Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
wiscstlatlmia

Bill Belichick

Recommended Posts

Do I think he should have kicked the FG with 6+ left? Yes.

Does that tarnish him? No way. He is still the best football coach I have ever seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure there was plenty of talk in the game thread, but why go for the fg? They would still have to get a stop, further up the field to come back and win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought they would kick that fg with about 5-6 minutes left but when they didn't I thought, well, the way this game is going, it seems likely the Broncos can get at least a fg from here on out, putting the Patriots in a position to need 8 with probably less than a couple of minutes.

It is what it is. It was a good game and the Broncos have been know for this year stood out today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure there was plenty of talk in the game thread, but why go for the fg? They would still have to get a stop, further up the field to come back and win.

That was the furthest in Denver territory they had been all game except for the turnover. To think you'd have to march ALL the way down there again, and THEN score a TD still, is doubtful. Very easy to say the wrong choice was made but if they get the TD there and get a FG on the next drive, Bill is considered ballsy and a genius. The call was the right one, the result shouldn't be the only measuring factor.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure there was plenty of talk in the game thread, but why go for the fg? They would still have to get a stop, further up the field to come back and win.

That was the furthest in Denver territory they had been all game except for the turnover. To think you'd have to march ALL the way down there again, and THEN score a TD still, is doubtful. Very easy to say the wrong choice was made but if they get the TD there and get a FG on the next drive, Bill is considered ballsy and a genius. The call was the right one, the result shouldn't be the only measuring factor.

Not to mention that Denver's offense was not very good and you knew that Kubiak would turtle with a lead whenever they got the ball at that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure there was plenty of talk in the game thread, but why go for the fg? They would still have to get a stop, further up the field to come back and win.

That was the furthest in Denver territory they had been all game except for the turnover. To think you'd have to march ALL the way down there again, and THEN score a TD still, is doubtful. Very easy to say the wrong choice was made but if they get the TD there and get a FG on the next drive, Bill is considered ballsy and a genius. The call was the right one, the result shouldn't be the only measuring factor.

Not to mention that Denver's offense was not very good and you knew that Kubiak would turtle with a lead whenever they got the ball at that point.

Yep. But Denver with the ball up 8 was probably going to be a lot more conservative then Denver up 5. If they kicked the FG we dont know what would have happened. Denver probably would have been more aggressive and maybe gone down and kicked a FG. In that case, everyone on these boards would be complaining saying Bill was dumb to not go for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do I think he should have kicked the FG with 6+ left? Yes.

Does that tarnish him? No way. He is still the best football coach I have ever seen.

it's easy to say in hindsight, but i still agree. Shoulda kicked the FG. And i think the reason you do that is because you're down 8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do I think he should have kicked the FG with 6+ left? Yes.

Does that tarnish him? No way. He is still the best football coach I have ever seen.

I don't know about that. One incident may not tarnish him but he has had a few questionable moments this year. Bottom line is that his team didn't bail him out and so - like all coaches - when the team loses the coach gets questioned. I think he can still be the best coach you have ever seen and still get tarnished by this and other calls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do I think he should have kicked the FG with 6+ left? Yes.

Does that tarnish him? No way. He is still the best football coach I have ever seen.

I don't know about that. One incident may not tarnish him but he has had a few questionable moments this year. Bottom line is that his team didn't bail him out and so - like all coaches - when the team loses the coach gets questioned. I think he can still be the best coach you have ever seen and still get tarnished by this and other calls.

Tarnished? You gotta be kidding. It's pretty hard to be perfect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Pats fan I love the guy and appreciate everything thing he has done. With that being said his game management in big games has been spotty at best IMO.

Not kicking the FG yesterday most likely cost them the game. If he kicks the FG he only needs a td to win, you get 4 tries every time you move the sticks and most likely 4 tries to get the ball in the EZ at then end. For a 2pt conversion you get one shot, not good odds. The way the defense was playing I had no doubt they would get the ball back and with Denver's safeties out they were starting to gain momentum on offense. He spit the bit, plain and simple.

He also screwed us in SB 42 by turning down a 48 yard fg attempt and going for a 4th and 13? I will give him a pass for all that as I think he absolutely made the wrong call at the end of SB 49 last year by letting the clock run and not calling a t.o. before the Butler INT. I still think it was stupid but he got lucky. If Beastmode scores from the one there with next to no time left and they lose he looks like an idiot. Great coach regarding x's & o's and personel, game management not so great IMO, even poor at times in big games.

Edited by ROCKET

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He'll never get credit for losing that game yesterday on purpose, and sparing his team an unholy ###-whuppin' in the Super Bowl.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I laugh at people who want to question the belichick adams braintrust on when to do what in a football game, ever.

You shouldn't, BB has pee'd down his leg more than once including yesterday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NE got outplayed, out coached, out schemed, and out hustled for most of the game. It happens. You can win all the time. IMO, Denver just played a better game than NE in all three facets of the game and the Pats got beat.

