Second Guessing The Man.... (1 Viewer)

[Stinkin Ref]

why are some so concerned with trying to figure out some mystical %'s that mean nothing?......this was totally a strategic call and I gurantee you he didn't make the strategic decision based on some mystical %'s....because there are no %'s for it........it's not about trying to statistically justify a decision.....

he needed to:

A) score something

B) get the onside kick

C) score again

he was in a position to possibly put A, B, and C into action......he chose not too....he chose to try one more thing first and he knew that that one more thing potentially carried a very big risk that would not allow him to go back and put A, B, and C into action......

bad decision and I bet if you ask him now, he would do it differently given the opportunity........

would be interested if any Homers have any further response(links) from Belichick on this...

 

[AB in DC]

Just to get everyone on the same page, the game log shows that Gabriel was tackled short of the first down at the 20 yard line with 1:19 left on the clock and NE with one timeout left.

NFL.com says 1:07.

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

bad decision and I bet if you ask him now, he would do it differently given the opportunity........

While he may do it different next time, he'd never admit to that if asked now...

 

[AB in DC]

I don't know if the press asked Coach B about this, but I suspect he would say that if you can't get one yard on one play you don't deserve to get more chances to score on other plays.As I said earlier, I firmly believe that it is easier to score a TD from 20 yards out with 1:15 to play and then recover an onside kick and move the ball 20 yards for a long FG attempt than it would be to kick a short FG and have to go 60 yards for a TD against a team that would not allow anything but short underneath stuff.

Point 1: I think you'd be looking at 30 yards, minimum, after recovering an onside kick on your own 40-45 yard zone.Point 2: Denver was allowing the short, underneath stuff because they were ahead by more than 3. If the Pats score a TD there, they wouldn't be allowed the short, underneath stuff on the next drive.

 

[David Yudkin]

would be interested if any Homers have any further response(links) from Belichick on this...

Belichick was asked this in the post game press conference and said:"We thought about it (trying a field goal). It was short yardage. It was only a yard or two. So it would have been a long kick. I felt like we could pick up a yard at that point. You need to pick it up. If it had been longer like 4th and 10 or that type of thing we probably would have kicked. 4th and 2, we felt like we needed to pick that up.

LINK

It's in the Video Stream from the Pats Press Conference.

 

[David Yudkin]

I don't know if the press asked Coach B about this, but I suspect he would say that if you can't get one yard on one play you don't deserve to get more chances to score on other plays.As I said earlier, I firmly believe that it is easier to score a TD from 20 yards out with 1:15 to play and then recover an onside kick and move the ball 20 yards for a long FG attempt than it would be to kick a short FG and have to go 60 yards for a TD against a team that would not allow anything but short underneath stuff.

Point 1: I think you'd be looking at 30 yards, minimum, after recovering an onside kick on your own 40-45 yard zone.Point 2: Denver was allowing the short, underneath stuff because they were ahead by more than 3. If the Pats score a TD there, they wouldn't be allowed the short, underneath stuff on the next drive.

On an onside kick from the 30, the ball has to go 10 yards for the kicking team to get it. Normally there is a scrum right at that 10 yard mark and the recovering team normally gets it about 5 yards past the point of impact given the momentum of the kick. That would be roughly the 45 yard line give or take a couple yards. Add 20 yards to that and that's the 35 yard line or a 52 yard FG attempt.Ask the Giants about this one, because in 2003 they lost to the Cowboys after kicking the apparent game winning FG with 11 seconds to go. They tried a squib kick with Dallas having no time outs. Dallas recovered at their own 40 and with 7 seconds to go the Cowboys seemingly only had time for a Hail Mary. But they ran Antonio Bryant right along the side line and he caught the ball and fell out of bounds at the 35 yard line and Cundiff kicked a 52 yarder as time expired to send the game to overtime where Dallas went on to win.

 

[JayMan]

As I said earlier, I firmly believe that it is easier to score a TD from 20 yards out with 1:15 to play and then recover an onside kick and move the ball 20 yards for a long FG attempt than it would be to kick a short FG and have to go 60 yards for a TD against a team that would not allow anything but short underneath stuff.

I'm agreeing with you David here... but I think one variable has to be added to the equation - and that's the number of timeouts the trailing team has left (I don't know about the Pats last night - just in general)...If you have all 3 timeouts left... you kick the short field goal (especially on 4th down!)... try to get the onside kick... and then you are able to work the field to get in position for some throws in the endzone...

If you don't have any timeouts left... after the field goal and onside kick... the defense will give you the 10-15 yarders in the middle (since you have to go for approximately 60 yards) - eating the clock...

