Belicheck is officially no longer a "genius". ssia
Bzl.
JimK
Wow. I turned the game off with the Pats up 10 with the ball and less
than 6 minutes left figuring that even Manning couldn't pull off this
miracle. Sounds like he got a little help from the other coach. What
an indictment of your own defense.
JimK
octoad
too many!
O
Kelly Humphries
> First he was a cheater, now he's a dumb cheater. Talk about one gimmick
> too many!
And that five-millisecond "handshake" at the end. What's up with that?
Andrew
sports of any kind, that ranks right up there as the dumbest decision by
a head coach that I have ever seen...
J.C. Martin
I couldn't believe it! Somehow I knew Belichick wouldn't get his wish
as soon as he made one of the dumbest coaching decisions I've ever
seen. Talk about ego. Sheesh!
-JC
Brad Greer
wrote:
>In all my years watching football.... No. In all my years watching
>sports of any kind, that ranks right up there as the dumbest decision by
>a head coach that I have ever seen...
Calling a handoff to Larry Csonka (one play after taking a knee) with
under two minutes to go was probably worse.
Ken Fortenberry
> Wow. I turned the game off with the Pats up 10 with the ball and less
> than 6 minutes left figuring that even Manning couldn't pull off this
> miracle. Sounds like he got a little help from the other coach. What
> an indictment of your own defense.
I think it was more a matter of respecting Manning than indicting
his own defense. I mean, even if you punt the Colts get the ball
on their own 20 with over two minutes to go, one timeout and the
two-minute warning to stop the clock. Face it, the Colts were going
score again either on a 80 yard drive or a 30 yard drive.
--
Ken Fortenberry
Rogues Island's finest
wrote:
Ken's right. The defense was gassed, and Belichick knew it. Same as
the AFC Championship game in 2006; Manning was cutting through them
like a knife through butter in the 4th quarter last night, and while
his decision certainly was controversial (by the way, if Faulk doesn't
bobble the ball, the game is over), I know why he did what he did.
Painful loss last night, and while there is a long way to go in this
season, it certainly looks like the playoffs run through Indy this
year....
Fuck.
Mark
Jer
> Ken's right. The defense was gassed, and Belichick knew it. Same as
> the AFC Championship game in 2006; Manning was cutting through them
> like a knife through butter in the 4th quarter last night, and while
> his decision certainly was controversial (by the way, if Faulk doesn't
> bobble the ball, the game is over), I know why he did what he did.
I don't think it had that much to do with his defense. I know I have
all the confidence in the world that the Patriots offense could pick
up 2 yards at the most critical point in the game...and their coach
did as well. He's going to get killed for it, but I LOVE the decision
to go in that situation. The Patriots were carving up the Colts all
night, he was just playing the odds (they were averaging 6.6 yards per
play). They get the first down and he's the shrewd genius that is
willing to throw football convention out the window to win a game. As
it stands, he's a cocky asshole who thinks he's bigger than the game
and can do whatever he wants. Personally, I don't agree with either
of those assertions...I just think he liked his chances of gaining 2
yards.
-J
J.C. Martin
wrote:
Bullshit. Manning has choked a good many "big" games in his career,
and it's certainly not a guaranteed touchdown when he has to get in
the endzone from the other side of the field in 2 minutes. You NEVER
do something as idiotic as that. It's not as if the Colts didn't have
the speed at the line to make a play. Sheesh. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
-JC
J.C. Martin
Even if they got the first down, it was a dumb decision. No two ways
about it. This had far more to do with ego than the D being gassed.
-JC
Ken Fortenberry
> Ken Fortenberry wrote:
>> JimK wrote:
>>> Wow. I turned the game off with the Pats up 10 with the ball and less
>>> than 6 minutes left figuring that even Manning couldn't pull off this
>>> miracle. Sounds like he got a little help from the other coach. What
>>> an indictment of your own defense.
>> I think it was more a matter of respecting Manning than indicting
>> his own defense. I mean, even if you punt the Colts get the ball
>> on their own 20 with over two minutes to go, one timeout and the
>> two-minute warning to stop the clock. Face it, the Colts were going
>> score again either on a 80 yard drive or a 30 yard drive.
>
> and it's certainly not a guaranteed touchdown when he has to get in
> the endzone from the other side of the field in 2 minutes.
Well, given that he had just done so (79 yard TD drive, six plays
in 1:49) moments before, I certainly liked his chances. The best
way to neutralize Manning is to keep the ball out of his hands.
> You NEVER
> do something as idiotic as that. It's not as if the Colts didn't have
> the speed at the line to make a play. Sheesh. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
If you say so. I'm no pro football expert but I didn't see it as
a dumb move, just a failed move.
--
Ken Fortenberry
J.C. Martin
wrote:
Peyton always has the chance to march the ball down the field. But
historically, he tightens up in big games. But he's not going to
tighten up with that kind of gift! It's a matter of playing the odds,
and IMO Billi- played the wrong cards. This wasn't 4th and inches
we're talking about.
I was stunned when he went for it. And I don't agree with Mark.
Peyton gets quick TD's quite a bit. It's much tougher to do that 2
times in a row. Adjustments can be made on the sideline. If the Pats
are worried about their D being gassed in the 4th quarter, well, they
might as well surrender the season. They had the personnel to keep
Manning out of the endzone with 70+ yards in front of him.
-JC
Ken Fortenberry
> "Rogues Island's finest" wrote:
>> Ken's right. The defense was gassed, and Belichick knew it. Same as
>> the AFC Championship game in 2006; Manning was cutting through them
>> like a knife through butter in the 4th quarter last night, and while
>> his decision certainly was controversial (by the way, if Faulk doesn't
>> bobble the ball, the game is over), I know why he did what he did.
>
> I don't think it had that much to do with his defense. I know I have
> all the confidence in the world that the Patriots offense could pick
> up 2 yards at the most critical point in the game...and their coach
> did as well. He's going to get killed for it, but I LOVE the decision
> to go in that situation. The Patriots were carving up the Colts all
> night, he was just playing the odds (they were averaging 6.6 yards per
Playing the odds is right. The Patriots have a 64% success rate on
fourth and two since 2001. You weigh the Pat's 64% chance of picking
up the first down against Manning's chance of scoring again with over
two minutes left. Not exactly a no-brainer no matter which way you go.
> They get the first down and he's the shrewd genius that is
> willing to throw football convention out the window to win a game. As
> it stands, he's a cocky asshole who thinks he's bigger than the game
> and can do whatever he wants. Personally, I don't agree with either
> of those assertions...I just think he liked his chances of gaining 2
> yards.
Yep, me too.
--
Ken Fortenberry
octoad
"Rogues Island's finest" <mth...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:a383db37-602e-4fe9...@h34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 16, 8:42 am, Ken Fortenberry <kennethfortenbe...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> JimK wrote:
> > Wow. I turned the game off with the Pats up 10 with the ball and less
> > than 6 minutes left figuring that even Manning couldn't pull off this
> > miracle. Sounds like he got a little help from the other coach. What
> > an indictment of your own defense.
