In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:
In response to zbellino's comment:
In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:
In response to zbellino's comment:
In response to RockScully's comment:
Do you ever, ever, ever admit to being wrong even when proven wrong? "Serious question".
I don't know? How do you feel about the 40 passes from Brady? That's the formula for a loss right?
I would argue the Pats did a very good job of putting themselves in position to possibly give up that lead by continuing to throw low percentage throws in the 4th quarter with a huge lead.
Frankly I am surprised more people have not complained about it today but then I have to remember that I am not sure anyone on here coaches and you watch a game very differently as a fan than as a coach.
No one will convince me it was good game or clock managment by the Pats in the late 3rd Qtr and most of 4th Qtr.
People always want to rail about the defense giving up a lead late but I would argue that through the process of a game that just a single rush attempt on every given series, especially when already rushing the ball well AND having a sizable lead would easily wipe out 3 or 4 more minutes off the clock at a minimum.
To be honest I was pissed that Brady threw that ball to Vereen down the left sideline for the TD. It worked. It's great in hindsite but that instantaneous TD was not needed in that situation after the turnover on downs with an already good lead of 30-13. It could just as easily have been intercepted as well given it's a low percentage throw and not Brady's strongest attribute in his great skill set.
What WAS needed was chewing up clock and giving your defense a rest after just leaving the field on the turnover on downs and keeping your kickoff coverage unit off the field as long as possible while having a rough night.
There was 13 minutes on the clock still. That game took forever because the Pats never burned much clock and gave the Texans more time of posession. Football is a complimentary game and I personally don't think they did a good job with the sizable lead in that game.
The Pats could have more sytematically tried to work their way down from the 33 to a TD while working clock, continuing to tire and bludgon the Texans D, rest their own D, Maintaining more time of posession, bring the clock ever closer to a time when Texans would need to consider to start using Time outs, prolonging the Texans an opportunity to get their successful KO receiving team on the field, etc, etc.
Even if the drive failed they would have done most of those things I mentioned as well as still be in FG range with a most likely lead stretching FG that takes it to a 3 possession game with much less time on the clock.
Anything can happen with lots of time on the clock no matter how big the lead but when the time runs out game over and nothing bad can happen when you already have the lead with zero time left.
As it turned out the Pats kicked off and the Texans ran it back to the NE 37 and quickly got the TD right back and still no time barely run off the clock.
Sorry but the Pats would have indeed been better off running the ball just a lil bit more with the big lead starting earlier in the game.
Sometimes you win as a coach because your team is just that much better or you made more good decisions than bad but that doesn't mean you made the best decisions in every situation.
BB knows way more than me obviously but he also has not had the headset on many times when the Offense has the ball and didn't during this scenario but I would be willing to bet when he reevaluates the entire thing as it played out he'll have a few questions for McD.
Don't agree at all.
You are talking about trying to sit on a 30 point score with ten minutes to go.
Well, no tricky bounces ... Texas ended up dropping 28 points on the defense.
Now crunch those numbers ... if one bad unlucky bounce happens, an onside kick works, Texas could have easily won it with NE sitting on that lead.
That throw, not the highest, but certainly not a 50/50 proposition was a mismatch that NE spotted and exploited. It put the game a-w-a-y. Over.
Maybe you missed it but BB plays aggressive and he always has. He literally said, just last week ... you don't win games by sitting in foxholes.
Moreover, his thinking was justified. Texas almost got the score they needed, and grinding 2 off the clock was about the only thing slowing the game down there guarantees. And grinding 2 off the clock does less to guarantee a win than a FG or TD.
It's basic win probability.
The next two drives, then they started running because it was over.
I knew you would go to the fox hole thing. Clearly you took from my post what you wanted and didn't read it since I never said anything about not going for a TD and just trying to sit on anything, least of all a lead.
Also no one said to run exclusivley at any point in time or become ultra conservative. We'll agree to disagree since it was obviously lost on you or not written well by me. I am not a great writer, apologies.
Never said to not take advantage of Brady, your best player. I said to do it in a way that was better game and clock management. Being agressive does not mean exclusively taking the path of quickest results or lower probability of success.
I'll have to assume you are insinuating you need to do one or the other. Try and score with bombs and lower percentage throws down the field to consider it NOT sitting in a fox hole? ...or try and mix in some runs with higher percentage throws moving the chains on your way to trying to score a touch down, while purposely using a bunch of clock (sitting in the fox hole as you put it).
I'll take the clock rolling away, my defense off the field, their defense taking more abuse, etc etc WHILE I am trying to score the TD. You're in control of the game, starting already in field goal range. It's a luxury to be able to work clock as you extend your lead from 2 possession to three, even if it ended in a FG and not TD. In that situation I will easily live with the result of 3 points instead of 7 if 4 minutes or more were also taken off the clock in the process.
The average person thinks game or clock management comes down to the final possession of two of a game. When it's predicatable. Let me assure you it doesn't. It especially doesn't when you have a comfortable lead. Coaches know better.
I think there is a cross up here. I did think you were talking about going 3 yards cloud of dust.
1.) It's not a low percentage play, it's a go route to the pylon against Cover-1. Vereen is matched against Barrett Ruud, which was a mismatch. While it's not the highest percentage to make the catch, it's low percentage to be intercepted. If this is cover-2, he probably isn't throwing the pass because there would be a safety there, but then if it is cover 2 there is liekly one less guy on the other side, so you'd have wiggle room there.
2.) It's not a designed play, there is a route tree. That route comes from presnap reads by both players. The concept that most people don't know is that routes are flexible. They change based on what the defense is showing. They didn't come out thinking they are going to wing it deep. On a play like that, and I'm sure you know this, the RB split wide is probably your 3rd or fourth read. Brady saw the safety cheating inside, saw the matchup and took it. Every other route on the play was short, on the other side of the field.
This is akin to the half ending TD by Branch a couple years back, when the play is obviously meant to be a safety type play, but he and Brady see the "go" there, and they hook up for a quick seven before the half.
It's a saavy heads up play by Brady to spot it, and make that throw. It's a heads up play by Vereeen to spot the safety cheating the other way and make his route into a 'go.'
If the play fails, they chip away. But when you see Vereen, then with steps on Barrett Ruud, you take your chance to ice the game with another score. You don't sit on the matchup and wait just in case you can string together another 9-12 plays and chew clock and score.
It's not like they are out there calling for designed fly patterns to
I take that every single time.
Second, I have coached. Clock managment is a game long thing. People also don't know that BB probably tries to extend games as long as he can. It's a myth that you want every game to end as quickly as possible. If you have an offensive advantage you want to press that advantage as much as you can.
That means giving your offense as many times to score as possible to increase likelihood that your talent advantage pans out. Think about it like a billiards matchup. If you are a clearly superior shooter, you actually want the best out of 3 or 5 ... not one shot for the title. You also want to play 8 ball or straight pool as opposed to 9 ball.
You want the largest sample because it reduces the impact of anomaly.
This obviously isn't something they are doing in this situation, but it's a key component to calling/managing a game.
In this particular situtation ... you just take the extremely fortuitous matchup because it could mean points. You don't look off Vereen v Ruud naked on the sideline in the hopes that a string of plays later on might work out.
I'm not against ball control running or passing. In fact, I think the way Ridley has been so effective late in games has been a sea change compared to how relatively ineffective BJGE was in those spots (3.4 yard average here in the 4th).
But I don't think you look away obvious mismatches that can result in scores. Points are always better than time off the clock.
Sorry. But if you think you do you are entitled to think that, but that is a fundamental disagreement.