Upon Further Review: Final Thoughts on Pats Loss at Seattle

[PatsFans.com Article]

Upon Further Review: Final Thoughts on Pats Loss at Seattle
By: John Morgan

Sunday's game came down to big plays and Seattle made twice as many as the Pats did - but what went wrong was a total team effort....

CLICK HERE TO READ THIS STORY​

 

[Shed83]

Perception = Misconception? Game changing moments!

I was hoping my fellow Pats fans could enlighten me to something that i have been quite confused about. Its all about Perception i suppose.

I have read here on numerous occasions about 2 game changing moments that in my humble opinion werent game changing moments at all but as a newbie i might be missing something.....

The first was against Buffalo - the week following the win i read so many times that the forced fumble before half time at 14-7 was the big turning point in the game. Instead of going in at 17-7 or worse 21-7 that fumble recovery was the momentum swinger. But was it really?? I mean the first scoring play in the second half was Buffalo anyway so they still went 21-7 up regardless. So how was it a game changer?

I didnt say anything about it because i thought i was missing something but after the Seahawks game i wanted to know you guys thoughts because that was the second instance.....

17-10 ahead and the infamous intentional grounding play. I have read quite a few posters say matter of factly that if the Pats had taken the field goal to go in 20-10 they would have won the game. Would we really though? yes we lost by 1 point but we still took the first 2 scoring plays of the second half to lead 23-10 rendering in my opinion the first half botched play moot.

I would agree that both instances could have been game changers had the first scoring plays been different after the half so what am i missing?

Sorry for the long winded post.

 

[supafly]

Re: Perception = Misconception? Game changing moments!

As you say, it's all in the perception.

When Wilfork forced the fumble right before the half, I turned to my wife and claimed "that's a season changing moment right there." One could argue that the Bills were about to go ahead 21-7 AND get the ball first in the 3rd, to where they likely would've gone up 28-7...

By keeping the game within 1 score at the time, they allowed the team to go into the half only down 14-7, which was great considering how bad it could've been. Yes, they went up 21-7 to start the half, but it likely would have been worse. I'm definitely going with the game changing moment, and potentially even a season changer, considering that they would've been starting with a 1-3 record had they likely gone down 28-7 when the Bills scored first to start the 3rd quarter.

As far as the SEA game, yes...we had a chance to have a great half. Brady had almost a 75% accuracy rate in the first half w/ 2 TD's and 0 INT's. By kicking the FG instead of the intentional grounding, they would have scored 20 already on the "mighty" Seahawks; thus proving to double score on them on the road, and it would have likely helped to take the crowd out of the game too.

Most importantly, it would have obviously been the deciding pts in a one pt loss, considering that they would have won by 2 points instead.

In other words, instead of it having been 23-10 NE, it would have been 26-10 NE. It would have been extremely unlikely that SEA would have scored 2 late TD's including both 2 pt conversions, and even so---it would have only sent the game into overtime.

Both were certainly game changing moments, but allowing the 46 yd TD down the middle with 30 seconds left was certainly another game changing moment, considering the current circumstances...

 

[convertedpatsfan]

Re: Perception = Misconception? Game changing moments!

There are dozens of game changing moments throughout the course of each game, and some may impact how teams respond. So I think it is incorrect to assume that the game would go on the same way it had in both of those instances.

Against Buffalo, the turnover took points off the board, potentially 7. Even assuming the beginning of the second half plays out the way we think, would being down 3 TDs instead of 2 change the Patriots offense? Would we have abandoned the run in an attempt to catch up? Consider that we ran 16 times for 88 yards in the first half, and 24 times for 159 in the second, it played a huge factor in the comeback, but may not have happened at all if we had lost patience.

As for Seattle, I think any time you miss points while losing by 1 is a big moment. One could argue the red zone INT was just as bad. But again, had we been able to score there, perhaps we could have been the ones to force Seattle to abandon the run. It's clear the team was focusing on Lynch throughout. We were in our base defense 71% of the time, the highest percentage so far this season (next highest is 51% against Ray Rice and the Ravens). Even on the last drive, we were in our base defense and the Seahawks were running play action. Had we gone up 3 possessions, that may have forced their hand a bit more.

Honestly, you can't say for sure one way or another. And I do think we tend to get carried away by how much a big moment means; as supafly mentioned, there are other big plays throughout a game which can mean as much or even counter a previous big moment. But each can impact a team's strategy. It could be as simple as replacing Arrington after he gives up a few big plays. It could be a bigger shift like moving to a hurry-up offense. But they do impact the way the game is played.

 

[Shed83]

Re: Perception = Misconception? Game changing moments!

As you say, it's all in the perception.

When Wilfork forced the fumble right before the half, I turned to my wife and claimed "that's a season changing moment right there." One could argue that the Bills were about to go ahead 21-7 AND get the ball first in the 3rd, to where they likely would've gone up 28-7...