Even with all that, the Pats only lost by two points. To me, the game felt like a blowout but they still were in it to the end.

I took issue with different things than most others will. I thought elected to take the ball was a bad decision. I don't so much think going on it on those fourth downs was the wrong call. Essentially they had three chances to make less than a yard, six yards, and two yards on the two point attempt and couldn't make any of them in about a five minute span. You don't deserve to win if you can't make any of those.

But I felt they did a crappy job by not hanging their blocking schemes or adding some help in the backfield to quell the pass rush. Brady didn't help himself by letting the play clock run all the way down to snap the ball, clearly allowing the Broncos to time their rush perfectly.

I also thought they had the defense playing too far off the DEN receivers on several third and long plays in the first half that extended drives. IMO, the dagger was when Peyton scrambled on third and long for a first down.

All of this should not change the stature of BB being the top coach in the league. We all know when things go well the coach is a genius but when you lose the coach made bad decisions.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How he did not ever compensate for the right side of the line getting smashed is beyond me? Chandler rarely saw the field. Gronk was constantly in the pass play. I can buy into thinking that they wanted to have max options in the passing game to start the game, but not adjusting at halftime was just being stubborn (and dumb).

These things should have been tried:

- Scott Chandler to play more to help the RT

- Gronk to chip block, before running the route.

- Less max WR sets

I thought this non-adjustment was the difference in the game. Brady had no time to throw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know they lined up Mike Williams outside early in the game, but he should have been an in-line blocking option the entire game. I agree with DD. Failure to adjust for the pass rush or lack of blocking is what did the Pats in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How he did not ever compensate for the right side of the line getting smashed is beyond me? Chandler rarely saw the field. Gronk was constantly in the pass play. I can buy into thinking that they wanted to have max options in the passing game to start the game, but not adjusting at halftime was just being stubborn (and dumb).

These things should have been tried:

- Scott Chandler to play more to help the RT

- Gronk to chip block, before running the route.

- Less max WR sets

I thought this non-adjustment was the difference in the game. Brady had no time to throw.

They hated thinking about having their only options being covered by Talib, Harris Jr and doubles. That's why they didnt up the protection at the cost of pattern options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I laugh at people who want to question the belichick adams braintrust on when to do what in a football game, ever.

You shouldn't, BB has pee'd down his leg more than once including yesterday.

Ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think kicking the fg and making it a 5 point game changes the complexion of the game completely. Denver is going to play a lot more tight, especially on offense when they know they are a td away from losing and not a td and 2 pt conversion away from being tied. You put the pressure on Manning to convert first downs which he wasn't able to do in the second half. The way he was performing in the second half would make me want him to throw instead of letting them play conservative and run.The Pats pass offense was starting to click as Denver's safeties had just been sidelined and the defense was playing lights out.

They most likely would have held Denver and got the ball back with 3 minutes left and at least 2 timeouts. I'll take my chances of Brady moving the sticks with 4 downs and getting them into the EZ. If they were down by 7 I could have seen going for it on 4th and 1 (even though I still kick the fg for reasons posted above), having to covert the 2 pt conversion to me was the reason not to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC, other than the backwards pass, the first drive that resulted in a turnover on downs was the first time NE had a drive reach the red zone. Not sure what evidence there was that NE would have such an easy time getting there again. If you can't make one yard, you don't deserve to win.

No matter what, NE most likely needed a TD. Fourth and one around the ten seemed like a reasonable pursuit more than having to potentially go on an 80 yard drive.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kicking the FG on 4th and 6 was clearly the right call. Failing to do so is falling victim to two common fallacies; equating a TD with 8 points, and equating a tie with a win. As we saw, an 8-point game isn't a one-score game; it's a TD and a 2-point conversion game, and that's just to tie. The 2-point conversion is less than 50%, and OT is 50%, so your odds of winning after scoring a TD in an 8 point game is less than 25%.

So that's your best-case scenario going for it on fourth and six. And making it on fourth and six is even lower than 50%, so now you're down at less than a 10% chance to win. If you kick the FG with 2:25 to go, what are your chances with all three TOs of stopping Denver and scoring a TD? Gotta be better than 10%. (And that's what actually happened).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wade out coached him. Doesn't happen often.

Wade had Von Miller, BB didn't. If that's out coaching, I guess u r right.

I must guess that there were some issues with SJax. I could not understand why they did not use him to pick up Miller as he ran right past the RT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kicking the FG on 4th and 6 was clearly the right call. Failing to do so is falling victim to two common fallacies; equating a TD with 8 points, and equating a tie with a win. As we saw, an 8-point game isn't a one-score game; it's a TD and a 2-point conversion game, and that's just to tie. The 2-point conversion is less than 50%, and OT is 50%, so your odds of winning after scoring a TD in an 8 point game is less than 25%.

So that's your best-case scenario going for it on fourth and six. And making it on fourth and six is even lower than 50%, so now you're down at less than a 10% chance to win. If you kick the FG with 2:25 to go, what are your chances with all three TOs of stopping Denver and scoring a TD? Gotta be better than 10%. (And that's what actually happened).

