If they hadnt let them score and the giants kicked a field goal as time expired EVERYONE calls out BB for not letting them score and giving Tom a chance to win it...
-
Comment -
Mike Holgrem and Brett Favre/Bill Belichick and Tom Brady. It doesn't get any better than those coach/qb combos. Neither one of them could let another good team score a touchdown intentionally and win the game with very little time driving the length of the field and a couple of time outs. You might as well have Raheem Morris/Josh Freeman or Spags/Sam Bradford in those situations. You get the same result.Comment -
such a great feeling needing them -3.5 on the alt. line...like a great story book ending
Comment -
I hear what you are saying just think it's a lose lose situation...very little chance they miss and very little chance they score a td with 1 time out and less then a minute left...if the kickoff rule hadn't changed a return for a td would be another chance to score a td but again kickoff all of these have a very small chance of getting you the W...Comment -
Dude, do you understand that they were still VERY LIKELY going to lose? Probably 90% to lose. But that's better than 95% to lose, is it not? Pretty much by definition, these are usually very dire situations. And since it's so rare where it comes together and makes sense in time and situation, you aren't going to see it result in a win very often. But that doesn't prove that it isn't better than the alternative.Comment -
If its such a great strategy why don't coaches do it during the regular season. They let the clock run down and try to ice the kicker. Do teams think that it's a great idea in the super bowl but a stupid idea during the regular season?Comment -
No, it's just that the correct situation where it make sense is quite rare. The score, time, possession, down, yard line and TO's have to match up. There are pretty narrow situations where it's a no-brainer. That said, coaches do sometimes miss it, or players don't execute. There have also been a couple situations where the offense went down and didn't comply.
It has nothing to do with Super Bowl vs. regular season. Nothing.Comment -
Bradshaw..was told in the huddle not to scoreComment -
Teams score TD's with less than a minute all the time. It happens. Hell, these Pats did it with almost the exact same time against the Broncos at the end of the first half a few weeks ago. They had time to spare, if I recall.Comment -
Ask Tony Romo about chip-shot kicks that are supposed to be automatic.Comment -
The kicker was probably the happiest to see the TD.Comment -
Is it possible to be this dumb? What's your definition of it working sir? The idea is to give yourself the best chance to win the game in an already shitty situation. Choice 1: Let them run the clock down to 15 seconds and kick a 22 yd fg (basically 98% chance of making) leaving you time for a kick return an 1 play. Choice 2: Let them score a TD and now you have a minute and a timeout to go down and score. Obviously #2 isn't a great spot either but you certainly have a better chance to win with a minute to score a TD than you do praying a kicker misses a 23 yd fg.Comment -
That was the 1 in 100. Meanwhile, Tynes has made at least 134 PAT's in a row, has never missed inside 20 and has made at least 24 in a row inside 30. He would have been 99% to make the FG. Brady had better than the 1% chance to get the TD on that possession.
This whole thing isn't even really debatable.Comment -
I feel if they were going to let them score they should have done it earlier. Before the 2 minute warning would have been the way to do it. If you honestly believe the kicker would make a fg of 38 and inside then let them score and give your "all world" QB time to go down and score. But give him more than 57 seconds!Comment -
Brady and pats offense with one minute and one time out to drive the field VS extra point type of field goal not working out. There's no real discussion. You would rather watch somebody kick a FG inside the 10 yard line with 3 seconds on the clock as opposed to having a chance to drive the field? Give me a break.Comment -
The issue here is how likely is a team to score a TD with less than a minute to go vs hoping the other team misses the FG. The "letting them score" part is really irrelevant to the analysis as that's just the mechanisim for setting the scenario. As a result, the fact the Pats did exactly what they were trying to do last night three weeks ago should be instructive.Comment -
Oh, sorry, I misread your first post, thought you were saying something else. Still, scoring at the end of a first half is totally different from scoring a TD in this situation.
Anybody who honestly places likelihoods on various things happening in that situation could possibly conclude that allowing that score reduced their chances of winning.
