Dean Pees NFL.com Coordinator Ranking

[Tru11]

6:41 which is 7:18 left in the 4th quarter, Ravens 31, Patriots 28, Patriots ball, 3rd and 6 at our 44

 

You see DBs standing 10 yards back, no one is even seen on the left side of the screen where the ball is invenitably thrown to Amendola, Melvin misses a tackle, and Levine makes a attempt but Amendola still crosses the first down marker after an effort.

 

Now I doubt you'll see many of the type of plays like in this in highlights because they were part of ho-hum 10 play drives, or were used to get field postion and set-up the more-flashy trick play and long pass. Brady and the receivers had some very easy plays because they were intentionally left open and only had to worry about breaking tackles.

 

Is it reasonable to assume that EVERY tackle will be made? Those offensive players get paid, too. The defense seemed to be predicated on hoping that worn-out reserve players defending long drives will make every tackle perfectly - that, and hoping for drops. Any error is enough margin to allow them to get first downs...

 

I'm not running Pees out of town but he is not above criticism.

 

what you describe is bad tackling/technique by players and not bad play calling by pees.

 

are we going that far now to blame Pees for missed tackles?

 

if melvin makes the tackle as it was designed and called , its 4th down.

 

this is a case of right call bad execution which usually falls on the player and maybe the position coach if anyone wants to blame a coach so bad ....

 

nobody is above criticism but lets keep it fair though.

[berad]

what you describe is bad tackling/technique by players and not bad play calling by pees.

 

are we going that far now to blame Pees for missed tackles?

 

if melvin makes the tackle as it was designed and called , its 4th down.

 

this is a case of right call bad execution which usually falls on the player and maybe the position coach if anyone wants to blame a coach so bad ....

 

nobody is above criticism but lets keep it fair though.

 

Yes, I addressed that. The play-calling could lend itself to those mistakes:

 

Brady and the receivers had some very easy plays because they were intentionally left open and only had to worry about breaking tackles.

 

Is it reasonable to assume that EVERY tackle will be made? Those offensive players get paid, too. The defense seemed to be predicated on hoping that worn-out reserve players defending long drives will make every tackle perfectly - that, and hoping for drops. Any error is enough margin to allow them to get first downs...

 

I'm not blaming Pees for Melvin missing a tackle, I'm asking if it is reasonable for our worn-out ultra-reserve defenders to have to stick every tackle like they're Ronnie Lott for the defense to work? That's what our defense scheme seemed to need.

 

Again, that might be the only type of that play you see on 'highlights' because it was more exciting than the ho-hum variety of Brady-to-LaFell on 1st for 7 yards, Brady-to-Edelman on 2nd for 8 yards that were so common. I'll keep looking.

[berad]

what you describe is bad tackling/technique by players and not bad play calling by pees.

 

are we going that far now to blame Pees for missed tackles?

 

if melvin makes the tackle as it was designed and called , its 4th down.

 

this is a case of right call bad execution which usually falls on the player and maybe the position coach if anyone wants to blame a coach so bad ....

 

nobody is above criticism but lets keep it fair though.

 

 

Can you pull up a highlight video or any actual game footage that would show that's fact?

 

From this video:

 

0:22 mark, which was 1st and 10 from our 14, 2:23 left in the 1st quarter - Ravens 14, Patriots 0

 

3 DBs playing ~8 yds off alligned over their men, 1 DB in tight coverage. Will Hill, lined up over Julian Edelman, backpedals after the snap. Edelman runs a slant which Brady delivers before he gets touched. Hill is right there to make the tackle but Edelman still picks up 11 yards and gets the ball within the 3 - Brady later runs it in for their first TD.

 

0:56 mark, which was 1st and 10 from their 24, 14:01 left in the 2nd quarter - Ravens 14, Patriots 7

 

3 DBs lined up at least 6-7 yards off their alligned men and retreat after the snap. The LBs stay around the box, Upshaw moves to cover the flat. Brady throws an iffy to a wide-open Brandon LaFell who, because of the free space, can adjust to the ball and make a 14 yard catch before he is touched by the safety, Will Hill.