I'll go one step further and say they should have kicked a FG with 4th and 1 at the 16. Making that puts them down 5 with 6 minutes left. All they need then is a stop, which they got, and a TD (or two FG's). They wouldn't have even needed the Gronk TD at the end and could have milked the clock down to zero and kicked the game-winning FG with no time left.

BB was way too aggressive in a game where Peyton wasn't moving the ball well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kicking the FG on 4th and 6 was clearly the right call. Failing to do so is falling victim to two common fallacies; equating a TD with 8 points, and equating a tie with a win. As we saw, an 8-point game isn't a one-score game; it's a TD and a 2-point conversion game, and that's just to tie. The 2-point conversion is less than 50%, and OT is 50%, so your odds of winning after scoring a TD in an 8 point game is less than 25%.

So that's your best-case scenario going for it on fourth and six. And making it on fourth and six is even lower than 50%, so now you're down at less than a 10% chance to win. If you kick the FG with 2:25 to go, what are your chances with all three TOs of stopping Denver and scoring a TD? Gotta be better than 10%. (And that's what actually happened).

I'll go one step further and say they should have kicked a FG with 4th and 1 at the 16. Making that puts them down 5 with 6 minutes left. All they need then is a stop, which they got, and a TD (or two FG's). They wouldn't have even needed the Gronk TD at the end and could have milked the clock down to zero and kicked the game-winning FG with no time left.

BB was way too aggressive in a game where Peyton wasn't moving the ball well.

The common fallacy that you guys are falling victim to is that everything would have played out exactly the same way if they had kicked the FG (either time).

Of course these decisions are going to be scrutinized (which is the reason most coaches generally aren't aggressive enough IMO), but I think you can make a pretty good argument either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wade out coached him. Doesn't happen often.

Wade had Von Miller, BB didn't. If that's out coaching, I guess u r right.

I must guess that there were some issues with SJax. I could not understand why they did not use him to pick up Miller as he ran right past the RT.

C'mon man - you can't go there. If you do, then how can you say anything about BB since he has Brady and other coaches don't.

You are not going to find a coach on the planet who doesn't lose a coaching match-up every now and then. For whatever reason, BB didn't make the right adjustment this time. Don't worry, he is still a great coach - just not a superbowl coach this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wade out coached him. Doesn't happen often.

We couldn't block, man. They were getting there with three.

This is what I don't understand and what I think was one example of the lack of proper adjustment. They were getting in with three, so why not put someone else back there to block. Gronk? Chandler? a RB? Anyone. Psychologically just the thought of another blocker might have helped Brady settle down back there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think kicking the fg and making it a 5 point game changes the complexion of the game completely. Denver is going to play a lot more tight, especially on offense when they know they are a td away from losing and not a td and 2 pt conversion away from being tied. You put the pressure on Manning to convert first downs which he wasn't able to do in the second half. The way he was performing in the second half would make me want him to throw instead of letting them play conservative and run.The Pats pass offense was starting to click as Denver's safeties had just been sidelined and the defense was playing lights out.

They most likely would have held Denver and got the ball back with 3 minutes left and at least 2 timeouts. I'll take my chances of Brady moving the sticks with 4 downs and getting them into the EZ. If they were down by 7 I could have seen going for it on 4th and 1 (even though I still kick the fg for reasons posted above), having to covert the 2 pt conversion to me was the reason not to.

One reason not to kick the field goal is specifically to avoid putting pressure on Denver to get the first down. You get them to play situational football. Run 3 times. Get the ball back. Which they did. It's easy to say new England would have gotten the ball back anyways but we don't know that. They could just as easily have gotten a couple first downs by being more aggressive trying to keep Brady from getting the ball back.

What we do know is that by taking a shot for the touchdown they gave themselves the best chance to score the td, or if they missed, to get the ball back and get another chance.

A lot of us were howling when they didn't call a timeout in the goal line in the superbowl last year. That won them a title by confusing the Seahawks with time running out and ultimately baiting them into the pass that lost them the game when "everybody knew" they should have been running it with lynch. And I don't blame Carroll for falling for that bait - if they didn't turn the ball over, it gave them three shots at the game winning score instead of two.

There are legitimate reasons to choose one over the other. The Broncos made plays. The Patriots did too but came up just short. Good game Denver and congratulations Manning. Some times it's that simple

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kicking the FG on 4th and 6 was clearly the right call. Failing to do so is falling victim to two common fallacies; equating a TD with 8 points, and equating a tie with a win. As we saw, an 8-point game isn't a one-score game; it's a TD and a 2-point conversion game, and that's just to tie. The 2-point conversion is less than 50%, and OT is 50%, so your odds of winning after scoring a TD in an 8 point game is less than 25%.

