Jump to content

Is Bill Bellichick solely to blame for Patriots loss?


BayRaider

Recommended Posts

On 2/6/2018 at 5:07 PM, Starless said:

As absurd as it feels to type this, Brady dropping that pass is one of the top 3 reasons why they lost, if we boil it down to individual plays (and in this close a game, we kind of have to). It happened on a 3rd and 5, and then they went for it on 4th down and were stopped at the Eagles' 35.

Calling that play was one of the dumber things I've seen in a while.  What if he caught it and a defender came in and leveled him causing him to leave the game?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/6/2018 at 9:12 PM, childofpudding said:

Yep. This always happens, though. People look to blame someone on the losing team instead of giving credit to the winners.

Offensive gameplan was smart and the players executed. Hats off to them.

And usually when a team loses it isn't just one person.  It us usually a team loss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Patriots lost because their defense was bad. Not even ok. It was bad. There was one metric in which the Patriots looked good. PPG after week 5. That's cherry picking at best and in all honestly, just being willfully ignorant. And it looks even worse when you consider the opponents the Patriots played after Week 5. 6 of those opponents were the other AFC East teams. So that includes the Jets, Bills, and Dolphins offenses (some of the worst in the NFL).  

Every other metric indicated that the Patriots had some extreme deficiencies on defense. And that showed in the Super Bowl. Scheme can only take you so far. Sure, one could make the argument Butler should have started or at the very least played. I completely agree with that. However, Butler wasn't playing well all season and Rowe was in position at times but was just beat by incredible plays. The Alshon Jeffery TD that beat Rowe was really well defended. Rowe was right there. It was just a perfect pass and a perfect catch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Pugger said:

Calling that play was one of the dumber things I've seen in a while.  What if he caught it and a defender came in and leveled him causing him to leave the game?  

I mean, if we're being realistic there's a similar chance of that happening every time he drops back.

I will say that it was a very dumb play to call on 3rd and 5 at the opponent's 35.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, wwhickok said:

There's only 1 undeniable reason the Patriots lost. They weren't the best team on the field. 

It's really this simple. The Eagles were the better team. You play this game out 10 more times, the Eagles win 6-7 of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Starless said:

I mean, if we're being realistic there's a similar chance of that happening every time he drops back.

I will say that it was a very dumb play to call on 3rd and 5 at the opponent's 35.

I mean realistically, 31 other teams would've been having "Super Bowl Parades" (I'm mostly joking)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/6/2018 at 3:08 PM, Troy Brown said:

^ On that same note, it is absurd to think the Patriots are essentially one or two plays from being 8-0 or 0-8 in their past 8 superbowls

Basically. Its funny how much the outcome of a game determines what we think about it. Ryan doesn't get sacked last year, Atlanta wins. Ditto with the Butler int against Seattle (who also would have lost had they not gotten that miracle catch). Hell I've argued that the Panthers were the better team against the Broncos, but Denver got the turnover luck so they become best defense ever while the Panthers were an afterthought. Heck everyone is worshiping Peterson for being aggressive but only because it worked. Had Brady not gotten stripped sacked, the Pats probably win and everyone trashes his reckless 2pt attempt. Atl was aggressive last year and it backfired, nothing but criticism. Seattle was aggressive at the goal line (and a bad short yardage team) and was crucified.  Humans suck at probabilities and are overly sensitive to outcomes for understanding decision making.

If anything sunk the Pats, it was the refs. They basically didn't call offensive holding. This helped neutralize Philly's pash rush, sure (Brady put up great numbers) but it crippled the Pats limited pass rush, negating their better quality secondary. Thats how the shootout happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Teen Girl Squad said:

If anything sunk the Pats, it was the refs. They basically didn't call offensive holding. This helped neutralize Philly's pash rush, sure (Brady put up great numbers) but it crippled the Pats limited pass rush, negating their better quality secondary. Thats how the shootout happened.

This is laughable at best.  So the refs cost the Patriots the game?  No, the Patriots cost the Patriots the game if anything.  They tried to be fancy on 3rd and 5 with a trick play and poorly executed it.  Couldn't protect Brady all night, he may not have been sacked more than once but he was getting squeezed and hurried all night.  There were missed calls that should've gone against the Patriots just the same.  Philadelphia was better on both sides of the ball, they had the better defense, better execution on offense, and better strategy coming from the Coaches.  

It's not acceptable when other teams' fans say the refs cost them the game when the Patriots win, so it's not acceptable here either.  The difference is, had the refs not handed the Patriots several games this season, they might not have even made the playoffs because their record would've been 10-6 at best.  But that's not what this thread is about, what's about is the fact that Philadelphia showed up to play football and they did, for 60 minutes and it WAS enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Pugger said:

Calling that play was one of the dumber things I've seen in a while.  What if he caught it and a defender came in and leveled him causing him to leave the game?  

Playing the results. No defender was anywhere near him and he would’ve ran out of bounds. Could we not do the play calling analysis? Hate that. It’s not the first time they have run a play like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Kip Smithers said:

Playing the results. No defender was anywhere near him and he would’ve ran out of bounds. Could we not do the play calling analysis? Hate that. It’s not the first time they have run a play like that.

You could say the same thing about Phillys trick play. Foles could have got leveled catching the ball in the endzone, gone and then Sudfeld comes in. Both play calls were good just 1 was executed correctly 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Teen Girl Squad said:

If anything sunk the Pats, it was the refs. They basically didn't call offensive holding. This helped neutralize Philly's pash rush, sure (Brady put up great numbers) but it crippled the Pats limited pass rush, negating their better quality secondary. Thats how the shootout happened.

I loved that the refs let them play.  It felt good to watch a game without flags being thrown all over the field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jlowe22 said:

I loved that the refs let them play.  It felt good to watch a game without flags being thrown all over the field.

I agree, I was just saying that that style of reffing was a big reason the game became a shootout, which severely limited the Pats defensive options. If anything, it might have prevented an Eagles blowout as the Eagle's front was always just a second late to getting Brady while Philly's line would still hold up (though a few holds would have probably killed a drive or two). It was fair and evenly officiated, just set up the game to be a bit of an unique style.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, JaguarCrazy2832 said:

You could say the same thing about Phillys trick play. Foles could have got leveled catching the ball in the endzone, gone and then Sudfeld comes in. Both play calls were good just 1 was executed correctly 

Exactly, it’s only a good call if it works. Lord knows what the outrage would’ve been if Foles dropped it. Instead you’d hear people say “Eagles tried to outsmart the Pats blah blah...” Playcalling analysis is   a convo I never want to partake in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...