 

There were more but, again, I'm working with highlights. Those were easy, uncontested passes.

video link - http://www.patriots.com/video/2015/01/10/divisional-round-patriots-quarterback-tom-brady-highlights

Edited July 6, 2015 by berad
whoops forgot video

[Tru11]

Yes, I addressed that. The play-calling could lend itself to those mistakes:

 

 

 

I'm not blaming Pees for Melvin missing a tackle, I'm asking if it is reasonable for our worn-out ultra-reserve defenders to have to stick every tackle like they're Ronnie Lott for the defense to work? That's what our defense scheme seemed to need.

 

Again, that might be the only type of that play you see on 'highlights' because it was more exciting than the ho-hum variety of Brady-to-LaFell on 1st for 7 yards, Brady-to-Edelman on 2nd for 8 yards that were so common. I'll keep looking.

 

So you are saying play calling is the reasons players missed tackles?

 

im still trying to figure out what the link is between Pees deserving criticism and players missing tackles.

 

From this video:

 

0:22 mark, which was 1st and 10 from our 14, 2:23 left in the 1st quarter - Ravens 14, Patriots 0

 

3 DBs playing ~8 yds off alligned over their men, 1 DB in tight coverage. Will Hill, lined up over Julian Edelman, backpedals after the snap. Edelman runs a slant which Brady delivers before he gets touched. Hill is right there to make the tackle but Edelman still picks up 11 yards and gets the ball within the 3 - Brady later runs it in for their first TD.

 

0:56 mark, which was 1st and 10 from their 24, 14:01 left in the 2nd quarter - Ravens 14, Patriots 7

 

3 DBs lined up at least 6-7 yards off their alligned men and retreat after the snap. The LBs stay around the box, Upshaw moves to cover the flat. Brady throws an iffy to a wide-open Brandon LaFell who, because of the free space, can adjust to the ball and make a 14 yard catch before he is touched by the safety, Will Hill.

 

There were more but, again, I'm working with highlights. Those were easy, uncontested passes.

 

so what would you have done different as a DC in these situations?

 

its pretty standard for a DB to play off when its zone coverage.

they have to backpedal at the snap to their designed zone and if they play to tight a receiver can run past them for a big gain.

 

the only time you can play tight press in a zone defense is when you are supposed to cover the flats or any shot route concept.

 

cover 2 with both CBs defending the flat is such a play the CBs and play press the receivers at the line but the risk is that if press fails the receiver will be wide open before the safety has a chance to get there.

 

https://youtu.be/yHKsphx_fcY

 

here is a link to where we tried press man to man.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUuJZQ5ap8o

 

here is a link to what happend when we tried to go with pressure.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyQvUiVmkYY

 

this is a perfect example of what the matchs up would be like if we went man to man alot more then we did.

 

When Pees tried to do what some here wanted him to do we ended up with results like that so him having players back up and give 7 yards cushions hoping they would make the tackle as soon as the catch was made seems like the lesser of 2 evils.

[K-Dog]

Ummm

Yeah, I think its MORE, than fair to expect a player to execute a play correctly and as designed every play.

Reality says otherwise of course, but we are talking about expectations.

[rmcjacket23]

Ummm

Yeah, I think its MORE, than fair to expect a player to execute a play correctly and as designed every play.

Reality says otherwise of course, but we are talking about expectations.

Wouldn't that, by definition, make your expectation unreasonable?

 

If you're already acknowledging that, realistically, your expectation won't be achieved, doesn't that sort of make the problem fall on your shoulders?

[berad]

So you are saying play calling is the reasons players missed tackles?

 

im still trying to figure out what the link is between Pees deserving criticism and players missing tackles.

I did not say that, I'll say it again:

 

Is it reasonable to assume that EVERY tackle will be made? Those offensive players get paid, too. The defense seemed to be predicated on hoping that worn-out reserve players defending long drives will make every tackle perfectly - that, and hoping for drops. Any error is enough margin to allow them to get first downs...

The play-calling could lend itself to those mistakes:

I'm not blaming Pees for Melvin missing a tackle, I'm asking if it is reasonable for our worn-out ultra-reserve defenders to have to stick every tackle like they're Ronnie Lott for the defense to work? That's what our defense scheme seemed to need.

so what would you have done different as a DC in these situations?

