Patriots play to win, Steelers play not to get "blown out"

The Patriots were toying with us? The same Patriots who famously ran the score up against anyone they could a few seasons back?

It's a crazy suggestion, I know, but can it not be even feasibly possible that, for all the hero-worship of Bellichick that some people around here seem to have, could it just be slightly not-out-of-the-question that the Patriots aren't perfect?

 

I am no way a Patriots fan or Bellchick supporter. But after his press conference before the game about his story with Jack Lambert and the storied respect the Rooney's have throughout the league, knowing we were short of some personnel on offense and defense I can believe they were toying with us. When it got close they just through the ball to Gronk and ran the ball on our right side and moved down the field effortlessly.
Plus if it wasn't for two drops by their WRs on third down it would of been a lot worst.

Of course they are not perfect, but it just seem to me while watching the game, they could of done what they wanted.

 

I was actually surprised the Patriots ran the ball as much as they did. Their overall game plan seemed pretty conservative which they rarely do. If we see them again in the playoffs, I would expect far fewer runs and LOTS of hurry up.

 

They have a coach that actually gameplans. We have one that gives great quotes. We expected them to go TE all game like they normally do so they just ran it. When we got that 3 and out in the beginning of the 2nd half then they switched their gameplan. They thought we'd run and we did.

Like I said in the gameplan thread before the game...

Exactly what happened. Crazy how I have more foresight than a NFL coach.

 

Well, you know, Brady's still working off the rust.

 

I always love these comparisons to past dynasties. It's apples to oranges. What a lot of people forget to mention and never add is that those Steeler and 49er teams wouldn't and couldn't exist in today's NFL with free agency and salary caps along with unbalanced schedules. There's only one player on today's Pats' team that played on their first Super Bowl winner - Tom Brady. Love them or hate them it's unbelievable what Belichick has done with that franchise as far as keeping them Super Bowl contenders year after year for something like 15 years now in this era. There's not a close second to them. Even the other teams that have won Super Bowls have had bad seasons to go along with them also. Ups and downs. I think the Pats were 9-7 the year after their first Super Bowl win which would be like in 2002. I don't think they've won less than 10 games in every year since and mostly it's been 12 or more wins or so it seems.

The credit of those earlier dynasties was actually being able to build those great teams through the draft or a trade or two. But once assembled they never had to worry about keeping those players or losing them which ever way you want to look at it. The early 90's Dallas teams were very good too but we saw what happened to them once free agency started in 1994 I think it was. Same thing would have happened in S.F. and Pittsburgh. Those teams had loads of talent that they never would have been able to keep in today's NFL. The Pats have lost a lot of talent in 15 years but they rebuild and replenish that roster all the time and just keep on winning. No other team has been able to do it in this era.

 

Give me some proof that we don't game plan.

 

You mean like video of our coaching staff talking about what we're gonna do? You'd have to ask Belichick for that.

 

I think the absolute and ultimate key to Bill's success is that he has absolutely zero sentiment for his players. In today's NFL that's pretty much what you have to have. I mean if a guy loses a single fraction of a step or shows there might be some sense where he's not totally on board then he will be gone. He has had Revis and let him go. He has had Talib and let him go. He let Moss go. He let Welker go. He let Vinatieri go. He finally let Wilfork go. He let Vrabel go. Pretty much the only two of those that went on to still be solid was Talib and AV. I don't know if the Steelers or other teams are "loyal to a fault" or not but I can guarantee you that Bill is absolutely not.

 

The 14 points we left on the field was the deciding factor in this game, the first TD we didnt get was because of an endzone pick early in the first quarter, we made the next TD but had it erased because of a holding call, against a good opponent you have to make those TDs because your not going to get a lot of chances to make 1 let alone miss out on two....

 

It's a very well coached team - they get every drop out of that talent that they can, but a talented front four will beat them up. We just don't have one.

Other teams do. I'll be surprised if New England wins the Super Bowl. This is not close to their best team in the last 15 years.

 

I am guessing they make more effort to pressure ben?

Per this they ran due to us trying to stop the TE's with nickel. I don't think that would have changed unless they got down

 

I absolutely agree with you on Belichick's success as far as letting players go when he sees fit to do so. And he doesn't care when or what round players are drafted either. He'll cut bait quickly. Once camp starts all rookies have the same chance whether they were high round picks or signed undrafted players. That roster is filled with lower round draft choices and players that weren't drafted.

But like you pointed out there are so many key players to their successes over the years that he had let go going all the way back to 2001 and most of that was because of upcoming contracts. The Lawyer Milloys, Ty Laws, Richard Seymours, Asante Samuel, Willie McGinnest, Vrable, the list just goes on and on. I think some teams are loyal to a fault but the Pats are not one of them. Belichick has gotten rid of some of his best players over the years when it came time to make decisions on salaries. And many of those players have Super Bowl rings. Bruschi (sp?) and Brady will probably be the only two to have started and finished their careers there and in between they've kept on winning with new rosters year after year. Even Belichick's front office and coaching staff has been picked clean over the years. I remember people saying he won because he had Charlie Weis and Rom. Cronnel (sp?). I remember distinctly, at least from my friends, when they beat the Eagles in 2004 when Weis and Cronnel (sp?) left at the same time it was being said "let's see what Belichick can do now." Well...........................................................the real question is what have they done because the Pats have continued to win for the last 12 years.