>
> I think it was more a matter of respecting Manning than indicting
> his own defense. I mean, even if you punt the Colts get the ball
> on their own 20 with over two minutes to go, one timeout and the
> two-minute warning to stop the clock. Face it, the Colts were going
> score again either on a 80 yard drive or a 30 yard drive.
Ken's right. The defense was gassed, and Belichick knew it. Same as
the AFC Championship game in 2006; Manning was cutting through them
like a knife through butter in the 4th quarter last night, and while
his decision certainly was controversial (by the way, if Faulk doesn't
bobble the ball, the game is over), I know why he did what he did.
*********************************************************
Ken is wrong. The Dumb Cheater decided that giving Manning the ball on the
New England 28 was smarter than giving Manning the ball on Manning's 28.
Obviously not.
The gassed NE defense picked Manning twice during this game and held them to
several 3 and outs. But even if you believe, like the Dumb Cheater, that
his defense is garbage and worthless and were playing horribly, it still
makes no sense to give Indy the ball on your own 28 instead of on their 28.
He needs glasses; that's half a football field further for them to have to
go. Further is better than closer, just ask Kadlicek.
Haha, what a great game, what a great moment for the NFL, what a turning
point for the worthless and horrible NE defense, not to mention for the Dumb
Cheater and his Patriots in general.
Great!
O
Ken Fortenberry
> "Rogues Island's finest" wrote:
>> JimK wrote:
>>> Wow. I turned the game off with the Pats up 10 with the ball and less
>>> than 6 minutes left figuring that even Manning couldn't pull off this
>>> miracle. Sounds like he got a little help from the other coach. What
>>> an indictment of your own defense.
>> I think it was more a matter of respecting Manning than indicting
>> his own defense. I mean, even if you punt the Colts get the ball
>> on their own 20 with over two minutes to go, one timeout and the
>> two-minute warning to stop the clock. Face it, the Colts were going
>> score again either on a 80 yard drive or a 30 yard drive.
>
> Ken's right. The defense was gassed, and Belichick knew it. Same as
> the AFC Championship game in 2006; Manning was cutting through them
> like a knife through butter in the 4th quarter last night, and while
> his decision certainly was controversial (by the way, if Faulk doesn't
> bobble the ball, the game is over), I know why he did what he did.
>
> *********************************************************
>
> Ken is wrong. The Dumb Cheater decided that giving Manning the ball on the
> New England 28 was smarter than giving Manning the ball on Manning's 28.
>
You misstate the decision which had to be made. The Pat's didn't
"decide" to come up inches short on fourth and two. After weighing
their chance of success on fourth and two against Manning's chance
of success with over two minutes left they "decided" to go for it.
They failed, but it wasn't dumb to try.
--
Ken Fortenberry
marcman
wrote:
No, it wasn't dumb to try, it was collosally stupid. Unless you're a
2-7 team you do not go for it on 4th and 2 on your own 29 yd line down
by less than 7, with 2 minutes to go against arguably one of the best
QBs in the game, on the road no less and risk handing them the ball
wioth less than 30 yds to the EZ, with no time ouits left! You punt
the ball away and let your defense stop their offense.
But that was just one stupid decision, had the genius managed the
clock better and not wasted his T/Os, they could have kicked it away
on 4th and used their time outs to assure themselves some time left on
the clock if and after Indy goes down the field and scores.
As it was, if they didn't waste their timeouts, not only would they
have been able to review that 4th and 2 (I don't think he got it but
it was close enough to review), but they would have been able to stop
the clock on Indy's last drive and get the ball back down by 1 with
maybe 1 min+ on the clock instead of 13 seconds - more than enough
time for Brady to pull a Manning and win the game.
This wasn't just one bad decision on 4th down by the genius, he
completely mismanaged the last 2 minutes of the game, far worse than
anything I can remember seeing from the Herm Edwards Jets, and
possibly up there in the top five all time worst coaching performances
I ever witnessed.
By losing this game, the Pats all but guaranteed that their road to
the SB this year will be mostly on the road with any AFC championship
game that they may be lucky enough to get to, to be played AT Indy.
Much much harder to win on the road in the playoffs than in the
regular season. And as it stands, if the Jets manage to beat NE next
week (doubtful, but they did it once already), they'll only be one
game back of the genius' team, with the tie breaker in pocket.
So as usual, Ken's opinion is all fucked up. But to his credit, he did
make it through Veterans day without insulting the brave men and women
of our military and those that came before them, and he also managed
to be polite and courteous in the 3Jane thread rather than mocking the
death of the man's father. So maybe some common sense is making it's
way into his immensely fat head after all.
marcman
> Ken Fortenberry wrote:
>
> >You misstate the decision which had to be made. The Pat's didn't
> >"decide" to come up inches short on fourth and two. After weighing
> >their chance of success on fourth and two against Manning's chance
> >of success with over two minutes left they "decided" to go for it.
> >They failed, but it wasn't dumb to try.
>
> morning. It was certainly dumb to try. You put the qb in there and
> have him give a few hard counts. Nobody moves, you call time out and
> put in a punter.
>
> Nobody would hold it against the coach for punting in that situation.
> I wouldn't want to be Belichick in Boston today. Those massholes are
> going to be all over him.
>
> He has a press conference in half an hour. This could be good...
>
Do you know please if the presser will be on NFL Network or ESPN? TIA.
And yes, it should be good, his mini presser last night after the game
was pretty fun to watch! :) :) :)
Ken Fortenberry
> Ken Fortenberry wrote:
>> You misstate the decision which had to be made. The Pat's didn't
>> "decide" to come up inches short on fourth and two. After weighing
>> their chance of success on fourth and two against Manning's chance
>> of success with over two minutes left they "decided" to go for it.
>> They failed, but it wasn't dumb to try.
>
That seems to be the conventional wisdom. I didn't think it
was dumb at all although it certainly was unconventional.
I read somewhere, and stated elsewhere in this thread, that
the Pats historical success rate on fourth and two with Brady
at QB is around 64%. Watching the game last night I would peg
Manning's chances of success on a 80 yard TD march with two
clock stoppages and over two minutes left to play somewhere
way over 64%. More like 85 or 90. If you give the Colts the
ball with that much time left, they're gonna score. So to me
it made sense to to try the fourth and two to keep the ball
away from them.
YMMV
--
Ken Fortenberry
marcman
excuse me please, that should read, "up" by less than 7 . . .
> way into his immensely fat head after all.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
marcman
> Belichick trying to explain his horrid playcalling the last four
> minutes of the game.
>
> Either way, I'd bet that it will be all over the news. Another
> Bawstun implosion... Makes me warm and fuzzy on the inside...
>
He played not to lose instead of to win. What a turning point for the
franchise . . .
> --
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/rosepetal236/- Hide quoted text -
Ken Fortenberry
> chance of giving it to him at the 29 with two minutes left and two
> time outs? 99.9%?
