Author Topic: Super Bowl LII: NE vs. PHI  (Read 41401 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Super Bowl LII: NE vs. PHI
« Reply #315 on: February 05, 2018, 11:31:57 PM »

Offline Ilikesports17

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8595
  • Tommy Points: 842
http://www.weei.com/blogs/ryan-hannable/details-about-malcolm-butler-situation-starting-emerge

However bad that week of practice was, it can't be worse than what Bademosi gave them. Still doesn't make any sense.

What do you think of the narrative that benching Butler crushed the morale of the defense? If so, that could explain why they weren't able to stop the Eagles at all last night.
I don't know about the morale, but I'm shocked that Patricia, who was announced as the Lions HC the day after the SB, didn't just put Butler in when it was clear that the D needed someone, anyone to make a play.
That would have been the boldest of bold moves to tell Bill Belichick to shove it in the middle of the Super Bowl.
And he's going to do what? Boot Patricia from the game? Call the Lions and complain? I wish Patricia had the stones to hold Bill responsible to his crap and tell him that he'd like to win the SuperBowl instead. That would have been awesome.
You can't just tell your head coach to **** off in the middle of the SB. He overrules you all day long. You have to do your job.

If you think sitting Butler might have hurt the defenses cohesiveness, just wait and see what the head coach and defensive coordinator with conflicting instructions would do.

It's Patricia's job to question and push Bill Belichick on these decisions, but in no world would it be appropriate to tell him to shove it. This isnt the movies.
I though Patricia's job was to run the defense. He didn't do his job very well.
Run the defense without overruling Belichick. Matt Patricia cannot and should not overrule Bill Belichick regardless of the scenario.

Bill is the head coach. He outranks Matt Patricia. It is really that simple.

Would you say, then, that BB didn't "do his job"? Because from my standpoint, it looks like he kinda didn't.
Belichick acted within his responsibilities, he just didnt do it well enough.

The only way "do your job" works is if everyone stays in their role and completes that role well. When one of the most important guys fails to perform up to expectations you are obviously gonna see a ripple effect.

That said, it's really important for other members of the coaching staff not to try to do Bill's job for him because they dont believe he can do it. It's Bill's job. Believe in the system. It works a lot. No system is perfect.
Quote from: George W. Bush
Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions.

Re: Super Bowl LII: NE vs. PHI
« Reply #316 on: February 06, 2018, 07:49:53 AM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
That said, it's really important for other members of the coaching staff not to try to do Bill's job for him because they dont believe he can do it. It's Bill's job. Believe in the system. It works a lot. No system is perfect.
Sure. But Bill was wrong, and it would have been awesome if Patricia, who had nothing at stake, would have called him out in the middle of the SB. Not that I expected it to happen, anyway.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: Super Bowl LII: NE vs. PHI
« Reply #317 on: February 06, 2018, 08:28:40 AM »

Offline johnnygreen

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2259
  • Tommy Points: 298
That said, it's really important for other members of the coaching staff not to try to do Bill's job for him because they dont believe he can do it. It's Bill's job. Believe in the system. It works a lot. No system is perfect.
Sure. But Bill was wrong, and it would have been awesome if Patricia, who had nothing at stake, would have called him out in the middle of the SB. Not that I expected it to happen, anyway.

How do you know if Matt Patricia didn't talk to Bill behind closed doors and questioned the decision? Besides, the next man up mentality has worked throughout Bill's tenure in New England, so the Super Bowl should have been no exception.

Re: Super Bowl LII: NE vs. PHI
« Reply #318 on: February 06, 2018, 09:11:07 AM »

Offline johnnygreen

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2259
  • Tommy Points: 298
I still think Philly wins regardless if Butler plays or not. If anything, the Pats DBs clearly did a better job of covering their receivers than Philly. It seemed like Foles had to make pin point passes virtually every time because his guys always seemed to have been covered. Brady, on the other hand, was completing passes to guys that didn't have a defensive player within 5, 10, or sometimes 15 yards of his receiver.

It's funny, but I don't remember too many people complaining about the defense when the Pats won 13 out of 14 games going into the Super Bowl. In fact, I was hearing how Belichick and Patricia had figured the defense out. To solely blame the defense now for the loss seems ridiculous to me. Was it the defense's fault that Brady could only get in the end zone once in the fist half? Was it the defense's fault that Brady and the offense had to settle for 3 field goal attempts in the first half? Was it the defense's fault that the offense had a turnover on downs in the first half?

I hate to bring this up again, but the offense needed to have more sustained drives to help give their defense a blow and recover on the sidelines. Foles managed to have that 7 minute drive, which lead to their last touchdown. I'm not sure what the real time was, but that was a needed break for the Philly defense. Coincidentally, a "rested" Philly defense made the strip sack two plays later.

