Punter MacAfee Throws Pagano Further Under the Snapfu Bus

A Defiant Goose said:

(there was still a chance that maybe you could make Bolden jump into the neutral zone when the ball is snapped)

Click to expand...

When the ball is snapped, there is no longer a neutral zone.

QuantumMechanic said:

Only if the ball is snapped. Illegal formation is a at-the-snap penalty. After all, until the ball is snapped the offense can always move to a legal formation, so you only can definitively say a formation is illegal when the ball is snapped and offense's positions become irrevocable.

If the "QB" gave a hard count and Bolden or Bostic jumped and made contact with either the "QB" or the "center" that's a neutral zone infraction and and I believe it would not be offset by the illegal formation because there was no snap.

Click to expand...

Interesting. But the punter said the intent of the deception was to catch the Pats with too many defenders on the field, and that would not have worked due to the illegal formation.

PP2 said:

When the ball is snapped, there is no longer a neutral zone.

Click to expand...

Sorry. Make Bolden jump into the neutral zone then snap the ball. You're a tough damn bunch here, you know that?

Tony2046 said:

I wonder what would have happened against a non BB coached team.

Click to expand...

A defensive time out.

slam said:

That can't be true, can it? There must be some special dispensation for special teams plays.

Click to expand...

I don't know of any. On typical special teams plays, all the ineligible linemen (whether numbered appropriately or not) are all lined up in the tackle box, so I don't know of any exception to this rule for special teams plays.

PP2 said:

I think tackle box is only something used in relation to the QB (e.g., to judge intentional grounding). Re: formation, I did not notice any players with eligible numbers in that formation, so that portion of the play, at least to me, was legal. However, I am not sure what the rules on eligibility are, when it comes to ST.

Click to expand...

The new rule put in place just the past offseason (in response to the Patriots trick play against the Ravens) specifically says that anytime a player with an eligible number is lined up ineligible (like Vereen was against the Ratbirds), then that player has to line up within what is traditionally considered the tackle box.

Brit patriot said:

In my opinion it it is on Pagano as he allows guys to take part in plays where they haven't got a clue what is going on...even if the ST guy made the call, he is atop of the Franchise and needs to make sure everything is in working order, throughout the week, and on gameday

Click to expand...

Yes. This! In that position he needs to pay attention to details. What would BB do?

Deus Irae said:

I do disagree, and we almost never see balls being allowed to drop on the 10 in today's game, in this sort of scenario. The kind of punt we're talking about would not have been one that significantly out kicked the coverage, so the PR wouldn't likely have have risked it. We see that repeatedly with the Patriots PRs.

Click to expand...

Tough stat to find references on/get some education on. What I did find on a 2014 league basis:
On average a punt from the 32 gives you approx. 1 in 5 chance at pinning the opposition below the 20. Kicking from the 37 give you approx 1 in 3.33 chance at putting the receiving team below the 20. Important to highlight in this stat: chance of pinning a team inside the ten when kicking from the 32 is at or less than 1%. Chances of pinning the team under the 10 when punting from the 32 is approx 10%.

But another anecdotal piece of evidence is relatively compelling: how many teams give up the DOG to try and get another set of downs in a one score game that has over a quarter left? If a team is at the 20 to 40 of their own side, and it is 4th down and 5 or less to go, why do very very few teams go for some sort of trickery and it it fails take the five yards that mean nothing? In that regard Pagano might be blazing a new trail, I don't know. They seem to have everything to gain, a fresh set of downs/not have to punt while nothing to lose, an all but inconsequential five yards.

I accept we see it differently. For me yards like this matter while you don't. Admittedly iy is a hard metric to define conclusively.

I still can't get over "don't snap it! Don't snap it!" *snaps ball*. It is at the point of openly declaring your intention to not snap the ball, that the play loses all element of deception. Or that the only possible deception is now actually snapping the ball. Or was "don't snap it!" the cadence they went with in practice?

Still literally makes me laugh out loud 2 days later.

TheBostonStraggler said:

Tough stat to find references on/get some education on. What I did find on a 2014 league basis:
On average a punt from the 32 gives you approx. 1 in 5 chance at pinning the opposition below the 20. Kicking from the 37 give you approx 1 in 3.33 chance at putting the receiving team below the 20. Important to highlight in this stat: chance of pinning a team inside the ten when kicking from the 32 is at or less than 1%. Chances of pinning the team under the 10 when punting from the 32 is approx 10%.

But another anecdotal piece of evidence is relatively compelling: how many teams give up the DOG to try and get another set of downs in a one score game that has over a quarter left? If a team is at the 20 to 40 of their own side, and it is 4th down and 5 or less to go, why do very very few teams go for some sort of trickery and it it fails take the five yards that mean nothing? In that regard Pagano might be blazing a new trail, I don't know. They seem to have everything to gain, a fresh set of downs/not have to punt while nothing to lose, an all but inconsequential five yards.