By keeping the game within 1 score at the time, they allowed the team to go into the half only down 14-7, which was great considering how bad it could've been. Yes, they went up 21-7 to start the half, but it likely would have been worse. I'm definitely going with the game changing moment, and potentially even a season changer, considering that they would've been starting with a 1-3 record had they likely gone down 28-7 when the Bills scored first to start the 3rd quarter.

As far as the SEA game, yes...we had a chance to have a great half. Brady had almost a 75% accuracy rate in the first half w/ 2 TD's and 0 INT's. By kicking the FG instead of the intentional grounding, they would have scored 20 already on the "mighty" Seahawks; thus proving to double score on them on the road, and it would have likely helped to take the crowd out of the game too.

Most importantly, it would have obviously been the deciding pts in a one pt loss, considering that they would have won by 2 points instead.

In other words, instead of it having been 23-10 NE, it would have been 26-10 NE. It would have been extremely unlikely that SEA would have scored 2 late TD's including both 2 pt conversions, and even so---it would have only sent the game into overtime.

Both were certainly game changing moments, but allowing the 46 yd TD down the middle with 30 seconds left was certainly another game changing moment, considering the current circumstances...

Thanks for taking the time to reply Supafly i aprreciate it oh and the fact that you were as polite as always when disagreeing with someone!!

Id just like to debate your points a little if i may

With regards to the Buffalo game - im pretty sure that the Patriots received the ball to start the third quarter and made a non-scoring drive giving the ball back to Buffalo who then scored a TD on their first possession of the second half. So my perception is that the 2 drives to start the second half make the fumble a moot point in regards to a game changing moment. If the pats had scored the next points after the fumble then yes but Buffalo went up 21-7 in any case. The game changing moment in this game again in my humble opinion was without any shadow of doubt the absolutely massive scrambling play from brady to Woodhead for a TD on 3rd and long to make 21-14and not anything to do with the fumble. The game started to turn on that TD it didnt turn on the fumble as Buffalo came out and increased their lead in any case 9after the Pats had another shot at reducing the deficit inbetween).

As for the Seahwaks game - who is to say that if the Pats go into the half 20-10 up instead of 17-10 that they would have scored the next two FGs to then win by 2 in the end? I totally understand your reasoning but in my mind scoring the next two plays more than renders that missed opportiunity as moot. Hypothetically in the future If you offer me 20-10 at half time to the Pats with team 'X' receiving to start the second half or the score to be 23-10 with under 10 mins to play in the 4th then im taking the latter every single day of the week. especially when team 'X' have a great defense and pretty poor offense!

My argument is simply that the game changing moments took place much later in the game than the last plays of the first half in each instance.

Again sorry to ramble on especially on such an unimportant debate!

 

[Shed83]

Re: Perception = Misconception? Game changing moments!

There are dozens of game changing moments throughout the course of each game, and some may impact how teams respond. So I think it is incorrect to assume that the game would go on the same way it had in both of those instances.

Against Buffalo, the turnover took points off the board, potentially 7. Even assuming the beginning of the second half plays out the way we think, would being down 3 TDs instead of 2 change the Patriots offense? Would we have abandoned the run in an attempt to catch up? Consider that we ran 16 times for 88 yards in the first half, and 24 times for 159 in the second, it played a huge factor in the comeback, but may not have happened at all if we had lost patience.

As for Seattle, I think any time you miss points while losing by 1 is a big moment. One could argue the red zone INT was just as bad. But again, had we been able to score there, perhaps we could have been the ones to force Seattle to abandon the run. It's clear the team was focusing on Lynch throughout. We were in our base defense 71% of the time, the highest percentage so far this season (next highest is 51% against Ray Rice and the Ravens). Even on the last drive, we were in our base defense and the Seahawks were running play action. Had we gone up 3 possessions, that may have forced their hand a bit more.

Honestly, you can't say for sure one way or another. And I do think we tend to get carried away by how much a big moment means; as supafly mentioned, there are other big plays throughout a game which can mean as much or even counter a previous big moment. But each can impact a team's strategy. It could be as simple as replacing Arrington after he gives up a few big plays. It could be a bigger shift like moving to a hurry-up offense. But they do impact the way the game is played.

I agree Converted, which is kind of my point.

My issue so to speak is with people stating like its a fact that if the Pats took the FG they would have won by a point. Of course technically the two instances are game changers. But like i said in my opening post every play is a game changer. But in my opinion the two instances didnt change the flow of the game - in both cases the team that mssed up in the Red Zone increased their lead later in the game so the flow remained the same.

So stating the two play are 'THE' game changers which i think a lot of posters are implying in my opinion is not right.

 

[supafly]

Re: Perception = Misconception? Game changing moments!