So that's your best-case scenario going for it on fourth and six. And making it on fourth and six is even lower than 50%, so now you're down at less than a 10% chance to win. If you kick the FG with 2:25 to go, what are your chances with all three TOs of stopping Denver and scoring a TD? Gotta be better than 10%. (And that's what actually happened).

I'll go one step further and say they should have kicked a FG with 4th and 1 at the 16. Making that puts them down 5 with 6 minutes left. All they need then is a stop, which they got, and a TD (or two FG's). They wouldn't have even needed the Gronk TD at the end and could have milked the clock down to zero and kicked the game-winning FG with no time left.

BB was way too aggressive in a game where Peyton wasn't moving the ball well.

The common fallacy that you guys are falling victim to is that everything would have played out exactly the same way if they had kicked the FG (either time).

Of course these decisions are going to be scrutinized (which is the reason most coaches generally aren't aggressive enough IMO), but I think you can make a pretty good argument either way.

I'm not saying it would have played out the same way but you've got to have faith in your defense to stop the other team (especially with how the Broncos were playing) and in Brady to score a TD.

It's seems like BB didn't trust Brady and thought every time they reached the red zone was their last.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One reason not to kick the field goal is specifically to avoid putting pressure on Denver to get the first down. You get them to play situational football. Run 3 times. Get the ball back. Which they did. It's easy to say new England would have gotten the ball back anyways but we don't know that. They could just as easily have gotten a couple first downs by being more aggressive trying to keep Brady from getting the ball back.

The Broncos are still going to play conservatively with a 5 point lead and 6 minutes left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One reason not to kick the field goal is specifically to avoid putting pressure on Denver to get the first down. You get them to play situational football. Run 3 times. Get the ball back. Which they did. It's easy to say new England would have gotten the ball back anyways but we don't know that. They could just as easily have gotten a couple first downs by being more aggressive trying to keep Brady from getting the ball back.

The Broncos are still going to play conservatively with a 5 point lead and 6 minutes left.

The first down becomes a much higher priority than running 45 seconds off the clock when the Patriots can win with a score instead of tying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kicking the FG on 4th and 6 was clearly the right call. Failing to do so is falling victim to two common fallacies; equating a TD with 8 points, and equating a tie with a win. As we saw, an 8-point game isn't a one-score game; it's a TD and a 2-point conversion game, and that's just to tie. The 2-point conversion is less than 50%, and OT is 50%, so your odds of winning after scoring a TD in an 8 point game is less than 25%.

So that's your best-case scenario going for it on fourth and six. And making it on fourth and six is even lower than 50%, so now you're down at less than a 10% chance to win. If you kick the FG with 2:25 to go, what are your chances with all three TOs of stopping Denver and scoring a TD? Gotta be better than 10%. (And that's what actually happened).

I'll go one step further and say they should have kicked a FG with 4th and 1 at the 16. Making that puts them down 5 with 6 minutes left. All they need then is a stop, which they got, and a TD (or two FG's). They wouldn't have even needed the Gronk TD at the end and could have milked the clock down to zero and kicked the game-winning FG with no time left.

BB was way too aggressive in a game where Peyton wasn't moving the ball well.

The common fallacy that you guys are falling victim to is that everything would have played out exactly the same way if they had kicked the FG (either time).

Of course these decisions are going to be scrutinized (which is the reason most coaches generally aren't aggressive enough IMO), but I think you can make a pretty good argument either way.

I'm not saying it would have played out the same way but you've got to have faith in your defense to stop the other team (especially with how the Broncos were playing) and in Brady to score a TD.

It's seems like BB didn't trust Brady and thought every time they reached the red zone was their last.

You walked through the rest of the game as if it would have played out exactly the same, even said "All they need then is a stop, which they got..." We don't know if they would have gotten the stop under different circumstances. I know you can argue that Denver would have still played conservatively, but that doesn't mean they would have called the same exact plays and gotten the same exact results (likewise with NE's D). One different play call from either team could have changed everything around.

Not sure if it came down to trusting Brady, it probably had more to do with their O-line, but it's hard to blame him for not having a ton of faith in their ability to drive the length of the field and score a TD when they hadn't done so the entire game. Those two drives where they went for it were the deepest they had gotten all game (besides the time they recovered the fumble).

Tough calls IMO, and I'm sure he'd be getting a ton of heat if he had attempted the FG(s) and they didn't win as well. Comes with the territory.

Edited by humpback

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kicking the FG on 4th and 6 was clearly the right call. Failing to do so is falling victim to two common fallacies; equating a TD with 8 points, and equating a tie with a win. As we saw, an 8-point game isn't a one-score game; it's a TD and a 2-point conversion game, and that's just to tie. The 2-point conversion is less than 50%, and OT is 50%, so your odds of winning after scoring a TD in an 8 point game is less than 25%.

So that's your best-case scenario going for it on fourth and six. And making it on fourth and six is even lower than 50%, so now you're down at less than a 10% chance to win. If you kick the FG with 2:25 to go, what are your chances with all three TOs of stopping Denver and scoring a TD? Gotta be better than 10%. (And that's what actually happened).

