Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
wiscstlatlmia

Bill Belichick

Recommended Posts

That first article is just so stupid... the guy begins by immediately saying he's in no position to question Bill Belichick about anything football related, then, of course, he does just that.

Does he have any statistics? Any compelling evidence to back up his arguments? The guy is being paid to write articles like this, he can't be bothered to get a quick stat on OT win percentages when kicking vs. receiving since the OT rules were changed? No, he just gives a few short declarative sentences that read nice enough, and repeats the phrase "you have Tom Brady" over and over as if Tom had been lighting it up out there today.

Then he takes two "controversial" BB decisions, says one was stupid even though it worked (kicking in OT v. Denver), then says the other was stupid BECAUSE it didn't work (4th and 2 vs. Indy).

What an awful excuse to bump this thread, I'm sorry.

(And not only was this not some colossal blunder by Belichick, it was actually a correct decision! Were it not for a fluky 40 yard gain where two defenders ran into each other, things might have been fine.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Dark Lord is a living god.

This was pretty much the same logic as 4th and 2 versus Indy in reverse....the defense needed to make a stop and Fitzmagic went 3 for 3 against busted coverage.

Never question the Dark Lord...or he'll steal your wife with a shoebox full of cash.

Now thats gangsta.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Dark Lord is a living god.

This was pretty much the same logic as 4th and 2 versus Indy in reverse....the defense needed to make a stop and Fitzmagic went 3 for 3 against busted coverage.

Never question the Dark Lord...or he'll steal your wife with a shoebox full of cash.

Now thats gangsta.

why do people insist on bringing up old news

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Dark Lord is a living god.

This was pretty much the same logic as 4th and 2 versus Indy in reverse....the defense needed to make a stop and Fitzmagic went 3 for 3 against busted coverage.

Never question the Dark Lord...or he'll steal your wife with a shoebox full of cash.

Now thats gangsta.

Bill Belichick

Pete Prisco

One of these is a Hall of Famer, arguably the best ever.

The other, nobody will remember 10 minutes ( let alone 10 years) after they're gone.

Strong opinions with absolutely no analysis.

Just when you think Prisco couldn't write anything more stupid he trumps himself - Pats won the SB last year despite of BB?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe nobody has stated the obvious: he lost deliberately to knock the Steelers out of the playoffs. Genius.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only 1 penalty on NE the entire game. I am thinking the Coach B told the ref ahead of time that they were going to kick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty Dumb Blunder..

It wasn't a blunder. Just a decision that didn't work out.

No, it was a dumb decision on his part. You don't give the other team the ball first in OT like you would at the beginning of the game if you don't have to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only 1 penalty on NE the entire game. I am thinking the Coach B told the ref ahead of time that they were going to kick.

They've also won 77% of their coin tosses this year.

Despite having lost the most games to injury they maintain their "impossible" fumble numbers.

:tinfoil:

Edited by Run It Up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty Dumb Blunder..

It wasn't a blunder. Just a decision that didn't work out.

No, it was a dumb decision on his part. You don't give the other team the ball first in OT like you would at the beginning of the game if you don't have to.

Upon further review I still think they should have taken the ball, but I no longer believe it was as slam dunk horrible as I originally felt.

Edited by NE_REVIVAL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted this in the game thread; the 13 times an NFL team has kicked after winning the OT toss:

http://quirkyresearch.blogspot.com/2006/07/nfl-games-in-which-winner-of-coin-toss.html

Number of times: 13

Number of wins: 7

Number of Super Bowl-winning coaches to choose to kick off: 6 (Stram, Landry, Parcells, Ditka, Shanahan, Belichick)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted this in the game thread; the 13 times an NFL team has kicked after winning the OT toss:

http://quirkyresearch.blogspot.com/2006/07/nfl-games-in-which-winner-of-coin-toss.html

Not apples to apples. The rules have changed since the huge majority of those games. Most of the games were sudden death overtime.

I don't think it was such a terrible call, just one that didn't work out. NE had a game a few weeks ago and got the ball first in OT to DEN, had a three and out, and then had to punt (and then lost).

For those that watched the game, the NE offense had been terrible the whole game and only scored on their last drive to tie the game (but needed two 4th down conversions to get that far). They were 1 for 10 on 3rd down. Their OL had a Pro Bowl lineman go down and his replacement go down to injury. Brady had no time to throw and they were missing a lot of their receiving corps (Edelman and Amendola).