 

its pretty standard for a DB to play off when its zone coverage.

they have to backpedal at the snap to their designed zone and if they play to tight a receiver can run past them for a big gain.

 

the only time you can play tight press in a zone defense is when you are supposed to cover the flats or any shot route concept.

 

cover 2 with both CBs defending the flat is such a play the CBs and play press the receivers at the line but the risk is that if press fails the receiver will be wide open before the safety has a chance to get there.

 

https://youtu.be/yHKsphx_fcY

 

here is a link to where we tried press man to man.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUuJZQ5ap8o

 

here is a link to what happend when we tried to go with pressure.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyQvUiVmkYY

 

this is a perfect example of what the matchs up would be like if we went man to man alot more then we did.

 

When Pees tried to do what some here wanted him to do we ended up with results like that so him having players back up and give 7 yards cushions hoping they would make the tackle as soon as the catch was made seems like the lesser of 2 evils.

Yes it is standard. It's also standard for a QB like Brady, who loves to dink-and-dunk, to take those easy yards and give his playmakers the ball all day.

Uncontested catches and running routes against air are not my thing. The long passes they completed were a miscommunication between Melvin and Hill, a trick play from Edelman-to-Amendola, and a perfect pass by Brady to LaFell. Those are more difficult plays to complete, imo, than running and catching passes against air. I would have made them work for their short passes by having DBs play tight (or maybe even at least disguise cover and pretend) and, since Brady was intent on not letting the rush anywhere near him, either have guys drop back or be mindful of sticking their hands up. If we lose on that strategy or it's stupid so be it, we lost with the conservative plan too.

[rmcjacket23]

I did not say that, I'll say it again:

Yes it is standard. It's also standard for a QB like Brady, who loves to dink-and-dunk, to take those easy yards and give his playmakers the ball all day.

Uncontested catches and running routes against air are not my thing. The long passes they completed were a miscommunication between Melvin and Hill, a trick play from Edelman-to-Amendola, and a perfect pass by Brady to LaFell. Those are more difficult plays to complete, imo, than running and catching passes against air. I would have made them work for their short passes by having DBs play tight (or maybe even at least disguise cover and pretend) and, since Brady was intent on not letting the rush anywhere near him, either have guys drop back or be mindful of sticking their hands up. If we lose on that strategy so be it, we lost with the conservative plan too.

From what I saw from our corners (and safeties and linebackers for that matter) who were actually healthy at that point in the season, the Pats pass catchers wouldn't be working very hard to get through press or tight man coverage in that game. After about 2 plays, if I were Brady, I'd have just run slant routes all over the field and there'd be practically nothing we could do to stop it.

 

Can't possibly know what would happen if we did play tight, but I don't buy that it puts us in any better spot to win.

[Tank 92]

Ummm

Yeah, I think its MORE, than fair to expect a player to execute a play correctly and as designed every play.

Reality says otherwise of course, but we are talking about expectations.

 

 

Whaaat?  You think defensive players should be expected to tackle?  now that's just silly!    lol

[berad]

From what I saw from our corners (and safeties and linebackers for that matter) who were actually healthy at that point in the season, the Pats pass catchers wouldn't be working very hard to get through press or tight man coverage in that game. After about 2 plays, if I were Brady, I'd have just run slant routes all over the field and there'd be practically nothing we could do to stop it.

 

Can't possibly know what would happen if we did play tight, but I don't buy that it puts us in any better spot to win.

So we were doomed to lose regardless? Nothing could be done to keep the Patriots from scoring over 31?

[berad]

Whaaat?  You think defensive players should be expected to tackle?  now that's just silly!    lol

With 100% effectiveness in the open field?

[arnie_uk]

Berad I agree entirely with what your saying.

[rmcjacket23]

So we were doomed to lose regardless? Nothing could be done to keep the Patriots from scoring over 31?

Potentially, yes. We're taking the easy approach... we already see what the result is by taking one approach, and thus, as the only beneficiaries on the planet of second guessing (the single most irrelevant concept on the planet), we have the luxury of simply assuming that taking a completely different approach would automatically yield better results.

