Early Warning Signs - Pats need to close out games better

by JonnyNYC on Sep 13, 2011 2:27 PM EDT

First let me say I am just as guilty as the next guy at marveling at the aerial assault the Pats put on last night. Second let me also say that wasn't good enough for me. Pats were very lucky to be facing the Dolphins last night.

In general I have an issue with the Pats reluctance to run the ball consistently as I believe that's a major factor in the post season issues of the past 3 runs. Specific to last night, I have a very large concern in the Pats willingness to close out games smartly.

When you are up by two scores in the 4th quarter you want to control the clock, plain and simple. The offense should add ToP to it's drive goals. Scoring is not longer the most important factor. You want to limit your opponents opportunities to get back in the game. You want to make time a factor for the opposition, rush their play calling, force errors, etc. Make time just as much of an opponent as your defense.

That Pats had the ball for 5:38 in the 4th quarter last night. 5:38, barely 1/3 of the quarter, that is hardly controlling the clock. The Pats got lucky that it was Chad Henne and the Dolphins last night, if they give the Chargers the same opportunities this week result could be very, very different.

Thoughts? Anyone else see ToP with the lead as an issue?

The views expressed in these FanPosts are not necessarily those of the writers or SBNation.

Tweet Comment 30 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I wouldnt be too concerned

The two starting corners for Miami (V. Davis and Sean Smith) were out with cramps, Nolan Carroll who was one of the starting corners at the time was struggling covering as was their other corner Benny Sapp. The best match up under the circumstances dictated passing the ball. Against the chargers, game circumstances might determine running the ball as the best match up. Not concerned about it at all.

by speedster81 on Sep 13, 2011 2:53 PM EDT reply actions

I see your point but I don't fully agree

Best match up or not, it’s simply smarter to run the ball and control as much of the clock as you can. Pats already had enough of a lead, they didn’t need to focus solely on the best match ups. If the corners are weakened, then running the ball and creating even strong play-action options is certainly viable but when you are up by two possessions you want to own the clock in my book.

Now I’m not saying run the ball 3 times on every drive regardless of other factors. But I am saying run the ball more the 4 times in the 4th Quarter. The Pats had 4 drives, ran the ball only 4 times and failed to run any consecutive running plays.

They can still pass the ball and win those match ups, but to me they need to do a much better job of winning the clock and limiting your opponents opportunities.

As for determining the best matches, Let your offense and your offensive line declare what the best match up is and adjust as you need to based on the defense.

by JonnyNYC on Sep 13, 2011 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions

Except when they drop the safeties down BECAUSE you're running the ball, it's best to pass.

ToP can be a good argument, but it is a limited argument. A couple years ago the Dolphins played the Colts and had the ball for over 40 minutes, yet lost because the Colts scored so effectively WHEN they had the ball.

In a shootout, sometimes, shot for shot is a better strategy. It depends.

Can your defense slow them down?
Can they limit them to field goals?
Is your running game effective (especially as you use it as a first resort)?

All of these play in, and determine what calls to make.

The more you know, the more you know that you don't know.
Some people can learn from the mistakes of others, while some people need to pee on the electric fence themselves.
My life has been a trivial pursuit. Trivia: where three roads meet.

by SlotMachinePlayer on Sep 14, 2011 12:36 PM EDT up reply actions

By that Logic though - should you stop passing when the add the nickel and dime backs?

Make sense? in the 4th Q, up by two scores, then later two full touchdowns – it’s best to limit your opponents chances. Scoring is not as important as not letting your other opponent score. You have the lead, protect it ya know?

This game wasn’t a shoot out as much as the Pats allowed Miami to stay in the game. It was 14-14 at half, 28-17 going into the 4th. That’s competitive to fairly one sided. What I see about the 4th is the following:

In the pats first drive they had the ball for 3:30 or so and got 3 points, making it 31-17.
Dolphins then went 3 and out, and this is where I think a running game would have done wonders.