The NE defense had limited the Jets to 31 yards of offense in the 4th quarter (and had 3 series that they held the Jests to 3 and outs in the second half).

I don't think it is unreasonable to think your defense could stop the Jets one more time, hold them to 0 or 1 first downs, and then get the ball needing only 20-25 yards to kick a game winning FG (having the best kicker in the league).

Since it didn't work out that way, people will say it is a terrible call. If the Pats got the ball first, had to punt right away, and the Jets kicked a 50 yarder to win instead, the outcome would have been the same (Jets win).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted this in the game thread; the 13 times an NFL team has kicked after winning the OT toss:

http://quirkyresearch.blogspot.com/2006/07/nfl-games-in-which-winner-of-coin-toss.html

Number of times: 13

Number of wins: 7

Number of Super Bowl-winning coaches to choose to kick off: 6 (Stram, Landry, Parcells, Ditka, Shanahan, Belichick)

Weather played into most of those choices, no? Bill was basically saying our offense sucks.

That being said Bill can do whatever the #### he wants. Best coach of all time IMO.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted this in the game thread; the 13 times an NFL team has kicked after winning the OT toss:

http://quirkyresearch.blogspot.com/2006/07/nfl-games-in-which-winner-of-coin-toss.html

Not apples to apples. The rules have changed since the huge majority of those games. Most of the games were sudden death overtime.

I don't think it was such a terrible call, just one that didn't work out. NE had a game a few weeks ago and got the ball first in OT to DEN, had a three and out, and then had to punt (and then lost).

For those that watched the game, the NE offense had been terrible the whole game and only scored on their last drive to tie the game (but needed two 4th down conversions to get that far). They were 1 for 10 on 3rd down. Their OL had a Pro Bowl lineman go down and his replacement go down to injury. Brady had no time to throw and they were missing a lot of their receiving corps (Edelman and Amendola).

The NE defense had limited the Jets to 31 yards of offense in the 4th quarter (and had 3 series that they held the Jests to 3 and outs in the second half).

I don't think it is unreasonable to think your defense could stop the Jets one more time, hold them to 0 or 1 first downs, and then get the ball needing only 20-25 yards to kick a game winning FG (having the best kicker in the league).

Since it didn't work out that way, people will say it is a terrible call. If the Pats got the ball first, had to punt right away, and the Jets kicked a 50 yarder to win instead, the outcome would have been the same (Jets win).

:goodposting:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted this in the game thread; the 13 times an NFL team has kicked after winning the OT toss:

http://quirkyresearch.blogspot.com/2006/07/nfl-games-in-which-winner-of-coin-toss.html

Not apples to apples. The rules have changed since the huge majority of those games. Most of the games were sudden death overtime.

I don't think it was such a terrible call, just one that didn't work out. NE had a game a few weeks ago and got the ball first in OT to DEN, had a three and out, and then had to punt (and then lost).

For those that watched the game, the NE offense had been terrible the whole game and only scored on their last drive to tie the game (but needed two 4th down conversions to get that far). They were 1 for 10 on 3rd down. Their OL had a Pro Bowl lineman go down and his replacement go down to injury. Brady had no time to throw and they were missing a lot of their receiving corps (Edelman and Amendola).

The NE defense had limited the Jets to 31 yards of offense in the 4th quarter (and had 3 series that they held the Jests to 3 and outs in the second half).

I don't think it is unreasonable to think your defense could stop the Jets one more time, hold them to 0 or 1 first downs, and then get the ball needing only 20-25 yards to kick a game winning FG (having the best kicker in the league).

Since it didn't work out that way, people will say it is a terrible call. If the Pats got the ball first, had to punt right away, and the Jets kicked a 50 yarder to win instead, the outcome would have been the same (Jets win).

:goodposting:

Not really. You don't give the ball to the other team when a TD by your team can win it with the first drive. That's like saying you don't have any confidence in your team scoring a TD. My guess is the player screwed up and Evil Bill took the blame saying the player made the call he wanted him to make.

Edited by JohnnyU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted this in the game thread; the 13 times an NFL team has kicked after winning the OT toss:

http://quirkyresearch.blogspot.com/2006/07/nfl-games-in-which-winner-of-coin-toss.html

Not apples to apples. The rules have changed since the huge majority of those games. Most of the games were sudden death overtime.

