Jump to content

Who was calling the defensive plays when New England ran off 31 unanswered points in a row?


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, A Pimp Named Slickback™ said:

Read this on a Peter King blog this morning. Figured I'd share here since this thread is still going strong. As others have pointed out, there's enough blame to go around, but I thought King's take on it all was interesting.

 

 

One thing I would dispute with King there is about the Patriots offensive players taking just as many snaps. Two players who came up big in that second half were Mitchell and Amendola and their snap counts were half of our entire secondary.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/www.patspulpit.com/platform/amp/2017/2/6/14522294/super-bowl-li-snap-counts-patriots-superior-conditioning-wears-down-falcons-defense?client=ms-android-verizon

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 149
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

26 minutes ago, Jpowers said:

Holy **** we agree!!!!! I'm not sure how to feel right now. I feel like I'm going to be involved in a thread bump next year now where I come out on the wrong end.

1.The defense will have yet another year of experience in the scheme.

2. Players like Collins, Jones, Camphell and Neal should make a jump in level of play.

3. Manuel obviously should have more input than Smith did. If not, why promote him?

4. Trufant. I saw enough of the younger corners that Trufant might be dangled come draft time so that the Falcons could move up in the draft. I said it a while back, Jabril Peppers is the type of player that Quinn likes. Speed and versatility.  Peppers is slated to go in the middle of the first round. The Falcons could offer Trufant straight up. I wouldnt give up the 31st pick AND Trufant...  There ARE concerns about whether Peppers can play deep, but i think its overblown. Draft him...

( I think Dimitroff is bluffing when he said the Falcons gonna draft best player available.)

Edited by slickgadawg
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jpowers said:

One thing I would dispute with King there is about the Patriots offensive players taking just as many snaps. Two players who came up big in that second half were Mitchell and Amendola and their snap counts were half of our entire secondary.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/www.patspulpit.com/platform/amp/2017/2/6/14522294/super-bowl-li-snap-counts-patriots-superior-conditioning-wears-down-falcons-defense?client=ms-android-verizon

Also it's common knowledge that generally the defense tires a lot faster than the offense does. There's a reason everybody, experts, fans, and the commentators, always talk about being on the field too long and getting tired in regards to the D, and not the O. Part of that is the way they both operate, and part is that the offense usually is able to sub a lot more, like you pointed out. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lornoth said:

Also it's common knowledge that generally the defense tires a lot faster than the offense does. There's a reason everybody, experts, fans, and the commentators, always talk about being on the field too long and getting tired in regards to the D, and not the O. Part of that is the way they both operate, and part is that the offense usually is able to sub a lot more, like you pointed out. 

I'm going to have to go and look up the article that Richard Sherman wrote. The part that sticks out to me is about how he had to respect every route that a receiver ran whether it was the #1 or some scrub off the bench the brought in just to tire him out by running a go route. The corners don't get to come off the field after sprinting 40 yards to keep up with the scrub who the ball was never going to anyways. You better believe the offensive coordinator notices the corner with his hands on his hips breathing hard though and that's when he puts the #1 receiver back in.

 

McDaniels had 90+ something chances to see that kind of thing and that's not including the snaps some of our secondary took on special teams.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jpowers said:

I'm going to have to go and look up the article that Richard Sherman wrote. The part that sticks out to me is about how he had to respect every route that a receiver ran whether it was the #1 or some scrub off the bench the brought in just to tire him out by running a go route. The corners don't get to come off the field after sprinting 40 yards to keep up with the scrub who the ball was never going to anyways. You better believe the offensive coordinator notices the corner with his hands on his hips breathing hard though and that's when he puts the #1 receiver back in.

 

McDaniels had 90+ something chances to see that kind of thing and that's not including the snaps some of our secondary took on special teams.

I have always wondered why we have so many people playing ST that are on our actual defense. I think Tru, Alf, and Neal are all starters on punt coverages. I know Neal is and I know Tru and Alf were in years past. Is that really a good idea?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Lornoth said:

I have always wondered why we have so many people playing ST that are on our actual defense. I think Tru, Alf, and Neal are all starters on punt coverages. I know Neal is and I know Tru and Alf were in years past. Is that really a good idea?

Brother, I have a friend that can go all day about that question. @holymoses your moment is here. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/10/2017 at 11:19 AM, athell said:

Was it Quinn's defensive play calls that made Freeman whiff on the block?

Was it Quinn's defensive play calls that made Weems and Hardy take the ball out from the 1 on those kick offs?

