No more late 4th Qtr Field Goals to go up by 6 - Page 4 - New England Patriots Forums

aluminum seats · 11-12-2012, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RodThePat

It's not about hurting anyone's feelings, it's about what you think our chances of converting a 4th and 9 in that situation were. And they weren't very good. If it was 4th and goal from the 2, I think Bill would've strongly considered it, but we had two straight incompletions at that point, and turning it over on downs there meant the Bills would get the ball with more than 2 minutes on the clock, 2 timeouts, needing a FG to tie it. That's an incredibly big risk to take.

But what's the risk? A TD beats them either way. I think it might have been preferable to encourage the tie.

RodThePat · 11-12-2012, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aluminum seats

But what's the risk? A TD beats them either way. I think it might have been preferable to encourage the tie.

Well, you saw the risk. Had we not converted on the 4th down play, the Bills showed us they were more than capable of easily driving into FG range. We turn it over on downs there and that game is CERTAIN to at least go into overtime. When you make the other team drive down the field to get a TD to win the game, you make them force more plays, and give you more opportunities to stop them. Do you believe that if the Bills needed only a FG to tie Fitzpatrick would've gone for the endzone in two consecutive throws from the 15-yard line? Ultimately, that's what won us the game.

zoostation · 11-12-2012, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goheels22002

Granted, a different situation, but I was just trying to remind the OP that you take the points. In one case, it wound up costing the Patriots the game. Yesterday, it might have as well if the Bills played for overtime.

I know you were and I agree with you 100% with taking the points in yesterdays situation.

Obviously I would have liked to see them taking the points with less time left.

aluminum seats · 11-12-2012, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RodThePat

We turn it over on downs there and that game is CERTAIN to at least go into overtime. Do you believe that if the Bills needed only a FG to tie Fitzpatrick would've gone for the endzone in two consecutive throws from the 15-yard line?

No, it's not certain at all. I have no problem imagining Fitzpatrick throwing an interception no matter what the score was.

Gumby · 11-12-2012, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aluminum seats

I was waiting for a reasonable response to the OP's reasonable suggestion. Considering everyone knew the Bills were going to march down the field, and the extra FG didn't change the threat of losing if the Bills scored a TD, I would have strongly considered going for it there. In fact, when the Pats went up six, the idea of OT seemed pretty appealing.

Ultimately, I think kick the FG, so as not to hurt the lame defense's feelings, etc. But it's certainly a fair question.

I think its only a fair question if you are asking the theoretical; WHERE IS THE CUT OFF POINT.

Asking in this situation (4th and 9 after 3 straight failed plays) is just silly.

If you are 4th and 9 after a holding penalty backs you up, 2 plays get you 6 and 5 yards and one is dropped; ok again MAYBE we could talk. but that is not what it was.

Personally, unless it was 4th and less than 5 AND it was spotted between the 9-15 would be my cutoff to START considering going for it. (so that there is 5-10 yards of cushion for a 1D as an option to a TD).

If it was less than 2 yards I would be very tempted; at the very least would go up and try to draw an offsides.

Anyway, how both kickers were booting it Sun; i think you had to take the 3; they both looked like they could hit 60 yards from how deep the KOs were. You wouldnt want to let them take it to OT from half the football field away.

groundgame · 11-12-2012, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aluminum seats

I was waiting for a reasonable response to the OP's reasonable suggestion. Considering everyone knew the Bills were going to march down the field, and the extra FG didn't change the threat of losing if the Bills scored a TD, I would have strongly considered going for it there. In fact, when the Pats went up six, the idea of OT seemed pretty appealing.

Ultimately, I think kick the FG, so as not to hurt the lame defense's feelings, etc. But it's certainly a fair question.

You are correct, up by six, the idea of OT seemed very appealing, as the premise of thread is the good likelyhood that any team can go 90 yards in the the final 90 seconds against the Pats in any game, to scorch us by 1 pt. You miss on 4th down try, you are up by 3, and the likelyhood now flips to scenario where opposing team marches down the field for late tying FG to force OT

***ctpatsfan77*** · 11-12-2012, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PATRIOTSFANINPA

You take the 3 almost every time unless its 4th and less than a yard and inside of the 10......they were nowhere near that deep during that play.

Actually, you can make an argument for going for it on 4th-and-reasonable from anywhere on the field (from a statistical standpoint, apparently going for it makes you more likely to win in most situations), but 4th-and-9 isn't really "reasonable."

RodThePat · 11-12-2012, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aluminum seats

No, it's not certain at all. I have no problem imagining Fitzpatrick throwing an interception no matter what the score was.

You can't count on that when he's been carving you defense up the whole day. I also don't doubt they could've turned the ball over, but the only reason they did so was because they had to take a shot in the endzone to take the lead. Had the Bills needed only a FG to tie it, they most likely would've been more conservative once they were in the redzone.

***ctpatsfan77*** · 11-12-2012, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aluminum seats

I was waiting for a reasonable response to the OP's reasonable suggestion. Considering everyone knew the Bills were going to march down the field, and the extra FG didn't change the threat of losing if the Bills scored a TD, I would have strongly considered going for it there. In fact, when the Pats went up six, the idea of OT seemed pretty appealing.

Ultimately, I think kick the FG, so as not to hurt the lame defense's feelings, etc. But it's certainly a fair question.

OTOH, if you're counting on a "disaster" from the D, then:

Go for it and fail: BUF needs FG to tie, a TD requires that NE score a TD themselves to win.
Kick: BUF needs TD to win, but NE only needs a FG to win.

ThatllMoveTheChains!!! · 11-12-2012, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gumby

I think its only a fair question if you are asking the theoretical; WHERE IS THE CUT OFF POINT.

Asking in this situation (4th and 9 after 3 straight failed plays) is just silly.

If you are 4th and 9 after a holding penalty backs you up, 2 plays get you 6 and 5 yards and one is dropped; ok again MAYBE we could talk. but that is not what it was.

Personally, unless it was 4th and less than 5 AND it was spotted between the 9-15 would be my cutoff to START considering going for it. (so that there is 5-10 yards of cushion for a 1D as an option to a TD).

If it was less than 2 yards I would be very tempted; at the very least would go up and try to draw an offsides.

Anyway, how both kickers were booting it Sun; i think you had to take the 3; they both looked like they could hit 60 yards from how deep the KOs were. You wouldnt want to let them take it to OT from half the football field away.

His assumption also relies both teams settling for OT. Since virtually any coach in the NFL isn't going to do that as a plan A, this means the Pats will have to defend differently once the other team gets near the 50. This creates an ideal situation for the other team to take some shots, which drastically improves their chances of winning. Leaving it as a 3 point game would just add more pressure on the secondary, which is the last thing most fans want.