>
> I'd take 10% chance of success over .1% chance of success any day.
>
> YMMV...
Well, my point is with over two minutes left chances are Manning
is going to beat you whether you give him the ball on his 20 or
on your 30. But if you're successful on fourth and two, and chances
are you will be, you don't give him the ball at all and it's damn
near game over.
It looks like a dumb move when it fails but I'm not convinced it was
all that dumb.
--
Ken Fortenberry
Andrew
> On Nov 16, 6:02 am, "Rogues Island's finest" <mthi...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Ken's right. The defense was gassed, and Belichick knew it. Same as
>> the AFC Championship game in 2006; Manning was cutting through them
>> like a knife through butter in the 4th quarter last night, and while
>> his decision certainly was controversial (by the way, if Faulk doesn't
>> bobble the ball, the game is over), I know why he did what he did.
>
> I don't think it had that much to do with his defense. I know I have
> all the confidence in the world that the Patriots offense could pick
> up 2 yards at the most critical point in the game...and their coach
> did as well. He's going to get killed for it, but I LOVE the decision
> to go in that situation.
Okay, let's pretend that going for it on 4th and 2 from your own 28 is a
coherent coaching decision at any time in a game. Okay, huge leap of
faith there. Is calling a pass to Kevin Faulk (on an offense with the
best receiver in the game and the best slot receiver in the game and the
greatest tight end in the world and any other overwrought compliments of
players that Patriots fans would want to engage in) anywhere near the
right play call there?
marcman
If the plan is to go for it on 4th and 2 from your own 29, you better
not waste your time outs so that when you give the ball back to one of
the NFL's most potent offenses with 29 yds to go for the GW TD, you
can at least stop the clock while they score the go ahead TD, and have
some time left on the clock to get *your* very potent offense down the
field for a GW FG.
The genius didn't just fuck up by going for it, it was a series of
fuck ups culminating in one of the worst coaching decisions in recent
NFL history.
Hit yourself in the side of the head with a 2x4 Kenny, and rattle
those rocks in your head around a little and maybe you'll get it.
> But if you're successful on fourth and two, and chances
> are you will be, you don't give him the ball at all and it's damn
> near game over.
>
> It looks like a dumb move when it fails but I'm not convinced it was
> all that dumb.
>
That's because YOU'RE as stupid as the call(s) was/were.
> --
> Ken Fortenberry- Hide quoted text -
Andrew
> Even if they got the first down, it was a dumb decision. No two ways
> about it. This had far more to do with ego than the D being gassed.
Yup. You're putting the whole game on one play. If you punt the ball
away, you give your defense multiple chances to get the job done and at
least 40 extra yards with which to work.
If they get the first down, it is just an utterly dumb decision that
worked. As it is, just a dumb decision.
Andrew
> Nobody would hold it against the coach for punting in that situation.
> I wouldn't want to be Belichick in Boston today. Those massholes are
> going to be all over him.
Nah. They're all gonna rally around their genius and defend his dumb
decision. After all, no one on the Patriots is anything less the the
best in the history of the NFL.
Rogues Island's finest
I agree with you here, didn't like the play call at all.
I'm also amused at the folks with their own anti NE or Belichick
agenda thinking that this loss, although fucking frustrating, is going
to dramatically change the franchise. Get real, nOObs. On to the
Jets.
Mark
marcman
Well, I don't have as much of a problem with the actual play call
(Faulk was open and had henot bobbled tehball it would have been a GW
first down) as I do with the decision, and then before that the
wasting of the T/Os. If the T/Os are gone, the decision to punt away
after trying to force an off sides call on the offense just gets
EASIER.
marcman
Maybe not the franchise, but DEFINTELY this season. If the Patriots
have any SB aspirations this year, they *needed* this game against the
Colts, and BB melted down. And the reason that most football people
are piling on today is more than just the horrendous coaching of the
last two minutes or so of the game, (although thats the most of it)
but also because BB is such a wonderful human being that everybody
likes so much . . .
> Get real, nOObs. On to the
> Jets.
>
Not looking forward to taking on a pissed off Patriots team, but we
did it once and perhaps we'll do it again. The only team under
pressure next week of the two are the Pats. Good luck, Jets fan here
looking very forward to the game.
> Mark- Hide quoted text -
Andrew
Heh. yes. The anti-new england agenda. This is a new one. This is like
the FoxNews version of the "liberal media". I would guess most of those
without a rooting interest in the game last night (like myself) were
pulling for the Pats to knock off the Colts.
As for that game changing the franchise, of course it won't. They still
play in a weak division and have a walk to the playoffs. What it will
change is their travel plans in January.
Sweetbac
I turned this off at 1/2 time
It was either watch the rest of this snoozefest
or peep a 2 hour "Hawaii 5-0" marathon.
Book 'em, Dan-O!
marcman
The Dolphins are coming on (not sure of Ronnie Brown's staus yet, but
his injury looked serious, but Ricky should be able to carry the
running game regardless). If Henne can get his shit together the
Dolphins could get in the way.
And don't get me started about the Jets, check their remaining
schedule (Pats, Carolina, Bills, TB, Atlanta, Indy, Cincy) . . . if
the football Gods allow them the win next week (and they *will* need
God's help to sweep the Pats), the only very tough game on the
schedule after NE is Atlanta (and they're borderline on the very tough
- but have some great skill players - it'll be a tough game for the
Jets to win), and thanks to the Pats, by the time they get Indy, that
game may be wholly irrelevant for Indy and they'll rest all/most
starters, possibly the same for Cincy.
The Jets are one win away (next week) from keeping things very
interesting in the AFC East. Now had the Pats taken care of business
yesterday, and put that fucking game away like they should have, the
outlook for the rest of the season would be very different.
> and have a walk to the playoffs. What it will
> change is their travel plans in January.- Hide quoted text -
octoad
Mark
*******************************************************
Does Teddy Bruschi have an anti NE or Belichick agenda?
According to him, the Dumb Cheater dissed his entire defense and caused them
much consternation. Rodney Harrison was also shocked and appalled.
The ego of the Dumb Cheater got the best of him. Haha..
O
Rogues Island's finest
wrote:
> Does Teddy Bruschi have an anti NE or Belichick agenda?
Nope, they love NE and Bill, and were doing what they were paid to do:
offer opinions. I was talking about you and your ilk, not people who
actually know football.
> According to him, the Dumb Cheater dissed his entire defense and caused them
> much consternation. Rodney Harrison was also shocked and appalled.
The defense SUCKED in the 4th quarter, and very much deserved to be
dissed. The defense cost NE this game by their inability to hold a 17
point lead (with a bit of help from stupid mistakes from Maroney and
the coaching staff), the last superbowl, and the AFC championship in
2006. In every case Brady and the offense put them ahead, and they
couldn't hold the lead.
Hey, aren't you a fan of the Niners, you know, the team that cheated
during their SB run back in the 80s? Glass houses and all....
