Why I am ok with the call 'to kick' in Overtime.

I was at the game yesterday and when I finally drove home within range of local sports radio I was actually surprised to hear the uproar over the decision to kick in overtime.

I thought it was clear throughout the entire game that the offense just didn't have it today. Every yard was a struggle. You saw some things that were very unPatriot-like given the injured team that was on the field.

1.) On one drive in the second quarter we saw all of the following......
a.) jet sweep
b.) flea flicker
c.) wild cat
d.) double reverse

When was the last time you saw the Patriots resort to as many gimmick plays in such a short span? The Patriots knew they did not stack up well with the defense on this day and had to scrape the bottom of the barrell to get some offense.

2.) The above drive was actually one of the only drives that looked decent. All other drives were pretty lackluster with absolutely no rhythm.

3.) The drive before halftime. How often do you see a Brady/Belichick team get the ball with two minutes, have a first down play go for a 10+ yards, and still go to 'kill the clock' mode. That shows you how much faith Belichick had in the offense against hteir defense. He thought the odds of something bad happening where greater than the odds of something good happening...plain and simple. I didn't like this line of play calling either, but it certainly spoke volumes.

4.) Even the game tying TD drive. In case you didn't notice, they didn't look like world beaters on this drive either. They had to convert on fourth down TWICE. They seemed to have to scrap for every yard. It was a miracle that they even scored the game tying touchdown.


Look, there are times when the Patriots offense is sputtering but you can usually point to penalties of dropped passes as the reason for their failures. That was not the case yesterday, they were just getting beaten up and outplayed.

With the defense playing well I thought kicking off in overtime was the right call. To be honest, I was hoping the defense would force a turnover or at least a three and out, but honestly I was expecting that they would concede a field goal. Even in this scenario, I would want the Patriots to have the ball second because that would mean that they would have four downs to try to get in field goal range (with still the opportunity to get a game winning TD).

In this game, it was looking like they would need all four downs.....just as they did in their TD drive at the end of the game.


...and most of us already knew this, but yesterday is a good reminder that we should all be thankful that we have a coach that has absolutely NO problem whatsoever of always doing what he thinks is best for the team. He is never thinking 'how badly will I get blasted for this in the media if it doesn't work?'. I know that sounds stupid, but a lot of other coaches are not like that.



To be honest, I thought the offense was so bad that I told my brother they should go for two after the TD. Looking back I can see that wouldn't have been the best idea either (there was too much time on the clock). Even if we were successful, the Jets would have almost a full two minutes and four downs to get the game winning field goal. Had there been only 30 seconds or so, I think going for 2 would have been the right call.


Sure, I'm disappointed we lost, but the reality is that we just got beat yesterday. If we did find a way to sneak out an OT win yesterday I think we all would agree that we 'stole one'. The Jets just looked much better on the 'eye test' yesterday. Of course, we've stolen some before and I would have gladly stolen one yesterday. All is not lost thought, just think about Edelman/Amendola/McCourty/Chung returning for the playoffs.

Well I agree with you and agreed with the decision even in the heat of the game (the heat of my couch actually) which is a little rare for me. Not only was an OK decision but for me the right decision, the offense was not going to march 80 yards against that defense, our chance was getting 3 and out or in their next set of downs and get the ball back. We deserved to lose the game and managed to the OT with a miracle, BB was playing with the houses money there and he made a bet that didn't pay off.

In the end was a game of probability with some possible outcomes:

- Make the stop and get the ball back (good chances)
- Force a turnover/Jets blowing out the game (Ok chance)
- Hold them to a FG and have another shot (Ok chance)
- Jets score a TD, game over (small chances)
- Receive the ball and march down the field for a TD (minimum chances)
- Receive the ball and get to the field goal range, score and make the stop (Ok chances but a lot to ask given the performance of the team yesterday)

There are other possibilities like we make the stop but doesn't score, or them, etc...when both teams had a chance and didn't score, the golden goal scenario is unpredictable, but anyway, given the possibilities and momentum of the game I agree with BB's decision. Unfortunately Butler made a mistake in that PI and we conceded a big play. Big plays in overtime is game over.

Count me in. I scratched my head at first but realized why they took that approach shortly thereafter. Most of Belichick's decisions pan out, that one didn't, that's the way it goes.

Richards getting hurt on the very 1st play in OT.
Confusion on the Enuwa pick play for 48 yards.
Miscommunication between Butler and Ryan on the Marshall reception.
Bad coverage by Butler on the Decker TD.

Everything lined up for the Jets.

Triumph said:

Richards getting hurt on the very 1st play in OT.
Confusion on the Enuwa pick play for 48 yards.
Miscommunication between Butler and Ryan on the Marshall reception.
Bad coverage by Butler on the Decker TD.

Everything lined up for the Jets.

Click to expand...

I'd disagree only with your last sentence, they built this win over our mistakes/matchups, and it should be a point of attention, this secondary although promising is not experienced and seasoned like last year's, in close games I have all my hopes on the front seven.

varjao said:

this secondary although promising is not experienced and seasoned like last year's, in close games I have all my hopes on the front seven.

Click to expand...

Keep in mind the secondary's most experienced backs were out with injuries.

The equivalent for the Jets this game would be to have Decker and Marshall out, Pryor and Gilchrist out, Ivory on IR, and Ferguson go down in the first quarter. With Pats at full strength. Think we'd do better than an OT win in that case?

So do I.

We're on to Miami.

varjao said:

I'd disagree only with your last sentence, they built this win over our mistakes/matchups, and it should be a point of attention, this secondary although promising is not experienced and seasoned like last year's, in close games I have all my hopes on the front seven.

