I remember this so well. I don't know if there was an article I read explaining the 6-1 but I knew it killed the rams by killing their run game and Goff was play action dependant.
I felt certain of the SB results; that Bellichik would copy the bears and crush the Rams. I only made 100$ on it. I'd never been so certain and correct. I also knew the Rams D would give Brady some issues but not enough to win. Just enough to make it a low scoring game nobody else expected after 2 high scoring conference championships.
To me it felt the other D coaches didn't like changing everything up to copy Fangio to stop the Rams. Many Defensive coaches are notorious risk averse and wedded to their scheme. Go 6-1 and 2 deep? In fairness maybe their personnel wouldn't adapt that easily. Belliichik is all about adapting to upcoming opponent.
"We're on to Miami" "we're on to Cincinnati" when he's tired of Questions seems an organizational mantra. All that matters is that next opponent. Time to adapt to stop what they do
Agreed that other D coaches didn't like changing everything to copy Fangio. That's why I stop short of calling this a true "blueprint" or any gameplan a true "blueprint" for stopping a particular offense (that's a term thrown around a lot). It all depends on skillsets and schemes that different defenses and coaches are comfortable running. It's not easy to just morph into a brand new defense in Week 16 or 17 or in the playoffs after playing something entirely different since training camp...another reason why Belichick is such a genius. His entire career, he's been able to get players who are smart enough and versatile enough to adjust week to week. Not everyone can do that.
I remember this so well. I don't know if there was an article I read explaining the 6-1 but I knew it killed the rams by killing their run game and Goff was play action dependant.
I felt certain of the SB results; that Bellichik would copy the bears and crush the Rams. I only made 100$ on it. I'd never been so certain and correct. I also knew the Rams D would give Brady some issues but not enough to win. Just enough to make it a low scoring game nobody else expected after 2 high scoring conference championships.
To me it felt the other D coaches didn't like changing everything up to copy Fangio to stop the Rams. Many Defensive coaches are notorious risk averse and wedded to their scheme. Go 6-1 and 2 deep? In fairness maybe their personnel wouldn't adapt that easily. Belliichik is all about adapting to upcoming opponent.
"We're on to Miami" "we're on to Cincinnati" when he's tired of Questions seems an organizational mantra. All that matters is that next opponent. Time to adapt to stop what they do
Agreed that other D coaches didn't like changing everything to copy Fangio. That's why I stop short of calling this a true "blueprint" or any gameplan a true "blueprint" for stopping a particular offense (that's a term thrown around a lot). It all depends on skillsets and schemes that different defenses and coaches are comfortable running. It's not easy to just morph into a brand new defense in Week 16 or 17 or in the playoffs after playing something entirely different since training camp...another reason why Belichick is such a genius. His entire career, he's been able to get players who are smart enough and versatile enough to adjust week to week. Not everyone can do that.