It wasn't a blunder. Just a decision that didn't work out.Pretty Dumb Blunder..
It wasn't a blunder. Just a decision that didn't work out.Pretty Dumb Blunder..
Bill Belichick
Strong opinions with absolutely no analysis.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.
The Dark Lord is a living god.
why do people insist on bringing up old newsThe 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.
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.
Just when you think Prisco couldn't write anything more stupid he trumps himself - Pats won the SB last year despite of BB?Strong opinions with absolutely no analysis.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.
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.It wasn't a blunder. Just a decision that didn't work out.Pretty Dumb Blunder..
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.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.
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.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.It wasn't a blunder. Just a decision that didn't work out.Pretty Dumb Blunder..
Number of times: 13I 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 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
Weather played into most of those choices, no? Bill was basically saying our offense sucks.Number of times: 13I 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 wins: 7
Number of Super Bowl-winning coaches to choose to kick off: 6 (Stram, Landry, Parcells, Ditka, Shanahan, Belichick)
Not apples to apples. The rules have changed since the huge majority of those games. Most of the games were sudden death overtime.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
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).
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.Just Win Baby said:Anarchy99 said:Not apples to apples. The rules have changed since the huge majority of those games. Most of the games were sudden death overtime.BobbyLayne said: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
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).![]()
Your grasp of using gut vs statistical analysis is fascinating.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.Just Win Baby said:Anarchy99 said: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).BobbyLayne said: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
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).![]()
Pretty much all of the first ten instances were weather related.The General said:Weather played into most of those choices, no? Bill was basically saying our offense sucks.Leroy Hoard said:Number of times: 13BobbyLayne said: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 wins: 7
Number of Super Bowl-winning coaches to choose to kick off: 6 (Stram, Landry, Parcells, Ditka, Shanahan, Belichick)
That being said Bill can do whatever the #### he wants. Best coach of all time IMO.
please explain. I guess all other coaches are wrong and Evil Bill is right?Your grasp of using gut vs statistical analysis is fascinating.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.Just Win Baby said:Anarchy99 said: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).BobbyLayne said: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
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).![]()
I think you'd be hard pressed to argue otherwise - his record speaks for itself.please explain. I guess all other coaches are wrong and Evil Bill is right?Your grasp of using gut vs statistical analysis is fascinating.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.
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.I think you'd be hard pressed to argue otherwise - his record speaks for itself.please explain. I guess all other coaches are wrong and Evil Bill is right?Your grasp of using gut vs statistical analysis is fascinating.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.
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.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.
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.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.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.
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.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.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.
No they don't. They score a TD about 16% of the time and fail to score at all about 64% of the time.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.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.
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.No they don't. They score a TD about 16% of the time and fail to score at all about 64% of the time.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.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.
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.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.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.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.
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.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.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.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.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.
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.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.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.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.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.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.
Huh ?GreenNGold said:Kicking was a terrible decision. One of the worst coaching decisions made this year.
Sith Lord's do whatever they want.
Hey, don't sell yourself short.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.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.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.
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.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.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.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.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.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.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.
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 DenverSo 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.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.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.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.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.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.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.
Only a tool would need the obvious laid out for them...Strong opinions with absolutely no analysis.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.
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.Huh ?GreenNGold said:Kicking was a terrible decision. One of the worst coaching decisions made this year.
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.
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.GreenNGold said: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.
I agree (see Chuck Pagano and the Colts games).DropKick said: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.Casting Couch said:Huh ?GreenNGold said:Kicking was a terrible decision. One of the worst coaching decisions made this year.
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.
As for "worst coaching decision of the year"... you need to watch more games.
Agreed I had the halves confused.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.GreenNGold said: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.