Like them or hate them Belichick has done an amazing job. You can't compare him to coaches that coached in a vastly different league than it is now. We'll never know how he would have done in the 60's or 70's. But we'll also never know how Walsh, Lombardi, Knoll, Landry, etc. and those guys would have done now in today's era with the obstacles in keeping a winning team together every year. I do know you could compare those guys to each other. But who do you compare to Belichick and what he's done with the coaches that have been around during his time? He really is alone at the top as far as long term success and consistency. Every year you just know the Pats are going to be in the hunt and it's been like that since 2001 when they won their first Super Bowl. That's a long time. A very long time.

 

Of course they do but it was horrible. No creativity. Everybody expected them to lose and didn't even gameplan to win the game. Just game planned to not get embarrassed/blown out. Typical Steelers back-up QB gameplan, balance of run/pass. Attempting 5 field goals. Field goals was never winning this game, add the 2 he missed and they still lose. Should have been thinking 4 down territory and touchdowns.

I see the strategy of not getting blown has some of you okay with this loss. I don't even believe the players/coaching staff believed they could win this game. That's the problem. I watched Belicheat go 3-1 with 2nd and 3rd string QBs. You think the Cheatriots went into those games with the mindset, lets not get blown out so the fans are happy and the media doesn't get on our ass. No, they game planned around what they had to win the game. Tomlin is the most coddled coach in Pittsburgh. Nobody dares to question him on anything. Last two times the Pens won the Stanley Cup, they fired their coach mid-season. No accountability.

 

So now you're saying they do game plan, but it's not to your liking.
Sorry, but get back to me in a couple days when the angry has worn off. I don't make any of these decisions.

 

I'm really struggling to understand your point here. You're annoyed that they ran a balanced offense. What should they have done instead?

They attempting 5 FGs. What should they have done instead? Gone for it on every 4th down? On every play?

It was a typical Steelers back-up QB gameplan. In what ways was this similar to last season's games? Or the gameplan they ran with Batch? Did you want them to just pretended Ben was the QB?

If they were playing to 'not get blown out', then wouldn't the defense have sat in prevent all game long?

Help me out here, because I just don't get what you're saying. You're asserting the Steelers did something for which there is no reasonable evidence, and then criticising them repeatedly for doing it.

Alternatively...

....Is probably good advice.

 

Patriots ran the defense they always do. Single man high, man to man. That means the box is stacked. It was always going to be tough sledding for Bell. That's why I said in the gameplan thread. They should have came out in shotgun 4-5 wide and spread them out. A lot of 1 on 1. Get the ball in your playmakers hands and hope they make plays. Can throw a 5 yard slant and have one of these guys take it 60 yards. Then depending on the score at some point in the 2nd half. Patriots would have switched up their defense then hit them with the run game. Kind of like what they did to us with us expecting them to throw to TE so they run and then after halftime and we made "adjustments" They started hitting the TE. Once again we have an incompetent coach.

Yes. In some of those instances they should have been thinking 4 downs. So maybe hit them with something different on 3rd, knowing you will go for it on 4th. 5 fgs attempted and only got 9 points from them. That's potentially 35 points left on the board. It's the numbers but once again we got a coach who is too stupid. I was saying 4 down territory on the 2nd drive, I knew they needed to put up touchdowns. Honestly, I think Landry knew it too and that's why he forced it to AB.

Defense wasn't the problem. They came to play. That's why I blamed Tomlin and Haley. They didn't come with the gameplan to win.

 

I bet you ace this eye-test and have 20/20 hindsight

 

Seeing how I called it a week before the game. I guess I do.

 

"what's a game plan"
"uh... Tomlin sucks!"

 

You fail to realize the conservative game plan set them up to lose. You are giving 4th down stats without realizing if they went in with the mindset they are going for it. They could do something like run on 3rd and 10-13 and either 1) Get it or 2) Set up for 4th and short.

6 squandered opportunities when you count field goals attempted and when Landry forced the issue on the 2nd drive. That's 42 points and only came away with 6. The 2nd field goal was the only one I would have taken so 5 other chances. 1 conversion and touchdown out of 5, that's more points then Tomlin was able to muster. 2 out of 5 with going for 2 and they win. 3 out of 5 with extra points and they win. I'm taking those odds and chances all day. Once again it's a game nobody expected to win due to injuries and doesn't care if we do. So play to win the game! If they lost with actually trying to win I wouldn't have cared.

 

Like it or not, the majority of game plans for back up QB's are going to be a bit more conservative. There's a reason why these guys are backups. Landry played fine and was probably very comfortable within the game plan that was given to him. If you ask him to be Ben we probably go up in flames and lose big.

We could've won the game, but we didn't execute. Hard to blame coaching for a bad throw INT in the end zone. Or the hold that called back a TD or the shanked kick right after that. We should've gone for it on the second missed kick. Definitely should have and it was out of character for Tomlin to kick that IMO, but that doesn't mean we would've even gotten the first down or won the game on the ensuing drives.

Changing he plays on 3rd with the idea of going for it on 4th is fine... but you know those plays are low percentage and to ask is to convert all of the fourth and short-mediums is asking a lot. Once or twice could've been fine... but five or six? It's a potential 35 points, but also a potential 0.

We have a lot of work to do. Let's get right on the bye, beat the ravens and focus on winning the division and getting into the playoffs. Hopefully we get to see the Pats again.