I'll go one step further and say they should have kicked a FG with 4th and 1 at the 16. Making that puts them down 5 with 6 minutes left. All they need then is a stop, which they got, and a TD (or two FG's). They wouldn't have even needed the Gronk TD at the end and could have milked the clock down to zero and kicked the game-winning FG with no time left.

BB was way too aggressive in a game where Peyton wasn't moving the ball well.

The common fallacy that you guys are falling victim to is that everything would have played out exactly the same way if they had kicked the FG (either time).

Of course these decisions are going to be scrutinized (which is the reason most coaches generally aren't aggressive enough IMO), but I think you can make a pretty good argument either way.

Of course the game wouldn't have been the same. But I'd rather be down five kicking off with 2:25 to go and 3 timeouts, than down eight going for it on fourth and 6 with 2:25 to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion you kick the field with 6 minutes. Put pressure on the other team to make a play, maybe Peyton throws a pick 6 or they get a sack fumble. We seen it all day with Brady, putting pressure on an opponent can make them do bad things. When Kubiak/Peyton know the worst thing that can happen is a tie and going to overtime he was comfortable, make them worry about losing the game and see what they can come up with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a nice stat: On fourth down with 5-8 yards to go, Tom Brady is 7/19 (36.8%) for his career. He's made 5 first downs on 22 plays (22.7%) and also has three fumbles and an INT.

So if you give him a 25% chance to convert on fourth and 6, 47% on the 2-point conversion, and 50% in OT, that gives you a 5.9% chance to win by going for it on fourth and 6 instead of kicking the FG. (And I'll leave out the odds of getting the TD after converting on fourth and 6).

What are your odds of winning when you're kicking off down 5 with 2:25 to go and all three TO's? I'd bet it's at least double that number.

Edited by CalBear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kicking the FG on 4th and 6 was clearly the right call. Failing to do so is falling victim to two common fallacies; equating a TD with 8 points, and equating a tie with a win. As we saw, an 8-point game isn't a one-score game; it's a TD and a 2-point conversion game, and that's just to tie. The 2-point conversion is less than 50%, and OT is 50%, so your odds of winning after scoring a TD in an 8 point game is less than 25%.

So that's your best-case scenario going for it on fourth and six. And making it on fourth and six is even lower than 50%, so now you're down at less than a 10% chance to win. If you kick the FG with 2:25 to go, what are your chances with all three TOs of stopping Denver and scoring a TD? Gotta be better than 10%. (And that's what actually happened).

I'll go one step further and say they should have kicked a FG with 4th and 1 at the 16. Making that puts them down 5 with 6 minutes left. All they need then is a stop, which they got, and a TD (or two FG's). They wouldn't have even needed the Gronk TD at the end and could have milked the clock down to zero and kicked the game-winning FG with no time left.

BB was way too aggressive in a game where Peyton wasn't moving the ball well.

The common fallacy that you guys are falling victim to is that everything would have played out exactly the same way if they had kicked the FG (either time).

Of course these decisions are going to be scrutinized (which is the reason most coaches generally aren't aggressive enough IMO), but I think you can make a pretty good argument either way.

Of course the game wouldn't have been the same. But I'd rather be down five kicking off with 2:25 to go and 3 timeouts, than down eight going for it on fourth and 6 with 2:25 to go.

That's nice, but it doesn't change the fact that those aren't the only two possibilities, nor does it change the fact that we can't say for sure which of those options gives them the better chance to win the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wade out coached him. Doesn't happen often.

We couldn't block, man. They were getting there with three.

This is what I don't understand and what I think was one example of the lack of proper adjustment. They were getting in with three, so why not put someone else back there to block. Gronk? Chandler? a RB? Anyone. Psychologically just the thought of another blocker might have helped Brady settle down back there.

They are being obtuse. Wade kept mixing up the schemes so Brady couldn't get quick reads. A lot of planning and practice went into that execution. They were throwing out new looks and hiding them well. The Pats just weren't prepared to counter.

Wade isn't a very good head coach, but he's a great defensive coordinator. He had the Pats number last week. It happens. He deserves a lot of credit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kicking the FG on 4th and 6 was clearly the right call. Failing to do so is falling victim to two common fallacies; equating a TD with 8 points, and equating a tie with a win. As we saw, an 8-point game isn't a one-score game; it's a TD and a 2-point conversion game, and that's just to tie. The 2-point conversion is less than 50%, and OT is 50%, so your odds of winning after scoring a TD in an 8 point game is less than 25%.

So that's your best-case scenario going for it on fourth and six. And making it on fourth and six is even lower than 50%, so now you're down at less than a 10% chance to win. If you kick the FG with 2:25 to go, what are your chances with all three TOs of stopping Denver and scoring a TD? Gotta be better than 10%. (And that's what actually happened).