Re: Super Bowl LII: NE vs. PHI
« Reply #319 on: February 06, 2018, 09:50:50 AM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
I still think Philly wins regardless if Butler plays or not. If anything, the Pats DBs clearly did a better job of covering their receivers than Philly. It seemed like Foles had to make pin point passes virtually every time because his guys always seemed to have been covered. Brady, on the other hand, was completing passes to guys that didn't have a defensive player within 5, 10, or sometimes 15 yards of his receiver.
Butler is one of your best tacklers in the secondary. We didn't lose because the coverage was god-awful (it was not great, but not putrid either), we lost because we gave up yards after the catch in situations where one good tackle gets you off the field. Having someone like Butler who can close space quickly and tackle reliably was absolutely the difference. You only need to look as far as that 3rd and 8th in the third quarter when Bademosi had Agholor in his hands 4 yards or so short of a first and couldn't bring him down.

It's funny, but I don't remember too many people complaining about the defense when the Pats won 13 out of 14 games going into the Super Bowl. In fact, I was hearing how Belichick and Patricia had figured the defense out.
Yeah, and you know what happened with the defense during that 14-run? Malcolm Butler was playing (nearly) every snap. Well, he played zero snaps on Sunday and Belichick and Patricia chose to pretend that the nickel with Richards or Bademosi actually worked. It didn't.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: Super Bowl LII: NE vs. PHI
« Reply #320 on: February 06, 2018, 09:57:47 AM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
That said, it's really important for other members of the coaching staff not to try to do Bill's job for him because they dont believe he can do it. It's Bill's job. Believe in the system. It works a lot. No system is perfect.
Sure. But Bill was wrong, and it would have been awesome if Patricia, who had nothing at stake, would have called him out in the middle of the SB. Not that I expected it to happen, anyway.

How do you know if Matt Patricia didn't talk to Bill behind closed doors and questioned the decision? Besides, the next man up mentality has worked throughout Bill's tenure in New England, so the Super Bowl should have been no exception.
You know what else has worked in New England? Recognizing when something or someone is not getting the job done and making adjustments (as opposed just stubbornly trying to jam a square peg in a round hole).

Plenty of examples: benching Logan Ryan when he was getting torched against Seattle worked, trying to stubbornly run against Miami didn't. And trying just as stubbornly to play nickel without Butler on Sunday clearly didn't work.

I wonder how players who did their job feel about Belichick throwing all their hard work away. You can talk about the Patriot way all you want, but I'll bet you that at least some prominent players in that locker room are pretty angry right now.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: Super Bowl LII: NE vs. PHI
« Reply #321 on: February 06, 2018, 11:17:50 AM »

Offline johnnygreen

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2259
  • Tommy Points: 298
I still think Philly wins regardless if Butler plays or not. If anything, the Pats DBs clearly did a better job of covering their receivers than Philly. It seemed like Foles had to make pin point passes virtually every time because his guys always seemed to have been covered. Brady, on the other hand, was completing passes to guys that didn't have a defensive player within 5, 10, or sometimes 15 yards of his receiver.
Butler is one of your best tacklers in the secondary. We didn't lose because the coverage was god-awful (it was not great, but not putrid either), we lost because we gave up yards after the catch in situations where one good tackle gets you off the field. Having someone like Butler who can close space quickly and tackle reliably was absolutely the difference. You only need to look as far as that 3rd and 8th in the third quarter when Bademosi had Agholor in his hands 4 yards or so short of a first and couldn't bring him down.

Let's not make it seem like Foles was just throwing passes to guys that were 5 yards or less past the line of scrimmage. Foles was spreading the ball all over the field. With the way Foles was throwing the ball, and assuming the Pats tackled every time after the catch, then the game would have just ended up being a slow painful death (Pats lose). It would have just lead to multiple 7 plus minute drives for Philly, the Pats defense would have been totally exhausted in the fourth quarter, and it wouldn't have been a one score game at the end. And BTW, Philly showed they were willing to go for it on fourth down on multiple occasions too. Philly wasn't going to be denied and showed they were willing to do anything to win. The Pats seemed like they thought they were going to win just because they showed up.

Re: Super Bowl LII: NE vs. PHI
« Reply #322 on: February 06, 2018, 11:26:43 AM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
I still think Philly wins regardless if Butler plays or not. If anything, the Pats DBs clearly did a better job of covering their receivers than Philly. It seemed like Foles had to make pin point passes virtually every time because his guys always seemed to have been covered. Brady, on the other hand, was completing passes to guys that didn't have a defensive player within 5, 10, or sometimes 15 yards of his receiver.
Butler is one of your best tacklers in the secondary. We didn't lose because the coverage was god-awful (it was not great, but not putrid either), we lost because we gave up yards after the catch in situations where one good tackle gets you off the field. Having someone like Butler who can close space quickly and tackle reliably was absolutely the difference. You only need to look as far as that 3rd and 8th in the third quarter when Bademosi had Agholor in his hands 4 yards or so short of a first and couldn't bring him down.

