upstater1

But, your premise proved false. They didn't need a TD there to have any chance of winning the game.

If it were a 3 score difference, I agree with you, but a field goal there puts you down 2 TDs with more than a half to play.

Not time to panic yet.

MrBigglesWorth

this is all hindsight. if they kicked a field goal then people would say we never scored td's and only get fg's.

i thought right before half was a big growing moment for cassel and at the end of the game was too.

in reality we will probably have to run the table to get into the playoffs IMO.

__________________
"There are two categories of superbowl participants that nobody remembers:

The team that lost the game and the team that only won one." Dwight White- Steelers

363839

Ironic that you should say that when you consider that if they had kicked and made that FG, Randy's awesome catch in the final seconds wins the game instead OT.

Two Eight

I think the ironic thing is that if they had kicked the field goal and the ensuing kickoff, instead of turning it over on downs - they would not have had time for Gaff's TD with 20 seconds left in the 1st half. So Randy's TD would have meant a 31 - 27 loss in regulation.

The Dynasty

Pats could of got the ball back before the end of the half and potentially have scored, so you cant assume that.

wiggins!

i liked the call at the time and I still think it was a good call. Needed a spark. I know hindsight is 20-20 and yada, yada, yada but at that point, i thought they needed a touchdown to get back into the game - and it looked liked the coaches thought the same thing.

HOWEVER, given the fact that Cassel did something no one had ever seen him do, rally his team from a BIG deficit, I wonder if this changes the coaches thinking going forward.

Meaning, now they know the kid has it in him to pull off a comeback (although it's not suggested they play the rest of their games this way!). BUT, since they know he can lead a comeback, I wonder if presented in a similar situation again, they now take the 3 and play with the same sense of urgency.

I wouldn't mind if they're not presented with this type of situation again though!

Box_O_Rocks

That decision was a vote of confidence in the offense - sucks to have your Pro-Bowl O-lineman get blown up and embarrassed.

__________________
"...the annoying, unrelenting Patriots." Armando Salguero, Miami Herald

ctpatsfan77

There's actually a pair of computer scientists that wrote a program called ZEUS that simulates tens of thousands of games to determine if a coach made the right call. The basic upshot of that program is that, unless you absolutely need the points, or you're in fourth-and-forever, going for it is almost always better than kicking.

__________________
LOCK UP THE GHOST. NOW.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

jmt57

At the time I wanted the Pats to kick a Field Goal, yes.

But before you add three points on to the Pats total score and start to think they would have won the game, you also need to remember that everything after that changes too, such as play calling on both sides with a different score, how the Jets would have defensed the last drive of the game, where would the Jets have had the ball to start the next drive following the kickoff and would they run different plays, etc. It's not as simple as saying 'kick the field goal, three more points, the Pats win the game.'

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

KillEM

The game was looking like a shootout at that point and we definitely needed more points.

I dont blame that decision to 'go for it'