My numbers say they increased their chance of winning from 2% to about 10% by allowing the TD.Comment -
No choice , needed to get ball only thing they don't have the weapons to go down the field with a minute left you need a great wide receiver like mossComment -
I'm giving 1% that they fumble or miss FG. And then another 1% since NY would have had to kickoff with ~ 12-15 seconds left after the FG. Short of a long kickoff return, they might have had one sidelines play to get into hail mary position. Or maybe with a 45 yards play then went out of bounds, a FG try. Considering all that, 2% might be low. Still think allowing score was right, but you do have to consider that NY could not have completely prevented NE from getting the ball in any situation. NY had 2nd goal from the 8. If he goes down on the 1 with 57 seconds, NE calls TO. Let's say NYG takes a knee at 54-55, start the 40 second clock, NY calls TO with ~ 13-14 seconds. FG takes maybe 3 seconds. So I say they are kicking off with 10-12 seconds. If they kick a grounder, that runs at least a few seconds probably resulting in just one final play. If it goes through endzone then they have 2 plays but only if a completion goes out of bounds. Still, not impossible. Not likely.
I think intentional score only works when the defending team is either up 1, tied or down 1 or 2. Anything else and it doesn't make sense. It also should be within the 10 yard line (maybe 15) with the defensive team holding limited TO's where those can't be used to stop clock fully. Kinda rare where it all falls together like last night.Comment -
Seaborne is one of the worst posters on this forum. What a stupid threadComment -
Gave all of us a chance on the Pats to push... I think it's the best move ever...Comment -
I have never seen so many people say something is the right call with 0 proof that the strategy has worked.Comment -
How many times has it been tried? If it's only been tried a few time, you wouldn't even have expected it to work. Even when it "works", you're still left in a situation where you have a 5-10% chance to win. So it's not surprising if it takes 10 times trying this for it to work once. Doesn't make it a bad strategy. If you can't comprehend this, then it's pretty pointless arguing.Comment -
So since its only been tried a few times that justifies it being the right call? I guess belichick reinvented football too. He is too smart and not the first one to do this and fail. Step back and analyze what you are saying. No team is going to let you score a touchdown because you let them score one. This is the nfl, not pee wee everybody gets a trophy football.Comment -
I don't even understand the argument you're trying to make seaborne. The odds of missing a chip-shot field goal are miniscule compared to the odds of not scoring a touchdown with 57 seconds left and a timeout.Comment -
he knows he is wrong and now he is just trolling and you guys are feeding him.
or he doesn't understand probabilities so he bet the coin flip prop thinking it was +EV.
either way just stop posting about it.Comment -
If you really believe they had a better chance of missing a PAT then scoring a TD with 57 seconds and a TO then fine, but your argument that it's a bad play because it hasn't happened before is ludicrous. Most people believe that the FG was a 99% probability while getting a TD was something more. To each his own.Comment -
Then run the clock down to 15 seconds and then run it in or spike it? A little different situation in New Orleans/SF but Alex Smith ran in a TD when he could've dropped inside the 5 and ran the clock down. NO ended up scoring & getting the lead back. If SF doesn't score with 14 seconds left then Smith/Harbaugh get questioned big time.Comment -
Yep, actually that was a pretty similar situation. I'm not sure that NO "let" them score, but essentially they did.
Let's make this picture even more stark. OK so NE is up 2 points. Giants have the ball 1st and goal at the 2. There is 1:55 left and NE has 0 timeouts. Giants have 1 TO. You KNOW that the Giants are not going to right, but if they were willing NE would let the, right? I wonder is seaborneq would dispute this?
Obviously NE would rather need a TD in 1:55 rather than praying for a 19 yard field goal miss as the clock expires. Anyone who says otherwise is a fukkin idiot and that's all there is to it. The fact of the matter is the PAT FG is a 99% play. Scoring a TD in 2 minutes is somewhere between a 10-30% proposition. It's as simple as that. All you really need to know in that situation is that Giants would have definitely taken a knee and not given the Pats what they wanted. The actual situation was a little more confusing being that they were on the 8, it was 2nd down and NE had a TO.Comment
