The difference between Revis and Sherman played out

[hawknation2015]

Pretty sure they would have attacked and abused Simon even if Sherman shadowed Edelman

Your pretty sure huh? Well I'm positive that we lost because we failed to even attempt to adjust at all.

How is that why we lost? We outgained the Patriots with a much weaker receiving corp.

The game came down to not running the ball on the one-yard line.

 

[brimsalabim]

We needed a very lucky grab ( labs it a great throw) to get us down there in scoring possition. I agree with you that we had our oppurtunity after that and picked ( pun intended) a play destined to fail from the moment we lined up. That said the # 1 defense got dunked and dunked into losing this game in a very predictable mannor. Yes we had injuries but most of them we knew about comming in. We had two weeks to plan for what we knew Brady was going to do and we came up with 0 adjustments. Then once other injuries occurred we still failed to make adjustments. This was the super bowl. You have to react. I hope our new DC who ever it is, will have the knowledge and imagination to be abLe to make adjustments when the normal isn't getting the job done.

 

[brimsalabim]

Revis allowed a touchdown . . . . Sherman did not.

Revis was beat several more times as well, but Wilson was hesitant to throw the ball his way.

I don't give a crap what Sherm allowed! What is important is what the Hawks defense allowed. The difference between the two may have just come down to one having a coach that is flexable and strong with his x's and o's and the other having a stubburn system coach who is no chess player but a great motivator.
I have little doubt Sherm could have shut down Eddleman but he was not allowed to do so. It probably didn't help that our DC was busy making Atlanta plans the last two weeks though.

That's absurd. This defense has been No. 1 for three straight years. Belichick has never produced a Top 3 defense.

There are numerous advantages in our scheme for allowing Sherman to shut down the left side. A healthy defense destroys the Patriots. An unhealthy defense still put us in a position to win the game if they would just run the ball on the one-yard line.

Dude Belichick has produced 4 super bowl rings. We lost just as much because we couldn't cover Julian Edleman as we did by being goaded into a stupid play call. We lost because Belichick was playing chess while Pete was busy crowning himself in checkers.

 

[Uncle Si]

Revis allowed a touchdown . . . . Sherman did not.

Revis was beat several more times as well, but Wilson was hesitant to throw the ball his way.

You mean the ref's block on Revis allowed the TD? I was in shock with the "now that's a veteran WR, he knows how to use the ref to his advantage" comment.

the comment was a bit much.

Revis was beat though. hard to say if the catch wouldve been as easy had he not been picked by the ref though

for me its 1 and 1a. both are fantastic at what they do. no comparisons needed.

i do wish we wouldve tried Sherman on Edleman at some point. Simon was having a nightmare

 

[getnasty]

We needed a very lucky grab ( labs it a great throw) to get us down there in scoring possition. I agree with you that we had our oppurtunity after that and picked ( pun intended) a play destined to fail from the moment we lined up. That said the # 1 defense got dunked and dunked into losing this game in a very predictable mannor. Yes we had injuries but most of them we knew about comming in. We had two weeks to plan for what we knew Brady was going to do and we came up with 0 adjustments. Then once other injuries occurred we still failed to make adjustments. This was the super bowl. You have to react. I hope our new DC who ever it is, will have the knowledge and imagination to be abLe to make adjustments when the normal isn't getting the job done.

Let just blow up our defense because of one bad quarter agaisnt one of the greatest quartbacks of all time.

 

[HawKnPeppa]

Pretty sure they would have attacked and abused Simon even if Sherman shadowed Edelman

Maybe, but the counterpoint is Simon is ill equipped to handle a shifty and precise route runner guy like Edelman. It's the worse possible matchup he could have drawn. The logic of leaving Sherman on the RH side assumes that the guys opposite of him are competent. That's not the case with Simon.

 

[Hawks46]

Earl wasn't Earl yesterday.

A deep free safety can't really do much when they dink and dunk all day

True. Although I would've liked to see Safety help over the top for Wright against Gronk singled up on the outside. Brady never even looked off.

I didn't see the All 22, so I don't know what the play call and formations were. Maybe he needed to help Simon, but Wright singled up on Gronk is a bad match up for us every single time.

 

[KatarHol]

The patriots defense allowed twice as many yards per attempt as the seahawks defense. So what exactly is the op's point.

 

[Popeyejones]

The patriots defense allowed twice as many yards per attempt as the seahawks defense. So what exactly is the op's point.

The OP's point is that the Patriots continued to do the same thing throughout the game and the Seahawks refused to adjust to it. The OP is questioning that strategy.

Looking at yards per attempt couldn't be more deceptive.

The Patriots had no run game to speak of (57 total rushing yards), and successfully moved the ball up and down the field throwing short passes to one side. The Hawks refused to adjust and they just kept on doing it.

Meanwhile, 36% of Wilson's total passing yards came on two passes to Matthews (throw in the Kearse play-of-his-career/fluke and we're up to 50% of Wilson's total passing yards). Instead of just tolerating Matthews abusing Kyle Arrington, the Patriots adjusted and benched Arrington. Because of this adjustment Matthews was neutralized for the rest of the game, and as chance may have it, the guy they replaced Arrington with also ended up winning the game for them on the goal line.