I don't think it was such a terrible call, just one that didn't work out. NE had a game a few weeks ago and got the ball first in OT to DEN, had a three and out, and then had to punt (and then lost).

For those that watched the game, the NE offense had been terrible the whole game and only scored on their last drive to tie the game (but needed two 4th down conversions to get that far). They were 1 for 10 on 3rd down. Their OL had a Pro Bowl lineman go down and his replacement go down to injury. Brady had no time to throw and they were missing a lot of their receiving corps (Edelman and Amendola).

The NE defense had limited the Jets to 31 yards of offense in the 4th quarter (and had 3 series that they held the Jests to 3 and outs in the second half).

I don't think it is unreasonable to think your defense could stop the Jets one more time, hold them to 0 or 1 first downs, and then get the ball needing only 20-25 yards to kick a game winning FG (having the best kicker in the league).

Since it didn't work out that way, people will say it is a terrible call. If the Pats got the ball first, had to punt right away, and the Jets kicked a 50 yarder to win instead, the outcome would have been the same (Jets win).

:goodposting:

Not really. You don't give the ball to the other team when a TD by your team can win it with the first drive. That's like saying you don't have any confidence in your team scoring a TD. My guess is the player screwed up and Evil Bill took the blame saying the player made the call he wanted him to make.
Your grasp of using gut vs statistical analysis is fascinating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted this in the game thread; the 13 times an NFL team has kicked after winning the OT toss:

http://quirkyresearch.blogspot.com/2006/07/nfl-games-in-which-winner-of-coin-toss.html

Number of times: 13

Number of wins: 7

Number of Super Bowl-winning coaches to choose to kick off: 6 (Stram, Landry, Parcells, Ditka, Shanahan, Belichick)

Weather played into most of those choices, no? Bill was basically saying our offense sucks.

That being said Bill can do whatever the #### he wants. Best coach of all time IMO.

Pretty much all of the first ten instances were weather related.

(ASIDE - if you love history, read up on the 1962 AFL Championship. Stram wanted the wind, but Abner Haynes did the same thing as Slater. "We'll kick to the clock" Once he said they would kick, he didn't have the option to choose which way they would go. They ended up winning in the 6th quarter/2nd OT.)

After Morningwhig's ####up, nobody tried it again for 11 years - until they changed it from Sudden Death. And since then, two of the three times have been BB.

Sith Lord's do whatever they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted this in the game thread; the 13 times an NFL team has kicked after winning the OT toss:

http://quirkyresearch.blogspot.com/2006/07/nfl-games-in-which-winner-of-coin-toss.html

Not apples to apples. The rules have changed since the huge majority of those games. Most of the games were sudden death overtime.

I don't think it was such a terrible call, just one that didn't work out. NE had a game a few weeks ago and got the ball first in OT to DEN, had a three and out, and then had to punt (and then lost).

For those that watched the game, the NE offense had been terrible the whole game and only scored on their last drive to tie the game (but needed two 4th down conversions to get that far). They were 1 for 10 on 3rd down. Their OL had a Pro Bowl lineman go down and his replacement go down to injury. Brady had no time to throw and they were missing a lot of their receiving corps (Edelman and Amendola).

The NE defense had limited the Jets to 31 yards of offense in the 4th quarter (and had 3 series that they held the Jests to 3 and outs in the second half).

I don't think it is unreasonable to think your defense could stop the Jets one more time, hold them to 0 or 1 first downs, and then get the ball needing only 20-25 yards to kick a game winning FG (having the best kicker in the league).

Since it didn't work out that way, people will say it is a terrible call. If the Pats got the ball first, had to punt right away, and the Jets kicked a 50 yarder to win instead, the outcome would have been the same (Jets win).

:goodposting:

Not really. You don't give the ball to the other team when a TD by your team can win it with the first drive. That's like saying you don't have any confidence in your team scoring a TD. My guess is the player screwed up and Evil Bill took the blame saying the player made the call he wanted him to make.
Your grasp of using gut vs statistical analysis is fascinating.

please explain. I guess all other coaches are wrong and Evil Bill is right?

