Did the Pats go too far in garbage time? - New England Patriots Forums

***Rainy-Day Patriot*** · 10-31-2006, 08:07 PM

Granted, they did not drive up the score, because there was no scoring in the fourth quarter, but did the Pats somehow rub it in?

On defense, they beat the crap out of their back-up, Bollinger. Think about the three sacks in a row.

On offense, Tom Brady kept on throwing the rock late, late into the game. Think about that long pass on fourth down that was called back. Cassel could have come in a series or two earlier.

Hey, I think you play football for sixty minutes. Yes, you don't go for garbage points, but if they give them to you, then you've got to take them. They didn't give us any, and we didn't take any. I don't see a big problem, but if any of you have insightful points, either way, they would be well taken.

Besides my sixty-minute truism, I would add that Brady is still getting used to his receivers so every game rep is valuable.

Thanks,
Sean

[Just to add a little context: My friend is a Minni fan, and she thought they crossed the line of poor sportsmanship. Minni's back-ups were in, and we kept on battering away with our starters. She's not dead set on villifying the Pats. She generally like the franchise. I told her I would ask here to see if there were other interesting angles.]

Kdo5 · 10-31-2006, 08:19 PM

Pfff...big frigging deal. The Colts do this all the time. Remember that stupid sideline reporter talked to BB and he said "He will stick with the game plan all game long."

He was serious about it, to the very last minute. Embarass Brad Childress? Apparently BB and Childress dislike each other, am I correct?

MrBigglesWorth · 10-31-2006, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rainy-Day Patriot

Granted, they did not drive up the score, because there was no scoring in the fourth quarter, but did the Pats somehow rub it in?

On defense, they beat the crap out of their back-up, Bollinger. Think about the three sacks in a row.

On offense, Tom Brady kept on throwing the rock late, late into the game. Think about that long pass on fourth down that was called back. Cassel could have come in a series or two earlier.

Hey, I think you play football for sixty minutes. Yes, you don't go for garbage points, but if they give them to you, then you've got to take them. They didn't give us any, and we didn't take any. I don't see a big problem, but if any of you have insightful points, either way, they would be well taken.

Besides my sixty-minute truism, I would add that Brady is still getting used to his receivers so every game rep is valuable.

Thanks,
Sean

[Just to add a little context: My friend is a Minni fan, and she thought they crossed the line of poor sportsmanship. Minni's back-ups were in, and we kept on battering away with our starters. She's not dead set on villifying the Pats. She generally like the franchise. I told her I would ask here to see if there were other interesting angles.]

No way. There was still a ton of time left. I was surprised Minni gave up so early and yanked Johnson. I think it was a statement game and if anything I think Belichik was wary of having his kicker kick a long field goal at the end so he went for it on 4th down. I don't think you go from 5 wide outs to a running game when you didn't even do it in the game just to ease off the peddle. You don't want to destroy any momentum and yoou want to strong on a positive strong note to carry into next week.

***Mike the Brit*** · 10-31-2006, 08:28 PM

I think that you should explain to your friend that there is a line between running up the score and giving up. As it turned out (and this had mostly to do with the alignment of the Minnesota defense) to switch from a passing to a running game would have led to the Pats going three and out. There isn't an obligation to do that.

That said, I think I can say this with a clear conscience -- I defended Indianapolis on this board a couple of weeks ago. All of those who objected then to Indianapolis continuing to play hard into the fourth quarter have less ground to stand on.

zippo59 · 10-31-2006, 08:29 PM

They couldn't run out the clock by running it. They had to keep passing if they wanted first downs.

zippo59 · 10-31-2006, 08:30 PM

It was somewhat uncharacteristic but the situation called for it.

LasVegasPatsFan · 10-31-2006, 08:34 PM

Absolutely not!!! I finally give BB some props for continuing his game plan well into the 4th quarter. I hope you all enjoyed it because I doubt he will do that more often. Normally when we have a substacial lead, BB changes his game plan to a more run oriented. Did the Colts last year change their game plan when they put up 40 points on us? No!. We have a big game next week against the Colts. This was a perfect opportunity to continue to perfect their game plan for next week. Smart move and hope to see this type of game plan more often.

Finally, I dont believe in garbage points. This is a professional sport where everyone makes six and seven figure salaries. If you loose by 1 point or by 50, it is still a lose. I like the idea of racking up points. This is what they play for.

SVN · 10-31-2006, 08:37 PM

i also think its because the vikings and colts play the same tampa 2 defense ..so it was kinda practice...that being said, if brady had got hurt on that sack on 4th and 5 like last week happened to hasselbeck..it would have been disastrous..

Urgent · 10-31-2006, 08:42 PM

In terms of play calling and strategy, you can't go away from what you practiced for the game. The Pats had decided that they wouldn't run if they weren't effective -- and Dillon and Maroney combining for 39 yards on 11 carries says they weren't effective.

However, I would like to have seen Cassel at least one series earlier, and would have been happy with a few more defensive back-ups. Maybe let Alexander get some time at LB, or Andrews at DB. Both to protect the starters and to gain some experience for the back-ups.

Kdo5 · 10-31-2006, 08:53 PM

I was just dissapointed the C-Jack long catch got ruled back :'(