Preview: Patriots @ Texans

And I’m a part of that consensus. Matter of fact, I wouldn’t mind if he doesn’t play altogether on Sunday. Give the rook some time and prepare Welker for the bigger games.

Why?

1) I feel the 5th seed will be backing into the playoffs (as the Jets, Broncos or Ravens) and I like our chances against all of them.

2) I’d rather face the Colts than the Bolts

3) Gives another team the chance to upset the Chargers (barring an upset of the Bengals)

…Brandon Marshall is probably done in Denver. I hope we get him. Productive, disgruntled player in need of a mentality change. Belichick Special!

…for those of us who are interested in the defense with 1 DL, 4 LBs and 6 DBs, it’s officially called the “Joker Front” defense. It is used mostly on 3rd downs (with greater turnover success on 3 and longs)

Patriots coach Bill Belichick said when running the joker front, every player has the potential to rush and every player has the potential to drop in coverage. “There is some sort of a system to it, but the key is guys can do both things, which it makes it confusing on the quarterback.”

From Here

I feel that this game against a pass-happy offense will be a great test for playoff strategies against the likes of the Colts and Chargers, as well as the entire NFC. I’m expecting us to play with the following look on passing 1st or 2nd downs in the 1st quarter:

DL: Warren – Wilfork – Green
LB: Guyton/Thomas – Mayo – Banta-Cain
DB: McGowan (on TE…wish Daniels was playing), Springs (on #2), Bodden (on AJ), Sanders (on AJ), Meriweather (roaming)

With players like Dustin Keller, Dallas Clark, Antonio Gates and other hopefully on the way in the next couple of weeks, it’s important to get McGowan involved again. Eliminate the outlet player and force the opposing team to go deeper than they wish and force a few mistakes.

but how come the default is “start the starters, then sit them?”

The only reason to play them at all is to keep them sharp for the playoffs, right? We’ve got good rhythm and timing down now, seemingly, and the feeling is that in order to keep that timing they need some “live fire” action this week. Regardless of who you sit, some guys are going to play all game anyway, because on a 53-man roster you don’t have two full sides. So why doesn’t anyone ever do it this way:

Let the backups and 2nd teamers play the first three quarters and put your starters back on the field to finish the game.

That gives your #2s a chance to establish their own cadence and take ownership in the tenor and outcome of the game, not just play mop-up. It also gets them in the flow, so when you begin to mix in your starters the subs are up to game pace and less likely to get people hurt through rusty play and cobwebs. The starters will need to keep mentally involved and sharp all game instead of goofing off for three quarters or a half on the sidelines. Finally, they’ll come off the game in battle-heat, with muscle-memory sharp.

Just a thought. Don’t know why an unconventional guy like BB wouldn’t be up for trying it.

Take it from a Patriots fan: Going 16-0 is overrated. You want to win the Super Bowl. That’s all that matters. So it didn’t bother me that Indianapolis rested its starters last week against the Jets, even if it nearly caused a riot at Lucas Oil Stadium. What bothered me was Jim Caldwell’s lack of imagination.

Now, it’s unclear whether Jim Caldwell is even alive. I am assuming he is because I’ve seen him blink at least five times this season. And because he’s alive, that means he made one of the most indefensible coaching blunders of all time: playing his starters for one half, but doing it in the FIRST half. How does that make sense?

Let’s think about this logically. Say Caldwell’s goal was to keep his starters healthy while also getting them some work. Playing them for one half would accomplish this goal, as we know. So two days before the game, Caldwell makes the following announcement: “I’m playing our backups in the first half. If they can keep it close, then I’ll play my starters in the second half.”

Now the fans know what to expect, and so do the players. Even better, this happens: The fans go into that game thinking, “We want to stay undefeated, we need to affect this game and help our backups!” And the starters are on the sideline urging them along. Come on, fellas! Keep it close for us! A “Hoosiers”-like atmosphere is spawned. Everyone rallies behind the ragtag underdogs, who end up playing over the heads and keeping it close. At the start of the third quarter, Peyton Manning and the starters jog out with the stadium going bonkers. Would the Jets have had a chance? No way.

Undefeated teams playing the starters in the second half, not the first half, as a strategic ploy that doesn’t piss off fans but actually engages them and gives everyone a common purpose? That’s my great call of the week.

Bill Simmons’ Article (12/31/09)

No need to go since I block quoted the whole thing.

I agree with the concept, I’m not really sure how that will effect the game itself. For a game against a playoff contender, I say heck no. For a cupcake game, I say go for it.

If the 2nd teamers manage to keep the game close, I feel like bringing in the starters will just make it more dangerous. The Texans will be fighting for a spot and they’ll go even harder at the end of the game if the outcome is still uncertain. I feel like a team with no shot will not make every tackle be their last, unlike a team with hope left.

http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m174/bigsatan666/sigpic31449_6.jpg