Edited by JohnnyU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not really. You don't give the ball to the other team when a TD by your team can win it with the first drive. That's like saying you don't have any confidence in your team scoring a TD. My guess is the player screwed up and Evil Bill took the blame saying the player made the call he wanted him to make.
Your grasp of using gut vs statistical analysis is fascinating.

please explain. I guess all other coaches are wrong and Evil Bill is right?

I think you'd be hard pressed to argue otherwise - his record speaks for itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not really. You don't give the ball to the other team when a TD by your team can win it with the first drive. That's like saying you don't have any confidence in your team scoring a TD. My guess is the player screwed up and Evil Bill took the blame saying the player made the call he wanted him to make.
Your grasp of using gut vs statistical analysis is fascinating.

please explain. I guess all other coaches are wrong and Evil Bill is right?

I think you'd be hard pressed to argue otherwise - his record speaks for itself.

No, he doesn't get a pass for not taking the ball just because he's Evil Bill. His team could have taken the ball and scored a TD to win and that's what I would expect from Tom Brady and Evil Bill.

Edited by JohnnyU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So let me get this straight. Let's say the Pats got the ball in OT and got a touchback, then had a sack or a holding penalty (neither of which seemed out of the question given how little time Brady was getting to get rid of the ball) and were forced to punt from their own ten yard line kicking into the wind. Let's also say the kick goes 40 yards into the wind with a 5 yard return. The Jets would have started at the NE 45 and would not have even needed a first down to try a game winning FG kicking with the wind.

But had that happened, BB would have gotten a free pass on taking the ball first.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're argument is if he had chose to receive he could have won the game?

And that since he deferred he couldn't have won the game?

Really?

Correlation does not imply causation.

Edited by Run It Up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're argument is if he had chose to receive he could have won the game?

And that since he deferred he couldn't have won the game?

Really?

Correlation does not imply causation.

Typically those with the ball score so yes, he should have taken the ball with the intent of scoring a TD to win and not give the other team a chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're argument is if he had chose to receive he could have won the game?

And that since he deferred he couldn't have won the game?

Really?

Correlation does not imply causation.

Typically those with the ball score so yes, he should have taken the ball with the intent of scoring a TD to win and not give the other team a chance.

I don't have a problem with you thinking he should have taken the ball, I think he should have taken the ball too. But I understand the argument completely why he deferred and I'm not one of if not the best coaches in history, so I think he is more qualified to make that decision than myself.

I think its silly to just assume that receiving is always the right choice. The Pats lost their last healthy linemen on the first drive of the game, and since then had been getting pushed around the full duration of the game. They had converted like 1 or 2 third downs all game.

I thought they should have received, because Tom Brady. But I'm also very confident in the defense, they might have won had two defenders not collided with each other allowing Enunwa to pick up like 50 yards or whatever uncontested.

Edited by Run It Up
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're argument is if he had chose to receive he could have won the game?

And that since he deferred he couldn't have won the game?

Really?

Correlation does not imply causation.

Typically those with the ball score so yes, he should have taken the ball with the intent of scoring a TD to win and not give the other team a chance.
Hindsight is 20-20. There are very logical reasons to kick, given the rule changes. You act like it is crazy to kick, when realistically you don't have a fact base that tells you so. You are purely making it up, or even worse, basing it on this one singular outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're argument is if he had chose to receive he could have won the game?

And that since he deferred he couldn't have won the game?

Really?

Correlation does not imply causation.

Typically those with the ball score so yes, he should have taken the ball with the intent of scoring a TD to win and not give the other team a chance.

No they don't. They score a TD about 16% of the time and fail to score at all about 64% of the time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're argument is if he had chose to receive he could have won the game?

And that since he deferred he couldn't have won the game?

Really?

Correlation does not imply causation.

Typically those with the ball score so yes, he should have taken the ball with the intent of scoring a TD to win and not give the other team a chance.

No they don't. They score a TD about 16% of the time and fail to score at all about 64% of the time.

point is you you usually don't score a TD unless you have the ball, so taking the ball first is the smart play in OT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're argument is if he had chose to receive he could have won the game?

And that since he deferred he couldn't have won the game?

Really?

Correlation does not imply causation.

