‘You Mad, Bro?’ Revisited: What We Can Learn From the Patriots-Seahawks 2012 Matchup «
Good look back at the 2012 matchup from Bill Barnwell.
4 Things Patriots Should Have Learned From Giant Super Bowl Losses
I’m not really sure which Super Bowl loss to the Giants shocked me more.
In 2007, it seemed inconceivable that Eli Manning would be the one quarterback to hand the Patriots a loss, much less that the Giants defense would hold one of the most prolific offenses in history to a mere 14 points.
In 2012, it seemed like everything had lined up for the Patriots revenge tour. They dispatched the Broncos, the team that ended their season in 2005, the Ravens, the team that had ended their season in 2009, and now had another crack at Eli and the Giants.
Different year, same result. The Pats clung to a fourth-quarter lead, only to see Eli lead a miraculous final drive for the win.
So what should the Patriots have learned from those two losses? Here are four things that stand out:
1. Get Offense Going Early: In 2007, the Giants held the ball for a whopping 16-play, 10 minute opening drive. Yes, it ended in a field goal, but that seemed to set a tone early on. In 2012, the Giants opened with a 10-play, six-minute drive, then, after punting, the Pats gave it right back with a safety.
In both Super Bowls, it was nearly the end of the first quarter before the Patriots put together any kind of a sustained drive. A fast start would be a welcome change this time around and we know how devastating the Patriots can be with an early lead.
2. Protect Brady Up The Gut: This isn’t a news flash, the Patriots offensive line got dominated in both Super Bowl, especially up the gut, which is essentially kryptonite to the Pats favored quick-passing offense. Justin Tuck was at the center of it, combining for 4 sacks in the two Super Bowls, along with 3 QB hits in 2012.
Bryan Stork’s return to practice this week was a good sign for the Pats. They’ll need him, Dan Connolly and Ryan Wendell to have solid games if the Pats offense is to find its stride. Nate Solder and Sebastian Vollmer will be tested as well, but it’s the quick pressure up the middle that is most worrisome.
3. Stay Balanced: In the two Super Bowl losses, the Patriots run/pass balance was 28 percent run, 72 percent pass. This only fed into a Giants pass rush pinning back their ears and getting after Brady. In 2012, the Pats only had the ball for 22:55, and had only one drive that lasted more than five minutes. Running the ball is key to controlling the game and burning the clock.
The Pats must try to do a better job of staying committed to the run. It’s not always easy, but they cannot forget about LeGarrette Blount and Shane Vereen getting their share of carries, even if they’re not having success or behind.
4. Make the Last Stop: In spite of everything I just laid out, the Patriots were two defensive stops at the end of both Super Bowls from winning. We saw the defense come through against the Ravens with an interception and it’s a good bet they’ll need to come through in the clutch once again since this Seahawks team has a knack for late comebacks.
I know it’s a week early for your gameplan, but I see this game as coming down to 3 keys each for offense and defense. The Defense: (1) Keeping contain on Wilson to keep him in the pocket; (2) tackling Lynch; (3) avoiding the big pass play that Seattle feasts on. The Offense: (1) avoiding turnovers; (2) protecting Brady; (3) running enough to effectively use play action
Yeah I’d agree with the major points here, though I think it’s a bit of a fallacy you need to run to set up play action. You just need to be good at play action.
Stopping Lynch and containing Wilson when no one is open are the biggest two keys to the game. Protecting Brady is always a key, but I expect this to be a quick throw surgical-strike game.
So on offense, they just have to finish drives with touchdowns when they get in the red zone. That was the story in 2012, going 1-6 in the red zone offensively.
This might take some of the steam out of the game plan article next week, but that’s it in a nutshell.
Hi, Patriots fan from Brazil. How much do you think Belichick will use this deflategate circus to motivate the players? Will he use it at all? Thanks. Sidney.
I’m not sure Belichick will have to do much of anything to use Deflategate to motivate the players. First, it’s the Super Bowl, so they’re going to be hyped REGARDLESS. But as we saw in 2007, controversies like this have a way of igniting a fire in a team to not only win, but to prove a point.
The thing with Spygate was that they were guilty. They broke the rules and paid a stiff price for it. Even then it filled the team with rage to prove everyone calling for asterisks and such wrong.
Now I don’t even know what Deflategate is. We’re waiting on the NFL to decide that, but as of this moment, it seems like this is a controversy whipped out of something so minute that it can’t help but make the Patriots team feel like they’re in the middle of a witch hunt.
The “us against the world” theme often feels manufactured, but in this case the Patriots have a every right to feel that way and I expect an impressive performance from them.
i love gronk, but I think there might be too much hype about what he can do. I don’t think it’s impossible to take him out and it seemed like thats what the colts tried to do. i dont really think seattle would have too much of a problem covering him.
Wow, Jeremy Lane contributing to the Q&A this week, thanks for taking some time off from your Super Bowl prep to ask!
Look, you can take ANY player out of the game if you’re willing to devote enough resources to it. The problem is that it then leaves guys like Edelman and LaFell with one-on-one matchups, not to mention Shane Vereen out of the backfield. Those three combined for 167 yards receiving against the Colts.
The problem with Gronk is in the red zone because, as you’re aware, he’s caught a historic amount of touchdowns in his first five seasons, despite missing time with injuries.
So yeah, you want to devote 2 or 3 guys to covering him in between the 20s, you can hold him to pedestrian numbers, but that’s not quite as easy in the red zone where the Pats have ways of isolating Gronk on a defensive back, making double coverage extremely tough.
So if Seattle wants to send Kam Chancellor out wide to cover him that’s fine, it takes their biggest box presence out of the box.
How many times have we seen him inside the 10 split out wide, make one move and then catch a touchdown where the defensive back can’t even reach? That’s the biggest problem with Gronk and I’m not sure there’s any way to stop it.