Was it Quinn's defensive play calls that made Matt snap the ball with :20 on the play clock?

Was it Quinn's defensive play calls that made Jake hold?

Was it Quinn's defensive play calls that made Alex Mack's leg so injured he was blown up?

Was it Quinn's defensive play calls that made the offense pass twice from the 22?

Was it Quinn's defensive play calls that made not one, but two tipped balls that could have been interceptions fall into Patriot's WR's hands?

Was it Quinn's defensive play calls that made the offense sputter and go 3 and out after 3 and out not allowing the defense to rest?

Was it Quinn's defensive play calls that decided to run the ball only 5 times in the second half with a 25 point lead?

Get over it.  This isn't only on Quinn.  Is it on Quinn?  Of course but this was a total and complete team collapse.  You don't give up a 25 point lead in the superbowl because of 1 side of the ball.

exactly, there wasn't, and hasn't seemed to be, ANY sense of situational football in this town for years... from mike smiths debacle calling timeout when we are trying to run out the clock, the stupid filed goal meant nothing, to YES this super bowl with our QB snapping the ball way too early for nearly 2 quarters to some one calling 2 pass plays on the 30 yard line with 3 minutes left..... absolutely STUPID... three runs and a field goal seals the game...

our guys need someone on the side line ( a good high school coach that under stands situational football) to stand and whisper in Quinns ears....

Edited by newgafatboy
spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jpowers said:

Brother, I have a friend that can go all day about that question. @holymoses your moment is here. 

Here's a start:

@NYC_FalconsFan (I think) posted snap counts. Because of special teams, Neal Alford and Deion Jones, our key performers at three levels of defense, each played over 100 snaps.  Insane. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, slickgadawg said:

1.The defense will have yet another year of experience in the scheme.

2. Players like Collins, Jones, Camphell and Neal should make a jump in level of play.

3. Manuel obviously should have more input than Smith did. If not, why promote him?

4. Trufant. I saw enough of the younger corners that Trufant might be dangled come draft time so that the Falcons could move up in the draft. I said it a while back, Jabril Peppers is the type of player that Quinn likes. Speed and versatility.  Peppers is slated to go in the middle of the first round. The Falcons could offer Trufant straight up. I wouldnt give up the 31st pick AND Trufant...  There ARE concerns about whether Peppers can play deep, but i think its overblown. Draft him...

( I think Dimitroff is bluffing when he said the Falcons gonna draft best player available.)

So you think the team is going to lock up Trufant on a big contract only to trade him away? And FTR, he's worth a 1st round pick alone without having to throw in our own 31st pick

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kinda  neutral observer I guess. I just wanted say the Falcons played a nearly perfect game for 3 quarters, the only "mistake" would be the lack of time the O possessed the ball. 

 

The Falcons D was gassed come the 4th quarter.  The Falcons high flying O let the D down. They held the ball for 22 minutes(?) all game and only scored 21 points.  I know all the reasons given but even if they got the FG the O was held to 24 points all game.  The Falcons O was horrid on 3rd down as well.  So IMO the Falcons O cost them the SB, just like if they had won the Pats O would have been responsible as both D's played as well as can be expected.

 

 

Edited by PatsFanNH
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JD dirtybird21 said:

So you think the team is going to lock up Trufant on a big contract only to trade him away? And FTR, he's worth a 1st round pick alone without having to throw in our own 31st pick

I said THAT.  The problem is what would it take to move into the MIDDLE of the first?  

Edited by slickgadawg
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Jpowers said:

I'm going to have to go and look up the article that Richard Sherman wrote. The part that sticks out to me is about how he had to respect every route that a receiver ran whether it was the #1 or some scrub off the bench the brought in just to tire him out by running a go route. The corners don't get to come off the field after sprinting 40 yards to keep up with the scrub who the ball was never going to anyways. You better believe the offensive coordinator notices the corner with his hands on his hips breathing hard though and that's when he puts the #1 receiver back in.

 

McDaniels had 90+ something chances to see that kind of thing and that's not including the snaps some of our secondary took on special teams.

It baffles me that someone (like Peter King) who is paid to sit around and think about and write about football comes up with this stuff.  Of course defenses will wear down faster than offenses.  The point you make from Sherman's article is one obvious advantage for offenses.  As another, just watch what defensive players are doing - Grady Jarrett comes to mind - squatty little guy who looks nothing like a distance runner is all over the field in pursuit sometimes.  Who on the offense does anything like that much running, other than running backs and receivers, who have limited numbers of carries and routes?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JD dirtybird21 said:

To the middle? Probably just Trufant honestly. Remember that the Falcons traded a 1st straight up for Abraham and Price before. 