Typically those with the ball score so yes, he should have taken the ball with the intent of scoring a TD to win and not give the other team a chance.
Hindsight is 20-20. There are very logical reasons to kick, given the rule changes. You act like it is crazy to kick, when realistically you don't have a fact base that tells you so. You are purely making it up, or even worse, basing it on this one singular outcome.

The only fact base I need is knowing that my team can win if I get the ball first and score a TD and to not take advantage of that opportunity is not the smart play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're argument is if he had chose to receive he could have won the game?

And that since he deferred he couldn't have won the game?

Really?

Correlation does not imply causation.

Typically those with the ball score so yes, he should have taken the ball with the intent of scoring a TD to win and not give the other team a chance.
Hindsight is 20-20. There are very logical reasons to kick, given the rule changes. You act like it is crazy to kick, when realistically you don't have a fact base that tells you so. You are purely making it up, or even worse, basing it on this one singular outcome.

The only fact base I need is knowing that my team can win if I get the ball first and score a TD and to not take advantage of that opportunity is not the smart play.
That is a really, really limited way of viewing this issue.

Credit to you for being consistent not just in this thread, but in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're argument is if he had chose to receive he could have won the game?

And that since he deferred he couldn't have won the game?

Really?

Correlation does not imply causation.

Typically those with the ball score so yes, he should have taken the ball with the intent of scoring a TD to win and not give the other team a chance.
Hindsight is 20-20. There are very logical reasons to kick, given the rule changes. You act like it is crazy to kick, when realistically you don't have a fact base that tells you so. You are purely making it up, or even worse, basing it on this one singular outcome.

The only fact base I need is knowing that my team can win if I get the ball first and score a TD and to not take advantage of that opportunity is not the smart play.
That is a really, really limited way of viewing this issue.

Credit to you for being consistent not just in this thread, but in general.

Sure, there are many ways to look at something like that, but I prefer to wade past the noise and clutter and look at the only fact that mattered and that is winning and if I get the ball first knowing I could win with a TD and the other team doesn't get a chance, then I'm in for that.
Edited by JohnnyU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You kick to see what you need to win the game. Jets score a TD

so you deserve to lose. The Jets punt or kick a field goal you have

options on what you want to do on 3rd/4th down. If the Pats get the

ball first do you settle for a FG? Pats offense was not dominating.

Those of you saying take the ball first so you score the TD may be

seeing things thru Pats fan glasses. The Jets would have been happy

for a 3-3 outcome in that quarter. They were controlling that game.

The Jets could have just as easily scored a TD after the Pats first

possession. Pats scoring a TD first was not what this game was

looking like. The Jets were dominating both lines of scrimmage

and the game. I'm not a Jets fan so don't go there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kicking was a terrible decision. One of the worst coaching decisions made this year.

Huh ?

The Jets had 31 yards of total offense in the 4th quarter.

Seems like BB was counting on his defense to continue the same type of play into the OT period.

Not a shock to KO instead of receive. Stop them as you've been doing, get the ball back, kick the field goal and walk away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're argument is if he had chose to receive he could have won the game?

And that since he deferred he couldn't have won the game?

Really?

Correlation does not imply causation.

Typically those with the ball score so yes, he should have taken the ball with the intent of scoring a TD to win and not give the other team a chance.

I don't have a problem with you thinking he should have taken the ball, I think he should have taken the ball too. But I understand the argument completely why he deferred and I'm not one of if not the best coaches in history, so I think he is more qualified to make that decision than myself.

Hey, don't sell yourself short.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're argument is if he had chose to receive he could have won the game?

And that since he deferred he couldn't have won the game?

Really?

Correlation does not imply causation.

Typically those with the ball score so yes, he should have taken the ball with the intent of scoring a TD to win and not give the other team a chance.
Hindsight is 20-20. There are very logical reasons to kick, given the rule changes. You act like it is crazy to kick, when realistically you don't have a fact base that tells you so. You are purely making it up, or even worse, basing it on this one singular outcome.

The only fact base I need is knowing that my team can win if I get the ball first and score a TD and to not take advantage of that opportunity is not the smart play.
That is a really, really limited way of viewing this issue.

Credit to you for being consistent not just in this thread, but in general.

Sure, there are many ways to look at something like that, but I prefer to wade past the noise and clutter and look at the only fact that mattered and that is winning and if I get the ball first knowing I could win with a TD and the other team doesn't get a chance, then I'm in for that.