Mark
Andrew
> The Dolphins are coming on (not sure of Ronnie Brown's staus yet, but
> his injury looked serious, but Ricky should be able to carry the
> running game regardless). If Henne can get his shit together the
> Dolphins could get in the way.
I'll admit. I really dig the Dolphins and the way they are doing
things. Sparano has my coach of the year support for the forseeable
future.
That being said, as much as Sparano is getting out of them, there is a
distinct lack of talent there.
> And don't get me started about the Jets, check their remaining
> schedule (Pats, Carolina, Bills, TB, Atlanta, Indy, Cincy) . . . if
> the football Gods allow them the win next week (and they *will* need
> God's help to sweep the Pats), the only very tough game on the
> schedule after NE is Atlanta (and they're borderline on the very tough
> - but have some great skill players - it'll be a tough game for the
> Jets to win), and thanks to the Pats, by the time they get Indy, that
> game may be wholly irrelevant for Indy and they'll rest all/most
> starters, possibly the same for Cincy.
You could have saved all those words and just said that if everything
breaks right for the Jets the rest of the way, they could possibly go
2-5.
marcman
LOL, you're allright, kid. I hate being a Jets fan, but it tiz what it
tiz.
3jane.
> > breaks right for the Jets the rest of the way, they could possibly go
> > 2-5.
>
> LOL, you're allright, kid. I hate being a Jets fan, but it tiz what it
Look at the bright side, you could be a Redskins fan. Or worse, a
Broncos fan (this week anyway).
Brad Greer
<avant...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 16, 7:40�am, Ken Fortenberry <kennethfortenbe...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> J.C. Martin wrote:
>> > Ken Fortenberry wrote:
>> >> JimK wrote:
>> >>> Wow. I turned the game off with the Pats up 10 with the ball and less
>> >>> than 6 minutes left figuring that even Manning couldn't pull off this
>> >>> miracle. Sounds like he got a little help from the other coach. What
>> >>> an indictment of your own defense.
>> >> I think it was more a matter of respecting Manning than indicting
>> >> his own defense. I mean, even if you punt the Colts get the ball
>> >> on their own 20 with over two minutes to go, one timeout and the
>> >> two-minute warning to stop the clock. Face it, the Colts were going
>> >> score again either on a 80 yard drive or a 30 yard drive.
>>
>> > Bullshit. �Manning has choked a good many "big" games in his career,
>> > and it's certainly not a guaranteed touchdown when he has to get in
>> > the endzone from the other side of the field in 2 minutes.
>>
>> Well, given that he had just done so (79 yard TD drive, six plays
>> in 1:49) moments before, I certainly liked his chances. The best
>> way to neutralize Manning is to keep the ball out of his hands.
>>
>> > You NEVER
>> > do something as idiotic as that. �It's not as if the Colts didn't have
>> > the speed at the line to make a play. �Sheesh. �Dumb, dumb, dumb.
>>
>> If you say so. I'm no pro football expert but I didn't see it as
>> a dumb move, just a failed move.
>>
>> --
>> Ken Fortenberry
>
>
>
>Peyton always has the chance to march the ball down the field. But
>historically, he tightens up in big games. But he's not going to
>tighten up with that kind of gift! It's a matter of playing the odds,
>and IMO Billi- played the wrong cards. This wasn't 4th and inches
>we're talking about.
>
Here's what the Colts did in the second half prior to that (very, very
bad) decision:
- Six plays, 79 yards, touchdown.
� One play, zero yards, interception.
� Five plays, 79 yards, touchdown.
� Six plays, 16 yards, punt.
� Four plays, 24 yards, interception.
� Five plays, 16 yards, punt.
� Three plays, no yards, punt.
Seven possession with two interceptions and three punts. I would have
trusted the defense, especially since the Colts needed a touchdown,
not just a field goal.
Brad Greer
wrote:
>Ken Fortenberry wrote:
>>
>>You misstate the decision which had to be made. The Pat's didn't
>>"decide" to come up inches short on fourth and two. After weighing
>>their chance of success on fourth and two against Manning's chance
>>of success with over two minutes left they "decided" to go for it.
>>They failed, but it wasn't dumb to try.
>
>
>I don't even watch football but I couldn't escape it on ESPN this
>morning. It was certainly dumb to try. You put the qb in there and
>have him give a few hard counts. Nobody moves, you call time out and
>put in a punter.
>
That would have been an interesting strategy had the Pats not blown
two timeouts in the 30 seconds before the play in question, leaving
them with none. Although they could have taken a 5 yard delay of game
penalty if the Colts didn't bite (and probably slowed down the Colts
rush, giving Brady more time to make a better play).
Jer
> coherent coaching decision at any time in a game. Okay, huge leap of
> faith there. Is calling a pass to Kevin Faulk (on an offense with the
> best receiver in the game and the best slot receiver in the game and the
> greatest tight end in the world and any other overwrought compliments of
> players that Patriots fans would want to engage in) anywhere near the
> right play call there?
That I agree with. Their offensive line was pummeling the Colts all
night. You mean to tell me they couldn't blow the Colts off of the
line to get two yards at the most crucial point of the game? At least
go play action. I fucking hate the shotgun in short yardage
situations. Unless you are running a draw, there is no element of
surprise, and that, more often than not, is the key to converting in
short yardage situations.
Nevertheless, the Colts still had to put the ball in the endzone, and
the Patriots defense was exposed. Then again, what do you expect from
that group of linebackers and defensive backs? Face it, with the
exception of Merriweather and Mayo, they are average at best. Leigh
Bodden couldn't hack it in Cleveland or Detroit...he's not going to
turn into Dick Lane overnight.
-J
marcman
wrote:
>
> Playing the odds is right. The Patriots have a 64% success rate on
> fourth and two since 2001. You weigh the Pat's 64% chance of picking
> up the first down against Manning's chance of scoring again with over
> two minutes left. Not exactly a no-brainer no matter which way you go.
>
>
> --
> Ken Fortenberry
Just to show that I'm a fair and balanced Fortenberry hater, here's a
great link that supports (kind of) his assertion that BB's decision
was the right decision based on statistical evidence. Of course there
are intangibles that the raw stats don't account for - which is what
Fuckheadberry is missing - but still, strictly based on stats, he's
right. Just keep in mind if the game of football was played simply
based on stats, computers would be calling the plays, not human
beings. Overall, I still believe the correct move was to punt, but
given Fortenberry's assertion re: the stats of the situation, here's
the link that he should have posted if he wasn't such a pompous ass
that thinks everybody should take his word for something because he
fucking says so.
http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/11/belichicks-4th-down-decision-vs-colts.html
Ken Fortenberry
>> historically, he tightens up in big games. But he's not going to
>> tighten up with that kind of gift! It's a matter of playing the odds,
>> and IMO Billi- played the wrong cards. This wasn't 4th and inches
>> we're talking about.
