[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
Since the game had low scoring, every first down was important.

Trying to throw deep would play right into the hands of the defense, and would most likely result in a wasted down. A sack or an interception were other possibilities. In other words, if I put a lot of effort into stopping the deep pass, then I want the offense to try and throw deep on me.

The Colts best chance was to successfully attack the weaknesses of the defense with short passes and the running game. If that works, you can school the defense without deep passes. You can also force the defense to focus less on the deep pass if you're successful. The problem for the Colts is they just weren't physical enough, and they didn't execute that well. I saw too much wincing when the Patriots players hit the Indy receivers.

They had only one sack because the Colts weren't trying to go deep. If they tried that, I think Manning would have been sacked more often. Also, you don't need to sack the quarterback in order to disrupt the Colts offense with pressure.

[/ QUOTE ]

They scored three points in the game using your strategy of taking what the defense gave them and that's the bottom line. You can talk all you want about execution, but unless we're going over the game tape together and looking at specific plays its worthless.

You cannot be successful in the long run just consistently throwing the ball for short yardage. You either need to mix in the run better in order to decrease the inherent risk-taking that attends the passing game or you need to throw deeper in order to decrease the number of first downs necessary to score points. Attempting to force other teams into this situation is the entire Belichick philosophy of defense in a nutshell, and the teams that are successful against his defenses do things to redictate the nature of the game, rather than taking what he offers them.