Let's not make it seem like Foles was just throwing passes to guys that were 5 yards or less past the line of scrimmage. Foles was spreading the ball all over the field. With the way Foles was throwing the ball, and assuming the Pats tackled every time after the catch, then the game would have just ended up being a slow painful death (Pats lose). It would have just lead to multiple 7 plus minute drives for Philly, the Pats defense would have been totally exhausted in the fourth quarter, and it wouldn't have been a one score game at the end. And BTW, Philly showed they were willing to go for it on fourth down on multiple occasions too. Philly wasn't going to be denied and showed they were willing to do anything to win. The Pats seemed like they thought they were going to win just because they showed up.
I've got no idea what you're talking about. When you stop the other team on third down, that means you're actually putting your offense in the game and your defense gets to rest.

There were specific situations where you needed to make one tackle to get off the field, and the Patriots weren't able to. In some of those cases, the guilty party was a player who wouldn't have been on the field if Butler was simply demoted to 3rd corner rather than yanked from the rotation altogether.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: Super Bowl LII: NE vs. PHI
« Reply #323 on: February 06, 2018, 11:29:14 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
I still think Philly wins regardless if Butler plays or not. If anything, the Pats DBs clearly did a better job of covering their receivers than Philly. It seemed like Foles had to make pin point passes virtually every time because his guys always seemed to have been covered. Brady, on the other hand, was completing passes to guys that didn't have a defensive player within 5, 10, or sometimes 15 yards of his receiver.
Butler is one of your best tacklers in the secondary. We didn't lose because the coverage was god-awful (it was not great, but not putrid either), we lost because we gave up yards after the catch in situations where one good tackle gets you off the field. Having someone like Butler who can close space quickly and tackle reliably was absolutely the difference. You only need to look as far as that 3rd and 8th in the third quarter when Bademosi had Agholor in his hands 4 yards or so short of a first and couldn't bring him down.

Let's not make it seem like Foles was just throwing passes to guys that were 5 yards or less past the line of scrimmage. Foles was spreading the ball all over the field. With the way Foles was throwing the ball, and assuming the Pats tackled every time after the catch, then the game would have just ended up being a slow painful death (Pats lose). It would have just lead to multiple 7 plus minute drives for Philly, the Pats defense would have been totally exhausted in the fourth quarter, and it wouldn't have been a one score game at the end. And BTW, Philly showed they were willing to go for it on fourth down on multiple occasions too. Philly wasn't going to be denied and showed they were willing to do anything to win. The Pats seemed like they thought they were going to win just because they showed up.
are you actually arguing that by missing tackles and giving up yards, which led to TD's the Patriots were actually better off.
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: Super Bowl LII: NE vs. PHI
« Reply #324 on: February 06, 2018, 11:32:30 AM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
are you actually arguing that by missing tackles and giving up yards, which led to TD's the Patriots were actually better off.
Either that, or he's claiming that there is no difference whether we tackle or not. One would wonder why play the game in the first place.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: Super Bowl LII: NE vs. PHI
« Reply #325 on: February 06, 2018, 12:09:41 PM »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21835
  • Tommy Points: 2182

I disagree. Even with a relative lack of pressure, most QBs aren’t going to hit their passes with the crispness, touch and accuracy that Foles did. He put the ball exactly where it needed to be.


Here's where I end up on this.


Foles played a good game.  He showed he belonged on that stage in that role.

The Patriots defense was terrible, hardly putting up any resistance apart from a flukey interception.


The Eagles had 164 rushing yards on 27 rushes.  Foles was not sacked in the game.  I can't find the hurry / pressure stats, but my impression is that Foles was hurried / pressured far less than Brady, especially in the fourth quarter.


Both teams got most of what they wanted on offense.  That's a testament to two quarterbacks who played a hell of a game, as well as various skill players on both sides that performed well.

The Eagles got pressure at the end, which resulted in a stop when they really needed one.  They were able to run the ball for positive yardage whenever they needed to.  They could probably have held onto the ball for even more of the game than they did, if they had tried to really eat clock.

The Pats lost the time of possession battle by almost 10 minutes, due in large part to their inability to stop the run, and they ultimately could not get a stop when they needed one in the fourth quarter.


In a game that was very close, I would argue the battle that ended up mattering the most was the Eagles offensive line versus the Patriots defensive line.  The Patriots lost that battle decisively.
You’ll have to excuse my lengthiness—the reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Re: Super Bowl LII: NE vs. PHI
« Reply #326 on: February 06, 2018, 12:40:04 PM »

Offline green_bballers13

  • NCE
  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2948
  • Tommy Points: 320
I actually blame Belichick the GM more than Belichick the coach. I'm not exactly sure about Butler and what happened there. If he missed the flight, missed curfew, was having attitude issues AND was getting lit up in practice, I could see where Belichick would sit him. Let's assume that Butler wasn't in the game plan.