Miami is struggling, they are behind and time is starting to run out. They have very little offensive momentum in the second half and have not had a scoring drive off less then 4 minutes, save the points of turnover. Henne is also a young and unproven QB.

So the more you take time away from them, the more pressure you are applying to all these factors above. So on this next drive the Pats have, I think you need to and can certainly afford to employ a running game. Even if you fail to get a 1st down you succeed in taking away clock from Miami.

What happen was the Pats passed on 2 out 3 downs and took only 58 seconds off the clock, so not much changed for Miami. Adding two more runs on this drive would take another 90-120 seconds off the clock and now you are talking about a significant amount of time for Miami.

Time to be on the sideline, pressure mounting, momentum fading, confidence fading.

by JonnyNYC on Sep 14, 2011 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions

Maybe.

By that Logic though – should you stop passing when the add the nickel and dime backs?

Nickel and dime is usually a defensive reaction to the unit they see the offense bringing. For instance the offense comes in 2 TEs and Law Firm and 2 WR. If the D-coord calls in a nickel or dime defense, then yeah, run on them and pound their DBs. It’s reactionary, unless you ran spread and then trapped them in dime by going no-huddle (which we can do with no personnel shift). But yes, IF you could run against their dime, then you should.

My argument was more about a standard formation, but whether the safeties were cheating up or back. Tom’s job is to read the defense, and let us make the best play possible.

Whether we could have slowed up and controlled the clock or not, we clearly didn’t need to to win the game. If they should have to win and couldn’t then I’ll be worried.

by SlotMachinePlayer on Sep 14, 2011 6:23 PM EDT up reply actions

All fair points

My overall concern is in your last statement “If they should have to win and couldn’t, then I’d be worried.”

I see a repeating pattern which is the reluctance to include the run game as anything more then a complement to the passing game. It does not seem like it’s viable part of their offensive game plan.

Whether it’s playoff games where the passing game isn’t firing on all cylinders or games like Monday night where its an opportunity to control the clock. They may not need to do it in either situation, but in my opinion they have the personnel (even without Mark Ingram) to run the ball much more effectively and consistently then they do.

That’s the early warning I see, more of the same type of offense. It’s an offense that has been great in the regular season since 2007, and sputtered painfully in the post season.

Running the ball more is not a cure all to this end but it certainly expands the playbook, takes the load off Tommy and gives the opponent a lot more to think about.

Back in the day they said “Poor Dan Marino, he never had a running game to help him” I worry that the Pats have the running game to help Tommy, it just seems like they don’t want to use it.

by JonnyNYC on Sep 14, 2011 6:55 PM EDT up reply actions

I understand.

Where I worried about it was Black Sunday, when the passing game was getting bombarded by the D-line pressure.

A running game would have been nice, but DDR couldn’t get yards when they tried to use him, and the O-line was still losing the battle. Right there a run game could have changed the complexion of that game.

by SlotMachinePlayer on Sep 14, 2011 7:39 PM EDT up reply actions

Yep.

Correy Dillion has ruined me in this regard.

I will never forget how dominate that team was or how they just bled people out in the 4th Q. Best brand of football I’ve seen in NE, without a doubt.

by JonnyNYC on Sep 14, 2011 9:03 PM EDT up reply actions

Corey Dillon is indeed a spoiler

They don’t make ’em like that very often and I consider myself lucky that I got to watch him while he was here. Loved watching him run.

Keep the faith!

by Marima on Sep 14, 2011 9:59 PM EDT up reply actions

Defence.....

The Pats have a great offence begining with the “wonder Twin’s” of TE’s, but if Ocho, Price and Slater are not catching balls on the outside and down the field….the Pat’s will begin to become predictable…..and they’ll need guy’s like Ocho,Price and Slatercatching consistently if their wonder twin powers are to stay activated. if not the Pats can and will get stuffed with alot of 3 & outs from higher caliber teams than the Miami fish!!