>>
> Here's what the Colts did in the second half prior to that (very, very
> bad) decision:
>
> - Six plays, 79 yards, touchdown.
>
> � One play, zero yards, interception.
>
> � Five plays, 79 yards, touchdown.
>
> � Six plays, 16 yards, punt.
>
>
> Seven possession with two interceptions and three punts. I would have
> trusted the defense, especially since the Colts needed a touchdown,
> not just a field goal.
In the fourth quarter before the third touchdown, four possessions,
one punt, one interception and two touchdowns. That's a defense you
would trust ?
Can you honestly say, after watching the game, that Manning and the
Colts would have had less than a 64% chance of scoring a touchdown
from their own 20 with over two minutes to play ? I thought it was
damn near inevitable which is why I didn't think going for it on
fourth and two was a dumb move.
YMMV
--
Ken Fortenberry
octoad
On Nov 16, 12:36 pm, bitter fan of a shitty team, with an agenda
wrote:
>> Does Teddy Bruschi have an anti NE or Belichick agenda?
> Nope, they love NE and Bill, and were doing what they were paid to do:
> offer opinions. I was talking about you and your ilk, not people who
> actually know football.
Yikes! We aren't taking this seriously, are we? I'm just having fun poking
the Dumb Cheater and his massive ego.
>> According to him, the Dumb Cheater dissed his entire defense and caused
>> them
>> much consternation. Rodney Harrison was also shocked and appalled.
> The defense SUCKED in the 4th quarter, and very much deserved to be
> dissed.
Yeah, they sure miss guys like Bruschi and Harrison who are appalled,
ashamed, embarassed, humiliated, devastated, nearly rendered sterile and who
are now near suicide because of Belichick's horrendous call.
Not to mention Samuel, Vrabel, Seymour, etc. etc. They're a different team,
that's for sure.
But still one that had given up the fewest points of any team in the league
this year, a stat that amazed me when I heard it, considering all the guys
they've lost. Wow, the best defense in the league in terms of preventing
scores, the BEST; yet the evil, egomaniacal coach STILL refuses to allow
them to defend for EIGHTY yards. No way guys! Trust the BEST team in the
league in terms of preventing scores to defend almost an entire football
field in a game in which they already had two INT's??? You SUCK! I'm
calling a weird little pass play to some nobody instead, and risking the
whole season on it rather than count on YOU shmucks!
If you think they suck now, I bet they REALLY suck the rest of the year
after that monumental dissing.
> The defense cost NE this game by their inability to hold a 17
> point lead (with a bit of help from stupid mistakes from Maroney and
> the coaching staff), the last superbowl, and the AFC championship in
> 2006. In every case Brady and the offense put them ahead, and they
> couldn't hold the lead.
> Hey, aren't you a fan of the Niners,
Still in the running for the division title!!! All they need is a pro QB, a
pro offensive coordinator, half of an offensive line, a second running back,
2 pass rushers, and a cornerback and they'll threaten to go 500!
> you know, the team that cheated
> during their SB run back in the 80s?
The 80's??? That was TWENTY years, that's TWO decades of dominance. TWENTY
YEARS! At no time did the true genius, Bill "The Genius" Walsh, or his
successors, mini-geniuses Seifert and Mariucci, ever diss their defenses so
personally, so publicly, so rudely on national TV during the biggest game of
the year, in essence screaming from the mountaintops that a team that had
given up the fewest points in the league was in fact a mirage, a hoax, a
lie!
Maybe Belichick has been stealing plays and signs via illegally obtained
video during the early part of this year, and maybe the system broke down in
the second half last night. Dunno, but, it sure is fun to wildly allege it!
O
Andrew
wrote:
You keep saying over 2 minutes to play, but the two minute warning
occurred directly after that 4th down play. If the Pats had punted on
the 4th down, the 2min warning would have fallen after than play too.
Would the Colts have scored? Who knows, but I don't give them a 64%
chance to get the touchdown starting from their own 28. Not by a long
shot.
marcman
> "Rogues Island's finest" <mthi...@cox.net> wrote in messagenews:01db6e64-3a4e-4987...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> > Hey, aren't you a fan of the Niners,
>
> Still in the running for the division title!!! All they need is a pro QB, a
> pro offensive coordinator, half of an offensive line, a second running back,
> 2 pass rushers, and a cornerback and they'll threaten to go 500!
>
any RB tandem in the league. I'd much rather have Gore on my team
that Brown/Williams (mia). In fact here's very few individual RBs I'd
take over Gore, Gore is a BEAST!
Brad Greer
wrote:
Agreed. They only had one timeout and they needed a touchdown. At
best I'd say it was 50/50 the Colts would have scored.
Rogues Island's finest
> On Nov 16, 12:36 pm, bitter fan of a shitty team, with an agenda
> wrote:
>
> >> Does Teddy Bruschi have an anti NE or Belichick agenda?
> > Nope, they love NE and Bill, and were doing what they were paid to do:
> > offer opinions. I was talking about you and your ilk, not people who
> > actually know football.
>
> Yikes! We aren't taking this seriously, are we? I'm just having fun poking
> the Dumb Cheater and his massive ego.
Damn right I'm taking it seriously, I stayed up fucking late to watch
them rip defeat from the jaws of victory.
Plus I think I'm getting my period.
Mark
Steve Terry
> In all my years watching football.... No. In all my years watching
> sports of any kind, that ranks right up there as the dumbest decision by
> a head coach that I have ever seen...
But the play call accomplished exactly what it was supposed to do.
Belichek absolutely did not want Peyton to beat his Patriots. Well,
guess what? Peyton didn't beat the Patriots. Belichek did. Brilliant!
octoad
"marcman" <marcman...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d198ae94-6415-4a17...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Gore is great, but he has a tendency to miss games due to injuries, and if
he were to go down for several games in a row or god forbid an entire
season, they have nothing.
They drafted that Glen Coffee guy, who wasn't bad in pre-season, but he
hasn't added much during the regular season. It would be nice if they had
some dude who could come in and spell Gore for a few series here and there,
show something different, like, say.....the Miami duo.
And if Gore went down at least they could still TRY to run the ball. Its
not like they have much of a passing game..........
O
octoad
Mark
**************************************************************
I hear ya man, I almost bled out during the Niner "win" over da Bears, and
they pretty much ruined the prior weekend with their cosmically inept
performance against the Titans.
When your team is the Niners, you have to find fun in things like the
biggest ego in football getting blasted by all his former stars for being an
imbecile.
Now if only Bruschi or Harrison would call him a Dumb Cheater, my year in
football would be made.
O
marcman
> "marcman" <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I'd have to double check my numbers, but I thought Coffee did well
spelling Gore when Gore missed a few games earlier this season. Of
course even if he did, he's far from being a true Gore
replacement . . .
KenF
> Ken Fortenberry wrote:
> > Can you honestly say, after watching the game, that Manning and the
> > Colts would have had less than a 64% chance of scoring a touchdown
> > from their own 20 with over two minutes to play ? I thought it was
> > damn near inevitable which is why I didn't think going for it on
> > fourth and two was a dumb move.