Then its a remote possibility the Falcons would do that. You want depth at cornerback, but if the right player can be gotten in the draft, they just might do it...

Edited by slickgadawg
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2017 at 7:06 AM, PatsFanNH said:

Kinda  neutral observer I guess. I just wanted say the Falcons played a nearly perfect game for 3 quarters, the only "mistake" would be the lack of time the O possessed the ball. 

 

The Falcons D was gassed come the 4th quarter.  The Falcons high flying O let the D down. They held the ball for 22 minutes(?) all game and only scored 21 points.  I know all the reasons given but even if they got the FG the O was held to 24 points all game.  The Falcons O was horrid on 3rd down as well.  So IMO the Falcons O cost them the SB, just like if they had won the Pats O would have been responsible as both D's played as well as can be expected.

 

 

The turn-over sack cost Atlanta 8 points,  it was 3rd down and 2, (should have run the ball) Freeman failed to pick up the block on Hightower. 

Passing on 1st down and ten on the 22 yard line cost Atlanta another 8 points.  (They should've run the ball three times, burned the clock,  and taken the FG.) Instead Ryan is sacked for a twelve yard loss.  Then on the next play,  Jake Matthews is penalized for holding. A 31-20 or 31-28 victory is given away. 

Edited by RiversideFalcon
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2017 at 0:43 AM, Lornoth said:

Also it's common knowledge that generally the defense tires a lot faster than the offense does. There's a reason everybody, experts, fans, and the commentators, always talk about being on the field too long and getting tired in regards to the D, and not the O. Part of that is the way they both operate, and part is that the offense usually is able to sub a lot more, like you pointed out. 

Knowing where the play is going, makes a huge difference.  Defense is more physically taxing than offense.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2017 at 8:31 PM, etherdome said:

Knowing where the play is going, makes a huge difference.  Defense is more physically taxing than offense.  

Most people also forget, Atlanta IS a smaller defense and offense. They are built to win in a shootout and by capitalizing on it's ability to get a lead with a more athletic team. The problem was Atlanta's offense sputtered due to play calling and it didn't sustain another drive after hitting 28 points until the infamous "should have kicked a FG" drive. The issue all along was high risk/reward playcalling all game. Worked enough to get some points but it took the Falcons overcoming stalled drives while New England eventually overtook our smaller defensive unit that had been dropping back in man coverage most of the night.

It's simple. Falcons offense runs off more time, doesn't put players in "desperate" like play calling with 2-3 score lead only to have a player make a mistake and catalyze the Patriots comeback possibility. The fact is it would not have been possible had Atlanta executed on offense down the stretch in this game; given how up to the 28-3 score the Patriots offense had as many sustained drives than the Falcons despite the score disparity. Remember, Falcons D scored one of the 4 TDs for Atlanta and had to defend a 2nd consecutive long drive to end 1st half. It's the slowly wear you down approach and the ratio of Falcons QB pressures going for 16 in the 1st half to only 4 in the 2nd is more reason you didn't need to play as if it were a shootout.

Smaller team, built to beat you with speed can wear down. Falcons kept having the risk/reward playcalls with the lead by trying to be "true to themselves". Cost them when the LOS battle was being lost. I'd rather have been stopped on 3rd and 1 and punted, made them drive the length of the field and kept burning off clock ourselves PLUS made them burn more clock than a short 25 yard field for their TD to make it 28-20.

That way, Atlanta's "FG drive" late would've been with less time on the clock and probably still up more than 8 points. Then, you could have simply ran the clock out and won. Hey, maybe if it were only 1 minute to go at that point in FG range reality would've struck Quinn enough to shut down Kyle. Peter King nailed it on the dynamic.

Even despite all of that, Alford picking off Brady on the would-be Edelman catch was another chance to save the game. Nope, we left too much time, points on the field, and that INT that might have been actually should never have been a drive in existence for the Pats. 20 minute game. 25 point lead. That is 4 drives. Even at 5 minutes a drive, where is the time Atlanta's offense ran off in that window? Not enough of a time window for Pats to come back without Falcons mistakes. Several of their plays were simply on Atlanta's decision to do certain poor situational playcalling. Risky vs calculated. You think it's calculated because you believe in your ability to put the game away "your way", but to a fault. Story of the game. So to me, it was Shanahan. Quinn just should've stopped him. I bet he knows that now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, slimjim said:

Most people also forget, Atlanta IS a smaller defense and offense. They are built to win in a shootout and by capitalizing on it's ability to get a lead with a more athletic team. The problem was Atlanta's offense sputtered due to play calling and it didn't sustain another drive after hitting 28 points until the infamous "should have kicked a FG" drive. The issue all along was high risk/reward playcalling all game. Worked enough to get some points but it took the Falcons overcoming stalled drives while New England eventually overtook our smaller defensive unit that had been dropping back in man coverage most of the night.