Long story short on one hand you have one defense which didn't adjust and just sat back as the same thing happened over and over again throughout the game (and gave up a 10 point lead going into the fourt while doing so), and on the other hand you have a team that adjusted to what was happening and save for a big fluke play completely shut the Hawks passing game down and came out with the victory (they blanked the Hawks in the 4th quarter).

Dude, questioning the strategy of in-game adjustments (such as moving Sherman around after it was plainly obvious the Pats were going to just keep on doing what they were doing, and could do it with success) is FAR from irrelevant.

It's not as sexy as complaining about the strategy of running or passing on 2nd and 1 at the end, but IMO it's as or more important of a question if we're going to second guess about strategy.

 

[50yrpatsfan]

Another factor was the success NE was having passing to Vereen - 11 catches. It wasn't just Edelman, although he is the lifeblood of that passing attack. As Seattle tried to react to Vereen, it left Gronk in man coverage. In the 4th quarter he made a couple of huge receptions on the winning drive.

It was a pretty sophisticated plan. McDaniels is a hell of an OC and Brady is the maestro. Nobody can really stop it, that's why they averaged 31 ppg this year.

 

[BraveHeartFan]

The difference is that Wilson still threw at Revis and made some plays on him.

Brady didn't even want to attempt to throw in Sherman's direction.

I'll take the NFL QB's opinions of Sherman, and their reluctance to throw his direction, as more than enough indication that I'd rather have Sherman than Revis.

 

[Hawks46]

The patriots defense allowed twice as many yards per attempt as the seahawks defense. So what exactly is the op's point.

The OP's point is that the Patriots continued to do the same thing throughout the game and the Seahawks refused to adjust to it. The OP is questioning that strategy.

Looking at yards per attempt couldn't be more deceptive.

The Patriots had no run game to speak of (57 total rushing yards), and successfully moved the ball up and down the field throwing short passes to one side. The Hawks refused to adjust and they just kept on doing it.

Meanwhile, 36% of Wilson's total passing yards came on two passes to Matthews (throw in the Kearse play-of-his-career/fluke and we're up to 50% of Wilson's total passing yards). Instead of just tolerating Matthews abusing Kyle Arrington, the Patriots adjusted and benched Arrington. Because of this adjustment Matthews was neutralized for the rest of the game, and as chance may have it, the guy they replaced Arrington with also ended up winning the game for them on the goal line.

Long story short on one hand you have one defense which didn't adjust and just sat back as the same thing happened over and over again throughout the game (and gave up a 10 point lead going into the fourt while doing so), and on the other hand you have a team that adjusted to what was happening and save for a big fluke play completely shut the Hawks passing game down and came out with the victory (they blanked the Hawks in the 4th quarter).

Dude, questioning the strategy of in-game adjustments (such as moving Sherman around after it was plainly obvious the Pats were going to just keep on doing what they were doing, and could do it with success) is FAR from irrelevant.

It's not as sexy as complaining about the strategy of running or passing on 2nd and 1 at the end, but IMO it's as or more important of a question if we're going to second guess about strategy.

This is a great comment. So, I have to wonder: is this on Quinn or Pete ? If it's on Quinn, I'm going to be livid. That's twice we got screwed by people tinkering with our DC before a game because they want him as a HC. I can't disagree with anything Popeyejones said.

 

[Sarlacc83]

Edelman got 109 yds on bunches of little catches. Matthews got 109 yds on 4 catches. NE defense gave up the big plays. Seattle's did not. If Lane isn't injured, we probably win that game.

Well, if Lynch gets the ball we win that game.

It makes me a little I'll to think that Burley should have been active yesterday. I know you can't plan for Lane's injury, but he's so much quicker than Simon and could have helped against Edelman or Amendola.

 

[Popeyejones]

Thanks Hawks46.

I think it's just Pete's philosophy.

If anything Bevell is more willing to move people around than Bradley was, which makes me think the directive is coming from P.C. (that and it's really P.C.'s defense regardless of who the DC is, and P.C. is a DBs specialist on top of that).

FWIW though, I think it's easy to bash the strategy in hindisght, but to be fair, the Pats used the same passing strategy that the Broncos did in the S.B. last year, and the Hawks played the same defensive strategy as they did against the Broncos last year.

When you've had a ton of success doing something (which the Hawks OBVIOUSLY have had) I can understand how -- without the benefit of hindsight -- you could think that sticking with it was correctly playing the odds (e.g. the broken tackles were flukey and wouldn't continue, and dink-and-dunking to the left side couldn't keep up).

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Should the Seahawks have adjusted? Where does Brady go if Edelman is shut down? He pretty much avoided Sherman all game..

I thought about this as well. Hell after Lane went down I was saying just put Sherman on Gronk the rest of the game and have Earl help Simon with his side of the field.