 

We could have jammed them at the line of scrimmage and played tight man coverage all over the field, and no realistic person would have been surprised if they hung 35+ on us in that regards.

 

There's countless things that could have been done better, regardless of whether the approach is the same or different. We know Pees didn't draw up a scheme that said "hey guys play 20 yards off the ball and feel free to miss a couple tackles when they are crucial".

 

Bad football teams score 20+ points on great schemes weekly in this league because of poor execution of that scheme. If we are going to second-guess, why not just second-guess in the easiest possible way... how about the players just simply play better?

 

In the end, we all know the truth...there isn't a single scheme, technique, etc. that any person on this board could spend a year drawing up that would guarantee we win that football game or that we give up less points. Its an impossibility, because those schemes and techniques can't ever account for the most important part... the execution of that scheme/technique.

[berad]

Potentially, yes. We're taking the easy approach... we already see what the result is by taking one approach, and thus, as the only beneficiaries on the planet of second guessing (the single most irrelevant concept on the planet), we have the luxury of simply assuming that taking a completely different approach would automatically yield better results.

 

We could have jammed them at the line of scrimmage and played tight man coverage all over the field, and no realistic person would have been surprised if they hung 35+ on us in that regards.

 

There's countless things that could have been done better, regardless of whether the approach is the same or different. We know Pees didn't draw up a scheme that said "hey guys play 20 yards off the ball and feel free to miss a couple tackles when they are crucial".

 

Bad football teams score 20+ points on great schemes weekly in this league because of poor execution of that scheme. If we are going to second-guess, why not just second-guess in the easiest possible way... how about the players just simply play better?

 

In the end, we all know the truth...there isn't a single scheme, technique, etc. that any person on this board could spend a year drawing up that would guarantee we win that football game or that we give up less points. Its an impossibility, because those schemes and techniques can't ever account for the most important part... the execution of that scheme/technique.

This is true but I was asked to second guess and also wasn't particularly happy during the game (before I had the 20/20 benefit of hindsight), watching DBs give cushion and allowing easy completions.

It also might be true that we just ran into a buzzsaw and there wasn't a way were stopping them that day, that Pees gave us the best shot. Who knows? We only know the result and can play Monday-morning QB until the real games start again.

[gtalk12]

With 100% effectiveness in the open field?

 

Of course not, but the tackling has to be better. On that day, we all saw why our DB's were on the street or riding the bench. If they would have tackled just a bit better we could have came out with the win.

 

At the end of the day Brady attacked our weakness, there is nothing Pees could have done different to hide those players in a scheme. We don't have the playmakers we use to.

 

There were so many broken tackles that game

[rmcjacket23]

This is true but I was asked to second guess and also wasn't particularly happy during the game (before I had the 20/20 benefit of hindsight), watching DBs give cushion and allowing easy completions.

It also might be true that we just ran into a buzzsaw and there wasn't a way were stopping them that day, that Pees gave us the best shot. Who knows? We only know the result and can play Monday-morning QB until the real games start again.

Cool, but if I'm going to spend an inordinate amount of time second guessing, I'm spending most of it on the players.

 

Most would say that's irrelevant also, because you could argue a significant number of our players from the secondary who played significant snaps definitely shouldn't have been playing those snaps (due to injury), and possibly never will again.

 

The Miles, Levine's, Melvins, Stewarts and possibly Elams of that game ideally won't be playing very much in coverage for us this season or possibly ever again ideally. Are they the entire reason we lost? Certainly not. Just another of probably a half dozen observations or problems that caused us to lose that game (and that's just for the defensive end of the ball).

[berad]

Of course not, but the tackling has to be better. On that day, we all saw why our DB's were on the street or riding the bench. If they would have tackled just a bit better we could have came out with the win.

 

At the end of the day Brady attacked our weakness, there is nothing Pees could have done different to hide those players in a scheme. We don't have the playmakers we use to.

 

There were so many broken tackles that game

Good point, the Patriots were smart enough to attack the glaring weakness - they had only 4 runs in the second half (a Brady scramble and 3 kneel-downs).