It's simple. Falcons offense runs off more time, doesn't put players in "desperate" like play calling with 2-3 score lead only to have a player make a mistake and catalyze the Patriots comeback possibility. The fact is it would not have been possible had Atlanta executed on offense down the stretch in this game; given how up to the 28-3 score the Patriots offense had as many sustained drives than the Falcons despite the score disparity. Remember, Falcons D scored one of the 4 TDs for Atlanta and had to defend a 2nd consecutive long drive to end 1st half. It's the slowly wear you down approach and the ratio of Falcons QB pressures going for 16 in the 1st half to only 4 in the 2nd is more reason you didn't need to play as if it were a shootout.

Smaller team, built to beat you with speed can wear down. Falcons kept having the risk/reward playcalls with the lead by trying to be "true to themselves". Cost them when the LOS battle was being lost. I'd rather have been stopped on 3rd and 1 and punted, made them drive the length of the field and kept burning off clock ourselves PLUS made them burn more clock than a short 25 yard field for their TD to make it 28-20.

That way, Atlanta's "FG drive" late would've been with less time on the clock and probably still up more than 8 points. Then, you could have simply ran the clock out and won. Hey, maybe if it were only 1 minute to go at that point in FG range reality would've struck Quinn enough to shut down Kyle. Peter King nailed it on the dynamic.

Even despite all of that, Alford picking off Brady on the would-be Edelman catch was another chance to save the game. Nope, we left too much time, points on the field, and that INT that might have been actually should never have been a drive in existence for the Pats. 20 minute game. 25 point lead. That is 4 drives. Even at 5 minutes a drive, where is the time Atlanta's offense ran off in that window? Not enough of a time window for Pats to come back without Falcons mistakes. Several of their plays were simply on Atlanta's decision to do certain poor situational playcalling. Risky vs calculated. You think it's calculated because you believe in your ability to put the game away "your way", but to a fault. Story of the game. So to me, it was Shanahan. Quinn just should've stopped him. I bet he knows that now.

I agree with you, in part.  Our offense is designed to be "explosive" and it is.  The problem is that it has little true balance.  There are those that would point to the statistics that say our run offense is top-rated.  Yes, the yards are there.  The problem is that those rushing yards come in bunches.  We don't have a run offense that can get 3-4 yards when everyone in the stadium knows we need to.

Our offense is in its window.  We have all the parts we need, except for one:  an interior run game.  The good news is that an interior run game is one of the cheapest facets to obtain.  All we need is an upgrade to the RG position and another RB that can help carry the load.  

This is why I am so interested in signing a quality RG in free agency.  Our offense is in its window;  things will be different in three seasons.  We don't have the time to wait for a rookie RG to "gel" with the OL.  We need a player with experience to step in and make the right side of our OL the go-to place to gain the tough yards.  

If we had such a line, we would have never come down to "just kick a FG".  The game would have been iced in the third quarter. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, etherdome said:

I agree with you, in part.  Our offense is designed to be "explosive" and it is.  The problem is that it has little true balance.  There are those that would point to the statistics that say our run offense is top-rated.  Yes, the yards are there.  The problem is that those rushing yards come in bunches.  We don't have a run offense that can get 3-4 yards when everyone in the stadium knows we need to.

Our offense is in its window.  We have all the parts we need, except for one:  an interior run game.  The good news is that an interior run game is one of the cheapest facets to obtain.  All we need is an upgrade to the RG position and another RB that can help carry the load.  

This is why I am so interested in signing a quality RG in free agency.  Our offense is in its window;  things will be different in three seasons.  We don't have the time to wait for a rookie RG to "gel" with the OL.  We need a player with experience to step in and make the right side of our OL the go-to place to gain the tough yards.  

If we had such a line, we would have never come down to "just kick a FG".  The game would have been iced in the third quarter. 

The Falcons had no issue running the ball against the Patriots. It's just that Shanahan's dumbass refused to call running plays. The Super Bowl isn't the only time that happened with him. It happened in a lot of games. He is a pass happy coach and gets to where he wants to pass the ball every play. Freeman and Coleman are more than capable of running inside. I fear that we're getting the same thing with Sark.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is you guys are both right in the points you have. Atlanta averaged like 2 yards per carry in the 2nd half (verify if you want I might be off) and we do have a "smaller" zone blocking OL designed to run on the edges.

