Patriots fall to Jets - analysis

(Blog post originally published on September 21, 2009)

I thought about writing this last night, but then it would have just been an angry rant about how the Patriots really should have won the game. But as much as it pains me to say this, the Jets deserved this one, and strangely enough, the blame goes to the Pats offense. Simply put, any time the 2009 New England Patriots hold their opponents to a total in the teens, they need to win. Period. Repeatedly settling for field goals just isn't going to cut it, and yesterday was a prime example of that. So what was the problem? There were two, really.

1. Play calling. When the Patriots are lighting the scoreboard up like a Christmas tree, they often do it with an exotic array of formations and play calling, and yet they went a hard 180 degrees the other way against the Jets. Former Boston Globe and new ESPN Boston Pats beat man Mike Reiss does an excellent job of breaking down specific play participation information after each game, and he noted that the Pats used the one back, one tight end, three receiver alignment on 76 of 77 offensive snaps yesterday. This is partially due to injuries...but it's still insane. When you know that an opponent is going to blitz as often as the Jets, you have to make their job harder by throwing different looks at them. People will be quick to say that missing Wes Welker was the biggest problem for the offense, but his rookie replacement, Julian Edelman, had eight catches for 98 yards, and everyone would have been satisfied with that same stat line from Welker, had he played. Granted, there were a few times where Edelman had to be told where to line up pre-snap, but overall he had a very solid game and looked every bit like the Welker 2.0 everyone hopes he will turn out to be.

The other thing that mystifies me about the game plan was the lack of opportunity given to Kevin Faulk. He is universally viewed as the Pats best receiving running back, and he also has a reputation as a great blitz pick-up blocker. He was only on the field for 24 offensive snaps. I don't get it. I don't remember a single screen pass thrown his way, which seems like an ideal weapon against a blitzing defense. Faulk caught one ball for three yards all day. It just doesn't make any sense to me. I also don't understand why Fred Taylor wasn't utilized more, as he looked powerful in eating up yards on the few carries he had.

2. Tom Brady. Yup, I said it, because right now he's part of the problem. I thought his second half performance against Buffalo was evidence that he had knocked the rust off, but it's clearly not the case. He just doesn't look like himself. He seems skittish in the pocket, he's more reluctant than ever to scramble or tuck it away and run, and his lack of accuracy on his mid range and deep throws is remarkably bad. Sure, a lot of that is due to the defense that he faced yesterday. And despite all that pressure, he wasn't sacked once, and he deserves credit for that. But there was no rhythm in the passing game at all, especially any time he targeted Joey Galloway, who looked pretty lost most of the time.

It was a discouraging defeat, especially given how well the defense played in the first half. If the Pats had converted just a single one of those first half field goals into a touchdown, it might have been an entirely different result. I think the team can adjust, and I do think the offense will find its stride eventually. There were some positives to take out of the loss, notably Edelman's breakout game and Fred Taylor racking up 5.8 yards per carry. But the offensive play calling was atrocious, and that needs to change for this team to step up and move forward. I also think Tom Brady will be fine, but the reality is that he hasn't played in a year and it takes quarterbacks time to get their mojo back. I have confidence that he will, and when he does, this offense will begin to look like its old self again.