I accept we see it differently. For me yards like this matter while you don't. Admittedly iy is a hard metric to define conclusively.

Click to expand...

Yards matter, but you also have to factor in the reward of getting the first down, and keeping Brady on the sidelines while giving your team, effectively, an extra possession.

And, again, the punters were averaging better than 47 yards per punt, meaning the ball was probably going to be getting fielded where we mentioned, meaning the ball was probably going to be fielded inside the 25, but not down in "pinned inside the 5" territory, regardless of that 5 yard markoff.

I understand that the play call was stupid and all, no doubt but does anyone really think the Patriots wouldn't have scored on that drive anyway? It actually probably just got the ball back to Colts faster.

As for Pagano, he is done in Indy he knows it and he will be reckless as he feels from here out.

Brady6 said:

I understand that the play call was stupid and all, no doubt but does anyone really think the Patriots wouldn't have scored on that drive anyway? It actually probably just got the ball back to Colts faster.

As for Pagano, he is done in Indy he knows it and he will be reckless as he feels from here out.

Click to expand...

well, they did have three straight 3-and-outs after that, so it wasn't a sure thing.

Deus Irae said:

Yards matter, but you also have to factor in the reward of getting the first down, and keeping Brady on the sidelines while giving your team, effectively, an extra possession.

And, again, the punters were averaging better than 47 yards per punt, meaning the ball was probably going to be getting fielded where we mentioned, meaning the ball was probably going to be fielded inside the 25, but not down in "pinned inside the 5" territory, regardless of that 5 yard markoff.

Click to expand...

I get it DI. The yards matter but the reward could matter more. It isn't necessarily easy to be certain what is best. But the stat about pinning inside the 10 (at the 32 1%, at the 37 10%) is pretty compelling to me. But if Pagano think his kicker can pin them back just the same at 32 and 37 I see the argument of 'go for it even with a DOG (though why not try it more often with wide trickery type variations if the DOG means little?).

XLIX said:

The new rule put in place just the past offseason (in response to the Patriots trick play against the Ravens) specifically says that anytime a player with an eligible number is lined up ineligible (like Vereen was against the Ratbirds), then that player has to line up within what is traditionally considered the tackle box.

Click to expand...

But were any eligible receivers lined up ineligible? As long as the 5 players on the line, but not on the end of the line, were offensive linemen than there would be no problem.

Note that for instance there was a WR on one end of the line who snapped the ball. Which would be correct formation. Seems the screwup was mainly with the ineligible receivers not being correctly on the line.

XLIX said:

A defensive time out.

Click to expand...

Bingo!!!!!!!
I don't get the punter's explanation..."try to get too many men on the field". Who on the sidelines would rush out?
If the actual goal was to get NE to burn a TO.....then it starts to make a little sense....except for the inept execution/alignment/snap/jibberish explanation

Nehalem said:

But were any eligible receivers lined up ineligible? As long as the 5 players on the line, but not on the end of the line, were offensive linemen than there would be no problem.

Note that for instance there was a WR on one end of the line who snapped the ball. Which would be correct formation. Seems the screwup was mainly with the ineligible receivers not being correctly on the line.

Click to expand...

Screw up was not enough players on the LOS. You must have a minimum of 7 on the line.

On one hand it is throwing his HC and STs Coach under the bus. On the other hand he will need to explain this play to any team he ever tries out for in the future. It is in his best interest to get this story out there ASAP if he ever wants a job again.

Deus Irae said:

And now you're ignoring the whole "Ball is not supposed to be snapped" part of the equation. I don't know why you have a hard on for Pagano, but this is not where you get him.

Click to expand...

Aren't you also ignoring, though, the whole "Whelan simply does not know that the ball is not supposed to be snapped" part of the equation, because he never practiced the play, even once?

I'll assume that Pagano called for the play.

The ST coach should then have said "Coach, we lost the snapper. This personnel hasn't practiced it". Did he? If not, be bears lots of the resposibility.

But Pagano should also have asked his ST coach, before calling the play, "are we ready to run this one?"

Just like Josh McD asked Edelman, before his big TD pass vs. the Ravens, if he was ready for that play to be called. You've got to make sure than you're on the same page, when calling something THAT unorthodox, as McDaniels was, and (presumably) as Pagano was.

I thought we're calling it the PuntBungle.

Brady6 said:

I understand that the play call was stupid and all, no doubt but does anyone really think the Patriots wouldn't have scored on that drive anyway? It actually probably just got the ball back to Colts faster.

As for Pagano, he is done in Indy he knows it and he will be reckless as he feels from here out.

Click to expand...

Would a Pagano scorned have anything interesting to say about the origins and inside info on Deflategate?