I'll go one step further and say they should have kicked a FG with 4th and 1 at the 16. Making that puts them down 5 with 6 minutes left. All they need then is a stop, which they got, and a TD (or two FG's). They wouldn't have even needed the Gronk TD at the end and could have milked the clock down to zero and kicked the game-winning FG with no time left.

BB was way too aggressive in a game where Peyton wasn't moving the ball well.

The common fallacy that you guys are falling victim to is that everything would have played out exactly the same way if they had kicked the FG (either time).

Of course these decisions are going to be scrutinized (which is the reason most coaches generally aren't aggressive enough IMO), but I think you can make a pretty good argument either way.

Of course the game wouldn't have been the same. But I'd rather be down five kicking off with 2:25 to go and 3 timeouts, than down eight going for it on fourth and 6 with 2:25 to go.

That's nice, but it doesn't change the fact that those aren't the only two possibilities, nor does it change the fact that we can't say for sure which of those options gives them the better chance to win the game.

It was a pretty simple decision; kick the FG or go for it. Assuming a 33-yard FG is more or less an extra point, let's call it 94%. I'll leave out the scenario where you miss the FG and still win the game, so assume you lose 6% of the time for missing the FG. Now you're kicking off with 2:25 left down 5 with 3 TOs. Do you think you have less than a 10% chance of winning in that scenario? You need to keep the other team from getting two first downs, and then score a TD. Seems not too hard. 15, 20%?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kicking the FG on 4th and 6 was clearly the right call. Failing to do so is falling victim to two common fallacies; equating a TD with 8 points, and equating a tie with a win. As we saw, an 8-point game isn't a one-score game; it's a TD and a 2-point conversion game, and that's just to tie. The 2-point conversion is less than 50%, and OT is 50%, so your odds of winning after scoring a TD in an 8 point game is less than 25%.

So that's your best-case scenario going for it on fourth and six. And making it on fourth and six is even lower than 50%, so now you're down at less than a 10% chance to win. If you kick the FG with 2:25 to go, what are your chances with all three TOs of stopping Denver and scoring a TD? Gotta be better than 10%. (And that's what actually happened).

I'll go one step further and say they should have kicked a FG with 4th and 1 at the 16. Making that puts them down 5 with 6 minutes left. All they need then is a stop, which they got, and a TD (or two FG's). They wouldn't have even needed the Gronk TD at the end and could have milked the clock down to zero and kicked the game-winning FG with no time left.

BB was way too aggressive in a game where Peyton wasn't moving the ball well.

The common fallacy that you guys are falling victim to is that everything would have played out exactly the same way if they had kicked the FG (either time).

Of course these decisions are going to be scrutinized (which is the reason most coaches generally aren't aggressive enough IMO), but I think you can make a pretty good argument either way.

Of course the game wouldn't have been the same. But I'd rather be down five kicking off with 2:25 to go and 3 timeouts, than down eight going for it on fourth and 6 with 2:25 to go.

That's nice, but it doesn't change the fact that those aren't the only two possibilities, nor does it change the fact that we can't say for sure which of those options gives them the better chance to win the game.

It was a pretty simple decision; kick the FG or go for it. Assuming a 33-yard FG is more or less an extra point, let's call it 94%. I'll leave out the scenario where you miss the FG and still win the game, so assume you lose 6% of the time for missing the FG. Now you're kicking off with 2:25 left down 5 with 3 TOs. Do you think you have less than a 10% chance of winning in that scenario? You need to keep the other team from getting two first downs, and then score a TD. Seems not too hard. 15, 20%?

But you only need one yard, and you haven't gotten so far all game. They convert and tie the game with minutes to spare, or get within two with enough time to force a stop and maybe go for the win, or, at worst, lose a little more time and kick the fg (ending up with the scenario you describe).

I happen to agree with you: Take the points, give your D some credit (I wonder if it had been even only 4th and 2, if that's what would have happened). But it's certainly not as cut-and-dried as you describe. (EDIT: Obviously I'm talking about the first 4th down call. I think 4th and 6 had to happen. Even with all the timeouts, at 2:25, one first down and you're screwed).

I think Bill Belichick deserves to be second-guessed; I'm not sure anybody on this message board is qualified to do it.

Congrats to the Broncos fans. Manning's got a chance to go out just like Elway did.

Edited by Jercules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watching the game, I thought it made perfect sense to go for it given the situation.

Kicking a FG puts you down 5 while still needing a TD, and no guarantee you even get the ball back.

The fact that they got it back two more times to me is irrelevant because I do not feel Denver's possessions would have gone the way they did had they not been up 8 points.

Also, not a HUGE factor here but maybe just a tiny one, there is no guarantee you make the FG. Could be another shank, bad snap, bad hold, or blocked. It happens. It's at least a minor factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a nice stat: On fourth down with 5-8 yards to go, Tom Brady is 7/19 (36.8%) for his career. He's made 5 first downs on 22 plays (22.7%) and also has three fumbles and an INT.

