Why McDaniels made the early challenges - New England Patriots Forums

***NEGoldenAge*** · 10-12-2009, 07:10 AM

McDaniels challenged both those plays in the first half because he understands his homefield advantage. There was small chance the challenge of the fumlbe wouldn't be overuled, but he knew that as long as he kept the game close, he'd have a great chance in the end. The second half at mile high is very tough on defenses, and historically Denver has always scored more points in the later quarters.

McDaniels also knows the higher time of possesion, the greater his home field advantage. He wanted his offense on the field as long as possible, and the early challenge on the 3 yard reception was for exactly that reason.

The people I was watching the game with thought they were very stupid challenges. I kept my mouth shut, but I didn't think either call challenge was "stupid". I probably wouldn't have challenged the fumble, but I understand why he did it, and I agree with the decision to challenge the 3 yard reception. If you can keep your oponent in long down and distance situations, you'll win the time of possession battle. McDaniel's challenges were right in-line with his game plan, NE's Time of Possession was 28:22, and Denver won the game.

***Rob0729*** · 10-12-2009, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEGoldenAge

McDaniels challenged both those plays in the first half because he understands his homefield advantage. There was small chance the challenge of the fumlbe wouldn't be overuled, but he knew that as long as he kept the game close, he'd have a great chance in the end. The second half at mile high is very tough on defenses, and historically Denver has always scored more points in the later quarters.

McDaniels also knows the higher time of possesion, the greater his home field advantage. He wanted his offense on the field as long as possible, and the early challenge on the 3 yard reception was for exactly that reason.

The people I was watching the game with thought they were very stupid challenges. I kept my mouth shut, but I didn't think either call challenge was "stupid". I probably wouldn't have challenged the fumble, but I understand why he did it, and I agree with the decision to challenge the 3 yard reception. If you can keep your oponent in long down and distance situations, you'll win the time of possession battle. McDaniel's challenges were right in-line with his game plan, NE's Time of Possession was 28:22, and Denver won the game.

And how would you have felt about the challenge if two plays later Moss catches a ball in the back of the endzone with one foot clearly out of bounds, but the refs rule it a TD? Would it be a smart decision then?

I usually defend McDaniels, but I thought it was a monumentally stupid decision to use that challenge for 3 yards when it put the Pats 3rd and 7 way outside of field goal range. Luckily for McDaniels, it didn't come back to hurt him, but he made a huge risk that there wasn't going to be an even worse call from the refs that cost them the game. The Broncos may have won the time of possession battle, but they only won by 3 points in overtime. One bad call could have lost them the game.

***NEGoldenAge*** · 10-12-2009, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob0729

And how would you have felt about the challenge if two plays later Moss catches a ball in the back of the endzone with one foot clearly out of bounds, but the refs rule it a TD? Would it be a smart decision then?

I usually defend McDaniels, but I thought it was a monumentally stupid decision to use that challenge for 3 yards when it put the Pats 3rd and 7 way outside of field goal range. Luckily for McDaniels, it didn't come back to hurt him, but he made a huge risk that there wasn't going to be an even worse call from the refs that cost them the game. The Broncos may have won the time of possession battle, but they only won by 3 points in overtime. One bad call could have lost them the game.

It would be tough to swallow if you needed a review for something big sooon after. I just think that perhaps McDaniel's and I value the high altitude affect more than you do. Although our opinoins may differ on the home field advantage, do you still think it would be a stupid call if the reward was sweetened that much more by the altitude factor? I think that's the big difference in the way we are looking at it.

I'm not really being a McDaniels advocate... I said I probably wouldn't have challenged the fumble, but I understand why he did. That use of the first challenge really made it difficult to challenge the 3 yard play, but I think the idea was to use everything in your power to limit NE's scoring and time of possesssion in the first half, cuz the second half should take care of itself.

As I said before, NE's Time of Possession was 28:22, and Denver won the game.

dhamz · 10-12-2009, 07:41 AM

I'm guessing he challenged the first one because the guys in the booth told him to do it.

He challenged the second one because his game coaching and knowledge of situational football needs work. The idea that the difference between 3rd and 7 and 3rd in 10 at that point in the game was worth exhausting your last challenge with at least 39 minutes to go is indefensible.

***NEGoldenAge*** · 10-12-2009, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dhamz

I'm guessing he challenged the first one because the guys in the booth told him to do it.

He challenged the second one because his game coaching and knowledge of situational football needs work. The idea that the difference between 3rd and 7 and 3rd in 10 at that point in the game was worth exhausting your last challenge with at least 39 minutes to go is indefensible.

Did you consider what I said about time of possesion and the home field advantage? I think there was risk, but the reward was much higher than you think it was. I think it was in-line with McDaniel's game plan.

***convertedpatsfan*** · 10-12-2009, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dhamz

I'm guessing he challenged the first one because the guys in the booth told him to do it.

He challenged the second one because his game coaching and knowledge of situational football needs work. The idea that the difference between 3rd and 7 and 3rd in 10 at that point in the game was worth exhausting your last challenge with at least 39 minutes to go is indefensible.

Agreed. The difference of 3rd and 7 vs. 3rd and 10 is really not worth it, especially your last challenge with that much time to go. Both are considered 3rd and long, and the conversion rate for either is not good.

***NEGoldenAge*** · 10-12-2009, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by convertedpatsfan

Agreed. The difference of 3rd and 7 vs. 3rd and 10 is really not worth it, especially your last challenge with that much time to go. Both are considered 3rd and long, and the conversion rate for either is not good.

That's a difference of almost 10 feet.

***NEGoldenAge*** · 10-12-2009, 08:09 AM

I'm trying to find statistics on 3rd and 7 vs. 3rd and 10 conversion rate statistics, but I've been having no luck with google. Anyone got a good link for something like this?

***convertedpatsfan*** · 10-12-2009, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEGoldenAge

Did you consider what I said about time of possesion and the home field advantage? I think there was risk, but the reward was much higher than you think it was. I think it was in-line with McDaniel's game plan.

I considered it, but every team wants to have the ball and keep their defense off the field. HFA is a big deal in a lot of places. In Denver, the altitude may be a factor, but Josh wants to hold onto the ball even when they're on the road.

I don't really know what Josh was thinking. Maybe this was his reason. It happened at Denver's 41 yard line. If he left it unchallenged, the Pats were 3 or 4 yards away from a FG attempt. That's the only logical explanation for challenging it.

If that wasn't the case, then I don't know why he did it. The difference between 3rd and 7 and 3rd and 10 is pretty tiny (see here for 1st down probability chart based on yardage and down). Either way, a conversion was unlikely. The difference between the two is incredibly small to give up a huge thing like your final challenge.

***Rob0729*** · 10-12-2009, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEGoldenAge

It would be tough to swallow if you needed a review for something big sooon after. I just think that perhaps McDaniel's and I value the high altitude affect more than you do. Although our opinoins may differ on the home field advantage, do you still think it would be a stupid call if the reward was sweetened that much more by the altitude factor? I think that's the big difference in the way we are looking at it.

I'm not really being a McDaniels advocate... I said I probably wouldn't have challenged the fumble, but I understand why he did. That use of the first challenge really made it difficult to challenge the 3 yard play, but I think the idea was to use everything in your power to limit NE's scoring and time of possesssion in the first half, cuz the second half should take care of itself.

As I said before, NE's Time of Possession was 28:22, and Denver won the game.

It went from 3rd and long to 3rd and long. The Pats on the next play executed a play that wouldn't have converted from 3rd and 7 either. The challenge had no affect on anything since the Pats would have punted either way.