Click to expand...

Even with the players out to start the game and losing Vollmer on the 1st NE play the Pats still came back from being down 17 - 3 and took the game into OT.

At that point it is a whole new game IMO.

It was the right decision. If they got a three and out and kicked a field goal he'd be getting praised. At that point you trust your defense over your offense.

Kicking (or rather Not Receiving) is not the problem.
The problem was they failed to call a side (instead of deciding to kick, which they with almost 100% certainly would've had as the jets would choose to receive).
It was a failure on Slater, and also a failure on the ref by asking 'are you kicking' instead of 'what is your choice'

Triumph said:

Even with the players out to start the game and losing Vollmer on the 1st NE play the Pats still came back from being down 17 - 3 and took the game into OT.

At that point it is a whole new game IMO.

Click to expand...

Yeah I agree, I was talking exactly about this new OT game, anyway, I think the team can learn a lot from this game.

You cant give up a TD in 5 plays fully knowing the other team needs a TD to end the game with no time limit at start of OT. Defense messed up at the wrong time after playing lights out in the 4th Q

In the fourth quarter out D, despite the injuries were playing kick ass, they held the Jets to 3 three and outs, and allowed one drive of 7 plays for 26 yards... with that backdrop the decision to kick to the Jets implied confidence in the Pats D and knowledge #12 could get the team into field position.

Not that complicated or controversial, except for sportstalk radio who thrive on controversy..

I would rather have the ball. If you go three and out you are probably in the same spot you are if you elect to kick to start the OT. If you score a TD, then game over. If you kick a FG then you put the pressure on the Jets to move the ball down the filed and at least kick a FG with an inconsistent kicker.

If no one can score, you at least have as many possessions in OT as the Jets and maybe one more possession. If you kick you might have one less possession.

Plus, you have Brady and Company, who just willed the ball down the field to tie the game. And your D was on the field a lot (34-28 TOP. 69-55 plays).

I think the logic behind kicking to start the game is sound, but doesn't apply here. The teams are cold at kickoff and often feel each other out so the first possession may not be as critical. Plus, you get the ball to start the second half. In this situation, the first score is critical, even if it is a first possession FG that doesn't ensure an immediate victory, and you don't get another half.

Still, I can hardly blame BB for making this choice and it isn't what lost the game.

There's one reason why it was the wrong call... don't care if we are down to a bunch of high schoolers on offense, as long as Brady is throwing the ball, you give him the ball.

All these threads trying to convince themselves that BB made the right call are just that...people trying to talk themselves into it. If it was the right call, we would not be talking about it.

BB is not god; he makes mistakes. This was one of them and so was the stupid kneeling at half time. You always put the ball in Brady's hands...it's really that simple.

varjao said:

In the end was a game of probability with some possible outcomes:

- Make the stop and get the ball back (good chances)
- Force a turnover/Jets blowing out the game (Ok chance)
- Hold them to a FG and have another shot (Ok chance)
- Jets score a TD, game over (small chances)
- Receive the ball and march down the field for a TD (minimum chances)
- Receive the ball and get to the field goal range, score and make the stop (Ok chances but a lot to ask given the performance of the team yesterday)

.

Click to expand...

That was broken down very well......and just like the 4th and 2 in Indy in 2009 I'd say he made a calculated decision in 2009 that just didn't work. I know the situation was slightly different in 2013 against the Broncos due to the weather, but if Manning led the Broncos to a game winning TD in OT in 2013 we'd hear the same thing........

Media: Why did they kid off?

Answer: Well, the weather, field conditions, etc...

Media: BUT IT'S PEYTON MANNING. YOU NEVER GIVE THE BALL TO PEYTON MANNING!

They made the wrong call plain and simple.
After winning the coin toss the Patriots had three choices.
1. Receive
2. Kick-off
3. Which goal to defend.

There is absolutely no logical reason in any circumstance to choose to Kick-0ff in OT.

Choosing the goal to defend may be strategical in some cases.

When Tom Brady is the QB with the chance to win the game with a TD drive, he has earned that right to give him the opportunity to do just that.

TomPatriot said:

I would rather have the ball. If you go three and out you are probably in the same spot you are if you elect to kick to start the OT.

Click to expand...

No, you aren't. If you go three and out, now a mere FG wins it for the Jets whereas if you kick first, they have to score a TD.

TomPatriot said:

If you go three and out you are probably in the same spot you are if you elect to kick to start the OT.

Click to expand...

No you aren't. Remember the game in Denver? We went three-and-out and the Broncos started at their own 43 yard line needing 20-30 yards for a game-winning FG.

Bella*chick said:

No, you aren't. If you go three and out, now a mere FG wins it for the Jets whereas if you kick first, they have to score a TD.

Click to expand...

You're right. I'd still rather have the ball, though.

ahmed said:

There's one reason why it was the wrong call... don't care if we are down to a bunch of high schoolers on offense, as long as Brady is throwing the ball, you give him the ball.

All these threads trying to convince themselves that BB made the right call are just that...people trying to talk themselves into it. If it was the right call, we would not be talking about it.

BB is not god; he makes mistakes. This was one of them and so was the stupid kneeling at half time. You always put the ball in Brady's hands...it's really that simple.

Click to expand...

disagree...I was hoping they kicked in OT before the coin toss and thought the same in the Den game.
All you have to do is hold to a FG..with that the offense has 4 downs every series to get 10 yards to eventually get in FG range. With the way the D was playing and especially with the lack of offense, it really was an easy decision and the right call. Didn't work out.....but by %, it was absolutely the right call IMO