defense did an admirable job, allowing a team that averaged 37.9 points per game to score just 26 (-11.9).  In other words, by the slimmest of margins, the defense held Denver to fewer points relative to their average than the Pats' offense scored relative to theirs.  
 
But seen another way, the 26 points by Denver was 4.9 more than NE gave up on average during the season.  Which, given perfect weather and game conditions, and the loss of Talib early, was pretty understandable.
 
The real problem in this game in looking at it this way is the number of possessions.  NE had just 8 possessions, including the one that began with just 25 seconds left in the first half.  So let's say really they only had 7 actual possessions.  On those possessions, here's what NE did:
 
3 plays, 5 yards, punt
3 plays, 7 yards, punt
7 plays, 41 yards, punt
9 plays, 51 yards, FG
(last 25 seconds of half - won't count that "drive")
13 plays, 41 yards, turnover on downs
9 plays, 80 yards, TD
10 plays, 80 yards, TD
 
That's 16 points in 7 real possessions, or an average of 2.3 points per possession.  Typically the Patriots would have somewhere between 10-13 possessions in a game, so at this rate, they should have scored between 23 and 30 points yesterday.
 
The D really suffers under this microscope, however.  Denver had 8 possessions as well, including the last 3:07 of the game, when they weren't even trying to score, but did a good job running out the clock.  So still, let's ignore that possession and say that in the drives where Denver was looking to score and not simply run out clock, they had 7 of those, and 26 points.  That comes to 3.7 points per possession - a lot more than New England's.  Denver's drives:
 
7 plays, 37 yards, punt
10 plays, 73 yards, FG
15 plays, 93 yards, TD
8 plays, 63 yards, FG
13 plays, 80 yards, TD
9 plays, 60 yards, FG
6 plays, 39 yards, FG
(then the last drive that began with 3:07 left)
 
So they scored on 6 of the 7 drives, eating up a ton of clock in the process.  They limited New England's number of possessions, and they scored on nearly all of their own (Denver's, that is).  Credit NE's "bend but don't break" defense with holding Denver to four field goals and just two touchdowns, but they let Denver move the ball at will all day long.
 
So I think, in the final analysis, both the offense and defense had major issues yesterday.  The D had such a hard time getting off the field, and the offense just stumbled for much of the game.  That combination, on the road against a quality opponent, isn't likely to win you many games.
 
When the Patriots lose in the playoffs, it seems like the offense usually comes up small:
 
2007 - scored just 14 points against the Giants
2009 - scored just 14 points against the Ravens
2010 - scored just 21 points against the Jets
2011 - scored just 17 points against the Giants
2012 - scored just 13 points against the Ravens
2013 - scored just 16 points against the Broncos
 
That's an average of just 13.6 points scored in their last six playoff losses.  Throw in 2005 (at Denver, 13 points) and 2006 (at Indy, 34 points), and the average becomes 17.8, which is far below their norm.  Heck, in 6 of their last 8 playoff losses, they've failed to score more than 17 points.  That's pretty awful.
 
But again, some of it has to do with the defense not being able to get off the field, giving the offense fewer possessions.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
I think it is also hard to analyze because due to fatigue or gameplan or whatever, Denver's defense was just not the same after they went up 3 scores.  You can say that's when the Patriots turned it on but the same thing happened with San Diego.  If I were a Broncos fan I'd be pretty worried facing that Seattle defense and knowing your defense seem to turn into matadors in the fourth.  Can any Broncos fan feel safe if the lead is less than 10?
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
Different thread, of course, but my goodness, even though I detest both teams, watching the incredible Denver offense play the incredible Seattle defense is going to be pretty compelling.  Seattle has the manpower to cover all of Denver's targets, and they really get after the QB. 
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
Half the fucking starting 22 are on IR. That makes a small difference. And yet they were one of the last four teams standing.
 
Let's think back to the time following the draft.  At that point, here's what the Patriots looked like:
 
Offense
QB - Brady (HOFer)
RB - Ridley (coming off a 1200 yard year), Vereen (explosive receiving back), Bolden
WR - Amendola (talented, but oft-injured), Edelman (talented but unproven at WR), Dobson (rookie), Boyce (rookie), Thompkins (who?)
TE - Gronk (coming back from injury, but the best overall TE in the game), Hernandez (matchup nightmare at TE/WR), Hoo-man, Ballard
OL - Solder (pro-bowl caliber), Mankins (pro-bowl caliber), Wendell, Connolly, Vollmer (pro-bowl caliber)
 
Of that group, by the 2nd quarter of the AFCCG, they were missing Gronk, Hernandez, and Vollmer, three pro-bowl caliber players, and Thompkins, who had become a pretty reliable receiver, plus Boyce.  And Amendola and Dobson were playing hurt.
 
Defense
DE - Ninkovich, Jones
DT - Wilfork (all-pro caliber), Kelly
LB - Mayo (pro-bowl caliber), Spikes (one of the best in the NFL against the run), Hightower
CB - Talib (pro-bowl caliber), Dennard
S - Adrian Wilson (not as good as he once was, but once was a pro-bowl caliber player), McCourty
 
Of that group, by the 2nd quarter of the AFCCG, they were missing Wilfork, Kelly, Mayo, Spikes, Talib, and Wilson.  That's *six* projected starters all gone.  At least three of them were pro-bowl caliber players.
 
So the Patriots ended up missing at least *SIX* pro-bowl caliber players, and at least nine starters overall.  Let's compare what this would mean if you're, say, Denver.
 
Gronk --> Julius Thomas
Hernandez --> Decker (maybe the best actual WR on the Patriots, but not as good as D. Thomas for Denver)
Vollmer --> Clady (he actually was out)
Wilfork --> Knighton
Mayo --> Von Miller (actually was out)
Spikes --> Woodyard
Talib --> Harris (actually was out)
Plus having D.Thomas and Welker hobbled
 
How would Denver have done under those circumstances?  I doubt they'd be playing in the Super Bowl.  Missing J. Thomas, Decker, Clady, Knighton, Miller, Woodyard, and Harris, plus having D. Thomas and Welker gimpy?  I don't see them playing for a Lombardi in that situation.