So if you give him a 25% chance to convert on fourth and 6, 47% on the 2-point conversion, and 50% in OT, that gives you a 5.9% chance to win by going for it on fourth and 6 instead of kicking the FG. (And I'll leave out the odds of getting the TD after converting on fourth and 6).

What are your odds of winning when you're kicking off down 5 with 2:25 to go and all three TO's? I'd bet it's at least double that number.

Interesting analysis and I'm conflicted on it myself. I keep coming back to one thing though: Kicking the FG puts all of your eggs in one basket, namely: You still need to prevent a first down and then drive 70+ yards for a TD with no timeouts with under 2 minutes left. Going for it and potentially getting 6-8 points still presents the same need to prevent a first down but now you only need to drive 40 yards or so to set up a winning FG. If you DON'T get it, you still have the chance to get the ball back and drive the length of the field - The same scenario as if you kicked the FG. The only difference is that you now need to convert the 2 points. I like the latter since it gives you two potential bites at the apple instead of one.

Given how many times the Broncos stalled the Pats in the Red Zone and how successfully the Pats moved the ball between the 20s in the second half, Belichick probably felt that one particular drive, he had the Broncos defense on their heels and that 4th and 6 was their best chance to get the TD that they needed.

Honestly, at the time, l liked going for it on both 4th downs but I like aggressive play-calling.

Edited by Workhorse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kicking the FG on 4th and 6 was clearly the right call. Failing to do so is falling victim to two common fallacies; equating a TD with 8 points, and equating a tie with a win. As we saw, an 8-point game isn't a one-score game; it's a TD and a 2-point conversion game, and that's just to tie. The 2-point conversion is less than 50%, and OT is 50%, so your odds of winning after scoring a TD in an 8 point game is less than 25%.

So that's your best-case scenario going for it on fourth and six. And making it on fourth and six is even lower than 50%, so now you're down at less than a 10% chance to win. If you kick the FG with 2:25 to go, what are your chances with all three TOs of stopping Denver and scoring a TD? Gotta be better than 10%. (And that's what actually happened).

I'll go one step further and say they should have kicked a FG with 4th and 1 at the 16. Making that puts them down 5 with 6 minutes left. All they need then is a stop, which they got, and a TD (or two FG's). They wouldn't have even needed the Gronk TD at the end and could have milked the clock down to zero and kicked the game-winning FG with no time left.

BB was way too aggressive in a game where Peyton wasn't moving the ball well.

The common fallacy that you guys are falling victim to is that everything would have played out exactly the same way if they had kicked the FG (either time).

Of course these decisions are going to be scrutinized (which is the reason most coaches generally aren't aggressive enough IMO), but I think you can make a pretty good argument either way.

Of course the game wouldn't have been the same. But I'd rather be down five kicking off with 2:25 to go and 3 timeouts, than down eight going for it on fourth and 6 with 2:25 to go.

That's nice, but it doesn't change the fact that those aren't the only two possibilities, nor does it change the fact that we can't say for sure which of those options gives them the better chance to win the game.

It was a pretty simple decision; kick the FG or go for it. Assuming a 33-yard FG is more or less an extra point, let's call it 94%. I'll leave out the scenario where you miss the FG and still win the game, so assume you lose 6% of the time for missing the FG. Now you're kicking off with 2:25 left down 5 with 3 TOs. Do you think you have less than a 10% chance of winning in that scenario? You need to keep the other team from getting two first downs, and then score a TD. Seems not too hard. 15, 20%?

But you only need one yard, and you haven't gotten so far all game. They convert and tie the game with minutes to spare, or get within two with enough time to force a stop and maybe go for the win, or, at worst, lose a little more time and kick the fg (ending up with the scenario you describe).

I happen to agree with you: Take the points, give your D some credit (I wonder if it had been even only 4th and 2, if that's what would have happened). But it's certainly not as cut-and-dried as you describe. (EDIT: Obviously I'm talking about the first 4th down call. I think 4th and 6 had to happen. Even with all the timeouts, at 2:25, one first down and you're screwed).

I think Bill Belichick deserves to be second-guessed; I'm not sure anybody on this message board is qualified to do it.

Congrats to the Broncos fans. Manning's got a chance to go out just like Elway did.

I don't think 4th and 6 had to happen. Is it more likely to convert 4th and 6, and convert the 2-point conversion, and win in OT, or to stop Denver from getting a first down? As I noted, the first sequence of events is extremely low probability, less than 10%. Denver converted only four first downs in the entire second half.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kicking the FG on 4th and 6 was clearly the right call. Failing to do so is falling victim to two common fallacies; equating a TD with 8 points, and equating a tie with a win. As we saw, an 8-point game isn't a one-score game; it's a TD and a 2-point conversion game, and that's just to tie. The 2-point conversion is less than 50%, and OT is 50%, so your odds of winning after scoring a TD in an 8 point game is less than 25%.