Thanks for taking the time to reply Supafly i aprreciate it oh and the fact that you were as polite as always when disagreeing with someone!!

Id just like to debate your points a little if i may

With regards to the Buffalo game - im pretty sure that the Patriots received the ball to start the third quarter and made a non-scoring drive giving the ball back to Buffalo who then scored a TD on their first possession of the second half. So my perception is that the 2 drives to start the second half make the fumble a moot point in regards to a game changing moment. If the pats had scored the next points after the fumble then yes but Buffalo went up 21-7 in any case. The game changing moment in this game again in my humble opinion was without any shadow of doubt the absolutely massive scrambling play from brady to Woodhead for a TD on 3rd and long and not anything to do with the fumble. The game started to turn on that TD it didnt turn on the fumble as Buffalo came out and increased their lead in any case 9after the Pats had another shot at reducing the deficit inbetween).

As for the Seahwaks game - who is to say that if the Pats go into the half 20-10 up instead of 17-10 that they would have scored the next two FGs to then win by 2 in the end? I totally understand your reasoning but in my mind scoring the next two plays more than renders that missed opportiunity as moot. Hypothetically in the future If you offer me 20-10 at half time to the Pats with team 'X' receiving to start the second half or the score to be 23-10 with under 10 mins to play in the 4th then im taking the latter every single day of the week. especially when team 'X' have a great defense and pretty poor offense!

My argument is simply that the game changing moments took place much later in the game than the last plays of the first half in each instance.

Again sorry to ramble on especially on such an unimportant debate!

Any debate could be deemed as important, my friend, especially if it's on your mind enough to start a thread and see others' opinions about it.

You are correct about the Pats getting the ball first in the 2nd half, I forgot about the quick drive that gave it right back to Buffalo.

I certainly agree with your thoughts on the Brady scramble, that led to Woodhead's ability to get open and score the TD. Huge, huge play right there. There's no disputing the great play that both Brady and Woodhead make at that point to show guts and fight back. That could easily be argued as one of the turning points of that game, and later on down the line, potentially even the season.

I think that both perceptions could be deemed as "right," as it's hard to argue that the turning points didn't come later in the game as well. There really isn't an incorrect answer in my opinion. Like I said, Wilson blowing his main responsibility in preventing anyone from getting behind him turned out to be the play that let them score, so it'd be hard to argue otherwise.

I think convertedpatsfan made a nice comment that "there are dozens of game changing moments throughout the course of each game."

It'd be like debating whether Sterling Moore's knock away was the game changing moment of the AFCCG, when it may have been many other things, including the most obvious choice of Cundiff missing the final FG attempt.

As you say, it's likely in the perception of how each person views things.

 

[Shed83]

Re: Perception = Misconception? Game changing moments!

Any debate could be deemed as important, my friend, especially if it's on your mind enough to start a thread and see others' opinions about it.

You are correct about the Pats getting the ball first in the 2nd half, I forgot about the quick drive that gave it right back to Buffalo.

I certainly agree with your thoughts on the Brady scramble, that led to Woodhead's ability to get open and score the TD. Huge, huge play right there. There's no disputing the great play that both Brady and Woodhead make at that point to show guts and fight back. That could easily be argued as one of the turning points of that game, and later on down the line, potentially even the season.

I think that both perceptions could be deemed as "right," as it's hard to argue that the turning points didn't come later in the game as well. There really isn't an incorrect answer in my opinion. Like I said, Wilson blowing his main responsibility in preventing anyone from getting behind him turned out to be the play that let them score, so it'd be hard to argue otherwise.

I think convertedpatsfan made a nice comment that "there are dozens of game changing moments throughout the course of each game."

It'd be like debating whether Sterling Moore's knock away was the game changing moment of the AFCCG, when it may have been many other things, including the most obvious choice of Cundiff missing the final FG attempt.

As you say, it's likely in the perception of how each person views things.

Yeah absolutely - i think you have pretty much hit nail on the head. There is no right or wrong answer!!

The only way i can succinctly describe what im on about is by stating that by 'game changing moment' i perceive that as the moment it changed the flow of the game when a team has a decent points adavantage.

In both instances i highlighted i dont think the flow changed as like i said in an earlier reply the team that messed up (buffalo in game 1 and Patriots in game 2) increased their lead later in the game in any case so the flow stayed the same in a manner of speaking.

But yeah im definitely not arguing with you - its definitely about perception!

Thanks

 

[Kontradiction]

Re: Perception = Misconception? Game changing moments!

Momentum was the crux of my argument when analyzing the 4th down call in the Denver game. Nothing in football (or any sport for that matter) is more powerful than momentum. Once you have it, everything starts clicking. Even though Buffalo scored coming out of the half, the Patriots were still riding the high from the turnover going into it. Then they began firing on all cylinders. The results spoke for themselves...