Why McDaniels made the early challenges

[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.

 

[Rob0729]

Re: Why McDaniels made the early challenges.

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]

Re: Why McDaniels made the early challenges.

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]

Re: Why McDaniels made the early challenges.

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]

Re: Why McDaniels made the early challenges.

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]

Re: Why McDaniels made the early challenges.

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]

Re: Why McDaniels made the early challenges.

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]

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]

Re: Why McDaniels made the early challenges.

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]

Re: Why McDaniels made the early challenges.

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.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

Re: Why McDaniels made the early challenges.

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.

Thanks for the link. It looks to be about about 41% to about 35%. It's a significant difference, but less than I figured it would be. Considering it was his second challenge, I have since changed my opinion.

 

[Wolfpack]

Re: Why McDaniels made the early challenges.

They were both poor challenges. The first one was a big play but it was obviously a fumble so all you do is waste a timeout and one of your challenges.

The second one was stupid because he was challenging 3 yards and there was still 40 minutes left in the game. It was either going to be 3rd and 10 or 3rd and 7 but since he lost his first challenge, this was going to be his final challenge win or lose.

He's damn lucky he didn't need those challenges at any point later in the game. Imagine if we saw a play like the incomplete pass returned for a touchdown we saw in the Atlanta game.

 

[Number Cruncher]

That second challenge had Mike Martz written all over it....

 

[emoney_33]

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.

The 2nd challenge was an absolutely horrible decision. I don't care what reasons are behind it, you do not waste your last challenge of the game that early for a relatively worthless 3 yards. I'll just chalk it up to the extreme emotions McDaniels obviously had that game.

 

[TruthSeeker]

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.

The challenges were stupid. He had 0% chance of winning the first challenge. At least there was an argument for the second challenge in that the 3 yards of field position his team was going to gain would both make it tougher for the Pats to get a first down (3rd and 10 instead of 3rd and 7) as well as possibly be the difference in attempting a field goal or making a field goal if it was attempted. That being said, I definately disagree with his choice.

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.

I think you're really stretching saying that the one play that required 3 extra yards to complete a first down was a significant factor in the TOP battle.

 

[BelichickFan]

The challenges were both really, really bad. The fact that the Donkeys won in spite of them doesn't change that. Next you'll say they missed the FG on the opening drive on purpose too.

 

[Rob0729]

I didn't mind the first challenge. When you turnover the ball on your side of the field and the fumble is close to being downed, you call the challenge and hope there is an angle that shows the runner's knee down. It was close to being down when Moreno lost the ball. The full speed replay it was hard to tell. Slo-mo showed him clearly not down when he lost the ball though.

The second challenge was a waste of a challenge (well, unless it was his first or he already won the first challenge).