>
> You keep saying over 2 minutes to play, but the two minute warning
> occurred directly after that 4th down play. If the Pats had punted on
> the 4th down, the 2min warning would have fallen after than play too.
Maybe, maybe not. A punt and a fair catch would have left more than
two minutes.
> Would the Colts have scored? Who knows, but I don't give them a 64%
> chance to get the touchdown starting from their own 28. Not by a long
> shot.
Well, given the way the fourth quarter had been played up to that
point
I gave the Colts an almost 100% chance of scoring the winning
touchdown
starting anywhere outside their own 20.
At any rate, I don't think it was as dumb a move as most folks seem to
think,
in fact I don't think it was a dumb move at all, just an
unconventional move.
--
Ken Fortenberry
octoad
*******************************************************8
Frank Gore:
105 attempts 551 yards 5.2 yard avg
Glen Coffee:
75 attempts 198 yards 2.6 yard avg.
Gore has several long, game breaking runs and 6 TD's while Coffee's longest
run is 17 yards. He's rushed for one TD.
O
marcman
The thing with those stats though is that Gore had two monster runs of
50+ yds for TDs that inflated his YPC stats. I mean still it sounts
but its not imo fairly representative as a comparison to league
averages in YPC. If you remove those two long runs, what is his YPC
numbers? In any event, there's no argument here, I'm not taking teh
position that Coffee equals Gore, just that the Niners could do a lot
worse than Coffee in the backup RB position. Let's see how well
Bernard Scott spells Cedric Benson, and how well Snelling spells
Michael Turner. All in all though . . . Gore is a very difficult RB
to lose and try and find a replacement for. IMO, he's better than both
Benson and Turner. Maybe SF should take a look at Larry Johnson??
pol...@my-deja.com
>
If that pass gets the two yards it was supposed to, everyone would be
saying "That's why he's Bill Bellichek" and preparing his bust for
Canton.
KenF
> KenF wrote:
> >Andrew wrote:
> >> Ken Fortenberry wrote:
> >> > Can you honestly say, after watching the game, that Manning and the
> >> > Colts would have had less than a 64% chance of scoring a touchdown
> >> > from their own 20 with over two minutes to play ? I thought it was
> >> > damn near inevitable which is why I didn't think going for it on
> >> > fourth and two was a dumb move.
>
> >> You keep saying over 2 minutes to play, but the two minute warning
> >> occurred directly after that 4th down play. If the Pats had punted on
> >> the 4th down, the 2min warning would have fallen after than play too.
>
> >Maybe, maybe not. A punt and a fair catch would have left more than
> >two minutes.
>
> >> Would the Colts have scored? Who knows, but I don't give them a 64%
> >> chance to get the touchdown starting from their own 28. Not by a long
> >> shot.
>
> >Well, given the way the fourth quarter had been played up to that point
> >I gave the Colts an almost 100% chance of scoring the winning touchdown
> >starting anywhere outside their own 20.
>
What's changed when 85-90 isn't almost 100 ?
> >At any rate, I don't think it was as dumb a move as most folks seem to think,
> >in fact I don't think it was a dumb move at all, just an unconventional move.
>
> If you can't see it was a dumb move after the fact...
There's a difference between failed and dumb.
--
Ken Fortenberry
dabassguy1
If that pass gets the two yards it was supposed to, everyone would be
saying "That's why he's Bill Bellichek" and preparing his bust for
Canton.
==================
They are preparing his bust for Canton. One incredibly dumb decision did
not change that.
Jeff
octoad
> The thing with those stats though is that Gore had two monster runs of
> 50+ yds for TDs that inflated his YPC stats. I mean still it sounts
> but its not imo fairly representative as a comparison to league
> averages in YPC. If you remove those two long runs, what is his YPC
> numbers?
If you remove those long runs what's the Niners win/loss record?
> In any event, there's no argument here, I'm not taking teh
> position that Coffee equals Gore, just that the Niners could do a lot
> worse than Coffee in the backup RB position. Let's see how well
> Bernard Scott spells Cedric Benson, and how well Snelling spells
> Michael Turner. All in all though . . . Gore is a very difficult RB
> to lose and try and find a replacement for. IMO, he's better than both
> Benson and Turner. Maybe SF should take a look at Larry Johnson??
Yes, they should. Just as they should have signed Kurt Warner, and just as
they should immediately fire alleged Offensive Coordinator Jimmy Raye and
hire someone who isn't a complete and total hack who might hang around for a
couple of years and give whoever the QB is a chance to succeed.
Yeah, right.......
O
Andrew
Exactly.
Andrew
>
> Yes, they should.
No. No they shouldn't. He has no burst anymore, and hasn't for a couple
of seasons now. Think Shaun Alexander in his last couple years in
Seattle. He is toast... And an ignorant asshole to boot.
Kelly Humphries
> And that five-millisecond "handshake" at the end. What's up with that?
I mean, really. Was he late for a big bowling date or something?
Rogues Island's finest
Who cares? I mean, who fucking cares about the length and quality of
post game handshakes?
I am amazed that people really talk about this stuff.
Mark
Ken Fortenberry
> J.C. Martin wrote:
>> Even if they got the first down, it was a dumb decision. No two ways
>> about it. This had far more to do with ego than the D being gassed.
>
> Yup. You're putting the whole game on one play. If you punt the ball
> away, you give your defense multiple chances to get the job done and at
> least 40 extra yards with which to work.
>
> If they get the first down, it is just an utterly dumb decision that
> worked. As it is, just a dumb decision.
ZEUS has spoken. Belichick made the correct call.
or in the case of wrapping:
--
Ken Fortenberry
Neil X
>
> In all my years watching football.... No. In all my years watching
> sports of any kind, that ranks right up there as the dumbest decision by
> a head coach that I have ever seen...
I attended the Pats/Falcons game earlier this year, and BB did the
exact same thing at the same time in the game at almost the identical
part of the field. He went for a first down on 4th and 1 from the
Pats 28, with the Pats ahead with the clock winding down in the 4th
quarter. No one said a word against it. Of course, that's because
the Pats converted the first down. And this wasn't a Peyton Manning
led offense that they were keeping off of the field, it was the
marginally-ept Falcons. Bill plays to win the games. Personally, I
love the call but obviously hated the result. I hope he does the same
thing again, should the same situation occur.
Peace,
Neil X.
marcman
wrote:
> Andrew wrote:
> > J.C. Martin wrote:
> >> Even if they got the first down, it was a dumb decision. No two ways
> >> about it. This had far more to do with ego than the D being gassed.
>
> > Yup. You're putting the whole game on one play. If you punt the ball
> > away, you give your defense multiple chances to get the job done and at
> > least 40 extra yards with which to work.
>
> > If they get the first down, it is just an utterly dumb decision that
> > worked. As it is, just a dumb decision.
>
> ZEUS has spoken. Belichick made the correct call.