 

[Stinkin Ref]

had that last pass been completed, they would have most likely had to use their last TO right there.....leaving them no timeouts with 1st down on about the Denver 15 with less then a minute to play....down 10

 

[David Yudkin]

had that last pass been completed, they would have most likely had to use their last TO right there.....leaving them no timeouts with 1st down on about the Denver 15 with less then a minute to play....down 10

Well, there seems to be some confusion as to how much time was left. There was somewhere around 1:10 to 1:15 at the time they ran the play that would have given them a first down at the 15. If they called time out and took 3 shots at the end zone at a few seconds per play, they could have been down 3 with about a minute to go. If they got the onside kick, they likely would have needed 20-25 yards with no timeouts and around a minute to go to have a 50 yard or so FG attempt. I don't see how that would be an insurmountable hurdle. All that would be unlikely to happen.The other options were:- Hurry the FG unit onto the field (probably chewing up 15-20 seconds) to bring the clock down to 50-55 seconds before they even kicked. After the onside kick, that would have left them about 45-50 seconds with one timeout to go 60 yards for a TD against a prevent defense.- Call timeout to not rush the FG. Assuming that they made it, that would have left them about 1:00 with no timeouts after the onside kick to go 60 yards for a TD against a prevent defense.- Another option was that if they completed the pass at the 15 they hurried and spiked the ball to save their last timeout. Then they could have had two shots at the end zone. Since we are making up the ending as we go along, maybe they score on the first play and kick the onside kick with 1:00 to go WITH a timeout. In that scenario, moving the ball 20-25 yards for a long FG starts to seem like a distinct possibility.The difference of opinion here is what actually made tying the game more likely. No matter what, the Pats needed to score 10 points, and the Pats felt that scoring the TD first would leave less to cover after the onside kick. People seem to forget that kicking the FG first would leave all the hard work until AFTER the onside kick. Kicking the FG would have left NE with more yardage to cover to get the same result:20 yards for a TD + 20 yards to set up a FG attempt (40 yards total) versus0 yards for a FG attempt plus 60 yards for the TD after the onside kick (60 yards total)

 

[Stinkin Ref]

had that last pass been completed, they would have most likely had to use their last TO right there.....leaving them no timeouts with 1st down on about the Denver 15 with less then a minute to play....down 10

Well, there seems to be some confusion as to how much time was left. There was somewhere around 1:10 to 1:15 at the time they ran the play that would have given them a first down at the 15. If they called time out and took 3 shots at the end zone at a few seconds per play, they could have been down 3 with about a minute to go. If they got the onside kick, they likely would have needed 20-25 yards with no timeouts and around a minute to go to have a 50 yard or so FG attempt. I don't see how that would be an insurmountable hurdle. All that would be unlikely to happen.The other options were:- Hurry the FG unit onto the field (probably chewing up 15-20 seconds) to bring the clock down to 50-55 seconds before they even kicked. After the onside kick, that would have left them about 45-50 seconds with one timeout to go 60 yards for a TD against a prevent defense.- Call timeout to not rush the FG. Assuming that they made it, that would have left them about 1:00 with no timeouts after the onside kick to go 60 yards for a TD against a prevent defense.- Another option was that if they completed the pass at the 15 they hurried and spiked the ball to save their last timeout. Then they could have had two shots at the end zone. Since we are making up the ending as we go along, maybe they score on the first play and kick the onside kick with 1:00 to go WITH a timeout. In that scenario, moving the ball 20-25 yards for a long FG starts to seem like a distinct possibility.The difference of opinion here is what actually made tying the game more likely. No matter what, the Pats needed to score 10 points, and the Pats felt that scoring the TD first would leave less to cover after the onside kick. People seem to forget that kicking the FG first would leave all the hard work until AFTER the onside kick. Kicking the FG would have left NE with more yardage to cover to get the same result:20 yards for a TD + 20 yards to set up a FG attempt (40 yards total) versus0 yards for a FG attempt plus 60 yards for the TD after the onside kick (60 yards total)

we will never know if any of these options could have played out because he chose an option where one of the possible outcomes is that his team is no longer in a position to chose one of these options....or to win/tie the gamenobody is confused about what could have happened (options) had things been different.....the point is that Belichick had two choices on 4th down......one gave his team chance to win...... A, B, Cthe other gave his team a chance to win only "if" something else happened (converting the 4th down).....gamble, A, B, C,

 

[AB in DC]

20 yards for a TD + 20 yards to set up a FG attempt (40 yards total) versus

0 yards for a FG attempt plus 60 yards for the TD after the onside kick (60 yards total)

First of all, either B is less than 60 yards or A is more than 40 yards, depending on where you assume the on-side kick would be recovered. Otherwise you're expecting Gostkowski to make a 58 yard FG.Second of all, option A requires a conversion on 4th and 1. Option B does not require a conversion on any one play. If it was first down at the twenty yard line, then it's a different story.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

I would have gone for the fake FG,

and a TD pass attempt.