So it never enters your mind that if you kick to them and stop their struggling offense you might well get the ball in better field position and be able to win the game with a field goal? You must have loved Dungy as a coach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're argument is if he had chose to receive he could have won the game?

And that since he deferred he couldn't have won the game?

Really?

Correlation does not imply causation.

Typically those with the ball score so yes, he should have taken the ball with the intent of scoring a TD to win and not give the other team a chance.
Hindsight is 20-20. There are very logical reasons to kick, given the rule changes. You act like it is crazy to kick, when realistically you don't have a fact base that tells you so. You are purely making it up, or even worse, basing it on this one singular outcome.

The only fact base I need is knowing that my team can win if I get the ball first and score a TD and to not take advantage of that opportunity is not the smart play.
That is a really, really limited way of viewing this issue.

Credit to you for being consistent not just in this thread, but in general.

Sure, there are many ways to look at something like that, but I prefer to wade past the noise and clutter and look at the only fact that mattered and that is winning and if I get the ball first knowing I could win with a TD and the other team doesn't get a chance, then I'm in for that.

So it never enters your mind that if you kick to them and stop their struggling offense you might well get the ball in better field position and be able to win the game with a field goal? You must have loved Dungy as a coach.

Yes, I'm aware of that scenario, but I still think the smart play is to win without the other team getting the ball when the opportunity is given to you. I wouldn't call NE defense a juggernaut like Denver ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill is a good coach but he made a mistake here. He has made mistakes in the past (even in the same game such as kneeling to end of regulation instead of attempting to get into FG range) and he will make more mistakes in the future too. He makes less mistakes than most coaches but he isn't perfect either.

Edited by GreenNGold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kicking was a terrible decision. One of the worst coaching decisions made this year.

Huh ?

The Jets had 31 yards of total offense in the 4th quarter.

Seems like BB was counting on his defense to continue the same type of play into the OT period.

Not a shock to KO instead of receive. Stop them as you've been doing, get the ball back, kick the field goal and walk away.

I don't like giving the ball away first in OT because you get beat by the TD, obviously. Give up only a FG, and the second team has some advantage in using all 4 downs. Calculated risk by BB. Win some, lose some.

As for "worst coaching decision of the year"... you need to watch more games.

Edited by DropKick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill is a good coach but he made a mistake here. He has made mistakes in the past (even in the same game such as kneeling to end of regulation instead of attempting to get into FG range) and he will make more mistakes in the future too. He makes less mistakes than most coaches but he isn't perfect either.

They were on the 20 yard line with 25 seconds and no timeouts. It seems more likely that a team in that position would turn the ball over thru an INT or fumble on a sack than they would be able to gain 40 yards and kick a 57 yard FG. Kneeling there was the right move.

OTOH kneeling on the ball before the half doesn't seem justifiable. They started with 1:53 and 2 TOs left. They gained 13 yards on the first play and that seems like a spot to try to at least get a FG. Instead they just let the clock run out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kicking was a terrible decision. One of the worst coaching decisions made this year.

Huh ?

The Jets had 31 yards of total offense in the 4th quarter.

Seems like BB was counting on his defense to continue the same type of play into the OT period.

Not a shock to KO instead of receive. Stop them as you've been doing, get the ball back, kick the field goal and walk away.

I don't like giving the ball away first in OT because you get beat by the TD, obviously. Give up only a FG, and the second team has some advantage in using all 4 downs. Calculated risk by BB. Win some, lose some.

As for "worst coaching decision of the year"... you need to watch more games.

I agree (see Chuck Pagano and the Colts games).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill is a good coach but he made a mistake here. He has made mistakes in the past (even in the same game such as kneeling to end of regulation instead of attempting to get into FG range) and he will make more mistakes in the future too. He makes less mistakes than most coaches but he isn't perfect either.

They were on the 20 yard line with 25 seconds and no timeouts. It seems more likely that a team in that position would turn the ball over thru an INT or fumble on a sack than they would be able to gain 40 yards and kick a 57 yard FG. Kneeling there was the right move.

OTOH kneeling on the ball before the half doesn't seem justifiable. They started with 1:53 and 2 TOs left. They gained 13 yards on the first play and that seems like a spot to try to at least get a FG. Instead they just let the clock run out.

Agreed I had the halves confused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.