>
Wow, look at that, an article linking to the website that I provided
yesterday (supporting pieces of Fathead's argument).
Too bad for the group that Fatheadberry is such a PUSSY.
If he wasn't such an unstable emotional wreck of an evil human being,
he wouldn't be such a time wasting, fat headed ignoramus.
Neil X
>
> He played not to lose instead of to win. What a turning point for the
> franchise . . .
No, you've got it exactly backwards. He played to win the game,
instead of not to lose. He gains two yards on one play, the game is
over, the Patriots win. You punt the ball away, then you're playing
not to lose. He tried to grab the game by the throat and seize
victory. It didn't work, but I love the aggresiveness of it.
Peace,
Neil X.
marcman
> Ken Fortenberry <kennethfortenbe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Andrew wrote:
> >> J.C. Martin wrote:
> >>> Even if they got the first down, it was a dumb decision. No two ways
> >>> about it. This had far more to do with ego than the D being gassed.
>
> >> Yup. You're putting the whole game on one play. If you punt the ball
> >> away, you give your defense multiple chances to get the job done and at
> >> least 40 extra yards with which to work.
>
> >> If they get the first down, it is just an utterly dumb decision that
> >> worked. As it is, just a dumb decision.
>
> >ZEUS has spoken. Belichick made the correct call.
>
>
> In other words, a computer program can replace him and get the same
> result. I'm sure it's much cheaper to hire a computer program. Fire
> Belichick and hire ZEUS!!!!!!!!
>
Like I said yesterday, if stats were all that mattered, computers
would be calling the plays, not people.
I'm just curious, anybody know if Kenny is college educated?
> --
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/rosepetal236/- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ken Fortenberry
> Ken Fortenberry wrote:
>> Andrew wrote:
>>> J.C. Martin wrote:
>>>> Even if they got the first down, it was a dumb decision.
>>>
>>> worked. As it is, just a dumb decision.
>>
>> ZEUS has spoken. Belichick made the correct call.
>
There's more to coaching in the NFL than making the correct call
on fourth and two in the waning minutes of the fourth quarter.
--
Ken Fortenberry
Kelly Humphries
> On Nov 16, 11:13�pm, Kelly Humphries <kpiscesatspeakeasydotorg> wrote:
> > Kelly Humphries <kpiscesatspeakeasydotorg> wrote:
> > > And that five-millisecond "handshake" at the end. �What's up with that?
> >
> > I mean, really. �Was he late for a big bowling date or something?
>
> Who cares? I mean, who fucking cares about the length and quality of
> post game handshakes?
Nobody cares about it. Well, maybe people with a sense of humor about a
Pats loss to Indy, but how many of them could there be?
> I am amazed that people really talk about this stuff.
Sorry man, didn't mean to poke you that hard. Let's just go back to
talking about....whatever aspect of football we were talking about, as
long as it isn't as banal a topic as this one....
Rogues Island's finest
> "Rogues Island's finest" <mthi...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 16, 11:13 pm, Kelly Humphries <kpiscesatspeakeasydotorg> wrote:
> > > Kelly Humphries <kpiscesatspeakeasydotorg> wrote:
> > > > And that five-millisecond "handshake" at the end. What's up with that?
>
> > > I mean, really. Was he late for a big bowling date or something?
>
> > Who cares? I mean, who fucking cares about the length and quality of
> > post game handshakes?
>
> Nobody cares about it. Well, maybe people with a sense of humor about a
> Pats loss to Indy, but how many of them could there be?
My sarcasm detector is in the shop.
> > I am amazed that people really talk about this stuff.
>
> Sorry man, didn't mean to poke you that hard. Let's just go back to
> talking about....whatever aspect of football we were talking about, as
> long as it isn't as banal a topic as this one....
Kelly, you will forgive me if I am not all rainbows and unicorns on
this subject. I am still, two days later, stomping around my house
wishing I had cats so that I could kick them.
Mark
Lfh
> > ZEUS has spoken. Belichick made the correct call.
>
> >http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/16/zeus-computer-program-s...
>
> > or in the case of wrapping:
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/yz6ka8d
>
> > --
> > Ken Fortenberry
>
> Wow, look at that, an article linking to the website that I provided
> yesterday (supporting pieces of Fathead's argument).
>
> Too bad for the group that Fatheadberry is such a PUSSY.
>
> If he wasn't such an unstable emotional wreck of an evil human being,
> he wouldn't be such a time wasting, fat headed ignoramus.
Heh. Regardless of the veracity of any of the above, it's clear that
he still owns you. Maybe you need to explore why you would sign up to
be the little bitch for such a PUSSY, etc. I'm sensing issues here.
Fre(u)d
Lfh
wrote:
> >> ZEUS has spoken. Belichick made the correct call.
>
> > In other words, a computer program can replace him and get the same
> > result. ...
>
> There's more to coaching in the NFL than making the correct call
> on fourth and two in the waning minutes of the fourth quarter.
Yeah, the double switch, for one.
Fred
Brad Greer
wrote:
Only in the NFC. The AFC has more strategy, though.
octoad
"Rogues Island's finest" <mth...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:065eca62-b0cb-41e8...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Mark
**************************************************************
See, its hissy fits like the millisecond handshake that make it so wonderful
for us regular, normal, non-Pats fans when they lose.
Belichick is despised for many things, one of which is his childish attitude
when he blows a big call and causes his team to lose. He's an egomaniacal
punk sore losing cheater, and most of the world loves it when that
description manifests itself on national TV.
The handshake fits our narrative; that's why people talk about stuff like
that.
O
JimK
wrote:
It's not true that the situation was the same in the Falcon game. In
that game, the 4th down attempt occured with about 5 minutes left in
the 3rd quarter, not the 4th. In my opinion, it was a bad call even
under those circumstances, maybe worse than the one against the Colts
where it could at least be argued that he would have iced the game if
they made it.
JimK
JimK
But there's nothing preventing a coach from using a computer to make
those calls. So why don't they? Because using computer simulations to
determine if a play will work is just silly.
JimK
Ken Fortenberry
You've misstated the decision that had to be made. The decision
was not, "will this play work", rather the decision was between
punting and going for it. Both Belichick and the computer made
the correct decision.
As for deciding which play to use on fourth and two, I don't of
a computer simulation which will give you that answer.
--
Ken Fortenberry
Rogues Island's finest
I agree, which is why I understand Belichick's decision. He remembers
2006 just like I do (when Manning, under very similar circumstances,
led his team down the field at the end and quickly ran over a
exhausted defense), and even referenced that on the radio last night,
he apparently knew his defense was gassed, had zero pass rush with
Warren, Banta-Cain and Green all out, and he figured he'd let his
offense have a very solid chance to win the game rather than watching
Manning lead another 1:53 minute TD drive.
Mark
Neil X
It was a worse call against the Falcons. But no one said a word about
it, because it worked. I realize that this is a results oriented
endeavor, and failure is failure. But I do like the call, and I think
it works most of the time.