The problem wasn't just the OL in general or the RB but the fact our OL had both tackles hurting and Mack on less than 2 legs. Gutsy performance. Was enough, and to me the playcalling was going to be a tough job to execute pass or run considering the apparent losing battle along the LOS as the game wore on. This was true of both sides of the ball. Atlanta got less pressures from it's defense and also got less on the ground compared to the first half.

However, it boils down to the type of formations and play calls that DID NOT include reliable underneath options for Ryan (Hooper #1 target and Gabriel as an underneath possession receiver? cute play designs Kyle)...

To me if we had just changed our blocking scheme sooner when up in the 2nd half; especially after hitting 28 points, then a heavy/run formation with SOME pass options at least gives your RBs a chance to scoot out for a target for Matt if the receiver doesn't project open to him even with good ball placement. Instead, we took obvious run situations and immediately went to shotgun when we wanted to throw.

Maybe we didn't believe the OL could hold up consistently in play action, but it's not helping them EITHER to show obvious pass. Even if you got say Zeitler, the difference also is hopefully your tackles and Mack aren't hobbling either part of or  most of the game. Play design gets you a lead and situates you with closing out the game. Failure to have enough double TE, 6 men on the LOS looks or more FB / RB tandem backfields is the problem, IMO. At least you can run and then have pass options out of a CLEAR committal to the run instead of just sprinkling in a few runs and as soon as Coleman goes down abandon it.

It's kind of sad, that 2 TE look came later on our final important drive and we GET A DESIGNED UNDERNEATH to Free FINALLY. Schraeder goes down on this drive (I believe) and you try to show obvious shotgun AFTER getting yourself in FG range finally.

It simply is too high risk/high reward; which is PART of your core and identity, but simply not smart if you were truly realistic with what your OL was able to do GIVEN the injury status and the LOS battle vs a more stout front 4 with Hightower on blitz duties.

So, everything was still perfect. You got a 28-3 lead; in part due to your defense carrying you in the first 3 quarter, but Atlanta simply didn't have the underneath / protection scheme to go to the pass the way they wanted. It was like 'run some' and then 'time for length developing pass plays'. I think a lot of fault is indeed situational; not to beat the dead horse, but going forward even an upgrade at RG means little if you have 3 injured OL in a game late. You must COMMIT to running the clock down ALONG the way, and if you take the risk and don't get it you not only lose ability to take time off in favor of quickly running up the score OR your players are in a risky position vs a hungry team knowing the play is obvious but beats you anyway with any extra help you give them (obvious pass formations in bad situations, poor protection due to scheme or player mistake.

Go watch the sack allowed by Mack messing up his technique as they swung that stunt with Flowers on a strange angle for Mack AND YOU COULD SEE him positioning as if expecting Chester's help for a split second...oops. Same as Freeman not seeing Hightower. Mental lapses vs good play design for the Patriots. Those plays mattered even more trying to be passes CONSIDERING you could have ran more; had quicker underneath pass options to 'enhance' your running game since power football in today's NFL is situational or a product of a teams overall identity (see Cowboys, or wildcat option QB offenses). It's about efficacy and this is why your run game was more than enough to get a 28-3 SB lead only to misplay with EVERYTHING going the Patriots way in terms of calling/execution after that point. Risk/reward. Your OL became a huge liability taking those risks.

You can get back to the SB without becoming a power run offense but improve on offensive playcalling and get the defense to keep it's improvements / late season peaking to a new overall standard next year. So, the fact Sarkisian is of a mind to learn what Kyle did with everyone else that is in house or being brought in and be in those situations again; literally Sarkisian in theory just calls the correct effective runs / formations WITH knowledge of swings along the LOS to real-time adjust and go to his bread-butter way of having plays to keep clock moving if you truly don't want to line up and just run several times in a row for clocks sake. Yet, bitterly ironic run plays the rest of the game likely wins you the game as the Pats didn't have enough time more than likely. Left time, then left points...so you left the game open.

NOTE: I would like Zeitler, over say a Nick Fairley, if I had to pick since this team's identity is the offense. Defense I trust the improvements and direction to get a lower-tier FA and draft DL instead. Depends on what Freeney, Babineaux, Upshaw do...but DT and DE need some love. Just a lot of options for the team this offseason.

Edited by slimjim
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...