So that's your best-case scenario going for it on fourth and six. And making it on fourth and six is even lower than 50%, so now you're down at less than a 10% chance to win. If you kick the FG with 2:25 to go, what are your chances with all three TOs of stopping Denver and scoring a TD? Gotta be better than 10%. (And that's what actually happened).

I'll go one step further and say they should have kicked a FG with 4th and 1 at the 16. Making that puts them down 5 with 6 minutes left. All they need then is a stop, which they got, and a TD (or two FG's). They wouldn't have even needed the Gronk TD at the end and could have milked the clock down to zero and kicked the game-winning FG with no time left.

BB was way too aggressive in a game where Peyton wasn't moving the ball well.

The common fallacy that you guys are falling victim to is that everything would have played out exactly the same way if they had kicked the FG (either time).

Of course these decisions are going to be scrutinized (which is the reason most coaches generally aren't aggressive enough IMO), but I think you can make a pretty good argument either way.

Of course the game wouldn't have been the same. But I'd rather be down five kicking off with 2:25 to go and 3 timeouts, than down eight going for it on fourth and 6 with 2:25 to go.

That's nice, but it doesn't change the fact that those aren't the only two possibilities, nor does it change the fact that we can't say for sure which of those options gives them the better chance to win the game.

It was a pretty simple decision; kick the FG or go for it. Assuming a 33-yard FG is more or less an extra point, let's call it 94%. I'll leave out the scenario where you miss the FG and still win the game, so assume you lose 6% of the time for missing the FG. Now you're kicking off with 2:25 left down 5 with 3 TOs. Do you think you have less than a 10% chance of winning in that scenario? You need to keep the other team from getting two first downs, and then score a TD. Seems not too hard. 15, 20%?

But you only need one yard, and you haven't gotten so far all game. They convert and tie the game with minutes to spare, or get within two with enough time to force a stop and maybe go for the win, or, at worst, lose a little more time and kick the fg (ending up with the scenario you describe).

I happen to agree with you: Take the points, give your D some credit (I wonder if it had been even only 4th and 2, if that's what would have happened). But it's certainly not as cut-and-dried as you describe. (EDIT: Obviously I'm talking about the first 4th down call. I think 4th and 6 had to happen. Even with all the timeouts, at 2:25, one first down and you're screwed).

I think Bill Belichick deserves to be second-guessed; I'm not sure anybody on this message board is qualified to do it.

Congrats to the Broncos fans. Manning's got a chance to go out just like Elway did.

I don't think 4th and 6 had to happen. Is it more likely to convert 4th and 6, and convert the 2-point conversion, and win in OT, or to stop Denver from getting a first down? As I noted, the first sequence of events is extremely low probability, less than 10%. Denver converted only four first downs in the entire second half.

These are not the only two scenarios if you convert 4th and 6. If you make OR miss the 2 point conversion, you still have 3 timeouts to potentially get the ball back for the winning FG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had whoever caught the ball not wiggled away the first time (Amendola?) to set up a 4th and 1, I believe they would have kicked the FG. It probably would have been 4th and 4 or 4th and 5.

The killer the second time was the penalty on 3rd and 1 that made it 3rd and 6 and later 4th and 6. I still think DEN would have made a greater effort to get a first down if they were only ahead by 5 vs. up by 8. NE had all their timeouts and the 2:00 warning, but one first down still could have all but assured a win.

If we give NE a FG on that 4th and 6 play, there would have been 2:20 left when DEN got the ball at their own 20 after a touch back. Running play and timeout = 2:15. Running play and timeout #2 = 2:10. Passing play, first down, time out #3 = 2:05. Running play, two minute warning. Running play, 45 seconds off the clock = 1:15. Running play, 45 seconds off the clock = 30 seconds. Punt and return 10 seconds = 20 seconds. If things worked out that way, NE would have needed a TD with 20 or 25 seconds to go with no timeouts and likely needing to go 70 yards. I'm not seeing much chance of a victory in that scenario.

Except people would be second guessing saying how did you not go for a TD when you had the chance. Sure, the Pats could have prevented a first down, but that was their only chance at that point of winning the game.

It probably made more sense to kick the first time, but they still most likely needed a TD to win (getting the ball twice was pretty unexpected in my book). BB figured they had a better chance of getting one yard and scoring a TD from 15 yards out than getting the ball back and driving 70-80 yards and scoring a TD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may or may not have 3 timeouts. You might score the TD on the fourth down play, but if not, you have first and goal. The clock might be running. You might get the TD on first down, second down, third down. If you don't, it's fourth down and goal, you're under 2 minutes, likely having used at least one TO, and you have to go for it and get the 2-point conversion just to tie.

Edited by CalBear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wade out coached him. Doesn't happen often.

Wade had Von Miller, BB didn't. If that's out coaching, I guess u r right.

I must guess that there were some issues with SJax. I could not understand why they did not use him to pick up Miller as he ran right past the RT.

Right and BB has Tom Brady and the rest of the league doesn't yet he gets credit for being a great coach when they win. If he loses then it's all because the other team has great players ? Cmon

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.