Also, I say The running back core need to produce efficient yard’s accoss the board. I don’t want an average per carry from anybody accumulated over differant team’s and/or differant plays or differant games…I want a MINIMUM per run play period. I don’t care about attempts at a break out play if it’ll cost an injury or a stripping of the ball, I don’t want one 3yard run, one 16 yard run, one stuffed run, one 5 yard run etc and then come up with an average….I want too see an average minimum. Everytime a Patriot running back touches the ball weither it’s a hand off or a catch out of the backfield, i want a minimum yardage amount met-Period. Block, Block, Block!!!
The opposing team need’s to see and realize that no matter who it is in the backfield, no matter if it is in the middle of the field for a basic run play, no matter if it’s in the red-zone on the 3 yard line……. that the Pat’s get 3-4 yard’s minimum per run play no matter what, and no matter who it is running with it or catching it out of the back field. MINIMUM’s every time….not an average overall!!!

P.S.- I love that Merriweither is no longer a Patriot!!!! He never should have been one period, let him stomp on another players head while in Chicago, or make more trips to the Lockheart/Apopka hood to cop his dope and hang with car theives and loosers on a flight inbetween Chi-Town. Na-Na, Na-Na-Na-Na, Hey-Hey-Hey….Piiiiiiiiiss Off!!!!!!!!!!

On the defensive side, let’s hope they are able to put it together and all be on the same page, because they cannot afford to get burned by other teams that are clearly higher caliber than the Fish. They must clearly be able to contain the opposing team and keep them at smaller yardage only. This is not a defense that can afford to be on the field alot of the time. Especially at the mid rage level. Third downs are crucial. They cannot just assume that Brady and the offense will rack up 30+ a game and give them a reason to slack in any game at any time. Rotate properly, contain reguarly and don’t show any team a specific weakness for another team to crab onto later in the season when it count’s!

by C.C. on Sep 13, 2011 10:34 PM EDT up reply actions

Going 99 yards in 15 seconds will screw up your TOP...

Me, I’ll take the 99 yard TD every time over a 2 minute 3-and-out.

"Perhaps it was the Noid who should have avoided me." Mayor Adam West

by ISN on Sep 13, 2011 3:03 PM EDT reply actions

It's fine to say you'll take the wins, but you've got to take the losses too

No doubt that 1 play, 1 score type drive is great. Anyone would take that every time. But last night that was a one out of four chance and in NFL history that’s a one in a few thousands chance.

Pats gave Miami too much time with the ball, period in my book. 3 out of their 4 drives in the 4th Q lasted less then 1 minute.

So while you and I would both take that drive every day, the reality I see is that the offensive design that drive provided:
4 drives
10 points
5:38 ToP

It gave up:
4 drives
7 points
9:22 ToP

So at the end of the 4th, the Pats had only marginally improved the point differential and had significantly given ground in ToP

by JonnyNYC on Sep 13, 2011 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions

Every game is different

They didn’t run much last night but but Brady & co. were able to spot favorable matchups and exploit weaknesses in the Fins’ secondary. Benny blocked well, and Woodhead got most of the carries, but maybe that’s what was needed. I don’t see this as a new blueprint for the future, and expect to see more runs in future games.

Keep the faith!

by Marima on Sep 13, 2011 5:07 PM EDT reply actions

I hope your right

I’m not sure I disagree all the way but it’s starting to feel like this is just the fact of the Pats offense.

I hope you are right though.

I would love to see a 60/40 run/pass split sometime this season!

by JonnyNYC on Sep 13, 2011 5:45 PM EDT up reply actions

I disagree

The Pats ARE NOT a team that can rely on their defense. They are the type of team that needs to be up by 14+ point or else you DO HAVE TO WORRY. With a one posession lead, 5 minutes to go, and the Packer’s defense, you can focus on wasting time where as with the Pats you wanna get up by at least another FG.

As for your playoff point, against the Ravens and Jets the Pats either went down early or it was too close to call. I don’t think any of these games, or the Giants game, would have benefited from the Pats running out the clock.