[BmoreBird22]

And to get back to the point of playing off, press, zone, scared, or what ever, if you go watch the game, the Ravens players were very quick to break downhill on the ball. Don't think for a second that Pees didn't realize that Brady doesn't love those short dink and dunk passes. I mean, he did coach the Patriots entire defense for a few years (maybe four?). Pees probably knows better than anyone how to stop Brady, but he also realized his limitations. 

 

Pees completely understand that he couldn't run press man all day long and play up in the receivers faces (which has its drawbacks. Watch Forsett's receiving touchdown to see how easy it can be to clear out the field in press man), but again, he asked the players to be ready to attack downhill quickly. Berad, I know you mentioned an Amendola first down where the DB's were lined up about 8 yards off the LOS, but if you watch the play, Melvin attacks downhill fast enough to meet Amendola about three yards short of the first down, but fails to tackle. The receiver was still in the process of turning up field and Melvin could not tackle because he went high. That's not Pees fault for playing off. That's Melvin's fault for not going for the waist for a more secure wrap up tackle. 

 

I don't think Pees played scared or conservative or what ever you want to call it just because he played off coverage. He was actually really good about having the linebackers chip the receiver in bunch formations to not allow a free release and the players were very well able to break on the ball. It was just shoddy execution for what should have been a really great scheme to stop the Patriots offense and hold them to probably 10-14 points less than what they got. 

 

And hey, even the Patriots who have Revis (probably the best press man corner in the NFL) and Browner (a press specialist) were running off coverage and zone. You just don't do it all the time and there's nothing wrong with that.

Edited July 6, 2015 by BmoreBird22

[Tru11]

And to get back to the point of playing off, press, zone, scared, or what ever, if you go watch the game, the Ravens players were very quick to break downhill on the ball. Don't think for a second that Pees didn't realize that Brady doesn't love those short dink and dunk passes. I mean, he did coach the Patriots entire defense for a few years (maybe four?). Pees probably knows better than anyone how to stop Brady, but he also realized his limitations. 

 

Pees completely understand that he couldn't run press man all day long and play up in the receivers faces (which has its drawbacks. Watch Forsett's receiving touchdown to see how easy it can be to clear out the field in press man), but again, he asked the players to be ready to attack downhill quickly. Berad, I know you mentioned an Amendola first down where the DB's were lined up about 8 yards off the LOS, but if you watch the play, Melvin attacks downhill fast enough to meet Amendola about three yards short of the first down, but fails to tackle. The receiver was still in the process of turning up field and Melvin could not tackle because he went high. That's not Pees fault for playing off. That's Melvin's fault for not going for the waist for a more secure wrap up tackle. 

 

I don't think Pees played scared or conservative or what ever you want to call it just because he played off coverage. He was actually really good about having the linebackers chip the receiver in bunch formations to not allow a free release and the players were very well able to break on the ball. It was just shoddy execution for what should have been a really great scheme to stop the Patriots offense and hold them to probably 10-14 points less than what they got. 

 

And hey, even the Patriots who have Revis (probably the best press man corner in the NFL) and Browner (a press specialist) were running off coverage and zone. You just don't do it all the time and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

dont forget that 1 TD they scored was when they went no huddle and then abused the ineligible substitution crap  which is now banned.

[BmoreBird22]

dont forget that 1 TD they scored was when they went no huddle and then abused the ineligible substitution crap  which is now banned.

Yeah, definitely the inexperience of the players on some trick players hurt

[berad]

And to get back to the point of playing off, press, zone, scared, or what ever, if you go watch the game, the Ravens players were very quick to break downhill on the ball. Don't think for a second that Pees didn't realize that Brady doesn't love those short dink and dunk passes. I mean, he did coach the Patriots entire defense for a few years (maybe four?). Pees probably knows better than anyone how to stop Brady, but he also realized his limitations. 