On the other hand, stopping Manning with Warren, Green and Banta-Cain
all on the sidelines is probably not going to happen very often.
There were several coaching mistakes made by Bill on Sunday, but that
call wasn't one of them. After losing the ball, the Pats have to let
the Colts score on the next play. Just let them march right in the
end zone. Then Brady has 1:50 to get into field goal range. Also, if
you know you are in 4 down territory, you select different plays--two
quick outs to the sidelines are a poor strategy if you know you have
two plays. There's plenty of blame to affix to Bill, but not for the
reasons that most folks seem to think.
Peace,
Neil X.
marcman
Good question, Fred.
Answer: Because I don't like the fat headed pussy and I'm an
opinionated sunovabitch myself.
Andrew
>> Andrew wrote:
>>
>> In all my years watching football.... No. In all my years watching
>> sports of any kind, that ranks right up there as the dumbest decision by
>> a head coach that I have ever seen...
>
>
> I attended the Pats/Falcons game earlier this year, and BB did the
> exact same thing at the same time in the game at almost the identical
> part of the field. He went for a first down on 4th and 1 from the
> Pats 28, with the Pats ahead with the clock winding down in the 4th
> quarter. No one said a word against it.
I didn't watch that game, so I know nothing about it... If he in fact
did the same thing, that is just the first in a series of two completely
terrible decisions, one of which he got away with.
Andrew
Oh. Heh. Yeah. The "exact same thing at the same time". Heh.
And you're right. That is probably worse than the call Sunday.
JimK
wrote:
It was certainly an interesting week in the NFL. I'd be interested in
hearing some opinions on the Jones-Drew play in the Jax v. Jets game.
Just to recap, Jax was down 1 with a little under 2 minutes left in
the game and had the ball at the Jets 10 yard line. Jones-Drew was on
his way into the end zone for a TD and the Jets, who had no time outs
left, were trying to let him score so they would have time for another
possession. Jones-Drew then intentionally took a knee at the 1 yard
line to end the play with the clock still running. They subsequently
kicked a chip shot FG as time expired.
A lot of people have praised Jones-Drew for being smart enough to take
the knee, although he later revealed that the coaching staff had told
him to do it if the situation arose. I'm not so sure it was that smart
a thing to do with Jax losing at the time. They would have looked
pretty bad if the FG had been missed or botched by a bad snap,
although the chances of that happening are admittedly pretty small.
JimK
JimK
If I don't like somebody, I usually let them know and then have
nothing more to do with them. But that's just me.
JimK
sacha
anytime a ball is snapped bad things can happen. Think Joe Pisarcik...
marcman
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:56:05 -0800, Andrew <amur...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Neil X wrote:
> >>> Andrew wrote:
>
> >>> In all my years watching football.... No. In all my years watching
> >>> sports of any kind, that ranks right up there as the dumbest decision by
> >>> a head coach that I have ever seen...
>
> >> I attended the Pats/Falcons game earlier this year, and BB did the
> >> exact same thing at the same time in the game at almost the identical
> >> part of the field. He went for a first down on 4th and 1 from the
> >> Pats 28, with the Pats ahead with the clock winding down in the 4th
> >> quarter. No one said a word against it.
>
> >I didn't watch that game, so I know nothing about it... If he in fact
> >did the same thing, that is just the first in a series of two completely
> >terrible decisions, one of which he got away with.
>
> It was certainly an interesting week in the NFL. I'd be interested in
> hearing some opinions on the Jones-Drew play in the Jax v. Jets game.
>
> Just to recap, Jax was down 1 with a little under 2 minutes left in
> the game and had the ball at the Jets 10 yard line. Jones-Drew was on
> his way into the end zone for a TD and the Jets, who had no time outs
> left, were trying to let him score so they would have time for another
> possession.
Which is exactly what Belichick, with no time outs left because he
blew two of them on the Pats last drive, should have instructed his
defense to do when Addai ran the ball to the 1 yd line with 1:06 left,
instead of tackling him at the one yard line enabling Indy to huddle
up and run the rest of the clock down before one more run and then the
TD pass to Wayne. Had Belichick done that, the Pats would have had
most of a minute, maybe more, which imo is enough time for Brady to
set them up in FG range, to win the game.
> Jones-Drew then intentionally took a knee at the 1 yard
> line to end the play with the clock still running.
Which is exactly what Addai should have done, although in Addai's case
it worked out ok anyway because he was tackled by NE on the 1 yd line.
> They subsequently
> kicked a chip shot FG as time expired.
>
As Manning subsequently hit Wayne in the EZ for the GW TD.
> A lot of people have praised Jones-Drew for being smart enough to take
> the knee, although he later revealed that the coaching staff had told
> him to do it if the situation arose. I'm not so sure it was that smart
> a thing to do with Jax losing at the time. They would have looked
> pretty bad if the FG had been missed or botched by a bad snap,
> although the chances of that happening are admittedly pretty small.
>
I like the call by Jax.
> JimK- Hide quoted text -
marcman
If we were all the same the world would be a very boring place. :)
marcman
Good example, but you don't have to go back that far.
Just think Chad Henne and the Dolphins last Sunday with the game
wrapped up against TB, throwing from middle-deep in his own end zone
instead of handing the ball off to run out the clock, and then getting
intercepted allowing TB to score. Now Miaimi managed to drive down the
field into FG range on their next and the final possesion of the game
so that bonehead play hasn't gotten much press this week.
Andrew
I'm with you. If Jax had already been up, the right play is to take a
knee at the 1 and run out the clock. Behind? Score the points and play
defense.
If you can't play defense, your season is already over, so it doesn't
matter if you win that particular game or not...
marcman
> sacha wrote:
> > On Nov 17, 3:41 pm, JimK <jkezw...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> A lot of people have praised Jones-Drew for being smart enough to take
> >> the knee, although he later revealed that the coaching staff had told
> >> him to do it if the situation arose. I'm not so sure it was that smart
> >> a thing to do with Jax losing at the time. They would have looked
> >> pretty bad if the FG had been missed or botched by a bad snap,
> >> although the chances of that happening are admittedly pretty small.
>
> >> JimK
>
> > anytime a ball is snapped bad things can happen. Think Joe Pisarcik...
>
> I'm with you. If Jax had already been up, the right play is to take a
> knee at the 1 and run out the clock. Behind? Score the points and play
> defense.
>
Andrew, I thought you were smarter than this. The reason this play
made sense is because Jax wouldn't have had to stop any old NFL
offense, they would have had to stop the monstrous offensive
juggernaut that is Sanchez and the Jets-ssssssssss. In that light,
I'm sure you'll agree it was a great call by Jax . . .
Andrew
Of course, if you ask ZEUS or Advanced NFL stats, they'll tell you that
MJD taking the knee at the 1 provides Jax with a 98.5 WP while scoring
the TD and kicking to the Jets reduces that WP to like 60, assuming I
believe that they are applying their probabilities correctly.