I’m one who argues for constant heat: If your up 30-20, what your doing is clearly working. Don’t switch to an untested prevent defense/clock-wasting offense when you don’t know if they’ll do their job.

Oh my god a floor zombie! Oh wait, thats you
- Toby Turner

by New Century Silver on Sep 13, 2011 9:24 PM EDT reply actions

I disagree with the 2 score thought.

Maybe 3 scores up, but teams have come back from worse to beat the Patriots. Don’t play soft with a lead until under 5 minutes. Which is what they did.

Pats Pulpit | @Follow Me On Twitter

by Richard Hill on Sep 13, 2011 10:11 PM EDT reply actions

The Patriots running the ball should not be considered playing soft.

I see what you are saying but it’s amazing to me how many people here are basically saying the only way the Patriots can be sucessful, the only way they can win is to continually pass the ball while occasionally sneaking a running play in.

They have 3-4 good backs. They have great line blockers. What they don’t have is the patience to develop a running game are wear down a Dline.

by JonnyNYC on Sep 14, 2011 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions

They definitely do...

…but when Tom Brady is being so efficient, short passes are the same thing as running the ball, except they move the chains more assuredly. Running a few draws to Woody out of the shotgun would have worked, but you can’t except the Patriots to run the ball from their 1 yard line- that’s a safety waiting to happen.

When they were up 31-17 with 10 minutes to go, that’s still a ball game. Passing the ball against the porous defense was the best chance to win. Hard to argue with that. Next time they have the ball is on the one yard line with the one play TD to Welker. A touchdown is a touchdown and that beats any clock bleeding- it’s a dagger and it’s definite points with 6 minutes to play.

They get the ball back with 3 minutes to go and they’re up 2 scores- the Phins aren’t coming back from that. They run the ball with BJGE and drain some time. They have a penalty which brings the ball to a 2nd and long. The Dolphins still have two time outs so even if they run the ball, the Dolphins are stopping the clock anyways, so they might as well pass it and go for the first. It will be a completion because of how efficient the offense was operating and it gives a higher probability for a first down. Miami calls a time out and the Patriots have a 3rd and short. They operate the play action and Hernandez is open- he just drops the ball. It’s all good play calling. The Dolphins were expecting a run and were in position to stuff it. The game was out of hand anyways.

Of course, this strategy only holds because of how well Brady was throwing the ball. He was having a record setting night and he kept on going. If the defense was slowing down the passing game and making adjustments, then the running game would have to be utilized. There was just no reason.

Pats Pulpit | @Follow Me On Twitter

by Richard Hill on Sep 15, 2011 2:03 AM EDT up reply actions

And there's the catch.

When Brady is on fire, he’s going to be completing passes and the clock keeps ticking. He’s not going to be taking shots 60 yards downfield, but working the short passes to Welker and the backs.

Throwing it isn’t the problem, especially when a run wouldn’t work any more than a pass.

"Perhaps it was the Noid who should have avoided me." Mayor Adam West

by ISN on Sep 15, 2011 2:11 AM EDT up reply actions

And...

If you switch gears to start running it, you risk throwing Brady out of rhythm. If he gets in a situation where he has to throw again, he’s out of whack.

Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.
Contributing Writer at PatsPulpit

by Comedic.Sans on Sep 15, 2011 5:36 AM EDT up reply actions

Sans, I sort of get what you are saying

But really I can’t agree. The idea that Tom Brady can’t be a successful passer if he is not continually throwing seems way off. You don’t get to his level in that fashion.

Beyond that, Brady was most in rhythm during the no huddle, which they had already moved away from.

by JonnyNYC on Sep 15, 2011 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions

But really I can’t agree. The idea that Tom Brady can’t be a successful passer if he is not continually throwing seems way off. You don’t get to his level in that fashion.

Jets playoff game last year. Compare the first two drives and the last two drives to the ones in the middle.

Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.
Contributing Writer at PatsPulpit

by Comedic.Sans on Sep 16, 2011 2:03 AM EDT up reply actions

That's the Theory, but the reality from Monday doesn't match

It’s just not an assured thing that the short passing game is going to work. You need to consider the unsuccessful plays with the successful ones.

Case in point from Monday night: The Pats had 2 drives that were 3 and outs in the 4th Q.
They ran once and passed twice in each. Each drive lasted less then a minute.

If you replaced one pass with one more run in each drive, you’ve take 60-80 seconds out of the game from these drives. Or you’ve force Miami to use it’s time outs.

Either way within unsuccessful drives and plays, you’ve still succeed in hurting your opponent.

To me that is what you want to do with a 14 point lead in the 4th, make sure you are always hurting your opponent in some way.

by JonnyNYC on Sep 15, 2011 1:24 PM EDT up reply actions

I see what you are saying, to me it's about mitigating your risk and turning the lights out on your Opponent

With 10 minutes left, the Dolphins have shown no indications they are going to make the game a shoot out. Pats are up 31-17 and of those 17 given up 7 were off a turnover, the other two came off drives of 4+ minutes. There is no indication here you need to keep scoring points to win. If you control the clock and take the game away from your opponent, it are in good shape.

I’m not saying you go into a shell, but start to turn out the lights on your opponent. Limit their opportunities to come back.
Run more, not exclusively. Run two out of every three instead of one. If you ran on 1st and 2nd down, you are guaranteed to take off 65-80 seconds regardless of the yardage outcome.

That’s where the short passing game differs from the run game. To me that theory is incorrect on many levels but in this scenario where is incorrect is on unsuccessful plays. An incomplete 5 yard pass is not the same as a run for no gain when time is a factor for your opponent.

If you did run on 1st and 2nd on a drive, you’ve still got the opportunity to convert on 3rd down with a hot QB and a beat up secondary. You also have a chance of discovering something that works in the running game and makes things even easier. Either way you’ve already hurt your opponent by keeping the clock moving. You also help your young and at this point undependable defense.

That’s essentially my argument – to me about more then simply what’s working on offense. It’s what can you do to bring the W closer. You’ve scored enough points and you have a two score lead.

If anyone wants to say 31 points is not enough to win a game, I’d invite you to look at the NFL average points per game over the past 4 seasons (HERE)
It’s enough.

If you want to say 14 points isn’t a big enough lead with 10 minutes left, I’d agree with that. This is about improving your position to win as effectively as possible. Run plays that work toward adding to that 14, while also taking away from that 10.

Regardless of how successful the passing game was, no play is ever assured success so mitigate your risk. Layer in more plays then guarantee positive results. Take time off the clock for your opponent, rest your defense on a hot night when people may not be at 100% yet.

To me that’s a better way to close out a game. Especially when you consider the level of opponents the Pats have on their roster.

Most NFL teams don’t leave that ball on the 1. Specifically going into this week, that Pats almost gave away the game in San Diego last year because they failed to keep the ball out of Rivers hands.

by JonnyNYC on Sep 15, 2011 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions

I agree that we should have a solid running game.

I’d even go so far as to say that should probably be about 50% of the snaps.

I disagree that we should run JUST to run, and that seems to be what you are saying.

by SlotMachinePlayer on Sep 14, 2011 6:42 PM EDT reply actions

Don't run Just to run, but use the running game with more purpose then simply off setting the passing game

I’m looking at it from an offensive philosophy based on the game situations, not personnel on the field. As you said ideally the ration is closer to 50/50 and within different situations in games you’ll want to run or pass regardless of personnel.

If the Pats are down by 14 points with 8 minutes in the 4th, they should be passing a lot more.
If the Pats are up by 14 points with 8 minutes in the 4th, they should be running a lot more.

I’m not saying it should be run, run run -even run, run pass would work. Run more, not exclusively. If the running game starts to click, like it did vs Indy in ’04, then run all day sure. But at least put yourself in a situation where you have that opportunity.

by JonnyNYC on Sep 14, 2011 7:07 PM EDT up reply actions