But that's not how we play D, so I guess I understand Pete saying he had no intention of changing anything after Lane went down. He preaches next man up, and that's what he expected. Just didn't happen.

 

[hawknation2015]

Revis allowed a touchdown . . . . Sherman did not.

Revis was beat several more times as well, but Wilson was hesitant to throw the ball his way.

I don't give a crap what Sherm allowed! What is important is what the Hawks defense allowed. The difference between the two may have just come down to one having a coach that is flexable and strong with his x's and o's and the other having a stubburn system coach who is no chess player but a great motivator.
I have little doubt Sherm could have shut down Eddleman but he was not allowed to do so. It probably didn't help that our DC was busy making Atlanta plans the last two weeks though.

That's absurd. This defense has been No. 1 for three straight years. Belichick has never produced a Top 3 defense.

There are numerous advantages in our scheme for allowing Sherman to shut down the left side. A healthy defense destroys the Patriots. An unhealthy defense still put us in a position to win the game if they would just run the ball on the one-yard line.

Dude Belichick has produced 4 super bowl rings. We lost just as much because we couldn't cover Julian Edleman as we did by being goaded into a stupid play call. We lost because Belichick was playing chess while Pete was busy crowning himself in checkers.

Demeaning Carroll is just foolish. Despite all the injuries we were dealing with, this game was as close as you can possibly get.

If there was any justice, Bevell would have gone with Beast Mode on 2nd down. Marshawn would have run it in and we win by three points.

 

[marko358]

Long story short on one hand you have one defense which didn't adjust and just sat back as the same thing happened over and over again throughout the game (and gave up a 10 point lead going into the fourt while doing so), and on the other hand you have a team that adjusted to what was happening and save for a big fluke play completely shut the Hawks passing game down and came out with the victory (they blanked the Hawks in the 4th quarter).

Hey you forgot the 31 yard pass to Lynch.

 

[Popeyejones]

Demeaning Carroll is just foolish. Despite all the injuries we were dealing with, this game was as close as you can possibly get.

If there was any justice, Bevell would have gone with Beast Mode on 2nd down. Marshawn would have run it in and we win by three points.

Ehh, just to start -- and I know plenty of people will disagree with me -- I'll say that without the benefit of hindsight P.C. out-coached Belichick in that last sequence. Passing on second down with 20 some seconds left and one time-out against a goalline defense is GOOD strategy that happened to not work out, whereas Belichick not using a timeout was BAD strategy that happened to work out.

That said, until the final minute I thought Belichick outcoached PC, both in terms of gameplan and in-game adjustements. You don't have to throw PC under the bus to believe that. That PC got outcoached in a game by the best coach in the biz isn't that big of an insult.

 

[Popeyejones]

Long story short on one hand you have one defense which didn't adjust and just sat back as the same thing happened over and over again throughout the game (and gave up a 10 point lead going into the fourt while doing so), and on the other hand you have a team that adjusted to what was happening and save for a big fluke play completely shut the Hawks passing game down and came out with the victory (they blanked the Hawks in the 4th quarter).

Hey you forgot the 31 yard pass to Lynch.

My bad. :lol:

62% on four passing plays. Save for those four passes Wilson was 8/17 (47%) for 94 yards.

To be clear I think that's fine -- there's nothing at all wrong with leaning on big chunk plays in the passing game when your running game is moving the chains (as it was for the Hawks); it's also, for better or for worse, kinda Wilson's game -- but the basic point still stands: the Pats adjusted and cut off HOW the Seahawks were moving through the air (and just left them with what they weren't doing well to begin with), whereas the Hawks never adjusted.

It's only kinda strange in that going in the Hawks already knew that at this stage in Brady's career and with these WRs the Pats were never going to beat them deep to begin with. Just letting them have the WCO style short passes all game -- even when the running game wasn't working for the Pats -- is just strange to begin with. In hindsight I guess it comes off as a tad stubborn (but that's with the benefit of hindsight, of course).

 

[hawknation2015]

Demeaning Carroll is just foolish. Despite all the injuries we were dealing with, this game was as close as you can possibly get.

If there was any justice, Bevell would have gone with Beast Mode on 2nd down. Marshawn would have run it in and we win by three points.

Ehh, just to start -- and I know plenty of people will disagree with me -- I'll say that without the benefit of hindsight P.C. out-coached Belichick in that last sequence. Passing on second down with 20 some seconds left and one time-out against a goalline defense is GOOD strategy that happened to not work out, whereas Belichick not using a timeout was BAD strategy that happened to work out.

That said, until the final minute I thought Belichick outcoached PC, both in terms of gameplan and in-game adjustements. You don't have to throw PC under the bus to believe that. That PC got outcoached in a game by the best coach in the biz isn't that big of an insult.

Getting outcoached is different than saying he was outclassed (i.e. playing checkers while Belichick was playing chess).

This was a brutally close game in which we gained more yards and were at the one-yard line for the winning score. Outcoached I can live with . . . outclassed is an emotional and misinformed reaction to a very close loss.