 

Pees completely understand that he couldn't run press man all day long and play up in the receivers faces (which has its drawbacks. Watch Forsett's receiving touchdown to see how easy it can be to clear out the field in press man), but again, he asked the players to be ready to attack downhill quickly. Berad, I know you mentioned an Amendola first down where the DB's were lined up about 8 yards off the LOS, but if you watch the play, Melvin attacks downhill fast enough to meet Amendola about three yards short of the first down, but fails to tackle. The receiver was still in the process of turning up field and Melvin could not tackle because he went high. That's not Pees fault for playing off. That's Melvin's fault for not going for the waist for a more secure wrap up tackle. 

 

I don't think Pees played scared or conservative or what ever you want to call it just because he played off coverage. He was actually really good about having the linebackers chip the receiver in bunch formations to not allow a free release and the players were very well able to break on the ball. It was just shoddy execution for what should have been a really great scheme to stop the Patriots offense and hold them to probably 10-14 points less than what they got. 

 

And hey, even the Patriots who have Revis (probably the best press man corner in the NFL) and Browner (a press specialist) were running off coverage and zone. You just don't do it all the time and there's nothing wrong with that.

I did and addressed it as such:

 

I'm not blaming Pees for Melvin missing a tackle, I'm asking if it is reasonable for our worn-out ultra-reserve defenders to have to stick every tackle like they're Ronnie Lott for the defense to work? That's what our defense scheme seemed to need.

I forgot to add the video link but just did in this post, I made some points about other plays that the off-coverage burnt us - http://boards.baltimoreravens.com/topic/64178-dean-pees-nflcom-coordinator-ranking/page-10?p=2174293#entry2174293

[Tank 92]

With 100% effectiveness in the open field?

 

 

Nuthin is 100% B, but dag, you would think you could depend heavily on folks getting the fundamentals right. I think that's where we were. We had a pieced together bunch and needed to keep things as simple as possible back there.

[berad]

Nuthin is 100% B, but dag, you would think you could depend heavily on folks getting the fundamentals right. I think that's where we were. We had a pieced together bunch and needed to keep things as simple as possible back there.

True but the Patriots were more than happy to exploit the simplicity.

[gabefergy]

Brady was crazy good at getting the ball out fast - I think I read somewhere he averaged like 2.5 seconds or less. Not arguing that point in the least - but it was confusing why we kept on sending Doom and Suggs outside with little interior pressure when it was obvious they were being completely negated.

Without actually going back and watching the final NE drive - I will take what you say about that drive for gospel however, I wasn't only speaking of that final drive and perhaps I was not clear about that part. I thought I had said that we began giving that 10 yd cushion around mid-3rd quarter - then tightened up a bit but early in 4th went right back to it.

I also thought I'd made it clear that I'd conceded the argument from the Pees supporters in other threads that he did not have much choice given the personnel and the injuries we'd been hit with that season. We played scared defense with a 14 pt lead. IMO you should not ever do that but I conceded the point due to the injuries the secondary had suffered.

I'm not sure why you want to beat this point to death with me specifically when others have said the same thing about Pees scheme and that particular game. I find it interesting - but not enough to waste any more time on what amounts to a difference of opinion and nothing more.

So I leave you with the following:

"The only real criticism here is the decision to go with soft coverage late in the game with a field-goal lead." on Coaching for the Divisional match-up analysis.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2325687-report-cards-from-nfls-saturday-divisional-games/page/2

I think what it comes down to is lack of trust in the players on the field. The Pats had to do some crazy trickery to even get back in the game, so I don't think Pees was playing scared and I don't really blame anyone for not necessarily knowing how to match up in those situations either.

When the game was on the line, Pees chose to keep the ball in front of the defense. Tight man to man coverage was an option, but it has far less room for error as we saw on the game winning TD. All it took was a missed jam at the LoS to get Lafell open for the TD. Maybe Pees mistake was trusting his players ability to rally to the ball and make a tackle as a couple missed tackles proved extremely costly. Could he have been more aggressive? Yes. Would the result have been any different? Probably not, but it is impossible to say. I don't think he was conceding anything though, more-so just knowing his personnel and making Brady be perfect to beat him. Unfortunately, Brady didn't make the mistake, Melvin did.

