Chip Kelly vs Belichick: End of Half Analysis

[newenglandsports11]

So I saw an interesting play this morning from the 49ers - Saints game yesterday.

The play happened with about 8 seconds left in the half and Brees & the Saints on the SF 13 yard line. Instead of letting Brees take a shot at the end zone, Kelly had his defenders hold / tackle the Saints WR's at the line, drawing 3 holding calls immediately, and the play ending with an incompletion with 4 seconds left (visual here: Chip Kelly had the 49ers hold on purpose to prevent the Saints trying for a TD). The result of drive was an end of half field goal for the Saints (with Kelly essentially conceding 5 yards on the play).

Now, it got me thinking back to the Super Bowl last year on the last play of the first half. Seattle was on our 11 yard line with 6 seconds left, and obviously we all remember how our DB's lined up (pause at 0:00 here - ) resulting in the touchdown and 7 BIG points in the game, not to mention the fact Seattle would be down 28-21 on the goal line, resulting in possibly different play calling.

My question is this: should BB have instructed the D to hold at the LOS, forcing Carroll to kick the FG? Or is this strategy flawed / too risky? Really has me thinking, especially with Seattle coming to town this weekend.

Interested to see what everyone thinks here!

 

[aluminum seats]

Kelly's team followed the extreme version obviously, but it's 100% a no-brainer that you don't play off the guy in the end zone. I would want my players to be smart--turnovers happen, after all, so don't concede the FG either. Play them close and tough, and under no circumstances do you get beat in the end zone. Penalty better than TD, Logan.

 

[XLIX]

If the Patriots did this, people would be having fits from coast to coast.

 

[Sicilian]

I'm not sure if I have the situations right, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the big difference in the Super Bowl was that Seattle was gambling a bit there. They were basically deciding to try for the touchdown, knowing that if they failed it likely meant they loose a chance at the field goal (barring a REALLY quick incompletion). Whereas in the most recent example, Chip Kelly knew that if they didn't complete the TD pass, New Orleans still had time for a FG, so he just basically decided to guarantee the TD didn't happen either way.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Well, the penalty would put the ball on the NE with 6 with SEA getting one untimed play. SEA could still try for the TD, and it'd be closer. Though of course if they failed that would end the half.

 

[aluminum seats]

I'm not sure if I have the situations right, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the big difference in the Super Bowl was that Seattle was gambling a bit there. They were basically deciding to try for the touchdown, knowing that if they failed it likely meant they loose a chance at the field goal (barring a REALLY quick incompletion). Whereas in the most recent example, Chip Kelly knew that if they didn't complete the TD pass, New Orleans still had time for a FG, so he just basically decided to guarantee the TD didn't happen either way.

Nah, Seattle had a couple seconds left...they're pretty much exactly the same situations.

 

[ALP]

I like it, not sure why we haven't seen it before

If you stop them by playing it normally, they still get a FG, which is what you're hoping for in that case, if you want to absolutely stop the TD, just do what they did there

I think we might start seeing this more often

 

[Wheelman]

I think we were all wondering why Logan Ryan didn't just interfere with the player. Ryan screwed up that whole play.

 

[brdmaverick]

Anytime the defense benefits with a penalty it certainly goes against the spirit of the game (much like Coughlin putting an extra man on D during the waning moments of Super Bowl 46).

So while it doesn't feel right, I'll give kudos to the coaches for being heads up and taking advantage of the loophole.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Anytime the defense benefits with a penalty it certainly goes against the spirit of the game (much like Coughlin putting an extra man on D during the waning moments of Super Bowl 46).

So while it doesn't feel right, I'll give kudos to the coaches for being heads up and taking advantage of the loophole.

Not original with Coughlin:
Buddy Ryan’s “Polish Goalline” tactic | Smart Football

 

[mikey m]

Just another item I'm sure BB will, or won't, open up about in his much anticipated post-retirement book

 

[SVN]

So I saw an interesting play this morning from the 49ers - Saints game yesterday.

The play happened with about 8 seconds left in the half and Brees & the Saints on the SF 13 yard line. Instead of letting Brees take a shot at the end zone, Kelly had his defenders hold / tackle the Saints WR's at the line, drawing 3 holding calls immediately, and the play ending with an incompletion with 4 seconds left (visual here: Chip Kelly had the 49ers hold on purpose to prevent the Saints trying for a TD). The result of drive was an end of half field goal for the Saints (with Kelly essentially conceding 5 yards on the play).

Now, it got me thinking back to the Super Bowl last year on the last play of the first half. Seattle was on our 11 yard line with 6 seconds left, and obviously we all remember how our DB's lined up (pause at 0:00 here - ) resulting in the touchdown and 7 BIG points in the game, not to mention the fact Seattle would be down 28-21 on the goal line, resulting in possibly different play calling.

My question is this: should BB have instructed the D to hold at the LOS, forcing Carroll to kick the FG? Or is this strategy flawed / too risky? Really has me thinking, especially with Seattle coming to town this weekend.

Interested to see what everyone thinks here!

thats what ed reed said pats shouldve done in "inside the nfl"