The Patriots defense was a suspect unit this year. Belichick/Patricia coached them up for a decent stretch near the end of the regular season, but this unit still stunk. I'm not saying that there were the worst Patriots defense, but they were far from the best. A quick examination of the stats shows that this unit had no business playing in a Super Bowl.

Yes Hightower got hurt, but their D-Line, linebackers, and cornerbacks were not good enough. Philadelphia had a much better D on paper. They too got lit up by Tom Brady, but that is expected.

I was watching post game interviews of certain defenders and I had no idea who they were. Eric Lee? Johnson Bademosi? Marquis Flowers? Adam Butler? Jordan Richards? These guys should not be getting major minutes in a Super Bowl.

Re: Super Bowl LII: NE vs. PHI
« Reply #327 on: February 06, 2018, 12:58:17 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
I was watching post game interviews of certain defenders and I had no idea who they were. Eric Lee? Johnson Bademosi? Marquis Flowers? Adam Butler? Jordan Richards? These guys should not be getting major minutes in a Super Bowl.
Frankly, that's more your problem than the Patriots' problem...
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: Super Bowl LII: NE vs. PHI
« Reply #328 on: February 06, 2018, 01:17:41 PM »

Offline rocknrollforyoursoul

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9666
  • Tommy Points: 325
I was surprised when, after the game, I checked how Philly did on third downs and saw that they WEREN'T perfect on third down (outside of the two times they failed on third but then succeeded on fourth).

The defense was just plain incompetent most of the game. I think Rowe was awful, and should've been able to deflect the TD pass to Jeffrey. I also think the TD pass to Clement against double coverage should've been batted away by one of the two defenders (not to mention that it wasn't even a valid catch). The Bademosi missed tackle. Just awfulness all around.
"There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'"

"You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body."

— C.S. Lewis

Re: Super Bowl LII: NE vs. PHI
« Reply #329 on: February 06, 2018, 02:28:43 PM »

Offline johnnygreen

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2259
  • Tommy Points: 298
I still think Philly wins regardless if Butler plays or not. If anything, the Pats DBs clearly did a better job of covering their receivers than Philly. It seemed like Foles had to make pin point passes virtually every time because his guys always seemed to have been covered. Brady, on the other hand, was completing passes to guys that didn't have a defensive player within 5, 10, or sometimes 15 yards of his receiver.
Butler is one of your best tacklers in the secondary. We didn't lose because the coverage was god-awful (it was not great, but not putrid either), we lost because we gave up yards after the catch in situations where one good tackle gets you off the field. Having someone like Butler who can close space quickly and tackle reliably was absolutely the difference. You only need to look as far as that 3rd and 8th in the third quarter when Bademosi had Agholor in his hands 4 yards or so short of a first and couldn't bring him down.

Let's not make it seem like Foles was just throwing passes to guys that were 5 yards or less past the line of scrimmage. Foles was spreading the ball all over the field. With the way Foles was throwing the ball, and assuming the Pats tackled every time after the catch, then the game would have just ended up being a slow painful death (Pats lose). It would have just lead to multiple 7 plus minute drives for Philly, the Pats defense would have been totally exhausted in the fourth quarter, and it wouldn't have been a one score game at the end. And BTW, Philly showed they were willing to go for it on fourth down on multiple occasions too. Philly wasn't going to be denied and showed they were willing to do anything to win. The Pats seemed like they thought they were going to win just because they showed up.
I've got no idea what you're talking about. When you stop the other team on third down, that means you're actually putting your offense in the game and your defense gets to rest.

There were specific situations where you needed to make one tackle to get off the field, and the Patriots weren't able to. In some of those cases, the guilty party was a player who wouldn't have been on the field if Butler was simply demoted to 3rd corner rather than yanked from the rotation altogether.

You referenced how the Pats could have stopped Philly on one third down play but missed the tackle.  I don't recall Philly going for a field goal on fourth and goal, after the Pats made a third down stop. I also don't recall Philly punting the ball in the fourth when the Pats made another third down stop. Like I said, Philly was not playing it safe. Yes, Philly did punt once, but they also showed they were willing to use four downs to make the first down too.

My point about the tackling issue is that Foles was throwing the ball in the air past the first down marker, and getting first downs regardless of the run after the catch. He wasn't dinking and dunking like Kansas City's former QB Alex Smith. Foles was also pin point accurate. Unless I'm forgetting the whole game already, you may have referenced one of the few exceptions. From my perspective, Philly was going to score virtually every time they got the ball, but the time of possession of each drive just depended on the Patriots ability to tackle.

I still think Philly's defense played far worse than the Pats.