[berad]

I think what it comes down to is lack of trust in the players on the field. The Pats had to do some crazy trickery to even get back in the game, so I don't think Pees was playing scared and I don't really blame anyone for not necessarily knowing how to match up in those situations either.

When the game was on the line, Pees chose to keep the ball in front of the defense. Tight man to man coverage was an option, but it has far less room for error as we saw on the game winning TD. All it took was a missed jam at the LoS to get Lafell open for the TD. Maybe Pees mistake was trusting his players ability to rally to the ball and make a tackle as a couple missed tackles proved extremely costly. Could he have been more aggressive? Yes. Would the result have been any different? Probably not, but it is impossible to say. I don't think he was conceding anything though, more-so just knowing his personnel and making Brady be perfect to beat him. Unfortunately, Brady didn't make the mistake, Melvin did.

I don't think backing off Brady's receivers forced him to be perfect, it gave him more room for errant throws. His best pass was the one you mentioned, to LaFell, which was very hard to defend despite Melvin having decent position.

[Tank 92]

True but the Patriots were more than happy to exploit the simplicity.

 

eh, if we had a few bringin the wood they would have thought twice about catching those balls. A few Pollardesque bone crushers would have gone a long way in stopping that pitty pat dink and dunk crap. Plus they cheat, so............     lol

[gabefergy]

I don't think backing off Brady's receivers forced him to be perfect, it gave him more room for errant throws. His best pass was the one you mentioned, to LaFell, which was very hard to defend despite Melvin having decent position.

Brady was passing on every down, it is very easy to make a mistake in that situation, yet he made none. Not one errant pass, not one bad decision. His receivers weren't wide open on every play either.

[ravensdan]

Brady was passing on every down, it is very easy to make a mistake in that situation, yet he made none. Not one errant pass, not one bad decision. His receivers weren't wide open on every play either.

Yeah a lot of people make light of Brady around here. But how about giving the patriots some credit. It was a chess match both ways. Always is. We are talking about the two smartest teams in the league here.

Was the game plan perfect. No but I think the strategy was sound.

I would actually submit these were the two best playoff teams last year. There is obviously a back and forth there. OK

[JoeyFlex5]

I just didn't agree with pees playcallng with the corners giving 10 yard cushions on every play. It would be 3rd and 2 with a 10 yard cushion. Tom Brady is notorious for his short,little passes and Pees never changed. I know our secondary was torn but still, those 3rd and shorts killed us every time because of how backed our DB's played.

its called hot reads, which is what tom brady lives off of. 

 

you have rashaan melvin and anthony levine defending edelman and lafell, you wanna press cover them because you assume "brady dinks and dunks alot, so obviously just press cover because that fixes our problems!" when in reality, brady calls a simple hot read for his wr to toast an absolute bum of a cb for a touchdown instead of a 8 yard catch and run. 

 

this attitude is why you along with every fan out there, is not and never will be a NFL coordinator. assuming closer coverage will automatically wipe out any chance of a quick pass is what would turn a close game with long drives into a blowout with 1 big play after another.

[ravensdfan]

I think what it comes down to is lack of trust in the players on the field. The Pats had to do some crazy trickery to even get back in the game, so I don't think Pees was playing scared and I don't really blame anyone for not necessarily knowing how to match up in those situations either.

When the game was on the line, Pees chose to keep the ball in front of the defense. Tight man to man coverage was an option, but it has far less room for error as we saw on the game winning TD. All it took was a missed jam at the LoS to get Lafell open for the TD. Maybe Pees mistake was trusting his players ability to rally to the ball and make a tackle as a couple missed tackles proved extremely costly. Could he have been more aggressive? Yes. Would the result have been any different? Probably not, but it is impossible to say. I don't think he was conceding anything though, more-so just knowing his personnel and making Brady be perfect to beat him. Unfortunately, Brady didn't make the mistake, Melvin did.

It's impossible to know if the result would have been different or not. The worst thing that could have happened was the Patriots score sooner, giving us a bit more time for our final try IMO.

 

I said it earlier, but it bears repeating, I have no problem with the man proving me dead wrong about him at all. With even a tad more aggressive defense and the offense remaining on track, I think we'd be in the running for that #1 seed in 2015.