Defending the fake punt

[convertedpatsfan]

Seems everyone hated this call.

Obviously when a call doesn't work, it looks bad. But I liked the decision. It was a good call, just poor execution. If Chung could handle the ball cleanly, he would have had it. He simply dropped the ball.

The potential positives outweighed the negatives in my mind. We had the opportunity to pick up a big 4th down, score going into halftime and get the ball to start the second half.

The potential negative when it failed was that it gave the Jets the ball on our side of the field. But to this point, their offense had only produced 7 points and 120 yards. If the defense held, it's still a one-possession game.

The biggest problem was the first play after the fake punt. By giving up a 16-yard run to LT, it put the Jets near the red zone. A few plays later, McCourty overpursued Edwards and gave up the 15-yard TD. But it was reasonable to expect only a FG in that situation before LT's run. Considering the potential gains vs. negatives, it made a lot of sense in that situation.

Of course we can make easier decisions in hindsight, but I felt it was a great call, just poor execution. And there were a lot of other problems that cost us this game besides this call.

 

[ausbacker]

Given BB defends the mantra of situational football it was a very stupid idea. It changed the complexion of the match.

 

[ScottishPat]

TBH, I would have used Woodhead in there, he has good hands, even if it didn't work out properly he can tackle.

 

[PatsWatcher]

I liked the call. In fact, I actually predicted it. It was unfortunate that it failed, but I think had it succeeded, it would have been huge. I'm not upset over it.

What I expected to see and didn't was more emotion from Brady on the sidelines. He's usually in everyone's faces and pumped up during the game. Was surprised to see his sitting on the side almost emotionless.

 

[Froob]

Nah, the worse decision was to run the clock down down 10 pts. I mean isn't that what you do when you're UP 10 pts? *facepalm*

 

[BritPat]

I liked everything about it apart from the execution on Chung's part.

 

[cstjohn17]

The risk / reward was not great. Punt the ball and the Patriots start the half down 4, bad call, bad execution.

 

[RHbT76]

I don't understand the decision or how anyone can agree with it. Even if Chung doesn't drop the snap I don't think he would have picked up the first down which means the end result is pretty much the same. High risk for little reward, called for absolutely no reason.

I disagree with the fake punt, the offensive playcalling in the 2nd half and the first onsides kick. Very un-belichick/patriot game imo.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Like I said in the other thread. We're 14-2, playing at home, down by 4. We're getting the ball to begin the 2nd half most likely down 7-3 and a chance to regroup. This was an act of desperation that put our young defense in a tough situation after the Jets already had 2 drives starting in our territory. Bad call.

People can say what it should've / could've done all they want but the fact is these plays are rarely run because it's such a risk. And you're assuming a 2nd year safety isn't going to slip up in such a huge huge spot, that's a major assumption. Horrible call by BB, put faith in your team to overcome a friggin 4 point deficit regardless of the slow start.

 

[RayClay]

TBH, I would have used Woodhead in there, he has good hands, even if it didn't work out properly he can tackle.

Come on, do you seriously think the defense would have been fooled that Woodhead was blocking for the punter?

 

[RayClay]

I don't understand the decision or how anyone can agree with it. Even if Chung doesn't drop the snap I don't think he would have picked up the first down which means the end result is pretty much the same. High risk for little reward, called for absolutely no reason.

I disagree with the fake punt, the offensive playcalling in the 2nd half and the first onsides kick. Very un-belichick/patriot game imo.

Sims said he had one whole side of the field open, he could have walked in. One guy penetrated and spooked him, is all.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

Nah, the worse decision was to run the clock down down 10 pts. I mean isn't that what you do when you're UP 10 pts? *facepalm*

Yeah, that was tough to watch, especially because the agony was prolonged for so long.

The risk / reward was not great. Punt the ball and the Patriots start the half down 4, bad call, bad execution.

Everything in football carries some kind of risk. Every throw could be an interception. Every run could be a fumble. They had a chance to turn the game around there and didn't have to take a huge chance. Unfortunately, the defense gave up some big plays after the fact.

I don't understand the decision or how anyone can agree with it. Even if Chung doesn't drop the snap I don't think he would have picked up the first down which means the end result is pretty much the same. High risk for little reward, called for absolutely no reason.

I disagree with the fake punt, the offensive playcalling in the 2nd half and the first onsides kick. Very un-belichick/patriot game imo.

It looked like he would have made it easily. The hole was there.

The play calling was questionable, though it looked like even BB was questioning it at times. As for the first onside kick, since it was on the other side of the 2-minute warning, I understand why he did it. Either way, it's not a great scenario. But it was a pretty good kick, it got through, and we had a chance at it.

Like I said in the other thread. We're 14-2, playing at home, down by 4. We're getting the ball to begin the 2nd half most likely down 7-3 and a chance to regroup. This was an act of desperation that put our young defense in a tough situation after the Jets already had 2 drives starting in our territory. Bad call.

People can say what it should've / could've done all they want but the fact is these plays are rarely run because it's such a risk. And you're assuming a 2nd year safety isn't going to slip up in such a huge huge spot, that's a major assumption. Horrible call by BB, put faith in your team to overcome a friggin 4 point deficit regardless of the slow start.

I don't think it's fair to call it an act of desperation. The onside kicks at the end most definitely were. But no one saw this coming, and if executed properly, would have worked. It is a huge risk, but like onside kicks, the rate of success goes up significantly if the opposition doesn't see it coming.

Ultimately, there are no risk-free plays in football, or else a coach would run them 100 times in a row. But I don't think it was an awful decision. And I know it didn't cost us the game.

 

[RayClay]

The Pats needed points after the brady INT. Playing conservative is just what Ryan would want. They just run the ball, forcing us to overplay, giving Sanchez the opportunity to make plays.

BB didn't get stoopid all of a sudden, we either needed points from that first long drive or another way, which is the idea behind trying what would have been a succesful fake punt. Had we not been aggressive, everyone would have said we were too conservative and the jets would possibly have won a low scoring game, which is what they want.

You have to make plays. We are not a grind it out team, we need to get ahead and have a young, opportunistic defense when we force the other team to take risks.

Brady doesn't throw the INT after the loong drive, or Chung converts the easy opportunity, and it might be a different ballgame.

It's not magic, Brady can't just throw against a real good defense with a smart game plan, we needed to get ahead somehow and loosen them up.

 

[upstater1]

Belichick called the fake punt a "bad mistake."

Apparently, Chung called the audible at the line and changed the play himself.

 

[skinnydog]

Belichick called the fake punt a "bad mistake."

Apparently, Chung called the audible at the line and changed the play himself.

How in the world does Chung have the option of calling an audible on a punt on our own side of the field? I don't buy it. It's a horrible call. Change is on the defense for a reason. He is not a great ball handler.

 

[juny]

How in the world does Chung have the option of calling an audible on a punt on our own side of the field? I don't buy it. It's a horrible call. Change is on the defense for a reason. He is not a great ball handler.

The punter himself confirmed this on espn. Strange call -- way too risky at the point of the game

 

[PatriotSpy]

dumb call, no way you can defend it.

maybe if you're on the jets 40 i'd do it but not on your side of the field. dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb.

 

[JFK]

Putting Woodhead there won't have tipped off the Jets much.
It was especially bad because we were not in trouble then and we were on our side.

 

[PatriotSpy]

The punter himself confirmed this on espn. Strange call -- way too risky at the point of the game

what? so chung called that???how the hell does a young player like that have that type of leeway in a big game like this?

no f'n way.

 

[RHbT76]

bizarre. I hope Chung isn't being thrown under the bus one way or the other (though he did look like **** today!).